|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
James Jacobs wrote:
In terms of playing difficulty, does the high-level nature make this AP less suited for players new to the game?
Would removing the Mythic aspect make this even more challenging for inexperienced players?
One question regards how Paizo is going to handle this new element in the game - Is it as an uncommon optional thing to spice it up, or a foundational part of the world?
Let's say I don't want guns in my PF. If there's an AP set entirely in Alkenstar, I can just choose not to run it. No sweat, doesn't hurt me any.
However, if I have to rewrite several NPCs in each Paizo adventure because gunslingers are popping up everywhere, or if Part #3 of an otherwise core AP becomes unusable because it revolves around a conflict over gunpowder resources, that makes a major dent in my enjoyment that's hard to avoid.
I'd also note that "Sixguns and Sorcery" and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks were written as excursions from the norm, not customary elements of AD&D. Ditto for "How effective is a Panzerfaust against a troll, Heinz?"
The thing I like about Paizo? dude took that much time out of his day to explain their reason, and didn't just say "because we said so" like 99% of any kind of company would do.
This is one of the things I always mention when I'm pimping Pathfinder at the FLGSs.
One other point -when you buy Paizo @ the FLGS, the owner makes money.
Then Paizo makes more money, too and we have more potential folks to game with. Good for everybody.
Lesson Learned: Don't Fall In Love With Your Item
This is a balance thing, because you want to create something you can get excited about, but don't let it blind you.
My item was a SIAC, but I liked my mental image of it so much that I kept saying to myself, "But it's such a COOL Spell in a Can! They'll have to love it!"
OK, I know one thing - I didn't clearly specify that this was a consumable item.
Let me have it!
Shroud of the Immolator
*At the DM's option, creatures with the (Fire) subtype would be immune to the Intimidate effect, but the wearer would instead enjoy a +4 bonus to Diplomacy checks.
I've seen that myself. It's awesome that it happens so often!
The end of the year is a good time to look back on your life and see what might have gone better, so open up, you're among friends here.
*What's the worst gaming thing you've ever done?
*The most munchkin-ed PC you've run?
*Worst rule misinterpretation you went with for years?
*OOC behavior at the table that makes you cringe now?
*Shameless plagiarism you passed off as original? (I'm looking at you, Driz'zt clones!)
*Character concept you're most ashamed of?
I DM'ed a group of players that killed Asmodeus (1E version) in about a half-hour adventure. I let the party gate right into his throne room, neglected to have any minions around, forgot about magic resistance and let them strangle him with Bigby's Crushing Hand.
You could just buy THESE .
GM's Aid III: Monster Knowledge Cards Volume I—Aboleth to Fungus (OGL) PDF
With GM’s Aid III: Monster Knowledge Cards Volume I—Aboleth to Fungus, your job as GM just got easier. There is a card for each of the OGL monsters from Aboleth to Fungus in the SRD, and each includes a number of facts about that particular creature. Each fact is tied to an increasingly higher Knowledge check DC. When the players characters are faced with a creature, whip out the appropriate card, have the players make rolls, and tell them what they know.
The cards have been formatted to print on any standard-size business card paper, or you can just print them on cardstock and cut them out using the lines as guides
First off, I loved the Sarnath reference in "The Doom that Came to Varnhold"!
Serious question: What has happened to the various messengers that have been described as being sent to check up on Varnhold? Since Vordakai's abduction was a one-time event, did the spriggans kill them? Maybe a Soul Eater attack?
Trying to solve problems in-game when a simple, honest OOC conversation could have fixed it.
Instead of imposing some Xeno's Paradox thing where an even-more-invulnerable opponent appears out of nowhere and neutralizes the armor, leaving the player angry and bitter.
Here are some of mine (many of which have been stolen from other forum members' suggestions!):
Thinking about the vulnerability of spellbooks and the importance of having a spare, I can't help but be reminded of all the warnings about backing up your hard drive.
It's cheap, it's easy, and if you don't, it almost a guarantee that sooner or later, you're gonna be hosed.
If a DM is considering these tactics (and he never has before), I'd think that a warning shot would be fair to the players. Have some mooks try (and fail) to Sunder a weapon or wand, or have the PC's catch a thief in the act of stealing the spellbook. After that, they ought to get the hint that "wow, I'd have been sunk if that attempt had succeeded!"
If they still fail to prepare backups after that, shame on them.
(Now I gotta go home and make sure my external hard drive is working right- haven't checked it in a while.....)
Thanks, guys. I was wondering about this, because I'm rereading the Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser books and I was thinking just that, though in 3E/PF terms, the Mouser has one or two levels of Wizard vice UMD....
I appreciate the thoughts. It makes me more comfortable with the flavor of having my rogues use UMD.
I'm trying to understand the thinking behind making UMD part of the rogue's abilities - I grew up in 1E and I don't remember it being a part of the class back then.
Is it crunch-based (gives them an extra benefit to balance out other classes) or fluff-based (rogues are deceptive, so they can "fool" a magic device)? I can't think of examples of this kind of skill in much fantasy literature, so I wonder where it came from.
The way I read this encounter, it's going to get much tougher if any of the trolls work together instead of staying in their lairs and letting the party pick them off one by one.
The text seems to be intended to downplay their cooperative abilities, but even one or two of the heavies rushing to the sound of a fight (and likely catching the party from another direction) could change the equation appreciably.
Looking through my ancient and battered copy of Deities and Demigods (the original 1E printing), I saw in the Celtic Mythos section the entry for the Wild Hunt and realized that it would be a great addition to Kingmaker.
I see that there are stats for a CR27 (!) version of it HERE, but the original 1E Huntsman was a 15th-Level Ranger with 20 hounds of about 6-10 HD each, so that's a little more in line with the power level of this AP.
Anyone out there built some Pathfinder stats for this force of Nature?
Now I just have to figure out when to put it into the campaign....(rubs hands gleefully)
I'm re-arranging the Events table to put Bad Events as lower rolls and Good Events higher )but keeping the same percentages for each event. This allows me to say, impose a 5% penalty on these rolls to make bad things more likely if the rulers do dumb things that don't quite fit into a penalty to Unrest, Economy or Stability.
Also, I'm inverting the ruler's ability to affect the different scores. At Barony, he can influence all three, while Kingdom he can only affect one. This simulates the fact that it's harder for one person to influence multiple areas of a larger community, and makes the PC's rely on their officeholders more as time goes by.
I haven't yet. My players are still working through their intro scenario (where they all meet). After that, they'll make the decisions that either lead them to Sasserine, Brevoy, or a little town that's my own creation. Right now, I'm hoping they head north, but we'll see. If they do, I'll be sure to have a great fight planned, thanks to all this great input!
It's a great idea, and I wouldn't get hung up on the numbers. The EL feature matters the most at the early levels, I think.
The humanoids don't even have to be evil. Imagine a group of Erastil-worshiping Orcs who want to start a new life away from the bestial world of their old tribes.
I'm thinking of yoinking this, though probably not for the PCs. In my world, Hobbos are a race on the brink of becoming civilized, settling down from a nomadic life based on raiding and conquest. Making one of the other colonizing teams be from the Invincible Legion (the hobgoblin kingdom's army) would highlight their movement in this direction.
Scipion del Ferro wrote:
I'm glad you asked that question, SdF, as I was wondering when RRR featured cavity creeps attacking a bridge (or maybe it's a skate park).
And the little druid looks like she's about to get spitted like a cocktail weenie on that sword.
Good point, DoS. I can use the sandbox design to drop the attack on them if they waste time and invite it, making it dependent on their actions.
I also think that with either scenario, the PC's success may have brought new people to the region, thus there'll be noncombatants taking shelter in the stockade that the PC's will need to defend.
If it's the trolls, the prep time the PCs get will be balanced out by the fact that they'll be getting hit with all of the trolls at once.
Currently, Rulers can apply their bonuses to one score (Econ, Stability, Loyalty) at Barony level, two scores at Duchy and all three at Kingdom.
Suggestion: Reverse that. The logic is that an individual can influence many parts of a small organization, but he's much more limited as the bureaucracy grows. This will also serve to make the ruler depend more on his staff as the realm gets bigger and require him to develop them instead of micromanaging the kingdom (abstracted, of course).
Is there a game balance reason why this is bad that's already been hashed out in playtesting or that is obvious and I'm missing?
I'm a sucker for static defense problems, everything from Rorke's Drift to the defense of Minas Tirith. I'd love to plan something like that for the early chapters of KM. (Before the mass combat rules are introduced, as I want max player involvement so they enjoy it as much as I will.)
Here are the two options that come to mind:
- At the end of KM #1,
- Near the end of KM #2
I'll need to establish a motivation for the enemy and get the PCs just enough warning to prepare, but not enough to move major forces around the map.
As I see is, Law and Chaos are more statements of the means of achieving the ends specified by Good or Evil.
LN and CN are more likely to view order or freedom as ends in their own right. Neither should be about personal habits or desires; a CN character could suffer from OCD and a LN character could be a slob.
A character who can't control his impulses isn't showing that he's CN; he's showing that he has a low Wisdom score.
(Though it's more likely that his player's the one who chose Wisdom as his dump stat. )
Redemption on this scale is a work of Divine intervention. It could be a mighty work for a cleric of a good deity to undertake, with high stakes, as the Stag Lord's attributes could make him a powerful servant of Good if he did convert. Maybe that helm's ties to Erastil are deeper than just improving archery? RRR says that Erastil has polymorphed some wayward folks into more "useful" things. Might a month or two as a beast of burden teach the Stag Lord about the value of service?
Another thought - his father is the root of the problem. Redeeming or destroying that influence might be the first step.
Also, his bio hints at Nyrissa's involvement. She'll surely try to stop any efforts to save him.