|
I must say, I'm kinda looking forward to a time when a single monster can take on an entire party and it's not a one-sided ass-kicking by the party against the monster, but the other way around. :p
No, I don't want to be a killer GM, I always feel very guilty when I, mostly accidentally, kill a character. However, since Paizo loooooves their single monster encounters, having a system which actually supports that playstyle on the GM's side is something I look forward to.
Still, I am not letting Return of the Runelords and War for the Crown go to waste and since I am now going into a period where I get to be a player in three, yes three, campaigns (Ironfang Invasion, Iron Gods, Strange Aeons) and I am committed to another 1E run of Hells Rebels with the Ironfang Invasion group (alternating each module with the current GM)... it'll be a while. Maybe I could run Return of the Runelords in 2E, since there's a published conversion kit on Pathfinder Infinite, but it'd be kind of a shame to not have a mythic Alaznist as the final boss.
Sounds like it would be fun to develop a way to translate Mythic PF1 NPCs into PF2 stats while staying far away from the PCs' Mythic rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ran a party of 5, with some solid optimizers in the group and book 6 of Return of the Runelords held up pretty well in my estimation. Most encounters were not challenging, but the challenges were diverse enough that they had a way of sooner or later finding some party weak points for some of them. I even nearly had a TPK without having to do much modification, certainly not any of the give everything the advanced template or max HP. I don't mind that pace for high level play where the highly competent PCs can chew through a bunch of stuff cause they are prepared and then find a challenge when they least expect it.
If you make (or find) a Iathavos conversion, please share it, it's one of my favorite monster from PF1e and I'm sad it's not in PF2 yet.
Read over a couple times and got an idea. How good/bad/hard would it be to transplant book 1 of Serpent's Skull (Souls for Smuggler's Shiv) into books Skulls and Shackles (replacing Wormwood Mutiny)?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Read over a couple times and got an idea. How good/bad/hard would it be to transplant book 1 of Serpent's Skull (Souls for Smuggler's Shiv) into books Skulls and Shackles (replacing Wormwood Mutiny)?
I've done it and it was super easy. And I used Plunder & Peril for book 2 with some of the encounters from book 2 added in.
Most basic version is:-Start Souls for the Smuggler's Shiv
-They get rescued at the end by a ship headed to the beginning of Plunder & Peril
-Play through Pllunder & Peril with them either killing the captain or claiming the new ship as their own
-Start book 3 and make sure the main badguy that's first mentioned in book 1 is enough of a jerk that the group hates him
I did it more complex than that; I have an on-going thread of (sort of) point-form HERE in the S&S forum about how I've been combining Skull & Shackles, Smuggler's Shiv, Plunder & Peril, Return to Freeport, and (probably) eventually Fort Scurvy.
...I can’t find conversions for Shiv or for Plunder. Do you know where I might be able to find those resources?
No idea; I have enough things I still want to run in 1st Ed and my players all love it so I haven't looked into 2nd Ed much and haven't looked at conversions at all.
...I see you have a thread that explains your adventure and I’ll be looking through that for some guidance as well.
I also plan on posting a short list of the events I used with books and page numbers for reference once the game is finished. (At this rate, likely in 3 or 4 months)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this guide has been helpful. If only the Kingmaker hardcover was for 1E (still struggling to understand 2E rules). Though I’m surprised Ruins of Azlant isn’t as liked as I thought it was-is underwater combat really that crappy?
is underwater combat really that crappy?
Short answer? Yes.
Long answer: Underwater combat is basically only decent with builds specifically designed for underwater combat. That rules out a LOT of things that just don't work and really limits what kinds of characters you can make if you want to actually function properly.
In another AP with one underwater fight, you can kind of muddle through on a build that isn't totally shut down by being underwater with some preparation, but it's not very optimal. When a lot of the campaign is underwater, you're just forced too play something that isn't hindered by it. As the average player doesn't interact with underwater rules that often and probably doesn't have a ton of expertise on how to do that, that results in a lot of looking up guides.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Ruins of Azlant
The GM should (personally, I'd say it's almost "must") tell the players in advance that much of the AP will be underwater and make the appropriate choices (race, class/archetype, etc.). For example, if someone wants to focus on ranged combat, they should go with the bolt ace gunslinger and an underwater crossbow rather than the "normal" longbow/composite longbow; or a cavalier should take the ghost rider archetype so they can manifest and dismiss the mount as needed (probably Order of the Beast to be able to switch mount types between land and aquatic at 8th level); spellcasters should look at the psychic classes (no verbal components).
Most of the other players in my Ruins of Azlant campaign went with races that had an affinity for water like Gillmen, Locathah, and Undine. However, my half-elf Investigator worked, because I knew we'd be underwater a lot, and I made sure to have appropriate extracts available. Touch of the Sea and Alter Self were pretty useful early on, for example. Most of the fights (at least early on) were over in less time than I had to hold my breath, also.
To Dragonchess Player's point, the AP was fun, but you had to prepare for underwater combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was super great to read! Any updates in the last three years? I'd love to read them.
This was super great to read! Any updates in the last three years? I'd love to read them.
As of now, there's series of reddit threads for feedback going on to get a comprehensive look at both PF1e and 2e adventure paths. I'd say an update is coming this year.
Re: Ruins of Azlant
The GM should (personally, I'd say it's almost "must") tell the players in advance that much of the AP will be underwater and make the appropriate choices (race, class/archetype, etc.)...
The Player's Guide calls this out explicitly.
"... it’s in your interest to future-proof your character into being good at dealing with some of the restrictions of fighting underwater."There is heaps of time and lots of ways to have land-lubber characters get prepared for underwater combat, but knowing that a ranged combat character is going to be at more of a disadvantage than melee is definitely worth knowing straight up. There is time for retraining, but expectations set early and covered off in Session 0 are a must.
[my group is currently nearing the end of book 2 and we've had the first PC death - goblin barbarian/eagle knight is being replaced with merfolk paladin].
|
Re: Ruins of Azlant
The GM should (personally, I'd say it's almost "must") tell the players in advance that much of the AP will be underwater and make the appropriate choices (race, class/archetype, etc.). For example, if someone wants to focus on ranged combat, they should go with the bolt ace gunslinger and an underwater crossbow rather than the "normal" longbow/composite longbow; or a cavalier should take the ghost rider archetype so they can manifest and dismiss the mount as needed (probably Order of the Beast to be able to switch mount types between land and aquatic at 8th level); spellcasters should look at the psychic classes (no verbal components).
eh.
I dunno.
Like, I wouldn't allow my players' PCs in a Ruins game to be a water-breathing race. Maybe if there's a new PC in like... Book 4+ then maybe?
Part of the character growth in Ruins, and I think this is really well done, is that the PCs are progressively getting into the water. A party of locathahs and aquatic elves hopping off a boat to colonize an island is great and all, but doesn't agree with the PCs' storyline, or the plot, or anything, really.
Re: Ruins of Azlant
The GM should (personally, I'd say it's almost "must") tell the players in advance that much of the AP will be underwater and make the appropriate choices (race, class/archetype, etc.). For example, if someone wants to focus on ranged combat, they should go with the bolt ace gunslinger and an underwater crossbow rather than the "normal" longbow/composite longbow; or a cavalier should take the ghost rider archetype so they can manifest and dismiss the mount as needed (probably Order of the Beast to be able to switch mount types between land and aquatic at 8th level); spellcasters should look at the psychic classes (no verbal components).
eh.
I dunno.
Like, I wouldn't allow my players' PCs in a Ruins game to be a water-breathing race. Maybe if there's a new PC in like... Book 4+ then maybe?
Part of the character growth in Ruins, and I think this is really well done, is that the PCs are progressively getting into the water. A party of locathahs and aquatic elves hopping off a boat to colonize an island is great and all, but doesn't agree with the PCs' storyline, or the plot, or anything, really.
In that case check out ... Rebuilt Gilmen.