Search Posts
It is better to be late and bug free than on time and buggy. Do what you need to with our support. This also dodge doing a big update right before street release date, something that didn't go well in the past.
Not this [bleep] again! Coffee, energy drinks, meds, etc for the tech team better be on the house.
the Magic thing is concentrated, thus "rare", but it is usually well known and countermeasures do exist, and Magic doesn't come with infinite uses. But maybe we should avoid derailing the thread further.
Come to think of it, does PF2/PF2R have rules for buying/renting properties, cost of living, building/maintaining infrastructures, etc?
I'm actually very fond of the lore explanation given for Awakened Animals - the process of awakening and gaining entirely new mental faculties sometimes scrambles old instincts that you never had to think about before, particularly for flying creatures who used to rely on a lot of unconscious factors to control their flight. They can still fly, but it takes some work to regain full control. But that kind of things wouldn't apply well to Were-Bats, Were-raptor, and many ancestries with flight... and it get harder to justify when a race has other balancing factors.
Yes, but publishing them over 3 or 6 months does not force them to spread the writing over 3 or 6 months. They could theoretically write it in exactly the same way they will be going forward, and then just hold onto the later parts for longer. Books 5 and 6 were often still being written when book 1 was sent to the printers, so...
Two pretty good points, and they can be combined too.
There is the whole thing about "game balance", then the "NPCs use different rules than the PCs" thing, Howl of the Wild also has that kind of thing, and not just for flight. I agree that having lore reasons could be nice.
It should also translate to better internal communications to make sure everyone is on the same page, and better continuity. Should also help (more) when crap happen, like someone having to leave the project, an author having severe Blank Page Syndrome, etc.
It's worse for Hell's Vengeance than other APs.Why is that? Because the PCs are evil? Mainly that, yes.
That's going to be the case for any AP.Three weeks without a peep. Is this not an interesting AP?Almost everyone want to play in it, but unfortunately, pretty much no one wants to run it. It's worse for Hell's Vengeance than other APs.
Apart from some early growing pains as the AP writers adjusted to PF2, the biggest issues I've run into with APs seem to have stemmed from the limitations of the monthly format- bases and locations getting discarded because they weren't ready for the next author, abrupt shifts in tone or theme, important details not getting to the GM until it's too late, that sort of thing. APs are still going to frequently be multi-author, so I don't expect all the wrinkles to be ironed out, but I'll be happy to see the shift in action eventually. Some of us already pointed out it should help with internal consistency, and hopefully avoid what happened in Council of Thieves, Serpent's Skull and a few others.
Three weeks without a peep. Is this not an interesting AP? Almost everyone want to play in it, but unfortunately, pretty much no one wants to run it.
We calling them Adventure Modules now? Many already referred the regular Adventures as "Modules".
Might also help with future changes to the site, store and subscriptions.
Which technically could mean that books might switch from 3, 4, 5 or 6 parts "more easily".
Internal coherence/consistency (writers) and I think this is purely a positive change! It’s not like anyone realistically should have been starting an AP before the whole thing was released anyway. The only downside I can think of is that there’s now more of a wait in between APs, but the logistical problems this solves as well as the cohesion it allows across an entire AP more than makes up for that. external coherence/consistency (Game Masters, Players)
In the stream today they mentioned we are getting a hardcover complimation next year!
Well, bandits IME ambush PCs and attack first. Which then makes it self-defense on the PCs part. But what about the cases where the bandits simply have something the PCs need? PCs are still encouraged to simply slaughter them, because "bandits". Now, if what is needed is the base/headquarter...
1) a point that got brought up a lot in the past ~20 years, wonder if this will get answered. 2) good question about Deities old and new alike, in Hell's Vengeance, even Cayden decided not to touch it with a proverbial ten feet pole. 3) Very good question, and pretty much the (original) subject of the thread.
That's more or less my mantra on the subject too. or:
Given all we heard about PCs and war recently, I am pretty sure there will be no war crimes (as we define it IRL) on the PCs' side, no matter how unrealistic this is. Might simply be the case.
I just gave them the special bond (boons in the reward section w/ edicts and anathema), not the whole Bond with Mortal from the stat block. Granting a +2 status bonus to attack and damage and 20 extra hit points to any one party member is already really unbalanced and doing it to the whole party will definitely adjust a lot of the CR math. The text notes that the Keeper is weak, so I assumed the intent was for the whole party to get the special bond as a lesser form of connection. Using Bond with Mortal would also make the Keeper more vulnerable. We know it wants to end the Shadow and needs help to do it, but probably wouldn't place itself in a compromised position especially when they don't even know yet what's causing the problem. The AP like putting the PCs on a timer often enough that the boon is kind of a mercy.
This is probably part of why they picked Cheliax for an Evil AP, to use/keep the leash of Law. And it does seem like we are more or less talking about the same thing, disrupting the story's flow/pace vs potentially disrupting the story's direction, the latter being subjected to loose goals/objectives vs strict goals/objectives.
The initial point was about why Evil PCs are frowned upon, someone mentioned destructive/disruptive "chaotic evil" types, then I mentioned that from a writer/dev PoV, Evil PCs might not be hampered by moral restrictions like Good and Neutral ones should.
For II, would help with resources. And part of the point being that not all Evil acts are selfish and/or destructive. Walkena got stronger because of the Godsrain and used it to strengthen his army according to War of Immortals. And his problems could be similarly empowered. Granted, maybe he is meant to somewhat become an equivalent of the Whispering Tyrant in Garund.
Potential example: in Ironfang Invasion, convert the other refugees to cannibalism, wittingly or not, it's evil but can still increase the chances of survival.
That's a succinct way to sum up how difficult it can be to write for evil PCs; if there's no moral compass, what's guiding them? Any "free to be evil" AP might actually be more limiting because the party would need a different overriding reason to risk their lives or even bond together (and with such dubious folk at that!). If they're all greedy, power-hungry backstabbers or in a literally cutthroat community, that's self-destructive. Freedom of choices isn't freedom of consequences from said choices, and Evil doesn't need to be self-destructive either.
Ethic vs Moral. LG, LN and LE also worry about another definition of Moral.
Trouble with playing evil PCs is that a lot of evil actions require punching down, navigating real world trauma, or harming good people that the players (hopefully) empathize with. Even by working for an evil organization, the PCs would be empowering that. That's all awkward for an immersive game. It's one thing to read about/watch American Psycho or Hannibal, but such roles are taxing on actors (and many in the audience). How many tables want to gamble that all of their players will be comfortable with whatever evil deeds the scenarios require? And that's not counting those (of which I've GMed a few) that see such license as excuse to indulge in atrocious behavior beyond the story's parameters. (There's a reason PFS had to remove Torture as a profession for one's day job.) Problem with Evil PCs would be that they are unbothered by moral choices. Now, the issues with the players of Evil PCs on the other hand.
Kinda reminds me we could use a bit more deities of battles/combats/fights than conflicts/wars
As long as paizo is careful about which it favour and how much. I do think that Paizo should probably keep it on a separate forum. Or at least require "paid" in the post title. I've read a few games and started getting interested to find the buried lede that it was a paid game. Society Play had a similar issue around the time things shifted from many people thinking Society Play was unwelcome in PbP/online campaign to many people thinking PbP/OC was exclusively for Society Play.
You do bring a good point about the availability of physical space for offline games. There is also some people who might turn a hobby into a secondary or even main source of incomes.
Kinda glad if optimization become more optional than mandatory. for Easy vs Hard, a few things/variations to think about: - Level of optimization and synergy or lack thereof.
How are area D and area E connected? text doesn't say much, and the map for area D doesn't show any.
Yeah, just the name. It just bugs me when I'm playing Pathfinder and a player character says "Hells!" or "What in the Hells?" due to this cultural inertia. This isn't Forgotten Realms! Similar to how it annoys me when someone says they'll stay behind to "hold down the fort." The fort is not a bouncy castle filled with helium! It's just "hold the fort!" It's a military metaphor!Stepping into the Doylist perspective for a moment, it WOULD be kind of cool if Paizo decided to shake up not just their status quo, but the fantasy RPG status quo in general by having Asmodeus dethroned in their version of Hell as a way of making it more distinct from its predecessor (which is so entrenched in the RPG-playing public's consciousness that people STILL call it "the Nine Hells" when playing Pathfinder even though that hasn't been the case in the actual text for YEARS)!You're referring specifically to the name "The Nine Hells," right? Not the actual number of distinct zones? Just double checking that I didn't miss some shakeup to the layout of Hell in PF's cosmology, somehow. "Holding down the fort" sounds like a mix of "hold the fort" and "holding the enemies down" which tend to be used instead of "holding off".
As a side note, the "get latest adventure path" button still point to Spore War.
Remember that mortals tend to be full of themselves.Asmodeus is a god, so his perspective is the most important one. Or House Thrune simply doesn't want to risk the contract going to someone else.
Asmodeus is a god, so his perspective is the most important one. Remember that mortals tend to be full of themselves.
You are looking at this from Asmodeus' perspective, not House Thrune's...
There are probably powers in Hell who wouldn't mind a change in leadership (like Erecura's whole deal is "she's up to something, but you won't find out until too late to do anything about it") but I would be surprised if any of them figure this is the right time to make their move. It's probably faster to list who is loyal to Asmodeus by this point, so that.
Could be less "overthrowing" and more about renegotiations.
The whole Kintargo thing was Abrogail the first doing, and barely anyone knew about it, so there could be other hidden (read, forgotten) gotcha like it. And like I said earlier, that House Thrune goes out of its way to get rid of potential rivals suggest there are also some gotcha known only to them and Hell.
The book doesn't elaborate, but given the language used (namely, "default") it seems what this Rider (Owyn Darkoath by name, now that I can reference the book again) hopes that the war will force Abrogail II into a position where she can no longer hold up her end of the bargain, which I imagine would mean helping steer things so Cheliax loses BADLY. Given that at that stage, Cheliax would basically no longer be able to prosecute any war, the goal is for the victors of the conflict to be immediately forced into battle with basically a Hellish invasion of Golarion while they're battered and tired from fighting Cheliax. The whys of the war aren't important to Owyn. Just the eventual scale of it. Guess we will have to wait and see what Paizo has planned then.
It's indirectly implied that Asmodeus can transfer the contract to someone else, and that there might be a bypass to needing Thrune's consent, but there might also be some extra clauses regarding the souls of House Thrune that make this a potential loss for Hell.
Both Hell's Rebels and Hell's Vengeance gave at least one way to break/null the contract. And my question is more about Hell needing the contract with House Thrune.
Kinda goes with what I asked in the revious page: Can House Thrune exist/survive without Infernal Cheliax?and Can Infernal Cheliax exist without House Thrune? So there is a possibility Hell has less and less need for House Thrune.
From a meta standpoint, it makes perfect sense. Cheliax isn't quite in a position to throw its weight around if it doesn't have to, and if it was the aggressor Andoran would gain a lot of support because everyone would want this over quickly and nobody wants the devils to get a win. Andoran being the aggressor changes the dynamic, because a lot of countries aren't too sure about its political system and because it already has few qualms about asserting itself. Oh yeah, and there's a super lich who is going to be a huge headache soon, so starting something unnecessary now will not be well received. and the Glorious Reclamation fiasco is still relatively recent, it could weight in many people decisions/indecisions.
Among other things, that can bring two questions/scenarios to mind: Can House Thrune exist/survive without Infernal Cheliax?and Can Infernal Cheliax exist without House Thrune?
Torrent and Nail are based out of Cheliax, so it kinda make senses they would say no. Still curious about Scourge, who should oppose this, but maybe not publicly, and Gate who is usually the other "screw politic" order. and maybe Crux, dilemma between hating other Hellknights and liking the idea of being a death-squad again?
Odd, the Order of the Scourge should also have issues with all of that.
Seeing similarities with the Glorious Reclamation thing. Andoren troops in Isger feels like quite the escalation to one Andoren citizen's execution - by Hellknights, not even Chelish troops! and the Order of the Rack is more "loyal" to Thrune than most if I remember correctly.
It genuinely feels unlikely that Cheliax is going to prevail here, since the Pathfinder Society is throwing its weight against Cheliax (what with Thrune closing the lodges in her country) and we know how much weight they carry in the metaplot.While Cheliax is one of the few that outright kicked them out, many nations would like the Pathfinder Society to be more careful, then there is the Aspis thing. Maybe we shouldn't conflate Pathfinder Society the faction with Society Play here.
Question could also be asked about a dedicated Campaign Setting board/sub-forum.
Almost sound like a thread about Space Amish. For the gods stuff, it is useful to remember Pathfinder and Starfinder don't have "Over-Deities"
It genuinely feels unlikely that Cheliax is going to prevail here, since the Pathfinder Society is throwing its weight against Cheliax (what with Thrune closing the lodges in her country) and we know how much weight they carry in the metaplot. While Cheliax is one of the few that outright kicked them out, many nations would like the Pathfinder Society to be more careful, then there is the Aspis thing.
And the mess with the Glorious Reclamation is still recent, so even some of Thrune's detractors might tell Andoran the shove it, especially if they know about the Lumber Consortium BS.
|
