Lopo

Sub-Creator's page

598 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 598 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I guess I got lucky all around with Kingmaker. Having read through the entire AP beforehand, I created numerous side-stories and really let the players center a lot on their own characters' stories, as well. I introduced the BBEG way earlier and had an involved story line that centered the AP around fey from Book Two. One of the major problems I have with APs generally is that your characters have no time to develop beyond the story the AP is telling, because everything just feels like it must happen so quickly. Kingmaker had no time constraints on it at all, which enabled the players free reign on all sorts of development time! I've run half-a-dozen PF APs, and I thought this one the most freeing from both a GM and player standpoint.

As to the kingdom building, I was lucky on that too. Most of my players weren't interested in it at all, save one, who basically was put in charge of all of it. He then poured over the math of it (which he loves) and made the vast majority of the decisions. However, he wasn't the king, so the group role-played through the decision-making process, with the one player describing to king and council what was happening in the city, then getting any input the others wished to give on where they wanted the kingdom to go (with special emphasis placed on the king's decisions on it). These council sessions lasted between 10-15 minutes apiece. We also did kingdom rolls and all of that during these, with different players rolling for the different kingdom stats, and events would get put into the roleplaying for the month so as to better work in with the players' individual stories. Thus, our kingdom building was incorporated into the role-playing of the game, which worked beautifully and kept the whole party invested with a part of the campaign that they cared little for because of the numbers game.

I will say that Kingmaker requires a ton of time for the GM, but if you're able to put in that time, you won't find a better AP in the line for 1E. That's just my take, however. I do agree with some of the others here on other APs. Reign of Winter has a great story, as does Curse of the Crimson Throne, which I'm currently playing in right now.


My vote goes to Kingmaker.

It's a truly epic AP that enables both the players to explore the fullness of their characters and the GM to explore the fullness of the region without any real time constraints at all. I borrowed extensively from surrounding River Kingdoms to create additional political storylines, as well as fashioned plots involving a massive cult of Tiamat (borrowed heavily from "Red Hand" admittedly) and a Lovecraftian storyline throughout. It also has so much good information for the First World that I was able to weave stronger First World elements into the plot from Book Two onward.

By far, it's been the longest Pathfinder AP that we've played, taking us over three years to complete, and my players were incredibly invested. I'll agree that there are other APs that have a tighter fit where the story line is concerned, but Kingmaker's flexibility is unmatched in PF APs . . . though I've always thought that Skull & Shackles had this potential too. Unfortunately, I've not had the time again like I had with Kingmaker to really work with that one, so it's sat on the shelf.


Hello everyone! I posted this in the 2nd Ed "Lost Omens Campaign Setting" forum and its "General Discussion" forum, but received no bites in either. I'm hoping maybe I'll have more luck postimg with the 1st Ed crew!

Basically, I'd love to learn more about the Starfall Doctrine. I know that it's been around since before Azlant fell, and I know that Cheliax turned rather heavily to it in the last couple centuries before Aroden's failed return.

Is there a copy of the Starfall Doctrine still existing in the Inner Sea region? If so, who has it? Do we know anything more about the prophecies that resided within the Starfall Doctrine? I read some stuff in old threads by Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Mona, but I'm curious if the Paizo crew have any legitimate world-related information about the prophecies of the Starfall Doctrine in books as canon, or if it's generally something that GMs and players are free to make up as they go.

I'm currently playing an Inquisitor of Aroden in an AP and would just like to have whatever official information I can get concerning the Starfall Doctrine, its current whereabouts, what's happened to it, and what prophecies are known to be in the SD within canon.

The Starfall Doctrine appears to play such a huge part of the history of the Inner Sea, yet nothing that I've yet found (and I've done some searching) provides a lot of information concerning it. I'd love to get some clues/answers if possible!

Many thanks to any and all who can help!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello everyone! Been a long time since I've come to these boards!

Basically, I'd love to learn more about the Starfall Doctrine. I know that it's been around since before Azlant fell, and I know that Cheliax turned rather heavily to it in the last couple centuries before Aroden's failed return.

Is there a copy of the Starfall Doctrine still existing in the Inner Sea region? If so, who has it? Do we know anything more about the prophecies that resided within the Starfall Doctrine? I read some stuff in old threads by Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Mona, but I'm curious if the Paizo crew have any legitimate world-related information about the prophecies of the Starfall Doctrine in books as canon, or if it's generally something that GMs and players are free to make up as they go.

The Starfall Doctrine appears to play such a huge part of the history of the Inner Sea, yet nothing that I've yet found (and I've done some searching) provides a lot of information concerning its current whereabouts, or what's happened to it. I'd love to get some clues/answers about the Starfall Doctrine in the present Inner Sea timeline, if that information is available!

Many thanks to any and all who can help!


First off, it's been a long time since I've been here, so forgive me, since I'm relatively certain this is in the wrong place. I'm not sure where all this stuff is broken down since the turning to 2e.

Basically, I'd love to learn more about the Starfall Doctrine. I know that it's been around since before Azlant fell, and I know that Cheliax turned rather heavily to it in the last couple centuries before Aroden's failed return.

Is there a copy of the Starfall Doctrine still existing in the Inner Sea region? If so, who has it? Do we know anything more about the prophecies that resided within the Starfall Doctrine? I read some stuff in old threads by Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Mona, but I'm curious if the Paizo crew have any legitimate world-related information about the prophecies of the Starfall Doctrine in books as canon, or if it's generally something that GMs and players are free to make up as they go.

The Starfall Doctrine appears to play such a huge part of the history of the Inner Sea, yet nothing that I've yet found (and I've done some searching) provides a lot of information concerning its current whereabouts, or what's happened to it. I'd love to get some clues/answers about the Starfall Doctrine in the present Inner Sea timeline, if that information is available!

Many thanks to any and all who can help!


I would be most appreciative if you'd cancel my subscription to the Adventure Path line before the new AP ships. The Return of the Runelords will be my final 1e purchase! Thanks for the great run, folks! It's been a pleasure!

Bannachadee, always,
Patrick


I apologize for coming here to post this, but I've head it up on the Steam forum for about four days and no one is replying. Figured maybe someone on this forum might have some info to help me out.

It seems when I play the game, it's a crap shoot as to whether I will get a picture or just black after a loading screen. There's sound, and my mouse can be heard clicking over buttons (such as if I hit Escape and glide the cursor over the Save, Load, etc. options), but there's no picture at all. This happens entirely too frequently, and I have to exit out of the game constantly with hopes that when I reload it, maybe I'll get a picture and can play.

I've started playing the game in windows rather than full screen, just so I can "x" out of the game without having to go to Task Manager!

I'm curious if this is a bug issue, or if there's something about the hardware in my computer or setup that's getting in the way. My stuff isn't brand new, but it should be more than capable to run this game. My Processor more than fits the recommended specs, and while my GeForce 9600 GT is an older model vid card, but it still meets all the recommendations that I can see. It's drivers are updated.

Is there something that I'm missing here that's causing me this little issue or is it on their end?

Any help on this would be appreciated!


Matrix Sorcica wrote:
SheepishEidolon wrote:

I miss the foreword a bit, despite knowing it's for a good case (more adventure pages).

I really feel this AP would benefit from a foreword, reflecting on the conclusion of the Runelords story line.

Instead they skipped the foreword but included four pages of advertisements. Why, oh why?

Well, like so many others, they love to make people ask questions. Because when there are those who cannot be satisfied with the viable reasons for why things are, at least they can still make those people ask questions. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm ecstatic at this! This is the one I've been waiting for all these years without even realizing I've been waiting for it.

Mr. Jacobs . . . Bring it! =D


Malk_Content wrote:
Sub-Creator wrote:
I'd really prefer it if someone in Development would just come out and say, "Worry not! We've got in-world reasons for these changes, but it's just not time for us to reveal them yet!"

They already have done that. I think it was in the Goblin blog. They don't want to give the reasons because they would spoil upcoming adventures.

EDIT: As for changing the currency standard. Honestly this feels like bringing mechanics more in line with setting descriptions. Gold pieces are written about like they are something worth giving a damn about, were in the mechanics they really aren't.

My apologies . . . I don't recall reading that.

I'll still disagree with the currency standard change on this, though. Mechanics are one thing, world continuity is another. Gold has been established. I don't mind them changing to silver at all, but there's got to be a worldly reason for it. Honestly, this seems like something you could have fun with Druma concerning, and maybe have them do something with gold that makes it more scarce in some way. Something.

The Eternal Keeper wrote:

Well, there's a very simple explnatation for why they might change to a silver standard. There's simply not that much gold around to cover all the economic transactions requiring them going around, so the various kingdoms, in order to avoid crashing their economies, decided to change the values of the coin denominations.

It is pretty obvious that they got going coin denominations, with how the copper coin is worth 1/10th of a silver going without being enourmous relative to the silver coin

But there has been, and, by all accounts, there has been for millennia. Why the change? The story is important here. =)


graystone wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
graystone wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Another example is that since 1000 gp is 4 years worth of hard work for average commoner, adventuring because you want to become rich is silly because even at level 1 you earn in one adventure more loot than commoners would earn for months if not years. And then is question of "So if you sell all these uber expensive items, who even has money to buy them, this +1 magic sword costs more than average house"

Monthly Cost of Living, Extravagant (1,000 gp/month): "lives in a mansion, castle, or other extravagant home—he might even own the building in question. This is the lifestyle of most aristocrats."

So the answer would be "aristocrats" as they toss away 1000gp/month JUST on lifestyle. Even the plain old Wealthy spend (100 gp/month). Also there are all those NPC's that need equiping so the PC's can defeat them and take the items in the first place: there are always bad guys that are willing to buy discounted magic items so they can act as foils for other 'heroes'.

Which itself is absurd that at high levels, even bandits tend to all have +1 weapons meaning they are already rich

I don't see the point you're making. Is changing to silver making that less true? Isn't the amount people earn ALSO shifting to silver, meaning it's a lateral move? Aren't those same weapons going to be just as expensive, just using a different standard?

Please explain why a new pathfinder bandit isn't as equally rich as a pathfinder classic one...

Sorry for the multiple posts . . . I'm into this conversation late, so just throwing stuff out as I come to it!

Might it be, Graystone, that the difference will be the new mechanics? I thought I read somewhere that this new system is trying to reduce the necessity of magic items/weapons/armor to be viable, and so it's possible that bandits in this new system won't be carrying +1 magic swords, as they'll still be dangerous with mundane swords in their hands.

This is just a thought on the subject, however, as I can't say for certain if it's true or not. I'll say this though: I think it much preferable should it be true! If bandits are carrying around magic weapons and armor to be a challenging threat in this new system, as well, then there's really no reason at all for any of these changes in world.


Skeld wrote:
You are correct that this change seems arbitrary to me because there appears to be no reason behind it (or at least no reason that's been pointed out to me yet), which is definition of an arbitrary change. If something's going to change, I'd like there to be a good reason behind it. For me, the change barrier for game mechanics is low, but this change isn't just about game mechanics, it affects something (the price/cost/value of everything) that's been established in the game world across a few hundred published books. Even that wouldn't bug me so much if the change didn't appear arbitrary (again, having no apparent or stated reason behind it).

I'm right there with you, Skeld. I personally despise when changes are made to the world just because. "People love playing goblins, so let's make them a common playable race!" This doesn't do it for me at all, which is why I'm really hoping they establish some sort of continuity for it. Same goes for the currency. I actually love the idea of going to a silver standard; in fact, I love it far more than having a gold standard like they have now! But I've been playing in Golarion for over eight years now, and goblins are akin to vermin, save that they're far more deadly, and gold has always been the standard. Changing mechanics is one thing, but arbitrarily altering the way the world works without explanation is just a No-No, in my opinion.

It's what I hated about the Forgotten Realms change to 4e. Yeah, I didn't care for the new system, but what I despised more than anything was the destruction of the Weave without explanation as to how magic was still able to be used in the world other than "just because." Yeah, they ended up creating a story about all that later on to help with the explanation, but that didn't help me at all for years before, which is why I never played in the Realms again. Give me a reason. It doesn't even have to be the greatest reason, but it needs to be plausible and not contrived.

All that said, I realize that Paizo has plenty of time to give us that explanation, so I'm not really too concerned at this time. However, if the time should come, and they give us nothing, then shame on them. I'd really prefer it if someone in Development would just come out and say, "Worry not! We've got in-world reasons for these changes, but it's just not time for us to reveal them yet!" Since they aren't doing this, we've no choice but to have a little faith at this time that they do. Otherwise, I'll not even consider moving Golarion into the future that is 2E and keep it where it's at in our own games until another world catches our attention. We did it once, so doing it again won't be too difficult.


The Purity of Violence wrote:
It's really disappointing that we're getting a book on deities that no one has every heard of, but we still lack obediences and boons for the major deities of Tian Xia or Osirian, both of which I assume have far more player support than the nob-entities of this book. Won't be buying.

I don't find it disappointing at all, really, since I've a lot more use for the deities in this book than I would for either of those regions you mentioned. To each their own, however! ;)


Souls At War wrote:
Sub-Creator wrote:
Souls At War wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Probably stuff on all of the stuff that hasn't been covered.
They could do both an Hardcover ISWG2 and a softcover "update" to ISWG.

If they're doing an update softcover to the ISWG, however, why would they need to do a second ISWG2? The former makes doing a latter irrelevant, doesn't it?

An ISWG2 hardcover simply isn't necessary, as all it would have in it is the identical information as the first one, but with the changes from the original APs put in. Thus, the original still holds strong and need not be replaced. They can then use the slot that would have been for an ISWG2 to give us something completely unique. A better use of resources on their part, I think. =)

One is for veterants who already have ISWG, the other for Newcomers, many who might not have thousands of $ to spend on older products to jump in.

Honestly, I'm not sure they'd need to invest in thousands of dollars anyhow. As mentioned above, any new ISWG2 would have pretty much the same stuff in it that the 2011 version had, as they probably wouldn't add much info from the campaign setting books anyhow. The ISWG is a survey book of the Inner Sea region, so the blurbs need to be short. Anything that they'd change will already be done in the supplemental book for 2E that they're doing.

Thus, anyone new coming into the game at 2E can purchase the 2011 ISWG, then the upcoming supplement that has what changes from the APs exist and have everything they need from a world perspective for, what, $100? That's not a terribly significant investment, especially not for the gaming industry! =)


Souls At War wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Probably stuff on all of the stuff that hasn't been covered.
They could do both an Hardcover ISWG2 and a softcover "update" to ISWG.

If they're doing an update softcover to the ISWG, however, why would they need to do a second ISWG2? The former makes doing a latter irrelevant, doesn't it?

An ISWG2 hardcover simply isn't necessary, as all it would have in it is the identical information as the first one, but with the changes from the original APs put in. Thus, the original still holds strong and need not be replaced. They can then use the slot that would have been for an ISWG2 to give us something completely unique. A better use of resources on their part, I think. =)


I actually don't mind at all that ISWG won't be getting redone, and am quite happy that they aren't doing so! I had anticipated that perhaps we'd be getting a smaller (perhaps 96-page in size) detailing the changes from the APs in Golarion.

Admittedly, I was curious if they'd create a book that detailed both scenarios: This is how the world changes if the PCs succeeded, and this is how the world changes if the PCs failed. That would also enable anyone using the book that hadn't run specific APs to pick and choose how they wanted the world to change from that book. Mind you, I can understand how this would make it very hard to create a new map of the Inner Sea. Plus, it's difficult to know exactly how each group's campaign ended.

I'm sure that however they choose to enlighten folk on how the world changes, it'll work out fine.


Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Are they still doing the Runelords AP?

Yes, they are. The Return of the Runelords will be the penultimate AP in 1st Edition, followed by The Tyrant's Grasp.


Any additional news about The Tyrant's Grasp from Sunday? I'm itching to know authors or additional tidbits!


Put a set of PF Dice (Kingmaker) and Blood of the Ancients in my side cart, as well, and noticed the same problem . . . No Advantage is being taken off.

Thought I'd simply add to this rather than make my own thread for it. Thanks for your help! =)


Mark Seifter wrote:
Infusion Specialization reduces the cost of infusions. Metakinetic Master reduces the cost of (one) metakinesis. Gather power reduces anything you need it to for the blast.

Thank you, Mr. Seifter. I apologize for rehashing the issue, but appreciate the swift reply. =)


So, thus far I've been combing through some early threads about the Kineticist for anything that Mr. Seifter may have said that points towards Infusion Specialization (I inaccurately call it "Specialty" above) working towards reducing metakinesis as well as infusions, and the following is all I've located thus far:

Stated by Mark Seifter, August 7, 2015, at 5:51 pm

"On page 15, it says that the blast wild talents are comprised of simple and composite blasts (or however the editors' exact wording goes; it's just above simple blasts), so gather power works just fine. Remember that metakinesis and infusions add to the blast's cost, so you can just add them in and then reduce them off. In your example, Infusion specialization 5 takes care of 5/6 of the infusions on its own, and supercharge handles the remaining 1 burn from infusions and 1 burn from composite (reduced by composite specialization), so you can do it all for no burn!"

The bold is mine own addition. I can see where this quote might be indicative that one can count metakinesis and infusions toward Infusion Specialization. I don't believe that's what it says, but I can see where it might be misconstrued to mean that.


Hey all,

I'd like to apologize, because I'm sure this question has been asked a million times . . . I'd done some searching, and I believe I've found the answer to it, but I've a compatriot of mine that's positive he remembers seeing a quote from the class creator, Mr. Seifter, that speaks otherwise. I'm not sure if there's been a misunderstanding or not, but I know he wouldn't make it up. He's an honest guy!

Does a Kineticist's infusion specialty work to reduce burn from all Kineticist abilities? The ability specifically says that it reduces burn from only infusions. Does it also reduce burn from composite blasts and metakinesis as well? So, if a 15th level Kineticist uses burning (1 burn) extended (1 burn) empowered (1 burn) maximized (2 burn) magma blast (2 burn) for a total of 7 burn . . . His infusion specialty, as I read it, will only reduce this blast by 2 burn (soaking up the burning and extending infusions, but none of the rest), leaving him with 5 burn. If he uses Gather Power for a full round action, then a move action on the next turn, it would soak up the last 5 burn from the metakinesis and composite blast. Otherwise, he's going to take burn from this blast dependent on how much he's using Gather Power for (taking 3 burn if he only uses a move action, or 2 burn if he uses a full round action).

Am I right on how this works? Or, does his infusion specialty (-4 to burn at level 15) soak up a total of 4 burn from the blast, leaving him with only 3 left over, which can be soaked with a full round Gather Power?

Does Mr. Seifter have a quote out there anywhere that states infusion specialty reduces burn from the entire blast, and not just from the infusions added to the blast? I'm quite literally seeking verification here.

Thanks for any and all help!


I thank you all for the suggestions! There are some awesome ones in here that I'll definitely be including within his story.

I own AP #100, and I do intend to use information from there in building his character, so thanks for that, too! I was incredibly excited back when you good folk decided to include it in the book.

I appreciate the replies and help everyone!


Nobody?

That's disappointing . . .

So far, in my research, I've found that there are three priests keeping the faith of Aroden semi-alive in Old Korvosa, as well as a weak faith that remains within Andoran.

Does anyone know of any other locations where one or more followers of Aroden still exist? Or, at the least, there would still be some that remember Aroden's faith when it was very much alive over a hundred years ago? I figure Kyonin would be one of these, as the elves are long-lived, though the faith obviously had no real significance to them, since Aroden was the god of human civilization.


This is a plea for resources containing individuals in the world that have stayed true to Aroden despite his death.

I'm building a character concept based on a follower of Aroden who has been on a pilgrimage to speak with those who have refused to turn away from the Last Azlant. I was curious if anyone can point me to specific references that I could look up or read into about the happenings of those who have remained faithful.

Any and all help is appreciated!


James Jacobs wrote:
Bellona wrote:
If it's not too late, maybe there could be an explanation/work-around for why the town's stat block lists the availability of spell level 4 spellcasting services, but only has detailed spellcasters with max. L 2 spells.

Here's the explanation: We invented the rules for spellcasting availability years AFTER we created Sandpoint. In retrospect, I should have made a new city quality that reduced Sandpoint's spellcasting level by 2 levels, but the prosperous and rumormongering citizens qualities are better fits.

Here's the current solution, which will be in the book: there are "caster's booths" in the market on one day a week when traveling spellcasters set up services in the town's marketplace for folks to purchase spells.

I'm not 100% happy with that, and there's a very good chance that Sandpoint's gonna get its Prosperous quality replaced by a new one that reduces the spellcasting availability.

My Sandpoint now has an 18th level Sorcerer with the Destined bloodline acting as the town's "protector" of sorts, so the level 4 spellcasting services point is relatively moot! We kinda fixed that little faux pas ourselves. =)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:

That's just how you flavor the hits. A 5 damage doesn't have to be "stepped on a rake"-level, you could describe it as a massive gory guts-spewing-everywhere blow. Whichever way you describe it, it brings you to Dying 1. Likewise, say, a Rogue 1 henchman manages to crit you with a deadly weapon and does 20 damage when you were already struggling - but his Death DC is low, so instead of describing it as a knife straight to your jugular, you can just say "he cuts you across the chest."

It does require a paradigm shift from "describe killing blow commensurate with damage dealt" to "describe killing blow commensurate with Death DC", but once you make that shift that solves your verisimilitude problem.

Regardless of the edge cases, I think the general audience is going to have a hard time doing that, especially considering that the whole paradigm actually has to shift. Everywhere else in the game, damage is a measure of how serious a blow is, even with falling, and yet for death, in the case where how serious a blow is arguably at its most important, it breaks this trend. I find that very sloppy with regards to design and very dissatisfying

You're right . . . Paizo should not expect their fan base to have the imaginative capacity to adjust to this. It's simply asking too much for a creatively-driven fantasy RPG! ;)

I've actually noted that this is something that 3.x did in general. People seem to lack the ability to creatively interpret things in their own brain anymore. We often joke around about this in our group when the GM says, "I don't have a map for this section, folks, so you'll have to picture it in your heads."

The joke seems to be, "What?! You want us to use our imagination? Are you insane, man? We stopped having to do that when we gave up 2e!"

That said, I think you'll all do just fine with the paradigm shift. Don't sell yourselves short . . . You'll be amazed at the things your brains can do! =)


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this falls into the category of: privilege someone with something for too long and suddenly they feel it their right to have it.

We can debate about the necessity of the PG until we're blue in the face, and people can argue that those traits are called out right in the AP, so it's their job to get it to us in a timely manner . . . however, it is still a free document provided us out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it because they appreciate this community and want to do things for us that they know we'll appreciate. It's amazing to me that this community (or certain elements of it) can't be just as kind and considerate to them.

Paizo has been doing this Golarion AP thing for what, a decade? And in all that time, with exception of those couple that you had to pay for, they've supplied a Player's Guide for their APs as a free product that those working on it have--out of the goodness of their hearts--dedicated their own free time into creating. Additionally, in all that time, this product hasn't been late in coming. A decade--or nine years, if one subtracts the two paid versions--without issue.

Now, Paizo's got a lot on their plate with past illnesses and upcoming playtests that completely revise the rules system, and they're behind on one free product, and people are decrying them for it as if the world were ending and it's their fault. It just doesn't make sense to me.

If you wish to play the AP now, then play it. If you feel as though those traits are necessary, then wait. If you want something for the traits, but want to play now, there have been a couple posts here that provide freely given trait stats by people who have read the book and jotted down what makes sense to them for each one. Use those.

There are options, folks. The world won't end, the sky is not falling, the Taldor civil war will wait for you . . . and the Player's Guide will get here when it gets here. Things are busy there and it's free. Accept both of those facts for what they are, and I bid you happy gaming! =)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wallie Desruisseaux wrote:
My real guess is that it never actually happens. They'll release the traits in a blog and that's as far as it goes. 1e doesn't matter anymore. Do your best to invest as little as you can until 2e.

I'm not so sure telling people not to buy gaming books is in the best interest of your business, Mr. Desruisseaux.

Simmer down a touch, have a little patience, show a little good faith, and all will be well and right with the world in due time. Meanwhile, since 1e will still be around for a good 1.5 years or so, I'd keep selling those books to the best of your ability! PF has its problems like every other system, but there's a lot to be loved there still!


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll have to agree with the bag on this one . . . This is a free product that they hand to us out of the kindness of their heart. Let's not get too carried away people. I know that we all have games we want to play. Patience is the word of the day. Let's maintain, and they'll get it to us when they get it to us.

Until then: Relax. (That's the word of the day for tomorrow.)


Samy wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
That just confuses me further, I mean, since when is Spain or Rome standard RPG setting and not exotic?
Since everybody gets to decide for themselves what they find exotic. Maybe Spain/Rome are exotic to you, but not to me. They are literally within one day's driving distance from anglosaxon areas IRL. They are *so close* to each other culturally, when compared to looking at something like Mongols or the Maya. That comparatively small amount of separation on a global scale may be enough for you, but not for everyone.

For the record, if I recall correctly, Taldor is based more on Byzantine than Rome culturally. So the drive is a little longer than a day. ;)


Sutter left? Wasn't he the one put in charge of Starfinder? Bummer. Lot of big names leaving the Golem lately. Wish them all luck with whatever they're going off to do!


James Jacobs wrote:
Dhampir984 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
I would still love to do another Tian Xia AP, but nowhere did I say that's the one I'm doing next or even the one I WANT to do next.

Creative Director dinosaurs should just eat folks, not tease them. ;)

Is there at least a flavor of thing you'd want to do next you can share?

This has already been mentioned, but I don't think folks have really picked up on it yet...

Return of the Runelords has...

** spoiler omitted **

I did not note this before . . . and now you've really got my attention!


Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:
. . . just more high-level APs in general. Yes, I know high-level play loses a lot of balance, and that's okay... being able to just wreck everything in the face for a few levels as a campaign concludes, before you have to retire those characters, still seems fun to me. And there's enough APs without high-level content for those who prefer it.

See, I think that if it gets to the point where there's no challenge anymore, then it's just not worth playing. If I get to 15th level and no longer have to fear that my character's in danger, I just don't see the point. That said, different strokes for different folks!

Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:
Lastwall vs Belkzen! For general awesomeness.

This I can get behind 100%!

And I'm still fond of the whole Vikings vs. Witches idea, too!


Will do! Thanks!


There's something going on with this site's ability to remember my payment method. I've got the PFAP subscription at the moment, and every month I'm getting a message that says:

"We are eager to ship your products, but we need your help. We do not have a payment method on file for this order. Please take a moment to add a payment method to this order at your . . . ."

Apparently, my payment method is declined every month, yet the payment method that I put in every month when I get this method is the exact same payment method as what the system continues to decline. I don't understand why it's doing this! I tell it to save it, and it does . . . the payment method is still there as I write this, but it seems to be declining that and forcing me to put it in over and over again.

Help? Please?

It's not a problem that's insurmountable, as I can put the stuff in every month if necessary, but it's kind of annoying, if you get me.


Elegos wrote:
It does? I've not read the adventure suggestions for RotR. Unless it's the same as the one from Shattered Star, with the Taiga giant packing 2/3s of Zutha's book?

You know what? I think you're right. I got my post-AP adventure hooks mixed up there. Though, admittedly, I still enjoyed that it was written in as having happened.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malefactor wrote:
You know, I never really got the "Paizo/WotC/Chaosium/White Wolf/Etc... will invalidate my game" crowd.

Likewise, I've never really got the crowd that says they need a timeline/continuity leap or they can't get immersed because the world is static, either.

Honestly, we've only been playing Pathfinder since Summer of '10, but the timeline and continuity of our Golarion has been hopping with new and exciting things from the get-go. Every story we've told has a place in the world, and they all effect the other stories in some way--even should that just be through rumors or news filtering in from other places. I don't need Paizo to create a moving timeline for my Golarion . . . my players are doing that!

So, I don't have a problem with invalidation at all. If we haven't run an AP, it hasn't happened (with one exception--Second Darkness, which has occurred off screen). If Paizo creates a 2nd Edition, or does something that contradicts our Golarion, we ignore or alter it. Some products might not be purchased because of it. I'm good with that. The world is ours. It's our characters that fuel it and live the stories within it. Paizo doesn't need to tell us how that happens with meta-story arcs. We'll create those and keep Golarion going at our table.

Let Paizo continue to give us some fantastic story chunks to drop in where we will, and let us--the players and GMs--work out the fine details of "moving the story forward." If the world seems stagnant to you, I hesitate to say you're doing it wrong, but there must be something that you're not being done right . . . because Paizo has given you numerous chances to change--even devastate--Golarion and keep that timeline rolling forward around your table!

(edit: These statements aren't directed at Malefactor, specifically, as obviously he/she does a great deal of moving and shaking of his/her world! My disagreement is simply about the world being stagnant due to Paizo not pushing a continuous timeline.)


Elegos wrote:
I think LoR references RotR in a "oh those adventurers are making a mess of things again, unlike us pathfinders" kind of way, and definitely references suggestions for the Shattered Star postgame. But it's nothing that'll spoil plot details

Interestingly enough, LoR also assumes that one of the adventure suggestions in the RotR Anniversary Edition also took place. I kind of enjoyed that!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Yeah, it's really hard to make moral arguments in RPGs with objective morality based on the real world. (Or more accurately objective, knowable morality).

I would disagree that it can't (or shouldn't) be done, though it certainly can be hard. However, you can make moral arguments by creating characters that live according to objective morality; or a GM can create stories meant to identify such an objective morality. That characters might not want to hear it in the game world isn't any different than the real world, where people don't want to hear it either.

Relativism is the battle cry of the presently enlightened . . . unless you disagree with them. Then you're just wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Elegos wrote:
Sorshen can't come back as a clone cause one of my players walked off with her clone body. Best bit of shattered star.

Is she allowed to have only one?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Just realized that what slightly irks me about ReotRl happening before Jade Regent is that IIRC in JR the end results of RotRl1 were supposed to have happened and were in fact a prime reason why all the able adventurers in the area had gone to that recently rediscovered City of Gold and were currently unavailable, leaving only the poor 1st level PCs available to deal with Sandpoint's latest problem

It seems strange that the results of RotRl1 would be so important for the starting circumstances of JR while those of ReotRl would not. Even though the latter are likely even more Golarion-shattering

Why is it so important to have ReotRl start BEFORE JR ? What would be missing if it started after JR ?

It all boils down to IF there's a significant scene that takes place in Sandpoint (there likely will be) and IF there's a way to include a cameo from Ameiko or Shalelu (there might not be, but I won't know for a few months). If the Ameiko/Shalelo cameo isn't something that ends up in the adventure, then when Jade Regent takes place as regards the events of Return of the Runelords becomes irrelevant—it could be either. Folks are kind of making a mountain out of a molelhill on this topic, frankly...

I have to agree, Mr. Jacobs. I know that if either Ameiko or Shalelu show up in Return, my group would have to simply fill those roles with someone else, because Ameiko is now busy elsewhere and Shalelu is dead. I don't see why this is a big deal, however, and we probably shouldn't be making it such. Part of running our Golarion is fitting each subsequent story into our Golarion. Quite honestly, it's no different than how we ran the Realms back when, or any of our homebrew worlds.

Let's take a breath and not hyperventilate over something that's not so difficult to deal with in the long run. It's a year out, and there's a ton we don't know!


Well, Mr. Keith, I really appreciate you looking into it and seeking a fix sometime in the future. May you and yours have a magnificent week!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
These are runelords, the mightiest of the archmages of Thassilon. How about writing this AP for characters that are already high-level?

Not sure I see the advantage in that. Lot of people truly enjoy those lower levels, and there's still a lot of fun to be had there. But I'm certain that Mr. Jacobs and crew have a good idea of how they want to tackle those lower levels with those wacky runelords about!


Afraid not. I still can't get them to drop down. I haven't changed anything on my computer except the necessary uploads from Windows 10, so I don't understand why it's doing this. Sadly, I'm tech savvy enough to figure out the reasons myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrVergee wrote:
This might just become an existential crisis: nothing left to wish for anymore.

Dude! Vikings vs. Witches! Seriously!


Adam Daigle wrote:
Senko wrote:
I was rather looking forward to an AP exploring the "ruins of Azlant" but from what I can see there is going to be minimal actual Azlant involvement for the first 4 modules then some possibly in the 5th and hopefully a decent amount in the 6th. I shall have to see how this develops.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that there would be minimal information on Azlant, but if that was from me then I apologize.

I can assure that you gave no such impression, Mr. Daigle. I have been excited about this AP since its announcement, and receiving the first installment has done absolutely nothing to alter that excitement! This is the first AP I've collected since Hell's Rebels. Looking forward to the future books!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
drumlord wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Not every Adventure Path is going to be the best Adventure Path for everyone...

Count me as excited and must buy. It will be a while before I can play it because I'll be running Starfinder and Crimson Throne next, but we'll get there eventually!

Strangely enough, this may be the only adventure path where I'm looking forward to the sidebars. I'm interested in seeing the ideas for encounters with previous parties and for how surviving NPCs can be involved, like Shalelu, Vancaskerkins, Brodert Quink, etc.

Sadly, Shalelu and Brodert will not have a place in any further campaigns in our Golarion . . . though Brodert has become known as a lady's man in Varisia, so he's got some kids that may continue to show up! Two of them started our Shattered Star campaign (though only one remains)!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

I realized that reason why I think Jade Regent by default taking place after Return of the Runelords feeling wrong is that it would be only case of older AP being confirmed to not happen before newer AP. All other aps that aren't connected to other aps don't usually make statements at all whether previous one happened, sure if worldwound was closed you'd think it would affect Numeria, but nothing in Iron Gods requires the worldwound to be open(after all, there are still demons to cleanup after its closed) so it doesn't presume Wrath of the Righteous hasn't happened yet.

Also, it means we won't ever see what happened to Rusty Dragon after Ameiko left to become empress(since I can't really think of any other reason why Jade Regent would take after it). On that note, geez Koya Mvashti would be even closer to venerable age huh?

Not to be rude, sir, so I apologize if it comes across that way, but there's an awful lot of spoilerage contained in these two paragraphs for a couple APs . . . I'd consider using tags for stuff like this.


Nevynxxx wrote:
Clearing the cookies probably killed the tracking.... if you expand what you want now, does it keep it?

That's part of my problem, unfortunately. I can't expand anything. I click on the arrows to expand them, it gives me that loading sihedron, then goes away and does nothing.

1 to 50 of 598 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>