Well, Spazmodeus says that his schedule-allotment of campaigns is full, and has given up his spot.
I'm going to be sending a PM over to DaWay. If he would care to join, the fifth slot is his :)
Curtains of water fall from the sky as you traverse the labyrinthine walkways of Sharn. The stone and wooden paths wind around and between the towers and spires high above the ground, forming a complex lattice-work that can be very confusing on evenings such as this. The rain falls hard, running off higher walkways and balconies in drenching waves, making it difficult to see much more than a few feet ahead of you. The distant glow of everbright lanterns, barely visible in the soaking gloom, does little to light the paths on this warm, wet evening. You occasionally turn to check on your companion, assuring that you haven't lost them in the night, before continuing on.
This is the recruitment for the 3.5e DnD Eberron Campaign Path, starting with the Forgotten Forge. I'm looking for 4 First Level PCs.
Character Creation:
Start Level One Levels will be given out as the adventure path progresses. Start with full HP for your first Hit Die, I'd rather not see any wizards roll a 1 on their measly d4.
Standard DnD Classes Including those offered in the Eberron setting. Nothing from a campaign setting other than Eberron, and please source any non-core classes, races, abilities, etc. in character submission.
Most Races Allowed Since Eberron is a world where hobgoblins and kobolds are 'citizens' the same as humans and elves, I'm fairly open to 'monstrous' races. Keep them +0 LA and no racial HD, please.
Starting Equipment Will be average on GP for classes (Fighter is 150, Wizard is 75, etc)
Ability Scores Will Be Rolled Scroll down a bit, I'll explain
3PP Disallowed By default. Cite a specific book and feature, and I'll take a look and decide on a yes or no.
Ability Scores:
I'm a fan of rolling for ability scores, but things don't always work out for players who roll low, so here's the way we'll do it:
Roll 4d6, drop the lowest roll Repeat 6 times. Keep those 6 numbers in a set, and then roll the set again. You'll get the choice of either of the 2 sets of 6 ability scores. If either set qualifies for a re-roll, go ahead and re-roll the set and then take your choice. A set qualifies for a re-roll if the total modifier is +0 or lower (before racial adjustment) or if you have no score above 13 (before racial adjustment)
Example Rolls:
Set 1: 7, 12, 15, 10, 16, 11 (These would stay, and I'd probably use them for my character)
Set 2: 6, 4, 13, 13, 12, 10 (I'd scrap these and roll a second set of scores.)
One more thing I would like to mention for your post:
I would like you to decide a reason for your character to be known to one of the other PC's chosen. You can pick another player to 'team' with (feel free to chat about here) or you could leave it open ended so that I can match 2 people together. This is really just for a slight bit of party cohesion, since partying up 4 random people from a big ol' city like Sharn is a little odd sometimes, and I'd like you all to have a say in it. I'd like you all to have the first and final say in the pairings, but if things don't work that way then we can decide things after 4 PC's have been chosen.
The majority of things will take place here on the Paizo Boards, but I'd like it if we could bring combat over to TTopRPG, since I'm fairly familiar with it's use and it certainly makes combat fly by.
This will be my first time DM'ing a PBP here on the boards, but I've DM'd plenty of games and hope that I can interest a few people into Eberron!
"I am Sir Reginald Jeremiah Gottwald, knight errant of Sarenrae. As a paladin of Sarenrae, I feel that it is my duty to do what I must to bring peace to lands, and fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. In order to do this, I felt it appropriate to form a group of allies who think the same as I, called the Vanguard. Now, I am here to ask for blades, merchants and friends to come join in my cause."
This will be the official Vanguard recruitment and discussion thread.
Any questions and concerns from prospective members, recruits, members, and anyone else should be posted here.
Here, we will also discuss the tenets and guidelines for the Vanguard, for feedback and approval for anyone who decidedly joins.
Character concept is also welcome for discussion, and anything else about your future in game on PFO.
Vanguard Info:
Name The Vanguard
Alignment LG, NG, CG, N
Structure An oligarchy, on the whole. Odd number of members on a ruling council (5-9) for voting. Council members are selected by a combination of merit and nomination. Every so often (Once a year or so), the Vanguard as a whole partakes in an open-nomination vote to decide the members of 'The Council'.
RP Level Low-Moderate. Council meetings will likely be mainly OOC, to keep things quick and understandable. Other than that, RP can be as much or as little as the players wish.
Purpose Think 'Robin Hood'. The Vanguard is a fairly loosely organized group of people bound by nothing but the desire to help those who cannot help themselves, and the brotherhood formed in doing so.
Information The Vanguard is a collection of individuals from any manner of background, though most people with the 'Vanguard' mindset would hail from a religious background (ie Sarenrae, Erastil). Classes of any kind would be more than welcome, as membership will be less of sign-ups, and more of a 'Hey, thanks for showing interest, buddy! Welcome to the Vanguard!'. The only hard requirement to joining is dedication to protecting the weak and to the well-being of the commonfolk. Skills of all sorts will be required on a whole: Fighters, politicians, merchants, craftsmen.
It accomodates GMs tired of watching the longbow dominated PF1 combat. Curbing it slightly was deliberate and realistic, if the latter matters. Historically, longbowmen were frequently kept behind the front lines as the weapon was used in a ballistic manner – the volley. The longbow is unweildy when aimed at level and ill-suited for tight quarters or close distances, especially when compared to shorter options.
That’s because you get wrecked on the melee with any ranger weapon. Short bows and crossbows were also used like that. And just because it dominated 1E doesn’t mean net it. Some weapons are always going to be bets at their niche. Finally, all you are doing is making shortbow the best weapon and removing an iconic weapon form use. Crossbow ranger has more support than longbow ranger.
I hate volley too much to have to spend an action to remove the penalty. Volley makes literally no sense and should be purged from the game with extreme prejudice. But I’ll take what I can get.
Volley is one of my top 5 gripes with the new rules and should be eliminated as soon as possible. It makes no sense, nerfs longbows for no reason, and makes rangers unable to fully utilize their most iconic weapon.
I greatly dislike how they’ve taken away some of the most unique parts of pathfinder that can’t be replicated in other systems. The cool rope trick escape, simulacrums, clones, planar binding pacts with devils are all some of the most unique aspects of PF1E and they’ve removed them. Why it bring other classes up instead of tear the most fun part of casters(at least for me), the mad scientists can do lots of cool magical things.
Because the default system is designed to take you from all 10s to much higher stats. If you started with nearly equivalent stats, it would almost always be better to roll. The 18restriction is for the same reason. Any somewhat sad character should roll since statistically, you will usually get one score higher than 14 and be able to get a higher stat than intended. This edition has tighter math and this is a playtest. It’s hard to get feedback if everyone is rolling random stats because it’s nearly always a significant improvement.
I agree somewhat, but I’m not sold on hunt target. I think I’d be more okay if it also allowed you to hunt target from the tracks or evidence of the target instead of having to see them and be in range. I still don’t really like how it’s not that close to actual biting and how it locks the ranger into full attacks that make any two action feat, like favoured aim, much worse. I do think your change might make the ranger better, but I would also like the some terrain abilities to stay so you don’t have to pick between thematic abilities and combat bonuses. Honestly, I’m pretty frustrated by the implementation of the ranger and haven’t really gathered my thoughts, so I want to wait and play the class before making any definitive conclusions.
Quick Study was imo, the best exploit for arcanist as it made you always have the right spell for anything prepared. It was better in combat than quick prep, but cost points and quick preparation means you can prepare only combat spells and then grab the perfect utility spells including heightening whenever you aren’t rushed. It like it as an ability, but Inthink other classes should be given something to compensate for such high power.
I agree that Ranger seems to be missing any bow support and their abilities don’t seems that synergistic. There is a lot of emphasis on buffing your allies and your animal companion, but the strongest part of ranger in 1E was combat styles and archery’s few feats look bad. Like favoured aim is a worse version of a similar fighter feat, made even worse because it take two actions. Hunt target wants you to make as many attack as possible, but you make 1 less and lose your biggest bonus if you use favoured aim, which already requires you to spend an action to hunt target.
This is the first decision that really upset me. It’s taking the worst part of 5th edition and basically asking the GM to pick the DC to everything. Like what level is a rope, why is everything arbitrary. If five GMs can all have wildly different opinions on the DC of the same task, then the system is not working. If I wanted to make up all the DCs, I would use a different system. One of Pathfinder’s strengths is fairly well-defined rules. And trivial failing half the time is ridiculous. It’s trivial, you shouldn’t fail the most basic possible task 50%. And what even is a level 3 challenge. Is making a dish level 0 or 1, what level is climbing a rope, etc. I was really in support of 2e and I’m disappointed that this section is such a let down.
As expected, Bards have become occult full casters. Looks like PF2 is going for a single rate of spell progression for all classes, which should be much easier to learn/use.
VERY happy to see Bards have gone the Barbarian route and ditched their limited amount of performance rounds. Always was unthematic to say that a low level bard couldn't even last a minute when trying to perform. Also like that you normally spend an action each round actually playing the music, though lingering composition will likely be common and make that a bit more difficult to track.
And Lingering Composition is... I don't even know how to interpret or run it. Having a weird and finicky DC as part of a commonly used ability is not fun. My one big disappointment in this blog.
Very happy to see performance checks actually get used as part of the class. Always felt like there wasn't enough connection between the performance skill in PF1 and the actual performance of the Bard's abilities.
Muses look very interesting and I can't wait to try them out during the playtest.
Interesting to note that spellcasting proficiency specifies proficiency in occult spells. Here's holding out hope for at least some nuance to spellcasting proficiency rather than just, "you're good at every spell now." Though I still feel like spellcasting proficiency increases should start earlier than level 12, which is beyond most games.
Bardic Masterpieces becoming standard bard feats sounds amazing, as I always wanted to love them in PF1, but too many things always seemed to try to get in the way.
You level faster in 2e and the goal is to make it so higher levels are more played. So the bonus at 12 is less extreme than it seems. Also, DMW (I think it was him) did an analysis on save progression and it matched up with the caster bonuses.
You also have the most trained skills at 1st level except for rogues, just barely edging out rangers. Finally, you begin play at 1st level with two compositions, the inspire courage cantrip (which has been detailed above) and the counter performance power.
Can we *please* don't let spellcasters have more skills than the Fighter? Please?
Also:
Quote:
You perform rapidly, speeding your ally. The ally is quick and can use the action to Strike, Stride, or Step.
The Allegro wording is terrible. It would be better like this:
Quote:
You perform rapidly, speeding your ally. The ally gets one action he can use only to Strike, Stride, or Step.
Quick is a condition that gives you an extra action that can only be spent on certain things.
Items that have an RP requirement for their activated abilities will instead be usable 1/day.
Isn’t this an enormous nerf that destroys all the items that do so. Like the cloak of elvenkind is balanced around having many uses of invisibility per day. Making it once per day would completely invalidate the item for its cost and make it much much worse as nothing fills that niche.
I would greatly appreciate having more accurate names for PF2E. The current names and inaccurate armour really hurt my immersion and verisimilitude. I would probably buy a hard cover if more realistic names for arms and armour were used.
@Fuzzypaws
Your point about the world having a level makes sense, but when dealing with enemies, the DC being based on level makes sense to me. The more dangerous a monster is, the more lethal it is and more trained it is in killing its foes.
Red Panda VS Lotus Leshy = Lotus Leshy by FAR, but i'm sure everyone wants to see the normal discovery animal for some strange bizarre reasons, even though we already seen the art in the preview.hatever it will be.
People wan't the Red Panda because it's awesome. And because Red Pandas eat plants, simple.
Will there be new mythic abilities to support these ACG or OA classes?
Or would such potential new mythic abilities be more appropriate to a 'Mythic Handbook 2'? Some of the new classes possess abilities that are named or worded slightly differently to their core counterparts.
Language may be needed, to clarify that any mythic ability that alters one class' feature should be considered to also affect features on their hybrid cousins (bloodrage, blessings, and favored target). This also ties into general question, of whether a hybrid class is qualified to choose feats or mythic abilities currently ring-fenced for one of their two associated classes. I believe they should be able to qualify for things like endless hatred or endless rage. So, does anyone know of any combinations, whether class-only feats, or Mythic abilities, which are balanced for the classes they were originally designed for, but would break the game asunder, if opened to the new classes?
The Alchemist crafting kit weighs 50 lbs, but the kit that includes it only 24 lbs with everything am i missing something?
ALCHEMIST'S KIT
Price 40 gp; Weight 24 lbs.
This kit includes an alchemy crafting kit, a backpack, a bedroll, a belt pouch, a flint and steel, ink, an inkpen, an iron pot, a mess kit, soap, torches (10), trail rations (5 days), and a waterskin. The kit does not contain a formula book because an alchemist begins play with a formula book and does not need to purchase one. or
ALCHEMY CRAFTING KIT
Price 25 gp; Weight 50 lbs.
An alchemist with an alchemy crafting kit is assumed to have all the material components needed for his extracts, mutagens, and bombs, except for those components that have a specific cost. An alchemy crafting kit provides no bonuses on Craft (alchemy) checks. (This item was called an “alchemist's kit” in the Advanced Player's Guide, and was renamed to avoid confusion with this book's pre-selected set of adventuring gear called an “alchemist's kit.”) or something else entirely
