hsnsy56's page

hsnsy56 wrote:

How is this ever a productive comment?

I don't know, I am on some heavy medication at the moment so excuse me if I am wierd or rude. I have metal parts now.

No worries. Hope you feel better.

I agree PF2e is a very solid system overall.

You are being unreasonable. The point of the remaster was not what you asked.

That is a good point. Tweaks around the edges and copyright fixes was all that was advertised. What we got is exactly what was on the tin.

I don't really have any expectations that they fixed anything or that people share my assessment of what needed changing, and know this wasn't meant to be a complete overhaul. But I also know they did end up tweaking some stuff beyond name changes so was just curious.

Did these tweaks end up fixing anything someone thought needed fixing? Did these tweaks add anything positive to the game?

If you think something is a problem, and someone always will, then use the GM card that the game tells you to. Play the game and try to have fun.

How is this ever a productive comment? Of course I can GM and house rule to my satisfaction. Of course I have fun playing PF2e with the people I play with, otherwise I wouldn't play. I think Pf2e is a pretty good game, but any system can be improved.

My OP was simply meant to be-- given that the remaster DID change some things beyond just copyright name changes, in your opinion did these tweaks add anything positive to the game (improve classes that you thought needed improving, make rules clearer, make more of the spell list likely to be used, etc.) and how?

I haven't been following the remaster closely but will dig in now that it is on Archives.

Now that it is out and digested, did the remaster fix anything or really just tweaks on the edges and copyright fixes?

The kind of things I'm thinking about that I wish were changed:

1) boosting power of low level spellcasters

2) fixing Wizard -- better focus spells, better feats

3) making the spell list have a greater percentage of more useful spells in general vs. a handful of must pick ones that are clearly better than others (cough synesthesia)

4) more good skill feats -- chain for recall knowledge, etc.

TheWayofPie wrote:

I’d rather it be linear in the sense of: Welcome to the first chapter! Your goal is kill X, retrieve Y, negotiate Z. And how you do that is up to you. Super open in how you get that part of the game done

You do that and then you get to the next chapter of the game with another open ended goal to get done how you want.

Makes it much more replayable and allows player expression.

PF2e ain’t the best for “open-world”.

This was triangle strategy’s approach in a way.

Great game. But i got the sense that only one of the paths actually changed anything. The other 2 main paths ended up confronting the same enemy nation at the end.

Yeah, while I think it's cool if you can actually pull off all the branching paths and "choices count", I would gladly sacrifice this for a

a) a well written, good coherent story with some nice "reveals", villain motivations that make sense, etc. ramifications of the events that flow through the story (even if the resolution is set), etc.

b) great set piece pf2e combat encounters

With a good GM, PF APs can go off on some creative tangents but most of the time we sign up for an AP knowing that we will bite on all the hooks and hit the major beats anyway.

So this would be more like signing up for an AP than a player driven campaign, which most CRPGs are anyway despite some that are better at the smoke and mirrors.

I'm definitely think creativity within certain boxes can be accommodated. "Chapter", bounded "location", etc.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Any thoughts on which AP might work well for such a thing?

The easy answer is Abomination Vaults for an AP where you interact with most things by fighting with it. I'm definitely thinking more along the lines of a classic dungeon crawl.

Honestly, all the PF2e APs I've read are pretty linear.

I wouldn't mind if they cut out most of the "open world" elements and basically just had you go from point A to B to C etc.

Within point X you could still have some choices -- basic branching paths in a mini dungeon, talking to people in a town in any order you wanted, etc.

But the designers would always know that you are basically level X at a certain point, have already done X in the story, etc.

Easier to do well, have good story progression, and challenging/balanced combat.

I'm most familiar with Strength of Thousands which could be done this way.

Any recent news on a PF2e video game?

Just finished BG3 and while I enjoyed it, the combat was way too easy. Part of that was too many magic items, and part of it was just 5e.

I kept thinking how better this would be in PF2e.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I know no writer or director would make trip this common and easy to do. It would look terrible in a story or movie.

You would have to create artificial barriers to use every maneuver, like "only once per scene", to get a movie-like sequence where the heroes are constantly doing different crazy things.

This is the 4e way, which mechanically limited the use of moves. I had no problem rationalizing this as part stamina, part looking for the right "opening", part genre emulation, etc.

Others did not like this.

hsnsy56 wrote:

This is easily fixable with additional Wizard focus spells but is there precedent for that?

In the past, have new Focus spells been printed/added like regular spells?

Not really. We got one new one for the Runelord Archetype and a few accessible via other archetypes, but those weren't exactly class specific.

Paizo said new schools are meant to be released in future books. We'll have to wait and see if that means new focus spells for each of them or if they just re-use existing ones from other classes like the Runelord got cleric domain spells as focus spells.

But even then, new (and hopefully better) schools don't fix the fact that the base template of the curriculums is bad and that it would still leave the Core schools lacking.

I really think the school system needs another rework. At the very least the curriculums need to be revised and expanded, so we have more spells to choose from, which also increases the chances of at least some of them being actually usable on a daily basis.

I see, so they have been reluctant but doesn't mean it can't be done at any time. That's the advantage of pick ability from list. And they certainly print regular spells that are strictly better than others.

Recall Knowledge already has significant value and useful skill feats. It doesn't need to debuff as well.

If you want more I'd prefer they build something like the Investigator feat Known Weaknesses but redone for Wizards and more relevant to spells.

It doesn't need to, but just seems like an obvious way to use an existing mechanic to give the Wizard a unique thing to make their spellcasting stand out based on an INT roll.

Class feature: For purposes of obtaining the resistances/vulnerabilities/lowest save vs arcane spells only, a wizard can use Arcane Int Recall Knowledge on any creature. A Wizard gets both resistances/vulnerabilities and lowest save for one action.

Wizard feat 2: If a success RK check, on the next arcane spell, +1 to DC or +2 to spell attack roll. Can be done once per encounter per monster type

Wizard feat 4: If successful RK check, a Wizard can treat Incapacitation threshold as twice spell level +2. Once a day.

Just spitballing here. But you get the idea. Makes the Wizard better at arcane spells, which is its thing, based on INT checks.

2) ensured that Intelligence builds at least have a reasonable skill option in a patch to recall knowledge.

I'm working on house rules for this, but how could they have missed adding a feat chain for Recall Knowledge analogous to Intimidate where you can get buffs/debuffs based on Int rolls for your 3rd action? Either as general skill feats or maybe even as Wizard feats to throw them something unique and interesting as Int masters.

4) made focus points a bit simpler. Which is a plus for all classes. Admittedly a lot of level 1 wizard and cleric options for focus spells are terrible, but it is not that hard to fix up with a few feats even if you have to archetype to do it.

The improvements to wizard focus spells are somewhere between extremely minor and non-existent

The thing is that wizard is one of the few classes without 2-action focus spells. Sorcerer, druid, cleric, psychic...most of them don't NEED to steal from other classes, because they already have these focus spells

This is easily fixable with additional Wizard focus spells but is there precedent for that?

In the past, have new Focus spells been printed/added like regular spells?

Since AoN hasn't updated yet, but the release date has passed, I think I can just post the content of the guidelines.

** spoiler omitted **

Basically...

Ok, great. That is certainly better than before in terms of standardization. The fact that you can share that knowledge with everyone sort of balances the fact that you don't automatically get a status effect inflicted with the roll like say Demoralize but still seems a little stingy. House rule of 2 questions per action during combat might be ok, given the specificity of those examples and you have to have the right Skill to Recall Knowledge with to begin with unlike Demoralize or Bon Mot which only depend on 1 skill.

IMO Recall Knowledge should be the Intelligence way to inflict some 3rd action status effects (w/ feats) as well. Perhaps exclusive to Wizards as the academic but could be for others as well.

But this is a decent enough RAW to work with.

Can someone tell me what Remaster does with Recall Knowledge, specifically with combat knowledge?

Is it still the same resolution, highly GM dependent or can you guarantee to get say low save now with a use of action?

The school change isn't a huge deal, but it is pretty notable as one of the only real nerfs to a class chassis going in to the remaster.

And it could've been offset by an improvement in the power of the new schools' focus spells.
But the majority of the new schools' are reskinned versions of the old focus spells.
So we end up with, in most all cases, objectively worse versions of the old schools.

It almost doesn't matter how much worse the new schools are than the old. Paizo took a class that definitely wasn't a power outlier and made it worse. People are gonna be annoyed by that.

To me, the idea of the new schools is pretty cool. But the idea needed more time in the oven.

Yeah, that's the issue I have. Sounds like the change isn't a huge deal and close to slightly negative, but IMO Wizard was one the classes that needed some bump in both in power and in differentiation through better class features/feats.

It's not like it's completely unplayable but would have been the time to boost it. I'm really not sure what the design team sees. They must be valuing the utility flexibility more. Or just really really don't want the Wizard to be on top again and are low balling it on purpose.

(Message in Thread "p")

I currently see 2 versions of this thread:

- A version with "o" in URL before the question mark:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wso?Remaster-Wizard
- A version with "p" in URL before the question mark:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wsp?Remaster-Wizard

If this is a real, global phenomenon, not just an individual issue for my browser, I recommend consolidation.

I see it too, not sure what's going on there.

It looks a little better than before. Probably depend on how kind the DM is with adding school spells as to the value of schools. Unified Theory still looks like the strongest build.

Wizards can have better weapon options now. This does the most for Unified Theory Hand of the Apprentice.

Standardized spellcasting proficiency improves adding more casting with archetypes or ancestry feats.

Some of the added feats don't look bad. Might have some uses for battlefield control forcing movement or taking pain.

I still will add Spell Substitution thesis as a class feature in my house rules, but probably drop my other wizard house rules for focus spells.

Wizard received a very minor upgrade. It's still the caster with the least number of roles it can fulfill. It's pretty much a support/damage caster relying on the arcane list with the the best spellcasting utility in the game if given sufficient preparation time or using Spell Substitution. It has great level 20 feats if you make that far.

Still a very playable class. Not the most fun feat options.

Depending on what you need in a group, not the most versatile role caster. But can likely fill the damage/utility caster niche if you already have healer covered and a sufficient number of martials.

In summation, wizard stayed about the same with some quality of life upgrades to open up some additional build options and maybe a few more feats that can be used well by a clever player and group.

Hmm. Doesn't sound great. I think I will adopt Spell Substitution as a class feature as well.

And also house rule a feat chain around Recall Knowledge. Or even give it as class features. Something like:

Success on recall knowledge lets you automatically get weakest saving throw and resistances/vulnerabilities and 1 other useful thing

Success on recall knowledge gives a +1 to next spell cast DC or +2 to spell attack (once per per encounter per monster type?)

Success on recall knowledge moves the Incapacitation limit up 2 levels (once a day)

Make Wizard's the best at using knowledge and also perhaps best at using attack roll and incapacitation spells?

Hmm, sounds disappointing. I was hoping Wizard got something unique. Like a feat chain off Recall Knowledge that temporarily boosted DC, raised the level needed for a monster to be effected by incapacitation once a day, etc.

For those with full access, any opinions on the remaster Wizard? I considered it one of the weaker OPF2e classes. Has it been improved relative to other spellcasters/classes? How? Through feat support? Focus spells? Other?

I'm not as interested in whether people like or dislike the school changes, etc.

Thanks!

At least the witch has the standard 3 slots and the option to pick up decent spells. They're defined more by spell selection than class features...

The caster class floor is less bargain-basement than the martial one. Mostly because the caster floor is "I cast nothing but heal/synesthesia/4th level invisibility/fireball."

More and more I'm thinking there just needs to be more great spells.

It's one of the biggest weaknesses. It's not there aren't any great spells. And playing those limited amount of great spells makes it so casters are pretty good (especially at higher levels). But playing those limited spells also doesn't make the caster overpowered either.

So playing with the limited great spells = very good but not overpowered. Changing it up = ok to not great.

If you feel bad doing the necromancy thing or whatever because it's just sub optimal then that is a real problem.

I think that the impression that "casters are weak at damage" comes from the notion that "solo boss fights against Level+3 enemies are the only thing that matters" (i.e. we're going to look at only the times when AoE damage barely matters). Because, yes, martials are going to be the best at doing damage against single targets (particularly those of a higher level), but this is specifically their schtick and also a thing martials usually "pay for" in terms of "exposing themselves to danger."

This is probably also where the idea that "casters are only good for debuffing" comes from, since debuffing the enemy who has superior math but only 3 actions is probably the single most useful thing anyone can do in that fight. Like Slow+"not ending your turn within the baddies' reach" means that the monster can't use any 2 action activities that aren't ranged.

This is flawed to only look at these Level +3 situations.

But the other side is not completely obvious either.

If you are fighting a bunch of Level -2 or Level -3 enemies such that the AOE is very effective, how dangerous really was the encounter? Yes the AOE speeds up the combat, but would the martials have just taken a little longer to sword them at little risk anyway?

I've been thinking about trying to replicate the D&D 4e minion with increasing attack and dmg bonuses but not touching defenses and HPs for encounters with lots of lower level enemies. This could create a bit more value for AOE. Clearing these enemies fast is a real value because they are a lot and they are hitting hard (say like Level +0s)

While the exact power level of these spells vary, none of them are super popular picks on these forums, which was my point - you can get away with casting spells that aren't Synesthesia as a bard, and it doesn't make you useless.

One factor in why this might be more clear for my players is that we're playing a converted PF1 adventure, Ironfang Invasion, and they tend to have larger groups of weaker enemies, due to the nature of solo boss fights in PF1 being trivial. The party has made some very bold choices and has found itself trapped a couple of books ahead of where they should be for their level, which has made for a lot of challenging fights - I can't recall the last time they even faced a Moderate fight. I do tend to avoid level+3 or higher enemies outside of major story beat bosses (the level+4 thanadaemon was something they chose to summon, I had no say in the matter :P ) and prefer something like a level+1 boss with some mooks, or a couple of level+1 enemies. I just think it makes for more interesting fights - and it doesn't hurt that it makes some of the most powerful spells less effective.

So I haven't played enough of PF2e to make this call, but is there a APL sweet spot and composition where spells work better -- AOE, incapacitation doesn't take effect but still worth casting, etc.?

Initial APs withstanding (and they often get made before people really understand the new system), it does seem like spells sort of assume there will be a bunch of not super difficult encounters at some point.

That said, if an encounter isn't a certain level difficulty, then you sort of feel like you could have kinda sat back anyway and let the martials at will swords just cut them up...

Not really, when that larger toolbox is compensated by lack of quality tools, and the game is balanced assuming quality tools are being used, especially in the late game.

This is one of my biggest beefs with current PF2e spellcasting. It seems like there are so many spells that are not being regularly used, with a few standouts. It's why we always get the same spells brought up (Sythesthesia, etc) when talking about how spellcasters are ok.

3-Body Problem wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

3-Body Problem wrote:

To look at this another way, what constraints are conspiring to confine attack roll spells to such a narrow design space and how might we change things such that they are allowed to be viable outside of their current niche? What can we do to get these spells in line with all-stars like Slow and Fireball without unbalancing things?

Magus does this. By both enhancing the attack spells and nerfing the save spells.

Magus is its own thing and probably not the best example to use when we're talking about standard spellcasters.

It is how Paizo did the very thing you ask for. But it had to be done within the confines of a specific class. So as not to unbalance the whole casting system.

You seem to be asking for a way to make spell attacks more likely to hit, while keeping save spells the same and keeping the balance of the casting system intact.

I am now pretty sure it cannot be done within the PF2 paradigm.

I think it could be done. How about limited use attack bonuses as part of a 1 action Recall Knowledge feat.

Point is RK doesn't make the intel stat better than the charisma or wisdom stat. That is what this debate is about.

I think where folks disagree with you, DF, is in your request for feats to fix a problem which is partially caused by your tables' decision to devalue or not use RK, essentially allowing OOC player knowledge to substitute for it. Better feats are cool and all, but a useful, impactful RK roll is IMO a much better fix to the problem of INT use in combat because it doesn't require feat resources. And since thread is about Wizards, if we are talking *Wizard* feats to make INT more impactful, well that's IMO also a worse solution than buffing RK because in that case only Wizards (not Witch, Magus) would have good INT use.

I think there probably should be both.

RK should allow you to pick worst save, etc. as the info you want as default.

ALSO, a really good RK feat chain (maybe Wizard only maybe not) would also be good to see.

So like
+X to the next attack spell
+ Y to the next spell DC
Ignore incapacitation 1x a day if target is <50% max HPs
etc for 1 action or <75% for 3 actions

Speaking for myself there's a few things that could be done to make wizards and other casters more fun to play.

1) Kill the vancian system

2) Make the wizard interact more with the 3 action economy.

I could get on board with these. Putting aside the spell slot spells, the Wizard needs a redesign on class features, focus spells, feats, etc.

How about casting at 3 actions to add +2 to spell attacks and save DCs or something 2x a day? Or 6 actions to remove incapacitation 1x/day. Or 3 actions to remove incapacitation at below 60% HPs once a day. Something creative and interesting for the Wizard. I have no idea if these are balanced just spit balling types of ideas.

How about an Int feat chain off Recall Knowledge that actually guarantees you good stuff? Automatic weak save and if you cast a spell that targets that save next round +1 DC or whatever.

That's why I'd like to see more guidance on Recall Knowledge, since right now it's really GM-dependent how useful it is.

There's a lot of opportunity to do cool things with Recall Knowledge.

Definitely standardize it. Spellcasters definitely should be able to get the weak save.

There should also be a feat chain for Recall Knowledge. Could be Skill Feats but also could be a boost to Wizard. After all they are suppose to be the "science of magic" casters.

+2 to spell attack roll on the next spell attack after RK (once per enounter per enemy)

Reduce resistances, etc.

Give us the Intimidate chain for RK.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

That's why I don't want to get to revved up early. They might have a plan. Paizo usually listens to their customer base.

Well, it would be nice if someone from the development team would give the community some feedback as to what their intention is here. From what I've seen the last weeks, they normally are very responsive when so many people are upset at something at once, so it is odd that, while people have been discussing this during a work week for four days now, they have kept completely silent about it. It kinda looks like they somehow were caught flat-footed, errr, I mean off-balance by the outrage.

Unless they don't accept any questions at their GenCon video panel, they'll be asked about it soon enough, anyway. But they can't have been completely unprepared that caster players might be unhappy about those changes, do they?

In general, I'm not sure why development teams don't state their intentions upfront, especially if wanting feedback. It just creates confusion and diluted feedback since you don't know to make suggestions against the intent or if it's just bad execution on an intent you agree with.

But hard to say without seeing the big picture what's going on here. Perhaps there are item bonuses to attack spells, really awesome Wizard focus spells, etc.

The set-piece issue is not that the set-piece itself is railroady... it's that they take a significant amount of time to put together, and the more dramatic ones can require that certain previous events go in very specific ways... which means that once the GM has put in the effort to design the thing, there's a strong incentive to do what it takes to get the players to actually use what they've set up... and getting there can get kind of railroady.

Dungeons can, I suppose, be the same way, in that if you set up a dungeon, then you're motivated to ensure that the players actually go into the thing, but they're often a lot less finicky, and you can usually lure the players in by making them think that there's something they want inside (accurately or otherwise). If your set-piece involves something like chasing the foe on griffon-back as they attempt to fly off with the princess, though, then there are a lot more things that have to go just so.

These are fair points, but my orginal OP was in context of APs where I feel like you are going to get these "set points" regardless and you've bought into the railroad. Homebrew where PCs are free to set whatever goals they want are a whole different thing.

I would prefer that more of these "set points" in APs were not 8-10 encounter dungeons and rather 1-3 enounter somethings between plot movement. Requiring very specific methods is risky, but location based set pieces are a bit easier. I just find it tiring that almost every time you go to a big plot movement location you end up with this 8-10 encounter 'dungeon'.

"Set piece" is maybe overstating it but if you have 1-3 enounters in a location instead of 8-10 you can put a lot more effort into making those enounters interesting with terrain, goals other than kill everything, unique monsters, etc. And if it turns out not to be interesting, well you've got your plot coupon with less real time and get to go to another cool location and goal. If you are signing up for an AP where you go to dungeon A then dungeon B you can just as easily arrange the hooks to 1-3 enounter location A and then B. The moving set pieces can be a bit of the exception rather than the rule to location based set pieces. But even those can be "arranged" especially in an AP format where you are expected to ride the rails to some extent.

It's just what I think will work best at my table, but perhaps some ideas will help at yours.

Great stuff! I will steal the insect threat increasing in 2 and Koride going to the Door.

It also works with my Angazhan subplot. Just have Koride take the egg to Plaza of the Door after Book 2. Then run the Charau-ka raids in Book 3.

Some other changes that I'm doing for Book 1
* 1st Andi student in 100 years joins the PCs in their cohort. Andi student goes missing -- is the one that steals the egg and holes up in the caverns morphing into some spider monster as the big bad instead of Stone Ghost which I find pretty disconnected. Teachers do a divination on the student which says she is "home" -- a twisted reading by the Egg.
* Gremlins are actually in conflict with the insects in the caverns which is why they are on the surface more. Gremlins can be allied with against the insects if the PCs choose.
*At least a few tasks (revised mail task etc) will take students into the city so they can witness Froglegs goons shaking someone down and briefly meet the Mayor to set up book 2

Has anyone played this? Given the huge amount of high level spellcaster enemies seems like a tough one to GM. How's it go?

So Amp Guidance is among the best reactions in the game with a strong measurable impact. But it's also the cheapest one to grab and the easiest to use for the characters who don't have good reactions (casters, Alchemist, Inventor, Investigator, ranged martials, etc...).

Considering how optimizing reactions is paramount to PF2 optimization, I expect most optimized parties to have 1 or 2 characters with Amp Guidance.

I don't think I'm opposed to this as a mechanic to buff reactions of mostly considered weaker classes. But I won't love all these 'wild talent' psychics running around everyway now. Yes, in home games we can reflavor and such so not that big a deal but still...

IMO PF2e is best at these levels. Amoung other things, spellcasters are bit too weak for me at low levels and there are not enough/willingness to create Level -2, -1, 0 monsters to create varied enounters at the lowest levels.

I'd love for Pazio to have some three part APs that start at level 6 and go to 15.

Would others like this? I figure there would be at least as much interest as the 10-20 paths?

I've noticed a trend toward set pieces instead of dungeons, especially in organized play scenarios where you have a limited number of encounters to play with and need to get the most out of them.

I think prewritten set piece encounters have their place, but I'd prefer fewer rather than more. In my experience, adventures written with set pieces offer painfully linear, restrictive experiences, as set pieces are harder to rework if the party takes a different approach than the adventure expects. For example, a set piece where you and the bad guys are sledding down a mountain on magical icebergs while you fight each other is a super cool encounter, but the PC group that casts fly or melts the icebergs beforehand or decides they're going to take a slower route down the mountain are all going to make it hard to reuse/adapt the set piece. More often than not, I've seen GMs put their cards on the table and say "Hey, I know you want to do X, but there's a sweet set piece if you do Y." and player agency gets set aside for the fun and flashy movie scene.

IMO, a set piece should naturally evolve out of the players deciding to do crazy stuff, not come out of a contrived alignment of assumed events in the written AP. This necessitates more adaptation and on-the-fly creativity from both GM and players, but the joy of player driven set pieces is just way higher. To facilitate this, scene and dungeon design that incorporates a lot of interesting "toys" for players to interact can naturally lead to events that feel like set pieces without being written as one.

---
With regard to dungeons, I think the comments upthread are looking at paizo's recent designs and taking a narrow view. I'd like to point to Iron Gods, book 5. This book features one massive, four story palace that is designed a lot like an old school dungeon. Some rooms have fixed occupants, potential encounters, while others are intentionally empty, to be flexibly filled with palace denizens depending on the circumstances. Many of the palace's residents...

I think sandboxy dungeons have their place as well. But most of the AP dungeons I've seen lately are 8-10 room dungeons that are mostly filled with combat encounters meant to be handled 1 room at a time with only limited flexibility in meeting goals.

Set pieces do need to consider level appropriate resources and should avoid relying on too many decisions that have to go right to set up the circumstances. That said, APs by default are pretty linear. You have to buy into the concept and following the rails to some degree. I can see how a well done dungeon can perhaps leave more room for flexibility in execution of the goal. But the goal is likely still fixed within the AP. Because something like X needs to lead to Y etc.

For me the advantage of an AP that favores set pieces is that there is generally more plot movement per real time session of playing. I would like the ocassional larger dungeon, random enounter, etc. as well. The goal of going to many of these dungeons, regardless of how good they are, is often the same though -- get information, kill someone, retrieve the object, etc. You can have these goals met in 1-2 encounters instead and move on to another location and goal.

I don't think it's what people want, it's just that a dungeon takes a limited amount of space and work. It's very easy to put in a book an 8 room dungeon that will fill both the characters XP bar and the timeframe of an AP. Removing dungeons would ask for more work and book space.

If you want to avoid 8-10 rooms dungeon and focus on 1-3 encounters day, I encourage you to play PFS. That's the format. And if you look at a PFS adventure, it takes roughly twenty pages for the equivalent in XP and play time of a tenth of an AP. So it's twice more expensive in page count and work (for the author and the GM).

Yeah, that's what I would guess as well. It's somewhat a function of work to create is higher, still clinging to XP guidlines (although SoT has more non combat XP handed out), and perhaps some consumers would feel cheated if there was only 10 big combat encounters in 100 pages of material.

I certainly wouldn't feel cheated if those 10 encounters were designed well-- important to the plot, cool locations on large maps, terrain features, custom monsters, and frequent dual "win conditions" (meaning defeating in combat AND wanting to accomplish something else which may or may not go your way). Also if the "in between" exploration, social, investigaiton, etc. was done well that is huge value.

I would want XP to be adjusted so that real play time was not too slow, but that is easy to do with milestone XP.

Can you get PFS adventures without doing organized play? Are they self contained or do they link to form a campaign? Quality good?

PF2e does well with challenging a party at full strength and the 1-3 big encounters a day paradigmn (vs. say 5e), but haven't seen too many published adventures go there. Strength of Thousands has some of this, but it's more in the vein of a bunch of one off flavor enounters over a longer period of time (semester) rather than the key story encounters. SoT still puts in at least one per adventure, sometimes two 8-10 room "dungeon" of some sort usually as the key plot movers. The four APs I have all do so.

Is this what people want? Is it because people would feel cheated without a lot of combat enounters mapped out? Or at least one multi room 'dungeon'?

Granted, this has never really been the style of most published adventures, even in 4e where this also would have been a really good fit.

In fact, the only published adventures I know that do this is En World's Zeitgeist AP. There is almost always a ton of exploration, social, travel, clue following, etc. that leads to no more than 1 or 2 big set piece combat encounters per in game day that often have better win conditions than "kill everyone". Fight through a large gallon to prevent a sabatour, protect a mystic that is recieving a vision through a haunt filled night on top of a ancient hill, confront somone at their residence and face that person and all their staff at once instead of room by room, etc. There are some exceptions where you get a multi room conflict or actually dungeon but not the norm. In general that is a lot more moving and story in between each encounter, and these big encounters are plot moving.

Personally I'd love to see more of this for P2e which is a system that could handle everyone at "full strength" for every fight better than most.

it's not in the sense of "tactics and strategy will improve your odds of success," but more "if you don't employ in-depth strategy with your team, you will fail."

I think this is more a failure of adventure design. As is common with new systems, early adventures are often written before the game has been fully written or understood. Early PF2e adventures used too may encounters on the high end of the difficulty spectrum for sure.

There is also perhaps an issue how they named the encounter building guidlines. Psychologically, perhaps people don't like to fight "Low" and "Moderate" encounters when I think there should be quite a few of them in a adventure because they do create a different dynamic. Yes, all the advice listed helps people beat Severe and Extreme encounters but it is also fun to have some Low and Moderate encounters where monsters are failing saves more often and melee PCs are criting more often.

Seems like later adventure paths are mixing it up a little better.

What do you think is the best 1st volume of any AP 1e or 2e, regardless of the quality of the rest of the AP?

Just 2e?

What about the best closing adventure, taking into account the entire AP?

Why?

I really like the way a few spells have different effects based on the number of actions spent to cast them. I just wish more spells leaned into that action economy rather than most being a flat 2-actions.

I think this would have been a great idea. Spellcasters could have been a lot more interesting trading off 1 action + 2 action spell vs. 3 action spell vs. move and 2 action spell, etc.

You could have even used this to differentiate the spell lists a little more.

Like Arcane could have the most variety 1-3 action spells, Occult gets mostly 1 and 2 action, Divine and Primal mostly 2 and 3 action.

Mzali is portrayed in the books as heavily racist towards non Mwangi people and killing them on a whim. So I will let my players negotiate with literal supremacists that after conclusion of the book stay in power with just a single change that non mwangi people will not be killed on sight inside the city?

Yeah, another reason to change who attacks the golden city. If things play out like in the AP, you have a party of 15th level PCs that are probably itching to take the fight to Mzali at this point. And there is an entire semester delay until the Red Door opens for the PCs to do this.

Maybe have Mzali be a little less overtly genecidal, with more like a secret police spiriting people away vibe. And I think there needs to be more immediate stakes for the diplomacy as well. Perhaps Mzali is planning on declaring it's sphere of influence, and it's racist policies would now apply to any settlement within 50 miles or something.

Also like the idea that even amoung the Mwangi people there is a sub-heiarchy, like only Zenj can hold important city positions. Other Mwangi are relegated to "unclean" jobs, etc.

So you have this impending issue of Mzali extending this caste system to a bunch of new settlements. The PCs can prevent this as well as open things up to some foreign trade with good diplomacy.

Honestly, the whole diplomacy setup needs to be worked on a bit too to make it interesting. The Mazali influential should have some competing goals and the PCs should only have to gain favor with say 3/4 of them, with their choices making enemies with others and changing the flavor / power dynamic of the city a bit. See the old Dark Sun module -- Road to Urik. Also the PCs should have some Nantambu "chip" to cash in as well. Perhaps they have authority to authorize trade or discounts on X commodity from Nantanbu as a bargaining chip as well.

I really like the bones of this AP but think it can be elevated a lot with some tweaks.

hsnsy56, I don't love the idea of "the student from the Ancestry that everyone stereotypes as evil demon worshippers is secretly a spy for the evil demon worshippers" - it feels like it clashes a little with the more nuanced, hopeful tone the AP strikes. It also shifts this from being a story about becoming heroes of the Magaambya who eventually stop the King of Biting Ants to being a story about becoming heroes of the Magaambya who need to handle the threat of Usaro, which feels pretty drastic and distinct? If your table would be happier with it, go ahead, but that's a pretty significant amount of alteration you're gonna be dealing with.

It's the teacher that's the spy. The student is there so that there is a natural way to get the Usaro back story out there. The student is actually a good/neutral non-demon worshiping Charau-ku. But yes, I would change the teacher to a non-Charau-ku secret worshiper of Anhazhan as to not have that stereotype/cliche, or just figure out some other way for Anhazhan to know about the Golden City. It's not really an important plot point -- just that Anhazhan knows about the Golden City in a semi believable way.

As for the shift of story, I think it can be both.

One of the problems I have with the AP is that the threat of the King Of Biting Ants is not really known until Book 5. The PCs stopping the King of Biting Ants and returning Jatembe is epic, but is in book 5/6. Also, unless Book 6 has some actual consequences to the King of Biting Ants returning, then we are just talking about returning things to status quo.

The PCs don't have as much impact on the world as I would like for a full 1-20 campaign. I don't get to play multiple full APs/Campaigns so I like more punch. There are a lot of cool things in the AP to build on though.

Particularly Book 3 and 4 (without seeing 6 yet) seem particularly weak in the Level vs. world impact spectrum.

Book 3 -- 8-12th level. Explore a ruin but without any big revelations. Defend a small village and take down a generic cult, freeing a small town. I would have rather this had been lower level stuff.

Book 4 -- 12-15th level. This book is better but still... Negotiate more openness to foreigners for Mzali. This is good stuff, although the stakes here are not that well laid out. Return an old Sun God. Good. Discover the lost city of gold, defend it, then everyone gets mind wiped returning to status quo. Not so great. Maybe the loss of the Mzali General and his troops along with the return of the Sun God is the "big impact", setting up the fall of Mzali later, but that is all offscreen.

So in this reconfiguration you at least have:

Book 3-4: resolution of revival of Anhazhan threat to the Mwangi (regional level threat that is somewhat known from book 1); set up of the fall of Mzali through diplomacy and revival of Sun God

Book 5-6: resolution of world level threat (King of Biting Ants)

IMHO The threat in the 3rd act should be disconnected from Walkena entirely. The part where the PCs discovery of the Map leads others to the Golden City should probably be kept. Responsibility of action and the repercussions of knowledge seems like a great subplot

I've read through Red Star now, although not a fine detail read of each of them, and I like the AP but think there are some let downs in execution. Book 3 is weak in terms of connecting with the broader AP IMO. I agree with your take on Walkena attacking even more so now.

I'll reserve full judgement until after Book 6, but as you suggest I'll probably pick a different enemy for the assault on the Golden City so that the diplomacy is a real victory (at least in this AP).

There are a lot of great ideas from just a quick read of the Mwangi Expanse book. I thinking about going with:

Book 1 - there is a Charau-ka student and senior Lore-Speaker/teacher at school. The student is getting shunned because there have been more raids by Charau-ka war bands lately. PCs learn history of Usaro and Gorilla King.

Book 2 - Usaro ambassador comes to Nantambu and asks for something. Player’s have a community task related to this, to at minimum keep Usaro/Charau-ka on their minds. [Also their activity unknowingly allows an Avatar of Anhazhan to materialize and stay in Golorian, see below?]

Book 3 - Charau-ka raids intensify, especially in the Sodden Lands, where traditionally they are not known. Knights are worshipers of Angazhan and have found a totem that lets them reincarnate people into Charau-ka. The more knowledgeable/scholarly the person, the more powerful version of Charau-ka you get. Kiutu was built around an ancient library and known for its scholarly monastery, hence why it is a prime target. Janatimo or another teacher is from Kiutu and is back in the area and gets kidnapped along with others. PCs find out that Charau-ka “Reincarnation” is not really traditional reincarnation, but the person’s soul and personality is trapped in the Charau-ka and in constant torture. Hints that this is not the only totem that has been activated and in use.

Book 4 - When PCs go back to Magaambya to consult with other teachers about the map, the Charau-ka teacher is a spy and reports to Uraso (or Uraso scouts trail PCs or visit the temple after them, etc.). In the background, the Avatar of Anhazban has been building an army of Charau-ka and others to assault the Magaambya which would produce incredibly powerful Charau-ka. However, the Golden City is where the Matanji and Kallijae took the stolen Altar of Anhazhan for safe keeping and the Anhazban army change targets. PCs find out the alter is there when visiting. Charau-ka army attacks Golden City to retrieve the Altar led by an Avatar of Anhazhan (replace Avatar of Walkena), and the Avatar’s power is able to activate the Alter – transforming its Orc guardian into a Gorilla King (replaces Worknesh/King of Spears). The ritual Dimari-Diji wants to complete will restore all the Charau-ka souls to their original, essentially nullifying the threat and creating a huge amount of “scholarly” Charau-ka.

Plenty of other ideas, but this was the first that popped into my head. I also like that it alters the landscape of the Mwangi. I know that the PCs will eventually bring Jatambe back and defeat the King of Ants, but I like a long AP to have more world consequences than TOT seems to right now. Seems like a more suitable world impact for 14th/15th level PCs. You are left with an entirely new “people” that will likely try to take Usaro in a different direction, etc.

keftiu wrote:

the two (the diplomatic efforts in Mzali and the battle over Osibu) don't have much of anything to do with one another, so I don't see the latter as any kind of failure or betrayal of the former.

The idea that as written they don't have anything to do with each other is my problem.

What is the point then? (I get the long term idealistic "change takes time at patience" thing, but tell that to the families of the dead in Osibu if anyone asks what the PCs did before they came).

I think we are talking past each other. As I understand it, You are fine with the idea that everything in the first half of the adventure is disconnected with the final battle.

I am *not*.

In my mind the PCs spend weeks getting a meeting with Sauron and acomplish the impossible and actually get him to treat the Elven merchants with a bit of respect.. then they go back to watch him assault the white city and then they personally pitch in to kill some Ring Wraiths. I just don't think anything about that feels good and I strongly feel the two halves of the narrative are at odds.

I've only done a quick look through the adventure, but think I agree.

One possible solution: the successful diplomatic mission weakens Walkena , he loses divine favor, and there is a successful coup that puts #2 villian in charge and divinely empowered. Make sure to give #2 screen time during negotiations as working against the diplomacy. #2 foolishly attacks Obisu which leads to #2s death and a very weakened army. Mzali looses #1 and #2 evil guys and there is a full fledged revolt that the PCs can help leading to a much less evil city council or something.

So at least the successful diplomacy set into motion the events that set Mzali free.

I'm new to adenture path subscriptions, and signed up to get Strenth of Thousands 3 and 4.

It looks like the pdfs are available now to buy, but says pdfs will be in my downloads once the paper version ships. But the paper version ships in 11 to 20 days!

This seems like a pretty bad deal for subscribers. Is this correct or is there a way to get the pdfs now?

Thanks.

I agree that wizards need a whole slew of school feats to fill them out a bit. At the moment I've converted over the 5e school feats and sorc metamagic feats and 2e-ified them but i think Paizo really needs to pick up the ball when making cool and interesting feats for spellcasters that arent level 12 and above.

For incap spells i use my own homebrew rule where you double the spell's level as usual but instead the creature gets a bonus to the save determined by how many levels higher it is. It works really well and actually allowed my group's sorcerer to banish a high level demon who rolled incredibly poorly but would of still been unaffected anyway. It was a great moment for the spellcaster and the martials were happy they didn't have to deal with it which is what i feel is missing when making save or suck spells unusable on boss monsters.

I'd be interested in seeing the homebrew feats if you are willing to share.

On the incap rule, the enemies only get the bonus right, not the shift in result, even for crit fails? Is the bonus based on difference in level or level x2?

So, say a 5th level Wizard.

Trying to color spray those three Barbazu (lv5) at DC21 vs. 12 save + 4 = 16 modified save. So 0% of crit fail, 20% of fail, 50% success, 30% crit success.

Trying to use blindness or paralyze on the 7th level boss Medsua at DC21 vs. 15 +1. So 0% crit fail, 20% fail, 50% succes, and 30% crit success. OR DC21 vs. 15+4? So only fail on a 1 and success 50%, crit success 45%.

I guess 50% chance of blinded or stunned for a round is pretty bad for a solo creature so probably difference in level.

The more important reason I did not remove or modify incapacitation is that it would benefit enemy casters and monsters far more than players. Enemy casters can blow their spell slots in one fight against a PC party. If their low level incap spells can have full effect given they usually have very high spell DCs, that would make them extremely deadly. If monster incap abilities worked at full DC given how high their ability DCs are, the PCs would get hammered.

In the cost-benefit analysis, PC casters would get a minor benefit from the removal or modification of incap with the occasional incapacitating a boss slightly faster than the PCs beating on it while...

This seems fairly easy to solve, by making it a PC Class feature not available to enemy casters (or not many...). PF2e already has PC/NPCs created differently so no problems there.

Maybe give one of the incapacitation modifications to the Wizard as a class feature to throw them a bone. I kind of like that the Wizard should be the master of incapacitation spells -- they become the one class that has a chance to save or suck a boss, occasionally.

If I can ever get my group back together for Strength of Thousands I may try to playtest this.

It still may not be worth using on a level +2 boss, but it would make using say color spray on at level foes potentially worth it. 3 level 9 Dragon Turtles, DC 27 against Color Spray. Using the +4 to saves, only crit fails become fails variety you get -- 0% chance of crit fail, 30% chance of fail, 50% of success, 20% chance of crit success. Hmm. Lower level spells might be too good then...

If people in your group are still not playig Wizards with your house rules, are you contemplating any additional house rules to make Wizards better?

Casters are very tough to play in PF2 if you want to feel strong fighting the strongest monsters. Killing mooks is ok. But it's not super fun to get to a powerful boss dragon as a caster and have it shrug off your most powerful spells, while the martials are teeing off doing loads of damage with no resistance.

Since it seems like you get a lot of playing time, curious if you've tested some of the Incapacitation fixes proposed such as

* Remove Incapacitation and replace with roll 2d20 and take the best (only crit fail for most higher level creatures is if they roll a double 1)

* Remove Incapacitation and replace with +4 to saves and crit fails become normal fails (normal fails and success are not changed)

* Applying Incapacitation as a Monster trait. (sort of like Magic Resistance). Some tough monsters are especially magic resitant some aren't.

* Require some percentage loss of Monster HPs to "use" the Incapacitation trait

I think some people play around with accuracy buffs to hit as well for attack roll spells.

The crossover between Primal and Arcane is primarily Elemental, Evocation spells, so the blasting options.

The crossover between Occult and Arcane is primarily Enchantment or extradimensional based. So basically the powers of mind and non-euclidean spaces.

The crossover between Primal and Divine is mostly the healing spells.

The crossover between Occult and Divine are Chaotic, Evil, Sonic spells and, for some reason, Disease. Apparently Occult spells are not bastions of Law and Good.

The crossover between Arcane and Divine are the Demon, Devil and Daemon form spells (but not Angel form which is Divine specific), and a couple of others that fit each tradition iaccomplished in different ways such as Admonishment or Drop Dead.

The crossover between Primal and Occult are fey...

Awesome work! It would be tricky to do, but it would be really useful to understand the overlap in "function" or "roles" between the lists.

Once you have a single "great" or even "very good" spell that fulfils a particular function you don't benefit that much from having 5 other spells that do basically the same thing with slightly different parameters or ways.

Categories could be:

Mobility
Healing
AOE blasting
Hard control (e.g., walls)
Buff
Will save debuff
Fort save debuff
Ref save debuff
Defense
Other utility
etc.

If the list was tagged with something like this, then you could look at the "best" and "good enough" spells on each list in each category.

One hypothesis is that while the Arcane spell list is a great list in a vaccum and the has the most spells, it doesn't "functionally" or "role wise" have much unique and even if other spell lists don't have as many spells they have spells that are "good enough" to be functionally equal (or 90% equal) in many of these catagories.

hsnsy56 wrote:

Primal is too broad. It contains healing, blasting, buffs and some utility (fly). Editions past have given Druids some offense and utility but usually worse than Wizards --- no fly, haste, fireball, lightning bolt, etc. -- but weaker versions like call lightning. Primal should never have been this broad to leave room for Arcane to have more unique spells on its list.

Completely disagree, it was always silly that Druids were so bad at elemental blasting even though it fits their thematic wheelhouse in PF2.

Primal is an excellent spell list right now. It's varied and interesting but still the second smallest spell list in the game too.

It is an excellent spell list. Being small is not a huge negative as long as you can cover your bases, and the primal list does this well. A lot of spells are just variation of the same purpose.

"Having a lot of spells" in a list is a plus but is overvalued in the design I think. Having at least 1 good spell on a list that serves X purpose is much more valuable. And the primal list does this well.

I'm fine with the primal list in a vaccuum. What I'm not thrilled about is that there seems to be high value associated with "big list" (Arcane) that is underminded with every spell on a big list that is worse for the same purpose or has a super specific purpose.

Example: Primal doesn't seem to have a good Will save debuff so that would be a gap. But if it gets 1 good Will debuff spell then it's perhaps not as good as a list with 5 good Will debuff spells with different ranges, conditions, etc. but it gets you much, much closer than 20% of the way there in terms of "purpose equivalence".

My personal favorite caster list is primal. I think it offers the most combat options, while also providing that occasionally needed heal. The classes you can take the primal list have some great build options. Druid is amazing. I like the elemental sorcerer as well.

Primal is too broad. It contains healing, blasting, buffs and some utility (fly). Editions past have given Druids some offense and utility but usually worse than Wizards --- no fly, haste, fireball, lightning bolt, etc. -- but weaker versions like call lightning. Primal should never have been this broad to leave room for Arcane to have more unique spells on its list.

I find this healing discussion pretty absurd, honestly. My group and I had virtually no healing except potions from levels 6 to 12 and we are doing just fine.

I think it's overblown a bit but the underlying point does stand -- primal gets healing (which is worth something -- maybe not as much as Deriven says to all tables but something) on top of a comparable damage, and pretty good buff/debuff, utility list. On top of that Druid gets good class features (vs. say wizard).

I just looked at the Secrets of Magic spell list on AON. There are 2 new spells that are unique to Arcane (summons) and most of the damage spells seem to be shared with Primal.

The 4 spell lists instead of class lists and their huge overlap have hurt Arcane. Arcane gets the most spells but not much unique. IMO Arcane class features should be much stronger in this case, so that Arcane casters can use certain traditionally arcane spells better than other classes.

In PF1 and previous editions of D&D, we always had the equivalent of an arcane caster for the reasons stated on this thread and we always had a dedicated healer because of how deadly we like to play.

But in PF2 the arcane caster isn't really necessary. You can get by with a hybrid caster. Any group can get by with a single hybrid caster that has some form of combat healing. This isn't an opinion. It is the way the new system plays which I am personally happy with. The group did not like having to play a dedicated healer.

There seems to be this confusion that I'm saying the Arcane list is unplayable. I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's the least desirable spell list due to its lack of healing or a singularly good spell like synesthesia.

I do think the spell lists could have been designed better.

For instance, Arcane coud have had more exclusive utility. Put the comprehend languages, fly, invisibility, etc. into Arcane only and now you have a niche for Arcane that is meaty.

There are ways to poach from other lists though, so Class features are also important.

Wizards could get:

1) bonuses to damage (best caster damage dealer)
2) or pluses to save DCs for lower level spells (1-4) (best caster for control through save or suck)

IMO, part of the problem is too much overlap in spell lists, part of the problem is arcane class design (Wizard especially).