Lanathar's page

The new casting proficiency rules coupled with the fact that animist will give quasi pick a list capabilities means that int/cha/wis casters will be able to multiclass into witch/sorc/animist respectively to get spells of a different tradition at full potency! It's honestly a great buff and I'm all about it; getting the ability to poach spells of a save not native to your list will feel like a godsend. Nice and fluffy stuff like nature shaman cleric/druid and master of the mind wiz/psy will be that much stronger, too

What are the new casting proficiency rules?

There was a pretty big spam attack last week with multiple posts across the Forums and PM through several dummy accounts.

The posts were all the same gross giant screed. Without getting into specifics it dealt with extremist opinions regarding the proper age of consent.

The above posters are assuming your PM is the same as those posts, hence "yet more spam."

Oh yes - that is what I wanted to report. Sounds like it is already a known issue.

Yeah, "INTOLERANCE" in the subject line gets priority, they've said - assuming that's what the issue is.

Is that the problem, or is it just yet more spam?

What do you mean “yet more spam”? I have never personally had any. In this case I got a completely unsolicited PM that I thought was both unusual and inappropriate. Unusual in the sense of I don’t think I have even posted here for some time. And nothing I have posted would have suggested I should have got the message I got

I mean in the sense that I am sure there are people who post more on certain “social issues” that sadly attract unsolicited PMs

Hi All

This may seem like a stupid question but I have received a PM that I want to report but it is not clear what avenue I should go down

Could someone please advise?

This is looking like it might be a good one to play with the characters who complete Abomination Vaults considering the plot-giving NPC in AV is a fortune teller. Seems like it won't take too much to link them

I was hoping to get some tips on what I could use as "critical fail" results for non-monster knowledge checks? I was prompted by looking at some of the high DCs in Chapter 1 and also one of my parties have low intelligence across the board

What I did notice in making this list is how few of these my players have actually asked to roll for. I'm not sure how many I should potentially be secretly rolling for people. But that seems unfair given critical failure results so I am waiting for people to ask. I have suggested a potential for a couple

Floor 1:

DC15 Nature (Mitflit Dung) - “Magic Pixie Mud”
DC15 Magic (Powerful destructive spells caused damage) - Natural damage
DC18 Arcana/Occultism (Teleportation Circle) - ?
DC18 Arcana or Nature (Draconic Creature ate frog) - ?
DC15 Religion (Skeletons and Ghosts are connected) - ?
DC10 Society (Crude map of Otari) - Absalom map?
DC20 Society (Haunt of Belcorra) - Perhaps confuse for a goddess?
DC25 Religion (Nimbolath Symbol) -Variant of another religion? Urgathoa?
DC25 Religion (Shrine to Nimbolath) - As above?
DC12 Society (Crooks Nook Fishcakes) - ?
DC16 Society (Osprey Club Symbol) - ?

The majority of maps use the 1e versions.

Ok - so I can see if anyone has done any vtt friendly versions of the original maps? The comment implies as least some change though? Which I would expect because 1E maps seems smaller (people moved less due to the rules)

1E maps from the pdfs were not vtt friendly at all. I’m not even sure if kingmaker had separate interactive ones off the top of my head

Thanks for the heads up. Not the best sign I suppose

I never even attempt to merge maps because I wouldn’t really know how!

Right now this AP is on the list of potential next games for my players so they might not pick it. But it might really appeal. Still have parts of a book 6 to do first - including what seems to be a lengthy final section. I doubt the VTT module will be ready by the time we start but some people playing it might have come up with a solution in the couple of months (minimum)

It isn’t clear to me if anyone has the pdf for this yet from what I am reading but I thought I would ask:

How VTT friendly are the interactive maps that I assume are included ? As in if I snipping took them from the pdfs and upload do they align particularly well?

1E ones were very bad for fitting on grids as they weren’t drawn for them

I recently got book 1 of Strength of Thousands and all are fine except the dormitory which doesn’t line up to the grid

I ask because until the foundry module comes out if I wanted to run this I’d obviously need to do all this manually

Are the content warnings only available when you purchase the products? Because I’d guess that the OP doesn’t want to invest and then find out that the content is not appropriate?

And as mentioned they are not always there in 1E?

Do people have any views on any important triggers for the popular 1E APs such as Runelords and Crimson Throne?

Runelords - Body horror definitely.
Crimson Throne - the pandemic might well be quite triggering after recent events? What do people think of the maidens? Would that trigger certain folks as written?

What is the downside ? Because in the first edition this was something you got from taking burn. Right now the proposal is to give a free version of a very expensive armour rune just for legacy reasons. And not even reflecting the legacy ability completely but choosing the positives

An indication of how this sort of thing could work is with oracle curses where they add negatives and get positives. Do any of those give the equivalent of fortification? I don’t know off hand. Some give miss chances don’t they ? But for pretty nasty downsides

It very much seems like the design intent for this class is not “well the first edition version had this”. Which was where a lot of the homebrew ones made very soon after release fell down - I saw versions that basically tried to directly port all the abilities over including the math and stat boosters - in that case clearly written so early that the author did not understand the math of the system

Edit : could be a feat as mentioned in a reply but I don’t recall this in the first post. And I fear would be a no brainer. Are there many other feats out there that directly replicate runes? Closest I can immediately think of are the flying ones but I don’t recall how they differ from the runes / items. There could well be others

Being able to summon rock walls constantly and constantly be shifting people around every round was amazing.

Is that Earth and water combo? Or Earth and air? I don’t remember all the powers off hand

Battlefield control seems like an unexpected plus point for the Kineticist . And really rather cool as well as being super useful

They seem like they are being strongly tied to Primal. I’d guess Void will be more Occult ?

On the contrary, as mentioned above I fully expect many people to deliberately create "opposite" characters because it is fun and also generally what people do

And 2E has largely removed minor restrictions like this. It doesn't seem worth the line of text it would require

Both of the above, and also some of the universal abilities, like being able to go to and from your associated elemental plane, or summon up an elemental buddy, or transform into an elemental temporarily. I get why these may not have arrived in the playtest, playtests are more about testing new mechanics rather than slapping in easily-implemented feats, but still.

The more I think about it the more it feels like the 1E kineticist was something of a precursor to PF2E's feat siloing system.

To me is is absolutely not a coincidence that the 1E Kineticist has siloed feats, core features built into the class and scaling numbers and shared a designer with 2E

I remember my Kineticist player getting frustrated because there was nothing unique that they could buy to directly boost their Kineticist abilities - so not stat boosters (apart from the diadem). Looking back this almost seems intentional

Haven't played this yet, but everything Aether. Aether was my favorite element for the unlimited utility potential. Telekinetic Haul to carry everything heavy, Foe Throw to just toss people around, Telekinetic Invisibility, Force Hook, Disintegrate, all that good stuff. Just looking at the playtest currently, and having not played 2e before, it feels heavily stripped down. If I remember right, though, 2e follows more along the lines of 5e which has a lot in small packages.

Wasn’t Aether mostly telekinesis? Isn’t this now in the psychic? How did aether work from a planes perspective in 1E? Did it have it’s own one or was it the connections between? It seems like they are sticking close to the actual elemental planes and have decided on 6

I might get to use my old Harrow Deck with the new AP!

Could maybe even allow my current group to carry on when they finish their current AP at level 15. Perhaps the "Stolen Fate" can also strip back a few levels. Or scaling might be possible (but slow leveling it would cause might be unpopular...)

Hot damn. I had honestly not expected it this soon.

I am very, very excited about this.

I hope they've gotten some value from our various ongoing debates on the topic.

I'm absolutely looking forward to it, but I'm also bracing for an outpouring of significant quantities of salt from someone. (Maybe me.)

Lots of salt will be coming. I might even avoid the boards for the playtest (or at least the early part). Not that I am on that much at the moment.

There will be some people who won't think the class is strong enough. Guaranteed

It is a good idea to just do a sole class playtest for this one though. It needs the focus and attention to get it "right".

I am fascinated by the idea of a Wood and Metal kineticist. Seems really interesting. Relatively straightforward "defense" options assuming that stays. But we won't know anything about those until next year

I take the inverse.

Oh you guys playing ttrpg? Nice!

Oh you want me to play? What system are you playing? 5e? Eh, right now my interest begins and ends with pathfinder 2e. Thanks for the offer though.

And the wheel keeps turning.

That said. I do feel like everyone just has terrible takes on both sides.

I see pro DND videos making bad faith arguments left and right. That Puff video was god awful.

And I see pf2e players just snapping at 5e players.

My group has a couple that mechanically prefer 5e DND, 2e pf and some that like anything.

I have no interest in 5e and when they go back to it I'll just sit the game out most likely. I see no reason to force myself to play something I don't like and see no reason to force people to cater to me either

In my experience a lot of the “snapping” came after the bad faith / ill informed videos on PF2 first started rolling out. They almost set the playing field that they wanted the discussion to take place on ( the 2E sucks compared to 5E and is too complicated and hard one). Starting with the one from that guy Cody that first triggered responses from pretty much every 2E creator

I am aware that the 5E creators that are now complaining are not those who “started it” in that regard. But other 5E creators seemed to really be the first to take active shots that ruffled feathers. And there have been others since the that almost seem to wilfully and stubbornly ignore any potential system upsides. And not to mention the channels that make videos whenever a humble bundle is released for charity claiming that it means pathfinder isn’t selling and is getting desperate and is about to go out of business / be sold to wizards. This take is usually only from tiny channels though but the YouTube algorithm is bizarre

As to the 5E content creators complaining - I think I weighed in on the toxic community thread but I have relatively limited sympathy for someone who is effectively asking the world (that is what Twitter is) “I want to make more money, how could I do that?” - and then having what amount to a tantrum at not getting both the response they wanted and a universally positive response.

There is a reason not many people seek to make money from performing to the public, and, indeed, why rpg content creation space has been taken over by actors - struggling or otherwise, many of whom potentially only had a tangential interest in gaming at the start. Because you need thick skin for it. Or at least the you used to. Barriers to entry have come down - especially in online twitch type content - so more people enter without really considering the difficulties or if it is right for them.

The same is true with reduced barriers to entry for anything. But online content creation of all forms is a big one especially as the pandemic had a big and quite quick impact on barriers coming down.

For anyone who has played this - what is the run time?

What are the levels of the mini adventures ? And do you have any view on how much game time they might take to play through? Are they true one evening one shots? I assume they must be because PFS are 4 hours and I doubt there is the page count for 8 of those

There is a frustrating drip feed of information from the OP. Including only cherry picking what they respond to. This is combined with them apparently making similar posts in the past

I appreciate that a full turn by turn summary is probably not reasonable as they probably don’t remember. But I am suspicious of the motives

For example early on someone suggested PFS scenarios as the encounters are written weaker than in other adventures. And very soon after came an OP reply of “so there is nothing I can do?”

There is not detail on what has been run or what the encounters are.

A simple solution would be judicious use of the weak template. If there are still TPKs then I would be staggered.

I was unhappy with the scare to death changes when first reading them given I have a level 19 Ruffian with close to max intimidate

However I used the new version yesterday on a level 17 graveknight - which is now possible due to the removal of the death effect. It had just done loads of damage to the swashbuckler but instead had to run on it’s turn triggering 3 AOOs and dying horribly

In four levels I don’t think I have bothered to use it on a higher level foe - just like I wouldn’t really with phantasmal killer. So the comments in that area of the discussion don’t bother me

I was also concerned that the death part would never work in the new format but my group pointed out that they were pretty sure many people I used it against in the past have indeed crit failed. A combo of never really using it without a debuff being applied (such as standard demoralise) and targeting a level -2 or -3 enemy. At the kind of level we are talking about it is still a one action to effectively deal triple digit hit point damage. It’s satisfying to see foundry flash up with -180 or something like that . The graveknight crit failed the first time as well (obviously to no impact in this case)

And I appear to have undervalued to fleeing part - to the extent I haven’t taken the intimidate skill feat that allows me to do that - i usually prefer the enemy where I or an ally can kill them. But I might reassess

There's no misuse. Telling someone that they're confused, and you're merely clarifying how something works when you've clearly changed something fundamentally is pretty much textbook (doubly so when we've already had comments from Paizo developers on the subject and the potential need for a change).

At the absolute best it's kind of condescending and at the worst downright manipulative. If it were a one off on a slightly contentious topic like this, the use of problematic language would probably be easy to write off as suggested, but it's something Paizo has track record of doing, both in PF2 and PF1 (it's not even the only example in this errata document).

Thanks. I understand where this was coming from now. I read this at like 6am and was only really looking out for scare to death as my group raised this in our chat as two of us use it

Perpdepog wrote:

Yeah I'm glad Scare to Death isn't as auto-picky as it used to be while still being useful.

Probably true (never got to it myself), but they should have also changed the name of the feat to 'Scare a lot' for example. Or "Better Demoralize' (it is better, right?) Because I just don't believe in two critical fails/successes with Incapacitate.

Agree that the name is now misleading (especially as someone who has got a lot of mileage out of this feat to date)

I couldn’t get through the nonat video as it seemed completely ridiculous and absurd as I didn’t know there was context. Absence of real context the video seemed stupid. Then learning it is seemingly based on one persons tweet - actually makes it worse

Click bait title combined with that very modern phenomenon of “of a small group of people did something, they have x trait in common, I will now get out a broad brush and talk to / lecture every single person with x trait”. Meanwhile most people have an expression similar to that blinking guy gif - no idea what is going on and are completely baffled

Yeah, I never really understood why Paizo has such a habit of trying to gaslight people with their errata, but they've been doing it since PF1.

Most of the changes seem nice overall, though I'm a little surprised that their solution to savage companions having bad AC was to just nerf all the other companions.

... Wasn't Paizo talking about making some additional changes to the Alchemist a few weeks ago? I don't see any mention of them in the FAQ document.

I don’t understand what this comment means here? Not disagreeing necessarily but how does “gaslighting” fit in this context ? Perhaps it is just too early to read this

There's a pretty easy fix for Raise a Tome I think; instead of providing the +1 to RK, it just lets you RK as part of raising your shield-tome. Combining actions is always valuable, especially for a class as action starved as the Magus.

I like this. A simple and elegant suggestion

I’ll admit, this is near the bottom of the list for books I’d want. Can anyone help me understand the hype?

Didn’t you list somewhere else that you wanted more options for alchemy and alchemists ? Could have been someone else

Good damage only effects evil creatures and evil damage only effects good creatures

I personally house rule to half both for neutral but that is just me. I have issues with the rule as written. Namely it discourages players from playing good aligned characters

I expect a playtest will be tied to the gencon announcement where they will announce the release for next gencon

Apparently the crafting rules are getting a revamp / variant in the treasure vault as well as circa 100 new alchemical items. Any possible boost for the alchemist will ever welcome. I am sure that was requested here

I can’t imagine many more bomb options personally as they have most damage types covered. But hopefully there will be more for the mutagenist

I wonder if it is a little too early in 2E for that. It should have been the Tyrants return if they wanted to do this but the timing and edition change meant it couldn’t work out

Lanathar wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

Someone in another thread earlier brought up monks and their ties to occult and divine

Makes me think Kineticist should almost be the arcane and nature “monks”. That could well be something someone else has said

Then reverse them so that the primary is ranged rather than melee but there are options for that much like how mono gets ranged options.

Although this seems more geared towards the other thread that was alluded to in the OP. Although nearly everyone else ignored the “brief” in that OP and jumped into mechanical points (including, to be frank, some utterly ludicrous ones that will never be delivered on and therefore see some very very disappointed people)

This would be my preferred design for kineticist, honestly.

It’s grown on me the more I think about it. “Stances” are one action to enter for monks so could be almost “infusion channels”.

Focus points for certain other things (I know some really don’t want them). But it does seem like something you’d except all Kineticists to have rather than being optional like the monk.

Monks also all get a standard attack special action - flurry. So that gives “design budget” for something there. They are also already pseudo magical with their mystic and metal strikes

10 HP is solid and likely the highest the class would ever have. The saves thing could be dialled back as monks have the best saves but the space gained in relaxing them opens up room for some kind of kinetic defence

Another thing about using the monk as inspiration is that there wouldn’t really be an avenue for burn to be put in. I thought it was something most agreed should be part but apparently not. The existing examples of how it could work in the 2E rules could well be rather punishing (it really doesn’t seem like it is going to be simple HP damage that you can just medicine back).

...

So your idea for kineticist is to just make an elemental monk and call it a day....

Ah. So what has happened is you have not read what I wrote and read what you wanted to read instead. And then created a whole new thread about it

Of course I didn’t mean elemental monks as they exist. I meant design principles and very high level theme

And as to “how they should feel” - there tend to be a wide range of responses to what that is. Yours is not the only answer. You are on one end and extremely unwilling to budge from it. That is fine. You do you. You risk being disappointed though.

(Mine is not even an answer as I have no fondness for the class but moved from my original position on it)

On a more simple point - my point on HP and burn was dismissing the idea of changing it to pure HP damage in 2E. I am well aware of how it worked in 1E but there is currently no mechanism for unhealable HP in 2E and they have deliberately tried to avoid fiddly things like that in the design. So I was saying Burn will likely not be HP damage in any form in 2E

Lanathar wrote:

Someone in another thread earlier brought up monks and their ties to occult and divine

Makes me think Kineticist should almost be the arcane and nature “monks”. That could well be something someone else has said

Then reverse them so that the primary is ranged rather than melee but there are options for that much like how mono gets ranged options.

Although this seems more geared towards the other thread that was alluded to in the OP. Although nearly everyone else ignored the “brief” in that OP and jumped into mechanical points (including, to be frank, some utterly ludicrous ones that will never be delivered on and therefore see some very very disappointed people)

This would be my preferred design for kineticist, honestly.

It’s grown on me the more I think about it. “Stances” are one action to enter for monks so could be almost “infusion channels”.

Focus points for certain other things (I know some really don’t want them). But it does seem like something you’d except all Kineticists to have rather than being optional like the monk.

Monks also all get a standard attack special action - flurry. So that gives “design budget” for something there. They are also already pseudo magical with their mystic and metal strikes

10 HP is solid and likely the highest the class would ever have. The saves thing could be dialled back as monks have the best saves but the space gained in relaxing them opens up room for some kind of kinetic defence

Another thing about using the monk as inspiration is that there wouldn’t really be an avenue for burn to be put in. I thought it was something most agreed should be part but apparently not. The existing examples of how it could work in the 2E rules could well be rather punishing (it really doesn’t seem like it is going to be simple HP damage that you can just medicine back).

Someone in another thread earlier brought up monks and their ties to occult and divine

Makes me think Kineticist should almost be the arcane and nature “monks”. That could well be something someone else has said

Then reverse them so that the primary is ranged rather than melee but there are options for that much like how mono gets ranged options.

Although this seems more geared towards the other thread that was alluded to in the OP. Although nearly everyone else ignored the “brief” in that OP and jumped into mechanical points (including, to be frank, some utterly ludicrous ones that will never be delivered on and therefore see some very very disappointed people)

Congratulations to Jim

And wishing Jeff a speedy recovery

Uh, so now that the schedule has been released… I suppose Michael’s announcement will be on the Secrets of Golarion panel?

Where is this schedule ?

Yeah the really important question is what are you playing and does the GM understand the encounter building chart?

And do they treat it like the 1E one - where is just wasn’t accurate. I remember a YouTube creator commenting on how the 2E one is actually accurate. When it says that a certain XP budget it a “severe” encounter - it really means it. Same with the descriptions of what a monster that is +2

In 1E both monster CRs and encounter building tables were more often than not simply not accurate for a variety of reasons

I played a game that modified a 1E AP. My level 10 party basically felt like gods when they busted into a room of (I think) 5 level 7 creatures. Crits everywhere. Then their level 12 leader charged in at the end and they had a torrid time and had to kite it away and it was a very close run thing (not least because it was a bit of a chained fight so they weren’t on full)

So it really is down to what the GM is throwing at you

I wonder whether Kineticist and kinetic knight should be two separate classes. Mostly because I can’t immediately think of what class could be paired with a Kineticist and have it not feel super forced

I guess it depends on what book it comes with? If you subscribe to them being primal then maybe shaman but they still don’t seem to fit together. Someone in my gaming group suggested that they thought it might for part of a planar book?

They might well change the lore on where the power is drawn from anyway. I don’t recall it being massively clear from the class blurbs . Perhaps it was in the main book of occult adventures rather than what appears on nethys etc

When one of the podcast I listen to was switching to 2E on launch they happened to have an interview with Jason at the preceding Paizocon U.K.

He joked “you will have to kill off the Bloodrager”. So at least in his jokey interpretation the barbarian and their weird rage effects don’t mimic the bloodrager sufficiently

But that said I can see how it would work with more instincts and maybe some more feat options. I’m not sold on it needing it’s own class but wouldn’t be opposed

Bloodrager really seems like it should have been an instinct in secrets of magic

But a kind of opposite magus could be fun- barbarian/sorcerer compared to wizard/fighter

Not sure what the sub classes would be. Mirrors of the barbarian ones? Bloodline based? Magic types ? I assume the bloodline part

On topic - I appreciate this and will take a look when I get chance. I made an excel sheet of every NPC I could find on easytools from all the source books along with a level and approximate class (where not obvious). Stopped at AV I think but also had to skip part of Edgewatch as I am a player

But there are still a fair amount of gaps so hopefully this will fill some :-)

Frankly, if you want some discussion on anything PF2, the PF2 Reddit is a much more lively and dynamic place than this dying forum.

I have started to find this as well but it hadn’t clicked. Reddit is more active with quicker replies. Have to wade through the “sell me on this vs 5E” stuff. But this seems to have slowed / stopped

I can’t say I necessarily thought this place was dying but since you mentioned it, it does seem like it

I’m wondering if it will come up in my 2E Runelords conversion where there is a flooding section

I wondered if it would come up during a time limited part of book 4 of skull and shackles. But there is a 5 round countdown which is only 5 minutes. Hustle seems intended for hour long chunks ?

To tie in Harrigan, Plugg, and Scourge I might have the latter two on board pre-campaign. Their plans go a little awry and they're captured by grindylows along with a couple of their own allies and Isabella.

OH! Or Plugg and Scourge are in charge of the Man's Promise and the campaign starts with the Man's Promise attacking the ship the PCs are on, mutual destruction, and the crews have to work together to survive (a la Star Trek: Voyager). Plugg and Scourge can try to gain allies among the NPCs while the PCs can do the same... the information Isabella has is the end-goal for both sides. When the Magpie Princess approaches the final battle between sides takes place! (They can name-drop Harrigan / the PCs can possibly over-hear the two of them talking about him so that they learn why Isabella is important.)

At that point couldn't you just have the Wormwood and Harrigan attack as well? Or instead and as the ship the PCs are on get's too badly damaged Harrigan could just bail and leave Plugg and Scourge behind. That might make the start too long I guess.

Or perhaps they get too close to the Shiv so Harrigan steers away having heard the stories

I'm not sure Plugg and Scourge are necessary NPCs and I'm not sure the island works with them competing - but perhaps just make it be kind of a soft competing to prompt them not be insular within the party.

As I mentioned elsewhere I didn't really try and make a smooth transition between the books. I had originally planned to make one PC the grandchild of Jemma Redclaw and the daughter of the former captain o the Wormwood (who was killed by Harrigan). That is kind of what is implied. I deliberately wanted to avoid the "Harrigan is your father" thing but my players actually seem like they want that. And I originally did not realise that the PC actually could pass for Harrigan's child until my group started playing with Heroforge more than a year in. So I need to try and re-work that given I used a potion of shared memories to have a flashback with Redclaw, Redclaw's daughter and Flint

I'm really bad in that I don't think I wrote it down so I don't remember exactly how much I revealed or implied! I'm actually going to need to ask my players. Doh

My thought is to change Plunder & Peril so that Warvil Lanteri isn't actually dead and have him be Captain Harrigan. (Undecided on which name I'll use).

The main points would be:
-Captain Varossa Lanteri marooned her husband (or left him for dead) prior to Plunder & Peril starting
-The PCs get the Magpie Princess at the end of P&P
-Warvil Lanteri / Captain Harrigan wants his ship and treasure back

Yes, it'll make it so that the characters don't see Warvil / Harrigan before the regatta, and won't hate him, but it gives a reason to Harrigan to want to get the PCs.

That being said, I read the AP and module a little over a year ago and have run the second half of an AP, and most of the rest of another one since then, so I'm probably forgetting some things and missing details that might matter...

******

How did you transition from Smuggler's Shiv to P&P?
My thought is to replace the last dungeon of Smuggler's Shiv with the one at the end of WWM and then someone rescues them before going to the festival at the beginning of P&P with the rescuers having the group find their way from there.

I meant to reply to this ages ago but had account issues. It wasn't a smooth transition. Yours would be

Mine was just that they liaised with the pathfinders to sell the secrets from the island. They went on a couple of side missions - the two PFS 2E scenarios in that region involving Iruxi and then sailed to Lilywhite. They basically really wanted a drink so a beer festival worked well

Your fixes would be good. Especially tweaking Harrigan

I had Harrigan show up at the end of part two of Plunder and Peril (i think). I know he shot their little rowboat out of the water but it was not long after they got the horn that summoned the Hippocampus. So I think it was the end of Part 2. He told them they were in "his waters" and to get out of them. And then shot a hole in their boat

My brother's character was so furious with this completely illogical step that he completely hates him without any need for Book 1.

I also had him press gang Aerys and Sasha from SfSS who wandered off on Lilywhite - to get Aerys away from all the alcohol. So that helped raise the animosity.

I kind of want them to escape though to both remove the cliche damsel in distress thing and to give more ally options for the beginning of Book 5 when recruiting since I cut Books 1 and 2 and also cut Piers and the pub part in Book 3. So thin on the ground on that front

Although writing this has just reminded me of their Pathfinder allies who I might be able to use somehow. And the Iruxi from the side quests

Never used but has made me wonder whether there is cause to try and make some kind of encounter / challenge where hustling would give a benefit. But that would also need to be apparent to the players...

The conversion is already pretty much done:

https://github.com/A-Series-of-Dice-Based-Events/RiseOfTheRunelords

There are some janky parts where it calls for “double elite” template a lot. This doesn’t really work very well.

If you use foundry vtt there is a module (whose name I can’t remember off hand) that lets you scale most of the monster numbers quite easily . This is a better solution than double elite templates

Why on Earth would you start at level 10 other than just because they want to be power gamers ? The whole point is that you are supposed to have limited abilities

For example what is the point of the hedge maze type thing outside thistletop when a level 10 party just fly straight to the fort .

Not to mention that a level 10 party would not be troubling themselves with goblins. As written it wouldn’t even be worth rolling the dice for those fights. And scaling all the goblins to level 7 or 8 also seems a bit silly as well

If they want to start close to level 10 then really that would either involve completely re-writing the first two books or starting with book 3

You really need to explain more about this level 10 idea in order to get more tips. Because as written scaling it will be both difficult and rather nonsensical. You will have stuff like a level 12 giant crab if you want the combats to be level appropriate

Lanathar wrote:

Which warpriest feats do you consider the particularly good and overpowered ones ?

Asking me? You probably should ask someone else.

Overpowered - None.

Particularily Good. Perhaps Deadly Simplicity, but you get that for free and only if you need it. Many don't.

For me I really feel that Clerical/Wizard feats are very mediocre and I'll always be branching into archetypes to get better options. There are heaps of those eg Champion's Reaction. I wrote guides for classes I really liked the options for. I'd be struggling to rate any cleric feat 4 stars out of 5.

Clearly not since I don’t recall you making a comment suggesting any where

It is was Ediwir but the quote function goes bizarre on here when there is a chain

I like the creature echo feats. I hope there are quite a few rather than just a handful. I’d like one that I can give to my player that died from the sea Hag special ability. Because I am still really annoyed that this happened to them!

Although our game could well be mostly done by then!