fireinthedust's page

Just popping through. While I havn't playtested the Paladin yet, I really like what I'm seeing in the build.

The magic item abilities for their sword is a great option, like the Kensai, and stops them from being a dead-end class after level 5. Ditto the additional abilities.

I like the idea of non-system setting books. I play Mutants and Masterminds' system with my D&D modules, actually, as I like the non-class way of making characters. That means having adventures of any system I know, and I convert those villains and monsters to M&M. I've already done that with the first of the Rise of the Runelords adventures' Nualia (cleric buffs are Boost, add some mind control effects and good strike powers, summon minion: yeth hounds, and you got her).

so any other non-system books coming out? Or 3.x/4e at the same time? A non-system book but with two appendices for the crunch (like the stat blocks in back of Temple of Elemental Evil) would be fun.

I'm certain that I put in for the pre-order for the 4th edition boxed set... like, back in January or somesuch. Now I'm seeing it's in my shopping cart. Does that mean I don't get the set sent to me?

I specifically remember going through the ordering process all the way to the end.

did I miss something? I don't want to go over it again and risk a double-order, until I know.

Okay, brainstorm last night, don't know if it's been touched: I like the school powers idea, but what if we made them more generic?

Take the Warlock's eldritch blast: it doesn't do much damage, but they can do it every round. Well, what if we had a comparable special ability for the wizard/evoker? In addition to their spells they can send forth a blast of some sort that gets more powerful as they rise in level. Even after their spells are spent for the day, they can fall back on this less-powerful ability.

each school has an ability. You can use it only as long as you've got spells in your repertoire, and it's only as powerful as the highest-level spell you've got available.

The powers as I see them:

Evoker: arcane blast, a ranged touch attack against one target. every few levels it counts as a new type of damage (good, fire, cold, lawful, adamantine, silver, etc.), for the purposes of DR; only as many things as you've got levels of spells level (so 3rd level spell would be 3 damage types it counts as), and a set order they come in (fire, cold, silver, adamantine...) so you can't just pick and choose each round. Damage is 1d6 per spell level you've got access to right now (so if you've got a 3rd level spell left, you can do 3d6 damage to one target each round).

Necromancer: animate/create undead at will. They can't have more HD than their limit, but as they get more powerful they can create more interesting undead. Max HD made is double the level of the highest spell you've got handy (so if you've got a 3rd level spell, you can animate up to 6HD of undead this way in a round).

Abjuration: a protective field at will (ie: they maintain the field as a standard aciton each round) either blocks a new type of attack every few levels (fire, cold, missiles, force effects, acid), or negates one die of damage per spell level available (so if you've got a 3rd level spell, you negate 3 dice of damage that round from either any attack or all attacks against you). The field could grow at higher levels, protecting others. maybe.

Summoning: Same deal as the necromancer, but you'd summon HD of creatures each round. You'd have to use a standard action to do this, and if you didn't the critters would go away. 2HD per level of spell remaining (3rd level =6HD).

Divination: Mage sight, but one new thing you can look for per spell level available: evil, good, law, chaos, magic, poison, undead, etc.

Illusion: Create an illusion mimicking one sense per spell level remaining. Sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, but also what it detects as magically (heavy magic, good, evil, undead, etc.). They'd counter divinations.

Transmutation: I don't know yet. Possibly wildshape into specific forms (wolf, bird, dragon) per spell level left, or else polymorph stuff around you.

Translocation (another option): you can move faster, or gain a new movement type (spider climb, fly at low speeds, minor teleportation, etc.)

Healing (theoretical option): Caster can heal damage 1d6 per spell level remaining, and/or condition modifiers (fatigue, dazed, etc.) and/or ability drain. Gives the option of the kindly caster of the arcane.

What this does: simplifies the abilities of spellcasters for on-the-fly playing. It also allows a signiture spell for the character, while they can still study the more varied spells that are out there normally. they'd likely use more interesting spells rather than eat up all their slots on evocations. This could also count as something they can do *aside from* specialization: everyone picks a special ability, or designs one based on the above. Then, as school specialization in the PHB (pathfinder handbook) is handled normally with banned schools, it would be on top of the special ability; so if forbidden schools include evocation and necromancy, you could say the PCs can't pick those special abilities.

I dunno about that.

Thing is, Perception (spot and search, etc.) and Stealth (hide and move silently) are combat skills. Or, at least "right now" skills that have an effect in-game. they have a DC that is right there in-game.

Craft doesn't. There are feats for making magic items, but why do we need one for making armor? Or baskets? Or alchemical stuff? Why not just make them level-dependent like the item creation feats? It's not stuff you use in an encounter, and the GM is likely to just say "okay, you make three suits of armor; or not, because I'm a jerk"

There's no chance of failure: anything important, the PC can just take 10 once they're trained, because they're not in combat when they make stuff. Why aren't they in combat? Because the game isn't happening, they're in-town.

So why waste ranks in Craft when they could be in Perception (or even cross-class in Stealth, for the fighter)?

Granted, a "I'm good with fixing stuff" skill *does* have an in-game effect. Like checking out whether a place can be fixed. Or disabling devices, or picking locks.

really, picking locks isn't a "thieving" thing, to be packed into picking pockets. I know a locksmith, and he's not a pick pocket. An artificer isn't a pickpocket either, and I wouldn't expect it of Gepetto (Pinocchio's dad). It should be a feature of the skill.

know what I mean?

Craft is problematical, just like multiple knowledge skills. If I want to make swords or armor, or repair the cart, or the castle before a seige, I have to have loads of skill points all over the place. No one takes craft for that reason in my games, preferring to just buy an NPC.
Also, craft is a non-combat action, so why waste space on a combat character's sheet?

Linguistics is a skill: every rank means a new language.

Why not have Craft be like Linguistics: every rank is a new type of object you can make. Armor, weapons, seige engines, alchemical compounds, seamstress/tailor, ship building. All these things use scientific principles in the real world, so if I'm good at building other stuff I'll have less basic stuff to learn when I turn my hand to it.

Some people are just good with their hands, like others are polyglots. Dwarves and Gnomes can just fix stuff, elves make all sorts of goodies. A wizard could make a golem, a staff, a ring, a flying carpet, but doesn't have to be a master at all these things to do it. I can make cookies, with skills related to that; why shouldn't making soap or mixing paint be aided (aside from synergy bonuses) by my skills there? mixing is mixing.

OPTION 4, OPTION 4!!!!!

Or the PathfinderRPG version, which is also simple.

I like this option! it means less work, and more focus on what the skill does to make it interesting. Although, I'd say don't limit it to class skills/cross class skills. Let my paladin take Stealth if I want it, and be a master if I spend the points. That covers customization needs, while cutting down on number crunching.

It's also simple. I could potentially memorize every skill my players have, which means faster gameplay.

This would work with 3.5 modules and info I've got, as the PCs typically max out their skills anyway.

My little sister is realy obsessive about skill points. She agonizes over them for hours, and spends one or two points to get half a rank of a cross-class skill she'll never use. Kids I've DM'd for in camps also do the same thing. Lots of ranks and numbers means checking math and hassle. Just keep it simple, please!!!

really I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said, but I think the pathfinder version and Option 4 cover my needs: varying levels of proficiency in skills. If we can have a sidebar for 3.5 skill rules, that's great for players and using modules. However, a faster system for NPCs is a must. (as has been said)

So here's my pitch:

Expand what skills cover to general areas. The reason I say this is related to Supers games I've been doing. Rather than having separate skills for knowledge: physics and knowledge: chemistry for science types (like Iron Man); and Knowledge: arcana and spellcraft (say), or Dungeoneering, the planes, religion, etc., I decided to have the heroes base their skills of Power Sources.

A knowledge skill is used primarily for exposition: the DM tells the PCs what their characters need to know for that encounter and/or adventure. So having obscure areas of knowledge that have no real game effect and take up points, is not fun: skill ranks are used up, and no reliable exposition happens.

Ergo: let general areas of knowledge be based around power sources or important areas. So Knowledge: Metaphysics covers Arcana, the planes, undead, aberrations, etc. There would be different DCs for what the PCs are familiar with ("as a wizard, this knowledge is slightly more obscure for you than for our Cleric"), and there could be specialization feats for arcane info, creature types, religion, etc. Otherwise, everyone could have a "knowledge" skill, or a broader type.

Knowledge: metaphysics (the planes, arcana, religion, dungeoneering, what a staff of the magic does, the effects of power word: blind)
Knowledge: History or martial (nobles, heraldry, local, recent wars, geography, etc.)
Knowledge: Bestiary (dragons, beholders, undead, what type of wood to use to slay an elven vampire, etc.)

Lamia Matriarch: they're so cool, and fun villains. I can't keep track of lamias from other editions/sources (lion-centaurs? since when?), but these ones are pretty cool. They're what I would do with Meriliths if they weren't so danged high level!
I've been enjoying pathfinder for some time, actually, a lot of it the result of these characters.

Monster re-imaginings: like the goblins, stone giants, ogres... I really like how they feel less like cartoon goons and more viceral. Also the re-do of dragons so far, like the white and blue. much appreciated.
And yes, this counts as new for me! ;)

faceless stalker Though for the picture more than anything else. I think the shapechanging can be done by a doppleganger/changeling easily enough; the cool part would be the encounter where the PCs find an inn full of strangers, one of whom is suddenly unmasked into this creature (but the whole town is made of faceless stalkers). The PCs are suddenly hounded by globby monsters who, later on, follow them.

sinspawn seem like a good idea; but basing scent on who's wrathful, and giving them relatively few hp, means the PC barbarian is going to go to town. granted, fast healing and SR for low level PCs is good; and character levels means use later on vs. higher level PCs (though how they'd gain anything but barbarian and maybe sorcerer I don't get, but okay).

copper, bronze, brass... kinda like gold; keep copper.

However, I would have made them Adamantine and Mithral, as those are more important DnD metals. Iron's kinda blah, but whatever.
The other metals will be back in supplements, if you care enough.

I like the worlds and monsters book. I prefer the pictures of goblins and some other monsters (esp. beholders) from 3.5, but otherwise I'm fine with it.

I'm wondering about 4e Psionics, especially Kalashtar. I'm guessing they're going to be a "core" psionic race; probably alongside gith, duergar, elans and maybe half-giants. I think a Dreamworld is going to be a new plane, and the Quori are going to be a regular feature for psionics. Sort of an astral plane, maybe?

also: would monsters have core abilities they add to their monster levels? like, a gnoll entry and menu of racial feats, after which one levels them up in soldier, skirmisher, etc.? Then each entry for major monster races has a pile of sample gnolls?

so what makes a monster Elite? is that a template? Or just stat adjustments; like switching from NPC to PC classes (more feats, etc.)?

Okay, I get it: there are monster classes, probably based on roles those monsters will play in combat.

Lurker, skirmisher, brute, soldier, artillery and controller.

They have levels, that'll be easy enough to level them up. If I'm a 15th level PC party, I'll fight 15th level monsters (or critters that add up to 15th level, or something). If we construct a kobold skirmisher as, like, a level 1 skirmisher with kobold abilities, I can just add a level of skirmisher.
This is better than standard construction, as a CR 20 monster might have 40hit dice; so hit dice aren't arbitrary like in 3.5, they fit with PC party and challenge level.

This also means it'll be relatively easy to just add a PC level, really.

Y'know, spells and weapon strikes are the same thing: powers per round; one power may be a strike, the other changes their state (unconscious, prone, etc.). That said, it'll be easy to sub in at-level abilities based on spells.
So increasing a level one skirmisher to a level two skirmisher, and gaining an ability every level, one can also make new powers for them based on PC spells, too. So even if they can't technically gain PC levels, the PC abilities can be pirated for new at-level monster abilities.

Speaking of powers, why would one ever attack? I mean, the AT will powers don't seem to have a limit, and always are better than an attack. Am I missing something?

so you can attempt an attack even when your primary powers are focused elsewhere. Or, if you use the main power, and AoO. Or maybe move that round.

I have the 4e preview books, which are kinda fun.

I think I get the way the rules are going to work, and I have to admit, I like the PCs; and most of the fluff is cool (with some tweaking already planned). Roles vs. classes is a design archetype vs. method, and I like that.

HOWEVER I'm not sure if the monsters are going to be as good as 3.5. Specifically whether monsters are going to get class levels, or have a way for experienced gamers to go beyond the presented rules (advancing, templates, etc.).

The discussion of dragons mentions them as pre-made in the 4e MM. No feat selection, or guidelines for stripping them down like in the 3.5MM. Is it going to be the same as old school DnD, or will I be able to get ye pathfinder module with a cabal of fire giant wizards?

any mention on how monsters are going to work mechanically?

actually, I just got it! Yay!

that's how it works: if it's taking to long for something to happen, pick up a good book, start to read, and the phone never fails to ring!

Added to that: my issue 3 hasn't arrived either. I just got the missing Dragon issue yesterday (penultimate one), but I've had the pathfinder 3 module on my computer since you guys put up the download. Thing is, the local gaming shop already has its issue 3's. Thus the question.

any update on when it (mine) should arrive? I need to do something to my credit card before booting up the subscription for 4 (which I intend to get on to), so I doubt mine is tagged to a number 4.

if it shipped for me for sure, that should be fine; just double checking that there isn't a delay like the dragon issue. (it happens, I guess)

Havn't read the world of darkness d20 book (but reeeally looking forward to it! Good job on "attack on Myth Drannor", btw; nice little dungeons I can fit into any campaign, and do, often; more longevity than the video game by a long shot, it's still played on gaming boards online).

HOWEVER I use a mana system for my upcoming campaign, based on the unearthed arcana and Everquest d20 book's system:

0-9th level spells as usual for DnD
simple spells are 0 level = 1 mana to cast, 1=3, 2=5, etc.
Casters have 8 spells they can prepare a day, of any level they want; if they want to switch the spells in their list they have to spend one round per level minus their Meditation skill ranks (like in everquest d20; minimum 1 round), and they have to have a copy of the spell they want to prep. There are feats to let them prep more spells, and items with a spell prep'd in them (like a ring of fireball, or an ioun stone of charm) to give them more prep'd spell options. Also they could go on a quest to prep a spell off a stationary wall somewhere.
I'm not sure how much mana is good, as I may use either ability mod x 2 x level (so 4th level wiz with 18 int gets 32 mana); or just use the Unearthed Arcana rules.
They'll regain one mana per meditation skill rank per hour of rest or light activity (which is better than the per encounter idea mentioned in 4th edition spoilers).

complex spells (MC's arcana evolved) or pain-in-the-ass spells cost more to use (so wish, anti-magic fields, entangle, etc.), either up by 5 points, or more depending on how power-breaking the spell is. Spells putting a caster in contact with an outer-planar being (like the cleric's deity or Cthulhu) could completely drain the caster's mana pool.

that's what I've got for now.

What system is the pathfinder CS (coming out August 2008, around the time of 4th edition DnD) going to come out in? Or is it going to have fewer stat blocks and more setting information, so more of it can be used with either system?

just adding my stick to the fire: no 358, and no giant poster for 359.

my theory is the shipper hoped not sending 358 would mean the last issue of the mag would never arrive and dragon wouldn't end. Sounds silly, but it's kinda like mag-lichdom. hmm...

anyway: yay, more issues for me!!!

I was doing a search on the site, and stumbled across this article from 2003.

http://paizo.com/dungeon/news/v5748eaic9js7

my question: what happened to the adventure? Are the pics still available for me to see? My curiosity sparked by this strange twist of fate, I ask the staff for answers please.

Yeah, what's the story on Fan fiction? I'd like to write some myself, and would like to know if I should think of using them or making up my own PCs for the story.

How much freedom would we get, and is there the chance of getting a short story... if not pub'd in Pathfinder, than at least offical content certified for the setting?

I would like a hint about what role various iconic creatures will play, though to be frank I'm wiling to wait on some of them. Dragons seem to be ancient keepers of secrets, and may have been bumped up to have more ability to grant, say, runes of empire creation (pfr#1).
In a way I almost don't want to know about them, and about drow, as having a high level of mystery surrounding them... y'know? Especially what drow would be like if they were in a Cthulu-mythos-esque setting (ie: the stuff you shouldn't know? well, you don't know much about it, pcs). Different takes on monsters are fun, culturally at least.

so far we've got:

giants (ogres, stone giants, "rune giants", etc.)
demons/abberations (cthulu-style, thanks! or so I assume)
goblins/goblinoids
some undead
sea elves
elf-elves
dwarves
gnomes
halflings (well, Chelish halflings)
plane-touched (and thus celestials)
fey

so, if expounding on what we've got is more useful and important:

*here's what I'd like to see: explaination of Chelish characters, like ways I can have a non-nomadic varisian or tribal Shoanti good-guy, when the Chelish have a historical association in some of the literature with evil outsiders, etc.

I am greeted, introduced and handed the folder to look at...and I start laughing...

I turn to my son, and the only thing I can think to say is "you spelled goblin wrong".

not pointing fingers at all, but intensely curious!

I like both sets of names:

dukes, beauties, etc.
and Suns, moons and cheaps.

I wouldn't use fingers yet... it's gross. Maybe in Chelax, if they're really as bad as they're said to be (a culture whose founders used to summon demons? yuck, but why not?)

What about Dwarves? They'd likely have something... I'd say bars shaped to fit a particular size and fit together: easier to stack that coins, and they form bricks. gold, Silver and Copper all form the same sized bricks. However, since they know about mining they weigh whole bricks to test for value. Its efficient, and you don't need magic to test for small amounts; also they fit into storage in bulk, don't jingle when shaken (so they can be hidden more easily).

I'm a big fan of both this art and the stuff in the module. The more the merrier!

Your Druid: I like the jacket, and that he's not just some buckskin-wearing elf; druids seem useless because they don't like civilization. Y'know, the whole not-just-medieval but rather stone age quagmire that rangers and druids get pulled into (glorified barbarians).

This guy seems great in that he's got all the gear Aragorn might have, could go into a city but just prefers nature. So one can like nature and still have nice stuff!

As for the eyes: I like the idea of having gambit-eyes, with color. it's cool.

Woo! replies from the author! (well, one of; still good)

I found the player's guide, which had the alignments and a more-full list of deities. oh well, still good.

I did indeed see the Desna advert.

I'm wondering, tho: are Lamashtu and the other darker ones (I saw asmodeus)... well, are we talking Vecna and Cyric/Bane, or are we talking Orcus and Demogorgon? Like, are they especially powerful "old ones" that the more personable powers cast out; or are they the same sort of beastie who just happens to be of a different alignment?

personally I'd prefer having there be a difference: think olympus and the titans, or lovecraft's mythos having Cthulu et al. contrasted with the elder sign types (who safeguard what's known as reality from these beings of chaos and madness). That dichotomy makes more sense regardless of who the "natural order guys are" than having undead and abberations as part of the life cycle. How can you have "unnatural beings" as part of the natural order of the universe? it's silly.
Granted, you can have weird "normals"; that peacock spirit is abstract, which is cool.

It makes sense for the setting from what I've seen in Burnt Offerings:

whatever it is, it'll be great fun. looking forward to it!!!

cool!

although, I'll have to pick it up in physical form when I get the continuing subscription.

I want to know what folks think about the deities in the Pathfinder setting.

any predictions about how the mag will treat them?

personally, I like the idea of not having racial deities, and not having specific alignments for them. The ones in Burnt Offerings were interesting, especially that they didn't fit any of the traditional stereotypes for deity roles (ie: undead slayer, magic user, warrior, sneaky type; LG dude, evil patron guy, elves, dwarves, etc.). Granted, I'd like a good-guy religion so I can fit in celestials, or something like that, but it is a nice change from standard format figures. More of a range for followers (like one for slaves who's patron of strength, and followers include giants, slaves, blacksmiths, whoever, but isn't Ye Giant patron; or ye goblin patron).

sort of a Mythos dynamic going on: you've got the human-type ones, or the "elder" whatevers. Then you've got these monstrous things out there like Lamashtu, who can be villains.

I was sold on the cover. Also the back cover illustration is fantastic!

I hope they (goblins) become an artistic staple. They look great, the little stinkers. Having higher-level ones would be great, jst as an excuse to have more goblins.

Generally I try to include them in games. I've got city goblins for PCs (there's an artificer in the party now), and crazy barbarian tribes (piranhas, etc.). I like the idea of them as swarms of little biters.

Labyrinth Goblins are a must, and if Pathfinder could have various breeds of the little guys... well, an artificer breed, some more "civilized" bands, some who specialize in steel armor, seige engines, etc.; ...who really needs bigger ones?

but yeah: keep these little guys coming!

I'm so hooked on PATHFINDER it's not even funny.

That said, I swapped my subscription the moment I heard Dragon and Dungeon were ending; I was under the impression a Player's Guide would be shipped along with it, some sort of swanky-bound summthin to help introduce the setting. I'm fairly certain I should also count as a charter subscriber on the messageboards, but that's secondary.(as I came over right away when Pathfinder started)

I got issue #1 (aka: crack is whack) in the mail, but no Player's Guide (for my homies to enjoy while goblins riddle their PCs with holes).

What's the story with the Player's Guide, and how can I get my hands on it?

I really like Nualia. Really, I'm not sure what to do with her at the end of the adventure, myself. Thing is, she's just so interesting, a villain I actually feel bad for (I've known several lasses in her position, and her being vulnerable to being consumed by wrath is understandable).

Adding on to this thread, how should Nualia be run? she's in E4, but when the PCs get there... well, what should she do? Talk to them? is she going to try to destroy them? Should she flee to fight another day?

I don't know if I'd even want to kill her off! Depends on the PCs, but yeah. Were I a PC, especially after learning what the deadbeat and the town did to her, plus years of isolation and abuse, plus getting screwed up by madness-creatures from foul dimensions...

I hope Pathfinder does something interesting with her, even if just in memory. Maybe years later have her body used by Frankenstein as his bride!!! or sumthin.

Also: I'd swap in warlock levels rather than Cleric, but that's just me.

but what about submissions? If I want to send in some material for Pathfinder, how do I go about doing that?

I'm in already. Paizo's a good company, and if they keep churning out stuff like they've done for Dragon and Dungeon, this should be good.

This soundtrack is excellent. I love the themesong. The syncopation of the opening, the mood o the music, it's all really top-rate stuff.

ok, that brings me up to three issues. I'm heading to England for a bit, so I'llhave a nice cosey pile waiting for me when I get back :)

I'm a first-time subscriber from Toronto (downtown Queen street West, baby! ...yeah!); I subscribed in November 06, and it's late January; I've hear it takes 8 weeks to get on the mailing list (so november, then december, then january) BUT I've only gotten one dungeon issue so far, and it was for february 07! So... basically I'm REALLLY REALLY CONFUSED!!!!

is this normal as a delay? Does it count as a Canadian/Ontario delay thing?

How long should I wait before I claim "missing issue"? I'm totally cool about delays (you guys do a great job, btw, with the mag), I just want to know how to detect issue-issues.

Here's my thing: I want to send in submissions, but the current format of the release form means I have to print a page out for every idea I pitch (basically); then I ave to fill it out by hand, scan it in, figure out how the computer let's me attach, then send it *along with* the submission. OK, I'm griping, but I had *an* idea (you tell me if it's a good one):

a release form-thing that's fill-in-the-blanks. I get it off the site, something like adobe, and somehow I can delete the titles for each submission, write in the current one, and then send it through. I could whip off a bunch every day (yes, you have trouble engouh sifting through the ones you've got, but I send love with each and every one ;) )

Yes, I have the feeling that this is harder to do than think up; that you'd need a signature for each one, thus the release form; but if there was a way to change the name on the scanned copy, then I wouldn't have to find a scanner every time I get an idea.

Actually, even if it isn't possible: is there an easier way to send out submissions?

Ok, here's a followup question: what works better, an email submission or a mailed submission for queries? I'm thinking mail would be good if only because it's concrete AND it keeps the submission forms together with the query so you lot don't have to search through piles of emails AND forms just to figure out if you can use any of them.

I'm wondering what kinds of names do and don't get attention when you're looking through piles of submissions. I can guess, but do and editors have preferences? Do you like cheese in your titles, the straight goods, artistry rivaling the articles themselves, what?