Usmo's page

Aaand after some further thought, I've decided to go with a conjuration/support focused arcanist instead. New gold roll!

Gold: 2d6 ⇒ (3, 2) = 5 x 10

Posting my interest - Think I might roll up a bard of some sort!

Gold: 3d6 ⇒ (6, 5, 5) = 16 x 10

I mean, if it's a part of a level appropriate encounter, then fair enough, I suppose. Either way, it's not exactly shocking or unreasonable if players who get Flesh to Stone'd or something similar without much chance of it being reversed in a timely manner decide to find other things to do while they wait. You can't really expect someone to stay engaged when their only means of engaging with the campaign is a pile of rock.

ElegantlyWasted wrote:

I love Greco-Roman antiquity.

Stat rolls? Point buy? Traits? Background skills? Is everything just in that link?

25 point buy, 2 traits, background skills, level 3, average hit points per level. Level 3 wealth.

Awesome. Also, are we limited to the spells and so forth listed on the wiki, or is the entirety of 1e open to us?

I love Greco-Roman antiquity.

Stat rolls? Point buy? Traits? Background skills? Is everything just in that link?

Think it says 25 point buy further up. Dunno about the other two, though background skills would be nice.

Also, how are we calculating HP?

Gotta say, I love the setting and how much it's been detailed.You mention summoners a few times in the character classes. Can we use chained, or are we required to go unchained?

EDIT: Looks like the summoner page on the wiki is chained, so I'm assuming we can do that. Thinking of rolling up a half-elf summoner, I quite like the different take this setting has on the class. Are we just limited to the spells, feats, abilities, etc listed on the wiki, or does anything from PF1 go?

Posting interest. Thinking of a Ravener Hunter/Monster Tactician inquisitor. Plenty of focus on fighting evil, while not being out of place in a more grim setting, cuz, y'know, inquisitor.

Also, since I was considering taking Heart of the Fey alt racial for humans, do fey exist in this world? There are gnomes, so I was assuming there are fey as well, but, wasn't quite sure.

Yeah low CR animals and all elementals are fine. It's just those higher summon lists don't all fit this world. Also you can't summon fiendish in this game. And Holy will mean more like White Dragon.

Fair nuff, animals and elementals is what the spell is best for anyhow. Though, not sure what you mean by Holy, you mean the Celestial template summons?

Ah yes I was thinking of shapechanging & wildshape, You can't just shapechange into things you don't know about. As for the summons, yes you still will be restricted because some monsters simply don't exist in this world. But that is where we communicate through out the game.

Gotcha, guess I'll stick with Occultist Arcanist then. I should hopefully have a sheet together by tomorrow. I assume pretty much all of the Summon Monster 1 list would be fine, since its basically just animals like Eagles and such?

Yes you will be restricted on summons, like most games your character has to have "seen" it to summon it. And these characters haven't seen a whole lot yet.

I don't think most games require you to have seen a monster to summon it. Regardless, in that case, I'll likely go bard, maybe Dervish of Dawn archetype. I take it, the deity requirement can be waived or left vague, as it is for clerics and so forth?

Usmo wrote:

I think a lot of people are overlooking just how restrictive spontaneous heightening is. You can only do it on two spells per day, which have to be chosen at the start of the day. A couple of must haves which you will always need to have heightened and hey, now you're out.

I don't think there's any "must have always heightened." There are "spells where having the flexibility would be nice." Or "spells where being able to adapt on the fly is REALLY good." (heal, cure, dispel, summon, etc) But it isn't like every spontaneous caster took those spells in PF1 anyway, so assuming they will NEED them to be cast at every possible level seems weird.

In fact, lots of spells that qualified as must haves in PF1 really don't need any sort of scaling or heightening to do their job. Haste and Fly, for example.

Quote:

After that, your blasting spells alone will need to be fully heightened just to keep up in terms of damage dealing,

They really don't. You can just take higher level blasting spells. Given how generous the retraining rules are compared to before, it seems pretty trivially to keep yourself up to date with the best new blast spell and trade out your old ones as you level up.

Hell, even if what you were saying was true, one imagines you'd really just want to learn the highest heightened level blast spell. You really gonna want fireball as a 4th level slot at level 17?

Alternatively, from what we know about how weakness scales, even a basic spell like a 2nd level acid arrow may give pretty excellent returns at higher levels.

Quote:

and you will likely have more than two of those if only to deal with energy resistances.

We know resistance will be less common this time around, and we also have a metamagic feat that lets you reduce it.

Quote:

Arcane Evolution could work, if we assume that it does not expend the scroll. Either way, it turns sorcerer into an incredibly item dependent class, which seems rather at odds with its theme.

...

Except, there are spells that must be heightened in order to be useful. I'm not sure where you get the idea that spontaneous casters in PF1 didn't take Dispel Magic, when it was one of the must-have spells. That alone, will eat up half of your spontaneous heightening.

In regards to blasting spells, sure, you can switch out your now-obsolete lower level spells for higher level ones upon level up. But, that requires that you be able to exchange a fairly significant number of spells whenever you gain a new level, as opposed to 1e's example where you can hardly change your spells at all once they've been selected.

In regards to the must have spells from PF1, a lot of them don't need heightening to do because heightening was not really a thing in PF1. However, if haste did not scale, then its duration would simply be too limited to matter(it is 1/round a level only, after all, and if non-scaling means just one round, it's not worth much). So, yes, even those must-haves needed scaling to be useful.

And, sure, I'm all for sorcerers getting mileage out of scrolls, I'm all for Arcane Evolution. I'm not all for sorcerers being completely dependent on using scrolls as their own little spellbooks, just to get access to the heightened versions of spells. And, well, I'm still not sure whether Arcane Evolution expends the scroll along with your resonance, as in that case it becomes pretty crappy.

Usmo wrote:

I think a lot of people are overlooking just how restrictive spontaneous heightening is.

Really? It seems to be the most voiced complaint/concern.

The quotes seem to have gotten left out, but, that was mostly in response to some prior statements that sorcerers would not need to constantly relearn spells like Fireball, because they could simply use Spontaneous Heightening for them. When, really, the fact is that there will almost certainly be too many spells that need heightening for that to be sufficient, and odds are fireball isn't even at the top of the must-heightens, if the usefulness of blasting in PF1 is any indication.

I think a lot of people are overlooking just how restrictive spontaneous heightening is. You can only do it on two spells per day, which have to be chosen at the start of the day. A couple of must haves which you will always need to have heightened and hey, now you're out. And I find it hard to believe that there are not more than two spells that a sorcerer would need to heighten in order to remain functional. After that, your blasting spells alone will need to be fully heightened just to keep up in terms of damage dealing, and you will likely have more than two of those if only to deal with energy resistances. Arcane Evolution could work, if we assume that it does not expend the scroll. Either way, it turns sorcerer into an incredibly item dependent class, which seems rather at odds with its theme. You are essentially playing a prepared caster at this point.

Sup all, just posting to check in. I’m thinking of going as an arcanist with the Occultist archetype, focus on control, utility, buffs, and summons. Does the setting restrict any of the regular summon monster list?

I’d think that regardless of the costs, detect magic will remain a required spell you pick up as soon as possible, simply because you will need it to know which loot is magic.

Now, I love the sorc class. I'd even go so far as to say that it's my favorite class. My first PF character was a sorcerer, and I’ve frequently played the class since then. 1e Sorc certainly had some significant issues, such as underwhelming bloodlines, things like blood arcanist all but obsoleting the non-archetyped class, the general uselessness of Charisma outside of your casting, and reduced spell progression. I’m glad to see that the last two issues at least have been fixed(not that I’m much of a fan of resonance, but that’s rather off topic).

That all being said, I'd have to agree with many of the previous criticisms. Saying that the reduced spell slots is in exchange for getting a proper spell progression honestly seems like a rather poor argument to me, when equal spell progression should have been a given to begin with(wizards never needed the extra leg up of faster progression there, and sorcs never needed the drawback of slower progression). Furthermore, having to constantly retrain the same spell in higher slots just seems… painful, and clunky. Especially if we assume that 2e goes down the route of 1e where you can only retrain a single spell every odd level after level 4(Really, anything less than being able to retrain multiple spells per level seem like a killer here). Sure, you got your spontaneous heightening, but that’s only twice a day, and has to be chosen in advance. Odds are, both of those slots will have to be locked down into the same two all-important spells like Dispel Magic, which you will always want heightened.

Furthermore, I must admit that I’m rather disappointed by the Glutton’s Jaws bloodline power showcased here. It seems like a repeat of many of the largely useless level 1 bloodline powers that plagued 1e sorcerers(really, what is anyone supposed to do with a pair of claw attacks when you’ve got a d6 HD and no armor?) Of course, Glutton’s Jaws at least scale and grant you some temporary hit points, but the fact remains that no sorcerer in their right minds would be engaging in melee, certainly not at level 1. Even if 2e’s higher hit points help sorcerers out, you still have no armor worth speaking of. There’s a reason why 1e never really saw any effective melee sorcerers, outside of significant multiclassing, to the point where the majority of your levels are probably not even sorc anymore. I’d certainly hope that powers like Glutton’s Jaws, unusable to the vast majority of sorcerer builds, are not going to be the standard this time around.

Now, for all I know, there’s all manner of unmentioned class feats and features that fix these issues. But, just going off the preview, it looks like sorcerer gets to keep its status as “Crappy Wizard.”

Posting interest. Thinking of making a conjuration focused Arcanist. Maybe dhampir for race.

Starting gold as per https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/character-creation/

So, we rolling, or just taking average?

Posting interest. Thinking bard. How are we doing wealth/traits?

I mean, in the real world, we've got weapons that have survived far longer than 350 years.

Anyhow, as a brief update, I've mostly finished the mechanics of my build, will get it put into a profile and have backstory done either tomorrow or the day after.

Eh, maybe I can go with the trapper archetype, freeing us of the need for a disabler while providing us with a flexible martial class. I also quite like the idea of a half-orc ranger who doesn't quite trust magic and down-right hates fey. (Maybe witches too? If nobody else wants it witch-hunter could be a good campaign trait for such a character.)

I'm just tossing ideas out there by the way. I want to be accomodating as possible.
GM Deadly Secret: How do you feel about cold iron? A fey-hating trapper needs the tools to fight them after all.
Edit: I really like the skald idea.

Ancestral Weapon trait might be worth a look, on the off chance you haven't already considered it.

In that case, I suppose I'll continue with a Lunar Oracle build, and pick up the animal companion revelation at level 3 instead of level 1, if that is not too big an issue. At least, I assume by 3, we'll be in a position to pick up whatever PF's equivalent to a Siberian Tiger is.

I mean, if two animal companions is considered to be a serious issue, I can always switch over to Shaman.

Fair nuff. I'll run with a half elf Lunar Oracle, with Ancient Lorekeeper archetype and a Starknife build, along with an animal companion. Will be focused on buffing, healing, melee, and maybe some offensive spells later on. Will hopefully have a sheet up by tomorrow.

I am considering running either a Lunar Oracle, or a melee Green Scourge druid focused on quarterstaff and later wildshape. I do have a few questions regarding the latter, however.

1. Does Green Scourge's Nature's Armaments ability actually remove the ability to spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally spells? The wording seems a bit unclear, and this seems to be a topic of some debate, so I was hoping for a gm ruling on how that works.

2. Druid's wildshape requires that one be familiar with the animal one is wildshaping into. I was wondering how the familiarity requirement would be handled for the purpose of this campaign. Like, would I just need to have a sufficiently high know. nature to be aware of what I'm trying to turn into, or would I have need to seen the creature in question in person at some point during the campaign? And, would I be considered familiar with the creatures on the Summon Nature's Ally list, considering that I can summon them.

How much experience do you have with Pathfinder rules?
Been playing for about two years.

How much experience do you have with Roleplaying in general?
Been RPing for about four years.

Are you familiar with PbP formatting and how to?
Yep, pretty much all the RPing I've done has been PbP

Have you ever played Reign of Winter before, even just a little? (please be truthful)
Nope, never played it. I have always heard great things about the AP, though, so I've been hoping to play it for a while now.

How many PbP games are you currently active in?
2

Will you be able to check the game at least daily or every other day to post? If not explain and we can work with you.
I can post at least once a day.

What type of characters do you like to play? Personality, Class, Themes!
I tend to play full casters. Some are focused on buffing, debuffing, and healing, while others are focused on combat, be it through offensive spellcasting or self-buffing and then going into melee. Personalities vary by class and builds, but alignments are generally TN or CN. I do have a couple specific concepts in mind for this particular game, one of them would be a Lunar Oracle with something of a northern werewolf theme going on. Would mainly be focused on buffing, healing, and melee.

Posting interest, thinking Occultist Arcanist

Posting interest. I'm thinking heavens shaman, should fit the stargazing theme.

Edit: Actually, scratch that, going Arcanist

Also, just as an FYI, that Five-Minute Background thing you posted just links right back to the recruitment thread.

Alright, having looked over the player's guide, think I'll be going as a warpriest with an archery focus.

Posting interest, will go over the player's guide and try to put something together later tonight or tomorrow.

A). I should think societies in general would, indeed, restrict the sale and availability of destructive spells and such. Indeed, I can point to numerous settings and products where the regulation of magic is part and parcel of the place, often times even a central element. Waaaay back when I started playing as a kid, our DM was always scrupulous about depicting the differences between freebooting about the savage frontier versus trying to make do in civilization, where we had to pay taxes, obey laws and strictures, and either turn in or hide our thieves' tools and weapons. I personally really enjoy that sort of play, and I don't think I'm alone.

B). We're talking about inherently silly premises. I don't think attempting to ground a fantasy in something approaching reality is silly...it's not strictly necessary, but I'd rather play a world-depicted-in-game than a game-depicted-as-world.

C). Also, again...the force towards fantasy goody-good chivalry isn't just coming from me. It's built into the class. Take a look at the iconic paladin. Take a look at another iconic paladin. Keep looking. They LITERALLY get a magic horse as a class feature.

Except that these restrictions on dangerous items isn't really consistent with the rest of Golarion, or pathfinder's general take on dangerous items. if one is to go off the settlement rules, I have a 75% chance of easily finding scrolls of fireball for sale in just about any town I wander into. Why, then, should poisons be placed under heavy restrictions, just for the sake of being poison? Because, one way or another, poison should be seen as no different from any of the other far more brutal means of violence that exist in PF. And as it stands, so far as I can tell you can absolutely buy lethal weapons in civilized parts of Golarion, and you can totally walk around carrying your +5 greataxe, so long as you don't cause trouble. At least, I can't see many of the published adventures going too well if PCs lost all their stuff every time they left the hinterlands, because their weapons are confiscated for being illicit and shady. And, really, effectively banning adventurers from civilized areas seems kinda boring, but, each to their own.

And, really, its one thing to argue that idealized images of chivalry should be built into Paladin, its quite another to argue that such should be built into an entire fantasy society as a whole(i.e., seeing poisons as especially dishonorable, when such is completely inconsistent with the rest of the setting). Not that I'm much of a fan of building such silly chivalry into Paladin either, really, but that's quite besides the main point, that making poison some special shady thing deserving of special contempt by society is completely and utterly out of place.

I see two ways of looking at this dilemma.

1) this version is what I call the "video game" version of poison. Poison is just another tool that PC's & NPC's use and is just another flavor of damage along the lines of fire, cold, lightning, etc. For example Heros of Might & Magic has various poison spells that I will use regardless if I am playing the necromancer army or the human "knightly" armny. My alignment and choices are not affected bythe spells I use and my focus is soley on winning the game by any means neccessary.

2) This is more of the role-playing/simulationist approach. Where even in a highly magical world, governments tend to frown upon poison if nout outright outlaw it. It is heavily restricted in usage and even those who trade in it do not like drawing attention to themselves. Very much of a black market atmosphere where you have to know the right people to get your hands on poisons because it is usually considered unsavory by the poulace so I feel that the paladin runs into too many problems with the usage of poison and I will point these out below.

1) Matter of Law - Most poisons would be illegal in many settings where there is a strong government. You can justify shooting someone in self defense in our modern society much easier than justifying poisoning them.

2) Matter of Perception/Dignity - Poison is usually considered unsavory by the vast majority of the population and the thought of a paladin resorting to poison usage would most likely be off putting to the population at large. I have never heard of a heroic western tale where the hero uses poison to best an opponent. Would the paladin be as inspirational to the masses if they found out that her faith in her goddess was not enough and she had to resort to poison? I doubt it

3) Unsavory reputation - Those who deal in posions don't want it known that they do in most setttings. Theif & assasin guilds don't often overtly advertise their trade. I don't imagine ruffians befriending a paladin and sharing with him on their illicit...

I must admit, I don't see much reason for poisons to be seen as especially illicit in a fictional society, where poisoning one's blade is likely less harmful to one's opponent(and less useful to the user) than simply enchanting it. Or improving its weapon quality, or whatever we're calling it in 2e. If I can openly buy scrolls of fireballs that can wipe out dozens of people at a time, I should be able to buy arguably less deadly poisons equally openly. Or are all magic items and weapons now also too unsavory to be sold outside the black market? Should spellbooks now be confiscated as illegal and underhanded weaponry? Ultimately, it seems quite silly to try and force some vague idealized image of medieval chivalry on a fantasy society when it makes such little sense.

Usmo wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Because a Paladin is held to higher Lawful standards than other Lawful Good characters if there was some kind of Chaotic Good equivalent to the Paladin that class would have to be held to a higher Chaotic standard than other Chaotic Goods.

So, for example, they might have things that make them difficult to be played, such as:

Tenet 4: A Chaodin must not follow local laws, or respect local authority.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. If this was how it worked, the Antipaladin would be required to never follow local laws, but that's clearly not the case, despite them supposedly being paragons of chaos and evil both. Indeed, there is no mention of local laws or authority in their code, so far as I can see. Beyond that, I'm not sure how it's considered good game design to go out of one's way to make a particular class more difficult to play for s$%%s and giggles.

We don't know anything about the Antipaladin code, if there even is one, in PF2

Well, no, we don't, but we do know the AP code from 1e, and unless the definition of being chaotic is drastically changing between editions to something so unreasonable as you imply, I'm not sure where this requirement to go out of one's way to break local laws is coming from. Dunno how that would even work, really. If a government requires you to not build a house in an area because it's gonna flood every time it rains, do you just build there like a stubborn ass anyways? Seems to be a rather silly take on CG, I'd think.

Because a Paladin is held to higher Lawful standards than other Lawful Good characters if there was some kind of Chaotic Good equivalent to the Paladin that class would have to be held to a higher Chaotic standard than other Chaotic Goods.

So, for example, they might have things that make them difficult to be played, such as:

Tenet 4: A Chaodin must not follow local laws, or respect local authority.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. If this was how it worked, the Antipaladin would be required to never follow local laws, but that's clearly not the case, despite them supposedly being paragons of chaos and evil both. Indeed, there is no mention of local laws or authority in their code, so far as I can see. Beyond that, I'm not sure how it's considered good game design to go out of one's way to make a particular class more difficult to play for shits and giggles.

Posting interest. I’m thinking of going Shaman.

Usmo wrote:

My disagreements with the alignment system aside, my main concern regarding detect evil, is whether Paladin's will still be able to Smite evil targets a limited number of times per day, and if so, will they have a reliable way of determining which targets are valid for the purposes of Smite Evil? Or will they just be stuck, unable to actually use their very limited pool of Smite Evil for fear of accidentally wasting valuable uses on encounters that turn out to have been totally neutral all along?

We are firmly committed to the idea that you shouldn't have to waste your resources on "gotcha" moments like that. That's why we're much more interested in giving you smiting benefits without any need for a guessing game (let's be honest, even in PF1 it wasn't worth losing my full attack for the detect evil so I mostly just assumed the evil-seeming enemy was evil and it worked most of the time, Chrysalis Blacks aside, but it's still pretty frustrating when I waste it). However, the length of the necessary explanation was such that I didn't really have enough space to include it in the blog given the necessity of the other topics.

Fair 'nuff. Thanks for the response!

My disagreements with the alignment system aside, my main concern regarding detect evil, is whether Paladin's will still be able to Smite evil targets a limited number of times per day, and if so, will they have a reliable way of determining which targets are valid for the purposes of Smite Evil? Or will they just be stuck, unable to actually use their very limited pool of Smite Evil for fear of accidentally wasting valuable uses on encounters that turn out to have been totally neutral all along?

Usmo wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

Usmo wrote:

I just hope that the extra HP gained from rage is treated like temporary HP and lost first. Instead of the current silliness where dropping out of rage is often equivalent to just dropping dead.

Its very thematic though. The barbarian is drenched in his own blood after a hard fight, the adrenaline starts to wear off, and he just drops to the ground.

It’s thematic. It’s also a pain that everyone winds up having to deal with through taxes like raging vitality or ferocity, just so that they are not the one class that immediately dies as soon as it becomes unconscious. And I’d like to see these abilities either given freely to barbarians, or become less mandatory for everyone who wants to use rage.

And playing a barbarian who is cautious about not dropping dead is anti-thematic. Caution and berserker rage are not supposed to go together. Alas, lack of caution can lead to no longer playing the barbarian because he died.

Usmo wrote:

It is also terribly unintuitive way of handling extra HP, which appears to be different from how regular temp HP works for no particular reason.

Increasing Constitution works the same way as decreasing Constitution: it changes the hit points without changing the damage. As a GM, I saw a character hit by Cloudkill almost drop dead from the damage to Con, because the character already had some damage before his hit points shrunk.

The unintuitive part about the increased Constitution from raging is that it wears off while it is still necessary. Imagine that the higher Con persisted until the barbarian got a solid night's sleep. Then the sleep would heal enough damage that the barbarian would not be at risk of dying.

The skald in my Iron Gods campaign has Greater Skald's Vigor, which gives everyone who accepts her Inspired Rage song...

I'm... not really sure what point you are trying to make here? Yes, I am aware that constitution increases and decreases work differently from temporary hit points, and that Rage works like any other bonus or penalty to CON. My point is, that dealing with rage's hit point changes like 1e does rather needlessly complicates things. While also accomplishing little more than ensuring that stuff like ferocity become so necessary that they may as well be outright built into the class. Similarly, I’m not quite clear on what you mean by “Temporary hit points from raging would also make damage disappear more quickly than the rage.” You mean that rage cycling could be used to constantly replenish temp hp? Cuz I mean, a clause similar to what UBarb got regarding temp hp basically solves that. And ultimately, I much prefer the UBarb take on rage(if not necessarily the rage powers), as it does not require one to adjust half the character sheet to account for ability score changes, nor does it spontaneously drop dead just because you stopped being mad.

On an unrelated note, while we’re on the subject of 2e changes to barbarian, I must admit, I would hope that the restriction on lawful barbarians is lifted. It is rather disappointing that one cannot play a barb who holds strongly to a personal or tribal code of honor/whatever, without losing the ability to get angry. And somehow bloodrager can be perfectly lawful without issue.

HWalsh wrote:

Paradozen wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

3. This thread assumes that Alignment in PF2, like in PF1, is largely objective rather than subjective. By this we mean that, while there are some exceptions to the rule, generally speaking, in Pathfinder, good and evil are non subjective terms.

Inquiry: Who sets the objectives for objective good and evil? The creative director? The development team? Paizo as a whole (and if so, through what system do they settle disagreements)? Gary Gygax? HWalsh (there OP)? The current GM?

On a case by case basis usually the Current GM following the examples given in the books. There are some things, however, that are actually just evil.

For example:
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil.
Consuming the Flesh of an Angel? Automatically evil.

Why is consuming the flesh of an angel automatically evil? I know catholics are taught that they are eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood every Sunday, could possibly be a similar situation, no?

Hell, Celestial Healing pretty much has you consuming the blood of angels(or some other good outsider), and is still explicitly a good aligned spell.

Usmo wrote:

I just hope that the extra HP gained from rage is treated like temporary HP and lost first. Instead of the current silliness where dropping out of rage is often equivalent to just dropping dead.

Its very thematic though. The barbarian is drenched in his own blood after a hard fight, the adrenaline starts to wear off, and he just drops to the ground.

It’s thematic. It’s also a pain that everyone winds up having to deal with through taxes like raging vitality or ferocity, just so that they are not the one class that immediately dies as soon as it becomes unconscious. And I’d like to see these abilities either given freely to barbarians, or become less mandatory for everyone who wants to use rage. It is also terribly unintuitive way of handling extra HP, which appears to be different from how regular temp HP works for no particular reason.

I just hope that the extra HP gained from rage is treated like temporary HP and lost first. Instead of the current silliness where dropping out of rage is often equivalent to just dropping dead.

@Usmo - dual talented is fine.

Sweet, decided to try something new, rolling meself up a Skald.

I'm interested. Will likely roll up a druid, or perhaps an inquisitor. Dunno yet. Where do you stand on alternate racial traits like human's dual talented?

Stat rolls:
Stats: 1d10 + 7 ⇒ (9) + 7 = 16
Stats: 1d10 + 7 ⇒ (9) + 7 = 16
Stats: 1d10 + 7 ⇒ (8) + 7 = 15
Stats: 1d10 + 7 ⇒ (10) + 7 = 17

I'm interested. Reading through the player's guide, thinking of making a druid

I'm interested.

My little blurb:
The glorious human Empire of Uthal has stood for a thousand years, yet, it has now begun to crumble away at the edges. Plagues, war, famine, and death spread across distant reaches of the empire, as the Four Daemonic Horsemen of the apocalypse sense that the time draws near to ride forth on the material plane once again. Meanwhile, rumors spread that in long forgotten lands, the last, twisted remains of the fallen Elvish empires are stirring once more, preparing to reclaim what was once theirs.

Maybe I'm too skeptical here, but I have the impression that this thread will end up in no game at all. No one is taking the leading role of the GM, and more than enough characters are signing up.

Just my negative opinion.

This. Even if we go rotating GM, we're gonna need someone to be in charge of the whole affair and decides which characters are selected. Dunno if Warren Wilderwood was planning on taking that role or not.

I would be interested in playing as well. I do have a druid character ready-ish, with some changes necessary depending on the final rules here.