Its "A" Wilderness Expedition - Interest check

[SinBlade06]

I'm with everyone else so far. No 5th and #3 works with no restriction.

[thunderbeard]

Generally I've been having fun with 5e, but I don't think the system is balanced well enough yet for wilderness exploration, and PF would give much cooler options for that.

[Niteflier]

Don't have any experience or desire to play with 5th.

[GM_Captain_Wombat]

Played it combat fast, but background weak so Ill stick with pathfinder thanks.

[MiniGM]

no 5th for me

[Terquem]

Okay, not 5th. Will finish the table review in the next couple of days. A recruitment thread for character guidelines, and rules of play will be up soon

[Wondering_Monster]

I have no problem with 5E. I like it so far. I also like Pathfinder. So no preference either way for me.

[Terquem]

Well the major vote is no 5e, and I'm okay with that

On the other hand, I hate letting people down, particularly when I put myself out there like I did, but so many things have hit me at once right now that I cannot start this game until at least the middle of September.

I still want to do this, but I just can't move forward with it right now.

I'm sorry

[mdt]

No problem

[GM_Captain_Wombat]

Not a problem

[Filios]

If you come back and decide 5E is a good option...count me in! I am absolutely enjoying 5E with my tabletop group. I would love to see something in the Greyhawk setting.

[Terquem]

Well after a killer week at work, I am back on line. I probably will not do 53 for this, but I have a 5e game in mind

But I will probably not run any games in any settings other than my own, or ones we create as a group of players

[SinBlade06]

Then what are we waiting for!?

LET'S GET THIS PARTY STARTED!!!

[Filios]

Thanks, Terquem. Be sure to drop me a PM when you start recruitment for 5E, regardless of setting. I would not want to miss it on the boards.

[Terquem]

I have thought long and hard about this idea I suggested and I have decided I should not do it. I am going to try to do something far easier instead. I’m sorry if I disappointed anyone.

[Terquem]

Just dropping in here to say one last time, that I'm sorry for disappointing anyone interested in a random wilderness Pathfinder adventure. It’s just that the Pathfinder rules (I love ‘em, don’t get me wrong) have reached a point now where I am seriously intimidated by them (not to mention all the other rules to be found at d20psfrd). I don’t think this is a bad thing, a lot of players are delighted by the tremendous amount of choices and builds available, but I can’t handle it any more.

So, if you would still like to play with me in a Game of Dungeons and Dragons, look for a 5e recruitment I am doing here for a simplified, heavy House Rule version of Palace of the Vampire Queen, a classic dungeon crawl.

[mdt]

No thanks, don't have 5E. Good luck.

[Filios]

It's me, Dieredon, and yes, I am in! Are you going to use a particular setting? Greywiki is actually a good source for using the Greyhawk setting. I can have a character ready by tomorrow night. Dwarven Fighter, Paladin, or Cleric?

[Terquem]

Actually I was thinking of setting the game on the undeveloped world of the woodbridge campaign, but I will look at the greywiki

[UltravioletSpy]

@Terquem: I'm sad to hear this. I just found these PbP boards and a random wilderness crawl sounded like great fun. I still think it would be. Have you considered the Pathfinder Beginner Box or considered the Swords & Wizardry ruleset? The former is a slim and accessible version of the full PF rules, which probably lend better to PbP anyway, while the latter is like d20 lite meets 2e AD&D. I'm a fan of Fitz's modifications of S&W myself.

[Terquem]

I have found it harder and harder to gather interest in pathfinder games when I pace restrictions on the character creation process (and there are just too many different rules and builds for me to try and keep track of when I don't)

But!

If! Players would be interested in a random wilderness adventure limited to core races and core classes with no d20psfrd or other third party rules I might still consider trying to launch this

(If you look at the original recruitment I did for "its "A" Dungeon, I restricted that game to four payers who must be only one cleric, one fighter, one thief, and one wizard, and even though later I allowed some minor deviation from that rule, it has been semi-sort of kind of successful with that formula)

[UltravioletSpy]

Personally, I would *prefer* a game with such strict limitations. There's immense RP potential just in a human fighter. I actually have a failed (not fallen or anti-) paladin in mind that I've been wanting to spec out...

(Just to note: my home game is nearing its 100th session on Temple of Elemental Evil. We've been playing 2e with very few modifications the entire time).

[trawets71]

I'd be fine with a core only game. I've applied to a couple and they seem to have plenty of applicants. It certainly makes character creation easier. The one modification that I have commonly seen is adding traits to core. I'd definitely apply if you go core only or even the classic 4 classes only.

[SinBlade06]

I like the idea of core. It simplifies the classes/races needed.

My only question would be can we at least include equipment from other sources? Ultimate Equipment has great armor and weapons compared to the Core book, but if we don't include it, no real loss.

Either way, I'm still in!!