|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
How do I change my shipping address?
I moved two months ago and as a result have not received my copies of Chapter 2, 3, and 4 of Curse of the Crimson Throne.
If I could get some or all of those resent, that'd be swell. If not, no big deal, I should have made this query sooner.
Finally, how do I change my name on the messageboards? I'm beginning to regret the consequences of using my real name...it's frightening how quickly a Google search reveals the depths of my geekiness.
I can be reached at jebadiah at hotmail dot com.
Thanks for all your help!
Mary Yamato wrote:
I think Mary's on to something. Linking each sin to a school of arcane magic was, in my mind, a mistake. Mary points out some practical reasons in her post. For me, the reasons are more conceptual. Since sin is a moral notion and notions of morality typically concern the divine realm, shouldn't the wielders of "sin magic" have been divine rather than arcane casters? I'd have rather seen the idea of sin magic brought to life by (and I'm just making this up on the fly) the Seven Lords of Sin, evil clerics who rule Cheliax through their infernal pacts with devils.
Conversely, when I heard the phrase "runelord", it evoked an entirely different flavor than what was eventually presented in the adventures. I was hoping for something primal, elemental, even barbaric -- certainly not as refined as what came to pass.
Finally, I was hoping the path would have introduced mechanics that would have made the magic of the runelords -- whether based on sins or on runes -- different than standard magic. No such luck.
That said, this is probably my favorite adventure in the path thus far. Steve really took the ball and ran with it -- and dropped a reference to Canadian metal band Voivod to boot. Nice to see another shredder on the boards.
Erik Mona wrote:
If you don't go the adventure path route, my vote is for a linked series of GameMastery adventures or a fat 128 page mega module.
Foxish, I like what you say.
Fact of the matter is, I don't like planar adventure. I've always felt that any fantasy world should be fantastic enough to keep players occupied without having to travel elsewhere for high level threats or imaginative locations.
That said, the idea of a planar campaign -- as opposed to a planar adventure or two -- with a beginning, middle, and end occurring entirely on the planes, could be lots of fun.
I browsed most of Worlds and Monsters earlier in the week. Like Races and Classes, it feels like more of an explanation of the thinking that lead to 4E rather than an actual preview of 4E, since there are no mechanics presented. (Not even an example of play, which is an oversight, in my mind.) And I agree with most of the thinking about how 3E could be improved. I'm just not entirely satisfied with where that thinking lead them. At least from a flavor standpoint. A lot of effort was put into revising the cosmology, for example. The new cosmology is different from 3E, but not necessarily better. Then again, I was never really into 3E cosmology. In fact, there is a lot of canonical D&D flavor that never appealed to me, but that's why God invented homebrews. I think the modular nature of the new "points of light" core setting will be extremely useful to many homebrewers. And most of the revisions and updates to monsters, from dragons to illithids, appear to be pretty smart -- and certainly less of a jump than the 2E to 3E switch.
Christopher West wrote:
I didn't want to short my players on the wealth-per-level scale when I ran this adventure and the doomsday scenario happened, so I had the transformed Raknian throw them their winnings with a scornful laugh before departing. I believe his parting shot was something like "My thanks for a job well done, Heroes! Try not to spend it all in one place!", spoken in such a way as to suggest that he didn't think that they (or Greyhawk itself) would be around long enough for them to enjoy it.
I'm startled to find Logue's name associated with torture porn and splatterpunk. If it were Pett, that would be another matter. (Which is why I love Pett.) Logue's adventures aren't always to my taste...typically because I find them too genteel and cultured. No, I'm serious. Logue is a theater geek and there's a certain level of theatrical artifice to his work. If "Sweeney Todd" were ever adapted for D&D, Logue would be your man. Myself, I like my action a bit more raw. I hope Paizo doesn't take all this griping about R rated content too seriously. I haven't bought any of Logue's GameMastery modules, but now that I've heard they're hardcore, I think it might be time to spend some of my year end bonus.
Dehydrated Gelatinous Cube:
Long ago the demon lord Juiblex granted its followers the secret to creating dehydrated oozes, powdered jellies, and instant puddings; the knowledge is now widespread amongst spellcasters of both mischievous and nefarious intent. The most common variant is the dehydrated gelatinous cube, which appears to be a one-inch square inert cube of gelatin. It is often kept wrapped or boxed. The cube produces a burning sensation on bare skin but causes no damage until rehydrated with water or similar liquid, when it quickly grows into a standard gelatinous cube (MM p201). Rehydrating the gelatinous cube is a standard action. The cube takes one round to return to normal size—after applying water, most possessors either throw the cube or drop it and run. Creatures caught within the cube’s area at the start of its initiative count must make a DC 13 Reflex saving throw or be engulfed as described in the creature’s extraordinary ability. It is in all respects a normal gelatinous cube and cannot be commanded, controlled, dispelled, or unsummoned.
Faint conjuration; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item; summon monster III; Price 850gp.
Erik Mona wrote:
I read Jesus' Son in college and thought it was one of the better "modern" books they had us read. What's Angels about?
It's like Jesus' Son in that it's gritty and depressing, but unlike Jesus' Son in that it's not written in a minimalist style but something much closer to Joan Didion or Robert Stone. The book starts when a single mom gets on a bus in Oakland with her two kids, meets a guy who is clearly homicidal, and for no particularly explicable reason decides to stay with him. It gets worse from there. This guy reappears in Tree of Smoke as a supporting character.
Recently finished China Mieville's "Iron Council." The second book of his I've read. They were both okay, better in some parts, worse in others. Now I'm less than 100 pages into "Tree of Smoke" by Denis Johnson. It is definitely literature...but I'm enjoying it anyway. I've read a few magazine articles Johnson's written (he did a really great piece for Harper's about Charles Taylor's child soldiers in Liberia--they're called the Small Boys Army) and two novels, "Jesus' Son" and "Angels". I preferred the latter.
Nicolas Logue wrote:
Sorry, Logue. I had one eye on Paizo and one eye on Project Runway. Now that's torture porn!
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks, James. The point I was trying to convey is that I'm not of the opinion that each chapter in Pathfinder has to work as a standalone adventure for people not playing the path. If those people want a standalone, they can go to GameMastery. (So far I've bought Seven Swords of Sin and Gallery of Evil and have enjoyed both.) Pathfinder, however, needs to work best for those running the whole path, and each chapter should feel like a vital part of a larger whole. As always, thanks for listening to our input.
Erik Mona wrote:
Emerson '96. Coffee was a great teacher, that was a great class. I can still see/hear him in my head reading from his handwritten notes, acting out the role of every character in the Bible. I miss Boston. Erik, do you have any idea if he's still alive?
James Jacobs wrote:
James, I thought GameMastery is the part of your line meant to act as standalone adventures, and Pathfinder the part meant to act as adventure paths? Isn't it best that Pathfinder work as part of a whole, and let GameMastery work on its own? In other words, shouldn't Pathfinder be the place I can be guaranteed to find a tightly-plotted AP, if that's what I'm in the market for?
Agreed on all points. My biggest problem with every AP to date -- and it's a big problem -- is that the metaplot doesn't become apparent to the players until halfway through. I'd like to see the threat hit earlier -- page one, for example. That said, I'm finding RotRL to be really, really meaty. Each adventure has had great set pieces that DMs not running the AP should be shamelessly stealing -- Thistletop in Chapter 1, Foxglove Manor and the Shadow Clock in Chapter 2. And, um, gee, the homicidal hillbilly farmstead, the ogre-conquered fort, the dam covered in skulls, and Hook Mountain itself in Chapter 3. Point being, I don't think a more tightly plotted AP will diminish the value of Pathfinder to those DMs who aren't running the AP, because Team Paizo is talented enough to keep the threats and locations varied and memorable. I might not ever run an Underdark adventure, for example, but I can't wait to see (and steal) what Paizo does with aboleths in "Second Darkness."
Agreed. I'll be buying Second Darkness because I'm excited to see what Paizo does with an Underdark campaign, period. Whether it's 3.5 or 4E makes no difference to me.
Somewhere I read that the designers are attempting to make the power curve more linear and less exponential. My guess is that means 4E 1st level characters will more closely resemble 3E 3rd level characters (in other words, they'll be able to slay a lot of goblins straight out of the gate) while high level spell effects (such as save or die spells) will be removed from the game to reduce the wild swings prevalent in high level combat. Also, abilities and powers appear to be shifting to per day, per encounter, and at will abilities. My sense is that the designers don't necessarily want 4E characters to kick more butt than 3E characters, but do want them to kick butt longer before resting for the night.
EDIT: Right, what Laithoron said.