Given the similar performance with Keep on the Shadowfell, I'd say adventure writing is a skill they do not have in-house -- I hope they recognize that before it's too late.
Panda-s1 wrote:
So you're just gonna ignore all the other Dragon and Dungeon articles and focus only on two adventures, never mind the fact that many of the articles are gaining a lot of acclaim? Wow, what a shame...
No, I'm not going to do that -- nor did my post imply I would.
The articles are excellent. The two most important 4e adventures published so far are not.
Just because I'm not salivating orgasmically over your beloved WotC products does not make me wrong. Please chill out.
I'm not asking you to salivate orgasmically, I know KotS was terribly written, but the way you said it you sound like you're completely basing the game on those two adventures, and just ignoring the other one from the last issue.
4e hater. Yep, there's nothing like throwing around perjoratives to strengthen your argument... Of course, it's not like there are any fawning 4e fanboys...
Panda-s1 wrote:
Validity?! Brining up little nitpicky points is valid? Oh sure maybe some of them are true, but most of them are just trying argue about all those little vestiges from 3.5 that aren't there anymore.
The main point, which you deftly avoided, is that you brought this discussion back down to the level of name-calling. Thank you for that contribution :/
And again, just because "little vestiges" aren't important to you doesn't mean they aren't important to others. Nor are "little nitpicky points" necessarily little or nitpicky to others. Nor does it mean that those opinions are not valid.
Panda-s1 wrote:
And let's not talk about Pathfinder fanboys...
Fine with me. The question is: can you stop?
I haven't even started about Pathfinder, I'm just talking about 4e here. My problem with the nitpicking is there's people who, because of said vestiges, refuse to believe 4e is a good game. Hell there's things from 3.5 that I miss, but I don't go trying to make whole arguments out of it and blow stuff out of proportion.
And I hardly think that 4e hater is name calling. You're the only one getting offended by it.
But the 4e stuff so far has been outstanding. I'm definitely eating crow on this one :/
Not as much crow as I thought.
I am now looking at episode 1 for the first WotC Adventure Path. There's a thread about it, but the bottom line is "disappointing."
Given the similar performance with Keep on the Shadowfell, I'd say adventure writing is a skill they do not have in-house -- I hope they recognize that before it's too late.
So you're just gonna ignore all the other Dragon and Dungeon articles and focus only on two adventures, never mind the fact that many of the articles are gaining a lot of acclaim? Wow, what a shame...
He's talking about the first two chapters of the PHB, as well as the majority of the non-rules part of the DMG, i.e. the things all 4e haters seem to ignore for some strange reason.
4e hater. Yep, there's nothing like throwing around perjoratives to strengthen your argument.
Of course, it's not like there are any fawning 4e fanboys that ignore all criticisms, regardless of their validity.
Validity?! Brining up little nitpicky points is valid? Oh sure maybe some of them are true, but most of them are just trying argue about all those little vestiges from 3.5 that aren't there anymore.
And let's not talk about Pathfinder fanboys. They might feel all safe on the Paizo forums, but the rest of the gaming community have a lot of valid arguments that aren't just nitpicks, don't get me started.
In addition 4e has a ton of roleplaying fluff, advice, and content.
I can't see that at all. Check out the beholder entry (one of D&D's great iconic monsters) -- compare the write-ups in 3.5 and 4e.
If 4e has a 'ton,' previous editions shipped it in on supertankers.
He's talking about the first two chapters of the PHB, as well as the majority of the non-rules part of the DMG, i.e. the things all 4e haters seem to ignore for some strange reason.
Yes, cause when I think Wizard, I picture going "Crap, I'm out of spells! But wait heres my 1d4 Dagger........wait i'm a wizard aw man.'
Our party was almost TPK by the Grell in Shackled City, but the wizard busted out his light crossbow, took the attack of opportunity, and killed it.
The enlarged/bulls strength enhanced-chain-fighter was laying in a pool of his own blood, the cleric was unconscious, the druid near death, and the wizard did a little victory dance to show he was as good as anyone else at combat (really, a 5% difference to hit is not that big a deal for the wizard).
People complain that wizards a too good at killing things with spells, but then complain they are too lousy at killing things with daggers and crossbows.
If a fighter looked at you and said "I want to cast spells!" what would you say to that player?
Okay first off what level was this encounter? More importantly the fighter, cleric, and druid are all pretty much melee, so I'm guessing they got the crap beat out of them while the wizard just hung in the back flinging spells. And a light crossbow does only 1d8 damage, at that point I'm sure the druid could have got a hit in and dealt the same amount of damage to kill it.
So basically the wizard got a lucky shot, big deal.
And if a fighter said "I want to cast spells!" I'd say "Play a sorcerer, dammit! Classes exist for a reason."
This isn't a momentary lapse -- it appears to be gross incompetence. And the problems predated the 4e release by a pretty wide margin.
Yes, Paizo's site went down, right after the Pathfinder Alpha release. I also remember the WotC site going down. It was July... and June... and May...
There are times that the criticism is undeserved -- this is definitely not one of those times.
Momentary lapse? Dude, for about a week there were times when I couldn't get on this website, and WotC is a bigger company with a lot more traffic. At least we can access the website itself, just not the forums. Don't throw around "gross incompetence" until the forums get wiped.
You know, I remember distinctly when the Paizo site was down after releasing the Pathfinder Alpha. They just released a new product, of course their site is busy! Cut them some slack, seriously.
....Wow. I mean... wow. I don't see why you lurk, that was an awesome post, though I guess it wouldn't have been as awesome if you weren't just uncorking a bottle just now :P
I think people tend to forget the D&D staff is comprised of people who have been playing this game for years. Of course they remember older editions, and why wouldn't they? It's the reason why they're working for WotC, why they spend so much time designing games and supplements. I mean they could probably have any other job in the industry, but no they applied to WotC to work on the game they love so much. And they made a great edition of the game, from a DM's perspective I'm actually excited to do this. In previous editions I would have been screwed. I remember how much they were touting on how 4e will be easier for DMs, but when I finally got a look at it I was surprised 'cause they actually delivered on that promise.
Now I'm just splurging, but yeah great post, and post more you're good at it.
(Sorry about the late post, I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread ^^;; )
This is exactly what I've been looking for. Though I'm sort of scared to think what printing this out in full colour, especially on some kind of card stock, would cost.
I started with the race ones and then just the first 5 levels of each class, since Anders cards only have the colored bar that was not enough to use up a cartridge on my cheapo printer. I wanted them to be disposable in that the players could write on them/spill beer on them and it would not be a big deal to print again. The biggest problem is cutting the buggers out neatly. I wish I had one of those big straight edge choppers they had in the high school library.
But yeah, I may need to find a source of cardstock and work very late at the office one evening...
Another option (that some of the guys I play with use) is buying the plastic card sleeves that stores sell to Magic players and the like. The sleeves keep them protected and give them a bit of stiffness, even if they're just regular paper. Not sure how the costs would compare though ... if anyone knows, I'd be interested in that info as well! :)
Meh, everyone makes their "official" card sleeves, it's nothing special. Though I do like the official The Spoils ones, even if they are just the regular backs of the cards.
Off-topic: Isn't '4' a bad number in Feng Shui? *chuckle*
Kind regards, James
No, 4 is a bad number in Chinese, period. Or at least Mandarin. And Japanese. Mainly 'cause 4 is pronounced the same as death in either language. Japanese gets around this by saying 'yon' instead of 'shi' for 4 in most cases, but in Mandarin they're both pronounced the same all the time. This is why you never see a 4th floor in buildings in either China or Japan, it's considered bad luck the same way we don't have 13th floors in our buildings.
This always made no sense to me - I mean what are you trying to do? Trick 'fate'? I think 'fate' won't be so easily fooled. Though a skit about the Grim Reaper getting confused by the inanities of apartment conventions could make some really good stand up.
That said I've only noticed the missing 13th floor in older building. All new buildings that I am aware of, and we build condo's like its a crack addiction in Toronto, have 13th floors.
It's not about tricking fate, it's the fact that it sounds like you're saying death when you say 4. Kinda like how we don't say rapeseed oil anymore, now we say canola oil.
Panda-s1 missed my point. I wasn't talking about putting machine guns into a quasi-medieval setting. I was talking about things like magic levels and divine involvement in the world within the conventions of the game. Historically, D&D has tried to be flexible enough to allow for a variety of campaign worlds within certain assumptions (like the existence of both arcane and divine magic). You were supposed to be able to play anything from medieval Europe with real elves and wizards and spellcasting priests to a setting like FR where the gods walk the Earth. And there was at least a basic level of advice in the DMG about how such decisions affect your campaign and game world. That's missing from the 4e DMG.
Well, the issue isn't really missing; it's just raised and not dealt with. And I think that's the dumbest possible way of doing it. If you're not going to suggest possible answers to a question, why raise them? That whole section is a useless waste of space. Now, some people are arguing that beginning DM's shouldn't be altering the assumptions of the default setting in even small ways. My question is, what if a beginner picks up the core books and wants to run a game with his friends but doesn't like the assumptions of the PoL setting? Will that player be discouraged from taking up the game because of that?
The omission is particularly galling in the case of magic level. If you change the assumptions about the commonness or scarcity of magic, it affects the mechanics because the monster stat blocks assume that the PCs have magic items of a given power level based on their level. So if a beginning DM decides he wants magic to be rare and adjusts treasure accordingly, the monsters suddenly become tougher and the PCs keep getting TPK'd. Might that turn some players off to the game? On something that affects the mechanics so strongly, the designers had a duty to provide warnings about the effects on game play.
Okay first off, considering it's Dungeons and Dragons why wouldn't a beginner DM want to have magic in their setting? So yeah maybe he will be discouraged from taking up the game, the game has always had magic items, and there's a frickin' wizard on the cover of the PHB, it shouldn't come as a surprise that there's a lot of magic in the setting.
That aside, yes there is no explicit "Do this!" kind of dialog. The solution? NPCs get a flat bonus to everything off a table based on their level. If you want no magic items that's the way to do it. It's how monsters and NPCs keep up with the PCs 'cause they're not gonna be carrying around magic items or have feats.
But on another note, the game already treats magic items as pretty scarce, and the majority of them are gonna be found in dungeons, so making magic rarer isn't much of a problem since the game seems to treat it as such anyway. Increasing magic, yeah I can see that being a problem 'cause then you'd assume that any item you want is for sale, then as a DM you have to ask yourself if these items weren't as common would you give them away anyway?
Could they have pointed out certain things? Sure, that would have been useful, but honestly I don't see why a beginning player would pick up D&D to make a world where magic is scarce.
Yeah, that's what I first thought when I read Linked Portal. But it's not like scrolls of linked portal fly out of monsters when you kill them :P That and the portal is only open for 30 seconds at best, so it's not like "Oh crap, we're gonna get slaughtered, lets run back to town for potions!"
I can certainly see a battered and bruised party desperately blocking a doorway and trying not to make noise while one of their number frantically draws a circle on the ground and starts chanting and praying that his Arcane roll is high enough to get everyone out in time.
But see, that makes for really cool roleplaying, and costs a lot of money so going back would be a pain. And it's only open for 18 seconds so no time to buy potions and sell your loot. I could also see the players going to the wrong town in their frantic rush to GTFO, but that'd be a real d*ck thing for the DM to pull on the players.
You're playing both sides of the argument. On one hand you're saying "but it's so easy for me to build a setting, the DMG doesn't need to explain that!", and when you're called out on it, you go instead for "Beginner DMs are just not able to do this". Gee, I don't know... maybe that's what the DMG is supposed to provide? Tools and advice to be able to do this when you're a beginner?
The DMG is supposed to be a guide for beginner DMs to, you know... "master" the game. It's supposed to enable. Not frame. It's supposed to be a complete manual, not an "introduction". If all it does is say "you can use your imagination later by buying next supplement X, but to run things without prep work, then please buy setting book Y", it is certainly not doing its job!
Once again, D&D is not supposed to be run with published setting lambda. It's supposed to enable you, as a DM, to use your imagination, build your own campaigns and worlds right out of the gate. If you lack time to build adventures and settings, the "supplements" (emphasis on the actual word) then come in.
The 4E DMG does not do that.
Okay when you say make your own setting, do you mean something completely different from medieval fantasy, 'cause that's what I'm arguing. If it's just another setting that fits easily with what's given, then that's simple to do and they do give you advice on how to change your setting to be more like that. That's what changing the basic assumptions of the world is. That's what making your campaign a horror themed one is. If you have an idea to change the setting, then chances are you already know what you're gonna do. I mean you can say what if they beginning DM wants a world where there is a huge empire? But the answer is he knows what to do already if he came up with the idea to begin with. That's pretty easy to do, and the DMG does touch on that subject.
But say I want to make an Asian setting, that's something that a whole book can cover, not a small entry on culture and weapons. Honestly, how many people made an Asian campaign from the last DMG? Better yet, how many of those people didn't go on to use a different campaign setting, or worked extensively on one of their own?
And to compare to Pathfinder, what about that? I mean there's an implied setting with that game, is there gonna be instructions to make your own setting?
The direct link to the 16-page preview PDF is HERE, for those who are interested.
Mark,
How soon will print on demand be ready?
I'd guess by the end of next week, but that's not 100% certain. Depends on the schedule of our production manager.
Oh man, is there an estimated price for the print copy? I might have to get my hands on this book.
No definite price point yet. Looks like the print version won't be out until end of July or maybe early August. Our production manager is in the Army reserves, and in a few days he's got to go away for a couple of weeks.
You can always console yourself with the PDF version in the meantime, though... :)
Yeah, but if I want a book I want a hard copy. Even if I get a pdf of a book (legal or otherwise) it's still pretty inconvenient to use in an actual game. The upside of pdf's is I can print out a specific page if I need it on hand, but unless the pdf is short I don't like reading them.
And why does it matter that there isn't advice on how to make a different kind of campaign world? It's like complaining that Traveller doesn't have rules for Star Wars type campaigns.
Because it matters for beginners of the game to be able to build and sustain their own campaigns? (If you can just pick and choose components from other games and craft a playable campaign setting on the spot, you certainly are not a beginner to D&D/RPGs)
Because that's part of the essence of the D&D game for many people who played it for decades? Running a published setting is not. Running a published setting is a convenience introduced for DMs of the game, it's not how the game's supposed to be played and mastered from very early on (OD&D, then through AD&D) in its history.
The current game seems to go out of its way to divorce itself from this tradition. I was shocked to read the gamespy interview where you could find a screenshot of the character viewer in DDI with the caption "D&D Insider's Character Visualizer aims to leave little to the imagination". There. That about sums it up, as far as I'm concerned.
There certainly are some good things to say about 4E, but teaching world building and the use of one's imagination are definitely not its forte when compared to earlier editions of the game.
That doesn't change the fact that trying to run a campaign in a completely different setting requires a lot of work, I mean you said so yourself "If you can just pick and choose components from other games and craft a playable campaign setting on the spot, you certainly are not a beginner to D&D/RPGs". Like I said at the point where you start creating a different kind of setting you probably have enough experience under your belt to do that kind of thing. The DMG is aimed towards beginning DMs, it's definitely not out of the question that the next one will go into those kinds of things. Are we being shortchanged? No, we're not, the DMG does what it's supposed to do.
Considering how many roleplaying tips they give in the character creation chapter of the PHB, I think use of one's imagination is definitely a forte of this edition compared to last editions, especially 3.5.
And yes I did read that caption about the Character Visualizer, but I read it as "the Character Visualizer is incredibly extensive/the guy who wrote this caption is probably a cynical pr*ck."
As far as I can tell, D&D 4th Edition is still set in a fantasy world.
The idea being, of course, is that 4E has a lot less rules and information about simulating the rest of the fantasy world - outside of dungeon-crawling encounters, than other games and most other editions have had.
....Wow, you really haven't gotten around to reading the Dungeon Master's Guide, have you?
The DMG has 23 pages dedicated to "The World" (note: not world building. rather the chapter lays out the basics of the Points of Light setting, as explained in the first on page 148) 7 of which are dedicated to artifacts and 2 to general environmental hazards.
The only true stab at world building found in one column (the right most one, under the heading "Altering Core Assumptions") on page 151.
In contrast, we get 12 pages (and the...
Okay so maybe there isn't as many words dedicated to world creation. Still just looking at it, it feels so anal retentive, I mean why the hell should there be an entry about supply and demand, I mean unless you have a really conscientious character in your party your players aren't gonna care that there's no more good horses 'cause they bought them all. I mean I'll give you the fact that they don't detail different kinds of government. And while there isn't a thing about making a different kind of world it's D&D, it invokes images of medieval fantasy. If someone's starting out in D&D that's probably the kind of setting they're gonna go for, and if they want to make a campaign in a different world they probably use their own judgment to make it different. I mean I made a D&D setting where everything was more industrial, but all I did was yoink stats for guns from d20 Modern. End of story.
And why does it matter that there isn't advice on how to make a different kind of campaign world? It's like complaining that Traveller doesn't have rules for Star Wars type campaigns. I mean I guess you could do it in theory, but then why not just play Star Wars? If you want to make an Asian campaign for D&D you're gonna need more than just some weapons and a few cultural notes. The wu jen and... I forget the other class, but they're there to replace the cleric and wizard 'cause magic is a different thing in Asian settings, and the tone is completely different than typical medieval fantasy. Let's not forget they did release Oriental Adventures in all past editions (though the last one was them trying to push a newly acquired franchise), hopefully we can expect another one. Hell they might even do us one better and make the campaign setting after Eberron something like Kara-Tur. Now I really did wish they'd release something for making steampunk/renaissance type settings, but they're close enough to the standard model that I shouldn't have to sweat it over too much.
Btw, I used my crayon colored in d20 at Paizocon in Jason's game. That was a hoot.
But weren't those old dice considered uneven? I like the idea though. I actually used to have a d20 that went from 0 to 9 twice (found it in an old FASA Star Trek game I bought at a swap meet). It was the first time I had ever seen a polyhedral die, at least up close. I remember it being red and trying to fill the numbers in with a fine-line marker, but reading about the crayon thing made me smack my forehead. Too bad I can't find it anymore, I really should try looking again, it was my first d20 (sorta ;)).
Maybe the Realms, I'm not that familiar with Realms but Dragonlance is the epitome of POL. Dragonlance, at least the early stuff from around the War of the Lance, is such an archtype of Points of Light that it surpasses the description in 4E.
Consider the background. There is massive destruction of the old civilizations on such a scale that the land itself is wracked and torn by the Gods who then vanish and cease to answer the prayers of priests. All the civilizations collapse or withdraw to ancient forests to deep mountain holdfasts. Those that survive know of other lands only through myths and legends as the wilderness and monsters rush into the void left by the withdrawal of the civilized races.
This is even a major theme in the books when the heros head for the once great port city of Tarsis which they know of since they have myths and legends of the times before the Catalysm. Using the Kenders maps they manage to navigate their way to Tarsis only to find an abandoned ruin in the middle of the desert with sand dunes slowly covering the hulks of mighty ships now long abandoned and no sign of water in any direction.
Its Points of Light in spades.
Wow, I had no idea that Dragonlance was so desolate. I just always assumed it was "happy happy swords and sorcery land," but now I'm gonna have to give it a second look, though I still don't know what to do about Kender...
Yeah I saw, but seeing how everyone has already *ahem* acquired pdf versions of the books, I don't see why anyone would get them unless they had errata. I guess at least they won't have the funky printer things going on.
Wait a second, I thought Kenzer wasn't going with the GSL. Or did they change their mind? Or are they trying to go around it? But the preview makes explicit references to the PHB, I don't see how they couldn't use the GSL this way. Or maybe Kenzer figures their big enough to fight off WotC if the lawyers come-a suing.
EDIT: It is nice seeing a company like Kenzer doing 4e stuff, though. I'm not too familiar with the Kalamar setting, but it sounds like a nice alternative to the PoL setting, or even my own setting I'm making up.
Are they the first company to publish 4E supplement?
Do they have any kind of license?
You don't really need a license. Technically you don't need to use the GSL to print any kind of 4e compatible material, but it's a good way to keep the lawyers at bay.
Off-topic: Isn't '4' a bad number in Feng Shui? *chuckle*
Kind regards, James
No, 4 is a bad number in Chinese, period. Or at least Mandarin. And Japanese. Mainly 'cause 4 is pronounced the same as death in either language. Japanese gets around this by saying 'yon' instead of 'shi' for 4 in most cases, but in Mandarin they're both pronounced the same all the time. This is why you never see a 4th floor in buildings in either China or Japan, it's considered bad luck the same way we don't have 13th floors in our buildings.
Aha! Teaching/corrupting your children, always a fun thing. Wish I could do the same with friends :P
It's nice to see you actually read the DMG, even if you didn't like it. That's one thing a lot of 4e haters won't read for some reason. But enough rambling, good luck teaching the kids, and your reluctant wife, though something tells me she won't be reluctant for long.
And what's so wrong about the instant travel portals? People used to teleport all the time in previous editions, it's a fantasy trope I can live with in my D&D.
I find they seem a little too Diablo Town Portal scrolly for me.
Yeah, that's what I first thought when I read Linked Portal. But it's not like scrolls of linked portal fly out of monsters when you kill them :P That and the portal is only open for 30 seconds at best, so it's not like "Oh crap, we're gonna get slaughtered, lets run back to town for potions!"
Why is that the more people mention any edition of D&D from OD&D to AD&D 1E, I want to scrap all my current edition material and pick up OSRIC?
But OSRIC doesn't have any rules about roleplaying. What if I want my fighter character to hit on the barmaid? I guess they only care about the hack 'n slash part of previous editions. [/sarcasm]
It can be done of course, to expand the world setting with the campaign. ie Start in a village, move up to the local area, on to the nearest big city, then start exploring and even influencing the surrounding nations and politics of the world at large.
I just rather got the impression the DMG wasn't even really suggesting detailing it up much at all, even further down the line, - it seemed to want vague, 'points of light', cookie cutter type settings to be the norm. Nations to be few and far between, and politics to be even rarer.
The DMG to me at least, reads as if it just wants worlds to be small towns (which include computer game like instant travel portals), surrounded by wilderness containing dungeons.
The world that is presented in the DMG is based off a list of assumptions, but there is a section that says maybe you should change these assumptions to better suit your taste. I don't see how you can't have a setting where there's politics as well as wilderness with dungeons. In fact I think the DMG touches on just about any kind of campaign you can think of (at least ones that assume your characters are gonna be fighting). And what's so wrong about the instant travel portals? People used to teleport all the time in previous editions, it's a fantasy trope I can live with in my D&D.
Why I argue is the seemingly inane thought that you can't have any real roleplaying in 4e, as though there's a page in the DMG that says adventures must be comprised only of dungeon crawls, when in fact the opposite is true!
We role-played in Star Fleet Battles, probably the least RP-friendly game in the universe. Heck, one of our players role-plays an evil slumlord when he plays *Monopoly* and threatens to send 'his boys' around to 'teach a lesson' if people don't hand money over fast enough.
There's nothing any edition of D&D can do to prevent people from role-playing their characters.
That's exactly my point. You don't need a roleplaying section, hell the 3.5 one was incredibly piddly. And yet it's there in 4e and it's like people are completely ignoring it.
Set wrote:
Panda-s1 wrote:
If you want heavy roleplaying, go play some other game, like the sad vampire one :P
And there's the other side of it. Instead of refuting the, as you say, 'inane' notion that one can't role-play in 4E, the 'defense' degenerates into attacking other people and their style of play.
If the people at the table are having fun, then they aren't doing it wrong, even if they happen to like role-playing, or even if they've played that 'sad vampire game' or play games with girls at the table (some of whom kinda like 'sad vampire games' and role-playing more than action-adventure games with lots of dice rolling).
*I* don't really enjoy wargaming or simulationism or games where I have to keep track of many fiddly things each and every round (like tons of situational modifiers, I prefer 'buffs' or 'debuffs' that last an entire combat to those that are measured in rounds, and the turn towards spells and modifiers that last a single round kinda turns me off), but other people like that level of detail and round-by-round adjustment, and I see no need to disparage them, nor do I consider myself a better (or worse) gamer because of that.
I'm not trying to attack their style of play, I mean do what you want with the system, hell I've played entire sessions myself without any combat. What I don't like is when people start complaining that 4e doesn't lend to plot heavy campaigns, I don't think any edition of D&D ever really did that ('cept maybe a few campaign settings in 2nd ed). The majority of D&D campaigns I know of involve fighting in some form or another, and I think this applies for just about anyone.
As far as I can tell, D&D 4th Edition is still set in a fantasy world.
The idea being, of course, is that 4E has a lot less rules and information about simulating the rest of the fantasy world - outside of dungeon-crawling encounters, than other games and most other editions have had.
....Wow, you really haven't gotten around to reading the Dungeon Master's Guide, have you?
4e is the first edition of D&D that actually "talks about roleplaying" (you kinda ignored the opening pages in the 4E PHB where it talks about how your character should be envisioned)
And where did I come out defending any other edition of Dungeons and Dragons? Heck, did I NOT say that 1st edition was ALSO a skirmish game? It was. Still enjoyed it when I played it.
Besides, citing the passage that effectively says "Don't do a backstory, just hack crap up and think of an excuse later as you go" isn't helping the cause. :)
What passage? There is no passage like that. Or at the very least you're greatly misinterpreting it.
What you have to keep in mind though is that a) +5 is a huge bonus, and b) the DCs scale as you level up. I mean compare the 1st level fighter to the first level wizard. Assuming the fighter has an Int of 10 and the Wizard an Int of 18, their Arcana modifiers are +0 and +9 respectively. Now let's pretend their at 10th level, and naturally the wizard now has an Int of 20. So the fighter gets a +5 to Arcana, but the wizard has a +15. I mean maybe the fighter can pull off some minor stuff, but the wizard can do hard DC stuff by just taking a 10. I mean the fighter can take training in Arcana and bump his Int by 2, but skill training and/or a good ability bonus is the only real way you can pull off skill checks reliably.
EDIT: Under Theivery it does say your DM might decide certain things can't be done unless trained. I'd rule that disabling traps and picking locks (and any other thing that might come up that requires implements) needs training to use.
In response to the thread, for me I like 4e a lot. Why I argue is the seemingly inane thought that you can't have any real roleplaying in 4e, as though there's a page in the DMG that says adventures must be comprised only of dungeon crawls, when in fact the opposite is true! A lot of people will read the PHB and decide the game sucks, but never bother to read through the DMG and see that roleplaying is still core to the playing of D&D.
To that note, I'm tired of everyone saying "Well, what if I want to play a game that's mostly roleplaying? I run entire sessions without any dice rolls!" Guess what, you're an exception. And this is D&D, there has to be some kind of hacking and slashing going on. I mean even the Pathfinder APs have quite a bit of fighting going on despite the heavy narrative. If you want heavy roleplaying, go play some other game, like the sad vampire one :P
And the conspiracy theories (very irrational I might add). In all fairness I just hate conspiracy theories in general, but when fellow nerds start doing it I can't help but feel a little betrayed.
I have a homebrew Spain-like setting (though it's really just any other medieval fantasy setting), but I'm hoping the Pathfinder Campaign Setting is vague enough to not have to worry about adapting it to 4e.
Previously, 20th level was basically the end point to a D&D...
Yeah, but the rules more or less said, "We don't really expect you to get here normally, but if you do.. just extend as follows". They didn't say "You win. Hang up your character."
I dunno, I remember someone from Paizo once talking about how in previous versions of D&D, there was this unstated idea that your character was eventually supposed to become a god. This led to the idea of that one gate... there's something in Golarion, I forget exactly what it was, but you go into it and if you come back you come back a god (the paladin deity is the most recent one to do so).
4e also seems to follow this idea of achieving god-like status with your character, which I like. Not to mention it's meant to be a springboard for a new character to start a new campaign. Maybe your character reached level 30 as a demigod and reached godhood. Your new character is a cleric or paladin, or a very devout follower of your previous character. Or maybe your last character was an eternal seeker, and your new character met them once and was inspired to become an adventurer. Okay, I'm getting too much into this, don't mind me.
Um, is it just me, or did they forget to give a paragon path?*SNIP*
They had to save something for the actual book, I guess.
This the kind of thing the digital versions of Dragon and Dungeon should have had right from the start, in my opinion. A definant step in the right direction for the DDI. I can't really comment on the class itself with my lack of experiance with 4E, but seems to have the right vibe for the class. I can still see the influence of a certain anime series, but that might just be my fanboy-ness leaking through.
What influence from anime? No seriously, I'd really like to know 'cause my fanboy-ness is weak :P That and I'd like to see if the inane comment "D&D is like anime!" is really that inane.
Um, is it just me, or did they forget to give a paragon path? I mean I guess if you made an Artificer you could just multiclass instead, but that kinda sucks.
Does anyone know if the fonts that are in the PHB will be released by wizards or a third party as a play aid?
I know someone on the WOTC boards made a font for the attack symbols and whatnot in the Monster Manual. Other than that, it doesn't seem like they're just giving the fonts away.
Er, no, pdfs from 3pp will only be taken down if those pdfs were also made for 4e, i.e. no product can exist for both systems under the GSL.
Actually, Scott Rouse indicated that the d20 license would be going away by the end of the year, and that publishers would no longer be able to sell d20 PDFs whether or not they convert anything under the GSL. In most cases, the publishers can apparently just remove the d20 branding and repost them as OGL products, but I suspect some publishers won't bother with some products.
So they'll have to fiddle around with the pdfs, it's not a bad thing. Not to mention I noticed a lot of publishers didn't even bother to use the d20 license.
I can't take either side because I may end up playing both systems.
I'm thinking of dusting off the old "Into the Darkness" and converting it to the new system just to see if it is D&D.
What worries me is that WOTC is restricting what you can and can't do like the DCI in Magic the Gathering. That's why more people play Yugio or Pokemon. No banned cards at conventions.
They had better come out with further books giving back options.
By the way, I think the new game license is the Hasbro standard for games like Monopoly or Chutes and Ladders. It does not work for FRPGs and should be revised.
Dude, they already have something like the DCI, it's called the RPGA, and they do dictate how you play. And what did they take away exactly?
BTW they started banning cards from Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon tournaments a while ago.
The redesign altered and eliminated a great deal of material that has been part of the fabric of D&D for thirty years.
Except that it didn't.
I can walk down the street to the Frugal Muse and find 3e (and often 1/2e)used books right now. Everything that was part of previous editions of dnd still exists until every old book rots away which thanks to PDFs may not happen till the apocalypse.
To be fair the pdf's for 3rd party publishers will be pulled down soon if they go 4e.
However, the books aren't collapsing. I also havent heard they are pulling tsr/wizard pdfs. :)
Er, no, pdfs from 3pp will only be taken down if those pdfs were also made for 4e, i.e. no product can exist for both systems under the GSL. Now a publisher could just make a 4e version of their product without the GSL (and have to deal with potential legal backlash), or just make a separate line of stuff for 4e. I'd really like to see Paizo do the latter. I mean maybe Golarion is much better suited to 3.5 DnD, but maybe if they divert part of their creative efforts to a campaign setting suited for 4e (in a non-tongue-in-cheek manner mind you) that'd be awesome.
The online effort is pathetic. Nothing has even been posted since early may.
I don't know what you're talking about. New articles are posted for each ezine about every other day. Maybe you're not looking hard enough (or don't want to).
3 dungeon articles (not all adventures) and 4 dragon articles in all of May sounds like his point was accurate to me.
It is fair to say that the offering so far has been pathetic, as each ezine languished for most of the preview period. And lets all remember that when the print mags were canned, Wizards stated that it would be a full preview. What we got was a haphazard pile of crap, poorly formated, and thin on content.
Since the launch in June, they've had a more regular schedule, seemingly putting up a weekly dungeon "something or other" and a couple of dragon articles per week. What I suspect is that the print schedule for a typical non-launch issue will be somewhere between the disaster that the preview was and the heavy print load we're seeing this month.
Even many 4e fans view the online mags as a train wreck. Hopefully they can salvage them as time goes on, but I for one am not confident in anything "electronic" done by Wotc.
Well I think the articles are awesome. In fact a lot of people like the electronic format, and the depth of the articles. And I don't see how this is much different from the print version of Dragon and Dungeon, I mean it's some articles about gaming and optional rules, how's that different?
Geez, how often are you gonna throw your players into pits? I mean I can see if everyone in the party was an eladrin, but taking away Feystep as an encounter power seems a bit much, and unfairly penalizing players for playing a "cool" race.
I'm guessing you've never played through The Tomb of Horrors. (2E, not 3.5)
No, I don't know any DM that sadistic, but most adventures aren't modeled after Tomb of Horrors, and if you were gonna do a ToH style adventure, I'm sure a lot of thought would go into getting around the "Feystep problem".
I'm not by any means saying that my opinion is any more important than anyone else's, and I usually hate it when people post "here's what I thing about this" threads instead of finding some other post that deals with the same topic.
That having been said, most threads there were about "first impressions" or "gut reactions" went off on tons of different tangents, so I figured I'd go ahead and post this thread.
Anyway, here is a link to my blog where I gave my impression of 4th edition, and feel free to disregard these comments, since its just my thought on the topic:
I'm sorry, I've been ignoring you this entire time ^^;;
I do like your review, it's honest, and you're not nitpicking the game and comparing everything to WoW like some other guy who posts on here. I mean he was doing it to the point of nitpicking something 'cause he missed something right before it, and now his blog is like the "Let's hate 4e blog!" But yeah, enough comparisons (lol).
I myself look forward to running 4e games, it does fit my style which is have everything be exciting. But that's mostly 'cause I didn't like wasting 3 hours making an NPC to fight, even the mundane NPCs took about an hour to make. But now I can just throw an important NPC in like half an hour, less if I rush it. Still it's nice to see someone who thinks both systems are nice, and won't completely shun one over the other.
Seriously? I think it encourages people to describe things. I mean before it was always "I hit with my mace", now it's "I smack him with my mace and leave a brand", and other such things. Maybe your friend was just having an off day.
More than that, when you run a skill challenge you have to describe how you're using a skill, so no more "I roll a 23 on Diplomacy, what happens?", it's "I tell the store owner 'Hey, there's goblins coming this way, you'll be doing yourself and everyone a favor if you give us a bigger discount' aaaand... I roll an 8 on Bluff. Drat."
Personally yeah... while some of the others did describe things I notcied that he didn't. To be honest I think the problem is that he is our resident WoW player. Most of us haven't even played WoW. He does constantly. So maybe the whole 4e is like WoW is semi valid. He just sees his "powers" the same as he does in game and doesn't feel it needs a description.
Again I could be wrong on both counts and I am willing to admit that. I am still trying to hold out on my final decision until I get to actually play the game. However as of now it may be a while. Still I will give it a full go just to see if I like it.
Oh, well that might explain it. I guess people who've played WoW or know much about it seemed to be jaded to the point that they think you have to play the game like an MMO, when the opposite is true. I may not know a lot about MMORPGs, but aside from the superficial I don't see how the game is like WoW.
Maybe 4e gives off the vibe of "exciting, modern fantasy", but I don't see why you can't make a strictly medieval campaign setting with the system. I think the DMG talks about this, but I can probably think of a few ideas.
First make magic really scarce. It's already meant to be scarce, but they say magic can be "rare and dangerous" in contrast to "The World Is a Fantastic Place" world assumption. And you might want to change "The Common Races Band Together" to get the 1st ed. feel. You may want to have firmly established kingdoms, too, rather than the world being plagued by monsters.
Now for martial characters, just rename all the powers to sound less over the top. Cleave will still be Cleave, but things like Tide of Iron can be Pushing Strike or something like that.
You can even take it further and require minimum ability scores for playing different races, but that just might be too much.
I have to agree. I ran Game Day and the game is very good mechanically. If it wasn't "D&D" I would probably add it to my collection of WoD, M&M, CoC, Shadowrun, and a few others. For me the breaking point was when the person playing the wizard,(who I have played with for about two years now) said I'm attacking with my magic missile. It just took away from everything. He used to actually say cast and give some description. Now it is just i attack with MM. Now I admit that is more his problem than the system. However the system seems to encourage a simple "I do this" way of doing things.
I like the actual system. I just wish it wasn't called D&D. Grognard signing off.
Seriously? I think it encourages people to describe things. I mean before it was always "I hit with my mace", now it's "I smack him with my mace and leave a brand", and other such things. Maybe your friend was just having an off day.
More than that, when you run a skill challenge you have to describe how you're using a skill, so no more "I roll a 23 on Diplomacy, what happens?", it's "I tell the store owner 'Hey, there's goblins coming this way, you'll be doing yourself and everyone a favor if you give us a bigger discount' aaaand... I roll an 8 on Bluff. Drat."
Avid role player, father and EMT looking for a Pathfinder game in the Marietta/Kennesaw area. Having played for about 35 years, I make fully fleshed-out characters with detailed histories. I am well-versed in the rules, very creative and extremely organized so that my turn lengths are reasonable. I'm happy to provide past characters I've made for games have an extensive history on the PBP area of these boards.
Thank you for reading. I would like some advice for a PFS spiritualist.
This character is heavily concept driven but I still want to be effective. I plan to go with Rule of Cool where visuals are concerned as long as the crunch is RAW. I'm sure that's confusing so maybe this will help.
Gwendolyn Cossette is a 12 year old girl in gothic lolita attire with a tragic background of abuse. Her phantom is a giant dullahan in armor with a greatsword. The phantom will spend most of it's time in her subconscious, only coming out during stressful periods.
Choice 1: Standard or Broken Mind
The dullahan could represent the bitterness and betrayal she feels at having been so wronged and that she has walled away in her subconscious. [Broken Mind]
The dullahan could also represent a rogue psychopomp that has decided to get revenge on her behalf. [Standard]
Both ideas are cool so I have no preference for one over the other.
I would like for her to melee beside the dullahan in combat. However, I am not factoring her age into her crunch whatsoever. This makes her a medium humanoid with standard human stats. I plan to give her a high strength/con, etc to represent a kind of brutal, lunatic power.
Choice 2: Multiclass or Not
I could multiclass her with a martial class to have access to greatsword and giant hammers. This would look really cool on the miniature I am making and would improve her damage. I am certain, however, that I do not want to put her in medium/heavy armor as I don't want to ruin her gothic lolita look. Multi-classes would then need to be something that doesn't rely on armor. [Multiclass]
I could keep her straight spiritualist and use a giant scythe. I don't know if she'd be effective with it, but I could throw the vast majority of my feats at that weapon style. [No Multiclass]
Neither of these questions really affect the character I see in my mind and so are pure crunch. I've no doubt that the character sounds kind of crazy but I'm currently working on her character sketch in Photoshop as well as a custom mini for her. I am very happy where both are going and am certain she will be awesome.
I have been trying to roll an effective "golemancer" type and came across Ravingdork's Obrist Lang.
I think the rules for wearing constructs are clear, but I don't think I understand the benefit. There also seem to be some aspects uncovered.
From the SRD:
Construct Armor
Requirements: Craft Construct, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, animate objects, the construct modified must be the same size as the creator
CR increase: +1
Cost: 35,000 gp
This modification allows the construct to be worn like armor by its creator. So long as the creator wears it, the construct performs no independent actions, remaining under the control of the creator, and any attacks directed at the wearer first damage the construct. When a construct is destroyed while serving as armor, the wearer loses all the benefits, but regains all the hindrances until the armor is removed, which takes the same amount of time that removing breastplate armor does. If the construct is still active, the creator can order the removal of the armor with a swift action, at which point the construct leaves the creator’s space and enters a space adjacent to the creator. Donning construct armor takes a full-round action if the construct is still active. The creator cannot don a construct with this modification if the construct has been destroyed. The construct’s wearer retains his base attacks and saves. Construct armor counts as breastplate armor for purposes of determining AC, weight, Dexterity modifiers to AC, and chance of arcane spell failure.
1. Do you need to be proficient in armor to wear a construct as armor?
2. What armor type does it count as, medium? Can you make a light suit?
3. Do you get the benefit of its damage resistance? Its natural armor?
4. Can we assume that you cannot wear armor under it?
5. Is it affected separately by AoE spells?
6. Can it be targeted separately from it's wearer by spells or attacks?
7. Does its inability to take indirect action keep you from using its modes of movement?
8. Do you get the use of any of its ability scores?
9. Can I assume that it could be enchanted, upping both its AC and yours when wearing it?
This concept seems relatively popular, but I'm having a little trouble understanding its benefit vs its cost.
Benefit: Damage Resistance that can be scaled pretty high
Benefit: You can step out of it to have your own flanking buddy
Benefit: Utilizing its movement mode would be a benefit
Benefit: Getting DR on a wizard would be a benefit if you don't need proficiency
Disadvantage: You'll need to remove it early in combat because you're severely hampered if it's destroyed on you
Disadvantage: It takes three feats to have a suit at a reasonable level
Disadvantage: Creation is very expensive - you must make the construct and pay an additional 35,000 gp - I think. Obrist Lang by Ravingdork is the only premade character I've really seen with this concept, but I'm confused over its cost. The cost is listed as 5k gp. What happened to the 35k listed in the SRD? Does it not apply?
Disadvantage: Once it's removed, you are left unarmored
Unfortunately, RD is not available to answer questions. Please help show me what I'm missing. 8)
I've been looking at making a non-third party golemancer and hoped someone might have some ideas I haven't thought of, or even better, had actually played one.
I've been looking at classes pretty in-depth and this is what I've come up with so far:
Summoner - It seems like it would be relatively easy to give your eidolon a mechanical appearance and flavor. It's evolutions would represent upgrades and your spells could represent temporary enhancements. Other summons could be prototypes that grow from little seed-balls that you toss on the ground. I think this has good flavor, but you've not really made a golem.
Wizard - With Int as their primary stat, you can jack it up really high to benefit the craft check to make a golem. The big downside is that they only have three ways to heal their golem: Make Whole (which I've read has a ten minute casting time but can't find on d20pfsrd.) Rapid Repair gives them fast healing and they can be repaired with craft construct, but this is quite expensive. Some can also be healed by spells, but that is very situational based on the type of golem. Wizards get bonus feats you can spend on item creation and there is a discovery that can let you make a specific type of golem without the three prereq feats. Other than healing, Wizard seems the best class for making golems.
Sorcerer/Oracle - You have to split stats between Int and Cha which is a big negative. You have the same healing problems but at least don't have to memorize make whole when your golem doesn't get damaged.
Alchemist - Same stat benefits as the wizard and you are a little more melee centric so you can fight with the golem to provide flanks, etc. Make Whole is not on the alchemist's list however, so healing the golem is even harder. I think this is kind of disappointing as I'd imagine alchemists to be the perfect golem creators.
Cleric - You have to split stats like the sorcerer which is bad. This is the best class for healing golems however with the artifice domain and same spells that the wizard receives. You can fight beside your golem, which is good. I don't really like the flavor as I was hoping for a mad scientist feel rather than a Gondsman and this is kind of a big deal to me. Other than having to split stats and my not liking the flavor, clerics seem the second best class for making golems.
Bard/Witch/Magus/Druid/Inquisitor - I should imagine all of these classes can make golems but I don't really see any benefit to their doing so. They won't really be able to heal it and there doesn't seem to be any symmetry.
I'd love some advice on this concept. I'm very interested in it but it seems really inferior to necromancy and even more inferior to just summoning.
Are alchemical zombies evil?
Is their creation evil?
Alchemical Zombie - Benefit: The alchemist gains the ability to animate a relatively complete corpse as an alchemy-powered zombie. Zombies that are created in this manner count as undead created by animate dead for the purposes of determining how many undead the alchemist can control. The created zombie is a creature, not a supernatural effect.
I'm kind of assuming they are although it doesn't explicitly say so. If they are undead, and all undead are evil, then they would be evil. The more difficult question of course is if their creation is evil the way Animate Dead is an evil spell.
I want to make a caster who specializes in making magic items. The pre-req for the feat Craft Construct is Caster Level 5. How is caster level determined in this case for multi-class characters? Do you add them all up or do you have to have one at 5?
The same question holds true when you go to make the golem. Some of those require specific class levels, and others "caster level." Now, of course if they state a particular class, then you must have that class to a certain level. But again, if they simply say "Caster level", how is this determined?
I know that there are other half fey templates and racial stats, but I haven't seen any created using the Advanced Race Guide. I'd therefore like to get opinions on one I have created with the rules in Section 4 of that book.
Fey Foundlings Ability Modifiers: +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, –2 Wisdom: Fey Foundling are both quick and beautiful but tend to be flighty and live in the present.
Fey: Fey Foundlings are humanoids of the fey subtype
Medium: Fey Foundlings are Medium creatures and receive no bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Normal Speed: Fey Foundlings have a base speed of 30 feet on land.
Low-light Vision: Fey Foundlings can see twice as far in the dark than normal
Fey Magic
Spell-Like Ability: Constant – Nondetection
1/day: blindness/deafness, blur, disguise self
+1 DC to spells they cast from the Illusion school
Resistances
Slippery Mind: The minds of fey are slippery and Fey Foundlings receive +2 to all saves against mind affecting effects or spells
Natural Constitution: A Fey Foundling’s link with the natural world gives them a +2 to all saves against natural poisons
Silver Tongued: Fey Foundlings are very glib and gain +2 to diplomacy and bluff rolls. Additionally, when they use Diplomacy to shift a creature’s attitude, they can do so up to three steps up rather than just two.
Languages: Fey Foundlings begin play speaking Common and Sylvan. Fey Foundling with high Intelligence scores can choose from the following: Elvish, Gnome, Halfling, Dwarvish, Goblin, Troll, Orc
Appearance: Fey Foundlings have long pointed ears (between six and twelve inches) with tufts of hair on the end, as well as glittering, jewel-like eyes. They may possess as many as three of the following physical traits: small antlers, cloven hooves or vestigial wings.
Fey - 2 pnts
Medium - 0 pnts
Normal Base Speed - 0 pnts
Standard Ability Scores - 0 pnts
Languages: Standard - 0 pnts
Resistant: 2 pnts
Silver Tongued - 3 pnts
Svirfneblin Magic - 2 pnts
Total - 9 pnts
Asrai Parent: Nymph, Nereid, Rusalka, Satyr
Appearance: Asrai appear as extremely beautiful males or females of their non-fey parent race. When mortals think of “standard” fey, it is the asrai that come to mind.
Ability Adjustments: +2 dex, +2 cha, -2 con. Asrai are quick and beautiful, but willowy.
Alternate Racial Feature: Seducer: Prerequisite: Members of this race add +1 to the saving throw DCs for their spells and spell-like abilities of the enchantment school. In addition, members of this race with a Charisma score of 15 or higher may use charm person once per day as a spell-like ability (caster level is equal to the user’s character level). This ability replaces Fey Magic.
Bogies Parent: Bogeymen
Appearance: In addition to their pointed ears, Bogies have dark hair and eyes with pale skin. Their features are permanently set in a knowing smirk with eyes open wide and sharpened teeth flashed in a dangerous grin.
Ability Adjustments: +2 dex, +2 cha, -2 str. Bogies are fast, with strong personalities. They are cerebral however, and not prone to physical violence.
Alternate Racial Feature: Waking Nightmares: Once per day, a member of this race can create a 20-foot-radius burst that causes humanoids within the aura’s range to become shaken. Humanoids which are already frightened become frightened. Affected humanoids may resist this effect by making a successful Will saving throw (DC 10 + ½ the user’s character level + the user’s Charisma modifier). This ability replaces Silver Tongued.
Phooka Parent: Korred, Redcaps, Pechs
Appearance: Phooka share their squat, wide stature with dwarves though are still medium creatures. They share the normal fey features but never have vestigial wings.
Ability Adjustments: +2 str, +2 con, -4 cha. Phooka are strong and hardy but gruff and unpleasant to be around.
Alternate Racial Features: Kneecapper: Bwca gain a +4 racial bonus on combat maneuver checks to trip an opponent.
Relentless: Bwca gain a +2 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to bull rush or overrun an opponent. This bonus only applies when both the bwca and their opponent are on the ground
Kick: Bwca have natural kick attack, dealing 1d3 damage. The kick is a primary attack, or a secondary attack if the creature is wielding manufactured weapons.
These abilities replace Silver Tongued.
Clauracan Parent: Pixies, Leprechaun, Qucklings
Appearance: While appearing identical to their larger fey cousins, Clauracan are small in size rather than medium.
Ability Adjustments: +4 dex, +2 cha, -2 str. Clauracan are extremely quick and as beautiful as most fey. Their small stature however penalizes their strength.
Alternate Racial Feature: Unearthly Speed: Clauracan add their Charisma bonus as well as their Dexterity bonus to their armor class and reflex saves when wearing light or no armor. This ability replaces Silver Tongued.
Small Stature: Clauracan are small creatures and therefore receive +1 to hit and ac and +4 to stealth while being restricted to small weapons.
Children of the Trees Parent: Dryads
Appearance: Children of the Trees have whorled patterns in their skin similar to the bark of their fey parent’s tree. Their hair matches the colors of leaves and changes color with the season. They rarely have antlers, vestigial wings or cloven hooves.
Ability Adjustments: +2 wis, +2 cha, -2 int. Children of the Trees are patient and possess a healthy, natural beauty, but prefer the outdoors to intellectual pursuits.
Alternate Racial Feature: Wooden Skin: Children of the trees have a natural armor class of +1. This ability replaces Fey Magic.
I am playing a musket master gunslinger in a Kingmaker game and have been looking at the cost for firearm ammunition.
Making ammunition with Gunsmithing:
Spoiler:
Crafting Ammunition: You can craft bullets, pellets, and
black powder for a cost in raw materials equal to 10% of the
price. If you have at least 1 rank in Craft (alchemy), you can
craft alchemical cartridges for a cost in raw materials equal
to half the price of the cartridge. Crafting bullets,
black powder, or cartridges takes 1 day of work for every
1,000 gp of ammunition (minimum 1 day).
Definition of Alchemical Cartridges
Spoiler:
Alchemical Cartridges: An alchemical cartridge is a
prepared bundle of black powder with a bullet or pellets,
sometimes with more exotic material added, which is then
wrapped in paper or cloth and sealed with beeswax, lard, or
tallow. There are many types of alchemical cartridges, the
simplest being the paper cartridge—a simple mix of black
powder and either pellets or a bullet.
10 gp = 1 dose black powder
1 gp = 1 bullet
11 gp total
10% to make it myself
11 silver total for 1 shot
Now, if I take that same powder and bullet and wrap it in a scrap of cloth and apply some beeswax, I pay:
12 gp = 1 paper catridge
50% to make it myself
60 silver total for 1 shot
That's 49 silver for a scrap of cloth or paper and a bit of beeswax.
That seems rather harsh to me. Has this been errata'd? How are other gunslingers dealing with this issue?
I don't want to butt in where I'm not wanted, but I thought I'd post a short opinion peice of what works for me when it comes to getting into pbp games. So far, I seem to have a 50% acceptance rate and while I don't know exactly why I get selected, I have noticed a few trends.
I haven't read anyone else's character submissions and haven't run any games, so I haven't had to select characters for one. I'm therefore speaking only as a player applicant. If this post is not helpful to you, please ignore it. I know that I'm not better than anyone else; this is simply what seems to work for me.
1. It really seems to help if you have a strong creative writing background. After 20 years in advertising, it's a skill I'm very thankful to have developed. I am careful with my submission, reading it over at least twice for grammar and spelling errors before posting. I figure little mistakes nag at the mind of my reader, never quite consciously ruining my entry, but adding up.
2. Pick a role in a categry with room for applicants. Some classes - Summoner, Magus, Barbarian, Monk - seem to have a lot of applicants for every game. In the last game I applied for, a summoner had a really strong application, so I went for a rogue instead.
3. Your character should match their race and class, but should also stand out due to their individual quirks. Make a dwarf character who is dutiful, honorable and hard working - then make him claustrophobic as an explanation for why he is a druid. Your story here is as much about what it's like to be a druid with dwarf sensibilities as it is to have grown up a dwarf unable to fit in their accustomed role. I don't recommend playing completely against type, but it does seem to help if you are an individual and not a stereotype.
4. Avoid the flavor of the month classes and make sure your character doesn't seem min maxed. While I don't have a problem with these characters per se, I assume DMs aren't big fans of them as they never seem to make the cut. If you utilize a dump stat, try to make it one your race has normally. That way, it doesn't seem like you dumped it for points.
5. I personally look online for cool pictures before I start making a character, often taking several hours to choose a picture but less than one on crunch. It helps me game to a concept rather than the reverse. If you are male, try making a female. If you are an organised go-getter, try to make an indecisive ditz. Even if you don't submit them, it's a good exercise for roleplaying.
6. With your concept selected, make your character, write your backstory, and then look at your character again. Does that story fit that character? If not, rework your character, not your story. Your story will get you in a game and the extra +1 to hit or damage won't matter if you don't get in.
7. Make a group-oriented character. Every lone wolf character I have submitted has been overlooked. Every character with a story that doesn't require other players for fulfillment has also been passed over. You don't have to be a support class, but your character does need to have a use for others, or else you don't seem to get picked.
8. Lastly, when all is said and done and your character is made, ask yourself, "Why this Barbarian and not someone else's?" If the character's personality doesn't answer that question for you, start again. The straightforward classes are the hardest to make standout, at least for me. A friend played a pig farmer who decided to become an adventurer when his pigs took sick and died. I've always thought the sheer ordinariness of it was brilliant, in a world where every hero has a prophecy predicting that they will save the universe.
Of course, all of this assumes you have good writing skills. What do you do if your writing skills aren't so polished? What do you do if you write well, but aren't as creative as you'd like to be?
I don't have answers to those questions but it seems to me that hard work can always make up for raw talent when dilligently applied. Work up three characters with everything you think GMs are looking for. Focus a lot of attention on their backgrounds and personalities. Pick over your writing to make everything as clear and grammatically correct as possible, and then submit them carefully, to adventures where they seem to fit, rather than simply the next one to come along.
As I said at the beginning, please don't think I claim to know any more than you. If this post isn't helpful, please ignore it. I have had some of my favorite concepts shot down. I have had characters that GMs like, but didn't pick. There are many good writers on these boards and all of you make excellent characters. Sometimes a character simply needs that extra little push to make it over the top.
Please don't give up if it takes you extra time to get into a game. Each time you are not accepted, take a look at the characters that were. What did they have that you don't? And once you are accepted into a game, apply what you've learned to your next application.
I am playing a witch in a Ravenloft adventure and I want to have a flying monkey, ala Wizard of Oz, for a familiar. I'd like to have a concept together to present to the GM when I ask permission. This means I can have some stuff that's "DM's Call", but I won't be the one making the call.
If I base them off the Monkey which you can already have as a familiar:
Spoiler:
N Tiny animal
Init +2; Senses low-light vision; Perception +5
DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 14, flat-footed 12 (+2 Dex, +2 size)
hp 4 (1d8)
Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +1
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft., climb 30 ft.
Melee bite +4 melee (1d3–4)
Space 2-1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
STATISTICS
Str 3, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 5
Base Atk +0; CMB +0; CMD 6
Feats Weapon Finesse
Skills Acrobatics +10, Climb +10, Perception +5; Racial Modifiers +8 Acrobatics
Adding wings with this template is +1 CR:
Spoiler:
From Super Genius Games
Rebuild Rules: Creatures with this template gain a natural fly rate, and treat Fly as a class skill. The fly rate is equal to 20 feet + 10 feet per size category smaller or larger than medium +10 feet for every 4 hit dice (or fraction thereof).
The CR of an airborne creature is +1 over the base creature, with a minimum CR of 2.
This is moving a CR 1/4 creature to CR 2 for the addition of wings, which seems excessive. If you made this a familiar, would he then be an Improved Familiar? At what level? I would have to say 3rd because he doesn't compare to the Entropic Monkey at 3rd.
Spoiler:
Rebuild Rules: Senses gains darkvision 60 ft.; Defensive Abilities gains DR and Resist acid/fire 5; SR gains spell resistance equal to new CR +5; Special Attacks smite law 1/day as a swift action (adds Cha bonus to attack rolls and damage bonus equal to HD against lawful foes; smite persists until the target is dead or the entropic creature rests).
Or, he could be based on the chimpanzee, who is CR 1:
Spoiler:
XP 400
N Medium animal
Init +2; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +8
DEFENSE
AC 15, touch 14, flat-footed 11; (+4 Dex, +1 natural)
hp 13 (3d8)
Fort +5, Ref +7, Will +2
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft., climb 30 ft.
Melee 2 slams +2 (1d4)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
STATISTICS
Str 11, Dex 19, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +2; CMB +2; CMD 16
Feats Great Fortitude, Skill Focus (Perception)
Skills Acrobatics +8, Climb +12, Perception +8
So now he's a 2 CR creature and this makes a lot more sense. Only thing is, how he's definitely Improved Familiar, probably at level 7, which puts him on par with a mephit, quasit or imp and he doesn't compare to them at all. They all have spell abilities and this guy basically has nothing you'd want your familiar to use. Additionally, he's a medium creature, which I certainly don't want.
So, what about the young template:
Spoiler:
-1 CR
Size decrease by one category; AC reduce natural armor by –2 (minimum +0); Attacks decrease damage dice by 1 step; Ability Scores –4 Strength, –4 Con, +4 size bonus to Dex.
This makes him a 1 CR creature which would be Improved Familiar level 3 or 5?
So I'm caught kind of in the middle. We are starting the game at 6th level. Witches MUST start with a familiar - so I'd take bat. I would want to upgrade to a sylvanshee at 7th level, but calling a new familiar would be 3500 gp.
And while yes, a witch having a flying black cat familiar is kind of cool, it's not nearly as cool as a flying monkey.
I'm looking for campaign writing software. Not a virtual table top or software that helps you run the game, just software to organize things while you write it.
At a minimum I'd like to be able to:
Import maps
Import or Link to premade monster stat blocks
If I could have anything I wanted, I'd want:
Encounter creators that work out CRs
Linking within the document for each time an NPC is used
Pre-entered treasure blocks or generators
Customizable monsters such as goblin sorcerers, etc.
All of it needs to be Pathfinder compatible.
I've been using Microsoft Word 2010 but I seem to spend more time formatting than I do writing. I have to draw all of my maps in Adobe Illustrator, convert them to jpgs in Photoshop and then import them into Word only to have them randomly cropped or disappearing off the page. If I want to add a monster or change one's position, I have to open Illustrator, then Photoshop, then reimport the map. Meh.
I import monsters from the web and then have to virtually type them over as the formating goes bonkers. I've got five books open at any given time and it's all just a pain.
I'd like something that smooths the whole process down. Want to add a goblin to the encounter? Click. Give him treasure? Click. Place him on an imported map? Click.
Can you take more than one archtype if the replaced skills don't overlap? Can you take more than one archtype where the replaced skills do overlap and choose which skill you want?
I'm trying to work out where I want to put my new dungeon and running into a bit of trouble. I want to put it in Haruka but Kaer Maga is kind of getting in the way.
I took the Lost Kingdoms map from the back of the World Guide and superimposed it over the Varissian map from the same book to see exactly what my options are. Yes, I know I'm being nit-picky, but I really want this to be canon.
Kaer Maga was run by Karzoug but between one map and another he's crept over into Haruka. This would be fine but Haruka is butted right up against Eurythnia. This narrows Haruka to a tiny sliver from the Ashwood Forest to the land between the Yondabakari and Runtash Rivers.
So, I'm going to try to work with it by putting the dungeon in/near the Ashwood Forest. I don't want it next to Kaer Maga because I don't want this to become a Kaer Maga campaign.
Rumors have the Ashwood Forest with ghosts and werewolves. Is there anything anywhere that ties that down more definitively or can I play with that rumor while remaining canon?
