Mournblade94's page

Gorbacz wrote:

Between the way GSL is worded and the DDI, WotC made pretty sure that they will not repeat the "OGL mistake" - pulling a plug on 4E is as easy as terminating the GSL and switching DDI to the new edition - I'm pretty sure most folks will just give up and switch over if they can't any more use the 4E Character Builder.

That makes no sense. i play PF without a character builder. By your logic that menas I should give up and switch over to something else. Is the Character builder useful yes. Will it spell the end of 4E or any other rpg hardly.

You can do it that is for sure. However I imagine there are people that are quite integrated with DDI that if that went, they very well might switch systems. I do not think that number should be underestimated.

WOTC is in a bind here. Paizo changed the field now. They need to choose their next move very carefully or D&D will simply be a Hasbro brand. They cannot afford to lose the loyalty of their current 4e fan base.

Mournblade94 wrote:

All those things Mearls said in the article are things I said out of the starting gate after playing it for a few months. What bothers me about it, is if he thought there were all these design flaws why did they go ahead with the project?

That's basically what I'm saying as well. The problems with 4E (whatever one thinks they may be) are problems with 4E, not the RPG industry, not RPG gamers, not a fractured environment and so on.

What will be very interesting to me is, lets say WoTC releases 5E (or whatever they call it) in 2013, will a substantial number of players continue to play 4E anyway or will it just dry up? When 5E is released can anyone envision a "4th edition grognard" demographic being formed? I doubt it.

I want to call this in case WOTC does this stupid move...

If they pull the rug out from the 4e community and stop making 4e or something very close to it, D&D as a viable table top brand is OVER. If they leave current fans in the dust again to try to attain the old D&D market the table top brand for D&D is over. Hello board game and video games, made with the support from MtG Dollars.

If Paizo did not come along, WOTC would have no trouble recovering fans. I think the 800 pound Gorilla now has to fight the 650 pound pound gorilla who is still growing up.

I'm perfectly fine with them supportind other editions, always have been. It might bite them on the butt as I believe they just can't support multiple editions of their own game with new and updated support. But re-releasing older material in PDFs is a great way to boost sales.

I'm certainly not opposed to it. I just don't think at this point it can be pulled off well. If Pathfinder was never developed, it certainly could have. I know of a few people that would love to have 3.5 back over pathfinder, but I think a majority of those folks were converted. Remaking third edition right now would bust them.

The OSRIC market does not seem to be huge. I am not sure how many people would convert BACK to an old style game. if there is any truth to modern rules truly being up to date, than this is a tough job to pull off.

I am envisioning WOTC releasing some sort of Tinker toy set that lets you make your own D&D. I am not sure how this would work. DDI is a money maker for them. DDI would need a serious overhaul, because if I was going to play my tinker toy 2nd edition + 3rd edition, well I want that to be supported. I want to use DDI with it, and I want supporting supplements. I am taking part a from 2nd edition, part b from 3rd and I want it all with the ease of 4e. Is that going to happen? then have it be supported without fracturing their product line? If I could figure that little grail out I will be a millionaire. So far I have no advice to sell to WOTC, because it seems like a long shot that is hard.

As a TSR fan that left WOTC at 4e, if they improve the 3rd edition game I love, it has to be STRIDES better than Pathfinder for me to convert. A remake of 2nd and old school mixed with 4e? Maybe.

Others may find these rules perfectly fine, and that's great. I cope with them because I like RPGs and I just hide my contemp as best I can when I come across it. But if this is how it's going to be, with having to go through 150 loops just so I can play a were-bear berserker that mechanically stinks because the rules don't play into that concept is NOT a D&D I want to play. It's just another side of the coin.

I understand the sentiment loud and clear. This is the place where 3.5 fans found themselves when 4e was released. Before there was Paizo, the refrain that 3rd edition fans heard was "nobody is stealing your books," "or you can still play 3rd edition forever." things along that line. Before Paizo came along and recreated 3rd edition, 3rd edition fans looked like they were going to be in the dust. There were alot of 4vengers very happy with that.

All those things Mearls said in the article are things I said out of the starting gate after playing it for a few months. What bothers me about it, is if he thought there were all these design flaws why did they go ahead with the project? WOTC quite literally left fans in the dust. They might do that with their old 4e fans as well.

I have said before there is nothing in 4e that I thought improved the game other than the DDI, which is system independent. Yet I feel no excitement about WOTC giving older fans what they want. I have Pathfinder now, I don't need then to release the 3rd edition mechanics again. I wouldn't bother playing it.

I would be interested in revisiting the AD&D style. I could trade off playing Pathfinder with AD&D. With that said I think WOTC should cater to the people that support them. They made a terrible mistake with 4e and lost a good share of the market. Still the people that 4e fits will want that game and WOTC should support it. Reverting back will fix nothing.

The only thing Wotc has over Paizo is MAgic the Gathering and rights to a D&D brand. These days the D&D brand isn't all its cracked up to be.

@Mournblade94: It is good to see you moderating your language. You had originally claimed that leo1925: "you do not GM games". Now you are saying it is more "probably do not GM games." That is certainly better, though I personally would avoid deciding who is likely and not likely to be a GM based on whether they agreed with me or not (a good GM or poor one on the other hand ...).

As for the post he was replying to. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but the poster in my view was trying to put the "Rule 0" stamp on every little thing a GM decided on. This comment especially stood out to me.

karkon wrote:

Why does an enemy wizard use haste instead of fireball? Rule 0.

If you want dilute the definition of Rule 0 to that point, then Rule 0 is meaningless.

Did the GM decide to wipe after going to the bathroom? Rule 0!
I found the post ridiculous, others obvious found it meaningful.

Fair Enough.

Mournblade94 wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

@karkon

This is.... this is..... stupid.... to say the least......

Karkon's post is actually the essence of GMing. I know nothing about you, but to reply this to that post indicates you do not GM games.

Perhaps I am misreading.

No True Scotsman?

Actually the fallacy is misused there. It does not apply. See a post above from another member where it was indicated the 'fallacy' remark is thrown around here more than in philosophy class. it seems to be a flavor people like around here.

Karkon gave a list of situations. Another poster replies that the situations are not encountered/don't happen/other rules can handle or something.

It seems that if as a GM you have not encountered those situations you have not GM'd many games.

The fallacy applies no more than it would to saying "someone that has never encountered a traffic light probably does not drive."

@karkon

This is.... this is..... stupid.... to say the least......

Karkon's post is actually the essence of GMing. I know nothing about you, but to reply this to that post indicates you do not GM games.

Perhaps I am misreading.

RunebladeX wrote:

my lawn my rules...

No, it's not your lawn. The GM doesn't own the game and graciously allow the players to participate. It's everyone's game.

No. I own the books, the games take place at my house, you want me to GM it is my lawn. I'll be fair, but the players refer to the game I run as 'your game.'

None of this means I am not fair. Most important thing is players and GM have fun. If they cannot have fun the way I WANT to GM, guess who is out a GM? They are welcome to run the game THEY own however they want. The game I run however is MY GAME through and through.

RonarsCorruption wrote:

So in this specific case, and for all of those people in the future with similar items; Scintillating Vampire's Sword, or Sword of the Scintillating Vampire?

In this case, sword of the scintillating vampire is more clear than scintillating vampire's sword, which doesn't indicate which (the vampire or the sword) is scintillating, so I'd go with the former option.

In general, I would just pick whichever sounds better or is more clear!

Well is a 1 eyed 1 horned flying purple people eater a 1 eyed 1 horned flying purple monster that eats people, or is it a 1 eyed 1 horned flying monster that eats purple people?

Having had the teasing about an amour bonus (when trying to correct my spelling of 'armour' to American spelling) and not realizing it's not spelled Beastiary. (Though now in my mind I pronounce it best-ee-air-ee) I'm just going to +1 Neil's post.

Part of writing professionally (says the guy who doesn't) is conforming to the style of your employer. Just as Paizo doesn't want antipaladins wearing armor made of living babies for thematic reasons, they don't want extra 'u's in their armor, or color.

If it helps, think that Wonder Woman's wondrous costume is filled with wonderful cleavage. ;-)

I was under the impression that Paizo did not want antipaladins wearing armor made of babies because it is really impractical, would be uncomfortable, and whiny. It also would not protect the antipaladin well.

:)

Read the whole spell.

From the paragraph directly above the one that you quoted:

PRD says wrote:

An undead creature caught within the globe takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 25d6), or half damage if a Reflex save if successful. In addition, the burst results in the destruction of any undead creature specifically harmed by bright light if it fails its save.

The spell itself affects ALL undead creatures in manner different than other creatures--and those undead susceptible to daylight are subject to an instant destruction effect. For the purposes of this spell treat fungi, molds, slimes, and oozes as if they were undead creatures.

Master Arminas

Ah right! Thanks! I latched on to one thing.

So I guess that undead are not vulnerable to sunlight in general. I always took for granted that they were.

I asked in a previous thread if sunlight effects undead in general. Are undead relegated to only night or dark encounters? The consensus on that thread was that sunlight will not automatically kill undead.

But then I was reading this under the SUNBURST spell description:

The ultraviolet light generated by the spell deals damage to fungi, mold, oozes, and slimes just as if they were undead creatures.

Ok so now I am thinking my initial thought that Sunlight will damage undead is indeed true. Is this codified somewhere? Or is it not even a written rule.

I am having trouble tracking this simple thing down.

many thanks!

Apart from the Drizzt books, which I read maybe ten to fifteen years ago when I didn't have a game, I generally read what FR books I did read to gen up on canon, as I came fairly late to FR in 3e. It was often a bit of a painful experience. Of course, I haven't read anything like nearly all of them, so there may well be many good ones out there. But I didn't really find them. Salavatore's first offerings were pretty bad, but he got better as he went along.

I had the fortune of discovering these novels in high school before I learned all about criticism. The early salvatore novels I read then seemed great, and it is only after re-reading them I realized they were not the strongest in regards to literary merit.

I read alot of fantasy, and back in the 90's one could detect a difference in a writer like David Eddings, and a shared world game novel. I enjoyed THE HELL out of the shared world game books, but they were not in any way sophisticated reading.

To be honest, they could smoke the entire lot of them and I wouldn't be terribly bothered. Miss the Bouldershoulder Brothers? Like a case of herpes. I used to get a fix of D&D through reading Salvatore, and have a bit of a soft spot for Drizzt. But what I want as a DM will differ to what I look for in a campaign world I might consider playing in. And the novels themselves were cheap knock-off cash-ins, not works of great literary merit, produced by exactly the same corporation and for the same base commercial reasons.

Well I loved the novels, but it is hard to disagree that they were not, well literary merit. I have to say the exception seems to be Salvatore and Elaine Cunningham. Salvatore was a great story teller like Ed Greenwood, and Elaine Cunningham I think is a writer with strong merits. I LEARNED real world things from reading her novels. The rest though I read to 'see what was going on.'

I will say that 4e is modern, not because of math but because of the direction and philosophy of the game as a whole.

Clarify please. Do you think 4e is modern because of the DDI? What about the philosophy makes it modern compared to older design philosophies? Again is this the digital philosophy or something inherent in the system?

In my opinion the worst thing that has happened to the "Role-Playing Game" is the attempt to define "roles" for character's based upon class.

This whole, Cleric-Leader, Fighter-Tank, Rouge-Striker, is simple pigeon holing, and nothing more.

The fighter, when I started playing, was the class you chose when you wanted to rely on strength, how you played the character, what role he fulfilled, was what happened when you played the game. I remember one player who played a cowardly fighter, and the sort of guy who could win a fight, but always tried to talk his way out of one instead. What role is that, exactly?

These games are at their most playable when players are given tools to create a character in the vision of thier imagination, and pretend, play, at trying to make that character into a hero. Doing what ever you want to try to do, being whatever you want to try to be.

The most current versions of these games, both 4e and Pathfinder, in my opinion, emulate, to a degree, the video game experience in this way. You start the game as a predefined Hero "Type" and aftet that it's just munchkin (kill the monster, take its loot, wash rinse repeat).

Now I have seen some very interesting Pathfinder story lines, in a few of their adventures, and 4e does have an occasionally interesting setting, but it is still my opinion that the game, as it is played now, assumes that the players are creating Pre-defined Hero types, not just characters destined to become heroes.

I suppose I have a sort of built in prejudice because so many of the games I played thirty years ago, started with players who had no idea how their characters were going to turn out, at even fifth level.

Things are much more codified now. The treasure has now become an expectation instead of a reward. Monster design accounts for gear now, but I do not like that philosophy even within pathfinder.

In AD&D you just new when gear was over powered, when it should be doled out, when it should not be doled out. Running pathfinder for pickups i have come to realize that there is an expectation of receiving gear. I am not the gear friendly DM. I allow magic shops but don't just place the item the character wants.

I think this, like roles, is largely the influence of the video game mentality which is often the gateway to Table Top Games. The psychology of RPG players is changing, and it is being shaped by the easily accessable video games.

superfly2000 wrote:

I don't know why when most hear the word "MMO" they instantly think about a stereotype full-out MMO.

As far as Scott is concerned, if it doesn't look, feel and play to the specifications of the typical MMORPG gamer (brain damaged frog), it is an inferior product. In business terms he has a point and we can give him a gold star, but it is still dictating a brain dead product. Such a discussion as to how to try make your themepark less brain dead is a debate for the MMORPG.com forums.

Guild Wars is a living example of a game in which an MMORPG game was played in small parties. Cities would act as quest hubs/player hubs and parties would be created and venture out into the instanced world.

NwN is a living example of D&D rules integrated into a game which flawlessly produces an enjoyable TTRPG adaptation in a small scale MMORPG-esque persistent world. Paired with the system of Guild Wars, I fail to see how you have not brought Pathfinder to the MMORPG platform in it's majority.

There is such a wealth of possible ways in which an MMORPG could be designed and played that the idea that anything must be reproduced from a single title is insane. We're literally at a junction in this industry where gaming companies dare go as far as adding voice acting and story driven quests whilst leaving every single feature intact else untouched.

The debate should be regarding how we go from the OGL to the MMORPG, not from the MMORPG to the OGL. Such a movement would not be 'a terrible idea'.

I am not a programmer, but I imagine the PF rules would be too limited for the scope of the MMO. Bioware advised Green Ronin NOT to use the computer conflict resolution system, so they came up with AGE. Many feel that Dragon Age should have mimicked the video game, but Bioware themselves said the conflict resolution would translate miserably.

You cannot play Dragon Age the video game, and go into Dragon Age the (AGE) system and know anything about playing it other than fluff if you are using Bioware's world.

Digitalelf wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

There is no going back to the way things used to be done.

That's not really true in a blanket sense. All things, especially what is deemed "popular" cycles continuously...

Fashions from the 1960's and 70's has been back in style for quite some time. Music from the 80's is also quite popular (especially with the younger generation)...

And while not as popular as Pathfinder or 4th edition, the various retro-clones are hugely popular, with many gamers going so far as to pull their old editions of D&D out of moth-balls or going so far as to spend the time (and money) to hunt down copies of the game on site like eBay...

My point is, you can't paint that in such a broad stroke...

Yes, there are fads.

Yes, there are temporary influences.

Yes, there are holdouts.

No, those things will not define what tabletop gaming twenty years from now looks like, on the whole.

I can paint with a broad brush because I am speaking broadly.

I think what he might be trying to say, is 4e was not innovative enough and did not change gameplay enough in the positive direction to make everyone switch over. I think the ressistance to 4e is much more than a holdout. It is half the people of a niche market do not want to go in the direction of the 'new shiny.' That is not a defining direction. It will influence yes, but probably ONLY on how, as you say, it addresses the digital gaming group. That will be the improvement 4e brings, and a valuable one at that. It will not however be its alternate rules system, any more than White Wolf help redefined TTG on mass.

I have to say that most of my problems with 4th edition are purely from a fluff perspective. I absolutely adored reading Realmslore and Forgotten Realms fiction, R.A. Salvatore, Ed Greenwood and the like; however in the last three years I have seen all of these characters, some with twenty plus years of character building, torn down. These characters were more than written fiction to me, they were friends during difficult times in my life, the people (or Drow) that I got to live vicariously through when I was bored, the reassurance that their really was justice in the world and that everything would turn out for the best if I believed and tried hard enough. Maybe it's crazy for me to hold these characters in such high regard, but they sure as hell deserved better than getting greased because a company decided to try a new marketing focus. All I know is many of my friends on Faerun are now dead to the world of literature, and no true resurrection spell that I or any of my characters ever knew can ever truly bring them back. Just my two copper pieces though.

Your really not crazy. There are lots of studies of fictional characters providing the role of supporter to people in troubled times. When MASH ended, there was an influx of people angry at the show ending. They were considered 'friends'. Studies funny enough from what I have read have focused on Soap Operas.

I'm with you. I was not happy with 4e, but I was willing to adapt, until they made the new 4e campaign world which resembled the good realms in name only. Intellectual laziness won the Realms debate.

Scott Betts wrote:

There is no going back to the way things used to be done.

That's not really true in a blanket sense. All things, especially what is deemed "popular" cycles continuously...

Fashions from the 1960's and 70's has been back in style for quite some time. Music from the 80's is also quite popular (especially with the younger generation)...

And while not as popular as Pathfinder or 4th edition, the various retro-clones are hugely popular, with many gamers going so far as to pull their old editions of D&D out of moth-balls or going so far as to spend the time (and money) to hunt down copies of the game on site like eBay...

My point is, you can't paint that in such a broad stroke...

Well said. I agree!

A few things about 4E could be considered "Modernized" such as Digital information in the form of DDI. Adding to that is the Character Builder, Monster Tools, and Adventure Tools that come along with it, as well as the Compendium. Later, unsure when however, we should be getting a 3D platform which could provide play from your home with the usage of say....Skype. Whether or not people like these aspects of the game is the matter for another debate, but it's hard to deny the merits of 4E's progress to fit into our social-ways of communicating.

From the actual mechanics side of the game, there are a lot of other aspects that 4E revolutionized. The first would be class's roles. While it's easily seen in previous editions what classes "jobs" were, it was still a bit of an "Up-in-the-Air" question depending on what class you were playing. If you were a Ranger, what exactly was your role? Did you fight extreamly well? No, not really. Were you a scout? Sure, up until 4th level where the Sorcerer can cast Invisibility X amount of times per day. You couldn't find/disable traps and tracking/foraging can be done by practically anyone. So, by that example, it's hard to understand what that character is going to do for the group besides being an extra body.

Then you have the shift of Monster design, placing tags such as Minion, Elite, Solo, etc.. which helps DMs create encounters that fit their idea of how a battle will work. Solo monsters are designed to take on multiple foes, something that only a few monsters in previous editions could accomplish. Minions were designed to give PCs the idea of mobs of foes attacking them. More so it highlights certain classes better than others. A Wizard that goes up...

I would have to agree that the PRESENTATION of 4e with character builder, DDI, and such is certainly modern. Yet if that was included with any game out there including AD&D we could say the presentation and thus the game is modern.

At least when I think of a design as modern, I think of the improvements and betterment. Like better fuel consumption or better aerodynamics. New ways of designing houses to aid in energy efficiency and consumption. Better recoil systems and material that makes weapons lighter.

In video gaing there is a definite improvement over Intellivison Utopia to Civilization V. Or the Final fantasy series. in video games the Benefit of the modern video game vs. the original is apparent. Operations happen faster, graphics are better. I have met few people that like load screens. Faster loading times is a modern improvement, it is quantifiable. There is nothing in 4e that is a quantifiable improvement. It is just another way of doing things. In RPG's a 'modern RPG' is just another system that some people like.

Education is a good model to compare to RPG design. It has to adapt to technology, but is society really educating better than it was 30 years ago. The jury is still out on that.

4e is a different system that does some things better for other people. If it was REALLY innovative it would have improved the game for the majority. It failed to do that. Yet if the DDI was available for all RPGs THAT would be a marked improvement on gameplay, which is independent from the rules.

You can make a case for the monster labeling and character roles I suppose. That is where I have said many times the designers wrote 4e with video game sensibilities in mind. The roles mirror the roles common in CoH or WoW pretty well, but I am not sure how that has IMPROVED tabletop games in mass. it makes 4e nice for those that like it, but if it was an improvement, the market would not have fought back. Those things I suppose improve video gameplay, or help players strategize, and give developers more quantifiable variables. Perhaps 4e can be called modern because it was designed with the sensibilities that video game designers invented. I do not see this as an improvement which makes 4e any better to play over an older game.

The thing is, If I want old school, crying for mommy at the site of kobolds, with my 3 hit points and crappy ac, hiding in a closet and desperately trying to get a stick to get out of a hellish warzone of a dungeon then I have those games. They were made 30 years ago and have more grit and pulp fiction feel than any modern game could want. Hell the million retroclones are mostly free and "fix" all of the mechanical problems (I say fix, because some see them as features rather than bugs, as always YMMV) I want modern games to do modern things. If I want gritty crazy I have it. There's no need to innovate it, it was done before I was born. I want new modern ways to game, and that is what I want guys like Monte Cook and the proffessionals to do for me. I want to step into the future of gaming rather than back, since I already have seen that and can find it easily.

I have trouble recognizing how 4e is more modern. The future of gaming and modern gaming is the video game. I see nothing more 'improved' about 4e over any game before it.

Calling 4e a modern game is a misnomer. It was developed AFTER 3rd edition, that is about it.

What you like as minions not possibly being able to hurt a PC, is one of the aspects about 4e that drove me away. That was no innovation, it was just a 'new thing'.

Oh, and another assumption of the old game was having a cleric. If that's the "short straw" option for some people, maybe they didn't have enough imagination, or enough team spirit, for the old game. Because, you know, having a cleric solves the "hiding in the closet" think pretty quickly.

Its also a common Grognard thought that being a cleric can actually be fun. SOME people actually choose to play clerics. You would never know that with the rhetoric of the new wave that claims only Druid and Wizard players ever had any fun.

Mournblade94 wrote:

Long and detailed response...

Where I used the word "you" I meant "hypothetical person who might use or interpret such terms" not "you" as in "Mournblade94". In fact, I specifically adjusted the last paragraph to avoid such confusion. It seems I should have gone back and fixed the rest, as well. The whole spoilered scenario referred to a hypothetical situation that represents what, in my opinion, commonly occurs in edition war threads.

Apparently, there are times that a writer clumsily composes an idea...

Very much fair enough, and I apologize for any misunderstanding.

True, but the statements are very different. The claims about killing goblins are simple and utilize fairly universal terms that everyone can understand and agree upon.

However, the first statement tries to use simple, ambiguous terms to express a very complex concept. It's lazy communication. "Real D&D" is not a universal or well-defined term. In fact, it likely has a different meaning for each of us.

That is self evident.

which to you means: D&D is defined as a table top RPG which uses a class system in which the classes offer not only different abilities and problem solving options, but also cater to different play styles.

Correct.

The fighter classes, for example, offer mostly physical, direct, often violent means of overcoming obstacles and those options remain fairly constant at all levels. The fighter classes are also very simple to play and require little or no resource management. The magic using classes, on the other hand, offer a variety of problem solving options in that magic is the ultimate toolbox, and the mage’s range of options continually expand as the game progresses until a point wherein the magic user becomes nearly unstoppable.

Incorrect. That is not what real D&D means to me (Since you are drawing on assumptions.) I never played in a D&D game where this was true. So if the new edition of D&D fixed this, it was not a problem I felt needed to be fixed.

Magic users require strict and meticulous resource management in order to perform effectively.

Very Much correct. two out of three isn't bad.

Fourth edition breaks from this paradigm by structuring every class the same. All classes receive powers with the same basic structure, i.e., roll to attack – upon a successful hit deal a base amount of damage – add an additional effect appropriate to the class such as healing, additional damage, battlefield management, etc. Also, all classes are balanced effectively and are at roughly the same power level over the course of a campaign. As such, the fourth edition structure represents a different and undesirable system, and I prefer the previous paradigm.

Correct. So 75% really isn't bad judging me by one simple statement.

The reader applies their own definition of “real D&D” as they interpret that statement...

Correct.

D&D is defined as a class-based medieval fantasy tabletop RPG that provides a means to generate shared stories and adventures revolving around exploration, fantasy combat, fantastic locales, political intrigue, dungeon crawling, good vs. evil and the grey area between, a monstrous ecology combined with a dark ages style earth-like society, etc.

incorrect. The equiptment section includes technologies of the late middle ages known as the High middle ages. The above statement defines the purpose of D&D quite well. So good job!

It appears you included the following clause in error. It did not seem to fit with the paragraph in which with only minor errors you well defined the purpose of D&D. It reads as follows:

Therefore, this person is simply adverse to any change, stubborn, whiny, unable or unwilling to adapt, hates any kind of progress whether for good or ill, is probably a power-gamer that’s pissed about losing access to all of their broken combos and builds, and is simply bitter and in denial about the real reason they dislike the new edition. Or is a troll.

There is no evidence for the above. You did an adequate job at judging what I felt was real D&D up to 75% accuracy. Yet this last segment quite easily fails under scrutiny. Perhaps the person is adverse to change in the way D&D plays. That hardly makes them adverse to ANY kind of change, that is rather harsh.

If they were stubborn that would imply they were UNREASONABLY willing to change to the rules. Resistance to a paradigm shift in design is completely reasonable.

Whiny is completely subjective, and perhaps you are misrepresenting the significant protest to the paradigm shift. Wizards of the coast is not perceiving the protest as whining as was evident from Mr. Mearls Gencon panel and his current ruminations.

You are correct in that many people were unwilling to adapt though they were completely able to do so. There is however no reason to adapt to a product that one does not like. It is much better to stick with the one they like. Much to WOTC's dismay I fear.

I am interested in learning of people that are uninterested in progress. If the new D&D rules were progress I would be very interested in them. They did not however improve the game they just made it different. That is an important distinction. I believe with Pathfinder slowly becoming the world's most popular fantasy RPG that to label the new edition of D&D as progress is a misnomer.

It is funny you note power gamers. The power gamers of my group insist I switch to the new D&D. A power gamer can find a a so called broken combination with any system. In fact when designing rules for the Larp organization I am in, I let the power gamer loose on the rules to see just how they could be exploited.

True though many players are bitter that WOTC catered to one narrow vision of play style. It appears they learned from their mistake judging from the Legend Lore articles.

Well the OP was certainly a troll so this is yet another area upon which we can agree.

It’s not the reader’s fault that statement is likely to be misinterpreted. The writer ought to know better. If a writer is too lazy to say what they mean or too inept to say it effectively, they shouldn't blame the reader when they get their head bit off.

Statements could be misinterpreted. That is true. There are times that a writer clumsily composes an idea. However, if a reader cannot read a statement and recognize it as opinion or fact, that is a problem with the reader.

Again, in this thread, I find the comments like that to be the hypocritical ones.

They aren't making a Pathfinder RPG MMO.

It isn't a serious comparison as D&D-online uses 3.5 ruleset and not 4E's ruleset. The two only share the name D&D, and....well that's pretty much it rules wise.

I'm glad to hear that it's focusing more on other regions of Golarion. I mention Sandpoint because it feels as if every Adventure Path starts there. Sorta repetitive IMO. As for my statement having truth, you don't find it funny that a certain amount of people call 4E an "MMO-game that uses paper" yet when the system they prefer goes out and makes an MMO based off their own system/setting a tad hypocritical? I mean, just a tad?

This doesn't mean that Pathfinder is an MMO (I'm not saying that) but I find it funny that 4E was (so people say) infused with a lot of MMO properties yet there hasn't been a style of game designed with that edition rules. Yet Pathfinder, OTOH, does have a...

One cannot be hypocritical because a third party does something they would not do.

If I buy a car from a manufacturer who only has plants in the US, and I say I will not buy cars from car manuafacturers that produce cars in Japan, I am not a hypocrite because the company decided to move ot Japan AFTER I bought mine.

Anyway, the PF MMO has tough competition out there. I would say without KOTOR they could have a chance. The game needs to have some strong draw to get people to subscribe loyally.

If they release it for XBOX I'll try it, otherwise I can leave it.

I never liked hearing the 4E was an MMO comments either. While it's true that I'm not being fair comparing the PF online to the same thing well none of the 4E detractors were fair to my rpg either. From now on if someone says 4E is like an MMO now I can say that Pathfindr has one too.

While I admit it is hypocritical of me for doing so nothing stopped the anti-4E faction from using any excuse to stir up some anti-4E in any thread on any subject. It got to the point where I had to include a no anti-4e clause in some of my threads. Still it is being unfair. That being said I already see people who like PF complaining that it's not going to be like the tabletop game and I would not be surprised to see PF supports complain that the now made PF an mmo.

Congratulations on being able to say that PF has an MMO! I for one am glad they went ahead with the step. It will make the Pathfinder brand all the more prominent. That is why I am happy about it.

The claim isn't usually that WoTC made a computer game based on 4E (as Paizo are trying to do with PF). It was that MMO design impacted heavily on the 4E rules development. The new announcement isn't really analogous, IMO.

Let's be honest, the claim is that 4e is BAD and you know what else is bad VIDEO GAMES they're for people without imaginations (SOUND FAMILIAR 4e FANS?) so 4e is just a VIDEO GAME.

Not true.

I love video games. Skyrim has broken up my Roleplaying group for a few weeks.

I just happen to dislike 4e. I like video games MUCH more.

With PF online the 4E detracters can no longer point to 4e and go "they turned 4E into an MMO" when it's closest competitor has done the same. Kind of hypocritical imo.

It would be hypocritical to say that NOW. You can not bee hypocritical retroactively.

I like the Golarion gods. But I think they are sometimes too broad. That said however I added deities to the pantheon of primary gods.

I like Mielikki, so I brought her in with the same portfolio she had in FR. Patron goddess of Rangers, and goddess of Forests and dryads. I play Gozreh as more of the WEATHER and WATER god.

I added Sharess and made Calistria the goddess of vengeance. Thor, Odin, and Loki are all gods of the Ulfen (Gee why?).

Finally I took natural beasts away from Yeenoghu. Oh right that's Lamashtu.

I am not sure if I want to bash Lamashtu back into 'just' demonlord realm, and have another god steal her portfolio.

I also kept the standard race gods. Corellon is the god of the elves, Moradin IS Torag, but Torag is worshipped by humans instead of dwarves.

Garl Glittergold is there too:)

Desna did a one-deity crusade into the Abyss to kill a demon lord just because said demon lord picked on one of her worshipers. She's a lot more than meditative and dreamy.

Can someone point me to where I could read this. That is pretty awesome.

This classic monster's revisited thing looks great! I'm def. going to check that out, and poke around for some simliar stuff. Thank you! :D

I can also def. recommend the 2nd Edition Monstrous compendium for some great background info/lore on about 80% of the monsters in pathfinder.

I love the classic Monsters series. All of them. Even Misfit monsters. Pretty much all of my Pathfinder lore defaults to AD&D either 1st or 2nd edition. I love the reinvention of Pathfinder monsters crunch wise but I pretty much keep the second edition fluff.

However I have read the relevant monsters in BEstiary 1 and compared them to the AD&D 1st Monster Manual, and Pathfinder does actually maintain alot of that fluff.

These numbers are incredibly close together in terms of salary. Someone working an upper-class trade would be *orders of magnitude* wealthier than a porter--no matter how good the porter is.

Just to enter some reality into it.. if a porter was THAT good, he very well may be the head of the ABSALOM PORTER UNION. He is the union boss, and so yes, he makes more than the upper class merchant.

Its quite possible that the American Leader of the Teamsters is nothing but a porter. He makes approximately $370,000 a year. Plus what he makes as a porter.

I see what you are trying to do, if the Lawyer and Porter BOTH have the same wisdom, and same level + bonuses they will BOTH make the same salary.

If their wisdom grants +0 I would say the Lawyer makes as much as a porter because he is just not that good. If they are both +4 I would say the Porter has learned some tricks, networking and such to earn as much as the lawyer.

Look a little farther into what that and the base value mean:

Quote:

Base Value and Purchase Limit: This section lists the community's base value for available magic items in gp. There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort. If an item is not available, a new check to determine if the item has become available can be made in 1 week. A settlement's purchase limit is the most money a shop in the settlement can spend to purchase any single item from the PCs. If the PCs wish to sell an item worth more than a settlement's purchase limit, they'll either need to settle for a lower price, travel to A larger city, or (with the GM's permission) search for a specific buyer in the city with deeper pockets. A settlement's type sets its purchase limit.

So this means that the most than anyone in town will have to buy from the PC's is going to be 2,500gp. They might buy a ring of protection +1 but they aren't going to buy a +2 armor for any more than 2,500gp.

The base value actually makes sense for this village too -- the most they are likely to have is some scrolls from the Butler's wife and potions from the priest.

I'm going to try bringing the NPC wealth by level into this to help show how the maximum value would be reached.

In fact doing so might prove that I was in error reducing the Mayor's level. At level 7 he's still the 'richest' (in equipment) person in town, with 4,650gp worth of personal equipment. If he was level 10 he would have 10,000gp worth of stuff.

Since the mayor is not an adventurer, the Wealth and resource rules don't have to apply to him. It seems the wealth rules are more to balance combat gear than actually provide a wealth level for NPC's.

A few points:

1) He is not tunneling through the wall. This fighter is hitting the wall until it is broken enough to fall down.

2)Applying believablility is a foolish argument in a fantasy game. Even at 6th level a character can do things of real world legend and myth. Once you start asking for believability you might as well question everything in the rules.

3) Your own logical inconsistencies foil your argument. The stone golem is made of stone just as hard as the castle walls. The stone golem even tries to avoid blows. Yet you are ok with the idea of a fighter with a normal sword beating it down but not ok with the same fighter beating down an immobile wall. A monk can beat down a stone golem with his fists (granted a high level monk) but god forbid he use those awesome fists to knock down a stone wall? The hobgoblin of little minds here is refusing to be consistent.

4) A 6th level rogue with an 18 dex can break the world record for long jump. A record which has stood for 20 years (29.4 feet). Well that is not believable, better not allow it. And that monk who gets +8 for his speed he better not even think about it.

5)Monks, hows that for unbelievability. These guys run super fast because they can do karate. That makes no sense. Better not allow that.

Believability is a weak argument. PCs are special. The game treats them as special. How do we know that? The game has gimped classes specially for NPCs. The normal people of the world don't get to play with the cool toys. One of those cool toys is being a bad ass fighter who can beat walls down with a plain old sword.

Beleivability is a fantastic argument actually. No one ever beats me on it. See the rogue, monk, and fighter they are pretty special. Within the rules of the class it describes just how special they are. The problem is with the weapon.

You want a fighter sapper to go after the walls? No problem. You want a swordsman? Not going to happen. EVER.

The reason I am OK with a fighter beating down a stone golem, is the same reason, raiders could destroy solid stone statues, but still could not breach a castle wall. The Stone Golem is not engineered like castle walls.

Your mistaking my point. There is a world of simulation the rules can handle. The rules were not meant to handle castle walls, so beleivability works well. The break DC's at least in 3rd edition meant you broke the door DOWN. Not shattered the door.

A stone golem is a completely different item than a castle wall. It has an animating spirit inside of it. Or it is not engineered liek a castle wall. You can effect a Stone Golem with Rock to Mud. Most worked stone is immune to rock to mud.

Stone Golems have the same hardness as walls, that is true but castle walls were alot more than their hardness. Castle design included walls designed to reinforce each other, or make it more difficult for things like picks. Perhaps the Golem is beat because the animating force has been driven out of it. There are numerous explanations one can use to avoid having to use rules in places they do not belong.

the long jump for the rogue... the rules are meant to handle that. Hardness of castle walls? The rules Clearly break down at that point.

No a fighter with a sword could never break through a castle wall.

There's nothing Skeletons love more than an invigorating battle on a sunny Greek island, as per Clash of the Titans.

Good point! All these years and I just let THAT image fly by.

But I think the movie your referring to is another Harryhausen masterpiece: JASON AND THE ARGONAUGHTS. I don't recall skeletons in Clash of the Titans. At least the Ray HArryhausen version.

An original AP on Akiton giving homage to Edgar Rice Burrows and Michael Moorcock!

I did not say you hate fighters(and other cut/stab types). Only that you want to apply real world rules to them that you do not apply to casters.

A golem IS made of hard stone, from the bestiary: A stone golem's body is chiseled from a single block of hard stone, such as granite, weighing at least 3,000 pounds. The stone must be of exceptional quality, and costs 5,000 gp. It weighs 2000 lbs when done. The Stone Golem is so tough you need adamantine to beat its DR. It is tougher than the stone as it has a 10 DR vs 8 hardness and you need adamantine to beat the DR.

As far as destroying the stone wall, if you are trying to imagine the fighter reducing the entire 5x5 section to dust then you are being inconsistent in your principle. Applying the same rule as the Stone Golem then fighter just has to destroy enough to make that section fall down.

There is an inconsistency within the limitations of the rules of pathfinder to simulate. It is not however inconsistent when you want to keep a level of believability. If I make a call that you cannot and could not destroy a castle wall with a sword (though I allow it with Adamantine weapons), that decision is informed through common sense, and a desire to make the world believable.

Allowing the fighter to break the wall with a sword or an axe (castle stone walls) is a foolish consistency. And that is the Hobgoblin of little minds. (not calling your mind little, Just giving props to RWE)

Last night I ran Broken Moon. The party took a rest period in the mill, and then woke up for Daytime exploration.

One of the encounters called for skeletons. it was about 10 am in the morning. (There is nothing in the encounter that specifically states time of day, I imagine it is up to the timing of the group.)

All my years playing this RPG and I have made the assumption that Undead will not go into sunlight. So before running that encounter which I previously thought would not have the skeletons I checked. There is NOTHING I can find anywhere that say skeletons cannot operate in Sunlight (well it was overcast skies so Daylight, I determine weather conditions for a particular day by checking weather archives for last year on weather underground, for the corresponding day in the campaign provided there is not mood or story element of weather involved.)

Was my assumption completely a misconception as far as D&D monsters go?

I ultimately ran the encounter with skeletons in daylight, because I assumed I had a 25 year misconception.

Mournblade94 wrote:

How is +3 mithril 21. I can only work out 18.

Mithral starts with a hardness of 15 and you add 2 for each +1 enhancement bonus it has (and 10 more hp as well).

Look on the charts for breaking stuff in exploration and on the special materials listings.

Thank you!

Set wrote:

As for the tunneling with an adamantine dagger thing, my group *long ago* house-ruled that adamantine weapons halve the hardness of something they hit. Not -20. Just half. Cutting the hardness of stone from 8 to 4 is more than adequate. The price also dropped a bit, since it was no longer free-sunder-palooza.

Just touching on something real quick -- Adamantine ignores hardness under 20 -- it doesn't subtract 20 from the hardness. If you swing a piece of adamantine against another piece of adanamtine or a +3 mithril weapon you have to deal with the entire hardness (adanamtine has a hardness of 20 and therefore isn't below 20 and +3 mithril will have a hardness of 21).

I've seen a lot of people do it the way you are speaking (the -20 hardness bit) but wanted to point out that it's not how it technically works.

How is +3 mithril 21. I can only work out 18.

The wizard can put a 5x8 and 10ft long hole in the wall in 3 seconds and you will not let the fighter do it in 10 minutes because it is too crazy?

Absolutely! Magic is Magic. You are bending the laws of physics through the supernatural. The Fighter cannot bend physics.

You want weapon repair and getting exhausted from fighting go play Rune Quest or Role Master any of the other more "realistic" fantasy games. When you get tired of all the calculations and rerolling and other BS you can come back here and enjoy the simplicity.

Runequest is a far simpler system than PAthfinder. All Runequest does is simulate DIFFERENTLY. It does not simulate any BETTER.

Just because a fighter CAN absurdly cut through a castle wall because it is in the rules, does not mean a GM should allow it. If a player argued that with me, they would have to turn in their Common Sense Card. No one would argue with me on that ruling, or at least they haven't yet. They couldn't win it if they tried though.

Just because a RPG system is simple is not license to throw away common sense. An individual DM must understand when the rules cross the boundary of common sense and rule accordingly.

Not being in the rpg business I would assume a minority of sales for D&D and Pathfinder are made through retail locations. Most of the 4e players I know don't buy D&D books. They use DDi or pirate the book PDFs or pirate DDi stuff.

Do most of the Pathfinder players actual buy the books? How many buy through retail locations?

I don't have any skin in the game, but it bugs me when players use pirated books. Of course they give me the tale they can't afford it because they need to feed their kids, but they are not going out stealing bluray players because they need to feed their kids.

Seriously, I have the book. If you need to use it you can look at it. My friend argues with me that allowing him to use PFSRD and not complaining is the same as pirating. But it just isn't.

I don't know why pirating games bugs me so much. Maybe it is because I am willing to buy the material and do the work for the adventures. Then your not even willing to buy the book. If your not willing to buy the book fine, use mine at the table. I guess it is silly, because if he wasn't going to buy the book anyway it makes no difference.

just one of my Pet peeves I guess.

I'm guessing in your games it's impossible to damage dragons, iron golems, and so forth with things like swords, right? I mean, it's the same principle. A normal human cannot hope to even scratch an iron golem in a meaningful way (you literally cannot deal more than 15 damage with a longsword at 1st level, without a critical hit).

It is impossible to damage them without an adamantine sword. That is different. Some legendary fighters can damage them a little bit with a steel sword. Still not as ridiculous as digging through a wall with a sword in 10 minutes. Let me change that to castle wall. I can see a fighter bursting a wood wall. I generally do not allow weapons to damage walls. Doors yes. Walls no. SImply because of their construction. No rule for it in the core. I just do not think the intention of the rules was for seige.

Common sense goes out the window very early in D&D. There's a reason E6 exists, and that's because 6th level is epic enough for some people. In fact, it's actually as epic or more epic than most wild fantasies from reality. Heck, we have religions based around the idea that people can be resurrected or healed, and we consider such things to be of divine nature, while any cleric of 7th level can heal the sick, create food from nothing, and raise the dead. Literally every 7th level cleric can mimic the very divine abilities of Jesus, and somehow a 6th level warrior tearing a hole in the wall is upsetting your notion of common sense?

In the context of versimilitude yes. Not only is the sword a terrible tool for the job, it could not happen in 10 minutes. If you want it too that is fine. If it happened in a story though people would point and laugh.

The ressurection issue is completely different. The D&D world has magic as a basic assumption, that has been inspired by real world myth and legends. Since D&D is a magical world, clerics SHOULD be able to mimic the abilities of prophets.

Fighter's can't have nice things, it seems. This trope is alive and well, it seems. God forbid that fantastic warriors do things that are actually fantastic.

Breaking through a wall with a sword is not fantastic. It is just silly. Fighters have plenty of nice things. If they were able to beseige a castle with a sword, they have a REALLY nice thing. I like to apply common sense to rules. I don't think fighters need to be approached with a lack of common sense to make them fantastic. They already are.

Medieval TOTAL WAR was a fantastic game. There was one exploit to it though. The best seige weapon was a horde of peasants. Send your peasants at the gate, and the gate is down. No need for seige weapons. Ridiculous. Only part of the game I did not like. You'll lose like 1100 peasants but they are much cheaper than one catapult.

The developers should have made gates unassailable by standard weapons. That is what I do with fortification walls at least 2 feet thick.

Mournblade94 wrote:

So YEs the PC's certainly can amaze with graphics. But if your a schleb that cannot build your own computer for $1500 to get that machine, your stuck paying Dell or Alien $4000 for that machine.

An enthusiast gaming PC does not cost $1500 to build, nor does it cost anywhere near $4000 to get one built for you. I assembled one not two weeks ago for well under $900, including some "above-and-beyond" luxury components like a solid state drive to handle the OS and other common apps. It runs Battlefield 3 at full HD resolution with graphics options set to Ultra, and it's smooth as silk.

Does that compare to consoles? No, certainly not. I can go out and buy a $200 console that will run Battlefield 3 at full HD resolution (with much less impressive graphics, mind you) and have a very playable experience. But the astronomically high costs you're citing are not anything close to what a solid gaming PC costs.

And really, learning how to assemble a PC is not hard. I'm hardly an IT professional, and I hadn't built a PC in ten years, but it didn't take me more than an afternoon to get it put together, with no hiccups. There are guides online, and every component will come with instructions.

Your right. I only now started to build computers because I was sick of paying Dell. I learned by taking mine apart. Since I was formerly an Electronic Tech with the Navy it really is a simple matter.

Even so, I use my PC for Wargames. My wife loves MMO's. RPG's I far prefer on the console. I played Civilization on XBOX but it is clumsy. I still prefer PC for wargames. I don't think they have figured out how to make a good interface for Wargames on consoles yet.

Lincoln Hills wrote:

Well, first of all, I don't hate the Gunslinger, although I don't allow them in my campaign setting for the same reason that I don't allow Dr. Who, Captain America or the 1952 Yankees in it.

Do you allow Monks?

I don't like Gunslingers but I love monks. For the simple fact that the Linnorm Kings need to raid abbeys.

No they wouldn't. A change of name isn't going to open up the determinedly narrowminded. I'd be less likely to play the class out of sheer embarrassment on such a silly name.

How does someone that does not like the gunslinger earn the term narrowminded?

This book is very helpful allowing me to easily port the moonshae islands to golarion. I love when fantasy is informed by history

** spoiler omitted **

I had to reupload the file. Please use the following link instead. My apologies to any Office 2003 users, but saving to the older version breaks stuff...

NPC Level by Age Category: http://wiki.worldsunknown.com/wiki/File:NPC-Level-by-Age.xlsx

many thanks!

Mournblade94 wrote:

Also where are the examples of good orcs and drow? I was pretty sure in SEcond Darkness, the official answer too good drow was no.

Non-evil orcs are implied by some lines in the beginning of Orcs of Golarion, detailing some actions involving the protection of their children and elderly that run counter to the otherwise flat, one-dimensional image put forth by most of the rest of that book. There's also explicit mention of orc paladins.

Second Darkness features ** spoiler omitted **

NPC Guide also features James Jacobs' good-aligned PC Shensen, who was born a drow.

SD didn't say "no" to good-aligned drow, it just suggested that GMs encourage players to put any good-aligned drow characters off until after SD.

Ah right!

I know about the CN guy, I just meant a bonafide GOOD drow. WHich I allow. I played Second Darkness as everyone knowing about drow (well not like flumpy the farmer) but not knowing about the transformation.

I always preferred the ORcs are evil to the Warcraft/Elderscrolls Orcs are people to philosophy.

Drow I have allowed to switch alignments, but I always played the humanoid subtype as evil.