Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Elven Wizard

Luthia's page

FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 269 posts. 3 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 10 Pathfinder Society characters.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

Congrats all, most of all Mike. I look forward to seeing the module. As for the others, I look forward to other spectacular work, congratulations for making it this far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello again, welcome in round 3 and congratulations on making it this far. I really liked you organization idea, and you did get a vote from me, so I'm excited to see if I'm getting something for my vote.

Now, round 3 is for monsters, so let’s have a look at the beastie:
I'll be trying for thorough this round, as those who make it on will have an increasing chance of writing a supplement, which I'll likely have an interest in buying. Therefore both to help me and help you, I'll do my best and fiercest to give constructive critique here.
1) Rules (I want to be reassured that you have your attention to detail and sharpness for rules along here, especially since the organization round tested little on this spot): Yes,it looks beautiful It seems I have strange group of PCs. Very few of them dumps Charisma, unless they have a specific wish to play decidedly UN-Charismatic. The only exception is my one player who hates social encounters. And he likes when I (very, very rarely, as I don't like it) kill off or significantly hurt my PCs. So while I agree that this the ability DRAIN is too much... I'm tempted not to reduce it too much. I do want it to be damage. Drain is too mean at CR 7. And 1d8 is unusually high. That said, I'd probably make it 1d4+something or 1d6. And make all those sorcerers and oracles and other 25+ charisma characters I'm pestered by recently HURT. In fact, I'm stealing it for that express purpose in my kingmaker campaign (not like it won't fit), right here, right now... Success! I'm only commenting on the rules elements, and I already want to steal this thing.
Rating: 4/5 - The unreasonable Cha-drain looses you the full 5. Sorry. I have to be mean. I'm too fond of this thing.

2) Innovation (I want to (again) see promises of an adventure I couldn’t just think up myself, I want to see great and new thoughts, thoughts that seize my attention and holds it): Hmm, hmm. Well, evil fey are plentiful, but positive emotion draining fey isn't around yet, I think. Anyway, your handling is beautiful, so I'm ready to forget that the idea may not be the newest around. The "kiss" ability is novel enough to make up for it.
Rating: 4/5 - I'll have to be mean, and say the evil-emotion-draining fey may not be the newset idea in the universe. That said, my fingers want to change this to a 5 for the good handling of the concept.

3) Creativity (Alike innovation, I want something that isn’t just new, it’s the good kind of new, and awesome at that): Yes, yes, yes. Do I need to say more? This sticks together beautifully, and while it's mean to low or heavy-use Charisma characters, it's not useless against everything else. Gorgeous. It ties together perfectly, and I love your writing (see below). I'm tying an advanced template to this, or class levels or something, just to make them mean enough for keeping around at higher levels. The shadow/undead flavor added to fey WORKS. I've been wanting something like this for a while. Thank you for writing it up for me. The only thing I'm missing is looks, and I know just hów I want these to look, so that's not an issue to me.
Rating 5/5 - I surrender. This does not allow for me to be critical in the area of creative. It is just very, very neat. Shadowy, gothy, undead-ish fey. Love it.

4) Writing (I’m a nitpicker for good writing, and I want to see it. This isn’t the most writing intensive round, but that just means I’ll be looking for wasted words, that I really get nothing from, and checking the bits that are ever more carefully): You have something. your writing takes simple and beautiful and makes it come alive to me. I don't really need to see these to know how they're wrapped in shadows, twisted, near-human, yet not... I like this, a lot. Okay, a teensy critique, I have no clue why their name can't sound a little more sinister. I want a slightly more sinister name for my evil goth fey.
Rating: 5/5 - It's just beautiful. I don't even want to check for bad grammar. I just enjoy reading it. And nothing springs in my eye. The grammar monster is ever so happily sleeping.

5) Golarion (Most monsters can be fitted into my campaigns, but as I mostly run Golarion, I have a keen interest in monster fitting seamlessly with the rest of the world, without expansive details for why they do so): Oh yes, they fit right in, First World and all. Not one word spent, and I'm already assigning a large group of them to at least one of the Eldest of the First World, and wondering if I can't scatter them loosely through-out Ustalav and Nidal, to keep the atmosphere down. Maybe not enough for them to do there.
Rating: 4/5 - There's nothing technically Golarion in them. Of course, the Bestiaries aren't strictly Golarion. I can use this anywhere. It fits seemlessly with Golarion though. I'd have loved a miniature First World reference, but I'm not too touchy about it.

6) CR appropriate (I don’t want a monster pretending to be CR 7, when it’s just not fitting for what my players can reasonably handle at any level near 7, or opposite, won’t represent a challenge even to a level 5 group): Perfect. Only issue must be the charisma drain.
Rating: 4/5 - I'll steal another point for Charisma-draining and go back to plotting how to insert this in as many campaigns as I can. You know, my players won't like you. Most of my campaigns are above level 5, and advancing these things to CR 11 or so is tempting beyond measure.

7) Previous work (I’m not just looking for monsters, I’m also looking back at the former rounds, especially since they may well be tie-breakers for my votes, but also because one single round doesn’t show all anyone has to bring): Okay, here's one thing about you. You seem to be improving in this contest. Your item was interesting to me, and I wanted to like it, but I wasn't won entirely over. Your organization had flavor, much stronger flavor than your item. Your monster avoids the just a little too incredible of your organization. You seem to be keeping your strengths and improving on them every round. Very well done.
Rating - 5/5 - Okay there's been teensy issues with your earlier things, but you're doing a lot to remove my worry. I see both improvement and greatness in all your submissions. i think you are sneaking very solidly into my personal top 4.

8) Promise for Adventure (I want to, as a potential buyer, contemplate how likely I am to buy an adventure written by you – based on your previous RPG Superstar work, your monster and my impression on how well you’ll do with an adventure): Why yes, I want you to write an adventure. I get to enjoy your fine, evocative writing, and your ideas are both delightful and diverse.
Rating: 5/5 - Honestly, last round I might have wanted you in top 4, this round, I'm sure I want it. Please, write more things that fill exactly the space in the game I've been wanting filled, please.

9) Personal Rating (Sometimes, at the end of it all, there’s things I just like, even if there’s other things that might be better for multiple reasons – now I don’t want to tell you I don’t like something, but I do want to, positively, say that I like a particular piece of work a lot): You're not fair. You use fey, goth, darkness, shadow plane and you tie it all together very beautifully. This isn't even fair to my chance of not liking this monster. It's too hard to even try to be critical. I want to like this.
Rating: 5/5 - If you'd written awfully and had horrible mechanics, I'd have congratulated you on your fine idea, and choice of subject. You don't so now I need to fight to be critical. Okay, maybe I agree a little with Ryan. I want more shadow powers and roguishness. I'm making a rogue or ninja or something of one of these...

10) Overall (This is where I try to give my opinion on what to improve on, how I feel about your submission in general, and finally, the thing you really want to hear, if you’re getting a vote or not): Vote given. Nothing could possibly change my mind here. This may well be among this rounds very strongest submissions.
Ratings: 5/5 - There's flaws, but they just seem to be washed away by sheer Superstar writing, concept and perfection. Of the things I've looked at so far, this monster effortlessly win the day. Congratulations on the vote. I'll go and make sure it's in, just in case.

Congratulations on top 16, good luck on your road to top 8!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello again, welcome in round 3 and congratulations on making it this far. I'm sorry I didn't get by your organization last round; I walked into my winter disease period.

Now, round 3 is for monsters, so let’s have a look at the beastie:
I'll be trying for thorough this round, as those who make it on will have an increasing chance of writing a supplement, which I'll likely have an interest in buying. Therefore both to help me and help you, I'll do my best and fiercest to give constructive critique here.
1) Rules (I want to be reassured that you have your attention to detail and sharpness for rules along here, especially since the organization round tested little on this spot): Oh dear, another kill it = you die ability. I hate those. I want to reward my players for being successful, not punish them. This kind of ability seems spiteful to me, and I frequently consciously nerf their damage into literally nothing or at least significantly less than they used to be. Additionally, this is a blasted plant. Plants. Don't. Explode. Well, my parents are both bilogists/botanists, and trust me, plants don't explode. It's just not really logical. They don't actually have any blood-circulation or such, that can stop and trigger the explosion. An explosion doesn't coem out of thin nowhere. Sorry, I'm in my logical corner. I want a reason, and I'm not getting it. Liquids that are this volatile should, reasonably be triggered all the time. Nothing about a plant *dying* really changes how volatile the flower is. Mark me confused. That said, there's a number of problems here and while my inner mean side GM wants to unleash this on my players, this monster worries me too much that I'm likely to so. Unless I want someone dead, real bad. Some of the abilities are really neat, but they are not really making the insecurities up to me.
Rating: 2/5 - too many problems, too little logic and way too much damage sneaking in between those two.

2) Innovation (I want to (again) see promises of an adventure I couldn’t just think up myself, I want to see great and new thoughts, thoughts that seize my attention and holds it): An alchemical fireflower. It's new, I think. Haven't seen it before. I very much like the alchemist use, I very much don't like the idea of a plant having "habits". Even a magically intelligent plant is and does things because of its survival. That has nothing to do with "habits".
Rating: 4/5 - Smart use of alchemist powers and a novel design space lets me excuse you too intelligent (I want reasons!) plant.

3) Creativity (Alike innovation, I want something that isn’t just new, it’s the good kind of new, and awesome at that): Hmm, I sense creativity here, there's a lot ideas that could work. Forgive me if I steal the concept and rewrite it. I need something to punish a player for making an industrial revolution on a cursed island. I have an urge to make this useful, and that means it's working for me.
Rating: 4/5 - You're not getting 5, because I could have wanted more. I still feel a need to to completely rewrite the thing to use it. But. I do want to use it.

4) Writing (I’m a nitpicker for good writing, and I want to see it. This isn’t the most writing intensive round, but that just means I’ll be looking for wasted words, that I really get nothing from, and checking the bits that are ever more carefully): Oh dear. The grammar monster is VERY unhappy. Subject/verb incongruence, plant "legs" clicking, plants with "habits", sap being coaxed. Your choice of words makes the grammar/linguistics monster inside very, very upset. And here it was about to find sleep. "Pyreblooms resembles a squat, uprooted flower" AAAAAAA... the pain. "A pyrebloom resembles a squat, uprooted flower" or "Pyreblooms resemble squat, uprooted flowers". Also, why do they "resemble"? If they "resemble" this, then what ARE they? My point is, your writing makes me, as a non-native English speaker, quiver with instinctive pain. I almost hope this is a draft, because if this is your reviewed writing, then this is enough that I probably can't read a full page of text you've written without crying.
Rating: 1/5 - Either do send in drafts, or seriously, very much, take writing courses and grammar courses and do rewrites, and multiple of them. And turn on the spelling/grammar-checker. It's not poisonous, and it would catch at least some of this.

5) Golarion (Most monsters can be fitted into my campaigns, but as I mostly run Golarion, I have a keen interest in monster fitting seamlessly with the rest of the world, without expansive details for why they do so): Nex, huh? You could have just said alchemists, there's loads of other countries more famous for alchemy, but okay, this strikes me more as magic experiment mishap, than alchemy, to be honest. it's not bad, it's just not really good either. I like that you let it spread. Else the threat would have been long ago exterminated, I think. Good logic there.
Rating: 3/5 - Good enough, but no more than good enough.

6) CR appropriate (I don’t want a monster pretending to be CR 7, when it’s just not fitting for what my players can reasonably handle at any level near 7, or opposite, won’t represent a challenge even to a level 5 group): Hmm, probably overpowered in most cages, though I don't worry too much over it. I think you wanted a lower CR or higher CR, and sort of misadjusted for this one. It doesn't really matter, that much, to me. I'm not using them as written, anyway.
Rating: 2/5 - Fairly sure this is off, not sure it's critically off.

7) Previous work (I’m not just looking for monsters, I’m also looking back at the former rounds, especially since they may well be tie-breakers for my votes, but also because one single round doesn’t show all anyone has to bring): I sort of liked your flask, but your organization was a disappointment to me. This has the same creative as your flask, but I feel worried about mechanics, and super-worried avout language. Generally your writing looks better in the other instances, but I think it's something to pay attention to.
Rating: 3/5 - I liked the flask, and your organization could have worked, though I didn't much like it.

8) Promise for Adventure (I want to, as a potential buyer, contemplate how likely I am to buy an adventure written by you – based on your previous RPG Superstar work, your monster and my impression on how well you’ll do with an adventure): Not entirely sure here. I could like an adventure you could write, but it depends on a lot of improvement on your side. I see creative potential, and I like that, but I don't know if it's enough.
Rating: 3/5 - I'm just unsure here. I guess it depends on how you develop in the coming rounds.

9) Personal Rating (Sometimes, at the end of it all, there’s things I just like, even if there’s other things that might be better for multiple reasons – now I don’t want to tell you I don’t like something, but I do want to, positively, say that I like a particular piece of work a lot): Hmm, okay I don't know. The language bothers me no end. But the idea is really rather neat. I'm split here. Mechanics and language points down, flavor, idea and creativity point up.
Rating: 3/5 - There both goods and bads, placing you with an inbetween rating from my personal feelings.

10) Overall (This is where I try to give my opinion on what to improve on, how I feel about your submission in general, and finally, the thing you really want to hear, if you’re getting a vote or not): Wauw, I thought I'd dislike this more, but I like the name and the idea. I'm concerned by other points.
Rating: 3/5 - You get a low end 3 on average rating. That means likely no vote, though I'm not decided yet.

Congratulations on top 16, good luck on your road to top 8!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I'd like to give both my respect to the judges for making the decision (I'm sure it's never easy to make the choice), compassion to Bob with the disqualification and most of all remind all the other top 16 (15) to be very, very careful in everything they do on these boards. Consider every post, both for wording, politeness and for "is this really worth the chance of even potential disqualification?" as long as the round in question is running. Stay careful, all of you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, congratulations again, and good luck.

This one is meeting some resistance. Your item wasn't the best, but... I liked the idea. I'm the same situation here.

This could have been a neat idea, it could really... but sorry to say, you don't quite give me enough motivation. Sadly, for me, the main reason is that I'd have to beat my PCs into opposing these guys. Several of my main players will literally fight to rescue kobolds, goblins etc. Hell, one of them wants to play a kobold 90% of the time, no matter how many times I mention it being "really not a good idea here". Evil PCs might kill these guys... if the were racist evil. The rest of my PCs would probably ally with them, or try to correct their mistakes (without opposing them), or try to manipulate them. Or try to make them protect the recent favourites: dinosaurs and dragons. As you see, I'm out of way to make this the antagonists. They're just too friendly minded and yet funny-weird. Exactly the thing my players will respond well to, unless I tell them to actually create "slightly racistic" characters. And they'll hate me for that. Such group never work, because I'll never get all of them to play humans in the same campaign. I've tried.

That said, I'll probably steal it for an allied organization. I just think you shot a little past the goal here. I need a lot more antagonism. This is just kind of... cute. I'll probably end up having a dozen "rights of the kobolds", "right of the dragons" and "rights of the dinosaurs" organizations founded by my players, if they hear about this.

At the end of it, damn it, but I want to like you ideas, you just execute them too little for me. I need more. The ideas are so very fine. I want to have a place for them. But they just aren't what I need here. You're still under consideration for a "good idea" vote... if one of my votes wander of and can't find something else to do. This is the last one you'll be getting on that basis though. I'll need to see a VERY solid monster.

Good luck further on.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Strange as it may be not everyone will like everything they are confronted with. People are different. But honestly, I'd like to immediately remind people that one of the best things about RPG Superstar is the nice, polite way people support and rationally comment each other's work. I don't like all top 32 items OR organizations. But not liking something, and feeling the need to publicly share that opinion is different things. I really think you should reconsider what you're saying to the other 30 people, who have, like it or not, done a hard piece of work, even if it's not one you appreciate. The least you can do is give them a reason why you don't like their work - then they at least know what to try and improve on. Of course, everyone are entitled to their opinions and everyone are entitled to freedom of speach. But one thing too many don't think about, in my opinion, is CONSEQUENCE of speach.

Consider, for a moment, that you're telling 30 people: "You're work is worthless!"
Consider, for a moment, that you're telling the judges: "Your opinion and trust that these people have potential is wrong!"
Consider, for a moment, that you're telling Paizo: "Just skip the next rounds of this contest so the people I like can win!"

Consider, then if that is your real intention. Do you really want 30 people to feel like their best work deserves nothing more than this? Do you really want all those who like another entry than you to be ignored? Do you really want to claim that you know more about what qualifies people to write RPG material than the chosen judges (who have all done it loads of times). Do you really want Paizo to shut down this contest and let people you like write an adventure, without testing if they're up to Paizo's wishes in several rounds of competition.

This kind of inconsiderate use of your freedom of speach makes me wonder if freedom of speach is a good thing.

I, personally, believe strongly that the main reason the Paizo-forums are a place worth spending time on is an aura of respect, polite behaviour and considerate critiscism. I'm sorry if my reaction to this seems too strong, but it seems to me that you will want to consider a little more carefully, in the future, the consequence of posting anything and everything you feel without any moderation to make it more acceptable to people who feel different.

Now these are just my feelings. Feel free to disagree. But tell me why, if you must.

Sincerely, and with - hopefully - due consideration,
Siv L. Strandberg


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Hm. More on topic.

So. My computer did a funny little "thing" a few days back where it kind of corrupted my account. You know. Something small. Taking all my work on my organization (and all my other documents) with it. So, you know, freak out time, right?

But I'm cool! Because fortunately I have a backup portable hard drive with everything I've ever written on it.

... And I'm not able to access it right now. I don't know why.

So, I'm really working at not freaking out in every way.

*Breathes*

Wauw, bad luck. Guess that's just when you have to tell yourself "Okay. So this is the time to rewrite my item with all my great, new insights to it, which I have gained over letting it rest for a while".

No, really, try and use the situation to remove any weak spots by writing by your memory of what worked really well and was awesome. If you recover the organization on your back-up use the best of both. If not, hope that you actually removed a few flaws by reworking it.

Best of luck - hope computer problems leave you alone from now on.

And hey, look at the bright side: if you aren't in, you don't HAVE to rewrite it all.
But, again, best of luck.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, interesting points there. I do like what you did for the two critic points (although I doubt they will reveal who golden ticketed what), but the negatives does make you think, carefully, over what not to do.
They positive though, seem to me to be lacking in terms of saying what exactly is done right. I don't think all of the things say a whole lot about organization writing (particularly the good things), so let me try and see if I can't instead without going from the former years imagine what might be commented on as more directly good things about and organization: (some of these things may be nitpicky but I'm trying to think what might be neat to see done really well)

- Alignment really fits the organization - it's not just randomly attached to it (this would surely make my vote want to go somewhere else - I hate seeing something labelled as an alignment which just doesn't match it's background and goals).
- Headquarters is an existing place in Golarion, that really does fit the organization (should be a good way to show that you know the world you're writing in)
- Headquarters matches scope (is suitable for a local/regional/global organization)
- Leader name sounds credible and not at all copied from something - original
- Number of leaders makes sense with scope and the organizations ruling method
- Structure is inventive and credible
- Structure is something new and previously undescribed (although that may be a word count killer)
- Scope matches goals and resources, and seems appropriate enough that they'll be fair antagonists for PCs at a level where the scope seems significant (at level 1 stopping a global organization isn't believable, and so, global organizations shouldn't have low aiming goals - same goes for the reverse)
- Resources that are significant to their location (I notice that nearly all resources in the Inner Sea World Guide has castles/fortresses listed, which seems to be something to mind a lot if the organization has - probably should state how the funding is and possibly (though that doesn't seem to be a precedent in the book) where these resources come from (trade, taxation, such, general terms)
- Introduction summarizing the organization has 100 words. Therefor it needs to be very fact heavy I'd guess. You get another 100 words for Goals and for Structure and Leadership, so don't bable about those here.
- Introduction should perchance hold some short background/why for the goals
- Introduction should definitely say exact what the organization is and does
- Structure and Leadership should be matching the above stated Leader and Structure, and expand a little on this. It should probably gives details on what kind of ways the organization works (especially those workings potentially antagonistic to PCs)
- Goal is, to my way of thinking, probably the most important 100 words. An organization doesn't form just to oppose PCs. It wants something. This something is the reason they are opposed to the PCs. This something should be what the PCs wants to stop.
- Finally Public perception in 50 words should hold the reason they aren't destroyed by the public. Either they're considered bad - but very powerful and dangerous to oppose. Or everyone thinks they good. Or... Well, at least this is also how the PCs will likely start out seeing the organization, which may be even more important. Also, existing opponents of the organization are likely to be patrons or allies for PCs, so that might be interesting too.

That's just some quick thoughts though, running through what an organization should be in my eyes.

Thanks a lot for your view, they inspired a lot of thoughts to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, seeing the things James Jacobs mentions, a few things come to mind that I often find myself wanting/reminding myself to add in maps.

1) Usually things are built to make it easy to move between the most used areas. Don't put totally useless rooms between very useful rooms. It makes no sense.

2) Actually think about how many people are prone to being in this room. If it is likely to have combat, more so. Unless you want close quarters, make ample room for a few extra people, some space to move, etc.

3) If you have an encounter where the opponent prefers range to close quarters, make strategic considerations. Even if the person does not expect to be challenged in the given location, it can still be large, to allow for loads of movement. If he/she does expect confrontation in the room, let them set the scene to play to their advantage. Likewise with close-combat focused opponents, but less so as spacy areas does not prohibit them from following the PCs, and moving constantly demands as much from PCs as from you opponent.

4) Consider doors between rooms, even though they're both accessible from the same hall-way. It makes for some interesting options, and it's not really that uncommon.

5) Don't think square. Most things aren't square. Rectangular are more common. Not the most usual for (especially) large buildings though.

6) Consider that buildings are often added to later on, as the need for new areas arise. Few things are built as they will eventually be at the first point.

7) Oh, and remember the laws of nature. I have, several times, had to explain why this was possible to stubborn nature-science interested players. It detracts from the game, and it isn't funny. If it weird and obviously supernatural, I want reason. Also, don't have a meteor crash or other natural catastrophe cause "too little damage" by said laws of nature. (I spent 4+ hours arguing over one such map).

Too add further to James,

Staircases must have room for everything occupying upper level to move down, unless things were placed there in another way. That means a very broad staircase, if you have a huge size creature nearby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here you have the part up to after the heist at the Golden Goblin. If any of you prefer a document I can send one to anyone who wishes.

More will be ready soon, or I'll be falling behind in the campaign:

Changes to PFRPG:
01 Shadow In the Sky:
PFRPG changes:
Riddleport thief p 9, change hp to 10, change morale to “brought below 5 hit points”, trapfinding adds to + (half of rogue level round up) to Perception and Disable with traps. Change Dexterity to 17. Change Initiative to +7. Change Senses to Perception +4. Change AC to 15, touch to 13. Saves, change reflex to +5. Change GRP. To CMB: +1, add CMD: 14. Remove Open Lock, Hide, Spot, Listen, and Move Silently and add Perception +4, Stealth +9, Disguise +3 and Escape Artist +9. Change Disable +7, Bluff +3, Intimidate +3, Knowledge (local) to +5 and Sleight of Hand to +7.
Riddleport Thug p 9, Change Intelligence to 10/+0, Dexterity to 12/+1, Strength to 14/+2. Change GRP to CMB +3, add CMD 14. Add Profession (mercenary) +4. Change attack bonus w. short sword to +4, unarmed to +3.
Cheat the Devil, Take his Gold:
Change information info on the Blot to:

Diplomacy Info
DC 5 Same as Gather Information DC 10
DC 10 Same as Gather Information DC 14
DC 10 Same as Gather Information DC 18
Knowledge Arcana
No changes No changes
Knowledge Local
DC 15 Same as DC 14
Knowledge Nature
DC 20 Same as DC 21. +5 to check if observing the movements.
Perception
No changes Same as various Search DCs

Cheat the Devil and Take his Gold
Remove text: “EL 5” at p 16
No need for changes in round-by-round tactics.
Change Spot DC 10 to see “something suspicious” to Perception DC 10. Add extra information at not DC 20 Spot, but DC 20 Perception.

Angvar Thestlecrit: Change Int to 17 (can be kept if you don’t wish for him to run with too high stats. By the point system he counts as having used 15 points if you don’t change, slightly more if you do, notes to changes here presumes Int 17, to reflect the PFRPG human stat bonus).
Change Senses to Perception +2.
Change HP to 13 (or somewhere on a 10-15 scale, assuming that his has favored class wizard and his first bonus point is used on HP).
Remove GRP and add CMB +1 and CMD 13.
Make 0 level spells at will (because of the cantrips class ability, he still has the same 4 known)
Skills (Total ranks used 12 (assuming that one favored class bonus is used one skills)): Remove Concentration and Gather Information. Add Diplomacy +1 (2 ranks, -1 Cha) and Knowledge (arcana)+8 (2 ranks, +3 Int, +3 Class) and Perception +2 (1 rank, +1 Wis). Change Appraise to +7 (1 rank, +3 Int, +3 Class), Bluff to + 1 (2 ranks, -1 Cha) and Spellcraft to +8 (2 ranks, +3 Int, +3 Class). Don’t change Knowledge (local), still +8 (2 rank, +3 Int, +3 Class).
Languages: Add Draconic.
Familiar (can be changed to bonded item, though I went with keeping the snake)

Thuvalia Barabbio: To keep her stats at the same point value as Angvar there’s no real need for changes (Cha to 17 or Dex to 15 would be my suggestion). No changes are reflected in the stats given here.
Change Senses to Perception -1.
Change HP to 9 (assuming that her favored class is bard and the bonus is NOT used on hit points)
Special Attacks: Add distraction (PFRPG Core book 35-38 for Bards and Bardic Performance)
Spells: Make 0th level spells at will for casting. Spells known (0th) remains the same. Add 1 1st level spell pr. Day. Spells known (1st): I would suggest Cure Light Wounds and Charm Person as Spells known, and make Cure Light Wounds her prepared for the heist, since they are going into combat.
Goons and Guards: Use the change stats for Riddleport thieves and thugs.

Old Scratch: I suggest using the Bestiary (if not out yet the graciously granted Preview 2, p 12, (thanks a lot Paizo, the Previews on the Bestiary helped me a lot). If you don’t feel like I’ll give a copy from Pathfinder Imps (as in Bestiary Preview II):
LE Tiny outsider (devil, evil, extraplanar, lawful)
Init +3; Senses darkvision 60 ft., detect good, detect magic, see
in darkness; Perception +7
Defense
AC 17, touch 16, flat-footed 13 (+3 Dex, +1 dodge, +1 natural,
+2 size)
hp 16 (3d10); fast healing 2
Fort +1, Ref +6, Will +4
DR 5/good or silver; Immune fire, poison; Resist acid 10, cold 10
Offense
Speed 20 ft., fly 50 ft. (perfect)
Melee sting +8 (1d4 plus poison)
Space 2-1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 6th)
Constant—detect good, detect magic
At will—invisibility (self only)
1/day—augury, suggestion (DC 15)
1/week—commune (6 questions, CL 12th)
Statistics
Str 10, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 13, Wis 12, Cha 14
Base Atk +3; CMB +1; CMD 15
Feats Dodge, Weapon Finesse
Skills Acrobatics +9, Bluff +8, Fly +21, Knowledge
(arcana) +7, Knowledge (planes) +7,
Perception +7, Spellcraft +7
Languages Common, Infernal
SQ change shape (boar, giant spider, rat, or
raven, beast shape I)
Ecolog y
Environment any (Hell)
Organization solitary, pair, or flock (3–10)
Treasure standard
Special Abilities
Poison (Ex) Sting—injury; save Fort DC 13; frequency 1/
round for 6 rounds; effect 1d2 Dex; cure 1 save. The
save DC is Constitution-based, and includes a +2
racial bonus.


©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.