DM Doom's page

Got into Starfinder a little late and originally had no interest in collecting Dead Suns, but I might pick this up, especially if it ends up on Fantasy Grounds.

I had originally thought this campaign would probably end with a circus performance instead of a cinematic final battle, this seems like a good occasion to do so.

One note about Absalom having a competition is that there is a once-in-a-century "Radiant Festival" set to happen after the conclusion of this AP, deeply tying into the Agents of Edgewatch AP. Performing at that festival is mentioned in book 6 of Extinction Curse I believe.

Thanks, I remember seeing something about that, and with the recent release of the Absalom sourcebook, I think I'll be leaning toward that. Might even lead to running Agents of Edgewatch if the Players are interested.

I'm a bit saddened that Revenge of the Kobold King isn't included, but I am all for this!

Hello all! Hoping to dig into the hive mind's honey as it were...

I'm running Extinction Curse for my group, and want to do more with Mistress Dusklight and the Celestial Menagerie, while also making the main selling point of the AP for my players remain a bit more viable through the end of the campaign. I've heard the climax of book 2 being like a home invasion, a justified home invasion of a nasty piece of work, but one that might make all the build up done in book 1 feel rather empty. As such, I want to work out something that might better serve a campaign that wants to keep some attention and focus on the circus past book three.

My ideas thus far are such:

* 'defeating' Mistress Dusklight in Book 2 is not a goal, at least not martially, I can take or leave her being in league with the Xulgaths, but if so, I want it to be on a much deeper level that can play out throughout the volumes.
With this in mind, I propose something else, finding dirt on her to effectively give her the boot from the town she's been holed up in. Essentially getting revenge, not through murder, but perhaps humiliation, which leads to the next idea:

* The thought that the Circus, even by the time it reaches the final volume and characters are approaching level 20, won't be able to compete with anything in Absalom, is ridiculous. Making it the end goal, at least for a campaign that maintains the circus element rather than casting it aside, strikes me as fitting. Doing this while maintaining Mistress Dusklight as a villain and the Celestial Menagerie as a rival circus, strikes me as even better. So how?

* Well, Absalom is a huge city, real estate is scarce, and as mentioned, only the best and most prestigious shows can really afford the good and worthwhile venues. I figure, every ten years, Absalom has a grand festival that hosts a competition where the best shows get exclusive right to a ten year contract to perform in one of the largest venues in the city.

* Humiliated and kicked out of her comfortable home turf, Dusklight challenges the Circus of Wayward Wonders to to competition, but to even compete, they have to reach a certain level of prestige. So, both the Celestial Menagerie and the Circus of Wayward Wonders are traveling Erran and Kortos to build up their prestige with the intention of a final showdown in Absalom.

* This could feature sabotage attempts, performance show downs, etc. Maybe recruitable NPC's that the PC's don't get end up in the Celestial Menagerie, or a number of other things. The final showdown could be an excellent epilogue for the campaign.

Doing this would require that Dusklight, while obviously evil, hasn't quite gotten to the 'she must be murdered or imprisoned' point.

Anyway, I'm reaching out to you Paizo Hive Mind, what do you think, any ideas or suggestions?

I'm loving this book, but I'm curious, will the file per chapter PDF be properly reorganized? Right now it breaks up in a terribly unintuitive manner unlike the past lost omen books.

Perfectly understandable! Thankee sigh!

Hello! So I put my subscriptions on hold awhile back on account of financial issues. I was trying to determine what it would take to reactivate them. I've sent a few e-mails since last week but have not received a response. Any chance someone might e-mail me an update?

But the thing Wizards gave us was choice. We were free to use and abuse, or to forbid and restrict as we ourselves saw fit. True, wizards was pumping out books like there was no tomorrow and some of the material where downright insane, but we had options and it was up to us to sieve through it to find the gold.

This is not a good quality. Wizards "one core a month" lead to crappy titles like Dungeonscape, it led to glut, it led to them running out of ideas too soon and too quickly. This also led to an incredible lack of fluff, an impressive amount of typos and mechanical errors, and broken mechanics that were never properly playtested. That is not an ideal to live up to, that is a mistake to avoid, and Paizo seems to be doing a reasonable job of it. They're coming out with books at a reasonable pace, sometimes I think they need to slow down a little.

Paizo isn't perfect, by any means, but they're still moving forward and trying new things. Which Wizards wasn't exactly big on, WotC loved playing inside a nice save little box. They'd try new mechanics here and there, but they'd be tame, nothing like the creation of archetypes or the flexibility and variety available to many of the APG classes. Personally I think they need to overhaul their public playtest model, make it more like Green Ronins model for the Dragon Age RPG, which is a little more organized and doesn't seem to rely on who can yell the loudest on the forums (one of the reasons I left playtesting behind beyond the occasional perusal, it just got depressing to watch). That's just me though.

They're still making strides, each of their AP's features something new, a new mechanic they're experimenting with (exploration and mass combat in Kingmaker, the relationship system in Jade Regent, naval combat in Skull and Shackles) and they've been pumping out something interesting for Gen Con every year. Sure it might not appeal to everyone (I've a lot of friends who were not keen on the Mythic Rules for a variety of instance, I thought Ultimate Magic was their weakest entry to date, can't please everyone all the time), but they're *trying* they're still *inspired*. That they haven't gone to increase production volume or start rushing out new products by the truckload is a *good* thing.

You know what they did recently that was awesome? They took what is possible their weakest RPG line (the Modules) and completely revamped them. Before their modules were hit and misses with maybe half of them being easily written off and of a quality best described as 'Meh'(by my opinion, mileage may vary of course). They canned their old incredibly limited model and made a new 68 page model that has a phenomenal layout, a great story and design, and gave the writers room to play rather than the tight cramped space they had before.

They are "Big Boys" as you so condescendingly put it, and they are acting like it. They're growing their company, they're doing new and interesting things. Going back and polishing up flaws they could not take care of when they were smaller all while launching an awesome new card game, an interesting alternative to Epic rules (whether you like it or not, it is at least interesting, and give the mess the Epic rules were, quite better in my opinion) and more. Hardly call that hand holding.

Now I'm curious about another thing as well, if anyone can help. If two heroes are in the same location and one encounters an enemy that requires one combat check and then another, what happens if they fail the second check? Can the other hero pick up that second combat check? Or do they need to defeat both as well?

Alright, thanks, I thought it would be something like that. I love this game, but I swear the rules needed about another two or three pages of explanation and examples.

So my roommate and I have been playing this game, and while the rules need some serious technical writing expertise, they are navigable enough that we think we're playing the game correctly. There are, however, a few instances that we're not clear on. The one that comes up most often is Lini's ability to reveal her animal allies and get an additional 1d4 to a roll. Are there any restrictions on this? I can't seem to find any, which implies if she had 4 animal companions with her, then she can just reveal them for a 4d4 bonus to just about any roll. Is this actually the case?

@ Doom: Take a group of people, and a light source. Give the light to the person in the middle of the group. Have them hold it low, then high. Then tell me that it makes no difference how you hold a light source.

Also you are playing a game where someone can cast a simple spell as often as they like that temporarily causes a stone to glow as bright as that torch, and you are bothered by a Feat that allows more efficient use of a torch? I think your expectations for the game a wierd and a bit skewed.

Honestly I'm surprised people care so much. I simply consider it ridiculous and I am allowed to criticize it as such. "I trained so hard at holding a torch I am able to do it better than anyone else around!" seems a ridiculous concept to me.

A spell is magic, which explains the stone shining like a torch, but someone simply being adept at holding a torch and *that* causes it to shine light further? I mean it's not as bad as "Prone Shooter" from Ultimate Combat, which was an actual oversight of the existing material, but it strikes me as silly. No skin off your nose for it.

To that end, Hit Points strike me as a silly mechanic with a weak tacked on explanation, I still play the game though, because what I perceive as silly is vastly outweighed by what I like about it. My opinion is just that.

Any news on Anarchist GM's Cookbook? *Hopeful Look*

I don't know what type of lanterns you've used, but if you can show me how someone can make the same oil in a lantern burn brighter, or the same torch for that matter, then I'll happily bow to your defense of what I will have once thought to be a ridiculous concept. Until then, I'm afraid I can't really take you seriously, I've handled torches and lanterns, I've not seen any amount of care or maintenance that would enable the same one to burn brighter. One that was better treated, one with a better oil quality, sure. Nothing that merits the specialized focus and training a feat would entail.

Well, of course "I know how to wield a torch better than you" isn't the "flavor" (dogwhistle word, that) text at all. It's "In your grasp, a simple teach becomes a beacon," which is both a much more evocative and better-written sentence and more descriptive of the three separate mechanical (um, perhaps you'd say "crunch") things the feat does.

If you don't think some people can't handle fire better than others, well, I can only guess you haven't handled fire very often.

Fire? Certainly, lighting campfires, building a proper fire, of course. But taking a torch or a lantern, the same one your buddy held, one that is premade, and some how the mere act of holding it makes it shine brighter? It just seems ridiculous.

How about, 'I know how to maintain a torch so that it works more efficiently'?

"Oh, one of those rag torches? Is that completely hemp? No cotton? Well, if I just twist it like this and add some of that stuff in the blue bag to the fuel there... hmm, yep, that looks about right. Okay, light that sucker!"
"Wow, look at it go!"

I certainly would have much preferred that for the flavor text. Almost anything would have been better. "I carry around secret oil made from dragon turtle fat" or something would have been better than "I know how to wield a torch better than you."

At least it wasn't as bad as the atrocity that was Dungeonscape :P
Still, the Torch Handling feat has to be the most conceptually ridiculous feat I've ever seen. "I know how to hold a torch so much better that it shines brighter and longer than if you held it." It kind of made my brain hurt.

I got the product. I was not all that impressed with it.

Definitely, write a review, I did, and I admit it was not glowing. In part because this felt like 'another' Dungeoneer Guide (kind of like 'another' Hero Point rules system) and in part because, well, some of the things just didn't make sense. Pretty much all of the spells, some of the feats, and my favorite part of the book, the archetypes, had questionable elements. Like trap oriented archetypes that didn't seem to be able to find traps they were supposedly optimized for. I'm not sure if it was intentional, poor design, or a mistake. If it was intentional, they really should have included a side bar explaining such a bizarre choice. That's like granting someone access to spells in a spell book but requiring them to multiclass in order to be able to cast them.

How... how did I miss out on this Kickstarter? O.O

Ah, I see, it occurred while I was taking a 'break' from Pathfinder. Sadness.

Though I admit, my real concern, is what is going on with the Anarchist Gamemaster's Cookbook, as an actor myself (current;y on hiatus for a variety of reasons) the thought of incorporating such techniques into my game mastering might be just the thing I need to liven up my games. Any news on whether that project will be coming back, maybe even getting its own kickstarter?

Not sure if threads like this are OK, since this is the first AP I'm getting in on from the start, but wanted to talk about the mod as I'm reading through it.

So far -- and I just got to the end of Act 2 -- I'm really enjoying it.

The intro material was great; I really want the whole thing right NOW. And the art's gorgeous, IMO.

I really like the advancement track they give us as well. I've only run Savage Tide, which was a bit of a different beast in its format, and Kingmaker, which was too sandboxy to do this, but as someone who doesn't really use XP, this makes my job easier.

Which this mod does a lot of. Each new area gives me the rules I need to deal with the snow, so I don't have to constantly go look them up.

I also like that it's so straight-forward, without feeling railroady. The players don't have to sit there and say "what do we do next?" The trail's literally there in the snow. I don't know, maybe that would feel a little too easy at a table, but at least in the PBP format (which is where I'm running it), I really like that.

Some nice traps among the encounters, and I like the inclusion of the haunt and the whole scene with Thora.

I really like the reward at the end of Act 2. I think players will love the boost they get and it's going to make them want to hold on to these characters. They get a nice bonus by being there from the start (of course, I may have to think about what to do if replacements need to come in, but I can worry about that later).

** spoiler omitted **

Really looking forward to reading the rest.

This is the first time I've been excited about an AP in awhile now. Jade Regent was interesting, but I felt I didn't have access to a good group at the time. The few people I knew locally were already playing it with another group. Shattered Star was... well, let's just say I've left my fondness for Dungeon Crawls in the past for good reason, so it was sort of a non-entity in my Pathfinder AP's. I really want to run this.

I almost canceled on Shattered Star. I cannot stand Dungeon Crawls, they're a pain in the asphalt to run and something I stopped finding enjoyable a long time ago. Reign of Winter on the other hand, I love, I love me my wintery fantasy, perhaps on account of being Alaskan, and I love Russian folklore. My one disappointment is that damn near everyone knows about the controversial side of the AP, and that is something that seems like it would be far cooler to spring on the players.

Ever see Dusk 'till Dawn? I watched that and my friend barely let me look at the cover, the old cover didn't give anything away about the movie save that it had Quentin Tarrantino and George Clooney in it. You start watching the movie and you're thinking it's a fugitive cops and robbers one, when the scene at the bar hits you're frickin' blown away, at least I was. Now all the covers advertise it as the type of movie it is and so few people will have that awesome of an experience as I was fortunate enough to have.

Please,

I've sent three e-mails since yesterday, I haven't gotten a response. I need this order HELD. It's killing my grocery bill. Can someone respond. Please?

Set wrote:

DM Doom wrote:

One thing that has kept me out of the Paizo public play-tests are that they're pretty much done on the forums.

The downside of public playtests is that they are indeed public, and the hoi-polloi can speak their minds.

The downside of private playtests is that I don't get invited to them.

Eh. Whatareyagonnado? /shrug

I hope the irony in this post was intentional.

Alas, it was more a miss-spoken statement by Yours Truly. It should have read:

One thing that has kept me out of the Paizo open play-tests are that they're pretty much done on the forums.

In the end I love that the play-tests are open to the fans of the game to nit pick, get that free sneak peak at what is to come, I dislike that they are public. I think it would be better if groups play-tested, discussed, filled out a report, then sent it in. Then the designers could sift through them, pick what sounds good, all without having to go through a 15 page play-test forum thread of two people arguing over whether or not this feat is overpowered or that spell too weak for it's level. Let the masses argue and gnash their teeth in some 'play test discussion thread' while Jason and company look over the reports and make decisions based on those rather than who can whine the loudest.

But then, this is like, just my opinion... man.

Note: Not saying their method is perfect, by any means, nothing is. I just think something public, but a little more... professional? Not sure if that's the word I want to use but there it is, would be a wiser way to go, possible allowing for more balance for a system known to have a hard time with such things.

One thing that has kept me out of the Paizo public play-tests are that they're pretty much done on the forums. Things tend to run based on speculation, arguing, complaining, insulting, and in the end it seems the loudest voices are the ones that are heard. Green Ronin has a simple enough setup. Download the PDF of their rules as they stand, playtest with your friends, submit a report based on play-test guidelines (they have a form you effectively fill out). I think it allows for a more balanced play test without the uproar that occurs on the message boards.

I could be alone in this line of thinking, however, perhaps letting past poor experiences/observations (and Ultimate Magic) kind of taint my opinion on how these Play-tests are handled.

Hmmm, any chance of paizo taking a page from Green Ronin when it comes to their public play-testing?

Ok. I have a question. Some summon monsters are intelligent. Example: summon monster 6 has a succubus. Now my dm has it set up so that if i summon (useing summon monster, not gate) a intellectual monster, it has the chance to find me and kill me after the spell is done. Again example:! The succubus was in the middle of a dealing and i pulles her away from her current work. Another example is archons, lawful good. If i call a archon and the archon feels that a chaotic member of the party is against what it stands for, it will be afended and find a way to the material plan and kill the party...

I understand DM rules all and if i try and argue the last word of the DM stands but our group fallows the rules to a "T". So can somebody tell me a fault i this logic? I feel i will have to offer compensation like in "planer ally"..

Hmmm, it adds an interesting element to the game, I'll give it that. If it's getting excessive I'd recommend the DM tone it down a bit though. Sounds like it would be something better as a once in awhile thing. The Sucubus holds a grudge and shows up down the road as a villainess, likewise the Archon might remember your group in a future dealing, not so much the 'hunt your party down and fight them' though. That could get tedious after a bit.

Funny, that was never my impression of Selune, but different strokes I suppose. Some people seemed to love Bane while I found him to be so laughably stupid he was like the kobolds of evil-priesthoods.

I'm just concerned about other players being jerks. I work customer service, I deal with jerks all the time, if I play Pathfinder online I want to explore, go on adventures, and worry more about monsters and NPC's killing me than about other players. Last thing I need is to suffer in a game because I decide to get out of the house, socialize, and not spend all of my free time power leveling, collecting mad lewt and gacking n00bz because they suxxorz.

The Alphas aren't my favorite characters, but I by no means hate them, and it's nice to get some supernaturals in the mix who aren't heavy hitters but can still take care of themselves. I've found the books to steadily escalate in 'amazing'. Being a slow reader with a tendency to put a book down and forget about it for a month before picking it up again, I can never pick up a Butcher book and simply set it down. I count on late nights, a computer that remains mostly 'off', and really cutting those 15 minute breaks close whenever I pick up one of his novels. If the second one is the weakest I'd say it's about on par with the first, the first being better only by virtue of introducing the amazing character that is Dresden and the world he lives in, beyond that they just keep getting better so it's natural for one of the first three to be a 'weaker' book in the series.

I kind of feel the reverse, Greyhawk gods always seemed boring and dull to me, Realms gods seemed... a little too numerous honestly, whereas Pathfinder deities had a blend of 'cookie cutter yet different' that seemed neither hot nor cold but 'just right'... for me anyway.

By way of example, while one of my least favorite deities, the goddess of lust is also the goddess of vengeance! A pairing that kind of makes sense but wasn't something I'd expect. Never mind I hate the black and yellow color scheme, song, the beehive hairdo on the artists rendition, find nothing about her to be alluring or appealing and that faiths of balance book has one of the most ridiculous swords ever conceived being wielded by one of her followers (those barbs... seriously? SERIOUSLY?). Interesting twist, however, despite my ranting run on sentence.

Desna as meditative and dreamy? Dreamy, sure, but I see her as a more free spirited and almost spritely deity than I do some 'Ohmmmmmm' meditative deity. A free spirited and spritely deity with a far deeper aspect, naturally, I mean she a goddess of the stars! That's thousands of millions of Sarenraes you know! (Take that you fire haired goddess you!)

couple things I am thinking

1) I would have preferred a turn based game like NWN but in a multiplayer format so I can play solo (run my own character or party) or play in my own world with friends eg tabletop game with nice graphics

2) having said that - I have not played a MMO since I left Evercrack ... Everquest & I played it for years - this is a game I could see myself playing though if I was to start a new MMO addiction to

3) Please dont do cartoony characters like you have for your artwork now (I am mainly thinking of the Rogue & Sorcerer artworks) I have never liked them & tome they would detract from the game

4) good luck with it

Honestly I have to say the Wayne Reynolds art style is one of the primary things I think of when I think "Pathfinder". It's iconic and I have to agree with Steel_Wind when I say I hope the game emulates that to the best of it's abilities. He lays it out much better however.

Wrote a bunch of good stuff.

Thumbs up? Like? +1? This!!!

Well, I would prefer a single player (or cooperative play multi-player) video game in the vein of Borderlands or the Mass Effect style of play but this still made me squeal with glee.

I'm not a fan of MMO RPG's, I play D&D Online now and then, when the mood strikes me, Occasionally run around on Lord of the Rings online, but the only MMO that's interested me in a long time is Bioware's Old Republic. That said, curse you for adding another potential drain on my wallet! Sounds like you're approaching it from a better angle than the 'I sure do hate wolves, collect 10 wolf pelts and I give youz sum munnies' style that WoW and it's kin run with.

It sounds like a cool premise, shape the River Kingdoms however you like, and with someone from Eve Online getting involved it sounds particularly cool. My only concern is this: Eve Online is inundated with jerks and douchebags, and quite frankly, I hope this game has guards to keep other people from ruining the fun of those who just want to play. Nothing sucks more than someone who's worked hard in their spare time only to have it all wiped away because some jerk with no life comes alone with the forces/character he's built from hundreds of hours of gameplay (due to not having a full time job and living in his parents basement) decided it was fun to crush the little guy.

That's not fun, or entertaining, it's infuriating.

So if you have safeguards for the 'casual' MMO gamer then I offer up my wallet in sacrifice :P

I don't know... I'm still torn and now it looks like I wouldn't even be able to get the black dragon mini if I pre-ordered or subscribed or whatnot.

For those of you who are disappointed in the random aspect of the miniatures, please read the following taken from the FAQ attached to the press release. You still may not agree, but at least you will understand why we are doing what we are doing.

-Lisa

Q: Why prepainted plastic miniatures in randomized packs?
A: Prepainted plastic miniatures are expensive to make. Sculpting and painting are costly, and making molds for plastic figures is costlier still. To make all these costs work, you need to spread them out over a large number of miniatures. If these figures were released individually, some would sell better than others, and some--or even many--of them would lose money. Randomizing the miniatures ensures that you sell predictable quantities of each figure, and it also allows you to price them reasonably without losing your shirt. Another benefit of averaging out costs over a large number of figures is that it allows you to spend more money on some miniatures--you can make them larger or more detailed, or add more complicated (and thus more expensive) paint operations than you could otherwise justify. In short, selling more of the common minis allows you to spend more money on the rarer figures.

Randomized miniatures also allow you to provide more variety. Not only can you introduce more figures at once, but the fact that you make make some of them rarer than others means you can produce plenty of the figures that everyone needs, like goblins or skeletons, and fewer of the figures that have narrower appeal, like strange monsters or iconic figures.

Another factor to think about is the brick-and-mortar retailer. It's much easier for a retailer to stock single booster packs than individual packaged minis. Our first set, Heroes & Monsters, contains 40 miniatures. Selling them individually would require a lot of retailer effort to keep them all in stock--and it would also require a lot of space to display those miniatures. And if next year's 60-figure Rise of the Runelords set were released as...

It's less the random factor that gets me (though it's been my wish that maybe people might start selling things like 'orc horde' or 'skeleton crew' *in addition to* random packs as those are fairly commonly used monsters that often require multiple copies of the same). My issue is the price. I know you guys don't have the production value WotC had with it's minis but $6 for a *single* large plastic mini is just a little too steep and I've become notorious in my group for buying more minis than I probably should. Or $4 for a medium *or* two small? I mean when you're selling a box of six medium minis for $10-12 I can see the point of randomizing but when it's a single, uno, ich, einz, mini and then even *that* is randomized it seems a little less worth the gamble.

Honestly that's probably what I'd do. I kind of like the tier system 4e put together, so perhaps something that matches with magic items.
Minor: your disposables, low level/charges wands, and particularly weak magic items that provide neat things like boots that give you +5ft to movement or a pack that reduces its encumbrance level by 1.
Low: Your +1, +2 magic weapons, cloaks of resistance +1 etc.
Moderate: A higher bonus on the above, some figurines of wondrous power...
Etc, etc, etc.

Of course the magic items would need an overhaul, Cloak +1 seems so factory, expecting there to be a Cloak +2, +3, +4, +5 etc. Which only makes them seem more off the assembly line. So a little more mysticism might help. A cloak of shadows that renders the wearer nigh invisible in the murky darkness, perhaps providing a +10 bonus to stealth but only in shadowy illumination or only in the evening is, in my opinion, more interesting then Cloak of Stealth +5.

As a DM I'm mixed about magic items being more ambiguous and them having a n actual set of rules and guidelines about how they should stack up to character level. In second edition I found that it was frustrating trying to figure out how much to reward a player and how much to give a player starting at a higher level. When 3rd edition came out and began to provide rules for making magic items (something that had been longed for in our 2nd edition games) but rules for how much they might cost and what a character might be expected to have at level 5 vs. level 10 I was ecstatic.

Then came the Christmas tree effect, something present in 2nd edition but which blew up in 3rd.
Then came the impression that 'market value' meant a PC could just find and buy these magic items willy nilly.
Then came the complaints when I run published modules about "Oh yay, yet *another* cloak of resistance +1, guess we're turning that tent into a pavilion now". Magic became so necessary to the game that a clan of hillbilly ogres apparently had enough skill and resources to all have Ogre Hooks +1 (large size so, naturally, all had to be sold, and the PC's expected there to be a ready market for such things... only reason I permitted it was they were so pissed at the magic item selection from Rise of the Runelords that they likely would have rioted if I denied them their chance at getting stuff they could use).

My brief experience with 4th edition showed me similar things save that magic items (and magic in general) had been dulled considerably as far as potency went. Gone were the days of the wizard taunting the PC's only to teleport away or the PC's having boots of flying that could last forever. At least with the first three core rule books (not sure if any of the subsequent supplements did anything to address the dulling of magic items or if it was ever viewed as anything that needed to be addressed.

On top of that, items were now ho-hum. Sure a +1 sword was never truly all that special in 2nd edition (at least not in my eyes) but my gods did players eyes widen in awe at the sight of a sunblade or holy avenger. Now PC's see "Holy flaming longsword +1" and yawn. I try to spice it up some, but it only goes so far. I still like avoiding the Christmas Tree effect by providing more Wondrous items than weapons and stat boosters, using flavor text and the like, but that only goes so far.

I would like some sort of happy medium, maybe a ranking system for an items potency not limited by gp. Provide a 'rough gp equivalent' for each tier that is subject to the DM's arbitration, and instead of a 'starting wealth' table maybe something like "In a moderate magic world A PC of 7th level might be expected to have 3 low magic items and 1 medium magic item + XXXgp worth of mundane gear. This way players might avoid feeling 'entitled' to buying items in the marketplace or to selling them for a specific amount of gold and it might bring more luster back to that dragons hold beyond all the shiny gold pieces. I think gold in general is kind of pushed too far with so many entrances of '1000gp worth of material' kind of making a pc think all they need to do is cross off 1000gp from their list.

I'm torn, but I can definitely see where people who prefer the old ways are coming from.

So you have a lot of tedious crap (Drizz't and Elminster for starters) that continue to stink up the new setting

Now there's a matter of opinion. Thing is you may say they stink up the setting but a lot of people are quite fond of those two characters, they have always been icons of the setting, and I, as a FR DM, never really felt they impacted my campaigns. I as a Forgotten Realms fan (and someone who has enjoyed the books about both characters) never really thought they were a negative side to the campaign at all.

Getting them to leave soon is unlikely in any event whether you love them or hate them. Drizzt and Elminster are both moneymakers for the Forgotten Realms novel line and I know people who downright hate the new edition and realms that still buy books about those characters religiously. If Elminster goes it'll likely be because Ed Greenwood passed away and I imagine R.A. Salvatore will continue to write about that Dark Elf that has inspired so many blatant ripoff characters until he runs out of ideas.

Oh. This is the groundless speculation thread. In three years Paizo will be doing so well they buy White Wolf after the MMO fizzles. A glorious new era of World of Darkness will be created.

Further idle groundless speculation: Savage Worlds' popularity will experience an unexpected mega boost in sales due to the recent release of the hard cover rule book. While all other major companies proceed to decline they'll scoop them up one by one taking White Wolf, Wizards, Catalyst, Paizo and reissuing all settings under the Savage Worlds license and taking only bits and pieces of the mechanics and applying it to the various Player's Guides as traits and hindrances. A scandal will rock the upper echelons of the Pinnacle power-house and send that house of cards tumbling down with a laughing jester on top of things. Then Tripple Ace Games will swoop in after Wiggy wins five lotteries in a row and buy up the whole shebang making him the undisputed master of the RPG industry the likes of which all other companies are considered '3rd Party Publishers'.

Pedantic wrote:

deinol wrote:

Pedantic wrote:

If that's the case, I wonder if they'd do something along the lines of what White-Wolf is up to right now?

Dying a slow death?

Publishing cleaned up anniversary editions of their old game lines alongside the new ones. Though admittedly, probably that too if this tactic doesn't turn things around for them.

Uhhhhh what.

White Wolf is releasing a single anniversary edition of oVamp. That's it.

Maybe he's Camarilla? In the live action society apparently there was a strong pull for the flavor and lore of oWoD, so much so that when White Wolf began to support oWoD for Camarilla again, a substantial amount of venues switched over damn near immediately, apparently consensus was while the rules were largely felt to be superior to the previous editions the allure of the old world of darkness setting and flavor was what the Cam players had loved the most.

Take this statement with a grain of salt as it's what I've heard from my friends who still play Cam and have been involved in the running of their regional venues. So while I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case accuracy is based on hearsay.

I can post?

Wow...

Um, well, my two cents:

I'm kind of disappointed in the opening post, I was actually hoping for an unbiased comparison of the two, but that's like expecting unbiased news reporting in today's political/economical climate. Needless to say my opinion on 4e stays the same: it's not for me. I've had fun playing, and indeed I ran with the 4e crowd for some fun "Encounters" sessions with my Dwarf Earth Domain Warpriest who kicked lots of undead butt! At least until I found the local Pathfinder Society group and joined up with them. As for how much it supports RP, sure there may not be as many skills but I saw about the same RP to Combat ratio as I see in any other tabletop RPG that glorifies violence, take that as you may. Admittedly my opinion on why it's not for me is colored by a distinctly negative view on WotC and my wallet not finding the new edition particularly worth throwing away the hundreds if not thousands of dollars I spent on 3.5 books *just yet*. I was one of those peoples who felt betrayed by WotC with how they chose to approach announcing the cancellation of the Dungeon and Dragon magazine contracts and their reactions to the concerned customer base which struck me as lacking in customer service.

My opinion now is more 'meh' as far as the company itself (let's face it, I can hardly blame them for taking a new direction and wanting to make a buck with it even if I don't like their marketing strategies), I've gone my way and still buy the occasional minis and dungeon tiles from them (their dungeon tiles are some of the best RPG aid products I've seen, I hope they keep it up!). As far as the whole 'old 3.5 products being rendered null and void' well, guess what I just don't use much of any more? I might pluck something from the Spell Compendium or that magic item book just to spice up the loot, or maybe convert a monster Paizo wasn't allowed to keep due to lack of it being OGL, but ultimately I don't really use my 3.5 stuff. If I use anything it's more system based (i.e. I might run a game of Iron Heroes or D20 World of Darkness) and isolated from the old 3.5 D&D splat books.

I still don't see anything about 4e that's impressive enough to convince me to start buying their books. The system doesn't appeal, the settings no longer appeal (my poor poor Forgotten Realms, you'll live on in my 1st and 2nd edition collections), the organized play appeals somewhat in that the sessions are shorter than the Pathfinder Society ones and thus more friendly to my damn wake-up-at-5:00am-when-I'm-usually-going-to-bed-by-then new work schedule. This is less saying that the system itself is bad, it's a solid system and I daresay it isn't near as full of holes and potential abuses as the 3rd edition rules set (not saying it doesn't have any to be sure, I've seen some disgusting 4e builds) but I find that part of 3rd editions charm which is, again, a matter of opinion.

I'm also a compulsive collector, I've subscribed to all the Pathfinder books and pretty much have every one in my collection. To combine that with all those 4e hardcovers would ruin me financially :P So I've become determined to focus on a smaller number of RPG's. Pathfinder and Savage Worlds primarily now that my collection of old Alternity books is as complete as I want it to be.

What I would love to see, though remains unlikely, is a side by side comparison of the two RPG's, their strengths (which both have), their flaws (which only 4e has... kidding of course, I detest some of the PFRPG's rules changes nevermind the flaws inherent in any system and complicated and filled with rules minutia as the 3e rules set), and how they compare while doing ones best to avoid favoring one system over another. One might might describe 4e's combat as 'simplistic' in a way that implies it's for idiots while coloring 3.5 as 'complex' in a way that colors it as being for those of more refined sensibilities, likewise one might describe 3.5 combat as 'sloppy and filled with more rules minutia than is necessary' while 4e combat is 'streamlined and concise'. Nevermind the numerous flaws in either argument/statement as I've seen 3.5 players blanche and complain about how complicated all those status afflictions make 4e combat while I've seen 4e players (new to 3.5) love how every round they don't have to find an ability to use and can simply attack without it feeling like they're doing nothing productive.

Will I see such a comparison? Likely not.

Will I see more threads about beating horses that are past their negative constitution in hp regarding certain topics that should have been swept out with the trash years ago? Certainly.

Ah well, thems my 2 cents.

Once upon a time there was a pdf floating around that told people what, outside of the Pathfinder Core, could or couldn't be used. It had things from Seekers of Secrets, the APG and other sources in it, I haven't been able to find it anywhere... Anyone know where it is these days?

Does your group not see more 18-20 or 15-20 crit ranges? Is it because you have a gentleman's agreement not to use high crit range weapons?

Occasionally someone will make a build like that, and they'll crit quite a bit, but often it's with a weapon that doesn't do a terrible amount of damage in the first place (keen rapier for example). If anything a high crit range weapon just makes a fighter suck a little less, rogues become a little more deadly as they're more likely to crit on a sneak attack without rolling a crit confirm check but even then it only modifies their weapon dice.

Could be the party dynamic, the guys who dish out the most damage in my group are often spellcasters, or some kooky rogue build where an extra d6 of damage + str bonus really isn't much of a thing. My players do min-max a little more than most I guess (not that I've taken a survey and quantified how much the average 3.x gaming group min maxes compared to mine or anything :P) but toss in slightly stronger monsters or altered NPC's and it balances out once more.

That and if they roll a miss they still miss, a nat 20 is the only guaranteed hit in our group.

I and every 3.x gaming group I've ever played in or DMed for has used them. Statistically, the confirmation rules favor the PCs over NPCs. The DM generally has a greater chance of inflicting critical hits against the PCs (as he/she makes more attack rolls than the players), so without the confirmation rules critical hist become more frequent and PC mortality (and the chance of TPKs) increases dramatically... and that can really put a damper on storytelling and role-playing.

I'd really like to see these statistics.

Most monsters I've seen require a nat 20 to crit. PC's, more often than not, have at least a 19-20 if not wider crit range. Some class based NPC enemies might have a wider range but they're built on a law of averages rather to the specs and standards of most PC's I've seen (in other words, they're hardly as optimized as a PC will be), so I would really like to see the math and statistics showing that not having critical confirmation rolls would favor the DM over the players rather than having critical confirmation rolls...

Don't use them in my face to face games. Don't like to use them in my play by post games (though I use a variant standardized method of crits that's less deadly but still rewards the player for rolling high). I don't like them, seems like a pointless extra roll, that really shouldn't be necessary.

At my table a crit is a crit is a crit. No confirm roll (though I'll require a confirm to determine if I should pull from the fumble deck instead of using our old method), makes things more deadly at 1st and 2nd level but once the PC's have a nice HP cushion under them around 3rd things tend to even out. Especially seeing as they can crit the baddies just as easily as they can be critted. Considering I run from modules the badies aren't built as powerful or as min-maxed as the PC's.

In the end it balances out, don't see it even making anything more or less deadly. PC's die as often in my games as they did in 2nd edition. Were I to have a new group that whined about it then I would, at the very least, consider a nat 20 an auto crit.

I might have to remember this should I run a 4e game any time soon. Skill Challenges were the one rule that utterly disgusted me in 4e because my first exposure to it was in a role playing scene and I thought "Turning RP into a combat mechanic?!?! WTF?!" I mean a roll to see if that argument to posed convinced the lord to give you some resources, sure, modify it if the PC made a really good argument and there you go. But initiative, 'rounds' successes vs failures? Got too damn convoluted for me.

Probably didn't help that my first exposure to Skill Challenges as a player was strictly as written. Where the DM had people roll initiative and just had us roll different skill checks, about as much role playing as you see in a game of Solitare.

I guess what I'm trying to say is "Thanks for the good advice!"

I don't really know anything about it, but the story I heard that made sense to me was that what really pushed TSR over the edge was an unsuccessful push into the mainstream. As I heard it, all of their RPG product lines were doing at least okay - but they banked on massive sales of softcover novels which never eventuated. In addition, there is a 'standard clause' in book distribution deals where the big distributors buy stacks of your product provided you agree to buy back what they can't sell at the end of the year.

As I understood it, TSR had demand for their various sourcebooks, they just ran out of cash due to suddenly have to buy back several truckloads of softcover novels which hadn't sold. So they were left with a bunch of unsellable stock and no cash nor remaining credit to produce the various boxed sets, campaign supplements and so forth for which there was still demand.

That was all from 'some guy on the internet' of course so who knows how true it is. I remember thinking that the account he gave (which was far more complete) made a lot of sense - certainly more than the popular alternative which seemed to be that TSR just blithely continued as they had always done, churning out more and more product lines and 'fracturing their market' whilst they slowly ran out of money.

TSR was pushed over the edge by the hater that was 'she who must not be named'.

Blood stained Sunday's best wrote:

I'm saddened by the move to rules! rules! rules!

I very much agree. As much as I enjoy the Pathfinder RPG it's really the attention that they have paid to Golarion which got me hooked on Paizo. I've never really gotten into L5R despite having some friends mad on it, but I picked up Hellfrost recently after seeing it recommended on these boards. I haven't had a chance to read through in great detail yet, but I've definitely liked it so far.

Shadowrun always had a great game world too I thought. Though I haven't bought anything from the line for some time and it's a bit of a different genre.

Hellfrost is a great setting, I think it's an amazing setting, rich in flavor and style. What's great about it is that you can buy the gazetteer and not have to worry about mechanics at all. It's completely system free so you would have everything you need to Hellfrost your 4e, PF, fantasy-RPG-system-X, etc.

I like to think of Hellfrost as the Golarion of Savageworlds and Tripleace Games as the Paizo. Not that Pinnacle is anything like Wizards (after all, they do damn good flavor and fluff in their products, ooh diss :P), but the whole 3rd party company thing, TAG seems to be the best 3PP for Savage Worlds in my not so humble opinion.

What bugged me was that they had this huge badly designed epic 'expedition-like' module trilogy that has the PC's saving Mystra, mention it in the Grand History of the Realms, only to have it be rendered moot because she got ganked anyway. Not cool ganked, but lame ganked, not even a proper send off.

As for the changes, I don't think they're a Tuesday, the Time of Troubles stuff, the transition from second edition to third, all were tame compared to what they pulled with 4th edition. It's got some of the same names but it's not really the same setting anymore. I have my old books from the prior editions, should I run FR I'll use them. But I'm all about Golarion now. Might run a session or two of Eberron though as that setting was pretty much mechanically tailored for 3.5.