Search Posts
Erik, It has been nearly 12 years since you guys contracted for that font with Darlene. Is there any reason to sit on it. There are lot of us old Greyhawk hands that would love to use the font for our own purposes. Are you still planning to use it? Thanks, Bryan Blumklotz
Welcome back to journalling your campaign. I assume because this is on the Paizo boards that it will be Safe for Work?
Stefan, I am slowly going through and tagging the photos with basic info first. I will be identifying characters and acts in the play as time permits. As for the Paizo staff, Cosmo from CustServ was there. The two female staffers I have brain damaged their names (never been good with name and face recognition). I know one of those in the Paizo party was BBC addict (Erik's girlfriend?). I didn't meet everyone unfortunately. I am sure the paizo staff can help id those I am missing. Bryan Blumklotz
(btw, I had the flashlight reflecting on dust motes on interior photos more than once as well - it is really annoying. There should be some software in the camera filtering that out.)Stefan Thanks. Yeah I got around the dust and smoke issue by not using a flash during my shooting. Well it was more out of concern for the safety of the cast who where fighting with live steel. I am not talking Robin Hood fencing but massed combat on the stage with lots of running around. I cannot say enough about the fight choreography. The only photoshop thing I have done with the photos was reducing the images about 75% in size so I could get them all up on my free flickr account. My raw images are about 2MB in size on average. There are several photos where I need to lighten them up (some of the mood lighting was just too dark for my camera to pick-up). There is not a lot I can do about the blur. I am glad I went twice. I didn't shoot much on opening night because I wanted to take in the play as a whole. When my wife and I went back on closing night I was much more comfortable shooting and I knew where to look because I knew what was coming. Again, thanks, Bryan Blumklotz
I now have clearances to post photos of the play up. I haven't had time to list the characters and adults. Burnt Offerings Photos:
Please do not use the children's names if you comment on any of the photos. Please note that I was shooting in low-light conditions without a flash. My camera, while a good one, is not a professional rig. There are some gems in the bunch but there is also a lot of blur. I did remove the accidental shot of my foot <G>. Thanks, Bryan Blumklotz
Ok, Just got back from the play tonight. AWESOME! They did a great job. Beautiful sets, the kids where great, the fight choreography was very good. Aside from some minor technical issues typical for an opening night, all in all you have to go if you can get to Portland to see it. The wife and I are gathering some friends to see it again on Saturday the 21st. See you there Paizo folk. I am trying to get permission to get the cast & crew to sign my copy of Burnt Offerings. Bryan Blumklotz
I got my tickets for me and my wife! WOOT! Chris, I am living in Portland again (left Seattle in 2002), married, and back to organizing RPGA stuff after a 3 year absence (burnout), alas I am running/playing 4e (I do love the story stuff that Paizo is putting out, reminds me of the creative stuff that Living Arcanis was doing). Beyond that, I am back in school getting my accounting degree. Oh yeah, I have two pugs that have me wrapped around their tiny little paws. Bryan Blumklotz
Thanks for the re-post. I am kinda psyched to see this. I love my home town. This weekend, H.P. Lovecraft film festival. Saracenus
In short yes. Last night we re-kicked off my long term Greyhawk campaign after a 2 month hiatus (school was a really mother this last term) and I have been running some 4e in my 3.5 game since the previews. 1) Death and dying (preview version), no surges for now.
2) Took the minion concept out for a test spin.
3a) I use the Adventures = Special Destiny concept in 4e. Only Adventurers and special NPCs can be raised. That means that at high levels of play if they let the monarch die, he or she is dead, dead, dead. Oooops. 3b) In light of PC exceptionalism, PCs start with 5 extra hit points at 1st and they gain 1/2 their HD+1 plus their Con bonus in hp when they level. This made them a bit more robust. 4) I have started designing my monsters outside the player rules. This allows me to challenge them and I don't have to do crazy math and under/over balance the NPC/Monster to make it a challenge to the PCs. <<EDIT:>>
Pathfinder things I have swiped. 1) For now 0-level spells are at will.
Things from 4e I will be stealing in the next session: 1) Skill challenges (yummy!), there was nothing to negotiate with in last session but there will be in this one. 2) Action Points, Quests, and milestones. Will take some modification but I think this will help focus my group on the task at hand. But still let them go in new and different directions if they want. What have I noticed by adding these rules into my game? Well, combats are way faster. I can throw a hoard of bad guys at the party and it will challenge them (may even kill them) without being to overwhelming. I look forward to mining 4e and Pathfinder RPG for stuff for my campaign. In Service, Saracenus
As for whether or not WotC can fail - arrogance, poor service, and dictating style of play are part of the sordid tail of the downfall of TSR. So it could happen. But I personally expect them to continue outselling Paizo. Which is fine - if PF RPG got as big as D&D, the company likely wouldn't be as nice to support as it is now. While TSR's customer service tone deafness was a contributing factor in their downfall, it was really bad business decisions that killed it. If there is anything WotC is good at is cutting out a dead game line. If it doesn't make a metric its dead. They probably will not be caught with the huge unsold inventory of crap that TSR accumulated. ~~Saracenus
Unfortunately I didn't have to play test the new Paly to see the level 1-4 suck-fest that it is. Quite frankly the update for the Pathfinder RPG did nothing to fix the problems with the class that have existed since the 3e release. I do not like the point system suggestion, it adds a layer of complexity that I think we need to move away from, not embrace. I say this about rage points as well. I will again say that smite evil is nowhere on par with a core rules barbarian's rage. I will also again say that the smite should be 1/combat, not 1/day. Here is a link to my post on how I think smite should be handled:
Bryan Blumklotz
I posted this originally in the General Discussion section under The Paladin, Glaring Failures and Glinting Successes thread and then realized it should be posted here instead. As I have posted in the past I really don't like how Paladins where handled in 3e (initially too front loaded, now trying to cover too many bases with too few resources). I know one of the commandments of the Pathfinder RPG process is "keep compatibility." However, I believe this class needs a rethinking. Since we are not going to use Green Ronin's Holy Warrior Handbook (3.5 updated from The Book of the Righteous) I would propose the following: SMITE EVIL:
Smite Evil (Su): Once per combat, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.
4th level - Treat the weapon used during the smite as good aligned for that attack. 7th level - Holy burst, if a smite attack confirms a critical against an evil creature, it deals 1d10 of holy damage per critical modifier (e.g. x2 does 2d10, x3 does 3d10, etc). 10th level - Treat the weapon used during the smite as undead bane or evil outsider bane, chosen at the time this ability is gained, for that attack. 13th level - Gain an extra smite per combat. 16th level - Blinding smite, an evil creature is overwhelmed by divine power. A successful smite against an evil target blinds that target until the start of its next round. A critical blinds the creature for additional round equal to its critical modifier (e.g. x2 is 3 rounds, x3 is 4 rounds). 19th - Gain an extra smite per combat. These are just examples of what smite could be, the order or the powers themselves are in play. If you don't like them or they need to be rebalanced then by all means fiddle with it. Thanks, Bryan Blumklotz
Given some of the reports emerging from GAMA suggesting that Greyhawk may indeed be on the list of Campaign setting to be released under 4E rules, I thought that I would bump this thread up the board, in case Greyhawk fans wished to discuss this further. Well Charles, I imagine that it will go something like this for a lot of Greyhawkers: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened." ::SMIRK:: Bryan Blumklotz
As I have posted in the past I really don't like how Paladins where handled in 3e (initially too front loaded, now trying to cover too many bases with too few resources). I know one of the commandments of the Pathfinder RPG process is "keep compatibility." However, I believe this class needs a rethinking. Since we are not going to use Green Ronin's Holy Warrior Handbook (3.5 updated from The Book of the Righteous) I would propose the following: SMITE EVIL:
Smite Evil (Su): Once per combat, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.
4th level - Treat the weapon used during the smite as good aligned for that attack. 7th level - Holy burst, if a smite attack confirms a critical against an evil creature, it deals 1d10 of holy damage per critical modifier (e.g. x2 does 2d10, x3 does 3d10, etc). 10th level - treat the weapon used during the smite as undead bane or evil outsider bane, chosen at the time this ability is gained, for that attack. 13th level - Gain an extra smite per combat. 16th level - Blinding smite, an evil creature is overwhelmed by divine power. A successful smite against an evil target blinds that target until the start of its next round. A critical blinds the creature for additional round equal to its critical modifier (e.g. x2 is 3 rounds, x3 is 4 rounds). 19th - Gain an extra smite per combat. These are just examples of what smite could be, the order or the powers themselves are in play. If you don't like them or they need to be rebalanced then by all means fiddle with it. DIVINE BOND: I agree that the Paladin's mount should be expanded to include a companion option instead. Basically, a mount or companion creature is a function of its CR and whether it can fly or not. If people want to see a break down of SRD mounts and companions by CR, I can post that up. In my campaign, your choice of patron deity influences which mount/companion you can summon. For example, paladins of the goddess of arguments and volcanoes can call a companion, either a Medium fire elemental at 6th or a Small fire mephit at 7th. Anyway, those are my suggestions, Bryan Blumklotz
I mean my understanding is that it wasn't a case of hindsight being 20/20. They knew some things that they wanted to fix before 3.0 was done. Why not just fix em? This is a distorted understanding of what was happening at the time. When 3rd Edition was being created there was raging debates on how far they could take the game. There was a real worry if too many sacred cows got slaughtered the 2nd edition gamers wouldn't come on board. I am sorry I don't have the links to Monte's ramblings about the it. They are out there. He basically said that players were a lot more tolerant to change than they initially thought, had they known that they would have done a more radical job on the rules. You also got to understand there was limited time and limited resources to throw at the game. Also, its neigh impossible to play test a game as complex as D&D. Quite frankly the warts really didn't start to really rear their ugly head until a few years in. Today, after the Hasbro purchase, there are less people working at WotC in the various D&D departments. There has been some churn and very few who were there for the initial 3e push are around. So, am I surprised by what WotC is doing now? Nope. Am I hopeful they will produce a good game, yep. Will I make uniformed decisions about WotC's motives, nope. There is a lot of wild-eyed speculation as to WotC motivations. The fact is, unless you are in their meetings you really don't know all the forces at work. I am not there so all I can do is watch for certain behaviors common to all companies and guess. My Two Coppers, Bryan Blumklotz
WotC's purchase of dead husk of TSR was apples, Hasbro's purchase of WotC was oranges. The difference being TSR was circling the drain where as WotC was a profitable concern during its sale to Hasbro (something it has continued to do). You can see Ryan Dancy's (father of the OGL) excellent overview of why TSR died [here] If you think WotC is TSR you really don't understand how they operate. They live and die by market research. While we, a vocal minority rail against them for changing the game you can bet that someone was doing said research and all indicators are that to maintain or grow the market they need to push into electronic support and lower barriers to entry to the game. I will bet that the data they have gathered supports the move in the direction they are going. I know that I hate the amount of prep time I spend getting a 3.5 adventure off the ground (I steal stuff from published materials but I heavily modify them for my home game). That one promise by WotC of unburdening the DM will make me take a hard look at their new rules. Further, WotC has a budget to market D&D with ads on TV, Radio, Magazines and the Web. Something that no other 3rd party publisher has the resources to do. Trust me when I say the combination of a solid Brand (D&D) and marketing dollars will have a huge impact on their market share. It will also feed a lot of other companies as a by blow. Paizo and all of the other pilot fish that live off the WotC shark will benefit from WotC's increased "feeding." Not only will Paizo nibble at the food WotC is less concerned with (us 3.5 players) but they will possibly be able to feed on some of the new fish (4e players, the converted and the new) through Necromancer Games and those that find 4e not to their liking but the RPG market segment is. To take the metaphor a little farther, if the WotC shark stops swimming and dies, the pilot fish are going to have to fend for themselves and that will not be good for them or anyone else. In the void left behind by WotC dying, Paizo would have to generate tremendous amounts of capital to lead the market. Paizo would need a success on the scale of magic the gathering and Pokemon and I don't see that happening with an aging OGL product line or anything else they have on their plate at the moment. There would be too many competitors with too few barriers to entry in the market place for them to break out. And if anyone thinks a terrible edition will kill D&D, 2nd Edition was a mess but it sold very well. If 4e is half of what WotC thinks it is, I wouldn't worry too much about the shark being unable to swim... So, for everyone living off your WotC hate and hoping for some punishment for that "awful corporation", get ready for major disapointment. Your time and emotional energy would be better spent making the Pathfinder RPG (3p) the best it can be. Further, I would say spend your time becoming the best ambassador of 3p virtues you can be and try to entice the new fish to feed your pilot fish of choice... because showing big nasty teeth is not going to make you any friends... My Two Coppers, Bryan Blumklotz
Ugh, I forgot to fix the feat type for Mobility Mastery... it should be [Combat] for this to make sense. Mobility Mastery [Combat]
With the previous post and this fix the feat path should make more sense. Bryan Blumklotz
I made a change to the feats to simplify them and make them a little more coherent. Dodge [General]
Mobility [General]
Mobility Mastery [General]
Duck and Weave [Combat]
Spring Attack [Combat]
Devastating Spring Attack [Combat]
Bounding Spring Attack [Combat]
In Service, Bryan Blumklotz
Well Jason, For the most part, I love the tweaks and changes in Alpha 1.1 but I have to say Combat Feats is the one section that jumped out at me as counter to the design goals of the Pathfinder RPG:
Even with the removal of chaining, I still find some of the feats that got lumped into this one problematic (Dodge and Mobility stand out to me). Instead of just b~@*&in' about it, here is some thoughts that came to me before my cats put on the meow parade to be fed this morning:
2. If feats in a feat path are being considered for inclusion as combat feats because they are broken consider reducing their power instead of making them a Combat Feat (e.g. Mobility). You can always make the full version powered one a combat feat. 3. Further limits on Combat Feats should fit the type of Combat Feat it is. Examples: ~~a) BAB requirements for physical attack and CL for spell related feats (your must be this level before using this power). ~~b) Limited use number of uses per day or per combat. ~~c) Power up, you must use X feat/ability/spell in a prior round to activate the feat for that combat. Whether these stay on after power up or have be reactivated each time dependent on the ability. 4. If you want to keep feats from other feats paths separate from each other, list them in the feat requirements (e.g. I don't want Spring Attackers to use Power Attack feats). So, let's make an example of Spring Attack. First thing I would do is make Dodge and Mobility [General] feats again and make them always on. If mobility is too powerful, then reduce the bonus given and make the power version a Combat Feat. Dodge [General]
Dodge Mastery[General]
Mobility [General]
Mobility Mastery [General]
Duck and Weave [Combat]
Spring Attack [Combat]
Devastating Spring Attack [Combat]
Bounding Spring Attack [Combat]
To me this keeps the essence of the original feats while adding a layer to it that makes it special. Most monsters that have dodge and/or mobility wouldn't require a change in tactics to run. The feat path of Spring Attack builds upon itself but allows non-fighters to use it pretty well. In Service, Bryan Blumklotz
Lilith, I get a: 403 Forbidden error [EDIT]: If you get the error refresh the window a couple of times and it should let you on. Thanks, Bryan Blumklotz
Hello All, [EDIT]: Site not down, but alt login page needed. See Lilith's post below. Thanks, Saracenus
Sebastian, Evil bastards are not supposed to cry. Why did you make me cry, you bastard (this is with all the love for fellow evil one). Well put. I am for option 2. I now have two choices and I am happy. I was planning to tinker with 3.5 if 4e didn't work for me. Now I have an abundance of riches. In Service, Bryan Blumklotz
A bunch of "concern troll" stuff. Disenchanter, Done. You are now on my ignore list. Kettle, pot... pot, kettle. BTW, I have a 50/50 win ratio against myself. Night, Bryan Blumklotz
So what you are saying is the base mechanics are fine (or they were fine when they were originally made in a previous edition/game) but how they present it completely invalidated the approach? I guess I am confused by your assertion. Wait, what was the innovation and what was the original idea? Could you give me a concrete example to illustrate your position? Thanks, Bryan Blumklotz
Just for the record, D&D is my therapy. Without it I would most likely be a serial killer...or a Televangilist. It's had to say. It could have gone either way. So your edition of choice will take you to your happy place? Problem solved, play your edition of choice. Tongue Firmly In Cheek, Bryan Blumklotz
First, again I would say Blackdragon, and I know myself, aren't condoning the vitriol or attacks. I'd like to think that my posts haven't come off as such. But then again, as many have stated, attacks and insults are in the eye of the receiver. Most insults thrown around here are unintentional. So if you get feedback from the moderators that you have crossed line X, it’s ok because it was unintentional? Further, I am not saying that you and Blackdragon are advocating attacks. I am saying that you and Blackdragon are posting on a topic that is about more than the first 3/4th's of the OP's argument (why he is angry). You are basically tying your posts to the OPs and I am merely pointing out that it moves me none when you move beyond feeling angry to acting out on the forums. And on top of that, when I started posting here, Sebastian lined up to give - nearly - every new poster a "spanking" and brow beating when their posts infuriated him some way or another. In a sense, he set the tone. And now forum regulars are speaking ot against those that adopted the tone and not just against those throwing intentional insults. The very tone they accepted in Sebastian. Even if they never agreed with it. Am I Sebastian? No. But this is a subtle attempt link me and others with him somehow lets you off the hook is disingenuous. You are using the OP’s complicity argument again. You all let the bad man attack me thus give me an exception to the rules. In a nutshell, No. If you have a problem with Sebastian and his behavior take it up with the forum mods. So, I do ask for your forgiveness, but that comes off as more than a little hypocritical - and condescending. Although I am certain you didn't mean it that way. Am I your confessor? No. Forgiveness is something given to those that have wronged me, have you wronged me? No. My forgiveness is for those I deem needing it in the first place and worthy of it in the second. It is off topic and not relevant to the issues of my post. Am I a hypocrite? Again, you refer back to my complicity because I didn’t protect you from Sebastian. Since it is not my job to moderate this board and I didn’t see it happen, nice deflection of the issue. Am I condescending? I leave that for you to judge, I see myself as direct and too the point. If you want to debate me on the issues of this topic I will gladly have a back and forth with you. I will be civil and on topic. In Service, Bryan Blumklotz
Now the question is, when does being negative = being rude. For some, always. In fact Lisa even said in her post that her mom told her if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. Rarely is saying something negative going to be considered "nice". Pres man, I think the way you frame your argument puts you in a position of not being able to post. Being negative != rude. The act of negating, opposing can be positive. It is in how you do it. You are for no edition change (stance) how you express that is civil or rude. If you jump into a 4e topic on, say the nature of elves in 4e, and attack WotC, the people that like the change, and/or 4e in general, you are being rude and off topic. You are in essence threadjacking or threadcrapping. If instead you come to the list say I am not fond of the new edition and in this case 4e elves don't do it for you because of X, Y, Z. You have made your point, are on topic, and have not taken it to the personal. This is civil. I guess this also goes to goal. Are you trying to debate your point and topics? Or, have you given up all hope and are just acting the spoiler? If its the former, you can be civil. If its the later the goal almost precludes being civil. Does this expand your options? Thanks for listening, Bryan Blumklotz
Woah. Hold on a moment. I am not pretending to be speaking for Blackdragon here, but I don't think s/he was arguing for, advocating, or in any other way supporting people being rude, obnoxious, or insulting. Disenchanter, Here is the problem. This thread isn’t just about the whys and wherefore’s of peoples passion/anger. The OP tied together and explanation of said anger with: While “moderation” certainly applies to those inclined to support 4e as well such moderation is a chimera for there is nothing there to moderate because those favoring 4e are nothing but praiseful. They can be easily civil and polite because they are for the emerging status quo. You, Ms. Stevens, I suggest have been gulled in the name of politeness and civility by a well phrased request to muzzle those questioning 4e.” Here he basically says flat out says anti-4e people cannot be polite and get their point across. That it gives an advantage to pro-4e people because they don’t have to be angry. This is unfair, give us an exception to the rules. He then goes on: I must remind you that Paizo has been more than a mere bystander in how the tenor of the Paizo message boards have developed. Paizo has encouraged those questioning 4e to find expression here and, should Paizo decide after seeing the GSL to stick with 3e, Paizo will have profited by this policy. Indeed, Paizo has attracted those not inclined to immediately support 4e to Paizo’s site and thereby profited already. Paizo’s hands are not clean and to use another cliché, the genie cannot now be placed back in the bottle, at least not without some breakage. Here he now makes Lisa and Pazio complicit in the tone and tenor. You brought us here for your own ends and benefit thus because you are responsible for us being here give us an exception to the rules. Then it goes to my favorite line (in bold): I’d prefer a level playing field. I prefer no ticky tack fouls and that the players be allowed to play, particularly as this game is largely at Paizo’s specific invitation. If you prefer, however, a “moderated” forum that advantages one group, and summon up what logic you will but the fact remains that those in opposition to anything are always more subject to being “moderated,” I can live with that. Paizo may, however, find me as dubious about matters as the poster who first inquired “Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented?” I can withhold my patronage as easily as the previous guy, particularly if or when Paizo goes 4e. Ah yes, the threat. I can take my ball (money) and go somewhere else. Give me an exception to the rules. Now Blackdragon comes along and shows his passion and you say:
That in and of itself if just dandy. I get where you guys are coming from, I have empathy for you (I have been you in previous edition changes, with the ending of print Dragon and Dungeon magazine). Do you hear me saying that I hear you? That I get it? That I can empathize with you? However, my sympathy only extends so far. It still does not move me one millimeter off my firmly held belief that there are no exceptions to the forum rules. That I really just don’t care about why someone chose to violate the rules. You, Blackdragon, and the original OP are not entitled to use your anger to brow beat everyone else that does not share your position (that includes the minority 4e cheerleading squad and the majority that doesn’t care/on the fence). If your position cannot be expressed any other way than vitriol and attacks (something I find doubtful) I am saddened for you. If you need to process your anger or spank your inner child or whatever, go find a therapist, religious adviser or whatever therapy is your poison and deal with it. My Two Coppers, Bryan Blumklotz
I think understanding why someone feels or acts a certain way is critical to understanding motivation. Situations alter all things, IMO. Its not about having a "good reason" for being a jerk, IMO, but about why someone might behave like one when in other circumstances they would be entirely pleasant. If its jerk for jerk sake - its hammer time! If there is more to it, and in this case I think there is for the reasons set out, I think the appropriate response is not so clear and should certainly be carefully measured against the knowledge of what is behind the situation. How we got to a pass and where we go from there are IMO as important as the fact that we have come to a particular point. Does that make sense? In short. No. As soon as the line is crossed, as a list admin I don't care about motivation, there are no extenuating circumstances. You either obey the list rules or you don't and the chips fall where they may. I am very clear in my rules what is acceptable and what is not. Everyone reads them before joining and they are sent out to the list on a monthly basis. Does this mean I auto-ban people or delete their posts, no. It means that a warning is sent in private at the first sign of violation. I also post publicly that the issue is being handled off line and no one is to respond to it. Thread closures are rare events only used to stop an all out brawl and individual action will not stop it quick enough. The only time I suspended a member of my forums is when he tried to backtalk me publicly on the list saying he was perfectly justified in defying the list rules and that I didn't know how to properly run a mailing list. My response was swift and to the letter of the list rules. He never did it again and eventually moved on to somewhere else. So you can try to find the wiggle room all you want on my lists but I will not play that game. As soon as I give one person special consideration everyone will demand it. Thus, all are punished equally. Everyone knows what to expect, there are no surprises. Its harsh but fair. And not surprisingly I rarely am forced to invoke it. In three years of running about 6 mailing lists (most being RPGA related) I had to step in 15-20 times and issue a warning. I closed maybe 5 threads out of a total of hundreds. Only one suspension. No bans*. * = This does not include spammers who slip through the new member screening. Spamming the list with off topic ads (no I don't need online Viagra) is an auto-ban offense, as these people never joined the list for its intended purpose I don't count them as full member bans. In Service, Bryan Blumklotz
GVD, I guess I don't see the need to understand someones reason for their anger or passion on either side of the debate. If you cross the line of civility and the posting rules I really don't care why you a jerk, just that you where. On my mailing lists, I really don't care if someone had a "good reason" to attack someone else, its verboten. End of subject. As for Lisa's understanding of the divide, I don't see that as a moderation issue, I see that as a reason she and other Paizo folk didn't step in sooner. They didn't understand it and just hoped people would calm down on their own. Combined with Paizo's very open and trusting structure this lead to a perfect storm. She did give people from Jan 4th to March 14th to pull it together. That didn't happen and what could have been done on a lower intensity level was delayed far too long to the point where the only choice was to b$%$+ slap the sub-forum. My Two Coppers, Bryan Blumklotz
I just rolled a 20 on my enochiophobia check. Saracenus walks up to Trey while casting Mirror Image... "How you doin'?"
GVD, I will agree the January 12th D-Day hammerfest was heavy handed, but I think the sub-forum wide b&@$$-slap was needed to get everyone's attention. If that was what was intended, it got the job done. There was, quite frankly, just too much hate going in this sub-forum for a polite request to work (one that was made January 4th by Paizo). As for the lack of finesse on the 12th, I understand that too. The personalized moderation to bring the firestorm on this board under control would have required a staff beyond what is available to Paizo. Given a choice of letting the 4e section burn for days while trying to control it on an individual level and dropping a bomb and sucking oxygen out of it, I too would have dropped the bomb. I would have more sympathy for your position if the indiscriminant bomb dropping continued or spread to other parts of the Paizo forums, something that hasn’t happened. Moderation is now on a personal basis. When a post gets modded, there is an explanation. Warnings are being given when behavior hits the limits of what is allowed. Is it perfect, no. I did see a post get modded and then put back. It seems that Paizo is dialing in on what is and isn’t a violation of the rules. Where you see a chill, I see a burnt forest ready to re-seed and become a beautiful place again. I actually have had a nice discussion of 4e news (from people of all sides and none) today and I am grateful for it. I have seen some posts in the past few days that would have never made it to the light if the previous hot tone had continued. I see faces who have left this forum come back for the first time in a while. I welcome them back. As I see it, people have stopped reacting with their ids and have started thinking about what they are saying or at least considering how they are saying it. This is a good thing.
My Two Coppers, Bryan Blumklotz
GVD, I am sorry you feel constrained by the mod policies in place. But if you can't make your point without personal attacks, bad mouthing a company or non-paizo messageboards (which is the restriction here in the 4e section) then I don't see what "good" your contribution to the conversation is whether you are pro or anti 4e (pro 3e or anti 3e if you prefer it that way). The idea that its OK to use all and any means to get your point across at the expense of anyone else is something alien to me. I do not encourage it on the mailing lists that I maintain. I say attack the ideas, not the person once or twice and then I step in if people cannot keep it civil. What I saw was an increasingly strident few (on both sides) hammering away at each other drowning out any voice that was not willing to yell just as loud and as long. The tyranny of the few cut's both ways. The fact is, you can still voice an opinion about 4e you just have to be more thoughtful about how you do it now. If that cramps your style, my heart really doesn't break for you. Lisa, I for one strongly support the return to civility here. It favors those who have ideas instead of slogans and insults. I have seen some great posts by people in the last few days that would have never come to light before the crackdown. I for one say keep it up. In Service, Bryan Blumklotz
I would also like to say thank you. As one of the 4e fence sitters I have had the first discussion on a potential 4e rule/concept from both sides without it devolving into name calling and WotC bashing (well, if you discount the "4e fanboy" remarks that seems to be the threshold for acceptable dismissive labeling now, which is fine by me). I like the tumult of ideas better than the churn of Angst and Anger (ooo, new psychology/philosophy RPG title). Thank you, Bryan Blumklotz
I would agree the elements to use 3.5 mechanics in this manner are present in the rules, but they are neither encouraged or modeled in the advice or rules set. This becomes a DM issue (personality) vs. game design issue (process). As personality is variable, your play experience under 3.5 will vary table to table based upon DM experience and play style. If the game rules instead outline the relationship between DM and player, setting expectations that it is more collaborative that is more systemic. As to your second assertion that rules lawyers will overpower the DM's vision that is a problem that exists no mater what rules you have. If your base assumption is that all players seek to abuse the rules and your job is to police them, then you treat all players with the same lack of trust. That means that people that can add to the narrative have no incentive to do so because the DM is too busy slapping down everyone. That is quite frankly tiring. That is something you control by dealing with the individuals abusing the system (either by corrections in game or talking with them out of game). If they cannot reign it in, then they can leave the table. I see the 4e rules being a breath of fresh air for D&D, sharing some of the burden of the game around the table so that I can spend time doing cool stuff for my players and that they are more engaged in coming up with the how and why while I concentrate on the result... This I like. My Two Coppers, Bryan Blumklotz
And this model has been basically D&D from its inception until 3.5. And by this I mean there is a structural bias in the rules placing the burden of plot, mechanics, and narrative solely in his hands. It doesn't precluded a DM from shifting the equation to say, players and DMs sharing responsibility for a scene or players saying I have x, y, z abilities thus my PC would try the following to solve non-combat problem A. To break out of the base assumption that DMs are responsible for all mechanical aspects of a PC decision meant extra work for the DM (educating players on a shift in rules)and now the game is running outside the "norm" of D&D. Play experience and expectation is not consistent from table to table under this model. There is also an automatic no factor when a DM doesn't know the appropriate rules or there isn't one to cover the situation.
Partly true. Except you don't provide the ways the PCs can escape... The DM sets the scene, "You have the town guard looking to arrests you, they are violently searching the merchant stalls, yelling at patron and merchant alike with your description, getting closer and closer to your position. Unless you want a hopeless fight against the entire city guard its time to leave, what do you do?" The players now look at their PC stats (and hopefully their backgrounds) and think of how their PCs would use their abilities and motivations to get out of the situation. Before the player says, "Haley stows her short bow, looks for a nearby cloak to steal, moves to hide among the crowd and makes for the roof line when out of sight of the guards" and now the DM calls for a knowledge (local), spot, slight of hand, disguise (opposed by guard's spot), and a jump or climb check and sets all the DC based on what he knows about the market (or what he has described up to this point or is in the pre-written mod, hopefully). Hopefully Haley's player has ranks in all of these skills or there is going to be a high chance that one or more of these will fail killing the mood (yes, you can provide modifiers and such but its very mechanical and some judges on autopilot would actually go into combat rounds to adjudicated each action instead of have the player take 10 or roll each one) Now the player knows his PC's motivations and abilities and thinks, well I was a street urchin and I have skills in athletics and thievery and thus, I know the best way to avoid the town guard is to quickly change my appearance and try to slip unnoticed to the roof to rapidly move towards the town walls. She now says, "Haley recalls her hardscrabble life on the streets as an urchin, and looks for a nearby shawl or cloak to make a quick change in appearance so has to blend with the crowd and when out of sight in an alleyway will make for the roof and freedom." The player declares what level of success she wants to attain (setting the DC for her level) trading chance of success for a lesser or greater result and which relevant skills she has to do them with (it could be multiple skills but based upon the PC's abilities) and rolls. The judge merely makes sure that the narrative does not conflict with something established by him or a previous PC and confirms that the stakes are appropriate to the result. This approach makes the players more collaborative and give them stakes in their PCs background/abilities and the world around them. It gives some of the burden of world building and narative to the players that previously was assumed by the DM in the rules set. The assumption is that the DM is not an adversary in this relationship and is there to reward creative play (x.p.) and arbitrate when player's plans go awry (bad rolls or decisions) force them in to conflict with someone or something. This is my impression of the rules I have seen so far from WotC based on how these things have worked in other games. I could be wrong, I won't be sure until I see the whole rules in June. My two coppers, Bryan Blumklotz
Okay, I get it. The 4E PHB gives some good advice on problem solving using skills. This understandably wouldn't impress someone who has been gaming for 20 or more years. I think its more than just "good advice," I think 4e (as far as I can tell right now with limited info) is going to make those choices easier for new players and judges because those choices are going to be made explicit in the rules. While its great that judges and players with your and my level of experience can say, "Well duh!" I saw that mechanic in Paranoia, or Star Wars from West End, or Pendragon. Or, I have been doing that all along. Unfortunately we (the old guard) are fraction of the 50% of the market (current players) that WotC is after. WotC's stated goal is to get as many current gamers to try 4e in the first 6 months and then the next will be spend the next 6 trying to attract new players (the guys and gals that will benefit from 4e's rules intergration), hence current players are 50% of the market they would like and the rest is new players. If the rules support a style of play you presently use, then it shouldn't be a hardship to use those rules. However when WotC moves on to bringing new folks to the fold, the assumptions that you or I would make about the game go out the window, and catering to just us becomes a problems. So, in short, I am not seeing the problem here. I am not expecting to find radical new gaming mechanics from these guys. What I am expecting a refinement born of 7 years of hard playing that we all put on 3e and hopefully a more unified set of mechanics that builds one upon the other rather than digressing into subsets. That will make teaching the game much easier. Perhaps it the fact that my current campaign is 90% 3e noobs and the game bogs down occasionally when we go into a sub-system that uses stuff like hardness (Gods I hate sunder) or when someone asks me for the aura of all the magic in the room and its strength. It gets old fast and slows down the game either in prep-time or worse at the table. My Two Coppers, Bryan Blumklotz
Rodney Thompson's Live Journal blog (here) has an interesting essay that gives some insight on how non-combat is handled in 4e and how it puts the ball squarely in the corner of the players to get creative with their skills and abilities to solve non-combat problems. Note: Rodney is also having some fun with a picture from Jason Bulmahn's blog (here) I highly recommend reading the whole thing, but here are some highlights: (1)
(2)
(3)
Enjoy, Bryan Blumklotz
There is a debate right now at canonfire.com in the 4e section on what should be done with Greyhawk in light of 4e. Some don't care because they will continue to play D&D with X edition (being one that is not 4e), others want to advance the time line and keep the history intact, and then there is me. I am advocating a Battlestar Galatica 2.0 re-imagining of the setting. I think that the only way to introduce the setting to new players is to identify the core concepts of the Greyhawk campaign and then use them as a springboards to new ideas and fresh content instead of a straightjacket. Find the nuggets, forge them in to shiny golden jewelry and make the setting a place of wonder again. I can't tell you how disheartening it is to have someone tell you, you can't do that because Module X or Supplement Y has already said that Z is this way and you cannot contradict that. I would go back to the concentric ring idea that Gygax had when he originally published the setting: develop the center and give less and less info as you go out. This dovetails nicely into the points of light concept. I want to be excited about Greyhawk again, like I was when I bought the original folio edition back in the 80s or the modules prior to that (The G series, the D series, Tomb of Horrors). As someone who cut their teeth on the setting it is creaking under its own weight and I think nostalgia is bringing out a lot of no you can't that will continue to isolate Greyhawk from a modern audience. Don't get me wrong, I respect the work of Mona, Jacobs, SKR, GLH and a host of other Greyhawkers out there that have kept the flame alive for so long. I just think we need to blow the dust off it and make it exciting again. By Your Command, Bryan Blumklotz
I have posted up in many places I haunt about this sad day. I have scoured the internet looking for info on his passing. It strikes me as something truly grand that so many people from so many different walks of life are speaking out about the profound impact that one man, Gary Gygax, had on their life. From Forbes to Salon.com people are coming out and announcing their their gratitude to him for the endless hours of enjoyment the got from our game, D&D. I too am grateful for the friends I have made across the gaming table, the words I learned to spell (I have dyslexia) that I would have never had the motivation to do so, and fun. Rest In Peace Gary, Bryan Blumklotz
Crosswind, I am one of the fence sitters. I would love to have civil debate on the topic of 4e, but I just don't see it happening. With all the post crapping and rancor out there it would take a bigger man than me to keep it civil, the best I can do is say my piece and then ignore the s**tstorm that ensues. There was less anger during the twilight of the 2e era when 3e was imminent. We had a overly mature 2e creaking its way to oblivion and no 3rd party support to speak of. Now we have the OGL and the possibility of forking D&D into 3.5 and 4e camps. The stakes are higher now. Unfortunately, the pebbles have no say when the avalanche has begun. So, most of this will be raging at the oncoming tide of snow and debris rushing down the WotC mountain. Even if the all the 3rd party publishers say they will continue with OGL and ignore 4e (a slim possibility) they will still be but a fraction of what WotC and bring to bear on the market. The 3.5 publisher hold outs will become a small slice of the pie and have less opportunity to grow than those that hitch their wagon to 4e. This will be quite the dilemma for those 3rd party players... The GSL is going to be the make or break item for 4e. If Paizo can live with the GSL and make the products they want, then they will welcome their new 4e overlords and we can join them or go somewhere else. There will be consumer hold outs at every edition change, there always are (I might be one of them) but I will predict that within 1 to 2 years 4e will be the dominant force at conventions and own the market. The question then becomes a matter of what level of support 3.5 will have... there is a slim hope that there will be some support. This is why the hate will not go away until the issue is decided. It is the nature of our vanity that shouting at the avalanche will perhaps spare us... So all you 3.5 folks that will never surrender, never give up... Pray that Hasbro/WotC legal team has made the GSL so horrendous that most 3rd party publishers wouldn't touch its toxic corpse with a 10-foot enlarged lawyer... that is where your best hope for support from Paizo and others lie. In Service, Bryan Blumklotz
For paladins I loved the concept or holy warriors from The Book of the Righteous (Green Ronin), too bad it was never updated to 3.5. But it was updated to 3.5! You can download the Holy Warrior PDF at RPG Online and Drivethru. How in all that is holy did I miss this? I was at Green Ronin's website a little over a month ago and you would think that the product page for The Book of the Righteous would have a big fat sign saying, "We have a 3.5 update for you RIGHT HERE!" Instead its a link at the very bottom of the related products section, which by the way cuts off before at the bottom of my computer's screen.GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! I will buying and downloading this tonight. Thanks Tharen, Bryan Blumklotz
Lordy People, The entire life cycle of 3e (3.0 to 3.5) was a testing ground for what is to become 4e. The idea that editions are somehow distinct products like apples and oranges is a misunderstanding... it's more like models of DVD players. There may be features and technologies that are in 4e but there is a line of design stretching all the way from OD&D to 4e today. The idea that you somehow got ripped off because some thought experiment (Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and components of the Complete series) infected your pristine and pure 3.5 experience is ridiculous. Would you be upset that the DVD player you just bought incorporates a feature that may or may not be used in the future production of a HD version and not supporting the level of tech you are staying at right now? Or would you enjoy the feature for what it brought to your experience. In all likelihood your new DVD player is better for the innovation. If people didn't innovate, there would be no improvement in the state of the art in RPGs. They would stagnate and then you get Hasbro's billion different versions of Monopoly. Look its The Simpson's version of D&D, only Barbarians are now called Homers.... DOH! This is not the end of the world. There will be plenty of people playing 3e after 4e comes out. Hell my 3.5 group is made up of 1 3e player and 6 2e refugees that converted last year. We will prolly continue playing 3.5 for at least the rest of the year, maybe longer. Eventually, we may cross over, but really that won't be decided until we see the rules in action. In Service, Bryan Blumklotz
I completely disregard ANYTHING posted by ANY official playtester until WoTC announces they have lifted the gag. Letting their playtesters tell ONLY the positive is ridiculous and turns them into nothing more than living advertisements. Tiger Lily, I agree that to take playtester commentary with a healthy grain of salt is prudent. I am one of those 4e fence sitters that will wait to see the rules before I pass final judgment on whether I will use it or not. However, to completely dismiss what these guys are saying is not much better than drinking the rah-rah Kool-Aide. There is interesting information to be gleaned from it. And, yes while we are only getting the positive side of things I also don't want reviews poisoned by playtest experiences that might no longer valid, because they fixed the problem. You will also note that in Parts 1 and 2 of the review Massawyrm does give some negative impressions of the game (most obviously he finds Epic play ridiculous). In Part 3 he gets a bit more meaty in his criticisms. You can find the other two parts here: I look forward to hearing more REAL reviews from those who went to D&D XP and didn't sign a contract. I would check out the Enworld Interview of Jason Bulmahn and the Paizo thread talking about it here: Just remember, the guys and gals getting a taste of 4e are only getting just that. Limited play experience without restrictions on what they can say, while the playtesters have been deep into the rules (we hope) but have or had restrictions on what they could say and some of their play could have changed the final rules they haven't seen. <EDIT ADD>
Jason and company have even less than that to base their experience on, they have pre-gen PCs and no PH. So, while I respect Jason and many of those that have posted, there is no way I could base a buying decision on that alone. For me, these snapshot impressions are just more pieces to add to the pre-launch 4e mosaic, not better or worse than the playtester stuff so far.
Either way I would take both types of reviews with huge grains of salt. In (Open Minded) Service, Bryan Blumklotz
If I understand correctly, Saracenus likes what Takasi classifies as 'the gamist' style of play; rather than flexibility in a character class (or at least in the Paladin class) he would prefer to have *UNIQUENESS* (at least in melee). Charles, You have hit upon a nice point. I don't want the Paladin to duplicate Barbarian or Fighters shticks, I want them to have their own unique but effective portion of the physical combat pie, their own shtick. And no, I don't want the Paladin to wait 5 or 6 levels to start their shtick. I also think that all PCs should have a shtick outside of combat and there are some limits on what Fighters and Barbarians can do due to class skills, skill points, and class abilities. For paladins I loved the concept or holy warriors from The Book of the Righteous (Green Ronin), too bad it was never updated to 3.5. Just an aside, I am not in love with the pigeonholing that the whole GNS theory of gaming engenders in the community. They can be interesting for theoretical discussions on gaming styles but in my mind lead comments like, "Oh, he's just a gamist" or silly arguments that one play style is superior over the other. I also think there is some short comings in the theory, like the fact that gamist tendencies can be used to simulate things other than reality. For example the rules of Feng Shui basically model Hong Kong Action Movies. Is that gamist or simulationist? So thank you for a great insight that I obviously was unable to articulate. In Service, Bryan Blumklotz
So the problem is the paladin class is too versatile? Yes, the paladin is not the feat monster, that is because the fighter is, you want to be a feat monster, you know play a fighter. No the paladin isn't the damage monster, the barbarian is, you want to be a damage monster, play a barbarian. Wow this thread brings out the master assumers. Your first sentence is basically true, once you go beyond 4th level. See my commentary on your assumptions below. Also, I am not looking for the Paladin to be a Fighter or a Barbarian, those roles are covered. What I am not happy with is weak role the Paly has in its first 4 to 5 levels. After that it starts to be a fun class to play. So if the campaign is starting from level 1, the Paly punishes you before you come into your own. Frankly this is just coming across as kind of whiney. Hmmmm, personal insults. Noted. So, you think that people with strong opinions about what they like and dislike or want or don't want are whiney... you're a peach, son. Paladins have the best BAB, best weapon and armor proficiencies (minus tower shield), can heal, eventually get a fighting companion (mount, which by the way doesn't have to ever be mounted). Next thing you know you'll start complaining how the bard isn't as good as a sorcerer at casting spells or as a rogue at skills or a fighter at fighting. No Paladins share best BAB and weapons with barbarians, fighters, and rangers. They share best armor and HD with barbarians and fighters. So, far they are in a crowded field. At 4th level a Paly can: * Heal low levels of damage, but they are worse than the Druid and a Bard with cure spells in its spell list. So while they can heal, its nothing a Paladin should be trading combat for unless things are super desperate.
In all it seems like a lot, but the true power of this class is really not going to be apparent until the Paladin gets its mount and one extra smite at 5th level and next feat and second spell at 6th level. By the way, Remove Disease not a big payoff at 6th. So basically at levels 1-4 you are a 5th wheel in a balanced party. If the party is missing a role (say the cleric) you don't really fill that role very well or (fighter/barbarian) you can defend but you don't dish out much damage in return. Its boring and god help you if you can't make a decent die roll, its really boring. Paladins should not be boring. If you want to be able to do a lot of different things, then there is a trade off in that you aren't going to be as good as someone who just focuses on one area. Them's the breaks kids, and I doubt vary much that 4th edition is going to change that. And I think you haven't been reading the design philosophy behind 4e or any of the info that has been leaked on Paladins in 4e. Everybody has a role and can do something "cool" level 1-30. Paladins now just smite (not just evil) so their ability works in combat just like a fighter's or barbarians do. While those may be the breaks in 3e, either 4e is all that and a bag of chips or I will change paladins in my campaign to make them more in line with the other classes. <SNIP> A player running a character with the highest BAB bonus, great hp (d10, second highest), best armor and weapon proficiencies, plus the ability to heal, to turn, and plus a high charisma (usually) so has a better than average chance when trying some social... Again, this doesn't really happen until 6th level and really only if you use feats outside of the PH. My complaint is not that the Paladin is a weak overall class, its that its first 4 or 5 levels bite. BTW, a Paladins Diplomacy monkey function (a choice of limited skills, not a given) is not what I personally think of when I read the Song of Rolland or Beowulf or the Deeds of Parksinarian(sp?), I think of a strong fighter for justice and good that is out there doing their thing against the darkness... Not someone having high tea with the Queen and her ladies in waiting... I hope that 4e makes all classes fun to play and interesting at all levels. 3e does not do a bang up job of it... its one of the warts that I don't love in a system that has served me well and for a long time. Thus ends my ranting on paladins, post whatever you want in response, I will not be countering it, let the hate continue. Back to your regluarly posted 4e Player Haters Ball... <Saracenus hands the mic to Bucknasty> Peace, Bryan Blumklotz
Sebastian, I am a bookkeeper by trade, training to be an accountant, does that mean I am tainted too? How does my taint compare to your lawyer taint? Is that apples and oranges? Or more like root of all evil vs. slime of all evil... Saracenus scampers off to do some depraved tax preparation involving 1099s and poor contract slaves. ~~Saracenus
You also assume that I ... am not in control of my game. DMcCoy, Your quote pull was from a post aimed at someone else, not you. If you feel a sympathetic vibration from it, that is from you, not from me. What this really boils down to is a philosophical difference in DMing style. I have zero patience for rules that do not make my life easier as DM and fails to facilitate fun for my players. I do not see it as my job to redesign a game so one person at my table is happy, it is not an efficient use of my time and distracts from my goal of making adventures for everyone at the table happy. To take a page from my Micro Econ class in order to produce X (rules changes) I pay an opportunity cost and sacrifice Y (adventure construction). I have limited resources and the more I have to spend time doing X the less I have for Y. Furthermore, the current state of the art in 3.5 is not very efficient in producing Y. I am forced to make complicated math decisions to make encounters work. It is more art than science. Again, distracting me from time I could be dreaming up "cool" stuff for my players to do in my limited time. So while I sure being an Uber DM can make up for short falls in a game, when I am pressed for time and I have to make decisions about what I am going work on, sub-optimal rules just chap my hide. I guess I can ignore those rules (like I am doing with grapple right now) that are too much of a bother and everyone can stick to real basic combats but I am trying to get the most out of the system we have and show people there is more than run up an beat the monster till its dead. In that regard I have been successful. My players love Bull Rush, they have pushed foes down pits, off the side of mountains, and used doors to slam their foes into the walls behind them. There are countless other examples in my game where the players are cutting loose and taking the cinematic route... something I have been encouraging. Now I am going to circle back to the 4th level Paladin. The class as written just doesn't have much going for it in terms of cinema. Its not really a feat monster (fighter) or a Damage Sump/Striker (Barbarian) at levels 1-4. It is a class that is caught between too many roles and it doesn't do any of them well right now. That is a design problem, not a DM problem. So basically I have to either redesign the class (too much work, taking me away from production Y) or tell my wife, I am sorry but you need to suck it up for 1 or 2 more levels when you start to do "fun" things (or, go ahead and build another design because I can't accommodate your desire to be a paladin right now) No where in my posts do I say that the problems are the other players. No where do I say in my post that my wife resents them. She hates not being able to do anything with her current character. This brings us to the Part 1 post most people have been poo-pooing because of all the 4e hate out there, what he describes at the table is exactly what I am looking for. Quick combats with lots of things to do. Adventure design is less about math and more about concept. If the rules are pretty well balanced that gives me back time to do things I want to do for my players. So, this makes me hopeful that 4e might be something good. If not, I will continue tweaking 3.5 until it hits the right notes lamenting the fact that I could be doing fun stuff for my players rather than fixing short falls. In conclusion, if you want fill in the blanks of sub-optimal design and you have the time, more power to you. Just don't expect me to be happy about it in my own circumstance. In Service, Bryan Blumklotz
2 Edits: One was a poor word choice, the other was to add a paragraph on why I am hopeful for the utility of 4e. Gods, microeconomics has infected my brain... ugh. |
