Another book that I want to see, is to get a book on the strange elder races and what they had been doing back then and if possible enough rules to play these ancient creatures. What was the war between the Aboleths and Xiomorn like? What are the wars between the Elohim and Anunnaki like? What was the Xulgath and Serpentfolk empires like?
I've asked this before but I really want a lore book on the planes, but I want to know is about the local animals, weather and terrain that exists. What fish things swim in the great lava lakes of the plane of fire? What is the difference for a desert in Elysium compared to one in the Abyss? What crazy wood equivalents can I get in the plane of Earth? I also want to know about the cities in the planes that are not the City of Brass, Axis or Dis. Give me some write ups on what a city in the plane of Air is like, or what does a small village in Heaven look like and so on.
You know what, I think it would just be easier if clerics are limited to their god/goddess' alignment only. Because it is hard to justify why ZK would get LN clerics but Asmodeus not and in all fairness it makes more sense to just go "you have to be the alignment of the deity you worship"
1. Yes but my group and I have been growing somewhat bored with it as of late 2. Not particularly, since all the broken game destroying things I've seen at my table where things I allowed from 3.5 to be ported over3. Ambivalent on 4e, 5e I find severely lacking, after 5 years it still doesn't have anywhere near the support it need for me to run what I want 4. I want more out of the non-magical end of things, to be able to do more with non-casters 5. It is a good move 6. Not really 7. Sure, but then again I've played a lot of systems and I prefer to pick the system for the story I will run than the other way around 8. I don't really understand the question here, because I am willing to play a lot of different kinds of games and each game requires a different set of rules to run. So what I want from a system will change drastically story arc to story arc, and campaign to campaign.
So I just ran the first section of the Doomsday Dawn module: The Lost Star and I have a few thoughts to share. So first for the raw numbers and then I'll go into more spoiler territory.
GM observations Spoiler:
First there seems to be some huge disparity in the difficulty of some of the encounters, combat was not very difficult for my players if somewhat repetitive for the barbarian and fighter. The barbarian player only raged a single time and then proceeded to nearly one shot the boss with a timely placed critical. Due to the cleric's good perception the party managed to avoid most traps and locate most of the hidden treasure. On the other hand poison seems to be overly lethal given that had any of the PCs failed their saves against the centipedes that would be the end of that character. Also why is there no DC on breaking down the door but you can unlock it with 3(!?!) DC20 device checks?! That is just going to stop any rogue completely. Channel positive energy is still crazy good against undead. Finally note: All my players really enjoyed the first session and we'll be doing the rest of the campaign soon. It wasn't too hard to get the hang of the rules, the most difficult one being initiative.
Give me contract masters that summon devils clerics of Asmodeus
So all you're asking is "Please put Seelah in the front cover instead of Seoni"? Well if you don't have that much faith on Paizo not somehow objectifying women, would you rather they didn't have a woman on the cover at all?
The female players in the circles i play in are ok with that. In fact they never give it a thought. So all you're asking is "Please put Seelah in the front cover instead of Seoni"? I think that's a reasonable request, though I don't know if you phrased it in the best way
Honestly I have never had a problem with my players one shotting a boss, or struggling for hours fighting mooks. Its all part of the game, you roll with it. I have had problems when I one shot them with a large crit weapon like a scythe from a low level monster that was a throw away creature who has now just killed a PC. And looking at that problem, I am much happier with what we have seen in PF2 than PF1, because it is less swingy that way.
I will pose an additional argument for just attribute modifiers instead of attribute scores, monsters and NPCs. Attribute scores make an additional unnecessary amount of math for the GM, especially if they are making a monster from scratch, stating up multiple NPCs, changing some of the stats of a monster by saying adding a template. It is just unnecessary amount of math and honestly page count on the stat block. And for those who need the nostalgia can always add it back to their game, because it doesn't have any effects mechanically. You want to roll 4d6 drop the lowest then put that through some math to see if you get a -2 to a +5 then go ahead, you can leave that in the character creation side of things. The rest of the game doesn't need the extra maths.
|
