Jump to content


Recommended Posts

D&D has ALWAYS had ever increasing magical weapons.

 

Earlier editions, and the ones when I learned the game, didn't even TRY to balance things.

 

3e made things more mechanical, but also gave guidelines, so +3 swords weren't in first level treasures.

3 minutes ago, BlazingTornado said:

I read the announcement yesterday. Sure seems like they're taking ideas from D&D 5th edition, with backgrounds that provide mechanical benefits and the use of reactions during rounds and defining monster challenge by more than just hit dice...

Hmmmm.

I thought 5e got those from Pathfinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PaganMegan said:

I thought 5e got those from Pathfinder.

If these were things Pathfinder already had, then why are they being boasted as new additions to Pathfinder 2nd Edition?

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkl9?First-Look-at-the-Pathfinder-Playtest

Quote

Next you decide on your background, representing how you were raised and what you did before taking up the life of an adventurer.

Quote

Between turns, each character also has one reaction they can take to interrupt other actions.

Quote

First off, monsters are a lot easier to design. We've moved away from strict monster construction formulas based off type and Hit Dice. Instead, we start by deciding on the creature's rough level and role in the game, then select statistics that make it a balanced and appropriate part of the game. Two 7th-level creatures might have different statistics, allowing them to play differently at the table, despite both being appropriate challenges for characters of that level.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Wyrm said:

I believe it's the immersion-breaking of game mechanics with setting-based names.

That's a big part of it. I won't lie. As stated before, I am not fond of Golarion, so that affects my feelings on this.

 

However, I think what Werkrobotwerk is trying to get to in a nice way, is whether laziness or unfamiliarity with the system are a factor in why somebody would reject infusing the fluff with the crunch.

In my case, no, I have been gaming the 3.X system since its inception, and by "gaming," I mean tweaking, converting, bending, breaking, smashing, etc., to fit my needs and tastes. I am a mechanics monkey.

 

Getting back to my pithy comment that one does not go out of one's way to intentionally buy a chocolate chip cookie full of raisins just so one can have the "privilege" of picking them out one by one... To put that another way, do we make our buying decisions based on how much irritating crap we can put up with in one product versus another? Or do we go with what we don't find irritating at all?

 

More importantly in general, I think highly creative people like to feel some sense of "ownership" in what they create. The more derivative a thing is forced to be, the less ownership we feel, and that lessens the sense of accomplishment and lessens investment (read: love) in the thing.

 

Additionally, other IPs act as roadblocks to the creative process. Writing around them becomes cumbersome and depending on depth of IP/crunch infusion, can require unhappy rules changes.

 

I think some of the latter might be unavoidable when you are publishing third party material that is very genre specific, but doing that comes with a different set of rewards. Somebody else should not have to do that sort of extensive writing just to play his home campaign on his own table.

 

Rules as vanilla as Pathfinder currently is, avoid this issue naturally. Infusing fluff into the crunch creates this issue without exception, in my experience.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, PaganMegan said:

D&D has ALWAYS had ever increasing magical weapons.

 

Earlier editions, and the ones when I learned the game, didn't even TRY to balance things.

 

 

Yeah, I figured that much, and wasn't meaning to imply otherwise.  When I was "young" -- well, there definitely wasn't any Pathfinder around then, and jokes about the +1 Backscratcher predated it as well.  The notion of "balance" seemed to entirely be, "Well, EVERYONE gets a chance to roll ridiculously high on the dice."  And, oh, how amazing it is when you tell the players to roll up their characters at home, that it JUST SO HAPPENS that fully half the party consists of characters who rolled 00 on d100 and thus have psionic powers.  And the Fighter of COURSE has 18/## Strength.  Now, once the rolling was in the hands of the GM for things like treasure tables, such Amazing Coinkadinks to the great enrichment of the PCs tended to be less frequent.  I have absolutely no idea how one determined what a "fair" encounter size was.  Based on my limited experience, I have a feeling it really wasn't much of a consideration.

 

Anyway, "easier monster design" could be nice.  I tried running a 3rd edition World of Warcraft campaign (3rd party add-on material) for a bunch of players familiar with the online WoW game, and they wanted to go on a world tour.  In the online game, when there's a particular monster type, you're going to keep encountering it all over the world, regardless of your level.  Murlocks aren't just some petty thing that only bothers you at level 1 -- no, when you're level 50 or whatever, they're still popping up in the area you finally accessed (ARgleblargleblargle!) except that they're called "Firechucker Murlocks" and they're color-shifted orange, and now they breathe FIRE at you ... or whatever.  So here I am, trying to level up a basic monster profile with hit dice AND slap on a fire attack, and I've got a player complaining that, "If it's a 10 HD monster, and the 2 HD version has a Reflex save of N, then this one's Reflex save should be X!"  And I have to resist the urge to throw dice at him.  Razzlefrazzlecomplicatedmonsterlevelingrules!  But then, I suppose the simple solution would just be not to have any rules lawyers / card-counters / mathematical wizzes at the table.  ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bruunwald said:

More importantly in general, I think highly creative people like to feel some sense of "ownership" in what they create. The more derivative a thing is forced to be, the less ownership we feel, and that lessens the sense of accomplishment and lessens investment (read: love) in the thing.

 

Additionally, other IPs act as roadblocks to the creative process. Writing around them becomes cumbersome and depending on depth of IP/crunch infusion, can require unhappy rules changes.

 

I can relate to this in some senses, I think. I always loved how my earliest D&D experiences were framed in a very specific but also blank space. We even played in the Greyhawk setting while simultaneously knowing nothing about it because the game mechanics and the fluff were totally separate entities. We had the PHB and the poster map, a scant bit of here-and-there knowledge. It was neat.

 

These days got freakin' Drizzt in the PHB grumble grumble rabble rabble.

 

And I mean, they werent that bad or anything, but still. The flavor's all over the place, seems like. I actually don't understand why the D&D powers didn't do an entirely straight, clean PHB for 5e and then release a kickin' guidebook for pertinent settings. I understand wanting to avoid the overload of previous editions, but I'd've been all-in on such a setup.

 

Anyway. It's one of the things I thought Pathfinder did very well, on the whole. Golarion, even, ad a world, is big enough with enough blank space that a body can operate. As much as I love Dragonlance, and the Realms to a lesser degree, they always feel like other people's stories. It's nice having that license to create without having to erase something first, at any rate.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BlazingTornado said:

If these were things Pathfinder already had, then why are they being boasted as new additions to Pathfinder 2nd Edition?

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkl9?First-Look-at-the-Pathfinder-Playtest

 

I was talking about Background, which IS in the current Pathfinder, and which 5e DID borrow from Pathfinder.

 

Pick a race, modify it with archetypes, add traits. Same song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, PaganMegan said:

I thought 5e got those from Pathfinder.

 

15 minutes ago, BlazingTornado said:

If these were things Pathfinder already had, then why are they being boasted as new additions to Pathfinder 2nd Edition?

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkl9?First-Look-at-the-Pathfinder-Playtest

 

Evolution - which actually began, to my mind at least, with Unearthed Arcana(3.5) adding in a means to modify the base characteristics of both classes and races, and in Savage Species (3e) - adding in the concept of building a racial archetype over multiple levels.

 

Claiming that something is new and innovative does not make something new and innovative - whether it is WotC or Paizo.

 

Paizo borrowed from WotC for Pathfinder, WotC borrowed from Paizo for 5e, and now Paizo is borrowing from WotC for P2.

 

With each step revising the mechanics to some degree.

 

And before I get too far about innovation - I much prefer evolution to innovation - an engineer will tell you that innovation fails nine times out of ten. A biologist will tell you that engineers are optimists. (4e was innovative, Pathfinder was an evolution.)

 

By the what I just read, the Ancestry mechanic is built from the racial archetypes in Advanced Player's Guide on and Racial Traits, just consolidating them further.

 

And, yes, I do feel that 5e borrowed that from Pathfinder and built on it, and that Pathfinder is borrowing from 5e and building on that in turn.

 

I... am not actually convinced in regards to the simplified monster creation - I prefer a mechanistic, structured approach, and am afraid that this may be borrowing too much from 5e. I like having the same mechanics between creatures and PCs.

 

But I might well be in the minority on that one.

 

The Actions... I like the sound of it, but would need to see it in action to make up my mind. It seems workable. (And might help keep Jon's Barbarian alive longer.) The Reactions seems more borrowed from Magic the Gathering than from 5e - but seems a good idea.

 

The Auld Grump

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bruunwald said:

However, I think what Werkrobotwerk is trying to get to in a nice way, is whether laziness or unfamiliarity with the system are a factor in why somebody would reject infusing the fluff with the crunch.

 

No. This is not what I am getting at.

 

what I am getting at is an attempt to understand what the specific complaint is. Dr. wyrm's statement about setting names within the rules gets toward what I am trying to understand. I do not agree with it, but convincing people of it or being convinced is not my goal. I want to get to what factors cause this to be an issue for some people so I can better understand what causes people to choose one ruleset over another for specific uses, and to that end what use do people put pathfinder to that doesn't match their new rules changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bruunwald said:

That's a big part of it. I won't lie. As stated before, I am not fond of Golarion, so that affects my feelings on this.

 

However, I think what Werkrobotwerk is trying to get to in a nice way, is whether laziness or unfamiliarity with the system are a factor in why somebody would reject infusing the fluff with the crunch.

In my case, no, I have been gaming the 3.X system since its inception, and by "gaming," I mean tweaking, converting, bending, breaking, smashing, etc., to fit my needs and tastes. I am a mechanics monkey.

 

Getting back to my pithy comment that one does not go out of one's way to intentionally buy a chocolate chip cookie full of raisins just so one can have the "privilege" of picking them out one by one... To put that another way, do we make our buying decisions based on how much irritating crap we can put up with in one product versus another? Or do we go with what we don't find irritating at all?

 

More importantly in general, I think highly creative people like to feel some sense of "ownership" in what they create. The more derivative a thing is forced to be, the less ownership we feel, and that lessens the sense of accomplishment and lessens investment (read: love) in the thing.

 

Additionally, other IPs act as roadblocks to the creative process. Writing around them becomes cumbersome and depending on depth of IP/crunch infusion, can require unhappy rules changes.

 

I think some of the latter might be unavoidable when you are publishing third party material that is very genre specific, but doing that comes with a different set of rewards. Somebody else should not have to do that sort of extensive writing just to play his home campaign on his own table.

 

Rules as vanilla as Pathfinder currently is, avoid this issue naturally. Infusing fluff into the crunch creates this issue without exception, in my experience.

 

 

I pretty much agree - I much prefer a toolbox for the game itself, and letting the setting define the fluff - and to a degree, define rules modifications to fine tune the system to fit the setting. (Spycraft 2.0 is excellent in that regard.)

 

The Auld Grump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheAuldGrump said:

I... am not actually convinced in regards to the simplified monster creation - I prefer a mechanistic, structured approach, and am afraid that this may be borrowing too much from 5e. I like having the same mechanics between creatures and PCs.

 

Same here. I don't get the appeal of changing that up at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, PaganMegan said:

I was talking about Background, which IS in the current Pathfinder, and which 5e DID borrow from Pathfinder.

 

Pick a race, modify it with archetypes, add traits. Same song.

I've rolled up two Pathfinder characters for two different DMs and there was never a background involved. Definitely not anything identifying what my character did before adventuring on the character sheet. Picked race, picked class, got skill ranks, got feats, one game added "traits" from a splatbook.

Nothing like "what were you before adventuring? A soldier? Well then that'd make you decent at being athletic and intimidating, and also it'll make members of the army defer to your rank if need be. A noble? Well that means you know your history, and you're probably the persuasive type, and also it means you'd have an easier time meeting the upper crust and rulers of locales than a common folk. A criminal? You'd be sneaky and good at swiping things, and you'd have a contact in the underworld."

 

35 minutes ago, Bruunwald said:

Infusing fluff into the crunch creates this issue without exception, in my experience.

I'm with you on that, this is one of my current worries with D&D 5E...

The creative team looks like they are currently rocking a massive love of the "Raven Queen" and seek to codify her into all the settings.... They even did an Unearthed Arcana were she was a patron (unlike other pacts which were vaguer things like "archfiend", "archfey", "great old one" or "celestial"), which thankfully did not make it to a finalized book yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jordan Peacock said:

 

Yeah, I figured that much, and wasn't meaning to imply otherwise.  When I was "young" -- well, there definitely wasn't any Pathfinder around then, and jokes about the +1 Backscratcher predated it as well.  The notion of "balance" seemed to entirely be, "Well, EVERYONE gets a chance to roll ridiculously high on the dice."  And, oh, how amazing it is when you tell the players to roll up their characters at home, that it JUST SO HAPPENS that fully half the party consists of characters who rolled 00 on d100 and thus have psionic powers.  And the Fighter of COURSE has 18/## Strength.  Now, once the rolling was in the hands of the GM for things like treasure tables, such Amazing Coinkadinks to the great enrichment of the PCs tended to be less frequent.  I have absolutely no idea how one determined what a "fair" encounter size was.  Based on my limited experience, I have a feeling it really wasn't much of a consideration.

 

Anyway, "easier monster design" could be nice.  I tried running a 3rd edition World of Warcraft campaign (3rd party add-on material) for a bunch of players familiar with the online WoW game, and they wanted to go on a world tour.  In the online game, when there's a particular monster type, you're going to keep encountering it all over the world, regardless of your level.  Murlocks aren't just some petty thing that only bothers you at level 1 -- no, when you're level 50 or whatever, they're still popping up in the area you finally accessed (ARgleblargleblargle!) except that they're called "Firechucker Murlocks" and they're color-shifted orange, and now they breathe FIRE at you ... or whatever.  So here I am, trying to level up a basic monster profile with hit dice AND slap on a fire attack, and I've got a player complaining that, "If it's a 10 HD monster, and the 2 HD version has a Reflex save of N, then this one's Reflex save should be X!"  And I have to resist the urge to throw dice at him.  Razzlefrazzlecomplicatedmonsterlevelingrules!  But then, I suppose the simple solution would just be not to have any rules lawyers / card-counters / mathematical wizzes at the table.  ;)

 

 

 

 

You... never actually looked at those old treasure tables, did you?

 

Believe it or not, 3e actually curbed that tendency, not increased it.

 

Those tables were very random. (To the point that I never knew any GMs that bothered using them.)

 

3e added a hard(ish) rule on how much treasure, and what treasures, a character would have at X level, meaning that characters suffered less from both stingy bastich GMs (hi!) and Monty Haul GMs.

 

I... was notoriously cheap - and, yes, even in earlier editions of D&D, there was an assumption that PCs would be equipped to handle the creatures they were facing at their current level - facing a wraith without magic weapons could, and did, end in TPK. (Even in published adventures. Go the wrong direction in Bone Hill and the only hope you have is that the Magic User hasn't used up all his combat spells.)

 

But no real guidelines were given for when the treasures needed should be showing up - plenty of published TSR adventures had the PCs discovering that +1 sword at first level.

And the only way to get the magic items was to find them.

 

Balance... was not even a suggestion - PCs with better stats got an experience bonus, so got even better, faster, while psionics needed a character with great ability scores - rewarding them with even more power.

 

3.X made games more compatible across GMs. I would be less likely to mess up the characters by having them find a wad of pocket lint when they really needed that +1 Backscratcher. They set a standard.

 

Sadly, in AD&D 2e, when TSR finally got around to nail down making magic items, the creators got experience for making them....

 

Blech.

 

3e and 3.5 balanced magic items by expending XP, while Pathfinder balances things by adding risk to magic item creation. (You can fumble it.)

 

As for the +1 Backscratcher, look up why RuneQuest was first created. ::P:

 

The Auld Grump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On fluff - I've known several people who complained about Pathfinder because there wasn't enough fluff. A number of people I know up like to read the handbooks cover-to-cover like books and appreciate the fluff. Then again, I mostly know gamers who started in the last 10 years, due to my age. 

 

I don't care either way, personally. I just figured I should interject the other side of the fluff argument, since this conversation seemed a bit...one-sided.

 

Pros on Fluff:

- Makes the game much more approachable to new players and GMs. Trying to figure out the mechanics, and then apply them to a new setting is difficult for new GMs (such as myself - I'm using Forgotten Realms because I was overwhelmed by the overhead for my own games to start with). 

- Makes it a lot easier to get through reading all of the rules, not just the ones pertinent at the moment

 

Cons:

- Can be difficult to get players to look around the fluff (looking at you, paranoia)

- Can make it difficult to create own world, and likely biases world creation a bit. 

 

Y'all have mentioned most of the cons I know off other than those...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fluff is really cool, even if you're not running what the fluff says it still serves as inspiration.

 

It's just a bit difficult to divert from the fluff when it is integrated into the crunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BlazingTornado said:

 

I've rolled up two Pathfinder characters for two different DMs and there was never a background involved. Definitely not anything identifying what my character did before adventuring on the character sheet. Picked race, picked class, got skill ranks, got feats, one game added "traits" from a splatbook.

Nothing like "what were you before adventuring? A soldier? Well then that'd make you decent at being athletic and intimidating, and also it'll make members of the army defer to your rank if need be. A noble? Well that means you know your history, and you're probably the persuasive type, and also it means you'd have an easier time meeting the upper crust and rulers of locales than a common folk. A criminal? You'd be sneaky and good at swiping things, and you'd have a contact in the underworld."

 

I'm with you on that, this is one of my current worries with D&D 5E...

The creative team looks like they are currently rocking a massive love of the "Raven Queen" and seek to codify her into all the settings.... They even did an Unearthed Arcana were she was a patron (unlike other pacts which were vaguer things like "archfiend", "archfey", "great old one" or "celestial"), which thankfully did not make it to a finalized book yet.

 

The rules are indeed there - you just did not use them, or, by the sound of it, even bother looking for them, before sounding off.

 

Not in the Core book, but in most of the hardcover books - and, importantly, online for free. *EDIT* - Link - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

 

So, I am giving you a D on this one. ::P: You did not do your homework, and then spoke with authority based on only partial information.

 

Since the Pathfinder SRD is online for free - look up Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Races, and Ultimate Campaign - the backgrounds for characters are handled via Traits, Feats, and, in Ultimate Campaign, a series of tables to generate your characters' histories.

 

What there isn't is a codified, single system, for creating your characters' backgrounds - for example, the history generator in Ultimate Campaign outlines options available for your character - but you would still need to spend the feats and traits to actually have them on your character sheet. But those charts also give access to feats that would not otherwise be available at character generation. (Story Feats in particular.)

 

The Auld Grump

Edited by TheAuldGrump
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Dom
      Hi Guys,
       
      I have read the guidelines of posting kickstarters and hope I am doing this correctly.
       
      If anyone has a chance come along and check out my kickstarter project specialising in hardwood dice boxes.
      If you have any thoughts or future stretch goal ideas then please I would love to hear them.
       
       
    • By Ironhammer
      So I had an occasion to create a new D&D character after a brief hiatus from playing, and I wound up rolling a half orc ranger named Logar Quickarrow, a vociferously proud member of the Bison Clan.  Naturally, being the conversion obsessed sort of person I am, I was obliged to fabricate a proper miniature for him.  I apologize for a few slightly blurry pictures, as I'm still trying to get used to my current camera (which is cleverly hidden inside my phone).
       
      After canvassing Reaper's catalog for half orcs and various iterations thereof, I quickly decided that Skreed Gorewillow by Derek Schubert was by far my favorite.  It was merely a matter of transforming him from a spell caster into a ranger.
       
      For reference, here is the miniature as it comes from the factory:
       

       
      The first step was to remove both the dagger and the burning flask and make way for his new weapons.  Rather than dig around in my parts bin for a matching set of new hands or sculpting a pair from scratch, I decided to simply bore out the existing hands and carve away all the pewter I didn't need and shape it to fit his new weapons.  My character uses a shield in his offhand in melee combat, so to reflect this I also cut away the front two flasks on his belt to make room for a shield which will be hung there.
       

       
      Next, I dug around in my parts bin for some suitable weapons.  I found an appropriately aggressive looking sword blade which was orphaned from its moorings, however after trimming away a portion of the lower half and rounding it out with a file I created a shaft for it which easily fit inside the hole I had drilled in his hand.  I like my figures to have appropriately shaped scabbards for their weapons, so I traced out the outline of the blade onto a sheet of styrene and cut it out as a starting point for making him a matching scabbard.
       

       
      Next, I selected and appropriate bow and quiver.  I also dug out a small shield, as my character uses a shield in his the offhand in melee combat.  I drilled and pinned the quiver so that it can be mounted on his back where the figure's original sword would have gone.
       

       
      After test fitting the shield, I came to the conclusion that it just didn't sit very well on the front of his belt.  So to cover up the damage I did earlier I simply sculpted a satchel where the flasks used to be.  I thought about cutting off the empty dagger sheath from the original figure and replacing it with a completely new dagger, however instead I simply sculpted a small nub at the top and called it a day.  The idea was that the dagger fits almost entirely inside the sheath itself, much like a dark age Seax or a traditional Finnish hunting knife.  At this point I've also drilled and pinned his feet in preparation for basing.  I've also tweaked the shape of his right hand by filing and carving it a bit more so that it closely fits around the handle of the bow I picked out for him.
       

       
      Next, I created a base using a very handy texture stamp made by Happy Seppuku.  Our campaign takes place in a rather wintery sort of place, so I will go back later and add some small piles of snow to reflect this.
       

       
      In an attempt to mirror the design aesthetic of his dagger sheath, I sculpted the sword scabbard to match with a raised bulge on top of a flatted base.  I left it otherwise plain, as I intend to hang the shield on top of the scabbard much like a medieval buckler. 
       
       
       
      Next, I flattened out the nub of his sword with a pair of smooth nosed pliers to create a rough disk shape to serve as the basis for a pommel.  I also sculpted a flap on top of his satchel.
       

       
      I then sculpted a fairly basic hilt, using a combination of styles mixing a "viking" type crossguard with a later medieval style disk pommel with a peen block.  I also sculpted a small throat around the top of the scabbard to suggest that it is actually hollow on the inside
       

       
      After test fitting the buckler, I realized that a portion of the scabbard was just barely visible underneath.  It was probably overkill, but I sculpted a rudimentary belt attachment to fill this gap (because I'm weird that way and can't let things like this go).  I then went ahead and glued the shield in place.
       

       
      I then glued the bow into his hand and glued the quiver on his back.  I had filed out the opening in his left hand specifically to fit the bow I had chosen for him, so it didn't take much to get it to fit snugly in place.  The bottom end of the bow rests directly against the lower part of the figure's clothing, which serves as a useful second anchor point for glueing (he is a tabletop figure after all).
       

       
      For the final step, I took the last bits of putty I had mixed and put them in little piles on his base, which I then stippled to make them look like little piles of snow.  Next up is painting!
       


    • By Jeepnewbie
      Left home in a hurry for a family emergency. Grandfather having heart trouble so I’m hanging out with him helping out.
       
      I didn’t bring any minis or paint so I found a local game store and picked up a few. I went to hobby lobby and michaels for some brushes and paint. 
       
      The paint was extremely cheap but hey if it doesn’t work out I can do something else. Space for travel is super limited (motorcycle) so I don’t want much to carry. 
       
      I brushed on some foundation white from model color. Since I don’t have any skin tone I had to experiment making it. I am happy with the results. I’m not quite sold on the color for the armor yet. 
    • By Auberon
      In the 5E game I recently started played, one of the characters created a halfling bard.  I had yet to paint Lem from the Kickstarter so he received a quick paint for the tabletop last week.  Of course, that player didn't show up to last weeks game but Lem is ready when needed.  Now that I look at it I see there are a few little bits that I missed but I doubt I go back and touch him up.
       

    • By Darcstaar
      Here's another post.
      Hellakin languished on my shelf of shame for about 5 years.  He was intended as an entry into a forum contest for painting "little people."
      Life got in the way.  I recently decided to finish him, in a little bit of a rushed fashion.
       
      He sat and sat at the basecoat stage.  I struggled with figuring out how to do his cloak black.
      I am not too happy with it.  It reads dark blue, as I'm trying to paint black without cycling up through gray, as you'll see here:
       
       
       
      I'm more pleased with the gold nmm on the knife than the steel.
      But, I tried to really suggest he's in a dark area by the shadowed part of the blade remaining nearly black.
      Here are some more shots of him.
       

       
      I'm pretty pleased with the hair color and face:
       

       
      He's got a very intense stare.
      The eyebrows didn't please me very much.
      The base is a "hollow" round base with a circle of cobblestone patterned sheet styrene from a model railroad supply hobby shop that I painted up to give him a feeling of being in a dungeon.
      If I wanted to spend more time on him, I'd paint his toenails and fiddle more with the knife.  I originally had a thought to try to paint shadows and light on the base to make it seem like he's sneaking up on someone to backstab from the shadows.  I gave up on that ;)
      Overall, he fills a missing niche among my painted figures of an iconic halfling rogue.
       
      C&C Welcome.
  • Who's Online   28 Members, 1 Anonymous, 0 Guests (See full list)

×