Search Posts
Count me among the very sad. Disappointing news. The free Wednesday web fiction was one of those things that made Paizo different to me and drew me to regularly visiting Paizo.com. I hope they don't become just another commercial website. Money, money, money. We all need money. :( D
The Song of Chaos Flight of fiends
Lost Omens Not sure there are any historical ties in the adventure path, but I like how it plays with the chapter titles.. The Demonscar Prophecy(ies) Herald of the Void
Tide of Desolation
Shades of Chaos Burning Souls Sorrow's Host
Lessons of the the Lost Omens Not sure what that might even mean, but kinda has a ring to it...
The Hallowing of Iz March to glory The Plight of the Crown (of the world)
Hmm.. Champions of the Void. Or maybe Chasing the Void.
Legends of Honor
I do not play WOW. But it is sad to see the media connect these things again in this day and age. I almost laughed, then realized it isn't really funny to me anymore. http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/16/11220262-anders-breivik-to- norway-court-i-killed-77-people-but-am-not-guilty?lite Maybe someone with more online skills than I can properly link this front page msn article.
Or maybe the Strawberry in Neapolitan tastes better for some reason than the available straight strawberry. Or maybe sometimes you like a little chocolate or vanilla in your Strawberry too. Or maybe one night it's one, the next night another, and the next mix'em all together. Yum!
See, I said people would argue this. Oh well. Actually, you are the one missing the point. To say that you can role play your 8 CHA fighter any way you want so that you can pump up your combat math is, to some, against the spirit of the rules. The stats and feats and skills making up your character may not strictly define your character for role playing purposes but again, certainly create a framework for the 'role' you are playing or trying to play. D&D is a role playing game. 'D&D is killing things and taking their stuff' is simply a false statement. It may be that for some and you could argue an interpretation of the rules to that effect, but it is still a false statement
The PDF looks great. Some really nice art. Looking forward to the read.
read previous post I'd like to see (and buy) a rulebook dealing with low/rare magic topics and alternate rules as well. Even an entire 'alternate' PHB like Monte's AE would be a cool way to do it.
I am feel I may be on the verge of an epiphany where I suddenly go "Of course! Pathfinder provides XYZ that really facilitates social / investigation / exploration / non-combat challenges; that's why people feel 4e doesn't support roleplaying" but at present I am not quite getting it. Can anyone help me out? My feeling on this is: D&D has moved further away from 'roleplaying' with each edition since first edition. Why? For me the allure of D&D was this game that was based on my imagination. The jumble of rules provided a jumping point, a firing of imagination and the rest was created (and/or interpreted) by the DM and players. Some people hate the random rules and charts of 1E because they were confusing, incomplete, or whatever. To me they were spice. Added if you liked them, ignored if not, used a little or used alot. Game companies naturally created what they could sell which was adventures or new charts and rules to cover more things or 'improve' existing things in the game. As the game industry (and audience) grew expectations and the way the game was played changed or became a different entry point for many (and roleplaying game 'rules' became an industry) than for me. The current game editions have come to focus so much on 'official' rules (covering everything) especially around combat that folks tend to focus on that aspect of the game in my opinion. So to answer your question I believe that less rules, less fully defined rules and less focus on 'game' balance promotes imagination and focus on the shared experience (Dm and players can have) rather than on five foot steps and power triggers and what is or isn't possible by rule definition hence opening the path to playing a role. It's not that 4E (or anyE) prevents you from roleplaying, It's that for me it does get in the way of it by trying to be too rigidly defined as a game first and foremost.
I personally feel that DM-ing is more of an art than just a rules arbiter and I enjoy to run that way, but alot certainly depends on the group as a whole and their expectations. You can play with straight die rolls and rolling in front of players (no fudging). The game is still 'fun' that way, but it can be a different experience than one in which the group doesn't want their long storied character to fall to just unlucky die rolls and/or a DM running heavily on story that wants to craft an experience for his players. So, for you it is probably about coming to a consensus (or compromise) with the Dm and other players about what 'kind' of game you want to have and why, rather than whether fudging die rolls is right or wrong. D
Unlike the competent work from prior authors, this is inspired. I would buy it. Agree 100% with this. I began reading this new tale with mild expectation and was quickly drawn in and then downright excited. Nice work!
As much as this show has grown on me, even though every other episode is a groaner, the season finale is an hour of my life I want back. Who will live? Who will die? Does it really take a two part episode just to create cliffhangers and hype for the next season? An interesting story could have been started and ended in an interesting way that has one looking forward to where it will go from here. Instead it is television at its worst. I hold out hope that the next season can recover because I want to like it, I'll just quickly try to forget about the end of this one and desperately avoid giving it the satisfaction of caring who lives or dies or comes back for season 2. -Wannabe SGU fan
Well, one point to address would be that blurting out "I charge into the room" is not proper game etiquette. As someone above pointed out combat is normally one of those times when narration gives way to mechanics. How smoothly that flows will be somewhat dependant on how the Dm runs the game and the player's understanding of such. Here is how my game would flow based on the rules (making the assumption, in this case, that the entire party is aware of the wolves at the same time): DM: "within the room is a pair of wolves, they have yet to take notice of you." <Implication that there is a potential surprise round for the party or an opportunity to avoid, explain this if someone at the table is new or slow with game rules> Player 1: "I charge into the room!" <see this as a que to roll initiative, someone wants to take immediate action.> DM: "Everyone roll initiative to begin the encounter with a surprise round." <This does stop the moment, but in my experience it gives the players a chance to decide such things as do we want to use the surprise round to attack, assess, or avoid the encounter. Ultimately the game plays better (IMHO) with a group this way.> Rogue player (In23):"wolves, should we go around?" Wizard, Cleric: "Yeah, lets take this opportunity to sneak around them." Fighter PLayer: "I charge into the room" DM: "Ok, are charging to attack the nearest wolf, or just to announce your fearsome presence in hopes of scaring them?" Rogue, Wizard, Cleric: "Crap, guess we're fighting..." Remember that even though the fighter didn't win initiative and hence didn't get to act first, everyone's actions (especially in a 'shortened' surprise round) are happening almost simultaneously. Everyone starts to discuss the situation and the fighter charges ahead regardless. Another description might be the fighter tenses to charge and the rogue (having initiative) puts a hand on his shoulder quickly whispering, with quick murmers of agreement from the others, then the fighter charges in anyway. D
I plan to pick it up again after sitting out the Kingmaker path.
jscott991: You're not alone. I actually think several posters agreed that they would 'like' to see more fluff, but understand that the utility for actual game products (for Paizo) and game play (for GMS) was a higher goal for this product. As one who likes to play the game as well as create worlds or just enjoy reading flavor, my dream bestiary book would be an encyclopedic hardcover volume or volumes with cool art (multiple pics) and lots of flavor, ecology and maybe a couple different statblocks for game use ( a guy can dream, we play in a fantasy world right?) That said, as a game resource/rulebook, the PF Bestiary is pretty awesome. An A for utility and ease of reference. The internet is full of cool art some of which I like the flavor much better than the bestiary. The great one page layout has made it easey for me to create mt own personal one page monster reference with my own custom pic on it to convey the flavor. Anyway I'm rambling now. I don't think you're crazy jscott, I feel where you are coming from. The Bestiary is also pretty great for it's intended purpose! Maybe someone will be able to produce a dream product some day, I wouldn't be surprised if it cam from the folks at Paizo. Game on.
Playing D&D without the traditional races is tough. I think the orginal races for D&D are like the Coca-Cola formula.It just hit a real sweet spot. Can it be made better? Changing it up is difficult for that reason.
As far as having 'non- humans' I can share my feelings on my favorite core D&D race: I have always liked playing elves because I wondered what it might be like to live without the effects of aging and live so long. How does that affect how they view the world and interact with others (especially humans)? That is the biggest thing that made them different than any ethnic human group to me and fired the desire to play them as a fantasy escape. Just a couple thoughts. D
Definately both!
I also like the Westcrown map. Very flavorful and a nice change from the standard for variety!
I like the iconics. I also like the artwork to fire my imagination, so some scenes with 'unkown' or 'new' character artwork would be very welcome! It's fun to see art that makes you say 'I wan't to create a character like that'! Also agree with the iconic art for the PFRPG. Obviously too late for any changes, but I hope they used new art rather than reprint the same ol pictures we see every month in Pathfinder, in the campaign setting, etc.. D
It's late I can't add much but to say I so completely agree with what you just said pming. I hope 3.p doesn't steer too far the way of 'every class must have a way to deal combat damage equal to every other class'. I guess if it does..there is always 1st edition... :)
Sorry if this has been covered already, I haven't looked at PFRPG or the rules discussions much. Almost every splat book from WOTC supporting 3.5 and all the additional classes make use of swift and immediate actions. I always wanted to see the core classes re-designed with these new action types in mind. I think these actions are one of the best innovations to the 3.5 rule set. Including these in PFRPG might go far not only in backward compatability (with all except the actual three core books), but also make compatability with my other 40 WOTC books better. Are swift and immediate actions open content? D
Yes, I think it holds Pathfinder potential back. I agree with the earlier post, I would like to see an advancement of 3rd edition (3.0 or 3.5). 3.5 was kinda snuck in by WOTC to drive a new product strategy. I liked a few of the changes, but disliked just as many (especially spells) that 3.5 brought. Though the tremendous support and unprecedented artwork (at the time) brought me fully on board. 4E is ok, but not the direction I wanted to see the game go. D
Wow.. you know, wow! I haven't read it all yet, but this Pathfinder graphically looks amazing! Nice job Paizo!!
I don't think it was a mistake. Paizo can always shift to 4E later if open game stuff fades. Slightly off topic: I would be very interested in seeing another 4.0, or whatever you would have to call it, that stayed more true to updating the 3.5 version of the game. I was ready for a new edition of the game when 4.0 was announced, I just don't really enjoy 4.0 as it turned out. So for me, its not that I hate 4.0 or want to stay 3.0-3.5 for life, just wanting something different from what we got. D
Not subscribing. The quality has been ok, I'm not really a digital format person. I really loved the magazines (print-style,have every issue from #60 on). The switch to 4E pretty much lost me for now. We'll see what the future brings I guess...
Go Hawks!! And welcome back lightless days!!
Make 2E Planescape the official Planar Bible, with whatever good additions were made during 3E.(and possibly folding 4E's Feywild somewhere in there) Sounds cool. One of my favorite game sessions was an episode of the Great Modron March we played towards the end of 2nd edition.
(laughing) You are kidding, right?Sounds interesting... tell me more.. No kidding. You could play some other game that doesn't use classes, but it sounds like you'd prefer D&D that way. Unless you're just pulling my chain. Lets get creative, who knows maybe we'll strike gold...
Sounds interesting... tell me more..
If you could design the next edition of Dungeons and Dragons how would you do it? More balance, less balance, modelled off of OD&D, 3.5, 4E, computer games, less crunch, more crunch, more fluff, more miniatures, less etc... I thought it might be an interesting thread to read (if folks can leave the current edition wars out of it..note I placed this in "other RPGs"). Here is my answer: Thinking about my own history with the game and various criticisms of EVERY edition, If I had the chance today, I would take AD&D and make a new edition from there. Clean up those rules without overdoing it. I like some of the consequence stuff like: a haste spell ages you. Because some of my rules might not be perfectly balanced my edition would tend toward rules-lite and probably include a fair amount of DM fiat or plenty of option for that. Combining the nastalgia and good memories of AD&D as well as my current preferred DMing style and considering some of the brilliant ideas and changes made over the last 30 years of D&D editions I would create a fun, unbalanced encyclopedia-style game of fantasy inspiration! Oh and thieves would roll percentile dice for their various rogue abilities, i just miss that! Ok, I'm not looking for criticism of my edition, just hearing about yours... :) Thanks.
Well said Pax, thanks.
The market will decide where D&D goes not a few posts to a message board. The folks that are undecided do not need to be swayed towards pro or con - people can decide based on their own experience with the game. I was undecided, reading the pros and cons helped me decide. I don't like where WOTC is taking the D&D brand, maybe I don't have much power over that, but being quiet about certainly won't help! "a few posts to a message board" can show people that feel the same way that they are not alone, and those people talk and so on... PFRPG was at least influenced by message boards and word of mouth (not just the GSL).
I agree that the flaming posts don't really add much, on the other hand continuing the discussion at whatever level is important. The issue of the future of D&D is important to all of us that play it, whatever edition, and we do have some say in it with our voice and our wallets. Just because 4E is out doesn't mean thats the end of it. IMO, 4E has a greater split (than any other single edition change) of those who feel it is the next step for D&D and those that do not. For those of us that do not like 4E as the new direction/iteration of D&D or for those who are undecided we must continue to be heard. Both to help others decide and to give companies like Paizo the fuel to keep another version alive commercially. Heck maybe Paizo can acquire the D&D brand for 5E.... Flames, personal attacks, and poor taste aside, this is a discussion that needs to stay open. It doesn't mean you have to hate any edition, in fact you could enjoy 4E, but still not want that to be the direction of the future of the D&D franchise...
Arovyn-- No worries, this thread is actually pretty tame. In fact, even though the players and arguments haven't changed much, I must confess to reading them (minus the flames) over and over. When 4E came out I felt compelled to change like I have through all the previous editions, but this one hasn't yet felt right to me. and by reading all of the various pro and anti 3.5 and 4E stuff its actually made me feel ok about not liking 4E and not wanting to change this time... So, I don't really feel the thread is wasted. D
I don't hate 4E. It doesn't feel like D&D to me. Someone said something to the effect of '4E does not prevent you from roleplaying, by focusing and streamlining combat we've made it easier to leave the focus on roleplaying'. However, for me, its the fact that 4E does almost nothing to promote or stimulate roleplaying actively. 3E was definately a more rules-centric version of D&D than 2E or 1E and in its own way somewhat diminished roleplaying inspiration in its presentation. But it did still inspire me. The book wasn't as much like an encyclopedia as the original PHB, DMG, or MM but still had its moments. 4E almost completely leaves that format behind. Can I still roleplay and use my imagination? Of course I have a long history with roleplaying games, but I still enjoy and crave inspiration. I dislike the layout, colors, and presentation of much of 4E. And it simply does not inspire me. I hope it inspires a new generation of gamers and/or some of the veterans. I also hope it opens the door to a new niche of roleplaying for those left behind... Paizo is close. I am optimistic. Thanks, D 
Dark and brooding (D&B) Superman? D&B is definately in right now, but how bout we cut some new characters or ones that haven't been done already... Superman? Who's next? The Smurfs? :) D
So, I haven't seen the question asked yet.. A couple of your pictures are titled 'Dm Screen' and 'Players guide',
D edit: Ah, its WhiteSilver Publishing...never heard of them...
DrGames: I enjoyed Fire and Ice alot, but I very much agree with your opinion on it and applaud you for expressing it as it is against current popularity. Thats also the exact same way I saw 'Dark Knight'. Once again I thought it was a good movie, just not GREAT for me. I also believe that "shades of grey" is actually overdone these days. Eight years or so ago it might have been fair to say all or most fantasy had the big good/evil divide. I haven't seen a really good fantasy with a strong positive ending in awhile... Thanks DrGames.
Tough crowd. My thread intent is/was to drum up some positive thunder for Monte Cook to join us more deeply. He was a big part of 3E and has an opportunity for a second shot at it. Sevond shots can be rare these days. Certainly no impeachment of Jason Buhlman, who is doing a fine job IMO. I am excited for a new treatment of our traditional game and want it to be the very best it can be! Thanks, D P.S. Nice to see Darrin Drader here, another great author. Especially enjoyed Serpent Kingdoms for FR..
Well, Monte cook has moved on from game design (mostly), but is listed as a 'design consultant' for PFRPG Beta. This means Jason chats with Monte about the project from time time I guess... As I find myself (and see and feel many others) becoming more and more excited about PFRPG and the opportunity to see an advancement to the 3.5 system I think to myself "Self, wouldn't it be just great if Monte Cook came on board as a co-author with Jason Buhlman!!?" Monte- Help make the version of D&D that heralded a golden age of gaming (with the OGL) for the original fantasy rpg be the absolute best it can be!! Let us raise our voices to storm, post to my petition, and summon Monte from retirement to join the REVOLUTION!!!! (full time.. :) One last time......
Do you have Itunes? I found a vocal only chant by Rebecca Outram called 'O viridissima Virga' on Itunes. Sounds like it might fit the bill for you! D
"Why the age change?" This is a funny one, I feel like every edition or even every expansion product (like campaign guides) change the height, age, description of races. Elves seem to go through this the most. I have always thought of an elf as slightly taller than human (lighter of course) and long-lived (centuries or immortal). I'm not even sure where I ever got that...Tolkien I guess (since D&D elves have always been shorter {in core}). Anyway, it's hard to guess why they made this specific change. Maybe it fits the way the new rules function better or maybe it is a way to make the race easier to relate to as a player (seems to me there have been articles on this in Dragon or a previous edition change). I suppose in the end this one will never have a perfect answer. I prefer my elves the way I've always though of them, but if a new version fits the game or a game world nicely I'll give it a chance (and change it if I don't like it). Hopefully we won't have to 'change' too much... We'll see.
Why remove the magic schools?
Sign in to create or edit a product review. |
