Erik Mona wrote:
Jirel is good. But ...
REH's Dark Agnes killed her "fat pig" of a husband Francois at the altar in front of the priest with just a dagger tucked in her bosom. None too shabby with a short sharp blade, I'd say.
Hal Maclean wrote:
Mike's always been aces in my book -- maybe that's why he only rolls 1s.
I had a similar experience to Hal's with Mike editing a Bazaar piece I wrote. Mike spotted something in a query sentence for a Class Acts submission, and suggested that with a different approach it had the potential to be an Bazaar of the Bizarre submission. Three drafts later it turned into the one Bazaar piece I had published in Dragon.
That article would never have gotten off the ground without Mike's advice, encouragement and direction. If there's a greater compliment to his skills as an editor, I don't know what it is.
Jason Nelson 20 wrote:
Mike's ability to roll poorly at just the wrong moment is legendary. I believe poor Vyth was immortalized that way in Dungeon's pages.
True enough, ECunningham.
It's unfortunate, because that whole episode was what soured me on the Wotc boards, for good. There was no payoff for trying to have good and legitimate discussion of the novels, because too many posters were just flinging insults and spoiling the whole atmosphere.
Worse yet, there is still no place on the Wotc boards to have a discussion of the products providing the literary backbone of this game, the imaginary adventures that can thrill and inspire yet more adventures at the gaming table.
Mike McArtor wrote:
Breathe the fresh air, flex your muscles and crush your enemies! Shoanti rock.
Don't trust the city-folk. Chels consort with demons, you know. Look at the mess they made of Korvosa. It's only a matter time before they infect all of Varisia. Stamp out the infection before it spreads, I say.
Mike McArtor wrote:
Yes, I have assurances that this book will eventually happen and that Nick Logue and I will write it....The hardcover will provide a few more glimpses into Tian Xia, to sort of tide us over until the time comes for quasi-Asian awesomeness! :D
Mike and Nick join forces ... the possibilities, the possibilities.
If I may ... please flesh out India/Vudra as much as the other locales.
Written for a future campaign (I hope), but mostly because the backstory (Sabina and Cressida were both in the Guard, both acquaintances with Orisini) was intriguing. I imagined them as fast friends, now rivals, and the rest was fun.
I wish there were a tune. The piece does need work (fix meter, if nothing else; many lines are inconsistent) But there is very little poetry in my liberal arts education, so I'll feign ignorance ;)
I was reading Mike's Guide and Nick's first adventure, and what can I say, the mood struck. I'm really liking the vibe I get from Korvosa.
In taverns the bards of Old Korvosa sing this song ...
Cressida was the wily ol’ arrow
Brooding dark, a beauty, a honeydew
In tabards black with silver thread
Cressida and Sabina, what a team they made
No barmaids or wenches to claim as their own
In tabards black with silver thread
Then came a day, ol’ Neo had to pick
So Cressida took the Field Marshal’s staff
In tabards black with silver thread
The challenge was offered, and quickly accepted
A dazzling display, even Blackjack was impressed
The priests of Abadar would not tell
Cressida returned to the castle that day
I would, for one, advise not straying too far from the base document.
Fix things a consensus of fans want fixed, but my vote is not for a wholesale change in the game.
(If that's what I want, then that option will be available this summer ;) )
I think a lot fans on these messageboards are creative folk, and it's a nice idea to play (let's find a way to tinker and get "our" favorite house rule put into this Pathfinder rpg). There are advocates for a good number of alternative subsystems on the boards right now. Any one of them is cool, neat, and could deliver a kick to a particular playing style.
But taken in their entirety, that's a lot of rules changing, and to me, defeats the purpose of the PF rpg. Optional rules are OK, but the baseline document should remain intact. That's the game we know and love.
Submissions for Dungeon and Dragon magazines had this philosophy (for a host of different reasons, I understand), but the intent was to keep the game grounded, keep it familiar, keep it "knowable" -- if that's even a word.
The basic idea -- to keep the 3.5 rules in print -- is best adhered to if they remain the 3.5 rules.
By all means, fix those things that seem to vex a lot of players. But I'm not sure a wholesale reworking of classes, feats and skills is what will serve you in the long run.
Claudio Pozas wrote:
Author or co-author of Fiery Dragon's BattleBox, rules bits of Counter Collection 2, 3, Summoned Creatures, Undead and Counter Pack 3: Eldritch Horrors & Occult Investigators. Article published in Dragon 273.
The BattleBox is really an inspired gaming accessory. You should be very proud of that contribution.
I would like Craft (knots) be considered on par with the Professions usage, though, because they are linked to different ability scores (Int and Wis), I can see the logic of making a distinction.
Perhaps someone RL experience could explain whether there is a real difference between decorative and utility knots.
Everytime I tinker with Concentration and Spellcraft, I see why they are separate.
I also agree that Spellcraft jives with Kn. Arcana, but I also think it should be apart of Kn. Religion. In other words, the idea that your given method of spellcasting should be melded with your requisite knowledge: divine for religion, arcane with arcana.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
So, from a rules standpoint, as I understand it, the simplest thing would simply to add these lines to the existing skill descriptions in the Alpha, then.
I yield to the majority of respondents on this one. Clearly, the days of Use Rope as a skill are numbered.
Isn't Army training the epitome of the kind of specialized training that skill ranks in Use Rope could represent?
But I'll take you at your word that it isn't a specialized skill, though it certainly sounds that way.
And thank you for your service and sacrifice to the nation.
What a wonderful roleplaying opportunity.
You only lost equipment. The player is OK, and now has to improvise. I mean, bad things happen in dungeons ... and true enough, it sounds like your team did everything they could to ensure the rope was secure, but it still went south.
How often have you watched a movie and seen something like that happen?
I wouldn't call it it stupid loss. I'd call it an adventure.
Lord Welkerfan wrote:
Here is my problem with Use Rope--it's not that it's necessarily useless, but that it is too universal. Use Rope is a component of Survival, Theft, Craft(Traps), Climb, and many other skills.
This idea that Use Rope is a component of other skills might be conceptually true, but the rules don't say so. As written (in the SRD and by its absence in the Alpha), only Climb even mentions the use of rope, and then only as a tool that provides bonuses or adjustments (since you can attempt Climb without rope).I appreciate that as a rock climber you have that skill, or that certain professions might attain it too. But is that an aspect of your strength, your capability to haul yourself up the slope or ledge? Or is it another skill, utilizing dexterity (or intelligence, I'll grant you), enabling you to knot ropes/rig lines, etc? And that, in fact, you're doing two things (if not more) to attain the heights?
There is something to what the OP says.
It's not that we don't appreciate the hard work Jason's done. Making these suggestions, after all, has spurred discussions on these boards in such a vibrant way.
(And gotten us away from the pro-4E / anti-4E discussions that went nowhere, I might add).
But truly, a Paizo-produced 3.5 book would be a welcome additon to my gaming library and gaming table.
If you must tackle something, skewer those problems that Jason identified in his introduction: grapple and polymorph, and leave it at that.
-- I would say that providing options: from alternative classes and races to interesting uses for skills and new feats -- were all what made Dragon magazine really cool. Taking that approach, and including options as sidebars and what, would really be neat, and make the PF Core Book a greater value than snatching up someone's old 3.5 book on ebay.
While I'm willing to entertain that Survival may encompass rope skills ... the fact is that there are character type for whom Survival doesn't fit thematically. (urban rogues, bards, swashbucklers).
Yet, these guys may need to Use Rope too.
I admit, Craft (knot) has potential. But to me, that's just another way of saying Use Rope, which is more universal in its approach.
Thank you Demiurge, for trying to think out of the box on this one. But, c'mon, the words ranged and grapple for the same task really don't fit together do they? ;)
Burrito Al Pastor wrote:
I've got Rules Compendium, and I've read the sidebar. Respectfully disagree on the analysis of "excellent."
Logan understands it, he just doesn't "get it." Hand-waving use rope is no more acceptable than hand-waving combat, in my book. Exploring the dungeon is part of the adventure too.
It's more than just killing monsters. It's learning how to survive in the deep, dank places of the earth. And securing things with rope, crafting your own traps, securing a perimeter are all dungeon craft skills. PC need these to survive a dungeon crawl.
Now, I understand, not every playing group's adventures focus on the dungeon. Fair enough. But the heart of D&D is the dungeon crawl (Age of Worms, Savage Tide, White Plume Mountain), and ensuring that the PCs have the tools to meet the challenges of dungeons and caverns and tombs, means knowing how to use mundane equipment.
Consolidate skill list, if your must.
By all means knock out cross-class skills.
But beyond that, my real feeling is that you should keep skill points. Let players customize their characters as they wish.
Certainly, the skill list system in Alpha could be used as an "option" by DMs, or in some campaigns -- probably those free-wheeling quick'n dirty or beer'n pretzel games -- where players want something simplified. But leave it at that, an option.
I think players deserve the chance to make their characters as detailed as they wish. They certainly have their choice of feats -- why make skills any different?
With respects to all, especially for joining this thread, and making your suggestions:
Selk: While use of professions is a good -- no, make then an excellent and often underused -- way to emulate skills, I think there are fewer sailors and farmers in my dungeons than you suppose. I presume the average thief was neither farmer nor sailor (though a fighter could easily be profession soldier with that in their skill set).
As for climb and survival, the rules -- as written -- don't support your application of use rope. Ascending slopes (a very physical/athletic endeavor) and making your way in the wilderness don't automatically presume the skill of rope handling.
Stephen: Those are all good gamist alternatives to get around rope handling, but ultimately they are work-arounds for a much more elegant game mechanic, a simple d20 skill check. (Nor does being a grappler simulate good rope skills, I think.)
Using rope is a basic dungeoneering skill, necessary for exploring caves, caverns and deep tombs. I use it, and I think retaining it for both utility and flavor is important to the game.
But I think each of you for your suggestions. It's great to see different ways people game.