I know that this is 305 posts into the conversation, but I want to join with those who say that alignment has never caused a problem at any game I've run in the last thirty-five years.
When I've seen those problems in other groups, it's generally come from the fact that people believe they understand "Good" and "Evil" as real-world concepts and try to shoe-horn them into the fantasy world without acknowledging the "Law" and "Chaos" are equally powerful forces in that fantasy world. The idea that an angel and an eladrin could have as much dislike for one another as an angel and a devil (though they would carry out that dislike in very different ways because of the difference between morality and ethics and so on and so forth) seems to be the hurdle that players have to get past.
Folks who haven't "gotten it" yet seem to insist that the "good guys" would get along. Recognizing that Chaotic-Good and Lawful-Good are just as different as Lawful-Evil and Lawful-Good is a big step, and it's challenging for some.
I've never had someone who developed an understanding of these fantasy norms continue to impress "real world" norms on my game.
You’ve mastered the art of making illusions that force foes to divide their attention in combat.
Prerequisites: Spell Focus (illusion), gnome.
Benefit: You can use this metamagic feat only on illusion (figment) spells.
A threatening illusion spell causes one target to believe your illusion is a threat. Choose one 5-foot square within the area of your illusion; that square threatens the target as long as it is adjacent. Thus, if you or an ally is on the opposite side of the target, it is considered flanking. Normally the area must contain an illusory creature of Small or Medium size. However, you can select one square of a larger illusory creature to threaten the target. For example, an illusory Large ogre takes up four 5-foot squares; you select one square to be the source of the threat, and its other three squares do not threaten anyone. If the target has reason to believe there is an invisible creature in the vicinity, even an auditory illusion with no visual elements (such as ghost sound) is sufficient to convince the target that the selected square contains an actual threat. As long as you maintain the illusion, you can change the location of the threatening square as a swift action. When you threaten a target with this spell, the foe may make a Will save to disbelieve (DC 10 + threatening spell’s level + your spellcasting ability score modifier). If the target makes this save, the threatening effect of this feat no longer applies to it.
Level Increase: +1 (a threatening illusion takes up a spell slot one level higher than normal.)
Normal: Illusion spells do not threaten squares.
Is this anyone's favorite option? Gnome, two feats, +1 caster level, all to give an ability that I would have allowed any illusionist to do for free?
It's apparent that you are eager for second edition, but the basis that in your personal games you would not require a feat for this ability is hardly something to hold against the games as written.
We all house rule, for our own reasons, but if the internet has taught us anything it is that, yes, that thing that you think is really lame probably IS someone else's favorite toy. Yes, even this one.
The problem with edition wars that makes them personal has always been that they are the place where personal opinion collides with poor game design. There is a broad gray area where those two things co-exist, and the longer a game persists the broader that gray area becomes.
I have to admit that my concerns are mainly financial. I'm not getting rid of my first-edition books. I still have every book I've ever owned, going back to the mid-70s (not that I've been alive that long, just...that's a digression).
With six Bestiaries full of monsters, it's a guarantee that every 2E monster book will be loaded with slightly different stats for monsters that I've already paid for. And now that I have collected well over a half-dozen DMs/GMs guides (not including setting specific ones like the Ravenloft Dungeon Master's Guide, etc.)...I'm not looking forward to the opportunity to pay for another one that is mostly new spins on old ideas and a handful of rules that I really need in order to run a proper 2E game.
And, like the Goliath Druid mentioned above, the flip side is that we are guaranteed to NEVER see some of our old favorites, because they weren't cool enough, or popular enough, and anyway, you can just make them yourself with a few quick and easy tweaks. Some of my favorite movies were never released on anything other than VHS. Did I stop loving them? No. But have I been able to clear up the space where the VCR sits? No, again.
I'm not anxious to see the repetition this will cause, and I'm less anxious to see what becomes the VHS of 1E.
I don't understand why this is even a conversation.
Peanuts protect the stuff I buy from Paizo. I pick up the four or five that come out of the box when I open it, and I put them back in the box. Then I throw away the box and read the books I just bought.
Is the point of this argument that people seriously can't get books out of a box without throwing peanuts all over the place? I honestly don't get it.
This is absolutely a situation where, in the place of this word's origin, it is every bit as offensive as the two words you've mentioned.
The difference is that, in Western culture, this word came to us in a time where the values of other nations were not taken into account. When we excitedly pillaged the burial grounds of ancient nations, propogated the land of those less powerful than ourselves, etc. Under that lens, there was nothing offensive in the word, because there was nothing offensive in it *to us.*
In the modern day, we have no such excuse. We've returned most of the stolen artifacts and we've ceded most of that land. Insisting that a term is inoffensive because many people in our culture never bothered to learn its actual meaning or intent is an anachronism. And, frankly, it's an entitlement that few others in the world enjoy but which most other nations endure.
I feel like I'm preaching, but we have the luxury of declaring that this word is "okay," because we've heard it for a long time and without seeing the damage it has inflicted on others. And because of who "we" are, the people it has injured generally have to accept that sort of hubris with a smile.
I'll get off my soapbox now. This is the sort of thing where people will either agree with it or not, but very few will change their opinion on it.
I am gratified to see a number of people agreeing that, at the very least, this book was given a very unfortunate title.
dragonhunterq wrote:
Chaderick the Penguin wrote:
Having read through the thread that you provided, I'm seeing two sides to this argument.
One side is saying, "In some countries, the title of this book is one of the most vulgar terms imaginable. For a game that seeks to reach a global audience, it seems awfully irresponsible to use it so casually."
The other side is saying, "Where I'm from this word is not considered vulgar. So, people who find it offensive are overreacting by saying that it is."
I know a lot of people in the States who believe that the curse spelled out in C U Next Tuesday is the dirtiest word in the English language. And they are shocked and offended to hear other English speakers use it casually. Many times, I've heard U.S. speakers ask others not to use that term because it offends them. And folks from England don't get it, but they generally attempt to be "polite."
The whole thing about "bastard" is a rabbit hole, by the way. Not worth pursuing.
The bottom line in the argument appears to be whether you're the sort of person who respects the cultural norms of others, or whether you expect others across the world to live by your own. If the latter, then you certainly would not understand what's wrong with the title of the book in question. If the former, you would understand that a term as vulgar as this is not appropriate on the cover of a game book, available to children and anyone else who surfs the webstore.
As a native English speaker, I once held the opinion that this was not a vulgar term. But meeting people from other cultures has often had a transformative effect on me, and this is one of those instances. This really is a despicable term in their culture. Using it casually requires either a level of ignorance, or a complete lack empathy. I suspect for most people, it is certainly the former, simply because the term came to the States in a different era, when such things were accepted. But that illusion of decorum does not change the origin of the word, or its
Having read through the thread that you provided, I'm seeing two sides to this argument.
One side is saying, "In some countries, the title of this book is one of the most vulgar terms imaginable. For a game that seeks to reach a global audience, it seems awfully irresponsible to use it so casually."
The other side is saying, "Where I'm from this word is not considered vulgar. So, people who find it offensive are overreacting by saying that it is."
I know a lot of people in the States who believe that the curse spelled out in C U Next Tuesday is the dirtiest word in the English language. And they are shocked and offended to hear other English speakers use it casually. Many times, I've heard U.S. speakers ask others not to use that term because it offends them. And folks from England don't get it, but they generally attempt to be "polite."
The whole thing about "bastard" is a rabbit hole, by the way. Not worth pursuing.
The bottom line in the argument appears to be whether you're the sort of person who respects the cultural norms of others, or whether you expect others across the world to live by your own. If the latter, then you certainly would not understand what's wrong with the title of the book in question. If the former, you would understand that a term as vulgar as this is not appropriate on the cover of a game book, available to children and anyone else who surfs the webstore.
As a native English speaker, I once held the opinion that this was not a vulgar term. But meeting people from other cultures has often had a transformative effect on me, and this is one of those instances. This really is a despicable term in their culture. Using it casually requires either a level of ignorance, or a complete lack empathy. I suspect for most people, it is certainly the former, simply because the term came to the States in a different era, when such things were accepted. But that illusion of decorum does not change the origin of the word, or its persistent meaning in the place where it originated.
I subscribed to the adventure path specifically because of this path. I subscribed previously through five adventure paths but stopped after Carrion Crown because what followed wasn't matching my group's interests. I am whole-heartedly back again with this one.
I agree with those who have said that this group is toxic. You are obviously interested in a higher caliber game of this.
I'm not surprised to hear that these folks are in the 20s. My group has been together since we were all 13--we're in our 40s now--and it was until we were nearly 30 that we all agreed that the idea of being the guy in the dark cloak brooding in the dark corner with the dark secret got stale.
But, each of us got to that point separately. And some of our players quit for a time and came back when the rest of us matured to reach them.
There's "different" gaming, and there's "mature" gaming. This sort of "lone wolf" stuff with, "keep it role-play" mixed with "Matt Damon" jokes, is not a relaxed and fun gaming style--it's a socially abusive game where you're the target of the abuse. Maybe you can game with them in the future, but what you're doing right now is going to soil your friendships with the ones you like and constantly reinforce that at least one of the players has decided he doesn't like you for pretty much no reason.
HUGE thank you to the Paizo team for your sleepless hours and hard work. I am consistently amazed by your professionalism in the face of a minority of customers who, in any situation, take justifiable frustration and turn it into maddening entitlement. Thank you, as always, for being who you are, and giving us a thriving, diverse, and thoroughly enjoyable hobby.
As a side note, while I was "personalizing," I was shopping Noble Knight Games. Just (finally) landed the whole Council of Thieves series at a price that matches what I usually see for just the first volume. When the dust from the Humble Bundle clears, I'll be back to pick up the pdf's for that Adventure Path, too...and the last three parts of Hell's Rebels.
Any company that gets 20,000 new customers, literally overnight, is going to run into support issues. I'm happy for Paizo, and I'll be even happier when I get my new books.
And, I'm happier still for the money going to a good cause.
I have to admit, I have a friend who still rails about the fact the Helo didn't get the closure he deserved in the series finale of Battlestar Galactica. I'm getting that vibe here.
There's a good chance that Strange Aeons will disappoint anyone who comes at it with both an expectation for its failure and a list of demands that include it, effectively, not being an Adventure Path. At least you're honest with yourself that you probably won't be happy. If I want Red Lobster and go through the drive-thru at McDonald's, then I need to at least admit up front that this is not going to satisfy my appetite tonight.
Personally, I'm excited for SA. I dropped my subscription after Carrion Crown (which I enjoyed), because what came next hasn't interested me. But I'm anticipating subscribing again for SA. What Auxmaulous lists as limitations, I list as perks.
Also, loved House on Hook Street, Feast of Ravenmoor, Carrion Hill, and From Shore to Sea. (Not mentioning Hungry Are the Dead, Carnival of Tears, or Hangman's Noose because apparently their age and pre-Pathfinder rule set disqualify them from being awesome adventures that freaked out my players?)
To each our own. And, in this case, I *think* I'm getting what I want for the first time since the end of Carrion Crown. Glee!!!
A4: In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords
Page 22
"In addition, all of the equipment taken from the characters
when they were captured is stored below in the tiny hold. It was
to be sent to the coast to be identified, and eventually sold. The
equipment is stored securely among other trade goods (these
goods are worth a total of 350 gp)."
This same text appears on page 122 of the "Scourge of the Slave Lords" anthology.
The more recent "Against the Slave Lords" hardback has slightly different text, on page 150:
"In addition, all of the equipment taken from the characters when
they were captured is stored below in the tiny hold. It was to be
sent to the coast to be identified, and eventually sold. The equipment
is stored securely among other trade goods (these goods are
worth a total of 350 gp).
"NOTE: If the players are using the characters provided with the
module, the stored equipment will include the following magical
possessions (some of which, such as magic arrows, may have been
lost):
Elwita’s shield +1 and war hammer +2
“Ogre’s” battle axe +1, splint mail +2, and 5 arrows +1
Freda’s 4 arrows +2, chain mail +3, and bastard sword +1
Karraway’s sling of seeking
Blodgett’s +1 sword of speed, ring of protection +1, and boots of elvenkind
Delgath’s bracers of AC 6 and book of spells
Phanstern’s cloak of protection +2 and book of spells
Eljayess’ spear +1 and book of spells
Kayen Telva’s javelin of piercing
"Their other normal possessions are also stored here. If the above
characters are not being used, the listed equipment will NOT be
there! Instead, the equipment the characters were carrying when
they were captured will be there in its place."
1E had a lot of crazy, unfun and unfair tropes, but they showed a reluctance to remove the adventurers' gear without returning it. Even characters teleported naked through the Tomb of Horrors could find their gear at the end of the session if Acererak was slain.
More on topic:
Death effects. I've reworked the rules of the game I run to remove death effects. Nothing will kill you outright, though it is possible to take an enemy (hero or villain) to varying degrees of negative hit points.
Yep. Have to admit that I disagree with everything in that article.
Bottom line seems to be, "I don't like D&D."
Which, of course, is the author's prerogative. But, I wouldn't go to a football team and tell them that the only way to fix their game would be to play baseball...
Just something that works really well for my group, but we have been doing it for a few years now:
Folks role-play their characters as best they can, but I gauge the NPCs reaction through a combination of what they said and their diplomacy check. The logic being that a *character* with a low Charisma would say the exact same thing in a much worse way than the player just did, while a *character* with a high charisma would say it much better.
The NPCs still react to what was said, but the positive/negative aspects are determined by the roll.
At first we were concerned that it would take out the role-playing aspect of the game, but it really has enhanced it. We're a fairly bookish lot, so it allows us to play those super-charismatic folks that we all dream of being without worrying that our lack of eloquence will haunt us in a fantasy world. And the members of our group who are better spoken have been very willing to accept that, if they used Charisma as their dump stat, then their characters just aren't as well spoken as they are.
That doesn't mean they never say it well, the dice aren't that fickle, but it does keep things on a more logical keel, the same way the dice do with physical and mental abilities.
I love telling this story. It pretty much defined who I grew up to be...
I started looking at my dad's AD&D books as soon as I was able to realize what books were. I really wanted to play, but he wanted me to be a "normal" kid and do things like play sports.
He told me that when I had read all of the AD&D manuals, then he would let me play.
So, I learned to read from Gary Gygax's writing. I was around four when Dad sat down with me and played my first adventure (around 1979), but I'd been paging through the books and the old boxed sets since I was two or three, maybe younger.
My vote is that "Gary Gygax taught me to read" wins the thread!
LOL!
Not to derail the thread, but my grammar school teachers were always wondering where I was coming up with those words they had to look up...
I love telling this story. It pretty much defined who I grew up to be...
I started looking at my dad's AD&D books as soon as I was able to realize what books were. I really wanted to play, but he wanted me to be a "normal" kid and do things like play sports.
He told me that when I had read all of the AD&D manuals, then he would let me play.
So, I learned to read from Gary Gygax's writing. I was around four when Dad sat down with me and played my first adventure (around 1979), but I'd been paging through the books and the old boxed sets since I was two or three, maybe younger.
Sure, they've been popular since ancient times, what with people going into mazes and all and killing them. But why are they offered as player races in so many settings from Krynn to Midgard? I mean, they're just angry man-bulls. Sure, I've read the game stats, but I still don't get it. I guess it's because I'm not a fan of furry races. But still.
I have asked this question so many times since encountering my first Krynn minotaur in the mid-80s. I wish that I could say that in the almost thirty years since I've come up with an answer, but...unfortunately, I just can't get my brain around the concept of playing a monster.
Iconic demi-humans? No problem.
Would I refuse to let someone play one in my game? No. I've had players running half-dragons, tieflings, vampires, and...yes, even a minotaur. But I never really "got" what made those characters fulfilling for their players.
Once it goes beyond demi-humans, though, I just lose interest.
The closest I've come to understanding is when I say, "I like having the option to use flintlocks in my Ravenloft campaign." And people just shutdown at the word flintlock. And when you try to reason, you see that they've just glazed over, and there's no comprehension that you're still speaking.
That's sort of how I feel when someone says to me, "I want to play a minotaur..."
There's something about it that just doesn't mesh with my view of fantasy.
