Pathfinder Teases New Runelords Content

rise of the runelords.jpg


Paizo Publishing may be bringing back the Runelords, the original villains of their Pathfinder campaign setting. On social media yesterday, Paizo posted a Wayne Reynolds promotional image from their original Rise of the Runelords adventure path along with a brief post saying that the Runelords would be returning in upcoming Pathfinder products. No further detail was given.


The Runelords featured in a trilogy of popular adventure paths and were one of the key villains of the Golarion setting. The seven magic casters, each representing a different kind of cardinal sin, ruled over ancient Thassilon until its destruction via the cataclysmic Earthfall event. Paizo's first Pathfinder adventure path, Rise of the Runelords, pitted heroes against the return of one such Runelord, while the Shattered Star and Return of the Runelords adventure paths followed up on the return of ancient Thassilon and brought back other runelords to the present day. In Golarion's shifting continuity, two Runelords are now active, with one ruling over a newly founded New Thassilon in a benevolent fashion.

Popular speculation is that Paizo is updating Rise of the Runelords for Pathfinder 2E, as there are relatively few OGL-based monsters. A stream detailing Paizo's plans will air this Friday.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer


log in or register to remove this ad

How was the Savage Pathfinder port poorly done?
D&D and Pathfinder generally build adventures based on attrition. The 3e DMG says a party should be able to handle about four encounters, each with effective level about equal to average party level (the recommended distribution was 50% EL = APL, 15% EL = APL plus 1-4, 5% EL = APL plus 5 or more, 10% EL below APL, and 20% being "trick" encounters that are naturally tough but become easy if you manage to "solve" them), before needing to rest. I don't recall if Pathfinder had similar instructions – it might not have because those were never part of the SRD, but it was still informally inherited from 3e. So basically, each individual encounter in 3e/PF is designed to be pretty easy, but they keep sandbagging you so you spend spells and lose hp (and then spend spells to restore those hp), and after 3-4 encounters you're spent and in real danger. 3e and Pathfinder also depend on getting those encounters in to feed XP and treasure to the PCs to keep them leveling up and getting better stats to meet new and stronger challenges.

Savage Worlds, on the other hand, isn't built on anything near that sort of attrition. It is much more swingy. A Savage Worlds PC can take 3 Wounds, and gets KOed (and is in mortal danger) if receiving a 4th, and Wounds inflict penalties on future actions. You generally don't get the ability to take more wounds with experience – you will likely have better defense stats, but getting more Wounds is pretty hard. Damage rolls are open-ended, so there's a very real possibility that a goblin with a rusty dagger can stab a powerful fighter in full armor and get a damage roll of like 40 and turning the fighter into a fine red mist. Savage Worlds also, in its latest edition (which is the one Savage PF is based on) doesn't use XP but rather something akin to milestone leveling. So repetitive D&D-style fight encounters just don't work as well in Savage Worlds as in D&D.

To take an example: the first episode of the Deadlands adventure Horror on Headstone Hill features the PCs investigating a missing person, and they do so by asking around and generally making a nuisance of themselves in the town Heaston Hill. This involves a lot of talking and other investigating, that could probably fill a session or two, before culminating in the PCs investigating the dilapidated home of the missing person. This is the first place where the PCs get into a fight (unless they pick a fight earlier), and it features a grand total of two combat encounters.

That's not to say that Savage Worlds is a "peaceful" game – far from it. But it's a game where combat is impactful. It's not just business as usual, because it's fairly likely that it will have actual consequences.
 

It's the method they used for Kingmaker. They created a 5e bestiary and referred to the original 2e adventure book for the plot points.
But isn't that also the reason why they didn't do that with the 5e version of Abomination Vaults? (a full conversion and not just the monsters)
 


But isn't that also the reason why they didn't do that with the 5e version of Abomination Vaults? (a full conversion and not just the monsters)
Possibly? I don't have knowledge of the reasons behind their decision. If it is, it would deifnitely have taken more time and effort and is probably why there haven't been any more conversions announced. I think the cost/benefit analysis probably doesn't add up to a net benefit for Paizo.
 

Regarding the difference in approach between 5e Abomination Vaults vs. 5e Kingmaker, Legendary Games was involved in the Kingmaker project so that may have been a decision made by them for how to best handle both versions. I do see Mark Seifter listed as the Design Lead in the KM 5e Bestiary PDF and he was still with Paizo at the time so who knows. Maybe @LegendaryGames can provide some insight?
 



For example the main Dungeon of Burnt Offerings - intended to cover the equivalent of level 3-4 has 50 locations! Fifty! And 20 combat encounters. That could be dramatically reduced.

Thistletop? I loved running that. I think it took us about 12 hours. I think the first two books of the original RotR are some of the most fun modules I've run, personally.
 

Thistletop? I loved running that. I think it took us about 12 hours. I think the first two books of the original RotR are some of the most fun modules I've run, personally.
Novelty.

That’s the problem with APs. They are amazing at first but 50 room/20 combat locations tend to drag when repeated as nauseum.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top