Search Posts
Just gonna roll coz I like r And I’ll go 5d5, best 3 + 3 coz I’m also lazy. 544+3 = 16
Nice system. I like it. If only there was a class in all those allowed options I’d like to play enough to go back to PF1… Vigilante perhaps? Slayer? Samurai? Probably not.
= 4532 12
Wow. 12 13 13 13 12 14.
Sounds like a plan. Just want to make sure we maintain some momentum… Reading the Weekly Roll webcomic now has me hankering for engaging in another, more beer and pretzels/murderhobo campaign, replete with wacky class and race combos…
Yeah. Becket is my all time favorite Paladin. especially when he snaps. :)Sorry. Too busy reading all the comics. I may…be..a while. Yep, he is definitely long suffering. I love the art (Torvald rocks!!!!) and although other people have trodden this trope/style well before (Rich Burlew(?), Zogonia, Knights of the Dinner Table, Downer, even Wormy and Snarfquest back in the day) it’s still very funny. Many many thanks for sharing!!!
That’s a great summation of the system and, more importantly, the reasons.
I’ll also say that the downside is that there is a possibility/danger inherent that we will (shock, horror) roll less dice, which as every mature personage knows is why we play wizard-games. All jokes aside, I’m going to be describing what I’m having Alitja do and we will see how it goes. Personally, the problem *I* have with players spamming skill rolls is that it tends to be “forceful” in that it forces the narrative to bend toward the player agency - the player has determined what should be attempted, or the result of their narration. In my early days of PbP I would sometimes narrate a finely crafted, well imagined and powerful Intimidation, or Diplomacy post, and then roll the dice only to have the roll not match the narration. Which, while not exactly a problem for the DM in terms of changing where agency lies, is still…odd. Now a well equipped DM (in terms of being in full control of their faculties) can always dismiss an errant/unnecessary/uncalled for roll, but it is a system that rather than leaving the DM as the arbiter of the world, creates a tension that to my mind becomes unbalanced, particularly if some players are more (or less) “active”. It’s definitely a far cry from my first days of PbP - I just “did as the Romans did”, and rolled tor everything! It didn’t hurt that I love rolling that RNG, or that my idea of having fun in RPGs is not “winning” or even having my character “succeed” but to have interesting things happen, some randomly through the RNG, some by the interactions of the player characters and some via the agency of the DM…
Alright - updated Dramatis Personae: Lil Eschie - Myankar, Male Dwarf Monk
Alright - current Dramatis Personae: Lil Eschie - Myankar, Male Dwarf Monk
Sorry if it wasn’t clear, though I could see a feral druid turn to Bowbe as a god pf nature’s vengeance, I’ll primarily be a follower of Kamien the River Goddess. Bowbe comes in from the orc/tribal side more as a customary tradition.
Feels like the party is missing a full bab melee. Thinking to balance offense and defense, I came up with a dwarf barbarian. Opinions? Yep, Barbarian would do nicely.
Ok, the brvheart list then . First time I opened the link it took me to two posts up, with the brvheart post at the bottom of my page. Have replicated following the link a few times and it lands on brvheart’s post. Going to be a follower of an aspect of Kamien; and who also has a tribal custom of venerating Bowbe. Which helps when a little…angry. ;p
Heh. “Fairy old-skool” is a bit different than “fairly old-skool”.
@Obermind - given the Lost Lands is a fairy old-skool setting themewise, where every greenskin needs to be put down with extreme prejudice, do you want me to go human rather than half-orc? I get that we are already at the Shrieking Hollow and the likely discrimination on the caravan (?) and in Fairhill is “in the past” and now not very important…but moving forward, I don’t want to mess with the Campaign Setting.
@Obermind - are we 5, or 6 or 7? Only five have popped in so far: Lil Eschie - Myankar, Male Dwarf Monk
That might be the first Dwarf I have ever liked! Generous AND doesn’t drink. Nice one Lil Eschie!
As for maps, if it is a Google doc that isn’t editable by us, then having the grid A-Z/1-26 top/bottom and sides…etc would help us tell you where we want to go…
@Obermind - there seem to be a few lists in that Frog God Games/Lost Lands deities thread, Dragnmoon, Grimmy and brvheart all posted a bunch. Which one/s are we using?
*
Don’t forget there are symbols like the above GMO. Bit hard to use on a phone, but if you are on a PC you might be able to rough out a map. I added the A-F and 1-6 on my phone, and cut and paste the grid from my alias - I think I found it on one pf Ravingdork’s posts. You might be able to get it to 10x10 grid or more…I also had to move it down my post to get it to line up after my alias pic….also the letters aren’t…great but with some experimentation perhaps you could perfect the grid….I dunno, hard on my phone… If we are using theatre of the mind, we could use the Near/Far/whatever is beyond Far paradigm Professor Dungeon Master and other OSR folk use…
Hi all, looking to play a Half-Orc Druid, though if the current unpleasantnesses with surrounding orcs outside Farhill means half-orcs are off the table/basically unwelcome, fine, I’ll play human. I’m Morgan, been playing RPGs since about…1982 I think, and played a lot of different systems over the years. I tinker and homebrew a lot, and PF1 had some fantastic and interesting classes and options….but have *mostly* moved on to PF2 but Obermind keeps me grounded with OSR and PF1 games… I post mostly from my phone, from home, at work…whatever works. It does mean some maps are hard for me to see - Obermind - how are we doing mapping?
Should it be 'Modiphius' Elton? :)Uh, no? Elton, it is “Modiphius”, not “Mophidius”.
@Critzible, I’m not sure you are following. In ADnD, 1st edition, you don’t….can’t “get Monk abilities” because of your deity. In fact I don’t even remember deities doing all that much…I mean…I just checked my copy of Deities and Demigods for ADnD 1e and no deity or demigod even mentions benefits, spells or anything for adherents/believers….About the only interaction is…you having to have the exact same alignment as your god, and that your higher level spells, from the generic “all cleric” list, need to be provided directly by your god… AdnD 1e Clerics have…spells, armor, they Turn undead and…that’s about it. They can’t use edged weapons. Because that would be “weird”. Yay.
was wondering about the Specialty priests I’m pretty sure “Priests” are ADnD 2e. Specialty Priests too. Original ADnD had…Clerics. And Druids.
Hmm, at those levels, Monks are almost useful and Thieves don’t usually fail at all of their abilities! How about Psionics? It *is* in the PHB, and the chances of successfully rolling Psionic aptitude/ability is incredibly low…
Can commit. Marching order. Tracked encumbrance, light sources, rations and ammo. Running away. Got it. Posting in such a way that it interacts with others and the environment, and “pushes” the narrative. Got it. Am currently not in *any* games. I think my max was 11 games at once, but that was only as a player and some of them were…glacial.
Interest? Check!I would play in a game with this guy. ;) Been a long time since my first PF2 game, Jace. Funnily enough, am thinking of Druid again, but seeing as PF1 Core doesn’t stretch the edge(lord) to hobgoblins, I’m going Half-Orc…
Interest? Check!
The thread title is confusing. “NPCs creation for Wild Talent game” for a start could either indicate making NPCs or that the game is run/owned by someone called NPC but is…missing an apostrophe… I’m thinking you are referring to something like…Wild Talents mixed with deadEarth?
@Phantom Genius: I’m not really seeing the “silly”, at least not any more than a White Haired Witch. It feels like a very flavorful and interesting archetype, ripe for narrative hijinks. Add in the Dhampir and I feel it could be well moody.
I have never in my life thought that Warhammer Fantasy traded at all much in the way of “humour”. Humours, blood, vapours and miasmas? Sure. But “funny”? Not so much. Love Pratchett. ‘Python can be hilarious. Warhammer? I’ll take it with lashings of grimdark thanks. Ubersreik and Bögenhafn might sound like faux-German abominations linguistically, but they work in the setting. I would *hate* to play WFRP with anyone trying to slapstick it up. Then again, I’m already horrified someone might want to play a halfling, so take that as my measure.
It might help to clarify that you are presenting a link to a custom Pathfinder Adventure Card Game. While your post does mention “cards” it wasn’t clear (as you mention “custom pathfinder adventure path”) until I followed the link.
Hey BrOp - you have six people who want to play. A 0-level funnel. Just take the six. And why ask for backstories for gongfarmers who might be dead inside the first encounter? I guess I just don’t get why, given that PbP’s are often incredibly fragile things that sometimes last less long than Recruitments… I’d be impressed if even the six you have all turn up…
Good on you for a) making good on your plan and b) running a game for folks. Have a lot of fun DQ!
Heh, was just rolling dice - please remove me from your attention.
Just going to roll some dice: - 1 = 14
Pretty good.
So…not exactly NPC classes at 1st level (adept, noble, expert, warrior etc) but something…customised? Like if you are a…blacksmith you could be a Warrior with some skills…or an Expert with more BaB?!? Your class list of Ashlar adventurers looks to be relatively Core-adjacent (with the absence of Barbarian) is this looking to be a “kinda-Core” experience for characters?
I just like to roll (digital) dice: = 17
Well, that would make a fantastic Fighter with some serious social awareness issues (6 Int, 7 Wis, 10 Cha).
I'm torn when it comes to "core only." On one hand, it feels "fair." In that those with and without system mastery are on an even playing field. It takes away a lot of what might be called "unbalanced." On the other hand? It means taking away part of what makes Pathfinder so unique: the customization. I mean, when everything is on the table you can have a grippli cleric who heals people at range by touching them with his tongue, alongside a dwarf with who wrestles people with his beard. Very different campaigns! To be honest, I think people who prefer Core-only are less looking for a hold on “balance” or more looking to restrict the feel to that oldskool classic fantasy. No grippli tongue-healers, no dwarf beardwrestlers. A good GM can hold the line on balance, but once you open the door to gonzo concepts, well then you have to have folks up for a gonzo game. The reason I don’t like Core-only is because I find the Core mechanics stifling in terms of feats (which EitR goes *some* way to ameliorating), traits, classes and archetypes. I’m definitely not wanting to play with the more gonzo tongue-healers and beardwrestlers, but I do want to be able to play a Witch or an Inquisitor. I’m not a powergamer or cheesebuilder so those crazy trait/archetype/feat builds don’t interest me. Classic games just can’t tell enough stories that are even in “classic” tales.
Except that Shadowed Keep on the Borderlands is not, from my experience, one of them. It is an homage to the original Keep on the Borderlands. In much the same way that Iron Gods is an homage to Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. And with any homage, you will get…various results. In both of these cases I felt the homage… missed. But each person’s mileage most definitely varies.
@Sarah the GM - it might be useful to link the other/previous LitM game’s Discussion/Recruitment threads for people to look at how anirtak (the GM) assisted those of us making characters and to explain themes/tags/quests etc…
Hey folks, the accumulations of real life stressors have reached peak freak-out and I’m stepping back and away from the forums for the foreseeable future. Thanks to GMO, my favorite Genetically Modified Organism for running this game. I’m sorry Nee won’t see any further part of the Sunless (and clearly sundered!) Citadel! May all your games be full of wonder and the vagaries of randomly arrived at fate!
“Different” is definitely one way of putting it.
To be honest I played ADnD *at the time* and I *never* did calculations. Even “THACO” confused me. I just stuck to the “To hit” tables - no way to be wrong then.
I think Kobold Press did some solo PF1e adventures. Also check out the “Me, Myself and Die” youTube account, makes a lot of use of “oracle” systems to generate options and answers as he goes…
Merge Coin Pile: Now you just need to get your enemies to stand in the middle of a square room where you have artfully placed four *gigantic* piles of coins in the corners; voila - Offensive! Though maybe that would work with Pool Gold too - or does that steal everybody in the party’s gold?!? Or….is it “Pool, Gold” and it creates a pool of liquid gold?!?
I’m not sure that anyone here is advocating for Paizo to pour every effort into removing any iota of ambiguity to the detriment of the production of new resources. And to try to argue that as a reason to not, where possible, remove ambiguity at all seems a little off. I can’t see why folks are against have absolutely clear delineations between what is *clearly* “flavor text intended to illustrate the theme of the ability” and “mechanical rule interactions to provide meaningful effects in game terms”; or why people like myself might wish for Paizo to completely dispense with aforementioned “flavor text” because a) it sometimes *does not* illustrate the theme effectively or b) narratively countermands the mechanical rule interaction/creates ambiguity and c) is entirely unnecessary, and would, ironically, leave more room for…content. Probably not that much, but still…it would be leaner. Perhaps less….flavorful, but then again, that is what the GM and Player are for. I get that for PF2/R Golarion and the campaign autoassumptions are baked narratively into the rules. But you don’t have to use Golarion to play PF2/R.
@Gisher, did my take on it alert you to differing concepts of “right” and “wrong” and how consent or legality doesn’t make your actions “correct”?
I’m not sure “we haven’t scoped that integration work, nor have we secured such an agreement” is ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS news.
I…don’t have a problem with Gisher’s example, it just seems like a useful way of illustrating their understanding of what folx in this thread are upset about. Personally, even though you might have the legal right to sell off “stuff what ain’t yours” because binding contract doesn’t mean you have to or that anyone should have any sympathy for your legality or not call it legalised theft. It’s not their stuff. No one thinks it is “theirs”. No-one should resort to “but it’s legally ok, bcoz agreement written in blood”. Sure, it’ll hold up in a court of law, if your lawyer is wearing the right color pants, and the Judge isn’t having a bout of gout, or is, or will or whatever. But that doesn’t make it ethical where ethics mean doing what is “right”. If you can absolutely go to bed at night thinking you acted ethically, because someone in full possession of their mental faculties agreed to you having the right to sell off their stuff just coz it ended up at your place when the disintegrate hit, then….great. But to me, it isn’t ethical. To use another poor comparison - corporations that pollute often make sure to cry that they are “well within state regulations” or “observe limits as supplied by governments” while also knowing full well that those limits are borked, and there often is no “safe” limit. And they feel that operating within those limits makes their activities ethical. It really, really doesn’t. So resorting to “but, contract!” to me is actually twice as unethical, because the activity was unethical to begin with, and then engaging in legalese (“I’m well within my rights”) is unethical. Like most things, it just comes down to what your definition of “is” is… To my mind, whoever is running whatever arm of former-Diamond has an ethical responsibility to return held items that were created/published by someone else, and the law should not permit that just because at time of declaration, that Fraughtday in Octember, stuff (again, that isn’t “theirs”) was on their site, that it is somehow caught up in this and can be considered “sellable” with no proceeds going to the producers. To say that this is all correct and proper let alone ethical absolutely indicates that the system is erroneous, and that humans have tricked themselves into an unethical system. And I get that some folks will lose out. But creating more losers (consignors) than there already are (whoever is owed by bankruptcy) seems…needlessly stupid.
I get that Paizo is a business. And a business needs to make money to run. And these are times of great instability amd change - tariffs, distribution woes, AI/technological change. I guess there are multiple ways to make money, and these seem like, to Paizo, some great ways. And to plenty of customers, they are. I applaud Paizo for making changes to their business model, upgrading the site and trying to grow their customer base. In and of themselves, those are sensible business decisions. I just don’t particularly applaud the actual steps they are taking to achieve those necessary aims. But then again, neither am I offering much in the way of useful alternatives. So, community, if you have ideas, post away…
I would echo other posters dismay at the “only verified purchasers can review” policy. I have read the reviews of may reviewers who were players, and likely not the purchaser (I have no data for this) who provided the “player experience” point of view. Which is incredibly useful even for prospective GMs. Sure a review of how easy a scenario is *to run* is useful, but I’d also be just as interested, as a GM, in who and how many of my group, will have certain itches scratched, and player reviews tend to be laser focused on things like degree of combat, puzzles, intrigue, length/pacing etc. The other point I’d like to make is that the current posited option seems to be designed to cater reviews to those who will purchase them, which seems like a no-brainer, but also, for the points I raise above, kinda also not. So maybe look at this, and see what you can do.
|
