R_Chance's page

I'm pretty sure the Brothel got renamed the "Dance Hall."

I just busted up laughing about that one. I had wondered why dancing was so popular... I guess it's the horizontal kind :D

It's really only racist through the modern lens, and to say that he was even more racist than the majority of his peers at the time is a pretty big stretch. Darwin's theory (which is pretty full of ethnically inferiority of all but most white people) is going strong at the time, and that is a prevalent scientific truth for the time.

At the same time, what little Lovecraft I have read does also tend to show negro individuals as playing to some of their ethnic strengths at times, both in their ability to survive common ailments because they where more acclimated to living that way, physical strength, and sometimes the ability to scratch the surface because of a sort of occult superstition.

Darwin's Theory has nothing to do with racism. Just evolution by selection in nature. Those more fit for an environment are more likely to survive to have descendants and pass on their characteristics. Social Darwinism does have to do with racism / cultural bigotry. Social Darwinism was the application of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest to human beings and human societies. Don't blame Darwin for the popularization and misuse of his theory.

Can we take the "pre-adult ages for non-human races" to another thread, please?

So, threads reproduce asexually by budding off / deviding. Or is it sexually? With an OP and someone who "suggests" a split? Interesting. You can learn so much on message boards :D

*edit* Ahem, normally, in more ways than one, this would not have popped into my mind, but I just read a couple of articles on genetics and reproduction.

I preferred it be rarer in my (homebrew) game. The result; Raise Dead has a limited duration. It is meant to give a character some time to settle their affairs, finish what they were into or get back to where a Resurrection spell is available (which is permanent). It's different (and takes some getting used to), cuts back on the permanent return to life and has spawned some interesting role playing. There's nothing like a wake where the deceased is an active participant :D

Then too, different temples have their own requirements for resurrection and their are inheritance laws that prevent or restrict it...

It has also made Reincarnation more popular as a lower level alternative to "just plain dead" :) and personally, I've always found reincarnation to be entertaining...

I wonder at the consequences: With toddler children for 20+ years, perhaps elven parents naturally need to be very patient and therefore, they should be very used to dealing with 'dumber' races. Either that or the elves give their children to the state to be communally raised, so they have time to do other things. The long aging period would seem to have a great deal of social and community-based effects.

I have always assumed that Elves took longer to do things. Growing up? A century. Pregnancy? 5-10 years. Given Elvish life spans (and mine are still based on the old 1E trope, over a thousand years certainly depending on the sub race) they should have patience beyond shorter lived races. And really odd resumes :) They should be able to focus on what they are doing for many years; years a human wouldn't have the patience to do without it being a life long commitment, and then move on to something different. Doing military service for 20 years with total dedication. No problem. Like a human doing a couple of years in the service. Going on a "road trip" carousing for years. Sure thing, like a human on summer vacation. Doing a walk about as an adventurer for a decade or more... just another step in a young Elves life. Raising a munchkin for a century would be a more serious commitment, but the job of raising Elvish children might be more spread out to parents, aunts and uncles, godparents, academies, age cohorts (as they enter adolescence) etc.

I'm a subscriber, and I'm still waiting. Which is OK. I'm typing this between grading papers. I just finished jury duty and I'm trying to force my seniors to graduate. Some of them are resisting. So, next week would be good for me :)

Does sound nice though. And I would probably be playing hooky and reading it... so definitely next week. Or later in the week... I'm weakening...

I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet, but Making Crafting Work is a low cost 3rd party pdf that is highly recommended if crafting is big part of your games.

It is good, and it's been mentioned, and I think ignored, several times. :)

Regarding the recent review (of one star) that said the cover art was used without permission...

On Gabriel Verdon's site Here, you can see a list of products that Mr. Verdon is proudly demonstrating his artwork on. The list includes several E-books (Genius Guides, Bullet Points, and Ultimate Options). Since I don't own the product I can't review it and correct it in the reviews.

That is pretty peculiar given the item in question is listed on the artists page you listed under "e-books" as Cheapy mentioned. The "reviewer" is a one post wonder too...

Marc Radle wrote:

Black Dougal wrote:

Just saw it..

... $25/30 to see again in the theatre.

$25/30 to see a movie in the theater? Wow, where do you live???

13 bucks for a ticket, 13 bucks for a large coke and chilli nachos.

So, when I pay $8 to see it and $6 for a coke I should send up a prayer of gratitude for living in the one non-expensive place in California (it can easily be mistaken for one of the hotter more desolate places in Texas...)? Hurrah Bakersfield! Bring on those 100+ degree days, at least the movies are cheap!!!

Bill Dunn wrote:

The shift to 3e from 2e didn't allow us to be nearly as seamless, yet conversions from 2e to 3e worked reasonably well. We could't really even do that with 4e so there was no chance of taking the 20+ year old campaign and characters to the new system.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't agree with this last part. I'm pretty sure it was possible to convert a 3E campaign to a 4E one -- I know people that did it.

Conversion from 2E to 3E took work. Quite a bit more than 0E to 1E or 1E to 2E. I suppose I could have converted from 3.5E to 4E, but it would have gone beyond "work". If I didn't mind trashing most of my setting and starting new it could have been done. I bought the 4E core books btw to check it out for myself. I did not take the word of angry posters etc. After reading them I made the decision, well I like to think WotC did it for me, to stick with 3.5 (later PF). I gave my 4E books away. Something I've never done before. It wasn't so much that 4E was "horrible" or "a betrayal of D&D". That type of thing makes me roll my eyes. It was simply a completely different game in the same genre of FRPGs. And I didn't have the time, or inclination, to learn / play a game that different from what I already knew and liked. Ymmv.

Son of the Veterinarian wrote:

While I was more than happy to wave goodbye to THACO and not look back, I will say that I still consider The Complete Book of Necromancers the best supplement WotC ever put out.

Sorry but that was TSR not WoTC buddy.

And given your revival of this thread you must have taken The Complete Book of Necromancers seriously :)

Precisely: the sudden and rapid accelleration of technological development in Europe in the modern era is essentially a historical fluke.

China had guns for hundreds of years but never developed them beyond a fairly simple design. The Song dynasty had joint-stock companies and the printing press and produced iron products on an industrial scale, but didn't experience the kind of world-changing industrial revolution that Europe would later experience.

While China provides a number of good examples because the Chinese developed a number of the technologies that we associate with modernity in the west, most of the history of the world stands as a counterexample to the notion that technological progress must proceed in any kind of predictable pattern. Events came together in Europe in such a way that European technologies and ideas have spread across the globe, but those events occurred only once and only after anatomically modern humans had been around for the better part of 200,000 years.

I see no reason to believe that the history of technology would necessarily unfold the same way on another world, even one that superficially resembles our own.

All too true. What I expect to be the same is human nature. Give people enough time, the possibility, and the right circumstances and things will happen.

I think, with firearms, the designer have made a good attempt at rationalizing why they aren't spreading all over the world.

Alkenstar is kind of boxed-in, trade-wise, by Nex and Geb, arguably the two most magically-potent nations in the Inner Sea, both at least somewhat invested in maintaining the dominance of their own magical exports, and the ones most likely to have unarmored troops with magical or supernatural defenses (negating at least some of the advantage of firearms over longbows). If guns leave Alkenstar in any meaningful numbers, it would be through Katapesh (whose economy is ruthlessly controlled by the Pactmasters, who may well be taking financial incentives from Nex to 'discourage' or 'lose' any large shipments of firearms from leaving Alkenstar via their ports).

Although the notion of a marauding gnoll tribe with plundered guns raiding caravans in the area has a certain sweetness...

From a thematic standpoint, I could see small quantities of guns being smuggled out of Alkenstar, which, naturally, would lead to them appearing more often in the hands of *pirates* than in the hands of the Taldan or Andoren militaries. It would be an interesting reversal of real world developments if a pirate ship coming out of the Shackles was going to be the first to shock a Chelish blockade ship by opening fire with cannons...

Numeria, on the other hand, doesn't really seem to have much in the way of firearms, or any sort of technology that isn't *strictly* controlled by the 'techno-sorcerers' of the Black Sovereign. The nation itself seems less like 'innovators' and more like scavengers using things they barely (if at all) understand (more like the 'gnolls with guns' mentioned above, than the natives of Alkenstar).

I agree to an extent, but it isn't just guns physically getting out, it's the knowledge of them. One gunsmith leaves Alkenstar and the cats out of the bag. Britain experienced this when they tried to block the ideas of the industrial revolution from escaping the British Isles. A couple of individuals found their way to Belgium and the secret was out. How long has Alkenstar had guns? It only took a couple of generations for the ideas to mature and escape from England.

Alternately, capturing the gun from pirates or marauders and reverse engineering it would not be too unlikely a possibility either.

A new military technology is perhaps the most difficult thing to contain. Take a look at nuclear proliferation today and it's a safe bet that nuclear technology is far more complex than gunpowder. If some societies are too conservative and unwilling to accept change (which I can well believe) others aren't and, sooner or later, the technology will find it's way to them.

All imo, of course. The exact circumstances of any given situation might either accelerate or retard the spread of a new technology of course. I killed the possibility off early in my own game by having alternate physics / biology / science leaving attempts at making gunpowder useless. I haven't regretted the decision, but ymmv.

I apologize for misunderstanding your opinions, R Chance. Sometimes I get weirdly defensive of things that I've gotten a bit obsessed with. :P

I will point out, though, that Alkenstar and it's guns have been around in the setting since before they did firearm rules for Pathfinder, and there are a lot of other rules they've introduced that they haven't tried to shoehorn into the setting yet.

It is unusual that nobody else uses guns, especially since just about everybody in the setting seems to have fireworks, but, for me, that's the kind of thing that's not hard to explain away. After all, the Chinese were using gunpowder weapons from at least the 10th century and hand cannons from the 12th century, and yet they don't seem to have redefined Chinese warfare in the way they did for Europe; at least not until the Chinese started coming into regular contact with European firearms.

No big deal, I do the same. And it's easy to misunderstand things on message boards.

As for Golarion, I think they have placed stuff in odd corners (Alkenstar for example) on purpose in case they wanted to add things at a later date or because they planned to. It's smart, and, to be honest, I've sited things that I hadn't yet worked out / included in odd corners of my own setting. Of course, some of those things got deleted while others are in the setting. The advantage of a homebrew campaign - you don't have to justify changes that are out of your characters sight :)

The connection between China and Europe was pretty limited. The Chinese made significant use of gunpowder, but didn't advance their technology the way Europe did. European use of gunpowder accelerated with technological advancement. And yeah, they were shocked about the uses the western barbarians had put gunpowder to.

I'm interested to hear some details about your home setting, because for my money Golarion fits together about as "logically" as could be expected for a D&D world. I think your implication that Golarion is a "commecial" setting designed around the need to incorporate everything from the Pathfinder rules is pretty unfair.

My setting started out as a campaign setting for Chainmail several years before D&D existed. I converted it to D&D in 1974 when I got my first set of the LBBs. I've been tweaking it and working on it for almost 4 decades since. It's the only setting I've used (although I have read several - I'm not above borrowing good ideas). I've read tons of fantasy, mythology etc. I have multiple degrees in history and cultural anthropology. In the course of it's existence I have advanced my timeline between editions and built up a solid history for the setting. I've dismantled the various races and worked on their cultures as well. It's been... lived in. I'm sure Golarion has as well, it's James Jacob's home game in large part iirc, but it's also been used as the home campaign of Paizo's system. There were differences between Gygax's and Arneson's home games and the commercial versions too. After all, who would want to give away all their secrets? :)

Now, first of all, I said Golarion is good, it just has to cover all the bases. Logic... tell me why guns are only popular in one nation on Golarion, Alkenstar iirc. Nobody else thinks it would be nice to reach past all that heavy armor that gives armored knights / infantry an advantage? Has nobody noticed it? Those people who have the technology to make plate armor and so on can't make guns? It's hard to justify any reason why firearms aren't more popular. Magic is the default reason, but I'm sorry, magic or no magic guns would be useful. Once guns appeared in Europe they spread rapidly. Nonetheless, I can see the reason for the limitation. It gives firearm wielding characters a reason to exist without having firearms stuffed into all other areas and all the others peoples games (who may not want it) and still be the same setting. It's a well done setting, but it has to accommodate their material and it's well designed to do that.

Many of the developers have shown through their active forum participation that they've put a lot of thought and energy into the Pathfinder Chronicles setting and are genuinely passionate about what they've created. The writers at Paizo have explored many of Golarion's nations and the ways they interact with each other in depth through both setting fluff and related fiction.

I agree, they have done so and are passionate about it. I don't have your familiarity with the material on Golarion, but as I understand it there have been shifts in what is "cannon" over the years. And there have been in my game as well. Just not as many, because there is only one of me and I don't have to accommodate anything I wouldn't want in my game. I have sat around producing "histories", "ethnologies", "biographies" and tons of miscellaneous material over the years. I don't do novels though :)

Don't get me wrong; I don't expect everybody to have read the unreasonable amount of Pathfinder stuff that I have, nor do I think that the setting is some kind of flawless vision of the best of all possible fantasy worlds. I myself have a whole lot of head-canon that I use in my games to smooth over issues like what the heck all those people in Irrisen and the Mana Wastes are eating. It just gets my hackles up when people dismiss a work of fiction I'm fond of out of hand and say "meh, I can do better."

It's not "meh" to me, as I've said, it's well done. As settings I'm familiar with go, I'd place it with Greyhawk, Blackmoor, The Forgotten Realms, Glorantha and, at the pinnacle of it's type, Tekumel. That is not faint praise. And I know people homebrew / use "head-cannon" (I like that phrase) in these settings. As I'm sure they would if they had mine. In short, it's very good, but it is a commercial setting. There are advantages to that (numerous talented people working on it) and disadvantages to that (numerous talented people working on it). James Jacobs is the creative director and that certainly helps keep things tight. So, have I "done better"? I doubt it. Have I done better for my purposes? Certainly. That's the advantage of a lot of time spent over numerous years to create your own vision of a fantasy world. It'd be pretty strange if I hadn't come up with exactly what I want. Barring schizophrenia of course :)

Cool. You're thinking about it, rather than handwaving it. If I play in a game world, I want it to make sense. Even though I made that point several times, I don't think many people really thought about it.

Now...I would insist that a guild of wizards would stomp over just about any opposition, if they were numerous and active enough...and it wouldn't take many...especially seeing as they'd be rich, too.

Now...why would there really be that much opposition to the wizards, really? I admit, I've come up with some extreme scenarios in defense of my concept...but frankly, 9 of 10 adventurers will LOVE the wizard who cranks out in one day what they expected to take half a year.

Who needs those damn greedy kings, anyhow?

Personally I homebrewed Fabricate and ended my problem. I gave it a duration :) Duration expires and 'Poof', you have a pile of (ruined) raw materials. Nobody buys ordinary goods from Wizards as a result and Wizards don't fabricate using expensive raw materials :D And to those who say "but it's 5th level!" I can point out any number of 5th level spells which do as much or more and have durations. As well as others that are "instantaneous" and don't have a real duration.

In game reasons for lack of abuse of RAW spell... higher powers object to it's mass use (but not private use). Others have touched on these same things. Higher powers might include gods of craft who consider the labor involved worship... kings who have to deal with the economic chaos that results. Craft guilds, assassin's guilds, other deities unwilling to irritate their fellow deities by resurrecting trouble makers who run afoul of craft deities and assassins, Wizard's guilds / colleges who are aware of the problems it can cause (for them, not just you). These are, however, all in game social reasons. The only way, imo, to create a rules system reason is to modify the spell / craft rules (and yes, I've beaten the craft rules up and altered them too)...

EldonG wrote:

Are there moderately evil wizards in the world? Think NPCs...you know, the guys that don't care about anyone else, but want their profits?

An NPC. How is this a problem since NPCs are entirely under the GM's control? If a GM is causing problems for his own campaign with an NPC abusing a powerful spell, he's got worse problems than the spel.

The "it's a game" view. The other side wants a rational reason for world building / simulation purposes I believe. And, what does the DM do if a PC decides to dominate the economy this way? Various methods have been suggested, often involving coercion or murder, but why wouldn't an NPC Wizard, or another PC Wizard, decide to fight fire with fire? Allowing this to happen could get... silly. Of course there is DM fiat... but some people want a rules system reason.

*edit* You'll note the argument has been phrased, and is being paraphrased by me, as "why wouldn't a Wizard do this?" It's from a theoretical framework. If spell "X" works like this why wouldn't people do "Y"? The answers have ranged from GM fiat, to social game world reasons, to the spell doesn't work like that, to who cares if it does work like that.

Set, just imagine a planar connection in which the snow fades out of the bottom / off the land of Irisen to a plane of eternal winter storms and then falls again in the skies over Irisen. That's how I would handle it in my own world. Waste not, want not :)

As for Golarion, it has to cover everything Pathfinder contains (with some exceptions I'd imagine). It's a commercial kitchen sink setting with isolated areas for every concept / idea / trope. The parts are very well done, having them all in the same world / setting can be a problem. Of course, once you've bought it you can change it to suit or let it stand as is. It probably is easier than having the setting of the week syndrome.

I have my own world / setting. A more limited kitchen sink in which I've tried to make sure everything that is in it fits logically together. It means not all concepts / ideas / tropes fit but I've been working on it steadily for 39 years now and it has a sense of coherence to it.

There's an argument going on here between the "it's just a game" crowd and the "it should make basic sense crowd". I'm with the sense bunch, but it's no real use pursuing the argument...

Tying value of the item to the time it takes to craft it is bad game design; one extra column on the goods and services tables ("Time to Craft") would solve a host of strangeness.

Careful, that kind of rational thinking can get you in trouble. You're supposed to say "it's just a game" :) Of the various things they missed revisiting / fixing, crafting is, to me, the most obvious one they should have. Here's hoping Ultimate Campaign clears up a few issues. I'm not holding my breath though.

...just saying...balance isn't as important as people make it out to be. YMMV.

I agree with you there. "Balanced" and "different" are hard to do, to do well anyway. Too much "balance" sometimes equals vanilla classes with different names on their powers. And fulfilling different roles when the roles aren't equally important at the same time or place is not an exercise in easy. I've always been fine with that, but then I've played D&D a long time.

As an aside, if there is one term I would love to add to the profanity filter around here, it's "broken" :)

Summoners are powerful...and not well balanced...possibly not well thought out...but when you say 'broken'...

Play Stormbringer. Play with whatever random race you get. Have a good group, all random...then introduce ONE Myrrin...Pan Tangian...or (ack) Melnibonean sorcerer of a decent rank...then get back with me.

Yes, but that was a reflection of the world Moorcock built. They were superior. He didn't need game balance and the game was just... accurate.

Heh. That's fine. I just would love feedback from someone!

I'd love to give some feedback, I'm already thinking homebrew myself. Unfortunately the next week+ will see me buried in grading make up work, final exams, and generally making sure my seniors graduate. And that my sophomores haven't lost the willpower needed to walk or pass World History. Good thing breathing is an autonomous reflex or I'd lose most of them... munchkins. Then I'll have time to relax, work on my game, run a game, read stuff etc.

Yep. His gender transposition slipped right by me. I wondered what was so astounding about it and now I know. Going where no man went before, indeed :D

I meant the thanks :) Obviously, I'm addicted...

magnuskn wrote:

The two of them were together in the original series, she was the father of his son ( who subsequently was killed in the third movie ).

Wait, wait, wait. How does that work?!

Uh, how it works irl. Boy (James T. Kirk) meets Girl (Carol Markus). Boy gets with Girl. Baby comes down the pike. In the meantime Boy and Girl break up. Girl does not tell Boy about baby, less baby run off to Starfleet with Boy. Baby get's dead. Boy gets really, really mad after just finding baby. Simple really.

*sigh* I just popped 90 bucks for Ultimate Campaign, Fey Revisited and Chronicles of the Righteous. Time to add another couple to the cash depletion cycle. Thanks!

Looks like the notices are being sent to subscribers now.
So shipping will be starting In about a week.

I received mine today. This should be good :)

R_Chance wrote:

MrSin wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Meanwhile, a 6th level Wizard can cast Stinking Cloud with no prior Feat investment or specific weapon choice and do the same thing...

If he knows the spell and doesn't mind tying up a significant part of his limited use resources. Great if he has it, zero if he doesn't.

Possibly ending the battle in a single spell sounds like a good use of my resources. I have what, 3 of those?

Possibly ending the battle. You have 2 3rd level spells at 6th level, 3 with a 16+ Intelligence score which is very reasonable. And, 4 if you have a bonded object I suppose. There are a lot of other spells vying for those three slots though. I doubt you would have more than 1 spell slot dedicated to it. Unless, you're a bit... strange. You've got Fly, Dispel Magic, Invisibility Sphere, and Fireball available among many others.

Wait, wait, are you saying FIREBALL at level 6 doesn't stack up with this Daze feat balance-wise?

No. Just replying to a post about Stinking Cloud and pointing out options other than it for a limited resource like 3rd level spells for a 6th level Wizard. Also pointing out that any feat is an "at will" resource, a different creature than a spell slot. I wasn't really thinking about the Daze feat at all (nor did I take a look at it). You can calm down :)

Or heck, get excited. I've finished grading and I'm calling it a day :D

R_Chance wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Meanwhile, a 6th level Wizard can cast Stinking Cloud with no prior Feat investment or specific weapon choice and do the same thing...

If he knows the spell and doesn't mind tying up a significant part of his limited use resources. Great if he has it, zero if he doesn't.

Possibly ending the battle in a single spell sounds like a good use of my resources. I have what, 3 of those?

Possibly ending the battle. You have 2 3rd level spells at 6th level, 3 with a 16+ Intelligence score which is very reasonable. And, 4 if you have a bonded object I suppose. There are a lot of other spells vying for those three slots though. I doubt you would have more than 1 spell slot dedicated to it. Unless, you're a bit... strange. You've got Fly, Dispel Magic, Invisibility Sphere, and Fireball available among many others. And you only learn two new spells in your spell book per level without investing extra resources. So, you know 4 3rd level spells at 6th level (if you used all your freebies on 3rd level spells). Which do you know, which do you not? And which of those 4 will you memorize, or not? Limited resource for a day. Without using up extra resources (scrolls etc.). And if you want to scribe scrolls that's a feat and, for a third level spell c.3-400 gp (?), I'm not sure on the cost. It's an old chestnut I know, but "a feat chain is forever" a spell slot is only good once a day. As the Wizard goes up picks up more spell slots and begins crafting goodies this becomes less of an issue. But a 6th level Wizard is only on the beginning of that road. His resources while powerful are limited. As always ymmv.

*edit* Hmmm... Yeah, as that Wizards goes up it doesn't just become less of an issue, it tends to be a insignificant issue. But, that's as you go up and become incredibly powerful :)

Meanwhile, a 6th level Wizard can cast Stinking Cloud with no prior Feat investment or specific weapon choice and do the same thing...

If he knows the spell and doesn't mind tying up a significant part of his limited use resources. Great if he has it, zero if he doesn't.

I think I'd enjoy playing in a lot of the games mentioned...and probably the most key thing...that several people mentioned...is that the game is run at the right level for the players. :)

Just one of my little ploys I figured I'd mention, for a game I never did get to fully run...

** spoiler omitted **

Sounds interesting. And as for the young king's stand in, it's regent.

From Paizo's new base classes to hentai Viking ninjas to 3pp classes... yep, I think this one is off the rails :)

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Tolkien setting. Wouldn't elite goblin scouts and jobbers be in essence, goblin ninjas?

One would think. But to the people who insist that "ninja = black pajama'd Sho Kusugi clones ONLY," that sort of logic doesn't work.

The it's "just fluff" argument grates on me a bit. If it was "just fluff" there would be no difference. There is, if very little. It's about the mechanics, not the fluff.

And, to paraphrase thejeff, why wouldn't those sneaky Goblins be Rogues? Should I only make sneaky Goblins Ninja? Should I make all sneaky people Ninja? Why do I need two sneaky classes, Rogue and Ninja, that are so similar? Should I just use the Ninja for that one PC who wants it? Because it's mechanically, slightly, superior? Because he's the only one in the world who works this specific way? Should I retcon Ninja in all over the place? Should I use some formula to divide the current sneaky NPCs / PCs into one class or the other? Or should I just go with Rogues and not use Ninja?

Conservation of time / energy says just go with the last option. Especially when the difference between the classes is not too great. Mind you I'd be saying the same thing (why use the new class) if the original stealth class had been Ninja and the Rogue was the new boy in town...

If a class brings something significantly new / useful (say mounted combat / horse survivability with the Cavalier) I'm more apt to want to do the work. Otherwise, as others have said, just fix the Rogue and have done with it. It's not like we are talking massive differences here, just some. Enough to yield a perceived advantage of course...

Got some high knowledge: the game going there buddy.

It pretty much absorbed my life from 1974 until the early 80s. Then graduate school and real life started pushing in, and further in... *sigh*. It's a constant struggle to find the time for gaming between work and family (and it does take a distant third place there). When I retire in about 8 years though... game on! :D

My opinion on the new base classes is colored by the ones that are useful in my game setting. I'm using the Cavalier, Inquisitor, Witch, Oracle and Magus. The Alchemist got cut because I have a system of alchemy, didn't need a new one. The Summoner got cut because... well, for a lot of reasons. *cough* Digimon *cough* And I didn't feel like shoehorning them in. The Gunslinger, well no guns or gunpowder = no Gunslinger. Samurai and Ninja hit the cutting room floor because I already have the Rogue and Cavalier and I don't have an eastern section or a desire to have variants of classes that already have enough archtypes / variations. Oh, no Monks either btw. You say "monk" in my game and they're looking around for some western medieval looking guy in robes.

As for my personal "do I like this class" opinion, I'm fine with most of them. I can miss the Alchemist and the Summoner though. No use for those two. They mess with too many things that came before. Gunslinger, I'm not sure about. The touch armor class thing makes me wonder why anybody would bother with all that heavy stuff with guns laying around.

As always, ymmv on these things.

Ahem... as for editions...

0E or OE is a reference to the original game plus supplements. I've seen 0E+ used to refer to the original box plus it's supplements. The original box included only three classes, the Fighting Man, Magic User and Cleric. Three of the supplements, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Eldritch Wizardry introduced additional classes. Greyhawk added the Thief and Paladin. Blackmoor added the Assassin and Monk. Eldritch Wizardry added the Druid and psionics. Gods, Demigods and Heroes added deities from various past religions and works of fiction. Swords and Spells was a replacement (for Chainmail) mass combat system. Plenty of other classes were proposed in magazines. The Strategic Review (predecessor of The Dragon / Dragon Magazine) added the Ranger in it's short run for example. There were many others but few were later canonized by inclusion in later editions of the game like the Ranger (starting with 1E).

The original Basic D&D game (1977), the "Holmes Basic set" as it's known, was a three level introduction to the game based on 0E / supplements with changes and a push towards AD&D in it. The basic D&D sets are usually referred to as just "Basic D&D", or Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic and BECMI (see below).

AD&D, referred to typically as 1E, crept out with the Monster Manual in 1977. You had to wait for the Player's handbook (1978) before you could really be said to be playing AD&D. The Dungeon Masters Guide came out in 1979 iirc. Other books followed of course. There were 11 classes in AD&D until Unearthed Arcana (? year) which added, as was mentioned above, three more classes / subclasses and made the Paladin a subclass of the new Cavalier class. AD&D hung on until 1989.

The Basic D&D set most people remember came out in 1981, edited by Tom Moldvay (? spelling). I'm not sure if Moldvay edited the "Expert" book which came out a bit later, but I don't think so. Basic = Blue book, Expert = Red book. Anyway a different game from AD&D, based on the original D&D but with changes, racial classes etc.

The next "basic" D&D iteration was the BECMI version in 5 volumes beginning a couple of years after the last Moldvay basic edition. The volumes were Basic, Expert, Companion, Master and Immortal. Later they put it all into a large hard back called the Rules Cyclopedia. I'm not positive of the exact editors / writers / years on these. I'm not getting any younger :) Oh, and purists whine about some changes made to the original volumes in the Cyclopedia version. Today, we call that errata...

2E usually references Second Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1989). The rules lost a class or two (the Assassin) came up with some fairly absurd names for Demons and Devils and, more usefully, cleaned up and condensed the rules. Until they expanded it out again.

And 3E came in 2000. I don't think I need to do this one.

I hope it was me!

The sad thing is, if it was you'll never know! He could just ignore you're posts to make you think you're the one... and then suddenly reply to you. Ambush time :)

There are a wide variety of tastes and styles, and it's only wrong if it doesn't work for you and your group.

Interesting thread. My group runs from 30-60 year olds. I'm 54. It's a sandbox campaign with a lot of player involvement in the world / the lives of NPCs.

Do you run more toward Game of Thrones, or My Little Pathfinder?

I've seen GoT. Not ML Ponies. Although I've heard enough to catch the reference. Let's see... adventures, death, friends, enemies, gambling, whore houses, orphanages, nuns, holy orders, criminal guilds and gangs, crime, politics, nobility, adoption, miscarriage, loss of friends, vengeance, shopping. Oh, and more death. I'd say mature. Life happens. Sometimes it's roses, sometimes it's not. My players are, on the whole, more worried about events in the setting / world, than just leveling up.

Politically?

A new barony is being established. They're getting tied in to the local elite. There's a border war starting, more complex than it looks on the surface. And they are associated with one of the cities more unusual street gangs. And through it, although they don't know it, the Assassins Guild. They have connections at the local magical collegium... and with a fence for the Thieves Guild. They are also tied in to a number of businesses.

Regarding sexual matters?

It happens, Marriage and babies may result. We don't generally follow the action in the bedroom. They all have imaginations. Oh, and childbirth can be messy. In real life or game :)

Grittiness/mortality?

Players die, If they are low level, it's funeral time (if the body was recovered) and / or an epic wake. Often followed by bar fights, drunken walks home (?), attempted muggings and so on. And sometimes jail time. Or fines. Lots of fines.

To be resurrected you need to be mid level plus (worth a god's time), on good terms with a church / temple that practices resurrection (not all do), have the means to pay for it, and friends willing to arrange it. Or friends willing to pay for it. Or have a temple owe you a really big favor...

Any other aspects?

It's about a life of adventure in another world with all the pitfalls and promise of that. Big highs. Big lows. Hopefully a big life. Or an epic death. Sometimes not so big or epic though. Life can be like that.

Well, for those of you who don't know, there is a new movie in the works. Sorry about the non-linkified state of it, but here's the url:

http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/dungeons-dragons-movie-warner-bros/

Apparently Warner Brothers is going to give it a go.

*edit* Given the thread below under Movies / Gamer Life I'm assuming most of you know...

PF replaced 3.5 for the most part..and I never had the 3.5 books in the first place so...

That explains playing PF. It wasn't a move per se, just picking up the game after a hiatus.

If D&DN replaced PF and was the game in town I guess I would play that...but it's in a market with PF, WoD, Hero, M&M, SR, GURPS etc. Not to mention an endless supply of homebrew OGL 3.x clones that come out on kickstart every other week.

You need to give me a reason to buy your book to play your game. So why am I going to buy it? Because it's D&D1-4? It's D&D 2.75?

Are we going to get a D&D SQRT(1+4) / (3.5 + 2e) for the 6th time around?

For me, having pretty much played every version since 1974 (except Basic -- read but not played) it doesn't have to be original. Just good. If it does a good job of keeping the game simpler, but keeps a lot of the elements that make 3.5 / PF good (for me), I'll go for it. Oddly enough it wouldn't stop me from collecting PF either.

4e was at least something new. For me it sucks, but at least it was new and appealed to a certain type of gamer. 5e feels right now like a corporate phone-in for them to cash in on an unoriginal, mediocre product quickly so that their DnD department is still solvent. It's also an attempt to bring back gamers who fled to games like PF. They're trying to please everyone at once and you can't do that. I've always been skeptical of WotC's model, but ever since they broke up the Phb into like 4 +? books I've lost faith in WotC doing anything that cares about quality and is all about increasing quantity to make their profit margins. They're probably already having to try to crank out things rapidly because other product departments (like Magic?) are making WotC more money and Pathfinder is cutting into their business.

I've looked at a number of the books from PF and 4e and honestly I have to say that it looks like Paizo's belief in quality control is much higher than that of WotC. I have a feeling the beasts to feed at Wizards are much hungrier than Paizo's.

4E left me cold. It was the first time I didn't even consider moving my game to the new edition. It usually took a while, several years, but I would move on. WotC has done thing that I didn't care for (well, like 4E) but DDN does seem to have some promise and a few ideas I like.

Oh, and they did away with one of the persistent message board issues too. They gave Skeletons and Zombies low intelligence, explaining their alignment and weapon use in one fell swoop :D Now if they would just swat a few more of those pesky things they could eliminate about half the posts on message boards :)

Stefan Hill wrote:

kmal2t wrote:

I guess I take it back about 5e doing anything original. IT doesn't even have that now and it's less interesting than that edge system.

Why does it have to be original? Why can't it be taking the best bits of the last 39 years and make a game? 4e was FULL of original ideas and it wasn't as well received as WotC had hoped - hence Pathfinder was born and we are play testing D&DN.

My current take on D&DN is 2e feel with a d20-lite mechanics. My personal opinion is that we have a 400 pound-mechanic Gorilla d20 game called Pathfinder, WotC don't need to release another on the market.

@kmal2t => Can I ask what you don't get out of the current Pathfinder game that you think D&DN should have? This isn't a trap question, honesty where does Pathfinder fail for you?

For me Pathfinder fails to be simple fun, its brain wrecking and at times amazingly frustrating. Combats take a long time and require a battle mat to truly carry out. I'll play in a game but I hate GMing it. D&DN to date lets me DM again without thinking the players are out to get me - as in personally find gaps in my System Mastery to exploit.

S.

Because I don't need to buy their $40+ books to relive old versions. I could play PF or get a 2e book. If you want to make a new version you need to give a good reason to buy it that makes me and everyone else not just play PF

I'll play a number of systems but I'm not just going to play a new version of 2e that so far I've seen really adds nothing of value I couldn't do with 5 mins of houseruling.

I read your post and one question popped into my mind. Why did you switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder? 2E to 3.x was a significant change, 3.5 to PF, not so much.

... and sold after reading the review. Thanks again Endzeitgeist, as usual your reviews are very useful :)

Interesting. I'll have to swing back and read the review when I have more time...

Again, In Europe it was the 11th Century. Falchion was translated from an Arabic word for a Dagger used by the Elite Muslim Soldiers/Guards. It was also Ritualistic.

Macedonia used both the Sarissa and Dory. The Sarissa was the one used be a Bulk of their force but the Dory was used by the Elites.

The European Falchion is the only one I'm concerned with in terms of PF, I don't think it was ever a dagger in European usage (although I could be wrong).

I understand that both were in use. The main Macedonian weapon was the Sarissa though. Macedonian Hypaspists used the Dory, and while they were an elite their primary (original) function was guarding the Phalanx flanks. Don't try to repeat that too often :) The Companion cavalry were the strike force, the Phalanx of Phalangites provided the immovable object and the Hypaspists provided some infantry mobility for flank coverage and exploiting enemy weaknesses.

Sarissa Troops wore lighter armour and a modified Hoplon. The Hoplites, the elites, wore the typical Hoplite gear.

Think of the Macedonian Hoplites as Personal Guards. They would be used on the Flanks & to protect the Commanders.

And yes Macedon loved big things. Especially when they were bigger than what their opponents had.

The Macedonian phalanx with 5 (iirc) or so rows of pike points in front of it didn't really need as much armor as a hoplite. The enemy was that much farther off and it was difficult to penetrate the forest of pikes in front of the phalanx. I think the Hypaspists function as elite guards for commanders etc. post dated Alexander; he tended to lead his Companion cavalry. I do know they had that type of role later and may very well have had it when he wasn't hanging out with the cavalry.

It's been a while since we did ancient miniatures, but I still remember the basics.

Ventilation shaft is used to vent excess plasma from the reactor to prevent it from overheating...

...and they couldn't build an armored box over it to prevent the straight in shot... that's definitely a design flaw :)

The Iklwa was used by other tribes when they seen its effectiveness.
A Falchion pre-dates the Crusades. The term was a long curved dagger used by Muslim Soldiers for various tasks. The later Falchions, what you refer to, were developed from combining the Muslim Falchion with a European Short Sword.
Macedonian Phalanxes armed with the Sarissa wielded them using a specialized Hoplon that allowed them to use both hands. The Macedonian Hoplites used 8 Foot to 10 Foot Spears.

The First Crusade was 1096-1099. The Falchion appeared in roughly the 11th century. The standard chopping blade of the typical medieval falchion was a result of the Crusades. The illustrations and surviving examples of the weapon are post First Crusade. The Byzantines were at continuous war with various Moslem powers of course. I'd imagine some "previews" of the Falchion might have passed on to Europe through trade with Constantinople...

The Dory was the standard Greek spear used by all Greek Hoplites. The Macedonians one upped them in length with the Sarissa. It was a big, no pun intended, advantage. Although it works as a pun too, doesn't it ? :)

On the Iklwa: Zulus maybe but not all tribes used them that way. In fact usually the Iklwa was used like the Roman Pilum. That is a Close Range Throwing Spear used in the charge when they drew their blade or other weapon.

It is a specifically Zulu weapon, developed by Shaka Zulu himself) designed for melee. They used the assegai for throwing.

*edit* And you posted on this while I was typing and checking on wind damage to my house and chasing down the neighbors dogs who escaped their yard. Sorry.

On Flachion: A Falchion is a One-Handed Blade. It is technically a Long Dagger used for Skinning and for slicing through leather armour and padding.

A Falchion is typically a one handed chopping infantry weapon. Developed after the First Crusade; a knock off of the Scimitar iirc. Used apparently as a tool as well, "fashionable" as well with some made for knights etc.

On Hoplites: So a standard Hoplite and Macedonian Soldier would be Level 3 Minimum. Given that most Hoplites were well trained that makes sense. Macedonian Soldiers... Meh, that is a bit of a Stretch.

EDIT:

@Fake Healer: -4 and you might as well just rule it as an improvised weapon.

Macedonian infantry used the Sarissa, a pike. Length varied but topped out at about 21'. The discipline and training of Macedonian warriors was as good as any in the Greek world. Other Greeks thought them "half barbarians" because of their accents and the position of Macedonia, on the edge of the Greek world. Under Phillip II of Macedon they conquered Greece. And under Alexander, the Persian Empire.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

On the Iklwa: Zulus maybe but not all tribes used them that way. In fact usually the Iklwa was used like the Roman Pilum. That is a Close Range Throwing Spear used in the charge when they drew their blade or other weapon.

But the fact remains that the Zulus used them in melee, and very effectively too as many British soldiers at Issandwana would attest were they still alive. Interestingly at Rorke's Drift the relative merits of rifle & bayonet versus short spear & shield was quite definitely put to the test at both ranged and melee combat. Generally the bayonet held it's own, as the fighting came down to hand-to-hand on several occasions.

It's been awhile, but as I recall Shaka Zulu developed the shorter assegai (iklwa -- thanks I couldn't recall the name) specifically as a melee weapon. Using it that way gave the Zulu a huge advantage over the other tribes in the area and made the Zulu a dominant power in the region. They still used the standard assegai for throwing. Warriors generally carried multiple weapons for that reason.

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

I agree that how 3.5/PF did spears is not very accurate. All I've got to say is Falchions... They made a weapon known for being one-handed as a two-handed weapon. It's not surprising that everyone weants to fix the weapon list.

It's not really a falchion. It's the two handed scimitar that dude used in Robin Hood, Prince of thieves. Falchions weren't really weapons, per se, they were hunting tools.

A falchion irl is a knock off of the Scimitar as I recall. Typically a one handed sword used by infantry although some were more decorated / expensive (and probably used by the upper classes). There were two handed versions, wooden hilts 1'+ iirc. I also remember that one theory on the lack of surviving weapons, despite their popularity, is that they made good chopping tools as well as weapons. It's certainly a long way from PFs Falchion to the real thing.

OK, cool. But that doesn't address ethnicity. That addresses point of origin, which, sure, explains how a genetically engineered Indian guy, Black guy, Hispanic guy or European guy has an Indian name.

Maybe the geneering facility was in Northern India and the personnel manning it were local, but the genetic material wasn't. All the "supermen", whatever the ethnic origin of their DNA, might have Sikh names, given them by the personnel or simply to identify which facility they came from... or because they were geneered as soldiers and the Sikhs are a military cast from that area. There are a lot of possibilities.