Introducing the Quest for the Frozen Flame Player’s Guide

Ultra looking forward to this!

Finally, i can't wait to see this!

Nice surprise to see this released before January

I think I’ll like the hexploration part of the AP. I’m wondering if a character with the Overwatch archetype would fit into this adventure, mainly because of the gear.

Good to haz some free Frozen Flame Questin' stuff out there for PF2e. ;)

PS. I'm sure all of the west-marching, hex-plorer folks that be jonesing for some stuff in PF2e will be mostly happy too. :)

I think I’ll like the hexploration part of the AP. I’m wondering if a character with the Overwatch archetype would fit into this adventure, mainly because of the gear.

Well, the 2 iconics on the cover are the Alchemist with his bombs and the Ranger with his crossbow.

That said, Overwatch is Uncommon and, unless your GM agrees, your PC does not have access to it.

Andru C Watkins wrote:

I think I’ll like the hexploration part of the AP. I’m wondering if a character with the Overwatch archetype would fit into this adventure, mainly because of the gear.

Well, the 2 iconics on the cover are the Alchemist with his bombs and the Ranger with his crossbow.

From what I read those two classes fits in well with the AP. I was more thinking about the example of the ex-crusaders cold iron sword where they would have to travel far to have it mended that the same can be said about gear items.

Any news on whether this will be available on Roll20 at launch?

Any news on whether this will be available on Roll20 at launch?

No, but I'll ask.

Does the mention of atlatls mean we can expect stats for them?

I must admit that this paragraph is frankly disappointing:
"ALIGNMENTS
Selfishness, cruelty, and greed have little place in a community where each member’s contributions are integral to the group’s survival. Other than evil, characters of any alignment fit equally well in the Broken Tusk following."

While I get that, part of it is, they don't want evil characters in Pathfinder Society (and you can play APs in Society), I think they need to stop assuming that helping the community is only done for neutral or good reasons, and start differentiating that evil people who help the community do so for their own selfish reasons. You should point out that evil characters are not the norm, but that, with GM permission, an evil character can work in this campaign. Yes, I'm well aware the GM can give permission anyway; but I think Paizo needs to stop excluding the idea of "helpful, but selfish evil". I don't think that I, as the GM, should have to specifically contradict what Paizo said in the Player's Guide, if I decide to allow the nuance of a helpful, but selfish evil character.

Thanks for the direct link. It saves precious lifetime and means fewer hand-taxing clicks.

I must admit that this paragraph is frankly disappointing:

"ALIGNMENTS
Selfishness, cruelty, and greed have little place in a community where each member’s contributions are integral to the group’s survival. Other than evil, characters of any alignment fit equally well in the Broken Tusk following."

While I get that, part of it is, they don't want evil characters in Pathfinder Society (and you can play APs in Society), I think they need to stop assuming that helping the community is only done for neutral or good reasons, and start differentiating that evil people who help the community do so for their own selfish reasons. You should point out that evil characters are not the norm, but that, with GM permission, an evil character can work in this campaign. Yes, I'm well aware the GM can give permission anyway; but I think Paizo needs to stop excluding the idea of "helpful, but selfish evil". I don't think that I, as the GM, should have to specifically contradict what Paizo said in the Player's Guide, if I decide to allow the nuance of a helpful, but selfish evil character.

I guess that the AP itself is not Evil-friendly. I agree that the justification does not make sense.

Paizo has an Evil-friendly AP coming in a few months. Not every story has to welcome Evil characters, and asking for it in one where the core of the player faction is “this group was founded by those few willing to make heroic sacrifices and welcome outsiders” seems a little silly.

TBH, one of the NPCs mentioned in the PG seems not that Good to me ;-)

I must admit that this paragraph is frankly disappointing:

"ALIGNMENTS
Selfishness, cruelty, and greed have little place in a community where each member’s contributions are integral to the group’s survival. Other than evil, characters of any alignment fit equally well in the Broken Tusk following."

While I get that, part of it is, they don't want evil characters in Pathfinder Society (and you can play APs in Society), I think they need to stop assuming that helping the community is only done for neutral or good reasons, and start differentiating that evil people who help the community do so for their own selfish reasons. You should point out that evil characters are not the norm, but that, with GM permission, an evil character can work in this campaign. Yes, I'm well aware the GM can give permission anyway; but I think Paizo needs to stop excluding the idea of "helpful, but selfish evil". I don't think that I, as the GM, should have to specifically contradict what Paizo said in the Player's Guide, if I decide to allow the nuance of a helpful, but selfish evil character.

I interpreted this as "Evil alignments won't work because of the inherent need for cooperation to survive in the tundra." You can't afford to have any evil people in the following because their cruelty and selfishness will only make life harder for everyone (including the evil person). If you're evil and smart you'll soon realize its not worth trying anything too nefarious. If you're evil and foolish, your following will correct your behavior or leave you in the cold.

That is true as far as your following is concerned. But what about other followings ? Or are we expected to believe that every member of every Mammoth Lords' following is Good ?

If anything, such accent on collectivity for survival should ban Chaotic people. Not Evil ones.

I have always maintained that in a heroic campaign, Evil characters are those regulated to the opposing side of the game, those doing vile deeds whilst the heroes try to stop their "evil plans" and bring them to justice... or something of that sort.

Typically, when players begin playing evil alignments, they do the mustache twirling troupes and it turns into a complicated game of Munchkin. (TM)

Most adventures, stories and related material will have an heroic campaign bent, and though the group will likely work with evil characters (NPC's) who's vested interest coincides with their own, having characters diametrically opposed in alignment does bring concerns that might derail the game. It is less of a problem with Chaotic vs Neutral. (True Neutral to me is still a myth) Lawful characters could become just as problematic at times.

Yes, most times the Evil Alignment is reserved for NPC's and enemies.

Samuel Brockmann 398 wrote:

I must admit that this paragraph is frankly disappointing:

"ALIGNMENTS
Selfishness, cruelty, and greed have little place in a community where each member’s contributions are integral to the group’s survival. Other than evil, characters of any alignment fit equally well in the Broken Tusk following."

While I get that, part of it is, they don't want evil characters in Pathfinder Society (and you can play APs in Society), I think they need to stop assuming that helping the community is only done for neutral or good reasons, and start differentiating that evil people who help the community do so for their own selfish reasons. You should point out that evil characters are not the norm, but that, with GM permission, an evil character can work in this campaign. Yes, I'm well aware the GM can give permission anyway; but I think Paizo needs to stop excluding the idea of "helpful, but selfish evil". I don't think that I, as the GM, should have to specifically contradict what Paizo said in the Player's Guide, if I decide to allow the nuance of a helpful, but selfish evil character.

I interpreted this as "Evil alignments won't work because of the inherent need for cooperation to survive in the tundra." You can't afford to have any evil people in the following because their cruelty and selfishness will only make life harder for everyone (including the evil person). If you're evil and smart you'll soon realize its not worth trying anything too nefarious. If you're evil and foolish, your following will correct your behavior or leave you in the cold.

It is why I'm annoyed when people try to claim "evil is actually a good underrated personality trait" when one of reasons why evil is frowned upon is exactly because of how harmful it is :P

Ethically bad things tend to be harmful to everyone and not just "bad because it is bad". "Doing evil things for pragmatism" is more often than not kind of a myth really.

Like if you want to play "cold pragmatic jerk who helps community" just play neutral.

That is true as far as your following is concerned. But what about other followings ? Or are we expected to believe that every member of every Mammoth Lords' following is Good ?

If anything, such accent on collectivity for survival should ban Chaotic people. Not Evil ones.

I mean, this AP isn't saying "no Following has Evil people in it," it's just saying that player characters of the Broken Tusk aren't.

The Raven Black wrote:

That is true as far as your following is concerned. But what about other followings ? Or are we expected to believe that every member of every Mammoth Lords' following is Good ?

If anything, such accent on collectivity for survival should ban Chaotic people. Not Evil ones.

I mean, this AP isn't saying "no Following has Evil people in it," it's just saying that player characters of the Broken Tusk aren't.

Quite true and it would have been better to just state it this way, rather than try and justify it with the argument they used and that could be apply to any member of any following.

OmegaZ wrote:

Samuel Brockmann 398 wrote:

I must admit that this paragraph is frankly disappointing:

"ALIGNMENTS
Selfishness, cruelty, and greed have little place in a community where each member’s contributions are integral to the group’s survival. Other than evil, characters of any alignment fit equally well in the Broken Tusk following."

While I get that, part of it is, they don't want evil characters in Pathfinder Society (and you can play APs in Society), I think they need to stop assuming that helping the community is only done for neutral or good reasons, and start differentiating that evil people who help the community do so for their own selfish reasons. You should point out that evil characters are not the norm, but that, with GM permission, an evil character can work in this campaign. Yes, I'm well aware the GM can give permission anyway; but I think Paizo needs to stop excluding the idea of "helpful, but selfish evil". I don't think that I, as the GM, should have to specifically contradict what Paizo said in the Player's Guide, if I decide to allow the nuance of a helpful, but selfish evil character.

I interpreted this as "Evil alignments won't work because of the inherent need for cooperation to survive in the tundra." You can't afford to have any evil people in the following because their cruelty and selfishness will only make life harder for everyone (including the evil person). If you're evil and smart you'll soon realize its not worth trying anything too nefarious. If you're evil and foolish, your following will correct your behavior or leave you in the cold.

It is why I'm annoyed when people try to claim "evil is actually a good underrated personality trait" when one of reasons why evil is frowned upon is exactly because of how harmful it is :P

Ethically bad things tend to be harmful to everyone and not just "bad because it is bad". "Doing evil things for pragmatism" is more often than not kind of a myth really.

Like if you want to play "cold pragmatic jerk who helps community" just play neutral.

Neutral in my view is Would be Good but has bigger fish to fry (including self-preservation). But hurting innocent people, or not caring about innocent people being hurt ? That is definitely Evil at my table.

To get a brighter note over the derail, I wish to very sincerely thank the people who worked on this. Almost all of it feels both useful to create a character (I expect next to no Arcana or Occultism RK checks ;-) ) and really immersive. I strongly appreciate both the backgrounds and the copy and adaptation of the GMG subsystems.

You people really used the PF2 opportunity to streamline things also for APs and it shows.

Congratulations to all involved.

I think people are missing one really obviously big problem with evil player characters:

They take "dilemma" out of "moral dilemma" because they don't have to struggle between "hard choices" like good or neutral characters do :p

There is also that most of time choices aren't written to be like "five equally valid option for each alignment extreme" ;P Evil options are usually proposed by NPCs that oppose the PCs and would be harmful somehow while evil characters either might agree with the nasty option or just automatically default to murder being problem solver rather than something more complex compromise wise.

I hope a Mammoth Rider archetype is included in the AP.

I’m fairly sure they said there was going to be one.

Chazzy Diamond wrote:

Any news on whether this will be available on Roll20 at launch?

No, but I'll ask.

Yes, Roll20 intends to have volume 1 available at launch. We will add a button link to the product page to make it easy on January 26.

I hope a Mammoth Rider archetype is included in the AP.

The product page for book 3 has been up for months and says it has one!

Ok I like that there are essentially 12 "spirit animals" that PCs get to choose from!

So many tough decisions...

Oh man, this looks exciting, and quite different than the heroes meeting at a pub. Digging it.

I hope everybody dresses warm.

Only thing I'm disappointed in, and am well aware it's outside of the realm of the 12 page players guide format, is a lack of info equipping more primative characters. There's the mention that a player starting with a cold iron sword would have to travel quite a ways to replace it if it's damaged, and sure, some characters would have come to the frozen tundra with gear, but what about those characters native to the area? Are they all equipped with southern style metal armor and weapons, or should they have a chance at stone tipped spears and shields made from a mammoth skull? I hoped some of this will be expanded on in the AP.

I mean, the people who live in the Crown of the World are not really any more primitive than people who live elsewhere at the same time. They've just adapted to different circumstances.

I mean, the people who live in the Crown of the World are not really any more primitive than people who live elsewhere at the same time. They've just adapted to different circumstances.

Sure, but are they forging chain and plate armor? If not, what are Heavy Armor characters in this AP wearing?

Tiny mammoths.

Just a bunch of tiny mammoths tied together.

Tiny mammoths.

Just a bunch of tiny mammoths tied together.

That's comedy, very well done

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the people who live in the Crown of the World are not really any more primitive than people who live elsewhere at the same time. They've just adapted to different circumstances.

Sure, but are they forging chain and plate armor? If not, what are Heavy Armor characters in this AP wearing?

Considering that the Broken Tusk only has 74 members, and are hunter-gathers, they likely trade for Metal armor and weapons. Also, they take members who are not native to them, so some may have brought armor with them. Likely the Broken Tusk local armor is likely made from Mammoth fur, bones, ivory, as are their tools, shelters, clothing, food, at least that's what the pictures in the player's guide suggest. But how they use magic could greatly affect all of this.

keftiu wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the people who live in the Crown of the World are not really any more primitive than people who live elsewhere at the same time. They've just adapted to different circumstances.

Sure, but are they forging chain and plate armor? If not, what are Heavy Armor characters in this AP wearing?

Considering that the Broken Tusk only has 74 members, and are hunter-gathers, they likely trade for Metal armor and weapons.

I would classify them as nomadic (think Sami with mammoths instead of reindeer), more than hunter-gatherers. Yes, trade is probably a significant (or even primary) source of metal goods, but there is probably at least some small-scale prospecting/crafting (enough for arrow- and spear-heads, if not the occasional larger item) in certain regions during certain times of the year in addition to hunting.

Don't overdo the trope by going too far and pigeon-holing them as "ice-age/stone-age primitives." (Note that a similar consideration is what requires care in western-themed adventures/settings*) They live in and are aware of a world with metalworking and even nearby regions that utilize magi-/super-/weird-tech.

*- "bear in mind that the western genre has traditionally been home to many harmful tropes"

Ashbourne wrote:

keftiu wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the people who live in the Crown of the World are not really any more primitive than people who live elsewhere at the same time. They've just adapted to different circumstances.

Sure, but are they forging chain and plate armor? If not, what are Heavy Armor characters in this AP wearing?

Considering that the Broken Tusk only has 74 members, and are hunter-gathers, they likely trade for Metal armor and weapons.

I would classify them as nomadic (think Sami with mammoths instead of reindeer), more than hunter-gatherers. Yes, trade is probably a significant (or even primary) source of metal goods, but there is probably at least some small-scale prospecting/crafting (enough for arrow- and spear-heads, if not the occasional larger item) in certain regions during certain times of the year in addition to hunting.

Don't overdo the trope by going too far and pigeon-holing them as "ice-age/stone-age primitives." (Note that a similar consideration is what requires care in western-themed adventures/settings*) They live in and are aware of a world with metalworking and even nearby regions that utilize magi-/super-/weird-tech.

*- "bear in mind that the western genre has traditionally been home to many harmful tropes"

Does every conversation on this forum have to be about politicly correctness? I never said they were primitive, or that they didn't have an understanding of the greater world or the technology in it. Even if they were primitive why is primitive a bad thing? No so-called primitive culture has ever dropped an atom bomb or had an oil tanker spill wipe out an entire cost line. I don't think using your resources wisely is a negative trope, if it is it would explain why the world is such a mess today.

Lack of metalwork doesn't make you primitive the Maya didn't have advanced metalwork but were still able to build concrete suspension bridges. Plate armor in the middle ages was not made by a lone smith with a hammer and anvil as fantasy tropes suggest, it was largely produced in cities on rivers, because water mills were needed to power large trip hammers. You could get around that in a fantasy setting by using magic or giants for labor, assuming the Giant's union is not on strike.

Interesting that the Sámi were largely spared the effects of the Bubonic plague in 1349 due to their hunting-gathering lifestyle and isolation
from direct European trade routes.

As tundra dwelling nomads, I'm imagining I'll be handwaving starting gear as "traded for at last years visit to Hillcross" or "recovered from Beorn after his less then successful attack hunting sabertooths".

I'm sure the Broken Tusk following has a metalworker among it's members, capable of repairs at the least, and able to set up a small forge when the following camps for a week or so. Skilled leatherwoorkers and woodworkers are present in the following, I'm sure, so some goods not a problem.

The big fun will come a few levels in, when the players can't upgrade their gear because there's no place to get real upgraded metal gear. Have to see if the AP elaborates on that

Does every conversation on this forum have to be about politicly correctness? I never said they were primitive, or that they didn't have an understanding of the greater world or the technology in it. Even if they were primitive why is primitive a bad thing?

It was a warning that the term "hunter-gatherer" has connotations in some societies that are reductive/discriminatory and the presentation of the Tusk Hunters (or the rest of the Mammoth Lords) should be done carefully.

The connotation of primitive is that "this thing leads to something else", but if you took the people living in the tundra, or the rainforest, or the desert contemporaneous with people living in more temperate regions with less harsh conditions the former is never going to turn into the latter no matter how long you give them.

So it's not really offensive so much as a misnomer. People who have been living in a place for a while are really good at surviving in that place, they haven't been wasting their time by not building things that don't make sense to build there.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the people who live in the Crown of the World are not really any more primitive than people who live elsewhere at the same time. They've just adapted to different circumstances.

Sure, but are they forging chain and plate armor? If not, what are Heavy Armor characters in this AP wearing?

Sets of armor that were traded for, or perhaps crafted by the tribe itself and then kept in working condition through the application of occasional patching or magic. Likewise it could be an heirloom from one of the families or members who migrated to the Broken Tusk for one reason or another.

Also, silly thing I just noticed but the spell Mending cannot actually be used to repair heavy armor. It's too bulky.

^. . . And Mending seems to be the only repair spell. I suppose you could partially disassemble the armor and use 2 or more castings on the parts, and then put them back together.

The Heavy Armor Inventor a la the Professor in Gilligan's Island making everything out of coconuts might be a horrifically inappropriate character, or it might be a lot of fun.

^. . . And Mending seems to be the only repair spell. I suppose you could partially disassemble the armor and use 2 or more castings on the parts, and then put them back together.

TBH I'd allow that. Or permit Mending to keep increasing its bulk limit that it can effect, with magical bulk lagging one behind as it is heightened.

The Heavy Armor Inventor a la the Professor in Gilligan's Island making everything out of coconuts might be a horrifically inappropriate character, or it might be a lot of fun.

"Oh I've got a love-a-ly bunch of coconuts,"

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Heavy Armor Inventor a la the Professor in Gilligan's Island making everything out of coconuts might be a horrifically inappropriate character, or it might be a lot of fun.

"Oh I've got a love-a-ly bunch of coconuts,"

*bang, clang, clonk, thunk*
"Here they are, standing in a row."
*thump, boom, crunch, scream*

At least your character will be all set for overland travel and quests.

Kingmaker, on ice.

Ashbourne wrote:

Does every conversation on this forum have to be about politicly correctness? I never said they were primitive, or that they didn't have an understanding of the greater world or the technology in it. Even if they were primitive why is primitive a bad thing?

It was a warning that the term "hunter-gatherer" has connotations in some societies that are reductive/discriminatory and the presentation of the Tusk Hunters (or the rest of the Mammoth Lords) should be done carefully.

This is the context within which I'm using the term "hunter-gatherer"