Search Posts
I asked that my subscription be cancelled, and that it exclude Pathfinder Adventure Path #145: Hellknight Hill (Age of Ashes 1 of 6) Yet, right after I got the message stating the subscription was cancelled, I got an order confirmation saying it included the aforementioned issue. Please remove #145 Hellknight Hill from my order.
Please cancel my Adventure Path subscription after the final chapter of Tyrant's Grasp, before the 2E AP starts. Thank you.
I would like to cancel my subscription to the Pathfinder comics, ideally before Runescars #1 comes out.
I'm first going to give feedback for the top 89 that didn't make it that have requested feedback. I think that might be most helpful. Not till tomorrow night, though. I've been finishing up archetypes :)You've probably been busy recently, but is there any chance the top 89 will get feedback from you, Clark? Now that the contest is done, I was wondering about this in particular. My item was top 89, and I did get community feedback, but was waiting to hear from the judges themselves. Being in the top 89, it was the judges critique that kept me from top 32, so I would like to know what I needed to improve on to be ready for next year. If it helps, HERE is the link to my item.
Glove of Saturation
As a standard action the wearer of the glove can cause any container of nonmagical liquid, wielded in the gloved hand, to explode forward in a 20’ line. Objects exploded in this fashion are consumed. If a splash weapon is used with the glove, those in the area take damage equal to the original item (Reflex DC 10 + the wielder’s Strength modifier for half), but it does not produce a splash effect. When holding a filled waterskin, the stream is able to extinguish any nonmagical fires within the area. Unlike with other containers, only the contents of the waterskin are consumed, but not the skin itself. Lastly, the glove can be used with contact poison, without incurring the risk of poisoning the wearer. When used in his way, however, the DC of the poison is reduced by 4.
I saw the spelling error as soon as my item came up the first time. Although I made top 89, I would like to hear what kept me from being part of the 32.
Thank you for this, Clark. It is heartening to know that I had at least made it to the top 89 (Glove of Saturation). Now I just get to wait until the critique my item thread to see what prevented it from being top 32. I have my suspicions, but I would rather see what the judges say, to see if it was what I suspect. I just hope I wasn't the dreaded, unanimous "no" of # 9
Congratulations to all of you.
I am more worried by highly priced items with very low saving throw DCs making them obsolete by the time PCs can afford sensibly them. That is just as concerting, and I have marked those down as well. If what I face, by the time I can find/afford the item, can just about auto succeed, then the item is mostly worthless to me.
I've stayed fairly quiet during this whole process, only posting once or twice. I have, however, come across the aspect that drives me the most bonkers. It is not a phrase, as much as a trend. That of the ridiculous DC's. How do so many items using 1st level spells, have DC's in the 20's? I thought the rule for DC's was the level of the spell, cast with the minimum modifier required to cast those level of spells? Regardless of item caster level. If I'm wrong, please point me in the right direction, because I can't seem to find it under the magic item creation rules. So, if a 1st level spell, requires an 11 in the casting stat to cast, then the DC of the item would be 11 (10 + spell level + plus ability modifier of ability required to cast the level of spell). This bothers me because I have seen a few fairly decent items, but they have ridiculous DC's, and it marks them down as far as which item I would vote for.
I saw my item within my first 5-10 votes the night voting started. I just saw it again, while reading this thread as I wait for the 1-minute timer. I made the Culling.
Well, this is my first year entering (I just minimized the sections the last two years), but I am disheartened by the public voting method being how my first year is decided. Here's my logic. In previous years the judges are all gamers with serious credentials, deciding what was or wasn't superstar (top 32, 64 or 128) before they had to single out the finalists. Now say the top 32 are referred to as the top 2% of all the entrants. If we assume that that means that even if there were five times as many good items that had to be whittled down to only pick the top 2%, we have at least another 8% that were almost all superstar, but just not quite. We are left with 90% that are not able to produce a superstar quality item. These 90% now make up the majority of the people voting on who the top 4% (in this case judges taking the 64 to pick the 32 from). That means that the population that cannot produce/recognize what is or isn't superstar, are the ones deciding who are in the top 4% for the judges to weed through before final decision. How many top votes are the judges willing to ignore, even dumping all 64 if they see them as not superstar? Or are they bound by the top 64 to pick the best 32 from, regardless of whether the populace put a bunch of superstar items in there or items not even close to superstar? I'm not saying I have a perfect entry. It's just that I find on almost all the comments I've read on the amount of bad items people see (and how many I've seen where I'm torn on deciding which is the lesser of two evils) that maybe the larger population isn't always the best judge of quality. I'm not trying to be mean, but every other year got to be the top 32 by being picked by industry leaders, this year the judges will be given 64 to choose from picked by a bunch of my peers. And if all my peers were superstar designers, we all probably wouldn't need the contest to decide which of us are superstar material, and which of us are just really impressed with ourselves.[/rant] Sorry that this is my first introduction to the superstar community.
Yes, negative level, I just grabbed the wrong term, meant the -1 to all not permanent one. I like your suggestions, I think con mod *4 is a bit high though. Even a medium con of 14 will give another 8 hours before it sets in. I've already seen plenty of times where the non-casters were well and eager enough to continue without giving the Dwarf Bbn an easy 36-40 hours before he feels the effects of sleep dep.
Homebrew, the same world for about 14 yrs now. It has a lot of DragonLance influence. Minotaurs with honor, a small list of gods just named diff based on race or country who tend to only get involved enough to keep the bad ones from getting involved. I've converted it from 2nd to 3rd now to 4th. Will run a Dark Sun when it comes out, but only cause if I don't I won't get to play it. All the rest of my groups run either homebrew or FR when they run (I cant stand FR). But D&D is D&D and I have more fun playing with friends in a world I don't like, than not playing.
Dunno how the level drain rules work in PF, but instead of Fatigue or Exhaustion (which are just physical) you could treat each hour after as a level drain. That makes everything harder to do the longer you're awake. and as the heroes level they are better able to go longer, but going too long still makes them not as effective as they could be. By the way, I'm glad the topic is here, it's been one of those rules (or lack of) that has stuck in my craw, but just never came up in game.
I absolutely LOVE "Mad God's Key" it is a fun adventure just because it covers a lot of different action types, locales, and interesting scenarios other than a typical delve or city scene. The cross-wharf chase is a great starter too. Though I'm not a Greyhawk fan, and I run homebrew, it isn't hard to convert.
Basics (Books, dice, pencils, sheets) Dry-erase maps and minis. I'm very visual, I tried playing Vampire and had the storyteller draw maps during fights cause I wasn't sure where eveything/everybody was. Magnetic dry-erase board for Init/Dmg/Status tracking (much like the game-pad one, but homemade using the extra magnets set) I prefer no laptops/computers at the game, it may help in some situations, but I tend to find they become more of a distraction than an aid. It would be nice to be able to afford all the terrain and dwarvenforge stuff. If I really need terrain, a hobby cutter, styrofoam and some paint will net me a cruder but much cheaper version. How many of you use props like coins, "gems", wanted posters and other handouts, etc.? I play with a guy who uses coins and gems, it was neat at first, but in the end we spent more time trying to remember what each one was valued, which were 10's or 100's, that I just went back to writing it down on my sheet. However I think it is fun getting a bag of "gems" as a prop and but once you figure out the value, returning said prop. As for handouts I try in some cases, I made a few "old" maps and prophecies by typing something upon lt yellow paper then crumple and smoothing it so many times it was real flimsy and had the worn feel.
Now, I'm not looking for names or anything. Just that in another thread.. Joana said "He left over not-playing-nice-with-the-party issues: expecting personal side quests to take priority over the storyline of the AP, and not agreeing that selling captured foes into slavery and killing people in their sleep were evil acts." .. and I could swear that it was the same guy that killed a few of my groups' diff campaigns. I'm just wondering how many times people have had it happen where one player's one act, just stopped a campaign cold? Either caused a TPK or degraded the whole session into a big disagreement?
It was in 2nd ed, our group had come to the dragon's lair, not knowing it was a dragon's lair. While the party all did their part, we got beat down to where there was only my rogue left and I found out early on tha even when I could hit it, it was too dangerous to get close enough and did too little damage. My last resort was the wand of wonder I had picked up the session before. I kept moving from cover to cover and rapid firing the wand the best I could, and through a few (7-ish) very weird and lucky rolls, I got the dragon down low enough and the last one had blinded/dazed like effect on him. I moved in and got the last hit. I still love the Wand of Wonder to this day.
Yucale, having stated that you read and liked Dragonlance (Sturm, Raist and Tas were my favs.) Have you read any of the other series by Weis and Hickman or other DL books? There are a lot of suggestions out there but stuff clearly written for YA and in the genre is just about any TSR novel. DragonLance, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, and Ravenloft. I think there are some Greyhawk books, but I have never read any. When it comes to Weis and Hickman, try the Death Gate Cycle, and Rose of the Prophet. For other DragonLance stuff, most of the books by Richard A. Knaak (Legend of Huma) I find to be good. He also has a short story in one of the Tales series called Definitions of Honor. Most of his stuff though is about honor from the viewpoint of the Knights and the Minotaurs, and how they see the same thing so differently. I just had to chime in, cause I see all these suggestions and none for Dragonlance, which has, and always will be my favorite world. I don't like the FR campaign, but I like Salvatore's writing. So, although I can't stand the game rules for Driz'zt, I enjoy his stories.
True Neutral Human Bard/Wizard (3rd/2nd Level) Ability Scores:
I turned out fairly average I didn't like some of the options, they were too black and white. It doesn't take me much to get drunk, but I never get hangovers.
Once I was able to, but it was long before my world was really fleshed out. I had a friend who wanted to DM but hadn't played in a long time so he wanted to play a little again before he ran to refamiliarize with the rules. Afterward he ran a campaign in my world and every time a question came up of would this be in the reagion or would this exist he'd ask. He also used all my specific house rules. I always say that it was the best player experience I had. Sadly, now that the world and rules and all I've done is more defined.. no takers. Like fire nova, I ran an NPC once and it was great. I made him a bard with mainly just the story/world flavor. History, geography, at least 1 in each local, etc.. No Arcana, Religion, or Nature (mainly used by players as monster knowledges) and all he ever did in combat was bardic music inspire. I liked that I could interject world knowledge through him, as almost more of a sight-seeing guide than as a core group member. I would still prefer to get to fully play in my world other than a few one-shots a friend ran, where I just used his character.
As to the OP... DM's truthfully have absolute power...it's how they use it that matters. As long as they don't tell the characters what actions they are taking or what they think or what they decide, everything else is up to them. Now I'm not saying they should leave the players only those, but it is well within the job title. That's like saying the CEO of a company shouldn't have the ability to fire the VP flat-out because of something he said. He has that privilege, he just shouldn't flex those particular muscles. In both the cases of the OP I don't agree with how they were handled. Just because a DM uses the privilege of DM-fiat doesn't make it right. He will lose players and then everyone loses. Individually, in the case of bloodline, the DM should always be well versed in any backstory the PC's provide as in it there tends to be the heart of the motivations that drive the characters to their goals. If a Dm has a problem with the background it is his responsibility to clarify the issues with the player before play begins, and try to reach an agreement/resolution. Taking story context and changing it into rule changes, bad form. For the second of the weapon, if the DM includes an item that seems intrinsic to the story, he doesn't have to make it the best fit or useable by the party. Just because the story revolves around them, doesn't mean the game world does as well. I ran a game where my players needed to find a list of artifacts, before the group employed by BBEG did, since whoever found all nine and bore them acsended to godhood. The artifacts were based off my gods, if they found a neutral evil dagger artifact of the god of disease and the god of murder, there's no way I'm gonna tailor it to be useable by the CG rogue of the party. They carried around this evil artifact they couldn't use and fought off it's corruptive powers, just to keep out of the hands of the villian. Was it unusable by them, not at all, it had great powers and almost converted the Clr of the group, just so he could use it's power. Does that make me a bad DM? I hope not, I think it helps me tell a good story of overcoming the pull of evil for the sake of power said evil offers. Just because it's not readily apparent what motivations the DM has when he makes a certain call in game, doesn't always make it bad. If the players always knew what happened in the story it becomes anti-climactic. Should the DM use this power to screw over the players? Absolutely not! Can they use it to tell a compelling story, that both engages and entertains the players? With gusto! Wow! I had pretty much lost interest in this thread figuring everything worth saying about the original topic had been said repeatedly. Then this tangent exploded back to life. Edit: sorry, I tend to come late to discussions (see the Gygaxian Naturalism thread) and feel so strongly that even a late response makes me feel like my voice is out there.
I have a few questions for Snobi. I have DM'd a campaign world that I have reworked the rules for from 2nd to 3rd/3.5 and now to 4th. I have built into this world gods, cultures, new races and new classes. In the same respect, there are some classes or races that have no existence in my world. You would only play if my world had the race class combo you wanted? You use the term "concept" for your characters, but that's an idea, and a concept can be achieved through various race/class combinations, some just more effective (numerically) than others. Do you not work with what is presented to build your "concept" even if it wasn't the core R/C combo you had in mind? What if I like, for example, all the stuff from races of stone, except the goliath. Am I controlling your actions by saying that I don't allow them because I found the rules unbalanced and they give an unfair advantage to a player, if it was what you wanted for your "concept"? What would you do if your group of 5 players that you play with decided they all wanted to play a game (say modern d20, for example) you were not as much a fan of as D&D, and that game ran for 3 years, would you sit at home every game night for 3 years because they weren't willing to cater to the one person that wasn't as stoked about it? My world has 26 playable character races as canon (most are my variation off a core, 6 diff elves, 3 dif dwarves, 2 minotaurs, etc.) but only allow core PHB classes except monk (for many reasons I wont go into). Am I being controlling by saying that only these 208 R/C combos are all I allow, not even taking into account how each can be built in various ways? I just want some clarifications. As an old school player/DM I see a lot of this as the fault of the ever expanding library of options churned out through splat, that has created a sense of entitlement in the players to be anything in printed sources. As a DM my job is not just a referee to ensure everyone else has fun. I should be allowed to have fun as well, telling a story that the players drive, is where that fun comes. In that same vein however, just because a book says half-fiendish, dragons have rules to be played, doesn't make it fit the story at all, and the game takes a turn toward the ridiculous. I forget where it was written (I can never find it when I want to quote it) but one of the DMG's had a statement at the very front, that stated roughly "Just because there are rules, doesn't mean you have to use them. Every rulebook is an optional accessory. Feel free to modify them so that the most people are getting the most enjoyment." Being a DM is the hardest part about playing D&D, even bad DM's tend to put more work into the game than each player. The players only ever have to manage the 1 character, the DM has to manage every God and every NPC, every monster and location. They get to see all their work payoff when they are allowed to tell an engaging and enriching story using all the parts they have to juggle. The least you could do out of respect is be a little flexible, if they say I don't allow this one class, or race, get creative and build your "concept" using what you have. Don't just throw away the lemons because you want pink lemonade. Steps down from soapbox, and takes a breath.
Actually both are true. Because without the PC's you're simply just talking to yourself. I like that Laz. It flows so much better. Basically "Both the world and the PC's live and breathe, because of the symbiotic relationship that they share with one another within the game". Without one or the other, neither survive. I also agree with the evolutionist ideal of the game. Take 3 different games, Chess, Basketball, and Charades (one intellectual, one physical and one improvisational). Is if reasonable to believe that no one can possibly play these games better than the person who created them? Gygax and Arneson created a game, who's to say that they were good or bad at playing it, other than those that played it with them? I could create a sport, and explain how it should be played, it doesn't mean that I automatically have the hand-eye coordination to be better than anyone else who plays. I'm not saying I don't have great respect for them, just that making a game doesn't automatically make you the best at it.
TY Pres, for your preemptive well-wishes DE, I am not intending to speak negatively of any of it, as I said I love D&D in all it's incarnations (whether some agree if it deserves the label or not). I don't consider it a revisit to the edition wars, as I am not attacking. Like politics and religion as long as I make clear that I believe no one is right or wrong, just purely entitled to their beliefs then there should be no offense taken and discussion can commence between open-minded adults sharing what their beliefs tend to be, and why they hold firm to them. OSG, this is where you and I disagree, I believe balance need exist along all lines within a game (see above alignment LLN). Since, although, life is not fair and balanced, there is no reason that we cannot produce it in our games. No other game starts out by saying "If you're the shoe, then you get 1 less turn every 4". Let the rules be balanced, and let the fickle hand of fate's touch on the ill-fated die roll be the judge of where and when to throw balance to the wind. What decisions the characters make also disrupts balance enough that it need not be built into the system too. I have a LARGE number of complaints about 4E, things they over-simplified, things they dropped altogether, things they didn't add. For my money, however, I have far fewer major complaints about the system than I had with any other. To me it just plays smoother. I'm not trying to get anyone to change what they play or how, just to approach it with a fair-minded look at the old college try with the game before dismissing it based on other peoples issues with it. If you have, then by all means let me hear all your issues with the experiences you had, and it will help me make my game better for others. If you have not, I just ask that people not say they hate something they've never tried with an open mind. I've played many game systems, outside of my genre/style preference, and I went into them with the idea of how can I make the most of this, and overall I keep coming back to D&D (in any form). Doesn't mean I didn't at least give it a shot. EDIT: The only point I'm trying to make, is people need to stop blaming the game if there is a lack of Naturalism (purpose of the thread after all), and look into what isn't being/wasn't done to use the same naturalism they always had in whichever game they play.
Afterthought, Pax, have you read the 4th rules? Whether you intend to play it or not, it actually holds much truer to the working as a group concept than you seem to think. It follows the core idea that every group should have one of the four archetypes to be a truly effective team. A defender (aka Hefty McMeatshield) or Fighter in 1st
and one more of any for a little extra. Not sayin you have to like it, just don't dismiss it until you've given it a fair play. Play it with as much gusto as you can hurl at an OSRIC session. Don't taste it with the pinched face of expected disgust my kids would show to a plate of unknown vegetables. That's all I ask of anyone, for any edition, I scrunched my face, pinched my nose, and ate those green eggs and ham, for both 3rd and 4th. Woe and behold, I liked them. Mair, I have read most all links presented in this thread over the last 3 days. The history was nice, I printed the quick primer to share with friends, and I hope to regain some of my staunch tough as nails DMing I lost playing the gimmie mores of 3rd, and always let the dice fall where they may.
Holy geez, I've been downing this thread like a bag of devouring on an after diet binge. Finally finished reading all 1100+ posts and am eager to input on this very enlightened and informative discussion. First I would like to acknowledge all the major players (that stood out most in my mind) during this thread as having very useful input.
Coming late to the thread hurts, as I feel most of the discussion has passed. Regardless, I feel I have a lot to say and have spent the last few days reading to be able to appropriately add something of value. 1st) A (not so brief) Brief History
2nd) Naturalism
3rd) Rejection of said Naturalism
4th) Noone has taken away your role-playing
|
