Lylandra
Member

...re is a core adventure path that runs directly from levels 3-20 while leaving enough room for the DM and players to take it in different directions. There are several big battles, but instead of turning into a wargame, the PCs embark on key missions to influence the battle to success or failure. RangerWickett was the campaign manager for both this and Zeitgeist (and wrote several chapters of each) and did a great job on both adventure paths. It includes chapters written by: Jacob Driscoll Wil Upchurch Wolfgang Baur Andrew Kenrick Jeremy Anderson Ari Marmell Ken Marable Shane O'Connor I do not know every adventure path out there, but I think this may be the closest a DM can get to a Record of Lodoss War​ style campaign in a prepackaged adventure path. For further information: wotbsadventurepath.com You can also follow my campaign which is only a couple of sessions in: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?631729-Tormyr-s-War-of-the-Burning-Sky-campaign-spoilers-abound @Lylandra is running the 3.5 (or 4e?) version, is over halfway through, provides exceptional session writeups, and is reviewing the 5e product before it goes to publication. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?493652-Lylandra-s-War-of-the-Burning-Sky-continued

I was not a 2e guy - so I did not realize that! <turns and shakes fist at that book> Yeah, I just posted on the sister thread about best purchases that among my favorite purchases were the 2e books Lylandra mentioned. They cut a lot of the stuff that made those books really good, leaving some of the leftovers for the 3.x book, and then adding the (pretty useless) 3e avatar stats. Now the 2e books did have avatar stats as well, but they were much less complex, thus leaving extra room for more interesting stuff, unlike those bloated 3.x epic stat blocks...

...ault folks for not being unaware - nope but I do fault folks who are aware and then consciously choose to continue to support racism as if it being in a game makes it some how less real and thus an okay thing to do. I wonder how they would feel if someone started using their personal subject of racism in a game and belittled it just as equally. Would it be okay then? Some how I doubt it. Personally I feel we should judge a person by their character not by the color of their skin, or their height, or their weight, or their <insert some physical characteristic here>. Or as the German individual pointed out how folks keep equating Germany to a small window of time of its existence compared to the totality of its existence due to a stereotypical form of racism. This might get a little sticky I presume if what you are trying to portray is that time period of Germany's history but perhaps they are only meaning in cases where that is not the specific case -- not sure on that one perhaps @Lylandra will clarify what they mean.

If you assume that halflings are built to the same body plan as humans, then yes, you are correct. They probably only weigh 30 pounds, and that severely limits maximum strength. You might assume that halflings are no more strong than toddlers. However, humans are built along one of the lowest strength to mass ratios of any animal their size - built for caloric efficiency and endurance, not power. A typical 80 pound female chimpanzee is stronger than a typical 200lb male human. Supposing that halflings are built along the same body plan as chimpanzees, with relatively thicker bones and larger attachment points for muscles, and more fast muscle and less slow muscle gets us a very different answer. Such a body plan might also explain why halflings are afraid of water in the source material - they don't have near neutral buoyancy the way humans do, and instead sink like rocks. It also explains why halflings would be so athletic for their size. Interesting. I remember @Lylandra mentioning something similar early on in the thread. At the outset I'm no expert in this field, so my response is purely from a layman's perspective. I realise you are not disputing me on this but for the sake of the debate, the reason I'm reluctant to follow the chimpanzee/thicker bones or muscle idea is due to the following factors: (1) Physical characteristics of halflings resemble humans. (2) The lifestyle and movement style of a chimpanzee is different to a halfling. The halfling moves and lives much like humans do. (3) In the 2e Gnome & Halfling's Handbook the book is filled with numerous references about how quick wits and agility are their defense against brute strength which would certainly reflects that a strong physiology doesn't even enter the equation as a factor for defence. Furthermore every Halfling (including Kender) except for the Athasian Halfing has a maximum STR of 17 or 16. In 2e the 17 STR would provide a +1 to hit/+1 dmg whereas humans could go as far as 18/00...

Ok, here it goes. 1) Ogres usually are smaller than giants, and usually there's room for them to maneuver and such. Otherwise, it may look as silly as chainmail bikinis. 2) It still is a too big stretch for many people. Also, trolls regenerate. Humans do not - same with elves, dwarves, etc. Not without magic. 3) Because this process justifies anything, including chainmail bikinis.* Gamers have to deal with that in electronic RPGs. Those who defend it use the exact same argument as you. Honestly, I have dubious preferences for realism, but I can see their point. 4) Honestly, every race being equally capable at every class is just too bland. This especially 4) But @Lylandra your RL explanation of Adamant is really good, I always thought adamant is kind of forged diamond, now I know better. On your preferences, the last thing I want to do is calling your opinion badwrongfun don't get me wrong on that. I think that you are from a younger generation than I am and you probably got conditioned by the stereotypes of the MMPORPG hype, just as us oldschoolers rather grew up with the classic in ways totally unbalanced RP Systems. The good thing about it is 5E allows each of us to use their preferred style and that is most important. With my players I had to adopt a bit in your direction, as they are a bit younger than me and grew up mainly with 3rd edition although I think in the beginning they did some Ad&d. So I did accept a barbarian dwarf, the only condition was he had to use a great axe and not a halberd, and he did that for my better emersion to the game. In fact I put the timeframe on this campaign to 1000 A.D. so halberds wouldn't exist in that setting....

...e brigands that live there." or B) You hear reports of banditry in the area and the local constabulary is unable to locate the thieves. The town guard has put out a call for help and is offering a reward for anyone that can eliminate this menace. You learn that the bandits always leave a strange mark on their dead victims. After patrolling the roads you come across an unfortunate carriage. The footman and guards are dead, each marked with this strange symbol. A symbol that looks very familiar to the ranger. In fact, you're pretty sure that it's the same symbol that the men that stole your sister were wearing on their tunics.... When I am a player, I often worry that I'm annoying or bugging the DM. I frequently talk to them about what's happening in the campaign, how my character reacts and what I see him doing in the future. And it's not that I want to be the center of attention, in fact I can be shy at times, but I know that as a DM I crave that feedback so much. EDIT: Lylandra do you know what changed between campaigns? Was it a difference in styles? Did someone smack him upside the head? I was in a campaign recently where we had a chaos monger similar to yours. Every time the DM tried to meet that player half way he rejected whatever storyline she proposed. "Hey, this looks like it might have some info on your missing brother." "Nah, that's okay. I go drinking and gambling instead."

I don't have so much of a problem with alignment per se. Using the evil necromancer and his undead minions as an example, then being a hero can very much include killing this individual to end his threat. What irks me is the inclusion of whole naturally occuring cultures/peoples/species that are quasi "always evil" as if evil was ingrained into their DNA, making them free to kill on sight for everyone who deem themselves good. Because this greatly reduces individualism and kills off different ways of solving problems. Also, I find the inclusion of alignment into genetics very, very troubling. For example, even if Goblins have a very different culture and social structure, a canny hero could use these structures to keep the Goblins at bay. Intimidate them. Duel their chieftain/greatest champion to show your superiority. Make the greatest, biggest bomb in existence. Tolkien's Goblins literally are tainted from the get go. There's no "good goblin" - they're all born bewed to unfighta...

What irks me is the inclusion of whole naturally occuring cultures/peoples/species that are quasi "always evil" as if evil was ingrained into their DNA, making them free to kill on sight for everyone who deem themselves good. Because this greatly reduces individualism and kills off different ways of solving problems. Also, I find the inclusion of alignment into genetics very, very troubling. Isn't it possible you find it troubling because you're anthropomorphizing an alien creature? We don't live in a world where Gods walk on the planet and literally create new creatures from magic. Their genetics, along with much of their physics, literally doesn't work like ours does. We humans are not born with an alignment - but a fantasy setting can posit, as part of the setting assumptions, that some alien creatures are born with an alignment. Much like they're born with magic. Allowing for that setting doesn't speak to anything troubling about our own real world and real world genetics - nor is i...

They even had a CHA flaw in PF1, so I don't think it makes too much sense to give them a boost now. If they wish to include the Goblin in PF2 core, I guess they'll need to fit the +2 to 2 stats (one mental, one physical), -2 to 1, +2 flex pattern. So why not +2 to Int to make them better alchemists? I still think Wisdom is the score to give them +2 in, (and Charisma the one to give them -2 in) but since I’m tired of arguing about it, I’ll say I’d rather their mental boost go to Intelligence than Charisma.

Yeah, I'm not too fond of the small = charismatic equation. There should be un-charismatic smallfolk, especially for those who like Hobbit-like characters and I'm not sure whether Goblins should have a baseline Cha bonus. Also, I'm a bit afraid that this leaves the medium sized or larger ancestries with no high-cha option which would be really sad. Yeah, goblins are pretty much the opposite of charisma. They are simultaneously unappealing and not taken too seriously. Going by folklore, make the goblin stats inferior to a human − weaker, dumber, more frail, more obtuse − but then give them magic ability to compensate.

What irks me is the inclusion of whole naturally occuring cultures/peoples/species that are quasi "always evil" as if evil was ingrained into their DNA, making them free to kill on sight for everyone who deem themselves good. Because this greatly reduces individualism and kills off different ways of solving problems. Also, I find the inclusion of alignment into genetics very, very troubling. For example, even if Goblins have a very different culture and social structure, a canny hero could use these structures to keep the Goblins at bay. Intimidate them. Duel their chieftain/greatest champion to show your superiority. Make the greatest, biggest bomb in existence. Now I understand how other players might want a different style to their game, especially in terms of relaxing escapism vs. puzzle/problem-solving escapism. I, too, do love a playing good hack'n slay adventure game on my computer. And if I ever get the opportunity to play a PC in a Diablo-esque world, I would most likely slay m...

What irks me is the inclusion of whole naturally occuring cultures/peoples/species that are quasi "always evil" as if evil was ingrained into their DNA, making them free to kill on sight for everyone who deem themselves good. Because this greatly reduces individualism and kills off different ways of solving problems. Also, I find the inclusion of alignment into genetics very, very troubling. Why? Modern science is continually trying to prove that genes play a role in humankind's gender preferences and various personality traits.

Slaying and vanquishing isn't much better than killing. And honestly, I don't like black&white moral games where there are "people" who are, by definition, evil, and free to kill. Goblins are intelligent (monstrous) humanoids capable of emotions and conscious thoughts. (Outsiders are on a different level though)If you want there to be moral conflicts, then you're more than welcome to say that goblins are just people like anyone else, and killing a goblin is sad because you should have been able to find another way. Personally, I don't want to worry about that sort of thing - I can just use human villains if I want there to be a moral conflict - and so goblins at my table are a type of demon. It's way easier, the game moves more quickly, and there's not nearly as much values dissonance between the player and the character.

Slaying and vanquishing isn't much better than killing. And honestly, I don't like black&white moral games where there are "people" who are, by definition, evil Well that's fair, but we're talking about D&D where the default for the game is that alignment is a real thing in that game world, and goblins are in fact evil by definition. They commit horrible atrocities on a daily basis, as not only part of their culture, but as part of their religion and arguably as part of their genetics (given fantasy themes about Deities who create and influence their creations). You can play in a setting where you change those defaults, but we're talking about the general game. And frankly, I think there are probably better rules systems than D&D for a default-non-violent setting to function better. The question raised by the OP is whether it's "a problem" for the default setting to assume evil alignments as part of groups of creatures, and killing those creatures as a default manner of dealing with...

Not only in your experience. That was also the main reason why we didn't care for magic item creation in 3e (okay and the fact that using myriads of exp for high level items would have made no sense at all for the creator... You wish to buy a headband of intellect? Okay, gotta slay a dragon to get enough "resources") It used to be common to have to kill Dragons for "resources" before 3e. For example it is very difficult to make Dragonscale Armour when the Dragon is still using its Scales.

Ooh finally! Looking forward to see more of your group's tales. And an Ostalinian martial artist named Byron Kassonova? Gotta hide my own girl now ;) Oops, the martial artist and bard descriptions got a little merged together. Two of the character's names are puns/have a hidden fun bit to them. I only caught one of them, but that PC's player picked up on the other one immediately.

Mh, thinking about the new critical miss mechanic, I do see lower level ranged or melee attackers not using a "full attack" because they fear a crit failure on their last (-10) attack roll. Now this isn't a problem when these types get attack actions that are more powerful but use multiple actions, but it would be one if "I attack" is all they do at lower levels. Well remember, critical fails on attack rolls don’t do anything per se. There are some monster Reactions that trigger on an opponent critically missing, but they’re probably not super common.

And as a second thought: Did you notice that almost all RPG sytems use "gender" and not "sex"? Guess what'd be the reason for that... Because the term 'sex' makes us prudish Brits blush :p

I always thought what was called "race" to be purely biological and so a "hatred for orcs" and "elven weapon proficiency" made no sense if your dwarf was raised by gnomes or your elf was raised by nymphs. Pathfinder already acknowledged that and allowed for different racial traits which you could choose at character creation.Right, but then it shouldn't be an issue, for as long as we constrain ourselves to Tolkien-esque worlds where each biological group has its own unified culture and there is no inter-mixing. The reason why half-elves and half-orcs exist is because humans might conceivably bump into these other groups and mix with them, where it's inconceivable (from a worldbuilding perspective) that an elf could ever mix with a dwarf. (Cue the Princess Bride meme) But no, I actually mean it this time. The default fantasy setting (the same one where dwarves and halflings can't be wizards, and only humans can be paladins) is a world where an elf and dwarf would never mix under any circum...

German here, and yes, I would deem that problematic under most circumstances (I'd find it okay in non-realistic, satire settings where you'd use "teh evöl Nazis" as caricatures). Why? Mainly because it downplays the fact that Nazis were humans. And that we, humans, are capable of commiting such atrocities or looking away or knowingly profit from genocide. Making them orcs writes them off as non-human, evil "other" creatures, therefore sanctifying human nature. The other aspect is because the descendants of these Nazis are living human beings, not orcs. They struggle with what their parents or grandparents might have done. They try to build a better, more resilient, more humane society. I wouldn't wish to be demonized, at least not in a "realistic" setting. Now I wouldn't have the same problem if you just erased all human Germans in your setting and turned them into faeries. Because there is no equivalent, no trope, no stereotype connecting Germans and fey (and no, Grimm's stories don't co...

Okay, I understand where you're coming from, but these commoners are actual people. Don't design them from a player's point of view or you lose much of the "realism" you seem to be so focused at. You can always go with an "either or" option where a commoner would have *one* profession (DM's choice, depending on region and occupation) and then either ride or knowledge (nature) etc. For the charisma: sure, not all people are born or educated the same. There would of course be commoners with a high cha out there and these people are more likely to make good deals at the market or become mayor. There could be commoners with 9 con and they might even survive their childhood should they happen to catch no nasty disease. But your "random encounter commoners" should be standard people who are good at the stuff they're doing for a living. And that could be hunting or farming or milling or shepherding - bodily work. Not necessarily combat and also not necessarily being the natural born leader ...

Again, why does this farmer woman need 13 Cha? If she was a merchant, then this would make perfect sense. But she's doing a physical job. Probably managing a farm (and maybe serfs) in addition to working on the field and bringing the harvest to nearby mills/markets. Or, if she's among the lowliest of peasants, she'd have no management to do and only be working on the field during the day. Okay you never said that you specifically meant russian farmers/commoners. Earlier you mentioned Hänsel and Gretel which is why I'd placed them in the HRE. More of an example, it could be any farmer, but if I want a farmer with a horse that knows how to ride one, I don't want to have to create a new set of statistics. The Russian example comes to mind because they abut the orc territories, if their are orc raids, then the Russian principalities have to deal with them. The stats have the skills ride just in case there is a horse, but if there isn't one, that skill doesn't get used, the PCs won't noti...

Now the commoner archer still has Cha 13 and con 9 - why? Why would the highest stat of an archer who's a commoner on top of that be Charisma? Why would the archer have any need to be *5 points* more charismatic than the spearman? Also, the spearman appears to be a hunter and trapper. He wouldn't be a *professional* farmer unless he switched his job. Also, this combo would be better used for the archer since most hunters didn't hunt with spears. Same thing with the archer. Either farmer OR hunter. And a farmer would have knowledge (nature) or heal or And please cut ride. They wouldn't have horses. Horses are too expensive, luxury goods. Unless you wish to use this skill with an oxen. And I doubt you'd need skilled ride for a slow beast like that. What I don't understand is: Are these specific NPC? Or are these one-of-a-thousand standard commoners? If the former, forget what I just said. If the latter, then well... That's because she is not primarily an archer, she has another life besi...

Archers are a little shorter, and weaker than the melee people are, they stand back and fire arrows at the enemy while the stronger and brawnier people fight in hand to hand combat, and hopefully they don't get shot with an arrow in the back. By the way, that archers are weak is a common misconception in RPGs. They had to be rather strong to fire war bows over a longer timespan. And in case of longbows a larger size was also an advantage. But as RPGs tend to follow the "nimble archer" trope you end up with low Str high Dex characters.