What's the difference between A and B? Is A "I just tell you that you missed" and B is "I tell you that they rolled a 4 and that missed?"
If so, I like B.
[quote="susan_brindle"] What's the difference between A and B? Is A "I just tell you that you missed" and B is "I tell you that they rolled a 4 and that missed?" [/quote]
This is correct. it saves me time but I'm willing to do it if the party wants to see it.
Ah. Definitely B then. Knowing what numbers missed lets me better estimate their threat level and make informed choices about risk and reward.
How does the party feel about hiring a handful of wagons and light mercenaries to defend the wagons? Nothing sucks like finding out that you can't carry all your loot back to town, or that a half-dozen kobolds stole your rations. 120 veteran bowmen is still fairly cheap, and a few dozen arrows will discourage pretty much anything shy of a dragon.
Also, we should talk about establishing a party name and how we're tying our backstories together. In a perfect world, we could even have a mission statement.
A is fine with me. It’s a lot of work posting rolls 
[quote="sulldawga"]
I want the party to first have a discussion about henches and treasure distribution. ... [/quote]
It's good you brought that up. I'm broadly pro-henchman enough I hadn't even really examined my assumption. IME "I don't want to split xp too many ways" is invariably followed by character deaths. Which admittedly is self correcting in the long run, but also frustrating if it's the player who got talked out of it who goes down. OTOH my experience of high level play + pbp is nonexistent.
Only because we're on the board and I understand it to be the official default, I've been assuming 15% shares of treasure for henches, paid out of the party split rather than out of the employer's share. But I've seen groups do it both ways, so it'd be good to decide now.
[quote="susan_brindle"]
Personally, I like lots of henches, but limiting attendence on any particular mission. If I own four henches, and bring two on any given mission, then it works out. I don't actually see any reason to bring my venturer into dungeons, but when I go on campaign he'll be all-important.
[/quote]
[quote="Rodriguez"]
I am fine with either way as long as everybody has roughly the same amout of henchmen in tow.
Personally for Play-by-post I prefer less henchmen as the games are usually slow already.
[/quote]
"Well, crap" says the guy with four henchmen. How many henches does the rest of the group see as desirable? I can flex, but I'd like to know before we start.
I have some questions on alchemy for the GM. I'm guessing the first two answers are "3rd" and "yes", and I think I know how I'd rule on the third in my own game (although the text still isn't clear at all to me), but I suspect bias, and this isn't my show.
[quote="Dave R"]
What level of effect is a Potion of Sweet Water?
Say I put an alchemist on payroll, hand him a potion formula and an expense fund, and go away for a while, what exactly happens? Can the alchemist use my formula, cancelling out his double cost and time?
And what is said alchemist's cost for components specifically? He needs cost plus "components ... with a total xp value equal to the gp cost of the research." And looking components up in L&E tells me their gp cost is equal to their xp value, so components with a gp cost equal to the "cost of the research" if he can buy them at market. Does component cost come after all modifiers, going up and down for alchemists versus mages and formula versus none, or is it fixed somewhere? If fixed, always at base cost, or can a formula fix it down to formula cost?
[/quote]
would you consider this rule for casters with the alchemy proficiency?
[quote="Alex"] As noted in the linked thread, alchemists are able to create potions as if they were 5th level mages. In lieu of having a repertoire of spells to draw on, they create potions at twice the base cost and time. If they have a formula or sample, they do so at half the base cost and time (as usual). While the rules are not explicit that an alchemist would be limited to 3rd level spells when creating potions, I think that is an admirable rule which I will adopt myself. In the Heroic Companion, I have added the following rules to Alchemy: "A spellcaster of 5th level or higher with Alchemy proficiency may add his Alchemy ranks to his Magic Research throws when brewing potions. If he has selected the proficiency three times, he can brew potions at half the usual base time and cost." [/quote]
Lastly, though I'm hoping to just throw gold at it to start, can I get literal formulas for sweet water, fire resistance and diminution, so I can watch for components on the hoof?
No fudging of die rolls is important to me, but as long as that's taken for read I have no strong preference on whether or how I see them displayed.
Thats fine by me
I don't see any spell that duplicates the potion exactly, and I don't see it on Alex's list of magic item prices (correct me in either case if I'm wrong). So I'd rule that a Potion of Sweet Water has a 2nd level spell effect. I think it's closer to Purify Food and Water than to Create Water.
I see no reason why an alchemist couldn't use a formula and cut his time and cost in half.
I'm inclined to rule that the cost of special components is not affected by the presence of a formula. The cost of special components is calculated by the base cost before any bonuses for formulas are considered. However, I'm also inclined to rule that the cost of special components is not doubled if it's an alchemist brewing the potion.
I am fine with Alex's house rule for alchemy.
Are you asking if you can buy those formulas with your starting funds? If so, the answer is yes.
No, those are the three rolled in char-gen. I'm asking what components specifically - nymph skulls and hellhound toenail clippings or whatever.
Sweet Water formula - Requires 1 lb of yellowcane, a long yellow grass resembling sugarcane which often draws owlbears to lair nearby, as they covet it despite their taste for flesh, and 1 lb of shasta, a weed found only in swamps.
Fire Resistance formula - Any of the following: one skull of a bone golem, a pair of eyeballs from a fire giant, the wingtips of a chimera, or the ashes of four large or 1 giant crocodile hides burned by some form of magic, not natural, fire.
Diminution formula - The wings from 10 fairies, or (counter intuitively) the crushed pulp of eight giant ant bodies.
Thanks!
[quote="susan_brindle"]
What is everything thinking about in terms of ethicality? I generally shoot for the 75% mark on Goodness Level; help those in need, risk life for others, maaaaybe execute the captured enemy wizard because he's only going to find a way to turn into a lich in our dungeons if we don't. Maybe steal from the rich if they're rude.
[/quote]
I most often play mostly good guys, so I'm fine with this in theory. For a long period Neutral Good was my default if I had to write something down. On the other hand, I've expanded my range recently, most often when confronted with ethical dilemnas, where I'm developing a tendency to say "screw it all, go for the gold."
Also, so far I'm picturing [Wonderworker] as kind of Lawful Arrogant, and doing good as a function of what side he's on rather than inherently being a do-gooder. But on the other hand to that, I don't usually know exactly how I'll run a character until I start running him, so don't hold me to that yet.
I vote B, with regards to dice roll results.
Re: henchmen, in thirdkingdom's ACKS game, both sulldawga and I are the henchperson-heavy players, so I'm not opposed to it in principle. What I notice, though, is that the bookkeeping goes up dramatically the more henchpeople there are under any given PC or for the whole group. So my caveat on # of henches people have is basically: it doesn't matter to me how many henches you have, as long as you can keep up with them and don't cause the GM to have to deal with them, which will slow other areas of the game down for everyone else.
I feel similarly about hirelings, including mercenaries. In that game, we've pooled all of our resources and the hirelings and mercenaries in the game are the party's hirelings and mercenaries. The net effect of this is that no player really takes any responsibility for all of the hirelings and mercenaries, which forces thirdkingdom as the GM to organize them, keep all of those spreadsheets up to date, run them in battle, etc. As players, we each (for the most part) try to contribute to that organization and logistical OOC upkeep, but real life happens and it's hard to keep up with our ever-increasing acquisition. It's honestly kind of a mess.
It may be completely impractical to do it this way, but I'm sort of proposing that each player maintain their own stable of hirelings and mercenaries. Especially if we're running mercs at the company level, this could make for an interesting tactical/strategic layer, should ensure that individual players or the GM don't get saddled with running a massively unwieldy party army, and those players that love spreadsheet logistics can dive whole hog into it and those that don't can mostly not go there and not have to feel guilty about not contributing to the spreadsheet wars.
So, in essence, we'd be a party of generals with our own troops, allied in common cause.
I was already thinking about mercs and I am okay with bookkeeping, so I'm okay with that. I'm farther along than I look on henches, I have a draft I need to clean up and copy over and I can post those to character sheets, and then I should know what I have left to work with.
FYI, I’m thinking about taking a Venturer as my main character.
[quote="thirdkingdom"] FYI, I'm thinking about taking a Venturer as my main character. [/quote]
That's ok.
Sulldawga, do you have any deities you want me to take a look at?
Would a god of mysteries, magic and wisdom be in scale?