Agents of the grave?

[cibet44]

Just wondering why none of the Whispering Way's senior members are "Agents of the Grave". Out of Lucimar, Grey Friar, and Advion none are Agents of the Grave although they are all clearly leaders in the cult (Advion is actually listed as THE leader supplanting Lucimar). I would think all three would have the PrC. In fact I don't remeber seeing any Agents of the Grave in Renchurch or Gallowspire at all! Very weird.

[Zhangar]

First off, massive spoilers in the thread. Might want to change the title so players aren't looking in here.

Players keep out!:

The prestige class was written for inclusion in book 3. Odds are extremely good that the later writers weren't even aware of it.

It also has the disadvantage of being from an AP instead of a main rule book, which I believe means they'd have to reprint all its abilities every time it came up. Which is kinda wasteful of word count.

Also, please keep in mind Adivion isn't actually seeking undeath; he's really turning Ustalav upside down just for the opportunity to meet Tar-Baphon. He only becomes undead because his plan doesn't pan out.

[Brandon Hodge]

*dingdingdingding* Zhangar is right on the money!

Spoiler:

The Agent of the Grave PrC was written by my good buddy Adam Daigle, and while I was aware of its basic structure when writing Shadows of Gallowspire the fact is that when my deadline hit, it was as yet undeveloped. What this means is that while I could have made the Gray Friar an Agent of the Grave (and actually wanted to badly, honestly), it was unrealistic given our development timeframe, as my turnover stats would have been based on Adam's undeveloped text, not Paizo's developed version, which means any stats based on the early draft would then have to have been redeveloped by Rob, etc. We were on a tight deadline, and it was an unrealistic hindrance.

That's just how things go sometimes.

I will say that of the 3 antagonists you mentioned, only the Gray Friar would have made sense for the PrC, but even then he is true undead, so it would have been a bit redundant. Lucimar had existing stats in canon (he just needed to be leveled up a bit to reflect his time since Hungry are the Dead), and prior to his desperate act that spurs the finale, Adivion had no desire to become undead himself -only to resurrect the Whispering Tyrant. The Renchurch Monks originally had a level or two in the class, but, for the reasons above, had to revert back to developed classes due to time constraints.

Good catch! I actually chewed my lip on that one for a while when I was writing, and wondered if anyone would notice. Great PrC I would dearly loved to have put to good use!

[cibet44]

Brandon Hodge wrote:

*dingdingdingding* Zhangar is right on the money!

** spoiler omitted **

Well that makes sense from a logistical point of view but unfortunately it doesn't do the AP any favors. So now we have several pages of an evil NPC prestige class that is basically described as a requirement to be a member of the Whispering Way yet none of the Whispering Way leaders have it. Not much of an incentive for anyone to do it is there?

More importantly, it becomes a pretty good waste of word count and GM mind space since after Vrood the PrC is gone and it never comes into play again. Even worse, the actual leaders of the Whispering Way at the end have other (non core) abilities and classes that the GM does have to learn about anyway. So, as GM, you need to forget about all the PrC stuff you learned earlier in the AP and instead you have to learn all this other stuff to run the end game BBEGs. Ugh.

I think this is another example of the "bottom up" design the APs follow. Designing the APs "top down" (from part 6 down) would go a long way to eliminating this kind of issue.

My group is enjoying CC crown but I have to say as GM (and longtime Paizo fan) I am disappointed with the way CC is organized as a whole. Between the issues like described above (one shot PrC), the flaky new mechanics (trust system for instance), the peppering of Bestiary 2 monsters with no stat blocks throughout the AP (this is getting noticeably worse the further into the AP we get), the non core classes of NPCs and abilities and spells and magic items that I have to either replace or print out from the PRD before each session and the threading of the BBEG into the AP itself that I have to do, I'm not exactly sure what happened with this AP. I don't know if this is a new design philosophy or what but I certainly didn't have to do all this additional leg work with Savage Tide, or RotRL, or CotCT. I hope the APs after CC return to the state I am more familiar with.

[Evil Paul]

I agree that there isn't much overarching story to link the parts of the AP, and that you probably need to do some work as a DM to add that in. The AP has been called a "string of pearls" in another thread and I think that's accurate, but each pearl can still be a fine item in its own right. There are many other threads on this forum that discuss this and how to join the modules more. And yes, the trust point system does need some work, again discussed in other threads.

I think I disagree though that the AP is badly organised. Bestiary 2 monsters are in the Bestiary 2. Alchemist and Magus rules are in the APC and UM. Yes, Paizo uses monsters and spells and abilities not in the Core Rulebook... that's what we want. After all, why would I buy the Bestiary 2 if it was limited to home-brews and not used on the APs and PFS? Also, from a bwa-ha-ha-ha point of view, I want my monsters to be armed with the same spells and effects the PCs get use.

[cibet44]

Evil Paul wrote:

I think I disagree though that the AP is badly organised. Bestiary 2 monsters are in the Bestiary 2. Alchemist and Magus rules are in the APC and UM. Yes, Paizo uses monsters and spells and abilities not in the Core Rulebook... that's what we want. After all, why would I buy the Bestiary 2 if it was limited to home-brews and not used on the APs and PFS? Also, from a bwa-ha-ha-ha point of view, I want my monsters to be armed with the same spells and effects the PCs get use.

I like the Bestiary 2 monsters in there, I just wish I had the stat blocks so I could use them easily. Same with non-core classes and abilities, just print the stuff that I need to run the encounter. Why not? It can't be about word count because (as I mention above) hundreds of words are wasted on a PrC that never gets used. So just axe the PrC and give me the stat blocks.

Evil Paul wrote:

I agree that there isn't much overarching story to link the parts of the AP

Overarching story linking the parts of the AP is probably the most important aspect of the APs for me. If the APs after CC suffer this same deficiency I don't think I will be running them. I'll have to carefully research the next AP I pick up. Carrion Crown has certainly shifted my perspective on them. Hopefully it is an anomaly and not the new norm.

Evil Paul wrote:

There are many other threads on this forum that discuss this and how to join the modules more.

Yes, I've read many of the threads, but that's basically why I buy the APs. This is what I expect the developers to do for me. Otherwise I would just buy 6 random modules and string them together myself. The APs give me a cohesive campaign that I can run right out of the books while customizing it to my own groups preferences and play style. If you take away the "cohesive campaign" part and start to eat away at the "run right out of the books" part there isn't much incentive for me to keep using them.

[Fraust]

I'm not sure I understand the problem with the Bestiary 2/APG stuff. If you have the book, what is the issue? I can understand if you don't have the book, but from your posts, it sounds like you do. Is it a matter of carrying too many books to the game site?

On the "string of pearls" issue, I think some APs will hit it off with some people, and others wont. Kingmaker sounds so completely uninteresting to me. I don't know that I would ever run it, and every time I've tried to make a character to play in it I find myself getting distracted by ANYTHING else. Carrion Crown on the other hand is absolutly amazing to me, both as a player and GM. I like to put my own spin on any AP I run anyways, so adding in a little here and a little there about the main villians or anything else that needs foreshadowed isn't an issue to me.

As for your last point...I understand, to some extent. With the upcoming rerelease of RotRl, I managed to talk with James Jacobs on the boards a little, and had I think the same basic issue as you. The subject of archetypes and APG/UM/UC classes came up, and who would be getting updated in RotRl. Jame's answer was basically no one. That if you think someone needs an archetype, feel free to add it in, but that he didn't feel that any of the NPCs really needed tinkering with. To be completely honest this pissed me of quite a bit. My reasoning being a lot of what you said above. This is what I'm spending money on...the developers to write material so I don't have to. Well, at the end of the day, the developers can only write so much, and as a GM we have to put some work in too if we don't like things. CC is a cohesive campaign, or at least just as cohesive as any of the other APs. Bits of it might not work for you and your group, and need polishing, just like bits of Savage Tide, RotRl, and CotCT need polished for other groups.

[cibet44]

Fraust wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the problem with the Bestiary 2/APG stuff. If you have the book, what is the issue? I can understand if you don't have the book, but from your posts, it sounds like you do. Is it a matter of carrying too many books to the game site?

I only own the CRB and Bestiary 1. I might pick up Bestiary 2, but I won't be picking up any of the other rule books. I use the info from the PRD or replace it with core stuff when needed. And that's one of my points. By all means give me new and interesting stuff in the APs, but either give me the stats I need to run the new stuff or use the new stuff you already create in the AP (like the PrC talked about above which only gets used once in the entire AP).

Don't give me new content in the AP articles then not use it in the AP adventure only to give me non-core content in the adventure and not produce the information I need to use it. Pick one or the other please.

For instance, either:

Produce an "Agent of the Grave" PrC in the AP and use it throughout the AP by making all major Whispering Way NPCs "Agents of the Grave".

-OR-

Don't bother creating the PrC at all and make all major WW members magus and use the additional AP article space to reprint the magus rules.

[Brandon Hodge]

Cibet, I'm afraid the problem (if one sees using expanded material as a problem) of more and more reliance and reference to books beyond the CRB and Bestiary I is only going to continue in APs, and get worse (again, if you see it as "worse") as new books like B3 continue to debut. I can't defend Paizo's decision on the matter, but I did witness the decision being made early in this AP that those materials could be used, and without republishing the redundant material, which takes away from the words needed to tell an effective story or plotline. And I daresay Paizo would hack way more folks off reprinting abilities from the APG/etc for those folks who own the books and reference them frequently.

I'd say the counterargument is "all the material is posted for free online for your reference and use," and that's fair. From a freelance point of view, using expanded material is a blessing, because being limited to a single Bestiary for every adventure you write gets stale very quickly.

It sucks that negligence of the Agent of the Grave PrC has created such problems for you. I do understand your argument regarding APs doing the lion's share of the work for GMs, and it is a solid point. But oftentime, such issues seem very clear in hindsight to us as freelancers and developers, and I'm sure you know that none of us -from the lowly freelancers to the high-and-might editors, set out to ruin your day. We make decisions (like the use/nonuse of a PrC) with the best information and resources we have available when we're working, and make calls on the statistics of NPCs in a way we hope the majority of people will find enjoyable. That's all we can do.

For me, using the PrC was a problem not only from a development standpoint, but also a flavor standpoint for the atmosphere I was trying to create with the NPCs you named; two were already decreed for me (Lucimar from canonical stats and Adivion from his contrary ambitions), and the Gray Friar was always meant to be ancient undead; the PrC would have been redundant. It didn't make sense for the mooks I needed for the adventure, either, because of the spellcasting nature of the PrC -can you imagine running the final Renchurch encounter if all of those guys were Agents of the Grave, throwing spells around? Talk about catching hell!

I hear you, though, Cibet! I'll consider this issue from this viewpoint at length next time I face a similar choice. Trust me -I WANTED to use the PrC (because it is awesome!), and I tried. It just didn't end up making the most sense in the end, and I'd have a lot more folks calling me out for forcing it than for not using it.

[cibet44]

Brandon, I understand your points and obviously you understand mine. I know the expanded content is there to be supported and of course I appreciate that I can access it on the Web as well (and do) but I do think CC went a bit too far by having expanded content, under supported new content, and way too much required GM plot filler. In the future maybe the team can just pick one or two of these per AP instead of all three? :)

Keep up the good work though. When we get to part 6 I'll let you know how it turns out.

[voska66]

A little off topic but concerning the Agent of the Grave. I notice that it is a D8 Hit Dice and 1/2 BAB. Is that right? Because it seem to break the HD to BAB connection we have seen closely adhered in every other class, alternate class, and prestige class.

[Helaman]

So does someone want to try re-stating a few of the WW as AotG PrC's?