|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
Definitely the former. This bundle has pretty much shattered any previous book bundle, so I think it has taken everyone by surprise, to a certain extent.
We VERY MUCH appreciate your patience as our site deals with the increased load. I understand how frustrating it can be to have to wait in situations like this, and we apologize for the inconvenience.
This is a unique circumstance brought on by the "two sides of the same coin" approach we're taking to these two campaigns. Expect a return to the standard "each AP is very different" approach.
I like the way you're thinking, but you need to scale down a little bit. Producing Baba Yaga's Hut as a case incentive was not deemed affordable, and that would be less complicated than what you are proposing here. While a modular Wizard's Tower is a SWEET idea, it's not currently something Pathfinder Battles is able to do. Jason brought a really neat Dwarven Forge building set to work the other day, and that might be the best solution for now.
When it comes to scenery, I think it's better to think of a sort of "playset" that is made up of items similar in scale to what we already produce in the main range, only along a very specific theme. The Rusty Dragon Inn bar is a good example of this, though I could see pitching something a little more elaborate.
Think furniture and modest bits of terrain more than giant buildings. Also think extremely high utility locations.
Every campaign has a tavern.
What location also features heavily in most campaigns?
The iconic vigilante has two guises, a "costumed" guise and a "secret identity" guise. Wayne Reynolds has illustrated both, and they are awesome.
James Jacobs wrote:
That remains to be seen.
How cooperative are you feeling these days? ;)
The PFS Field Guide is the correct map. I revised it myself to solve various issues like the size of the Ivy District, and in doing so I decided to consolidate the city's districts to make it a little easier to wrap your head around the scope of it.
The Merchant's Quarter and the Coins are now the same thing.
Green Ridge is now a neighborhood within Eastgate.
Fort Tempest is not labeled because it is a location within the city, not a district in and of itself (at least not in the version of the city presented in the Field Guide).
The Guide to Absalom is a well-written book, but after setting my own campaign in the city and trying to get a sense of the whole place, I think the way the city is presented in that book is extremely scatter-shot, and not particularly helpful to running a campaign set there.
One way to make it easier to understand is to consolidate the districts, so I did so.
Eventually we will do a great big Absalom book along these simpler district divisions, and give this place the attention it deserves.
64 pages ain't enough.
Liz Courts wrote:
Besides, if anyone at Paizo is going to shift to a lifestyle of Hollywood drug parties and playmates in hot tubs, I'm afraid to say it's going to be me, not Jacobs.
I mean, I think that much is clear.
My problem with Laori Vaus as far as minis are concerned is that I feel that the artistic style of her illustration doesn't quite match the Pathfinder aesthetic. Accordingly, I think she'd make for a pretty boring miniature. Flat color, very difficult to sculpt spikes, and a goofy face is a good recipe for a bad miniature.
I cracked my personal case last night, and got a somewhat different mix of dungeon dressing:
1 cart, wagon, barrel, table
Marco Massoudi wrote:
Same number of figures. Same amount of dungeon dressing. Same distribution method.
(So far as I'm aware. I haven't seen digital sculpts yet, so we're in the early stages of production when things still have plenty of time to change, but that's what I know at the moment.)
Erik, have yall thought about a dungeon dressing mini set along same lines of undead and goblin packs?
WizKids did not sell enough of the goblin or undead sets to continue with this format, though I do think it's probably the most appropriate for a dungeon dressing set. It's something I will continue to discuss with them. I know we're all pleased with how well the dungeon dressing singles have been selling.
1) The singles for this set are moving fast. That is strong encouragement to bust some more cases. So in a strange way, the faster these things disappear, the more likely we are to restock them. I understand the subscriber concerns, which is even more encouragement for us to dive back into the cases. I hear you.
2) We'll sell the promo beds until we run out, even if that is longer than a month.
James Jacobs wrote:
Since this was my character and my idea, please allow me to also add that I specifically HATE the use of prophecy as a cliché in fantasy gaming (or fantasy in general). Killing the god of humanity and screwing up prophecy in one shot was a way to put the onus of heroism directly on the player characters. They aren't heroes because some forgotten book or poem said they would become heroes, but because of their own actions.
I remember spending a lot of time thinking about what to call the current "age" in the world, and this dovetailed with "Age of Lost Omens," which everyone on the staff sounded cool. Everything else we considered was kind of lame, as I remember.
So that's the origin of killing off the god of humanity. :)