Eric Tillemans's page

Gary Teter wrote:

Still on my to-do list, still pending some other stuff that's more important right now (like fixing the My Subscriptions page).

Thanks for the update!

Commands the great EYE, "I wish for a wish list!"

PHB-SPELLS-Mordenkainen's Disjunction: House rule uses a dispel check variant regarding magical items caught within the area of effect. A dispel check (using any applicable bonuses for dispelling the caster has, no upper limit to the check unlike with the Dispel Magic spells) is made against a DC for each item that is set at (10+item's CL). The caster makes one dispel check against ALL items caught within the Disjunction. Each # the dispel check exceeds the target DC is a full round of suppression of that item's magical properties. Artifacts can be surpressed in a standard cast Disjunction, presuming a Dispel Check DC of 20+CL to do so successfully. It is theoretically possible to "ritually cast" a Disjunction for more ... permanent ... results...

Example: A Disjunction's dispel check of 30 comes up against the DC 27 that would be set for Armor of Heavy Fortification, suppressing the magical properties for 3 full rounds.

PHB-COMBAT (Free Actions)-Speak- Only 3 to 4 words are permitted on a character's turn to be spoken as a free action, instead of the standard and vague "few sentences" in the PHB.

The Disjunction rule is a good one. It's complicated as all get out, but it's way better than the rule as written. I could definitely see some bad guys making good use of the spell now in order to gain the upper hand on my players.

@Eric Tillemans: that's almost the same as the Destroy Undead class feature substitution detailed in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft (minus the cowering for one turn bit). We use it in our games and it is a bit overpowered. The rules suggest taking turn resistance off of total damage but we, instead, apply it as a modifier to the saving throw. I do like that you don't allow it every turn though. I have a cleric with Destroy Undead, Quicken Turning, and Extra Turning and it's just a walk in the park through most patches of unliving flesh. He's doing 14d6 damage to nearby undead as a free action each round and still able to engage in melee with them.

M

I was mainly just trying to simplify the turn undead rules and yet still make it an effective option for clerics. I like the idea of adding turn resistance to the saving throw, and how about making undead who make their save immune to further attempts from that particular cleric for 1 day? It would read like this:

What your opinion of this simplified damaging alternative to Turning Undead:

Turn Undead:
In a 20' burst, the cleric damages all undead in the area. The damage is d6/cleric level and undead get a Will save for half (DC is 10 + 1/2 cleric level + charisma bonus). Undead with turn resistance add their turn resistance bonus to their saving throw. If the affected undead misses it's save, it is cowered for 1 round. If the affected undead makes it's saving throw it is immune to further turn undead attempts from this particular cleric for 1 day. The cleric cannot use this ability on consecutive rounds.

What your opinion of this simplified damaging alternative to Turning Undead:

Turn Undead:
In a 20' burst, the cleric damages all undead in the area. The damage is d6/cleric level and undead get a Will save for half (DC is 10 + 1/2 cleric level + charisma bonus). If the affected undead misses it's save, it is cowered for 1 round. The cleric cannot use this ability on consecutive rounds.

(Ok, it's not that bad. Just not the D&D I want to play.)

Indeed. Not that bad, but not for me.

BOZ wrote:

"see, we got rid of that old stuff that you were still using, and gave you something totally new and different that we think you'll like better!"

Hey! That was the 3e feel too!

Dangerdawrf,

I completely disagree. I recently converted the old Keep on the Borderlands adventure for my gaming group and hardly had to change a thing. I just plugged in the new monster stats, added some skill and trap DCs, and fleshed out a few of the 'boss' mobs with some cool feats to fit the fluff descriptions from the original adventure and I was off and running. Before that, I had converted Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and it also went smooth. The 3e Players Handbook has fighters, clerics, druids, wizards, elves, gnomes, halflings, ...The feel is very close to the same, it's just the mechanics that changed.

With 4e, the Players Handbook will have warlocks, warblades, tieflings, and eladrin. The Great Wheel is gone and succubi are now devils, erinys don't exist, and the Blood War never happened.

Sorry, it just doesn't feel the same to me.

Tars Tarkas wrote:

I'd buy a Paizo published v3.75 over a WoTC 4.0 (or 4.5) without hesitation. In fact, count me in for two of each book!

Ditto here. That would be a dream come true. :)

I would buy it also, especially if it meant I could continue to use Paizo adventure paths with my gaming system of preference.

I'm worried that I will not be able to DM a game within the same imaginative framework I've used to envision D&D for 30 years of my life because some random WotC designer decides that his idea of a succubus is cooler than the one that's served me fine for three decades. Same with elves and eladrins and the like. One or two of these issues, no big deal, but from what I've seen so far it doesn't look like "respect the traditions of the game" is particularly high on WotC list of design goals for the new edition.

I think that's fine for them as a business, but it's certainly not the strategy I would have taken and it's not a strategy I look forward to embracing with our GameMastery modules.

Again: I want a sleeker, easier-to-teach-and-learn system that allows me to tell stories similar to the ones I've been telling for three decades.

Every time we did something in Dragon or Dungeon that spoke to the core "story" of D&D or the longstanding edition-spanning story elements of the D&D experience, our sales went up and people online got very excited. I _know_ there is money to be made with this approach, but it does not seem to be the approach Wizards of the Coast is taking from the limited amount of information I've seen so far.

That worries me, honestly, but I'm still very firmly in the "wait and see" category and, well, I'm waiting to see.

With an attitude like this, I know Paizo will be doing their darndest to bring me the D&D I want to play.

A great adventures for Greyhawk fans! The layout of the River Quarter is nicely done with some colorful NPC interactions as the players are introduced to the City of Greyhawk. There is a nice mix of city and dungeon based adventuring with ties to the Greyhawk setting many grew up with. However, the storyline and adventures don't rely on previous knowledge so even those who haven't played in the Greyhawk setting are bound to enjoy this solid adventure.

The only problem I have with this adventure is the 'delve' format as it's a waste of space and only serves to make the reader flip pages back and forth while trying to get a feel for the rooms and combat encounters.

"and he worships Erathis, the goddess of civilization." Chris Perkins

Wow. Goddess of civilization. That's exciting.

HA HA! That was my thought exactly when I read that.

Erik Mona wrote:

The mechanics are not the part of 4e that worries me, frankly.

--Erik

Going out on a limb with a wild guess . . . but what worries you is the Virtual TableTop that will be put to use by WotC and the fact that while 4e itself will be OGL compatible, the VTT itself will not be, and fan will expect third party publishers to provide the equivalent of VTT, which will not be possible.

I don't think your guess is anywhere close William. There's already products out there that do what the VTT will do, some are free and some cost money, but they all work pretty nicely. In fact I play in two D&D games using Fantasy Ground 2, and while I enjoy live play more it's a nice alternative to have when you live in the middle of nowhere.

Reading into the responses Erik has posted in regards to some of the 4e changes, I think it's the flavor changes he's not liking as opposed to the mechanics changes.

The two movies I found scary were The Exorcist and Silence of the Lambs.

At the moment, druid or scout looks to be the characters choice of class.

As far as forcing the character to wait on bringing the character in, I was thinking of doing a little adjusting to allow the player to start with the character. Somewhere(I don't remember which book it was, may have even been somewhere in 3.0) I recall seeing an option for 1st level multiclass characters, gaining some of the benefits of each of their classes, and gaining the rest when they reached 2nd level(or 3rd for triple classes) and I was thinking of doing something similar with the racial bonuses and class abilities.

Whispering Cairn is pretty nasty, I'd just let the player take his 1st level in druid or scout and be the only 2 ECL character in the group...it'll just take him longer to reach his 3rd ECL since he'll have to go from 0 to 3000XP.

How about an alternate Player’s Handbook for 4e in the style of Monte Cook’s ‘Arcana Unearthed’ written for Golarion? This would allow Paizo to wipe the undesired flavor of 4e away and bring back the flavor many (most?) of Paizo’s customers seem to enjoy and yet still allow Paizo to produce AP’s and GameMastery adventures compatible with the newest (and probably most popular) version of the D&D game. There could even be a section on Golarion’s monsters (or a separate book) where we get a return of real D&D evil outsider flavor and maybe a compilation of converted 3.5 Pathfinder monsters.

I'd call it 'Roots of Golarion'.

I think the 3 saves for how far you get works much better. That way a lucky 20 wouldn't succeed automatically and people with better Fortitude saves would have a much better chance of success. I like DC set at 18 for the 3 saves...improbable but possible.

I loved the Basic Set when I played it, and eagerly embraced 1st edition AD&D when I discovered it existed. I devoured things like Unearthed Arcana and the 2nd edition upgrade (though over the years after it came out I did have a quite large house rules document). When 3rd Edition approached it renewed my excitement for the game and has had me hooked ever since. Now 4th Edition approaches and I'm just not excited.

Is it that I'm happy with 3rd edition?
Is it the flavor changes for 4e leaving me with a sour taste?
Is it the great 3.5 material I have yet to play?
Is it WotC's horrible marketing campaign?

Yes, yes it is.

Eric Tillemans wrote:

Hopefully 4e is a great game system with enough flexibility to draw the Paizo crowd in, otherwise your customer base will be badly fractured.

I'm hoping for either that, or for a 4e that is so obviously horrible and stupid that it tanks so completely that WotC is forced to publicly apologize to its fanbase and go back to 3.5.

Neither of these outcomes seems particularly realistic to me. ^.^

I agree, 4e will probably be somewhere between horrible and great and thus maximize the split of the playerbase.

Erik,
I've been playing for 26 years and I feel pretty much the same as you do in regards to the 4e upgrade. I really enjoy the products Paizo puts out (and other products Paizo's authors do for others), and I feel for you guys being put in such a tough situation. Hopefully 4e is a great game system with enough flexibility to draw the Paizo crowd in, otherwise your customer base will be badly fractured.

It's going to take a lot for me to switch to 4e. I currently have a lot of great 3.5 material and 4e would have to be 'knock my socks off' great in order for me to switch. Even a good solid upgrade wouldn't be enough because I like 3rd Edition. 3rd edition gives me much improved game mechanics compared to earlier editions while giving me the same D&D feel I grew up with.

I don't think any one expects Paizo to remain 3.5 only. That would be foolish. (Hoping abounds though, ;-) )

But at the same time, I trust the Paizo staffers when they say they will evaluate 4th Edition first.

I am far too cynical to think WoTC can't screw up 4th Edition. There is still a question of IF Paizo will switch. Granted, I don't think any one would be surprised if they did...

And of course, there is the even more unlikely chance of Paizo supporting both. Not "full-time" of course... But "in some fashion" might be possible.

Continued support for 3.5 from Paizo would be great for me personally - something I'm also hoping for but not expecting to happen. Maybe there's a way to support both editions in some fashion, but I'm not seeing an answer short of drastically increasing production costs (and thus our costs). Of course Paizo has pleasantly surprised me before with great innovations, so maybe they can do it again.

Also, i think it's relevant to point out that part of the issue is not so much that there's a new edition, it's that the new edition would seem to have significant enough changes that conversion is going to be difficult at best. If 4E was easily adapted to current products, then I would probably switch. But from what I'm hearing about the changes (and the fact that WotC has even said that converting would be too cumbersome) it seems that the 3.5 material will not be easily usable with 4e rules.

I'm not planning on switching to 4e either, but DaveMage hit it right on...if 4e was easily adapted to current products I would also probably switch. As things stand now I'll buy up any good 3.5 adventures still comming out and play this edition for awhile, then maybe upgrade once 5e comes along.

================================

On another note, I did a quick tally of the votes in the poll and it looks like 2/3rd of the responders fall into the 'A) will switch' category or 'C) wait and see' category. I lumped the C's with the A's because I'm sure a lot of the reluctance to embrace 4e comes from fear of change. If someone says they're going to wait and see, it most likely means they will switch (as long as 4e has at least some good merits - which is likely). By the raw numbers the 'stick with 3.5' crowd outnumbered the 'upgrade to 4.0' crowd by 3 to 2, but I'm betting those fence sitting C's will be upgraders too.

Assuming that number is close to reality, there's no way Paizo will be sticking with 3.5. The amount of people playing old editions will only decrease with time, so the only smart decision is to upgrade along with the game. It's not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN.

Definitely B) Staying with 3.5e

I have a large inventory of unused 3.5 adventures and I enjoy the rules. Even if 4e is a better game I'll be sticking with 3.5 because it would be more work to convert all those 3.5e adventures to 4e than the time saving I would gain in preparation (assuming the 4e promise is fullfilled). I would rather continue to buy and use 3.5 adventures than upgrade and start over at this point. I don't have a problem with preparation time in 3.5 mainly because I use pre-made adventures from the best in the business - Paizo.

As for my feelings on 4e, I like a little of what I'm hearing on game mechanics changes, but I dislike some as well. Regarding the changes to flavor and background - just horrible.

I converted the rolemaster crit tables for use in D&D back in the late 80's and still use them in my 3.5 games today. I use the results of the crit confirmation roll to determine which critical category to use (A,B,C, etc) and have modified all of the critical descriptions to better fit D&D rules.

My players seem to love the rules, even though they know the tables tend to favor their enemies.

The major differences between the 2E --> 3E switch and this one is what causes the most concern for me.

#1: 2E was broken. New rules were constantly introduced in 2E to top the previous supplement. 3.5 hasn't come close to the powerups that occured in 2e (kits anyone?)

#2: We have had only 4 years of version 3.5. That's it! Only 7 years of 3.x up to now. We had 11 years of 2E (9 when the announcement came).

#3 (and the biggest one for me): Adventures.
Thanks to WotC and 3rd party publishers, especially Paizo, Necromancer Games, and Goodman Games, we have literally hundreds of adventures. I want to run many of them, and I don't intend to convert them to a new edition before I do so.

#4: Class Options. There are so many class options for 3.5 that I haven't even gotten to try yet that I feel like I've bought something (actually many somethings) I'll never use (if I go 4e).

So what I have decided to do is this. I'll buy the three 4e core books. I'll port the ideas I like from 4e into my 3.5 game and leave it at that. I will not join the D&D Insider (though I will certainly use it while it's free).

And I'll take a break! This will give me a chance to catch up on the 3.5 third party products I don't have yet, and then just save some money.

I'll start collecting books again when 5e comes out - if the hobby is still alive then.

Davemage,

You summed up my feelings on 4e almost exactly. During 2e days I literally had a 200 page manual of house rules, I really felt 2e was broken in many ways. For 3e I have 1 page of house rules and I have tons and tons of quality adventures for 3.x from many sources.

However, I don't think I'll even be buying the 4e core rules. I'll just read the SRD and port over the good ideas to my 3.5 games.

One factor though is that over time the core rulebooks are going to be hard to find for new players. On the one hand most GMs running the Pathfinder scenarios will probably already have the books, but on the other hand the hobby grows all the time. The Mongoose web site makes it look like they've allowed their Pocket Player's Handbook to go out of print, and as far as I know that was the only other hardcopy of the player's rules available.

Has anyone announced doing a print version of the 3.5 PHB bits of the SRD once WotC stops printing them?

I don't think it will be hard to find 3.5 core rulebooks for a long time to come. Ebay will be flooded with people selling their used copies as 4th edition approaches and for a few years afterwards as people convert. Heck, even now you can get ahold of 1st and 2nd edition rulebooks on ebay.

BTW - consumers have to wait for Prius's because they don't meet most states emission standards and are being retooled. Sounds like D&D 3.0. Another similarity perhaps?

I'm in the same boat as you as far as wanting to stick with 3.5 and hoping Paizo keeps producing materials in 3.5 rules for years to come. However, after a quote like that maybe you should change your sign in name... I think you're missing the word 'small' in there somewhere.

So far I'd say the overall reception to 4th edition is pretty positive considering the normal negative reaction to just about anything new on the internet. If WoTC merely makes a game equal in fun to 3rd edition, but different enough to get people to buy it, then 4th will be a success. Unfortunately for me, that most likely means Paizo will also 'upgrade' and I'll lose my access to great new 3rd edition adventures.

I'm not switching to 4th edition any time soon, but not because I don't think it will be a good system, but because I have tons of great 3.5 adventures awaiting my players. I enjoy the 3.5 mechanics and it will take awhile for good 4th edition adventures to be created. I still have yet to run one Dungeon AP, Monte Cook's Ptolus, and both of Paizo's first 2 pathfinder campaigns! That's at least 8 years worth of 3.5 material at the rate we progress through adventures.

As far as prep times go in 3.5, I don't have any concerns for how long it takes because I run Paizo and Malhavoc adventures. All I have to do is read the adventures for enjoyment, then later on really study the story and the NPCs for an hour or so just before I DM a session.

I'll be skipping 4th edition and maybe when 5th comes along I'll be out of published adventures and ready for new material.

I'm still interested if this is a possibility. :)

I hate to interpose myself here, but from reading what you have said and what Russ has said, you seem to be saying that you could interpret the spells to work that way, but Russ seems to be saying that you can logically deduce that the designers absolutely intended the spell to work this way in this instance.

I agree that someone could reasonably interpret it the way you see it, but I disagree that its obvious that the designers intended it to work this way, as Russ seems to be saying.

Here is an excerpt from a Sebastian post on page 2:

Waitaminute. Break Enchantment is even a core spell. Okay, that settles it. Break Enchantment does not touch Feeblemind. If it did, Feeblemind would provide for it in its exceptions clause. Feeblemind provides a short list of high level spells that can bust it. I can't see how Break Enchantment is on par with Wish et al.
I could entertain the argument if Break Enchantment were in a non-core rules supplement (though even then, I would require that it say it can bust Feeblemind in the description). But as it stands, Feeblemind tells you how you can get rid of it, and Break Enchantment is not on that list.

And it's not obvious that the intent is to allow BE to work on Feeblemind.

Hey look, something you said I finally agree with. The problem for you is that it's also not obvious that Break Enchant should not work on Feeblemind.

At the end of the day, rationale discourse pays my mortgage, and my abilities in that regard speak for themselves.

There's a good way to win an argument. Nevermind my previous comments, you obviously are right!

I agree with Russ on this one. When you read the Break Enchantment description is meets the criteria to dispel a spell such as Feeblemind perfectly. That's enough for me since I, like Russ, also don't trust the developers to correctly cross reference every situation that could possibly come up. In this case I consider the list of effects which can get rid of Feeblemind under it's spell description to be the 'general' rule, while the description of the Break Enchantment spell is the specific rule which trumps the general rule.

Could you read it the other way? Sure. But my opinion is that this interpretation is more likely to be the correct one considering game balance and my opinion on developer intent.

Astos wrote:

I've read through my PDF version of D1, and I think it's great! I believe I'll get to run it in the next couple weeks.

Is there any chance of getting GameMastery maps without labels/secret doors, like is currently done in the Dungeon online supplements? We use MapTool at the table and it would be great if I could just import in a map instead of recreating it.

If we have room in the modules, we will include such things in the modules (W1 has a player's map, for example). :)

One of the things I really appreciate about the work Paizo has done on the APs is the online supplement player maps. I was actually expecting the same treatment with the Pathfinder and Gamemastery products. You guys set the bar so high you're making it tough on yourselves.

Yes, there is some nice stuff here.

Very cool Raidou, the revenge of the TPK sounds like a it's going to make for a fun story!

I'm posting here just to check if my title says 'Charter Subscriber' or not. It looks like it does, so hopefully the Pathfinder issues keep comming :)