D&D 5E (2014) PotA Worth Buying?

[Mistwell]

I think Paizo gets away with it because they produce stuff in house

And that's my point. NO, they do not. At least, not more than WOTC does. They use outside companies. A LOT. People here call them "freelancers" when they're outside companies. In fact, they use many of THE SAME outside companies as WOTC. In fact, you just demonstrated the double standard - you're claiming the use of the identical people for the identical type of product should be called in-house or out-sourced depending just on the name of the company doing it. If it's Paizo you are calling it "in house" and if it is WOTC you're calling it "outsource" for THE SAME TYPE OF PRODUCT (an adventure) and the SAME OUTSIDE PEOPLE USED IN IT.

and have more variety. WoTC is only producings adventures so far and everything is in the Realms even once the Sword Coast book lands. Theres no generic splat books or a book on crunch as such.

This is meaningless for the topic we we discussing. It's totally irrelevant to a discussion of "are people unfair about WOTC concerning what is and is not outsourcing, and when reviews should or should not be used".

 

[Agamon]

Different strokes and all, but I compare the opening of Princes to even the opening of Tyranny of Dragons, and Tyranny opens with more of a bang (admittedly, some people found its buy-in TOO drastic, maybe that's why it was dialed back. But compare to Runelords' Swallowtail festival Opener, or the rather dramatic but railroady Skull & Shackles opener, or Giantslayers opener, which made you feel honestly a part of the community before circumstance pushed it in another direction

Right, it's the difference in style coming through. When an adventure throws you in the middle of something happening, you are directed to react to that and follow through with it. I mean, sure, you can start an adventure with goblins attacking the town the party is in, and the players can ask, "So, what the closest town not being attacked? Let's go there instead." But that's not too common, usually the party helps defend the town and then find out why they attacked, just as the adventure expects them to.

Starting the game like PotA or older adventures like Against the Cult of the Reptile God, Keep on the Borderlands, The Secret of Bone Hill, et al, is more about giving the players agency in how the story will flow. But it is a much less exciting way to start, I'll agree.

 

[Zardnaar]

And that's my point. NO, they do not. At least, not more than WOTC does. They use outside companies. A LOT. People here call them "freelancers" when they're outside companies. In fact, they use many of THE SAME outside companies as WOTC. In fact, you just demonstrated the double standard - you're claiming the use of the identical people for the identical type of product should be called in-house or out-sourced depending just on the name of the company doing it. If it's Paizo you are calling it "in house" and if it is WOTC you're calling it "outsource" for THE SAME TYPE OF PRODUCT (an adventure) and the SAME OUTSIDE PEOPLE USED IN IT.



This is meaningless for the topic we we discussing. It's totally irrelevant to a discussion of "are people unfair about WOTC concerning what is and is not outsourcing, and when reviews should or should not be used".

I know Paizo use freelancers as ell but they have around 25 ppl working direct for them on rpg materials iirc. They make in house splat books as well.

Wotc has something like 8 to 15 people working direct on D&D and they have not produced a single book outside the core rules. I know they havw consulted or written the overall arc of the adventures. Theres no 5E equivilent of Ultimate Magic/Combat or The races book. If you don't like the Realms or AP type adventures theres not a lot in 5E for you.

If they didn't outsource though we would have even less. 1 maybe 2 books full stop.

Doesn't really bother me who produces the material but theres not alot to excitw me or in the pipeline. LMoP was good but I have resorted to the OGL again for 5E support.

 

[delericho]

But, of course, the same could be said about every adventure Paizo currently publishes.

Absolutely. As you note below, "Shattered Star" was underwhelming for exactly that reason.

Their biggest hits were Rise of the Runelords, Skull and Shackles, and Kingmaker. With other okay selling APs being Carrion Crown, Jade Regent, and Curse of the Crimson Throne. But the majority they publish don't do as well. They've had hits and they've had misses, and they're not always what was expected. Shattered Star was expected to be a huge, popular AP and they even did a supporting mini set and Wayne Reynolds art, and it was so-so received.
They try but they don't always hit the high bar.

Yep.

Even just for D&D there's a legacy for 40 years of adventures. There are some great works out there: Castle Ravenloft, Red Hand of Doom, the Giants/Drow series, Madness at Gardmore Abby, and more.

Yep. And with the bar set fairly high by those adventures, why would we hold new adventures to a lower standard? After all, it's their job to persuade us to spend the money on their new product rather than sticking with what we already have.

They just try and do their best and we have to judge the adventure as worthwhile or bad on its own merits and if it would be fun to play, or lots of work to fix.

I don't disagree.

My only disagreement was about the choice of comparisons. Saying a new adventure is "better than Second Darkness" doesn't tell me anything useful - at the very least I need to know how much better it is.

 

[Celtavian]

My only disagreement was about the choice of comparisons. Saying a new adventure is "better than Second Darkness" doesn't tell me anything useful - at the very least I need to know how much better it is.

Second Darkness was one of Paizo's worst APs. Not saying much being better than Paizo's lower tier APs.

 

[delericho]

If most people take it as a bad thing, then it's a bad thing.

Outsourcing is a ridiculous criticism, but it's an accurate statement. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

And, yes, Paizo do the same thing.

Well Tyranny got a 75%, and Rise got an 85%. So, that's consistent with the reviews. Second Darkness got 50% by the way.

Nice misuse of statistics there. There's no product called "Tyranny of Dragons" in the review system - "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" got 53% and "Rise of Tiamat" got 75%.

And "Second Darkness" got 50% across eight reviews - not enough to be considered anything more than anecdote. (As, indeed, the review system acknowledges - hence the lack of "Certified" status.)

They hit and exceeded that standard with PotA (which is the thread topic). PotA is at 91.5%, with a lot of reviews in. In a comparison: Rise is at 85%, Second Darkness is at 50%, Skull & Shackles is at 79%, Kingmaker is at 70.5%. How is that not them being worthy of mention alongside those adventures?

It isn't, and I never said it wasn't. All I said was that that was the comparison that they'd have to face.

When you read the reviews - which is obvious you have not done so - you will see it would be very difficult to post any of those reviews without having at least read it.

Really? Because the second review makes mention of having made a "skim through of the meat of the adventure". So he, at least, hadn't read it. (And, equally, there is at least one review of Paizo's "Giantslayer" path that was published after only the first volume came out. So, yes, I'd be inclined to doubt that review, too.)

And for years WOTC wasn't even publishing anything for the game and this board was full of Pathfinder fans who were honestly and sincerely reviewing Pathfinder products

The review section is less than a year old.

But now comes WOTC products, a couple of their products got positive reviews (not even all of them - as I said, Tyranny isn't stacking up so well), and suddenly that entire Reviews section is being questioned with the implication it's flawed and shouldn't be trusted in any way.

I didn't say that. If you choose to draw that inference, that's on you.

The simple fact is that because there are haters and fanbois, because reviews are inevitably done by a self-selecting sample, because most reviews are done in the first flush of excitement and, most importantly, because tastes are subjective, any reviews system is necessarily imperfect.

Now that certainly doesn't mean it "can't be trusted in any way" (your words, not mine). But it means that it should be treated as it is: a somewhat-useful, somewhat-unreliable tool. And a person's best bet is to either look only at products that have a lot of reviews (which, yes, includes PotA) or find one or more reviewers he generally agrees with and read what they have to say.

And that's all I'm saying. As I said up-thread, I'm still reading PotA so I'm not qualified to give anything more than a very provisional opinion on it. And I made sure when doing so to state clearly that it should therefore be taken with a big pinch of salt.

 

[delericho]

Second Darkness was one of Paizo's worst APs. Not saying much being better than Paizo's lower tier APs.

Exactly. I'm not going to run or recommend "Second Darkness" (or "Mummy's Mask". Or "Shattered Star", for that matter, and that one is well reviewed). So saying an adventure is better than one of these is damning with faint praise - I want to know how it stacks up against the best.

 

[Celtavian]

Exactly. I'm not going to run or recommend "Second Darkness" (or "Mummy's Mask". Or "Shattered Star", for that matter, and that one is well reviewed). So saying an adventure is better than one of these is damning with faint praise - I want to know how it stacks up against the best.

I read Shattered Star. It was lacking. I'm not sure I can even pinpoint the problem. I know reading it I didn't feel inspired.

I'm doing Giantslayer right now. It is a good AP. It's not Runelords or Kingmaker, but definitely fun, interesting, and inspiring. That's what drives me to run an AP. If I read it, I want to feel inspired to run it even if I change things to suit my tastes. I haven't felt that way with Tyranny of Dragons or PotA. I've read the synopsis of both and some of the reviews. It doesn't inspire me to run it.

I did purchase Rage of Demons. Only thing hurting that at some point is that it is 1-15. In my opinion, a module battling demon lords should go to 20. I'm hoping there is enough story and encounter information for me to take the PCs to 20. If any module should have been broken into two books, it should have been Rage of Demons. Seems like too much stuff to fit in one module. I'm still going to give it a shot because I like the subject matter. I love a good demon module with demon lords.

 

[delericho]

I'm doing Giantslayer right now. It is a good AP. It's not Runelords or Kingmaker, but definitely fun, interesting, and inspiring. That's what drives me to run an AP.

I did like Giantslayer, and especially the first and last parts (IMO the middle lags a bit). Indeed, it may be the Path that finally persuades me to actually run Pathfinder.

I did purchase Rage of Demons.

I'm looking forward to that one.

Only thing hurting that at some point is that it is 1-15. In my opinion, a module battling demon lords should go to 20.

Personally, I tend to think it's a mistake that D&D keeps most of its 'named' villains as these ultra-high-level foes. So we DMs get to salivate over the epic stats for Strahd, the Lord of Blades, Demogorgon, Tiamat, et al, but we almost never get to actually use them because so few campaigns get that far. Even when they do appear, it tends to be a weakened form so that 15th level PCs have at least a fighting chance.

If any module should have been broken into two books, it should have been Rage of Demons.

Splitting a path has commercial problems associated with it - the first part inevitably sells much better than the second (or third, fourth...). So I thought WotC were very sensible in switching to a one-book format for PotA and now RoD.

But, yeah, I could certainly see the attraction of one really big book - something of the size and scope of the "Rise of the Runelords" or "Shackled City" hardcovers.

 

[Celtavian]

I did like Giantslayer, and especially the first and last parts (IMO the middle lags a bit). Indeed, it may be the Path that finally persuades me to actually run Pathfinder.

The first two modules have been fun and inspiring. The story reasons for the PCs to pursue the quests have been strong and appealing.

Third module is the weakest so far. Hard to justify why the PCs are pursuing the goals in the module. I'm going to write a stronger hook for that module. The encounter areas aren't bad. It's definitely not as strong as the first two. I hope the final three pick back up.

I've converted the entire path to 5E. One thing I love about 5E is converting modules is easy. 5E monster design lends itself well to modifying creatures from any system into challenging and interesting creature in 5E. I take the seeds of a creature and make up how the monster works trying to stay within certain recommended damage ranges for a creature of a given CR. I greatly enjoy 5E monster design.