rowport's page

Erik-

Some feedback from a subscriber since #1...

1. Two column novels = Yuck.
2. Paper quality is a big deal. Certainly subscribers are collectors/hoarders by nature, so using quality materials for the long term matters.
3. My favorite book in the series so far is the Worlds of Their Own. I liked the Gygax books, too. If the current authors sell better, why fight that? Publish *more* of those not *less*. This seems obvious to me...

-Tom

It's the latter - only one location per AP volume though, so only the major dungeon - scene will have the star treatment of 3-D

Thanks, Captain! Hmm... not sure I like that. My current DM is using the WOTC 4e modules right now, and I find it jarring when he moves from ugly hand-drawn maps back to the gorgeous full-color printed maps. If I could use 3D maps all throughout Pathfinder modules I would really like that, but having to alternate with hand-drawn maps... seems... yucky. ;) Technical term. :)

Hey, Paizo folks! I was very interested in Erik's article yesterday WorldWorksGames. The 3D terrain looks extremely cool! But, I am confused; is the terrain just general by "type" or is it specifically modelled after maps in the Legacy of Fire Adventure Path? I really hope the latter, as I love the idea of runnning the whole module in 3D terrain.

Please elucidate!

David Witanowski wrote:

Yeah, I have some PCs who hate the 4th edition wizard because they favor a more "I blow s*!~ up" approach rather than "I slow people down" tactical approach. They just hate not doing as much damage as the strikers.

You could say the 3.5 wizard split into two classes in 4; The Warlock and the Wizard. So what these players want might be the warlock.

Still, I share the overall concern over wizard power, tough I have only seen one up to 4th level yet.

I agree with this idea, play a Wizard if you want to be crafty tactical battlefield control-- which is is "controller" role in fairness-- but for me personally who likes blasty magic, the Wizard was not fun at all. I swapped my class from Wizard to Warlock after our first game session (with identical character concept) and am much happier.

Azigen wrote:

Agian, Please review and let me know if you find anything wrong.

All of the Tiefling links go to the level 1 version. Obviously, it's easy enough to change the URL and get the right one, but you did ask.

Out of curiosity, which ones did you update recently.

Thanks, dude! :)

Here are the updated sheets. I've broken them apart by level. I have .doc and pdf formats, but will only be linking pdfs here. I'm googley eyed from doing this so its possible I messed something up. If so let me know and I will fix and upload it.

Azigen-

These are great-- thanks! Hey, would you mind posting one of them in .doc format so that I can get your style template to use? I really prefer the "text" format much more than the typical "fix-in-the-box" character sheets.

Vic-

Hiya! I am really looking forward to World of Their Own-- lots of great authors are represented. I am unclear whether the book will be part of the "standard line" and in the subscription, or just published under the PS imprint? I am hoping in the subscription, of course!

Hey, Erik, this looks *fantastic*! I really like the novella form, but in some ways prefer short stories.

That is one heck of an author list!

Question: is Worlds of Their Own part of the Planet Stories subscription or a standalone book outside the line? (I hope the former. Heh).

This isn't a request for an author, but rather for an annual (??) product that ties in with the RPG side of your business:

'Bestiary of Planet Stories'

Imagine having the d20, or True20, or whatever system, stats for the Argzoon, the dastardly Blue Giants of Mars! While a Bestiary, it could also highlight personalities, so we see Inhetep in his Mystic Theurge glory....

I don't know if there is any other copyright involved, but I for one would pick up something like this in a heartbeat. I'm thinking soft cover, 64 pages, though hard cover and bigger wouldn't deter me either. ;)

I really like Zeb's suggestion here. I am one of those guys who just loves his game's crunchy bits-- this would be a fun product.

I really liked it, particuarly the very evocative imagery and atmosphere. There was something cool about the protagonist being a woman, as well, a geniune "tough chick." :)

"That and her pining for some villain that she cast into the abyss kind of put the smack on my esteem for her as a soldier."

This was the only part of the book that bugged me, too. It just did not ring true to the character, and I never could reconcile how she could regret killing off the guy who mauled her. Every time she had pangs of regret it irritated me. Meh.

Erik-

I am sure that my author suggestions are going to be nothing you have not heard or considered already, but here I go anyway:
Gardner Fox, Zelazny, and more Edgar Rice Burroughs.

While I appreciate your shining the light on lesser-known authors I would also think that occasionally publishing a wider-known one will help sell the series as a whole. I can literally say that I have never read a ERB book that I did not like-- ever! With any character!

That said, I liked Kuttner's book, and *loved* Black God's Kiss by Moore, and had never heard of either author before reading them here. So, I am finding Planet Stories to be a nifty way to expand my pulptastic horizons with little to no effort! :)

1. Have you purchased a Planet Stories novel or anthology yet? If so, which one(s)?
I have not purchased one yet, but only because I have an original printing of Anubis Murders.

2. What author in the Planet Stories line most interests you?
R.E. Howard, without question. I would love to see Burroughs as well.

3. Please list the following genres in the order you would prefer that we focus on in late 2008 and beyond:

1. Sword & Sorcery
2. Horror/Gothic Fantasy
3. "Weird" Fiction
4. Sword & Planet
5. Space Opera
6. Lost Worlds Tales
7. Science Fiction
8. Jungle Tales

4. What can I do to get you to buy more Planet Stories books?
I love the idea of combining subscription shipping with my Pathfinder books. If I could essentially pre-pay and not have to look for the books, I would be happy to read all of them.

5. If we offer a monthly subscription with, say, a 30% discount off the cover price, would you consider subscribing?
Absolutely this is a winner idea, especially if you also combine shipping with other subscription services. That costs Paizo very little in labor but saves the subscribers quite a bit.

Given what you know so far, are you planning to:

A) Convert! I am ready for a new D&D.
B) 3.5 or Bust! I'm sticking with the man what brought me.
C) We'll see. Need more information.
D) Other.
...

I am going with Option B. I am not particularly impressed with much of the 4e pre-release information. From a rules perspective, I loathe the concept of player versions of monster races, instead of common rules. From a setting perspective, I am not enthusastic with the planar changes, which strike me as needlessly simple and bland-- I just see no need to abandon all the eccentricies which help define the feel of D&D. From a delivery perspective I do not like the plans for the focus on miniatures and annual core book updates. From a financial perspective, I have lots invested in the current edition, and having no reverse compatibility drives me batty-- that would even have turned me away from 3.5.

That said, I will likely be dragged there by some of the guys in my game group that seem to like what they see. I would guess that I will run 3.5 and they will run 4e. So make of that what you will. :/

EDIT: FWIW, I thought I would show the breakdown of my group on the issue right now:
Me: 3.5 forever!
KW: 3.5 forever!
BP: 4e, baby!
MD: 4e, baby!
plus 3 more undecided or not talking about it, but one of those guys never buys books anyway.

My takeaway is that there is not a huge demand for a new edition from the current customer base, but rather a big 'wait and see' attitude. I guess WOTC adding new customers is part of the strategy so that might work, or maybe folks will get more excited when it is released. I dunno.

Cosmo

FYI:

My Pathfinder 2 arrived today (Oct. 23) in Central Illinois, by rural route carrier (which means the local Post Office had it yesterday Oct. 22). The label had an Oct. 3 shipping date.

Hope that gives you a sense of the delivery schedule to flyover country.

Have a great day.

FWIW, mine has not made it yet in Chicago (as of 10/26). There is a reason why Chicago has topped the worst mail service in the US for a few years running now. :(

Hill Giant wrote:

rowport wrote:

Change for its own sake is not improvement.

Why do people assume WotC is making arbitrary changes? It wasn't true for any previous revisions, I don't see why it'll be true now.

Slaughtering "sacred cows" that aren't broke feels to people like they are arbitrary decisions. I don't believe that they are "arbitrary", but they are still a bit weak on their explanations of "why". And without adequate explanation, it feels "arbitrary" because none of us were included on the decision making and the default "reason" ends up being "change for its own sake".

At least that is my take on it.

Yup, Moff got it right, at least from my perspective. If there is a logic for the changes, it sure the heck is not a clearly stated one, even as simple as "the Great Wheel is too complicated" or "gnomes suck."

Put a different way: why fix what is not broken? If it is broken (or you feel that it is), why not explain how your solution is better?

It could work. I suppose one thing I might toss out there is to pick up the phone and give your friends at other gaming companies a quick buzz to see what they think. One way to make a new 3.paizo edition work would be to open up the rules changes to all gaming companies. If you could have those rules be stamped by the likes of Monte Cook, that would go a long way to giving them credibility. The ultimate result would be something more akin to the 3.75 - including the ability to get the 3.paizo rules from the Paizo site for free. That would open up the market for 3.paizo to be the definitive grognard standard...

Erik-

I love your stuff, and am less-than-enthusiastic about many of the 4e pre-release teasers, especially the fluff changes, which all seem capricious and unwanted. Change for its own sake is not improvement.

That said, I echo many of the posters here in feeling that a 3.75 alternative system is a risky proposition, fraught with peril. One way to significantly reduce that risk is to follow Sebastian's idea: do not toe the line, but make sure Paizo is not on an island. What about a joint venture release with some of the other larger non-WOTC companies, to create a truly alternate system? Having multiple companies involved would serve both to dilute the risk, while concurrently increasing the product support perceived by customers, especially if clearly billed as a different "classic-feel" flavor which WOTC is choosing to abandon in 4e.

rowport wrote:

...one of my absolute favorite parts of both Dungeon and Dragon are the cool ways that you guys mix up races, classes and abilities to create interesting characters; I feel like the examples are in Dungeon NPCs, and how to do it is in Class Acts/Dragon. Obviously, limited to SRD-only materials that will just not be possible.

So, my suggestion/request is that you take advantage of every OGL third-party product out there, and just write/develop your own classes/races/whatever. I would get bored instantly from pure SRD, but would look forward to cool new class ideas with NPCs featured in Pathfinder.

Never fear. The SRD has a lot of great elements in it, but nowhere near enough to sustain an entire Adventure Path... to say the least about an entire SERIES of Adventure Paths. We'll certainly be pulling material from other OGL products and creating new material. In fact, a fair amount of each volume of Pathfinder is going to be providing new material (both crunch and flavor).

Thanks, James! With the expectation of some new crunch to go along with the new fluff, I am sold on trying out Pathfinder.

FWIW, I thought that the new campaign-specific PrCs added for the Age of Worms Adventure Path was a great example of this concept, so I presume the Pathfinder approach will be similar.

James-

I mentioned it over at ENWorld, but thought I would address it here to you directly as well. I am sold on the quality of all my Paizo products-- not just Dungeon and Dragon (while I am very sad to see them go) but also the GameMastery mini packs and item cards. So, I am making the plunge to try out Pathfinder.

That said, one of my absolute favorite parts of both Dungeon and Dragon are the cool ways that you guys mix up races, classes and abilities to create interesting characters; I feel like the examples are in Dungeon NPCs, and how to do it is in Class Acts/Dragon. Obviously, limited to SRD-only materials that will just not be possible.

So, my suggestion/request is that you take advantage of every OGL third-party product out there, and just write/develop your own classes/races/whatever. I would get bored instantly from pure SRD, but would look forward to cool new class ideas with NPCs featured in Pathfinder.

To be clear, this is not only about the crunch factor (well, I mean, that is part of it) but also the opportunity to literally develop custom classes to reflect your brand-new setting.

I do really dig the idea of building on real-world mythos. That was one of my favorite ideas in recent Class Acts, showing real gods. Cool stuff.

I look forward to learning more!

-Tom Lynch, Chicago

Mike-

That is *SO FREAKIN' COOL*! I love, love, love the idea of featuring different real-world mythos in the context of D&D. I liked the Grendel piece, and would like to see a continued feature of lots of different cultures- all have something different to offer.

I am *really* stoked about the Aztec one! Totally by coincidence, I started playing an Aztec Dread Necromancer just two weeks ago in our Age of Worms campaign- how cool is that?? Here is hoping for Mictlantecutli, God of the Dead... :)

And, in an earlier campaign, I played a Viking Barbarian/Druid. So that pantheon would be very nifty, too.

rowport wrote:

Wow... didn't *anybody* like Dan Brown's books? They are, like, international best sellers...

Despite their sales, I think few people conversant with their subject matter would agree that they're accurate or sophisticated.

LOL Whatever, dude... In case you missed it, I was asking for material translated for use in a *ROLE-PLAYING GAME* with *FIREBALLS* and *SPIKED CHAINS*. Historical accuracy or sophistication are not exactly prerequisites.

LOL Thanks for the chuckle. Your post was very (unintentionally?) amusing.

We don't plan to tie the cards into Age of Worms, because the GameMastery line is not an official Dungeons & Dragons product. Bringing in AoW means making it part of our licensing agreement with Wizards, which is something we're not currently planning.

Gotcha! That makes sense. Thanks for the reply, Erik!

Paizotronics-

The Item Packs are a *great* idea. I love the customability idea, with nifty art, and that 'tactile' sensation of getting a card- that satisfies the player as much as the character IMO.

I have already offered to buy a pack or two for our DM, as long as he agrees to hand them out in his game. :)

EDIT: I forgot to ask: are the Packs intended for certain game types, or environments, or whatever? It is kind of hard to see the theme (if any) from just the exterior boxes. If possible, it would be *fantastic* to have a card or two using the item art from the Age of Worms. It would just be *that much cooler* for our AoW game to have the specific item artwork!

Wow... didn't *anybody* like Dan Brown's books? They are, like, international best sellers...

:)

(Bump)

Hey, Paizovians!

I have an article request prompted by my recent obsessive reading of all of Dan Brown's excellent books, especially Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code. While I would not describe myself as a conspiricy theorist, I do find the ideas and history facinating. I think that the actual history surrounding the Knights Templar/Illuminati/New World Order/etc. is very interesting stuff, and waiting to be mined into D&D game terms. Time it with the theatrical release of Da Vinci Code and you will have Periodical Gold! :)

There are several ways that I think you could do this, all good with me, FWIW. It could be Class Acts articles connecting the semi-historical lore with relevant classes, such as Paladins/Fighters, or Clerics, similar to past articles connecting Monks with other martial disciplines. It could be a larger Feature article focusing on the history (or even questionable historical accuracy of conspiricy theorists) like the Samauri article last year. Or, it could be a Feature article putting games rules onto the history- maybe even a Bizarre Bazaar about the Relics (capital R) tied to the Templars.

Heck, I could see this stuff being useful for a d20 Modern campaign, for that matter. Have Wolfgang Baur write it. 'Nuff said. :)

For the next one, try doing what the first ones description said it would be. Though I don't actually have it, or seen it anywhere yet, but the Table of Contents that can be viewed on the page here shows that much about what was promised was extremely misleading. EXAMPLE:

* No races were in any way updated to 3.5. Those presented were already 3.5. Though on the other hand they did deliver on some of my personal faves from issue #65 the missing chromatic dragons. I hope it's not as dissappointing as the 2e update was.

It would have been nice to see many of the races from 2nd edition translated to 3.5 examples might include--> Moldmen(3.5 would change it to Moldfolk no doubt, as they seem too eager to kowtow to gender biased hatemongers), Ravenkin, Faenil, the Lupin breed variations, Sapronemes, Zygodacts, and so on.... ;;D

Dude, that is just plain rude. You admit to having not bought- nor even *seen* the Vol. I book, but yet feel qualified to criticize it. What is even more pathetic about that is that you are wrong. Some of the races *were* updated to 3.5. Like the book or hate it, but at least *look* at it before complaining.

I know that I am kind of cross-posting in a different thread, but since I saw Luke posting here, I thought I would mention: my bud liked the Hexblade article so much that not only is he using several of the feats for his new Age of Worms Hexblade, but he subscribed to Dragon because of it!

I am using a feat from the Ranger article, myself, also for Age of Worms, although my character is a Scout/Barbarian, so I suppose that also speaks to the new format's transferability between several classes- cool.

That is not bad for your first issue with the new format, Mike! :)

Mike M.-

So that you are less-sad, let me counter the subscription-expiration news by mentioning that a friend of mine just subscribed to Dragon after reading the excellent Hexblade article in issue #313. So, yay, you!

:)

As a Ranger junkie, I really liked the Ranger article. I plan to take "Concealed Ambush" for my Age of Worms character. Sweet.

Purely as reader, Mike, I applaud the changes that you are considering. As much as I love the Class Acts articles- and they are the first ones I read each month!- I really did regret that they did not cover the additional Complete series and XPH classes. As a mad-multclasser, I absolutely *love* character options, and many of the additional classes are just plain nifty.

The thought of an article focused on Ninjas, for instance, makes me cackle with glee. (Or even Scouts. Or Warlocks. Or Hexblades. ...)

Hey, Paizo folks!

For the last couple of months, I have noticed the use of iconic adventures (for the record, I am especially intrigued by the ranger/rogue/scout dude with the white hair and red leather armor). I have looked for stats anywhere with no luck, then noticed this message from Erik Mona:

"Erik Mona (Editor-in-Chief, Dragon & Dungeon), Tue, May 31, 2005, 10:14 AM
ASEO wrote:

1. Who are the new characters in the illustrations?

I assume you meen the new "iconic" characters seen mixing with our familiar paladin and rogue. Like the familiar characters, these new iconic characters do not have names, and exist only to give the magazine a sense of character and to make it easier for us to do art orders. Instead of explaining to artists (who often don't play D&D) what a paladin is every time we need one illustrated, we can send them an image of our "iconic" paladin and say "paint this guy."

The new characters are a human female cleric of Wee Jas, a male drow bard, and a female tiefling fighter. "

First off, I am glad to know that I am not crazy and imagining it! :) Second, let me be the first to request game stats for these guys- maybe in Dragon as examples in Class Acts?

Talk about cool timing: literally minutes after posting my message last night, I went to check the mailbox, and found copies of both Dungeon and Dragon had arrived- both with Erik's editorials talking about this campaign! Serendipity. :)

Props to you, Mike, for sticking to the letter of the vow of silence. That would be tough to maintain.

Re: ghost step (invisible): if the effect does end after an attack action, I might have to ask my DM to change my character- the problem in his case is that he is a Ninja/Ranger/Cleric (I know, I know... multiclass caster...) using the two-weapon fighting style with the expectation that he got two sudden strikes (within the 1 round duration of effect). If it will only apply to the first attack, that fundamentally changes my combat strategy!! Anyway, thanks for the info!

This is an amazingly cool thread. I cannot wait to read the character journals.

Mike, I gotta ask: how in the world do you effectively roleplay a mute character? I mean, I know he is a sneaky ninja and all... but mute?? Do you talk OOC? Use hand signals? Just act all mysterious? :P

I am also playing a Ninja- specifically a Ninja/Cleric of Xan Yae- as a nihilist. Fun stuff. Great class- trickier than a rogue, but more satisfying when the ninja-goodness works out.

I am curious how you game pros interpret ghost step (invisible) btw: since it says "1 round" instead of "as invisiblity spell" we presume that the effect does not end after an attack action. Is that how you are playing it?

Erik-

I posted this note on the ENWorld boards, responding to an inflammatory thread about Dragon. I like Dragon- love it, in fact. The changes to Dungeon were welcome improvements, and I look forward to your efforts to focus on Dragon. In the hopes that the baby will not go out with the bathwater, I thought I would counter all the negativity on this thread [edit: I am referring to the ENWorld thread, not this one] with what I *like* about Dragon (and hope will stay in it) using #329 as my baseline:

The Legacy of Beowulf: This is great, great, great. I love the idea of using mythos not yet widely explored in D&D. I like the idea that you could pull out pieces to use- even just Beowulf for a Fighter character. This might be a trend with the Lovecraft material before it- I hope that continues. Good stuff.

The Petit Tarrasque: This is an interesting concept, although I think the article would benefit from tighter editing- it dragged on rather long. I am not sure this is really directly useful for gaming, but that is OK with me, I am still interested in reading it. (I felt the same way about the samurai versus knight article- it was just fun to read. I liked that one more than this one, though.)

Mesopotamian Mythos: This is great. Dieties do not need statblocks IMO (no offense intended, Erik...).

Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Pazuzu: This is pretty interesting by itself, although I think a series of demons and/or devils would get old, just like any subject done too much. Instead, a more general focus on organizations- cults, religions, thieves guilds, etc. might have broader appeal. Still, I liked it.

The Ecology of the Kenku: These articles are really fun. I like the in-depth coverage of different creatures. Complimenting the other articles in the issue with related races is a useful trick to make the whole better; I think I really liked the Incursion and Gladiator issues of two years back for that reason.

A Novel Approach: Eberron’s Marked for Death: Blah.

Class Acts: These articles are wonderful. I love the ideas, and have used several with real and direct impact on my characters. I am not an 'intuitive' rules guy, so the suggestions here help me avoid boner mistakes. Showing people how to use (not abuse) the rules without creating new ones is a really great idea. (As an aside, I enjoy Skip Williams' Rules of the Game article series for the same reason.)

Bazaar of the Bizarre: Whatever you call these articles, I like them.

Under Command: I have no strong opinion on these. I do not play the D&D minis game, but can see how they are an important product to cover.

Silicon Sorcery: Some of these are good, some bad. The #329 one was weak.

First Watch: I like these. I buy game stuff like mad.

Scale Mail: Well, what can you say about a letters column?

Sage Advice: This is useful to me. I think that Skip Williams gets too much flak here on-line (much like Paizo, now that I think about it...)

Comics: The Dragon comics are great. The Dungeon comics are the ones that need serious work (except for Tony M.'s.)

Crunch/Fluff Ratio: From your comments here and in your editorials I think that you feel the ratio of crunch to fluff needs to swing to fluff. I cannot disagree with that, as reading fluff is generally more entertaining than reading crunch, at least to me. But, I honestly feel that is is pretty balanced right now, and has been roughly since the 'relaunch' last year. Maybe 50/50 is too much, but I would hate to see it become, say, 25/75 OR 75/25- too much of either is not the right approach.

I hope that this feedback is helpful.