|
|
|
 Recent posts by
el_skootro:
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a player in my STAP campaign who wants to start taking levels in the Master of Masks prestige class. The class fits really well for him (he's a thespian with levels in bard and swashbuckler) and he loves the idea of getting different cool abilities, but mechanically the class is ... wonky.
We've decided to up the BAB to 3/4 and to give him two "favored masks" that basically give those masks a bit more power:
Has anyone actually used this class in play? Does anyone have any opinions on how this fix would work?
Thanks in advance,
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, we've had a pretty tough time playing since the New Year, but on Monday night we managed a pretty good sized session, so I figured I'd give an update here about my attempts to subtly introduce You-Know-Who into the STAP:
Although the characters should have reached the Isle of Dread, they keep returning to Ft. Blackwell and its environs (which could derail the entire AP, but that's a different story...). So I've been whipping out modules from my library to modify and throw at them. The most recent one was Curse of the Emerald Cobra, one of the Dungeon Crawl Classics. Reports on the game can be found here and here.
Essentially, there are three main antagonist groups trying to thwart the party's plans: The Brotherhood of the Hopping Frog (the name results from my misremembering the slaad-worshippers in Ft Blackwell), a Cthulhu worshipping sect who consider the slaad to be the best and most mutable creatures to use in their experiments to create an army of mini-Cthulhus; the Brotherhood of the Yellow Sign (my campaign world has grown organically from the Freeport trilogy, so a lot of the mythos of that setting is present) who worship the Unspeakable One, who may or may not be Cthulhu; and the Crimson Fleet, pretty much unchanged from the AP.
The Brotherhood of the Hopping Frog (BHF), are actually making the black pearls for the Crimson Fleet, but the Brotherhood of the Yellow Sign (BYS) are acting as middlemen.
Each organization has its own motivations, but the BHF are trying to raise Cthulhu by unleashing half-slaad creatures that drive people crazy on the world and by helping the Savage Tide to erupt. The BYS want to unleash the Savage Tide to rouse their god (who, again, may or may not be Cthulhu), and the Crimson Fleet want the Savage Tide to happen to unite Demogorgon's two personalities.
What I figure is that Demogorgon has no idea that the Savage Tide may have unintended consequences. I'm basically going to cut out the Wells of Dread adventure and have the PCs go after Demogorgon at that point. They'll get their butts kicked, and he'll let them know who their true enemy is. At that point, they'll start to round up extra-planar allies (including Demogorgon himself) and they'll try and take on Cthulhu. My plan is to give each player the stats for an ally and have them play two characters: the regular PC and the extraplanar ally.
If Cthulhu is defeated (and I know that's a BIG if), the party will still have to deal with Demogorgon and his plans.
Anybody think that'll work? Is it too anti-climactic to fight Cthulhu and then go after Demogorgon? I was hoping for a Mexican stand-off feel: after the initial victory, the party looks around and sees that they're surrounded by demon lords, and with their common enemy gone, they don't have any reason not to try and kill each other.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicolas Logue wrote:
el_skootro wrote:
Nicolas Logue wrote:
I think I'm gonna organize a wee game for Sunday.
Oooh, I wanna play!
El Skootro
Ha...but...
DO YOU KNOW MARVEL!?
BTW, rumors that I am the sole freelancer tackling 4E Marvel Superheroes are completely unfounded...sadly.
Don't worry Nick. I ain't trying to ingratiate myself into your game.
Some of my most frustrating memories come from Marvel though. I tried to use the system as a gateway drug to get my comics-fan friends into DnD. They all wanted to play Wolverine. And they kept cracking up over "Beano's Grocery Store" on the map.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Turin the Mad wrote:
El Skootro,
Once I have the text done up, I'd be happy to e-mail you my take on the Lady of Dragonhaunt Hollow (the true dragon of the Infamous Seven of the Isle of Dread) if you like.
Awesome. Thanks so much.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someonelse wrote:
I once wrote a dragon crawl that would fit this campaign well. I intend to use it myself. I ran it about a year ago for another group, no one in my game right now has played it. If you would like, i can send you the original text, but the map was drawn on graph paper and I have no way of posting it.
the idea is that this was once a pirate base, but now its the lair of a black dragon. he has made some of the pirates into undead minions. this dragon could have connections with other pirate gangs as well.
its mostly just a dungeon crawl, there are a lot of traps, some built by the dragon and some by the pirates. there are plenty of undead pirates and a few other things in the mix as well.
I dont want to post a whole module in the forum uninvited, so let me know if you want to read it.
Someonelse, I wouldn't mind if you emailed me a copy at skooter3 <at> gmail <dot> com
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Mahoney wrote:
By the way, I think the Paizo layout artists and graphic designers are some of the unsung heroes in the office there. I have been consistently impressed with the work they put out. From Dungeon and Dragon Magazine, to the Shackled City AP HC (an opus of layout), to the new Pathfinder stuff.
Very fine work. Please pass my praise on to them as someone who has worked as a graphic artist.
Sean Mahoney
Just a quick second of the above. One of the reasons Paizo is consistently great is the look of their products. A lot of 3rd parties make good products, but Paizo is just about the only one to make good products that look great.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ggr-rog-nard wrote:
el_skootro wrote:
I made it with Ms. Toad once. Things were getting hot and heavy, and then everything got really weird
El Skootro
Toad-licking. You so stole that from us. Just saying.
Oh, evolve.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Jade wrote:
el_skootro wrote:
Your comments don't bother me and weren't what inspired my diatribe. I do get frustrated by comments to the effect of, "I'll never switch! I won't even give it a chance!" To me, that sounds very dogmatic.
It doesn't sound dogmatic to me unless you include a dogmatic qualifier. A lot of people detest the way WotC dropped the ball regarding their communications to (certainly not with) fans and that's their reason for not switching over. They feel insulted. Other people don't want to buy new books because they've spent hundreds on their current library. Some people are just happy playing the current version so switching would be this upset to their routine and why bother when you just don't need to? So many reasons owing nothing to a sense of 3rd edition being "The One Ruleset."
"The One Ruleset." I like that.
I agree completely that there are lot's of reasons for not wanting to switch. And that WoTC has done a terrible job in rolling out the new edition. And that 3.5 is the best ruleset so far (I know you didn't say that, but I agree anyway).
The dogma I'm referring to is the pseudo-populist notion that the little guy (the fans) are getting screwed over by the big, bad corporation. Yes, I am still pissed about the yanking of Dungeon and Dragon, but Paizo is still putting out quality products. Yes, WoTC sometimes makes it sound like 3.x sucks, but until they prove to me that another system is better, I have the right to be skeptical. But I will keep an open mind about it. I don't understand why so many people are so unwilling to do that. It's like they're nostalgic for some perfect DnD that never existed. That's the crux of my argument.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Set wrote:
One of the gamers in my group told me last night that he didn't want to switch to 4E for at least six months, as he remembers buying the 3E PHB the week it came out, only to be burned when the rest of us waited a month and got the Revised version, or, as he stated later, 'Until they re-introduce the Druid.' Both seemed like valid reasons to hold off on stampeding the store on release day, although it's not like we'll be waving... [messageboards truncated your message]
If that's your group, then I'm not talking about you:
el_skootro wrote:
I really don't know if I'll switch to 4E. It does seem that a lot of changes are being made from the 3rd edition of the game and I don't know whether I'm ready to make all of those changes. I do know, however, that I don't consider 3E to be the litmus test of what is and isn't DnD and that 4E will be just as much DnD as any other edition. There are plenty of arguments against any particular gaming group converting to 4E (e.g., enjoyment of the current rules system, an unwillingness to spend more money on new books) but claiming that 4E is in someway a betrayal seems to me to be, on the face of it, ludicrous.
(emphasis added)
There are many reasons to not switch, and my group doesn't plan on switching. The arguments I have a problem with are the ones that claim that 4E won't be DnD.
As to what you've already spent your money on and have, that won't be changing. You still have the books and you still can play your version (as can I or anyone else). I think most people will settle into a routine of playing the most recent version with the support of 3rd parties (like Paizo) to give the flavor that makes the group the most comfortable.
Your comments don't bother me and weren't what inspired my diatribe. I do get frustrated by comments to the effect of, "I'll never switch! I won't even give it a chance!" To me, that sounds very dogmatic.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epic Meepo wrote:
el_skootro wrote:
I fully expect to get roasted pretty hard for it on these boards, but I didn't post it because I wanted to "troll,"
"I know I'm posting flame bait, but I'm not trying to be someone who posts flame bait." So, what are we to believe? That you were somehow compelled against your will to start trolling?
Seriously, you need to re-read the definition of the word "troll," because you, sir, are big and green and capable of regeneration.
You're at least partially right, but I see a difference between getting people's dander up just to do it and being provacative to make a point. I suppose it's all in the eyes of the troll though...
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whimsy Chris wrote:
Ah, I see - but the following from the OP: "I think that the 3E "grognards" are a bit like the mega-church attending evangelical Christians. They're basically trying to marry a righteous devotion to an original text with a world that is so far removed from the original text as to make it extremely abstruse," may cause confusion.
I think you edited your post before I got a chance to respond.
I'm very intenionally saying that the Bible has as much relevence for some Christians as older editions of the game have for DnD players. There are always revisions and attempts to modernize the Bible (as Jade mentioned, the Vulgate, the King James Version are examples), and there are always people who draw boundaries and say "This is the definitive version."
Much like I think that some Christians probably think Jesus said "thee" and "thine," I think that many DnD players probably think that thieves were in the original rules (they weren't. They're add-ons). It's okay to be a grognard (or a fundamendalist), but if you're gonna do it, do it full-bore. Wanna play an elf wizard? Tough, that ain't in the rules and if you want to be a wizard, you can only cast spells up to 6th level. That's grognardism. Saying that 4E is getting rid of the spirit of DnD because fireball doesn't do d6/level damage anymore is revisionist grognardism. And revisionist grognardism sucks.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whimsy Chris wrote:
Crodocile wrote:
3.5 came out in what, 2004? And you're comparing it to a text written in ancient Babylon?
I was going to make a similar argument but you beat me to it. >(
I think this kind of argument that 3.x people are old-fashioned, "behind the times," etc. is equivalent to 3e people calling 4e people unintelligent cattle who play whatever WotC tells them to. These are poor arguments, meant to incite emotions rather than reason.
And I wasn't making that kind of argument. I'm really only talking about the narrow set of people who refuse to consider 4E because it's "just not DnD anymore". My argument is that by those criteria, 3E isn't DnD either.
As I said in my post, there are good reasons for not making the switch to 4E and as of right now I don't think I'll buy into it for some time if ever. I just get riled up when people predict the apocalypse and don't recognize that the game has gone through changes pretty constantly (yes, some much bigger than others -- that's why I referenced punctuated equilibrium) since it's inception. Pick which version you'd like to play and play it. There are now a lot out there. But it's a fool's errand to try and parse out which one is the essential DnD.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just posted this to my blog, but since that's more of a space for my personal thoughts than a public forum, I thought I'd repost it here. It's a bit inflammatory because of the religious stuff, but I hope people will look beyond that and understand that I mention religion to be comparative, not critical.
Game designer James Maliszewski has compared OD&D holdouts to the Amish: they're willfully ignorant of current trends and like to just keep playing their game without any newfangled contraptions like "thieves" and "weapon proficiencies." 1E holdouts are likewise compared to Puritans: they know about the changes in the game and have a jolly good time telling everyone and anyone who will listen why it is inferior and wrong.
I'd like to extend his metaphor a little bit. I think that the 3E "grognards" are a bit like the mega-church attending evangelical Christians. They're basically trying to marry a righteous devotion to an original text with a world that is so far removed from the original text as to make it extremely abstruse. In the same way that it cracks me up to see the current Conservative Christian movement rail against the "War on Christmas" when the Puritans -- who are, at least arguably, their antecedents -- made laws banning the celebration of Christmas, I'm amused when I see people arguing that 3E represents the "true" spirit of DnD. Or that 4E will chuck everything that makes DnD what it is out the window.
DnD was created as a rules set for playing war games with wizards and goblins. A lot of Leiber, Vance, Howard etc., concepts were ported (sometimes wholesale) into the game and some Tolkien was grafted on, and that was the game. But it became something else. DnD became its own genre distinctly removed from those authors. With that process, DnD influenced and was influenced by numerous other sources. 3E was, when it came out, the most recent iteration of those influences. It had some Leiber, Vance, and Howard still, but it also had some anime. And some Indiana Jones. And a ton of other stuff, most of which I probably don't recognize. In essence, DnD had built its own self-referential mythology that separated itself by several orders of magnitude from its own source material. Of course that process didn't start with 3E, and it won't end with 4E, but each edition change represents a sort of punctuated equilibrium in that process.
I really don't know if I'll switch to 4E. It does seem that a lot of changes are being made from the 3rd edition of the game and I don't know whether I'm ready to make all of those changes. I do know, however, that I don't consider 3E to be the litmus test of what is and isn't DnD and that 4E will be just as much DnD as any other edition. There are plenty of arguments against any particular gaming group converting to 4E (e.g., enjoyment of the current rules system, an unwillingness to spend more money on new books) but claiming that 4E is in someway a betrayal seems to me to be, on the face of it, ludicrous.
El Skootro
*edited for clarity's sake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Alvarez wrote:
Jason-Azze wrote:
Are the trim sizes of these books the standard 6" X 9" trade paperback size? The description says trade paperback, but I'm naturally suspicious :-).
The books are approx. 5-1/4" x 8-1/8"
So it's an octavo and not a sextodecimo.
</nerdy bookbinding talk>
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So my thought now is that when the first shadow pearl was broken, it roused Cthulhu from his slumber.
Demogorgon's motivations remain the same. He wants to set off the shadow pearls to increase his power. The production of the shadow pearls will all be done by Cthulhu worshippers, however (the area under the Isle of Dread is already pretty ripe for this). The party discovers this and freaks out a little bit. They realize what Demogorgon is planning, but they don't know whether or not Demogorgon knows he's being used to awaken Cthulhu (he doesn't). Instead of meeting up with Igglwv, the party has to track down a Far Realms expert (It just so happens that I have a candidate: a pc from a previous campaign) who explains that the only way to save reality is to stop the production of the shadow pearls. The party then proceeds to build an alliance to stop Demogorgon as before (with the added incentive that aligning with demons may seem less of a stretch when the alternative is allowing Cthulhu to rise).
This way, the party can also try to convince Demogorgon how dangerous his plan is (he may not listen or even care) via diplomatic means.
Fortunately, the player for my bard character is out of the country for a month or so, so the bard has just gone unconcious and is having some weird dreams.
Thoughts?
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Grubiak wrote:
The Cthulu mini is pre-painted plastic.
He unfortunatly has one of those clicky-bases that Wizkids uses.
He is for the Horrorclix game. He was a convention exclusive if I remember correctly so he is quite expensive.
Yeah. I know all of that. It's worth it.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Jacobs wrote:
Cthulhu is cool. He can certainly become a BBEG, but he's a tough cookie. Certainly tougher than Demogorgon. He also works a bit differently than Demogorgon—through the dreams of artists, cultists, and the deep ones.
You could certainly substitute him for Demogorgon as the BBEG, but that'd mean reworking most of the last few adventures pretty substantially, since R'lyeh and Gaping Maw are pretty different locations.
UNLESS.
Perhaps instead of sending the PCs into Wat Dagon, the climax of the adventure actually sends them to R'lyeh? Either at the bottom of the sea in your game world, or adrift somewhere in the multiverse—perhaps a projection of R'lyeh into Shadowsea, the layer of the Abyss just "below" Gaping Maw? R'lyeh certainly seems to me to be a great place to hide the Master Shadow Pearl, and this way Wat Dagon can become a single ruin in R'lyeh that the PCs go to after navigating the city itself after traveling there from Gaping Maw. In this scenario, Demogorgon's defeat could trigger Cthulhu's temporary awakening somehow, and you can drop down your Cthulhu "mini" as a FINAL boss. One, I suggest, the PCs be encouraged to run from rather than fight.
It'd be interesting if Cthulhu ended up becoming the new Prince of Demons. That kind of development's a bit too cross-genre for my tastes, but it could work anyway...
Awesome. Thanks for the help James. Right now I'm still in the idea stage as to how to make this happen, but I'm going to pick up the new Elder Evils book today to see how Cthulhu or other Cthulhu Mythos baddies may work out. If the campaign actually get's that far (flameouts are always a danger with busy people), I'll make sure to let people know how I'm handling it. For now I'm just excited about the Isle of Dread.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I've been reading to much Lovecraft lately, but my campaign has drifted into Cthulu-esque areas already and my FLGS has an awesome colossal Cthulu mini (mini is hardly the word for a foot and a half tall monstrosity). So I'm thinking of taking my STAP in a completely different direction. We're currently on HTBM, and I've dropped a couple of Demogorgon hints (basically foreshadowing the Lemorian Golem). My plan is to really play up the demogorgon connection so that the players are ready to take out a demon lord. However, before they start to make alliances with other demon lords, I'll subtly encourage them to take on demogorgon himself. Once they try, demogorgon will basically say, "fools! Our enemy is not from this reality!" My hope is that teaming up with demons will seem like a more logical (and maybe Good) choice when the PCs are presented with something truly terrifying like Cthulu. After all, the text from the alienist prc in the Complete Arcane says: Complete Arcane wrote:
Places far worse than Hell exist in the multiverse, and even demons have more in common with characters than the entities that exist outside what is known, a mere glimpse of which can drive the sanity from someone's mind.
My homebrewed world has many Lovecraftian elements and the PCs have already encountered some wacky far realms stuff (with one losing his mind completely).
Does anyone have any suggestions for how to integrate this (pretty large) change? I'despecially lve to hear from James Jacobs, architect of the STAP and big Lovecraft fan.
Cheers,
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patricio Calderón wrote:
Basketball (and other sports) have been played almost the same way from 100+ years and no game is the same than other. Rules have not changed for this "games" and still crowds go to the stadiums to watch them.
Whoa mate. I'm gonna stop you right there. Basketball hasn't changed in the last 100 years? If you were to watch a basketball game from 60 years ago you wouldn't recognize it 'cause you wouldn't see any dribbling or any jump shots. The game's changed dramatically even in the last 30 years, what with the invention of the shot clock and the 3 point shot.
What you just said with your analogy is "Nobody eats lobsters in Maine. Therefore, 4th edition sucks." Not only was your analogy wrong, it didn't make much sense.
I don't mind hearing reasoned discussions about why people aren't looking forward to 4E, but that kind of claptrap just makes any decent argument you may have sound silly.
El Skootro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Radle 81 wrote:
I think I'm confused ...
No, I'm SURE I am.
I thought the content on the d20srd WAS the SRD. Apparently not?
Where would I go to read the WOTC SRD? What is the difference?
This is form the FAQ section of d20srd.org:
Q: Do you plan to add content from other sourcebooks to this site?
A: I cannot include content from any sourcebook unless that content has been released under the Open Gaming License (OGL). This site currently contains content from all sourcebooks published by Wizards of the Coast that contain open content. This includes open content from the following books published in the official d20 SRD:
Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual
Epic Level Handbook
Deities and Demigods
Expanded Psionics Handbook
In addition, the following open game content has also been included:
Razor Boar and Scorpionfolk from Monster Manual II
"Variant Rules" from Unearthed Arcana
Hopefully there will be content from other sourcebooks released under the OGL in the future. When that happens, you can be assured that I will include it on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
