cappadocius's page

It just seems hypocritical that they're whining about not seeing 4th edition's OGL, and their business is founded on using the 3.5 OGL, yet they are trying to trademark this term. It's like trademarking "You're fired!" It just seems really, really lame.

Do you think it's hypocritical that Wizards created this OGL and yet don't allow people to use Illithids and Beholders willy-nilly?

Consumers are going to continue using the term Adventure Path or AP to designate any large series of modules, especially ones that claim to be a campaign in a box.

Campaign in a Box is a series of articles written by Chad Underkoffler in SJGames' Pyramid magazine. I'm not sure if Chad or Steve trademarked the name, but folks should probably tread lightly before calling their product "Campaign in a Box"

Quick question: What do Thaumaturges of Lamashtu do to replenish their spells? It would be a nice bit of descriptive flavor for the party to encounter Eryllium as she was finishing her invocations, and explain why she's full up on spells when the party comes calling.

Note: I'm using Armies of the Abyss as my source for the Thaumaturge, rather than Book of Fiends. I don't know if the class changed between editions.

You asked, so I'll answer.

If Pathfinder remains 3.5, you will likely have me until the end of time.

However, I'm dropping it faster than a hot potato as soon as it goes to 4th edition. I've hated every single change announced for 4e, and I don't anticipate that changing.

And the "You see this" is the most irritating DM cop-out I've ever encounter. Aside from it being poor DMing IMHO, any player that knows the monster instantly will recognize it and remember it's weaknesses.

Not everyone has a group of players that've played D&D for 20 years.

I actually prefer textual descriptions of monsters because it allows me to spruce up the wordage a bit to make it come alive... It's a lot more satisfying than pointing at a picture and saying, "You see this." As long as the text description is not too vague, it's all good.

I *personally* prefer text descriptions, but I have players who prefer pictures. Art's always one of the most expensive elements of any game book, so I'm aware that sometimes those players will have to suck it up and draw their own damn picture or go to the internet. Where I get tripped up on descriptions or searching the internet, however, is when a creature, such as a bunyip or yeth hound, deviates significantly from the mythic or fictional primary source, or, like the tentamort, it is an obscure and rarely used monster.

I can find dozens of pictures of goblins and trolls and ogres. Knowing my mythology can get me through mythic critters like the Senmurv, Peryton, and Coatl. But when faced with Tentamorts, Wolf-In-Sheep's-Clothings, and Squarks, I'm at sea, and even a good description can lead to wildly differing expectations among players. And when a critter isn't anything at all like its inspirational source, like Lamias, Gorgons, or Bunyip, you run into similar problems. Even after reading the description, a player probably has an existing mental image that hasn't been broken by the verbal description. And hitting the internet for obscure monsters or monsters that look different than their mythic namesakes can be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I do not consider the lack of pictures of the Tentamort or Bunyip in RotRL#1 to be a FLAW, and it won't make any difference in any reviews I would write, but IN MY GAME, it keeps a great project from being perfect.

So roughly, I'm thinking of the following:

Finish the Glassworks---> Level 2

Right before starting Thistletop*---> Level 3

En of Thistletop---Level 4

If they do the Catacombs of Wrath before Thistletop, and defeat Malfeshnkor in Thistletop, they will be within spitting distance of 5th level after finishing that dungeon. With the full Catacombs experience behind them, they'll hit 3rd level within a small handful of encounters at Thistletop, and have a good chance of hopping into 4th by the encounter with Nualia.

google search for tentamort: tentamort

That's interesting. I wonder why that doesn't appear at all on a Google Image Search...

Cpt_kirstov wrote:

google image search for bunyip: Bunyip

The link for the Bunyip was not working, so here you have a fixed one.

Hm. Is that the interpretation of Bunyip they went with in Tome of Horrors, then? Bunyip's problem for me was there's SO MANY ways to describe Bunyip that even the description wasn't helping me narrow it down.

Subscribing would get you printed copy at PDF cost and a free PDF as well.

A buck or two and a good photocopy machine at your local store could do the job too. OK, probably B&W, but still better than nothing!

You could also cut out a piece of paper that allows players to see the picture from the book and hides the rest.

Just thinking aloud here...

That last thought was something I'd definitely considered, actually. Labor intensive, but free. Photocopying was a distant second, and a subscription based on having seen ONE issue of Pathfinder was something I wasn't willing to do. I'd gladly pay 4-5 bucks for a PDF of JUST monster and character art, Paizo. Hint hint.

I see what the problem is. You're too lazy to read the description of the monster from Pathfinder to the players and let them use their imaginations, you must have pictures of monsters. Makes way more sense now.

Or, some of us have visually oriented players who get more out of a picture than any amount of verbal description, and you're a patronizing jerk.

Totally makes sense.

Dangit, I was hoping this was a thread recommending proxies for the critters with hard to find or non-existent minis like Yeth Hounds, Sinspawn, Tentamorts, Bunyips, or wolves with D&D medium-sized bases.

and if you don't know what a monster looks like, google it searching images - usually you will find it n the first page

This fails with the Bunyip and the Tentamort in Burnt Offerings.

And, while Sinspawn, Goblin Dogs, Goblins, and most of the NPCs are all illustrated in the module, unless I spend an additional 13 dollars for the PDF on top of the 20 I paid for the book, I can't show them without revealing important text/stats.

It might be cool as well to give out XP when the PCs complete an area's significant event. Therefore; you'd put the game on hold and hand out XP at these points during Burnt Offerings:

After the initial goblin raid
After the PCs encounter Tsuto
After the PCs encounter Erylium
After the PCs encounter Ripnugget
After the PCs explore the first dungeon level of Thistletop
After the PCs defeat Nualia
After the PCs defeat Malfeshnekor (note: This likely won't happen until after you've started "Skinsaw Murders")

This was actually my plan, although I was only going to give XP after Tsuto, Erylium, and Nualia. It risks making it a bit video gamey with a feel of "boss battles", but it also prevents the Wizard from inexplicably knowing two new spells after a fight, or the Rogue suddenly knowing a new skill out of nowhere. Adding a Ripnugget "XP point" might be a good idea, to prevent the characters from jumping two to three entire levels at once after Thistletop.

Will any of this info be in the new Gazeteer or otherwise slated in upcoming Pathfinders? If so, I can just wait until then. Otherwise I'm likewise very curious about demihumans. I do enjoy Elves, but the little teasers about them have really got me randy for more info. I'm normally a Dwarf lover, so I'm also very keen on what will be mentioned in Pathfinder #3 regarding Janderhoff.

There's a little more info about our demihumans in Pathfinder #3. There'll certainly be more info about them in the gazetteer.

Anything sooner? I'm trying to start Rise of the Runelords and I have players asking "What do gnomes look like?" and "What would the average dwarf on the street think of my dwarven wrestler?" and while I'm more than happy to make stuff up, I don't want to field questions 6 sessions in along the lines of "How come every elf I meet doesn't show the whites of their eyes, while our ranger Aladriel has big anime eyes?"

I like the justification for Common - now, either convince me on racial languages, or reassure me that the demihumans and humanoids of Golarian don't have a monoculture!

So, the 10 Things About Goblins that was in the blog and made it into the Pathfinder #1 introduction was really useful to me as a DM. It gave me just enough nuggets of info to run the goblins without having to read an entire book about them, but still left room for that book to come out someday. :)

I was wondering if there were any blog posts, or could be, or anything similar about the demihumans of Varisia? Selfishly, I'd be happy with just gnomes or dwarves, but all of 'em would be awesome.

Please Paizo People! Help me get my PCs feeling Varisian!