[Pathfinder] Burnt Offerings

[CanadienneBacon]

I'm not clear on the traits vs flaws house rule. Do we have to take a flaw for each trait or just one for both? Do the flaws then not grant their usual bonus feats? How many flaws are we allowed in all? As is I took two traits, a flaw and one bonus feat.

I'm basically looking for a smidge of balance. If you take one or more traits, you need to take one flaw. Again, I didn't make this explicit in my original statements about traits, so it's certainly not your fault for not realizing. You're not mind readers! Breaking this down...

0 traits = 0 flaws
1 trait = 1 flaw
2 traits = 1 flaw

If you want to take a flaw without taking a trait, that's fine. Up to two flaws allowed. You'd get the usual bonuses from taking a flaw. I believe Ambrus mentioned a bonus feat, which rings a bell.

And if you find the whole mess not worth bothering with, I completely understand. I myself probably wouldn't use traits if I were the one making a character--I like my PCs to be simple. When Paizo was publishing Burnt Offerings, it felt like a bit of a death sentence to 3.5. I allowed so many rules supplements for this game because I wanted to celebrate everything that is/was 3.5. Not my normal operating mode, but I think we can make it work with a minimum of disgust.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

Ambrus, I'm content with your character sheet as is.

 

[Ambrus]

I'm considering taking the Shaky flaw in exchange for the Improved Multiattack feat.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

That's fine. Just don't get too carried away wth adding stuff, please.

You know, I had been thinking going into this that this might be the last PbP I DM. While I was getting cleaned up this morning, however, I had an idea to run a game that didn't use any sourcebooks at all for character creation. I'd adjudicate the story according to whichever singular rulesbook I was using, but players would be given true carte blanche to create a PC. What if I just said, "Hey, here's the background on the game, you can reasonably expect these kinds of situations during play, make a character but do so without using a rulebook."

I think it might force people to think more about the kind of character they play rather than considering just the numbers and making the background fit the numbers. This may sound counterintuitive, but I'd also lay money that people would suddenly get a lot more conservative with their stats.

 

[mfloyd3]

I used to play in a PBEM game where the GM made the character sheets based on character history, and the players never saw them. We got a great collection of players, and some very solid backgrounds. Though the game lasted less than a year before the GM had to quit for personal reasons.

To this day, I'm not 100% sure the sheets existed. Not that it matters, I had a good time.

 

[jkason]

[sblock=CB]If you are not CanadienneBacon, then you should not be reading this[sblock]

1. I'm not entirely certain about the description of Acrobatic you've got on Tac's character sheet. You've got, "Acrobatics: +3 fight defensive / +6 total defense." PF beta rules list the Acrobatic (singular, not plural) feat as:

Let me know what you mean by "Acrobatics," and where you're getting your info from.

Sorry about that. It's from the new Acrobatics skill description (page 56 PFRPG):

Special: If you are proficient in the Acrobatics skill, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively instead of the usual +2, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC when taking the total defense action instead of the usual +4.

I think proficient is the same as 'trained,' but I can't seem to find any specific definition in the ruleset.

2. Go ahead and take Varisian as a free bonus language for Tac. You've written a backstory that supports doing so. An Int of 12 nets you a choice of a third language, so let me know what you select.

Dwarven seemed the best choice, since he's a builder, so I went with that.

3. Just verifying...the Mathematical Prodigy trait is in the Pathfinder Character Traits Web Enhancement, correct? How about the Deft Dodger trait, where's that from?

I was using the online version of the rules someone linked to here. Looks like they both come from a Paizo character traits PDF. But given that I misunderstood and would need to take two flaws to balance them out, I'm thinking of scrapping both of them.

I'm wondering, could I 'trade' one of Tac's standard class skills for Know: Engineering as a class skill? Given his obsessive bent when it comes to 'ooh! shiny machine!' I can't imagine he'd be up on any kind of local information, or even especially good at gathering it, so could I give up Know: local or Diplomacy (which now contains Gather Information) for Class proficiency in Engineering? It's not likely to be an especially useful skill, but it just seems weird given his background that he wouldn't have it.

4. You've used a +2 Charisma modifier for Tac's Bluff skill, but his Charisma of 12 should only net him a +1 modifier. Let me know if I've missed something.

No, that was me. I originally had his Int lower and his Cha higher (thinking he'd have to Bluff his way through Engineering without the class skill bonus), then changed them, and I must have had the old Cha stuck in my brain. Should be fixed now. Sorry about that.

5. Elyra is lawful good. Please get with mfloyd3 to make sure Elyra wouldn't negatively react to Tac's ability to "dismantle various locks." I can see a case for a LG Elyra strongly objecting to the possible uses for Tac's ability to dismantle locks.

I'll post a followup after this to straighten that out with mfloyd3. I think I have a quick-fix that'll make it work and also be a little fun RP-wise.

6. Thanks for going the extra mile to calculate encumbrance.

No problem at all. Glad it helps.

[/sblock][/sblock]

 

[Ambrus]

That's fine. Just don't get too carried away wth adding stuff, please.

That'd be about it for me. I can't think of anything else I could add.

I had an idea to run a game that didn't use any sourcebooks at all for character creation. I'd adjudicate the story according to whichever singular rulesbook I was using, but players would be given true carte blanche to create a PC.

I'm a little sketchy on what you're proposing exactly. Do you mean that character creation would solely involve writing a background with no game mechanics at all?

I think it might force people to think more about the kind of character they play rather than considering just the numbers and making the background fit the numbers. This may sound counterintuitive, but I'd also lay money that people would suddenly get a lot more conservative with their stats.

My process for creating a character is to first come up with a concept; "I want to play a dragon", figuring out how best to accomplish it within the rules; "but the only way to play a true dragon is to use the monster class progression featured in D.M. 320", and then to develop a character background that incorporates the details/limitations mandated by those rules; "so I'm a small-sized hatchling who can't yet fly or breathe fire; I guess I'd best figure out why I'm not in a nest with my parents watching over me."

I don't really see any reasonable way to circumvent that process. If I were able to just skip the mechanics part then I'd just create a huge-sized adult dragon with all the draconic bells and whistles.

 

[jkason]

[sblock=mfloyd3]CB expressed some concern that Elyra might respond especially strongly to Tac dissasembling locks, given her alignment. I figured I could add a bit in the background where Elyra made him agree not to take locks apart (with a coursework exception, I suppose) if she agreed to take him to the guildhall? I figure that way Elyra's alignment needs are met, and we have a nice RP setup if there's cause for lockpicking in the adventure, as Tac has to get special permission from his cousin. What do you think?[/sblock]

 

[mfloyd3]

[sblock=jkason]

CB expressed some concern that Elyra might respond especially strongly to Tac dissasembling locks, given her alignment. I figured I could add a bit in the background where Elyra made him agree not to take locks apart (with a coursework exception, I suppose) if she agreed to take him to the guildhall? I figure that way Elyra's alignment needs are met, and we have a nice RP setup if there's cause for lockpicking in the adventure, as Tac has to get special permission from his cousin. What do you think?

Sure, that sounds good. My read on it when I saw it in your background -- Which I think was your intention -- Was that Elyra felt the need to "save" her cousin from being exploited by the family. So yes, her making him promise never to pick locks is consistent.

By the way, to give you another side to the relationship (which perhaps I can add to Elyra's background), Elyra is hugely proud of her cousin. She explores everywhere, and among the things that impress her are the ruins and monuments left behind by the old civilizations. Her cousin *makes* these, and they are going to be there long after her footprints have washed away. Privately, she thinks taking him to the guildhall might be the most significant thing she ever does with her life. And if she ever saw him trying to throw that away by slipping into crime, she would slap him on the side of the head!

Of course, given that she's not good at expressing herself, and Tac's pretty oblivious, it's safe to assume he knows nothing about this.

Sound good?

[/sblock]

 

[Ambrus]

So, aside from Tac, has any PC been residing in Sandpoint over the past three or four years?