Grafz's page

Is there a current version of this?

Looking for a way to have a baseline for a home-brew game.

melee Thaumaturge do the equivalent of d12 w/ a 1d8 weapon

I'm not sure why you're insisting it's like manufacturing a new weapon with a d12. Why not use the actual math?

I'm not super familiar with fighters and bows (I've just never seen anyone play one in PF2) so I don't know how to think about feats. However assuming no feats a 1st level fighter with 18 dex and str 12+ I think we're talking about +9 / d8+1 damage? The Thaumaturge is probably dex 14 at best so +5 / d8+2.

If you think about the actual the damage output in the game they just aren't isn't comparable; the +4 to hit bonus completely swamps the additional point of bonus damage.

The fighter is vastly better (which is as it should be). When you add in volley and cover in the majority of encounters neither is particularly good.

Like, you make not like the idea of the character, or not like bows or whatever and that's fine. But the idea that the class is introducing some kind of incredible new power level is just silly. It's a sub-par option for people who want to role-play.

I was thinking about having a bow thaumaturge too!

I have a PFS "bow sorcerer" I wanted to rebuild as a thaumaturgist (mostly for flavor, since her backstory is she grew up by herself with some pathfinder ghosts for company and I *over* role-play her dubious knowledge).

I was imagining she'd have her lantern on a stick on her backpack and just run around with her bow (missing like normal).

It seems like Implement’s Empowerment would work fine with a longbow? Like you can do the gesture and then draw and fire the arrow as part of the shot.

And the bow isn't 2 hands so you have a free hand.

edit: Also... how is the bow op? Genuinely curious. In typical games with tight rooms you're usually starting at -2 from volley + cover penalties. I realize there's a fantasyland where you Crit and roll 10 on your deadly die but... mostly you just miss.

Magic weapon (the spell I planned on using to make my bow welder awesome) was literally better on any other character.

To be clear, Mr. L, you could have written a bare, desert island with a bunch of fighting pits.

You wrote an awesome environment with lots to do! I'm impressed with how much cool stuff is packed in there.

As a tour guide (the DM) I'd like to do a decent job of hitting the highlights. I just don't think it's feasible for that to happen in 2 days?

I don't think the adventure could possibly feel samey. Between the optional dungeon, all the different teams (+teams people make up and change), the results of different battles, characterization of the NPCs, etc. Each play through will feel radically different.

Why not use mikeawmids suggestion? Or, alternatively, is there some reason 2 days was selected? (Like is it a reference to something in the battle royale genre?)

The idea is that no single group of PCs will be able to see everything on the island,

I'm confused.

Nobody was asking "how can they see every encounter and fight every CR 15 monster".

The "minimum good version"* of the experience would have the PCs interact with each of the elements in some fashion and also set up the next 2 books. I think it's something like this?
--Interact with most (ideally all) of the teams that they'll see
--Interact with the cool teams that don't make it (the Hundreds, etc)
--Interact with the Light Bringers in some kind of ominous way
--Challenge other teams to get 7 more feathers (more if they lose)
--Be challenged by someone
--Interact with Tito's Toughest
--Shop at the Stone Market
--Fight, or at least see, some giant monsters*
--Checkout a watch tower
--Find a treasure

The players should
--Get enough exposure to the hex system to be comfortable with it and feel like they can make meaningful decisions
--Not feel too rushed or stressed out
--Have a chance to get a sense for the other competitors
--Feel like the have agency, which means that stuff takes longer than you'd expect.

This feels to me like waaaaay more than 2 days worth of stuff.

Obviously there are things (fighting with the enforcers, the abandoned mine with the forgeries, actually fighting a giant monster) on top of that that are optional but that's not what we're talking about.

--------

*If people think there is a smaller minimum good version I'd be happy to hear about it.

But my version isn't some kind of 120% video game map completion thing.

When I read this module, I also thought there was too much there to realistically cram into a 3/4 day window. I'm likely going to handwave the hard deadline and just say that the first [however many teams] to reach the top of the mountain with the requisite # of feathers progress to the tournament proper.

This... makes the most sense to me. The island is pretty random. Who's to say that 8 teams would make it in 3 days.

I love the tech/gunfighters idea, will deffo be stealing that. :D

They could have a warforged/construct with them! Ooh, loving it 2x.

I am a huge warforged fan. Having said that I think pure paizo people would be to use androids?

replace Hanna's Hundreds (or whatever they were called) with a single wizard who creates dozens of clones of himself.

I might be tempted to do both? And then have them fight?

Maybe a team of elemental 'benders'; earth, air, fire and water?

I think they already have a bunch of elemental call outs in the teams.

How about a team of acrobatic goblins who create human pyramids/towers by climbing on top of each other?

A circus themed group could be fun too. Especially if you want to do an Extinction Curse reference (if the group has played that AP).

Or an Aasimar/Tiefling duo?

A classic. Maybe a way to make a more generic group or encounter pop.

I'm sure people are doing it.
My kids love things like Atomic Robo and Order of the Stick so I'm tempted to do teams that are references to that.

A numeria-style team with starmetal weapons and tech priests*
A team of pirates
The all wizard team who specialize in summoning creatures
A team with negative energy healing (https://2e.aonprd.com/Ancestries.aspx?ID=23)**
A team of Hobgoblins from who are here for research from Oppark
A team of dopplegangers and changelings who are here to try to rob from people
A gunfighters/inventors from Arcadia or the Mana wastes

Probably shouldn't have too many from outside Tien?

**This is OP, so maybe the Lightkeepers, "accidentally" kill them early on. "We were just trying to help them... no idea healing was fatal to them... real tragety..."

I touched on this in the other thread (about optimal strategies (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43fkh?Optimal-Strategy-to-explore-Danger-Isla nd-and#1) for approaching the Danger Island book)

But I wonder a bit about the timeline. My group just made it through the 1st dungeon, which is set up to take ~1 day (and certainly feels like a full days worth of activity and grants 3 / 10 feathers).

That leaves you with 2 days and ~2 fights. (The optimization thread explains my thinking). I suppose that that's why the adventure length is 3 days? You probably want to have 2 fights, a few cool other scenes (watching other fights, friendly sparring with Tino's Toughest, introduce Lightkeepers) and then on to the next book.

And the big picture structure (where you could be challenged at any time) pushes groups to stay healthy and avoid conflict.

----------------

Given length of the book available and the overall flow of the optimal play group that's probably right? Most groups kinda rush through, DM handwaves xp and you're on to the next book. It's a martial arts movie and you're just setting up the "serious contenders" for the "real tournament".

The whole place has a (fairly deliberate?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Isle_of_Dread vibe (the name, hexploration, etc). Also, really big monsters romping around and causing chaos is a sub-theme (which is expressed fully at the end of book 2).

There's also a shonen battlemanga thing where you have a lot of colorful antagonists to introduce. The ideal (though tricky) thing to do would be to feature most of the enemy teams at least once on the island.
They could seeing the enemy team
-in a match or other challenge
-on the first scene on the beach
-in passing as they move around the island
-challenging the enforcers?

I tend toward more simulationist/completest vibes, I like option-ful sandboxes for PCs to explore and I'd like to see the PCs get a chance to explore the island.

Also it would be nice to have some ups and downs. Maybe the PCs don't win every battle? If the Lightkeepers get their last feather off the PCs and they have to catch up to advance it's probably set them up nicely as rivals?
(I'm not usually particularly heavy handed, but that kind of thing seems like it would increase tension).

I'm thinking about making the tournament time longer? Maybe a week?
(In my game I'd probably actually handwave it a bit but I realize some groups probably don't go for that style of play).

I'm generally quite happy with Book 1 (I haven't really gotten into Book 2).

I think a "typical DnD group" is pretty into (or has some members who are strategic enough to focus on) optimization. I feel like it breaks out

Over the next 2 days they need ~7 feathers a day; so...
day 1
- Challenge someone, bet 3 feathers (presumably win)
- avoid getting challenged after that
day 2
- Challenge someone, bet 3 feathers (presumably win)
- get another feather*
- turn in immediately

*The DM "gives" them another feather; most likely
- using the Lightkeepers event to set them up as "very powerful"
- rewarding a PC who goes off an explores with a feather
- saving another team or else getting a feather from them
- R2 - falsifying feathers, etc

They're done. (probably 1-2 levels behind and they've missed most or all of the cool stuff on the island).

You can see more optimization.
--It'd better to scout out other teams during the day somehow, and challenge them in the evening after their bouts.
--Its better not to say in your base where people can find you, etc
--There is a lot of free treasure sitting around the island but that's not signposted anywhere in the setting (still if people find an item while wandering around they'll probably be encouraged to do more of that)
--Others?

Some of the optimizations push people to get out of their base and explore (and let DMs offer them encounters that let them be heroic, and get xp).

---------

What do other folks think?

Actually it seems like it’s a filtering issue. If I scroll down manually it’s there. But when I select recent products and single file AV appears under Fists heading (and there are no Fists files)

When I go to the Ruby Phoenix section of the digital downloads it has AV downloads instead.

I have a screenshot, not sure how to attach.

CorvusMask wrote:

I mean main reason is that 1) who wants to take part in competition where enemy is allowed to knock you out and take your stuff 2) the competition rewards (and other loot you can find) is meant to replace loot you would normally take from enemies.

I do agree that 3) its silly they can loot the bodies if they find them dead :P

But yeah, I think you just need to remind players that competition rewards are sufficient for their money problems and that there is loot they can find that isn't competitor equipment.

Yeah, I would just change the rule to "no looting" - all items are claimed by the enforcers. All gains are to be gained from the tournament or the island itself. The unlucky team is shipped to Tournament HQ and if they made a contingency plan to resurrect themselves then that happens (with their gear still belonging to them).

I think I know why the rule is written in the AP - there are some unsavory NPC teams who are meant to be lootable, namely the team that is trying to cheat and make their own silver feathers. I think the rule will be that what makes them lootable is the fact that they are caught violating the tournament rules; then their gear is forfeit (regardless of whether they're killed). The emissary's representatives have the authority to determine this when it happens.

This is a reasonable thought. But I think that the person traveling with the party could just grant them the items after consulting with the enforcers.

I agree that one or more of the kids in the group who were more acquisitive were pretty into "permanently" resolving other teams when they found out they could get their stuff.

So it seems specifically bizarre as a specific rule. It just seems to encourage wholesale slaughter.

Great. Thank you all for the tips! Appreciate it.

Edit: thanks for the quick response! Much appreciated.

I though you had to talk to a venture captain and register with a lodge or something.

So I can just rent a table at a FLGS (or a house) get some people and play? And just create an event? Do you make an event for every day you play?

I’m still confused about what VCs do if there’s no list or way to contact them. I guess it’s probably con support?

In order to run PFS in meat space I think you need to be registered with the VC in your area.

My kids are prevailing upon me to run a game. There was an old list (https://paizo.com/organizedplay/coordinators) on the forum but the website just crashes when I try to load it.

If it matters we are located in the Bronx and could play in either Manhattan or the Bronx. I've run and reported a few sessions online.

I can be pretty critical of certain adventures but as a concept this seems excellent?

It’s a digital product so it can be the size it needs to be. Adventures often get cut up in weird ways (or padded out with unnecessary content) to match the particular physics of printing.

Since it’s digital they can release it in beta state and later correct issues. I think there’s a lot of resistance to that when there is a physical product. Nobody’s miffed (somebody on the internet probably is) if they have to download it again in a few weeks with corrections. If it’s a huge hit or something they can always make a deluxe print of the most popular ones later?

It’s cheaper obviously.

It’s a nice alternative to PFS, which is highly structured and usually extremely generic.

It’s a nice alternative to buying 5e or OSR adventures for 5$ and converting them.

As someone who thinks planescape torment was the best ttrpg in crpt form I like an adventure that’s specific to the characters. You can do a lot with some design constraints. A group of foundlings who were raised by witches and are coming back to their sacred tree now that the forces of darkness have overtaken it is much more flavorful than... there’s this tree with some evil monsters in it. You get a lot more drama and flavor.

They can cover areas of the world / types of adventures that wouldn’t fit in APs or PFS.

It’s probably going to be attractive to streamers since it’s a complete package.

It’s probably going to be attractive to pbp because it’s got a lot of flavor but isn’t as looong as APs and doesn’t have all the PFS hoops to jump through and weird extra rules.

It’s nice they’re making non-iconic iconics?

It’s not replacing any products lines, it’s not encroaching overmuch (at all?) on any other products....

I literally can’t think about anything bad. Seems perfect?

Paizo has tightened their modules since Rise of the Runelords, mostly by shrinking the Foreword because Adventure Paths are no longer a new concept.

I don't mean to be too disagreeable but I'm not sure why you're comparing Rise with anything? I would say that a more interesting comparison is AoA Book 1 and Gauntlight.

They're same edition, same 1 dungeon adventure, but the structure of Gauntlight book seems much tigher. Back matter is pretty concise? Someone could probably find something the quibble about (the archetype?) but almost everything is actually related to running the adventure, the town, etc. The historical things that aren't visible to the players (1000 years ago so-and-so wanted to blah blah blah) is much lower on the page count. The volume of pages retelling the same 10,000 year old "dungeon origin story" (that the PCs can't find out about until many books later) is reduced.

'Setting filler'?

You mean 'world-building'?

One man's meat is another man's poison: for a lot of people, Golarion is also part of the appeal of Paizo's products.

Just generically I'm repeating OPs point, which I think you're kinda supporting? (Not in tone, but...)

If OPs point is "these would stronger adventures if the product was focused on the adventure".

I feel like your point is "I like setting material; don't ignore my wants".

I'm not trying to ignore your desires. I am sympathetic to the appeal. I realize that, when you're invested in the setting, more content of any sort is great.

What do you think of Gauntlight? I claim it's much more focused on the adventure. There is setting and lore, but there is a much less that isn't related to running the adventure. Does that focus detract from your enjoyment of the product?

I'll be picking up Abomination Vaults, though...even though I'll probably never run it as written. The three-issue format intrigues me, as does the fact that it shares the same setting as the Beginner Box *and* Troubles in Otari. The three together could form a strong foundation for a more player-driven experience.

This is an interesting idea. I skipped the BB (for myself, we got one for some friends) but I have Trouble and now Gauntlight.

I've still reading Gauntlight's first level but the things that frustrated me about AoA book 1 (probably the closest comparison) seem to be less of an issue. It seems more comfortable allowing players to explore, having the environment have some connections (less of the each room is a monster-in-a-box feel) and it's nicely Jaquay'd (has multiple paths). (Edit: also the per chapter treasure lists and environmental cues are the sort of thing that feels "modern" and "high quality" to me.)

In terms of turning it more sandbox you might consider combining it with Level Without Proficiency. That lets you run encounters "as is" without needing to rewrite each encounter to match whatever level the party is.

It would be interesting to see if someone could make connections between the Otari stuff and the other Kortos APs that have come out.

Just wanted to mention that I really liked this writeup! Do you regularly post your sessions somewhere?

The Tale of Jang was super fun and I enjoyed reading it!

That said.... there's a lack of precision here that's a bit sad. I've clipped to try to make it clearer.

This isn't just the extra articles btw - some of which are amazing and some of which aren't... I'm talking about within the ~50 pages of the AP itself. My wife is running RotRL Anniversary and turned to me today and said "I just read five pages of stuff the players will never know, but they haven't told me what the murder site looks like."

The hobgoblin druid Jang ... 2-page article ... even though most campaigns will find her on the 3rd floor of a tower and kill her as quickly as possible. The first page contains her character sheet and combat tactics, and the second page gives her backstory and attitude.

Does that seem like a waste of a page?

...that second page that gave her backstory and her relationship with the Ironfang Legion mattered. We spent an hour roleplaying the interrogation of Jang. The conversation opened up questions beyond the war, such as Jang justifying her part in the invasion,...

One person noted that 5 pages of superfluous history was presented while key information useful to running the adventure wasn't available.

The other person noted that the motivations of an NPC who, as written, tries to escape when defeated turned out to be useful to them was evidence disproving this. But they don't seem contradictory to me.

-------

I think the actual point, was,

Approximately half the content of each AP is stuff I don't use, .... could we get adventures without all the setting "filler?"

The motivation of an NPC, one that's prone to break and run (and generate interaction), isn't "setting filler". Especially if they act as a stand in for a faction who are active in the adventure.

-------

I will say I was pleasantly surprised by the start of Gauntlight (#163), which did not spend the first 2 pages repeating the NPC and town background, so maybe we're turning a corner.

Raging Swan have converted a bunch of their adventures to 2e, if you’re looking for 3pp adventures.

Do you recommend them?

Thanks for the responses. Appreciate your help!

I don't know if this is intentional or not but the "Cover" page of the Maps PDF says 1 of 6.

Not sure if that's a carry over from 6 volume APs or indicative that the maps will be split up.

I really appreciate the buttons to hide the grids, numbering, etc. on the maps (I realize there was some ability to do that before) but making it clear the function exists in the PDF is appreciated.

If that's true (and I agree it's a reasonable interpretation just looking at that specific sentence).

How does that interact with your ability to "declare" whether a spell is Arcane or Primal?

So I've added (e.g. guidance) as an Arcane spell, but I can make it a primal spell at the time of casting?

(I think you may be right, part of me is just struggling with the wording)

edit: I read the first few responses, got pretty frustrated with their tone and wrote something long (that I thought was more responsive and less pointless nitpicking). It seems like the thread is pretty long now. Sorry if this is redundant.

I realize I'm likely in the minority, but I'd prefer adventure content of a mega adventure along the lines of what is put out by other companies that focus on, well, the adventure. Approximately half the content of each AP is stuff I don't use, and I end up spending around $150 per campaign (when you can get similar material from other companies for less than half that).

Does anyone else agree?

Yes. The product suffers because of the bundling.

Aside

However it's probably not rational for them to make the "best" adventures.

Paizo's indirectly addressed this over the years (which I may be remember incorrectly anyway) but this is also supposition
1) maintaining monthly subscriber dollars - they have to have things for people who won't run the adventure or that reward the completionist. By definition the stuff has to be unconnected to the adventure, or even DMing, if it worked well with the adventure it's likely not attractive to the person.

2) it's less burden on core AP creation staff to generate "filler" content - it's a lot easier to farm out ~25% of the book in small chunks; until recently that development was actually done by a different person from the adventure developer (see 4 )

3) They have the audience they have... they have a loyal base of subscribers now - that base of people like semi-random paizo related cool stuff showing up in their box - I think one of the Know Direction podcast hosts really likes this

4) They're working on addressing the issue a bit... They added an extra AP developer a year ago and ~now the AP isn't split up for development? (this obviously fights with 1) and 3)

5) Low competition - you don't have great options - which is why you're probably posting here asking them to change instead of just buying someone else's products
5a) wizards kind of does, but their adventures are only low tier, quality is not clearly better than paizo (some of it is pretty poorly structured, publishing schedule is irregular, ) - plus you have to convert
5b) 3rd party energy is around OSR style stuff - plus you have to convert
5c) the kingmaker reboot is late (I don't want to say development hell and there are monthly updates but.... idk... it would have been an actual competitor to the APs)
5d) kobold press hired amanda hammond and has a big kickstarter... but it's aimed at the 5e market (so far as I can tell)

6) Adventure quality is DM dependent... A good DM can put more time into an OK product and make it an amazing experience. Some DMs probably like having an adventure that they fiddle with.

7) For all my kvetching some of my best player experiences have been in APs (vs DMing AoA which was a mess that collapsed).

8) Is the DM the consumer... or are the players... who are super hyped to play the AP the real deciders? Does the DM just grin and make it work? (This point will make more sense to you if you're a parent of young children and you think about the movies you've watched over the past year).
8a) Does having a bunch of random player facing stuff instead of better constructed adventures lower your sales in this model? The DM would like a "better" adventure... but the alpha player wants to play the cool new "master of bloody blows" archetype that's "specially suited" for the martial arts AP. Maybe sticking in the archetype (which the player sees on AoN) drives interest in your product in a way that 5 more pages of carefully thought out connective tissue and interesting encounters doesn't?

9) Maybe paizo isn't targeting the casual DM anyway with the APs? Like the uber competent I-can-make-anything-work, I-love-golarion DM just... makes it work.
9a) If you make a higher quality, better thought out, better organized, more focused product for the casual DM... maybe they make it to book 3 instead of burning out mid-way through book 1? But maybe it was never going to work out anyway? Maybe the casual DM should be going beginner-box -> Otari Adventure anyway?

There is some interesting historical path dependency. Paizo was originally the dragon/dungeon magazine staff before WotC decided it wasn't worthwhile maintaining those and fired everybody. There is a sense in which they are "still doing the same thing" they were doing throughout 3rd edition of Dnd 20(?) years ago-> Producing a magazine each month about DnD; random stuff + adventure.
I would not be surprised if there was some genetic disposition toward keeping some element of "random stuff" in the adventures.

Like could we get adventures without all the setting "filler?" Just some good, "meat and potatoes" adventuring?

I would *not* assume they don't like high quality focused modules.

I think it's probably market based?
If the modules are good and sell well then there could be a 2nd "golden age" of Paizo modules. You could see pull over from 5e, etc.

And if sales don't live up they have some evergreen adventures to point people to. (Of course if the modules are too consistently good and too regular then maybe they do cannibalize AP sales.)

Someone might say you should look at PF Society modules. (Given your existing frustrations I would not.)

(Especially now that Paizo seems to be the sole content creators for PF2).

There is more to say about the 3rd party market but this post is already long. But I agree there isn't much. I'm confused about why the responses didn't take this as a given.

I went looking for PF2 adventures last year and there was ~1 adventure (7th level Ron Lundeen rewrite of an existing adventure). Vanessa Hoskins did a great kinetisist book. There are some interesting fan posts on the reddit. I haven't heard much buzz about anything else.

I have to guess that it's a particularly tough market
-there are a lot of PF1 module fan conversions / PS society adventures that cover the "low end" and high end (like kobold press) is going to aim for 5e DnD?
-Since a lot of play is society (or the DM just says "only society legal") that probably acts as a drag.

The monster is a stealth creature so I don't want to ruin it. To be clear I've avoided reading about it (since I'm a player in these games) so the creature stats I'm quoting below might be slightly off.

Name

APs that I've run into it

The problem

The (understandable appeal) to the writer (supposition on my part)

Alternative suggestions

There may not be a perfect replacement (it's pretty iconic) but...

If I have a wizard with the Magaambyan Attendant dedication, are they considered to have access to the Primal Tradition for the purposes of using a Wand/Scroll of a spell on the primal list? (e.g. heal)

This resolved my issue as well. Thanks.

The Patreon to put things on YouTube seems like a good solution.

When I've (rarely) been in a position to watch the twitch streams they've been informative (and in the case of the AP reviews extremely detailed and thoughtful content that would be extremely valuable to DMs).

It also seems like they tackle thorny content (e.g. NPC creation using monster rules) that probably couldn't easily go up in an article format.

If I'm right then you'd probably get patreon sponsors who'd pay for them to get someone to copy over the twitch to youtube (this seems super common, streamers who have youtube content were thanking their youtube editors over the end of year holidays).

If I'm wrong then lack of patreon indicated that this would be the answer.

Which is great if you want to watch it, and soon, but not if you want to read useful information, posted some where on this forum, always.

Gentle reminder that this is on twitch, which doesn’t save videos after x amount of time. So the video is no longer available.

Releasing on YouTube would solve this problem.

KrispyXIV wrote:

Bestiary/monster version of things like Constrict.

That's one thing we all have to take into consideration here: According to some data I have, summoner is a class whose high concept is extremely attractive to brand new to RPG players (or it was in PF1), but then the complexity of building them caused some issues. That wasn't immediately obvious to an options junkie of a player like me who just wants to make lots of different decisions at every step, but whatever the final method of building winds up being, it needs to be simple but powerful, allowing as much depth as well as narrative customization and variety of options for your eidolon's story, thematics, and visuals as we can without too much complexity.

Just to be this guy....

So much this. I run with 9-12 year olds. And the party is half druids. Once they find out you can have an animal friend, and be an animal and have a talking plant friend and cast magic?

Nothing but druids. So many stat blocks. So many powers, so many times they run into weird interactions (they turn into a squirrel and then can’t cast spells, they turn into a bear stride into a mass of enemies and have no actions left to attack, they don’t have magic fang, they shapechange and don’t have a focus point to heal their animal).

I think I can pull off the kids with a pet dragon, or Pokémon. But it’s not a help if it’s complex. PF2 is good when it’s simple.

Save my brain.

The map file was likely made before the recent decision and focus to make the maps be VTT friendly was put into place.

This framing....

They already have the electronic files. I can add a page to a pdf in <30 seconds.

It doesn't have anything to do with the pandemic. But if it did... the pandemic Started shutting down society ~6 months ago. And the product release was delayed by a month. It's a decision.

The following seem like possible contributing reasons to me:
Paizo is busy, they produce a lot of adventures on a very tight schedule. There is no meaningful competition (there is extremely high product lock-in and loyalty of the customer base). They have some very expensive map products that they sell separately.

But it doesn't have anything to do with the pandemic.

It's not the end of the world. But it is a decision.

flfontes wrote:

As someone that used to be in the chat, but then moved countries and routine, it is hard to get your streams live! Moreover, the Twitch video player is not the most friendly and then you have the issue of videos disappearing after a while. I, personally, would love to see a more regular upload to YT (although I understand you already do so much with your streams and time is a limited, precious resource!)

It's a good idea. We'll see if we can set it up!

Just turning up for my usual +1

I realize twitch is a thing and there are people who can orient their lives around it. I can’t and I feel like that’s got to be relatively common?

And discoverability and playback on twitch are just horrible once something is not live.

I realize there was choice between special chat emojis and posting on YouTube and the decision was chat emojis but if there is a chance to appeal?

I've known GMs who have over-extended themselves. If you're going to run a PBD/PBP game and expect the players to check in daily, great. There should *almost never* be a single - let alone multiple - time(s) that the players have to ping YOU re: regular movement.

I agree but kind of want to refine the idea a bit.

I think overextending is "just one of those things". You try something, it doesn't work out. Maybe you ran 3 games and then the 4th just didn't work, life changed, you're not excited bout the game, you're burned out, etc.

I think communication (coming from honesty with yourself) is important. Most of the time people
1) don't admit (to themselves) that the game is not in a good state and they're going to give up
2) communicate that to people

So you tend to see a lot of "I'm sorry, been a bit busy, will post soon" and that repeats for a while.

I'd rather see people post something like "I've had a life change; it's making me busy... I'll try to post regularly this next week. If I'm not able to we'll probably need to stop the game.

This wasn't what I intended, I'm happy to have someone take over. Sorry."

For the negative I will say that I'm sometimes pretty critical of my own performance during games when I think I'm not doing particularly well. While a degree of self-reflection is important I think that you can go overboard.

For good GMing.. there are a lot of examples on discord. One thing I'm particularly impressed with are people who have a lot of props or images to really set the tone. I'm pretty good with text (and imagination) but I think it's really helpful if done well (and it's something I'm not particularly good at)

Two examples have been zeebevs's port peril pub crawl on Roll for Combat where he developed a 3D map of a pub. It really set the scene. Another was Deneve Callois' PF2 goblins game on Find the Path; he really set the scene with pictures, he'd post a 'scene-setting' picture every day or so. It breaks up the text and helps players reorient themselves toward the game visually.

I appreciate you're coming up with new ideas that would be more fun/flavorful than the current magus.

However, I've kind of argued elsewhere so I won't belabor the point, I think it's "obvious" they didn't include the 3 failure points (missing attack roll, missing spell roll, successful save) for flavor reasons. (Ideally they would have made this clearer in the playtest document).

It's a balance issue.

If you're just brainstorming an alternative idea then anything is fine, but if you're trying to propose a complete alternative system you need to address the balance somehow.

I don't know what the balance issue is... but it's obvious they don't want the system to "just work" the way that everyone things it should (e.g. like the eldrich archer)... so...

I think some of the support for this many-rolls-to-balance-magus-spell-strike feature is poorly reasoned out.

Magus striking spell isn’t limited to attack spells. Are you ok with a hit on, say, a wizard automatically causing, say, confusion because their AC is significantly lower than their will save?

I think your objection is that it seems inaccurate to the fiction that a wizard could be more easily affected by a confusion spell delivered by a magus hitting them with a spell strike than by another caster just casting the spell.

I'm not sure it bothers me (I could see the magic being driven into the wizards flesh and released as being different than the magic attempting to work it's way past the wizard's magical defenses) but lets say it does bother me and I accept that it's fictionally dissonant...

PF1 had many many complex and difficult rules that were intended to make the rules more accurate-to-the-fiction.

PF2 got rid of a lot of these things. Focusing on having a single roll to resolve actions. Attack or save basically.

A similar example is the "loss" of touch AC in PF2. Lots of attack spells now are "deflected" by armor, etc in ways that they were not before.
The PF2 system flows better with less janky time consuming rolls and edge cases AND armor now deflects disintegrate spells. You can complain about the second thing as much as you want, but it's a design function of the system. It's more abstract, some granularity is lost. The game plays faster but it's "less accurate".

Sure you can make some kind meta fictional argument that wizards-higher-resistence-to-confusion-attacks needs to have some special additional rule protecting it. I don't think that's the sole determinant of whether we need a new rule. I think you need to look at in the context of PF2.

PF1 is still around... if you want lots of super detailed rules for each edge case then that's a great system to use.

Having to make 3-4 rolls (attack, spell attack, saving throw, damage) is IMHO bad design and a wretched mess. It sticks out like sore thumb in PF2. Especially because the primary function of the extra rolls is probably to limit power level by introducing ~50% spell failure chance + 50% reduced effect on save spells.

I have to admit that this is because i find the situation where the magus drives their sword into their foe and then fails to successfully trigger the spell to be hard to imagine. (They're not a wild mage...)

So it seems like the rule exists purely for meta reasons (i.e. game balance). If the maths work out so that spells requiring saves need to have ~75% failure chance to be balanced... It seems like the designers are really saying "we can't figure out how to balance this case; we're adding a huge tax here so it's extremely unreliable".

They should just drop the extra rolls and clearly make the rule they need to to balance the system.

So just say "no spells requiring saves" and/or "you can only spell strike with cantrips or spells that are -x levels from your max level cast". Or use "infusions" similar to the legendary kineticist where you spend an spell slot to "power up" your attack in some kind of structured specific manner.

The magus neither fits within the simiplicity-focused PF2 system nor fulfills the desires of the typical fantasy player (i.e. my character is competent, my abilities mostly work, etc).

Sorry; thought I'd posted this already.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dsbWO8cRPeOw9gkiK1TtKhsWjbbKIRoaOe045Gl g_AQ/edit?usp=sharing

I'm not interested in using a GM alias. (I play and run games on discord and time being what it is I'm not sure I'd want to have multiple accounts to fiddle with).

Thanks for explaining what they are though.

I should say that I think that a lot of the other things people have mentioned like system or society knowledge, the ability to integrate character backstory into a narrative seamlessly or react dynamically to crazy PC decisions are good goals to aim for but.....

I feel like that comes with time and interest in improving the craft.

I guess it hangs a lot on what "good" means.

Other people may not see it this way but I think a good DM brings a sense of wonder and enjoyment, an open attitude and a commitment to critique (=self improve) for themselves.

I think a great DM has, or is working on developing, a sense of flexibility.

Also, they're honest with themselves and others. If they don't know the rules, made a mistake, are frustrated an encounter didn't go the way they expected, etc it's ok so long as they're open about it.

Hi, I'm Graf from NY. I've been playing rpgs off and on (mostly on) since the 80s. My longest campaign was 1st to ~13thish level in the Scarred Lands cobbled together from random modules centered around Hallowfaust.

Even before the pandemic I mostly played pbp (discord) due to family, work, etc. I've run a two society games pbp quests. However I run a PF2 semi-weekly West Marches style game for my kids and another family's kids using level without proficiency+hit point hack (so kids can have 1st level characters running around with 7th level characters and everybody can contribute).

I've run two pathfinder quests on the RfC discord.

Some of my weaknesses as a DM are
1) Involved narratives (it's hard to communicate in pbp)
2) Getting players to interact with the other players
3) Posts that are too long
4) Drawing out PCs backstories in a meaningful way in play

/activate aggrieved geek voice

This is clearly untrue to the source material! Any gamer worth their d20s would know that you don't go adventuring without a healer. And these adventure paths are 1st edition to boot!

Highly unrealistic!

Will not buy!

((Sorry couldn't resist))

Seriously it's nice to see the variety of things Paizo has on offer. Reminds me of TSR when I was a kid. Personally I love find the path's mummy's mask playthrough but most of the characters are Osirioni which is a very different vibe from the Iconics.

This is, surprisingly, completely accurate. We had a vote as to whether people wanted Linda to spend any extra time uploading more youtube episodes or making a giraffe cannon emoji, and the giraffe cannon won unanimously. You can already see the giraffe cannon on discord and hopefully should be up on twitch soon :D

This is because... gah... all the people who want to watch your content on YouTube.... haven’t... anyway... I give up.

Bring on the emojis

Ok! Thanks!

Sorry first time DM. I asked in the discord channel but didn't get any answers. I also skimmed the GM section of the wiki page (http://www.organizedplayfoundation.org/encyclopedia/pathfinder-2-0-gm-basi cs/) but it's not clear to me.

When you fill out your "gm" credit sheet, for your character do you need to put anything "on" it? (you do get GM forms for one of your characters right?)

Is that character included in the Event Reporting Form? (assume no but)

Yeah. For the record I agree (and thought this was fairly obvious / commonsensical). Before I posted on Reddit and a few people went a bit crazy.

(I'm not misquoting... i was writing something a bit more mild... wondered if I was misremembering... because it sounded a bit crazy.... went back and reread the posts... but nope... that's their arguement.).

I _also_ thought that Jason Buhlman or someone had specifically said so regions weren't intended to balance elements; i.e. they were intended as mechanical flavor to reinforce the world. Maybe in a youtube video.

A fair number of dedications, feats, etc have regional access limits (you need to be from absalom to be a pathfinder agent, etc).

I recalled hearing (on stream?) that these were "for flavor". For example people who were homebrewing could just use them without worrying about the regional restrictions reflecting that some higher level of power than options that didn't have regional requirements.

I've recently run into an alternative viewpoint (i.e. Pathfinder Agent or Magaambyan Attendant are "incredibly powerful" dedications that paizo is balancing using "harsh requirements" for roleplay).

Does anyone recall anything from paizo going one way or another?

While we're asking questions about Befuddle... why isn't it occult as well?

The arcane/occult split gets ever more confusing to me.