Andre Caceres's page

500 posts (502 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 500 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Will this set be reissued at anytime? I missed it due to money issues and hoping to start collecting now. Even if it wasn't for selfish reasons I think a reissue would sell well.


Just heard that FFG lost the rights to 4th ed Talisman. Now I hear that someone else might get rights. wondering if any one has info on the status of Talisman. Even if just rumors.

Just wondering


Greylurker wrote:

One key thing in CoC is to keep in mind the Dice Philosophy of the game.

Dice rolls are not necessarily about success of failure of an action. It's about who controls the narrative, the Player or the GM

For example: if the players are confronted by a locked door and Player A says "I kick it down", you have him make a STR test to do it.

For the story to progress you need them to get in that room, failing to get in the room brings the story to a stop. So the STR test isn't about opening the door, it's about what happens as the door opens.

Player succeeds the Roll - door flies open and the player boldly enters the room to discover the corpse.

Player fails the roll - After a couple of blows the door swings open, cautiously the player enter the room, only to slip on a pool on the ground, as he picks himself off the ground he finds himself stareing into the blank eyes of the corpse. His hands stained with blood from the pool he slipped in as he entered the room.

Nothing bad actually happens and the result is mostly the same (players find the corpse) but the narrative changes the mood of the story.

So more about setting the mood then actions. I Got that, but am worried doing so if I end up with a lot of players. The Haunting fits the bill I was looking for but what if I end up with a party of 10 players or more. I'm getting a lot of interest already.

The Mad Comrade wrote:
Storyteller Shadow wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:

The CoC rulebook itself has several excellent one-shot scenarios that should be doable in a one-shot game session.

Two of the very best are The House in the Woods and The Haunting.

+1 on the Haunting as the scenario to go with. The Mad Comrade knows his stuff when it comes to CoC!

Thanks! I love The Haunting as an introductory scenario for players new to CoC. The survivors of this scenario then went on to deal with the Horror on the Orient Express. Most of them did not survive the ordeal.

The 5th ed CoC book might feature The Haunting within its covers...

Yes the Haunting is indeed in it, I'll read it tonight.

Thanks for the help Mad Comrade & Storyteller Shadow

Hey everyone,

I want to do a one nighter Call of Cthulhu game, anyone know of a good quick adv. I have 5th ed. and d20 version of the game but not much else. I know most eds. (except for the current 7th ed.?) are fairly interchangeable so I'm not too worried about conversion issues, just don't want a long drawn out game. Any Suggestions, help or web pages with short adv. would be welcomed.

Thanks all.

Its mostly about role play. He's a Tifling criminal (con-man really) he's neutral but wants some good magical edge to help his Rogue levels, and thought the Pact would be good for his concept as demon blood flows in him but he's not evil. Ultimate con on a fiend.

I've worked it out story wise (we are playing Rise of the Rune Lords Burnt Offerings) and a Fiend is against Nala becoming a Tifling herself. We agreed that Fey wouldn't car, elder ones wouldn't care, and most Gods have better things to do. So we worked it out up to 'damn I've never really used a Warlock before much less seen it done for Pathfinder'.

WOW that was fast thanks guys keep the ideas coming it really helps.

Hey guys Have a player who wants to play a 3.5 warlock in Pathfinder. Don't know the class that well and only Warlock I found from a 3PP didn't have the same feel. So anyone have a good Pathfinder Warlock class done, not just suggestions because I have to convert the class to my house rules as it is. Or do you think the 3.5 version can fit fine in Pathfinder as is(power level and such)? Thanks for any help.

Late to the game. Wondering if the re-print of wave one will be exactly the same; focused on mini itself in terms of paint job, but also in pilots and upgrades? Anyone know? Asking because I almost got a Ywing for 40+ on Amazon prices are going nuts already.

In a related note saw Wave 3 looks like they are already getting close to hitting the wall in terms of fighters of the Original triliogy. Not sure if that is good or bad. By my way of thinking players will always want Xwings and Ties, now I can see new pilot cards coming out but not knew minis of Xwings, save a color change, but that would differ from the classic of what people want. The good, keeps secondary markent from running up prices for minis. The bad have to keep players intrested with very little new miniatures.

Anyways just wondering about the reissue.


Thanks DRE

Been doing some world building and I wanted race from 3.0 days, the StoneGrunts from Mythic Races FFG. I was re-building the race race for Pathfinder (except for keeping racial levels); but thats not the issue.

Stonegrunts get Damage Reduction 10/+2, but I double checked Pathfinder rules and was a bit unclear on if the +2 matters any more, only substance or magic qualities. So how would a 10/+2 damage reduction natural ablity be converted for Pathfinder.

This becomes a bigger problem as I have more then just +1 'normal' qulities, I use modified rules from GR's Black Company. So a masterwork itme in Pathfinder is closer to +3 non-magical item in my game. But if stats no longer reflect that it means some work for me stat-wise.

Thanks in advance for any imput.


godsDMit wrote:

Andre, your idea confuses me.

Are you talking about real life years that DC would only make certain comics? So if you were in charge of DC right now, in two months, youd have them stop making any and all comics that werent Superman? A year later in Sept 2012 they could start with Batman, and then work from there with everyone else?

If Im reading this right, DC will have nosedived into the concrete before December. Not all DC fans read Superman, and even fewer would be satisfied with JUST Superman comics for a solid year. That would alienate a HUGE portion of their fanbase.

Basically yes, but as I said in my post this will not happen for the same reason you mentioned. Money and fan-base. I'm talking in a perfect world. Heck I'm not even a Superman fan, but he is number one, and historically I think he was the first superhero, at lest what we think of as superhero, I'm not sure of what Pulp heores that predate superman have made their way to current timelines.

But also as I said since you really cannot do that for bussines reason, start at Year Five.


DM Wellard wrote:

Golden age characters should be placed where they the golden in my reboot time moves slower on Earth 2's timeline and they are still in WW2.

I just posted my idea, and you read it you'd note I disagree with you, no golden age for me.

Having said that I know perfectly well that'll never happen and that your idea of the golden age charactes being placed in the golden age would be far more acceptable. No argument on that; but I do have a question, not just to you but anyone who'd have some idea.

Question is basicaly this; Who would you have in the Silver, Broze and as M&M likes to call it iron ages.

What I mean is DC as fairly established what characters existed in the golden age, but with the reboot I'm going to assmue that most 'moden' heors have come out since 2000. So what list of heros works for.....

The Silver age 1954 to 1973

The Bronze age 1974 to 1985+ or -

The Iron Age 1985 to 2000

You can say the golden age heros were around in WWII but thats now 60+ years ago are we to assume that no other superheors came out in that time?

If Not who would be the hero list for those ages? Knowing that by putting such a hero in such a category forever locks him in that time period. Sure you can still tell stories with that caracter but it would be in that era.

For example: I'd put Hal Jorden and Berry Alen/ Green Latern and Flash as silver age heors. Whoever has those titles in 2011 will not be those two charactes, and both are most likely dead or retired completly. Stories can still be told with them, but they are no longer part of current DC universe.

Are we even ready to lock some of the iconics to differnt eras?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was thinking of asking this very same question. I'm almost glad I didn't because most of you know more about DC then I'll ever know. That being said I just have put in my hat, for what its worth.

1. First start from scratch in terms or your primary earth. Everything that's gone before can be said to have happaned somewere else. This isn't going to make fans happy but it will give a starting point.

2. In a perfect world without market demands, fan demands, and simple finicial suicide DC starts with 1 comic, 1 superhero, Superman. Yeah it sucks but if the man in blue is going to be the guy all others are measured by then there has to be a reason. Think of it this way if JSA worked during WWII then supermans first apparance wouldn't be that impressive to the world at large. A year later first isssue of Detective comics (no roben until year four with Dick).

3. DC cannot do #2 so something has to devised. My solution, come out with a series of Year One books, or declare other year one titles to be offical. Batman Year One works fine because it steps on no ones toes, Man of Steel I'm less sure about. In any case then have ongoing series, but the ongoing will be more or less Year 5 or 10. Thus Bats and Superman and wonderwomen will have been around. ACtually I'd go year five, most of the major DC heros will have come out by then, but most if not all will not have meet each other yet.

4. Decide who is know by year 5. By know I mean which heors are actively being heros. My basic list, I'll keep to 10
Superman (first superhero came out in the new Year one)
Batman (maybe doing stuff in year one, but as batman year two)
Wondewomen (year two)
Auqoman (Year two)
Green Arrow (Year Three)
Flash (Year Three)
Green Latern (Year Four)
Hawkman (Year Four)
Robin (Year Five)
Captain Marvel (Year Five)

5. This makes it easy to start new stroylines for everyother hero they want to introduce as it is now year five and new heros can come out. And it leaves open hidden unknown players such as DR. Fate or the Spector, oh they've been around for a long time, but now one knew it.

6. DC will have to decide how long it wants to wait for new versions of old charactes can come in. New Green Lanter year 12. New Robin year 11. so on and so forth. They don't have to plan everthing out but have some sort of time table.

7. No Teams. Yeah this one no one will like, but I simply wouldn't have these hoers know each other much less be working together already. Just think about it for a moment, the first major crisis (pun not intended) that the world will face, and that will cause a crossover will be the orgion of the JLA. Then you start the JLA title, it'll have an offical self contained history.

Not that it matters, because I have no say but thats how I'd outline the rules (open for debate and suggestions of course).


Okay I have not read the whole thread so sorry if this has been asked and answered.

Big question for this book for those who've used it. How easy would it be to restore Psicraft and Use Psionic Device and related feats?

I've read a a lot a reveiews (even saw a few on utube) and most agree the Soul Knife by itself is worth the price. However I'm rather happy with keeping psionics and magic apart. Yes I know the logic behind the change was to make things simpler, but for me it hurts game play.

My reasoning is simple (I use tech. rules from WoW RPG, just to clearify) in the mind of the average joe in any fantasy game a tech. device (flint gun) magic device (wand of magic missile) and a crysital em (jezz can't think of psionic item right now) may all look and act the same, but such items to a Tinker, Wizard, and Psion would not only be differnt but function differnt.

Yeah I know it simplfy things for game play, but I've seen this experimited upon before it opens things to abuse or just plain wired S***. Not trying to start a fight over it the book is out now and if you like it that way great. I was just wondering how hard it'd be to convert back?



Been thinking along these lines for a while, personally other then giving Goblins a +2 Int. I wouldn't change much from the WoW rpg, assuming of couse you have that book/race.

The Tinker class works very well as is. However I did add a few minior adjustments. I have to look it up but their is a fan supplemnt called "Even More Magic and Mayhem" on PDF (google it'll pop up) that improves the Tinker class by letting the Tinker do what it does best only slightly faster.

Of course all this is assuming a WoW conversion, not a lets make a Goblin Tinker only using a Pathfinder context/rules set.

On a deeper level I would like to here some thoughts as to using the tech rules from WoW. I don't see any major problems adding the tech skill, but then I lean more towards 3.5 skill list then pathfinder. Moreorver it seems if you have the WOW rpg it be easer to use their tech rules rather then trying to come up with house rules fitting into the PF contect.

PS a multiclassed Goblin Tinker/Alchemist now theres a concept.


Conan OGL has very good rules for dodge and parry. In effect they work like saveing throws or BAB but have unique progression. We use those rules with a few changes. Such as....

as a house rule in terms of dodge armor ac actually works as a negative. So you have +4 armor, you get -4 to dodge.

Again as a house rule Parry gains nothing good or bad from armor AC but a helm with horns adds to Parry (they cacth the swords and stuff) and shield AC adds to Parry.

I would highly recomend looking into that games base rules to at lest set up a good starting point.


Matthew Morris wrote:

Long story short, Re: Blackest Night

Basically anyone who was dead was 'fair game' for the rings to animate. They went after people for whom others had strong emotional connections. Since Kal-L and Earth-1 Lois died in the 'Core' universe, they were fair game.

As to being offended, I don't think it was meant as a slap to the Segals, as a lot of characters got the 'zombie' treatment. Was BL Wonderwoman a slap to Marston? Or BL Grant and Addie a slap to Marv Wolfman? What is was meant as a slap to was the reader. To show no one was safe.

Now that beng said, I thought the carnage was overdone, and some of the characters they brought back annoy me (I liked Gen, Damage, Tempest, and Holly Granger, and would rather have seen Zoom and Digger stay dead. I am glad Martian Manhunter and Jade are back.)

You might be right, I could simply be overthinking it. But honestly the timing just seems suspect. Last I saw of Earth 2 superman, who is the superman that the Segals created, he, Lane, and Superboy (oh yeah as to the superboy debate look up superboy of earth prime, WTF? You will not be happy) we sent off to a paradise world. Now 20+ years later they couldn't leave the first true superhero be, and at the same time the Segals are sueing and, i think, won the rights to superman.

As to everyone fair game and all the other characters and creators, I see your point but from what I've read the only other big names are Aquaman and Martian Manhunter. In the end I suppose it gets down to the fact that Earth 2 superman was spared at the end of Crisis and honored with a happy ending that he should have gotten, but because of that DC left a loop hole to the whole Infinite Earths deal created in the 50's that they wanted to fix.


PS here is a funny irony, I once heard that DC did Crisis for two reasons, one and the main reason, it was getting too complex with too many worlds to keep track of and heros and stories to keep stright; and two newer readers were becoming very hip and better educated, and science (real world science that is) discredited the idea of multiple diminisions.

The Irony being that now Science and embraced the concept of multiple diminisions and the DC universe, for being one universe keeps messing up and re-starting things over and over again.

Shem wrote:
I don't remember the Dracolich. Now I am even more depressed.

This is a new one on me? But if you want such, look up the Dragon series from MacFarlin, they had a Dracolich toy, although be warned I'm still trying to fix it so the damn wings stay on. Still its well worth tracking down.

Mage Knight also had a good Tiamat that I was lucky to get my hands on.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Of the 5 archer archetypes presented, one is restricted to classes that can cast spells. The alchemical archer is more a gadget-arrow user than a spellcaster.

Thanks, I think I can work with that, and the spellcaster option might be houseruled or tweeked somehow. Yes I think this might be a very good toolkit for me.


Hmmmmm, okay thanks guys for the feedback. I'm with Shem as to if they are actually going to come out with this, but assuming it does come out I think well see it in secondary markets. Who knows maybe somebody will trade it in to Paizo and will see it for sale as single.

Shem also makes a really good argument for somebody to take up the plastic mini market. Lets face it that's what really put Mage Knight and Wizkids on the map. Mage Knight was fun, and the click thing was at lest differnt, but mostly it showed that there are a lot of gamers willing to pay for platic pre-painted. DD killed that with their runs, but without any competition they got lazy and quality went to hell in a handbasket. That's changed somwhat recently but still.

I did have some hopes for Reaper to do so, their plastics pre-painted are very well done, but Robert mentioned a slow boat, I think they have somebody swim across the pacific to delever there stuff.

Anyways hers hoping you guys get Orcus, and keep your fingers crossed that I can get my hands on one.


Okay, so I’m at my FLGS the other day and I what was in effect a Zombie Superman toy. It was just wrong. I found out it was for Blackest Night a Green Lantern storyline. Okay now before I go on I have not collected since X-Men age of apocalypse and while I do try to keep up on what’s going on with comic books I’m by no means hardcore. That being said I read up on the Green Lantern story so I know the basics, but something just kept bothering me about the Superman thing. Now I’m team Batman make no mistake, but I’ll freely admit Superman’s the most famous and iconic superhero and it just struck me wrong.

At first I thought it was simply my pride as an American. Superman to me is a symbol of the USA and I just didn’t like him being a Zombie ‘like’ (yeah I know they are not Zombies in the Romero sense of the word). But really that wasn’t it, or at lest that wasn’t all of it. I work for a Law Library I was going through some old copies of the Daily Journal (a Law news paper) and found an article on the lawsuits over Superman ownership from the families of his creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. (As an aside I’m actually on DC side of the question, yeah they might of created the character, but they sold it to DC, how many characters did they buy that never became iconic, no one at the time knew what Superman would become? Sorry guys but you sold it, and you knew what the comic book business was like). In any case, sorry lost track of my point, it seems to me the whole Zombie Superman as a sick slap in the face to the character and his creators.

My logic goes something like this, Siegel and Shuster’s creation was the Superman of the 1930s, hence Superman of Earth 2, who has been coming back a lot lately even though 86’s Crisis on Infinite Earths ended his story, more or less happily. And each time DC has basically been throwing mud in his face as a hero of a bygone era, until now with this final(?) insult of insults now you’re an undead zombified corpse. Now maybe I’m wrong but its almost like DC is saying, fine if we have to share ownership of Superman with the families of his creators, were going to really F*** with your creation, and we have an easy out because the ‘real’ Superman isn’t the one form Earth 2.

Like I said I’m actually on the side of DC on the ownership issue, but it seems like they really have a bad case of sour grapes and wanted to get back and Siegel and Shuster in a back handed way.

Sorry just had to rant.


Dark_Mistress wrote:

I am not sure this book would work well for that or not. I say that cause the archer archtypes are themed and mixing more than one in many cases would be odd. Plus they powers are preset to a certain level of power. Now with that said, I think you might get some good idea's to help you build a archer class, out of this book.

I wasn’t looking to mix themed types necessarily. For example a Sorcerer with a Dragon bloodline wouldn’t gain any Fey bloodline effects. Or more specifically we took a “Long Bow Hunter” PC from book A, and added that style of Archery to my class. While we found another archer built around the Yeomen archetype, we took many of his unique abilities a built a Yeomen Style.

Thanks for the help, I leaning more and more on picking up this one.


Okay, so what Happaned? This is still coming out right? Its just effectily sold out before its been relased correct? Its a bummer because I was thinking of getting it, now I'll have to pay twice as much on ebay.

Or am I missing something and she (yeah Orcus has to be a girl, used to date don't you know) isn't being released at all?


Odd question here, is this book good toolkit to make an Archer Class?

I have multiple Archer 3.5 classes, that my group and I enjoy, but we always wanted just to have one Archer class (a concept that to us is vitally needed). Pathfinder gave the perfect solution when we first saw the Sorcerer. Make one class with optional ‘styles’ for want of a better word. As such we set about working on combining the various Archer classes together to make a Pathfinder Archer. What we found was that multiple Archer classes from all our books only ends up with a few ‘styles’ so we decided to make up are own. We soon discovered new respect for game designers, as such work is much harder then one would think.

This books looks like it might fit a vital need for us, forget about swapping with existing classes, I want use these tools to make a new Class. Has anyone tried this, or if not, do you see any major problems with using this product that way? My biggest concern centers on the magic and alchemy aspects of the book. Do they require spell slots? Something my existing Archer Class wouldn’t have nor-want. If so has anyone come up with a solution. Any input would be appreciated.



Changeing the subject a bit, I've never liked the idea of building a character simply for the assumed power level of the game, ie its assumed that a arcane caster will have access to spell X and a divine will or should have access to spell Y. Such logic, to me at lest, puts into question multi-classing of any type. Any stright up Class will be stronger in a fight then a class that is forced to blend ablities.

To me I don't assume that my players will have X, and if the game demands that they do it forces them to think outside of the box.

Moreover in terms of roleplaying the Sor/ora/theu, concept if a lot of fun in a lot of differnt ways. Tactical support to start off with, whoever is your main arcane or divine caster (assuming you have one in your group) cannot be all over the battle field all the time, such a combo character saves times and gives much needed support. Moreover don't forget scroll reading. As a whole Sorcers should be carrying a lot of scrolls anyways, not sure about the oracle yet as I've not played one long term yet.

I think James had some good ideas for the Sorcere/Oracle build. Like me he seems not to be afraid to tweek rules as needed.

Oh yes and as to the idea that no group of players would or even should tolarate such a character remember the game is supposed to be fun, and the best moments usualy comes from a groups short commings rather then their over power ablity to wipe everything off the map in three rounds.


This seems very well done. I'm converting an old 3.5 Defender to yours. From what I'm reading forsee very few issues as is.

I always wondered why this class never made it to the Pathfinder core book. I'd like to think that it was simply a space issue, but in all honesty, much as I enjoy Pathfinder I always gotten a sense that Paizo as a whole, and not just with their home setting, just has a disliking towards Dwarven culture.

As to making this into a 20 level class, to an extent most 10 level PC can be expanded as such (going all the way back to 3.0) In a lot a ways 5 level PC are far more logical mechanically speaking, but also more difficult to make intersting.

As for your warmage plans I was thinking about updating that class, I have been thinking along the lines of combining aspects of it and the Arcane Warrior class from Blackmore. If you have that resorce you might want to look at it for some insperation.


Lisa Stevens wrote:
Andre Caceres wrote:

Well I ordered this, the sale was just too good. But another question poped into my mind. Why the sale? I have no intrest in playing confrontation, in truth I've only barely heard of it. But hate to lose out on perfectly good minis source. Especially in regards to Classic Knights. Anyway just wondering.


We got a really good price on these from Fantasy Flight and decided to pass along the savings to our customers. That is pretty much why there is a sale on them! :)


Very cool, Thanks for the heads up.


Well I ordered this, the sale was just too good. But another question poped into my mind. Why the sale? I have no intrest in playing confrontation, in truth I've only barely heard of it. But hate to lose out on perfectly good minis source. Especially in regards to Classic Knights. Anyway just wondering.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Andre Caceres wrote:

Whats the scale of this?


The wolfmen are about large size, though their base is an odd size between medium and large.

Hmmm, sounds like this might be a good deal then, specially for the price, have to consider this.

Thanks for the info.


Whats the scale of this?


Vic Wertz wrote:
Andre Caceres wrote:

I have an aside question to the topic Vic, if you happen to know. I have the first printing of the Pathfinder setting thats kinda beat up, but since the old version is going away I was thinking of getting a mint copy for my collection and was wondering if it says "1st, 2nd 3rd ect. Printing" inside the book? or is the setting book still on its first print run?

Thanks DRE

This book had only one print run, and since it's being supplanted by a new book, there will only ever be one printing for this one.

Thanks thats what I needed to know.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:
I also don't see the comparison to the Alpha- and Beta- core rules. Those were MEANT to be temporary, right from the get-go. And they were FREE for goodness' sake.
Ok... how about the Core Rulebook itself? Currently, the PDF mirrors the second printing, incorporating corrections to the first printing. In the not-too-distant future, the PDF will be updated to the third printing, incorporating corrections to the second printing, and the second printing PDF will be unavailable.

I have an aside question to the topic Vic, if you happen to know. I have the first printing of the Pathfinder setting thats kinda beat up, but since the old version is going away I was thinking of getting a mint copy for my collection and was wondering if it says "1st, 2nd 3rd ect. Printing" inside the book? or is the setting book still on its first print run?

Thanks DRE

Hey thanks all, ended up getting a copy.


I deciced to pick up a copy of this core book since I'm been playing in a group using Rippers for almost a year, but cannot find it at my FLAGS nor on line other then pdf format, which is not my perfered option.

So I was wondering if anyone knew if Rippers is going to go back into print anytime soon, or will have to hunt it down?



Well this is agood a place as any to post this idea.

Technically the argument that spellbooks vs. Familiar are about even is ture, however the issue of how many books and where a wizard keeps them for somereason isn't explotied much, but in testing I've seen Blue Dragons go after a cat familiar without mercy. so the simple answer is protect the familiar, but that leaves the witch at a disadvantage.

What I mean is that while both classes have to protect their books/familiars, the former (wizard) gets to use his familiar in combat situations where as the witch wouldn't want to risk it (again this is what has happaned in play).

Now I've been thinking about this, and my players have put out some suggestions of buffing up the familiar which is nice an all but in effect goes into summoner teritory in terms of pain in the butt.

So I was thinking along the lines of a Book of Shadows concept. In this case the Book of Shadows would be the Witch's familiar. It may have been a simple spell book once, but at some point it became an enchanted object, that carries part of the essese of the witch that owns it. Perhaps it gets passed down from witch to witch, as it dose so it gains spells, but only reveals them to the curret owner when they are powerful enough. The witch would have to bond with the book so that its destroyed it has the same effect as losing a familiar, so they must be careful with it. The Book of Shadows would also act as a grimore of knowledge for the Witch, this would work exactly like Bardic Knoweldge but would require study time(maybe like HP and Chamber of secrets, have to write your question into the book for it to answer) and the knoweldge would actually come from the past owners of the book, hence a witch from three hundread years before who helped kill a Blue Dragon, would give info on the blue dragon to the curret owner of the book. This gives the class the option of a Wizards spell book but still keep the flavor of a Witch. Any book could be made into a book of shadows but a new book could only be created by a Witch's coven and it would gain a little bit of knowldge from each witch the performed the ritual.

I was also thinking of giving the book intelligent, but thought of better of going into those waters.

In any case I still have to work out all the mechanics of this but it does solve the "Crow" weakness of the familiar and still keeps the class distinct from the wizard. And whats nice about this option is that it still allows for the 'standard' familiars, the book of shadows is simply a another type of familiar.

I could use some feedback on this idea thanks.


P.S. oh yeah almost forgot, the book would work for other witchs but any other spell casting class would only detect it as a magical object with a lot of blank pages.

Looking at the two classes, without roling one up much less playing one myself, or my group I have to say....

The big issue will be the familiar for the Witch. Over all the flavor and class is okay, seen better but thats mainly because I think Paizo kinda went for heavy combat concept for the class overall, this might be fine due to the over all game's power creep but is less to my liking. That being said too much power is tied to such an easy target, one which will have to be protected every combat, far more so then a Wizard.

I would have perfred a Book of Shadows, holding her spells, more powerful then a mear spell book they could have allowed it to contain Witches knowledge (like a bardic roll) and perhaps something like a seconed sight type of spell that gives flashes of critical information to the wicth, be it passed event, alarm to danger (either personal or to a friend). Perhaps the book could even call foruth the familiar giving a portion of its essece thus making the familiar the back up spell book.

In either case as it stands the familiar, if it remains the same will be reworked altogether.

The Summoner is a more complicated issue. Balance and clase features wise its fine, again just looking at it, but this is the one class so far that really should have been a PC, its too specialized and too focused. I could maybe see it for a region kinda like a Ninja in OA but for all of Pathfinder RPG? On the other hand I would banish it from the table.

As to the new classes being magic as opposed to martial orinted, I tend to agree. An Archer class done very well is needed, No I don't think Fighter/Ranger does it well enough.


Why do I have an image of a cheep claymation brown riding dog named goliath saying.....

"Don't call us evil Daveyy"

So my pathfinder game has begun, and like usual one of my players wanted to change x y and z. Thankfully this time it wasn't focused on rules, well not specifically.

Long story short after talking it over we decided that we'd perfer our Halflings to be closer to fey then Tolkins' vision. In fact we pushed halflings closer to what Paizo makes Gnomes to be, except that we decided to go with a Dark Crystal/Elflings feel for them, in looks and powers. All this mechanically worked fine without rules changes save for females having wings and the ablity to fly.

As none of the core races have flight as a racial ablity I was wondering if their is a standard mod. for the fly skill as a racial ability, +2 or +4? Or should I just give female halflings fly as a automatic class skill (I perfer the latter as I regard flight to be more akin to glide for them, however my player likes the +2 idea). In either case however what if anything should I take away from Halfling racial ablities.

As I said I like simply giving fly as a automatic skill, but I'm open to others ideas, or if their is an established standard what that would be.

Thanks in advance for any and all imput....


These are very good versions of the Noble. My suggestion would first forget Dragonlances Noble, Hey I love their Mystic, but the noble was just too plain. Not sure about Star Wars noble, although I like the concept of talent trees. I've always used GR Noble for 3.5 and updating would not be too hard as I recal the class gets something every level, or very close too every level.

By my way of thinking, and this ist just a thought all the ablities mentioned so far could be folded into a system for nobel Houses. Something like Bloodlines, in fact bloodlines would be a good name for it had not the Sorcerers already taken it. In such a system such things as knacks would be folded into a certain ablities given to certain members of a nobel House. Think Dune (in fact I did such a homebrew dune game with just such a concept).

In such a model you might have

House Caceres:

House Traits: Inspire, nobles oblige, Landed, Great Courage.


House Clinton: Backstab, Snake Tounge, Elks Enderance, Rats Grace.

With each Trait having a number of possible ablities Within. Thus not everyone in a single house would get everything associated with their House, but the would gain something from their noble upbringing.

I don't have a full class put together, hell I'm still working a a witch, and archer, but this is how I'd start putting together a noble. Its not really a question of is he good at combat really, the very fact that a player would want to play a noble means combat may not be on his mind. However Each House should have at lest one combat or combat support trait on their list.

Just a cp


Pop'N'Fresh wrote:
Jeremy Epp wrote:
There was a fellow that converted Burnt Offerings and the iconic Piazo characters to Savage Worlds a while back with reportedly good results you can find his notes at

That would be me :) I had a TPK in the adventure, but it was player error that caused it.

The only thing I didn't like about the SW system was the use of power points for spells. The mage in the group didn't enjoy having to wait for his power points to return after each encounter. If I could go back and replay this adventure, I would use the Hellfrost magic system that doesn't use power points at all, and is 100% compatible with any SW game.

I'm playing in a group right now, its a fun solid system but my group also hates the magic system. It just feels wrong. Well for them not playing a caster so I can't say one way or the other. Our groups solution was something called Witch Girl rpg, technically its not SW and it is made for 13 year old girls, but the basic system is the same as SW and the magic system/concept works far better. Not sure about Hellfrost as we are playing Rippers (with a lot of magic in it) but my fellow players live by that game even though no one seems to ever have the book on the table, its very well hidden by eveyone.


Stereofm wrote:

+1 for Gothic as well, provided there are some lighter moments in the AP.

After all, Gothic horror is only so appealing when contrasting to standard fantasy.

In this vein, I would recommend the "Witcher" books and video game, which capture a lot of this, IMHO.

LOL I thought you were going to say Fearless Vampire Killers!


cibet44 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Stay tuned; in a month or so, we're releasing "Carrion Hill," a VERY Lovecraftian adventure set in Ustalav, written by Richard Pett for us many years ago but unpublished, and then updated to be in the PRPG game and to be set in Golarion by yours truly. No vampires in this one, but it's very good at evoking the creepy sense of backwoods/ancient urban horror that Lovecraft excelled at. Fans of "The Dunwich Horror" should take special note of this adventure...

Take it easy with the "Lovecraft stuff". I like as much as most but it really seems like Lovecraftian themes are really getting over used.

In the past we have had a 3E glut a D20 glut and I would dare to say we are right now at the peak of a "Cthulhu glut". I hope we don't someday look back at these years and think: "What was with all the Lovecraft stuff back then?". I know the HPLove stuff is popular and in the public domain but lets not overdue it. Some new original concepts would be better, like whatever happened to Mr Monas Red/Green Planet module idea?

Well you sorta answered your own question,its in the public domain, although from what little I know of Lovecraft he wouldn't of minded too much.


Krome wrote:

For this to really work it requires two very important things: Setting and Character.

Paizo has been great with settings so far. I think this can be a bit more challenging to maintain through six full adventures. A fine line has to be maintained to keep the players engaged and in suspense and not cross over into yet another "creepy" crypt adventure. The setting for each adventure would need to be unique and engaging in its own right.

The characters developed by Paizo have been great as well. Here I think they would have an easier time. A truly monstrous villain in the guise of a aristocratic gentleman (makes me think of Queen Ileosa Arabasti in Curse of the Crimson Throne). The cast should be flawed but salvageable, though some will never be saved.

The plot itself can be rather simple, or knowing Paizo, could be layers of plots that lead to understanding the events that have happened.

Quite honestly, if well done, I could very well see this kind of AP becoming the most popular AP released yet.

The problem is, that unlike most other APs so far, there is a high level of expectation for something like this. For Second Darkness you just needed to throw in Drow doing something naughty. That essentially all that is necessary for a drow adventure... drow! But for a gothic horror there is more than just a vampire.

I sort of disagree with the Drow thing. I think the high expectations was going to be on what was Paizo's take on the Drow was going to be. They'd been done for so long that many people (myself included I have to admit) thought they were not open to the SRD like the Beholder, in other words the Drow were DnD and only DnD whatever edition. Upon starting to read 2nd Darkness my first words regarding Paizo's take on the Drow was "Oh S***!" I mean random Elves becoming Drow, and not just because they are evil alingment a lot of evil elves never become drow. I just got better. That fear was something new for players (I haven't played the path yet but I can't wait to spring that one on players). In any case it worked and was fresh.


Karelzarath wrote:

Strahd is a thinly-veiled ripoff of Dracula. Read the original book and then "I, Strahd."

That is all.

Agreed, but most of the great iconic vamps are Dracula in name, Legosi's Dracula and the very best Lee's Dracula. Strahd to my mind is a new take on Dracula, but Dracula nevertheless. But in gaming circles Strahd is vital, while most people will mention (and with good reason, the OWoD vampires, they'll mention Clans or bloodlines, not individual vamps).

Also Fraust mad some very good points in his post above. I loved Hook Mt. as well but like Romero's zombies, slasher stories is not Gothic Horror.

As to the issue of Demons I'm of two minds. I agree that Wizards wantered down demons too much, but again not Gothic, or at lest not exactly gothic. I think a 20th + Vampire Lord would be less intrested in consorting with Demons as he would in becoming a Demon Lord himself (which isn't a half bad idea).


Frostflame wrote:
Hey you forgot Fright Night and Lost Boys....+1 paizo it would be awesome to have a gothic adventure path.

Actually we did talk about that, but for the life of us we couldn't remember his name, or his sister in FNII. By the time I wrote up my request I forgotten. As for Lost Boys I forgot all about that one.

As for the Zombie mention a few post up, I wouldn't be against them persay but I want Gothic not Romero, or god help us post-Romero fast zombies.


Okay I have a request for the folks at Paizo, and since its now October and Halloween time I just had to send this out.

A few months ago my gaming group was discussing the Pathfinder rule set, one thing led to another and we ended up talking about Halloween and costumes, which for some reason ended up becoming a discussion of Vampires, and how bad the current crop of vamps are these days. I mean True Blood, Twilight, good help ups the Vamp. Diaries, its all the same, and all a women centered romantic notion of vampires standing in for god knows what. Actually I do know what, good looking guys, emotionally damaged (because no bad looking guy can be damaged or be worth her time) who treat women with all the bygone manners of a few centuries before without all the ownership values of said centuries, and with out the ‘male domination’ of such times. In other words with all the romance of said times, without any of the cost. (I know, I’m venting)

None of which is my point, which was that we as a group began to name iconic vampires that did not fit the above modern version (although every name had some aspect of such) Dracula (Legosi’s) and LeStant, Nosferatu (Schereck’s), Count Yogi, Marieous (spelling?), Lee's Dracula of course, heck even Spike from Buffy (say whatever you want about the show being the forerunner of the current croup at lest the creators of the show knew they playing with the stereotypes even before they really existed as they do today). But then I mentioned Strahd almost off handedly. I got nothing, not even from the old timers.

“You know from Ravenloft.” Oh yeahhh! Form the old timers. It was odd that only the old timers knew what I was talking about, and even then had to be reminded. I never played 2E (I was busy in the WoD) but I heard of Ravenloft, and of Strahd. Heck I even got a hard cover of "I Strahd". I couldn’t believe he was barely acknowledged or even remembered. But then I thought about my collection of 3E Ravenloft stuff. I got it all, and while the texts were good and informative, they were sadly and ironically being from WW, dry.

So my 1st request is for Paizo give us a good old-fashioned Gothic Horror Adv. Path. I read in one of the Dragon Mags that Ravenloft owed its inspiration to the old Universal Monster movies; as such I love to have something based more on Hammer’s Horror, and Lee. The archvillian should be a vampire of course, but like Lee make this a true monster, something that’ll kill you as soon as look at you, and regards the peasants as property or food. In other words Paizo, to be perfectly clear, give Vampires their freaking ba-ehh fangs back again. A true Gothic Vampire Horror Adventure Path. Please!

My 2nd request is probably less likely but I think would simply be cool. An adventure Path (six issues) of “What If’s?” from the older paths. In other words, one issue being What if a Rune Lord had won. The next issue being What if the Second Darkness had begun. This would also fill the growing demand for epic or at lest higher level adventures.

Just had to put this out there for your consideration.


During 3.5 I always went sorcerer because I just loved the concept, but I would always tell players go Wizard, it was the better class realistically. I improved the sorcerer as time went on, in many cases the way Pathfinder did except maybe a little too powerful.

With Pathfinder however I have to play a little more. I love what they did with the Sorcerer, and I'd go Arcane or Fey, most other bloodlines are good but don't appeal to me, and I think the Elemetal bloodline is far too meh to get the true feal of either the Sorcerer or Elementalist. On the other hand I do like a lot of the Wizard improvements.

Looking at the classes side by side I'd say to decide between concept over flexablity. In power the classes are equel, but the wizard edges out in raw flexablity. The sorcere now has both concept and power in equel mesure, but you are restricted to that theme.


I'm very open with letting stuff in. I've always been bit surprised by a lot of 3x GM's and Players who support open gaming and want 3rd to be accepted and prised but then turn around and not allow any 3pp stuff into the game because of balance.

In any case I have to really give it to the guys at Paizo as I thought I'd be updating a lot of classes from 3pp pub. (forget Wizards non-core classes which for the most part I found kinda eh)but have found that most need only a small tweek or non at all. List of classes that came out fine:

Tinker, Hunter, Runemaster, (Warcraft RPG)
Cavaler (GR)
Seductress (Conan)

Classes that need work, and by this I mean just added stuff each level.

Kingdom of Kalamar (all)
Witch (GR although I'm thinking of combining various attempts at this class into one, oddly enough this is good way of updating the class with a little less work)
OA (all)
Knight (R&R Excaliber) this is my fav. version of the Knight, although it was a bit underpowered and too close to the Fighter even in 3.x so I gave it the weapon power from Rokugon Samurai which made unique and equal. Now I have to bumb him up to Pathfinder level. I'm thinking of getting that 3pp book with the new Knight class and combine the two. but I'm still working on that.

Then their are rules. I've highly modified conan's dodge and parry to work with Pathfinder and like the results, but find making a custom character sheet a reall pain.

Feats, I've yet to see a really really broken feat, however because of Wizards, and even Paizo to a lesser extent, I can tell you of a few feats that simply are worthless and obsolete now. Had a pdf archer book which I loved that let fire more then one arrow at the cost of a feat per arrow. Well Wizards took care of that with one feat when 3.5 came out. Its not that Wizards way isn't better or worse, but after that became an option no one used the old feat.

So count me in as someone who lets just about anything in. I don't have powergamers in my group so maybe I have it easy, but I have found that most 3pp came out with fairly balanced stuff. If anything the creep came more from wizards then anything else.


These are fantastic! My compliments.

KaeYoss wrote:
In fact, unless you have powerful characters, that girl is going to annihilate the characters so badly that their ancestors will die retroactively.

LOL thats a good one KaeYoss I'll have to remeber that. But the group I was in didn't have a problem with her. Of course tthinking about it we were play testing beta at the time, so the classes were stronger then 3.5. Do you think the overpower isssue still holds with classes now?


1 to 50 of 500 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>