Jal Dorak's page

It is extremely irritating when a player, whose PC has benefitted from this several dozen times, refuses to meet me halfway, when it's time for them to be targetted by an assassin or pickpocket.
Ooooh no, then he wants to milk his non-blinking, 360-degree 'beholder vision' for all it's worth. He can hear a butterfly fart a mile away, but when targetted by a suggestion, he'll insist that the background noise prevented his understanding; he sees everything that happens with utter clarity, unless it's a gaze attack, in which case he wouldn't have been looking that direction.

And that is why the whole system needs a rewrite.

I think you've made a very good case why the system needs a DM. The rules to cover such corner cases are so specific as to not be worth the time.

Jal Dorak wrote:

You know, if you're really worried about 3.5 Turning being too difficult (both in and out of game), just get rid of the table and make it a DC of 10 + CR + turn resistance/2. That way a Trog zombie is DC 11, a vampire is minimum DC 14. The turning damage is probably fine as is.

That does not change the fact that the written version sucks.

Short of time-travel, nothing will. ;)

Just get rid of the "casting defensively" option. It's pretty absurd to begin with.

Viktyr Korimir wrote:

What this means is that higher-level characters in Next have more options, deal more damage, and have more staying power-- but attacks and defenses stay the same. What this means effectively is that characters can fight monsters way above or below their level, and while these fights would still be squash matches, there's still a point in rolling attacks; the low-level side will still be able to hit their enemies, and the high-level side will still be able to miss theirs.

And it helps us dodge that ridiculous notion that suddenly every guardsman in the world is level 10, because the party is. Level 1 guards can still be a cause for concern. I like that.

As long as the local militia can't kill a dragon, it sounds great. Otherwise, why bother hiring adventurers?

Jal Dorak wrote:

That's a given.

It's a given to you and I, but to people who don't really play past 3rd level, and who think meteor swarm is an "awesome" spell, it's not a given at all. Quite the contrary -- blasting wizards are relatively ineffective damage-dealers, but some people insist on using them as the upper-end benchmark of what should be possible in combat... and then will use the logic "but people without magic shouldn't be able to do as much" to make sure the martial people are well and truly screwed. In the words of Phillip Marlowe,

Raymond Chandler, in The Big Sleep wrote:

"You know what Canino will do---beat my teeth out and then kick me in the stomach for mumbling."

What I find even more humourous is that the truly powerful spells, like say hold monster, are actually more realistically modelled in a warrior type. How hard would it be for a master swordsman to intentionally paralyze his opponent? The problem becomes when can he do it, and how do you keep it from breaking the game world or from complicating combat even further?

Have to agree with ShadowcatX, even the core rules are different enough as to prevent backwards compatability with 3.5.

This thread saddens me for two reasons:

1) That there are plenty of inconsiderate people out there.

2) There are an equal number of awesome, polite, and intelligent people out there that I will never game with because they live hundreds or thousands of miles away!

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Stubs McKenzie wrote:

And thank god tumbling isnt allowed if you are carrying a polearm, a ladder, a 10 ft pole, grappling hook + rope, a tent, and 100 lbs of other gear on your back... hold on... nope no rule for that either.

One time group made fun of my for leaving my polearm outside of a crawlspace. My shortsword seemed a safer bet. Another time in the same group I was made fun of for tumbling into a flank with my greatsword out. Gotta love friends.

Good on you man.

Yeah I've made some easy houserules for using weapons in confined spaces. If you don't have free space around you, if it is a tight tunnel, large weapons are one -4, medium on -2, small or light on no penalties. If it is even more cramped, double penalties for medium and large stuff becomes unusable.

So yes, you can't use your giant sword for all situations (the greatsword is an open battlefield weapon, not for tunnel shivving work). This has led to some wondrous developments, the players start to think what is best for the situation, they ask me if the tunnel is too tight for a greatsword/great falchion, and they make sure to carry back ups and smaller weapons. This ties in with a trait system I've added for all weapons. Weapons have merits, flaws and character, e.g. maces cause small amounts of sundual damage if you miss the foe but hit the armour or shield.

Sounds like a fun game!

I think we can all admit that there are benefits and drawbacks to both hosting and travelling. In the end, it probably comes down to personal preference (barring any unbalanced variables). Personally, I love hosting but I'm the odd-man-out in terms of distance from my one group .

@Kirth: I wonder what gaming in the USSR would have been like.

And years after I thought of that analogy, I heard something that gave me the impression that others, too, kept comparing Greyhawk to DC comics. I never read "Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk", but I'm told that it contains an explanation of how Robilar could have betrayed Mordenkainen (an event that many people, including Gary Gygax, had refused to accept, as Robilar's loyalty to Mordenkainen was legendary). It seems that it wasn't the real Robilar. It was an imperfect copy of him. And you know the duplicate's name? It was an anagram of Robilar: Bilarro.

You are correct about the fate of Robilar in that adventure.

About the 1e:2e, I don't speak for Kirth but I feel it's more to do with the presence of the products. During 1e, Greyhawk was at its height. During 2e, the Realms became the darling child and Greyhawk started a long slow slide into generic obscurity.

My personal tribute to Greyhawk is that my own campaign world has basically evolved the same way, a hodge-podge of locales and nations from many adventures and campaigns. And I still use the Greyhawk pantheon as the main one in any games I run, with the exception of one Kingmaker game. Even my home Pathfinder games use old favorites, and I still refer to a lot of spells by their Greyhawk names, even the ones purged in 3rd Edition.

thejeff wrote:

You don't actually get ahead by optimizing. Either the GM cranks the game up to match or you have easy boring encounters.

...or your DM is like me, and he has a sandbox-like setting with some intentionally easy encounters, all the way to some that you simply can't beat, no matter what your level of optimization. And it's up to the party to investigate and use their heads in order to figure out which ones they feel they can tackle.

I'd swear I had suggested that a few posts ago (of course we agree!), and was roundly ignored. >sigh<

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Tangent-

I never thought of Boromir as evil. The worst he did to Frodo was trying to grab him. He was doing what he thought was his duty to his father, country, and people. He was quite troubled before he died too.

And of course he WAS being manipulated by the Ring itself which had the genius and malice of Sauron within it. Now that's the classic example of how to build an intelligent item without the slightest bit of dialogue with it.

It's also why the truly powerful and wise kept themselves from touching it at all. In other words your total character level would add to the DC of resisting it's corruptive allure. That's was part of the advantage of the Hobbits themselves being relatively low-levels.

The choice (destiny) of Hobbits coming into possession of the Ring is the hidden cycle of good (the ring is the cycle of evil). The original encounter with the ring was so scarring to the progenitor River Folk, that the hobbits developed a strong tradition of reverse-gifting, and thus a limited attachment to possessions. For this reason, the ring could have little hold on them as an object of power; the ring itself had caused objects to become valueless (the other half of its power - worldly power - has little effect on the hobbits for a similar reason: the hobbits have no need for power to begin with, this is the sense you mention above).

On the issue of grapples, I had a player with a 5th-level gestalt monk/sorcerer grapple a Large blue dragon and actually succeed in pinning the thing long enough for the fighter and the rogue to finish it off. Don't think he rolled under 18 for about 5 rounds.

My absolute favorite moment (I may have mentioned this on the boards before) came in my friend's Ravenloft game (this was actually shortly after 3rd Edition, but my friend still used a lot of old school rules like Backstab.

The set-up:

We were playing a band of evil adventures: a thief (myself), a monk (my brother), and a sorcerer (my friend's brother). After being misted to Ravenloft (a homebrew domain), we eventually came into the service of a wizard who promised he could free us from the realm if we assisted him in defeating his nemesis.

Being the DM's NPC, the wizard was quite adept at showing us up, making demands of the party, not delivering on his promises, and generally making us feel inconsequential at every possible opportunity. Eventually, we came to decide as a group that the wizard was not going to follow-through on his big promise (or at least, it wasn't worth the trouble).

His final request to us was to make our way up a haunted tower, replete with traps and undead. It was a slog (though my rogue had fun using his immovable rods to rig pulley mechanisms to open doors), but we finally made it to the top of the tower. All that was left was to open the door to the final room.

My character turned to the rest of the party:
"I swear to all that is unholy, if that stupid wizard is on the other side of the door, I'm going to kill him."
The party enthusiastically agreed. The DM: "Let me get this straight, you're going to charge if you see the wizard in the room?" "I'm going to charge the wizard and stab him with my dagger." "Okay."

Sure enough there stood the wizard. A few lightning bolts later and we were offered quarter. The sorcerer: "Screw that, let's go down swinging."

The DM: "Okay, the campaign's over then."

So bittersweet, it was the height of roleplaying.

Looks quite stirring; I will be seeing it in theatres...after the Hobbit.

@Lobolusk: Did Russell Crowe hit you with a phone or something?

Why not?

Sometimes the PCs have that advantage.

The GM has all sorts of tools for limiting the rest available to the party... soft timers, hard timers, reactive NPCs...

But if there's always such a constraint on everything the PCs do, then the players will start to feel that the world is contrived against them. So, like all aspects of GMing, the thing to do is include everything sometimes. Keep it dynamic and unpredictable.

Once in a while, throw the players up against a challenge that is best surmounted with patience and rest as part of the plan. Make it so hard they need a 15 minute adventuring day to beat it. Then laugh hysterically if they bite off more than they can chew because they imagined their own timers and limitations.

Don't always steal the spell book, but sometimes steal the spell book. Don't always use a hostage to imply a timer, but sometimes do it. Don't always allow mid-dungeon rest without consequence, but at least once is okay.

So many good suggestions for in-game solutions.

Another good one is the "X will happen in Y days". This applies more to story campaigns than hex or dungeon crawls. As a player, I've had very satisfying TPKs where the party knew 100% that doing that last encounter would probably cost us our lives, but we did it anyway because we weren't sure how much time we had left before the BBEG's scheme came to fruition. Being a hero is hard, otherwise we would call them commoners.

And the funny thing about the second instance is that it can easily be the first instance if the DM chooses.

Which was sort of my point - it doesn't matter what skill system you use when the DM controls the outcome. It's not an indictment of either system...

It really is about group expectations and keeping everyone on the same page. I'm still trying to find my style on skill checks. I don't use the social skills as often as I should, and worry that the players who invest in them feel cheated.

...which is where we kind of agree. It should always be about consistency and fairness within the groups expectations.

I like allowing players to use the social skills to haggle with merchants - almost every group ends up buying and selling, so it makes sense to allow the player with Diplomacy and Sense Motive to put them to use to help the whole party regularly.

By the way, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm always harping on you TOZ - I just find your points interesting and good for generating discussion!

Love me some 2nd Edition; I was late to roleplaying, but it's what I started with!

The difference I see, is that with the skill system the player can actually make choices to affect the outcome.

I would still argue it's the illusion of choice. The DM still has control of the environment, so you have to trust them.

There is no practical difference between:

DM: You stand at the edge of a river, you hear the faint sound of a waterfall off in the distance but there are no rapids. You cannot see the bottom of the river. Your quarry has made it to the other side.
Player: I swim across the river.
DM: You get to the other side after about a minute. The rest of the party follows behind with no problem.

Or:

DM: You stand at the edge of a river. *Rolls Spot and Listen in secret, player fails because they don't have any ranks* You hear the faint sound of roaring water from downstream, but see no sign of your quarry. Perhaps they crossed here, but you can't be sure. You cannot see the bottom of the river.
Player: I have +2 to Swim, so I can take 10 and get across. How far was it?
DM: 100 feet.
Player: Okay, that's about 2 minutes at 5ft/round. I'll swim for it.
DM: Halfway across you're attacked by an eel. Roll a Swim check.
Player: 5! Dangit, now I'm going to drown!

Or:

DM: You stand at the edge of a river. *Rolls Spot and Listen in secret, player fails but the DM fudges the roll to keep things moving* You hear the faint sound of roaring water from downstream, and can see signs your quarry has already crossed. You cannot see the bottom of the river.
Player: I have +2 to Swim, so I can take 10 and get across. How far was it?
DM: 100 feet.
Player: Okay, that's about 2 minutes at 5ft/round. I'll swim for it.
DM: Okay, you make it to the other side. The rest of the party is stranded, but you could probably work out some sort of rope system. Do you have Use Rope?
Player: Nope.
DM: Screw it. You can improvise well enough.

Illusion of control. Notice how the 2e version was faster (and there was nothing stopping the DM from having an eel fight there as well, and just calling for a Str check to fight while in the river).

The less there is codified, the more chance the DM has to create a world without obscure corner-cases. Like a dolphin needing an arbitrary +8 bonus to Swim checks just to act like a normal specimen. So much wasted space just to say "dolphins can do jumping flips out of the water".

Let's pretend I have a fragance allergy, and all of my friends are aware of this fact. One day, one of them suddenly decides he MUST start wearing a strongly-scented cologne at all times. I would feel betrayed if several of them insisted I was being "unreasonable" in telling him to stop wearing the product.

The same attitude is evident in this gaming group. It's not a question of whose roleplay is stronger, it's the fact that this player feels (rightly so) betrayed by his group. That's a wound that will not heal without an open discussion, and even then it may not.

Pretending this is not a problem is only going to make things worse. The player needs to stick up for themselves, but in a mature, non-aggressive, way. If the end result is the loss of a gaming group, that may be the price of dignity.

Table manners come first, RP issues come second. Worry more about your relations with real people, and less about pretend problems in a pretend world.

I would argue that the other players were the ones being rude. The cleric was there first, and by all accounts was being treated fairly by the party up until the mount arrived.

I agree with TOZ that the simplest solution may be to just move on, but perhaps you could talk to your DM and voice your concerns - but don't approach it in character; your concern is that the other players are ganging up on you, disrespecting your character, and this is making the game less enjoyable.

My general policy as a DM is to resolve intra-party complaints immediately. Things like this can fester and result in the loss of gaming groups.

By the way, this thread should be titled "Beating a Dead Horse"

P.S. My main point is that Harrison Ford was not particularly exceptional as an actor in Star Wars. The role of Hans Solo was exceptional. Star Wars was exceptional. Harrison Ford pulled it off, but I believe many other actors could have done the same with that role. And it could have been those other actors that would have gone on to do Indiana Jones, Blade Runner or play Jack Ryan. Harrison Ford was IMHO more lucky than good. I would say that after Star Wars, Harrison Ford did become a much better actor with more versatile roles than Hans Solo.

First, I don't think Kitsch was bad in JC (I'm a pretty ardent supporter of the movie), I just think he could have been better.

Second, I really think you're understating Ford's performance in Star Wars. It's pure charisma. It's not that Han Solo is cool, it's that Ford makes him cool. A lesser actor would have turned Solo into a laughably poor attempt at machismo.

Another good example of how the actor makes the character would be Mifune in Yojimbo. Incredibly iconic, but not easily replicated. Eastwood did it in 'Dollars'. Willis (arguably a bigger name than Mifune or Eastwood at the respective time of the films) did not.

A great actor can make a bad role memorable (Forrest Gump, anyone?)
A great actor can make a good role iconic (Solo, Sanjuro)
A bad actor cannot do either. Although Cary Elwes in Princess Bride makes a good argument that they can, at least in a kitschy sense (no pun intended).

Mazra wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

No iconic role is good enough on its own to make a star or to carry a successful movie franchise.

Really! Hans Solo made Harrison Ford a star.

And you're still ignoring the rest of my point -- that Ford's charisma allowed him to fill the role, and thus to be made by it. A lesser actor in that role wouldn't have gone on to be Indiana Jones; he'd have gone on to be nobody. Which is what I think Taylor Kitsch will be in a year, after the small but ever-so-vocal clique of Carter fanboys have turned to other things. If Kitsch had a tenth of the screen presence of Ford or Stallone, my opinion of both the movie and the actor would be a lot different.

Remember -- look at all these comic book superhero movies. Superman is WAY more iconic than Iron Man, but Brandon Routh isn't carrying two successful action movie franchises, whereas Robert Downey Jr. is doing so (Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes). That's not luck. That's the fact that Downey has a hundred times the screen presence and acting skill that Routh does.

First off, I agree with you 100% that charisma makes the actor (and charisma + role can make a career). In the case of Superman Returns Routh didn't really elevate the film, but he was not in a good film to begin with.

Also, in regards to John Carter specifically it does seem to be a wasted opportunity - an actor with "it" would have sold that movie. But you have to admit, as unimpressive as his performance was it was miles ahead of his work in Wolverine (which isn't saying much).

0) I'd fudge the map and make Restov farther away. Oleg's is only a couple of days away by the highway. I'd want it to be a week or two.

I did this with my second group - it significantly added to the tension, especially in the early books. Another plus to doing so is that if it comes to war with Restov, their major city isn't right on the border!

1) I think starting off, I wouldn't make the PCs the center of attention. They'd be hirelings for a more notable petty-noble who was setting off to conquer the Stolen Lands.

I also did this with my second group, and it provided a solid base to explain where the PCs got supplies and rewards, what the other expeditions might look like (though they never met, see below), and also increases the conflict with Restov when things go south.

2) Before the PCs leave Restov, I'd have a party or something where they'd meet Meager Varn, Drelev and the Iron Wraiths. They just knew too little about their neighbors until it was action time. I'd want them to know what's going on and have relationships (good or bad) with these folks from the beginning. It's would make later events more meaningful.

I wish I had done that, but it does add a bit to the mystery if they don't know the exact competition. But the advantages outweigh that - having them meet means the PCs want to enter Varnhold/Fort Drelev without being prompted, and like you said makes certain scenes more dramatic.

3) Pretty soon after establishing their kingdom, say the end of Ch 2 or after exploring the west side of the mountain in Ch 3, maybe level 6 or 7, I might have the players create 2nd characters. It just seems odd to me that the duke/duchess is running around doing odd jobs like gathering eels and roc eggs. Not very dignified. Also, my players obviously want to be at the center of all the action, but would a real ruler really be out there fighting and exploring like that?

I kind of like the idea of a warrior-king, it's worked well in my game. However, I do agree that the nature of the campaign makes PC death rather traumatic, so eventually I encouraged every player to take Leadership to have an easy substitute and backup. I also played up the NPCs that the party befriended, so they wouldn't feel stupid turning over the kingdom to them. If a player is not available, an NPC takes their place to keep things moving.

4) Find ways to elongate the timeline, especially in the beginning. They've risen in levels in 2 or 3 years. I'd like to see them age a bit more before they become rules of a huge kingdom.

This is something I never got around to doing. I suppose the easiest way would be to do kingdom building bi-annually or annually. But that might discourage some players.

5) Work in more hints about the final BBG earlier. I tacked on the Fellnight Queen module between Ch 2 and 3, and I think that kept the fey theme going a bit more. Actually both of my groups used the Fellnight Queen's scrying mirror to survey the surrounding lands and discovered the surprise in Ch 3! They had to hightail it over there.

Ugh. I agree. Worst example of a tacked-on ending in any AP series. My first group is enjoying the encounters, but even they were a bit confused when things started happening (and they dealt with it swiftly and spared the kingdom). I can only imagine the frustration a group would feel if the blooms started wiping out their kingdom and there is no way to see it coming.

6) I'd like to lower the magic level quite a bit. Moving Restov helps with that a little (limiting access to purchasable magic items), as would limiting or eliminating Craft Magic Stuff feats. I'd be hesitant to completely ban them, but maybe require unique components they'd have to side-trek to acquire. Jack up the cost of special materials like adamantite and mithril. Replace the Magic Item Economy in kingdom building with some other means of generating regular BP. Consider limiting travel magic like teleport, or making it a ritual that takes hours to prepare or something. Be a lot stricter on scrolls they can find for purchase.

I actually like that by adventure 3 or 4 the PCs find exploration trivial. It changes the focus of the game, and makes them feel like they have achieved something meaningful. Both groups noticed the grind of exploration at about the time teleport became available. Plus, many of the encounters are unforgiving, lowering the magic has the potential for a TPK and a ruined campaign.

As for other changes I would do or have done?

1) Run the Rushlight tournament every year (I'm starting this in my second game, but its already been over 2 years).

2) Increase the number of events involving Pitax.

The point of Cap in the last battle was not so much of him being a Super-soldier and kicking butt, in which case he was totally outclassed by Thor, Iron man, and the Hulk, but his grasp of tactics and strategy. You go here, you there, you there. Fall back and form a perimeter, move the civilians out through the subway, and Hulk, Smash! That is where Captain America really shines through.

I got that quite readily, I just don't think it makes good cinema (at least in the context of a superhero movie). Dramatically, it doesn't matter what CA does because in the context of the action on screen the bad guys are seemingly limitless, omnipresent, and without a cohesive strategy themselves. Why couldn't Cap be a great leader AND contribute physically? I'm sure Whedon could have devised some sort of maguffin of which Cap could take tactical advantage...

Captain America is also the moral counter-weight to Tony Stark. He also proves to be the "team leader the group can follow" whereas Nick Fury is the "leader everyone is wary of trusting." As the series progresses, Cap will be less of a "man out of his time" and should start to be the glue that holds a group of powerful personalities together.

There were scenes that showed this to good effect. Cap is always the first to act, to take up the fight. Nice work there. I would have liked for Cap to do something no-one else would consider, for the others to rally behind. For example

Really enjoyed it.

For whomever said Captain America was underutilized, I think it was sort of integral to his plot.

** spoiler omitted **

I think that is what Whedon was trying to accomplish, but in my view he failed because

Dark_Mistress wrote:

I am glad the movie is doing well. I am hoping this gets us a Black Widow movie.

This. I loved the sequence where Natasha was tied up by the bad guys, seemed to be in a very bad spot, and yet was the one who had everything under control. I also loved how Coulson was just like everything was business as usual listening to her whoop up on a couple of creeps right in the middle of a phone call. A Black Widow movie that was more James Bond and less super heroics would be awesome.

My problem with BW, as mentioned above, was that she was as much of a Super Soldier as Captain America (except maybe the first Hulk scene). I bought her duping a crooked arms dealer and taking out his cadre of thugs while tied up. I didn't buy the final battle. I also didn't buy

I know it seems like I'm hard on BW here, but it's not her fault, it's Whedon's.

Slightly off-topic - all through the last battle I was thinking "how cool would it be if Marvel owned all of their movie rights?" I mean, we could have seen Punisher blasting away alongside Captain America, or Spider-Man swinging in to save Iron Man at the last minute.

I've always viewed alignment as:

Good/Evil - Morality - there is a definable position regardless of intention that cannot be broken and is set by forces far more powerful than human intention.

Lawful/Chaotic - Ethics - do your actions benefit the majority or the minority (possibly even a minority of self).

In that sense, I agree with your definition of Good/Evil, but disagree that Law/Chaos simply defines long-term behavior. For example, a LG character would likely defy orders, possibly even rebel, if they discovered their lord has always been a succubus (remains dedicated to justice). By your definition, such a character would continue to follow orders until ordered to perform something evil (consistency trumps moral position, as the "immediate" action is not part of the characters normal behavior). Or am I missing something?

I would rule that closing ones eyes should be implemented in the same way as Power Attack or similar use-activated abilities: you must choose to do so at the start of your turn, and carry the penalties for an entire round.

I imagine a wizard's rogue companion would be very thankful you closed your eyes to ignore mirror image.

Memorax: I don't think anyone seriously thinks 5e is doomed. However, for a lot of people the inclusion of Monte Cook was an olive branch to those of us who felt slighted by the marketing of 4th edition. I think what you're seeing is a lot of people who have been burned by Wizards before saying 'I was interested while they had Monte Cook on board, because I like his past work; now what interest I had is gone.' Plus, before Pathfinder came out, we had the benefit of an actual open playtest to base opinion upon. Until we can see this open playtest of Wizards, the opinion of 5e on these boards (where a lot of us took shelter after the horrid 4e marketing campaign) will be less than exciting. Wizards spent all of the goodwill it had with me; if it wants any back, it's going to have to mount some truly Herculean efforts to win back my dollar.

Exactly, it's sort of like if when Nixon went to China he suddenly said "Oh, by the way, Kissinger quit yesterday. Not sure why, but don't worry it will be fine!"

It could as easily be a cultural/legal issues that keep guns from becoming popular. 17th-19th century Japan spring to mind as an example of both socially inaccessible gun powder and where all those now-useless knights are going to go.

Jal, why is the history of asia irrelevant to world building? I get a fair amount of inspiration watching Downton Abbey and lord knows that's not D&D.

Edit: Personally I always thought fireball wands and UMD would be the cause of trench warfare in D&D-land.

If I were going to use guns, I think I would agree that the result would be something like pre-industrial Japan.

The reason I bring up China is because it is a vastly different cultural and political entity from medieval Europe. If your campaign world is entirely Euro-centric, you are basically beginning with the notion that gunpowder was discovered in Europe, and not some far-off mysterious nation.

More specifically, such a campaign world is more likely to apply the time frame of Europe in developing military applications of gunpowder, rather than the historical global perspective of China-Europe, which was almost a millenia.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot. On the subject of fireballs/trench warfare - magic as built in checks (dispel and counterspell) that would eliminate the need for that somewhat (but not entirely). Of course, any army using trench warfare against a mage is just begging for a cloudkill!

Jal

I want to give you a real life example of something I had a player try and tell me what you think.

I had someone in my group just purchase the Bestiary 3. After the game the player asked me if we could sit down together while he rolls his Knowledge checks against each creature in the book to see if he can learn something ahead of time, say that his character read up on those creatures and write each thing down he finds out about each creature.

What would you do in this situation? Mind you he has never even been up against or even heard of these creatures until be bought and read the book.

I'd politely tell the player that it is extreme meta-gaming. If he wants his character to have an encyclopedic knowledge of monsters, he should start by writing his own about each monster he encounters. If he wants to add monsters from research, he can find out about 1 monster with 1 day of research (in an appropriate library or setting) and a Knowledge check (bonus for using materials, same DC) to see if he understands or even finds the information.

I've actually done this as a player, and it's very rewarding. Once I'm done, my character will attempt to publish his work or sell it to the PFS.

My concern for 5e is how they are going to deliver the feel of it; are they going to continue to use abstract gamey language like 4e, or return to vague and breakable real-world language like previous editions?

Depends on what your definitions of "abstract" and "vague" are.

I'd argue that saying something is 10 feet away is as far from vague as you can be without using scientific units. Saying something is 2 squares away means NOTHING to anyone except the players of the game. It takes one extra step of reasoning for the player to immerse themselves into their character.

Here's the thing: 3rd Edition and 4th Edition fundamentally altered the mindset. If a player asks "Wait, how many orcs did I actually get with that fireball?" it doesn't really matter whether the DM picks a random number, determines one in the best interests of pacing/story, rolls a pre-determined die, or carefully measures out the radius/obstacles/distances. The common element is that the DM is making the decisions. If the DM measures and the fireball kills every orc, he can just add more! If the DM decides arbitrarily that the fireball killed no orcs, that is the same result. The point is that as long as a DM is being fair and consistent, you can gleefully ignore any rule you want. How many groups simply ignore encumbrance because it is too time-consuming? How many of those DMs kill the party because their combined weight collapses a bridge?

Basically, 3rd/4th Edition taught players to distrust DMs who didn't play by the rules, and DMs that the rules were a straight-jacket when they really weren't. I think this is really what they are trying to correct with 5e.

I've been thinking of using the Star Stone as a mega-dungeon that would take characters from 1-20th level. The hook is that the characters are already high level when they enter the Test - welcome to your worst nightmare!

I really enjoyed the movie. It seriously deserves an award for "Most Unfairly Criticized Film of the Year" and "Worst Marketing Campaign for a Good Movie".

Definitely getting it when it arrives on DVD.

I went through something similar recently choosing tape colours for my dragon shaman auras.

I'd vote for:

Abjuration: Yellow
Conjuration: Green
Divination: Blue
Enchantment: Red
Evocation: Orange
Illusion: Purple
Necromancy: Gray (black a bit difficult for printed cards)
Transmutation: Brown
Universal: White

Monkey Shines.

The finale of the movie involves a quadriplegic biting a monkey to death.

I'm not kidding.

"5th Element" itself doesn't bother me, it is mediocre to average at best. The best parts of the movie is when Bruce is just being Future McClane, which doesn't say much for creativity.

What does bother me is that it is one of those movies that had an instant cult following that was totally unwarranted. See: The Matrix, Moulin Rouge, etc.

nevermind wrote:

"Tremors" - a wonderful series of very very cheesy horror movies. Best with a bottle of spirits and a huge sideorder of Nachos !

Tremors II was the best of the movie series. However, I liked Tremores: the Series the best.

They're all good. The first one was a straight-up monster movie. The later ones were tongue-in-cheek, which is the best way to go with sequels in a series like that.

Gotta love Burt Gummer.

When I have run fantasy trials, I've usually held the following as standard procedure:

1. Guards are posted to confiscate all weapons and magic items. A low-level wizard is on hand to detect magic. Not foolproof, but for most cases it works. Except that one time when a PC used Nystul's magic aura on gloves of storing to sneak in a weapon.

2. The witness stand is surrounded by a permanent zone of truth.

3. Most penalties are severe, usually beginning at hefty fines and ending with death, in varying degrees of permanence and cruelty.

Since you seem keen on reversing the roles in the Fairy Tales:

1) Three Little Pigs: Three wealthy landowners long ago murdered a farmer to acquire his land and the rich minerals beneath. Unbenownst to them, after dumping the body in the woods, a lycanthrope fed on the not-quite-dead-farmer. Now, every full moon the werewolf returns to his land to torment his "killers". The PCs are hired to rid the land of the wolf preying on the land-workers, eventually discovering the truth.

2) Goldilocks: An assassin sent to rid the land of a circle of three druids, she stole into their abode and poisoned their gruel. The PCs are contracted by the Assassin's Guild to find the fate of their "missing daughter", eventually finding three "bears" holding her hostage.

Lengths are mentioned for some the various pole-weapons. Cross-referencing the 3.5 PHB with the 1st Ed AD&D PHB and UA weapon tables:

Shortspear- generally about 5-6 ft in length, including the spear head (which may be 1-2 ft long and broad enough to use as a slashing weapon)

Longspear- generally about 7-12 ft in length, including the spear head (same as the shortspear); note that it's possible to use a longspear in one hand as a thrusting weapon (i.e., Greek Hopolites), with appropriate training (perhaps a feat)

Glaive- generally about 8 ft long; could be used as a piercing or slashing weapon, later versions (glave-guisarmes) added a hook to the back of the weapon head; change the damage to 2d4 and the damage type to piercing or slashing, with glaive-guisarmes costing 15 gp and can be used to trip; glaives can be used to simulate voulges and glaive-guisarmes can be used to simulate Lochaber axes and voulge-guisarmes

Guisarme- generally about 8 ft long; pretty much as presented in the 3.5 PHB; can be used to simulate similar weapons such as bill-hooks and fauchards

Halberd- generally about 5-6 ft long; longer...

Noticing a trend here - if it is longer than 6 feet in real life, it is a reach weapon (which makes sense, if you think about properly gripping a weapon, you need more than 5 feet extending from your lower arm to reach more than 5 feet (in this case 10ft). Pretty standard rules system.

Now, I don't disagree with Fake Healer in that sheathing/drawing the polearm (in a sling of some kind) should use the same rules for any other weapon. But having the polearm sheathed should interfere with movement given realistic restrictions - but for the most part can be avoided. After all, this is a game where people fire bows without penalty with 30 pounds of equipment in a backpack. In other words, if you are moving through a 5-foot -wide corridor, you guide the polearm to extend forwards rather than across your back. I would say guiding the weapon is a free action, and you need an arm free to do so - so in almost any situation, such a rule is irrelevant.

Heck, there may even be situations where it is beneficial to have the polearm interfere with movement. I can't think of the movie off-hand, but a character falls into a pit with a pole attached to them and is spared certain death as the pole is wider than the pit. Anyone else remember the movie/scene? Maybe it was one of the Ninja Turtles live action series?

But no squeezing into 5x5x5ft cubes with one - that is out of the question.

Adding on to the same thought process... Why don't you look into the Monster Manual and get the Multiattack feat.

Add that with Roundabout Kick in the complete Warrior (I think that's where it is). And improved crital on one of your limbs.

Tasty Damage!

Technically, unarmed strike counts as a light weapon, not a natural attack, and so Multiattack and Improved Natural Weapon do not improve it.

Jal Dorak wrote:

I think what people really mean is "scantily clad females conforming to the modern stereotype of beauty/hotness in submissive poses"

They can be in dominant poses too. It's the 21st century.

Yes, sexism today is much more subtle. :)

I think I have finally pinpointed the hesitancy I have to 4th Edition. I was initially curious, but slowly disenchanted as more information has been released.

As representatives of 4th Ed. have stated, they wanted to make the rules clean and effortless for the players. I think this is the problem.

When Gygax (RIP) and Arneson created what eventually became D&D they created a game to fulfill a role (ie. "let's simulate a medieval setting focused on combat, what rules do we need...what if magic is involved...what if someone does X or Y..."). The end result was a series of oddball rules designed to serve an open-ended purpose so that players could try to do anything and eventually live another life in another world (I liken this to codified rules to children's pretend games). I felt 3.X was an improvement on this. This is a design-down philosophy, in which the goal - anything is possible - is set first and then the method devised. The rules exist to keep everything fair and consistent, to manage expected outcomes and ensure everyone has fun regardless of their choices in game.

4th Edition seems (from the designers admission) to have been a design-up philosophy (make up good rules, then watch the outcome). Sure it might be the best game ever made, it might be balanced, fast and easy and never confuse anyone, and it might, just might, be really fun to play...

But if I want to play a well-planned game, I can play chess. In chess the rules come first, there is no extraneous result. This is why I feel 4th Ed. does not "feel" like D&D, because it was not planned as D&D, it was planned as a game.

Agree? Disagree?