Oh, and it would be awesome if it didn't START with some apocalyptic threat. Have them fight a Gnoll Warlord or something, and when he is defeated you can Point to "Lord Soth will get you for this".
I agree with this. The worst way to begin is with a universe hangs in the balance story. You should walk up to that and not begin with it.
With 5E, Wizbro has gone all in on Forgettable Realms, so I'd assume that is where the first film(s) will take place. Maybe they will try and make Drizzzit their wolverine of the franchise?
I dont envy them this endeavor. Half the people want the cartoon or crit role, the other half want obscure novel trilogies (Thomas wants marvel D&D). Most folks dont know anything about those things, so introducing folks to the D&D verse will be difficult, let alone capturing a fractured fan base of wants...
Sure, maybe jumping the gun on the writer's direction, but you do have to look at their body of work and wonder if it has bearing on the intended theme of the film (comedy, not humor).
I think the big part of the draw problem with D&D is that, despite folks thinking the novels are wildly popular, they are not popular enough to be a significant draw. Look at Rice's Mars series, which sold millions, bombing at the box office.
Just speaking specifically about PF APs:
I have brought the following to completion;
The collapsed campaigns did so for a myriad of reasons. None of them are the typical obstacles of real life issues, flaky player attendance, or group social contract issues. I'd say it was a combination of GM burnout and loss of interest that would be the biggest contributor.
GM burnout was usually due to the amount of prep time required (even with printed material). Also, PF at higher levels becomes a bit of a bear to adjudicate and run smoothly. In my group for instance, there has never ever been desire to take a campaign beyond AP completion. At that point, we are well ready to start a new game as high level PF is not a sweet spot for us.
The loss of interest factor was a combination of GM and/or players losing interest in continuing the campaign. Some of this was due to lack of RP opportunities, some of it on GM burnout, and some of it GM not liking how the AP was progressing as written.
You may have noticed that the only APs that we completed are the ones that I GM'd. My players, I believe, would consider the endings satisfying to the campaign experience. I attribute that success to my drive to bring a campaign to completion. I strive to keep the game interesting and re-write (sometimes extensively) less interesting parts. As GM, I adjust to keep things fresh. The other GMs in my group are not as willing or have the time to make this happen.
Honestly, it doesn't surprise me to see most of our APs dying on the vine around book 3. It's usually a lag point (IMO) in the writing. Often, it seems some theme (often Mythos) is crammed into the middle to fill out the adventure that just doesn't fit. For example, a haunted themed AP that has an entire chapter dedicated to fighting aliens for some contrived reason. Often, the miss fitting chapter is well written, it just doesn't align with the campaign in the beginning or the end. This can cause players and GMs to lose interest and eventually the idea of giving up seems welcomed.
I wont waste a ton of time talking about high level PF, but it can cause burnout for many groups. Also, the APs start to lose content space for fun and exciting story/RP elements and give way to long drawn out dungeon crawls (which are required to challenge high level groups and their ever expanding resources). Keeping the game fresh can be real challenging when your focus is required on mechanics.
Ending prematurely is a bummer and not really satisfying. Though, starting a new campaign is always exciting and quickly washes away any longing for a previous cut short adventure. This im sure will vary greatly from one group/player to the next.
I look forward to hearing more and discussing this topic further.
This thread has me thinking about some of the problems I have with modern blockbuster cinema. Why I disliked the SW prequels and hated Indy and the crystal skull. I'm sure there are a number of reasons, but the most stark among them is lack of immersive story telling.
It's like the modern experience is a more social media one. Everybody has to be in on it. Times when a character talks to themselves "obi wan is going to kill me!" Who the F are they talking to? Why are audience in-jokes given any thought? Just tell a damn story and let me act like a fly on the wall instead of a member of the useless chuckle head gallery.
Films have also moved towards break neck plot speed and total lack of reasonable exposition. The result is tons of logic holes because of ridiculous action sequences that last significant running times. Modern cinema feels more like an amusement park ride than a captivating story experience.
So yeah thats why my answer to the OP is "this happens a lot."
I loved favored enemy. Makes sense you are good at hunting a particular foe. You also got multiple FE during a campaign. If you GM was bait and switch though i could see that being aggravating. Then, I came online and saw how a lot of folks assumed FE was "genocidal maniac" so I can see why some wanted to see it go.
The new mechanic is meh. I'd rather the ranger get cool stealth and tracking abilities. The ranger just is missing something in PF2.
A lot of the issues we faced in the playtest was chargen. Often the choice was A or B. There was a C too, but it clearly sucked. MC/archetype/prestige all fighting for the same resource was a major bummer. If archetypes, MC, and prestige are opened up more, PF2 might have a chance with us. Who knows what the CRB will have in store?
Cavalier is definitely a good archetype. I love the class, but it is very hardlined to a mount. That doesn't play well in all types of campaigns. Being able to make a mounted specialist of any class seems like an ideal use of the cavalier. However, I do like some of the banner abilities and would be sad if cav archetype was purely mounted combat mechanics.
Im trying to think of why gunslinger would be even a good archetype? It just allows a guy to be good with guns. That seems like it should just be a feat package and not even an archetype. What am I missing?
I had a similar experience. It felt like you were really being shoehorned into a single concept, and working against that was punishing. I had a similar experience in other systems that eventually I stopped using.
For me the three action system is great because you can perform and move+attack at level one, something you couldn't do in PF1 as a bard. That seems to be the idea behind it. I enjoy having to decide if keeping my performance up is the best use of my third action or should/must I do something else.
As a fighter, using an action to ready a shield, and being able to move+attack is pretty slick. I like that I have to decide if an extra attack is worth trying to down an enemy or should if I should stick to defense.
This always seemed to be the intent to me with the three action system. Though, i'm seeing a lot of folks assume that the extra action is intended to give you more DPR, and if you cant attack more than its less fun. Something I dont agree with.
Though, I do think the hand grip action requirement is unnecessary and not fun.
Ugh am I the only one who finds the excuse “tight math” for almost all of PF2’s problems annoying? This is the first roleplaying game I’ve seen where the math comes before the narrative / world building...
Normally, I prefer tight math, especially from a world building narrative perspective. However, with <10> crit system and +1/level it feels really wonky in PF2. Not saying its bad mechanically, it just feels weird. Unfortunately, a number of design decisions have been made from it that makes it hard for me to get on board with PF2. Im sure that will vary greatly player to player.
Elegant right up to skill gating and feats. Basically brought all the combat and combat feat problems of PF1 to PF2 skill system for us.
Yeah and archetypes and prestige classes fight for the same resource as MC...
Not exactly. Sure, a village/town/city could send an army to kill the dragon, however, in process lose 75%+ of the village population. Instead, they can offer a cash reward for some specialists to do the job and save the town as an alternative.
Just pointing out that a BA world makes sense in how these games work too. I know thats not what PF2 is going for.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Thats a good question. My group is leaning toward not adopting PF2. If that happens then we also wont be getting the APs anymore either.
Richard Crawford wrote:
Nobody said never. You do require prerequisites for certain tasks tho.
It is quite difficult for me to choose which of your threads to answer. My experience is that PF1 allows specialization choice to get you to those, "oh man i'm awesome at this" moments, however, at the cost of many, "im helpless and this is frustrating" moments. PF2 has raised the floor on these moments, but also dropped the ceiling.
Ultimately, I decided to go with your frustrated thread because overall PF2 has been a disappointing experience for me. I feel skill prof and feat gating are too arbitrary, also adds the combat feat issues of PF1 to the PF2 skill system. I also have a very big problem with the customization bottleneck, and dont expect any changes to my personal satisfaction.
Overall, I feel too general in PF2, and lack the ability to make the custom characters I could in PF1. PF2 sandwiches the system mastery of PF1 to a point thats too mediocre for my taste. Though, I admit this is probably a better direction to go to attract the average gamer.
To be fair, you are forgetting all the proficiency and skill feat gating. The GM should be constantly dropping "you cant do that level of insert untrained skill here" on the PCs unless they have the prof and feats.
Can you comment on what type of things you were rolling to do?
Someone asked why I might not like this system and I'll voice a few of the concerns now. (Keep in mind this isnt a final opinion, I fully intent to playtest the system and see how it works)
Consolidated lists are always a bummer for me. In those systems it seems like you cram too much into too few spaces. Its more difficult to differentiate one character from the next. Things like ranks and feats can help, but have their own potential pitfalls. Its possible im just twice bitten thrice shy after WOTC last couple editions on consolidated lists. Seems like things had to consolidated to stop the PF2 CRB from having a thousand extra feats...
Exploration mode and its limits. As noted in some comments you cant sneak and do anything else until you gain ranks and get feats. Thats very limiting compared to PF1. I feel like that can hamper both GM and player creativity. It takes something that was vague, but useful, and turned it into a confined game space. I know some will champion this new paradigm, particularly at the PFS table, but I feel like rules have been added to a formerly open space and thats a loss in my book.
Feats... First issue with feats is they create a gate between doing things you should arguably be able to do and cant. No longer are ranks pushing character development up alone, you need feats too. I know some will argue that you get ranks like before, and now feats to make you cool too! The playtest might convince me of this. The second problem is a history of feats being unequal. Im not convinced that all skill feats will be matched and worth taking. Im afraid traps will rear their ugly head again and burn some folks at the table.
These are just my reservations about PF2 skill system which is #2 on my worry list after multi-classing. I'll be eager to look over the playtest docs and discuss more here on the forums.
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.
That was in PF1 and we cant assume adventure writing will be the same for PF2. Im with you tho on high level characters laying to waste packs of low level foes not feeling right, but thats intended for PF2, unfortunately...
Some consolidation makes sense, but 17 seems like too few for me What happened to social skills?
From the legendary medic I get the feeling guides will quickly rule out skills worth ever taking to legendary...
Thats just a feeling tho. I think legendary medic may have been a poor choice since there seems to be extra attachments that cant be mentioned at this time...
Now im wondering how easy it could be to axe skill feats and just drop PF1 skill system into PF2?
Justin Franklin wrote:
I dont think a cleric 3/monk 3/rogue 3 will even be possible in PF2. It would be a cleric 9 with feats from the rogue and monk pool.
I have the same response to this as I did to making the witch a wizard archetype, I dont think i'd like how it feels. It makes design sense, but ultimately, I think you wont have an actual monk at all, just a fighter with a little monk flavor.
I do see a potential PF2 lite coming out of all this to help tables that want to shed as much complexity as possible. That could be a good thing, but a thing I would have no use for. YMMV
Midnight Anarch wrote:
eh, isnt that getting back into classifying actions territory again?
Its a little confusing that you have spells that cost spell points to cast, and spells that require slots to cast. They are not the same resource, but do similar things, but dont work together.
I still don't really understand why "Hit Points" are fine and "Spell Points" are not.
I got nothing for this.