Belirahc's page

Organized Play Member. 22 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters.


Dane Pitchford wrote:
And let's remember that it was Keith Baker that created Eberron, not Rich. Rich's involvement, setting-wise, is typically FR-based.

Ah.. my mistake... thanks for the clarification.

It just semed to me that through a lot of the spoiler information I had seen it was as if they were trying to shift the campaign style to a more... Eberron style of game.

As I said, nothing against Eberron, I love the setting, but I don't know if I feel like totally relearning the new Realms. I may just stick with the Pathfinder version of 3.5 and go with that.

Mactaka wrote:

how did the public receive the changes?

how did the Baker et al., respond to any negativity?

OK, you'll have to forgive my stupidity here, but I have to ask this as I have not been keeping up with the FR issue until now. Am I to assume that Rich Baker had a hand in rewriting the setting? I ask mainly because of some of the spoiler changes I read earlier in the thread here. It almost sounds like the Forgotten Realms have been revamped into low-tech remake of Eberron (the halfling changes resonate most with that statement).

I have nothing against Baker, especially since I love the original Eberron setting. However, not sure I like the direction the Realms are going. I still have to make up my mind whether I'll be making that purchase or not.

Nahualt wrote:

BTW is Cortex the system of Firefly RPG?

If so *SHUDDERS*x2

Yes.... yes it is...

"Now it is the time on Sprockets when we dance."

Sorry... Mike Meyer's reference...

Let's hope they continue this trend though. I like tie-ins with movies. Anime spoiled me like that I suppose.

EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
Or it could easily been introducing SMERSH. I got that feeling from the trailer scene where some guy is describing in a cryptic sort of way....the organization he belongs to and how no one would know they are there.

I must have missed that part of the trailer. Of course, it could have been that I was paying too much attention at the time too, drooling over the fact that there was another Bond movie coming out and it actually continued a story rather than became another one parter.... ^_^

EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
Saw the trailer for Quantum of Solace.....got the feeling they are introducing S.P.E.C.T.R.E.....hope I'm right! Anyone else see it? What do you think?

OK, this is my first post in this thread, but I love the Bond films and books. However, I have not seen Casino Royale, although I will soon. Especially after seeing the preview of Quantum of Solace during the most recent Mummy movie. I have heard nothing but great reviews of the Casino, so I'm hoping this is a return to the original bond back when Sean Connery played him.

Yes, I am a Connery fan. Diamonds Are Forever is still one of my favorites of his, although You Only Live Twice is probably my all time favorite.

With regards to the quoted question, I didn't notice anything in the preview that would bring SPECTRE back, but here's to hoping. I think that part of the problem with the movies after Diamonds was that Bond finally got his revenge against Blofeld, SPECTRE was defeated, and there was nothing linking the future Bond movies together. From that point on, it was a random collection of madmen that he was forced to defeat (although The Man with the Golden Gun was a great mano-a-mano type of action movie).

Funny though that in the Ian Flemming books, SPECTRE didn't appear until much later. It was SMERSH that Bond was playing against in a more Spy vs. Spy type game.

Anyway, I think I am babbling now. I plan on going into town today to pick up the complete James Bond set on DVD to replace my aging tape collection. ^_^

While you can create cards for this, just to let you know there is already something out there that emulates a GM. It's called the Mythic GM Emulator. It's actually a set of charts that gives odds, chaos factors, and a percentage chance for yes and no. You ask questions about the game in question, roll, and interpret the results. It's a little quirky at first, but once you try it a few times, it can come in handy.

Even if you do have a GM.

It's been around for a long time and can be used by itself or with other games using the Emulator simply to answer questions about the game while using your choice of system rules for combat and such.

CourtFool wrote:
I am about to speak heresy, but Perception and Stealth should be a trained skill for any adventurer.

Why is that heresy? Did I miss that at the most recent converts meeting? *shuffles papers and pages*

I'm glad to see this report. It puts to rest a lot of what people keep saying about the new system. It's also interesting to see how your players are progressing with the new system from the old.

As for the Alea Tools link, thanks for reminding me of that. I see they finally brought their prices down. The GM set used to be around $150.

David Marks wrote:
Wow! That's actually pretty good! Well done guys!

Yeah. See, I like to work with others like this to come up with ideas. It helps me work through the rules while I am learning a new system.

OK. Going with the idea of individual party members trying to cross.

5 party members, each needing two successes to cross equals 10 successes total, making it 5 failures against. As each member crosses, begin a round table of rolling, with each player using the skill they think will help in the crossing (Diplomacy to keep the player moving, Perception to help watch for weaknesses, Athletics to miss a broken board). The character is not considered across until two successes are thrown, with each 2 failures adding a -1 to future skill checks to show the weakening of the bridge.

At 5 failures, the bridge breaks and takes whoever is on the bridge with it for a ride. Acrobatics roll to grab the bridge (with similar failure and success ideas from my previous post) and an Athletics roll to climb the bridge back to the surface.

Now, half the party is on one side, the other half on the other, and they have to find another way around the problem.

This is fun ^_^

Steerpike7 wrote:

This relates to a 4E adventure I am developing for my group.

At one point, the group has to cross a suspension bridge across a chasm. The bridge is old and has been further weakened by recent use. There is a % chance that it will collapse with each PC that crosses (the % is modified by weight, how many PCs are on the bridge at once, etc.).

My question concerns adjudicating what happens if the bridge does collapse.

Seems like the easiest way to resolve would be a series of Athletics checks:

Once to grab the ropes as the bridge starts to collapse (though this might be better tied to a skill with Dex as the ability - can't find a good one);

Once when the rope bridge slams against the wall of the chasm (to hang on);

Once or more to climb up the bridge to the lip of the chasm.

I'd like to change it up a bit though, rather than have the same check three of more times.


Let's see if we can get some ideas out here on this one. Mainly because I am trying to figure skill challenges out as well.


1) Perception or Dungeoneering to recognize the impending collapse. If they fail, the suffer a negative penalty to their next skill roll as well as picking up a failure. If they roll over a specific score, they gain a positive modifier to their next roll.

2) Once the bridge collapses, best to be an Athletics or Acrobatics roll. Failure in this case is a bad thing, as you will fall (although this doesn't really work with the skill challenge idea of success before failure system). Maybe they catch themselves on a failure, but take damage from the hit and a negative penalty. A success takes half damage from the fall, and a great success takes no damage. This way, you kind of throw together both the fall and impact into the same mix.

3) To climb the bridge could be either an Athletics or Dungeoneering roll. Failure is having to make another immediate roll or lose a success. A great success adds an extra success level. Keep rulling Athletic or Dungeoneering until you gain the proper number of successes.

Ok. Now, setting the levels...

4 successes to escape, 2 failures to fail? Failure means falling, success means escaping.


I know this is not completely correct, but I have only glanced over the Skill Challenge section for the moment. I'll be reading through it correctly tonight. But, let's discuss and see what we can come up with as a group ^_^


Charisma is the oft touted 'dump stat', so it's easy to forget I suppose.

I kind of like a Crafting style of system similar to the Ritual system. Perhaps use a feat to gain access to Crafting Rituals of a specific type...


As for things like performances, I'll wait until the Companion books come out to see how they are going to handle bards. I am sure they will have all your performance styled powers there.

Oh, and singing is a CHA based power, if anything <(^_^)>


Technically, couldn't the miniature game be used as a ad-hoc mass rules system? Sure, you'd have to modify it a little, but it may work...

*scratches head* Need to look at that...

Digitalelf wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:

The campaign then died because we could never get the two merchant players to stop playing the economics game.

Did it even occur to you that those players were HAVING FUN?

Selfish to be sure because other players were involved, but it sounds from your description that were having an absolute blast!

For them, that WAS the "adventure"...

I can see situations like this happening in almost any game, but at the same time there should be some balance that gets the whole group together regardless of individual fun. As Dave said, the goal is to have fun together.

Perhaps a compromise would have saved the game, maybe play as a group for a few hours, then let the ones who have their side game play for an hour after the rest of the group leaves. That way everyone has fun with their games and everyone still plays together.

However, this particular case is in the past, so not sure if this is even helpful. Nowadays, situations like this can be overcome with online e-mails between the GM and the players who want to 'play the market' so they don't interrupt everyone's enjoyment.

I think I am rambling this time.

But that's just my opinion <(^_^)>

Possible, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a mass combat system soon, probably in the Martial Handbook (unless it is in the DMG and I haven't gotten to it yet).

I like the idea of minions. I've seen them used in other systems to make the battle bigger and the danger just as bad, but it gives the players the sense of taking out large groups of critters without having to hack at each one for seven turns. ^_^

Steerpike7 wrote:

I've never been of the school of thought that you need a bunch of rules for the roleplaying aspects of the games. I started with 1e AD&D, which isn't heavy on the RP rules, and those groups were some of the best RP-deep groups I ever played with. 3.5 has more rules regarding things like RP-type skills, and while in some ways those were good in other ways I think they stymied roleplaying because they establish a set of boundaries around roleplaying.

It seems like people who started with 3.X are more inclined to feel that you need to have RP rules to really have RP. At least, that's been my personal observation. I've had many of my best RP sessions using editions that don't have RP rules.

Steer, I think you may have hit the nail on the head here. Too many people see the fluff that was removed for a more streamlined game and are having a cow because they see that WotC has removed the roleplay from the game. As I point out to many people, the rules are there to settle issues in the game, not regulate your roleplaying.

I remember growing up roleplaying all the time without rules. Usually they ended up in fights that could be watered down to "I hit you! No you didn't!" moments, which are what the rules are meant to stop. If you want to roleplay, you don't have to ever crack a book as long as you don't get into a combat, try to pick a lock, or something that requires a random check for.

I think another problem is that people are seeing the Player's Guide side of things and not realizing that the Player's Guide is the more 'tactical' of the books. The Dungeon Master's Guide is greatly geared towards the 'atmosphere' side of the game. Sure, there is some tactical stuff within the DMG just like there is some atmosphere in the PHB, but the majority of the DMG is building atmosphere... you know, how to create roleplay.

Of course, the Monster Manual is a big book of baddies, but even in there are some good hints for roleplay and atmosphere, as well as tactics.

As for things like crafting skills, riding, and those things... I honestly rarely saw them taken by players, and when they did take them, they almost never used them. Why? Too many skills, not enough skill points.

Rules should never restrict roleplaying. If you think they do, you are doing it wrong ^_^

But that's just my opinion

OK. Just piping in here again. Seems this is still an ongoing topic.

I attended the D&D games day this year specifically for a chance to give 4E a try. Honestly, I kind of like the new system, although a lot of us old time players sat around and discussed the various differences between 3.x and 4e. The discussions were pretty calm and thought provoking, especially when we got the old and new crowds together.

Of course, we had the people who claimed that that roleplaying moments just didn't seem to be there after playing the demo. As I explained to him, the roleplaying wasn't there because everyone was playing a new system and were trying to work out the basics. That and about half the members at each table were new to the whole hobby rather than just to 4e.

Imagine that... new people at the tables. Hmmm...

Also, I saw more female players at this year's Games day than I have seen at the last three. Interest was high, even amongst those that said they hated the system because of rumors and such. They still stayed and watched, and were even surprised enough on occasion to say something like 'That's pretty cool!'.

As I said elsewhere, changing someone's mind about something is a hard thing to do. In another post here, I saw someone mention that reading the rules will leave many with a 'This is a dumbed down version' mentality. Of course, once they play it, their opinions seem to change a little.

Also, most people have only read the Player's Handbook, which holds most of the rules for combat as well as character creation. In all honesty, combat is where most of the rules are needed, simply because we don't want things to degenerate into a school yard 'I hit you! No you didn't!' type of back and forth. But there are things in there to help role play, and in the Dungeon Master's Guide are more ideas for role play as well as how to involve the players in role play.

As I explained to the gentleman who was complaining that the role play has been removed from the game, he was only playing in a demo. If the GM wants to run a game never using combat, it's still possible. However, combat is more fun and honestly seemed a little smoother now from my experience at the table.

I still don't think WotC has abandoned anything. They have just tried to make things more accessible and interesting to those who may have wanted to play but were intimidated by earlier versions.

But, once again, this is just my opinion, and I know many here won't agree to it. However, even if you are not ever going to use 4e, I suggest everyone go and play a demo with an open mind to see the differences.

You may be surprised.


First off, just a little humor from a long time WoW fan.

KaeYoss wrote:
"Screw that. Let's have a raid. I'll get my gnome druid, can you come with your night elf hunter?"

No such thing as gnome druids in Wow or 4.0 ^_^.

Now, onto the more serious things....

KaeYoss wrote:
Don't give me patriotic speeches.

Nothing patriotic here. Just making a statement from my point of view. It took me forever to get gaming groups together and many people looked at the complexity that was 3.x and shied away. I went to systems that were simpler to grasp and people had a tendency to want to learn more. Then they were ready for more advanced stuff

Sometimes simpler is better (Savage Worlds is a prime example)

KaeYoss wrote:

Really, I never heard anything like this.

And the intentional invalidation of 30 years of D&D history and background information are a big part of why many of us feel abandoned.

Those changes are so far away from "back to the roots" that the twigs can't support their weight any more.

Ok, so the destruction of worlds is another stepping stone towards the problems of the new system. I remember local issues with the changes to the original Forgotten Realms and the original Greyhawk too.

Since I don't know or cannot read much on the changes unless I want to go out and get the latest Driz'zt book (and even those are sketchy), I can't judge the new Forgotten Realms setting. Once I get it, I'll pass judgment.

KaeYoss wrote:


I have just one question: Why buy 4e at all? I'm sure the D&D Minis rulebook is a lot cheaper to get. Or I'll use HeroQuest or something, and make up my own stories.

To me, 4e just doesn't offer anything over options like these to justify the extra cost. 3e did that. And still does.

Honestly, if you remember back to the days of "Cowboys and Indians" and "Cops and Robbers", we didn't have to have written rules. Of course, there were a lot of fights and arguments, but that was part of being a kid.

Sure, you can use the miniature rules and make stories, but as I said, the mini rules are for groups of characters run by a single player, where the D&D books are for individual characters run against groups.

Either way, you can still role play with either rule set.

I am not really here to convince any one person. I've found that once a person makes up their mind, there is very little anyone can do to change it. I was simply stating my opinions and thoughts, nothing more. I still haven't totally decided whether I will even go the way of 4e. I currently use a system called OVA as well as Savage Worlds.

I was reserved about 4E when I heard about it. However I like to give everything a chance, regardless of how much things change. My thoughts are here simply to show what I am thinking about the new system, and I am sure I will have more as I move through the Dungeon Master's Guide. We'll see what else comes up.

I have been reserving my thoughts for a while, but I figure I will chime in here as well.

1) To those that say this isn't a role playing game:

Remember that the original D&D was forged out of a war game rule set known as Chainmail. It was designed to give the players control over an individual to perform basically the same things they were doing with their hordes of monsters and fighters. Instead of working against one another in the war game, they now worked together to fight off those hordes of monsters. The rules were not really designed to create role play, but were designed to give an individual a chance to make a difference against a horde.

Not much different than what we have now with 4E.

Basically, it seems to me that 4E has gone closer to the roots of the D&D game than most of the editions since, and has done so by clearing out a few of the stickier and more annoying rules from 1E on. The rules do not define the role play opportunities of a game. That is up to the players and the GM. Players make the stories, not the rules.

2) WotC have abandoned their fan base.

Actually, this is far from true. They attempted a half-hearted fix with their 3.5 line that irritated many people, but they listened to their fans and tried to sort out some of the problems. I know I was one of those irritated people, but I got over it and moved on to 3.5. 4.0 is a grounds up rebuild that is a MAJOR change from what we have seen with D&D, and this is coming from an old "Red Box" player from the 70's.

This game is closer to the MMORPG style of gaming. I admit that. Instant heals between battles, fancy attacks and powers, flashy battles meant to play fast. I agree that seems to cause some older RPG fans like me to shudder and mumble prayers of "Save Us" to the old guard. However, as many of you may know the RPG hobby as a whole has a tendency to stagnate. This is a new way to bring more people into the hobby.

I don't think WotC is abandoning anything. It sounds more like the fans don't want change when change is necessary for the survival of the hobby. If anything, WotC is trying to make things more accessible, for both the fans (many who said the game was getting out of hand with rules) as well as new players (who were so intimidated by the rules they were afraid to try).

3) ...

You know, there are some problems with trying to get all your thoughts on paper when you are closing in on forty and work with computers as both a livelihood and hobby; you run out of memory, both personal and mechanical. I actually had another topic to post. I'm sure I'll think of it soon, but I'll leave you with this.

I have read the player's guide pretty much from cover to cover, skipping over the things like the long list of spells and rituals. I can see from my experiences as a GM how much easier it would be to run some of my games if I decide in the future to go the 4E route. Character creation is easier, skill and feat distribution seems simpler. Spells, powers, etc. are much more organized, and they've removed a lot of the sticky subjects to combat that seemed to slow down the game and actually take away from the role playing. Combat moves faster, so your group can actually get back to the role play moments much sooner. Everything is still there, but it has just been 're-organized' in a way that seems different.

Honestly, 4E is not that much different from any other RPG. To paraphrase a saying from my time in MMORPGs where people complained that no one was roleplaying.

Roleplay does not begin with the rules...

Roleplay begins with you.

Think about if folks.

Fatespinner wrote:

For that matter, what the hell does H1 mean?

U is for Urban.
W is for Wilderness.
J is for Journey.
D is for Dungeon.
E is for Event.

...wtf is 'H'?!

Remember, you are talking two different companies here. WotC has their own scheme, just like Paizo. The five you posted are Paizo's numbering scheme, not WotC.

As for the actual product, I have yet to see it and after reading a few responses here and elsewhere, I am a bit gun-shy about it at the moment. We'll have to wait and see what the actual game brings about.

[Slight Edit] Teaches me to not look at the page number at the bottom of the screen. Sorry... looks like this has been answered several times over. *blush*