RA is a nightmare. A big, brutal nightmare. Not only for the PCs, for obvious reasons, but for a GM of older, seasoned players.
Using the PF system my players traveled hundreds of miles from Endholme to the south, gathering info along the way. A few high rolls with Diplomacy, Knowledge: History, Geography and Local told the PCs some of the lore around the Forest of Good Hope and the Dungeon of Graves. They made one delve, found some loot and nearly all died, and then turned the campaign BACK towards Endholme.
So much for my RA campaign.
Thread necro! +2
Well, that sucks Hoover.
I think the trick with a slaughterhouse module like RA is the bait. Placing a few high powered items + rumors always draws them in (well, it did in 1st/2nd ed before you could "craft" items - bleh).
Rumormonger some good stuff:
- A unique Holy Avenger & Sunblade
- Minor Artifacts - Talisman of Pure Good
- Major Artifacts - Orb of Dragonkind, Axe of the Dwarven Lords or play up existing RA weapons like Demonbane or Thyr's Gavel in stories that get to the players
Also, in developing my RA into a campaign I added bandits and connected some of the existing bandit groups to RA to Temple of Orcus, added traveling cultist and slavers - again, all in the employ of Priests of the Temple of Orcus.
So instead of it operating more like a static dungeon (hey, monsters), the machinations of the Prince of Undead are felt throughout the land actively - slowly at first, then over time something that needs to be addressed by heroes (think Slavers or Giant series of 1st ed mods). Raids & increased bandit activity on trade routes, kidnappings & slaver activity, good Priests from rival churches assassinated/temples sacked, defiling burial grounds/cemeteries with rampaging undead, monsters and undead running rampant and encroaching into more "civilized" lands and finally - cult activity and recruiting worming it's way into every large city (going full Thulsa Doom/Thoth Amon from the movie).
In my LL campaign, RA has became the base for a criminal demonic cult with a vast network bent on turning the world into a graveyard.
To Bard's Gate, Endhome, to the Borderland Provinces to the south and as far out west as Duchy of Reme, the corrupt and corrupting shadow of Orcus falls on the land.
This is something of a bummer for me, not because I dislike it, because I was using something like this for the cornerstone of a game I haven't been able to publish (due to funds). Basically a Novice/Proficient/Experienced/Teacher/Master 1 system tied to tiered output that I developed for an unreleased Post Apocalyptic RPG . Granted no quasi-supernatural abilities at Master 1, but eh. Sucks, now it will look like I ripped off something from PF 2e.
I posted a fragment of it in 2014 but I've been working on and off on this system since the late 90's.
I'd go one further (to protect skill classes) and have skill tiers. Mechanics (Novice): You can id mechanical devices and can attempt to disable simple devices, Mechanics (Proficient): You can attempt to disable moderate to Complex devices, etc, etc.
This eliminates the "this stat boost gives me +X" or "this spell gives me +X" that effectively negates the skill investment system.
So a spell that gives you climbing gives you X bonus and climbing at you already invested skill level - so it would probably be better to cast it on a tier invested character(Rogue or someone with climbing) vs. the wizard with an Str of 8.
I've always hated the overly simplistic "I throw numbers at it" approach of 3rd ed based games.
It also wouldn't hurt to cap some things off of base stats - Aka the Cha 8 guy with 10 ranks in Diplomacy should not be making checks at 9, or if he is doing it at a 9 it should be a restricted in results as a 9 because he is a Cha 8 character.
It's nice to be an outsider on all of this ....it will be interesting to see how all this shakes out with the fanbase/existing player turnover vs. new players once the new system rolls out.
Edition changes are a good study in human nature, brand loyalty/fanaticism and the five stages of grief.
I wish they had a "missing adventures for the completest" option - one where I could get the new 9 in print or pdf as a package. Unless the ones that are already in print are expanded or revised this is going to be a tough one to justify.
But if it was random it would be like, "You turn the corner, hold on a second let me roll these dice to see if anything is there. Oh nothing ok you guys are good." Or "Hmm ok let me roll to see, of you guys come across something, let me see what it is. Oh its a servant." These both seem weak.
Because that's a lazy way to implement a random encounter.
If you purchased a mod you have to understand it thoroughly - all the ins and outs, variables, best guesses at player reaction, encounters, treasure/treasure impact & team resources and yes - random encounters.
That is a prepared GMs job - looking at the random encounter table (if included) and having the same understanding of the table as you would the rest of the module. That means the job of the GM is to come up with interesting implementation of potential encounters vs a dry and mechanical presentation.
The random servant does matter as a concept (the random part) - if they are running an espionage op then it is one of those random "oh s@$~" moments that makes things memorable and adds an immersive quality to the game. That random encounter can happen at the most inopportune time - say the rogue is dispatching an evil henchman of the BBEG in the henchman's chamber and the servant walks in (an innocent)...changes everything. Or the players may be dressed like some of the BBEG enforcers as part of their deception and they encounter the servant who avoids them out of fear (since they are treated badly) by the BBEG men. RP encounter? Info? Even just immersions - all are valuable and good adds.
Apupunchau wrote:
If you want the servant there but him/her there. If it doesn't matter if they are there are not - which is what rolling says, you don't care one way or another if its there or not - just pick and run with it.
In many respects - yes, you don't care if the servant encounter happens - its just part of the potential tapestry of the adventure. It isn't supposed to be the adventure, just a feature that chance introduced (and the GM familiarized himself about prior to rolling).
Honestly, random encounters - if crafted with some care or even just read through by the GM are incredible tools to enrich an adventure and to make the world come alive. I'm not talking bulk Roll 2)1-2 trolls attack the party, but instead while wandering through the dungeon they attract the attention of a hideously deformed and scarred troll outcast who hides and murders with stealth anything it can get away with killing.
Random encounters can help various class or character concepts shine:
- Wilderness encounter: With a random dangerous predator - could the druid or ranger reverse the encounter and use it as backup for a group that is injured or can the whole thing go south?
- Espionage encounter: DE's servant example is a great one - all sorts of random things that can throw off an attack on a base - unexpected reinforcements, escaped prisoner, etc. Are the players making too much noise, for stealth characters reducing chances of random encounters is actually a form of reward for their character choice.
Theme of adventure
- Red Herring: Random noises, non-combat encounters, etc -keep the PCs on their toes, makes the world alive and doesn't trigger panic every time you roll the dice
- Mood: For horror games that random sound can be a shriek in the night, a bad turn in the weather, an incomplete grave, a weird cairn (freshly made), strange tracks and drag marks, blood on a tree, etc
That's not even the tip of it, I could write a once a week blog for a year on how to create and develop random encounters for all kinds of games and GM styles - that's how strongly I feel about this poorly implemented and underused GM tool.
IMO of course, I could be wrong about random encounters.
Online communities are shaped by the people in them, and are only guided by moderators who adjust to the needs of the folks in that community.
Not entirely true. Moderation as it skews towards the moderators/website owners bias goes beyond "guided" shaping of the community. Every political website - left or right, have their base determined by the owners of the website and how those sites are moderated and what is allowed. Paizo is no different than any other political website and the embarrassing (and moribund) OT political forums and the current "community" here reflect that.
Paizo has only recently stepped up moderation because the toxic political environment here has driven away customers. The level of vitriol that passes for political discourse (with selective moderation) tells its own story.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
If you're dissatisfied with the paizo.com forums at large, it's entirely possible that they may not be for you.
I used to contribute to try to help other posters here with ideas, support and content. I was a subscriber to all the big PF lines for several years.
Ending the politics section in off topic comes too late and the damage has been done.
Jawa, the reason why the hostility dropped down in recent years on the forums is because all the OT section had turned into an echo chamber - everyone with a divergent view already being driven off years ago.
If you weren't some stripe of left wing you were ostracized if not downright attacked. The fact that the staff injected themselves in the politics and social debate didn't help.
Anyway.
Edit to add: My opinion of course as a long time poster and someone who eventually disconnected from this wonderful and welcoming "community".
The whole Caves of Chaos in B2 could easily fit as a main centerpiece for the first Kingmaker AP installment if you are going with slow xp progression or dump some of the lamer ap encounters.
Tomb of the Lizard King can also be snuck into the midlevel Kingmaker AP, even the backstory and magic that makes that adventure happen can be tied to the main Kingmaker nemesis.
The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh can serve a reworked alternate beginning to the Pirate AP (can't remember the name).
I really don't like the mods put out by paizo, so its harder for me to get inspired to draw connections. Paizo APs and mods have zero memorability for me so I can't really draw a link to the classics.
Yes, I thought it was enjoyable.
Of course, asking for some kind of barding for the horses wouldn't be too much? I mean, even some layers of heavy clothes and leather would probably make them more effective against walkers?
I wouldn't cut them per se, but they would be so heavily revised that they would almost be unrecognizable:
1) Skill system: eliminate scaling values, lock skills in with class function (no Wizards who climb around better than Rogues with +X Climb spell).
2) Spells overhaul (no +X spells, no DC vs Save paradigm). Big six (which are just perm spell boosts via magic items).
3) Magic items as spells/crafting magic items with X spell. Magic items would not replicate spell function and crafting via place this spell + cash would go bye-bye.
3 are really not enough, let's start with 10 and add from there....
I dislike Ashiel's posting style intensely: smarmy, dismissive and arrogant. Any and all of her threads I hide as soon as I read them and I have avoided interactions with her because they were always vitriolic.
That being said this whole situation is absurd and Ashiel (and apparently a few others) should be unbanned.
Barring threats to staff or other posters, outright racism or repeated threadcrapping (aka - the drive-by's, we have a few in this thread) a perma-ban, or ban asking the poster to beg to have it lifted is ridiculous.
IMO the moderation staff needs to buck up a little and remember that they need to remove their emotions from the situation when dropping nukes, wipes, locks and issuing bans. That or just outright state your political/social views and say that any threads, comments or critiques that challenge or offend them will be met with deletes, warnings and eventual bans.
In this exchange - based upon the emails - an emotional response from a poster was met by an emotional response, i.e. dismissal. Why would you tell someone that "maybe this isn't the place for you" then ban them? Shouldn't that phrase be acted upon by the poster - you know, deciding if the place really is for them and if they still want to continue posting?
The moderators here need to remind themselves that they both have infinite power to control the narrative while simultaneously possessing human emotional responses to things that they find offensive.
On that note, I also feel (aka - an opinion) that it is incredibly distastefully to see staff (moderators or otherwise) +1 posts poli/socially charged posts or post that are pro-paizo. I'm not seeing the need for them to get involved in political or socially charged threads or the need to "back each other up" or friendly posters. All this does is foster an even more "Us vs. them" environment based upon who are their open favorites are on the boards.
Ironically a year back I commented on a post Terquem made a about some campaign setting work - and I would have loved to have been able to play in both examples he wrote up.
I don't really know or regularly communicate with posters here and when I do it's usually knocking heads due to wildly different play-styles, opinions on gaming philosophy and + RL politics - a trifecta!
That being said I would probably game at most any table that would have me or run a game for anyone who likes to play at least once because I really like gaming.
This is a niche hobby that is fractured by systems/editions and to a degree age/political views and system bias (usually your first system). Paizo.com seems to exaggerate the difference - the cliquish nature, the fighting over the most basic posts/comments seems - nutty.
In the rw when I come across gamers I tend to show a favorable bias towards - even if I don't like their particular game, game philosophy, etc - they are still gamers. Go figure.
I do feel that my particular play style leans more towards the old school + immersive lore so my list of posters on it would be colored by that fact.
Yes, in 2e rangers could wear any armor. If they wore anything heavier than studded leather the lost their nature stealth and concealment abilities and fighting with two weapons, but otherwise a ranger in plate was viable.
And like I said, it was one of many things that kept caster's in check.
Hell, I didn't have a problem with it last week and won't tomorrow night.
Any action that is negated by a faster action can be changed to a new action speed at a penalty, if that penalty takes you out of the timer for the round - the action doesn't happen that round. If the target is gone (dead) then you can change to a new action at a penalty, and same rule applies - if you can't do the changed action within the confines of the round then you don't do it that round. It isn't hard.
It doesn't become rocket tag or some other nonsense, people don't switch to faster weapons or attacks under this system because those usually deal less damage, just as heavier weapons tend to deal more damage.
Just a failed slippery slope argument. It didn't happen in 2nd but it's being framed retroactively like it did to fit the narrative.
Again, compared to Pathfinder, declared initiative rounds with weapon/action speeds and lost actions go x10 faster than my PF games with all the round-to-round ticking off of buff/debuff +1/-1 nonsense. I've tested combats and adventure completion between AD&D and PF, AD&D wins hands down every time. On a PF night we would get through one combat and maybe 3 encounters/rooms, on an AD&D night - around 3-4 combats and 7 encounters or more - they tend to be more cautious in AD&D due to the sheer lethal nature of the game - but even with that we get more actual game time.
Thanks GM 1990, I mentioned the introduction of weap specialization at the end of 1st ed in in one of my spoilered analysis of the change and system problems.
If people seriouly played 1st through 3e plus games and looked at the core mechanical changes from 2e to 3e you would be able to see where martial and skill based characters got the the very short end of the stick.
For the run of 3e till now, many people have had the perception that there were problems with certain classes, namely martial and skill based classes. It isn't skill points or giving specific feats to fix problems, the problem is the system that governs these classes.
Considering what was lost from 2e to 3e: role/party relevance, save paradigm, better niche skill system (nwp), hp inflation vs. needing a feat to gain shadow of relevance and an open skill point based skill system (where they are short changed) I would consider 3e+ games a system design failure. At least when it comes to this class, but I would include a few others that are skill based or lean heavily on feats to flesh out their class abilities.
I don't like tying such behavior to class. It means not only means that to solve certain problems, you need a specific class (which is alright in concept), but also means a lot of character concepts become impossible. I like having more customization beyond class related behavior (feats, skills, etc) to better build a character.
But, this also has a flaw. Basically, 1) what is the differences between classes, 2) how do you represent that in a way that keeps classes 'balanced' but feeling unique? As an example, a barbarian with rage can smash objects apart. Should a fighter with appropriate feats be able to do the same? Should he be able to do so as well / reliably? If so, what's the difference between a fighter and barbarian? If no, what does the fighter have that offsets the barbarian's advantage in this field? Sundering may not be the best example, but I hope it gets the idea across.
Yes, that's why I said that once the separated out 90% of the Rogues abilities from 2nd to 3rd they should have just dumped the class instead of saying - "but, but the Rogue can climb walls so much better because of.... numbers!!!!"
Numbers which other spell casting classes can manipulate better than the Rogue.
This is the thing though - if you want that level of customization - where anyone can pick and choose skills and powers based on what they like or think they will need, then why have a class based system? You can't have it both ways - heavy customization but with poorly delineated borders on which trick or responsibility falls onto which class. Currently casters - for all the reason I listed in the other post - run the game. With little to no restriction on duplicating abilities, or crossover power the spell casting classes are too flexible, too modular (spell load out) and as such to powerful when compared with others who are actually playing a different game.
If there was a different design consideration going into 3e maybe things wouldn't be that bad. Something were fighters and rogues own most of the skill system or gain specific benefits over other classes for some kind of niche protection for their team function then things might be different. They didn't to that, they took away (attacks, class abilities), gave away (class abilities), shifted the save paradigm (self to an external that can be manipulated) and shifted the goal post for baseline success of martial classes (super inflated hp for everything).
So I get your point - each class should have a "thing" and it shouldn't just be +X more than another class who can do that "thing" and 5 other "things". A class power that is unique to each class. Casters already have it for their classes.
-
The whole of 3e+ is a kludged-together, poorly thought out system. On almost all levels.
The martial classes should have had inherent features that they own and other classes couldn't steal. Singular feat fixes and silly combos don't get to the core of the problem - that there are multiple mini system/problem resolution options in the game (Skills, binary spells, utility spells) that martial classes currently do not exclusively own. Unless this core problem is resolved it will always be a band-aid type solution.
Just wondering if anyone played through 2E to 3E to 3.5 and then PF and has any insight about class design during those years. I was doing MUDS, not TTRPG so missed that transition. But in 1E when something like UA came out with Cavalier, Barbarian and some rule additions at least Fighter was one of the few who could specialize (thus gaining bonus attacks and + to hit/damage), they were better at fighting because they had class abilities others didn't, and those who got additional things like Barbarian paid for it in slower leveling up.
Any idea why it was decided to create sets of abilities like Ki Pool, Rogue Talent, Rage Abilities, and Companion rules, and then not have something similar for fighter?
This is really the big question. The primary reason why things got broken (my opinion here) the conversion to a standardized d20 system. Its a little convoluted but I will try my best to break it down why it all broke down. I think...I know why the martial and skill based classes from older systems suck in 3e+(3.5, PF, etc).
1st and 2nd ed had many built-in controls. Here are a few for classes:
- Stat requirements
- various xp charts, they were all over the place at later levels but at lower levels some classes advanced pretty fast (using 2nd ed here).
Older XP charts:
Fighter vs. Paladin/Ranger was not very pronounced.
To get to 2nd level F: 2,000xp, P/R: 2,250xp
To get to 4th level F: 8,000xp, P/R: 9,000xp (more pronounced difference)
To get to 7th level F: 64,000xp, P/R: 75,000xp
To get to 9th level F: 250,000xp, P/R: 300,000xp
But then throw the Rogue in the mix:
To get to 2nd level R: 1,250xp
To get to 4th level F: 5,000xp
To get to 7th level F: 40,000xp
To get to 9th level F: 110,000xp
So it was very common to have the Rogue as the highest level character in the group.
Priest:
To get to 2nd level R: 1,500xp
To get to 4th level F: 6,000xp
To get to 7th level F: 55,000xp
To get to 9th level F: 225,000xp
Wizard
To get to 2nd level F: 2,500xp
To get to 4th level F: 5,000xp
To get to 7th level F: 60,000xp
To get to 9th level F: 135,000xp
So its a little all over the place, but there several factors. Pallys and Rangers really had to pay for their abilities. To stress on the casters - leveling up a 1st level wizard to 7th or 9th level without cheating was hard. It was a class with incredibly low chance of survival. Priest (clerics) fared well, though restrictive weapon use - as in you cannot use it at all - meant that there was not much in common magic weapons.
Spells and spell casting:
The two big changes here that broke the game.
In older editions saves were internal. If you were low level the saves were hard, as you went up and acquired some magic items they got better. But the critical thing here - the save difficulty was on your character, not controlled by an external source.
Ex: if a high level wizard cast disintegrate on your low level fighter, he made a save vs. disintegrate. A number value generated by his level and his modifiers. In 3e+ the number is generated (and spiked/meta manipulated) by the source. So if you build a very specialized caster you can easily get your save values out of expected challenge level.
That is huge one. Meta value manipulation + binary save system is a recipe for disaster. I'm of the mind that the DC should come from the spell level - and that's it. The higher the spell, the harder the save - no caster stat addition, feats, or any other meta mechanic to inflate the DC out of its fixed value.
Spellcasting Part II:
In older editions there were action speeds and some spells took longer to cast than others. And if you were hit - you lost the spell. No checks, no rolls - just gone. These were huge breaks on casters - removed in 3e+.
The other thing was the increase in total number of spells per casting level based off of prime stat. Just too many more spells per day allowing for combinations and the ability to intrude on other class functions. More is not always better. Especially if we are talking about powers that have no drawbacks.
On top of that, AC for Wizards in older editions were brutal. Without PB, dex was not guaranteed to be high, crafting was incredibly difficult and if you had Bracers of Defense they probably brought you into the range of Studded Leather armor. Again - low hp, and if you are hit - spell is gone.
So now the 2nd string fighters (ranged attackers, rogues) needed to watch the casters back while trying to take out the same on the other side. Aka - job protection.
Protected class abilities and built-in class skills:
Rogues had climb, move silently, find/remove traps, etc - as exclusive abilities. When 3e+ came along someone thought it would be a brilliant idea to take one classes abilities and put them out there for any other class to grab. If they were going to go this route they probably should have just eliminated the Rogue class entirely. But I am confidant that they had no idea of the ramifications of what they were doing when they did it. They were too proud of their "universal d20 mechanic" to see that they had gutted a class.
Something similar happened with BAB. In other editions - with specializations a low level fighter could get 3 attacks every two rounds - with no penalty. 2 on the 1st round and 1 on the second. And it just got better. All this at 1st level with full mobility.
Hit point inflation. This has several parts:
Removing the hit die cap on classes/PCs/NPCs.
Fighters had a HD cap of 9 (d10) hit points. After that the got +3 hp per level - with no Constitution bonus
being applied after 9th. Wizards capped out at 10 (d4) hit points, gaining +1 hp every level thereafter. Priest at 9(d8) hit points, getting +2 per level thereafter and finally Rogues at 10 (d6), getting +2 hp after 10th level.
Monsters did not have a Con score, so as such their hit points were based on their hit die which was a fraction of what is in 3e+ games. 1st ed monster HD was very low with minimal bonuses, but in 2nd ed the HD went up because specialization and increased player melee damage output increased in the latter part of 1st ed and so HD went up as an assumption to maintain the challenging aspect of the game.
In 3e+ games, once monsters start getting to 4hd or more, their hp inflate exponentially due to arbitrary assignment of Con values. Fighters can do more damage with all the right feats, but they get less attacks than their old edition counterparts - and when the do get multiple attacks it is at -5.
So hp increased around 150% in 3e+ games, while damage output did not. Average damage per attack may have gone up in 3e+, but with less attacks our lower level martial classes were doing more damage.
Also, weapons had rates of attack built-in and they improved if you were specialized. Bow - 2 attacks per round - no penalty, darts 3, etc.
Removing HD caps and adding in CON bonuses x HD exponentially increased hit points for players and creatures. Problem is - damage output didn't scale and casters don't trade in hit point currency (besides evokers) to turn off encounters. They use inflated, binary saves to deal with threats.
More HP all around = Bad for characters that deal with HP to overcome challenges.
Spells vs Skills:
In 2nd ed they introduced Non-weapon proficiencies. These were attribute based skills. So if you had Armorer - you check may have been rolling under your Intelligence -2. They didn't have ranks, but they were grounded to a stat and as such - were not subject to meta manipulation.
These NWP were in addition to built-in class "skills". A wizard in older editions of AD&D could cast spells that stepped on other classes skills - but they were so difficult to use that it would have made more sense to cast it on someone else in the party to maximize use.
Except from 2nd ed Spider Climb.
A spider climb spell enables the recipient to climb and travel upon vertical surfaces as well as a giant spider, or even hang upside down from ceilings. Unwilling victims must be touched and are then allowed a saving throw vs. spell to negate the effect. The affected
creature must have bare hands and feet in order to climb in this manner, at a movement rate of 6 (3 if at all encumbered). During the course of the spell, the recipient cannot handle objects that weigh less than a dagger (one pound), for such objects stick to his
hands and feet. Thus, a wizard will find it virtually impossible to cast spells if under a spider climb spell. Sufficient force can pull the recipient free; the DM can assign a saving throw based on circumstances, the strength of the force, and so on. For example, a
creature with a Strength of 12 might pull the subject free if the subject fails a saving throw vs. paralyzation (a moderately difficult saving throw). The caster can end the spell effect with a word.
The material components of this spell are a drop of bitumen and a live spider, both of which must be eaten by the spell recipient.
So there was hard coded class and skill protections. It was very hard for a cleric to "emulate" a fighter via a few spells as compared to 3e+. A wizard could not synthesize the skill and proficiency of a Rogue with spells that gave you +10 to perform a skill.
Fighters didn't need a ki pool or War pool points because a fighter in older editions had a distinct advantage of having: best attacks, best number of attacks, best saves, best AC, best weapon, best chance to find a magic weapon that they could use.
The most important thing though - the they were needed, just like rogues were needed (due to the fact that they owned specific skills).
I am running an AD&D game without a wizard in the party - they are doing well. I couldn't say the same if the did not have the fighter in their group.
--
All that was longer than what I wanted it to be, but I think the above breakdown illustrates the major changes as to why Fighters and Rogues are not as good.
I wasn't kidding when I posted earlier that the d20 system broke the fighter and any other class that did not have unique class abilities. Everything but casters got broken, just to different degrees as the various changes impacted their core function and role in a party.
Actually there is a pretty strong connection between Lovecraft and the xenomorphs, namely the story at the Mountains of Madness.
The story having a hook where an intelligent race of beings, called the Elder Things created the ultraviolent race of creatures called Shoggoths, which in turn destroyed their creators.
This is the basic premise behind Alien/Prometheus and why Ridley Scott pushed to get MoM movie delayed since his story was basically a clone (in space) of Mountains.
Or something like that.
Imagine though, while the xenomorphs are mortal what kind of horrific god they would worship?
I can easily see the relationship between HPL and the xenos because in many ways they are derivative from his mythos. A mythos race.
Since this is a suggestion thread I will throw an idea I was working on for my AD&D True 3rd ed as an anti-dump stat system, and focusing of giving everyone a little more points for what they needed and a slight dip in areas not focused on with their core class
Everyone gets at least 1 point in each at level 1:
Body (modified by Str, Dex or Con) (physical training based, strength based, coordination/agility based and endurance based)
Awareness (modified by Wis) (perception or willpower based, connectivity to nature - so Know: Nature & Religion)
Personal (modified Cha) (appeal and interaction based, Know: Local)
Academics (modified by Int) (research and hard knowledge based skills - all the remaining ones not taken by Awareness or Personal)
The overlap on Body modifiers was deliberate, covering front line and secondary martial characters.
So a level 1 Fighter would have something like this in base starting points:
Body: 2
Awareness: 1
Personal: 2
Academics: 1
Humans would get to add one point per level anywhere.
This of course raises the high average for most classes when you total up each area with their respective modifier bonuses, but it also breaks down where you can allocate your points and what skills you can use them on.
Being AD&D I was experimenting with alternating point allocations, 2nd level Fighter, 0 Awareness & Academics, etc.
I jettisoned the system when I gave up on revising 3rd ed.
I see that Barakus and Tsar have two different authors, and I've heard a lot of great things about Bill Webb, so I should check this out.
I'm sorry to say I was really dismayed by Slumbering Tsar and it led me to realize that my tastes are very different than some of the big reviewers on this site. I really can't see how that thing has a 5 star rating.
I'm tempted to start reviewing myself so people can get another perspective.
Based on what you have posted here on what you are looking for it would probably be best to not buy FGG modules. Their modules are designed with an old-school feel, something that emphasizes challenge/difficulty and fun vs. "logical" encounter design.
If you are looking for product with more internal consistency I would recommend checking out Raging Swan modules and environs which are structurally set up differently and have more of a focus on consistency, balance and cohesion. Or Paizo APs/modules, which are based more on story/balanced encounters and less on challenge/difficulty.
I am a big fan of FGG - in fact they are my primary source of material for Pathfinder or AD&D games but their material is not for everyone, especially not for new-school players who don't understand what they are trying to do as a publisher.
Their big influences were old modules like The Keep on the Borderlands, Village of Hommlet and the Tomb of Horrors and that is what they are trying to replicate in their adventures. If that isn't your gaming background or is something you want to emulate in your gaming with newer product then I would recommend you look elsewhere because you are just going to get frustrated.
I know my logical encounter mind needed to switch around and change the way some of the dungeon encounters in Barakas were laid out, bth - they would work well just as written if you are running an old school style dungeon crawl. 100% cohesive encounter/dungeon design - no. Did my players have fun running through it - yes, very much so. But that's because they like that style of play and focus more on the fun and challenge instead of "why was that ghoul over here and how did it get here past the Ogre?"
I didn't subscribe to Tsar sight unseen, I looked into its history and development and I looked at the other products I purchased from Necromancer games (Bill's prior company with Clark Peterson) before I dropped 150 bucks on a product so I knew what I was getting into. Tsar wasn't written by an "amateur" - Greg Vaughn is actually one of the best writers in the industry, but if you don't like sandbox dungeon bashes it won't matter who wrote the adventure - you probably still wouldn't like it.
All that being said, you are going to be very frustrated trying to make their adventures fit what you are looking for when you are looking for something different than what they are selling.
I haven't put in the work yet but I have always had this as a default consideration for the Lonely Coast/Lost Lands. To me the Lonely Coast has a very early to mid-80's AD&D feel, while the LL going back a little further. I would personally love to see a RS/FGG cross-over product.
My intention was to use the Lonely Coast as as fill-in part of more civilized, yet still remote parts of the Lost Lands. Sort of good close up look at specific Borderlands villages and hamlets in somewhat safer territories. Excellent for low-level play, some intrigue, encroaching evil and a less metropolitan base for forays into more dangerous and high level sites.
I think you are on to something and I don't think it would be too hard to pull off. I wish I had more to offer atm, but I haven't run PF/AD&D in awhile. When I do it will be a LC/LL combo as both of them fill different aspects of that old school feel.
Here is what I have, looking for more events in a zombie adventure:
1. PCs are in a town, refugees come flooding in from a nearby city. Refugees say the city was attacked but almost no one knows from who.
2. They find a haunted guard who speaks of people walking the streets even after receiving wounds that should have killed them. He saw these people devouring others.
3. They hurry to find the city abandoned. Once well inside the city, the first of the walking dead will begin attacking them. Overwhelmed, they'll need to find shelter.
4. They find a basement with a few survivors, told the story of what happened, pointed towards the entrance to the city's catacombs.
5. Once inside they trace the zombies to a sphere being used by a spellcaster to awaken the dead. Fight ensues. They win... or not, whatever.
Thats what I have so far, seems kind of thin. Any ideas on ways to punch it up a bit? Add any plot points or goals?
Expansion on the sphere:
1) Maybe the more undead around it the more powerful it grows?
2) The sphere is just part of a larger artifact and it was buried (in secret) within the tomb of a good cleric or paladin interred in the catacombs that was originally stolen from an undeath worshiping apocalyptic cult a century ago. The spellcaster is part of a cult looking for the parts, and maybe he intended to activate it or maybe it was accidental (beyond his power)?
3) After the catacomb experience rumors and stories start flooding in about:
- a) A field of ancient statues moving upon another city. These were an old fail-safe system to if parts of the artifact should it become active again - and maybe it is hidden in the nearby city (worshiped by the royal taxidermist - who has plenty of weird stuffed monsters that have started to stir & whisper to him). The players will focus on the oncoming juggernauts, but in reality the threat is in the city they are marching on.
- b) An old ship loaded with undead that arrives in a port town, in addition to the hordes of zombies, rats onboard bear a plague that spreads in the city that causes an outbreak of the undead. The last destination of the ship was large island that serves as stop for trade ships.
Alternate catacomb background story: The sphere is a new necromantic weapon given to the spellcaster (chump) by a race of ancient arcane ghouls who have designs on reclaiming their old undead empire above them. They are few in number, so they need an army of corpses which they use to increase their food supply, breeding stock and magical weaponry.
Plot points:
A) The sphere suppresses most divine turning magic. The players may find out about a cleric of one the towns temples that makes reference to something like this happening in the past and getting to the temple/cleric may be a key in turning (pun not intended) things around.
B) Item quest: an ancient hero not buried in the catacombs supposedly had a weapon that could lay waste to the undead. When the players go to his manor, they find that the place has been looted and the surviving members of the local thieves guild have stolen the item and are trying to figure out a way to use it to save their hides/get out of the city. Could be a fun way to explore a guildhall overrun with undead or even have the players team up with the surviving thieves in an effort for mutual benefit.
- Minor set pieces during the adventure: a detailed house or church for the party to board up in ala Night of the Living Dead. Maybe have a specialized zombie at the head of the assault. The party needs to hold off for a short time until they can find an item or prep for a counter offensive.
- Fire Bridge: a long span bridge in town has been set on fire, there are a few wagons with innocents trap on the bridge with the undead. Save the people before the whole thing comes down.
I think you should be able to do that, but I can't remember. There were lots of discussions around that!
But I cannot see:
$80,000 Horror in the Sinks (add $10 softcover/$4 PDF) UNLOCKED
$82,000 The Blight Player's Handbook (add $16 softcover/$7 PDF) UNLOCKED - (available in PATHFINDER ONLY)
$84,000 The Crooked Nail (add $10 softcover/$4 PDF) UNLOCKED
$88,000 The Children of the Harvest (add $10 softcover/$4 PDF) UNLOCKED
$90,000 The Tome of Blighted Horrors (add $12 softcover/$5 PDF) UNLOCKED
or any of
$103,000 - The Blight: Pathologies (add $3 PDF each) - (available in Pathfinder, 5e, and Swords & Wizardry versions)
???
I need to change all of mine - it did seem like it was a little less than I remembered.
Actually, I will probably just add more money once these are up since I used the overpay to pick up other things.
And no, I've less desire to see this than I did the Fog remake.
HAHAHAHA -uuggghhh.
I remember being sick one day and being home from work. The Fog remake came on in the afternoon and I watched it/tried to watch it. I regretted being home, I regretted being sick, I regretted turning on the TV, I regretted my cable service, I regretted waiting for a payoff and then after I realized that the time spent watching the remake of the Fog was time taken off my life clock putting me minutes closer to my eventual demise.
As to this movie - it just seems empty. No chemistry, no spooky-fun (of the original, or any other spooky-fun movie), and not funny. So far Holtzmann seems like the only remotely interesting character reminiscent of the weirdness and geekiness of the original cast.
Looks like s~$!, but who knows - maybe after more trailers?
I don't think I'll sub the AP, but the above two entries sound interesting and I like Pett and Shel's prior work. Maybe I'll pick these two up at the store when they come out.
Look, I get it. There's some kind of positive emotion component to joining a game "at level 1", on the ground floor, at the beginning, etc. But how long has it been since the release of 3E? 16 years? come on, at this point, a lot of us have seen and felt that level 1 feel by now, countless times.
Plus, you have to remember that Paizo has a module line too, and that there are homecampaigns out there.
Honestly, I think the average AP subscriber would be ready for something new in terms of format. But I get it, there's a strong sentiment towards keeping the format the same, etc. Lots of people want that level 1 feel etc.
Personally, as a GM, I find it so freaggin' easy to run a level 1 game and pull a few low level monsters out of the books when I need them. The intro of characters, the hardship event that bonded them all together, etc. Where I'd get the most bang for my bucks would be high level adventure design, as this would take a lot of my personal time to do. Statting high level monsters and NPCs is where it starts feeling like a job for me, so I'd love it if Paizo would do more of that for me.
I'm 100% behind a level 20 hard mode AP, btw. Not a level 1-20 AP. Some of us can't clear our calendars for that long; many groups tend not to see these long ass APs to their end...
They could do both actually.
A large-sized format module that runs from level 1-4/5 that can serve as a stand alone adventure, but also key's into an associated AP that starts at 4th (1st part) and runs to 18th level (6th part).
Purist can run the prologue module as a sort of 7 part AP, while those who want to start higher - or more importantly want it to end higher get what they want (and skip the low level prologue).
It would play a little havoc with the release schedule, but it would allow for some more connectivity from start to finish overall since more time is spent on the source material (and supporting products) for the theme/region of the AP.
Valley was in the Carrion Crown AP - it was mentioned (and I supported that AP). That AP line should have knocked it out of the park and could have established the fact that Paizo can produce horror. It fell way below that mark IMO.
The House on Hook Street - no. Tempted to buy it (like a sucker who never learns) - Hodge after all does know his Occult. So I might get it, risky at it price (plus sealed).
I stopped buying Paizo product and cancelled all my subs a few years ago. I re-subbed and completely supported the IG module (and affiliated products/maps) and after that debacle said never again.
That said, I also suspect that the PF people can do Cosmic Horror, if only because they're pretty good at that sort of thing in general.
No, they are not. I can't think of a standout horror adventure from Paizo that was actually good.
Hangman's Noose, by Nick Logue.
Hook Mountain Massacre can also be run very well as horror, though it's more on the gross-out/black humor side.
Doug M.
Neither one of those modules were PF (pathfinder) they were for 3.5 and that was a long time ago.
The closest thing that would qualify in recent years would be Carrion Hill and the Carrion Crown AP - which had some great writers but who I feel were constrained by the Paizo module format re: limited (difficulty, offensive content, CR based encounters, overall limiting AP format, etc).
If they produced a list of writers for SA that included Vaughan, Pett and Logue and avoid some of the other house regulars I may consider - with a caveat included that A) This will be more difficult, B) This will be disturbing C) This may not be winnable, at least without some sacrifice, D) The writers will not be constrained by the usual AP nonsense.
Otherwise it will follow the same tired and old PF AP formula (ok opening mods, filler middle and not very good final mod).
Do I think that Paizo wants to write a good horror mod, or cosmic horror - I'm sure they do - can they with the gloves on following the PF/AP standard. No, they cannot.
A Lovecraftian AP is not a Call of Cthulhu remake using Pathfinder.
Which is a strong indication that this will be the same old, same old AP formula = fail at lovecraftian horror.
The fact that you bring up "Old Man Henderson" is a strong indicator that is AP will be written for people like you and their understanding of horror or lovecraftian horror as it relates to gaming.
Staying away from Strange Eons, I feel like I got the Bait and Switch with Iron Gods being an homage to S3 and Gamma World - which it was not..at all.
As tempted as I am to sub it I don't think Paizo has the chops to pull off an Lovecraftian based AP without it having a into a "punch Cthulhu in the nose" vibe.
I will wait till the first installment is at the FLGS to look over and maybe some reviews are in.
In game: One of the players had a very powerful character. It was Gamma World in the late 80's and he had a mutant with ultra-powerful mutations (randomly rolled). Every encounter he trounced, the ref was new to GMing and I told him that it kind of sucks that the rest of us just sort of sit back and watch while he steamrolled encounters. I wanted the ref to craft better and more challenging encounters but the whole thing spiraled out of control. The player in question found out about the complaints and killed his own character in game. This was a behind the scene kind of thing, none of the other players knew that he was going to do this and the ref ran and described the event of finding his body and we were trying to figure out why the player killed himself. After it was revealed the game just ended - no one wanted to play. Instead of adjusting the challenges or crafting them for the group or even the player in question rolling back some abilities ...it all just fell apart. that wasn't even the players intention. Sucked all around. It was nothing but sad and sort of a byproduct of miscommunication and a new GM not knowing how to handle a diverse set of player abilities.It ended that group and made me question if I wanted to continue gaming.
Out of game: We had a clubhouse where we gamed - we all threw in for rent with some local kids/gamers coming by to help out. They helped with the rent and they could use the computers. We used to run our weekly game there, MTG tourneys, etc. This one guy was very interested in rpgs and role-playing in general, but he always struck me as being off. I didn't trust the guy, even though he would often hang out at the clubhouse while one of my other buddies (still in my gaming group) would sleep in the other room. There was an incident where we suspected him of stealing a knife and at another time I almost got into a physical altercation with the creep - looking back on it, I wish I did.
Well, we closed down the club and a few years later the guy massacred an entire family.
While he wasn't a gamer in our group he was at our clubhouse. And we had this sick pos in our midst, for years.
His obsession with Slayer was in the forefront of the investigation, some of us were questioned by the cops but gaming, gaming culture or the clubhouse never really came up during the investigation.
Serpent Folk are derivative of Serpent Men - a creator race of snake humanoids of evil intent, part of which have degenerated over the years since the dawn of time. They were created by Robert E Howard (Conan, et al) going bact to the 1920's and 30's.
Lovecraft adapted them for his mythos (he was Howard's friend and they often shared concepts) where they were masters of illusions, deception & manipulation and ultra-powerful sorcerers. They have plots that transcend human generations and even their own deaths.
They don't get controlled, they control you.
You have to go beyond the very brief lore of the Paizo Bestiaries on this one.
Will be sorely missed. On more than one occasion I have poached the Hans Gruber villain archetype for my games.
It's interesting where we get our influence from, at least some of my gaming influences. Lemmy and Motorhead's - Orgasmatrom was a post-apocalyptic staple, Bowie's "I'm afraid of Americans" was the theme song for my modern conspiracy horror game I ran, and Irem Wolf (a lead bad guy in one of my games) was a cheap knock off of Hans Gruber.
Sucks, and a bummer. Gone way too soon and still young IMO.
