Search Posts
Im still running a 1st edition game based around the gothic horror setting of Ustalav as the players have formed a secret society of monster hunters. Ive written dozens of adventures for it already as I have tons of inspiration for the setting and the players are loving it as well
So Ive been running iron gods for the last few months one of the things my players did early on was take Meyanda's head as a literal trophy. They're a pretty neutral party and have a Scrap worth of about 5 right now and they've been very careful to not reveal Meyanda's head to anyone but leaders and their closest people, plus they've convinced everyone to stay quiet about Meyanda until they're ready to strike. In our last session my players managed to secure the Steel hawks assistance through killing birdfood and nailing some diplomacy with Sevroth Slaid. They've basicly agreed to hand over Scrap wall to the Steel hawks once they overthrow the lords of rust. Today we had a long session where they decided to infiltrate the Smiler's base after one of them got ambushed and almost eaten by a few of their gangmembers. They killed just about all of them except Marrow (Hatchet hands is long dead never making it out of the fort alive) and rescued Whiskiss. They returned Whiskiss to the Redtooth's and now they're trying to forge an alliance between the two groups. The book doesn't really account for something like that but I like their initiative so Ive already decided, yes I want them to go for it if its what they want to do. However here are my thoughts, they need to have a formal meeting between the two leaders to work out some sort of formal alliance. I already figured Divinya would be willing to host a meeting at the clockwork cathedral as a good neutral territory. I figured it could be a nice dinner, serving roasted rust monster but where I'm struggling is what would the gangs ask for in order to form an alliance and would it require the PCs constant vigilance to keep it going? The ideas I have so far include 1. A formal Non-aggression pact between both parties at least until the lords of rust are overthrown
So Im coming to others out there for some more ideas. What are some other things both gangs might argue over and I would also love some more food ideas to include in this scene as I want it to be an important meeting.
My theory is that the end of days happened. The last person died, was judged by Pharasma, and Grotheus descended to end the world. However rather then simply destroying all of existence it was reborn. The centuries it took for the Golarian population to evolve and move on to the stars is the Gap. It wasnt till the very end of the gap when Golarion disappeared as part of Grotheus prophecy of the end of days. I dont know where it is now, maybe Rovagug destroyed it or maybe its in an alternate or pocket dimension, or maybe Grotheus possesses it as he did the moon over Pharasma's boneyard
If I had my choice my top pick would be Kingmaker as its a hugely unique game style that everyone Ive ever met loves and its one flaw (a mediocre ending) can be rewritten Looking at the earlier APs I think they could use a rewrite just to make them compatible with Pathfinder without conversion. My top pick there would be Legacy of fire and my second choice is curse of the crimson throne. My personal favorite AP (I havnt played them all) is Serpents skull and I would love to see a hardcover for that. My RL group loved that AP from start to finish and it'll always have a place in my heart too
Having played a Necromancer with a paladin in the group before (this was way back in 2nd edition D&D) the first thing you need to do is sit down with everyone and put down the expectation that the group will work together toward a goal. This is an OOC commitment first and IC commitment second that everyone needs to agree to. The paladin doesnt have to overlook the transgressions of the evil PC but they do have to put them on hold at least till the conclusion of the adventure. When I played out the previously mentioned scenerio my necromancer was unapologetic about his use of necromancy and both PCs got into heated debates.I was playing a LE necromancer who was very academic and honest about who he was, what he wanted out of life, and his eternal pursuit of knowledge and power. He would often say things like "I never agreed to follow your laws or code of morality, forcing them on me is no different from a tyrant or zealot forcing their beliefs on others. Do you mean to be a tyrant?" By the end of our adventure our two characters split and went their seperate ways without violence and with a bit more respect for views outside their own. However none of that could have happened if we hadnt agreed OOC that there would be no IC fights, heated debates, name calling, and even the morale argument were all fine but no fighting was going to take place till the adventure was done. If your players can make the same agreement then I think youre fine and you might even get some cool stories out of it. However, if the Paladin refuses...well, you may not be able to bring him in on this campaign and I would encourage them to play something else. It is my personal opinion that the "detect evil = death mentality" is the wrong way to play a paladin. I feel that the random and unchecked use of detect evil is akin to illegal search and seizure. Taking it to violence is akin to a paladin acting as a vigilante, judging and potentially executing someone for having commited no crime besides having a certain outlook on the world. However opinions vary on that and while my opinion works for my game it may not work for someone elses
Well any sewer adventure isnt complete without an Otyugh. Theyre filth eaters and right around your parties level. I also like to do Oozes in such settings because sewers are perfect for them. They just sit there and all the waste and refuse they can eat literally comes to them. A gray ooze is right around CR 4 but if you wanted to make an ooze encounter much harder you could use a black pudding You could also do a mercenary group that died down there making a section of the sewers haunted by a band of skeletons lead by a skeleton champion. You might have to add class levels to give 4th level characters a better challenge though One idea that just jumped into my mind was a mad sorcerer who happens to live in the sewers and he may or may not be willing to do some trading with the PCs (maybe he brews potions?) but they should be wary of the Junk golem (CR4 bestiary 4) guarding his home Personally I also love the idea of the old "crocodile in the sewers" urban legend and like to put something like that in. While a crocodile is CR 2 you could easily increase that with the advanced and Giant templates. Alternatively you could also play it as a case of mistaken identity and put a crocodile looking lizardfolk in who may or may not be friendly depending on the PCs actions. Just give it as many class levels as you feel would give an appropriate challenge
how might a high-constitution wizard be visualized/role-played? Ive always seen high constitution as being very fit. Not necessarily quick or very muscular but having a body type that says you eat right, excersise regularly, and generally live a healthy lifestyle when your not killing monsters and exploring dungeons. The person for sure doesnt look like that body builder who goes to the gym everyday but they would have a fair bit of muscle mass on them without being what an average person would call muscular if that makes sense.
Personally I would like Constitution to take a much bigger role in healing whether its natural or magical. The simplest way I can see doing that is adding con mod to the amount of healing received (and further penalizing low con characters). Its been a long time but I recall a game (I want to say it was dark heresy but dont quote me on that) where I was playing a psychic kind of character and you could only benefit from a number of psychic healings per day. This could also become a rule so players couldnt just make a cure light wounds wand and go to town with it. It would be easy to convert to pathfinder by just saying you can recieve a number of healing spells that is 2x your con modifier (to a minimum of one) per day. Adding in an optional rule that the forced magical healing takes a toll on the body and receiving to many can make a target become fatigued, then exhausted, then comatose
I cant say Ive ever had an alignment related issue at my table. The only time Ive had alignment issues is in online games, usually when the guy who wanted to play an anti-paladin just slaps paladin onto his character and then complains/leaves when he does something to loose his paladin powers. Rant: Im sorry but if you break your code of honor you loose your paladin powers until you atone for your actions. You were granted power in exchange for following that code and the gods that offer these kinds of powers dont like oathbreakers. Suck it up and atone or get used to being a fighter, thats your choice! All that aside, while I agree morality is subjective I think the main problem is we have to many things telling us what tools players have are evil, good, lawful, chaotic. I personally do not believe that the creation of undead is outright evil as Ive created entire societies that are based around that being an honor that furthers society. Its all about perspective on this stuff That said, while I agree morality is subjective I do not believe that removing alignment is the answer either as I dont see what we would gain by doing so besides more paladins loosing their powers and leaving games because of it
1 Cavalier: Or some way to get that bonded mount but I really like what they did with Cavalier orders.
So from my point of view I keep hearing that Pathfinder needs to be streamlined to allow for ease of teaching new people to play but lets explore that idea. Is Pathfinder to hard for people to learn how to play? I can prove that its not. In september I started a new group after not having a Real life group for several years. I took the role of the GM and I admit I have years worth of experience under my belt with 2nd edition D&D, 3.0, 3.5, Exalted 2E, World of darkness 2E (mostly werewolf, mage and changeling splats), Shadowrun 3rd edition, and even some Rifts games. 2 of my new players had no experience at all. 2 others came from other games (1 4E d&d and the other 2E D&D). I taught Carlos, Josh, Andrew, and Darrel how to play the game using the kingmaker adventure path. We talked about concepts, I walked them through character creation and options using only the core rulebook because I didnt want to overload their brains with Pathfinders vast amount of information and character options, each one made a character they were happy with and that I felt was somewhat interesting. Carlos made a human necromancer, Josh made a gnome cleric of Sarenae, Andrew made a human ranger, and Darrel made a human fighter. Over about 3 months real time I took this small band of adventurers through the greenbelt and they founded a kingdom. It happened to be a chance encounter with an Aboleth side quest I had been building up that they were killed/enslaved and the game ended. Due to real life two of my players left and I got a few replacements (one of whom is going to move away soon) and Ive taught them starfinder (a game that Im frankly not liking as much and when I finally kill them were going back to pathfinder but my god mystic healers are OP!). That said, if I can take 2 players with no experience and turn them into competant players then why cant anyone else? IMO Pathfinder teaches perfectly well as its written and I have proven that we dont need a new edition for that reason. So what other reasons are there. Well theres the idea about changing the few things in pathfinder that dont work very well. Yes, actions is something that can use a major overhaul. So are feats. So are skills. Even a few classes could use a once over to put them more in line with other classes of similar ability. However Im not convinced a new edition is needed for that when a well rounded and detailed errata could fix the issues. I cant think of another reason why you would need a new edition. So let me close by saying this. I came to Pathfinder because when 4th edition came out I hated it with a passion. I didnt want anything to do with the thing but Paizo rode in like a true knight in shining armor and offered me a hand up out of the mud when they said Pathfinder is going to continue the 3.5 line, the game I already had. The game I liked. Thats why you got my money and my support. Yet you took it a step further, you fixed many of the issues that plagued 3.5 like skill bloat and mass prestige classing (although Im not so sure mass archetypes was the way to go). This time you dont have me in the mud after being dumped by my old games company, you are the old games company. This time you have to show me the game has significantly evolved in such a way I want to play that instead of what I have and feel works perfectly fine.
Please do 1. Cut down on skills again. Pathfinder did this the first time to great success but I feel like more skills could be combined like dimplomacy, bluff, intimidate could all be rolled into one "Talky" skill 2. Cut down on the number of knowlege skills and have clear monster lore rules for the ones you do have 3. Increase the number of skill points all classes get or alternatively improve the class skill lists. Or both. Starfinder has the right balance IMO 4. Feat tax rules. Feats should be something that allow you to break/bend rules and do something awesome but as they are now many feats feel lackluster at best and to be really good at one thing you need 5+ feats related to that one thing 5. Add a lot of white necromancy options. Pathfinder had way to much focus on the death side of the arcane study of life and death. Please dont 1. Remake the entire engine. 3.5, pathfinder, etc works fine IMO. Im not even sure we need a new edition so much as we need and updated Errata that fixes the most glaring issues like feat tax
Can we finally get a Warpist? Ok little background behind this. When I first got my Advanced class guide I was skimming through it when I saw the Warpist. My first thought was "Whoa what is that? that sounds awesome!" In my mind I was envisioning a battlefield control caster that specialized in teleporting around the battlefield to confuse and out position the enemy as they threw out supporting spells. So I immediately turned to the page it said the warpist was on and...disappointment as when I reread it it said "War Priest". So Ive been hoping in vain that maybe one day we would get a warpist as an archetype or something Aside from that I want all the core classes back with pretty much the same mechanics plus those from APG as I felt they were all solid additions to the class roster. Sadly I have yet to play the magus, gunslinger, or any from ACG so I cant say the same about them. There are a few things I would personally change like clerics receiving more divine powers from domiain/god choices and some domain choices feel like they need a some changes (death comes to mind with many of its domain spells being the creation of undead which Pharasma, a death diety, is strictly against) I also want to see a lot more white necromancy for our various classes that dable in the arcane study of life and death. One thing pathfinder got wrong IMO was focusing to heavily on the death side of Necromancy
The answer is no. No GMPCs, for a few reasons. GMPCs take away your time from running the game and dividing your attention between running the game and being in the game. They also breed the perception of favoritism. You can be 100% ammicalbe about it but the perception will still be there
I thought of another one. A game in the style of Path of Exile but set in a small fishing village a stones throw away from the legendary black tarn. The player(s) must fortify the town and then enter the black tarn, going down level after level to eventually find whatever lies at the bottom. Do the characters succeed and destroy the legend beneath the mythical location or will they become another of the black tarns victims
I dont own the cheliax book (and Im not even sure if local laws are in there) but while it may not be illegal (although I kind of think it is because devils dont play well with others unless they have something to gain) I think it would be discouraged either by the Hellknights, the zealots from the church of Asmodeus, or the population in general. That said neighbors informing local authorities about what they see is a common theme in Cheliax (theres a passage to it in inner sea world guide iirc). This could easily draw unwanted attention toward the player as Hellknights come to investigate reports or the church of Asmodeus starts looking for a rumored "heretic". Besides these acts of very real danger you could just have Chelish citizens throw rocks, vegtables, and debris at the eidolon and/or summoner before forming a mob to chase him out of town The common townsperson does not practice diabolism, its the monarchy, nobles, and often high ranking government officials that are in Asmodeus pocket and I highly doubt they would practice diabolism openly
I would love an adventure in Cheliax (my favorite kingdom because I love Devils) where you get to design your character similar to Skyrim/dragon age character creation where every/race class has its own starting story (again like the original dragon age origins). The main character gets caught up in a conspiracy to kill or dethrone Queen Abrogail the 2nd and ends up stopping it earning a cool sounding title that they can be refered to the rest of the game (similar to in skyrim your the dragonborn, and DA:O youre the warden) and awarded a noble name and holds to go with it. From there the game expands into a massive adventure across the country of Cheliax where you can side with the thrice damned house thrune, put a rival house into power, or put your own house into power to eventually control all of Cheliax. It would be a very heavily politically focused game but at the same time require the main character to gain allies (perhaps iconics but Ild prefer regular characters that fit the setting), forge alliances with other noble houses, and expand wealth/weaponry to eventually fight against whoever stands against their ultimate goal
Lawful and chaotic versions of planetouched races (I.e. what good aligned planes are to aasimar). Golems: Including Paper (Yes paper I want my oragami themed wizard to have a cool golem), Gravedirt, and Dragonskin New agathions: Really the only one I want is Pachydermals (elephant/rhino/mastadon type Agathion) but I dont think Frog or Bear agathions have been done yet. All three animal types have themes surrounding exceptional intelligence and/or insight Mamlambo: We still dont have that brain eating river monster Ive been asking for since bestiary 2 More positive energy creatures: The Jyoti were a great inclusion to the positive energy plane but I feel like it could have several races that inhabit one of the most dangerous and interesting planes in creation.
The best battlefield controller IMO is multiple characters with battlefield control spells/feats working together. When I played kingmaker a long time ago I experiemented with a stand still fighter who was extremely good at keeping enemies in his threatened area and off our archer(rogue) and wizard(Conjurer). When our wizard saw what I was doing he complimented my feat usage with low level spells like grease to force enemies into my threatened area. This made things even easier for our Gorum cleric who ended up becoming a trip/disarm specialist You might want to talk to the other players and work out ideas and tactics together but if you just want to rely on yourself IMO wizards probably the best all around option
Some profit is better then none. Just because you dont make as much of a return on one item as you do others thats no reason not to offer that item to customers. Not only that but customer loyalty is something to keep in mind, not everyone is the extremely frugal pinch every penny type. Treat people well and they will more then likely keep coming back to you when they need things. That aside supply and demand is another thing to keep in mind. If you keep making magic swords that you get a huge return on eventually everyones going to have a magic sword. Your demand for them drops, and thus so must prices if you want to keep selling them. Also a focus on magic swords because of their huge return means you arent providing for all those people that dont want magic swords. What about the person who prefers axes or maces? What about your spellcasters who want magic robes or jewelry? How about the universally useful flying carpet? There are a lot of factors why someone would make any magic item for profit.
I dont recommend the dragon be on the horde, I recommend the horde be in the room though With Brass dragons being the fire subtype I recommend setting the final battle in a volcano or other lava rich enviroment. The dragon can easily shatter the floor making PCs that fail an acrobatics check fall into the lava taking 20d6 fire damage every round till they crawl out (a difficult climb check). To fight the dragon close range they must jump from slab to slab of ground (more acrobatics checks) and the dragon can easily reposition without the fear of being hurt by the environment. If they elect to use fly or energy immunity spells the dragon can easily use targeted dispell magic and antimagic fields. If you want to make it harder the dragon could even set up traps before hand that reset every 1d4 rounds and perform targeted dispel magics to someone that comes in proximity. If you want to make it even harder put a gateway to the plane of fire in that lake of Lava and the Dragon has fostered an alliance with a group of Efreeti warriors causing 2d4 Efreeti fighters with as many class levels as you want and specializing in combat maneuvers (bull rush, disarm, trip, grapple, etc) to come to the dragons aid. If the dragon gets low enough it can fly upwards breaking through the roof and causing a cave in, dealing 20d6 damage per round to anyone who fails a reflex save. Better get that treasure quick! Otherwise its going to slip into that lava and then they'll have no dragon and no reward. However this also causes massive destabilization of the earths crust causing lava veins all over the region to open, relighting previously dormant volcano's, and forcing mountains to erupt. Thus putting an entire region in danger from out of control volcanic activity which at the very least damages local civilizations and cripples trade giving them a whole other adventure Why yes I have used this encounter before :)
Depends on the dragon. I always roleplay copper dragons as tricksters and silver dragons as regal honor focused people for example. The thing you have to remember is that unless your playing a young dragon dragons are ancient creatures that live centuries and what could be a lifetime to us will seem like last month to them. So they might often seem arrogant and socially awkward due to the time displacement
Despite my necromantic interests I have never nor will I ever believe that the creation of undead or use of undead is a definite evil act. If thats what you want in your campaign world then thats ok but I dont buy into that philosophy. Necromancy is the school of magic that governs life and death. Paizo's books, and really lets be honest all 3.5 books I can think of, have always delt with the latter and not the former. I remember back in the old days of second edition when there were spells that would vitalize your party and allow for what many called "white necromancy" but in recent years thats just fallen by the wayside. With the various paizo books making a white necromancer that is a strong member of the party is incredibly difficult That said, lets think about the reasons why people think that the raising and use of undead is evil. What I always hear tends to rely on our (US or European) society as a basis. In other societies funerary rites are very different. I remember hearing stories of Christians being disgusted at ancient egyptian mummification practices because they saw the removal of organs as desecration of the body. Likewise certain groups in the south pacific (the ones I can think of are primarily the phillipenes) have practiced cannibilism as part of their funerary rites (similar to paizo's lizardfolk). In these socities funerary practices outside those we would use (and frankly see as desecration of the body) are common place and even desirable. In these cases what is really the good way to act. To let people continue with their own religious and/or philosophical beliefs or to impose the own characters societal teachings on strangers? In my opinion the answer is the former Going further into societal tendancies what happens when a society chooses to create undead and use them as part of their funerary practices? Undead live forever and there are many stories told of the "honored dead" in different societies, why not honored dead that still walk the earth and serve the people? Athiests often see death as just oblivion, they tend to believe there is nothing beyond death so could see why an athiest society choose a kind of immortal service then face that oblivion. In such a society what is the right thing to do? To impose the individuals beliefs on the beliefs of an entire society? To let them continue with their funerary rites as they always have (as long as the individual is willing)? Playing good isnt easy when a character is taken outside of their own society but IMO its more rewarding. That said, its these cases where I believe the good of undead can shine. If we keep things in european societies then yes its seen as evil in every context but its not wholly and unequivically evil because in societies besides them its seen in a very different light.
How about you take one of those recurring villains and make them have a change of heart, seeking real and lasting redemption? You could also let them destroy a true evil item, severe a portal to the "lower" planes, uncover a plot to murder and replace a noble or royal patron, have him join a political fight to help a segment of a population achieve equality. Theres a lot you can do thats still interesting without the constant morale questioning. Basicly Im saying ditch the morale quandires for a bit and once and awhile let him have an adventure where he can feel like the holy warrior he wants to be.
I suggest putting that wealth toward the betterment of your people. This usually means a country, town, or something like that but it could mean a race as well. You could also use it to build yourselves a home. Imagine using that money to build yourselves and the Kobolds a fortress where you'll always be safe (except in the case of an enemy army). Alternatively you could form an actual mining town and raise the standards of living within as the PCs act as the city council or some equivalent.
I think the best idea is to turn it into a quest. Maybe Erastil reveals a way to remove it in his dreams or gives him some other kind of vision. Alternatively maybe someone in Erastil's clergy can do it but they need something to do it like a powerful holy item or weapon to metaphorically speaking severe the corruption from his soul. I dont see a reason why he couldnt remain a paladin if he was a ghoul as long as he was 1. Intelligent and 2. kept his alignment. You could really play up the corruption idea like maybe as he see's a farm boy running by he has a sudden instinctual need to feed but barely fights it off. I think most paladins and clerics would be constantly watching him so while there might not be any actual penalties to the transformation (although there should be) there should certainly be some social ones like clerics, paladins, and inquisitors looking to put him out of his misery
You're not the only one, though I do prefer point buy. I like it more because it puts all the characters on equal footing and you dont have to worry about the player who was planning on playing a spellcaster and suddenly roll all their stats under 10 (this happened in my game three times before I changed to point buy). Likewise you dont have to worry about that barbarian/fighter who gets 3 18s If you prefer rolling then use it in your game. It has its place but I feel the high variables can really screw a player over or just create characters that have a very high potential to be disruptive.
I would like to see a lot more material to help me build a white necromancer style character. Almost like a non-cleric healer. Traditionally Necromancy has always been that form of magic that had a small selection of spells that made adventuring a heck of a lot easier. Thats not really the case today. Its mostly involved in undead creation/control/manipulation and is no longer the school of "Life and death". It even has Fear spells in its school which really should fall under the school of enchantment. I think pathfinder has lost what made necromancy cool back in 2nd edition and it really needs to be looked at
For me a good game requires both roleplaying and rollplaying to be successful. Its a delicate balance that brings out the most fun for me. Now theres nothing wrong with either exclusively if thats what you're into. If you want to fully optimize a character by scrutanizing every source then thats fine but at the same time expecting other players to do that is bad. Optimization as its commonly called is a playstyle On the flip side, exclusively roleplaying out ones characters is also an acceptable playstyle. If a group wants that then thats totally fine but they shouldnt be expecting others to conform to their style. Now if you find optimization disruptive then I think the best course of action is the best course of action for every problem. Sit down and talk to the player about it. Make your concerns known in a friendly non-accusatory manner
Stop taking what I say out of context. I didnt say a mantis wouldnt be worth making into a monster (in fact I agreed that they would be a nice addition). I said we just dont tend to think about them in terms of dangerous insects and monsters. There's no reason mantis monsters cant be included in a bestiary they are just overlooked
I'm really curious for the REAL reason all RPG-games, Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder (and what not?) doesn't use mantis monsters in their games, as there are enough possibilities with them and they aren't gentle at all. I just told you the real reason. Mantis are not a dangerous kind of insect in North america so we dont tend to think about them in terms of dangerous monsters Its not some huge conspiracy like you make it out to be
As I often do when I read the title of these kinds of threads my first reaction was "Of course not, why would it be?" No I dont think that drinking blood is inherantly evil. I think its inherantly creepy (as will NPCs) but that isnt the same thing. I think the idea of it being evil comes from the bible, specifically a passage that says (and Im paraphrasing here) "Dont drink the blood of another human being". Where that passage is and what it says exactly I cant say but I do know other religions have interpreted it to read blood transfusions as "Drinking" blood. Looking at what Evil is, I fail to see how such an act is inherantly evil. A Dhampir who's thristy could just drink from his/her willing lover or party member without any reprecussions to the good/evil spectrum. Going out and forcing him/herself on someone to drink would be evil but only because we get into the idea of unwilling victims. Without knowing your stance and the reasons on them its hard to say whether your right or wrong
I highly doubt someone told you that. So far as I know the mantis plays no role in Christian, Islam, or hindu religions which are the three largest in the world. In America christianity is the largest and having grown up catholic I can say with certanty the the insect has never been mentioned in any of its teachings If someone did tell you that, then they obviously dont know a thing about the various religions out there. Let alone the United states of America Now for what its worth, some mantis creatures would be a nice addition I had never really considered them before because we dont really think of them in this country. Spiders, bee's, and scorpions are what we tend to think of when we think dangerous insects thus why everyone wants more of them
or cavalier ethics. For me, not being able to use a mount consistantly really hurts the caviler. Now if they got aquatic mounts like a shark then were talking some more interesting ideas but then again there's the problem with lacking the detailed class selection. Lack of information keeps us guessing till we have read the AP Some cav ethics do fit though
I disagree. I think its necessary in the context that it helps players and GMs feel more comfortable with the setting, the AP, and their own characters in particular. This was the point I was trying to get across but I now wonder if I failed to elaborate my point of view.
Let me see if I can better articulate my point of view on the lack of class/race breakdowns. Doing so will require me to look at previous players guides for the various APs though Point 1 - Knowing where your character likely came from: In kingmaker we get a great breakdown of the different classes. For example the Wizard "Illusionists and enchanters, for example, often travel to the region to study the mysterious First World" or "The city of Skywatch in eastern Brevoy also attracts throngs of wizards who hope to unlock its
In both quotes we get a good idea of where a wizard could come from and players as well as GMs could use this in parts of roleplaying. Im running a kingmaker game right now on RPOL and my groups sorceress is a destined bloodline from Brevic nobility (as the guide suggests she comes from the Lebeda family). My players have just gotten to the second part in the AP and begun to build their kingdom but one thing Ive done is have her noble family ask for exclusive trade rights. This has helped make the game seem more alive to her, something I couldnt do without that information. Likewise if we had a wizard, I wouldnt have any clue of where he could have trained at to become a wizard. Apprenticeship is one idea but doing that over and over again gets old, so knowing an academy in the area or knowing why a wizard was likely to come there helps expand my knowledge and makes both the player and myself feel more comfortable about the setting. Point 2 - Knowing how your character was made: For this I mean the races and where they fit into the world. For example in the Carrion crown PG we learn that many orc attacks caused a great deal of orc blood to be mixed with citizens of Ustalav until hordes of Belkzen were pushed back. However for this one, we dont know if there are orc tribes in the shackles. We dont know if blood commonly mixes and with that we dont know if a half orc player really fits as a natural born citizen or if it would be more likely for them to come from somewhere else. Point 3 - Knowing how a character fits into the society: In Jade regent we learn that half elves are rare since most trysts never last long enough to make kids. However we also find out that they're mostly accepted in Varisian territory. However in Ustalav they're feared. These are important notes to know how your character responds and lives in that society. A dark and brooding halfling in Ustalav might want revenge on the entire country where one in Varisia might have no cause for vengence and focus their efforts on other things. Lacking this context, in my opinion, hurts S&S because people wont know where their characters stand. This is my biggest concern Point 4 - Knowing whats useful vs whats cool: This mostly refers to classes but can apply to racial abilities as well. This is just little tidbits of info like a rangers favored enemies/terrain that will be used. Whether a paladin can maintain their code and still function. What knowledge/profession skills will be useful. Its kind of the difference between playing a Corsair in S&S vs playing one in Kingmaker, if that makes any sense. You guys touched upon this in S&S and Im grateful for that, its a good middle ground Point 5 - Lacking information on the setting: Currently the book on the shackles is not out yet so we dont know a thing about the area besides whats on the wiki which is nothing really. Now that book will probably help to alieviate this problem but its still there and it touches on Point 4. For example if I wanted to make a druid I wouldnt know a thing about any of the druidic orders in the area. I wouldnt know if they see the Shackles as a blight upon the land due to heavy pollution and over fishing or if they see it as a community at one with it due to their society. These points are just off the top of my head, if I sat down and really thought about it I know I would have more. I dont know if I got my concerns across or not but maybe, just maybe, people can see where Im coming from and see why I think loosing the class/race part hurts the AP overall. I understand that some space had to be cut to make room for the naval rules and new weapons and I respect that but I still think the S&SPG is missing a key part that made the other AP's so great
The problem with this kind of thing is you get to design a scenerio that may not be entirely realistic inthe terms of a game. I know few GMs that would stack the deck so thoroughly against any character, let alone a paladin. Its almost like a logical fallacy, if that makes any sense. See the problem with this What if is the paladin knowing for sure the person is innocent. If he has the evidence and the court is fair and just then he can present that evidence and the person will be free. If that evidence isnt strong enough to get the person off then obviously it wasnt strong enough, for sure, to convince the paladin of the person's innocence.
How difficult is it to make, e.g., custom feats or archetypes in Hero Lab and have it figure them into its calculations? So my information is out of date, I thought that might have been the case, thus my note. However I have to be a bit contrary here. When I tried hero lab customization was not in the program. You couldnt do it and yes I tried and yes i contacted your support forums to see if I had missed something. If thats changed then thats good, its a needed improvement to the program and was one of the primary reasons I didn't like it. This still doesnt change the other problems I had with it. One of them being it doesnt teach people the game, it does all the work for them and new players will not learn why they get bonuses, when they get feats, how skills work, etc. Then perhaps my biggest problem with the program is, I find it completely worthless. It doesnt do anything that the human mind and my books, pen and paper cant do (things Im already going to own before herolab). So, for me, its an expense that literally provides me with nothing in return. Now it has to be pointed out that my experience with roleplaying goes back years to when I was a kid learning how to run 2nd edition (this was 1986) so generally my mind soaks up the information in the books like a sponge. New players wont have that same experience and knowledge but then we go back to my last listed problem, it wont teach them the game so they can get into my position of not needing it. So, from my point of view, a new player will likely find themselves reliant on the program till they grow complacent. If people want to use this program and accept its short comings Im totally fine with that, its their choice and their money. The problem is, you arent talking about its short comings at all
No you should give them capsize. Hippo's kill more people then any other animal in africa each year. Mostly by knocking over their boats
This is purely my opinion but I believe herolab is an uneeded tool. It lacks the flexibility that a regular character sheet grants you. For example in my game I grant all classes an additional 2 skill points per level to increase versatility in the group but herolab lacks the ability to make simple changes like these As a program it cant adjust to the wide variety of games, it can only write a sheet for RAW. Thus, for me, its a worthless tool even if it was free and the price tag only adds another reason not to get it. NOTE: It has been several months since I tried herolab so my information may be out of date now
Calculating bonuses can be a daunting task at first, thats why its best to figure this stuff out before the game. Again doing it during the game makes things harder for you and the group. What your reffering to here are three different things that adjust your damage. Normally you have your base damage, determined by a die type so for a greatclub it would be 1d10. Then you add your strength modifier, if 18 it would be +4, if wielding it two handed your total increases to 1.5 of the norm meaning +6 str mod adjustment. Now you look at feats, there are only 2 feats that adjust weapon damage (off the top of my head) which are weapon specilization and greater weapon specialization, each adding +2 (so +4 total). Your last bonus is magic, your GM should have informed you that a +1 weapon adds +1 to hit and damage. This is one of the first rules you learn about magic weapons and it will stick fast It sounds to me like you need to streamline your character sheet. So let me give you a potential resource. Go to http://plothook.net/ make yourself and account and use the pathfinder character sheets there. Once its completed print it out and you should have everything you need right there
This sounds like its filled with hyperbole but let me try and make some suggestions to help with the issues your having. Problem #1 Regarding tracking your bonuses for attack and damage (or anything else) this is why there's a character sheet. So you can easily keep track of things that will be different from other PCs. Amanda the sorceress is probably not going to have the same attack bonuses as Adam the fighter. So you make a character sheet (or print one out) with all your bonses laid out before the game. If you're using a longsword then before the game begins you should write in Longsword +4 attack (+1 Bab +2 STR mod +1 weapon focus) then you put in damage. Before the game you can look up your damage and find it does 1d8 damage plus str modifier so the total is 1d8+2 Saves and skills can be calculated the same way, allowing for easy and quick checking before you make the roll rather then scouring the rulebook. A little prepartion before the game makes the actual game go much smoother Could you tell me where you're having to scour 2 or 3 pages for one thing that are in seperate chapters of the book? I dont recall anything like that Problem #2 Leveling should be handled after or before the game, generally you dont want to do it during the game because it slows things down. On top of that sometimes you dont need all the bonuses listed unless something in it is temporary like a spell. Just write down what your totals are, again Longsword +4 attack 1d8+2 dmg. Then if you cast say divine power on yourself it goes to +7 attack (+3 divine power) 1d8+2 dmg Dont make it harder then you have to make it Problem #3 I dont understand what you mean here. "But why?" what is this question always referring to? My solution to running games for newbies is to slow down and keep things simple. People learn best by doing, so you let them play the game and you keep it slow without a ton of information. Eventually the newbie wraps their head around the mechanics to the point where they can be comfortable with it. At that time you add new, more advanced elements to your game. The best thing a newbie can do is read the whole core book and ask questions. As a GM I believe the only stupid question is the one you already know the answer to
Having just my first read through of the guide I have some mixed feelings about it. The good: I love the stuff for scars and missing limbs/body parts. The Naval combat chapter is pure gold (no, really guys I cant give it enough praise). The pirate weapons are also really awesome, finally I can have a hook hand and know what it does. All of that is just awesome! The mediocre: Maybe traits. Some of them are really interesting, others not so much. The bad: The format for classes/races in the shackles. I feel I need to elaborate on this more. Im not terribly familiar with the shackles and other players may not be (and yet other players will be intimately familiar with the region). So at first glance I have some issues figuring how say an aqautic druid would fit into the setting. It pretty much says yeah they can be there and they'll be useful for the game but it doesnt explain how druidic characters (or really any class) fits into the setting. The same goes for races, I mean would say a half orc be common in the area and if so would they be an immigrant or born there? Would they be welcomed or have the same racial tensions as every where else? I guess I just liked the previous formats like Carrion crown and Serpent's skull better because I felt like I could make any character and be pretty confident about why they would be there or how they would act in the area. I dont feel as comfortable with this format due to the lack of setting information
Generally I say no. I see to much of a conflict of interest and temptation involved to effectively have a GMPC. Even the best of us, when playing a beloved character, can be tempted to unfairly reward them. Whether one gives into that temptation or not varies from GM to GM The other problem becomes the GM then has another character that he has to worry about, making the work load of the game even greater. For me, I always try to give all my PCs a place to really shine every couple of sessions (if not every session) but if I were running a GMPC I would then have to add that character into the moments of awesomeness list, effectively designing a whole encounter around their strengths and not hitting their weaknesses would be the temptation On top of that it tends to be a problem for the players too. If they see a GMPC getting good stuff and getting those moments where they get to be awesome but they dont feel like theyre getting that same thing it can cause a lot of friction if not outright animosity. No I think GMPC's are nothing but trouble so I recommend all GMs avoid them like the plague
Ive run into all kinds of gaming from hard core optimizers to people who just play crazy combinations for the sake of playing crazy combinations In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with either style of play. Theyre both legitimate. I do think its wrong for optimizers to expect and even force other players to optimize their characters. Likewise people who play these crazy things shouldnt be expecting other players to also play something crazy if they dont want to.
I just began running a PBP Serpents skull game and the players have been exploring Smugglers shiv. I think its intentional but I got ideas of the Isle of dread in my head from Savage tide and I found myself missing the Masher. There is the giant moray eel to replace it but its missing something. So a replacement for the masher would be awesome
White-tailed deer on the west coast. There's also a species called wapiti; they're also commonly called elk, but are actually closer kin to European red deer than to moose. That depends on where you are. White tailed deer arent common in Oregon's coastline but they can be found just about anywhere else across the US. In the Oregon coast there is black tail deer. We also have elk in the area and the deer and elk dont get a long to well Having just used a small Death worm in a game the other day I would like to see much bigger varieties of the death worm.
Dwarves and elves also make good melee inquisitors because of their racial weapon profecencies. A dwarven war ax, or urgosh can really hurt in an inquisitors hands and the elven curve blade is pretty nice too. Personally Ive only played one inquisitor who was a half orc and follower of Pharasma. The falchion was an amazing weapon and with the Justice inquisition our Fighter and cleric of Gorum were terrors in melee. What I learned from that game was you really want to find a niche and stick to it. For me, I found my niche was buffing our melee heavy group with inquisitions during combat and spells before it. For skills I found it more effective to be the groups face with high social skills backed by a few knowledges but that game was mostly undead focused too. I didnt need a ton of knowledge skills but other games will
Having a high fortitude save (and probably a high constitution as well) poison and disease probably wont be as much of an issue to you unless you get bad rolls. However if youre still really worried about it being a dwarf would help for the poison. Plus that +2 to con isnt bad either Halflings with their +1 on all saves could help for both and they get the +2 to acrobatics and climb checks. If speed concerns you then you could start with a riding dog to essentially negate the problem. Problem is their ability score adjustments often dont fit that well for fighters Half elves can also counter one of the heavy armor skill penalties since they get skill focus to start. You also get +2 to a stat of your choice which is nice
Well the first thing that comes to my mind is the heat exhaustion you would be facing. This is easily countered with Endure elements. If you took UMD and got yourself a wand then you would be set for a long time. Alternatively maybe your wizard, sorcerer, cleric, what have you would be willing to cast it on you every day. Swim/climb checks is the other thing that you will struggle with but spells can easily fix those problems (again UMD with appropriate wands is a solution). Alternatively you can just tough it out and counterbalance the penalties with skill points and if you can spare the feat Athletic isnt a bad decision for the campaign. There are some other ways around it, for example if you have someone with a good climb skill and some rope they could pull you up. You could also help yourself maintain boyancy by just having some driftwood to float on. Perhaps the simplest option is to just remove your armor when you have to use those skills To counteract skill penalties the Armor expert trait will help. Assuming you get some traits Something to also keep in mind is you probably wont have access to heavy armor till after the first part of the adventure and if memory serves thats when those skills really count.
|
