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. 18,633 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

Ditto for me on what Pluvia33 said: Can Alahazra's power not fall in between steps too? And there is no limit on how many times you can play a card or use a power in between steps, right?

And you do realize that if you say yes to both of those, I think this whole thread changed nothing about how I ultimately play the game, and while insightful, was a big long circle back around to "Alahazra can basically use her power to examine location decks as many time as she has cards in her hand."

Man, I love this game.

Yes to both of those. Yeah, I haven't told you anything you don't intuitively know—you just haven't parsed it down to the molecule like I've had to do.

So just for clarity, because Alahazra's "At the end of the turn" power is during a specific step, she can only use it once per turn. And because her "recharge a card to examine" power can be used at any appropriate time, including in between steps, as long as that's when you're doing it, you can use it as many times as you have cards to recharge.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once you're in the explore step, you're in an encounter, and when that encounter ends, you are no longer in an explore step. So the only cards you can play during an exploration are the ones that relate to the steps of that encounter.

But—and I realize that this is not clearly stated anywhere, and needs to be—you can play cards and use powers without limit in between the steps of a turn (but not in between the steps of an encounter—the rules *do* clearly say that bit).

You typically play cards like Augury are *before* you explore, not *during your exploration*. (You know, just like you always have been doing!)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Class Decks have always been thought of as much as an accessory to the main set as the key to making Org Play work.

That said, I would eventually like to have several dozen Class Decks, and I would not recommend anyone dump all of them into the same Base Set. I'd suggest limiting the number of Class Decks you add to match the number of players you have, but that's just me.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth, we have several different ways to mess with victory conditions.

First, it's important to note that the rules only tell you how to win where there is one villain; they say you must corner and defeat him to win.

When there is only one villain, but we want to override the bit about cornering and defeating him, we say "You win the scenario only when <you meet criteria>."

When the number of villains is not 1, the rules don't actually tell you how to win, so we use the phrase "To win the scenario, <meet criteria>."

If we want to add another way to win that you could use in addition to the usual way to win, we would say "In addition to cornering and defeating the villain, you can win the scenario if <you meet criteria>. "

If we want to add an extra requirement to the usual requirement, we would say "In addition to cornering and defeating the villain, you must <meet criteria> to win the scenario."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shade325 wrote:
The understood you is the confusing part not because the understood you is confusing but because its not consistent. Sometimes its a real you and sometimes its an understood you.

Just remember that the cards are talking to you, and the instructions they give are intended only for you, unless they say otherwise.

To use your examples from before:

Alehouse wrote:


On closing, you may recharge an ally from your discard pile

Alehouse is telling you that you may recharge an ally.

Coastline wrote:


On closing, each character at this location may recharge a card that has the Pirate or...

Coastline is telling you that each character may recharge a card.

Lonely Island wrote:


On closing, draw a random ally from the box and recharge it.

Lonely Island is telling you to draw a random ally.

Tempest Cay wrote:


On closing, move to another location.

Tempest Cay is telling you to move to another location.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
So, I'd say this: If the player making the check isn't going to bury a card, then you can't play it during the check. If they are, then you can play it. It applies because it relates to the skill you are playing. Sort of like what Vic said over here. So in my view, when played during a check it isn't optional. You ask the player, do you want to bury a card for an extra d10 (or whatever it is)? If they do, you can play Rage. If they don't you can't.

Correct.

•You can play it (and cards like it) outside of an encounter. Then, if the applicable check comes up, you can trigger the effect.

•You can't play it in response to encountering a bane, because once the encounter begins, you can only play cards that relate to the encounter steps, and unless you're going to power it up (see the bullet below), it doesn't relate to any steps.

•You can play it when you play cards and use powers that affect the check if the recipient *is* going to power it up, because it then relates to the "Attempting the Check" step.

•You can't play it if the recipient *is not* going to power it up, because it wouldn't relate to attempting the check.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

She may recharge any card that has the Offhand trait.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Orbis Orboros wrote:
Andrew K wrote:
Orbis Orboros wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Orbis Orboros wrote:

*Abashed*

I simply bought a second base set...

XD

Wait a second.... are you telling me that you've been adding duplicates of the cards you like from another Base Set, all this time that you've been complaining that the game is too easy?!?

Come now, give me some credit!

I did indeed add some cards, but they were things like Inflict, so that builds like a divine spellcaster could be made effectively. But honestly this was mostly because I had them laying around - I actually bought the second base set to customize the bane ratios to make the game harder. Things like fewer bugbears and more enchanters. I did this because the game was too easy - the game wasn't too easy because I did this.

And it's not like I added Holy Candles or anything.

I just finished my RotR run with only Lini last night, as a combat spellcaster from day one, the only exception being always keeping a Cure around, and later on a Find Traps. I stomped the first four adventures, and only slightly struggled in 5 and 6. Very effective even solo with one set. I will point out, I trashed things like Resto and Toad every time I got them.

Maybe it's less that the casters can't be built effectively, and more that your playstyle doesn't allow it?

There are only two divine attack spells, and only 4 in the entire box until Swipe comes up. I simply felt that wasn't enough.

But again, I wanted more banes and simply decided, why not add more of the stuff I wish there was more of as well? Provided I don't break the game, of course.

It really wasn't much different than what class decks allow you to do, anyway. Except I added banes in addition.

Putting more Divine Attack spells in the box is *changing the balance of the game*, no matter what else you're doing to balance that out. How the designers limit the card pool is a *big* part of what they do.

I'me very frustrated that you've been probably the single most vocal person on the boards when it comes to bashing parts of the game, calling out cards that you would never use, bragging about how nothing is a challenge, complaining about some cards being overpowered... and after all this it turns out you're using a nonstandard play environment. Of *course* you wouldn't use some cards when you're giving yourself better choices that other players don't have. Of *course* some cards are going to be broken when you have more of them than we intended. Of *course* you're never going to worry about defeating any monsters when you do things like giving your Divine casters more Attack spells than we put in the game.

I feel like every critical post you've ever made should come with a disclaimer: "Note: I'm playing a different game than everyone else."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orbis Orboros wrote:

*Abashed*

I simply bought a second base set...

XD

Wait a second.... are you telling me that you've been adding duplicates of the cards you like from another Base Set, all this time that you've been complaining that the game is too easy?!?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In addition to "travel distance", I'm going to go with ""the bureaucracy associated with customs and duties" (because even if none apply, they still have to verify and record that none apply) and with "converting things from a delivery system run by one entity to a delivery system run by another entity". Bundles of parcels need to be unbundled, regrouped, and rebundled. And everything has to be accounted for, not just for tracking purposes, but for the purposes of determining who gets paid how much for handling it. And another big factor is "the amount of stuff handled at the same time but with higher priority shipping rates." This, perhaps more than anything else, is likely to be the cause of stuff sitting around for a while without being acted on.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I've confirmed that pawns for the remaining iconics, including those from the Advanced Class Guide, are indeed in the Inner Sea Pawn Box. So that takes care of Alahazra, Jirelle, Lirianne, Seltyiel, Damiel, Feiya & Oloch.

I've also passed on a request for the remaining non-iconic Class Deck characters to Erik, who decides this sort of thing. (No promises!)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

What I hope will be the final color-match samples will be arriving soon—maybe even today.

Also, our friends at DriveThru have been working on something awesome, and we may be able to launch it alongside the errata decks, perhaps by the end of the month.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mike Selinker wrote:
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

The update for the Ancient Mariner seems to already be on my Ancient Mariner.

Or am I missing something?

Interesting. We issued errata and then fixed the card before anyone saw it.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Removed 1 FAQ entry today.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
crasher wrote:
This whole adventure card guild thing is very frustrating to read about as a store owner. We still haven't heard anything about how to get involved and the local venture captain is unresponsive.

In July, along with your regular Paizo product shipment from your distributor, you *should* have received a packet announcing the Adventure Card Guild telling you how to get involved...

...but whether you got it or not, the main thing to do is sign your store up on our Retailer Locator and make sure you check the box that asks if you're interested in Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild Organized Play.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NOG the Demoralizer wrote:
Hey Vic, bundling opportunity... (I am in sales, I always look for bundling opportunities) I personally am starting to collect the Q-workshop dice line every other week when I go down to my FLGS for PFS night. Maybe slap the PFACG logo sticker on some of the Pathfinder Dice sets and market them for sale with the core sets as they come out.

Marketing the Q-Workshop dice to PACG players isn't in the cards—people would ask what the extra two dice are for!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Throknor wrote:

Actually, virtually every company will give you notice when the system prints a shipping label. But as they ship every day it is pretty much the same day it leaves their facility. The difference here is that Paizo does hundreds of picks and shipment labels in one day, but their shippers probably simply grab from the pile whatever they can fit on the truck for one day.

Hopefully as they grow their next building will include a proper dock and they can just call up FedEx or USPS and say 'Hey, next Tuesday bring a real truck'. But for now we can just hope their printer doesn't screw up immediately before GenCon again.

We have a large warehouse with multiple "proper" docks—that's not the issue here. The main issue is optimizing throughput, so we split things into two groups—a "label run", which covers all of the shipments that many people have in common, and a "pick and pack" run, which involves all of the unusual orders that don't benefit from bulk processing. So in one part of the warehouse we have workers assembling the latter group package by package, while in another part of the warehouse we have machines cranking out thousands and thousands of labels while workers pack thousands and thousands of identical boxes or envelopes, place labels on them, and put them into shipping bins for those trucks. Labels come out far faster than boxes can be packed—it takes a day or two to generate the labels, but it takes many days to process them, meaning a package could actually take a few days to leave the building after the system has processed the shipment, so we provide a wide shipping window to cover that range. It's a worst-case estimate—most packages will actually leave the building well before that window closes.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lissa Guillet wrote:
I also feel bad for kids that didn't get steak fingers grown' up.

Someone has misled you terribly on the topic of bovine anatomy.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Still waiting on color-matching. Sorry!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

I supported the recent legendary gamess mythic kickstarter, and the plan seems to be to send out the pdfs to us, then gather the feedback to fix every typo and only then send it to the printer.

I appreciate, that this might cause some trouble with retail, but would this be an option you would be willing to experiment with?

Crowdsourcing development and editing come with their own problems. Yes, you will probably catch and fix more mistakes, but the in-house effort spent to find each issue will be significantly higher. Let me give you a small-scale example:

Whenever we prepare to reprint a book, we have somebody—usually Jason—scan the FAQ queue and go through the main discussion threads for that product looking for things that need to be fixed. This is a process that might take a few days. Then, he and his team work on solving those problems if they haven't already been solved. During this process, they will also be investigating problem reports that are actually false positives; for example, somebody might have complained that a number in a stat block is wrong, but when we redo the math, we often find that we were right in the first place. This might take another few days. At the end of it, we have a list of changes that then go through editing, layout, and proofing, meaning more people spending more days. And the end result of that work gets summed up in an errata doc that's usually less than a page or two. In short, many man-hours of effort that result in maybe a dozen little changes.

Now image that we do that as an open call. Our days would turn into weeks, and maybe our errata doc would grow from a dozen items to two dozen, with each of the additional items very likely being far less noticeable than the previous dozen. It's the law of diminishing returns.

And crowdsourcing still won't catch everything. We're in our 6th printing of the Core Rulebook now, and in each printing, we've made corrections in response to our community identifying problems, which is a pretty similar effect to the crowdsourcing you describe. An amazingly high number of people have been using that book every day—it's referenced far more that any other book players use, for sure—yet we're *still* finding problems that nobody pointed out in the first five years the book was out.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Bulldozer wrote:
Captain Bulldozer wrote:
Or even better, paizo could make a symbol to always represent the AD#, the way MtG invented the "tap" symbol, and use it as often as it needs to (which is quite a bit).
Wouldn't this idea also save quite a bit of text-space on the actual cards? Am I allowed to like my own idea? ;)

"Symbols vs. words" is a big philosophical deal, and we have elected to go for words in our version of this game.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
csouth154 wrote:
Yes, but the entire reason this resolution was required in the first place is that there is something about this scenario rule that confused many people into thinking that their hand size COULD exceed the normal limit in this scenario, and the way this resolution is worded does nothing to address this.

Yes—the thing that confused people into thinking that their hand size could exceed the normal limit is because we specifically *told them* it was equal to a number that could be greater than their hand size. We're not telling them that anymore, and nothing else is.

Would putting more words on the card make it a belt-and-suspenders surety? Yep. But we don't have room for that.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Discussion of the 1st Amendment is banned on these boards. Thread locked.

Spoiler:
Kidding! Just kidding!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hawkmoon269 wrote:
So if Hirgenzosk was in a location deck and you encountered him and played Disintegrate and rolled above a 30, he'd still be undefeated. But Disintegrate would kick in and let you banish him instead of shuffling him back into the location deck.

Nope. Disintegrate says "If you defeat a non-villain monster when playing this spell, banish that monster, even if it would otherwise be undefeated," but Hirgenzosk says "If Hirgenzosk would be defeated, he is undefeated," not "If Hirgenzosk is defeated, he is undefeated."

We use "would" when we're talking about things that don't actually happen. Take Greater Luckstone from RotR: "If you would fail a check by 2 or less, you may bury this card to succeed." Clearly, when you play that card, you don't fail and then succeed—you simply succeed. That's the power of would.

Since Hirgenzosk is never *actually* defeated, Disintegrate doesn't get to banish him.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Thehigher cause wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Personally I can't honestly recommend buying the physical copy, not until a second printing with all the Erratas.
I agree 100%

Ironically, every person who takes that stance actually delays the publication of the second printing... and if enough people were to do that, there would *be* no second printing.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We do print fewer copies of the later volumes of each AP. Also, distributors sometimes make unpredictable purchases, sometime even ordering more copies of later volumes than they did of earlier volumes.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Added one item to the FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
10) The fact that the exact nature and obstacles of the Test of the Starstone is ambiguous, thus letting me imagine that Cayden Cailean achieved Godhood by soloing the Tomb of Horrors while drunk.

I read that as soiling the Tomb of Horrors while drunk. Which, you know, seems likely.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
(1) it didn't get fixed.

Yes, it did. We fixed the ligature problems in the PDF on July 30, 2010, and in a print edition released July 21, 2011.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We will be publishing a "how to make and run this demo" document very soon, and it'll include all the necessary modifications to the list Mike gave you. In the meantime, just pick a card of the same type with the Basic trait.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to be clear that we do try to avoid saying *never*. When we did the Rise of the Runelords anniversary edition, we said that it was a special circumstance—an exception to the rule—but we haven't said that there will definitely never ever be another exception. But it took 5 years to do the first one, and it's been a few years since that came out, and we're not working on one now.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Redacted [on telephone]: Kate, I really appreciate that you want to name your child after me—really, it's quite flattering—but you know that if you don't go with something like Philip, Edward, or Charles, there's going to be trouble. If it's a boy, of course. If it's a girl, though, you could certainly go with Victoria—that would be quite nice, and nobody would catch on to who she's really named after. Either way, just you suggesting it is quite the honor, though. Anyway, please give my best to William and little George, and of course hugs to Gramma Liz! Ta!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are many misconceptions about the OGL and it's applicability to computer games in this thread.

First, the d20 license and the OGL are two different things. The OGL covers game mechanics and other open game content, while the d20 license was primarily a license to use Wizards of the Coast's d20 *brand*. You could not make a computer game using the d20 license because it specifically forbid the creation of "Interactive Games." These days, that's a moot point: Wizards of the Coast apparently no longer offers the d20 license.

The OGL—which is the license that we actually care about for this discussion—does *not* limit the types of media with which it may be used. However, it does contain this sentence: "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License."

A lot of software (but by no means all of it) involves middleware licenses or other mandated licensing terms that may collide rather badly with this statement. Determining exactly when that restriction might apply to a particular middleware or distribution license is a potential minefield, and a situation that Paizo has generally chosen to avoid.

That said, even if we knew we *could* convert the Pathfinder RPG rules directly into an MMO, we really wouldn't want to. There are basic mechanics that are essential to the RPG that just don't translate to the MMO environment, such as six-second combat rounds (combat in less than real time would make for an incredibly frustrating experience in an MMO) and gaining experience and leveling up your character (diehard players would run through so many encounters so fast that they'd hit level 20 in a matter of days, effectively running themselves out of character advancement options in no time). And those are just two problems of many.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The two main negative effects of that idea are that 1) It would delay those orders from getting fulfilled (which is a problem if the note says "please make sure this ships in time for my cousin's birthday!") and 2) it would create a second queue that would allow people who have placed orders to get ahead of everyone else, which is not necessarily fair.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fire on boats is nasty. Just saying.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
SilentInfinity wrote:
Good career path and plan. Also good to see Paizo value the experience and promote up!

Other Paizo employees who escaped Customer Service include sales associate Cosmo Eisele, managing editor James Sutter, and COO Jeff Alvarez.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sir_Snifty wrote:

Also, speaking of the get-go, I was hoping that the freshness of your design tenure might make you a little more aware of something I've been curious about. Before I got into Pathfinder or TTRPGs at all, I was pretty big on MtG, and accordingly followed their design processes as best I could, too; not a difficult task, as their Lead Designer, Mark Rosewater, is a nigh-ceaseless source of game design insight. The thing that stuck with me the most were his discussions on how the MtG design team made a concerted effort to cater parts of their design to each of the different motivational drives that lay behind some of their major player groups (their theory of the Timmy/Johnny/Spike psychographics), knowing that what some of the groups barely find passably interesting might just be THE thing that kept another of the groups invested.

How highly emphasized is the idea of producing 'different material for different appetites' in Paizo design philosophy, have you found? If it's common, is it formalized at all, or is it more of a general notion? I love the wide range of ideas that see print, so I'm curious as to some of the framework behind it all. : )

I know this is an Ask Mark thread and not an Ask Vic thread, but this is a topic on which I can't stay silent: I have always abhorred categorization of players into groups like that. It seriously pisses me off. Mostly, it's because I think any such categorization relies on gross oversimplification, and when you allow oversimplifications to drive design, the result is that it directly affects how people play, and not always in a good way. It becomes a case of "you get what you measure." Worst case, when people don't fit into your neat little boxes, you end up not having a place for them, and they go away. I resist putting people into boxes even more than I personally resist *fitting* into boxes.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
isaic16 wrote:
The suspend card was Ancestral Vision, which was a newer card designed to give a reasonably powered version of Ancestral Recall. The original was printed in Alpha, before anyone understood how powerful card advantage was.

The designers understood card advantage perfectly. What they *didn't* understand was that Magic: The Gathering would become popular enough that anyone's personal universe would encompass more than 1 or 2 copies of any rare card. Remember, there were only about 4000 copies of each rare in the 10-million card limited edition run, and we thought it would take a year or so to sell through that. We honestly thought that rare cards would be scarce enough that most players would never see them all, and—remember that this was just barely at the dawn of the internet—that legends would circulate with secondhand tales at conventions about some guy who claimed to have seen a card that lets you draw three cards, or a card that lets you take another turn. It was a very different world before Unlimited came out. One Time Walk is good, but not broken. 4 Time Walks in a 40-card deck? That's a whole different thing.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm thinking of it as a "how to use the CRB" book. Aimed at people moving from the BB to the full game or just people playing the full game who are intimidated/confused/frustrated by the CRB's density. It's definitely not a standalone product (so not a friendly version of core) but rather one to use alongside the PF core.

I haven't actually seen it yet, of course. Nonetheless, that's my impression from what vic and others have said.

That's exactly what it is.

On the topic of "why not just revise the Core Rulebook," the answer is that that task is *far* from simple. There are many, many issues that come into play with that concept, but one of the biggest is that the Core Rulebook is very densely packed, and presenting data in a way that's approachable in the easiest way requires a *lot* of rewriting. Such a re-presentation also requires a lot of space—it would become an impractically large book, and would almost certainly need to be divided into more than one book. And at this point, we'd be so far away from a simple re-presentation of the Core Rulebook that we'd be doing something that many would consider a new edition of the game. And we're just not ready for a new edition yet. (And this is not the place to have that discussion—if you want to talk about that, please find one of the existing threads on that topic.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's what we're going to do:

One of the promo cards for S&S is a blessing, Blessing of Zogmugot. We're going to ship subscribers 1 copy of Blessing of Zogmugot along with *each* subscription shipment from September to January, for a total of 5 copies. This card will not be available through retailers.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no need for these to be watermarked; I'll have that removed. (Probably won't happen today.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Class Decks, which are required for playing in the Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild Organized Play program, have suffered a major delay at the printer, and the new retail release date for the Class Decks will be September 24. As a result, the Adventure Card Guild retail launch is delayed to the same date. We will be launching with seven scenarios on that date, including the first scenario to use Adventure Deck 2, which will also be released that day.

Shortly before the launch, we’ll be releasing a brand-new scenario to stores that can be played with just the Skull & Shackles Base Set. For this special scenario, players can build characters from the Base Set or Character Add-On Deck, and upon completing it, they’ll each receive a free deck upgrade for the first Adventure Card Guild character they bring to launch day. We'll provide more information about that as we draw closer to the launch date.

Please make sure you download the Pathfinder Society Adventure Card Guild Guide to Organized Play as soon as you get a chance to learn everything you need to know about running and playing in a PFSACG event.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hawkmoon269 wrote:

I'm pretty sure the people that got the $10 store credit were the people that had their orders finalized on August 7th. Those people had their credit cards charged that day, even though their order didn't ship until the 22nd. And they also couldn't undo the charges for the character add-on deck and the cost of shipping it. So, for that group of people, it seems like Paizo gave them $10 in store credit, plus the guarantee to not charge them for the character add-on deck in September and to not charge them for the cost of shipping the character add-on deck in September.

They are in a worse situation than you or I, who simply had our orders delayed but only paid for what we are being shipped.

This is correct. There is something else I'm working on for *all* subscribers, but I probably won't know until the middle of next week whether or not I can actually pull it off.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MattCaulder wrote:
So, I see the rules about gaining the card upgrade "coupon" but I don't see any such coupon in the guide. Is it up to us to issue/police them?

We'll be creating a PDF package that explains how to create and run the demo using a S&S Base Set. That PDF will include the coupon.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mike: Yikes! Please don't use the word "Companion."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, we have been told that Gen Con will likely be asking several other large companies to do line management in the same fashion as us next year.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You hand size is not intended to exceed your character's printed hand size. We will address in a FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orbis Orboros wrote:

Awesome.

This actually shows that I was playing under a misconception. We always played it as giving someone a card made it part of their deck and they gave it back optionally (we always did if they wanted it back) during the trading time; I didn't realize that it went back to them by default.

We don't actually say that in the rulebook; because you can trade freely, and it's a cooperative game, we don't actually need to say it.

We will add it to the Guide, though.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
Organized play isn't designed for home use or solo use. They will sell the scenarios to customers after a month's worth, but it is designed to be played at a retail location. Believe me that they want us to support our local retailers.

We do want you to support your local retailers, but we very much kept home and convention play in mind as well as retail when we designed the OP program. While retailers will get to experience things first, I'm very commented to ensuring that if you're playing at home, you're not getting a lesser experience.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
...Paizo's subscriptions offer various stated benefits and that isn't what everyone is looking for. They've repeatedly stressed that they don't mind what distribution channel you use - paizo want and expect people to make whatever decision is best for their personal situation.

Yep. I'll even say it this way: If having a subscription with us makes you unhappy, I don't want you to have a subscription with us. But we can't undercut our retailers, we can't lose money on shipping, and we can't promise that you'll have your product before the retail release date (though most customers in the US usually will). We offer what we can offer; if somebody else is able to offer you something that works better for you, please take them up on it.

I just want you to be informed about your choices. And to that end, I need to point out that for S&S, we have created 12 promo cards (counting Ranzak as 1 card for this purpose). At this time, only 7 of them are scheduled for retail distribution (or 8—Ranzak again—if your retailer participated in Free RPG day).

1 to 50 of 1,155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.