Search Posts
Got the subscription for the last four, and it looks like my friend might be stepping down as GM sometime in May, so I've got a little bit of time to figure out how to juggle this, my DC Adventures game, and my Rogue Trader game . . . but I'm up for it!
Great. Another campaign to add to my list of campaigns I want to run. So on top of my ongoing DC Adventures game, and my Rogue Trader game, I've got to find time to run Fire Mountain Games Way of the Wicked, and now this one as well, on top of playing in the Pathfinder game that I'm in. Sigh. One of the things that really has me intrigued about this one is that the time jump with different characters in different eras facing an ongoing menace across time reminds me a lot of Eternal Darkness, the criminally under appreciated GameCube game.
There is a huge difference between weighing the potential consequences of your actions and acting with prudence, and assuming that everyone that disagrees with your point of view has some reason to be duplicitous. You can realize that giving out those numbers would be a bad idea without assuming that the person "would" do something bad with them. Because it is one possible interpretation, and because the consequences would be grave, it would be prudent not to take the action. It doesn't follow that the only reason you asked for them was to do something untoward.
For what it's worth (so as not to derail things too much): Spoiler: I liked the character much better when it was strongly implied in the Crystal Shard that he was, to begin with, a typical evil drow, and it was the fact that he had to be exiled for killing another drow to steal the panther that led to his isolation and eventual journey to the surface. The original book also implied that Drizzt wasn't young, but middle aged, meaning he could have wandered for decades before finding Mooshie and having his epiphany and thus becoming a ranger. Once he became a protagonist, cogent to the original point, it wasn't just that he had free will, it was that he seemed to be born good, just as the others were born bad. Heck, even the sister that was more "neutral" shared the same father, and almost seemed to imply that the "not evil" gene came from Zaknefein. The middle aged drow that has been around for centuries and turned good because of his exile and subsequent experience is obviously a more rare, and thus, more satisfying character. Once this was detailed in depth, with a younger Drizzt that was always idealistic, I think it cheapened the concept.
So we've got an interesting kettle of fish going on here. I've just started spending time here again, and this isn't quite the place it used to be. People come, people go, I get that. However, there is a lot of people on edge and ready to spring. When you have that going on, it puts other people on edge, and makes them ready to spring. It's contagious. I'm seeing a few things, and you all can tell me I'm full of it if you wish, because if I wasn't prepared for that, why am I on the internet, eh? I think there is one contingent on the boards that really takes the view that the Paizo staff are pretty much gaming celebrities. They have a tendency to defend everything they do, say, or create. That is certainly their right to do so. However, I think this grates some people the wrong way. The Paizo guys are great game designers, by and large they are nice, personable people, but at the same time, they are human. They make mistakes, and they do things that might require clarification or call for a reply. However, when the first contingent I mentioned see comments that question the Paizo staff, often times, they vociferously defend the staff, to the point of cutting the questioner to the quick. It is all to easy (and not right, I'll point out) to transfer frustration at someone unconditionally defending someone to the someone being defended. There is also another contingent on the boards that thinks the only way to appear to be objective is to be a blunt and borderline (or not so borderline) insulting to point out when something doesn't sit right with them. Unfortunately, said person from the above paragraph can pretty easily push someone that might be a fan, but not the first type of person I mentioned, into becoming the first type of unconditional defender, because they feel they have to balance out the blunt, rude, or otherwise insulting commentary. This then plays back into the frustration that some people have over people in the first category. For all of the graciousness that the staff shows in posting regularly on the forums and being accessible to fans that support them, there are some times when some of the staff have made comments that are dismissive or snarky to people asking questions or stating negative opinions. Oft times this is due to someone with a dissenting opinion crossing a line, and oft times, people defend the staff member by pointing out that rude behavior. The problem with this is that it sets a tone. Either you are saying that there is a double standard and the staff can be snarky and dismissive from time to time "if someone deserves it," or you accept that snarky and dismissive commentary is part of the overall tone of the boards. I'm not a fan of that option either. The staff is really good for interacting with the fans, and I think it benefits the fans and the company for this to continue. However, I don't think even being snarky and dismissive of an overzealous critic is a good thing. If nothing else, people are far more likely to read a staff member's response than what led to that response, and without context, you only have negativity. I will fully admit I have gotten upset at things other people have said. I've probably had a thinner skin than I should have at times. I hope that I have apologized any time that I have crossed a line, and if I have missed any time when I let my keyboard fly before I thought about the general thrust of my post, I apologize again now. I think we all need to remember that we are all human. I think we would all do well to avoid responding in kind to snark, even if that means sometimes someone gets an unanswered snark in on you. If we want to change the tone of the boards, we have to model the behavior, all of us, or else it just becomes a game of one up, where we look for an excuse for why our snarky, insulting commentary is okay but someone else's isn't. Don't assume the worst about anyone. If there is something in the rules that isn't clear to you, ask for a clarification, don't crucify the author or the editor. If someone does something differently than you, either ignore it or make the statement that you don't do things that way. Try to be passionate about what you like, what excites you, and be clear and factual about what you don't like. It's too easy to come across the wrong way on the internet, so smoothing out those agitated, rough edges in your comments might actually make a difference. . . . and I'm done! Good night everyone, make sure to tip your waiter.
All I can say is that it is kind of ironic that back in 3.x, where you didn't need two weapons, there was a lot of art with monks wielding two weapons, as opposed to Pathfinder, which apparently requires monks to have two weapons, and most of the monk art shows monks with but one. From the monk's point of view, and from the direction of complexity (i.e. having to figure out all of the various bonuses individually for your different weapons if you don't have identical weapons), I'm not a fan. From a purely flavor point of view, some weapons do look better "twinned." Others don't make much sense "twinned." Sai, butterfly swords, escrima sticks, etc. . . . yup, that looks cool.
I don't like to ascribe motives or to assume that someone is not being forthright when they say something. I have no problem believing that the original intent might have been for this to work as it has been clarified to work. However, it is also clear that even "official" sources were confused and not on board with the new interpretation, as it has been noted that the wording of various rules and the builds of various NPCs strongly seem to imply the less stringent interpretation. I don't think it does anyone any good to try and vote on if this was or wasn't original intent. All that does is contravene any good will in the situation and make discussions with the staff adversarial in tone. What I will say is that, again, it would be nice for people across the board, on both sides of the interpretation, and in official places, to recognize that the wording was problematic at least for a goodly number of people reading the rules, and to not assume that there is any deficiency of character or proficiency involved in the dissenting interpretation. Let's just get a very clear and comprehensive ruling that takes into account the archetypes and other rules elements that have come into the game since the core, and move on from there.
As to the initial question, no, I probably wouldn't be likely to want to be in the game as described. However, I'm wondering if this guy just pulled this idea out of thin air, or if he was playing back in 2nd edition. The original Ravenloft boxed set had a section in it that talked about running a horror campaign in the manner described (GM has the character sheet, makes all of the rolls, gives general descriptions of relative health). I was intrigued with the idea back then, but it didn't take me long to realize I didn't really want to attempt it. However, the original suggestion was for a horror campaign in 2nd edition, which is a specific kind of campaign for a different ruleset. Again, I don't know if this is where he got the idea, but it sounded awfully familiar.
I have come to realize something. I'm not going to advocate one way or the other. If the intent was to have monks using two weapons, that's great. I'll roll with that. I just have two requests: 1. When you clarify, make sure you clarify. Clear up how flurry works, clear up how the sohei and the zen archer work with new language that doesn't contribute to the confusion in the first place, and make sure you clear up magic fang and magic weapon and anything else that this brings up. Don't half fix the problem, and make sure the language is very clear. 2. Let's please get past the whole idea that because someone read something differently, they must be either deficient in their understanding of the rules or that they are somehow trying to cheat or pull of fast one of some kind. It's a complicated game, and it has some rough language in it in a lot of places to this day. One of the reasons I'm a big fan of revisions instead of new editions is that you can rewrite whole sections of the book to make them clearer without actually changing what the rule is suppose to do. I'd love to see a version of 3.x that years of revisions and clarified language than to have Pathfinder RPG 2nd Edition that has bold new rules that introduce a whole new set of misunderstandings and errata for years to come.
I'm not Gary, but I've got some thoughts. Spoiler:
If they actually revere Asmodeus, then having nightmarish dreams and such that seem to be sendings showing them that Asmodeus wants them to follow Thorn's plan might work.
If that doesn't work, having their own private meeting with a fiend, some minor one, that tells them "there will be a time to prove if you are worthy to lead, but for now, the plan is tantamount." That is, if you want to me more heavy handed, and for some groups, you may have to be. On the other hand, you could let them try to enact their plan, and have it blow up in their face (unexpected reinforcements show up, silver dragons circling nearby), and then have Thorn show up and explain that only together, with a plan, can they avoid set backs like this. Just some random thoughts. Gary's had some brilliant advice for all sorts of questions though, which just helps increase my faith in his ability to pull off this whole AP.
Oddly, my Rogue Trader group said the same thing last Thursday. Right after they talked an Ogryn into joining the crew . . . hm.
Thanks. My GM OCD kicked in when I read the comment about Branderscar being Castle Brand. I actually did most of this work way too late at night after I got home from running my Rogue Trader game when I had to work the next day . . . ;)
I think that this sheet should come with at least two free hero points from the APG, because at that pricetag, it's going to really hurt to have the character in this thing die . . . ;)
You know, it almost feels like AoO developed before the "feel" of what you can do with feats developed, but I could be wrong. What do I mean? It almost seems like "I want to be able to hit him if he tries to withdraw from me and fight anyone else" would be a great feat to give someone. However, it applies to everyone in the game. Not having many hit points and not wearing armor tends to be a good disincentive to casting in front of someone, but you could easily make a "Magekiller" feat that let to hit a caster, if they tried to do it, instead of making it the default. In this way, you have everyone being able to move where they wanted, so the movement in combat rules are simple . . . then you apply the specific rules.
I've said it before. Dwarves should be portrayed as much more LN than LG. And Dragon Age dwarven culture is a great "hard" LN dwarven model. Another thing . . . why do we see dwarves getting drunk? If they drink all of the time and have high constitutions, shouldn't the joke be that someone drinking dwarven alcohol gets knocked on their backside, while it hardly affects the dwarf at all? Getting drunk (not just drinking) seems to go against two other dwarven traits: 1. Greedy (i.e. cheap . . . enough drink to floor a dwarf would be expensive) 2. Dedicated to their work (i.e. if you addle your brains regularly, you can't plan for the next work day . . . ) I did like the romantic dwarven paladin in IDW's Dungeons and Dragons comic . . . the bit about his poetry being considered controversial was great.
Spurred on by some discussion about how I could "Golarionize" the adventure path, I've been playing with what I could piece together from the Talingarde timeline as well as merging it with Golarion's timeline. I've also been giving some thought to where to place Talingarde, and who to replace with what. My initial thoughts are to have Talingard a little further west from the Mordant Spire, and north west of Hermea. Since I'm not a geography master, especially as it relates to proper weather patterns and the like, I'm keeping things a little vague since I don't think the AP will call for more than a general idea of where the island is in relation to the rest of the world. I'm thinking of Aath-Aryn and Maath-Aryn as corrupted names of ancient Azlanti ruins. The Ireans would be Azlanti/Ulfen/Elven bloodline human tribes, with the half-elves that bred true being the more "civilized" clans that eventually had the main claim to nobility. Being a little closer to Arcadia, I'm thinking just knowing that some Erutaki having found their way to Talingarde isn't too much of a stretch in the setting, as well as the obvious Ulfen sailors and the like. I'm picturing the Irean loosing power when the Chelaxians came to settle the island. Aroden was the big primary faith, with Iomedae and Asmodeus also respected and worshiped. Originally I thought that Sarenrae, with her celestial nature and history of antagonism with Asmodeus, as well as being a sun goddess, would be the natural stand in for Mitra, but dogma-wise, Iomedae fits really well, and the more I started piecing the history together, it makes a lot more sense to substitute her, unless something changes later in the AP regarding Mitra's faith. Here is the timeline I pieced together: Spoiler:
2632 AR Elves return to Golarion, and some begin to explore lost elven ruins on the isles eventually known as Talingarde Elves intermingle with Ulfen and Azlanti refugees. This bloodline, especially with much of the elven heritage strained, becomes the Irean tribesmen that dominate many of the isles. Pockets of humans with stronger elven bloodlines become half-elven communities and are often seen as the nobility of various minor kingdoms or clans. 3832 AR Iomedae passes the Test of the Starstone and becomes a goddess. Her worship eventually rivals her master Aroden on Talingarde and surpasses the traditional worship of Asmodeus as the harsh enforcer of law. 4305 AR King Haliad III of Cheliax launches the Wars of Expansion to broaden the empire’s northern borders by claiming land in Molthune and Varisia. This struggle lasts more than a century and spans the reign of five Chelish monarchs, eventually becoming known as the Everwar. 4140 AR Chelaxian explorers claim Talingarde as an vassal state to Cheliax. With little support from Cheliax and a great deal of resistance from the native Iraen tribes, the nation is not stable for centuries. Many of the "noble" half-elven houses are brought into the Chelaxian fold. 4412 AR Accarius the IV conquers Casrhalla, founds Farholde 4512 AR Knights of the Alerion formed when a paladin of Iomedae is visited by Saint Lymirin, a priestess of Iomedae in life that now appears with the head and wings of an eagle. 4576 AR First Hellknight Order, the Order of the Rack, founded in Westcrown. 4606 AR Aroden dies, leaving the Empire of Cheliax without a divine mandate. Cheliax gradually slides toward civil war. 4608 AR Hellknights from Cheliax are granted Castle Brand to establish their native order of Hellknights, the Order of the Brand, to help maintain order in Talingarde. 4632 AR Wars of Succession in Talingarde, Markadian I becomes King of Talingarde, Order of the Brand wiped out 4634 AR Markadian I raids the Horn of Abbadon 4678 AR The Victor dies in Talingarde 4684 AR Markadian II is killed by his brother 4685 AR Markadian IV The Zealous, comes to power in Talingarde. Asmodean purges begin. 4696 AR Markadian IV dies, Markadian V comes to power 4712 AR Current Year Now this sets Talingarde up as historically having its upheavals around the time that places like Andoran and Galt were breaking away, which makes sense, even though Talingarde is more like Korvosa than those other nations, in that it was largely independent and only paid lip service to Cheliax.
First, I'm sorry I didn't clarify that I switched to my actual name just to avoid any kind of "internet anonymous trolling" conjecture, but I didn't make it clear that I'm actually the OP (KEJR). Second, I apologize for responding. I really just wanted to make the statement and move on, but I let myself get worked up and into back and forth statements. Third, thank you to Matthew Morris for mentioning Detective Chimp. I love him almost as much as Gorilla Grodd . . . ;) I'm going to go try to focus on some positive stuff for a while . . . hope everyone enjoys their weekend.
Believe as you will. It was in the Guide. Having a Venture-Lieutenant tell me that my friend deserved to have his character handicapped when he was following the rules and was willing to rebuild the animal companion if he could respec his stats, and then having him call me a liar by declaring what I posted in my initial post to be inaccurate is part of why I am so frustrated by this entire situation. Micheal and Mark, if you are still following, I respect the jobs you have to do. I know that it is tremendously difficult and that you won't please everyone. That having been said, seeing the tenor that people that have some kind of official standing in Organized Play, this doesn't help bring people in or retain them.
So I've got a slight conundrum. This won't be a problem for a while (which is potentially a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it). If and when I get to run this, I'm probably going to set this in Golarion. Easy enough, I just have to find a nice body of water to place the island nation, and I'm set. Now, the conundrum comes in this particular flavor. One of my players really wants to play a Hellknight. Now while I can figure out how to fit this into Golarion, specifically fitting a Hellknight into the campaign is harder for me to wrap my brain around. I'll go to spoiler mode just keep anything from sneaking into the conversation. Spoiler: I'm picturing that there might have been a Hellknight outpost before Asomodeus' religion was scoured from the island, and the Hellknight fortress was razed as well.
This would be a double incentive to reinstate Asmodeus' religion, but I'm having a hard time figuring out if a Hellknight would explore a new country and get caught committing a crime. Any thoughts on what might get a Hellknight in trouble?
Thanks Mikaze. Appreciate the kind words.
In the thread you are referring to, I don't think the VO was making any sort of slight against your friend or the situation. It seems like he was referencing how developers of the game we love can create clarifications that completely change how some of us play. I don't think there was any ill will in his posting, and this seems to be a bit of a hostile overreaction. Maybe, maybe not. There were inaccuracies in the statement and I felt the need to clarify. I'm not sure how explaining how the situation actually happened is hostile or an overreaction, since the events outlined are accurate.
Phil Athans was a novel line editor, and that was his primary job. He wrote a few novels, but he was mainly an editor. Every writer that has mentioned him, at least that I have seen, has had glowing things to say about the man. So yeah, I get people may not have liked some of the books he wrote himself, but if you don't actually know what job he was laid off of, perhaps its best not to kick a man when he's down.
Yeah, I'll be interested in seeing the final version of this, but I do worry a bit that we went from "hey, I'm a summoner, and my two tricks in combat are to buff my Eidolon and summon another monster," to "Hey, I can . . . buff my Eidolon . . . who needs an aid another? . . . anyone?"
I love incantations, and it was well written, but at the same time, I almost felt that there was some too specific information in some of the write ups that made me feel a bit more compelled to either adopt conceits into my campaign to work with the concepts or to work on how to "genericize" the more specific content. That and it does move a bit away from the original concept of "do something in ritual form to create something similar to an existing spell effect" to performing rituals that do stuff that don't map to existing spell effects exactly, which, while cool, makes it harder to judge how well something like this will fit the flavor of a campaign. I don't want to sound negative, because its actually really well written, and maybe if I was creating a campaign world from the ground up I'd use this as part of the groundwork, but I'm not sure I want to try and make it fit into my Golarion campaign, for example, and I would have felt the same way back in my days of running Forgotten Realms. |
