Recent Posts
Dark_Mistress
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood here:
I'd gladly pay $5.53 for the shipping, but when I put one of these bad boys in the shopping cart yesterday I got a shipping quote of $26.70! Hence my initial "outrage."
Don't know if that was a mistake, because I just ordered one again and this time around I got the $5.53 shipping quote. So, make mine a Paizo!
I think you must have had Priority Mail selected at the time. This should ship to most countries outside of North America for $5.53.
I think you must have had Priority Mail selected at the time. This should ship to most countries outside of North America for $5.53.Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood here:
I'd gladly pay $5.53 for the shipping, but when I put one of these bad boys in the shopping cart yesterday I got a shipping quote of $26.70! Hence my initial "outrage."
Don't know if that was a mistake, because I just ordered one again and this time around I got the $5.53 shipping quote. So, make mine a Paizo!
I hadn't selected any shipping method on the first try, so I don't know if it defaulted to Priority Mail.
I hope I've payed my penance for my first outburst by buying a poster... hmm, maybe I should have included two posters in the order... ack, c'est la vie! :-)
I hadn't selected any shipping method on the first try, so I don't know if it defaulted to Priority Mail.
A fresh cart defaults to the cheapest shipping method. However, if you had placed some stuff into your cart before, and switched it to Priority (or had something in the cart that can only be shipped Priority, like, say international orders of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook), your cart would stay set to Priority even if you removed the stuff.
I also have to wonder if anyone else is confused by the wording on the poster, or if you're simply awkwardly angling for a way to nitpick, to be honest.
You were talking to presman.
But to a certain extent your comment suggests that the confusion is not valid. And really, I think even presman can have an opinion.
For ME. I'm not confused because I hang out here. I love the WAR. I love your logo and font. I think the 3.5 thing is lame. I didn't order it.
Not really nitpicking for me, I was just being honest and giving feedback.
And for a little explanation, I'm doing layout at work right now and I've got layout on my mind. The first thing that caught my eye is that the "3.5" printed twice was lame - twice lame actually. It's stealing precious millimeters of great poster. And I hate the added font.
Furthermore, the 3.5 stuff evokes the dread exhaustion I feel over 3.5/4E bickering. It says, "everyone needs to know that PFRPG is 3.5 and that 3.5 is kicking ass" when all I want is the art, the cool logo and font on my wall. I know it's a great game.
Most importantly I do NOT want stuff to remind me of the 3.5/4E debate on my wall.
Now like I said before, put it in your FLGS and I dig it. But it's no big reward for me, waiting for PFRPG and sweating out the w4rz here on the boards.
Not complaining, not nitpicking. I just have an opinion.
I just have an opinion.You should get that looked at!
PF is supposed to be another 3e revision, compatible with all the 3e stuff out there, so they should be able to mention the game they are compatible with.
If that reminds you of the edition debate, that's too bad.
~Gee, thanks for telling me that and repeating stuff I already said, for explaining something that we already know, and for not replying to my opinion in any way. Moreover, I'd like to thank you for the smile that your non-commentary brought to my face today. I'm just going to go back to my literal nitpicking and commiserate with my nits over the fact that I can't get a PFRPG poster that doesn't have a sales pitch on it in WAR degrading font.~
If it had said, "D&D 3.5 edition survives" crossed out and then "D&D 3.5 edition thrives" would that have been awesome as well? Because by saying "3.5" that is what is being said. "3.5" what? Not the OGL, that is OGL 1.0 or OGL 1.0a.
Um, if it had used 'D&D' instead of '3.5' (i.e. "D&D survives/thrives"), *then* I would understand why some people are upset about the poster. However, I don't anyone has ever been confused about which edition and which game PF RPG is based on.
~Gee, thanks for telling me that and repeating stuff I already said, for explaining something that we already know, and for not replying to my opinion in any way. Moreover, I'd like to thank you for the smile that your non-commentary brought to my face today. I'm just going to go back to my literal nitpicking and commiserate with my nits over the fact that I can't get a PFRPG poster that doesn't have a sales pitch on it in WAR degrading font.~I just have an opinion.You should get that looked at!
PF is supposed to be another 3e revision, compatible with all the 3e stuff out there, so they should be able to mention the game they are compatible with.
If that reminds you of the edition debate, that's too bad.
Hey, any time, just say the word. Glad I could be of help. And give my compliments to the nits.
If it had said, "D&D 3.5 edition survives" crossed out and then "D&D 3.5 edition thrives" would that have been awesome as well? Because by saying "3.5" that is what is being said. "3.5" what? Not the OGL, that is OGL 1.0 or OGL 1.0a.
Well, there's your problem. '3.5' is a reference to the SRD, not the OGL.
If it had said, "D&D 3.5 edition survives" crossed out and then "D&D 3.5 edition thrives" would that have been awesome as well? Because by saying "3.5" that is what is being said. "3.5" what? Not the OGL, that is OGL 1.0 or OGL 1.0a.Well, there's your problem. '3.5' is a reference to the SRD, not the OGL.
Looking over the actual legal information of the SRD, it actually does not reference 3.5 in it. So 3.5 is still a reference to D&D, even in the case of talking about the SRD.
DM Jeff
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Maps Subscriber)
If it had said, "D&D 3.5 edition survives" *snip*
"D&D" and "Dungeons & Dragons" are registered trademarks of WotC. We can't use another company's registered trademarks in our advertising unless we really, really want to get sued. If we *could* use another company's registered trademarks in our advertising, I think we'd use the KFC logo over and over again ... because, well, that stuff's delicious and who doesn't want to associate their game with deliciousness?
If it had said, "D&D 3.5 edition survives" *snip*"D&D" and "Dungeons & Dragons" are registered trademarks of WotC. We can't use another company's registered trademarks in our advertising unless we really, really want to get sued. If we *could* use another company's registered trademarks in our advertising, I think we'd use the KFC logo over and over again ... because, well, that stuff's delicious and who doesn't want to associate their game with deliciousness?
Oh, that's just wrong. KFC, really? It's unfortunate that you don't have a Bojangles in the Seattle area.
If it had said, "D&D 3.5 edition survives" *snip*"D&D" and "Dungeons & Dragons" are registered trademarks of WotC. We can't use another company's registered trademarks in our advertising unless we really, really want to get sued. If we *could* use another company's registered trademarks in our advertising, I think we'd use the KFC logo over and over again ... because, well, that stuff's delicious and who doesn't want to associate their game with deliciousness?
You want to promote a more healthy game.
A game you can play all day long, several times a week, without any ill effects on your health.
I also have to wonder if anyone else is confused by the wording on the poster, or if you're simply awkwardly angling for a way to nitpick, to be honest.You were talking to presman.
But to a certain extent your comment suggests that the confusion is not valid. And really, I think even presman can have an opinion.
I would highly suggest a very significant difference in what presman and you presented.
The poster looks great! Thanks for making it available to us as well as retailers!
Way back when 3.0 was being promoted, a FLGS (Titan Games and Comics in Smyrna, GA, great people) that I used to frequent was accidentally shipped two of the Regdar standies, and they gave me the extra. I was grateful and excited. Regdar used to glower over my game table for years. This cool promotional item just reminded me of that. Sorry for the tangent.
The poster looks great! Thanks for making it available to us as well as retailers!
Way back when 3.0 was being promoted, a FLGS (Titan Games and Comics in Smyrna, GA, great people) that I used to frequent was accidentally shipped two of the Regdar standies, and they gave me the extra. I was grateful and excited. Regdar used to glower over my game table for years. This cool promotional item just reminded me of that. Sorry for the tangent.
Wow. "Be nice, people, or the iconic whitebread will hit you" :P
This will make a proud addition to my game room.
Nay - this will be the new centerpiece. 'Tis a proud day when 3.5 kicks-ass once more, and the newly developed Pathfinder Roleplaying Game provides continued support well into the next decade.
As a GM, I've sent a notice out to the gamers I know in the area, advising if they give me 5.99, I would offer to order a poster for them. A great suggestion for anyone who is a proud PAIZONIAN, and also a great way to connect with new gamers or rally the local gamers to know that 3.5 Thrives with Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
Also, if you know a bunch of gamers, or for those at your table, it might be cool to offer to pay shipping for their pre-ordered book. This seemed to go over well with the groups I play in. (just an idea if you're feeling like promoting Pathfinder locally a bit)
3.5 Thrives!
Different strokes. This is the reason I just ordered the thing for my game room.
And I think that's totally cool.
It's beautiful and I wouldn't say a word about it if I was in someone's game room cuz I'm not a killjoy.
Just ruffles me when someone gets lumps cuz they don't think something is the cat's meow or they think it misrepresents the game in some way.
Sure, we don't have to buy it. But on the other hand the threads are a place where people voice their tastes. Paizo can listen or not - Paizo's writers, editors, and designers have their own tastes (which are fine by me) and that's why I think they are able to make great stuff.
Key point: What good does it do to be dismissive when someone voices an opinion?
Those international shipping costs are insane. Is there any way we can get to order a poster that's folded instead of rolled up? That should be cheaper.
Are you sure there is nothing wrong? When I first put the poster into my cart (last week, or so), I got 26$ shipping (or so), but now it is only about 6$, which seems to be reasonable.
--
So, where did I put this blasted key?
If it had said, "D&D 3.5 edition survives" *snip*"D&D" and "Dungeons & Dragons" are registered trademarks of WotC. We can't use another company's registered trademarks in our advertising unless we really, really want to get sued. If we *could* use another company's registered trademarks in our advertising, I think we'd use the KFC logo over and over again ... because, well, that stuff's delicious and who doesn't want to associate their game with deliciousness?Oh, that's just wrong. KFC, really? It's unfortunate that you don't have a Bojangles in the Seattle area.
KFC? Bojangles? Why do you speak of these sad, pathetic pretenders? Popeyes is the best fried chicken.
As for the poster, I like it. I understand it. However, I won't buy it. I'm just not a big poster person.
<pedantic rant>
A nice poster, but I wish Paizo would steer clear of using the term "3.5", Pathfinder is a step beyond 3.5 - a 3.75 or alternate 4th edition. This could give some people the idea that it is 100% compatible with D&D3.5, which it isn't. If anything it is diminishing the player base of 3.5, replacing it with Pathfinder players. I want to play both 3.5 and Pathfinder.
</pedantic rant>
EDIT: For some reason I didn't see the previous posts about this same issue (maybe I hit the post button before the page fully loaded?) [EDIT AGAIN: I see now that initially the page only displays a few posts and there is a link to see the full discussion]. Anyway, it is still a valid point.
Personally I would have no issues if it had said "The Next Evolution in 3.5" or "3.5 and then some...", or "Its 3.5 and beyond" (like The Spy Who Loved Me's tag line of "Its Bond and beyond").
I am currently playing a Pathfinder Beta game and enjoying it, I am also about to start a new group for a monthly game of Freeport using the D&D3.5 rules and my Pathfinder GM is coming along to play. I expect him to bring his D&D3.5 PHB, not his copy of Pathfinder Beta! :)
The distinction is important to some people. I haven't bothered to read Beta because I know the final edition is coming out soon (which I will likely read cover to cover) and so I don't feel comfortable GMing it. Also there are still things I prefer about 3.5 so I plan to play both.
As for 3.0 and 3.5 both being referred to as 3rd edition, I am always cautious when buying 3rd edition stuff to make sure it is 3.5 and not 3.0. I raised the issue on the Green Ronin forums when they launched their "3rd Era" re-branding of their 3rd ed products.
It is an updated version of 3.5.
The poster is for retail stores, where it is important to communicate that fact as succinctly as possible.
This poster does that admirably.
The game itself with have a "3.5 Compatible" logo on the back because it is, in fact, compatible with 3.5.
I suggest talking to some folks currently running 3.5 modules with the rules system. Most of them report almost no difficulty in doing so, with any conversion work that has to be done happening "on the fly" and taking place with calculations in their head.
It is not a new edition of the game. It is an updated version of the 3.5 edition.
And the poster says so.
It is an updated version of 3.5.
The poster is for retail stores, where it is important to communicate that fact as succinctly as possible.
I have edited my post above after you posted so please see that for a bit of further explanation on similar taglines I would have been happy with.
The game itself with have a "3.5 Compatible" logo on the back because it is, in fact, compatible with 3.5.
Seriously? That to me is misleading - I avoid 3.0 material for my 3.5 games and I look closely to ensure a book says it is 100% 3.5 compatible rather than 3.0 compatible. This would be like buying a book that says it is 3.5 compatible only to find it is actually written for 3.0.
I suggest talking to some folks currently running 3.5 modules with the rules system. Most of them report almost no difficulty in doing so, with any conversion work that has to be done happening "on the fly" and taking place with calculations in their head.
I couldn't disagree more! It is completely a different game. I tried it! i did! but then I had to make a search check, but my character sheed HAD NO SEARCH! i had to use PERZUEPTION! what is this? total ripoff! and there is no use rope. NO! USE! ROPE! How am I supposed to play this? THis isn't 3.5. This isn't 3anything. THis isn't dnd! It's not even a game.
It's a computer programme! the cover says so: "Beta" only computerporgrammes are beta!
You#re illing me!
;-P
I suggest talking to some folks currently running 3.5 modules with the rules system. Most of them report almost no difficulty in doing so, with any conversion work that has to be done happening "on the fly" and taking place with calculations in their head.
I couldn't disagree more! It is completely a different game. I tried it! i did! but then I had to make a search check, but my character sheed HAD NO SEARCH! i had to use PERZUEPTION! what is this? total ripoff! and there is no use rope. NO! USE! ROPE! How am I supposed to play this? THis isn't 3.5. This isn't 3anything. THis isn't dnd! It's not even a game.
It's a computer programme! the cover says so: "Beta" only computerporgrammes are beta!
You#re illing me!
;-P
Translation: PF Beta is close enough to 3.5 that I have no problems playing one with the other. And the final PF is supposed to be closer to 3.5 in some aspects, so it's bound to be easier still!
The game itself with have a "3.5 Compatible" logo on the back because it is, in fact, compatible with 3.5.Seriously? That to me is misleading - I avoid 3.0 material for my 3.5 games and I look closely to ensure a book says it is 100% 3.5 compatible rather than 3.0 compatible. This would be like buying a book that says it is 3.5 compatible only to find it is actually written for 3.0.
I've been running CotCT AP with the beta rules on these boards, and my main issue was remembering which HP system I let the PCs use at level one so I could adjust the NPCs appropriately. This and Calculating the CMB are the only adjustments I have needed to make. You may be able to add an extra feat or ability here or there, but nothing earth shattering, and nothign is required to be added to the NPCs other than CMB and then only if you have groups that like combat maneuvers
I suggest talking to some folks currently running 3.5 modules with the rules system. Most of them report almost no difficulty in doing so, with any conversion work that has to be done happening "on the fly" and taking place with calculations in their head.
I couldn't disagree more! It is completely a different game. I tried it! i did! but then I had to make a search check, but my character sheed HAD NO SEARCH! i had to use PERZUEPTION! what is this? total ripoff! and there is no use rope. NO! USE! ROPE! How am I supposed to play this? THis isn't 3.5. This isn't 3anything. THis isn't dnd! It's not even a game.
It's a computer programme! the cover says so: "Beta" only computerporgrammes are beta!
You#re illing me!
;-P
Yup, and the same could be said about 3ed and 3.5ed. Yup, you're illin for sure.
The game itself with have a "3.5 Compatible" logo on the back because it is, in fact, compatible with 3.5.Seriously? That to me is misleading - I avoid 3.0 material for my 3.5 games and I look closely to ensure a book says it is 100% 3.5 compatible rather than 3.0 compatible. This would be like buying a book that says it is 3.5 compatible only to find it is actually written for 3.0.
I actually feel that Pathfinder is closer in a lot of ways to 3.5 than 3.0 is. 3.0 didn't make that many changes, but the ones it did make were rather huge - Haste & Heal particularly.
Overall I suppose it's further, but mostly in smaller aspects, or at least smaller *required* aspects, since the motto was add, not change.
DarkWhite
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Battles Case Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
I've been running CotCT AP with the beta rules on these boards, and my main issue was remembering which HP system I let the PCs use at level one so I could adjust the NPCs appropriately.
See, this concerns me a little. Presumably, Pathfinder characters are given extra hit points at first level, because challenges were too lethal at first level, reducing the 15min adventuring day, etc.
Now, if you also up the challenges because the PCs have now have more resiliance, you're missing the point of why they were increased in the first place.
This is a mere observation of mine, not a criticism of your game - a GM is responsible for ensuring the challenges are balanced for his characters, and I'll assume you've done this appropriate for your game.
However it is an example of a suspicion I've held for a while that the threat level will be raised even in published adventures to compensate for the perceived durability of Pathfinder RPG characters, which is also missing the point of why they've been beefed up in the first place.
Now, if you also up the challenges because the PCs have now have more resiliance, you're missing the point of why they were increased in the first place.This is a mere observation of mine, not a criticism of your game - a GM is responsible for ensuring the challenges are balanced for his characters, and I'll assume you've done this appropriate for your game.
I only did that for the bosses that were PC races, and only after 2nd level. It seemed to work, but I also try to run a PBP with 7-8 players in case some drop.... which means they cakewalk the early encounters
See, this concerns me a little. Presumably, Pathfinder characters are given extra hit points at first level, because challenges were too lethal at first level, reducing the 15min adventuring day, etc.
Now, if you also up the challenges because the PCs have now have more resiliance, you're missing the point of why they were increased in the first place.
The "bonus hp at first level" systems aren't meant to increase resiliency necessarily, their meant to reduce "swinginess" where a single bad hit, or maybe a crit, ends a character completely and very very suddenly.
Take a 3.5 wizard without a Con mod - 4 h.p. If a goblin warchanter shoots a crossbow and crits, max damage would instant kill the wizard from full hp.
It's not that it's all that likely, its just easy to make less frequent, while simultaneously allowing the "normal" chances of something like that, *after* taking a normal hit or two - so you don't have to run off to a cleric the first moment you take damage.
That said, I am very not fond of the starting bonus hp systems. I like the swinginess :)
I've been running CotCT AP with the beta rules on these boards, and my main issue was remembering which HP system I let the PCs use at level one so I could adjust the NPCs appropriately.See, this concerns me a little.
It's an optional rule, so don't let this concern you that much.
By all accounts, PF still uses the same system as 3.5 used. And 3.0.
They had a sidebar with some alternatives, but they weren't mandatory.
I'm personally using something that is different still.