Mosaic's page

3) Offer a slight discount on items found on your Chronicle sheet. You could always list this amount on the sheet. For example: A discount of 100 X Tier.

Honestly, I just ignore the "items found" section of the chronicle sheet or just scan it and move on. I'd like to be to be excited about what I found in a mod, but, under the current system I'm just not.

I totally agree. Lately, the only thing I've bought of the Chronicle was a wand with 5 chargers. For everything else I could pretty much just buy it anyway because of my PA. I'd love to see a discount on Chronicle items. After all, we found it during the adventure, why do we have to sell it for 50%, then buy it again for 100%. A nice steep discount would really encourage me to buy the "found" items.

Unique magic items, like one per mod would be fun too.

b
u
m
p

Mosaic wrote:

Yeah, ithink it is an unfortunate ruling, but Jason has spoken quite clearly on this, so no point in debating.

>facepalm<

Yeah, sorry about that. It was too late to edit my post.

I suggested P20 for a long time to Paizo for a name for their whole system. In the long run, I think "Pathfinder" is a little overly specific, referring to an organization on a specific world, for the entire game system. But maybe, at this point, they keep Pathfinder, and "P20" could become the generic OGL-like term for Pathfinder-compatible products that aren't official Paizo products.

pmub

This is more what I was thinking of.

I'd be happy(er) with a sticky, never archived thread for errata submissions for core products. Maybe in an Errata forum. Each product would have an officially created thread (typical forumites wouldn't be able to create additional threads there). Core products (however Paizo chose to define that) would have sticky threads at the top. The errata thread might even be linked to the product in the store (or maybe not).

That way we'd have a central place to put errata submissions, and Paizo could scoop up most of the errata from one place.

Sure, errata would still get posted elsewhere, but having a no-doubt-about-it this-is-where-errata-goes place on the site should help matters.

Either an Errata Forum, as suggested above, or maybe a read-only page linked to the PRD pages. I'm imagining that somebody would get assigned to update the errata page like once a week with any errors that have been found that week. There are several right now, but the number of newly-discovered errors ought to decline fairly rapidly, so it wouldn't be that big of a job. Basically, some customer finds a spelling error or a mis-referenced table, reports it to Paizo (probably via a forum), an intern compiles a list and shows it to somebody more senior who greenlights the correction, and Thursday morning the intern posts the correction to the errata page and corrects the PRD. Instead of waiting for published errata, there is a continually evolving/correcting set of rules. Maybe this gets packaged as a pdf every six months or so for easy download, but it resides mostly on the Paizo website.

That's for fixing mistakes and typos and what not. But a FAQ page could work almost the same way - although it would probably require Jason or someone to sufficiently high up to offer official rules clarifications, so probably not as often, but an intern could still be assigned to do the posting. Again, probably a dedicated forum for unclear rules discussion, customers start threads asking for rules clarification, and at some point Jason enters, makes a decision, and the the thread ends. Every once in a while, the most important of these answers get compiled into a read-only FAQ page linked to the PRD. In both cases, I think linking to the PRD is important; it's just too much of a hassle to search forum after forum looking for the rules clarification that you need. Linking it to the PRD makes that your go-to spot for rules and answers, plus it means that the PRD always has the absolute most up-to-date version of the rules.

Also, by continually updating and errata/FAQ page + the PRD, the impact of each new printing is smoothed. Instead of each new printing introducing dozens of little changes that folks have to look for, it's more of just compilation thing - here are all of the fixes we've identified collectively over the last few months, in print.

Finally, using the Paizo website to show the errata rather than publishing pdfs that more-or-less coincide with re-printings offers some hope of seeing errata for all the books that will probably never get reprinted. I was told in another thread that many Paizo products will never see official errata docs because they probably won't ever get reprinted. But if it were just a question of somebody compiling a list of the customer-found errors and posting them a single read-only webpage, that's not so bad.

I know that James has commented several times that even without errata and FAQs, the game is playable, and I agree, it is absolutely playable. More than that, it's a great game. It seems to have taken many people by surprise, too. At first the idea was to basically print a new 3.5+ rule book because the old ones would no longer be available. But Pathfinder has taken off like crazy. I don't play D&D anymore, I play Pathfinder. I've sold or given away most of my 3.5 rules books. And plenty of other people of have done the same. Pathfinder isn't a patch or a stand-in, it's the new standard. That's why "good enough" isn't good enough. Even if the core rules book isn't the number 1 money maker for Paizo, it is going to be the book that many new players will come to know the company by. I don't ever want to hear anyone say, "Pathfinder... it has great adventures and the rules are ... playable."

The nice thing about using Revisited is that it's something we can use again if we update any of other d20 era products. We could do Book of Fiends Revisited and Advanced Bestiary Revisited, for example, and that would have a consistent meaning without us creating a new brand and logo. I had forgotten that Paizo did a couple of books with the word in the title, but that's not a big concern. Revisit is common enough.

This makes a lot of sense. "Revisited" is a Paizo-associated word without getting too close. Plus, as others have mentioned, this will basically be the book for anyone looking for OGL, not just Pathfinder, so it's also slightly generic. Finally, you can easily apply it to other books you update. WINNER.

While all the play-on-words names and coded references to Pathfinders are cool and all, their a little too precious for a serious product, IMHO.

We update the errata when we reprint the book. That's partially to limit the amount of errata clutter (grouping it into larger collections rather than lots of little ones), but mostly because we're very, very busy trying to get the rest of our product line back on schedule. Putting out the core rules really threw everything off schedule (doing an extra 850 some pages will do that, especially with a smaller staff). Since then, we've hired a few more folks and are working to get everything else back on schedule...

So... the slow errata releases are not a deliberate attempt by us to ruin your games or cripple the Pathfinder Society. It's just an unfortunate reality of the way the business works.

First, James, thanks for the response and explanation.

Second, hopefully your joking, because I neither I nor anyone else is accusing you all of "deliberately" try to make people unhappy. Heck, most of us put you guys on a pedestal (which is probably why there is strong emotion in these discussions - it's always a bummer to discover your heroes are merely human :). More than anything else, I think I've been frustrated by the priorities - constantly putting out new books when the first one isn't quite finished. Your explanation about making money off the new books and none off publishing errata helps me understand where you all are coming from. Again, thanks. I don't exactly see how publishing the core rules can be considered an interruption of you schedule when it's basically the cornerstone of the company now, but, hey, that's where we're at and I totally understand how much it sucks to be behind schedule.

So anyway, for a third time, thanks for listening to concerns and for taking the time to respond.

Kvantum wrote:

You can't work out terms to get a one-time license? Now if the legalities of the whole thing make it virtually impossible I understand, but I would hope that something could be worked out.

Otherwise I think the better option would be A.

I agree with this, try to work something out with paizo, some kind of agreement to allow the use of Pathfinder being a great option.

Another option, with a similar vein, would be to release it as some sort of "What If" sourcebook in the Pathfinder Chronicles line, putting Freeport somewhere in The Shackles. This would be awesome.

I agree too. I'm sure you know this already, but folks are going to search for "Pathfinder" and you want your product to pop up when they do. If you can't say "Pathfinder," how are you supposed to identify your product as compatible? Is the restriction only in the title? What if you called it the "Freeport Companion" and as a sub-title or maybe just as a reference line on the cover, said it was the Pathfinder-compatible edition. "Wayfinder" says "a Pathfinder fanzine" so there must be some way to get permission to say Pathfinder.

EDIT: Having looked at the cover of several other Pathfinder-compatible products, most seem to go with your choice A.

Why does the errata have to be a pdf file that only gets updated every 6 months or so? Why can't it be a living webpage on the Paizo site where little things get noted and fixed as soon as they are noticed? If everyone know that Invisibility should say +40 instead of -40 (just an example), why can't someone from Paizo just add a line that says so officially to a list that everyone can see? I think holding official recognition and clarification of errors hostage until each new printing of the book follows an old publishing paradigm and fails to take advantage of the flexibility and fluidity of the internet. So sometime around the 3rd printing we'll get a new errata. And if something doesn't get cleared up or an error is missed, do we have to wait for the 4th printing to get an official answer?

I love Paizo's products and nobody can beat their customer service, but I'm getting frustrated but the lack of answers to some basic questions about their new rule system. Especially when there is a companion Society than requires official rulings, these things matter. Despite all the wonderful new products, there is still an air of unfinished business about the core rules.

Yeah, ithink it is an unfortunate ruling, but Jason has spoken quite clearly on this, so no point in debating.

See, this needs to go in an official clarification somewhere, as this question comes up every two weeks or so.

My character is level 8 and has like 25 PA. Is there any reason NOT to start spending some of that on 750gp items so I can save of my real gp for more expensive items? Opinions, please. Thanks.

Can you use your full dexterity for touch AC When you have a higher Dex than the Max Dex bonus allowed for the armor your wearing?

Great question. I'm about to take a level of dualist and run into this same situation. I suppose I'm okay with the regular max AC, but it'd be nice to be able to use my extra +1 AC somewhere.

What about, since cracked and flawed ioun stones only resonate 25% of the time, you can buy one that resonates if you spend 4 times the listed price?

Interesting idea. Here's a potential problem though. At 25% chance to get one that resonates, I could, theoretically, buy 4 and 1 of them should resonate. It costs me 4x the price of 1, but I end up with 4 stones, too. Now, I can't remember - do the bonuses from ioun stones stack? If they do, for 4x the price I get 4x the bonus plus a resonant stone. (And if not, my point is moot :)

If I pay 4x the price to get a stone that resonates but only get 1x the bonus, I'm not getting the same value for my money.

I thought you were only supposed to bump a thread once every 24 hours, or is that some other forums rule that I'm attributing to here accidentally.

Maybe we can get official clarification on that point. Anyone from Paizo care to comment?

With WOtC pulling the plug on the Star Wars RPG, does that open up a large market for someone who can continue to support those players with new material?

I have never played the Star Wars RPG, but I wonder if a Pathfinder Modern could at least be "stat-block compatible"? Not the same rules-wise, but close enough that one could take a PModern product and use it with the stat blocks as-is? (Obviously hypothetical question since PModern doesn't even exist yet)

I don't even know if it would be possible, or if such a thing would be possible, but it seems like an opportune moment to at least consider the possibility.

Also, would non-cannon Star Wars material be of any interest to Star Wars players?

Matthew Shelton wrote:

My only request would be to forgo the ability-based classes in favor of generic classes representing timeless archetypes that would fit into any time period or genre.

It does seem that the ability based classes are a selling point for some and a sticking point for others. Including both may be a way to insure that the most possible support is available for the product.

I'd like to see regular classes, a la Pathfinder, in a modern product to allow easier mixing. I always thought the ability-based stuff made more sense as a race-template than as a class, especially in a campaign where everyone is human. So you'd have a "quick human," a "strong human," a "smart human," etc. You'd get an ability bonus and maybe a few flavor abilities, maybe even some abilities that progressed as you leveled up. I know it'd be pretty cliche to be a "quick human rogue," or a "strong human fighter," but is that any different from someone playing a halfling rogue or a half-orc fighter? ANyway, just a thought.

As a ranger with favored enemy (human), do I also get my bonus vs. half-humans? The PRD says half-elves and half-orcs are treated as both humans and their other halves. Poetically, I probably ought to get half my bonus, but the text suggests I get the whole thing.

What about formerly human vampires and other undead? Tieflings with one human parent?

Would this also be true of favored enemy (dragon) and half-dragons?

I'll take both books that focus on particular animals and ecosystem books. I'd love more mundane animal stats. Then do a couple of next-step slightly magical extensions to the regular animals. Some magical flora would be cool too.

Evan W, Don D, and Dracomancer-

I've got you cards in envelopes and will send them out today. Thanks again.

Mosaic

We currently only compile official errata documents for books that we intend to reprint—right now, that's just the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary.

Wow, really? That seems like surprisingly bad product support from a company that is otherwise fantastic. Seriously, only the stuff you plan to reprint? And for anything else we're left to search the boards for community-posted errata, or what some members of the community think are errata...

I've posted elsewhere my opinion that I think it's taking a bit too long to get out an updated official errata for the core rules book, resulting in needless confusion and bickering on the boards over how to interpret this rule or that rule, but if it turns out that Paizo with NEVER offer errata for the majority of it's products, I will be very disappointed.

Maybe allow a Reflex save or something for half vs. full damage... and full damage ought to be a lot, even for a regular non-magical cannonball. But no, I'd don't thing it ought to be an auto-kill. It's not realistic at all, but auto-kill just aren't much fun. And this is a game of heroic fantasy where things like lava don't instantly kill you either. At some point, HPs are an abstraction representing your ability to avoid damage, not just actual physical damage, so taking a hit from a cannonball that doesn't kill you represents you being grazed or something, or your magic armor deflecting some of the force, etc. Like Dark_Mistress said.

Seems to me when climbing or swimming as well. I did a search of the core rules pdf once, using "denied dexterity" and "loses dexterity" found a bunch I'd never noticed before. I love pdf's.

Depends on the character and the style of the campaign, but if you've got Skill Focus in Bluff anyway (raising the base success from 65% to more like 80& or 95%, depending on if you get the +3 or +6 to checks) -- and aren't starved for feats for whatever concept you're shooting for -- Improved Feint can be a handy addition.

I've got that, plus as a ranger, my favored enemies are human, so that gives me +2 to Bluff, Attack and Damage.

As MIB points out, for standard dungeon crawls, this will be a waste of a feat or two and will eventually get you killed. In a nonstandard campaign -- one in which you're bluffing a lot more often than you're fighting, and/or you don't have a lot of guys standing around setting up flanks for you -- the extra perk of being able to sneak attack on demand a decent fraction of the time might be worth the feat expenditure.

He's a Pathfinder Society character, so not entirely dungeon crawls, but a lot of combat. He's basically my attempt at a swashbuckler build. Being human and my choices of rogue talents have meant I have a fair number of feats, though never enough. Definitely shines in certain situations and not as good in others - I tend to stand back and shoot crossbows at weird monsters.

BTW- I caught the subtle correction you made to the quote; I went back and fixed the original ;)

Thanks.

No, it isn't. To start, feint/attack has all of the disadvantages of full attacking and all of the disadvantages of making single attacks.

Next, let's do the math. Assuming you've maxed Bluff, your bluff mod is level + 3 + cha mod. Enemies will typically have BAB roughly equal to CR, so you're facing CR + wis mod. That's a 65% chance to succeed to start, except that some enemies will have Sense Motive, some enemies will have higher wisdom than your cha, and some enemies (especially dangerous ones) will have higher BAB than your level.

So feinting doesn't autofail against Sense-Motive-trained enemies like it did in 3.5, but it still fails enough of the time that you're left standing there floating in the breeze doing about 10 damage if you hit.

Not even useful if it let's you get off one of those sneak attack add-ons like Bleeding Attack or Slow Reactions or Dispelling Attack? (note that I'm genuinely asking)

I've got an 8th-level Ranger/Rogue built around TWF and Feinting. If I start the round able to sneak attack, I usually TWF, but if I don't have surprise or flanking, I'll feint and then take a single attack. As Kirth mentioned, I've maxed Bluff, have a good Cha and crazy high Dex, and it seems to work most of the time. I don't crunch numbers to see if it's the best possible thing I can do, but it's effective enough. And just as a matter of personal taste, I can see an occasional two-handed swing, but two-handed weapons just don't fit my concept of a rogue most of the time. But to each his/her own.

Leather Helmet, (Cap, or Hood) +1 AC, 1% Chance to Negate Critical
Metal Helmet, (Cap, or Hood) +1 AC, 2% Chance to Negate Critical, -1 ACP

Full Leather Helmet +2 AC, 2% Chance to Negate Critical
Full Metal Helmet +2 AC, 4% Chance to Negate Critical, -1 ACP

Regular Helmets give a -2 penalty to visual perception checks in your flans, and rear.

Full Helmets give a -5 penalty to visual perception checks in your flanks, and rear.

My main concern with your stats is they introduce several new ... not exactly rules, but ... ways of doing things.

1) 1%, 2%, 4% chance to avoid crits - I'm pretty happy with using the d20 for just about everything so adding a % isn't a + for me. Similarly, as a player I tend to avoid all those feats that add or subtract from the confirm-a-crit rolls - having two different ACs or two different Attack mods is too much for me to remember in the middle of a crit threat - so adding a second benefit to helm that fiddles with crit AC doesn't appeal to me.

2) There is no facing in official 3.5 or Pathfinder, so assigning penalties to Perception on the sides and rear adds complication. Now, if you're already house-ruling in facing, that's different, but none of the games I play in do.

Basically, it's all a matter of preference. When I house-rule (or dream about house-ruling) I try not to add new systems unless that's specifically what I'm going for. My personal preference for helmets would be to just add AC bumps and Perception penalties, no new dice rolls, no new worries about front and back.

Also, you assign the same AC bump to leather and metal helms. For me, materials are more important than that. I see metal helms as granting more AC than leather. The same with wooden vs. metal shields, as I mentioned in my original post.

Bottomline - IMO you've come up with a fair model to represent the benefits and drawbacks of wearing a helmet. It seems a bit overly complicated to me, but it may well fit your group's gaming style. ANd who can really complain about over-complicating things when we're all talking about add more complication to the existing rules :)

For what it's worth,
That guy

I keep track of my Item Cards on an Excel sheet, and one of the columns I have is "category" - like weapon, armor, potion, wondrous item, etc. So, just for fun, I sorted all the cards through Kingmaker by category, rather than by set, and here's what I got...

Armor

Shields

Weapons

Potions x66
Scrolls x49
Rings x33
Rods x20
Staves x25
Wands x50

Wondrous Items

Mundane Items

If nothing else, this might be useful for brainstorming Wondrous and Mundane Items that are missing, or deciding which weapons and armor are under-represented. Potions, scrolls, rings, rods, staves and wands seem pretty much fixed at 2 per pack these days. It might also be nice to try to bring some consistency to the naming of cards in the future - shields and crossbows are particularly all over the place, and there are several mundane items that say right in their name that they are magic (unless they are just clever hoaxes!), and a few wondrous items seem pretty mundane. Still, these are one of my favorite GameMastry products and I hope to see them continue to be new and interesting into the well future.

...until Paizo does an official one, which they have repeatedly stated will not be anytime soon...

I guess that's exactly my concern. Since the publication of the Core book, we've seen another big hardcover, several splats, and two more hard covers on the horizon. But we don't have anything more than a bare-bones, first-draft errata for the core rules of the game. New stuff is great, but I'd really like to see the foundation of the game cleaned up and clarified a bit before we go too far into "advanced" territory.

RoW Want

01, 10, 14, 18, 51, 94

HH Want
02, 04, 05, 06, 08, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 104, 109, 110

For RW, I only seem to have the Wooden Shield #10. I didn't compare to your HH list, but feel free to see what I've got that you need and send me a list and your address.

I'm always looking for these cards from Hero's Hoard:

04 - Half Plate
14 - Tower Shield
23 - Flail
28 - Longsword
100 - Cloak

Kyle-

I never heard back from you, but I've still got all 5 cards for you if you're looking for them.

Relics of War

#76 Staff
#93 Boots

Hi there-

I've at least got both in foil if you want them. I also have 76 Staff in regular but have offered it to Rod D first (as he posted first). If I haven't heard from him in a week or so, though, I can send it your way. My Need/Want list is posted above. If you've got anything, cool, if not, that's fine. Email me your address and I'll send the cards.

I know I will not have complete sets but I am will to trade/sell.

Any idea which ones you need yet? I do have an Excel sheet that I can erase and send you if you want. Just post a list when you can and we'll see what we can do.

Hero's Hoard:

7 - Platemail, 11 - Buckler, 13 - Steel Shield, 15 - Wooden Shield, 19 - Bolts, 21 - Dagger, 50 - Potion, 75 - Staff, 87 - Wand, 107 - Headband

Relics:
1 - Breastplate, 13 - Steel Shield, 18 - Dagger, 76 - Staff, 93 - Boots

Hi Ron-

I've got:

Hero's Hoard:
7 - Platemail
11 - Buckler
13 - Steel Shield
15 - Wooden Shield (foil)
19 - Bolts
21 - Dagger
75 - Staff
87 - Wand
107 - Headband

Relics of War:
13 - Steel Shield
76 - Staff
93 – Boots (foil)

Check out my Need/Wants if you get a chance and send me your address - I'll send you whatever I can.

Relics of War: #18 Dagger, #42 Potion, #91 Book
Hero's Hoard: #2 Breast Plate, #22 Dagger, #107 Head Band

Okay, I've got HH2, HH22, HH107 and RW91 for you in regular cards and RW18 and RW42 in foils if you still want them. Just e-mail me your address and I'll send them. As far as trading, I've updated my Want list a little, but don't worry if you don't have what I'm looking for.

EDIT- I just compared to your HH list and it looks like you may have some I'm looking for...

HH30 Longsword, HH31 Mace, HH46 Potion, HH47 Potion, HH53 Potion, HH55 Potion

I'd be happy to take any/all of those off your hands.

So I'm like two weeks late, but here's my current need/Want/Have lists. I'll post all that first, then see if I can match to what folks are looking for.

NEED
RW46 Potion (foil)
RW71 Scroll (foil)
RW89 Bag (foil)
RW97 Cube (foil)

WANT

HAVE FOR TRADE

I'd be willing to trade just about anything I have listed for those last 4 RW foils I'm looking for. Otherwise, I'm looking for those Wants to round out some multiples and happy to trade a few for each. Heck, I've got so many extras that I'd be okay with just sending people up to about 6 cards without even trading. Just post what you're looking for.

peacecorpsbrian (at] hotmail [dot) com

I love the idea of helmets as a separate piece of armor, just like shields.

I've wanted to try a house rule but haven't run my own campaign in a while. If I were going to do it, here's what I've thought about:

leather hood: +1 AC
chain hood or metal cap: +2 AC, -1 Perception
chain hood & metal cap, or open-faced helm: +3 AC, -2 Perception
full helm with visor: +4 AC, -4 Perception

[I also wanted to bump light steel shields to +2 AC, -2 armor check, and heavy steel shields to +3 AC, -4 armor check]

I wouldn't reduce existing armors' AC, just add another layer. This maintains the viability of existing stat blocks; just assume that no oneas currently written has a helmet on.

I also recognize potential adds +9 to ACs, but I've always run fairly low-magic games, in which case a little boost to AC is more welcome than a problem, especially to help make non-magic tanks harder to damage.

I pre-ordered the original Core Rules books so I've got a 1st printing book and the free pdf. Cool. Now, there were a couple of typos, nothing major, but I understand that in the 2nd printing of the book, some/all of these minor errors will be corrected.

#1 - Is this true?

#2 - If I re-personalize my pdf, will it always be a pdf of the 1st printing, or will it automatically update to a pdf of the corrected 2nd printing?

As time goes by, it's getting harder and harder to find all the different rules clarifications and errata scattered among the various of forums and threads. I'm also seeing the same questions pop up again and again; some get answered quickly and some just seem to hang in the air for weeks. Several heated discussions have resulted from well-meaning folks arguing a rule that none of them can clarify definitively. I know the folks at Paizo are incredibly busy with things like the APG and RPG Superstar, and I'm grateful for all their hard work and wonderful projects, but I'd like to suggest that maybe when the current wave of projects passes, it's about time for Paizo staff to sit down and update (and post) the official errata and clarifications for pretty much all the major books - the Pathfinder Rulebook, the Bestiary, the Campaign setting, and probably even little ones for the splatbooks.

It would be nice to see them all available for download or review in one place (like WotC used to do), and maybe a new forum dedicated to official clarifications of the rules (like the old Sage Advice). It's great to keep coming up with new and interesting products, but I find it a little disheartening to read developers say that they are so busy with writing the new stuff that they don't have time to support the old stuff.

I'm a huge Paizo fan and have been a supporter since before they decided to create the Pathfinder system. I just don't ever want to see the pressure to keep publishing new stuff mean that quantity out weighs quality, or that little loose ends never get tied up, resulting in player and GM frustration and the erosion of what is still the best fan-base out there.

Thanks,
Mosaic

---------

Kind of a side note on errata. As I understand it, Paizo is planning on fixing typos and other errors from one printing of a book to the next. I personally think this is great, and while I won't rush right out to buy a new copy, I'll probably buy another one sooner rather than later. This does, however, present a problem for publishing errata. An error in an older printing may not be present in a newer one, but if I've got a 1st printing, I still need to know what error are there. In order to meet the needs of everyone, regardless or which printing they have, may I suggest that one errata document be created for each book, and that next to each "fix" there be a code or footnote that basically says "corrected in the 3rd printing" or something. That way one errata document can be useful to everyone, and no one goes looking for a error that isn't in their book because they have a newer, post-correction edition. Just a thought.

How about cannon balls that turn into or release swarms on impact, or that are actually small constructs that unfold and attack.

K(local)/Streetwise is more about knowing who to ask, while Diplomacy/Gather Information is how nicely you ask. They can certainly be rolled together if you're in a hurry or don't feel like role playing out questioning, but if one wants to make a distinction, that's how I see it.

I would love this, and the spell card deck suggested above.

Also, does anyone know what the name of the ocean between Tian Xia and Casmaron is?

Random thoughts...

1) Name the ocean yourself, and maybe it will stick. That's pretty much how real explorers did it.

2) In southern Garund, I'd really like to see some functioning, flourishing African-style empires, like what-if-Rome-had-been-in-Africa. The Nyambe setting and Kingdoms of Kalamar's Svimohzia: the Ancient Isle, are good examples of this.

3) If there is a non-Earth-analogous continent in the southern hemisphere, I'd love to see a hobgoblin empire continent that could potentially pose a threat to human lands someday.

BTW- vagrant-poet, incredible work.

In my game I plan on the PCs around level 2 or 3 to aid a high ranking Pathfinder in the field, and in return he will give them a strong recommendation to the Pathfinder Society, and take them to Absolom. I won't really make many game sessions or encounters focussed on this time, since it will be unlikely the entire group will be together in force before the final test. I will most likely narrate what passes to each player, and maybe even have a few small individual encounters that won't bore the rest of the party.

I intend on the 3-year schooling for the PCs be meant to make them much more talented and skillful adventurers, so I will be giving all of them, upon completion, a bonus feat that boosts skills, like Athletic, Deceptive, etc, etc. And then upon the completion of their exit test to go from Initiate to full fledged Pathfinders, they might even get another level.

This makes more sense to me, where going through the Pathfinder training program actually explains how players advance in levels and gain now skills. Pathfinder as prestige class. So far I've been thinking of starting level 1 as a Pathfinder, where the whole training program would have happened prior to level 1, Pathfinder as background. That didn't really make sense, too much training to come out with measly level 1 skills. But if you look at all the low level stuff (including Pathfinder Society mods) as part of the interview process rather than you're an actual member already, then it makes more sense. At some point later, you actually curry enough favor with a venture captain that he/she sends you to Absalom for initiation and training. That might actually make a fun adventure - Training in Absalom.

On wizard academies, I've actually had the same issue. Who the heck graduates from a wizarding academy able to cast one or two 1st-level spells a day? I've always assumed most wizards were a) self trained, b) drop-outs who then self train, or c) enrolled in school and adventuring during vacations. I know Harry Potter isn't the definitive D&D wizard, but jeez, 7 years of school and he could do some pretty high level stuff by the time he graduated (er, or didn't graduate). Attending wizarding academies seems to be the fluff between adventures that everyone mostly forgets about.

But I do like the idea of Pathfinder training happening at higher level much better than looking at it a part of a character's background. Thanks DeathCon.

How's this one going to work? Given the size of a Flip Mat, will it be beach on one side and jungle on the other?

Bump

You should seriously give this book a chance. The boot camp idea was the only thing that irked me with the book, the rest is pure gold.

Ditto. The training part is really a small part of the book. Otherwise it has some interesting feats and Pathfinder-related prestige classes, new equipment, a very thorough write-up on ioun stones, and insight into many parts of Golarion via the lodges-of-the-world section. Maybe not a 5 in my book, but at least a 4.

Maybe this is where I'm inappropriately mixing my Pathfinder Society experiences with my concept of the core rules campaign setting. I've played about 30 PFS mods now, with tables ranging from 4-8, say 6 average, a lot of the same co-players but not always, meaning I've probably adventured with 60 different fellow Pathfinders. And as far as I know, none of them have gone through Pathfinder training in Absalom. They've all got great backstories and different explanations of how they came to be Pathfinders, but everyone I've delved with seems to be a field promotion. In my experience, it's just more common.

Figure pics look like D&D minis glued onto hex bases. The old Heroscape figures were a tad bigger than D&D minis. Are these figures regular mini size now?

First off, it ain't gonna change, at least not in any game that is in any way compatible with 3.5 D&D or anything that has come before. For good or bad, the 6 ability stats are what they are. Learn to love it, or at least to live with it.

That said, in my mind, Wisdom ought to be renamed Intuition. To me, that captures the non-book smarts aspect and also reflects how animals can me much smarter than people in their niches. Common sense. I'd go further and make Wisdom the save that goes with Intuition. Wisdom is actual good judgment and some classes would logically get better at judgment as time goes on. The Wisdom save would be used to see through illusions and what not. Perception would remain a skill tied to Intuition (formerly known as Wisdom). And what about Will saves, which used to be tied to Wis? Move them to Charisma, which says right in its description "character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead" - a much better match for will power than either Wisdom or Intuition.

I tried to come up with a system once with a save for every ability. For Intelligence it was Memory and for Strength it was Hold (as in to hold on to something or to hold your position when pushed). Saves seem to me to be reflexive reactions to surprise events, while ability scores and ability checks are more for intentional applications of ability.