Danse Macabre

Blackest Sheep's page

Goblin Squad Member. 123 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Diplomat wrote:
For cheep items, like daggers and arrows, just use the mechanics of the "earn an income" rules, and role play as if that the character had created (an) item(s) up to the value of the income earned.

Actually, the amount created is even higher. The "earn income" income is pure profit, which means expenses for materials are already substracted. So while you can sell ten longbow arrows for 1sp, your profit would be lower (you have to pay for materials, workshop access, tools and so on). To earn 1sp in pure income by crafting long bow arrows, you have to sell more than just ten.

But PF2 is no economic simulation, and this is an abstract rule, and the developers probably never meant to for you to sweat about the finer details of the economics of fletchery ...

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If I recall, magus was close to keeping up with BAB of martials back then, but nowhere near the pure casters? While Eldritch Knight was a nice prestige, wasn't it kind of overshadowed by how magus streamlined it?

I played both and I liked the magus better, if only for the fact that I did not have to think too much about fiddly things like multiclassing and prestige classes.

The main problem in discussions like this is simple: There is no fixed definition of what a gish actually is, and folks have different images. It is basically an axis between a martial with spellcasting and a spellcaster with martial prowess. But where on this axis it exits, how much it gives up to gain the other thing, and even what is a fair trade, will be vastly different to folks. You can see that in this very thread.

Fighter-mages have changed a lot in the history of the hobby, from elves being able to switch between fighter or mage for each adventure to being two classes at the same time, to multiclassig, to prestige classes, to archetypes and so on.

My favourite gish is a martial character that gives up martial prowess to gain spellcasting of the arcane sort. My perfect design would be worse at fighting than pure martials without buffs, but reaching their levels when buffed. Given good encounter and adventure design, this is of course somewhat worse than just martial characters, but they also gain versatility with their spells. Now this is the difficult part, because it cannot be put into simple numbers. How much loss is invisibility worth? Flying? And so on.

But right now, before more classes and/or archetypes are released, there are basically two options: Focus more on martial prowess or more on spellcasting. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and people will feel very different about them, given their own ideas of what a gish is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I said in the other thread, you need to campare wizard-fighter with fighter-wizard. The latter is the one you want for smacking bad guys while also casting the occasional spell.

Magus and/or more archetypes will probably get you closer to what you imagine.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The barbarian can pick up a shield and use it, though. Everybody can. And can invest in shield block if that seems opportune.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
dialing sword

Aldori phone home?

Sorry ... carry on!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
2. How does high strength and wisdom reduce his perception, HP, initiative? I am genuinely confused by this statement.

I laid it out in my post, and it is pretty obvious: For each feat a STR wizard needs for armor proficiency, a DEX wizard can spend a feat on something else.

A very simple example would be at 1st level, STR wizard gets into medium armor, DEX wizard obtains +2 initiative and expert perception. The STR wizard is worse in perception, worse at initiative, and if perception is initiative (or stealth), a lot worse. Better at athletics initiative, though ...

Over the lifetime this will fluctuate due to class proficiencies and feats to spend, but getting heavy armor has the opportunity cost of not getting whatever else those three feats might grant.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
3. It was labeled as an eldritch knight build, so strength is definitely relevant. Can you please go into what several other stats he was worse in that would be necessary for an eldritch knight build?

Speed, HP, saves, skills, whatever one chooses instead of armor proficiency.

Honestly, the best comparison with your character is probably with a fighter MC'ing into wizard. Both will spend precious actions whacking folks, while a wizard will mostly cast spells. So you can compare AC and the like, but due to the vastly different styles of playing, this is rather difficult.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
What am I missing?

You are missing several things. First of all, the character is trained in heavy armor, that is +2 AC. Secondly, unarmored can use runes, too, which means that magical bonuses to armor can be ignored (just like level, base and so on). You only need to compare

Full plate (6) + trained (2) = 8
Unarmored (0) + Dex (1) + Expert (4) = 5

But the most important thing is this: A typical unarmored wizard will not boost STR, but DEX. At DEX 18, which is easily achievable, the unarmored AC is actually the same from 13th level, but you spent three feats to get there (also, your REF is 1 against damage and 4 against the rest). If the DEX wizards invest as heavily in DEX as you in STR, it is 1 point of AC plus 2 points of REF (5 versus everything).

Unarmored will also have a mixture of master proficiency in perception / REF / Will / HP / 5 Speed (which would be 30 to your 20).

So, in the end you have at best the same AC, worse perception/saves/HP/speed/initiative (take your pick), with no practical way of retraining. The upside is that your AC will be better for some parts of the journey, while you will be worse in other stuff, as they spend feats on that.

Going STR is only feasible if you want to use that STR for something besides armor or if you spend a lot of time at the level range in which your AC is actually higher. Your character multi-classes into fighter, so maybe it is worth it. But even then, you at best end up the same in AC, but worse in several other important stats, or even worse in AC in addition to being worse in other stats ...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
it's more like he just doesn't want to spend his general feats on heavier armor...

It is not just feats, it is also about raising STR, which is a non-retrainable resource that does very little for a pure caster. of of the few reasons to raise STR on a wizard are if you want to actually use it for more than just donning heavier armor, or if your campaign mostly plays in the level sweet spot where it is superior.

Bandw2 wrote:
for stealth just use invisibility

At 20th level, sure, trained skills are not hot anymore in any case. But at low levels? You cannot cast invisibility at first, and then it is one of your precious higher level slots.

And arguing like that is a fallacy, obviously, as the swiss army knife of full spellcasting often has options to circumvent a particular problem, but also the accompanying opportunity cost. Everything you spend is not available elsewhere.

Also, choices always have to be looked at over the assumed lifetime of a character. Of course, that is where the general proficiency feats are lacking, except in some cases like light armor on a wizard.

The whole spontaneous MC seems off. My first try at making a PF2 character was a port of a very old rogue with spellcasting concept, and I thought that sorcerer would be a fit, since the character is supposed to be high CHA, too, but especially at low levels, sorcerer MC casting was strictly inferior to wizard MC. Which is especially painful as this was about flexibility. The sorc MC gets a bit more spontaneous at 8th level, but the wizard MC can write spells in the spellbooks all the time. The trade-off between knowing less spells but being more spontaneous in the moment versus having access to more spells but having to dedicate resources was simply not there.

I hope that they clarify that sorcerers and the like can cast spells in higher spell slots without heightening them. It is still painful at lower levels, but gets better over time.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
while i agree about spreading stuff from dex, i'm not actually arguing for a dex build.

Maybe this is a matter of definition, but I consider folk in light armor to be DEX-based, meaning they will use their ability boosts for DEX.

Remember, you using a general feat for light armor means that other will use them for other stuff. For example Canny Acumen, which can bring perception to expert (to be retrained later), so your higher WIS just means you have a bit worse perception; one has slightly better REF, the other slightly better WILL, one has slightly better DEX skills, the other slightly better WIS skills. Not much to go between, and usefulness will vary from table to table. I am partial to stealth, to be honest, because at lower levels trained with good DEX will be more than adequate, but again, that is a matter of preference.

Going lightly armored is a simple trade-off, the numbers wander around a bit on the sheet, but it is fundamentally very close to unarmored. And since the lightly armored caster will in all likelihood raise DEX anyway, retraining later on is always an option. That is no trap, even though it might feel off that one gets better at stuff that is not exercised at all.

The more you have to invest, though, the worse it gets. Medium armor takes STR to not take a hit to speed and skills (as well as a bit of DEX), and STR gives few advantages, especially when compared to other attributes. Also a second general feat with an opportunity cost. Retraining becomes worse, as abilities are fixed. Heavy armor is worse still.

All doable, but the more you invest, the worse they get.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I wouldn't care if people called them weak or suboptimal feats, but calling them trap feats is a little reaching

Well, that depends. Going full STR on wizards is pretty close to a trap, because ability boosts lock you into a concept. In this case, a concept that starts worse, gets better in mid-level play at AC, but is still worse in other defenses/perception/skills and then will be the same for two levels in AC, while worse at other things and could end up even worse in AC and other stuff for the endgame - while having spent three feats to achieve that.

Being worse at several things while having spent resources to get there, with no feasible way out, is rather trappy. Although still playable, of course. If you go with lighter armor and more DEX, it is pretty close and a matter of preference, I think.

As for hiding behind a rock for better REF saves, anybody can do that, so that is not really an argument for or against anything, as it is agnostic to stats, armor and everything else.

And of course, the DEX-based wizards ducking beside the STR-based wizards will still be better by a couple of points, up to 5 or so (DEX10 versus DEX16 at lower levels without bulwark, with Canny Acumen). Even at the worst point, they will be at least even (humans with everything as soon as possible versus DEX16 - which of course means the humans will be very slow (-10) and suffer full ACP). Otherwise, the straight DEX wizards will always beat the STR wizards at REF saves - obviously!

That is before making arguments about having better initiative or more speed and so on, which might preclude the need to duck in the first place, or even only allow the DEX wizards to reach cover at all, and so on ...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Until 13th level or whatever a single armor profi feat for light armor and 16 dex is decent, just transfer over to unarmored or not, your AC remains the same. that's another option. this saves 3 boosts. the advantage of course is you gain +2 ac much earlier than you otherwise would and keep that AC advantage until 13th level when you'd have 1 higher AC, assuming your boosting dexterity every time you can as a wizard.

That's true, still DEX-based, but at low levels it's basically a trade-off with a spell/spell-slot and whatever other general feat one would take. With magic items, it might even get better AC-wise for some time (worse elsewhere, due to the opportunity cost). And with retraining, you do not lose anything.

That is a fair trade-off. Going full STR for three feats to be worse for long stretches of the leveling process is rather not. Of course, it can still be done. I guess, I'm revising my earlier statement: better to have the feats than not having them (but still worse than some kind of scaling).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I get that it might be weird leaving that ten year meta of dex casters

The meta is still DEX casters. You can go against it, but you could do that in 3.0, too (it just sucked a lot). It got gradually easier with the editions, but PF2 has Paizo actively telling you they expect casters to go unarmored with the way class features work. You can invest to go against that, lowering your saves/perception/speed/initiative/skills compared to the expected way in the process (higher DEX, Canny Acumen, Fleet, Incredible Initiative), and if you fully go that way, aka a human spending all feats as soon as possible, you can even be better during some parts of the game at some things (worse at others, of course), but the meta still is DEX all the way very much.

This will probably change with more content, new classes, archetypes, feats, etc.

Funnily, the comparisons seldom include the bonuses that would be gained by not spending feats on heavy armor. A pure STR wizard would be lacking compared to pure DEX in important stats like perception, saves and so on for quite some time. I think it is highly disingenuous to act as if the general feats do not actually provide bonuses if not used for armor.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Wizard in Trained fullplate at 13th has the same AC as an Expert Unarmored wizard at +8AC. The only way the Expert will rise above the Trained, is if he pumps 20Dex, which is unavailable till 20th.

When exactly does this STR-based Wizard kick in? You need three armor proficiency feats, so that would be, what? 5th level for humans, 11th for everybody else? Before that, the wizard with STR instead of DEX will be strictly worse when it comes to defences. Or they invest a bit in DEX, which brings some defences on par with the DEX wizard, but reduces other scores for skills & saves. If you actually want to forgo DEX completely, you also need STR 18 to avoid penalties later on.

The investment is three general feats, plus STR (so you do not even gain more ability boosts or whatever, because both will bring STR or DEX to 18). For that, you start slower, only to become the same later on? Not even that as your reflex save will be lower, even when bulwark actually applies; also you will be 5 feet slower. Not to mention equipment costs.

To summarize, you spend three feats to be a lot worse at the beginning, maybe have a few levels of enjoying a small advantage, then be a bit worse again for the rest of the game. That is without counting the fact that the DEX-based wizard can simply chose three other general feats (for example being faster, quicker or able to take a step into difficult terrain). Not huge, granted, but more and better than the STR wizard.

There might be a case for other builds spending feats to gain armor proficiency (although it seems to be suboptimal in the long run usually with the way classes handle proficiency), but spending three feats to be obviously worse off for the most part of 20 levels is simply not a fair trade-off.

And retraining is not useful, of course, because of the investment in ability scores.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Gonna expose my ignorance for a moment here. What's the real-world purpose of a buckler?

For example, in the beginning of the 16th century, the Spanish used Rodeleros, aka sword and buckler men, in their pike and shot formations, to break up the dreaded push of pike, when formations became locked with each other. They were supposed to bypass the pikes and attack the enemy directly. Others used halberdiers or the like for the same effect. It only lasted a relatively short time, though, as the Rodeleros were quite vulnerable on the battlefield.

The buckler is usually gripped in the hand, not strapped to the arm (so no potion chugging with that hand). One could protect the sword hand, shield it from view (quite important to prepare an attack), deflect blades (as it is much more mobile than a heavier shield) or even trap them, and of course punch people with it.

EDIT: For what it is worth, a Skald was one of my few 2nd Edition AD&D characters; I think I wanted to go with dual-classing, but the campaign petered out too soon. That was in the 90s, so while I do not know if that is a classic fantasy build, it was around.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The armor proficiency feats are suboptimal, but that is a legacy feature. From 3.0 to 3.5 to PF1 and even to 5e, these feats existed and nobody chose them (at least in my experience, coupled with at times really extensive online exchange), because there were always better ways to obtain armor (& weapon) proficiencies. Honestly, they should have just done away with them and fully rely on archetypes.

In 3.0/3.5, class features heavily restricted armor usage anyway, but the best ways to get more proficiencies were multi-classing / prestige classes - feats were actually precious back then! PF added more classes, and with archetypes and alternate class features many more possibilities opened up. D&D5 is similar, with subclasses simply adding stuff that is needed for some character concepts (and feats being precious again!).

PF2 flattens armor types even more. If armor is so similar anyway, heavy investments seem out of place - and they are, because that is, again, a legacy feature. Trap, no trap, who cares about nomenclature, that is just not good usage of limited space in a book bursting with content. But these are the artifacts you get when rules systems have history.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

An archetype that focuses more on monster hunting, like the witch hunter focuses on hunting spellcasters. Maybe bonuses to defense against monstrous special abilities or offense vs. monsters, maybe using or expanding the Monster Lore ability for that. Think the classic grizzled monster hunter who does research in the library to find the weak points of his prey before confronting it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valfen wrote:
I think there is a rule somewhere that forbids using natural attacks and unarmed attacks simultaneously, but I don't remember where.

Monks are not allowed to use Flurry of Blows with natural attacks or in addition to natural attacks out of the box.

I do not know if the Synthesist is broken, but it re-introduced one of the more crappy designs of 3.0/3.5: ability score substitution. That one has been a mess for most of D&D3, forcing huge erratas and revisions, and I was really glad when I saw that the developers of Pathfinder were sensible enough to get rid of it. Now it is back, and for me that is not a good thing. It is a messy mechanic, error-prone, easy to abuse, prone to marginalise those classes that actually rely on the abilities in question and simply not clever in a game that heavily relies on ability modifiers for mechanical effects. Luckily, it is only one archetype of one class so far, and I really hope that it stays this way. Of course, that archetype is a secondary caster with a good spell list that heavily treads on the toes of martial classes (again - as if there was need for that).

In my opinion, it should have been a mechanic akin to Wildshape. Much cleaner, much easier to balance, much more in line with the rest of the rules system. I believe that using a unified rule system for similar effects is much better design and facilitates understanding of the rules and thus makes for smoother gameplay. Now we have an exception to these normally used rules, and it creates a lot of headache and many erroneously built characters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In theory, firearms should be quite fitting, as many, if not most, of the themes of CC have their roots in the gothic literature of the late 18. and early-to-mid 19. century, while others are even more recent, like the Lovecraftian horror. But Pathfinder heroes do not have much in common with the actual protagonists of these stories, at least mechanically, and the backdrop of the AP does not fit these roots either, which is not surprising, given that Golarion is mostly classic fantasy. So it all comes down to GM preference. I would say early firearms at most. I just cannot see revolver-toting gunmen in Ustalav.

Personally, I set the AP in a more "advanced" age to capture the feel of the gothic tales but that is not Golarion anymore - and it is quite some work to get all the details right. Luckily, the era and its literature has been one of my hobbies since my studies, and I even wrote book about it, so I had already done most of the necessary research.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stay behind the other party members in combat, use cover/concealment/stealth as much as possible, never ever present a good target for anything, especially area spells. Oh, and sing your lungs out to bolster the guys who can actually survive being attacked by a squirrel ... ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There could be several issues at play here. The first one is trust. A situation like this needs a high level of trust between players and the GM. Actually, in D&D-derivative system, you probably need more than in most, as getting captured entails losing your equipment which means much more than in other games. Some classes might even lose access to their most basic abilities - wizards come to mind. This makes PF-players less likely to surrender to enemies. Still, if the players trust the GM and do not fear that the situation is just as dick move, it might still work as intended.

The second issue is perception. The players may perceive their characters and the group differently than the GM. They might not consider themselves heroes for examples. I experienced that both as a player and a GM, and it can be quite frustrating, as the adventures do not match the characters and a lot feels forced instead of natural.

Thirdly, group dynamics can be a weird thing. I guess everybody who played a few games can remember sessions that went haywire for minor reasons. Maybe there are not enough clues, or the clues have been overlooked or forgotten, but suddenly the players feel as if they are on the receiving end of an unfair situation and the atmosphere becomes problematic. That plays directly into issue one, as players lose trust in the GM. It is difficult to snap out of that as a player, and actually equally difficult to defuse as a GM, as high running tensions may prevent that. It is not always easy to keep a cool head under pressure, and an adventure seemingly falling apart puts a lot of pressure on any GM.

Raving Dork, internet discussions are difficult regarding a topic like this. People communicate with virtual strangers and are prone to assume the worst. I have been in games where your plot might have been a great roleplaying experience, but I also remember games that would have been just as difficult as yours. Without knowing the specifics of your group, any definitive answer is hard to find.

But the one advice that is always proper: speak with your players. Grab a few beers, take a step back and keep an open mind. Do not get into a me-vs-them mentality. Never forget that games are meant to be fun. Try to find out where the fun stopped, where your perception of the game differs from theirs. In fact, it is pretty useful to do this on a regular basis, as games and groups often evolve over time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UltimaGabe wrote:
The bonus to saves applies all the time, but the need to roll for saves vs. helpful spells only applies while raging.

I do not think that this is the case:

PF20SRD wrote:
A barbarian gains the benefits of rage powers only while raging, and some of these powers require the barbarian to take an action first.

That is taken directly from the text of the Rage Powers ability. As there is nothing written in the Superstition power to circumvent that restriction, we can assume that this rage power, like all rage powers, only grants its benefits when raging.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarrintino wrote:
If you can include mechanics that allow a character's magical weapon to grow as the character levels, that would be great

I second that, although I would like to see it for more than just weapons. Ideas for that have been around for a long time (I first encountered something like that when I played Earthdawn), and a fleshed out system would be great. FFG's Midnight setting has Covenant Items, and that is the one thing that I ported to almost all my games.

A close relative would be item sets that gain in power when assembled, granting a similar growth-effect and strengthening a character's relation with his gear.

In short, everything that makes characters want to keep specific gear. The idea of magic items is based on heroes of myths and legends, but they did not throw away their special gear because they found something better all the time. It is not meant to replace all magic gear, just give some signature stuff that can be kept and used to define this part of the character.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
But those resources wouldn't be there at all if i wasn't playing a druid.

That argument does not hold water, as you are not comparing the party + druid with just the party, but with the party + rogue. You would need to see the resources you spend compared to those spent by the rogue and then evaluate whether or not the druid performs better in all other situations. To be honest, given the strength of the druid, I would rather think he does in today's gaming environment. Of course, in the olden days your druid would have killed himself and probably the party three times over by triggering every trap, as traps were devious, deadly and prone to punish such a style of gaming. But since traps in PF are rarely more than obstacles meant to drain the party's resources, taking the hit if you can survive it will often work as well as disarming it.

The main problem with the rogue is that he does not age well. Rogues can be pretty good at low to low-medium levels. They can pull their weight in combat, not being the best combatants but being good enough, and they can contribute to almost all encounters, like stealthy or social situations for example. In fact, rogues will get a lot of spotlight at lower levels, because they rarely encounter a situation that leaves them out of their depths. They will often not be the best, but good enough to get some piece of action: jacks-of-all-trades. The (IMO good) changes PF made to the skill system do hurt the rogue from the beginning, but not so much as to render them useless.

Unfortunately, as the party gains levels, spells, special abilities and magic items will tread on the rogue's territories, especially skills. There are so many spells that lessen the need for skills. Not to mention the ones that simply change the dynamics of the battlefield. There will be many situations that used to be the rogue's time to shine that will be taken over by other classes. Monster abilities reduce the usefulness of stealth and other skills. At the same time, the rogue's combat prowess starts to fall behind more noticeably. The lower BAB begins to tell, monsters with reach and special abilities make reliably getting Sneak Attack in more difficult, high monster damage means higher danger for classes with lower HPs and so on. Casters come unto their own and gain an ever growing toolbox that can be used for a plethora of situations.

The strengthening of the bard compounds this problem. He too is a jack-of-all-trades, but with his spellcasting his power curve does not flatten as much as compared to rogues. The same can be said for the new and much more versatile ranger. As other classes gain versatility, they intrude on the one area that the rogue really excels at.

In short, if you expect to see a lot of lower level play, a rogue is not a bad choice. But at higher level I would rather pick a different class.

I do not know how to fix this, or even if it needs to fixed in a game with so many different options. There are so many classes and archetypes that can be used to play rogue-ish characters if you do not insist on the rogue, and the rogue will actually be viable in many campaigns.

I thought about making Use Magic Device a rogue-only auto-advancing class ability, which would create rogues that can use the funky stuff that the party loots but nobody can activate, granting them a mix of strange tricks and aces up their sleeves, giving them some of their situational control back via scrolls and wands.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello all,

I have decided to post the campaign journal of our merry band of heroes for which I am the GM. Since we do not get to play that often I use a Wiki to keep all records and the journal for my players so that important events are not forgotten between sessions.

A little background information: since I love the Ravenloft setting, I decided to place Ustalav and Carrion Crown there. I heavily modified the whole setting, trimming it down, cutting most of the redundant or downright silly domains, advancing the technological and social cultural level in parts of the Core to a steampunk'ed Victorian Age.

I started with four players:

Catalin Nueva, a Tiefling Inquisitor of the Raven Queen (think Pharasma) and huntress of demons.

Elias von Kronemann, a Human Alchemist from Lamordia. Cold and calculating, he considers most people to be intellectual inferior to him and treats them accordingly.

Konstantin, called Kostja, a Caliban Fighter. Warped by fell magics before his birth, Kostja hides his deformity with complex disguises.

Lucretia Vantrova, an Aasimar Oracle of Life, diplomatic, sincere and sensible.

Later on, four more players joined the campaign:

Anna-Katerina, a Shifter Ranger with the blood of werecreatures in her veins.

Federico Cristadero, a Human Clockworker (think Summoner with Constructs) who is a genius when it comes to mechanism and clockwork.

Gisela, a Human Rogue, who is related to Professor Lorrimor.

Lazar, a Human Cavalier, cousin to Gisela and a veteran of several battles.

Unknown to them, each carries upon them a relic of old, an item of spiritual significance that was used in the ceaseless struggles against the Whispering Tyrant. These relics bind the heroes to events long past and to those yet to come.

Since we never play at full strength, the large group poses less of a problem than I feared. Most of the players do not care for rules that much, and I reduced the dungeon feel of HoH for that reason, focussing more on the investigation parts. I introduced links to the Whispering Way and even collaborators in Ravengro to get the players invested in the overall story-arc as soon as possible.

The journal is written for my players so some parts might be might be a little difficult to understand. A final warning: English is not my first language, so I apologize for any grievous errors on my part in advance.

Without further ado, the exploits of our heroes:

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am on board, too. I hope the campaign will reach its mark.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Heavy amounts of detail and variety have always been a part of this game.

In OD&D every weapon deals 1d6 points of damage ... ;-)