Matthew Morris's page

@ Justin, not to my knowlege.

Like others, I was hoping for more info on Golarion-psionics atmosphere. Reading Castrovel now.

Edit: The moon is interesting. Question, didn't the Worldwound's appearance coincide with Aroden's death?

Edit II: Redskinned humans, 12' tall grey skinned giants? Ah Akiton, you seem so familiar and loved. (and free from Disney).

I thought a Warlock was the son of a Magus...

Fuzzies of Matthew's Golarion.

Dennis,

Thank you for your observations. I hate to be a 'shut up, he said' but be very careful with the NDC, don't want your eagerness to get you in trouble.

So, I guess.... "Shut up!" he said. :-)

I do think that the culture is what makes the race. Part of my love of the 'halfs' (-elf, -orc, dhampir, planetouched etc) is that I can take a human culture and 'twist' is slightly rather than the whole thing.

I created a 'Children of Bast' background years ago. Lost most of it in a hard-drive crash, but what I remember...

Desert Children

golem101 wrote:

A book about aberrations (Lords of Madness), full of alien, inhuman, mind breaking - but not necessarily Lovecraftian - creatures to be unleashed upon Golarion.

ditto

and can you redo - Phantom Menace so it doesn't suck too

There's only so much reality warping that Paizo can do. ;-)

I agree with Set abotu revisiting Taldor/Andoran, etc. I mean I use Osimaptra myself but still, more data would be nice.

Some form of Shadow Magic would be nice.

As always, people wanting Pact magic, I'll point to Radiance House.

All IMHO of course.

I don't mind 'revised' systems, which is what 3.5 is to 3.9 (and apparently essentials is to 4.0) Vampire got better (to me) with each 'revision') (Though it's now called 3rd on drivethrurpg)

Major changes in mechanics rate more the 'edition' change to me. BECMI to AD&D is an 'edition' 2e to 3e is an 'edition' 3e to 4e is an 'edition' If Pathfinder 2 is just cleaning and clarification of rules it's a 'revision' if it's new mechanics, it's an edition.

Josh M. wrote:

And besides that, didn't Essentials just come out a year or two ago?

Essentials isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 4e brought out earlier, only a few of the character classes are redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 3.0 to 3.5 change introduced more changes that Essentials did to 4e.

Now we're down to parsing editions?

"3.5 isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 3.x brought out earlier, only a few elements were redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 2nd Ed to 3.x change introduced more changes that [sic] 3.5 did to 3.0"

Seriously. I expect 5e to contain elements of 4.x as well as previous editions. I'll be curious to see a) how big the PHB is and b) how much it is. Will it be a Pathfinder sized tome?

Hey never said they were *good* reasons, just possible ones.

Actually a half elf fighter's a good example of who might.

Matthew Morris wrote:

I can think of a couple reasons.

• Fighter/Cleric/Paladin doesn't have enough skill points to buff perception, but wants to keep compeditive
  
• Player paranoia, wants to add to the bonus.
  
• GM doesn't allow Cosmopolitan
  

All are reasons to take the feat, not just 'role playing is cool'. ;-)

I am lost here. I am not seeing how any of these makes it a better idea to take Keen Senses.

For the first, it's that (especially for fighters) you could go +2 racial +2 Alertness +3 skill focus and +2 Sharp senses for a 3 feats = +9 Again I was thinking fighters with their bonus feats (meaning they can spend regular feats on this) but might not have enough SP to go 'round.

the second it's just "My last three characters got killed by ambushes. This time..."

Someone suggested "Why not just take Cosmopolitan and get the skill?" I was listing "You can't" as a reason to take this instead of Cosmopolitan.

I can think of a couple reasons.

• Fighter/Cleric/Paladin doesn't have enough skill points to buff perception, but wants to keep compeditive
  
• Player paranoia, wants to add to the bonus.
  
• GM doesn't allow Cosmopolitan
  

Donna's Dozens is the over arching name for the stuff I put out on google docs (now with links in my profile!) I try to produce them in batches of 12, thus the dozens, and named the project for my partner.

Basically I try a theme and make things that fit the theme.

Why would anyone buy the Rules Cyclopedia? It's just a re-hashed BECMI.

I know you're being sarcastic, but I wanted to hit on this point.

I bought the RC because it was cleaned compiled and all in one area. A "Pathfinder Rev" would get my attention with the same design goal.

I think one other difference is that pesky OGL. When any of the examples above was phased out for the brand new thing, you had to accept that not only would no one be producing new supliments, no one would be making new core rule books. It was harder to introduce the 'old game' to new players, as the supply of books was finite, and steadily shrinking. "Retro-clones" can be made with the OGL, but they don't have the traction of a recently 'freed' player base.

If Washington got hit by a meteor tomorrow, Pathfinder's core rules would survive in the cloud. JBE or Rite or someone else could publish the rules, SGG could still make supliments w/o packs of lawyers descending. Golarion would be lost, but not Pathfinder. If WotC's 5e doesn't use the 4.x engine, and they discontinue 4.x, it's as dead as 1e.

Damn, sorry to hear about the forums. And yes, Paizo would likely want to do their own take, kind of like we keep hearing with psionics (if they're done)

Oh well. 3PP forever.

From the Ask JJ thread.

James Jacobs wrote:

I actually played a binder in Erik Mona's Age of Worms game; I really REALLY liked that class a lot. Even had my own custom-built vestige. And there's some binder stuff in the third-from-the-last installment of Savage Tide. Good stuff, that binder.

Won't be much similar for Pathfinder at all; that whole concept and idea is Wizards of the Coast's intellectual property. If we did... we'd probably link binders to Azlant or perhaps ancient Osirion. Not to the Dark Tapestry.

Actually, James is wrong I fear. Tomb of Magic is closed content. Binding isn't WotC's 'intellectual property' anymore than a wendigo.

Plus...

All game mechanics and statistics are to be considered Open Game Content. The Radiance House logo, all trademarks and registered trademarks, proper names (characters, spirits, deitites, artifacts, places, etc), dialogue, plots, storylines, language, concepts, incidents, locations, characters, artwork, logos, and trade dress herein are copyrighted by Dario Nardi and are not Open content.

So the mechanics in Secrets of Pact Magic are open content. I've been re-reading his work, to see if I can come up with enough to do a Donna's Dozens for pact magic.

Another vote for Secrets (and Villians) of Pact Magic.

As to where I put Pact Magic in Golarion? I actually play up the 'secret' part that Dr. Nardi went with in Villians. Pact magic is frowned on by most churches (calling on non-deities, not sure what they're calling on) and I make it part of the 'lost Azlanti' stuff they used to fight the serpentfolk and Aboleth.

Aspects of Golarion? Aroden is a natural idea, as are other 'fallen' deities. I'd think someone might try to bind an aspect of the starstone.

You can't find players at the U of C?

Or, Can Dr Strange beat Sauron?

I picked up the starter set of Lord of the Rings clix (I think Sabertooth had better variety). I was amused that it uses the same mechanics as Heroclix. So you really can have Wolverine take on a cave troll, or Felix Faust vs Sauraman. :-)

Columbus here. Sorry.

Hulk RAGELANCECHARGEPOUNCE puny Sorcerer Supreme!

Anyone else look at the ghoul and think

Alas, poor Yorick! I ate him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent taste; he hath filled my nagging belly a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! My gorge rises at it. Here hung those lips that I have rudely chewed off. Where be your ribs now?

It's not a popularity contest and it's more than an opinion. Offering varying aspects in spellcasting says "hey, we Love vancian casting. Our opinion is that Wizards and Clerics should use vancian spellcasting because it's been done that way for 25+ years. Yet here is system X, Y, and Z for people of opposite opinion which work equally well (or better) than Vancian." THAT is what I hope they're trying to accomplish, not that Vancian system is the be-all, end-all way of casting spells. If they do that, we're all good. If they don't, it's telling us that their opinion is more important or better than ours (ie. not cool).

Now we're back to Unearthed Arcana, with the spellpoint rules and the 3d6 for those who like bellcurves.

(I keep expecting to see "Hitler laments the return of Vancean magic" Downfall parodies.)

Um, because it's D&D Scott.

D&D w/o Vancean casting is (as someone else put it) Starwars w.o lightsabres. Or Battletech w/o Mechs. Or Mutants and Masterminds w/o superheroes.

You yourself said there are several other game systems out there that don't use Vancean casting. I believe I've read posts that it still existed in some form in 4.x.

You may call it "little more than nostalgia and tradition" but it is part of the game. As much as the funny shaped dice.

just thought I should clarify, after thinking about it. When I said "even if I disagree" I meant on banning the trait not on keeping things behind closed doors.

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

Funnily enough, I got such a comment in mine (with the blank being filled by "dhampir").

I've never played a dhampir, have little interest in the race, and wasn't really thinking about them when I designed my item. Go figure, eh?

We all thought that, given the obvious connection. It's funny you weren't thinking that...

That highlights an interesting issue--you should always think through how any item affects all game classes and races.

I'd add that sometimes letting a non-gamer read the product helps. You can be sure they *won't* think like you, and also if they go "That's cool" you might be on to something.*

*

String theory proves that the 4th dimension exists.

And Hair proves the 5th dimension exists.

I wish there were more fantasy cartoons period. Most of the cartoons now are just people/animals/whatever getting jobs, going to school, or just doing nothing.

I think I saw that DC is doing an Princess of Gemworld cartoon.

Hulk want to discuss feelings with Doctor Samson.

Considering how pathetically suboptimal Rich Parents is beyond the kindergarten levels, the Big Cheeses are doing y'all a favor by banning it.

But it's useful for getting through those 'kindergarden' levels. ;-)

More seriously, I understand not wanting to share the discussion (even if I disagree). I'm not sure what would cause more grief. The "We said so" ruling or discussing the duscussion that led to the ruling.

** spoiler omitted **

For me, the removal of Vancian spellcasting made about as much sense as removing Lightsabers from Star Wars; who really sword-fights when everyone in the galaxy is carrying firearms? It's part of the package. Not everything in the game has to be efficient and perfect to "fit." Vancian spellcasting always just felt (to me, not speaking for a crowd) like a part of the game. By removing it, I might as well just go play something else.

I was about to write words to this effect. It would be like playing Battletech w/o mechs, or Doctor Who w/o time travel. Vancean casting is part and parcel of D&D.*

*

Matthew Morris wrote:

Of course I also wondered why WotC never used the SRD in reverse. Publish a book once a year that takes the best 3PP OGL content and puts it in a WotC hard cover.

WotC may not have done it, but Malhavoc Press tried it once, I believe in 2003 or so. For whatever it proves about sales, they did not do another.

I wonder how Unearthed Arcana's sales were.

No offence intended to Monte, but his best of falls into that 'wasn't published by WotC' thing I mentioned above.

Is it me, or if you want more goblins, going into a FLGS and pulling lower left will make you a happy buyer?

If the 5E version has some compatibility with the other versions (something that may or not be intended), then it really doesn't matter if its OGL or not.

This discussion has about reached its saturation point. I believe the OGL was good for WotC and the industry, and the GSL was bad for same, but I can't see how making 5E "completely free rules" will help anyone. WotC is trying to regain market share. They aren't going to manage it by encouraging people to use their rules for free.

Free? No, Elton goes too far with his visions. But I still find myself wondering if a 'delayed freedom' might help products.

One thing that was a balancing point WotC tried to juggle was if their suppliment books should reference anything outside the SRD. This left 'orphan classes' that never got support until the end.*

A '5e SRD' I'd think might be best served a mixture of the two. Put out elements of 'the core three' in an SRD. Wait a bit and put out the rest. Put out a 'complete gish' and six months (or however long the sales lifecycle is estimated to be) put that out as OGL

In the meantime, you've released books with closed content feats for the core classes/monsters etc. You've also release books with supliments for the 'complete gish'. Now once the 'complete gish' stuff is added to the SRD, there's a demand for the suplimental material all over again. Plus there's the 'free advertising' aspect that comes with it. The only place to find a duskblade was in a WotC adventure** With my model, I envision a 'second wave' adventure from (for example) Frog God Games, would result in a duskblade appearing in that 3PP adventure, sending the GM (and the players) to th SRD or to the books for this class, and sparking new interest in the (still) closed content from the newer books.

Of course I also wondered why WotC never used the SRD in reverse. Publish a book once a year that takes the best 3PP OGL content and puts it in a WotC hard cover. Sure unearthed Arcana was a start, but bascially you're development costs of a 'best of' book are covered. And at the very least you'll sell it to the 'zombies' who only buy 'official content'.***

*Shrug* I'm an amature writer not a businessman.

*

Diffan,

IMNSHO, I think the two things to remember are that a) Midnight was mortal, not all the gods were, and b) she's still young and learning 'off panel'.

I'd guess that a conversation about the red wizards would have gone like this.

Don't forget, Talos (not Grummish, damnit!) was making inroads in stealing evocation because she wasn't focusing on all magic.

Even the 'veteran' gods make mistakes. I mean look at Karsus.

Mystril: *bebopping along, protecting the weave, enjoying new magic being created* That Karsus guy has potentital.
Karus: *Casts epic spell, blows up the weave.*
Mystra: Oh crap! Let's not do THAT again.

Edit: Also there's the 'big gods break the world' aspect. If Mystra denies Talos magic, then Talos sends thunderstorms to level Shadowdale, which gets Chauntena mad so his people don't get crops, then Waukeen's commerse gets disrupted.... It's no fun being a god without worshipers.

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." - Groucho Marx.

For those of you who have me on FB, I just uploaded a pic of the blue goblins standing beside the Blackest Night Scarecrow at work for a sense of scale. I'm hoping to put pics comparing PF minis to Reaper and DDM minis this weekend.

Adding my case. Boxes back to front, left to right. some weird distribution
Box 1
Ogre, Troll, Frost Giant
Zombie, Medusa, Giant Spider, Vampire, wolf, snake, human rogue, human ranger
Red goblin, half elf cleric, skeleton, gnome/dire rat, watch guard, spectre, watch officer, Seelah.
Box 2
Troll, ettin, Giant cave weaver
Zombie, Medusa, Giant Spider, Succubus, Wolf, Snake, Mummy, Elf Wizard
Blue Goblins, half elf cleric, orc brute, human druid, skeleton, spectre, watch officer, werewolf
Box 3
Ogre. troll, manticore
Watch guard, medusa, lizardfolk champion, succubus, giant spider, snake, mummy, human rogue
Red goblins, human ranger, blue goblins, gnome/rat, orc warrior, spectre, skeleton, seelah
Box 4
Minotaur, ettin, chimera
Zombie, werewolf, giant spider, lich, wolf, mummy, elf wizard, half elf cleric,
Blue Goblins dwarf fighter orc warrior, human druid, watch officer, gargoyle, lizardfolk champion, half orc barbarian.

So I got more medusae and specters than lizardmen and orcs.
10 goblins! :-)

Working on renovating the basement, so I may have to do some side by side of the D&D Goblins and spiders and their pathfinder counterparts.

Something just hit me with Galt, and I thought I'd share it.

Would A Tale of Two Cities be good 'inspirational reading' for Galt? And what other classics would 'mesh' with Golarion?

I'd see if you can find a GM in your area who will run Master of the Fallen Fortress or First Steps. Both can be rather 'forgiving' i've found. Also IIRC First steps can be played GMed over and over (for different characters)

Figures. They're cancelling Static. Which when I went to subscribe it wasnt on the list, so you know they planned it to fail at the start. They're canceling Hawk and Dove. BUT! They're giving Rob Suckfeld Hawkman and some other title. So cancel those titles as well. Great business model guys... Anyone else notice that Simone is off Firestorm?

More Static comments here

I still think there should be a DCAU 'kids' series.

*lights cigar* Hulk love it when a plan comes together!

Anusingly I could see Joe Fixit or the Professor do this. :-)

Either way, it isn’t good form to make a comment that could easily be interpreted as an insult towards a judge. Your “harsh criticism” came across as though you were implying he had no credibility or business being a judge.

Heh, it's not good form to insult anyone*. And I say this as a, um, blunt person who doesn't care what people on the intertubes think of me.

*

Tangent to Neil's Tangent.

Hmm, I've learned my dice do not agree with my bluff attempts.

I've learned it's nice to game with people who catch when I cast comprehend languages and say "Stewardess! Stewardess! I speak Jive."

I've learned that I'll have to warn in advance if I bring my niece to play.

Echoing Neil's words, there's also a certain 'trap' element in each round. You have to balance playing the round's strengths vs trying something innovative.

I beleive (said in Larry the Cable Guy voice*) that if my monster entry had been as light hearted as the tankard I'd not have advanced. Likewise I went for the caltrop golem with a specific goal in mind. I missed part of the goal (error on the bleed rules) but did well enough to get through.

If you got through the first round with a trenchcoat of holding then the second round with a Taldoran Speakeasy, then the third round with a mute fae with cleptomaniac tendancies, then the next round with an encounter that was a chase scene through an orchestra (complete with piano and harp playing) and finally your module proposal was a band of four adventurers trying to keep the country safe from an invading nation, while placating your rich patron... Well you might be seen as a one note *honk* writer.

*

Some other OGL musings.

Depending on how the final product looks, I think 5e content (ala KQ) could still be produced under the OGL. Reprinting the PHB might be a stretch, but I don't see rabid packs o'lawyers going after the retro clones out there.

D&D as a brand is still pretty dominant. Paraphrasing what others have said, it's the Xerox of RPGs. Pop quiz. How many of the photocopiers in your office are Xerox?

The world has changed. Tying into my first thought, I seem to recall TSR's net rep* said as a general rule they didn't mind one copy of the PHB or such being shared among a gaming group. Usenet as a collective immediately asked what defined a 'gaming group'. This is much more a question now with virtual tabletops and the like. If I had the urge to translate the Damascarran or Donna's Dozens into 5e terms would WotC send rabid packs of lawyers after me? Would they if I shared my work with my 'gaming group'? Would they if I put it on google docs for download? How much of the core rules could I reference? For example if I say "The Damascarran makes checks in the following skills with a bonus" (based on the 5e transcript as an example) does that cross the line?

There's a difference between allowing and encouraging. I doubt I'd be able to buy SGG's "Guide to the 5e fighter" off the WotC Website. Even if WotC's final product allows flexibility that the GSL doesn't, 3pp do have to look at marketing. Will WotC use its 250 lbs linebacker influcence on marketing 3pp? Will they go to Paizo/DrivethruRPG/other digital storefronts and say "Here's all the yummy 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, PDFs. You can sell them but not 3PP 5e product?" One thing about Paizo, they are more than happy to sell others people's stuff. If I thought my stuff was worth buying, I could sell it through Paizo's storefront and possibly get free advertising in the form of a blog post. How WotC treats (or neglects) the 3PP might make a big difference in how they're perceived.

I've listed why I think WotC should be OGL friendly, others disagree. Just posting food for thought above.

*

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317494-seminar-transcript-reimagining-ski lls-ability-scores.html#post5798645

Transcript from the final seminar is up.

Thank you Robert, I'm not sure I like all I'm seeing. Role playing is one thing, but I don't have an intelligence of 18, or a wisdom of 12. Likewise, how can a bashful player carry the day with roleplaying the rousing speech? I mean in Pathfinder, if I have an gregarious player, I can give him a circumstance bonus for role playing. For that shy player, he can do his best and let the dice do the talking.

I'll have to look at the public play tests, and go from there.

Matthew Morris wrote:

IIRC, all the chosen are 'crazy' Defining crazy as "not thinking as a normal human" I don't know if godhood would fix her or not.

The last thing I want to see is another obbsessive goddess in charge of magic. I understand stand she can't stand the Red Wizards yet it's something they should remove from the character if they elevate her to godhood.

Well they'd have to, but If I recall Ed's conversations correctly, it's that all the Chosen follow Mystra's tennent of spreading magical knowlege, it's filtered through the mortal perceptions. That conflict results in the 'crazy'.

Elminster's style is to drop new spells in places
Khelben's is through ordered discovery.
Simbul's is through conflict and keeping the world 'safe' through controlling/hampering the spread of dangerous magic. (That and I think she just likes blowing stuff up.)
Etc etc.
Elminster and Khelben get into an argument about how to carry out Mystra's will in the Knights of Myth Drannor, and the Simbul has threatened to kill Elmisnter twice to prevent the spread of potentially dangerous magic.
Don't forget, the guy who founded the Cult of the Dragon and I thought Halaster was as well but I guess I was wrong.
After the forum I attended at Origins a few years ago (and after reading Blackstaff) I realized that being one of Mystra's chosen isn't really that much a blessing, as the way I see Ed's vision.