Josh M.'s page

Let's see paladin threads, alignment debates, my DM sucks/My player is a munchkin what should I do, the always popular caster/martial debacle...Nope not a whole lot of change, just more beatings.

Yeah, I guess I haven't been gone all that long.

Also Scarred Lands is in the process of being updated to Pathfinder. Wise and the Wicked and the new player's guide should be on sale in Aug.

For reals? Man, that's awesome! My player's will be super pleased to hear that!

Long time no see! I took a 9 month break from RPGs, and have decided to come out of semi-retirement and have another go at things. A lot of it had to do with acquiring a new home, that finally had room for me to delve back into my main hobbies. I now have a room dedicated to tabletop gaming(and a separate video game room). Before, I simply had no place to run a game, set up my stuff, etc.

So, I pulled together a new group, and we're using Pathfinder as a core ruleset, but homebrewing a campaign based around Atropus from 3.5's Elder Evils book. We wanted to do something a little different this time around, so we're basing the game in the Scarred Lands setting, which was the first 3e setting some of us played in over a decade ago.

I've been out of the RPG scene for a while, and I'm looking for some ideas as to what's out there for PF since I last played. The last book I picked up was the Advanced Class Guide, so anything that has come out since then, I'm not aware of it.

Have there been any big groundbreaking rules changes? Did the Monk Flurry/TWF thing ever get sorted out? Is an old PF Core Rulebook from '09 still pretty solid to use, or is there too much errata?

My first major D&D group named our characters "The ****ing Champs." We were a bunch of metalheads/punks in our early 20's, and curse-words were apparently funny back then.

I often think the designers say "open playtest" and the participants hear "collaborative design". It seems to me that quite often, both Paizo and WotC are criticised for not listening to the community where the publisher says:

"We're toying with this concept, how does it work out at the table?"

and a fan answers:

"I think you should do this instead".

Or rather:

"Cater to my exist specifications or your product is FAIL."

So..once again, 5E sucks because it isn't Pathfinder. Or 3E. Or something.

Wow, man. Editions wars have gotten really lazy.

I'm looking forward to getting into 5e and trying to put together a group. My PF group has no interest in playing anything different, so I'm starting over if I want to play 5e. Oh well.

Those who tell me at the last minute when they can't dhowcto the game. I understand that sometimes life throws something at a person at the ladt minute. Or a person just does not feel like gaming. Dometimes I don't want to game either. Just don't tell me at 9 pm on a Friday when we're gaming Saturday afternoon.

Just how much notice do you need? My group plays on a weeknight, and there have been many, many times where one of us could not make it(overtime at work, sick kids, etc) and did not find out they could not make it until just shortly before the game is scheduled to begin. Personally, as long as someone just tells me at some point before the game, I'm fine with it. I just can't fathom needing more than a day's notice.

I do give XP for puzzle and problem solving, but it's awarded party wide.

Pretty much this. If/when I award any kind of bonus xp, it's party-wide. This removes the competitiveness over points and helps keep everyone at the same power level. Quiet/shy types don't feel left out, and everyone benefits from getting more involved.

Also, as a DM, it's just less bookeeping when everyone is the same level/XP. Encounters are much smoother to design. Adventures are much easier to plot out.

Our party Barbarian wields an Intelligent weapon, that's voice sounds like Randy "Macho Man" Savage. So, the logical thing to do was...

...Open up a Macho Man soundboard on my laptop. Never laughed so hard in years!

13. You attempt to Quick Draw your Greatsword, but the blade sticks in the scabbard. You wind up flipping yourself forward and are now prone on your back.

Sports entertainment is really just a soap opera.

Exactly. I get a lot of weird looks, and the inevitable "hurdur, ya know it's fake, right?" all the time. It's scripted, but a lot of the actual moves are real. The slams hurt. Sure, they go to great lengths to reduce injury, and much of the action is choreographed, but it's not as "fake" as people like to make it out to be.

A lot of stuff happens spontaneously that drastically alters the story, on the spot. Just over the weekend, one of WWE's biggest, up-and-coming guys(Roman Reigns) had to have hernia surgery, which throws off the story in a major way(he was on his way to being a title-contender). It's interesting to see how the story adjusts and works everything in.

When the action is scripted like that, Charisma is HUGE. Careers live and die by how well someone can grab the audiences attention.

Just to add to the conversation, you can see how Charisma plays out really well in professional wrestling. Yeah, I said it. Hear me out...

For example, you can see how the different wrestlers carry the presence of their characters. The guys with high charisma are much more convincing of their character, and get a much stronger reaction from the crowd, despite how attractive/ugly they are. The biggest names in wrestling all have major charisma; Hulk Hogan, The Rock, Steve Austin, The Undertaker, and newer guys like Bray Wyatt; when they talk, the crowd listens. When they taunt, it's much more genuine. They get noticed, for good or ill, no matter what they do.

You can also tell who has very little charisma, again, despite physical attractiveness/ugliness. You might see a "jobber"(wrestler who is there to lose and make the other wrestler look good) who out on the street would be a very attractive person. But, their personality is very bland, there words do very little to stir the crowd(if they even get a chance to talk), and by the time the match is over, you almost forget they were even there.

I know I'll probably get chided for admitting to being a wrestling fan, but I am one. When you get past the knowledge of it being scripted, and really start to follow it for the stories involved, it's very entertaining. As far as RPG's go, wrestling is a great resource for showing character development, portrayals of comparisons for things like how different size/types of characters might do combat; dexterous type-cruiserweights versus strength-focused heavyweights, etc. I draw a lot of gaming resources from wrestling.

Mine resembles me a bit in real life, except I wear glasses, and my earring is much smaller.

I dunno, the pic just looks like a sarcastic a-hole, which I've been called many times. Just kind of giving that "Are you serious? Yay." look.

Josh M. wrote:

K177Y C47 wrote:

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Yep, but compare bloat and usability if you only use 5 books from 3.5. ;)

That is how I've done it, and how others I know and play with have done it. The simple and clean 3.5 rules, with a dab of extra content (sometimes 2 books extra, sometimes 4, sometimes you change which books are used for which game) seasoned with some house rules that make sense for all involved. So much better than pathfinder's rush to bloat, and pf dms I know are seeing this as well (and getting tired of new classes they have to learn and challenge). Of course I make omelettes to my taste.

Except one could argue also that 3.5 and WoTC were notorious for nickle and diming you if you will... I mean, you had to buy at least 3 books just to start playing the stupid game (The Player's handbook, the DM's handbook, and the Monster Manual)

3.5 PHB, DMG, and MM; $35 each, so $105 total(before tax).

PF CRB($50) and Bestiary($40), $90 total.

I didn't think $15 for a whole other book was that big of a deal.

Besides, players weren't really supposed to be using the DMG(or MM and now Bestiary, for that matter) So if you were just a player, all you needed was the PHB($35), as opposed to playing in Pathfinder needing the CRB($50). DM's of course needed more books, but that's sort of part of being a DM.

But, now we're just splitting hairs.

Um ... Have you inflation adjusted those figures? 'Cause taking that into account your $105 is more like $135. Meaning $45 not $15.

And that PHB is more like $45 in modern dollars, not $35. You can't use costs from more than a decade apart with no invocation of inflation.

Ok, so I guess we ARE going to split hairs. In that case, I can go to any number of other websites and buy used versions of all of the above books combined, for less than the price of any one of them new.

3.5e came out in 2003, and Pathfinder came out in 2009. Hardly a "decade apart."

Josh M. wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

Just let players play, and treat and players like you would treat anyone else.

If we stop singling people out for playing because of their gender/race/etc, maybe it'll stop being an issue altogether. Acting shocked and surprised whenever a non-neckbeard is interested in something geeky, just reinforces the stereotype and wards others away from the genre.

Shocked and surprised is one thing. Noticing the demographics and trying to figure out how to shift them is another.

Alright, that's fine too. I'm all for balancing out the cheese/beefcake eye candy, I'm a big fan of practical armor art for characters, etc. To be fair though, a few ladies I know are actually big fans of Seoni's attire, and scantily clad barbarians for that matter. More balance on both sides would be a good thing.

The iconics aren't only, or even probably mostly, eye candy. They're also representative of the PCs I might play, and self-insertion for my self. And as as an over-40, less-than-fit woman, eye candy only is like telling me I ought to invest in plastic surgery (that I can't afford) become a hermit, or perhaps only go out of doors with a paper bag over my head.

Please note, though, I am only asking for diversity

But I didn't even mention the iconics(as a group), other than the one iconic who gets a lot of attention(good and bad) due to her very unrealistic attire. I think you're taking my quote out of context; I never said "we just need to do something about eye-candy and everything else will be peachy". I only had a few moments to post so I just used one example. That's all.

Like Laurefindel alluded to above; giving more of a diverse gaming experience beyond "kill, loot, repeat" is also an example of something that would help create a more inviting, more inclusive and diverse gaming experience. I'm all for this.

I believe people are often aiming for the wrong thing when they do horror games. Fear is not exactly an emotion. It is up close, flesh and blood, and directly tied to your person. It is not what you're going to get people to feel when their characters in a RPG are threatened. It doesn't really work all that much better than stuff jumping out at their characters.

I completely disagree. Fear as an emotion in a RPG is hard to pull off, but when it happens, it's glorious. The DM has to set the right mood, and you have to have players who are willing to immerse their characters into the game setting, and aren't just there to test out the lastest splatbook feat combo or powergame/min/max. It's not for everybody. I've had players so shook up, that their characters went out of their way to avoid important story locations and scenes for fear of their character's safety.

I've run horror campaigns for several years, and player chemistry is a huge, huge factor. If one player isn't getting into the scene, they can throw the whole mood off. The players have to allow their characters to be afraid of things, and be affected by things other than hp loss or stat damage.

Low to No magic settings work best, I feel. The more powerful(big numbers and dice) abilities a player can throw around, the less scary everything in existence becomes. But if you're a level 2 spellcaster, with no armor, few hp, and only a few spells left for the day, survival becomes a much higher priority(making encounters more nerve-racking). High-magic horror can be done, it's just a lot more technical than I like dealing with.

As for the horror itself, nothing gets under the PC's skin like the fear of the unknown. As soon as something has a stat block, it stops being scary. Of course, everything the PC's encounter has a stat block, but as long as the players are unfamiliar with what they're up against, they have to think on their feet and actually form strategies.

The Ravenloft 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide(not the normal D&D one) and 3.0 Campaign Setting have a wealth of advice for setting moods and helping establish a scary atmosphere. I found myself consulting lots of horror-writing advice threads more than gaming-related ones.

I've had many successful sessions that never had a single combat encounter, but still had players rolling dice, interacting with the setting, etc. So, it's not just "magical tea party," or even LARPing; we're still sitting at the table, rolling dice, and playing the game.

I don't think it's about eye candy at all, in one way or another. It's about making a game that can be inclusive for all, not just less repulsive for one gender. The game can work just as well with no beefcake, no cheesecake or no functional anything. These are all marketing tools, not the definition of RPGs.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm posting from work(during breaktime) and had to keep it short. I had trouble expressing what I meant.

I fully support making games as all-inclusive as possible. I meant to simply use artwork as one example, not a foundation point.

Yeah, if you have some big specifics in your characters background(like a family that the DM hasn't killed off yet) then that needs to come up reasonably often. Maybe you send a portion of your adventuring loot back home to your kids, maybe you Message them via spells, etc.

It helps keep your character immersed and involved in the setting Most DM's love it when a player cares about things beyond loot and DPS, so it's best to go with it when possible.

Sometimes your PC's background accidentally intertwines with the adventure at hand, and that opens up many new roleplay opportunities:

On topic, I used to play female characters all the time. I still would like to, but the past several character concepts I've played just happened to be male. I just go with whatever the character in my head happens to be.

Josh M. wrote:

Just let players play, and treat and players like you would treat anyone else.

If we stop singling people out for playing because of their gender/race/etc, maybe it'll stop being an issue altogether. Acting shocked and surprised whenever a non-neckbeard is interested in something geeky, just reinforces the stereotype and wards others away from the genre.

Shocked and surprised is one thing. Noticing the demographics and trying to figure out how to shift them is another.

Alright, that's fine too. I'm all for balancing out the cheese/beefcake eye candy, I'm a big fan of practical armor art for characters, etc. To be fair though, a few ladies I know are actually big fans of Seoni's attire, and scantily clad barbarians for that matter. More balance on both sides would be a good thing.

Just let players play, and treat and players like you would treat anyone else.

If we stop singling people out for playing because of their gender/race/etc, maybe it'll stop being an issue altogether. Acting shocked and surprised whenever a non-neckbeard is interested in something geeky, just reinforces the stereotype and wards others away from the genre.

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Yep, but compare bloat and usability if you only use 5 books from 3.5. ;)

That is how I've done it, and how others I know and play with have done it. The simple and clean 3.5 rules, with a dab of extra content (sometimes 2 books extra, sometimes 4, sometimes you change which books are used for which game) seasoned with some house rules that make sense for all involved. So much better than pathfinder's rush to bloat, and pf dms I know are seeing this as well (and getting tired of new classes they have to learn and challenge). Of course I make omelettes to my taste.

Except one could argue also that 3.5 and WoTC were notorious for nickle and diming you if you will... I mean, you had to buy at least 3 books just to start playing the stupid game (The Player's handbook, the DM's handbook, and the Monster Manual)

3.5 PHB, DMG, and MM; $35 each, so $105 total(before tax).

PF CRB($50) and Bestiary($40), $90 total.

I didn't think $15 for a whole other book was that big of a deal.

Besides, players weren't really supposed to be using the DMG(or MM and now Bestiary, for that matter) So if you were just a player, all you needed was the PHB($35), as opposed to playing in Pathfinder needing the CRB($50). DM's of course needed more books, but that's sort of part of being a DM.

But, now we're just splitting hairs.

They were rather close yes, especially Bo9S. Incarnum pretty much got dropped completely after that book, except for showing up in Magic Item Compendium. Dragon Magic stuff made a couple of appearances in Complete Mage. That's about it.

Incarnum made a few more appearances toward the end of 3.5's life cycle. Dragon Magic had a slew of new Dragonblood-specific Soulmelds, and there were a couple of web articles with new Soulmelds as well.

The Truenamer truly didn't work, which is a shame, because it had tons of flavor as well.

That book had some real hidden gems, but you had to work to find them; I once broke a campaign(accidentally) with Shadowcaster with the Dark Creature template and a MASSIVE Hide check. I'd give Tome of Magic 9/10 for flavor, but 4/10 on actual crunch.

Quote:

Paizo has avoided branching out like this because most of the books that introduced these rules went unused by players.

... wow your experience is completely the opposite of mine. I had lots of psionicists in my groups over the years, a fair smattering of Binders and Incarnum users, lots of Maneuver Initiators, and a good number of others using various subsystems. I'd definitely feel comfortable saying I had more spell- or spell-like focused characters who used something OTHER than the core casting system than I did who did, prior to Pathfinder.

Frankly I disagree with the majority of your conclusions as well, but am feeling too utterly lazy to get into yet another "is/isn't 3.X psionics broken" argument with someone.

Same here. My groups use tons of psionics back in our 3.5 days. Lots of Warlocks/Dragonfire Adepts, etc. I'm a huge fan of Incarnum, and have made quite a few Incarnum-based characters over the years. My current PF character is a half-golem Incarnate of Law, that I've been playing for more than a year.

We loved us some sub-systems! Tome of Magic got lots of use in my games as well, as I loved the flavor(if not so much the mechanics) of Shadowcasters and Binders a lot.

Josh M. wrote:

I really enjoyed 3.5's Knight class(PHB2). The closest thing to it I've seen in PF is the Cavalier, but I still prefer the Knight over Cav. Knight does the same thing Cav does, for the most part, with a lot less baggage. The "Knight's Challenge" can sometimes require a bit more DM intervention than usual, but works pretty straight forward.

I tried to roll up a Cavalier, and everything about it just seemed like an overly complicated reworking of the Knight. I'd scrap all the stuff about Orders and whatnot, myself. Not every game setting is going to have the same generic Orders.

I feel like without the Order abilities the Cavalier wouldn't really be worth playing though. I guess you could rename the orders or call it something else, but I see no reason to gimp it by flat taking out one of its major class features.

Instead of "gimping it," maybe replace it with something that's more dependent on the class itself, and not dependent on an external organization?

No. They lose the extraplanar subtype on their home plane and you gain it off of your home plane, but outsiders remain outsiders and you remain a humanoid/native outsider. Outsiders aren't just from different planes- they're literally made from a plane, and their body and soul are the same unit. They have more differences from mortals than where they come from.

Thank you for the detailed response! I was unaware of most of that.

To the OP:

With 3pp, 3e and 3.5 materials? I can't think of anything.

Paizo only? The list is pretty dang long.

If you travel to the home plane of a type of Outsider(angels, devils, etc), does that creature lose the Outsider type, and/or does your character gain the Outsider type/subtype? Do Outsider-bane weapons function differently? Should they?

Think about it...

Actually I stated they look human, "but share zero mechanical similarities and are generally shown as parallel to humans and not a branch of it"

Not shortchanging them, but they are physically indistinguishable from human if you took the arcane ring around their heads away.

So, does that mean your only basis for comparisons between 3.5 and PF races are appearance?

But even beyond that, they are unlike anything in Pathfinder. They are a quite complicated race. They did something really different; they gave a plthora of options for mechanically customizing a single race, before the advent of Traits in PF.

They were the perfect race for multiclassing, which, given Paizo's tendency to frown on multiclassing, certainly puts them at odds with Paizo's design style. Still, they are a part of D&D's(and by extension, PF's) legacy, and something that future materials could be built off of.

I really enjoyed 3.5's Knight class(PHB2). The closest thing to it I've seen in PF is the Cavalier, but I still prefer the Knight over Cav. Knight does the same thing Cav does, for the most part, with a lot less baggage. The "Knight's Challenge" can sometimes require a bit more DM intervention than usual, but works pretty straight forward.

I tried to roll up a Cavalier, and everything about it just seemed like an overly complicated reworking of the Knight. I'd scrap all the stuff about Orders and whatnot, myself. Not every game setting is going to have the same generic Orders.

The only thing the OP had to say about Illumians was that they "look human..." Wow, what a shocking understatement. Might as well have not even mentioned them, if you're going to shortchange them like that.

I probably sound inappropriate for mentioning myself, but yeah, I will always argue for "the rule of cool" in a game, that benefits the players. Really, in our home games, there's no official Paizonian referee on hand to stop us from changing the rules, so if a player wants to do something cool that makes sense, we do it.

Also, props to my current DM for allowing me to use Incarnum resources in our PF game, despite not really understanding it, nor wanting 3e materials in the game. I've been playing the same character for the past year, and so far things have been pretty good. Nothing broken or confusing. Although, with the way Pathfinder consolidated skills, a lot of Soulmelds got really powerful.

Josh M. wrote:

Crisischild wrote:

People don't appreciate that board games/tabletop games/TCG's of all types are incredibly expensive, reducing their possible market by quite a bit. What was the ACG with standard shipping, 48$? And you wouldn't be able to play Pathfinder with just the ACG.

This is an important point. It's difficult to be a "casual" RPG player and pay full price(or LGS equivalent) meaningfully for the hobby. Whereas CCG players can pick up a couple of booster packs, some card sleeves, buy some decent singles, etc for half of what a RPG book alone costs.

Actually the cheapest way to be a casual RPG player is web based games right now. You've even got web based MMO's like Wartune and Marvel Heroes, as well as the Hidden Item and store management genre. And you can play the bulk of them with no cash outlay at all.

There are even cheaper ways than that, but we they shall not be named. I was referring in regards to FLGS money, as the report upthread indicates.

People don't appreciate that board games/tabletop games/TCG's of all types are incredibly expensive, reducing their possible market by quite a bit. What was the ACG with standard shipping, 48$? And you wouldn't be able to play Pathfinder with just the ACG.

This is an important point. It's difficult to be a "casual" RPG player and pay full price(or LGS equivalent) meaningfully for the hobby. Whereas CCG players can pick up a couple of booster packs, some card sleeves, buy some decent singles, etc for half of what a RPG book alone costs.

My knee-jerk reaction after eying through it at a friend's for a little bit is "wow, paizo has hit a new low mark".

Though really, I've felt that way with basically every core line book since UM. On the other hand, their adventure paths have gotten better or better.

Which is saying something, as that's the way they started out - good at making adventures, decent at rules.

At this point I feel they're fantastic at adventures and downright awful at rules.

Not to say everything in the book is bad, but the amount of badly-written content in their rulebook is staggeringly high, matching the worse parts of the 3.5 splat at this point.

The last rulebook I bought was UC, and every released book makes me more assured that was the right choice. I'm still buying AP's though.

Same here. The AP's are awesome, but their rules books leave a lot of head-scratching and furled eyebrows...

After reading 5th Edition, my players and I said "smurf it" and instituted a house rule: every weapon on the Finesse list has Finesse as an inherent property, with Dex to damage as well. The WF feat no longer exists.

I made a similar rule in the last game I ran; I removed WF as a feat and simply made it an extra combat option.

It wound up being a short game, and nobody actually used any Finesse-able weapons, so it's hard to tell what the outcome would've been. Still, even as a free option, my players(who typically go DEX-style) still weren't lining up in doves to try it.

I think that says a lot about DEX-style fighting(at least in my group). Lower the feat tax, and clean up the rules language! It really sucks to spend 3+ feats just to be worse at something other characters get to do for free(STR to damage).

Ravingdork wrote:

Scavion has the right of it. Combining items is perfectly in line with the RAW, is not a house rule, and is hardly unbalanced.

Obviating the need for strength at the cost of 2000 gp, without giving up an item slot, is not unbalanced?

The choice between encumbrance or dedicating a slot to overcoming encumbrance is very much a limiting factor that prevents many builds from dumping strength down to 7 (or 5 with racial mods.) Allowing custom magic items to overcome this limit is something every GM should take a long, hard look at before permitting.

This "item stacking" has been around since at least 3.5e, possibly 3e. If it was "unbalanced," it would've broke something by now.

I think warpriest is kind of neat, but given the chance(depending on DM), I'd take an Ordained Champion(3.5) in a heartbeat. But ya know, OGL limitations and all.

Rogar Valertis wrote:

So if, for mechanical AND thematic reasons I want to play a priest war priest of Gorum what does sacred weapon do for me?

You can have a ranged weapon that really deals damage, for example. Just grab a free sling with some metal (Gorum likes metal) sling bullets and enjoy your level dependant damage die.

Or you choose armor spikes as sacred weapon so you can hurt your opponent when he grapples you. And besides Gorum likes armor spikes enough to have the spell Gorum's armor (renamed spiked armor on d20pfsrd) which turns a suit of armor into spiked armor for some time.

Every one and especially a warpriest of Gorum should know that it is important to have a backup weapon.

But Warpriests are proficient with martial weapons... Why not just grab a bow?

Well sacred weapon also allows you to improve the weapon quite a bit for a number of rounds per day.

Yeah, but even that feels like Sacred Damage was tacked on. You could have the same weapon enhancing ability just use "whichever weapon you chose Weapon Focus for" or something. Sacred Damage itself plays no other part in that, other than it also happens to be on the weapon you chose Weapon Focus for.

I rolled up a lvl 1 Warpriest yesterday. I get what Sacred Damage does, but it's just very situational. I could see maybe making a new Divine spell that mirrors the ability, and not making it a class feature, but oh well. Just feels weird to have a codified class feature that only a tiny portion of characters will ever make use of.

Josh M. wrote:

To answer the OP:

Incarnum in some new shape or form(reskin it with a new name, just update the rules).

Paizo won't be touching that one, but fortunately a very reputable 3pp well known for their re-creation of 3.5 subsystems is on it.

Hooray! You have my attention :)

To be honest, Paizo's non-core stuff has been very hit or miss in my opinion. That, and lately everything seems to be really rushed and not playtested enough. With D&D 5e coming out, I can't help but feel like Paizo's release schedule is going to be even more rushed(not drawing comparisons, just making business observations).

I'd rather a reputable 3pp company handle the obscure, odd sub-system stuff than Paizo at this point. Paizo already have a pretty full plate with juggling AP's, new rules books, supplements, minis, etc. I'm all about letting a company who has the time(and actual interest) do the niche stuff.

In case anyone is willing to trek through old 3.5 material, DEX to damage existed way back in the olden days. What's even funnier, you ADDED it to STR on damage rolls...

I'm not entirely certain if it's allowed to post stuff from old D&D books, so I'm spoilering it until I know otherwise. If it's not allowed, I'll delete this.

Now, I'm not saying this was exactly a universally great option even back then, but there was a basis for it existing, and the game didn't break under the weight of someone doing a smidge more damage. Heck, like I said above, you even added STR to the damage in addition to DEX.

Next Magus I play is specifically NOT going to be a "Dervish Dancing" one. That strategy just seems so played out. Almost any Magus build you find on these forums practically requires it. I get that it's super effective, but the feat is AP-specific, and feels sort of wrong to have so many different Magi using it, who have nothing to do with the region it's from.

I'm playing in a gestalt game, and I'm heavily thinking Monk/Magus for my next character.

I have been gaming RPG since 1977. That sentence is one that I see on many message boards and blogs intermixed with another, "computer gaming (mmorpgs) are replacing pen and paper games".

I can honestly say I've never seen anyone else say that. Link please?

MMO's will replace TTRPG's the same year that apples replace oranges.

To answer the OP:

Incarnum in some new shape or form(reskin it with a new name, just update the rules).
Warlock
Shadowcaster(no, not a shadow-focused wizard).

6th level.

Alchemist/Druid/Sorcerer/Rogue/Gunslinger/Barbarian.
See any problems here?

Are they playing an Illumian?

I'd love to run a Castlevania game. It was my main inspiration for running Ravenloft in the first place. Something taking in the lore of Transylvania, with a focus on classical monsters has always been my goal, but it just gets sidetracked a lot.

At this point, I'd love to run a good Ravenloft game again; all my groups ever seem to do is just run generic modules and AP's. Nobody wants to go off the rails and "live a little."

I've also wanted to run something set in either Final Fantasy I, IV, or VI's settings. I glanced at some of the FFd20 stuff linked earlier, but I'm not really feeling it. Too much copy pasta from existing PF classes with new paint jobs. That, and I disagree heartily with a lot of the dark Knight stuff.

Well, if it's left unsaid, it's no surprise the PC acts as though it doesn't exist. Maybe it could be a big plot reveal at the end of the campaign? Just tossin' ideas out here.

Josh M. wrote:

HarbinNick wrote:

-So here is what gets me....how do you run gothic horror without devout serfs, and superstitious people in Barovia...

You do something in-game that shows this character that higher powers exist, even if they are just a mask worn by the Dark Powers. Have the party fight some infernal, hellish thing, and maybe a light breaks through the clouds and envelopes the party in healing rays, or something. It's all fantasy, so go nuts.

I would definitely not recommend the clouds parting and heavenly light and high magic celestial aid coming through. That is completely not the gothic horror trope that Ravenloft is themed on.

Ominous dark stuff after a cultist's ritual works but it is not a setting for flashy celestial goodness from the heavens.

Good priests can exist on theme in the setting, but they are not dominant powerhouses who scare the bad guys, unless they are a different gothic horror trope like secretly corrupted in some way or zealous evil inquisition in the name of good.

I disagree. I'm only suggesting that something happen one time, in a crucial moment(which I should've expounded upon earlier). Even in a grim-dark setting like Ravenloft, you still need to balance out the atmosphere. Just doing non-stop icky, evil, foreboding, doom and gloom turns the setting into a sludgey mess with no hope and no motivation for the players to do anything. The occasionally break from the gloom gives the players the idea that good can triumph over the darkness. Like it says in the back of the campaign setting; it is a beautiful land, and it IS worth fighting for.

I'm not talking about good priests wielding any extra power, nor am I talking about the "good guys" always winning. I'm just saying that a sure way to alleviate a PC's "atheism" in a fantasy setting, is to show them that celestial beings do exist(in whatever manner the DM sees fit).