View Profile: Shemeska - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Knightfall's Avatar
    Monday, 2nd July, 2018, 08:10 PM
    Sorry for the lack of posts, I'm not feeling well. I'm hoping this week is better, but if it isn't, it could be a while.
    448 replies | 17495 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Knightfall's Avatar
    Monday, 2nd July, 2018, 08:02 PM
    While the heatwave is over, I'm now dealing with being a bit sick. Either my allergies are really out of control or I've picked a cold. (It could be a bit of both.) I'll try to get something up soon, but if I start feeling worse, it might take a while.
    943 replies | 48300 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Knightfall's Avatar
    Sunday, 24th June, 2018, 01:39 AM
    FYI, Edmonton has been dealing with a heat warning for over a week. (almost every day has been near or above 30° Celsius/86° Fahrenheit.) It has been so brutally hot that I've barely had my PC on let alone had any energy to write anything. Thus, no updates until, at least, Tuesday when the heat is supposed to break (hopefully). It's now time to try to get some extra sleep. :yawn:
    943 replies | 48300 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About Shemeska

Basic Information

Date of Birth
March 19, 1979 (39)
About Shemeska
Introduction:
Freelancer, currently running a Planescape-inspired Pathfinder campaign
Location:
27615
Sex:
Rather not say
Age Group:
31-40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

State:
North Carolina

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
6,065
Posts Per Day
1.09
Last Post
Shemeska's Planescape Storyhour - (Updated 06June2018) Sunday, 10th June, 2018 01:51 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
10
General Information
Last Activity
Saturday, 7th July, 2018 05:59 AM
Join Date
Thursday, 24th April, 2003
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

14 Friends

  1. Agamemnon,tiefer Agamemnon,tiefer is offline

    Member

    Agamemnon,tiefer
  2. Angel Tarragon Angel Tarragon is offline

    Member

    Angel Tarragon
  3. Ares Ares is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via AIM to Ares
    Ares
  4. Burningspear Burningspear is offline

    Member

    Burningspear
  5. Clueless Clueless is offline

    Webmonkey

    Clueless
  6. Gerzel Gerzel is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via AIM to Gerzel
    Gerzel
  7. Jihan Jihan is offline

    Member

    Jihan
  8. Knightfall Knightfall is offline

    Member

    Knightfall
  9. Lynda Lawless Lynda Lawless is offline

    Member

    Lynda Lawless
  10. Orius Orius is offline

    Member

    Orius
  11. Roam The Wanderer Roam The Wanderer is offline

    Registered User

    Roam The Wanderer
  12. Sammael Sammael is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via MSN to Sammael
    Sammael
  13. TanithT TanithT is offline

    Member

    TanithT
  14. xidoraven xidoraven is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Yahoo to xidoraven
    xidoraven
Showing Friends 1 to 14 of 14
My Game Details
State:
North Carolina
No results to show...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Monday, 14th May, 2018

  • 11:49 AM - Coroc mentioned Shemeska in post Shemeska's Planescape Storyhour - (Updated 06June2018)
    Shemeska if i remember correctly, she got kind of sorcerer class Levels, should she not have pretty good UMD skill to cast some healing / Regeneration from scrolls? Or was she not only stripped of her health but also on most of her power? Could she not pay/extort some cleric to cure her in an instant? Or does she have to endure the punishment cast on her without trying to negate it? Akhelos lol razorvine cable strap, and your pluesch Shemeska seems to have all her eyes but else only head and tail. Is this the angry bird shemeska ?

Monday, 5th June, 2017


Thursday, 28th January, 2016


Friday, 19th December, 2014


Friday, 3rd October, 2014

  • 06:48 AM - I'm A Banana mentioned Shemeska in post The Multiverse is back....
    ...s learning that the setting contains dungeons (and what lurks in them)? How are you interacting with NPC's, since learning what the barkeep is going to say involves learning that the setting contains barkeeps who talk to you about stuff? Perhaps it is more about "devoting energies" to that as a goal, and it's more a matter of emphasis? But then clearly, goals like breaching a plane, sharing divine energy with people, and gathering a personal cult don't emphasize gaining knowledge about the setting any more than beatin' up some orcs does, and you said those three things fall into the camp of "setting exploration." There's not a lot of energies at the table devoted to just learning about the setting for the sake of learning about the setting, there's some clear intents that are explicitly expressed there that demand to be satisfied primarily. You also mention "constraints on authorship" and "fidelity" as factors in having PC's declare actions and having DMs resolve them, but as Shemeska mentioned, there's no goal of setting purity in play, no requirement to remain faithful to some canon, and the PS books are even explicitly written from an "in-universe" perspective to encourage individual groups to vary from the source material where appropriate. So I guess I still don't really understand why you imagine that PS play falls into setting exploration, or what, really, functionally, setting exploration is for you. Perhaps some contrast would be useful -- what is the opposite of setting exploration? What does a game with zero setting exploration (or a "de-emphasis") look like? Faultless disagreement is a tenable feature of some fields (eg preferred flavours of icecream) but I don't think it is tenable in politics, which inevitably involves holding others to account in the name of a perspective they don't share, .... But Planescape doesn't tackle the isssue, and I don't think it provides the resources to do so. It doesn't even do as well as Blackburn, Russell a...

Thursday, 2nd October, 2014

  • 01:34 PM - pemerton mentioned Shemeska in post The Multiverse is back....
    ...o the sorts of conflict/value questions I am interested in; nor that it provides the GM with story elements to frame such conflicts. A simple example: 4e presents the gods as antagonists the PCs might overcome, whereas in Planescape (as per Mustrum_Ridcully's post that I quoted upthread) there is no expectation of, nor real provision for, PCs overthrowing (for instance) the Lady of Pain. The general tendency of Planescape is towards asserting and presenting a type of relativism, and presenting individual beliefs/perspectives as merely partial: as Neonchameleon has suggested in this thread (or, at least, that's what I've taken from his posts), the symmetry of the Great Wheel plus the whole "beliefs shape the world" implies that all persepctives are equally valid and hence that any attempt to cling to a particular perspective is a partiality that is ultimately arbitrary, even indefensible. I also find that Planescape makes a big deal of secret backstory (eg the yugoloth stuff that Shemeska and others love) and quirks like angels and demons drinking together (and perhaps falling in love) in Sigil, the Great Modron March, etc. As I already posted in this thread, Quickleaf is the only poster on these boards who has outlined an approach to Planescape closer to my preferred approach. But Shemeska in practically everyone of these threads, and Kamikaze Midget in this thread, when they point to the sorts of play that Planescape supports, point to setting exploration of the sort that Planescape seems to me to treat as its core focus, and that I personally am not all that enthused by.

Wednesday, 1st October, 2014

  • 01:25 AM - Hussar mentioned Shemeska in post The Multiverse is back....
    Sure, that would count. Although it would be pretty minor if it's, say, a wandering encounter instead of a plot element. Now, does every book you claim references Planescape include a direct reference to a faction of Sigil, spell keys, or the other things I mentioned earlier? I suspect that's not actually the claim you're trying to get me to disprove. You know, I could go this route. I'll assert that, based on my memory, the environment books for 3.5 (Frostburn, Sandstorm, Stormwrack) have references to the planes that do not directly reference Planescape in any way, by my definition of course. Thus transferring to you the onus to comb through old books hoping to disprove a claim. Oooh, I forgot those books. I really like all three of those. Fantastic books. Excellent way to write planar material for D&D that has no ties to Planescape. Great examples. :thumbup: Shemeska - let me rephrase. What are the odds that I could get published in Dungeon or Dragon if I submit a planar article or adventure that directly runs counter to Planescape lore?

Tuesday, 30th September, 2014

  • 04:27 PM - Hussar mentioned Shemeska in post The Multiverse is back....
    We've been over this with you - you're conflating "Planescape" with "2nd edition D&D planar material / the Great Wheel" and throwing in your own assertion that the Planescape material somehow demand special treatment in canon. Other people have argued these points with you at length, and yet you continue to assert your statement as fact instead of your opinion. Like you said about edition warring in the other thread, just say "I don't like Planescape" and move on. Come on. I asked for three examples from 3e regarding the planes and its denizens that isn't tied to Planescape lore. Obviously, since I'm mistaken about the special treatment, it should be easy to find. I know that Dungeon isn't one of the places to find this, because Shemeska actually flat out said that nothing Paizo published in 3e related to the planes could contradict any Planescape lore. Plus, since I own a fair number of Dungeon magazines, and a reasonably lengthy collection of Dragon, I can see for myself that Planescape is front and centre in every planar bit. Heck, even the Demonomicon articles reference Planescape. The module Lords of the Iron Fortress borrows pretty heavily from Planescape lore. The 3e Manual of the Planes, according to this thread, is about 90% Planescape material. Sigil is enshrined in the 3.5e DMG. So, again, I'll ask for three WOTC source books about the planes that don't reference Planescape.

Monday, 29th September, 2014

  • 09:15 AM - pemerton mentioned Shemeska in post The Multiverse is back....
    Except using the same name does confuse things (I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise).Who is confused? You don't seem to be. Nor does Shemeska. I am not (and I have a copy of Jeff Grubb's MotP, which I bought and where I first read about archons in 1987). James Ward's DDG repurposed the concept of "Titan" to describe the mostly evil proto-gods of Greek Myth (as opposed to the mostly noble and generous quasi-divine giants of the 1st ed D&D MM). Somewhere - I think in Jeff Grubb's MotP - there was a brief explanation of how the word "Titan" did double duty. I don't think many people suffered from serious confusion. It means that if you use pre-4e archons you've got to rename them... or go the extra mile to explain, yes, these are archons but they're not the same archons. In fact, they're nothing like those other archons who happen to share the same name. Don't worry. It makes sense.To whom are you making this explanation? Players who have read the 4e MM (or are using Arcane Power to build a summoning wizard), and hence have learned what 4e archons are, but who aren't familiar with the prior material, but with whom you wa...

Sunday, 21st September, 2014

  • 08:32 AM - Mouseferatu mentioned Shemeska in post Does anyone who got an mm at Gencon want to offer up spoilers to us?
    While Shemeska and I often disagree on the value of sticking with old-edition lore, in this case I think we're very much on the same page. I really don't see the upside in tying Asmodeus into the Yugoloths' creation. Honestly, I think Asmodeus already has an unfair amount of focus/influence, as compared to other arch-fiends. He doesn't need any more, and the Yugoloths don't need to have been "devil lite." But then, I'm also irked that the ultraloth is markedly less powerful than the balor and pit fiend, and that we got mention of the General of Gehenna--who's described as an extra-powerful ultraloth, nothing more unique--and we didn't get Anthraxus. (Who, if we're going back to 1e, was--by XP value--actually more dangerous than Demogorgon or Asmodeus. But I'm not bitter. ;)

Wednesday, 20th August, 2014

  • 01:19 PM - pemerton mentioned Shemeska in post Does anyone who got an mm at Gencon want to offer up spoilers to us?
    Lore is interchangeable. If you don't like what they're doing with it, change it.Sure. But this advice is equally applicable to Shemeska. And it is not relevant to WotC's decisions as to what lore to include. It seems to me that wotc went through a lot of trouble to figure out what the majority of players preferred. You may disagree with how they came to their conclusions, but if the 4e changes are in fact your preference in lore, sadly it looks like you're in the minority. Why so? Succubi aren't demons. And Rakshasa come from the Hells (which is the plane they were associated with in 1st ed AD&D). It is Shemeska who is complaining about the 5e lore, not me. I'd dare to say that most of the 4e players outside of those inclined to post to forums are largely unaware or indifferent to most the lore differences, whereas those lost players from other additions are more inclined to dislike or be confused by some of the greater changes.If lost players from other editions are confused by lore changes, or dislike them, why would 4e players - who presumably are customers that WotC is hoping to retain, on the "bird in t...

Sunday, 13th July, 2014


Friday, 11th July, 2014

  • 08:21 PM - Thaumaturge mentioned Shemeska in post Tiefling preview!
    After I read that page, I knew you were going to be unhappy. I'm disappointed that the 4E tiefling seems to be the new default for the race. It will likely be the same for the Dragonborn. You know, I, personally, don't care one wit about the tiefling story. But I am sad for Shemeska. I know he cares. Thaumaturge.
  • 07:16 PM - steeldragons mentioned Shemeska in post Tiefling preview!
    "Their skin tones cover the full range of human coloration, but also include various shades of red..." ...which is obviously why we have an image of a purple skinned Tiefling here for you. As for the "Infernal Bloodline" and ubiquitous "big horns and big tails" appearance, I feel your pain Shemeska (and all other 2e-style/PS Tiefling lovers). It's not surprising [to me] in the least, but still unfortunate...Creators love their creations. That's really all there is to it...and, as with all other things 5e that we are seeing, the almighty Branding Iron is going to rule all...No one else is gonna get away with a Tiefling that looks like these guys. No sirree...Even though these things [and the last edition's] look like a direct rip-off of the Draenei (sp?) in WoW [hang on while I pull out my 'shock' face. I know it's around here someplace.]...SHHHH! Dont' tell WoW.
  • 06:07 AM - Savage Wombat mentioned Shemeska in post Are demons and devils too similar?
    And that, right there, is where my beef starts. I should not have to consult setting specific canon to answer any core questions. It's like saying we need Cam Banks to come and settle any questions about draconic canon because of his knowledge of Dragonlance. <sigh heavily> I didn't say Shemeska should tell you the OFFICIAL ANSWERS. I said she could give the Planescape interpretation, just as you gave yours. So that you could see the way she thinks the fiends should be defined. You know, because this is a debate and all. Or are you insisting that your version should be "official canon"?

Sunday, 29th June, 2014

  • 06:07 AM - Quickleaf mentioned Shemeska in post Planescape - what would you like to see?
    Thanks for the info! It seems that Shemeska and Wolfskin are also Clueless about 4e. :erm: Well, I wouldn't say that. Todd ( Shemeska ) is one of the most well-versed in Planescape lore fellas on these boards, and perhaps on the Internetz! I think it's easy to rag on 4e for story changes it made that differ so much from older editions. Still, there's lots of cool story bits there if one is willing to set aside that knee-jerk reaction. So the benefit I see from that feature is that it encourages a "play whatever you want" vibe. Talking dog? Intelligent sword? Tinker gnome? Half-giant? Ninja? They can all appear in PS as characters because they're all part of the infinite multiverse! This is a cool thing.  I see no reason that an emphasis on planar characters would disrupt that vibe, simply contextualize it and focus it on the setting's unique benefits. What faction does your talking dog join? Why isn't your Ninja just hanging out in paradise? What does your half-giant's changeable alignment say about their view of the ...

Friday, 21st March, 2014

  • 02:00 AM - Hussar mentioned Shemeska in post Do you think they will go back to driders being a curse instead of a blessing?
    The specific legend of Lolth's origin as the goddess Araushnee within the Seldarine (aka the Elven pantheon) originated in FR, but that material was subsequently merged with Greyhawk sourced lore and combined in later sources. 3e overtly treated the FR and Greyhawk lore as pertaining to the same goddess, and for instance 2007's Drow of the Underdark assumes Lolth as originating as a fallen Seldarine goddess who subsequently... So in other words they rewrote and contradicted earlier material. Shemeska you've argued at great lengths that they should never contradict established material. Why is it okay to do so now? See, the way you feel about 4e lore is the way I largely feel about the 2e changed that were made and then extended into 3e. Why does the lore from one edition get preference?

Monday, 20th January, 2014

  • 10:51 AM - Cyberen mentioned Shemeska in post Wandering Monsters 1/15/14: Reinventing the Great Wheel
    This article is excellent news !!! It even makes me feel warm inside : WotC take on cosmology seems to please both Hussar and Shemeska at the same time, which is no small feat ! I hope their decision-making was influenced by our passionate debates on these very matters... Also, kudos for Kamikaze Midget : I think your Tagging System (TM) for the Jigsaw Cosmology (C) is elegant, inspirational, and page-count effective (as it doesn't multiply statblocks, it only adds a few evocative lines to the fluff part of monster description). Concerning "Demons are from the Abyss" : yeah, "abyssal" is a D&Dism synonymous with "demonic", so it's kind of a tautology. Yet, I agree with KM : I think reconsidering some elements of the early editions in a Core System vs Setting Specific light should make for a leaner, stronger game and IP (for instance, untying the Druid & Monk classes chassis from their organization in the world, or fireball from its bat guano economy). Concerning cosmology : the layout of the planes is not really important (even if I would like transition from plane to plane not to be considered solely as discrete : pl...

Sunday, 19th January, 2014

  • 05:40 AM - Cadence mentioned Shemeska in post Wandering Monsters 1/15/14: Reinventing the Great Wheel
    They didn't. There were relatively minor alterations to the fluff, and aside from that they simply took what came before and modified it to fit the standard practices of 4e, none of which required the cosmology. I thought some of the fluff changes were more than minor and seemed tied into the cosmology/backstory like @Tovec; is arguing too. ( @Shemeska; 's point in post #90 seemed to me like a plausible reason as to why they might want to do this.) As one example from the monster descriptions, the giants are now as much elemental as humanoid (is one of them in the picture actually animated rocks?), they enslaved the dwarves, the azer are actually dwarves now, and the galeb duhr are former dwarves too (instead of rock-ent's from 2e). WotC even explicitly said that the cosmology is what allowed them to make these changes: https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20080512b In a lot of the racial descriptions the campaign setting tie-in is put in a lot later in the descriptions and less intrusively so than I remembered. The biggest exception seems to be the Tieflings where the description starts right off with Bael Turath and their conflict with the Dragonborn - which ties the Dragonborn down specifically to Arkhosia. That and the change in appearance seemed pretty large. The Eladrin and Deva also forcibly disconnected...

Tuesday, 14th January, 2014

  • 03:34 AM - Henry mentioned Shemeska in post What is the quality of your experiences with Jon Brazer Enterprises?
    Probably the most whimsical thing I've written to date [/url] (and also totally needed as a change up in content after doing 'Book of the Damned 3: Horsemen of the Apocalypse' for Paizo) BTW, Shemeska hats off to you for BOTD 3. After reading what you came up with there, i wouldnt blame you for watching My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic on continuous loop. :)


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 18 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Sunday, 3rd June, 2018

  • 10:28 PM - TwoSix quoted Shemeska in post Wow. Just began reading Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes -- WOTC is really putting out some awesome books.
    The planar lore in MToF is absolutely packed with retcons and retcons of omission. The artwork is spectacular, and if you've never read any prior D&D material it's probably awesome, but if you're a fan of previous settings and prior lore, it's frustrating. I'm a fan of the prior lore, I've read most of the 2e Planescape material. I just see no need to keep it around; a new edition is a perfect opportunity for a reboot and reimagining. Continuity across decades is for comic books.

Tuesday, 29th May, 2018

  • 06:38 AM - Hexmage-EN quoted Shemeska in post Yugoloths: Do They Have an Identity Beyond the Blood War?
    Speaking as the person who created Pathfinder's proteans, they're serpents for two reasons. Firstly because it's a nod to the slaadi that were closed content and I couldn't use, but in the Egyptian Ogdoad of Hermopolis creation myth, the primordial chaos of creation was inhabited and shaped by male froglike and female serpentine gods, and if the slaadi are froglike... On top of that the serpentine motif worked in other ways as well, what with various mythologies having a serpent or dragon ruling over primordial chaotic waters. So you've got the basic notion of proteans there as primal sea serpents in an infinite, ever-changing, semi-literal ocean of formless chaos, and it went wild from that point and you end up with the choruses without number singing in the infinite deep of the Maelstrom. That is pretty neat. Thank you for the insight!

Saturday, 26th May, 2018

  • 07:26 PM - Azzy quoted Shemeska in post Yugoloths: Do They Have an Identity Beyond the Blood War?
    The 'loths had a massive amount of detail and in-game history fleshed out during 2e, and late 3.x plPersonally I'd present the planar content in MToF as a mixture of Mordenkainen having been wrong as a mortal regarding the history of the planes, or since the book was in-game stolen and presented by Shemeshka the Marauder, Sigil's best yugoloth had every incentive to joyously lie and fabricate false content that botched actual history and utterly downplayed the yugoloths. That's what I'd go with, otherwise you'd have to assume that the original Planescape sources just weren't considered. Considering that MToF includes the following, "As with the monsters in the Monster Manual, we've tried to capture the essence of each creature and focus on those traits that make it unique or that encourage DMs to use it. You can do what you will with these monsters and change their lore to suit your game. Nothing we say here is meant to curtail your creativity." I fully support your view.

Friday, 25th May, 2018

  • 09:14 PM - dave2008 quoted Shemeska in post Yugoloths: Do They Have an Identity Beyond the Blood War?
    Just to clarify, Anthraxus and the General of Gehenna aren't baernaloths. Anthraxus was originally an arcanaloth who became a unique being via a bargain with a cabal of night hags, and once free of his contractual servitude to them he eventually rose to become Oinoloth (and was changed even more by obtaining that position/title). The General of Gehenna is more or less a mystery, though the one fact that seems solid is that they may have been the first yugoloth to obtain the rank of ultroloth. Stop your 2e and GoG propganda! There is: "...but a single daemon master and lord of the Middle Planes. Known by the title of oinodaemon, he is a unique individual of great power. The present oinodaemon is Anthraxus the Decayed, and it is to him that all daemons (in theory) pay homage." ;)
  • 09:13 PM - JEB quoted Shemeska in post Paizo News Roundup
    Since you edited this part of your response out, I considered leaving it be... but I think I'm obliged to respond to the point you raised. Given the rather direct comments by multiple developers, members of Paizo management, and freelancers including myself, on that issue, it's disingenuous to suggest anyone involved is even remotely "pretty attached" to Folca. Yes, you and a number of other people involved with publishing Folca's writeup say they regret the decision. Which was the appropriate response... but that was six months ago, and the official release is unchanged. Paizo has had plenty of time to remove or heavily modify Folca. But they haven't. What are we to conclude from that?
  • 08:03 PM - Kobold Avenger quoted Shemeska in post Yugoloths: Do They Have an Identity Beyond the Blood War?
    Just to clarify, Anthraxus and the General of Gehenna aren't baernaloths. Anthraxus was originally an arcanaloth who became a unique being via a bargain with a cabal of night hags, and once free of his contractual servitude to them he eventually rose to become Oinoloth (and was changed even more by obtaining that position/title). The General of Gehenna is more or less a mystery, though the one fact that seems solid is that they may have been the first yugoloth to obtain the rank of ultroloth. Yeah I remember the details are fuzzy since it been years. And then there was that article about "Altroloths" as well. Of course when one finds themselves in Sigil, make sure you talk to Akin first. He's the trustworthy one...

Sunday, 20th May, 2018

  • 03:40 AM - Savage Wombat quoted Shemeska in post Oinoloths in MToF?
    That's an unfortunate retcon there in Mearls answer on top top of the already extant retcon regarding "oinoloths" in MToF. Anthraxus is an altraloth, formerly an arcanaloth (per the 2e 'Pox of the Planes' article) prior to his transformation. I'm disappointed that as 5e seems to be genuinely trying to appeal to fans of prior settings and make reference to them in 5e content, it's retconning a pretty massive amount of the lore from those settings. By the way - I really enjoyed your forward to the volume. You should do more writing for WotC.

Saturday, 19th May, 2018

  • 12:10 PM - dave2008 quoted Shemeska in post Oinoloths in MToF?
    That's an unfortunate retcon there in Mearls answer on top top of the already extant retcon regarding "oinoloths" in MToF. Anthraxus is an altraloth, formerly an arcanaloth (per the 2e 'Pox of the Planes' article) prior to his transformation. I'm disappointed that as 5e seems to be genuinely trying to appeal to fans of prior settings and make reference to them in 5e content, it's retconning a pretty massive amount of the lore from those settings. I am not sure what else you may be talking about, but given the vast amounts of D&D lore, I think this change to oinoloths and Anthraxus is not a big deal. Hell, i'm still miffed they retcon'd him in 2e (I think) with the General of Gehenna being the new top dog. I like the 1e MM2 version of Anthraxus and that is about it. I really didn't like all the lore BS they added in 2e and 3e.
  • 12:00 PM - pukunui quoted Shemeska in post Oinoloths in MToF?
    I'm disappointed that as 5e seems to be genuinely trying to appeal to fans of prior settings and make reference to them in 5e content, it's retconning a pretty massive amount of the lore from those settings.They've been changing the lore since the playtest period (eg. merrow), so it's not all that surprising to me that they're still doing it now.

Wednesday, 16th May, 2018

  • 09:41 PM - Parmandur quoted Shemeska in post I will answer 10 questions about Mordenkainen's Tome
    It is not to my knowledge, and the way that it's described from what I've seen with respect to the Marut teleporting people there is straight up -impossible- without retconning some core Planescape lore (you cannot enter Sigil by any means outside of the Lady of Pain's portals).WotC, retcon lore. Noooooooo, say it ain't so.

Tuesday, 15th May, 2018

  • 03:21 AM - MonsterEnvy quoted Shemeska in post Another 10 Mordenkainen's Tome Questions!
    Is the "abashai" typo from the artwork preview fixed to abishai in the actual book itself? Are there tiefling subtypes that -aren't- diabolic in nature described in this book? How much on the yugoloths, and do they walk back anything on the 5e MM yugoloth origins (which contradicts prior lore)? Answered that for you in the last thread. Other then information on Yugoloth Origins which I don't know.

Monday, 14th May, 2018

  • 11:06 PM - MonsterEnvy quoted Shemeska in post I will answer 10 questions about Mordenkainen's Tome
    Is the "abashai" typo from the artwork preview fixed to abishai in the actual book itself? Are there tiefling subtypes that -aren't- diabolic in nature described in this book? How much on the yugoloths, and do they walk back anything on the 5e MM yugoloth origins (which contradicts prior lore)? I know the answers to some of these questions. It's Abishai in the actual book. All Tieflings described are diabolic in nature. There are Demonic Cambions however. There is some details on Yugoloths but not nearly as much as on Demons and Devils. The Yugoloths in the books are the Marrenoloth, (Spelling has slightly changed for some reason) Dergholoth, Canoloth, Hydroloth, (For some reason the Piscoloth is skipped.) Yagnoloth and Oinoloth. For some reason that I myself am going to ask the designers when the book comes out. Oinoloths are now a type of yugoloth based on Anthraxus rather then the unique ruler of the yugoloths on the Grey Wastes. Oh also your namesake is described a bit. Was ex...

Thursday, 10th May, 2018

  • 03:13 PM - MechaTarrasque quoted Shemeska in post 12 new monster images revealed from Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes!
    They were created via collaboration of Tiamat and Pearza of the Dark 8. Assuming that 5e keeps that bit of lore (which I wrote) within its continuity. Curious why they spelled them abashai when they're abishai. Still, that typo aside, that artwork is just spectacular for the abishai. :D I wonder if they aren't actually the same thing after all. I (and I think everyone else) has been assuming that, but if they are new critters that Tiamat (or whoever) created to replace the abishai, that could explain the name change and the high CR's that reportedly were seen (I think) on D&D Beyond.

Friday, 27th April, 2018

  • 09:37 PM - MonsterEnvy quoted Shemeska in post Part of Mordenkain's Tome of Foes ToC previewed.
    I don't notice anything overtly there in reference to the 'loths. That's unfortunate. :( Shemeska is supposed to be a commenter on the book. Like Volo and Elminster were in Volo's Guide. There is also confirmation that more Yugoloths are in the book.

Monday, 12th March, 2018

  • 09:03 PM - Ancalagon quoted Shemeska in post Ditching sacred cows
    The last time anyone went gleefully slaughtering sacred cows, either in terms of rules, rules assumptions, or setting flavor during an edition change that ended very, very poorly. I think that lesson has been learned. Thankfully.Well... By going a bit "old school" 5e was able to retire a few cows on the side... But ultimately, you can't change everything.

Friday, 27th October, 2017

  • 12:36 AM - Olaf the Stout quoted Shemeska in post Harassment At PaizoCon 2017
    As the author of the material in question let me just state that while I did not create Folca originally (I don't know who on staff created them to add to the appendix in the back of BotD 3 which I wrote the entirety of) I was contracted the write the flavor text for all of the daemonic harbingers. Given the original plausible subtext for Folca it was not the most pleasant thing to write, but I didn't have the option to just not write something on my outline so I tried to present something that was hideous and evil. I would not personally use Folca or their followers directly in a game, outside of them existing like a boogieman to drive home the absolute horror of Abaddon as a plane. I would never explicitly describe anything by Folca in a game, rather just let that particular monster stay in the dark and let the players' brains fill in the hideous specifics. I can't comment on the mechanical aspects of the entry for Folca as the content changed during development and out of professional tac...

Thursday, 26th October, 2017

  • 05:29 AM - billd91 quoted Shemeska in post Harassment At PaizoCon 2017
    Not to my knowledge no. The hardcover 'Book of the Damned' is not listed among the PFS additional resources. Additionally you can't play evil characters in PFS, and I cannot fathom a non-evil character performing Folca's obedience and thus gaining any of the associated mechanical boons. So no, you won't run into that in PFS. Yeah, PFS is a lot less R-rated in general than some of the more adult-oriented materials like 'Book of the Damned'. They know kids participate in PFS too.
  • 05:16 AM - MNblockhead quoted Shemeska in post Harassment At PaizoCon 2017
    Not to my knowledge no. The hardcover 'Book of the Damned' is not listed among the PFS additional resources. Additionally you can't play evil characters in PFS, and I cannot fathom a non-evil character performing Folca's obedience and thus gaining any of the associated mechanical boons. So no, you won't run into that in PFS. Okay, good to know. Still find it in bad taste to have the material printed and sold, but glad to know that it would be unwelcome in a PFS game.

Monday, 4th September, 2017


Friday, 1st September, 2017

  • 05:43 PM - hawkeyefan quoted Shemeska in post Arch-Villains in your game?
    Oh the Marauder was a villain in both of my 3.x campaigns, but not so much of an arch-villain than a second-tier villain and perpetual pain in the ass to the PCs. She's kind of the same in mine....she's not allied with my main group of villains, but is aware of a lot of what they are up to, and often feeds the PCs info to help foil the bad guys. Ultimately, her plan is to have the PCs take out the bad guys, and then step in and achieve what they wanted. I originally had planned to make her part of the group, but it just didn't seem in character....


Page 1 of 18 1234567891011 ... LastLast

0 Badges

Shemeska's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites