Lewy's page

We order from our distributor for these, and we don't get to pick which color they send us, alas.

That's fine, they are shipping the brown ones and have been for a little while, so I'll take the chance as their postage is huge! Thanks for the response. Lewis.

Hi, do you guys have these in stock or just order from Asylum/Reaper? The reason I ask is that the Reaper guys have the brown ones so if you get them direct then I can order. If you stock them you may have the green ones, which are the first batch, and I have a few of already and don't really want more of the same. Ta.

Hi,

I get all the Reaper PF minis and was getting frustrated trying to remember which fig was in which AP (basically I keep finding out after teh NPC has appeared!). Figured a quick spreadsheet would be useful and I couldn't find something like this when I looked, so I've knocked one together which I'll try to update now and then. I hope it helps. Feel free to comment if you find anything wrong or have suggestions.

link

Cheers,

Lewy.

You know, I'm not sure if there are two or three in this set... I will double check. (Please note that I'm not likely to have a response until next week.)

Edit: Or not! There are indeed three charau-ka in this mini pack.

Cool thanks, ordered!

It says there are 2 but 3 are pictured. Anyone know why?

Lewy wrote:

Libra wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

What's the problem?

The problem, though, is that not everyone monitors the website to see what's coming next. I think a lot of people, myself included, have spent 3 years getting accustomed to receiving books for grown-ups through the subscriptions. If I hadn't randomly checked in to Paizo's website, I would've never expected to receive a boxed game for children - automatically - through my subscription. I think there's a lot of other people in the same boat.

This sums up my position perfectly, I've never been so annoyed at Paizo.

But you found out in time to avoid it and opt out. They clearly did enough communicating (in your case at least) so you didn't end up paying for something you didn't want. Yet they still provided you with the opportunity to get the subscriber benefits.

How is it bad to have one option you don't want if they also give you the option you do (via the "we're about to ship..." email)?

I'm trying to and if it works then I'll move on.

Mind you, I admit I should have edited out the "childrens" bit from the original post. Apologies for that, I have no problem from an age POV, merely the beginner product for a subscriber system, which seems at odds.

Steve Geddes wrote:

What's the problem?

The problem, though, is that not everyone monitors the website to see what's coming next. I think a lot of people, myself included, have spent 3 years getting accustomed to receiving books for grown-ups through the subscriptions. If I hadn't randomly checked in to Paizo's website, I would've never expected to receive a boxed game for children - automatically - through my subscription. I think there's a lot of other people in the same boat.

This sums up my position perfectly, I've never been so annoyed at Paizo.

Lewy wrote:

Hi,

I had a recent order, some PF minis combined, into 1 package. I'd prefer you didn't do this as I end up with customs charges. I purposely select the minis per order to stay under the customs charge limit because the postage is significantly less than the rip-off customs handling charges the Royal Mail add. Is there any way of stopping you guys combining orders?

Ta,

Lewis.

Unfortunately there is no way to stop our system from combining orders that would be sent out at the same time. However, you can get the order size you want by placing your first order then after you receive the shipping confirmation for that order, placing your next order as normal or by taking advantage of the "save for later" function in your shopping cart. This will insure that your orders are not combined and allow you more control over the size of your order and the customs fees incurred.

Seems a little crazy when there is the option to choose to combine orders!

Thanks for the response.

Hi,

I had a recent order, some PF minis combined, into 1 package. I'd prefer you didn't do this as I end up with customs charges. I purposely select the minis per order to stay under the customs charge limit because the postage is significantly less than the rip-off customs handling charges the Royal Mail add. Is there any way of stopping you guys combining orders?

Ta,

Lewis.

I'd love this too, it's especially hard keeping up to date with PF minis I have not yet indulged myself with.

Personally I ran them for the first 2 parts but my group just didn't get a kick out of them, they just saw it as too contrived, so I've dropped them since and it's running fine as we move into book 4 of 6.

You are an absolute star, I owe you a few hours of my life, thanks!

The really annoying thing is all the great beholder and mind flayer figures I have (or Bathalian for the Reaper ones - but they look the same ;-) ). That's a shame.

And before you say use them for your own adventures, I pretty much follow the AP's now days due to time. Time is not something I have tons of going spare between a job, kids and a couple of other hobbies.

Thanks! I'll look forward to seeing it in due course!

I have this in my old orders for the Crocodile ones that never meterialised. Any idea if this one will be shipped instead?

I've run the first 2 by, as Gorbacz suggests, convertuing on the fly but it is getting harder as the combatants get more complex. This thread here has the conversions for the 3rd in the AP so I'm going to be trying that out.

There's also a comment above suggesting using the fast progression for xp and I support that. My group are just getting to 7th at the end of the second book using that progression table. There's 5 of them so that's just about right.

Much appreciated. I did the first two of this AP on the fly, but I must admit that gets harder as the foes get mnore complex. This'll help hugely. THanks!

Reaper site says available from Monday!!!! :)

http://www.reapermini.com/ says arriving next week!

Me too - thanks!

Lewy wrote:

I tried to order the print version just now and got told it had been removed as it was unavailable. Is this a web page glitch or is this not available for order?

Not a glitch. Our inventory updates throughout the day as we ship stuff, and our distributor also makes changes in theirs, but checking every product in both databases all the time wouldn't be a good idea. So we recheck both inventories when people try to check out with a product, and if it has gone out of stock between the last time we checked and this time, you get that message.

Cool, ta. Just waiting for the restock!

Me too!

Wolf Munroe wrote:

Wolfthulhu wrote:

Hmm, I had this in my cart for the next time I had spare cash. I hope there will be a reprint?

Is there some reason you're thinking it is out of stock?

I may be reading the page poorly, but as far as I can tell, I can purchase it now if I want.

(I do want it, but can't get it right this second, unfortunately.)

Well, mainly it was the big red letter text informing me that it had been removed from my shopping cart because it was unavailable. But you're right. I just added back again. Must have been a glitch of some kind.

(and it looks like Masika had a similar belief.)

Your not dreaming. I tried to order the print version just now and got told it had been removed as it was unavailable. Is this a web page glitch or is this not available for order?

Lokie wrote:

Sort_vampyr wrote:

Lokie wrote:

Lewy wrote:

There's nothing wrong with making death hurt. I go for the permanent loss being permanent, until they level up again. Though they only lose 1 level.

Gold, who cares. That doesn't hurt enough.

So ... basically leveling up just to get rid of the negative levels first?

I.E. - you are sticking with permanent level drain of TWO levels.

I -THINK- the idea was that one would no longer have those negative lvls AND THEN get your new lvl?

Sorry... removed my post as it was not really conveying what I was thinking.

Well im pretty sure it goes like this

Bob the 7 lvl fighter comes along and some stoned golem sits down on him by accident.

He then gets revived costing him a fortune :/ ! But otherwise "only" looses ...

QUOTE:

"cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls,
combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense,
saving throws, and skill checks (per negative level) . In addition, the creature
reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative
level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level
lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as
spellcasting)"

But not two REAL levels.

When Bob goes up a lvl he gets whats coming to him and gets rid of those nasty penalties :)

Would that be about right azhrei_fje/Lewy ? :)

More for my game, having got sat on by the golem (love the scenario by the way, he'd certainly Bob after!) then he'd be 6th level. Half way to 7th.

It places him just behind the others but not so far that he can't catch that back up over time. I also record the xp amount at the point and a restoration spell will get Bob back to his original xp total once cast.

As for gold, if there's expensive material components, sure they'll need those. Always fleece the players!

This certainly works in my game. Having said that I've always played level drain as permanent (boy players fear undead!), though I have incorporated into this the 3rd Ed change to give a save first. In 1st and 2nd ed they didn't even get that. Again a restoration would work the same.

Just throw in a few mages with dinintegrate and life suddenly becomes fun again! Raise dead is then an irrelevance!

There's nothing wrong with making death hurt. I go for the permanent loss being permanent, until they level up again. Though they only lose 1 level.

Gold, who cares. That doesn't hurt enough.

Trott over to the news on the Reaper minis site for more pictures. They have recently put a green up and will do others as they prep them.

Hi,

If anyone is looking for a Core Rulebook still in the UK, some seem to have crept in. One of my players went into Eclectic Games in Reading to order a copy and was surprised to see they had a "pile of them". They had previously sold out and his impression was the owner was surprised to have got any.

Lewis.

Your limited spell capability at low levels requires a defensive style of play. Make sure you have a range weapon you are proficient with (bow) for most battles and save you spells for important encounters. Make sure you have a few tank types in your party to hide behind.

From a role-play perspective consider using your intelligence to convince the tanks how vital you are or to sooth their egos so they put up with you until you are more useful....

Yay, what a good response. There are people out there who know how to roleplay it!

Lewy wrote:

The important question is: when this one is going to be available in print form? I'm hanging on waiting for this before buying the 1-11 compendium to save postage.

#12 should be available in November.

Joseph Browning
Expeditious Retreat Press

Great, thanks for the response. Will order both then! As the postage is to the UK the difference is significant.

Low level for wizards is like visiting the dentist. You know you have to do it but no one enjoys it.

I'd suggest you ignore comments like this. Playing a low level wizard is great fun and a good challenge.

Start by thinking of a personality and outlook. That may help in specialisation. Someone above suggested transmutation, good call. Illusion can also be really fun. Drop, maybe enchantment and Necromancy, but base it on whether you're character is outgoing, quiet, charismatic (or thinks he/she is!) etc.

Max your INT to get the extra spell. In 3.5 I'd have said next stat for Con but with the PF increase to D6 hp's, put it on Dex. It then helps ranged touch spells, which are very effective and touch AC's are low. Also helps your AC.

Don't make the mistake of thinking you just need offensive spells. Sure take something like Colour Spray, but also take the opportunity to pick non/less offensive spells at each level too, both defensive and general use. Grease is a good one for supporting fighters, if the enemy can't stand up the fighters love it! Feather fall can also keep you alive.

Sure your options can appear limited, but look at the spell descriptions and think how you might use them in a game RPing situation, especially if they support your character idea.

Let the fighters do the fighting and prove your worth in the support of them and the roleplaying. Have fun with it, it really is rewarding if done right.

Lewis.

The important question is: when this one is going to be available in print form? I'm hanging on waiting for this before buying the 1-11 compendium to save postage.

Michael Miller 36 wrote:

mdt wrote:

Sorry, you just lost your own argument right there. The wizard used tactical sense and got the h*** out of combat. Then he was effective.

Obviously you (and your players) want your wizard to be a front line fighter. That is not the class, not it's purpose.

and why should I have to spend 2-4 rounds before i can do anything to contribute? name any other class that is required to sit on thier A** for half the fight before they can participate? This leads to two problems. The character is ineffectual for most of the fight, and then the character isn't much use if theres a second fight later on. So to use your perspective the wizard is a one trick pony.

Name any other class that can :

Planes travel
Fly
Teleport
Go invisible
cast any of the other umpteen thousand spells.

Oh,
And to answer your question :
Druids, Bards, Clerics, Sorcerers, Paladins, Rangers all have to worry about concentration checks if casting in combat.

What you are saying is that you want a spellcaster to be able to not only open up like a blasting cannon in combat, but have no negatives either. Sorry...

Totally agree!

Wizards are anything but a one trick pony. If you're playing one to fight in melee, methinks you chose the wrong class. You prepare your defences up front and/or use your intelligence to use spells in more constructive ways. Yes you may have to spend a round or two getting extra things prepared, that's because you don't know what's coming, but you're overall effect, if done right, is huge. That's the fun of it!

You do have to be patient playing wizards, but you also have to play them with the intelligence they need. It's just more challenging to get right and therefore more fun!

Making all classes equal all the time doesn't promote the game, it promotes only melee. That's a shame and a direction I dislike about 4th Ed., hence I don't play it. That's not to say it's wrong, just that this move to everything being equal removes a huge element of challenge, fun and teamwork from the game. These are to me the fun things.

You also have to consider that melee is NOT a wizards friend. I'm please that pfRPG has made that mechanically clear now.

Totally agree!

Lewy wrote:

As for the question above about what the problem is with allowing players to buy what they want, it's to easy, that's the problem. Make it difficult and they really appreciate the items they find. If you can change anything, or buy everything, to get what you want, why do they care what's in the treasure pile?

Huh? What's in the treasure pile is whatever they want (within limits, of course), so of course they appreciate what they get.

However, I agree that it took some of the "personality" out of magic items, in the sense that they weren't forced to use something weird and unusual because it's they only magic item they have.

And I agree that there is something to be said for playing in a setting where magic is scarce, but I probably wouldn't use straight D&D/Pathfinder rules for that.

To your first point, making use of what they're given is much more challenging and reduces powergaming.

Your second point is exactly what I mean.

James Jacobs wrote:

What's catching some folks off-guard is the fact that we made the rolls harder, both by increasing the DC for some effects and by lowering the assumed modifier everyone will have to the skill by, effectively, 3 points (since it's not a skill anymore). This DOES make concentration checks more difficult, and that's the point.

With respect, Mr. Jacobs, it has been demonstrated that rolls are substantially harder at low levels, somewhat harder at mid levels, and that casting defensively at high levels is still trivially easy. Run the numbers and you'll see what I mean; caster level + caster stat modifier, together, scale faster than (2 x spell level).

With respect, I think you're missing the point. Castring in combat is difficult and it shoudl be. That's good. Get the spellcasters to the back or let them use other spells besides offensive combat spells to ensure they don't get hit. If mages are taking nothing but MM's, Acid arrows, fireballs and lightening bolts then they are missing a load of the fun of being a mage. Try using the other spells more effectively, it's fun and challenging to do so.

I almost never let PC's buy magic items unless they are very limited and they are always very expensive. It makes for a magic scarce game and that's good fun.

As for the question above about what the problem is with allowing players to buy what they want, it's to easy, that's the problem. Make it difficult and they really appreciate the items they find. If you can change anything, or buy everything, to get what you want, why do they care what's in the treasure pile?

I'm struggling to understand why anyone playing a mage is in combat in the first place! Blimey, that's what all those other characters are for. Stand out the way and cast.

Certainly in earlier D&D versions it stated that 0 was death for NPC's and monsters. That's where the D&D for dummies is quoting from.

Hi,

My players (I subscribe) had their orders through Play.com and Amazon.co.uk. None of these have come through and 2 of them have since cancelled and got theirs from Leisure Games (who delivered next day in one case!) The latter had said they were almost sold out though.

Lewis.

I just thought that after I had used them others might.

I'd certainly love to see these, so thanks in advance.

Got my notification of shipment earlier this week, saying 6-10 days to get here (which will be an underestimate!) So much for trying to get it here for the release date!

That would mean that the plural was the same as the singular. Therefore:
English - erratas is not acceptable, it would be errata
American - erratas is acceptable!

Who said we speak the same language? :-)

As joke, I'll say:

"It's a book pre-order from Amazon, so why does the release date mater to you? You won't be seeing it till December after all!" :D

Lol! That's potentially very true - and the best jokes usually are!

Just love this news!

Lewy wrote:

Celestial Healer wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

mach1.9pants wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

Erratas

Ouch! That's like saying "dices" as a plural for "dice". ;-P

Eratti?

No. Errata. It's already plural. Singular is erratum.

If only the English language were that simple. "Erratas" is an accepted English word when it is a pluralization of the alternate definition of "errata", which refers to a list of errors, which is the context in which it was used by Dragnmoon. This is why I always hesitate to correct anyone's grammar.

Dictionary.com wrote:

ERRATA is originally the plural of the singular Latin noun erratum. Like many such borrowed nouns (agenda; candelabra), it came by the mid-17th century to be used as a singular noun, meaning “a list of errors or corrections to be made (in a book).” Despite objections by some to this singular use, it is common in standard English: The errata begins on page 237. When ERRATA clearly means “errors,” it takes plural verbs and pronouns: Although errata were frequent in the first printing, most of them were corrected in subsequent printings. As a singular noun, ERRATA has developed an English plural form ERRATAS, which is rarely used.

If only life was that simple! You quoted Dictionary.com and if you check the sources it uses they are all American, whereas you have quoted the word "Engish". The official source for English is the Oxford English Dictionary, which it doesn't use as a source, so your arguement is flawed. You might as well have quoted Wikipedia! ;-)

Well Since I am American... The use of Erratas still stands!

Lol - I'm not doubting its use in American, in fact I wasn't necessarily doubting the use at all. Simply the source quoted and the original post quoted "English". :-)

Hi,

Found the new HQ for the Pathfinder Soc. and it's not in Golarion!

New HQ

Just drove past it and also just got two new kittens which I've named Kyra and Seoni. This Pathfinder thing is starting to take over my life! Help!

Well the press release email confirms these are going to be rarer than hot cakes!

"Ten days before the launch of their much-anticipated Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook, Paizo Publishing today announced that the first print run of the book has sold out, with all preordered copies on their way to stores for an August 13 release. With preorders more than five times greater than for any previous product in Paizo's seven-year history, orders for the Core Rulebook continue to mount even as the company speeds to produce another print run."

Great news. Just glad to have had the shipment email for mine!

KaeYoss wrote:

mach1.9pants wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

Erratas

Ouch! That's like saying "dices" as a plural for "dice". ;-P

Eratti?

No. Errata. It's already plural. Singular is erratum.

If only the English language were that simple. "Erratas" is an accepted English word when it is a pluralization of the alternate definition of "errata", which refers to a list of errors, which is the context in which it was used by Dragnmoon. This is why I always hesitate to correct anyone's grammar.

Dictionary.com wrote:

ERRATA is originally the plural of the singular Latin noun erratum. Like many such borrowed nouns (agenda; candelabra), it came by the mid-17th century to be used as a singular noun, meaning “a list of errors or corrections to be made (in a book).” Despite objections by some to this singular use, it is common in standard English: The errata begins on page 237. When ERRATA clearly means “errors,” it takes plural verbs and pronouns: Although errata were frequent in the first printing, most of them were corrected in subsequent printings. As a singular noun, ERRATA has developed an English plural form ERRATAS, which is rarely used.

If only life was that simple! You quoted Dictionary.com and if you check the sources it uses they are all American, whereas you have quoted the word "Engish". The official source for English is the Oxford English Dictionary, which it doesn't use as a source, so your arguement is flawed. You might as well have quoted Wikipedia! ;-)

Voted! Think some of the other categories should've had Paizo products in them too!