Seems's page

I ran CotCT for my group several years ago - it was the first campaign for many of them. I'm thinking of running Shadows for them, but was a little disappointed there aren't more NPC tie-ins from CotCT. The main one is obviously Cressida, followed by Thousand Bones. Blackjack does little more than leave a clue for them.

Any ideas for working more of the old NPCs into the actual plot? Given the intrigue, Glorio Arkona/Bahor would have been great, or even Boule. I can work in a little fan-service and maybe have Vencarlo come to their aid (in his Old Man Batman role), or a run with Grau Soldado, but I was hoping for something a little more meaningful.

Brand new to PF2e, and I'm a little puzzled by the escape action. It takes one action, and does not seem to have a limitation on multiple uses per round. The text reads:

Critical Success You get free and remove the grabbed, immobilized, and restrained conditions imposed by your chosen target. You can then Stride up to 5 feet.

Success You get free and remove the grabbed, immobilized, and restrained conditions imposed by your chosen target.

Critical Failure You don’t get free, and you can’t attempt to Escape again until your next turn.

This seems to imply that if you "normal" fail on your first escape action, you can try again with your subsequent actions? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me - doesn't it make grappling an almost impossible strategy?

So I'm looking for a good one-shot to introduce myself and my group of 6 to PF2e. I'm an old grognard and introduced my (now adult) son and his friends to PF1 with a CotCT campaign that lasted several years. One of the group took over DMing and they switched to 5e, basically just to try something new.

I'd like to run a PF2e one-shot to get them to look at the "new" system but have no idea which is best for a larger group. It can be Paizo or third-party.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

I know this must seem pretty basic, but the attacks for the Axial Monitor completely confuse me. Here's what's listed:

Melee +1 merciful greatclub +26/+21/+16/+11 (2d8+10), tentacle +20 (1d6+3 plus grab), slam +20 (2d6+3 plus energized maul) or +1 axiomatic glaive +26 (2d8+10/×3), +1 merciful greatclub +26 (2d8+10), tentacle +25 (1d6+3 plus grab), slam +25 (2d6+3 plus energized maul)

Tripartite Assault (Ex)
When it makes a full attack, an Axial monitor can choose to make a full attack with one weapon and secondary attacks with its tentacle and slam, or it can choose to make a single attack with each weapon it wields, including its tentacle and slam attacks, with no penalties to its attack rolls for fighting with multiple weapons.

How does this translate to a single attack action and full attack actions? Thanks!

So the 15th level sorcerer in my group obtained a wish prior to the finale of CotCT, and is thinking of using it to polymorph himself into a gold dragon. What would happen to his sorcerer levels? And how many HD would he have?

My initial thought is that if he actually becomes a gold dragon, he gains all of the abilities of a gold dragon, including spells, but loses his sorcerer levels. He's a dragon now - his sorcerous ability was tied to his old body and is now replaced by his draconic abilities. He would obviously like to be a 15th level sorcerer in a dragon's body!

And how many HD would he have? If handled like the Polymorph spell, he would have the same HD as levels, so 15? Or can he become an adult gold dragon (18 HD)?

Any ideas on how to handle this? Not sure if this is strictly a polymorph or something else.

So I have a player who is using an Abyssal Bloodrager Primalist. They're 15th level and reaching the end of the campaign, and I'm looking to design a fight against an NPC that can actually challenge her. Between rage, Demonic Bulk, Long Arm, and Come and Get Me she pretty much pulverizes anything that attacks her.

Are there any melee builds that might stand up to her? Come and Get Me is just a killer.

So bear with me.

My group is starting Chapter 6 of CotCT and I'm completely underwhelmed by the Sunken Queen. I was looking forward to a mystical location, the source of Runelord Sorshen's power, with traps, puzzles, and challenges for the Party before they finally reach the final battle. And what will they find, boggards? And the final battle is in a featureless box? Ugh!

So, I'm looking for some sort of small, high level dungeon, with mystical traps and guardians, to replace the Sunken Queen. Something that's going to feel like the final challenges before they face down Ileosa! Anything out there like this?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Okay, I'm sure this is answered somewhere but I haven't been able to find it (or maybe I just don't understand it?)

I have a hostile NPC assassin with Greater Invisibility about to attack the Party.

The Stealth rules read, "If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you’re moving."

That seems pretty straight forward.

But then the chart under Invisibility for the Perception roll DC specifies:

In combat or speaking –20
Moving at half speed –5
Moving at full speed –10
Running or charging –20
Not moving +20
Using Stealth Stealth check +20
Some distance away +1 per 10 feet
Behind an obstacle (door) +5
Behind an obstacle (stone wall) +15

So the NPC rolls their Stealth check +20 if moving and adds it to the base DC of 20, which the defender has to beat with Perception to get a hunch there's something there, and to pinpoint there would be another +20 to the DC? The modifiers for in combat, moving at half speed, etc, only apply if not using stealth? It would make no sense to penalize them twice for moving, since the Stealth check has already gone from +40 to +20.

And for sneak attack, does sneak attack damage only apply to the first strike, since the defender can pinpoint the square from which the attack came?

Thanks. I have to say I probably hate these rules more than any other in PF.

Has anyone used or can anyone recommend a larger/more interesting battle map for the final battle against Ileosa? Even at 60'x60', and with a portion of that taken up by the pool, it seems awfully cramped and a little plain. I have 6 (sometimes 7 PCs) as well a large animal companion, so once you include Ileosa, the tanniver, the false Ileosas, and any leftover monsters, the battle is just going to be a big blob.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

So, we've all seen and read the scenarios in which a hero or team infiltrate an enemy base and stealthily pick off guards as they work they way through. My Party is about to infiltrate an evil temple to rescue some prisoners and, unless I make the guards extremely low level so they can be one-shotted, running a stealth mission scenario is difficult.

They're fairly high level so they can use Invisibility easily, but even if the slayer sneaks up behind a lone guard he'll get one shot with sneak attack damage (unless he takes the risk of "pausing" for a new round so he can start the combat with a full-attack). The guard isn't helpless, so coup de grace really wouldn't apply.

The monk has a stealth of 13 so she has a decent chance of sneaking, but the rest all have stealth in the single digits. The druid could wildshape into something sneaky but, again, how much damage is a wolf going to do on a guard unless it's extremely low level?

Any suggestions on how to run this so stealth is a viable option if they choose to do so?

Vision of Hell reads:

"You overlay a realistic illusion of a terrifying hellscape upon an area. Structures, equipment, and creatures within the area are not hidden, though environmental features take on an infernal appearance. While you are prepared for these images and are not affected by them, any other creature within the area must make a Will save or become shaken and also take a –2 penalty on saves versus fear effects; the fear and penalty persists as long as the creature remains in the area. Devils and any lawful evil creatures suffer no negative effects from this spell."

While it's clear that creatures who fail their save are affected by the penalty and fear as long as they remain in the area, what about creatures who make their save? Do they need to save every round or are they immune once they make the initial save?

I'm guessing it's the latter, since most illusion effects end after a successful save, but I'd like to make sure.

Thanks in advance for any assistance!

So, after a long path culminating with her betrayal and death at the hands of Sial, followed by her resurrection by the Party, Laori in my campaign has renounced Zon Kuthon, and may end up as a follower of Desna, the deity of the Party's cleric.

So how do I handle her? RAW says, "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons."

I understand taking away her spells and abilities but what about her base stats (e.g., HP, BAB, saves, etc.)? What if I make her a 1st level cleric or fighter? It's not like she can suddenly take less damage or forgets how to use weapons. She has attached herself to the Party's cleric and will likely accompany them back to Korvosa for Chapter Six. Not sure if she'll stay in Korvosa or travel with the Party to the Sunken Queen.

I have to admit I rarely use surprise as it seems a pain to adjudicate, but I'm facing the upcoming scenario in my campaign.

The PCs will be fleeing a collapsing fortress along a long causeway, where a group of cultists is waiting to ambush them. The cultists are hidden behind various battlements and buildings of a ruined gatehouse, and have cast a glyph of warding at the end of the causeway.

The PCs have no reason to suspect the ambush and will presumably be focused on fleeing until they trigger the glyph of warding. The glyph is the signal for the cultists to rise up and engage the PCs.

My thinking is to not give the PCs any sort of perception check until the glyph is triggered, which initiates combat. Those that roll high enough notice the cultists as they spring the ambush and get an action in the surprise round, while those that fail the perception check do not.

Do I have this right or is there a better way to resolve this?

Is there any sort of communication spell or magic item that allows you to send what you see to the recipient? Spells like Sending and Telepathy only seem to include words/thoughts, not sight.

So, after 3+ years of intermittent play, my group is finally starting Chapter 6 of Crimson Throne, and I'm starting to think of what comes next.

We could start another AP, but they're a huge commitment since we only play once a month or so. Is there something in between a stand-alone module and the APs? A trilogy of beefy modules, perhaps, like mini-APs that let you use the same characters in an ongoing story but not quite as extensive? I haven't found any easy way to search for connected modules so I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

Can Wall of Thorns be shaped, or is it limited to a straight line? For example, could a 9th level caster, using 9 10'x10' cubes:

- create a double-thickness wall 20' thick and 40' long (with 1 cube left over)?
- create a solid 30' square consisting of 9 cubes?
- create a triple-height wall 30' high, 10' thick, and 30' long?
- create a 90' wall in a zig zag, semicircle, or some other shape?

Thanks in advance!

First time adjudicating this spell, so I want to get it right. The spell reads:

"An invisible, mobile field surrounds you and prevents creatures from approaching you. You decide how big the field is at the time of casting (to the limit your level allows). Any creature within or entering the field must attempt a save. If it fails, it becomes unable to move toward you for the duration of the spell. Repelled creatures’ actions are not otherwise restricted. They can fight other creatures and can cast spells and attack you with ranged weapons. If you move closer to an affected creature, nothing happens. The creature is not forced back. The creature is free to make melee attacks against you if you come within reach. If a repelled creature moves away from you and then tries to turn back toward you, it cannot move any closer if it is still within the spell’s area."

So, what constitutes "move toward you"? Can an opponent who fails the save move towards an ally of the spellcaster standing next to the spellcaster, or who is standing 30' away from the spellcaster but still within the field of the spell? Or is the opponent obliged to stay outside the field of the spell (unless the spellcaster moves closer)?

I'm guessing the easiest way to adjudicate it is to say the opponent has to stay at least as far away from the spellcaster as when they failed the save. In other words, if the opponent was 30' away when they failed the save, they can't move to any square that brings them closer than 30' away. This way they could run around the spellcaster but not actually move towards them.

As I mentioned in my other post, I'd like to use some scenarios to scratch my group's gaming itch while two of the players are overseas for 4 months. I have zero familiarity with the scenarios, but would like some linked scenarios (for that mini-campaign vibe), somewhere around 8 to 12th level. Preferably a good mix of roleplaying, combat, and puzzles.

So far, I'm looking at running one or two of the following "series", as we only game once or twice a month:

All for Immortality (7-20, 7-26, and 7-29)
The Lissala scenarios (4-08, 4-10, 4-12, 4-20, and 4-26)
Eyes of the Ten (PFS 46, 54, and 2-05)

I know there are lists suggesting how to create a whole campaign out of the scenarios - that's not what I need. Just some good scenarios that make sense together so they can use the same character for a few sessions.

Thanks in advance for thoughts on any of the above or other scenarios that work well together.

Really basic question here, how many players are the scenarios designed for? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the first few seasons were designed for 4 players but at some point they switched over to 6 players?

My group is taking a break from CotCT while two of the players go to Korea for 4 months, and I was thinking of running some scenarios for 3 or 4 of the remaining players. If it's a scenario designed for 6 players, can I just compensate by running at a lower tier, e.g., if the APL is 10, run at the 6-7 subtier instead?

Thanks for any tips!

My CotCT group is going on hiatus while 2 of the players go to Korea for 4 months, and I'm looking for an adventure or two to run in the interim, maybe a deluxe adventure or a couple of linked modules. Probably for 3 or 4 players, and anything from 5th level and up would be fine. They like a good mix of RP, combat, and puzzles (e.g., I worked the Ancients' Anguish scenario, which they really enjoyed, into CotCT).

So, with that in mind, what are your all-time favorite adventures and recommendations?

My CotCT group is going on hiatus while 2 of the players go to Korea for 4 months, and I'm looking for an adventure or two to run in the interim. Probably for 3 or 4 players, and it can be either Pathfinder or 3pp. They like a good mix of RP, combat, and puzzles (e.g., I worked the Ancients' Anguish scenario, which they really enjoyed, into CotCT). I know there's been some older threads on best modules, but they seem to focus exclusively on Pathfinder and haven't been updated in a while.

So, with that in mind, what are your all-time favorite adventures and recommendations?

Activity in the CoTCC forum is slow so I'm posting this here. I'm a little unclear on how the havero tentacles in the Acropolis of the Thrallkeepers are supposed to perceive their targets. The stats give them blindsense, which reads:

"Using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing, a creature with blindsense notices things it cannot see. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent the creature cannot see still has total concealment against the creature with blindsense, and the creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see."

So, the havero tentacles don't have to roll to perceive a target, but since they can't see (only the tentacles are in the encounter, not the full creature) the targets get total concealment and the 50% miss chance? Or does the total concealment apply only if the target has invisibility or something similar?

I'm a little unclear on how the havero tentacles in the Acropolis of the Thrallkeepers are supposed to perceive their targets? The stats give them blindsense, which reads:

"Using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing, a creature with blindsense notices things it cannot see. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent the creature cannot see still has total concealment against the creature with blindsense, and the creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see."

So, the havero tentacles don't have to roll to perceive a target, but the target is still considered to have total concealment, providing a 50% miss chance to any attacks? Is this how it works?

I'm looking for a shorter module based in abandoned, magical ruins for a roughly 10th level party. I'm hoping to replace/add to the Acropolis of the Thrall Keepers in the Curse of the Crimson Throne. Unfortunately, other than the initial Havero combat, I find it a little underwhelming, and would prefer something with more puzzles and combats with weird creatures.

Any suggestions will be much appreciated!

If I understand Cornugon Smash and Shattered Defenses correctly, you have to have iterative attacks in order to make the combo work?

Round 1
1st attack: succeed, and make Intimidate check, target fails and becomes shaken
2nd attack: succeed, target becomes flat-footed

Round 2
Target is only shaken until the beginning of the attacker's turn, but flat-footed until the end of the attacker's turn. To extend the effect, you need to hit the target again, have it fail another Intimidate check to become shaken again, and then hit it again to extend the flat-footed effect.

If you don't have iterative attacks, it just doesn't work:

Round 1
Attack succeeds, make Intimidate check, target fails and becomes shaken until beginning of attacker's next turn.

Round 2
Target is no longer shaken at beginning of attacker's turn, so no opportunity to hit it and become flat-footed.

Do I have this right? If so, it really decreases the utility of Shattered Defenses. You not only have to hit it and succeed on the Intimidate check, but you have to hit the target again the same round, which becomes less likely with each additional attack.

Cornugon Smash reads, "When you damage an opponent with a Power Attack, you may make an immediate Intimidate check as a free action to attempt to demoralize your opponent."

So, if I hit an opponent multiple times with full-attack, does Cornugon Smash activate on each hit and I get an immediate Intimidate checks after each hit, or is it only once per round?

Shatter Defenses seems to imply the latter, as it reads, "Any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. This includes any additional attacks you make this round."

You can't use Shatter Defenses on "any additional attacks you make this round" if you're not making an Intimidate check on each hit. This seems like an incredible drag on combat, unless you just starting rolling an extra d20 with each attack in case it's a successful hit.

So, I'm playing a two-hander, melee-oriented, Oath of Vengeance, Tempered Champion Paladin in Wrath of the Righteous. We're nearing the end of Book 1, and the DM has suggested I should make my build a little more tanky as the rest of the Party is not. We have brawler, gunslinger, and arcane trickster PCs, as well as an ecclesitheurge run by the DM. I'm strongly leaning towards Guardian for Mythic, but he will be limiting us to tier 5 to rein us in a little.

I've been looking at the EH Pit-Touched line as it would work in well from an RP perspective, but it's a hefty 4 feats to take full advantage of it:

Skill Focus, Diplomacy (which I can use as I'll be taking Antagonize)
Eldritch Heritage - Corrupting Touch. Can't see myself using it a lot.
Improved Eldritch Heritage - +2 to CON at 9th, 13th, and 17th levels.
Greater Eldritch Heritage - wings!

So I'm basically paying 4 feat for an extra 60 HP by 20th level, and wings for mobility, although they won't come until 17th level.

Any thoughts on whether it's worth it and/or necessary for Wrath of the Righteous? I'm not necessarily looking for an optimal build, but I do want an effective build.

How does Extra Rage ("you can rage for 6 additional rounds per day") affect Raging Blood ("You can enter this lesser bloodrage twice per day, for up to 4 rounds")?

At least in Hero Lab, having Raging Blood opens up Extra Rage as a valid feat, but it doesn't show any adjustment to the bloodrage uses or tracking. Does it become twice per day for up to 10 rounds or twice per day for 7 rounds each? It seems to depend on whether Raging Blood is interpreted as a max of 4 rounds per day with 2 uses per day, or 2 uses per day with 4 rounds per use. Raging Blood tracking in Hero Lab simply shows 2 boxes, which seems to indicate 2 uses at 4 rounds each. Still, I'm confused!

Couldn't find a definitive answer to this. If you succeed at a DC 15 soft fall from a mount, do you avoid being prone in addition to not taking any damage?

RAW is "Soft Fall: You negate damage when you fall off a mount. If you fail the Ride check, you take 1d6 points of damage and are prone. This usage does not take an action."

The wording seems to imply that you're only prone if you fail. To me, however, it seems logical that if you soft fall you do one of those rolling falls like you see in the movies when folks jump out of a moving car and are (miraculously!) uninjured. Thus, you're prone but undamaged. Also, if you don't end up prone, soft fall seems to overlap a lot with a quick dismount, which is a DC 20. If you need to quickly get off your mount, why not try a soft fall and if you make it you land on your feet and haven't used an action? The DC is easier than if you try a quick dismount.

So I'm having a little difficulty with the Sredna rules. I don't see any incentive to tugging instead of digging in. If both sides dig in, you have no chance to win a strength check but also no chance of losing. If both sides tug, you might win but you might also lose. If only one side digs in, you also might win or lose that round but have a distinct advantage the next round. And if your opponent digs in, why would you try to tug the next round when you know you'll have a distinct disadvantage?

Basically, it always seems optimal to dig in and wait out your opponent, which seems a very un-Shoanti strategy. There should be some risk or disadvantage to digging in repeatedly, perhaps even automatically forfeiting if you do it too often. Or am I misunderstanding the rules?

So I'm getting ready to start A History of Ashes next week and I'm a little underwhelmed at the Cinderlands. You have this potentially fabulous environment with the first (and really only) opportunity for wilderness exploration and there's no sense of danger. There's no guidance on how to navigate and survive the Cinderlands, other than conveniently being provided with boneslayer guides once they get to the Kallow Mounds. While spells like Create Water make desert travel much less hazardous, there are all sorts of other dangers from both creatures and the environment. For example, things get much more interesting if they're fleeing a sandstorm or get ambushed by monsters and some of the Party's horses get killed. Not mention dealing with heat, battles while crossing ravines, etc.

To try and fill this gap, I've been looking at Frog God Games' "Dunes of Desolation", which is a fabulous guide for desert adventuring. I'm combining it with AngryGM's wilderness travel tips to try and make things more exciting.

Also, some of the options for gaining respect seem just a little ho-hum. Go to what is basically a one-room temple and kill a monster. After dealing with the havero, the rest of the Thrallkeepers' Acropolis seems kind of tedious. Would love to hear any suggestions for making this whole part of the adventure more interesting. (And for the record, I do like the sound of the Cindermaw and the Trial of the Totem encounters).

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

I have a decent collection of monster pawns from the first two Bestiary Boxes and the CotCC set, but I always seem to need more of a particular monster so I've started printing my own. I use the guide at DMJason and they come out surprisingly well!

Unfortunately, DMJason only provides instructions and templates for printing small - huge minis. Does anyone have suggestions for how I could create gargantuan minis, as my Party is starting to get to that stage.

Thanks in advance for any help!

Well, the Vivified Labyrinth was absolutely glorious! Difficult as heck to run, but well worth it. The Party completely accepted Vimanda as Vencarlo, and she almost succeeded in turning them against Glorio and getting them to immediately backtrack to the palace and attack him. The only reason they failed is they ended up split up by the teleporters, and some of them found the real Vencarlo. When they reunited and confronted Vimanda, she shapechanged into Meliya and gave them a sob story about being trapped in the labyrinth by Glorio and that she only wanted to use them to get out. They didn't completely buy it and she managed to escape.

But, now they're suspicious of Glorio, and are tempted to head back and confront him, as they're not sure whether to try and ally with him or kill him. I'm going to have him waiting for them in the garden with his marai rakshasa, where he can use the marble elephant and water elemental against them if he can't sway them and it devolves into a battle.

But I digress. Glorio has a lot of attacks - 5 attacks with his kukri, a bite, and 1 claw, assuming he can full attack. What does he get if he uses a move action and attacks - a single kukri attack or just the bite? I'm not sure which one is his primary weapon.

So I'm about 3/4 through the game and I've decided that, although I've enjoyed the game and want it to succeed, for the time being I'm going to quit my play through, wait a couple of months for the bugs to be fixed, and then restart.

The game has a ton of potential, but there are just too many game-breaking and non-game-breaking bugs at this point - broken quests, feats/abilities that don't work, weird difficulty spikes that bear no relation to the core rules. (Overall, I don't mind the difficulty. It's challenging, and that's good, but it feels very "cheaty" when monsters have absurdly inflated stats.)

The kingdom management mechanics need to be majorly tweaked and better documented. Several times I would start a project only to be hit with a debilitating event requiring that particular advisor, and no way to reassign that advisor. You shouldn't have to rely on save scumming to work around bad game design. Once you get the larger, 2-space buildings (e.g., mage tower), you can't rotate them to fit them in the available space on your building grid. Individually, you could probably shrug your shoulders over any of these and move on, but cumulatively they're just a drag on the gaming experience.

Owlcat seems to be committed to fixing things, but it's pretty clear this needed at least a couple more months of testing and fixing. It's disappointing, but hopefully over the Christmas holidays I can start over and play it all the way through.

Yeah, I know, I keep asking questions. Anyway, looking ahead to the Vivified Labyrinth, how did folks handle the maps, given the complexity of the rotating sections?

We do traditional, pen-and-paper sessions, with pictures and maps displayed on a TV via Roll20 as they explore. For combats, I typically print out a large version of the combat map and attach it to poster board. For the Urgathoan Temple, I printed out the entire map and attached it to a large poster board, with each section of the map covered by plain paper. As they advanced through the temple, I would uncover the appropriate section.

For the labyrinth, I see two options. The first is to print out each of the 4 labyrinth configurations, attach them to separate pieces of poster board, and then as they pull a lever move them over to the appropriate map. The second option is to put each labyrinth configuration on Roll20, with fog of war enabled, again switching up the maps as they pull the levers. For the actual combats I would have to draw out or print up maps of the likely combat locations.

How have others handled this? The suggestion in the AP to draw out the map on 1" grid paper but with 4 circular sections cut out that can be superimposed and rotated as necessary seems a bit difficult, but I'm open to suggestions.

Thanks in advance!

Whoo boy, this gets confusing! A couple of questions about Magic Jar and Spirit Jars.

1. Magic Jar reads, "If you are successful, your life force occupies the host body, and the host’s life force is imprisoned in the magic jar. You keep your Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, level, class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, alignment, and mental abilities."

Does this mean a spellcaster can use their spells while in the host's body?

2. Do Spirit Jars essentially allow a permanent Magic Jar? "Spirit jars are permanently affected by magic jar, and can potentially be kept trapped within forever. A caster can only move his soul between bodies while his casting of magic jar is in effect. If his spell expires while he is within a Spirit jar, his soul and those in the other jars are trapped. "

So if the Magic Jar spell ends while the spellcaster is in the host's body, does the spellcaster's soul return to her own body while the host's soul remains trapped in the Spirit Jar? If I understand it correctly, this would allow the spellcaster to renew the Magic Jar spell on the host's body ad infinitum and essentially use it permanently?

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

Does an invisible creature a) moving from a threatened square, or b) casting a spell, provoke an attack of opportunity from an adjacent creature with blindsense?

Thanks in advance!

So, Rolth escaped my PCs at the temple of Urgathoa, and, after breaking out Jolistina from Citadel Volshyenek, where would be a good place for him to retreat and scheme against them?

I thought of having him join the Emperor of Old Korvosa, but that seems a little soon to spring him upon the Party again. We just started Book 3 and they will likely run into the Emperor next session. But, since Books 4 and 5 seem to be almost entirely outside Korvosa, does that prevent him from popping up until Book 6?

Just as importantly, who would Rolth turn to for sanctuary now that his Dead Warrens hideout and laboratory at the temple of Urgathoa have been destroyed? I have mixed feelings about him directly allying with the Queen, although I guess it might be possible. Is the Red Mantis a possibility, and where would they pop up? I'm not terribly familiar with Books 4 - 6 yet, so any advice will be much appreciated.

So what happens to the Sable Company after they are disbanded and Endrin is (as far as his men know) slain by Ileosa? I have a hard time believing that a bunch of highly trained and patriotic Korvosans would simply turn over their hippogriffs to a Queen who originally comes from Cheliax and killed their commander. Or did Ileosa have an "Order 66" ready to go and the Gray Maidens stormed the Great Tower and kill all of them? I'm guessing that would be hard to do!

My group is starting Book 3, and has already mentioned trying to track down the marines as potential allies. Where could the Sable Company take shelter and bide their time, looking for an opportunity strike back at Ileosa? Just trying to stay one step ahead of my players!

My group is transitioning from 7 Days to the Grave to Escape from Old Korvosa, and I was a little disappointed to see some some of the effects of blood veil basically ignored. First, if Old Korvosa has been blockaded by the Queen, then the plague should be running rampant. It was the ward most affected by blood veil in Chapter 2, and if they are cut off from the cure the district should still be heavily infected. To counter this, I'm going to start Chapter 3 by having Cressida send the Party into Old Korvosa with diverted jugs of antidote and instructions to find Vencarlo, who will know best how to arrange for distribution. That will then lead into the rest of the chapter.

Second, in Korvosa overall, it seems unlikely that the use of currency to spread the plague would be kept under wraps. Since the Bank of Abadar doesn't know what coins are infected and how long they remain so, I would think the bank would shut down and possibly warn the population to avoid coins. The impact on commerce within the city would be devastating. While some folks might be able to resort to bartering, your average commoner probably can't do so. The economy would likely collapse, which is part of the brilliance of Rolth's and Andisain's plan. This possibility doesn't seem to be accounted for, or am I overestimating all of this?

I didn't have any luck with this in the Rules forum so I'm trying here.

So, as per RAW, "figments cannot make something seem to be something else". To what extent does this affect a figment's ability to hide or conceal something/someone? I know you can't make a trap door seem like part of the floor, but you could create a rug that covers that part of the floor. And I know you could make an area of trees with a canopy of branches and leaves that conceals a party from say, a dragon flying above.

But, can you create a hollow figment that conceals one or more persons within? Such as, a large boulder, a carriage, the legs of a giant, or a suit of armor? One of my players argues that these examples don't alter the appearance of the PC (or PCs), so they should be allowed. I think the first two examples might be feasible, but the latter two seem to be a bit of a stretch.

Any thoughts to help clarify would be much appreciated!

Another illusion question, on figments in particular. And yes, I've read the Skip Williams articles!

So, as per RAW, "figments cannot make something seem to be something else". To what extent does this affect a figment's ability to hide or conceal something/someone? I know you can't make a trap door seem like part of the floor, but you could create a rug that covers that part of the floor. And I know you could make an area of trees with a canopy of branches and leaves that conceals a party from say, a dragon flying above.

But, can you create a hollow figment that conceals one or more persons within? Such as, a large boulder, a carriage, the legs of a giant, or a suit of armor? One of my players argues that these examples don't alter the appearance of the PC (or PCs), so they should be allowed. I think the first two examples might be feasible, but the latter two seem to be a bit of a stretch.

Any thoughts to help clarify would be much appreciated!

So I haven't had to deal with illusions much in the past, and my group's 8th level sorcerer is planning to take Major Image as his first illusion spell as soon as he levels up next session.

I read the excellent "treatise" on illusions by Skip Williams but I'm still trying to resolve the question of how much an illusion can move.

Major Image reads, in relevant part, "This spell functions like silent image, except that sound, smell, and thermal illusions are included in the spell effect. While concentrating, you can move the image within the range."

But Silent Image specifies, "You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect."

So at 9th level, my group's sorcerer will be able to cast Major Image with an area of affect up to 130 10' cubes and a range of 760'. If he creates a dragon in the sky, can it only fly around within the area of 130 10' cubes, or anywhere within 760'? I'm assuming the latter, since that's what is specified in the Major Image description, although this seems to conflict with Silent Image, upon which it is based.

Thanks in advance!

So I decided to do a complete reboot of Carowyn Manor to give my 8th level party more of a challenge. I love the danse macabre vibe of the original, but the map is just too darned small for my liking, particularly since I'll be adding more monsters. I've decided to use the excellent High Edgmoor Hall map from Heroic Maps, which, like the original, has lots of passageways and doors for Jolistina to flee down and circle around the Party, but also has more room for monsters to swarm them.

Speaking of which, solitary zombies just aren't going to cut it, and adding tons of individual zombies is just a pain for rolling dice and resolving combat. Unfortunately, the zombie horde is simply way too large to be useful, so I'm supplementing them with several "zombie swarms" (yes, I know swarm is usually reserved for fine, tiny, and diminutive creatures) each comprised of 8 zombies represented by a large pawn. They'll have similar, but substantially nerfed, attacks as the zombie horde. Plus all of the individual zombies have been turned into plague zombies for plot reasons, which is a good segue to my next idea.

The whole Ruan plot seems awfully thin to me. Instead, the very strategic sorcerer in my Party took Scrying as his 4th level spell in order to collect info on the NPCs they've been meeting. He's requested a sketch of Rolth from Vencarlo, who is hunting it down for him. (He has a very bad headache from the one time he tried to scry the Queen - he won't be trying that again!) Once he has it (probably from the Guard's investigation file on the Key Lock Killer), he will scry Rolth as he meets with Jolistina outside Carowyn Manor.

Rolth is using the manor as a test group for a new strain of the plague that has some success turning the deceased into plague zombies. Jolistina barred and terrorized the guests in the manor and infected some of them with the new strain of blood veil, then sat back and watched and made sure none of the guests escaped. Via the scrying, they will hear her reporting to Rolth on the spread and deadliness of the strain, and those guests that prove to be immune will eventually be taken to the Hospice of the Blessed Maiden for further study. If the Party acts quickly, they can save the remaining guests and perhaps encounter Rolth, although I want him to survive for the chapter finale at the Hospice. The encounter with Jolistina should play out much as anticipated in the module, although I've given her some additional sorcerer levels and spells, such as Create Pit and Web, to provide more of a challenge.

Please let me know if you have any suggestions. Really excited to see hows this all turns out!

So my group is about to go up against some vampire spawn, and I'm relishing the shock on their faces when I use Dominate Person against them. (They have big egos and need to be cut down to size occasionally - I don't actually want them dead!)

I've read other Dominate Person threads but I'm unclear on a couple of things. So the barbarian fails his save. I'm assuming the vampire spawn can immediately give a command (as a swift action?) for the barbarian to attack his allies, instead of waiting to the next round?

Since I would judge this against the barbarian's nature, does that immediately give him a second roll to save, or is the initial command considered part of the first save? Would he get a roll each round?

How well does he have to fight - would he have to use full attack, if possible, or would a single attack suffice? Just trying to judge the level of "resistance" he can put up or does he have to fulfill the command to the best of his ability?

Thanks in advance!

So, how do I keep my party from running amok in 7 Days to the Grave without being too heavy handed? They're very aggressive, and already tried to attack the Queen as she fled from the botched execution of Trinia. I can easily see them distrusting Davaulus and the Queen's Physicians on sight and deciding to track/monitor their comings and goings.

I like the overall plot, but I'm a little disappointed with most of the "middle missions" as they don't directly contribute to the story. I was hoping there would be more of an investigation, but only the Direption and Carowyn Manor missions seem to bear directly on the plot. The other three are basically filler missions for XP. My party is already at level 8 (they started "late" after already going through some other adventures) so it's not a big deal if they miss the unnecessary missions, but I also don't want them shortcircuiting the entire chapter and jumping straight to Hospice of the Blessed Maiden.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

Just wanted to confirm that Scorching Ray only affects 1 target per ray? One of my players believes it can affect multiple targets per ray if you can line them up in a row. Based on my reading of the spell, that's not the case:

"You blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously."

Am I missing anything here? Thanks!!

So, my Party is eagerly looking forward in knivesies in CotCT, in which the opponents have to fight on a table with one hand tied behind their backs. While one combatant will likely get the dagger placed between them, are there any suggestions for running one-armed combat maneuvers by the unarmed combatant? For example, if they try to grapple in order to move their opponent off the table, what's a reasonable penalty to the CMB, -2, -4, or is it possible at all? Are there maneuvers that would be unaffected, perhaps bull rush?

Just looking for ways to run this and make it exciting. Haven't run a lot of unarmed combat. Thanks in advance!

This is amazing news! I’d like to echo the call for AP maps as well. I realize that old ones are pretty low-res but you could for example commission high enough resolution maps for VTT for upcoming APs so that newer material sets a higher bar of VTT friendliness.

And to help mitigate the cost of commissioning the higher resolution maps, you could charge folks for the AP VTT packages. I know I'd pay a reasonable fee for something like this. Up to maybe $7.99 per AP book.

This could be a time to make sure the maps also matched up with the dimensions in the AP text and the creatures supposedly within the maps. I.e. No 5 large creatures in a 10x20 room.

CrimsonKnight wrote:

An AP on exploration. expanding the world

lots of encounters with beasts magical and otherwise. skills like cartography and survival playing a big part. another option would be like around the world in X days: a competition with glimpses in all sorts of locations with fights, troubles, mysteries, and puzzles along the way.

I think the around the world in X days would be fun. Especially if the party was in a friendly competition with another adventuring party, like Nellie Bly was with Elizabeth Bisland, although finding the magic Sail of Spirits or fixing the Axle of Ever-spinning three times might become a bit boring.

Oh, a race around the globe! Getting to pick a track with a bunch of set encounters set around and some "roaming encounters". Could be set up sandbox style similar to Kingmaker but with much larger "hexes" to which encounters would be encountered. As they gain levels, they get magic or better traveling technology. Including perhaps steampunky zeppelins (airships) and things like that. This could be super fun.

I still suspect there were already expanded options in the AP. Seems like there would have needed to be to make the police part work.

Those were overridden by the blanket "no lethal damage" in the Guide.

But I agree that part of my problem with the Guide's rule is that it does allow the cop heroes to go on just as in any adventure, acting exactly as they would in any other AP, just not having to worry about killing anything.

At some point though, you have to put the onus on how this plays out on the GMs and Players. Regardless how many unique sub-systems they create or campaign rules they choose to use for this AP, if players and GM's see certain problematic behaviors as "no big deal", that's what they are going to do. And even if they choose to use the most restrictive rule in the sidebar, you are going to have players making characters designed to do massive amounts of non-lethal damage that (at least in 1st edition) are still capable of killing fairly easily.

And yes I do assume, or rather hope a 21st century mindset and morals is the default. I don't want to play with any more "that's just how it was back then".

And therein lies the social contract you make with the groups you choose to associate with. You get to choose what sort of people you want to game with.

But first, I do want to apologize when I speak of 21st century morality, I was not referring to horrible treatment of women, LGBTQIA+, or various ethnicities. I was quite glad to see the 2nd edition Lost Omens go more towards slavery just being evil to be defeated rather than something that exists in polite company.

What I meant by 21st century morality, is more the argument about trying to apply due process and 21st century law and order to what is essentially a collection of feudal societies in various states of authoritarianism, plutocracy, and fledgling democracy. And that may not be what you meant when you say 21st century morality.

I prefer though, to say that the fantasy dressing of the 18th Century France/French Revolution Galt, Pulp/Steampunk/Monster Ustalav, etc. overcomes much of the subjugation and punching down morality in our real history. In a fantasy world, women get to be heroes, leaders, etc. Much like what we see in Once Upon A Time (Regina, Snow, Emma, etc.), Red Sonja, Star Wars (Leia, Rey), etc. I don't consider that 21st century morality. I consider that one of the positive fantasy tropes that gets overlayed on the period and genre settings.

Sorry for the confusion.

Tallow wrote:

Golarion most certainly is a period-specific setting. Or rather, various different regions are different period-specific areas. This is not like its an analog of 21st century earth with fantasy trope dressing. The fact that Galt is the analog for the French Revolution, then it reasonably follows both the 18th Century France morality and French Revolution sub-genre morality along with fantasy trope dressings genre morality and Galt-specific sub-genre morality would be the default. Not 21st century morality. Andoran would be more akin to post-Revolution through Antebellum period US. Ustalav would be akin to pulp-style, 1930's-1950's monster genre, and maybe some steampunk (Verne-esque, Gas Light England/Victorian period, Dr Frankenstein/Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hide style) tropes. Which is certainly not 21st century morality. I'd be hard put to find the 21st century morality analog anywhere within the varying different genres that Golarion presents.

Dangerous to the verisimilitude of the game you are playing. Anytime I'm playing in a game and the GM or players demand that I apply 21st century morals to the fantasy, period-specific setting, I usually end up opting out of the group. Because If I wanted to roleplay with 1st century morality, I'd play a game which was set in the late 20th to early 21st century and in an earth or near-earth setting. When you start overlaying an inanalogous morality onto a game that is set in the analog of a time period or genre, you threaten to bring your players out of that setting and offer chances for there to be more arguments about alignment and morality than just everyone agreeing on the setting you are playing in. If your play group defaults to 21st century, great. But please don't assume this should be, or is the default for what I'm assuming will be a vast majority of roleplayers.

Do you think the vast majority of players have more than the vaguest idea of what 18th century French morality was like? Maybe French Revolution subgenre morality - but that in...

Players may not know exactly what those moralities were. But they certainly know the world was not 21st century morality. That's the main takeaway. Trying to pidgeonhole 21st century morality into period settings tends to cause more argument than not at the table, in my experience. YMMV.

Tallow wrote:

Rysky wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

Finally, we are trying to layer 21st century irl morality and international law onto a fantasy campaign that has neither.

Golarion very much does have a 21st century morality. Perhaps a bit beyond that in all honesty.

I know you and I agree on a lot, but this is not one of those things. I do recall in years past we've had quite a few arguments on this specific topic. I think its dangerous to overlay 21st century morality on a period-specific genre-specific setting. Morality germane to the setting should be more akin to the period-specific and genre-specific settings as you correlate them to a similar time-period in the real world. In this case, somewhere between 2,000 B.C. and the Renaissance.

As always, in your personal circle of friends and/or gaming group, you all tacitly sign a social contract to adhere to a common morality, and if that group wants to overlay 21st century morality over Golarion, then you are not wrong to do so. But claiming that is the demonstrable default is kinda a disingenuous supposition.

1) Golarion is not a "period specific" setting.

2) How is it "dangerous"?

Golarion most certainly is a period-specific setting. Or rather, various different regions are different period-specific areas. This is not like its an analog of 21st century earth with fantasy trope dressing. The fact that Galt is the analog for the French Revolution, then it reasonably follows both the 18th Century France morality and French Revolution sub-genre morality along with fantasy trope dressings genre morality and Galt-specific sub-genre morality would be the default. Not 21st century morality. Andoran would be more akin to post-Revolution through Antebellum period US. Ustalav would be akin to pulp-style, 1930's-1950's monster genre, and maybe some steampunk (Verne-esque, Gas Light England/Victorian period, Dr Frankenstein/Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hide style) tropes. Which is certainly not 21st century morality. I'd be hard put to find the 21st century morality analog anywhere within the varying different genres that Golarion presents.

Dangerous to the verisimilitude of the game you are playing. Anytime I'm playing in a game and the GM or players demand that I apply 21st century morals to the fantasy, period-specific setting, I usually end up opting out of the group. Because If I wanted to roleplay with 1st century morality, I'd play a game which was set in the late 20th to early 21st century and in an earth or near-earth setting. When you start overlaying an inanalogous morality onto a game that is set in the analog of a time period or genre, you threaten to bring your players out of that setting and offer chances for there to be more arguments about alignment and morality than just everyone agreeing on the setting you are playing in. If your play group defaults to 21st century, great. But please don't assume this should be, or is the default for what I'm assuming will be a vast majority of roleplayers.

TwilightKnight wrote:

Finally, we are trying to layer 21st century irl morality and international law onto a fantasy campaign that has neither.

Golarion very much does have a 21st century morality. Perhaps a bit beyond that in all honesty.

I know you and I agree on a lot, but this is not one of those things. I do recall in years past we've had quite a few arguments on this specific topic. I think its dangerous to overlay 21st century morality on a period-specific genre-specific setting. Morality germane to the setting should be more akin to the period-specific and genre-specific settings as you correlate them to a similar time-period in the real world. In this case, somewhere between 2,000 B.C. and the Renaissance.

As always, in your personal circle of friends and/or gaming group, you all tacitly sign a social contract to adhere to a common morality, and if that group wants to overlay 21st century morality over Golarion, then you are not wrong to do so. But claiming that is the demonstrable default is kinda a disingenuous supposition.

On the non-lethal rules. As a GM, I like for things to make sense. And just changing all damage to non-lethal doesn't make sense. However, I do like the idea that the police would be required to use non-lethal force.

So the idea is, that all character training and backgrounds leading up to being in the city watch, would come from police academy training. I'm not up on 2nd edition, so not sure if these are things (yet?) But options could be strongly encouraging choosing weapons that don't take penalties to do non-lethal (blunt weapons) or offering a feat or trait that allows them to do non-lethal without penalty. Or perhaps non-lethal is the default and they take a -2 to do lethal damage. Because its all about how they are being trained. You could even switch up the weapon categories, where any weapon that traditionally does lethal damage becomes exotic and requires an exotic weapon proficiency feat to use. Its all about the training and how the character was trained.

Furthermore, all spells are modified to do non-lethal damage. That's how the spells are created and work. And you can even come up with different names for them. Like heat ball instead of fireball. And if they find a badguy wizard's spellbook, they might be able to learn fireball, with the understanding that using it could get the fired from the watch and executed for breaking the code. Perhaps because its nonlethal, the reason why heatball is still a 3rd level spell is because it does 1d8/cl instead of 1d6 or whatever.

Sure, that causes a fair amount of extra work by the GM, but it allows the non-lethal damage from the PCs to make sense within both the verisimilitude of the story, and the meta of the game rules themselves.

Finally, badguys don't have this restriction, because this isn't about the rules simply saying, "everything is non-lethal" but rather, "all watch are specifically trained as non-lethal combatants, so that's the default player characters start with."

...this opera-star-turned-ninja concept ...

I am so making this the next new campaign I get to play in.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The one bit of advice I was looking for that I didn't see is "what if some people want to play officers, and some people don't?" As in, how do you handle a mixed party here? How to adjust the narrative for having both Starsky & Hutch and Nick & Nora Charles in the Party?

Play at the comfort level that allows everyone to have fun. Discuss it with your players, and adjust your solution if actual play becomes uncomfortable.

Well yeah, but a little practical advice on mixing the two would be useful, since there are practical ways the adventures will need to change.

At first glance, I don't see a good way to do it - maybe making the non-cop characters consultants or something? A "party" of officers doing their jobs and concerned citizens trying to help out isn't going to work too well.

Its quite simple really. As the GM you tell the players that you will be playing the most restrictive version of this based on player request, where the minority (even one) gets to choose.

Frankly, that's how gaming groups who actually give two figs about their friends should be playing their games anyways, instead of making the one or two people with more sensitivities to play uncomfortably.

My opinion, is just like its difficult for parents to cook two meals based on child food wants (no, NUGGETS!), its nearly impossible to run two different campaigns based on different player sensitivities, and when you try to allow for all attitudes to play in the same game, that's when you wind up with inter-player conflict when players get made at one another because the Paladin won't allow the Rogue to torture a hobgoblin for information.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

So again, I have to wonder, what big historical changes have been driven by centrism, not causing a fuss, and quietly hoping people in power will just one day become better people?

Because every major progressive movement victory has protesting, rioting and civil disobedience to drive the change. Read a history book.

Okay, first centrism means someone who takes policies from right and them left. Centrism doesn't mean fence sitting. For example, I've always agree with same sex marriage and adoption rights, does that make me a leftist suddenly?

Second, please, don't mix civil disobedience and protest with rioting. Perhaps I am being simplistic, but rioting implies the use of force and violence and that legitimizes the use of force against you in the eyes of the spectator. If anything its poor tactics. I would recommend you read Rules for Radicals or watch a video about it if you are short on time.

Humbly,
Yawar

That's not actually what centrism is.

centrism

In politics, centrism is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right.

That sounds a lot like me to, "keep things as they are."

And when discussing centrism in regards to the spectrum of left/right, you are talking about the median of voters, policies, and politicians. In other words, today's centrism is roughly Reagan-level conservatism and policy, where centrism during Reagan's time was more along Elizabeth Warren's actual policies (not what she tried to sign onto with all the socialist democracy stuff).

The point is, calling yourself a centrist doesn't mean, in common political parlance, what you are saying it means.

Its literally sitting in the exact median of the Far Left and Far Right, and that line shifts over the years and decades. Right now, the Centrist seat sits rather closer to GOP conservatism of Reagan than it did during the Reagan years. Because the GOP and conservative politics has really, drastically, gone far right, where many of the current GOP ideals and platform would have been considered freakishly right-wing in the 1980's.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The vast majority of people arrested weren’t arrested for rioting, they were arrested for protesting.

Again, source please. As far as I know protesting is legal in the USA. However, if they are facing false charges for rioting, a Legal Defense Fund might be even more useful since the Public Defender system sometimes leaves much to be desire.

Have you actually been paying attention? And not just to Fox News? There was a violin vigil done in a park that the police used pepper spray on. That's hardly rioting.

People were getting arrested for not moving away from certain areas fast enough when they were marching or protesting. The charge was disorderly conduct. So they weren't technically arrested for protesting, as you say, that isn't a thing. But they weren't doing anything else but protesting, peacefully, and got arrested under some trumped up charge, simply because they were protesting the police.

YawarFiesta wrote:

However, defunding the police will bring mob rule and lynching as it always happens when there is no police.

It may be worth doing a bit of reading in regard to how police responses to lynchings in the early C19th US "solved" that problem.

See also the Lynwood Vikings and recent case of Robert Fuller: this is not a purely historical or theoretical matter.

Not to mention, actually doing some research into what "defunding the police" actually means and the programs that will replace it. If all you are doing is hearing, "defund the police," and immediately assume, "that means there will be vast swaths of anarchy and lawlessness," then you are doing yourself and everyone you communicate with a vast disservice.

I mean main reason why 3d combat is hard in pathfinder is stuff like "okay, diagonal squares take different amount of feet to move through than other ones" so it becomes harder to visualize the 3d space you move through and how much movement it takes. Its not really that 3d combat even in normal tabletop is inherently impossible to do, its that it requires tools and rules to make it clearer than 2d combat if you aren't using theater of the mind.

(flying and underwater combat are really same difficulty wise, especially if you get attacked while flying)

My group has famously used the Pythagorean Theorem to figure distances when doing 3D combat. And you treat Up/Down movement the same as lateral movement as far as squares go as long as you figure every small/medium creature takes up a 5' cube and large takes up 10' cube, etc.

FallenDabus wrote:

Tallow wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Green Eyed Liar wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Just popping in to say a "Disney Princess AP," as an elevator pitch for a campaign, is rad.

We could absolutely do this.

And it's not like so many of the stories Disney made movies out of are their stories. All of Grimms' Fairy Tales are in the public domain.

This is pretty much how I view Jade Regent.

You have now made me desperately want a Tian Xia fairytale AP.

NB: fairies and fairy-stories are a distinctively European folklore. Simply transplanting them elsewhere risks misrepresenting "elsewhere" as similar to Europe and erasing "elsewhere's" uniqueness.

I think he was using "fairytale" ubiquitously as folklore tale.

If by "he" you mean James, yes. If you mean Keftiu, you should be using she.

I will also put my hat in the ring for a planar AP that starts, stays, and ends on the planes.

I appreciate that. And I was using “fairytale” as a shorthand for “a massive untapped wealth of folktales and myth, not least of which wuxia,” which is tough to type on a phone.

I apologize for misgendering.

Obligation? No. But when you admit to a particular, problematic style of mistake that leads to problematic content decisions, then it obviously leads to the question.

How are you planning to deal with that concern in the future?

They don't need to lay out an entire itinerary and such. But at least some sort of reaction or response ensuring they are working on steps to help would be nice.

I guess this essay by one of few black people in the gaming industry, Mike Pondsmith from R Talsorian game, the author of worryingly current Cyberpunk RPG, could open a white eyelid or two.

I've been reading a lot of accounts like this from BIPOC people, some of whom I know personally and are friends of mine. Maybe an account like this from a well-respected gamer community icon will enlighten gamers who are still clinging to the "old way." I've also read the account he linked to before; the one from the ex-corrupt cop.

Ixal wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ixal wrote:

Some cops really are like on the screen, both good and bad, most are just doing their job.

What makes you think that?

Personal experience not influenced by twitter and other social media which try to push public opinion in one direction or the other + common sense when comparing the statistics of incidents during police contacts with the total amount of police contacts each day.

How representative do you think your personal experience is?

The last interaction I had with a cop was lovely. He pulled me over for speeding and was terribly apologetic that the statute in our state takes away his discretion and that he had to write me a ticket even though he’d rather let me off with a warning. We chatted about local life, he admired my car and he wished me safe travels. He didn’t say “Nice car...is it yours?” I had no fear for my safety when he pulled me over. He didn’t search it, run my registration, examine my license or check it was mechanically sound. In short, it was exactly the kind of interaction everyone should have (and it was exactly what I expected).

Sadly, that’s not the standard experience for many black people. Maybe they’re just unlucky, I’m the statistical norm and as you assert “most cops are just doing their job”. There is an alternative explanation though. You don’t want to question your assumptions? (How much “comparing of statistics” have you actually done? The stats I’ve seen don’t look rosy).

Let us also consider that guilt by association is a valid thing in the eye of perception. It might not get you landed behind bars, or legally be wrong (unless its directly assisting a crime), unless of course your association is with a demographic that is systemically policed against.

In this case, there is a solidarity among most police officers, that they remain silent. Its a culture of "no snitching". So if you see an associate doing something wrong, or even dangerous, and you don't speak up or stop it, aren't you complicit in that action? In this case, the idea that there are only a few bad cops and the majority are good... If the "good" cops aren't ousting the bad cops from their ranks (or at least doing their best to rehabilitate), then aren't they tacitly approving of the poor actions? And if they are tacitly approving of the bad cops, doesn't that in turn make them bad cops?

To bring us back to the conversation about why this seems to be such a hot-button topic:

Anything that through our common modern media has been romanticized, tends not to be a hot button topic. Pirates, medieval, sword & sorcery, etc. has been romanticized in literature and film for far longer than the Pirates of the Caribbean have been a thing. Its why those movies have been able to be popular. Sure, pirates were, by-and-large, horrible people. And medieval times were pretty awful to live in as far as quality of life (at least as far as we consider what is comfortable living.)

The reason why a police-centric theme is a hot-button topic, and a hard one to swallow, is because of how demonized police are in our society right now. Because its happening RIGHT NOW. Its also a situation in which our society hasn't figured out how exactly to deal with it yet. We are all kinda on this edge of a precipice wondering what our police force is going to look like in 10 years and whether its going to get cleaned up in how it treats BIPOC. And its affecting everyone, so its not something we can easily ignore and stick to the romanticized buddy cop and cop drama tropes we are all so familiar with from film and TV shows.

If we were in a world where piracy was a primary concern, playing a pirate centered game might not be real appealing.

So yes, a large reason why this particular AP's theme is unappealing to many, is because its a right now social issue with man, many nuanced variables that most of us are not equipped to parse, let alone do justice to portray positively without in some way being offensive.

James Jacobs wrote:

That'd require building in some extensive downtime elements tho the campaign, and would force some, if not all, of the players to invest in crafting. Not everyone's into that. A "return the items" Adventure Path will already not be something that a lot of folks are into, I suspect, as interesting and compelling as it is to me and others, and putting further restrictions on PC choices would make this an even riskier thing for us to tie up a six month adventure (or even a three month one) with.

This is EXACTLY the sort of story that I think would work better as a stand-alone adventure. There's a lot of adventures that would work better as stand-alones, even if said stand-alone were hundreds of pages long.

James, first of all, it is really awesome that you weigh in and give us insight like this. I really appreciate it, and communication like this and your live streams are part of why I love Golarion so much.

I agree that you don't want to limit players to only getting items from building them, but a couple of really cool items that can be built, combined with an NPC that could do the building, if convinced, could go a long way to mitigate the "you must have a master crafter to play this AP."

I also think it could be really cool to work against a subset of the pathfinder society, but it might be easier to have some terrible outsider monsters that also bring loot-worthy treasure in the tombs, (something like devils or other extra-dimensional contract bounty hunters) looking to either prevent the items' return or fulfill the curse/original threat.

I could see this working as a super dungeon instead of a AP as well, although I thought having long thematic downtime elements was something APs were looking to include in PF2? There could also be a fair bit of interesting social encounters of trying to get permission to be the ones to return the items to places where the locals might be a little hostile to the people who originally took them.

There are also some tropes that could be built into the adventure at strategic points that allows players to build toward unique iconic characters. Who hasn't read the Riftwar Saga and wanted to be Tomas wearing his Dragon Armor?

If the return of sacred artifacts in turn allowed the organization receiving the returned artifacts to reward the PCs with stuff. Or in the process of seeking out the secret, hidden Tomb of Branthenal to return his Gauntlets of Blasting to his corpse to stop a curse from sweeping over the countryside, the PCs save a mysterious nature spirit disguised as a merchant in distress, who rewards them with things. Or they manage to stumble across another ancient tomb and repository of power and after showing due deference to that tomb the ancience spirit of Bahamut's spokesperson grants each character an item from the hord.

These are ways where you can grant players "kits" of gear that turn them into the Dragon Paladin/Cavalier that Tomas became or the White Gold Ring that turned Thomas Covenant into the White Gold Wielder. A truly epic adventure that allows players to mold their characters into and around and become the story, rather than just being a conglomeration of the best stats and items that disjointedly shoehorns into the adventure.

I'd gobble this up like Mint Chocolate Chip!

Tallow wrote:

Wow, I honestly hope I never run into a group that's okay with acting out a rape fantasy. That really breaths life into the whole neckbeard negative stereotype of gamer dudes.

That’s partially the point. You won’t. Even most racists know they are and are comfortable with it. But, they generally know not to bring it to a public game like PFS because it’s not going to be welcome or tolerated. If they want to participate they have to stifle it. With a few exceptions of course. I’m not saying that OP is devoid of problem players. Just generally it’s not a problem. The places where it will come up most is places where it won’t matter. If you are an open racists then you’re probably playing like minded people. It is quite possible for there to be racial bigots in a lot of our gaming groups, but as long as they check it at the door, you may not even be aware of it.

Sure, but as I don't play PFS anymore (haven't really since the end of 2016), it would be home groups that I'd come across. And it sounded a lot like several posters were promoting the right of groups of players to play in whatever style they want to play. I know that we try our best to be inclusive and not say "badwrongfun". But I'm gonna say it.

Just like tabletop RPGs can help socially awkward people, shy, and people on the spectrum or with high levels of anxiety incorporate into a group of people in a positive manner, so to can such groups perpetuate hatred, bigotry, and negativity. If a group of people get together to roleplay in an echo chamber of misogyny, hatred, etc., how is that really any different than a club of people who think like that getting together to think like that?

Rysky wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

It has everything to do with you and your players sensitivities, or preferences, or however you wish to call them.

You don't speak for everyone, and some people may enjoy such dark plot points in their campaigns. They're not wrong for doing so, just as you're not wrong for disliking it.

If you as the GM or a player at the table spring a mind control and/or rape scenario on another character with out everyone's buy in that is 100% on you.

Consent is paramount, and just carte-blanche declaring [I]some[/I[] people like dark stuff doesn't make it all okay or permission to use it everywhere and anywhere.

Yes some people do, are those some people all the people at the table? It's your kink doesn't make it everyone's kink, nor does it mean such a topic shouldn't be treated carefully and seriously.

And...where exactly did I say you shouldn't get consent for this kind of stuff? Or use it all the time? Oh wait, I know: nowhere.

My issue was mostly at you saying this:

Rysky wrote:

In game if a character uses mind control to rape another character it's not a fun game.

It has nothing to do with my or my player's "sensitivities".

Because:

a) You don't get to declare what is and isn't fun for anyone, except yourself.

and

b) As I already said, it absolutely has to do with you and your player's sensitivities.

Because RPGs are all group activities, you should always speak to the group when it comes to...well, everything mostly, but especially stuff like this.

And if the whole group is ok with it and wants to partake, that's excellent. And if some people do and some don't, you either reach a compromise of some kind, or one of the sides leaves.

And everyone gets on with their lives.

Wow, I honestly hope I never run into a group that's okay with acting out a rape fantasy. That really breaths life into the whole neckbeard negative stereotype of gamer dudes.

Tallow wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

from james l. sutter's twitter account

Can we gloat now?

About what?

In the worst case scenario this is a very unfortunate story that delivers bad or mixed messages regarding the police. That's not something to celebrate.

There’s a degree of “everyone told us our concerns were hyperbole and now we have word from one of the writers that they were pretty much on the money.” Am I happy about it? Of course not. But a good chunk of this discussion has been people saying we were wrong to worry at all and there’s a bitter kind of vindication in seeing this.

If we say there’s a problem, and the writer says there’s a problem, then maybe everyone else can also admit there might be a problem...

Sure, however the comment, "Can we gloat now?" Is extremely tone deaf from someone who stands on their soapbox quite often in regards these issues. Like they cared more about winning the argument, than the issues the argument was over. That's called performative allyship, and isn't a good look.

I don't disagree. I hope you can understand where the frustration that motivates that sentiment comes from, even if it isn't a helpful one.

Certainly I do. But if you are going to proselytize being better, then it becomes hollow sentiment if you don't practice what you preach.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

from james l. sutter's twitter account

Can we gloat now?

About what?

In the worst case scenario this is a very unfortunate story that delivers bad or mixed messages regarding the police. That's not something to celebrate.

There’s a degree of “everyone told us our concerns were hyperbole and now we have word from one of the writers that they were pretty much on the money.” Am I happy about it? Of course not. But a good chunk of this discussion has been people saying we were wrong to worry at all and there’s a bitter kind of vindication in seeing this.

If we say there’s a problem, and the writer says there’s a problem, then maybe everyone else can also admit there might be a problem...

Sure, however the comment, "Can we gloat now?" Is extremely tone deaf from someone who stands on their soapbox quite often in regards these issues. Like they cared more about winning the argument, than the issues the argument was over. That's called performative allyship, and isn't a good look.

Tallow wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

Today police are universally, without exception, the armed thugs of capital which is everywhere without exception dependent upon exploitation.

No, just no

While I typically haven't agreed with zimmerwald1915's narrative lately, and the rhetoric is quite inflammatory, outright dismissing what they are saying, instead of engaging with what the reasons might be for why they feel that way, certainly does not help the general positive forwarding discourse on why #Blacklivesmatter needs to be a thing.

No, I’m not going to engage in conversation with someone who makes universally disgusting comments vilifying entire group of people just because they are mad at a few of them. Are some cops corrupt? Most certainly. And if what was said was “police are armed thugs” then we could all agree that the “not all” tag could reasonably be applied and therefore the statement would be arguably reasonable. However, that not what was said. “Universally, without exception” is not even close to being a reasonable statement. When someone makes such a claim (1) no, I am not going to let it stand and (2) no, I don’t owe that person anything anymore than a person who supports black lives matter owes a white supremist a general positive forwarding discourse.

But you did engage, in a dismissive way, by responding at all. If you truly find the comment that repulsive and don't want to engage, then don't. But posting up dismissive comments without any followup language does not help all the rest of us who are following the conversation. If you have a different viewpoint, then state it, so the rest of us can make an informed decision on who we feel best represents what's real and true. But when you just say, "No." You aren't just shutting down conversation with that person, you are making it exceedingly difficult for anyone else to engage and have a meaningful conversation.

Honestly, we know what sort of conversation to expect from different people when we've engaged with them long enough. You and I are no exception. And if we choose not to engage with that person, that's fine. That's an incredibly valid choice. We have to take care of our own mental health before we start worrying about what some nitwit on the internet said. But engaging in a negative and dismissive way is not helpful.

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

Today police are universally, without exception, the armed thugs of capital which is everywhere without exception dependent upon exploitation.

No, just no

While I typically haven't agreed with zimmerwald1915's narrative lately, and the rhetoric is quite inflammatory, outright dismissing what they are saying, instead of engaging with what the reasons might be for why they feel that way, certainly does not help the general positive forwarding discourse on why #Blacklivesmatter needs to be a thing.

Windjammer wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

The sheriff also explictly says "bring them in alive" and is not happy with PCs who don't do so.

Did the sheriff solicit pre-meditated killing as an option? Yes or no?

No, she absolutely does not. I'm not even sure where you're getting the impression from. Acknowledging that you might have to kill someone in self-defense is light-years away from saying that you should totally straight-up murder them.

Going in with the intent to bring a law-breaker and heinous mass-murderer, alive, but given the right to defend yourself, lethally if need be, is the exact opposite of justifying premeditated killing.

The nuance here, though, is whether the group of players use that as an excuse to just kill. Which, frankly, is often the case from my experience.

That is not the fault of the AP though, that is the fault of players who choose to be bloodthirsty hooligans instead of the upstanding citizens the AP assumes they are.

That's how I've read it too Shisumo.

I see. The new consensus is that a person about to be arrested by citizens screaming "Help me! These people are trying to kill me!" - without even exercising physical means of self-defense or trying to flee her home -is unlawfully resisting arrest and deserves to get killed.

With that kind of readership response, Edgewatch's plot lines should not pose any problems whatsoever.

Again, I think you are misrepresenting, for some reason, what's actually written in the text of the AP. And you just actively ignored the part where the Sheriff wants this person brought in alive.

Shisumo wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Yeah, I don't think police is synonymous with violence, or at least they shouldn't be :P

As has been noted elsewhere, to a certain extent the concept of law and therefore law enforcement is rooted in the threat of violence to be meted out against the violator of those laws. That said, while violence can never be fully removed from the toolbox of the state as a means to carry out its will, there's a pretty substantial spectrum of options one could theoretically employ before even nonlethal violence would have to be placed on the table.

You say that, but that is culture shock to me since while on some level that isn't wrong, its not how local police here is perceived(as "they COULD use non violent options, but don't" I mean), so the idea that any police force is perceived as violent thugs makes me wonder "Why are they allowed to exist? Police isn't supposed to be like that"

Like what kind of police goes for violent solutions as the first solution? :/ (well okay the fascist police or ones that behave like street gang :P Police having that type of reputation does explain to me why people hate the word itself, but its still really shocking to me)

I don't know if you are of the BIPOC community or not, so please take what I'm about to say in that context.

What you are saying is exactly what most white privileged people say, who are from predominantly white privileged neighborhoods. White people don't often view police in the same way as BIPOC people do, because our experiences are drastically and fundamentally different. This is food for thought.

I imagine the Heist AP could be written a couple ways:

1) Robin Hood-esque: Where the PCs are stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Probably starting in a small city district or hamlet (or fiefdom where they are doing mostly heists of transport carriages and perhaps the Lord Knight's Mott and Bailey keep. And eventually merge into needing to do the heists of the BBEG's domain to steal the powerful artifact he's going to use to own the world.

2) Morally Ambiguous: Where they are a group of morally questionable people doing heists for their own ambitions, and during one heist happen across something really nefarious and evil. Probably after shrugging about it, they keep heisting, but the evil knowing the PCs are a loose end, the BBEG commands his henchmen to take out the meddling rogues. So for self-preservation, the PCs have to continue conning and heisting their way to learning where, who, and what the BBEG really is, and then figuring out how to take him out in a really cool, well-staged heist/con.

A Heist or Espionage focused AP would be awesome!

I'd like an AP that surrounds picking a high level patron, convincing (or supporting) them to take the Test of the Star Stone, and then essentially building the trappings of church heirarchy. What they stand for, and who the enemies are.

For a First World AP, I think it would be pretty fun if the PCs flitted between the First World and the parts of Golarion where fey are prominent, taking the party across the inner sea. The Verduran Forest, various parts of the River Kingdoms, Axan Wood, IIRC there are a couple mountain ranges, etc.

The Fangwood in Nirmithas as well.

It could certainly be a way to revisit several locations already visited in other APs as well.

Paradozen wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Paradozen wrote:

I'd love to see an AP set in the Impossible Lands. There is a whole lot of cool stuff going on over there. Plus, fleshing out Oenopion is a great excuse to bring the Oozemorph to 2e.

Agreed.

Though I thought I heard that the person responsible for this region is no longer with Paizo and no one else is that interested in telling stories in their region? Shame if so.

I'm pretty sure the Impossible Lands (or at least Nex) is one of the corners of the world from Erik Mona. They're still with Paizo so we might see an AP there yet. Plus, Lost Omens Legends will have information on the wizards Nex and Geb (last I checked anyways), so that's nice.

Oh! Okay. Wonder which region I was thinking of. Eric does have a lot on his plate right now though.

Previously, various different creators, designers, developers, and publishers "owned" various countries or regions of Golarion. And that area of the planet was usually left alone, unless there was consultation with that person, so that any "plans" or "canon" would not get stepped upon. Which is why you didn't really see anything in Geb, Nex and not much in the Mana Wastes. But as Publisher, Erik Mona didn't have much time to actually write material, and so nothing got done in that region. Other areas had similar fates.

My understanding, as PF2 was getting off the ground, that regions were going to be detached from specific people, so that developers could work on any region. Although, this might have changed, and out of respect, many developers might still choose to stay away from Erik's region.

I understand the relevance of European colonization, but focusing only on that interaction to the exclusion of others is it's own form of white bias. After all most of us posting learned an Indo-European language as our first tongue and the shared cultural elements from the Yamnaya (or its close cousins from the Eurasian steppe) is very arguably way more of an impactful homogenizing event. Even less widespread conflicts are significant parts of local history. Assuming that modern European influence is the only trauma and issue needed to understand them really strips local ethnicities of agency and the importance of their own history prior to the Age of Discovery.

You could say that Genghis Khan also colonized a huge portion of the world, stretching from the China Sea, to parts of India, across Asia, and deep into Eastern Europe. While it wasn't necessarily the exact same type of colonization (in that it wasn't a rich, white man, exploiting the foreign lands for more wealth at the horrid expense of indigenous lives), it was still a conquering nation--so much so that 0.5% of the world's population (roughly 17 million) can trace their DNA to him.

Where is the best space for the discussion on paizo content being too white European focused that the OP and Zimmerwald seem to want to have ?

At this point its probably best moved to another thread. Almost everything that can be said has been said. It would be nice to see people respond with ideas for what the OP asked instead of sidetracking the conversation past the suggestion for what Zimmerwald wants to see. That's been done. No need to now hijack this thread for purposes of discussing the merits, ethics, and politics of his suggestion or what Paizo already does.

Depends. Some of the early and other side plots in APs feel very small. Especially if the players have characters tailored for the adventure, where sometimes they feel really disconnected while it's fetch quests and things.

Sure, if all the GM does is present them as fetch quests and unnecessary side things just to get folks experience or to fill out an adventure, its no wonder why players might feel disconnected. While I would prefer the authors/developers/editors to ensure that these side quests are tied more closely to the story either as a red herring or a foreshadowing of things to come, that's not always realistic to expect. And a GM who makes the NPCs behind these quests interesting and even recurring characters (even if they are just throw-away shop keepers within the AP), then the players can feel engaged and have fun regardless of how closely tied they are to the adventure itself. Why? Because you are directly creating fun character relationships that the players get to explore and have fun with throughout the story.

I'm not going to say that all APs are flawless. They clearly aren't. But even a bad adventure can be made fun if the GM puts in the effort to do so. If the GM just runs the script, then even the most engaging and fun adventure can be a slog though.

thejeff wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Perhaps it shows that they're trying to have a world that matches a lot of fantasy genre fiction (of different flavors in different places so they can tell different stories), rather than making some ideological point? Glossing over a lot of the horrors of real world history, while keeping some in place to play with.

Not that they think capitalist monarchies are the ideal form of society, but that monarchical trappings are a mainstay of fantasy stories.

. . . They literally restored a Romanov. You can't get much more on-the-nose about your ideological orientation.

Put another way, "why not both?"

Also, admitting that you're whitewashing for the sake of some other goal doesn't make the whitewashing something else.

And therefore what: Paizo developers are monarchists? They believe in the divine right of kings? Why does this say anything about "ideological orientation"? One can enjoy fantasy stories in medieval kingdoms and still not want to live in a real one.

There’s also the commercial reality. They need to produce what they think they can sell as well as what they’re interested in.

And part of appealing to a wider audience is offering that wider audience more representation within the story. As a Gen X, Cis-Het White Dude, I don't know what it feels like to never read a book, comic book, see a movie, or TV show without seeing someone that looks or feels like me. But I do know that I've heard many folks who are either POC or don't identify the same as me gender or sexuality-wise saying that they had a hard time getting into sci-fi/fantasy or comic books because they didn't see someone that represented them (side note: Its why spiderman became so ubiquitous and popular amongst the nerd culture.)

So I have no issue with Paizo choosing to show a wider representation within their published works so as to include more people who are different than me in their fandom and this hobby. One way to get sales is to also find a wider market for those sales.

What really chaps me, is the comment using "representation" as a pejorative and using "verisimilitude" as a way to justify this view. What I garner from that, is the reviewer wants to only adventure in a world that represents them. They can't conceive of a fictional world that doesn't look like the history of the real world or don't find it enjoyable to play in that fictional world. They like the idea of being misogynistic, racist, and/or homophobic, even if on a subtle, inferred, or undercurrent level, within their game. Because somehow, without the Patriarchy of heterosexuals, the world doesn't seem realistic to them.

My take, is that Paizo is trying to have a world where anyone, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, or anything else, can be a leader of people. And that's awesome!

Tallow wrote:

I think we are really starting to narrow down the specific issues in transition between books.

.

Yeah, for me, to get what I was hoping for from this Thread, I'd love to see some posts really detailing a few specific cases in individual AP volumes. (I had to not-read the Council of Thieves posts because it, along with HR and HV, are the ones I can't have spoilers to.)

And then, looking at those cases, see if it's really true at all and how significant or insignificant a problem it is.

I've only run* Kingmaker and Ironfang Invasion, and played* Reign of Winter and Skulls and Shackles.

*I've done bits and pieces, mostly of book 5 and 6 for PFS, of Rise of the Runelords, Shattered Star, Jade Regent, Iron Gods, & Giantslayer and I played through book 2 of Carrion Crown as an AP. So none of these are really APs I can speak to in regards to transition.

Kingmaker: The transition between book 1 and 2 was the most seamless. Book 2 and 3 was maybe a little jarring, since the entire book more or less had nothing to do with the overall metaplot except for I think a couple kingdom events (which were like secondary and tertiary side encounters). Book 3 to 4 also had some issues in transition and book 4 to 5 kinda did, but it actually made sense. Book 6 tied it all together so its transition was fine. But what tied it all together was doing the Kingdom Building, and as long as exploration and expansion was the focus of the adventure, then the jarring transitions were mitigated almost entirely. I can imagine if you played without that aspect and just played the story, with the kingdom stuff in the background, the GM would have had to work hard on the transitions. I did not have to work hard on them.

Skulls & Shackles: I've only played the first 3 books, and the transitions are pretty good as it follows the natural progression of shanghai'd slaves to pirate lords without missing much of a beat (at least through book 3, no idea if this trend continues.) The only issues I had were the sub-games in book 1 and 2 became monotonous. Book 3 rocked.

Reign of Winter: I've played through book 5, and the central conceit of the entire AP makes the transitions fine. They would be jarring if the players don't buy into this central conceit. But with buy-in to the central conceit, the transitions make perfect sense and work very well. Each book is entirely and incredibly different from the last (with the exception of book 1 & 2), and without the central conceit, they would literally be 6 separate adventures barely stitched together with any cohesion. But it actually works really well, because of the reason why they are so drastically different.

I feel like, perhaps (and I'm kinda speaking out of turn, because I'm assuming) the reason some transitions are seen as faulty, is because the developer did not devise a cool tool by which to help the GM transition from story to story smoothly.

No s!&~.

If someone is spouting hateful nonsense like that their credibility is already in the gutter, whatever other points and their attempt at validity are swept away.

Agreed. I'm not going to waste my time listening to someone who is full-on bigotry. Even if some of their points are valid, I tune them out entirely.

Another Council of Thieves inconsistency (no spoiler is necessary here):
The biggest reason this AP is held in such low regard ist failed expectations. From the start it seems, the PCs have a chance to strike against House Thrune. If the beginning of the campaign would have concentrated on themes like "Make Westcrown Great Again" or "We are Batman" the reviews would have been much more favorable, because then the expectations would have met the outcome of the AP.

I think we are really starting to narrow down the specific issues in transition between books that W E Ray initially spoke about, when they are written by different authors. In many cases, an author of an earlier book might make unintentional promises that never get realized because it wasn't in the outline/adventure skeleton assignments handed to the authors by the developer. This is why more comprehensive collaboration is important, in my opinion.

I mean, I agree that GM advice of "If players make a really long deduction that they are proud of, you can change things so its true so that players feel happy about being right" can be good idea, but it can also be good idea to let players sometimes just be wrong about their assumption.

I think its a long-time trope/inside joke, "Hey, don't say that, you'll give the GM ideas!"

I do, though, enjoy with player assumptions in creating encounters or side adventures that were never intended.

I think that was sort of what Tallow was getting at, but I wouldn't consider it an egregious example. I've sat down to tables and heard GM comments like "well this isn't a very good scenario" and variations multiple times before we even begin. It is really obnoxious, when you realize the GM is basically saying right off the bat we are here to have fun, but it ain't going to happen.

I think a large part of it is a lack of self awareness about how deeply enmeshed 'Comicbook Guy' attitudes are among players and the perpetual meta critiquing.

How easy it was to change this was really made clear to me a few years ago. I played 9-02 at GenCon and I had the worst GM in society play I ever experienced. He clearly did not know Pathfinder rules well, had very low GM skills in general, and I don't think he had any clue about actual PFS rules since he broke about half of them. The scenario itself does not have a good reputation on top of that. As luck would have it I was assigned to GM that scenario at a con about a month later. After actually reading the scenario I could see there were some potentially confusing points, and it was an oddly philosophical scenario. But partially because my experience was so bad I was motivated to give my players a fair shot at enjoying the scenario. All I had to do was decide ahead of time how to handle the rough spots and both of my tables went off just fine. I didn't hear a single complaint, and all it really took was the right attitude.

Exactly! This is exactly my point.

There is one scenario I point to specifically, that while PFS was going, came out as the Season 3 special "Cyphermage Dilemma". The previous Season 2 special was pretty good, and the Season 4 special rocked. But this was just a really odd choice to make the special. It was not a very well written scenario. And yet, as a Venture-Officer at the time (the only ones allowed to run them for 1 year), I ran this one 5 or 6 times (a couple of which were at conventions.) I've had players tell me that they stuck around PFS because of that scenario. I've had brand new players signed up to play after running it for them. Why? Because I did what I could to make it fun for the players. I didn't have to rewrite or change anything. I just approached it with a good attitude and really allowed the players to succeed with nifty plans and roleplayed the badguys in a keystone cop way and it turned out to just be a ball of laughs and fun.

It can be the worst thing in the world, and if you want your players to have fun, don't tell them that during or before play.

Rysky wrote:

Necromancers aren’t required for undead, plenty (and most) just spontaneously arise on their own :3

Fifteen dwaves died. Five rose as undead. That is an extremely high reanimation rate for spontaneous reanimation.

** spoiler omitted **

The high rate of dead dwarves rising as undead persuaded my players that the remains of torture were evidence of a necromantic ritual.

And if I declared aloud to my players,...

Tallow wrote:

Some GMs vocally complain about the problems with the AP during play, which as a player I hate. Don't tell me what sucks, just do what you need to do to make it enjoyable.

So all you're asking is that the GM does unpaid adventure-writing work on your behalf, and that they do it better than the professional adventure writer did, and that they never let you know they're doing it so you don't have to be grateful to them?

As a GM and published adventure author who does just all of that, I don't expect my GMs to do any more than I do myself.

But if they aren't prepared to run an adventure to such a degree that issues within it catch them so off guard that they take valuable play time to complain and moan about the terribleness of the adventure, then that's not a GM I want to play with.

You don't need to be a published or experienced adventure writer to figure out how you are going to handle such a poor writing situation while you run it for your players. Because presumably you spent more than 5 minutes reading that and know what the issues are, and can easily figure out what you are going to do so your players will enjoy it.

An example would be a horse stable that has several 5' x 10' stalls and the monsters inside are all large without actually enough room to all fit in that building let alone fight in the building. So as a GM you just either make the stables larger or the creatures medium-sized instead.

Another example would be if there is a huge plot hole that doesn't make much sense, and as a GM you don't have time to write the filler bit. Just don't talk about it during play. Likely the players aren't going to even catch that there is a plot hole, because there are tons of things players aren't privy to that the GM is when playing the game. So you even bringing up that there is this gaping hole is only going to bring it to the player's attention and help them not enjoy the adventure. Almost zero effort. Actually, more effort would go into complaining during play than just doing nothing about the plot hole.

Not sure why you acted all offended by that comment.

Billy Buckman wrote:

If all APs have one unavoidable, fundamental disconnect it's this: the PCs don't exist. They are faceless entities in the published volumes, and the AP only has enough room to give you a handful of ideas and possibilities. Connecting your weird band of freaks to the world of the AP is the connective tissue that helps bridge potential gaps or lulls in the narrative across the 6 books, imo.

I don't see that as a disconnect so much as a golden opportunity for a GM to take the story we provide and customize it to their specific group. That's the whole point of a tabletop RPG, I think, and the primary advantage that it continues to have over computer RPGs.

Without this "disconnect" it's just a story that you read to yourself or friends.

THIS! I think one of the reasons my players enjoy my running of Kingmaker as much as they do, is because I've done my best to adapt the story to not just the characters, but also the players. It also doesn't help that they love resource management (which surprised me). So much so, that one player who's a coder created a pretty complicated online app (with a hex map and everything) to track all the kingdom building stuff.

Also, I wanted to comment one one of W E Ray's comments about Kingmaker.

I think one thing that would be helpful (and probably happened more to a certain extent on the APs that have the best transitions), is to ensure that your authors collaborate with one another. I seem to recall Thursty holding court at Paizo Con many times talking about collaborating with other authors and making sure something he wanted to do would fit with what the other author was doing (or seeing if that other author could add a paragraph or two) so his thing would make more cohesive sense.

When writing in a shared world, writing in isolation is likely to ensure the most difficult of transitions from one adventure to another. I imagine though, different authors, with the infinite number of writing methodology they use, it may be more or less difficult to quickly and comprehensively collaborate with one another.

But if I had one bit of advice for Paizo, it would be to ensure that their authors do more collaboration on a distinctly comprehensive level to ensure that the story threads remain cohesive.

I doubt Paizo will give you an official ruling on this, because it shouldn't need an official ruling. There is no ruling that once you lose an ability from one source that no other source can possibly give it back to you.

The GM is flat out wrong.