Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just picked this up and am enjoying it immensely. I personally would have liked an appendix for further reading recommendations on each organization, with exception to the Hellknights that have a book named after them.
If you'd like any guidance along those lines, feel free to PM me or to ask here. I can probably put you on the right path. ^_^
|
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where can i read more about Rivethun? Cause I've fallen in love with that organization.
They're the one sort of out-of-place organization, since this is really the first in-depth look at them.
Rivethun were first mentioned in the Meet The Iconics blog for the iconic shaman, Shardra Geltl. They've had brief mentions a couple of times since then, in Haunted Heroes Handbook and Healer's Handbook; their popularity landed them a slot in this book.
It's not much, but hopefully that helps. ^_^
|
My favorite faction only received bare minimum:
a reprinted prestige class, with a single correction from the old one,
2 new archetypes and a reprinted shaman spirit,
3 reprinted (one them nerfed) and 1 new feat,
1 reprinted and 1 new spell,
3 reprinted and 1 new item.
My second favorite faction received a tad more attention:
a reprinted prestige class,
4 new archetypes,
1 reprinted and 6 new feats,
2 reprinted spells.
Creative Director
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consider the "There are no good drow on Golarion" to be officially outdated. There are now.
(That comment was in Second Darkness back in the day to help differentiate Golarion from Forgotten Realms and to soothe the then-percieved-by-us-fear that customers would assume we were trying to make a bunch of Driz'zt clones... which we were not and are not trying to do, but that doesn't mean today that we can't have good drow.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consider the "There are no good drow on Golarion" to be officially outdated. There are now.
(That comment was in Second Darkness back in the day to help differentiate Golarion from Forgotten Realms and to soothe the then-percieved-by-us-fear that customers would assume we were trying to make a bunch of Driz'zt clones... which we were not and are not trying to do, but that doesn't mean today that we can't have good drow.)
It's *refreshing* to see a world evolve and adapt to changing circumstances.
As soon as the finances settle from certain obligations, it's going on the list, despite what happened to the poor Lore Warden...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I got the book and find it wonderful. I loved the section on the Lantern Bearers, Council of Thieves, Grey Maidens, Red Mantis, and The Eagle Knights (especially the Twilight Talony PrC).
While reading it I was thinking of how I would convert these groups to the FR...and I found it remarkably easy. As a example the Lantern Bearers could be a group in the Elistraee church...etc.
I do not get one thing though...why would Prelir's shift cause friction with others of her faith? I mean with Calistria's clergy friction(both good and bad friction ;) ) is probably common. I do not see her change making her less of a worshipper of Calistria.
Anyway a great book...one that I think will help players who do not own every book get to learn that these groups exist...and in my groups we will see them more in play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just picked this up and am enjoying it immensely. I personally would have liked an appendix for further reading recommendations on each organization, with exception to the Hellknights that have a book named after them.
I had to create a new character and I didn't have any ideas for the concept.
After having a look at this book I am going to go for a Grey Maiden Paladin. This book is so flavorful. I am loving it. And I still haven't read most of it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean with Calistria's clergy friction(both good and bad friction ;) ) is probably common. I do not see her change making her less of a worshipper of Calistria.
I was a bit confused by that as well. But I can totally see that the Lantern Bearers' redemption theme wouldn't sit too well with more revenge-focused followers of Calistria and in my opinion, revenge and being good-aligned also doesn't fit together, so that was probably implied by it.
edit: And I'll just add to the choir that loves this book. I have to admit that, apart from the Core Rulebook, I probably have ignored more than 90% of everything that has been written in the Core book line (not because it's bad, but because I've grown tired of reading rulebooks over the years in general). So this will be the first time since CRB that I'll read a book from this line from cover to cover. And while I love the deeper integration into the campaign setting, so far I'm especially fond of how easy it is to integrate stuff into my own homebrew thematically. Might have to tinker with the rules for sake of balance, but apart of that it really is a bag full of splendid ideas, so I give Paizo major kudos for that.
And I really hope that this won't be the last book that follows this new strategy.
edit 2: great work on the Al-Zabriti. I love the PrC (and I'm generally not too fond of them) and the archetypes, and while I may have to make major modifications to any of them (relating to the climate aspect; at the moment, there's no arabian desert part in my homebrew that I focus on), I'll totally steal them for the horse-riding aspect.
And as far as Golarion is concerned I'm simply glad that Qadira finally gets the love it would have deserved from them very start (imho, of course^^).
|
Indeed; well done! ^_^
That matches up very well with my own preferences, which is why I was so eager to write the Lantern Bearers section. While my goal wasn't to include good drow (Telessel excepted), I did want to facilitate the possibility for players interested in exploring that story and plot line.
As for the Lantern Bearers themselves: as I understand it, their presentation in Second Darkness (along with that of elven society in general) is something that's needed realigning for a long time. Much as with certain other notorious incidents, once something sneaks into print, it takes a lot of effort to correct course. I did my best to fit things into the timeline so that as little of Second Darkness as possible is actually straight-up contradicted; the Lantern Bearers entry in the Faction Guide plays a part in this as well.
And I think that's why I'm on the fence about it. We have taken something and changed it in order to make it conform to our own preferences, rather than presenting it as it was, as you mentioned, contradicting previous presentations of it.
It used to present an oddity that worked, (a Good Aligned group that eradicated evil for the greater good), but now it's more of just another typical NG group. While on one hand, it's something I personally might like, as I said, I'm normally a sucker for redemption, on the other hand, it's another tilt towards absolutism in PFS.
It seems a change just to embrace liberal values at the expense of cool oddities with the Alignment system.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a change just to embrace liberal values at the expense of cool oddities with the Alignment system.
Still the James Jacobs posts I quoted above prove that the possibility of such a change was already consciously implemented from the very start. The presentation at that time served a certain metagame goal to adress certain concerns by the audience, and now, with that out of the way, Paizo is free to establish the things that they might have preferred from the very start. Which would make the "oddity that worked" just into a "necessity to work at that time".
|
|
Still the James Jacobs posts I quoted above prove that the possibility of such a change was already consciously implemented from the very start. The presentation at that time served a certain metagame goal to adress certain concerns by the audience, and now, with that out of the way, Paizo is free to establish the things that they might have preferred from the very start. Which would make the "oddity that worked" just into a "necessity to work at that time".
I really don't want to argue that point, as it's been done so many times already, (and I've generally been on the other side of it). I'm mainly Devil's Advocating here. That quote however, seems very different to others he and other developers have said on the specific subject.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the PaizoCon panel, it was hinted that more books like this (covering more organizations) could be a possibility in the future. So if you liked or disliked this book, if you wanted more flavor or more focus on world-neutral content, or if there's any other feedback you have on your mind... remember to write a review! ^_^Well, in that context you have to be kind of careful with reviews.
Because I like this book for fleshing out organizations more.
But I don't like the book for being short and reprint heavy.
And I really don't like the book for serving as a vehicle to make a bunch of pre-existing characters and options weaker for no good reason.
So one could easily give this book a terrible review but still be excited by and interested to see more faction and organizational based content.
So give well thought-out informative reviews.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading the book, I think I can safely say that the Lore Warden nerfs were worse than I was lead to believe initially.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So give well thought-out informative reviews.
This. ^_^
A useful review is more than a star and a sentence. Include all that feedback in your review! If and when they decide it's time for another such product, some of that may influence the outcome. (Personally, I'd love to see more world material in potential future AG-style products.)
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still the James Jacobs posts I quoted above prove that the possibility of such a change was already consciously implemented from the very start. The presentation at that time served a certain metagame goal to adress certain concerns by the audience, and now, with that out of the way, Paizo is free to establish the things that they might have preferred from the very start. Which would make the "oddity that worked" just into a "necessity to work at that time".I really don't want to argue that point, as it's been done so many times already, (and I've generally been on the other side of it). I'm mainly Devil's Advocating here. That quote however, seems very different to others he and other developers have said on the specific subject.
For what it's worth, WormeysQueue has the exact right of it. Sometimes you have to do something on day 1 in order to survive to do the ACTUAL thing you want to do on day 101.
AKA: Drow can be any alignment, and that was always the intent, but in the early days we decided that it was more important to sooth potentially worried customers that we weren't going to do something with drow that, at the time, we perceived the customers were tired of.
I'm sure this has already been posted somewhere but my copy of the Adventurer's Guide is missing pages 65-96; it goes from a page introducing the Eagle Knights to a page about Hellknight gear. I'm not sure if I should return it to my FLGS or contact Paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do like that there are now good Drow (or at least the potential of them existing, however slim) and that the Lantern Bearers aren't genocidal anymore. Them being an organization dedicated to racially exterminating the Drow just didn't sit well with me.
How is the Westcrown Devil's Founder's favor supposed to work?
The base ability says that you can spend a point to get half your WCD level to on a skill check. This seems a little anomalous, this sort of ability is usually something akin to the Investigator's Inspiration, the Swashbuckler's Derring-do, or the Darechaser's Dare, where you add a d6 to the skill check.
This being different isn't the problem, the problem arises in Crucisal's Guidance, which says that when you're using favor to boost a skill check as part of a pursuit or chase, "he adds 2d6 to his check instead of 1d6"
I'm presuming the mechanics of Founder's Favor's changed at some point and Crucisal's Guidance got missed, but the real question is, how are Founder's Favor's and Crucisal's Guidance supposed to interact?
Is it:
A) Founder's Favor'sincreases skills by d6, instead of 1/2 class level level, and Crucisal's Guidance is entirely correct,
B)Founder's Favor's is correct, and Crucisal's Guidance is supposed to be a different value (Full class level?),
C) Take a mix of both, and you have the option to roll 2d6 as a bonus instead of gaining the 1/2 class level bonus?, or
D) Something else entirely?
Your insight is strong. ^_^
I'd go with full class level, since it matches the base ability (which in this case is the most up-to-date part of founders' favor).
|
Contributor
|
I'm sure this has already been posted somewhere but my copy of the Adventurer's Guide is missing pages 65-96; it goes from a page introducing the Eagle Knights to a page about Hellknight gear. I'm not sure if I should return it to my FLGS or contact Paizo.
Definitely contact Paizo (via the Customer Service forum).