Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[King_of_the_weasels]

I was thinking the template, not the bloodline, so you know.

My only problem is I want dragons to be unnatural, like Ygseriial the Great Wyrm Green Dragon who ruled over High Tree for centuries, he only came into being because the Killoren created and summoned him.  You being half dragon means your dad is literally a dragon, which I've always considered pretty silly (also what is your base race?).  However if you went draconic which while weaker still gets breath weapons and wings (I think, pretty sure) means you come from a long line of people who have dragon blood (which explains why your a sorcerer, as that's like there thing right? Sorcerers have dragon blood.  The races of dragons does a pretty poor job explaining it, I think I need to look in one of the monster manuals for the actual info.

((also dragon blood(soul) from a cold place + the dracolexi class (gaining power from dragon words) = DOVAHKIIN!  Just putting that out there.))

edit- okay so draconic creature works for characters as well, check that out. (its in both of the big dragon books)

[Heron TSG]

Human would be my preferred base race. I'll look into draconic, it may work for this concept.

[King_of_the_weasels]

Human would be my preferred base race. I'll look into draconic, it may work for this concept.

Well humans are in every local (coasts for great sea, the snow walkers (tundra) in frostfall, at least one of the desert tribes will be mostly human I'm sure, and all of the farlands) so it won't even remotely be a problem.

[Vanigo]

It's a level 8-10, so "weaker" to begin with doesn't matter, not to mention the complete opposite of how the game works.  I have a character who does 1d4+2+4d6 damage at level 6, with a tiny knife that's not even magic.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Is it your contention that casters are actually weaker than other characters in 3.5? That flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but I'm willing to entertain arguments on the subject. A sneak attack that averages 18 damage isn't very convincing, though. A sorcerer at that level can throw fireballs for 6d6, averaging 21, and hit a group of enemies at the same time. Only so many times a day, of course, but it's not as situational as a sneak attack, either. Barbarosa's monk is much more compelling, but that's an extreme min/max build, and doesn't have that much impact on the game as actually played.
And really, direct damage is what casters are worst at. The real reason casters are better is that they can do so many other things. A well-played caster doesn't try to match a barbarian's damage output, he makes it a moot point by throwing negative levels and save-or-dies around, or with strategically-placed solid fog spells to prevent melee altogether, or by confusing everyone with illusions and preventing combat from starting in the first place, or by dominating enemies and watching them tear each other apart, or...
Fighter-types are better at dealing hit point damage, but if you're doing hit point damage with a caster you're probably doing something wrong.

This is also a "story" campaign so while I will try to challenge you, I"m not trying to actively kill you like I would if I was running a low-fantasy dungeon delving campaign.

Fair enough.

[King_of_the_weasels]

It's a level 8-10, so "weaker" to begin with doesn't matter, not to mention the complete opposite of how the game works.  I have a character who does 1d4+2+4d6 damage at level 6, with a tiny knife that's not even magic.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Is it your contention that casters are actually weaker than other characters in 3.5? That flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but I'm willing to entertain arguments on the subject. A sneak attack that averages 18 damage isn't very convincing, though. A sorcerer at that level can throw fireballs for 6d6, averaging 21, and hit a group of enemies at the same time. Only so many times a day, of course, but it's not as situational as a sneak attack, either. Barbarosa's monk is much more compelling, but that's an extreme min/max build, and doesn't have that much impact on the game as actually played.
And really, direct damage is what casters are worst at. The real reason casters are better is that they can do so many other things. A well-played caster doesn't try to match a barbarian's damage output, he makes it a moot point by throwing negative levels and save-or-dies around, or with strategically-placed solid fog spells to prevent melee altogether, or by confusing everyone with illusions and preventing combat from starting in the first place, or by dominating enemies and watching them tear each other apart, or...
Fighter-types are better at dealing hit point damage, but if you're doing hit point damage with a caster you're probably doing something wrong.

This is also a "story" campaign so while I will try to challenge you, I"m not trying to actively kill you like I would if I was running a low-fantasy dungeon delving campaign.

Fair enough.

Sneak attacking is basically every single one of my attacks, but that's not were I get all my d6's from.

edit- so are you going to actually play or just complain some more?

[King_of_the_weasels]

Okay so I doubt criptfiend is actually going to play, and Vanigo hasn't replied back about whether he's going to play, or if he was just going to be a criptfiend and demand I change something yet not play when I change it.  So if you want in Jackofthebox, you should decide on whether you'll be from The Sand, or Great Sea.

[Criptfeind]

Thanks for using my name as a insult. I was demanding nothing, I was just pointing out that the way you were making your game was setting it up for failure in all but the most specific of circumstances.

[JackoftheBox]

Alrighty, I'll pick the sand place.

[King_of_the_weasels]

Thanks for using my name as a insult. I was demanding nothing, I was just pointing out that the way you were making your game was setting it up for failure in all but the most specific of circumstances.

Wow criptfiend, I apologize, I was being a real criptfiend in that last post.  But honestly if you weren't going to play, why bother?  That'd be like one country going into another and saying, you know your water system sucks you should probably fix it.  And then that country never trades with the country after they fix their pipes, so thus while they have working pipes, they don't have any money to pay for them.  But in my case, money = players.

[Criptfeind]

why bother?

Because I don't know if I want to play, or if I ever did. I am busy. I don't know if I have time. I have been thinking about this game over the last several days, but I think my conclusion is I don't want to play.

That said, I see no issue with trying to "help" you.

To further your metaphor: You have a ton of potential trade partners, more then you could ever trade with. If one does not trade with you that means a different one CAN trade with you. Also now your drinking water is not killing everyone who tries to trade with you.

[King_of_the_weasels]

why bother?

Because I don't know if I want to play, or if I ever did. I am busy. I don't know if I have time. I have been thinking about this game over the last several days, but I think my conclusion is I don't want to play.

That said, I see no issue with trying to "help" you.

To further your metaphor: You have a ton of potential trade partners, more then you could ever trade with. If one does not trade with you that means a different one CAN trade with you. Also now your drinking water is not killing everyone who tries to trade with you.

This is a dwarf fortress forum and you are suggesting that traders dying of non-stab wounds is a bad thing?  For shame.

Also only people who actually post in this thread become viable trade partners, the rest are like.. extraterrestrials, until they land on planet "council of high tree (high level 3.5 campaign 4-8 players) RULE CHANGES".  And this metaphor is getting out of hand.

[Heron TSG]

You know what? I'm out. You're being incredibly rude to someone who's just trying to help.

[King_of_the_weasels]

You know what? I'm out. You're being incredibly rude to someone who's just trying to help.

Technically I'm being rude to someone who pointed out flaws in the way I wanted to run the game.  Did I ask for criticism?  No, I was trying to run a game where the characters fit their role, as in politicians.  Then I finally cave and change it to what he wanted, cause hey I need players.  He doesn't join, so I make a joke at his expense, he finds offense to it so I make another joke trying to show that I'm not really that serious. That while I'm bitter, I'm not mad at him, he did KINDA help. And why in this day and age do we STILL not have a keyboard punctuation for sarcasm/just joking with ya buddy hardy har.


edit- thought of another analogy!  Still extremely rude but I like it too much not to use it.

It's like I'm a dad building a tree house for his kid, and the kid complains about my designs, so I fix them cause hey I want him to be happy, then the kid never plays in the tree house.

[The Fool]

I wasn't going to say anything, but you have been kind of rude since you posted this. When people make suggestions to help the game you shouldn't shut them down and comment on something unrelated. BTW, using someone else's username as an adjective (unless it is) isn't a good idea in any circumstance.

As for the campaign, it's very weird for everyone to act as politicians in D&D. If it weren't for the hints at a warring nation of outlaws I wouldn't bother. It's in the DM manual that you shouldn't make a campaign where the PCs stand on the sidelines and watch a story, and I would agree and hope this isn't an example of this. Between the unfinished backstory (one nation is almost complete, and there is no deities yet), unconventional campaign, the insults to users, and the note saying that if you don't know D&D don't bother I'd say this isn't the most inviting thread right now.

My suggestion would be to build the world and re-post this, because this isn't working as is. I like the idea of a high level campaign, and warring nations, but if we're politicians in a world of adventurers I don't want to be involved.

[King_of_the_weasels]

I wasn't going to say anything, but you have been kind of rude since you posted this. When people make suggestions to help the game you shouldn't shut them down and comment on something unrelated.  except I didn't, I put forth my arguments and he put forth his, and I made a compromise.  I'm not angry cause I changed the rules, I'm angry cause I thought he was going to play if I changed the rules.

BTW, using someone else's username as an adjective (unless it is) isn't a good idea in any circumstance. It's never a good idea to insult someone.  But if your going to, I suggest using there name as an NOUN, people hate that.

As for the campaign, it's very weird for everyone to act as politicians in D&D. If it weren't for the hints at a warring nation of outlaws I wouldn't bother.  God that would of been boring, like watching cspan

 It's in the DM manual that you shouldn't make a campaign where the PCs stand on the sidelines and watch a story, and I would agree and hope this isn't an example of this. plot wise something bad happens at the meeting, and you and the other player characters have to visit each nation explaining what happened and requesting military aid, and going on quests for them for numerous reasons so they can send men

 Between the unfinished backstory (one nation is almost complete, and there is no deities yet), unconventional campaign, the insults to users users not players, I would never insult you The Fool, or Jackofthebox, You guys are coooool as cucumbers.  Barbossa I won't insult you either cause you have a pretty good reason to leave, and the note saying that if you don't know D&D don't bother I'd say this isn't the most inviting thread right now. If this was 4th edition (which it almost was cause dming 4th is 100000 times easier then 3.5) I wouldn't mind people new to the game.   and it's not suppose to be welcoming, I DON'T want people who have never played asking to play, it's hard enough teaching the basics, but then we'd have to do that, teach them to build decent high level characters, how to use maptools, etc.

My suggestion would be to build the world and re-post this, because this isn't working as is. I like the idea of a high level campaign, and warring nations, but if we're politicians in a world of adventurers I don't want to be involved. I keep thinking I've mention this but I might of kept deleting it when rephrasing.  THERE ARE NO ADVENTURERS, what is adventure?  Why would you want to put your self in harms way?  That seems awfully silly, just stay with us, we've got plenty of food and work, and the giants never bother us and we are at peace with all the animals, sure when your traveling you might get attacked by some hooligan or a pack of wolves, but that's what weapons and good friends are for, so sit back enjoy some ale.

Plus if I designed the entire world it'd limit you guys too much, I want to give you guys at least some say in the world, like you being dragon born.  At first there was none, then a reason, then a better reason, then I messed with the races a bit and changed some stuff so it'd fit into my vision more.  and bam suddenly dragon borns make sense, and in the future of this world (if we ever 1. actually start the game, and 2. finish all the quests without either 2a. me getting bored and abandoning it 2b. You guys finally give up on me because I'm apparently a dick. 3. All your characters are still alive to become the future dieties) there could be a dungeon in the remains of high tree that your future guys could go to if one of them wanted to become dragon born.  Cause I'm the type of optimistic dm who believes that this could ever happen.

Criptfiend- noun
1. A member of the bay12 forums
2. Possibly undead
3. Someone who doesn't say anything about playing in your campaign, but unknowingly makes it seem like he was going to.