Yeah, but if it's the same brick wall, it will have the same DC irrespective of the level of the individual climbing it. The point it, you put level-appropriate challenges in front of your party and anything which isn't they can try and likely fail at, or just do automatically because it is easy. So master ranger would be rolling the tracking rolls, not the guide - why would said guide be hanging with master ranger anyway, since master ranger can do it so much better? If it was something guide could do with a dice roll, then master ranger could do it automatically.
That's what I've been saying when I was explaining that the rules are not internally THAT inconsistent to Ashiel. If you read my posts, they you'll see that I was saying that you shouldn't scale the DC alone, but to use progressively difficult tasks. Not handwaving the fact that calm water is easy DC to swim, because that would mean exactly what you are saying it shouldn't be the DC would be different on lvl X and on lvl Y. It's still a calm water no matter who swims in it, the DC should be the same. That example with the ranger was made to show how silly it would be if the roll was defined as something like "Easy level appropriate for the roller" (climbing a tree - lvl 3 guide has a different DC than lvl 20 ranger) and "Easy level appropriate for the group" (climbing a tree is easy, except that the guide can't do that despite the fact that it's mere tree). These two ways lead to logical nonsense. A tree is a tree, but unless we're comparing a redwood to a common cherry the DCs shouldn't widely differ.
And why would the guide hang with the master ranger? Because he was there and can show the way rather than drawing a map?
You do not assume that the same task is more difficult for someone of a higher level. The table is for level-appropriate challenges, not easy stuff a high level character could pull off with ease, or indeed maybe couldn't pull off except with a fluke. So tracks that guide might be looking for (and find) might be a group of hobgoblin raiders. Stuff master ranger might be looking for is evidence of the red dragon when it flew overhead judging by the way the leaves in the forest are ruffled. This is not immersion-breaking, or even inconsistent. But what you don't have is rules telling exactly what the DC for doing this or that is. You have a framework for estimating what the DC is for a given situation where it matters that the PCs make skill checks, depending on their level and the sort of situations they would find challenging at that level.
I'm not saying that the DC should be the same for tracking the flying dragon and the hogoblin war party. Neither I'm saying that the DC should be level appropriate to the PCs, but rather to the target. A dragon that isn't rampaging through the countryside would have a DC appropriate for it's level (Im not talking about actual footprints now, but rather about the ability of a creature that had quite some time to master it's ability to cover/alter the marks of it's presence if it chooses so.
Please note that I'm not saying that the heroes shouldn't face level appropriate chalenge here. Just that they don't necessarily have to. Even lvl 30 hero can encounter locked wooden door, just as a lvl 1 character can encounter a pool of lava (and has to be damned sure to avoid it). In the same ways as you can encounter a common lamp post or a pool of lafa if you tour around some volcanically active area. The fact that they slow heroes down that much or would be exceptionally deadly if they are foolish is expectable, but they can be there. Level appropriate challenge is used when the PCs are to encounter some reasonable difficulties.
Second thing I said is that the challenges should be up to the DC (again I think we're in aggreement here). That you shouldn't be vexed by wooden doors with simple lock that would have open DC 30 just because you are level X. Not that the wooden door fade away from the world when the heroes reach upper paragon levels, but the important thing would probably be locked behind something more durable, like adamantine studded iron gate. Not that someone simply puts there a wooden door and say that the DC is X, which is a level appropriate value.
The immersion breaks if you give the guide for players to handle for example, or they have a common dog as group's mascot or whatever. They roll against a DC for something, see the value against which he succeeded and then possibly fail against the same nr. Lvl 3 guide points at tracks the master lvl 25 Ranger failed to notice after his player rolled something above the real possibilities of the guide.Once again, even with scaling DCs, the DC is not based on the level of the PC. It is based on the level of the challenge. The DC is the same for the level 3 guide and for the level 25 ranger.
Of course it should be. That example was to show what it would be like, if it WASN'T.
The question was whether the DC should be set accrding to the tracker (usually the PCs), or the thing that's being tracked (my preferred choice).
The immersion breaks if you give the guide for players to handle for example, or they have a common dog as group's mascot or whatever. They roll against a DC for something, see the value against which he succeeded and then possibly fail against the same nr. Lvl 3 guide points at tracks the master lvl 25 Ranger failed to notice after his player rolled something above the real possibilities of the guide.Once again, even with scaling DCs, the DC is not based on the level of the PC. It is based on the level of the challenge. The DC is the same for the level 3 guide and for the level 25 ranger.
I might be misunderstanding what one or both are saying. What I thought was happening was that Jeremy Mac Donald was saying that he uses (at least one one of his games) scaling DCs for the same challenges as you level. Players in that game get better at performing stunts requires more investment than just leveling (feats, magic items, etc.). That changing that removes an exciting element from the game.
Zmar has been arguing that isn't suggested by the rules, that they even recommend doing such.
So, I am confused by what you and Aubrey the Malformed are trying to say for with these statements toward Zmar when they seem to agree with him rather than the person he is arguing with.
...I'm unclear how your players are guessing this - do you provide a list that tells them what level all acrobatic stunts are?
I'd rather set that based uopn how far/high do they want to jump and add +/-2 if the PC wanted to make something extra.
We both agree that swinging with princesses is possible, the difference is in what we call that as a DC. I'd say swinging without one is a medium level stunt and adding one is a hard level stunt, if the rope is also burning add another 2 to the DC. You presumably tell your players in advance that what level swinging with a Princess is so they know whether its impossible, possible or trivial depending on their level (so what level is swinging with a princess in your opinion?)
The same as above. Athletics states exactly how far you can get with what roll, so with the princess I get a penalty and see what can be done. Higher level PC may be able to jump over a 20 ft wide gap between the roof while a lower level guy migh just jump down the stairs or sommething like that.
Nor is there a difference of opinion between us on characters getting better - the reality on the ground is that they do - they get magic items, powers, rerolls and ability score improvements so that make them better at doing this sort of thing - the system has a built in 'your a better hero' component. Instead we seem to disagree regarding how much better they are getting...in essence are 15th level characters Herucles or Zorro.
Well, mostly I say that the +1/2 level is not just for mechanic consistency, but that it says that you've learned something as well. The tasks advance as well after all.
For me I'm not interested in defining the game to the point where every action has a set DC and therefore is impossible at certain levels and eventually becomes an automatic thing, I see the 4E system as essentially a summer blockbuster simulator, in essence swinging with a princess is a tricky but likely possible endeavor and it is that when the scene itself comes up - whether or not it happens to come up when the players are really just saving the street urchin at low levels or if, instead, she is the daughter of a Genie Emperor at the very high levels. When the plot requires saving some one by swinging with her to safety that is when the rolls will be made. Setting specific DCs that remain static for all time may make for a better simulation but my real goal is not simulationistic - instead I want to use the system to create compelling narratives and exciting scenes. The scaling DCs mean that the system conveys the excitement whenever it happens to naturally fit into the plot.
This element is important to me because I spend a lot of time creating such scenes. I build customized battle maps and include all the options I can think of and their current DCs on the maps so the players can read them. Doing handsprings over counters and all the rest of it is a big part of my 4E game and it needs to be a compelling part of it whenever the exciting scene happens to occur in the plot line.
Heh, that doesn't contradict me at all. You are probably just riding a silken curtain from the top of her high balcony (sultan showing how distant his daughter is to the common rabble and also protcting her from wannabe... well, people like the PCs) while mid level PC ma be tearing down a wine from second floor and low level PC might just drop from the first floor into a stack of hay. Such thindgs would have teir own DCs. but widely different. I have that table to tell me what should it roughly be, and the athletics rules to tell me how high the Drop sould be.
@DigitalMage: Sorry it took me awhile to get back here and respond to your post...RL and also thinking about it delayed me.
I'll take back the 4Ed is like a board game to say it feels like a board game to me. It is a matter of prespective. The twiiter contest ins actualy not related to this feeling as much as that encounter w/ Elminster does which I'll try to make why it does make it seem to be a board game.
But the primary reason why I view it as a board game because that is exactly what I see it played in my area. That is my experience so I'll admitt that does shade my perception of it. Maybe I am just getting old and seeing the past though rose colored glasses...or I am just unlucky in the area I live in.
But why I don't like the the twitter contest relates to the whole marketing of 4th Ed. Which atleast to me was very negative. It seemed to me that WotC did so much as say "Here is 4th ed and what is cool about it" to be more about "Hey this what sucked or was useless about 3rd and some hints as to how you are changing them." I remember the marketing behind 3rd to be positive....this negativity cause alot of smugness on the anti 3rd ed side(which was always around) and to us who like somethings of thing about 3rd it seemed almost like a personal attack. So the edition wars heated up. There would have been always a edition war...but I think WotC made it alot worse than it was in the past with edition changes.
Anyway I hope that explain better and clairfication.
|
That's what I've been saying when I was explaining that the rules are not internally THAT inconsistent to Ashiel. If you read my posts, they you'll see that I was saying that you shouldn't scale the DC alone, but to use progressively difficult tasks. Not handwaving the fact that calm water is easy DC to swim, because that would mean exactly what you are saying it shouldn't be the DC would be different on lvl X and on lvl Y. It's still a calm water no matter who swims in it, the DC should be the same. That example with the ranger was made to show how silly it would be if the roll was defined as something like "Easy level appropriate for the roller" (climbing a tree - lvl 3 guide has a different DC than lvl 20 ranger) and "Easy level appropriate for the group" (climbing a tree is easy, except that the guide can't do that despite the fact that it's mere tree). These two ways lead to logical nonsense. A tree is a tree, but unless we're comparing a redwood to a common cherry the DCs shouldn't widely differ.
Fine - we seem to be in accord. I must have misunderstood what you said.
I'm not saying that the DC should be the same for tracking the flying dragon and the hogoblin war party. Neither I'm saying that the DC should be level appropriate to the PCs, but rather to the target. A dragon that isn't rampaging through the countryside would have a DC appropriate for it's level (Im not talking about actual footprints now, but rather about the ability of a creature that had quite some time to master it's ability to cover/alter the marks of it's presence if it chooses so.
Please note that I'm not saying that the heroes shouldn't face level appropriate chalenge here. Just that they don't necessarily have to. Even lvl 30 hero can encounter locked wooden door, just as a lvl 1 character can encounter a pool of lava (and has to be damned sure to avoid it). In the same ways as you can encounter a common lamp post or a pool of lafa if you tour around some volcanically active area. The fact that they slow heroes down that much or would be exceptionally deadly if they are foolish is expectable, but they can be there. Level appropriate challenge is used when the PCs are to encounter some reasonable difficulties.
Second thing I said is that the challenges should be up to the DC (again I think we're in aggreement here). That you shouldn't be vexed by wooden doors with simple lock that would have open DC 30 just because you are level X. Not that the wooden door fade away from the world when the heroes reach upper paragon levels, but the important thing would probably be locked behind something more durable, like adamantine studded iron gate. Not that someone simply puts there a wooden door and say that the DC is X, which is a level appropriate value.
What you seem to be asking for is the DCs for specific challenges. <shrug> OK, but I don't think it makes much difference. There are some in the DMG and DMG2, for instance.
All things are as difficult, basically, as the DM says they are. The framework is still there, and still works. If you thing your 25th level character is encountering a lvl 1 hazard, the chart still tells you how hard it is, even if the character cannot fail the die roll. If you are asking for the rules to tell you the DC for all possible specific hazards, I just don't think it is necessary. After all, in previous editions we are used to the term "level" applying only to characters, but of course in 4e it applies to traps, hazards, skill challenges, magic items, monsters and probably a few other things too. The tools are readily available in the DMG.
I'm not sure what we were disagreeing about, or even if we were.
Well, I think we were largely in aggreement just from a different angle. I was just pointing out that similar things should have the similar DCs, quite unlike some people sometimes say (not saying that you do that).
I heard a lot of blather how abstract the 4E system really is and that it only matters whether the DM wants the task easy or not and then just sets the DC according to the level of the party. Sure, you can play like that, but in that case the PCs had better not be the type that asks why the brick wall was scaled after rolling 10 in the last session and now even 12 was not enough, despite the fact that the PC has leveled up and taken a skill focus for the skill and a climbing kit.
Certain level of cosistence while setting DCs helps to make the game not entirely divorced from reality. I think all you need would be a table of common tasks and basic rules for skills and the tables in DMG (DM screen might just have them all, but 'd have to check first).
Heh, that doesn't contradict me at all. You are probably just riding a silken curtain from the top of her high balcony (sultan showing how distant his daughter is to the common rabble and also protcting her from wannabe... well, people like the PCs) while mid level PC ma be tearing down a wine from second floor and low level PC might just drop from the first floor into a stack of hay. Such thindgs would have teir own DCs. but widely different. I have that table to tell me what should it roughly be, and the athletics rules to tell me how high the Drop sould be.
For me I'm not interested in defining the game to the point where every action has a set DC and therefore is impossible at certain levels and eventually becomes an automatic thing, I see the 4E system as essentially a summer blockbuster simulator, in essence swinging with a princess is a tricky but likely possible endeavor and it is that when the scene itself comes up - whether or not it happens to come up when the players are really just saving the street urchin at low levels or if, instead, she is the daughter of a Genie Emperor at the very high levels. When the plot requires saving some one by swinging with her to safety that is when the rolls will be made. Setting specific DCs that remain static for all time may make for a better simulation but my real goal is not simulationistic - instead I want to use the system to create compelling narratives and exciting scenes. The scaling DCs mean that the system conveys the excitement whenever it happens to naturally fit into the plot.This element is important to me because I spend a lot of time creating such scenes. I build customized battle maps and include all the options I can think of and their current DCs on the maps so the players can read them. Doing handsprings over counters and all the rest of it is a big part of my 4E game and it needs to be a compelling part of it whenever the exciting scene happens to occur in the plot line.
I'm not sure how much use continuing with this is. We seem to have a disagreement with what a hero is but its more along the lines of a hypothetical one in any case since we both pretty much agree that at the actual table players will engage with level appropriate challenges.
You mention the rules on jumping distance and falling damage - possibly because you feel that they advance your interpretation....but I'd not really agree, the fact that jumping is divided by 5 or 10 (depending on if it is a standing or running start) makes increases in how far a player can leap very incremental. Falling is similar - players only pick up a few hps per level so there is a pretty wide spread between when a character can live through a 50' fall and when they can live through a 100' fall. Again here neither of us ignoring those tables...we both use them.
The differences may lie more within the kinds of adventures that we expect to run. Your emphasizing different locations for the action scene while I consider it important that the same location can at least in theory be used again. I can't speak to the kind of campaigns you plan to run but for myself I'm a big converter - Age of Worms is one and I plan at some point to run Curse of the Crimson Throne - neither campaign delves into alternate planes and Curse of the Crimson Throne could easily see the Queens castle be the scene for exciting confrontations two or three times during the campaign at wildly different levels. This would be the reason why Blazej's statement that 'Chandelier swinging is a heroic stunt' does not work for me. If it is that and only that then its off the table as a fun part of the game for what is likely 2/3rds of my campaign.
In other words we seem to be arguing basically 'is there such a thing as a 1st level chandelier. Your position is yes - but the players will only meet it at 1st, after that they will have gone on to bigger and better things. My position would be generally no and I get to that position because I expect that my players may well meet the same one multiple times at different levels.
In other words we seem to be arguing basically 'is there such a thing as a 1st level chandelier. Your position is yes - but the players will only meet it at 1st, after that they will have gone on to bigger and better things. My position would be generally no and I get to that position because I expect that my players may well meet the same one multiple times at different levels.
More or less so. The "level 1" chandelier would actually be more determined by the actual scene probably, calculating DC from what the jump distance was. Keeping an eye on the DC/level table would be just to measure what's the chance of the PCs to succeed (as the DC will surely fall somehwere in there, showing whether it would be easy (untrained guy can do this), normal (trained skill needed for a good measure of success) and hard(trained + buff)). Level 1 heroes may encounter a lvl 5 hard DCs or worse. I'll just warn the player, that he's quite aware that he's unlikely to do this, whatever that thing is. If I'm doing some preparations before the game and designing a level, I can take the numbers from the table to check about how wide to make the chasm for heroes to be reasonale to jump over. If the distance would needed to be greater I could provide some compensation (a conveniently placed plank, a rope to swing on, ...).
Your assumption that you'll meet the SAME object on different levels is exactly where I'd want it to have the SAME DC. As the heroes are getting more heroic, the challenge stops being a problem as they advance. The heroes are getting more and more capable to perform daring deeds. So they can easily do the thing they found challenging at lower level and find things previously impossible merely challenging now and later they may find even that easy. Levels before they'd run like hell if a purple worm shwed up anywhere near, now they can fight it and win perhaps, later they may actually slay two or three at once. The same advancement should apply to what they are able to acomplish with their skills.
But why I don't like the the twitter contest relates to the whole marketing of 4th Ed. Which atleast to me was very negative. It seemed to me that WotC did so much as say "Here is 4th ed and what is cool about it" to be more about "Hey this what sucked or was useless about 3rd and some hints as to how you are changing them."Going back to the original point?? Madness!
Actually, I'm not sure there was any real negativity to the twitter contest. Remember, "Elminster Must Die" was presumably conceived by Ed Greenwood, so the concept alone is just a story progression, not an attempt to kill off the character. The twitter contest itself was for fans to send in justifications for either why he should die or why they thought he should live (in the most humorous fashions), so I don't see any negativity there, either.
That is true I guess. And it was not like the castrophe DC did with "Should Robin Die?" thing they did, in that it had no bearing on the book. But it does cause needless...anger and conflict between the fans. Some fans hate Elminster(usuialy due to abusive DMs) some fans love him. Heck I would even go as far to say that many if not all fans of Elminster would not actualy care if Elminster died as long as it was a good story...but to leave it to a vote...even if that vote has no bearing is in my opinion a negative thing.
And yes I am quite mad...I actualy try to keep on topic of threads...
...
That is true I guess. And it was not like the castrophe DC did with "Should Robin Die?" thing they did, in that it had no bearing on the book. But it does cause needless...anger and conflict between the fans. Some fans hate Elminster(usuialy due to abusive DMs) some fans love him. Heck I would even go as far to say that many if not all fans of Elminster would not actualy care if Elminster died as long as it was a good story...but to leave it to a vote...even if that vote has no bearing is in my opinion a negative thing.
And yes I am quite mad...I actualy try to keep on topic of threads...
Well, it's true that Elminster could have been misused, but that is the matter of any high level PC in any setting. Personally I liked the way he was used un Baldur's Gate. Always appearing just to throw you something to think about and remind you that powers that be are watching you and judging the path you are taking. Ad I also loved his remarks in 2nd edition Realms books and his bickering with Volo.
I realize that I and Diffan could sit down at the same table and enjoy the game even if it is 4th edition(shudder ;) ). The people you play with is about 100% more important than what system you play...of course who you play with can dicate what you play. For instance 4th ed is taking a large hit in my area and the only people who play it are people I would not plan any edition of the game with.
Ya know, I feel the same. But I also still enjoy v3.5 and Pathfinder (with their flaws and all....) :D so as long as we keep it post AD&D/2E I'm there.
But anyway...of course Diffan does not like it if Tyr came back...were you not the one WotC took the suggestion of placing Torm in his spot?
I think that was more of a collective community idea that any one persons, though I think sfdragon had a bigger role in getting it changed honestly. And as much as I liked Tyr, he was getting old as a deity. I felt Torm was much better suited to fit the role. Not that I really minded Tyr, I have like 3 or 4 cleric PCs that are Tyrrans, but I felt that there needed to be a change.
But I still don't like the direction WotC is going...even more so than back when 4th ed was annouced...it just seems to me with anything going on they are catering more and more to gamers notr like me...which I see as a graster threat to that community of all RPGers than people venting on the boards. I think WotC created alot of this...dissention by the way they market...how they word things and silly ideas like the Tweeter contest and thos non-canon encounters. So I will continue to critize them on that front as it is something I would like to change.
Yea, Wizbro could've handled things MUCH differently instead of just BAM 4E!!!! But I still never read or saw where they were bad-mouthing previous editions of the game. Maybe it was more pointing out 3E's flaws that got people so miffed?
... and Curse of the Crimson Throne could easily see the Queens castle be the scene for exciting confrontations two or three times during the campaign at wildly different levels. This would be the reason why Blazej's statement that 'Chandelier swinging is a heroic stunt' does not work for me. If it is that and only that then its off the table as a fun part of the game for what is likely 2/3rds of my campaign.
I say that in the same way that would say that a goblin tribe is a low heroic level threat, saving the world is an epic level campaign goal, and a demon lord is a high epic level enemy. I imagine facing the chandelier at all levels with increasing DCs as being similar to facing average goblin minions throughout an entire campaign and having them be a similar threat because their bonuses increase with my levels. So without good reason I don't see goblins as being a significant force on the table for epic levels like I don't see chandelier swinging to be difficult for most epic level games. Similarly, I don't see the six adventures of Curse of the Crimson Throne as (without expanding the scale or scope of the campaign) as a low heroic through high epic adventure path.
If I kept coming to the same place, I believe that I would prefer to be able to interact with the environment in a increasing way as I level. At heroic levels, I might be able to do things like slide down the banister, climb up a statue, or swing from a chandelier. As I move through paragon level, in addition to I could do before, I can try to hop onto the banister to get to the balcony without using the stairs, I can push over the statue, and I can get a lot more distance by swinging from the chandeliers than I could prior. Which my character is epic, I might leap straight to the balcony, throw the statue across the room, and with a single action send an enemy flying into the air by entangling them in the rope holding the chandelier before cutting it.
Indeed. If the DCs for a task scaled with the PCs without the task visibly changing somehow it would be all like if you defined a creatures like "Big Worm party level +3 brute". the numbers would chanege according to table, but it would still be large worm looking all the same from level 1 to 30, being just as dangerous and the PCs would't have needed to level up at all, as they aould be doing the same thing from level 1 to 30.
Advanced worms are bigger, they her large teeth, possibly some tentacles from the maw , can spit sticky strands and so on. The same goes with NPCs. Higher level warriors get elaborate armour, shining sword and other such things. The same should apply to the challenges. The things a high level character can accomplish Should look more dangerous than what's possible at lower levels.
|
|
To get back to the original question, I personally thought the changes to FR were a mixed bag. Most of the bits they blew up were sparsely described, at least in the 3e canon (when I came to FR - I didn't have anything pre-3e) or were fairly ossified places where nothing much was happening, and so I didn't feel that they were really missed. Most old favorites came through fairly unscathed. And they made things a bit freer, and added more conflict, which is surely a good thing for adventures.
My main beef, inasmuch as I had one, was the relative lack of detail, especially of newish areas. I could have done without Abeil or whatever that new continent is called (haven't looked for a while at the books) and would have preferred that space to be put to use describing places that already existed in FR, albeit with the changes. Abeil itself felt quite rushed and very sketchy. Yeah, dragon rulers... Um, that was about it, really.
@Diffan: I don't know...I felt insulted by how the preview books were written. But than again I liked alot of the things they were dising. Also it showed that alot of thgem did not even understand the rules of 3.5 to begin with...it made me wonder how they got their jobs in the first place.
@Aubrey the Deformed: Actualy the funny thing is when I looked at the 4th ed Realms without thinking about the areas and gods lost that I liked and looked at it on it's own merits....it was the fact that little had actualy changed after the spell plague and 100 years that bothered me the most(aside from the lack of infomation). Also the ill defined nature of the Spell Plague annoyed me. It was like a giant hand wave job.
@Mathew Koelbl: Again I agree....but with the perception and such of WotC past...things like this gets made into larger issues than it is in actual is.
But yeah this particular whole issue is meh.
... and Curse of the Crimson Throne could easily see the Queens castle be the scene for exciting confrontations two or three times during the campaign at wildly different levels. This would be the reason why Blazej's statement that 'Chandelier swinging is a heroic stunt' does not work for me. If it is that and only that then its off the table as a fun part of the game for what is likely 2/3rds of my campaign.I say that in the same way that would say that a goblin tribe is a low heroic level threat, saving the world is an epic level campaign goal, and a demon lord is a high epic level enemy. I imagine facing the chandelier at all levels with increasing DCs as being similar to facing average goblin minions throughout an entire campaign and having them be a similar threat because their bonuses increase with my levels. So without good reason I don't see goblins as being a significant force on the table for epic levels like I don't see chandelier swinging to be difficult for most epic level games. Similarly, I don't see the six adventures of Curse of the Crimson Throne as (without expanding the scale or scope of the campaign) as a low heroic through high epic adventure path.
If I kept coming to the same place, I believe that I would prefer to be able to interact with the environment in a increasing way as I level. At heroic levels, I might be able to do things like slide down the banister, climb up a statue, or swing from a chandelier. As I move through paragon level, in addition to I could do before, I can try to hop onto the banister to get to the balcony without using the stairs, I can push over the statue, and I can get a lot more distance by swinging from the chandeliers than I could prior. Which my character is epic, I might leap straight to the balcony, throw the statue across the room, and with a single action send an enemy flying into the air by entangling them in the rope holding the chandelier before cutting it.
Your correct that Curse of the Crimson Throne really is an adventure that probably only goes up to high Paragon - however the debate we are having mostly only centers around Paragon in any case. By Epic we are comparing something like +12 versus +25 but the reality at the game table is 'you can pull it off' simply because +12 should be enough to manage the roll in any case - by this point the +25 is redundant.
During Paragon, however, the difference is not so marked now we are comparing +6 to +12, +12 will make the roll, no problem but +6 means some chance of failure.
There is also an element of can non-athletic characters do these sorts of stunts? If the DC is static (and low level) then the answer would be 'yes' (since the benefits gained by +1/2 per level far outstrip benefits gained from any other source) while a level appropriate DC means that your going to have to get at least training in Acrobatics to have any real chance of doing such stunts without having roll fairly well.
Note that your not likely to be leaping to the balcony in any case, even at Epic, since the rules for jumping are hard coded. Your roll + your skill divided by 5 if you had a running start. If you have a skill of 25 (possible for Epic) and you roll a 20 your going to jump 9 feet straight into the air - high but probably not enough to reach the balcony, though reach might get your hands up to 15 feet. Just enough to grab it if its a pretty low balcony.
Your correct that Curse of the Crimson Throne really is an adventure that probably only goes up to high Paragon - however the debate we are having mostly only centers around Paragon in any case. By Epic we are comparing something like +12 versus +25 but the reality at the game table is 'you can pull it off' simply because +12 should be enough to manage the roll in any case - by this point the +25 is redundant.
During Paragon, however, the difference is not so marked now we are comparing +6 to +12, +12 will make the roll, no problem but +6 means some chance of failure.There is also an element of can non-athletic characters do these sorts of stunts? If the DC is static (and low level) then the answer would be 'yes' (since the benefits gained by +1/2 per level far outstrip benefits gained from any other source) while a level appropriate DC means that your going to have to get at least training in Acrobatics to have any real chance of doing such stunts without having roll fairly well.
Note that your not likely to be leaping to the balcony in any case, even at Epic, since the rules for jumping are hard coded. Your roll + your skill divided by 5 if you had a running start. If you have a skill of 25 (possible for Epic) and you roll a 20 your going to jump 9 feet straight into the air - high but probably not enough to reach the balcony, though reach might get your hands up to 15 feet. Just enough to grab it if its a pretty low balcony.
I agree. I'm not actually turned off by the fact that non-athletic characters can attempt this sorts of stunts. If the DC for the stunt was only 15 for the low level paragon characters, then the expert would be able to do it with little chance of failure and the unskilled would have a 40% chance of failure. Given the risks of failure, I doubt that they would want to take that risk that often. Also, at that point, I believe that they probably would have picked up some magic item or utility power that would offer the bonus the stunt would have given without requiring the skill check to perform it.
Involving a straight jump wasn't the best example. I got stuck on the idea of heroic, paragon, and epic uses for an item in a room and while posting I didn't come up with any better ideas for epic staircases.
All this number crunching about chandalier swinging is all well and good, but I think you guys are missing the essential element of fantasy story telling here..DM fiat..
By Jimminy, if Timmy the kicthen boy with a bad knee and 6 strength needs to to make a DC 41 to succesfully swing on the freaking chandalier to escape the Nycaloth that charged in from the stables, wll guess what Tymora is in a wierd moood and someone just got a +39 luck mod..just don't roll a one Timmy
All this number crunching about chandalier swinging is all well and good, but I think you guys are missing the essential element of fantasy story telling here..DM fiat..
By Jimminy, if Timmy the kicthen boy with a bad knee and 6 strength needs to to make a DC 41 to succesfully swing on the freaking chandalier to escape the Nycaloth that charged in from the stables, wll guess what Tymora is in a wierd moood and someone just got a +39 luck mod..just don't roll a one Timmy
And you say that it should always be this way? Why do we need any rules then? There is a game and just telling a story. The game adds mechanics into the storytelling. If we were ignoring it, we wouldn't have to have 6 strength, 41 DC or +39 luck modifier at all.
And you say that it should always be this way? Why do we need any rules then? There is a game and just telling a story. The game adds mechanics into the storytelling. If we were ignoring it, we wouldn't have to have 6 strength, 41 DC or +39 luck modifier at all.All this number crunching about chandalier swinging is all well and good, but I think you guys are missing the essential element of fantasy story telling here..DM fiat..
By Jimminy, if Timmy the kicthen boy with a bad knee and 6 strength needs to to make a DC 41 to succesfully swing on the freaking chandalier to escape the Nycaloth that charged in from the stables, wll guess what Tymora is in a wierd moood and someone just got a +39 luck mod..just don't roll a one Timmy
By all means, the rules provide context, and by tried and true play testing are usually codified to represent balance. But in debating the merits of the Forgotten Realms under 3.5 vs 4th edition rules, I think the thread has veered way too much into the nitty gritty. My feeling is that the original Realms had a unique flavour because it was created by one guy over many years. As it went through various iterations and more hands became involved, the flavour changed - too many cooks as it were. And that is where I think 4th ed FR feel flat, it had just changed too muc and there was no real passion in the creation/recreation.
Basically, I bought the FR products for the sandbox, not so much for the mechanics. Yeah, I prefer 1st and 2nd edition over 3.5 and 4th. But not to knock the overall debate. You guys amaze me with your debating skills.
|
|
All this number crunching about chandalier swinging is all well and good, but I think you guys are missing the essential element of fantasy story telling here..DM fiat..
By Jimminy, if Timmy the kicthen boy with a bad knee and 6 strength needs to to make a DC 41 to succesfully swing on the freaking chandalier to escape the Nycaloth that charged in from the stables, wll guess what Tymora is in a wierd moood and someone just got a +39 luck mod..just don't roll a one Timmy
Shouldnt the Nycaloth burst through the Kitchen Door dislodging brickwork and the Brickwork have simply collapsed on Timmy taking him out of the game.
That way the Cook finds his broken body and has one of those moments where she decides to go Adventuring having lost faith in the obligation of the state to protect Timmy (even within the walls of the Castle).
All this number crunching about chandalier swinging is all well and good, but I think you guys are missing the essential element of fantasy story telling here..DM fiat..
By Jimminy, if Timmy the kicthen boy with a bad knee and 6 strength needs to to make a DC 41 to succesfully swing on the freaking chandalier to escape the Nycaloth that charged in from the stables, wll guess what Tymora is in a wierd moood and someone just got a +39 luck mod..just don't roll a one Timmy
Depends on the system in play - if its based on the character level then little Timmy, presuming he has no bonus' and counts as first level (there is no real 0 level in 4E) would need to roll a 15 or up to pull off even a hard challenge - a reasonable shot at doing it.
Now if my story required little Timmy to make it I'd just say he did, important because I'll roll in front of the players so I can't leave it to the dice if its required by the story.
On the other hand Little Timmy in my NPC and explicitly has whatever powers I want him to have - so certianly a power of 'always makes skill checks the DM wants him to make' is a no brainier right there.
Or, if I want to maintain some pretense that I'm not blatantly being the puppet master here I can give him Timmy's Luck: Encounter Power; free action; Timmy automatically passes a skill check; trigger: Timmy fails a skill check.
...
By all means, the rules provide context, and by tried and true play testing are usually codified to represent balance. But in debating the merits of the Forgotten Realms under 3.5 vs 4th edition rules, I think the thread has veered way too much into the nitty gritty. My feeling is that the original Realms had a unique flavour because it was created by one guy over many years. As it went through various iterations and more hands became involved, the flavour changed - too many cooks as it were. And that is where I think 4th ed FR feel flat, it had just changed too muc and there was no real passion in the creation/recreation.
Basically, I bought the FR products for the sandbox, not so much for the mechanics. Yeah, I prefer 1st and 2nd edition over 3.5 and 4th. But not to knock the overall debate. You guys amaze me with your debating skills.
The debate about chandelier swingign was not connected to the changes in Realms and really evolved from a thread-jack. Thus was about the general application of rules rather than exceptions.
FR pre-spell plague were flavorful and those "bland" areas could have their own good plots if they got covered by the rules, rather than nuked. The fact that the developers didn't pay them much attention or didn't have the time to do so before another change came doesn't by any means that they couldn't have been interesting if they did.
...
Personally I think that the Nicaloth would't give a damn what's Timmy doing but had something more interesting to do, like demolishing the castle, so Timmy just got out of his way and thus lost his attention for good.
FR pre-spell plague were flavorful and those "bland" areas could have their own good plots if they got covered by the rules, rather than nuked. The fact that the developers didn't pay them much attention or didn't have the time to do so before another change came doesn't by any means that they couldn't have been interesting if they did.
I'd have to differ on this point. I find nothing interesting about an Egyptian-themed area in the 'Realms, which is what Mulhorand and Unther.
I was saddened to see Halruaa go, as I thought it was sorta different and interesting, but I'd never adhere to canon if it's not in my best interest, thusly Haluraa AND Lantan are both alive and well in my 'Realms campaign.
For Lantan, I've made it survive the Spellplague by going "Atlantis" or if your a video-gamer like "Bio Shock" OR like the Gungan city in Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace. The Island was hit by a huge Tsunami but survived do to a blending of Mechanical and magical effects. Lots of fun and provideds a whole different feel and setting if PCS should wish to go there.
As for Maztica, even though there wasn't much printed material for the location, I still don't feel it would've caught on. It was too "New World" and had a "Lets explore the Americas....er I mean Maztica" approach that I found utterly disappointing. Maybe they'd have made it better if it was fleshed out. But instead we got Returned Abier with dragon Over-Lords, new species, and pretty much a wealth of Unknown that can give any sort of DM the free license to do with what he/she will. Dinosaurs anyone?
Not interesting for one does't mean not interesting for others... Osirion must be Utterly boring for you then, right?
Dinosaurs were nuked a lot with Chult. In Maztica you could have Dinosaurs too and Couatl courts and smoking mirrors and so on. Americas have tons of interesting things to explore and in general setting they worked easily as a playe to haul gold and other things from.
There is this GREAT hamburger joint in Riverside,CA that has a mean pastrami burger. Food for thought.
|
|
FR pre-spell plague were flavorful and those "bland" areas could have their own good plots if they got covered by the rules, rather than nuked. The fact that the developers didn't pay them much attention or didn't have the time to do so before another change came doesn't by any means that they couldn't have been interesting if they did.I'd have to differ on this point. I find nothing interesting about an Egyptian-themed area in the 'Realms, which is what Mulhorand and Unther.
I was saddened to see Halruaa go, as I thought it was sorta different and interesting, but I'd never adhere to canon if it's not in my best interest, thusly Haluraa AND Lantan are both alive and well in my 'Realms campaign.
For Lantan, I've made it survive the Spellplague by going "Atlantis" or if your a video-gamer like "Bio Shock" OR like the Gungan city in Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace. The Island was hit by a huge Tsunami but survived do to a blending of Mechanical and magical effects. Lots of fun and provideds a whole different feel and setting if PCS should wish to go there.
As for Maztica, even though there wasn't much printed material for the location, I still don't feel it would've caught on. It was too "New World" and had a "Lets explore the Americas....er I mean Maztica" approach that I found utterly disappointing. Maybe they'd have made it better if it was fleshed out. But instead we got Returned Abier with dragon Over-Lords, new species, and pretty much a wealth of Unknown that can give any sort of DM the free license to do with what he/she will. Dinosaurs anyone?
Lantan, having been swallowed by a tidal wave was infact saved in a pocket between Water and Air. Now a whirlpool marks the way in...and travellers must cast a gate spell to allow their ship to enter.
Lantan, having been swallowed by a tidal wave was infact saved in a pocket between Water and Air. Now a whirlpool marks the way in...and travellers must cast a gate spell to allow their ship to enter.
Is that actual canon? If so, what source was it in? I'd like to read up on that since my PCs might actually venture there and I could get some great ideas from it.
Not interesting for one does't mean not interesting for others... Osirion must be Utterly boring for you then, right?Dinosaurs were nuked a lot with Chult. In Maztica you could have Dinosaurs too and Couatl courts and smoking mirrors and so on. Americas have tons of interesting things to explore and in general setting they worked easily as a playe to haul gold and other things from.
True enough, though I don't think they would've nuked it if those places had lots of appeal to the larger Forgotten Realms fan base. I think a lot of Realms players use a very specific area of the Realms for many of their campaigns, espically the Sword Coast, Western Heartlands, Waterdeep, and Cormyr regions. Hence why these places seen little in the way of destruction. Same goes for Baldur's Gate. These are places that are iconic to Faerûn. The same cannot be said of Maztica (for example) when nothing sources-wise was published on the matter in 3E-era and very litte novel-wise.
I've read quite a lot of FR novels, and I've yet to come across a book that highly detailed the Mulhorandi/Unther area or even gave it a slight nod. This is probably due to the fact that those are niche sub-settings. So if you wanted an Egyptian theme, you can still use the Realms but that just seems silly IMO.
Is that actual canon?No, it isn't.
Beats actual 4e canon completely though. It's hard to get to, isolated, and mysterious, and easy to for a DM to ignore if they don't want those gnomes and their technology in their campaign world, but in my opinion it's much more elegant and interesting than, "tsunamis hit, everyone died in the flood and any technology they had got swept away."
Ah well, so many things could've been better but they're not so no use worrying about it. I've spent too much time and effort on the 4e Realms already, I've pretty much gotten over how much I dislike about them and decided to stick with pre-4e stuff until that well of ideas runs dry. Considering there's 3e and 2e supplements I haven't even seen, let alone read and used, I figure I have dozens and dozens of campaigns before I feel like something new.
Also, since I can't stand a good chunk of the 4e Realms, I've been able to go the whole existence of 4e without buying a single product from WotC. Considering how many supplements they've put out compared to what I've bought for Pathfinder, I think it worked out to a pretty sizable savings over the last couple of years.
I don't have any hard feelings towards 4e though. Maybe a little for the 4e Realms still, despite trying not to care, but while the actual 4e rules didn't impress me at all I can see parts of them that could be likable by others, and if the 4e Realms had impressed me I would have converted to 4e despite my preference for 3.5e/Pathfinder.
Lantan, having been swallowed by a tidal wave was infact saved in a pocket between Water and Air. Now a whirlpool marks the way in...and travellers must cast a gate spell to allow their ship to enter.Is that actual canon? If so, what source was it in? I'd like to read up on that since my PCs might actually venture there and I could get some great ideas from it.
Not interesting for one does't mean not interesting for others... Osirion must be Utterly boring for you then, right?Dinosaurs were nuked a lot with Chult. In Maztica you could have Dinosaurs too and Couatl courts and smoking mirrors and so on. Americas have tons of interesting things to explore and in general setting they worked easily as a playe to haul gold and other things from.
True enough, though I don't think they would've nuked it if those places had lots of appeal to the larger Forgotten Realms fan base. I think a lot of Realms players use a very specific area of the Realms for many of their campaigns, espically the Sword Coast, Western Heartlands, Waterdeep, and Cormyr regions. Hence why these places seen little in the way of destruction. Same goes for Baldur's Gate. These are places that are iconic to Faerûn. The same cannot be said of Maztica (for example) when nothing sources-wise was published on the matter in 3E-era and very litte novel-wise.
I've read quite a lot of FR novels, and I've yet to come across a book that highly detailed the Mulhorandi/Unther area or even gave it a slight nod. This is probably due to the fact that those are niche sub-settings. So if you wanted an Egyptian theme, you can still use the Realms but that just seems silly IMO.
Well, this has a lot to do with the original purpose of the Realms. It was IMO THE generic setting for the game which meant that it contained in one form or another as many RL themes as possible and moreover the Faerun was a copy of medieval Europe when it comes to basic relations.
(new world with indians and unexplored area over the ocean - Maztica(Americas) - check, Strange sandy land with pyramids ziggurats, temple-cities, paharohs - Mulhorand+Unther(Ancient Egypt+Babylon) - check, Bodering lands of genies, spice and deserts - Calimshan(Turkey and nearby arabian world) - check, stories of 1000 and 1 night and middleterranian sea without european dominations and fantastic conan-like legendary places - Zakhara(Persia+India) - check, a distant and enormous emprie with might beyond imagination of Faerunian lands, that doesn't really give a damn about what's beyond the borders, a place where spices paper and silk come from - Kara-Tur(China) - check, nordic pirates, vikings and varjags - Luskan and Frozen North,(Skandinavia, Russia)- check, hordes of sweeping asian horsemen - Tuigans(Mongols) - check)
You name it and you'll probably find it there, as Faerun was IMO meant to be able to support any play theme you could imagine. Add the fantasy clichés to prettymuch anything you can find and you have the Faerun. This was really a lot about the relations in which everything was put, but everything was there. Removal of that thing was really just making the setting blander and limiting your pick to the most wellknown areas.
Just look at this map and how many unkwown areas are still there? They could have just explored a tiny bit of the world here and there and added whatever they could think of on the distant and even more fantastic shore. A portal to demon haunted Zakharan lands opened by the powers that be in there could bring an access to untold riches of that land bypassing the pirate controlled shores and also a new source of corruption with the thieflings and genasi living in there. Dragonborn cities just on the distant land below Maztica sailing ships pulled by enormous kites establishing a route to Faerunian ports with explorers and new riches and perhaps dragonhunters. Perhaps they could even ally themselves with the serpent empires elevating them to more than just a veiled threat and of course promoting a boom of piracy as any increase of travel could. Adding two themes wouldn't have changed the flavour much, removing half of them did.
Lantan, having been swallowed by a tidal wave was infact saved in a pocket between Water and Air. Now a whirlpool marks the way in...and travellers must cast a gate spell to allow their ship to enter.
Is that not from one of the Ultima games...
Lantan, having been swallowed by a tidal wave was infact saved in a pocket between Water and Air. Now a whirlpool marks the way in...and travellers must cast a gate spell to allow their ship to enter.Is that not from one of the Ultima games...
I thought it was from the Dragonlance Chronicles.
|
@DigitalMage: Sorry it took me awhile to get back here and respond to your post...RL and also thinking about it delayed me.
Not problem, thanks for taking the time to respond.
I'll take back the 4Ed is like a board game to say it feels like a board game to me. It is a matter of prespective. The twiiter contest ins actualy not related to this feeling as much as that encounter w/ Elminster does which I'll try to make why it does make it seem to be a board game.
Cool, I can see how the Elminster encounter could make it seem like a simple board game type challenge if not enough advice was given in how to use that encounter in an ongoing campaign - perhaps that is what that article was lacking (I have not read it).
But the primary reason why I view it as a board game because that is exactly what I see it played in my area. That is my experience so I'll admitt that does shade my perception of it.
I can certanly sympathise with that - if that has been your only experience of 4e then I can see how you may therefore feel that is all it holds. I guess I have the benefit of being the GM of my current campaign and approached it like any other RPG and so we have lots of social & investigating scenes as well as some combat.
Indeed we have had whole sessions without any combat, and last session would have been the same except one player (the host) really does like the combat and wanted a little skirmish so I obliged.
It seemed to me that WotC did so much as say "Here is 4th ed and what is cool about it" to be more about "Hey this what sucked or was useless about 3rd and some hints as to how you are changing them."
Yes, the D&D through the ages video mocking the 3rd grapple rules, right? I can see how that could touch a nerve, but for me I just shrugged not having experienced any versions of D&D before 3.5 and not having any issues with Grapple in 3.5 (I have more issues with grappling in PF).
Anyway I hope that explain better and clairfication.
yes, thanks!
Most of the bits they blew up were sparsely described, at least in the 3e canon (when I came to FR - I didn't have anything pre-3e) or were fairly ossified places where nothing much was happening, and so I didn't feel that they were really missed...
My main beef, inasmuch as I had one, was the relative lack of detail, especially of newish areas.
Of course, the main complaint about FR at the time was that it was overly detailed.
Of course, the main complaint about FR at the time was that it was overly detailed.Most of the bits they blew up were sparsely described, at least in the 3e canon (when I came to FR - I didn't have anything pre-3e) or were fairly ossified places where nothing much was happening, and so I didn't feel that they were really missed...
My main beef, inasmuch as I had one, was the relative lack of detail, especially of newish areas.
I saw the huge amounts of detail as a blessing and a curse. It was a blessing for lazy DMs who wanted everything spoon fed to them so they had little to no work involved in creating adventures within that setting. Not that his is a bad thing per se, since it worked for so many people (myself included), but I do felt it helped limit what a DM could do in regards to what Canon said. Of course, you don't have to adhere to Canon (it took 4E for me to fully realize this) but in a "shared world", Canon is often brought up as a tool for debates and is considered "fact".
And this is where highly detailed turns into a curse, cuz of that old thing called Canon. Because of the huge amounts of lore and detail, I think it hindered authors to explore certain parts of Faerûn in part because adding new character to a certain area affects not only the gaming world but now lore and canon that might be a result of that novel. So for example, in a novel i want to write (hypothetically speaking) I couldn't have the main villian kill Open Lord of Waterdeep, Piergeiron the Paladinson because he's a main NPC who's very involved with the setting. Killing him off would have huge repercussions not only in future novels but the gaming world as well. All because of a story I want to tell.
The high detail also affected games (and released adventures). For example, the adventure Shadowdale: Scouring of the Land is set in none other than Shadowdale, the residence of the one and only Elmisnter. Any sort of Zhent occupation of that city would never happen if Elminster was around. So "poof" they blew up his tower and made him MIA along with the half a dozen or so high level/Epic NPCs that surround the area so your PCs could do the adventure. A lot of people were mad at this, because "Who goes up and blows up El's house?!?! Damn WotC!!!" Because of canon, (my main reason novels shouldn't affect the game) you have to tip-toe around the setting so that your adventure (published ones mostly) doesn't overly affect the central theme of the setting. That to me is a hinderance.
The highly enriched detail not only extended to the areas and surroudning epic NPCs but even to that lowly tavern keeper of "Blargh-a-Flarg Tavern" who is (N Male Tethyrian Expert 3/Fighter 4/Sorcerer 3/Assassin 1). Why on Earth did they feel the need to put not only the classes of that guy but the levels too? Did we really need to know that crap? Wouldn't it have been more prudent just to say, the tavern keeper of "Blarg-a-Flarg" is a farily competant swordsman with a backround in making people "disappear". He is also somewhat clever and dabbles in magic. That way, I can come up with any ol' classes with X levels and it'd still fit the tavern keeper.
If they feel the need to adhere to Canon and every novel the authors write is considered Canon, then you need less detail so that people don't step on Canon's toes. Sure, the Realms is a HUGE place filled with dozens of un-tapped potential. You could easily write dozens of books that haven't detailed a certain area, but with more detail comes more "set-in-stone" workings that nothing can reverse save for Retcons.
@Diffan: The problem you are stateing...atleast in my humble opinion...has more to do with making things cannon than it has to do with the level of detail.
I have...and always will be against cannon novels and modules in any setting not matter the level of detail. I like Pazio's policy on their APs...they all start 'tomorrow'. That way you can have a detailed setting and not screw it up.
Personaly the vast amount of details only enhanced my game...sure I did not always stick with cannon...mostly due to PCs actions...but all that detail inspired much more depth in the games I ran as a DM and my characters as a player. Note I said inspired not control.
The problems arosed from perception...or better yet misperceptions of the setting. And people lack of understanding about how to use those details.
The problems arosed from perception...or better yet misperceptions of the setting. And people lack of understanding about how to use those details.
+1!
I always saw Faerun's details as a blessing, rather than a curse. I never saw any problem with switching around stuff in the Realms, picking and choosing what canon to use, and making up my own to fill in the blanks or override any part of canon that didn't fit what I was doing, so the incredible detail never hindered me.
On the other hand, when I needed a city, NPC, or enemy for the PCs, the massive detail was a huge help to me. I've tried making homebrew worlds before and it is a beating to write up just a small country with a couple major cities and handful of important locations. With the Forgotten Realms, I had dozens and dozens of cities and regions to pull from, each with extensive backstories, plots, and interesting locations ready and waiting to be used. With the time jump and Spellplague I feel that many of those locations and plots are completely destroyed, and I feel that, ease of entry or not, the loss of such depth is bad for the Realms. Still, 4e introduced a couple interesting things, and the 3e and earlier Realms are a massive place, so with Pathfinder rules, 2e and 3e Realms material, and a couple locations stolen from 4e I feel my version of the Realms will have enough entertaining plots and stories to last me at least the next, oh, couple hundred years or so of gaming.
|
|
Yes folks, they held an "Elminster must die" tweet contest. I don't know about Mr. Greenwood, but if this was me, I'd be royally pissed and flip that company the bird whenever I could. What an utter lack of respect for an iconic character
Okay, going back to the original post in this thread, I find it particularly amusing now that I have seen the latest Paizo Blog entitled Golarion Day: Death to the Iconics! where Paizo are depicting the deaths of several of the Iconic characters in an actual book - so slightly more "substantial" (whatever that means) than a Twitter contest.
So should Paizo be subject to the sort of vitriol that WotC was earlier in this thread? :)
Yes folks, they held an "Elminster must die" tweet contest. I don't know about Mr. Greenwood, but if this was me, I'd be royally pissed and flip that company the bird whenever I could. What an utter lack of respect for an iconic characterOkay, going back to the original post in this thread, I find it particularly amusing now that I have seen the latest Paizo Blog entitled Golarion Day: Death to the Iconics! where Paizo are depicting the deaths of several of the Iconic characters in an actual book - so slightly more "substantial" (whatever that means) than a Twitter contest.
So should Paizo be subject to the sort of vitriol that WotC was earlier in this thread? :)
There is a difference here....a slight one....(but I did say this was blown out of porporation)...
But Elminster has been a popular character for how many years? He is also has been the face of the FR since it came out.
A Iconic class character...is not part of setting...they have been out for what less than two years....and iut is just art...they are not 'dead' in cannon.