BigBen's page

Tlektlop was born of a litter of one single egg: a Krupkrup.

This happens at most once per few kobold generations and the brood-mother who produces that litter is usually killed immediately afterwards for being such a poor contributor. It is a ceremonial duty to fertilize such a single egg and the clan knows exactly what to expect. This typically involves a dozen of the highest ranking males of the tribe (but not necessarily) to ensure that no paternity can ever be invoked or inferred. The hatchling Krupkrup is considered both runt and leader (for is has no peers to be compared against), and such an un-twined kobold is always born with a different complexion (gray, yellow, purple or turquoise) and is considered a free agent among their own race as he/she does not have to respond to any clan affiliation and cannot reproduce any further. There are extremely rare occurences where such a fertilized egg results in a normal coloration. When this happens, the hatchling is de facto considered a demi-god, allowed to grow in luxury free of duty and then sacrificed "for good luck" at the first major problem the tribe has to face. There are rumors of such eggs producing "spotted" or "stripped" kobolds who express more than one scale coloration. Such rumors are unsubstantiated and would probably cause a lot of excitement should it ever occur.

Technically, any egg could produce a Krupkrup if more than one male was ever to fertilize it. But the kobolds have very deep-rooted ancestral taboos against doing so, except in that very special ceremonial case. Those kobolds asked to participate in the ceremony must often atone later for it and usually carry a certain shame related to the act, for which they compensate by making the Krupkrup's life miserable.

While fairly rare, Krupkrups are not unheard of and they often find themselves in positions where they must arrange for commerce between competing tribes or ambassador to the other races the kobolds deign to negotiate with. They are never forced in expendable roles such as digger, trap-tester or PC/monster-fodder, nor are they ever accepted as leaders such as shaman, foreman or chief. All kobolds consider it extremely bad luck to be the immediate cause of death of a Krupkrup (or the destruction of an egg bearing such a kobold). This gives Krupkrups a chance to grow up in an environment that is otherwise often hostile to them.

Many Krupkrups choose a life of seclusion when they become strong enough to ensure their own survival and then let kobold tribes come to them for advise and help, instead of living within a kobold community where they are mistrusted and abused.

Tlektop finds himself in a position where he is both useful to the clan but mistrusted because of his difference and lack of allegiance. Therefore, he must craft his alliances carefully and always remind the leaders of his accomplishments and uses. This makes him look as a brown-noser to the rest of the tribe and can incur the wrath of more aggressive kobolds. Tlektop dreams of the day when he will be accomplished enough as a druid to leave his birth-tribe to become a free agent. He looks up to "Uncle Shweex", a gray Krupkrup sorcerer that infrequently visits the tribe for trading reasons.

In game terms, a Krupkrup should be sterile and have a few perks such as no light sensitivity, higher average mental scores, and a facility for languages. One would expect such a kobold to get a few character class levels if they survive their childhood. If kobolds get perks per color, a Krupkrup should get the perks of the two related colors.

As posted by RavinRay (we had similar ideas, but he posted first)
Yellow = Red+Green
Purple = Red+Blue
Turquoise = Green+Blue
Gray = White+Black

White & Black never combine with the other colors ... White is fully recessive, Black is fully dominant, unless combined together to create a Gray.

Grays should be "extra" special ... this idea could be expended if the concept is adopted.

B.

BigBen wrote:

All the stuff I was stating comes from Leviticus ...

You are saying that there is a way to look at genocide, child murder and slavery that can make sense as seen from God's eye/perspective?
OK, if so, now I'm VERY SUPER scared ...
I will assume I'm misunderstanding your argument ...

No, you aren't misunderstanding my argument. I will freely acknowledge that that stuff is in there. But I would also say that there is a way to understand it that makes sense and can be reconciled with a loving God.

They each need to be understood in their individual context, it is not as simple as giving a neat answer that covers all of them. If you would like to discuss specific examples, we can.

I think the big issue here is misunderstanding the character of God. Yes, He is Love. But he is not ONLY Love. He is also Holy, and Righteous and Just, and Good, and Powerful, and Mighty.

His Holiness and Justice mean that rebellion must be punished. His Justice especially means he can not just "forgive and forget." But in his LOVE, he sent Jesus to die on the Cross, taking the punishment our sin deserves, and securing forgiveness for all who follow him. It is only on the cross that we see Love and Justice meet.

BigBen wrote:

If the word of God is inerrant, why so many splinters in Christianity?

Shouldn't it be very clear? But the fact of the matter is things are not clear, totally self-contradictory and at times, simply antisocial (see above about genocide, child murder and slavery) ...

Therefore, Hell will freeze over before I give any credence to a human agent interpreting colorful stories we inherited from the Stone Ages ...

There are a few reasons for the splinters in Christianity. The biggest is the sinnfulness of humanity. Yes, God is clear, but that doesn't mean all of us actually want to listen what he has to say.

Also, there are some things that Bible isn't completely clear on (such as the baptism of infants), and so there is therefore room for difference of opinion,...

All right, I'm out of this ... thanks for the clarifications though.

In my (humble) opinion,

1) no one can interpret God (if he exists, which I doubt).

2) the Bible reflect the values of a stone age society (with later re-editing to match the values of our midevial societies) which does not apply to us anymore in any relevant way, these were scary angry people with serious control issues.

3) the Bible is flawed and highly immoral in many fundamental ways; the few good parts are totally overtaken by the totally wrong parts; its God is an inconsistent schizophrenic psychopath and plays favorites. No argument can convince me that a good and just god would allow (and provide rules) for slavery, genocide and child murder.

4) human agents only direct their interpretations of the Bible towards their social policies and care very little about the common good. That is simply because there is no consistent way to interpret it at all. Therefore, any argumentation can only be constructed in terms of the conclusion it is trying to support, not in terms of the intended meaning (of which there is none).

5) the common good (shared survival, happiness & growth) is the only source of lasting and consistent values; religion (and I mean more than just christianity here) only ties into that when it fits the goals of its intitutions (and will take AMPLE credit for it). Otherwise, it has no qualm trampling over the common good (and then will downplay its involvement). The crusades, the inquisitions and the ethnic purgings religion has instigated through the ages are testimony to that. Other institutions are also responsible for similar (or identical) woes, but the fact that religion has consistently supported and/or instigated these speaks volumes about its relationship with/within humanity.

6) religious thought and belief foster credulity which fosters exploitation. Only hard facts and an inquisitive mind can rise to a true challenge.

Again, these are mere opinions which I will not defend anymore from this point on ... Thanks Mevers for your input, in many ways, yours is more civil dialog than mine :)

B.

BigBen wrote:

Doesn't everything make more sense if you start with the following axioms?

1) a soul is an abstract concept, it has no reality ... it is a metaphor ... cute in fantasy novels and poetry, but of absolutely no empirical value
2) thus, sperms, foetuses, babies, me, my dad and my dead grandpa do not "have" a soul ... moreover, where's the evidence anyway? ...
3) thus, there is no heaven or hell to go to ... again, metaphors (anyway, the concepts are fantastically absurd ... but that's another rant)
4) it is "bad" to kill people because they are sentient, feeling, emotive and have a very limited time on this planet anyway and our continued personal survival relies on cooperation and the excercise of our free will ...
5) thus, until a foetus gets a functioning brain (where it starts feeling and sensing), it is nothing more than tissue ... I do not know "when" clinically that happens but I'm all for erring in favor of the foetus by a few days/weeks ...

Try to "inject" souls and God's laws into the picture and then it all gets messy and confused and goes in circles ...

But this starts from the wrong place. This is starting with people, and our "rational" thoughts. I say start with God, and see what He says. And He says killing is wrong.

But follow your logic through to it's conclusion. If it is sentience or a functioning brain that determines worth, what about those who are severly handicapped. According to this logic it is OK to kill them. I am not saying you are advocating this, but some do. (Peter Singer I think).

The question is, should all human life be preserved? If so, why? That is the question that needs answering.

The Christian (and most religions) answer is YES. ALL human life should be preserved, becasue All humans are made "in the image of God" (Genesis 1)

What is the answer for those wishing to take God out of the picture?

Last time I checked, severely handicapped people still have feelings and brain activity. Even comatose people have brain activity ... therefore it is wrong to kill them ... I am not an eugenist nor was my argument going in that direction ...

If all life should be preserved, then religious people should scream murder whenever a war is started ... but for the most part, as a sub-segment of the population , they are the ones who most vocally support it (in all countries, not just here) ... I do not get it ...

All life should be preserved because we are social animals and we rely on each other for happiness, growth and survival ... religion is useless to that argument because God does not seem to "value" human life quite equally (or even at all if I'm the one interpreting the scriptures) ... but he definitely plays favorites ...

B.

BigBen wrote:

The old testament contains rules for the proper conduct of slavery, when and how it is ok to kill a disobedient child, and which genocides were God-sponsored (good genocides) and which deserve retribution (bad genocides) ... If that is the inerrant word of the one and only true God, then we are in way more trouble than deciding on abortion or death penalty laws ... I'm now VERY scared of dying if that's the dude that I'll have to explain myself to ... good for me I do not believe in it one tiny bit ...

Religion is scary and schizophrenic ... if it once served some useful purpose when we were crawling out of the stone age, its benefits have long been overshadowed by its horrors ...

B.

I would like to say that everyone who doesn't follow Jesus, SHOULD be scared about explaining themselves to God.

If you have particular issues with stuff in the Old Testament, then I would be happy to discuss them. When most of that stuff in the OT is seen from God's perpective, it makes a lot more sense, and I can go into it more if you want to chat about specifics.

I will admit that religion has bought some terrible horrors in the name of "God" and it grieves my heart when I see whow poeple have twisted and misused the word of God for their own evil ends. But two points.

1. Religion has also bought remarkable good. (I am speaking about Christianity, becasue that is all I know), a lot of what we take from granted in the west has come directly out of Christianity. (Welfare, equality before the law, Hospitals, to name a few)

2. Look at the horrors of Atheism. The wars of the 20th century were the wars of Atheism. They weren't religious wars, but the wars of Atheism.

OK, I was not going to reply to this, but I feel I must ...

All the stuff I was stating comes from Leviticus ...
You are saying that there is a way to look at genocide, child murder and slavery that can make sense as seen from God's eye/perspective?
OK, if so, now I'm VERY SUPER scared ...
I will assume I'm misunderstanding your argument ...

I did not bring the subject of war but since you do:
There 2 kinds of war: because of cultural identity, because of resources (sometimes both) and they often are enmeshed with religion as a supporting argument ... as far as I know, the last war was started by a president who claims to be deeply religious ... as a retaliation (in part, other issues contribute too) to an attack from deeply religious people who thought Allah was reserving them a condo in heaven with a large number of virgins at their disposal ... If you do not see religion involved in there ... whether they were good or bad muslims (both exist) or whether the retaliation comes from good or bad christians (both exist) is irrelevant, but they are involved ...

As an atheist, I never claimed that all religious people (or atheist nations) should be exterminated because they are an affront to ... atheism?

If a war has economical roots, it does not make it an atheist war ...
It just makes it wrong and greedy ... and very religious (and very atheist) people can participate in it ...

Atheist people can be bad people, religious people can be bad people, etc. religion brings nothing helpful to the situation and at best fosters "fuzzy thinking" where people can justify themselves through invisible agents and deresponsibilize themselves of their acts ... religion is the opposite of clear thought and personal responsibility.
God wants me/us to "do this" is an old argument and it rarely results in a good outcome ...

If the word of God is inerrant, why so many splinters in Christianity?
Shouldn't it be very clear? But the fact of the matter is things are not clear, totally self-contradictory and at times, simply antisocial (see above about genocide, child murder and slavery) ...

Therefore, Hell will freeze over before I give any credence to a human agent interpreting colorful stories we inherited from the Stone Ages ...

B.

My voice: offer a subscription and I will subscribe

P.S. The following does not entirely belong here ... I would very much enjoys contribution guidelines both to the GamMastery and the PathFinder products ... I always felt a little too "constrained" with the D&D material anyway ... this is a beautful opportunity for divergence and creativity ... I would LOVE to contribute!

B.

Doesn't everything make more sense if you start with the following axioms?

1) a soul is an abstract concept, it has no reality ... it is a metaphor ... cute in fantasy novels and poetry, but of absolutely no empirical value
2) thus, sperms, foetuses, babies, me, my dad and my dead grandpa do not "have" a soul ... moreover, where's the evidence anyway? ...
3) thus, there is no heaven or hell to go to ... again, metaphors (anyway, the concepts are fantastically absurd ... but that's another rant)
4) it is "bad" to kill people because they are sentient, feeling, emotive and have a very limited time on this planet anyway and our continued personal survival relies on cooperation and the excercise of our free will ...
5) thus, until a foetus gets a functioning brain (where it starts feeling and sensing), it is nothing more than tissue ... I do not know "when" clinically that happens but I'm all for erring in favor of the foetus by a few days/weeks ...

Try to "inject" souls and God's laws into the picture and then it all gets messy and confused and goes in circles ...

My little piece of ranting :) ... on another topic ...

The old testament contains rules for the proper conduct of slavery, when and how it is ok to kill a disobedient child, and which genocides were God-sponsored (good genocides) and which deserve retribution (bad genocides) ... If that is the inerrant word of the one and only true God, then we are in way more trouble than deciding on abortion or death penalty laws ... I'm now VERY scared of dying if that's the dude that I'll have to explain myself to ... good for me I do not believe in it one tiny bit ...

Religion is scary and schizophrenic ... if it once served some useful purpose when we were crawling out of the stone age, its benefits have long been overshadowed by its horrors ...

B.

I'm a bit confused,

I elected to transfer my remaining Dragon/Dungeon issues to the new magazine (4 of them) because I'm sure it's going to be a blast. Then, when I got to the Subscription page afterwards (to double-check), I could see these 4 issues (so far so good).

So I wanted to set it up to receive it monthly and that ended up selling me one more issue istead ... not the effect I intended (though there is no harm in it). Now my Pathfinder subscription shows 5 issues.

Do I understand that I will have to log to Paizo every month and buy every new issue individually ahead of time? Is there a way for me set it up so that I receive it monthly until I elect to cancel my subscription? Or maybe buy a year's alotment?

Thanks ahead!

B.

I guess my greatest concern is that many spells have their effect proportional to the spellcaster level, not the character level ... so if you're a Fighter 10th / Wizard 5th, what's the relevance of a 5d6 Fireball in a CL 15 encounter? ... might as well just bash & slash ... whereas a 15d6 Fireball is very relevant ...

I never play with XP penalties, the combos that can be abused are far offset by the inability to Max crucial skills, lower caster level ... I really like the idea mentioned earlier of "Multicalssing from the start" and then dividing XPs for slower progression ...

I almost never play with prestige classes, I find them (for the most part) very background-specific or offer no great value on top of the base classes (Weapon Master & Shadow Dancer excepted) ...

Personnaly, I would start with any 1st level character and do a little adventure totally geared towards her abilities and skill selection. Later I would propose that she either try different character classes (fighter type, rogue type, mage type) or have her be joined by variuous NPCs (one at the time) so that she can get familiar with the specifics of each ... I'm concerned that starting at higher level than 1st entails too many decisions and choices that may not make much sense to a novice player ... I would even suggest that you create a very simple fighter with her that could be her nemesis during the first "mini-adventure" ... I find that fighter is the best class to introduce D&D ... plus as she fights him, she'll understand better her strengths and weaknesses compared to another class type ...

My characters started with the prescribed gold for 1st level (PHB) and bought crappy equipment. And, the wizard had an "debt" towards Allustan for apprenticeship and an above-average spellbook. By the end of Whispering Cairn, the repaid the debt, fixed the "Mine House" (you should see the result, they were almost more excited about that then the adventure itself ... congrats to the author(s) for coming up with that idea, I wish I had thought of that a long time ago) and finally bought a few healing potions (that came in short during the adventure) ... and VOILA money-wise they are back to where they started from ... not a copper piece left :) so they have a lot of motivation for the next instalment ... I like the "Tax" suggestion ... they are going to scream murder ... I can't wait ... Plus I'm probably extort them for the deeds to the house ... I'm evil!

Wow!

I was not aware that the staff at Paizo needed champions to protect them from the evil doings of whiners ... I vote we block all submitted posts unless they are soothingly placid and praising to make sure that they can work in a Zen mental space that promotes harmony ...

Seriously, I'm being overly sarcastic (I couldn't help myself), but this board is dedicated to a few things:
1) Errata (I love those)
2) The occasional good idea that people are very generous to share (I love those even more)
3) The occasional news (yippi!)
4) Opinions!!! YES! Opinions! Mostly Opinions! because, for better or worse, that's the best that most of us can come up with ... (me included) ... a sad but true affair ...

Reading about people's griping might not be your cup of tea. But griping about someone's griping is still griping and no more "constructive" then what you're griping about in the first place (or in my case, griping about someone's griping about someone's griping) ... In the end, it is nothing but an OPINION ...
The key word here: OPINION

Speaking for the Staff at Paizo and how it may or may not affect them (unless you work there, in which case I will read attentively) strikes me as silly and a tad sycophantic (is there such a word?)
Single-handledly deciding that something is excessive is cute and entertaining but different people have different thresholds for such things ... a matter of "opinion" you might say ...

Freedom of speach rules! (trash excluded, there are children reading) I do not believe that positive or negative "opinions" affect the staff at Paizo much ... in some peoples' opinion, it is great that we get all this yummy stuff for free ... in other peoples' opinion, it impedes their ability to move forward with their campain and have to placate increasingly frustrated players, me included because I know that the overload is going to be WAY better than what I can improvise ... in other peoples' opinions, a product due is a product owed, and it's late, very late and very much needed and desired ... some people think quality warrants the wait ... some people think it should have been planed better ... some people feel cheated ... some people are blissfully happy ... nothing wrong with this picture ... there is no clause that states we should all think and feel the same way about anything ... or censor ourselves one way or another ...

Am I complaining? Kind of ...
Is it offensive? I fail to see how ...
Is it excessive? Probably ... who am I to judge?
Is it going to affect the staff at Paizo? Doubtful ...
Is it going to affect the content or delivery date of the overload? Dubious ...
Should I stop? Absolutely not ... well soon I promise ...
Are these facts? No! They are "opinions"

Resistance and Buyancy are 2 different things ...

No Water Resistance (the fact that water impedes movement): consider that "creatures" have to be able to "fly" or be helpless ... so an underwater dragon would be fine but most fishes and humanoids would simply "trash around"

No Water Buyancy (the fact that water negates some of the effect of gravity by displacement of water volume): all objects/creatures must "fight" to overcome gravity, therefore they sink unless they take a move action to maintain themselves (water resistance can still be used to propel oneself)

Both: now that's nasty, consider the volume of water affected as if it was air (or even vacuum) where movement is considered, in the first case, a dragon could fly out of it, in the second case, unless you have a levitate effect or are naturally buyant (i.e. Beholder) ... then you sink ...

If you're affecting the water itself, I do not why anyone would be allowed a save (maybe a Reflex if the creature is at the edge of the effect so that it can "move" to the closest unaffected square) and maybe Magid Resistance to "ignore" the effect.

If you're affecting the creatures in the area, then I would allow for a Fortitude and Magic Resistance. But you have to consider if you want "objects" to be affected (such as a ship).

I "upgraded" to 3.5 about 9 months ago and one of my greatest difficulty as a player and/or DM was all the special stuff you can do as a standard vs full-round action ...

What really helped is that we sat down and went ...
A) What is it like to trip?
B) What is it like to sunder ?
C) What is it like to aid another ?
D) What about flanking, darkness, invisibility ... ?
E) ad infinitum ...

We tried everything on a "tactical" grid (a simple map I made with passages, balconies, stairs, etc.)

Not only was it fun but it really helped to understand the flow of combat & movement and special cases ...

In my opinion, with kids, I would drop the following:
Sundering, Disarming, Grappling, Attack of Opportunity.
At least until they're confortable enough with the rest of the rules ...

This is great you have that opportunity to play with the kids! Have fun with the family :)

Since I tend to have very small groups, the players pretty much have to multiclass if they want a well-rounded party (though I do tend to gear the adventure towards their set of abilities) ... But lately I started to realize that as the characters go up in level, those that multiclass to spellcasting classes are kindof left behind ... the 2 levels of sorcerer really add very little usefulness to the 2 levels of barbarian whereas the ranger/rogue is great synergic combo ... Is it just me or does multiclassing with spellcaster classes (even among themselves) just plain suck?
I'm tempted to add 1/2 the other class levels to the spellcaster class so that the magical progression of such PCs is not totally left in the unrelavant zone ...

Do I fail to see something?

As a side note, that also put an end to characters hauling back to civilization bazillions of coins in their equipment without worrying about placement or weight ... they soon realized that hauling tons of small objects is not necessarily a trivial things ...
They even went as far as trading their coins for smaller but more convenient gems (the opposite of what usually happens in a typical campain) even if they were aware that they were loosing value in the exchange ... Their enthousiasm for such magical boons as "Bag of Holding" just skyrocketed (they tended to "humpf" at such paltry loot).

Real-life mechanics versus game mechanics is often fraught with perils ... In my game I adopt the UI style of many RPG computer games ... A backpack is a rectangle of small cells (representing its carrying capacity, typically 5x9 for a medium one) and various items are also rectangles that must fit within ... very small items are stackable (such as Gems: 10 to a stack, coins: 100 to a stack, etc) ... opening a container to pick somethinbg is a move action ... therefore getting gems in a small bag in a packsack requires 2 move actions ... various containers have their own capacity rectangles, for example, my rogue has a buckle-belt with 4 small utility containers (1 4x4, 2 2x4 and 1 2x2) ... it also helps formalizes such things as pick-pocket (since everything must be placed somewhere and thieves must specify a target container) ...
various magical/mundane enhancements are then possible:
A) greater "holding" rectangle than outside rectangle (bag of holding)
B) concealment (difficult for thieves to spot and target)
C) locks or complex opening/closing procedures

I also use a doll-figure approach to the character equipment ... One cannot have 2 backpacks for example, or have both a backpack and big double-axe strapped to the back ... It's more accounting but it's also more systematic ... I'm working on a little software tool to help with that ...

To me it seems that comparing real-life trap making and D&D game mechanics for trap making is intrinsically flawed and of little value:

1) In real life, the deadliness and subtlety of a trap have very little to do with its cost or complexity
2) Most real-life traps are mere annoyances in a D&D setting where the game mechanics are geared towards attrition of resources (HP, spells, attributes) that have very little in common with real-life physiology (I might be a 5th level Nerd with great CON score in real life, that does not mean I can scuff off a crossbow bolt lodged in my chest)
3) D&D traps are an extension/adaptation of really cool and spectacular (but unrealistic) Hollywood props ans special effects ... think Indiana Jones
4) In real life, structural traps are unheard of (who has a hidden swinging axe blade in their basement?) therefore, understanding their mechanics and subtleties is at best uninformed guess-work ... unless you're a civil engineer with a major in deadly humor

Neverwinter Night is especially hilarious if you think about it ... How can a trap made of basic components and dropped on the floor be subtle? It's a GIZMO! How can you NOT see it (unless you are blind)? why would you step on it?

In my games, I totally ditched the whole trap-crafting rules ... There are 3 types of traps that can be built:

A) Traps constructed from spells and/or item creation feats as, after all, this is a fantasy game ... (I have my own spells/feats, very popular with Rogue/Wizards or Ranger/Wizard multiclasses) ... In such a case, it's very much like an area spell / magic item ... The spell/feat description contains the rules for cost/effort/prerequisites/spot/disable/etc ... You can get away with murderous inconsistencies if you can justify it with "Wizard!" ...

B) Structural traps have to be accounted for when designing/building the structure (dungeon, tower, etc) and are therefore an intrinsic part of its cost. These tend to be very deadly, difficult to avoid/disable and somewhat easy to reset (almost always manual, rarely involving additional costs or craft rolls) ... Adding a trap to a finished structure is VERY costly and difficult to implement and tend to produce traps that are somewhat easier to spot and then disable and more difficult to reset (additional cost, craft reroll) ...

C) Snares & Pits, the usual trip-line-water-balloon sort of trap ... Any hunter/poacher/trickster/"kid on Santa's naughty list" knows the ABC of this ... They usually are very easy to disable, whereas the difficulty to spot them and their deadliness are proportional to the craft roll (ingenuity, rolled by only one character no take 10 or take 20, may be aided by others) and time spent (effort, calculated in man-hours, the more skilled participants, the faster/better the result) ... costs tend to be trivial, the time spent is totally up to the players, but must be called before the craft roll ... They work better outside or in cluttered environments (it's difficult to set trip wires in a dungeon full of straight walls) ... In any case, I require my players to come up with some seemingly consistent explanation for the trap layout and effect ... (Of course they can always aid themselves with various spells in the execution plan)

Whether to express merit or grievance, I fail to see what is wrong with either type of post ... why are people invited to voice their opinions "elsewhere in the big internet" or why is there a judgement value attached to either ? ... opinions are opinions ... they have very little to do with facts (like errata for example which I find very useful from more observant readers, kudos to you guys/gals who spot mistakes) ... I personnaly enjoy reading both positive and negative comments and isn't this message board partially dedicated to people voicing their opinions ?

As I see it, the staff can either tackle less work or the management can hire more staff. There is no reason for people to work insanely like that ... it does not make anybody happy and is detrimental to the overall quality of the product. (and I have no admiration for people who work themselves senseless, I'm not a fan of martyrs: my motto is "work less, work better") Also, a product promised is a product owed, I'm still patiently (wearing thin) waiting for the Overload. In the end, with a finite amounts of resources, it's quantity versus quality ... I would rather have quality. But then again, moaning and b!@~*ing probably helps nothing ... After all, the best way to express my opinion is with my buying $$$ ... And though I have my own disappointments, I do get my 7$ enjoyment out every issue so I keep buying the magazine. Overall AoW is leagues beyond the typical printed adventure, so I can forgive the few mistakes and I'm not so helpless that I cannot compensate while DMing ...

Some people simply:

A) Are deluded into thinking they are brilliant (too much ego)
B) Have way too much time
C) Have such narrow focus, they cannot see beyong their nose
D) All of the above (for truly spectacular jerks)

It is a source of mystery to me that anyone would bother to post a personal attack or flamming/raging post ... to me it's more alien than green men from outer space ...

I just died a little inside ... :)

I've always wanted to play in or DM for a group of "sneakies":

(in order of appearance depending on group size)
Rogue
Ranger
Monk
Ninja
Scout

all maxing Move Silently - Hide in Shadow
all light armor/no armor
all fair-to-good DEX (read all 14 above with at least on 18 above)
all fair INT (for those yummy skill points, well diversified among the group)
probably all along 1 alignment axis (like all lawful, group concensus)
the rest is personal ...

Adventure to 3rd level and then start multiclassing

I would propose the following ... but that heavily depends on stats and personal preferences of the players ...

Rogue-Sorcerer (or Wizard)
Ranger-Druid
Monk-Paladin
Ninja-Favored Soul
Scout-Warlock (this combo is killer with the right feats)

all eventually shoot for ShadowDancer (hide in plain sight) prestige class ASAP ... if it's awesome for one PC, imagine a party!

That would make for a really cool strategy-oriented group ...
The lack of heavy tanks is highly offset (in my opinion) by the battle options at the disposal of the group as a whole ...

Alas, this has never happened to me ...

I still dream of it at night ...