|
Dragon Snack's page
39 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.
Owner
of
Dragon Snack Games
|
Ian Hewitt wrote: I'm searching high and low for a good Kraken mini. I'd love to find one for an upcoming set piece battle... does anyone have any good recommendations?
Cheers
Ian
There's a Kraken in a PotC figure set that was sold at Wal-Mart a couple of years ago, but you can sometimes find in 'closeout' stores. I picked one up at an Ollie's Bargain Outlet for $5.
It comes with a Jack Sparrow figure and some "goo". The downside is, it has an odd round area in the middle of it's tentacles (I guess you're supposed to put the goo and Jack in there).
Ouch, I just did a quick search for it online - apparently some places are trying to get $20 for it (as I said, I got it for $5). Here's a link to a review, but the pic doesn't show the "hole" in the tentacles...
Here's another vote for returning to the 3.0 durations. I've always preferred the 3.0 animal buffs, but I understand the reasons for the flat +4's.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Here is my question for Seeker, and anyone else who would rather that, instead of them putting out the 4E Forgotten Realms, or Ravenloft, or Dark Sun, or whatever, that they simply didn't touch them at all:
Why?
Because one of the reasons you play in a published setting like the Realms is to have a base for your experiences (even if you 'make the Realms your own'). I could have players join my game that knew something of the Realms without having to explain the gist of the setting. Even if they hadn't heard of the setting, there was tons of information out there for them to digest (note that I consider that to be a GOOD thing).
The FR had drawn on years of work, I was able to use 2nd edition supplements in my 3.x games with very few updates. That won't be possible in the new Realms, the setting is vastly different.
If they had to change so much, I'll ask your question right back at you:
Why?
Why tear apart an established setting only to rework it for your new system? Why not come up with a new world with it's own base of experiences? Or, better yet, why not alter the system to fit the established Realms?
And to top it off, they had to add insult to injury by telling Realms fans to 'like it or lump it' (I heard they even went to far as to tell some FR fans to "GO AWAY" at Gen Con), the changes were the changes and there was nothing that could be done about it. Then they went and (here's a shocker) ACTUALLY TOOK FEEDBACK FROM EBBERON FANS AND USED IT TO REWORK THEIR PLANS FOR THAT SETTING...
So there's a couple of reasons why Realms fans are disgusted at the changes.
And, personally, I think WotC really shot themselves in the foot. If they had just tweaked the Realms a little and massaged the rules to fit, I think they could have enticed more FR fans to try it out. Hijacking it for name recognition only for their new "living" campaign and hammering it into the new system only served to make new enemies of 4.0 and steel the resolve of holdouts.
And I'm not even a hard core Realms fan...
Scott Betts wrote: Except that they're not trying to demonstrate dominance of 4th Edition over 3rd Edition in terms of sales. I've never seen them push that as being somehow important or significant. You missed them saying that the first printing of the 4.0 books was bigger than the first printing of the 3.5 (and 3.0) books - and that they sold out faster, then. They most certainly have compared them...
But they've also said they've broken their sales goals for the year. Assuming that those goals were set pretty high (since they were releasing a new edition, after all), I don't think they have much to worry about right now. Yes, 4.0 has split the D&D community (even on pro-4.0 ENWorld it only polls between 60-70%), but that's still a pretty large group of players.
However, I haven't heard much about people subscribing to the DDI. THAT is probably more important to WotC than sales of Dead Tree Products...
I'm wondering if there are map supplements for Prison of the Firebringer, I went to the Downloads section and it seems the supplements skip from Dungeon 98 right to Dungeon 108. Did I miss something? Or was this early enough in the run that things just didn't always get made?
It's been a pain flipping back and forth between the maps (made even worse by my players jumping between levels)...
I feel much the same way. I'll be honest, I have been avoiding Paizo because of the all the proposals for radical changes. Change for change's sake turns me off.
Lich-Loved wrote: With all due respect, Black Bard, this mimics what pro-4e people were saying about 4e to those of us that *hated* the few changes we saw. So closely, in fact, my sig at ENWorld actually includes the quote "I don't need to actually see the meal to dislike the smell coming from the kitchen".
Lich-Loved wrote: I hope everyone that sees "deal-breaking rules", even if there is just one rule that falls into this category, comes forward. This way the designers can get an honest count of the people that hate the approach and then make a decision to move on from there. In some cases the approach may be revised, in others it may be left in but people need to be able to safely express what will break the deal for them no matter where in the design process we are.
On the other hand, I encourage LilithsThrall to stick with the process and give it a chance, because we are only in the Alpha phase, and the most radical of the concepts are being tested now. There is very clear evidence that Jason will listen to his customers as he moves forward and those things that many find unpalatable will work their way out of the system.
Here's my biggest problem. There are so many things that are deal breakers for me that it seems like a insurmountable list (there are some things that I definitely like though). I have too much stuff going on in RL to take the time to sit down and write out the list, especially if it's going to be lost in the din of everyone on the message boards clamoring for even more "radical change!"...
I like 3.x. It needs tweaks, not a complete rewrite.
Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that they are looking for customer input. (edit)And I appreciate the fact that they can't make a decision without all the facts.(/edit)
The surprise that it drew the most vehemnet proponents of both sides and that there were resulting 'problems' is what perplexes me.
Amber Scott wrote: I've been around for the inception of quite a few messageboards and they all, to a fault, followed the same pattern. You're right, but some of those boards were a bit more predisposed to Phase 4 than regular boards...
; )
Or the board could just be locked until Paizo makes their descision one way or another.
They seriously underestimated what would happen when they tried to play both sides of the fence with 4.0. You can't have (at least 2) threads from company representatives asking posters what they should do and then suddenly be surprised that it has become a battleground.
Don't try to jump on the 4.0 bandwagon and then play the 'last, best hope' for 3.x card. It's like throwing one steak into a pen with 2 hungry dogs.
There are plenty of other places to get information about 4.0. Face it, most of what's here is rehashed from other places.
Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented? Indeed.
I think she realized that she stepped in it right after she said it...
She was stumbling around looking for a way to extricate herself.
You should probably pick up a copy of Savage Worlds Deadlands and see how they handle it. I haven't played in settings like yours.
I see no problem with allowing Dodge at a lower level. Not so sure about a free level of Vigor, since it would have other ripple effects. Making up a Dodge score could be interesting, but Agility is already important for certain skills (including Shooting) so that would make it even better.
hallucitor wrote: would you, in the effort to see 3.x hopefully become the continual standard for D&D here on out (as Coca Cola "classic" became), be willing to go out and buy new core book copies, whether you need it or not, at an investment of $150 just to help get the ball rolling again? Absolutely not, talk about a money grab...
Stop! People are buying 3.x books for too much!
We just had a LGS go under, they almost sold out of all their 3.x books at 50% off (only had 2 FR books and some older 3.0 third party stuff left). I was hoping to round out my collection at $5 a pop...
Sadly I have most of the books that I really wanted anyway. There's only a couple that I feel a real need for (although I DO wish I could get them cheap).
I would have laughed at what became of D&D and continued playing d6 Star Wars.
Unfortunately, I'm not laughing now because I got invested back into the game...
Sad news indeed. Thank you for the game...
Don't take this the wrong way, I appreciate knowing that the owners of a company are paying attention to their customers. BUT...
Lisa Stevens wrote: Or making miniatures for a miniatures game that doesn't have the core rulebook in print. Point Of Information - Reaper Miniatures.
Dark Heaven Legends is just a name change from Dark Heaven Apocalypse. That game hasn't been in print for a long time, but the Dark Heaven line is certainly doing well.
You could say the same about their Warlord rulebook. While technically still available, large parts of it (data cards and special abilities) has been changed by their Rage Chronicles online update. The updated rulebook will not be available for (at least) another year, but they continue to release new models and updates.
While I agree that having the core rulebook available is preferable, Reaper's experience shows that quality (and customer service) can overcome this. I see parallels between Paizo and Reaper on these counts.
DMcCoy1693 wrote: When I get home, I'm going to go through all my books that Andy Collins had a hand in writing and never use them again. I hope you don't play 3.5. I know people who call it "Andy's house rules"...
He has always been pretty dismissive, especially during the 3.5 changes.
David Marks wrote: ...is cold immune. Should I have somehow let him determine that? Sure, maybe. But that isn't really dealt with in the rules. No maybe about it, it's a Knowledge check.
And watch your spoilers...
Remember, even if you are hit with a ranged attack, they still have to beat your Toughness to cause a wound (or shake) you. Since armor adds to Toughness (and shields add to your Toughness against ranged attacks), it's not as deadly as it would seem (I haven't played in an 'old west' setting though).
Yes, cover (and darkness/lighting, to a lesser extent) plays an important role, but if it isn't available it's not the end of the world. Movement (being able to cover the ground between you and a ranged attacker if you don't have a ranged attack of your own) can also be important.
I haven't seen anyone surrender when someone gets the drop on them, but it IS pretty nasty when you get the drop on someone.
Apparently my other post got eaten, but I'll reiterate that it does play well over a campaign. My Savage Worlds group played all the way through the 50 Fathoms setting book and are currently playtesting the Wonderland No More setting.
David Marks wrote: I think 5 is about right for 3/4 of a d6. Since you round down, it's 4.
Maybe in 4.0 you round up?
Two players in my group are pretty apathetic about 4.0, but I was kind of expecting that. One of them is a new player (well, returned after years away) and the other just isn't interested. They both are pretty well anti-4.0 from what we've told them though.
One player is whole hog into 4.0, but then he will buy ANYTHING (seriously, he buys stuff we will never play or ever use - he bought Ptolus and never offered to run it for the group). Another player is very anti-4.0, to the point of making jokes about 4.0 as others above have (although he was anti-3.5 before it came out too, but then tag teamed me with the buy anything player to get me to switch). I'm not liking much of what I've seen (although some things I've actually proposed as house rules in my game), even though I see the drawbacks of 3.x (but it most definitely IS fun).
I have another group that plays Savage Worlds, nobody there cares one bit (other than me).
I was at a local Con last month and asked around for opinions on 4.0. Not a whole lot of caring, in fact most people said they were having too much fun playing other games (moslty Savage Worlds). Take it for what it's worth though, D&D was never a big draw at this Con (you would think Paranoia was the most popular RPG ever if you judged by this Con).
1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?
No. Nothing I have seen has excited me and the core reasons WotC points to as needing fixes have almost zero bearing on my campaign. There is always the chance that my group may switch (although we are currently 3-1 against changing), however as the DM I'm not going to bother unless they are willing to buy the books for me (which isn't completely out of the question).
2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?
Except for the 'editionless' Gamemastery stuff, I will most likely buy very little.
3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?
Since WotC will not be putting out more 3.x stuff, you will be the best game in town for my gaming dollar. And, of course, I'll still buy the 'editionless' stuff.
Full disclosure - I was never a subscriber, but I have about (quick count) 42 Dragon and 22 Dungeon magazines.
Forgotten Realms was not "created as corporate IP". It was Ed Greenwoods homebrew setting first.
Stedd Grimwold wrote: Bottom line: The fear/hatred/animosity/disdain for 4E is fundamentally stemming from our lack of understanding of the system. If you have been paying attention, we know lots of stuff about the system already. You can no longer say "hate" or "fear" of the unknown is why people have problems with 4.0.
Well, I'm sure you could keep up, I guess my players aren't that munchkiny. They have their flashes of it though (but then I *am* a Killer DM).
If you are still interested, I'll ask my players about it this Sunday. Since the other player had left an opening to return we had really only asked one other person (that 2 of us had gamed with previously).
We meet at my house in Henrietta (I have a German Shepard) every other Sunday from 4-10ish. 12th level, Forgotten Realms, 32 point buy (we do set HPs too).
Rodney Thompson wrote: Funny thing is, most folks are really nice face to face. It's the anonymity aspect that causes people to act like this. I'd be willing to bet that a large number (if not all) of the more vitriolic critics would be polite if SRM or I spoke to them at GenCon. In fact, that's OVERWHELMINGLY the most common experience I have at GenCon. This past year I had one guy make some snide comments, but dozens of other highly critical folks were at the very least polite and listened to what we were saying without turning into a snarling lunatic. Beyond general "nicety", I can see some other reasons for this...
4.0 had just been announced, at that point it really was true that we didn't know anything about it. It could be that there was stunned acceptance before any animosity set in.
It was kind of hard to get into that room 'you' (the generic WotC 'you') held the Q&As in. That gave me the impression that 'you' didn't actually want to talk about it. Plus all the "we can't give that information out yet" "answers". I doubt I was the only person getting the vibe that 'you' didn't want any hard questions.
Not that I'm vitriolic in my F2F dealings, but I can be pretty blunt (so I've been told). ; )
DMcCoy1693 wrote: ...there was also a thread started where the OP said something to the effect of, "You Anti-4E people, get off these boards. We don't want you here." People were shouted down simply because they were asking questions about the 4E, not even attacking. And that thread wasn't shut down. I was actually considering buying a subscription to ENWorld before that thread...
tadkil wrote: So, the monkey poo has to be scraped off the surface of the commentary to find the authentic opinion beneath. Did I actually just write that? Apparently yes. And it was good enough that I just had to repeat it.
Darn it, I forgot to pimp Benjamin Lafayette Sisko. The classiest captain in the Trek verse.
I think a lot of it is perception. There is enough bile and ignorance on both sides that you could say "I can't take them seriously" whatever side you are on.
The only difference between information and propaganda is which side puts it out.
Heh, I've been itching to convert my D&D game to a fantasy Savage Worlds game.
I actually do think my players would like it better, but they are pretty adamant about playing "D&D" (but not all want to switch to 4.0).
Check out Jermlaine (MM2). They are tiny.
I have a strange inclination to try playing one for some reason...
Kobold Cleaver wrote: This is kind of off-topic, but has anyone else thought that you should be able to have vermin as familiars? The FRCS allows Sorcerers and Wizards to take a Hairy Spider as a familiar, although it becomes a Magical Beast instead of a Vermin.
Temp.
And that was just a few years ago. 25-30 year old player too. I think it was a comment on my Killer DM skills. The thing is, it was only his second character (replacing a Monk who went mano-a-mano with an Ettin while the other 4 members of the party took on another Ettin).
I've got a bunch of Dragon and Dungeon mags, but I was never a subscriber. I'm currently playing in a PbP Rise Of The Runelords game, so I don't see myself purchasing that any time soon. I'm also uncertain as to the continued viability of my F2F D&D group, 4.0 seems to have picked the scabs off of some underlying issues...
That said, I don't plan on moving to 4.0 (although I haven't ruled out DMing it, the previews haven't impressed me), so if Paizo stays with 3.x there is a good chance that I will support it.
I played in a Serenity RPG game for about 6 months, me and another player from my D&D group joined a campaign in progress.
All in all, I liked the system for what it was used for. The biggest complaint about the system I see is that it's too easy to fail, but if you watch the series almost all of the characters (with the exception of Zoe, unless I'm forgetting something) played the fool/dupe/mark at some point. Failure (and overcoming it) was an integral part of the storyline.
That takes a lot of faith in the GM to run correctly, and even then may get tedious at times, but the system itself feels very true to the series.
It was a nice change of pace to get away from a reliance on combat. Since it's pretty deadly in Serenity, we avoided it as much as possible. Other than one assault on an enemy camp (which we overplanned to give us the advantage), we had about 4 rounds of "combat" (2 of which were fistfights).*
We had no compunction about playing characters from the series though, but the GM did say that if anyone played a "River" character he would keep them on a short leash. She really is a gamebreaking character, but you can't blame that on the RPG.
*Not counting the last session, which was a throw away when 2 players quit (the brother of the GM, followed by his GF/wife) and then another suicided his character.
LSS, I don't have access to the email I used to sign up for my other account (Dragon Snack, which I use on lots of other boards) and I foolishly clicked "forgot password" so it got reset.
Any chance to save it?
I haven't found that gamers are hard to find, there are 6 LGSs in the area (there were 7 a few months ago). If you're willing to go to Millennium you can probably find a group there.
I would invite you to join my current group, especially since we just lost a player (even if he left an opening to return)...
I would, except I'm not sure if 4.0 is going to tear us apart yet. You probably don't want to jump into a group that's having some "issues" currently. The core of the group has been together since 3.0 first hit (technically before that, but that's only 2 of us now), I think this is just bringing the "issues" to a head.
That and, well, my players generally *are* into "munchkinry"...
Another Rochester gamer here, BUT...
There used to be a gaming club located at 869 Broad Street in Utica (an old warehouse type place), although their Meetup.com page is gone (which could be because Meetup.com charges now). Apparently it was an old store (Arcane Sanctuary) and some people kept up the lease.
Never actually met anyone there, I just went looking for Arcane Sanctuary (which is how I know the address, since it's still on some game store lists).
If that doesn't work out, at least you know there used to be gamers in Utica...
Tatterdemalion wrote: There's a Syracuse gaming store that might be able to point you in the right direction -- Altered States. It's now called 'How You Play The Game'. http://www.howyouplaythegame.com/locations.php
They have moved from their old location and all their events are cancelled for the rest of the month, hopefully that isn't a bad sign.
Wicked Tinkers - Banger For Breakfast.
Not my usual fare (it's Scottish Highland Drums, Bagpipes, and Digeredoos), but a fun little diversion (and enough of an oddity to pull me out of lurk mode).
I rarely listen to CDs (or an iPod), thanks to 90.5 fm WBER (http://wber.monroe.edu). The playlist is varied enough to cover most of my musical tastes. For all the metal heads, when I DJ (I'm DJ Uno) my bumper music is Accept - Fast As A Shark.
Since a couple people have claimed that the 'devil worshipping' backlash doesn't happen today, I have a story for you...
Last year, while running some demos at the big LGS, a girl came in to interview people for a paper she was doing at school. She was looking for non-Christians who played D&D. She wanted to ask them about their views on religion and the occult.
Do you think a high school student just had the idea pop into her head? Or do you think someone planted it there?
As a side note, the first 4 people she asked were Christians...
Yes, I got the D&D is evil thing back in HS too (I started a D&D club, so I made myself a target). I had parents (not mine) who claimed that I had broken my arm while acting out D&D, when in reality I broke it playing football.
It doesn't take much for the ignorant to find something to use against you, why make it easy?
And Stryper was cool, how dare you say otherwise!
I think you should at least try point buy. I had much of the same reservations about one dimensional and/or cookie cutter characters, but for the most part they have failed to materialize. Your players will realize that a well rounded character is better than having one or two 18s.
The perceived value of an 18 goes down significantly when you have to spend your points wisely, in fact they are rarely taken from what I've seen. Even primary spellcasters often only buy their main stat up to a 15 so that they are not weak in other areas (still gets to 19 by 16th level). In 7 campaigns I have only seen one player go the 2 18 route to the exception of all other stats (a Half Orc Barbarian, go figure).
|