Gorbacz wrote:

I, for one, applaud any appearances of anime/cartoon inspired art in Pathfinder products.

You applaud everything that I dislike just for the sake of me being the one that dislikes it.

The artists who drew Jorogumo, Valkyrie, Jabberwocky, Lukwata, Maftet, Fungus Leshy & Interlocutor Kyton are really good monster artists for example.

Cartoony style can be fun, but when it comes to monsters they just won't do... its too pokemon meets blizzards warcraft...

That's your opinion. You're fully entitled to it. Now, are you capable of voicing your opinion without calling other tastes "childish"?

Gorbacz wrote:

I, for one, applaud any appearances of anime/cartoon inspired art in Pathfinder products.

You applaud everything that I dislike just for the sake of me being the one that dislikes it.

The artists who drew Jorogumo, Valkyrie, Jabberwocky, Lukwata, Maftet, Fungus Leshy & Interlocutor Kyton are really good monster artists for example.

Cartoony style can be fun, but when it comes to monsters they just won't do... its too pokemon meets blizzards warcraft...

While I weren't a fan of the bestiary art in this issue (except for the bishop agathion and the adorable widdle wolpertinger which were spot on), it has nothing to do with it being cartoony or not. To me, the terms cartoony/comic book-like makes me think of something quite close to what Eva Widermann or Anna Christenson does, and their my two favourite Pathfinder artists.

I just dislike EVERYTHING that reminds me of that horrid abomination named Warcraft/World of Warcraft.

Hate the art, hate the games and hate the insane popularity.

This art reminds me of warcraft, especially the wood creature.

And I happen to be a very big fan of like 80% of the art I find in paizo books, as 90% of all the monster art paizo produces are my all time favorite of those monsters, so these artworks kinda spoil that for me, I just hope this is just in this AP, and I hope it doesn't return. (never liked the art in carrion crown bestairies as wel)

Just wanted to say I really like the art, please keep this artist in rotation. The monsters really pop off the page, and it reminds me less of WoW and more of great fantasy comics and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Note: I'm not attacking anyone's preferences, just making sure that positive feedback gets noted too.

Fun Trivia: many of people who illustrate Pathfinder also illustrate World of Warcraft stuff, in particular the CCG. Wayne Reynolds did hundreds of WoW CCG cards.

I just dislike EVERYTHING that reminds me of that horrid abomination named Warcraft/World of Warcraft.

Hate the art, hate the games and hate the insane popularity.

This art reminds me of warcraft, especially the wood creature.

And I happen to be a very big fan of like 80% of the art I find in paizo books, as 90% of all the monster art paizo produces are my all time favorite of those monsters, so these artworks kinda spoil that for me, I just hope this is just in this AP, and I hope it doesn't return. (never liked the art in carrion crown bestairies as wel)

Ok, I'll bite: why do you so strongly dislike the Warcraft franchise? I mean, do you dislike the games and thus the art, or do you dislike the art and that keeps you from liking the games?

I'm just asking because people who strongly hate World of Warcraft seem to fall into one of two camps- people who hate MMOs on principle or people who love a different MMo that failed in comparison and are bitter.

I've never heard of somebody strongly disliking Blizzard's RTS games, or their art. If art, is it the shoulders?

I don't like the World of Warcraft but not because of the art so I think it looks fine in fact the the 2nd and 3rd Bestiaries had much better art art then the first in most cases.

This probably isn't the best place to discuss this topic. Make a new thread if you want to further this deviation from the thread.

I don't like the World of Warcraft but not because of the art so I think it looks fine in fact the the 2nd and 3rd Bestiaries had much better art art then the first in most cases.

Uhm... the 2nd and 3rd bestiary ALL didn't have the art like it is in this AP... I can't find warcrafish-cartoony monsters in the 2nd and 3rd bestiary, I hope they return their artstyle to match those two awesome books.

And Yes Ninten I really dislike MMO's they destroy the good old games I always loved, its all about making more money and less interesting games these days

Anyway to get back on topic, I really enjoy the art in the mainstory! I'm happy to see that the artists that can draw non-cartoony creatures are still doing their part! Also its fun to see some Tome of Horror creatures (like the maggot and the nupperibo) full in colour! I'm hooked for the other parts!

Just curious is the abyssal larva a petitioner from the Bestiary 2?

Just curious is the abyssal larva a petitioner from the Bestiary 2?

It is a petitioner, but crazy things have happened to it since it was separated from the Abyss. Without the abyssal environment, it can still grow, but can't morph into a demon or qlippoth.

I'm excited, I start as a player in this AP this Thursday, we are given a 15 pt. buy and I'm pretty sure I am going with an Asimar sorcerer.

I know it would be entirely unofficial, but are any of the writers for the skymetal section in the back of the book able to comment on what it would take (Possibly a Craft: Weapons and Craft: Alchemy check) to make djezet-alloyed weapons/armor and if so, what would they do? We've already got a precedent for it with djezeteel from Dungeons of Golarion (Yes, it was made by a crazy powerful technomage, not counting that).

Just finished reading through this. I almost always read all of the first adventure and none of the last in an AP. Low level adventuring is just more fun IMO. I have to say with it's 80+ rooms this is the mega dungeon of low level play and I love it. I would run this as a starter for virtualy any starting campaign set in varisia. It is superb in the grand tradition of Iconic dungeon delves. Truly a fun masterpiece. Just goes to show that the creative juices are as fresh as ever at Paizo. Well done gang, really wish I could ever had played through this one. Nice start to Shattered Star.

I know it would be entirely unofficial, but are any of the writers for the skymetal section in the back of the book able to comment on what it would take (Possibly a Craft: Weapons and Craft: Alchemy check) to make djezet-alloyed weapons/armor and if so, what would they do? We've already got a precedent for it with djezeteel from Dungeons of Golarion (Yes, it was made by a crazy powerful technomage, not counting that).

I'm the one who wrote the skymetal rules.

I'm also the one who wrote the djezet stuff for Dungeons of Golarion.

At this point... beyond what was done in Dungeons of Golarion, there's not much else to do with djezet as regards making weapons.

The Shattered Star issues are PFS legal, I see. Are there chronicle sheet for these? Would one part be a full session of credit?

There are no chronicles, but rather, the items from the appendix are legal to purchase for your character.

I know this might have been resolved already and I apologize for not reading all the posts to make sure that this opinion was not already stated but I am the type to push in the other directions on the metaplot issues.

What me and my group have been doing is rotating through GMs who run different APs. We introduce characters with their own history and stories that last beyond their APs. Then after the AP is done then a different GM decides how to introduce the elements that carry through to the next campaign and if Paizo produces something that disagrees then (sorry Paizo) but forget what they have listed as canon and change/mold the story around advancing the ideas from the previous campaign. Even when the campaign was a homebrew, we had the setting clearly defined in Golarion, and those characters might make a reappearance.

Other than that I think their will be a lot of places for previous internal canon to enter and it is my job as the current GM to make and or establish those connections or foundations. Thus creating our comprehensive contained psuedoGolarion with our own internal canon.

Hello, I am running shards of sin AP61, and I am unable to locate the map for room b25-b29. Is this a big editorial typo? Where might I find these rooms for my players?

Page 26 has maps for locations B1 through B29. The upper left map contains the locations B25–B29 (as well as B1-B5).

Thanks!

The Shattered Star issues are PFS legal, I see. Are there chronicle sheet for these? Would one part be a full session of credit?

There are no chronicles, but rather, the items from the appendix are legal to purchase for your character.

There is a chronicle sheet, currently downloadable. I have not been able to find anything stating which section of the AP to which it applies. The chronicle says 3-5 for the tier, so I would have to guess some portion of the second half, but looking forward to getting the details.

It's in the other download, Rules for Running AP. The part that is sanctioned is the part in the Crow Pilings.

Hah! My eyes hurt that was so painfully obvious. Maybe I was too excited to read. Or was it really there before.....

I have to voice my frustration here and see if there is any answer...

Why, oh why, in all that is unholy, are the maps in this chapter sized to be 1 SQUARE = 10!!!! feet?

So that the maps could fit on the pages...?

If they quadrupled the number of squares to make it 5feet, then the squares would be so small and compact it would be extremely difficult to make out the map.

I'm confused why you think that merits a 1 star review. It does nothing to detract from gameplay... it just means if you want to draw the map on a grid you just have to multiply everything by 2. That reminds me of the Curse of the Lady's Light review that gave it 1 star because it had bestiary 3 enemies.

This isn't the first time Paizo has done this, and it definitely won't be the last. Not everything fits nicely in a 1 square = five feet grid.

It makes a huge difference if you aren't hand drawing maps and want to use the actual maps included in the AP. I, as a GM, believe using the maps as produced for the adventure are worth using and experiencing as a player. Then there are those of us who may be using a VTT and pull in the images directly from the PDF.

Take a look at the second chapter of the AP - no problem there with following the STANDARD on large maps. I haven't run into this before, although I don't have extensive experience with a wide variety of Paizo products. I do know that this is Pathfinder, and 1 square = 5 feet.

I feel it significantly detracts from the ability to prepare and use the maps and hence run the adventure. I think I am entitled to my opinion and hope Paizo avoids deviating from the standard in the future.

Everything SHOULD fit in a 1 square = 5 feet grid. Once again, this is Pathfinder last I checked.

I posted this looking for an answer. I posted my review because *I* am very frustrated by what seems like a completely illogical inconsistency.

Then there are those of us who may be using a VTT and pull in the images directly from the PDF.

As a GM who does just this... I think I prefer the 10 foot squares. It lets the maps retain more visual imagery. You're using the VTT grid anyway, so I just make sure that grid is set to 5'. Problem solved, very easy.

The only reason I can see this being an issue is if you're actually printing out 1-inch square scale battle maps or something, and again it's fairly easy to adjust or play with if you make some minor adjustments.

With a VTT, I prefer to use the maps as is, unless there is no existing grid on the map. I haven't seen a grid system I like, and then there is dealing with the visual clutter of a grid overlaid on an existing grid. Unless it is a perfect match, it results in possible eye-crossing layers of lines in areas. If I wanted no grid in the VTT to start with, you could try and pull in the maps from the Interactive map PDF.

I just want to use STANDARDIZED materials common to the game system in question without coming up with a work-around, regardless of whether someone else thinks that work-around is easy or reasonable or better or fill in the blank.

What I would like to know is - was this a mistake? If it wasn't a mistake, should I plan for coming up with a work-around for the future or can I hope this was a one-time thing? If it wasn't a mistake, what is the reasoning for doing a 10 ft square on the maps?

I feel it significantly detracts from the ability to prepare and use the maps and hence run the adventure. I think I am entitled to my opinion and hope Paizo avoids deviating from the standard in the future.

Everything SHOULD fit in a 1 square = 5 feet grid. Once again, this is Pathfinder last I checked.

I posted this looking for an answer. I posted my review because *I* am very frustrated by what seems like a completely illogical inconsistency.

As I said, Paizo has used 1 square = 10 feet several times in the past (see AP #3 for example, the Hook Mountain Clanhold is 1 square = 10 feet). This isn't anything new, and it's never really bothered people before. I play online as well as in person, and I still don't find it an issue at all. If you're using a program like Maptools or something, you can pretty easily stretch it so that each square of the file map is 4 squares of the Maptools grid, but I don't know what program you're using.

It's not an inconsistency either. When the dungeon would be too big to fit on a map due to its size (comes up often when the primary inhabitants are giants or the like), they compensate by using a different scale. The writers don't just randomly decide to make every fourth map or so use a different scale for no reason.

The maps for Thornkeep: The Accursed Halls also use 10' squares.

That makes a bit of sense, and I can accept that maybe I am overreacting or letting some OCD sneak in a bit too far. It still doesn't fit in my brain why they would ever deviate from a standard mapping approach. I've seen a variety of large maps in Paizo products that were not 10 ft squares. The logic of changing a standard because the map is too big doesn't work for me. It seems like there would be a better solution to dealing with large maps than changing the mapping standard. Yes, they have to fit it all in one book with a set amount of pages dedicated to specific elements, but maps are pretty important in the scheme of things.

If necessary, I am happy to go down on record as the first person this has bothered, in addition to formally requesting adherence to standard 5 ft grid mapping in all products.

Well, in my haste, I didn't search for prior topics. I am definitely not the first to complain...

Thread with answers by James Jacobs

I'm done commenting on this. My issues and complaints still stand. I would like a better solution for awesome large maps than what we have currently. The current solution sucks.