Corvus

always have to love odd coincidences in timings of technically related posts...

Hmm... Fine I guess I will take time out of preparing characters for a game of pathfinder to help out...

Okay, just a quick explanation of why Vow of Poverty is fundamentally broken (in terms of game balancing): The concept of Vow of poverty is that it is intended to allow for roleplaying of a character who has decided that for the greater good that they will give up their material possessions and help others, which would under normal rules make a character unplayable. In order to make the resulting character still playable in a party, the feat has to provide alternatives to the weapons and armor that a character of that level would possesss. However this is where things start to fall apart as the Price of giving up almost everything you own is far from balanced, with some classes giving up their core source of power (ex. Fighters) while other classes are giving up little (ex. Soulblade, Druid, and Sorcerer) for a standard reward which does not adequately deal the fundamental differences between classes (such as giving light armor-simple weapon classes the exact same benefits as a heavy armor-Martial weapon class) Really, the feat only works if you are using it in the context it was originally intended for, Serious Roleplaying where you are playing the role of a person who gives up everything they own to help those around them as opposed to simply trying to make the most powerful character imaginable. I do not mean to offend you by saying this Retech, but it seems rather unlikely that you were wanting the use of the Vow of Poverty in order Roleplay such a character especially with the desired class of Soulblade. Nex, To be specific Retech was requesting the Old D&D 3.5 form of the vow of Poverty which is extremely different from the Pathfinder monk vow. Grim, Tengu's seems reasonably fine to have and I will say they work without a level adjustment. and I will have them in the setting in the role that you suggested.

Okay, here goes my list: Soulknife - No. there are some decently obvious tricks to make a gamebreaking character, that while it may be able to be prevented by GM intervention it would require me to apply arbitrary restrictions on the use of class abilities on the spot, and it would require the addition of the entire psionics situation to the game making things more confusing. Vow of Poverty - There is not really a method to create a non broken form of Vow of poverty, as the foundation for the feat is almost entirely broken, especially full casters and magically generated weapon classes (such as Soul Knife, which is a light armor melee class, which bypasses the poverty part of the vow of poverty by getting a magical weapon which becomes even more magical and the vow of Poverty more than makes up for the lack of wearing physical armor if the character is to remain playable). Really the only way to make something along its lines work is to give it a prerequisite of not having a fair few different classes. Additionally you would not solve the loot issue at all as with vow of poverty you still need to get your fair share of loot to donate to chairty. (so the gods don't smite you for trying to pull a fast one on them) Pyrokineticist - depends somewhat on the class that go with it so will wait on a full ruling for the possibility of you requesting another psionic class.

I guess I was not clear enough, if you request an Entire 3rd party source I will most likely deny it, as you are supposed to request individual character options out of it. tl,dr: No, I will not allow the entire book (you may still request individual pieces of content out of the book)

Good, thanks! :P I'm trying to bug Wyvren for a Pathfinder campaign, ANY Pathfinder campaign. Wish me luck. I guess I can try running a game of Pathfinder if there are 3-5 players willing to play and actually listen to the GM. This will be a roleplaying game, not a play to win or rule exploit game. I am not going to blow up if you suggest something and I am happy to discuss 'Houserule' variants, for example a barbarian scout with the odd rogue talent instead of the odd rage ability. But if I say no I don't expect to be lamberblasted with links to rulebooks. Additionally I expect rules debates to be kept to a minimum during sessions, as I have more important things to be doing during the session such as running the game. If there is interest I will start up a seperate thread, but for now: [spoiler=Specific details]A few specifics so far: Maptools will not be used. The game will most likely be operated in IRC, possibly with a voice chat on the side for OOC. Characters will start at character level of 5 Character races require approval if they are not Human, dwarf, elf, half elf, gnome, halfling, or half orc; Races not on this list will most likely have their effective level adjusted for balance. In some cases this will mean that it may not be used due to the restrictions of the party level, Though I would be willing to work to modify another character race to fit the character concept. 3rd party pathfinder supplements and WotC D&D 3.0/3.5 materials may only be used with my permission if requested prior to submitting a final character sheet. Any such materials showing up on a final character sheet without preapproval will be denied for use. (I do reserve the right to reject characters using pre approved content when the character is submitted) Non-Core rulebook 1st party Pathfinder content must have a link to the relevant rules featured somewhere in the character sheet, as I do not want to have to scour the reference documents for every single character option. The current setting Concept I am thinking I would use (work in progress):Roughly 600 years ago something started happening that caused the world to start to flood, while many people managed to survive but many nations became at best a series of islands, which they have come back from. So things start that on the island of No Namia Arcania for some reason they are holding the once a decade Grand Arcana Festival only 3 years after the previous one with no obvious reason, but as always many of the great wizards of the world are attending. EDIT: For 3rd Party and D&D 3.5 Character options, Approvals are per option not per source as I will most likely deny use of an entire source for a small number of game breaking options. More in depth information will come later if interest is shown.

Just a short list of questions at the moment: Am I correct in assuming this is a Play by Post game? What degree of control will the Players and the game master have on the Gameplay and roleplaying? (who controls NPCs and who decides the outcomes of player actions) Can you please use paragraphing in your posts to make them easier to read? (as in put a blank line between different sections of the post)

Ah yes, I was a bit over the top in my reaction there. Sorry about that. Really its just that I am not particularly interested in the comic and so having the on and off discussion of it in here has been annoying me for awhile and I just finally decided to say something then. If people are really wanting to spend more time discussing webcomics perhaps we should look into starting a seperate back room for that purpose, so the discussions on it are a bit easier to follow. EDIT: Resistance, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is not like the previous incarnations of the MLP TV show. I would suggest actually trying to watch the show at least one time (I would suggest starting with an episode in the middle, such as episode 7: Dragonshy) before jumping to such conclusions. And an image for an added point: [spoiler=Image]

Killerred, if you really want to hear about the show, I suggest heading over to the Off topic MLP:FiM topic (Link) and asking about it there, as this is not really the place to discuss it as demonstrated by the reaction of some Taverners. But since I am posting this I may as well give the brief summary: The quality of the animation is excelent, the characters are actually interesting and have depth, the writing is amazing (intended for young girls, but written so their parent's can enjoy it too [and incidentially the large unintended audience]) and its soundtrack and voice acting are great. So just to repeat, if you actually want to hear about the show, head over to the Off-topic thread where odds are you will almost certainly get better and more indepth information than you will find here. (I am not trying to offend those of you who do not like the show, it is just that the MLP:FiM thread is where the discussion should be, as I do respect the fact that your opinion is different than mine and that there is no single right answer) P.S. Thanks, Nex

Okay... (wasn't expecting that response) Do you mean Friendship is Magic, the Hasbro produced TV show; Or Do you mean Friendship is Dragons, the FiM screencap comic along the lines of DM of the Rings and Darths and droids that I just mentioned?

... Is it really neccessary for you to keep on posting mildly vague commentary on webcomics that other people here have said several times that they dont read and do not want to read. (and may be a spoiler for those that actually do read it) Like do you really want to get to the point of having me post mildly vague commentary on the latest page of Friendship is Dragons, Addicting Science, or Skin deep out of sheer annoyance at you advertising webcomics in the same way? (All three webcomics almost certainly do not fall within the likings of most Taverners)

I am fairly sure that I listed Dr. McNinja among the webcomics I read...

Well for the first part is that the first person to jump into the war has a 100% chance of having the defending nation as an ally in the war, so they outnumber the person 2 to 1 and the additional player does not have to worry about a counterattack of any reasonable size. After the first few it becomes everyone else jumping into the war in order to manage to obtain something from the original agressor after they inevitably lose.

Okay, let me give you an example of what powergaming is that should be obvious: Lets say you and a friend are argueing which of you is a better driver and decide that you will come to a racetrack that you managed to rent for a few hours, and will do a race to see who can finish faster. If you show up in your street legal car, that is friendly competition. If you show up in an F1 race car (or Nascar, etc.) to race you are powergaming. Essentially, if your preparation or tactics totally eliminate all challenges involved, especially when in a multiplayer experience you end up making all your teammates redundant, you are powergaming.

Resistance, just so you know the Commonwealth of nations does not have an actual method to kick nations out of their group, as they may only be leave voluntarily, let alone be forced out by a single nation. The closest thing that exists is Suspension which is generally only done for violating the responsibility of having a democratic government, not refusing to act as a colony to Britian. If anything, such an attempt to kick out Canada for that reason would almost certainly be grounds for Suspension from the Commonwealth of nations as it Flies in the face of the actual aims of the Commonwealth of Nations. Commonwealth of Nations - Suspension

I was explaining the common reason for people getting fed up with good drow, I personally do not care about it as I clearly stated.

Well, one of the reasons people get bashed for breaking the D&D cliche of always evil Drow, is because The cliche is exactly the opposite with almost all Drow ending up being chaotic good Drizz't clones. In powergaming Drow are rather overpowered when used right. Though none of these are the reasons I dont read Drow tales, as I simply do not read it as there are only 24 hours in a day and I simply do not have enough time to pick up even more web comics.

Well, I am somewhat interested. I am personally waiting to see what sort of characters others Taverners post, as there are a few things that would do a very good job at getting me to not play, such as Mather playing a Physicist, Engineer, or inventor of any sort.

Destructive Route: I am prefectly fine with players using the Destructive route in encounters even if it is not what I had intended. Though in order for me to allow it you actually have to go into detail about using the destructive route so I actually know what you are doing: [spoiler=Bad Example]Player: "I knock the large pillar down on top of the sleeping Red Dragon" DM: "You cannot possibly knock that load bearing pillar down on top of the Dragon, its far too strong." or Player: "I destroy the bridge underneath the stone golem" DM: "You cannot just straight up destroy the bridge" [spoiler=Good Example]Player: "I use an acid bomb on the base of the pillar hoping to knock the pillar down on top of the sleeping Red Dragon." DM: "You quickly place the acid bomb before retreating as quickly as you can... when you are roughly 60' away the acid bomb goes off, and while it has not brought the pillar down (rolls knowledge architecture and engineering for the PC, meets the DC) the pillar is starting to crumble under the load of the ceiling and if given a strong shove it will likely come down upon the dragon and bring a sizeable section of the ceiling down with it. (rolls perception/listen for the dragon, it makes the DC) Unfortunately your acid bomb going off has awoken the dragon. As the Dragon is hardly aware of what is going on having just awoken you get a surpise round before we begin the normal combat rounds." Player: "I begin heading back to the pillar in hopes of actually bringing it down on the dragon. (Player gets a higher result than the Dragon on the first round Iniative test) Before the dragon can react I race to the pillar and push it as hard as I can towards the dragon" (makes the strength check to knock the pillar down) DM: "the pillar fails quite quickly with your efforts to push it down, and it impacts the dragon with sickening crunch and pins the dragon to the floor. However the unsupported ceiling also gives out and comes crashing down in a cave-in on both you and the dragon..." or Player: "I cast disintigrate on the Stone bridge directly under the Stone golem" DM: "With the sudden destruction of the bridge underneath it the Stone golem falls through the bridge towards the city beneath, and you hear a loud thud several seconds later as it impacts on something below." The rest: Classes in D&D, Skills and feats/edges in almost all table top RPGs represents months or years of training and practice in the subject, so while you may like switching up styles your individual talents in that case would be far below what they represent in terms of character benefits. So to put it simply the restrictions on taking abilities is because its not possible to be a master at everything (barring being a god), so either you end up being very good at a few things at the expense of others, or you end up being mediocre in everything. The equipment issue is that certain weapons are traditionally used by certain societies, and as such during their upbringing most members of that society who are trained for military service have had instruction in its use. The dwarves in D&D for example traditionally include Dwarven Waraxes in the weapons they may provide their soldiers, and therefore they train the dwarven soldiers in the weapon's use, when on the other hand a human army will almost certainly not equip their troops with dwarven waraxes so they do not include the weapon in their training programs hence it being considered an exotic weapon. The additional 'Fluff' details that do not have direct mechanical effects are largely there for aiding in role playing, as if a player is a 6'-6" human they will certainly get a different reaction from people than if they were 5'-6", or a 40 year old man will get different reactions than a 15 year old kid (also age does actually have a mechanical effect in D&D and other games). There are also situations where you very much need to know some of the 'fluff' for things to work, as if you have a magic bag that can only hold 70 pounds and it helps to know if your Character is more or less than 70 pounds for the sake of being shoved into the bag to save money on potions of wall walking. Yes, you can always just play a 'Normal' character, though that ends up just passing the responsibilities on to the DM of the game. I dont particularly care whether or not you want to play in the end. That is your own decision to make, I am just providing my personal explanation of the way things work when I run a game as even if you dont want to play its always important to clear up misconceptions about the subject.

Not the entirety of the rules, but it explains the way the game works sufficiently for you to not be completely lost when starting out: Test Drive rules

I am debating about running a game of Savage worlds, if people are actually interested in trying the game system. if people are interested I would run a sample adventure for up to 6 people using pregen characters to introduce the system before switching over to an actual game of it using cooperatively generated characters (you tell me what you would be wanting and I make something along those lines) assuming there are no major issues withthe sample game. Due to having things to do, I will not be able to run it until atleast next week.

Well, as I have mentioned before, with the current Attitude of the tavern towards those running games, I do not particularly want to run a game as its better than being Thrown out the window of a moving vehicle for suggesting anything against the goals of players, such as doing a barrel roll. To answer your question The two Game systems I would be most likely to run are Shadowrun and Savage Worlds (there are others, but there is no way I would image getting the Tavern to play them).

Well, I do not currently anticipate running a D&D 3.5 campaign, as it is only barely ranked lower on on my list of RPGs that I do not really want to DM/GM out of those that I can. Really the only advantages to me running D&D 3.5 over Pathfinder is the fact that a rather large portion of the content is not availible for free (legally), so barring the Tavern going on a pirating spree I would have more material to work with, though that is almost entirely offset by the common balancing issues present in the game system which allow for powergaming to the extremes. (The other two items on my list besides Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 that I know how to run but dont want to are: a fan made Fallout PnP rpg which is a perfect example of what you should design a tabletop RPG to not be like; and D&D 4e because the game just is not interesting to me due to being designed for players to powergame constantly.)

Yeah, may as well post this. Currently I am involved With Archimage's Danse Macabre game, and expect to join The Ashen Face. Overall, I would be interested a large variety of defined Roleplaying game systems, or generally freeform and open ended games. Additionally a non-exhaustive list just for convenience (*designates a fan made RPG): [spoiler=Game systems] [spoiler=... That I know well enough to run] Shadowrun Savage Worlds [spoiler=... but will most likely not] D&D 3.5e D&D 4e Pathfinder Fallout PnP RPG* [spoiler=... that I Know well enough to play] Shadowrun Savage Worlds AD&D D&D 3.5e D&D 4e Pathfinder Fallout PnP RPG* Danse Macabre Wheel of Time RPG [spoiler=... that I own copies of] Shadowrun Savage Worlds D&D 3.5e D&D 4e Pathfinder Fallout PnP RPG* Danse Macabre Wheel of Time RPG

In theory the classic Monty Haul tactics work for getting players to do what you want, its just that in terms of GMing a game tends to not be very rewarding for them if the only way to get the players to do anything is Monty Haul tactics, which inevitably break game balance later on.