|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The main function of the Basic trait is that your characters' starting decks are restricted to include only Basic cards with that trait.
Location decks don't share that restriction—they are built using any cards in the box. While you're playing the scenarios from the Base Set, you should have all of the cards with the B indicator (that's the letter in the upper right corner) in the box—and if you have the Character Add-On Deck, all of the cards with the C indicator—and nothing else.
The other important function of the Basic trait, and the main function of the Elite trait, is that they work with the rules on the Adventure Path card that tell you when you can remove cards from the game. You don't need to worry about that until you start Adventure Deck 3.
A few other cards might card about whether a card has the Basic or Elite trait—for example, a card might tell you to draw an item with the Basic trait from the box—but you don't need to think about that sort of thing until it happens, and when it does, the cards will tell you what to do.
FAQs stop arguments in your world?
Jester David wrote:
The problem wasn't that 3.5 made the 3.0 product worthless. It was that the first 3rd-party d20 products to market sold *really well*, and the market responded with overexuberance. A lot of small publishers quickly spun up and pumped out a lot of products that just frankly weren't that good, and a lot of retailers bought way too many copies of way too many of them. This would have been a major problem even if 3.5 hadn't been released.
We have a thread for third-party publishers looking for freelancers to work on specific projects, but I think it would be useful if we had a thread for publishers to tell the community whether they routinely accept submissions outside of specific calls.
Third-party publishers, please post in the following format:
This is an open letter to the Top 32.
One of you won the contest. Thirty-one of you didn't. Either way, your work is not over.
I hope that the reason each of you entered the contest is that you'd like to establish yourself (or perhaps further establish yourself) in the game industry.
The good news is that people like your ideas. The fact you made the Top 32 of RPG Superstar is proof of that, and though most of you are probably disappointed that you didn't win*, "not winning" doesn't change that fact. And even that entry you had in your final round—the one that has no doubt made you second-guess yourself a few times by now? People voted for that because they liked it.
So we've established you have talent. Lots of previous RPG Superstar non-winners are now working professionally in the industry, whether as freelancers or as actual employees of Paizo or other companies, and the only thing that stands between you and that future is you.
It's time to capitalize on what RPG Superstar has gained for you. First of all, folks like Owen K. C. Stephens, John Compton, and James Jacobs know some of your work, and might think of you when they need something. And if you submit something to us in an open call, your status as an RPG Superstar contestant will help separate you from the rest. I would hope that it would give weight at a lot of other companies in the industry, too—especially those publishing Pathfinder-compatible products. Your name is out there, and now is the time to get your work out there.
And just because you won, Monica Marlowe, don't think this post doesn't apply to you—it applies to you at least as much as anyone else. Some RPG Superstar winners have established themselves as successful writers who are going to continue getting a lot of work from Paizo and other publishers, and others have completed their winning assignment and then promptly disappeared. Which way it goes is *almost entirely* up to you. You have the biggest opportunity, and I hope you capitalize on it.
All of you: If you want this, do this. Now is the time.
*Ok, maybe Jason Keeley is less disappointed than most—but his work isn't over either!
I think it's great that they've got it for sale there. I think Wizards had 4E starter sets in Walmart as well, but there was a time, I'm told, when D&D was on a list of brands that was simply not allowed to be sold at Walmart.
People on that thread are wondering why it's with the trading card games and other collectibles and not in the toy and game section. The answer is that big stores like that aren't organized by the employees—they're essentially organized by the buyers for each department. And while many of you know that, this part may be surprising to more of you—the department that a product is *in* relates less to what the product *is* than it relates to who the buyer purchased the product *from*. In this case, the distributor who sells D&D to the mass market is the same distributor who sells them Magic: The Gathering, and since the collectibles buyer is the one who buys Magic, he's the one buying those D&D boxes, and that means they go in the collectibles section.
Similar things happen in bookstore chains that also have toys and games—if the person who buys the RPGs buys the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, it gets stocked next to the Pathfinder RPG, but if the person who buys the board and card games buys it, it gets stocked with other board and card games.
The upshot of all that is this: The lottery will give you the best results if you give it the best, most honest data. And the more events you give a non-zero number to, the more likely it is that the lottery will find an event for you when your number comes up.
And be honest with the 1-to-4 rankings—when your number comes up, they help us figure out which available event will make you happiest. You won't get more events by setting everything you want at "4"—you'll just increase the chances that events you might get are not the ones you would have really preferred.
Dustin Ashe wrote:
So, compare that much paper with 13 electronic gadget. I'm not sure which one produces more of an environmental footprint.
From Time magazine: The Surprisingly Large Energy Footprint of the Digital Economy
(In my spare time, I'm working on a coal-burning smart phone. Might as well simplify the math so everyone knows what side you're on!)
I wrote this in response to a question somebody else had about how Apocrypha might affect the PACG and PFSACG Org Play, but I realized that the people reading this thread might want to read it too:
Vic Wertz wrote:
We've been out of our first-printing products for a long time, but it's very easy to imagine that there are lots of retailers and even distributors who still have 1st-printing products in their warehouse. And unlike, say, the grocery business, our industry doesn't generally have a lot of reasons to ensure that the oldest products are sold first. So a distributor might put 2nd printings on the shelf in front of 1st printings, meaning that they might ship 1st printing for a bit, then 2nd printing for a bit, then 1st for a bit...
In short, I can only make guarantees about our own stock: we are only shipping 2nd printing RotR to customers and distributors (with the exception of any items sold as non-mint—those could be either printing).
If you subscribe and choose Unchained as your starting volume, you will get a free PDF when it ships. We can't *guarantee* that it will ship before the PDF becomes available for sale, but I'd say it's likely.
Ok—testing complete. If you would like to avoid having the Base Set as part of your subscription, but want the Character Add-On Deck and all of the promos, here's what you need to do:
• Contact email@example.com (or post in the Customer Service forum and ask to have your sub canceled.
(I'm hopeful that by the time we release the next set, we will have an easy way to just remove the Base Set from your subscription.)
The time we had a delay caused by containers going overboard, the containers that went over didn't actually contain any of our products. We were delayed because the ship and its contents were held for examination by insurers when it reached port. It caused the GM Screen and the second printing of the Core Rulebook to be delayed by about a month.
We also had a delay when a crane dropped a container on another container—one of them did have our products inside, but I forget which. We've also had trucks carrying our products catch fire (yep—trucks, as in "it happened more than once").
Barachiel Shina wrote:
Can anyone here explain why they would take Core Rogue over Unchained Rogue? Or any of the other 3 for that matter? (but Rogue more than anything)
If anybody attempts to answer that question without having actually read the finished classes, I would strongly suggest you discount their answer.
Nothing in this preview seems to tell us how much mythic charge characters start each scenario with. I'm guessing it must be one of (a) the back of the mythic path card, (b) the scenario card (the one shown is probably pre-mythic path) or maybe (c) the adventure card.
(d) It's in the rulebook.
Don't really understand the monkey's paw - even uncorrupted, you're making the check d20 harder, then adding d20. On average that does nothing, AND has potential to make life much harder.
The Monkey's Paw is *awesome*—it makes the impossible possible.
...and it only requires just the teensiest bit of your soul....
Is it safe to assume that Biter will be a Cohort for Harsk as well as being an Ally card from the Iconic Heroes minis? Same with Balazar's Padrig?
None of the currently planned Iconic Heroes cards (sets 1 through 6) are cohorts. Also, nobody ever said there would be a Padrig card in the Iconic Heroes set... just that there would be a card that goes with Padrig. And that's all I'm going to say about that for now.
Also, what happens when we take the WotR characters to a different Base Set? Will we ignore the Cohort section or do we transfer the cohorts over as well?
You might note that we've never given formal rules for moving characters from one set to another, and that isn't changing here. But I would say that, just like you'll want to take some guns along with Lirianne the gunslinger if you take her out of S&S, characters with cohorts are really going to want them wherever they go.
The synergy between those feats, and their wordings, are as intended.
If she has all those feats, she could play a weapon that would normally be buried, keep it in her hand, and recharge another weapon from her discard pile. (Of course, once she runs out of weapons in her discard pile, she'll need to recharge that weapon if she uses it again.)
The last S&S set just came out a few weeks ago, and I want to make sure we shake out all the bugs before we make an errata deck, but we *will* make one not that long from now. (In fact, I'm beginning to compile it this week.) We'll also do something for the first four class decks around the same time—and since we're talking about just a few cards for each of the seven decks, that's probably going to be a single pack for all of them.
That said, I do want to discuss the root of the issue here, and that's that errata for a game with thousands of interacting cards is inevitable, whether it's a relatively simple game like Pokémon (errata PDF), or a more complicated game like Magic: the Gathering (the update bulletin released along with their January set comes in two parts, cards and rules—and they release updates like these a couple times per year). Perhaps a closer scale to our game would be the A Game of Thrones ACG (update PDF). Of course, there are many, many, many more examples out there.
The big difference is that most publishers only release errata as web pages or PDFs, meaning players usually need to print them out and keep them at hand during play. (We offer that option too.) But the fact that we make it *possible* to seamlessly replace the cards is an advantage that most companies don’t even offer for their games.
Finally, the volume of clarifications that we've issued through the FAQ is because we have a very broad policy of making improvements where most companies would not. That is to say, a *huge* percentage of our clarifications would be below the threshold of most other company's FAQs. The majority of the cards we've fixed, for example, work correctly as originally written—we just saw the opportunity for improvement (most often by making things a little more clear, not by actually changing the way things function) and we took it.
For example, here's one of our most recent FAQ entries—one of the lengthiest entries in quite some time. Paraphrasing with non-game terms, the question is essentially "Do I do this thing that the rules never tell me to do?" The answer is "no." Some companies wouldn't even MAKE a FAQ entry for that—why are you asking if you have to do something we didn't tell you to do? And many companies would simply have a FAQ entry with the one-word answer "No." But we've taken the opportunity to rewrite a couple paragraphs in the rules so that people using the new version will not only understand not to do the thing, but they'll understand *why* they don't do the thing. And the next time we print a rulebook, it'll have *these* rules, and the game will be better for it.
But... did you *need* that rewrite? Did you ever *ask* that particular question? The game has been out a year and a half, and to my knowledge, *nobody* asked that question until recently. Thousands upon thousands of people played and enjoyed the game without needing the answer to that question. But that doesn't mean that changing the rules to answer it is a sign of a poorly designed game—I'd say it's a sign of a responsive publisher who works hard to make the game better tomorrow than it was yesterday.
Jester David wrote:
I've now heard that what they said was that the future product plan for printed 5E books is an adventure book released alongside an associated sourcebook, twice per year, for a total of 4 products per year. But I was really hoping for a transcript, because sometimes the things people hear and the things that were said aren't as equal as the listener might think.
It was originally posted in the PFS Adventure Card Guild forum. And somebody moved it to the card game homebrew forum probably because they were as puzzled by it as everyone else seems to be.
Not that i have any idea what the approproiate forum is for what’s apparently an April Fool’s Day post that missed April Fool’s Day by several days, and will probably confuse and upset people who don’t get the “joke”…. but it certainly isn’t the card game forum, so I'm moving it somewhere else.
This is Paizo's messageboard = all of your ideas are belong to Paizo.
That's not accurate. "Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Inc the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media." You are not losing the copyright to the things you post—you're just letting us use them as well. And in nearly all cases, the sole use we will make of that content is to display it to others in the context of the messageboards.
Paraphrasing Sean K Reynolds, we're not about to go looking through the forums for people's ideas to fill in some blank space in an existing book—our authors are perfectly capable of writing their own material and doing so faster than it would take to search through boards for a good idea, develop it, and note the author's name in the credits. (And pay the author, which we would do if we did that... which we don't.)
That said, please stay on topic in the product discussion forum. If you'd like to talk more about this, we can do so elsewhere.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
1) We heard back at GenCon and in various other interviews that an attempt was made at keeping the Unchained classes compatible with as many of those class's existing classes as possible. What's the status on this; does the Unchained Classes Chapter talk about how these classes interact with archetypes?
It does. (And that's about all we're going to say on that topic for the moment!)
I will just mention that I would put this book down as "very well received" by people who have had early access to it for, uh... various reasons.
I'm just going to repost something I said in the discussion thread for this product several months ago:
Vic Wertz wrote: