|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Modern Ostog: Brilliant.
Mark moreland: hah. I think it would be hilarious if Ostog became huge but everyone started ignoring Erik. "Him? No way, Ostog is archetypal, he belongs to all of us. I think Mr. Mona stole him from Jung. or that guy in the technoviking video."
Anyone know how to make Demotivationals? Or putting pictures together? I have an idea I'll try, but it'll take a couple days, and a template would speed it up.
So I was talking to Erik Mona on his facebook page, along with a few other people, and I *may* have hinted that Ostog is the best part of that page, (though it is nice to know Erik does fun things like have a job and read comics, and I guess he's technically "unslain" by default). For those of you new to this, Ostog is a character in his late teens that Erik Mona (some shlub who keeps harassing the Paizo staff claiming he's, I dunno, some kind of big deal editor or something) has been playing, without armor, through various Gary Gygax modules helmed by none other than James Jacobs. Something like 30 sessions and hasn't dropped below 0hp while wearing no armor... and he's a barbarian! (Erik has a build up somewhere; something to keep himself busy, i suppose, between sessions of playing Ostog)
AAAaaanyways, Erik's response of "oy, whose fanpage is this?" got me thinking. It's stuck with me, but I've looked high and low and wow: Ostog doesn't have a fanpage... or he didn't... UNTIL NOW!!!!
Yes, friends, you can now "like" Ostog the Unslain on facebook! Right Here! in fact.
To celebrate this milestone of character fandom, I propose we come up with some captions, comments, memes and whatnot.
Here's the rules:
1) Ostog hates armor; it literally explodes off his body when he puts it on
If you know how to make demotivational posters or memes, i'll put them up on the Ostog Fan Page wall. (I don't, btw, and would love pointers on good sites for that sort of thing)
Even if you can't think of anything, like the page! Let's make this a thing!
Also, I don't want to forget: there will be evil cookies for bad guys.
*and* evil milk to wash it down with.
...the milk is made from evil cows. The cookies are made with MSG.
This would be more than just playing NPCs, btw. You'd be shaping the campaign. I'm trying something new in terms of a sandbox game: I've got major events and locations, but as it's 20th level you'll be doing a lot to determine what happens next. You could decide to destroy the world, or try to join up with the "good guys" to take out the Pathfinder aproximation of the Cthulhu mythos (as envisaged by the group).
I'm running a game on ENworld, and I'm gauging interest in people to play the Evil nemesis of various PCs in the game.
We're in Golarion, but the Cthulhu Mythos decided to eat it, and the only people powerful enough to save the day are the PCs. In theory.
I'd like to get an evil group going because the Necromancer joined the dark side, and he's going to go off on his own in a minute (after this combat: he either teleports away, or his clone wakes up with the bad guys). He's a nice guy, but it'd lonely being the bad guy. Thus you folks.
You'd be the various surviving bad guys from the 20 levels the heroes played through up until now. I'm open to suggestions.
Discussion, btw, should be over on ENworld, so here's the link to the thread there. I'll check here, but I'm easily distracted.
I like these, though I hope the checked borders aren't there. I'd rather have something more... chasey. Keep in mind they'll be laid out for the group to see, and having something gaudy or what have you... meh. If it's in a row, and minis are being placed on each on every step of the way, they should look good for that. Granted, they'll have to fit a number of genres at once (ie: drow chases, city chases, forest chases, dungeon chases, etc.), so I don't know how they'd design that.
I'm guessing the checked borders are pre-print, I hope. I like how Pathfinder has stayed generally theatrical rather than showy in their design choices. It helps groups get into character, I think.
I like the Chase rules a lot, though. The idea of designing a game around encounters is a good bit of GMery; and I think this is like a sort of mini-boardgame that looks neat. It's already got me thinking...
Regardless of whether or not I win, I feel good for having entered. I did the pricing well enough, for a first try, and kept it simple. The full version I wanted to use would have been like that item I read about in a necromancers of the northwest article (I think) the druid armor that was something like a million gp. (not what I submitted, btw)
300 words isn't enough, it felt like. I would really like to sit down with one/some of the designers and talk about item design tricks that are legal, so I don't overprice or under-price an item. There have been DM-judgements, but for RPGSS I wanted to go by the book 100% (grumble grumble).
also: choosing whatever type of damage the weapon does is huge, basically meaning that a low-level Soulknife can ignore things like skeletons' DR, and other monsters like it. A full action to switch is fine, but consider that they can sneak into any setting and be fully armed. This means they can never be disarmed.
The DR/Magic thing at first level is a big deal. It should come in a few levels later.
The Striker form is a two-handed weapon that does 2d6 damage; that's pretty good, especially considering the expanded crit threat range of 19-20/x2. Compare that with a Bastard sword or Great sword, and that's pretty good.
All of this stuff isn't so bad at higher levels, but all at once is a bit much. I suggest going the full Pathfinder route and giving the Soulknife a menu to different types of weapons, differing DR bypassing options, damage types, magic item powers, etc. Just like how the Paladin or Barbarian gets a menu of options for their powers, the Soulknife could augment theirs in the same way.
Also: Int+6 is a lot of skill points for a full BAB, Medium armor, always armed fighter.
Soulknife saves should be Red and Will, not Fort. They're a fast class, not tanks, and a Red save would work for them.
You've got acrobatics and stealth for a class wearing Medium Armour. I think they could get away with having Ranger-level armour. d10 HD is good for HP, and if they're sneaking around the field they don't want armour. Keep in mind also that you've got the Psychic Warrior to tank with. Imagine if you had a really buffed stealth Soulknife with lots of armour, with levels in Rogue and Assassin: that would be insanely powerful.
Actually, reading another thread, it looks like there's errata somewhere.
The race obviously needs brushing up to work well in play. The problem is that if one splits up their actions between both of them, they can't both move. However, if they both get full sets of actions, right from 1st level, they're at a huge advantage over other player characters.
Dividing the active portion of their actions (Standard or full) seems balanced.
Another option I'm thinking of is the Droids rule in Star Wars Saga Edition: spending swift actions to get your droid to do any of a list of actions (attack with a weapon, use a skill like repair or computer use, etc.). The twins could be either one, round by round; either one can use up their actions to get a bonus from the other one. Hive Mind could eliminate surprise or flat-footedness, that sort of thing; also double saves from Will Effects (or else double failures, I dunno).
It's got promise, but I don't think it was ready when published; which is the only Paizo example I can think of, which is impressive.
I wonder if they could use it for Pathfinder? Likely not (it was for Dragon, and thus is owned by wotc), but it would be nice.
A really nifty concept, the Dvati race on page 14 (Dragon issue #271) has the race be a set of twins: one character with two bodies.
Now, this is a great idea, but I'm curious how it works in play. I hope someone here can answer with some helpful suggestions, as this is the place for Paizo stuff.
1) How does one divide up their actions? While Spellcasting can only be done by one twin, the entry does not mention melee or ranged weapon combat. Do both twins need to attack the same target? If one attacks (standard action) does that leave the other with only a move action? Or do both of them get an attack and a move action?
The idea that both get to attack in the same round isn't bad if other characters have pets or cohorts, but if not do they get two attacks or just one with a bonus?
2) how much space do they take up? Can they occupy the same square as their twin?
They move and act as a team, with a special attack action for the player, just one action, but the added bonus of doing double damage if both attacks hit. However, if only one hits, they only do half damage. In fact, whenever they do something separate (ie: two different things in one round) they get a penalty or simply are only half as effective: damage is half as much, etc. Sort of like rolling a critical hit, where you find out if your success was full (with a damage bonus) or not (ie: half damage, before subtractions).
They can take up different squares, but they can also take up the same square in combat without penalty.
This is just off my head, not play-tested, but it sounds like a mechanically fun option that could work.
Has anyone here played a Dvati, or seen one played?
woo hoo! Amazing article! Perfect for E6.
Okay, I've started preparations. I'm trying to think of areas the PCs could explore for a long period of time, but still remain fresh. I'll have a central area, and several "provinces" surrounding it, each with a different terrain type (ie: Jungles, Deserts, Frozen North, etc.) facilitating different adventures. Each province should have at least one major city, but lots of smaller settlements, and some ruins of various sorts liberally scattered about.
Then a list of major Threats + Treasure locations
Then some minor ones, like Goblin tribes.
would the Specific Weapons, like Flame Tongue and Frost Bite, be too powerful? I'd like villains to have fabled swords, if I could. Maybe the Drow crafted Lifedrinker, or what have you.
What's the highest Item Bonus for E6? Depending, obviously, on the bad guys used (ie: are they up to 20 feats yet? CR6-10 or 8-12?), but would a +4 sword break the game?
I guess any/every magic item could be a specific one, really: a helm of Invisibility is pretty powerful for Perseus, in the context of Clash of the Titans (1981, a-thank you), despite it being effectively a ring of invisibility. Maybe just pick items for the players and decide who has what items, and see where the adventures take them?
Magical items can be handled as Masterwork, then. Conan would have a Cold Iron Masterwork sword, and occasionally a dagger, and that'd do him.
I collection of low-level NPC human stats would be handy for this. I've been planning on using the Non-Heroic class rather than fiddle about Aristocrats vs Experts vs Commoners. Frankly, I'm working off the assumption that more than one level in any class is pretty huge, with Einstein being a 4th level expert (can't find that article, but it's one of my favourites), and therefore one of the most gifted people int he world; ergo the PCs, at 6th level, are reasonably epic, along the lines of Conan and Aragorn.
Still, stats for a Blacksmith, Guardsmen, Pirates and suchnot, low level NPCs as they may be, would be good to re-use. Anyone know off hand of online collections? Or do I get to make up my own?
first: thanks for the answers and taking the time to get back to me
1) No, it's a right now problem! I'm designing the adventure sites as we speak. That means leaving tidbits of treasure in various locations to be found by the Player Characters. Bam! So what, do I give them a pile of... wands?
2) I guess. Then again, it's the first three levels of a PrC only, at that point. And, what powers to include?
3) Fair enough. Big bad creatures are 10th level/CR10? That gives me some room.
It's just that templates will have to be used more advisedly in this campaign, I suppose.
Well, Lloth is my Avatar here, so expect the unexpected!
I've got some images. I don't know if my group is consistent enough to have long-term adventures; ergo, whether or not E6 is even possible (ie: we'll just go to 6th level, if we're lucky, then switch systems or flake out).
I think I'll do some Duchy/barony descriptions; like, take a map and put some dungeons in it. I've got "Bard's Gate" and "City State of the Invincible Overlord" as guides, and they're generally E6.
The issues I have are the following:
1) Treasure is weird, as I'm not sure where to go with it. How much will be enough at level 6? If 15000 is the maximum portable (ergo usable) amount, ergo the item-creation maximum purchased; and no one is usually over 6th level anyway; then they may fill up on treasure really fast.
2) Prestige Classes: I have a player who likes her swordmages. I can't use them, or arcane archers, now. Unless I allow Feats to port in certain class abilities, with level pre-reqs.
3) Monster Templates: there's no point in a Celestial Sphinx, other than as an academic exercise. Ditto anything else with the Advanced Bestiary book. Unless I want the four horsemen of the apocalypse to be anthropomorphic dire rats and goblins... which could be fun, but not really.
I'd like to know how hard a fight CR8 monsters like an Efreet can be fore E6 PCs. Is CR6 the target number for *every* fight?
what about a LOTR setting? Or a quest that is generally similar?
Or maybe just create a local setting and have the characters Sandbox it? The best part of this is that I don'thave to change setting elements based on PC level: I can literally design every dungeon and place them on maps, and whenever the PCs get to them, they can just do them *as is*.
That could be great...
I'm considering running one for my current campaign setting.
The Bestiary seems very much suited to an E6 campaign, with most monsters placed reasonably considering their power level and place in a campaign world: the big bad critters are few, and should be that level; while others, like a Lamia or Chimera, are reasonable for a group of epic 6th level characters to fight.
I wonder about what treasure to give. I've read This article on Economics in D&D Land and think it's a great inspiration for how the world should work and feel.
E6 also attempts it, as in theory 6th level is fantastically powerful compared to normal humans.
The idea of the Turnip, Gold, and Wish markets makes sense in the context of E6. I just don't know what is a good treasure for each adventure. Also, how to make something *epic* with enough magic and mystery to keep players coming back; or at least to sate their greed while whetting their apetites.
Maybe get them to build fortresses?
system info would be good. Is it Pathfinder, or 4e, or what?
I think knowing what the players can do is good for any trap. Are we talking about general low-level traps, or something more substantial (like "your character should summon their dragon and cross dimensions to solve this one").
Tomb of Horrors style traps? Or is this just going to be like "Grimtooth's Unusable Traps", where I get the book and find tha tthere's nothing in it that won't auto-maim the characters?
I like the idea of non-system setting books. I play Mutants and Masterminds' system with my D&D modules, actually, as I like the non-class way of making characters. That means having adventures of any system I know, and I convert those villains and monsters to M&M. I've already done that with the first of the Rise of the Runelords adventures' Nualia (cleric buffs are Boost, add some mind control effects and good strike powers, summon minion: yeth hounds, and you got her).
so any other non-system books coming out? Or 3.x/4e at the same time? A non-system book but with two appendices for the crunch (like the stat blocks in back of Temple of Elemental Evil) would be fun.
I'm certain that I put in for the pre-order for the 4th edition boxed set... like, back in January or somesuch. Now I'm seeing it's in my shopping cart. Does that mean I don't get the set sent to me?
I specifically remember going through the ordering process all the way to the end.
did I miss something? I don't want to go over it again and risk a double-order, until I know.
Okay, brainstorm last night, don't know if it's been touched: I like the school powers idea, but what if we made them more generic?
Take the Warlock's eldritch blast: it doesn't do much damage, but they can do it every round. Well, what if we had a comparable special ability for the wizard/evoker? In addition to their spells they can send forth a blast of some sort that gets more powerful as they rise in level. Even after their spells are spent for the day, they can fall back on this less-powerful ability.
each school has an ability. You can use it only as long as you've got spells in your repertoire, and it's only as powerful as the highest-level spell you've got available.
The powers as I see them:
Evoker: arcane blast, a ranged touch attack against one target. every few levels it counts as a new type of damage (good, fire, cold, lawful, adamantine, silver, etc.), for the purposes of DR; only as many things as you've got levels of spells level (so 3rd level spell would be 3 damage types it counts as), and a set order they come in (fire, cold, silver, adamantine...) so you can't just pick and choose each round. Damage is 1d6 per spell level you've got access to right now (so if you've got a 3rd level spell left, you can do 3d6 damage to one target each round).
Necromancer: animate/create undead at will. They can't have more HD than their limit, but as they get more powerful they can create more interesting undead. Max HD made is double the level of the highest spell you've got handy (so if you've got a 3rd level spell, you can animate up to 6HD of undead this way in a round).
Abjuration: a protective field at will (ie: they maintain the field as a standard aciton each round) either blocks a new type of attack every few levels (fire, cold, missiles, force effects, acid), or negates one die of damage per spell level available (so if you've got a 3rd level spell, you negate 3 dice of damage that round from either any attack or all attacks against you). The field could grow at higher levels, protecting others. maybe.
Summoning: Same deal as the necromancer, but you'd summon HD of creatures each round. You'd have to use a standard action to do this, and if you didn't the critters would go away. 2HD per level of spell remaining (3rd level =6HD).
Divination: Mage sight, but one new thing you can look for per spell level available: evil, good, law, chaos, magic, poison, undead, etc.
Illusion: Create an illusion mimicking one sense per spell level remaining. Sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, but also what it detects as magically (heavy magic, good, evil, undead, etc.). They'd counter divinations.
Transmutation: I don't know yet. Possibly wildshape into specific forms (wolf, bird, dragon) per spell level left, or else polymorph stuff around you.
Translocation (another option): you can move faster, or gain a new movement type (spider climb, fly at low speeds, minor teleportation, etc.)
Healing (theoretical option): Caster can heal damage 1d6 per spell level remaining, and/or condition modifiers (fatigue, dazed, etc.) and/or ability drain. Gives the option of the kindly caster of the arcane.
What this does: simplifies the abilities of spellcasters for on-the-fly playing. It also allows a signiture spell for the character, while they can still study the more varied spells that are out there normally. they'd likely use more interesting spells rather than eat up all their slots on evocations. This could also count as something they can do *aside from* specialization: everyone picks a special ability, or designs one based on the above. Then, as school specialization in the PHB (pathfinder handbook) is handled normally with banned schools, it would be on top of the special ability; so if forbidden schools include evocation and necromancy, you could say the PCs can't pick those special abilities.
I dunno about that.
Thing is, Perception (spot and search, etc.) and Stealth (hide and move silently) are combat skills. Or, at least "right now" skills that have an effect in-game. they have a DC that is right there in-game.
Craft doesn't. There are feats for making magic items, but why do we need one for making armor? Or baskets? Or alchemical stuff? Why not just make them level-dependent like the item creation feats? It's not stuff you use in an encounter, and the GM is likely to just say "okay, you make three suits of armor; or not, because I'm a jerk"
There's no chance of failure: anything important, the PC can just take 10 once they're trained, because they're not in combat when they make stuff. Why aren't they in combat? Because the game isn't happening, they're in-town.
So why waste ranks in Craft when they could be in Perception (or even cross-class in Stealth, for the fighter)?
Granted, a "I'm good with fixing stuff" skill *does* have an in-game effect. Like checking out whether a place can be fixed. Or disabling devices, or picking locks.
really, picking locks isn't a "thieving" thing, to be packed into picking pockets. I know a locksmith, and he's not a pick pocket. An artificer isn't a pickpocket either, and I wouldn't expect it of Gepetto (Pinocchio's dad). It should be a feature of the skill.
know what I mean?
Craft is problematical, just like multiple knowledge skills. If I want to make swords or armor, or repair the cart, or the castle before a seige, I have to have loads of skill points all over the place. No one takes craft for that reason in my games, preferring to just buy an NPC.
Linguistics is a skill: every rank means a new language.
Why not have Craft be like Linguistics: every rank is a new type of object you can make. Armor, weapons, seige engines, alchemical compounds, seamstress/tailor, ship building. All these things use scientific principles in the real world, so if I'm good at building other stuff I'll have less basic stuff to learn when I turn my hand to it.
Some people are just good with their hands, like others are polyglots. Dwarves and Gnomes can just fix stuff, elves make all sorts of goodies. A wizard could make a golem, a staff, a ring, a flying carpet, but doesn't have to be a master at all these things to do it. I can make cookies, with skills related to that; why shouldn't making soap or mixing paint be aided (aside from synergy bonuses) by my skills there? mixing is mixing.
OPTION 4, OPTION 4!!!!!
Or the PathfinderRPG version, which is also simple.
I like this option! it means less work, and more focus on what the skill does to make it interesting. Although, I'd say don't limit it to class skills/cross class skills. Let my paladin take Stealth if I want it, and be a master if I spend the points. That covers customization needs, while cutting down on number crunching.
It's also simple. I could potentially memorize every skill my players have, which means faster gameplay.
This would work with 3.5 modules and info I've got, as the PCs typically max out their skills anyway.
My little sister is realy obsessive about skill points. She agonizes over them for hours, and spends one or two points to get half a rank of a cross-class skill she'll never use. Kids I've DM'd for in camps also do the same thing. Lots of ranks and numbers means checking math and hassle. Just keep it simple, please!!!
really I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said, but I think the pathfinder version and Option 4 cover my needs: varying levels of proficiency in skills. If we can have a sidebar for 3.5 skill rules, that's great for players and using modules. However, a faster system for NPCs is a must. (as has been said)
So here's my pitch:
Expand what skills cover to general areas. The reason I say this is related to Supers games I've been doing. Rather than having separate skills for knowledge: physics and knowledge: chemistry for science types (like Iron Man); and Knowledge: arcana and spellcraft (say), or Dungeoneering, the planes, religion, etc., I decided to have the heroes base their skills of Power Sources.
A knowledge skill is used primarily for exposition: the DM tells the PCs what their characters need to know for that encounter and/or adventure. So having obscure areas of knowledge that have no real game effect and take up points, is not fun: skill ranks are used up, and no reliable exposition happens.
Ergo: let general areas of knowledge be based around power sources or important areas. So Knowledge: Metaphysics covers Arcana, the planes, undead, aberrations, etc. There would be different DCs for what the PCs are familiar with ("as a wizard, this knowledge is slightly more obscure for you than for our Cleric"), and there could be specialization feats for arcane info, creature types, religion, etc. Otherwise, everyone could have a "knowledge" skill, or a broader type.
Knowledge: metaphysics (the planes, arcana, religion, dungeoneering, what a staff of the magic does, the effects of power word: blind)
Lamia Matriarch: they're so cool, and fun villains. I can't keep track of lamias from other editions/sources (lion-centaurs? since when?), but these ones are pretty cool. They're what I would do with Meriliths if they weren't so danged high level!
Monster re-imaginings: like the goblins, stone giants, ogres... I really like how they feel less like cartoon goons and more viceral. Also the re-do of dragons so far, like the white and blue. much appreciated.
faceless stalker Though for the picture more than anything else. I think the shapechanging can be done by a doppleganger/changeling easily enough; the cool part would be the encounter where the PCs find an inn full of strangers, one of whom is suddenly unmasked into this creature (but the whole town is made of faceless stalkers). The PCs are suddenly hounded by globby monsters who, later on, follow them.
sinspawn seem like a good idea; but basing scent on who's wrathful, and giving them relatively few hp, means the PC barbarian is going to go to town. granted, fast healing and SR for low level PCs is good; and character levels means use later on vs. higher level PCs (though how they'd gain anything but barbarian and maybe sorcerer I don't get, but okay).
copper, bronze, brass... kinda like gold; keep copper.
However, I would have made them Adamantine and Mithral, as those are more important DnD metals. Iron's kinda blah, but whatever.
I like the worlds and monsters book. I prefer the pictures of goblins and some other monsters (esp. beholders) from 3.5, but otherwise I'm fine with it.
I'm wondering about 4e Psionics, especially Kalashtar. I'm guessing they're going to be a "core" psionic race; probably alongside gith, duergar, elans and maybe half-giants. I think a Dreamworld is going to be a new plane, and the Quori are going to be a regular feature for psionics. Sort of an astral plane, maybe?
also: would monsters have core abilities they add to their monster levels? like, a gnoll entry and menu of racial feats, after which one levels them up in soldier, skirmisher, etc.? Then each entry for major monster races has a pile of sample gnolls?
Okay, I get it: there are monster classes, probably based on roles those monsters will play in combat.
Lurker, skirmisher, brute, soldier, artillery and controller.
They have levels, that'll be easy enough to level them up. If I'm a 15th level PC party, I'll fight 15th level monsters (or critters that add up to 15th level, or something). If we construct a kobold skirmisher as, like, a level 1 skirmisher with kobold abilities, I can just add a level of skirmisher.
This also means it'll be relatively easy to just add a PC level, really.
Y'know, spells and weapon strikes are the same thing: powers per round; one power may be a strike, the other changes their state (unconscious, prone, etc.). That said, it'll be easy to sub in at-level abilities based on spells.
I believe the regular attacks are for AoO's, and for use when you're doing something else that round. If I'm right, let's say you have an attack power that's beefy, and another power that allows you to regain hp as a move action (or whatever). In a round where you opt to heal, you could still attack but it'd be with the standard rather than beefy power. Then you go back to the beefy attack.In theory it'd be like iterative attacks are now, where you can move and hit once, or make three iterative attacks. Except now no iterative attacks.
so you can attempt an attack even when your primary powers are focused elsewhere. Or, if you use the main power, and AoO. Or maybe move that round.
I have the 4e preview books, which are kinda fun.
I think I get the way the rules are going to work, and I have to admit, I like the PCs; and most of the fluff is cool (with some tweaking already planned). Roles vs. classes is a design archetype vs. method, and I like that.
HOWEVER I'm not sure if the monsters are going to be as good as 3.5. Specifically whether monsters are going to get class levels, or have a way for experienced gamers to go beyond the presented rules (advancing, templates, etc.).
The discussion of dragons mentions them as pre-made in the 4e MM. No feat selection, or guidelines for stripping them down like in the 3.5MM. Is it going to be the same as old school DnD, or will I be able to get ye pathfinder module with a cabal of fire giant wizards?
any mention on how monsters are going to work mechanically?
Added to that: my issue 3 hasn't arrived either. I just got the missing Dragon issue yesterday (penultimate one), but I've had the pathfinder 3 module on my computer since you guys put up the download. Thing is, the local gaming shop already has its issue 3's. Thus the question.
any update on when it (mine) should arrive? I need to do something to my credit card before booting up the subscription for 4 (which I intend to get on to), so I doubt mine is tagged to a number 4.
if it shipped for me for sure, that should be fine; just double checking that there isn't a delay like the dragon issue. (it happens, I guess)
Havn't read the world of darkness d20 book (but reeeally looking forward to it! Good job on "attack on Myth Drannor", btw; nice little dungeons I can fit into any campaign, and do, often; more longevity than the video game by a long shot, it's still played on gaming boards online).
HOWEVER I use a mana system for my upcoming campaign, based on the unearthed arcana and Everquest d20 book's system:
0-9th level spells as usual for DnD
complex spells (MC's arcana evolved) or pain-in-the-ass spells cost more to use (so wish, anti-magic fields, entangle, etc.), either up by 5 points, or more depending on how power-breaking the spell is. Spells putting a caster in contact with an outer-planar being (like the cleric's deity or Cthulhu) could completely drain the caster's mana pool.
that's what I've got for now.
I was doing a search on the site, and stumbled across this article from 2003.
my question: what happened to the adventure? Are the pics still available for me to see? My curiosity sparked by this strange twist of fate, I ask the staff for answers please.
Yeah, what's the story on Fan fiction? I'd like to write some myself, and would like to know if I should think of using them or making up my own PCs for the story.
How much freedom would we get, and is there the chance of getting a short story... if not pub'd in Pathfinder, than at least offical content certified for the setting?
I would like a hint about what role various iconic creatures will play, though to be frank I'm wiling to wait on some of them. Dragons seem to be ancient keepers of secrets, and may have been bumped up to have more ability to grant, say, runes of empire creation (pfr#1).
so far we've got:
giants (ogres, stone giants, "rune giants", etc.)
so, if expounding on what we've got is more useful and important:
*here's what I'd like to see: explaination of Chelish characters, like ways I can have a non-nomadic varisian or tribal Shoanti good-guy, when the Chelish have a historical association in some of the literature with evil outsiders, etc.
...Wait! so how did he spell it? Goblyn? there's a famous Ravenloft module called feast of Goblyns, classic, 2nd ed. Or are we talking Gobbl-ins?
not pointing fingers at all, but intensely curious!
I like both sets of names:
dukes, beauties, etc.
I wouldn't use fingers yet... it's gross. Maybe in Chelax, if they're really as bad as they're said to be (a culture whose founders used to summon demons? yuck, but why not?)
What about Dwarves? They'd likely have something... I'd say bars shaped to fit a particular size and fit together: easier to stack that coins, and they form bricks. gold, Silver and Copper all form the same sized bricks. However, since they know about mining they weigh whole bricks to test for value. Its efficient, and you don't need magic to test for small amounts; also they fit into storage in bulk, don't jingle when shaken (so they can be hidden more easily).
I'm a big fan of both this art and the stuff in the module. The more the merrier!
Your Druid: I like the jacket, and that he's not just some buckskin-wearing elf; druids seem useless because they don't like civilization. Y'know, the whole not-just-medieval but rather stone age quagmire that rangers and druids get pulled into (glorified barbarians).
This guy seems great in that he's got all the gear Aragorn might have, could go into a city but just prefers nature. So one can like nature and still have nice stuff!
As for the eyes: I like the idea of having gambit-eyes, with color. it's cool.
Woo! replies from the author! (well, one of; still good)
I found the player's guide, which had the alignments and a more-full list of deities. oh well, still good.
I did indeed see the Desna advert.
I'm wondering, tho: are Lamashtu and the other darker ones (I saw asmodeus)... well, are we talking Vecna and Cyric/Bane, or are we talking Orcus and Demogorgon? Like, are they especially powerful "old ones" that the more personable powers cast out; or are they the same sort of beastie who just happens to be of a different alignment?
personally I'd prefer having there be a difference: think olympus and the titans, or lovecraft's mythos having Cthulu et al. contrasted with the elder sign types (who safeguard what's known as reality from these beings of chaos and madness). That dichotomy makes more sense regardless of who the "natural order guys are" than having undead and abberations as part of the life cycle. How can you have "unnatural beings" as part of the natural order of the universe? it's silly.
It makes sense for the setting from what I've seen in Burnt Offerings:
Nualia (who was great, btw; she'll recur somehow, and is a great first villainess!) was raised by a cleric of Desna (dreams having a place in the natural order) but then turns to Lamashtu (mother of monsters, outside the natural order and contrasted with the beauty birth and reproduction/the life cycle) as a whispering maddness thing. now she's seeking to leave the natural order; once the epitome of it, she's destroyed by self-hatred and becoming a monster; define monster, right? unearthly beauty seemed monstrous to the sandpoint folks, so who knows?
whatever it is, it'll be great fun. looking forward to it!!!
I want to know what folks think about the deities in the Pathfinder setting.
any predictions about how the mag will treat them?
personally, I like the idea of not having racial deities, and not having specific alignments for them. The ones in Burnt Offerings were interesting, especially that they didn't fit any of the traditional stereotypes for deity roles (ie: undead slayer, magic user, warrior, sneaky type; LG dude, evil patron guy, elves, dwarves, etc.). Granted, I'd like a good-guy religion so I can fit in celestials, or something like that, but it is a nice change from standard format figures. More of a range for followers (like one for slaves who's patron of strength, and followers include giants, slaves, blacksmiths, whoever, but isn't Ye Giant patron; or ye goblin patron).
sort of a Mythos dynamic going on: you've got the human-type ones, or the "elder" whatevers. Then you've got these monstrous things out there like Lamashtu, who can be villains.
I was sold on the cover. Also the back cover illustration is fantastic!
I hope they (goblins) become an artistic staple. They look great, the little stinkers. Having higher-level ones would be great, jst as an excuse to have more goblins.
Generally I try to include them in games. I've got city goblins for PCs (there's an artificer in the party now), and crazy barbarian tribes (piranhas, etc.). I like the idea of them as swarms of little biters.
Labyrinth Goblins are a must, and if Pathfinder could have various breeds of the little guys... well, an artificer breed, some more "civilized" bands, some who specialize in steel armor, seige engines, etc.; ...who really needs bigger ones?
but yeah: keep these little guys coming!