|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
 Recent Posts
Have you seen gaming paper? It's just as cheap and a little bigger. I use it for any large or complicated maps that would simply be easier to pre-draw.
In tonight's session of the Savage Tide, as the party stormed the beach during their assault of Gaping Maw, the party had laid waste to the couple dozen demons occupying a bunker, except a nalfeshnee. It was circling the skies, hidden by a special cloukill, pestering the characters with call lightning. They took cover in a bunker and the wizard chose to cast demand, with the suggestion that the nalfeshnee come into the bunker. So it did, and then it promptly [i]feebleminded[/] the wizard. The rest of them quickly tore it apart quickly, but it was amusing to see the wizard go from "I know how to get it down," to drooling imbecile.
Yeah, because one of the main complaints about 3.5 and Pathfinder is that casters are so completely eclipsed by martial classes. How they never have any useful spells memorized. There are even classes that choose their spells when they level. They must be completely useless. Have you met AM Barbarian?
And yet you quote the part where he says he hopes you play 5e instead of a previous edition.
I'm sorry, but what? I can't count the number of DM's that have said "core only" in regards to any version of the 3.x system (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, etc...). It took a while, but I learned to say anything was on a case by case basis. And I stopped buying most 3rd party material after Traps and Treachery 2. While I think the OGL was good for the industry, I don't think it's what made the game popular. Some talent was developed thanks to Dragon and Dungeon, but I don't think too many people are looking to find the authors of those little pamphlet sized adventures that came out during 3.0. I think the OGL was a greater benefit to Paizo than any other company, but I also think they benefited from being an official WotC product for a few years and building a reputation before they went their own way. They gained from trying out a lot of authors and picking through the dregs. Then they were able to build a relationship with the writers that had potential, all the while building a familiarity with a very complicated ruleset. I'm sure that WotC gained from that as well, but the fact that their main competitor in RPG sales came about due to the OGL won't escape their notice. I doubt any company will be quick to create a legal document that allows for direct competition in the future. I don't think the OGL made D&D the brand name it is, and I don't think they'll go OGL again. I think 3rd edition with its familiar yet cleaned up rules, as compared with 1st and 2nd edition, was what boosted 3rd edition sales. And putting a lot more choices in the players hands made it more popular. Look at the number of campaigns that made it to 20th level under 3.x rules versus those under previous editions. The OGL may have helped support that with further play options, especially adventure paths, but I'm not sure they were the reason. I think there were more player incentives to continue campaigns (breakout levels anyone?). Where 4e failed (btw, I play 4e) seems to have been a combination of jumping the gun, poor marketing and the internet. 1. Jumping the gun - If Paizo has proven anything, it's that there were still more ways to go with 3.x. It wasn't dead. A lot of players had dumped a lot of money into 3.x books and they weren't ready to have those books become obselete. Moving onto 4e would make them obselete, while Pathfinder would be expanding on them. Which side gets the money? 2. - Poor marketing - No secret there, a lot of folks felt like WotC's marketing strategy was "You're playing wrong, here's the right way". There was no conversion guide, just end you're campaign and start the new one. That is no incentive for some people to even test the waters. 3. - The internet - At no other time in the history of D&D edition transitions could I open my computer and hear what so many other thought so fast. If you search "D&D 4e" how many results before an obviously negative review (with Yahoo search it's 4). So, if somebody "feels" something about 4e (and I say "feels" because a lot of the complaints about 4e come down to "it doesn't feel like D&D") for the first time ever the entire world can agree or disagree. When I started playing 3rd I had grognards that complained about stuff, but they didn't blog about it. I currently play both 3.x and 4e, and I'll be trying out 5e. My players think my games are fun, though none are without faults (I hate save or suck in 3.x and I hate "I use Power Name!" in 4e for starters), but they are both fun. Someday, there will be a system that gives me the best of both.
The most recent one in my campaigns was Shami-Amourae, whom the players refered to as Sham-Wow. I'm looking forward to running a game in the Land of the Linnorm Kings, just so they can bump into Imavajana.
I'm in Worcester and I run a couple different games. Currently I don't have openings and I'm not looking for another game, but I wanted to pop in and let you know there is at least another gamer from the area here. If I'm ever in need of another player or game I'll post here. Also, there's a Central MA D&D Meetup group you might check, though the founder has let it lapse an it is only scheduled to exist for another 6 days...
If they were less than pleased they played up the "we knew well beforehand" card to it's fullest. And then they profited, probably beyond expectation. As much as I believe there were people around the office that had no clue, on the forums they have said there were no hard feelings. In fact they announced they were pleased that WotC extended the license so that Savage Tide could wrap up (originally the license would have ended a few months earlier, but WotC extended it so Paizo could wrap up the adventure path). I haven't heard any Paizo employee say sanything negative about the seperation from WotC.
When did Paizo express that they were shafted? As far as I know they were ok with the buisness changes. I can't speak for the other companies, but Paizo said they weren't screwed over.
Until one of the players realizes he or she could DM. And what are the boards coming to when not only does Pax post without bashing 4e, but I also agree with him. Oh God, I'm about to favorite a Pax post.
So, there I was in the caf at work, before my shift, drinking a coffee, reading Lands of the Linnorm Kings, and there on page 11 was my first spit take in quite a while. There is a nymph druid by the name of Imavajana. My players have a lot of fun messing up the names of NPC's, but this one is too easy. Did the writer even say it out loud before writing it, or was this a joke somebody wanted to slip in to canon?
Have you checked out Aces and Eights from Kenzer? It's not d20, but I hear only good things about it.
Only a couple hours left to buy the last of my minis. If it breaks $200, I'll throw in some DDM posters and other odds and ends.
Shipping out of the states can be not-worth-it expensive. When I was selling individual minis I had some hassles with international bidders and just stopped shipping out of the country altogether. This is the last batch of minis I own and I'd like to be done with as quickly and painlessly as possible.
The one thing I will say in Wells' benefit is that it jump started the campaign. Into the Maw and some of the other adventures really dragged across several sessions. The weaker encounters in Wells may have boosted the party's confidence and got them more enthused heading towards the end-game. I still don't understand how the barl-guras were going to recapture or kill Shami, though.
The final dregs of my collection are up for sale on ebay. In this auction you will find a lot of over 100 figures. These are the figures with no cards, cards with no minis, damaged and factory rejects I had leftover. Which isn't to say there aren't some good minis here, most are in great shape and there are lots of rares.
A few years ago a friend and I did some work for EN World for a few months. It quickly became clear that the bulk of the work was not the fun and rewarding creative process, but instead endless hours of layout work and ceaseless editing (especially for 3.x). Oh, and the bigger the team gets, the more you'll disagree on worthy material (there are several monsters in there that I'm ashamed to have my name anywhere near them).
Is swallowing a move action? It seems a little easier than sheathing, especially for a 20' x 20' head.
In the most recent session of my Savage Tide, the 19th level fighter was in an arena fight with a pair of death giants and a crawling head, and the rest of the party can't interfere. The fighter thought he was clever and opened by trying to sunder a death giant's weapon. The crawling head retaliated by trying to disarm the fighter, on the very open opposed rolls I rolled a 20 and he rolled a 1. I ruled that the head ate the axe. It was late and we paused the session there. Can't wait to see how it plays out. Am I a dick?
I've finished cataloging the cards and here's the final tally.
Nate, and any others can send me preliminary offers. Paypal is preferable, but I'll consider other methods once a deal is reached. Since Nate started this, he has priority. I know this isn't ebay, but anybody looking for references on me as a seller, here's a link to my ebay feedback.
The list is a work in progress. I'm a little more than halfway through, but here's a link as I continue.
...and a feat pulled from a computer game... I just want to point out that the 3.0 version of Spellcasting Prodigy let you get the bonus spells and bumped the save DCs. I think it was in the FRCS. I'd also like to throw in my support for the "What did you think would happen?" argument. I'm certain nobody was complaining when Adam told the players all the rules they were allowed to break, he just left out which rules he was breaking. I believe him when he said it was in the interest of maintaining the "intergirty" of the game, and I believe dragonslie feels he was unfairly targeted. If everybody is breaking the rules though, eventually something is going to feel out of whack. If I were dragonslie, and I decided to and was allowed to continue playing, I would keep a tally of the failures/successes of my spells compared to the other players. I wouldn't estimate or say it seems like all my spells fail. I'd write down every spell cast and the results. Then after game I'd show Adam the proof that he's biased against my spells, intentionally or not. Maybe then he'd distribute the fudge more evenly.
This thread just became Paizo's Jersey Shore. And for that, I say thank you, dragonslie123, Adam Metz, and s ss.
I have hundreds of minis that I've been looking to get rid of. I sold all the rares on ebay, except the ones without cards, and have a ton of commons and uncommons and a few rares with no cards. The only issue I can foresee doing the deal off ebay is the trust thing. I've been ripped off on mini trading sites, and wouldn't ship anything without payment in hand. Meaning you'd have to send me payment and wait, which many would find sketchy. I would've messaged you, but paizo has no such feature. I can be reached at ghettowedge@yahoo.com
Long post that I won't quote here except to make it clearer which post I'm responding to...I think you're reading way more into Jerry's hypothetical situation than he wrote. I was just trying to clearly layout my feelings on the discussion as well as debunking the Pro from Dover status that got attached to the sorcerer.
First off, the sorcerer in this hypothetical instance doesn't have a history at all. He showed up to one fight against 1 big, bad, evil guy and used one spell, lightning bolt. He hasn't always been stepping on people's toes. He isn't a problem player. He just thought that killing the BBEG was the goal. I don't know how he turned into a problem player with such a sordid past. I suspect some poster's real life got mixed into this hypothetical situation. Here are the specifics of the hypothetical situation: a rogue and fighter have been trying to manuever the BBEG into position to push him into some hazard. Even though the goal of all players involved seems to be to kill the BBEG, some DM's have said they would nerf the sorcerer's lightning bolt in order to allow the fighter and rogue a chance to succeed. I said, if I was the sorcerer, I would be terribly upset to know the DM nerfed my spell because he thought the other plan was cooler. Somehow that turned me into "the pro from Dover". Nobody knows if the other players are upset or pleased. Some might think I stole a kill, some might be happy that together we killed the BBEG. I say together because it is 99.9999% likely that somebody else damaged the BBEG in this example and lightning bolt does hit point damage too, but they may not have and my spell could have been the only hit point damage. Now, some reasoning as to why I'd be upset about it. If I were the fighter or rogue instead, and decided to attack and did a crit for equivalent damage would the fudging DM fudge that too? I don't think so. Most spells allow saves, and in 3.x the DM is allowed to roll them behind a screen, so often spells are the only attacks that get hosed by DM fudging. The sorcerer in this example may or may not have other ways to contribute to the "plan", but even if he does, the DM has never told him that his lightning bolt spell is not a valid option (we can assume this because he wouldn't use a very limited number of spell selections for an invalid choice). If the BBEG had forewarning of the party and knew that the sorcerer always used lightning bolt and had energy resistance up, I would accept that. As a DM, that makes perfect sense, it makes so much more sense than thinking the other plan is cooler. If you are the DM and you really want the BBEG to fall into the fire, give the sorcerer an in-game reason not to use lightning bolt. It's not fair to say that isn't a cool enough way to end this fight, so it doesn't. And finally, the sorcerer doesn't know if the rogue and fighter are going to succeed, as far as he knows there's a chance the other guys could fail. Nobody has given any in-game reason why the sorcerer should not try to kill the BBEG. I could see if the sorcerer yelled out "What should I do, I only have lightning bolts left?" and the others said "No, we got this, you go do..." But that wasn't the case (heck the DM didn't even say "The plan is so cool that there's no chance I'd let it fail"). The sorcerer, fighter, and rogue were fighting the BBEG and the sorcerer's attempt to aid in the battle failed because the DM said so. That's it. As the DM you have every rule and option at your disposal as well usually a bit more prep time than the PCs. You designed, or at the bare minimal, you chose to put the encounter in. You could have added mooks or traps or what have you, but you're going to just say the one thing the PCs have control of - their actions, don't work just because you'd rather something else, or in this case, somebody else's actions happen instead. If your actions are the ones being negated, you'd be upset. As the DM, what can happen in the game is only limited by your imagination, isn't it lazy to resort to fudging rolls. Why have piles of stats if you don't think this is cheating? Shouldn't it just say Fort/Ref/Will: whenever it suits your fancy? Don't say anything about the hypothetical sorcerer's hypothetical history of upsetting his allies, it's never happened.
If you came to my table playing like you're a one-man team without regard to the efforts of the other players, my nerfing you as DM would be the least of your worries. You'd have the other players to answer to. How is casting lightning bolt acting like a one-man team? Is the fighter making an attack acting like a one-man team? What is your suggested action for the sorcerer in that situation? Again, should he just sit out of combat and hope that pushing the guy into the fire works? "Sorry guys, I'd love to contribute, but what you're doing looks way cooler. Send me a text when you're done."
I'm with Jerry on this one, I think. If you're playing the sorcerer in this situation, you're horning in on the other players' action. If they need the help, that's one thing. But in this case, they've got a plan in action and it's a good plan they've spent time setting up. Why are you trying to mooch their kill? Why are you trying to overshadow them rather than let them handle the situation their own way? How about because the PCs are fighting for their lives and so want to end the threat ASAP? So if the the sorcerer starts the fight with a save or suck spell the other party members should stand back and let him do his thing. It's a team game, and 3.x assumes it's generally 4-6 PCs against 1 baddie. Is the sorcerer supposed to sit out of combat and wait for the other two guys to do their plan? I would lose my mind if I knew my DM was nerfing me because he thought somebody else's actions were better.
When the rogue has worked with the fighter through the whole encounter to set the bad guy up to fall back into the firey pit, it's better for the group to see it happen than for the lone sorcerer to suddenly step out and waste him with a lightning bolt in one action. Unless you're the sorcerer. I'm sure that player would have loved to kill the BBEG. That's why he cast it, right? If the fighter in that scenario decided to attack instead, and rolled a nat 20 are you going to take the crit away too, just so the rogue can push the BBEG into the fire? Ask the sorcerer if he's ok with that type of adjucation. Some players might be, I'm not. That's why I let the dice fall as they may.
1)3.5 pretty much as-is. I can be emailed at ghettowedge@yahoo.com and if he posts in the Savage Tide forum here there are a ton of DM's and players that have gone through already. And the devs post on occasion. 2) Save or Die. In 3.x at around 12th level or higher so many opponents have a save or die spell or effect. The most recent PC death was due to finger of death. Tonight's session ended at the start of an encounter with a monster with a vorpal bite; if it crits your head comes off. 3) Most of the time just the fact of being out of the encounter is punitive enough to make death suck. I don't believe the party has ever been able to not afford a raise, but they don't always have access to the actual component. And death effects, like those from many SoDs, require resurection which has a 10,000 gp component, and true resurection, if they want to avoid the level loss (they do), costs 25,000. For a short while, they weren't buying diamond dust ahead of time, and there would be a scramble to pool resources because almost every gp gets spent. Now each member gives the cleric the diamond dust ahead of time, and in a 6 person party that's 150,000 gp tied up. When the cleric was assassinated the problem was two-fold, now they needed to find somebody to cast it. 4)Pretty much. A lot of people don't like when PC's die in a seemingly random fight or a fight with mooks. They believe the pc's should go out in a super heroic manner, and that's great for their games. In my game, the pc's need to know that combat is lethal and not everybody gets to go out making a noble sacrifice. Sometimes it won't make a lot of sense, and could even disrupt the story, but we're writing the story; it hasn't been written yet and even I as the DM don't know how it will end. While trekking across the Isle of Dread there was a random encounter with a vrock and the party fighter got carried off to his demise. If the party didn't want to risk their lives fighting a random monster they could have at least tried to run, but they chose to risk their lives. And the random encounters aren't just there as a game mechanic. The vrock showed up because the Isle of Dread is a super dangerous place inhabited by demons; that's also part of the story. All that said, I'm not actively trying to kill pc's. Most monsters will leave a downed pc alone, and intelligent creatures might take prisoners or just steal gear, leaving the unconscious. And if the party makes a concerted and reasonable attempt to run away, it generally succeeds. I want to see the end of the Savage Tide as much as they want to finish it, and I don't foster a DM vs. player mentality. I referee, playing the monsters to their abilities, so if a monster has finger of death as a spell-like ability it will use it.
Able to sneak attack is vital - Either a True death crystal from Magic Item Compendium which requires a +3 weapon or better, or there's an option from Expedition to Castle Ravenloft that allows you to trade trap sense for half sneak attack damage to undead (let me know if you require more info). Undead are the major immune to SA enemy. If you are going the elf and Dex route go arcane trickster, those mage levels will do wonders for you, don't forget the elven generalist option from Races of the Wild. Personally, I've been itching to play a half-orc rogue with uber strength and a longspear for a while. Fighter levels, mostly for feats are a boon. The longspear keeps you a square away from kicking distance, and potions of enlarge person combined with Combat Reflexes give you a huge advantage (pun intended). If you think your d6 hit dice will hold up to what you've been fighting recently, the two-weapon rogue may have the best damage per round. Another option is the scout class, which gives the equivalent of SA, but only if you move 10' or more beore the attack. Final bit of advice, don't rely solely on invisibilty. Too many things have true sight of some form or another. Flanking is key, along with Bluff. The arcane trickster works well because it can just declare a sneak attack. A Rog 3/Wiz 5/AT 8 can do a disintegrate for 26d6+6d6 or 5d6+6d6 on a succesful save.
I let the dice fall where they may, in 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e. There are no meaningless combats; if there's a fight - the party is fighting for their lives. In our 3.5 version of Savage Tide (currently at 19th level) there have been over 10 PC deaths, but only 2 permanent ones. And those were by player choice ("no, don't get me raised"). When the threat of death is real, and oh man at high levels SoD's abound, raises are not cheap (we could buy an item that would help us, or we could buy more diamond dust). To put it in perspective of some of the my earliest and some of my favorite fantasy novels, yes, all PCs want to be Sturm Brightblade. Unfortunately, somebody might wind up as Flint Fireforge.
I am with you 100% on this. 4e cannot handle throw-away encounters. Each balanced encounter is about an hour and a half of game time. If it's not moving the plot along, it doesn't matter. Enough encounters that don't matter and players start to go numb. The game can quickly degenerate into "Open the door. Kill the monsters. Repeat." I've converted Expedition to Castle Ravenloft to 4e and dropped xp in favor of having the PCs level at plot points. This allowed me to drop filler fights (most of the crypts) and only use encounters that have purpose in the narrative. I didn't realize this while running the game, though. I had noticed that some game sessions were more lively than others while DMing, but didn't make any connections. To be fair I was running the WotC pre-gens, but had overcome the poor roleplay opportunities, which seemed the major complaint. Halfway through Trollhaunt I needed a break and another guy started running. He ran some homebrew stuff, particularly a dungeon crawl into a kobold lair. It was a standard dungeon by previous editions, with fight after fight with an entire tribe of kobolds. By the 3rd fight, I was thinking "Oh good, more kobolds." The encounter design wasn't a problem. It was just that after 4+ hours of fighting kobolds I didn't care anymore. Lesson learned. I don't know if it's ironic, but the most combat-centric edition of D&D can't handle throw-away fights. This means Dungeons and Dragons can't handle dungeon crawls. My solution has been to use a narrative approach, i.e. "You battle through hordes of kobolds until..." Although, I've also been thinking of designing a skill challenge around it.
Good for them it's their loss. Wasting space on the competitor who steals sales and promotes the opposing product.You're deluding yourself if you think 4e and Pathfinder are opposed. And, really, how is 4e stealing sales - from Paizo's own website, no less! - if 4e is such a terrible game compared to Pathfinder? I buy most of my discs from Innova. On topic, I think Scott's point was that if Paizo is directly opposed to D&D they wouldn't sell 4e books on the site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
