Disk Elemental's page

Venture Captain Micheal "Camden" Schwartz has emerged as a Champion of the Siege of the Gallowspire, and has rooted out an insidious threat in Passing the Torch.

For now he will return to his lodge in Mendev, and continue working on plans for the Sixth (and hopefully final) crusade.

I must say, in a scenario with some powerfully thematic moments, the scene with Janira Gavix was truly spectacular.

Bravo John Compton, Bravo.

Hoooo boy. I am glad I opted not to play Betrayal in Bones, the fact my Demon Hunter/Mendevian Sergeant is still in tier for this makes me giddy.

So the 7 INT manticore was played at human level intelligence (3 points different to an average commoner) and that's still valid?

7 Intelligence is Human level, 10 is merely the average--however this is a facile argument. I find your quibbling over Int scores to be wildly nonconstructive, especially when the tactic used amounted to "be high, shoot spikes."

I am not even close to the only one with this viewpoint. I am not attacking this person, all I am saying is they are not playing by RAW or the way most people play (both true).

You've repeated this accusation at least three times, but have never explained it. What printed rule from the Core Rule Book is being violated?

The truth is, it doesn't matter whether you like how the game is played or whether you agree with the philosophy, because a playtest is a fundamentally different beast from a beer and pretzels weekly campaign. The purpose of a playtest is to play by RAW, and to do everything in your power to put the system through its paces--And I despise the number of personal attacks and straight-up bad faith engagement on the part of the community, in response to someone doing that.

The fact that the developers have gone so far as to legitimize this bullying by dismissing the criticism is frankly baffling.

They communicated that was in line with their tactics in all combats, regardless of monster intelligence. Manticore was a part of the playtest and player trading tactics for the sake of causing long term TPKs was the standard.

But that's not even remotely what happened. You claimed the manticore suicide bombed the party, solely to kill 1 PC, and make the dungeon harder. When in fact, the manticore used its mobility and natural abilities to stay out of harm's way, and then when it had the party at its mercy, used them to further it's own ends--in a way that was close to mutually beneficial. That's not "durr hurr murder PCs" that's roleplaying an enemy with human intelligence.

All this data is available here, all it took to find was a quick glance at the user's post history.

Um that was a direct example of something in the persons playtest. It's not a straw man so much as it is evidence.

Except that literally did not happen, you are making it up. I went through their entire campaign journal to be sure.

If you have to eliminate any form of realism in a fight in order to have a good time playing there are countless systems that can support that.

See, this statement right here is proof you haven't grokked my point.

If the purpose is to see how well the combat mechanics hold up, what is/is not fun doesn't really matter. Personally, I despise save-or-suck spells as a player and as a GM, they aren't fun for me. But if I'm attempting to playtest the rules, to figure out how well they function as-written, then my own fun is irrelevant, the spells are going to hit the table.

Manticores of 7 INT playing "I'm going to sacrifice myself to kill this PC so next time they're in combat they are down a party member and I have perfect knowledge of the PCs current hit points and condition status" is not 'good tactics' it's metagaming for the sake of winning combat.

What a lovely strawman you've constructed.

I'm of the opinion that if you are going to create a house rule (grossly playing adversary encounters against RAW and granting NPCs 'God/hivemind' knowledge) then you're the one responsible for creating a house rule to solve the problems that creates.

I see no RAW being violated here. However, I do see you making wild statements and pretending that they are RAW. Would you care to elaborate on what actual printed rule is being violated?

Giving NPCs and monsters tactics based on out of game mechanics, treating all monsters as fodder meant only to die to trade another enemy's life, and not playing monsters realistically to their intelligence level are not going to be standard at a lot of gaming tables.

But they ARE how you test a system. Testing whether your GM can arbitrarily decide to make a fight easier by using poor tactics, or forcing enemies to run, DOES NOT provide feedback on how to make the system better--because the system was superseded by something completely outside it.

If you really feel that such things are mandatory to balance the combat (which they're not in Pathfinder, they're not in 5e, and they certainly shouldn't be here), then Paizo needs to add a morale system, or some way to represent enemies breaking and running.

Your playtest results are valid, but to be honest, I am not sure I am going to making any significant changes to the game based on a rather harcore approach to NPC tactics.

Perhaps I'm missing the point of a playtest, but shouldn't you be welcoming data like this? If you're attempting to design any kind of system, then stress test data is infinitely more valuable for determining how well you've accomplished that end, than data from people refusing to push the system to its limits.

If your re-design of the dying rules hinges upon a GM interpretation of a nebulous term in order to function as intended, then the fault lies with the rules. Not with the person who found the issue.

It's definitely the only form of attrition for martials.

Except for ability damage, spell effects, and conditions like fatigue, exhaustion, etc.

Also, isn't the selling point of martials that they can go all day? I seem to recall Paizo thinking so highly of being free from the constraints of uses per day and spell slots that they had to nerf the Kineticist into the ground.

The real fix to CLW spam is adding some sort of non-magical way to restore a meaningful amount of health, such as by letting you spend 5 minutes with the Heal/Medicine skill and a healer's kit.

You're still going to have complaints, because so many people seem to believe that HP attrition is the only form of attrition.

Some of us DO view it as an issue and appreciate the effort to fix it.

Then why not fix it in your own game? Blanket ban wands of Cure Light/Infernal Healing. There's no need to ruin the entire concept of a consumable, simply to fix something that GMs can house rule.

2) Why would any god want to have their followers make such things and then sell them on an open market?

3) Why would any cleric want to make a wand of healing to sell?

Hmm...

If you'll permit me, I'd like to extend this line of thinking. Why would any god allow scrolls, potions, wands, etc. to be sold? Every objection you've brought up to wands of healing holds true for every other spell in the game. Also, your argument is fundamentally flawed because CLW isn't limited to Clerics; no god is going to take offense at a Bard or Witch making a wand.

When there are no good reasons for such an item to exist other than everyone wants them, its seems like the cost should be prohibitive or they are not for sale at all.

As I explained back on page 2, the best argument for it's existence is that it means that no one in the party is forced to play a healer. It also gives the GM more freedom when designing encounters and dungeons, with the tacit understanding that simple out-of-combat deal X damage obstacles are ineffective.

That's mainly the point - once you add a wand of CLW into the scenario, any HP damage that doesn't kill someone becomes completely irrelevant. The actual threats in the two scenarios you've presented are likely to be stat damage (which takes more resources to fix) or a set of enemies. That's a pretty important problem.

It's not a problem at all, because getting nickled and dimed to death via HP damage isn't interesting (since in the scenario you presented there's no way around it) or fun for the party. In the situation, the party needs the foresight and resources to obtain the wand, and the skills to use it, which makes it roughly equivalent to a Wizard preparing the right spell at the right moment. In addition, the problems a wand of CLW does solve, are fairly static and uninteresting in nature. As a GM, I'd much rather challenge players with more creative problems, that can be defeated with preparation and planning, as opposed to pointing to someone and saying "you take X damage" rinse and repeat until the party is dead.

Conversely, let's say there's a swinging blade trap. You have no way to disarm it. With effective infinite free healing outside of combat, what is the downside to simply walking through it, taking the damage, and proceeding on as though it didn't exist?

Lets dissect this situation for a moment, looking at the two major modes of play.

First, lets consider the case where this is a pre-written module, that I am running exclusively as written. In that case, if the party has no Rogue (say this was a PFS table, made from a group of random people), then I applaud their use of the wand of CLW as an alternative method to deal with a challenge they had no other way of mitigating. I don't advocate banning Dimension Door, because a Wizard can use it to teleport the party across a river they had no other way of dealing with; why is this any different?

Second, lets consider the case where I wrote this encounter, and knew my party going in. In which case, if they had no way to disarm the trap, and I knew they had a wand of CLW, why would I put a simple trap there? I wouldn't force a party of 20th level demigods to fight a CR 1/4 Skeleton, so why would I put the party up against something they're more than capable of dealing with? Instead, I might poison the blade of the trap, causing an injury that a cheap consumable can't fix; or I might have the clatter attract marauding creatures, who ambush the party and prevent them from immediately healing. In both cases, I've turned a simple axe trap into something that requires more thought to deal with.

I haven't seen a good explanation of this issue, so can someone please explain to me what the issue is with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds? And why this issue is drastic enough to warrant taking a sledgehammer to entire classes to "fix"?

From my perspective, having on-demand healing is beneficial for both the party and for the GM, in two major ways.

It benefits the players by not saddling a player with the role of healer. It has been observed time and time again in video games, that players do not like playing healers. It has gotten to the point the League of Legends had to implement a queue that gave special rewards for playing a healer, World of Warcraft found the need to do the same thing. While it's not a direct comparison, it's reasonable to believe such a trend exists in TTRPGs. So why force players into the role? A simple healstick both means a party doesn't *need* a Cleric, Oracle, Bard, Witch, etc. which allows for more interesting and creative party combinations. It also allows the people playing those classes to prepare a wide variety of spells, to do things beyond simply sitting in the back, and preparing to slap a band-aid on the Fighter after a battle. The wand of Cure Light also allows those who enjoy playing healers, to focus on damage mitigation, condition removal, wider varieties of in-combat healing, and other activities that are both more skill expressive and varied in their options.

It benefits GMs by allowing them to design encounters that test a wider range of skills. Rather than players constantly needing to budget their 1-2 healing spells a day, and wincing every time a CLW rolls a 1 or an enemy crits for damage they haven't the resources to heal, the party is more or less at fill HP going into every fight. Which means the GM can throw harder encounters at players, encounters with multiple parts, encounters with fun terrain gimmicks, etc. All without needing to constantly math out if the party has the raw numbers to not be crippled by fighting one extra skeleton.

Are there any scenarios that people would recommend playing before this one for backstory purposes?

I've yet to play it, but the information suggests...

That’s an assumption you are having.

That's what being a God is. It's representing an embodiment of an ideal or ethos, to the point that your favor grants mortals the ability to literally glow with that ethos, as if they were inhuman.

What’s a little bit more? That’s how it works. That’s how it always works.

No, that's how it works for some characters.

Making any kind of universal statement like that, especially about the personal arc of Player Characters, is absolutely antithetical to the purpose of a TTRPG. This isn't a videogame, where your endings are set in stone, your character's arc is truly yours, and yours alone.

Being equally about evil and law, like Asmodeus is, means that you would NOT simply wish to create an "ordered society". You would want to create an 'EVILLY ordered society." Lawful neutral is the one you'd want for an "ordered society".

Correct... thus a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Asmodeus would focus on the aspect that brings about a Lawful Society, with little care for the Evil aspect. Asmoedeus, for his part, would be delighted, because the society in his image would inevitably result in Evil being done, even if the initial conception was benign. The road to Hell is paved in good intentions, and having a deity that embraces that results in far more story possibilities than making a deity that is always mega-evil for reals. That's what Diabolism in Pathfinder has always been about, that even with pure intent, even if you personally keep your soul, any dealings with Hell means the cause of Hell will be served.

This doesn't remove story options any more than the fact that we won't be likely to have a witch in the core rules "removes" witches from Irrisen.

I profoundly disagree. These changes mean Cleric, the actual mechanical class, can no longer be the vessel for stories that it once supported. Which is distinctly different than the relevant material simply being unavailable. I would liken this change to removing all Summoning from the Wizard list, limiting them solely to the Sorcerer. The general concept may still be available in another form, but characters (not PCs, characters) who once existed, no longer do.

Also, I find Zon-Kuthon allowing LN clerics to be even more puzzling, in light of this discussion. He exists solely to inflict pain and suffering on others, and has little to no constructive element to his portfolio.

Personally, for me, taking lawful neutral Asmodeus worshipers as an example... I see nothing natural at all about someone who worships the ruler of Hell itself in a way that isn't evil.

What about the people who simply wish to create an ordered society, unburdened by Abadar's focus on Wealth and Profit? Asmodeus is equal parts a god of Evil and Law; just as Desna is equal parts Chaos and Good. Why are worshipers prevented from focusing on one aspect in the former case, but not the latter?

One could argue that such half-hearted devotion is offensive to the god's sensibilities or somehow subverting their will, but that argument doesn't hold water, especially for a deity as pragmatic and forward thinking as Asmodeus. If offering the stability of a lawful and ordered society draws in servants, who may later be tempted to the path of evil, furthers the cause of Hell, why wouldn't Asmodeus give mortals enough rope to hang themselves? Why does Asmodeus only allow his will to be carried about by "true" believers, rather than accepting the service of any foolish enough to believe they can bargain with Hell and come out ahead?

I'm utterly baffled by this change because, from my perspective, it only serves to remove story options, and to make Golarion less interesting, not more.

As an afterthought, what does this mean for the Order of the Godclaw? Previously, they existed by focusing on the lawful aspect of all deities, but now since Asmodeus is LE and only LE, that means he conflicts with Iomedae and Torag.

This is not true.

A level 1 sorcerer / level x Wizard was always stronger than a level x wizard.

That's not remotely true, outside of the Crossblooded Orc-Draconic Evoker you already mentioned... which really only exists to allow a borderline useless type of character be boosted up to playable.

yep, dipping led to broken characters, where as true multiclassing meant you couldn't do enough.

A bizzare stance to take, when the most hideously broken PCs have always been the Single-Classed fullcasters.

Now we're going to see these full-casters being able to take toys from other classes, at little loss to themselves. If a Wizard can get into Eldritch Knight without losing spell progression, why wouldn't they?

I'm very disappointed that this is the direction 2e has chosen to go.

Multi-classing was one of the most interesting and skill-expressive mechanics in 1e, allowing players to create a character that's both unique and wholly their own. Reducing such mechanics to a handful of pre-defined packages is a massive loss for everyone who enjoyed the customization of 1e. If anything is reverted in playtesting, I hope this is it.

Can we take this as an indication that the 6th level caster doesn't exist in 2e?

I've been unimpressed with many of the changes thus far, but this does a good job of keeping the class's core identity, while greatly upgrading it.

Well done.

In Pathfinder 1e, high level play necessitates martial characters load themselves down with magic items containing buffs or other abilities, in order to keep up if there's no dedicated buffer in the party. However, it seems as though resonance is designed to artificially limit the number of items like this that they can have. An effect only compounded by the fact that the majority of non-magical types don't have build points to spare on having a high charisma, and are therefore limited in resonance.

Would you care to explain the rationale behind such a decision?

You’ll note that I suggested the class be renamed ‘Divine Champions’ with ‘Paladins’ only being the Lawful Good subset.

I certainly wouldn't have been opposed to that, but it's not the route Paizo has chosen to go.

I sincerely wish that Paizo had at least explored opening up Paladins to all good alignments, making your deific code of tenets the centerpiece of the class. We deserve holy warriors in the CRB to champion the chaotic gods who want to make the world a better place.

The stringent behavioral guidelines associated with the Paladin's Code, and the discipline that comes with it, are antithetical to the idea of a Chaotic God. In the example given, you've essentially created a code that can be summarized as "don't be evil", which is certainly a noble sentiment--but the Paladin is supposed to be beyond merely not being evil, it's about duty both to others, and to yourself, walking the razor's edge in the name of continually forcing yourself to be your best; and it is accepting that failure means losing everything. Chaos does not allow for that kind of stringent duty, nor should it! Chaos is the easy rode of kinda doing whatever you want.

I do think that Chaotic gods should have the option of having a holy Warrior (which is why I hope Clerics get some better martial options), and hope they get another class in the future.

I just hope it's not called Paladin.

Dude I hate gunslingers. Hate with a burning passion. I hate Alchemists, they are dumb, they (and 'slingers) belong in a weird pirate-esque setting, along with the swashbuckler. They are too far ahead time-line wise to be around.

Guns predated Full Plate and Rapiers by nearly a century.

Guns and Alchemy are no further ahead in the timeline than other things you'd consider fantasy staples.

Only Lawful Good can be this shining champion against Evil, so... kinda means "Best Good" there. Given that other Good alignments are just unable to really channel the righteousness. Or use their armor, apparently.

Cleric, Warpriest, Inquisitor?

As to Gods, Iomedae is the one that closed the Worldwound, Asmodeus is the mastermind destined to control all creation, Zon-Kuthon gets to wear the leather chaps, and Irori became a God by throwing up the horns and daring reality to stop him. And Abadar has a pretty good beard, I like it.

Iomedae's worshipers alternate between being punching bags for whichever writer is angry about organized religion this week, or faceless/viscous goons to slaughter (Hell's Vengeance). Iomedae herself doesn't get away any better, being presented as an violent, iron-fisted weirdo, in the AP ostensibly focused on her... who doesn't even play a major part in sealing the World Wound, since the PCs are the stars of the show, and their coalition actually has relatively few Iomedaeans, given where they are.

Asmodeus is the mastermind destined to control all creation

Asmodeus gets consistently awful mechanics, and has been retconned to be wayyy stupider, in the name of making some social point.

Irori became a God by throwing up the horns and daring reality to stop him.

So did Cayden. One is one of the poster boys for the setting, the other has so little lore most people can't tell you anything beyond his most generic traits.

Contrasting that, Cayden is a drunk that no one cares about

Who gets the second most exposure of any god...

Desna is the one who riled the Abyss enough to make it a problem to begin with.

First off, not true. Second off, Desna gets more exposure than any every other god. The majority of APs have a major Desnan NPC, who is always just super helpful and the bestest person ever, and some even bring in random elements of her faith in places it makes no sense to have. To cap it off, she constantly gets the best feats, archetypes, and domains. Like, Desna is so blatantly Paizo's favorite that it's kinda silly.

Rovagug got slapped down by Sarenrae

Most powerful being in the entire setting, can apparently kill Azathoth.

I think making them Lawful Good only is a big mistake. Its a pointless limitation and its only purpose is elitism as far as I'm concerned. Making it so Lawful Good is Best Good. I find the notion very disappointing.

It's not elitism, it's a reward for purposely taking on a significant challenge.

And I'll light a match and say that if they do create other alignment Paladins, they'll be intentionally weaker to avoid power creep, furthering my displeasure of of Lawful Good being Best Good.

Lawful good has never been best good in Pathfinder. Lawful deities are constantly diminished in the fluff, their chaotic counterparts get far better domains/spells, far more limelight in adventures, on top of the strict code of conduct which makes being LG more difficult than any other good.

If LG Paladin is truly better than the others (and I see no evidence to suggest it will be, history suggests that, if anything, the Paladin of Freedom will be the strongest by far), let them have it. The LG players get beat up enough.

Any chance we can get some numbers on LoH, or a quick glimpse at when Smite Evil might make a return?

Also, I really don't like Divine Grace being a reaction--it forces the Paladin to stop defending their allies in order to protect themselves, which is antithetical to the class's fluff. It also looks like it'll lead to reaction choke between Divine Grace, Retributive Strike, Shield Usage, and Attack of Opportunity.

Power Attack gives you one (and actually, eventually two without taking another feat to improve it!) extra damage die and does not penalize you on accuracy; and you don't want a penalty on accuracy. For a d12 two-handed weapon that might have gotten +3 damage (+3 more every 4 BAB) in PF1, that's 6.5 damage on average, going up to 13. It wasn't until BAB 16 that you would do more damage than that in PF1, and that was at a cost of -5 accuracy.

That's true... but the Two Handed weapon builds have never lacked for damage. Where Power Attack and its equivalents was truly useful was for the one-handers, the two weapon fighters, the Dex classes, sword and board, etc. Where weapon damage die is small to the point of being inconsequential, forcing them to rely on static damage. Has anything been done to help these classes keep up in terms of DPS?

Interesting.

However, the biggest problem when it comes to playing "the type of fighter you want to" has always been the inordinate amount of feat taxes required to do something as simple as throw a javelin or axe without penalty. Even in the example given... being able to fire two shots accurately with a bow would require Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and likely, Rapid Shot.. then Whirlwind Attacking with an Axe would require Combat Expertise, Mobility, Dodge, and Spring Attack, not to mention the investment in Strength, Dex, and Int required.

Has this been addressed in Pathfinder 2e?

Of all the news I expected to drop without fanfare on a Tuesday afternoon, this is not it.

This is an excellent compromise. Glad to see that feedback has been listened to.

Sure... hyperbole away if you like. Anecdotal evidence at the table has shown me, at all levels, that the Magus (dex, str, black blade, whatever) is extremely strong and competent. I've seen several, all of them slightly different across the gamut of types of magi you can make. I have never heard arguments such as you are making.

Therefore, I can only conclude that your supposition that Maguses struggle is just wrong.

Yes, please, flippantly dismiss my point without engaging with it.

The fact the vast majority of Magi gravitate toward one specific weapon, speaks to a fundamental flaw within the class.

Its one of the more powerful classes out there, even if you don't do a Dex-based version.

Magus isn't a powerful class by any metric.

However the AM-MAGUS build is strong enough to give the illusion that the class is in a good spot. It accomplishes this by having several key pieces that all syngergize; perfectly with each other. Removing any one of those pieces results in that illusion crumbling, and the class tumbling down into borderline uselessness.

Banning an incredibly popular combination that's been around for 7 years, would be an absolutely asinine decision. Especially if it's not accompanied by changes to make the already-struggling-magus more playable.

The dcs for intimidate are just too low to deal with reasonably unless you want to have all NPCs with important information be paladins.

That's the real reason.

Diplomacy and bluff both have RAW circumstance modifiers that prevent them from working in certain situations; Intimidate has no such restriction, an has a ludicrously low DC.

10 + HD + Wisdom mod is ridiculously easy to beat, even at 1st level, and only gets easier as time goes on. I'm currently in a 4th level campaign with a Cha 14 Thug Rogue, who rarely fails any sort of intimidate check, even against CR 8 and 9 enemies. Simply because the DC scales too slowly.

Applying this to modules, you get to points where if enemies don't get the same resistance to intimidate as they do to bluff/diplo, you easily end up at a point where the party can do whatever they want, while shrugging off consequences with a trivial DC.

I dislike the implication that those who choose the Grand Lodge are somehow less than those who do not. There are people who are Grand Lodge because they passionately love the Society, warts and all.

I dislike the notion that licking the Ten's boots is what's best for the Society.

It's been proven time and again, that The Ten only care for themselves. They won't even stick their necks out to help the Master of Spells. Considering what's nestled in the upper floors of Sky's Reach, Sorrina Westyr shouldn't have been trapped in Orv for all those years, and retrieving Aram Zey should have taken an hour, at most.

If you wish to change the Society, you have to put pressure on the leadership; force them to be accountable to others in order to achieve their goals. You can't claim to be a transformative force, while also mindlessly following the very orders you wish to change.

Is retirement of the 'Grand Lodge' too far-fetched of an idea?

EDIT: I mean, it seems to be the seat of a lot of distrust and discontent... could new leadership in the Society go 'Yeah, antiquated construct, we need something BETTER. We can BE BETTER!'?

Nah, it shouldn't be retired, every organization will have its yes-men, sycophants, and mindless factotums. But there should definitely be an alternative, for those who care about holding their leaders accountable...

** spoiler omitted **...

You completely missed the point.

Every motivation you mentioned is a generic Pathfinder virtue, that is specific to no single faction. The setting and how its utilized is unique and special for precisely one faction. Which is exactly what I said. The set of missions offers nothing thematically unique for Dark Archive PCs, which means calling it a "Dark Archive" arc is a dramatic mis-characterization.

Dark Archive is not the Cheliax faction anymore. And what happens during that trilogy fits perfectly with previous developments ** spoiler omitted **

Besides all that, Pathfinder Society does not allow for evil players while the infernal empire of Cheliax is a LE nation historically in conflict with the Society itself, so it makes sense for PFS to be opposed to Cheliax.

The Dark Archive isn't Cheliax, but it is a faction dedicated to securing dangerous knowledge, and is a largely apolitical entity. Nothing you do in the arc supports that goal. Liberty's Edge is a faction dedicated to fighting "tyranny" and is very much a political entity; which fits perfectly with the not inconsiderable number of crimes you commit in the arc, all in the name of opposing house Thrune.

What happens in the box text at the very end of the trilogy sort of fits with the previous developments if you squint and don't think about it too hard. Personally I took the interpretation that Tancred was just able to screw over Zarta solely because of his connections and political machinations, rather than some nebulous document. However, that event wasn't built up over the course of the arc. You literally find a piece of exposition sitting there in a plot convenient box, rather than a place that makes any sense or has any danger or mystery surrounding it.

Dark Archives has its own trilogy in season 7 and Zarta had a plot line peppered over 2 or 3 seasons... That's more than Liberty's Edge has ever had.

While Scarab Sages has been the most prevalent since season 5 started, you can't really say Dark Archives has been shafted more than a couple other factions who've only had one or two (if that many) scenarios total.

That trilogy wasn't Dark Archive. It did nothing to further the faction's overall goals and the thematic links only came about in the box text at the end of the final scenario. In fact, given what actually happens in the series, I'd say that trilogy is far, far, more thematically linked to Liberty's Edge. What with all the supporting anti-Chelish subversives, debunking House Thrune's propaganda, murdering law enforcement, and literally everything that happens in Part 3.

Also, Liberty's Edge had a major arc kicked off in 9-02.

Silver Crusade gets shafted and Dark archive gets all the cool stuff and the Scarab Sages gets phased out.

Dark Archive gets shafted almost as much as Silver Crusade. Exchange, Lodge, and Sages have been the historical favorites.

If you had to get rid of one of Scarab Sages/Dark Archives, I would have suggested getting rid of Dark Archives instead, but that's because I'm not interested in the 'edgy' or 'evil light' flavor of Dark Archives.

That's a terrible comparison. Scarab Sages and Dark Archive are two of the three factions most integral to the Society's identity. Neither one should go away, because they're both very real aspects of the pursuit of knowledge.

Some do it solely for the sake of knowledge, devouring a manual on proper candle-making technique with as much gusto as a book of ancient spells. However, that puts them in jeopardy because they're too enamored with history to pay heed to the dangers or practical concerns. Some seek knowledge as a means to gain power; sifting through ancient secrets to find insights into the present. It makes them less inclined to go out of their way solely in the name of preserving history, but makes them an effective force for combating the sorts of powerful magics and long-buried horrors that Society agents have a knack for stepping in.

So, with Liberty's Edge and Scarab Sages getting huge multi-scenario arcs, and dedicated blog posts, and contests, can we finally have any meaningful plot lines for Silver Crusade?

Most of my PCs end up in that faction since they're generally trying to be decent people, and I personally can't stomach Grand Lodge as a concept, and it's been incredibly disappointing to see them do literally nothing since Season 5 (which they weren't even the central faction for!)

In all of Season 8, they got precisely 1 scenario mission. Same thing in Season 7.

Always disappointed to see factions disappear, hopefully their departure will be handled significantly better than Shadow Lodge(#StillCastsAShadow). For an organization devoted to obtaining knowledge and preserving history, removal of the history preservation faction strikes me as a very odd choice. From my perspective, it makes much more sense for Liberty's Edge to be given the boot, since the Society doesn't particularly care about social justice, and has a good motivation to cut ties with everything Maldris touched.

It's also strange to me that the Concordance of Elements is showing up again, considering Unleashing the Untouchable pretty handily ended the Society's forays into the elemental planes...

It can't predict and give write-ups for every variance, but the possibilities narrow down to a small enough generic concepts that you coukd give enough info to handle a very large variety.

So I'm confused, are you asking for more railroads, or less?