SwnyNerdgasm's page

Planning a Hunter campaign, have done a few WFRP one shots with family, recently quit a Fate game and walked away from the system, and would love to get a LotFP group going, I have a whole campaign planned out for that.

We're a group of pathfinder players who have just finished a campaign and are looking for a few new players to fill out chairs by people who have left. Please contact me for more information. It would probably be better to contact me via the email address in my profile as opposed to private messages here on Paizo, but I'll try to remember to check.

We are a group of 4 who play Friday evenings and we are looking for an extra player or two. Please contact me if you are interested or need more information. We will be going through Rise of the Runelords with a new to Gming member of our group.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.) - No the game soured on me after having ran a Wrath of the Righteous campaign

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.) - Why would it be troublesome?

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments) - Never played either

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.) - I think smoother play at all levels are what I'd like more than anything

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? - Accessibility is always a good thing

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? - I believe the game should be accessible first

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will). - Yes

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground) - It's called Savage Worlds or nWoD

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Sorry OP. Ancestry is a better term as far as I’m concerned and better fits the stated goal in the book that RPGs are for everyone.

It's contextually incorrect. Omitting the word "race" seems like a play to pander to a specific, notoriously intolerant "of those that do not agree with us" crowd.

Who are we kidding? That's exactly why it was done.

Ched Greyfell wrote:

The book has been out a day, and already people are crying about it. I wish folks were more open-minded.

In all due fairness, many of the problems people don't like have been around for months, as they came up with the very first sneak peaks. We were told "Just wait, it all works better when you see it in context", so we waited. Now we have the context, and its still an issue for us.

So no, it hasn't just "been one day", its been months in the making.

Also this is called a playtest, we're supposed to be nit-picky about it. Not that it matters as I'm sure Paizo will ignore what the userbase says and just do what they have planned on doing, and that's copying 5E.

I've used dyslexic studios sheets, they might have what you're looking for.

There is a mechanical benefit to mithral, it weighs half as much, always counts as masterwork, and counts as silver for the purposes of bypassing DR.

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

I got rid of the pathfinder society completely

I am intrigued and would like to hear more.

Nothing major, just removed all references to them and don't allow anything from the PFS sourcebooks.

I know they're nothing alike, but they make me think of the Harpers for some reason and I hate the Harpers.

I got rid of the pathfinder society completely

When I ran Wrath of the Righteous, I just assumed that if the players failed then what would happen is that the Imperium of Man would declare exterminatus upon an unchecked warp incursion. Does that count as world-ending?

Here is one I played with before

7. The party are raiding a local thieve's guild looking for [macguffin]. They find a key and a chest. The key unlocks the chest....but so does every other key they have.

The chest is basically a magical safety deposit box. Everytime a key is used on it, a new pocket dimension is made, and that dimension can only be opened with that particular key.

The party thus has to run around town smooth talking, pick pocketing, or robbing keys from every criminal in town in order to find the right key.

Becareful, because sometimes you will find surprises in the 'boxes'- from serial killer 'trophies' to traps to undead guards.

What does it say about me that my mind went to serial killer trophies before I even finished reading that paragraph?

What I'm getting from this thread is OP is declaring badwrongfun on another player...

I say leave him alone and let him play the game how he wants.

A one shot battle against the team of Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Jean Grey, and Cyclops for a tenth level party. Feel free to go crazy.

As much as I'd enjoy, I doubt any of the actual pathfinder ruled adventure paths with be released in a collected edition anytime soon.

Any chance of an archetype for an Occult changeling? Preferably psychic or Occultist?

Lot of great ideas posted here for me to look over, and I can't believe that I actually didn't think of just removing the blasty spells from play, when I get a little bit more work done on my rules and setting document I'll be sure to post it here.

All that stuff

Never thought I'd have to run a forum post about pathfinder by my lawyer before game night. But that is really well done.

Pretty much no on all counts from what I remember, but I have imbibed copious amounts of whiskey to forget a lot of my experiences running that AP.

Forgive any typos as I'm posting from my phone.

Maybe give each race a pool of abilities that thematically match each race, with a few that are synergistic with certain classes and let the player choose a set number of of these traits to make their character more or less elfy?

I chose arcane magic over either of the other two is more for the "feel" I want on the setting. I'm looking to do a more subtle atmospheric horror campaign and just the idea of a player saying, "I throw a fireball at it" doesn't really work with what I'm picturing.

Imagine something closer to say Penny Dreadful instead of a more classic fantasy series.

So I've been working on a homebrew setting, and while I'm not interested in a low magic setting, I am interested in a less flashy magic setting. So my question is, how much would I bork the game if I were to take out the arcane casting classes and just use divine and psychic classes?

I just don't like them, never have and most likely never will, just something about them rubs me the wrong way I guess.

its fantastic, think pathfinderish combat with monster hunter mechanics and a story that's based on events that naturally happen in game and you can play solo or with a group. also in his recent newsletter adam said he was working on a miniature less version that will be sold for cheaper.

Glad to hear that, until then I'll just have to make due with the Dark Souls boardgame when the kickstarter delivers.

How is that game? I really want to play it but I'm not sure I can deal with the price point.

Looks interesting, as for what you based him on, I assume that you mean Kingdom Death the boardgame, correct?

eDwarD cullen?

Not exactly, but A+ for effort

Oh, a Dhampir. Is he based on an Anne Rice imitator or Anne Rice directly?

I dunno about you, but my Dhampirs are always based on D.

Here's my go to paladin code in my homebrew setting

"A Paladin supports and defends Good and opposes Evil.

A Paladin is a Leader in righteous combat.

When it is necessary to fight, the Paladin will seek to guide and inspire his comrades, taking a forward position in the battle and facing the foe boldly. A Paladin does not hide from his foe or sneak about.

A Paladin is a Protector.

He will seek to prevent harm to the innocent and will place himself at risk in order to accomplish this if need be.

A Paladin is Just and works to promote and enforce Justice and the Law.

If a Paladin does not agree with a law, he must still respect it and should work to change it rather than disregarding it. The only exception to this is if the Paladin believes the law to be truly Evil. In this instance, the Paladin must follow the dictates of his conscience.

A Paladin is Honest.

He will not lie or otherwise seek to deceive a person. A Paladin does not cheat or seek to take unfair advantage in his dealings with others.

A Paladin is Loyal.

He does not betray his God, his liege-lord, his order, his family, or his friends.

A Paladin is Holy.

He seeks to do that which pleases his God in all manners of the Code, and knows that the purity of his soul has a profound impact on the abilities the Gods bless him with.

While it is not required that a Paladin worships insert God name here above other gods, he ignores the wishes of his patron God at his peril. Serving another God or Gods is possible for a Paladin provided that the path that he follows does not work against Good or Justice. It is not appropriate for a Paladin to work toward the ends of a dark aspect since the goals of such are not in keeping with what is Good and Just.

When running an AP I usually just go for the "Core+3" rule when it comes to playable races, anything else the player has to run it by me first. Though due to personal tastes any humanoid animal race (ie. Kitsune) will very rarely, if ever, get an ok from me.

Try to reenact this joke. with the local archmage

Gonna GM a game and the guy wants to play an anti-paladin basically and keeps pushing that as his only option despite me as the GM saying "no evil classes".

And at that point I'd tell him, "Thanks, but if you can't follow one simple rule like this, how can I trust you to not be disruptive at any other point in the campaign?" and then go look for another player.

a Magus? I think that covers him pretty well.

Here's an idea, how would someone make a Dark Souls Moonlight greatsword build. The sword can shoot short range laser beams and generally the caster can cast spells while wielding the greatsword.

I have been trying for years to adapt Dark Souls to pathfinder before I just gave up and decided this system just isn't the best fit for the soulsborne style of gameplay.

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Where are the weapon creation rules located?

In the weapon master's handbook.

They could definitely be abused and are supposed to be a GM tool, so I wouldn't presume you can make whatever you want.

Thanks, I'm actually interested in them from a GM perspective, so it shouldn't be an issue.

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Where are the weapon creation rules located?

I suspect Claxon was referring to the rules from the Weapon Master's Handbook.

Thanks, now the real question, are they balanced?

Where are the weapon creation rules located?

Nice to see Paul F. Wilson getting some love. In a roundabout way he's the person who got me into fantasy, and he doesn't get enough shout-outs

Because anything with no elves is a good thing?

It's not based on Fate, it is FATE. While I'm a fan of the system, I can see how other people wouldn't be but that being said, if you're a fan of the books, its worth a read through at least for all the fluffy bits mixed in everywhere.

Have you looked into microlite20?

Do you have the Huge Black Dragon from the first pathfinder miniature set?

Drizzt was never really treated as a Ranger in the novels. Rangers have spellcasting, and the only spells he ever used were basically his racial ones. He just had the ability to track and live out of doors.

In the NPC guides, they flat out give him weapon spec and the ability to outright kill lower level creatures on a hit. Nothing is made of his anti-giant ability (during 1E and 2E) or favored enemies (during 3E).

His training was basically drow fighter with stealth skills. That's it. He was just incredibly high level (16th or so), so he dominated the rest of whatever party he was with. Contrast Wulfgar starting at 6th level in the first novel, and Bruenor being 10th, Regis being 6th, and Cattie=Brie being 4th.

He was never an optimized character, except he was so much higher level then everyone else. That was the solution for 'drow are powerful' in FR...make them higher level then all their enemies, that explains everything.

Technically speaking, with a 19 str and 18 Con, Wulfgar at 11th level with 2 attacks from his hammer would have utterly obliterated the 1e Drizzt in 2-3 rounds. Drizzt had a 15 str and no damage bonus except weapon spec, and only got decent weapons in later novels (he was using MAYBE +1 weapons in the 1st book, and acquired a frost brand scimitar during it).

TWF didn't become an iconic part of the ranger until 2E, when it became part of the core fighting style in the PH. However, 2wf was available to anyone with high enough Dex, no training required.

In short, the gaming stats for Drizzt didn't match his deadliness in the novels unless you introduce a bunch of parry mechanics and criticals...and then take into account the fact he was 5-10 levels higher then everyone else.

==Aelryinth

You're right, but I was saying, that due to his popularity and the fact that Salvatore couldn't go three pages without calling him a ranger, is why the dual wielding rules were included

Drizzt used two weapons and had an intelligent animal as a magic item, not a class ability. The rest of his abilities were mostly racial based (whatever stealth he had, etc).

Honestly, I felt he was better represented as a Fighter, considering how descriptive his training and combat technique was.

Actually, now that I think about it, I seem to recall an rpg-lite-adventure game for xbox or something that had Drizzt as an unlockable playable character. Think it was a Baldur's Gate adventure game (diablo style vs the original RPG-focused versions on PC).
They had him listed as a Fighter, or at least gave him fighter-like advancement.

Demon Stone had Drizzt playable for a specific level, it's available on GOG

I'm not sure why rangers and two weapons became a thing, but you certainly expect them to be awesome with a bow.

I always assumed it was Drizzt, Ranger, but IIRC you can count on one hand the number of times he used a bow on one hand and have fingers left over.

I'l go on a limb and say Wrath of the Righteous. I mean, no spoilers there, but the game ends at lvl 20, mythic, the stuff you do there at the end is world shattering.

As a player sure, but as a GM? Wrath has exhausted me mentally where I'm not sure I want to keep playing Pathfinder anymore. As for most climactic? As a PC I loved the end of Shattered Star, and as a GM I had a blast when my group finally faced off with the big bad of Carrion Crown.

SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Mark Hoover wrote:

The barbarian and the monk/rogue both got thrown for a loop and had to improvise; respectively their turns took nearly 20 minutes each.

That!!! That right there is one of the reasons I have thrown my Mythic Rulebook into an incinerator and never looked back.

I'm not opposed to Mythic Rules per say, all I can say is that it is an amplifier, in all senses of the term.

This means that the good (damage, options, utility, etc.) and the bad (takes forever to calculate bonuses/penalties, turns require absolute mastery in order to make them quick enough for standard play) are increased in comparison to a regular game.

Even in high levels, I can assure you that by 12th level, our turns were taking 2-3 times longer than they were when we were a fraction of that level; one attack, one modifier, one spell (and its low-modifier effects), are all very fast to run through. 5 attacks, a whole crapton of modifiers to refactor in, more than 1 spell per round (with multiple effects and separate modifiers), will bog down a game in comparison, no matter if it's Mythic Rules or not.

I'm not saying that Mythic Rules are great, or that they should be used a lot; all I'm saying is that Mythic Rules aren't the (only) reason why endgame play slows down to a crawl in comparison to earlygame that should be lightning-fast.

I understand what your saying, and totally agree, but my hatred of the mythic rules stems from being one of those sorry sons of man who ran Wrath of the Righteous, and in my honest opinion, mythic rules just fail at providing anything, you know, mythic to the table.

I've got an entire page on my blog dedicated to Unusual Character Concepts.

Some of my favorites that I've played/come up with recently include:

-The Android Barbarian: Is he a war machine that dreamed he was a person, or an advanced creation with a hidden self-defense protocol?

-The Risen Antipaladin: Sometimes paladins fall... but sometimes black knights rise. Overcoming the evil within is harder than fighting the evil without.

-The Swashbuckling Thug: Character for my current campaign. He seems like a perfect gentleman, with his slick hair and piercing eyes, but no true gentleman wields a morning star or a spiked gauntlet with such brutal, terrible force. Never judge a thug by his cover.

First, I'm totally stealing that Android Barbarian.

As for my odd character, I once played an Inquisitor that I based off of a Tool song.

His favored tools are is his Sextant of Kinship

With that charisma score, any tent he owns is a sex tent

I'm sorry for that...

The barbarian and the monk/rogue both got thrown for a loop and had to improvise; respectively their turns took nearly 20 minutes each.

That!!! That right there is one of the reasons I have thrown my Mythic Rulebook into an incinerator and never looked back.

You can try WarmaHordes, I've heard some good things about it