scytale2's page

I really want a map folio, but I don't want to get it and find out that the maps are not the ones I would want. I really would like a list of the places that are included, especially the poster maps. WHat are they.

And are the maps just the maps from the book, or re they larger or something different/

Jamie

I very much agree with this. There is already a "Guide to Korvosa", so what exactly is included in here?

I can't speak specifically for Paizo and Pathfinder, but I can say that 4.0 as a rule set would not allow me to continue telling the stories I want to tell - specifically, those set in my homebrew.

There are several reasons for this, but I'll try and list a few of them:
1) The world is built upon assumptions that are standard in 3.5 and not in 4.0 - that gnomes are plentiful, there aren't hordes of dragon men and demon men running around, and magic can do more than blow stuff up and perhaps afflict a minor status anomaly.
2) The three types of magic of my setting (arcane, divine, and psionic/dream) are the only forms of magic that are widespread. Druids are agents of nature deities, but their power is still divine. Accounting for the kitchen sink approach to power sources that 4.0 has, I'd have to either completely reflavor/overhaul every single new powersource that came out and just dump it into a different overarching concept ("primal is a divine power source, but barbarians are somehow now fueled by divine magic, while rangers are not"), or completely destroy the framework I worked so hard to incorporate when I decided to accept psionics.
3) There's almost no reason, anymore, for someone to be a martial class rather than a magical one. Finite resources and extra effort have gone out the door, so the fact that MOST people of my CS are not magical in bent (excluding gnomes and high elves) makes for some awkward realities. Seriously, why not be a wizard if you won't run out of magic, and never have to rely on mundane means to accomplish the task of killing someone.
4) Having to somehow mush Elves and Eladrin back together, since the divide between wind elves, high elves, wood elves, and shadow elves of my setting amounts to favored class.
5) Having to restat every single two weapon fighting NPC as a ranger, or just having them all forget how to do it competently.
6) Rewrite the concept of the game, that there aren't hundreds of super powered people running around, to accomodate the super powered PCs and...

Ok, this is how you do it:

1. Don't allow dragonborn or tieflings as player characters. Gnomes aren't plentiful in Golarion, but if you really want one, then use the template in the back of the MM.
2. If you want to restrict your game to 3 sources, then you can restrict it in 4th edition too.
3. "Running out of magic" seems alien to me. Why would a wizard run out of spells, unless they ran out of components? Again you seem to want to apply a restriction - if you want to do so, then why not advise wizards that they can only use their INT in powers each day?
4. I'm sure this can be achieved, by creating a few new races to suit. It's very easy to create a new race. Ten minutes tops.
5. I do agree with this one. The two-weapon sets of powers in ranger are very fun, but why are they in ranger? What I would suggest is simply that you call the class 2-weapon fighter, not ranger. It's pretty balanced. Change the name and use the ranger powers. No one will mind. Am certain new classes will come to broaden options soon.
6. I agree with this to a point. Where is the option in 4th edition to have people come from lowly beginnings to heroes? Bear in mind, though, that this is not new in 4th ed. "Expert and "aristocrat" classes are in and they don't progress in the same way, so clearly there was a view way back when that adventurer classes are a cut above the norm. 4th ed cements this. Calling a 4th ed 1st level character " super-powered" is a bit OTT. Pit a wizard and a kobold slinger against each other and find out who wins! Monsters are equally super-powered!

It's all very clear.

Some people like 4th edition, some people like 3.5. People who like 3.5 are annoyed by 4th edition. People who like 4th edition are annoyed that they can't convince friends to join them. Hence big and lengthy debates for ever and ever.

And whoever was talking about the story of the White Dragon and the wizard needs to read the rules of probability. It simply isn't worth arguing the point tbh. For a start the young white dragon is a party mob, so a wizard would not be soloing it, anyway. Even saying this, the wizard would very likely survive a round or two's attacks and with a healer or warlord, longer. In 3.5 a 5HD white dragon would easily wipe out an entire 1st level party with one breath, even if they saved.

Back to the original question. The answer is absolutely nothing. 4th edition is no less flexible than 3.5. It's an RPG, so if you want to do it, you can do it. You don't need a rulebook to tell you.

Bards, barbarians, druids all exist in the monster manual in some form and this will be cemented in PHB2. All NPCs are handled as monsters now. Creating new powers for monsters is incredibly easy. Even I can do it and have done it for Crimson Throne.

How long did it take? Not long. What about balance? Can I be sure the powers are balanced? It's all in the DMG. Can Queen Ileosa be a bard? Yes. Does she need to be a bard? No, because as roleplayers we can change things. We have that power to imagine something different, solve problems and make things good from bad. We just need to want to do it and therein lies the problem.

MarkusTay wrote:

Any thougths about the complete lack of creativity being poured into the new FR, or D&D in general these days?

It sucks?

While I am deeply saddened by the way WotC is conducting themselves (and impacting the game I love), I am no longer surprised by just about anything they do, what with their treatment of the Realms and my understanding of the GSL (and why a lot of companies aren't signing it). Apologists of WotC will continue to rally to the cry of "Well, it's a corporation, and corporations need to make money, right?" They act as if this mantra excuses and justifies any and all actions of the part of WotC, regardless of said actions' stupidity and the sense of alienation they impart to many (most?) of us. It is very clear at this point that WotC only cares about their bottom line, and are looking for ways to "win" by skyrocketing their profit, regardless of sustainability, without any understanding of their customers.

Profit seeking is not the end-all, be-all of a coporation. A business cannot be run as a simple equation with all the nice and neat variables in place, where if you do this, you will get that. Perhaps such a cold, mechanical approach works when your company is dealing only with other cold, mechanical entities (i.e., other large businesses). But that is not the case in the RPG business. Any company in this arena is dealing with individual people, real people, not plastic, herdable consumer-sheep. A truly viable company has to value, respect, and understand its consumers and its own product. WotC is looking for a quick revenue; flash-in-the-pan, flavor-of-the-week economics. There's nothing substantial there, and certainly no connection with the people they are dealing with.

WotC pretty clearly assumes that we all are just those plastic, herdable people-sheep, dying to spend our disposable incoming on anything without discernment or discretion. They have no understanding of their own product, and no respect for it. It means nothing to them except a dollar...

While I agree wholeheartedly with your comment on capitalistic society, I think you're misguided, when you say that Wizards are only interested in money. That may well be the end product, but World of Warcraft was a success for many reasons amidst a whole bunch of MMORPGs, which didn't do the same thing as well. Clearly D&D had much to learn from the premier gaming brand and therein lies much of 4th edition's change in focus.

One of the biggest problems for D&D is that getting a group together is tough for most people. Therefore an on-line offering for D&D simply is a huge benefit to players and potential players, as there are so many more hundreds of players to link up with. So, creating a more modern game, building on market knowledge and with a vision towards long-term internet play, Wizards have done its consumers a big favour.

True, there will be some casualties and those people sticking with 3.5 are no less D&Ders than 4th ed players. If there are plenty of them (and James Jacobs seems to think there are), then they won't lose out in new products either.

So, all in all, there will be casualties, but many people like the new edition and I believe they will be able to mould it to their play style as they get used to it. Soon DDI will add even more options to gamers worldwide. Is this so bad?

Actually adding more rolls ADDS skill and removes luck, without removing it entirely.

It's a great system, where there is tension when a thief picks a lock, not just one flukey roll.

Challenge your players to think how they can use their skills to assist the progress of the skill challenge and you may eb surprised how well they respond AND also how it stimulates roleplaying far more than the old 3.5 system.

Thumbs up!

Pork Chop Express wrote:

I just looked this over, and I wasn't satisfied with it-- it's lacking compared to the quality of the Paizo APs. But maybe there is going to be a lot more material coming in Dragon to flesh it out. But from what I could tell ** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I agree completely with the spoiler in this comment. Keep on the Shadowfell and Rivenroar are both "let's get to know the rules" adventures, deliberately set up not to scare people off who have never roleplayed before.

Something like Crimson Throne is far more complex and is targeted at experienced players. Burnt Offerings I felt also was too gory at points and unsuitable for new players.

I also don't agree that Wizards wrote no decent modules. Some were fine.

Let's keep our minds open and keep tabs on what they produce. Thunderspire to me is a fine adventure and much more challenging than Shadowfell and I am sure that the adventure quality will only improve. Bear in mind too, that 4.0 hasn't got any templates for adventure-writing as yet. The ruleset is capable of handling anything, but it does it in a different way and whoever writes modules for 4th edition will have to get to grips with this over time.

Again, there is clearly a deliberate ploy to include combat in these early adventures, as this is the main difference between 3.5 and 4.0 and few people are saying that the combat is worse. It's good and fun and I know players have enjoyed playing Shadowfell, a module, which is of a high quality. There's very little in it I would criticise and even the best Paizo modules have their own foibles.

I'm excited about the new products coming up, especially the FR modules, and I hope that we see some more intellectual stuff coming in soon, to suit experienced players. Let's hope too that our favourite Paizo bite the bullet and make some 4th edition adventure paths in the near future. That's where the money is.

We just managed to "finish" the module, which was felt by the group to be a little too hard, although one has to say that circumstance did cause much of this.

Here are some of the things that happened, which were "unscripted":

Ok, since people have been so generous with their ideas, here are mine:

Maps are cramped, but probably realistic.

I have just started running this module/campaign in 4th edition and was wondering, if anyone else had thought to do the same thing?

The alignment issue is one we have had to resolve, but otherwise it all seems reasonable. One thing that I am finding is that all of the Paizo modules are based on smallish, one might even say cramped, maps, which makes the much more versatile 4th ed combat a little hard to take advantage of.

Still, cramped is cramped and the players will adapt, I am certain.

Is there a thread anywhere, where people are helpign with these 4th edition conversions? it would be great to have some unofficial assistance with this, so the very worthy Paizo modules can be played in the new rule system.