I subscribe to the Adventure Paths for the linked adventure path. Shortening each adventure by 10 pages and making it up by adding a Set Piece Adventures section is a losing proposition for me. We have all seen posted by authors and editors about how such and such was cut from the adventure for space reasons and that if they had had just a little more space it would have been much better. Now we are losing 10 additional pages from each adventure. Please do not do this. Paizo is gutting the Pathfinder APs of what makes them APs. Putting up another adventure site instead of THE adventure is just not the same. Please don't do it!
|
I subscribe to the Adventure Paths for the linked adventure path. Shortening each adventure by 10 pages and making it up by adding a Set Piece Adventures section is a losing proposition for me. We have all seen posted by authors and editors about how such and such was cut from the adventure for space reasons and that if they had had just a little more space it would have been much better. Now we are losing 10 additional pages from each adventure. Please do not do this. Paizo is gutting the Pathfinder APs of what makes them APs. Putting up another adventure site instead of THE adventure is just not the same. Please don't do it!
1) I'm pretty sure they've already written at least the first few and sent them to the printer. Too late.
2) Who said they were shortening the main adventure? There are other articles in each issue. I'm not saying it's wrong, I've never seen that information anywhere.
|
I subscribe to the Adventure Paths for the linked adventure path. Shortening each adventure by 10 pages and making it up by adding a Set Piece Adventures section is a losing proposition for me. We have all seen posted by authors and editors about how such and such was cut from the adventure for space reasons and that if they had had just a little more space it would have been much better. Now we are losing 10 additional pages from each adventure. Please do not do this. Paizo is gutting the Pathfinder APs of what makes them APs. Putting up another adventure site instead of THE adventure is just not the same. Please don't do it!
I can understand your point; who wants to lose 10 pages of such great adventures? But as I understand it, such "set pieces" have sort of been present in each AP adventure to date - side treks that occur in the same locales but don't specifically advance the storyline. This new format would make more clear the distinction between the main story and the unrelated area-specific options. An attentive DM will surely be able to roll the set piece into the main story. More work on that side of things, yes. But it still allows for more "one-off" adventures to be easily pulled out as well. Personally, I don't see will be losing much of anything.
|
|
1) I'm pretty sure they've already written them and sent them to the printer. Too late.
2) Who said they were shortening the main adventure? There are other articles in each issue. I'm not saying it's wrong, I've never seen that information anywhere.
James Jacobs did reveal the main stories would be shortened, yes, but those 10 pages would go to making smaller set piece adventures in the same area as the main story. As I understood it, anyway.
Creative Director
|
I subscribe to the Adventure Paths for the linked adventure path. Shortening each adventure by 10 pages and making it up by adding a Set Piece Adventures section is a losing proposition for me. We have all seen posted by authors and editors about how such and such was cut from the adventure for space reasons and that if they had had just a little more space it would have been much better. Now we are losing 10 additional pages from each adventure. Please do not do this. Paizo is gutting the Pathfinder APs of what makes them APs. Putting up another adventure site instead of THE adventure is just not the same. Please don't do it!
It is indeed too late; it's off to press!
And don't panic until you see it, to be honest. At 40 pages, the main adventure remains quite hefty, and there was nothing significant cut from it at all since we ordered the adventure at that length to begin with. In addition... longer does not always mean better. The vast majority of significant content cuts to adventures are made to IMPROVE the adventure... not everything every author writes is good, in other words.
In any case, the point of the set-piece adventure is to create an additional adventure that fits well into the current Adventure Path adventure. In the case of Pathfinder 13, it's a thieves' guild that dovetails quite nicely into the main storyline, and if you choose to include it, the players won't even notice it. In previous adventures, had we taken this approach, you would have seen the Graul homestead presented as a set piece, the haunted cabin in #6 as a set piece, and the section on "All the World's Meat" from Edge of Anarchy as a set piece, to name 3 examples.
Each Set Piece will include at least TWO hooks for you to use it as part of the main adventure, in any case.
And furthermore... and perhaps most importantly, shortening the main adventure makes it a LOT easier to write and edit on the pretty brutal monthly schedule we have going. So in fact... that should actually result in tighter, better adventures with LESS errors in them than we've had before. In theory... (Pathfinder 13 might be a little rough still, alas, since we had to scramble there to get it both on track and out in time for Gen Con...).
So again... don't freak out until you see how we're handling it. If the shorter primary adventure and the addition of a set piece really IS a showstopper for lots of folk, let us know once you've seen Pathfinder 13 and 14 and maybe 15. If there's a big enough outcry, we'll go back to the way things were. But honestly, I suspect that the set pieces are going to be quite popular. It's hardly gutting an adventure path to move one of its encounter locations into a different part of the book, after all!
In any case, the point of the set-piece adventure is to create an additional adventure that fits well into the current Adventure Path adventure.
What a capital idea! Our group likes to have some "quick wins" along the AP trail and this reorganization of the source material sounds like just the ticket.
-GGM
... not everything every author writes is good, in other words.'cept Logue, right?
Nah, he's the worst of the lot. He just puts out so much stuff that by law of averages some of it has to be good. It's like the 100 monkeys typing 10 hours a day for 100 days theory.
Just kidding Nick. :)
... not everything every author writes is good, in other words.'cept Logue, right?
Um. Have you seen the material about the Runelord of Gluttony that had to come out of _Hook Mountain_? Inventive, yes. Depraved, definitely. An idea to use somewhere, I have no doubt. But in _Hook Mountain_? Dear gods, that would have brought the AP to a sudden catastrophic halt.
Me, I like the idea of the side scenarios as described. I don't see any harm in having the Wendigo Cabin set up so that it can easily be pulled out and run elsewhere, in or out of the AP.
Mary
I am not really sure why one of the other articles wasn't just dropped? I mean with all of the other Pathfinder material coming out, couldn't that stuff be covered in those? Why drop space for actual story content and keep, no offense intended, fluff? Especially when other products is purposefully being created to cover that type of fluff?
|
Creative Director
|
I am not really sure why one of the other articles wasn't just dropped? I mean with all of the other Pathfinder material coming out, couldn't that stuff be covered in those? Why drop space for actual story content and keep, no offense intended, fluff? Especially when other products is purposefully being created to cover that type of fluff?
Because those articles are as important to Pathfinder as the adventure. Moreso, really, since that's where a GM goes to if his players go off the rails; the support articles (as with the set pieces) are there to support the story and provide background. Cutting them isn't really an option. Nor is moving the support material completely out of Pathfinder.
And again... it's not "robbing content" from the adventure. We don't have a big stack of pre-written 50 page adventures sitting around that we're gutting 10 pages from each month. We're asking our writers to PRODUCE 30,000 word adventures. Then we're supporting that adventure with more additional articles than before.
Also: shortening the main adventure makes it a LOT easier to handle since we're on a tight, monthly schedule. One person has to take the lion's share of development for an adventure... you can't split it up... and at 50 pages, doing so is actually really exhausting and was going to drive me (the guy who was doing them) into an early grave.
I appreciate that folk really like the adventures, but I think that the time for strong reactions isn't 2 months before anyone sees what we're doing with the new setup. If you check out Pathfinder 13 and 14 and it still feels wrong to you, let me know.
|
I remember the first such set piece to be a part of pathfinder 1 so I'm not too scared. Remember the catacombs of wrath, in the text it literally says to have the pc's visit it later since it might be too hard for them now.
I'm looking forward to the Drow AP and it's set pieces. :)
And if they suck, Paizo will know from their masses.
Did you read the 4th edition forums at all 2 months before it was released? Because, well ... you know.
I just have to point out that just because there was a strong reaction, that didn't necessarily justify it.
That is what James is driving at- is a strong reaction justfied here, sight unseen? Because it happened with another product by another company is irrelevant. Also, as he alluded to, if it really doesn't work out, they can change the Pathfinder montly AP chapters to back the way they were. You can't do that with an entire new version of a product line, like 4E.
|
|
My 2c
I'm looking forward to the shorter adventures, and extra "location" thing.
Partly because I think it will give DMs more options, both running the AP, and to pull little bits to use for themselves in other games.
Mostly though, just because I *never* make it through the full adventure in the first second, it;s only the second or third re-read that I get to the end. I simply don't have the ability to take in the volume of new information, new characters and new situations, that a 50 page adventure brings.....so 40 page might just be bearable!
|
I think it will give DMs more options, both running the AP, and to pull little bits to use for themselves in other games.
With three XP/level progression paths in Pathfinder RPG, pulling some encounters out of the main adventure and offering them up as "optional" might assist groups who prefer the fast progression, while including them might assist those who prefer the more leisurely level progression. It provides options for different game styles, as provided for in the rules.
|
|
I'm just going to throw it out there that I think that slightly shorter adventures will be better for everyone. As James Jacobs said, it'll be better for the Editor, and I think that that will in turn give us a better product overall.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I've felt that some of the Pathfinder adventures were too long a couple of times. Don't get me wrong here, I've loved each and every issue individually, but I still feel like sometimes there are encounters in there that are just there for the purpose of reaching that 50 pages limit. The largest offendors in this case, I felt, were Sins of the Saviors and Spires of Xin-Shalast (though I understand there was a lot of pressure from deadlines going on at that time, and it was the first ever Pathfinder AP), and although still fantastic adventures, I feel as though they drag on a bit here and there. Even a few parts of CotCT feel a little stretched.
I've always believed that it's better to have a shorter higher-quality adventure than a longer adventure with some quality problems. And one way to ensure a high-quality product is to make sure that the editor is not always feeling stressed out from having to edit 50 page adventures every month.
I'd just toss in my two cents...
I like this idea.
As noted above, there were areas in the previous Pathfinder Arcs (Catacombs of Wrath, Graul Homestead, etc) that could be split out or even skipped by a party without derailing the adventure.
By explicitly putting these in a seperate chapter, it makes it easier for me as as a DM to flip through my books and pull out a suitable sidetrek or oneshot adventure.
This versatility makes Pathfinder more valuable to me, as a busy DM.
I can see pulling out Catacombs of Wrath with very little changes and incorporating it into another campaign as a low level dungeon. I could do this now easily enough, but if it was in a seperate chapter, with some notes on adapation besides linking to the main AP adventure, it would be easier for me to flip through my books and find it on the fly when the party deviates from my plans.
And considering I've got a stack of Paizo material that grows by at least a full Pathfinder book plus an adventure every month, the list of adventures to flip through looking for that sidetrek is getting bigger as we speak ;-)
This versatility makes Pathfinder more valuable to me, as a busy DM.I can see pulling out Catacombs of Wrath with very little changes and incorporating it into another campaign as a low level dungeon. I could do this now easily enough, but if it was in a seperate chapter, with some notes on adapation besides linking to the main AP adventure, it would be easier for me to flip through my books and find it on the fly when the party deviates from my plans.
By not having the adventure integrated as a complete whole, the idea of an adventure path is diluted. As a busy DM, I buy the adventure paths specifically because they are long adventures that chain together. Breaking the long adventure into a longish adventure and a separate short adventure makes more work for me when I run the adventure path. By destroying what an adventure path actual is, you get a separate adventure. I feel that if I wanted a separate adventure, I would buy a normal module. If I wanted a very long adventure that ties into other very long adventures, I would buy adventure paths. To me, that's the entire reason they exist.
Well I think I have been convinced to take a wait and see approach. I will wait out the next adventure path (ending my subscription once CotCT has ended) and see if it tanks or not. If it turns out to be great, I might go back and pick it up.
And furthermore... and perhaps most importantly, shortening the main adventure makes it a LOT easier to write and edit on the pretty brutal monthly schedule we have going. So in fact... that should actually result in tighter, better adventures with LESS errors in them than we've had before. In theory... (Pathfinder 13 might be a little rough still, alas, since we had to scramble there to get it both on track and out in time for Gen Con...).
I do see this as a pretty good reason for the change. Are you saying that the Set Piece and the AP will be written by separate authors?
|
|
For the Set Piece fans, don't forget the Compleat Encounter: Drow Sanctuary. While it may not be directly releated to Second Darkness, no reason it can't be a side quest. ;)
Personally I like the idea of Set Pieces, it's an extra adventure you can run before a big encounter if the group isn't keeping pace with the EL and CRs of the monsters and bosses. Look at the end of Skinsaw.. how many PCs have died when they got into the tower? How many party wipes? Two side quests (from PF1 and 2) could have made a level difference.
|
Creative Director
|
I do see this as a pretty good reason for the change. Are you saying that the Set Piece and the AP will be written by separate authors?
I am. The main adventure in #13 is written by Greg Vaughan, while the Set Piece is written by Tim Hitchcock. Not only does this give more authors a chance to get into Pathfinder... but it also gives us more authors to pick and groom to be adventure path writers. My goal is to never have someone who's written an adventure path write the set piece, in fact, and before long I can see this becoming a place for new writers to test their chops.
And since Wes and I will be developing them in house, we can also make sure that the set piece flows easily and naturally into the main adventure. If you want to integrate any set piece into an adventure, your players will only know if you tell them or if they're paying close attention to where in the book you're reading... and even then... does that really matter?
OH! Another good thing! A lot of folk complain about how railroady adventure paths are. A set piece adventure helps address THAT to, since if your PCs start to drift off the beaten path a little, you'll have a shorter adventure that's tied to the same themes and regions and everything as the main adventure.
And finally, I like to think that over the past 5 years I've built up at least a little trust with the readers (first of Dungeon, now of Pathfinder) that the adventures I publish will be fun, and that the method that they appear in print won't suck. Back when we first started Pathfinder, I seem to recall another set of worries that extended support articles would take away from the adventure too... they haven't and won't just as the set piece adventures won't. Doppleganger; you in particular have a history of second guessing and lamenting the directions I've taken Pathfinder for many months, yet you're still posting. I take that as a sign that my stewardship over Pathfinder isn't THAT odious to you, and ask you to trust that the Set Piece adventures are going to be cool. At the very least, pick up a copy of Pathfinder 13 at your FLGS and flip through it to check out how it works. That's actually all I can really ask.
[
I am. The main adventure in #13 is written by Greg Vaughan, while the Set Piece is written by Tim Hitchcock. Not only does this give more authors a chance to get into Pathfinder... but it also gives us more authors to pick and groom to be adventure path writers. My goal is to never have someone who's written an adventure path write the set piece, in fact, and before long I can see this becoming a place for new writers to test their chops.And since Wes and I will be developing them in house, we can also make sure that the set piece flows easily and naturally into the main adventure. If you want to integrate any set piece into an adventure, your players will only know if you tell them or if they're paying close attention to where in the book you're reading... and even then... does that really matter?
OH! Another good thing! A lot of folk complain about how railroady adventure paths are. A set piece adventure helps address THAT to, since if your PCs start to drift off the beaten path a little, you'll have a shorter adventure that's tied to the same themes and regions and everything as the main adventure.
Had I realized that the change would allow two authors to work on the same AP I probably would not have opened this thread. I do see that this can only be a good thing. The way it was described in your editors note made it look (to me at least) like there was still only one author per installment.
Doppleganger; you in particular have a history of second guessing and lamenting the directions I've taken Pathfinder for many months, yet you're still posting. I take that as a sign that my stewardship over Pathfinder isn't THAT odious to you, and ask you to trust that the Set Piece adventures are going to be cool. At the very least, pick up a copy of Pathfinder 13 at your FLGS and flip through it to check out how it works. That's actually all I can really ask.
Well ... you do walk the line somethings James ;) but it's mostly good. I have seen you make changes and reverse editorial direction based at least in part on things brought up in this forum, so I try to make myself heard as much as possible about the parts of Pathfinder that I care about most. I'm a subscriber, so I won't need to pick a copy in the FLGS to see how it rolls.
|
|
Back when we first started Pathfinder, I seem to recall another set of worries that extended support articles would take away from the adventure too... they haven't and won't just as the set piece adventures won't.
The same thing happened when Paizo included the Iconics in every book and then again when the Iconics got half page character sheets. Now there's a legion of fans clamoring for more bits about the Iconics!
Also guys remember, if the Set Pieces do end up not being a success, Paizo can stop doing them after Second Darkness.
It seems to me that just about every ap book has a "virtual" set piece allready; i.e. a big chunk that could be easily either ported out for other uses, or left out of the a.p. with very slight modification, or replaced easily. So I think that set pieces aren't that big a deal.
Different authors makes them a big deal. All the "virtual" set pieces where written by the same author as the rest of the adventure to which they belonged. This new way allows two people to write in parallel.
Well ... you do walk the line somethings James ;)
He does, and the two day coup that's been taking place while James has been out sick has been going swimmingly. He's been posting from his "sick (totally-not-poisoned) bed" all this time.
As for the Set Pieces, I'll be heading these up as I do with the rest of the non-AP adventure stuff in Pathfinder (except for the Pathfinder's Journal, that's Sutter's baby). James touched on this a little bit already, but I wanted to reiterate the ulterior motive behind these, 'cause I think it's pretty cool and hope that a lot of folks are excited about it as well. Without too much hubris I think I can say that Pathfinder has been pretty awesome. This seems to be supported by all the e-mails I get from folks saying "I love Pathfinder! How can I help!?" Unfortunately, though, my response tends to be "Ummm... you could shoot some monster ideas my way and maybe one will take." I know. Not too reassuring. And even then, the path to Adventure Path writer doubtfully lies through even the most awesomely designed monster. The Set Piece gives us a chance to change this and get in some new blood while still supporting the Adventure Path and keeping up the theme of the volume.
One of the strongest parts about Dragon magazine was that anyone could contribute. Hell, I really count my first Dragon article ("Bazaar of the Bizzare: By the Hands of Hags" in Dragon #300) as the beginning of my professional game design career. Pathfinder thus far has not had this option. All that's changing. We've got Set Pieces scheduled throughout Second Darkness now, each one synced up to compliment the AP adventure in the same volume, to be useful if you're ever running your own game and just need a well described fantasy locale, or to just jump in and play if there's ever a night you want to game without getting invested into an entire 32 month campaign.
I think you'll be pleased by many of the names we've got coming up too. I've been looking for people who haven't yet had an opportunity to play in the Pathfinder pool. If we like what we see--and I've been Totally impressed thus far--Adventure Path contributor might soon be in their futures.
To tease just a bit, Tim Hitchcock's Thieves' Guild Set Piece: St. Caspieran's Salvation" will be up in Pathfinder #13 this August. After that, we've got a Pirate Ship Set Piece by Ryan Z. Nock (of War of the Burning Sky fame) called "The Teeth of Araska," and a few I still want to keep the lid on by Flight of the Red Raven author David Schwartz, a little something by Paizo Big-Damn-Hero Josh X. Frost, and (drum roll please) a high-level something by our own Liz "Lilith" Courts!
So yeah. I'm excited. The first one's out the door, I'm working on the second now, and they're Cool. ^_^
So, the implied next question: How do you get in on these? Patience my friends, we're kind of opening the door slowly. Second Darkness has its Set Pieces commissioned. After that, Code Name: MAPQUEST (hear that James? That's the code name now, shhhhh) will have a restrictive submissions policy that we'll talk about in the next few weeks here. After that, though... well, we'll talk about that too in the next few months. Probably starting at Gen Con in August.
So brush up on your stat-block-fu, we're going to need it for the Set Pieces here soon!
Back when we first started Pathfinder, I seem to recall another set of worries that extended support articles would take away from the adventure too...
Well, some of us still frown at that fiction stuff and the "iconics" nonsense. *Ahem* ;)
And some of us also still continue to observe to see if adaptability will continue to be maintained. The APs really are as great as you think they are - but "Golarion" isn't as great as you think it is...
Zing! That's right, I went there! :D
As to the set pieces - so far, I am intrigued and optimistic. They sound good and the right philosophy and design principles seem to be behind them (for the most part - I understand doppleganger's concerns - I, too, buy the APs for the AP part).
The same thing happened when Paizo included the Iconics in every book and then again when the Iconics got half page character sheets. Now there's a legion of fans clamoring for more bits about the Iconics!
I will say that the more recent iconics have MUCH better backstories than those of the iconics that were around when that argument was being made. They are of noticeably higher quality than the first four. That makes up for the loss of Pathfinder page space they bring with them.
All that's changing. We've got Set Pieces scheduled throughout Second Darkness now, each one synced up to compliment the AP adventure in the same volume, to be useful if you're ever running your own game and just need a well described fantasy locale, or to just jump in and play if there's ever a night you want to game without getting invested into an entire 32 month campaign.
See, it's statements like this that scare me. Once again someone from Paizo is pointing out how they are taking steps to make Pathfinder more useful to people who are not using the adventure path portion. That scares the living s~&# out of me. I am very much afraid that, little by little, Pathfinder will be watered down into a generic gaming resource and will not remain an adventure path, and I'm all about the adventure path.
See, it's statements like this that scare me. Once again someone from Paizo is pointing out how they are taking steps to make Pathfinder more useful to people who are not using the adventure path portion. That scares the living s*%* out of me. I am very much afraid that, little by little, Pathfinder will be watered down into a generic gaming resource and will not remain an adventure path, and I'm all about the adventure path.
Dude, no fear. The point of Pathfinder is to present Adventure Paths. It's the bloody name of the product after all. James doesn't want to change that. I don't want to change that. No one in the rest of the office wants to change that. Turns out we've found a formula that we love working on (and of which we're very defensive), our fans seem excited about, and (honestly) our livelihoods are pretty intrinsically tied to. Really and truly, we're not going to go tinker with it on a gamble or try to make it into something it isn't.
At their core, any of these Set Pieces could easily be just another section in the AP adventure but, in reality, many GMs won't try new things or see the versatility of something unless it's called right out and put in front of them. This might not be you, but it remains true. Hell, if I wanted to GM just a night's game, I probably wouldn't reach for Pathfinder to run a one-off... but I totally could. That's part of what these Set Pieces are for. By in large, the alternate plot hooks and any-game versatility of a Set Piece could be accomplished by a sidebar in the larger adventure. A sidebar of brief plots with note saying "you can use the Graul Farmstead as a one night dealie or in any other campaign" would TOTALLY be the same thing (and it turns out that the Grauls were pretty important to the plot of PF#3). But by drawing something similar to this out into its own section we get can present this in a more visually appealing way, call out the usefulness of the section for those who want or need it, and, the biggest deal, give credit to the awesome work on a new up-and-coming author who deserves to have their name in lights, while still doing exactly what we're already doing.
We've done Dungeon and we loved it, but we're not interested in doing it again or making Pathfinder something it isn't. Promise. And if August comes around and you think I lied, you get a free punch, right in my soft middle section.
Well, some of us still frown at that fiction stuff and the "iconics" nonsense.
And some of us also still continue to observe to see if adaptability will continue to be maintained. The APs really are as great as you think they are - but "Golarion" isn't as great as you think it is...
Yup.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Once again someone from Paizo is pointing out how they are taking steps to make Pathfinder more useful to people who are not using the adventure path portion. That scares the living s#~* out of me. I am very much afraid that, little by little, Pathfinder will be watered down into a generic gaming resource and will not remain an adventure path, and I'm all about the adventure path.
It's just not fair to say that making Pathfinder more useful to people not playing the AP somehow automatically makes it less useful for someone who is. That's false logic.
We believe that this will actually increase the usefulness for both groups, as well as make life easier on our editors and writers.
I find long modules to be cumbersome and would like to see them a little shorter.
And the additional articles have been very useful to me. In Dungeon you had your AP and a bunch of stuff not related to the AP while in PF issues almost everything relates to what is happening in the AP. I don't get the objections.
|
I say bring on the Set Pieces. Including them in the adventure path books will prevent me from doing something I did for Age of Worms, Savage Tide and Rise of the Runelords (haven't started Curse of the Crimson Throne, yet. That is go to old Dungeon magazines to scrounge up side adventures.
Over the course of the above mentioned APs, players I have DMed for have had characters fall behind in XP, or we've needed to introduce new characters to the campaigns or bad guys if one got killed prematurely. So, I'd flip through Dungeons to find the right adventure to fill a need the that the AP might not be able to specifically handle.
Sounds like Set Pieces might fit the need better, because their differences won't be as jarring as a whole new, totally unrelated side trek is. Great idea.
Don (Greyson)
Nyrond Triad - PoC
... not everything every author writes is good, in other words.'cept Logue, right?
Um. Have you seen the material about the Runelord of Gluttony that had to come out of _Hook Mountain_? Inventive, yes. Depraved, definitely. An idea to use somewhere, I have no doubt. But in _Hook Mountain_? Dear gods, that would have brought the AP to a sudden catastrophic halt.
Me, I like the idea of the side scenarios as described. I don't see any harm in having the Wendigo Cabin set up so that it can easily be pulled out and run elsewhere, in or out of the AP.
Mary
Mary, can you provide a link for the stuff that was cut? I haven't seen it and my search-fu is weak today.
He does, and the two day coup that's been taking place while James has been out sick has been going swimmingly. He's been posting from his "sick (totally-not-poisoned) bed" all this time.
JAMES! It's not a disease! Get someone to cast Neutralize Poison! Cast Neutralize Poison!
JAMES! It's not a disease! Get someone to cast Neutralize Poison! Cast Neutralize Poison!
Shh shh shh shh shhhhhh... no need to upset yourselves. It's far too late for that.
Shh shh shh shh shhhhhh... no need to upset yourselves. It's far too late for that.
JAMES! It's not a disease! Get someone to cast Neutralize Poison! Cast Neutralize Poison!
That's funny. You are a sick sick man. You see the movie, "The Young Poisoner's Handbook"?
That's funny. You are a sick sick man. You see the movie, "The Young Poisoner's Handbook"?
I will have next week! Thanks Netflix and thanks DN!
I will have next week! Thanks Netflix and thanks DN!
Watch out Paizo, or Wes will soon have the editor-in-chief, publisher, technical director, and CEO titles attached to his name. :P
Watch out Paizo, or Wes will soon have the editor-in-chief, publisher, technical director, and CEO titles attached to his name. :P
Works for the drow, don't it? :P
Watch out Paizo, or Wes will soon have the editor-in-chief, publisher, technical director, and CEO titles attached to his name. :P
Dude. No one--NO ONE--wants that, least of all me.
Watch out Paizo, or Wes will soon have the editor-in-chief, publisher, technical director, and CEO titles attached to his name. :PDude. No one--NO ONE--wants that, least of all me.
Yeah, right. It's the old "I'm the best guy for the leadership role because I don't want the leadership role ploy". ;) Add in a healthy dose of poison and ... profit!
Mary, can you provide a link for the stuff that was cut? I haven't seen it and my search-fu is weak today.
Um. Have you seen the material about the Runelord of Gluttony that had to come out of _Hook Mountain_? Inventive, yes. Depraved, definitely. An idea to use somewhere, I have no doubt. But in _Hook Mountain_? Dear gods, that would have brought the AP to a sudden catastrophic halt.
Mary
It's in the "Artifacts of Thassilon" PDF: Zutha's book. If I recall correctly, Logue said somewhere on the boards that that was originally in Hook Mountain as a side plot.
Mary
It's in the "Artifacts of Thassilon" PDF: Zutha's book. If I recall correctly, Logue said somewhere on the boards that that was originally in Hook Mountain as a side plot.
Yeah, it was this HUGE side thing, we even ordered art for it. I think Mammy Graul originally had the book. But, at the end of the day, when we laid out the adventure and it was several pages over, we decided to bump this very modular section into the “Magic of Thassilon” article we had planned for #5. And then when it proved too massive for even that, we moved it into the web supplement.
You're right, though. Neat neat neat idea, and if you want Zutha’s book in your game, you've got everything you need to use it. But it seemed to derail the main story so we put it somewhere else.
This, by the way--the whole Zutha's Book thing and even a short adventure built around it--I do NOT think would make for a good Set Piece. These short adventures are meant to tie into the Adventure Path, both in plot and theme, and something like adding major element of another runelord out of no where does little to help further the goals of PCs playing Hook Mountain Massacre. It’s also way to epic to handle properly in just 8 pages. Props to Nick and everything for the cool idea, though, I honestly wish we could have found a more substantial home for it, but we’ve got plans…
Yeah, I can see how it would have sent people haring off after the wrong Runelord there. Other than that, I don't really see the problem with it.
Magic item that's actually a death trap? Very first edition.