Seoni

Kalindlara's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 9 Season Marathon Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber. FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 8,991 posts (10,501 including aliases). 6 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 12 Organized Play characters. 25 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,991 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
thflame wrote:
Nobody complains about a wizard at level 1. The most debilitating thing they can do at that level is probably cast Sleep. (Interestingly enough, I heard a story where a famous DnD player (I think it was Spoony?) was asked to run a game at some convention for new players. He decided to take liberties with a scenario and swapped out "Magic Missile" for "Sleep" on an NPC wizard encouter that was CR 1. He TPK'd the entire party by coup de grace-ing them with a quarterstaff. Needless to say, he wasn't asked to DM for that convention again.)

Ayup. "Leaping Wizards". ^_^

I should go watch that again...

Sovereign Court *

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

That's probably why it's not being discussed as a violation of forum rules, but rather as an expression of courtesy towards Paizo staff members. ^_^

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

It might be in Fey Revisited... I don't remember if they got a section. They might have also gotten a bit of development in an Adventure Path somewhere...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

*shrugs* I guess that's one way of looking at it. ^_^

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

That's making some pretty strong assumptions about limited wish. As they say in PFS, expect table variation. ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

The gancanagh, I believe. ^_^

Sovereign Court *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

We're going to start Strange Aeons soon, so this is perfect timing. ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Ranger won't work either, since it also has a defined list of options (which don't include "faerie mount"). You need a class or archetype that explicitly grants access to any animal companion available to a druid.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Looking forward to this one a lot!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I was working on this myself. The answer is, unfortunately, no. However...

My plan is to play a wild child brawler with such a companion, getting me a full-BAB non-spellcaster class with full companion. I then take four levels of cavalier (either green knight or order of the pike), using Boon Companion to continue advancing my companion. Then, probably back to brawler. Close enough for me. ^_^

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

The Dual Blades are exactly my style as well. ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Our groups have never really had any problem with the damaging spells in PF1, and I doubt we'll have any trouble with them in PF2. Maybe we're just too casual about it...

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
The minis that Owlcat is making for the Kickstarter are not Pathfinder Battles.

I see. Thank you for the clarification, sir! ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.

No one tell my players I said that.

Except in that one PFS scenario...you guys know the one! :D

Oh gosh, that. I almost killed my Venture-Captain's character with that thing...

Sovereign Court *

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

The Hao Jin Cataclysm? That sounds deeply intriguing...

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Gorum will bless those who fight for any reason, so long as they will fight.

By this logic, he should be willing to sponsor clerics of any alignment.

This isn't even really a critique of your point... what if you really could have a cleric of Gorum of any alignment? (Technically speaking, you could even have paladins of Gorum.)

That'd actually be kind of awesome. ^_^

Sovereign Court

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

But that side-steps the question without answering it, and it does evoke really disgusting thoughts of 'All religions on Golarion are equal, but some are more equal than others' and 'Good is Great, Lawful Good is Better!', to put an Animal Farm spin on it.

For a game and a company that has prized its inclusive nature from pretty much the get-go, this smacks of favoritism, elitism, and it also hearkens to a very disturbing trend of 'This religion is better than the other religions because they can have paladins'.

I have to be honest. Using Paizo's inclusive nature, which is deeply important to some of us for very real reasons, as a means to attack them because you disagree with the game mechanics they've inherited and chosen to continue using, is... extremely unpleasant and disturbing. Please, carefully consider the impact of your arguments on marginalized members of the community.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
It's disturbing because it starts to sound like RL religious disputes and less like a game we're all deeply passionate about, and it's unfair to the developers who have poured their development time into it to see it taken that way.

I agree that it's unfair. However... I can't think of any other poster who's really been expressing this specific viewpoint. As such, and I say this with all sincerity and goodwill, perhaps you should consider whether you've interpreted their decision unfairly.

Thank you for listening. Or, I suppose, for reading. ^_^

Sovereign Court

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I'll say this, too. I can see a place where I would really approve of "any good" paladins. Ditch the mandatory-deity angle* and link them to angels instead. Angels are relatively rare among extraplanar outsider races in that they can be any good, rather than a single specific alignment. Tie paladins into that as "angel knights", make their powers more angel-themed (they're already pretty well along there), and I'd be sold. ^_^

*In fact, do this anyway. The non-LG only folks have a point about the disparity of divine representation. And I (and at least one other person I've talked to) like the paladin thing better when separate from specific religions.

Story Time:
I once played a paladin who worshipped Iomedae, but wasn't very good at it. In her heart, she was unknowingly a servant of Shelyn instead. Having paladins explicitly be priests tangles up fun storylines like this, in addition to limiting concepts.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:
The reason paladin gets priority is literally that it is already core, people expect it to be there as soon as it releases. This is an icon, i dont believe paizo would, or should, launch the core without a single current core class, this simply includes the paladin.

Somewhat tangentially: I know why they did what they did, but if it were up to me, we'd be getting the cavalier as the "extra class" instead of alchemist. And they'd be the Legendary Armor class. It's too important a niche to be part of the (lawful good only) paladin, in my opinion. ^_^

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
graystone wrote:
The thing is, the vindictive bastard still HAS paladin powers. Spells, arua, smite. SO a paladin can do an evil act and still have powers afterwards which was the point. What tells the random person on the street that it's a paladin [normal] or a paladin [vindictive bastard]?
I don't believe this is accurate. As an ex-paladin, vindictive bastards don't have anything that an ex-paladin wouldn't have, with the exception of the abilities granted by the archetype itself. For example: no spells.

Actually it is funnier than that:

"While an ex-member of a class can recant her failings and atone for her fall from her original class (typically involving an atonement spell), her acceptance of her ex-class archetype means she must atone both for her initial fall and for further straying from the path. As a result, such a character must be the target of two atonement spells or a similar effect to regain her lost class features. Upon doing so, she immediately loses this archetype and regains her original class (and archetype, if she had one)."

You are literally worse off in ingame basis for picking this. You are a double ex paladin now :P.

It's true! (I have a PFS vindictive bastard that might end up doing that, too. I really do love that archetype...)

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
graystone wrote:
The thing is, the vindictive bastard still HAS paladin powers. Spells, arua, smite. SO a paladin can do an evil act and still have powers afterwards which was the point. What tells the random person on the street that it's a paladin [normal] or a paladin [vindictive bastard]?

I don't believe this is accurate. As an ex-paladin, vindictive bastards don't have anything that an ex-paladin wouldn't have, with the exception of the abilities granted by the archetype itself. For example: no spells.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

"We should all assume the best of each other. In the spirit of that: you're a thief who's stealing from me and your opinions are the equivalent of cancer."

...tell me more about this good faith thing. I'm deeply intrigued.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Also, I should probably give my thoughts on the PF2 paladin at some point.

Sovereign Court

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Wei Ji: There's a quote - something about fighting monsters and gazing into the Abyss - that paladins (at least, those of good alignment) would be wise to remember. ^_^

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I find that adding a DMPC to the "party" is ideal in this sort of situation. ^_^

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Yeah, hedgehogs should only be able to beat up artificers.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
MidsouthGuy wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about Cleric alignments no longer being "within one step" of their Deity's alignment.
Whoa, that would be disappointing, where was that stated?

It's in the Cleric blog. Each deity now specifies valid alignments for their priests - for example, Shelyn allows LG, NG, and CG (but not N).

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I think it's fully acceptable.

To my mind, the "lawful" question is kind of covered by the care and thought put into the decision at first. Where a more chaotic soul might enter such a relationship without knowing where it could lead or what might become of them, the paladin enters such a relationship with ample forethought and open discussion with their partner. Even if it does evolve into something more, the paladin can then maintain that dialogue, keeping the status of the relationship clear.

That's just my thought, though. ^_^

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
LuniasM wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Now I wonder if those "property runes" are interchangeable between weapon and armor like Materia in Final Fantasy. WIll that flaming rune give me fire resistance if put on the armor? That'd be cool.
I don't know if that'll happen, as keeping them separated works better for organization purposes, but it would be pretty cool if they did. Of course, I suspect some runes would be specific to one list if that happened, as a Returning armor set would be... odd.

Maybe a returning rune would grant arrow attraction/deflection when applied to armor. ^_^

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

The whole "bracers on your legs" thing really makes me think of Driz'zt...

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Add me to the "disappointed about weapon craftsmanship and magical enhancement quality being redundant"/"disappointed about weapon craftsmanship being just another prerequisite for magic enhancement" list. I was really looking forward to the difference between a nonmagical legendary longsword and a +3 longsword of average quality.

I understand that, with the "four degrees of success" paradigm, stacking attack bonuses will be more relevant than ever. I trust the minds behind the game to surmount these obstacles, figure out the math, and make a well-balanced final system. And I really hope that final system can find room for craftsmanship and potency to both contribute to a weapon's quality.

Other than that, I'm really liking what I see so far. Especially "armor traits" making armoring decisions more complex than the existing system. The shield system will take some getting used to, but I look forward to the more dynamic system we've been promised.

Looking forward to my preordered playtest books. ^_^

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
ChaiGuy wrote:
Rysky wrote:

I want my sorcereress to look like Lulu.

*shrugs*

Yeah, real sorceress' carry around plushies! :P

...mine does... >_>

Sovereign Court

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

Apparently losing Clerics that do not refer a specific deity (something that did exist in PF1) matters to some GMs and players

I think it should be easy to put a sidebar in the CRB with guidelines for this. I do not think this will lessen the fun of those who like Clerics of deities

I respect that desire, and I would be perfectly fine with a sidebar like that. It didn't bother me in PF1, and it wouldn't bother me here. ^_^

I just don't want the mechanics that differentiate one cleric from another to be watered down. I'm looking forward to a system where clerics of Desna are actually different from clerics of Asmodeus. The divine paragon archetype is the closest we've gotten in PF1.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
Except that you are cutting the fun too in the process

Fun for some, the opposite of fun for others. I'm in favor of constraining the most broken aspects of the game (and leaving others, such as wishes, under the GM's authority).

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

My philosophy was always "you shouldn't expect to always bypass DR". Why bother wasting words on it if the assumption is that PCs will break it every time? So I'm a big fan of having lots of DR.

If you want to invest extra resources specifically in always breaking DR, you're welcome to... otherwise, do what you want to do.

The problem is it either:

A: Emphasizes the 'I Win' button of casters (if they don't have to worry about SR)

or

B: Makes some fights nigh-impossible to impossible.

Please understand, I don't mind narrative difficulty for characters.

What I do mind is when basically a middle finger is raised in their direction by something 'just short' of GM fiat 'because it's in the rules'.

Sure, a home GM can houserule DR/etc.

An organized play GM cannot.

I may not completely understand your point, so if I've stumbled somewhere, do forgive me.

I'm a very fervent supporter of SR as well (I didn't mention it because it felt tangential). I'm generally in favor of stuff not giving casters a free pass, whether that's effects punishing both equally (lot of this in Fey Boons and Banes) or monsters having multiple layers of defense.

I also don't mind some foes (such as swarms) being easier targets for specific classes/solutions. That said, PF1 gave casters far too many options to be great even against their normal banes (see golems vs. create pit). So that's already bumpy, and if that can't be done right, I'd rather not see it done at all. (It also presents issues in organized play, where party makeup is unpredictable.)

I don't know why GM fiat is getting brought up here? It seems like kind of a non sequitur buzzword. Sometimes a monster takes less damage from your sword, or bow, or alchemist's fire. That's hardly GM fiat. (Now if the monster suddenly had that specific DR mid-fight, then we'd be talking.)

I understand about the potential difficulty of fights (having run some of the robot scenarios in PFS). My experience was that the difficulty actually enhanced the experience for the players. (I also had the other experience with a certain pair of summoned imps in Zarta's boudoir.) It was a different combat experience... but it was memorable, and interesting, and different. And I favor that sort of variety.

Why are home GMs houseruling? What's the houserule? I don't follow.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I also think that, despite the position advanced in the original thread, making it when you need it is perfectly valid. Player wants to play a priest of a harvest god? Make the harvest god.

I don't understand the whole fear of "negotiation", either. Maybe it's just the Tyrant Princess in me, but it seems easy. You discuss what the player has in mind, work it out, and deliver it. It's your world - you have the authority to say "this is what the deity grants", just as you have the authority to decide what the NPCs say and do.

I dunno. Maybe I am legitimately old-fashioned.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

My philosophy was always "you shouldn't expect to always bypass DR". Why bother wasting words on it if the assumption is that PCs will break it every time? So I'm a big fan of having lots of DR.

If you want to invest extra resources specifically in always breaking DR, you're welcome to... otherwise, do what you want to do.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I just don't agree with "the system isn't allowed to have developed deity mechanics because it's more work for me if I decide not to use the published material". It seems like a big shame to make all clerics virtually identical, just because discarding the provided flavor and making your own takes more time and effort than you want to spend.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Heck. Just ban clerics. Simplest possible option. Clerics of a philosophy were barely clerics anyway.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Well... since deities are theoretically universal, just use Golarion deities in your homebrew. The drow society was built around Lolth across virtually every edition (to the extent that even Pathfinder drow have spider themes) and we somehow got by.

Alternatively... just let your players pick it all. Let them choose any spells, domains, favored weapon, with no edicts or anathema. Basically the same result as "clerics of a philosophy" anyway. And zero work for you.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Catharsis wrote:
I believe 4e had some secondary stat dependence for Wizards, depending on what magic implement they used. I thought that was a nice idea. For instance, in PF2, you could have Cha-based effects for enchantment specialists, Dex-based ones for evocation specialists, Wis-based ones for abjuration specialists, etc.

It's worth noting that 2e had its own variation on this, whereby you could only specialize if you had high Int and another high score depending on the specialization. So there's plenty of interesting precedent for this.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing something like this - it'd be cool if specialist wizards felt very unique. (At the very least, I'd love to see forbidden schools set by your specialization make a return. Universalists got crushed by the current anything-goes approach to wizard specialization.)

Sovereign Court

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Personally, I'd rather change all primary spellcasting classes to rely on multiple ability scores.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I'd be surprised and disappointed if merfolk weren't in the Bestiary... and since it's rumored to be twice the normal size, they should be able to spare us a few pages for ancestry feats and such. ^_^

As for centaur, I'd be extremely in favor of making them (along with gnoll) a valid monster ancestry. They're a classic ancestral fantasy archetype, and it'd be nice to get to play one properly. (Though I did find a late-era PF1 option that worked well enough.)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Since we're talking about specific details of homebrew... I won't go into full detail here (too lazy, mostly), but I'm really excited to update stuff from my homebrew world for this new system. There's stuff here that works perfectly for the setting's needs (which include a chaotic evil deity with a chaotic good sect), and the more intricate system will let me reinforce the flavor of the individual gods (while also motivating me to develop some of them further).

Sovereign Court

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I'm definitely more in favor of the current direction they're taking the class. I'd much rather have a detailed system full of flavor, with clerics of individual deities feeling like servants of that specific deity, than strip that away just in case someone doesn't want to use the provided material and also doesn't want to spend the effort to replace it.

As someone who's done some homebrew in her time, I know it can take a bit of effort. But I'd rather have a flavorful and interesting core class. Even as a homebrewer, this allows me to really bring the flavor of my campaign's pantheon across to the players, in a way that "domains + favored weapon" never could. It's one of the most rewarding parts, and I'm glad to have the opportunity.

As for "negotiations and judgment calls"... I dunno. To me, that was always exactly the point of having a Game Master. You're what separates tabletop roleplaying games from video games. Doubly so when homebrewing... this stuff comes with the job of creating your own world.

That's just my perspective, though. ^_^

Sovereign Court

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
...the GM will need to have a special weapon property cheat sheet at the very least just to run a game.

This sounds like an excellent candidate for inclusion on the inside of the GM screen, to me. ^_^

(At least until folks start getting them memorized through familiarity.)

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
GM Red Box wrote:
The more I read the more I pray HeroLab is ready day one. I love the options but there are so many, as a GM, it will really help to have a program do some record keeping and math.

AS long as it's not HLO.

Classic? Sure. HLO no.

+100

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

...so at least one person is excited. ^_^

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Clearly a sign of Shelyn-bias.

Good. ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

There are a number of subscription items in my sidecart that I've been waiting to ship for some time. I'm not sure if this is a normal part of the subscription shipping process - if it isn't, could you make sure these items get properly processed for shipping, please? (I've already had an email exchange which contains some discussion of shipping for the Adventure Path volumes.)

Thank you for your assistance! ^_^

1 to 50 of 8,991 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>