What is the next Adventure Path hardcover?


Pathfinder Adventure Path General Discussion

201 to 249 of 249 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, it's less than three years old. "Ancient" would be going back to 2010 or thereabouts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:


If they do more hardcovers, really crossing my finger for Second Darkness or Legacy of Fire, but mostly Second Darkness ;p

Still hoping Carrion Crown is resurrected from the dead, especially if they want to help give new players context for The Whispering Tyrant. Love me some gothic horror.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Riobux wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:


If they do more hardcovers, really crossing my finger for Second Darkness or Legacy of Fire, but mostly Second Darkness ;p
Still hoping Carrion Crown is resurrected from the dead, especially if they want to help give new players context for The Whispering Tyrant. Love me some gothic horror.

As much as I love Brandon's later work (Rasputin Must Die! comes to mind), the last module would need some rework. It just doesn't fit with the earlier five modules, which were pretty much all divided into an investigation and then the action part, while the sixth module was pretty much only action throughout. Also, the villain pretty much needed to be worked into the first five modules (which was acknowledged in the foreword to the sixth module).


If reworking less successful earlier APs were on the table, the thing I would most appreciate would be for Serpent's Skull to gain some more content in the middle; the bit where a city with half a dozen local factions that gets contacted by five different outsider factions, any one of which latter could be allied with the PCs, could really do with some content as to how all these groups interact with each other in the bits he PCs are not managing directly.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.

If we were to rework Serpent's Skull, I suspect I'd hire someone to completely rewrite the third adventure, and the vast majority of the added content to that project would be a significant amount of new content there.

Folks who have been playing the game for ages might remember the old D&D adventure "Dwellers in the Forbidden City." That was the original intent for the third adventure—a cool city map with lots of detailed encounters in the city with numerous encounter-based maps and detailed plots for the PCs to discover.

That said, I'd probably rank Serpent's Skull near the bottom of the potential re-releases in hardcover, along with Second Darkness. It's a frustrating bit of irony that the Adventure Paths that could stand to have significant revision due to structural flaws aren't likely to be greenlit because they're not popular (and thus haven't sold out and thus have less of a drive for us to double-dip) due to those flaws.

Especially considering we essentially put out these hardcover versions about once for 8 or 9 Adventure Paths we publish, so in the end, at that rate, only about 10% to 15% of them will EVER be collected as hardcovers. Since that's such a small amount, we have to be REALLY careful about picking the perceived "best" ones... aka the ones we have proof that people bought a lot of or gave a lot of great reviews to.


Personally, I'd love to see a Jade Regent collection (I've got many good memories of running the AP twice), with some revisions, like replacing the underpowered dungeon in Forest of Spirits with the Ruby Phoenix Tournament module (which I did for both runs... then the crazy people in the second campaign insisted on running the dungeon with the caravan NPCs ^^) and rebalancing the final boss encounter to be actually difficult. Both groups went like a hot knife through swiss cheese through that encounter and I had buffed it both times considerably from the version as written in the AP.

Also, I got a lot of fondness for Ameiko and Shalelu and would love to see them both again in action sometime in the future.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:

Personally, I'd love to see a Jade Regent collection (I've got many good memories of running the AP twice), with some revisions, like replacing the underpowered dungeon in Forest of Spirits with the Ruby Phoenix Tournament module (which I did for both runs... then the crazy people in the second campaign insisted on running the dungeon with the caravan NPCs ^^) and rebalancing the final boss encounter to be actually difficult. Both groups went like a hot knife through swiss cheese through that encounter and I had buffed it both times considerably from the version as written in the AP.

Also, I got a lot of fondness for Ameiko and Shalelu and would love to see them both again in action sometime in the future.

I've been running Jade Regent since 2012, and only just finished book 4 this last weekend, my group has two PCs each, and I ran both the House of Withered Blossoms/Munusakuru's Penance and Ruby Phoenix (my party split the Caravan to do so).

Since my group is using Mythic I've definitely made some adjustments to the AP. I warned the PCs upfront that the Penance would be a long run, and that if they stopped to rest there was a chance there would be retaliatory attacks/reinforcements. So they split the PCs and NPCs into 3 shifts
(1 to push/delve deeper into the dungeon, 1 to hold territory won, and 1 to rest) which meant that sometimes they were running with unoptimised, slightly weaker parties, it was a great challenge.

Next stop is the Minkai Sandbox, with adapted Rebellion/Team rules from Hells Rebels and influences from XCOM.


James Jacobs wrote:
That said, I'd probably rank Serpent's Skull near the bottom of the potential re-releases in hardcover, along with Second Darkness. It's a frustrating bit of irony that the Adventure Paths that could stand to have significant revision due to structural flaws aren't likely to be greenlit because they're not popular (and thus haven't sold out and thus have less of a drive for us to double-dip) due to those flaws.

I agree with your frustration. I'd really love a second Second Darkness. I've definitely warmed up to elves recently, and part of that is due to you explaining that they didn't get portrayed correctly at the beginning, and learning how they should have been portrayed. It'd be great to see that detailed in a book.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

SOLDIER-1st wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
That said, I'd probably rank Serpent's Skull near the bottom of the potential re-releases in hardcover, along with Second Darkness. It's a frustrating bit of irony that the Adventure Paths that could stand to have significant revision due to structural flaws aren't likely to be greenlit because they're not popular (and thus haven't sold out and thus have less of a drive for us to double-dip) due to those flaws.
I agree with your frustration. I'd really love a second Second Darkness. I've definitely warmed up to elves recently, and part of that is due to you explaining that they didn't get portrayed correctly at the beginning, and learning how they should have been portrayed. It'd be great to see that detailed in a book.

Agreed, but it's VERY difficult to pull back and change flavor content like this. Doesn't help that we haven't really tried much in print, of course... :-/


SOLDIER-1st wrote:
...part of that is due to you explaining that they didn't get portrayed correctly at the beginning, and learning how they should have been portrayed. It'd be great to see that detailed in a book.

Any chance you know where that's located and can link it for people that would like to see it?


magnuskn wrote:
Riobux wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:


If they do more hardcovers, really crossing my finger for Second Darkness or Legacy of Fire, but mostly Second Darkness ;p
Still hoping Carrion Crown is resurrected from the dead, especially if they want to help give new players context for The Whispering Tyrant. Love me some gothic horror.
As much as I love Brandon's later work (Rasputin Must Die! comes to mind), the last module would need some rework. It just doesn't fit with the earlier five modules, which were pretty much all divided into an investigation and then the action part, while the sixth module was pretty much only action throughout. Also, the villain pretty much needed to be worked into the first five modules (which was acknowledged in the foreword to the sixth module).

I don't mind being corrected on this, but the Kingmaker Hardcover seems to be doing what you're describing somewhat. It wouldn't be able to completely redo the last book, but it'd be able to add extra content so the villain is more sprinkled through-out rather than coming from nowhere. Still, I don't mind some flaws in an AP of a genre I do adore. There's a lot of APs I'd hold in lower regard, either because it's just not my thing (e.g. Wrath of the Righteous) or because they possess flaws that are more critical (e.g. Reign of Winter's chaining you to the rails).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Warped Savant wrote:
SOLDIER-1st wrote:
...part of that is due to you explaining that they didn't get portrayed correctly at the beginning, and learning how they should have been portrayed. It'd be great to see that detailed in a book.
Any chance you know where that's located and can link it for people that would like to see it?

I'm sure there's more I'm missing, but I don't have a ton of free time to hunt them all down.

Elf Gates

Not paranoid isolationists

Lantern Bearers

Revising Second Darkness

More revising Second Darkness


Riobux wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Riobux wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:


If they do more hardcovers, really crossing my finger for Second Darkness or Legacy of Fire, but mostly Second Darkness ;p
Still hoping Carrion Crown is resurrected from the dead, especially if they want to help give new players context for The Whispering Tyrant. Love me some gothic horror.
As much as I love Brandon's later work (Rasputin Must Die! comes to mind), the last module would need some rework. It just doesn't fit with the earlier five modules, which were pretty much all divided into an investigation and then the action part, while the sixth module was pretty much only action throughout. Also, the villain pretty much needed to be worked into the first five modules (which was acknowledged in the foreword to the sixth module).
I don't mind being corrected on this, but the Kingmaker Hardcover seems to be doing what you're describing somewhat. It wouldn't be able to completely redo the last book, but it'd be able to add extra content so the villain is more sprinkled through-out rather than coming from nowhere. Still, I don't mind some flaws in an AP of a genre I do adore. There's a lot of APs I'd hold in lower regard, either because it's just not my thing (e.g. Wrath of the Righteous) or because they possess flaws that are more critical (e.g. Reign of Winter's chaining you to the rails).

Funny thing is, I thought of Reign of Winter as well and it was due to how the Kingmaker Hardcover is doing just what RoW should have done.

Let's look at RoW. For the first two books, the big threat is Irrisen and Elvanna's plans. And then we jump on the Interplanetary Railroad and never hear hide nor hair of Elvanna. And an interesting and fun storyline fell onto its ass.

Irrisen should have had a presence in more of RoW. The third book? Rather than giants and an evil centaur, you could have had Irriseni witches invading Baba Yaga's lair here to snuff out another of Baba Yaga's followers. There would have been continuity here.

In Book 4? Again, have Irrisen involved in some way... perhaps the White Witches are setting up Portals here to draw some of the cold of this region and use it to freeze Golarion, while trying to recruit the white dragon warlord into supporting their cause. Book 5 can remain mostly as-is but add in more context so players can easily learn that Elvanna is working with Rasputin.

Book 6 likewise should have Elvanna with a greater role. She's the End Boss. Even with Rise of the Runelords the players get glimpses and hints at Karzoug earlier on. In RoW she is just the Final Boss Fight. Before I handed GMing duties to my best friend, I was planning on having Rasputin actually pulling Elvanna's strings and behind the entire thing, and at the end the group was going to face Rasputin Resurgent as his Shade ends up possessing Elvanna and using her to fight the party one last time to prevent the return of his mother (Baba Yaga). But really, having Elvanna just have a larger presence rather than be the End Boss? That works so much better!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

Funny thing is, I thought of Reign of Winter as well and it was due to how the Kingmaker Hardcover is doing just what RoW should have done.

Funnier still is slightly related to your recommendations and what I know of Reign of Winter, I actually nearly wrote "Curse of the Crimson Throne" as the example due to similar issues (i.e. you spend 3 books building up the queen and the descent of Korvosa into madness, you have her as the final boss in book 6 and then for books 4 and 5 you leave the city to go get McGuffins). I actually kind of wish you never left Korvosa at all because, like with how you'd fix RoW, it makes the villain still the forefront in everyone's mind. It makes your big bad a constant antagonist that is active, rather than this passive thing to, uh, maybe get around to putting down.

But yeah, RoW feels like it puts you on the railroads pretty hard and I'm not sure there's a good way to fix that without a total overhaul of the AP. Maybe it'd lose its classic D&D 1st style it was inspired by, but honestly it's one of those stylistic things that I'm happier without than with. It's a shame though, because I can count on one hand the amount of APs that sold me as quick and as hard as the phrase "one AP book is set in Russia during the Russian Revolution where you have to go kill Rasputin". That said, if it did get its railroads fixed and a more present antagonist like you're suggesting, I'd be totally down with trying to run it.


SOLDIER-1st wrote:

I'm sure there's more I'm missing, but I don't have a ton of free time to hunt them all down.

Elf Gates

Not paranoid isolationists

Lantern Bearers

Revising Second Darkness

More revising Second Darkness

Thank you!!


James Jacobs wrote:
Folks who have been playing the game for ages might remember the old D&D adventure "Dwellers in the Forbidden City." That was the original intent for the third adventure—a cool city map with lots of detailed encounters in the city with numerous encounter-based maps and detailed plots for the PCs to discover.

Not a direct reply to Mr Jacobs, but...

One pet peeve of mine, except bigger than that really, is when adventures spend a lot of time detailing cool intrigue...

...and then populates the dungeon with evil or repugnant creatures. Old-school drow, or cavemen, or smelly troglodytes perhaps. Orcs, gnolls, cannibal halflings...

All but ensuring that back-stabbing and treachery will happen to any party that plays along. Talk to the inhabitants, try to use diplomacy, and all you earn is a knife in the back later on.

So the players obviously kill everyone on sight, since that's the rational decision - better to kill them now than be betrayed later on.

And in one fell swoop all that effort creating plots and intrigue goes to waste. SIGH.

So. Very. Many. D&D adventures that make no sense for players unable to abstain from making rational decisions, like our group's.

These stories keep getting written, by the way. They're not just a foolish echo from the past. As recent as the D&D module Extinction Curse featured Yuan-Ti - another irredeemable race where any form of peaceful approach is doomed to failure. (Lawful evil races like Duergar work much better than Chaotic Evil races)

I just don't get it. Why is D&D this simplistic?

The city of Omu would have been soooo much more interesting and engaging if its inhabitants weren't so obviously hating the player character races.

Other games have long understood that you can absolutely interact with evil, cruel, selfish people, just as long as we're talking about moral relativity rather than absolute evil. Give these ostensibly evil people believable motivations for acting as they do! Create understanding if not sympathy for their position in the players! In fact *gasp* remove Detect Evil entirely and force characters to judge creatures based on their actions rather than "yup, they're evil, so it's okay to kill 'em".

But most of all, don't make the backstabbing a foregone conclusion. ESPECIALLY in games like D&D and Pathfinder, where combat is nearly always a reward, not a punishment. You don't want "attack on sight" to be the long-term best approach! (In a game where players actively need to avoid too much combat, expecting the party to interact with bad guys even though they're fairly certain they will be betrayed eventually is a much more reasonable proposition)

These modules nearly never make kick in the door style players face any consequences for their rash actions. Which of course is because that would make the scenario unpopular.

But my question remains: why oh why does the writer spend so much time on detailing stuff you only ever get to enjoy if you're playing your character as gullible or naive?

So very many modules I've read, getting my hopes up... only to be shot down when I realize no player of mine will ever fall for this.

Zapp

PS. I'm not directly addressing any specific module here. I was just triggered by something James said here. Rant over :)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Couple things to address here, DND has Tomb of Annihilation, not Extinction Curse, that’s Pathfinder. Extinction Curse book 5 has the very thing you want and are whining about, dealing with the Drow and Urdefhan diplomatically in lots of parts. Asking what the DND writers set their adventure up that way isn’t gonna produce much here, on the Paizo forum dealing with Pathfinder adventures.

As for “I detect Evil I kill it just cause it pings Evil” that’s a player issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think Paizo always include mechanical resolutions for encounters because they have to. In case the players pick that fight. The APs frequently mention nonviolent ways to deal with situations, especially against intelligent enemies. It's on the party and the GM for sure to allow non-combat conclusions to play out.

My party is currently half talking and half fighting their way through what is essentially a dungeon crawl at the end of book three of Age of Ashes. Could I have made every enemy be irredeemably evil and attack on sight/fight to the death? Of course, and the module gives me the tools needed to do that if so. But it absolutely does not demand it.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.

One important reason for a game like Pathfinder or D&D to have a simplistic view on good vs. evil is that it can be a pressure valve relief, particularly in a time like now where things are so stressful and awful. The escapism of fighting monsters, the simplicity of exploring a dungeon, all of that can be a breath of fresh air when you're coming from a world where the combination of current events, disaster, politics, protests, and corruption combines with social media in a way that forces a lot of people to make some really hard soul-searching agonies, if not about their own life choices, but about those of friends and family who might not be as friendly as you'd assumed.

It's a game. And for a lot of folks, bringing real-world shades of gray into the game defeats the entire purpose of the fact that it's supposed to be escapism.

For some groups, using the game to confront and explore these issues CAN be valuable and important, but we don't just publish the game for one group. So we often have to adopt a middle-of-the-road stance in presenting options and information in what wordcount we have. With a strong lean toward presenting options that utilize combat, since when you get down to it, that's the focus of Pathifnder.

Maybe the next game we make will turn away from combat as the primary focus of conflict resolution, but if we do... it'll need to be a different game.

As a GM, your job is to understand what sort of game your players want and to adjust the plot as needed. It can get complicated, though, when some players just wanna fight to escape from reality, while others want to use the game to explore some of the complex things they're facing in reality.

That all said, I get the frustration of wanting to go one way and having the players go the other. Just happened in a game I'm running, where the PCs were exploring a cave of demon-worshiping xulgaths with a one-time competitor adventurer NPC who I'd been setting up a redemption arc for. The PCs instead went out of their way to empathize with and try to talk the demon cultists away from their beliefs while essentially abandoning the potential redemption NPC back to her ex-adventuring party members to get murdered. It's kinda impossible to anticipate the party's plans, especially when those plans can change on a whim.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
As for “I detect Evil I kill it just cause it pings Evil” that’s a player issue.

It may be, but that issue is, I believe, more likely to rise from "Life is awful and I just want to play a combat tactics game and not have to face things in game that I do in life," and not from a "This game gives me a chance to be a murderhobo without getting in trouble."

Sometimes, fighting evil with spells and weapons is what we need to help us recharge our batteries to fight real-world evil with words and protests.

Silver Crusade

James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:
As for “I detect Evil I kill it just cause it pings Evil” that’s a player issue.

It may be, but that issue is, I believe, more likely to rise from "Life is awful and I just want to play a combat tactics game and not have to face things in game that I do in life," and not from a "This game gives me a chance to be a murderhobo without getting in trouble."

Sometimes, fighting evil with spells and weapons is what we need to help us recharge our batteries to fight real-world evil with words and protests.

I understand and sympathize with the Pressure Valve thought, but “Detect Evil, Smite, Ask questions later” has been a player issues since as long as Detect Evil has been around, it’s not a recent development.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:
As for “I detect Evil I kill it just cause it pings Evil” that’s a player issue.

It may be, but that issue is, I believe, more likely to rise from "Life is awful and I just want to play a combat tactics game and not have to face things in game that I do in life," and not from a "This game gives me a chance to be a murderhobo without getting in trouble."

Sometimes, fighting evil with spells and weapons is what we need to help us recharge our batteries to fight real-world evil with words and protests.

I understand and sympathize with the Pressure Valve thought, but “Detect Evil, Smite, Ask questions later” has been a player issues since as long as Detect Evil has been around, it’s not a recent development.

Never claimed that it wasn't. Just want folks to keep in mind that there's a lot of different ways to play the game out there, and what's right for table 1 is not what's right for table 2.


Zapp wrote:


So very many modules I've read, getting my hopes up... only to be shot down when I realize no player of mine will ever fall for this.

While I agree on your opinion of Lawful Evil races being better than Chaotic Evil races for these particular situations, your objection only really works if you are running almost word for word (with the possibility that maybe you and/or your group might be jaded by now, rightly so I guess).

As always, Rule 0 applies the easiest fix.

For example; I hate Urdefhan in general. In Serpent Skull, I removed every last one and replaced them with Drow from the now nearly destroyed (and fugitive) House Rasivrein. All of my changes and rebuilds are in one convenient text file that I slipped into a folder for later use.
I get that this is extra work, but you can't blame publishers for not knowing everyone's playstyle. The game is still a group effort.

My point is, change what you want. Only you know your group enough to know what flies with them and how to get them on board for something different. Change the Serpentfolk if you have to, I'm sure your players would welcome a new take on it.


I honestly have a vaguely different take on the "the problem with evil is you should kill all evil" issue. The problem isn't the lack of complexity nor is it that some people approach evil to be smited which can side-step RP. Both complex diplomatic narratives and tactical combat simulators style games work for different groups, and it's down to preference rather than skill (e.g. my current group likes the RP-style game where imagination is rewarded and side-plots happen a lot, but they tend to be unfortunately passive of what to do despite a clear direction and hints of other directions).

The problem with evil is evil is subjective.

This means on one hand you have the tactical players getting dragged out of their pressure release when they're reminded of the complexity of morality (I mean, philosophers have been at that subject for thousands of years), you also end up with diplomacy-focused players using alignment as a litmus test of if to trust or not. It also leads to all the many tired frustrating arguments of why a good aligned character probably shouldn't be torturing cultists (genuine conversation I got dragged into).

It lead to me kind of thinking of what separates an evil character/god from a good character/god. In the end, I'm not sure if I read this somewhere, but came to the conclusion good-evil alignment seems based on the value of life by the person. This includes quality of life, not just the existence of life. If they view every life is sacred, they're probably good. If they view life as cheap, then they're probably evil. Complete with sliding scale rather than hard categories. It doesn't mean good people can't kill nor does it mean evil wouldn't save, but that their world philosophy, their actions and culture tends towards a high or low value on life.

It does present a labelling issue (i.e. what happens when a civilisation with an unintentional high mortality rate is then called evil for it), but that's really the closest measuring stick I've found that means "evil" doesn't mean unapproachable and undeniably corrupt. It means evil isn't stale or antagonistic, just a way of life (albeit with an unfortunate name that if I had the gall I'd change the Good-Evil alignment slide to probably something like High-Low). Good-Evil does have potential, but the label does feel like a relic of earlier editions of D&D.


Riobux wrote:


The problem with evil is evil is subjective.

This means on one hand you have the tactical players getting dragged out of their pressure release when they're reminded of the complexity of morality (I mean, philosophers have been at that subject for thousands of years), you also end up with diplomacy-focused players using alignment as a litmus test of if to trust or not. It also leads to all the many tired frustrating arguments of why a good aligned character probably shouldn't be torturing cultists (genuine conversation I got dragged into).

The solution, to my mind, is 1) to regard Evil and Good as game-specific terms and not treat there as being any necessity at all for them to map on to any individual player or GM's opinion of what is evil and good in reality, and 2) to look through likely causes of difficulty based on the content of the AP and your knowledge of your players beforehand, and make talking about how to handle those part of your session-zero prep. "In this specific campaign's metaphysics Good does not torture" as part of initial setup gives potential players the options to abide by it or turn the game down, and can go a long way to shortcut frustrating arguments.

I do come to this from a general playing-group attitude of "Who on earth would want to play a character they agree with about all the important moral issues, that would be boring". (Also that Lawful Good will have no problem whatsoever with endorsing a lesser evil if it is the only way to defeat a greater, which I think is supported in PF lore by mention of celestials working together with devils to hold off the eruption of demons from the Abyss when first demons came into being.) I can see neither of those necessarily generalising, depending on the details of your group, but they are also potential routes into shortcutting a certain sort of argument.


So on the good evil issue, they have physical manifestations (gods, demigods, planes, outsiders, spells with the alignment tags artifacts ect..) and the subjectivity is a human issue.

The system has set definitions of good and evil in the lost omens setting which the APs take place, the diverse varieties of gods and demigods of both (G and E) express this. I personally use the old demigods from 1e to inform the nuances of the lines drawn. Similar issues for law and chaos...these things are set but humans may not know the rules and they have to try and infer it blindly and that is how societies can have different alignments and think that they are all doing the right thing, whatever that might be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
It's a frustrating bit of irony that the Adventure Paths that could stand to have significant revision due to structural flaws aren't likely to be greenlit because they're not popular (and thus haven't sold out and thus have less of a drive for us to double-dip) due to those flaws.

I would say I find it entirely natural that only the successful APs get on the shortlist for publication - you know, those that cannot easily be improved because they weren't very flawed to begin with.

Cheers!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

One important reason for a game like Pathfinder or D&D to have a simplistic view on good vs. evil is that it can be a pressure valve relief, particularly in a time like now where things are so stressful and awful. The escapism of fighting monsters, the simplicity of exploring a dungeon, all of that can be a breath of fresh air when you're coming from a world where the combination of current events, disaster, politics, protests, and corruption combines with social media in a way that forces a lot of people to make some really hard soul-searching agonies, if not about their own life choices, but about those of friends and family who might not be as friendly as you'd assumed.

It's a game. And for a lot of folks, bringing real-world shades of gray into the game defeats the entire purpose of the fact that it's supposed to be escapism.

For some groups, using the game to confront and explore these issues CAN be valuable and important, but we don't just publish the game for one group. So we often have to adopt a middle-of-the-road stance in presenting options and information in what wordcount we have. With a strong lean toward presenting options that utilize combat, since when you get down to it, that's the focus of Pathifnder.

Probably an aside, but this is important. Thank you for this, James.

I do need to say that in my personal opinion you aren't making this easy for yourself by your very understandable drive towards inclusion in other areas of the game.

The more you make your game accommodate real-world sensibilities, the more starkly the simplistic conflict resolution (i.e. "kill 'em") stands out.

In an old school ttrpg game written by people oblivious to the real-life issues faced by women, minorities (and more), the fact that your basic job is to murder things does not stand out in the generally mucky sea of inequality, injustice, preferential treatment, racism (and much more). It is easy to say it's just a game.

I am not saying this as a sneaky way to say "Having the game oppress women" (and so on).

I am saying this because a game where everybody is careful to respect each other becomes very incongruous when the same game still features kick in the door dungeon bashing, where you can light an "evil" sign over the bad guys in order to slaughter them without any moral repercussions.

It's much harder to say it's just a game when it's clearly more than just a game. Paizo clearly feels it important to listen to customers concerned about representation (and a host of other issues). That suggests "it's just a game" is no longer true.

Let me one more time add that I am aware this might well be a different subject entirely, and that it has very little to do with the subject discussed here. If you feel ambushed and choose not to reply, I fully understand, Mr Jacobs.

Best Regards,
Zapp

Dark Archive

I don't think any of APs really have any real "home invasion" going on though. Like every time you hear into lair of evil people, they have provoked it first and when you are traveling in wilderness and run into evil creatures, they attack first or are in middle of doing something nasty.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh I don't think its worth to spend time on social media anyway. (says person who spends most of their time in discord chat <_<)


I have to agree. I own the 1st edition Anniversary Edition, and even though my group isn't into 2nd ed., I'd still buy it in 2nd edition for if I ever created a new Pathfinder group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tangent101 wrote:
I have to agree. I own the 1st edition Anniversary Edition, and even though my group isn't into 2nd ed., I'd still buy it in 2nd edition for if I ever created a new Pathfinder group.

After the Collected edition, the radio play, the card game, the video game based on the card game, and a Savage Worlds edition I think the last thing the world needs is another iteration of Rise of the Runelords.

They've published better APs in the last 12 years. One of those. Please.

Dark Archive

<_< I mean I still want better version of APs with good concept but flawed execution rather than good AP I've already run for my party xD

Though yeah, 2e adaptions would have their own niche since all 1e aps eventually kinda break at three final books mechanically x'D


CorvusMask wrote:
Though yeah, 2e adaptions would have their own niche since all 1e aps eventually kinda break at three final books mechanically x'D

Breaking mechanically is a strong term, I'm more of a mind that high level play in 1E slows because of the complexity of the rules itself and isn't so much the fault of an AP.

Out of curiosity, has anyone here done any high level play in any of the 2E APs? If so, is it a huge difference over 1E?


Kasoh wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
I have to agree. I own the 1st edition Anniversary Edition, and even though my group isn't into 2nd ed., I'd still buy it in 2nd edition for if I ever created a new Pathfinder group.

After the Collected edition, the radio play, the card game, the video game based on the card game, and a Savage Worlds edition I think the last thing the world needs is another iteration of Rise of the Runelords.

They've published better APs in the last 12 years. One of those. Please.

Obviously you disagree. But here's the thing about APs and hardcover compilations: they're not for everyone. They never were.

There are people who never bought the Anniversary edition of RotRL. They never will. They prefer other APs instead. Or they like the old 3.5 version or ran it once and never intend on running it again.

There are new people out there who WOULD enjoy running it. There are GMs who would enjoy rerunning it for a new group. There are existing groups who haven't played it in years but have to admit it might be fun to see what it's like to play it again, but now under 2nd edition rules.

And to tell the truth? If Owl Games put out Rise of the Runelords for the PC, not based off of the card game which I will never play, then I'd buy it and play the hell out of it, much as I've played the Atari version of Temple of Elemental Evil multiple times.

So there would be a market for it. Just as there are people who have zero interest in the 2nd edition adaptation of Kingmaker but there's still a market for THAT AP as well.

Dark Archive

Sunderstone wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Though yeah, 2e adaptions would have their own niche since all 1e aps eventually kinda break at three final books mechanically x'D

Breaking mechanically is a strong term, I'm more of a mind that high level play in 1E slows because of the complexity of the rules itself and isn't so much the fault of an AP.

Out of curiosity, has anyone here done any high level play in any of the 2E APs? If so, is it a huge difference over 1E?

You say that but then there is things like CR 19 shoggoth vs level 15(or more likely 16) party that is described as epic level encounter where players are likely to run rather than fight it... And halfling fighter with slingstaff takes it out in two rounds.

The math in 1e is heavily in favor of players :p That is what I mean breaking the game, eventually majority of combats in 1e high level will be so easy that flavor of the encounter doesn't match what actually happens anymore :'D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

You say that but then there is things like CR 19 shoggoth vs level 15(or more likely 16) party that is described as epic level encounter where players are likely to run rather than fight it... And halfling fighter with slingstaff takes it out in two rounds.

The math in 1e is heavily in favor of players :p That is what I mean breaking the game, eventually majority of combats in 1e high level will be so easy that flavor of the encounter doesn't match what actually happens anymore :'D

Yeah, that would suck.

TBH, I don't foresee too much trouble other than complexity because the players in my group are not min/maxxers. They go for interesting character concepts over any broken builds.
We also run with the classic (and recommended) 15 point buy for stats, and I stick to the Core/APG/Unchained variant Classes only. And racial variants from the ARG are welcome of course.

I see A LOT of people on the forums using 20/25 point builds in groups of 5 or more and using the ACG classes more than most. IMG, I'd only allow ACG classes for a smaller group as these classes blend two classes each. Some of the content from other splat books looks a tad OP as well but there are some gems out there I suppose. Magus from UM looks ok, I might allow that one day if I stick with PF.

Dark Archive

I mean the players in my group aren't min maxes either :'D Thats the thing, you can pretty easily break 1e without really trying to. I actually run this campaign on 15 point buy with 4 players to preserve horror atmosphere as much as possible. And even with that, I had first level stats restricted to 18 so you couldn't start with 20 in stats.

(and characters are psychic, fighter, vital strike barbarian and investigator(who was purposely built to not do much in combat but being really good in skills.). This isn't exactly even magic or buff heavy party. They do have cleric cohort healbot though.)

What I'm trying to say is that you can't really sideline this with "I'm sure this isn't a general problem on high levels" :'D Because it is. You can break game even with corebook alone really not to mention APG. The halfling slingstaff fighter is just a weapon master, which just gives weapon training earlier and immediate reroll on one roll. The most of damage comes from things fighters have normally access to(weapon specialization, weapon training, deadly aim) and bane weapons

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you don't think that 1E can be broken with just the CRB, try playing with a caster focused on dominate or phantasmal killer. :-D


Having an NPC/Cohort Healbot actually makes things a lot easier for the PCs. After all, now they don't have to focus on healing, and all for the price of one Feat and probably a 750 gold Wand of Cure Light Wounds to tide them over until they hit 7th level. Either the Psychic or the Fighter would have needed to be their healer instead, which limits their offense by quite a bit.

Dark Archive

Tangent101 wrote:
Having an NPC/Cohort Healbot actually makes things a lot easier for the PCs. After all, now they don't have to focus on healing, and all for the price of one Feat and probably a 750 gold Wand of Cure Light Wounds to tide them over until they hit 7th level. Either the Psychic or the Fighter would have needed to be their healer instead, which limits their offense by quite a bit.

Hey I've been running this game for years, don't presume I don't know what I'm talking about when I've played or run through 7 different APs ;D

Ah sorry if that sounded too sassy, but what I mean is: They don't actually heal in combat. For few sessions they haven't taken almost any damage at all in combat x'D Like only one character took little bit damage in the shoggoth encounter. And that is because I ruled "well if you don't immediately start running, its already one move away from its reach from you"

The cleric healbot doesn't really do much they couldn't do with wand of cure light wounds. It's true presence of quality of life and safety blanket, but its nothing they couldn't have just bought lot of wands for.

(But yes, I admit that presence of cleric healbot does lower risk from stuff like alchemists that target single target with their bombs or if players somehow lose initiative vs someone with damage spells(yeah they did lose iniative vs alchemists so yay, first time they took major damage in entire book x'D) :P However that hasn't really been issue in long time because again, everything dies in one or two rounds at these levels, so they could just use wand to heal afterwards. As said, the cleric healbot doesn't do much in combat besides try to do small amount of damage with the non lethal touch attack from domain, it purely casts utility spells for most part.)

(also to demonstrate how they use the healbot: They sometimes use channel heals to heal the only party member who took bit of damage in combat :'D They don't really save the channels for emergencies religiously. They are more or less aware that several sessions have been bit of anti climax whenever initiative was rolled, so they were actually bit surprised by the alchemists. As I said, they aren't min maxer party, the PCs CAN be taken off guard by certain types of enemies, but those types of enemies are very rare.

Alchemists were first enemies in while that actually had legit threat to party, because if they had both been in full attack range of one of them, they could have with focus firing bombs been able to take down one of them in theory at least. 5d6 + 11 times three is pretty decent damage :p Of course module as written isn't cruel enough to have that kind of cheese, so they start in separate rooms and are relatively slow speed wise, but yeah the alchemists were able to deal first major damage characters had taken since like... Yeah I think only other thing so far able to damage them as much was the flying polyp's aoe and the dragon I used from random encounter table. Just to note, yes, the dragon also died super quick :p It basically came in, did breath weapon damage, got shot down)


No worries about sass. I often speak out when silence would be the better option. When I overstep or sound bossy? Do tell me.

I was partly speaking from personal experience when talking about the Leadership Feat, as I had two players in my online RotRL group take the Leadership Feat. I actually made a deal with them. The two Cohorts they had would be "guards" to ensure their base camps didn't get attacked, and they'd get replacement level 7 Feats because the Cohorts just took up far too much time and disrupted things too much. (And the cohorts were a Ninja and a Paladin at that, so it wasn't even like they were min-maxing!)

Customer Service Representative

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have removed a couple of posts. Please don't bicker.

201 to 249 of 249 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / General Discussion / What is the next Adventure Path hardcover? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion