airwalkrr's Rise of the Runelords (OOC)

[Maidhc O Casain]

Quick question to go with the ones above - do you have a preference for which sheet we use on OP? Is it acceptable to use another format if we can make it work on OP? I'd like to see if I can make something like this work.

 

[airwalkrr]

First, thanks for including me!

I'm a little confused about Item 7 in the creation rules, and have a couple of questions.

• Does this mean that even if we choose a standard favored class option (e.g. +1 HP/Level) that rules out any archetypes, etc. that are also on this list?
• The build I'm thinking of starts with a few levels of the Zen Archer archetype for Monk, then switches to the Archer archetype for Fighters. Will there be the option to take archetypes for classes we switch into? If not, I'll move away from Monk, possibly starting with Fighter (Archer) and taking a one or two level dip into Rogue.

If that list is as all inclusive and final as it seems, that's a VERY strong encouragement to take the Core Only option as it seriously limits options from the non-Core supplements even if you're not taking the Core Only option. (This is not a complaint in any way shape or form, I'm just trying to make sure I understand the process).

In regards to alignment, I've always preferred to play in a good aligned party. Or at least a non-evil party. So my vote would be a non-evil party leaning toward good.

1) No, choosing a favored class option such as +1 hp/level or +1 sp/level does not preclude non-core favored class options, archetypes, etc.
2) You are limited to only one class archetype, favored class options etc. at character creation. So choosing both Zen Archer archetype and Archer archetype at character creation would not be possible. Other archetypes, favored class options, etc. will require training and downtime. You may acquire access to such training by earning favors and contacts as you proceed through the campaign. However, bear in mind your downtime might not come at an ideal point in time, so keep that in mind. If you are not using the Core Rulebook Only Option however, you will have access to retraining (Ultimate Campaign) to retrain into an archetype once you get the downtime however.
3) Yes, the rules are meant to encourage Core Rulebook only to keep the game simple, as I am not significantly experienced with much of the non-core stuff. Nevertheless, given the large quantity of non-core rules available which can drastically alter the capabilities of a party, I feel it is a fair trade.
4) Noted one vote for non-evil.

Also vote for non-evil/good.

Is the Synthesist class variant for Summoners okay? It basically solves the 'pet' issue by merging the eidolon with the summoner...it seems cool, but I don't know how it plays...

1) Two votes for non-evil.
2) Synthesist seems exceptionally powerful and takes away a significant Achilles' heel of the summoner in that by taking out the summoner you take out the eidolon. You practically double your hit points and become both a significant melee threat (or a versatile and agile opponent, depending on what evolutions you select) and a fairly potent spellcaster (while summoners are technically limited to 6th level spells, many spells they cast are actually lower-level than their sorcerer/wizard counterparts). I am going to have to think on this one for a day or two.

Excellent, thank you for the selection. I am excited about this adventure path and the group. I'll send you a PM re email shortly. My user name over at Obsidian Portal is the same as it is here--boring yes, but expedient. Actually, the email I use is almost the same as well.

I don't know enough about the AP to know if it would play well as an evil campaign. I'm willing to do either, but I usually play good--at least as far as my fellow players are concerned.

Unless I missed it, no one has suggested playing a Rogue, so I think I'll go that route. I seem to remember reading in the Players Guide that one would be needed.

I've read enough of it to say that it would probably work better if the PCs are benign and altruistic sorts. Nevertheless, the PCs could easily be ambitious, mercenary, and nefarious themselves and see the Runelords as a potential competitor who would never allow them to be anything more than lackeys, thus it would work from that angle as well. So my only desire in this is to reduce interparty conflict by limiting one axis of the good-evil alignment spectrum. In other words, either the entire party is okay with things like summary execution and assassination for hire or the entire party is not.

 

[airwalkrr]

Quick question to go with the ones above - do you have a preference for which sheet we use on OP? Is it acceptable to use another format if we can make it work on OP? I'd like to see if I can make something like this work.

That's an impressive site and very nice artwork. If you can make it fit into the OP site somehow, then that is fine.

For others, there are at least three built-in character sheets for PF on OP. Any of those are fine.

 

[rangerjohn]

Signed up as rangerjohn at OP.

 

[airwalkrr]

I got mowgli, rangerjohn, scotley, and Shayuri invites to OP. Just waiting on [MENTION=24234]kinem[/MENTION] and [MENTION=28453]J. Alexander[/MENTION] to PM me either their OP screen name or email and we can begin as soon as you guys have characters.

 

[Shayuri]

Synthesist seems exceptionally powerful and takes away a significant Achilles' heel of the summoner in that by taking out the summoner you take out the eidolon. You practically double your hit points and become both a significant melee threat (or a versatile and agile opponent, depending on what evolutions you select) and a fairly potent spellcaster (while summoners are technically limited to 6th level spells, many spells they cast are actually lower-level than their sorcerer/wizard counterparts). I am going to have to think on this one for a day or two.

Their spellcasting is analogous to bards. Midrange spellcasting potential...superior to paladins and rangers, inferior to full spellcasters.

You have a good point that it bypasses the flaw of banishing the eidolon when the summoner is knocked out, unless the knockout is via non-damaging means. But it also loses the strength of multiple actions and the potential for scouting and moving independently of the summoner as well.

Resolving the questions of whether or not that's a more or less balanced tradeoff is one reason I want to play one.

However, I have no problems saving that for another game. You're not running a playtest after all.

I do have a question regarding the Core Only option. Does taking Core Only at character creation mean that we can never ever go outside Core later? My impression was that yes, we cannot. However, your post recently stated that you'd allow retraining into archetypes later for Core Only characters.

 

[airwalkrr]

Synthesist seems exceptionally powerful and takes away a significant Achilles' heel of the summoner in that by taking out the summoner you take out the eidolon. You practically double your hit points and become both a significant melee threat (or a versatile and agile opponent, depending on what evolutions you select) and a fairly potent spellcaster (while summoners are technically limited to 6th level spells, many spells they cast are actually lower-level than their sorcerer/wizard counterparts). I am going to have to think on this one for a day or two.

Their spellcasting is analogous to bards. Midrange spellcasting potential...superior to paladins and rangers, inferior to full spellcasters.

You have a good point that it bypasses the flaw of banishing the eidolon when the summoner is knocked out, unless the knockout is via non-damaging means. But it also loses the strength of multiple actions and the potential for scouting and moving independently of the summoner as well.

Resolving the questions of whether or not that's a more or less balanced tradeoff is one reason I want to play one.

However, I have no problems saving that for another game. You're not running a playtest after all.

I do have a question regarding the Core Only option. Does taking Core Only at character creation mean that we can never ever go outside Core later? My impression was that yes, we cannot. However, your post recently stated that you'd allow retraining into archetypes later for Core Only characters.

As I said, I need some time to consider the Synergist.

As for Core Only option, if I said I would allow retraining into archetypes for core only, that was certainly not what I intended to say. I believe I was speaking in reference to characters who did not choose the core only option. That option (and retraining in general) is only available for characters who do not choose the Core Only option. Of course, this does not preclude class-based retraining, such as a sorcerer's standard ability to swap spells at certain levels.

The Core Rulebook Only Option means you are giving up the opportunity to use any rules outside the Core Rulebook for the life of the character.

 

[Shayuri]

Rereading...okay, I see the subtle, crucial 'not' in there now. Mystery solved!

And yar, I know you need time. Just figured I'd throw in my thoughts in case they were of use to ya.

Thanks for the clarifications!

 

[airwalkrr]

Been playing around with ditzie and I think it is going to work out very well. It is somewhat crude, but it is functional and easy to use from the player perspective. Figuring out how to create maps and images is the toughest part, but I think I have that down now more or less, so it should go faster in the future. I'm not skilled at all with photoshop so some of the maps will be extracted right out of the pdf which might spoil the maps a bit as the markers will still be there. I am still looking into a relatively simple solution for this and there is plenty of time to figure that out. There is a map folio available, but according to review it doesn't remove all the map markers as advertised. I have found a good source for minis though, so that part will be easy.

One thing I will need from all players is an image to use for your PC on the battle map. The only limitation you need to take into account is scale. A full-body image in that respect might not be a good idea as it will likely be shrunk down to the point of being indiscernible. A face, profile, or upper body shot would be best.

 

[Scotley]

If it isn't too much trouble you might post a Ditzie map here so we give it a pre-game try? I'm not familiar with it, but it looks cool.