Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
Recruitment Play-by-Post Play-by-Post Discussion
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

DM-All-Stars´ Darkmoon Vale Campaign

Game Master Tim Bürgers

This is a campaign where all players take turns in DMing. We play the Darkmoon Vale-Series Modules so far.

1 to 50 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Hey there everybody,

I wonder if there are enough fellow-gamers out there to start an episodic pbp-campaign with Pathfinder-Modules.

Because DMs are a rare resource, I suggest taking turns at DMing. Everyone who wants to play has to DM one Pathfinder Module. This way, everyone can play and everyone provides something to play for the others.

The DM´s character can just run along with the other characters during "his" Module.

The thing I most like at this idea is the fact, that nobody needs to be "selected". We would just divide all interested players even on as many parties as necessary.

I would DM the first adventure for "my group" myself.

What do you think?


Sure, I would be interested. Are you figuring on starting with 1st level mods and moving up each GM?

This sounds fun to me, as well. Minimal work, not too much planning to go into anything. Sounds good.

What sort of character creation are you thinking would be good? As in, allowed resources, ability generation, stuff like that? I don't want to heap questions on you, but those are kind of important, and different people like different sorts of things.

I'm in as well.

Suggestions for character creation:

For ability scores, I would allow players to choose point buy or rolling. This appeals to pretty much everybody.

I'd allow the standard PFSRD and anything Golarion specific, as I would guess we'd be playing there, though I suppose that's doesn't have to be set in stone.

Normally, I would say allow 3pp, but since this will be a rotating cast of GMs, that's a little much. Stick to just Paizo, at least to begin with.

I would suggest max wealth, and just to keep the fun rolling, max HP.

That's all I got for now.

I agree with everything there, Monkeygod, except I'd let people poll to see if given 3rd-party stuff is allowed, especially if it's on the SRD. As for max wealth and HP, I generally use those, and like 'em. Max HP is always a given for me...

But an episodic, module-based, dungeon-crawling (or whatever-elsing) campaign with rotating DMing sounds like a blast, and a chance to perhaps make use of characters that wouldn't necessarily fit in elsewhere.

Ya know I was gonna go with the whole "see how people feel about 3pp", but I felt it might be too much to start with.

I personally don't care, either way, but I can see how it might end up being overwhelming.

My suggestion is the following. And as I will only be an equitable "cross-class" DM 3/Player 17, it is of course discussable.

* Generous point-buy of e.g. 22 points - fair, simple, allows every kind of char
* two traits, no campaign trait, hook from the first adventure
* Possible Lv-1-Modules: Hangman´s Noose, Crypt of Everflame
* Balanced party(ies) of one warrior-type, one divine caster, one "skiller" and one arcane caster - reason: Modules assume parties to consist of the classic mixture
* PFSRD only to keep things at least a bit simple without restraining players to much
* fast progression?

These are always fun but the pitfall to rotating the dm is that you don't get a very coherent overall story. One day you are fighting the undead hoard and the next your off on a high seas adventure fighting pirates. Plus you need to be wary of the possibility of the current dm stacking the module with treasure for his character.

Anyways, just dotting for interest.

Sure, plotline suffers a bit.

But nevertheless to me it seems better than this continous "application-stuff" and generating characters for nothing.

There's 55 Paizo modules, let alone any sort of 3pp ones. I imagine we could find several that could sort of be linked together, even if its as tenuous as all of them on the same continent or the like.

Beyond that, we could work on some NPCs that float through each game, maybe a tavern owner that we make central to the setting, or the mayor/lord/ruler of a small area, etc.

If we all want this to be somewhat cohesive, it'll take a bit of work, but it will greatly enhance the overall game. These things don't even need to be really fleshed out before hand, either.

Take the innkeeper. We all agree to use the same inn, run by Joslyn Rose a redhaired Elven lass.

Done. That's all that's needed. In game, she can grow organically as each GM and the PCs desire.

I find the idea very appealing. But aren't PFS rules and modules more suited to this type of piecemeal gaming?

Dotted for interest. Not sure I'd be up to run a game right off the bat (been a while since I consistently played 3.x and even longer since I've run anything but the most basic of mods), but I'd take my turn.

I've done rotating GM games before, and while there may be a few pitfalls to avoid, they are generally a lot of fun. I would be in.

I've seen some that ended up with some very interesting long term plots. Each GM takes the background Hints planted by the previous GM, and rolls with them, interpreting what he thinks they might mean, and supplementing them with his own ideas and hints. The next GM might take those hints and have interpreted them in a different way, and take the story in yet another direction.

One way to do this is to let the person who is going to GM choose the module they want to use, based on what has happened so far, but without necessarily telling the players what the module will be. It makes it a surprise, and leaves it to the GM in question to tie the plot to the previous story arch.


I like the idea, and see this both as another chance to play and a chance to learn how ton a PBP. Count me in. I have run a lot of games, but all tabletop and am familiar with PF.

I would prefer not to allow classes/content outside the SRD. To me this complicates things without adding value. There is a lot of choices within the SRD. Everyone should be able to come up with something they enjoy inside that sandbox.

If people wanted to run PFS I would be happy to do that as well. As someone pointed out, PFS is well suited to rotating the GM lead. I like modules better but they are significantly longer. You could imagine one running 3+ months easily at PBP speeds.

Count me in. Sounds like a blast.

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sounds interesting.

And I agree with Skorn in that we should keep the game all Paizo Content.

The question is how will the PLayers/GM be selected, and in what order do we go?

I still am very interested in this. PFS sounds fine, but I almost think that allowing houserules, homebrew and the like would be even more fun in several ways.

As for continuity, I thought one of the whole ideas behind this was an episodic game. The party fights undead one adventure, and then is off killing demons or hunting for buried treasure. So what? Continuity is for APs.

If we really want continuity between adventures, the innkeeper idea is fine, or we could go the absolute easiest route and say we're all Pathfinders.

So, it looks like for character creation we're all in agreement of 20-25 point buy, and using SRD stuff (which includes 3rd party, or no?)

The Falcon´s Hollow Modules are closely connected. Could be a good middle ground between campaign and episodic style:

*Hollow´s Last Hope (I would like to DM that one)
*Crown of the Kobold King
*Carnival of Tears
*Return of the Kobold King
*Hungry are the Dead

Although, some small "bridge-episodes" would serve the same purpose with other modules.

I suggest, that everyone just creates a character he likes to play. Lets say 20 point buy, PFSRD, two traits. I think nobody objected that so far.

Afterwards we put the groups together with the aim of balancing them as well as possible.

Then, each group creates their own threads etc.

My suggestion is, that we close the character-creation-period on friday.

Good Gaming!

Sounds pretty interesting and considering that I still have yet to play a group game it would be cool if I could still join.

So you're suggesting that we split up everyone in this thread into multiple parties? Is there any way we would be able to keep the parties somewhat connected despite that?

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tim Bürgers wrote:

The Falcon´s Hollow Modules are closely connected. Could be a good middle ground between campaign and episodic style:

*Hollow´s Last Hope (I would like to DM that one)
*Crown of the Kobold King
*Carnival of Tears
*Return of the Kobold King
*Hungry are the Dead

This is a good series, but the order of the modules are

*Hollow´s Last Hope
*Crown of the Kobold King
*Return of the Kobold King
*Carnival of Tears

*Hungry are the Dead

I have all the above and am currently running the Falcon's Hollow series on the boards

I also tend to spice up Falcon's Hollow
And you can see my GM style change in this one, since it was my first PBP game.

Connecting all the parties (at the moment, it seems that there will be two) seems pretty interesting, but I guess it could be hard staying in touch.

I forgot to mention: Maybe it´s best to rule, that nobody should make an evil character.

Everyone agree on that?

I think, most Modules assume a heroic kind of hook, which usually works pretty bad with bad guys (pun intended).

so character creation rules are:
Base creation rules:
Stats: 20 Point Buy (no stats below 10)
Traits: 2 traits (no campaign traits)
Classes and Archetypes allowed: CRB, APG, UM, UC. (No Summoners, Gunsligners) and other Paizo material, but you must note the source.
Races: Core + Others*
Starting Cash: Max
Starting HP: Max
Character Background: Ideal, if none I'll make one up and it becomes your back story, with a job that best matches your profession/class and that is it.
Alignments: Non-Evil.
Must be willing to post at least once a day for 5 days out of the week.

Your level 1.

*Other races are Assimar, Tieflings, Changelings, and a few others that are listed in ARG, but no customs (including those in the race builder section).
and to get access to them will be by chance, pick 2 Core races, and 1 non-core race, (I'll add 1 more race randomly), and I'll randomise the gender, like in my Expanded Horizon games.
The above does add a gamble to non-core races

Or if we want it interesting.
Players who applied did find it interesting, and fun.

!Note your Class, and race will be semi-random as you pick 8 classes and 4 races and I'll randomise which one is used.!

Base creation rules:
Stats: 20 Point Buy (no stats below 10)
Traits: 2 traits (no campaign traits)
Classes and Archetypes allowed: CRB, APG, UM, UC. (No Summoners, Gunsligners) and other Paizo material, but you must note the source.
Races Allowed: Core + Assimar, Tiefling, Changeling, Dhampir, Suli and see below.
Starting Cash: Max
Starting HP: Max
Alignments: Non-Evil.

You pick 8 classes, 2 from each sub grouping *(Assault,Skilled,Divine,Arcane) and you can't use the same class twice if it appears in more than one group.
you pick 4 Races.

I'll randomise the selection for both.

then you pick 4 archetypes, that you like.
I'll randomise it and the character's gender.

Then the player comes up with their backstory.

What our your thoughts on this.

Assault = Full BAB, or 3/4 with combat boosting abilities.
Skilled = any class with 6 or 8 skill points per level.
Divine = Any class with divine magic or can cast Cure XX Wounds
Arcane = Any class with arcane magic (Alchemists are in this list)

*Classes in each group
Assault = Alchemist, Barbarian, Bard, Cavalier, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Magus, Monk, Paladin, Ranger.
Skilled = Bard, Inquisitor, Ranger, Rogue.
Divine = Bard, Cleric, Druid, Inquisitor, Oracle, Paladin, Ranger, Witch
Arcane = Alchemist, Bard, Magus, Sorcerer, Wizard, Witch.

Ninja == Rogue
Samurai == Cavalier

I like the class definitions. Guess that could make balancing a party easier.

To me, the pretty common house rule of "no stat below 10" doesn´t make much sense. It just blocks some interesting characters. One of my most interesting characters was an elven necromancer with a Con of 5. He had a fatal sickness. To not lose his beloved wife, he snuk away from home to go adventuring and finally become a lich. I was pretty amazed, that he survived through the whole campaign, though.

Of course, the downside is the stereotypical (and often quite boring) Int 7-Wis 7-Cha 7-Fighter with that huuuuuuuge sword, which is just a result of min-maxing.

I guess, most people are reasonable enough to keep their fingers away from such nonsense. So One-digit-abilities, to my mind, should be allowed.

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you want to stop min-maxing you set all stats to a min of 10, before racials, and I prefer stopping min-maxing characters.

Personally, I feel that if it is going to be a rotating GM game, the house rules should be kept to an absolute minimum, or even not included at all.

I agree with Tim. I find most efforts to restrict min maxing end up restricting a great many role-playing opportunities as well by mistake. I'd say use the game default of 7 on a stat before racial modifiers.

I'd also suggest everyone just play the character they want. If we would like to find more balanced parties, we can have everyone make up their characters together, and then divide into the two group afterwards, building the best two parties we can. All official Paizo PFRPG material should be open, including Summoners and Gunslingers.

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the "game default of 7 on a stat before racial modifiers" is opening the doors to extreme min-maxing,
To compromise it with my Character creation rules;

Nothing below 8 after racial mods, still keeps the door open, but halts the -5 in a stat to max my caster's Spells and DC route.

I'm against Summoners for their absolute brokenness and they should be banned.
I'm against Gunslingers for guns should be rare, ammo expensive and I see rich collectors wanting your gun in his collection.


"Hello. My name is Skorn, and I am a min maxer." :)
All gamers are min maxers to an extent, but lets not open that debate in this tread.

I agree with Azure Zero above. Certainly no synthesist Summoners, and no Summoners at all is fine by me. And for most games I am in, Gunslingers are a detraction to both the setting and the challenge level, as the whole touch attack thing is broken. So my ideal game would not include them. But I am easy going about it so if someone really wants one of these classes I'll trust them not to break the game. But I'll choose not to play one.

I think I would prefer just to create my character and not to randomize it this time, but must admit that the randomization process Zero presented above was fun.

Coming up with a character concept now...

My objections are primarily based on principle, as I doubt I would play either a Summoner or a Gunslinger. I'd also like to avoid the whole min-max debate, so please believe me when I say I am not flame-baiting here.

I have not actually played a summoner, but I have GM'd several, and I have not yet had a problem in terms of balance. I know that their are numerous complaints about them, particularly the Master Summoner and Synthesist varieties, but the forums also include numerous tips on mitigating any power issues that might arise, and the class has significant limitations as well. I have not seen any of these issues arise in game, and I have a Master Summoner in a game I am GMing now. I think as a whole, the Summoner is a very flavourful class, and makes a good addition.

I think gunslingers are an interesting idea, but that the class is generally underpowered (the touch AC thing is a one trick pony that can be easily circumvented). Most objections seem to come from the idea that many people don't like guns in their fantasy. However, I don't think that those opinions should restrict the choices available to other party members.

I strongly dislike restricting player options based on concerns about what might happen, and will usually disagree with rules proposed on that basis. The game has been rigorously play-tested, and balance issues are usually corrected via errata fairly quickly.

It is probably just a difference in approach and school of thought, but I believe that balance and min-maxing issues can and should be dealt with in-game.

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What's that old saying...
Oh yah
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

So I say we nip problems in the butt right now.
I see problems with summoner, Just remove it to simplify things.
Gunslinger "hit with touch AC" that's easy hits and the hardest AC to increase, a one trick pony that works almost every time, sorry it should be canned.

The only players I have encountered so far that played summoner were power gamers, who did some really broken builds, hence my view to just ban them.

I believe things should be handled before a game even starts, as fixing the problem later during the game is a pain in the butt for both the GM and the player it effects.


And Skorn, you got to admit the Randomisation process above did get you an interesting result, that you might not have considering in trying.

And I agree that Gunslinger are a detraction to both the setting and the challenge level.

Ah well, opinions will vary. Such restrictions are not to my taste, either as player or GM. My experience has been that they pretty much university detract from player creativity, and I have not witnessed the abuses you are citing. While I do not know if it is true in your case, I have noticed that most GM's who prefer a restrictive setup have not witnessed them personally either, and are instead basing the assumptions on rumor or hearsay. In my experience, the issues do not usually come up, and those that do can be mitigated with a little GM creativity.

Depending on interest, perhaps there might be a different approach in each group; a more regulated rule set in one, and a less restricted setup in the other.

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What I stated above about broken summoners, I have personally witnessed a third of the cases myself, the other two-thirds I have heard about either in RL or on these boards.
I never personally saw a summoner that was not broken.

So we have different experiences with summoners.

you say "Limiting removes creativity" I find it the opposite way, when placing limits (with reasonable limits) they can become even more creative, resourceful, and interesting, compared to if you had no limits.

We all judge based on our own experiences, and it sounds like yours have been very different than mine. I have read about broken Summoners on the boards, but I have never seen one that was broken when played in game. I think that just about any class can be 'broken' if done with enough thought. In addition, if particular archetype is the problem, should the archetype not be what is addressed, and not an entire class?

In terms of creativity, I find the more restricted the options get, the more derivative the characters become. There are only so many ways to paint a human fighter, elven wizard, halfling rogue, and dwarven cleric. And I have seen this exact combination so many times that it bores me to tears just thinking about it. While I respect that you feel differently, I find that options inspire creativity. I know the counter point is to say that options replace creativity, and that story is more important than mechanics, but what this generally results in practice is selecting character A B C or D, and inserting tragic background 1 2 3 or 4. Characters with more diverse options inspire far more intricate backgrounds in order to explain them in my experience, and that's why I'll still prefer a less restrictive game.

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Proof I'm right on reasonable limits invokes creativity.

Had two players with the same random result of class (cleric) and archetype (merciful healer), but their builds were completely different (one was a tank, the other was more healing based).

I'm not for extreme restrictions, or no limits style, but a balance between the two.
As they say "Moderation is the Key."

So I always do moderate restrictions

so you have more than enough material,
but not enough that you can do a broken build as easily.

And I find players more creative when they have just enough content and have to work with what they have.


I played with a synthesist summoner in a 15 point home game. His effective point buy was 40ish. The low point by made it worse. Three primary attacks per round at first level. Darkvision. Natural AC. DR. Energy resistance. Rebuilds at every level (this alone is a big problem). Flying at 5th. Hit point pool resulting in double the health of any other PC. Oh, and Haste at 4th. That's a summoner bonus for every archtype. He was equal to the rest of the party in combat strength when he was in skin. And most everything else about his character was to make sure he was in skin. The DM took to launching ambushes at us at night to catch him sleeping.

The DM had to double the encounter numbers to make things a challenge for him, which resulted in a lot of character deaths from the other characters. Not fun at all.

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Do I need more proof that summoner should be completely banned.


In truth, while I enjoy debating, and hearing other perspectives, I am fine with our first DM, which I believe will be Tim, setting the rules for character creation. Someone has to, and its not going to be pretty if we try to do so by committee. lol.

It sounds like the Synthesist was certainly a problem in that game, for whatever reason. Perhaps he was over-powered, perhaps the other characters were poorly built, or perhaps the GM didn't handle the disparity well. Not having been there, I can't know.

Again I would ask though, if the Synthesist was the problem, why not ban Synthesist instead of Summoner?

Regardless, we are getting quite far afield, and I don't think we want to turn this into a thread hijacking. We differ in opinions here, and are unlikely to change each other's minds through this discourse. My other question is still out there to all: if there were two groups, an unrestricted one and a moderate restriction one, would enough people be interested that we could run both groups?

If I am alone in my opinion here, that is fine; I'll acquiesce to the majority. I'll decide then whether to continue under the proposed restrictions, or bow out for the sake of maintaining harmony.

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skorn wrote:
In truth, while I enjoy debating, and hearing other perspectives, I am fine with our first DM, which I believe will be Tim, setting the rules for character creation. Someone has to, and its not going to be pretty if we try to do so by committee. lol.

But if the game breaks into multiple groups,

a standard should be set for all groups to follow.

with the back-up plan being that if a game collapses,
due to GM or player disappearances that survivors
can quickly replace players that dropped from one of the other groups.


My quick count is:

Azure Zero
Dungeon Blaster

So 11 people. And I am not sure all 10 are agreeing to DM. And my experience with PBP is that you always have drop outs. Are we sure we have 2 groups?

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I check the campaign tab for records

Tim (aka Dungeon Blaster) <- GM Record

Aroach1188 <- GM and Player Record
Azure Zero <- GM and Player Record
Flykiller <- GM and Player Record
Lastnameonearth <- GM and Player Record
Loup <- GM and Player Record
Monkeygod <- GM and Player Record

Findahl <- Player Record
krallek <- Player Record
Skorn <- Player Record

Dognapalm <- No Record
Doug <- No Record

I don't think we'll be having a dropping problem.

Azure_Zero wrote:

Dognapalm <- No Record

While I can't speak for Doug, I am a complete newbie to Pathfinder (I at least have a sound grip on the rules and I've played that tutorial module solo). Perhaps it would be worth putting us both in separate groups if that suits you.

And by 'connecting the parties' earlier, I meant that the actions of one party have a mild effect on the other party's playthrough, although this might not be possible with modules unless the GM is using more as a guide instead of a set in stone story.

Alright after reading the back and forth, I feel I need chime in.

I understand AZ's concern over Summoners and Gunslingers. I personally am not a fan of guns in my games, but I will allow them if somebody really wanted to play one.

I also agree with the James Jacobs type thinking that summoners should pick one form for their Eidolon based on an existing outsider and that's it

What I also have a problem with is, since this is supposed to be several GMs sharing the game running, one or two of them deciding on strong restrictions for the rest of us.

What if I say I want to run Carnical of Tears, but I feel that the Wizard, with his potential access to all spells broken and want to ban the class. I back this up with a personal experince or two...

Do we now ban the wizard too, even if the rest of you have no problems with the class?? What makes the experience of one GM more vaild than the others??

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just the opposite. If we are talking of striaght up bans of an entire class, as opposed to an archetype or a few feats, all possible GMs should be in agreement.

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Monkeygod wrote:


What I also have a problem with is, since this is supposed to be several GMs sharing the game running, one or two of them deciding on strong restrictions for the rest of us.

What if I say I want to run Carnival of Tears, but I feel that the Wizard, with his potential access to all spells broken and want to ban the class. I back this up with a personal experience or two...

Do we now ban the wizard too, even if the rest of you have no problems with the class?? What makes the experience of one GM more valid than the others?? ...

That is valid point.

so I think that bans should be regulated by a vote, so we all have a standard to follow for this game.

The only two classes I have on my restriction list is Summoner and Gunslinger,
which I find a good number of GMs ban or limit in their games as well.

While I'm most probably going to be using a core class, it might be worth putting up a poll or confirming everyone is alright with it in this thread.

Next questions:

Can we reasonably limit Gunslingers without destroying them?

Is the Summoner itself bad, or just the Synthesist/Master Summoner archetypes?

Regarding a low stat, what about allowing one stat to be a 7(or whatever) and that's it.? So this way you can't dump several stats, just one, if you feel you must?

Are we using just the PFSRD or the d20PFSRD?? I suggest all Paizo, a fair amount being found on the d20pfsrd, but no 3pp.

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I prefer
Nothing below 10 before racial mod,
but would agree to
Nothing below 8 after racial mod,
this still keeps the door open, but halts the -5 in a stat to max my caster's Spells and DC route.


Summoners in general are broken, the Synthesist archetype just amplifies it,
So I say just ban it all.

Gunslingers are more manageable, I still say banned it, but would be Ok with limiting it or doubling it's costs (guns and ammo).


The PRD is core books only
(no ___________ of Golarion, no blood of ______ etc)

D20pfsrd has the core and other paizo content as well as 3PP.

PRD ensures no 3PP stuff gets mixed in,
but some of the nice stuff that is Paizo material is on d20pfsrd.

I would vote:
Stats: min 7 before racial mods, no max - as per the default rules
Classes: All official Paizo Pathfinder classes and Archetypes, no 3.5 or 3pp
(I have no problem with Summoner or Gunslinger as written, and changing the Gunslinger's costs is just unfairly targeting them. They are quite high already, esp. at low levels.)
Races: Either Core only, or perhaps including the Featured Races from ARG

All this material is available on the PFSRD. PFSRD also lists the source on all material, so you can generally figure out where it came from without too much trouble.

My votes are as follows:

  • Ability Scores: nothing below 7 after racial mods, perhaps? Seems like a good way to keep people from dumping anything and everything. Also, only one stat at that 7; everything else needs to be 8 or higher after racial mods.

  • Classes: On this, I'm torn. Gunslinger being a flavor thing as well as some mechanics, I'm okay with losing. But the Summoner... I'd say let anyone who REALLY wants to play a summoner play one, but they can ONLY have the base class (no archetypes), and the character gets scrutinized and voted on by everyone else. I say this because I have some interest in playing a Summoner, and don't plan on optimizing at all (I'm definitely not a planner or optimizer).

  • Races: Anything Paizo on the PFSRD, within reason. Again, I think it's important to look at player submissions.

Everything else, I'd say if it's on the PFSRD, you can go ahead and use it. Although I'd like a definite call on whether we're allowing ANYTHING 3rd party or no.


At this point I am along for the ride as far as character building, although I would like to hear what Tim recommends, since this is his tread. I can make a good character within whatever rule subset we decide on and will try to have fun doing so. I will play with a summoner and/or a gunslinger, but will not play one muself.

With the number of experienced DMs in this queue I am quite looking forward to the game. And as I Posted before, I am an experienced DM but have not yet tried to run a PBP game. So, I am in favor of deciding something soon. If I had to vote I would prefer to not have scores below 7 or above 20 after racial mods.

One more example of a broken summoner for those interested - we had to fight a summoner in a PFS module. He was invisible and I believe had a lesser rod of silence. He could summon without breaking the invisibility and do so as a standard action, so he could move after. Very tough encounter - much harder than the CR would have you suspect.

All those rules seem pretty complex to me.

But all your concern shows me one thing:

All of you are reasonable people. Can´t we build on this?

So how about the following:

Everyone takes care to make a character with a reasonable level of power. Full Stop. No more rules than that is my opinion.

If a character seems to break the limits of reason than the starting DM can intervene nevertheless, but on a case-by-case basis.

I hope, this helps stop discussions and starting games.

1 to 50 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Online Campaigns / Recruitment / Interest Check: Playing Pathfinder and taking turns at DMing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.