Lord Fyre's page

We try not to do in-game explanations for standard errata or full edition changes (with the Remaster living between those two extremes, but being far closer to errata than an edition change), because the number of times that a game goes through those changes is so frequent that if we had to explain them in-setting every time, it would make the setting feel ridiculously impermanent and chaotic.

Also known as the Forgotten Realms.

That said, the adventure "Rusthenge" IS meant to be an intro adventure, and it also follows a similar model with a small town being next to a big dungeon (an element I drew upon when creating and outlining the story before hiring Vanessa to kick ass at writing it), and is positioned to serve as a perfect "What did you do for 1st to 3rd level" adventure before your group goes on to play Seven Dooms.

Linked for convenience.

On a lighter note: there is another problem with changing systems.

I'm pretty sure we've been over this before, but to my mind there were three main issues.

1. The lack of continuity between modules.
The resurgence of the serpentfolk should have been hinted at far more strongly in the beginning and the Vaults of Madness felt very tacked-on compared to the rest of the city.

Lack of Continuity was a problem with many APs, but it is especially a problem with some of the earlier paths.

I can see why I CR4 creature isn't more common in Souls for Smuggler's Shiv - but Racing to Ruin doesn't have this excuse.

2. Saventh-yhi was too small. and the 'conquering' mechanic, like so many of the sub-mechanics introduced in APs, felt forced and boring.

For what was supposed to be a major metropolis, SY was pretty small and very sparesly detailed. I would have preferred if the bookspace given to the Vaults and most of Ilmurea were given to fleshing out SY instead. I threw out the conquer aspect and threw in a lot of lost city stuff I stole from other sources, e.g. Myth Drannor and Maure Castle.

Ah! The page count monster! But, it's actually better then the inspiration.

3. The competing factions on the race to SY and conquering the city were not interesting and merely complicated matters in an uninteresting way. I'm sure there are GMs that could make this bit work but it didn't for me.

Yes, a LOT of space was wasted on this too.

I'll probably get some flack for this but the colonialism issues didn't bother me (or my players, that I could tell), though the different PCs had varying opinions on the matter.

I doubt you'd suffer too much. Even Paizo's own writers didn't perceive the problem either.

Glad you at least tried it so you could put that nagging doubt aside.

Actually, it has given me more doubts.

But, as I said, resistance was overwhelming.

I was trying to sell the group on PF2. But, There was more resistance to change then I expected. (B.T.W., our youngest member is 53, so yeah we are Grognards.)

To put one thing to rest, no my player group doesn't tend to make overpowered characters. (As a GM, I often face the opposite problem.}

We tried it out!

… and are going back to PF 1st Edition.

Seems like this topic might be past it's prime.

Beat the rush and get out now while the back-and-forth is just bickering about tone and semantics, and as of yet merely teeters on the cusp of full-scale ad hominem attacks. Little of value will likely be lost that wasn't going to get pruned in the morning when the mods get in.

Actually, I am shocked at how many Kickstarters there still are for D&D 5E products.

So cast undelete spell. The erasing of Drow seems rather lazy. "Oh it was some dude who lied"? Paizo is surely more creative than that!

You're not getting it.

The unexplained removal of the Drow is not something that Paizo wanted or planned to do. It was forced upon Paizo by WoTC. Even directly explaining their disappearance the Drow is legally perilous, as Paizo would be forced to mention the dark elves.

Yes, a particular table could still "undelete" Drow. A player group could also import Beholders, Yuan-Ti, or Dragonborn. But, Paizo cannot.

Yes, it s#%ks. I doubt that Paizo's developers would disagree. But, such is life.

If I already have several PF 2E rulebooks, is buying the Remaster worth it for me?

I wish Paizo had done this sooner. A couple of 1st Edition APs would have been greatly improved by being shorter and more focused (Serpent's Skull and Jade Regent for instance).

You can always recreate anything you want for your own games but the short answer is no, you cannot. Part of what made schools good was the sheer number of spells you had access to for that final slot. The new schools give between 1 and 3 spells per spell rank and even if you made a custom school that gave three spells per rank you'd fall well short of what the old schools used to give.

Given that this would be mostly for importing an existing wizard (transmuter), I agree with the other's who suggested that it could work.

I1, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, could easily be in the Mwangi Expanse, though given its age you may want to, uh. Massage it a bit for unfortunate elements.

Yet it is, ironically, less offensive then Serpent's Skull.

breithauptclan wrote:

Strawman is when someone misrepresents your position on something and argues against that misrepresentation.

But this is clearly what your stand is on the subject. Blave isn't misrepresenting your position.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

We already know what is changing, and that what isn't changing is going to stay the same.

Blave is arguing against this statement. That you did indeed make. You don't actually know what isn't changing. Just because a change hasn't been announced doesn't mean that it isn't changing.

Blave asked for a reference indicating the damage die size and scaling of Gouging Claw post-Remaster and all you did was link to the current printing. Which isn't valid evidence of post-Remaster information.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

If we change the baseline spell from 1D6+modifier to 2D6 (because that is the only part that needs to change, since modifier to damage is going away from spells), then acting like everything else needs to change as well (or is going to change when it's not listed as something that will change) makes no sense and isn't warranted anywhere. It's not broke, so why act like it's going to be changed or fixed?

And this would be better described as slippery slope: if one thing is done then another must follow. So at least get the name of the fallacy claim right.

Which they did. They took the "D6+modifier portion" of the spell (which we already know is being changed, so it already makes no sense to do this) as my argument, when my argument was in regards to the D6/D4 per spell rank entry listed in the heightening category, which is what the question was about ("Do we know how the spells are going to scale in the Remaster?").

Nobody but the developers know for certain, in which case they aren't going to get an answer for another 2-3 weeks, if not longer. But it's not difficult to ascertain the balance point of the spells and extrapolate that balance point to its apparent conclusion, and if that's...

Talking in Circles. At this point why are we arguing?

It feels like we are talking in circles.

At this point, Player Core 1 is less than three weeks out. I plan to make my judgement when I can actually read the rules.

What if I told you, that I have a job?

willfromamerica wrote:

I will continue to voice my support wherever I can for high-level content being as frequently published as low-level content, whether in shorter APs or as part of longer ones.

Unrelated, I'm currently running Gatewalkers into Stolen Fate as my 6th PF2e solo campaign for my fiancée (all have gone from level 1-20) and I think the two go together thematically quite nicely!

To be fair it did not help their sales at all that the first three six book APs had exceedingly high difficulty at the gate and that the APs themselves don't pay any attention to the average 3 encounters per game world day that PF2e is designed around.

Is this a result of designers having to "relearn" how to design adventures?

3-Body Problem wrote:

if you were asked to start designing a PF3 tomorrow what are the best bits of PF2 that you would make sure ended up in PF3?

The power ceiling and power floor.

1000 x Yes!

There are some favorable combos, but the advantage that they give is small. No more of one (or two) player(s) running away with the game and leaving everyone else behind.

I'm a player that likes to play Wizards, and I do like that magic doesn't become so overpowered in the late game.

I wonder what Banjo's portfolio would be if he did become a deity.

Genre Savvy

I don’t like Reign or Winter or Strength of Thousands.

So we have different tastes. :p

Which leads to …

One of the reasons why we do so many Adventure Paths is because we will NEVER publish everyone's favorite one. THe more we do gets us closer to that goal.

And please folks... if someone makes a list of their favorites, let them like things. It's okay if some folks prefer elements that you might not, and vice versa. Them not listing your favorites does not make your favorites any less your favorite.

There are certainly ones that sell better than others. Some that have better reviews than others. And some that I personally had more fun working on than others. Those lists will never be identical.

As much as I want to I can’t justify it financially. No matter that Wotc forced Paizo hand.

Neither can I. Such is life.

Just because Wotc forced their hand does not mean one should simply shrug and accept the Remaster

Why not. As you pointed out, Paizo doesn't have a lot of choice in the matter. Who knows what insanity Hasbro may try next?

Also much like D&D 3.5, it gives Paizo a chance to make fixes to their Pathfinder game system.

JiCi wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Having some people complain that changes are going too far and some complain that changes are not going far enough is a solid indicator that the amount of changes is just right.

Don't go crying when Paizo removes your avatar, because they may fear that WotC could come after them for using a Bag of Holding, lifted straight from the OGL...

I think that'd be his old avatar. I don't believe WotC owns the rights to bags in general, so I don't think that Gorby will have to fend off the Pinkertons any time soon. :p

Things would end badly for the Pinkertons. ;)

I will say, I'm leery to use "popular" as a marker for "good".

This also doesn't take into account the changes in the reader/player. What was quality even 10 years ago has changed as we've become more aware of Colonialism, Sexism, etc. (I'm afraid to use "Woke" as it has become politically charged.)

For example, go an try to read the original Tarzan (from 1913). I am pretty sure that it won't read the same as it did then. (I tried to watch the DvD of the Buck Rogers in the 25th Century from 1979. I couldn't do it.)

It sucks that it basically boils down to "renaming stuff and changing the rules 4 years in the 2nd Edition to avoid WotC's lawyers"...

When WoTc did it with 3.5 or even 3.75, it was to rectify some mishaps with the rules. However here, Paizo's doing this not to correct stuff, but to "clear their names".

That doesn't mean that Paizo isn't trying to use the "opportunity" to correct stuff.

That's mostly where I'm at. PF2.5 isn't that revolutionary a new direction, or that big of a change in the rules, to justify buying back in. I'd rather get excited about Starfinder 2 than get too invested in these differences.

That's the problem. From what I'm reading, PF 2E Revised does seem like a radical change.

Lord Fyre wrote:

I'm with you on this. I'm not sure why they are doing this.

It is easier to get retailers to buy books that are not 700 pages and it is less a splitting core in two than a reshuffling of the Core Book, APG and GMs Guide.

That makes sense. (Though the GM's Guide is being folded into the GM Core.)

demlin wrote:

I lament the loss of Drow and the "Duergar" term (hryungar sounds kinda stupid) but I'm on board with everything else.

And Duergar doesn't sound stupid?

No it does not. It comes from the Old Norse "dvergr."

So, it is actually a real word meaning "Ugly Dwarves"

I'm not seeing any downsides to any of this.

I've only seen one downside. Namely, having to rebuy my PF2E Core Book, Bestiary, Game Mastery Guide, Advanced Player's Guide, and Beginner's Box.

And, it's not even Paizo's fault. WotC's move on the OGL doesn't given them much choice.

I'm not a fan of the removal of Alignment.

I'm also not a fan of the removal of ability scores.

Neither am I, but mostly for "grognard" reasons.

I'm also not a fan of splitting the core into two books.

I'm with you on this. I'm not sure why they are doing this.

Unfortunately, we will most likely have to make do with the GM threads in the AP-specific sub-forums to fix any rough spots/transitions in the older Paizo APs (3.5 or PF1).

Yes. As I noted before, Paizo considers all the PF 1E effectively dead, to the point that they are willing to make major changes to the Golarion (Slavery, Dark Elves, etc.) setting without bothering to explain what happened.

And, for the most part, the bulk Pathfinder Community has also moved on.

I was disappointed with the KM update (despite promises to do so, they didn't do enough to make it backwards compatible with PF1). So I'm not inclined to support any crowd-funding again for other AP updates.

Disappointing, but not surprising.

Lord Fyre wrote:

keftiu wrote:

I think a conversation about Paizo’s best that doesn’t include Strength of Thousands isn’t a serious one, personally.

I cannot say. I have very little familiarity with it.

Then why say "you get a top Adventure Path List that would exclude every single one of the Adv Paths written for PF2 so far, imo" if you haven't... actually... read the works you're disparaging?

In other news, one valid reason not to have read Strength of Thousands is that I still hope to play in that campaign. :)

Lord Fyre wrote:

keftiu wrote:

I think a conversation about Paizo’s best that doesn’t include Strength of Thousands isn’t a serious one, personally.

I cannot say. I have very little familiarity with it.

Then why say "you get a top Adventure Path List that would exclude every single one of the Adv Paths written for PF2 so far, imo" if you haven't... actually... read the works you're disparaging?

Am I disparaging PF 2E Adventure Paths? You may have confused me with someone else.

Sooo a propos of nothing, one addendum: among the "old school" PF1 playerbase, women are a horrifyingly small minority. It took Paizo 13, thirteen Adventure Paths, before a woman with an adventure credit was in it. Not because Paizo hates women, but because there weren't female adventure writers for D&D and its offshoots, and that was because there weren't enough women playing the game. And when these women started popping up, I distinctly remember grumblings of "forced inclusivity", concerns about "lower quality because women are picked due to gender, not skill," and musings about whether a 30yo woman can recognise the splendour of D&D history at such young age.

A few years ago, the admin of the biggest PF Facebook group, herself a woman, put up stats showing that women were less than 10% of the 35k+ group, and I can bet my horses that a solid chunk of them was from continental Europe, where TTRPGs spread across entirely different demographics than in US.

Since we've already forced the Moderators to intervene, perhaps it would be best to table this side discussion.

I think a conversation about Paizo’s best that doesn’t include Strength of Thousands isn’t a serious one, personally.

I cannot say. I have very little familiarity with it.

I will say this: the job of developer of an Adventure Path was invented by James Jacobs back in the days of Dungeon and was refined over a course of many years by him while at Paizo. He did the job the longest – and he did it best. Far and away the best - No, it’s not even close.

I also consider James Jacobs to be the best adventure writer for RPGs of all time. Yes, I mean that – all the way back to 1974. There are no asterisks or exceptions to that overall representation of quality or statement of approbation. No, it doesn’t mean that everything he has written is awesome – he’s had some duds in there, too – but overall, yes, he’s the best there is or ever was. That matters.

One of the paradoxes of the modern workplace is that if you are great at your job, you are often promoted out of doing it.

Abomination Vaults and Strength of Thousands easily rank alongside RotRL and CotCT, and are just behind the best Paizo AP ever, Reign of Winter.

I don't dispute that. I want Steel Wind to clarify.

Steel_Wind wrote:

I think the stuff that belongs "top-shelf" is back in PF1's Adv Paths.

This is not an edition war post: I prefer the rules of PF2.

But the plots, the development work, and perhaps most of all, the quality of the freelance writers with PF1's APs, especially chronologically, the first two-thirds of them, are better than anything we have received in PF2.

It takes a lot of time to convert PF1 APs to PF2 if you are being meticulous about it -- but if you are looking for the best Paizo adventure paths? That's where you will find them.

*"Things were better back in my days" playing softly in the background*

That doesn't mean that it isn't true. Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, and Kingmaker came from this period, and all these are widely considered amazing.

Steel Wind should remember however, this period also gave us the disappointments of Second Darkness, Council of Thieves, and Serpent's Skull. So, perhaps, he should clarify what he means by "better."

Improve the organization of the rules.

Currently they are not well laid out, making the game harder to learn then it needs to be. Monster creation is especially bad in this regard.

Freehold DM wrote:

Brigadoon wrote:

And when everyone is super, no one will be.

This. This right here.

It's what I have seen from 4e and on. Everyone can kinda do everything, and the only real difference is that some are more potent/powerful than others. It comes out of a desire to change a game system where players got tired of being told no, but developers became so enamored that they could say yes, they didn't realize whether or not they should say yes.

Yes, I mangled the quote.

I honestly have a lot of trouble understanding how this applies to PF2. Likely because I have trouble conciling it with the many threads about PF2 martials having so many good things that casters cannot have (whereas IMO it's more that the design of the Classes are fundamentally different).

Could you give a few examples so that I can better understand your point of view ?

I think it has much more to do with the benefits of optimization are MUCH smaller in PF 2E. First Edition REALY rewarded system mastery (just as D&D 3.x did before it).

There are some advantageous combos in Second Edition, but the advantages that one can gain is limited. (IMO, this is a good thing.)

D
W
A
R
F

Looking at the provided backgrounds available for Pathfinder 2nd Editon, I am seeing a few holes. So I was inspired to add a few. Check them out.

Apothecary (Common Background)
Apothecaries are specialists who prepare and supply the medicines prescribed by physicians. They have a working familiarity with a wide range of rare and exotic substances, and their properties for healing and other uses. Apothecaries also understand how to prepare the material components used by arcanists, occultists, and other magic-users.
Benefits
* - Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Constitution or Intelligence, and one is a free ability boost.
* - You're trained the Crafting skill and the Pharmacy Lore skill. You gain the Alchemical Crafting skill feat.
Special If you take the Alchemist class or archetype, you gain theCrafting skill and Alchemical Crafting feat for free; so you gain the Medicine skill and Inoculation feat (APG 2E, p207) instead. Also Even if you do not take the Alchemist class, consider the Alchemist archetype.
Note: Pharmacy lore focuses on the creation of drugs, remedies, and toxins, much like herbalism lore does, but from a different, more mineral, direction. There is considerable overlap.

Apprentice Wizard (Common Background)
Wizards must serve a long and arduous apprenticeship. By becoming apprentices, aspiring wizards find themselves working many long hours at menial tasks in return for lodgings and magical instruction. Many apprentices tire of scrubbing floors, fetching, carrying, and being treated as menial servants, and do not complete their apprenticeships.
Benefits
* - Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Intelligence or Charisma, and one is a free ability boost.
* - You're trained the Arcana skill and the Scribing Lore skill. You gain the Recognize Spell skill feat.
* - Add Draconic to the list of additional languages you can learn for having a high Intelligence modifier.
Special If you take the Wizard class (or another class that uses the Arcane spell list) you gain the Arcana skill for free; so you gain the Occultism skill instead. Also Even if you do not take the Wizard class, consider the Wizard archetype.
Note: Compare this background to the Necromancer’s Apprentice (Book of the Dead, p16) background.

Druidic Initiate (Common Background)
Given the influence of the many churches on most people’s daily lives, it is easy to forget that Druidism is also a faith whose origin is lost in the mists of antiquity. Druidic Initiates are practicing followers of this ancient belief system and pursue a strict code of life and strive to live in harmony with nature.
Benefits
* - Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Constitution or Wisdom, and one is a free ability boost.
* - You're trained the Nature skill and the Lore skill for your branch of the Druidic faith (either a deity of nature or a group such as Golarion’s Green Faith). You gain the Natural Medicine skill feat.
* - Add Sylvan to the list of additional languages you can learn for having a high Intelligence modifier.
Special If you take the Druid class (or another class that uses the Primal spell list) you gain the Nature skill for free; so you gain the Survival skill instead. Also Even if you do not take the Druid class, consider the Druid archetype.
Note: This is effectively the Acolyte background for Druid characters.

Squire (Common Background)
Squires act as servants to Nobles and Free Lances, and it may seem to some that their status is not better than that of a common domestic. The squire attends to the maintenance of the horse and armor and the warrior's other general needs. Many untitled nobles - younger sons of petty aristocrats - serve as squires as part of their training.
Benefits
* - Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Strength or Charisma, and one is a free ability boost.
* - You're trained the Society skill and the Warfare Lore skill. You gain the Armor Assist skill feat (APG 2E, p203).
Special While this background should include the Nature skill, for animal care and equestrian abilities, the social components of serving as a squire: etiquette, heraldry, and politics covered by the Society skill were deemed more central to the concept. Also Consider the Cavalier archetype (APG 2E, p164), especially if you are a Champion or Fighter.

Depending on the response, I may add some more.

Something totally new please as I did'nt like this AP to much back in the day

Tom

The problem here is that IRON GODS was very popular.

Hello! How would I go about installing this? Thank you so much for your time!

When the new Starfinder 2E comes out, things will simplify dramatically.

Ummm ... Skittermander becoming Core?

I'm expecting a sequel.

The end of Iron Gods left several questions, such as
* - technology leaking out from Numeria.
* - the Dominion of the Black hasn't been resolved.
* - the Status of Casandalee.

*sneaks carefully back into the thread*

*pulls out a tie-dyed poncho, puts on colored granny specs, and picks up a beat-up guitar*

♪♫ August, die she must
The autumn winds blow chilly and cold.♪♫

...

"Autumn winds blow chilly and cold"? In August?

Obviously, Paul Simon wrote this song long before climate change was widely acknowledged.

*takes off gear and slinks back out of the thread*

::Tosses a Scooby Snack to Master Pugwampi!::

PF 1

I like the three action economy, and fighters seem a little more tactical. But I mostly play spellcasters, so there's very little difference for me between spend move action to move standard action to cast and 1 action to move and 2 actions to cast.

The fact that you don't want to play fighters or rogues may be a symptom of the problem that Paizo was trying to solve.

But, Pathfinder Unchained also added the 3 action economy to PF1E.

PF 2 the rules layout drives be bonkers. Its like a Matryoshka doll of a kangaroo family in terms of rules inside rules inside rules

I agree. Hopefully, Revised will help with this problem.

I don't like PF2s stat generation system. I feel more like I'm picking a character rather than making one. I have a fighter, I will have an 18 strength. That limits my theme and races.

The price paid for better game balance. Yes, I agree, it does make characters slightly more bland and same-y.

PF is the original game. PF2 is the new edition.

By that logic, THIS is the original game. Everything after is the new edtion.

But… because these are Paizo's boards, and Paizo has a vested interest in getting everyone to move on from PF1E, The meaning of PF has shifted to mean the Second Edition.

It pays to be as clear as possible when discussing the two.

This isn’t about Serpent’s Skull, per say, but about what happens after.

We know from page 32 of Sanctum of the Serpent God that when that AP's heroes activated the Seven Spears, the resulting earthquakes destroyed much of what remained of the ruined city.

We also know from page 87 of the Lost Omens World Guide that the events of the Serpent’s Skull AP happened in 4710 a.r.

Has anyone given any thought to what has happened in the ruined colony of Azlant the years that followed? Does the Mwangi Expanse deal with the aftermath in anyway (I don’t own that book yet.) Is there anything I need to worry about?

I have some thoughts for some adventures (inspired by I9 Dwellers Of The Forbidden City), since the AP itself isn’t worth salvaging.

Lord Fyre wrote:

if all goes well, I might get them to transition to Abomination Vaults.

I liked that one - at least the part of it that I have played.

My only complaint is that those loooooooooong 5 foot wide corridors are really annoying to fight in. If I were to run it again, I might double the dimensions of the maps to be 10 feet to the printed squares.

Thanks for the warning.

I have "buy-in" for the Beginner's Box! ;) Thanks for all of your help!!

… and, if all goes well, I might get them to transition to Abomination Vaults.