Welcome players!
I would appreciate it if everyone could post asap, just as a means of confirming your entry into the game. Feel free to greet your fellow players and briefly introduce yourself as well, if you'd like.
There are a couple of issues I wanted to discuss before launching into the character creation process (but feel free to express your early thoughts about what you'd like to play at any time!)
1. Two of the five of you have expressed that you have previous experience at DMing or playing in the Shipyard Rats scenario. I also have a few other low-tier PFS scenarios, including The Third Riddle, Mists of Mwangi, and Silent Tide. Now, I have no problem trusting you all to not meta-game, separate player/character knowledge and all that, so there are no issues for me there. But I did wonder if it might not be more fun for those players to try to find a scenario that would be completely fresh for all concerned. Heck, I would even be willing to spring for a brand new scenario if there was one that everyone is keen to try. This is totally up to the players, though, and if everyone wants to proceed with Shipyard Rats, that's what we'll do (I'm not trying to pull a bait and switch here, honest!). Please weigh in with your thoughts.
2. I have been trucking along here under the assumption that we will generate some Pathfinder Society-oriented characters for the PFS Scenario, and then scrap those guys and make all new characters for The Serpent's Skull (with the benefit of the Player's Guide, stronger plot hooks, etc.). But, it occurred to me today that you all might have been under the impression that the same characters from the PFS scenario would be migrated over to the AP in August. And, actually, that would probably be doable if that's what y'all want. It's just a matter of whether you guys feel comfortable creating PCs who are basically 'disposable' and will be replaced in a few months, or whether you were interested in some sort of conitnuity between the appetizer and the main course. I can go either way, so again, please discuss your thoughts.
Once these issues have been hammered out, we'll get you guys going on PC creation. As I said, if you want to start tossing ideas around now, that's fine too. Shared background ideas are certainly permissible, if you'd like. Party balance, of course, is always good to keep in mind as well (one of the major reasons why I didn't ask for character ideas with your initial applications...balance would go right out the window).
As a reminder, these will be our character creation guidelines (the point about traits is newly added):
-1st level PCs
-No evil alignments
-20 point buy for ability scores
-average starting gold by class
-Maximum hp at first level
-Core classes only, no APG playtests
-No traditionally evil races (goblins, orcs, drow, etc.)
-Faction goals optional (at player's discretion)
-Two traits allowable per PC. Each must come from a different category. Rich Parents is not an available choice. Traits from sources other than the free basic download are possibilities, but must be approved by me beforehand (including faction traits from the PFS guide).
Mmmkay, I'll shut up. You guys talk now.
Let's make it a great game!
-David
I'm going to roll with a cleric of Cayden Callien(spelling looks wonky...don't have my book with me!) and I'll have him up this evening most likely! Thanks for letting me in. This'll be a great game!
As far as module goes, I've not played any of them or DM'd any of them. My DMing tends to run towards full campaigns rather than one shots. That being said, I'm good with whatever the group consensus decides.
I can do either a disposable character, or hang on to this one. It matters not to me! I enjoy rolling characters, but I also like finding one I love and sticking with him/her.
Anyway, happy gaming and I'll toss something in this thread soon!
Checking in as requested...
1...I did wonder if it might not be more fun...to find a scenario that would be completely fresh for all concerned....if everyone wants to proceed with Shipyard Rats, that's what we'll do....Please weigh in with your thoughts.
I'm game for any short introductory piece as a springboard into Serpent's Skull. Nothing too involved, but obviously, it would need to last us long enough to eventually get to the release date for the initial chapter of that AP. I'm familiar with "Shipyard Rats" enough to recall that it starts out in the port city of Cassomir in Taldor. And Serpent's Skull will eventually start out on a ship headed towards the coast of the Mwangi Expanse. So, that could make "Shipyard Rats" into a believable first step if you want to transition the same characters from that low-level adventure into the AP...and doubly so, if you're going to have us affiliated with the Pathfinder Society, which is one of several key factions involved in Serpent's Skull.
On the other hand, if we're not going to bring these characters over from the short scenario into Serpent's Skull, none of that matters. And we can play through anything while we wait for the AP to become available.
2. I have been...under the assumption that we will generate some Pathfinder Society-oriented characters for the PFS Scenario, and then scrap those guys and make all new characters for The Serpent's Skull....But, it occurred to me...you all might have been under the impression that the same characters from the PFS scenario would be migrated over to the AP in August.
That was my assumption, yes.
...that would probably be doable if that's what y'all want. It's just a matter of whether you guys feel comfortable creating PCs who are basically 'disposable' and will be replaced in a few months, or whether you were interested in some sort of conitnuity between the appetizer and the main course. I can go either way, so again, please discuss your thoughts.
I think I'd prefer the continuity of sticking with the same character. Even if you just wanted to run something generic to get us headed towards the Mwangi Expanse rather than a PFS scenario, I'd be okay with that, too.
...we'll get you guys going on PC creation. As I said, if you want to start tossing ideas around now, that's fine too. Shared background ideas are certainly permissible, if you'd like. Party balance, of course, is always good to keep in mind as well...
I can fill any role. And, seeing as Sully has the party cleric covered, here are the potential characters I could run:
1) LG Human Fighter or Ranger (eventually multiclassing to pick up some levels in Monk) - Definitely the adventurous sort. Relishes the challenge of pitting himself against opponents in hand-to-hand combat. A vocal, motivated, leader-type without being overbearing. Just a man-of-action kind of concept with a flair for a variety of fighting styles.
2) CG Human or Half-Elf Rogue - A tomb raider, delver type of character. Very motivated by unearthing artifacts and treasures. Possible Pathfinder connections. Very Indiana Jones-ish type of guy in that he would have both an intellectual side as well as a action-adventure side to him.
3) NG Half-Elf Wizard or Sorcerer (possibly multiclassing to pick up some levels in Ranger) - Just your all-around adventurer. His mixed heritage leaves him feeling like he has no specific home. Likes to explore and see the world, making friends along the way and opposing the heavy-handed evils he encounters.
My three-cents,
--Neil
I've played the "Indiana Jones" rogue in a campaign before. It's a hugely fun concept. You get to do all the crazy acrobatics, avoid the traps, stab the BBEG in the back, and then lecture everybody on the ancient heiroglyphics on the wall.
In other words, crazy fun!
I've played the "Indiana Jones" rogue in a campaign before. It's a hugely fun concept. You get to do all the crazy acrobatics, avoid the traps, stab the BBEG in the back, and then lecture everybody on the ancient heiroglyphics on the wall.
If I go that route, I'll probably take the rogue talents for minor magic and major magic somewhere down the road and invest in Use Magic Device to help substitute for the party wizard/sorcerer and cleric in the event we need someone else to use a wand or scroll. That should help the party balance and flexibility, I think.
|
Also checking in. I'm looking forward to playing with all of you.
1. Two of the five of you have expressed that you have previous experience at DMing or playing in the Shipyard Rats scenario. . . .
I'm fine with either option.
2. . . .But, it occurred to me today that you all might have been under the impression that the same characters from the PFS scenario would be migrated over to the AP in August.
I think that I'd prefer a non-mandatory option to continue. The adventure could be a good trial run for character concepts as well as party cohesion. This would allow us to keep the characters that are working, but switch out any that aren't working for whatever reason.
Here are some character ideas that I've been playing with:
1) A NG Pathfinder bard or rogue with an interest in archeology sparked by a mishap with an old artifact. This character would be a little Indy-like, but more driven by his specific maguffin.
2) A LG abberant-bloodline sorceror with a several-year memory gap in his past that left him with his unusual abilities. This character would be more like the H.P. Lovecraft protagonist in The Shadow Out of Time.
3) A LG fighter or ranger who was the sole survivor of a major expedition to the wilds of Sargava. Determined to make sure that it doesn't happen again; also, he may have incurred the wratch of the expedition's sponsors for causing (or appearing to cause) the failure. A bit like Alistair from Dragon Age, but less goofy.
I'm flexible, though, and I have no strong preference among the three yet. If NSpicer has his heart set on playing Indy 2.0, I'm happy to tweak my concept 1) or to think of yet another option.
|
|
If I go that route, I'll probably take the rogue talents for minor magic and major magic somewhere down the road and invest in Use Magic Device to help substitute for the party wizard/sorcerer and cleric in the event we need someone else to use a wand or scroll. That should help the party balance and flexibility, I think.
I think this is a great idea, and it fits with the adventuring scholar concept.
I think this is a great idea, and it fits with the adventuring scholar concept.
If I go that route, I'll probably take the rogue talents for minor magic and major magic somewhere down the road and invest in Use Magic Device to help substitute for the party wizard/sorcerer and cleric in the event we need someone else to use a wand or scroll. That should help the party balance and flexibility, I think.
I strongly agree, making this my favorite of the three concepts that Neil has offered.
Eric, I am intrigued by the possibilities presented by your sorcerer idea. LG alignment, but aberrant bloodline; sounds like a cool dichotomy with fun role-playing implications.
But let's see what our other players have in mind.
I think that I'd prefer a non-mandatory option to continue. The adventure could be a good trial run for character concepts as well as party cohesion. This would allow us to keep the characters that are working, but switch out any that aren't working for whatever reason.
This sounds like the way to go, as I think more on it. Characters could be created with the intent to last long-term, but changes could always be made after the short intro adventure, if in the group's best interest.
I'm also really thinking that running Mists of Mwangi might be a fun way to get the party interested in what's happening down in Garund. That scenario is set in Absalom, which really would be no more or less difficult a launching point than Cassomir. Either way, it's a long boat trip to Sargava. :)
|
A) Checking in.
B) I am very flexible with the scenario. I've also play Mists of Mwangi, which again, I feel confident I can keep from metagame play. I would actually prefer to play one I've run, so I don't spoil it during table play--but I'd even eat a scenario for a good, committed group.
C) I'm very flexible with character. I'd even be happy to play the all-muscle fighter if that is something the group needs--and it doesn't appear anyone is headed in that direction. I struggle with the concept of Barbarians and Paladins in the Pathfinder Society. Eric mentioned the Bard, which I thought about and have never played. For discussion let me put my ordered preference:
1) Bard
2) Fighter
3) Cleric
4) Wizard
As I see the other backgrounds coming together, I'll fit myself in somewhere--relationally.
I also like the idea of carrying characters over IF we like them, but have the option of scrapping them if not. We could even do a party "reboot" having all the same characters, meeting up for the first time all over again.
|
|
Okay, I'll think more about the sorceror. I was envisioning a gradual physical transformation similar to The Fly. Rather than becoming hideous, however, he would receive a non-human intelligence's version of an idealized human form. The creepy, doll-like handsomeness would make the extendible arms even more disturbing.
Okay, I'll think more about the sorceror. I was envisioning a gradual physical transformation similar to The Fly. Rather than becoming hideous, however, he would receive a non-human intelligence's version of an idealized human form. The creepy, doll-like handsomeness would make the extendible arms even more disturbing.
Thanks Eric. Now I'll have nightmares tonight.
|
|
Okay, I'll think more about the sorceror. I was envisioning a gradual physical transformation similar to The Fly. Rather than becoming hideous, however, he would receive a non-human intelligence's version of an idealized human form. The creepy, doll-like handsomeness would make the extendible arms even more disturbing.
I by no means wanted to scare you off of the bard. If you have an itch to play a bard, then please do so. I'm just thinking about playing a class that I've yet to play.
However, if I do play it now and don't like it or you think you can do better ;P then I can give it up with Skull.
|
|
I by no means wanted to scare you off of the bard. If you have an itch to play a bard, then please do so. I'm just thinking about playing a class that I've yet to play.
That's okay: Go for it. We may have Golarion Jones in the party already, so I'll plan on the abbermancer unless hedgeknight's first choice is a mage.
I also like the idea of carrying characters over IF we like them, but have the option of scrapping them if not. We could even do a party "reboot" having all the same characters, meeting up for the first time all over again.
I'm not a huge fan of the 'reboot' idea, but I will have no problem with any of you creating a brand new character if the first is deemed unsuitable for some reason. Still, I'd encourage you to create a PC that you hope to carry over, because I'm going to try my best to create a link between the PFS scenario and the introduction to Serpent's Skull.
Of course, since it will be some time yet before the Skull stuff is available, I can't make any promises. But I'm gonna try. :)
Checking in and very appreciative of being a part of this game. I am fine with keep the same character into the AP or switching up - whatever works best for the game.
I have two characters created in my aliases. One is a crusty dwarven fighter who loves...to fight! The second is a halfling rogue - both are pretty much straightforward single-class characters. Of course, I'll be glad to role up something else. Not interested in a mage though. A priest would be okay or even a barbarian.
So far we have a definite cleric and a sorcerer...right?
Excellent, everyone is present and accounted for! :D
So far we have a definite cleric and a sorcerer...right?
That does appear to be the case.
Lock me in as the party rogue. I'm going with a half-elf to take advantage of the Skill Focus feat so I can apply it to his Use Magic Device skill. Not sure if I'll ever multiclass him. At the moment, I'm thinking not...but maybe a prestige class somewhere down the road if we make it that far.
Sounds good, Neil. So, with a cleric, sorcerer, and rogue accounted for, it would be a very good thing if either Curn_Bounder or hedgeknight would play a martial character. Otherwise, the party looks well balanced.
Those who have made up their minds can go ahead and start putting together a character sheet (and corresponding alias) any time now.
Yeah I'm definitely going to go cleric. I envisioned having more time tonight, but I'm in a band and we've got a gig Friday so practice ran a bit long this evening. I'll try to get a barebones something or other up tonight, but I'm off all evening tomorrow as well so I'll do it then, worst case scenario.
Anyway, good to meet you all! It'll be good to game with you.
No problem at all, Sully. I certainly wasn't expecting that fast of a turnaround on character creation anyhow! I'm sure we'll get the PCs put together over the next few days, and that will be fine.
I'll gladly play a dwarven fighter - already got him fleshed out in my aliases page - Thumparr Ironfist - will be easy to tweak him to fit this game. Is that alright?
If so, that means we have a fighter, a cleric, a rogue, and a sorcerer.
I was thinking of a dwarven bard--either with skills in oration or with a mighty war drum--still mulling it over.
So, to sum it up...
Sully - Cleric of Cayden Cailean
NSpicer - Half-Elf Rogue
Eric Zylstra - Human Sorcerer (Aberrant Bloodline)
hedgeknight - Dwarf Fighter
Curn_Bounder - Dwarf(?) Bard
I like that mix, especially given that I've been partial to dwarves ever since I read The Hobbit way back when.
I have definitely decided to DM 'Mists of Mwangi' as our PFS intro adventure. Please write a background for your PC with the character ending up in Absalom, ready to do a job for the Pathfinder Society. This doesn't mean characters have to be full-fledged members, they could also be freelancers brought in for this one job. If your character is a member of the society, and you want to belong to one of the five regional factions, that's fine also...just let me know. Completion of a faction mission will be only for depth of role-playing and the character's story, though. There won't be a tangible reward, per se.
Let me know if you have any questions as you work on character sheets and backgrounds. I'm here to help!
Out of curiosity, could an aberrant-bloodline wizard feint with his unnatural reach? Even if he could, I'll have too few feats to take Improved Feint, but I was wondering about the option.
Let me look into this and get back to you, Eric.
Out of curiosity, could an aberrant-bloodline wizard feint with his unnatural reach? Even if he could, I'll have too few feats to take Improved Feint, but I was wondering about the option.Let me look into this and get back to you, Eric.
Having looked into it, I can't see any reason why your PC couldn't feint with long limbs. So, the answer to your question is yes, as far as I'm concerned.
Just FYI...in designing my rogue concept, I may take him down the path to Improved Feint to better take advantage of sneak attack opportunities in combat (aside from flanking).
Just FYI...in designing my rogue concept, I may take him down the path to Improved Feint to better take advantage of sneak opportunities in combat (aside from flanking).
A design that's not for the feint of heart!
sorry.
Just FYI...in designing my rogue concept, I may take him down the path to Improved Feint to better take advantage of sneak opportunities in combat (aside from flanking).A design that's not for the feint of heart!
sorry.
That's my job...
A design that's not for the feint of heart!
We'll find out if that design "tag" is appropriate, I guess. The bottom line for the rogue I'm designing is that he's a finesse guy...decidedly not a blunt instrument. He's going to out-duel adversaries and out-smart them. And, when he finds an opening (via Improved Feint), he'll try and land a single killing blow whenever possible. Nothing blood-thirsty or anything. Just a skilled swordsman who doesn't believe in wasting energy on outlasting superior warriors (via a high Str or high hit point total).
Sounds great, Neil.
|
|
Out of curiosity, could an aberrant-bloodline wizard feint with his unnatural reach? Even if he could, I'll have too few feats to take Improved Feint, but I was wondering about the option.Having looked into it, I can't see any reason why your PC couldn't feint with long limbs. So, the answer to your question is yes, as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks! That made sense to me too.
I was considering the feat tree ending in Greater Feint, as flat-footing opponents all over the battlefield was enticing. Sadly, it's too many feats for a caster, especially if the party rogue already has it covered.
Character building is in progress. I'll try to finish up a rough draft in a couple of days and then get your comments.
Party rogue statistically completed. Still have to go back and write up background, physical description, personality, and tactics. But this should give you an idea where I'm headed. If you have any comments or further guidance, let me know...
David, take a look at Thumparr in my alias section - what do I need to do to him besides adjust the background?
Which I need help on - how does a dwarf end up in Absalom? Is he born there? Could he be from Qadira? Any help from you fellers is appreciated.
Which I need help on - how does a dwarf end up in Absalom? Is he born there? Could he be from Qadira? Any help from you fellers is appreciated.
Why not make him something other than a dwarf? How about a human fighter? Seems like that would fit better...not only for starting out in Absalom...but also for an adventure that will eventually take you into the jungles of the Mwangi Expanse. I don't imagine there are very many dwarves there...much less dwarves who willingly choose to go there.
I was thinking the same thing, Neil. I like the character concept, but it might not work in this setting. I'm up for a human fighter...got several ideas in mind.
Character is done on paper, I'm just in the process of transferring him to the boards. He'll be up soon!
Any idea when you're looking to actually get the ball rolling, Dr. DM?
"Hail, and well met! I'm Leofrik Forthwind, but me friends call me Frik. By the light of the Starstone, I'm at yer service."
Got most of the crunch done. Need to add traits, a feat, and pick domains and spells then he's done.
I should finish background and description by tomorrow night.
|
|
I have some questions about touch attacks.
1) Would Weapon Finess apply to melee touch attacks?
2) I notice that Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot refer to "ranged weapons." Does this include ranged touch attacks? If not, are ranged touch attacks affected by the -4 penalty for shooting into melee?
3) Is the Additional Traits feat an option?
Just my two-cents...and completely overrule-able by David as the GM. It's his game, after all. ;-)
1) Would Weapon Finesse apply to melee touch attacks?
A melee touch attack is very similar to an Improved Unarmed Strike (i.e., it doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity since it threatens your opponent). Because of that, I would view a melee touch attack as benefitting from the same effects of Weapon Finesse as a regular unarmed strike would...i.e., the description for Weapon Finesse indicates you can apply it to unarmed strikes. So, I'd say yes for melee touch attacks, too. This exact same question came up awhile back on the Kobold Quarterly boards and 'the sage' answered the same way. Weapon Finesse can be applied to melee touch attacks.
2) I notice that Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot refer to "ranged weapons." Does this include ranged touch attacks? If not, are ranged touch attacks affected by the -4 penalty for shooting into melee?
Ranged touch attacks like rays definitely incur the -4 penalty for shooting into a melee, because there's still the same chance you might accidentally "touch" your comrade with it if he unexpectedly moves in the wrong direction at the wrong time. Because of that, feats like Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot can definitely be applied to rays or ranged touch attacks to offset that penalty. You basically treat them just like regular ranged attacks with a bow. You can even score a critical hit with a ranged touch attack and multiply the damage of your ray if it hits a more vulnerable spot on your opponent.
3) Is the Additional Traits feat an option?
I believe it is, but David can confirm. Even if you take it, keep in mind the restriction that your additional traits have to come from a different list than those you've already selected for your normal two traits. That pretty much means you'll be selecting one from each list unless you dive into some of the racial trait lists.
My two-cents,
--Neil
Grand Day gentlemen.
Torden Ironcask, traveler, tale-teller, and tune thumper.
[Dwarven Bard--Crunch and back-story completed, just need to post it--will be up soon.]
Party rogue statistically completed. Still have to go back and write up background, physical description, personality, and tactics. But this should give you an idea where I'm headed. If you have any comments or further guidance, let me know...
I'll have a closer look at Jonagher later today, and let you know my thoughts.
I was thinking the same thing, Neil. I like the character concept, but it might not work in this setting. I'm up for a human fighter...got several ideas in mind.
This sounds fine, hedgeknight...looking forward to your ideas.
Any idea when you're looking to actually get the ball rolling, Dr. DM?
I was thinking Monday of next week might be a good target date, but it all depends on the length of character creation, of course.
@Everyone: If you could, please do let me know when your character sheets' crunchy bits have been 100% completed, so I can review. As far as I can tell, only Neil's rogue is ready for me to look over thus far. A couple of pointers to keep in mind:
1. Please remember to indicate your character's favored class, and if relevant, whether you took a bonus hit point or skill point at first level.
2. Please don't forget to apply Armor Check Penalties to the necessary skill totals (if you like, include an alternate total for when out of armor, but the 'default' number should be when wearing your armor)
Thanks!
I'm totally gonna be lurking and paying attention, even if I didn't get my homework done in time for the cut. :)
Mists of Mwangi (and the Serpent's Skull AP) sounds tres cool.
Thanks for the kind words, Set! I'm happy to have you lurk along for the ride. :)
I have some questions about touch attacks.
1) Would Weapon Finess apply to melee touch attacks?
2) I notice that Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot refer to "ranged weapons." Does this include ranged touch attacks? If not, are ranged touch attacks affected by the -4 penalty for shooting into melee?
3) Is the Additional Traits feat an option?
Eric, my answers to these questions are pretty much exactly as Neil so helpfully posted above. I'll let his words stand as my own, with gratitude for saving me the trouble. :D
1. Please remember to indicate your character's favored class, and if relevant, whether you took a bonus hit point or skill point at first level.
I've marked it for you under his hit points. Also, a half-elf receives two favored classes. So, for now, you can assume rogue is one of them. If I ever multiclass him, the second class will also become one. I don't anticipate triple-classing him, though I suppose a prestige class could be possible down the road. But, since prestige classes are never treated as a favored class, that won't matter.
2. Please don't forget to apply Armor Check Penalties to the necessary skill totals...
Done deal.
I've updated Jonagher's tactics (in case you ever need to NPC him if I'm on vacation or something) and I'm working on character background now. I'll target having it all done by Monday.
Sounds great, Neil. And, you raised a good point which I will address to everyone.
While I'm not going to go so far as to require a 'tactics' section on your character sheets, it is really a good idea, and I highly recommend all of you do so. If an extended absence from any player requires me to NPC actions in combat, this is where I would turn for guidance. Please consider it, everyone.
Neil, I looked over Jonagher's sheet.
There's one small snag that I can see. To my knowledge, his club shouldn't be eligible for Weapon Finesse, because it's not a Light weapon.
One other concern...encumbrance. Jonagher's carrying roughly 59 pounds of gear, by my math, which would put him on the upper end of a Medium load. According to the RAW, he should have reduced movement speed, additional ACP skill penalties, yada yada. But, the thing is...I hate Encumbrance, both as a player and as a DM. I'm considering house-ruling out penalites for Medium loads (but Heavy loads would still be enforcible, just to avoid abuse potential). Armor Penalties for medium/heavy armor would still be in effect, however. Thoughts, all?