|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
 Recent Posts 
I thought it would be constructive to have a thread that focuses on what makes an item excel. Ideas and input on strong titles, good grammar, strong content, etc. What makes a superstar? The sum of all of the positive qualities listed above (including several that were not named) personified by the entrant and condensed into awesome submissions.
What if the new archetype required new talents/powers/whatever to work? Wouldn't that be a prestige class then? Like an "X needs 5 ranks of Y to qualify for Z power" and such. Maybe I misread so please feel free to correct me. IMO, archetype creation is much more about equivalent exchange of abilities than qualification for abilities. Archetypes are choices made at Level 1 of a class so they should work without needing to qualify for them. Now, I will qualify one thing - this post is my opinion and I am not a judge. Hopefully, I will be your competition, so take my opinion only for what it is... my opinion.
The Rogue? ;) That seems to be quite a few people though so I can sit out as needed.
Seriously, gamers just seem to know... even if I've never gamed with them before, anything in my game that's made of green stone is to be feared. Horribly, horribly feared. :) I learned the "green stone" axiom when somebody poked a sickstone elemental in the Shackeled City campaign I was in. Damn... it's been THAT long since I've been a player? Wow...
I can do either a fighter or rogue... rogue and bard would leave us light so either you or I can get our tank on. I am down for either Gandal. I was thinking a Rogue Poisner would be sexy with an Alchemist in our midst. :)
Go ahead and play a fighter. I can easily swap out. I'll do a Rogue. IMO, we'll need a bit of skill injected into the group and I have not played a rogue in quite a while... should be fun. That way, we have a party of 2 fighters, 1 arcane, 1 divine, and 1 Rogue... Let's get character avatars in the thread shall we?
I was actually thinking Phallanx fighter from the APG. Lucern hammer wielding, dwarven waraxe backup, (eventually) tower shield toting, heavy armor ground pounder. I like the teamwork feats. My concern there would be a lack of subtlety if we dedicate two members of the group to that style. Of course, a rogue/bard could offset the skill issue. A sorc/wiz could offset the arcane issue. Then there's the issue of what to do from an divine standpoint. Honestly, I can do whatever. My top three are as follows: Fighter (Phallanx Fighter)
Honestly, I am up for whatever so if you want to play a fighter Smerg and you Gandal, that's cool. I can go a different direction.
I would suggest Planescape or Golarion as default setting, and then hopping to other settings to visit and slay some monsters. Perhaps we can create a set of different characters based on the adventure or level of play. I suggest shorter games, something along the lines of PFS scenarios. 100% agree here. A simple "kill X" or "obtain Y" engagement would be a good way to get things rolling. If it evolves into something that the players want to be more persistent, we can ask for it. If something is really beloved, it can spin off into it's own PBP if need be but, for the purposes of this assemblage, I think K.I.S.S. is in order.
Sorry, yeah, I posted under P'Aye (a PBP alias) but I am happy to run the second installment after Nightflier. Nightflier looks to be ready for the first one so I will let him run with it. Regarding setting, honestly, we can do whatever setting we want. The main thing that would help is some kind of agreed upon "mcguffin" so that we can have a reason to switch settings, players, roles, and style yet keep a certian kind of continuity. We could do Golarion and, for those who want a change of pace, an alternate version of Golarion. Want to "steampunk" up a setting? Go for it... imagine a Golarion where the Numerian automations in the Silver Mountian start to propigate themselves and their technology spreads or where the secret to firearms (damn, can't remember the nation that has that) grows so that fusilliers and blunderbusses are common. That could easily lead to a more "steampunk" type of setting. Or a Gm could go all "Keep on the Borderlands" for a more "modern" style as well. It would be similar geography but with twists. Want to introduce a deity? Have one ascend in an alternate reality that the party goes to. Want a low magic (a la Iron Player)? Kill off a few gods in the alternate reality so divine magic is rarer or bump off Nethys to alter the mechanics of magic. The trick is, the more you change the setting, the more work it is for you as the GM. The onus is on the GM to explain the setting so the players can interact with the environment and not bog the game down with overlong back and forth as they try to grasp the world or altered mechanics. Really, how much work you want to do is really up to whomever runs it. That said, since we are going with Nightflier I will let him set the first one and we can go from there. As we have a lot of interest Nightflier, who do you want to participate in the first one as players and who will be your NPC's? I would also request that the selection be qualified to peoeple willing to post. Nothing against casual posters but nothing bogs down a PBP game more than people who are essentiallly ghosts and only post every once in a while.
If it is set in Sigil, then perhaps we should raise the starting character level? That would allow some monstrous characters to reflect the cosmopolitan nature of the setting. Or perhaps an adapted version of the Savage Species rules from 3.5 could be used. There is a racial class that I have wanted to try for a long time. ;) Though the Savage Species rules are b-b-b-b-broken (as a GM who has adjucated over ghaele and Rakshasa characters [In the same campaign no less], trust me). The GM running it could have us be varying levels based on the situation we "leap" into so, if one run we are low, the next we could be 20th. Would provide some variety IMO. I would say that if we do PFRPG (which I am a big fan of) then we go with core. That's not to say that you can't play a Kenu or Bugbear character... those are accounted for in the bestiary.
"...so I will no longer participate in this experiment." I can't do OMGNATURAL armor so I am takingmy toys and going home. Sheesh. Why not try it with that revision and see how it works versus storming off? If it produces a more balanced fight, perhaps the interpretation is correct. Anyhow, for the record, I would agree with the assesment that the evoloution bonus max is correctly interpreted here: "My reading would be that using the greater aspect ability (assuming he sacrifices from the eidelons evolutions to do so as written) he should be able to use 4 evolutions at 20th level to get the +8 and put them where he wants, but only 4 total evolutions can be dedicated to natural armor." You are diverting from the eidelon's evoloution pool which clearly has the limitations based on the Summoner's level as noted in the same thread. The summoner does not have his own evoloution pool. This iswhy he needs to siphon off the eidelon's using Greater Aspect. It even notes that the Eidelon's evoloution points are diverted in the language of the ability so I think that resolves the concern without the need for FAQ or errata. Let it be known that I love the summoner class and am interested in farily applying the features of this new class in my next tabletop game. That's why I endure the "X class versus Y class" threads... to learn and judge for myself. IMO, there are lots of classes that don't stack up 1 v 1... this is why most games are played in a party of characters. Saying a class is broken because it can't solo another class one on one is, in and of itself, breaking the game IMO.
Perhaps we can have Sygil as our base and then planehop to other locations? I am a fan of The City of Doors for sure. That would also b an easy setup and though it would make us a little more bound to our selected roles and characters. For what it's worth, I have never played a rogue in my tabletop games so being able to stretch myself by another role that I don't normally do and having the freedom (should I be really bad at it) to do something different the next session would certianly be of interest to me.
I too am interested. An interesting contrivance would be that we are a collection of anima... spirits that have yet to be made flesh. That way, you can kind of "Quantum Leap" it and have us wake up in these new bodies and go. Differing mental quality could do with the host body's ability to sustain a certian metnal accuity. That way, a person who "manifests" as a wizard one session could easily be a fighter in the next. Everyone would have the ability to play something different if they wanted to. If you wanted a twist, you could provide the bodies that we "leap" into so that we test our player skills in roles that are not nessasarily in our respective wheel houses. :) This would also allow for a variety of settings as we "leap" from place to place. It could also provide for a variety of objectives that we need to accompilsh either individually or together to "leap" on to the next encounter and encourage some RP. Kind of a "Quantum Leap" meets Michael Moorecock's "Eternal Champion" if you will... Thoughts?
I would think that one match at a time would be appropriate. Two gets a bit too busy and I don't think we have enough participants yet to warrant two threads. I might also suggest that we take out repeating. That is everyone gets to go. As my character is first up, I won't fight again until the rest of the 10 particpants go... that's problematic in that the last two will know who they are facing but I am a fan of letting everyone have their turn. That also has the side effect of not having one character get too "uber" while everyone else twiddles their thumbs. I might also suggest a "if you don't post in 24 hours, you lose your turn" philosophy. That way, if players don't move along, the fight moves along without them. We can gage the 24 hour time span from the time of the opponent's post. That way, timezones are less relevant and everyone has the same 24 hours to get it done. Thoughts?
Ehh... max at every level extends the combat and makes one shot kills less likely (maybe on a lucky crit). I think that a series of combats that have a chance to go past the first round would be a good thing. Also, even at 20th level, a wizard's HP will last about as long as you can say "Charging, Greater Vital Strike" or "Full Attack" if the fighter has means of countering things like invisibility, displacement, and the other standard defensive spells (and I don't include AC buffs in this category because you WILL get hit even as a 20th level caster if you solely rely on AC for defense)... Keep in mind that the barbarian's "crapload more HP" comes into play with things like "Power Word Kill" for example. Also spellcasters are definately not sub optimal at dealing damage. You could... ...get peppered to death by auto hitting magic missiles from a flying, Greater Invisibility using wizard. ...get touch attack scorching ray'd to death by a displaced, mirror imaged wizard. ... and so on. Granted, those wizards have to use precious rounds to get to that point and, in those same rounds, a melee could turn said wizard into a pincushion but that't the point... checks and balances.
I would have interest and am not thinking I would roll up a mage but have to make this argument... Do we limit melee by saying "No two handed weapons" because they can be devastating? Basically, it seems as proposed, that this would be a melee slugfest with the occasional sorc/blasty type thrown in... that's fine if that's what you're going for but it's not all classes (with every class feature they can bring to bear) pitted against each other as initially posted. Beyond that, consider the summoner. If no precasting is available, it will take him a minute to produce an eidolon that is an integral class feature which means dead summoner as he tries to pop the eidolon. Summoners then turn into "Summon Monster" spammers and other classes can do that and attack with impunity (I am looking at you sorcerer in particular). I get where the pitfalls are. The answer seems much simpler than restricting classes... force the action. There are a variety of ways to do this but the easiest is to stipulate the following: 1. It's a fight to the death. Simply charming/dominating somebody does not end the match.
That way, a wizard could mind control something but they have to do something with it (i.e. Charm Fighter... "Hey friend, that's a fantastic axe... can I borrow it for a moment? I'll give it riiight back." [runs off] or "Hey friend, let me cast a few spells in preparation for blindsiding you in a few rounds... thanks."). Not to mention, that charms are an inherently nerfed selection anyhow because you are casting them on a person you are engaged in combat with (presuming you start with "Fight" and an initiative roll to instigate combat, the target of the charm nets a fat +5 to the will save to resist as you know your opponent is trying to kill you from the word “Fight.”). This also makes it easier on you because you don't have to police a character... it's anything goes. Another consideration is to blind draw opponents within their CR (say, 1 level difference max so you can have those underdog matches, etc.)... a caster that focuses strictly on enchantments while neglecting other areas could draw another high will save caster or a monk for that matter who can more easily resist charm type spells. Then what's the enchantment monkey going to do then? Sure, a fighter that dumps his will save may be screwed if he draws the dominate bot but my counter to that is to make that fighter knowing that you could draw a dominate mage (maybe that fighter would be less inclined to take power attack right away and take iron will instead). This way, players are forced to consider their selections carefully... what attributes they take (do I sacrifice points I could put in WIS to get that 20 STR?), what weapons they select (do I go bow or do I get that two handed weapon?), what feats are selected (power attack vs. iron will), etc. Now I already hear the argument that wizards are particularly "save or die" at higher levels (as are clerics for that matter) but, honestly, is a fighter less deadly with his nearly academic base attack bonus at those same levels? This is especially pronounced if the caster who is the target of the fighter's ire is unbuffed. How easy would it be for a melee to hold an action with a bow in hand to pepper the unbuffed caster with arrows(damage and potential loss of action to boot)? The caster could go first and "unleash the beast" in hopes that they can take the other guy out... but what if it fails? Would they have been better served by casting mirror image instead? I whole heartedly agree with the no precasting of spells... well, maybe having precast spells be "equipment" that can be purchased (Spell Level X Caster Level X 100 GP perhaps). Thoughts I hope you'll consider as I like the intent of this PbP. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
