Weylin's page

777 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 777 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Stefan Hill wrote:

For some reason I thought running a game of Starwars would be a good thing to do.

It's been a while so which rule set doesn't really matter. So I read a few dozen reviews of d6 & d20 & SAGA rules.

It would seem to me that, and I'm generalizing here, the order of preference is;

d6 > SAGA > d20 rule sets.

I never found a review that compares and contrasts the three sets so I was wondering what people thought of each system and why they choose A over B over C sort of thing.

I'm thinking I'll use the d6 (2nd Edition, Expanded and Revised) for the game for no other reason than weight of evidence indicates to me that it's the best of the Starwars specific rules.


I have played all three versions of the Star Wars RPG. I think of the three the WEG D6 system did the best job and if you can track it down there are volumes of source material for it. D20 and Saga (especially Saga) fell a little flat of getting the feel in my opinion. The setting is just to convoluted for me to feel like a class-based system can capture the feel right. To me it needs to be skill-based. However, the higher levels can bog down when it comes to dice counting (totalling 5d6 three times to resolve a single attack can get slow...and 5d6 is not unusual for Attack, Damage and Soak/Armor).

As an alternate, I believe the D6 system that is for free download has rules for using the Legends version which is still D6 based but goes for a dice pool system of each die Target Numbers...i believe it was a 3 or higher on a die is a success.

That said, the last Star Wars game i played in used none of those systems. Instead it used a modified Cinematic Unisystem from Eden Studios. One of the posters on the Unisystem Fan board did a great write-up of the force abilities, weapons and vehicles for that system.

Looking over the Tieflings of Golarion from Bastards of Erebus they did a solid job covering the race in 8 pages (2 of which were alternate powers to "Darkness" and one of which was just a random chart of physical features).

My thoughts would be cover "opposing planetouched" in the same books.
Aasimar and Tieflngs (16 pages each)
Elemental Planetouched [I would expect Genie-descent liek the Suli]
Fire and Water [Efreet and Marid descent] (16 pages each)
Air and Earth [Djinni and Shaitan descent] (16 pages each)

The lack of their own culture, involved history, home nation and such is why I dont see the need for larger books on them.

Also the question is would this be for PFRPG in general or Pathfinder Companion like "Elves of Golarion"? If for Companion it might limit the appeal for many buyers who are using PFRPG to run homebrew campaigns or third-party settings. At $10, two races in each book would have greater appeal probably to a wider market.

personally, I love the various plane-touched races and would love to see them get more fleshing out. As well as expanding to other Plane-influence besides elemental, celestial and infernal...would personally love to see a setting done where the races were either humans or plane-touched and no other major sapient races.


Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

I'm personally a fan of the Cortex System RPG.

It's pretty rules light, and effective for many genres.

Cortex is pretty good. I liked the base mechanics for it. I just wish it would get better support from Margaret Weis Productions.

A good companion for running a Cortex fantasy setting would be to pick up the old Sovereign Stone RPG books(the original, NOT the d20) since it is the basis for the cortex system and hase a long list of spells. You should be able to find it on Amazon easily. I found my copy at Half Price books for $10.

On a different note, the more I look at Mutants and Masterminds the more I see it less as a straight superhero system and more as possibly the best multi-genre system. Especially after looking through "Mecha and Manga" and "Warriors and Warlocks". It takes front front end loading, but M&M can be made to cover pretty much any genre.


the Stick wrote:
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the WEG editions of Star Wars. Lots of people have heard of that system, but lesser well known was the d6 System booklet. It used the same mechanics (rules-light and no levels), but explained the d6 system in pretty good detail in ~100 pages.

Liked the work West End put into Star Wars (especially fleshing out the setting more than Luca ever did), but I disliked that system. I dont like having to add 8 or more dice (sometimes as many as 20 or more once Force Points are used) on a regular basis for skill checks, hit rolls, damage rolls, armor rolls, etc.

I thought the variant of D6 Legends they used for the Hercules and Xena game worked better changing it to a each die vs TN 4 (level of succcesses tells you how you did) instead of dice pool total vs TN.

Overall, I am not a fan of additive dice pools.


Nice option with AFMBE Dungeons and Zombies is that you can run it as a Classic Unisystem or the rules-light Cinematic Unisystem. For the second I would highly recommend supplementing it with the Ghosts of Albion RPG (also from Eden Studios).

Ghosts of Albion has become my groups default "magical world" rules set.


Lyingbastard wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Actually, I was thinking that the Summoner makes for an interesting Shinigami. It'd need some alterations, but it's by far the closest class in the game to the characters in Bleach (the ones that have summons, anyway).

An interesting idea, but the BAB is a bit low for such a martial concept. On the other hand, it does nicely represent Shikai and Bankai techniques.

Heh, what sort of feat would you take to represent the "Tite Kubo factor", I wonder?

Perhaps a feat "Battlefield Eidolon" that provided a boost to the eidolon's BAB?


Problem I see with giving each planetouched its own book is that it would at best be the 32-page size each and that would be stretching it quite a bit. As bastard races, they dont have a culture (art, religion, language, etc.) of their own.

Honestly, I think the three main planetouched races (Aasimar, Tiefling and "Genasi") can be solidly covered in one 64-page books (if that). The chapter of tieflings in bastards of Erebus did a great job fleshing the race out. triple that and you are fairly good.


Back during the beta I was lobbying for Climb and Jump to be rolled into a single skill: Athletics. More strength related physical skills should have been rolled into a companion skill to Acrobatics. And Jump is about strength.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

i know, eldritch knight needs to be compensated for it's gimme tax. duskblade could use variant lists. but thats a dm decision. not everything is worth the investment, but power should be balanced against investment. but it isn't. part of a design flaw. but gimme tax, though i brought it up is hurting my brain. gimme taxes seem to exceed thier benefit. exchange should be equal, but it's not. it can only be equalized by a skilled dm.

how "special" is a prestige class if it can be mimicked at a superior power level by a base class 6 levels earlier?

changing the requirements works too. currently it's more of a tank mage than an arcane warrior.

Unfortunately, reworking the PrCs gets tricky especially when changing entry requirements. So does large scale changes to their abilities. Brings into the scenario the whole backwards compatability that Paizo is largely basing PFRPG around.


Of the martial arcanist classes I have seen I like this one more than most.

I would however portion out the armor proficiencies. Recieve light armor at first level and medium at a later level.

Same with weapon proficincies. Simple (and possibly one martial weapon of the player's choice) at 1st level and all martial later.

The Iron Mage casts in a manner of a wizard...study to learn a spell and memorization to prepare them. To me this means some serious scholarly endeavor, which means less time for weapons and armors training. Especially the learning new spells. Thus spreading out the acquiring of proficienies for armor and weapons.

The Paladin and Ranger get around this by dent of being divine casters, they doesnt actually have to study magic...their power is granted to them. The Bard circumvents it by being a spontaneous caster.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
The problem is that, with people like myself, they do like the concept a lot, they noticed that with the new system even with multi-classing and even PrCs there is no way for a full base attack, armored, caster; and even with the PrCs the character still seems rather sub-par to a pure 20 level character. Saying that a hybrid class is over all less useful than a pure one is just bias to ideas. A hybrid should be equal in over all usefulness, not less.

So you want full BAB...

Level of armor: (light, medium and/or heavy)?

Level of casting: Paladin/Ranger (start at 4th class level and 4th level spells max) or /Bard (start at 1st level and 6th level Max) or Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Sorcer (start at 1st and 9th level max)?

Casting type: Memorization or Spontaneous casting?

Spell acquisition: Open (Cleric), Studied (Wizard)?

Weapon proficiencies: all simple, all simple and a selected list of others, all simple and all martial?

Full BAB would from example classes preclude several of those options especially full caster ability.

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Weylin wrote:


Please refer to post above yours.

Battle Sorcerer from Unearthed Arcana took some major hits (well deserved) for what they received.

Battle Sorcerers gained the mid-level BAB and d8 hit die.

They gained Light Armor Proficiency with no inherent way to negate the Arcane Spel Failure Chance. THey just did not have the action penalty. They still had A 10% failure chance in leather armor.

They also gained a any light or one-handed martial weapon of the players's choice (thus one weapon not proficiency in all martial weapons).

In exchange, they lost one spell per day from each spell level (to a minimum of 0). And they lost one spell known from each spell level (to a minimum of 1).

Not exactly the best example to me of the concept of a full BAB, top hit die, medium armor proficient, full casting base class idea that I see floating around the forums.

I still feel as i have said before, that due to how the mechanics of arcane magic are explained in the system, circumventing the Spell Failure Chance is a big step.

It takes a Wizard/Sorcerer 2 feats, caster level 3 and a swift action to be able to reduce Arcane Spell Failure Chance 10%.

It takes 4 feats, caster level 7 and a swift action to be able to reduce Arcane Spell Failure Chance 20%.

This means with the first tier they can at most wear leather armor with no spell failure chance.

On the second tier they at most can wear a chain shirt or hide.

This says that overcomming the Arcane Spell Failure Chance is a very very big deal. Granting even the first tier of it to the first level of a base class becomes a massive step.

On BAB, the rogue, cleric, druid, monk and bard dont get full BAB so I dont see why a martial arcanist should.

On Hit Die, the above classes also get d8 (in line with BAB/HD link). So that rules out d10 for the martial arcanist to me.

On weapons, the above classes have limited lists so that rules out full martial proficiency to me.

On spells, every other caster besides full casters (sorcerer, cleric, wizard) have limited spell selection. And limited max level. So that would be required to me.


I still sometimes have problems with visualization switching between one roll = one attack from the other systems I play (and usually two actions per round) and the very abstract D&D/PFRPG "one roll represents many actual attacks". Of the two I prefer one roll = one attack. I think something about abtract combat bothers me.

Side note: the idea of one actual attack every six seconds is amusing to me. Be the most boring action movie ever.


Spacelard wrote:

All this rings true with me also. People have said that the Paladin is the divine version but they get 4th level spells maximum starting at 4th level and to be fair the Paladin needs to spread its stats over STR, WIS and CHA.

Most of the proposals I have seen want full BAB, arcane spells with no spell failure, minimum three schools to pick spells from, martial weapons, spells from the start topping out at 6th level, etc. It is too much IMO.

Yes I understand the desire for such...

This is what I have seen from the many many threads on the subject. Really seems many want full-benefit of both classes in question.

While against base class bloat in general, I could concede on such a class if it were more of a middle ground.

*Light Armor at 1st level(Medium Armor as a class feature)
*Reduced not negated Arcane Spell Failure similar to the Spell Blade PrC.
*Maximum 4th level spells. Limited to two schools...of the player's choosing.

As for the bard, there used to be a kit called the Blade who focused more on wepaons as both performance and combat in general (one of the origins for dazzling display). Main thing that stops the bard from filling the role in question is his spell selection more than anything.


My take on things:

Diplomacy involves negotiation and exchange as well as familiarity with protocols, etiquette and bureaucracy.

Bluff involves deception and a good degree of acting.

Given this I dont see it a a good idea to cobine them. They operate in entirely different manners and often different situations. Want a good price, use Diplomacy. Want to fast-talk a guard, use Bluff.

On feinting, this trick is as much misdirection as it is flick of the wrist. Feinting is more about misleading your opponent with your stance, grip on your weapon and such so falls under Bluff to me.

I could see using Sleight of Hand (which is itself very different from Stealth) in place of Bluff for feint only in the opening maneuver of combat as a surprise attack and would require a move-action (palming the weapon, which would need to be small) and a standard action (for the attack itself). Quick Draw Feat would of course make it easier to do.

On Use Rope, to me that was far far to specific to be a skill in 3rd edition, especially so to be one in Pathfinder RPG. To me it is now included as part of CMB and/or other skills where it would be appropriate (Profession: Sailor for example).


Michael Smith 140 wrote:
I would like to see gaining an better (exotic) mount at the higher levels and maybe a penalty for using weapons and armor which would be considered "low class" in a campaign. This would help to seperate the cavalier from a fighter who would care less about image and more about functionality.

Problem I see with "low class" weapons and armor is that will vary from culture to culture and the Cavalier needs to be accessable by several cultures. A cavalier from a chinese-influenced culture will see different weapons and armor as "low class" than ones from an arabian-infuenced culture or a russian-influenced culture. Even in western european influenced areas you will see differences. English, French, Spanish, Germans all had different ideas on what "low weapons" were. And this would all be in the same campaign setting.


Hunterofthedusk wrote:
oh, also you should make note that you can't trust what a person says at the threat of torture; they could be saying just anything to get out of torture. After a few hours of torture, their words may be of some value ;P

Not to mention having an allied cleric and wizard nearby to verify what they say...and to keep them alive longer than usual.


Part of the problem with an martial arcanist base class comes down to the in-game metaphysics and game mechanics. Why does this guy get to cast spells with somatic componoents in armor while a wizard or sorcerer can't beyond the feats Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery?

This also brings in one of my issues with caster types. Supposedly arcane casters can't cast through armor because the armor intereferes somatic components. Yet a divine caster can cast spells with somatic components even in heavy armor. not buying that reasoning myself. if it interferes with arcane somatics then it should interfere with divine somatics (which likely just as intricate and complex).


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

As stated, those could clearly be different classes for different options for the player.

I agree they could. I just dont think they should.


MerrikCale wrote:

Thats what happened with WoTC. Beguiler (rogue/mage), scout (rogue/ranger), Swashbuckler (fighter/rogue) etc etc

Having said, clearly the arcane warrior is a different breed. Since 1e, there has always been the elf fighter/magic-user. Heck in OD&D the elf class was just that

By that very statement the arcane warrior is not a different breed. It is another hybrid class like all the other combinations I mentioned. Precedent doesnt change that. Dwarf also used to be a class, yet dwarves can now do something besides be short stocky fighters.


Ismellmonkey wrote:

Again it is not the point on how many classes their are, the point is creating a concept as close as possible to what the character wants. Again, isn't more logical to use the feats, new classes, and new class feature, if all three work better alone then multi-classing, and work far better in conjunction...

To me it is a point of how many classes there are. Base class bloat is something I intensely dislike...the WotC splatbooks that introduced two new base classes each were a prime example to me. And they still did not include all concepts people wanted. Not even with the addition of PH2.

As I said, since I am already compromising concept to a degree by playing the game, I really dont mind having to multi-class and burn some feats to get closer to the character concept than just single-classing. No number of classes will ever encompass all of my character concepts, let alone those of thousands of gamers.

We ae agreeing to compromise to a degree simply by playing a class-based system with an abstract combat mechanic and a certain metaphysics mechanic (armor interferes with arcane casting, yet not with divine that also has somantic components...spell slots/day). This is also why the system does not work for all settings and there has been compromises made in that regard several times.


Netromancer, fully agree that Pathfinder is a brilliant evolution of D&D. Better in my opinion than 4th edition. The only real problem I have with it is the problem I have alway had with D&D from day one...the class-system. But that is never going away and i continue to play it despite my issues with it.

For a system that allows more application of concepts the main options I see are:
True20 - which would still necessitate multi-classing, but then it only has three classes (Warrior, Expert and Adept) and radically changes the combat mechanics. THere as even a book showing how to use multi-classing to build the equivalent of rangers, paladins and barbarians.

Mutants and Masterminds: using Wizards and Warlocks - Great fantasy expansion that allows everything from gritty low magic level to fantasy on par with Exalted and Weapons of the Gods. However, it again radically changes the combat system and is an entirely point buy system (from attributes to saves to attack/defense bonus to skills to feats to "class abilities) and thus not overly new player friendly.

So, for D&D backwards compatible Pathfinder is the only real option to me. And option I am very happy with as it is. Anything else is icing.


Auntie Gish wrote:

Please do help yourselves to some gishcakes.

<Puts a plate in front of Weylin, KC, and Mairkurion>

Not even if i was starving, Auntie

Ismellmonkey wrote:

Sorry for not being more specific. The goal of muli-classing was never to eliminate the need for extra classes, the goal of it was to increase character customization options. However the system is unpredictable, the legacy abilities I addressed, also the problems with stacking one save like fortitude, by taking making a barbarian/fighter/ranger/cleric. There is also the issue of having to use feats and prestige classes to patch a normally unworkable concept, wizard/cleric for example.

What I was demonstrating, well trying to, is if multi-classing is week as a system, shouldn't it be eliminated as a system before we start eliminating "Unnecessary" classes.

As I stated the goal is to create the character you want, not to use muli-classing to create the character you want. Hence the "You can't see the forest through the trees" comment.

As long as there is a class system at all, you are going to run into issues when trying to create a given character concept.

I have run into this problem more times than I can count and is responsible for my occasional breaks from D20 based systems in favor of skill-based/quality-based systems...trying to create an agility-based fighter who doesnt have to rely on an every growing number of magical items comes to mind (rogue never worked, monk never worked, swashbuckler never worked).

So, from the beginning there is a huge aspect of compromising the original concept to fit the rules. So I dont see an issue with mutli-classing and feats to play a fighter-arcane caster.

And as i mentioned on another thread, where do these hybrid base classes end? By the end you'd have around 20 base classes.


I would like to see some intermediate prestige classes. By this, I mean 5-level prestige classes such as the Arcane Devotee and Shou Disciple from Forgotten Realms. I really feel these short prestige classes and the ease with which they could be qualified for easily. I think they added a great amount of flavor in the setting.

I wuld like to see them both for PFRPG and Pathfinder Chronicles.


For me, gish is a racial specific term and on a certain level if iritates to see it used outside that racial description for me. Be like calling every arcane caster/martial combo a bladesinger in 2nd edition.

It does have a huge humor factor though given what "gish" is also slang for ;) "Hey check out my level 4 gish."


grasshopper_ea wrote:

would weapon mastery's increase of the critical threat damage multiplier increase the damage

i.e. would a 20 fighter with a flaming burst kukri do 3d4 + 2d10 fire on a critical hit?

Looking over the rules for Burst Weapons and Weapon Mastery, I would say yes. It increases the damage. I cant see anything in the rules that explicitly or even implies that they would not and my group usually goes with "if it doesnt say directly that you cant then you can."


Problem with non-PrC combo like the arcane fighter base class is where does that stop?

Fighter-Rogue base class
Fighter-Monk base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Arcane Caster" base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Divine Caster" base class
Rogue-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Monk-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Barbarian-Divine Caster base class <Foaming at the mouth rabble rouser>

Then also how much of each core class to include?
1/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 3/4 caster?
1/2 and 1/2?
3/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 1/4 caster?

Whichever is decided on ratios there will be many complaints of "not enough of this aspect" or "too much of that aspect".


Valegrim wrote:

I have found it very hard to get the characters to get into it with any realism; I have squeezed them between stone tablets; drugged them; whipped them; roasted them alive; amputated limbs and they are all of course immune to any of this and refuse to tell anything unto death; they get this blaise; well, whatever happens kind of attitude; sometimes you can get a bit of rise out of them by torturing a loved one npc type; but not much; hopefully your players will interact more with the game than mine have.

That's why when it came up, my past game masters forced skill rolls or saves if you were not roleplaing it well. Usually with the torturer's skill check setting the DC for the save or just using 10+Skill Level (15+Skill if the torurer wwas very well prepared).

It is the same as dealing with social tests. If your character doesnt have any ranks in the relevent skills it doesnt matter how good you as the player are, you probably wont rally the town to fight the bandits. You roleplay it out and then make your check in our games usually. THis also means if the player is not very good at oration but his character is that he has to at least try the speech (he cant just default to a skill check) and then gets to roll his Skill Check.


Mac Boyce wrote:

Can anyone tell me what size mini 1/72 is? Does it compare to Reaper mini's or is it smaller/bigger?


25/28mm is 1:73.152 scale. So it should be very close to Reaper's standard.

Netromancer wrote:
Yet, in Pathfinder, 3.0 and 3.5 the ranges fighter is completely viable. Having seen it in action the build is great. I was just using it as an example of the pigeon-holing 4th edition has been reduced to. Yeah, probably not the place to discuss it. But it doesn't need to be debated anyway.

Through 3.0 and 3.5 I never saw a Ranger consistently match a dedicated ranged combat Fighter. So I have to agree on the ranged option being viable, not only viable but devestating. And now the Fighter gets even more feats and Weapon Training.


Zurai wrote:
Weylin wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Weylin wrote:
However, it does mean to me that a fiendish or celestial animal should also now be "native outsiders".
No. Outsider means more than just "from another plane". That's what the extraplanar subtype is for.
Both the Tiefling and Aasimar are listed as "Medium outsider (native)". So to me, fiendish and celestial templates should be as well. Since that is what a Tiefling and Aasimar are really.

No. Tieflings and Aasimars are directly descended from Outsiders.

Celestial and Fiendish creatures are merely residents of a plane with the Good Dominant or Evil Dominant traits.

Nothing I have read in crunch or fluff lead me to think of Fiendish/Celestial Templates as only being residents of Evil/Good dominant planes. Not in 3.0, 3.5 or PFRPG. Fiends and Celestials can obviously breed with pretty much any race they wish, same with dragons (through previous editions Draconic Template). A fiendish warhorse could just as easily be a decendent of a Nightmare as an animal from a Evil Dominant plane.

Zurai wrote:
Weylin wrote:
However, it does mean to me that a fiendish or celestial animal should also now be "native outsiders".
No. Outsider means more than just "from another plane". That's what the extraplanar subtype is for.

Both the Tiefling and Aasimar are listed as "Medium outsider (native)". So to me, fiendish and celestial templates should be as well. Since that is what a Tiefling and Aasimar are really.

Set wrote:

Checking the templates in the back of the Bestiary in preparation for using them in a game, I noticed that the Celestial and Fiendish creature templates no longer raise the animals (or vermins) intelligence to 3, afford it the ability to understand instructions in Celestial (or Infernal, etc.) and no longer change it's alignment to Good or Evil.

As a result, a Summoned Celestial (or Fiendish) creature can no longer be directed to do anything other than attack the casters foes (which it does automatically), and Celestial and Fiendish-templated creatures cannot Smite each other, since they are all Neutral (or otherwise retain their base alignment).

Is this a deliberate change in Pathfinder, or an oversight?

It does make a pretty darn huge difference in the use of Conjuration (Summoning) spells.

As Celestial (or Fiendish) animals no longer become Magical Beasts, it does mean that a Speak with Animals spell could be used to communicate with a conjured animal, [/i]assuming that spell were available to Conjurers[/i], and, even in that case, removes as well the ability of the Conjuror to give instructions to a Fiendish Giant Wasp, which he could do in 3.X, and, according to the text of Summon Monster, he's still supposed to be able to do, somehow.

Some of that actually makes sense to me to a degree. If a tiefling and aasimar's alignment is not set why should an fiendish/celestial animals be? Tiefling is just a variant fiendish human. Aasimar is just a variant celestial human.

However, it does mean to me that a fiendish or celestial animal should also now be "native outsiders".


From Green Ronin:
"When adventures call for ability tests, they are written with the focus in parenthesis. For example: "Gamers must pass a Target Number 21 Willpower (Self-Discipline) test not to buy the Dragon Age RPG the day it becomes available."

You'll note the effect of focuses is quite straight forward; you get a +2 bonus on applicable ability tests.

What you need to know for the moment, however, is that when you make an ability test, you need to designate one of your 3d6 as the Dragon Die (usually by using a different colored die than the other two). If you succeed on the test, the result of the Dragon Die measures the degree of success. So a 1 means you just made it and a 6 means you did it spectacularly."

Thos are the main issues I have with the system so far.

CourtFool wrote:
Weylin wrote:
The die total simply gives you pass/fail. The level of success is determined by the number on the single Dragon Die (1 is barely succeed and 6 is a phenomenal success).

OMFG! This is like rolling one die for an attack and a completely unrelated die for damage.

Oh wait.

That has actually long been an issue for me with D&D in every incarnation. But one I know is not going to be fixed.

Tharen the Damned wrote:
Weylin wrote:
Tharen, I would love to see them rework the Black Company setting using the SOIF engine.

That won't happen. GR only had the rights for one book. This is why there was never an adventure or more setting material.

I think it would also be difficult to integrate the high level magics of the Taken into the system.

Weylin wrote:
Or a Conan-inspired setting. I think it would also be great for Lankhmar. Thieves World. Would also be good for the Tiger and Del series. Honestly, I think it works better than D20 for many fantasy settings. All you really need to add to it is a setting specific magical system or psionics (if you want to handle the Deryni Chronicles). So much of the older fantasy is a lot lower key than much of that comming out today.
If GR gets a lot of positive feedback regading the engine, they might update it and use if as a generic system. After all, that was what happened to Blue Rose - True20.

I wouldnt even bother traying to factor in the power of the Lady, The Dominator or the Taken. Those beings operate on sucha different system, i dont think that Epic D&D could really do them justice.

From what I have seen on the Green Ronin boards, most people seem to really like the engine. I know I and my group think it is great for any low-magic setting and does not seem like it would be hard to add in sub-systems for magic/races/psionics or anything else really since it operates very similar to Castle Falkenstein as far as range of attributes and such goes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Jade wrote:
You just say the words blood eagle to me and I'll tell you whatever you want to know.

Guaranteed to get anyone talking, Jade. If i resorted to a skill roll or save that would be a heavy penalty against the victim to even be threatened with it.

Tharen the Damned wrote:
Weylin wrote:
I love every other product I have seen from them. True20 (did not care for Blue Rose but that is an aesthetic thing, still a great system). Mutants and Masterminds. Song of Ice anf Fire (which I think is an amazing system and have considered adapting Castle Falkenstein to it). Mythic Vistas (Especially the Black Company Setting).

I think SOIF was their masterpiece. It is perfectly suited for everything Grim & Gritty with low to no magic.

I want to use the SOIF engine for a real world campaign based on the crusades. A noble and his entourage on their way to Jerusalem...

Tharen, I would love to see them rework the Black Company setting using the SOIF engine. Or a Conan-inspired setting. I think it would also be great for Lankhmar. Thieves World. Would also be good for the Tiger and Del series. Honestly, I think it works better than D20 for many fantasy settings. All you really need to add to it is a setting specific magical system or psionics (if you want to handle the Deryni Chronicles). So much of the older fantasy is a lot lower key than much of that comming out today.


I think to be effectively role played and not use a basic skill test of soem sort requires a very specific thing:

Your players realizing that the longer they dont talk the more maimed their character's will be and that as a DM you wont be magically undoing it all as if it never happened.

Seen a lot of DMs try to roleplay out interrogation or torture or such but the players knew the DM would not actually do anything to the characters or their loved ones that would not be easily undone.

You want the characters to talk. make it clear to the players that this maniac is going to be taking their left eye and it is up to them to fix it afterwards if they dont talk.


Lyingbastard wrote:

Given the examples of Batman and The Musketeers, and let's throw in the Scarlet Pimpernel and Zorro as well, I think there's a very strong case to be made for Neutral and Chaotic Cavaliers. So I'd say the CLASS shouldn't have any alignment restrictions.

However, I believe that each Order/Creed should have it's own ethical standards which may not and should not be universal. The Order of the Dragon should fit Chaotic characters better than Neutral or Lawful - it is more self-centered. The Order of the Shield feels more Lawful than Chaotic. I think that the Orders should have alignment standards, but not the class as a whole, in the same way that a Cleric should have a compatible alignment with their God - saying that they shouldn't is absurd. In a fantasy world where there are many gods, and they aren't distant and unknowable but rather make their presence felt regularly, it simply doesn't make sense to worship a god whose ideals one does not share. Moreso than that, a God would not empower someone whose actions they do not approve of.

Have alignments for the Orders is also a good roleplaying tool. "That may be allowable for /them/, but not for members of /this/ order!"

I think alignment preference for the orders would also give those orders more general character as "NPCs" themselves. Since really any organization is a sort of NPC. Could also make for some interesting conflict if you have Cavaliers from seperate orders in the group...you get a conflict of both personality and orders or a case of they get along fine personally but are not overly fond of each other's order (Cavalier of the Cockatrice: "I could almost enjoy his company...if he were not from the damned Dragons.")


Tharen the Damned wrote:

I do not have commercial interests in Dragon Age.
I just like the Green Ronin guys and gals and wish them success.
I will buy the Box and hopefully playtest the later installments too. But I don't know if I will ever run a "regular" campaign for Dragon Age. It really depends on how the world will be fleshed out and if it will be suitably different from the "Warhammer feel".

Didnt think you did have an interest. That is not how Green Ronin operates in my experience.

I love every other product I have seen from them. True20 (did not care for Blue Rose but that is an aesthetic thing, still a great system). Mutants and Masterminds. Song of Ice anf Fire (which I think is an amazing system and have considered adapting Castle Falkenstein to it). Mythic Vistas (Especially the Black Company Setting).

This si the first product from them that I have not liked at all. The system just sits very wrong for me. It has the feel of a 3d6 version of TSR's Marvel Superheroes with even more variablity in the results.

Fleshing out the world unfortunately leaves them at the mercy of Bioware and how much access to the setting material they get. Part of why I am always wary of a RPG company dealing with someone elses IP.


gamer-printer wrote:

That wouldn't be far off from where it is now. All of the Miko's powers and spells relate to spirits, spirit bound objects and the reincarnation process of Kaidan. Though the class hints at contacting the various types of greater spirits, that's more flavor than crunch. To say that it is the ujigama (ancestral spirits) that provide the divine power source instead, does not take away from the Miko as she currently sits. So certainly worth considering.

As an aside, in many class descriptions using the feminine gender for a given described character is politically correct. In the case of Kaidan, the Miko is always female in gender, no matter what race takes the class. So my use of "she" and "her" is not meant to be "PC", but literal instead.


Never even flinched at the female pronoun myself. Miko in shinto are all female...hard to be a shrine maiden without the right equipment ;)

Hope my input has been helpful.


joecoolives wrote:

I personaly think Devils can be lots of fun. They can be most pleasantly two faced! Promise you your grandest desires, be pleasant and understanding as they worm thier way into your confidence. Even fulfill your 'Contracts' in exchange for that small inconcequintial thing you call a soul. "Your hardly using it as it is!"

I love Dudley Moore in the original Bedazzled.(movie)

Always think of them as goal oriented. Let your sneakiness out.

Remember, The thing they grant in exchange for that 'contract' is easily twisted like a wish gone wrong.

Serves you right for dealing with Devils!

Do you think that the Rulers of Cheliax thought they were going to be tied to Asmodias as tightly as they are now. They probably thought they were too smart to get cought in that trap.

Demons are easier. Their goals more base. They can easily be as sneaky though.

Chelaxian nobility and royalty still think they are on top. They think Hell serves them not the other way around.;) Shows how good Asmodeus is at playing the game.

Of the two, as a player I enjoy Devils more than Demons as adversaries.

Devils and Demons actually remind me of the Cults of Hastur in Cthulutech. You have the Rapine Storm who are pretty much the mongol horde turned up to 11 and humanity turned down to 0. Then you have the Death Shadows who are corrupters and tempters within society. The Rapine Storm is more demonic in style to me and the "barbarians at the gates". The Death Shadows are more infernal to me and the "enemy within".



Still find it curious that a term that appeared in reference to a single race (mind you a very iconic one) has spread to such wide useage.

My two cents is how about the very direct Fighter-Wizard or Fighter-Sorcerer. ;)


Have you considered an Oracle that is more focused on harnessing the powers of the ujigama (his family/clan ancestors)? It would add an intersting aspect to religion in your setting. "Clerics" serving the greater kami (on par with Inari, Susano-o, Izanagi) and "Oracles" being chosen by the ancestors/ujigama.


I would like to see quarterly gazeteers. Detailing feats, creatures, magical items, traits, articles and such from the Adventure Paths. I know this would entail reprinting material, but for myself and my group who dont run modules or adventure paths this would be a very welcome publication.


Personally, I like the portrayal of Devils and Demons in Golarion.

Devils are far more rational than Demons usually, but not always more subtle. Not much subtle about the Asmodean Church. But Devils seem to know more just how far they can push people. Demons usually lack that and it interferes with long term planning. While Demons can be sublte and devious, they still often feel hurried to me. A Demon might bring down a family, a Devil plots to bring down a nation.

A good example of the difference is Cheliax and the World Wound.

A real worlf example to me is:
Demons are Caligula.
Devils are Julius Caesar.


Lokie wrote:
dulsin wrote:

Some one did make the Leonardo's giant crossbow

That... is an impressive crossbow.

There was a write-up for it Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogue. Never got to use one in game. Thought it had potential as a dragon hunting weapon.


1 to 50 of 777 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>