Most popular PF1e AP from RPGCodex

source : Which Pathfinder AP should OwlCat adapt next? In your opinion? | rpgcodex > Let's go Brandon!

At moment 2021-10-07T03:00:00Z The most popular modules adventure paths so far are >

  1. Iron Gods with - 16 votes
  2. Rise of the Runelords - 12 votes
  3. Skull & Shakles & Strange Aeons - 10 votes (both)
  4. Mummy’s Mask - 8 votes
  5. Reign of winter - 7 votes
2 Likes

IMO Owlcat should somehow reuse the “mythic” mechanics they developed for this game (so much effort went into it, shame to let it go to waste). Sadly, none of these paths are trully applicable - unless Owlcat were willing to “upgrade” one of them to mythic rank.

I strongly disagree. This mechanics only works in extremely epic campaigns. I mean, Wrath of the Righteous is more epic than Hordes of the Underdark for NWN1 which is a epic 3.5E adventure. And a lot of interesting adventure paths are lv 1~15 adventures. I don’t think that having a mythic lv 20/10 lich in skull & shakles would work. Mythic paths also are strongly tied to the lore, in game npc, in game quests and so on. Reuse his abilities in a boss in other game would’t be hard, but reusing the entire mythic path will require a lot of work. And re writing all encounters. Rise of the Runelords with mythic paths also would’t work cuz the runelords would become cakewalk if you give too much power to the player.

At 1h27m : 1:27 Dev Stream with Paizo | Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous - YouTube Which AP should OwlCat adapt next in their game

At 1:29:35 - She complains that making CR30 encounters is too hard.

Yes, it works only there, but not reusing it would mean it going all to waste for no reason - aka shooting themselves in the foot. Mythic path introduce the level of complexity that is welcome by veteran players and is a big selling point for Wotr.

Cutting features from sequels is not really a winning formula for anything.

So, as I say, you would need to upscale the mythic path or create something original. AFAIK, there hasn’t been any other official mythic adventure path - some only had elements of it, e.g. mythic enemies.

Well, part of the reason is the number of mythic paths on offer, but they decided to include so many options, so it’s their responsibility.

A sequel is a good opportunity to refine the formula. Else you come into situation from before Wotr whereby there is nothing to improve upon (except not having bugs, and maybe better AI) - you already have all the the features Pathfinder has and less than your previous game sported.

I agree that mythic paths are great. I just don’t think that they belong in every adventure.

If OwlCat really wanna to reuse mythic path, having a “new game +” DLC with mythic enemies and mythic abilities in milestones can work, but what I really disliked about mythic paths is that it makes my favorite spells worthless. Negative Eruption is way better than any other tier 9 spell available for my caster. Domain of Hungry flesh is extremely better than a empowered sirroco. Other problem is that the game becomes too bloated with 70+ AC in your party and enemies.

TBH I prefer Kingmaker way more than Wrath of The righteous(not saying that WoTR is bad). And you can get extremely powerful in kingmaker. You can even defeat a godlike fey being. The unique adventure which supports lv 20 play except Wrath is the Return of the Runelords and adapting Return of the Runelords without adapting Wrath first is extremely unlikely.

Keep in mind that when D&D launched, the maximum spell level which arcane casters could cast was 6 and divine was 5. You can go a bit above it but IMO epic/mythic levels and close too lv 20 fells too bloated, the rules doesn’t seem to be made for it. IMO the worst part of Kingmaker is the house at edge of time and further.

Imagine how cool having Rise of the Runelords, with Pierre(kotc dev) writing the AI for the runelords and Chris Avellone writing the story and background. That would be a amazing 10/10 game.

1 Like

This is valuable to remember. Any time that there is significant power inflation, whether due to stat boosting items, mythic paths, or what have you, it impacts the dynamics of the base game. This is felt particularly strongly in D&D 3rd edition related games like the Pathfinder games and Neverwinter Nights 2.

In Kingmaker, many people liked to dip monk levels and similar classes in order to apply more bonuses from stat boosting gear to their progression. Between that and the mass of touch attacks in parts of the game, armour became far less valuable. This was resolved somewhat in Wrath of the Righteous by having more class features and abilities that added shield AC, etc. to touch AC, but the general problem can still persist in other ways.

Other than that, I agree that thematically, it would be difficult and inadvisable to shoehorn cosmic events and paths into every adventure. This would essentially take even godlike ascension and turn it from something memorable into something truly banal.

That being said, I’ve particularly enjoyed both of Owlcat’s games so far, so I’m confident that they’ll come up with something fun and interesting.

1 Like

I agree with stat bloat, but that’s not the issue with mythic path but bad and inaccurate representation of pathfinder systems and monster stats. It was the case in Kingmaker it is doubly so in Wotr. Suffice it to say the final boss in Wotr P&P Adventure path has AC of 48.

A way to address it would be stop investing in enemy stats and start investing in better, more reactive AI. Another way would be implementing optional rules and disallowing pre-buffing to levels so ridiculous no DM would support.

All I am saying, not including mythic paths would mean months if not years of development time would go to waste - this is not what you want to do in iterative installments - you want to reuse as much as possible.

Mythic paths fit level 20 gameplay, which is one of the main pulls of video game version - in P&P you would almost never reach this level of power - partially because D&D was not designed with this power in mind and the math/spells/abilities become so difficult to track. However, this is fairly easy to manage by computer.

Also, if not mythic paths then what? Again, if you cut something, then the expectation is you will put something in its place. We already have pretty much 90% of classes in the game (some bugged as hell, but they are there). What other features should be introduced in place of mythic paths?

This I strongly disagree. Imagine that you are going in a forest of deadly poisons. You will cast protection from poison. Spells that only works in combat kills my immersion in the game.

What the game really needs is better AI and enemies who tries to dispel your defensive spells.

That depends a lot on the adventure. For eg, if is Iron Gods, you can have sci fi vehicle combat and forging weapons and armor. If is Skull & Shakles, you can have ship combat(and a good ship combat, not like pillars 2), where you can cast spells like disintegrate in enemy ships, can use tsunami spells and so on.

My fear is that if they include mythic path, the slog which the late game of Wrath will be again and I don’t wanna it.

Strongly agreed. I will buy their next game(and DLCs from Wrath) no matter what.

Well, yeah, I am not against buffing in general - but I am against chip buffing minor stats until they make substantial difference. So Greater Heroism + Bless + Heroic Invocation + Bull Strength + Greater Magic Weapon + Haste + … = +20 to attack bonus. This is pure nonsense. And you have to engage with that in order to hit anything no sane mind should be subjected to. And in response Devs need to raise enemy stats and balance the game around. So there is not really any player’s choice in that.

The example of the buff you gave is the one I like - it is highly contextual and protects against one thing. Another such example would be a Death Wards spell and similar magic.

IMO, buffs should be limited to “caster level” number of active “spell levels”. It would raise the value of contextual buffs and prevent “chip buffs” from being primary source of power. Player would have to choose if they want to have “numbers” or immunities against harmful effects. Potions would become more useful as well - now most just fill in your inventory space.

I am not fan of Pathfinder 2nd edition, but one thing I can applaud is making buffs rarer, harder to maintain, but also more useful.

Those would be stand-ins for crusader mode, not for mythic paths. And they would require extra development. Throwing huge chunks of working content would be… irresponsible.

Not a big fan of Iron Gods or Starfinder I must say - Owlcate would shoot themselves in the foot, if they started developing that. Science fantasy, while interesting does not sell so well unless you are Star Wars or Warhammer 40k…

It is the question of balancing the game around those fights. Let’s face it in both cases in Kingmaker and in Wotr, Owlcat dropped the ball with delivering the final chapters of the adventure - they hardly tried to balance anything there and just fixed everything with substantial amount of duct tape.

I agree. Should be a cap or diminishing returns. Or enemies should cast dispel on your party.

This I honsetly din’t liked it.

This I strongly disagree.

I’m not talking about a separated minigame. I am talking about navigating and being able to target enemy ship or crew in the normal game. With RtWP or TB. Similar to “mounted” combat, but with the entire party in a ship.

So far, what I din’t liked about the OwlCat minigames is that they are too separated from the game. Eg - In NWN2 OC Crossroad keep, if you build a Wizard Tower, you can go into the wizard tower, you can create brothels, piers, lighttowers and in the kingdom management and nothing exists outside of it.

Iron Gods, I’m fine. Starfinder, I din’t liked much cuz it lacks full caster classes. However, between going PF2e and Starfinder, I prefer Starfinder.

I partially agree. The point is that is too hard to DM campaigns in epic levels/mythic levels or close to lv 20.

If OwlCat adapts Rise of the runelords, I wanna the runelord to be a really nasty caster. Like Sodalis on steroids

1 Like

To clarify - you did not like PF 2nd ed in general or you did not like it because of restriction in pre-buffing?

I cannot wrap my head around your suggestion. I imagine PoE2 but with ability to use ship’s cannons during battle. But I guess you have something more in mind.

To be honest this is in spirit of Pathfinder 1e, to have those layers separated. At least that’s what Ultimate Campaign rules state.

That’s what you have computer for - to do the heavy lifting for you.

I never understood why people loved this adventure path. It is so… vanilla, complete with a mustache twirling villain. However if they managed to merge it somehow with Return of the Runelords campaign, I could see the potential.

To be fair, in the final parts of the game there are enemies who do that. The problem is that in response you dispatch those enemies asap, and then quickly restore 2-3 buffs that were dispelled from a single character. Not a great difference.

That or you meet bosses who one shot-dispel all buffs from your party making you practically naked and making it for you impossible to stand in opposition for long enough.

I strongly disagree.

The story is great. Ancient legendary wizards who ruled a ancient empire and developed a unique type of magic(sin magic) and everyone tough that are dead survived a world ending cataclysm and are raising from their long sleep.

And I honestly din’t liked it. The best parts of the kingdom management was when I took decisions which I saw in gameplay, like having golems in the streets, undeads too and so on.Same in Wrath. Building the Zigguratt was cool, building things that I can’t interact fells like chore.

Is simple. Don’t imagine a separated minigame. We have mounted combats in Wrath, right? Imagine controlling your ship and using ship ability like you can control your pets in Wrath. That is it.

By the two reasons. Pf2E fells too “gamey” like 4E. I like when game mechanics and game lore are in line. Many people are comparing PF2E with D&D 4E by a reason.

As I stated, when combined with Return of the Runelords it would have been ok. In “Return…” you have all the runelords. I’ll be honest I did not like the first 3 adventures from “Rise…”. The first one about Aasimar that turned evil because other people thought she is too beautiful… is meh.

Yeah, but it’s kinda meaningless and difficult to create. I have to stand by Dev’s decision not to waste resources on that. Both Kingmaker and Wotr are already huge games - I’d say too huge for their own good, hence bugs aplenty.

Considering that mounting is kinda awful and badly implemented and frankly, not needed (I respec Seelah back to Sword Paladin, removing her Horse) and that ship-to-ship combat would be much more complex to create and would be a game of its own with multiple RPG parameters and stats I am not sold on the idea. Are you sure you don’t want to play Sea Dogs or Pirates!?

But does it not mean it would be better as a video game? I mean, I would not want to DM it for this reason, but if someone else handled boatloads of stats, modular feats, multiple conditions it would have been a better candidate for transition onto computer screen.

And I’ll be honest with you I like Pathfinder 1e core rules, but I am not big fan if gimmicky additions (classes, spells) they introduced with add ons past Advanced Player’s Guide.

The problem of 4E and PF2E is not the complexity. Is that the game mechanics are too disconnected from the lore. The game is too low lethality, and fells more like a wow clone but in table.

I know, mounted combat is not that well implemented but a better analogy would be a naval combat like on UnderRail expeditions, which doesn’t fell dissociated from the game.

I agree. You would need to have way less buildings if each building can be interacted in gameplay.

Well, frankly, standard Pathfinder is not very lethal either. Everything before D&D 3e was very lethal, but since then it’s high heroic fantasy town. The only reason Kingmaker and Wotr are so lethal (on higher difficulties) are the inflated enemy stats.

And I do not understand “disconnection from the lore”. IMO, this sort of happened with PF 1e with all those fancy classes which supplanted original old ones.

1 Like

I need to play UnderRail one of these days so I may see it implemented. I heard that has very good reactivity.

Well, a lv 13 necromancer can OHK another lv 13 necromancer with finger of death in PF1E. In PF2E, he can’t OHK even low CR mobs. I agree that GURPS and D&D 2E are much more lethal, but D&D 5E and PF2E are much less.

I mean, in a good RPG, the game mechanics are “translations” of the fictional world in a game format. For example, if I’m making a RPG in Star Trek universe, ideally, if there is a disintegration gun in the Star Trek universe which can disintegrate stuff, it should disintegrate stuff in game. If the gun does X in a cutscene and Y in game, then it creates “ludonarrative dissonance”. RPG’s sadly are each time less concerned with making the game mechanics reinforce the fantasy of the game instead of being a wall between the player and the game’s fantasy.

This is why older RPG’s like Vampire : The Masquarede Bloodlines are way more immersive than modern RPGs despite then having way better graphics.

Many people say that PF2e fells like D&D 4e.

Eg - https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/9pq1fd/me_and_my_group_will_not_continue_with_pathfinder/

Well, the original reason those spells work that way was the fact that in original editions they were not meant to be used by players but the big evil wizard at the bottom of the dungeon. Those editions were much more lethal. It was supposed to be unfair - someone was supposed to die in the battle with the bad guy. Hence wizards - the usual main antagonists in D&D are inversely balanced. Notice how Owlcat Devs tend not to use OHK abilities in video games - at most those spells are used in traps, which can be disarmed, but never cast directly against the party.

By powering down those spells it is ensured that they can be safely used against the party by the enemies.

PF 2nd edition is much more “balanced” which is a good thing in video games. In original D&D the concept of “balance” is non-existent - which is also a good thing for OSR P&P games.

I’d love to play an actual OSR game in video game format, but the focus of such game would be very different from blasting the door and killing all the mooks in the dungeon - it would be more about avoiding lethal encounters, counting each resource, considering things such as food, torches and shelter from elements.

IMO, Pathfinder 2nd edition fits the heroic fantasy schtick we have experienced so far. It does not let you live the power fantasy of casting DC40 Weird on your victims and laughing at their oblivion. However, while it may power down Arcane casters and lifts up other classes, which for some may be a fair tradeoff.

But Disintegrate works similarly in PF 2nd edition as in PF 1st ed - it destroys objects and items without save. The only difference is that it deals massive damage to one living creature instead of outright killing it - which makes it a viable option for enemies. It still will disintegrate the character without chance for Raise Dead if the damage threshold exceeds current HP level.

OHK effects sound good when you are using them, but not when they are used against you.

1 Like