Ridolfin's page

Bonjour.

J'avais fait une traduction du guide du joueur que j'avais mis en ligne il y a quelques temps. Tu peux le trouver à cette adresse Guide du joueur. Il y a des fautes. Ce n'est pas parfait, mais ça devrait te donner une excellente base.

Merci beaucoup également à toi Guillaume, ce travail est vraiment super !

Soyez créatifs

Be my guest. I hope your players will enjoy this great adventure.

Thanks a lot Adrien !

If i may ask, why do you need a french translation if you are the DM and yourself can read the english version ?

It's not like you have to read aloud the adventure to them. You can just describe the scenes, sites and creatures in french.

When you have a lot of background stuff (town descriptions, history, pantheons and so on) the players like to refer to this all along a campaign. Thus, it is worth to propose it in their native tongue.

Be sure in my 27 years long career I never read anything - neither in english, french nor in sylvan - to my players but only the very speeches I needed sometimes for famous NPCs.

Be creative

Hi Adrien,

I had a look and it is just fine for me. Many Thanks.
If you don't mind I will copy/paste it for my players.

If you are interested in some stuff in French about The Shackled City campaign just let me know and I will direct you on what I've done.

Be creative !

Hi all,

I am starting to prepare this path with a french group of players and I would like to know if someone here has some translations to share.

Just let me know and I will come back to give an email address or so.

Thanks

with these adventures before I start working with you and hopefully others on the ideas.

Delvesdeep

Hey Delves,

It’s good to see the old guard is still wandering here time to time ;-)

Man, even with two legs I had far too many asses to kick the last three years. As a result my two parties are one arriving Vaprak’s Voice and the other in the middle of the Redgorge Siege (before Smoking Eye). But at the end of the day, after more than 70 game sessions of five hours for each group it is definitely our best campaign ever – for the last 25 years.
Definitely it is not only because of the great job of the original authors but also for a large part thanks to the DM who posted here. And between them you DD are the King.
I stole a lot of ideas to you and added also a bit of my French touch here and there. Unfortunately I cannot find the time to translate all of my own stuff in English to feed this forum – I ‘m really not a good boy I know, but I have one,… no two worlds to fuel for the players and it consumes all my remaining energy after work and family hours. However, even if I am at eons of the two last chapters of the SCAP right now I have to pay a little coin here for you my friend. It is Christmas time isn’t it?

Shattertorn
It could be a good idea to have the Haunted Village back in scope as you suggest – remember that the HV is also supposed to be the lair of the Necrocants in an earlier chapter so it makes a lot of sense to imagine the heroes may have been there before. I’m sure you can include this in the picture. The idea to have Nidrama involved in the plot is fine too.
But why not to raise some of the old legends of The Demonskar Bal:
Kozomagon Lidu
This one may be an old undead being of some kind who discovered a spell weaver secret which caused him to destroy its village and his beloved woman when he attempted to help Surabar in Redgorge 700 hundreds years before. The waves of the madness of Adimarchus rolled over the Necromancer year after year, century after century, and poisoned his soul. Kozomagon and Adimarchus’ fates are enough close that the first one was completely confused by the demon / angel lord dreams. He eventually finds a way to contact the Cagewrights and to use Embryl as an ally in order to reach his true prey: Nidrama – whom he wants to made his Queen forever. But Embryl also has felt in the nightmare of the demon prince and wants to play her own role in the story…
Surabar
He is now a demigod but he is still remembering Nidrama and the sacrifice of his brother (Alakast – see the legacy of Alakast somewhere in the Messagesboard). Knowing her fate, he will try to help her in supporting the rescue operation by the heroes but without obvious physical intervention.
Orbius
This one has been called by Kozomagon from the Carceri plane (in its new advanced demonic form) for whatever good reason and he is supposed to be bound. But all will change when he will face again the foes he hates the most in the universe.

Asylum
About the final stand against Adimarchus, I am 100% for its replacement by the dreams scenario. You have 10 dreams if I recall correctly. I got the weird idea that in each dream the party should be of a different level for a short scenario / scene (i.e. level 2 for the first dream, 4 for the second and so on until 20). It is certainly a little bit of work to come back with ten Character Sheets by player and the same number of scenes. However IMHO this effect of “coming back to the old days guys” will be astounding for each of my player. That feedback experience during the last part of a great campaign, plus the dreams unreality feeling, seems to me the best game achievement I can imagine. But can you too ?

I hope something above can feed your talent, if you need it :-p

Be creative

Hello, everyone.

I've posted several times now that if Pathfinder wishes to repair 3.5, it needs to look at the big picture (the core of the system) rather than the small picture (individual classes, for example) and solve it from there.

I'd like to contribute an explanation of a core problem with 3.5, one which really should be considered along with other, smaller issues.

Reposted from a tangent of the 3-buff limit thread:

A major, and core, problem with 3.5 is that it simply fails to account for all values of X in d20+X.

At the end of the day, the issue of a too high difference in between the BAB of a T20 (+ equipment & all) and the one of a F20 (and the consequences given by the OP) is IMHO of the very same kind that the F1’s BAB compare to F20’s BAB. But nobody complains about that (or only a few).

One obvious solution to fix the OP issue is not only to run groups of PC of same (equivalent) level but also with only one same class. :-p
If you follow me, you see that the next step is to run only one PC and staying in front of a computer as millions of other players which are enjoying the only (auto claimed) RPG they have ever heard from.

Quite a long introduction to explain that the “True Problem” is not in the system but in the human factor i.e: the players and the DM.
First, our game has been built to be cooperative (thanks GG – we miss you all) or it comes to be stupid. As a consequence, the most the PCs are specializing (read also leveling in the same class) the most they create holes in their own future interactions with some of the game events. As a counterpart, they become over-efficient in few of the possible situations. But, usually, the other players are patching that thanks to a good balance in classes.

Now the problem is coming because most of the awaited events – especially by the new generation of MMORPG brain washed PC – are combat ones. At that point, I can agree with you that if we have BABs in a wide range because of very different bonuses then the DM fall in trouble.
So the problem here is not bonuses but combat rules in the game!

Rather to first try to fix BAB bonuses, my experience led me to corner the AC definition first. I have cut the AC in two pieces – a lot of such house / alternate rules can be found – one is reflecting the active defensive ability and the other the passive one (this last one is armour).
I will not explain in details that system – we are using it for years now starting with old 1E D&D – but it works fine if:
1 – Classes & Monsters have not only a BAB but also a BDB (D as defence)
2 – Beings have Armour Points
3 – Critics system is built so that it allows us to negate armour points

That rule (with its implementation done by changing the BAB current tables) allows a decrease in the differences in between the bonuses that are at the root of the concern raised by the PO and is still very compatible and easy to implement. If I find some time in the future I will try to come back with the details.

Be creative

So here's how I see it...

Complex Basic rules: Bad
Complex choices built on simpler rules: Good

I have exactly the same feeling too. Thanks for your comment.

I move forward a little bit more my crusade for Simplicity in violating a sacred D&D taboo: … the AC.
In this – again long post – I propose an alternative rule which streamlined the game but without expecting to reduce dice roll or (basic) calculation involved in the Hit process.
I explain first, and IMHO, how to reconsider AC in its two basic components so that the game becomes more instinctive. The AC is a mix of active and passive defence. It is sounded that the passive defence should be subtracted to the damages and not to the hit. About the active defence we can imagine it like a manoeuvre to be safe from an attempt to hit you. So this one has to act against the hit chance, and more, it is a saving throw type of thing.

The new AC (nAC) definition

It is a not rolled save and so consider it at 10. To that 10 are added:
1 – actual / current Reflexes Save modifier
2 – modifier from class abilities, feats, skills and magical effect which are applying only on nCA
3 – modifier from shield or spell-shield effect

Note: all the spells, effects, modifiers which apply to Reflexes will also apply on nAC by design. It is worth to recall a nAC is a Saving-Throw type thing here. The limits (in DEX) which can affect Reflexes Save because of the armour will also be detrimental to the nAC. Each enhancement to a shield is a direct enhancement to nAC. As usual bonuses coming from a same type of effect don’t stack.

The new DR (nDR) definition

To take care of the passive defence we define the nDR – please note that nDR is not supposed to be compatible with the actual DR / …. of the 3.5 Ed.
The nDR is subtracted to any damage but the continuous damages and the falling damages. It is:
1 – brought by a vestment or a protection – or a spell like – we call an armour nDR
2 – brought by a natural toughness – or a spell like – of the creature hide we call a natural armour nDR

Note: All the enhancement to an armour give a 1 for 1 nDR bonus. For conversion purpose and compatibility with weapon damages it is worth to calculate the nDR of any armour like halve (rounded up) of the AC bonus given by 3.5 Ed. – I fully catch that it means we have always two armours with same nDR but I think the differences in between armours can also be implemented thanks to other factors than nDR.
A very resistant material like adamantine add a flat +2 to the nDR of an armour. You should halve the natural armour AC modifier calculated like we do for armour.
As usual, bonuses coming from a same type of effect don’t stack.

Conversion and Compatibility

Compatibility with the 3.5 can only come from a conversion. Luckily is quite a basic process to do. The main stream is:
a – to calculate the nAC with 3.5 Reflexes mod + Shield (if any) + other related feats which apply,
b – to calculate the nDR with {halve of (3.5 natural armour mod – 3.5 Reflexes mod)} + armour nDR (or like).

What about the 3.5 Ed DR ?
If it is a DR / - then you can definitely add it straight to the nDR. For those DR with / something, I guess it can be addressed like the invulnerability to all but something. It is a basic rule but it has a lot of flavour to make some enemies very frightful. I do prefer having a lycanthrope immune to all but silver for example.
If you are not pleased with this you can either keep the DR rule of 3.5 but it will add a lot of complexity with quite few advantages IMO (like it does actually).

Side note: A very important rule to implement with the nDR is that the critical roll always goes through it. It gives a streamlined and natural rule for critical hit. You have no longer to confirm your critical. If it’s a critical but not a hit then you dont take care of the nDR and deal with regular damages, if it is a critical and a hit then you apply the critical effect on damage and don't consider the nDR.

I hope some of you are still with me and find some interesting ideas here. Your feed back is welcome guys.

I have put together my posts of this thread which are dealing with alternate rules to streamline a 3.x D&D IMHO. I have also corrected some flaws and typos to make it clearer.
You can have a look on the (temporary) result at A plea for Simplicity - Alternate rules suggestions

Be creative

I have put together my posts of this thread which are dealing with alternate rules to streamline a 3.x D&D IMHO. I have also corrected some flaws and typos to make it clearer.
You can have a look on the (temporary) result at A plea for Simplicity - Alternate rules suggestions

It looks like not a lot of you have made some comment on that stuff... Is something wrong about sharing that kind of ideas here ?

Be creative

In this post I complete the simplified “Acting“ rules description I started in another post above.

Surprise!
When you are surprised you are not allowed to take any but Reflexes action (Saving Throw).

The mix of Initiative & Acting presented before is useful to track the rounds and the actions in a very simple way. It will be even better if you prepare the initiative chart(s) before the game. It is now possible because we don’t have to bother with Initiative roll and delayed / readied action.
Your chart should have 4 main columns.
A is for Player and Monster ID
B is for Player and Monster Initiative
C is for Max number of actions (usually 2) / Max number of reactive (usually 1)
D is for the action count with these symbols:
/ = no action (when surprised)
! = proactive
? = reactive
Repeat column D for each subsequent round.

Be creative.

To actually address something related to the OP's point, however, I agree that 3.5e has "too many rules." Having a sub-ruleset for everything is wonky and painful - sure, you *can* learn all of it, but do you get any value out of that?

…
It's also very unhelpful to go in with the "Well then maybe you'd like Castles & Crusades instead!" You can want the variety of options that 3.5e gives you without needing them to be built cruftily.

Ernest, it sounds like you understand and share my aim at a point. I don’t want to bring decadence in D&D but to see it be revived in a better shape than before. Don’t hesitate to share more ideas about simplicity of that kind inside this thread.

However, the people giving the rules away aren’t trying to sell products. Again perhaps, a rules-lite version of Pathfinder might ultimately drive more sales of adventures or even the full version.

I’m quite more sold to that thought. If not, Paizo efforts in PFRPG will be irrelevant. It is even true for any kind of rules they would publish: if they don’t improve the sales of their other Pathfinder products by it that is a flop IMHO.

To be clear, I don'tpromote or even think/pretend these alternate rules proposed by Ernest and jdh417 are the aim I ask for in my plea. However, this efforts show how it is sounded to work for an PFRPG as efficient in Simplicity than in other ways.

Be creative

Quite a long one that time. I hope you will follow my flag guys !

About Acting in combat… :

Three different groups for the actions: Proactive, Reactive or Reflex.
Basic Idea is:
Proactive use full bonuses and full speed
Reactive use half bonuses but full speed
Reflexes is indeed when you need to use a Saving Throw of any kind

Rule:
You can always take two actions in a round starting at your turn but not more than one Reactive. Before your action turn in a round you cannot have any action but Reflexes one. After your action turn you can only have one Reactive action if available. If you don’t use your reactive action before your next turn it is lost. You can have as many as required Reflexes actions in a round.

Only few situations and effects are able to change the standard acting rule:

• 1 – Some conditions or spell effect can forbid Proactive or Reactive or both and even Reflexes action.
  
• 2 – Some spells effects or feat can allow you one more Proactive or Reactive action
  
• 3 – Some actions can never be done twice in a round even if the acting rule would allow it. They are:

  a – Charge, spell and spell like abilities use
  b – Non permanent magic devices use
  c – Some of the Supernatural or Extraordinary effect, feats or abilities
  

Few actions are considered free and thus don’t count for the limited number of acting actions. They are the one given by the 3.5 OGL chart of free actions. The use of some feat or a sounded procedure allows changing an action in a free action (quick reload, belt for wands and so on…).

The system to combine your move actions and your other actions is quite simple. You can always insert one action (or more if you are allowed to by special powers) at every step of your move and then try to finish your move. In some case your opponent can stop you through a sounded Reactive action (if he had). Usually neither an attack in a Reactive action on an Active move nor the reverse stop the move.

Now if you consider the above rule with care I think it’s possible to demonstrate it is no more needed to implement the attack of opportunity system. Without it I guess you get however a cinematic system of combat which will pose a threat against the attempt of every action if in the (extended) range of the opponent. Please note that it is also much more instinctive to rule the active and reactive phase IMHO.
One of the question could be why do you halve the bonuses in reactive mode of acting, answer is quite simple: I want the players active and also when Reactive I think you are losing a part of your efficiency in the delay / analysis / decision of action process.

Just below I give the list of the actions like the srd.org gives it and I comment and suggest some equivalence. But because it’s a little bit long I hide it behind the following gadget.

I hope most of you will catch the gist of this system and how it brings streamlining-simplicity in the combat sequence. It is the result what I expect to get IMO. Also it should be quite compatible with all the stuff but some feats and the attack of opportunity. Plus, I bet that it allows a good not boring and not gimped game.

Thank you for your patience and attention.

Thoughts ?

Be creative

However, I've been trying to convince folks to fold the miss chance roll into the attack roll thusly:

With a 50% miss chance, any roll on the attack that comes up an odd number (1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19) is an automatic miss. This correlates into the "1 always misses" and a "20 is always a hit".

With a 20% miss chance, any roll of 1 or a number divisible by 4 is a miss (1,4,8,12,16).

Ok I'm sold ! You get a Padawan and one faithful forever.

Two things then. One, I'd love to hear more short cuts like Stephen's on how to not roll a bunch of dice.

I started recently to feed the box with ideas of that kind here. (check bottom of the thread - but I'm the OP and I will be glad if you are interested in the whole argumentation.)

By the way Mosaic, did you get we are twins ?

Be creative

So I will try to post in that thread some cases where I think the simplicity of the game should improve and how I imagine it …

Wellll ! I have to start by something and I propose Initiative Check.

So:
We calculate the Initiative once using 10 + the current defined and applicable modifiers (DEX, feats, armor penalty to check, racial bonus ?). The chart is done once for all for the players. If two or more Initiative are the same your left guy get the turn – like everybody knows, DM is the most left guy of any of the tables. Your never need to change the Initiative score during a sequence as 3.5 suggests – I will explain how to manage that in a later post about Actions.

Thoughts ?

Be creative

Sounds like C&C and/or True20 is for you.

I’m not sure at all – I tried and I am not a strong believer they are so good. Plus, if these systems are really a very good improvement how can you explain they are not more supported or played ?

Ridolfin wrote:

and with me a lot of gamers who prays in silence.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Really, of all surviving D&D supporters, which ones will not pray to have a more brilliant, efficient and still flavored game to take over from 3.5 Ed as its true heir ? Are we dreaming of a more complicated, more elitist and eventually hard to (role) play system ?

You mentioned lack of Role Play. That's not because of the rules...

Thought I'd mention that. Editions don't have different standards for roleplaying.
If the rping is down in your group.. it's your group. Not the rules.

I am DMing with various players (currently almost twenty – but not all together ;-)). It is obvious that some players or groups are more or less good in role play. But with the ten guys witch are definitely great at role play – and with whom I play for at least ten years or more – we have definitely noticed RP was down with the later editions.

Agreed. A good game is all about the group. The question is "Do the rules support your group's type of play or get in the way of it?"

It’s a good answer and I can endorse it with a lot of gratefulness – It prevents me from a longer typing session in this so beautiful William’s language.

Thanks Ridolfin for bringing this topic up again.

You are more than welcome ! Thank you to you jdh147.

Have a good one!

It was great ! … and tiring. Thank you. Now my battery is full again. God, I love this game despite its painful current rules.

I agree that simplicity in conjunction with compatability with 3.5 are both good design goals. Rather than creating everything from a 'green field', I'd like to see them continue to 'prune' the 3.5 set so it all 'fits together'.

I think the skill point allocation system is a beautiful example of this…

I got your points DeadDM and I almost agree some PFRPG changes like skills rules are good but perhaps can be a little bit better. I will try to argue for it after I got some time to organize my thoughts. I also agree the Combat Feats are not so nice, but I’m not checking its compatibility when I come to that feeling. And I’m not sure I am so well pleased by all the changes in the Races and Classes in regards of Simplicity. Few are ok, some are not ok at all IMHO. Also the reasons of balance / restoration of interest in core classes and so on are just not hitting me at all. Combat Maneuvers is for sure a good move I like too…

….

By the way, in answering here it comes to my mind that the SirUrza’s advice was very wise. Even if I want to stay general, the only way to give flesh to my thoughts and to offer you some grasp on them is to enter the arena and fight with the beast. Plus, it is a better aim in trying to help rather than just complaining !

Now, it’s no more time for a PLEA, it’s time for a CRUSADE !

So I will try to post in that thread some cases where I think the simplicity of the game should improve and how I imagine it. However, I am not a game designer as already stated. I am quite sure some flaws and mistakes will sparse my posts. I ask your commiseration in advance guys.
If you find some of the future premises I will drop here are worth a dedicated thread, just let me know when you see it.

Be creative

I totally agree.

I second.

Ridolfin wrote:

SirUrza wrote:

If certain rules are too complicated, perhaps it'd be better to state which ones you think should be made simpler (in the appropriate forums below) instead of a blanket statement that doesn't help them make things simpler and better?

SirUrza, I have posted few things. I have a very busy schedule as explained above. Plus, I have to acknowledge I’m a lazy guy. ;-)

...

Don’t beat me, Troll. And don’t jack that pitiful thread, please.

Hey! Don't be rude, man. Asking for specific examples and evidence is never trolling.

I apologize if I did.

I posted in this "GENERAL" section of the messageborads just to stay evasive and not focused. So I want to avoid to point out a list of topics here or there.

I have to go to play as every Saturday . Bye

Be creative

Mage Armor is a personal range spell. It cannot be cast on someone else.
-Jack

Sorry but I think you are wrong Jack. Check it here

Be creative

If certain rules are too complicated, perhaps it'd be better to state which ones you think should be made simpler (in the appropriate forums below) instead of a blanket statement that doesn't help them make things simpler and better?

SirUrza, I have posted few things. I have a very busy schedule as explained above. Plus, I have to acknowledge I’m a lazy guy. ;-)

Serious now ! We are five “simplified” by now and my plan for a bridge session is nuked. If you join we can be six for a poker ?
Come on !

Be creative

OP... be careful of what you wish for. WotC's decision for simplifying and streamlining the rule stystem is what they went for, and this is what they got... Remember that the DM is a storyteller first. If the system takes from the DM something that has such significant impact on the story that it...

Hey ! I never plead for a system where the DM is around the table with the players ! I don’t know at all the 4E – but I will check that one if I find a way to fight my phobia of that WotC site one day.

Simplicity is definitely not a synonym of stupidity, at least in my mother tongue. May be I am not aware of and odd sense of “simplicity” in English ?

Again, I don’t want to gimp the game I want to see it improved as THE epic role playing essential reference worth it.

Are you in – we are searching a number four for a bridge ? ;-)

Be creative

Is there anyone here who thinks less is more? Would any attempt at truly simplifying the rules lead to a chorus of “dumbed down?”

I appreciate that the ultimate goal of Pathfinder is to be rules compatible with 3.5. Could this still be achieved if a swath of rules were chopped out?

A very long winded way of saying that there are a large number of people who support a simpler, more idiot proof version of D&D.

-- Dennis

So – perhaps – I’m not dumb ? Thank you for the post JDH.

And yes, Ogre, to be alone during a too long time and brooding over the same thoughts is not good. It tends to make the old guy a little bit too talkative, especially when he didn’t expect to be heard ;-))

What…, two echoes. I’m not a legend then. ;-p

Be creative

The last time i did was about 4 years, using 3.0 rules enhnaced with bits of 3.5... yes it was challenging... but not more challenging than when i mastyered the same quantity in AD&D 2nd Edition.
...

Thank for your post too Montalve. I ‘m not willing to defend the AD&D 2nd Edition - I’ve not played that one so much indeed. I just would like to know if the gamers around me and myself also are the last ones in the D&D community who think an improvement is not always another one hundred pages book of rules and options to fix something or to avoid players to be bored by a more than one year old class or feat.

Besides, I just made a poll with some old friends, after 28 years in the game with weekly sessions each of us has hardly played more than twenty or so different classes – but with multiclassing however.
I did the same poll with my son and friends who are playing WoW intensively and you guess : in less than three years they have played almost all the possible things, but not all up to the high level (phew !). BUT, they agreed they didn’t bother with role play, a DM or even an other player trying to catch their keyboard in order to have a part of the good time too ;-))

I think that example says something to each of us and I let the readers draw their own conclusion.

I will definitely give its chance to PFRPG, but as said in my previous post here, I’m not more a nice guy and the current things in Alpha let me frustrated. I’m old (or too old to my taste at least) and my time flees so I need efficiency.

They can do it. They are the best at their job. But do we want it ?

Be creative

I am in 100% support of the move Erik has made with Lisa's support and Jason's hard work.

And so do I. Really.

But allow me to acknowledge your feelings about complexity and the fatigue associated with honoring the complex, but sophisticated, 3.5 rule set…

I very like you post PAX and I will certainly enjoy playing with you regarding what you wrote.

You know, my heavier concern is not for me or my more “brilliant” players but for the game itself – even if I’m so tired sometimes. As you stated, it becomes longer and longer to prepare a session. Also it becomes heavier and heavier to check, calculate and adjudicate all the situations that came in play (or even out when prepping).
For sure I had a good time with 3.5, but now I’m not more a nice guy with rules. I’ve spent months of my real life in DMing or in working on this or that rules set, game, module and so on. And please, remember it is not written in my native language.
The only time it’s worth spending is when you are addressing the story and the fun, especially during the session. The other time for the mechanisms is just a needed pain – ok I agree sometimes it generates a bit of pleasure. And worse, that job consumes my time to be creative.

I don’t care so much of 3.5 and compatibility issue at the end of the day. If some nice stuff from 3.5 can be save as a side effect, that’s fine and great, but if to save the elder you cripple the young I’m afraid you don’t prepare for a long future.

Hope I made my thoughts clearer.

Be creative

Agreed that we need to keep rules simple but functional, but can we do that without endorsing, or ideally without mentioning prostitution? Thanks.

Sorry for this akward image. It has never been in my intention to endorse prostitution but I know it exists.

I've been playing D&D for about as long as you have, and while there were aspects of 1st and 2nd ed that I missed, I can see why they're gone and while I miss them, I don't want the extra baggage that they carry.

I’m not asking for any back move to the old rules. I’m asking to take the best witch balance flavour of role play and playability and simplicity – in that order. I don’t think 3.5 is a paramount achievement. It fixed things but not always with a so great performance in regard of simplicity.

Do you mean you would be more attracted by a simplified (basic) game, such as True20 or Castles & Crusades ?

No I don’t say that. And I also agree the player want something to eat and to play with tactically. But do you agree that a group role play experience can be very impacted by meta gaming and power gaming.

Paizo, designs, develops, and sells games for a living - I think they know what they are doing and what is at stake.

I'm sure they are the good guys. I’m not willing to give any lesson to anybody but just asking a question without any aggressiveness and condescension.

Be creative

My Grand-Father said me:
“More laws or more complicated laws are just making the trials longer and the lawyers wealthier but not the people happier or enjoying more freedom. But, all in all few can say the system is not equitable. It’s not funny but it’s logical.”

I would like to express my worries and my frustrations about where is arrived D&D after thirty years. The aim of this post is simple and unachievable: to give a voice on this messageboards to the ideas of plenty of gamers (players and GM) who will never participate to our experts’ arena. But, because these people are around me the silent majority of our hobby and because in the newcomers they will be essential for the future of the game, we need to take care of them more than of ourselves.

Of course, the OD&D rules had to be improved along the time. But, why have the designers generate at the end of the day the hyper complicated logical code called 3.5 ? Today, thousand of posts in this messageboards are just a race in the direction of more that, or more for this one (class, race, power, feat,…), or more mechanism of that kind and so on. I’m lost !

Frankly speaking, I love D&D and I’m faithful to it for almost thirty years. IMO, its strength, its essence and its sex appeal are coming from the epic origin which his the kernel of that universe. Somewhere in the past the rules seemed simpler and also non invasive and whatever the holes they had it was never a point difficult to deal with. That is no more true.
I will use an image now because it’s the simple way to picture my feeling: In the old nights I found a beautiful and epic adventuress whom I followed with great pleasure, even without knowing all her secrets. But nowadays I have seen her using more and more make-up, even some surgery and implants and becoming and expert and talented whore. So perhaps she is right for the old blasé man I am (not so sure these days) but she has nothing to seduce the new romantic hearts around. And yet I still see the beauty of the old days and the desire consumes me to see a true champion (not of a Nip Tuck kind) to reveal again her grace.

When I read Paizo will try to move on an alternative to 4E, I placed a lot of hope in it. This team is by far the best for keeping this epic fire burning in our game. They have splendid story tellers, designers, editors, publisher and artists. So I imagined they will have the aim to restore some rule set which will help in finding back the not so old spirit rather than to mimic painfully the clichés and effects of the MMORPG or other video games. I am now thinking I was wrong and that this direction of the road is closed, perhaps forever.

I will now give the example of our game circle. We have many players and we have always enjoyed D&D adventures with 6 to up to 10 players. Now, IMHO, it is a little bit sad to say that most of the modules are designed for only four. The game and the players wasted away I guess. But does it mean that tomorrow we will have rules only for two + one referee – like my wargamers’ buddies ? Or worse, will we be in the future alone in front of a screen ! I can’t let it happen without rising up against that fate. Even with 3.5, the Dming of a good session with 6-10 players is an intellectual and even a physical trial. I know that because I did it every week during the last five years. But now, I’m exhausted and fed up by all that poor task, from within the grace of a good role play is hardly touched. I have house ruled a lot to simplify, but the more I work the more the designers push the ball. When reaching high levels, on a table of 6-10 I have players bored by the overwhelming rules and meta gamers who crawl in their sin with delectation and conceit.

I’m afraid PFRPG will just push me a little bit more on the edge of the abyss and with me a lot of gamers who prays in silence.

Jason, Erik, Lisa are you sure of your move ?

Fellow DMs your support or even your slaps are welcome to revive an old (perhaps) alone but (certainly) experienced gamer.
As I’m not a native speaker I hope at least you’ve got the gist of this.

Be easy (and creative)

This is going to be a long post. If weapon vs. armor type tables make you want to gouge your eyes out, you may want to self-medicate before continuing.

Ok. I like what you are doing here. It brings rules AND flavor in being armored or not and how.

Also it stays simple and practical. Thank you to share it.

I will come back later if I find some good ideas who can enhance your stuff. But it is quite already neat.

Be creative

Exactly - the wizard was creative - that's the whole point.

And what about your four 15th level fighters ? They can be also a little bit much that stupid cows ?

It was not my intention to bait you but just to point out that, depending of a lot of parameters, and yes, also of the DM will and experience, a wizard is not always a super super hero and a fighter a super super lamer. And even when playing the 3.5 core rules (I don't care of prestige classes here).

Let's roll the thread.

Be creative

I'm using racial bonuses in my playtest - It seems to work well.

I have a mild concern that the frail races don't have anything to balance that out though - I mean, that's an extra 4hp at first level for a tough race vs a frail, which is almost an (average) level's worth of hp for a d8 class. Even more for one of the d6ers.

I'm in for the racial bonus (Max HP at 1st + bonus) but nerfed to not unbalance the race choice.

Be creative

I think it should be automatic, since a multiclassed fighter/wizard improves his combat abilities automaticly too!

I agree with you (again ;-))

The other day the 10th wizard in my group, who was severely weakened and down to about 1/3 of his spells ended up in a situation where he was forced to take on four 15th level fighters on his own. He mopped the floor with them in about 5 rounds

This type of things never happened to me in years of play. IMHO a Wizard is almost a Dead man walking when left alone in a battleground of its level and with no option to flee. A well equipped band of fighters was the fate of many arcanists in our stories.

SOOOO, about the topic: Fighter are cool and powerfull enough to my taste. I will even certainly nerfed them with house rules if I come to the point to use PFRPG. Problems is not fighter indeed but that 10 feats from levelling - I prefer 5, to keep it short.

Be creative

OH! Just another one: Why not shift-change sneak attack and rogue talents?

I am with you for this one ! Two levels of rogue before any sneak attack YES !

Also, for me the problem of broken SA has its roots in the iterative attack system. Getting rid of iterative attacks is one of my concern.

If you solve the number of attacks in the game with a feat based iterative attack then the rogue (but not only him) is far less available to bog in battle with countless awfull blows.

Be creative

The popular mind-set seems to be that a 10th level character SHOULD be able to easily kill an entire army between sips of champagne -- even if that seems completely stupid to me.

I definitely agree. But, also a lot of epic tales and movies are quite stupid too if you think at it twice. So we can quickly jump on something like: AD&D is a stupid game for stupid nerds in a stupid world which is certainly something very close to THE truth.

I’m definitely not sure that the never ending empowering of the classes and, as a consequence, of the game since the end of the 70’s was a 100% win move. Generally speaking, the players are more and more spending time in character sheet flipping and self combo’s preparation than in role playing and epic scenes of group battle. And I don’t talk about the time spent in character building + levelling and the players’ awe in front of their countless feats, special abilities, spells, HP and so on. These are, at the end of the day only very complex mechanisms but not fun at all !

Ok I have to come (late) on topic now. The rogue seems to me very powerful with its sneak attack as it stands. I have house played it for a while without all the sneak attack abilities as they stand, and surprisingly, I always got players who want to impersonate one in my games. If a rogue wants to use a “sneak attack” action, he has to be unnoticed and also to be able to score a special success (with a skill based DD). If he misses or is noticed, I allow the victim to have a free attack on the rogue if legible. That way, I keep the sneak attack a risky but rewarded manoeuvre. And I forbid the generalisation of it like a boring combat trick the thief repeats again and again almost whatever the situation.

Be creative

I would consider Favored Class as an option left to DM Choice with a suggestion of simple and balanced advantages to select with.

This list should be generic, something like:

• 10 Die Favored Class gain 2HP or 1 skill point / level
  
• 8 Die Favored Class gain 1HP or 2 skill points / level
  
• 6 Die Favored Class gain 2 skill points or 1 spell / Level

Yes, for me the Barbarian shall go with 10 Die.

And you can add something like: "It is up to DM choice to replace or change this by balanced bonuses of any kind which are fitting their game the best."

And because it's an option, I'm also 100% to cut Favoured Classes in the core mechanisms.

Be creative

Still kicking aroung this site Sean? ;)

Haha, after spending so many years PLANNING the SCAP, I'm finding getting a chance to run it

Hi guys, happy to see you are still around with your great ideas !

After two years I'm Dming Demonskar Legacy for my two different groups. I had also to flesh out a little bit the LL and went (thanks to DD first hints)with (almost) the same type or organization Sean is describing.

Be creative.

or be a distinguished gentleman and know how to Perform ballroom dance

Hello Robert, do you remember something like a Demonskar Bal ? ;-))

Back on topic. I’m not a fan of the type of discussion I see on all that PRPG Alpha messageboard. But anyway, I’m here to try to get information and to feed back for some of the French guys I’m playing with. So I’m very pleased by your post on that topic (skills) I find very difficult to follow up through the many threads. I like a lot of your ideas. Just let me present one or two suggestions about the skills system.
1) I agree that any race got 1 racial skill (at Class Skill level – see below for “how to use it”)
2) Each starting adventurer got 2 skills slots (see below again for “how to use it”)
3) At 1st level: ROGUE get 6 skills slots; RANGER / BARD / BARBARIAN / DRUID / MONK get 4 skills slots, and all the other get 2 skills slots.
4) Every 3 level Rogue, Bard get 3 skills slots, the other get 2 skill slots

How to use it ?

Basic of the system is how to calculate our skill bonus. You will do it by:
(1) Calculating you entering level modifier for the skill - The calculation of the bonus is actual level minus entering level
(2) Calculating your class factor – if you enter the skill as a Class Skill you directly got freely that factor to 1, if you enter as a Cross Class then the factor is 2.

Your final bonus is: (actual level - entering level) / Class factor, rounded down
(a) as usual you can add the ability modifier and the feats modifiers
(b) racial skill and starting adventurer skill(s) are considered entering at level 0
After that and at each level you get skills slots:
(c) you can spend one skill slot to enter either a Class or a Cross Class Skill
(d) you can spend one skill slot to decrease a Class factor of an entering Cross Class Skill from 2 to 1

The system is quite simple and easy to go with. The weakness is you have to take care of the order you built your experience in skills because its not possible to come back in slow downing some skill in order to push forward another one.
It seems to me a quite good compromise.
Thank you for the neat ideas you shared and that I used to improved my thoughts.

By the way, I’ve started my Role Player life in 81 ! So, if you don’t mind, I will call you Junior ;-)

Be creative

"T... t... t... totally."

Hey ! Does it mean you don’t like my points guys ?

I am curious about the reasons behind …From Jason's perspective it's better to know the reason why something is a "no" … If you know why something isn't working, it's easier to fix it (or to decide that the perceived problem isn't a big enough problem to justify reworking things).

We were just assuming a vote can also be straight forward useful for Jason. It is the way it works for the politicians who are ruling our real life or am I wrong?

It sounds like this wasn't based upon any play testing

I made it clear in my posts from the beginning. We have not started a game session so far. And you are right, we do talk together about the rules, just like in this forum.

You want creativity so long as what you view as being a D&D cliche don't change. So, no creativity then.

I know many movies, novels, songs, people, animals which are creative in respecting some codes or standard or way of life or instinct.

Be funny ;-))

I and my group are also pleased by racial HP. But as stated in my above post we don’t understand why a frail race is entitled a racial bonus to HP. So we voted for a 0 for the frail race.
In the other hand, giving a +8 for the Half-Orc will definitely create some heavy differences in HP at low level.
Eventually we prefer to have some spices for the races but only a few because a too spicy meal will just become very unpleasant for many people. To make it short, a lot of rules and options mixed together are good only if the cook is done by a chief (read it as by a very good balance of one DM, his players and one Rules set).
And if you are not sure to be a chief – which is the case at least of me – then you are better to just add very little quantities of your spices to flavour the things rather than to spoil them.

Therefore we ended with 1 and 2 HP for standard and hearty races. It spices the character but without the danger of an unexpected disgusting reaction when mixed with other options and rules points.

Ok, if the aim is to give a big HP boost to everything our comments are just useless. But, if we are trying to improve a flavour for the future gourmets then they could make sense.

I’m French, so please forgive me for the cooking lesson. I like also the clichés and this one was a way too appealing for me to resist the temptation. ;-)

Be creative (in your kitchen too !)

Getting rid of iterative attacks my house rules (Slightly complicated)

To get rid of ... then scrap it ...

This following one is different from 3.5 to help playability. We have always been uncomfortable with iterative attacks because they slow-down and “rollify” a lot the game. A good alternative for us is to replace it by a feat which allow a double (or triple and so on ) attack with a –5 cumulative malus.
Each time you want to increase your multiplier you have to buy the feat. Each time you want to use the feat you deal with the malus. When you deliver more than one attack on the same target you roll once with the appropriate malus and you multiply your damages in case you hit. For more than one opponent you combine at your will. This rule would have also the very good side effect to help the Fighter to emphasize his class difference.

The DR point above is not so important with that system because the multiply bonus is balanced by a -5 malus to hit.

Be creative

Why? Why should my character concept be gimped like that?

... no offense please ! I like the Barbarian Berserker Halfling with its double pan racial weapon too ...

Be creative

... There is a fine, and somewhat fuzzy, line between power-gaming and just being a dick,...

Ding !

Be creative

Very interesting comments, …

Thank you. We are by now just starting the tests. Our focus at the current step is in character creation and we will not really start to play before other classes will be disclosed by Jason. However, we are making a lot of comparisons with existing or past characters we generated by the hundreds – from OD&D to 3.5 rule sets.

…there seems to be quite a bit of NOs listed

• the efficiency of the creation process
• the respect of some forever D&D clichés (Half-orc bard has to be a lame, 1st level wizard must be VERY weak, …)
• the way the characters (& NPCs) stay easy to handle and to advance
• the value of the “offer” for different options and flavours and if it is appealing for players

Curiosity asks- what were the main races and classes playtested?

Honestly, we have not play-tested yet in a game session (as stated before). On the other hand we have created and checked any combination of Races / 1st level Single Core classes with different starting hit points rules. We have also created the iconic Dwarf Fighter – Rogue Halfling – Elf Wizard – Human Cleric at level 5, 10, 15, 20.

Were players happy with the creation process as prescribed at the onset

Do you know any player which is not happy in creating a PC when he wants to enter a game ? ;-) More seriously, we appreciated some streamlining things like skills. However, the common feed-back at the end was it should be improved again and some comments were expressed in that way (see my posts). I will come back with a more dedicated feed-back for any of the core classes in a future post.

What, if any, were the biggest fixes or wishes about the system as it stands?

We don’t pretend we can fix anything – that’s the Jason job isn’t it ? we are only gamers ;-))

• the skills system can certainly be streamlined a little bit more (we will come back on it in a later thread)
• the entire 3.5 game system can be a little bit more shaken and changed without lateral damages (we guess...)
• PRPG should avoid to push again the limits in adding more power, more option, more more ! (player and DM can do it, that’s their job !)
• keep the rules simple (or simpler) so that the fun is bigger !
• and a lot more whishes …

I take the opportunity to link this message to the post about The classes play test here

Be creative

Just to have a link in this post for the Starting Hit Points comments which are located here

Damned I did have a trouble with that Spoiler thing I guess...
To see what was supposed to be hidden just click here

INTRODUCTION: The target of this post and its surgeons is to give a first feedback of the trials and the comments of my RPG (players and GM) community about the Paizo project “PRPG”.

The core Classes in ALPHA rev 1.1
Action = read the first pages of the rules and start generating characters of any race at level 1

“I wanted the Pathfinder RPG to clean up these rules, by streamlining in places …”

FOR ALL CLASSES

• Level-Dependent Bonuses / Feats = NO
• Level-Dependent Bonuses / Skills = YES
• Level-Dependent Bonuses / Ability = YES
• Hit Dies = YES - Note (in foreseeing 1.2): Barbarian should have a 10 Hit Die for consistency.
• Class Skills = YES
• 1st Level Skill Choices = BOF

Comments:
- The number of level dependent bonuses is 10 (was 7 in 3.5). To streamline and simplify and speed up the game it seemed to us a step back. The main opinion was to decrease from 7 to 5 (1 every five levels starting at first). On top of that, reducing it will emphasize the feats contribution for chosen classes and help them to shine more.
- The 1st level skill choice proposed is the 3.5 one. Our opinion is that the Intelligence modifier should be dropped to streamlined even more the system.

• Level-Dependent Base Attack Bonuses / Multi Attack = BOF

This one could be different from 3.5 to help playability. We have always been uncomfortable with this because it slow-down and “rollify” a lot the game. A good alternative for us is to replace it by a feat which allow a double (or triple and so on ) strike-shot with a –5 cumulative to attack. Each time you want to increase your multiplier you have to buy the feat. When you deliver more than one attack on the same target you roll once with the appropriate malus and you multiply your damages in case you hit. For more than one opponent you combine at your will. This rule would have also the very good side effect to help the Fighter to emphasize his class difference.

The next thread will be focused in each Classes trial and comments.

Be creative

INTRODUCTION: The target of this post and its surgeons is to give a first feedback of the trials and the comments of my RPG (players and GM) community about the Paizo project “PRPG”.

I don’t know if our efforts will last for a long time and if I will be able to post regularly and about the whole think… But at least we will try to pay our coin to this great challenge of Paizo.

The Races / Favoured Classes in ALPHA rev 1.1
Action = read the first pages of the rules and start generating characters of any race at level 1

”I wanted to make sure that it stayed true to the original vision of the game.”

• About all Races: adding + 2 for one more ability = NO
• Elves receive a +2 racial bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance. = NO
• Unnatural Beauty of elves = NO
• Orc Ferocity = BOF

“I wanted the Pathfinder RPG to clean up these rules, by streamlining in places …”

• About Keen Senses for Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-elves and Halflings = YES
• Elves receive a +2 racial bonus on Appraise skill checks made to identify the properties of magic items. = YES
• Half-Elves Adaptability = YES
• About all Races Favoured Class = BOF

This last one ask for a comment. Indeed no changes have been done by PRPG here but a lot of us (during feed-back) came with it needs to be. The core idea is that the Favoured Class linked to XP reward is just an old nasty idea to make the life harder for DM and its players. It should make a lot of more sense (from our discussion group) if Favoured Class is heavily connected to the races + classes archetypes.
So…

• Giving 1 HP bonus for any level a race spend in its Favoured Class = YES

…and we propose to drop all the other rules about favoured and XP.
But we thought that Human and Half-Elves should be more versatile in their choice (adaptability) an then we came with one list of favoured classes for them. They have not to choose one but rather to consider each of them at favoured. It means more possibility for HP bonus for the two races and it balances the lack of boost in their abilities.

• Half-Elves favoured list = Fighter, Rogue, Druid, Ranger and Sorcerer
• Human favoured list = Fighter, Cleric, Barbarian, Monk, Paladin

FIRST GENERAL NOTE ABOUT CLASSES:

“Far too many of the basic classes lose their lustre after just a few levels, leading most players to take a host of other classes or a number of prestige classes.”

To improve the interest of the core classes and to limit the min-maxing plague we have also start to discuss that:

• Only the four core classes can be multi-classed at will
• The seven other main classes can only be mixed once and only with one of the core four
• All the PC prestige classes can be added only to a single class, starting not before level 11, and must be then followed to the end.

Our next post will be focused in Classes trial and comments.

Be creative

INTRODUCTION: The target of this post and its surgeons is to give a first feedback of the trials and the comments of my RPG (players and GM) community about the Paizo project “PRPG”.

I don’t know if our efforts will last for a long time and if I will be able to post regularly and about the whole think… But at least we will try to pay our coin to this great challenge of Paizo.

Starting Hit Points in ALPHA rev 1.1
Action = read the first pages of the rules and start generating characters of any race at level 1

”I wanted to make sure that it stayed true to the original vision of the game… I wanted to ensure that any conversion work would be minimal.”

• Standard = YES
• Double = NO
• Racial = BOF
• Flat = NO
• Constitution = NO

For the Racial proposal, the discussion was strong but the flaw is about the heavy boost proposed and the original taste of the game to preserve. At the end we will be very much pleased if the bonuses are:

• 0 for frail
• 1 for standard
• 2 for hearty

Be creative

INTRODUCTION: The target of this post and its surgeons is to give a first feedback of the trials and the comments of my RPG (players and GM) community about the Paizo project “PRPG”.

I don’t know if our efforts will last for a long time and if I will be able to post regularly and about the whole think… But at least we will try to pay our coin to this great challenge of Paizo.

The Races / Favoured Classes in ALPHA rev 1.1
Action = read the first pages of the rules and start generating characters of any race at level 1

”I wanted to make sure that it stayed true to the original vision of the game.”

• About all Races: adding + 2 for one more ability = NO
• Elves receive a +2 racial bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance. = NO
• Unnatural Beauty of elves = NO
• Orc Ferocity = BOF

“I wanted the Pathfinder RPG to clean up these rules, by streamlining in places …”

• About Keen Senses for Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-elves and Halflings = YES
• Elves receive a +2 racial bonus on Appraise skill checks made to identify the properties of magic items. = YES
• Half-Elves Adaptability = YES
• About all Races Favoured Class = BOF

This last one ask for a comment. Indeed no changes have been done by PRPG here but a lot of us (during feed-back) came with it needs to be. The core idea is that the Favoured Class linked to XP reward is just an old nasty idea to make the life harder for DM and its players. It should make a lot of more sense (from our discussion group) if Favoured Class is heavily connected to the races + classes archetypes.
So…

• Giving 1 HP bonus for any level a race spend in its Favoured Class = YES

…and we propose to drop all the other rules about favoured and XP.
But we thought that Human and Half-Elves should be more versatile in their choice (adaptability) an then we came with one list of favoured classes for them. They have not to choose one but rather to consider each of them at favoured. It means more possibility for HP bonus for the two races and it balances the lack of boost in their abilities.

• Half-Elves favoured list = Fighter, Rogue, Druid, Ranger and Sorcerer
• Human favoured list = Fighter, Cleric, Barbarian, Monk, Paladin

FIRST GENERAL NOTE ABOUT CLASSES:

“Far too many of the basic classes lose their lustre after just a few levels, leading most players to take a host of other classes or a number of prestige classes.”

To improve the interest of the core classes and to limit the min-maxing plague we have also start to discuss that:

• Only the four core classes can be multi-classed at will
• The seven other main classes can only be mixed once and only with one of the core four
• All the PC prestige classes can be added only to a single class, starting not before level 11, and must be then followed to the end.

Our next post will be focused in Classes trial and comments.

Be creative

I have long been a fan of armor as damage reduction. ...

Hi Necro,

Cons: The one you mention mainly. I will also emphasize the need of well preparing all the modifications for armors, shields, spells and magic items dealing with CA.You have also to take care that the curves of balance for the combat in the game are not crashed (it's a little bit of maths here but only for game designers and it has proven to be not so difficult).

pros: Again you're right with realism. I will add also a very good flavor in having different approach of fighters (not only the tank one is appealing thanks to this rule but also the swift one). The rule makes it VERY different to wear or not to wear an armor. Also the "Touch AC" is by far more realistic and appealing (a monk can be a very challenge, even for a ray).

If some guys are interested in that type of rules I have a fully ready for use set for 3.5 which has been in used for years with my players (25 or so in total).
A last one to convert you ?: my numerous gamerss (with old fans of D&D within) are now using the "CDEF" expression rather than AC, even when playing with other "by the book" DM ...

I'm not sure Jason Bulhman has dig this thread and if his compatibility codex will allow a so - how to say that - revolutionary change ?

But think it twice my friends: Who is still taking care of most of the ODD and AD&D older rules erased by the time ?
In ten years - which is nota so long period for me in my already thirty years life with D&D - the majority of us will just use the best system available.It will for sure not be the current 3.5 stuff but the most brilliant of its surgeon (I believe). I will be very pleased if you all on that forum, and the paizo staff also, are able to lead that ... what to say ... cool revolution ?

Be creative

Anyone else have any suggestions or comments?

Olaf the Stout

There are a lot of good ideas in your plan Olaf. But perhaps it is a little bit too quick. It is important to create some crescendo all along the numerous game sessions of this story arc. You may need a lot of ammunitions, and if possible crafted by the PCs themselves, to keep your players stuck in Cauldron. I will try to explain by an actual example:

One of my parties had a first adventure before Life Bazar so that the PCs were tied together. However they had no link with Cauldron and basically no Background. To improve the PCs' involvement I applied the following on the fly:
- The cleric was quickly informed he is a member of the Cauldron church of St Cuthbert (should work with another cult). Just a little bit after, he took the highlights when meeting for the first time the Last Laugh in a dark alley of the town. Since he has been a strong and heavy connection with Jenya, Sarcem and Alek Tercival. Such character make a perfect fit with the chapter 1, 3 and 5 of the SCAP.
- One of the PC was a dwarf paladin of Moradin. He was briefed that he was from Sasserine. The Council of the Elders gave him a big challenge: restore the dwarfs’ power in Cauldron in finding what occurred during the fate of that place and in trying to restoring it if possible. This idea was honestly my best move with that group. The dwarf paladin has been a great leader and gave me plenty of good hints to personalize this long campaign. Malachite has been recovered after difficult discussions with the Cauldron Council and a big amount of gold (10.000!). This money was brought by a group of dwarfs sent by the Council of the Elders to rule the new settlement. The High Priest in that group quickly put a lot of pressure on the paladin and "stole" him the Malachite leadership. It will be very interesting when this guy will reveal his true CW identity... (I'm sure you guess who he is).
- The other PCs’ backgrounds had less impact on the story - even if one of the remaining PCs is a rogue who grew as an orphan in Cauldron...

So, with this very draft start, the four first chapters went smoothly. I added all along more foreshadowing. The Keygan Ghelve trial - each player had to take the role of one of the Noble of the Town Council during one of our game session - was a good step. The hints about a cage of the CW found in the Drakthar's lair was another step... and also the DD's Demonskar Ball (again many thanks to DD for his GREAT idea)... and a lot of other things which happened in response of the players’ actions and role play. I also used a lot of the ideas of this forum as the nightmares, the Last Laugh and more.

The events you prepare before arriving in Cauldron are good but take care of the three following traps:
- Cauldron must stay - IMHO - the star of the game. Don't make other places (like a village, the LM inn, the jungle etc... too shiny - even under the rain ;-)
- If some of the tasteful NPCs like Sarcem are out of the town - at the very beginning and for a long time - you will not be in a position to play with them. For instance I used Sarcem as a member of the court during the Keygan Ghelve trial.
- A too quick pace with the foreshadowing and with your sequences can create a frustration from the players who will feel having no effects on the events.

But as usual you are certainly the best judge in what will enjoy your players.
Just my thoughts

If french is not a problem for you you can have a look at this
La Cie des Explorateurs
and this
L'Anneau de Clefs
There are the stories of my two parties in the SCAP (so far)

Be Creative.

I'm curently running two different groups in SCAP. One of 6 and one of seven players. I've completed a third of the campaign to date (after 14 months of play and 25 sessions of five hours for each group !!).
Nobody went for a multi-class or a combo. One of the group is almost a short guys party (only one human and one elf) and the other one is exactly the reverse (only one gnome and one elf).
As far as I know all my players are fully satisfied by their choice. It allows them to mainly differentiate by role playing rather than by an exotic Character Sheet. The SCAP fits perfectly in that way.

I agree with some of my fellow DMs here to encourage you to not choose a too extreme / radical character. Definitely a tank can give a lot of help and pleasure as well. But be careful of the laws in town (which can be a killer for a barbarian role). Perhaps you can have a look on some paladin thing or some dwarven possibilities.
On the other end of the line, a wizard or a sorcerer will certainly be a viable choice. In my game, I have a gnome wizard in each group.

I think the DM has to manage the traits in the HC alone and without any intervention of the players. Some of these things should stay unknown and be revealed gradually to the player during the adventure IMHO.

But as usual your game is your DM world and your Character is your burden ;-)) Let's go for what you're pleased with first.

Be creative

If a summoner and his eidolon both have the Escape Route (Teamwork) feat, and he is mounted on the eidolon can they move about the battlefield without provoking AoOs?

Escape Route (Combat, Teamwork): An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

Since they are always in each other's space do they always have each other's back covered?