Ok, so with that being said... How does a lvl 1 commoner react to the omnipotence of adventurers?
This may be a side point but do your players ever encounter OTHER players? Like how often Is another NPC not an NPC?
I noticed that even when watching Grimgar (which I still recommend but it definitely softens in appeal as it continues) when the Goblin Slayers go out to 'hunt' there is NEVER another adventure ring group to be found...
Have you ever planned a Heist and just as you were started the alarm was sounded and a rapscallion gnome comes bolting around he corner with arms full of loot?
Or gone to save the princess in the tower to finding the guarding dragon slain and tousled sheets but no damsel (in distress or otherwise?)
Not saying it should happen ALL the time but... We can't be the only adventurers out here... Right?
So my friend and I were trying to figure out how to run a compelling campaign that focused on the struggle of having enough money for stuff (inspired by Grimgar)
We both thought it would be interesting and thematic to remove experience points from the game and have an associated monetary cost for level ups. We are a little divided on the best way to achieve something balanced and fair. Also... My mathematics skills are not the most robust so something simple would probably work to our favor.
My initial thought was to buy a level as a whole by converting the xp cost into gold at a 1:5 ratio. He suggested doing a piece wise level up where independent costs for skills, hd, saves, etc are present... I agree that definitely has a more "I can afford to be a better acrobat/healer/etc now!" Vibe but... Again my math skills are lacking.
Does anyone have an experience with something similar to this? Or know of 3rd party material that might help?
"Why do I have a Masterwork computer but NO ranks in Knowledge (Computer Science)?... I KNOW what I use that for... There will NEVER come a time when that +2 is necessary!"
"Is this NE alignment thing something that was there at creation? Or did I earn it through role play?- I feel like I am not having the amount of fun a NE character should be having?"
"I don't see anywhere on this sheet where you have listed my familiar?... He also isn't listed allies... Or gear... What? What do you mean a HIRELING??? Hired for what? I am paying him to dispose of his waste?!?!?!"
Anybody else feel like if you saw the character sheet for your life you would wonder WHAT the player was thinking?
"Why am I a Shaman? I have an 8 for Wisdom. You took the Cackle hex but none of the hexes that it works with..."
Maybe my player has a different style than I am used to?
Molten Dragon is soon to become the horrible victim of a Baleful Polymorph, Greater Curse and Geas (which compels him to request forgiveness from every box he encounters on his DEX penalty lizard journey)
And the boxes will NOT forgive!
Because BUCKETS are for children toys... Boxes are for treasures. REAL treasures.
How would this description work via fluff text in an encounter though.
The party comes to a cottage in the forest and sees a woman talking with her cat.
The idea is to convey the tone of a witch without giving that information.
You could similarly describe a man reading a book in a tower to get across the feel of the Wizard.
But a witch communing with her familiar would be different than a bard talking to a pet cat or a wizard and their familiar. Right?
Lol, I probably went to far, but there was an evil campaign where I convinced my DM to allow for Gestalt builds and 3rd party materials...
I played a Medusa witch with a coven of weapon transforming witches and shamans and had two cohorts where were held in each hand as a syringe spear and dagger. My two cohorts had levels of magus and could channel spells through themselves when I attacked. There were a series of feats where I could aggregate my covens spell slots together and cast any spell available (which gave me over 60 first level spells).
3rd party stuff is not meant for balance. One weapon would Evil Eye, the Other Misfortune and then I would Stone Gaze... IT WAS AWESOME!
I was wondering how other players and DMs are interpreting a witch and her familiar using Intelligence as their operating casting ability.
With Wizard/Magus/Alchemist the idea of studying a book and following a recipe/formulae appears very much like an act of intelligence (vs an act of Wisdom or Charisma- though a charisma based alchemist DEFINITELY sounds like something hilarious and harkens to some WILD alchemy).
How do you describe or intuit the relationship of the witch and her familiar as compared to the wizard and his?
Also- there are archetypes that have witches replacing familiars with poppets and masks. Does this alter the relationship?
Storm of Blades does not make mention of special materials in the description. The spell creates multiple magic-stuff swords that have the same critical threat range and multiplier.
Pellet Blast... You definitely have something to be answered there. If I were DM I would say you could use ShadConj to do the normal version as is, but would require the materials if you want to add the Silver/etc. effects.
Good eye though.
This brings up an interesting point. Because you have situations like- If the cleric is bleeding out next to an enemy could the Inquisitor cast Litany of Sloth against enemy, then move over to the downed cleric and cast Cure Light Wounds to stabilize (and possibly bring him back into the fight) ?
It would seem like having the actions available for casting is what is necessary for casting. I am not aware of a rule stating ONLY 1 spell per turn except when Quickening.
Though... I do admit... That FEELS like something I have heard also. But it could just be one of those rule of thumbs that gets passed around.
And rightly so... the gods getting all up in a tizzy about stupid crap and Darkseid and Vandal Savage destroying the world every other week...
If you are SO insulted by people NOT showing deference to you, maybe think about how insulted you will be when NOONE is around to show you anything at all...
And then it sorta falls apart.
Thor sorta explains that Valhalla is separated from Midgard, but... I don't know if Olympus is the same way with regards to the DC universe... Where are all these gods at?
So you have a REALLY cool opportunity because the 'roles' are filled: traps, heals, melee, and mage.
You can be ANYTHING! YAY!
But then only anything from PH1, be careful with 3.5 multiclassing... Monks and Paladins were kinda restricted on that.
Druid makes for a cool character... though there is less gain from multiclassing compared to other classes.
What do you want to play?
Agreed. I think the term 'god' gets thrown around a lot in comics as sort of a reference of power.
In the Justice League cartoon the creators got a lot of flack because they show Superman getting beaten up and knocked around a lot. Superman fans were not happy about the character abuse. The response of the creators was that they were not intentionally trying to misrepresent Superman but that his character is so powerful there are few threats that would warrant they need for a 'group' of heroes, and that the audience could buy into the narrative more readily if they have the reaction: "Oh wow! XXX just trounced Superman! They team gotta bring it now!"
But the power level is simply a setting and a tool of the story. The deeper layers tend to make things more interesting. When WW fights against the gods now as a Goddess of War or whatever it doesn't exactly reshape the fact that she was raised on an island of woman warriors and doesn't have the same level of emotional attachment to their interactions (at least for me- it is possible they play up the whole: 'My daddy abandoned me' aspect that they could go with her character... idk if that works. I wouldn't care for it personally, but I am already against the whole Zeus daddy thing. I liked it when she was clay.)
One thing I liked about WW that I read in one comic really struck me as an interesting approach. She is Hippolyta's daughter. Making her the only one of the Amazon's to have a mother and to BE a daughter. The aspect of jealousy that was inspired in some of the amazons was VERY interesting. Diana is the only amazon never to have been subjugated by man. She approaches man's world without the same level of regard as her fellows.
Something I found interesting in the character.
I think you could argue that Thor is established with an existing connection to the pantheon. He IS Odin's son, he IS Loki's brother, etc.
So when you see Loki's jealousy and conniving etc. you have the additional relationship of siblings and additional layers are developed. I would say that Thor's primary villain is Loki and it works from an iconic stance because there is this push pull relationship.
Diana is raised by amazons and blessed by the gods. So she starts off a little removed. You can even see in the JL cartoon that she reveres the gods and has that sort of Paladin code (they even made an episode about it). When she fights Ares or Hades she approaches them from a position of deference. I think it is hard for me as a audience member to fully understand what is happening there... How do you fight a God when you are not a god?
There aren't even rules for that in Pathfinder.
The retcon of making WW a demi-goddess/daughter of Zeus and NOW the Goddess of War feels so... odd... like they are trying to force this same dynamic.
The amazons were enslaved and revolted and broke free of their chains. They keep the bracelets (manacles) on as a reminder never to be subjugated by man again.
Originally WW would lose all her strength if a man bound her bracelets together (thus subjugating her) but Dr. Marston (the creator of WW) was believed to have something of a bondage fetish... so... it seeped a little. His lover also wore two bracelets similar to how WW is depicted.
Ok... this stuff about DD and Elektra is fascinating to me and I don't wanna step on its toes, but I had a couple thoughts on WW and was wondering if they resonated with anyone else:
First off: HUGE WW fan, HUGE!!! Pretty much across the board, I dig the origin (the REAL origin... being made the daughter of zeus is SO tedious to me) and the power set and the costume (I know it is RIDICULOUS but I like it lol) I am TOTALLY on board.
I wonder though if part of the failure of her sustained interest is that, compare to Batman and Superman, WW has NO interesting villains. Batman has the Joker and Catwoman and Twoface and Bane... basically EVERY cool/interesting villain EVER is on Batman's Rogue's gallery. Superman has Lex Luthor and... others... that are interesting (though probably NOT as iconic as Lex).
Heck even Green Lantern has Sinestro and the Flash has some adorable characters- Gorilla Grodd... PRECIOUS!
Wonder Woman... I would think the most iconic comic villain she has is Cheetah... and... she just doesn't work very well. I suppose we could throw the Nazis into the iconic villains section for her, but they can't exactly make for an enduring antagonist without inserting some other influence (see Captain America and HYDRA).
I was wondering if anyone else had a similar reaction? Part of the success of Batman is that the audience LIKES Batman AND likes his villains. We want to see the Joker create these ultimate zany/funny schemes that seem so perfect and we WANT to see Batman overcome them (and in one instance we apparently REALLY wanted Robin to NOT make it).
I don't really have a defense for Superman... I... I couldn't be less interested in his success as a superhero... but I don't generally like the character. The main part being the sorta overt 'might makes the ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION' mentality grates on my nerves.
One thing I dig about WW is that she is the power of Superman with the skill of Batman. She is ACTIVELY bulletproof... I just find that VERY cool. Not that other characters don't have that or mix those elements but it is a cool combo.
Ok- sorry- back to the daredevil thing... I was interested in that too