After *10 years* since first reading this thread, of which almost 5 years was campaign play time, of which 9 months of play time was the war, I can finally express my thank-you to DM_aka_Dudemeister and the many others here for this amazing idea of having the trolls form their own kingdom. This simple idea turned out to have vastly reshaped our Mythic Kingmaker campaign, and according to my players, has resulted in one of the most, in not the most, amazing roleplaying experience they have ever had. Last weekend saw the conclusion of an epic tale of surprises, arrogance, fear, betrayal, culminating in the exultation of total victory.
Declaration of War:
I had planned on adapting the initial encounter, with the kobold king luring the PCs to their settlement only to be surprised by the troll king, Hrondgren, and his retinue, along with his war declaration if the PCs do not leave the land. However, during the 1-year downtime I gave the PCs to build their nation, they decided in the 10th month to hold the Viridian Games, a super-festival Olympics to foster relations with the factions of the sponsor nation Lurindor, and their neighbours, the other 2 expeditions. And among the invitees were the kobolds, who they had allowed to form their own little kingdom (of 1 hex). This gave me the perfect set piece to start things off.
After 2 weeks of festivities and games, the kobold athletes turned out to be surprisingly fearsome competitors, winning several contests. In the closing ceremony of the games, the kobolds, led by their king, stepped onto the stage before all the representatives of foreign powers and the citizens of Prateria (the PCs' nation) to accept their rewards. It was then the kobold king that these awards are owed to the rightful ruler of these lands, King Hrondgren of Klorgfang! At that declaration, the kobold athletes polymorphed back into their trollish form (thanks to some mythic shenanigans). The half-dragon troll King made his declaration, promising Lurindor that they would be better neighbours than the PCs, and declared their armies on the move to reclaim the land before teleporting out of the capital. (Sidenote: The kobold king then groveled to the PCs for forgiveness for the deception and for protection. The PCs, being nice and generally liking the kobolds, forgave them, and the kobolds formally became part of Prateria.)
My PCs had *zero* suspicion that something like this would happen, even though I dropped some heavy hints that the kobold king was super nervous and that the athletes were very odd. What followed was a scrambling to get loans from Lurindor to quickly form armies (helped by their politicking during the Viridian Games). Even the kobolds gained their own unit under the PCs' command. The Evergreen War would last 5 in-game months, with 6 major battles using Mass Combat, and 2 operations played by the PCs themselves.
Faerie Nest:
Another adaptation I made from an idea on this thread was Faerie Nest idea. I merged this idea with the Grove of Tiressia (renamed Hazalea in my world) encounter from Book 2. Instead of the scythe tree, Klorgfang agents held Hazalea and her friend Tyg-Twitter-Twig hostages, forcing Percilash and Falchos and the fey of the Hazel Court to sabotage the PCs' nation. The PCs caught on that fey were involved, sought out Percilash and Tyg who they previously befriended, then learned of the hostage situation. They infiltrated the conquered court, defeated the Klorgfang agents, and freed Hazalea, making another fairy court their ally.
The Evergreen War saw the juggernaut troll kingdom of Klorgfang against the fledgling nation of Prateria. The PCs would have some early victories (due to us still experimenting with homebrewed Mass Combat rules), then have two battles that would decimate both sides, with the PCs narrowly earning victory. They gained intelligence by beseeching aid from their Fairy Queen patron Elyssria, and then learned that one of their cohort was leaking their plans to the enemy. After dealing with that, they would end the war with a one-on-one battle with Hrondgren and his mythic crew after infiltrating his capital. A quick summary of the war can be found on our campaign website: Kingmaker: Reborn - The Evergreen War.
The PCs have gone ahead and annexed most of Klorgfang as part of Prateria, granting some parts of it over to allies they formed during the war (the aforementioned Hazel Court, and a tribe of lizardfolk who resented troll rule). The PCs have earned a 4-year in-game downtime to develop their new gains and pick up on personal projects interrupted by the war, but also deal with all the intrigue from 3rd parties that they discovered during the war. Peace may have come to Prateria, but the PCs' lives remain as dangerous as ever.
Again, many thanks for inspiring me to take our campaign in this direction! It was epic and super-fun, with my players even clamoring for more sessions during the week to continue the war. My only worry now is how do I make the next chapter as epic as this one! But that is a challenge for another day...
I think these changes are heading towards a better and more engaging direction.
Magic Items having base effects, and using Points to boost their effects is something I've been calling for since Resonance was announced. Lessing the base effects compared to the older system and PF1 makes sense as well, so agreement there with that change.
I agree that Resonance is a good way to reign in the number wearable magic items, while removing the limits of the slot system, i.e. more freedom to choose which items they want and more freedom to create items that don't quite fit the old body slots of PF1. One example I keep going to is you can now create a Mandarin-type character with 10 magic rings. I'm quite happy to see the system changed this way.
However, I don't think having a flat pool of 10 RP is the way to go. I feel that a pool that scales with power/level would be more interesting. At every level up, you would feel more excited now that your RP pool increases, and you could look forward to acquiring new magic items in the future. It would limit low-level characters from being over-boosted with magical gear (which may be good for some groups, bad for others depending on how they like to play the game). Having the unchanging pool would feel like a boring part of your character, which grows and changes everywhere else.
In addition to that, you might be able to have different RP investment costs depending on how powerful the item is. It woudl give players some additional decision-making as to how they want to kit out their character. Invest in multiple, low-powered items, or go for a single big one? Another idea is that you could have magic item sets: a magic belt X and magic gauntlet Y each cost 2 RP to invest, but if you have both, reduce the total RP cost of them both together by 1.
I do hope non-Charisma based classes will have means of refreshing Focus points (as mentioned in the blog; actually, even Cha-based classes shoudl have refresh methods, just not as frequent). I also hope that the refresh method for each class is different and tailored to the flavor of the class. For example, in PF1, Grit can be renewed by delivering a critical hit on an enemy or downing an enemy, very appropriate for the Gunslinger. Panache can be renewed similar in concept with a critical hit with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon. Although not the same thing, but similar, in Dreamscarred Press' Path of War, each initiator class has different ways to spend a turn to regain maneuvers (Stalker spends a full round to recover and move his speed with bonus to AC and next attack adds deadly strike; Warlord can perform a gambit action successfully to recover a maneuver). I feel it'll be important for characters to have some method of recovering Focus Points if they have to use them for both their powers and to activate magic items.
Anyways, those are my initial thoughts on the changes. Looking forward to testing them out.
But something else to manage how you use magic items. “But we don’t want that system to be one that cuts you off from magic.” That wasn’t fun. Looking at ways for characters to focus on magic. Stuff about some default baseline and then, if you focus on things, getting more above-and-beyond benefits. (This is kind of unclear to me.) “I want to stress ... that we’re still in the design phase” on this.
This is what I've been saying ever since Resonance was first explained. It was a terrible idea to have all your magic items, one of the main rewards of the game, to stop working all together at any point in the game. Had resonance been released as it was, I would have have house ruled all magic items have a basic function, and you could spend resonance to charge it for additional effects.
Glad to see that resonance will be readjusted in this manner. Also glad to see resonance being removed from consumables. That didn't make sense either.
Treat Wounds is also a welcome addition, especially how healing seems a lot more limited in this edition. However, its importance will probably lessen if resonance is confirmed removed from consumables. Still, it's good to have the option there.
I like having ability scores on monsters. For me, it helped define some of their character, and made them relatable to the PCs. A lot of the math of the game revolved around the ability scores (at least in PF1). And I'll need them when I want to apply PC classes or other features to them. In PF1, I really liked that monsters were built the same way as PCs, so I can build up a troll chieftain with levels in bloodrager, or a worg hunter, or a balor barbarian. You'd think living a few thousand years, a demon would pick up a few skills.
Overall, I plan on keeping ability scores, for both monsters and PCs. In addition, I plan on keeping them as a score, and not a modifier. I'm fine with odd-numbered scores, because I consider them to be another form of hit points. And numbers go 1-2-3-4, not 2-4-6-8. Of course, the odd numbers existed only to slow down ability score power increase. They tried to mitigate the uselessness by using odd ability scores as prerequisites.
Ability damage isn't much of a thing anymore in PF2, but I've always appreciated them as another venue of attack. I really liked the description of what happened when you reach 0 in a certain ability score. The threat of ability damage gave my PCs more of a fright.
To be perfectly honest and truthful, if I were to write a GM's guide it would probably be a thick, heavy, leather-bound tome with gold edges and silver title plates, and a single written page that says "Just wing it."
Go with what feels right on the spot. If it's entertaining, it's the correct answer.
And you know what feels right on the spot? Playing in a world that is internally consistent, overcoming challenges with the tools at hand and not on a whim, and being clever and creative in the face of limitations.
We definitely want feedback on whether people think there's not enough setting info, or too much, or just enough. Setting aside a chapter (like we did in the Starfinder Core Rulebook) is possible, but adding a LOT more would be difficult, as we can't let this become a 600-page book.
For ethnicities, I feel you have to commit either 0% or 100%, no in-between. And that would mean it should not have any place in the Core book, because there would be too much to fit in.
If your campaign is predominantly European-inspired, don't include more foreign ethnicities unless you are willing to commit to making them diverse and colourful as the main ones.
If you are going to add ethnicities to one race, commit to developing ethnicities for other playable races. Elves, dwarves, even goblins and orcs are people too, capable of different cultures and traditions. It'll only make your setting feel richer and realistic and less cartoony.
In any case, I feel that ethnicities are unnecessary in the Core rulebook. I don't think they add much to the rules, so the page would be better off being used for more crunch.
Simply ignoring an encounter? No. You can do that (and sometimes you need to if you're low on resources or on a more pressing situation), but you don't get rewarded for it.
If ignoring an encounter in the manner of turning left instead of right willy-nilly, no xp. If following a plan and thus avoiding detours, at least some xp.
The Lost Star actually has good examples of this in the centipede room - the players have been told where the objective is likely to be, and that's not in the centipede room. Avoiding that room is certainly worth an award - but that might be a side quest award rather than the full fight award on GM whim.
This is why I don't use xp and instead give out levels at waypoints - I don't want my players to feel they have to examine every nook and cranny. They still do tough - but usually after finishing the main encounter.
This is EXACT scenario my playtest group encountered. They had a goblin PC in the group, so they knew that the centipede nest had no value at all. Luckily, since the playtest doesn't care about accumulating XP for future games, it didn't matter if they fought the centipedes or not.
Stuff like this is why, like you, I've switched over to leveling up at appropriate moments in the campaign instead of through XP tracking. PCs can feel free to choose to avoid/ignore encounters as how they pertain to their in-character motivations instead of metagame reasons.
It's a common complaint, there's no guidance on what skills apply to all monsters. Presumably this will be fixed in the final version. It might someday get an errata update during the playtest.
Yeah, it's pretty vague as is. Maybe they wanted GMs to be flexible? But for me, I appreciated the clear-cut way they assigned creature types to each knowledge in PF1. Easy to look up and remember to be consistent.
That was another of the great things about 1E skills. Nat 1 wasn't a failure, so I frequently didn't have to roll the dice. Beating a DC so hard I didn't have to roll usually felt better than a nat 20.
Of course, you're still making rolls since you can't have that bonus to every skill check at once. You just succeed at what you hyper focus on, and that's awesome.
I love when my level 13 PF1 dungeon has a few DC 8 Acrobatics checks, that the +3 Acrobatics Wizard is massively careful on, while the martials are dancing over it backwards. It made the character's strengths and weaknesses really stand out and be interesting.
I'm with you on that style of play. One thing I do appreciate about having high bonuses trivialize minor challenges is that it helps move the game along more quickly. Not only that saves time to not have to worry about minor challenges that would otherwise bog down play, as a GM, I can plan ahead better. If I know that a PC has a pretty strong lock on a social encounter, I can focus on planning on the expected outcome, instead of having to come up with 2 alternate paths depending on success or failure.
I feel my players also appreciate being able to trivialize challenges that they purposeful optimized for. Makes them feel validated and special in being the expert specialist for a particular situation.
If Leadership is being removed, it absolutely needs to be replaced with a robust and fun system for players to recruit and form a loyal organization. Fortunately, some of the ground work for such a system has already been established (Downtime from Ultimate Campaign, Recruits from Ironfang Invasion). I also strongly recommend looking at Legendary Games Ultimate Factions for inspiration (built specifically to support Kingmaker and Ultimate Campaign).
My Kingmaker players are having a blast with Leadership. They're having a ton of fun with organizing their followers, seeing a select random few earn prominence throughout the campaign, and having them form the backbone of their respective organization (army, city guard, scouts, spies, business). However, if we had started after we had gotten our hands on UC, Ironfang Invasion, and Ultimate Factions, I would have opted for removing Leadership in exchange for a combination of those systems to recruit their followers in a more organic fashion, and get the players more involved in that process instead of their followers suddenly showing up.
Downtime as a concept is now built in to the core of PF2, so I think that area of the game should be far more developed than the couple of pages we currently have. I was sorely disappointed by how little gameplay was implemented in that section.
When Ancestry feats were first introduced, it was described by Paizo as "making my elf more elf-y" as they grew. I thought that this was a neat idea! I can easily see my character put in work to improve his racial abilities, or discover new ways of using them, or pick up some optional cultural skills related to my ancestry.
Instead, what we got was that Paizo chopped up all the basic racial abilities, and having you pick and choose which ones you wanted, sprinkled very sparingly over 20 levels (I had also expected for Ancestry feats to be selected much more frequently over a character's growth, instead of a meager 5 opportunities...).
What it should have been was that each ancestry had a number of distinct features that very much distinguished each one from the other, and Ancestry feats would be similar to PF1 Racial feats: feats that improve base ancestry features, or unlock new abilities stemming from them.
I don't particularly care either way as a player, but as a GM this rule would really annoy me. The GM already has plenty of stuff to keep track of without also needing to reference the skill modifiers of four or more characters. It's simply more convenient to have the players keep track of their own modifiers and tell me what they roll.
Agreed 100%. After running 1 session with having to roll Stealth checks for all my players, I was thoroughly annoyed. GMs have enough stuff on their plate, don't add more!
I'm also in the camp that prefers to roll openly as much as possible. I honestly don't think that there is much that the GM has to hide from their players. If players are metagaming a lot, then that's an issue stemming from being bad players.
The only times I think GMs should amke secret rolls is when the players absolutely has no ability to affect the outcome, which are thankfully few and far between. Spells like teleport and augury come to mind, and seem appropriate.
As I mentioned in the previous blog post, my main issue with Resonance that I hate with a passion is the concept of a failure chance when trying to use them. Potions and other consumables especially should never be "wasted". I believe it would be better if the Resonance system instead had that all magic items had a minimal/trivial function when used with 0 RP. At least then player would not feel like their item isn't wasted.
We could then allow the Resonance system to play along with magic weapons. Invest in them like armor, and spend points to activate awesome abilities at key moments in the fight. It seems silly that Resonance works with everything else that is magical, including armor, but not weapons, where it could be argued is where we would see the most use out of the system. Maybe include in the Resonance system the ability to spend more points for additional effects.
At present, I am not a fan of the Resonance system. To be more accurate, what I really despise is the existence of a failure chance to use magic items, especially consumables. I don't think that's fair to the player who invested in getting these items, and who would be using them in desperate situations. We never had this before as a standard rule for magic items in the past, and I do not want to see it built in at all.
However, I do think a Resonance can be a fun mechanic. Using your RP to get activate more abilities or potency from your item can allow for a wide range of fun possibilities. I would suggest that you remove the failure chance, and instead have all magic items have a very minimal magical ability when used without RP, especially potions and other consumables. RP can be used to bring out the maximum magical potency from the item, or activate new abilities, but you should never feel that your item is "wasted" when you run out of RP.
I also like the idea that the magic item itself does not have a use limit, so it can now be shared between characters who have RP. I kinda agree that it would be better to shift focus towards acquiring RP-efficient items as opposed to gp-efficient, but I feel that wealth as a mechanic is not a bad thing, and it's fine for a game to have gp-efficiency integral in its mechanics.
I'm also fine with the Resonance system removing the item slot limits. We got multiple fingers, why can't I wear 10 magical rings? In old AD&D 2nd Ed, Drizzt wore his bracers of speed as anklets. Great story idea, illegal in the game. But with Resonance, we could possible allow that! This also allows non-humanoid creatures more freedom in what magical items they can equip.
To sum up, I'll be happy with Resonance based on 2 things:
1) Remove failure chance when out of RP, replace with very minimal abilities. Magic items should never feel wasted.
2) A wide variety of benefits of spending Resonance Points that feel fun and wonderful.
The PF2 wizard preview is shaping up pretty much how I expected, based on all the info already shown so far. I'm liking what I see here. As the PF2 wizard class eatures haven't changed too much from PF1, the part I'm looking most foward to is seeing what new feats were developed for this new version of the class.
I'd like to reiterate that I'm really liking the level of customization with spells: adding components, heightening spell level, and different levels of success/failures. I like that spellcasters have a lot of options and can see a variety of effects with their spells.
I'm not particularly impressed by the new stat block. Most of the info I would need to run a monster is there, and I do appreciate the need to streamline and reduce noise of the old stat block. But some reason, I feel like I'm missing out on something.
Please do not use custom art for [[A]] and [[R]]. I know it might look nice, but they won't do any favors when you need to copy the stat block. You just added more things to format. And even if you do have the icon art, are you really going to repeatedly embed an image in it when you put up the stat block online? Please find some text-based abbreviation to denote actions and reactions. Maybe a capital bold "A|<action name>".
I'm fine for aiming towards a redcued, streamlined stat block, but I hope we get a robust monster-building system along with when PF2 releases. Because alone, the new stat block is very unsatisfying, along with this statement:
Quote:
One of the nice things about the new system of building monsters is that we can just give monsters the statistics we want them to have instead of sometimes building them in strange ways to get their statistics to be good. For instance, in Pathfinder First Edition, a fey might have had far more Hit Dice than expected to get its statistics high enough, which led to odd results from abilities that counted Hit Dice. Now, the redcap gets statistics that are suitable for its level and how it's used.
Seems to me that the solution would have been to fix those abilities to scale differently instead of dropping the main measurement to judge the relative power between a PC and a class-less monster.
What kind of guidelines will be provided to build or modify monsters this way? Because this new design approach requires you to know the balancing levels of each individual part of the creature and they also balance each other out. If I want a creature to have high attack, and low health, how do I measure what numbers to arbitrarily put in those stats to be weak/challenging/overpowering for PCs of X level? It seems to me that you'd be doing more balance testing on an individual monster basis, as opposed to balance testing a creation system which can be applied to all monsters, and that seems very inefficient to me.
The PF1 monster building may not have been perfect, but at least it was parallel to how to build a PC was built, so you had a decent estimate to how they'd match up. In the above example of the so-called "problem" in PF1 with the high-HD fey, maybe you should have developed fey-specific abilities so that you could have a low-HD fey with abilities that scaled high to be the strong iconic abilities for the monster without the other stats based on HD being over the intended goal. In other words, HD was the spine of the monster, and the abilities are the flexible parts that you can scale however you need.
In PF2, I can easily see a monster creation system similar to how PCs are build. Translate the PF1 creature types into ancestries, monster roles into classes, and the theme of the monster can be its background. Instead of monster HD from PF1, in PF2 it would simply be a monster level. Since these monster ancestries/classes/background are intended for monsters and not PCs, they can have access to both monster-specific and PC feats, and the modifiers can exceed what is intended for PCs. For example, a theoretical "giant" ancestry could offer a +8 bonus Strength, an "Awesome Blow" class feat from a theoretical "combat role" class, and a "Troll Regeneration" feat from a theoreritcal "troll" background.
This way, a GM could easily add or substract to get stronger or weaker versions of the same monster.
In fact, whether we get a monster building system or not with PF2, I think this would be a fun project to work on. To translate monster abilities into a PC-style monster building and progression system.
I understand that the Paladin is very contentious among a lot of people, but I for one am glad and relieved that the LG Paladin retains its core place in PF2. I've always found Paladins to be simultaneously both simple and complicated to play.
Simple in the fact that the Paladin is the ultimate good guy, so their goals are fairly straightfoward. Sometimes all it takes is to not be a dick or an ass. Just be nice. I've always played my Pallysas people always striving to be living embodiments of the seven virtues. For my players who play Paladins, I measure their actions and decisions in how they embody those seven virtues.
On the other hand, paladins are complicated because life isn't fair, and the universe cares not for your simple morals. As flawed mortals, it is understood that they won't always fulfill the goal of embodying the virtues, but as long as they sincerely try to and exhaust all their options, it's not the end of the world for the paladin. What I find fun with playing with paladins in no-win scenarios is being forced to come up with backup plans, contingencies should I ever find myself in a situation where I might violate my oath. That's where the complicated part comes in. Paladins need to be thoughtful and shrewd if they want to have a long career without dying or falling; they should know that not everyone lives to the paladin standards, so Paladins should anticipate the worse actions the bad guys can do, and prepare for them. Not an easy task.
In the example above regarding revealing witnesses, if I was the paladin in that scenario, I would be trying to find ways to provide protection to those witnesses, or find a way to foil the villains plans, usually by recruiting help. You see a lot of those types of dilemmas in crime drama on TV or in books, so there's a lot of inspiration to take from. And if push comes to shove, I believe a paladin should be willing accept the consequences of breaking the law and possible violating their oath to follow which good they believe in (either lie/refuse testimony, or allow harm to come to innocents).
What irks me when I hear about paladin horror stories: both players and GM try playing the paladin in a moral straightjacket. Instead, I feel it should be path that the paladin sometimes stray from, but can return. LG Paladin players should understand what the intent of their code should be, understand why their decisions may violate it and fall, and be willing to find a way to atone for it. A good guy can perform a horrible act when left with no choice, but because they are good, they would feel guilty and try to make up for what they did, even if they might never end up doing so in their lifetime (which makes for a great tragic story!).
GMs should be aware of the dilemma they put their paladins through, and prepare for possible falling. As long as the PC paladin is sincere, GMs should make it clear that they can atone for their misdeeds and return to the light. If you're a god or some cosmic arbiter of morality that guides paladins, then mercy and forgiveness should be a big thing for you. Angelic visions should be appearing to the fallen paladin, guiding them back onto the path of goodness. And GMs should make it fun and rewarding! I feel that the roleplaying experience can be extremely engaging. And I just love a good redemption arc.
Regarding poisons, that's one of the few things I disagreed with from previous editions. Poisons are a tool; intent is the key factor. Paladins should not have to worry about using poisons when their use could reduce the amount of harm and save lives (sleep/knockout poisons would be super useful for pallys).
On another note, I think a class that fills the role of deity/philisophical champion would be a great addition to the game, but just don't call it paladin.
Paladin Features wrote:
As many of you guessed when Jason mentioned it, paladin was the mystery class that gains the highest heavy armor proficiency, eventually reaching legendary proficiency in armor and master proficiency in weapons, as opposed to fighters, who gain the reverse.
Paladins having their role officially defined as the party's tank/defender sounds good to me. It fits with their flavor as a defender of justice and everything that's good.
Paladin Feats wrote:
In addition to the oath feats I mentioned when talking about the code, paladins have feats customized to work with the various righteous ally options, like Second Ally, a level 8 feat that lets you gain a second righteous ally.
Looking forward to reading more oath and other feats. Sounds like Paladins will have many areas to progress in (aura, smites, martial abilities, and so on).
Litanies wrote:
Following their mold from Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat, litanies are single-action Verbal Casting spells that last 1 round and create various effects.
I liked these in UC, so I'm glad they're back!
I see no mention of paladins casting spells. Has this been removed? No big loss, especially if litanies and smite powers are plentiful. And Lay on Hands and its feats would be far better than the cure spells the old paladin was saddled with.
Can't wait to get my hands on this class that has long fascinated me!
Some interesting new info here. A lot of teases, but not enough detail for me to form any judgement on the new cleric so far. I'll need to see the spells and feats and domain powers.
Cleric Class Preview wrote:
Clerics' key ability score is Wisdom. This means that they get an ability boost to Wisdom at 1st level, increasing their Wisdom score by 2.
Did I somehow miss this mentioned in the other class previews? Or is this our first mention of the class granting an ability score boost? I can see the reasoning in doing so, and it'll make players feel more comfortable in picking varied ancestry/class combos. Seems like a good idea I look forward to seeing action.
Cleric Class Preview wrote:
A cleric's deity also imposes some restrictions on her, collectively called anathema, representing acts that go against her deity's will and teachings or violate their alignment requirements.
This could be contentious. I'd like to see some examples. I need to see how these can be interpreted, and how easily they can be adapted to gods of other official or homebrewed settings.
Cleric Class Preview wrote:
As you go up in level, you'll increase your proficiency rank with divine spells to expert at 12th level, master at 16th level, and legendary at 19th level.
...
At higher levels, you gain new cleric feats at every even level, except levels 12 and 16, when you increase your spell DCs instead.
Those seem like odd levels to place those bumps. They're concentrated on the higher level side of progression, instead of being more evenly spread out. Any reason for this?
Cleric Class Preview wrote:
We made your number of spells more straightforward by eliminating Pathfinder First Edition's bonus spells granted for having a high ability score.
No more bonus spells from high ability scores. Kinda sad at their loss, they were a nice bonus to have, but I don't think it's a crippling loss. In exchange, we have to rely on other powers. I hope there will be enough of them to compensate. However, that means there are no more classes that have a 0 listed on their spell progression, like Rangers and Paladins, right? Those were always dumb.
Cleric Class Preview wrote:
You can activate a metamagic feat when you cast a spell. This increases the number of actions required to cast the spell and modifies the spell in some way.
This seems a like a nice way of handling metamagic with the new action economy. However, this means that metamagic can't be applied to spells that require 3 actions. I believe it' expected that those spells are to be few and far between. Will those spells be complete enough that applying metamagic would have less use anyways? And I guess this also means that the intent is limit only one metamagic effect to most spells, since most of them were said to require 2 actions?
It really isn't as I have to look at the weight either way: having it be 'light' [or 1/10th a bulk] or looking up the weight in pounds is STILL looking up a number and adding it. The fact one is variable is the only difference but that doesn't remove the fact that you had to look for either one.
I don't think so. A system that reduces the variability of weight will naturally require less looking up into tables. Whole classes of items can now have the same weight, where "light" replaces everything between 1/2 lb and 2 lbs (for example), and it's going to be much easier to guess that an item falls in this category, in most of those cases. Potentially, the designers can decide that light weapons all are 1 bulk, medium weapons 2 bulk etc. This greatly facilitates the creation of a level 1 character. The developers have mentioned lowering the barrier of entry for first-time players as a big design goal, and I couldn't agree more.
Moreover, this immediately does away with the problem for Small characters where we had to remember to divide the weight by 2. Instead, bulk is the same, it just fits automatically with character size.
For me, looking up 20+ items for every character has always been the worst chore, an entry tax before I get to play. I'm happy to see that go. Plus, on the personal side, I get a side benefit: This removes one Imperial unit, at least, from the list of things I have to live with in order to play. A minor, but appreciable bonus.
This is off-topic for the blog post, but since the topic was brought up, I just wanted to say that I've been on the fence whether or not to adopt bulk vs. weight.
What you say makes a lot of sense, and does seem to be an improvement. However, that's only if they implement it consistently across all types of objects, which isn't what I've experienced in Starfinder so far. You've got some rifles at 1 bulk, other rifles at 2 bulk, and even others at 3. Because of this, you're never 100% sure, and you end up looking up the chart anyways. I don't know why they didn't just do as you suggested: all pistol-like weapons are 1 bulk, all rifles at 2, all heavy/sniper at 3.
If bulk is to be used, there also needs to be better explanation of how that bulk number can be translated into what it actually means. For instance, the Medical Lab is 50 bulk, and the Regeneration Table is 20 bulk. I have no frame of reference as to what this actually means. Ok, I can somewhat imagine what a table looks like, but what's the Medical Lab having bulk when it's an actual room? At least when using weight and volume I have a frame of reference to understand and visualize what I'm dealing with. I've found having actual weights involved gave me a better idea of how characters of certain strength can interact with other physical objects in the world, stuff that isn't listed in the rules but that I can look up in real life for comparison.
So for me, I can live with the bulk system, but it needs to be hell of a lot better implemented than it was in Starfinder, because in that system, I saw absolutely no improvement in actual use over using actual weight. I find that I'm still regularly looking up what things weigh/bulk and still having to count and add up just as much as I was doing with actual weights.
I like that there is now more separation between potions and elixirs. I can't really judge how good the changes to the poison mechanics will be from this one example, but I hope they'll be more streamlined and clearer than before.
Now that alchemy is now a major feature of the game, I can't wait to see what will be done with it. I've always found alchemy a great way to emulate science-fantasy ideas, going the route of 'mad science' as mentioned before.
One concern I've always had was that I found alchemical items to quickly become obsolete very early on as DCs and effects remain static. I had to develop some additional house rules to allow creation of alchemical items with increased effects at higher cost. The blog mentions examples of the Alchemist able to increase the effects of alchemical items, but are there any plans to keep alchemical items useful for other classes at higher levels?
Have not gone through all the responses yet, but here are my thoughts.
Overall, I'm liking what I see here. I really like how spells have a lot of variability now, from using a different number of actions, heightening the spell, and critical damage/fumble. Would it be accurate to say that it will be easy for GMs to customize spells further just by changing the number of actions or altering how the spell is heightened? We now have several established vectors where we can alter spells and how they scale.
I like ritual spells, and glad they are now part of Core. I hope we see more effects and variety!
So 10th-level spells are just a new level to better slot those 9th-level spells that were more powerful than the norm? Fair enough. Excited to see what new spells will be created for that new level.
Cantrips are automatically heightened to max level makes sense. Will there be more cantrip spells? Will their heightened modifications be varied?
Spell Point pool seems to follow the same design philosophy as the new action economy. Now players will have the choice to use certain powers more per day depending on their needs than they could in PF1. Sounds good to me.
Magical Tradition paragraph seems vague, but I'm glad to see it addressed. I hope there will be some game mechanic to along with that fluff description of the difference between arcane and divine.
Thanks for the blog post! I'm really looking forward to seeing all these changes in action.
I like the alchemist, so I'm looking forward to seeing its update in PF2. However, this blog post didn't have much to be excited about. Glad to see its features still there in PF2, but without details, I can't get really hyped. Also very few details about what alchemical items that can be crafted, so can't even get excited about the classes ability to create lots of them. Same goes for poisons and potions. I don't know how these work in PF2, so what am I supposed to get hype about?
I do dislike how the mental stat bonuses and penalties typecast many races. Elves never truly excel as Clerics, while Dwarves never truly excel as Wizards. You certainly can play with those race/class combos, but it inherently put you at a disadvantage because your racial bonuses don't align with the needs of your class. Tieflings and Aasimar had some cool variants that let you work around this and that would potentially be a model for PF2 to allow more diversity from each ancestry. I'm not for or against the +2/+2/-2 standard, and I don't think I'd be upset if it stayed or disappeared. I just hope races aren't quite as strongly typecast this time around.
You could say the same with physical stat bonuses/penalties. Elves will never excel as Barbarians, halflings never excel at melee Fighters.
At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself how different do you want your races to be from one another. Are they a truly different, alien species to baseline humans? "In this world, elves are just frailer than other races, but they're very smart. That's something they have to deal with and that's how they evolved to compensate."
You could do away with all racial ability score modifiers, or allow every race to pick and choose their bonus/penalty; there would still be other racial abilities to differentiate them, but you could also argue that this is another form of typecasting, and you would edge closer and closer to the concept that "all races are just human with different looks".
It all really depends on how you view different races/ancestries in your campaign.
I think this comes down to poor wording in Sneak Attack's description. Sneak attack shouldn't be described as striking a vital spot (in combat, you are ALWAYS trying to hit a vital spot). Instead, I believe the intent is that sneak attack deals an unexpected attack that the enemy is completely unprepared for, which is why it causes so much more damage to their ability to keep fighting. Compare your ability to stay standing from receiving a punch that you are ready for vs. a surprise hit sucker punch.
This is why flanking allows for sneak attack. Your ally is distracting the opponent enough that you the rogue can deliver a surprise hit the opponent is unprepared for that can potentially take them out. Same logic applies to Feint (distract and misdirection) and attacking flat-footed opponent (not ready to defend themselves).
Agree, that explanation makes more sense to explain Sneak Attack mechanics, although in that case it should not count as precision damage.
True. This would have to be house-ruled out to be normal damage, which honestly, I don't think would break things. It would be a minor buff to the rogue that I would probably be fine with as a GM.
While I enjoyed this post. I feel they didn't even come close to getting the Rogue right.
I like the concept of sneak attack. But I am sorry you have failed to grasp the concept of hitting a vital spot. WHY MUST I BE FLANKING TO HIT A VITAL SPOT? Seriously, this is a stupid concept. If SOMEONE is trained to hit vital spots then they SHOULDN'T rely on a friend to do so. Starfinder was on the right path with the Trick Attack. I as a rogue should have the following ways for a Trick Attack:
1. Perception to notice weakness in the creature you are fighting, or in armor.
2. Knowledge check to recall information about known weakness of creatures etc.
I hate you make the ROGUE BE SO RELIANT on another creature.
I think this comes down to poor wording in Sneak Attack's description. Sneak attack shouldn't be described as striking a vital spot (in combat, you are ALWAYS trying to hit a vital spot). Instead, I believe the intent is that sneak attack deals an unexpected attack that the enemy is completely unprepared for, which is why it causes so much more damage to their ability to keep fighting. Compare your ability to stay standing from receiving a punch that you are ready for vs. a surprise hit sucker punch.
This is why flanking allows for sneak attack. Your ally is distracting the opponent enough that you the rogue can deliver a surprise hit the opponent is unprepared for that can potentially take them out. Same logic applies to Feint (distract and misdirection) and attacking flat-footed opponent (not ready to defend themselves).
I will say that Feinting in PF1 was a chore. It should've been a move action by default instead of a standard. However in PF2, this wouldn't be a problem because there's no distinction in actions anymore (assuming feinting works in a similar way).
I'm intrigued by this profiency system, and it makes sense to me. I do like the idea of gradually unlocking new things to do with your skills as you become better at them. I'm glad that we'll be able to do really extraordinary stuff at high levels. For me, I really like progression where things are realistic at the start, but through enough work and experience, you'll eventually be able to accomplish superheroic feats. The realism in the beginning makes the extraordinary later feel all that more special.
I don't know if the modifiers between the different tiers of proficiency is big enough to feel significant, even when counting the ability score and gear modifier adjustments. I understand the math and how it works with the new critical success and fumble system, but I need to feel it in action.
I kinda get why all classes get the same +level modifier in order to keep characters who didn't invest in a particular skill still capable of participating, but my biggest worry is that it would make things too easy, that groups won't have that sense of failure or the need for creative problem solving because everyone is capable of overcoming the challenge to some degree.
In the Stealth scenario, what I did for my home campaign is that if the group needed to stealth all together, I had them all roll and I selected the lowest result for the group. I then used all the other players' stealth check as an aid another (I house ruled that an aid another gives a +1 bonus for every 10 the check beats), justifying that the better stealthy characters were giving pointers or lifting the less skilled members of the group. There was still the risk of the untrained member still f#&!ing things up for the group, but the more skilled members still felt validated in investing in their skill to mitigate that.
From the blog:
"Your barbarian, with her extensive experience in battle, might be able to identify a dragon's weaknesses much better than the wizard with his ivory-tower book learning, but when it comes to magical theory, identifying the gestures that compose a spell, or other such topics, your barbarian simply doesn't know anything at all."
This makes it sound like skills are either all or nothing, which disagrees with the premise made earlier. Does this mean that there are certain skills that are just useless to certain classes, even with a base modifier of +20 at 20th-level? Or was this example a bit too simplistic, and that a 20th-level barbarian will still be able to have some use out of an untrained Arcana skill, and that the wizard, who invested in skill feats for Arcana, is able to do more? (I'm assuming its the latter, but that example threw up some questions marks.)
What I really need to see is:
1) What skill uses are gated between the different tiers of proficiency?
2) What can skill feats do exactly?
3) How much can gear affect the skill modifier?
4) What other bonuses can we get? (class skills?)
Whatever method we increase skills, what I need to have is for the player to have the agency to improve their skills as they see fit to their character and needs. I need there to be a signficant feel in difference between two characters of the same level where one invested progress into one skill vs. the other who did not for the same skill.
A bit off-topic, but I'm beginning to feel frustrated in getting all this info in piecemeal format. Because each blog only examines one piece of the system without truly giving context in how they work with the rest of the system, there are just so many questions and concerns that pop up because we don't have that context. I'm already tired of seeing comments to just "wait until the playtest comes out" which is still more than 4 months away. If we can't adequately form opinions and concerns regarding the new system from these pieces of info, then you should have just stayed quiet until the playtest release.
Something to mitigate this would be to release a schedule of the blog topics so that we know when to anticipate answers to questions that come up in previous blog posts. I would also like to see blog updates on PF2 on a daily basis. Keep that information stream continuously pumping to prevent a build up of frustration and questions. I think that PF2 playtest announcement should have come out no earlier than a month before release. Long enough to allow preorders, build up hype, and condense the time between blog updates, but not long enough for people to stew in their concerns before seeing the actual thing.
and still I would have to go through every encounter to look up the CR before I even START counting XP, which is something that isn't necessarily needed now
Or you could just look how the fight actually goes, and hand out an appropriate number of XP based on whether it was easy, moderate or hard for the PCs to win in play, and not worry about CR at all.
That's an imprecise method of doing things, easily prone to mistakes, and requires a GM to be absolutely 100% confidence in their judgement. And by that logic, we might as well just toss out the numbers and go purely storytelling.
What we need is a solid framework by which we can use as a reference, and one that minimizes the amount of work we need to do. We can tweak up or down afterwards.
If we need to perform extra evaluation and calculation in the new system that we didn't need to do beforehand, then I fail to see how that is an improvement.
Untrained: level-1 + Ability mod
Trained: level + Ability mod
Expert: level+1 + Ability mod
Master: level+2 + Ability mod
Legend: level+3 + Ability mod
These were mentioned as applying to both weapon qualities and to skill bonuses
Also, I absolutely love it!
And all of Mark's great posts. You really are a cool guy, Mark.
Man, the skill unlocks had better be absolutely spectacular, otherwise those levels are terrible.
Yeah, those increments between proficiency levels are pretty underwhelming on paper.
We haven't yet heard any details about feats other than they will be in PF2 and a new subset called "class feats", but I'd like to get ahead and air out my wishlist of changes to feats that I hope to see in the new edition. Primarily, I'd like to see changes proposed in Michael Iantorno article on Feat Taxes implemented, or at the very least heavily influence feat development.
And expanding on the above proposed changes:
1) Convert feats with tradeoffs into default action options. Feats like Power Attack, Deadly Aim, and Combat Expertise already have a built in penalty as a tradeoff to the benefit, thus adding onto the cost of a feat slot, lessening their value. However, these feats are part of the most basic set of features of combat, so why would someone need special training to decide to forego their defense in order to make a powerful attack? In my home campaign, I've even extended this concept to other feats like Lunge and Piranha Strike (and retained the ability score and BAB prerequisites). I'm even toying with the idea of doing this to Cleave, because I see a lot of similarities to Charge (which does not require a feat):
- Both have specific requirements to get the benefit: Charge requires a full action and a minimum of 10 ft. distance from target. Cleave requires Str 13, BAB +1 (and Power Attack, but that's omitted now), and a successful hit, plus another target to be adjacent to the first and within reach.
- Both have similar penalties: Both Charge and Cleave impose a -2 penalty to AC until your next turn.
Perhaps an additional attack might be considered superior to a +2 bonus to attack, but the set up is specific, and you can always say that the 2nd attack is made at a penalty (which makes sense because your effort is reduced by the 1st attack). So why is Charge a default option and Cleave requires a feat?
2) Condense feat chains into single feats with built in requirements. No more "<feat> / Improved <feat> / Greater <feat>". Condense all of them into one feat, and build in incremental requirements to unlock the additional features. So feat chains like the Two-Weapon Fighting one is one feat, and you get the benefits of Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at BAB +6 and Dex 17, and the benefits of Greater Two-Weapon Fighting at BAB +11 and Dex 19. I even did the same for Style Feats like Archon Style, with he added benefit that I only have to look up one feat instead of three to know what I can do. (This may make Style feats more OP than other feats, but prerequisites and benefits could always be tweaked).
The fact that 3.5 and PF use the exact same sets of rules and assumptions for PCs as for NPCs and monsters is probably THE biggest allure of the system for me as a GM, and I know I'm not alone in that regard.
Completely agreed! When monsters and NPCs play with the same ruleset as PCs, that allows me the GM to better gage the power levels involved in the encounter. I hate the CR concept because it's vague and easily prone to creating unbalanced encounters.
Another benefit? I only have to memorize and understand *one* ruleset when I want to create my unique monster, instead of trying to decipher a 2nd set of rules that don't mesh with the rest of the system. Of course, some abilities should be reserved only for monsters, but they should follow the same format as class features. I think the rules to create Eidolons and the rules in the Advanced Race Guide are an excellent first step to what I'd like to see.
And if people are GMs are finding it takes too long to create monsters this way? Then we should absolutely find a way to streamline the process. That means the added benefit is that creating PCs becomes more streamlined at the same time!
I'm fine if there's a ruleset to quickly generate a monster, but that should be optional, and a proper ruleset to build monsters on the same framework as that of the PC should absolutely be core.
I am open to the idea to this change being default. I should try out the Revised Action Economy from Unchained to see how it feels.
One thing I can see being done by converting action types into undefined actions of equal value is that you can use them as currency.
For example, a normal attack is 1 action (and you can make 2 normal attacks with 2 actions). What if you had the option to make one powerful attack with 2 actions? Or make a called shot with 2 actions, or a super powerful attack by spending all 3 actions? I think it could add some fun flexibility during combat.
5 of your 6 items align closely with the design goals of the new edition.
This increases my optimism, thank you!
A couple of questions for the design team:
1) How much of the PF1 character options and subsystems can be emulated with the PF2 ruleset right out of the box?
This will likely influence how soon I'll convert my current long-term KM campaign as we use almost everything you guys have put out so far, including Mythic. We also use Dreamscarred's Psionics and Path of War, so I hope converting those 3PP options to be compatible with PF2 doesn't encounter big complications.
2) Do you plan on showcasing high-level gameplay in a similar manner as done on the Glass Cannon podcast?
I would love to see how the game plays at that level.
EDIT:
3) Has it been considered to augment combat options by spending additional actions?
Now that combat actions have been changed to 3 general actions, I wonder if we can have options such as "spend 2 actions to deliver a powerful blow" or "spend 2 actions to perform a called shot". I think that could lead to a lot of variety in compbat options.
Random thought: I hope Dex doesn't get applied tomelee damage without an additional cost. Otherwise, what's the point to Strength characters?
Heck, why stop there? Apply Int to melee damage for free! Wis to melee damage! For no justification other than this is what my class specializes in, so I should get to deal damage with it!
I understand the point you're trying to make, but asking for more leniency for dexterity builds isn't too much to ask for. Strength build characters already have the advantage in that, from the start, they do more damage overall than a dex based character and only get better from there. Ignoring feats and magic items, strength builds can two-hand their weapons in order to get a flat multiplication to their damage modifiers, not to mention have unfettered access to weapons with higher damage dice than virtually anything dexterity builds have access to (greataxes with 1d12 versus a rapier/shortsword with 1d6).
While I believe there should be a prerequisite for dex to damage, it should realistically start and end with Weapon Finesse; no flaming hoops you have to jump through just to get dex to damage with more than a single weapon in one hand while the planets are aligned, gods forbid two weapon fighting. When you have a character idea but the only way to effectively use it is to dig through multiple player companions for specific feats and magic enhancements just so you can come online at level 12, it stops being worth it.
I realize that I came off pretty irritable in my last post. Apologies to all for that, I blame late night tiredness.
I think you and I of are the same mind. Thinking about it, while there should be a prerequisite to allow Dex-based melee damage, it shouldn't be as hard as it is. Spending one feat should be more than enough.
I feel though that Dex-based character get more benefit out of that one stat instead of Str-based. DEXters get benefit to AC, Reflex saves, a lot of skills. STRers only get 2 skills and carrying capacity (and I think only a minority keep stringet checks on encumbrence). So anything that encroaches on the Str benefit of dealing melee damage should be critically examined.
But I could be wrong about that. My group typically veers towards Dex-based PCs for reasons mentioned above, so my view could be pretty skewed.
I would like to add that I believe a 2nd Edition to Pathfinder was inevitable.
PF as-is carries too many faults and weaknesses from 3.5 (an unfortunate necessity at the time). Since then however, Paizo team, and players and GMs from around the world, have come up with wonderful improvement and numerous addons to this great game. After 10 years of continuous development, there absolutely NEEDS to be at least a revision of the whole system, and finally fix the faults inherent within.
I just hope PF2 doesn't go down the path of other game systems. Stealing a couple of ideas here and there is fine and all, but PF should aim for a specific style of tabletop rpg that greatly differs from other game systems. You need to give a reason to the people for them to choose your system over the others that just aren't delivering what they want.
I greet the news of a new edition with a mix of exceitement and trepidation. However, I eagerly await to get my hands on the playtest rules as soon as possible, and examine them with an open mind. As much as I love the current PF, there is much room for improvement (as evident by my numerous house rules for the system).
Here's what I want to see in the 2nd Edition:
1) At least the same level of complexity in character choices as is currently. By which I mean I want us to be able to build our characters to fill a certain niche or emulate a certain character as close as possible. I want the gameplay of a wizard to be significantly different than that of a fighter that is significantly different from that of a rogue, and so on. I want players who invest options in different progression paths to feel rewarded for doing so, that their choices make them feel significant in the area they specialized in compared to the rest of the team. A Fighter who specializes in Diplomacy and tactics should play differently than a Fighter that specializes in Acrobatics and rushing in. This talk about "single proficiency" progression worries me that so many mechanics will revolved around this one statistic that the ability to significantly specialize differently from others of the same origin (i.e. same class or ancestry) will be vastly reduced, forcing players to pick different class or archetypes that have mechanics that they didn't want in the first place.
2) Rule systems where the mechanics are clear and understandable and integrate well with each other. One of the things I appreciated from D&D 3E/3.5/PF is that I understood what the numbers and the math in teh game mechanics meant, and how they interacted with each other. This allowed me to tweak those numbers if need be to fit my peculiar desires, or to develop my own house rules that still feel in line with the overall design of the system. I also want to see the many PF subsystems that Paizo has developed over the years unified to interact seamlessly together.
For example: Kingdom Building and Downtime are 2 subsystems that see great use in a sandbox campaign, and they have a link between them in that both feature a list of the same buildings. However, the cost and time to build the same building differ wildly between the 2 systems. Now, you can (mostly) justify why that is (BP represent more that cash such as having to involve favors from other people and bureaucracy; an individual pays less than a nation but has to generate the capital on their own), but I really shouldn't need to. And if my PC builds a building through Downtime rules, how does it benefit a kingdom under the Kingdom Building rules (which I currently rule as "yeah, your kingdom gains the kingdom stats for that building")? Both systems were developed by Paizo, and even featured in the same book! Why isn't their better clarification rules-wise as to how these two systems could work together? (This is a particular sore point for me because they both add so much gameplay to my current Kingmaker campaign and I just wished they played more seamlessly with each other).
3) Solid scaling of game mechanics for higher levels. I want to see this system designed for high-level gameplay. I want to see numbers, math formulas, and options scale up to higher level that don't become unwieldly or exploitable (or as much as they could possibly can). The mechanics should be clear in how they grow, and play nicely with other without losing that sense of power that comes from being high-level. I want to be able to slap together a high-level adventure with just as much ease as I did for 1st-level. I also want to see rules allowing for infinite growth. It's fine if the base game is intended to go to 20th-level with a capstone, but if I want to use the rules to play an Omega-level Marvel superhero style game, I want to be able to understand that I can scale up character to 40th- or 60th-level (so no hard-limiting abilities to +5 or 5/day or similar). In other words, design how this system should work at 20th-level, then work backwards as to how it'll work at 1st-level.
4) Retain significance of power gap between a 1st-level and 20th-level character, both in feel and in mechanics. At 20th-level character should feel godlike compared to a 1st-level character. None of this flat progression with only gaining different special features that 5E and E6 have gone with. I want impactful vertical scaling. I want characters to be able to reach godlike power if they work hard and long enough for it (and survive long enough).
5) PCs and NPCs/Monsters are built on the same framework. PCs and NPCs should follow the same rules. This allows me, the GM, to build encounters with a better understanding of the power levels of either party, rather than comparing a PC's level vs. a vague and nebulous CR number. I want to be able to build a new monster (or customize one) just as easily as I can build a PC. This would also give the option of creating new races (or rather ancestries now?) that are more monster like and having a better understanding of the balance involved. Race points was the first big step in that direction, now I want to see it expanded to full fledge monsters like worms and oozes.
6) Fewer stat-boosting items, more additional options for power to derive from the character. We seem to already be heading in that direction. No more +2 or +5 to a stat/AC/saving throw/etc. Each piece of gear should give impactful gameplay differences through additional powers or abilities. However, such gear should also be scalable upwards, increasing their current abilities or getting new ones. They should feel and be mechanically more powerful at higher levels.
These are just the points that I've come in the few hours since the 2nd ed. announcement. These are this points that I'll be looking to see how they'll be addressed in the new system before I jump to it from PF1. If I'm not satisfied in how they've been addressed, I'll be sticking with my houseruled edition of PF and convert future APs. As mentioned above, the rule mechanics are clear enough that I can understand how they work, and what my group (and the knowledge sourced from vetern PF players on the net) can do to address the exploits and weaknesses still inherent in the current system.
Arguing that the Glorious Reclamation would be unwilling to ally with a CG group or wouldn't see the value of covert operations smacks of 'lawful stupid' syndrome that we try so hard to stamp out of this game. At best, the Silver Ravens prove themselves a staunch ally that provides a vital contribution to the campaign against Cheliax. At the very least, the GR would be keen on keeping an eye of a chaotic faction with intent on curbing their chaotic tendencies in their mutual interests.
Despite the vast amount of travel magic, distance is still a factor, so they'd be hard press to get an army involved in Kintargo. However, I can easily see a lone agent or a small group make their way there. They would act as a link between the Silver Ravens and the higher leadership of GR, and offer their services to the PCs when allied.
Since the defeat of the GR is pretty much assured, leaving a seed of their organization in a free Kintargo could allow them to rally and reform themselves for future campaigns after Hell's Rebels and Hell's Vengeance.
Negotiating with Cheliax while having a GR presence in town would provide a juicy little dilemma for the PCs that I would love to see play out. Could be easy to solve, or it could not. Either way, it could lead to some very interesting repercussions on the PCs.
If you have no interest in playing Hell's Vengeance "canonically", I would say you should feel free to allow your Silver Raven PCs to figure out ways to send aid to the GR, and as GM, figure out how that would change their campaign against Cheliax. Then figure out what Cheliax would do should they learn of the connection between the two factions.
Really though, I'd prefer my better wizards teleporting, buffing, and supporting, a group of crack commandos to infiltrate the enemy, disrupt supply lines, or assassinate key figures. The favored counter would be to either keep your best spellcasters off the front-line to protect VIPs or force VIPs to lead from the front which would put them in harm's way from the martials. If they have to be on a battlefield, control spells are still better than fireballs really. Create pit, black tentacles, grease, web, etc. not only hurt soldiers but create difficult terrain which can be used far more strategically. For example, you...
Yeah, this is how I see "average" spellcasters acting in mass army combat. Buffing your unit and terrain control to give your side every advantage that you can get, and barring dispels, can't be counterspelled.
Only the rare high level spellcasters, along with a small party of high level martial characters, can play be the big cannon of the army.
Speaking of high-level characters, they'd be the crack commando team, basically what your PC party will be. I'd look to WWII comics with superheroes as insipiration (The Invaders, Justice Society, etc.)
I really like this idea, playing Wrath of the Righteous as top-tier, experienced adventurers on the verge of becoming mythic characters in the world.
I'd imagine there would be a heavy amount of rewriting of the AP. Instead of having the PCs start off a level 1 bystanders, your players should be thrusted to the forefront of the new Worldwound war, taking positions of leadership or simply being powerful agents that major events will revolve around.
What I would do is this:
- Reserve item rewards for mythic encounters, or where they would make sense (monster hoard, lost treasure, etc.)
- Focus on non-tangible rewards: earning fame and prestige from their acts to use to lead or influence the crusaders against the demons, claiming territory from the demons, build points/reousrces to build armies/settlements to fight against demon armies, capital/goods/services for PCs' personal projects (I'd use Ultimate Campaigns for a lot of these).
For encounters:
- Not worry about the small fry; focus fights with the captains/generals/leaders of the demons, or their high-level agents.
- Use mass combat: have the PCs lead armies against the demons. Defeat means loss of territory, loss of people and resources.
- Hit what the PCs can't easily protect. Have demons target population, refugees, destroy buildings and settlements.
- Have multiple encounters at the same time. By which I mean, the demons are hitting 5 targets at once, but the PCs only have resources to defend 2-3 of them when they happen.
- Design problems that can't easily be resolved by hitting things or casting a spell. Play up the corruption (both natural and demonic) that is among the crusaders. Have different factions of the crusaders opposing each other over plans and limited resources. Have the PCs work hard to gather support from the demoralize populace.
The NPCs:
- If you want to use the NPCs already present, like Anevia, Horgus, and Irabeth, bumped up their importance inthe world. Have Irabeth be a senior knight and leader. Horgus is one of the leaders of Kenabres. Anevia leads the crusader scouts and is famous for her successful high-risk forays into demon territory. Similar roles as they are written, but on a grander scale.
The first module:
- Rewrite the adventure to be the Battle of Kenabres. The PCs should be at the forefront of the the Kenabres defences, and focus on battles with demon captains and their entourage.
- However, I would have the major players of the invaders (generals, Khorramzadeh himself) be unbeatable without getting some mythic tiers. Throw in some nascent demon lords to knock around the PCs. Show them why they need to get more powerful beyond what they are to have a fighting chance against the demons.
- Overall, Kenabres should fall, and the focus of the PCs should be a fighting retreat, with the goal being saving as many people and resources as they can. Use those resources later to help throughout the campaign.
- Use a battle point system (like the one in Council of Thieves). Each encounter rewards battle points of varying amount depending on how well the PCs do. At the end, tally them up, and determine how much the PCs saved as they retreat from Kenabres.
I was wondering if Paizo has any plans (or any interest at all) in making a guide book for high-level play, in a similar vein as the GameMastery Guide. Getting together experience game designers who can help GMs and players create a fun and sustainable high-level campaign.
I enjoy starting out low-level and growing my character, but getting all the way to mid-teens level is a long and arduous road, and too often my group never makes it for various reasons. Sometimes I just want to be in a campaign where the PCs are the major powers in the realm do all sorts of crazy things, and to get that, sometimes you just have to start a campaign already at high-levels. But designing a high-level campaign seems like a different beast from a low-level one, and high-level Pathfinder is... complex to say the least.
What I imagine would go into a high-level guide:
advice about how to make high-level challenges and scenarios (e.g. how to make encounters challenging and interesting even if players have teleportation or divination abilities)
or how to make challenges and puzzles that aren't easily overcome by high character stats (e.g. creating political challenges, dungeon puzzles that can't be overcome with wish spells, etc.)
how to avoid or deal with pitfalls from high-level abilities (e.g. how to deal with "broken" builds, or how to make encounters that challenge even them)
what high-level powers to take into consideration when world-building (e.g. how is culture changed when mortals are capable of resurrecting the dead, what strategies are used in war when a small group of six people can take on a whole army?)
sample high-level traps/poisons/curses/diseases that are deadly, but also interesting, both in their effects and how to cure them (like a poison that only some of the effects can be stopped by a cure poison spell, but require more complex methods of fully healing)
stat blocks for high-level NPCs
advice and techniques to make high-level combat more quicker
advice on making high-level character backstory
Basically, I'd like to see a book that answers the question 'What do I need to consider when running a high-level campaign?'
Actually, going through the GameMastery Guide again, I see that some of this stuff was already address, but maybe we can go more in-depth? Specifically address certain individual or combination of spells and abilities that make some challenges trivial? Imagine a section like the Player Interaction section from GMG, except for high-level builds like CoDzilla.
Um, I guess what I'm really asking for is GameMastery Guide 2: High-Level Edition.
I allow class level retraining in my campaign. When you level up, you can choose to advance your level in your current class or a new class, or you can choose to not level and change one level of class of your character.
It's how I make sense of how to classify a person before getting their 1st level in a PC class. Everyone is essentially a 1st-level commoner before finishing their training in a PC class, whereupon they switch the commoner level for a PC class level.
Alternatively, I remember reading some rules for 0-level classes in some magazine or other. You can use that concept for pre-1st-level existence of character.
