Bill Dunn's page

Yeah, I just re-wrote my code and found the answer to be 12.25. My head is now exploding though! Your 2 dice answer makes a lot of sense.

The next puzzle is for me to figure out how my original flawed code came up with the answer 10.5!

If your code was always dropping the same die, then you were effectively rolling 3d6 drop none. That would yield you the 10.5 average.

Alternatively, if you were simulating random rolls and not enumerating the actual results of 4d6 drop low, you could get quite a variety of answers depending on how the luck turns out. With 100,000 rolls, you're highly likely to get an experimental average that is very close to the theoretical one, but sometimes random gets a little weird. Your observed average could vary from the theoretical. I wouldn't expect a nearly 2 point difference though.

Grey Lensman wrote:

The problem with turning Cap from a badass normal into a full blown superhero is that he really ceases to be Cap if you do that. Being a badass normal is the whole POINT to Captain America. Coulson stealing the role has more to do with the skill of the actor than anything else, IMO. Phil was great, and the Marvel movies are probably a little bit less without him.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Cap is a superhero to me, not a badass normal. I'm not saying he should have floored the Hulk and Loki with one punch each, I'm just saying he should have done things that were more superheroic, less stock action movie.

I have to agree with Grey Lensman on this one. Making Cap a true super undermines a lot of his distinctiveness as a character. Marvel has taken that route on occasion because he did develop into having super strength for a while (though I don't remember the full details). Thankfully, it was temporary.

One of Cap's Crowning Moments of Awesome was when he was fighting Michael Korvac while all of the supers were temporarily down (those that weren't dead yet).

"You dropped your guard too soon, Mike! There's one of us left--one man! Or maybe you don't even count me--because I'm just a man? Hear that, Mike? This is no god hitting you... no super man! Just a man!"

It doesn't get much better than that.

Quote:

3) Political/Legal - One of the reasons for the OGL was to make sure that the game could never be trapped in litigation thanks to the financial failure of any owning company. As it turns out, this probably won't be necessary. But if Hasbro ever shelves the property, one edition of the game is, nevertheless, always out there. The game truly has become more than the company that owns it.

Really? Why would the owner of the IP do that? It's worth money, you don't give it away unless you expect to make more money doing so (the basic, and in my view flawed, premise of the OGL). I wasn't an act of generosity. And what happens on liquiditation isn't really the going concern company's problem, it's the creditors and the liquidators.

I think the problem is you see WotC as some sort of charity, safeguarding the sacred brand that is D&D for future generations. It isn't, it's a publishing company that seeks to extract as much value from its property as it can. So your criteria on the success of the OGL don't come from the point of view of the owners of the IP, but from the users. Sure, anyone getting someone else's IP for free is going to be very happy. But I don't believe that, commercially, it was helpful to WotC to do this as it fostered competition which it now has to fight. So, funnily enough, they don't want to go down that route again.

On the other hand, the competitive challenge to which WotC has been subjected has led them to up their game quite a lot in terms of the quality of product they produce and their marketing initiative. I'm personally disappointed that 4e now has a restricted shelflife given the recent improvements, but maye 5e will be amazing (who knows?).

Funny thing about reality, it often upsets preconceived notions. Keeping D&D free from being lost in litigation was one of the cited rationales for the OGL according to Dancey and Adkison. And that means it did come from the point of view of the owners of the IP. Clearly they also had a certain amount of market dominance and mindshare in their intentions as well, but most people do have complex motivations behind what they're doing. Making money, taking over stewardship of the brand they loved, making a huge public relations splash in the industry, demonstrating bold leadership, and saving the game that started the RPG industry. Those motivations were pretty much all there with the acquisition of TSR, the publishing of 3rd edition, and making it OGL.

I would also like to point out that there are multiple ways to measure the success of the OGL. I can think of a few off the top of my head.

1) Financial - did it generate sufficient revenue to be worthwhile. As outsiders, we really don't have much insight into this.

2) Marketing/Mindshare - given the breadth of companies taking a stab at OGL materials and amount of product available, I doubt any edition of D&D other than 1st had this degree of success.

3) Political/Legal - One of the reasons for the OGL was to make sure that the game could never be trapped in litigation thanks to the financial failure of any owning company. As it turns out, this probably won't be necessary. But if Hasbro ever shelves the property, one edition of the game is, nevertheless, always out there. The game truly has become more than the company that owns it.

If the OGL was a huge success then every rpg would have one. We jave a few yet it has not been adopted by every rpg company. Many are still closed source as opposed to open source in their material.

I think your analysis is really lacking something here. The same business plan won't work for everyone. An OGL could work really well for an industry leader, but may be less likely to help a game with a small market. People have to believe there's a significant benefit to hitching their wagon to the license, and that's more likely to be true with bigger games than smaller ones.

A "modest bump"? You think sexism is a "modest bump" - that would explain why it's not a big deal to you. Again, though, I suggest this: replace all his sexism with racism. Erastil believes that caucasians (or whatever other race you want to put in, but since he's Ulfen, caucasians would seem most fitting) should always be in charge, and non-caucasians never should and should always defer to them. Is that still a "modest bump"?

The fact remains that we're not talking about racism. Not all -isms are equal or equivalent.

Honestly, I'm baffled that so many people are arguing for sexism, here. I totally understand not believing as I do and wanting to kill Erastil, but I truly can't believe how many seem to think "oh, yeah, no big deal, he's sexist and actively oppresses women but that's ok because he's nice in this other way!". I'm sure Stalin was nice in ways too - that doesn't make him not a monster.

Not many are really arguing for sexism, per se. Rather, a modest bump on an otherwise excellent moral character shouldn't be a death sentence.

Of course, the comparison with Stalin pretty much Godwin's the thread (albeit on the other totalitarian dictatorship direction) anyway.

Since you increased your Dex to an odd level on your own, I assume you'll do it again in the not too distant future. At that point, then the odd bonus stops delivering the extra goods and you're right back to the belt giving you just a +1 to your Dex mod. You might as well save up to upgrade it to a full +4.

I remember back when Monte left over some type of professional disagreement. I wonder if this lawyer crap was it.

My money's on yes.

My money is on No. This interference by lawyers is pretty bush league. I won't say that it wasn't some lawyerly shenanigans like with licensing plans, but legalese in the play test agreement? That's pretty much nothing.

Digression: I remember that in one thread someone was claiming that point buy encourages dump stats, so for a lark I rolled up three sets of stats:

13, 11, 14, 12, 7, 15
12, 12, 15, 13, 14, 5
11, 13, 14, 8, 15, 10

Voila! Instant proof that rolling encourages dump stats. ;-)

It's all in the psychology and what you do with the system. Rolling a low number and tucking it away where it will do little harm isn't the same as deliberately choosing to have a low number so you can afford to have a higher number in your array. You are stuck with it in a stat rolling system, you choose to pursue it in a point-buy system. I know which player I generally have more sympathy for when the low stat comes around to bite him in play.

Louis Lyons wrote:

Erastil is not a misogynist. He is a male chauvinist. While the two seem similar on paper, the practical reality of the two concepts are vastly different. Misogyny is the hatred of women, and nowhere is it suggested or implied that Erastil hates women in any manner.

A male chauvinist like Erastil believes women are the "weaker sex," and therefore it is the duty of males to lay down their lives to protect them.

A misogynist like Asmodeus believes that women are the weaker sex, and therefore it is the duty of men to dominate them at all times and use women solely for their own pleasure.

And I hate both and want both to burn in the worst possible way.

That looks like a whole lot of refusing to see the forest because of obsession over a single tree.

Each time a slightly different skill seems appropriate a new craft skill is put in print, but this just leads to a vast swath of skills that you need to look up a head of time just to find out that you need to know it.

Has anyone done away with keeping craft as multiple skills and just use 'craft'?

Am I the only one that has bumped heads with this oddity?

I doubt you're the only one, but I think the best remedy isn't to come up with an alternative structure or more rules. Rather, I think the remedy is to not sweat it so much. I know it's hard to do that. Gamer nerds are often far too pedantic for their own good.

• Remember that the craft skill can be tried unskilled. That means that everyone can at least try it without investing at all.

• Remember that normal NPCs don't get to be high level very often (if at all) so DCs for normal things shouldn't be particularly high. Even unskilled, PCs should be able to make some headway without always destroying their materials.

• Circumstance bonuses and penalties are a DM's friend. Use of one at a 2 or 4 point level along with a reasonably similar craft skill can and should go a long way.

There's no reason to feel paralysis looking at the list of specific crafts. Invest in what gives your PC the character you want him to have and don't sweat the rest too much.

This is a Pathfinder change from 3.5 that I love.

Me too. It simplified the hell out of skill ranks, particularly for multiclass characters.

Cutting an arrow as it flies, by holding an action to do so, treads in the same direction as the arrow deflection feats and duelist power, but it doesn't really tread on them. It certainly doesn't do so any more than punching someone treads on improved unarmed strike - the feat primarily makes the option a whole lot better. The deflect arrows feat is a whole lot better than giving up a standard action to have a chance to break one arrow in flight.

I am willing to entertain the idea that attempting to cut down an arrow with a held action is closer to treading on the parry option for the duelist, but I still think that power is substantially better than trying to hold an action to cut down an arrow.

With respect to the initial thesis, I would agree that the BBEG for Savage Tide is as big and rockstar as they come. No question possible about that one. He's been iconic since the 1e Monster Manual hit the shelves.

However, in both the Shackled City and Age of Worms, though the BBEGs are certainly tough, one was a new invention for the AP and the other was a relatively obscure actor in D&D lore. You really weren't fighting any of the iconic villains of D&D. You'd have to have been going after someone like Vecna or Iuz, I think, for that to apply in Age of Worms.

I blame MMO's. MMO's are the cause of all this "Everyone must be equal" crap. I have seen a big increase in Point buy and complaints that one person has an advantage over another because of BLA post after the popularity of MMO's spiked. Heck we had a few 1000+ post not to long ago. One was a guy complaining about a fellow party member getting extra Knowledge skill points. The other was about a party member charging for magic items he made so he had more gold then everyone else.... all I hear is.

WAAAAAAAAAAAA!

The complaints with respect to stats have been around a lot longer than MMOs.

Do you guys not allow mulligans if a character's entire set are bad? I have never had a DM that wouldn't allow a re-roll if the set was low and the player asked. I know this can lead to abused character rolling, but if the DM gets the say, I am fine with it. When I DM, if your highest stat is 13, re-roll granted. Have an 18 but a 3 and a 4 are sitting next to it? Play it if you want, but I will allow a re-roll too. This is obviously going to be up to your DM's judgment, but isn't everything?

I have never needed to give multiple mulligans based on rolling. What I have players do is roll up 2 sets, 4d6 drop lowest, and pick the set they prefer. I have yet to have to go beyond that. One of the two is usually up to snuff, though not free of all warts. I had one player who had trouble deciding between the two results because one had a modest high of 15 or 16 and a few 13/14s but nothing lower than 8, while the other had an 18 and a 5.

I did one have a player who said his character generation rolls were always low, so I had him roll but subtract from 21 (for the exact same distribution). I'll be darned if he wasn't right. His dice rolled low and he ended up with good stats.

Just saw it. It was fantastic!

Spoiler:

Love the Thanos cameo, wonder if we'll see Adam Warlock when the time comes.

I was kind of hoping for Ultron and the Vision for the next one but the Spoiler above works for me. :)

I really hate what Marvel has done with the Avengers in recent years and I hope we dont see the new Avengers (Wolverine, Spiderman) taking the place of the older ones in the movies. I just dont see the newer comic book roster as Avengers. Call me old-fashioned. :)

The character I want to see most with respect to the next movie:

I have no problem with a GM ruling that a character can ready an action to knock an arrow out of the air. It is not RAW, but there are many rulings outside RAW that good GM's make to make the game more fun. I do object to giving that arrow an AC of 13. It is preposterous to think that knocking an arrow out of the air mid-flight is of equal difficulty as hitting an arrow which is sitting on a table.

That's what circumstance bonuses are for. The question is, about how much of a bonus to AC should the arrow get? I'd say a +10 wouldn't be out of line. That puts it out of the easy reach of most low level NPCs and PCs and that's fine with me.

This is a heroic role playing game. It's not a board game. The rules don't even try to delineate everything a PC can do, nor should they. Some adjudication by an impartial referee is necessary. And I think this is one of those cases where the PC has a good rationale why they can try and not have the situation so stacked against them they can't succeed.

I've only had the chance to compare the speed of the Core Rulebook so far but the lite file is much faster on my iPad 2. Kudos to Paizo!

Bill Dunn wrote:

I don't think being able to tumble really needs to scale with level. As I see it, it's less about the opponent you're fighting and more about your ability to move without dropping your guard. And once you've mastered that, you've mastered it.

The issue is this is that it effectively charges one Feat (and only one Feat) to ignore AoOs entirely by mid-levels. You just put the Favored Class bonuses into Acrobatics and buy Toughness (or the Feat in the Human preview fom the Advanced Races Guide that gives you the HP and the Skill oint from your favore class every level).

Let's be a little more careful. You ignore AoOs for movement within a threatened area as long as you either make just a half-move or make a significantly harder full speed tumble. So it's not like it's free of all conditions.

Plus, I like the idea of feats that increase the tumble DC of an area you threaten by +5 or maybe +10. Then, you get to choose to specialize in that sort of thing yet big and ponderous creatures that happen to have a lot of BAB because of high hit dice aren't automatically harder to tumble around.

If you just take the 3.5 model, it becomes too easy for every class (not just rogues and monks) to get +15 tumble. Pathfinder makes it easy to take cross class skills. Especially if all you are aiming for is an easy to hit DC.
Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, Druids will all just be maxing out acrobatics until they can hit DC 15 as matter of course and any poor sap who trys to utilize attacks of opportunity into their character build will be laughed at for the futility of it.

Tumble does need to be something that both scales with level and isn't easy to accomplish, or it breaks the system in the other direction even worse than 3.5 did.

I pretty much totally disagree with that. So what if all those classes you cite invest in acrobatics to tumble until they can hit that DC without rolling? That's a pretty big investment for most of them, particularly if they're wearing armor that penalizes their check.

I don't think being able to tumble really needs to scale with level. As I see it, it's less about the opponent you're fighting and more about your ability to move without dropping your guard. And once you've mastered that, you've mastered it.
But even if you wanted to have it scale with level, my experience with the skill is that using the CMD is not the value to use. I like combat maneuvers fine for a lot of other uses - overrun, bull rush, grapple - but not tumble.

A player in our group is multi-classing rogue and wizard.

The DM made the call that KN (any), means that for one skill point, he has one rank in ALL KN skills.

Now i know DM word is law at most tables....but this really seems unfair to the other players, who need to purchase ranks in KN skills individually.

What say you ?

If the DM thinks he has the correct interpretation of the rules, he's wrong. Nor is it fair.

Is it damaging the game? Probably not. So if you never get him to fix it, I wouldn't sweat it. Just rely on ol' Cliff Claven to spout on what he knows about monster weaknesses, at least you've got all monster types covered now.

Legions of fans conditioned to remember choice bits and forget inconveniences like alien movies.

If I held a grudge for every movie someone was involved in that I didn't like, I would never be able to go to the movies. I sure as hell wouldn't be able to watch any classic Bond after Connery made Highlander 2. Some movies work, some don't. Avengers does and does so really well.

I hope they don't fall back on the LMD switcheroo. It would be in-genre for anything involving SHIELD, including the Avengers, but it would still suck. If they brought him back AS an LMD and that became a point of minor friction between Stark and Fury, that would be pretty cool.

Just use 3E's static tumble DCs. The rogue and monk being able to move around the battlefield safely won't break the damn game. It certainly didn't in 3E.

That was my experience as well. I thought a better solution to including BAB and Strength bonuses into tumbling DC calculations was create a feat or two that would make a creature more difficult to tumble around that would reflect their specialization in dealing with that kind of movement if you wanted to provide that kind of challenge to the tumblers.

For the sake of arguement-->If the devs wanted to write it so that the second paragraph was its sub-ruling, how should they have done so?

I think they did just fine with the text as it is now. You can't write everything to defend against over-pedantic interpretation. Everything would be in legalese and would be even harder to parse.

I'm not sure why this is unclear. The "draw a weapon" action clearly states that: "This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands." (Emphasis mine.) That describes the action.

"If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move."

Okay, so since drawing a weapon as an action also applies to "weapon-like objects" as defined above, then it follows that those objects can also be drawn as a free action according to the rule quoted above.

Simple.

I have to agree with this. As long as that wand is carried in easy reach like a weapon is, then you can draw it as a free action while moving. This isn't digging it out of a backpack, this is drawing out a wand that's in easy reach and normally takes no more time than drawing a sword out of a sheath.

And yes, I would generally expect players to mark where items are stored. There's a reason most official character sheets have had space for that information. It can be useful to know given situations like these.

Been thinking of changing this to be based on caster level rather than spell level.

What do ya'll think?

I'll admit, I've given this idea some thought as well. If you're having a real problem with spellcasters going nova with their high level spells and then trying to turtle up after a 15 minute day, it may be a helpful solution. Their lower level spells, particularly the save or sit ones like charm person or hold person, won't be as obsoleted.

But if you're not really seeing that problem, then I think it's probably not worth the change.

Personally... I have no problem at all with a PC being able to purchase one unit of ammo at a time. Regardless of what that ammo is. It's as simple as dividing the total cost by 50 to come upon the per unit cost, in any case, so there's no need for errata or FAQ. All it takes is an open-minded GM.

That's what I allow. The person making and enchanting the ammunition may be making them in lots of 50, but people can buy them in smaller lots. I even roll 2d20 to see how many he has in stock if he has any at all.

The halfling ranger has been making a lot of use of varying ammunition lots for his sling staff in the Council of Thieves game I'm running. He tends to buy as many human bane and evil outsider bane ones he can find for some reason.

My problem with BW, as mentioned above, was that she was as much of a Super Soldier as Captain America (except maybe the first Hulk scene). I bought her duping a crooked arms dealer and taking out his cadre of thugs while tied up. I didn't buy the final battle. I also didn't buy ** spoiler omitted **...

Nitpick: keep in mind that the super soldier formula, in the comics, doesn't make Cap superhuman. He is transformed to the peak of human strength, endurance, and agility. His achievement could, conceivably, be equaled without the formula. Black Widow was trained in some kind of wacky Soviet super spy program and also received weird treatments in the comic book lore.

As far as tricking Loki, notice he didn't reveal all of the plans in motion. Nor did learning he was using the Hulk as a wedge stop that from happening. The trickster's trick was rumbled but even that couldn't stop it.

Born in 1968. Been playing since 1981.
There has been a 60-year old posting on this board. Came up in another thread about oldest board participant.

I distinctly remember seeing the trailer for Star Wars when I went to go see Freaky Friday and Gus at the local drive-in. And we knew about rules lawyers back in the 1980s too. There are just some types of players who are like that. I'm not even sure there are more of them today than before except that the internet tends to bring us all together and I encounter them more.

Ultimately, I think people have to remember that this is an RPG, not a computer game and not a board game. It's not run by algorithms nor do the rules define the entirety of the options. It's refereed and a negotiated experience and subject to variation.

Comparatively, AD&D isn't that well designed. It's really just a bunch of houserules with inconsistent math. It was fun but some of it just strains the mind.

I'd say that with all the stuff we've been through with 3e and 4e, I've come to the conclusion that AD&D was a lot better designed than a lot of people give it credit. It may have lots of varying subsystems, but the game still holds together really well.

The latest Legends&Lore column by Mike Mearls has caused my interest in 5e to drop into the negatives, almost making me regret having signed up for the playtest.

More blah than meh. Sorry.

So drop the other shoe. Why does it do that for you?

Wow. Thanks for sharing all of that, Lisa, and without sanitizing out the difficult emotions that you went through. Vic sounds like a real keeper.

My understanding is that he finally felt it was time to abandon the D&D 5e developement when he could not convince the Hasbro corporation office that it was a bad idea to include a "pop-o-matic" with each boxed Dungeons & Dragons adventure.

I would LOVE a d20 pop-o-matic.

I also find it interesting that Monte said:

"However, I want to take this time to stress that my differences were not with my fellow designers, Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell."

Notice that he did not include Mearls in his list of fellow designers he had no differences with. Not sure if that means anything, but it was certainly ... interesting ...

Mearls was considered a designer too, wasn't he?

Cook has already responded to such speculation on his blog.

Praise for one person is not criticism for another. Singling out one does not automatically imply exclusion of another.

To be certain, I enjoyed much of my time working with everyone who's been involved with the new edition of D&D: Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Bruce Cordell, Rob Schwalb, Miranda Horner, Tom LaPille, Rodney Thomson, Greg Bilsland, Matt Sernett, Rich Baker, James Wyatt, and everyone else. The WotC RPG R&D department is full of talent.

Bruce and Rob were the guys I spent each and every day with, though. They were my team. I'll miss the daily doses of their creativity and friendship.

I don't think working for WotC was the only reason he moved out of Milwaukee again. He said he has lots of friends out there and really liked it when he lived there.

The 1e AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide suggested starting small, an adventuring area to focus on and its environs, and radiating out from there. A method like that gives you a chance to assess how your players want to interact with the world which may help you prioritize what to develop next.

I know of people also taking real world geography and pressing that into their campaign worlds. It works pretty well and it saves you the effort of designing the geography yourself. And, even better, you don't have to worry about designing implausible geography! It's all plausible.

Where does it say that the player needs to decide before the attack is resolved?

When you use class abilities like, Duelist's parry, the intent is obviously to block/deflect attacks that would hit.

Why would a Duelist parry an attack that wouldn't hit him? He'd just let the other person miss.

In the case of the duelist, it is explicitly called out in the text of the parry ability. The parry must be declared when the incoming attack is declared but before it is rolled.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Whether the hit point damage results on bleeding cuts on the PC or not, there is no doubt that there would be some visual evidence of the fireball having reached and affected the PC.

Unless the PCs hit points represent his magical strength protecting him from real harm, just as one might describe a fighter having rolled away from that "battleaxe to the face." ;P

I have to go with Adamantine Dragon on this one. PCs generally have feedback that their effects meet with some success or not. This is explicitly the case with damage reduction. I'd say the same holds true with spells. And should hold true for NPCs as well. That witch should look affected, but not significantly harmed, perhaps a bit of singed hair.

I'm content with the current format for races/classes. I think it works fine for me with a pirates/buccaneers game. The most important points that need to be covered (favored enemy and the like) are covered.

If I were to think of one thing missing, I might also include not just particularly suitable archetypes, but also particularly unsuitable character classes. I'm having a little trouble seeing how paladins and cavaliers are likely to fare in this setting. My guess is, they won't, really. After all, the PG does say the PCs have to be OK with the idea of becoming a pirate and that seems counter to paladin codes or cavalier ethics.

I use the critical hit deck and the condition cards. I have the chase cards but haven't had a reason to use them yet. I plan on getting the buff cards as soon as I can.

By the way, we also use the Harrow deck. One player has a gnome witch who runs an herbalist/fortune telling business. We've incorporated readings into game sessions before.

That said, it comes down to whether you consider sovereignty lies with the DM's perceptions or the player's desires. Oddly, people claim both that complete freedom for wildshape this is key to the ability, and that prohibiting any animals is pointless as the mechanics are limited by the spell. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

The crunch is intentionally vague. The fluff is up to DM interpretation. To me, it is clear. You may disagree with Shallow's interpretation of the fluff, but he has quoted the rules chapter and verse, and nobody has made successful assail of them. He's being a bit churlish, but those trying to ram player supremacy down the collective throat are little better, in my eyes.

I think you're seeing things that aren't here. I don't see anyone saying that complete freedom is key to the ability - assuming you mean key to the ability pulling its weight. I don't think anybody's really saying that. Nor do I see anyone trying to ram player supremacy down his throat.

Look, you can sit there and say it until you are blue in the face but the fact of the matter is it is the same.

Per the rules, the Wizard is limited to what spells he gets and the rest are by DM fiat only. There is nothing else in the book that gives you spells.

Now the entry for the druid doesn't give you anything automatically and the description makes it even more open ended as to how you come about getting your forms.

Interpreting a an open rule one way because another class can do XYZ at that level makes no sense. You can't rule in favor of a druids wild shape interpretation just because a Wizard can charm someone at a certain level.

Are you even paying attention to the posts I've made? My point is that they are unrelated. I have no compelling reason to be restrictive with a druid's wildshape repertoire like I would a wizard's spell access. If a druid's wildshape repertoire dealt out significant powers like a wizard's spells, I would be more likely to provide a similar level of restricted access. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't. They are not equivalent issues.

Actually it's spot on. Gaining spells beyond your 2 per level is up to the DM, there is no rule for beyond that.

It's spot on nothing. Until wildshape starts giving the druid the ability to charm, blast from hundreds of feet away, hasten, slow, warp reality, confuse, dominate, or raise the walking dead, it's not even in the same ballpark. So whether or not I would allow a wizard to have easy access to all spells is utterly immaterial.

Bill Dunn wrote:

I'm having a hard time figuring out what the big deal is with letting the druid wildshape into any of the animals in the Bestiary. This isn't 3e wildshaping and polymorphing. The relative benefits gained by wildshaping are much better controlled by the nature of the beast shape spell rules.

I guess you could mark me down as being fairly permissive. I'll let the druid turn into anything in their local climate - so if the animal is on the region's random encounter chart, it's fair game.

Do you allow Wizards easy access to all spells?

That's not an equivalent issue. Spells may have radically different effects. Beast shape spell effects are a lot less varied. All changes to the same size have cause the same change in stats. Limited sets of special abilities and natural weapon attacks are granted. The range of results is a lot smaller.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what the big deal is with letting the druid wildshape into any of the animals in the Bestiary. This isn't 3e wildshaping and polymorphing. The relative benefits gained by wildshaping are much better controlled by the nature of the beast shape spell rules.

I guess you could mark me down as being fairly permissive. I'll let the druid turn into anything in their local climate - so if the animal is on the region's random encounter chart, it's fair game.

What edition is best?
Pathfinder (I know, but I have to add it since it is currently my favorite edition)
2e but with some holdovers from 1e (like the ranger)

I really feel 2e gets too much of a bad rap, but it's so compatible with 1e in so many ways that the materials can be used nearly seamlessly between the two.

Favorite and Most Memorable Modules:
I6 Ravenloft
A1-A4 Slaver Series
G1-G3 Giant Series
S2 White Plume Mountain
The Whispering Cairn (Age of Worms chapter 1)

You'd really have to watch the bias thing. Putting in goodies your DM-PC can use but not the other PCs, finding ways to capture all the glory. It's a pretty common experience people have with DMs and their own PCs.

Frankly, I think it's really best for the DM to run extra characters as NPCs - taking a supportive role more than a leading role.

Is it just me or does your avatar look like Nicholas Cage.

There are a number of bits of art in the Pathfinder universe that look like they were inspired by certain real people. This is one of the most notable ones (Dr. Davaulus from CotCT's Seven Days to the Grave).