Pathfinder Adventure Path #183: Field of Maidens (Blood Lords 3 of 6)

I like that art of an Archon Wheel on page 74. BE NOT AFRAID!

Are we finally getting Pathfinder version of ophanim? :O

I think the thing I like most about this adventure is that, unlike Hell's Vengeance:

Hmm, seems like the Foundry module link is busted similar to how the second one was. Clicking on it just leads to a page that loop refreshes forever.

Um... who is Aeolaeka

Um... who is Aeolaeka

It's a type of azata on page 83.

Is this available for any VTT?

Is this available for any VTT?

It's available for Foundry, looks like you can get it for Fantasy Grounds as well.

I might gently recommend anyone who enjoys this volume or the Holomog material leave a positive review, as this one's gotten thrashed in the ratings. I don't begrudge anyone an honest bad rating, but it's always harder to get positive feedback.

Do I have an agenda here? Of course - I want more Southern Garund material almost as badly as I want central Arcadia, so it's in my best interests that this book do well :p

I haven't played it yet (waiting on part 4) but I would personally be offended by a no-effort 5 star review by someone who hasn't actually played it pushing an agenda just as much as I would a no-effort 2 star Rip Tanner review for the same reason.

While I do personally buy AP's for esoteric info about obscure topics, I don't think that's the main reason that people purchase them and reviews should not be based on it alone.

I decided to read it through for review in mind.

It's 3 stars adventure to me so good extra content pushing it to 4/5(3.5 rounded up accurately speaking. I might edit score to 3 stars if something sours my opinion afterwards) was fair in my mind. Might be pushed up or down if it turns out to be frustrating in practice or much more fun than I initially assumed. Honestly my favorite thing is the Wheel Archon, Holomog article is nice but its mostly 0.5+ score at best because its mostly small treat to make you hungry for more, still good one but you couldn't run Holomog campaign with gazetteer alone really.

(honestly though biggest thing bringing Holomog article down is that cover picture looks oddly generic medieval disney castle to me. I do like the dragons and flying creatures on background, but while it doesn't really conflict with Anuli picture, something about Anuli's picture feels MUCH less generic in comparison. Yeah art is BIG part of getting me excited for something unfortunately, so while Holomog stuff is philosophically fascinating, I'm not hyped yet for it since Holomog wasn't one of my personal interest nations previously)

I think adventure itself is good base to build up from, but it suffers from railroading(why exactly is this boss fight mandatory), presentation issues(Seldeg) and lot of it seeming disconnected from main plot(it ends up feeling like filler book where none of three chapters are strictly related to each other even if stuff you do is cool).

it ends up feeling like filler book where none of three chapters are strictly related to each other

This was my problem with it. You could have a clue dropping Kemnebi's name at the end of Graveclaw and the PCs immediately summoned to Mechitar for their efforts against the hag coven, and skip this book entirely. I buy the AP books for the adventure and don't factor the back matter into my reviews, and Field of Maidens was (IMO) a pointless slog.

I did finish reading the book after submitting my 1 star review. The doll house was a tonal U-turn that had me rolling my eyes, but Gristlehall was fine. The medusa villain semed poorly conceived and hard to take seriously. Her dialogue when she's first introduced reads like it was written for Berline Haldoli, then she gets locked in a cupboard by her own minions, before the inevitable betrayal at the end of the adventure.

I also find it hard to swallow that two good aligned tribes from Holomog would just give a group of ghouls and goblins the run of their camp/s and offer them cooking lessons (or why a party of undead would give a flying F about getting involved in their business). Admittedly, I did not read the Holomog article, because it did not interest me.

To me a so-so adventure with a good adventure toolbox is 3/5.

A bad adventure with a REALLY GREAT adventure toolbox is 2/5, and I'd wonder why it wasn't just put in a core/Lost Omens book instead.

Cool so those of us who don't have time to play every single AP should never leave reviews for the content that we get from them?

Main reason I consider it fine for toolbox to increase score by 0.5 or rounding it up is that its still almost 40% of book as the adventures are about 60 page of 100 pages.(not exactly since covers and mix of adventure items/npcs in articles and etc) Though obviously its pretty your mileage may vary thing since these are primarily adventure modules

I haven't played it yet (waiting on part 4) but I would personally be offended by a no-effort 5 star review by someone who hasn't actually played it pushing an agenda just as much as I would a no-effort 2 star Rip Tanner review for the same reason.

While I do personally buy AP's for esoteric info about obscure topics, I don't think that's the main reason that people purchase them and reviews should not be based on it alone.

I bought this book for the info in it, not to run. I feel I got my money’s worth. Why shouldn’t I leave a review?

One has to imagine the bulk of purchased Pathfinder content never actually gets to the table. I think it’s silly to demand only the hardest-core practical experience justifies a review.

We produce adventures as much to be read and enjoyed as we do to be played. Reviews from folks who "just" read an adventure are as important as those from folks who play the adventure, and in some cases are even more useful, since...

1) A review from someone who reads an adventure can go up far more quickly than waiting for it to be played, and thus gets feedback or good feelings to us sooner, and...

2) A review from someone who reads an adventure is potentially more insightful than a review from someone who just played an adventure, since that review is as much (if not more) a review of their GM's presentation of the adventure as it is the adventure itself.

ALL reviews are welcome... as long as they're honest! And reviews that give actual feedback, be it criticism or admiration, are always orders of magnitude more useful to those of us who create adventures than ones that just give stars with no context.

That all said, please don't gatekeep who should or shouldn't write a review. It's tough enough to get reviews for adventures as it is!

To me a so-so adventure with a good adventure toolbox is 3/5.

A bad adventure with a REALLY GREAT adventure toolbox is 2/5, and I'd wonder why it wasn't just put in a core/Lost Omens book instead.

Most of my favorite AP articles would've been too niche for any larger release to include them in any reasonable time; what Lost Omens release would this gazetteer of Holomog go in, or the writeup of Vudra in Agents of Edgewatch? Oftentimes, an AP volume is the only feasible place for content to wind up - which is why I've bought several, despite not running any PF2 campaigns any time soon. If my options are "get an adventure I won't read" or "wait however many years for Paizo to get around to a Southern Garund book," I'm gladly doing the former, and happily leaving a positive review if I got what I came for.

I'm not sure that Tyrant's Grasp #5 is a perfect adventure, but that doesn't stop it from being one of my favorite Pathfinder things ever published, because it had a Xopatl gazetteer and showcased the people and culture of Jolizpan. It earned a high rating from me that I feel pretty good about. The same is true here.

I buy APs solely to mine ideas for, I don't run them, and very rarely play in them.

It's ridiculous to demand a pedigree for players and GMs before reviewing, how would you even enforce/validate that pathetic attempt at elitism XD

Looking back at book 1 reviews, I think there might be misunderstanding.

Like in book 1, there are multiple reviews that explains their views, then at one point there are three five stars reviews where two first ones don't comment on it and third one says directly its to counter Rip Tanner's wordless review. Then there is Leon's review that seems annoyed at those three reviews

Like maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but I read that as "hypothetically I'd accept it if I knew the person giving 5 or 1 stars at least experienced or read the adventure first even if I actually can't know it", like they were more annoyed at lack of detailed review than score itself? Sorry if I misunderstood ^_^;

(personally I normally prefer to review books only after running them, but I have gotten feeling that if I wait that long, writers might not have chance to learn from feedback if I really do have a strong opinion on stuff I read or I might not see my favorite map artists again if I don't give positive feedback in time x'D)

You're being overgenerous.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic ^_^; I kinda need to be to preserve my sanity in Internet at times

*offers hugs*

Can a developer please convert the Wheel Archon to PF1e? That'd be great. So many PF2e new monsters I wish they did in 1e, an the Ophanim (wheel archon) I've been waiting years for, it'd be very nice if one of you at Paizo could give us PF1e fans the stats for it? Especially after being loyal customers throughout all of 1e. Thanks.

Maybe someone will sell it on Infinite.

Can a developer please convert the Wheel Archon to PF1e? That'd be great. So many PF2e new monsters I wish they did in 1e, an the Ophanim (wheel archon) I've been waiting years for, it'd be very nice if one of you at Paizo could give us PF1e fans the stats for it? Especially after being loyal customers throughout all of 1e. Thanks.

I can do it for you, Luis. 5 bucks per conversion, I take PayPal.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Can a developer please convert the Wheel Archon to PF1e? That'd be great. So many PF2e new monsters I wish they did in 1e, an the Ophanim (wheel archon) I've been waiting years for, it'd be very nice if one of you at Paizo could give us PF1e fans the stats for it? Especially after being loyal customers throughout all of 1e. Thanks.

I can do it for you, Luis. 5 bucks per conversion, I take PayPal.

Random name, strange? but no thanks.

Cool so those of us who don't have time to play every single AP should never leave reviews for the content that we get from them?

Yes. And if James Jacobs is offended at that opinion, he can have it moderated for all I care. The usual suspects in this thread were so mad about Rip Tanner that they created an entire thread about it (how's that for "gatekeeping" reviews, Jacobs?), but comment-less 5 stars are totally cool?

I'm sorry, I can't accept that kindergarten logic.

It gets so tiresome seeing the same 5-7 people trying to wag the dog on every single subject and book this company puts out. Thankfully money still talks and forum posts walk.

I don't think James gives it much consideration, if any.

CorvusMask wrote:

it ends up feeling like filler book where none of three chapters are strictly related to each other

This was my problem with it. You could have a clue dropping Kemnebi's name at the end of Graveclaw and the PCs immediately summoned to Mechitar for their efforts against the hag coven, and skip this book entirely. I buy the AP books for the adventure and don't factor the back matter into my reviews, and Field of Maidens was (IMO) a pointless slog.

I did finish reading the book after submitting my 1 star review. The doll house was a tonal U-turn that had me rolling my eyes, but Gristlehall was fine. The medusa villain semed poorly conceived and hard to take seriously. Her dialogue when she's first introduced reads like it was written for Berline Haldoli, then she gets locked in a cupboard by her own minions, before the inevitable betrayal at the end of the adventure.

I also find it hard to swallow that two good aligned tribes from Holomog would just give a group of ghouls and goblins the run of their camp/s and offer them cooking lessons (or why a party of undead would give a flying F about getting involved in their business). Admittedly, I did not read the Holomog article, because it did not interest me.

Interesting, that was the whole reason I bought this volume, I haven't even read the actual adventure yet.

Reviews without any information are less useful to me when it comes to improving products, and reviews that don't have information and are low reviews are not only not useful but are demoralizing. I have no interest in gatekeeping reviews, since that leads to the exact opposite of what I want to see—reviews with words attached (be they good or bad) so that we as the creators of the content can use feedback from those who the products are created for to make them better.

But that doesn't change the fact that no-text reviews are less useful than those that do have text. Not only does even including a single line of text provide more feedback, but they make the review seem more "legit" in the same way a written letter carries more weight than an e-mail. The more trouble someone goes through to communicate, the more weight that communication carries.

I do give the way people treat each other on the boards here (reviews included) into consideration, even though I don't actually have moderator access to the boards. I work at Paizo and I want these boards to be a welcoming and friendly place for gamers to chat, and it's unpleasant and depressing when folks use the platform to spread sadness and hate and discord.

Please be kind and patient to and with each other.

Cori Marie wrote:

Cool so those of us who don't have time to play every single AP should never leave reviews for the content that we get from them?

Yes. And if James Jacobs is offended at that opinion, he can have it moderated for all I care. The usual suspects in this thread were so mad about Rip Tanner that they created an entire thread about it (how's that for "gatekeeping" reviews, Jacobs?), but comment-less 5 stars are totally cool?

I'm sorry, I can't accept that kindergarten logic.

It gets so tiresome seeing the same 5-7 people trying to wag the dog on every single subject and book this company puts out. Thankfully money still talks and forum posts walk.

Did ye need to resurrect conversation from month ago though? Like I can get being annoyed when you realize post you missed annoys you, but it also just has risk of restarting the conversation all over again.

But yeah, my opinion? If someone has positive opinion on something and they can explain why they have it, its okay. If somebody has negative opinion on something and they can explain why, then its okay. Its okay for people to discuss why they disagree with other opinions. If somebody wants to review something but not explain why, its frustrating but okay since site wouldn't allow it if it wasn't okay. I find it annoying when people review bomb each other without lines either to counter low scores or high scores because I actually want to hear what other people's opinions were as well and its hard to tell difference between "I genuinely liked this book" and "I feel like that score is unfair so I shall counterbalance it"

Honestly I'd be fully okay if the review system had the fields be required and not allow star-only reviews.

Cori Marie wrote:

Cool so those of us who don't have time to play every single AP should never leave reviews for the content that we get from them?

Yes.

If I pay for a book and read it, I shouldn’t review it? What kind of logic is that?

And what do you mean "usual suspects"?

This is the best book of Blood Lords, fight me