anksanis's page

That's actually a cool idea, I'd love to see it!

I'm wondering if anyone knows what happened with Pathfinder Society play at Winter Fantasy this year.

My friends and I went last year and had a blast, there was a lot of support from Paizo, Jason Buhlman was there running a couple of tables, we all had a great time.

This year, when we arrived on Friday evening, we found out that there were only two Pathfinder Society judges for the entire convention. We were very surprised, to say the least. For a fairly big convention, only two PFS judges is almost unbelievable! We found out that that was the situation for the entire weekend, and to say that we were disappointed is understating it. We have since talked to other attendees, and everyone who came for Pathfinder is more than a little let down.

The staff at the con were very nice, and offered to print modules for us and enter them as well after we had played them, we just had to find a judge of our own from amongst the attendees, quickly prep the module, then run it.

I think the con staff was doing their best to bring some good to a bad situation. They've been very nice about the printing and such, but not having judges to run them seems like an incredible blunder. None of my friends are interested in coming back to Winter Fantasy ever again, and I have to admit, it does make me pretty reluctant to spend the time, effort, and money to go through this again.

Could anyone tell me what happened? What was the breakdown from plan to execution? There are plenty of rumors, but no one seems to know the real story. I'd appreciate it if anyone could clue me in, I'm planning to go to Origins this summer, but not if this is the sort of thing that would likely happen again.

Wow, people get pretty hot about this math issue. I know I personally use the old method, from before 3rd edition, whereby a square is 1 square of movement, no matter which direction you use. I know this makes the math experts unhappy, and I know it violates the rules, but neither my players nor I mind. If the squares are making your life difficult in trying to figure out when a diagonal means more than any other direction, you might want to consider pretending a square is a square. Just my 2 cents, but you may find this cuts through all the math hyperbole and brings you back into an easier, friendlier (though less true to abstract math) type of play! Your mileage may vary, though, just a thought.

Under the heading of "how to give PCs stat bumps", this is exactly what I do in my current campaign, though I do it sparingly. I wanted a way to cut down on PCs' dependence on items, too, so I created a solution with a simple game mechanic and an interesting story attached to it.

There are small, magical, spongelike, nearly-intangible creatures called Embers which, for some reason, are attracted to large collections of treasure. Few people in the campaign even know about Embers, and no one has yet discovered why they are attracted to treasure in large amounts. In my campaign, dragons only really collect treasure in the first place for this reason, to attract Embers, for it is what allows them to increase in size (and power) when they do manage to attract and eat one.

The PCs discovered Embers on two occasions, and only eventually figured out what they could do with them: when an Ember is eaten, the consumer gets to choose a stat to increase by +1, since they are increasing their own personal power magically, essentially by stealing what dragons consider their very own power source. Since the Ember's power becomes part of the PC, there's not a need to get into the power race of having to sell off a Belt of +2 to try to afford a Belt +4, and all of the silliness that that entails. The PC in question has simply increased in power, and there's an in-game reason for it.

Players LOVE finding these things, and they work out well as additions to large treasure hoards, providing ability bonuses that don't require items as such, helping to avoid the christmas tree effect.

Why do Embers exist? What is their source? How do the dragons feel when you have a group of PCs running about trying to steal their most-prized possessions? The short answer is, they exist to give the GM a rationale to avoid having to dole out Belts of This and Hats of That, and encourage a lot of potential conflict with dragons at the same time. The mystery and the intrigue of the whys and wherefores just add to the fun.

Paizo could cleverly and quite innovatively keep our dollars coming their way for future Pathfinder products by making them high-quality, by listening to their fanbase, by putting out a huge array of products, by. . .hmmm, wait a minute, Paizo's somehow already figured out their future success plan, and have been doing it for years! darn those buzzards are sneaky!

Another thing to consider, as well, is that the game is supposed to be fun, and alignment is intended to be a guide of sorts as to what sort of moral compass a character follows, although its admittedly a pretty loose guide. The acts the character committed could be sorted and sliced and quantified again and again, but is there really a need for the character to change alignment? Will it be more fun for the character to do so? Unless the discussion between you and the player is one that adds something to both of your enjoyment of the game, I wouldn't beat the subject to death, since a shift to one branch or another of the alignment tree won't even have an impact on his character. I imagine that most players whose characters have had an alignment change forced on them aren't exactly happy with said change---in the interest of overall fun, why split hairs?

My MIC recently disappeared for two weeks into one of my player's game bags. . .and I thought it was gone for good, so I checked on prices to replace it. A used copy could be found at Amazon with prices starting at $50, and a couple of copies were available at Ebay for around $70! I was really relieved when the player found my copy, but doh is there a need for a Big Book O' Magic Items from Paizo! Let's make it happen, people!

Not to throw simplicity into the equation, but for other than the math-obsessed, is there much reason to go beyond the "a square is a square is a square" notion? Yes, the rules may dictate diagonals are extra-mathy, but do we really feel the need to follow this? If the monsters move on a "1 square equals 1 square" basis, and so do the PCs, how does it actually matter?

Sheesh, we're more comfortable with flying, flame-breathing dragons than imagining that math isn't the most important aspect of the game.

I dunno. . .first I'd have to know, is it "pre-sequels" Boba Fett, when he had awesome mystique, or "post-sequels" Jango 'Skippy the Wonder Pup' Fett? I gotta know which before I make my ruling. . .

...he looks better in red.

It's a little amazing that this sort of thing still happens. It doesn't take a time machine to go back to the 50s, I guess. . .

For what it's worth, I introduced the drow in my campaign as sickly-looking albino humanoids without any "elf" connection. These critters worshiped a horrible insect deity that looked like a cross between a scorpion and a beetle. . .and those were the only changes to make the drow seem very very different. It's surprising how much small cosmetic changes make a monster seem new and unusual. Like you, I wasn't interested in re-engineering all the rules concerning drow, but making them "like new" was a definite goal. Well worth it in the end, my players never even mentioned dark elves!

Paizo hires Sean K. Reynolds as a developer for Pathfinder! Paizo's Murderers' Row lineup is complete! We haven't seen the likes of this since Lee, Kirby, Ditko, et al, worked together during the halcyon days of the Marvel Bullpen.

It's obviously a great fit for both sides and I can't wait to buy all the gaming goodness about to result from this partnership.

Sean is a great game designer, and I'm very glad to see that WOTC's loss is Paizo's (our) gain!

Please keep it cool in here, folks.

Guys, at this point, one thing at least seems clear: for those who aren't interested in 4E at all (and based on these messageboards, we know that there are a lot of us out there), we have a viable alternative with the Pathfinder RPG. Is there much reason to re-hash what we don't like about 4E or WOTC's policies, or what have you? Let's move on to a fluffier, fuzzier place. . .pick the camp you like, revel in its neatness and appropriateness, and leave the other camp to its own devices. Is there really a need to keep on squabbling about these things?

Compare bloodline of descendants to residue on the Spear of Longinus. Of course, finding the "real" spear is a quest in itself.

I have the Spear of Destiny in my possession, but I still need it to remain invincible in battle, so I won't be loaning it out for DNA testing. Sorry about that, chums!

Ok, time to be greedy and selfish.

I don't have a clue as to whether going 3.P would be the best business move for Paizo, but I would personally love it if they would. Having a viable, living, rules set that was a close cousin of 3.5, my particular game of choice, would be great for me and my groups. We would all like it a lot, since by and large, everything we've seen out of 4e has been discouraging us from converting. I say, Viva la Resistance! Paizo would be doing us a great favor by continuing the DnD that we all know and love. It may not be the most money-making move, but what if I were to ask pretty please, with sugar on top?

1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?
Nope. For a variety of reasons, but overall, I'm not impressed with what I've seen of the new system. It's possible I may buy some of the 4E products, eventually, but conversion doesn't look likely at all.

2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?
I would most likely buy fewer Game Mastery modules than I do now, though I would probably still buy those that seem interesting enough to convert back to 3.5.

3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?
I would continue to buy products from Paizo as I do now, since 3.5 has a greater appeal to me than does 4E, and the products are simply of excellent quality. I wish I had the same sense from WOTC that they pay attention to quality and creativity (not to mention loyalty to DnD and what its fans like) as I find in Paizo's authors.

If each square equalling one square of movement is so horrendous, get out ye old tape measure, a la most wargames. . .there, all better! Now you can rest your aching, math-filled head. . .!

I dunno if this misses the point completely, but the thing that most jumped out at me when I saw the initial footage of the digital gaming terrain is---it doesn't really look all that good in the first place. If the impetus behind the move to digital is to lure players of MMOs, they should probably first think about coming up with better digital images. I wonder if any MMO player is actually intrigued about digital DnD after seeing what it's going to look like. Hmmmm. . .doesn't seem likely to me!

5th Edition rules! I for one am more than willing to cough up any amount of cash so that WOTC/Hasbro/Megalomart can help fill their coffers! Is there some way I can sign up to pay a monthly fee now?