|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
WTF! $21 postage on a $31 order?
That sounds bad... but everything in your order is on clearance. If you were to phrase your question based on retail value rather than sale price, $21 postage on a $172 order seems much more reasonable, doesn't it?
But shipping costs aren't based on retail value *or* sale price: they're based on size, weight, destination, and the chosen shipping method. You've got more than 6 pounds of stuff, including a board game that weighs 2.5 pounds by itself.
If you go to the USPS website and ask for a quote to ship a 6-pound package from our zip code (98052) to yours, the cheapest shipping option you'll get is USPS Retail Ground for $22.98 (the smallest single box everything would fit in is 13x10x6, so it won't fit in any Flat Rate Box, and the contents don't qualify for Media Mail). By breaking it into two packages, we can charge you a bit less than that and get you Priority service.
Our shipping charges are designed to cover our costs, not make a profit; we spend a lot of effort keeping our costs as low as we can without losing money—including breaking your order into multiple packages when it saves *you* money.
Analyzing loot in that way doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.
Some loot cards—especially weapons—will be outgrown, while other cards will remain useful for the rest of the AP. And not all loot cards are created equal—Emerald Codex is one of the best cards in RotR, so even if that's the only loot card in your deck, I'm not going to cry for you.
The title of Season of the Righteous Adventure 4 changed in development, so the copy of the Adventure Path page currently included in adventures 1 through 3 have the wrong title (The Mighty and the Fallen); the copy included in adventures 4 through 6 have the correct title (The Mighty and the Righteous).
If we ever have cause to update those files, the sheets will be updated, but we're not going to make everybody redownload all those files just to get a minor correction to a page that they already have in corrected form anyway (and if they don't have it in corrected form yet, that means they haven't gotten far enough for it to matter anyway).
Complete list below:
All PACG Traits:
Note: This list is in kit form; you'll need to assemble it yourself. You will need multiple copies of many of the components below. Some components may not be used. No further instructions are available.
Playing an item counts as playing an item, unless something tells you otherwise, and nothing here is telling you otherwise. (Note in Hawk's link above, Goblin Buckler Gun tells you it counts as playing a weapon instead of an armor.)
Playing a spell limits your ability to play other spells, so doing something that counts as playing a spell limits your ability to play other spells.
A fresh take:
Optional vs. Required Checks
(Shrine to Lamashtu and Coastline, and possibly a few other cards, should then say "Either do X or do Y.")
Ezekiel Shanoax, the Stormchild wrote:
...thanks to Paizo for making it possible for 3rd party publishers like Steve to contribute freely and grow the game for all of us.
Steve is the very exemplar of the reason we do these things. His impact on the industry goes far beyond the products he published.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Those who have educated themselves on TSR's demise don't all agree on the relative import of the various causes, but I doubt many of them would put Alternity in their top 10 list.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
While very little has been firmly decided, I'll note that the Pathfinder Compatibility License doesn't prevent you from using it on products that are also compatible with systems other than the Pathfinder RPG. I don't see any reason why we'd want to change that with the Starfinder license.
That being said I'm not sure it will be as successful as PF was imo.
The good news is that Pathfinder is not the stick by which Starfinder will be measured. As I said upthread:
...another key to all of this is that we're not expecting Starfinder to be as big as Pathfinder. It's got a much smaller team producing a much smaller number of products, and that... means that we don't need to achieve a Pathfinder-like level of success for the line to be worthwhile.
Nobody is expecting to sell as many copies of the Starfinder RPG core rulebook as the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. Frankly, if it sells more copies than, say, Bestiary 5, we'll be pretty happy.
For S&S, we have an official card count, although I don't quite understand the discrepancy with Runelords.
Do you mean the fact that (excluding promos) Runelords has 1155 cards and S&S and Wrath each have 1170?
Our cards are printed on 110-card sheets. This is why all six adventure decks and each set's Character Add-On Deck contain 110 cards each; together, they account for 770 cards in each AP.
That leaves 385 B cards in Runelords, and 400 B cards in Wrath and S&S.
385 means we're using 3.5 110-card sheets. (The "half-sheet" cards are printed on regular sheets where the top and bottom halves are identical; the top half goes into one box, and the bottom half goes into another.)
So what's with the extra 15 cards in Wrath and S&S?
Some of you will recall that Runelords was first printed in China, so it was designed to suit the requirements of that printer. You may have noticed that all of the cards that have checkboxes on them have a different surface than the other cards. The other cards have a lacquer varnish that protects the card surface, and also gives them a nice glossy look. We don't varnish the cards with checkboxes because they're easier to write on that way (and because you're never asked to shuffle cards with checkboxes on them, we're not concerned about the lack of a protective surface). With our Chinese printer, the unvarnished cards were on the same sheet as varnished cards.
With our US printer, they prefer to put the unvarnished cards on a separate sheet. S&S and Wrath each have 15 unvarnished cards: 7 characters, 7 roles, and the Fleet card (in S&S) or the Redemption card (in Wrath). We still use 3.5 regular sheets in those sets, so the total count is increased by the number of unvarnished cards.
So now you're probably wondering why the US-printed Character Add-On Decks and Class Decks have unvarnished cards but aren't over 110 cards. The answer is that our printer *prefers* the unvarnished cards on a separate sheet, but that doesn't mean they *require* it. It's more important in this case that these products fit into a standard box, and the standard box is designed for a single 110-card sheet, so we put the unvarnished cards on the same sheet as the varnished cards.
Kevin Mack wrote:
...the fact there still doing a capital raise after all this time...
The phrase "doing a capital raise" doesn't paint an accurate picture of the current state, as it suggests that they are still looking for people to give them money. The phrase they used was "finaliz[ing] a significant capital infusion into our company." They have people committed to give them money, and are in the process of dotting 'i's and crossing 't's to get that money into the bank.
This was a complex and slow process because there have been a lot of parties involved, some of them private, some of them not. Deals had to be negotiated between Party A and Party B, contingent on other deals between Party C and Party D, and so on. It has been in the works for many months, and as Erik Mona said the other day, it felt like Achilles' Paradox: every two weeks, we moved halfway to the finish line. But that's *almost* all behind us know, and, as "NewCorp" has said, they're starting to assemble a PFO team that is much larger—and far more well-funded—than Goblinworks ever was.
Jason Nelson wrote:
They've talked to a number of 3PP folks about the possibilities ahead, but there is as yet no confirmation that I have seen about what shape or form a SFRD and/or compatibility license may take and how it will interact with the PRD and PF comp license.
I'll just say that, as one of the primary voices in this discussion, I'm very satisfied with what we have done in this respect with Pathfinder, and currently expect that this particular apple isn't likely to fall far from the tree.
Flynn Greywalker wrote:
My opinion, it will initially split Paizo into two equal sized teams.
Not even close. Keep in mind that we release 5 to 10 products each month, so a monthly Starfinder product represents just 10-20% of our total output. Out of Paizo's 56 employees (about 20 to 25 of which are in RPG editorial, depending on how you count) only 3 are likely to spend even close to half their time on Starfinder in the next year.
I will definitely pick up the hard cover... in its second printing. i will go digital for first printing and print out the sections i most commonly need for a three ring binder. Too many wild alterations running around Paizo products as errata and revisions for me to want a physical copy of a first edition anymore.
I will just point out that each person who does that effectively delays that second printing from happening. And if a large enough number of people did that, there would never be a second printing.
I left out a noteworthy situation—Situation 3: Overlap. When people are buying product A *and* product B from you, that's obviously pretty good for business.
I expect that there will be some pretty good overlap between the Pathfinder and Starfinder audiences. And Starfinder's leanness helps keep that feasible—adding a single AP volume every month is something people might do. (Adding every Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and Al-Qadim product to your regular Greyhawk purchases... not so many people would or could do that. And yes, those really were all supported simultaneously!)
The big problem that TSR created with multiple campaign settings is that it caused a majority of D&D players to identify solely with one of those campaign settings to the exclusion of the others. So when they put out a book with a Greyhawk logo on the cover, Forgotten Realms players wouldn't buy it, and vice versa. And because they were frequently supporting several active campaign settings simultaneously, that meant that each book they released under a campaign setting banner would be purchased by a minority fraction of the potential D&D buying audience. And the more settings they supported, the smaller those fractions would be. And those products cost the same to write, edit, and illustrate whether they were selling to a huge number or a small number, so fewer unit sales mean less profitability.
Let's call this Situation #1: Cannibalism. If people are choosing your product A in preference to your product B, and those people would have purchased product B if product A didn't exist, you have created an inefficiency. And when you expand the choices to A, B, C, and D, you have an even bigger inefficiency.
That's the down side. On the plus side, each campaign setting *should* also appeal to some number of people who simply wouldn't be playing D&D at all if that campaign setting didn't exist.
Let's call this Situation #2: Acquisition. When people are choosing your product A in preference to not buying any product from you, that's just a straight-up win.
Of course, in real life, it's not one or the other—it's a mixture of both. And that ratio is key—if you are acquiring more people than you are cannibalizing, maybe it's worth the inefficiency. But if you are cannibalizing without significant acquisition, you're probably making a mistake.
So let's say you're publishing a fantasy-dominant setting like Greyhawk. Maybe supporting a horror-themed setting like Ravenloft alongside it provides more acquisition than cannibalization. But I'd bet that supporting a setting like Birthright alongside Greyhawk probably led to significantly more cannibalization than acquisition.
The introduction of Starfinder will cause some cannibalization, as some players stop buying Pathfinder books to buy only Starfinder books. But I believe that it's going to be relatively small. (Frankly, I expect the number of Pathfinder players we'll lose to Starfinder will be way smaller than the number of Pathfinder players we've lost to D&D 5th Edition.) Thematically, the Starfinder setting is more of a departure from the Pathfinder setting than say, Forgotten Realms is from Greyhawk. So we hope that a lot of people who aren't currently buying Pathfinder—likely people that prefer SF to fantasy—start buying Starfinder.
But another key to all of this is that we're not expecting Starfinder to be as big as Pathfinder. It's got a much smaller team producing a much smaller number of products, and that has two huge effects: first, it limits our exposure to cannibalism; and second, it means that we don't need to achieve a Pathfinder-like level of success for the line to be worthwhile. It's lean and mean, and it's going to stay that way, at least until we are able to see the effect that it has on Pathfinder and on Paizo.
The NPC wrote:
A three-hour tour... a three-hour tour.
Jester David wrote:
I have no comment on the contextualization of this within Starfinder, but I'll just point out that there are plenty of people who like Star Trek: Voyager, The Fugitive, The Hulk, Gilligan's Island, and "will they/won't they" romance.
"We strongly recommend you use the most current version of the rulebook (which contains the most general rules), plus the rulebook for the base set you're using."
What that means is right now, if you were playing Season of the Shackles, you should be using the Wrath rulebook ("the most current version of the rulebook") plus the Wrath rulebook FAQ for the general rules, with the Skull & Shackles rulebook ("the rulebook for the base set you're using") plus the S&S rulebook FAQ for the rules that are unique to that set (ship rules, in this example).
When Mummy's Mask comes out in October, you'd switch to the MM rulebook (plus the MM rulebook FAQ) with the S&S rulebook (plus S&S rulebook FAQ).
If you haven't already played RoboRally, I am extremely confident that you'll enjoy it.
Feel free to do that for personal use, but the maps were not designed to be minis-scale battle mats, so I can't vouch for the image quality at that size.
Also, if you're using the Anniversary Edition of Rise of the Runelords—or frankly, even if you're not—you might find this product more satisfying. While it is also not designed for use as minis-scale battle mats, it includes many more maps, including some that updated some of the maps in this set.
Another series is currently in production; it's up to Big Finish to determine the timetable for announcing it. (I'm just guessing here, but since there were some delays within the schedules for the two prior Adventure Paths, they may be waiting to have production closer to completion before announcing the start date.)