Agents of Edgewatch Player’s Guide Is Now Available!

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

The free Agents of Edgewatch Player’s Guide is now available! Player characters take on the role of rookie watch guards in the magnificent city of Absalom, where anything is possible—including the nefarious workings of dastardly criminals! It’s up to the Edgewatch to protect the city, a task made all the more important with this century’s Radiant Festival fully underway. From ex-gladiatorial fighters to cosmopolitan druids, a wide array of adventurers can find a calling as protectors of Absalom’s people. This player’s guide contains spoiler-free advice to prepare your characters for the challenges and opportunities ahead in Agents of Edgewatch.

In addition to advice on how to build your characters so they fit into the ranks of the Edgewatch, this player’s guide includes a host of new character backgrounds to represent which city precinct you served in before transferring to Edgewatch. Whether you were a prodigy from the Learned Guard, an ex-acolyte who joined the Graycloaks after losing the faith, or a tough-as-nails detective from the Puddles, you’ll find your unique skills useful as you guard the newly revitalized Precipice Quarter from dangers both commonplace and out-of-this-world. To help orient yourself, the back of the player’s guide provides details on Absalom, the City at the Center of the World, including a map and descriptions of each of the city’s richly varied districts.

Due to the sensitive nature of roleplaying as city watch members in an Adventure Path, this player’s guide includes new required rules for players as well as guidance for Game Masters on how to mitigate or eliminate potentially upsetting aspects of the campaign—including running the campaign without roleplaying as city guards. This advice is intended to ensure that you have a safe, fun time playing Agents of Edgewatch.


The following is just one of the 10 new character backgrounds in this player’s guide.

Learned Guard Prodigy — Background

For some, the nuts and bolts of keeping the peace are practically second nature. Such is the case for you, a member of the Learned Guard with an incredible mind for investigation as well as a gift for understanding magic. You probably aren’t a hit with your peers, who find your intellect and natural gift of deduction perhaps a bit off-putting, but when left to your own devices you excel, and you get along well with professors and mages such as those who work in Forae Logos or the Arcanamirium.

After no shortage of debating the pros and cons, you decided to transfer to the Edgewatch precinct. Sure, you have a keen understanding of the theories and principles behind law enforcement, but you’ve reasoned that in order to be a truly effective guard you’ll need some first-hand experience in a high-risk area nabbing suspects and protecting innocents—all the while taking fastidious notes and writing your grand thesis on the merits and shortcomings of Absalom’s laws.

Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Intelligence or Wisdom, and one is a free ability boost.

You’re trained in your choice of the Arcana or Occultism skill, as well as Legal Lore. You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidation checks to interact with Learned Guards and with academics such as librarians and scholars. You gain the Recognize Spell skill feat.

There’s never a dull moment in the city of Absalom, and as a member of the Edgewatch you’ll have your hands full as you rescue citizens and travelers alike from villainous criminals. Make sure you’re prepared to save the day with the Agents of Edgewatch Player’s Guide!

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Agents of Edgewatch Pathfinder Pathfinder Adventure Path Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition
251 to 296 of 296 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Rysky wrote:
Not even in the vicinity.

Then I'll bite: What classification of fantasy would you give the entire system?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Riobux wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Quote:
A light-hearted fantasy

*reads Player’s Guide*

*tilts head*

So, you believe Pathfinder 2nd is not intended as light-hearted fantasy?

I believe that all Pathfinder has always been fantasy.

Whether it's light-hearted has also always varied wildly from game to game...but Pathfinder has always tended much more towards the darker end than D&D usually does.

Shadow Lodge

Data Lore wrote:
If this has as much roleplay and eschews combat as much as, say, Hell's Rebels, it might be alright.

. . . HR was a perfectly standard Pathfinder AP, and by no means "eschewed combat." Are you thinking of WftC?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Fun and light-hearted don't have to be the same thing for the larger point that Riobux was making to be true.

The default assumption of players with PF2 is that they will be able to build any character they want and that they will be able to use that character's abilities in the game.

Yes every AP has its own focus and makes some abilities better than others/see more use, but it seems unlikely that AoE, written a year ago, was designed around taking combat completely out of the picture. We have been told that the adventure revolves around investigating a cult that is probably up to unspeakable acts of evil that has to be stopped, and will have some members who are so dedicated to the cause that they will never listen to reason, and they will be very quick to take the lives of innocent people, possible actively seeking to do so, not even for any kind of political expediency.

In other words, even the party that is most passionately dedicated to non-violent conflict resolution is very likely to be confronted by villains who motives fall entirely into the realm of fantastically (as in beyond the scope of reality, not as a synonym to good) supernatural evil, that will be using violence proactively, demonstrating a level of threat that completely removes this game from any of the concerns about real world law enforcement.

Violence is very likely going to be a necessary part of this campaign, as written, for most parties that play it. That said, Paizo has clearly rethought its position on whether the necessity of some violence, justifies the use of lethal violence by default, in a fantasy world where the ability to differentiate between lethal violence and nonlethal violence is absolute and mechanically determined.

Maybe some people would have preferred for Paizo to have to completely reinvent the wheel in less than a month, offering a whole new list of non-lethal weapons and spells and combat options that would fit along side what already existed, but if they leave out whole weapon groups and spell schools, than a lot of players are going to feel like the characters they want to play are not going to be possible in this campaign.

I am hoping to get to be a player in this campaign, and plan on designing a character focused around nonviolent conflict resolution and a combat style built around harm reduction and minimizing the effects of violence, but I am also someone who has spent 2 decades actively working to put a stop to state violences. For people like me, taking the game to that level of consideration sounds fun, but if the AP is designed only to be playable by people like me, it is going to have an infinitesimally small target audience.

A lot of people will want to play a more traditional D&D game with a focus on investigating a terrible and dangerous plot, using the themes of the law for guidance, but not wanting to have to spend every choice and resource their character gets on respecting that theme and not doing what will be most fun in the mechanical challenges their character will face.

The default nonlethal damage for the edgewatch makes the campaign accessible to all players without opening the door of "we couldn't think of a way not to kill them," as something that will result in the party participating in wholesale state-sanctioned killing as a default mode of operandi.

It is much better for tables to decide to place the onus of figuring out how they would like to handle that if they allow for the party to have to weigh the costs of lethal violence, than to throw something else hastily together and try to make that work in a respectful manner for all tables.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


I believe that all Pathfinder has always been fantasy.

Whether it's light-hearted has also always varied wildly from game to game...but Pathfinder has always tended much more towards the darker end than D&D usually does.

I confess I'm gunning at this from a pretty wide picture here. I'm cheating a little by throwing Pathfinder 1st into the mix (so using their APs and splat books) and using the phrase "intended" rather than "is" (which draws motive into play). Not to toot my own horn, but I like to think I have a wide varied reading of RPG systems. From Warhammer Fantasy 3rd & 4th, to Iron Kingdoms, to Age of Conan, splash of D&D 3.5, 4th and 5th. That's not to speak of the non-fantasy systems, including where Kult 4th now inhabits this bleak spot in my brain now which is nightmare fuel in RPG form.

What I'm driving at in my awkward way is I think of all the fantasy and systems I have read, and comparatively on the spectrum Pathfinder feels light, even when things get a bit grim. There's this clear intent of the "right thing to do" and it tends to stray away from morally dubious territory. It doesn't always connect, but the intention is there and it usually connects so I do consider it comparatively light-fantasy where I wouldn't expect intense moral analysis that you may find in your Vampire the Masquarades. There is an assumed ethical belief walking in, and you're going to be safe from things that violate that. I actually try to think of lighter-toned systems, and there is D&D 5th, Iron Claw and maybe 7th Sea if you don't think too hard what's going on in Eisen and Ussura. Besides that, well, other fantasy systems I know come with a greater disregard of life and people will do pretty terrible things just to live while coming out as morally grey for the setting.

I totally agree the variation of AP style is there, and there are some APs that I'd struggle to call light-hearted (e.g. Carrion Crown) but I do still think of the system as comparatively light-hearted in the big picture in intent, where the focus is on fun, ethics and great stories.

Unicore wrote:
Maybe some people would have preferred for Paizo to have to completely reinvent the wheel in less than a month, offering a whole new list of non-lethal weapons and spells and combat options that would fit along side what already existed, but if they leave out whole weapon groups and spell schools, than a lot of players are going to feel like the characters they want to play are not going to be possible in this campaign.

I suspect this was always going to be the biggest hurdle in making Agents of Edgewatch to be what people hope to be, within a month of recent events and while operating in a mechanical system more combat-orientated than roleplay-orientated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
That said, Paizo has clearly rethought its position on whether the necessity of some violence, justifies the use of lethal violence by default,

In the "Fall Of Plaguestone", announced in early March, 2019 , the first encounter is designed so characters have to use lethal attacks to survive.

But the instructions to the GM before the second encounter are:

Quote:
For this encounter, you might want to refresh yourself on the rules for nonlethal attacks on page 453 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

And after the encounter:

Quote:
If anyone was death lethal wounds during the fight they pull through, although the sheriff has strong words for anyone who resorted to such tactics on mostly helpless farm folk.

Obviously Paizo was thinking about these issues before PF2 even launched, if your first fight with humanoids explicitly says to use nonlethal tactics


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Fun and light-hearted don't have to be the same thing for the larger point that Riobux was making to be true.

The default assumption of players with PF2 is that they will be able to build any character they want and that they will be able to use that character's abilities in the game.

Yes every AP has its own focus and makes some abilities better than others/see more use, but it seems unlikely that AoE, written a year ago, was designed around taking combat completely out of the picture. We have been told that the adventure revolves around investigating a cult that is probably up to unspeakable acts of evil that has to be stopped, and will have some members who are so dedicated to the cause that they will never listen to reason, and they will be very quick to take the lives of innocent people, possible actively seeking to do so, not even for any kind of political expediency.

In other words, even the party that is most passionately dedicated to non-violent conflict resolution is very likely to be confronted by villains who motives fall entirely into the realm of fantastically (as in beyond the scope of reality, not as a synonym to good) supernatural evil, that will be using violence proactively, demonstrating a level of threat that completely removes this game from any of the concerns about real world law enforcement.

Violence is very likely going to be a necessary part of this campaign, as written, for most parties that play it. That said, Paizo has clearly rethought its position on whether the necessity of some violence, justifies the use of lethal violence by default, in a fantasy world where the ability to differentiate between lethal violence and nonlethal violence is absolute and mechanically determined.

Maybe some people would have preferred for Paizo to have to completely reinvent the wheel in less than a month, offering a whole new list of non-lethal weapons and spells and combat options that would fit along side what already existed, but if they leave out whole weapon groups and spell...

To bolster part of your argument, from the blurbs for the individual adventures, at least part of the time later on, the PCs are going to be on their own without their legal authority or the ease of arresting people and having them locked up. I'm not sure how reasonable it'll be at that point to keep handwaving the "We've beat them, now they're out of the way" without any such facilities.

That said, it shouldn't have been just a month, since it should have been obvious from the concept of the AP that non-lethal and diplomatic options would need to be a big part of it. Even without the current political context, police are supposed to be arresting people, not killing them in cold blood. Some focus on that should have been in there from the start.
And I suspect it was. The protests just made them realize it wasn't sufficient and they should go farther.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

{. . .}

Maybe some people would have preferred for Paizo to have to completely reinvent the wheel in less than a month, offering a whole new list of non-lethal weapons and spells and combat options that would fit along side what already existed, but if they leave out whole weapon groups and spell schools, than a lot of players are going to feel like the characters they want to play are not going to be possible in this campaign.
{. . .}

Actually, this sounds like not a bad idea, except to have done it in the first place rather than in the month before. This is for no other reason than that you' d expect a police force to have a standardized set of weapons and spells (as well as training) for nonlethal takedowns, for entirely practical reasons, even if not Good.

Of course, I would have liked to have seen this fleshed out more for Lawful organizations like the Hellknights in general, even though these are not technically police.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Unicore wrote:

{. . .}

Maybe some people would have preferred for Paizo to have to completely reinvent the wheel in less than a month, offering a whole new list of non-lethal weapons and spells and combat options that would fit along side what already existed, but if they leave out whole weapon groups and spell schools, than a lot of players are going to feel like the characters they want to play are not going to be possible in this campaign.
{. . .}

Actually, this sounds like not a bad idea, except to have done it in the first place rather than in the month before. This is for no other reason than that you' d expect a police force to have a standardized set of weapons and spells (as well as training) for nonlethal takedowns, for entirely practical reasons, even if not Good.

Of course, I would have liked to have seen this fleshed out more for Lawful organizations like the Hellknights in general, even though these are not technically police.

My guess is that there were going to be a few, there might even still be some in the back matter of the first book, but that, especially in retrospect, it was not nearly going to be enough to fill the gaps enough to make it clear that the PCs were not going to be allowed to use lethal weapons against anyone that attacked them, even with lethal weapons, that they could possibly have taken with nonlethal force.

The Fantasy law enforcement of Absalom is being held to a fantastically high standard: Never use lethal force unless there is literally no other alternative. I think that is pretty awesome. I also appreciate the developers deciding to err to the side of making this fantastically high standard feel fun, rather than restrictive to the majority of players.


zimmerwald1915 wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
If this has as much roleplay and eschews combat as much as, say, Hell's Rebels, it might be alright.
. . . HR was a perfectly standard Pathfinder AP, and by no means "eschewed combat." Are you thinking of WftC?

Must have been the way our group played it. Way more RP than fights. Also, wanting to avoid Notoriety led to alot of "fight avoidance."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Riobux wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Not even in the vicinity.
Then I'll bite: What classification of fantasy would you give the entire system?

I mean, one of the whole points that Golarion is such a hodgepodge of different thematic areas is so that Pathfinder can be whatever kind of fantasy you want it to be.

And even so, if you decide to set your game in "the spooooooky zone" (Ustalav, and near the Eye of Terror) you can still set the tone anywhere from "farcical" to "grim."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Pathfinder can be classified as "light-hearted" because the standard rules don't incorporate many details which would lead away from that classification: the default mode of play sees parties face off against gruesome monsters, certainly, but the "heroes" can bounce back quickly from defeat and there aren't much in the way of lasting consequences.

Comparing that to a game like Hackmaster in which long-lasting consequences, scars both mental and physical, can even be a part of character creation because they are so ingrained in the rules of the game, you can see a difference.

In both games you could have a party face a bear in combat and defeat the bear but one party member got a bad shake of what a bear can dish out, but survived - and the results are wildly different from Pathfinder to Hackmaster, as the former has a story but is absolutely fine otherwise and the later could easily have lost an eye and 3 fingers and developed a permanent limp on top of having a story to tell.

Of course, mechanics are only one factor in the "is it light-hearted?" question - attitude is another. Pathfinder can, thanks to it's light-hearted mechanics, swing across a wide range of attitudes with very little effort. Whereas a game with much less light-hearted mechanics to it can easily handle being even less light-hearted, but can't really easily go the other direction as well - since it's harder to have a light-hearted attitude when "Marco got blinded by a kobold, and Shmitt shattered a leg falling in a pit trap... so we're looking to hire some new party members."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say PF2 mechanics emphasize threat and Paizo themes often highlight loss and darkness. I would not call PF light hearted.

The mechanics, such as the wounded condition and the condition system in general, are far more hardcore than 5e or even Savage World's comparable systems. Those would be much more "light hearted" mechanically by my estimation.

The adventures published by Paizo tend to feature far more gritty themes than those other systems as well. Savage Worlds adventures tend to be light hearted in that they feel like serialized fiction from the 50s/60s (in particular their best, 50 Fathoms, and stuff like Deadlands). 5e are very much traditional fantasy. Even Strahd, their horror module, is not really all that horrific.

By comparison, Paizo tends to do alot with darker themes other company's tend to sidestep in some (though not all) of their APs - especially the urban ones. I don't want to post spoilers though, so I will leave it at that.

I would say that knowing how gritty Paizo writing can get, I hope they tread at least somewhat carefully when doing an AP that grants PCs police powers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just give everyone a +1 truncheon and leave it at that.

EDIT: And maybe a whistle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

With absolutely no ill will or cruel intentions, I think you can look at the other thread in this AP's subforum and see that there is a large percentage of players looking to approach every PF2 campaign from a place of levity, if not light-heartedness. Players want to have exploring the character creation and building process, as well as link that to the overall story, it is one of the major selling points of PF2 over less rules inclined systems.

I really think the developers hit the nail on the head with their response to a difficult situation of their own making (in not taking these things into more careful consideration from the beginning).

In the end, I think turning the overall default damage mechanic of PF2 into one where the players decide whether they are making lethal attacks or not without a bunch of rules mucking that up will make for much more interesting and heroic play. I will be adopting this as a house rule for all of my campaigns. PF2 is not a gritty system. The wounded mechanic builds tension in the heat of the moment, but it doesn't last or create any long term complexities for the players. Most players rightfully want to immediately start using magic to heal wounded NPCs that are supposed to be wounded for plot reasons and not mechanical ones, and have to be encouraged into suspending their disbelief from the assumption that a medicine check and maybe a heal spell should have anyone back up and ready for action.

Grand Lodge

Im not concerned with the handwaiving of the attack penalty for using a lethal weapon nonlethally. I think a lot of people can make the argument that the penalty is unnecessary both from a game perspective and a realistic one. Personally, I think it should be a damage penalty as opposed to an attack penalty anyway. Most weapons are not more difficult to wield if you are “pulling your punch” but the damage is generally significantly reduced. Though I admit I’ve had a similar issue with charging in 1E. The idea you are less accurate is marginally sensical, but the lack of a damage boost related to increased momentum hurts both my gaming and physics sensibilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
In the end, I think turning the overall default damage mechanic of PF2 into one where the players decide whether they are making lethal attacks or not without a bunch of rules mucking that up will make for much more interesting and heroic play.

That's how D&D5 works out of the box, isn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty late to the conversation here, and I admit that I've only skimmed the thread, but if I ever run this AP I will change the non-lethal rule by introducing two feats:
- Players can always choose whether to do lethal or non-lethal damage, without penalty
- Players gain a bonus to rolls to de-escalate conflicts.
Both feats are free for all players in the AP as standard law-enforcement training.

My problem with the rule as it stands now is that some (many?) players will continue to play as they always have, but will simply be less effective at it. They will still stab people to fix situations; they are just bad at it, comically so. These feats would instead change play behavior by introducing special training. The players CHOOSE and are empowered to use non-lethal force and de-escalation techniques, which to me is a big distinction to simply handwaiving that they always do non-lethal damage.

This opens up opportunities for players to use lethal force where they shouldn't, but that behavior needs to be discussed before the AP anyway, regardless of what rule stands.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The one bit of advice I was looking for that I didn't see is "what if some people want to play officers, and some people don't?" As in, how do you handle a mixed party here? How to adjust the narrative for having both Starsky & Hutch and Nick & Nora Charles in the Party?

Just make them "police consultants." Like Monk or Sherlock Holmes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


The default assumption of players with PF2 is that they will be able to build any character they want and that they will be able to use that character's abilities in the game.

Players assuming that without consultation with the GM about the specific campaign they will be playing is a major problem; you cannot have a campaign with any defined theme, style or flavour without also thereby also constructing a negative space of elements possible in PF that do not fit it so well and want to be discouraged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Unicore wrote:


The default assumption of players with PF2 is that they will be able to build any character they want and that they will be able to use that character's abilities in the game.
Players assuming that without consultation with the GM about the specific campaign they will be playing is a major problem; you cannot have a campaign with any defined theme, style or flavour without also thereby also constructing a negative space of elements possible in PF that do not fit it so well and want to be discouraged.

True, but I can see the desire for the company not to rule out too much in terms of mechanics. GMs can take it further, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it funny that carpet bombing the area with fireballs is now a legitimate tactic in hostage situations.

Humbly,
Yawar

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

It always was with Selective Spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Selective Spell would require line of sight in order to reliably know which spaces to exclude and its a 10th level minimum feat. Now, due to their special level 1 training, they can fire with reckless abandon despite human shields with bomb or spell. The unintentional dissonance is funny, to say the least.

I am not saying that Paizo is encouraging PCs to disregard hostages and bystanders physical integrity, it is just some weird rule interaction with in-game logic, like how it was easier for siblings to develop romantic feelings in Jade Regent. Personally I would expect heavy roleplaying consequences for any PC trying to do this, Gameplay and Story Segregation if you will.

Humbly,
Yawar


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's my idea: reverse the penalties for lethal vs nonlethal damage.

I remember back when pro wrestler CM Punk tried to get into MMA. The biggest difficulty was that he was trained, and became very good at, executing moves and maneuvers that look damaging, but not really hurting his "opponent". Those instincts kept kicking in, and it ultimately hindered him when in an environment where he was trying to hurt his opponent.

It would not be unreasonable to presume that the same would apply here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YawarFiesta wrote:

Selective Spell would require line of sight in order to reliably know which spaces to exclude and its a 10th level minimum feat. Now, due to their special level 1 training, they can fire with reckless abandon despite human shields with bomb or spell. The unintentional dissonance is funny, to say the least.

I am not saying that Paizo is encouraging PCs to disregard hostages and bystanders physical integrity, it is just some weird rule interaction with in-game logic, like how it was easier for siblings to develop romantic feelings in Jade Regent. Personally I would expect heavy roleplaying consequences for any PC trying to do this, Gameplay and Story Segregation if you will.

Back in PF1, Merciful Spell metamagic was available from level 1 and didn't even need you to use a higher level spell slot. Non-lethal fireballs were available for a pretty low cost. Which is a closer approximation for what this AP does than Selective Spell.

I would consider Selective Spell to be a reasonable approach to a hostage situation, assuming negotiations had failed - you're using force targetting only the villains who were threatening others. The non-lethal equivalent still wouldn't be - you're assaulting the hostages, even if you don't kill them. It might be justifiable, in some weird edge case, but it doesn't fit the guidelines for this adventure, from what I see in the player's guide.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

As I see it D&D and Pathfinder is chiefly about having fun while fighting monsters.

I would choose between either
a) simply accepting that this AP is just the same, except with "criminals" instead of "monsters".

Or

b) have the AP change the entire paradigm of the game into not chiefly being about fighting. I would then accept that Bards, say, would become massively more useful than, say, Barbarians.

Even if the AP offers new non-lethal options, I expect Bards still coming out ahead of Barbarians, assuming the core rules.

What I feel is outright hypocritical, however, is instituting a blanket rule "you can't kill people" that encourages players to just keep on murderhoboing except the perps magically don't die. The notion of just casting Fireballs everywhere and - once everybody is unconscious - sort out the innocents from the guilty is distasteful to me. It encourages players to play exactly the kind of indiscriminate cops the outrage is all about! It relieves you of having to take ANY kind of responsibility for your actions.

For me to make choice b interesting, mustn't the game and the adventure be about making the hard choices. The same hard choices we want good law enforcement to make?! If you don't even get the -2 non-lethal penalty there is nothing interesting about being a cop, than just a random vigilante.

At some point we need to start discussing the alternative to watering down the idea of playing law enforcement into oblivion:

Not playing or buying this AP at all.

Even without a non-lethal penalty, any focus on diplomatic solutions or even just investigation likely gives bards an advantage over barbarians. I'm okay with that.

I agree with not liking the ability to keep murderhoboing except nobody dies, though I suspect there'll be enough emphasis in the AP itself and some of the other guide suggestions to push back against that. I am wary of the "making the hard choices" approach. My experience is that if you want players to behave a certain way, you need to make it easy and reward them for it, not penalize them. Incentivize what you want to see.

Grand Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

People with the book already said that this rule in the player guide contradicts LOT of options in the AP directly. This was added last minute, and if you don't like it, just ignore it and play the AP as written. Because as written, the AP gives a lot of new options to deal Non-Lethal easily... options that are useless with the Player Guide changes.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
distasteful to me

Then don’t do it in your game. No rule is going to be universally liked by all. The nonlethal suggestion is just Paizo’s attempt to help people navigate what is a sensitive topic. They are not obligated to create rules for every possible gaming group on the planet. GMs are assumed to pick and chose what works for them up to and including dismissing the printed suggestions and doing their own thing.


thejeff wrote:
YawarFiesta wrote:

Selective Spell would require line of sight in order to reliably know which spaces to exclude and its a 10th level minimum feat. Now, due to their special level 1 training, they can fire with reckless abandon despite human shields with bomb or spell. The unintentional dissonance is funny, to say the least.

I am not saying that Paizo is encouraging PCs to disregard hostages and bystanders physical integrity, it is just some weird rule interaction with in-game logic, like how it was easier for siblings to develop romantic feelings in Jade Regent. Personally I would expect heavy roleplaying consequences for any PC trying to do this, Gameplay and Story Segregation if you will.

Back in PF1, Merciful Spell metamagic was available from level 1 and didn't even need you to use a higher level spell slot. Non-lethal fireballs were available for a pretty low cost. Which is a closer approximation for what this AP does than Selective Spell.

{. . .}

Do keep in mind that in 1st Edition (for which I am Trained), Merciful Spell wouldn't necessarily avoid civilian deaths, because non-lethal damage beyond a creatures maximum hit points became lethal (which, as I noted several posts ago, actually seems at least semi-realistic, not just cinematic). In 2nd Edition (for which I am admittedly Untrained, and the navigation in both SRDs seems harder), I have not found any such equivalent rule.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
thejeff wrote:
YawarFiesta wrote:

Selective Spell would require line of sight in order to reliably know which spaces to exclude and its a 10th level minimum feat. Now, due to their special level 1 training, they can fire with reckless abandon despite human shields with bomb or spell. The unintentional dissonance is funny, to say the least.

I am not saying that Paizo is encouraging PCs to disregard hostages and bystanders physical integrity, it is just some weird rule interaction with in-game logic, like how it was easier for siblings to develop romantic feelings in Jade Regent. Personally I would expect heavy roleplaying consequences for any PC trying to do this, Gameplay and Story Segregation if you will.

Back in PF1, Merciful Spell metamagic was available from level 1 and didn't even need you to use a higher level spell slot. Non-lethal fireballs were available for a pretty low cost. Which is a closer approximation for what this AP does than Selective Spell.

{. . .}

Do keep in mind that in 1st Edition (for which I am Trained), Merciful Spell wouldn't necessarily avoid civilian deaths, because non-lethal damage beyond a creatures maximum hit points became lethal (which, as I noted several posts ago, actually seems at least semi-realistic, not just cinematic). In 2nd Edition (for which I am admittedly Untrained, and the navigation in both SRDs seems harder), I have not found any such equivalent rule.

True.

Grand Archive

I just read through the player's guide and noticed it mentions every class!...except one. Where are monks in the guide? Do they not fit in in Absalom or the guard?


zer0darkfire wrote:
I just read through the player's guide and noticed it mentions every class!...except one. Where are monks in the guide? Do they not fit in in Absalom or the guard?

I had to go look it up after you mentioned it but you are right. They don't mention monks. They should make decent guards or detectives I guess. I already have a player planning to be one so I guess we will see.

Grand Archive

Zioalca wrote:
zer0darkfire wrote:
I just read through the player's guide and noticed it mentions every class!...except one. Where are monks in the guide? Do they not fit in in Absalom or the guard?
I had to go look it up after you mentioned it but you are right. They don't mention monks. They should make decent guards or detectives I guess. I already have a player planning to be one so I guess we will see.

I noticed it also doesn't mention ranger, but they are definitely part of the guard right? I know word space is limited and not every class is going to be mentioned every time, especially since new ones are coming out later, but it just feels a bit odd to get them all but two. Ranger especially feels fitting, but I'm really curious how monks interact with joining the guard since they don't seem like the stereotypical guard to me (no armor, no weapons probably, etc).


I have a technical question regarding the AP! Certain NPC officers in the sidebar "Faces of Edgewatch" are written as being "human officer" and "dwarf senior officer". I could not find a statblock for either of these, nor the "Investigator" NPC, though I suspect she is using the player class so perhaps I should expect to build her myself.

Am I missing something here?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah the base (Ancestry, occupation/class, level) is just a benchmark if you do need to build them or use a check for anything, otherwise they would get a full statblock like other prominent NPCs.

Liberty's Edge

NPCs no longer inherently have PC Classes or even specific NPC Classes, being built in the same way as monsters are. However, it can still be useful to know what rough level of capabilities a particular NPC has, even if there's not room for a stat block...hence those NPCs being given a rough description and level.

If their stats become relevant you will need to build them, probably using the Monster Creation rules in the GMG, though the PC rules are also technically allowable.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, if we give an NPC's level, you can pretty much determine ALL of their rules-facing numbers (saving throws, AC, Hit Points, skill checks, attack rolls, DCs, etc) by simply looking at table 10–5 in the core rules. What we call the NPC, be it soldier or fighter or mercenary or barber or snakecharmer or toadie or astronaut is pretty much just flavor if we're doing a short stat block. By giving a few more key words (alignment, ancestry, gender, etc.) we can in a few words overall give a GM all they need to get started building that stat block super quickly if your PCs decide to attack them or charm them or sneak by them or whatever.

Dark Archive

So based on first book, are any of APG ancestries appropriate for this ap? The player's guide just recommends core ancestries but wondering if orcs or such would work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
So based on first book, are any of APG ancestries appropriate for this ap? The player's guide just recommends core ancestries but wondering if orcs or such would work.

Kobolds would certainly be amusing. "Kobolds are showing up as Pathfinders and construction workers...." (sees kobold PC) "And now they are even cops! They're all over the place!"

Catfolk and ratfolk don't seem to be native to Absalom City, but regions where they are relatively common aren't that far away, according to the map in the Player Companion Blood of the Beast.

Same goes for aasimars and tieflings, according to a similar map in Bastards of Golarion.

Given how Absalom City is this big metropolis that is the trading center of the world, I wouldn't see a good reason to exclude any ancestry from this AP unless there is lore that clearly keeps them from interacting with the civilized areas of the Inner Sea in very recent years.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the whole points of Absalom being the so-called "City at the Center of the World" is that "Appropriate Ancestry" is "any, subject to GM approval."


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And for inspiration, just dig up some old TV shows like "Alien Nation" and "Forever Knight" or any of the later Watch novels by Terry Pratchett. Policemen of odd ancestries are practically a given for this genre.

And if you are going for a non-police option, another inspiration would be the Paternoster Gang from Doctor Who.

Dark Archive

I mean appropriate in sense of "you see other members of your ancestry in adventure so you feel like you aren't only one in entire island" since player's guide warns that you might feel alone depending on what you pick ^^;

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean appropriate in sense of "you see other members of your ancestry in adventure so you feel like you aren't only one in entire island" since player's guide warns that you might feel alone depending on what you pick ^^;

If you go with an ancestry not in the player's guide, then hopefully your GM will chat with you and will adjust things as needed to give your character the right feeling place.


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

Does anyone know what the creature is that replaced the fetus in the player's guide?

It's a guinea pig/hamster/beaver looking animal that isn't any of those things (according to searches for those terms in AoN)

251 to 296 of 296 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Agents of Edgewatch / Paizo Blog: Agents of Edgewatch Player’s Guide Is Now Available! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Agents of Edgewatch