I am glad LA was not included. I am glad that there is no section in the book that says: "This material is for the PLAYERS" It gives me more control over what I want to allow and how I want to allow it as a DM. It's not like they did not include the stats for playing several monstrous races in the book. They are there. But because there is no system listed for what the player needs to sacrifice to play a race not balanced with the core PHB races, it leaves the power in my groups hands, about how we wish to rule it, or even if we want to allow it all.
Just to point out, even if there was a system listed, you and your group could still use whatever system you wanted to develop. To parrot Paizo's staff, "It's your game." Any rule included in it does not change that, does it?
Just to point out, even if there was a system listed, you and your group could still use whatever system you wanted to develop. To parrot Paizo's staff, "It's your game." Any rule included in it does not change that, does it?
Any rule included also takes up space, costs money, and takes time to produce and playtest. You think you're being reasonable, but I don't think you're seeing the big picture of Jason's words. You're pecking at little holes in the pavement, hoping to make them bigger. What you don't understand is that your beak isn't long enough to break through to the other side.
Also note the previous comments about the issue of player sense of entitlement.
Does Paizo have any plans of making a Dragon-style magazine? I would be an instant fan!
Sorry for going OT.
I've heard Paizo staff, James and I think Lisa also, say that they have no plans on reentering the magazine market due to the economics of the magazine industry.
Any chance somebody could throw a summary of that statement out? I'm curious exactly what those economic impediments are.I've heard Paizo staff, James and I think Lisa also, say that they have no plans on reentering the magazine market due to the economics of the magazine industry.Does Paizo have any plans of making a Dragon-style magazine? I would be an instant fan!
Sorry for going OT.
This is a year old and it quotes an even older quote but I don't think anything has changed. I've quoted the relevant bit below:
We're taking this opportunity to move away from the magazine business because it's just plain terrible to be in. It's one thing to continue publishing an already successful magazine with awesome name recognition, great circulation, and advertisers lined up to buy pages, but it's quite another to launch a new magazine.
We tried it twice, just a few years ago, with two very different magazines: Undefeated and Amazing Stories. And what we learned from both was that we'd have needed to dig a seven-digit hole in our bank account before we'd start seeing a decent return on them.
Many have suggested we should just replace Dragon with a clone, but it just doesn't work that way. "Manny's Cigar and Magazine Depot" carries Dragon because he's sold Dragon for decades. He's never heard of this new "Flagon magazine" but he's pretty sure he's never sold a copy. Should he buy it? Well, how much does it sell? Zero copies? Manny can't afford the risk right now. Come back when it sells tens of thousands per month. (Chicken, meet egg.)
And the big guys? You have to buy your spot on those stands. And you have to ship them more copies than they can possibly sell, and what they don't sell, they destroy, and you don't get paid for. If you start to sell more copies, they order more, so they can have some to destroy. They adjust their buying levels to ensure thay they're destroying more than they're selling—because if they don't have too many, they can't sell more.
And when you do sell copies, that money goes into what the magazine distribution business calls a "reserve against returns," which is held by our circulation company. Stores have the better part of a year to report their unsold issues, for which they get their money back, so until that time is up, the circulation people keep most of the money. (Actually, they parcel it out based on historical percentages, so it trickles in throughout the year, but the point is, you don't really know how much you've made until the issue has been off the stands for a year. And you don't get to hold the cash in the meantime.)
And then there's advertisers. Sure, within our hobby, it might be easy to find folks who'll give us a chance, but those video game companies, for example—they want to see circulation numbers. We might get them to pony up if we tell them that we reach tens of thousands of readers, but a circulation of "zero right now, but we're hopeful for the future" isn't going to get their attention.
But in order to keep the cover price down, you need to have that advertising, and you need those big circulation numbers. It's just not a simple as "print Pathfinder on magazine stock, and make it $8." Can't be done.
If you want more about how bad the magazine business is, search our boards for posts from me that include the words magazine, business, and terrible. It's *so* much worse than anyone outside it would ever imagine.
We'll miss publishing Dragon and Dungeon, but we won't miss publishing magazines.
@kyrt-ryder & The Grandfather
Have you tried Kobold Quarterly? It's an excellent magazine and they have had solid support for PfRPG from go.
Just to point out, even if there was a system listed, you and your group could still use whatever system you wanted to develop. To parrot Paizo's staff, "It's your game." Any rule included in it does not change that, does it?Any rule included also takes up space, costs money, and takes time to produce and playtest. You think you're being reasonable, but I don't think you're seeing the big picture of Jason's words. You're pecking at little holes in the pavement, hoping to make them bigger. What you don't understand is that your beak isn't long enough to break through to the other side.
Also note the previous comments about the issue of player sense of entitlement.
See, that's an attitude that's always bothered me. Which is why I didn't respond prior to this. Wanted to give myself a chance to cool off.
What you see as a waste of 'space, money, and time' with regards to additional player races, monstrous pc rules, etc is your personal opinion and the way you state it basically says that anyone that want's it has no right to their opinion because they are wasting your time which is obviously more important than theirs.
Your opinion on not desiring them is fine, and nobody is saying you have to use it in your game. But, no game company can succeed without appealing to a wide variety of players. That means that there will always be things in a book that someone considers not worth their time/money/etc. That doesn't mean that that content is not worth providing. For example, the Adventure Paths, I consider them an utter waste from my point of view, I don't use them, never will, and would vastly rather have Paizo working on rule books over AP's I'll never ever use. But that doesn't mean the AP's are not worth producing, obviously. They just won't capture my $$$'s. They will capture lots of other people's $$$'s. By the same token, non-core races and monstrous rules may not capture your $$$'s, but they will mine.
Once they are produced, I'd expect any RPG products produced afterwards to support those expansions, which means you will increasingly be finding that some parts of modules are wastes of your $$$, although I won't find them that way. Another example is the Advanced Players Handbook that is coming out, it's got new classes in them, and some people have already said 'Not in my game' sight unseen. Paizo will continue to support those classes going forward (one of the big gripes everyone who gripes at WoTC has is the spotty support of their own material) and those people will consider that support an utter waste of time/effort/money. That doesn't make that opinion true.
For example, I LOVE how you handled the lycanthropes in the Bestiary, its now easy to use them at level 2 (or even level 1 really) without it being too unbalanced.
By the way, I wrote the lycanthrope section of the Bestiary, and the information there is derived/condensed from my PDF Curse of the Moon. It's for 3.5, but it's very compatible with the Pathfinder RPG.
For example, I LOVE how you handled the lycanthropes in the Bestiary, its now easy to use them at level 2 (or even level 1 really) without it being too unbalanced.By the way, I wrote the lycanthrope section of the Bestiary, and the information there is derived/condensed from my PDF Curse of the Moon. It's for 3.5, but it's very compatible with the Pathfinder RPG.
Just last night our group of 3 Bards (2nd-level) handled an encounter with two were-rats that our DM stat'd up the night before. Worked beautifully, fun/scary encounter.
Thanks Sean - I'd read through some of Curse of the Moon and was impressed.
For example, I LOVE how you handled the lycanthropes in the Bestiary, its now easy to use them at level 2 (or even level 1 really) without it being too unbalanced.By the way, I wrote the lycanthrope section of the Bestiary, and the information there is derived/condensed from my PDF Curse of the Moon. It's for 3.5, but it's very compatible with the Pathfinder RPG.
Man, not to be a brown nose, but I do love your work. I read the shapeshifters and loved them.
REALLY hoping you can get the lead on the monstrous PC book when Paizo has time/resources/will to do it.
I was thinking this thread and the OP didn't seem to be very concerned with how individual GMs may or may not feel about Templates and Monster PCs. It seemed to be more concerned with how to deal with them for those who do want to use them, in the absence of a PF rules system for it.
Well, in a crap poor way I just wanted to express my disappointment how the rules for player races were presented in the Bestiary (or the lack of rules there-of). However, in hindsight, I have realized that it is a "Bestiary" and not a "Monster Races Book". Unfortunately my poor way of expressing my dissatisfaction resulted this big long meandering thread :)
(And in the process, inadvertently chastising / insulting nearly all the Paizo staff for a little rule that I thought was lacking in content).
If there was a "delete thread" button, I'd be pressing it now :)
On a side note, I have now put together a draft of my own monster level rules: Link Here
See, that's an attitude that's always bothered me. Which is why I didn't respond prior to this. Wanted to give myself a chance to cool off.
What you see as a waste of 'space, money, and time' with regards to additional player races, monstrous pc rules, etc is your personal opinion and the way you state it basically says that anyone that want's it has no right to their opinion because they are wasting your time which is obviously more important than theirs.
Your opinion on not desiring them is fine, and nobody is saying you have to use it in your game. But, no game company can succeed without appealing to a wide variety of players. That means that there will always be things in a book that someone considers not worth their time/money/etc. That doesn't mean that that content is not worth providing. For example, the Adventure Paths, I consider them an utter waste from my point of view, I don't use them, never will, and would vastly rather have Paizo working on rule books over AP's I'll never ever use. But that doesn't mean the AP's are not worth producing, obviously. They just won't capture my $$$'s. They will capture lots of other people's $$$'s. By the same token, non-core races and monstrous rules may not capture your $$$'s, but they will...
I think a lot more people would have been upset if they had to pay an extra $20 to $50 for content they will never ever need and had to wait another 4 to 12 months for the thing to come out. Is it so hard to accept that rules for playing monsters isn't the same as rules for using them as a DM? Different enough to warrant a different book? Don't you want a quality product which executes the rules with as much balance and efficiency as possible?
How did you ever come up with that original mechanic? According the 3.5 rules a character of X level is considered a X level CR. So a 2nd level fighter or cleric is a CR 2. Now one of our players recruited a blink dog as his cohort. In 3.5 it was a CR 2 monster. It had 4HD monster with a +2 level adjustment, making it a level 6 PC equivalent. So according to the CR rules a level 6 characters should make it a CR 6 monster, but it clearly is a CR 2 monster. How then did you justify that a CR 2 blink dog is even remotely equivalent to a 6th level PC human cohort.What they don't have is a written mechanism for comparing two monster PC's and ensuring that they are both 'balanced'...
...You don’t need to use level adjustment.
Level adjustment is in the game only so that all the PCs can be at the same power level....
The problem is a bit more complex that what you are seeing here. You have to consider what abilities would be useful during an individual encounter and then what abilities would be useful over an entire campaign. For example, the blink dog's ability to dimension door as a free action is useful during an encounter, but it can only do it once a round, so either blink into combat or out of it. The blink dog can't use weapons and thus is limited to how much damage he can do. On the other hand, the ability to dimension door at will (1/rnd) is a huge advantage as a character, take levels in rogue (which can help with the bite damage) and you can be the ultimate scout.
So that is why you see some differences between some creatures with their CR and ECL, because they have abilities that though useful in a single encounter and much more useful in an ongoing campaign.
I think a lot more people would have been upset if they had to pay an extra $20 to $50 for content they will never ever need and had to wait another 4 to 12 months for the thing to come out.
Please go back and look at my posts, I have repeatedly said I am ok with the rules not being in the bestiary.
Is it so hard to accept that rules for playing monsters isn't the same as rules for using them as a DM?
Well crafted rules should allow both, not either/or. I'm hoping that Paizo does not go the route of saying 'Oh, here's a monster, and here's a watered down version that doesn't come close to matching it if you want to make a PC version of it'. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.
Different enough to warrant a different book?
Again, please go read my posts on this subject. I'm tired of repeating myself over and over and over and over and over...
Don't you want a quality product which executes the rules with as much balance and efficiency as possible?
Again, please go read my posts on this subj....
I know, I know, subtlety is way out of character for a tarrasque. What can I say, I'm a tarrasque demogogue.Make up your mind, I thought you were a tarrasque sycophant.
I was a tarrasque pedagogue in another thread too.
I'm multitasking.
Tarrasques are like that.
(If you are unsure what I mean by B&M-ing I will tell you the M is for MOANING, I imagine you can guess what the B is for.)
(Yes I realize this probably won't stop anything and will just make me a target for further B&M-ing.)
Please!
This is a FFF (family-friendly forum) so take your discussion of buttering & moaning to some adult forum somwhere, where it belongs.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I have to say that I am really saddened that Paizo has gone with this approach.
Compare a 1st level goblin to a 1st level drow noble. The difference is ridiculous!
I'm saddened as well, but eagerly await the Savage Species book in the next 12 months.
As for the Goblin vs the Noble Drow, there is no 1st level Noble Drow PC since he is CR+1 in the book (and no it doesn't say CR+1, but it does say it is CR+1 using other words and Jason has shown how it is in fact written to be CR+1.)
A CR in Bestiary rules with no Racial HD is effectively like the old LA+1.
They didn't have full rules for playing monsters at the start. It took 3.5 before they got the ECL and LA system worked out
Actually, MM2 which was 3.0 had LA in it, though it was listed as LA. It gave the ECL of the class and then went on to detail how many class levels a PC of that race could have at that ECL. In effect LA before the word "Level Adjustment" was coined in D&D 3.5 rules. I don't have my 3.0 books anymore or I'd look at the MM3.0 book. I suspect it used the same ECL wording (that presumably they though was too complicated.) I find it interesting that Bestiary goes back closer to the ECL wording "A Noble Drow's CR is equal to his class levels" is very similar.
I should point out I never had a problem with the ECL wording in 3.0, the LA system in 3.5, and for lower level races the CR wording in Bestiary. The problem is where if falls apart on higher power monsters like Hound Archons.
(If you are unsure what I mean by B&M-ing I will tell you the M is for MOANING, I imagine you can guess what the B is for.)
(Yes I realize this probably won't stop anything and will just make me a target for further B&M-ing.)
Please!
This is a FFF (family-friendly forum) so take your discussion of buttering & moaning to some adult forum somwhere, where it belongs.
Well, I don't think that my post broke any rules of the forum, at least not the ones posted under the text box when you are typing. I wasn't using profanity nor did I single anyone out and attack them. I have seen things far closer to cursing in Disney movies. I'm not sure if posts can be deleted by admin but you are more than welcome to flag the post for deletion if you like.
(In the future I shall not post vague referances to the meaning of my acronyms.)
(Not trying to be disrespectful but: For the record, I have seen plenty of sensored profanity on these forums in the form of interchanging a few letters with @#$ symbols so I dont think just the letter B is a serious infraction. I've never seen any of those sensored profanity users called out on it.)
I was thinking this thread and the OP didn't seem to be very concerned with how individual GMs may or may not feel about Templates and Monster PCs. It seemed to be more concerned with how to deal with them for those who do want to use them, in the absence of a PF rules system for it.Well, in a crap poor way I just wanted to express my disappointment how the rules for player races were presented in the Bestiary (or the lack of rules there-of). However, in hindsight, I have realized that it is a "Bestiary" and not a "Monster Races Book". Unfortunately my poor way of expressing my dissatisfaction resulted this big long meandering thread :)
(And in the process, inadvertently chastising / insulting nearly all the Paizo staff for a little rule that I thought was lacking in content).
If there was a "delete thread" button, I'd be pressing it now :)
On a side note, I have now put together a draft of my own monster level rules: Link Here
Thanks for the link. I will read up on that.
I think a lot more people would have been upset if they had to pay an extra $20 to $50 for content they will never ever need and had to wait another 4 to 12 months for the thing to come out. Is it so hard to accept that rules for playing monsters isn't the same as rules for using them as a DM? Different enough to warrant a different book? Don't you want a quality product which executes the rules with as much balance and efficiency as possible?
Personally, I don't think it is upsetting in the least that the moster PC rules are in the Beastiary. The problem is people had certain preconceptions about the content. It probably could have been avoided all together if people's misconceptions had been addressed before the book release.
(I'm not supporting or ridiculing those misconceptions, nor am I saying I shared them. I'm just saying I think that is the source of much of problem/misunderstanding.)
Again, please go read my posts on this subj....
Then what are we arguing about? You're contradicting yourself.
Creative Director
|
I'm saddened as well, but eagerly await the Savage Species book in the next 12 months.
There will not be a Savage Species style book in the next 12 months from Paizo.
We have our schedule pretty much worked out all the way through the end of 2010, and have a pretty solid idea about what we'll be doing in 2011 and 2012. The EARLIEST we'd be able to do a Savage Species style book would be, I would guess, mid 2011. And that would have to jostle with other strong contenders like psionics, epic level, Asia stuff, or whatever. There's a lot of meetings and stuff that has yet to happen.
Just trying to manage expectations better than they were managed in this regard with the Bestiary.
Again, it's worth pointing out that Wizards of the Coast released 3rd edition in 2000. Savage Species didn't release until 2003. If Paizo follows that basic schedule that would put our Pathfinder "Monsters as PCs" book releasing in 2012. We aren't necessarily trying to follow the release pattern of 3rd edition books, of course (especially since we're going to be releasing MUCH FEWER books than WotC did for 3rd edition), but I'm just throwing that out there so folks can keep some perspective on things.
Assuming, that is, that the world doesn't end in 2012 when the calendar ends.
Assuming, that is, that the world doesn't end in 2012 when the calendar ends.
Oh, hush.
Assuming, that is, that the world doesn't end in 2012 when the calendar ends.
Too bad the Mayan's could not have better predicted the fall of their own civilization on their calendar, let alone the end of the world. If we are all still alive in 2013, I'm going to be back here to bug you about a Savage Species book again :)
I'm saddened as well, but eagerly await the Savage Species book in the next 12 months.There will not be a Savage Species style book in the next 12 months from Paizo.
We have our schedule pretty much worked out all the way through the end of 2010, and have a pretty solid idea about what we'll be doing in 2011 and 2012. The EARLIEST we'd be able to do a Savage Species style book would be, I would guess, mid 2011. And that would have to jostle with other strong contenders like psionics, epic level, Asia stuff, or whatever. There's a lot of meetings and stuff that has yet to happen.
Just trying to manage expectations better than they were managed in this regard with the Bestiary.
Again, it's worth pointing out that Wizards of the Coast released 3rd edition in 2000. Savage Species didn't release until 2003. If Paizo follows that basic schedule that would put our Pathfinder "Monsters as PCs" book releasing in 2012. We aren't necessarily trying to follow the release pattern of 3rd edition books, of course (especially since we're going to be releasing MUCH FEWER books than WotC did for 3rd edition), but I'm just throwing that out there so folks can keep some perspective on things.
James, please keep in mind that, as gamers, we like to do two things 1) have our own ideas on how things should be done in our favorite hobby and 2) argue like hell about it. I am sure none of us here (or if so, a sliver of a margin of us) have disrespect for the amount of work that you and your crew have put in. I am also quite certain that the vast majority of us can take what you've given us up til this point and run the best campaigns of our lives.
Should you do market research on what people are looking for? Probably. But what's really important to us, and pardon me to the others here if I'm speaking out of turn, but what's important is that our favorite game is in the hands of competent people who love the game as much as we do.
The moment you guys start hating it because we are what we are - intelligent, opinionated, creative role-players, is the day we lose something totally awesome.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
There is little risk of that happening.
Remember, we're all opinionated gamers, too.
All that we ask is that Paizo.com remain a friendly, constructive place for conversation. We don't appreciate innuendo that suggests we are out to bilk people, trying to rip people off, etc.
Occasionally, after working as hard as we do for as long as we have, we get a little riled up or surprised when one of our customers accuses us, essentially, of being thieves.
That's all. No one is asking (or expects) people to keep their opinions and criticisms to themselves. All we ask is that you give us the benefit of the doubt that we do the best jobs we can for reasons we believe in.
I think, in the main, we've earned it.
Well, I don't think that my post broke any rules of the forum, at least not the ones posted under the text box when you are typing.(If you are unsure what I mean by B&M-ing I will tell you the M is for MOANING, I imagine you can guess what the B is for.)
(Yes I realize this probably won't stop anything and will just make me a target for further B&M-ing.)
Please!
This is a FFF (family-friendly forum) so take your discussion of buttering & moaning to some adult forum somwhere, where it belongs.
Nothing in my "buttering & moaning" comment tipped you off that my entire reprimand was tongue in cheek?
Evidently my subtlety is as impervious as my armored hide...
Assuming, that is, that the world doesn't end in 2012 when the calendar ends.
Well, annihilation doesn't happen til 12/21/2012, so unless you're planning for extreemely late Q4 release, we might get a chance to play with the monster book at least a little bit before we slip off into oblivion.
It's all I can ask for.
So, predictions anyone? What will be the LA for a tarrasque?
Nothing in my "buttering & moaning" comment tipped you off that my entire reprimand was tongue in cheek?Evidently my subtlety is as impervious as my armored hide...
You know what they say about Tarrasques and subtlety...
Tarrasques are as subtle as...
...a flying brick.
...a sledgehammer to the forehead.
...a t*** in the punchbowl.
...a gynaecologist wearing a gas mask.
Feel free to add more...
Nothing in my "buttering & moaning" comment tipped you off that my entire reprimand was tongue in cheek?Evidently my subtlety is as impervious as my armored hide...
You know what they say about Tarrasques and subtlety...
Tarrasques are as subtle as...
...a flying brick.
...a sledgehammer to the forehead.
...a t*** in the punchbowl.
...a gynaecologist wearing a gas mask.Feel free to add more...
You seem to be applying sarcasm here, but my poor friend Shadowlord was unable to penetrate my 15/epic subtlety DR.
But, on the unsubtle front, I think we tarrasques are subtle as a chainsaw but lacking all the social graces.
You seem to be applying sarcasm here, but my poor friend Shadowlord was unable to penetrate my 15/epic subtlety DR.But, on the unsubtle front, I think we tarrasques are subtle as a chainsaw but lacking all the social graces.
Man, not my day.
No sarcasm, just humor. :)
You seem to be applying sarcasm here, but my poor friend Shadowlord was unable to penetrate my 15/epic subtlety DR.But, on the unsubtle front, I think we tarrasques are subtle as a chainsaw but lacking all the social graces.
Man, not my day.
No sarcasm, just humor. :)
You see, phrases like "subtle as a flying brick" are the exact epitome of sarcasm.
They can also be humor. In fact, we tarrasques prefer humorous sarcasm; it's the best kind.
You seem to be applying sarcasm here, but my poor friend Shadowlord was unable to penetrate my 15/epic subtlety DR.But, on the unsubtle front, I think we tarrasques are subtle as a chainsaw but lacking all the social graces.
Man, not my day.
No sarcasm, just humor. :)
You see, phrases like "subtle as a flying brick" are the exact epitome of sarcasm.
They can also be humor. In fact, we tarrasques prefer humorous sarcasm; it's the best kind.
So your favorite food is Elaine Boozler?
So your favorite food is Elaine Boozler?
You seem to be applying sarcasm here, but my poor friend Shadowlord was unable to penetrate my 15/epic subtlety DR.But, on the unsubtle front, I think we tarrasques are subtle as a chainsaw but lacking all the social graces.
Man, not my day.
No sarcasm, just humor. :)
You see, phrases like "subtle as a flying brick" are the exact epitome of sarcasm.
They can also be humor. In fact, we tarrasques prefer humorous sarcasm; it's the best kind.
She seems adequately yummy.
I don't like dwarves. At all. Least favorite race. If it were up to me, I would not have included them in Golarion.
That would have been a mistake. :)
Yet they ARE in Golarion. And next month we've got a "Dwarves of Golarion" book coming out. So obviously, while my likes and dislikes help to shape the products we offer, I'm able to separate that from the likes and dislikes of the customers.
And the likes and dislikes of other folks at Paizo, I hope. I'd like to think that the "Dwarves of Golarion" is being done by someone who can bring the kind of passion to the subject that you were describing earlier. I think dwarves add a lot of flavor and enrich the story possibilities of the game. They also accentuate some very human virtues and foibles. I hope to see an imaginative treatment of the subject from someone who cares.
My least favorite race is the half orc, but I'm open to the idea that I haven't considered all the story possibilities they add to the game and that I'm biased by my own experiences.
I'm also a fan of gnomes, and I like what you've done with them!
I'm also a fan of gnomes, and I like what you've done with them!
I'm a MONSTER!!! RAR!!!
Oh wait, that's the other game....
:)
There is little risk of that happening.
Remember, we're all opinionated gamers, too.
All that we ask is that Paizo.com remain a friendly, constructive place for conversation. We don't appreciate innuendo that suggests we are out to bilk people, trying to rip people off, etc.
Occasionally, after working as hard as we do for as long as we have, we get a little riled up or surprised when one of our customers accuses us, essentially, of being thieves.
That's all. No one is asking (or expects) people to keep their opinions and criticisms to themselves. All we ask is that you give us the benefit of the doubt that we do the best jobs we can for reasons we believe in.
I think, in the main, we've earned it.
Totally. I think that came off wrong. What was supposed to be a pat on the back and a "Don't worry about it, we're only human!" kinda sounded like "Don't be mad at us and don't screw it up!" I have complete faith in Paizo. I have ever since Dragon and have had no reason not to today.
Nothing in my "buttering & moaning" comment tipped you off that my entire reprimand was tongue in cheek?
Evidently my subtlety is as impervious as my armored hide...
Haha, nope, sure thought it was a legitimate reprimand. I shall be on the lookout for Terrasque subtlety in the future.
You seem to be applying sarcasm here, but my poor friend Shadowlord was unable to penetrate my 15/epic subtlety DR.
My next feat selection will be "Subtlety Penetration" hopefully that will help.
Assuming, that is, that the world doesn't end in 2012 when the calendar ends.
2012? I'm sitting here looking at the calendar in my office. Everything goes splat on December 31, 2009.
I'm a MONSTER!!! RAR!!!
Actually, that was a funny joke for 4e. Not over fond of the system, but liked those flash cartoons they put out, none the less.