Tharen the Damned's page

Maybe its just the pretty, pretty pony, or perhaps its the concentrated bile in so few words, but this post has made me reconsider my long held desire to burn the lawyers.

FOLLOW THE LAWYER! BURN the PR PEOPLE INSTEAD!*

*runs off to get torch and pitchfork

Poor underling!

Another lost soul fallen under the spell of the Devil-Pony!
Somebody do something!

This brings up three questions for me.

I am not James, but I hope I can answer the questions too.

Is the market for people who want to play D&D 3E but don't already own the rules a large one, then?

The PFRPG is fo all those who are happy with the 3rd eition rules. The new Game will fix a few of the bugs in 3.5 (polymorph anyone?). PFRPG does one very important thing: It will provide Players Handbooks! The PFRPG PHBs are for those who know 3rd and stay with the updated game and for NEW players! It is essential for PAIZO to get more Gamers to use their products. Old customers might stop playing or go 4th.

Are all companies who are carrying on with 3E going to produce their own core rulebooks?

This is possible but unlikely as creating a core rulebook involves a lot of manpower and playtest input. It is my hope - and certainly that of PAIZO- that the PPs who stay with 3rd edition will eventually use the PFRPG as basis for their products.

Necromancer Games -if the new GSL supports 3.5 products besides 4th products and if it will be feasible- will most likely use the PFRPG rules for their 3rd edition products.

Is PFRPG going to be so close to 3E that a group can use both without having to decide which version to go with, or are people going to have to discard their 3E core rules to play with Pathfinder?

The most important idea behind PFRPG (at least for me) is the backwards compatibility to 3rd edition. DMs will be able to use their Adventures and Monster Books without much time for conversion. Likewise Players should be able to use PRCs and Noncore-Baseclasses without much need fo coversion in PFRPG.

But you will need the PFRPG PHB, as the system will be different.
As to how different, this is still in playtest and under consideration by the PAIZOnians.
As it stands with the BETA -and that is a personal opinion- it is sufficiently easy for the DM to use his old materials but it can get complicated for Players who love their PRCs and Noncore-Feats and Spells.

This book is chock full of template goodness! And You will find a few more of these templates used in the RotR Campaign.

Apart from the Dread Creatures we have the

and we have the and we have . There might be more, but I do not know tme out of my head!

Go and buy it! I used and use these templates every so often to keep my player on their toes even with known monsters. for example the

Holy Crap!

Thats a great campaign log, and long...like 314 pages long!
Thanks for the pointer, reading it does make you wish you could set in on that kind of action yourself.

Yeah, but only the first 45 pages are of The Temple of Elemental Evil II. The rest is for the campaign "The Liberation of Tenh" where Heydricus and Co. kill the sh$t out of Iuzians...

ok sorry fixed link is here

Cool, Thanks!

Hi,
please check the link. It links back to PAIZO boards.

I would agree very strongly with this statement.

Thanks!

A few years ago there was Campaign Log on EN world called Twenty Years After: the Temple of Elemental Evil 2" written by (contact). This campaign is for me the epitome of "killer dungeon". I think they had about 17 PC deaths. But if you read the logs - and I strongly suggest that you do- you really want to play with these guys. This is how you do killer dungeons as DM and player.

I don't know that I'd call them "killer dungeons." That makes me think of Tomb of Horrors or, I guess, Rappan Athuk to a certain extent. Those seem like dungeons designed with killing in mind as much as anything. Of the three adventures, only ST3 is a true dungeon, and it, like all three of them, is designed with "story" in mind.

I always see "killer" adventures as the RPG equivalent of "Die Hard". The Playr should survive but come out of it victoribous but bloodied and at the end of their ressources.

No fun to slaughter PCs, that is easy, but to kep them on th knife's edge and let them having fun, now that is difficult!

Now if the two can be woven together into one masterpiece adventure!

The better Nature of the Lost Angels of Arbonesse?

BV210 wrote:

Greg A. Vaughan wrote:

These adventures will take a 7th-level party to 20th level or higher.

Yes, but that's only if your character can survive that long.

I never said a party of "the same characters."

Note: BV210 took part extensively in the playtest of ST1 and actually had one of the lower death tolls of the group. Of course, not everyone has a half-ogre PC that can take a header off a 200-ft. cliff and still get up to run away...so his perspective may not be that of the average PC.

Ok then, what was the average death toll for the campaign?

Does it beat Rappan Athuk Reloaded?

Anyway, I am really sad that we probably won't see this Campaign until late 2009. I am also sad that we will pobably see it in 4th edition. Although I like and play 4th edition, I think, from what I have read so far, that this epic is more suited for 3.5 than 4th. In the end, if it comes to fighting the BBEG. And if the BBEG is what I think he is, I want him to be a fearsome foe with dozens of abilities, spells, attacks and so on and not an elite xxth level solo monster out of the MM. So Clark, if you read this, whip up some cool campaign that fits 4th edition rules and 1st edition flair perfectly, but give us Sleeping Tsar as 3.5!

OK that may be taking things a little far but I do want to say that I just noticed the search forum feature and am really happy to have such a powerful tool.

Be careful! A powerful tool can get even more powerful in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

But it can get dangerous ind the hands of someone who does not know how to work this powerful tool!

Nope, there are several stories were the Mouser used magic. The earliest incident was him cursing the nobleman responsible for his wizard mentor's death, he cast a powerful spell from a scroll in The Lords of Quarmall and there are a couple of incidents when he may be using magic to break a spell, but it isn't clear what's going on. The Grey Mouser often mucked up the spells - in The Lords of Quarmall his spell killed all the wizards on his employer's side, not the enemy's.

I think I have to re-read my Leiber Collection. It seems I forgot a lot in the 15 years since I read the stories last time.

Oh and regarding the topic of this thread, I'd just houserule a feat that allowed other weapons to be used with Rogue Powers but with a cap on the damage dice - i.e. your great axe does d12 with basic attacks, but d6 weapon damage when combined with rogue powers.

Good idea!

Fafhrd would be a very unhappy rogue in 4th and Grey Mouser would have to spend a lot of Feats for his multiclassing and the Rapier proficiency...

Anyway, I think in the new edition we have to clearly distinguish between the Character Concept and the Class Role of a PC.

To Illustrate this, I will try to put classes to the two Iconic Rogues of Fritz Leiber.

The obvious choice seems to be rogue for both.
But that does not really fit somehow.
- Fafhrd is easier to create as a Dual-Blade Ranger. His weapons are the Longsword Greyawand and the Dagger Heartseeker. He clearly hs some outddor skills due to his living in the northern wilderniss. But the rest of his skills are clearly urban.
So here we have to change the trained skills he can take to the roguish ones.
And already we have Fafhrd who relies more on his great strength than on his also considerable Dexterity.
- Grey Mouser is clearly a rogue. A Ranger would fit because he uses a Rapier (Scalpell) and a dagger in his off hand weapon (Cat's Claw). But he relies more on Dexterity than on strength. So we give him the Rogue powers. Although he was a Wizards apprentice, he never uses magic. So we just give him traning in arcane knowledge.
Done.

To create a Great Axe wielding roguish PC I suggest to take the Fighter Class but change his skillset to that of a rogue.
As to the powers: Change the Flavour Text. From "spinning sweep" to "crafty hamstring": "Crouching you swing your weapon with perfect accuracy and hamstring your opponent".
Of course there is still the armor issue. Scale Mail won't do for a roguish PC. Use Leather but do not act like a defender (ie. enemy lodestone) but as a Striker. Now you should be effective in combat and have a roguish skill set.

One way to give a wizards the specialist feeling is to allow easier access to Rituals that fit the school. Maybe even allow shorter csting times or stronger/longer effects of the rituals?

The easiest way to fit powers and school specialization is to create "power-templates". A specialist can add these templates to every power. It gives him some special effect. E.G the Evocer might get +1d6 damage per power level and the diviner might learn one fact of the creature (weakness or power) each time he attacks and hits with the templated power.

Of course there must be a drawback so the Specialist will not get overpowered.
For Ritual it is easy: He can not learn rituals of a numebr of other schools. Just like in 3.5.
For power templates. I think it costs him a Feat. One for every tier (so 3 at lvl. 30). If the templates are still too powerful the wizard might have to burn one daily use of "healing surge" to power the template. He basically gives his inner power to fuel the extra effect.

Just some ideas.

I *strongly* disagree with that last part. IMHO, a player who comes up with a 'stunt', that stunt should ALWAYS overshadow the normal powers. If they don't, you go right back to the "Why bother?" mindset.

As soon as a player starts to believe that 'no matter what he does', just using his Uber-Stab attack for 3d10 will always be better...he'll give up trying to be creative/imaginative. It becomes "I could grab the heavy iron poker, throw it at the oil-filled lamps overhead of the orc and light him up for 1d10, if I hit, with no bonuses other than level and dex...or I could just hit him at +9 for 2d10+6 with my sword".

I'd rather have creative players who liven up the entire game session than players who simply min/max their listed powers and bore the hell out of me.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I think you misunderstood me. What I wanted to say: if one action, be it a stunt or a normal power clearly overshadows (in terms of average damage output) the other actions or powers, this action or power is too good. Players will want to use it always.

Therefore, as Matthew posted above, it is a thin line to walk to make a stunt worthwhile but not so good that you use it every encounter.
Your above example is a good one for a once off stunt. This is cool and IMO should do a lot of damage if it succeeds.
On the other hand, if a PC lights oild rags on his warhammer to get another d6 fire damage, as DM I would come up with some ideas that discourages the every encounter use. The warhammer gets brittle and breaks easy or so.

I think these are all really good ideas - the system itself does work great with creativity and creative actions, but the real trick is getting players into the mindset of using them, and removing the fear of the DM saying no.

It is also important to make creative ideas valid choices compared to the powers a PC can use.

Your example above: Why should I do the stunt with the devil if I have a power that does more damage with a higher chance of hitting?
But on the other hand these stunts should not overshadow the normal powers.

The limits are between the player and DM, not between the covers of the PHB, DMG or MM. I see the players roleplaying their power, describing what their trying to do ( and unlike previously actually having a reasonable chance to do it).

But that holds true for every edition of D&D and even every RPG!

Years ago I even had a few games without any rulebooks and it worked!
The rules of a game give the DM and the Players the framework to work with.
Sure, experienced DMs and players will be able to "wing it" and make on the spot decisions.
But this Framework helps new DMs and players to get an idea how things are supposed to work.

Good Post!
That sums up my feelings for 4th edition too.
I have come to like the new mechanics after I was strongly opposed to this incarnation of D&D at first.

Or create a Feat that allows it to use a non-light weapon for Sneak Attack.
Of course, there is the Issue that most "heavier" weapons use STR instead of DEX.
Either you go with DEX for all weapons or you use STR to hit and DEX for damage. with rogue powers.

Fluff explanation: Instead of using the gaps between the armor as you would do with a dagger, you cut through it with your heavier Longsword, but then you push it directly into the enemies' vital organs.

Mechanic implications: Most rogues will have a higher Dex than Str. So most likely most rogues will have a lower Attak Bonus with the heavier weapon but a higher damage due to the higher average (4.5 for LS and 2.5for dagger).

What do you think?

First Kudos to you for reading these boards and asking these questions!

I also think that judging an adventure path by its first adventure may be a bit harsh. Life's Bazaar was just a big dungeon crawl. Now, Life's Bazaar did set up the whole city of Cauldron, and of course the Whispering Cairn set up Diamond Lake; for Rescue at Rivenroar, Brindol was already set up by Red Hand of Doom.

Although Red Hand of Doom is a good adventure, not every DM has it and can refer to it to describe Brindol (I do not have it, but read through it in my FLGS). IMO RaR would have been much better from a DMs point of view if we had some more infos on Brindol. Some interesting NPCs to work with.

I also don't think RaR gets enough credit for what it does do in unique ways: it has a series of linked encounters that are part of a village raid, and it has a puzzle surrounding the captives...where the captives themselves are the clues. I'd call that fairly atypical.

The encounters are and the raid theme are interesting. But IMO there is not much that gets the PCs invested in Brindol and in bringing the captives back. As this is not a standalone adventure, you do not have to worry about messing with the DMs idea of the campaign. For me, the AP should provide the DM and the PCs with a background. So with a description of Brindol (see above) the PCs could have grown up in the town or near it. Also,the captives might be relatives. Now the PCs have a natural hombase. A place the will always come back to.

Beyond that, I think that Siege at Bordrin's Watch and the Shadow Rift of Umbraforge both are as chock-full of interesting locales, background, etc. as you can get. Overlook is a great, detailed, useful city. I'm super jealous of Rob Schwalb's city design, as it makes Mithrendain look so ho-hum next to it. Scott Gray brings the Shadowfell to life. I think both adventures are extremely detailed and leave a lot of hooks for the DM...

It is not the interesting locales and encounters I am looking for most in an AP. It is the recurring NPCs and the stuff that happens beyond the scenes. IMO, an AP gives the perfect opportunity to create longtime friends and enemies for the PCs. It also makes the PCs decisions important in the long run. The robber spared in adventure 3 can turn out to be the perfect guide in adventure 10. Or the Half Orc that ran away in adventure 4 keeps a grudge with the PCs and strikes back in adventure 7 (in a most unopportune moment of course).

An AP is best when it creates a living and changing world.

At the moment SoW does more like connected adventures than an adventure path to me.

Edit:
To add some APs I think are great:
-Rise of the Runelords because the BBEG has his hands in every action, but the PCs will meet him only very late in the AP. And because the whole story has an epic feel to it.
-Curse of the Crimson Throne because NPCs -even low elvel ones-matter. And because th BBEG stands in plain view the whole time but is untouchable until the vry last.
-The Thousand Thrones for Warhammer FRP (and Rob Schwalb was heavily involved) because it embodies WH grim and grittiness. And because there are a lot of NPCs the players will hate but have to work with.

Ahh, you never can have enough Demons ever!
So James, bring on the "Demons of Golarion" 256page Hardcover.
Or, less satisfying but still cool, the pathfinder companion "Demons of Golarion".

I wish I'd caught this from the beginning, sounds fascinating.

Will their be another opportunity? And will it be 4E?

There will certainly be another Open Design project. Until now it worked this way: Wolfgang tossed a few ideas at patrons of former projects. And patrons also posted a few ideas. From a dozen ideas the best few got voted by the patrons. Those were put up by Wolfgang on the Open Design page. Now it was down to voting with your Cash. You either subcribed to one or the other project. The poject that got the most patrons (or got the critical cash value first) was the one that was now tackled by Wolfgang. Patrons for the losing poject got their cash refunded or could be patrons for the winning project.

If "Wrath" is successful and patrons like it, I am sure there will be another 4th edition project.
So I suggest to visit the Open Design page on a regular basis after "Wrath" is released.

And you would still make mistakes.

Unless your not human. **Nervously eyes avatar**

to err human, to forgive divine. Or something like that.

Nah, the avatar is a statue of my Lord Orcus. I am simply a humble priest of his dark Majesty*.

Whilst I'd like to see Wotc's editing team kicked in the jacksie lets not put the targets at a ludicrously celestial height.

IMO WoC could do and should better.

Errors happen, but WoC has a very bad track record when it comes to editing.
I am far more willing to accept errors in 3PP products than in WoC products.
And even most errors do not matter much if the adventure is really cool.
But my overall impression is that this is not a carefully crafted AP but some mediocre adventures that are connected by a thin thread.
Though I am still willing to admit that I was wrong if the next adventures blow me away.
We will see.

* I know that the Priest of a Demonlord does not have a place in Cheliax. So in my other life I am a simple Priest of Asmodeus**

**Yes, pretty chizophrenic, why do you think I call myself "Damned"?

It helps to keep a list with the basic attack bonus he has for all weapons he uses.
As a rogue he will probably only use weapons that use Dex. modifier for attack bonus.
Now he only has to add the Powers' bonus to Attack and/or damage.
I did this for my rogue who used daggers, shurrikans, short sword (magic+1) and sling and had no problems.

You have a good track record in my book Mr. Baur, so I will be keeping an eye out for "Wrath of the River King". Will this be out a printed module or pdf only? And sticking to my original question - when? :-)

This adventure is a limited edition for patrons of Open Design. To get it, you have to be a patron. To become a patron, you have to donat a certain amount of cash to open design. There is a basic amount, which gives you access to some previews and the final product and there is the patron of the art which gives you insight in the whole process of the adventure creation.

You will receive the final poduct as a PDF first. Later, after Errata have been integrated you also can do a POD.

You get more detailed info on Wolfgangs Open Design page.

I was patron on Empire of Ghouls and Arabian Nights and Senior Patron on Blood of the Gorgon. I can only say that the adventures are high class and the senior patron status gives you a lot of insight of how an advnture is created and how the designers' mind works*

*In case of Blood of the Gorgon and Nick Logue as designer that was disturbing...

While I appreciate the suggestions of how to work it into the game (ok...most of the suggestions...'Just give it to them' was a bit lame), it seems to me that this ommission brings into question the idea that they have this AP pretty much mapped out. It jsut seems like this is kind of a big slip up...

A slip up like this is not a big deal and can happen in your homebrew AP.

But this is something that should not happen to the "Leaders" in the RPG industry!
If I would be editor for an AP I would create a flowchart with Items/Informations/NPCs that appear in or link more than one adventure.
Then I would know that Item A carried by NPC B from adventure 2 will come handy in 6. Easy, yes?

I would love to see adventures that are halfway between the current WotC offerings and the Pathfinder APs. Great stories, wonderful roleplaying, fun combat encounters but not so much detail that it feels like cramming for a history exam.

Well, for an adventure I like enough background to provide DM and players with enough incentives to play thorugh it but not too much so I won't b able to fit it in my homebrew campaign.

For APs I like it exactly how PIAZO are doing them. Enough background and information that I only have to read the books and can play and don't have to worry about coming up with a campaign arc myself.

And last but not least, for the once-in-a-while beer and pretzels night I like an adventure that starts with a "bang" (Monte Cooks "Temple of Mysteries: In medias res" is the standard setting adventure for me here).

Different grades of "fluff" infomation for different adventures.

I think we have to bear in mind that the "adventure situation" has nothing to do with the edition of the game but everything with WoC.
They set the "style" of the game and how they think it should play.
As we can see from the adventures so far, they focus lies heavily on hack n' slash.
As the GSL is so restrictive there is not much competition from 3PPs at the moment.
So far so bad.
I must admit that I really do not understand why they produce adventures like this!
Although I might err in this assumption, I do not think that the designers would play their own adventures -as written- in a campaign of their own. They probably would modifiy them heavily.

Maybe these adventures are there to reflect the tastes of the casual gamer who enjoys a once in while beer and pretzels game?
Maybe the style of the adventures reflects -or is supposed to reflect- the tastes of the new target group of gamers?
Maybe it works and this will bring a lot of new blood to the game.

As for me, I do enjoy a good backstory. Even if the PCs will never know the whole of it, a good story helps me to get th feel for the adventure or campaign. And there is a big difference between the old chtulhuesque evil that awakens and threatens the world or the old wizard-king that reawakens as a Lich to take back his empire.

Hmm, for 4th I am a player only. So the Monster and Encounter generators do not interest me.
I even can do without the PC generator.
the Dungeon adventures and the other stuff was, IMO, subpar so far. I am not paying money for that stuff.
Even worse, my DM might use some of the Dungeon material in his homebrew campaign. And it is damn hard not to look at adventures.
So I will not subscribe to the whole package.

But I would subscribe if I could get a Dragon + Companion package at a reasonable price. For me that would be about 3-4 USD per month.

But I also agree it's a bit wonky -- this is a slightly awkward rule to implement, and rather contrary to the 4e philosophy of streamlining at every opportunity.

This might be the reason "Brutal" quality is not in the PHB.

Also, to make gameplay faster, you can assign Brutal damage eah time you roll less.
e.g. Brutal of 4 and a 2(W) power for Maul would do 2x4=8 damage.

This is not the same as re-rolling and lowers the average damage potential of the weapon but makes gameplay faster.

Especially in later level if you roll 7(W) for powers...

I appreciate the spirit in which Azzy started this thread but in all honestly it is far too late for this. Paizo's boards are known far and wide as the place to really hate on 4E. This forum (not the whole board but the 4E forum in particular) is a regular joke on a couple of the boards I frequent.

It is never too late to avoid zealotry!

I do want a critical disucssion on the boards about the merits and flaws of 4th edition and all things that tie in with 4th edition.

Being critical without flaming the game or -and IMO that is even more important- other gamers is the way to go.

It is too bad but there are plenty of other places to discuss the merits and flaws of 4E without being shouted down by the 'haters'.

Thing is, there are plenty of boards where you can discuss the merits of 4th. But if you try to point out flaws of the system that you percieve you get shouted down by the 'lovers'. I do not want to condone the behaviour of some of the posters on these boards, but the shouting down can go two ways.

This post was inspiring Matthew!
I hope my 4th DM will provide some cool locations in the upcoing homebrew campaign where I can do some stunts.

Huh? Anybody seen a Red Dragon or pooped on Trolls lately?
All I can see are Smurfs kicking dead horses.
Come on, there are enough anti 4th threads to have fun!
I am here for some WoC bashing.

I think this playtesting is a step in the right direction.
But as already pointed out, this is only one out of 6 (?) Classes in the PHB II. Who is doing playtesting fro those apart from WoC staff?
Look at the 3.5 splatbooks and how much stuff was overpowered, underpowered or useless (e.g. the frenzied Berserker)?
I certainly hope that WoC has some groups who do playtesting besides the designers.

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

So dragons in 4E are going to have a special 'poop' attack then? :-?

It varies between being a daily and encounter power, depending on what they have eaten recently.

How will a Dragon with such a large and long digestive tract be able to use this poop attack as an encounter power?

Nah, that clearly is a daily.

On the other hand, if it uses a strong laxative as an implement the dragon might be able to use it as an encounter power!

There might even be an extra racial feat that makes it a poop burst attack!

A gorilla that is creating an adventure path on its own for the first time, and is still getting used to the process.

But do they have to re-invent the wheel or get some inspiration from other companies who successfully create APs?

Cut the phony sense of entitlement. We're talking about a company you pay pennies on the hour in terms of the amount of entertainment you enjoy as a result of their work. The guys behind the development desks at WotC work their butts off for this hobby, and are every bit as much a fan of role-playing games as you are.

I am sure they love D&D and they work really hard. But if all that hard work produces only mediocre adventures that at the moment do not even feel like an AP there is something wrong.

Crap is Crap and stays Crap whatever Company designs it.

People will complain about anything because people love being able to express outrage at something. The same people who were "outraged" at not having an outline are the ones who are now "outraged" about the outline that they're given - including the handful that said they'd be happy with just a couple paragraphs on where the AP was headed.

I am not outraged, I find the outline funny.

Is it only me, or was the outline of the Paragon and Epic tier almost a verbatim quote from the PHB of what PCs will do in these levels?
From Plane-hopping and saving Countries to Saving the World and more.

You're on the enemies list.

As you are Chelaxian too I rather be your enemy than your friend. As my enemy I know what to expect. As my friend...well that could get really unpleasant.

Come on, this is good natured fun the WoC way!
Its fun to annoy the haters as they won't buy 4th products anyway.
And its it's fun to annoy the lovers as they will buy the 4th products anyway!
No harm done, yes?

#3 and #4

Although I still consider 3.5 my favorite game.
I have only bought the 4th PHB and won't invest more cash in it.
As DM I will only DM 3.5 or PFRPG as the mechanics favor my gaming style more.
That said, as a player it is fun to play 4th even though it still has a lot of rough edges and problems.
But I am sure 4.5 or the "revised edition" will take care of these problems.

I think we are digressing (is that the correct term?) from the OP here :-)

Does anyone have any thoughts as what eager Scales of War GM's should do to compensate for lack of an overview?

Some obvious answers could be:
1) Wait till the whole thing is out (but thats gonna take like forever)
2) Use some of Paizos excellent AP (but conversion might be daunting a task for some...)

So what would you recommend for those eager to try out the only currently available 4e AP ?

Should we be afraid of improvising, fearing that som NPC might turn out to have whole different role to play later? Should you just stick to the plot? Should we maybe not worry so much, since whaveter problems arise we can just fix it as we go along?

What do you all think?

or

3) Create your own AP.

In fact, as 4th encounter creation is so easy, preconstructed encounters are not as IMPACTFUL (take this Seabstian!) on preparation time as in 3rd.
IMAPCTFUL (I did it again!) on your time ressources is creating the AP story. Not just a few short stories that can be connected (as WoC did so far) but one whole story that progresses from chapter to chapter.

The 4e fans won't turn to it, they've been there and done that for the most part. PfRPG doesn't offer them anything to make them want to go back to a 3.x style of play. Second there are many 3.5 groups that won't go to it either, they have no desire to switch, not for 4e or for PfRPG.

And that dear gamers is the sad truth!

I 3rd edition times most D&D players used the 3rd edition Core Rules*.
But now the Fanbase has the 3rd and 3.5 Core Rules, the PFRPG and 4th edition.
That split can not be good for the hobby as we will play different games.
Ok, PFRPG and 3.5 will be compatible, but there will still be significant differences.

*of course there were, are and will be a group of players sticking with OD&D and AD&D 1st and 2nd.

I'm not ashamed to admit I enjoy reading Salvatore and I enjoy reading about Drizzt.

There; I said it.

Me too, I too enjoy reading about Drizzt.

But I never ever played an angst ridden dual scimitar wielding Drow!

The only thing that could have been worse than this would have been 'The Legend of Elminster'

That will be a big article for the Playboy. I mean this magazine is all about randy old man who think that they are virile enough to pursue women half their age -or in elminsters case 1/10 their age!

Frankly, I love Graz'zt (but I'm not in love with him)

Sir, you are of Chelish blood! Please reconsider your heretic statement!

You wanted to say: "I would consider Graz'zt as a cool Monster if he was a Devil", yes?

but his role as the schemer demon does seem to put him in peril when 4th edition pretty much states that demons do not have schemes, do not tempt mortals, and do not make bargains. So unless he's the exception that proves the rule (which used to be the case with his second hand man, Vuron/Verin - a lawful evil demon,) I have a hard time seeing them reconciling this.

Best way to use Graz'zt in 4th is to change him into a Devil Prince. Not an Archdevil but a powerful devil in his own right.

As a shemer and seducer of mortals he falls into the 4th edition Devil theme.

Like other posters, I would be curious to see if Erik or James has anything to say on this. You have managed several AP, so could their be valid reasons not to give us an overview?

James graced a similiar EN world threat with a comment.

OPINION: The word Beta is there solely to allow paizo to a) sell some copies of the book twice. B) make people feel involved and thus invested in the project and c) avoid accusations of failing at x/y/z with the words 'it's beta'.

If you have a look at the very low price for a full color book this big, you will see that this is a ver low margin book for PAIZO.

The primary reason for the Book is that there are a lot of DMs and Players who like their Deadwood Copy. The book from PAIZO is probably cheaper than if you print out the PDF yourself.
And, after all, you still can download the PDF version for free!

I for my part will not buy the Beta but have downloaded the PDF and will post playtest reviews and participate in discussions.
I do sincerly think all those who discuss rules and mechanics and do playtesting not only feel involved but are involved.

From the start is was clear that the final rules will only come out in Sept. 09. This is still an open playtest. And if playtesters find failings in the system it will be changed.

Also unlike 3rd and 3.5 4E dosent really have a lot of modules to tide people over till the entire adventure path comes out.

Yeah, I wonder why there are so few moduls from 3PPs...oops, GSL, I forgot you for a moment.

To be fair, Goodman Games is now publishing modules. I have no doubt that they will outshine the Woc products (which is not hard, given the mediocre quality of everything not containg rules that WoC has produced for 4th so far).

Disclaimer: My whol rant has nothing to do with the quality of the 4th edition ruleset. But it has everything to do with WoC not being able to create cool adventures for 4th.

The short answer to this question is “no.” The problem is that we’ve mapped out an elaborate plot that covers level 1 all the way through level 30 and there are a number of surprises along the way.

Cool, DMs love big surprises in Mid-Campaign. Imagine playing in the midst of large plain and suddenly you need an ocean or a large chain of mountains.

Those “grand reveal” moments won’t be nearly as impactful if they’ve leaked out via plot summaries and/or an overview of where the Path is going.

As I said before DMs just love grand reveals in mid-campaign. It is fun if the NPC the players killed in adventure 5 turns out to be a mayor plothook for adventure 7.

I can assure you that the current fears about the lack of a compelling archvillain, or a logically complete structure, or major NPCs, or a real hook are all misguided. Just wait and see!

Yup! I am instantly reassured. the quality of the first few SoW adventures is a sound foreshadowing for the elaborate Plot that will be revealed as time progresses.

They really must be joking!
This is not a NOVEL but an adventure!

So my Fighter has +4 Str Bonus, uses Power Attack with 2 handed Maul for +3 damage and has Weapon Focus for +1 damage fo a whopping 2d6+8

If i miss with Reaping Strike I do Strength Bonus Damage (as I use a 2-handed Weapon)

Now, is it

- 8 points as other bonusses from the "normal" damage are included
or
- 4 points as it is Str. Bonus only?

Mactaka wrote:

how about Lovecraftian/Baurian ghouls and ghoul kingdoms?

Got it.

Awesome!

My "Empire of the Ghouls" finds a new home in Golarion!

Also, in response to Tharon, I suspect that WotC didn't take on such a grand narrative because it was too invested in putting 4e out.

They could have contracted freelancers. I bet Ed Greenwood would have been happy to help.

I think WoC thinks that people will buy everything with FR on it as it is a widely reconized brand, even outside of RP circles.