Riggler's page

Hazards, obstacles, chases, and haunts mostly involve various skill checks that can be made to overcome them -- using some skills can be more difficult than others to overcome them. I know chases usually have the caveat of "if the PCs come up with something reasonable" let them try it.

My question is how do you run these? There are several options from a more gamist perspective all the way to a more narrative perspective.

Let's take overcoming a Violent Crowd for example:
Succeed at two of the following checks in any combination:
Athletics DC 25 (trained) to confiscate dangerous debris, Diplomacy DC
25 (trained) to calm the crowd, Intimidation DC 23 (untrained) to scare
the crowd away, Will DC 28 (trained) to maintain a brave and confident
demeanor; an effect such as calm that can target an area counts as one
automatic success.

The more gamist approach to running this makes it much easier than a narrative approach.

Gamist approach (easy mode): You let the PCs know their options for overcoming the obstacle/hazzard. Essentially you tell them the skills/saves/attacks they could attempt, whether training is required, and at the very least a relative difficulty. This allows the PCs not not waste fruitless actions guessing what they should do.

Narrative approach: You simply set the stage that will certainly include hints, but nothing outright that alludes to specific skills, training requirements, and certainly not difficulty.

Middle Ground: And of course there's somewhere in between those two, where you could describe the options they might want to take, like confiscate the debris, clam them, scare them, or be brave and confident, without giving away the actual things they'll be rolling to start with.

I've personally done all three before. And I'm not sure which I prefer. I find in Chases, because of the "creative caveat" PCs will just try to use their best skill over and over again and waste game time trying to convince me whey they should be able to use their best skill every time.

Because the Narrative Approach above can result in "wasted actions," the Middle Ground might result in very ineffective actions, and while the Gamist Approach will result in efficiency of actions -- it seems it may come down to a question of game balance. Should appropriate leveled obstacles/hazards take into account there may be "wasted actions" or not as PCs may be trying to figure out the best course of action. This isn't clear to me within the rules. When dealing with a Creature, sure there may be wasted or ineffective actions if a Recall Knowledge isn't successful. But skill challenges with Chases, for example, don't really allow for a Recall Knowledge in a Chase round.

So what's the advice for how to approach? Do you guys use the Gamist, Narrative, or Middle approaches above? And what were the designers' intent, do you think?

An update. My players and I enjoyed the second half as much as the first. Review uploaded (it took 3 tries to get it work for some reason).

A maul has the shove trait. If equipped with a crushing rune, does a critical shove impose clumsy 1 and enfeebled 1? Or is that limited to only strikes?

The crushing rune states that it imposes the conditions when you “critically hit a target.” A shove has the attack trait, so is a critical shove a “hit” that inflicts the conditions?

Thanks!

The Remastered versions of property traits changes language from "attack" to "Strike." However, crushing rune hasn't been remastered yet. The Remastered rules would certainly dictate my ruling that a crushing rune wouldn't apply to the Shove action, and only on a Strike action.

Half way through running this in my home game (I don't actually do organized play), the players absolutely love it so far. I had the best time running it of any published Paizo published adventure/AP (and I've run A LOT), and am looking forward to it's conclusion in next week's session -- as are my players.

The best of props to this. Running it for a four-person group of 4th Level PCs.

Bluemagetim wrote:

is climb really usually an on level activity? Is that an AP thing?

Yeah. PFS Scenarios as well in my experience often give a scaling DC rather than a simple one for this stuff.

If you are using the simple DCs instead, Assurance is a lot stronger.

You know that's a good point. The PF2E design philosophy is a zero to hero design philosophy where the mundane is supposed to become easier as the heroes grow in power. Scaling DCs for "simple" tasks seems anti- to that.

The biggest problem with the PF2e Wizard is that it doesn't fulfill the class fantasy that "Wizard" conjures in the minds of players. Other classes fulfill that fantasy better. And it's telling that an entire thread has to basically be summed up, "But if you do this specific thing, and make this specific choice, then it's actually decent." That sort of hoop-jumping is just pointing out bad game design.

As a GM I've seen a player come in to PF2e with the idea of playing a Wizard and when it didn't fulfill the class fantasy, they'll probably never play PF2e again. As a player, these problems are pretty obvious. It just doesn't seem fun to play a Wizard in PF2e. Wizard probably hasn't felt this bad to play since perhaps 2e DnD. Too bad they didn't do better with the remaster, but they were probably too rushed to fix the class to level it needed.

I'm going to cancel my Advantage subscriptions and take an a la carte approach. If the gold adds up to a discount, I'll spend it but I'm not interested in understanding the tier-system. My wife has been begging me to cut my hobby expenses and this seems a perfect opportunity.

Yeah, I think this money grab is going to majorly backfire on them. I'll also be canceling subscriptions once this goes into effect.

I see lots of work around suggestions that a GM can use within a game. I feel like I'm only hearing from forever GMs though. How bad must it feel to have a character to play that has a certain ability, only for the GM to be like -- "Know that cool thing you can do, well, you can't cause reasons."

That's a design flaw. And my original question was, why would game designers consider it good game design to have a core class that eliminates a common trope of the genre.

I'd argue that it was NOT good game design. Because to run a common trope, you have to take away something from the player agency that they get at 1st Level character creation.

IMHO, GOOD game design would place this ability as higher mid-range ancestry feat or (if left at a base ancestry ability) to place it on an ancestry with the uncommon tag.

I was simply trying to understand why the design decision to NOT go that route was taken.

The broken or damaged hyperdrive, or warp coils, or whatever Lost in Space specific trope you want. It's a die-hard "technology-can't-save-you" trope of science fiction and science fantasy. But for some reason designers thought having an ancestry that innately eliminates this trope (i.e. scenario possibilities) would be good game design? I'd love to hear an explanation.

Pathfinder 2e Remaster - Player Core pg 294:

If you have a formula, you can Craft a copy of (THAT FORMULA)
using the Crafting skill. You can also Craft a formula by
reverse-engineering (THAT FORMULA) from an item you possess. Use the
formula’s Price and the item’s Craft DC. You must meet
any requirements to Craft THE ITEM, except you don’t
need to have access to THE ITEM or meet any special Craft
Requirements listed in the item’s stat block unless the
GM determines otherwise.

"From an item you possess." then later "you don't need to have access to the item"

Which of these is correct?

First it's talking about crafting a COPY of a FORMULA or crafting a NEW formula that you have reversed engineered. Either way the early part of the test describes crafting a formula. The latter part of the text is about crafting the ITEM. I've edited the quoted part above.

Why would this matter? You might borrow, or temporarily be in possession of an item and want to craft a formula for that item, so that when it is no longer in your possession, you possess the formula you've crafted in order to make more without having access to the actual item.

At legendary tier spending spending $100 gets you a $10 voucher OR 3 Society adventures. An easy way to calculate the value of the gold is it's worth 6.67 CENTS, aka $0.0667, but if you used on Society scenarios they are essentially buy 2 get 1 free. But those are just PDFs, so giving those away at a discount costs Paizo as a company nothing after they are created. -- No shipping, no printing, no warehousing, no tariffs. So that's pretty sharp on their part.

So those once per week reviews you guys are so excited about leaving are worth 33 cents per week.

It appears the discount on shipping may be going away as well. Guess what that free shipping was maximized value ($10.00). And there's no alternative. Paizo isn't using a distributor so you can't go get product from Amazon and use Prime for free shipping. Paizo is monopolizing direct sales.

Hopefully there are social media influencers out there who aren't too scared to break this all down and show how bad this new program is for customers compared to the old.

Make no mistake. This is a price increase for Paizo's most loyal customers. The company profit pros of using a reward currency system is that you can effectively change the value of that currency in the future on a whim. There are basic, modern methodologies being put in place here to better control profit margins now and in the future. Paizo is hoping gamers are not bright enough regarding economics and business practices to realize how this system will be worse for their customers. Keep in mind, they are planning to release FAR more Society scenarios over the next year than perhaps ever before. This new currency system means they aren't giving away that extra content as they have in the past.

From a business perspective and a spin perspective, I give them props. It makes perfect business sense. From a customer of said business, it feels bad when you understand what they are doing and their motives.

If text is written with no mechanical connection to other rules yet it's meant to, that's just horrible writing and game design in a rules manual. And that's the position these "flavor text is rule text" people are essentially taking.

By saying that some of this text not connected directly to a mechanical effect isn't MEANT to have a mechanical effect, we're essentially saying the game designers, writers, and editors are NOT bad at their job. Because clearly there are endless examples already shared.

So when when there IS reasonable ambiguity in text where the intent is not clear about separating mechanical and non-mechanical - we often seek clarification of intent. Deadlines at Paizo are tight, and pay is relatively low. So it's understandable some ambiguity isn't caught.

Thanks, you all. I was confused to start because I was looking at ranger from the archetype perspective and had to really dive in to get the full picture.

As someone whose been playing TTRPGs for nearly four decades, the concept of flavor text not being rule text has been a thing for a helluva lot longer than it hasn't. I didn't realize there was a new standard adopted on PF2. So thanks, again.

I think I understand that the intent of the Rangers' feats that use the terms and phases "the one you hunt", "your prey", "your hunted prey", are to only apply to targets for which the character has used the Hunt Prey action on.

Is that the consensus?

If so, for clarity, Hunt Prey should call the designated target the "Hunted Prey" (capitalized), and should use that same proper term when that's what is intended throughout the applicable feats.

Switching between inconsistent terminology creates confusion as one must ascertain was the change intentional or not. Further clouding the waters in TTRPGs is discerning flavor text from rule text. One might consider that with the lack of a proper "Hunted Prey", the inconsistency terminology in the feats is flavor text.

I hope they errata that for clarity. Thoughts?

Is it allowable within RAW to use starting gold to purchase additional alchemical formulae from what a character starts with? If it's not, could you cite the prohibition? Thanks.

This 14th level feat requires the use of 2 infused poisons. The feat states to use the lowest poison's DC. Isn't it unnecessary to say this, since the 5th Level Alchemist class ability Powerful Alchemy would make all infused poisons have the same DC (the class DC of the alchemist? Or am I missing something? Thanks.

I wanted to drop in again and say thank you all for your patience in this! We realize a lot of our community has been waiting a long time, and even though we're asking you to wait a little longer, we appreciate it whole heartedly. We will update you as soon as we're able! Have a good weekend everyone!

I'm actually project manager for upgrading from a manual to electronic system at work, so I can totally understand how these projects take longer than anticipated. Can't wait to see this launch.

I liked how Curtain Call was handled as an indirect sequel. The problem with direct sequels is just like you guys had with the 6 book APs -- if I'm not interested in the first set, then I'm not going to be interested in the second set. And it seems like Runelords/Sandpoint-adjacent is the most likely for this to happen with. I avoid all those APs as they just don't appeal to me, unfortunately.

Thanks for the Behind the Scenes insight.

Seems a little unusual to have even the hardcopy in hand before the Player's Guide is out. I would have figured Player's Guides were completed early in the process of developing an AP since their relevancy is usually nil after the first book in an AP.

I use these for Abomination Vaults: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0919BYMJZ?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_t itle_1

I painted these gold, silver, and bronze for Outlaws of Alkenstar: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQYSJYGR?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title

Tridus wrote:

That, and as a player, rolling a giant handful of d12s makes crits super fun. :D

My son's Fighter in Extinction Curse was up to 14d12 by the end. There's nothing quite like it.

Absolutely.

Though only if you have enough dice. Rolling the only two d12s you have at the table 7 times and having to write down what you get each time would be annoying.

For PbP there is the equivalent goal of having a dice expression that has to be word wrapped (though it is hard to accomplish on a wide screen computer monitor).

[dice=Phase Bolt Rank 7 crit damage]20d4

If I EVER run a game IRL that calls for a 20d4 roll, you get a 50 and we're moving on. I'm not waiting for someone to roll and add up the results of 20 caltrops.

I thought this was really simple, but after a game last night I'm questioning myself based on the Counting Damage Dice rule on Pg. 406 and the massive damage unleashed by a level 4 fighter in last night's game.

A fighter with a +1 Striking Greataxe critically hits an opponent using the Vicious Swing Feat. They are doing 6d12 damage + double Strength mod? Correct?

With Guns and Gears getting the remaster treatment, what are the odds this AP gets a hardcover remaster compilation in the next year?

Was this AP popular enough to justify a hardcover treatment?

As a PF1 player, I only recently returned to the Pathfinder fold jumping in at the completion of the remaster cores.

I was also wondering about the impact. Are conversations being held with American book printers? Numbers being runned on domestic publication and shopping vs. foreign? Or do you just shift to a lessor tariffed foreign manufacturer than China?

Thanks for the clarity, you all. I'm new to PF2E and have lot of other versions of very similar game systems floating around in the noggin [All versions of D&D (except 4th), and PF1 to name a few].

Scenario: A Large Rat Swarm occupies a 4-quare space that contains 2 PCs. An ally of the PCs throws an Alchemist Fire bomb at the Swarm creature and hits.

How I ruled: I ruled that Alchemist Fire did full damage to the creature and everything in the four spaces the Swarm creature occupied, and did splash damage to allies and enemies adjacent to the Swarm creature.

The reasoning: The AC calculated to hit the large Swarm like any large creature is taken into account. PF2E doesn't by RAW allow targeting just a single square of a Large or bigger creature. And even if it did, in the case of a Swarm, I think doing so defeats the purpose with a Swarm's weakness to area and splash damage. Splash damage on bombs is applied to both the creature hit and adjacent creatures. But the PC allies were not "adjacent" to the target of the bomb, but occupying the same space as the target of the bomb. Previous editions from the current also clarified area attacks on a swarm occupying another creature would hurt that creature as well.

Did I rule RAW or is there not RAW for this specific scenario?

Would you have ruled the same or differently? If differently, how and why?

As the title states. Any hope of bringing your shipping and e-commerce into the misen era anytime c soon? Seeing an order listed as having shipped 11 days prior, it not having arrived, listed as untrackable is pretty sad. Furthermore, even if it was listed as trackable the tracking numbers and links don't allow for tracking.

Thanks guys. I think what I was seeing at my table was a Chiurgeon being played as if they were a bomber. I can see the Mutagen and Toxicologist not needing it as a class feature, but perhaps it's a good choice for the Chiurgeon. Nonetheless, I think I understand the design decision to place it as a class feat as opposed to a class ability. Again, thanks

I'm a PF1 vet, new to PF2e only coming on board with the Remastered. I'm also big on understanding the why's of game design. So help me understand.

I understand that it's bad game design to present options as choices, when they aren't really choices, but universally there is a correct choice. This is called "illusion of choice" universally, and related to specific choices within the Pathfinder game design has been labeled a "feat tax" when relating to feats.

Help me understand why Quick Bomber from a design perspective isn't a class ability and is behind a feat tax? It seems to me this feat is so essential in 1st-8th levels as an Alchemist that to play during those levels without it severely hinders options for the class in combat to the point of it's a must take.

Something a bit heavier, if you like...

The band:
Therion

The album:
Theli

Riggler wrote:

TerraZephyr wrote:

I have a question about an ability of a creature in the first adventure

(and just in case)
** spoiler omitted **

Thanks!

Yeah, my group did end in a TPK with this critter. But that was because they lost one member to a trap that sprung in the middle of a fight just before-hand. And they decided to be-bop on down to where this guy was located with a party of 3. It was brutal.

That being said...this creature is not intelligent. And is programmed. I would rule that it evaluates creatures constantly. When it's weakness is present on a creature it will not consider that creature to be an enemy. It would re-evaluate whether or not that criteria was met on it's every turn, if not every second (free action).

Yeah, I thought about that option but didn't think that made a lot of sense...and yes I know it's folly to apply logic to a role-playing game sometimes but the ability states that those that attack it become targets, not for 1 round, just now they are targets. If it were only for 1 round it would actually be really easy to exploit and terribly easy to defeat, not making it much of a guardian at all.

I see what you are saying. There were plenty of VERY subtle clues before the encounter in regards to venturing into a holy place. Your party may have been lucky to have a follower of the proper deity in it. Mine did not and likely will not. They will get no clues from me on what they need to exploit the creature.

Keep in mind the exploit that your players may have the opportunity to use is the fact that of all the gods they could have chosen they happened to have a follower of the right god in this case with a holy symbol out. That's quite a bit of luck that more than makes up for bad die rolls if that's how they figure out how to exploit the guardian.

I have a question about an ability of a creature in the first adventure

(and just in case)
** spoiler omitted **

Thanks!

Yeah, my group did end in a TPK with this critter. But that was because they lost one member to a trap that sprung in the middle of a fight just before-hand. And they decided to be-bop on down to where this guy was located with a party of 3. It was brutal.

That being said...this creature is not intelligent. And is programmed. I would rule that it evaluates creatures constantly. When it's weakness is present on a creature it will not consider that creature to be an enemy. It would re-evaluate whether or not that criteria was met on it's every turn, if not every second (free action).

@Laric -- I read this whole thread up to that post at once and my reaction was just what I wrote. I didn't say you had to run an adventure to decide if you like it. I simply said reading an AP for enjoyment versus reading one to run is reading an AP it two totally different ways.

@Lord Snow -- Your first point, I agree with. You are correct. Your second, ehhh, kinda. I was excited by the setting of Mummy's Mask and had high expectations. The first volume met exactly my expectations. I would gladly forgo a reading experience that would take me a week of reading for a full AP with my schedule versus a fun play experience that I will use for far many more hours.

@Tangent -- I agree. Hence, while I respect James Jacobs as a game designer, I've learned its best I just stay away from his APs.

@Pan -- Yep, I used to feel the same way. Heck, I did read all of Legacy of Fire before running it. By the time we got to Book 5 I was totally burned out. I had known how it ended 14 months early by that point and it went on for another 6 grueling months. I learned that for myself, I just couldn't do that anymore. No matter what advantages there may have been for me to read the whole AP first was not worth the trade off of getting increasingly bored the longer the AP went on because I knew how it ended. Hence I would totally suck as a film director.

I find it really hard to take seriously criticism of an AP volume's adventure from those who mostly just read adventures, especially those who rarely run a table.

If I'm sitting down to read an AP in previous versions, the first volume is usually a pretty interesting read. I don't buy an AP for a very interesting read. I buy an AP for an interesting adventure to run as a GM. I don't need a bunch of word count spent on information that the players in my game will NEVER know or have a way of finding out.

Half-Dead City is expertly put together. If people are running 4 PCs with 15 point build through it, they are in for a VERY tough AP volume. As it should be. The traditional 1980s classic Egyptian modules were known to have a reputation of keeping players on their toes at all times. There is not a wasted word in the first volume. There is no waste of space saying why the PCs are together for a thankful change. But there I go talking about actually RUNNING this as an adventure instead of whether I enjoyed reading it.

Now based on a lot of people who comment here, apparently Paizo sells a LOT of APs based on what people read instead of what people actually run. I'm not buying an AP unless I will run it or I know someone else will. My party had a TPK in the last chapter of the book, because they forgot they were in an Egyptian themed AP apparently. Not a single player blamed the AP or the GM. Every last one of them knew at the end of the day, they screwed up just about every way imaginable. We "aw, shucks" it off and start again. I say that to say this, I haven't even read an entire paragraph of the second volume of the Second Volume of this AP.

Why? Because I don't want to know what's coming three months ahead of time as the GM. I get too excited when I imagine how my players will react when they get there, that by the time they get there I'm over it already if I've had to wait more than a few weeks.

So yes, I can see why those reading APs for their own enjoyment might not be a fan of Jim Grove's product. For those who buy APs for running real live players though adventures around a table, Grove's volume is exactly what I want.

I was not a fan of the fiction in the past. I've only gotten Part 1 of this AP so far, with Part 2 on the way. But I have to say I LOVE the new way the fiction section was used in Part 1 of Mummy's Mask. It's a pretty interesting story, and something I can really use (and did use) while running the adventure.

Many, many, many congrats on the change. If fiction is here to stay, then THIS is how you do it in an AP.

My group went with Pharoah's Fist.

A group of five wherein the spiritual leader of their group is a Cleric of Irori.

First @ Jim Groves, yes I was speaking of the Tomb of Akhentepi in the above post.

I did lower the Hardness on the false sarcophagus to 3, with it still nearly dropping 2 party members. Keeping it at 5 would probably have put a nail in at least one coffin. I also changed the Iron Cobra to DR5/B, since 5/- is just as bad as Hardness 5 except that even adamantine would have to deal with it.

---

The first dungeon runs very well. There are a few items of note that had no gp value given for looting (The cursed mirror, the tapestry of the Boneyard, the tapestry of Akentepi's family), but the gold that my N-E party looted will keep them quite motivated through the rest of this book.

@Riggler: My party of 5 ran through it in only a day. They had 17, 16, 14, 12, 12, 10 arrays and started with 200gp, and drained nearly 100% of their resources, including consumable items. The only encounter they missed was the two beetles in the secret tunnel.

archmagil, yeah, your group is playing at a power level a bit higher than mine. Mine is 4 members (although a 5th may appear at times), 15 point buy, avg. starting wealth and for the most part Core + APG + some archetypes. Thanks for the feedback on how your group did and how you ran it. Good idea to change the Iron Corbra's DR. I may have to run it that way when they go back.

Ran most of Chapter 1 yesterday.

Thought it went pretty well. I loved the flavor and the players (split between two vets and two newbies) was paranoid as all get out. Just the Egyptian theme was enough to do that. This first chapter certainly added to it.

The party did go back to town for a night. And they will now rest prior to going back into the final room. Was resting planned or was the party expected to go through the entire first chapter without regaining resources?

The FINAL conflict in chapter 1 of the first AP seemed very harsh given the defenses of the critter and it being a first level party. Now, they were nearly out of resources when they went in there after covering most of the complex on their second day, but they did have to run away.

Now I'm all for "teaching a party" that sometimes the best option is to run, but I did have a post-game rant by a player (an vet, and adventure designer) who complained the math for first level party members just didn't work out for the CR of final critter unless the party was at full resources.

Ohhh my group just had the first foray into the adventure today.

So far they have navigated down into the tomb - and a few trap - fighting off the child dolls. (they are all first time players so it is going really slow - but they had a great time so far)

Most deadly thing encountered so far? 60' pit and a flubbed climb roll (using a rope mind you - ended up with a 3 total). Fall - took damage to -con - gave the party a few seconds to save her - luckily the fighter who was second down had a potion of cure light on him - and stabilized the poor bard until the rest of the party could make it down.

Oddest question I was asked - how much does that chest weigh... I had no idea so I winged it at 25 lbs. Not bad so far it's been interesting running complete newbies - they named their party... 'dungeon seekers' :)

Ooohh and hats off to Jim Groves for interesting descriptions - the first room with the torch holders - and the 'effect' that happens - had 4 torches lit in all the corners with a big 'what's happening' moment - I think 'ancient tomb like a pyramid' really has players expecting the worst!

A rope with a wall is DC 5. You must fail by 5 or more to fall on a climb check. Otherwise you make no progress. So unless someone has a negative climb check, the chute is no threat to fall until the last 10 feet where there is no wall.

I'm running Skulls & Shackles. Underwater shouldn't impact energy spells other than fire (in which case it simply turns it to steam).

Core Rule Book

Or check SRD under Environment for Aquatic Terrain and Underwater Combat.

I do think there is too much emphasis on the math at times. I'll be honest I prefer a leaner system with less math. I do like this system, and my players love it. The campaign support here is so great that I like running PF.

I'd suggest that maybe the big gulf isn't in the math, it's in the way you play. I've known lots of players that always come up with huge bonuses in every option on the sheet, that make terrible decisions and are a drag on the party. I know players that hardly bother with bonuses and build, they create a character they want to play, and then play them so well that they are a huge positive for the party.

Also optimizing to the math doesn't really provide any edge. Figure out a way to get your disable device up to a +15, and suddenly you're going to find people buying locks that are running in the DC 30 range. Take a feat to nullify area affects, and you'll find things that aren't nullified flying your way. Gaming the rules just makes the GM do the same. If you want a system where your "clever" build avoids all dangers and problems then RPG's aren't really what you want to play.

Being a smart player, and handling yourself well works and can never be overtaken by the GM's math.

Exactly. A GM bias on my part. I'm much more likely to target an optimized PC with a death blow than I am the PC that is a well-built personality.

Optomization among a group of non-optimizers is still optimizing no matter what story you make up to justify it. And the divisiveness it creates among the game group is the same effect as well, no matter the background or justifications one comes up with for making those decisions.

Sean K. Reynolds on the Paizo forums basically admitting to there intentionally being trap options because it's "admirable" to play a character that is going to die in an adventure.

I'm not sure what game Sean is talking about though. D&D/PF is freaking hard. 90% of the game from the bestiary through the environment section is dedicated to making the game harder for everyone involved. It is a game about conflicts and rising above those conflicts. I don't see any of the pregens in the APs running around as 12 Int wizards.

This post hurt me pretty bad and I lost a lot of faith in the design team after it. If I'm buying products from Paizo, I'd rather not have page count wasted on stuff that's only going to hurt my players if they try it, or give them ideas that I'm going to have to homebrew an option that works instead of just letting them take what's in the book.

Vow of Poverty for example drastically hurts the viability of a character (worst of all it hurts monks >:O) which not only means that character is probably going to die pretty easily to the dangers of adventures due to being severely under geared, but it also makes them a drag on the party. In Magic the Gathering, if your deck is loaded with sucky cards your system mastery affects no one else. If you're playing a gimp your decisions can cost someone else their character.

I initially trusted the designers to not feed my players options that are going to hurt them. Someone who takes Vow of Poverty is someone who lacks the system mastery to understand why it's a bad idea, and the idea of punishing people for "roleplaying" as an abominable one from a designer standpoint.

It was a dark day.

I have been saying this for years. If you have hundreds of pages and millions of options and only 10-15% of those options are "optimal" or useful in most situations, then one player at a table who chooses to play optimal style creates an arms race of players. The reason everyone else has to go along is to keep from being irrelevant. And the end result is that 85-90 percent of rules content is useless.

The "average" game table does not consist of gamers like many of the employees at Paizo like to present themselves...as players who make great characters for story and not math. Because as game designers they understand (or should) that game mechanics is just a bunch of numbers and math and the GM can wipe them out at any time. Creating the story is the fun part of RPGing. However, most players are concerned with showing off their intelligence or system mastery or showing off to their friends how uber a hulk they build, or just stealing the spotlight.

So every time the rules team puts out some powerful rules option that is usually the "best" choice it pushes all the "not best choices" into the realm of obscurity. This is why balance in rules options are so important. Not just with every feat or spell, but the combinations of spells and feat and magic items. The correct combinations are much more dangerous to game imbalance than a single feat, item, spell usually are.

This mentality has been present since 3.0 came about and it hasn't ended with Paizo. There is already starting to be an outcry from GMs who have the inability to say "No" to players in regards to published options that Paizo puts out, leading them to desire a reset with a new edition. I personally don't plan on buying another rule line supplement by Paizo. And by requiring me to do so with the Mythic Adventures guarantees I won't be buying Mytic Adventures either. And if the APs go the way of "we have to support our rule line," I'm not such a fanboy that I can't do without the APs either. Put a gun to my head and say buy the rule line or you won't be able to play the AP line, and I'll say I don't need the AP line either then.

It's a cyle. And half the customers who bash me for this stance will feel foolish in a couple of years when they finally realize the rule line has gotten too out of control for them too and wonder how they got sucked in so far. It happened with fans of 3.0 and it happened with 3.5. And it is happening with Paizo.

If he wants to be a merchant then he can:
...

AKA... play Merchants & TaxRolls

According to the AP, the PCs next event is the barroom. Harrigan is planning on shipping out the very next morning. That event could be run late night after the Hurricane King's party. In other words, Harrigan has other things to do. He's almost ready to ship out of town. In fact, their story could be the reason he sends his cabin girl to the tavern to see if he spots the PCs. Just to be sure. And the cabin girl could end up joining the PCs crew if they play it right.

If they do insist on tracking Harrigan's ship down. I'd set up the combat as an opportunity for humble pie. Now that the crew are legit pirates, Harrigan is unlikely to slay the newly minted crew on land in Port Peril of all places just yet. His situation for the future would require him not raising the ire of the Hurricane King just yet.

Well this list certainly woke me up. I've only purchased two full APs (LoF and Skulls & Shackles) and a friend owns Kingmaker. But seeing this list made me go out and gobble up Carrion Crown in full.

Even though Mummy's Mask will probably be the next AP I GM, having a spare AP that I know I'll enjoy seemed like a good idea before it was too late.

I'm seeing a Rob McCreary developer trend here in my tastes.

Skulls and Shackles has an NPC cleric ally potential very early on and has a lot of one day encounters. Much of it is not time sensitive.