Lost Lands Mega-Campaign (Inactive)

Game Master Grimmy

Core only huh?

yeah since talon is already core only (mostly) I couldn't go ninja which was my original concept. but rogue works well.

will get to work as soon as i can.

also if interested follow the link to "Talon story time" (in the story he is a fetchling ninja assassin)

link to story

Sam I'd be totally up for that as well. Karameikos is an old stomping ground from the halcyon days of my gaming history.

Up for a Traldarian - possibly a member of the Cult of Halav...???

I am running two Mummy's Mask games with all the Pathfinder Bells and Whistles. I even embraced the fact that we could do a core four and replace the rogue with a bard in one group and a zen archer in the other. It is my attempt to give Pathfinder Deluxe a chance. So far it seems to be working, but I have no 'broken' builds in the game.

Deep down I still feel that Pathfinder lost their way after such an amazing debut with the Core Rulebook. Why do I not do Osric, old AD&D, or Castles? Core Pathfinder is quite tight and I like it better! Skill and feats are a great improvement. I just haven't embraced cryptbreaker alchemists and seeker sorcers encroaching on the rogue niche OR beastmorph alchemists and synthesist summoners encroaching on the fighter niche. I also do not like the move away from the core races and find myself guiltily drawn to aasimars as a player.

Why do I not do Osric, old AD&D, or Castles? Core Pathfinder is quite tight and I like it better! Skill and feats are a great improvement. I just haven't embraced cryptbreaker alchemists and seeker sorcers encroaching on the rogue niche OR beastmorph alchemists and synthesist summoners encroaching on the fighter niche.

I feel the same way! And there is tons of stuff in the additional books that works fine for the feel I want too, but it's such a daunting task to go through it all and decide if it works!

I definitely feel that that's got some merit. For me it's more about "does this both make sense and feel right" kind of thing. Honestly, more times, I'm not up for Alchemists being around. Period. But that's because in the fantasy settings I like, they're too out of genre to me. And unless I'm playing in a world similar to Final Fantasy, I kind of think Summoner is right out as well. With the exception of the one that mostly forgoes an Eidolon in favor of just being really BA at summoning spells.

Okay, that was a tangent of sorts. But essentially, I really do like the core classes, plus most core class archetypes. And the Magus. But not the cheesy shocking grasp min/max kind.

Personally, I like the core classes. A few of the APG are fine, witch, oracle, inquisitor and cavalier. Summoner seems like a reskinned conjurer/sorcerer combo. It can be greatly abused, especially when talking about the Master Summoner, Wild Caller and Synthesist archetypes.

I keep trying to create an alchemist to play, and it never feels right. I personally see no place for guns or gunslingers in any campaign as it takes away any medieval feel in my opinion.

I have not yet played a magus, and don't know if I ever will. They seem to be the ultimate in glass cannons, so as long as the enemy barbarian can hit them first, the combat is over.

I came to PF directly from AD&D with a little 2nd edition, so perhaps my view is skewed.

Okay, that was a tangent of sorts. But essentially, I really do like the core classes, plus most core class archetypes. And the Magus. But not the cheesy shocking grasp min/max kind.

That feels a little unfair. A lot of people build around spellstriking with shocking grasp, sure, but at the same time you have look at their options. Shocking Grasp is the only 1st level touch spell they have whose damage dice scale with their level. Which means its the only spell that they can use with their class "tricks" from level 1 to 20 that reliably puts out damage given a few feat investments. Sure, you could make a debuffer magus that focuses on rime spell and frostbite, but its the same principle. You have level 1 spells that, given the proper feat investment, can be stretched and used throughout your character's career. Finding ways to keep them relevant isn't cheesy, its just good playing on your part.

I kind of feel like hating on an magus that uses SG is like hating on a zen archer monk. At the end of the day, you want to make your character really good at the thing you made her to be good at, no matter what that thing is.

Deep down I still feel that Pathfinder lost their way after such an amazing debut with the Core Rulebook. Why do I not do Osric, old AD&D, or Castles? Core Pathfinder is quite tight and I like it better! Skill and feats are a great improvement. I just haven't embraced cryptbreaker alchemists and seeker sorcers encroaching on the rogue niche OR beastmorph alchemists and synthesist summoners encroaching on the fighter niche. I also do not like the move away from the core races and find myself guiltily drawn to aasimars as a player.

I like SOME of the things that 3.X/Pathfinder have done to make the rules more uniform and intuitive (ascending AC, d20 for all task resolution, simplified saving throws) as compared to "Old-school" AD&D but I find characters, even those in the Core Rulebook, to be a little overpowered for my tastes (don't get me started on animal companions...ugh) and the complexity introduced by feats (necessitating system mastery as well as opening up the possibility of abuse/min-maxing/munchkin-ism) to be more trouble than they are worth. Oh...and a la carte multi-classing which leads to more cheese than you would see at a Wisconsin dairy festival.

I keep trying to create an alchemist to play, and it never feels right. I personally see no place for guns or gunslingers in any campaign as it takes away any medieval feel in my opinion.

I have the same issues with wanting my games to be Western European medieval based. Thus my distaste for anything that smells of modern tech (Alchemists and Gunslingers) or Asian-influence (Samurai, Ninjas and Monks). I think it is great that modern games give people more options to play an "alternate" game world, I just don't want them in the games in which I play.

Let me rephrase, Q. Magus is such an interesting class with great possibility for a lot of variety of builds. Yet I mostly see Dervish Dancing Magi with SG combo. And very few of them seem to be more than fighters with a magic trick. I'm all for using that class, but make it your own. I guess I just don't like it when people look at optimization guides and make cookie-cutter characters. There's really nothing wrong with it, I guess. As long as the gaming group is having fun, who cares?

But that build just isn't for me.

Dervish dance -- a huge boon that the only downside (free hand) is negated by a magus.

Blaming a magus for abusing SG and Dervish dance is like blaming a synthesist summoner for low physical stats. It is the lack of balance and playtest.

Elf magus with a 20dex--dervish dance+magic lineage SG. Seen a lot of them. Broken but don't hate the player hate the system that let him do that. Any magus building anything else is choosing a significantly less capable character on purpose.

I like flavorful balanced choices. The archetypes and expanded classes missed that. How many barbs are invulnerable ragers or try to exploit rage cycling.

Touch attacks as an Alchemist and gunslinger----broken with capital b.

Exactly. It is one build over and over. Same weapon, same spell, same feat (from a setting book and it's supposed to be for followers of a certain faith I think?).

The way I see it, it is a matter of character depth.

Let me just interject right here that Fighters were and still are my favourite class (I'm not even going into their list of class skills, or even the appalling 2+Int skills per level... another time perhaps).

As I was saying, for me it all boils down to whether the character is something more than an amalgam of crunched numbers to full effectiveness - I have played Zen Archers who were part of a community for years, and actually taking the role of history teacher for the local kids [and part-time adventurer - Clark Kent anyone? :D], I've played ZA who were simply the silent scout and trapspotter, other who as a righteous zealot of justice, almost as fervent as any Paladin, and with the Diplomacy to back it up, etc. etc.

And this can happen with any class, not just ZA - of course when I see another 'silent type' ZA that really only has something to add when there are Perception checks to be made, or arrows to be fired, it makes me cringe. I have really nothing against people wanting to shoot an arrow as best as they can, or being as stealthy as possible, or swinging as hard as humanly possible, but it can't just be an hollow shell made by an armor crammed full with numbers :D

At least, that is how I see it, and it is in fact the thing that bothers me, but it has always been somewhat like that, has it not (of course now to a particularly aggressive extent)? Ever since the point buy, you culd cram all you wanted on your STR and CON as a fighter, and go to town with the most irrelevant character ever built in terms of roleplay, but really good at hitting things - on the other end, you can do exactly the same, and come up with an unforgetable personality - I GMed for a group who had a Minotaur (created with Dragonlance rules) playing in a Planescape setting, wielding those unbeliavably overpowered Shatangs and Lajangs, dealing... I don't know... 2d6+12 per swing at level 1 or 2? I can't remember exactly, but the fact is that we never forgot that character - he did a lot more than swinging a blade - heck! He wanted to be a wizard! :D

I like the flexibility afforded by archetypes, traits, splatbooks, the works, but only when the end product is something coherent.

I could talk about this forever - it is a subject I really appreciate. What I wanted to say though, was that you definitely have cookie-cutter builds, but that doesn't mean the character itselfs has to be cookie-cutter, and THAT is what I think makes all the difference.

EDIT:

Exactly. It is one build over and over. Same weapon, same spell, same feat (from a setting book and it's supposed to be for followers of a certain faith I think?).

I fully agree, but off the top of my head, I can remember at least a dozen characters from fiction, swinging a sword as their main 'thing' BUT all completely different and unforgetable, right? ;)

Then I maintain I have a perfectly balanced system with core.
You want a monk that shoots a bow or an 'alchemist' that throws fire and acid. You can do it.

You want to say you dervish dance when you fight with weapon finesse--go ahead.

I have a problem when poorly constructed rules let you exploit the system. Dervish dancing would be less popular when it comes with nothing to show for it but an empty hand to flirt with the ladies and give the call me sign while fighting bbegs

And how many prospective magi ask if they can take wayang spell hunter and magic lineage? While we are expanding on the broken build--be a hexcrafter with sleep hex (yes that is broken too)

the one thing I don't like is anything that gives the players the attack routine of animals.

I know a half-orc maguc that took the traits and alternate racial features to get a claw, claw, bite routine as a full attack at level 1 all three attacks at full BAB then as a magus he (at level 2)

he was doing claw, claw, bite, claw, shocking grasp that is 4 natural attacks and a spell in a single full attack

at a magus he made my melee barabarin look about as useful as a bard trying to be a tank.

I remember one fight against three monsters. by round 3 he took down two of the three by himself (no other party memebers to help) (not even flanking) and my barbarian along with another party member were still trying to take down one.

I never said that core was not balanced ;)

We could discuss each particular case, and argue that the guy with the empty hand cannot use a shield, etc. But I'll just say that I doubly agree with you on rules allowing exploitation of the system - it is absolutely true. The only thing I can fathom to obviate this is the choice of people you play with, which is not always easy in PbP.

I STILL think no one deserves having 2+Int as skills per level though :D

Wizards, sorcerers, paladins and clerics deserve 2+int. They have other good things.

Fighters 4+int for skills definitely. They need more good things.

I like options as much as the next guy and played rolemaster with 50+ fairly balanced classes (warrior monk anyone). I draw the line at making an entire fantasy archetype=rogue/thief irrelevant with archetypes and the ninja.

Yup, 4+int skills for fighters all day.

I like options as much as the next guy and played rolemaster with 50+ fairly balanced classes (warrior monk anyone). I draw the line at making an entire fantasy archetype=rogue/thief irrelevant with archetypes and the ninja.

+1000

But it's a different crowd. They don't care and that's fine. It's their game now.

My only issue is, I definitely bought into pathfinder because it seemed to present itself as being true to the heritage of games I come from.

I mean it certainly looked that way to me at least, and people in game stores advised me that way when I balked at 4e.

No one warned me that vestigial arms and synthesist power suits were around the corner ;p

That's it - some LOVE for fighters ;)

Samduc you played Rolemaster?! Dang man I played MERP and then Rolenaster for so loooooong. Those crit tables made my day, and my group would laugh into tears with the effects.

Well, I suppose the answer is to have every class ability be like a feat so that players can buy "abilities" when they level.

5. vs. .75 vs 1 BAB is 1 or 2 or 3 points
Increase in full caster level = 3 points, 3/4 cast (bard, etc) = 2 points, etc.
Other abilities (Woodland stride, trap finding, feats, bane, channel) would all have their own value. Yeh, this might be confusing for the uninitiated, but it would let all abilities have relevance and allow you to have that woodland loving warrior who knows some magic.

I am sure that this has been done in multiple systems. It really depends on how you want to play. If your goal is to be able to kill Demogorgon in 1 round, go with a min-maxed archer paladin. If you want to role play, put some charisma into your fighter and have fun.

I guess the real question is whether you want to win the game, or play the game.

Good ole Crit tables - Space Master had some brutal ones also...

MERP and RM yielded some of my fondest gaming memories... seem to remember the elusive "66" on the table was always something nasty :)

Give me fluff over crunch anyday whot-whot!

I came to PF directly from AD&D with a little 2nd edition, so perhaps my view is skewed.

Me too, same. (And BECMI/RC).

You all realize that there is an easy way to work around those annoying players and their min/maxing and optimizing. Way back in the early years of AD&D, Dragon Magazing published a wonderful set of rules in magazine #96.

Wandering Damage Table

And yeh, I am pretty sure I still have this one although I need to go and find the box. Pretty sure I have all of them from about 80-250.

Lol. Silly Ghae.

Interesting thing, I'm watching Game of Thrones, don't think this is too much of a spoiler, but...

The children apparently throw bombs.

Goes to show you have to try to use a little imagination before jumping to the conclusion that something can't fit in your classic fantasy setting.

I liked S3, expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Lasers and grenades for my wizard against the vegepygmies!

They have always had "bombs" and "alchemical" stuff of sorts. Burning oil, greek fire, flaming pitch. It really is a question of how far you want to take it and how you want it to effect your game. Is it something that is found once in a while (Barrier Peaks), or is it the focus of an entire profession - alchemist, gunslinger, etc.

Mmhmm, I get that Ghae. Like tribute said, Barrier Peaks... heck even Jack Vance had futuristic things in his best known stories, right?

When classes like gunslinger and alchemist came out, I did have a thematic resistance to them in my gut, I guess just because they weren't part of the game I was playing as a kid, and a huge part of my enjoyment of gaming is nostalgia. Huge. But that's purely personal, I know I can't appeal to the authority of old-school modules and pulp stories to support that preference, because there's plenty of precedent for firearms and magitech etc.

Bottom line, when I had players come to me excited about these classes, I said sure, we'll try it. But, truth be told, there were mechanical and balance issues with them too that my home-group quickly agreed were detractors from the fun at our table.

I really think gunslingers could have been designed better. Targeting touch AC with such bursty damage really changes the whole paradigm of combat and leads to very anticlimactic situations. Yes, I know there are ways to stop them, but that's not even a fun way to approach DM'ing for me.. "How do I tweak this encounter to stop/challenge the gunslinger." It starts feeling artificial really quick.

Alchemists can get like that too. They can quickly overshadow multiple niches, sometimes more than one niche at once. Thematically their very existence in a setting can force a shift in very fundamental assumptions about the setting (some builds more than others).

As some who is playing a magus is this mega campaign, I love the class. It harks back to the original fighter mage from ad&d. Alchemist is an ok class as well, especially the chirigeon archetype. In fact I haven't found a class I havent liked really. Well I'm a bit leary on these new gestalt characters in the advanced character book, but the others l like. Even the gunslinger.

If I was going to change gunslinger, I would change touch attack on the firearm too ignores armor bonus. If I was going to change magus I would get rid of the free attack they get when pumping a spell through their weapon. But thats about that.

As to min maxing, trust me. It was done for ad&d as well. I remember. Certain weapon combos, mages always having a 16 con for max hp bonus, certain spell choices. Here is a hint. Never let a fighter with weapon spec dart get darts of the hornet. Ad&d machine gun.

I played a game called magic where two mages fight either and cast spells. One creature, the Juggernaut, could only be stopped by walls. One enchantment, invisibility, said the creature enchanted could only be blocked by walls. The two abilities together=creature unblockable.

The optimizer in me loved this combo, but the Juggernaut could be countered with a single easy spell.

The dervish dancing magus with optimized shocking grasp outshines other party members to the detriment of all. Fighters and barbarians, decent martial characters, have to now feel bad as beastmorph alchemists, synthesist summoners, gunslingers, and magi do better than they do.

I know Karl is not optimized as others I have seen. But, unfortunately if you DM for PFS, you will see a dervish dancing elvish magus with enhanced shocking grasp and you have no choice but to let him outshine the little boy playing a dwarven fighter because that is what is daddy liked. The little boy with the dwarven fighter may not play Pathfinder again because the elvish magus kills all the monsters.

Whenever I think something just won't fit in my fantasy vision there's always a piece of art that can change my mind. Example, synth summoner. Mighty morphin power ranger suit right?

Howard Lyon made it look cool.

Yup, art can be positively magical like that. I wish I had a drop of talent in that area. I'm with you; that image changed my mind on synths too.

Good ole Crit tables - Space Master had some brutal ones also...

MERP and RM yielded some of my fondest gaming memories... seem to remember the elusive "66" on the table was always something nasty :)

Give me fluff over crunch anyday whot-whot!

My memory of the one rolemaster game I played was the brutal single skeleton and the loss of my pc in his first session. That and the DM making us roll to run upstairs. Not fun.

Well, I suppose the answer is to have every class ability be like a feat so that players can buy "abilities" when they level.

5. vs. .75 vs 1 BAB is 1 or 2 or 3 points
Increase in full caster level = 3 points, 3/4 cast (bard, etc) = 2 points, etc.
Other abilities (Woodland stride, trap finding, feats, bane, channel) would all have their own value. Yeh, this might be confusing for the uninitiated, but it would let all abilities have relevance and allow you to have that woodland loving warrior who knows some magic.

I am sure that this has been done in multiple systems. It really depends on how you want to play. If your goal is to be able to kill Demogorgon in 1 round, go with a min-maxed archer paladin. If you want to role play, put some charisma into your fighter and have fun.

I guess the real question is whether you want to win the game, or play the game.

That sounds like the 2nd Ed Option books. Where we quickly realised that clerics had the most points (80?) and so nominally we all played one, then took rogue or fighter skills.

Let me rephrase, Q. Magus is such an interesting class with great possibility for a lot of variety of builds. Yet I mostly see Dervish Dancing Magi with SG combo. And very few of them seem to be more than fighters with a magic trick. I'm all for using that class, but make it your own. I guess I just don't like it when people look at optimization guides and make cookie-cutter characters. There's really nothing wrong with it, I guess. As long as the gaming group is having fun, who cares?

But that build just isn't for me.

My Ravenloft magus follows this pattern and I see no reason why strength based characters should be the only ones to get a full damage benefit. For me, the character is highly technical and loads of thought must go into decisions about spell and arcana use so that you are effective all day. But our DM is very experienced and so fights are rarely isolated, lets-go-nova, affairs.

My only other experience of one was running PFS: the Dalsine Affair and that was a monstrous encounter for parties. I think that coloured most peoples' views on the class at the Con.

Cheers

Ghaelja Waldhaar wrote:

Well, I suppose the answer is to have every class ability be like a feat so that players can buy "abilities" when they level.

5. vs. .75 vs 1 BAB is 1 or 2 or 3 points
Increase in full caster level = 3 points, 3/4 cast (bard, etc) = 2 points, etc.
Other abilities (Woodland stride, trap finding, feats, bane, channel) would all have their own value. Yeh, this might be confusing for the uninitiated, but it would let all abilities have relevance and allow you to have that woodland loving warrior who knows some magic.

I am sure that this has been done in multiple systems. It really depends on how you want to play. If your goal is to be able to kill Demogorgon in 1 round, go with a min-maxed archer paladin. If you want to role play, put some charisma into your fighter and have fun.

I guess the real question is whether you want to win the game, or play the game.

That sounds like the 2nd Ed Option books. Where we quickly realised that clerics had the most points (80?) and so nominally we all played one, then took rogue or fighter skills.

Pretty sure I have a bunch of those books downstairs. Don't recall ever using them though as that was about the time I took my 20 year hiatus from rpg. You also have to remember that in AD&D classes were differentiated on experience. A rogue was level 2 with like 1250 exp whereas a Paladin or Wizard required 2000 or 2500. I would think that with all the modern balancing one could easily say - Level 1 you get 10 points, level 2 you get 15 points, etc. And then have the skills/abilities based on a standard number of points. Yeh, admittedly nobody would ever take the fighter's Bravery ability, but it would give versatility.

Really, if it is about balancing, then balancing from the base up is better than trying to balance in groups. Is the Warpriest or Synth-Summoner or Blight Druid overpowered? Net the abilities and see.

So what are some of your favorite examples of fantasy art everyone?

I became a serious fan of the Planescape setting art - I just like it

Such as this

And then, stuff like this drew me into the game in the first place.

First reply and Tony DiTerlizzi gets dropped...

Correct answer ;)

Edit: Gat dam son. Just clicked the second link. That one is top ten material. I searched for that recently and couldn't find it because I misremembered and thought it was Keith Parkinson.

I gamed with this guy name Ed. He showed us some pictures for a setting he was developing. We were all impressed big time!! My friend was smart and bought five original prints for a song.

Ed's pictures

Now I see three of those prints in the list above. Wonder how much my friends prints decorating his game room are worth--they are signed with a nice personal note to each one of our characters. Any stories about how nice he is do not do him justice.

For me, even though Earl Otis's art was everywhere when I started D&D, what I remember the most was Larry Elmore's stuff in the Red Box

Another Pic from Elmore

Now I see three of those prints in the list above. Wonder how much my friends prints decorating his game room are worth--they are signed with a nice personal note to each one of our characters.

0_0

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you can't put a price tag on that...

I gamed with this guy name Ed. He showed us some pictures for a setting he was developing. We were all impressed big time!! My friend was smart and bought five original prints for a song.

Ed's pictures

Now I see three of those prints in the list above. Wonder how much my friends prints decorating his game room are worth--they are signed with a nice personal note to each one of our characters. Any stories about how nice he is do not do him justice.

I never knew I was an arist?

For me, even though Earl Otis's art was everywhere when I started D&D, what I remember the most was Larry Elmore's stuff in the Red Box

Another Pic from Elmore

Dang! The Red Box! Still have mine ;)

Yeah, the art from Elmore and Dee is a big part of what hooked me early on. I loved comics, and Jeff Dee's stuff seemed to bridge the two. But Elmore's art just brought the genre to life for me.

For me, even though Earl Otis's art was everywhere when I started D&D, what I remember the most was Larry Elmore's stuff in the Red Box

Another Pic from Elmore

Second one's not working for me blood.

The Erol Otus/Jeff Dee era was before my time, so it's the Larry Elmore/Jeff Easley stuff that has that nostalgia factor for me. It was funny when I started reading the OSR blogs to find out how much they hate the 2e kind of art and how much they respect the Erol Otus and Jeff Dee stuff.

It's interesting how strongly we end up associate different art-styles with the respective play-styles and attitudes about gaming from their times.

For me, even though Earl Otis's art was everywhere when I started D&D, what I remember the most was Larry Elmore's stuff in the Red Box

Another Pic from Elmore

Otus and Elmore are probably my two favorite D&D Artists. Otus because his stuff was just so funky and cool. The first D&D art I ever saw was the box cover for Moldvay Basic and I was totally captivated. I loved Elmore because he drew super hot babes! His non-babe stuff was pretty good too. ;)

I'd be remiss if we didn't have Frank Frazetta mentioned here too

Moldvay basic and expert were my first two rulesets, but I also got the Mentzer ones as well (We were pretty rough on our stuff at that age)