DM Doom's page

Ok. I have a question. Some summon monsters are intelligent. Example: summon monster 6 has a succubus. Now my dm has it set up so that if i summon (useing summon monster, not gate) a intellectual monster, it has the chance to find me and kill me after the spell is done. Again example:! The succubus was in the middle of a dealing and i pulles her away from her current work. Another example is archons, lawful good. If i call a archon and the archon feels that a chaotic member of the party is against what it stands for, it will be afended and find a way to the material plan and kill the party...

I understand DM rules all and if i try and argue the last word of the DM stands but our group fallows the rules to a "T". So can somebody tell me a fault i this logic? I feel i will have to offer compensation like in "planer ally"..

Hmmm, it adds an interesting element to the game, I'll give it that. If it's getting excessive I'd recommend the DM tone it down a bit though. Sounds like it would be something better as a once in awhile thing. The Sucubus holds a grudge and shows up down the road as a villainess, likewise the Archon might remember your group in a future dealing, not so much the 'hunt your party down and fight them' though. That could get tedious after a bit.

Funny, that was never my impression of Selune, but different strokes I suppose. Some people seemed to love Bane while I found him to be so laughably stupid he was like the kobolds of evil-priesthoods.

I'm just concerned about other players being jerks. I work customer service, I deal with jerks all the time, if I play Pathfinder online I want to explore, go on adventures, and worry more about monsters and NPC's killing me than about other players. Last thing I need is to suffer in a game because I decide to get out of the house, socialize, and not spend all of my free time power leveling, collecting mad lewt and gacking n00bz because they suxxorz.

The Alphas aren't my favorite characters, but I by no means hate them, and it's nice to get some supernaturals in the mix who aren't heavy hitters but can still take care of themselves. I've found the books to steadily escalate in 'amazing'. Being a slow reader with a tendency to put a book down and forget about it for a month before picking it up again, I can never pick up a Butcher book and simply set it down. I count on late nights, a computer that remains mostly 'off', and really cutting those 15 minute breaks close whenever I pick up one of his novels. If the second one is the weakest I'd say it's about on par with the first, the first being better only by virtue of introducing the amazing character that is Dresden and the world he lives in, beyond that they just keep getting better so it's natural for one of the first three to be a 'weaker' book in the series.

I kind of feel the reverse, Greyhawk gods always seemed boring and dull to me, Realms gods seemed... a little too numerous honestly, whereas Pathfinder deities had a blend of 'cookie cutter yet different' that seemed neither hot nor cold but 'just right'... for me anyway.

By way of example, while one of my least favorite deities, the goddess of lust is also the goddess of vengeance! A pairing that kind of makes sense but wasn't something I'd expect. Never mind I hate the black and yellow color scheme, song, the beehive hairdo on the artists rendition, find nothing about her to be alluring or appealing and that faiths of balance book has one of the most ridiculous swords ever conceived being wielded by one of her followers (those barbs... seriously? SERIOUSLY?). Interesting twist, however, despite my ranting run on sentence.

Desna as meditative and dreamy? Dreamy, sure, but I see her as a more free spirited and almost spritely deity than I do some 'Ohmmmmmm' meditative deity. A free spirited and spritely deity with a far deeper aspect, naturally, I mean she a goddess of the stars! That's thousands of millions of Sarenraes you know! (Take that you fire haired goddess you!)

couple things I am thinking

1) I would have preferred a turn based game like NWN but in a multiplayer format so I can play solo (run my own character or party) or play in my own world with friends eg tabletop game with nice graphics

2) having said that - I have not played a MMO since I left Evercrack ... Everquest & I played it for years - this is a game I could see myself playing though if I was to start a new MMO addiction to

3) Please dont do cartoony characters like you have for your artwork now (I am mainly thinking of the Rogue & Sorcerer artworks) I have never liked them & tome they would detract from the game

4) good luck with it

Honestly I have to say the Wayne Reynolds art style is one of the primary things I think of when I think "Pathfinder". It's iconic and I have to agree with Steel_Wind when I say I hope the game emulates that to the best of it's abilities. He lays it out much better however.

Wrote a bunch of good stuff.

Thumbs up? Like? +1? This!!!

Well, I would prefer a single player (or cooperative play multi-player) video game in the vein of Borderlands or the Mass Effect style of play but this still made me squeal with glee.

I'm not a fan of MMO RPG's, I play D&D Online now and then, when the mood strikes me, Occasionally run around on Lord of the Rings online, but the only MMO that's interested me in a long time is Bioware's Old Republic. That said, curse you for adding another potential drain on my wallet! Sounds like you're approaching it from a better angle than the 'I sure do hate wolves, collect 10 wolf pelts and I give youz sum munnies' style that WoW and it's kin run with.

It sounds like a cool premise, shape the River Kingdoms however you like, and with someone from Eve Online getting involved it sounds particularly cool. My only concern is this: Eve Online is inundated with jerks and douchebags, and quite frankly, I hope this game has guards to keep other people from ruining the fun of those who just want to play. Nothing sucks more than someone who's worked hard in their spare time only to have it all wiped away because some jerk with no life comes alone with the forces/character he's built from hundreds of hours of gameplay (due to not having a full time job and living in his parents basement) decided it was fun to crush the little guy.

That's not fun, or entertaining, it's infuriating.

So if you have safeguards for the 'casual' MMO gamer then I offer up my wallet in sacrifice :P

I don't know... I'm still torn and now it looks like I wouldn't even be able to get the black dragon mini if I pre-ordered or subscribed or whatnot.

For those of you who are disappointed in the random aspect of the miniatures, please read the following taken from the FAQ attached to the press release. You still may not agree, but at least you will understand why we are doing what we are doing.

-Lisa

Q: Why prepainted plastic miniatures in randomized packs?
A: Prepainted plastic miniatures are expensive to make. Sculpting and painting are costly, and making molds for plastic figures is costlier still. To make all these costs work, you need to spread them out over a large number of miniatures. If these figures were released individually, some would sell better than others, and some--or even many--of them would lose money. Randomizing the miniatures ensures that you sell predictable quantities of each figure, and it also allows you to price them reasonably without losing your shirt. Another benefit of averaging out costs over a large number of figures is that it allows you to spend more money on some miniatures--you can make them larger or more detailed, or add more complicated (and thus more expensive) paint operations than you could otherwise justify. In short, selling more of the common minis allows you to spend more money on the rarer figures.

Randomized miniatures also allow you to provide more variety. Not only can you introduce more figures at once, but the fact that you make make some of them rarer than others means you can produce plenty of the figures that everyone needs, like goblins or skeletons, and fewer of the figures that have narrower appeal, like strange monsters or iconic figures.

Another factor to think about is the brick-and-mortar retailer. It's much easier for a retailer to stock single booster packs than individual packaged minis. Our first set, Heroes & Monsters, contains 40 miniatures. Selling them individually would require a lot of retailer effort to keep them all in stock--and it would also require a lot of space to display those miniatures. And if next year's 60-figure Rise of the Runelords set were released as...

It's less the random factor that gets me (though it's been my wish that maybe people might start selling things like 'orc horde' or 'skeleton crew' *in addition to* random packs as those are fairly commonly used monsters that often require multiple copies of the same). My issue is the price. I know you guys don't have the production value WotC had with it's minis but $6 for a *single* large plastic mini is just a little too steep and I've become notorious in my group for buying more minis than I probably should. Or $4 for a medium *or* two small? I mean when you're selling a box of six medium minis for $10-12 I can see the point of randomizing but when it's a single, uno, ich, einz, mini and then even *that* is randomized it seems a little less worth the gamble.

Honestly that's probably what I'd do. I kind of like the tier system 4e put together, so perhaps something that matches with magic items.
Minor: your disposables, low level/charges wands, and particularly weak magic items that provide neat things like boots that give you +5ft to movement or a pack that reduces its encumbrance level by 1.
Low: Your +1, +2 magic weapons, cloaks of resistance +1 etc.
Moderate: A higher bonus on the above, some figurines of wondrous power...
Etc, etc, etc.

Of course the magic items would need an overhaul, Cloak +1 seems so factory, expecting there to be a Cloak +2, +3, +4, +5 etc. Which only makes them seem more off the assembly line. So a little more mysticism might help. A cloak of shadows that renders the wearer nigh invisible in the murky darkness, perhaps providing a +10 bonus to stealth but only in shadowy illumination or only in the evening is, in my opinion, more interesting then Cloak of Stealth +5.

As a DM I'm mixed about magic items being more ambiguous and them having a n actual set of rules and guidelines about how they should stack up to character level. In second edition I found that it was frustrating trying to figure out how much to reward a player and how much to give a player starting at a higher level. When 3rd edition came out and began to provide rules for making magic items (something that had been longed for in our 2nd edition games) but rules for how much they might cost and what a character might be expected to have at level 5 vs. level 10 I was ecstatic.

Then came the Christmas tree effect, something present in 2nd edition but which blew up in 3rd.
Then came the impression that 'market value' meant a PC could just find and buy these magic items willy nilly.
Then came the complaints when I run published modules about "Oh yay, yet *another* cloak of resistance +1, guess we're turning that tent into a pavilion now". Magic became so necessary to the game that a clan of hillbilly ogres apparently had enough skill and resources to all have Ogre Hooks +1 (large size so, naturally, all had to be sold, and the PC's expected there to be a ready market for such things... only reason I permitted it was they were so pissed at the magic item selection from Rise of the Runelords that they likely would have rioted if I denied them their chance at getting stuff they could use).

My brief experience with 4th edition showed me similar things save that magic items (and magic in general) had been dulled considerably as far as potency went. Gone were the days of the wizard taunting the PC's only to teleport away or the PC's having boots of flying that could last forever. At least with the first three core rule books (not sure if any of the subsequent supplements did anything to address the dulling of magic items or if it was ever viewed as anything that needed to be addressed.

On top of that, items were now ho-hum. Sure a +1 sword was never truly all that special in 2nd edition (at least not in my eyes) but my gods did players eyes widen in awe at the sight of a sunblade or holy avenger. Now PC's see "Holy flaming longsword +1" and yawn. I try to spice it up some, but it only goes so far. I still like avoiding the Christmas Tree effect by providing more Wondrous items than weapons and stat boosters, using flavor text and the like, but that only goes so far.

I would like some sort of happy medium, maybe a ranking system for an items potency not limited by gp. Provide a 'rough gp equivalent' for each tier that is subject to the DM's arbitration, and instead of a 'starting wealth' table maybe something like "In a moderate magic world A PC of 7th level might be expected to have 3 low magic items and 1 medium magic item + XXXgp worth of mundane gear. This way players might avoid feeling 'entitled' to buying items in the marketplace or to selling them for a specific amount of gold and it might bring more luster back to that dragons hold beyond all the shiny gold pieces. I think gold in general is kind of pushed too far with so many entrances of '1000gp worth of material' kind of making a pc think all they need to do is cross off 1000gp from their list.

I'm torn, but I can definitely see where people who prefer the old ways are coming from.

So you have a lot of tedious crap (Drizz't and Elminster for starters) that continue to stink up the new setting

Now there's a matter of opinion. Thing is you may say they stink up the setting but a lot of people are quite fond of those two characters, they have always been icons of the setting, and I, as a FR DM, never really felt they impacted my campaigns. I as a Forgotten Realms fan (and someone who has enjoyed the books about both characters) never really thought they were a negative side to the campaign at all.

Getting them to leave soon is unlikely in any event whether you love them or hate them. Drizzt and Elminster are both moneymakers for the Forgotten Realms novel line and I know people who downright hate the new edition and realms that still buy books about those characters religiously. If Elminster goes it'll likely be because Ed Greenwood passed away and I imagine R.A. Salvatore will continue to write about that Dark Elf that has inspired so many blatant ripoff characters until he runs out of ideas.

Oh. This is the groundless speculation thread. In three years Paizo will be doing so well they buy White Wolf after the MMO fizzles. A glorious new era of World of Darkness will be created.

Further idle groundless speculation: Savage Worlds' popularity will experience an unexpected mega boost in sales due to the recent release of the hard cover rule book. While all other major companies proceed to decline they'll scoop them up one by one taking White Wolf, Wizards, Catalyst, Paizo and reissuing all settings under the Savage Worlds license and taking only bits and pieces of the mechanics and applying it to the various Player's Guides as traits and hindrances. A scandal will rock the upper echelons of the Pinnacle power-house and send that house of cards tumbling down with a laughing jester on top of things. Then Tripple Ace Games will swoop in after Wiggy wins five lotteries in a row and buy up the whole shebang making him the undisputed master of the RPG industry the likes of which all other companies are considered '3rd Party Publishers'.

Pedantic wrote:

deinol wrote:

Pedantic wrote:

If that's the case, I wonder if they'd do something along the lines of what White-Wolf is up to right now?

Dying a slow death?

Publishing cleaned up anniversary editions of their old game lines alongside the new ones. Though admittedly, probably that too if this tactic doesn't turn things around for them.

Uhhhhh what.

White Wolf is releasing a single anniversary edition of oVamp. That's it.

Maybe he's Camarilla? In the live action society apparently there was a strong pull for the flavor and lore of oWoD, so much so that when White Wolf began to support oWoD for Camarilla again, a substantial amount of venues switched over damn near immediately, apparently consensus was while the rules were largely felt to be superior to the previous editions the allure of the old world of darkness setting and flavor was what the Cam players had loved the most.

Take this statement with a grain of salt as it's what I've heard from my friends who still play Cam and have been involved in the running of their regional venues. So while I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case accuracy is based on hearsay.

I can post?

Wow...

Um, well, my two cents:

I'm kind of disappointed in the opening post, I was actually hoping for an unbiased comparison of the two, but that's like expecting unbiased news reporting in today's political/economical climate. Needless to say my opinion on 4e stays the same: it's not for me. I've had fun playing, and indeed I ran with the 4e crowd for some fun "Encounters" sessions with my Dwarf Earth Domain Warpriest who kicked lots of undead butt! At least until I found the local Pathfinder Society group and joined up with them. As for how much it supports RP, sure there may not be as many skills but I saw about the same RP to Combat ratio as I see in any other tabletop RPG that glorifies violence, take that as you may. Admittedly my opinion on why it's not for me is colored by a distinctly negative view on WotC and my wallet not finding the new edition particularly worth throwing away the hundreds if not thousands of dollars I spent on 3.5 books *just yet*. I was one of those peoples who felt betrayed by WotC with how they chose to approach announcing the cancellation of the Dungeon and Dragon magazine contracts and their reactions to the concerned customer base which struck me as lacking in customer service.

My opinion now is more 'meh' as far as the company itself (let's face it, I can hardly blame them for taking a new direction and wanting to make a buck with it even if I don't like their marketing strategies), I've gone my way and still buy the occasional minis and dungeon tiles from them (their dungeon tiles are some of the best RPG aid products I've seen, I hope they keep it up!). As far as the whole 'old 3.5 products being rendered null and void' well, guess what I just don't use much of any more? I might pluck something from the Spell Compendium or that magic item book just to spice up the loot, or maybe convert a monster Paizo wasn't allowed to keep due to lack of it being OGL, but ultimately I don't really use my 3.5 stuff. If I use anything it's more system based (i.e. I might run a game of Iron Heroes or D20 World of Darkness) and isolated from the old 3.5 D&D splat books.

I still don't see anything about 4e that's impressive enough to convince me to start buying their books. The system doesn't appeal, the settings no longer appeal (my poor poor Forgotten Realms, you'll live on in my 1st and 2nd edition collections), the organized play appeals somewhat in that the sessions are shorter than the Pathfinder Society ones and thus more friendly to my damn wake-up-at-5:00am-when-I'm-usually-going-to-bed-by-then new work schedule. This is less saying that the system itself is bad, it's a solid system and I daresay it isn't near as full of holes and potential abuses as the 3rd edition rules set (not saying it doesn't have any to be sure, I've seen some disgusting 4e builds) but I find that part of 3rd editions charm which is, again, a matter of opinion.

I'm also a compulsive collector, I've subscribed to all the Pathfinder books and pretty much have every one in my collection. To combine that with all those 4e hardcovers would ruin me financially :P So I've become determined to focus on a smaller number of RPG's. Pathfinder and Savage Worlds primarily now that my collection of old Alternity books is as complete as I want it to be.

What I would love to see, though remains unlikely, is a side by side comparison of the two RPG's, their strengths (which both have), their flaws (which only 4e has... kidding of course, I detest some of the PFRPG's rules changes nevermind the flaws inherent in any system and complicated and filled with rules minutia as the 3e rules set), and how they compare while doing ones best to avoid favoring one system over another. One might might describe 4e's combat as 'simplistic' in a way that implies it's for idiots while coloring 3.5 as 'complex' in a way that colors it as being for those of more refined sensibilities, likewise one might describe 3.5 combat as 'sloppy and filled with more rules minutia than is necessary' while 4e combat is 'streamlined and concise'. Nevermind the numerous flaws in either argument/statement as I've seen 3.5 players blanche and complain about how complicated all those status afflictions make 4e combat while I've seen 4e players (new to 3.5) love how every round they don't have to find an ability to use and can simply attack without it feeling like they're doing nothing productive.

Will I see such a comparison? Likely not.

Will I see more threads about beating horses that are past their negative constitution in hp regarding certain topics that should have been swept out with the trash years ago? Certainly.

Ah well, thems my 2 cents.

Once upon a time there was a pdf floating around that told people what, outside of the Pathfinder Core, could or couldn't be used. It had things from Seekers of Secrets, the APG and other sources in it, I haven't been able to find it anywhere... Anyone know where it is these days?

Does your group not see more 18-20 or 15-20 crit ranges? Is it because you have a gentleman's agreement not to use high crit range weapons?

Occasionally someone will make a build like that, and they'll crit quite a bit, but often it's with a weapon that doesn't do a terrible amount of damage in the first place (keen rapier for example). If anything a high crit range weapon just makes a fighter suck a little less, rogues become a little more deadly as they're more likely to crit on a sneak attack without rolling a crit confirm check but even then it only modifies their weapon dice.

Could be the party dynamic, the guys who dish out the most damage in my group are often spellcasters, or some kooky rogue build where an extra d6 of damage + str bonus really isn't much of a thing. My players do min-max a little more than most I guess (not that I've taken a survey and quantified how much the average 3.x gaming group min maxes compared to mine or anything :P) but toss in slightly stronger monsters or altered NPC's and it balances out once more.

That and if they roll a miss they still miss, a nat 20 is the only guaranteed hit in our group.

I and every 3.x gaming group I've ever played in or DMed for has used them. Statistically, the confirmation rules favor the PCs over NPCs. The DM generally has a greater chance of inflicting critical hits against the PCs (as he/she makes more attack rolls than the players), so without the confirmation rules critical hist become more frequent and PC mortality (and the chance of TPKs) increases dramatically... and that can really put a damper on storytelling and role-playing.

I'd really like to see these statistics.

Most monsters I've seen require a nat 20 to crit. PC's, more often than not, have at least a 19-20 if not wider crit range. Some class based NPC enemies might have a wider range but they're built on a law of averages rather to the specs and standards of most PC's I've seen (in other words, they're hardly as optimized as a PC will be), so I would really like to see the math and statistics showing that not having critical confirmation rolls would favor the DM over the players rather than having critical confirmation rolls...

Don't use them in my face to face games. Don't like to use them in my play by post games (though I use a variant standardized method of crits that's less deadly but still rewards the player for rolling high). I don't like them, seems like a pointless extra roll, that really shouldn't be necessary.

At my table a crit is a crit is a crit. No confirm roll (though I'll require a confirm to determine if I should pull from the fumble deck instead of using our old method), makes things more deadly at 1st and 2nd level but once the PC's have a nice HP cushion under them around 3rd things tend to even out. Especially seeing as they can crit the baddies just as easily as they can be critted. Considering I run from modules the badies aren't built as powerful or as min-maxed as the PC's.

In the end it balances out, don't see it even making anything more or less deadly. PC's die as often in my games as they did in 2nd edition. Were I to have a new group that whined about it then I would, at the very least, consider a nat 20 an auto crit.

I might have to remember this should I run a 4e game any time soon. Skill Challenges were the one rule that utterly disgusted me in 4e because my first exposure to it was in a role playing scene and I thought "Turning RP into a combat mechanic?!?! WTF?!" I mean a roll to see if that argument to posed convinced the lord to give you some resources, sure, modify it if the PC made a really good argument and there you go. But initiative, 'rounds' successes vs failures? Got too damn convoluted for me.

Probably didn't help that my first exposure to Skill Challenges as a player was strictly as written. Where the DM had people roll initiative and just had us roll different skill checks, about as much role playing as you see in a game of Solitare.

I guess what I'm trying to say is "Thanks for the good advice!"

I don't really know anything about it, but the story I heard that made sense to me was that what really pushed TSR over the edge was an unsuccessful push into the mainstream. As I heard it, all of their RPG product lines were doing at least okay - but they banked on massive sales of softcover novels which never eventuated. In addition, there is a 'standard clause' in book distribution deals where the big distributors buy stacks of your product provided you agree to buy back what they can't sell at the end of the year.

As I understood it, TSR had demand for their various sourcebooks, they just ran out of cash due to suddenly have to buy back several truckloads of softcover novels which hadn't sold. So they were left with a bunch of unsellable stock and no cash nor remaining credit to produce the various boxed sets, campaign supplements and so forth for which there was still demand.

That was all from 'some guy on the internet' of course so who knows how true it is. I remember thinking that the account he gave (which was far more complete) made a lot of sense - certainly more than the popular alternative which seemed to be that TSR just blithely continued as they had always done, churning out more and more product lines and 'fracturing their market' whilst they slowly ran out of money.

TSR was pushed over the edge by the hater that was 'she who must not be named'.

Blood stained Sunday's best wrote:

I'm saddened by the move to rules! rules! rules!

I very much agree. As much as I enjoy the Pathfinder RPG it's really the attention that they have paid to Golarion which got me hooked on Paizo. I've never really gotten into L5R despite having some friends mad on it, but I picked up Hellfrost recently after seeing it recommended on these boards. I haven't had a chance to read through in great detail yet, but I've definitely liked it so far.

Shadowrun always had a great game world too I thought. Though I haven't bought anything from the line for some time and it's a bit of a different genre.

Hellfrost is a great setting, I think it's an amazing setting, rich in flavor and style. What's great about it is that you can buy the gazetteer and not have to worry about mechanics at all. It's completely system free so you would have everything you need to Hellfrost your 4e, PF, fantasy-RPG-system-X, etc.

I like to think of Hellfrost as the Golarion of Savageworlds and Tripleace Games as the Paizo. Not that Pinnacle is anything like Wizards (after all, they do damn good flavor and fluff in their products, ooh diss :P), but the whole 3rd party company thing, TAG seems to be the best 3PP for Savage Worlds in my not so humble opinion.

What bugged me was that they had this huge badly designed epic 'expedition-like' module trilogy that has the PC's saving Mystra, mention it in the Grand History of the Realms, only to have it be rendered moot because she got ganked anyway. Not cool ganked, but lame ganked, not even a proper send off.

As for the changes, I don't think they're a Tuesday, the Time of Troubles stuff, the transition from second edition to third, all were tame compared to what they pulled with 4th edition. It's got some of the same names but it's not really the same setting anymore. I have my old books from the prior editions, should I run FR I'll use them. But I'm all about Golarion now. Might run a session or two of Eberron though as that setting was pretty much mechanically tailored for 3.5.

29. Not even close, as far as villains go the comparison would insult Dr. Doom.
30. If you ask another Ustalavian for candy I *will* have a Varisian caress your cheek and whisper "Thinner" and you *can not* make that save DC.

Well this is sad. Thankfully it's easy enough to port of the 3.5 cloistered cleric into Pathfinder, I'm thinking it's another example of the designers being overly cautious in the wrong areas or something. I want to know who thought the 'vow of poverty' was a good idea >.<

So what? You guys aren't satisfied with making some of the best written fantasy RPG adventures, virtually spanking anything that WotC has created, that you now have to go tread on the territory of White Wolf and Call of Cthulhu? For shame! When will enough be enough?!

*psst* Keep it up!

My two cents: Kingmaker offered something new and fascinating: kingdom building rules and mass combat rules as well as the most sandbox style AP around. Serpents Skull had a few sandboxy elements but it was set in a jungle (a rather niche setting) and had the whole Indiana Jones vibe going on (what's more popular/well known amongst gamers: Indiana Jones or Lord of the Rings) so it simply may not have caught as much interest. Even Council of Thieves had the fact that it was a. the first AP for the PRPG and b. set in Cheliax (which a lot of people liked for some reason) I personally think it was the least interesting of the AP's that have come out for the PRPG (with Second Darkness being the least interesting one for the 3.5, but that's just like... my opinion... man).

That and horror is a genre unto itself, mix some horror with peoples fantasy and you have people going after the AP like MC Cris might go after a bunch of reeces pieces! Hell, I bet if Paizo had been able to drag Nicolas Logue out of his hole for a module things would be looking even better for their sales figures, pity the 'Family-Job' monster devoured him.

I imagine having classes that require Charisma but don't have class skills to support it (I'm glaring at you Sorcerer) then they really should probably doesn't help poor Charisma in it's effort to be loved as a useful stat might be.

So I was discussing the changes made to Alkenstar with one of my players and a side comment I made caught his attention, I mentioned that Alkenstar has Alchemists and he was confused about this, after all, isn't it a dead magic region? It's a good point, why would anyone be an Alchemist in Alkenstar when the bulk of their abilities (Supernatural effects) are rendered useless? Or are Alchemists some sort of exception for this? Near as I can tell there's no crunch supporting this so unless the Alchemists in that industrious city are the poor bastards who made those items that become worthless after a level or two (you know, *those* items) why would there be any of the base class from there? Unless it was, of course, an oversight and something not quite thought out when it was written up...

Any input on this?

Alright, so I have to ask, and I'm sure it's been asked elsewhere, I lack the patience to sift through the threads and find it, but... Will there be an Ultimate Skills? Or something to that effect?

DM Doom wrote:

If that hadn't been done already it should have been!

You look awful familiar to me. Hmmm...

I don't know, but nice duds man, who's your tailor?

Andoran, FRAK YEAH!
Here to save the mother frakkin' day now!
Andoran, FRAK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way now!

If that hadn't been done already it should have been!

Go to Epic song of darkling epicness!

Fell in love with this song ages ago, I swear it combines darkness, desperation, with just enough hope that it's perfect for those epic but intense scenes with your players!

I, for one, am hoping, praying, and drooling over the possibility of there being a hardcover for that continent out in the next year or so. I love the Inner Sea but I really want to see that treatment given to another chunk of the world and an oriental setting seems a nice touch.

It's been my experience/opinion that WotC's main weakness ever since 3.0 days, was adventure design. Going through their modules Red Hand of Doom was the only one worth playing for a long time. Some of the expedition series were alright. The Expedition like Forgotten Realms Super Modules had great concepts but their execution was filled with bad design (enemies that really provided poor rewards for players, punishing any player who decided to focus on magic, etc) with stat block errors, typos and other flaws. I loved the stories behind them but damn were they frustrating.

Also: Lizard men, I now hate them because whenever my PC's encounter them (they've fought them in AP's and the aforementioned super modules) they pretty much never have worthwhile rewards for the trouble. In that first one "Cormyr, Tearing of the Weave" (I think that's the title) the PC's went up against cultists (alright treasure), followed by Lizard folk (junk) and those masochistic shadowplane elves (excessive ammounts of +1 spiked chains, great for a cenobites convention, not so good for PC's who don't care to take the proficiency to use spiked chains). *shakes head*

What little I've seen of 4e strikes me as a lot of 'meh' modules that appear to be just combat encounter after combat encounter. I only had access to digital Dungeon and Dragon during the free period and it seemed if you wanted anything with good plot you had to go there and even that was very very hit and miss. 3pp seem to be the way to go with 4e modules, Atomic Array has featured a few that just sounded downright spiffy on both a mechanical and plot level.

Chances are even if I had gone 4e I'd have kept up my Pathfinder AP subscription, you'd never see WotC publishing something like "The Skinsaw Murders" or "Hook Mountain Massacre" or "The Stolen Lands".

EDIT: Unless they did when I wasn't looking possible but I have little faith in their adventure design to find it likely.

Honestly I don't think they're making a new edition. If the Essentials line is their 3.5 then 4e players have a few years yet before a new edition comes out. Strikes me as a little odd. I do kind of think they pumped out too many products too fast but this is an outsider looking in perspective more than anything. At most they might be toying with the design that'll begin playtesting in 2014 or something, provided we aren't annihilated by an asteroid or something.

Though if they are interested in unity amongst the gaming community perhaps they should reach out a helping hand to 3pp. Not sure about Digital Initiative support but perhaps an ad here, an article or blog post there kind of like what Paizo does. I personally thought Scarrport and Amethyst were interesting products and more entertaining to read about than pretty much any 4e product I've looked at (but that's a fluff vs. crunch thing right there so *shrug* that and I stopped skimming through 4e stuff about a year ago).

There is also a small detail. Wizards is a game company, Paizo is both a game company and an online game retailer. They sell the products of other companies on their website so it behooves them to advertise for those companies. Sure it helps that this meshes with their personal philosophy regarding the OGL and the like but it gives them far more fiscal incentive than Wizards has to do this.

Personaly...I thought the OGL and the GNL(?) was a good idea on paper and helped WotC alot out in certain ways....but the RPG industry took a big hit in innovation and creativity...everything was d20...

In the short run, but in the long run I think it was a much more positive thing. The RPG industry expanded and time cleansed it of most of the bad seeds. Eventually companies started coming out with their own systems that were definitely innovative and creative. Game of Thrones is produced by a company that started out d20. The Dragon Age RPG is as well. Some stuck with the OGL and continue producing quality products like Castles and Crusades which I like to run should I get a hankering to play with any of my old 2nd or 1st edition material. Fantasy Flight Games had a few d20 products and did a good job with them though don't really touch it anymore (though to be fair they had significant business with board games before they broke into RPG's if I recall).

I do admit there was a time I hated the fact that everything was d20 from Legend of Five Rings to Deadlands but the OGL gave a lot of companies the start they needed to do what they're doing today. Was it the sole reason? No. But it definitely helped I'm sure.

First, knowing that you're made of beef or that you can weather one hell of a battle isn't metagaming at all. The PC is just as aware of how capable he is in combat as the player behind him is. This isn't metagaming, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you're holding it against the player, beyond that he did something you hadn't anticipated, or were trying to discourage.

Second, I really don't believe it's the job of the DM to tell a player what they can and cannot do with their character. If a character meets the requirements of a prestige class, by gods, they can take it. I'm not going to pass judgment on whether or not the reason they give themselves for the decisions their own character makes passes muster with my personal standards. And neither should you.

Knowing one is a badass is different from knowing that you only take d6 damage for every ten feet you fall and a hundred foot drop can't possibly kill you even if all dice roll max. That *is* meta-gaming. Pure, plain and simple. Now some meta-gaming is to be expected, some comes naturally, and there are plenty of instances where it's accepted; but when you refuse to acknowledge, in character, that a number of poisoned crossbow bolts at point blank range could kill you because you 'have enough hit points' then that's meta-gaming.

You're assuming a little too much based on lack of information. I'm holding it as much against the type of system as the player, it's one of my biggest beefs with D20 games that they seem to encourage a lack of acknowledging a characters mortality via the mechanics. As for me not anticipating, hell, I know these guys, I anticipated they'd raise hell when I started the game. I was disappointed that his reaction was 'meh, I have the hitpoints' rather than something in character. The in-character reason came after I arched the eyebrow and asked 'really?'.

As for Prestige classes, that is a matter of gaming style and opinion. Now if your character wants to join 'the hunters of the night' because it's been his goal since child hood or because the game has been focusing on this group and he thinks it would be a good development to join. Then fine. But if it's because he wants that nifty ability they get at 2nd level that allows him to have limited blindsight because that would totally go awesome with feat A, and class ability X and make his character roxors so he fabricates a weak in game reason to get the prestige class, then that's metagaming. I'll not tell a player what they can and can't do with their character beyond perhaps cutting access to certain books or whatnot but I prefer my gamers to role play and thus if they are going to do a power build then by gods they better give me an in game reason why they have this and this prestige class and the like rather than something that is just some half-hearted attempt.

Meta-gaming is everywhere in table top, some don't even realize they're doing it, some is simply there because trying to emulate how difficult it would be to aim an area-of-effect spell in the heat of combat with pin-point precision would require more house ruling than one might want. When someone's reason for doing something is 'meh, I've got the hit points' then that's crossing the line. Ultimately my issue is a little more with the mechanics of the game, certain aspects of level-based hit point systems just irk me because they encourage that sort of mentality and then you have people who've been gaming with it so long they can't see how jumping from a hundred foot cliff because you have the hp is metagaming.

Maybe I need to find a side group willing to play other systems, I think I could handle the quirks of such mechanics a little easier then.

DM Doom wrote:

I know what actually went through his head "Well I'm a barbarian oracle with a high Con so I have quite a few hit points, these guys can't really be an equal match for us so they probably wont hit, even if they do crossbows only do d10 and I have a damn good fortitude save so..." and so on.

Kind of infuriating.

Why you are a telepath? You know what he was thinking?

Sorry...but it could very well be all about the RP behind it...also if you are a warm fuzzy GM that don't kill players for being stupid.

I mean did he die? Suffer any consequences? Why not? Personaly I never metagame as a DM and just let PCs get away with stuff because of the PC T shirt.

This issue might be as much as your fault as the players here.

See the previous post. He did, he passed out from the poison and lost half his hit points. I let the dice fall where they may but this is something I've seen happen a lot in D20 systems that use hit points. Players doing things because they know they have the HP and acting without any real acknowledgement of their characters mortality. Makes me tempted to use alternative damage and health systems though I'm not keen on such extreme tweaking of the rules.

This isn't even metagaming. This is no different than if the PC scoped out his situation and thought, "I am a warrior of the Honey Badger tribe, the least of which is worth a hundred of these pathetic wastes of breath. They think to threaten me with needles and fickle venom? I have ripped the teeth of the mammoth purple worm from its stinking maw with my own hands. Let them sting me."

You know, there'd be validity to that if not for the fact that his words were something along the lines of "Meh, I have the hit points, I attack him." Which is very much meta gaming. Had he said something along the lines of "This puny worm has insulted me, therefor I shall cleave him in twain regardless of the consequences." Then sure. That isn't, however, what happened.

People who come up with an in game excuse for actions that are based on meta-game knowledge are still meta-gaming. They're just giving a nice B.S. excuse. Like someone who takes a prestige class for one of the abilities without really having any genuine RP reason to do so.

Player jumps from a 100 foot high cliff because they have 90 hit points and know they'll survive: meta-gaming. Player asks the wizard to center a fireball on him because, again, he knows he has the hit points to take it: meta-gaming. Wizard who, in game, knows his body guard has fire resistance and is therefor likely to survive a fireball and thus casts it knowing it will hit said character during a time of desperation: not meta-gaming. It's all in the reason and how the PC's role play it out in character vs. out of character.

I've had similar problems but not to so great an extent, then again all of my players are experienced gamers. Some of the meta-gaming issues I have stem as much from the mechanics as a player. In one of the earlier games of our current campaign we had a player who was starting to get mouthy with the groups employer. They were a chaotic bunch altogether so naturally authority rankled them, but at the same time there were three of them and numerous thugs in the room as well as the boss himself. The employer said something snide and the PC threatened him, confident he had all his men available (all of whom had poisoned crossbows pointed at this character point blank range) he didn't back down so the PC attacked him then and there.

Sure, he had a valid RP reason, but he had deadly crossbows pointed at him at point blank range so while there might have been some RP as to why he attacked instead of backing down I know what actually went through his head "Well I'm a barbarian oracle with a high Con so I have quite a few hit points, these guys can't really be an equal match for us so they probably wont hit, even if they do crossbows only do d10 and I have a damn good fortitude save so..." and so on.

Kind of infuriating.

I'm probably a little late to this party, haven't been on the boards in a long long time for various reasons but I want to comment on a few things that were still being discussed around page ten or so...

That commercial about D&D through the years. What struck me as off about that one was that in all of the previous editions everyone seemed bored until it showed 4e. I found that rather amusing instead of offensive. I also found it amusing that while the ad featured dramatizations of the flaws of older systems it did nothing save flash to a laptop webpage to give any real indicator of 4e and it's features. So a fact about the ad: it spent most of the time highlighting the flaws of the previous edition and did nothing to give us any real information on *why* the new edition was so much better other than that they were obviously so much more excited to be gaming then than they were in the previous editions.

* Note: Playing 4e at varying levels on D&D game day, I'm sorry, combat doesn't move as fast as they depicted in those little cartoon renderings in the previous ad.

* Opinion: That description about second edition and THAC0? Honestly, I've only seen new players confused by it. Once it was understood what it was it came as easily as rolling a d20 applying a bonus to hit a DC. If they wanted to show off a flaw of 2nd edition they should have had someone going "What? I'm a dwarf and I can only hit level 12 as a fighter? Are you serious?!" Racial level limits were so horrible >.<

Grappling being convoluted? Nah. This is personal opinion but at one point while playing 3.5 my players and I finally had enough. "Alright," someone said "Let's just read the damn rules." we did. When we were done we all bore confused looks on our faces. "Wait, this is what we've been whining about? These are actually rather simple."

The issue with grappling wasn't so much that the rules were convoluted, it was that it was something that came up so rarely no one bothered to really invest the time in learning the rules. Meaning whenever something grappled (like damn near anything with tentacles) everyone wound up cracking open the rule books so they could find out what the rules were.

As for the Mike Merls article? Their customer service sucked, their advertising campaign was poorly done, and I'm just plain not interested in their system and the glut of books they've put out. The only WotC products I'll buy are their map tiles which I think are a damn clever and spiffy product. Their minis are sort of Meh and the fewer numbers they put out at higher prices than before kind of got me to stop buying them. Ultimately, people can have their 4e, and I'll have my plethora of games, and if I bash the system it's probably in relation to the Skill Challenge mechanic or just for some playful laughs with my players that really don't mean anything to me.

Now it's time to dine on the flesh of cow with tasty sauces thrown in.

Another note: I am an omnivore, meat is delicious, as are vegetables! Especially with sauces.

Final note: I love the cartoon ads, the animator of bitey's castle is amazing and does some impressive stuff with flash. None of the cartoons have offended me at all though I suppose I can see how the troll thing might rub some people the wrong ways.

Truly final note: I'm a monster, RAWR!

Well, I picked up this map from our FLGS and was tempted to get the shop interiors. While I think combining the flip map with the map packs the blank side was rather disappointing. I understand the need for a blank side now and then, the ocean blank side on the ship map was a nice touch, but I prefer a little more detail on maps of places that... well... need a little more detail. A huge blank cobblestone map for a city? Meh. Not one of paizo's best.

I agree with Robin, continuing with three seems impractical at best so either I attempt to bring in more players and we retcon them in or we kill the game.

My preference would be for a change in venue. Maybe it's just because I'm more comfortable with RPOL. The site is designed for PbP games so there is code that allows you to see which of your games have updates, they have private messaging, more BBCode support, private lines (i.e. allowing a post to include lines visible to all players as well as lines visible only to select players) and all in all I think it's one of the best places for a play by post game.

While I'm not keen on the paizo boards and their comparatively limited support for PBP games (though they give more support than some sites allowing aliases and the like) I will continue here if that's what people prefer, the question would be *how* to continue.

Set, the Kingmaker game suffered the same setback this game did when I took up a full time job and began acting in a play. That and there are two adventure path games in one there. Kingmaker is finishing up the battle at Oleg's.

My Crypt of the Everflame game is only a little behind ours. The battle with the illusory orcs has occurred,I skipped the wolves (or I might be saving them for later) though they were spotted, the group found the body by the lake, the PC's have come to the ravine and are making their way down at present. I imagine they'll enter the crypt and have their encounter with the skeletons before the week is out.

So we can call this game done and I can work to transfer those interested over to the RPOL game (I'll be giving the players there a heads up and there may need to be a slight tweaking of backgrounds for those PC's connected to the same mentor) or one of my other campaigns.

Or

We can continue here as is.

Or

We can attempt to do a soft re-set, try and bring a new player or two into the game and either Ret-Con them into the adventure or have you guys stumble upon them while exploring the crypt.

Happy Thanksgiving!

On a more serious note. I know this game is sluggish and I know people have left leaving us with just three players. I also haven't been the best GM to say the very least. That said, I want to know how everyone feels about the game. Shall we continue and try and salvage, or shall we scrap it?

If you want to scrap it I understand.

If you want to keep it going then I have a few options that might improve things a little.

Normally I run games on a website called RPOL.net, it's designed specifically for play-by-post games as opposed to being a forum that has play-by-post support like Paizo here. I'm not sure what it is about the medium but my posts tend to be longer and more involved when running games on RPOL, possibly due to having more control over the sight itself.

Now, we could transfer the game over where getting a couple new players to join would be fairly easy even though it might require a little ret-con. Nothing else would really change and we'd start where we've left off.

Another option is to abandon this game and bring you guys into one of the games I have over there. I've got four pathfinder games going on over there. One being the Darkmoon Vale series of modules, one being the Crypt of the Everflame series of modules, and two AP's (King Maker and Serpents Skull). I don't think any of them are in such a state that that I can add all three of you but including any one or maybe two of you in on one of those would be easily done (The Crypt of the Everflame is a little behind this one but moving faster).

And still another option is to keep things going here. I'm open to whatever you guys feel is necessary. So let me know what you think, either e-mail me, post here, or mention it on the google-groups discussion or dig up the discussion thread and post there.

Yay for map tool, took a little work but now line of sight is easy to handle!

As for exploration, give me a rough idea where you want to go and a perception roll. With this Maptool stuff updating should prove a lot easier.

Also, if everyone can tell me what sort of light sources they have active or will make active now that you're heading into the darker depths of the crypt. It could prove important.

Alizar moves forward cautiously keeping an eye out for any dangers that may be hidden and thus far finding nothing. Looking south he notices a switch in an alcove of the wall.

Exploration

Sorry for the delay. I'll get a post up tonight, have to shower and head out to a few job interviews.

Um, there are horrible terrible consequences for any gaming group I GM for that dares try to check every single square for traps. So if you want me to open up my sadistic side I'm more than prepared to get creative.

Players wanted thread is up on RPOL: http://rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=4&date=1289506325

Hollowfaust got me back into GMing for the first time since the Time of Troubles nuked my FR game.

I feel bad, I came into the Forgotten Realms during the latter half of second edition but having looked at the previous version I can't really see the time of troubles as having 'nuked' the realms. Shook some things up but I can't say they nuked it, that's what the elves did to make their little islands and it's also why the pointy eared bastards deserve everything the drow give 'em :P