Arnwyn's page

Yeah here's the thing and this is pretty cut and dry.

If youre a guest in someone's home? Follow the rules of that home. Especially if they were laid out in advance.

I dont know about the rest of you but rolling up in my house and just helping yourself to my food and drink after being told NOT TO is cause alone for getting the boot. It's not overreacting. It's' just damn RUDE.

If they ask you not to curse and you're like "what's the big deal we're all adults"? The big deal is that they dont like cursing or being subjected to cursing. You, being a guest in THIER HOME dont get to dictate to them what's cool and what's not. If you feel the need to curse despite then then you can GTFO.

Also if youre partaking of the food and snacks and not paying your share CONSISTENTLY then youre a leech. If you know when you go to a game that people chip in for snacks and you've been attending this game for the better part of a year? Unless there's a financial hardship? You need to make sure that you have money in your wallet to contribute. Missing it every now and then is totally understandable. Everyone has that time where youre strapped for cash or forgot to hit up the ATM before the game. But if it's consistent? youre being a leech and a jerk.

Did you actually read my post? I only forgot twice.

Please stop nitpicking. Forgetting, not bringing money, same thing. Forgetting is actually a more reasonable excuse.

And if you were seriously concerned about me mooching, would you not say something about it? Like, "Hey you owe me money for the last game?"

I would, but many people wouldn't. You seem to completely lack any sort of empathy or understanding of social situations, so I'll clue you in:

People don't want to nag. The nagging wife is an especially negative stereotype that many women hate to act as, so it's absolutely understandable that they didn't pester you about the money that you should have brought with you 3 times.

Why should they have to take upon themselves to act negatively in a situation where you are the offending party? And if you act in real life like you act here, you probably would have argued with them if you should even pay them or not. It's not a conflict that they should have to take, you should be excusing yourself to them in front of the others.

Please, like that hasn't happened to you every once in awhile, where you thought you had cash on you only to open your wallet and see it empty, or with only half the amount you thought you had?

The difference here is that I repay my debt the next day, or in worst case whenever I get money for it. I might even loan from a closer friend if a more distant friend had to loan me money on the spot. I would absolutely go out of my way to get money if I forgot to bring money again, and I would feel very bad about putting someone else in the same situation again. Simply going "whatevs" and ignoring your supposed friends is violating social norms.

One slip up is enough to get me labeled as a mil-moocher? Wow, if I'm being overly defensive, you must be being overly offensive.

Again, you are lacking even the most rudimentary social understanding. From your post I took it that you asked once if you could have some milk, and then drank of their milk every session from then on. Not only that, but you were expressly told not to drink the milk and you did it anyway. This is just a "WTF?" moment for me as a fellow human being. If I tell you that you cannot have something of mine and you simply take it and consume it against my will, that is simply stealing.

Now, take this together with your past history of just not caring about others money, food and even the game itself, I see little reason to keep you around. Your behavior is extremely anti-social. If you were a young child, say 10 or below, it would at least be understandable (even if it wouldn't be acceptable).

Stop attacking a strawman and actually read the OP.

I'm making an analogy to attempt to explain why these social norms exist and why what you did was wrong. Now, you had plenty of time to put this down to Asperger's or some similar condition, but as it stands so far you are just a jerk with no excuse for your behavior.

Edit:

Well, if there's one thing I got out of this thread, it's that it helped me decide that I was indeed not guilty, since I know the internet has a penchant for giving people the freedom to act overly viscous when tearing into other people.

I was looking for a "Well, it was X because of Y" and to be fair, some people gave me that. Other people blasted me for being "Overly defensive"

Wow. Just, wow. You decided that you were not guilty. After admitting that you did everything, you decide that you were not guilty.

You broke the most basic of social norms numerous times, without regret and without ever attempting to fix anything.

The only way you'll be able to stay in any of the other groups is if they are as socially oblivious as you are.

This is a personal opinion of mine, but I think that at-will magic doesn't have a place in a vancian magic system; make it vancian or don't, but the in-between annoys me (that's also true for Pathfinder).

Vancian magic is quantified and limited. For me, having puny attack spells that deal the equivalent of a quarterstaff or a crossbow bolt doesn't help in making the character feel more magical. On the contrary, it takes away from magic as far as I'm concerned.

I'm aware that this reasoning isn't very popular and I'm ready to wait for the finished product to make a final opinion. Surprise me WotC!

I ran screaming to Pathfinder to recapture the feel of what DnD is to me. I'm entrenched in it thanks to the fantastic Paizo staff and that's not going to change, but it will be nice to also support a healthy DnD as well again.

I wish them well.

I agree completely. From what we've seen so far, the new D&D may well be a decent system. Unfortunately for WotC, I don't really see anything in it that would convince me to leave Paizo and the game I love after years of bad business practices and abuse from WotC (I'm talking about telling everyone that liked 3.x that they were doing it wrong, pulling the 3.x pdfs, etc).

Having been burned by them before, and having found a company that I like to support much more, it won't be a game for me. That doesn't mean you'll find me bashing the system or people who enjoy playing it.

I have a problem with the overuse of the word railroad. Railroading is putting the PCs on a course of action that they cannot change, not matter what they do--like being on a set of rails they cannot deviate from.

It is not setting out lures or clues or other enticements to lead them to make the decision the GM wants them to make--like following a road they can leave whenever they wish.

As long as the PCs have a choice, they aren't being railroaded.

I'm also curious for those who believe that rail roads in tabletop gaming are boring or bad, what is your opinion of adventure paths, which are basically railroad-incarnate (save, arguably, Kingmaker)?

Easy. Adventure Paths are outlines.

Some of them are more railroad than others (I am looking at you Second Darkness) but for the most part they try really hard to create scenarios rather than plots.

In other words, they describe events that are happening and how to encourage your to players to care about those events enough they want to do something about them. Nearly all of the good modules are written in an open ended way that allows players to find their own way through them.

The less popular ones (Hi Second Darkness and Council of Thieves) become fixated on complicated plots that they force the players through.

A macguffin is not a railroad.

What's funny is that in 2007/2008 the then-current WotC customer base went ballistic when lack of backcomp was mentioned. The current WotC customer base didn't. So either they're not caring about 5E at all or are actually looking forward to switching. What's funny is how horribly did WotC fumble the edition switch then, as opposed to now.

(I still have that strange feeling it has more to do with the fact that 4E was so poorly adopted by the customer base that everybody is just relieved to see it go and sees 5E as what 4E was supposed to be to begin with, but I'm sure I'll have memorax and Scott running after me with flaming chainsaws for this comment. Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Actually as both GM and player, I like actions to have meaningful consequences, both negative and positive- while i'm not sneering down over my glasses at your play-style, its certainly not one I enjoy.

Even in Kingmaker, a delay on my players part cost them a pretty brutal attack on their capital. An attack which I fully rolled out with their NPC's defending the castle walls and in which major allies died. If the NPC's hadn't been so successful in defending it for so long, the place would have been sacked by the time my PC's arrived back. I ran the mass combat out in the open for my players to read as they raced home, right up until the last mass combat round (to preserve a little suspense).

If your playstyle involves there never truly being an incentive to hurry or knowing OOC that you won't be 'too late' for anything, of course the advantage goes to wizards and their ilk...

Even in Paizo AP's, I have my villains be pro-active. They aren't simply sat in a dungeon room, waiting to be killed off, waiting to start their ritual just as the PC's burst in.

Now that is simply my preferred playstyle; but I can tell you that the gap between Wizards and the other classes does not seem nearly as vast as you imply it is in such a playstyle. I often do not even see a disparity until 10th level +, due to a variety of reasons I am sure. Here are a few i'm fairly sure about-

1. Reactive world/playstyle and a sense of player urgency. It becomes fairly clear in my games that if your going to try and clear a dungeon or enemy stronghold bit by bit, novaing every encounter, that bad things are going to happen. This isn't just limited to counterattacks or reinforcements.

2. Intelligent tactics. A wizard has a very mighty toolbox. But there are counters to their spells and encounters do not occur on their terms in my games nearly as much as seems to be implied. Illusion magic in particular can make a wizard blow a significant portion of his payload on a minor threat and readied actions to shoot the spellcaster as he casts remain significant as long as the damage remains reasonably competitive.

3. Perception checks. I mean, seriously. The DC is not particularly high to hear your allies being slaughtered through the next door, or hear the wizard insisting everyone waits while he casts an endless series of buffs on himself.

Adequately prepared and armed with foreknowledge, there is no denying the Wizard in my games is always a force to be reckoned with; the most potent force in fact- when he gets everything on his terms. Villains and adversaries allowing this to happen is, in my eyes, some pretty poor DMing and quite possibly metagaming, depending on their intelligence and the resources available to them.

This was brought up before and it it's an example of something that really grates at me.

It's intended as a neat little mini-game for the PCs, with penalties and bonuses. Can you get away with not drinking enough to avoid serious damage, while making use of the Cha bonus when you want it? That's how it's supposed to be used and it pretty much works as such, especially if you allow Take 10 on the stealth checks to avoid drinking. With a little Aid Another from the stealthy characters, even those who dumped dex should be ok.

OTOH, it completely ignores the consequences of the policy on NPCs.
Everyone on the ship should be dying if they're drinking their daily ration. It does conjure up a great slapstick image of the whole crew trying to ditch their drink without anyone seeing while simultaneously trying to catch anyone else ditching theirs. But I doubt that's the intent.
This bothers me most. It's only about the PCs. The effect on NPCs isn't even considered.

And, as Purplefixer said, the RP aspect is bad. Pirates shouldn't be avoiding drink. They certainly shouldn't be volunteering to be lashed rather than drink their rum.

There has been no real acceptance from WOTC that 4e failed, so I doubt 5e will mend any bridges.

Well, 4e is being canned years ahead of schedule, so clearly someone somewhere has accepted it has failed (or at least underperformed). The question is whether that realisation came from Hasbro or from WotC themselves.

If the former - it's Hasbro's decision - we might see 5e become much more like 3e (based on product sales of 4e versus 3e and also the success of the 3e-alike PATHFINDER). 4e fans will be sacrificed because they are not numerous enough - or at least not paying enough - to be worth bothering with. Harsh? Yes. But that's Hasbro for you. They do not give a toss as long as they have the money coming in. Luckily it does sound like WotC have spent some time agonising on how to integrate 4e and 3e fans alike in the new edition. Whilst I doubt such integration or unification is possible, I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong, as the edition wars pretty much broke up my gaming group and it'd be great to be able to reform it with a new system everyone is happy with (or at least willing to compromise on).

Doom.

Monte leaving only increases my previous hunch 5e will not reverse the damage done to WOTC's customer base by 4e. People who love 4e will, I suspect, cry 5e 'goes backwards' (4vengers are very doctrinal, they talk about 4e like a religion, or philosophical movement), while the other side in the recently ended war (my side) will see too much of 4e in it.

There has been no real acceptance from WOTC that 4e failed, so I doubt 5e will mend any bridges.

Mind you, I'm not bothered, 5e's success or not makes no odds to me one way or t'other tbh.

(My game of choice these last few years has firmly been BRP. Though I buy and respect Paizo's PF products, as they are easy to convert and have that essential traditional feel.)

memorax wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

So: You've naturally concluded that people who find the terms of the contract less concerning than you see to must be morally bankrupt.

Make perfect sense.

Sure seems that way. I better go to church sunday and confess my sins. I get it not everyone is thrilled with the legal terms of the playtest. Yet calling people who disagree morally bankrupt kind of a stretch putting it mildly.

I dont find the legal stuff awkward or unreasonable at all. Nonetheless, to be fair, Epic Meepo was responding to the implicit suggestion that it didnt matter if he did have a problem with it ("...does anyone really expects to be brought before a court if he plays with his homegroup where people have not agreed to the terms of the playtest?!") - the suggestion presumably being that someone with his concerns could just sign it and then break it with impunity.

He wasnt suggesting that anyone who was willing to sign the agreement and stick to it was morally bankrupt - merely implying that signing the agreement with the express intention to not honour it was not something he was prepared to condone.

Also, the words "morally bankrupt" were, you know, NOWHERE IN HIS POST.

Some of you dudes have simply got to learn that some criticism of WotC is going to occur. Some of it's even justified. Some criticism of Paizo is justified. Some criticism of the pope is justified. There are no friends to be won nor people to be influenced by e-knighting blindly and wholly on behalf of a company you don't directly work for. It's not "groupthink". It's a bunch of people who generally are not WotC roadies discussing WotC's policies/procedures/decisions using critical thinking skills. There's lots to like about the playtest, but everything need not be sunshine and bunnies.

Good heavens.

There's a difference between 'some attention' and 'too much attention'.

Because presumably if you're in a dungeon or otherwise monster-occupied area, you are invading and if they find you they'll try to kill you, capture you, or drive you out.

Monsters presumably patrol their lairs, or have minions/troops who do so, especially if groups in the area got in combat earlier. The enemies presumably talk to each other, spread the word of invading opponents. It makes perfect sense for them to be looking for the PCs. Again, they're intruders.

One of my very very very very very very favorite TV shows ever is R.O.D the TV (which is the sequel to the 3 episode Read or Die OAV series, which is also excellent).

Note I say it's one of my favorite TV shows. It isn't just my favorite anime, it's just period one of my absolute favorite things to watch, ever. As in, if I had to throw away all my DVDs except one thing, my R.O.D the TV box set might even beat out my Doctor Who collection (but only might, mind).

Here is a somewhat SPOILERY AMV summarizing the characters and some of the events in the series (mostly the action bits): R.O.D AMV Expect the Unexpected. (The song is a remix of the series theme song.)

Here is a bunch of information about R.O.D the TV no one is interested in except me, but I can't sleep, so:

And in summary, it is the best thing since chocolate.

Management would like to note that DQ is a tiny bit unhealthily obsessed with this obscure anime series, and asks that you kindly be patient with her

My other favorite animes (and no I haven't seen anything since about 2006):

Noir: Awesome seinen series about a pair of assassins tracking down/being tracked by a secret organization. Note it involves assassins and death, so violence warnings and all. Also there's lesbian subtext.

Revolutionary Girl Utena: I tend to love or hate shoujo, but I definitely love Utena, which is a dark fairytale meets everyday school life. It's about a teen girl who wants to be a "prince" and finds herself protecting a girl who is the target of mysterious sword duels held by the school's student council, who in turn are being manipulated to do so by a puppet master behind the scenes. It's also extremely difficult to capture in a nutshell.

Also warning: DO NOT WATCH THE UTENA MOVIE thinking it will be a nice neat summary of the TV series. Utena the Movie came out at the same time as the End of Evangelion film, and is often considered to be End of Eva's shoujo counterpart to its shounen. In other words, IT WILL MELT YOUR BRAIN AND YOUR BRAIN WILL PUDDLE INTO YOUR SHOES AND EVAPORATE IN THE SUN LEAVING BEHIND NOTHING BUT A FAINT SCENT OF CONFUSION AND INNOCENCE LOST.

But the tv series is just the right amount of late 90s brain f+&+ery while still actually having an enjoyable followable plot and NO segments whatsoever in which the line is uttered, "It's a big mistake to think you're the only one who can turn into a car!"

Trigger warnings: I should note that Revolutionary Girl Utena is not graphic but does have some themes of brother-sister incest (it does not depict it as a good thing. And I've seen enough anime to know I need to specify that).

Also not triggery but there is also lesbian subtext (and text in the movie). (You may notice a theme as to the kinds of anime DQ tends to watch)

The Slayers: Do you like fantasy RPGs? Do you like comedic stories inspired by fantasy RPG tropes? Do you like epic stories about tiny redheads with the power to destroy the universe with a single spell which are also a comedic series of tales inspired by fantasy RPG tropes? Then you should watch The Slayers!

And if you don't, Lina Inverse might get mad...

(Also, it is a series that DQ likes that doesn't actually have lesbian subtext but it has fantasy and funny things and explosions!)

Excel Saga: Look, I'd already seen Utena: The Movie when I saw Excel Saga, so there wasn't any brain left to damage.

Excel Saga is very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very silly.

I'll list a few oldies...

Records Of The Lodoss Wars: Ghim is one of the best, if not best portrayal of dwarf in movies/series/tv. Also, a proof that contrary to misguided Paizo claims elves are smaller than humans!

Ghost In The Shell: All those years and I still love the scenes with the city after the rain...

Akira: March of the toys, the choirs singing akira, the finale...

Maybe later I think of something newer.

When the Pathfinder RPG first got released, we saw a mini adventure path in the form of three modules. Maybe doing something like that but on the high-level end would appease some fans clamoring for a high-level adventure path.

Back then modules were monthly, try as I might they wont go back to that, instead moving the companion line to monthly which infuriates me. They seem to think the pfs scenarios fill the niche. I bailed on pfs in season because the adventure quality was awful and formulaic.

Point is the bi-monthly module schedule line means we will not see linked modules again.

Why is it that I see SO many debates on these forums that go something like this:

"If you follow this interpretation of the rules, than the game is more fun. If you believe in--and follow--the other, then it takes away from the game."

"That doesn't matter. MY interpretation is the correct one. If you play it any other way, you are doing it wrong."

I would think that if two or more interpretations were possible, people would simply choose the one that most enhances the game, or is the most fun, or takes the LEAST away from it.

That does not seem to be the case though. People in this community will stubbornly fight TOOTH AND NAIL to prove that they are right, even if their interpretation would hurt the game somehow.

Just. Why?

Because when someone claims that an interpretation will "make the game less fun", they are making a subjective claim.

When someone claims that an interpretation is in line with the literal wording of the rules, they are making an (allegedly) objective claim.

I believe it is easier for people to agree on what is right than what is fun.

Not to mention...for some (maybe many) people, being right IS fun. :)

You could do what everyone else did and cut Numeria out of the game.

Let's pretend I have a fragance allergy, and all of my friends are aware of this fact. One day, one of them suddenly decides he MUST start wearing a strongly-scented cologne at all times. I would feel betrayed if several of them insisted I was being "unreasonable" in telling him to stop wearing the product.

The same attitude is evident in this gaming group. It's not a question of whose roleplay is stronger, it's the fact that this player feels (rightly so) betrayed by his group. That's a wound that will not heal without an open discussion, and even then it may not.

Pretending this is not a problem is only going to make things worse. The player needs to stick up for themselves, but in a mature, non-aggressive, way. If the end result is the loss of a gaming group, that may be the price of dignity.

The OP is not wrong. I can't believe how many of the posters are actually blaming him.

The GM has made a serious bad call and is unwilling to fix it. I would retire your character and make a new one or quit the group.

Tell them that your action is to fix the rift in the party, but that you cannot keep playing your CHARACTER to proper form with an undead COMPANION in the party.

To bad you don't live near me, or you'd be welcome at our table anytime.

You can't force players to do anything, especially if you're another player. If someone insists on something long enough that no one else wants to do both in and out of character and they're already angry with you both in and out, you just might be digging your cleric a shallow grave in the wilderness.

There is a magic word, and that word is "no". If "No" doesn't work, "goodbye" usually does the trick.

This guy got his character approved by the GM, and his concept is a very generic, basic concept. A Cleric of one of the main Gods in the setting.

The person at the table who wants an undead mount and is inflexible about it is the one who is trying to have something unusual for the setting, not the OP. The GM should not have allowed it if they were also going to allow the player to be a cleric.

We had a player once who wanted to play a Good Necromancer, with the backstory being that he believe the Undead could be helpful to people, and were just misunderstood. He went through elaborate planning to keep the fact that his "friends" were undead from the rest of the party.

It was a blast to play with him in that group. But he was fully expected to make all the accommodations and adjustments, because he was throwing the wrinkle in.

The OP is all but playing an off the shelf character for the setting. He shouldn't be required to adjust to accommodate someone who wants an undead mount, unless the person with the undead mount was there first.

Fringe is an enjoyable show, if for no other reason than John Noble as Walter. I'm happy that they get another season, but saddened that it'll be shortened and the last one.

Jodokai wrote:

LazarX wrote:

The problem with Heroes is that when you look close up at them, they turn out to be Human after all.

Maybe, but I'd hardly call either one a hero. The only Star Wars movie I like is Empire, and that's the one George had the least to do with, and by the time I knew who Gygax was, D&D was no where near my favorite game. I think it is just more a case of I didn't realize what pompous self-righteous pricks they were before. JMHO and YMMV

Steve Jobs was in many ways a pompous, obsesive jerk. But he's still a hero to me because of the great waves he made in the personal computing paradigm, in manyways redefining the paradigm itself to one of a digital lifestyle. If there's anyone that he can be compared to, it would be Thomas Edison (who had ample levels of Jerkass in his psyche as well) The main difference is that while Edison revolutionised four industries, Jobs did it to five.

If you're going to go that far out onto the Steve Jobs Fanboy Limb, then you have to give Edison credit for revolutionizing pretty much every modernized industry in existence.

Comparing Jobs to Edison is like comparing a set of high-powered floodlights to the sun.

I'd honestly rather the setting have an old school feel than the rules set. As much as I enjoyed 2nd edition, even I know that I'm looking at it through nostagia-vision. I'd rather the rules keep improving but still have the adventures keep that 'old school' feeling.

Of course, everyone's definition of 'old school' is different. And there isn't anything wrong with catering to both the newer crowd in addition to the old school people. Always good to expand your demographic so that more people can enjoy the game.

Paizo's "old school" roots aren't in the rules (obviously - calling 3.5 "old school" is just wrong on so many levels - heck, I call 2nd Ed. "middle school" because it was the fifth version of the D&D rules published). Their old school roots are in the way they approach world building and adventure making. Much of it is homage, really, Easter Eggs of a sort in many of the adventures and in the campaign setting.

Yeah kind of have to agree with Arnwyn and Erik (To an extent I think they could have set it in Golarion just not with a bunch of Zon-Kuthon worshipers. That tend's to dillute the sympathy. Also kind of hard to justify characters being there since if Memory serves Nidal is not a welcoming place.) Which is a pity because otherwise I really like the module

Do you know when there are no AoO's left? Perhaps, I could see this being described as "a brief opening or lull in the foe's offense."

"I know what you're thinking: Did he take six attacks of opportunity this round or only five? Well to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that this is a +5 vorpal greatsword, the most powerful melee weapon in the world - and would cut your head clean off - you've got to ask yourself one question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well do ya, punk?"

I'm an old school gamer. I mean like "just after the pamphlets became D&D" old school. I grew up literally alongside core D&D (TriO - you should now feel like a newborn). That being said I have to say that less rules IME = MORE rules lawyering.

Now a lot of factors play into that statement like play styles and angry youth and all that but I remember DISTINCTLY when I finally and stubbornly made the jump from 2e to 3e; I felt like part of my childhood had died. I decided not to GM even though that was my traditional role, so a friend picked up some of the books and made an FR campaign.

My main complaint was feats. If my players WANTED to try 6 impossible things before breakfast, I always used to just let them with some rolls. But it would almost ALWAYS break down into them either failing and nit picking the fail because "I should've gotten THIS bonus or THAT result", or they'd win and my other players would try to one up the first so I felt like I was constantly re-inventing the wheel.

Then I sat down with a 3.0 fighter, converted from 2e, right at 16th level. The feats were a lot around sundering which was my bag back in the PC's previous incarnation. Then with those feats firmly in place we attacked a conversion of Baba Yaga's hut.

I watched as myself and 3 other friends tore through a NEW system, in one of the most confusing modules I've played, and did it with smiles and NO hint of frustration. It was SO freaking epic! The reality was we were STILL trying things but our GM would say: "do you have X feat?" we'd respond "no" and then he'd look it up and tell us how what we wanted would work...and then it just happened. If we failed we felt like we knew why (FYI - it's REALLY hard to great throw a clay golem as a halfling, no matter what Str the artifact gauntlets you're wearing give you) and when we succeeded it was measurable.

So I guess my point to all this is: more rules for me ended up just clearing the decks for more fun. Since that first campaign I've not gone backwards in eds. And on the flip I've had more creativity and epicness since 3.0 than in the previous eds since, with the rules out of the way my pc's and I have felt like we're free to create.

And just a nod to Paizo and PF: my guys and I meet once a year to play and last year we converted some PF stuff into our homebrew world. We have collectively and individually in our own personal games had such a good experience with it that this year for the first time in 11 years are running boxed adventures. Our GM is running ROTRL as our game.

Yes he is having badwrongfun and must be punished for not squeezing out every last beneficial bonus he can get his hands on.

How dare he!

The idea that you can't play a simple, light casual game of 3E/3.5 is amusing.

As has been stated, system mastery isn't "memorize all of the rules".

Taken from Memorax's link:

Monte Cook wrote:

During the design of 3.0, one of the things that we realized was a huge strength of D&D is a concept we called "mastery." Mastery, in this context, is the idea that an avid fan of the game is going to really delve into the rules to understand how they work. We actually designed 3.0 with mastery in mind. For example, we created subsystems that worked like other systems, so that if you knew how one worked, you'd find the other one easier to understand. But I digress.

And there you have a very definitive reason why a LOT of people shrug their shoulders about his departure. From my own experience, system mastery, or more precisely the added gains of system mastery is a horrid step in the design process. Now he just stats that it's beneficial to people for the uses of going from one sub-sytem to another, yet it's much more than that as he stated in anothe article about feats that weren't very good (for example, Toughness). Frankly there are some people who, for whatever reason, can't put THAT much time into a system. And because of that, they get hosed because they don't know that X, Y, and Z combo does 1,000 damage on a Charge attack or that Such-and-Such spell can be used continuously throught a character's career, or that in combination with obscure item from BLah-Supplement makes a Dwarven Fighter immune to all acid damage and gives him DR 10/—.

Frankly, I've never understood this attitude that new or casual participants in a hobby should be just as effective as experienced and/or serious participants. In fact, this is the only hobby where I've seen this theory proposed.

If our hobby were, for example, basketball:

Player 1 has a basketball hoop and backboard in his driveway at home, and spends 2 hours a day shooting hoops or, if it's raining, watching recordings of NBA games while playing with a basketball inside. He plays street ball in the park on Wednesday nights and is part of a league that plays every Saturday and his team practice every Thursday night.

Player 2 is a member of the same league, but he only shows up for the practices during the week and for league games. Other than that he doesn't touch a ball. Whether it's because he's not as dedicated, or has other priorities (family, work, a long commute) he just doesn't get in as much quality time.

By the theory that "Mastery is bad" player 2 should be just as skilled at the game as player 1. We all know that's bunk, but here we have a theory that states that in our hobby it should work differently.

Whatever your pursuit in life, the more time and energy you dedicate to it, the more skilled and effective you will be.

Gorbacz wrote:

On a side note, I really wish that the "WotC and its' current products health is crucial for survival and expansion of our hobby, so let's all rally behind the Former Industry Leader!" train of thought would finally hit some bridge and die slowly in flames, because it's silly as hell.

i respectfully disagree. IF wotc crashes and burns who is going to take their place. paizo possibly yet PF does not have the same brand recognition as D&D. Saying that it wont have an effect is also imo silly as hell.

Yup, I mean look at what happened to the computer industry when IBM stopped being the leader. Oh wait...

Well remember how the film and movie industry fell apart when MGM went into receivership? OH, wait...

And look how the home video industry fell apart with the loss of Betamax, then again with the decline of VHS, then again when Lassr discs didn't take off.

And I'm sure everyone remembers how the home video game industry never recovered from the decline of Atari...

And of course, RPGs died when TSR went backrupt.

On a side note, I really wish that the "WotC and its' current products health is crucial for survival and expansion of our hobby, so let's all rally behind the Former Industry Leader!" train of thought would finally hit some bridge and die slowly in flames, because it's silly as hell.

This thread so far has been calm despite you putting words into people's mouths. Can you take your complaints about the other threads and talk about them in those other threads, or better yet, flag the posts your talking about and move on.

I've so far enjoyed the civil discussion, speculation and people's opinions. The most provocative comments being made in this thread are actually yours memorax, sorry to say. I haven't seen anyone dooming and glooming, but anyone has a right to say their interest is lessened due to Monte suddenly leaving. I have not seen any major 5e bashing in this thread, or 4e. No ones trying to start an edition war or flaming but i'm as entitled to say "I didn't like 4e and i'm not as excited about 5e after hearing Monte is leaving" as you are to tell me your own opinion.

And though I may not agree with it, it will no doubt be interesting to read and I will respect it.

Of all of the blogs and messages and yes, even the actual game .PDFs I read and download off of Paizo.com, this series of blog posts is EASILY my most favourite thing on the website that Paizo has ever done, bar none.

Hell, I'm still rather awestruck by the sheer dogged sticktoitiveness that James Jacobs demonstrated in his ongoing Quest for Hire that he recounted to us last month. I don't know whether he was motivated, or stubborn, but either way, it just goes to show you that you make your own luck. (Safe bet says: it had to be a lot of both).

Awesome stuff guys. Keep it comin!

One thing this thread has taught me is that I'm glad I know how to say "no". Most of the wierd characters all of you describe would never make it into my game.

I don't talk trash about 4e. But, this is a message board mostly dedicated to a company and a game a lot of 4e fans talk trash about. Heck, a ton of people joined here during the edition change because they were bashed other places (most notably rpgnet, enworld and WotC forums) for not getting on board with 4e.

So, honestly, a lot of people are, being petty human being types, going to take it out here. I'm sure a vast majority of the posters here wouldn't mind the 4e forum going away all together. But part of Paizo's business is selling all kinds of non-Paizo stuff, and, unlike a lot of companies (in any industry), they actually listen to and try to accommodate all of their customers.

Continually telling the 4e haters to stfu or whatever it is y'all think you're trying to accomplish is pointless. Ignore them or talk around them. Engaging them doesn't do anything but make them go harder in the paint.

And, dude, this is a geek forum on the internet. Raging is par for the course. Hell, I've seen flame wars on some of the cooking sites I go to make this look civil.

The fact that 4E is ending speaks loudly to its merits or lack thereof. If the general gaming community had supported it more highly, and its parent corporation were making money off of it hand over fist, do you think 5E would be coming out now? Who knows what the final 5E will look like; but as far as I am concerned it will have a long way to go to beat out Pathfinder.

Does a silent war really rage in Golarion's shadows?

Because that's a particularly tired trope.

I quite like vampires and lycanthropes, I just prefer not having massed gangs of them fighting each other.

The Bram Stoker model is infintely more intriguing.

SO!

If you miss the class/race breakdowns... let us know WHAT you miss from them that the new format doesn't do for you.

The problem is that players like to know "is my class OK?" People only want to play classes that have abilities that would be useful to the AP. Quick examples:

Rogue: are there going to be a lot of traps?
Cavalier: are enough fights outdoors so I can use my horse a lot?
Wizard: is there enough downtime for item crafting?
Gunslinger: is there enough firearm loot for me to use?
Cleric: what churches have a presence in the area?
Druid: will I be able to hate cities, or is this an urban campaign?
Paladin: is this a LG-friendly campaign?
Etc, etc.

The previous player's guides soothed those nerves. Now, players don't know if they have a "useful" or "safe" concept, and are skittish and need assurance that they are choosing a good character concept. Sure, that's my role as GM, but unless I've read through several issues of the AP already, that's tricky.

You say "all APs work for all classes/races" but that's not true. Paladins (as commonly played) don't work in most APs. Cavaliers don't work in hardly any APs. Item Crafting only works in half of APs. City-hating only works in half of APs. Dwarven PCs will never meet a Dwarven NPC in half of APs.

I don't think the lengthy writeups we've historially seen are needed. But a quick "this is okay" or "this will be more challenging" call for each class would be quite useful.

Nine out of ten parts of the Paladin's version of Lawful Good is emphasis on the good.

They don't 'detect chaos' and they don't 'smite chaos' and they don't suffer any sort of approbrium (or possible loss of class abilities!) for hanging out with chaotic folk. Mechanically, since the Paladin class was invented, 'lawful' has been a distant afterthought, at best, and there's no reason why your paladin PC has to put more attention into his 'lawful-ness' than the creators of the game did.

If the quandary of the day puts the Lawful at odds with the Good, the Good wins every time, IMO.

When the law is used against the good and innocent, it stops being the law of the people.

Even if the evidence is stacked, it isn't real evidence but corrupted evidence. That's enough for me to go in and save this person from getting executed, provided he is found guilty. Of course, I'd hope the GM has a way to find the real evidence and prove to the country that this person is indeed innocent.

Pretty pictures... but why did they let her keep the obviously solid gold hat?

Exactly. I looked at that illustration and thought "Why would the pirates let her keep a hat that's more metal than cloth?" and "Why would she continue to wear it while doing the labor, it's got to be heavy."

Also known as "It doesn't make sense for the iconics to be dressed as they are in this picture."

Multiclassing being generally weaker than single classing is a feature, not a bug.

Generally, I find I enjoy prestige classes more than archetypes.

Archetypes are something you are from the beginning. You're an archetype or not. There's no progressing into that path if you didn't start on it. No archetype is available to more than one class, so the concepts for them are quite narrow.

Prestige classes are a later development of a character and can represent an altered outlook or new path of learning. They are available to a wide variety of classes, so you don't require a fixed direction to approach them.

I think both are very necessary for the breadth of character concepts.

Keep in mind that we've inherited a system that's essentially compiled from decades of material by countless authors and editors, and when we created the Pathfinder RPG, there was definitely a big question in our minds about how much we could change without driving people away. (And I'm not just talking about rules, but about the presentation of those rules—decisions like italicizing spell names, and not capitalizing all game terms—these are decisions that were made before us, and we decided not to mess with them.*) Hindsight indicates to me that we chose wisely, but I also believe that we could go further in some future iteration.

However, that's what it's going to take to make the types of changes you're asking for—a future iteration.

*Personally, I happen to think that both of those were very good decisions, and I wouldn't change either of them given the chance. However, applying very consistent game terminology would definitely be high on my own wish list.

All those feats that require combat expertise are amazing, but 13 intelligence? That's a bit high for monks and fighters.

Why? Smart fighters fight smart, how else do you represent this? Intelligence in terms of quick wits and tactical acumen is valuable in a fight, and Combat Expertise is the only feat that actually attempts to represent this.

Read some reviews of Second Darkness. ;)