Always down to pull out my Tome of Battle. love it to death and would love to mix a Swordsage with a monk, or perhaps Paladin/Crusader. Never played a Crusader or Swordsage, as most GMs hate those classes.

Knight/Crusader would be cool too, and it would be two classes I've never had a chance to play.
This message was last edited by the user at 07:54, Sat 10 Jan 2015.

Yes, the level would scare off some GMs.
Sardis, are you very found of your 45 level characters?

Also, if this ever goes up, I call dibs on the psionic classes.

In reply to kark2 (msg # 8):

I'd be willing to reduce the level some, but I'm hoping that requiring only single classes and full PrC's might have a few interested GM's as it eliminates level dipping into classes and PrC's simply to grab one or two abilities and then move on to levels in something else.

Alright. I think I would want to go one of two directions.

Monk/swordsage possibly into shadow sun.ninja and/or tattooed monk prcs.

Or a crusader mixed with either paladin or knight.

Btw unearthed arcana has rules for non spellcasting paladins and rangers. Pretty cool.

I've looked it over, and I think I can accomplish the character I want to play with 35 levels instead of 45; it won't have everything I'm looking for, but enough to still be a decent reflection of the character I'm looking to play.

I am curious how you require epic levels to have a "decent" representation of your character? If you can't do that with 10 levels that's sort of a failing of the player in my opinion. 35 levels leaves me with 5 levels to throw at basically nothing. 35 levels grants you level 20 in TWO classes (because Gestalt) plus a full 10 level Prc, and 5 levels. Also, the point of the game is to grow as a character and become the badass you want, so starting out with everything you want tends to turn the game boring fast in my experience.

Please do not take this as an insult as it is not intended as such. I still wish to be a part of this, I simply doubt we will find a GM for this if you insist on epic levels.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:54, Mon 12 Jan 2015.

The point is, I've been on rpol for more than 10 years and if there is one thing I've learned, especially with an epic character (even if only 21st level) is that you never level.  It is different with table top as so much can be accomplished in a comparatively short amount of time.  Not so with online posting games.  It just doesn't seem to happen.  So to want to play a high epic game you need to start as high epic, you will never level (maybe one if you are lucky).

I guess that makes sense. I'm so used to 3.5 games leveling like mad. Then again I've never been in a game past 12th level, because by that point it's even hard for GMs to find challenges that aren't grossly OP or mean for the group. I'd be fine with 30th level. The only other thing I can think of to add to 20 levels or monk/swordsage and 10 levels of Shadow Sun Ninja is perhaps 5 levels of Justicar or tattooed monk.

OH! I could do 5 levels of the racial paragon class!
This message was last edited by the user at 23:50, Mon 12 Jan 2015.

bump...still looking for a GM for this game.  There has been a display of interest by other potential players.  Although I am looking for level 35-45, this game could be done at a lower level (though would require house rules providing additional epic feats beyond those acquired through conventional means).  Additional details about what I'm looking for can be found in the 1st post in this thread.

Side note: I'd be interested in a Faerun based game though will take whatever world a potential GM might wish to use, even if homebrewed.  It is just that Faerun is the the world that I am most familiar with.

Also note: it was mentioned in an earlier post that there is epic support for Warlocks (and I'll add, for Binder's as well).  And I understand that other classes (as I've outlined in my first post) don't necessarily have such epic support.  I'm not opposed to some homebrewing to provide other classes similar support.

I've thought about it more, and would like to pass on non-casting rangers/paladins as an option.  They aren't the feel I'm looking for in this game.  I've listed many options in the opening post and would like to limit them to those listed, unless a similarly 'exotic' non-casting class from some other source is suggested (Battledancer and the Mountebank from Dragon Compendium come to mind).

Note: I'm viewing manifesters (like: psion, erudite, psychic warrior, and Wilder) as being casters, and thus not useable for player character classes. Soulknife is the only psionic class I can currently think of that fits the game concept...the Soulbow PrC would likely go nicely with 20+ levels of Soulknife.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:25, Fri 16 Jan 2015.

I would love to run a high-level totemist/monk, or incarnate/binder.  Those are classes that never seem to receive much love, and there is an incredible amount of potential there for fun.

In reply to Isida KepTukari (msg # 18):

As stated in the first post, only one instance of a class is to be used and that binder was already taken, so some other class would need to be selected.

Faerun would be a horrible place to do this, as it is a very heavy magic world. As a lover of that world I would not wish to use it for this game. Sardis I understand you want what you want, but having so many stipulations is going to push possible DMs away as they will feel as if this is YOUR game and nott theirs. Perhaps you should consider running it yourself? I only suggest that hecause you are so adamant about so many parts to this that it is as if you are running it already.

If this ever gets off the vround I am offitially claiming monk and swordsage.

I appreciate the advice, but a closer reading of the initial post will disprove your opinion of Faerun being a bad choice:



The stipulation of low magic is only in relation to the classes available to players, not to the GM and the opponents and/or NPC's used. This leaves the inclusion of magic in whatever portion chosen to level the playing field.  A tool for a GM to use to ensure a challenge is had.

As for my 'strict' rules.  There really aren't that many:

1. High level (35-45 with some LA buyback)

2. Gestalt with a limitation preventing level dips into numerous classes and PrC's.

3. The request that there not be duplications in classes taken among the player's characters.

4. And clarification as to the theme of this game as evidence by the examples of class types available to players in this game.

As a side note: you've made the assumption that inclusion in this game is a given to any who have responded to this thread with a show of interest.  My desire would be to play with those who write well, so there'd be some sort of RTJ requirement.  So I think it a bit premature to be placing official claim to anything.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:44, Sun 18 Jan 2015.

And yet, it is something you did in your first post. I think that the best way to attract a GM is to present him/her the kind of characters some are looking to play.

In reply to kark2 (msg # 22):

Its my GM request...why wouldn't I assume that I'd be playing in it.  That is the luxury of being the one making the request.  As for my specification as to the classes allowed and that I'm not wanting a cast of characters possessing similar classes: well, that's my prerogative as well as the one requesting a GM for the game I want to play in.

That's the relationship between the requester of a GM and the GM.  The game 'is' the GM's, but it is the requesters concept...the idea is to find a GM willing to fulfill the requesters vision of the game in question.

Seriously guys, this isn't the forum for discussing 'your' opinions as to what I should and shouldn't be requesting of a GM, just because you may not agree with them.  If I don't find a GM willing to run the game the way I envision it, then I don't get a GM.  But that's far better than caving and playing a game that isn't the game I was looking for just because it makes the other players happy.

So, if you can't add to this thread in a way that is in line with the initial request, please don't bother posting...unless you are a potential GM who is either willing to GM the game as requested or are willing to GM but desire to negotiate on some aspect of the request.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:07, Sun 18 Jan 2015.

from the 'Wanted GM' rules:

5.  Do not advertise for players here.  Use the Wanted - Players forum to advertise for
    players for existing games.  If you need to see if people are interested in a particular
    game concept you intend to GM, or if you're looking for help refining a game topic try the
    Game Proposals, Input, & Advice forum.  Any post which does not seem to solely be about
    finding a GM in this forum can be removed at moderator discretion: it is the poster's
    responsibility to be clear about what they're seeking.

I have been quite clear about what I'm seeking.

Hey man no need to get defensive. I am merely trying to help find a GM as I am very much interested in this game. If I wasn't I wouldn't have posted at all. I never assumed I would get in without a thorough rtj. I don't tend to join RPs with loose "first come first serve" rtjs. I merely stated my intent on classes because building an epic level charafter is a long and painful process in 3.5, and gestalt compliicates it further. One has to start ahead of schedule. If you took offense to my terminology I am sorry.

I want to be clear that I was not attacking you, nor trying to dictate what tye game SHOULD be. I was merely giving ideas of possibilities because there are a lot of stipulations to what you want here, which tends to put possible GMs off. Your idea for the most part is very interesting and I am willing to deal with the parts I dissagree with in order to play in this game.

That is all. I will not post again unless it is to bump this, as I truly wish to see someone take this on as a GM. I hope one is found soon.

Bumped to early
This message was last edited by the user at 07:41, Sat 24 Jan 2015.

Bump.

So, here is a summary of what I'm looking for:

1. High level (35-45 with some LA buyback)
   This is negotiable; though, if lower,  may require some house rules so as not to lose the desired epic feats that the higher level allows.

2. Gestalt with a limitation preventing level dips into numerous classes and PrC's.
This was included for the GM's sanity, for without it, it lends to the taking of levels in potentially dozens of classes and prestige classed.  If the GM for this game doesn't have an issue with the complications of such things, this game requirement can be ignored.

3. The request that there not be duplications in classes taken among the player's characters.

   This is really the only game detail I'm not really flexible on as I wish to see a variety of characters, using the classes outlined in the first post of this thread.

4. And clarification as to the theme of this game as evidenced by the examples of class types available to players in this game.

And this just sets up the theme of character types desired for this game.
This message was last edited by the user at 06:16, Sun 25 Jan 2015.

I'd also recommend you limit things like UMD'd wands/staves.

45 gestalt? That would be madness for any GM to take up.....but lucky for you I am crazy.

I am fine with being GM to this game but there are couple of details need discuss;

1) Starting gear limits if any. As with 45 level starting gold you could literally create a item which mimics a 'pocket mage' literally (item which has charges and has all spells up to 9th level implanted in). Kind of relates to use of wands/staves.

My own approach is either 20th level gold only or no gear at all whatsoever in start. Through story gain gear (could be funny a 45 level physical figther/warblade build to start game with rusted longsword).

2) I would prefer ban all pure caster types (wizards, druid, cleric etc), but keep 'half-casters' like ranger, paladin, hexblade, spellthief etc and them keep spellcasting ability (their spells are not powerful enough 'break' game albeit there are methods extend it in epic levels by taking several times the extended spell capacity but even then they need spend feats to get know one spell per level up to 9 in addition to unlock the spell slots). Considering feat intensity of said process (which does not pay off at all), I would allow it. More so there are classes like Pious Templar which give access to spellcasting (Chameleon also).

If still adamant about this, allow these classes in without spellcasting (and hexblade gets partial warlock invocation progression but without access to EB).

Bard would need house ruled so it can be in game but without spells (so far leaning to just give bonus feat every 4th level which must relate to bardic music or skill based, optionally bard can get sneak attacks instead bonus feats every 4th level).

3) I heavily favor in merging some basic classes together (and changing class feature functions during said mergess which gestalts them) so they remain competitive with other core class options. Here in below are my combinations;

Knight+Fighter = Fighter in itself is not competitive (vs Warblade) but with Knight it allows Knight become very competent physical combatant who does not need rely using shield (albeit class features would favor) for fight.

Paladin+Marshal = Paladin is lackluster in support compared to what bard provides with songs and marshal is super weak to take on itself. So merging these two allows paladins be inspirational front line warriors who do not overstep bard's abilities (it rather stacks with the bard).

Hexblade+Soulknife = Soulknife and Hexblade both are weak and I always felt soulknife never belonged to be 'psionic' class at all. So I thought combining these two creates very unique class which can conjure arcane magical blade which grows on power and potency of their curse powers (there are some class changes).

Samurai = Entirely revamped.

Monk+Swashbuckler = Monk nor Swashbuckler fit as themselves, true there is swashbuckler as a concept for a warrior. But that can be better presented by swordsage, warblade or even crusader with a stretch. So combining these two classes gives monk full BAB (which it needs badly) and provides couple more class features so it becomes competent. Class would be renamed as martial artist (and would have promoted use for using weapons later levels so it's competitive choice for pure unarmed strike).

Ninja+Spellthief = Neither ninja nor spellthief compete well in alone. So combining them together to form sort of supernatural shinobi which steals spell powers (and has little spellcasting ability) makes the class comparable to beguiler without getting access to 9th level spells (and beguiler is going to be banned classes as it's full caster class). So this combo would allow do arcane trickster sort char without OP spells.

Dragon Shaman = some class changes (wings given more early), full BAB and martial proficiency to single weapon. 20th level capstone also.

Truenamer = fix the entire true speech system so it's not bonkers. Or make truenamer most competent person use true speech without it's drawbacks.

Soulborn = both incarnatist and totemist have good things going for them but Soulborn is inferior to a pure fighter taking incarnum feats and taking meldshaping feats. Class will be revamped.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 06:27, Sun 01 Feb 2015.

Okay, I have done the Wanted Players add to the forums. It's called Guardians of the Cosmos (epic 3.5 DnD, 45 level gestalt). So all interested go check it out (there are lots house rules which haven't been discussed here).