Russ Taylor's page

Another on the fence entry for me. I like the flavor of it, and generally like the abilities, but think it needs some time in the cage with the nerf bat. The timeless body replacement seems more appropriate as a 20th level power. Also, missing the level on that last power - it should always be there, because if someone manages to make a lower-level druid who can shapechange into a larger than expected creature (perhaps a feat or something for giants), you don't want them gaining your capstone ability early.

Tentatively in the keep pile, but it's already clear I'll have to cut that down to get my final eight. But this is solidly in the top half of the 32.

Growing on me after initial reading. I hate multiple pets due to in-game time issues, but two dogs seem easier to run with than two different animals. My first take was that this should be a ranger archetype, but I'm being sold on the idea of it being an appropriate courtly option. And I love that it takes charging away, since mounted combat rules are still a problem in Pathfinder.

Lands in the keep pile for now.

I kind of like the idea of racially specific archetypes. However, the vibe I get from this is that of the Complete Book of Elves - "look, tengu are better at this too!". I realize there's a historical case for tengu swordmasters, but I tend to dislike any prestige class that's based on the idea that [given race] is the most awesome at this combat role ever, and I have to extend that to archetypes.

The beak stuff's pretty neat. My favorite part of the archetype. And it does have a lot of flavor in it.

At this point, this one narrowly falls into my no vote pile, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing your next effort if you pass on. Good luck!

I was expecting a wooden stake fighter from the name, but this is better. I like most of the archetype. I do think a few parts have serious balance issues - especially grapple attempts on every incoming attack - but these can be fixed relatively easily. I'd probably turn the reactive grapple into an improvement on retaliatory strike. Takes an immediate action, grapple check with bonus, on success opponent is grappled and takes barb damage.

The balance problems aren't enough to take away from this being one of the best archetypes I've read out of the 9 so far, so you're in the keeper stack right now, with a little "plus" if I wind up with more than 8.

Of course Dancey has been predicting the Doom of D&D since 2003.

I keep hearing this. I keep not seeing citations. I followed Mr. Dancey's blog on and off, and don't recall it there. Perhaps you've got links?

Gotta disagree with the D&D movie having top-notch talent. The roster's B-grade, with a few anchors. Many from the top part of the B grade for that time, but still there. Marlon Wayans in particular may be from a family of comedians, but count the number of decent movies any of them have made.

Hmm. Wow on that being in the provided format. Just seems careless of valuable words to me :) I can see why to do it, but I think a little extra work in the reference is worth more lines of abilities in the archetype. I was wondering after seeing several other entries do the same thing. Failed to find an APG example that *did* list them all in my own work, though I'm sure there is one.

For the record - it jumped out at me as a lot of words before seeing any judge comments on it.

I'm in agreement that there's some balance issues in when abilities are acquired. However, I strongly disagree that a light fighting archetype shouldn't be able to trade away armor training - I'd venture to say it's a problem if it doesn't. Likewise, a single-weapon fighter needs to trade away at least some of the weapon training abilities. The balance point these trade-offs balance against should be the stock armor-wearing fighter, not the archetype itself. And archetypes probably should drop the abilities that the archetype won't use - I'd hope any civilized ranger variants trade in wild empathy, for example.

With that said, armor training is not the strongest fighter ability, and I do think this class gets too much AC for giving it up. Likewise, the class keeps the best element of weapon training (improving your primary weapon), so giving up later weapon training doesn't actually represent a full loss of ability.

Anyhow. That's my perspective on archetype balancing. I kind of like this archetype, it's in the keep pile for the time being.

I'd like to see this class able to use the kukri, as an aside.

I really wanted this archetype to involve a filthy, disgusting beard groomed to the point it causes wounds. Just for the raw novelty of it. That left me disappointed with the bite attacks. I also think making this a monk style oriented around the glaive (even keeping the bites) might have had a better shot. As it is, despite an eye-catching name, I'll have to pass on to other entries.

I love the idea of a knowledge based fighter, but I'm on the fence on this implementation. Many of the abilities feel a little underpowered to me. I also feel like the writing suffers from awkward rules terminology. Put me down as a maybe at this point - it has the virtue of being an archetype I might want to play.

The best - the name and the idea of a no-armor paladin. Also giving an archetype more skill points, something I'd like to see more of. But I'm with the flow here on wanting something more novel to go with those abilities. This is going in to my no vote pile on the initial pass.

I could have made use of that list in December :) I think I'll add it to my advice folder. Luckily, I seem to have stayed close to those guidelines.

As a student of history, everything I have read or seen on the matter indicates that I'm correct. Even Discovery or some other channel had a show debunking the myth that knights were wielding sharpened bastard swords and claymores a few years ago. The notion that you can hack all day at a guy in plate or wielding a shield and then go cut tomatoes like in some steak knife commercial is ridiculous.

The edge of the blade was still maybe half a centimeter in width or less, and you could easily hack through armor or a limb with one through because you're still applying a lot of force to a small area. But they weren't sharpened.

Blades designed more to cut cloth, flesh, or fibers like say a scimitar, or cutlass (or a katana) are a different matter, of course.

Without going into logical fallacies, what was the show? Preferably with the name of the episode. I wouldn't mind seeing what they actually said on the matter. I wouldn't necessarily believe it if they did say it, unfortunately the accuracy standards aren't high on Discovery or History.

5mm is huge. That's nearly as thick as the *center* of a typical blade, based on my understanding of it.I'd be impressed if you could hack anything other than a finger or toe off a person with a blade like that. Maybe if you used it like a chisel.

Sword blades were definitely sharp. Even when armor was around. There's other weapons that work better if you want a duller edge.

The "swinging crowbars" take on swords is a myth. Heck, there's swords in museums that would cut you *now* if you grabbed the blade bare-handed.

And yeah, as another poster mentions, the ricasso encourages some people to believe this bit of nonsense. As in "How else can you grab a sword above the hilt??".

There's a lot of art to putting the right type of edge on a sword, and it varies based on what you're trying to cut through (people, mail, plate, light armor). But what pretty much all normal swords have in common is a sharp edge, accomplished in some fashion. Doesn't mean they're all good edges to shave with. Does mean that they don't contact you with a 5 mm cross section unless you managed to hit someone with the ricasso or the back of a single-edged sword.

For practice, I suggest you go try hacking up a side of beef with the back of a machete. Though I think those are only about 2mm across, not 5 :)

Shadar: but evil DR isn't negated against evil foes, just ones with the evil subtype. This is like a ranger with favored enemy (dragon) have DR 10/dragon. Doesn't work.

I like deity-specific archetypes, though I've steered clear of designing any. And I think your text gives a convincing case for their existence.

But: the abilities are a straight-forward substitution archetype. This is acceptable and common in an archetype section, but lacks the wow factor. Compounding this is the problem mentioned by other posters that this is basically a paladin that's weaker against evil, but not much better against undead. I want to see see some "gee whiz!" Pharasma smackdown that shows those corpses why they should have stayed underground!

I've got a lot of sympathy for you in this contest, because your work has good thinking and nice clean lines. It just lacks the "why didn't I think of that!" factor that the Boomers of the world have in spades. Reminds me of some of my own feedback from year one, probably the only year I could have made the contest in.

I'm on the fence on your vote as a consequence. I'd like to see you get a chance to wow us and the judges. And either way, good luck!

I like the name, love the concise description that draws me in. After that I run into some problems with each ability, I'm afraid, in ways the judges have spelled out pretty well.

Neil: I have disagree on your quibble with the once per day ability. He's pretty close to the usual terminology, which is to start with "once per day". Where it goes afoul is the end, where saying Something like "For every four additional bard levels attained, he may use this ability an additional time per day, to a maximum of [blah] at [blah] level". So it's close.

But it is a contest, and it's a fantastic idea to check the books for the developers word abilities. I try and remember to do this every time myself.

Even though I like the idea, I'm having to put this one in my pass pile for now. But good luck in the voting! I loved your poisoner's retort.

Edit: one more complement. Sexy ability names. Good job there.

For example, European blades are big and heavy. They do damage based more on the mass side of the force equation. In fact, the blades themselves weren't edged at all, they were blunted and designed to hammer into armor wielding opponents and shields without chipping or shattering.

The politest thing I can say to this canard is it belongs in the same round file as knights in armor needing to be winched up onto horses.

I'm on the fence. I was put off by an initial reading that made me think you'd left out what the archetype gives up, but when I went back to the introduction, I puzzled it out. There's actually another way to do that. Make it what you give up the first power, and condition the other abilities off that one ability. See how the bard's performance abilities are handled in that class and some of its archetypes.

I'd drop weapon specialization out of it altogether, along with untyped damage. The first I like to see left to fighters (though there's certainly precedent), the second just confuses the reader.

I agree with the instinct to not let shaken stack, but I think it'd be fine if it could stack with other abilities (it absolutely should not stack with itself). Dazzling Display comes to mind as one way to make it a bit powerful, but you're still dealing with limited uses of your clerical ability to make things shaken. Other optimizers may be able to find better reasons to make it unstackable :)

I like the image of the butt-kicking cleric, though, and given what you give up for it, it doesn't seem out of bounds. Seems like a niche that'd see some play.

This entry passed my first round of cuts.

This is my first entry, using dice to determine reading order. Kind of a rough draw for this "judge", as I've done this particular one twice myself, once as a prestige class, once as an archetype. What it's lacking for me is the "wow". It's a competent enough archetype, along the lines of many of the simpler ones in the APG, but not one that makes me want to play it.

The bad:
* Listing the class skills. Word count is precious. Just add and subtract from the base list, or leave it unchanged.
* Adding a second Perception-based bonus. I'd just go ahead and give them a slightly better trap sense. That'd help pay off same later abilities that aren't as good as what you'd give up.
* Identify for uncanny dodge. While I've recently done an archetype with a similar ability, this does still come off as a horrible exchange. So I like the ability, just not what was paid for it. I do like using Appraise for it, though.
* Excitement. Archetypes should leap off the page with the name and few sentences of text. I'm sympathetic here, I sure struggle with that myself.

The good:
* The remove curse ability. I kind of wish I'd thought of that.
* Having the nerve to change the skill list. More archetype should do that.

As it stands, this entry misses my initial cut, but best of luck regardless.

I've read Wild Cards, up through all of the original series, and three of the new ones after that. I've enjoyed Wild Cards, and recommended it to others. But I think I'd hesitate more than a little before using as an example of a series that rises above the complaints about genre fiction. Sometimes it's okay for a book to just be a good read, rather than high art. Especially since high art often isn't a good read.

I do think it's well outside the Sturgeon margin, i.e. decidedly not crap.

Happy birthday and thanks for everything!

Better to think of Elemental touch not as a touch spell, but a spell that gives the caster a "weapon" of a touch attack. Kind of reminds me of flame blade, but instead of a scimitar like thing that allows touch attacks, it is just a touch attack.

Or produce flame, which lets you touch as well as throw.

Big thumbs up to Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival for the gunslinger. Gives a reason to have Int too. Survival I can take or leave (makes sense to be a multiclass ranger if they need it), but Perception/Sense Motive seem key.

Elemental touch, while usable by other class, was designed with alchemists in mind. Alchemists can't target other creatures with their extracts, so rather than being a touch spell, it gives the caster a damaging touch attack. Hope that clears it up a bit?

So yep, it's a buff spell. You don't get an attack that first round. You could cast another spell (drink another extract) while it was in effect on you.

Force of Will makes sense for me. So Wisdom, Will saves, grit.

See, I was thinking about posting about Dave. Much like Dave Trampier, if Carl Sargent's in a state of mind and body where he wants to come back to the gaming industry, he could. Since neither one of them wishes to come back, the most respectful option seems to be to allow them that. I don't fault trying for either one, but it seems like it won't happen.

What is a Buckler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckler

For a historical outlook on the item.

Which really has no relation other than size to the D&D/Pathfinder arm-strapped buckler.

I liked everything about the mutant chicken art *except* the single eye :)

Dark_Mistress wrote:

WTF? the chickens have two eyes.

Uh, what? Mutant chickens have a variable number of eyes.

Ah, but Gallus gallus 5/13 had but one eye. Still, that was the worst part of the art in the original. Good change.

There were in fact layoffs in May.

We received all 36 on time.

I feel bad for all the non-year 1 alternates :/

LoreKeeper wrote:

I omitted the other fear conditions (frightened and panicked) as opponents with that condition should not be able to attack you in the first place.

But, if you corner them, they'll still fight back. So, you've still got to think through that situation.

Correction: panicked characters cower when unable to flee.

I'mmmmm Mister Rules System... :)

I said:
I can still play 4E as released just fine. But if I want to play with the current rules, my original 4E books are garbage. Using DDI (i.e. paying a maintenance fee) at least lets me print out updated powers and magic items for my characters, but it doesn't help when stealth or conditions work differently than what's printed in the books.

Another poster said:
Actually it does - the compendium contains the master rules set including the current version of how stealth and such work.

How does what's in the compendium help my original printing of the core rulebooks? We're talking the original 3 books being obsoleted by the volume of errata here.

Saying "use the compendium" is like saying "use the 3.5E core rulebooks". If you're unhappy about having to buy new books to use a game, you're unhappy about having to buy new books to use a game. Since I don't play much 4E, the easiest option for me is to play no 4E going forward, since I only play OP in 4E, where rules updates are mandatory. If I *did* play a lot, no big deal to buy more books. I played a lot of 3E, welcomed the fixes in 3.5E. Welcomed the changes in Pathfinder too :)

To address another point - I'm aware that DDI use is widespread. Some folks have less of a problem with paying a maintenance fee to play a pen and paper RPG than I do :)

Charging's quite a change because in 4E, you could veer your charge to avoid intervening monsters (think half a diamond shape), because all that mattered was you take any least-cost path, and 4E has diagonal math issues. Verified that's how the rule was supposed to work with Andy Collins himself, in person, because it was such a bizarre way to handle charging.

But most of those changes were done long before the Essentials were released. And those documents are errata, not conversion guides.

Which I say all throughout my posts (plural, not singular). Though I don't necessarily agree on "most" except in the context of the system changes, due to the class and monster revisions in DDE.

It'd probably be best if you dial up the politeness of your tone if you want any further responses.

Go to:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateCompiled.pdf
123 pages of rules changes. So a lot more than the 50+ pages I guessed at.

23 of that's just in the PH. 12 more in the MM and DMG.

There's lots of rules systems revamped in that file. I'm not planning to go through that in detail, but I highlight some below. That comes back to what I said about not being able to play official 4E through the original 4E books (or indeed most any 4E book, as they're all loaded with game-affecting errata). It's a problem if you want to play LFR, and was a problem before D&D Essentials game out. Even things as basic to the game as conditions (a core element of 4E if there's any) have considerable changes between the original books and the game as it stands today.

Now as for class: you can play a 3.0 class just fine in 3.5E. There's nothing that substantive that changed beyond some skill shuffling. In 4E, wizards just flipped positions on telling you whether or not you could play with the old class rules or not. They still revised many of the core classes, something people complained a bunch about when it was done in 3.5E. I don't see a huge distinction between 3.0 and 3.5E having two different bards, and 4E and DDE having two different wizards, except that one system tells you it's ok to play with both in the same game.

Spells: I can't believe any 4E fan would complain about the 3.5E changes to spells, given how much of the 4E errata is changes to powers :)

Many more than 10 rules changed since 4E release:
Stealth
Skill challenges
Conditions (looks like 10 of them)
Racial stat bonuses
Charging (and quite a reversal that one was)
Every class's powers
Feats
Magic item changes all over the place
How damage types combine (major implications on builds)
Forced movement rules
Flight
Mounted combat
Damage by level targets and DC by level targets

Note that the powers, feat, and magic item changes aren't just fixing errors, they're often significant changes in game balance.

I'm not counting in that any of the optional changes, like using the improved monsters or more interesting versions of the classes.

I can still play 4E as released just fine. But if I want to play with the current rules, my original 4E books are garbage. Using DDI (i.e. paying a maintenance fee) at least lets me print out updated powers and magic items for my characters, but it doesn't help when stealth or conditions work differently than what's printed in the books. That doesn't sound that different from the complaints about what 3.5E did to 3E ("I can't use my old products without work"), and it didn't even take D&D Essentials to cause it. The Essentials rules compendium does codify all these changes - for now - in a printed source, hence it's the equivalent of the .5 rules version (changes incorporated).

Marketing spin is marketing spin. 4E's undergone substantive changes across the whole spectrum of the game since release. In my opinion, the scope of errata plus the revised core material means the game's actually changed more from original printing than 3.0 did going to 3.5E, but that's just my opinion. Sure, you can still use an original printing MM, but in 3.5E, you could use the MM2 and FF just fine too, even without the small update documents. The biggest thing that would trip you up is probably DR, and that's simple to roll with.

But don't hand me 123 pages of rules pdates and tell me that hasn't made my printed books a pain to use, or that those aren't meaningful changes.

Do we have to complete the transaction of our 3-day pass first, and then purchase the banquet ticket (2 separate transactions then), or should it be possible to purchase them both in the same transaction?

Oh, and yoda/Mark....RFBU #107 will spread to other tables...and recruit more believers!!

I might be looking for a team this year :)

Both hags are medium.

I've used this for an annis hag:
http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/w/wizardsOfTheCoast/byProductType/miniatur esGames/dnd/singles/underdark/v5748btpy7nig

If you want to try ebay, I'm sure you can get one at a lower price. DDM miniature prices have crashed in the past year.

Rob McCreary was a finalist in the inaugural RPG Superstar prior to working for Paizo.

It's cool, obviously the shock troops didn't hold you back, and maybe they pushed you forward :)

Why did we need all the changes in Pathfinder?

I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but so that Paizo would have rulebooks in print to support their setting material. And if you're going to reprint a game, why not revamp it while you're at it? Value added!

I really, really doubt WotC and pre-bankruptcy TSR have that much in common. There were a lot of things that lead to the TSR meltdown, and so far WotC hasn't shown any of the same signs.

Management tone deafness

Flood of product
Abrupt product cancellations
Spin about nothing being wrong
Emphasis on boxed sets :)

Need more?

Mind you, I think the only meaningful thing in common are that both have signs of an impending edition collapse.

Essentials isn't 4.5. Essentials and 3.5 are nowhere similar in the slightest.

The incompatibility of 3.0 and 3.5 gets exaggerated beyond all reason. What 3.0 -> 3.5 did mean (for WotC, as opposed to D20 licensees) was a ton of content got reissued, different enough to get people to buy it again. Both addressed design issues that had become apparent since the edition came out. Both made large alterations to the game's base classes (DDE to more of them in fact), even though if you wished you could still play the old classes without anything breaking in-system. That's sounding an awful lot like essentials to me. Likewise, both arrived very early in their edition's life cycle. Really. 3.5 and DDE have more in common than they have dissimilar, in terms of being mid-edition releases. Both have a lot more in common with each other than with 2E's Skills and Powers revamp, or even 1E's Unearthed Arcana.

Essentially, claiming they are "nowhere similar" is really disingenuous, and really just parroting the bruised reaction of a marketplace that held up Wizard's claim they wouldn't do 3.5 again as some sort of trophy and then got burned by a company (shockingly) doing much the same thing again, if better handled.

Where they have the biggest differences are that DDE was aggressively marketed as NOT being a rules changeover, even though it was, and the compatibility of 3.5E with 3E was downplayed, particular in Organized Play, whereas DDE's being billed as completely compatible even though it's sitting on top of a rules system that's been so altered since release that you can't play it official-style without 50+ pages of errata or an online tool. My point with that last sentence? If you want to play official 4E, as in sanctioned for Organized Play, you already couldn't play it with your released books before DDE even came out. Which is itself comparable to the RPGA's forced 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion, just coming about in a different fashion.

The effect of 3.5E on D20 is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, and 4E's not in a comparable situation with licensees, so it won't happen.

As for elite tiefling skirmishers, second class citizens have always been prime fodder for a nations legions. Its probably one of the few places the hellborn can succeed in Cheliax.

Oppressed minorities tend to make up good old expendable infantry, not elite troops. Folks are right to call that out as a pretty iffy addition to canon.

Whenever 5th edition comes out, it won't be called that. So watch for "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" or something similar, just like D&D Essentials was 4th edition's .5 version.

I really want to apply, and I feel like I could make it to the interview process if it was not for one thing. I don't have a bachelor's degree in anything. However, I feel I can meet all the other requirements. I have been gaming for 14 years, and developing my own material to play with. Kingmaker is the first game I ran where I didn't develop the world, story and NPCs, and that was last week.

I guess I should just finish collage first, then apply. Two or three years isn't that long.

Go ahead and apply. I don't have a degree, because I started my professional career before finishing. But I still thought about applying, because why not? It's a mark against you, but if the positives outweigh it, you've got a shot, just like any other applicant.

And after his claim over a year ago that 4e was going to die any day now?

I've seen this a few places. He said 4E was entering it's endgame, not that it was going to die "any day now". And frankly, I think his statement was pretty accurate when you look at the changes in 4E (particularly Essentials and this year's announcements) since he said it. Endgames take a while to play out.

My god...it's full of stars!

On a more serious note, who wants to join me in an expedition to Sarusan?

As the old joke goes, if you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Least popular line or not, I hope it stays around for a long, long time. Count me as a big fan of Planet Stories.

No particular order...

Shadow falconer's glove
Poisoner's retort
Eye of the void
Phlebotomist's gloves
Pharasma's death sacrament

Hmm. Just noticed that not a single item formatted as "Adjective noun of the adjective noun" made my list :)