Archdevil's page

Hi, I'm interested! I am experienced with 5e and I have always thought CotCT seemed like a really great AP.

My character idea is a half-elf wizard, who has the "drop-out" background from the players guide. She was the illegitimate child of a minor nobleman (who had an affair with an elf woman), who was sent off to a boarding school as a child and developed a talent/passion for magic. She then became a student at the Academae, but after Gaedren Lamm got her falsely accused of murder she had to drop out and her father cut her off (previously he was funding her studies in a distant sort of way). So she's used to a fairly comfortable lifestyle and is now in a position where she has no money to continue studying wizardry. She would easily fall in with the party and their efforts at helping keep peace in Korvosa because she's lived in the city her whole life and is rather directionless at the moment.

Mechanically, she would have the Sage background and I would probably choose Conjuration as her school since it seems like the Academae specializes in that.

I can have a more complete character sheet up soon, but wanted to put the idea forward before that deadline.

It goes
Demons = CE = Tanar'ri
Devils = LE = Baatezu
Daemons = NE = Yugoloths

IIRC the fantasy names were introduced in 2nd edition as a way to slightly distance D&D from real-world religion and "Satanic panic."

Pretty sure the 5e MM does also say that yugoloths are also known as daemons. So you can still call em daemons if you want.

Nice UA, if less exciting than a mystic. I don't find myself using traps very much but there are some fun ones in here.

Irontruth wrote:

Side note, my favorite thing about Otyughs... they speak common.

Which ones? Not the one in the Monster Manual.

They spoke Common in 3e/PF (and I think 4e as well). I remember there being some kerfuffle about an encounter with one in Hoard of the Dragon Queen where the adventure text says it's willing to bargain with the PCs (despite the fact that it can't talk) ... because speaking Common was removed from the otyugh at some point during 5e development and the adventure wasn't revised.

I am interested in this and working on a character, most likely a bard. I haven't played in PFS before, and I like the idea of a RP-heavy campaign that is based on a series of modules. I think I missed seeing this thread earlier, but I'll see if I can come up with something before the deadline :)

I think the "cookie cutter" style of Golarion makes it easier to engage with as a setting for people who are new to RPGs. Like, here's the pirate land, here's the evil empire, here's the fantasy-Egypt, here's the icy Viking people, all of them are somewhere around the Inner Sea, go crazy. If you want a particular archetypal fantasy "feel," there is something in Golarion that resembles it.

The Realms has a lot less of "this nation is a fantasy analogue to a modern or historical culture," which can be interesting in its own way but I also think it makes it less suited to being the default setting of a game. In order to make it interesting, you have to kind of dig deep ("what makes the culture of the Dalelands really stand out from the rest of the Sword Coast?") and can't just fall back on universal tropes.

I do like FR, but Golarion does "something for everyone" better. In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing 5E open up more official D&D settings in the future.

OK, thanks. I decided against using one of those because I think I have enough reason for character buy-in to the plot already, just based on her deity.

Here is the character alias. I'm still figuring out equipment, but everything else is finished.

I would be interested in applying. I have the idea to adapt a character that I played in an in-person game for a while that then fell apart, who would be well suited to this (dragonborn cleric of Bahamut who would love a chance to fight some followers of Tiamat).

I know HotDQ has bonds that are used as character hooks, would you want us to use one of those?

Would you need the DCI numbers of the DMs on a log sheet? I have the other information, but people at my LGS are pretty casual about organized play so not all of the DMs gave out DCIs.

I take your point about the two-handedness of Curse Bringer being a balancing feature.

It's true that being small restricts your weapon choices, and so I'd rather not restrict it any further. Like, it's not going to be optimal but if someone really wants to build a halfling with Great Weapon Fighting who uses a longsword two-handed for 1d10, they can do that.

Maybe Curse Bringer could work like Great Weapon Fighting style does. "When you form your pact weapon as a two-handed melee weapon, or a versatile weapon that you wield with both hands... etc." Pretty much everyone would still choose the greatsword, and I don't think there are any balance issues, right?

I just think it's nicer if players aren't locked into a certain weapon choice. Nothing else in 5e mandates the use of a specific weapon in order to use a class feature. With these "a particular patron grants a particular weapon" invocations, a Small bladelock who wants to be decent is basically restricted to 2 of the 5 patron options. If Moon Bow is written so that it can work on either a shortbow or a longbow, nothing changes except that the Archfey patron isn't saying "Sorry, only my medium size warlocks get to shoot cool radiant arrows and destroy lycanthropes. Nothing for you!"

Would like to join! I'm familiar with 5E and have played lots of AL in person, never PbP. So I would probably make a new level 1 character for this.

I do think these invocations are really fun and flavorful, but one of the things about the warlock that I always liked was how customizable it was, and the PHB invocations not being tied to patron is a big part of that.

For example, the first one in this UA, "Aspect of the Moon," says that the Moon Maiden has granted you her favor and now you don't need to sleep anymore. But you could easily have the same thing on a Great Old One warlock and say "Your patron's eldritch whispers in your mind deny you even the solace of slumber, but its power sustains you regardless, and you no longer require sleep..." etc.

Similarly, the pact smites. You form Dispater's mace created in the second circle of the Hells, that's neat. But maybe my pact is with a demon lord so why should I get a weapon from Dispater? Why do I specifically have to use a mace to do this cool attack? I no longer get to flavor my pact weapon however I want, which is something that the PHB explicitly suggests players should do.

Mandating a specific heavy weapon doesn't so much reward a Str/Dex build as it punishes Small characters because I can't choose to use something non-heavy even if it's not optimal. Two of the options, flails & maces, aren't heavy, but the other two smite weapons are. "Moon Bow" makes my Gnome Feylock sad because her patron the Summer Queen can't give her a shortbow with magic arrows, only a longbow that she can't use properly!

(And yes, I definitely intend to give feedback on the survey when it comes out. I just also love talking too much about warlocks.)

I like the Warlock options overall, but have some issues with the flavor. "The Raven Queen" isn't a great patron concept because every other patron is generic. Making this an archetype has the unfortunate effect that 1) anyone who doesn't use the Raven Queen as a goddess in their setting has to ban or significantly reflavor this option 2) suddenly there's loads of adventurers running around who made a pact with the Raven Queen (as opposed to relatively few G.O.O. warlocks who made a pact with, say, Shub-Niggurath specifically).

I mean, I have always liked the Raven Queen and I think this is a very cool archetype that I would totally allow in a game I was running. I just would prefer for any eventual officially published new warlock patrons to be more generic than this one.

Also, I very much dislike having invocations tied to specific patrons. None of the PHB invocations are like that - you don't need a fiend patron to take Fiendish Vigor or Chains of Carceri. Get rid of the fluff sentences and get rid of the patron requirement (with the obvious exception of the ones which modify the Hexblade's abilities).

Oh, and Curse Bringer should be changed in some way so that it doesn't require the use of a greatsword specifically, because right now it's unusable by Small warlocks (greatswords are heavy). This is probably just an oversight rather than a deliberate decision.

Hi, I'd be interested in this. It would be my first PbP on these boards but I'm familiar with 5e (more so than pathfinder) and I really like the idea of a 5e game set in Golarion. I'm thinking about either a cleric or paladin, or, with UA on the table, it would be interesting to try out the new Artificer class.

Archdevil wrote:

I think the default assumption is that if you wrote down "component pouch" in the equipment section of your character sheet then you're OK to cast anything with a (non-expensive) material component, right? "What specific component does this spell require" is unnecessary bookkeeping for some people but for some people it adds flavor.

I guess that's fine for the powdered iron, sand, rose petals and cricket legs, but for the 100gp pearl and the powdered silver, that should probably be specified. Also, I remember some spells--at least in Dungeons and Dragons--that required live animals, swallowing a cricket and stuff. That all seems like important details not just for roleplaying but also with game-mechanics consequences. If you make your Cavalier decide whether he is sleeping in his armor, you should make your Wizard decide how he's going to play a role in an ambush with a caged cricket in his backpack that might start chirping at any time.

Well yes, some of them have a cost, that's why I mentioned "non-expensive" material component. Material components with no listed cost are flavor/jokes and are assumed to be covered by the purchase of a component pouch.

I don't think there's any spell that requires a live cricket, although spider climb requires a live spider (still pretty gross to swallow but less cumbersome to carry around). I don't know if there are any other spells out there where the component is unusual enough that you'd question "wait, you had that in your pouch the whole time?" ... I couldn't find any lists of components, or spell indexes that let me sort for only spells with material components, but I'm kind of curious now.

dot

What sort of product is it? It seems to me like something which is compatible with both would be system-neutral enough that it would be more of a generic "use this with any system" product.

If you want to be a healer with full spellcasting but cleric is a boring option for you, have you considered a witch or shaman maybe? Not sure about the archer part but you at least get more "interesting" class features.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

That's a little different, though. Wizard Spells have specific components, and they are supposed to have them on their persons at the time the cast them.

I never really go the long-list of different spell components. Always seemed to be an unnecessary piece of book-keeping to keep track of. Now if the type of material components you used enhanced a spell's effects, that would be cool and would make them more interesting in my opinion. Less of "I need to hunt down this random list f ingredients because I need them" chore style mentality and more "If I take a couple of hours out of my time I can make this one spell more effective, but I can always choose to not to and just have a less-powerful spell"

I think the default assumption is that if you wrote down "component pouch" in the equipment section of your character sheet then you're OK to cast anything with a (non-expensive) material component, right? "What specific component does this spell require" is unnecessary bookkeeping for some people but for some people it adds flavor.

It all depends on the group's preferences. Personally, I'd find it frustrating if I was asked to describe how my rogue disables a trap, but when I play wizards I enjoy keeping track of spell components and describing how they're used.

Systems where combat is often long and complicated make it harder to be super descriptive about combat actions without becoming repetitive.

Archdevil wrote:

I absolutely agree that people who may be shy or have difficulty with social interaction in RL shouldn't be punished for it in roleplaying situations. I'm just saying that if someone does have a creative idea for a roleplay interaction, you should reward them for it.

As you explain it, rewarding one and not punishing the other looks identical to punishing one and not rewarding the other. Either way the DC is moved by X points.

There is a distinction between "You came up with a good argument for a check that would normally have been of average difficulty, so the DC shifts to an easier one" and "You didn't come up with a great argument for what should be an average difficulty check, so the DC shifts to a harder one."

The idea is to encourage people who are shy about improv and social RP to get better at it, because it adds to everyone's enjoyment of the game.

For what it's worth, when I started out in the world of RP I was incredibly shy about it and I wish my GM had done more along the lines of what PossibleCabbage has mentioned. I didn't start feeling comfortable RPing as a player until after I had tried to be a GM myself.

HWalsh wrote:

That is like saying, in combat, a character can't get a +2 flanking bonus because another player lacks tactical awareness.

No, it's like giving someone a +2 bonus to attack rolls because they can do a lot of push ups.

It's not a case of "I can do this, so my character can do this" but rather "If I say my character is doing a certain thing, I should receive the logical benefits of that action."

If I can think of a particularly plausible lie and I say, "My character tells the guard to let us in because X," the DC of the Bluff check should be lower than if the lie is something ridiculous.

Yes that gives a minor reward to someone who is creative IRL. But if I can't think of a good lie and my character has great Charisma I can probably still succeed on that check.

The general consensus to my previous question seems to be that very pervasive fantasy tropes may be treated as very low knowledge DCs that players should attempt before considering the knowledge common sense. I'm in agreement with this sentiment.

Here's another question I'm pondering with regard to the current flow of the thread: Suppose that in an intrigue-based game, a smart player of a stupid character (think 7 Int, 7 Wis, 7 Cha) has an out-of-character flash of insight to the current mystery based on clues presented throughout the campaign. Would you consider it metagaming for this player to present his insight in-character? Would the player presenting the solution hamper your gaming experience?

I don't know if I'd call it metagaming for him to give his idea in-character, but it might feel a bit awkward depending on how he roleplays it. On the other hand, I think it would almost definitely hamper the gaming experience of the player in question to not be able to share his idea. In the groups I've played with this would probably be resolved by having the player say, "Oh man, my character would never think of this, but I think I just figured it out," and sharing his idea with the group out of character. In story terms it could be glossed over with something like "the whole party put their heads together and discussed the problem and suddenly the dumb barbarian pointed out one minor thing that made it all fall into place for everyone else."

I disagree, the metagaming in this instance is more subtle but still there. Generally the player knows their GM very well and has a good idea of what strategy is most likely to work to convince them (bold move, out of the box idea, sob story, joke etc.). The character has never met the guard before and doesn't have that advantage.

I have GMed for players who are mildly autistic and I find that it is best to separate intent from execution when it comes to social interactions with NPCs otherwise you saddle them with a big disadvantage which can compromise their experience.

But the player isn't trying to convince the GM, they're trying to convince the NPC. A decent GM should have a reasonable idea of what strategy will or won't work for a given roleplay interaction.

I absolutely agree that people who may be shy or have difficulty with social interaction in RL shouldn't be punished for it in roleplaying situations. I'm just saying that if someone does have a creative idea for a roleplay interaction, you should reward them for it.

I just don't see the point of the term "metagaming" if you say that just being creative in-character counts as metagaming.

However, I often see ingame rewards for player dialog in social encounters praised. To me, this is metagaming. Another consensus is that you shouldn't metagmine with respect to knowledge.

What makes metagaming Diplomacy so much better than metagaing Knowledge?

I'm confused by the basic premise that RPing a social encounter and getting a result based on the things you say (rather than the roll) is metagaming...

"Metagaming knowledge" as I think you mean, is when a character has no reason to know something but the player does, and then has the character to act based on that knowledge.

But if the GM describes (lets say) an NPC guard refusing to let the characters through a gate and then the player walks up and comes up with a very creative or convincing argument, there isn't any "meta" knowledge. Everything the player is choosing for the character to do is a choice based on what the character knows.

I think, Drizzt aside, that the drow are a really interesting race, but a traditional member of the drow wouldn't fit most campaigns. Hence the tendency of so many players of trying to create playable characters that end being Drizzt clones.

Oh yeah, your average drow definitely isn't a good fit for a typical party. I guess my beef is that I think people's definition of "Drizzt clone" is "any non-evil drow character" and I feel like that's not really fair, there's lots of interesting possible characters you could come up with who would fit that but also be totally different from Drizzt in many other ways.

(Unrelated but something that occurred to me while thinking about the idea of Drizzt ripoffs, I wonder if anyone's ever played a character who was deliberately trying to be like Drizzt, IC, since the guy is famous in-universe as well??)

I think another thing that hurts the Drow in terms of people seeing it as a valid character race is that authors often stat them up with some absurdly powerful array (at first, the Drow was a 41 RP race). A race and (social) class background shouldn't make someone 4 times (by some measure) better than a human.

If you just throw Drow in there as an elf variant, with maybe +Cha instead of +Int, that's roughly as powerful as an elf people aren't going to side eye it as "powergamer, eh?" as much.

I mean, those Drizzt books came out how long ago? People are going to move on eventually.

Very good point, I tend to forget about that aspect because I mostly have played 5E (where drow are an elf subrace, pretty much exactly as you described, with a little sidebar in the PHB about how they're almost always evil and you should double check with your DM about whether you can play one).

Unfortunately, I doubt people will ever move on from Drizzt being the most famous drow, considering the books were still being published up until a few months ago, only ending because the whole Forgotten Realms novel line was shut down :P

This said, merging these two conversations, painting your face like the Gygaxian drow is seriously weird and creepy and white nerds need to stop doing it ten years ago. :P

*cringe* That's the worst. Please, people, just paint yourself sort of grayish-purple like so many drow illustrations are anyways and stay away from the unfortunate implications. :S

I guess this qualifies as embarrassing... Drow are my favorite D&D race. I've read a probably excessive amount of sourcebooks and novels about them, and I secretly feel a little bit hurt when people say things like "drow players just want to make Drizzt ripoffs".