I've always kinda wanted to run a epic game where the epic characters are litterally rebelling against destiny (presented as abstract entities and maruts) so they can try their own hand at making the world a happy place, rather than letting another 1000 years of unhappiness and suffering so that moral philosophy can develop to the point where the idea of rights for all come along and all that.
Significant numbers is just another way of saying, that you dont want to say your in the minority.
Here's a stat for you, 4th edition has the vast majority of current consumers (4th edition being the only 'Dnd' in print and pathfinder still being squished by the white elephant). I didn't even need any numbers for that, Go ahead and ask lisa or eric or any of them really, if suddenly they are big enough to go toe to toe with the wiz and im sure they'll set you straight. (I mean for the love of crap niche means a little piece or place of the whole thing, it wouldn't be a niche otherwise, niche's may be "significant" but they are always overshadowed by the majority of say the room or building they are in.
That's why personally I am really disappointed with Pathfinder. Here's paizo's chance to step on up, provide their great content for lots of new people in a fun new format. But no, They choose instead to take their bat and ball to their house, rather than play ball. Hey, whatever makes you happy really, still disappointed with you.
So yeah, go ahead and say all the hedging words you want (significant , a fair number, a lot of people, etc etc )And they are true but doesn't change the fact that wizards of the coast is still the elephant in the room, and I would think it would be downright self deceptive to think otherwise.
(and no i didn't mention the secondary market because like most things in this publishing catagory, the resales offer absolutely no value to the company who produced the original_
But by the same logic (we have to keep complaining to let others know that we are still complaining oddly enough) every reason for people who do like the new focus (a significant number you might say, if that makes a difference) to try to shut you down hard.
This isn't some kind of reasoned rational beneficence to all people that we get to deal with when it comes to differences in religion, politics, and taste of gravy, but rather an abashed fight to the death to keep our game right where we want it (we apparently won btw and we're not going to let the same old same old keep being trotted out against our fairly won gaming prize by the way, Why should we, How else (except by quashing the minority) will people know that we won and not be confused by the subversive tactics of 3.x non adapters).
I've been using wishlists since third edition, they work fine. Some people get their knickers in a knot over it, but really what do you want to find, the gardening sheers of plant bane +3 (it happened) or that kewl Scythe of awesomeness that compliments your character...
Some people are just made for Gardening Sheers, more power to them, I thrown my hat in the later group for quite some time now.
Presuming that your initial number was correct you should only have to times your number by the number of multiclass feats -1 because you can only take 1 multiclass feat (or chain of feats) and you can't multiclass into your own class.
So times 15.
That said if you want to worry about the chain of feats you can stop atwhat is it 4 different feat levels (novice power swap, adept power swap, and master power swap in addittion to the multiclass feat )in which case its more like 4 choices instead of one.
So times 60?
Did you account for multiclass paragon path substitute?
Also the bard is going to inflate it even more because they can take multible multiclass feats.
So that should be Add 15
(presuming you didn't already and just phb 1 and 2 at 16 classes total)
I am concerned that anything I do removes choices from the players, one of the cardinal DMing sins.
Not where I come from. I often find constraint builds creativity. That said I think your kinda talking about two diffrent things. You start talking about choices and at the end your talking about taking away an encounter power.
While I can kinda get at what you want, Why not just tell the players what you want, as apposed to trying to limit them into what you want. Removing options leads to players blindly fumbling about trying to do what you want, Leaving no options ensures the players do what you want. Its kinda the equivalent of in a video game where the screen says "Press X and O to perform special move and defeat the monster" and wont let you do anything but X and O.
As long as you are there to teach or give something to the Pcs (probably knowledge but sometimes more ) they shouldn't mind a little railroad. Otherwise they will f#+~ up your careful plan, presuming you have one. If you dont have one, why are you trying to make a certain outcome.
My verdict. Its not worth the effort of swaping and around and playing with the powers. Just lay down the law if you must. Otherwise let them at it.
You gotta love anecdotyl evidence...
What would you perfer that they made these chances that (some) existing players dont like (I speak from experience I know old hand forgotten realms peeps who really love the changes) without consulting the fanbase or that they made these changes (that (some) existing players dont like) after consulting the fanbase. (did a survey, had practical knowledge of their fans, etc, not necessarily kissing ass here at paizo or other 'grognard' hotspots if you will)
Either way you dont like the changes.... and I'm pretty sure you would still be complaining, so it seems the issue is more ' you dont like it' than 'they didn't consult the players those dasterdly smurfs'
If you can't see how a company may not want a cheap (and potentially popular) knock off of one of its trademark thingies floating arround I'm not sure you should be giving business advice to anyone.
As for surviving on its own (without in depth setting information) I'm of the opinion Hells Yeah. Quite Frankly whenever I bought setting splats for Eberron in 3.x I bought crunch as apposed to fluff books because I can use Crunch, those eggheads at wizards are good at math and me not so much. Setting? beyond the basic description of a setting, I could care less. All these almanacs and gazetters for various settings make my eyes gaze over in boredom just comprehending that someone sat arround and basically imagined all the imagining to do in a certain place in a certain setting.
I find the 4th Eberron Players and Campeign Guide in every way up to the standard of information in the 3rd edition guide and better in some places. I can easily imagine running years of eberron off these two books alone (just as I could the previous bits). Even if someone wanted to go back and dredge all those old setting info's , more or less the only one I would recommend is Sharn City of Towers, because the book is awesome (sue me its an exception).
I hope that is helpful to fellow readers.
I hope you player's have come up with a very convincing reason why various laws of physics and biology are contraveined repeatedly during more or less any power usage. (Warlord's Healing, Wizards doing more or less anything, etc,etc) Myself I hate a game of appease the semi benivolent GAME opps I mean REALITY MASTER.
But hey some people really enjoy tired and trite exercises in 'reality' as moderated by sometimes the most inane factors, Just look at reality TV.
Well, I surpose if you want to look at effect rather than fluff, you would get a more concise answer.
Will your pc's be able to target faceless?
If no , invisibility may be your best best
If yes, and you just want them to be unable to get information after the face then a contingent type modify memory would probably work (trigger you look at my face, effect modify memory, forget his face )or some such.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sorry bub, I somehow dont think that the glee of finding an easter egg is an excuse or an argument that gygax's bedside reading companion is foundational to the game.
If you guys can't see how circular this all is (lets not start the argument over whether appendix Z is foundational to dnd by presuming that appendix Z is foundational to dnd) I give up. The fact that you guys are arguing you have 'more' fun or that others need the foundations to still be playing dnd or playing it right or something like that. Well best of sodding luck to you all, Its pretty obvious you dont want a discussion here.
If 4th edition is so bad, you should start looking with a hard eye towards 3.x and Pathfinder.
I don't believe I mentioned an edition, all of my dnd games have been without the benefit of Appendix N, and that's in some Dnd Clones, 3.0, 3.5, and 4th.
You wanna tell me I haven't been playng dnd (or at least dnd "right") all along? Well I want to tell you something
Hey Wizards, Balrogs, Rangers, Hobbits, all that good stuff.
I'm not saying that Gygax didn't love himself some vance and other books, and that whole memorization thing is pretty much lifted whole cloth from the books (as is the idea of law vs chaos and various other bits ).
But Gandolf is to wizards as foundations are to houses, in a way that I really dont think any of Vances stuff is. Gygax's preferences while they certainly are there, I dont think makes it Dnd (as lots of people do quite well at the dnd thing without any knowledge of vance, in various editions)
When you say something is foundational it should be necessary to the game, if you can remove something and still have the object in question, something is not foundational to the object in question. It just seems like there are way too many games with absolutely NO ZIPPO NULL ZERO NONE experiance or background in the kind of fantasy that Gygax was prone to recommend/write to call it foundational in any sense.
You want to call it foundational to maybe, a gygaxian style game, or something along that line. You got an argument. I don't think its even really necessary to get that old school/tomb of horrors feel but hey we can talk. To say its necessary to the game itself however seems to ignore lots and lots of to the contrary. (and hey if you want to argue that foundational is not the same as necessary, go ahead, you may have a point, but I don't think they can be too far apart, or we are obviously not talking about the same foundational).
It seems to me that if Vance and all the other Appendix N references were so damn foundational, they wouldn't need to be defended. No one here is trying to kick tolkien out of gaming, and for some reason conan in its various forms still inform lots of peoples gaming.
So why isn't Vance et al, shining in the light of history, rather than being bawed about as being so 'formative' to dnd. That's right because they weren't that great or foundational to being with.
Acompanying Sturdy downstairs, Aglaeca slinks into the bar.
Ah, the Air of Oppression
keeping an eye open for anyone who may be paying particular attention to him , Aglaeca, chatting amicably with the barman, reveals The Kobolds... they did not go so well, I need this beer, I don't look forward to breaking this news to the lord....
Aglaeca gets a brew for him and sturdy, and proceeds to watch the room over its rim without drinking his, occasionally nodding absent-mindedly to his companion.
Aglaeca is looking for anyone who is
A> Not there
Hey Gm, I lost a big ol post with lots of rolls, so yeah, if you go looking for other perception checks, you may find them. There should only be one 'Perception Check after Loss' or some such
Why am I not allowed to expect the same courtesies I've been extending everyone else?
because your not playing anymore and this is a thread for players
Why am I the only one who feels like he's been struggling to keep everyone happy?
I dont know, and your not to kind to attempts to acertain why you feel a certain way.
Why am I being treated like the bad guy in all of this?
Your the guy who huffed and puffed and left rather than talk it out before hand.
Why should I be the only one to ignore anything negative that people want to say about me?
See the first comment about players vs not players in the players thread.
Why do I need to explain why I left the game?
You dont really, trust me, most of us really dont care.
Why does everybody think they know me so well because they've seen other people post in games before?
Probably because you ask leading questions about your internal mental states, see earlier.
Why am I still expecting that one of you is actually going to make an apology or even just a nice comment to send me on my way?
You want an apology? I'm sorry, I hope you do well in whereever your going.
And why are you asking me why am I still posting? Answer the first few questions and you might understand why.
There they are answered, and probably with less snark than you deserve.
I'm glad to see that someone else is multying leader, We're controller free but with practically two of everything else it shouldn't be an issue so much.
Still no Karn/Dran, I hope this foolishness with jacob is not scaring them away.
Right where all those other fighter builds have been for the most part.
A build is overpowered when it is no longer a question of whether you would play it or not.
I think its a good couple of changes, glad to see the definitive third attack on the fury of blows, and that dual strike got a rewording.
Jacob Lewis wrote:
I hope your friends appreciate your efforts in continuing to provoke me without even given them any consideration.
Hey Jacobs, last time I looked it took two to tango. Its great to say that your gonna keep lurking if we keep talking about you, but really
Why are you still posting?
well, if it will magically fix the problem, I can have my guy ride off into the sunset as easily as anyone else.
As for fixing the problem, A new player wouldn't be horrible but 5 people is not impossible. If we need to reassign roles more than get new people, and the group is tired of aglaeca, I can ride off into the sunset and reroll something less, I dont know, full of character grim darkness from grim darknia.
That said, Do we have 5, I only remember me , marcus, dran, and sturdy from the last little bit, but I know some people were out of town persay, so the gm would know better than I.
If you all were looking for an idea of what I would replace agglaeca with, I dunno. Maybe an apprentice Human Wizard of Valathun's who being sick of waiting for the elf to decide he is 'ready' to do the cool stuff, has decided to head out in search of adventure. I'm open to suggestions however if it comes to that.
I found the biggest thing that confused newbs the first time arround was the feats. Their's lots of them, even only at heroic, they are fiddly and not always well explained, but they have a lot of appeal, which leads to everyone wanting to read about them.
My suggestions, have a simplified heroic feat list for first level (say pick out 10 feats, and have them simply explained and lots of copies of them so people can all read them at once, rather than passing arround limited rpg manuals ,etc.)