Justanartist's page

Laric, I am a somewhat inexperienced GM (and VERY critical), so I tend to blame my performance after "bad" games.

Yeah, I'm not completely convinced that some of the players didn't kill Cindermaw on purpose, but I'm not sure. And, I'm not blameless in that. As I said, I don't think that I played up the story in quite the right way. I tended to describe Cindermaw more as a legendary beast that "couldn't be killed". If he could be killed, he wouldn't be Cindermaw the Clan Eater, this great ancient legend. I didn't outright emphasize a spiritual/sacred connection.

After the fight, the cleric of Kord (who brought down Cindermaw) basically said he thought that Cindermaw was going to be unkillable (meaning he thought it would have unlimited HP). So, despite the fact that the fighter had gotten swallowed, and Cindermaw was backing off, the cleric kept on swinging. Reasonable, except that EVERYONE else in the group got the fact that they weren't supposed to kill Cindermaw... so I dunno.

All of you guys have given me good suggestions, and plenty to consider. I really appreciate it.

My 2 cents.

I like your idea, but I wouldn't have them fight Cindermaw a second time. I would just roll with it. Otherwise you risk having the players think that you are trying to punish them or worse feel like there is only one way to get through the encounter.

I think it's important to respect player agency in this instance (and in most instances). As the DM you set the scene for them and they made a choice as to how they were going to handle the situation with Cindermaw. They managed to kill this badass legendary purple worm. That's really cool! It should have some lasting effect on the campaign.

What I would recommend instead if you still want to go with the phoenix idea is one of two things:

-Cindermaw is reborn immediately and shows the PCs respect for having killed it by taking them back to the Shoan-ti on its back (à la Dune) the Shoan-ti show them respect for taming the worm. Cindermaw then leaves but maybe it makes an appearance later in the campaign?

or

-Cindermaw dies, and leaves behind some sort of black rock with glowing flaming cracks (i.e. the pheonix egg), the PCs get to decide what to do with it, if they keep it, perhaps it hatches sometime between Scarwall and Crown of Fangs and they get their very own baby Cindermaw cohort. If they give it to the Shoan-ti, they are rewarded as above.

Thank you for the feedback, Laric!

I agree that I don't want to punish the group, and that wasn't my intent. But I am too laser-focused on them "succeeding" in this challenge, I think. Thus, me considering a second chance. And, admittedly, I am frustrated that some of the group (namely, the aggressive cleric of Kord) didn't respect the "don't kill" aspect of this challenge. But, in hindsight, I wonder if it was more me not setting the tone that Cindermaw is "holy", and more that he is just a legendary beast held in awe by the barbarians. Too much temptation. Alas, weak GMing abounds...

That said, I like the suggestions, and with a minor bit of retcon, could make this happen.

Again, a big thank you to all!

Thanks for the ideas. They sound pretty reasonable.

What would you think if the Cindermaw is almost immortal (ala a phoenix). The group may think they've killed him, but he is consumed by an unexplained fire, only to be reborn. They group must now face the "true" Cindermaw, a great flaming purple worm (kind of like the fire snake from the last Harry Potter movie)!

I know this moves the topic to opinion, but would you give the group a second shot at this fight, or just roll with adventure as is?

Thanks

So... I pretty much mishandled this entire encounter in my estimation.

My group didn't pick up on the whole DON'T kill Cindermaw (and I didn't think they could/would do it). They were even still 10th level. I did back off and didn't just pound them every round b/c I was trying to keep them alive to get down the gullet.

Anyway, any suggestions on how to proceed? Has this happened to other encounters?

Thanks from a stoopid GM.

Thanks for the feedback so far.

The players didn't kill Krojun, but did kill one of his Burn Riders. As Krojun moved up they turned invis and used dimension door to escape. There are several tentacles in the main room, so I don't think that Krojun will follow.

I like the idea or removing the points they earned defeating him (and maybe even the adding some negative ones).

*THESE POSTS MIGHT CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS ABOUT A HISTORY OF ASHES*

The title kind of says it: What would you do if your party decides to attack Krojun?

So, as intended, my party didn't like Krojun from the beginning. They were able to take him down a peg, b/c (due to dice) Krojun actually lost the sredna match.

Later, the group didn't pick up on the fact that the riders who were following them to the Acropolis were Krojun & his riders. But they were wary of the riders. And, I did throw a couple of random encounters along the way, just to heighten the tension of the trip.

Once at the Acropolis, due to the amount of time my group spent in the main room, I had the assassins attack them in the main chamber. Naturally, tentacles come up and the whole fight changes. My rogue/fighter and arcane hierophant flee back to the entry stairs. There they see Krojun & his riders dismounting at the bottom of the stairs. Well, the arcane heirophant suspects ambush and with only slight hesitation (due to my frustrated looks, and questions of "you really want to do this?") unleashes a fireball. Krojun & riders were none too happy, and move to attack, cursing the outsiders. Druid/wiz & rogue dimension door away?

Do you think this might irreparably hinder the story arc?

Thanks!

PF is very good about building classes for 1st-20th leveling, but I think that the Witch is an Int caster for easier Wizard mulit-classing.

Personally, I think of PF witches as Cha casters (like a Sorcerer, etc). I know this is a minority opinion, and I am pretty conservative. So, I wouldn't be up in arms if PF followed this topic and went to Wis casting.

However, Con-based casting... now THAT'S different!

Here's a thought to make familiars more magical without making them too unbalanced: Give them nine lives. If your cat is killed, it can come back a total of eight times. After that, it's gone, short of doing some reasonably expensive spell to get it back: I'd suggest Limited Wish.

If the familiar dies, it comes back in a manner akin to Reincarnation, but in its same body but at the location of the master, not wherever it was killed, so the BBEG can't just keep skinning the cat until it stops coming back.

There may be more discussion about this post, but I read it and just had to say... Darn! You beat me to it! I like this. It's a simple change, and a fun idea that keeps in line with Witch flavor.

Would it make the familiar too powerful to give it the feature just called "Nine Lives" (regardless of type of animal), but have it always show back up in a certain amount of time? Or, it could come back only a number of times based on Witch (or familiar) level? Or the the ability could be a low level hex? Or what if it always came back, but with a random selection of spells (I know this could be inconvenient)? But, that way the Witch could always be slightly random/changing.

Just some thoughts.

Justanartist wrote:

with this being a beta test I doubt that we will see a heavy re-write for any abilities

Where have they stated that this is a BETA playtest? I haven't seen that anywhere.

My oh my... this went extraordinarily too far and with too little civility. Let's just acknowledge my mistake in calling this a beta test. I thought that I recalled reading that somewhere. Clearly, I was incorrect. Regardless, I think that my comments still stand. I suppose if the overall board/playtest reaction is very negative to these classes, alterations will be more extreme.

I didn't mean to start something.

I really like Purple Dragon Knight's idea about adapting the challenge ability to mimic the ranger-type favored enemy bonuses. Here's a top-town rebuild of the ability, including some tweaks to other components people have been concerned about.

Challenge (Ex):
A Cavalier may challenge a foe to combat as a swift action. The cavalier gains +4 to all melee damage rolls against that target, as well as +4 to bluff, perception, and sense motive checks against the target. While the challenge persists, the cavalier grants all opponents other than the target of his challenge +4 to hit his AC in melee.
At level 5, the damage and skill check bonuses increase to +6.
At level 9, the damage and skill check bonuses increase to +8.
At level 13, the damage and skill check bonuses increase to +10.
At level 17, the damage and skill check bonuses increase to +12.
At level 20, the damage and skill check bonuses increase to +15.
The challenge persists until the target is dead, the cavalier is unconscious, or he chooses to dismiss it as a free action. In any case, the bonuses end immediately; if the cavalier voluntarily dismisses the challenge, the penalty to AC persists for 3 rounds after the challenge ends.
A cavalier may issue a number of challenges per day equal to 3 plus half his cavalier level, but may only have one active at a time.

Observations: This provides no bonus to *hit*, so we increase damage and skill bonuses above ranger levels. Damage IS multiplied on critical hits, so we choke back on total damage bonus - you can expect these guys to be swinging keen short swords, so you don't want things getting too out-of-hand.
The flanking drawback is replaced by a straight-out AC penalty like a raging barbarian gets (which will stack with flanking, incidentally). Rogues are still dangerous, but no longer unreasonably so.
We remove the per-combat complication (a little too 4.0) and instead make it a per-day power, with voluntary cancellation as an option (hybrid smite/rage).

All the numbers are...

I hate to be negative (hey! it's what I do), but with this being a beta test I doubt that we will see a heavy re-write for any abilities. Paizo has already time & money to concept, design, illustrate, and certainly in-house playtested these up-coming classes. My feeling is that all class features are pretty much set. They just want playtest feedback to make certain that none of the abilities are horribly broken, or to catch other loop holes in descriptions or functions.

Having said that, I think I like this concept of Challenge more than the beta. Maybe I'm just not an out of the box thinker, but it feels more in line with other class abilities we've used. A couple of thoughts: What if the it was a -4 to AC vs. all other opponents except the Cavalier's challenged foe? Others have suggested it, and I second that wording. What if the skills for bonuses were Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive? Those skills seem in line with a challenge to me.

My own spin: I think this concept can work with +?d6 precision damage instead of bonus damage. Or, what if the Challenge were a charge related feature. Every time a Cavalier charged a foe, he has the option to issue a challenge. That challenge would grant him +?d6 based on level. This idea is somewhat like a certain scouting class from a completely adventurous book. Just a quick and rough idea.

Justanartist wrote:

Draeke Raefel wrote:

Seems to me that this would be a popular multi-class. It may hurt your smite evil/spell/lay on hands progression or what not, but from an RP/Flavor point of view, the classes seem to mesh quite a bit. I can easily see a Paladin of Iomedae/Cavalier of the Order of the Sword for example. Now to convince my dm to allow me to do it...

For me, this is a BIG reason to eliminate the Cavalier's mount as a "special" mount. Perhaps give the Cavalier some mounted bonuses or bonus mounted feats. Our group has already had enough confusion with Leadership/Paladin/Mounts.

Why exactly is this a reason to eliminate the feature? Whats wrong with 2 classes working well in one aspect, when multiclassed? You still lose lots of other things from both classes, like smites, lay on hands progression, challenge increase, order abilities, mercies. All of these would be less then what a full progression in either class would be. Whats the big deal with having a full strength mount?

Sorry Kolokotroni, that was a "knee-jerk" statement with no explanation, and was a digression from the OP. Plus, I sort of quoted the wrong post. My comment was in response to the remark about whether the Paladin mount stacks with the Cavalier mount. Perhaps those of us in my group are just dim, but we've had plenty of discussion & debate over how companion features from multiple classes stack; especially in combination with Leadership. Dealing with that has left a bit of a sour taste in our mouths.

Now, to actually expand on my previous comment, there's nothing wrong in principle with two classes that have compatible features when multiclassed (Ranger & Druid for example). The first part of what I think is that the Cavalier's special mount feature is very similar to, but not the same as the Paladin's. It could cause some confusion rules-wise (two mounts or one? is it always able to be summoned/dismissed now? etc).

The second part is more related to flavor. Whereas there's nothing wrong with two classes having similar features, I just think of the Paladin as being "the special mount" class. The fact that the Cavalier has a feature so close only highlights how alike the classes are. The Cavalier kind of comes off as "an also-Paladin," instead of a unique base class in that way. So, I was chiming in on what others have already posted in other threads about the possibility of altering the Cavalier's mount features (I shouldn't have said eliminate). Perhaps the class has amazing skill with all mounts, or just bonus mounted feats.

I hope that explains my kind of jerky comment, and sorry Draeke for sidetracking the thread. I agree that a Cavalier/Paladin would make a logical multiclass (similar to Knight/Paladins) and probably pretty tough. Challenge + Smite, similar mounts abilities, Order flavor.

Hurlbut wrote:

So you didn't even muster up enough courage to actually suggest improvements, as that's the point of the playtest, but enough to read part of the pdf to complain that they're so "messed up" that you closed the pdf?

Pretty much. Between preparing milk bottles, commuting 3 hours a day to go to work, being forced to watch Elmo's World (except when changing diapers; thank God Elmo can't follow me everywhere in the house just yet), I now find my time pretty limited for *BETA* rules that at first glimpse, appear just plain unappealing.

:)

Actually, I find Purple Dragon's comment valid and a bit telling. Perhaps because I struggled to get through the Cavalier & Oracle descriptions too; without as many distractions.

As a person with an art/publishing background I think it's important for material to catch a person's interest. If you can't get people to buy your book b/c they can't figure out what it is from the cover or description, it doesn't matter how great it is. That said, obviously no thing appeals to everyone I suppose. And, NEW classes are going to be harder sells than brushed up core classes.

I downloaded the pdf only today and have NOT playtested it yet. However, at first blush, the two new classes look mediocre (but I yawned when the Knight & Dragon Disciple came out too, so maybe I'm just dull). The classes still seem too cluttered and feel more like prestige classes than stand alone base classes. But, I look forward to seeing their development.

Seems to me that this would be a popular multi-class. It may hurt your smite evil/spell/lay on hands progression or what not, but from an RP/Flavor point of view, the classes seem to mesh quite a bit. I can easily see a Paladin of Iomedae/Cavalier of the Order of the Sword for example. Now to convince my dm to allow me to do it...

For me, this is a BIG reason to eliminate the Cavalier's mount as a "special" mount. Perhaps give the Cavalier some mounted bonuses or bonus mounted feats. Our group has already had enough confusion with Leadership/Paladin/Mounts.

Thank you Gamer Girrl, Nero, Pax and Hogarth. I've recently been very impressed with the assistance and the responses I find on these messageboards. Much of your advice is quite useful for the various aspects of my GMing conundrum. Pax, you've given me plenty to digest and consider, and I can already see applying certain of your points to the situation.

Thanks again everyone!

This is a little bit of a digression again, but I would like some sage advice from the posters on this GM forum.

The situation is probably an all too familiar one: My players are literally standing at the door to the BBEG's room. However, they've been fighting through a good portion of the dungeon. I think that the group is fully healed, but the two casters (a cleric and a druid/wizard/arcane hierophant) have used a decent amount of spells (especially the cleric).

I'm known to be a rules lawyer (sorry), but I also like story and "realistic" reactions from characters and npc's. However, if I let them just walk in, it very well could be a TPK. No group likes that. I think that metagaming or railroading the group will be a necessity. Some will probably see it as catering to the group, and breaking the "illusion" of the game/story/realistic outcome. But that's the lesser of the two evils.

Advice?

Thank you.

justanartist, don't be too hard on yourself. You are concerned about your player's fun and are trying to learn to be a good GM. This to me is the sign of a good GM.

If you think railroading is a problem in your game, use this thread to hammer things out. It might be a good idea to try to get your players to post here too. That makes it easier to get to the problem because you get the information first hand.

Thank you for the encouragement. I didn't necessarily intend to shift the conversation over to me, or to shift it to "good" or "bad" GMing styles per se. But, railroading is a common complaint within my group (especially in our unfinished Savage Tide campaign). I thought that I could run better, and now I'm just eating some humble pie. It's not as easy as it looks. However, this thread has made for VERY interesting reading about GMing philosophy; not only on different ways to think about railroading, but on effective ways to utilize it. I'll probably read over it again, and plunder it's resources moving forward. Seriously, this could possibly use a sticky.

If, however, there are "issues" at the table, or there is frustration... there are some tried-and-true practices that most good GMs follow. None of these are rigid, and all of these must be contextually applied to the specific dynamic of your group.

For example, my good buddy M. asks a good question: whazzup with Railroading? At the same time, James Jacobs writes an excellent preface in Legacy of Fire about this same topic. The simple facts are, some folks buy APs to gut them and use widgets and bits, and some run them straight up. The tag line behind APs are, "Campaigns Have Evolved!" In principle, a wide angle lens should 'teach' new or experienced GMs 'how-to' run a campaign full of rich story, depth, and flowing arcs of interaction in a unique and challenging world. However, the AP is both a frame-work, and, for many who seek/need a coherent level of detail (for reasons of time, creativity, etc.), the APs provide what a GM needs to run a great campaign (defined here as a series of interconnected and progressive adventures/encounters).

Much of what the GM does is a learned skill. And competency does not come over night. There is both an art and a vocation to being a great GM.

Understanding how to execute the technique of the unseen railroad is an important skill to have, but it can be learned, and it can always be improved. (And, not all campaigns are run via railroad.) Mairkurion {tm}, the OP, is making the case that one type of railroad is the explicit adventure hook, or the "Given" and unavoidable situation presented to players by the GM. His point is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. And, I agree. A good GM, however, knows how to deliver the fiat in a compelling way. There are many effective ways to do this, however, some GMs resort instead to taking the easiest way out by outright asking the players for "buy-in" (this is extremely clunky and awkward, and should be avoided unless as a last resort). This ruins the mystery and disapates any electrical excitement at the table, kind of...

Thanks Tim and Pax. And Mairkurion {tm} for starting this thread.

I didn't mean to side-track the conversations. I've played since 1st ed/2nd ed, but this is only my third or fourth time GMing, and my first after several years. I picked up our group's game from our "regular" GM, because he wanted to play. Plus, I felt that I could easily insert the Fortress of the Stone Giants into our game. I had grandiose notions of bringing great descriptions, fun flavor, and tighter rules to the game. But, I think that I've run it rather flatly and sloppily. Plus, I think that I've focus a little too much on just one of the characters (but he had an interesting storyline on which to focus). The group seems okay with me, but they're starting to get bored with the game, and feeling railroaded. To me that says that I'm not bringing something to the table. So, I guess I was just whining... sorry about that.

However, this thread has been exciting and informative to read. Some good and helpful suggestions. Keeping more "mystery" in my running style is something that I would love to try. I have a tendency to spill info when the group grumbles about "unfair" monsters or encounters. Plus, I'll probably need to be more practical/technical to come across more flexible (I don't think I'm the best GM when I'm totally improvising). So, it will be good to have some better notes and other possible encounters/modules on hand when the group decides to get off the tracks.

Thanks again and keep it going.

Sigh... I'm disappointed to read this thread. Because I realize that I'm one of the "not very good GM's". It's difficult to find the time to prepare properly, execute interestingly, and improvise creatively... :-(

I don't know much about the character, but she may be hard-pressed to find a prestige. You almost have to build towards one from the beginning. Honestly, it sounds like your player has done some good character development already. So, any prestige class could work. Here are few that I checked out. Most are not very thematic to a fire sorcerer, but...

Blood Mage- Comp. Arc
Cast with your own blood. Thought of this because of the "dark" aspect of the character.
Daggerspell Mage- Comp. Adv.
Need rogue levels. Uses daggers and casts with them.
Dragon Disciple- DMG
Sorcerers can be connected to dragons. Maybe she has red dragon in her? Half-dragon or dragon-blooded template might serve better.
Elemental Savant- Comp. Arc.
Especially if she wants to really focus on fire
Exalted Arcanist- Book of Exalted Deeds
Can cast "good" spells and get some divine magic too I think.
Loremaster- DMG
She is into magical knowledge/study. Steep requirements for a sorcerer though.
Mindbender- Comp. Arc.
More about swaying/toying with others, but could fit.
Ultimate Magus- Comp. Mage
Need Wizard levels, but the class is kind of neat. Potentially VERY powerful too.
Wildmage- Comp. Arc.
Chaotic caster

I hope this is useful. Cheers!

I believe that for magical weapons and armor, each plus adds 1 to hardness and gives the item +10 hit points. So the mithril armor would have (8 x 5) + 50 = 90 hp.

Thanks for the input. As far as I can tell from the DMG, this is true of weapons and shields, but I didn't see that it applies to armor. I think that I'll still add the enhancement bonus to the armor for hit point purposes. Otherwise their armors will be gone in one bite of the creature.

Thanks again!

Hi guys,
I've played D&D for years, but have GM'd rarely. I have been running my first 3.5 game, and I came to slightly confusing rule question.

I'm running the Giant Fortress in the Rise of the Runelords AP from Paizo. In the game, there is a creature that can damage, and probably destroy armor and weapons. The creatures attack is considered adamantine vs. hardness, so I can usually ignore that. So, In the PHB it says that armor has hit points of 5 x armor bonus. Does this include the magic bonus?

For example: One of the players has +5 mithril plate. Does his armor have 40 hp (8 x 5) or does it have 65 hp ((8+5) x 5)?

Thank you

Daigle wrote:

They didn't last long enough for it to become an issue with my group. In addition, by that level, there are plenty of resources available to repair that easily.

Okay, I'll give it a go as written. Thanks for the advice guys!

You guys were right. I didn't really affect the group too badly, and the lamias didn't last too long either. In fact their touch was really the only effective attack versus some of the high AC members of the group.

Another rookie question (in connection with the Skanderig): Do you add magical bonus to armor when determining armor hp? According to DMG the bonus to magic armor is an enhancement bonus, and the PHB says that armor hp is equal to armor bonus x 5. I have a player wearing +5 mithril plate (don't ask...). Would the armor's hp be 40 (8 x 5) or 65 ((8+5) x 5)?

Thank you in advance

They didn't last long enough for it to become an issue with my group. In addition, by that level, there are plenty of resources available to repair that easily.

Okay, I'll give it a go as written. Thanks for the advice guys!

I have a general monster question about the lamia clerics in the Jorgenfist caverns. Do the touches that lamias deliver (that drain Wis) provoke Attacks of Opportunity? Or has anyone considered giving them a save DC. I just think that they could turn very ugly very quickly.

Justanartist wrote:

Joey Virtue wrote:

Yeah its just a standard Monster Manual Beholder

Yeah it was just Ion stones and platinum pieces for treasure

Great! Thanks for such a quick reply.

And thank you again for so much helpful info! I'll try to post here, and let you know how it goes.

If you want it in word just let me know

Thanks, but I was able to copy & paste the info from the posting.

So far the enhancements have helped, and haven't overpowered my group. They still go through some of the standard encounters fairly quickly. But, at least the increased HPs & AC keep the monsters in the fight longer.

I wanted to let you know that I ran the Black Monk encounter a couple of weeks ago. Your suggestions made that fight lots of fun, and a difficult one for the group. They were totally scared of this guy. I kept the main fighter on the ground for most of the fight, and everyone hit the dirt at least once.

I did throw in one extra "addition" that I thought I'd mention. I have a Radiant Servant in my group, and his turn would have destroyed the mummy in the 1st round. So, I raised the CR of the mummy and gave him one level of Tomb Guardian (Libris Mortis) by putting some monk graves in the room. I know that was mean, but I REALLY wanted to run this fight.

Can't wait to get to some of the other encounters soon. Thanks.

Yeah its just a standard Monster Manual Beholder

Yeah it was just Ion stones and platinum pieces for treasure

Great! Thanks for such a quick reply.

And thank you again for so much helpful info! I'll try to post here, and let you know how it goes.

Joey,
Man! I just spotted this thread, and I think it will be very helpful. Thank you for so much leg work.

I have inserted the Fortress of the Stone Giants into my group's game (and will probably finish out the Runelords AP). We have 5 players (high 10th to high 11th), but I don't think that some of these encounters will be too much for them. I might take away 1 or 2 creatures from some of them.

I do have a question about the Beholder addition. What is a Darklands Beholder? How is it different from a regular beholder? Plus, it looks like part of its description was cut off. How many hp does it have? Are the ioun stones and platinum pieces his only treasure? If it's a "typical" MM beholder I can figure it out for myself.

Thank you again.

*Okay... I feel stupid now. Darklands is Paizo's Underdark, yes? Regardless, I suppose my questions still stand.

You don't. The best you can get is to use an image hosting site(FlickR, etc.) and link to it in your post. Paizo doesn't allow embedded stuff in the MBs.

Ah. I suppose I can understand why that is. I'll see what I can do.

Thanks for helping!

The topic pretty much says it. A person was asking for a gridded map. I have one, but I'm pretty green to messageboards I guess. I'm not sure how to attach the map to my post.

Any help or advice?

Thanks!

I think it would be easy - you need to ignore / change some information the party gathers later in the adventure that points to the last acts of RotRL, but other than that you should be fine. You might tweak the character motivations for beginning the adventure a bit, but considering you want to drop it into an existing campaign you probably need to do that with every published adventure.

Thanks for input. I'm hoping that we would continue with the rest of the Runelords AP after this. Plus, I'm thinking that maybe the attack by the giants towards the beginning should be motivation enough to go after them.

If anyone else has advice I would welcome it.

Hi guys. I've been keeping up with Pathfinder, but haven't purchased any PDFs... yet.

In a game that my friends and I are playing, I have recently taken over as GM. After reading the description for Fortress it sounds like I could almost drop it into our game to enhance a previous story line where we faced several giants.

Do you folks think it is possible to introduce this portion of the AP as a new adventure? Or is there too much necessary background, encounters, and info in the earlier parts of the AP? Is the area too important to throw into an established game, or could the Fortress be "in the mountains" near one of our cities?

If it goes well, I bet that we'd try to finish out the AP.

Thank you for any advice.

Hi guys. I've been keeping up with Pathfinder, but haven't purchased any PDFs... yet.

In a game that my friends and I are playing, I have recently taken over as GM. After reading the description for Fortress it sounds like I could almost drop it into our game to enhance a previous story line where we faced some giants.

Do you folks think this is possible? Or is there too much necessary background and info in the earlier parts of the AP? Is the area too important to throw into an established game, or could the Fortress be "in the mountains" near one of our cities? If it goes well, I bet that we'd try to finish out the AP.

Thank you for any advice.