|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Pathfinder is named in the credits and all of the books and stuff are clearly visible on the table, in the introductions, etc.
They originally recorded hour-long sessions and then edited around them to focus on the funniest stuff. It's quite possible that the few overt mentions were cut, but if you look at the credits, Pathfinder is clearly identified as the game they are playing.
Any chance of doing more with the unpainted metal line with Reaper? These are nice and all but I'm a painter and I'm not as fond of blind random packs. All that ever seems to get added to Reaper's line are the iconics and one or two npc's from the adventure paths. The black dragon mini has been in limbo for ages. What's up?
Reaper has more stuff in the pipeline! I approved eight figures at the GAMA Trade Show a few weeks back, and they look fantastic.
I think the transition to focusing on Bones and the fulfillment of all those Kickstarters knocked back a lot of Reaper's new minis plans, but they are moving forward and I expect new product to start flowing soon.
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.
Marco Massoudi wrote:
I'll be working on the catalog this week and the next, with an eye toward getting it out at Gen Con.
Then again, Alternity was never designed to be a competing product with D&D2E. It was designed as a playtest for 3E. Similarly, I believe that the Star Wars Saga Edition game was designed as a playtest for 4E rules. As a result, I'm suspecting that Starfinder might end up being the precursor to a second edition of Pathfinder, but we're a few years away from that happening by my estimation.
Without getting into the conspiracy theories about Starfinder, I do not believe that it was the case that Alternity was in any way a stalking horse for third edition D&D. That argument can certainly be made for Star Wars Saga (although see Owen's post, above), but from having worked at WotC during the end of Alternity and the beginning of third edition, I'm not aware of any connection between the two.
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.
Thanks in advance for folks helping our team raise funds this year! I'm very excited about the cool dungeon we put together for last year's effort, and having played this year's games I'm really looking forward to Paizo doing very well in this year's tournament.
If you backed my efforts last year, I still owe you some "thank you" swag, which I'll be sending out shortly. Expect to hear from me soon to confirm shipping details. Thanks for your patience, as this process has taken a lot longer than I anticipated last year. But your stuff is coming soon!
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.
Marco Massoudi wrote:
At least NINE of the creatures on your list are in THIS set.
There isn't a list, because it isn't quite as common as you might think. The biggest parallel is that "City of Secrets" takes some characters and story cues from "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun," by James Jacobs.
Many details on Hollow Mountain itself come from "Dungeons of Golarion," as well as from the Runelords article that backed up one of the Shattered Star adventures.
I may be leaving something out from some of the other Origins issues I didn't write, but I don't think so.
Of course "Dark Waters Rising" takes some inspiration from "Burnt Offerings," and "Tooth and Claw" is something of an adaptation of the adventure from the Beginner Box, now that I think about 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.
Vernon Fults wrote:
Erik, will the unpainted new sculpts eventually be repurposed for minis in the Pathfinder Battles PPMs?
Not that I am aware of. I suppose it is possible that the digital sculpts could be "re-posed" to create unique sculpts, but if that's the actual plan I have not heard about it.
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.