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

Odraude's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 6,684 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,684 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Good to see someone else that likes this game. I run it sporadically with the VGCW forums, filled with a lot of wrasslin' nerds like me. It's an awesome game. I know they are coming out with Season 2, which has more international wrestling playbooks, like the Luchadore, the Catch Wrestler, and the Purorasu,


What exactly is a hedonist in game?


Adam Daigle wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Adam Daigle wrote:
Unshocking data point: People with dragon avatars are really into dragons.
What does my avatar say about me?
Oh, I think you know.

You tease :P

So it mentions bloodlines of dragons up there. Could we expect a race of dragon people?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Minis Maniac wrote:
See were I running a game in Andoren I would probably gritty that up too. I'd put major threats to this burgeoning democracy. Constant subversive threats from within by Cheliax. Maybe some super corrupt noble families trying to bring it down from within. That sort of stuff.

Since Andoran is fantasy America, I'd play up the dangers of Manifest Destiny and native races getting moved to make room for more Andorans. And lynchmobs going after anyone that is suspected of being of noble blood.


Adam Daigle wrote:
Unshocking data point: People with dragon avatars are really into dragons.

What does my avatar say about me?


The Minis Maniac wrote:
Odraude wrote:

I think when doing shades of gray, people tend to go quickly towards ultra violence and sexual violence to make the world seem gritty. I prefer more atmospheric and less on the nose showings of gritty fantasy settings that many people don't normally go for. Paranoia and mistrust, hopelessness, hypocrisy, sociopathy, famine, apathy, class war, bigotry... I feel these and more really add to that atmosphere one is looking to for a darker world without going straight to the jugular. Just remember that even in these dark times, there should still be some good people the PCs can trust.

I personally like to focus on a group's lack of empathy combined with hypocrisy to make compelling villains and that feeling of despair.

I get the whole GM treating darker or grey settings as a club against certain players. I think that is a bad GM thing. Moral ambiguity along with flaws and mistakes of society and people make things interesting for the players. But I have heard stories of the creepy GM victimizing a female player through bad GMing, and we all know thats awful. But if there is some misogyny done right where the player can slap it in the face and say I'm so much stronger. Then I think it CAN make an interesting plot. But we just need GMs to stop being creepy.

While true, I meant it more about using subtlety to make an atmosphere of despair, instead of going straight for the jugular with torture and rape to make a point that "this ain't your dad's D&D game!!" I've always been more of a fan of the Hitchcock method of setting up an atmosphere, where the bigger, more violent aspects are implied and used sparingly, but still used. Apathy and nihilism rule my setting, with a few people trying to do good in a world where ignorance and selfishness begets cruelty.

I've been playing a lot of Witcher 3 and that really summarizes what I'm looking for in a girtty setting. Gray with some points of light and blobs of shadow.


They them and their. I prefer those to the newer pronouns which really just don't roll off the tongue for me.


I think when doing shades of gray, people tend to go quickly towards ultra violence and sexual violence to make the world seem gritty. I prefer more atmospheric and less on the nose showings of gritty fantasy settings that many people don't normally go for. Paranoia and mistrust, hopelessness, hypocrisy, sociopathy, famine, apathy, class war, bigotry... I feel these and more really add to that atmosphere one is looking to for a darker world without going straight to the jugular. Just remember that even in these dark times, there should still be some good people the PCs can trust.

I personally like to focus on a group's lack of empathy combined with hypocrisy to make compelling villains and that feeling of despair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some days I dont mind racists in my RPG. I like my fantasy gritty and gray.

Other days I don't want to deal with it. I get enough of that in my real life, I don't need it in my hobby. Depends on my mood.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kullen wrote:
Neal Litherland wrote:
The point I'm making, Kullen, is that more often than not we get so caught up in how unique and cool OUR idea is that we fail to look at the actual consequences to the group or game we're playing in.
I simply found the article you linked a trifle condescending. Some of us have been playing for close to 4 decades -- presumably we've learned by now that D&D/PF, in any incarnation, is a team game?

You'd be surprised honestly. Some of the consistently bad players I've come across have unfortunately been Old School Grognards.

The Racist actually brings up a broader issue I see in RPGs. It's when players pick a character flaw that seems like it'd be interesting, but becomes extreme and nigh cartoonish, to the point of parody. Like a character that's greedy is more like Scrooge McDuck than a more human feeling greedy person.


Man, I really do want to go to PaizoCon. Perhaps I can convince my gf to move to Seattle, though she's hell bent on moving to Asheville.


James Jacobs wrote:
Odraude wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Odraude wrote:
As someone really interested in fleshing out Arcadia and hosting the Arcadia thread on the forums here, I do look forward to seeing it one day. What are some elements of Native American culture you are looking to do in a respectful manner? I know one thing that has me a bit stumped is the Aztecs and religious sacrifice. That's tough to do.
I want it all to be done in a respectful manner, not just some elements.
What I mean is, what are some examples of such elements? I'm curious to know.
I'm not prepared to go into it. I don't know enough about the real world traditions to speak to the topic without risking making an accidentally ignorant comment born from misunderstanding of the culture. When and if we do something like this, I'll need to not only really study up on things and do lots of research but even more importantly seek out experts in the field and most important of all Native Americans who can help advise and hopefully even help by writing the books and supplements.

That's fair and I appreciate that. If you want some inspiration or even an expert to talk to, check out Ehdrigohr. It's a RPG made by a Native American that explores themes and uses inspiration from several different aboriginal cultures. Maybe you can even contact him for advice. Great game too!


James Jacobs wrote:
Odraude wrote:
As someone really interested in fleshing out Arcadia and hosting the Arcadia thread on the forums here, I do look forward to seeing it one day. What are some elements of Native American culture you are looking to do in a respectful manner? I know one thing that has me a bit stumped is the Aztecs and religious sacrifice. That's tough to do.
I want it all to be done in a respectful manner, not just some elements.

What I mean is, what are some examples of such elements? I'm curious to know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:
Is further development of Arcadia kinda/sorta content-contingent like Vudra's relationship with Occult Adventures, or are the mechanical nuts and bolts more or less in place and it's more a question of needing flavor to intersect with priority?

Not at all. It's a topic we could start today, or could have started to explore years ago. The reason we haven't done much with it yet is that building new campaign settings (which is what developing one of those other continents is) is a VERY hard and time-consuming effort. Furthermore, we want to do Arcadia RIGHT and that means solving the complex issue of how to incorporate Native American elements in a respectful manner that's also compelling for adventures and to read. And furthermore, Adam is particularly eager to do stuff with Arcadia, but he's had his hands MORE than full over the past several years working on the backmatter of every single AP (or now, the adventure side of an AP).

We've got all the rules tools we need to do Arcadia, and have had them more or less from the start. We just don't have the time or resources on staff to start it yet. In a perfect world, we'd have an Adventure Path to support it as well, which only further complicates the timing. Jade Regent was originally going to be the 3rd Adventure Path, but instead of launching with volume #13 of the AP line it launched with volume #49.

As someone really interested in fleshing out Arcadia and hosting the Arcadia thread on the forums here, I do look forward to seeing it one day. What are some elements of Native American culture you are looking to do in a respectful manner? I know one thing that has me a bit stumped is the Aztecs and religious sacrifice. That's tough to do.


Aelryinth wrote:
Odraude wrote:

In my settings, whether it be Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, or Dungeon World, I make magic a bit different. Magic always has a cost and is either unpredictable or requires an immense amount of discipline to use. Arcane magic always has a chance to have a random effect, whether it be weal or woe. Divine magic requires you to have zealous faith in your deity and church, lest you get Excommunicated. Inner magic (my version of psychic, chi, and occultism rolled together) requires one to be incredibly disciplined and an aesthetic, and wavering from that makes them lose access to that power. In addition, all magic has a chance of corrupting the user from overuse. So that in itself is a self limiting ability, both psychological and physical, for magic to not jump to magitech. I still have cities that have some fantastic magical elements to it, but nowhere near the level of Eberron.

Second is that in my settings, magic and technology do not get along very well. At least, technology higher than, say, Renaissance. It's subjective, but usually the guidelines are, the more moving parts and complexity it has, the more of a chance magic won't like it. To bind magic to higher technological devices requires giving the device some semblance of sentience, by binding a soul into it and putting some of your life force into it. The more advanced the tech, the greater the price. So, mages aren't too keen about self-sacrificing themselves to have advanced, magic tech. And most spirits aren't too keen with being bound into an M16 to make it a +1 flaming M16 ;)

Also, from a political point of view, technology evens the playing field between mundane and mage. Mages are powerful and like being in charge, whether directly or in an advisory role. More technology means that those mundane peasants can revolt against their magocracy and mages don't want that! So most technological advances are scrutinized by their governments and if they find it too threatening, are quietly removed.

i do similar things.

For...

I like this idea a lot. I may have to snag this if I run a more contemporary fantasy game and still want swords.


Honestly I find that the people I play other games with (Savage Worlds, Fate, Dungeon World) are way more likely to play flawed characters and not have a problem with it than the people I play d20 games with. Hell, its even the same people sometimes. One guy will be cool with flawed characters in CoC or 13th Age, but then lose his s$%@ if someone does it in Pathfinder.

As usual I blame PFS :p


In my settings, whether it be Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, or Dungeon World, I make magic a bit different. Magic always has a cost and is either unpredictable or requires an immense amount of discipline to use. Arcane magic always has a chance to have a random effect, whether it be weal or woe. Divine magic requires you to have zealous faith in your deity and church, lest you get Excommunicated. Inner magic (my version of psychic, chi, and occultism rolled together) requires one to be incredibly disciplined and an aesthetic, and wavering from that makes them lose access to that power. In addition, all magic has a chance of corrupting the user from overuse. So that in itself is a self limiting ability, both psychological and physical, for magic to not jump to magitech. I still have cities that have some fantastic magical elements to it, but nowhere near the level of Eberron.

Second is that in my settings, magic and technology do not get along very well. At least, technology higher than, say, Renaissance. It's subjective, but usually the guidelines are, the more moving parts and complexity it has, the more of a chance magic won't like it. To bind magic to higher technological devices requires giving the device some semblance of sentience, by binding a soul into it and putting some of your life force into it. The more advanced the tech, the greater the price. So, mages aren't too keen about self-sacrificing themselves to have advanced, magic tech. And most spirits aren't too keen with being bound into an M16 to make it a +1 flaming M16 ;)

Also, from a political point of view, technology evens the playing field between mundane and mage. Mages are powerful and like being in charge, whether directly or in an advisory role. More technology means that those mundane peasants can revolt against their magocracy and mages don't want that! So most technological advances are scrutinized by their governments and if they find it too threatening, are quietly removed.


I think one problem with flaws or quirks is that people are too one dimensional with them. They treat it as a binary affect. Either they act on their flaw or quirk, or they act normal. There's no middle ground.

Take the fear of dragons example from earlier. Most people role playing that would have their character paralyzed with fear against the dragon, which is totally fine. But they rarely have them gradually overcome their fear for the moment after a round or two to take on the dragon. They'd just run away and it disrupts the party, especially if it constantly happens. In literature, the coward eventually overcomes their fear to help their friends. And that's the big RPing thing people seem to forget. The flaw is interesting not because of their disruption, but ability to overcome it occasionally or fully.

However, likewise with the player that'd immediately kick a coward out of the adventuring group. Instead of taking the roleplaying opportunity to help the character overcome their fear or quirk in a crisis, they instead abandon them and demand they get kicked out. And it's a bit sad because that's a missed RP opportunity that would be a lot more memorable. Again, it's the player being unimaginative and lazy with their flaw or reaction to flaw.

TTRPGs are essentially a conversation between everyone and if people don't hold up their end to make it interesting, then it falls flat.


Would fit, probably be deemed as normal honestly. Truth be told, I was expecting something waaay grimdark and edgier lol


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Lord-of-Boggards wrote:

I don't get people who complain about the number of races in Pathfinder. Its not like you are forced to have them in your campaign. If someone wants to play something exotic in a campaign where that race logically doesn't belong then it is up to the GM to put the book down.

The more 0-HD races the better. That way when you start a campaign in an atypical setting(as in anything that is not the same boring stereotypical pseudo-Europe) you can have cool races that accentuate the setting.

Well, each page spent on a 0HD race is a page not spent on something else. Maybe the people asking for fewer or no races are really just asking for more "other stuff". Granted, they might get their point across better if they specified what they want rather than what they don't want.

To be fair, the same could be said about any kind of monster. Some people may want less fey or dragons and more undead or demons. Others may want less mythological creatures and more original monsters. Some may want less European monsters and more Japanese folklore monsters. Really, whenever Paizo makes a monster, theres going to be someone out there that thinks its space could have been used with another monster they want.


Im a bit torn on the fluff vs number debate. I do love fluff and this bestiary seemed a little lacking in that. On the other hand, I love having tons of monsters to use in my games. At least with the mythological creatures, I can Google them and go from there. But, I think between the two, I'd rather keep lots of monsters.

And at the end of the day, its a damned if you do, damned if you don't. If they remove monsters for more fluff, people will complain about the lack of monsters and Paizo trying to gouge them for a book with less monsters. If they make the typefont smaller, people will complain about the size of the font. Can't win 'em all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that PFS or any regulated gaming society like that is the bane of RPGs. Take that as you will.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
If you read the alignment page, you see clear references to motives over actions, no need to add it in when it exists.

While true, it's less of me adding it and more of me removing the morals part. Basically removing the good and evil alignments in the game and really letting the players choose that from their actions. A buddy of mine joked that he could see all of my alignments finding a reason to let goblin babies live (or die).


Diminuendo wrote:

I think adding a third catagory, such as "Vows" could add a lot to this system. Unlike the other two they can be anything a GM approves. Vows would be the things most important to a character, such as "my daughter" or "my country"

This stops characters from being bi-polar when good and evil don't exist.

That's a pretty good idea. I'll have to think about how to do that one.

Remco Sommeling wrote:

Have players pick personality traits from a well sized list and just use that as rp-tool and intelligent item conflicts etcetera.

I don't think your system is bad but there should be many more traits and methods to pick from.

You still can have alignment aura's and creature types to determine magic effect interactions in your campaign, in some cases you might want to adjust the level / cost of the spell / magical effect because of reduced or increased effectiveness.

Yeah, there is a more in depth part I'm writing up that is similar to this. I should post that up once I'm finished, after the holidays and all.

Blakmane wrote:
The system is fine (although it feels like a re-skinned good/evil law/chaos axis honestly), but why not just remove the alignment system from your game entirely if it isn't going to have mechanical or moral implications? I don't think your system really achieves anything in terms of the wider game --> you might be better off just asking your players to write a short sentence each on their motives and methods instead of codifying them.

With this, it's really a background generating tool for players and GMs to aid them in roleplaying how they would perceive their character. For those that like alignment, it is easier to play to one's alignment with this system, since the categories are less nebulous than 'good and evil'. For the most part, it's for my players that are coming from a Pathfinder/D&D background to ease them from the standard axis to something more free form. I actually do have a more detailed, free-form set of questions similar to something you'd see in more narrative driven games like Dungeon World or ICONS, but this is meant to be more like simple guidelines.


Hugo Rune wrote:

I like what you are trying to do but I can't help drawing the altruistic-selfish line being good v evil and the conformist - unorthodox line being law and chaos with pragmatic being a neutral substitute.

I also liked elements of a system that Mortuum proposed but disagreed with his view that there were no in-game philosophies that were inherently evil and felt that he started to go off-track by changing his initial definitions of grim and principled.

The favourite system I ever saw was one in an early edition of White Dwarf, but have never been able to rediscover. The gist of it went that a player would pick and prioritise at least one up to a maximum of even motivations from a list of about 15 for his character. The motivations chosen would map back to where they sat on the good and evil axis, whilst the number chosen would map to the law v chaos axis. If the character picked less than 7 motivations then they picked up superstitions every [number of motivations picked] levels until their superstitions and motivations equalled 7. Superstitions were based on the activity that occurred during the adventure. As the player progressed, instead of being true to an alignment, which was mapped back for game effect purposes they were supposed to roleplay according to their motivations and superstitions.

I remember one player using the system who rolled up an Elven Assassin character. His motivations were Country, Queen and Race and would do anything to protect Celene from outside influences and had absolutely no qualms about killing 'short lived races who were going to die in a few brief decades anyway' to save a long-lived elf but didn't kill for fun. The character was NE in game terms but was not a liability to the party or the group because the motivations weren't destructive to the party goals.

In some ways, I was looking to draw allusions to these alignments towards the classic 3x3 without really making any of them really good or evil. So, two people could be, say, Conforming Altruistic, but one does good while the other does evil with it. Law vs chaos I find to be less of an issue in most games, but I definitely will try and reword Unorthodox and Conforming.


A bit of a bump. I'm interested in what people think about this and what changes could be made to improve it.


Thanks. I tried to keep them as morally neutral as possible, so that "good" and "evil" arguments don't crop up and players tend to play more like the motives and methods above, rather than morals.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I've been homebrewing an alternative to alignment in the fantasy game that I plan to run. I got some inspiration from a post I saw on GitP and ran with it. Here is the ruleset I have set up for my alignment alternative, Motives and Methods.

Don't worry about Detect and Smite abilities. I'll figure that out as I go along.

Thanks for any help and comments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But the monsters are mythic content. When running a mythic campaign, you need mythic foes to throw at your players, especially high level foes. There are always going to be monsters in a bestiary that people won't use. How many are going to use cryptids, or the Japanese monsters, or the occult monsters, or the aliens? The goal though is to have a wide variety of options available to the different types of gamers and games that people run. I'm sure there are people out there that hate all the non-European monsters in the Bestiaries, but at least it means we all have options.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm the opposite. I hate seeing rules systems that are introduced, then not supported in the future. I'm glad they are still giving us mythic content, as well as Asian, technology, and occult stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah the use of the points confuses me, especially since the devs have gone on record saying that they don't like spell points and don't like psychic magic being so completely different from arcane and divine. I may change it.


Eric Hinkle wrote:
Katowice wrote:
What's the difference between the deep ones in this book and the previous conceit that the skum were the "deep ones" of Golarian. How do the two fit together in the same campaign setting?
I wondered about this myself. Then again, now we have reptoids and the Serpent People, though nothing says any group has to use one or the other (or either) in their home games.

Admittedly I get more of an alien vibe from the reptoids, but that's due to modern interpretations of them ruling the contemporary world.


MMCJawa wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Slithery D wrote:
In Pathfinder undead are inherently evil because reasons.

All undead are evil.

Not all 'post-death citizens' are "undead".

yeah...I kind of suspect if they decided to do Hupia as neutral, they would most likely do them as outsiders

It's probably worth mentioning that as far as folklore is concerned, Fey/Outsiders/Undead are all pretty equivalent terms, since people didn't really necessarily consider them separate categories in the way Pathfinder organizes them.

This is a good point and would fit anthropological research that hupia were associated with the idea of reincarnation. And with the Occult Adventures book out and B5, there's plenty of reincarnation lore we could use for the hupia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

I would also like to see a 0HD dragon blooded playable race though I am more looking for the "Aasimar/Tiefling" version were they could look more human or more draconic depending on the player. I would also like to see fey and giant blooded 0HD races along those lines as well.

I'm with you and Jici on this. I think it's been long enough that we can have a dragonborn race in Pathfinder. But I also agree with you, it'd be cool if they were less upright lizards and more similar to tieflings and aasimars. And having some different bloodlines would be workable and awesome. The standard Colored and Metal dragons, Imperial and now Esoteric, maybe even some of the weirder ones like a zmey or even a jabberwock (I'd actually love an NPC that was a jabberwock dragonkin).

Also +1 for giant blooded race.

And here is an old topic I made about such a thing. Now we have those Time Dragons and Occult dragons so... might be harder


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually with ghosts and phantoms, plus the occult adventures books explaining more about the afterlife, it is more possibly to have undead with varying alignments. And remember, the all undead = evil is Golarion based, while the Bestiaries are setting neutral. Also I trust Adam's take on the American creatures and their respect for the folklore, so I have faith they will do the myth justice. Especially after reading Distant Shores.

No pressure Adam :p


And since they really only feed on guava... I don't think that's too evil. Hupia run the gamut of being good but forlorn, or evil and tormenting. There are a lot of stories of them coming back to live with their loved ones and living happy lives. Or getting forsaken by their loved ones because hey, they're supposed to be dead!


My dog :)

See now I gotta get back to updating the Arcadia thread ;)


Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
Fourshadow wrote:
Moon Dogs not poodle-like? Good and thank you for your input, all of you. More like Afghan Hounds? That is definitely acceptable. Poodle? Not in my Pathfinder!

Are we talking lion clip poodle? (something that was created for working dogs and found in several retrieving breeds, not just poodles?)

Or just poodles?

Who are the second most intellegent dog, and were originally water dogs. (srsly, their name comes from the German "to splash)

To be fair, modern poodles look pretty silly, so I can understand the apprehension.

I loved the robots in this, though I am sad they were reprints, but the terraforming robot looks awesome. The occult and psychic monsters are probably my favorite though.


Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
Fourshadow wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Anyone else think the Moon Dog looks like Christopher Lee as Dog Saruman?
Please tell me it doesn't look like a poodle...please? I loved the D&D Moon Dogs!

Nothing like a poodle.

Defiantly an afghan hound, that is pure silver white and wears jewelry

And they have hands. Unsure if they are humanoid or not, but the art work is really cool.


Yay another wishlist thread. So far each bestiary has had a lot of monsters that I've really fallen in love with. Still, there is one monster I've wanted to see in here since Bestiary 3. That's the hupia, from Taino lore. These are undead, faceless creatures that can transform from incorporeal to corporeal and turn into bats, their former selves, or can look like someone's loved one. They have no belly button, which is how you tell who they are. And they have some ties to the idea of reincarnation according to some anthropologists, so there could be something about that. They can be good, neutral or evil, and are intelligent so they make great NPCs. I statted one up here, but I'd love to see what Paizo does with their version. And I want to see art of it :D

C'mon Adam Daigle, make it happen ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And staying on topic, I love a lot of the Japanese, Hindu and Phillipino themed monsters in the Bestiary. It's always awesome to see real world myths brought into the game. And the creatures from medieval bestiaries really make this book feel like, well, a bestiary.


I never complained about male Veela, but I have better things to do with my time than whine about the genders of creatures that don't actually exist lol


Fourshadow wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Anyone else think the Moon Dog looks like Christopher Lee as Dog Saruman?
Please tell me it doesn't look like a poodle...please? I loved the D&D Moon Dogs!

They look more like Afghans honestly. They look cool, in a weird way.

Nightterror wrote:
Fourshadow wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Anyone else think the Moon Dog looks like Christopher Lee as Dog Saruman?
Please tell me it doesn't look like a poodle...please? I loved the D&D Moon Dogs!
Sorry. But that is far from the worst thing in there, the worst thing in there is called Female Model Anemoi.

The art actually look great for the anemoi. And considering in the myths, they could be a guy, a girl, or a horse, that's not bad at all. Really the only two artworks I dont like are the Muse's uncanny valley face and the Cassowary Moa.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone else think the Moon Dog looks like Christopher Lee as Dog Saruman?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
Social Justice Warriors?

Basically, the archon goes around destroying texts that are too evil or offensive for people.


I will admit, I read this title as "Marmaduke in Golarion" and was curious...


Yeah I'm not getting where everyone is saying the art is bad. Aside from the Muse's odd shadowing on her face, the artwork is pretty awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They probably want to keep the reprints to a minimum and really only hve a limited amount of space for them. I'll be honest, if the Bestiary had more and more reprints than new stuff, I wouldn't be very happy, especially since those reprints are on the SRD/AoN.


Flynn Greywalker wrote:
Sadly Odraude they beat us to the ideas by finishing Distant Shores

Bah, that won't stop us! Segada is only one city :p


Well it depends. We don't know if the Arcadians take kindly to slavery, but if they do, then they probably wouldn't mind some lucrative trade with the colonists.

1 to 50 of 6,684 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.