Search Posts
The Kineticist from Rage of Elements is on Dyslexic Character Sheets now, along with the usual haul of fixes and little improvements. https://www.dyslexic-charactersheets.com/build/pathfinder2 I'm glad I got that done before starting on the Remaster...
Dyslexic Character Sheets now has character sheets for the Pathfinder 2e version of Kingmaker, with pages for kingdoms, settlements and armies. https://www.dyslexic-charactersheets.com/ This release also has some bug fixes and additions, such as the Pine Leshy heritage from the Quest for the Frozen Flame adventure path.
The latest release of Dyslexic Character Sheets includes:
Get it here:
After more than a year working on it, I've finally released some massive new features: These features are for patrons only. You'll need to subscribe (at the $1 minimum rate) and log in using your Patreon account to get the benefits. Full editing has been the #1 requested feature in all the years I've been building these. It was only made possible because of the way the new Pathfinder 2e sheets are built - which, sadly, means it doesn't apply the Pathfinder 1e, Starfinder or D&D 3.5e character sheets. While these new features are only for patrons, the character sheets themselves are as free as they always have been. Accessibility features and translations are also free. For a breakdown of exactly what's free and what's reserved, see the Patrons page. (*) Not all the classes and archetypes are fully calculated yet, but most of them should be.
Our tabletop games are increasingly 3D. We have 3D VTTs with 3D animated maps, 3D printed miniatures, and of course we roll 3D dice. But we're still using the same flat old 2D character sheets we've had since the 1970s! It's time for that to change. Dyslexic Character Sheets is proud to give you a special preview of the first ever 3D character sheet...
There isn't as much third-party material for PF2e as there was for PF1e, but we're starting to see some good things. What are your favourite ancestries and heritages; classes and subclasses; archetypes?
I allocated a nice big shelf to Pathfinder 2e rule books and adventure paths, and it's now full. You can stop publishing new stuff now, Paizo.
The Gunslinger and Inventor classes are now available from Dyslexic Character Sheets, along with multiclass etc. https://www.dyslexic-charactersheets.com/build/pathfinder2 Next I'm turning my attention to ancestries.
Character sheets for the two new classes from Secrets of Magic -- the Summoner and the Magus -- are now available. https://www.dyslexic-charactersheets.com/build/pathfinder2 Includes all the Magus's Hybrid Studies and the Summoner's Eidolons, on top of the many options available from Dyslexic Character Sheets.
I've just published an absolutely enormous update to Dyslexic Character Sheets, including: And a whole load more features and fixes. Get yours at dyslexic-charactersheets.com
The list of firearms in the playtest is pretty short, and they all fit an era where guns were clunky, unique, and unreliable. Something I'm hoping to see in the final book is guidance on firearms from different eras. Paizo's primary focus is, of course, the Lost Omens setting. That's entirely understandable, but it's not the only setting people play. Adventure Paths and homebrew settings often involve eras of firearms that are quite distinct from the culture of Golarion. For example... Spoilers for Reign of Winter:
The Reign of Winter adventure path book 5, Rasputin Must Die, takes the party to Russia in the winter of 1918, with era-specific weaponry including rifles and grenades. In my own games, I'd like to be able to run adventures in something like a musketeers era, or a Napoleonic era. I understand that there need to be barriers to stop players taking an AK-47 into a medieval setting. But I hope that doesn't mean uncommon firearms are left out of the book entirely.
The Community Use Package still has very little for 2nd edition in it. One of the most definitive logos for PF2e is the one in the top-right corner of every book cover that says "Second Edition". It's important to avoid confusion between editions and clearly state what system a given book or product is compatible with. So are we allowed to use that logo, or something like it, as part of a product under the community use policy?
My players just started playing Plaguestone, and already they're appreciating the depth of a bigger adventure over the one-shot PFS scenarios. It's likely we'll be taking the same characters from this adventure onto the next - and only - other PF2 adventure available, The Slithering. Plaguestone takes them to level 4, and The Slithering starts at Level 5, so there's room for some adventures in between. Almost any of the PFS scenarios could fit in there, but I'm more concerned with their justification for travelling so far. While I could, as GM, just say "You're now in Kibwe", I think they'd prefer if it happened naturally as part of an ongoing story. The adventures do have elements in common, in the form of oozes, so my first thought is that something in Vilree's lair tells them of a connection that leads them to Kibwe. Was Vilree working for the Aspis Consortium? Was she involved in the creation of the Slithering? I don't want to spoil the story of the Slithering by giving them information too early. On the other hand, there's a tendency for Paizo adventures to contain more back-story than the players will ever discover, and this connection could help add to both adventures if it gives people more motivation and depth.
This may be a dumb question, but... what's a drudge? The adventure has the stats for an alchemical drudge, and a brief description of their appearance ("like large, wingless homunculi"), but gives me very little idea of what the creatures actually are, how they behave, or how to use them in the fight. I can't find it in any of the bestiaries (seriously, I've gone all the way back to D&D 4e looking for it), but the adventure seems to assume I know the word.
Dyslexic Character Sheets for Pathfinder Second edition are here: Features: - Different pages for each class (I was doing it before it was cool)
What third-party character options are there for Pathfinder 2e? There doesn't seem to be a lot out there. I'm talking ancestries, heritages, backgrounds, classes, subclasses and archetypes - preferably ones people actually play.
It's finally time for the public beta of my custom character sheets for Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Build your character here:
This is a public beta, meaning it's not patrons-only any more: anyone can get to the dev site now. I want your feedback on the beta, so go and make some character sheets, and tell me what needs to be fixed. Features:
There are some things on my list to add in the future:
I've started compiling a list of all the different character sheets that are out there. It's not complete yet, but it's a good start. It divides the character sheets into three styles: Original ones with their own layout, Classic with a retro D&D 3e / Pathfinder 1e style layout, and Variant based on the official Paizo character sheet. It notes whether the character sheet is fillable, what format it uses, and whether it's actually ready. I've also tried to include a discussion link where possible. If you spot an error or would like to suggest an addition, either comment directly on the spreadsheet directly, post below, or PM me.
Hi, I just placed orders for several subscription lines, but no matter how hard I tried, the store wouldn't let me select the right products to start with. I was told that placing the order then commenting here was the right way to go about this. I'd like to begin my subs with the Pathfinder 2e products:
I do NOT want:
Order numbers are Order 7946786 and 1484353. Is that okay?
I've been working on this since the playtest was announced, and I'm finally ready to preview it. Here's a character sheet for Dyslexic Character Sheets for Pathfinder Second Edition - Preview It's still a work in progress, but when it's finished it'll feature:
I've been quietly working on a new version of my character sheets for the new edition, and I'm finally ready to show off a preview. Dyslexic Character Sheets for Second Edition - Preview This is a work in progress, with numerous things still to fix. When completed, they'll be comparable to the existing character sheets: - Unique design for each class
Q: Are these ready to play? No. The game isn't even out yet! Q: Are these for filling in on screen? No, they're for printing filling in with a pencil. I'm keeping the option to fill them in on the screen available, but it's not my top priority. Q: Can I see what other classes look like? Will you be releasing further previews? Most of my previews are for patrons only. Those include other classes, and an inside look at the process. Q: What will this cost me? Like my Pathfinder 1e and D&D 3.5 sheets, these will be completely free. Eventually. Until then, patrons get early access. Everything I do is open source, so you can get it on GitHub. Q: Are you still adding content for Pathfinder 1e and Starfinder? I'm probably not going to be adding much more to Pathfinder 1e, though I will be fixing bugs and keeping things running. None of my older sheets are going away. I'm still adding to Starfinder. Q: Are you working on any other games? Can I get sheets for D&D 5e? No, I'm not working on character sheets any other games. Once my work on Pathfinder 2e is finished, I may look for more, but not until then.
The Pathfinder 2e playtest introduced a number of new assets, and as somebody who creates a (free) product under the Community Use Policy, I'd like some clarification of exactly where we stand legally. The basic rules are covered by OGL, of course. The Paizo and Pathfinder logos are granted as part of the Community Use Package, along with iconics, faction symbols, etc. But what about the new action icons? The class symbols? Elements used on the 2e character sheet, such as the proficiency boxes? These don't fall neatly into any categories I can see, so what am I allowed to use in my products?
A lot of people are disappointed that the +1 you get from a proficiency increase doesn't feel like a major thing. An increase typically unlocks some feats, but you can't necessarily gain those at the same level. There's also a sense of feat overload, where the feats you just unlocked have up compete with all the others you might choose to take. Here's a suggestion to add weight to the increase: Every time you gain in any proficiency, you choose a relevant feat. This would apply across the board, whether to attacks, armour, saving throws, skills, spells etc. Each proficiency bump is directly tied to a feat that's on the list for that ability.
This wouldn't necessarily result in taking more total feats, but it would change when you get them. Rogues, for example, get more skill ranks and therefore more skill feats to go with them. There are benefits to this: 1. It makes each increases to proficiency feel more meaningful if it directly unlocks the benefits of a feat. 2. It regulates the opportunity cost of feats by requiring you to pick an appropriate one from a short list. This reduces analysis paralysis and speeds up levelling. 3. It's easy to understand because it fits with the symmetry of the proficiency system. 4. It makes the game easier to balance, particularly once Paizo and third party companies start releasing expansions. This is entirely separate from the relative value of +Level vs +TEML, please don't detail this thread.
I recently floated the idea that players should be able to allocate their characters' proficiency ranks as they level, rather than having them set in stone by their class. I still think that's the better solution, but it might be too extreme for Paizo to take seriously, so I'd like to make a suggestion they should find more palatable. THE PROBLEM First, the problem being addressed. An effect of the new archetypess - that only add to the base class, rather than changing it - is that characters keep all the aspects of the base class, including the proficiency increases. All Paladins get heavy armour, all Fighters get Perception at the same level, etc. There were many archetypes in Pathfinder 1e that directly changed your combat style. There were archetypes giving you shield strength, or heavy armour, or specific weapons, or saves. This was one of the ways of allowing every character to be different. It came at the cost, though, of needing lots of repetative archetypes to implement, and I think we can agree that the new class-agnostic archetypes are an improvement. At present though, a Pathfinder 2e character doesn't have any flexibility at all over where and when they get proficiency increases. This is a real problem because it makes people feel like there's only one direction each class is able to take. Another poster suggested that all classes should have a choice of class path, that represents the specialisation within that class. Several of these already exist - Sorcerer Bloodlines, Druid Orders, Bard Muses etc - while others would need to be added. It feels like a natural evolution of the Pathfinder 2e system. THE SOLUTION My suggestion is that your class path should grant proficiency increases beyond level 1. So for example, consider a Barbarian. At level 1, I get all the Barbarian's initial proficiencies. I select the Spirit Totem as my class path. From level 2, the totem gives my proficiencies. At level 7 I become master at Will saves, granted by the Spirit Totem. If I'd selected the Fury Totem, I'd have got a bonus to Fortitude saves instead. In the case of the Barbarian, the proficiencies would be listed in each totem alongside the Anathema, Rage ability and Resistance. The same would be true of Cleric Domains, Sorcerer Bloodlines etc. AND ANOTHER THING I've said this before and I'll say it again: Don't waste an awesome name to describe a simple proficiency increase. Don't use names like "Battlefield Surveyor" or "Juggernaut" or "Indomitable Will" when all you really need to say is "You become a master at Will Saves". Keep the awesome names for awesome things.
Here's an out-there idea, related to the call to rename spell levels to something else. Since we have this proficiency system, which applies to spellcasting, why not use that in place of level as the gate for spell learning? Spells in this system would be divided into four groups / levels / tiers: trained, expert, master and legendary. Instead of "Spell 5", it would be marked "Expert spell", meaning that you need to be at least expert in spellcasting to learn it. Spell lists (arcane / divine / occult / primal) would be unaffected by this.
The playtest brings with a unified proficiency system that sees attacks, armour, skill, saving throws, and a few other things all follow the same mechanism. Setting aside the specific numbers, I think this is a good thing, as this single mechanism applied everywhere makes the game easier to learn and understand. However, there's a divide at present between skills, where you allocate your proficiency ranks freely (particularly now that the limit of Signature Skills have gone away), and all the others that go up when your class says they do. Several of the classes have options that specifically allow you to add a proficiency rank to your choice of saving throw, or your choice of weapon type. They felt that allowing some freedom was a good idea. I'd like to explore the option of allowing people to choose their proficiencies the same way as skills. The way I imagine this working is that you'd get two pools of proficiency ranks to spend each level. One of these is for skills; the other is for other things. The second pool would be much smaller (maybe just 1/level?) Classes, ancestries and backgrounds would still come with initial proficiencies. From level 1 onward, it would be up to the player which direction they take the character. PRO
CON
What do people think? Would this achieve its idea? Are there good reasons Paizo didn't do this? (Please do not derail this thread with discussions of the value of +1/level, or the +1 from each proficiency rank. That conversation is already happening in enough other places.)
Many have commented that the book's structure needs work. It's one thing to complain about a problem and another to contribute to the solution, so here's my suggestion for how to rearrange the book for clarity. This is not a list of minor nitpicks, rather it's a major reorganisation of the book. At the same time, none of this should be a change to the mechanics of the game rules themselves, only to how they're presented in the book. To make it clearer, I've made a sample showing how I think it could look: download a PDF file here. 1. Focused, article-like sections The game has a number of key concepts that need to be understood. Some of them are new, some of them decades old, and some are old concepts with a new twist, but we have to treat them all equally so new players aren't at a disadvantage. People don't need to memorise every detail of the game rules, but they need to have a basic grasp of each of these concepts, and be able to find the information for reference when playing. Key concepts include:
At the moment, too much of the information on these subjects is scattered all over the book and hard to find, with a lot of cross-references back and forth, some of which turn out to be useless. There are even rules described in two places contradict each other (these are gradually being fixed in errata). This is a marked contrast to Paizo's blog posts that teased the new system, which each focused on a single concept or class and were much easier to follow, albeit deliberately incomplete. My suggestion is that each of these concepts should have a short focused section describing it, not unlike a self-contained article. Information that's currently scattered around the different parts of book should be collected into the section for the concept. Each section should be one or more whole pages, rather than just text that flows freely from one to the next. If a player wants to check the rules critical hits, they should be able to go to the Critical hits section, which is probably a two-page spread telling them everything they need to know about critical hits. It might include an examples table with pictures of d20s and what the result means. The classes and ancestries already do this to a degree, since each one is a self-contained article with all you need to know about it, from headline down to feats. I see this as an extension of the direction Paizo have already been heading. There will always be a degree of cross-referencing - every rule operates in the context of every other rule - but there needs to be more focus. There is a cost to this approach, in that some information will need repeating. The rules for armour class interact with the rules for critical hits, for example, and while these sections can reference each other it may be clearer in some cases to include the information right there. The resulting book will be a bit fatter, but it'll be much easier to follow. To see what such an article might look like, download a PDF file here. There's another side benefit as well, in helping Paizo to debug the rules. If a section ends up too large to comfortably fit this article-like shape, it may be that the subject itself really is too complex and needs to be rethought. 2. The introduction is only an introduction At present the introduction does double duty. It's simultaneously a first stop for new readers, and contains a certain amount of key information on game rules not found anywhere else. This means the introduction is larger than it needs to be, and it contributes to the amount of cross-referencing necessary as rules are broken up between sections. My suggestion is that the introduction chapter should be an introduction and nothing else. None of the game rules should live in the introduction; they should all be detailed in the Playing the Game section, while the introduction merely refers to or summarises them. The most significant rules that currently appear in the introduction and nowhere else are to do with character creation, such as ability scores and modifiers, but there are also key concepts like actions. While the introduction needs to touch on these, the full specification should be elsewhere. It sounds simple, but I think it'll significantly cut down on the amount of cross-referencing required in the rules themselves, while making the introduction easier to read. Again, this will mean some repetition in the name of clarity. 3. Reduce the number of names used A game as complex as Pathfinder - either edition - will always take a lot of learning, but addressing the learning curve is one of the primary goals of this system. One area I think the playtest falls down is in the use of names for things that shouldn't need to be named. Examples include [ ...] . What do all of those abilities do? The mark one more tick of proficiency. That's it. [...] doesn't [...] at all. Having all these names adds to the cognitive load of the system for new players, and it makes experienced players from Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 feel betrayed that the names they previously used for something awesome have been reduced to a boring +1. It also leads to a feeling that the classes, which provide fewer inherent abilities now that so much of their job has been moved to feats, have been padded with things that look like real abilities but aren't. There's a visual accessibility factor here as well: a page with lots of headings that look the same can be harder to read. My suggestion is that any class ability that provides a proficiency bonus should be clearly identified as such. Instead of "Uncanny Dodge", the ability should just be titled "Master in Reflex saves", and it should use a different style from the headline abilities that make each class unique. These items should be grouped under a level heading. Classes also have a table detailing what they get at each level. In the first edition, this was easy enough to follow, with columns for BAB, saving throws, spells etc. The playtest cuts that table down to a single column table for most classes, and uses names for all the things, with the result that it reads as just a big pile of words. The table should be expanded out again, with a column for proficiencies, a column for feats, and a column for class abilities. Again, to see what this might look like, download a PDF file here. This isn't a change to the mechanics of the system, only to how it's described and named. Compared to the other two, this should reduce the total page count slightly. --- I'm sure Paizo don't really want to rewrite the entire book like this, any more than they want to make vast changes to the game rules between the playtest and the final. But I think the current state of the rulebook is confusing and disorganised enough to justify putting the effort into this.
Can somebody at Paizo confirm whether the action icons (1 to 3 actions, reaction, free action) can be legally used in our own PF2e-related projects?
A lot of people have expressed... *ahem* strong opinions on the new proficiency system, and in particular, the fact that a character's level contributes so much automatically. They find it strange, for example, that a high level Fighter who has no training or inclination to the arcane should have an automatically much higher skill with it than a low level Wizard who has put all their effort into that area. Of course, a Fighter might show an interest in the arcane as they battle magical and mythical creatures, but if so they'd be expected to put at least one or two points into it to represent that. I'm prepared to wait and see the real thing before deciding for certain, but I'd say I'm not entirely convinced. I worry that players will see little benefit from advancing proficiency when the +1 bonus from it is so much smaller than the automatic bonus from level. The difference of +1 to +20 is just so much bigger than the difference from -2 to +3. "Yeah, I could upgrade Acrobatics, but it'll go up anyway next level so what difference does it make?" Proficiency levels are about more than just numbers, of course. They're also a gate for certain uses of a skill or ability, and for things like skill feats. You need reach a certain point in your training before you can pick up the cool stuff. But that just means you have a two-step gate in the way of the cool stuff, where the first step feels wasted. It's reminiscent of deep feat chains, something I think we all want rid of. Some have suggested big changes to the numbers, such as multiplying the level by a different figure, or applying half level but +2 for each proficiency level. And regardless of the merits of those suggestions, we can be certain that Paizo isn't going to listen to them because it would mean throwing away all the work they've done and rethinking the maths for basically everything in the whole game. So here's my proposal: exactly the same as the system Paizo have outlined, but put a cap on the level bonus based on proficiency level. For example, it might read: UNTRAINED: Add your level up to 4, but subtract 2.
For a character's core proficiencies - swinging a sword for a Fighter, casting spells for a Wizard, finding traps for a Rogue, etc - this change would make no difference at all. They would take the proficiency soon enough that the level bonus would be uninterrupted. But for off skills - Knowledge (history), Profession (chef), etc - it stops the automatic progression from reaching too high. And when a high level character does up their proficiency in an off skill, they get a nice boost to it. This way higher level characters are inherently better at things, which is what the system is aiming for, but they still see a real advantage for each step of proficiency. Thoughts?
Has any thought been put into improving the standard character sheets? I'm the creator of a set of very non-standard character sheets which quite a few people prefer over the standard one. And while I don't expect the official character sheets for PF2 to look just like mine (it would be kind of troublesome if they did), there are some important ways the basic sheet could be better. - The grouping of elements is not very logical. It shows signs of "find somewhere to shove this" rather than logical planning. - Inconsistent labelling makes it harder to find things. - Not enough help for working out calculations, ie where all these numbers come from. - The assumption that one size fits all leads to some elements being too small. For example, the spell list is far too small to be useful for a spellcasting class, but still takes up lots of space for any non-spellcasting class. - A lot of unique class features simply have no representation at all. Ki? Grit? Sneak attack? Rounds of rage per day? Domain? All missing a home. - Heavy black means that pencil doesn't stand out. The current basic character sheet is basically a continuation of the 3rd edition style. I hope Paizo can take the opportunity of a new system to make a better character sheet.
I'm going to make a request which may be unpopular, may be controversial, and which Paizo in particular are likely to find very hard to fulfil. Less is more. Over my years following Pathfinder, I've accumulated more rulebooks than I can count, containing dozens of classes, hundreds of archetypes, and countless other options. The result being, I'm probably never going to see most of them in action. A new class came out in Ultimate Wilderness, the Shifter. It's kind of cool. I like it. Am I ever going to play it, or see anybody in any of my gaming groups play it? Probably not. Even if you disregard third parties, there's a vast quantity of Pathfinder material out there now, huge numbers of options, and while most of it is afaict really good material - Paizo know what they're doing, after all - it's still just TOO MUCH. So please consider scaling back the release of new playable options in second edition. That way every option matters.
Customizable character sheets now include Starfinder. These are not digital sheets, they're designed to be printed and written on. Get them here:
Features
Includes
Free and open source
This is the Starfinder discussion thread. You can find the Pathfinder thread here.
Will you be adding Starfinder material to the Community Use Package? I'm thinking of logos, symbols, iconic character images etc.
Extensive customizable character sheets for Pathfinder and D&D 3.5. These are not digital sheets, they're designed to be printed and written on. Get them here:
Features
Includes
Translations Character sheets are currently available in:
If you'd like to contribute a new language, or help improve one of the ones above, drop me a PM and I'll add you to the team. Free and open source
This is the new general discussion thread. The previous thread that ran for seven years was here.
One person is my group is playing a kobold who worships dragons. Seriously, when I had Logrovich fly over the city, he fell to the ground in supplication. So... he's inevitably going to be opposed to any plan that involves killing said dragon, even if a trusted NPC suggests it. And no, it doesn't matter what colour or alignment the dragon is. But without killing Logrovich, the revolution won't start and the Winter Guard won't let them get near the hut -- and the longer they hang around in Whitethrone, the more irrelevant stuff I have to find or make up for them (they've already gone to the theatre and made friends with some locals). So, any suggestions on how I can impress on them how vital it is to kill this dragon? Ideally they should decide for themselves that it's the right thing rather than feeling railroaded into it.
My previous group sadly disbanded at the end of book one (people physically moved too far for it to continue), but I have another group looking to play the same adventure path. Unlike the other group, this one would actually be able to play an evening every week, so rather than streamlining the adventure for speed as before I'll keep most of the encounters and possibly even add a few more. One thing bothers me a little: the character of the group is leaning more towards meta-gaming and number-crunching, and is fairly light on the roleplay. Players don't care about their character's origins or motivations, and not often do you hear somebody at the table say "but my character wouldn't do that". While a GM does have to cater to what their players will enjoy, I'd also like to nudge them towards an enjoyable aspect of the game I think they're missing out on. One suggestion I'm exploring is the idea of starting the players off as villagers or other people with a local connection. The hope is that this would give their characters more character, since they'll have a job or position in the village rather than just being a random passing mercenary. This also helps to answer the question of "why do we give a damn about saving this village?" They'd have the choice of taking one of the existing named villagers for instant back-story, or making a new one and writing their own. Other threads describe the players starting out at a summer festival; details of a travelling festival could be borrowed from eg the Murder's Mark module. Depending how much I want to expand it, I may even run the whole of Murder's Mark, while adding in some hints about the encroaching winter. Mechanically, I'm thinking that the players would start off with 1 or 2 levels of an NPC class: Commoner, Expert, Adept, Aristocrat or Warrior. Most of them would be Experts, since that covers a lot of the jobs a villager might do (blacksmith, farrier, barber, cobbler etc). Commoner would cover a farmer or other ordinary villager. Anybody wanting to play an Aristocrat, Adept or Warrior would need to come up with a story justification for why they'd be living in or passing through the village, and why they'd be willing to join the quest. PCs would only start getting their first real class levels once they've overcome their first story encounter (the wreckage of the two carriages, to which I'll add some yummy extra zombies so it feels more like they've achieved something). The question though is how to treat these NPC levels once the players take real class levels. Do they stick around, offsetting the level numbers all the way through the game and making things messy? Do I shift the levels at which feats and stat increases happen? Or do they evaporate somehow and leave people with just their nice fresh PC levels to calculate? Has anybody else done something like this, with Reign of Winter or another AP? Did it work out?
What modules and adventures can people suggest that might reasonably lead players into the Emerald Spire super-dungeon. I'm thinking of levels 1 to 4ish, set in somewhere like the River Kingdoms (a lawless place of banditry and minor monsters with isolated patches of law and order) or specifically Fort Inevitable (the Hellknight stronghold described at the start of the adventure).
I'm about to run the Pale Tower after a gap of some months (as always, bloody pregnancy grumble grumble) and I'm seriously concerned that my players are going to get themselves killed in a massive encounter they're just not ready for. They've already spent half the day's allowance of spells etc escaping from guards on the road. I have a solution: on the way to the tower they stumble across the battlefield where the Black Rider was finally defeated, and where he left behind some neat stuff, just enough to help keep them alive. I can also flavour it a bit, to emphasise just how much of a badass he really was by the scale of devastation left behind. It that also gives me a chance to give them a second Mythic tier - early, by any calculation, but very helpful. Can anybody suggest items that would be both useful and flavourful for the rider or his assailants to be carrying?
As they travel through Irrisen, the party are likely to wonder where all the other portals are. This is a global phenomenon, right? Surely there should be lots of them as scattered across Irrisen. Would a journey of 132 miles not being them close to anothe at least one more? Page 14 in the Shackled Hut describes a "pocket of summer", but then passes it off as the work of rebellious druids. Could that be recast as an undefended portal to somewhere warm? This would give the PCs a chance to feel heroic while reinforcing the impression that this threat is about more that just southern Taldor.
I just started running RoW for a group of four players who are curious, persistent and stubborn. Not content to ride the rails, they insist on asking awkward questions and following lines of enquiry. Which is brilliant - I'd far rather have players that are engaged with the story than ones that let it all flow past them. But it does make it difficult for me to GM when the AP simply doesn't answer their questions. They have decent charisma for first level, so it cam be assumed that they'll have the wherewithal to talk their way to the truth. Here are a few questions I'll likely need answers to, just from the first chapter: 1) Given that most of Lady Argentea's guards are Taldan military, why did she hire a mercenary from the Linnorm Lands as her bodyguard? 2) What was the nature of her disagreement with her betrothed? 3) Why did Teb Knebben have Rohkar and his men kidnap Lady Argentea, and why such insistence that she be delivered alive? What value is she in distant Irrisen? I could understand if Rohkar were planning to ransom her, or if he'd been hired by the Qadiran noble whom Argentea had just spurned. 4) Why does Rohkar have to rely on scrolls for necromancy? He's a sufficient Cleric level to cast "Animate Dead, Lesser" himself, but doesn't have it prepared.
The community use policy allows the use of a bunch of different versions of the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Pathfinder Tales etc. Is there any coverage there for adventure-specific branding, such as the logos of Kingmaker, Rise of the Runelords, and so on?
I've posted a prototype character sheet for the Gunslinger: It works in combination with my character sheet collection
I've created a prototype Magus character sheet to go with my Pathfinder character sheet set. I'd appreciate any feedback from people who've played the class and know it better than I do. I'll incorporate it into the main document when the final version is released.
As the custodian of some Pathfinder character sheets, I'm curious as to how Words of Power are stored and represented. When you construct spells, what do you need to know about them?
I know there are people out there looking for good character sheets, particularly ones that aren't colour and that incorporate the recent additions. I've been designing some character sheets for Pathfinder (based on the much more complete set I did for D&D 3.5) that I hope people will find useful. Download the PDF from my website here
These sheets feature:
|
