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

Sub-Creator's page

491 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 491 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Sub-Creator wrote:
I guess all I'm saying is that the whole "RAW adherence" thing has its benefits and drawbacks for players. Which it might be depends entirely on how creative your players and GM really are. I'd argue the more creative a play style a group has, the less RAW adherence will benefit them.

I'm in complete agreement with you. I find 5e to be much more free and allow for a lot more creativity. However, imagine a DM running 5e who played by strict RAW - since souch is left for a ruling by a GM, you'd be extremely limited in what you could do. At least with PF, you have a rule to back you up.

Here's a recent example from someone I know:

I quit my first 5E group because the DM was a jerk. In one session he spent 10 minutes arguing with a player on her ability to fix the mast of the ship we were on. She had to go into exacting detail of what to do. He finally relented, but it was still a craw with him the following week. He said, I quote, "I'm a DM who believes players should never get what they want.

A DM who's only in it for his or her own edification at the expense of the players can't be reasoned with regardless of the edition or the rules. Said individual will seek to screw with the players regardless of rules adherence. Sure, this rule enables you to do such-and-such a thing, but then this kind of DM will arbitrarily punish you for having the ability to do something he or she didn't want you to do anyhow.

There is no "rules protection" against that in any edition I've ever played in.

bookrat wrote:
Player Protection from a Bad GM. RAW can be used to protect players, especially when Rule Zero is used to punish players.

I've played both, though a lot more PF than 5e, which we've only tested in a single adventure. I do hope to possibly run a 5e campaign or two down the road, transplanting them into Golarion.

However, I did wish to note that RAW, when adhered to correctly, just as often works against the player's creativity as it can be used to protect the players. Feat requirements to do some of the most trivial things in combat or outside of it can do more to restrict player desires than anything. We've found this to happen a lot in our PF games, where a player wants his character to do this or that, and I have to ask them if they have this or that feat which permits their being able to do what they want. Obviously, people can forego feat requirements if they choose, but now you're also foregoing RAW, which can set ugly precedents for down the road, too.

I guess all I'm saying is that the whole "RAW adherence" thing has its benefits and drawbacks for players. Which it might be depends entirely on how creative your players and GM really are. I'd argue the more creative a play style a group has, the less RAW adherence will benefit them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Incorporeal creatures get CHA to AC as a deflection bonus. This is explained in the Phantom Rules.

I thank thee. I think I've read through those rules a couple different times, but must have continually skipped over that somehow. Definitely appreciate that clarification, and I'll try to read more closely next time!

A Spiritualist's phantom gains a Dex/Cha bonus throughout its progression. I'm simply curious as to why it gets a Charisma bonus. They are not considered undead, so it doesn't help them with hit points. There doesn't appear to be anything that the Charisma score does to help it. So, why does it get such a boost? Why not give it progression in Constitution, so it would get more hit points, or Strength, so that it can do more on attack/damage? Honestly, the phantoms aren't that viable as combatants anyhow, so why gimp them more by giving them a useless ability progression?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Dude, I wouldn't accept those offered hugs if I were you . . . I've seen evidence of the shattered and burnt out husks of those that have scattered all about these boards and elsewhere. These are dangerous times, my friend. Dangerous times!

Alni wrote:
Combat Monster wrote:

Your best bet is to as a player find ways for your hero to retreat that are in character.

GMNPC's being involved is a mixed bag. Used rarely to effect is fine. If the group is finding itself the sidekick to the overpowered GM characters, it's an issue.

** spoiler omitted **

I hate GMNPCs with a passion. I know some GMs play them well, but I've had bad experiences with them continuously "saving" the group. I'd rather scale down the battle, or just pretend the bad guy ran out of spells, fudge some rolls or something, than have someone pop in the last minute. As a GM if I mess up the DC the other way around -too easy- I just let it roll. My last bad guy was taken down in a round, no one complained. So I try to make sure the battle is not overwhelming, and if in the end its too easy so be it.

I've played a couple characters where retreat wasn't an option. One had it built right into him as a mental block: when he went into combat, his a rage filled him until either he won or he dropped. Sometimes it can be fun to play someone like that. However, when you choose to make a character like that, or with a "no retreat, no surrender" type mentality, there's no room for getting upset when said character goes down. You have to know it's coming, and it's not the GM's job to ease up on the character based on an RP decision you made for the character. Besides that, according to your spoiler, it sounds more like this became a "player vs. GM" situation, not an in-character thing. Stubbornness against story. Not saying the GM was in the right for making such a ridiculous comment that served no purpose but to infuriate; just saying that you as a player could have handled that differently in an out-of-character way, rather than simply saying screw the character, I'm not giving into the GM here.

I can think of two times in my GMing career where I set the characters against a "no-win" scenario. Both were relatively early on, and one was prophesied: if you take this item, this will happen eventually. It was built into the story. As a rule, I haven't really designed anything like that since. I've come to accept that having nothing you can do about a situation as a player just isn't any fun for them. As stated above, I have used narrative (cinematic) situations when story has dictated that something needs to happen, and it happens too quickly for them to stop. My players have been good with this, primarily because they are all "story trumps all else" players and understand its reasoning. Even so, I do this relatively infrequently, as well. Again, like Odraude stated above, sometimes player actions lead to the blowing up of the CR system, which I also allow. Consequences are important, and if players start getting the notion that they can do whatever they want whenever they want however they want, logistics start to break down and the game spirals out of control quickly. Boundaries are important. Sometimes, it's not about whether they can do something, but about whether they should do something.

GMNPCs aren't something I like. More often than not, it's not because I use them to overshadow the PCs, but because the PCs turn to them for all the answers rather than try to figure it out themselves. If a GMNPC gets involved in a combat with me, it's because the players wanted he or she to be involved. Basically, they end up needing the NPC to thwart people dying. I tend not to make GMNPCs powerful for that reason. More often than not, however, unless there is some pivotal story point that requires their presence, I don't even have them available.

Finally, when it comes to retreating, I've instituted a rule that states when you make it off the map, you've either successfully gotten away, or there will be a chase scene coming. This has worked very well for us, thus far, and my players have gotten a kick out of the chases, too! It does help make tactical retreats (or, for those of you who hate retreating, "tactical redeployment") much more successful. Many times, in fact, making that successful escape with everyone can be far more hair-raising and heart-pounding than just sitting there watching as PC after PC goes down in turn. I think it's imperative that you provide the PCs with a retreat mechanic that can make it successful. As the game is written, it really doesn't exist, and watching the frustration on the faces of the players as their characters drop dead because they know they can't get away anyway just isn't any fun at all.

Derklord wrote:
Sub-Creator wrote:
I've had a character CdG'ed at an early level. I had no problem with it because we were squaring off against orcs, and that's exactly what they'd do (this wasn't RoW), but man is it a helpless feeling.
Actually, it's not, at least not what Golarion orcs do. "Orcs are natural slave masters", and "[h]aving one or more slaves is a mark of status for an orc." Source: Orcs of Golarion pg. 9

This particular clan apparently had cannibalistic tendencies and preferred eating the slain rather than enslaving them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Yesterday Smurf wrote:

I like to toot my own horn.

It's what Popeye would do.

Well, yeah . . . but Popeye is, like, totally awesome!

. . . .

Okay, okay, and you are too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
There are positive ways to read his departure. I am inclined to trust the GM's side of the story on it.

You don't think the GM might not be slightly biased concerning how the situation went down? I'll be honest with you, I have no idea what the GM was even doing posting this, except to vindicate his actions and basically say he/she was in the right, while the player was a baby. Granted, the GM asks the question about doing it right in the OP, but has never shown any inclination as to being open to doing it any other way. There has been adamant statements that he/she did nothing wrong, and that he/she enjoys running cutthroat games, but absolutely no impression made anywhere that perhaps the way the GM actually played it was incorrect or should have been altered.

I'm inclined to believe that this was a "toot your own horn for being awesome" thread and nothing more.

Wrath wrote:
The Sword wrote:

Thanks for pointing that out. So for the first six rounds the party was within 20 squares of each other. In a forest? In my book that isn't splitting the party.

It sounds like the Paladin was targeted. Which is a shame if it was a new player.

Incidentally I don't consider losing 1/5 of the game group in a session to be a win, unless that person has had a repeated negative effect on the group.

I would be fascinated to know the circumstances of the session: mates house/gaming store/event etc?

100 feet in a forest blanketed in deep snow. That's 30 metres through foliage, snow and probably intervening snow fall or rising mist.

So visibility to the paladin is quite possibly nil.

On top of that, no one seemed to have a bow, maybe 30 feet is the best range they're going to manage with spell or bomb etc. Once he's up in the high branches etc, the prey lose sight. This is snow that comes on hard and fast. In what's normally a temperate forest so I'm guessing there's pretty dense foliage to start with.

So, that's as effectively split from the party as if he was in different chambers in a dungeon, or split by a chasm.

On the other hand, if conditions are so bad that you can't see anyone unless you're incredibly close to them, it's possible the Paladin would have needed an awesome Survival check just to retreat back to the party (without meta-gaming). Not sure he would have had the skill for such a check.

I've had a character CdG'ed at an early level. I had no problem with it because we were squaring off against orcs, and that's exactly what they'd do (this wasn't RoW), but man is it a helpless feeling. You always dream when you're playing a fantasy game, and you've put hours into building your fantasy character, that if he's going to die it'll be in a heroic way, at least. Lying helpless on the ground and having an orc lop your head off with an axe doesn't really scratch that itch, you know? It's just not fun.

Quark Blast wrote:
Sub-Creator wrote:


I've read all the D&D APs except for the newest one, and they all seem to be easily adaptable.
As I understand it, this is exactly what they were aiming for with 5E.

Mission successful! =)

For the record, I own Out of the Abyss, and I think the AP is a good one, all things considered. I have plans to port it over to Golarion as a sequel to Wrath of the Righteous (which I won't be playing through, but will be making the events take place from that AP). My group will be playing 5e, but the switching of worlds doesn't appear to be overly complicated based on my reading of the AP and the setting book Darklands.

I've read all the D&D APs except for the newest one, and they all seem to be easily adaptable.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

In addition, I will be GMing a couple 5e campaigns set in Golarion. It would be incredibly useful for me to have a dedicated 5e forum (that others can easily find) to shoot ideas back and forth with others. Not absolutely necessary, mind you, but helpful!

FGG is a standup organization, so I'm not concerned about the fact that the product is coming. It'll get here . . . eventually.

Admittedly, I'm a bit old-school, but this experience (my first and only) with kickstarter has certainly soured me on it. I can't see myself backing another project via kickstarter in the near (or distant) future. I'll just wait for the product to get to the shelves. That may mean paying a bit more, but at least expectation will be met: I order, it comes in the mail within a few business days. If a highly-praised company struggles to meet its date by such a huge margin, I'd hate to think what it'll be like backing a company without such a phenomenal reputation.

zimmerwald1915 wrote:
IrishBouzouki wrote:
1. Something starting as sea-raiders based in Linnorm Kings but moving overseas thru exploration of some new unknown areas along the coast of Arcadia where it could wind up in some sort of sandboxy settlement-building (and continued sea-raiding).
Oh for Heaven's sake. Arcadia isn't empty, people. Stop assuming that it is.

Well, granted . . . but there have been lots of places that weren't empty, yet still considered unknown by those who had no presence there. I fear you're taking a phrase and willfully associating a negative connotation where it's entirely possible negativity did not exist. This happens a lot nowadays.

Oh, and I'm still in for anything Linnorm in origin. We need more Vikings.

Something that actually delves into the Mwangi culture more would be fun, too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
Kieviel wrote:
Skeld wrote:

Let's rename the book to "Non-Generic Guide About People Who Go On Adventures, But Are Members of Golarion-Specific Organizations That Have Been Discused In Print Before, But Have Updated Game Rule and Campaign Flavor Information That Can Be Easily Customized For Non-Golarion Settings."


So if we can get them to say its name backwards, will it get banished back to the fifth dimension?

Or it becomes Welsh . . . ;)

All this AP really needs is . . .

. . . a good blanket.


Oh, Pat Morita! You have been missed!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Friends and I loved the show. Truly happy a 2nd Season/Sequel is coming out and can't wait to watch it.

One thing is for sure: no one is winning a parent of the year award in that show . . . even for the '80s! We were mocking the lack of parenting skills throughout the entirety of that series! It was truly comical.

I'm currently running this as well, though greatly expanded upon. I'm using PFS scenarios to fill in gaps between adventures, as I've expanded upon the ioun stone aspect of the shards that requires them to research and find those, as well. My players have also been enjoying this AP quite well, especially all the roleplaying that the first book allowed for. I'd recommend it.

For the record, I think Book 6 of Shattered Star is one of the best I've seen to date (of Book Sixes).

PaleMask wrote:

They are splash weapons and I am not really trying to throw them at any one in particular I'm literally dropping bombs in a crowd of hundreds. No I cannot hit the one square I want but I can hit a large crowd of hundreds. Second, tell me what they can do then? They have no abilities that can reach me they can run and try to take cover in this totally open grassy meadow they are camped in (which we have accounted for) but considering its perpetually night in the demi-plane they don't even know anything is happening until the first bomb hits. Nor can they see where the rest of the bombs are falling so its not like they know which way to run to avoid them. I guess I should have mentioned I have fast bombs so it takes 8 rounds for me to drop all of them.

As far as me doing it repeatedly, the only thing I can come up with is they can attempt to build some shelter. But that requires wood or stone, meaning they have to clear cut or quarry their demi-plane. Don't be a pretentious ass and say Well, I think the comment "know of something to stop me besides just GM says no" pretty much tells me all I need to know about this" when you don't even have a real way to answer my question. If you need more background on something we are doing you can ask me. It would just take a a long time to type it and it was 3 a.m. when I first posted this.

I quoted the comment because that pretty much tells me that if anything happens to dissuade you from doing it, then you'll simply blame the GM. That's not being pompous, friend, just identify the significance of a statement. You are allowed to take that as you will, however.

So, first off, at 1,000 feet high, the only possible thing you could be aiming for would be the campfires. The demi-plane has the "dim light" trait, meaning that it's perpetual night with only star- and moonlight. You wouldn't be able to see anything on the ground except for the fires with a -100 to your Perception check in addition to the nighttime penalties. Secondly, the very text description records "hundreds of campfires," so the allotment of campfires you're throwing at is quite significant, and you haven't any idea how many spriggans are actually huddled around any given campfire at one time. Thirdly, even the spriggans that camp on the open plain are a few miles away from forest or mountain. After a single night of bombarding, they could move camp, set more decoy fires (it certain they have stored wood on hand, else they couldn't keep the fires going to begin with), or even use the additional wood to do the other thing you mentioned and build shelters. Using the mountains to the north as cover against you would be a viable option after the first night. Spriggans have low-light vision, so unless you've got dark vision, you're not seeing better than they are (and that wouldn't serve you any at all from 1,000 feet anyhow), and they have crossbows if you come down far enough to come close to pinpointing them. They've also got worg riders for speedy communication with other camps (and outriders that are always on patrol, so peppering the large area of a camp wouldn't get to these outriders you wouldn't be able to see). That makes them capable of getting help (and yes, there is help that could be gotten to defend your 1,000-foot theory, but I don't know how much your GM wants you to know about this).

And that's just a few of the options and problems. Naturally, you can simply hand wave all this, say you've bombarded the heck out of the camp, expect that all the spriggans are huddled up in a nice little quivering mass of flesh for you, get your XP, and call it a day. And that's cool! Like I said in my last post, if that's your game, I hope you have a blast with it! In the end, if you're having fun and your GM is having fun, then all this is moot anyhow. Collect your XP and go about your business. It's all good!

I wish you all the best, PM. Just have fun, man. =)

PaleMask wrote:

For a little background info my friend and I are just gming campaigns for one another. We decided to do a solo module with him as GM and me running an alchemist at lvl 8 with double gold allowance. I made it to level 10 doing encounters the regular way until this.

So we progress through the module until we get to the part where I am supposed to sneak past these armies of 300 spriggans. I've already fought the spriggans and generally know their abilities and their weakness of fire. My Alchemist has explosive bomb discovery and fly, so instead of sneaking past I'm just going to fly above the army out of range, bomb them, fly away and rest for a day, rinse, repeat.

Lots of math involved, including some made up but suffice to say I can kill roughly 150 spriggans so far with splash damage. Also, nothing says I can't do this repeatedly though he did say hes going to finish reading module entirely to be sure. So it may be there is someone in the Queen's retinue who can do something about it but I doubt it since they would have to find me a thousand feet in the air.

At 1200exp a spriggan that means I get 180,000 experience and I was already lvl 10 on fast track 71,000 so that puts me at 251,000exp, about halfway through lvl 13.

So, I'm curious if anyone else has done similar or know of something to stop me besides just GM says no. If you want the exact math my int modifier is +7 and I've given you relevant discoveries and levels. Spriggan Hp is 34. I'm pretty sure I've done it right though.

Well, I think the comment "know of something to stop me besides just GM says no" pretty much tells me all I need to know about this, but there's a ton to stop you from doing it that has absolutely nothing to do with your GM deciding he just doesn't want it to happen. The first would be the monumental penalties that should be involved in being able to hit a tiny location with a bomb from 1,000 feet up. The second is that spriggans have an Intelligence score of 10. If they just stand around looking dumbly up at the sky as fire reigns down upon them from above, your GM isn't playing them properly. By the numbers, I'm sure you've got it worked out beautifully. Math is the easy part! Playing the monsters as if they are legitimate, thinking beings should factor into all this too, however.

I wish you all the best in your gaming though! So long as the both of you are having a blast, that's really what matters in the end. =)

Odraude wrote:
Sub-Creator wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:

oh with the new comic series comming up with Red Sonja, i would love to see a propper adventure (at least a module) in the hyborean setting, or a new barbarian unchained (more like conan, you know, con bonus to AC when unarmored and those kind of things), also, a new fighter class aproach to fit Sonja and such.

Also, with the new suplement coming from Message from Mars a Vampire hunter AP entirely, in that world (vampire hunter D´s)

I'd really hate to break the news to you, friend, but I'd wager that your chances of seeing an AP outside the Golarion setting is zero. I'd keep expectations firmly rooted to the Paizo home world. You'll find the possibilities of something you'd like to see exponentially increase. ;)
Well, with Strange Aeons, they are going to Carcosa, which is pretty far off from Golarion.

And I know that you're being particular here, which is cool. But, when that equates to them building APs in worlds other than Paizo's own homegrown setting I'll be impressed. Somehow, I just don't believe their deciding to go to other setting specific worlds will correlate into APs based on R.E. Howard's Conan stories or whoever the heck created Vampire Hunter D.

I suppose I could be wrong though . . .

After all, they are going to Carcosa. =)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Haladir wrote:
The whole "dwarven women have beards" thing is from one line from J.R.R. Tolkein's The Two Towers, where Gimli is talking/boasting about dwarven works to Eowyn, and Legolas makes a snide side-comment. It's not fully clear from the text, but I always took the line to be a joke they are trying to pull on Eowyn. (I don't have a copy of The Two Towers with me, so I can't cite the reference.)
There is no such line in the book. The discussion of the issue in the movies was invented by the script writers.

But was, indeed, based on the very quotation you've provided from Tolkien's Appendices in Return of the King. So, while the script writers did create the scene, the material was written by the good doctor.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Juda de Kerioth wrote:

oh with the new comic series comming up with Red Sonja, i would love to see a propper adventure (at least a module) in the hyborean setting, or a new barbarian unchained (more like conan, you know, con bonus to AC when unarmored and those kind of things), also, a new fighter class aproach to fit Sonja and such.

Also, with the new suplement coming from Message from Mars a Vampire hunter AP entirely, in that world (vampire hunter D´s)

I'd really hate to break the news to you, friend, but I'd wager that your chances of seeing an AP outside the Golarion setting is zero. I'd keep expectations firmly rooted to the Paizo home world. You'll find the possibilities of something you'd like to see exponentially increase. ;)

One of the key aspects of the game is that you get to play with these ancient artifacts throughout the campaign. That's half the fun of it. The AP is designed for you to keep the shards, yes.

Perhaps your GM has other ideas about how he/she wishes to run it, however. I don't know why he/she wouldn't allow you to use them though.

Tangent101 wrote:

You have groups who ignore that sort of thing, rush in headlong, and get upset when they die off. You have GMs who don't have many groups and will let their players get away with BS like this and thus... meh. The way Runelords handled encountering Karzoug prior to the final fight worked quite well actually. And Queen Elvanna in Skyrim: Golarion Edition had a decent reason as to why she wasn't seeking out the group to wipe them out (if she even knew they were around).

But when you get down to it... a truly smart Big Bad would be preparing for the PCs once they had foiled a couple of their plans and would go after the PCs with considerable force. So you would need some sort of reason as to why the PCs aren't targeted.

If you have groups that do everything in an AP exactly as it's drawn up, then you have groups completely unlike mine. I make sure my crew knows the expectation of the AP/campaign going in . . . that goes for the ones I wrote myself back in the day, as well as the pregens I run for them now. If they choose to "ignore that sort of thing," that's their choice. The consequences belong to them. That's called accountability, and I enthusiastically support holding my players, students, friends, etc. to it. ;)

If a GM with his group has a play style that differs and lets the group get away with things, I suppose he or she knows his or her group well enough to know what's fun to them. That's the best part of gaming with groups you know! The enjoyment level differs from crew to crew.

I also loved Runelords! How they covered Karzoug was fantastic, and I enjoyed playing that up too. Don't mind if they change up things a bit.

As to what a "truly smart Big Bad" would do can be dependent on the Big Bad, and whether said Big Bad is having fun . . . or not seeing a threat. You speak of foiling plans, but if the PCs aren't foiling plans, but merely being nuisances because the Big Bad is actually the victor in those plans (to a point), the Big Bad may find itself enjoying their interference. And that's just one possible reason; others are certainly feasible. Forcing them to do what they can in a series of no-win situations, which they can score minor victories in, would be something fun and different, however. It's forcing them to cope on a whole other level than they're used to, and it makes the consequences real.

Now, I'll concede that there are a number of people that couldn't--or wouldn't--handle this sort of AP well, which is probably why something like it will never make it to print. I know my players would eat it up though, because they love challenge and suspense, and the thought of going up against high CR cities killers at level 3 or 4 would be a rush of adrenaline they'd be all about! I think there's many that would enjoy it. That's personal preference though. To each his/her own. =)

Happy gaming!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:
Actually, that could be a relatively new narrative structure... instead of the PCs moving from victory to victory on their road to kicking the wyrm's face in,maybe they move from defeat to defeat- sure, they get more powerful, and they learn the ways of their foe- heck,maybe hey inflict some lasting scars along the way- but if the dragon has them on the run the whole time, it'd be something interesting to try out...
I feel like this would be really hard to pull off, given the power level characters can reach vs. the assumed power level of an AP. People would end up killing the dragon way too early, or would be stymied by the plot not letting them.
Given an Red Elder Wyrm is a CR 23 encounter (if I am remembering correctly), having the PCs encounter it early would mean it kills them unless they are given some form of plot armor.

Albeit, one of the things you could do with this is make it plain that if they choose to square off against the dragon itself, they will die. Heroic, in this case, means doing the best you can to mitigate the damage/destruction without having the ability to kill the thing. I think this could lead to some amazing adventure potential, because it would mean that the PCs have to play this stuff smart. Honestly, I kind of like the idea that the dragon actually wins some of the battles. That helps to build up the legend of the dragon in question, and it gives them the opportunity to meet said enemy numerous times throughout the AP before they're able to actually destroy it.

Another thing this does is enable you to play with the dragons themselves. Give us a dragon that doesn't abide by conventions. That way, knowing that you're going up against a red dragon doesn't mean you have the ability to prep for it. Throw some monkey wrenches in there to really screw with the PCs and make them far less comfortable about their tactics because the dragon's tactics are ever changing. Almost the Napoleon of dragons!

Also, there was talk of a hard mode AP. I think you could really get away with making a dragon AP hard mode, so that the power potential of PCs would also be mitigated by a dragon/dragons that are built unique and incredibly powerful. Make it life and death stuff unlike we've seen in any AP.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

I'd say the same thing about your ROBOTZ WITH LAZORS!!!!!!

But I choose to play nice with you there. Least you can do is return the favor. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No interest in Starfinder.

Strange Aeons has Lovecraft, and while I am a fan of Lovecraft, I ran a Lovecraft campaign expansion in my Kingmaker game, which pretty much put an end to our need for this one. My players aren't interested in doing another one based on the Lovecraft mythos. I'd be up for playing in it, but otherwise this one won't happen for us. I'm not getting it.

Ironfang Keep I'm somewhat ambivalent about. I love the idea of learning more about Nirmathas and Molthune, but haven't enough interest to purchase it. However, if our other GM decides to purchase this AP for us to play, I would be willing to play in it.

Ruins of Azlant I'm all over! This one has me exceptionally excited, and I can't wait to get my hands on it. I love the ancient history stuff for Golarion. Thassilon has been an incredible amount of fun for my players, as they all love it the history too, and Azlant is something I've desired to learn more about for a long time. Also very excited to do some underwater exploration! Everything about this AP is win where I'm concerned! I wish it was next!

And for those disliking the fact that they're doing new underwater rules for this AP, I think they're overreacting a lot. My expectation is that they'll put these new rules in the free Player's Guide, as Valantrix1 stated, and so it won't be hard for anyone to get their hands on them for absolutely no cost to them at all.

Vic Wertz wrote:
Every rulebook since the second printing of Rise of the Runelords has had a page in the back called "Things to Keep In Mind," which includes a section headed "Cards Don't Do What They Don't Say." It's very germane to your question.

The Rise of the Runelords box that we have was bought something like 2 years ago, so I'm not sure it has that page . . . but I've personally not read the rulebook anyhow, so I can't say for sure. Two of the gents that I play with were looking through the rulebook the first couple times we played, and the person in question (who was doing this) came into the game on our third session, so I don't think he's seen the rulebook either.

Regardless, your point is taken, and all the help has been appreciated very much!

Many thanks to the both of you! I shall pass this knowledge on tonight when we get together to play.

This may be a unique question, but we're new to this adventure card game, and a friend of mine did this last session. I wasn't sure about it then, but didn't want to say anything until I got some input.

Basically, he's playing Valeros. When he would explore and draw a weapon to acquire, because the "Check to Acquire" says Strength Melee he was using a weapon card from his hand to give him an additional die (or two, if he recharged it) to acquire the weapon.

As an example, let's say he drew the "Horsechopper +1" weapon card while exploring. The Check to Acquire for the weapon is Strength Melee 9. Valeros has a d10 in Strength, with a Melee +3 bonus. He would then reveal a longsword to give himself an additional d8 to the roll, and discard (or recharge it, because he's Valeros) for another d6. Thus, he would end up rolling 1d10+1d8+1d6+3 to acquire the "Horsechopper +1" with a score of 9.

Is that legal according to the game rules? Or, must he only use his d10 Strength +3 Melee roll to acquire the weapon?

I'm all in for this. Let's get a serious dragon AP going, Paizo. You could do something great here!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My only disappointment here is that I didn't see Brandon Hodge on the list of authors for Ruins of Azlant, and he has been involved in so much of the Azlanti stuff thus far . . .

This, of course, does nothing to diminish my excitement for this AP! Honestly, I don't think I've been as ready for an AP to hit the stores than I have for this one. I love it when Paizo explores their history because they do it incredibly well.

And, for the record, Serpent's Skull was the first AP I ever ran/finished in Golarion, and my players absolutely loved it. Granted, it required more prep time from me than any other I've done since, but it was worth it. I expect Ruins of Azlant to be better because they've had plenty of time to grow from that one.

I'm geeked people, and I'm not frightened to share that fact! Thank you, Paizo, for doing this one!

zimmerwald1915 wrote:
Mine all mine...don't touch wrote:
Didnt i read somewhere once that chthulu wont appear on golarion?

What you probably read is probably that in Pathfinder canon Cthulhu lies in R'lyeh, which is where Lovecraft and his followers put it: in the south Pacific, on Earth.

Whether that means he won't appear on Golarion (or that your players won't encounter him on Golarion or elsewhere) at some point is an entirely separate question.

Truth! My players already met him . . . in the conclusion of our Kingmaker AP.

Man, that was fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ruins of Azlant?!? I could not have asked for a better AP! Should I be alive and able next summer, I will certainly resubscribe for that one! Have been waiting for this one for quite some time . . . Very exciting!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
If it is set in Varisia I will skip it.

Well, I'll make sure to sign back up so as to offset your skipping it. ;)

Hayato Ken wrote:
Sub-Creator wrote:
Those looking for high level adventure in the Silver Mount should look to AP #90.
Not exhaustive.

Never claimed it was. But, if you're looking for high level adventure in the Silver Mount, you can look to AP #90. From pages 8-55, it's all adventure in Silver Mount.

Those looking for high level adventure in the Silver Mount should look to AP #90.

- My vote would be the broken Azlanti Islands. Bring in Mr. Hodge and let him work his magic on that Azlanti culture!

We just started playing this card game a couple weeks ago and have only done so once. I actually played Ezren in the opening scenario of the RotR box set, although it wasn't part of that AP (it was some sort of beginning trio of scenarios, of which we played the first).

I'm seeing you all talk about different Ezrens, and especially this "CD" Ezren, and I'm curious as to what your meaning is by that?

Thanks in advance to any info provided!

Garde Manger Guy wrote:

However an underwater themed AP is a much more viable product line. For starters, you have an entirely open underdeveloped area to work with. It's still on Golarion, but an area of the sandbox that is almost completely untouched. Almost anything you can think of can be placed here at the moment and the opportunity for follow up adventures and supporting paraphernalia is absolutely immense.

If done right, the AP sets the stage for exploration of this "undiscovered world". Then the guides, bestiaries, and pawns associated with it contribute to the revenue stream and heartily encourage continued exploration of its cold mysterious depths.

Just please don't use "Under the sea" as the title or place any pineapples on the sea floor.

Plus, they could work out a way to provide maps that somehow work on every axis! I mean, if you're going to be fighting under water, you'll not have to worry about that silly x-axis only, but the y-axis too! Need to figure out a better way of doing that on these maps other than clear dice containers flipped upside down! =D

Well, this might not help you with naming conventions, but the following thread has a ton of info on Azlanti stuff, if you're interested! he-Azlanti

Also, I remember Eric Mona stating in a thread I was involved in years ago that Absalom had definitive connections with Jerusalem (historically) as far inspiration. As Aroden was Azlanti, I also decided to use Hebrew as the root for the Azlanti language. I think it works well in the end.

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
MidknightDiamond wrote:

Apologies if this has already been suggested, but given the popularity of it - why not an all goblin focused AP?

Just because.

IIRC, we're getting a hobgoblin themed AP next year.
All PCs are Hobgoblins? If not, you misunderstood something...
I don't see any reason why all PCs can't be hobgoblins. But then again, I never see a reason why that can't be the case. Humans, elves, and dwarves are overrated.

Humans are what they are. They're relatively plain, but I think that's because we are humans, and so know them best and find them least mysterious.

Elves are pathetic. Not a fan of Golarion elves at all. They're simple hedonists, which apparently one has the right to be because they live long lives. I'm actually playing an elf in the upcoming Giantslayer campaign, but he's forlorn, and has had all that conceit and hedonism beaten out of him. He's a simple protector now. I am looking forward to that. However, a typical elf in Golarion? Pretty much want nothing to do with them.

Now, dwarves? A dwarf is never overrated. Battle-hardened war machines that are loyal and dutiful and love to create. I'd probably take a dwarf over any of the races in Paizo's world.

I'm not really a fan of any evil races, at least not playing them (outside the GM role, of course). The one exception to this might be goblins, but even then I couldn't do it for an entire AP. Honestly, I don't know how one could expect a goblin to live through the first book of an AP anyway. They're so chaotic and self-destructive that playing a goblin correctly would mean death no further than two-to-three books in at the most!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I will holler for this until the end of time.

Journey to the Centre of Golarion.

An expedition that begins on the surface and then never sees the light of day again. A tour of the Darklands, the Vaults and all the wonders therein. With sweet nods to Jules Verne along the way.

I can kinda get behind this, too. I've had to go 5E just to get a Darklands AP that I didn't have to write. I'm not converting it, just transplanting it to Golarion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vikings vs Witches. Because Norse culture is the bomb, and so is the Land of the Linnorm Kings. Plus, there's witches right next store! It's the AP that has needed to be made, has not been made, and that's a true crime.

I mean, while Tian Xia got almost three whole books in Jade Regent, the Vikings got one. That's roughly three times more coverage! Definitely time for a Vikings vs Witches AP. The Linnorm Kings have been slighted, and they are ready for war!

Myrryr wrote:
Simeon wrote:
I'm not sure what the actal date is, but I believe that outside of Golarion, Aroden's death had little to no impact. The gods of humans on Golarion shouldn't affect humans on Earth or Androffa. I doubt it even affected Akiton or Castrovel.
It didn't. In the relative scheme of things, Aroden is pretty unimportant. Honestly the most important thing about Aroden at all is that his death possibly screwed up Rovagug's prison with the Worldwound on Golarion. But beyond that, Golarion itself is only a single planet in the infinite material plane, and unlike many gods, Aroden was only important on that planet. Hell, he was only important on one or two continents even.

Honestly, on principle alone, I think Aroden was more significant than people often wish to admit. There's a reason they refuse to ever shed light on the mystery surrounding his "death." I can't believe they'd desire to keep it such a mystery if his fall meant nothing.

Steve Geddes wrote:
rknop wrote:
I disagree about Wizard's Mask -- one of my (many) complaints about the novel was that it turned both Molthune and Nirmathas into caricatures that would have fit better in a Gilbert & Sullivan musical, or even a Benny Hill routine, than in Golarion. You can do humor in Golarion without turning the setting into a cardboard-cutout joke fodder. (Cf: the Lair's series.) (And I'm not even sure Wizard's Mask was trying to do it for comedic purposes; the comedy didn't work on me, if it was.) (Wizard's Mask is the only Pathfinder Tales novel that I found outright bad.)
I didn't mean to express a view on the quality (it was one of my least favorite PF Tales books too), but I think that novel is a good source if Samy is looking for more canonical information about that region. I can't think of many other places.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I would be careful about recommending Wizard's Mask as well. I loved the idea of Nirmathas and Molthune until I read that book, which completely turned me off to the regions and their conflict. It pretty much made both regions--and the people in them--out to be pathetic. I saw no redeemable qualities in the book. I remember being quite sad that it was considered canon for the conflict.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

Don't know what kind of campaign you're playing in but I don't think your character can have access to or know the ancient language of Thassilonian. As it's a dead, forgotten language since about 10.000 years ago and not even the highest, most knowledgeable scholars know the meaning of many or even any of its' runes (most scholars have a grave misinterpretation of the 'Sin' runes and their meaning).

I'm not saying that you're playing the wrong game if you are allowed to learn it and use it to fluff your character. Just ask your DM before touching it, as it may not be meant for you.

That's not accurate. Here's the Inner Sea World Guide entry for Thassalonian:


The following languages are not commonly known in the

Inner Sea region, save by scholars and historians ... Thassilonian: One of the ancestor tongues of modern Varisian, Thassilonian is mostly remembered for its nowunused alphabet, consisting of three sets of runes.

It's on page 251, and the Additional Resources page says "Languages: all languages on page 251 may be learned via the Linguistics skill", so it's even explicitly allowed for PFS, which tends to be more restrictive.

All it takes to learn Thassalonian is putting a rank in Linguistics. Very few people in the world bother to because the language is dead, but it's not a lost language.

Although his point is still valid. I know that in my Shattered Star campaign, I've made it far more restrictive when it comes to knowing the language. It's actually to the point where a character that does have it will still be required to make Linguistics checks in order to read it properly.

Still, it sounds like the OP and his GM have a pretty good understanding of where the line is at, so no biggie!

Thank you, Mr. Finch!

My apologies if I sounded cross earlier. It tends to make me nervous when I hear a report that says one thing, then don't hear anything else for a month after, if only because of the issues with other kickstarters I've seen reported on these forums alone (The Razor Coast by Logue and Underdark Kingmaker AP by the group I can't recall the name of now come to mind). Nothing but exemplary reports have come out about FGG, but for a first-timer like me all this is new, so silence becomes a concern.

The update and explanation is greatly appreciated.

Any ideas as to what's going on with this? On January 30th, it was expressed by FGG that a backer kit would be out to the supporters within the week. It's now a month later, and there's been no backer kit or additional word by anyone official as to what's going on . . . I've posted on the kickstarter page, as well as on the FGG Forums kickstarer thread for this, and all has been ignored.

This was my first kickstarter backing, so I'm not as up-to-snuff on how these things usually go. Is this normal? Thus far, I'll admit to not being impressed at all with the process if it is, especially since it was stated repeatedly that FGG had a proven record when it came to handling kickstarters.

I got involved in this one because I'm a massive fan of Richard Pett's stuff. However, this is giving me serious doubts as to whether I wish to get involved with another one in the future. A month without word at all just doesn't strike me as decent customer service, especially when the money has already been deducted from my account.

But, I digress . . . or something . . .

1 to 50 of 491 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.