Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Charles Evans 25's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 7,241 posts (10,103 including aliases). 16 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 70 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

That was... unexpected.
An improbably good bowling performance by Alistair Cook's side, including by Anderson and Stokes, and New Zealand couldn't quite hang on.
Cook manages a win and the next 'coming of a NEW BOTHAM!!!!' bandwagon starts rolling, with Stokes this time being proclaimed as 'The second coming of Beefy!'


4th day at Lords, and Alistair Cook has managed to lead something of a rearguard action. If he can last long enough on the morning of the 5th day, England might be able to amass too many runs for New Zealand to get a win in whatever overs are left.
Chances of a draw looking much better for Cook than they were 24 hours ago.


Middle of Birmingham is increasingly resembling a maze, with fences all over the place. At present it's difficult to get out of New Street Station for a direct line of travel to Aston University. Miss a gap in the fences and it's the looooong way around or a case of having to double back.
Will try to keep an eye on developments in the situation. It might be improved by July...

(Travel from Snow Hill and Moor Street to Aston, for foot traffic, is currently less impeded by fences, men and women in fluorescent jackets and hard hats, and beeping construction vehicles.)


Well, on the positive side for Cook and his Merry Mummers there's always an outside chance that due to the British weather this coming summer, the Australians might not be able to whitewash them 5-0. :D
On the negative side, the 134 run first innings lead that New Zealand ran up in the current test doesn't exactly inspire confidence of Cook and company providing sufficient resistance to even tie the upcoming Ashes series against the Australians. :(


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's perhaps a touch religious in places, but:

Quote:

When a knight won his spurs, in the stories of old,

He was gentle and brave, he was gallant and bold
With a shield on his arm and a lance in his hand,
For God and for valour he rode through the land.

No charger have I, and no sword by my side,
Yet still to adventure and battle I ride,
Though back into storyland giants have fled,
And the knights are no more and the dragons are dead.

Let faith be my shield and let joy be my steed
'Gainst the dragons of anger, the ogres of greed;
And let me set free with the sword of my youth,
From the castle of darkness, the power of the truth.

*Wikipedia link*


Nice to see James Anderson highlighted for England's man of the series. He's tried, and done his best to win the series for England, at every opportunity. Series might have been a West Indies win, without Anderson.


And West Indies come back and level the series, needing only three days to win the third and last match.
One statistic which has jumped out at me about this last test:
Buttler (English batsman/wicket-keeper) has scored 38 runs in total in this third test. In the second innings of this test, after Buttler missed a chance to stump Blackwood when Blackwood was on only 4 runs, Blackwood went on to score a total of 47 runs. Buttler has scored a total of five less runs in the match than a man he failed to get out made in the second innings made after Buttler missed a chance to remove him.
Now granted that Buttler was not out in both his innings, but if England are going to play a batsman-keeper who misses chances to get opposition batsmen out, maybe he should at least be playing higher up the order to try to score more runs to offset those misses?

Generally speaking, Trott seems to have fluffed too many of his lines this series, and on a pitch which turned in this third test England's selected spin-options seem to have been ineffective for too many overs (if not outright inexpensive at times).
Bell hasn't exactly covered himself in glory in the match either - two ducks. (Didn't do much in the second test either, but maybe he was still tired from his big century in the first innings in the first test.)

England still strike me as a team on the way down, or at least bumping along the bottom, whilst the West Indies (credit to them) seem to be finding some spirit/fight and on their way back to being at least one of the better, if not the best, teams in the world.
Unless Graves and Strauss (the latter rumoured to be appointed to England management soon?) can get a grip on things, England men's outlook not good for the summer. Wonder if things will get desperate enough for a recall of Pietersen to the side? (Even if the latter doesn't happen, by failing to win this series, England have certainly left it open as a topic of speculation for the summer.)


On 'Anderson and Broad tire themselves out', that seems to me inevitable given the summer coming up, unless they rest them from, say, the New Zealand Test series. (But could this England team beat New Zealand without Anderson and Broad???)


Ahem. Well that was a new point in recent humiliations for the England men's test team. Going by the result of a 'draw' in the first test of their current Caribbean tour, they are now about as good as the West Indies.
Oh what that would have meant three or four decades ago.
Oh what a different thing it means now.

Low scores yet again for Cook. Trott failed to impress on his recall. (Personally I think they recalled Trott a season too soon.) Bell scored in one innings but fluffed his lines in the other. Oh, and the much trumpeted England bowling attack couldn't manage to take twenty West Indian wickets. (Only bright point on that latter count is that they did manage to get Chanderpaul out twice.) And in the meantime, apparently the selectors can't make up their minds which spin-bowlers to play, wanting another one out in the West Indies, but not being willing to send one they're not currently using back home.
The Australians are going to eat this lot on toast, come the England summer, unless they pull their socks up fairly sharpish.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Vale Ritchie Benaud you were Marvelous.

<brief respectful silence>


A funny piece of Harry Potter fanfiction that I've come across is 'The Inner Eye of Harry Potter'. It only goes up to year five at the time of this post, and that last year is somewhat 'smutty' (Harry is very much a hormonal teenager) but for outrageously over-the-top situations it's quite good.
And if you live in the UK, BBC Radio 4 is repeating its serialisation of 'Good Omens' this week.


The England men's team are apparently so desperate for runs that they've just tied a two day warmup match with St. Kitts, having spent so long batting.
St. Kitts 59 all out (first innings)
England 379 for 6 declared (first innings - and only two of those were 'retired out')
St. Kitts 76 for 7 (second innings - St. Kitts only had to survive one session to draw the match, after England left it until teatime on the second day to declare)


Was having trouble sleeping this morning, so turned the radio on and New Zealand soon reached 150 or so for three, and were going quite well. And then the powerplay struck, and New Zealand collapsed in a fashion that ought to have the England men's team scratching their heads over whether New Zealand have infringed one of their trademark styles of play?...
Congratulations to Australia.
:)


Well, India certainly had their moments - managing to break the Australian second wicket stand before it put the game completely out of their reach, and getting off to a good start when they batted - but it turned out in the end not to be nearly enough.
Final is Australia vs New Zealand.
New Zealand badly need the wheels to fall off the Australian one-day team juggernaut if they're going to have any chance of an even contest.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
The Kiwis are looking very dangerous.

So do Australia. So long as Australia beat India to reach the final (highly probable to my mind), are in good spirits, and field a full-strength team, I think it'll need a miracle (getting the rub of the green in umpiring decisions included under that heading) for New Zealand to win.

Now, if the Australians reach the final but for some reason have had a collapse in self-belief, or panic in a most un-Australian fashion, New Zealand could thrash them.
Still, all other things being equal, at this stage I'd favour Australia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My condolences to his friends and family. I only vaguely knew him, by means of these messageboards, but he seemed to be a hard worker, who threw his heart into projects.
Never a man with enough time to do the impossible, but he came close enough anyway as for the difference to be indistinguishable to most.


Bluenose wrote:
Bluenose wrote:

It's South Africa.

Maybe it won't be a rain delay turning 22 off 13 balls into 22 off 1 ball.

Maybe it won't be Herschelle Gibbs dropping Steve Waugh.

Maybe it won't be Allan Donald forgetting to run.

Maybe they won't assume they've won when D/L makes it a tie and eliminates them.

But you know they'll mess it up somehow.

This time with AB de Villiers messing up a run out chance, though you also had two fielders colliding when going for a catch. But it's another entry in the Saffers fine tradition of mucking up semi-finals.

Even if a South African did hit the winning runs.

Still: that's going to be one more South-African born player in this final of this contest than there have been England players in a final of this contest for goodness knows how long...


And the 'other' Pakistan team turn up (with some exceptions in the bowling department) and Australia march relentlessly on... :)


???
What just happened to Sri Lanka? (In Sydney.)
For a major one-day side to be walloped like that by nine wickets...
South Africa definitely *not* 'choking' in this quarter-final.

In the meantime, in other news, Charlotte Edwards' male test-team counterpart (as captain) has apparently been quoted saying he thinks it was wrong for him to be dropped from the one-day side. Not a good sign for his team, as it seems to me that at this point he ought to be focusing on the forthcoming West Indies tour, not going 'if' and 'maybe' about decisions taken months ago for a different format of the game.


Looks like an Australia vs Pakistan quarter-final unless I misread something. Should be an easy match for Australia (good team, home conditions), unless the 'cricketing geniuses' version of Pakistan turn up. (Trouble is, it's never clear which version of Pakistan are going to appear on the field on any given day.)


Well that should be a relief for the England women's team's male counterparts. They managed to win in a rain-reduced match against... Afghanistan.
Meanwhile Geoffrey Boycott seems to have gone into controlled-panic mode about the prospects of the Test team. He's calling for the recall of Johnathan Trott. Trott was of course last seen at international level falling apart against the Australians. And with an Ashes summer coming up.
To give Sir Geoffrey his due, he isn't calling for Trott to be pitched straight in against the Australians; he wants to see him play in the West Indies, first. On my own part, I'm not sure if Trott will have had time to get himself back together yet and be able to cope with international level cricket again, given how badly it seems to me that the media portrayed that he fell apart 'down under', but maybe he's more resilient than I give him credit for. (I remember that when Marcus Trescothick had his trouble with mental illness, that that was simply it for his international career. :( )


And 'England' go down to Bangladesh. As I posted a couple of days ago, I had a feeling that that was going to happen...
If the England women's male counterparts aren't throwing matches, the entire setup when it comes to team selection and team management is called into question by this latest world cup exit. (And goodness help them if they lose to Afghanistan now.)
Unfortunately, I suspect the result at the England and WalesCricket Board may be either 'Paaaaanic!!!! We need MORE MANAGEMENT!!!!!!' (when as I commented in an earlier post, I suspect that over-management, and too many analysts and statisticians may be part of the current problem) or 'Meh. We got unlucky. No need to change anything, especially not with having changed coaches only recently.'
I hope Morgan doesn't get the sack as captain over this. He was tossed in at the deep end as captain with only a few months to go until this contest, and I'd like to see him captain a one-day series at home, at least, before they fire him, if they're going to do so.


From where I'm sitting, the Adelaide game feels to me like a Bangladesh win at the time of this post. The recent tri-series games against India aside, 'England' are on a spectacular losing streak of late (they went down something like 1-6 in Sri Lanka), and games in the shorter format which they 'should win' seem to be ones in recent history which they have in fact ended up ignominiously losing. (E.G. the last game with Ashley Giles in charge, against the Netherlands.)
And even if 'England' beat Bangladesh by some fluke (and maybe with a couple of controversial umpiring decisions going their way), they still then have to somehow defeat Afghanistan and to cross their fingers and desperately hope that Bangladesh don't get at least a point against New Zealand at Hamilton and go through on superior net run-rate.


And with Bangladesh's victory over Scotland, with overs and wickets to spare, the England women's team's male counterparts move one step closer to sliding out of their contest in an inglorious fashion...


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

I think the Poms can get their act together. I Watched a lot of the game against Sri Lanka. The batsmen did a good job, Root was a star obviously- if Joe can inspire your boys and your bowlers can focus you are in with a chance.

I think it maybe a South Africa - India final.

I can see the hunger in those two teams.

I don't see India beating Australia in any one day match played in Australian conditions in this tournament; not if Australia have all their front-line players injury-free and available, and given the recent triangular series results. If an elimination match takes place in New Zealand, (I'm not sure at this point who is going to play who where) I'd have thought the conditions would still likely be friendlier to the Australians than India. But: I suppose it's possible that Australia might get South Africa, not India, in an early round elimination match, and that could be tough for the Australians. Otherwise, who else is going to knock Australia out, pre-finals? West Indies, maybe, if Gayle goes completely berserk and hits something like 200 runs off a hundred and twenty balls?

The England women's team's male counterparts are all but out of the competition now, having lost to Sri Lanka. Bangladesh got a point out of their game with Australia, due to rain, remember, and the women's team's male counterparts have taken an absolute hammering in some of their matches, which hasn't exactly helped their net run rate. All it needs is a further draw or win for Bangladesh in one of their games against New Zealand and 'England', (and a win of course for Bangladesh against Scotland) and the England women's male counterparts are completely stuffed, whatever else they do. They needed to beat Sri Lanka, they failed badly, and irrespective what they do now, they're not going to make the quarter-finals unless they get results elsewhere going in their favour.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
New Zealand won by 1 wicket.... And multiple heart attacks.

My apologies. I was sure I'd seen 'eight wickets' in a report somewhere. I have checked the official BBC scorecard, and see it was indeed only one.

Looks good for Australia to win the contest, then, at least out of the teams in their 'pool'.


Well the England women actually managed to win their twenty-twenty series, to my surprise, and, once there weren't any more 2017 qualification points at stake, took the last two matches to actually win the 50 over series, too.
As far as the (men's) world cup in Australia & New Zealand goes, presumably New Zealand, Australia, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka to go through from Pool A. And if Australia meet New Zealand in the competition final, presumably the 'recent result' (meaning the eight wicket win by New Zealand in the group game in Wellington) will spur the Baggy Greens on in their quest to take the trophy.


Someone explain to me please, how the England men's team automatically qualified for their current 50 over competition, instead of having to go through the play-off stages alongside teams like the UAE? They've just been bowled out by New Zealand (edit: New Zealand are a good side, but their bowling attack doesn't exactly have a Dale Steyn or Mitchell Johnson, who should be able to blow a nominally international level batting lineup away like that) for 123 in 33.2 overs, and seen New Zealand thrash their way to victory in 12.2 overs for the loss of only two wickets. Any explanation for how England automatically qualified which does not involve 'The EWCB has money' seems nonsensical to me in the present circumstances.


thenovalord wrote:

Not enough space in the country to develop new talent in schools

Football being the glamour sport now in the UK
Good to hear that just as the English captain doesn't sound English, the Scottish captain doesn't sound Scottish!!
Migrant popn into the UK no longer prominently from ex-empire cricket loving nations

Except I suspect (I may be wrong) that the Netherlands has at least as little time given over to cricket at school-level as the UK; that football is at least as much a 'glamour sport' in the Netherlands as it is in the UK. And yet The Netherlands humiliated England in a 20/20 game in Bangladesh in March last year.

Hence my suspicion that the EWCB is managing to utterly scramble all its international level 'England' players' minds, by over-management; that the 'England' players are being told so many different things to do and think by so many different people that they're incapable of simply going out there and playing professional international level cricket any more.
And unfortunately I can't see the current EWCB recognising that this might be a problem of their own creation any time soon (if that is indeed the case), but I can see them instead assuming the problem is 'not enough management' and throwing ever more managers and coaches and psychologists at things to try and 'fix' them, as likely as not only making the situation worse instead.
Well either that or the 'England' teams are doing so consistently badly because sufficient of them are as bent as corkscrews and trying to 'throw' matches for bribes from bookmakers that a no-win is a guaranteed result in many cases, but let's not go there for now...


Nope. Lost another one. England starting to look incompetent in all forms of cricket now, of either sex. (Granted, the women are still *miles* better than the men.)
Given that supposedly the 'English' game is one of the best funded in the world it's difficult to understand what's going so catastrophically wrong. Over-management? Too many psychologists, and sports-therapists, and number-crunchers buzzing around, when what the players ought to be doing and thinking about is actually playing to their best and not what some boffin with half a mile of 'letters' after their names says that they ought to be worrying about?
To anyone who disputes that the 'English' game has gone catastrophically wrong, I refer them to the previous 'world' competition where the England (men's) squad managed to decisively lose to that major cricketing superpower, The Netherlands. Then, of course it was assumed that Ashley Giles was the problem, and simply sacking him would make everything better again, at least in the one day game - to which I can say that clearly it hasn't.
And in the meantime, if the problem is over-management, the idiots in charge at the moment seem to think that the problem can be cured with even more management and even more statistics and computer-analysis and other whatnot, of course making the problem worse - not least because the players themselves are being told 'given all the effort we're throwing at you, you ought to be getting better'.
Oh well. Maybe the country should invent another sport, and they might prove good at that for twelve months, until someone else with a less complicated approach comes along and thrashes them at it.
Or maybe the country should just stick to what the Australians refer to as 'sitting down' sports. Such as Cycling. And Rowing... :D


And the England team which isn't female have lost to Australia yet again. No surprises there. Presumably at some point bookmakers will stop offering odds of any kind on Australia getting a 'not losing' result against this particular side, at least when playing in Australia.


Ah, that's better. 90 run win for the England women in their second one-day match. :)


'Political Puppets' is a deck apparently built around one trick: 'Insurrection'.
Admittedly, if it comes off, it's a very good trick - potentially a 'game over, it was nice playing with all of you' trick (assuming nobody has anything like a 'Fog' to stop all combat damage).
Other than that, the deck seems to be built to try and survive. It seems a bit heavy on the card-drawing, and a bit light on the specific threat removal, which is a potential problem if someone has an effectively unblockable creature that they decide to make your life a misery with. Still, I can see a sort of point to going in that direction if the philosophy of the deck is that other players are supposed to be so grateful at all the cards that they're drawing, etc, etc, because of this deck, that they mostly ignore it when it comes to making their attacks.

Personally I'd remove the 'Rapacious One' (uncommon) and 'Murmurs from Beyond' (common), neither of which seem to me to fit terribly well with what the deck is supposed to be trying to do. ('Murmurs from Beyond' seems particularly pointless to me, as it allows an opponent to put almost certainly out of immediate reach, in the graveyard, one of the deck's few cards which might actually win the game.)
I'd suggest 'Portent' (common, Ice Age) instead of the 'Murmurs from Beyond', as, although it's a sorcery, it offers basic draw manipulation, which can be extended to another player.
I'm tempted by 'Varchild's War-Riders' (Rare, Alliances) as a replacement for the 'Rapacious One', but technically it's the wrong category of rarity for a like-for-like direct replacement. *

I also have doubts over the deck's 'Flusterstorm' (Rare), which is ineffective in many situations, if you're actually seriously trying to counter something; 'Spurnmage Advocate' (uncommon), which is rather weedy at 1/1, and doesn't actually bury or remove-from-game a target attacking creature; and 'Death by Dragons' (uncommon), which I regard as generally pointless, although it does at least make occasional sense in the context of this deck in combination with 'Insurrection' if you're trying to get a game over in one massive strike.

(Edit)
* It looks to me like under the current rules (12th February, 2015) the tokens generated by Varchild's War-Rider's are 'owned' by the player whose control they come into play under... Oh well, that would somewhat diminish the fun which could be had with them in this deck.


Gah! England women let New Zealand get a 150+ run opening partnership in the first match of their one day series and then lost chasing the New Zealand total of 240 by 67 runs.
And in the meantime, the other England 'team' in the vicinity of Australia/New Zealand lost a warm-up match to Pakistan; a lot more of those (i.e. losses) to come, I suspect...


The NPC wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
The NPC wrote:

We have War, Death, Conquest/Pestilence, and Famine.

What would you posit for a 5th Horseman?

Misinformation. In all its forms, including (but by no means limited to) typing errors & malapropisms; incorrect Wikipedia pages; news stories which have more basis in 'we want something which will grab people's attention' than in actual fact; speeches or other public declarations by most extremists; and 'faked' you-tube clips (or at least the ones which are not clearly identified as such and posted solely for entertainment purposes).

This one actually makes me think a bit. Which hurt. Thanks a lot ;)

A lot of damage and harm can be caused by people being incorrectly informed...

Happy to have posted something even mildly thought-provoking. :)


My reaction to 'Mirror Mastery' is urgh.
Most of the deck's creatures are casting cost 6+. (And the 'designated' commander is 5 total.)
The deck has very little life-gain and gets stamped to death by weenies before it gets the chance to get more than one or two of the big creatures out.
To add insult to injury, the designated commander's ability to 'copy' sorceries & instants or creatures which the deck plays is practically redundant with some of the contents of the deck. For example 'Ruination' (blow up all non-basic lands) is almost pointless to duplicate, unless you think someone might counterspell one casting, but not two.
There is also a shortage of targeted creature removal.
To my mind the deck needs a complete overhaul. Either the top-heavy creatures need for the most part stripping out and replacing with ones in the total cost 4-5 range, if doubling up on the deck's own spells is supposed to be the deck's main theme ('Arashi, the Sky Asunder' strikes me as potentially useful a blocker here) or a lot of the sorceries and instants need to go to put in low and mid-level blockers to hold out until the big creatures start to hit play, if big creatures are supposed to be the deck's main theme ('Skyshroud Troopers' strike me as a potentially useful modest sized mana-elf, in this category of possible usefulness).
At present, the deck seems to me to be trying to do two main things, and ending up doing neither overly well.


Final comments for now on 'Counterpunch'.
I'm strongly tempted to recommend removing Symbiotic Worm (rare) which has a triple-same-colour in the mana cost, and lacks trample. Penumbra Wurm (Apocalypse, Rare) costs one Green less, is only 1/1 smaller than the Symbiotic Wurm (6/6 as compared to 7/7), and does have trample. And Symbiotic Wurm when it dies puts out a pile of little green 1/1 tokens, whereas the Penumbra Wurm puts out a black 6/6 trample token...

Other possible recommendations for inclusion in 'Counterpunch' are Creakwood Liege (Rare, Eventide) and Distorting Lens (Rare, Mercadian Masques).
(By way of explanation for the latter possibility, some of the 'removal' in 'Counterpunch' fails to work on black creatures, which is somewhat annoying in situations where the things severely aggravating a player using 'Counterpunch' happen to be black creatures. Plus the deck has 'fear'/'intimidate' options, where use of a Distortig Lens can temporarily circumvent a creature which might otherwise be able to block.)


The NPC wrote:

We have War, Death, Conquest/Pestilence, and Famine.

What would you posit for a 5th Horseman?

Misinformation. In all its forms, including (but by no means limited to) typing errors & malapropisms; incorrect Wikipedia pages; news stories which have more basis in 'we want something which will grab people's attention' than in actual fact; speeches or other public declarations by most extremists; and 'faked' you-tube clips (or at least the ones which are not clearly identified as such and posted solely for entertainment purposes).


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Dude don't get depressed it makes hating England less fun... Come now chaps, stiff upper lip, and all that, what what, tallyho...

Right now, I feel that the England men's side ought to be banned from playing overseas matches against anyone else 'major' - except maybe Zimbabwe - for at least the next couple of years. (And of course the politicians in London likely won't let the men's team play against Zimbabwe...)

Something has gone very badly wrong with men's cricket, at the international level, as far as the 'England' team go. And based on recent performances it's going to take years to correct it. If it can be corrected.


And, as predicted: Link
England (men) completely outclassed, and wiped out by the Australians.
The England men's team simply don't seem to be good enough to beat other teams on their (that is to say their opponent's) home-turf these days, unless their opponents are truly awful. They can manage to maybe beat other teams on 'neutral' turf (or even turf friendlier to England than to the opposition) as shown by their defeats of India in this series, but they're incapable of winning in one of the other side's strongholds.


Sorry about that (the RPGSupersuccubus scores), but those are the categories the items are being rated under this year...


Well. Looks like the Australia (men's) team get to defeat England (again) in the triangular series final...
:D


Mark Seifter wrote:
...So that's the good. And if I stopped there, it would be a full Keep from me...But the problem is mechanical skill is extremely poor. First of all, the staff's caster level was left at the default, but it has to be 9th, since it has a 5th-level spell. Even if I accept that the caster level is 8th, the staff would...

I remember Sean Reynolds addressing Caster Levels of items in a RPGSuperstar thread a few years back... LINK

I remember it, having been on the wrong side of that discussion... :)

Edit:
Anyway, on to business...


Dark blue lines around some rooftops and parts of ship are presumably shallow water.
Apparently windows/hatches in some roofs, probably giving access to attic space.
Swirly bits may be supposed to be 'whirlpools', or rising air-bubbles from sea-bed, or something or other else.
Premise of map would presumably be PCs at low level wrecked or magically zapped into area and supposed to salvage/survive.
Unclear how chests from a ship got onto roof-tops; presumably given their neat positioning, at highest/flattest points of roofs, some sort of intelligent agency must have positioned them there - apart from the one apparently floating on a large piece of free-floating deck (or raft?) out in the middle of nowhere.
Might be some sort of trap/ambush situation, with chests as bait and something underwater.
*****
Congratulations to Allana Sliwinski on making round 2.


Given the hazards of steam (being boiled alive and suffocated - and possibly being crushed by atmospheric pressure, too, if the steam is unable to vent by a route such as (in this case) the surface connection in area 10) I take it that anyone still in the majority of the map area once things start to 'heat up' either has some sort of protections like high fire-resistance and necklaces of adaptation or is very, very, dead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tomb of the Mad Alchemist.
The only 'dungeon crawl' map I've seen in this round which suggests that adventurers in the area may have to actually break out of the 'kill things, take their stuff' routine, and take some time to work through solving puzzles.


Jacob W. Michaels wrote:

Oh, fellow Jacob. Yours was one of the first maps I looked at, because I was really hoping it would be awesome and knock my socks off. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm disappointed.

Moving beyond the rectangular rooms, I'm also just not seeing the logic of this one. The tomb appears to be an elaborate death trap, but most of that is beyond the actual dead elementalist (maybe his madness explains this?). I can't figure out why the PCs would want to try to bypass those acid pits as there doesn't seem to be anything beyond it. I'm afraid they would mostly shrug and say, "Huh, acid. Well, let's not go in there." Maybe the backstory is they need to collect all the individual runes, but the map's not enough to convey that possibility, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry, since I was absolutely pulling for you coming into this round, but I won't be voting for this.

There's an 'Earth Rune' on the far side of the acid. What it does isn't clear from the map, but there is something on the other side...


I feel I should apologise for all those zeroes. The Earthcracker simply doesn't score in any of the categories which the RPGSupersuccubus is using to assess items, this year...


On the 'straight edged square rooms and hallways' front, they are at least simple for the DM to draw when laying out the situation for their players on a gaming table, if the DM doesn't have some sort of fancy electronic gaming table available or a custom map bought or printed from a pdf file.
Unfortunately straight edged square rooms and hallways need a lot more work to convey the illusion of dynamism, when it comes to trying to sell an idea simply off the map alone.
I remember the first 2nd edition boxed set in the Undermountain line, and there were a lot of straight square edged rooms and hallways there. Most of the fun of Undermountain came in the text, not the maps.


Grumble, grumble...
Blinking Wrexial, the Risen Deep and Sol'kanar the Swamp King.
Black creatures, thus not qualifying for 'non-black' creature removal.
Flipping annoying creatures which swampwalk...

Urborg is nice, but Commander decks with 40 lands in already hardly need more land.
Hmm. Maybe pull the 'Temple of the False God' (uncommon) and put in 'Urborg' (Legends, uncommon).

1 to 50 of 7,241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.