|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I've been trying to convince WizKids to do a campsite for years.
And they are finally doing one, only for that "other" brand. Victory, I guess? ;)
Anyway, all that means is that we had to try even harder to make the next set's dressing-heavy case incentive even more impressive! :)
But I'm getting ahead of myself, as usual. :)
Loving this set. Have y'all ever considered creating lamassu or shedu miniatures? I don't know why but I've been feeling the need to create an adventure featuring one of these for my homebrew game.
I haven't yet seriously considered either of those, but will add them to the list of stuff to take a closer look at.
Yesterday I spent the _entire day_ in Paizo's conference room in budget meetings, scheduling meetings, and job interviews for someone else's department.
Not exactly the stuff dreams are made of.
That said, today I had a ton of fun creative meetings, not least of which being a 2-hour playtest of the phenomenal Starfinder starship battle rules, so yeah, some days I definitely have a dream job.
Ask a Shoanti wrote:
I felt like that was a cop-out in this case. I can get away with giving Sonja bracers because she wears armbands, which is close enough. She doesn't wear invisible plate mail, so far as I've noticed. A lot of the rules I make for myself in how I go about this are, frankly, arbitrary, but trying to keep it close to the stuff the character actually has is a necessity for me.
There was an earlier draft of decorative armor that specifically said it didn't count as wearing armor. After that failed, I made one of her archetype powers work so long as you didn't have an armor bonus (which decorative armor didn't provide), but the whole thing turned into a rabbit hole and I ended up going with a much simpler solution.
The haramaki definitely came up often in our discussion.
I hear everyone on drow.
It may very well be time. Mike and I will crack the seal on the Ebon Archive and see what comes crawling out.
Qlippoth are an interesting thought. I'd love to sneak one or two of them in there, especially since I was the one who brought the whole concept into third edition with Armies of the Abyss.
Agreed on the lack of a lot of good secondary PC race choices. We'll comb the archives for undines, ifrits, oreads, and sylphs especially. Do feel free to post specific image suggestions in this thread, if you've got any.
Kitsune fans are going to BLAST OFF into the stratosphere when they see the cover to Blood of the Beast. Holy hell, that thing is a furry's paradise. God help us all.
I think ratfolk are very strong candidates. Lots of good art for them poking around here and there. Ditto tengu. Both of these races seem to be particularly popular, which is cool.
A Cthulhu-esque monster or two is always welcome. Maybe there's something juicy from the first few volumes of Strange Aeons. Hmmmm.
Thanks for the suggestions, everyone! Keep 'em coming!
We're still working on it, but it turned out to be significantly more awesome and complex than we originally counted on, so we've shuffled the schedule around a little bit.
The book is currently in development, but we haven't slotted it onto the schedule officially yet.
There are still several high-profile Pathfinder projects for 2017 that have yet to be announced.
We looked into this pretty heavily, actually. My original Starfinder proposal had things going to 10th level, believe it or not.
That said, after tinkering with the implications for a few months, we've decided that Starfinder, like its older brother, will go all the way to 20th level.
In part this is to allow for greater compatibility between the systems. The underlying game is largely the same, so it makes sense to have the range be the same, too.
Yeah, a lot of people don't play between 16 and 20, but that seems a safer place to end things than 10, which is right in the sweet spot that a lot of people enjoy playing the most.
So the final game will go to 20th level.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Starfinder will be a lot more sci-fi than Spelljammer, at least visually. Think sealed starships in the vacuum of space shooting beam weapons at each other more than flying galleons with people shooting fireballs at each other.
Ok, maybe the fireball part.
Oh, also in Starfinder all of the players will have a role in ship-to-ship combat rather than just one.
Darrell Impey UK wrote:
Way back when a certain company was putting miniatures for creatures smaller than Small on to 1/2" bases, so that more than one could be fitted into a square. Is this no longer possible?
It might be possible. I dunno. I haven't tried.
As much as I liked being able to put multiple Tiny figures in one square, I really did not like how often they seemed to tip over. The Quasit, for example, would never stand up.
So I decided to put them on Small bases to help with balance issues, and figure the trade-off is worth it.
I am a bit saddened by the inclusion of another identical creature in the lines but they do cater for two different audiences apparently, personally I just use the one I like the most whether it's the official one for my game or not.
I am sorry to disappoint you, but I have absolutely no control (or knowledge) about that other miniatures WizKids makes for their other partners, and there is no way for me to incorporate that information into the set lists I create for Pathfinder Battles.
Every so often, I might say something like (and this is a random example, so don't read into it) "I'm thinking of doing a big Darklands/dark elf theme" and someone over there might say something like "for reasons we can't quite tell you, we'd prefer that you focus on a different theme in that timeframe," but that's about it.
This is not within my power to do.
I built the setlist, and sent it to WizKids based on what miniatures I want and which pieces of art we have that I think will translate well to minis. I have a big list of figures we have not yet done (or that no one has done), which is where the Invisible Guardian comes from. I was also surprised to see a similar creature in an upcoming non-Pathfinder set, but as the sculpts are very different I am not really worrying about it.
The Hellcat is just a sweet picture that I've always wanted to see in mini form, and I knew WizKids would do a great job on it (which they have).
The original setlist for this set was a bit more heavily themed, with a larger number of devils and angels, specifically. WizKids asked me to tone down the theme a little bit, so I swapped out about a dozen figures to make it more of a generally themed set than something specific. If you look really close (once the full list is out), you'll see some of the DNA of that original set list in there, but it's now a more general set, and I agree with WizKids that it will likely sell better because of it.
what determines the rarity of a particular piece?
A combination of sculpt and paint complexity mixed with frequency of use at the table. A simple orc with a bow or sword would likely be slated in the common rarity, whereas a powerful orc king with a colorful outfit is more likely to be the type of figure that requires a detailed sculpt and lots of paint steps, and that would likely appear only once in a campaign, so I'd make him rare.
That said, sometimes unanticipated complexities (or efficiencies) come up in the production process, and a figure gets moved to a different rarity than we'd originally planned for. This is pretty rare, but it does happen.
Incidentally, for the first time in this set (Deadly Foes), I've received a sort of "line-up" of all of the figures together, so I can judge their size not just in an abstract way, but also against each other. I'm not saying I definitely would have made the gnolls taller with this resource, but it seems likely. I'm very pleased with this development, which is just another example of why WizKids's digital sculpting methods are far superior to the old way of doing things.
Marco Massoudi wrote:
Don't read too much into those other images. My understanding is that they were there to show off some of the detail and the materials used, but they are not going to be in the line in those poses.
There is nothing "blind" about this line. What you see is what you get.
That's all well and good, but when's the last time that we saw a normal set with Huges? And when are we likely to see one again? The fact is, there are certain Huges that are going to be in high demand *in multiples* -- elementals at the top of the list -- and I honestly don't understand the thinking that says "stay away from the minis for which there's the highest demand". If the goal is the sustainability of the line and of its ability to deliver Huges, it seems obvious to me that you go where the market is. But hey, I'll be thrilled to get these minis, I'm entirely on board, I hope they're very popular, and I'm confident that Paizo (and expect that Wizkids) know what they're doing.
I don't want to psychoanalyze WizKids, and we haven't discussed this issue in particular in regards to why they chose the ones they chose, but I suspect they wanted to do a test balloon on a 2-Huge pack to see if the pricing and sales worked before biting off the elementals. It doesn't make sense to do two elementals and then not follow up with the other two, only to be hounded to the end of time about when they are coming out.
Incidentally, the two Huges I suggested were _not_ elementals either. :)
I sent WizKids a ton of images, and these were the two that they picked. I think they thought "Hey, dragon! People love dragons" and "Hey, Cthulhu! People love cthulhu." I suspect they are correct.