Scarred Lands

[Nightfall]

Grraf,

I can agree with you but hey, no accounting for taste my friend. At least he liked the SLCS:Ghelspad.

Btw you HAVE read my review of Serpent in the Fold I hope?

 

[Ezrael]

Indeed. I find your positive comments about Scarred Lands books upsetting.

Well, I wasn't entirely positive...and as I get older and less interested in being involved in flamewars, I find myself sometimes taking pains to try and keep from being inflammatory. When people are really supportive or invested in something, sometimes any criticism or negative thought is seen as some sort of blasphemy.

And if I'm missing a joke (as I suspect I am...I'm getting really damn pedantic) I'm sorry.

You're right. Charmed debtors is a terrible idea. Feeding your slave labor is a terrible waste. ;]

See, I prefer the living. Easier to motivate, and less dependent on magic. Plus, they smell better. (Although I've been in places that make me doubt that last one.)

I have this problem too. I keep making it like some kind of Rome in my head. The problem is that I don't know much about Rome.

If you're looking for a cheap way to learn a good amount about Rome, there's an excellent GURPS supplement by CJ Carella that covers the city in some detail. I think Hollowfaust itself has a lot of good detail as well, I just needed the SLCS to help me make sense of it.

Funny. The party paladin and his player started to feel the same way after I let him read the Gaz. (It worked he'd been out of the loop for about 80 years and finally gotten a hold of some post Divine War history books). Good stuff.

Well, for my case, I'm simply leery of necromancy in any form. I do understand that it's not necessarily any more evil than any other form of magic, but it does tend to treat human beings as parts, and any form of magic that does that makes me personally uncomfortable. But when you're faced with annihilation, you do what you must...if I had to choose between what I've read about Calastia doing and living in a city like Hollowfaust, I'd choose the latter. It makes sense to me now that I've read in more detail.

 

[Graf]

Greetings.

Hope everyone won't mind a newbie popping in to ask a question.

We don't actually have oldbies yet, settings too new. No oldbies, no newbies. Says so in the manual.

So, my question is this: if I buy the hardcover (which I eventually will), is there still material in the Gazetter that I might want? The cost of buying both isn't too much of an issue IF all of the Gazetteer material wasn't already reworked into the hardcover.

Anyone have both to make a comparison? I've read lots of old thread and reviews here, as well as some threads on the White Wolf boards, but I couldn't find an answer.

Of course, being a completist, I'm now forced to buy both books. And I still need the deities book, and Hollowfaust, and Burok Torn, and CCs I and II, and...

I have both and use them both extensively they don't really repeat each other per se. The gaz is actually better for dates and some other stuff. Basically the Gaz is "public knowledge" in my game.

Hold on there! I -would- buy selectively. Its all good but its not all equally good for different people. Assume SLCS
Wait until the C&C1 comes out this Dec. As it stands now its tough to use without modification.

For history: The Div & Defeated is quite good
For a good base: Any of the three city books are good (Hollowfaust, Mithril & Burok Torn, but see below)
More magic items and spells: R&R2 has more flavor than 1, but 2 presumes you have 1.

I liked Vigil Watch:Ratmen quite a bit. If you want a lot about the Slitherin (sp) or you're looking for stuff on Vesh its a good book.

Burok Torn is a great book. They did a really good job. Its also not game applicable unless you'Re headed there. Kudos to S&S for not stuffing it with unrelated shtuff to sell it.
Jesse Decker's Helm and Hammer is very adaptable to SL & maybe more useful outside of BT. I'm using it a lot to flesh out the Firetusks of Hollowfaust and the dwarves of the Gascars.

While I find the setting intruiging and the books well-written (if occasionally unbalanced), I dislike the basic premise of the setting - that the apocalypse happened 150 years ago. If I ever ran this setting I would probably fast-forward at least 1000 years into the future and ..

Like it or hate it this is one of the things that
1. makes the setting different
2. allows there to be ancient mysteries that the characters just stumble across by accident
3. lets PCs be important
4. lets there be terrible secrets that people don't know about
5. gives the DM the chance to change things in game reasonably in a short period of time. The hegemony hasn't been around so long that it would be weird for it to fall apart if someone wanted to.
6. explains why magic items aren't traded like baseball cards in every major city (undeveloped economies/trade)
7. may allow for some interesting religious developements.

Gritty
An exotic dancer is set to inherit an empire? The most common way rulership of most kingdoms passes from person to person is reigicide? Most diplomacy is "military" diplomacy.
I think politically gritty is a good term.

 

[Graf]

What about R&R 2? Also, I being a big fan of the SL, sometimes find myself thinking that some of the cleric spells are a little on the powerful side. Especially since, unlike arcane casters, they basically have access to "them all." Does anyone running a SL campaign have any opinions on this?

Funny this has been coming up a lot.
People are always posting asking about R&R (and now R&R2) rules balance stuff, specifically what problems people have had, what spells to look out for, etc.

We were chatting on the Scarntalk ML about this: (as in compiling a list of "problem" spells, common house rules and so on. Much like an EnWorld group has done with PH spells).

Its not solidified yet though.

You should check out the posts (especially Pcat's & S'mon's) on this thread for some good ideas about Divine spellcasters.
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26003

 

[Roderick]

BTW Here is a map of Mithril I`ve found on the website of a french magazine. It`s in colour, and they fixed the problem with the missing entry-numbers of the original map.

http://www.hexagonal.net/d20/img/mithril.jpg

 

[Barastrondo]

See, I prefer the living. Easier to motivate, and less dependent on magic. Plus, they smell better. (Although I've been in places that make me doubt that last one.)

Minor pedantic point: The kinds of undead that would actually smell bad (mainly zombies) are pretty rarely used in Hollowfaust, at least anywhere near the actual citizenry. Zombies are more sort of a "kept in cold storage between sieges" force. They're frankly unsanitary, and can carry disease, and people might be more distressed by their presence (after all, bones can belong to anyone, but zombies still have faces). You can't make a masterwork zombie, and they're clumsy. They're just a poor choice for anything other than emergency last-minute shock troops.

Skeletons, on the other hand, are fresh and clean as a whistle. And they have that Harryhausen vibe going on. Far and away the choice of the discerning necromancer.

 

[Nightfall]

Well, I wasn't entirely positive...and as I get older and less interested in being involved in flamewars, I find myself sometimes taking pains to try and keep from being inflammatory. When people are really supportive or invested in something, sometimes any criticism or negative thought is seen as some sort of blasphemy.

Hey Ezrael, that's fine man. I don't mind criticisms as LONG as they are backed up. You stated you enjoyed living things, so that's fine you enjoy more stuff like Calastia and others. I DO think that sourcebook is probably MORE up your alley anyway.

 

[Nightfall]

Minor pedantic point: The kinds of undead that would actually smell bad (mainly zombies) are pretty rarely used in Hollowfaust, at least anywhere near the actual citizenry. Zombies are more sort of a "kept in cold storage between sieges" force. They're frankly unsanitary, and can carry disease, and people might be more distressed by their presence (after all, bones can belong to anyone, but zombies still have faces). You can't make a masterwork zombie, and they're clumsy. They're just a poor choice for anything other than emergency last-minute shock troops.

Skeletons, on the other hand, are fresh and clean as a whistle. And they have that Harryhausen vibe going on. Far and away the choice of the discerning necromancer.

Which is why I like the risen. Not undead but definately not living. Anyway I do think that point is missed out on people. Zombies are RARELY used unless the city is under seige. Skeletons are more the norm, and you are right, they work better at being master worked.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Funny this has been coming up a lot.
People are always posting asking about R&R (and now R&R2) rules balance stuff, specifically what problems people have had, what spells to look out for, etc.

We were chatting on the Scarntalk ML about this: (as in compiling a list of "problem" spells, common house rules and so on. Much like an EnWorld group has done with PH spells).

Its not solidified yet though.

You should check out the posts (especially Pcat's & S'mon's) on this thread for some good ideas about Divine spellcasters.
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26003

Thanks Graf; I did read the thread first thing this morning, and found a lot of the ideas there to be really helpful.

I think I will do what PirateCat does and allow clerics (and probably druids) to replace divine spells on their spell list with new ones (although if I had any, I would probably let druids have the same spell-per-day progression as clerics, with access to any two of the domains: earth, fire, water, air, plant, and animal).

Rangers and Paladins, I guess I've yet to decide. Probably I will make them do the same, but possibly I'll just give them the increased spell-list in the form of new prayer-books and incantations, rites and the like.

Heck, I might do that with clerics too, but it matters little to the PC's in my upcoming SL campaign (starting this weekend) because no one is playing a divine caster.

 

[Nightfall]

Thanks Graf; I did read the thread first thing this morning, and found a lot of the ideas there to be really helpful.

I think I will do what PirateCat does and allow clerics (and probably druids) to replace divine spells on their spell list with new ones (although if I had any, I would probably let druids have the same spell-per-day progression as clerics, with access to any two of the domains: earth, fire, water, air, plant, and animal).

Rangers and Paladins, I guess I've yet to decide. Probably I will make them do the same, but possibly I'll just give them the increased spell-list in the form of new prayer-books and incantations, rites and the like.

Heck, I might do that with clerics too, but it matters little to the PC's in my upcoming SL campaign (starting this weekend) because no one is playing a divine caster.

Which just proves you need to sic some Horsemen of Vangal along with their Hellrider compatriots (Blackguards on horseback) on them to teach them better.