pH unbalanced's page

Out of curiosity, how much do folks asking for more Pathfinder Society Scenarios utilize other sanctioned adventures such as Pathfinder Modules and Pathfinder Adventure Paths?

I think these new sanctioned adventures are serving a different need. I know that I'm about to run Reign of Winter for my home group. I currently play in PFS, but my players don't. However, I expect that after I give them this awesome looking Chronicle sheet, with cool stuff they can get it they start playing PFS, they will start checking it out.

Which is to say, the constraints on gaming that make PFS attractive in the first place, make longer adventures such as APs difficult to run in PFS venues. But I think that there is room to expand PFS by bringing it into spaces that don't have those constraints, and I think that's what you're gaining with this new content.

2. Know any good weapons that could double as PomPoms?

How about a Bladed Scarf? You could put tassles on the ends for the Pom Poms. And it fits the whole 'hidden weapon for dancers' vibe.

Or maybe Fighting Fans?

Those both take Exotic Weapon Proficiencies, except if you're Varisian (and why wouldn't you be?) you can get Bladed Scarf proficiency with the Tattooed Varisian regional trait.

I love playing Witches, but I tend to do it backwards from most people -- I get utility Hexes and then use spells for combat.

So a typical group of Hexes that I would get:

Healing
Prehensile Hair
Tongues
Flight
Disguise

Now I'm prepared for lots of different circumstances. It's also worth noting that none of these hexes have DCs associated with them -- they either work or they don't. Which also frees you up to multiclass if you wish, since you don't have to worry about gimping all your hexes by doing so.

My players have just created their characters, we'll be starting the adventure in two weeks. Believe it or not, these characters were made without the players knowing what AP I was going to run -- they just added the campaign trait on top. We've got three plus a DMPC.

Undine Watersinger Bard with the Vigilante Witch Hunter trait

Elven Beastmaster Cavalier with the Warded against Witchery trait (and the goal of having a Polar Bear mount)

Human Cleric of Sarenrae with the Restless Wayfarer trait

I'm not sure what I'll do for the DMPC, but I'm leaning towards an Ulfen Viking Fighter with the Northern Ancestry trait.

Thomas Graham wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Thomas Graham wrote:

Seth Gipson wrote:

My level 8? Wizard's book has somewhere around 50 non-Cantrip spells in it, thanks to buying a few scrolls and playing with another Wizard a couple times. Definitely worth it.

And don't forget..with the new rules on spell purchasing you get more bang for your buck.. but the FIRST action I do with a Wizard at the table with me is compare spells.

A MUST do action for any wizard of any level!

Magus too! If I remember right anyway.

Definitely. I offer any Magi or Witches a glance..though the way I understand it.. Witches can't recipocate. Neither can Alchemists.

You are correct; they cannot.

Two witches can reciprocate with each other, though -- their familiars teach the spells to each other.

When in doubt, remember that the Grand Lodge is the 'I don't care about factions' faction.

I actually wouldn't give a fighter to a newbie, because I think they are harder to play in Pathfinder than they were in earlier editions. I think of Sorcerer as the perfect starter character.

I've played with over 50 different people, some from different countries, and I've never seen anything that even approaches this behavior. So if it were common or even frequent, it would be a statistical improbability for me not to have come across it. I'll let others chime in on what % of players they've seen exhibit this behavior consistently.

See, that surprises me -- I figured everyone had encountered this. I'd have a hard time putting numbers to it, but maybe 10% of unique tables I've sat at? (That's taking it outside of just PFS to get a large enough sample to measure.) It's usually two or three people who have a rivalry going and are playing off of each other. And if it's one person they're usually trying to impress (or annoy) one other particular person at the table.

pH unbalanced wrote:

You keep saying this, and I'm sure you believe it, but it is simply not true.

It is true because I'm talking about what happens on a population level, not an individual level. The fact that some idiot out there wants to ride around on his motorcycle without a helmet and never suffers a head injury doesn't mean we can get rid of the helmet laws.

OK, I know it's off topic, but this was a ROFLMAO for me because in my state we did this very thing last year -- got rid of motorcycle helmet laws because people wanted to ride around without helmets. Helmet laws were 'infringing on their freedoms' and getting rid of them was going to 'boost motorcycle tourism'. Guess what: head injuries in motorcycle accidents have tripled since then -- who'da thunk.

There's also the Rakshasa-blooded Sorcerer's Bloodline Arcana. Not exactly the same thing, but fairly similar. I've used it to great effect with illusions.

Add half your sorcerer level to the Spellcraft DC for others to identify spells you cast. If their checks fail by 5 or more, they mistakenly believe you are casting an entirely different spell (selected by you when you begin casting).

Quote:

You simply let people play at a harder tier if they wish. The rewards would be a fixed function of character level.

Yes, I know, that won't work. Nobody will play up simply to play up because:

1. There's nothing to be gained by that.

...

To even suggest such a solution fails to understand that very thing that motivates people to play up. The goal isn't just to play a harder game, the goal is to achieve more and that achievement is measured by the treasure/gold/loot that one finds as result of the efforts. You might as well just tell people who want a challenge to cut themselves until they are half hit points, dump half their spells, and then play the scenario.

You keep saying this, and I'm sure you believe it, but it is simply not true.

There *are* people whose goal is simply to play a harder game, and who do not care about the reward. Whose motivation is, quite simply, bragging rights.

In my most recent PFS game, we had a situation where we had to make a precarious crossing of a river which required an acrobatics check. One of the characters allowed all of the other characters to cross, then declared that he was going to blindfold himself and cross backwards, just to prove his superiority -- even though the GM told him it was possible to die from a failed check. (Not automatically, but still.) After he succeeded, my character told him that now that I had see him do that, I would never be impressed by that trick again, and he said that was OK -- next time he would set the rope on fire as he crossed.

I have seen characters go without healing, just to prove they're tough. I have seen people use up spells to no purpose because 'they don't need them'. These things do happen, and they happen entirely so that they can brag about them afterwards.

I have no idea how common this behavior is, but I've seen it often enough I would have thought that everyone with a bit of experience has sat at a table where it's happened.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are people who would play up as far as they are allowed for no more reward than to be able to show their friends the chronicle sheet proving that they had completed a scenario at a lower level than their friend had.

Just out of curiosity, how do people believe that the Bluff check to gain concealment is supposed to work by RAW?

We'll go back to our rogue behind one pillar that wants to move behind one 10 feet away with a guard standing on the other side of the pillars 20 or 30 feet away.

Rogue steps out from cover (the diversion to hide apparently only works against creatures who are aware of you) and is insta-seen by the guard (assuming that he beats the DC 0 Perception check).

Do you have to make him aware of you first? Can't you use the hoary old 'throw a rock into the bushes so you can sneak past him' trick as a Bluff check for distraction? (Or the Pathfinder update of that -- Ghost Sound?)

A spell that has recently become the favorite of my Rakshasa-blooded Sorcerer is Ghost Sound.

Combine a ridiculously high Bluff skill, a spell with no verbal components that can be cast an unlimited number of times a day, and a Bloodline Arcana which causes missed Spellcraft checks to mis-identify the spell as any other spell you choose and you can bamboozle your opponents into thinking you're doing just about anything.

Seconded! The talking beard makes a good point.

Thirded.

I don't have a horse in this race, but as someone new to PFS it was puzzling to me that the cutoff was the beginning of GenCon rather than the end. It seemed intuitively obvious that the cutoff should be the end of GenCon.

I will say that I could see a problem with characters playing a Season 5 mission before the faction retirement Scenario, and that may well be what they were trying to avoid. But I think there are other ways to do that for the few days we're talking about without having a hard cutoff.

Jade Regent is full of humanoid monsters, oni, giants, etc. Things that use weapons and hit hard. Taking their weapons away from them helps immensely - the oni power-attacking with an oversized nadachii for a +24 or more damage mod is way less impressive once his sword's on the other side of the room.

On the other hand, in our Jade Regent game one of our characters was a monk who specialized in Grappling -- and quite well-built, too. Unfortunately, it seems like every monster we ran into had grappling as its preferred tactic. It was brutal...the worst case of 'wrong build for the module' I've ever seen. When he finally died he was overjoyed to create a new character.

So what I think you're asking is if you can have a character be in the Lantern Lodge, play through the Way of the Kirin, use your free faction change to go to the Shadow Lodge, play through Rivalries' End, and use another free faction change to change to one of the remaining factions.

I *think* you can. Worst case, it would be ruled that you had to pay for that second Faction change with PPs.

2. The only characters that will be able to "hit" as reliably or more reliably with CMB and normal attacks are Str-based attackers and players who specialize in feats. Dex-based martial characters will have a lower CMB unless they, again, take a feat for it. So really, only one type of melee combatant can do maneuvers as well as attacks without specializing.

This part is mostly untrue. Assuming that the Dex-based martial has taken the Weapon Finesse feat (and if he hasn't he shouldn't be making melee attacks at all) then they can use their Dex for all weapon-based maneuver checks.

pH unbalanced wrote:

And yet, I believe that is exactly what is being proposed for next season -- when you play up you receive the rewards of the tier you are at rather than the tier you play at.

And that is why that suggestion by campaign head got an almost universal that's a bad idea response. I think there was one...maybe two forumites who supported the idea, but even they only did so because they didn't like the alternatives given...not because it was better then what we have now. NOBODY would have chosen the leadership suggestion over current system.

Mostly true. I believe it had slightly more support than that, but the overwhelming response was certainly negative. Personally, I don't have enough PFS experience to have a real opinion about it one way or the other. I'll happily play under whatever system we end up with.

My point was more that when he said the model was 'nonsense' that 'no designer subscribed to' that he was completely incorrect.

Whether or not you think something is a good idea, it can hardly be characterized as fringe if the main campaign staff has seriously suggested it.

james maissen wrote:

Actually that will solve the problem of 'this scenario is too easy for us at the assigned tier'.

It lets them play a tougher scenario so that it won't be too easy for them. Done.

That statement evinces a failure to grasp even basic psychology of what people who want a challenge are operating under. People don't want it to be simply harder. Anybody can self-nerf by fighting with less armor or mundane weapons. Nobody who's looking for a challenge does that.

There has to be a commensurate reward for it being harder. What you're proposing is simply nonsense. No designer subscribes to that theory and no significant number of people are going to exercise such an option. More to the point, no random group of people would ever subject themselves to such a situation. Ergo, you haven't solved the problem of allowing people to challenge themselves. You've simply punished people who want to challenge themselves which completely contradicts your stated goal of accommodating more play-styles.

If you don't believe me, next time you play at a Con ask every single table if they would play up without getting the rewards of playing up.

And yet, I believe that is exactly what is being proposed for next season -- when you play up you receive the rewards of the tier you are at rather than the tier you play at.

I'll let other people address other issues, but do remember that you can only use Sneak Attack on a ranged attack if you are within 30 feet.

Here's a link.

From the post:

At the start of Season 5, parts 2 and 3 will be retired. Part 1 will remain an active scenario. Once we have a new Tier 1 only scenario in place, part 1 will then be retired. It is my goal to have 1-2 Tier 1 only scenarios placed on the regular publishing schedule for PFS and published each season, that capture the flavor of the season. This won't be specifically tied to a certain faction so they can remain an evergreen product.

You won't see the first one of these until early 2014 and is the reason we are keeping part 1 of First Steps live until tha time. In the future, I hope to have one of these release as a Gen Con release.

And in that thread, people did indeed talk about your spoilered concerns. :)

You know, after giving it some more thought, no one in this thread has mentioned the Steal combat maneuver. Any takers?

I have a Rogue/Witch who got this as a Rogue Talent (it's not worth a Feat, but name 3 Rogue Talents that are better :) ). She's had some fun using it at range with her Prehensile Hair -- casters hate it when you take their spell components.

Note that Stealth does say "You cannot use Stealth while attacking". This is very different wording than what Invisibility uses and it is quite clear that the Stealth effect is not applicable during attacks. Clearly, being Stealthed and attacking are mutually exclusive. This is why there...

OK then.

Can an Arcane Trickster with Surprise Spells who casts Magic Missle get Sneak Attack dice under that condition? They are using Stealth, but they are not 'attacking' (there is no attack roll).

My answers:

+3 when attacking only with the hair, -2 when attacking with the hair alongside manufactured weapons or other natural weapons.

This is exactly how we've always done it in my games.

Excellent review! I've been particularly interested in this book, since I enjoy roleplaying characters with affinities for some of the gods. I have a question, though - are the new domains and subdomains affiliated with any gods, or are they essentially unlinked to Society play as it is now?

The inside front cover has a list of many good deities and their associated domains and subdomains -- which includes the new subdomains. Also, each subdomain listing contains the names of deities who have those subdomains. (Essentially a crossreference, since I didn't see differences between the two different ways of listing it.)

Also, the Additional Resources has approved both of those sections for use in PFS.

I think the big issue for a cleric changing deities is the domain change and the weapon proficiency -- I'd have a hard time seeing a way around the necessary rebuild for a standard cleric.

However, a Separatist Cleric *might* be allowed to change deities -- since they specifically don't get the weapon proficiency and are specifically allowed one domain not on their deities list. So as long as they still met alignment requirements and still had one of the new deities domains after the switch, then maybe.

And given what a Separatist Cleric is, it even makes sense, since you're already considered a heretic.

Robert Matthews 166 wrote:

My players had a hell of a time on the last fight in first steps part 1.

** spoiler omitted **

For the record:

** spoiler omitted **

Just wanted to mention that I am currently playing First Steps PbP. Not five minutes before reading this, I posted my turn, wherein

Of course, if we weren't already that far, I wouldn't have been reading spoilers. (Besides which it's my second time through -- though I obviously hadn't remembered that part of the fight.)

So, my PFS experience is pretty small. But I'm a CPA in real life, so I know a bit about auditing.

Given all the limitations, trying to do an actual audit of characters is impractical. So what you want to do instead is a quick review. In accounting-speak, you're not looking for perfection, you're looking for 'materially correct'.

Figure out what the top 5 meaningful character mistakes are and looks for as many of those as you feel like and have time for. So maybe one game you check total hp, number of feats, and that all chronicle sheets are attached. Or maybe you know that for the particular scenario you're running Swim is going to be really important, so you check Swim skill, approximate encumbrance, and Armor Check penalties. Whatever it is, look for a couple of different kinds of things, and something that takes no more than 1 minute per person.

If something looks fishy or you have more time you can do a deeper dive -- after you do this a few times you'll be able to spot the sheets that need it right away. But remember the goal -- you're not trying to ensure that the characters are perfect, just that none of them are so broken that they will disrupt the scenario. So right now all you are really looking for is that a few key stats are correct, and you know which characters you might have to keep an eye on during play.

All of y'all experienced GMs most likely have something like that that you're already doing, but you'd probably find some value in comparing notes and making checklists to really hone it down to the most common and most relevant errors.

Of course, if you do have time to fully audit a character or two, that's fabulous, and I'm sure most players could learn a lot from the process. But IMO you'd want to approach it more as teaching process (either audit process or character creation process) rather than uncovering errors or fraud, because the justification for that amount of work isn't for uncovering existing errors, it's for preventing future errors.

Anyway, just two coppers from someone who thinks "The Auditors of Absalom" would be even *more* fun than doing taxes -- as hard as such a thing is to imagine.

Edit: Oh, and about fraud. Most fraudsters tend to be fairly easy to catch in the long run, both because they don't understand how all the systems hang together, and because once they start cheating they usually escalate until they get caught. You'll probably find that you catch most cheaters just by keeping your eyes open and checking *something* every game. As others have mentioned anecdotally, simple errors generally far outweigh actual fraud.

Jiggy wrote:

"X type of light sources do not increase the light level in an area of darkness" means exactly one thing. There is not a secondary "standard of grammar" that causes it to mean something else, or to be imprecise.

And this is where we disagree.

I think this means one of

• X type of light sources do not increase the light level [that is in effect] in an area of darkness
  
• X type of light sources do not increase the light level [when located] in an area of darkness

It is unclear whether "in an area of darkness" qualifies the light sources or the light level - the sentence most definitely does not unambiguously mean exactly one thing (no matter what any proscriptive grammar text book may want you to believe).

This exactly.

I'll also say that because I would express the first proposition as "within an area of darkness" and express the second proposition as "in an area of darkness" that my default interpretation of the phrase "in an area of darkness" is the second.

And yes, I'm hitting the FAQs for this.

As for Reposition, I don't understand it's point. If I am a Flowing Monk, I want everyone near me. And I want them in close range to do my AoOs. Why would I want to push them away?

I talked about using Reposition defensively, but it can also be used offensively -- moving opponents to areas where they are flanked, or where they cannot flank you. Anything you can do with Ki Throw, you can do with Reposition, since it is the same thing. If you take Greater Reposition, moving your opponents provokes AoOs just as though they had moved themselves. (There's also a new feat in the Dungeoneer's Handbook which allows you to Reposition people into hazards or traps, which can be situationally devastating.)

Also worth saying, at 4th level you can start using Reposition to interrupt an attack against an ally, so now you are preventing damage against your allies. And, if you have Greater Reposition, that ally will get an AoO against them.

You may decide that Reposition isn't something you care about, and that's fine, but the other point is that there is absolutely no point in a Flowing Monk taking Ki Throw, because once they hit 8th level they gain the ability to combine Trip and Reposition anyway.

Bladed Scarf is a nice 'concealed while wielding' weapon for this Talent.

I've also had my Rogue/Witch use this with her Prehensile Hair.

For a Flowing Monk, wouldn't you rather have Improved Reposition than either Improved Dirty Trick or Improved Disarm? Remember that with Redirection, you can interrupt an attack against you, Sicken them, and move them to a space where they can no longer attack. Plus at level 8 you can combination Trip and Reposition.

Or lose Ki Throw instead (unless you need it as a prereq for something else) since the combination Trip/Reposition that you get pretty much supersedes it.

Necromancer is such an ugly word... I prefer Transition Counsellor.

Post-Life Employer?

Everyone else has said it. I'll say it. You should stay far away from this game.

But you know better. Fine.

I would put the 2 in STR and go with a Kitsune Rakshasa-blooded Sorcerer. You should be able to get your Bluff to *at least* +15 at 1st level, and never need to fight. Concentrate on Enchantment and Illusions. Be a trickster supreme.

Assuming the GM allows you to succeed at any of that. But why wouldn't he?

So she has something that you need. Let's take a look at this from an out-of-combat perspective.

Is there a way that, before your evil is revealed, you can borrow this item and replace it with a duplicate? There may be quite a bit of preparation involved to forge it, and duplicate some obvious enchantments, but you've still got time, yes?

Barring that, is there a way to prepare it for easier theft at the time of betrayal. Maybe put an Arcane Mark on it, or something else that would give you a bonus to spells to remove it from their possession.

The best, of course, is if you could somehow convince the Monk that they should give it to you so that you can protect it.

Then there's always the thing where if one of the other characters is better able to get it, that you can charm or dominate them into getting it from the Monk and giving it to you. (Either during the fight or before.)

Good luck!

My understanding of the Natural Weapon rules is that if a human (or other creature without natural attacks) gains a single natural attack, and uses it without other attacks, the natural attack is considered a primary natural attack.

I think that means that a human with Prehensile Hair can attack with only the hair, and attack at full BAB, INT bonus to hit, and 1.5 'STR' (That is, 1.5 INT bonus, for Prehensile Hair) bonus to damage.

If the witch also tries to use a dagger, for instance, the Prehensile Hair becomes secondary, which would be BAB-5+INT to hit, INT/2 bonus to damage. Which is not a BAD deal, because the dagger attack is as good as it ever was going to be. The hair is just a bonus.

I should say that my current GM has ruled my Prehensile Hair is always at -5, and half the stat bonus to damage. And he's a VO, so there's obviously still room for disagreement.

I think the first three paragraphs of this post are entirely correct, and I would love to be supported or corrected by a designer.

Good luck, OP.

Thornborn:

Here is a link to a discussion of Prehensile Hair use. SKR weighs in about a third of the way down, with a quote from the PRD which supports your position.

Also, yes, you can use Prehensile Hair to deliver touch spells.

I have a Staff Magus build w/ a 2-level dip into Flowing Monk that's looking pretty nice.

pH unbalanced wrote:

graypark wrote:

Under Social Traits, the PRD wrote:

Charming: Blessed with good looks, you've come to depend on the fact that others find you attractive. You gain a +1 trait bonus when you use Bluff or Diplomacy on a character that is (or could be) sexually attracted to you, and a +1 trait bonus to the save DC of any language-dependent spell you cast on such characters or creatures.

I'm curious. What criteria would you use to determine when the bonus(es) from this trait should be applied?

It's also worth mentioning that there is a Changeling Race Trait (Green Widow) that has a +2 to Bluff in the same circumstances. I actually have a first level Changeling Sorcerer who has both that *and* Charming, and her Bluff can be +11. (Well, since she's Rakshasa-blooded I can get that up to +16.) She's scary.

Edit: Whoops, just noticed this was the PFS board. So I guess Changeling wouldn't be an issue there after all.

FYI--the bonuses from those two traits do not stack with each other, though you still get +1 Diplo +2 Bluff from having both.

Green Widow is a Racial Bonus, not a Trait Bonus, so they do stack.

And the difference between a Race Trait and a Racial Trait rears its ugly head again. I think I said the wrong one. :)

Under Social Traits, the PRD wrote:

Charming: Blessed with good looks, you've come to depend on the fact that others find you attractive. You gain a +1 trait bonus when you use Bluff or Diplomacy on a character that is (or could be) sexually attracted to you, and a +1 trait bonus to the save DC of any language-dependent spell you cast on such characters or creatures.

I'm curious. What criteria would you use to determine when the bonus(es) from this trait should be applied?

It's also worth mentioning that there is a Changeling Race Trait (Green Widow) that has a +2 to Bluff in the same circumstances. I actually have a first level Changeling Sorcerer who has both that *and* Charming, and her Bluff can be +11. (Well, since she's Rakshasa-blooded I can get that up to +16.) She's scary.

Edit: Whoops, just noticed this was the PFS board. So I guess Changeling wouldn't be an issue there after all.

I just looked up the quote that I was looking for,and I apologize. James Jacobs said that it was safe to assume that all pregens are bisexual unless clearly stated otherwise. That doesn't apply to all NPCs. This is another area where table variation is bound to occur.

The one time I can think of this being specifically addressed is in Jade Regent, where romancing the named NPCs (if desired) is part of the plot and has defined rules mechanics. All of the romanceable characters are specifically called out as being at least potentially bisexual.

Which is very important as my character's primary goal in that AP is to spend the rest of her life with Ameiko.

MrSin wrote:

Witches can't really do PrCs though. No hex progression. So their main class feature quickly falls behind in DCs, and you cease to get new ones.

It's possible to PrC with a Witch if you focus on Hexes that don't rely on DCs. Then you're not losing out much on Hex progression.

I've got a Witch/Rogue/Arcane Trickster who took Healing Hex, Prehensile Hair, and Flight -- the durations aren't the best, but otherwise they are still at full effectiveness.

And should also say, she is most definitely a 'Good' Witch, though she does tend rather towards the anime end of things.

Also, the Town Square Flip Mat (both sides) is used for several of the early encounters. You can certainly draw your own map, but if you want to be all completist about it, there it is.

Dotting for Interest

Currently thinking of putting together a Human Witchguard Ranger.

And...I just got into a different game and hit my limit, so I won't be submitting.

Good luck, everyone!

Dotting for Interest

Currently thinking of putting together a Human Witchguard Ranger.

I'll go ahead and put a partial toe in the fire (iron in the water?) and say that I am considering making a Half-Elf Adept, moving to Witch. I'll have something in by the Thursday deadline if I'm able to make a go of it.

I actually enjoy the Eagle Shaman archetype. I dont care much for wildshape and am more of the caster type so it worked greatly for me. The only time i wild shape is to become a creature with fly speed in order for me to perform aerial assaults with spells and when out of spells to dive bomb safely. When it comes to Summoning the Eagle is best since they have some thing to summon at all levels of the spell from 1 to 9 thanks to added templates. The Saurian is cool dont get me wrong but they dont get there 1st summoned creature until 2nd spell level. Also i primarily use my animal companion for scouting and dont like risking the poor thing. The amount of fights my parties have avoided and prepared for were all thanks to the scouting ability of my eagle are countless. The only time i do have it fight though is 1ce it gets Flyby Attack so i dont have to risk its life.

Out of curiosity, have you tried the Sky Druid? It sounds like it fills a similar niche, so I'm wondering how the two compare.

Just out of curiosity, are you looking at straight Gramarists or gestalt? It looks like a lot of these games wind up as the latter.

I'm interested in Biollurgy and its possible applications. I'm also interested in the possibilities of combining that with a vivisectionist.

I'd kind of wondered that, too, although I'd been thinking maybe we'd start with a single level of a PC class, and then everything else Gramarist.

Also, the Prestige Classes look wild.

Wow, that's uh...wow.

I'll say the Geoccultism is what grabbed my interest right away. I *might* be interested, depending on what other peoples interest is, and whether or not I get into some other games I've applied for.

And I must agree...the art is quite lovely.

Thanks for the feedback, all.

This game looks like it's a magnet for great submissions -- I look forward to seeing what everyone comes up with.

OK, let me present Fyrek Orlovsky, a Sylph Sky Druid (venerating Ketephys).

This is an outline and a background story, rather than a full character writeup, but it should be enough information to communicate the build. (I'm superstitious about making an alt until actually accepted into a game.) If there is any additional info you'd like to know about her, just ask.

Hopefully the story is good enough to justify the non-core race -- I've been wanting to make a Sky Druid for a long time and this seems the perfect place for it.

I'll definitely have to put something together for this.

Question for you on your House Rule for stat increases. When you're increasing a stat at later levels that has a Racial Mod to it, do you figure the cost of the increase before or after applying the Racial Mod?

Example: You spent 3 points to buy to a 13, then Racial Mod increased to 15. Do I need to save up 2 points like I would have at creation (to raise the 13 to a 14) or 3 points (to raise the 15 to a 16). I don't care which it is, but it would make a difference to how I arrange my starting stats.