the Stick's page

I've seen in some other threads the topic of race and racism give rise to near-infernos. I got to thinking about racism, America and the world. I sometimes think that we Americans are quick to throw around the term racism, adn that most of us fail to understand our own fundamental (and often unique) liberties. I'd like to introduce a calm and reasoned discussion on racism, especially since this board has participants from all over the world, with the goal of understanding a little better how people interact and to foster a little more awareness of our similarities and differences. I'll start first...

Does it seem to anyone else that the descriptions for those two conditions seem reversed? That is, I would expect someone restrained to be unable to move under their own power, but be moved by others (e.g., a person tied to a chair), whereas immobilized calls to mind someone who is, well, immobilized (e.g., someone chained to an altar).

Anyone else notice this? Or anyone have insight into why the words were chosen to describe the conditions they describe?

So in my home game, I have been playing a druid. One close association that has developed is with the party rogue. Occasionally they will do a few side quests together, and work very well together (aside from a general, and comical, lack of planning). What really struck me is just how well a druid can be a thief.

Give a druid a level or two of rogue and they become fantastic housebreakers. With spells like obscuring mist, they provide cover for themselves to break the law. The various buff spells at level two help the rogue abilities. And as for getting away or not getting caught, how freaking handy is wild shape. Turn into a hawk and fly away, or a badger and burrow away, or a dog, and bark at the theif who just ran by you down the alley... Even the second-level spell Tree Shape is great - no thieves here, just a bush.

Has anyone actually played a druid like this? I joke that I am one step away from eco-terrorist with the druid, but for a simple housebreaking thief (or pirate), the druid seems pretty darn handy. And don't get me started on assassin...

Does a druid's woodland stride ability allow him to travel through an area affected by plant growth?

Woodland Stride (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a druid may move through any sort of undergrowth (such as natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similar terrain) at her normal speed and without taking damage or suffering any other impairment. However, thorns, briars, and overgrown areas that have been magically manipulated to impede motion still affect her.

<emphasis mine>

Perhaps this is yet another changed I missed in the last edition switch, where areas of magical plants (such as entangle or spike growth clearly still affect the druid. However, a plant growth spell is an instantaneous effect with permanent effects. The plants themselves are not magical, but they were made that way by a magical effect, and they impede movement. Are druids prevented from "striding" through an area of plant growth?

or PCAQ for short...

So there is a character that is considering taking hte Leadership feat and acquiring a pseudodragon as a cohort. Presuming that said PC is a druid, and given the pseudodragon's ability scores, what class would you recommend the pseudodragon advance in to be an effective cohort? One last caveat; everything has to be Core.

My ideas included sorceror (with eschew materials) or possibly wizard with his "spellbook" a series of tattoos on his body (or something similar). Both of those are quickly defeated by the average ability scores.

Next I thought of rogue, with the high dex and hide skill. Similalry, if the pseudodragon will be in combat, why not ranger? But being tiny, said cohort will provoke attacks of opportunity every time he moves to attack. Could this be solved by him taking ranks in tumble? Can a flying creature "tumble" in DnD terms?

I could always have him also go druid, but am uncertain about this, plus having a summoner with an animal companion and a cohort who can also summon... might be a little much.

The idea is a cohort that will be useful in a fairly wide range of tactical applications. I already see the potential for scouting and spying, but the battlefield can be pretty rough in this campaign. Any suggestions?

Anyone recall which issue of Dragon wurms were introduced. There were a sort of forest "dragon" with a neutral outlook. They may have had a slightly different name, like wurmling, and so far my searches have yielded naught. Thanks in advance.

I really enjoyed reading through Skeletons of Scarwall and enjoyed the layout of the keep. I enthusiastically applaud the entrance design, with the long, straight approach through the gatehouse that exposes invaders to a grueling defense. I thought the layout was very well-designed, with an interesting juxtaposition of the Star Tower and the Donjon.

That said, I have a few tiny quibbles about the presentation. While the map quality itself is excellent, one aspect was very confusing. Levels one and two are presented with East being toward the top of the page, while level three has North at the top (much like the first map, with the ruined gatehouse and the orcs). The switch was very confusing until I noticed it, and even then it was difficult to align the levels in my head. I would recommend for any future three-dimensional structure that you pick a direction for NOrht and stick with it through all the maps.

What made the alignment all the more difficult was the reference to room 22 that doesn't appear on the maps (or I haven't located it yet). I know it should be a simple empty room, but the fact that it should have a trap door in the ceiling suggests it should open onto the roof level somewhere. Couple that with two 24s (the right-most one should be 23) and it made the alignment of the different levels none too easy to visualize.

However, I must applaud you on the idea of numbering the stairwells on each level, showing how they line up. That it ultimately what helped me visualize the 3-D structure. I do hope to see that practice continued.

Finally, I would have liked to see an art piece depicting a ground-level view of the keep, something I could show players as they approach. One can see the keep on the cover, but it's not a clear picture of the keep itself.

Thanks again for a superior product.

I was pleasantly surprised to see several pieces of art drawing on relatively famous works of art. I am referring specifically to the pipe-playing skeleton on p. 60 and the dancing skeleton and girl on p. 63. I figures someone else would somment on this, but I did enjoyseeing a modern perspective. I also found the face of Dr. Davaulus very well-done; the eyes are compelling.

There are some things I didn't like too much. The "smoothing" quality of hte artwork does not appeal to me; I suppose I like sharper angles and contrast. While a lot of people seem to like Andaisin, I thought she seemed too much like th elittle Goth girls from LARP in the 90s - and the oversized scythe continues the annoying trend of gigantic weapons. I suppose that puts me in the "realism" school, versus high fantasy.

Overall, I do give a favorable review to the art. There are some pieces that appeal very strongly to me, and others that I don;t like to see, but the former outweigh the latter. I look forward to seeing a continuing variance of styles.

Under the Aid Another option in combat, one can make an attack roll vs. AC 10 to grant an ally a +2 bonus to AC. From the SRD:

You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

My question arises concerning how that AC bonus affectgs certain attacks. Specifically, does that +2 AC bonus apply to touch attacks? Obviously it would apply to a regular attack, but the situation came up in a recent game where touch attacks were being made. My gut instinct is that the AC bonus would apply to a touch attack, but I would like some feedback from the community. Thanks in advance!

Recently in a game, we had a situation arise that never came up before. A druid has an animal companion, and rather than choose a new companion upon leveling up, decided to improve the current companion as per the chart in the PHB.

According to the chart, the animal gains 2 HD. The companion is an eagle, which is usually a small creature with one HD. However, in the Monster Manual, the entry for eagle states taht they can be advanced to medium having 2-3 HD, though they cannot grow any larger.

So the question is, does the increase in HD for the eagle affect its size? That is, does the small eagle now become a medium eagle?

With no clear answer, we decided to let the DM and players decide, but they are both about 50-50 on the size change. Everyone agrees that the companion could never grow larger than medium, since eagles can not be larger than medium (that is, the animal, eagle, not the magic beast giant eagle). The size progression stops for animal eagles at medium.

A size change would not be that drastic, as the eagle is 3' tall with a wingspan of 7', and going to medium would make it about 4' tall with a wingspan of 9' or so. It won't break the game (and the companion is used mainly as "eyes in the sky").

What do you think?

Recently I have been involved in a few mini-debates about society and individualism and how the two interrelate. Forgive me for this being fairly U.S.-centered, though there are certain gloabl elements that permeate the concept.

I remember in the "good old days" when some classes were "better" than others, though each had a niche. I also remember the challenges faced were often quite harsh (lots of Save or Die effects), and even the rules often simply left things to DMs to adjudicate, which could also be quite severe ("You're dead").

Outside the gaming world, this concept was mirrored in sporting events and movies and everyay life. The world seemed a bit more survival of the fittest, where as a child, one was encouraged to do one's best, adn to be both a good loser adn a gracious winner, as applicable. These were certainly my childhood influences, and there was a fairly large amount of competition in everyday life.

In recent decades, I have noticed a trend toward "fairness" and what I'll call delineation (essentially making lists that rank things, all sorts of things, everything). It seems we simultaneously want to make sure there is a level playing field for all, and exactly how good everyone is at something.

To the first point, witness how many kid's sport leagues either do not keep score, or give everyone a trophy or have rules spelling out exactly how much or how little playing time must be given to each player. On the flip side, many sports can no longer end in a tie; when we keep score, we must know who is better.

To draw a parallel with DnD, recent editions have worked to make every class equal, and there is a wealth of published opinion and analysis of exactly how "balanced" each class is. There is also now a severe recommendation of how to parse encounters, and what EL each "should" be. Additionally, there are now far fewer oportunities to die; how many spells or poisons have Save or Die effects now? Only a handful, and apparently even those are being phased out.

It seems that the game designers are striving for exact parity among options and guidelines to make things seem risky, but not too risky, which to me seems to mimic a charge I have heard leveled about U.S. (and to a greater extent, U.K.) society. Sciety wants to push a quasi nanny-state where there is little true risk and where everyone is pretty much the same. People can express themselves differently, but should not be capable of achieving much more or less than others.

So am I calling 4E a socialist plot? No, I am just curious how changing societal mores affect our leisure habits. I would also question how the "socialization" of a game purportedly about a small group of individual heroes affects the entertainment value, and whether one's perception of individualism colors that judgement. Anyone else interested in what is probably a far too intense examination of "just a game"?

It seems as if one of the major points touted about 4e is that it will be simpler to play. While I applaud a system that does not go into excruciatingly complex mechanics to resolve simple systems (anyone remember MERPS? My major impression was made when a player tried to duck for cover and failed some roll, failed another subsequent roll, followed by two or three more and died tragically), I feel that some games can become too simple or dumbed-down.

Allow me a little exposition. I was in middle school when AD&D came out, and reading those hardbook tomes taught me a fair amount of vocabulary (e.g., mundane and dweomer). The combat system was based on some logical algoritms, even if they had some realtively complex modifiers. I actually played in a game where weapon speed and type were used; being a fighter type, I had numerous weapons. I had a page and a half of typed definitions of what my attack would be with each weapon under each armor class type (and this before spreadsheets were popularly available). I played a lot of Shadowrun, where people complained about the complexity of figuring spell formulae and drain. But with a little investigation in all cases, the elegance of the system came out. The armor type modifiers for attacks made using different weapons in different cases highly relevant, with still only one die roll needed. The Shadowrun algoritms were marvelous and so easy to adapt once you understood the basic formula. The rich vocabulary was but one contributor to my phenomenal verbal scores on standardized tests.

Many people liked the complexity of the game. I think part of the trouble arose when designers tried to add options, but so through mechanics requiring additional dice rolls, which bog down the game and add complexity to play, but not necessarily to the gaming experience. Once the mechanics passed a certain threshhold of unwieldiness, calls came for revamping. I also witnessed to death of 2nd edition, and I can remember thinking there were far too many rules in far too many books and too many options for a cohesive game before it all came crashing down. My gaming groups generally stuck to the older 2e stuff.

3e was completely new. After some grousing, and some friends with more money than brains started bringing books to our 2e games, we tried it. And it wasn't bad. It was good -- good enough to purchase books. There were flaws, which were addressed in 3.5. I am still annoyed by the sudden revamp, but 3.5 was a more consistent game, though the wealth of supplements again threatens to make two differnet gaming groups unrecognizable as playing the same game (I speak of BoNS and ToM, though I rather like ToM; it is fresh air and something different, a module that could be added if the group agrees).

However much I like 3.5, my anger at the sudden turnaround and obsolescence of 3.0 combined with spite prevented me from buying 3.5 books from WotC (anyone want to buy some 3.0 books? I didn't think so). I managed to acquire the information I needed (I will say the SRD is a much appreciated resource), and I enjoy playing, but I do not enjoy seeing the milking of hobbiests. Perhaps it goes back to being akid, growing up poor, where hobby books were a great luxury; I certainly did not have disposable income to buy two new books every few weeks. I think DnD is now marketed to suburbanites, with disposable income, and to hell with providing an educational hobby to poorer folk. Hmmm, maybe I could start a civic campaign to introduce DnD to disadvantaged children...

Back on topic: I wait with very low expectations for 4e. WotC, and by extension Hasbro, does not seem to be what one would hope for in a gaming company. I suppose that is what happens when they sell out to the big boys. I almost long for the days of FASA Corp, against whom I and my gaming associates more than once threatened to make a Shadow-run. I particularly despise the rapid turnaround, after the glut of products. I loathe the shoddy PR (most of which I now ignore since the first bits were so awful). I like quality; 4e and WotC does not appear to offer that promise yet.

As others have written, I will likely investigate it, and it will likely be through someone eles's copy or acount first before I decide to consume. If it is so dum bed down as to be unenjoyable for me, then I will simply give it up. There are other games to play.

To my original point, I liked being challenged to read and understand the rulebooks. Figuring out the rules was never terribly obtuse, especially since DnD seemed the province of the nerd in my day. Now there is a need for a huge market base, and legions of less nerdy players and profit, profit, PROFIT! And we need it fast! Make DnD cools and trendy and easy, so the stupid kids can play. I despise dumbing things down, since with a little patience, almost anyone can learn to play the game. Some may delve deeply into the complexities, but most can ignore knowing all the rules and still have a great time. To take away 'my" complexity leaves me... well, without a game I would enjoy playing.

I could opine about why people seem to think making things easier is a good idea, and then opine more about a society bent on an instant fix to everything and general laziness of thought and action being bred into the cultural norm, but I have ranted too long. I hope 4e will remain a viable intellectual exercise. I hope DnD will not become just another pasttime, but remain a stimulant for young minds' creativity. I hope that DnD will add to society, and not detract from it, but I fear I will be wrong. I will be sad to see it pass though.

As 4e approaches, I figured I would share my opinion about something I both love and hate about 3e. As a player, I tend to be a tactician, and I absolutely loved the fact that 3e strongly encouraged the use of miniatures and battlemaps. My groups bought those giant pads of graph paper and drew encounter maps as needed. One DM even started printing up or drawing freehand massive battlemaps.

Seeing the whole encounter area, and the disposition of the creatures involved was fantastic, and helpful for running the game. Sometimes we did not have minis of the appropriate size, but we always found something to use. My groups were fortunate in that there were always two or three of us with a collection of minis so that we could generally find a satifactory PC and monsters.

But with the release of the DnD Miniatures line, I felt a shift in the game. When I first saw the prepainted plastic minis, I found them rather shoddy and cheap. I even ordered the special black dragon mini just to see one up close and personal, but honestly, I still feel it to be an inferior product. To me, the plastic minis are flimsy, often poorly-painted and, well, cheap.

In their defense, I have one friend who had a massive collection of them, and they entered out most recent game, simply because they were inexpensive, and there are some that are rather aesthtically pleasing or representative of the creature we wanted to depict. By having so many present, we never wanted for monsters, and we never had to be too careful to not drop them or break them or chip the paint. I found them superior to using placeholders, like dice or plastic cases or even 2-d cutouts.

But the rise of the DnD Miniatures game, which is not DnD, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. For this separate game, only the DnD line can be used. That's fine, because it is a differnt game. But as more products come out, and as 4e looms in the future, I worry about the increasing tie between DnD Miniatures and DnD. I do not want to give up my meticulously painted lead and pewter figures (some with such detail as cavities in their teeth or underarm hair) for some generic, shoddy "accessory". Granted, one can always use their own rules, but in a shared hobby, it helps to have common guidelines and experiences.

My question then becomes, what types of miniatures do people on this board use (if any) and how do utilize them? Are there many players who play both DnD and DnD Miniatures, or are the two groups somewhat disparate? Do others share my opinion of the DnD Minis lines, or does their mass market availability far exceed their shortcomings in your games? What types of minis would you like to see available?

Any gamers in the area? I am leaving one of the best gaming groups in my 25-year gaming experience, and already jonesing for a new circle of nerds.

Thanks in advance...

I am moving in mid-August, so I just logged in to change my address. The Pathfinder subscription worked out just fine, and I see the new address as the shipping address. I also see that the final issue of Dungeon has already shipped to the old address, which is perfect.

However, the final issue of Dragon, set to ship 08-07, still reads the old address. I am moving on teh 13th, and I am pretty sure it will not arrive by that date. Is there any way I could have Dragon sent to the new address too?

Thanks much.

I am just curious as to what the "official" differences between a book and a magazine are, in regards to <i>Pathfinder</i> being a book and <i>Dungeon</i> and <i>Dragon</i> both being magazines. I only ask because long long ago (prior to subscribing), when I looked for <i>Dragon</i> in bookstores, I could never find it with the other magazines. Eventually several employees told me it was classified as a book. I also wonder if the classification has anything to do with shipping rates/costs.

Can you tell I have too much time on myhands today? Thanks.

So just my luck, I catch the start of this whole shebang.

I was checking my account to see if my subscriptions had been updated yet. It appears that they have not; my subscriptions page still tells me my subscriptions are set to expire in 1 and 2 issues, respectively for Dragon and Dungeon, and my credit card has not yet been charged, though I received a confirmatory email from Paizo of the order.

What I would like to do, ideally, is renew my subscription so that I get all of the remaining magazines. Should I cancel my renewal order (can I do that) and renew issue by issues? Could I renew a year-long subscription, get the remaining Dungeon and Dragon issues, and shunt the leftovers to Pathfinder? I am willing to give Pathfinder a try, but I'd like to see what it is about before signing up for almost two years worth of it. Suggestions for a gamer who has been subscribing to Dungeon since somewhere around #10?

I have to share a little story about how much fun it is to send one's players against a cabal of seven vampires. SUre, I had to make a few updates form 3.0 to 3.5 and sure I pretty much ditched the entire adventure background to make it fit into my campaign, but it has worked out fabulously.

My players are all pretty much very experienced players and rarely make the mistakes of the less experienced. however, I have gotten tehm to do something that I never thought would happen -- they have split the party into two groups, and hilarity (for me) is about to ensue.

The PCs, consisting of a dragonborn cleric of Bahamut, a female human fighter/dervish, and female fighter bow specialist, an elven rogue slowly being lured to the worship of Vecna, and a Neandethal druid/warshaper have been sent to find a Lord Valdemar to gain legitimacy for the castle they have claimed. The magistrate that sent them on this quest knows that Valdemar, in my campaign, has been missing for over a decadea dn thinks it is a wild goose chase. Meanwhile, the PCs were joined by the bow specialist's sister, who is now a paladin/vampire hunter who has helped them out immensely in terms of knowledge of what they are up against and good methods to destroy vampires.

So on the first day, the PCs have pretty much stormed the castle and investigated the first two floors plus the tower, and have slain three of the seven and are in hot pursuit of a gaseous form of Valdemar, but have nearly exhausted all spells and are at about 2/3 of their hit points. The cleric and the NPC have "herded" Raven's gaseous form to an area where they could let in sunlight andhave just destroyed her, and are about two minutes behind the others, who are pursuing Valdemar's form into the basement.

Even more fun, they managed to set fire to some spare coffins they found, as well as allow Raven to summon some three-score of ravens, adn the ensuing smoke and commotion have awakened the two remaining vampires, Valk and Haroun, in the above-ground portion of the manor. Those two will take several minutes to prepare and then pursue, but will be several minutes behind the PCs.

SO it looks like this: If the PCs are dilignet, they have a cahnce to pursue and destroy Valdemar. If they linger too long, they will be assaulted by the ramainder of the Heptad, and likely perish. If they leave now (or soon), they will hole up in an area where they will likely be safe, but the nearby town will be victimized, and the vampires will preapre. In any event, this has been an exceptionally fun adventure so far, and it's only going to get better as I get to start playing the vampires being aware of interlopers and plotting revenge. And it does tie into my campaign, since one of these vampires is the "cousin" of a staked vampire in the basement of the PCs castle...