Can I make a suggestion GM
Before I go on I want to say, we are all I feel hopeful for this game,
and here we have been honing our PCs with some light game play.
But close to 2 week from when the game thread went up. If your not fully ready for the game true to start that is fine.
But Could I suggest, so that we the players feel that this game has started, that you be so kind as to let us post in game thread what our PCs are doing in their day to day lives. Before the game starts true
Letting us embed our PCs in the world of 1936 and in their lives.
I feel that may also help you in finding a good starting place
Fellow Players, what is your thinking on this?
I'm a DM first kinda guy. Never DM'd on the boards, though (or much at all).
DM should set the scene and pace. Players insert themselves as they wish so long as it's not conflicting with the scene or any givens.
My reasoning is it takes a lot to decide to DM a game and then to actually do it. There is some vision that they have and some envisioning of flow (that never turns out as expected)... they should have a somewhat "blank canvas" to make all that a reality.
I'm not saying a player posting or situating themselves will inevitably derail that, just that it introduces variables and unknowns into that initial vision. Variable need to be accommodated for, dealt with.
Some visions might survive or thrive because of that (probably less common), others may get muddied too soon and some may break.
So my feeling is nurture the DM's vision, especially at the beginning, until it's laid some foundation, gotten clearer, stronger. Then gradually introduce character situational specificity. The characters themselves are already unique.
Damn, you got me thinking... LOL.
I can see where you are coming from, Im coming from being GM here and on other boards, And this is my view only, GMs game GMs rules.
But I personally have found like here, that PbP players need to embed PCs and find the voice of their PCs. I have found a good way to do this to use a smile meet and greet setting, Inn, office, etc. A place that lets players meet and introduce their PCS, and let players free from, I get game ready.
Odd thing is when I have done that it changes how I start games.
And as I said, this is just a suggestion from me, the GM is free to act on it or not. :)))
I'm fine with waiting. I just don't want to force prior connections to other characters simply to have them. Take the two most cliche starters for example.
1. All characters are from a small town (Iron Gods, Giantslayer). There is a mystery / threat characters resolve to deal with it. It's a small town or village. How do the characters not know each other? If they don't, how did they manage to avoid each other their whole lives?
2. Characters have been hired to do a thing (War for the Crown, Kingmaker). An NPC or group of them is choosing characters based on what they can do rather than simply where they're at. Maybe a couple of characters know each other already, are siblings, etc. But it's fundamentally a job. I at least have never had a job at a place where I already knew the other employees.
Of course there are other possibilities and the two starters above can be combined in various ways. But I think you can see the difference here. In the 1930's London was the 3rd largest city in the world. If the characters are being selected for something by a third party, what are the odds they all happen to know each other somehow?
If they are self-selected, the party must have prior knowledge of each other.
The only other character I've suggested a possible connection to so far is John, because they share a number of interests and could potentially be moving in the same social circles more or less. They could have met as spectators at a road rally, or bumped into each other at an airfield, etc., and they have enthusiasms which can be a basis for conversations and potentially some further contact with each other.
If I need to add more connections I will, but if they're not needed I won't.
The wealth of my experience in GMing has been with several long-established groups of players, that have been friends for years and often cooperatively create their characters and backstories. With an online public recruitment, this is the exact opposite situation, so I wanted to give some time for players to discuss potential connections.
Not everyone needs to be connected, and certainly not to everyone. it would be intriguing for there to be layers of interconnection, perhaps as though the ethereal energy that exists under reality had connected the lives of those with awareness to what exists out there. However, If you want your character to have no connections to other players, that is absolutely fine and entirely your choice.
As to the start of the game, I have a hook in place, will be reaching out to each of you to start the adventure in the next 24 hours.
I have also had a couple players send me PMs about certain things, so I have been addressing those as well. I appreciate everyone wants to get started, I do too.
I would prefer to keep the gameplay thread dedicated to the game itself, and don't want anyone to feel left out if they don't want to jump into pre-game rp. Anyone is welcome to continue such posts in the discussion thread for now.
Trawets71 Advanced Firearms (not even "modern") extend the "touch AC" effect of firearms out 5 range categories, making most ACs very low where firearms are concerned. The use of the Defense mechanic (in addition to armor basically no longer existing) is to help balance that. Let me take a look at your archetype and see if we can figure something out.
I'm fine with waiting. I just don't want to force prior connections to other characters simply to have them. Take the two most cliche starters for example.
1. All characters are from a small town (Iron Gods, Giantslayer). There is a mystery / threat characters resolve to deal with it. It's a small town or village. How do the characters not know each other? If they don't, how did they manage to avoid each other their whole lives?
2. Characters have been hired to do a thing (War for the Crown, Kingmaker). An NPC or group of them is choosing characters based on what they can do rather than simply where they're at. Maybe a couple of characters know each other already, are siblings, etc. But it's fundamentally a job. I at least have never had a job at a place where I already knew the other employees.
Of course there are other possibilities and the two starters above can be combined in various ways. But I think you can see the difference here. In the 1930's London was the 3rd largest city in the world. If the characters are being selected for something by a third party, what are the odds they all happen to know each other somehow?
If they are self-selected, the party must have prior knowledge of each other.
The only other character I've suggested a possible connection to so far is John, because they share a number of interests and could potentially be moving in the same social circles more or less. They could have met as spectators at a road rally, or bumped into each other at an airfield, etc., and they have enthusiasms which can be a basis for conversations and potentially some further contact with each other.
If I need to add more connections I will, but if they're not needed I won't.
I think these are good points.
For Dafydd, something like the below is pretty firmly workable, but it'd really be forcing it to try to connect to everyone:
Helena - Has visited her bookshop on occasion, looking for obscure historical or esoteric theological texts.
Eva - Rescued her on the battlefield during The War.
John - Has encountered him socially in Oxford on occasion.
Khaled - As Dafydd has never ben to Egypt and Khaled only just got to London, they've never met.
Billie - Probably also never met. Unless we want to retcon the earlier conversation as having taken place in Helena's shop some time when they were both there, but that's probably a bit forced.
Hmmm, now I am torn. On one hand, I like the idea of having some strange connections, but on the other hand, there is definitely a benefit to the saying "less is more". I see three potential connections, as spelled out below:
Thinking about it now further, Eva went to Egypt in her youth, before the Great War, which would make Khaled pretty young (Eva herself would only have been 11 at the time). So overall more a childhood connection, with the deeper connection between her father and his uncle. But still, it could be a childhood connection that was innocently strong, and the pair started as pen pals, which means Khaled would at least know that something happened and she disappeared during the war. In the years after, perhaps she has started writing again?
If I read your background correctly, you were on the German side of the lines - is that correct? If so, they would not have met during the war. But if I read that wrong, it could eerily connect the pair. Eva had been missing for 3 years during WWI, from the age of 12-15 years old. Somehow she survived in the midst on the ongoing battle. To say she had PTSD is an understatement.
If you like the idea, read through my backstory, you would be one of the soldiers that rescued her. She was physically weak, frail, and insane, but managed to have a pistol hidden on her and she took out a German soldier in the moment. Let me know if it works for you - absolutely not required, as the GM said.
I can see a young Khaled being fascinated by the older child foreigner. Doesn't mean they can't get in trouble together. I'm guessing they were both inquisitive/curious children.
So, when dad and uncle started talking history, logistics, blah blah... they went off to explore the tunnels beneath one of the newly discovered pyramids/tombs. Perhaps gotten to the end of one such tunnel where there was an opening... too small for an adult to squeeze through.
But, it was just big enough for these two amateur... detectives.
I don't want to get too deep into it (one sided just from me) but, they encounter something (supernatural? imagined?) and perhaps in different ways as they could have been separated.
At some point... the torches went out.
From Khaled's perspective, he saw "something" in the pitch and eventually (because she's so stubborn and untrusting) his little hand grabbed Eva's and led them out of the darkness, back to that little opening. Darkvision.
Later before her and her father left, Khaled gave her a little pendant upon a fine silver chain. He'd picked it up during their escapade.
After they were gone, he found it in the dirt. It was a mystery to his 9-year old head. Did she not like it? Did she drop it by accident... did "it" not want to go?
Uncle was calling for sunset prayers, so he pocketed it and ran over.
Could be the last they saw of each other but, not the last he'd seen of her dad.
And we are off....
Billie, Helena would want you to know what she knows, before she goes there with I hope Billie,
Everyone, please check your mailbox for your personalized intro!
Should he be tossing Perception checks? Or are we in "narrative" mode?
Toss any skill checks you feel appropriate for your character
@Helena: Sorry, but like I mentioned before, the only connection to other characters Billie might have is to John if he wants to have one.
Otherwise she's never met Helena or any of the others. As I've said before, Billie is a doctor, and she doesn't moonlight as an investigator or mechanic. There's not much reason for Billie to have visited Helena's bookstore since Billie is an atheist and not at all inclined to be superstitious.
Arrr me bad, not a problem, can just ignore that part of post.
Not to be a noodge... Date is October 1. 16 is the house number.
Please ignore if I've misreading.
nope your right
If the door is open and Khaled is yelling "Professor" over and over... others (outside) might hear it.
Happy Father's Day, Dudes!
Those who identify as... Father(s?)!
Hello, and Happy Father's Day to all our dads in the group. I just logged in from work to take a peek at replies to the gameplay post last night, and it looks like it got eaten. I didn't bring my laptop in with me today, with things being too busy. I will repost it when I get home. My apologies.
The Battle Map is posted, it is linked at the top of the Campaign thread, and will also be linked In My gameplay repost.
Happy dad day, the world needs dads and mums so happy all.
Haha, was just posting as such!
Happy belated paternal celebration day, may your d20's roll high!
For those of you who haven't played at the same table with me, before... that die role is indicative :)
Usually, in the most critical moments. So here, it is surprising!
@Evangeline, if you're OK with my last pass at how they met (or what happened) <<< Link as kids, let me know.
Khaled, just sent you a PM.
Is it too late to admit I never really built Khaled for combat? LOL
Could everyone take a look at their character sheets? It seems like some things are incomplete and other components have not been updated with regards to PMs and/or Discussion notes.
Please take a look again at the Defense chart from the spreadsheet and make sure you have the correct defense bonus (there is no bonus to armor from Automatic Bonus Progression, it is integrated into the Defense chart).
From Automatic Bonus Progression, remainder you all have:
3rd - resistance +1
4th - weapon attunement +1 (to clarify, this is non-magical, think of it as an 'expertise' or 'familiarity' bonus)
5th - deflection +1
I have checked her and changed her a little
Blend Fight changed to Fast draw as it works better with class luck ability
AC fixed I think
Added in weapon attunement.
Also fixed her stats with the level add, 10/18/10/19/16/16 now
So she is more balanced,
5th - deflection +1
Are we going to 5th Level?
I know for Defense, we did... hadn't realized for ABP, as well.
Khaled, thank you for asking - just looked at the post talking about both Defense and ABP and realized I wrote it in an ambiguous manner. Defense chart is as level (so currently 4th), Automatic Bonus Progression is at level+1 (so 5th) to account for basically no magic items whatsoever.
Helena, where are you getting the possible +4 deflection from?
John should be good.
Helena, where are you getting the possible +4 deflection from?
She cast mage armor, as we are not using Amror with your bonus system\The +1 Deflection becomes +4 as Deflection dose not stack
You are welcome and thanks for the clarification.
I think Khaled nets out the same.
-1 Defense
+1 ABP Deflection
Will fix the sheet in a bit.
Helena, where are you getting the possible +4 deflection from?She cast mage armor, as we are not using Amror with your bonus system\The +1 Deflection becomes +4 as Deflection dose not stack
They might stack. Mage Armor is an armor bonus, also helps flat footed but not touch AC.
That's how I read it.
"An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC."
I believe everything is correct with Billie. I did notice I spent all my time thinking about pistols and forgot about knives. I added a MWK spring blade to her equipment. Weirdly, Rogues aren't proficient with switchblades.
Helena, where are you getting the possible +4 deflection from?She cast mage armor, as we are not using Amror with your bonus system\The +1 Deflection becomes +4 as Deflection dose not stackThey might stack. Mage Armor is an armor bonus, also helps flat footed but not touch AC.
That's how I read it.
"An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC."
as said with the GM house rules no armor bonus so it ether becomes Natural Armor bonus or Deflection, as its force feels like it should be deflection,
as said with the GM house rules no armor bonus so it ether becomes Natural Armor bonus or Deflection, as its force feels like it should be deflection,
Oops, sorry.
Oh, so we actually can't have armor bonuses period? Even if something is worn like a haramaki?
I'd forgotten the +1 to ABP and somehow messed up my Defense Bonus. Should be correct now.
Okay, it seems there is growing confusion in the Defense Bonus alternate rule. I am going to directly copy some text from the 3rd edition SRD where the concept was introduced, with hopes this clarifies things:
In the standard d20 rules, a character’s skill at attacking gets better as he goes up in level—but not so his skill at avoiding attacks. Characters rely on armor and an ever-growing collection of magic items to protect them in combat. But what about campaigns in which it’s not common or appropriate for characters to go everywhere in full plate?
This variant system is particularly appropriate for swashbuckling or stealth-based campaigns, for settings in which firearms are common, or any other setting in which armor is not worn on a day-to-day basis—even by adventurers.
The Class Defense Bonus
In this variant, every character has a defense bonus based on his character level. The defense bonus applies to Armor Class. However, it does not stack with the character’s armor bonus. A character wearing armor gains his armor bonus (including any enhancement to that bonus) or his defense bonus—whichever is higher—but not both. The defense bonus stacks with all other bonuses to AC, including the character’s shield bonus, natural armor bonus, deflection bonus, dodge bonus, and so forth.
Unlike an armor bonus, a defense bonus does improve a character’s AC against touch attacks.
So if someone puts on armor (or casts a spell that grants) with an AC bonus higher then their defense bonus, they use that instead.
For example: if there were a sorcerer in the party, they would only have a +1 defense bonus, so casting Mage Armor (which grants a +4 armor bonus) would be vastly superior. But for someone on Column C or D, casting Mage Armor would serve little purpose.
Helena, this obviously makes Mage Armor a pointless spell for you, but the spell Shield would be a perfect alternative.
Does this help provide better understanding?
Okay, I think I've got it. So, actually my AC should be +5 DB, +4 Dex, +1 Deflection.
So total AC = AC 20, Touch 20, Flat-Footed 16.
Is that correct?
Yes it dose GM, thanks, Billy I think you lose Dex in FF
without shield spell
AC20 / TA20 / FF11
10+0Armor+4dex+5Deflection bonus+0douge+1defection+0item+0other
with shield spell
AC23 / TA23 / FF14
10+0Armor+4dex+5Deflection bonus+0douge+4defection+0item+0other
I think I am going to swop out Fast Draw for Douge Feat
making her AD
without shield spell
AC21 / TA21 / FF11
10+0Armor+4dex+5Deflection bonus+1douge+1defection+0item+0other
with shield spell
AC24 / TA24 / FF14
10+0Armor+4dex+5Deflection bonus+1douge+4defection+0item+0other
Before I post my PCs action GM,
Can I have a ruling in this please.
We are using -
Feats
“Elephant in the Room” feat tax alternate rules are being used..
Which seeks to stop Feat taxes.
My investigator wants to use her Studied Combat on her 1H fire arms,
BUT to get
Ranged Study
You can use a limited form of studied combat and studied strike with a weapon of your choice.
Prerequisite(s): Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon, studied combat class feature.
Benefit: Choose one kind of ranged weapon. You gain the bonuses for studied combat with your chosen weapon and can use studied strike with your chosen weapon as long as the target of your studied strike is within 30 feet of you.
Normal: You gain the bonuses for studied combat and can use studied strike only with melee weapons.
You have to pay the feat tax of getting Weapon Focus.
So that is one feat and one Investigator talent to do what studied strike dose with melee weapons.
Under "Guns everywhere" {which I think is the game setting}
Guns Everywhere: Guns are commonplace. Early firearms are seen as antiques, and advanced firearms are widespread. Firearms are simple weapons, and early firearms, advanced guns, and their ammunition are bought or crafted for 10% of the cost listed in this chapter. The gunslinger loses the gunsmith class feature and instead gains the gun training class feature at 1st level.
I would have to rebuild my PC some what to fix the fact she cant use studied combat with her light weapons.
I think what I am asking is can I use my studied combat on range light firearms weapons without seemingly needing to pay this feat tax.
Before I post my PCs action GM,
Can I have a ruling in this please.We are using -
Feats
“Elephant in the Room” feat tax alternate rules are being used..
Which seeks to stop Feat taxes.My investigator wants to use her Studied Combat on her 1H fire arms,
BUT to getRanged Study
You can use a limited form of studied combat and studied strike with a weapon of your choice.
Prerequisite(s): Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon, studied combat class feature.
Benefit: Choose one kind of ranged weapon. You gain the bonuses for studied combat with your chosen weapon and can use studied strike with your chosen weapon as long as the target of your studied strike is within 30 feet of you.
Normal: You gain the bonuses for studied combat and can use studied strike only with melee weapons.You have to pay the feat tax of getting Weapon Focus.
So that is one feat and one Investigator talent to do what studied strike dose with melee weapons.Under "Guns everywhere" {which I think is the game setting}
Guns Everywhere: Guns are commonplace. Early firearms are seen as antiques, and advanced firearms are widespread. Firearms are simple weapons, and early firearms, advanced guns, and their ammunition are bought or crafted for 10% of the cost listed in this chapter. The gunslinger loses the gunsmith class feature and instead gains the gun training class feature at 1st level.
I would have to rebuild my PC some what to fix the fact she cant use studied combat with her light weapons.
I think what I am asking is can I use my studied combat on range light firearms weapons without seemingly needing to pay this feat tax.
That is not a feat tax. That is a class limitation. Investigators are not meant to be ranged combatants, hence the need to take two feats. Elephant in the Room's effect would be to make it Weapon Focus (Firearms) instead of a specific one. In the spirit of EitR, I could see it also making Ranged Study apply to all firearms instead of just one.
One could say that if a feat has a prerequisite then that's a feat tax and should be eliminated. This is not what EitR is meant to do IMO.
I beg to differ given the setting, which is my very point.
Investigators in a medieval setting where Knights wear armor and its the weakness in that training that lets an investigator in. We are not playing in that world. We are playing in a world where armor was made redundant back in the 1600s.
Its this feat of weapon focus, {I do like that idea its ALL firearms how ever, then it would be worth it}
Say Sherlock homes, is a crack shot in this setting. As THE investigator it would be a feat tax I feel just to get him to that point.
If the GM feels my PC has to go the long way to this, then its a redesign of my PC, If the GM rules my PC dose not need weapon focus then great just switch out a talent.
:)
Maybe we could take a more measured approach to modifications by seeing how gameplay and combat is going to see if they are necessary? We've already gotten improvements like EitR taking us beyond standard builds. We'll also have some unspoken advantages like not needing to invest much at all in melee feats.
Guns everywhere is going to be something of an experiment for a little while, so watching power balances to see if they're where they should be could prevent having to make yet more modifications down the line because our characters are curb-stomping everything that comes along. If we control inflation now, we don't have to beat it later.
For example, with the feat Weapon Focus in EitR it applies to weapon groups. Most of the weapon groups will be irrelevant to us though. Standard is all firearms are in one weapon group including "siege firearms", which I imagine means siege cannons. We're using semi-automatic, automatic, etc. There's a lot more firepower available and the weapons involved are much more complex. Most all classes are also using them. Does it really make sense for a character to get the equivalent effect in this setting, which gives them weapon focus for everything from a revolver to a howitzer?
I could see weapon focus being spilt up some to account for all this. Say, handguns, long guns, scatter guns (maybe long guns and scatter guns get combined), automatic weapons, artillery, etc. for weapon groups. It's no more of a burden than separating out light blades from heavy blades in the usual pathfinder settings.
The intent of the EitR Feat Tax rules was to target roughly two categories: feats that were broadly taken by large groups of characters (all melee types wanted power attack, all ranged deadly aim, weapon finesse for any dex character) which were turned into combat options, or feats that did very little and we're overburdened in cost (combat expertise + improved disarm + improved trip = deft maneuvers) and were consolidated. This is definitely a oversimplification of the concept, but I think it gets the general message across - they didn't target much for class specific feats.
The Investigator is already a hybrid class, crossing the Rogue and the Alchemist. It pulls from two average base attack classes, it's not designed to be the best ranged combatant (ranger, gunslinger, fighter to name a few options). Studied Combat is a solid combat boost for the class, and can be expanded on by getting Ranged Study. There is a firearm-focused archetype for the class - Steel Bound. But they did not build Ranged Study into that archetype, I think because there is some awareness of how potent a boon it could be.
Sherlock Holmes may have been a crack shot, but there are two flaws in the comparison: first, he is a single-character hero (as is often the case in literature and media), and second, if he were built in an rpg, he would most certainly not be 4th level.
You do have access to Deadly Aim to boost your damage. With all characters getting a free archetype, the benefits of EitR, AND double feats, I think there are plenty of feats to purchase Weapon Focus and Ranged Study, either through future feats at 5th and 6th, or a respec.
As for Weapon Focus, the firearm groups Billie proposed are exactly what I was thinking.
Ok Gm, thank you for the ruling,
I have redesign my PC to work that this ruling :)
Just want to quickly touch on a topic: using social skills in combat. I love social interplay during scenes, and think it can both build emersion, play into the overall tone of the action, and help influence outcomes. That said, all the social skills also have direct mechanical ways they can be used in combat, and to do any of those, they will take the appropriate action type.
In the case of Helena's current action, an Intimidate check most commonly have the effect of "Demoralize Opponent", which is a Standard Action. There are feats that build on this, and if you select Intimidate for Skill Unlocks at 5th level, there are additional benefits.
So to be clear, if you want to have a potential "thematic impact", you can always toss an Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy in with dialogue in combat, but if you want to have a direct mechanical impact, it does take the required action.
Nice running of combat! Thanks for the maps.
Hahaha, two damage rolls, two 1's. Got to love the digital dice!
And apologies, I have been limited to my phone the past week while my laptop is being repaired (it suffered the wrath of my nephew). Once I have it back, I will get my character profile cleaned up.