Search Posts
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.
The most unsettling part of all of these announcements is that there hasn’t been much discussion on how/whether the forums will exist…I don’t see a tab there in the screenshot for…Community. Not that that means there won’t be such available, but the optics, insofar as this Blog is about the Store/loyalty program as opposed to the new site, are concerning. Thank you Jim (and Maya!) for reminding/confirming this. I clearly forgot what you said in April. And I understand that the Store update/upgrade is your first priority.
Yuk. Loyalty programs and creating exclusivity is gross. Creating tiers of consumers is gross AND weird. Turning the reward “currency” into fun-timey “gold” is tacky. Then again, I’m not much of a “customer” and mostly am part of the “community”… Given that there will also be a space on the new site to host Pay-to-Play GM’s a la Start Playing, it really seems as if the community and I are soon to part… The most unsettling part of all of these announcements is that there hasn’t been much discussion on how/whether the forums will exist…I don’t see a tab there in the screenshot for…Community. Not that that means there won’t be such available, but the optics, insofar as this Blog is about the Store/loyalty program as opposed to the new site, are concerning. As for which social media platform to “use”? Just don’t use them folks. If the world gets to state at which these times are able to be looked back on with any sort of clarity, social media will be remembered as a plague that infested a completely unprepared generation who then completely failed to protect the next from its mind numbing paucity.
Myself, I think the distinction is important because in whatever game i'm playing, that descriptive text may not apply but the mechanics stay the same unless there is a house rule. Secondly, if care isn't taken, flavor text written in a casual way can just confuse things. For instance, when you see text that says prey, is it related to Hunt Prey or not? You have to make a judgment call and use context clues since prey isn't capitalized. If flavor was clearly distinguishable from rule text, it'd be easier for everyone involved on what's meant to be a mechanical effect and what's meant to be evocative as a possible outcome of the effect.To be clear on what I meant, I meant the distinction as a negative. I get differentiating them, since they are different, but I do not think that differentiating them needs to come hand in hand with narrative text being belittled as compared to rules text since I still think they're two parts of an important whole. My issue with the term "flavor text" is the negative connotation, not the differentiation. What I find silly is saying one part of the whole is less needed than any other. I’m not sure how silly this might be, but if I have one part of the whole that is flavor text, and the other part of the whole is the mechanical/game rule text, then I would imagine you only really truly *need* one of those parts. To play the game, with rules. And it isn’t the flavor part. Sure, they both “help” to understand the game and the rules and the mechanics, but if you look at each of them, in one case, if that is all you have, then you just have flavor/description but no rule to abide by; in the other case, you might have a dry rule without narrative explanation, but you can still play the game. I don’t need flavor text, I don’t use flavor text and it, to me, is unnecessary.
We need to stop using the term "flavor text" in forum debates. I am happy to use “descriptive text” but that takes more letters. I don’t think we “need” to stop using it in forum debates because it is something people clearly wish to debate about. It *does* exist, and it *is* problematic. The term “flavor text” is often used by players to dismiss sections of roleplaying game rules that they perceive as non-mechanical, narrative, or ignorable. However, this distinction is both unofficial and misleading—and ultimately harmful to rules clarity and good-faith interpretation. As above, I don’t “dismiss” it because it is non-mechanical, or narrative or ignorable. I find it oftentimes *problematic* because it is counter to the mechanical effect it purports to describe, or makes assumptions about the campaign or setting; or it makes assumptions about the situation that altogether are entirely unnecessary and/or effectively and actually “wrong”.
I’m not sure that any or all of this is true, except that the full body of a rule’s text *informs* its interpretation and use. I would counter this to say that removal of what is clearly “descriptive text” might, in many cases, actually ease both use and understanding. I would counter this to say that I’ve seen more weird arguments about how fla…descriptive text is interpreted. If we want to respect the game, its designers, and our fellow players, we should treat all text in a rulebook as meaningful—because it is. Yes, it is all meaningful. But we need to have open and honest discussions as to the usefulness and appropriateness of those meanings. And I would disagree that flavor text is meaningful or useful in *my campaign* or among *my group*. I don’t want it, and they don’t need it, and I would much prefer the space, time and resources applied to creating it be requisitioned elsewhere.
I’m not sure where “who am I to judge” came from, but I never find it very useful, as I always, at least in my head answer “Clearly lots of people”. I actually find making judgments about the actions of other people’s activities a very useful tool for checking my own actions, checking my biases and understanding what I can about my place in the world, others’ place/s in the world and what motivates them to do whatever it is that I am observing. Without making judgments, there can be no accountability - it results in a system where folx are *afraid* of having or sharing opinions that should be aired, contested, contrasted, argued about and defended. So me. I’m judging. Judging doesn’t require that I am pure, or without fault. That thinking also leads nowhere. It merely means I feel something. I’m definitely judging how I feel about continuing my association with a company that will promote paid GMs. I feel strong ties to this community, and what *I* see as its wellbeing. Obviously, an “imagined community” is just that, and if that is the way Paizo wishes to move, and the community by and large supports that, or doesn’t care enough one way or another for it to be a problem, then I will necessarily accept that I and the community are misaligned to such a degree that I remove myself from it. It is the way of change.
Also, if I were able to, I would absolutely pay for some of the awesome games I've seen advertised before. As an infamous jokester once said: "If you're good at something, never do it for free." This doesn’t feel like a good argument in favor of pay-to-play. It says to me “I absolutely cannot play some games I would love to be in, because I don’t have the money.” And as someone who has been a volunteer in many spaces, and some doing what I am good at, I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment that you should never do something you are good at for free. It sounds like a recipe for a dank and unconscionable approach to civic life.
Like a lot of others have said, I wouldn't sign up for a paid GM game. But, I don't see any harm in Paizo allowing them to be posted here. IMO, more game accessibility is good. And, if I was running a free game, and someone wanted to pay me, I'd take it. I mean, I'd never expect it, but, in the end, is it really that different from someone making food and bringing it to the game, or buying three or four pizzas and bringing them? More game accessibility is good sure, but is more pay-locked gaming that creates a state of entrepreneur and customer a good thing for the hobby? Some would say “absolutely” as the overall quality might improve, greater resources might be invented, streamers could spread the hobby, make it go viral, all to create more entrepreneurs to create more customers all so that hosting sites like Paizo and Start Playing can take a percentage of the hosted games, and thus grow to host more entrepreneurs and draw in *even* more customers. It’s a lot different than having someone bring you pizza or beers. It’s creating a tacit financial state, where what was a social contract between people is turned into a financial contract. And I don’t see that as a good thing. Monkeygod disagrees - and makes good points regarding player attendance and great games. But again, money doesn’t need to make that happen, or “enforce” it. Sure it helps, but every time we use money to “help” us we just create more problems. Disparity and inequality. Corruption. A drive for profit rather than true connection, a drive for units shifted rather than true passion.
And, Start Playing as been a thing for a few years now, and I don't see them taking away from free games. Maybe there *are* some GMs that have migrated away from Paizo PbP. Given the parlous state of the Recruitment forum lately, I wouldn’t categorically say it *isn’t* the case. Which brings up another point: @Maya - sure this discussion *began* here in the PbP forum, but it would sure get more traffic if it were in Website or General Discussion. There…just aren’t that many people…down here…any more. I’m sure you’d fet a lot more people saying “who am I to judge” etc if you made it more accessible. ;)
@Monkeygod: I’m not sure what “bringing politics” into a discussion has to do with not wanting to “have rational discussions about this topic”. I’m merely trying to illustrate that whichever side of politics some folk cleave to, there are reasons each side provides for people to abrogate personal responsibility to a higher authority, be that the state (“government”) or the market (“money”). And that neither has ever been necessary for humans to game together. I have no hatred for paid GMs. Paizo is well within their purview to promote them. I’ve already thanked Maya for creating this thread, and have proposed no malfeasance or subterfuge as the intention. And I’m merely providing a dissenting view. If only you could have kept playing in what sounds like a great game. But unfortunately, for a quite obvious reason….you couldn’t. And that, quite honestly, sucks.
Thinking about it further, proponents of the pay-to-play model might contend that greater safeties might ensue from a contractually obliged agreement bound by financial exchange - that greater quality of service might cascade around us, better safeguards against discrimination and harassment appear - these are all the catchcries of corporations whenever they want to privatise and monopolise. Where liberals and the Left want the “state to legislate good behaviour”, the corpocracy and the Right want the “market to decide on what is civil” - in truth, both attitudes remove personal responsibility from the equation - forgetting that humans can and do have the capacity to generate their own social contracts free of overarching interference. Politico-philosophical musings aside, there isn’t really anything from stopping “Professional GMs” from still running games, hosted in a “safe, moderated environment” without the need of financial inducement. And who wants to sign a contract, NDA, release from etc just to play a game of make-believe.
I found the profile and flagged all 19 also. What was interesting to me was that the profile had chosen an avatar image, and also pasted the content of the posts to their profile. That some…strange… dedication.
The commodification of an RPG experience whereby one person is paid for their participation and the rest are not completely changes what was a social contract between a group of people into a commercial contract between an entrepreneur and customers. As a person who has been the forever DM in all the groups I have been in…forever (except PbP) I am entirely cognizant of the “work” that goes into running a game. And sure, if you are supplying VTT externalities etc then you will of course incur overheads. And I understand that there definitely are players that a) want games b) are prepared to pay for them and c) are happy to easily find them. It still turns a hobby into a commercial exchange with all of the concomitant negative impacts that the exchange of capital entails. It promotes a financial burden that poorer players cannot afford; it changes the social contract of trust into something else entirely; it changes the value-proposition necessarily of those DMs who choose not to engage in Pay-to-Play; and it promotes “hustle culture” whereby society becomes a space for every hobby, every interest and every idea to be a shake down for cash. I find it distasteful, appalling and sad. Clearly I’m in an extreme minority. I’m sure people play fantastic games with their paid-for GMs. But I can’t just sit here without tilting at the windmills of capitalism.
That is incredibly disappointing news. But I do appreciate the heads up as to Paizo’s plans to promote such ventures Maya.
Kinda want to find a spot for Sofia Boutella. She's got some action credentials and feels underutilized these days. Maybe Seoni? Sofia Boutella is easy. Close your eyes. Imagine her as…Valera. She’d do an awesome job. No reason these Iconics can’t be changed, and movies do it ALL the time.
Says 2e DnD in the original post…So I think that means ADnD, 2nd Edition.
Just wanted to pop in and mention that in terms of folklore, Gyve may also look to Jack-in-Irons - a Yorkshire giant covered in chains, wore the heads of his enemies and wielded a spiked club… Jack-In-Irons: In the annals of English mythology, Jack-In-Irons plays a role akin to the chaotic trickster, albeit one far more menacing. He has an unyielding penchant for frightening anyone daring—or foolish—enough to wander into his territory after sundown. Nocturnal commutes become high-stakes gambles, dares between young folks too brazen to heed the whispered cautionary tales. Yet, in an intriguing twist, some narratives introduce a sliver of complexity to his otherwise fearsome demeanor. Amidst the malevolent escapades, Jack-In-Irons is said to free trapped animals, offering an unexpected glimpse of altruism or, perhaps, a more calculated caprice. His special powers are as potent as his towering presence suggests. Not just any chains could hold a being of his might; they are, according to accounts, unbreakable and perhaps enchanted. His club, too, is no mere lump of wood and flesh, but a fearsome tool capable of both physical and psychological torment. Each human head affixed to it is a reservoir of anguished souls, which, it’s rumored, can be summoned to serve various dark errands. With a swing of his club, he can unleash a torrent of spectral wails that disorient and terrorize, turning even the bravest of hearts to quivering jelly.
GM Dien - I would absolutely agree that games with a heathy Discussion thread and/or valuable and useful Discord channel/threads have a greater bond amongst the players and go a long way toward being sustainable in the long run. You’re probably right - this campaign’s theme is likely a bit too “dwarfy”, and I probably don’t realistically have time for a game that doesn’t suit my biases! Thanks for your answers and candour!
I din’t find the premise weird at all. 10 pt buy totally makes sense for NPC/0-level characters. No dwarves is actually a plus to me (like, I get that obviously there potentially have been/were some dwarves)… Am interested, mostly drawn to the Scrounger trait. Commoner, Expert or Warrior. Maaaybe an Adept. The one sticking point however is the Discord OOC stuff. I do use Discord, but I do find it can at times become a bit consuming - is that definitely a deal-breaker?
Well, not to toot Storyteller Shadow’s horn either, but when I was in their also-awesome Eberron game…7 or more years ago, Storyteller was running I think…close to 30 games concurrently, and that Eberron game *as far as I understood at the the time* itself ran two tables - one in Gameplay and one in Discussion. So they might have a good idea or two…
And to clarify - by all means game with your buddies, but I am advocating for finding players who mesh with your style and preferences. And definitely by all means save a spot for newbies. I’ve removed myself from games to give up a spot for new players on this forum, and definitely would do it again. The best part of leaving room for new players is that they might find themselves in a fantastic game with solid players (in terms of being helpful and welcoming, having a good posting rate, a respect for the format and the genre, and less importantly for me, system mastery) and develop into another great player. One last thing (at least in this post) is more for the players in this thread - don’t forget to, from time to time, give big thanks to the DM for their efforts. Sure, it is a shared game, and a group effort, but especially in PbP a lot of the heavy lifting of maps and resources is on the DM to tackle. Thank you to all of you who DM and make all of our lives richer. We players can only reciprocate by paying attention (the rope was knotted OSW!!!), “log in” regularly, giviing our best, not trying to metagame or hog the spotlight and to have our *characters* inhabit a world that makes sense to them, if not us!!!
Was in a fantastic Old School Greyhawk for PF1 game (with Albion) that had an incredibly passionate and well organised DM. ALLENDM also had a gift for not only evocative description and characterisation, but his combats were thrilling and cinematic. Take a look at the Campaign Tab populated with Campaign Maps, Tactical Maps, Houserule Docs, Player resources and loot sheets, Macros etc. The Campaign Tab goes a long way toward taking a lot of the heavy lifting and putting it in a central place. (If I have other advice, it would be to maintain the momentum of the game through encouraging the players to use the Discussion thread. This doesn’t mean anyone should wake up to 13 new gameplay posts and 157 new Discussion posts (a slight exaggeration of a slight exaggeration I made in a thread with DQ and Albion) but it is a place to get to know each other, ask rules questions and generally support the Gameplay experience.) And I should shout out the exceptionally wild
And another: DM Scholar’s Kingmaker - note the Campaign tab, and again the first actual Gameplay text that has all the spoilers for each player - the DM has made great effort to bring in each player to the game and central premise and theme. With player buy-in, the rest is easy as the player characters are invested and have threads to tug at and weave in. All three of those games had other characters I found interesting, believable and verisimilitudinous. I didn’t always gel with every other character, nor with their narrative arc, but ultimately it was the game itself, as run by the DM - inhabited by the party working as a narrative group if not a well-oiled team - that kept me playing. PbP is a fantastic mode when it works well. And different players look for different levels of the spectrum of RP/social/combat/loot etc. Be definite about what you want to run, and find the players who like that.
I guess the mapping really needs to take into account two sides of the GM/Player divide - the GM absolutey needs to be competent and confident with the tech, and comfortable using it; but if the players don’t like it then it becomes pointless. I would decide on what you are comfortable using and upfront get buy in from the players. No point recruiting players only for half of them to not be interested in your chosen mapping tool. I would advise Recruit *Players* rather than *Characters*. Outline themes (type of adventure and possible sensitivities); rules (character generation specifics, do you have houserules players need to know about; how do you run initiative; do you allow Take 10 or Take 20; how do handle social skills and Perception - do you prefer to roll for the players or let them lead the narrative etc); and how you will handle mapping. See how folks respond and gauge their approach from there. Look over their aliases and playstyle. PM them if you want. Once recruited, bring them to a Discussion thread and work out characters and other Session 0 stuff - how the intro will happen etc. There are definitely a million ways to skin a cat, but personally I don’t bother. I’d rather snuggle and have them walk all over my newspa….drawings.
Better late than never, Ruin!
Updating our roster: Ruin Explorer: No character yet.
@trawets - your Touch AC is calculated correctly in the alias, but is incorrect in the header.
@Storyteller: welcome to it. One of the interesting things I was toying with was maxing out the Monster Feats and Natural Armor hijinks - and toying with a harpoon/net combo (DH may remember a harpoonist I played in a game a looooong time ago) to represent the Pit-fighter background. Large, Reach, Harpoon funtimes…
Hey guys - apologies for flaking out - I just don’t think I’m up for this one. I thought I could invest enough in Ksaiba to get her going, but it isn’t working out. Definitely having trouble trying to make her work “beyond a starting adventurer”.
Looks like so far: Ruin Explorer: gnome illusionist wizard <OR> melee combatant.
Yep. That is the “problem” I find with Spheres characters. Just too damn complicated. And I’m not even talking about Spheres of Power/casters. I think I was in an all-Spheres Rise of the Runelords and made a spear-master thingy. Almost melted my brain. And that was just *making* the character.
Heh. I actually have Golden Heroes in the physical. Definitely takes me back to my high school days. I’m interested. Thatcher’s Britain is…pretty grim, but the music!!!
@The Marked DM: I seem to remember my Warforged Haqueton having a party member who had a gunne. Found it. In this post Haqueton marvels at the half-elf gunslinger Rission’s gunne.
Alrighty. Going to recycle a human monk alias…and I’ll also agree that with 7 we may not need to worry too much about roles etc…so I might also be up for some crazy multiclassing if we get that far…
Real life has absolutely been, quixotically, taking up all my damn time. Hoping to get character done today…
I think you know my answers to most of those. All sounds fine to me. I do like the idea of factions to give characters different motivations, and create a little…roleplaying friction. I’m not one to at all instigate PvP but at the other extreme do tire of the “randoms meet in a tavern and are immediately a synergistic team”. I like for such things to develop organically, as long as people aren’t completely “it’s wot my carikter would do”-ing. My only problem is that I have little knowledge of the Factions of the Pathfinder Society… I will repeat something I’ve expressed before: While my character may wish to succeed, and not-die, I as a player have no such desires - my only desire is for the world to make sense, and for my character to reasonably inhabit it; and for a great story to result.
Just letting everyone know I’m going to need a few more days to make my character. I’ll try at least to get the alias together ASAP and then stat it out as I can.
Absolutely agree with everything you said DQ. Have definitely left games where I woke up to 27 new posts in Gameplay and 45 in Discussion…
Oh, and I guess I prefer “normal” approach to loot. I find ABP a bit too much of an abstraction - I do think it is a good system for games that are less granular, but I don’t get that vibe from this game.
Yep, ER visits with newborn were my introduction to parenthood! Hope all are ok… Haven’t had a lot of time over the past week or this weekend, hopefully get to it later today…
My mind is still blown by the fact that you managed to get an emoji in your post. I copied your post with “Reply”, and the mindblown emoji didn’t work. <sadface>! ;) I would agree with Andostre’s point that there is a certain shall we say…regularity to losing a few folks along the way. I get the feeling here, looking at the assembled folks and their reasons for posting here, that that won’t be as much of a problem. Sir Longears makes a very good point about PF AP’s/modules having certain “expectations”. But if you are converting legacy modules from previous DnD editions that may be both less of a problem AND more work. ;) Also I have heard of the “rule of three” for speeding up decision making, but the “rule of two” could make things more fast paced. I guess you could also make a game for Chaotic Neutrals only called the Rule of One! (“We open the door and go in.” “We turn around and go back out.” “We rest”. “We stop resting and sing”. “No we don’t”. “Uh-huh. Yes we do”. “We leave the party.” “No we don’t”. “We draw our weapons.” “We fight!” “No we really don’t!!!!” “Yes we…some of us.” “Whaaaat!?! What about the Rule of One?!?” “Well…one of us is dead….”….) <——- Another emoji *was* there…. I would say go for 8, which might drop to 6. Plus animal companions, familiars etc. Huh. I wonder what emojis *won’t* work… <—— and the crying emoji was there, but failed.
@Pasha - ok, good to know. I’m totally into the less “cantina” feel for races (unless the game is totally “gonzo) but your general list is still flavorful and generates a lot of ideas. Will wait for the official Recruitment thread.
I am brave enough!!! Tokara is an Orc Witch (scarred witch doctor), one of the last of a remnant of the Sacred Pool tribe recently decimated by the same strange disease now found in Bloodcove. She has been sent by her elders to find the source of the illness and if possible counter it or at the very least procure or create a cure. She is, while gruff and a bit uncivilised, a creature of kindness and a pure heart for those that venerate the forest. N.B. I looked at half-orc, to see if they can qualify for Scarred Witch Doctor, and I can’t work out if there is a way - half-orcs have the “Jungle Half-Orc (Rainkin)” aternate racial trait which is specifically Mwangi encoded - weirdly it doesn’t provide any game benefits that I can find…
Can you clarify this: Greetings applicants, I am GM GuardYourPrivates and this is the re-recruitment thread for Shards of Golarion. I am currently trying to recruit one player for BOTH of my active tables, and as such have decided to make a new thread rather than updating both old threads. Does this mean you are looking for one person to be recruited to play in two games? I currently need a 4th level arcane caster for the first group. The second group is well set for primary casters but could use a fifth body to refill numbers….CC to start at level 4/2.. What does 4/2 mean? And what level is the second group, or is it the same? |
