![]()
![]()
Well, this is been discouraging. After setting up, preparing, and promoting the PFS event at the local game store, I've yet to host a table with more than 3 players. For our last session, not a single person showed up (I waited 45 minutes).
![]()
NielsenE wrote: Leveling Up in in Player Basic's for PFS2. Thanks for that. The strange thing is, I can find it with your link, but I can't "reverse engineer" where you found that. Looking under Player Basics, etc., this information just isn't on there. ![]()
Well, reading the Extinction Curse obituaries on the AP section of this forum, I am very worried about the lethality of the first adventure. Seems like a lot of deaths occur there - a good number of TPKs as well.
![]()
Captain Morgan wrote:
Well, in my case it's a group of people I know from in-person (though we're now playing online for convenience). I've been encouraging them to try new systems (much to the chagrin of a few of the players - who just want to stay with what they know). We started with 5e, went to an OSR system, back to 5e, to Warhammer 4e, and now to Pathfinder 2.Their comfort level is 5e, but we've sort of exhausted what they want to play in official content (and it's not well supported on Foundry). Warhammer 4e proved to be too deadly and complicated to run for my liking. Pathfinder 2 seems to be better supported on Foundry than 5e while having a lot of options for character creation and better tactical play. (I guess I don't need to sell any of you on these boards for why I recommended PF2. Haha.) As far as how they'll engage with it, I think I'll get one player who will be very tactically optimized, another focused more on character and setting, the other two are mostly along for the ride. ![]()
aobst128 wrote: You know, if there was an app that had a character builder and you could purchase the books with it, I'd pay for that in a heartbeat. More convenient errata would be the cherry on top but not that important. Sounds like DND Beyond? As long as we're making wishes, I'd like a more robust character creator integration with Foundry.And also maybe something that I could use in Pathfinder Society to link up with other players, report, track my characters, etc. ![]()
We've already played through the Beginner Box as a trial run. To their credit, they did defeat the notoriously challenging end boss (albeit barely). They are now eager to do an Adventure Path - but the Abomination Vaults held no interest for them.
![]()
I guess I could write my own encounters for 1st level before starting the AP. I don't want to start them at 2nd level. They are barely confident in character creation, much less starting with two levels, a magic item shopping spree, presenting more decisions.
![]()
The group was so intimidated about the archetypes that it swayed the campaign vote from Strength of Thousands to Extinction Curse, so I guess I'll avoid that solution.
![]()
I'm preparing to run Extinction Curse (voted on by my group), but I thought my question was general enough to post here than in that specific AP forum.
![]()
roll4initiative wrote:
Thanks for the best wishes! My community is pretty unique that we don't have any gamer friendly bars or pubs. Like most businesses, our coffeeshops likewise have very limited space and hours. Players homes - well, we don't really have the gaming community to do that, and I figure that a public space would be a good way to get foot traffic that I wouldn't have coming into my house on a regular basis. ;) The public library ... well, I'm in a weird situation because I'm a manager at our town's only public library, and if I were to host an event it would become a "library event" and would be under additional scrutiny and institutional control. The positive news is that the FLGS is expanding hours and gaming space soon, so we're going to be able to do a 4-5 hour weekly game on the weekend starting in June. (Meaning I should be able to run regular PFS scenarios.) I hope it goes well. ![]()
So I'm trying to get my FLGS on board for letting me run some games there - since there has been no RPG opportunities since COVID. We're debating D&D vs PF2 (and Adventurers League vs PFS). I know these boards will have a strong preference for PF2 (and I would also prefer running that system), but I have some considerations maybe you can help me talk through... 1) Likely we won't be able to have 4-5 hour sessions due to the hours of operation of the shop. Most of the content available for PFS would be too long for me to run there. (I know there are Bounties/Quests, but I would run out of those in a couple months.) 2) Would it be preferable to try to run "drop in" AP campaigns like Abomination Vaults as opposed to PFS scenarios - considering I probably wouldn't be able to complete them in the allotted time? 3) Can you "shorten" scenarios to fit in your allotted time? 4) Would it be better to just not use any type of Organized Play if I can't do it "properly?" (For instance, a few years ago when I attempted PFS games there with PF1, I don't think anyone registered their characters. They just wanted to play a game.) 5) In general, have any of you had similar experiences and suggestions? ![]()
Ravingdork wrote: Can't wait until they get Agents of Edgewatch and Extinction Curse set up. Those are both freely available on PDF to Foundry. While it may not be as pretty as what's coming out officially, they are all perfectly serviceable and well done (not to mention, free if you already own a PDF of the adventures). You don't need to wait to start playing Pathfinder on Foundry.![]()
Captain Morgan wrote:
Yes. We can absolutely continue using the PDF to Foundry Importer. No need to rush out and buy anything. Finish what you've been running the way you've been running it - that's what I plan to do. ![]()
Monks ... almost universal in every edition they are played by people who want to run ahead of the rest of the party to try to claim the spotlight, draining more than their share of resources in healing, until they are first character to be squished.
![]()
Adam Jung wrote: To qualify for the Abomination Vaults discount, do I need to buy the hardcover, or will all the softcovers suffice> I'm definitely not an official source, but in my research today, I think I read that the content is coming from the new hardcover compilation, so that's the version you should get to have the Foundry discount. But again, this is just hearsay.For me, as long as it's still available and functional, I'll stick with my PDFs of the original AV softcovers on FryGuy's PDF to Foundry. (EDIT: To clarify, I'm referring to the PDF copy of the compilation.) ![]()
BooleanBear wrote:
Yeah, I guess I should be thanking FryGuy for the work to put the content on there in the first place. Foundry really is the Wild West of VTTs. You never know when something is going to stop being supported (like Pathbuilder doesn't work now).![]()
I cannot understand why anyone is celebrating this news. My PDF Importer on Foundry was working great. This is why Foundry was the best way to play PF2. Now I'll have to buy everything again. There's going to be limitations placed on content that we'll be able to use, because you'll have to wait on Paizo conversions and buy everything again.
![]()
I've heard several people on messageboards and YouTube say that the "earlier" 2e APs didn't have the challenge levels right and had design issues as the writers were still getting used to the new edition. Having run the first part of Age of Ashes, I agree with this sentiment.
![]()
cavernshark wrote:
Yeah, AV might be a hit with another group (as its popularity with other players shows). I'm sure I could run it better than I did before, knowing the pitfalls I ran into. Certainly, incorporating more adventures in Otari would change up the pace. ![]()
Malk_Content wrote:
Keeping in mind these were other groups of players. Group 1 - Age of Ashes - kept killing off the characters. I think it was a combination of me (as the GM) not understanding the rules completely and the expectations of play; a difficult AP; and the players being used to systems that reward everyone going for their own glory instead of using teamwork.Group 2 - Abomination Vaults - the group got bored with no personal stakes in the dungeon and most of the encounters seemed the upper limit of what they could handle (if they could handle it at all). I think in both cases I got overwhelmed with how the keywords interacted with each other - for example, having to remember that incapacitation effects function as one degree of success lower if they target an opponent twice the level of the creature using the incapacitation ability. Or when to apply the multi-attack penalty. ![]()
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I ran the first half of Kingmaker back in 1e, and it was pretty solid. Not sure when we'll actually see the 2e Kingmaker in publication, though. It's been delayed indefinitely, right? I am excited to see the Geb AP though. Just hoping it's not undead PCs. ![]()
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Thanks. That helps. I just don't think I could make up "on the fly" stuff that would be authentic and good. ![]()
keftiu wrote: I’m… really struggling to read your comment as anything other than “I don’t have it in me to not roleplay racist stereotypes,” if I’m being honest. I'm sorry that's your interpretation of my comment and how I am coming across to you. I hope that being nervous about trying to depict a culture (based on real cultures) very different than my own doesn't make me racist.![]()
keftiu wrote:
So my history with Pathfinder has basically been I got into 1e to keep playing a version of 3.5, but I dropped out after a couple years for other systems. 2e brought me in as a curiosity, but I'm still in a "wait and see" to get a game together that really connects with me. I've had almost no exposure to Golarion. In general, I'm not especially great at conveying large, detailed settings whether they're Faerun, Golarion, or Dark Sun. I just don't have a mind for it - I almost instantly forget every historical detail and proper name. Therefore, much of the setting I present in APs is painted with a very broad brush. When that happens, well, that's when you run the risk of getting stereotypes. And I don't want to be that guy.I know the writers, artists, and Paizo have gone to great lengths to do right by the inspirational cultures. I'm afraid that I won't have it in me to do the same. ![]()
It's strange, but I don't feel comfortable running APs like "Fists of the Ruby Phoenix" or "Strength of Thousands" because of the locales. I don't think I would be able to depict these people modelled on real world cultures in a respectful way, and I fear the game would devolve into harmful stereotypes amongst the players.
![]()
keftiu wrote: I’m sorry you had negative experiences with the game! I hope your group is happier since then. One group (the longer-lived one) disbanded after Age of Ashes. It was a combination of the adventure/system being poorly suited, the impact of the pandemic, and some player personality dynamics. But it showed them that they didn't like my GMing style being so ... brutal? The second group has moved over to more narrative-based games, not based on the d20 system - kind of the farthest departure from Pathfinder one can find. I don't know if it killed that style of play for them, but they definitely wanted a break from it. I would like to love Pathfinder and its APs. There's certainly a lot to enjoy there, and I think that's why I criticize it so much. It's just so close to being a great system for my style of game, but things don't work out, and I try to understand why. Maybe I just need to see a good game in action? All the videos I find are in-depth rules/tactics discussions and apologists who explain why it's a good system. I'd like to see it be a good system, if that makes sense. I'd like to have a great time rolling dice, exploring the worlds, with exciting and dynamic characters. I just haven't had that experience yet. ![]()
keftiu wrote: I will say; if you’re upset about a preponderance of fights and a lack of RP opportunities, a megadungeon was pretty much always going to be a mismatch. Strength of Thousands is an AP that puts a heavy focus on diplomacy and non-combat solutions for encounters, along with a lot of study and exploration - it may be a better fit. I appreciate the recommendation. Perhaps one of these days. At the time I started running it, Abomination Vaults was considered the strongest AP of what was available. Unfortunately, my groups' experiences with Age of Ashes being a meatgrinder and Abomination Vaults being a purposeless slog, both have basically tainted my players' perspectives of the entire system. If we'd gotten something akin to Rise of the Runelords at the start of this edition - or even the Beginner Box - maybe it wouldn't have soured all my players. So I'm afraid my experience with PF2 from now on will be in convention play one-shots for now. I don't see a campaign starting anytime soon. ![]()
Rysky wrote:
1) It's fair to say the AP wasn't for us. It's disappointing that it's supposedly the best Paizo has to offer and it also failed to connect with us. I doubt I'll find any AP I like. 3) Sure, there are physical limitations in a book. But there are options. First, you can not try to map out every 5-foot square and have Exploration Activities link different areas. Maybe you use something like Adventure Recipes or a subsystem like a Hexcrawl to add varied challenges as you cross the winding corridors. But to have different groups of monsters within 20 ft. of each other with no knowledge and no relationship of each other is not good. 6) Most encounters are fights. I remember like 1 encounter in the entirety of Book 1 that wasn't a fight (a ghost). There was another with a devil that they ended up roleplaying through. But no one had any useful information about the adventure. They were just sort of on their own. Just to keep in mind, just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean that it's the best example of its genre. "Fifty Shades of Grey" was the best-selling book of the entire decade of the 2010s. By not recognizing potential trouble spots in the APs we've run, we're doing a disservice to other GMs who will try to run them later and the writers who design future adventures. Everything can be improved. Abomination Vaults isn't a bad adventure, but it's not perfect, and we can make a better dungeoncrawl. ![]()
Grumpus wrote:
No, I had never seen Emerald Spire. Apparently it came out after I was already done with Pathfinder 1e. I suppose my error was in the size of Flip Mats. If the dungeon wasn't designed to fit on Flip Mats, then there was actually no reason to make the levels as physically small as they were. The monsters basically live in closets too small to move around, too close together to be logically different factions (they'd either be working together or killing each other, etc.) The dungeon levels should've been much larger with a lot more empty space, more room for exploration, etc. ![]()
We had something like 3 TPKs in 5 sessions when I ran Age of Ashes. Granted this is considered a very difficult AP, and the players didn't have access to all the tactical knowledge that has been discovered over the past couple years (i.e. not taking the 3rd attack, using Demoralize, etc.) We'd play, have a TPK. Create new characters, beat the encounter that killed the previous party, maybe have one more successful encounter, then die again - rinse and repeat the cycle. The best thing to do is to use the guidelines in the Core Rulebook (and actually follow them, because they mostly work), and then write your own adventure. In my opinion, the APs haven't been the best, and I think any GM should be able to write something better for their table. ![]()
Rysky wrote:
1) Which is a weak motivation. A friend has a vague idea that "something is wrong" because a light came on. Meanwhile, there is no threat to Otari, no stakes for the adventurers. Risking life and limb for a friend's vague "feeling" was not enough for my group. 3) Maybe the size restraints of the Flip Mat format is not appropriate for a mega-dungeon? Maybe use Flip Mats for special climactic battles and interesting areas, but have the rest stuff you can draw on blank maps or use tiles? As it is, I think it hamstrings the adventure, pushes everything together so closely and densely that you can't reasonably/realistically explore the dungeon without there being a monster in every room. 6) The specific phrase "fights to the death" appears 8 times in the first book. It is implied many other times. Like the character who offers to let the party surrender as long as they agree to be captured and eaten alive as sacrifices to the evil god. (Yeah, I wonder how many players have been tempted by that choice? It's a tough decision, with a lot of pros and cons that any group will likely debate.) Just because it's the best mega-dungeon for PF2 does not make it a good mega-dungeon. I would argue that because PF2 focuses on encounter-based resource management more than daily resource tracking, it's actually a poor system to run traditional dungeon crawls, which in practice will turn into strings of encounters that might be individually interesting but can't really carry a lasting cost. The only resource that gets permanently spent in PF2 is time. That's why it's essential for every adventure to have a time clock, some reason that you can't just take infinite time. It's the only pressure in the game that stretches beyond the encounter tier. ![]()
I haven't liked either of the two APs I've started for PF2. "Age of Ashes" suffered because it was the first written and the first we ran. Likely my group would've preferred starting with something like the Beginner Box, but it sadly wasn't available when we started. Our inability to figure out sound tactics led to many TPKs and poisoned the well of PF2 for that group of players. Likely, they'll never return to the system. Additionally, it pretty much spelled the end of our gaming group that had been playing together since the early 2010s. "Abomination Vaults" gets high praise here, and I'm not sure if it's warranted. I think there is a very strong desire for content like AV (straightforward, dungeon-based adventures, without overarching metaplots). However, we had some major issues.
That group also quit PF2. I'm not sure if the players would want to go back - I have a feeling not.
![]()
Yeah, I can agree with the OP. There's too much info, not presented in a way that's easily accessible during a game, laid out in a confusing manner (splitting up important pieces of content).
![]()
I had Fantasy Grounds for close to 5 years and never got proficient enough to run a game with it. With Roll20, I was up and running in a couple hours. Also, Fantasy Grounds ended up being a no-go because it required installation of software, and some of my players didn't have computers that could handle it, whereas Roll20 is browser-based. Of the three candidates mentioned (Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, and Foundry), Roll20 has the fewer features and less automation, which also (IMO) make it easier to use. Foundry has the PDF importer (which I think works great), but I'm hesitant to use it because you need to create your own server (and I'm not techie enough to do that), pick which features you want and download community-created patches. That said, I'm still planning to at least try it once I wrap up the current book of the AP I'm running on Roll20. ![]()
So if I were going to introduce new players to PF2, where should I start? I'm thinking not an AP. Needs to be on Roll20 (because that's what we use.) I'm not sold on the Beginner Box because it's not the actual rules, and if we were going to be sticking with the system, I'd be fighting against those rules changes for the future of the game. ![]()
AlastarOG wrote:
I have Foundry and have imported the PDFs successfully. My primary issue is that I don't have confidence in teaching the UI or trusting my abilities to set up a server. Using a professional server is right back to paying subscriptions. Plus, I have all of the second book put into Roll20 already. ![]()
@HumbleGamer, I've definitely done a lot to prep this adventure, since it's not on the VTT to purchase. This means putting in every map and making sure it's gridded properly, manually drawing dynamic lighting barriers, creating custom monsters and NPCs. It's probably the most prep I've ever done for a game I've run in recent memory (with the exception of 3.5, which I was trying to write for publication).
![]()
dirtypool wrote:
Just to clarify, I'm no longer running Age of Ashes. That campaign ended around nine months ago. The system proficiency is stuff like: saves vs certain effects are considered one step better if they are of lower level than the party, rogues can't be flanked except from creatures a certain level above them, haunts and traps have triggers/disables/routines that are all very unique, crafting, invisibility/hidden/undetected, some conditions last until saves while others go away after a round, automatically heightening spells, remembering different weapon traits, special maneuvers (Intimidation, Shove, Trip, Grapple, Feint), all the variety of spells (including different effects based on different numbers of actions/degrees of success), DCs for skill checks and the number of actions to perform them, identifying monsters and how much information to give, when to let characters use different skills to roll Initiative. Then there's the actual completely different way of challenging the party. Largely the system allows for complete heals after each combat, so each combat feels like there's no weight to it. Use the highly effective cantrips and you can go all day, with character death being the only way to weaken the party. ![]()
Fumarole wrote:
Yes, I use the GM screen and condition cards even when playing online. However, I did not know about Easy Tools - I'll check that out. ![]()
Temperans wrote:
That's good advice. But I'm afraid that my "rule of cool" and on the fly rules adjuctations are too tough - I had three TPKs pretty close together. At least some of that was because I don't get the overall feel of the system.
|