Phil. L's page

I don't know if this question has been asked before but what design principles have been followed when developing this game? Is this a question that Paizo staff can't answer, and if not why not?

I'm asking you these questions because you have asked for quite a bit of feedback from people but haven't elaborated on why you have made these design decisions in the first place. It's interesting that you want comments about the game but haven't elaborated any further than you have about your decision making process. In the Alpha rules you briefly talk about things like more hit points (which most posters agree with) but what about the bigger changes in the game? for instance:

1. Why did the team change the skill point system and have you been surprised by the response?

2. What were the thoughts behind the new Combat Feat rules? Why were chaining feats created? Did you expect the strong backlash that you have received?

3. The classes. Why did the designers feel that all the classes needed a boost? Most people agree that they did, but what were the throughts behind things like rogue talents and domain powers? Plus, considering that clerics are already regarded as one of the most powerful base classes why did they need to be even better?

4. Why change the turning rules? Was it simply to give clerics more healing or was there something more to it?

5. Why change the grapple rules? We know that the grapple rules needed to be changed, but what made the team decide on the CMB?

6. Why did the XP rules need to be changed? In the team's estimation, what was wrong with the original system?

Some of these questions have been answered in a piecemeal approach, but not in any concerted way. Perhaps if people knew some of the reasons you changed things they would be more likely to agree with you. Then again, it might not make any difference. At the very least it would give us an insight into the minds of people like Jason, Mike, James and Erik.

So, how about it?

I have some bad news that I just heard from a friend for all those fans of the Wheel of Time books. Robert Jordan has sadly passed away. My thoughts go out to his friends and family.

Just a quick question to JJ, Greg AV, or anyone else out there who is in the know.

What would be the Charisma checks for Isildahur, Azivadexus (or whatever the T-rex demon lord is called) and Belcherek (who is strangely missing from the list) if they decided to take over Demogorgon's mantle (and why wouldn't they)?

That is all.

Is their anything in the WotC license which prevents Paizo from using certain avatars? Can Paizo still use pictures of beholders and mind flayers as avatars? What about avatars of WotC miniatures line?

The answer is probably yes on both accounts (I would think), though I'm not 100% sure.

Of course, I am getting sick of seeing certain peoples avatars everywhere. You know who you are ;-)

I've seen the art gallery for MM V (probably not alone there). I am pretty stoked about the monsters I saw. For those who disliked MM IV because there were not enough monsters MM V makes up for it in spades.

Pity, there are all those people who aren't going to buy WotC stuff anymore. I'm afraid to say outside a few of the bigger companies, WotC does the best monster books in the business (though they faltered slightly with MM IV in my belief).

Just the number of pictures featuring poor heroes just about to die or already dead makes me hope they were all quaterlings (those who have read the old Red Box basic D&D set know what I mean).

With all those word games out there I thought I'd try a different spin on things.

Everyone knows the game six degrees of separation (and its famous spin-off's like six degrees of Bacon) as well as the movie (great flick by the way), but what about six degrees of D&D?

Here are the rules of the game (my rules anyway)

You must link two different D&D characters such as Elminster and Dragotha by 5 or fewer other D&D characters. If the person knows the other person they are one degree separated (so Elminster and Khelbun are one degree separated). If they both know someone but haven't actually met they are two degrees separated (so Elminster and Raistlin are two degrees separated since they both know Dalamar but haven't actually met [at least I don't think so]}. I think that you get the drift. ;-)

So...

Elminster and Dragotha?

The rumor is going around that WotC might release the prelim stuff for 4th Ed. at Gen Con. If this is true, what do you want to see changed in the game? Do you want 4th Ed. to be a complete change from 3.5 or simply a further refinement of the current rules?

Of course, this line of questioning is probably mute since we can't change anything, but I think it's fun to think about anyway.

Others out there might not be so appreciative, but I can handle any abuse. ;-)

We all know that some people have issues with the races "I hate elves" and the classes "wizards suck" of D&D, but what about the rules or game mechanics themselves?

What do you consider to be the most broken or annoying rule or game mechanic in D&D and why do you feel/think this way about it?

A few people (like Lawgiver) might have an interesting take on this since they play a different edition of the game, so their input is still appreciated (and I can't stop them anyway).

Of course, if there is anyone out there who wants to say that I'm trying to start an argument, I'd say that perhaps you're right. ;-)

Sorry, I'm going to do a Steve Greer and tell you that I have a module coming out with Goodman Games next month. Its Called Tears of the Genie.

Sorry if self promotion for another company is not allowed on this website but this is payback for Paizo for not bringing out their submission guidelines for Pathfinder yet when I've got mountains of monsters to throw at them!!!

Whew, I'm sure there should have been a comma or period in that rant.

Is the material presented in the DUNGEON adventure paths canon? In other words, will WotC honor the fact that Kyuss has been destroyed in the previous AP or that Demogorgon may or may not be destroyed in the current one, or is what Paizo does with such characters irrelevant in their eyes?

Just a thought I'd like to throw out to the Paizo people.

Rocks, rocks, rocks, rocks!!!!

Roger Rabbit was framed? And here I thought the carrot-muncher was a hardened crim!

What has been the best edition of the game and why?

I think 3.5 is superior to all the previous editions of the game, but are their people who disagree with me? Also, if you disagree with me is it just nostalgia talking or do you have a good reason?

Plus, is there anything from a previous edition that should be in 3.5? E.g. In 1st Edition monsters XP used to be partly based on their hit points. Should this be represented in some form in 3.5? Should a bulette with maximum hit points be worth more XP than a bulette with average hit points. What about a bulette with only minimum hit points? Should it be worth less?

The above is only an example of something from another edition. You are free to mention it or anything else you deem important. The central question is whether these editions have anything to add to 3.5 and/or are they better?

Here are a few questions for you folks.

1. A lot of people only use official material from WotC when running your D&D campaigns. Why is this so, and why don't you use OGL material? On the other hand if you do use OGL material how do you incorporate it into your campaign? Is most OGL stuff even compatible with official D&D?

and...

2. Do all the WotC splatbooks add to the game of D&D or detract from it? Do all the splatbooks form a cohesive whole or do they step on each others toes and confuse the rules of the game? What splatbooks have been a good addition to the game and what splatbooks have been bad?

A lot of DMs use these messageboards to talk about the problems they are facing in their games or different strategies they can use to make the PCs lives easier or harder. A few recent threads have made me wonder what makes a bad DM?

I'll start by telling you a few things that I have done in my past that have been bad DMing:

In the early days I used to railroad my players into decisions. If they didn't go in a particular direction or do something I liked I would force them into changing to suit me. If I created a gate that needed a specific magical key to open they would need that key and everything else they tried would inevitably fail. Now that was bad DMing!

I sometimes used to disallow rules or classes or races because I didn't like them. Some people might disagree with me, but unless you have a very good "in game" reason for doing it, this is bad DMing.

Recently (in my COC campaign), I focused on one group of PCs over another. This was a timing thing more than anything else, but it made me think about DMs who play favorites. It happens, and it's more bad DMing.

I used to think that because it was my game the opinions or criticisms of others were b#~&%!@!. I had to be right. Some of the my players are STILL like this when they DM (which is why I'm the main DM). A DM who can't take criticism or opinions about his or her game is a bad DM.

Now that last comment is really going to get up some peoples noses.

I was thinking of replacing Lavinia with a lilitu in "Into the Maw". My reasoning is that Malcanthet might want to have a little extra control over the PCs in her attempts to demolish Demogorgon rather than let the PCs have free reign to do as they wish. My other option is to replace Lavinia with Lynnara (and get rid of her from area 24.).

In this scenario Lavinia has been secreted away by Malcanthet to be used as a bargaining chip should the PCs decide to do something against Malcanthet's wishes (such as release Shami in "Wells of Darkness"). I'm just not sure what should happen to Lavinia. I'm thinking of having Malcanthet release her when Demogorgon is disposed of.

My other option is to have Lavinia transformed into a lemorina half-fiend and have her stand by the side of her dead brother against the PCs. This would be truly horrifying for the PCs who have built up a rapport with her. Of course, this also should not mean that Lavinia needs to be destroyed. Perhaps the process can be reversed (by traveling to the flesh forges or with a wish spell).

Opinions?

The latest STAP segment makes me start wondering about James Jacob's comments about CR and how it starts breaking down at higher levels. The stats for Vanthus brings his comments back into focus.

Vanthus is a wuss. We have a CR 20 villain with less than 100 hit points, DR 15/magic and an SR of 25?!? Even with his tactics (specifically designed so he doesn't have to fight toe to toe with all the PCs), his armor class, and his death knight and half-fiend abilities he should be a pushover for four determined 17th-level PCs. Particularly if they have rested and prepared beforehand.

Now this is not a problem of the DUNGEON staff, but is a problem with way high-level monsters are designed. I'll give you a few examples:

1. By the time characters are 10th-level even the wizard should have a couple of magic weapons, so having DR magic for monsters past CR 10-12 is stupid. A death knight should have the same DR as a lich, since in many ways they are supposed to be the liches fighting equivalent.

2. The 2 templates Vanthus is saddled with give him +6 to his CR. Now the templates have been added to make him more fearsome and terrifying, but by the time the PCs are this high-level the templates are more disadvantageous to Vanthus than helpful. Stripping the 2 templates gives Vanthus 6 more levels! Even stripping him of one of the templates would give him 3 more levels. This equates to a lot of combat effective abilities, more hit points, skill points, feats, and ability score increases. I'm not saying the templates shouldn't have been added, but what did Vanthus lose out on in return?

3. Undead hit points. Hit points are the most important currency in the game. That's why WotC have recently given a lot of undead unholy toughness as an ability (Necromancer Games have done the same thing with a feat). Since this was used to make Dragotha more than he was, why not do the same for Vanthus? Heck, give him the unholy grace ability as well. It's my belief that corporeal undead (at least) should be given bonus hit points in the same way that constructs get bonus hit points and that when the transition is made Paizo should make use of that feat I was talking about as well.

There are a few other things I could mention, but I don't want to sound like a massive whiner. Perhaps I am, but I think I'll leave if up for you to decide. ;-)

Has anyone ever had to exclude/kick someone out of their gaming group, what method was used, and were there any repercussions?

To start things off: I kicked a player out of my gaming group once because she was more interested in other things than actually roleplaying and detracted from everyone elses enjoyment of the game. I'm not particularly proud of what I did, but it was necessary from a gaming perspective. I kicked her out over the phone (yes it's as slack as doing it to a girlfriend, and I felt bad afterwards). Thankfully, there were no repercussions.

Here's another thing that has always bugged me. Why doesn't a creature's relevant ability score affect how many 0-level spells they get? Why are 0-level spells different? Personally, I just follow along with the crowd, but I still think it's wrong.

This has probably been brought up somewhere else, but I'd still like to know why its always been that way.

Thoughts?

This little thread should probably be on the WotC site, but I like you guys better, so i'm putting it here.

In MMIV they listed that some monsters breath weapons and other damage causing abilities improve in damage as they advance in Hit Dice (usually at a rate of 1d6 damage per 2 HD). Now that's something I have used in my games anyway, but could (and should) it be applied retroactively to the monsters in the previous manuals? A dragon's breath weapon improves as it goes up in Hit Dice, so why shouldn't the sonic blast of a gargantuan 24 HD yrthrak or the lightning breath of a 27 HD behir improve? I know that the save DC increases, so shouldn't the damage as well?

Thoughts?

Well, the half-way point in the current AP has been released, so it's about time we talk about the next one. I'll start off by saying that given James likes and dislikes the next AP will feature no dire corbies (pity). We've had undead and a double dose of outsiders, so the next AP will most likely feature aberrations as the major enemies, and may have something to do with the Far Realm. That's my take on it anyway?

What's yours?

PS. Hopefully this thread has not already been started by someone else. If it has, apologies. :)

Spoilers...

Is destroying the tear of Tlaloc really that necessary? If the PCs destroy the bilewretch and kill all the kopru, then go up to the surface and complete the next stage (the other ruined city) won't that alleviate the need to destroy the tear? Sure, some of the kopru may survive the PCs activities, but it at least stops the aboleth from reawakening.

Spoilers...

I just know that my players will want to help with the evacuation and relocation of the people of Barbas. The adventure doesn't give much of an insight into how the PCs can help the citizens, especially considering that their eventual location might be just as bad as the one they came from (I would hardly call their community a model of excellence). Also, since the people of Barbas travel in much the same direction as the PCs came from where exactly could they live? The troglodyte den is hardly a sanitary place to start up a new town.

The other thing is the troglodytes. My party contains several good-aligned individuals who might very well try to heal all the stricken trogs (the ones that don't attack them anyway). Just leaving the stricken trogs behind could very well spell their deaths (since no one would be putting black poultices on them).

A bit of creative feedback into how to deal with these situations (if they should arise) would be much appreciated.

I'm not sure if this has already been addressed, but what happens if someone tries to fly up to the plateau and look about before they reach the required level to tackle the area? A 5th-level druid could wildshape into a bird and fly over the top of the plateau as could a 7th-level paladin with a hippogriff mount. Are there mists or some such which prevent the PCs from seeing anything? Are the winds so ferocious that it makes this a dangerous exercise? If not, what's to stop a PC from flying up to the plateau and taking a look around? I realize that issue 145 isn't out yet so this point is largely mute, but some DMs are just starting the STAP or are only a little way along so its still possible that they might face this problem.

I know I'm jumping the gun a bit here, but I'm thinking of incorporating the Styes in the STAP. I just don't know whether to use it on its own (as a place where my large group can gain a bit of extra XP if they don't have sufficient power to tackle some of the high-level adventures) or as a replacement for Sasserine (probably not given how great the city is) or Scuttlecove (though Styes harbor isn't as good as Scuttlecove's and the Styes doesn't have any resident pirates that I know of).

The other place is Saltmarsh. I find it a bit unfortunate that the only safe city in the campaign is Sasserine and the party leave it behind after only 2 adventures. I feel like I want to save Sasserine for later on, since low-level PCs can't really appreciate what a big city like that has to offer. I think Saltmarsh is a good alternative, but was wondering what changes I might need to make to the first few adventures or the town itself.

I have just finished reading the Fiendish Codex (well the first one anyhow) and found a few things quite interesting. Here's a few things I've picked out:

1. In The Wells of Darkness is trapped a rather interesting demon named Shami-Amourae (who also appeared in an early Dungeon adventure). Now, if I'm not mistaken this former lover of Demogorgon has a secret that might be central in a plot to overthrow the demon prince. Mmmm...

2. Dagon is allied with Demogorgon, and the Prince of Demons has learned many ancient secrets about the Abyss from the Obyrith lord. Double mmm...

3. The entire realm of the Gaping Maw. Possible STAP enemies in the form of Kargath the Betrayer, the balor Belcheresk, and The Blood Empress. Triple mmm...

Anybody else notice any "hints" about the STAP in this book?

While Chris has written an excellent adventure there are two things I want to address. One of them is a bit of errata, and the other is a question for Chris himself (or perhaps someone else in the know).

I was just looking at Agrio "Wingclipper" Starkson's stats when I noticed he was only 7th-level. While this presents no problem for me those that like to play by the rules may want to note that Agrio is not high enough level to have a crocodile as an animal companion (he must be at least 8th-level according to the PHB). Now if this has since been errated I apologize, but if it hasn't its a point of order I thought I'd address. Also the hobgoblin druid's alignment is wrong if he's a druid.

the second thing is I don't have a copy of DRAGON COMPENDIUM 222 (is that the latest one?), so don't have the unseelie/seelie templates. In what DRAGON magazine issue was it in because I have all the 3rd Ed. and 3.5 Ed. DRAGON issues except one? I just hope it's not a 2nd Ed. DRAGON issue.

Message to the editors (and anyone else who wants to chime in).

Will material from either Incarnum or Heroes of Horror make it into the AOW? I know that Incarnum might be seen in the same light as psionics (and thus not AOW worthy material), but it would be nice to see the new source of power in D&D officially used in an adventure. As for Heroes of Horror, the AOW seems a perfect place for the material from that book to be used, especially since material from BoVD is getting used.

On a similar note, I see that a lot of people are using Weapons of Legacy to give their AOW campaigns an extra twist. How about bringing a weapon of legacy into the AOW in the next couple of adventures? I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate the effort.