|
|
|
Recent posts by
I’ve Got Reach:
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve got a question I’d like to pose to what I think might be a significant minority of the gamers here at Paizo – specifically those gamers that are playing their own home-grown fantasy gaming system:
> Have you renamed the game, and if so, what did you call it?
I ask because our gaming group has designed a home grown game but are at odds with what to call it. I’m seeking inspiration.
One more question:
> Seeing that I will be running the game, I would like to use a Pathfinder product if possible, given my satisfaction with Dungeon in the past. Are there any Pathfinders that are low-magic and in based in a rural or wild setting?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My gaming group has been playing 4e for a better part of a month or two and its fair time to write an opinion on the game. In short, 4e is starkly different than previous renditions. It can be stated that there are competitive games on the market that are now closer to D&D’s original roots than 4e is. That’s not to say its bad, just that its different. I’ll spare the in-depth and detailed analysis for others, just to say that this rendition, in my eyes, is no better than 3.5. Both versions have inherent strengths and weaknesses. In the end, it’s a wash; and if it’s a wash, why abandon the investment of the previous edition for a lateral move?
The biggest hang-up of this edition is the ridiculously long combats, even at the lowest levels. UUggghhhhhhh – make it stop!!! The official Wizards videocast of a 45 minute-long edited battle should have tipped us off to what was to come.
We played last Friday, and we invited the DM’s daughter to play with us. She’s 12 years old, plays DDR, has a chic cell phone…i.e. nothing out of the ordinary. She was skeptical of playing the game from the onset. Here’s her comments during gameplay (in chronological order):
“This is tiring.
Is this fun?
This fight is too long.
This game never ends.
Why is it I only get two options?
When are we gonna be done?
It’s been fun.”
Now, in defense of the game system, she did stick it out and play the entire session. I think we are going to continue playing 4e through 2008 and a portion of 2009. The group considers going back to 3.5 a better option than Iron Heroes, and haven’t really considered Pathfinder. In light of these events, we will be playing a home-brewed fantasy game now in production some time in 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occasionally my gaming group would visualize what it might be like to play with celebrity gamers, adventure writers, and professional game designers. We often would become a little jealous hearing a game designer talk about their “Thursday night” group escapades. We envisioned that the quality of the game would be much greater. It would be like playing basketball at your local “Y” and having 3 NBA players on your pick-up team.
Then came the latest video podcast at Wizards D&D website. Consider that “Myth Busted”.
The wizards professional table looked no more fluid than our table, and we were running that abomination of a game called 3.5. Rules and ability descriptions were still cross-referenced and players sometimes were uncertain of what their characters were going to do. Five rounds into the podcast lasted over 30 minutes AND the video was edited (shortened). An improvement, yes but hardly a huge improvement in game speed over 3.5
Of particular note and surprise is that these “professional” roleplayers referred to their characters actions as “I”. Example: “I use (insert ability here) on the Mind Flayer.” Just sayin…
To take a sports adage: They put their pants on the same way we do.
As for 4e, which is why the video was made in the first place, I was once uncertain about whether I would like it or not. My Take: The game is different. Some aspects are better, but others are worse. I think the games are equal. And if they are equal, why should I abandon the old one? In business speak, the upgrade just doesn’t “pencil out”. I think I’ll steal what I like from it (and good ideas from other sources) and build an in-house game. Which works as long as the players involved are long-term….If the group breaks up, all bets are off.
My 2 cp.
IGR
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed in my own internet behavior that I tend to join an online community (like Paizo) and spend a year or so with them, and then my interest wanes and I dissapear from the message boards. However, I've been here at Paizo for a long time. I wouldn't go as far as to say I'm an original or anything, but its been a long time. In that time, I've noticed that many of the original posters are either gone altogether or post only very rarely. I think I might be one of those that will be quietly riding off into the night as well. But not because of any ill will on anyone, any company or any game. I think it might be because my interest in the game is waning.
All that said, I don't see the logic in associating a company and its products with its message boards. Sorry. Makes no sense to me. Thats like me not buying Big Macs because someone flamed me on the Super Sized thread. After all, if Pathfinder is good, its good, right?
BTW, what would help these threads in the future is to adopt a format that shows which threads a user has posted to.
Sorry for the slight tangent.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like save or die spells, and I like that they work both ways.
But for the complainers, how about this option (stolen from our transformers game):
Save or die spells are not instantaneous. The character dies after one full round. AND the spell can be negated with the death of its caster.
We call that a "Get To Work" gun, and it makes casting it risky as (s)he becomes Public Enemy #1.
Note also that the duration allows someone to counter it before its effect takes place.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given the gaming style at your table, looks like running this module will be a bit of a challenge. One that you should relish.
My advice - search the threads on this forum - there are already threads out there that will give you exactly what your looking for from groups that ran this module (released over a year ago I believe).
That said, this was easily one of my favorite modules, and thats with my players missing the side-trek fights the module offers. In summary (I go into more detail in a seperate archived thread), at each course I handed out small goodied that the players had to eat (diet crackers, generic brand wafers, etc) and had a table diagram that showed how characters were seated. The meal itself didnt take long.
Keep in mind also that the players get to be creative in the gift to appease Prinze Zeach. I sent my players home one night with goal of them to come up with an elaborate gift and secretly tell me (or write it down) and then I would unveil the gifts to everyone.
This module is just another masterpiece by Richard Pett.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll put aside my agenda as a DM and answer this for my gaming group:
1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?
Undecided. I'd put it at 50/50.
2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?
System version will not affect purchasing patterns of Paizo products.
3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?
System version will not affect purchasing patterns of Paizo products.
Answers to 2 and 3 are based on the assumptions that once all three adventure paths have been concluded (AoW 100% completed, STAP 80%, SCAP 60%), we will move toward Pathfinder products regardless of the system we play. Assuming I am the DM, it will be a NON-WOTC fantasy game using Pathfinder as the story-arch. If I am not the DM, then what version of D&D we play is up in the air.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean, Minister of KtSP wrote:
Snorter wrote:
It is if someone agrees to join your D&D game, drives 20 miles to your house, to tell you about his character that he's plotted out for 20 levels, and you stop him with "Aah. Hmmm. Did I forget to tell you about my homebrew system?".
Well, yeah, but I wouldn't do that. 'Cause, you know... not a d!@#.
If and when I ever do get around to hammering out my full homebrew rules, I'd show them to my players and ask if they wanted to play. I've already discussed some ideas with them, so they wouldn't be a total surprise or anything.
Full disclosure is always the best policy.
That said, its my experience that makes me wary of a gamer who desires to play the game by the rules as written.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If (a BIG if) I were to run D&D again, I would make the following changes:
1) PHB only.
2) Attack Option: One Big Swing - As a Full-Attack Action, for every attack you elect not to take, you gain additional damage equal to the weapon type.
Example: Boris Backbreaker caries a Great Axe and has a BAB of +11, giving him three attacks at +11/+6/+1 (we’ll ignore all the other modifiers for this example). Boris knows his opponent is both difficult to strike and has a lot of stay power (hit points), so he elects to make only one attack at +11. If he hits, he will deal his normal damage (1d12 plus modifiers, plus 2d12 for the attacks he had foregone. As a side effect, you’d be amazed at how fast combat might flow when implemented.
3) Power Attack: 1 BAB for 1 damage, one handed or two. Give the guy with a shield a reason to live.
4) Limited Spell Selections: Not all spells are available from the PHB. Those that remain may have their spell levels modified. Other spells (polymorph, alter self, shapechange) will work exactly as the spell was intended to, no more, no less.
5) Active Defense: Perhaps the most radical change to the game is an active defense. That is, no more AC. Someone attacks, you dodge, parry, block (gives the guy with a shield a reason to live – see #3), resist, or give, all requiring a roll. Depending on how ambitious I am, there may be new attack options available as well. (This combat system, tried and true from our home grown roleplaying games Transformers and Marvel Super Heroes, would be used as a model).
6) Critical Hit Charts: This is a component of #5 above.
These are just a few of the changes I have in mind, and truth be told, I have a gaming system that does all of the above without conversion, so I don’t really see a need for conversion. The question is really whether players would want to play with these constraints. Time will tell.
One thing is certain: I’ll never run a RAW game again.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Razic wrote:
Hello Paizo! First post here - be nice to me :).
I have an character idea kicking around in my head but as I'm alone in the middle of India I need some help fleshing out a key detail.
The character would be a ranger/rogue "thief-taker". The details aren't too important but I would like her to be able to use her animal companion spider as a mount. Any suggestions on possible races?
Cheers
Go for it.
The rules probably say no, but in the interest of having fun, a wise DM might say yes.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|