Strachan Fireblade's page

Yeah on top of tasks, the APs should try to exploit the action system of Pathfinder 2.

I want to see challenges where it takes several actions to do something, whilst something else is happening.
Example: A tree branch has fallen on the road and the cart cant make it through. It takes 7 actions of athletics, divided between any members, to remove the branch. Meanwhile, there's an ambush going, or part of a chase.

Those are the types of things I would absolutely like to see.

One thing that i have noticed about 2e APs is that there are a lot “tasks”, especially in the early going. For example, while looking at the first Quest for the Frozen Flame, you are asked t: fetch water, capture tapirs, fix a stone, prepare the camp for evacuation, etc.

On the one hand this shows the flexibility of PF2, but on the other hand, I’m not interested in doing tasks. It just feels a lot less exciting to me. There is less tension and less conflict IMO. The author hints at something menacing that will happen but it has zero impact on the tasks themselves. Other PF2 APs have these tasks too (Strength of Thousands) and its one of the major difference I feel between a 1e and 2e AP. It just struck me as a stark difference in the tone of adventurers. Hopefully, as the system matures, these tasks can be presented at more opportune times and can have a bigger impact on the story that is more exciting. I am thinking that these sort of tasks could be really relevant in a rebellion or in a kingmaker setting and would work wonderfully there to support the larger narrative of events.

This is all just my opinion of course, but its feedback about the tone and difference for 1e vs 2e AP’s and this might be what some folks are identifying as different without putting their finger on it,

Of the ones I've actually played (which is sadly not many!), Curse of the Crimson Throne #2 "Seven Days to the Grave." It has a strong theme, there's a little almost-sandbox with a few missions for the party to choose from in the middle, and the finale dungeon is interesting and the right amount of challenging.

Seven Days to the Grave is another fantastic adventure I recall fondly.

Lots of threads about APs in general, but what is your number 1 favourite issue?

Mine is issue #97 In Hell’s Bright Shadows

For me, everything about this issue is fantastic - great adventure, evocative setting, and strong back matter articles (particularly how Kintargo information was laid out, it really gave me a great vibe for the setting and it let my imagination run wild which made it easy to convey info to the players). As a bonus, I thought it tied in very well with the Player’s Guide.

So what’s yours?

Looking forward to your adventure! How is Kingmaker progressing? Haven’t heard any updates since Paizocon.

Thanks for your feedback.

In regards to the bard, what do you feel becomes that much more game breaking for them? I’m genuinely curious. This suggested house rule still keeps a tight reign on what a caster can and can’t combine with magic in a given round. Thus it must be the extra action, perhaps as a stride to get out of harms way?

In my own games the issue seems to be the healer role but every player including myself has felt that casters turns just don’t feel as fun as a martials these days regardless of class and it’s not about the math. Casters are generally limited in how they can play around with the action economy when they spend turns casting spells. And god forbid if they add a meta magic action.

When you DM, have you ever found yourself saying that casting a spell seems suboptimal to the melee options?

Again, just trying to understand the concern you see in case I haven’t seen it.

Thanks again

Completely off topic of the current discussion in this thread, but I would like your analysis DMW on a house rule I have just implemented in regards to action economy and casters.

First some context. Players playing casters IME seem dissatisfied with their experience. Some feel it’s lack of damage, some feel they are behind on the proficiency curve, and some feel (looking at you cleric) that entire turns are taken up healing martials thereby limiting their own fun.

After some analysis, I believe that proficiency is not an issue. Casters are behind by one proficiency level on levels 5, 6, 13, and 14 but are ahead at level 19 and 20 when compared to non-fighter martials. Strangely, the more martial spellcasters (bard, cleric, Druid) are behind for 12 levels on martial proficiencies (although this isn’t where my focus is for this post). Damage and spell design has some issues but these are minor in my opinion. Where the larger issue seems to be in my mind is action economy. Martials get two or three attacks a round which means they are likely to hit at least once. From a play experience this is satisfying. Conversely, casting a spell takes two actions. If the spell is largely ineffective, the player has fewer options to feel they have meaningfully contributed with their last action. Compounding this, when martials take a feat they usually get further benefits to action economy. Essentially they do three things squeezed into two actions. Spellcasters, on the other hand, add actions to their spell to manipulate their spells (meta magic feats for example). Thus action economy seems incredibly punishing to spellcasters.

Therefore, I implemented the following rules:

1. All 2 action spells now cost 1 action but have the flourish trait meaning another flourish spell cannot be cast this round
2. All 1 action, variable action spells (heal, harm, magic missile, etc) and 3 action spells are not altered which means they do not have the flourish trait.
Edit: 3. This also decouples the V, S, M components of spells to actions. Spells still keep whatever is required to cast them, they just don’t equate to an action anymore (for example a 2 action spell with V and M still requires that but it’s done for 1 action now instead of 2)

In effect, this keeps almost all the same the same limitations on casters in terms of what they are limited to casting in a given round with maybe a slight loosening on the reigns. Ultimately, this gives casters an additional action to use for movement, pulling stuff out of their pack, skill checks, or the occasional third 1 action spell which gives a slight damage increase while they have the available resources.

I have had this in play for one session but it had a very noticeable effect on the fun factor of spellcasters. Healers, in particular, could do a 1 action heal, a flourish spell, and still make a decision for their third action. They seemed to have more choices which led to more fun with only a minor bump in damage.

Two questions arose from that session. First, Quicken Spell which I said either removed the flourish trait or did it’s current effect on a nonflourish spell. Second was magic items which I ruled that 2 action magic items were also 1 action with the flourish trait. This kept casters from double dipping with spells and items but interestingly enough, the magic item rule benefits martials as well as casters for action economy.

In my own experiences as DM (nearly done 2 full 1-20 level campaigns), I have not enjoyed spellcasters because using 2 actions on a spell that fails is a complete waste of a turn. But during this session, I had a dragon and I made liberal use of spells and melee attacks unlike anything before. It seemed liberating and very enjoyable. Also, I have found magic item use on both sides of the screen to be lessened due to the action economy and I feel this house rule improves that area as well.

Thanks for reading and for any insight you may have and I apologize if this is off topic for your thread. If you experience any of the above in you group, I highly encourage you to give this a try, even for a single session and get feedback.

So, for what it’s worth, my table tried out my proposed ideas tonight. My players are 14th level for context and the idea was loved. We will continue to test this but effectively giving casters an extra action while keeping spell casting limitations in effect due to the flourish trait worked spectacularly.

The only major question this brought up was magic items and how many actions they now took since many are modelled after spells. For now, I gave them the same caveat as I did spells which was that all 2 action magic items are now 1 action with the flourish trait. This in particular needs much more testing but I’m really pleased with my changes.

Going to my first PaizoCon as well. Badges bought, tickets bought, hotel booking in progress. Woot.

Is "Numbers start to become meaningless" really any different than in PF1?

I mean, the basic calculation for "is this guy hard hit" still boils down to "What do I need to roll to hit him?". That's how the math always has to work. If I only hit with a good roll he's hard to hit. Or, I suppose, depending on which iterative I reliably hit with.

I don't think even in PF2 there's really much mental math needed to figure out if someone's hard to hit - rather than start with the 43, start with the actual die roll. Roll lousy and hit, this'll be easy. Roll well and miss and you're in trouble.

I’m not trying to compare to PF1. I am looking at PF2 as it’s own system.

If you feel the mental math is not difficult, that’s your opinion. I don’t find math difficult either, but my statement is my opinion based on a year long campaign, 5 months of which have been at what I would call high level. As a DM, it’s easy to lose track what becomes a hard save or a hard attack for players because the numbers are always moving. It’s the same from the players perspective. But at the end of the day, the numbers are the same as first level, just inflated modified by the difference in level. I find NPC spellcasters particularly underwhelming at high levels (unless they are higher level than the players) and am constantly surprised at the low numbers the players need to pass the spell DCs (which is a result of the designers wanting to increase the odds of success as players level). This catches me off guard because I don’t track the players save bonuses. If the numbers didn’t constantly change I’d have a better sense, allowing me to fine tune things without extra homework.

You are welcome to feel differently, and clearly you do. My belief is the +level bonus obfuscates the game to a degree. Once I try playing without the +level bonus I can confidently tell you if I think the game is better for it or not (IMO). Until then, I can’t state whether one is better than the other.

I haven't really followed this thread, but I will weigh in here with an unpopular opinion.

Our WftC campaign is nearing its end. We have played the entire campaign based off of either PF2 Playtest rules or PF2 rules. I am the DM, the PCs will level up to level 17 next session.

After DMing for nearly a year, I have the following observations:

1. PF2 is a great system
2. I think the math breaks down a bit at high levels (its my feeling at least - and to be clear, the rest of the post does not pertain to this thought).
3. There are a lot of pluses, a lot of dice rolled (magic weapons), and a lot of attacks (sometimes three times a turn for attack, attack, attack routines). The game slows down a lot. By the end of a session, math fatigue sets in. This is undeniable for our group.
4. Numbers start to become meaningless. +33 here, +28 here. Both players and DMs lose sight of what is actually an easy, medium, or hard number to hit anymore and the game is about throwing out numbers. Things boil down simply to "I got a 43 to hit, did I hit?" If the answer is yes, players then do some math calculation and then they come to the conclusion that its a higher level guy or a guy with good armor. The number itself, without doing math, does not indicate to players how tough an AC or a save is. But it should. At level 1, if the DM says the creature has AC 20, most players will be "dang, this guy is gonna be tough". At high levels, players need to do mental math to come to that conclusion.

My group plays APs and therefore follows a set story. The story progresses, the stakes amp up, and there is very little to no chance of fighting the same creatures on level 10 or 20 as level 1. I plan to run Age of Ashes without +level bonus, while still keeping level difference of enemies relevant. That is, if the PCs are level 5, one enemy is level 7, and the other three enemies are level 4, the following would happen:

1. On the players sheets, they have no +level bonus so all things look fine from their perspective.
2. On the level 7 creature, I subtract 5 from their pluses. Pretty simple and it keeps the to hit and crit chances the same as if the +level existed. The integrity of PF2's design is maintained.
3. On the level 4 creature, I subtract 5 from their pluses. This preserves the level difference, making it easier for the PCs to hit as if the +level bonuses existed.

Damage, HPs, etc are all preserved. The only change is essentially removing the +level bonus while still maintaining the level difference.

At this point, I don't see any issue with the game, and I am hoping as we hit high levels, it provides more transparency to the players on where they stand in regards to the game because at the end of the day, the +25s, +38s, +22s of the world are mind numbing numbers at high level that mean very little.

I think that this hits the mark that some posters in this thread have hinted at and is very simple to do.

One thing I AM unsure about, is that by the time we hit level 10 and I announce, yet again, another AC 20 or 21, will the players say "Again?". The reality though, is that if you looked in the bestiary and picked many creatures from level 8 or above and had an equal level party fight it, the majority of creature ACs would be between 19-21 (excluding level bonus). There are some outlier creatures but the math is really the same regardless of level.

Just my thoughts on all this.

Duskreign wrote:

One other effect I think shields has had on the game is that in order to make the shield math generally work, its pigeon holed the math of creatures to be pretty same-y on the same levels. There are some outliers though.

I don't think that has much to do with shields. Creatures of similar levels need to have similar stats to make encounter building guidelines worth a damn.

One dial can be turned up while another is turned down. More damage could mean less HPs or lower AC. There are ways to still balance the encounter. I think the game would be better for it with more of these adjustments. I just think Shields is one of the things that is thus far limiting these changes.

I agree, its a slippery slope. But I do think a brief beta test would have been good. If I recall, PF1 went through alpha and beta tests and that was already on top of pretty polished 3.5 game (ymmv).

I think overall, PF2 is very solid, but a beta test would have caught some of the language omissions and rules edge cases that exist now.

Duskreign wrote:

NA Palm wrote:

Duskreign wrote:

So here's something to consider. Shield Block's trigger says "While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack."

What if you had Resist 5 Physical Damage? If an attack hit you for 4 damage, you would not take damage, thus you could not activate your Shield Block, but you can't even choose to use Shield Block at that point because you didn't know that you took damage. Therefore, you need to know that you took damage and the only way for you to know that is for the DM to tell you that you took X damage.

So the trigger has to happen after you are told damage.

Therefore, the player will know at all times whether an incoming attack will destroy the shield or not.

I don't think he was arguing that it wasn't how it worked according to the rules, only that the decision making it promoted was bizarre.

I just felt it was important to point out to anyone reading the thread why the timing for Shield Block is important and that players benefit from knowing the incoming damage before making your decision. A certain segment of DMs force the player to decide before hand, and this is not the correct ruling. So I grabbed the opportunity to reinforce this. :)

Has "knowing the damage" been clarified? Watching episodes of Oblivion Oath Jason B seems to ask if they want shield block first before they know the damage. So sorry if I missed that clarification but reading the feat it does not specifically state you know the incoming damage amount...just that damage made it through all you resistances.

Well, that's the real trick. I think Jason plays it simpler for the stream but who knows. What I do know, is that I had a long conversation with Mark Seifter (one of the PF designers) about this and he stated this was how it worked. Although he did say that he wasn't authorized to make it official as Paizo wants to have a single source for definitive FAQs and errata. So while its not official, its as close as it can get. Further, he brought up the resistance example I used above which clearly illustrates that you need to know that you actually take damage before you can trigger the reaction.

My take is that shields are meant to absorb damage once a fight. You have the option of doing it more, but at extreme risk of destroying your shield.

Shields are not meant to absorb damage endlessly. Remember that choosing a shield build needs to be balanced with other non shield builds, and being able to absorb damage multiple times in combat in addition to an AC bonus quickly eclipses the benefits of non shield builds. The math (creature damage vs hardness/hp levels of shields) strongly supports the once a combat Shield Block.

Thus, shield users are meant to use Shield Block later in the fight when the healer is busy and your shield wielder would remain standing by using the Shield Block action.

Certain magical shields CAN support taking more hits though. In my own games I see almost every shield wielder gravitate to shields that have higher hardness and HPs in order to absorb more damage which is understandable because people who use shields want better defense whether its through an AC bonus or damage absorption. The tradeoff is that you are giving up some potential offensive/utility abilities of other magical shields for a purely defensive build.

Once you understand that shield damage absorption is limited and you understand when you should use Shield Block, magic shields with other abilities than a higher hardness/hp threshold become a little more appealing.

In my view, if the designers were a bit more obvious about the shield niche in the game, this would curb a lot of confusion.

Like the wraith and the nightmare. Not a fan of the PF2 shadow design. Too spindly for my tastes. Looks like a strong set tho.

Davor Firetusk wrote:

I'd be curious for some alternate ideas, side quests or material for earlier in the adventure path. The last volume isn't the natural place for that exactly, but even if you start playing as it is released you might barely be through book 2 by time book 6 is released.

I don't think this is the right place to add in "cutting room floor" or "developer's addition" type content. That stuff is more useful during play, not after the campaign is over.

That said, we ARE looking for ways to get more stuff like web enhancements or bonus material out there via other routes, so hopefully some day we'll be able to do web enhancement type things more easily and quickly and efficiently.

I know that you already answered this but I still feel I want to second the "cutting room floor/developer's addition" content idea. Many GMs don't run APs as they come out for various reasons and I think this is an opportunity to further link the individual adventures tighter together. I've read enough anecdotes about published adventures that sometimes things get missed, forgotten, or not entirely lined up with the overall story that this provides an opportunity to resolve some of this at the very end.

I completely understand that this could lead to a lot of work and that perhaps producing this in the final volume is still too soon to notice these sorts of errors/omissions but I think it would be great if you tried the concept at least once in the future to gauge community feedback. I think this sort of thing can only enhance the overall AP in my opinion.

Three questions:

1. What is the design reason behind some adventure gear giving a bonus to some skills, while others provide a penalty if you don't have them. It seems that penalties for not having an item can be easily forgotten about (compass and crowbar for example). It seems like it would have been easier to make them all one way or the other.

2. Can a hero point save you from an instant death? Say a creature that kill you outright on a failed save?

3. Musical Instruments in the equipment section are 2 handed items. On pg 96 under the Bard Occult Spellcasting, it states if you use an instrument you don’t need a spell pouch or another free hand. Does this mean a bard can cast spells with an musical instrument in one hand?

One trend that I hope continues is the alternate abilities for common creatures. The skeleton, for example, will always keep players on their toes wondering which ability this group of skeletons will have.

Plus I think it's super easy to print additional skeleton abilities in future products further enhancing the GMs toolbox.

Love this preview! PF2 without a doubt is going to rock!

Curious if weapons have changed much (traits, etc) from the playtest.

Love the start. I had to read it twice. Great stuff!

I'd really like to know what the Advanced GM Screen is vs the one releasing on Aug 1st. I might delay my purchase of it until I know.

Well, I'm no charter member, and in fact, only started collecting during War for the Crown. But, since then, I have tracked down and purchased a physical copy of every AP issue through any and every online source I could discover in Canada and the USA! So I have the complete collection. Not sure where that puts me in this discussion :-) This was not an easy task, let me tell you.

Cori Marie wrote:

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

That is a VERY colorful bear

Because he's not really a bear ;)

Developer's Note: Dolok Darkfur reacts to claim that he's "not a bear" in much the same way that a professional wrestler might react to being told that they're "not a real athlete." While technically correct in Dolok's case, it's a conversation best had not in his presence. The last time someone called him "not a bear", a magic-reinforced castle surrounded by vrock demons was insufficient to keep him at bay (see above).

AKA, "Let the wookie win".

I could sell you this old brass oil lamp, but we're all too afraid a blue Will Smith will emerge from it.

Quoted for truth!

Strachan Fireblade wrote:

Where's Mark Seifter when you need him to unofficially confirm our thoughts.

*hopes that the mere mention of his name will summon him*

You didn't say his name 3 times. ;)

Mark Seifter!

Where's Mark Seifter when you need him to unofficially confirm our thoughts.

*hopes that the mere mention of his name will summon him*

Can this be purchased at PaizoCon? Or ordered for pickup and PaizoCon? If so what are the box dimensions? Are the Dragon's demand box dimensions different?

If it helps, I have ordered both the base set and CofCT sets. Should be here tomorrow or Tuesday from what I've been told. I'm happy to play through them with you. ;)

Also, I believe our LGS, Strange Ideas, has some coming in (which is where I have ordered them through).

So, I have already backed the new compilation, but one question I have is if there will be digital interactive maps released (the same as the ones you receive if you have an Adventure Path subscription) for this product?

My gaming set up makes use of a Microsoft Surface and a 50 inch TV as the gaming map. I use Photoshop to project the map onto the TV allowing me to zoom in/out as necessary for miniature use. I have no desire to ever hand draw a map every again.

Trichotome,

This truly is great work! I love how things are interconnected and foreshadowed. This clearly was a lot of work but the end result shows the planning you put into the project.

It is unfortunate that I am currently in Book 3 - The Twilight Child, as its too late for me to run the prologue. Nevertheless, I have archived your work in my library in the event that I run this AP again in the future. I hope you don't mind, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your work is very inspiring!

Also, since you mentioned the OmegaZ thread, I have been making use of his ideas too. The additional foreshadowing, and in particular, OmegaZ's thoughts on how to handle Prince Carrius and the cult in Book 3 has worked out wonderfully. At the beginning of the Twilight Child, I didn't have Martella mention the cult at all. Instead, she mentioned bandit activity, a missing agent, and a strong need to represent Eutropia well in order for Yanmass to side with them over Pythareus. Once the PCs arrived in Yanmass, the PCs learned about both the seemingly helpful "offshoot Abadaran group", and the dreams that were afflicting the people of Yanmass. With all of these things going on, my PCs felt that investigating the cult could wait - there didn't seem to be any threat. Thus far, they have dealt with the pairaka's causing the dreams, and next session they will deal with the traitors at Tallgrasses. Once that is complete, they intend to investigate the cult which is basically the last section of the module (other than dealing with Merkondus).

Its here where I have made a few changes of my own from OmegaZ's ideas. First, I have decided the cult only meets weekly instead of daily. This is mainly attributed to the fact that in just over a week of in game time, the PCs have made good headway in this adventure. If I recall correctly, there are 8 persona phases and this will help me extend the timeline to fit those 8 persona phases in. Second, I have decided that only regular citizens have attended any of the sermons featuring Prince Carrius. Being peasants for the most part, they are not up on Taldor nobility knowledge (or in my case Lore as I am using PF2 playtest rules). Thus, no one even realizes who the twilight child is, and therefore there is even less of a reason to investigate the cult first. I think this puts the proper spotlight on the PCs. They become the first people to recognize that the Twilight Child is a "returned" Prince Carrius. Further, it makes the last section of the module more interesting because the PCs need to find out if this is some sort of deception or not. And since its not, how the hell did this happen. Since I have used OmegaZ's advice to bring up Carrius several times throughout the AP so far (old stories about him, seeing paintings of him in Birdsong Palace, etc), it really ties in strongly that the PCs are the first to recognize him since he is fresh in their minds.

Anyways, I wanted to add some additional insight for people who haven't gotten this far as to what has and hasn't worked well.

Edit - One other thing I wanted to add about your work. I really love how you evoke a sense of time passing through the prologue. You see many of the AP players at earlier times in their lives. A young Dame Crabbe, Baron Okerra with a wife, etc. This is so great!

The twig collecting is a pretty cool concept in the video. I like it!

Don't think this was posted here yet...but there is a Basic action called Sense Motive that uses Perception. Joe, you may want to add a link which points to the Garycon thread where Mark Seifter talks about this in the final game.

I'm currently running WftC myself with PF2 rules. We will wrap up the second book this week. I've largely left the modules as is. When it comes to monsters, I snip the PF1 stat block from the book, then find an appropriate monster from the PF2 bestiary for that level and paste beside the PF1 stat block. This lets me retain the PF1 vision, abilities, and feel of the monster, while using the proper numbers for a PF2 monster of the correct level.

The process is pretty simple and works fine. It's really not a lot of work. Most things convert easy enough, some require some hand-waving.

The only thing that I got hung up on, and I'm still not sure I'm doing it right, is the PF2 equivalent of Sense Motive. I've basically been having players make a Perception check against a creatures Will DC (Will Save bonus plus 10) if they want to sense that something is wrong or off. I suspect I should be using the Deception (Lie) but that doesn't seem right either in some cases.

Mark, if you are still around, I'd appreciate an answer on how that should work in PF2!

Personally, I'd like to see a change to spell AoE templates. Burst, cones, and even some aura's are a real pain to eyeball as to whether a creature is in or out of a spell effect without counting squares. I suspect my group is in the minority for this sort of change but it sure would be nice. The game should be more about being in the moment rather than counting squares....

Perhaps Mark Seifter could enlighten me if there are any changes (and if there is, he wouldn't have to reveal what those changes are.... :) )

I find that hard to believe! ;) That sounds like a villain-y thing to say.

In all honesty, I'm pretty stoked for the next edition! Looking forward to August 1st!

Is the villain Erik Mona? ;)

Thanks to the Paizo team for all their hard work. Thanks in particular goes to Mark Seifter who I think is a fantastic ambassador for the Paizo team and brand. His participation on the forums, DM fill in for streams (if I got that right), design insight, and overall in depth interaction with the "fans" has been nothing short of impressive.

/tips hat

I got the impression from one of Mark Seifter’s chat comments during the stream that the devs are looking at possibly removing the +1/level for skills while keeping it in other places.

My overall sense is that they are seriously looking at all options here and nothing is off the table at the moment.

Anyone watching the stream should keep an eye out for his comment and see if you get the same impression as I. I believe it was during the Q&A portion.

I thought it was worth mentioning that I thought this was a very solid survey. It seemed to have the right balance/types of questions for the feedback I wanted to give. Kudos to the designer of this survey!

One note that I will point out, at least as I understand it, regarding the Entangled/Grabbed condition is that the DC 5 flat check only occurs on actions, activities, reactions, etc with the manipulate trait. I originally read it to mean manipulate action, any activity, any reaction, any free action. But I don't believe this to be the case. The next step up is restrained and it points out both manipulate and attack traits. This would not need to be mentioned if Entangled/Grabbed already included the attack trait as part of ANY activity, ANY reaction, ANY free action.

I may be wrong, but I think this is how it reads.

This is my experience too. Average damage would be nice after a certain number of dice are rolled.

Too many conditions.

Too many nested conditions. When you read a condition, you are referred to other conditions.

Condition definitions needs to be more concise. I don't want a wall of text when I am trying to figure out penalties/bonuses.

I think you could make that a Class Feat for alchemists in order to gain the formula (non trsnferable) to make "elemental coatings" sort of like silversheen.

just take silversheen's guidelines as an item and apply it to that way.

Though that would leave out weapons without the elements.
I would rather just have elemental coatings that last for 1 min and give d4 of an element

I dont' think the system would support being able to alter things like Returning and such.
but it would support altering damage types via alchemy.

This is more or less what I pictured, myself. It seems to be a different way of buffing, much in the same way that other support classes buff. Only this buff is direct to damage instead of the typical bonuses to saves, attacks, and defenses.

A few more points I meant to add to my last post.

1. The slaver demon Take Your Soul ability was ineffective. The DC was to easy to make. Much like the aforementioned ghost mages and dread wraiths.

2. Monks deal an impressive amount of damage at this level. It was the highest average damage dealer.

3. The sheer amount of dice, both gathering them up as well as adding them up significantly slowed the pace of the game and contributed to the longer fights. I believe this is one of the biggest factors of the long fights we are now experiencing.

4. Persistent damage when used on a creature that has a weakness to it can do significant damage each round.

I noticed the issue with the map and huge sized creatures too. Since I didn’t see any aqueezing rules I had the Treachery Demons appear in different spots than suggested in the book and it did impact the fight somewhat making it considerably less dynamic.

I also noticed an issue with Reverse Gravity and ceiling height. Heroes of Undarin states that the treachery demons use Reverse Gravity to cause targets to fall to the roof. I decided to lower the roof as the spell only reaches 40 feet in height allowing the demons to perform their stated strategy.

After 2 sessions we have completed wave 5. Fights are getting longer and are dragging out now. Many more rules are interacting together causing us to look at the rule book more and discuss how they interact with one another. Additionally, more reactions are being used during other creatures turns which interrupts the flow of combat. This was a major issue with 4e and I’m starting to see it become an issue at higher levels.

Another issue in this adventure is that the save DCs of some monsters abilities are so low that during an entire encounter the special abilities were useless. In particular, the dread wraith and the ghost mages suffered from this problem.

Also of note, is that while monster damage generally feels adequate and capable of punishing PCs with crits, the amount of healing at this level is astounding, even without a cleric. I have a healing spec’d paladin, a monk/sorcerer, an alchemist and a sorcerer. With class healing, and some of the magic item healing, I have only dropped one player thus far and they likely have enough healing to get through several more encounters. It feels like too much right now, especially in light of the fact that Treat Wounds exists now (even though players are limited to when it can be used in this chapter).

Lastly, the lich fight was not near as dangerous as I’d hoped. My players did get lucky with some crucial timely saves (dominate for example) but with the ghost mages not being very effective, the lich is quickly worn down with the action economy of 4 players against it.

Overall, this chapter is the least fun to DM and to play in as a player (as indicated by my players). It has nothing to do with the likely impending PC deaths either. It’s the grindiness, staticness, complex interactions of rules (spells, conditions, flight interacting with trip, seen/unseen, etc). It wouldn’t be so bad if the chapter ended earlier but player healing keeps the chapter going and going and our hope is that after the next session (our third which would equate to 12 hours playing time), it will mercifully end. We all understand what this chapter is measuring (it should be noted that I did not warn my players beforehand but they have since figured out the chapters goal and I thought it was fair to warn them of what is likely coming next session in order to mentally prepare them and not have them discouraged). However, it could have been written much differently to add some fun aspects to the chapter. It meets its design goal admirably, but it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, something that I think some playtesters will be unable to separate leading to further negativity of PF2 which I feel is ultimately unfair beyond the criticism I have already mentioned. Despite this, we continue to enjoy PF2. We hope our feedback will bring the necessary adjustments to improve high level play.

I know this post goes beyond the OPs intent but I felt this information might be valuable to DMs running this chapter.

Edit: Something else I often forget is that if you don’t use a fly action, you fall. I’d like to see this in a more obvious spot, maybe the basic action section (despite it not being relevant for a number of levels), Doing this makes this rule more obvious to players and DMs alike.

Rolling too many dice really slows the game down. This became quite evident during our chapter 5 playtest.

One thing that I don’t see mentioned here that was part of the stream is that ethnicities (Osirion, Varisian, etc) will not be part of the Heritages. You pick whatever heritage you want, your feat, and can still be from wherever you want to be. Ethnicity and heritage do not compete with each other.