Keith Baker has a blog where he talks all about Eberron. Among the things he discusses is the fact that if you want more traditional drow, there are ways to include them. Khyber isn't the "Underdak" on other worlds.
Keith Baker wrote:
Khyber isn’t just a set of caves; it is a different layer of reality. What you find going through one passage to Khyber may be completely different from what I find down a different tunnel just a dozen miles away. In the Forgotten Realms, the Underdark is a country that happens to be under the map. Khyber has a few of those—the lost kingdom of the dwarves destroyed by the Daelkyr, the realm of the Umbragen, the home of the Kech Ghaalrac—but you could still take a fork in the road and find something entirely different.
Now all we need is for this thread to devolve into a debate over Bacon & Katanas.
If you don't like the book, then don't buy it. Otherwise, please go about your business & let the people still interested in it act like the fanboys/girls we are & anticipate its release.
The last Freeport product, Freeport Companion (PFRPG), converted all of the material needed. The problem? It wasn't really Pathfinder in style. Before I will back this, I need more information. Will the classes get further tweaks (ie, archetypes). I feel some of the 3e classes would be appropriate as archetypes for existing classes, rather than a whole new class. Also, will GR make an effort to us existing pirate stuff from Paizo? Will this be something that could be dropped into Skull & Shackles, without having 2 different sets of rules?
You see, I jumped onto the Freeport Companion (PFRPG) when it came out, but it really wasn't Pathfinder enough. It was 3e with a couple of tweaks, so I need more info before I give this project my support.
The idea here is to use a variation of the Generic Classes, mainly having to tweak the Warrior, and use The Genius Guide to XXXXX Archetypes to "define" the characters more specifically. SGG archetypes operate a little different than Paizo's, in that they are available to all classes, barring some prerequisites. The products also define the Archetype "packages" that are part of the PFRPG classes.
Another difference in this approach would be the premise that you keep your archetype during your entire career. You could multi-class at will, but would always keep your basic character theme.
You know the Aliens VS Predator movie? I would like to see an adventure centered around an ancient dungeon were they discover that it was an elaborate game of death setup. Maybe it isn't quite as deadly, due to age, but it is still a survival scenario just to escape.
You need to read closer. You can only use one glove.
Seeing how you said you will be doing an internet game, are you using a Virtual Tabletop? If you haven't picked one, I can recommend Roll20. It's simple, not having rules integrated into it, so easy to learn. Built in video chat. If evrybody you game with is on Google+, you can launch the sessions in a Hangout. It runs in your web browser, so no software to download. Best of all, it's free.
I am presently working on this for my next campaign after I finish my present one. It will involve a Hero Lab file, so I am looking to remain close (not exact) to the original. That said, I will be changing things based on new rules in Pathfinder. Some things might be changed due to balance conflicts, such as making a Dragonfolk race (see SGG's Kobold Kings) as the replacement for most half-dragons in the game.
I have begun by making "Imperial" archetypes for all classes. Basically this will be a tech savvy version of each class, as appropriate. These archetypes will not preclude using any of the standard archetypes, provided they make sense for the character. More on classes later.
Races are tricky. I am thinking of making the new racial abilities into alternate racial abilities. I think that it is too much to add stuff on top of what everybody gets. Also I am thinking of modifying the Soulmech. As written, it is a full construct, which is too powerful an option for characters. I was thinking of maybe the half-construct racial trait as part of rebuilding the race. The background can be that they are the first attempts at truly artificial life.
Most equipment may need a complete overhaul. This can be to adapt d20 Modern stuff. I also need to take into account the damage ranges of firearms, as well as Pathfinder mechanics for firearms. That pesky touch AC attack, which I actually agree with. I am thinking that armor will just emulate their fantasy equivalents. The differences will be in armor qualities. Say like, ballistic and ablative. Ballistic can give DR, representing the new approach to armors over the "old" way. Ablative, though the word doesn't mean exactly this, could still allow the full AC vs modern weapons. This may involve having to repair such armor between encounters.
That is a start to my thinking. What parts do you guys think may, or may not work?
People that immeditely start saying everything negative about somebody's recent happiness is what I like to call a "Kill-joy." There is commonly something called a grace period. Let a guy enjoy himself. Just because you think there are things wrong, doesn't mean he will see it that way.
I am running an Eberron campaign, using Pathfinder rules. So far, I really think that Pathfinder represents many aspects of Eberron better than the original 3.5e rule set. Say that I am tossing an idea around concerning Dragonmarks, House & Aberrant.
I have found Eberron in Pathfinder very helpful with some ideas. I like the idea they have for each DMarked House having a Bloodline. I'm not sure if the Eldritch Heritage feat is the way to go for actual Dragonmarks, though. I am leaning to a modified Varisian Tattoo feat. Then I can use the Tattooed Sorcerer as the basis of a DMarked Sorcerer.
I said that because I am thinking that Aberrant Marks could be tied to Witches. Still using the Tattoo feat, but making a "Tattooed" Witch Archetype for Abberant Spellcasters. The thinking is that Abberant Marks supposedly come from Dark powers. Powerful Abberant Marked people are those that explore their Marks through Witchcraft.
I don't think so. I hate getting crap just because I saw a post for the first time after searching the forums. You can't have it both ways. People don't want you bringing up an old thread, or they flame you for not looking through the threads to see if your idea/question has already been discussed. I got jumped on by a moderator on another forum because I found a thread that discussed something I was wondering about. I figured I would just add to it. I have not gone back to that forums since. Search tools are there to help you find answers & discuss the things you want to. Don't try to punish somebody that did just that.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
I think you could do a web enhancement that ties meta-attacks to Hero Points, rather than regular uses per day.
110. You played Chuck Norris in your last game & the Tarrasque went on a quest to try & banish you.
111. You think the best way to destroy ANY artifact is to let Chuck Norris deliver a kick to it.
112. You are worried that Chuck Norris might not approve these messages.