Steve Geddes's page

Steve Geddes wrote:

I want three giants and three huge cases, but I don't know that I can justify three standard cases.

Hobbun wrote:

I would like a third Rune Giant as well, and I am all for buying a third Huge case, but not really sure I want to shell out the extra money for another standard case.

You can always buy the 3rd figure from another dealer. For example, Miniature Market currently advertizes that they have 19 Black Dragons from H&M in stock for $29.00. Sure you'll pay more for a Rune Giant at MM than you would with your Paizo case sub discount, but it's also likely to be less than buying an additional standard case that you don't want or need. That's my current plan.

-Skeld

That's much more sensible than my approach. I'll have to see just what the pricepoint is to evaluate my irrationality.

I have this fear about my credit card details propagating through the world, unfortunately so I dont generally buy much online other than from Paizo and Amazon.

Ah, I see. That makes sense. (Let me put in a vote for the obvious 'goblin pack' featuring repaints of each of the H&M goblins together with each of the RoTRL goblins).

Cheers.

Yeah, that's my quandary. I want three giants and three huge cases, but I don't know that I can justify three standard cases. Depending on costs, I suspect I'll end up with only two rune giants and a third huge case. I'll be interested to see how the giants look next to the recent gargantuan orcus.

Although three standard cases is probably more than I need, I'm quite tempted to get three huge cases - so a third rune giant isn't an impossibility, just less likely.

Ah, I see. I'm in the same boat actually but the RotRL rewrite may tip me from three cases to two.

Quote:

Either way, the game designers are trying to make the game as good as possible. Isnt that the best thing for them to do? It's not like they pop in with frequent revisions/clarifications to the rules do they? Concerns about precedent seem unwarranted, to me.

That would be true if this change DID make the game more fun for a lot of people, but it actually nerfs the hell out of some characters. If that is the intention, it failed badly.

I still think its true, even if they "failed badly" in this instance (I wouldn't know).

We still want them to try to make the game as good as possible. What else do we want them to aim for?

If its useful to you, James Jacobs mentioned (somewhere or other) that in the RotRL rewrite, it is unlikely you'll need multiple rune giants in any single encounter.

I think a test of the starstone AP would be amongst the most Golarion-ey epic stories one could tell.

What more epic tale is there than becoming a God?

It's terrific you're continuing the practise of ensuring new releases tie-in with old ones. That change alone increased the value of these subscriptions to me by about 50%.

(I also think the artwork has been gradually improving since the line's beginnings).

Steve Geddes wrote:

Either way, the game designers are trying to make the game as good as possible. Isnt that the best thing for them to do? It's not like they pop in with frequent revisions/clarifications to the rules do they? Concerns about precedent seem unwarranted, to me.

Part of the reason this IS such a hot button issue that's got people worked up is that there IS no prior precedence of something like this. We're talking about something that out of the blue that could take some interesting archetypes and character concepts and skewer them.

That and...lets face it, it's happening to a class that's very controversial in regards to it's implementation. There's a new "ARGH! MONK IS SO FLAWED!" Thread every few months for a reason. It's sort of like kicking a puppy.

I can understand people disagreeing with a design decision - that happens all the time.

I just dont understand queries along the lines of "Paizo say this was always how the rules were intended. Do you think they're being honest about that?"

EDIT: Furthermore, it seems to me that significant rules changes are hardly frequent occurences. If they do happen, it will presumably be because the game designers think it's the best thing to do. Personally, I'd like game designers to be worrying about how to make the best game they can, rather than to be worrying about issues of 'precedent'.

Can I ask why it matters? Admittedly, our group has a terrible understanding of the rules and a willingness to remain oblivious, so things like this make no difference to us (we can misunderstand something no matter how many times it's clarified). I could see this being an issue with PFS players, but since Paizo are allowing PFS characters to be rebuilt it seems like they're sticking with what the rules were intended but giving people the benefit of the doubt in case anyone has been harmed by the misunderstanding/lack of clarity.

I dont really see the importance of establishing whether its a change or a clarification (my default assumption is people tell the truth and the 'head honcho' said it's a clarification - therefore it's a clarification). If Paizo have changed their mind it's presumably because they think this makes the game better. If they're explaining a previously misunderstood rule it's presumably because they think the original (misunderstood) rule makes the game better.

Either way, the game designers are trying to make the game as good as possible. Isnt that the best thing for them to do? It's not like they pop in with frequent revisions/clarifications to the rules do they? Concerns about precedent seem unwarranted, to me.

3. A Knowledge/monster info app that gives you select information based on a skill check roll. For example, if we encounter a new undead thing the Gm gives us the number of the monster and we put it into the app. We then see a picture of it but that is it. The app allows you to input a skill check roll (or autoroll for you) such as a Knowledge Religion roll of 23 and it tells you any info that the check would grant you. (the name of the creature, immunities, special attacks, weaknesses, etc.).

Yeah, this would be good too. I've previously wondered about the possibility of such a thing through the gamemastery cards line (with a picture on one side and three potential pieces of information based on increasing DC on the other) but there hasnt been much interest. Maybe it would be better/easier through an app.

The apps I'd like to see (paying no attention to Paizo's ability to produce them or any technical issues):

1. Character builder with the functionality of the 4E one
2. Zoomable maps of Golarion (including regions and cities)
3. Combat tracker - initiative order plus a way to track buffs/conditions
4. Encounter builder
5. "Magic Items available for sale" generator
6. Harrow reading generator (with interpretations of each card)
7. Spell encyclopedia

Cheers. I have a feeling you've told me that before, in fact. :/

Do you have any ideas as to how many Encounter Packs are likely to be released from the Heroes and Monsters set? Is it likely that they will all have been announced (if not released) by the time the Rise of the Runelords set is available?

I expect this was answered somewhere (I even have a vague memory of asking it, embarassinlgy) but the various mini threads are a little long...

Is the Encounter Pack discount tied to an encounter pack from the set we subscribed to? Or could I (for example) use one or two encounter pack discounts I "earnt" via a heroes and monsters subscription to purchase a RoTRL encounter pack? (subject to the expiry date)

There's a school of thought which says that second darkness doesn't work too well as an AP given that the first and last halves don't mesh particularly well. Maybe the first two instalments of that AP would work as a lead-in? (though you might face similar PC motivational problems that the AP does, I don't know the background to slumbering tsar).

@Steve Geddes - Yea, that's what I plan on doing. I figured it's no secret anymore (thanks to the GM), so I'll speak to the last guy when I can. He's the one that I think was meta gaming and saying that he'd kill my character if my guy tried anything like that.

I've not got a problem with people acting in game, but meta gaming is the issue here.

A lot of people on here are unreasonable, expecting me to literally control playable characters, when I really won't be. My guy might make them like him through spells to get himself out of certain situations that may threaten his life, but he's not going to cast spells on them to make them stand in the way as cannon fodder. It's ridiculous to throw such assumptions about, but people on here don't care what your intentions are. Even if it doesn't effect them personally, they take it personally.

The actual threads purpose was to discuss combating meta gaming, not my characters intentions and I don't care how people see it, I am going to be playing my guy as a neutral good person. Making someone like you isn't a bad act. It serves as a way to stop party conflict.

While RP'ing, I haven't ever in my entire life gotten my character to kill or even attack another player's character. One guy pushed a halfling I had, to the very limit by literally shooting arrows at him and constantly making slavery jokes and wouldn't stop, yet I still chose not to attack him and my guy gave his life for the entire party, even though he didn't feel hugely liked.

This guy isn't built for taking the fun away from other players. This guy is built for becoming king, controlling npc's as he sees fit and depending on what the pc's do to him, will depend on what he does back. He wants to build allies, possible friends and work alongside them to accomplish his goal, but those he sees as insignificant will be his pawns.

The people I play with always have a habit of attacking each other to some degree and I stay out of it, but the guy who's meta-gaming is the guy who in the last campaign,...

Well my "how to combat meta gaming" advice is pretty short:

There's absolutely nothing you can do about it other than talking and agreeing with your group that it's a bad idea (fwiw, it's not a problem if someone meta games at our table). If someone decides they're going to act on out of game information, other players can't do anything about it without joining in the metagaming, in my view.

We roll behind a screen. PC spell casters roll the saves for enemies they've targeted though.

195. You think the acronym IANJ would get a reasonable amount of use to justify its existence.

A few points I have to make:

His alignment - He is Neutral Good because he has good intentions, but doesn't let good or evil sway his decisions.

Discussing the concept with the group - My GM has always specifically stated that we aren't allowed to know each others characters until we see them on the adventure path. You're not allowed to talk about your concepts or anything alike.

If someone wants to kill this character, he would Geas them to only have good intentions towards him. In no way would I play it in a way to disrupt the group. As I've previously stressed, I am always playing characters that try to aid others, work as a team where needed and ALWAYS take other players opinions into consideration.

I have however spoken to two of the three other players about my concept and they are all fine with the concept.

This character wasn't built for ruining things for anyone and as I previously stated, using these abilities on other PC's didn't even cross my mind until the GM mentioned it to me. If a character wants to kill me, I'll make them like me, maybe geas them into being my bodyguard or doing something for me, but it's up to the player controlling that character on how they go about performing such actions.

The character's Neutral Good and therefore, will not put his team mates in harms way unless he really has to. He wants to ally with people, only manipulating folk when he really needs to.

I wish people would take the time out to understand the concept instead of assuming I am trying to ruin the game for people. I'm not and haven't ever, nor do I care to. I have far more constructive things to do with my time than turning up to friends houses and ruining their play time "for the sake of it".

People are so quick to jump at others without considering their motives or desires. I'm a very nice person and wouldn't ever ruin things for others. I spend my entire life creating events and activities voluntarily for people to get involved in. The internet isn't a place that allows for you to...

For my part it's nothing to do with whether you're a nice person or not, it's the behaviour itself - influencing another player's actions in a way which reduces their freedom of choice (even a little bit) seems to me to be a breach of the implied contract of RPGing. Even if your motivation is ".. offering more role playing options" and you have no malevolent intentions, I'd be wary that it wouldnt be taken well by those players who were affected by behaviour-altering spells.

.
You mentioned you spoke to two or three of the players - personally, I think you need to speak to all of them (or at least be sure that nobody is going to mind). I know the DM said you can't talk about your character concepts, but given you already have with some of them (and it appears he has too, given the motivation of this thread), I think you should give everyone the opportunity to express any concern.

If everyone is happy with it, I dont see any issue. There's lots of different ways to play. I think it's important enough to work out BEFORE any potential issue arises in game though. Purely because the "My guy would kill* your guy. I'm just roleplaying!" schtick is rarely a happy experience for anyone.

* I realise you're not aiming for this kind of confrontation, but it might happen anyhow.

If you dont get any luck, I'd be interested in buying them.

If that's a possibility, please send me an email:

EDIT: Or a PM now, I guess..

Cheers

Enlight_Bystand wrote:

Sellios, it was well advertised for months before that this set will be 60 minis, and rumours point to it being 60 normal minis, 4 huge and the Rune Giant...

Well I really didn't know.

I hope that +50% minis will not equal +50% price.

Also, I hope that one case (whatever price and size it will be) will be engouh to have a complete collection like Heroes and Monsters.

I can't see how the price for a case won't go up somewhere around 50% given the number of minis per case is increasing (from just over 80 to just over 120). Especially since the number of large/huge minis is greater - presumably that implies a greater cost per mini.

Their goal is for 93% of cases to include a complete set (at this stage, anyhow). The higher number of minis (presumably coupled with the size distribution) made the goal of 100% that they tried for with H&M unachievable.

Subscribers will get a regular case, a huge case and the opportunity to purchase a rune giant at a 75% discount.

But if you are asking how it LOOKS....

Well it looks like you don't have enough figures, lol.

Yeah, I was mainly concerned about the look (although using pawns as summoned creatures. Is a potentially useful approach).

I don't have much to say really. I'm looking forward to the upcoming 4E releases and wish they'd persevered for longer but c'est la vie. I'm also looking forward to D&D next - although I have a niggling fear it's going to be even more digitally focussed than 4E which will disappoint me.

In passing, I don't think the goal of a new edition is to be better than the last -that's the main reason I never really understand "picking sides" in the various edition comparisons. 4E and PF try and fulfil different goals, in my view - there isn't any universal rpg standard by which I can measure "progress" merely a preference for different games in different situations.

No, I'm afraid an optimiser (or indeed anyone with even mild system mastery) would cringe at our table. We pretty much just play magic users as damage dealers.

Magus isnt the sort of thing we'd play, but I guess I'd let them cast the spell as part of the first attack and give them any iterative attacks as well.

I concede it's probably not a good idea in most capaigns, but it works fine for us. (And it means our fighters dont have to stand still throughout the battle, which is the main thing we found annoying).

EDIT: I'm not sure why I decided to address your points in reverse order, but there you go. Just in a contrary mood I guess. :/

Steve Geddes wrote:

Hi James. I'm curious what you think about a current thread (it's not particularly acrimonious, but there are differing views):

Could a LN character feasibly worship Gorum?

The character in question is a fighter with a religious trait of some description. (Which I mention due to another poster posting:

Quote:

As for Religion Traits, from the APG and Traits Web Enhancement:

Quote:

Religion Traits: Religion traits indicate that your character has an established faith in a specific deity; you need not be a member of a class that can wield divine magic to pick a religion trait, but you do have to have a patron deity and have some amount of religion in your background to justify this trait. Unlike the other categories of traits, religion traits can go away if you abandon your religion, as detailed below under Restrictions on Trait Selection.

A LN character would not be a very devout or honest or legitimate worshiper of Gorum at all. I don't see the point of such a character, actually... Seems like a deliberate attempt to just be difficult. Just worship Torag or Iomedae instead.

Cheers. I'm sure he wasn't trying to be difficult - his concept is a mercenary fighter whose life is war and who therefore venerates the god of battle (I think).

Appreciate your view. Thanks.

I have no idea if it's balanced or not, but we just allow all iterative attacks with a standard action. Magic users and so forth are still pretty popular.

Sounds like it's just four figures per standard booster with no adjustment based on size.

Hi James. I'm curious what you think about a current thread (it's not particularly acrimonious, but there are differing views):

Could a LN character feasibly worship Gorum?

The character in question is a fighter with a religious trait of some description. (Which I mention due to another poster posting:

As for Religion Traits, from the APG and Traits Web Enhancement:

Quote:

Religion Traits: Religion traits indicate that your character has an established faith in a specific deity; you need not be a member of a class that can wield divine magic to pick a religion trait, but you do have to have a patron deity and have some amount of religion in your background to justify this trait. Unlike the other categories of traits, religion traits can go away if you abandon your religion, as detailed below under Restrictions on Trait Selection.

I think they are taking a somewhat nostalgic 'let's try and pick the best bits from previous editions' approach, rather than inventing some new, revolutionary system. As such, I think the chances of anything eye-poppingly innovative are pretty slender.

It's hard to read mood without actually being face-to-face with the people who matter, but it seems to me that the reconciliation of a fractured fanbase and the identification of the iconic bits of D&D are very much the focus of this change.

Personally, the most pleased I've been has been the recognition of the value of a "one-hour game of D&D". 4E is currently our game of choice, but it didnt take us long to houserule combats to make them go faster. Similarly with PF, although it's a little easier there since we dont know the rules well enough to make us play slowly.

We have limited time to play at this stage of life - I don't like playing for an evening without substantially advancing the plot due to getting bogged down in some protracted combat.

Shrug. A H&M case worked out to a little less than $3 per mini. At that point, we're looking at less than $400 for a case. Then the Huges, then the promo. I suspect the better part of $500 in the end. Still within my purchasing reach, but marginally. Still, nobody's holding a gun to my head.

Thanks for the info Vic.

Presumably, the number of larges and presence of huge minis will increase the per mini price somewhat.

I still think its good value, but it's certainly going to be a hit (especially for those with multiple subscriptions).

If you want rules light then go and pick up the Pathfinder Beginner Boxset or go and play 4th edition. If you take Pathfinder and make it rules light like 4th edition then you have 4th edition and since that edition already exists then why would you bother?

Have you played many RPGs besides D&D and Pathfinder?

In my view, he's not going to learn anything from in-game consequences. What that will do is increase the whininess and provoke (with some justification) accusations from him that you're 'out to get him'.

He's presumably oblivious to the fact that he's reducing other people's fun or he enjoys being a jerk. It's best to be completely frank about the problem outside of the game - then give him every chance to reform himself (with occasional nudges as he learns how he can enhance everyone else's fun). That way, if he's just currently oblivious, everyone can continue playing together and enjoying themselves and there's no need for further action.

If he hears what you say, understands the other players arent enjoying themselves and continues to act in a way detrimental to group fun, then you can probably conclude he enjoys being a jerk. As such - how do you think jerks react when bad things happen to them in game? Is it likely to help?

Yeah, no worries. Like I said, it's no big deal (and I'm relatively clueless about how such things work).

Your site is terrific as is - it was just a passing thought. :)

Josh M. wrote:

MicMan wrote:

Some people do really not realise that changing what they see as a problem would make PF into 4e...

I agree, but many people don't like being told "Go play something else..." especially after they may have already dropped a lot of money on a game. Sad part is, just playing something else would probably fix a lot of their issues.

People say that like another game would suit the person perfectly. Too bad all games have there problems.

If I dropped 100 bucks on this game's two main books, I'm going to use them. Changing rules is a hobbie, not rocket science. It isn't like the Paizo writers are anything special. Most gamers who have been playing for a while could write game rules if they didn't have anything better to do.

What I don't get are people who have time to be naysayers on these boards, but think changing game rules is such a massive undertaking no one should try. Just play something else! Your preferences were perfectly predicted by this other product!

I agree with the sentiment you express here (go play something else is hardly going to solve the problem of "The game I'm playing isn't perfect"). Nonetheless, I think the Paizo writers (and editors, developers, publishers, artists, etcetera...) are something special. It's always seemed to me that, as a group, RPG fans grossly overestimate their own abilities at game design and grossly underestimate the skill and talent of those who manage to make a living at it for many years.

Ultimately, I'm agreeing with you that suggesting alternate rules shouldnt be seen as such a grievous sin - but I think one should recognise that Paizo produce something special and a huge proportion of their recipe for success is the unusual degree of talent amongst the people doing it.

EDIT: This isnt as off-topic as it sounds, since there are quite often threads where posters will repeatedly declare some facet of the game 'broken', 'unbalanced' or something similar and insist that the developers didnt understand what they were doing or didnt think through the consequences. Then the aggrieved fan will continue explaining how they are correct even when their points are addressed by the people who wrote the rules.

Chances are, if you have an opinion which seems to be contrary to an expert's view - you're wrong. One shouldnt abandon one's principles, of course. But it's worth taking a breath and reconsidering.

....End of rant (sorry about that, not sure where it came from).

Justin Franklin wrote:

Kor: there are some bad scans on plasticrypt.

Thanks. And thanks for plasticrypt for posting the source. I grabbed some images and tried to clean them up a little.

Pathfinder Minis

Nice work.

Can I ask how you decide on the order in which you list the minis? It's no big deal, but could I suggest you list them in order of sizes? I know you write it above the mini anyhow, but if there isnt any determining factor it might provide a useful overview if the smalls and huges were all grouped together.

(In this set in particular, since one may be considering specifically buying a set of the four huge minis).

EDIT: Oh, I see - it's date order. Still, grouping them by size might be something to consider.

Vic's original post mentions that the MSRP of a standard booster pack is $14.99. I havent seen anything else. If it's anything like Heroes and Monsters, I think a case was roughly 85% the cost of buying the boosters individually (prior to any paizo discounting).

EDIT: There was also mention that the huge booster might be $24.99 but that hasnt been confirmed as anything official yet.

Steve Geddes wrote:

There'll probably be some kind of discount for buying in bulk (I'd assume, anyhow). I'd be surprised if a brick's cost was as much as that of 8 boosters and if a case cost the same as 4 bricks.

Nope. No discount in bulk. Only discount is the 75% off the chaser and the regular 15% Pathfinder Advantage discount if you are a Adventure Path subscriber (and I believe free shipping for orders over $100). So very likely looking at right around $600 for a standard case, huge case, and the rune giant chaser ($510 with Pathfinder Advantage).

Really? Where did you see that? I had presumed it would be like Heroes and Monsters. :(

Still decent value, but I better increase my monthly gift voucher purchase...

I dont have a clue about game-balance issues, so leaving that aside - it would seem to me to be a better model if there were a diminishing return or, alternatively, if it became harder to work faster. In other words, I like your second option better.

I'd go with +5DC to accelerate the time to 4 hours/1000 gp and a further +10 (ie +15 to the base DC) to accelerate the time to 2 hours/1000 gp.

There'll probably be some kind of discount for buying in bulk (I'd assume, anyhow). I'd be surprised if a brick's cost was as much as that of 8 boosters and if a case cost the same as 4 bricks.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Are you planning on selling the hardcopies through Paizo once it/they are released? I prefer to get my stuff here so I can manage receiving shipments, credit card charges, etcetera without having to track lots of different companies.

Nope, sorry. Pre-orders will only be available from our online store (http://shop.redbrickllc.com). Once we move to general release, products will be available from our online store or from OneBookShelf.

There's a summary of what's going on with RedBrick in our "House of 'Brick" newsletter:

http://redbrickllc.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=31

This notes our current plans for retail (late 2013, and on a limited basis).

Kind regards, James

Thanks. Somewhat disappointing, but that's life, I guess. :/

Firstly: Numeria. An enormous metallic creation from beyond the stars crashes into my back/front/everyyard. Oh, groovy. I'm going to go lick the strange slime coming off its walls on the off chance that it's an awesome hallucongin, and not a radioactive super-toxin from another dimension that'll cause my inside to rip inside out...seriously, whose idea was it to sample strange fluids seeping out a freakin' spaceship's walls?!

Reminds me of that age old question:

"What was going through the mind of the first person to milk a cow?"

Personally, if my choices were "use ICM" or "be destroyed by tanks" I would use the ICM if I had it.

It's hard to find this unreasonable.

Sorry about the slow responses; Paizo site has been unavailable to us for a day and only just got access again.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Their pricing seems a little weird, although maybe I'm just misunderstanding.

It seems I can preorder the hardcover for $22, the PDF for $13 or a combined package for....$40?

That was a "copy/paste error at an hour that is way too late, after a long day at work" hiccup, Steve. It's since been corrected. Apologies.

The pre-order price for the hardcover-only is $31.99 ($39.98 for the print+pdf bundle); softcover-only is $21.99 ($29.98 for print+pdf bundle), and PDF-only is $12.99. After the pre-order ends, the prices go up to their standard retail pricing (and I should note that RedBrick doesn't have a history of discounting products or running sales, so this is as good a time as any to save a few bucks on each title).

And per Erian_7's question on PDFs and bookmarking, etc., I replied to his question on the RedBrick LLC forums (http://redbrickllc.com) and noted that PDFs will be bookmarked and internal page numbers hyperlinked correctly and ongoing (for ED3 I didn't have access to the source files, so could only work with what I had... Not the case ongoing).

I'm fairly sure that Hank Woon, the Earthdawn Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Edition line developer will be on to answer any questions that you might have.

Kind regards,

James Sutton
Managing Partner
RedBrick LLC

No worries - it did look a little odd. :)

Are you planning on selling the hardcopies through Paizo once it/they are released? I prefer to get my stuff here so I can manage receiving shipments, credit card charges, etcetera without having to track lots of different companies.

This is all high quality work. The effort you've put into continuing the 'easy to assimilate' format of the BB is greatly appreciated.

I don't know how interested you are in spending more money. Ultimately RPGs are very cheap entertainment for half a dozen people - nonetheless, the GM often ends up spending the majority and there's always something else to buy, unfortunately.

If you were interested in a bought adventure, I'd recommend Crypt of the Everflame. Although it was written for the full ruleset, not the beginner box, it was also specifically designed as an introduction to the system and is based on a story of 'bright eyed new adventurers embarking on their first quest' so I think it would be ideally suited for people new to RPGs.

The fact you have six players instead of the assumed four is not something I'd stress over, if I were you. You could add an additional monster here or there and maybe increase some of the 'solo' monsters hit points a little bit. Ultimately though, beginners are generally not going to be as familiar with the rules and are quite likely to adopt some sub-optimal tactics, so going easy on them in the first few sessions is not unreasonable, in my view.

You'd need to be quite familiar with the material as it is significantly larger than Black Fang's dungeon. There are also one or two parts which arent as clear as they could be (stairs going nowhere which arent mentioned in the text, a locked door with no mention of where the key is, etcetera - those things you can work out and/or make up easily enough, but it's best to do that before the session, in my view, otherwise the players have to watch you frowning and flicking through pages, frantically reading...)

You would be unlikely to complete it in one session, but that has the added bonus that, if everyone is keen to continue, you have a few sessions ready to go while you all learn the system. There are also occasional references to a rule from the core rules not present in the beginner box. However, I'd strongly recommend not ruling it out on this basis. I personally ignore a large portion of the Core Rules on a routine basis (I just dont have the brainspace to memorise 500+ pages of rules) and it has no impact on my player's experience of the game - they dont know I'm leaving out some complicated sub-systems of the rules.

If you did go that route, Paizo also sell A Double-Sided Flip Mat of the Entire Dungeon which I found to be super useful. It's just like the flipmat you got in the beginner box but with a different dungeon on each side. Of course, it's not really necessary since you can use the blank side of the map which came with the beginner box.

With regard to the story - Crypt of the Everflame isnt written as being near Sandpoint, although you could easily transplant it there in your world if you wanted to continue focussing your stories on that portion of Golarion. I'm also kind of assuming that those who played the first time are going to start again with new characters, although that wouldnt really matter (provided they are all still first level - it can be annoying to play in a game where some characters are higher level than others, since the low level PCs can feel a little bit like 'extras'.

Having said all of that - one of the most rewarding parts of GMing is creating your own material. If you were up to it, I'd certainly encourage you to give it a shot - once again, the players dont know whether you're reading from a glossy, professionally written book or some hand scrawled, dog eared notes. It can be a good idea to read through some pre-written adventures though if you have the cash to spend - see how the professionals do it.

Good luck. :)

Their pricing seems a little weird, although maybe I'm just misunderstanding.

It seems I can preorder the hardcover for $22, the PDF for $13 or a combined package for....$40?

Steve Geddes wrote:

I dont think Iran care that the US doesnt consider them part of the "good guys club", do you?

I would guess that it has caused them some consternation recently.

I'm sure they care about sanctions, threats of attack and other direct expressions of power.

I'm willing to bet they don't lose any sleep over being labelled "baddies" though. That's my point. There isn't any real distinction between a "rogue state" and a "staunch ally" other than approval - its all subjective, agenda driven political speak. Nations aren't citizens of the world and they aren't bound by some overarching legal framework. The heart of nationhood is power - if you can't hold your position through power or the threat of power, you aren't a state (or won't remain one for long, anyhow).

There's nothing more legitimate than that (unfortunately). Differing people will advocate different standards from the moral authority of democratic mandate to appeals to divine authority. We shouldn't get carried away with our own country's propaganda, in my view. We have a moral obligation as citizens (particularly in a rich, democratic country) to critique our own government's actions. Falling into the trap of "goodies versus baddies" is something to be avoided, in my view.

I meant being sued in international court.

Then I dont understand.

It's generally bad form to ask a nation guard against the spread of communism, then throw them under the bus when they're caught doing so.

I dont think those responsible for taking the US to the International Court of Justice had previously asked the US to guard against the spread of communism. Nor was the UN set up to "guard against the spread of communism".