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

Vic Wertz's page

Chief Technical Officer. 19,212 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
That and Fruit Loops and beer.

I hope that's two separate things, not a single bowl...

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, we said cohorts are in an *upcoming* blog, not necessarily next week's...

(Also, I knew Germany is in a different time zone, but I didn't realize it was several *days* ahead...)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Romaq wrote:
My understanding of http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Mwangi vs Garundi is like the distinction between someone who is Korean vs. Asian. The nationality for Pharasma is "Garundi" from what I recall reading.

While "Garundi" can mean "somebody from the continent of Garund," it *also* refers to people of a specific ethnicity—see page 14 of the Inner Sea World Guide. Quinn's ethnicity is Mwangi, not Garundi... and since he's actually from Galt, he's not Garundi in the *regional* sense either—he's Avistani.

(At least, unless James Jacobs or James Sutter correct me....)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wayne Reynolds wrote:
Most of the descriptions that I receive regarding the Iconic characters are fairly brief. Occasionally, they'll specify an element or item that they'd like to see in the illustration. Otherwise I consider myself fortunate that they allow me a degree of artistic freedom in the depiction.

I have always found that the less you limit an artist the better the results—at least, when you have an artist you trust. (When I write an art order for a piece—even something as important as the cover of a product—I try to limit myself to 3 or 4 sentences.)

Here are two examples of the art orders we gave Wayne for iconics (both from the Advanced Class Guide):

The most specific ACG art order was for Quinn the Investigator: "Male, Human (Mwangi, graying hair), wearing refined clothing, with a leather overcoat (also of fine make), sword cane for a weapon. A cross between the alchemist and the rogue, the investigator uses alchemy and his skills to solve problems and defeat foes, but is not above physical violence if the needs call for it. Think Sherlock Holmes, but with a dose of alchemy tossed in (well, a bigger dose than the character anyway)."

The least specific was for Enora the Arcanist: "Female, Halfling, no armor, armed with a dagger. This class is a blend of sorcerer and wizard, using the magic in her blood and arcane study to cast spells."

(Note that when we assign iconic art, we don't name the characters—the staff always wants to see the finished art and come up with a name they think suits what Wayne has done.)

Partway through the process, we get sketches and give feedback on them... though the feedback I end up providing on Wayne's stuff is usually limited to the single word "awesome!" Really, all the magic happens at his end.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cosmo wrote:

Sara Marie: You know what moms are great for?

Liz: Animal skulls.

Your mom is very different from mine.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We have no interest in running another Kickstarter anytime soon. For anything.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Triphoppenskip wrote:
The Rot Grub wrote:
Also, I like how the upcoming D&D CRPG is made with the intent of empowering DMs to make their own adventures.
I have yet to hear of this game, please tell me more.

That sounds like a great topic for a different thread.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Our position is that (apart from trying to kill Cosmo a couple times) Indy has been good to us, but where Gen Con goes is up to Gen Con. We will follow.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:

I've been saying it for years but given a recent influx of "Which AP to run", "Which AP is the most X" and "rank the APs" threads I will say it again.

This sub forum needs a sticky thread where people discuss and compare APs. There are always going to be people out to choose their first AP, and the community is always great with providing various opinions. But why not make this huge amount of information easily accessible to anyone who wants it? And anyone who wants to know something that wasn't already covered could just ask - and have the answer given to them be available to anyone who might want to know in the future!

Since those threads keep popping up, I think the intelligent thing to do is figure out the pattern and adjust accordingly. People want to be able to compare APs under various parameters, that information will always be relevant and there will always be new people.

...and if it's a sticky thread, the beginning of the discussion will go more and more out of date and become less and less useful. Imagine if we'd done this a few years ago, and these people out to choose their first AP are presented with several pages of opinion that doesn't include anything newer than, say, Legacy of Fire...

Restarting this discussion a couple times per year is actually a *good* thing.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
So...I think Pathfinder will once again pass D&D as of the next report. D&D's sparse release schedule -- as much as I personally love it -- almost guarantees that D&D won't hold the top spot.

So I'm told that in Wizards' Q&A session at the GAMA Trade Show this past week, they said that they won't be releasing any splatbooks for the current edition, just adventures. Has anybody seen a transcript of that anywhere?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

James left out a few steps, added in bold below.

James Sutter wrote:


*Write a bunch of stories (set in your own worlds). Make them as good as you can.
*Write more.
*Send them out to magazines or publishers who accept unsolicited submissions (aka "slush").
*Write more.
*If you can't get in at the big places, try the slightly smaller places, all the way down until you start getting published, even if the pay is just token rates.
*Write more. Read more. Get feedback. Try to improve.
*Continue to try the "trickle-down submissions" approach—over time, you'll likely find that you're selling to better and better markets. Maybe you even start getting some people who contact you saying they're fans.
*Write more.
*Wake up one day and realize you're now selling to places you never dreamed of when you were first starting out. You're making actual money off your writing (6 cents a word is what SFWA calls "pro rates".) Congratulations—you're a professional writer!
*Write more. Now with deadlines!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I've always been confused on the difference between developers and designers.

I think they rearrange their titles when I'm not looking.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would just like to say that this is not a democratic process (and I'm also under no illusion that this thread is directly representative of our entire customer base), but I *am* nevertheless listening. (I am also not the least bit surprised by what I'm hearing.)

On the topic of players skipping APs, I would like to point out that we have had the exact same issue in our RPG Adventure Path line since we released the first issue of the second AP 7 years ago. Very few people can play through a full RPG AP in 6 months, and many people can't afford to buy the ones they can't play (6 volumes at MSRP come to $137.94, and that's assuming you're not buying any of the many complimentary products we produce for each AP). This has not prevented the RPG Adventure Path line from being very, very successful, and indeed, a cornerstone of Paizo's business.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnight Anarch wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
The fighter deck is a great example... one of the character uses polearms and has a special power that requires polearm weapons, but there are not enough polearm weapons to gain throughout the campaign. This will allow the designers to "spread the wealth" a bit more, giving each of the three characters more boons that work well for their specific abilities.

I feel like this may be a design issue, wherein the problem wouldn't occur if some overlap between characters is imbued into the class decks.

In your fighter example, they might have had two fighters that can utilize polearms in different ways: one might recharge polearms rather than discard, while another might bury a polearm or axe used to make a combat check to gain an additional d8.

Then, with mild cross-over like that, there should be enough support card space available to satisfy the use of either character.

I'm a little worried that we'll see more repetition than variety, going down to 3 characters. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I am curious what it really means to the resulting decks.

I think what you'll see is that the characters in the deck can actually be a little *more* diverse.

In the first wave of Class Decks, there are 97 boons supporting 4 characters. Now there will be 100 boons supporting 3 characters. Let's assume that in either case, a fixed percentage of the boons are "utility" cards that work equally well for any of the characters, and the rest are cards that work better for one character than the others. This is purely illustrative (as we don't actually have a fixed percentage), so to keep the math easy, let's call it 50/50, and assume that the non-utility cards are divided among characters equally. In the old decks, that would give you 48 utility cards and 12 cards for each character; in the new decks, that would give you 49 utility cards and 17 cards for each character, meaning each character would get a 40% increase in specialty cards. Again, not real numbers here, but you can see the point—with fewer characters, we can give each character more specialized stuff, and more specialized powers to take advantage of that stuff.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry—our discussion forked from the original, so my note that I needed to respond in this thread wasn't quite right. (That is, the FAQ I just created answered a question that *we* asked while examining these cards rather than the question actually asked in this thread.)

The answer to the original question is "Sure, Heggal can do that." We're not about to change Heggal, multiple Kyras, Tarlin, Oloch, and all their roles, along with Cure, Mass Cure, Major Cure, Surgeon, and so on, all just to stop Heggal from doing (as Mike put it) "a party trick" with one card.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a *small possibility* we might be able to give the Paladin decks an early debut at Gen Con, but we probably won't know until July.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

And on the original topic, we haven't talked much about Wrath yet because we've just finished releasing Skull & Shackles, so our focus has been there. That all changes next Tuesday, when we start talking about Wrath in the Paizo blog. Now, we're not going to answer all of your questions in a single post—we have a couple months to reveal these things, after all—but we will answer *some* of them next week.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ironvein wrote:
I'm just saying that the wording for these scenarios are vague and confusing on when exactly play ends and if we have 30 turns to do something, then win conditions should be checked at the end of the turn so that all the party's efforts are meaningful toward finishing the scenario.

When you *lose* a scenario on turns, it happens when you advance the blessing deck at the beginning of a turn. Why should winning be in a different place?

Also, you seem to be really tied to the idea that 30 complete turns is some sort of magic number, but in the case of Inside Lucrehold, we're not replacing a blessing with Brinebones, we're adding him in, so you'll get your 30 turns.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Jorsalheim wrote:
Nice! You really got Class. Looking forward to getting these. And if this is going to be an "ongoing thing" it would be nice with a subscription possibility somewhere down the line :)

If more people express interest, that's certainly a possibility!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
crasher wrote:

What I would have preferred is a Base Set that was essentially the equivalent of the beginner box from the RPG. Then each adventure path could have been a setting box that consisted of some new characters and a new "Level 0" adventure plus all the cards shared across the adventure path, and 6 Adventure decks that were exactly what we have now.

Basically everyone buys the $40 "Base Set" which is a full game with lots of basic cards and a small adventure, then if they want to do a specific adventure they buy the Setting Box and then the 6 adventure decks to go with the AP itself.

A lot of people propose this, and of course, it's something we've considered, but the math just isn't there.

I while back, I did the math to figure out the minimum number of cards it takes to run a single full-size scenario of the Pathfinder ACG for 4 players

This provides:
• A character and token card for each player (no role cards, and no extra characters to choose from)
• 20 cards for each player to select a 15-card deck from
• 6 location cards, plus 10 cards to fill out each location deck (including 1 villain and 5 henchmen)
• 1 scenario card (no adventure or Adventure Path card)
• 40 blessings (allowing for a standard 30-card blessings deck plus 10 more to cover the villain fleeing after being defeated)
• 5 additional cards to allow for something to be summoned/added from the box/rewarded at the end

To support 4 players, that comes to exactly 200 cards. With a card organizer, rulebook, and dice, I might be able to sell you that for $30. And what you get for your 30 bones is a game with practically no replay value. You'll have seen nearly every card in the game your first time through, and you won't have had any real glimpse of the thing that makes this game special—character advancement through play. What you will have is a longer version of our convention demo scenario, and that's it.

So fine, add in another 3 scenarios to play. 3 new scenario cards (and now we can have an Adventure Path card!), a few new villains, new henchmen, new locations, maybe a loot card or two, and maybe 15–20 new banes and boons—60 more cards total—and now we've got a $40 game. There's still not a lot of variety—we've still given you no choice of characters, minimal choice of starting decks, and bare minimum number of cards to improve your deck as you explore... but now you can play it at least 4 times, maybe even 5 or 6, before you've seen it all. Or we could go the other way and add 2 scenarios and a new class, along with the banes to support that class. You'll still see it all in 3 or 4 plays, but at least somebody can have fun replaying it with a new character.

And with the minimal card selection in our 260 cards, we have two choices when it comes to flavor. We can make it all very generic (a cross section of fantasy roleplaying) or we can make it very themed. But either choice has a tremendous impact on how expansions are designed. Let's say we want to branch two stories from this box—Rise of the Runelords and Skull & Shackles. The former needs us to have lots of goblins, and not a lot of pirates. The latter needs the reverse. If we theme that box one way or the other, it doesn't serve us for the other story. And if theme it neutrally, we probably don't have *any* pirates, but we have a goblin or two. Either way, we have to do pretty much all the thematic stuff for at least one of those APs in the Adventure Decks instead of the Base Set, and that means making *them* bigger. But, hey, let's take best case, and assume that all of the cards in the new 260-card box are completely useful in the Ap we're doing, so all we need to do is expand each of the Adventure Decks to replace all the cards that we've left out of the Base Set box. (In practice, that doesn't actually work, because we actually want to front-load most of those cards to provide diversity at the start of the game.) These bigger Adventure Decks are now much harder sells at $24.99. Also, remember that in this scenario you're not getting the first Adventure Deck in the main box, which means you have to buy 6 instead of 5, and the total cost of an AP (not counting the Character Add-On Deck) has now gone *up* from $159.94 to $189.93.

But the good news is that as our base expands, we can do more with fewer cards. For another $20, we can add a bunch more scenarios, more classes, and more overall diversity in generic banes and boons, creating exponentially higher replay value *and* providing enough of a foundation for our specific Adventure Path that we can tell it with 110-card Adventure Decks.

In case you're wondering, we did also look at going the other way, with an even bigger Base Set and 60-card Adventure Decks, but it made for a Base Set that was far too expensive (and even harder to ship than the one we have).

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
How long after Pathfinder was released did it take to get a stable of non-English versions on the shelf? 5e is six months old or so, if it was in that time frame, I think it would fair to bring up their lack of foreign language editions. Otherwise, not so much.

Tracking down the exact answer would take a bit, but I know that we had announced French and German even before we released the English version and I believe both of those languages had their versions of the Core Rulebook out quickly. We released in August 2009, and I'm pretty sure French was out before year end, and German was pretty close to French.

(Also, I've learned that Lisa has already revealed that Chinese and Hebrew translations are in progress, and there are still others to be announced.)

I’m really surprised and a bit sad that Paizo is ignoring the Spanish speaking public. ...

A couple things:

As Erik has already mentioned, we do have a Spanish publishing partner. The bit you quoted wasn't a complete list of our translation partners—the first paragraph of mine that you quoted was answering houstonderek's question, so I listed only the ones that released Core Rulebooks within six months of the English release. And the second paragraph you quoted was me updating the list that I'd given out earlier in the thread, which, for easy reference, is this:

Out now:
•French (Black Book Editions)
•German (Ulisses Spiele)
•Italian (Giochi Uniti)
•Portuguese (Devir)
•Spanish (Devir)
Coming Soon:
•Chinese
•Hebrew
•TBA (and this isn't just a "someday there will hopefully be more" thing, it's a "contracts are currently in process" thing).

Also, it's important to note that the absence of any given language on the list does not mean that Paizo is ignoring that language. We are not in the business of publishing and selling in other languages; instead, we are looking to partner with experienced local publishers who already know how to sell and support games in their native languages. If a language isn't on that list, it means that we have not yet been approached by an experience publisher that we've deemed up to the task (or perhaps that we have been, and they're one of the "TBA"s).

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

6 people marked this as a favorite.

If we were making a Star Wars game, we wouldn't sell you a Smuggler deck without Han Solo in it, or a Sith Lord deck without Darth Vader. So don't expect a Druid deck without Lini.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Howon Twothree wrote:

My question is this; is the location list finely tuned to the difficulty of each scenario so that if I choose to randomize which locations I in fact play in each scenario it would be regarded as "Gamey" and not worthy of the standard bonuses?

The location list is very much tied to the difficulty of the scenario. Changing the locations can *easily* make a scenario much easier or much more difficult than intended. I really don't recommend it.

In Skull & Shackles and Wrath of the Righteous, solo players will experience all of the locations in the game eventually. In Rise of the Runelords, solo players will miss a few, but Mike's Cult of the Dragon scenario will let you experience those too.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
...my opinion is that Paizo benefits from the brand strength of D&D.

And even though what I just said a couple posts up might suggest otherwise in certain circumstances, this is nevertheless in general very, very true.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also: question asked, question answered!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

6 people marked this as a favorite.

QA Erik (to Cosmo): Why do you have glitterdust? You're like Tingle from The Legend of Zelda.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We really want *all* of our iconics to eventually be available in both unpainted metal and/or plastic *and* prepainted plastic.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Cort: It's like Top Chef for cosplayers.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To the best of my knowledge, no large-scale study of the general non-gaming public's D&D brand view has been undertaken since shortly after Wizards purchased TSR. (It's very possible that Wizards has done one I don't know about, but I'd be very surprised to learn any reputable third-party has done one that I haven't heard about.)

At that time, D&D had pretty good brand recognition, but the perception of the brand among non-gamers was not without problems. Even in the late '90s, the brand was still associated by many with nerds, satanism, and people disappearing in steam tunnels. When D&D was referenced on TV, it was usually as the butt of the joke (remember the Jesse episode "The Mischevious Elf"?). Even into the 21st century, Walmart apparently wouldn't carry anything with the D&D brand. I don't know for sure, but I like to think that the increasing dominance of "nerd culture" and the decline of groups putting forth the "D&D is evil" message have improved things since then, but I can tell you that over the years, Pathfinder has certainly reaped some benefits from *not* being D&D.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dariusu wrote:
I don't know what the sales on Amazon is vs the sales on Paizo's own site. Anyone have that info?

Nobody outside of Paizo does.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Lorathorn wrote:
Some Pathfinder books could benefit from allowing bookmarks, on the other hand...
Agreed! I certainly wouldn't mind having more permissions on my Pathfinder PDFs. However, I am not knowledgeable about the granularity of PDF permissions; there may be a technical reason bookmarks aren't allowed.

Sadly, there's virtually no granularity in PDF security. The same control that would let you add bookmarks would also let you easily delete the watermarks. (I *think* Goodreader works around this by storing its bookmarks separately, but I'm not honestly sure.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Pathfinder PDFs do come with DRM. Have you not noticed the watermarks?
I have, and you're right...technically there is DRM. I should have written onerous DRM. Meaning I have no problem being unable edit PDFs, or that those PDFs are traceable to me. I meant things like being forced to deal with proprietary applications and file formats, the inability to copy files, etc.

While some parties broadly define DRM to include watermarks*, DRM and watermarks are technically separate forms of content protection. In the context of PDF security, DRM essentially involves the PDF reader checking with a server to determine whether a specific user is allowed to view, edit, print, or otherwise manipulate a specific PDF**. We use watermarks, but we don't use DRM.

*There are people who define licensing agreements as DRM.

**This is a gross overview; there are DRM controls that function in other ways, including offline, but that's getting way off topic.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
I take it Occult Adventures is providing an opportunity for a more rounded out set of iconics?

Some of them are more rounded than others.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The_Napier wrote:
Confirmed are the new Arcanist, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Summoner, Bloodrager, Hunter, Shaman, and Cutpurse (promo) + the returning Paladin, Cleric, and two others that I haven't seen confirmed yet but are thought to likely be Sorcerer and Thief

I can promise you there's no "Thief."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
nondeskript wrote:
I have only seen Paizo publicy state that the errata packs are sold at cost. I don't know what the final card counts were, but I do know that shortly before launch Vic posted prices and card counts that worked out to around $0.11/card. I know that the economies of scale are different between printing a card and printing 185 cards, but nearly 5x the cost? I would imagine that Paizo is making a profit here and that is perfectly fine.

The primary difference in pricing between the errata decks and Card Creator cards is this: the errata decks use a system that DriveThru already had in place, while the Card Creator cards use a system that DriveThru had to create for this project; the additional cost for Card Creator cards will hopefully eventually cover the cost of developing that system.

I won't say we're not making *any* money here; but I will say that I made it clear to DriveThru that Paizo's goal for the Card Creator is about encouraging the community, not about driving profit. That said, DriveThru hopes to make future use of this new system with other games that may be published by companies that *are* looking primarily for profit, and if we priced our cards exactly at cost, that would set a unprofitable price precedent that would make it hard for those publishers to follow suit. I essentially told Steve to come up with a number that he thought was workable, round it up, and basically just pass us the rounding. I *hope* that DriveThru recoups the time and effort they put into the system, and begins making a profit, and I hope that Paizo will eventually recoup the time and effort spent by the card team and the art department on it, but I don't frankly care that much about the last part—I just want it to help keep the game interesting for players.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will tell you this—if you're looking for information that we don't currently give you access to right now, odds are good that the reason we're not giving you that information involves either customer privacy or corporate strategy.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I suspect Paul is from DESPINOS TIRE SERVICE MANSFIELD.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently that's coming later this week.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We will likely create errata packages for Class Decks and for S&S in a couple of months, after we've had time to get player feedback on S&S 6.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cropping is fine.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A topic just like this comes up every year when we do our RPG Superstar contest, in which contestants are required to transfer copyrights of their entries to us. (Epic Meepo, as an RPG Superstar veteran, I think you'll find that the answers here are pretty similar to the answers there.)

We're not taking ownership because we want to make money off of your work. We're taking ownership for our own legal protection. Imagine that somebody out there creates a a card for the Card Creator, and it just happens to be very similar to a card that Mike has designed for an upcoming release. By requiring Card Creator users to assign us the rights, we don't have to worry about people trying to sue us for "stealing" their ideas.

Speaking of stealing, I'm now going to paraphrase one of Sean K Reynolds' responses from a RPG Superstar thread from 2010:

Our designers aren't going to sift through Card Creator entries looking for cards to fill a hole in an upcoming set. They're perfectly capable of designing their own cards, and can likely do so faster than it would take to find a card in the Card Creator, develop it, and note the author's name for the credits.

That said, I know that Steve had some ideas about a community design contest in the future, so I won't say that we'll *never* do anything with the cards there—but I will say that *if* we do, we will make a good faith effort to contact, credit, and compensate the designer. We have done the same for a very small number of RPG Superstar entries that we republished. (And odds are good that if we do such a contest, it will involve looking at entries crafted specifically for the contest, not just picking stuff out of the library.)

On the topic of creators getting paid for copies of their cards being sold, that was something we talked about when we originally started discussing this with DriveThru, but they determined that implementing it wasn't feasible at this time. I cannot say whether or not it will change in the future. Either way, I can tell you that nobody is going to get rich off of the content in the Card Creator. If you're troubled about it, though, the answer is simple: don't make your cards public.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's okay to use anything in the Community Use Package (see http://paizo.com/paizo/about/communityuse) in the Card Creator, and to make your cards using that content public.

It is not okay to use card text or Paizo-owned images that are not part of the Community Use Package in the Card Creator.

I'll see if I can get Steve to create a FAQ page for the Card Creator that explains these things.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding variety of scenarios: With Rise of the Runelords, we weren't sure how often we could depart from the basic "find, defeat, and corner the villain" scenario recipe. In retrospect, we could have changed it up it a lot more than we did. We do it a lot more in S&S and in Wrath, so if that's your primary issue, please check out some of the reviews posted online--I see pretty much universal agreement that we improved the diversity of gameplay with S&S.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:

While I think that most things outside the CRB would be extraneous and unnecessary, I think Oracle would deserve mention as, essentially, the divine version of Sorcerer. I'm not saying it should get as extensive treatment as the other classes, but I think it would have been a smart play to have an overall look at classes, and point out that for both divine and arcane, there is both a preparing and spontaneous option out there.

There are differing opinions as to which is easier to play -- preparing or spontaneous -- but for that contingent which finds spontaneous casters easier for them to manage, it would be nice to at least have a heads-up that divine has an option for that too, just like arcane does.

While this book goes into detail only on Core Rulebook material, we do *briefly* discuss other books providing additional options.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks, the solution is in testing. Assuming it tests ok, that is the last step prior to release. There is literally nothing you can say that will make it go faster at this point.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
zeroth_hour wrote:
My experience has been that while I haven't maxed out on deck upgrades yet, I have somewhat maxed out on deck upgrades 1 below my adventure level (I could use more blessings). I don't think I'm the typical experience however, but it may be the experience of a party who's used to these types of games.

My gut says that's right about where we want you to be.

1 to 50 of 1,317 << 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.