Toasty
-
Posts
392 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Toasty
-
-
So what was the third section of the barge going to be and is it possible for late pledge manager donations to reach it?
-
1
-
-
Do we have any information on what the next part of the fanfavorite expansion?
-
3
-
-
I'm only waiting on an art book and I have no faith it will show up.
-
1
-
-
I don't see anything wrong with the face. My only real quibble with the sculpt is the reptilian tentacles seem to have an inelegant texture on them. Well that and having an Azathoth with roughly lateral symmetry has always rubbed me the wrong way, but the old one was like that too. He is the Nuclear (as in central) Chaos. He should have radial rather than lateral symmetry to represent that.
-
That Nodens sculpt is amazing. Not super thrilled on the look of the tentacles for the Dire Azathoth though.
-
Don't get me wrong though. I love how Cthulhu Wars has turned out and this process is probably the only way CoC has gotten as good as it is, but it kinda feels like the rulesbook should be an updateable pdf/app.
-
This is sort of a continuing thing from Chaosium as well. Hence why CoC has decimal point editions and each edition is generally just a revision of the previous one. I appreciate that the guys have an ongoing self reflection process, but it's a bit frustrating when you want the game to just settle down for a bit.
-
1
-
-
I'm getting these mostly as D&D minis but I do have the flower knight in the first kickstarter.
-
All I'm getting is the Goblin forest.
-
Are there going to be Pathfinder rules for any of the Kingdom Death monsters?
-
Yeah the Chinese government still hasn't approved a full excavation of the tomb. There is just a small section of the terracotta army that is uncovered because well the room was already unsealed. They're still trying to find a way to get into the tomb while avoiding damaging or disturbing anything. It really helps that the tomb was discovered by a successor culture to the one that originally built it.
-
I backed this but dear god I hate how much of it is kickstarter exclusive. It's such a terrible anti-consumer model.
-
3
-
-
I got all my stuff.
-
I'm still waiting on my order.
-
I grabbed an early bird shogun and if it turns out there aren't enough good minis or too many warning signs i can back out.
-
I'd really prefer if this was metal.
-
Well the creater has pretty much washed his hands of the KS with minimal exception.. he checked out a while ago.. he's had some issues and i think he just couldn't deal with the stress and wants it off his plate
That's really not an option. You're going to still be found responsible and at fault.
-
The problem that we have with 5e at B-A-M is that the core books are the only part that sells.
We sold more copies of Mouseguard than we did of some of the 5e books.
We sold more of the first few 4e books than 5e, and more Pathfinder than 4e, which does not look good for the game. Pathfinder is no longer the New and Shiny but is still keeping pace with 5e at its best. If a game that is that much older and still selling better than the new game then the new game is doing something wrong.
Grump thinks that the supplements are too expensive, and are what the publisher wants to put out, not what the players are looking for. That Wizards has gone back to not listening to the fans.
What's funny is even with this considered Paizo makes most of its money from people with direct subscriptions to Paizo. WotC does not have any such service, so 5th edition is doing even worse than you think.
-
Pathfinder and 4th edition are essentially diametric opposites in how they adapted D&D to a more modern era. Pathfinder is basically just 3.5 with corrected damage numbers for the non-wizard non-barbarian classes. This is feels like comfort food, very good comfort food, but still a clear sign that Paizo is not going to really expand 3.5's rules set in any meaningful way or address the underlying problems with 3.5 core systems such as linear warriors and quadratic wizards and certain play styles being almost incompatible with the core systems (maneuverability melee combatants have been a particular bedbug).
Though the problem of linear fighter vs quadratic wizard existed loooong before D&D 3.5e, I find that it was never that bad in the 3.x or PF.
In the games I've been in, at higher levels the fighters were still massive damage dealers, and though the magic users had devastating spells, they were also very often limited in having the right opportunity to use those spells. i.e. Fireballs still need to have no ally with 20ft radius, Lighting Bolt still needs a straight line, and there's that pesky X times/day that sticks to them.
From experience, the classes that suffered the most from high levels in 3.x were rogues. Sure, their sneak attacks could be devastating, but at higher levels, the shear amount of critters immune to sneak attacks shut them down pretty quick. Monks also suffered from having their Flurry of Blows unable to hit anything with high AC due to their average BAB and lack of items that could effectively boost their to-hit bonuses without compromising the FoB.
Pathfinder retooled several of the core classes with the PF Unchained book, much to my liking now.
I think we are mostly in agreement. Rogue and monk were the most harmed by 3.5 and later Pathfinder's rules for them. Hell Paizo seems to agree with us and addressed the issue (mostly) in Pathfinder Unchained. I'd actually say that if your GM still allows archetypes unchained monk is nearly perfect in terms of design. Sitting right up there with bards, alchemists, and maguses (magi?) in terms of "good job Paizo". Then at the core of very simple combat everyone can contribute roughly equally assuming no terrain or complex enemy immunities. The problem comes up when you are using a non-combat encounter or a more complex combat encounter such as one involving incorporeal flying ability damaging enemies (shadows, wraiths, etc) or having to cross a bridgeless valley, or attend a fancy dinner party. In general this is not what the fighter has specced for and thus he has difficulty contributing. After all he was built for fighting. Now this is good game design in my opinion, after all the dinner party should be the bard's time to shine and the wraiths should be hard to kill. The problem comes in the fact that the wizard contributes highly to both the fancy dinner party and combat without equally and has no real difficulty changing between the two so long as he's allowed any amount of time to prepare spells.
This is something 3.5 actually came close to solving but Paizo didn't follow suit. The classes of beguiler, dread necromancer, and warmage were spellcasters capable of filling all the sort of fantasy tropes you'd want out of spellcasters, without contributing massively to every encounter. Hell they're actually better at their niche than a core wizard would be but present fewer design and story telling problems for me the GM. They end up being balanced with bard, unchained monk, etc. Hence why when I play Pathfinder I tend to ban wizard and just tell people "tell me the sort of wizard you want and I will either give you a focused caster or design one for you". So I'm willing to homebrew up my buddy a "super transmuter" or whatever type of bearded caster he wants because wizards are cool but the "everything on the spell-list" type we were given in 3.5 is very difficult to economize a game around.
Pathfinder and 4th edition are essentially diametric opposites in how they adapted D&D to a more modern era. Pathfinder is basically just 3.5 with corrected damage numbers for the non-wizard non-barbarian classes. This is feels like comfort food, very good comfort food, but still a clear sign that Paizo is not going to really expand 3.5's rules set in any meaningful way or address the underlying problems with 3.5 core systems such as linear warriors and quadratic wizards and certain play styles being almost incompatible with the core systems (maneuverability melee combatants have been a particular bedbug).
Though the problem of linear fighter vs quadratic wizard existed loooong before D&D 3.5e, I find that it was never that bad in the 3.x or PF.
In the games I've been in, at higher levels the fighters were still massive damage dealers, and though the magic users had devastating spells, they were also very often limited in having the right opportunity to use those spells. i.e. Fireballs still need to have no ally with 20ft radius, Lighting Bolt still needs a straight line, and there's that pesky X times/day that sticks to them.
From experience, the classes that suffered the most from high levels in 3.x were rogues. Sure, their sneak attacks could be devastating, but at higher levels, the shear amount of critters immune to sneak attacks shut them down pretty quick. Monks also suffered from having their Flurry of Blows unable to hit anything with high AC due to their average BAB and lack of items that could effectively boost their to-hit bonuses without compromising the FoB.
Pathfinder retooled several of the core classes with the PF Unchained book, much to my liking now.
Part of it was a sherical cow argument - if you allow the wizard to recharge after each encounter he does become too powerful - but most groups, in my experience, don't play that way - so the wizard does not go nova on each and every encounter, and is not carrying enough Knock spells that you don't need the rogue, and so on and so forth.
It was pretty much an excuse for Wizards to kill 3.X and the accompanying OGL.
Without realizing that because of that same OGL 3.X no longer needed WotC in order to survive.
Which they really, really, really should have known, since it was one of the danged stated purposes of the OGL - in order to prevent exactly that kind of corporate idiocy. (Sorry guys - some of the founders of WotC went and said what would happen, long before 4e was even the barest twinkle, you morons!)
The result was that 4e had killed its own chance of success.
The Auld Grump - only two hours into the game, and already waiting on pizza...
*EDIT* I swear to Gogamagog, we ate healthier while I was running Curse of the Crimson Throne - It's like old school adventures somehow cause a craving for pizza, corn chips, and fatty, fatty dips!
4th edition was actually successful just with a different crowd than 3.5. It was the top selling RPG until D&D Essentials came out and killed the line. elfing Essentials, easily the worst edition of D&D. Only 5th edition even approaches its awfulness.
-
Thank you everyone for attempting to find my wierdly specific miniatures requests before, but I have a new issue.
I am looking for a plastic polearm appropriately sized for a 28mm orge, so large sized for normal D&D minis. I have been able to find such items in GW plastics but all of them have hands sculpted right onto the weapon. I need one that is free of such appendages. Would anyone be able to recommend a conversion bit or piece of a large miniature set that would fit the bill?
-
I'd say the best version of D&D is Fantasycraft followed by Dreamscarred Press's Pathfinder books. Then there is a tie between Pathfinder and 4th edition. Then comes BECMI/rules cyclopedia/OSRIC and all the others are equally meh to me. Here are the basic reasons.
Fantasycraft feels like the proper final evolution of 3.0 D&D. All of the rules are well considered and character progression is focused on player choice in a very real and rewarding mechanical sense. It is a bit more complex than 3.5 but succeeds at making this complexity far more about the players being able to do new cool things with their choices than just adding +1 or +2 to some situational roll like a lot of the 3.5 choices boiled down to. Everything that is on your character sheet is generally going to be a new capability rather than just a new number. So a fighter's level up gives them just as many new options as a wizard's new level of spells.
Dreamscarred Press has taken all of the fun inventive new subsystems that were made for 3.5 in the year or so before it ended and expanded upon them enough to all but replace the default rules. I have played numerous games that simply banned all classes in the core Pathfinder book except bard and barbarian and replace them with the classes from Ultimate Psionics, Path of War, and the related Pact Magic books. This sort of game results in a far better flow of play. Everyone in the party has roughly equal turn length and roughly equal ability to respond to any given situation outside of specialties. So yes if you need to go on an espionage mission the psion's mind reading is probably more useful than the stalker's sword strikes but the stalker can still contribute with his stealth and teleportation manuevers.
Pathfinder and 4th edition are essentially diametric opposites in how they adapted D&D to a more modern era. Pathfinder is basically just 3.5 with corrected damage numbers for the non-wizard non-barbarian classes. This is feels like comfort food, very good comfort food, but still a clear sign that Paizo is not going to really expand 3.5's rules set in any meaningful way or address the underlying problems with 3.5 core systems such as linear warriors and quadratic wizards and certain play styles being almost incompatible with the core systems (maneuverability melee combatants have been a particular bedbug).
4th edition meanwhile basically just gave up on balancing 3.5 entirely. Instead they just made a really good skirmish game for emulating final fantasy tactics. I love final fantasy tactics and thus love 4th edition. However it still feels cowardly to simply surrender to fixing what you broke.
BECMI/rules cyclopedia/OSRIC are the big cahoonas. The first editions that came out after things started getting published as real books instead of pamphlets. They are always what has defined classic D&D for me. The rules may not all be good but you can always see why they were made in the first place. Everything is sort of cobbled together but it has a real charm to it because as the dungeon master the book seems to be written by someone who is actually running a game adjacent to you and has written everything with your usability in mind.
-
3
-
-
Lots of distinct looking individual infantry purchasable in small numbers without duplicates.
-
1
-
-
I actually love the masks and hope for many goofy hats. Though I have to ask, do you have any less buff goblins lined up? I generally prefer lankier little guys.
-
This would be a decent proxy model for a Forgeworld® Dread Saurian ...wondering how they compare in cost.
It would work just fine. It also works as a proxy for a carnosaur. It even has a spot to put your lizardman general on the head.
-
1
-
Sandy Petersen's Cthulhu Mythos for Pathfinder
in Kickstarter
Posted
I'm at least happy that I have the pdf on computer now.