Adaro

roysier's page

Goblin Squad Member. ********* Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 848 posts (1,072 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 48 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 848 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
roysier wrote:
Extensively long combats are normal. ... If you don't like long combats don't play 2e.

That has not been my experience. Nor the experience of the majority of the people that I have talked to on the PF2 forums.

If this has been your experience, I would suggest going to the PF2 advice forum and having some of the system experts troubleshoot what is going wrong. We have had several people come on there in the past to find out what they are doing incorrectly. Most commonly it is that they do not have Striking runes on their weapons, they are not using any teamwork, or they have forgotten to add their level to their proficiency. All of those types of inaccuracies in running the game have led to combat falling apart at about level 5 - level 10.

lol, or you are not playing with PF1 players who are not proficient. To each his own. I have now been through 2 x 4 hour combats using pf2 rules. I have never, not once, over a few thousand sessions at many different levels as a player and GM seen a combat ever run that long in PF1 or SF1. The long combats make sense if you think about it. PF2 creatures have buckets of hit points. Spells are nerfed so there are no quick ending combat spells, you have creatures that have high levels of regeneration, knowledge of creatures is nerfed do you often don't know the most effective way to fight something. I get it, some people like the balance and will take the long combats. Others like me find long combats boring. So for me 2nd edition is an absolute No Go. I assume most people who think like me have already abandoned Paizo. so I'm sure my opinion is in the minority on this forum.


Karmagator wrote:
roysier wrote:
It looks like I'm in a minority. But I never liked the PF2 rules. 3 and 4 hour combats starting around level 10 are boring as hell. So, it looks like Paizo has nothing more to interest customers like me with this cut over.

That's definitely not normal. 3 to 4 hour combats should be very rare in my experience and from what I've seen from other people. Really long combats (~2 to 3 hours) shouldn't start to be become more common until level 15+. But you are right, at high levels, combat can be quite session-filling. Especially if someone is being cute and throws CC spells everywhere.

It might be worth giving it another shot with a different group or at least a different campaign.

Extensively long combats are normal. I've played in a bunch of them with different GM's and I even took my hand at GMing and there is no doubt combats are about 30% longer in PF2 than in PF1. I find the 2e combat system boring, especially as a player where not only are the longer but t it also takes longer for your turn to come around again due to 3 actions for everyone else on the battlefield. If you don't like long combats don't play 2e.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It looks like I'm in a minority. But I never liked the PF2 rules. 3 and 4 hour combats starting around level 10 are boring as hell. So, it looks like Paizo has nothing more to interest customers like me with this cut over.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Mangrum wrote:
roysier wrote:
I would suggest skipping the starship combat at the start of the book all together. It pisses players off to completely obliterate the opponents without taking any damage to their ship and barely a scratch to their shields and play starship combat for an hour or more in actual time only to lose automatedly by box text. Auto losing a combat by Box text is really crappy thing to do to players. I've never seen this done before in a Paizo product.

Just eyeballing it, that starship combat did look underpowered to me. (I don't care how the stacking CR math supposedly works, Tier 5 foes are gnats fated to go squish on a Tier 10 ship's viewscreen.) But since you do want to establish the threat, I would go ahead and keep the encounter while upping the challenge. Also, if/when I run this, I'll be setting it during the Drift Crisis, so my penciled-in plan is to have the adventure kick off at the moment of the Drift Crash itself. The PCs' ship is slapped out of the Drift, into the planet's upper atmosphere, with feedback from the Crash causing their Drift engine to overload the ship's systems; thus the fight becomes a race to fend off the attackers before the PC's ship burns out its own electronics.

I also have some lingering questions about the history and population of the planet, but I'm willing to chalk that up to "situation more intricate than the adventure has room to explore."

A good suggestion. It's hard for me to believe Paizo can't figure out a starship encounter tough enough to beat the players ship by using the actual game rules, and thus have to resort to a cheap shot boxtext defeat of the starship. This gets a big "Wow!!" when I tell other RPG players about this encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I found another map error. Room G3 is flipped upside down from the other levels. The elevator does not align. I assume this was done due to the box text and room description saying there is a portal in the south side of the room. So flipping it upside down allows for the boxtext to be accurate but throws off the elevator to the other levels.

The more I think about it the more I am surprised about how many editing errors there are in this module. Most of them have to do with maps or stat blocks. it's really too bad. This was Paizo/Starfinders opportunity to show off their mech rules and the module gets screwed up due to over a dozen very obvious editing errors. I used to read those RPG superstar contest notes. What happened to all the Paizo precision based on those comments?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

More feedback on this scenario. First the overall story line is great. The players are just discovering the mechs and are excited about the mech element of the scenario.

There are some issues with this module however that don't have to do with the overall plot line.

First besides all the issues with every room in area H not matching what is in the book. (as mentioned in my post a few up from this one). There are other map errors in the mech bunker maps. The box text does not match the map. Area E1 is the most glaring example of this.

I would suggest skipping the starship combat at the start of the book all together. It pisses players off to completely obliterate the opponents without taking any damage to their ship and barely a scratch to their shields and play starship combat for an hour or more in actual time only to lose automatedly by box text. Auto losing a combat by Box text is really crappy thing to do to players. I've never seen this done before in a Paizo product.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:

Junker's Delight was a really well put together intro module but I feel like Locus-1 was kind of slapdash with an underwhelming finale.

Disappointed to hear about your experience with the rest of the Starfinder Adventures. Maybe AP's are better organized? It sounds like the adventures work best as idea mines.

The first 2 standalone adventures I thought were fine.

Red Rally was organized in a way that makes it extra difficult for the GM to organzied it and it seems the brain trust just simply forogt that a 7th level Operative with a standard build and ship bonuses will compeltly blow up the adventure. (by taking 10's on piloting rolls and making 80 stratigh pilotiong rolls by greater than 5).

To Defy the Dragon, it looks like there were last minute changes that created a word count crunch and whoever made the changes royally screwed up area H. (i've GM'ed hundreds of paizo products and have never seen anything this messed up).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another error. Area H7 in the book(H6 on the map) lists guards but leaves out how many guards. My guess is 4.

Another error Pg. 47 lists a creature names Zavrix and type page 120 of Alien Achieve 3. The stats in the book don't match whats on page 450 of AA3. I have no idea what the creature is supposed to be. However pg. 120 of AA3 does have a Void Troll which seems like a good substitute.

What the hell happened to the high quality products that Paizo in known for?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm really confused by the map on the back cover and what is in the book.

H6 on the map is H7 in the book
H7 on the map is H8 in the book
H8 on tha map is H9 in the book
H9 is H10
H10 is H11

Bottom floor is also screwed up

H1 on the map is H3 in the book
H4 on the map is H5 in the book

The rest I'm guessing. I don't see the kitchen described in the book and I have no idea what H5 on the map is. so those are probably matched up.

H3 on the Map I'm guessing is where H6 the memory vault is
H2 on the map I think is H1 in the book

The unmarked central hallway is probably H2 in the book. The 4 gargantuan creatures can start in the air so the room fits them all.

I've never seen a Paizo map get so screwed up. It's very disappointing I was thinking up to this point how well this module is written, and I was very excited to run it. But it appears some last minute editing/module cuts were not edited very well. Thus making the H maps and the non-existent K map a confusing mess to figure out - what is where.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is an easy fix to fix to the 7th level Operative being able to take a 10 on all piloting rolls and blowing out the entire module. Start the module 1 level lower. Character start at level 6 and not leveling them to 7 until after the first 2 rallys. In that way the rallys will have a level of challenge to them. Then if the Operative blows out the piloting rolls in rally 3,4, and 5 there will be a feeling of a come back victory.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have wrapped up running this. Total play time was 18 hours of game play. This takes a hell of a lot of prep and note taking by the GM. This module works better with GM's who can spontaneously Improv. multiple NPC's.

There are lots of names dropped. Hainb handout and cheat sheets for the players is required for the players to have any idea who is who.

The scenario itself is fun but not organized in a way that makes it easy for the GM. (again requiring extra GM prep time).

The setting up of the villains to be villains was nicely done.

If you run as written this scenario is a cake walk for a standard party, It's way too easy. A standard 7th level operative can beat the Pilot DC's by over 5 on every roll. Since they can take 10's at 7th level. This leaves 1/3 of the module an exercise in the GM saying this happens and the party bypassed the obstacle easily.

The combats are also way too easy. The party smoked them.

I suggest this not be run as written. The GM needs to adjust the DC's so the pilot doesn't always beat the DC's+5 - 80 straight times. At the end the party was 60 points ahead of the 2nd place team.

Every time the module said another group reached a checkpoint first that seemed rather dumb since no party could beat a perfect score by the party. So I had to adjust what I said and say there are other racing ships right with you and you are jockeying for the top spot.

I ran this with the characters starting at level 7 and advanced to level 8. I left them at level 8 and they smoked the level 9 part of the module. There was no challenge to the party at any point with the following 2 exceptions.

The attack by the sea monster during the boat race was a challenge, except the party just go back in the boat and speed off.

The final fight was a bit challenging for the party at level 8 characters facing a level 9 encounter. However only 1 party member ever reached hit points and that was quickly healed.

The final starship combat was stupidly easy. It was pointless. I don't know why authors write starship combats with ships that can't do more damage than the players ship can repair shields per round. The NPC ship could on average do 14 points of damage to the PC ship, who in turn could repair 15 points of shield each round. This makes starship combat a complete waste of time. Why even bother if the opposing ship cannot damage the players ship?

That my 2 cents. Interesting idea and plot, however it needs a lot of work by the GM to make it worthwhile to a party.


I'm now about 40% into GMing this. Just finishing up Rally#2. This module needs lots of GM prep and a GM who can improv role play the various NPC's. With that in place this adventure goes pretty well. Nut, there is one serious flaw that quite literally destroys and challenge the race may have for the party. A 7th level operative can 10 on a pilot roll and blow out the DC needed every pilot roll in every phase on every race. Thus the PC's max their scores every time out. Currently, they are so far ahead of the competition the encounters that have a story line that someone else got there first seems utterly silly. No one could get their first when they have maximum points. Thay are getting a max of 2 points in every phase.

I'll follow up with more thoughts when we finish.


roysier wrote:

This is seriously one of the hardest adventures to prep I have ever had to deal with.

Can anyone help me identify which NPC's are in the portaits:

Pg.54 Left to Right I think it should be
Tolar
???don't know
Kitian Sparrs
Nenvi
Thel-Savai
TN8

Pg. 55 Left to Right I think it should be
Zenkayesh
Penvo
??? (looks like a female halfing?)
Tanisi
Welavor
???
Kexyl

Pg.33 Left to right
Iseph - Iconic
Tanisi
???(Male Human)

Correction Kittian should be #3 of Page 55. I don't know who #3 of page 54 is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is seriously one of the hardest adventures to prep I have ever had to deal with.

Can anyone help me identify which NPC's are in the portaits:

Pg.54 Left to Right I think it should be
Tolar
???don't know
Kitian Sparrs
Nenvi
Thel-Savai
TN8

Pg. 55 Left to Right I think it should be
Zenkayesh
Penvo
??? (looks like a female halfing?)
Tanisi
Welavor
???
Kexyl

Pg.33 Left to right
Iseph - Iconic
Tanisi
???(Male Human)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I got a bone to pick on this one. I'm trying to prep this to run it and It is unessaerly difficult on the GM's. I have read and run a few thosuand adventures across mutlple games systems and this one is one of the most difficult to prep and it doesn't have to be. It has to do with the organzaion of the facts. Instead of making things easy to look up for the GM it's more important that it reads like a novel.

The clues in garage pg 7-8 are not highliged in a order that the GM can not find them easily when the party is sandboxing the clues. Order them by section in the garage not alpabetical order by what is found. (see any chaosisum product on how to group things by area).

Now I'm up to the competition section. That's cute how it's written on Pg 51-54. but WTF - how is a GM suposed to make heads or tails of this. I'm trying to go through and write down team names. And I can't figure out exactly who the 12 teams are. I go to page 19 and it lists teams. Some of those team names on page 19 don't even appear on pg 51-54. I spent a few hours trying to figure out who all the teams are. it would help for the GM's you cut out all the novel writting and give us a list so the GM's can figure out what is what easily.

This is a game adventure/accessory. Make it easy on the GM's to GM

I'm only a part way into prepping this I'm about ready to throw it the trash. It looks like a fun adventure but not worth all the prepping heacaches.


It would be really cool if this could be sanctioned in such a way that are SFS characters have more content to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I saw the title and location I was hoping for some Ulfen(or viking) Lore and adventure. Instead we get Nightmares in babysitting - babysit 5 spoiled brats. Not my thing that's for sure. I 'll defiantly have to keep a much closer eye on what scenarios I want to play after this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This looks pretty interesting. You almost had me playing this in organized play until I saw this can't be played in PFS2 mode. So, I can't use my Pf2 organized play characters - It's campaign mode only. How disappointing. Another intersecting looking product I will skip.


Thurston Hillman wrote:
Castrin wrote:
Kind of a bummer that the pregens are the iconics and not more original, but, we can fix that. :D
The intent here is to encourage people to play their own characters, and use the iconics as pregens only when needed. Unlike other one-shots, this adventure is meant to be used by people wanting to play their own PCs. In fact, it actually works as an intentional prequel to a Drift Crisis campaign, including direct tie-ins to the Drift Crashers adventure path!

That's nice but you don't really play your own SFS character in campaign mode. I even had one player character when things got rough say I don't care if I die it's not my character when he was supposedly playing his own character. He knew it would have no impact on his real SFS character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Sidenote, there are few characters on that list which if players aren't in final book have bit of question mark on their future status. Like has Laori Vaos changed religion? Has Vencarlo retired his vigilante identity because he found successor(whether after campaign or to pc)? Latter is pretty big on deciding whether he would have retrained away from vigilante stuff by this one.

(either way, if you are including Vencarlo and Trinia in party, I think having one of two clerics around would be appropriate party balance wise, especially since Vencarlo and Trinia (if we try to stay as close to 1e statblock as possible) have low wisdom. Krojun, Marcus or Grau class wise make sense for fourth one to round out the balance as a bit more tanky character/additional martial damage dealer since skills should be alright with this party anyway.)

Laori is risky for a choice, we just started book 5. I'm not sure if she is going to survive and if she does what her religion would be.

Marcus and Krojun would not work due to they are already past level 11.

So "Grau Soldado" returning to Korvosa would probably be best for a tank.

For a Cleric Ishani Dharti would probably be best.

So a 4 party pegen party would be best as -

Trinia adjusted to a Bard that works well as a PF2 character.

Vencarlo - his future is unwritten in my campaign, he hadn't retired nor has a party remember taken his role. so 10 years later retiring and staying a fencing school instructor would work fine.

Than the easy ones would be Grau as a tank and Ishani as a cleric of Abadar.

Thanks so much.


CorvusMask wrote:
roysier wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
roysier wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, if you want the players to play NPCs from crimson throne as pcs in this adventure, just create them with PC rules.

Yep, but creating characters in PF2 is not easy, it's not intuitive. Now make them level 11 with almost no game knowledge and have them reflect the similar them as a character from PF1. No thanks, creating a level 1 character is a hard enough. For me it would be easier to convert the entire module to PF1.

I'm hoping someone else with PF2 game experience has done this. I can't possibly be the first one to think of doing this.

I mean, if you want, I can create PCs for you?

(I made entire Jade Regent 1e npc cast into 2e pc stats x'D )

Thing is, NPCs in 2e have less versatile abilities than PC do, but have higher stats than PCs do as well. So having players play with four NPC statblocks would skew balance in weird ways

Thanks, I didn't know there was a big difference between PC's and NPCs. In PF1 the differences can be adjusted. NPC's have 1 level lower in gear and our built on 15 point buys instead of 20. So bumping an NPC is having a player up the stats to a 20 point buy and upping their gear 1 level.

With this being the case I would be looking for example to make Trinia Sabor a Player character with as many similar choices as possible at the startin level 11. Is that something you could help with? She's a level 9 Bard in CofCT. Vencarlo is a level 10 Vigilante in Curse and he would make a good choice also. I'd have to think about who to add as a 3rd and a 4th. But having those 2 would be greatly appreciated.

Are you running this game live or on roll20 btw? Kinda wondering how I should send them to you. (I'm for now gonna do just those two as demonstration so you can figure out if they are what you are looking for)

It would be on roll20.


CorvusMask wrote:
roysier wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, if you want the players to play NPCs from crimson throne as pcs in this adventure, just create them with PC rules.

Yep, but creating characters in PF2 is not easy, it's not intuitive. Now make them level 11 with almost no game knowledge and have them reflect the similar them as a character from PF1. No thanks, creating a level 1 character is a hard enough. For me it would be easier to convert the entire module to PF1.

I'm hoping someone else with PF2 game experience has done this. I can't possibly be the first one to think of doing this.

I mean, if you want, I can create PCs for you?

(I made entire Jade Regent 1e npc cast into 2e pc stats x'D )

Thing is, NPCs in 2e have less versatile abilities than PC do, but have higher stats than PCs do as well. So having players play with four NPC statblocks would skew balance in weird ways

Thanks, I didn't know there was a big difference between PC's and NPCs. In PF1 the differences can be adjusted. NPC's have 1 level lower in gear and our built on 15 point buys instead of 20. So bumping an NPC is having a player up the stats to a 20 point buy and upping their gear 1 level.

With this being the case I would be looking for example to make Trinia Sabor a Player character with as many similar choices as possible at the startin level 11. Is that something you could help with? She's a level 9 Bard in CofCT. Vencarlo is a level 10 Vigilante in Curse and he would make a good choice also. I'd have to think about who to add as a 3rd and a 4th. But having those 2 would be greatly appreciated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Best of luck, good to see you still around.

I'd say barely still around. I went from 100% Paizo product game playing time from 2012 to 218 to about 25% today and will drop even more when my current home games wrap up. Mainly due to Paizo making decisions that seem to reverse all the quality decisions that I loved Paizo making from 2012 to 2016. Options are being pulled off the table in organized play, cutting edge products and ideas are now family oriented, etc. etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, if you want the players to play NPCs from crimson throne as pcs in this adventure, just create them with PC rules.

Yep, but creating characters in PF2 is not easy, it's not intuitive. Now make them level 11 with almost no game knowledge and have them reflect the similar them as a character from PF1. No thanks, creating a level 1 character is a hard enough. For me it would be easier to convert the entire module to PF1.

I'm hoping someone else with PF2 game experience has done this. I can't possibly be the first one to think of doing this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am currently running a group through Curse of the Crimson Throne. 4 of 5 players don't play PF2 at all and have no characters built. I am toying with the idea of running this as a one off sequel for the same group right after we complete the AP. 10 years later as the module suggess. I have no PF2 GMing experience and have played about 20 sessions of PFS2.

I have 2 choices:

I could convert the whole thing to PF1. Or I'm leaning toward running in PF2 and having the Players with no PF2 take on a ready made NPC of a personality from Curse of the Crimson Throne.

Has anyone created starting NPC's level 11 of NPC's for this module from Curse NPC's? Not knowing the PF2 rules I would have a very difficult time doing this myself. If I can find ready made character to run through this I would probably run this in PF2. If not I'd do the opposite convert it to PF1.

If anyone has done this or know of anyone who has done this pointing me in that directions would be very much appreciated.

Curse of the Crimson Throne NPC's that come to mind (if they survive the AP):

Sabina Tabor
Vencarlo Orisini
Amin Jalento
Ishani Dharti
Laori Vaus
Krojun Eats-what-he-killsa
Boule
Advancing in levels a Skoan-Quah Bonselayer
Jasan Adriel
Marcus Endrin
Grau Soladro
Tayce Soldaro
Salvator Scream


Same as everyone else. Code was entered but I have no idea where I need to go to update address and pay shipping fees.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elegos wrote:
Kinda disappointed we have to wait till July for more modules, since the AP schedule dropped to bimonthly in order to accommodate them. Feels like a strict downgrade in the production of starfinder content volume.

I agree, I thought we were getting stand-alone modules every other month. I understand why the cut off every other month for AP's. Not enough sales to support this model. But as a replacement Bounties don't cut for me as a fill in. A 1 hour module for level 1's as a replacement for an AP for a module.

If you want to increase sales on modules have them tie into the SFS structure and find a way they can be run in SFS mode. I know that would draw more interest in my circles. Campaign mode turns off players in my circles. They don't want to go through them in campaign format.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me this is just one more nail of disappointment in the Paizo coffin as I shift my gaming hobby time further and further away to other game companies.

For me this has everything to do with Paizo setting such a high standard for itself. For years there was so many exciting ideas and rules and game content and really interesting AP's. For 9 years I never even thought of shifting game systems, it never even crossed my mind. Paizo was a gleaming light of gaming excitement with constant stream of new ideas. The nails started falling for me with how disappointing the PF2 rules system was followed by the move away from adult content to family friendly material. Now it looks like SF/SFS is at most a few years from end of life.

I'm not there yet. I still have a FEW PF1 AP's to finish that are mid-stream. (Curse of the Crimson Throne, War for the Crown, and The Blight). But the coffin is almost shut.

I hope instead of SF - 2nd editio,n Paizo put their creative juices to a new genre for RPG. Maybe weird-west of horror. Knowing that Paizo hides that they are working on a new game system for a couple of years before announcing it, if there is anything in the works I'm sure it's already being worked on now.

5/5 5/55/5

Shifty wrote:
roysier wrote:
but Paizo determined due to work load and sales numbers work allocation should be re-disturbed to other areas.
The 'other areas' in this case being the developers working reasonable workloads, their time is being allocated and re-distributed back to them and their families :)

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with their decisions. As far as I'm concerned they already f#%+ed up by having people work 60 hours a week. Shame on them by not hiring enough staff to do the work in a reasonable amount of hours. So instead of hiring more staff they cut content. That gives me a clue to where Paizo is headed with SFS. Are they growing of shrinking? They certainly are not growing with that decision.

I'm just one bum in the cog that has to adjust.

5/5 5/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

When SFS first came out I had a table that went back and forth between Dead Suns and SFS scenarios. All of those characters are level 13 or 14 now. 4 of the 6 players stopped playing SF and SFS because they only want to play that high level character.

Just saying - there is a market for tier 13/14 level content. I don't know if it's a big enough market to make it worthwhile but it does exist.

5/5 5/55/5

So, the answer is yes we are cutting down on SFS scenario support. but Paizo determined due to work load and sales numbers work allocation should be re-disturbed to other areas.

SFS isn't ending; rather the product support is being reduced.

Good to know for long term gaming plans.

5/5 5/55/5

I can't help but notice there is only 1 SFS scenario a month through the first 4 months of 2022 per Paizo's release schedule. So, it looks like SFS society is winding down? It seems to be losing new SFS scenario support.

I know about the new modules but they don't have a SFS option it's campaign mode only and they are in essence replacing what would be an AP chapter. So this isn't a SFS replacement option to make up for the cut down in SFS scenarios.


Any chance we will get a correct Besmara's head map on Roll20? The map scale is 10ft per square. Roll20 has it at 5 ft per square.


What is a Fort Base Attack?


So the Nanocytes have a Fort Attack Bonus? Wow their Fort saves are off the charts compared to other classes. And they get an untypted save bonus? Don't mess with the Nanocyte they save vs. everything.


I've said it before and I will say it again. If you don't have a crew fit for starship combat it an sometimes take a few hours to resolve. Players hating this and I have seen a handful of people quit the game because of this.

so, as a result of the complaints starship combats are never difficult for an average skilled crew.

But they are also a downright waste of time and way too easy with an optimized starship crew. This just came up again in Waking the Worldseed. The Starship combat was a waste of time. The players never felt threated and there was literally no threat to them at all. They took a total of about 10% of their shields damaged. The drones barely put a dent into the ships shields and the combat was over. We played 3 rounds and then everyone was bored the players starhsip was in no danger what so ever, so instead of spending 3 more rounds playing out the inevitable result - (Drones destroyed and about 10% of the players shields taken down) . I called it over, why waste another 20 minutes of everyone's time when everyone knew the result and we were just rolling dice to get to the result.

To make it not a waste of time when the inevitable is obvious there has to be a mechanic that if it happens the players are at risk. a randomness factor that no matter what is happening, no matter how lop-sided there is always a chance this bad thing will happen. For example a confirmed critical hit bypasses all shields and goes right to the hull.


Shifty wrote:
...Society play?

Disappointingly, no Society play. Campaign mode only.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, this actually looks interesting. For my part not a single PF2 AP looked interesting until this one. (The Ruby Phoenix was interesting story wise but I have no desire for high level play).

Bring on stuff that has interesting real world cultural ties and I'm in. This one has Ice age cultural ties = Awesome.


roysier wrote:
Alex Speidel wrote:
roysier wrote:
Alex Speidel wrote:
mizinamo wrote:
Is it likely that this adventure (and future adventures) will receive SFS sanctioning at some point -- i.e. that it will be possible to apply a boon from this adventure to an existing SFS character, the way we can with Adventure Path volumes?
Very likely, yes :)
My question is not is it going to be sanctioned but can you use your SFS characters or are we going to be forced into campaign mode only. If we can use SFS characters in SFS mode, awesome. I will purchase them all and GM all of them locally. If we are forced to play campaign mode I'll pass on all these modules.
It will be campaign mode, but if you wanted you could certainly apply the SFS-specific restrictions at your table. I'm not sure what you would get with SFS-only sanctioning that you wouldn't get with campaign mode.
Thanks for the info. I will pass on the whole product line, I love the way Organized play handled 64 page modules in PF1 and hate the way they handled them in PF2.

What you get is most players I play with including myself like to play there SFS/PFS characters. We are SFS players only. In PF1 you could use your PF1 characters throughout the modules start to finish. 32 or 64 page modules. That was awesome. PF2 style where you can't play your Pf2 characters you have to play duplicates of your PF2 character or create a separate character. It is just not as satisfying with the people I know who only play organized play. I tried it with PF2 modules and decided to stop playing them for this exact reason. I've tried it and don't like it so I will pass. What we do instead is run 1 book of an AP. Give the players a few months to get in another level playing organized play scenarios, then play the next book of the AP with the same characters. That works fine for us. We are always using our organized play characters.


Alex Speidel wrote:
roysier wrote:
Alex Speidel wrote:
mizinamo wrote:
Is it likely that this adventure (and future adventures) will receive SFS sanctioning at some point -- i.e. that it will be possible to apply a boon from this adventure to an existing SFS character, the way we can with Adventure Path volumes?
Very likely, yes :)
My question is not is it going to be sanctioned but can you use your SFS characters or are we going to be forced into campaign mode only. If we can use SFS characters in SFS mode, awesome. I will purchase them all and GM all of them locally. If we are forced to play campaign mode I'll pass on all these modules.
It will be campaign mode, but if you wanted you could certainly apply the SFS-specific restrictions at your table. I'm not sure what you would get with SFS-only sanctioning that you wouldn't get with campaign mode.

Thanks for the info. I will pass on the whole product line, I love the way Organized play handled 64 page modules in PF1 and hate the way they handled them in PF2.


Alex Speidel wrote:
mizinamo wrote:
Is it likely that this adventure (and future adventures) will receive SFS sanctioning at some point -- i.e. that it will be possible to apply a boon from this adventure to an existing SFS character, the way we can with Adventure Path volumes?
Very likely, yes :)

My question is not is it going to be sanctioned but can you use your SFS characters or are we going to be forced into campaign mode only. If we can use SFS characters in SFS mode, awesome. I will purchase them all and GM all of them locally. If we are forced to play campaign mode I'll pass on all these modules.


Has anyone come up with a good link to a happy company jingle that keeps repeating on the jukebox?

I'm thinking about using this. I won't play it until the party hears it repeat the 3rd time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlKEHaorOWw

There are 4 different version I think I will just use the first all instrumental version for the players.

5/5 5/55/5

Perfect thanks.

5/5 5/55/5

I have been searching around the Paizo website for Pathfinder organized play 1st edition legal character options and I can't find it. Can someone tell me how to find it or point me to a direct link. Thanks. I can find second editions stuff very easy but legal sources for first edition. Thanks


I'm a bit confused at the start of the adventure there seems to be a error and gap of some kind. Something is missing. Under a "Princely Audience" it says there is an invite to meet the party at the Palace of Birdsong. The party has the prince encounter. Suddenly they are at the Senate building 100 miles away being greeted by lady Morilla. The box text clearly is written at the senate.

It would seem dangerous for Prince Carrius to be at the senate building during the war.

it looks like the author or the editors messed something up here. Quickly come to the palace of Birdsong. Now travel 110 miles to the senate.


So I picked up the fighter to play in about 20 minutes and I have no idea what most of the stuff under feats and abilities means section. I don't see a one pager anywhere. So I guess this isn't really a scenario for new players.


So I picked up the fighter and I have no idea what half the stuff on the sheet means. Is there a 1 or pager explaining all the abilities anywhere?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This looks great. I'm thrilled there is a new one shot that doesn't involve playing a goblin or a skittermander.


Is there any piece of equipment or spell that can hide a creatures type from the scan of the biohacker's microlab. It looks like it will blow through disguise self.


I really like this module but a biohacker with a custom Microlab can destroy the plot of this module. They can just scan a creature for it's type. It seems odd that a first level character ability can wreck the plot of the AP. Both in this book and book 3. Am I missing something?

For this book I had the biolab altered by the observers. But in book 3 I can't use that excuse.

1 to 50 of 848 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>