Recruitment Thread for Pell's D&D 3.5 Game

Post Reply
User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Recruitment Thread for Pell's D&D 3.5 Game

Post by willpell » Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:45 pm

I'm dangerously obsessed with Dungeons and Dragons of late, and I think the one game I have running isn't enough for me these days. I've been thinking of opening recruitment for some time, and I think it's about time I hang out a shingle. For now this is an extremely preliminary interest-check. Little to nothing will be decided until I find out who'd be interested in playing and what their available options are.
Last edited by willpell on Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

User avatar
ThroughTheWell
.
Posts: 1045

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by ThroughTheWell » Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:11 am

Probably need more info. Starting level? World? Restrictions? Houserules? Books allowed? Do you want a theme to the party, like all goblins, etc? How often will the DM post? Etc.
I survived the forum move 4 times... yeah, I feel old.

User avatar
CelineSSauve
Indulges in Conversation
Posts: 755
UStream Username: CelineSSauve

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by CelineSSauve » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:31 am

I'd be interested in a Half-Elf Sorcerer/Favorved Soul heading to Mystic Theurge, if that's acceptable.

Depends a bit on starting level, for BackGround, though the concept has never been allowed to actually be played before... I've previously had him be a pacifist sort, with an ex-Slave background.

User avatar
Amara
Spokesperson in Training
Posts: 1312
Location: Somewhere buried in research papers.

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by Amara » Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:02 am

For me it's mostly dependent on what templates are/aren't allowed, and what the campaign would be about.
I'm always up for a good 3.5 campaign if the story interests me, c:

User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by willpell » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:00 am

ThroughTheWell wrote:Probably need more info. Starting level? World? Restrictions? Houserules? Books allowed? Do you want a theme to the party, like all goblins, etc? How often will the DM post? Etc.
I've come up with extremely extensive housrules, but I don't know if I want to bring them all in at once, so we'll work it out as we go along. Starting level would probably depend on what people want to play; I generally think 5th is a good entry point, but am likely to lean down for casters and up for martial characters, as the main issue is complexity (though I'm unlikely to go all the way down to 1st except in a handful of cases, as there just aren't enough CR 1 monsters to make a level 1 campaign terribly interesting). About the highest level I have any comprehnsion of is 9th, so that's probably the maximum.

The good news is, unless I abruptly get an extremely long-hours job, I should be posting daily or very nearly so, though it might not be more than "still working on it" some days if we're in the middle of a heavy scene. World will probably be the generic pseudo-Greyhawk setting with a few adjustments of mine, though I might take a crack at Eberron if you twist my arm, I'm not familiar with it and would be doing a very loose take, but it appeals to me greatly. I also have access to Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, but I don't like those settings very much and would only grudgingly work with them, if players are very interested. I also have a few obscure things such as Ghostwalk and Oriental Adventures, though I don't know if they contain enough detail to be play-ready (both are 3.0 for instance, so I'd have to do some conversion work).

I expect any party that we end up with to be cohesive, though I have no problem running multiple solo games in separate threads within a shared world. I will not tolerate players robbing from or backstabbing each other, at least not unless both sides are on board and you agree not to let it derail any plot that I'm currently serving (if I'm not able to come up with a plot and you start dueling among yourselves to pass the time, that's a different story). Other than that, no particular expectations for the party; I don't know if I'd be up to run goblins as PCs since there's very little info in the books to enable this (obviously I could use Thunt's stuff or just make it up, but all told it's not my favorite idea, plus I think such a game is already running somewhere here).
CelineSSauve wrote:I'd be interested in a Half-Elf Sorcerer/Favorved Soul heading to Mystic Theurge, if that's acceptable.
I have no objections to it, although Sorc and FS both take until 4th level to get their 2nd-level spells, so you'd be entering the PrC at level 9...not sure how viable that would be, though I can always give you underleveled monsters until we're sure you can survive. (In general I tend to be a softie as DM; if someone wants a high level of danger and mortality in my game, they have to specifically request it.)
Ayeaka wrote:For me it's mostly dependent on what templates are/aren't allowed, and what the campaign would be about.
I'm always up for a good 3.5 campaign if the story interests me, c:
Story is what I specialize in, though the complexity of the rules is what seems to keep me hooked long enough to want to bother. Templates? Er, what did you have in mind? In general I don't think they were really intended for player use, and a lot of them don't really work right IMO, so it's all very subject to negotiation.
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

User avatar
CelineSSauve
Indulges in Conversation
Posts: 755
UStream Username: CelineSSauve

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by CelineSSauve » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:12 am

willpell wrote:
CelineSSauve wrote:I'd be interested in a Half-Elf Sorcerer/Favorved Soul heading to Mystic Theurge, if that's acceptable.
I have no objections to it, although Sorc and FS both take until 4th level to get their 2nd-level spells, so you'd be entering the PrC at level 9...not sure how viable that would be, though I can always give you underleveled monsters until we're sure you can survive. (In general I tend to be a softie as DM; if someone wants a high level of danger and mortality in my game, they have to specifically request it.)
What do you think of http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Improved_C ... 3.5e_Feat)?

As for starting level, he was originally created as a Lv6. So Lv5 isn't that much lower, and still first his BackGround.

Also, being two types of spontaneous Caster, he will be able to adapt to things. He had a few spells that drained stats and such, but nothing that did actual damage. Though he might end up getting Summons, or something. :P

User avatar
ThroughTheWell
.
Posts: 1045

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by ThroughTheWell » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:14 am

If 9th is your max, what about an E6 game? Though to be honnest I don't know how that would affect multiclassers. E6 is supposed to cap spells at 3rd, but also character levels at 6. That might mess up Celine's char concept, which I don't want to do.
I survived the forum move 4 times... yeah, I feel old.

User avatar
CelineSSauve
Indulges in Conversation
Posts: 755
UStream Username: CelineSSauve

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by CelineSSauve » Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:42 pm

ThroughTheWell wrote:If 9th is your max, what about an E6 game? Though to be honnest I don't know how that would affect multiclassers. E6 is supposed to cap spells at 3rd, but also character levels at 6. That might mess up Celine's char concept, which I don't want to do.
Never heard of that before, and it most certainly would, yes.

I am also just now being reminded of what sort of TSR-esque company I'd be supporting by playing in this game... :wall:

User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by willpell » Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:57 pm

CelineSSauve wrote:What do you think of http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Improved_C ... 3.5e_Feat)?
The RAW-legal feat is called Practiced Caster, and has to be purchased separately for each class; this one is probably a little too good. I'm extremely leery of doing any favors for spellcasters, not only because they're already generally more powerful (though this is most true at high levels, precisely why I prefer to play at low-medium), but also because they're more complicated, and make my life as GM harder. Still, I'm aware that theurges are generally considered weak, so I might eventually be persuaded to show them a little generosity, if things are obviously not working. I find it's easier to give a player favors after they run into trouble, rather than giving them freebies up-front and then trying to make them give those bonuses up when they prove overpowered.
As for starting level, he was originally created as a Lv6. So Lv5 isn't that much lower, and still first his BackGround.
But even at level 6, he'd be a Sorcerer 3/FS 3, and have only 1st level spells, when a single-classer of either of those classes has 3rds. (Granted you could go Sorcerer 4/FS 2 or the reverse, assuming your race allows you to favor one of those classes.)
ThroughTheWell wrote:If 9th is your max, what about an E6 game?
Capping levels at 6 is too punishing; many of my favorite classes (such as Binder or Incarnate) don't get a lot of their fun stuff until later. I prefer to judge things case-by-case rather than institute sweeping revisions such as a level cap. Besides which, I do generally have godlike NPCs who are assumed to be using 9th-level spells to keep the universe running smoothly; I'm not averse to the players earning such status eventually, but it needs to be built up to, for the sake of my sanity.
CelineSSauve wrote:I am also just now being reminded of what sort of TSR-esque company I'd be supporting by playing in this game... :wall:
If this is about the Thunt copyright panic, I wouldn't take it personally; there's no need to deprive yourself of gaming fun. As long as you're not buying any new product of theirs, they aren't affected in the slightest by whether you play their game or not, and it's perfectly possible for you to play without you owning any books, since I have access to nearly the entire 3.5 line (excepting some CS-specific material and a few of the narrower sourcebooks).
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

User avatar
CelineSSauve
Indulges in Conversation
Posts: 755
UStream Username: CelineSSauve

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by CelineSSauve » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:11 pm

willpell wrote:
CelineSSauve wrote:What do you think of http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Improved_C ... 3.5e_Feat)?
The RAW-legal feat is called Practiced Caster, and has to be purchased separately for each class; this one is probably a little too good. I'm extremely leery of doing any favors for spellcasters, not only because they're already generally more powerful (though this is most true at high levels, precisely why I prefer to play at low-medium), but also because they're more complicated, and make my life as GM harder. Still, I'm aware that theurges are generally considered weak, so I might eventually be persuaded to show them a little generosity, if things are obviously not working. I find it's easier to give a player favors after they run into trouble, rather than giving them freebies up-front and then trying to make them give those bonuses up when they prove overpowered.
Ah, okay. I knew there was a weaker version as well, but couldn't remember the name. Fair enough, it's just easier to keep both effective caster levels equal once he hits MT, then to have them be lower. Two Feats is not a bad price to pay.
willpell wrote:
As for starting level, he was originally created as a Lv6. So Lv5 isn't that much lower, and still first his BackGround.
But even at level 6, he'd be a Sorcerer 3/FS 3, and have only 1st level spells, when a single-classer of either of those classes has 3rds. (Granted you could go Sorcerer 4/FS 2 or the reverse, assuming your race allows you to favor one of those classes.)
No offence to MinMax, but I like being able to rime when it feels like the time. And winking has its place too. :P

In other words, I'm not looking for a power build, just one that fits with his concept. Adofaer's name means "The One with the Peaceful Magic" (or something near enough to that, if memory serves).

I might take Leadership, if you allow that, which would let Ado have a Cohort that might feel a bit more strongly about keeping his/her boss/leader/whatever alive than always keeping the peace. o:) (Plus, Ado might get some damaging spells eventually, it's just that his BackGround would not allow for him to have thought that trying to harm another was a good idea. Especially since he got beaten each time he accidentally cast Dancing Lights.)
willpell wrote:
CelineSSauve wrote:I am also just now being reminded of what sort of TSR-esque company I'd be supporting by playing in this game... :wall:
If this is about the Thunt copyright panic, I wouldn't take it personally; there's no need to deprive yourself of gaming fun. As long as you're not buying any new product of theirs, they aren't affected in the slightest by whether you play their game or not, and it's perfectly possible for you to play without you owning any books, since I have access to nearly the entire 3.5 line (excepting some CS-specific material and a few of the narrower sourcebooks).
It is based on that. Also the fact that my 4e collection does not have, and never will have, the DMG 3 I was promised when I started to get those books. :'(

I suppose you're right on the fact that they don't get my money if I join in here, so that'll have to do. Because I really do want to finally give my "Magic is in my Blood!" character a spin. :D

User avatar
Amara
Spokesperson in Training
Posts: 1312
Location: Somewhere buried in research papers.

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by Amara » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:20 pm

Willpell wrote:Story is what I specialize in, though the complexity of the rules is what seems to keep me hooked long enough to want to bother. Templates? Er, what did you have in mind? In general I don't think they were really intended for player use, and a lot of them don't really work right IMO, so it's all very subject to negotiation.
I just tend to like templates, and playing 'odd' things. The last few games I was in I ran weres in both (a re-tooled natural born were feline "serval" rogue for one campaign who eventually prestiged in to spy master,) and in another campaign (set up to be a ridiculous dungeon crawl,) I ran a were cat (domestic) halfling rogue.
I've also had a satyr bard and a changeling or two in the past, along with a dhampir, but that was using a custom template I worked on with the DM. It's fine if I can't use them, I'm just fond of them. C: ...and I like playing things with potentially exploitable weaknesses for the DM to use as plot hooks.


Ahh, well, I shall see what you decide on for the story over all else.

User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by willpell » Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:20 pm

CelineSSauve wrote:In other words, I'm not looking for a power build, just one that fits with his concept
That's what I like to hear. :cheer:
I might take Leadership, if you allow that
I might at that. Though you'll not be able to get it sooner than level 9 unless I give bonus feats after CC; you can't take Practiced Caster for classes you don't have yet (and it might be legal to take it for your first class at level 1, but it wouldn't do anything, and thus the character would be gimped enough that he'd have a harder time ever leveling), so having it twice is pretty much inevitably going to eat up your 3rd and 6th level feats. But yeah, a cohort could definitely be handy if you're playing a somewhat underpowered, flavor-first character.
Ayeaka wrote:Ahh, well, I shall see what you decide on for the story over all else.
No! :lol: I have no story at the moment; one will grow around the characters I receive, so if I don't receive characters.... Though perhaps Celine will publicize the character she (I'm assuming "she" based on the name, please correct me otherwise) just PMed me, and you can try to work on something that seems compatible. Beyond that...I have tons and tons of potential story, but no actual story until I know what I'm working with.
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

User avatar
CelineSSauve
Indulges in Conversation
Posts: 755
UStream Username: CelineSSauve

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by CelineSSauve » Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:29 pm

willpell wrote:
CelineSSauve wrote:I might take Leadership, if you allow that
I might at that. Though you'll not be able to get it sooner than level 9 unless I give bonus feats after CC; you can't take Practiced Caster for classes you don't have yet (and it might be legal to take it for your first class at level 1, but it wouldn't do anything, and thus the character would be gimped enough that he'd have a harder time ever leveling), so having it twice is pretty much inevitably going to eat up your 3rd and 6th level feats. But yeah, a cohort could definitely be handy if you're playing a somewhat underpowered, flavor-first character.
Level 9 is one of those houserules, I take it. ;)

I was thinking of having it as Lv1 and Lv3, unless there's a good "Lv1 only" Half-Elf Feat you can suggest. Or something that helps him out for being a pacifist.

willpell wrote:Though perhaps Celine will publicize the character she (I'm assuming "she" based on the name, please correct me otherwise) just PMed me, and you can try to work on something that seems compatible. Beyond that...I have tons and tons of potential story, but no actual story until I know what I'm working with.
Yup, and sure thing. I'll even fix that typo you found. :oops:

I also added a link to the image I have in mind for his avatar.
► Show Spoiler
Last edited by CelineSSauve on Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by willpell » Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:35 pm

CelineSSauve wrote:Level 9 is one of those houserules, I take it. ;)
Uh, no, everybody gets a feat at every 3rd level, same as normal. :?
I was thinking of having it as Lv1 and Lv3, unless there's a good "Lv1 only" Half-Elf Feat you can suggest. Or something that helps him out for being a pacifist.
We can probably come up with a Feat like that, which I might just give you as a freebie for having a good backstory, or you could take a Flaw to get an extra Feat ("Noncombatant" is certainly flavor-fitting, or you could go with "Vulnerable" to be slightly less cheesy, saying the character is still a bit cowardly about being attacked because he was beaten, and tends to flinch more than to dodge, thus being somewhat less effective at actually avoiding the blow). I'm willing to be fairly generous on adding power to the character in ways that don't reinforce their main strength or lead to potentially overpowered combinations; the objective is to have an individual who's interesting, well-rounded, and capable of functioning in a variety of situations, without being too brain-meltingly overcomplicated (as spellcasters in general often are).
Yup, and sure thing. I'll even fix that typo you found. :oops:
There may have been two, actually; at one point there was a reference to "the robbed elf" which the context suggested might have been "robed". (I'm sorry if I'm being annoying, I have a proofreader instinct and don't know how to turn it off - except of course when I'm the one typing.) :oops:
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

User avatar
CelineSSauve
Indulges in Conversation
Posts: 755
UStream Username: CelineSSauve

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by CelineSSauve » Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:44 pm

willpell wrote:
CelineSSauve wrote:Level 9 is one of those houserules, I take it. ;)
Uh, no, everybody gets a feat at every 3rd level, same as normal. :?
No... I'd meant that Leadership is usually a Lv6 Feat, no?

willpell wrote:
CelineSSauve wrote:I was thinking of having it as Lv1 and Lv3, unless there's a good "Lv1 only" Half-Elf Feat you can suggest. Or something that helps him out for being a pacifist.
We can probably come up with a Feat like that, which I might just give you as a freebie for having a good backstory, or you could take a Flaw to get an extra Feat ("Noncombatant" is certainly flavor-fitting, or you could go with "Vulnerable" to be slightly less cheesy, saying the character is still a bit cowardly about being attacked because he was beaten, and tends to flinch more than to dodge, thus being somewhat less effective at actually avoiding the blow). I'm willing to be fairly generous on adding power to the character in ways that don't reinforce their main strength or lead to potentially overpowered combinations; the objective is to have an individual who's interesting, well-rounded, and capable of functioning in a variety of situations, without being too brain-meltingly overcomplicated (as spellcasters in general often are).
I wouldn't mind a Flaw that fits his fluf. My only issue is that selecting Feats is not my strong point... The flinching things does seem to fit his character. Can it be "bought off" later? If Ado ends up discovering that he does have some potential for offensive magics within him?

As for being overly complicated, I only find that with Wizards and other classes that have to constantly play around with their spell-lists. I find insta-casters to be the best choice for my style, for that reason.
willpell wrote:
CelineSSauve wrote:Yup, and sure thing. I'll even fix that typo you found. :oops:
There may have been two, actually; at one point there was a reference to "the robbed elf" which the context suggested might have been "robed". (I'm sorry if I'm being annoying, I have a proofreader instinct and don't know how to turn it off - except of course when I'm the one typing.) :oops:
No problem. Also fixed. :)

User avatar
Amara
Spokesperson in Training
Posts: 1312
Location: Somewhere buried in research papers.

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by Amara » Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:26 pm

Willpell wrote:No! I have no story at the moment; one will grow around the characters I receive, so if I don't receive characters.... Though perhaps Celine will publicize the character she (I'm assuming "she" based on the name, please correct me otherwise) just PMed me, and you can try to work on something that seems compatible. Beyond that...I have tons and tons of potential story, but no actual story until I know what I'm working with.
Fair enough! In that case, I've a few ideas rattling around my brain. Dependent on what you allow/don't and starting level. Recently I've become obsessed with the idea of attempting a werebear Paladin as they're LG (since the creature hd are taken as levels) they wouldn't get large size unless I took 6 levels of bear though, and the three levels of werebear aren't as advantageous without later stuff, hmm...especially since they don't get any hd of their own. That's one of those things that SOUNDS awesome but I'm not sure how well it would actually work.

I've also been toying with a few different bard ideas, since it's been a while since I ran one. I'd love to run a satyr bard again. ...otherwise, without specific character ideas I almost always end up a rogue.
I can come up with something easily to fill in party gaps, of course. (Part of why I almost always end up a rogue.)

User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by willpell » Sat Mar 23, 2013 8:59 am

CelineSSauve wrote:No... I'd meant that Leadership is usually a Lv6 Feat, no?
It's legal to take it at level 6, but it gets stronger as you continue to level up, and I assumed you'd be spending your level 3 and 6 feats on Practiced Caster for both your classes, so it would make sense to wait until level 9 for Leadership, as you'll get more bang for your buck then anyway.
I wouldn't mind a Flaw that fits his fluf. My only issue is that selecting Feats is not my strong point...
It's hard work, definitely; I'm still far from excellent at it, but I did compile a reference list for my own use, so I've got some ability to cram and come up with stuff.
Can it be "bought off" later?
Officially I don't know of any way to do that, but it seems reasonable to say that if you gain a Feat on level up, you could use it to get rid of the Flaw instead, since it gave you an extra feat in the first place.
If Ado ends up discovering that he does have some potential for offensive magics within him?
The flinching one we were talking about wouldn't apply there anyway; it's a penalty to AC. The other one was -1 to attack rolls, which would only be a problem if you were using spells that require attack rolls, like Ray of Frost or any Touch spell, and those are all targeting Touch AC which is seldom very high. Most of the more powerful spells use saving throws rather than hit rolls, so taking the -1 to attack rolls Flaw for a spellcaster is kinda minmaxy; I probably wouldn't allow it for a primary caster, but for your guy it seems like he could use the help.
Ayeaka wrote:Fair enough! In that case, I've a few ideas rattling around my brain. Dependent on what you allow/don't and starting level. Recently I've become obsessed with the idea of attempting a werebear Paladin as they're LG (since the creature hd are taken as levels) they wouldn't get large size unless I took 6 levels of bear though, and the three levels of werebear aren't as advantageous without later stuff, hmm...especially since they don't get any hd of their own. That's one of those things that SOUNDS awesome but I'm not sure how well it would actually work.
Yeah I built a Half-Celestial Werebear for giggles one time; ECL 11 with one Hit Die. Fuuuun. Paladin is slightly less insane. Since our other character is going for PrC entry at level 9, starting them off at level 7 would make them somewhat functional while leaving room to grow, and at the same level you could be a Paladin 1 plus Werebear. (My only concern is the possibility of you running around biting everyone and transmitting lycanthropy; it's not as bad as if you were a vampire, since you don't have any control over the resulting werebears, but it still seems like a way that you could just randomly screw up my carefully arranged constellations of harmless NPCs by turning them all into berserk monsters.)
I've also been toying with a few different bard ideas, since it's been a while since I ran one. I'd love to run a satyr bard again. ...otherwise, without specific character ideas I almost always end up a rogue.
I can come up with something easily to fill in party gaps, of course. (Part of why I almost always end up a rogue.)
Rogue is fine as long as you're not stealing from or backstabbing the other players. I actually have a fair bit of fun playing up the slightly transmundane status of rogues - they're not outright magical or anything, but stuff like how Evasion will let them dodge even when there's nowhere for them to go, it amuses me to come up with explanations for that which make it seem as though they're just *slightly* supernatural in a way that nobody can quite put their finger on.

Satyr bard...hrm. I'm not a big fan of the bard's flavor as-written; I usually refluff bards in my campaign to be more like either rock stars or great statesmen who inspire through oratory, rather than the traditional medieval lute-strumming falsetto free-rhymer. For a satyr, it makes some sense to stick a little closer to the classics, but me having a somewhat grumpy opinion on the matter and not being very good at clarifying exactly where I draw the line...It would probably be better if you did a different character. Maybe I could make a satyr bard as an NPC for you to meet, have you get an idea of the portrayal I'd be comfortable with, and come up with something that's distinctively different enough to be your own, but still in the same general department, if you follow that? (Again I'm just tossing out ideas, we don't have to really go anywhere with it.)
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

User avatar
Amara
Spokesperson in Training
Posts: 1312
Location: Somewhere buried in research papers.

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by Amara » Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:10 am

Willpell wrote:Yeah I built a Half-Celestial Werebear for giggles one time; ECL 11 with one Hit Die. Fuuuun. Paladin is slightly less insane. Since our other character is going for PrC entry at level 9, starting them off at level 7 would make them somewhat functional while leaving room to grow, and at the same level you could be a Paladin 1 plus Werebear. (My only concern is the possibility of you running around biting everyone and transmitting lycanthropy; it's not as bad as if you were a vampire, since you don't have any control over the resulting werebears, but it still seems like a way that you could just randomly screw up my carefully arranged constellations of harmless NPCs by turning them all into berserk monsters.)

Ah, I'd be sticking to the fluff, there! Werebears don't bite anything they know they can't kill, and creating a new werebear is usually an intentional process, a "carry on my duties" kind of thing. The nice thing about them making class templates for both the bear and werebear portions is that even in a lower campaign I could start 2 levels of werebear (no hd) and however many levels of bear (1d8), taking on levels of each as was viable. Only problem would be starting actual "character" classes very late, but bears/werebears get decent free feats, so they wouldn't be useless in combat at least. :b if there were accidents it would be...strange. Since inflicted would technically change alignment with uncontrolled shifts (something I've always found odd due to different weres having different natural alignments,) they'd suddenly be Lawful Good. o_o I've been in a lot of campaigns where that was home ruled, though.
Willpell wrote:Rogue is fine as long as you're not stealing from or backstabbing the other players. I actually have a fair bit of fun playing up the slightly transmundane status of rogues - they're not outright magical or anything, but stuff like how Evasion will let them dodge even when there's nowhere for them to go, it amuses me to come up with explanations for that which make it seem as though they're just *slightly* supernatural in a way that nobody can quite put their finger on.
I like to make spy type rogues...a lot. XD most of mine go in the charismatic "trick the baddies and steal their secrets, then set up an awesome attack plan!" action hero route (think Michael Weston of Burn Notice) though I'm fond of acrobatic stuff, too. I've had a long running roster of NG rogues. (Though I've run other alignments as suited my concepts, NG seems to usually be a safe alignment that doesn't cause party conflicts!)
Willpell wrote:Satyr bard...hrm. I'm not a big fan of the bard's flavor as-written; I usually refluff bards in my campaign to be more like either rock stars or great statesmen who inspire through oratory, rather than the traditional medieval lute-strumming falsetto free-rhymer. For a satyr, it makes some sense to stick a little closer to the classics, but me having a somewhat grumpy opinion on the matter and not being very good at clarifying exactly where I draw the line...It would probably be better if you did a different character. Maybe I could make a satyr bard as an NPC for you to meet, have you get an idea of the portrayal I'd be comfortable with, and come up with something that's distinctively different enough to be your own, but still in the same general department, if you follow that? (Again I'm just tossing out ideas, we don't have to really go anywhere with it.)
That's fine. I love bards, though I tend to play them as almost a rogue sister class. Know-it-all tricksy types that are good aligned...though their pranks may well drive you mad. I've had fun playing that up with Gnome illusions in the past, too. Haha
I tend to look at class fluff very loosely, with some exceptions. (Paladins and Clerics for example,) since I view classes from a more White Wolf stand point of "ok, This is the power/ability set I think suits my character best." Arguably the most annoying bard I've ever had was the time I ran a mime, though.

I'll try to be adaptable either way. C:

User avatar
ThroughTheWell
.
Posts: 1045

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by ThroughTheWell » Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:11 pm

Curious, how will you deal with typical paladin armor during a were transformation?
I survived the forum move 4 times... yeah, I feel old.

User avatar
spiderwrangler
Game Master
Posts: 15075

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by spiderwrangler » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:20 pm

I'd be interested, and had taken some steps towards developing a spider themed character (cleric with spider domain, NOT Drow/evil, more of a 'natural' feel) with the help of Throughthewell and Theis2 (who had suggested some alterations to cleric base abilities in return for gaining spider companion). While part of the character's philosophy (and mine) is that spiders are not evil and scary (true neutral in D&D books!), but animals of amazing capabilites, I understand that they aren't for everyone.
Games I GM:
► Show Spoiler
Games I play in:
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Feytala
Converses Frequently
Posts: 653
Location: Essen, NRW, Germany

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by Feytala » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:03 pm

If its still open, I might be interested, too... I just have to admit, that my knowledge of 3.5-Rules is largely and purely theorethical, because the one None-Convention-D&D-Game I occasionally take part in has a DM, that, well... Is still whining that AD&D was so much better, while not understanding the difference between a full action and a standard one, all the while insisting that a cleric has to heal na d that is his main function... Ah, well... :D

I usually play Spellcasters, the wizard theme is just my favourite in almost any game, but I'd play other themes, too... I made up a few builds and currently took a liking to a "Invisibility is for beginners"-Whispergnome-Rogue(or maybe Spellthief)/Diviner, with bad memories and a big fear for other arcane spellcasters, while at the same time trying to hide her own, because she is used to "People don't like wizards and stat to kill them for a reason..." from her background...
Divine Oracle, Abjurant Champion or Unseen Seer come to mind as later PrCs...

Ah, or I could just go with a hotblooded human Sworddancer (Scout/Fighter...) and on Dervish later on...

Cleric would be interesting, too, but not deciding that before I know the world (and therefor the gods)...

I have quite a few stories in the back of my head... And... While I generally try to... Well... Write the things right, occasionally you can notice, that english is not my first language. If that doesn't disturb you...

Knowing which Books are allowed and which Base-Classes and Races would be a cool start :D

User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by willpell » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:33 pm

Ayeaka wrote:Ah, I'd be sticking to the fluff, there! Werebears don't bite anything they know they can't kill, and creating a new werebear is usually an intentional process, a "carry on my duties" kind of thing.
Okay, cool.
The nice thing about them making class templates for both the bear and werebear portions is that even in a lower campaign I could start 2 levels of werebear (no hd) and however many levels of bear (1d8), taking on levels of each as was viable. Only problem would be starting actual "character" classes very late, but bears/werebears get decent free feats, so they wouldn't be useless in combat at least.
I'm not huge on the HD, so it'd probably be easier just to start you off at level 7. It's a weence higher than I'm used to, but shouldn't be too hard to adapt.
if there were accidents it would be...strange. Since inflicted would technically change alignment with uncontrolled shifts (something I've always found odd due to different weres having different natural alignments,) they'd suddenly be Lawful Good. o_o I've been in a lot of campaigns where that was home ruled, though.
It would make things interesting. I could see some Lawful Good types arguing that you should track down ruthless killers and bite them to instill a conscience. (It'd be up to you whether to listen to their demands, think about it, refuse, or even attack them for suggesting such a thing. It certainly wouldn't be something most people would consider a reasonable idea.)
I like to make spy type rogues...a lot. XD most of mine go in the charismatic "trick the baddies and steal their secrets, then set up an awesome attack plan!" action hero route (think Michael Weston of Burn Notice) though I'm fond of acrobatic stuff, too. I've had a long running roster of NG rogues. (Though I've run other alignments as suited my concepts, NG seems to usually be a safe alignment that doesn't cause party conflicts!)
All of this sounds fine. In fact if you wanted to be a combination Rogue and Paladin, there's a feat in Complete Adventurer that makes it somewhat viable, and a number of PrCs (the "sneaky good guy who infiltrates and backstabs evil" seems to be a popular concept; several different books contain one or another version of it).
That's fine. I love bards, though I tend to play them as almost a rogue sister class. Know-it-all tricksy types that are good aligned...though their pranks may well drive you mad.
Erm, prankster types are even more likely to annoy me than traditional bards. But portraying the bard as more roguish works; they're more people-friendly and not as sneaky, but they get some decent spells and have tons of ACFs and variant classes to mess around with, so lots of potential there.
ThroughTheWell wrote:Curious, how will you deal with typical paladin armor during a were transformation?
Armor on lycanthropes tends not to end well. I think there's a special druid armor which shapeshifts with the wearer, that might work...otherwise, well, just take a high DEX and maybe a level of Monk for WIS-to-AC, or just go without armor and trust that your HD and Fast Healing (plus Lay on Hands if you're a Paladin and have good CHA) will keep you alive.
spiderwrangler wrote:I'd be interested, and had taken some steps towards developing a spider themed character (cleric with spider domain, NOT Drow/evil, more of a 'natural' feel)
Cool; I've got a drow player in my other campaign, so I'm familiar with spider-related stuff and have done some of the proper research already. One thing I should let you know is that in my campaign, I houseruled Lolth to not be evil or a demon anymore. The Drow are still following the same general religion, but they leave her name out of it; she just sort of wanders around in the wilderness watching spiders do what they do, killing things when she feels like but not actively plotting much of anything. I'm also fairly willing to accept "good Drow" characters, even if they are a cliche - though it's even better, IMO, when they aren't "good" per se, but are just getting away from their evil society because they figured out it was hazardous to their health.

(This is the deal with my drow PC - she's still Evil, albeit Lawful, but got sick of her sisters trying to kill her, and wound up on the wrong end of a Mind Flayer, so she went to the surface just in the hopes it would be slightly less dangerous there. The player and I are still talking through whether her alignment will start moving northward eventually, but it's not likely to ever go farther than Neutral, and even that won't happen overnight. It's been fun seeing the player roleplay her holier-than-thou attitude while grudgingly following humanity's rules, no matter how counterintuitive they seem to her twisted upbringing.)
with the help of Throughthewell and Theis2 (who had suggested some alterations to cleric base abilities in return for gaining spider companion). While part of the character's philosophy (and mine) is that spiders are not evil and scary (true neutral in D&D books!), but animals of amazing capabilites, I understand that they aren't for everyone.
Scary yes, but evil no. Statistics have indicated that about half of the human race (1/4 of males and 3/4 of females) have a phobia of snakes and/or spiders, and it's been suggested that it's for evolutionary reasons, ie those who weren't afraid of poisonous creatures were more likely to die, so fear of the two most common categories of such creatures kind of became instinctual among those who survived. But everybody's different, and that's as it should be. (Personally, I have a very mild dislike of spiders, and go out of my way to avoid killing them because I'd rather have them than the insects they'll eat. Snakes, though, I absolutely love.)
Feytala wrote:If its still open, I might be interested, too... I just have to admit, that my knowledge of 3.5-Rules is largely and purely theorethical, because the one None-Convention-D&D-Game I occasionally take part in has a DM, that, well... Is still whining that AD&D was so much better, while not understanding the difference between a full action and a standard one, all the while insisting that a cleric has to heal na d that is his main function... Ah, well... :D
Well, I've got a pretty decent level of system mastery, so I'd be happy to help you get a character made. (And assuming that clerics are healbots is a pretty standard blind spot that a lot of players have, up to and including at least most of the Wotco writing staff. Just like how they assumed all wizards only throw Evocations, all of which had to be nerfed because they were so powerful. Grrr.)
I made up a few builds and currently took a liking to a "Invisibility is for beginners"-Whispergnome-Rogue(or maybe Spellthief)/Diviner, with bad memories and a big fear for other arcane spellcasters, while at the same time trying to hide her own, because she is used to "People don't like wizards and stat to kill them for a reason..." from her background...
Hm. Not familiar with the Whisper Gnomes, I've heard they're on the more powerful side, so I might veto that part. Spellthief is cool though. Although anti-arcanist prejudice is going to be fairly uncommon in any gameworld I make; if it's very important to you to have that background, it'll mean that you came from a small and isolated area that's far from the influence of the more powerful and hegemonic civilizations, which tend to be very pro-magic. (The same is true of slavery, which was a big factor in Celine's backstory; it's not something that gets tolerated in most parts of the world, and there are numerous groups actively working to stamp it out, so places where it survives on any major scale are quite rare.)
Ah, or I could just go with a hotblooded human Sworddancer (Scout/Fighter...) and on Dervish later on...
This could work easily enough.
Cleric would be interesting, too, but not deciding that before I know the world (and therefor the gods)...
I love clerics. I generally use the default/Greyhawk pantheon with a few modifications (the biggest of which is the non-Evil Lolth I mentioned above; also I threw out the dragon gods and the Kuo-Toa lobster-goddess and a few others I didn't like, and added a few homebrew ones which filled roles that I thought were overly vacant; I'd rather have these get revealed in the course of play rather than doing an infodump).
Well... Write the things right, occasionally you can notice, that english is not my first language. If that doesn't disturb you...
I had yet to notice any problems, and if I do I'll either ignore it or offer polite corrections. As long as "yuo isn't talkin' WIKE DIS", I'm sure we'll get along fine. :D
Knowing which Books are allowed and which Base-Classes and Races would be a cool start :D
Pretty much all classes are allowed; Races I'm a bit pickier on, anything beyond the standard elf-dwarf-orc-gnome-hobbit stuff, you should probably ask first. I have access to most of the books which aren't campaign specific or third party; the only ones I can think of offhand which I *don't* have are Weapons of Legacy, Exemplars of Evil, and Heroes of Battle, though it's entirely possible I've missed something semi-obscure. A lot of books I have but have not yet read, so I may not be familiar with what you bring up, but it's very likely I can get so, if so inclined.
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

User avatar
spiderwrangler
Game Master
Posts: 15075

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by spiderwrangler » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:57 pm

willpell wrote:Cool; I've got a drow player in my other campaign, so I'm familiar with spider-related stuff and have done some of the proper research already. (Personally, I have a very mild dislike of spiders, and go out of my way to avoid killing them because I'd rather have them than the insects they'll eat. Snakes, though, I absolutely love.)
Fair enough! I'm not a huge fan of the cliched Drow, would likely go a different direction with the character (more Native American-style reverence for spiders than Drow-feel).
willpell wrote: Races I'm a bit pickier on, anything beyond the standard elf-dwarf-orc-gnome-hobbit stuff, you should probably ask first.
Humans? ;)
Games I GM:
► Show Spoiler
Games I play in:
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Amara
Spokesperson in Training
Posts: 1312
Location: Somewhere buried in research papers.

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by Amara » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:16 pm

ThroughTheWell wrote:Curious, how will you deal with typical paladin armor during a were transformation?
...probably not well. xD
Though armor can be enchanted to deal with size and shape changing, it tends to be quite expensive. Granted, were bears get natural armor, so I would probably be okay with lighter armor with modifications to make it easier to remove quickly.

My last were I lucked out with that on.. He got smaller in hybrid form...and in beast form he could just wiggle out of his garments.
Willpell wrote:Erm, prankster types are even more likely to annoy me than traditional bards. But portraying the bard as more roguish works; they're more people-friendly and not as sneaky, but they get some decent spells and have tons of ACFs and variant classes to mess around with, so lots of potential there.
Fair enough! I can easily tone it down, make a different character, or just not play a bard. I just like bardic knowledge...a lot. It started as a joke that I should take a level or two in bard when my rogue in one campaign seemed to always know everything. (He had a very high intelligence and I got high rolls on every intelligence or knowledge check for some reason!) It just stuck after that.
Willpell wrote:Armor on lycanthropes tends not to end well. I think there's a special druid armor which shapeshifts with the wearer, that might work...otherwise, well, just take a high DEX and maybe a level of Monk for WIS-to-AC, or just go without armor and trust that your HD and Fast Healing (plus Lay on Hands if you're a Paladin and have good CHA) will keep you alive.
Indeed. I honestly think the most terrifying paladin I've ever seen run was a dex/charisma build one of my friends ran a few campaigns ago.
Willpell wrote:I'm not huge on the HD, so it'd probably be easier just to start you off at level 7. It's a weence higher than I'm used to, but shouldn't be too hard to adapt.
Well, the HD/levels in bear was just to divide werebear abilities up in a way that made it feasible to start at lower levels (same way Satyr is now also a level template, and you get Satyr racial abilities by level.) That's fine, though. C: I was just talking to another DM buddy of mine about other ways to adapt things for another player in one of his games. I'll probably hold off definitely locking in anything until I see what everyone else wants, but it is looking like your party may need a tank, so the paladin may be a good choice.
(Been a while since I ran one, too!)

User avatar
Feytala
Converses Frequently
Posts: 653
Location: Essen, NRW, Germany

Re: D&D 3.5

Post by Feytala » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:21 pm

If you just want bardic Knowledge, play a cloistered Cleric ?^^

Post Reply