2E APs missing something...?

Is it just me or are 2E APs missing something?

Extinction Curse: You're working at a circus... except every character class is welcome and you can have exactly the standard kind of adventures where you do exactly the same thing as in other adventures!

Agents of Edgewatch: You're working as members of the city watch... except every character class is welcome and you can have exactly the standard kind of adventures where you do exactly the same thing as in other adventures!

Fists of the Ruby Phoenix: You have signed up for a martial arts tournament... except every character class is welcome and you can have exactly the standard kind of adventures where you do exactly the same thing as in other adventures!

See any similarities...?

Do people really fall for this advertising, where different APs are made out to be... different when in reality they are very much alike.

If every AP were advertised as a semi-railroaded collection of dungeons where every bog-standard hero (from druid to monk, from wizard to barbarian) battles monsters to be neatly awarded one level per dungeon, it would be much closer to the truth.

Do people really like these (very) thinly skinned takes on the same thing over and over? Why do people need to pretend these dungeon collections are more than they are?

For instance, a martial arts tournament that *actually is a martial arts tournament* where a) you are a martial artist that b) participate in a tournament (akak you can win AND lose). Or a circus adventure where it actually matters that you are a circus performer? Or a law enforcement campaign where you actually act like a law enforcement officer and have law enforcey scenarios?

Sorry not sorry for asking.

Did you actually read any of the adventures?

If every AP were advertised as a semi-railroaded collection of dungeons where every bog-standard hero (from druid to monk, from wizard to barbarian) battles monsters to be neatly awarded one level per dungeon, it would be much closer to the truth.

Hmmmm, guessing you don"t work in advertising? ;D

... or have any real notion of how advertising works in concept or execution.

There's no reason any character class cannot become a circus performer, a police officer, or a martial artist. A person's job and their class are not related. Some classes are better at certain jobs than others, but people take up unsuitable jobs all the time.

Though, there is a sidebar in Ruby Phoenix for what happens if the PCs wash out of the tournament. Some of it boils down to 'Let the wookie win' or 'You gotta deal with that for sure.' I'd like to see a scenario where the PCs lose the tournament but still are the heroes who save the book 3 problem. That'd be interesting.

Did you actually read any of the adventures?

Zapp has posted about his character in the Extinction Curse, so he has played it.

... you can have exactly the standard kind of adventures where you do exactly the same thing as in other adventures!

I highlighted the word "can" in the sentence, because that is key.

I have not read through the PF2 adventure paths myself, but I noticed that the PF1 adventure paths have at least two ways to be played. They can be played by following the default plot or they can be played as hack-and-slash, killing enemies without letting them monologue. My players usually invent a third choice.

I guess that Paizo decided that many players like the the standard kind of adventures where the characters do exactly the same thing as in other adventures, so they leave that as an easy option. The circus performers can leave the circus behind and become adventurers. The city watch officers can ignore their chain of command and their responsibilities and become adventurers. The martial arts in a tournament can forget about winning competitions and become adventurers.

That does not mean that every party has to become standard adventurers. I had an interesting turn of events in my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign. The village of Phaendar was supposed to be protected by Nirmathis's Chernasardo Rangers, but that protection was not there. Unfortunately, the Ironfang Legion took out rangers at the beginning of the invasion. No-one knew because the rangers oridinarily kept out of sight. My players decided that their characters would be the new Chernasardo Rangers, despite containing many character classes not typical to the rangers, such as champion, monk, and sorcerer. They hvae the blessing of the few surviving original Chernasardo Rangers. The PCs do not act like standard adventurers; for example, they do not loot every item, sell those items, and buy better gear. They act like official protectors.

And that plot was not even set up in Ironfang Invasion.

Individually, there have been some issues with the PF2 APs that were supposed to have a thematic bent to them. Especially the "what does it mean to be law enforcement?" issue of Agents of Edgewatch, and the way that Extinction cures is probably more compelling as a more traditional adventure that starts off with the PCs belonging to a circus than it is as a campaign centered around running a circus for 20 levels.

But I think you are reading Fists of the Ruby Phoenix the wrong way. I don't think it is supposed to be exclusively a martial arts (as in everyone should be a monk) tournament. It is a fighting Tournament. And every class does have builds that would fit well within that context. It seems like you object to the idea that APs would include any expectation that PCs are going to be asked to contribute to the world around them outside of the one specific theme of the AP, and that really doesn't sound like it would set up very interesting or engaging Adventures.

I don’t understand why you’re so upset that every Class is allowed in these. The game is less than three years old - there’s not that many classes yet! This is to say nothing of how reflavoring is one of the oldest tools at the table, or how Strength of Thousands wants you to be arcane or primal casters.

I’m especially mystified that this upset you in Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, an AP literally about how anyone on Golarion can join and fight.

The Player's Guide for each AP does mention what classes fits thematically or how a class can be used. As the GM you could always limit the classes yourself if you think that makes thematic sense.

I reckon that the place to go for more experimental adventures are the Standalone Adventure products, not the company-flagship Adventure Paths. The Slithering restricts the human ancestry, it's possible that the Night of the Grey Death will focus on infiltration (or not).

OP, is this your criticism of just 2E AP, or did 1E APs also have this problem?

I reckon that the place to go for more experimental adventures are the Standalone Adventure products, not the company-flagship Adventure Paths.

Strength of Thousands has an incredibly specific pitch, gives characters a specific free archetype to help support the fact that it really wants you to be arcane or primal, features years of in-setting time, and goes to space. You’re sure the AP line isn’t experimental?

It’s been less than three years. They’re starting to get weirder.

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

I reckon that the place to go for more experimental adventures are the Standalone Adventure products, not the company-flagship Adventure Paths.

Strength of Thousands has an incredibly specific pitch, gives characters a specific free archetype to help support the fact that it really wants you to be arcane or primal, features years of in-setting time, and goes to space. You’re sure the AP line isn’t experimental?

It’s been less than three years. They’re starting to get weirder.

I think Strength of Thousands is cool and unusual, but I wonder if the OP wouldn't also take issue with it, since it won't outright ban certain classes and may feature dungeons.

I think Standalone Adventures have more potential for risk-taking than Adventure Paths. You can explore a cool concept that maybe can't cover six entire interconnected adventures. For instance, a Standalone Adventure taking place on the moon was published in 2012.

I'm mostly confused about how this is "new" development.

Every single 1e ap allows as playing any class <_< You can be gunslinger in any of them for example :p

Sigh, my comment yesterday has several typographical errors. I blame a bad reaction to my medicines.

Do people really fall for this advertising, where different APs are made out to be... different when in reality they are very much alike.

If every AP were advertised as a semi-railroaded collection of dungeons where every bog-standard hero (from druid to monk, from wizard to barbarian) battles monsters to be neatly awarded one level per dungeon, it would be much closer to the truth.

Let me see, the blurb on The Show Must Go On, the 1st module in Extinction Curse, says,

The Greatest Show on Golarion

When the ringmaster of the Circus of Wayward Wonders is found murdered
moments before the troupe’s debut, daring circus performers must scramble
to arrange a successful show and find the killer. A trail of clues thrusts these
heroes into a web of simmering hatred and scheming fiends and a far-reaching plot to
eradicate life across the Starstone Isles! The Extinction Curse Adventure Path kicks off
with “The Show Must Go On,” a complete adventure for 1st- to 4th-level characters.

The front cover is a montage of two pictures, one of iconic alchemist Fumbus and iconic druid Lini performing in a circus and the other of an angry halfling woman holding a magic staff and a bloody sickle.

The advertising says that the start of the adventure is "daring circus performers" but also says that those performers become heroes who fight fiends. The words offer no guarantee that the PCs stay circus performers forever. It is not misleading.

Besides, running the same circus performance over and over again in different small towns would become boring. The only excitement would be inventing new performances as the character levels up. The Pathfinder classes are designed for adventuring.

Paizo adventure paths are often innovative in their beginnings. They aspire to avoid the cliche opening of many fantasy roleplaying adventures where the party meets a mysterious stranger in a tavern and is hired for a quest. Rise of the Runelords starts with the PCs attending a local festival but goblins raid. Serpent's Skull starts with the PCs shipwrecked on an island. Ironfang Invasion starts with an invasion by a large army, forcing the PCs to hide refugees in the forest. I admit that Jade Regent and Iron Gods start with a standard recruitment for a quest--and those five examples are all of the adventure paths I have played or run.

I believe that the unusual professions of Extinction Curse, Agents of Edgewatch, and Fists of the Ruby Phoenix continue those innovative openings. Do Age of Ashes and Abomination Vaults have standard openings like Jade Regent and Iron Gods, since Zapp did not complain about them?

I believe that the unusual professions of Extinction Curse, Agents of Edgewatch, and Fists of the Ruby Phoenix continue those innovative openings. Do Age of Ashes and Abomination Vaults have standard openings like Jade Regent and Iron Gods, since Zapp did not complain about them?

Abomination vaults has the PCs investigate a ruin at the behest of a local friend in the village.

Age of Ashes has the PCs, already a group, attend a local town's Open Bidding for Adventure Contracts event.

Genuinely curious which character classes would not fit in a circus, all of them seem like they should fit pretty well to me. Which classes are conceptually incompatible with circus performances?

2e APs are fine, sure in some cases they could maybe be a little more exciting structurally but they're not inherently missing something that's present in either 1e APs or even in modules from other systems like 5e. I can definitely understand criticizing elements of how circus stuff in EC can feel like an afterthought but the adventure also explicitly states that it was written that way on purpose to allow the DM to easily remove it if thats not their thing but gives them the rules for if they want to use it throughout the campaign. Most adventure modules are written to be open to all classes and have dungeon crawls and the typical adventuring game loop because that's what the game is built to do

While I've only read most of the first AP, half of the second AP, and forum lurking of other APs, my "missing something" is different than your "samey" examples. For me, it's Theme/Story/ execution overall.

In my case, it is most likely the newer writers. It's not that the material is dull, it just lacks the depth of PF1 APs. 2e APs feel like their targeted at newer players with simplified (again, compared to 1e) stories that are less epic in scope.
To be fair, I don't know how much leeway or creative control some of the newer writers have with their particular AP volumes within the overall outline, so that's a factor I guess.
I may not be a fan of 2e, but a few good APs along the lines of Kingmaker, Carrion Crown, Ironfang, Runelords, Crimson Throne etc would get me to take another look at the system.

In my case, it is most likely the newer writers. It's not that the material is dull, it just lacks the depth of PF1 APs. 2e APs feel like their targeted at newer players with simplified (again, compared to 1e) stories that are less epic in scope.

I guess I differ in my take of the adventure paths so far. I thought Age of Ashes had a very diverse set of challenges (including several that required their own subsystems because the Gamemastery Guide wasn't out yet) and a very grand scope.

The again, I also disagree with the thread starter that the adventure paths play in a samey manner. I've gone through Age of Ashes and have started Agents of Edgewatch, and at least early on in AoE I would say that it indeed feels distinct and very much like a cop story.

I don't agree entirely that the 2e APs are somehow less epic or worse in some ways than the 1e APs.

I mean don't get me wrong, there were absolutely some 1e APs with lots of depth and epic scope, just look at Tyrant's Grasp, Wrath of the Righteous or Return of the Runelords, but that wasn't every 1e AP. The first and arguably most popular AP, rise of the runelords has some major issues imo with how the plot basically doesnt kick in until the 4th book when the main villain is revealed. I still love the runelords stuff but 1e APs weren't cut from a different cloth altogether or better. Extinction Curse literally involves you discovering the remnants of Aroden's legacy and restoring the Isle of Erran before all life on it is wiped out, that seems pretty grand in scope to me, comparable to all the 1e APs and their endings I'd argue. I'm not saying there isn't room for the 2e APs to improve but I keep seeing this sentiment that 2e just doesnt have as good APs as 1e and I don't get it. Fist of the Ruby Phoenix is epic as hell and filled with over the top battles and events that feel truly grand if you want high level fun.

We're still really early on in 2e's lifespan and in 1e we didn't really have a grand amazing collection of APs early on either. There were some home runs yeah but I generally see people being critical of second darkness, legacy of fire and council of thieves. They were then followed by the cult-classic kingmaker and then after that was serpent's skull, another AP that people dont really look at favorably. 2e APs by contrast have been just decent so far, maybe no home-runs have been hit yet but we also haven't had anything really bad yet

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

I reckon that the place to go for more experimental adventures are the Standalone Adventure products, not the company-flagship Adventure Paths.

Strength of Thousands has an incredibly specific pitch, gives characters a specific free archetype to help support the fact that it really wants you to be arcane or primal, features years of in-setting time, and goes to space. You’re sure the AP line isn’t experimental?

It’s been less than three years. They’re starting to get weirder.

Sounds promising.

Perhaps I am not the only one having made the observation above that they are essentially producing extremely standardized adventures with a wafer-thin layer of specificity?

OP, is this your criticism of just 2E AP, or did 1E APs also have this problem?

While I played d20 extensively, very little of that was from any Pathfinder-specific perspective.

So if(?) what you're really saying I should not be surprised since this is just how 1E APs worked too, then fair enough.

keftiu wrote:

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

I reckon that the place to go for more experimental adventures are the Standalone Adventure products, not the company-flagship Adventure Paths.

Strength of Thousands has an incredibly specific pitch, gives characters a specific free archetype to help support the fact that it really wants you to be arcane or primal, features years of in-setting time, and goes to space. You’re sure the AP line isn’t experimental?

It’s been less than three years. They’re starting to get weirder.

Sounds promising.

Perhaps I am not the only one having made the observation above that they are essentially producing extremely standardized adventures with a wafer-thin layer of specificity?

Volume 2 of Age of Ashes is maybe my favorite adventure Paizo has ever put out, featuring both “help gay elf dads fall in love” and “anti-colonial Fantasy African pointcrawl.” Volume 5 of Extinction curse features an underground desert full of undead drow and translucent-skinned daemonic nihilism-cultists plus introduces radiation damage. Ruby Phoenix starts at level 10 and has characters from parts of Golarion we’ve never seen before.

None of the APs have been a thematic home run for me, but they’re plenty diverse.

I think there is bit of "Its old enough to feel nostalgic for, so I assume old thing was somehow inherently better than the newer thing" dealio here <_<

I don't really get idea of how 2e aps are somehow less epic in scope when uh... They go higher levels than 1e did. Like every sixth ap book in 2e has bigger scope than any of 1e books did besides wrath and returns. (and arguably Tyrant's Grasp and Strange Aeons in a way)

None of the 1e Pathfinder APs are old enough to be nostalgic for me. That spot is reserved for the old AD&D modules and maybe some of the older campaign settings like the FR Grey box, or Planescape.

Going higher in level also doesn't translate to better crafted stories that have potential to branch out on different directions at different points during the campaign. Some had some incredible set pieces that people still talk about (like the rooftop chase in CoCT, the Murder play in Cot, etc).
It also feels like the older APs were also more of a framework to expand and change as much as a linear path requiring more GM input, though this is probably seen as a negative by many who don't want to put in the extra work to make it their own (even though the same GMs probably strip-mine the forums because notable posters made some legendary changes to be shared by all) .

Like I said before, the newer APs seem more simplified and "direct" (for lack of a better term), not so much the variance of a specific theme, or half abandoned one like the previously mentioned circus.
It's more than a few things, imho.

<_< And I thought everyone hates 1e chase scenes based on forum comments. (kidding aside I do like the one in crimson throne)

Anyway, kidding asides, that still seems pretty biased take on me even if ye say yer nostalgia is reserved for even older stuff.

Like, I'd need concrete examples and analysis to buy that "it just was less simple back then" as someone who has run/played 6+ different aps to completion. They don't really stand out as more complex or "less linear/more branching" to me.

The first two examples that pop into my head about "branching out" are mid to late Kingmaker and Council of Thieves.

Kingmaker could branch into a pretty large political tangent within the River Kingdoms with Pitax, Molthune, etc.
Council of Thieves can turn into a full on rebellion and possible liberation of Westcrown if the GM is creative enough (based on the character personalities we had in our pbp, it could have easily went there). Granted a free Westcrown would have likely not lasted long as the campaign wasn't built to be Hell's Rebels.

Btw, I'm not trying to sell you anything. It's all a matter of opinion, and you're not obligated to "buy" into it. :)

Eeeeeh, isn't that all about player creativity?

Like yeah, kingmaker is pretty easy to get in tangent because players are rulers of nations in sandbox campaign, but ap itself kind of pretends nations outside hex map don't exist.

Council of Thieves on otherhand is very linear ap that tries to be roleplaying heavy but- okay I just say it directly: It tries to be Curse of the Crimson Throne but does it worse. The ap advertises itself to "rebellion in cheliax!" players, but then its more of "Actually your goal is to end the shadow beast curse". And even then its actually about "political activists discover conspiracy involving mafia faction and vampire faction"

But yeah I know ye aren't trying to sell the opinion, but I do like to at least attempt understanding other opinions. My main disagreement here isn't that you can't get on tangent to different direction in ap, I just don't agree that its harder in 2e.

In that vein, though, I do see that there are less overarching subsystems so far in 2e. Extinction Curse has the Circus minigame, and Age of Ashes had the castle building one, but there hasn't been anything like Hell's Rebel's Rebellion system, War for the Crown's Facet minigame (and Empress Influence), Kingmaker's Kingdom building, Jade Regent's Caravan, Mummy's Mask Research, Iron God's Technological Gear, Ironfang Invasion's Militia system (which is the Rebellion mechanism tuned up) and etc. Now, they encapsulated a lot of subsystems in PF2 with the Victory point mechanism so we don't need custom gimmicks as often. And with the release of the new edition they've been printing a lot of other material so I can understand not wanting to overly complicate the AP with things like that.

But the presence of those systems certainly adds a distinct flavor to those APs.

I want Strength of Thousands to have a Tenure Track minigame because I'm that way.

I mean I do think its kinda overstated how many sub mechanics 1e has.

Like caravan system in jade regent is used about as much as the circus is used.

Technology isn't really subsystem but type of gear category.

Ironfang Invasion doesn't actually incorporate militia system, it just provides some rewards you can get for it in sidebar if you want to use it.

(in general, ye listed almost every ap with dedicated subsystem there missing only ships and mythic. Though influence and research are more general subsystems multiple have used iirc)

Council of Thieves on otherhand is very linear ap that tries to be roleplaying heavy but- okay I just say it directly: It tries to be Curse of the Crimson Throne but does it worse. The ap advertises itself to "rebellion in cheliax!" players, but then its more of "Actually your goal is to end the shadow beast curse". And even then its actually about "political activists discover conspiracy involving mafia faction and vampire faction"

I kinda saw Council of Thieves as a half-arsed Hells Rebels. The main similarity with Crimson Throne to me was that they were both Urban based.

I mean I do think its kinda overstated how many sub mechanics 1e has.

Like caravan system in jade regent is used about as much as the circus is used.

Technology isn't really subsystem but type of gear category.

Ironfang Invasion doesn't actually incorporate militia system, it just provides some rewards you can get for it in sidebar if you want to use it.

(in general, ye listed almost every ap with dedicated subsystem there missing only ships and mythic. Though influence and research are more general subsystems multiple have used iirc)

It is interesting that some APs get large rules support or maybe certain subsystems get vast AP support. There wasn't a Words of Power AP after all.

Actually Crimson Throne had the harrow card mechanic, Rise had a Sin Point gimmick, Hexploration shows up all over (The Hexploration part has almost achieved 'Spot the Cleric/Rogue' in my group's list of AP Bingo.)

I generally like the subsystems that represent PCs running some kind of organization especially if it carries through to the end of the AP, so I don't think its a bad thing, but also I haven't played many of the older APs.

Eh, I don't think harrow card and sin point really count as full subsystem. First one is minor bonuses and latter is "personality test that only matters in one book with extremely tiny bonuses and penalties"

I kinda saw Council of Thieves as a half-arsed Hells Rebels.

Based on the order of release wouldn't Hell's Rebels be a full-arsed Council of Thieves?

Council of Thieves was a great learning moment for me on how to manage expectations. That Adventure Path was always meant to be more of a "fight the thieves" campaign, not a "rebel against Cheliax" one, but so many folks wanted the latter that they made a lot of assumptions that ended up disappointing people. And that's all very much WHY I decided to go with Hell's Rebels years later when I was tasked by management to do one half of a "year of Cheliax" Adventure Path.

Yeah, thing about council of thieves is that none of its content is "rebellion" based(despite hellknights trying to arrest you). I think player's guide calls you "rebels" but let's face it its more in the "we punk kids on street" way in practice, pamphlet giving political activist neighborhood watch is closest to what you actually are <_<

(I hold that council of thieves is in general very plot confused ap. Like story presents itself to be about the shadow curse.... Which you mostly ignore because you don't need to leave outside at night at all. And main plot is about what I call the "mafia conspiracy" which, when players find out the true nature of the titular Council of Thieves, to quote my players "Well that twist is best thing about this ap. Pity it has nothing to do with what we were doing".)

Currently running Extinction Curse (4/6) and Agents of Edgewatch (2/6) while playing in Age of Ashes (1/6) and they seem pretty different from my perspective.

Agents definitely feels like the party is a group of city watch and not just some random adventuring party. Extinction Curse feels like a traveling band of heroes trying to save the world while also bringing around an entire circus. And Age of Ashes feels like a more classic adventurers-for-profit/fun that inevitably shifts into a save-the-world play.

My players and I definitely overestimated the amount of circus focus in Extinction Curse and perhaps it should have been more obvious that it wasn't the exclusive focus of the campaign (I half-expected the finale to be a circus performance instead of the classic cinematic final battle).

And sure, you can play any character in these adventures as long as you can think of a motivation but that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

Sunderstone wrote:

I kinda saw Council of Thieves as a half-arsed Hells Rebels.

Based on the order of release wouldn't Hell's Rebels be a full-arsed Council of Thieves?

LOL, I stand corrected. :)

Council of Thieves was a great learning moment for me on how to manage expectations. That Adventure Path was always meant to be more of a "fight the thieves" campaign, not a "rebel against Cheliax" one, but so many folks wanted the latter that they made a lot of assumptions that ended up disappointing people. And that's all very much WHY I decided to go with Hell's Rebels years later when I was tasked by management to do one half of a "year of Cheliax" Adventure Path.

To be honest, this was one of my least favorites during my read through. The pbp I was in here changed the way I looked at it.

Council of thieves was the first AP I ran as a GM set in Golarion. I loved that the idea of a full scale rebellion in Cheliax was beyond the scope of the AP and that it was able to spend 6 books developing a story that still left the PCs pretty far off from 20th level. That allowed a lot more room for making the adventure my own and letting it continue past the events of the adventure. I also liked how much weird stuff got to be in the book as a result of having that extra space that didn't have to be dedicated to monsters and encounters.

I don't know if it could ever fly, but I think a 10 book, 20th level AP on slow xp advancement could make for a really interesting structure for an AP that was really going to get deep into some lore element of Golarion.

im surprised to hear so much love for council of thieves. I do admit I loved reading the murder play myself but I generally thought most people didnt like it lol

either way though I still stand by that I think that 1e and 2e APs are both good and not every AP is going to thematically stand out or click with every player but they're all structured very similarly as 6-part adventures designed for a party of adventurers with different themes and sometimes subsystems attached, and the amount of which each element is presented will vary, complete with stuff in the back for NPCs and new items n stuff

Kingmaker is absolutely a cult classic but also very unlike a lot of future APs with how sandboxy it is, so not to say it doesn't count, but when I look at almost every other 1e AP I see a lot more resemblance with 2e APs. I converted and played through all of Hells Rebels and while it certainly was designed slightly differently than Agents of Edgewatch the two also have a lot of in common and are both lots of fun. Reading through other 1e APs I see a lot of those similarities are still there, and 2e APs are still early on. We had like 20 APs from 1e and 2e has only really had the chance for 5 full APs (4 if you count Abomination Vaults and Fist of the Ruby Phoenix as one) so we really don't have enough info yet to say if 2e APs are any worse than 1e. I'm crossing my fingers that Strength of Thousands will be a hit like how Kingmaker or Rise of the Runelords was but again, we still have plenty of time to see what future adventures bring! Personally im loving it

I'm afraid I just don't see why the expectation of an Adventure Path would be that the material present an off-ramp from the core gameplay provided by the system. Yes the present different flavor and tone, but they are intended to facilitate Pathfinder's core gameplay.

In short - why would the expectation of an AP about adventuring as a Circus Performer be that you cease being an Adventurer and become a Circus Performer full time? Why would the expectation of an AP about Law Enforcement be that you give up your life of Adventure permanently to become a constable? Why would the expectation of an AP about a martial arts tournament be that you show up, fight in your elimination bouts and then leave without doing anything else?

Ignoring the rest of the discussion about theme, dungeons, plots, etc, and just addressing the point of which character class you can play.

I think it makes sense to leave that in the hands of DMs rather than the AP. Likewise with regard to which material to include.

For instance, for Edgewatch I disallowed Druid or Barbarian as character classes, and have excluded material from anything except core and the Edgewatch AP (eg, no spells from other APs). That was my decision. Likewise, if I was running Strength of Thousands, I would limit it to full casters only (eg, no Paladins, Fighters with Wizard dedication, etc). Again, my decision as by the AP you are allowed to play anything.

For character classes and content, it makes sense to not have hard rules about which products people can use. They are trying to sell all their products after all, but mainly because creativity is in the hands of the Players and DMs, and it's not really up to the AP to say what NOT to do.

Not to pick a fight, but: you wouldn’t allow Magus and Summoner in a Strength of Thousands game?

Not to pick a fight, but: you wouldn’t allow Magus and Summoner in a Strength of Thousands game?

(I'd include Magus, Bard and Summoner as full casters, ie, they get new spells every level. At least, I think so, I didn't do the playtest, so I've not actually seen the PF2E implementations of Magus and Summoner, but I'm assuming they are similar to PF1E in concept. It's academic anyway - I'm not running SOT right now).

keftiu wrote:

Not to pick a fight, but: you wouldn’t allow Magus and Summoner in a Strength of Thousands game?

(I'd include Magus, Bard and Summoner as full casters, ie, they get new spells every level. At least, I think so, I didn't do the playtest, so I've not actually seen the PF2E implementations of Magus and Summoner, but I'm assuming they are similar to PF1E in concept. It's academic anyway - I'm not running SOT right now).

Magus and Summoner are what has been called “wave casters” - they have a total of four spell slots.

But they do get access to higher level spells as they progress in their class.

I'm afraid I just don't see why the expectation of an Adventure Path would be that the material present an off-ramp from the core gameplay provided by the system. Yes the present different flavor and tone, but they are intended to facilitate Pathfinder's core gameplay.

In short - why would the expectation of an AP about adventuring as a Circus Performer be that you cease being an Adventurer and become a Circus Performer full time?

In a perfect world, all the adventuring in the circus AP would be connected to circusing. I find all the Aroden and troglodyte stuff to be a distraction from what, to me, was the selling point of the AP. It's also, so far (I've played through the first two parts) very dungeon-heavy – over the course of eight levels of adventuring, seven of them have been in an environment where one experience level correlates to clearing either a whole dungeon or one level of one (with two of those dungeon levels being mostly outdoor, but still dungeons). To some degree, this is connected to the mandate that a six-part Adventure Path will cover 20 levels of adventuring, and the AP needs to provide them sweet XPs, and a dungeon is a way to do that with a low page count because you can offload a lot to the bestiaries.

Another thing I see as problematic with later APs (and this goes back a ways into PF1 as well) are the very non-specific player's guides. I remember being really impressed by the player's guide for Serpent's Skull, which had a few paragraphs about each race/ancestry about why a person of that race would be found in this adventure, and then some more info about each class along with recommendations on choices that would fit particularly well into that AP. It was also very clear about the fact that while the PG was set up to give you a reason to be on a ship to Sargava, it would not be a nautical-themed campaign. Modern PGs are less helpful, often leaning toward "I dunno, do whatever. Here are some languages and lores that might come in handy."

Strength of Thousands is on-track to be one of the strongest APs K think Paizo has done.