I wish you luck with adapting it to your game style. And, of course, I'm always happy to lend an idea or suggestion if you need it.
What I'd really like to hear is: where did you expect to see the political interaction that the Prolog talks about? What form did you expect it to take? Also, where did you expect to see the sin theme and the moral decisionmaking? Do you have any suggestions for bringing out these elements? That's what really interests us the most.
I thought from the Prolog that it would be a lot more political than it is. Are any of the factions actually doing something now--something they would involve the PCs in, ideally--or did that all happen 5 years ago when the Runewells blew? (My PCs refer to that as "when the Eye of Wrath opened," a phrase I love.)
I appreciate that "will the PCs use the weapons?" can be an interesting question, but for my particular group it isn't. The PCs have already made that particular decision: some of them are wearing Sihedrons and some are not, and neither faction is likely to change its mind. We know already that the party won't split over this, not unless the new weapons were a lot more corruptive to use than they are.
So I'm going to be working to develop some political material. My player suggested that the faction leaders should contact the PCs in dreams before they arrive, but while I like the flavor I can't square that with the situation (there's no way they could know about the PCs yet). Any hints for getting the PCs actually involved?
Mary
Here goes. There may be more as I think about it a bit.
However, each time they face new sin wizards, confuse their allegiances and create doubts by having each of them also attempt to ally with the PCs for their own designs on gaining complete dominion over Runeforge. These guys don't have to throw down and fight every time they come in contact with your player characters.
Also, you can use Athroxis (or pretty much any other sin wizard) to convey information about using the runewell to make runeforged weapons and which elements are most important in fighting Karzoug: Lust and Pride. However, have Athroxis lie about the components (or perhaps she doesn't really know, thus, when they find Vraxeris's journal, it confuses the issue, so they have to decide who they believe), that ALL of them are needed to craft the weapons they need. When it comes time to get the token needed from the Halls of Wrath, Athroxis misleads them by giving them directions to area K6 and telling them to light a torch from the summoning ring flames while uttering a special sequence of words--this would be the command word to operate the master circle to call forth a shemhazian, with the exception that she witholds the crucial final words used to control the summoned creature. Thus, she pits them against the horrible creature, sealing their feat if they are weak (and inadequately trained warriors to face the likes of Karzoug) or confirming her hopes that they are just the kind of fighting specimens (if they kill the demon) needed to take Karzoug down.
That's all I've got so far. I imagine that should be enough politics to make your player's head spin.
As far as the sin angle goes. I do have one idea that would put your player's characters morals in jeopardy...
Dr. Jacobs has more of a handle on the sin stuff than me, though. Perhaps he'll chime in with some suggestions if we're lucky.
Here goes. There may be more as I think about it a bit.
Thank you! There's some great food for thought here. I think the discussion should go in a new thread, though, because this was supposed to be a no-spoilers thread. (My fault....) I'll start one, if you don't mind: "Politics in _Sins of the Saviors_."
Mary
I think I've got to agree that Mary's stress seems to be self-induced: as a DM, you have to help your players act in-character. You're not -supposed- to blow 30 spells on one encounter. Those thirty spells are supposed to last you all day - if you're doing one encounter and retreating, you're not torturing your PCs with the consequences of this enough. When the PCs retreat, the bad guys aren't just sitting there waiting, they're planning, rebuffing, healing, setting up ambushes, or maybe leaving to hunt the PCs.
I'm running RotRL with just my wife - she's playing a Gestalt character, and she's about two levels above the suggested level for the adventure (I've been carefully managing XP to keep her about here - I gave her full XP for awhile until she stopped getting her butt kicked, then dropped her down to 1/4 XP to keep her at that level). With just one player especially, it's easy to simplify the harder parts of D&D because you don't have to worry about balancing an entire party. You make sure the buffs last just long enough, you make sure the challenges are just hard enough, the talking lasts just long enough, etc..
Being higher level makes for a little more number crunching, yeah, but a lot of this can be estimated for the NPCs - your players will never know. When a PC casts Dispel on an NPC that has 8 or 9 buffs, I try not to let it lag my combat. I scribble a few quick notes, and my players (or player) assume(s) that I did a lot of prep and know what the numbers will be if X gets dispelled. I guesstimate, and I try not to let game-breakers hinge on the results of the roll. If the PCs have been cakewalking due to good rolls, the bad guys will get in a few lucky hits. If the PCs have been getting hammered even though they're doing everything right, sometimes I let 'em have a break (and sometimes I don't. The wife is still irritated with me for one epic-level death where a level 24 PC died to a large group of Dread Wraiths.).
Anyway, I think the way to enjoy D&D of any level is to relax a bit. If you're spending 2.5 hours just to get -ready- to have a combat, you're putting too much thought into it. It's a game. Play it.
I think I've got to agree that Mary's stress seems to be self-induced: as a DM, you have to help your players act in-character. You're not -supposed- to blow 30 spells on one encounter. Those thirty spells are supposed to last you all day - if you're doing one encounter and retreating, you're not torturing your PCs with the consequences of this enough. When the PCs retreat, the bad guys aren't just sitting there waiting, they're planning, rebuffing, healing, setting up ambushes, or maybe leaving to hunt the PCs.
Different people play the game in different ways.
It seems to me that your group is hitting encounters in the expected order, so that retreating after one encounter means the BBG is still alive. I agree that this is a bad tactic and exposes you to counterattack. It's not what our games have, though: the single 30-spell attack is always against the BBG.
The end of SCAP went like this:
The PCs returned to their home base, and received a scry/buff/teleport attack from the bad guys, which they barely won. It was clear that the next such attack would be TPK. So they prepped for a pre-emptive strike against the enemy leaders. That was the 30-spell attack. As a player I knew that anything less would be TPK (I lost 4/6 of the party, 2 of them permanently, even with the buffs). If I had not used every single thing I had, to the best of my abilities, I'd have lost.
I then told the GM "No more" and quit playing, because it was absolutely no fun. I haven't played since. Yeah, the GM could have tortured me more. Somehow, I don't think that would have helped.
SCAP is *hard*. Certainly part of my misery came from having a game that was way, way too hard for me. In retrospect we should have cut it down even more than we did. I've been much more pro-active in cutting down Pathfinder; we started with PCs two levels above what the module called for, and I have removed things right and left to reduce the difficulty. It's still been too hard, but only a little too hard, not morale-destroying. I'm not seeing the constant push to be out of character that I saw in SCAP and AoW. (I'm also not doing EXP, which helps too.)
I know there are plenty of groups for which none of this is true. My GM's other SCAP game with different players had very different reactions. (Their main cure for the difficulty, it seemed to me, was to cheat on the dice.) I'm only commenting on what I've seen in my own games.
Playing the NPCs dumber, or fudging in play, isn't an option for me. Just doesn't fit the personalities of the player and GM involved. We've tried it.
It's awfully difficult to write generic modules for v3.5, because the power difficulty between a PC group with un-optimized PCs, core rules, and naturalistic play, and a PC group with optimized splatbook PCs and minimax play is so extremely large. Anything right for one type of game is guaranteed to be wrong for the other. Sometimes you can compensate by giving the unoptimized PCs a lot of levels, but it took us a long time to feel comfortable with that solution, and it doesn't always work.
Anyway. This is the wrong place for this rant, I think. I just wanted to clarify: it's probably not the game situation you're imagining. We've tried very hard to find out the best strategies for (unoptimized) PCs to use to survive the APs. I think we've done a reasonable job. The problem is, past about 8th level those strategies are no fun for us. One can ask the player to use weaker strategies, but if a TPK results immediately, that's no fun either. The best solution would be to stay under 8th level, but then half of each AP is useless.
Pathfinder is too darned juicy; I'm not willing to throw away the second half. I managed to fix _Giants_ to our satisfaction (finished it today). Maybe I can fix _Sins_. We'll see.
Mary
No matter what differences there may be in playing style(s), I have found your thoughts on "modifying" Pathfinder modules to be very inspiring. Even should your group differ from others, you address some very valid concerns. So, please do keep on posting stuff like 'Reworking Jorgenfist' etc. :).
|
Just skimmed the issue now, didn't read anything, just checked it out. This I have to say.
The art is top notch. Now I liked all the art so far in pathfinder, but in this issue I couldn't find a picture I didn't want to make a poster out of and hang above my bed. It's freakin' awsome!
That was almost word for word my initial reaction. Awesome artworkl. Can't wait to read the whole thing.
I totally disagree with the comments that say Mary's problems are "self-induced". I actually feel those comments are pretty rude to be honest.
I know the rules inside and out. Honestly, I don't know anyone that I game with that knows the rules better than I do. And you know what - I HATE high-level play, pretty much for all the reasons that Mary mentioned.
There is really no way to run a smooth high-level game AND follow all the rules at the same time. It drives me nuts because I don't like doing things "wrong" but you almost have to to keep things moving. Otherwise, the game just gets bogged down with inflated numbers and endless die rolls.
I do like the fact that the Pathfinder series only goes to level 15. I hope that trend continues. I don't like that Pathfiner #4 and #5 were massive dungeon crawl slugfests. I like combat and kill thing and taking their stuff as much as the next guy but that's not really why I subscribed to Pathfinder. #4 and 5 were such huge departures from 1-3, and it's kind of disheartening.
Keep up your posts Mary - I find them to be very insightful and helpful.
Mary does face some unique challenges with one player running multiple PC's. The dymanic is significantly different than my five players running one PC each.
She just doesn't post her problems, she also shares the solutions she comes up with, and expands it with new ideas. Big difference there.
Please continue your posts, Mary. They all don't apply to me, but there's always a few interesting ideas in there to borrow and consider.
Creative Director
|
I don't like that Pathfiner #4 and #5 were massive dungeon crawl slugfests. I like combat and kill thing and taking their stuff as much as the next guy but that's not really why I subscribed to Pathfinder. #4 and 5 were such huge departures from 1-3, and it's kind of disheartening.
That's one of the things we'll continue to fine-tune with Pathfinder. For Runelords, since it was the launch campaign for Pathfinder, we wanted to cover all of the more popular themes in a campaign; horror, dungeon crawls, etc. so that we could appeal to as wide a group of readers as possible. That unfortunately DOES increase the chance of someone getting an adventure that's less to their liking. As Pathfinder continues, we'll be able to refine this more and more, so that by the time Pathfinder AP 10 comes about, it won't be suicide to do an entire AP set in a single massive dungeon (or vice versa, an entire AP that never goes into a dungeon at all).
|
...an entire AP set in a single massive dungeon...
Please promise me that if you do a Golarian Undermountain AP that you'll populate all the rooms. When I was about 13, I picked up the Ruins of Undermountain boxed set and tried to DM it. 20 minutes in, my players had taken a near-perfect beeline toward the "empty" half of the top level. I panicked and threw a teleport trap onto a door that sent the whole party back to the starting room.
I've been catching hell for that one for 14 years now...
I don't like that Pathfiner #4 and #5 were massive dungeon crawl slugfests. I like combat and kill thing and taking their stuff as much as the next guy but that's not really why I subscribed to Pathfinder. #4 and 5 were such huge departures from 1-3, and it's kind of disheartening.That's one of the things we'll continue to fine-tune with Pathfinder. For Runelords, since it was the launch campaign for Pathfinder, we wanted to cover all of the more popular themes in a campaign; horror, dungeon crawls, etc. so that we could appeal to as wide a group of readers as possible. That unfortunately DOES increase the chance of someone getting an adventure that's less to their liking. As Pathfinder continues, we'll be able to refine this more and more, so that by the time Pathfinder AP 10 comes about, it won't be suicide to do an entire AP set in a single massive dungeon (or vice versa, an entire AP that never goes into a dungeon at all).
Consider me chiming in to second the motion of "less big dungeons please !"
I do like the RotRL AP so far, but - from my PoV, big dungeons become rather redundant and boring quickly. That holds true even for the partially inspired dungeons in PF #4 and #5 - still, I have found myself already re-writing wide parts of the library complex in PF #4 (IMHO definitely the weakest, least inspired of the AP-parts anyway ) because even though I like some concepts of it, overall being force-fed into that complex of sequential chambers is something almost every player I played with would resent these days.Yes, things were different in the 'Glorious Eighties' when we actually were young teens (others were not even around, I guess ) . We enjoyed a lot of trash then, which in hindsight, was pretty hideous, if formative... BUT.... we grew up since and matured some (at least I hope we did) .
So please don't make key installments of the APs "nostalgic references" - its always much harder to replace or cut-to-size an entire dungeon than adding some extra rooms if the complex presented is "not big enough".
I cut "Divided Ire" in the STAP short by roughly 60% and still my players are fed up with it after having trashed half of what remains...
Honestly, D&D 3.5 tends to bring out a lot of undesirable habits at my gaming table. Most campaigns begin great, and get better as the sweet spot of D&D grows closer and closer. But as I have noticed, during my Savage Tide campaign, which is now at about 14th level, the imbalances in some of the classes and sourcebooks really start becoming obvious. Psionics has essentially replaced magic as being far more useful and flexible and magic items are are becoming more prevalent and troublesome.
The group has essentially degenerated into hacking everything to pieces and the whole campaign has lost focus from the plot, and become one giant treasure hunt.
This is something I do not want to see in my Pathfinder campaign, once it starts, and is therefore why I will be converting to True20. The material I have read for Pathfinder is fantastic and is very easy to convert to True20, and have seen many encounters that when run in True20 will be truly epic. Those same encounters in D&D rules would become extremely rules heavy and bogged down and I could see my group really struggling with them.
But that is just my group :P
Still waiting here...
Out of curiosity, If #5 lists as waiting to be shipped and has been billed for 5-6 days now but I still don;t have a download link. How is it determined when it will go up? Anyone not get their link yet?
Curious...
-DM Jeff
I haven't either Jeff. :(
And you know what - I HATE high-level play, pretty much for all the reasons that Mary mentioned.
Keep up your posts Mary - I find them to be very insightful and helpful.
Ditto for me as well. I'm trying to end a 20th level campaign now and if the story wasn't so good, I'd have killed it already. My players can't keep track of everything they have and it gets a bit taxing for me as well. I might also say the burn out of running it has led me to seek shelter in running Pathfinder until I find the energy to write up the next game.
Mary - I also like your posts. You're way ahead of me as I just started running Burnt Offerings. However, someone may have offered this advice, but with dungeons (like Fortress of the Stone Giants) I like to keep monsters/NPCs moving as well. By that I mean, monsters are never just sitting in a room waiting unless it is for a reason. I typically type up everything in a particular dungeon and so I have an easy reference sheet. Then I find it easier to move NPCs around, especially if an alarm has been raised.
Okay, first off let me say that I really like the ideas and most of the details of Sins of the Saviors as far as I have read so far. That being said, I have also found this adventure to be the one of the series that has the most editorial and continuity errors and that is very frustrating.
I am slowly reading through the adventure. Here are the issues I've come up with so far, some minor and some major:
Lamashtu's Shrine:
1. In area A1, I really appreciated that Stephen considered the logic behind why the secret door wouldn't have an Arcane Lock spell placed on it. However, having an Alarm spell in the same area seems to have the exact same issues. Why place an alarm if there isn't something here to find, especially since it's at the bottom of the stairwell? It would make much more sense to place the Alarm spell in the passageway on the other side of the secret door, since any intruders will need to go through there anyway and a spell placed there won't be as surprising or the same kind of red flag to the players.
2. The Scribbler's stat block shows that he has only cast 1 Alarm spell for the day. Shouldn't that be 3: one each for areas A1, A6 and A9? I suppose one could argue that the durations on these are 26 hours (2 hours/caster level; 13th level caster) and that the PC's manage to get here while two of them are still in effect, but it would make more sense to me that he would renew them all at the same time so he didn't have to try to remember when he did each one.
3. The general notes on the shrine specifically state "All of the doors in the complex (with the exception of the secret door in A1) are covered by silent images to make them appear to be plane walls." However, the flavor text of area A2 gives a detailed description of the doors to the south. Are these also an exception to the rule, or should this description have been in the detail text for what they look like if/when the PC's get rid of the image?
The Sihedron Circle:
1. "Of course, each attack against a stone triggers its trap"...huh? What traps? None are listed. Since the explosive damage is specifically described as being an additional effect that takes place the moment a stone is destroyed, that isn't the trap referred to. Oops! Can we please have an erratum for this right away? Also, what are the Spot/Disable Device DC's for the final explosion traps?
Xin's Stairway:
1. "while the final steps lead directly up to carving of an ancient face"...um...except for the 60' x 50' "landing" between the top of the steps and the face.
2. It would have been nice if there was some mention of where the elementals start from so a GM knows if the players have a chance to notice them as they move to attack and possibly cast spells/drink potions/etc. before they get there. A 200' rise with multiple switchbacks is a lot of territory for them to potentially have to cover.
3. The description of the elementals state that they are bound to the stairway, but their combat tactics then talk about them trying to bull rush intruders off of the "landing". IMO, if you're more than 5 - 10' from the top stair, you're not on a landing anymore, nor on part of the stairs. Arkrhyst doesn't trigger the elementals when he spies over the edge at the players and he doesn't have a Sihedron Medallion, so that seems to support that the elementals can't move onto the landing in front of the cave. This also implies that if the PC's manage to get to the landing by some method other than walking up the steps such as flying/teleportation/etc. they won't trigger the elementals.
4. The tactics for the elementals also mention that when they try to bull rush intruders off the stairs, the defenders receive a +2 to their opposed rolls because of the "stone railing." Here's another "huh?". No railings are mentioned anywhere except in the tactics block. Along with #1 of this section, the disconnect between descriptions and details are confusing and sloppy.
The Freezemaw Factor:
With as much importance as is given to the GM defining the PC's main sins for purposes of determining the effects of the various Sin Triggers in Runeforge, I'm very surprised that no primary sin was given for Arkrhyst. The easy-out answer would be greed, but Stephen seems to have given some real thought to the dragon's history and mind set, so there are lots of chances for much more interesting options that really open up some RPing possibilities here: Wrath: for hating the PC's for robbing his hoard; Pride: he's just sleeping the years away now dreaming of his many conquests; etc. If for no other reason that this, it almost begs a GM to make sure that Arkrhyst is around to follow the players into Runeforge.
The Abjurant Halls:
Area E3 says that "the entrance to this room may only be found with a DC 30 Search check after removing the rubble in front of it." The map shows neither secret door, nor any rubble to remove, just an open passage way. The description also says that there is a 10' x 10' area in front of the secret door. On the map, this it is actually closer to 7.5' x 7.5'. For that matter, the same disconnect exists with the description of the tunnels leading away from the Runeforge: 10' wide in the description, but 7.5' wide on the map. This really only affects the GMs that like to blow up the maps to use as combat grids, but still... And yes, I am fully aware of the challenges of scheduling between writing, art, layout and production. It's sloppy and confusing.
The Ravenous Crypts:
1. How do the skull shaped secret doors work? Do they slide to one side? Are they plugs pushed into each opening that just pull/push out? If they are plugs, how much do they weigh and how much damage would they do if one was dropped on a PC? I specifically ask this because it seems to be implied that the six, guardian mummies in area are still in their respective tombs since they are not in the visual description. This should give the players at least one round of combat to react/prepare as the mummies come climbing out, but if the guardians are entombed higher up than 10' in the 30' high chamber, them pushing out the plugs could potentially drop them on a surprised or unsuspecting PC.
2. Just some things that made me go "Hmmm": if the nobility that pay to be buried here know that they are just going to be used for "parts" and if no one that comes here leaves here (so no visitors or funeral parties), why did they bother to build actual crypts and tombs? What's the point? No one other than the research staff would ever see the tombs and it would be cheaper and easier to just stack the corpses like cordwood and grab what is needed for the various experiments from the piles as they go. I suppose from a gluttony view of things, the tombs and such are "consuming more."
3. The idea of wraiths in the walls is just cool at so many levels though I'm a little disappointed that you didn't go for wight-washed walls instead. :) Should it be assumed that the wraiths are in the marble of the secret doors as well?
That's as far as I've gotten so far. I hope this is everything, but with not even having read halfway through yet, I'm a bit concerned. All this being said, I do very much like the ideas here. I just wish the editing had been tighter.
I have only given this a quick read. So far have read in detail the adventure up to where they enter the Runeforge, and quickly skimmed the rest.
The highlight for me so far is Arkrhyst. This is exactly what I want from a Dragon encounter. Arkrhyst feels more like an NPC than a monster, with a good back story and motivations, and realistic tactics, and he doesn't just fight to the death. It would be great if all Dragon encounters in Pathfinder followed this pattern.
Now, just need to find time to read the rest.
Okay, first off let me say that I really like the ideas and most of the details of Sins of the Saviors as far as I have read so far.
Thanks, Paul. Now, I'll just ignore the rest :)
Lamashtu's Shrine:1. In area A1, I really appreciated that Stephen considered the logic behind why the secret door wouldn't have an Arcane Lock spell placed on it. However, having an Alarm spell in the same area seems to have the exact same issues. Why place an alarm if there isn't something here to find, especially since it's at the bottom of the stairwell? It would make much more sense to place the Alarm spell in the passageway on the other side of the secret door, since any intruders will need to go through there anyway and a spell placed there won't be as surprising or the same kind of red flag to the players.
As always, feel free to change it so that it makes more sense for you. In writing this manuscript, this part was kind of a blind spot. I hadn't seen the map for the Catacombs of Wrath yet as James hadn't drawn it. At first, James wanted to have the PCs return to Sandpoint to find a map. I couldn't figure out how to make that happen in a cool way, so I improvised and created a verbal map in the form of the cryptic verses scrawled on the walls. From that ideas was spawned the persona of The Scribbler, which was originally a dread mohrg that used to be a thaumaturge.
Now exactly what those walls that The Scribbler wrote all that gibberish on would look like, I didn't really know. I ended up having to leave that part kind of vague for James Jacobs to fill in the rest to work with his adventure. As it happens, he decided to just create another level underneath what he had already drawn. The Scribbler section is a joint creation between James Jacobs and I.What I'm trying to say is that I don't have a whole lot of answers for you on this.
2. The Scribbler's stat block shows that he has only cast 1 Alarm spell for the day. Shouldn't that be 3: one each for areas A1, A6 and A9? I suppose one could argue that the durations on these are 26 hours (2 hours/caster level; 13th level caster) and that the PC's manage to get here while two of them are still in effect, but it would make more sense to me that he would renew them all at the same time so he didn't have to try to remember when he did each one.
I didn't prepare that spell list, but if I had, I would have had him cast them separately in 8 hour increments. It's really not that hard to remember, even if your Intelligence is 10 ;) Trust me. I've seen players sitting around the game table with Intelligences much lower remember more complex stuff then when a spell needs to be re-upped. ;)
3. The general notes on the shrine specifically state "All of the doors in the complex (with the exception of the secret door in A1) are covered by silent images to make them appear to be plane walls." However, the flavor text of area A2 gives a detailed description of the doors to the south. Are these also an exception to the rule, or should this description have been in the detail text for what they look like if/when the PC's get rid of the image?
It may be a mistake in editing or possibly they are outside of the spell's area of affect. Your call.
The Sihedron Circle:
1. "Of course, each attack against a stone triggers its trap"...huh? What traps? None are listed. Since the explosive damage is specifically described as being an additional effect that takes place the moment a stone is destroyed, that isn't the trap referred to. Oops! Can we please have an erratum for this right away? Also, what are the Spot/Disable Device DC's for the final explosion traps?
This is most definitely a mistake in editing. It's a remnant of the original draft which had spell traps in a few of the standing stones that were sprung if you cast a spell from one of the two opposing schools of sin magic on it. The trap referred to is not the explosion described. It's the traps that some of them had.
Xin's Stairway:
1. "while the final steps lead directly up to carving of an ancient face"...um...except for the 60' x 50' "landing" between the top of the steps and the face.
There's supposed to be a landing exactly as described.
2. It would have been nice if there was some mention of where the elementals start from so a GM knows if the players have a chance to notice them as they move to attack and possibly cast spells/drink potions/etc. before they get there. A 200' rise with multiple switchbacks is a lot of territory for them to potentially have to cover.
Your free to spring them on your players whenever you please, of course, but in playtesting, they separated themselves from the surrounding rock by simply rising up out of them if anyone attempted to cross the landing to the cave mouth without having a Sihedron Rune on their person.
3. The description of the elementals state that they are bound to the stairway, but their combat tactics then talk about them trying to bull rush intruders off of the "landing". IMO, if you're more than 5 - 10' from the top stair, you're not on a landing anymore, nor on part of the stairs. Arkrhyst doesn't trigger the elementals when he spies over the edge at the players and he doesn't have a Sihedron Medallion, so that seems to support that the elementals can't move onto the landing in front of the cave. This also implies that if the PC's manage to get to the landing by some method other than walking up the steps such as flying/teleportation/etc. they won't trigger the elementals.
As originally written, he did in fact have a Sihedron Rune dangling from a leather cord around his neck. He was intended to be the guardian of the entrance to Runeforge. The lack of a Sihedron Rune on him to explain his coming and going without being troubled by the elementals was simply an oversight in editing when James Jacobs altered Arkrhyst's history. Just give him one and problem solved. Do you really need to have an explanation? If you do, you could simply explain it away as bling stolen from an ancient wizard. That it protects the dragon from attacks from the elementals may simply be a very fortuitous coincidence the dragon isn't even aware of. In it's mind it may represent ancient magical power, stuff dragons are definitely in to. (Sorry. It's late and my mind is starting to shut down.)
4. The tactics for the elementals also mention that when they try to bull rush intruders off the stairs, the defenders receive a +2 to their opposed rolls because of the "stone railing." Here's another "huh?". No railings are mentioned anywhere except in the tactics block. Along with #1 of this section, the disconnect between descriptions and details are confusing and sloppy.
See above.
The Freezemaw Factor:
With as much importance as is given to the GM defining the PC's main sins for purposes of determining the effects of the various Sin Triggers in Runeforge, I'm very surprised that no primary sin was given for Arkrhyst. The easy-out answer would be greed, but Stephen seems to have given some real thought to the dragon's history and mind set, so there are lots of chances for much more interesting options that really open up some RPing possibilities here: Wrath: for hating the PC's for robbing his hoard; Pride: he's just sleeping the years away now dreaming of his many conquests; etc. If for no other reason that this, it almost begs a GM to make sure that Arkrhyst is around to follow the players into Runeforge.
This is purely optional for DMs. Thus, space isn't going to be wasted on developing what most likely won't even happen for most groups. If it comes up as a possibility during game play, that's something the DM is going to need to work out. Sorry.
The Abjurant Halls:
Area E3 says that "the entrance to this room may only be found with a DC 30 Search check after removing the rubble in front of it." The map shows neither secret door, nor any rubble to remove, just an open passage way. The description also says that there is a 10' x 10' area in front of the secret door. On the map, this it is actually closer to 7.5' x 7.5'. For that matter, the same disconnect exists with the description of the tunnels leading away from the Runeforge: 10' wide in the description, but 7.5' wide on the map. This really only affects the GMs that like to blow up the maps to use as combat grids, but still... And yes, I am fully aware of the challenges of scheduling between writing, art, layout and production. It's sloppy and confusing.
Paul, I've humored the rest of your concerns with responses, but some of this just comes off as pretty damned nitpicky. The dungeon maps often have overlap areas where walls are drawn a little over the grid. You really want to carp about the walls not being exactly lined up to measure 10 ft.? As far as the secret door, the original map I drew did have the secret door marked. It's supposed to be there, but the cartographer probably just missed it in translation.
The Ravenous Crypts:
1. How do the skull shaped secret doors work? Do they slide to one side? Are they plugs pushed into each opening that just pull/push out? If they are plugs, how much do they weigh and how much damage would they do if one was dropped on a PC? I specifically ask this because it seems to be implied that the six, guardian mummies in area are still in their respective tombs since they are not in the visual description. This should give the players at least one round of combat to react/prepare as the mummies come climbing out, but if the guardians are entombed higher up than 10' in the 30' high chamber, them pushing out the plugs could potentially drop them on a surprised or unsuspecting PC.
The secret doors should actually be portions of wall that slide to the side between those skulls. The original map looks pretty much just like the one in the adventure (minus color and stuff). It was too big to draw to 5 ft. squares so I had to use 10 ft. squares. My grid was kind of cramped and that actually wasn't lost in translation.
2. Just some things that made me go "Hmmm": if the nobility that pay to be buried here know that they are just going to be used for "parts" and if no one that comes here leaves here (so no visitors or funeral parties), why did they bother to build actual crypts and tombs? What's the point? No one other than the research staff would ever see the tombs and it would be cheaper and easier to just stack the corpses like cordwood and grab what is needed for the various experiments from the piles as they go. I suppose from a gluttony view of things, the tombs and such are "consuming more."
They're concept of their bodies being honored to fuel the necromantic research taking place in Runeforge where not even the Runelords themselves can go would not be thinking of themselves as "material components". That is "in essence" what they paid to become, but not outright stated as such.
3. The idea of wraiths in the walls is just cool at so many levels though I'm a little disappointed that you didn't go for wight-washed walls instead. :) Should it be assumed that the wraiths are in the marble of the secret doors as well?
Yes. ALL of the stonework.
Hope that helps clear some confusion up. James should be able to help a bit more with The Scribbler.
Thanks for the quick response, Steve. I did mention that some of the things I pointed out where minor which could certainly be taken as nit picking, but my point overall was that there seems to be many more of these kinds of errors, both minor
I can plainly see that you have come up with some great stuff here and most of it made it through into the final edition. I definitely see most of these errors probably being on the editorial side of things and in the pulling together of the art, design and writing into a final product, rather than with anything you or Rob Lazzaretti did independently.
All of my questions/concerns can definitely be answered/fixed by even a halfway competent GM, either on the fly or in pregame prep, just as you were able to give answers to all of them. As a published adventure, however, I believe that the number of places where a GM "needs" to make something up or fix something should be almost nil. They should be able to place their focus on making the adventure work for their group of players without being distracted with multiple occasions of “I wonder what was really supposed to happen here?” or “huh?”.
I suspect that if almost any of the issues I brought up showed up in one of the RPG Superstar entries, at least one of the Paizo judges would have jumped all over it. Paizo is currently putting out some of the slickest, high-quality adventures on the market and as such, I feel that their customers can and should hold them to a higher standard.
PS: I’m still curious on what your take is on
PS: I’m still curious on what your take is on...
Pride and Greed. You could make arguments in favor for both until you're blue in the face. Wrath, you might think is one of them, and surely it is, but not as often as you'd think since the dragon broods/sleeps in his lair for such long periods that Sloth would actually be more accurate.
But, yeah, Pride and Greed are the ones I'd go with.
I'm curious--when you playtested this, did your players use characters newly created for the module, or is there a continuing campaign involved?
The review comments on _Seven Swords of Sin_, in some ways a similar module, emphasize that it shouldn't be played with campaign characters. I think some of the troubling things about _Sins of the Saviors_ might bother players less if they had less investment (i.e. one-shot characters). As someone put it elsewhere on the board (sorry, I'm terrible with names) there's a tension between challenge and continuity. For APs my own group is *way* over on the side of continuity, which makes scenarios like this problematic.
(By the way, I am really delighted to hear you playtested it--thank you! So often this doesn't happen....)
Sympathies on the map/text issues; it's hard to avoid if the two have to be done on different schedules by different people. At least you're not at the level of a FASA module I own. I carefully checked all the rooms--they were all there and that was okay--but not until I tried to run it did I discover that the floorplan lacked (a) stairs, (b) elevators, and (c) a door leading outside. The PCs were baffled when they couldn't get in, and so was I!
Another curious question: was this cut down a lot from its original draft the way #3 was? It kind of feels like it, especially the two missing sections of the seven-sins floorplan.
Mary
Mary, my playtsters didn't have their characters from our normal campaign high enough level yet when I was working on this so we had to go with some pregens I rolled up.
As far as the Runeforge "missing" sections... you might check the minutes from the #pathfinder chat whenever they're posted wherein James Jacobs and I talked a little bit about Pathfinder and Sins of the Saviors.
I had planned to develop each wing of Runeforge, but when it was obvious I had nothing near the word count allowance I needed, I had to omit those ideas. I never actually wrote anything for the Abjurant Halls or the Maze of Sloth other than an obese imp wizard carried around the maze of Sloth in a palanquin mounted atop a huge mechanical spider. But it never made it in to my manuscript. Thus, what you see for Runeforge is actually what I wrote with a few alterations and additions here and there by Dr. Jacobs.
The lack of Sloth wizards and Abjuration wizards for the reasons printed made logical sense to me. They were things that I thought could realistically happen (in an unrealistic setting) given their vices.
Oh, but to comletely answer your question, yes, a LOT of stuff was cut out in between Sandpoint and Runeforge. My intention was to hook the players into a scavenger hunt to gather all of the peices of missing information the Scribblers Rhyme alluded to. A trip into myth shrouded Lurkwood led to an encounter with the Witchfire (in the Bestiary), which in turn led to a cluster of hoodoos along the southeastern shores of Lake Stormunder, which in turn led to the standing stones at the foot of Rimeskull. And, of course, then into Runeforge.
I believe that in order for James to write up the newly uncovered Catacombs level under Sandpoint and make the other additions and changes he wanted to make to Runefore itself, it left him with a super bloated word count, and thus those parts got stripped out and the starting and ending points of the adventure got squeezed more tightly together. I also think that the Witchfire section was too similar to the undead dryad in Hook Mountan Massacre.
It all worked out pretty well, though. I'm very pleased with the edits, in fact.
Here it is friday so figure I would ask...
Web Enhancement?
Paul, I've humored the rest of your concerns with responses,
"Humored"? That's a pretty poor choice of words, and a little harsh - especially since your responses clearly show that Paul was correct, and Sins of the Saviors did suffer from some pretty significant sloppy editing. One nitpicky item (admitted to by the poster) doesn't erase the rest. (Especially since you're the author and not the editor, where apparently most of the problems lie.)
In any case, I agree with Paul - Sins of the Saviors very much does suffer from sloppy editing. It's also apparent to me that some of the superfluous "back page" stuff about Golarion this and Golarion that is seriously hurting the adventures themselves, thanks to page-count issues - which is where virtually all the problems of previous Pathfinders lie, as well.
Chronicles? Cut. Dragons of Golarion? Hack. Deity articles? Slice by half or more. (OTOH, the city articles are great, because the PCs actually go there in the adventure. I.e. more Dungeon mag style "backdrops", less... everything else.)
It's also apparent to me that some of the superfluous "back page" stuff about Golarion this and Golarion that is seriously hurting the adventures themselves, thanks to page-count issues - which is where virtually all the problems of previous Pathfinders lie, as well.
You can add me as another vote for cutting the subsidiary material ruthlessly so that the whole adventure will fit. I would have liked to see what you actually wrote, and what Logue actually wrote in #3, and I would cheerfully sacrifice the Chronicles and half of the background articles for that.
#3 and #5 had a lot of editing issues, more than #1, #2 or #4; I think that making large cuts/additions late in production is fraught. It's really helpful for people to list them here because then GMs don't hit them unawares. I was probably just about to get tripped up by the missing traps, for example.
Mary
|
I too, respectfully disagree with the previous posters. I see Pathfinder as a kind of swiss army knife publication for dm's--you may not be able to use everything or everything at once, but sooner or later you find uses for most of what's in it.
Mr. Greer, thanks for taking the time to post and respond to folks questions. Being able to talk to and get feedback from module authors is something I've always liked about Paizo and its messageboards.
Last but not least, although I suspect a web enhancement is out of the question due to time and money constraints, why not put "cut" material online at something for Pathfinder like http://dungeonmagazine.pbwiki.com/ was for adventures in Dungeon Magazine. The additions page to the adventure Dread Pagoda of the Inscrutable Ones (of which Mr. Greer was one of the authors) was great and really helped to fill out holes or what seemed sketchy parts in the adventure (you can find it at http://dungeonmagazine.pbwiki.com/Dread%20Pagoda%20of%20the%20Inscrutable%2 0Ones). I know authors are very busy folks, but I'd love to see a wiki page up for Sins of the Saviors like there was for Dread Pagoda (Mr. Jacobs and the Paizo crew permitting of course).
|
I'll go further than just disagreeing. The additional materials were enough for me to decide not to set my version of RotRL in Eberron, but to use Golarion instead - and that has lead me to continue my subscription beyond the end of the AP, to put in orders for the Gazeteer and the Harrow deck, and to buy a number of GameMastery modules just to learn more about the world. I am extremely happy to have the additional materials, and am perfectly willing to paper over some editing issues to keep them.
I'm sure it's been said before, but I'll say it again: "Back matter" articles will continue to be a significant part of Pathfinder simply because, in our minds, Pathfinder is more than just an adventure.
On a personal note, since it happens to be my particularly baby: We're not cutting the Pathfinder's Journal any time soon. We're just not. If you love it, great! If you don't - it's just six pages, and includes some cool sketches for iconic monsters. Either way, it's of vital importance to me that we continue to have what is, essentially, setting-based fiction in each volume so that those people who aren't as interested in the crunch side of things or don't want to delve into the adventure right away have something light and flavorful that helps them get a feel for our world and sparks their imaginations.
|
Creative Director
|
In any case, I agree with Paul - Sins of the Saviors very much does suffer from sloppy editing. It's also apparent to me that some of the superfluous "back page" stuff about Golarion this and Golarion that is seriously hurting the adventures themselves, thanks to page-count issues - which is where virtually all the problems of previous Pathfinders lie, as well.
I do admit that the editing in Sins of the Saviors was rushed. In order to get Pathfinder back on schedule, it had to be rushed. It's unfortunate, yeah, but if Pathfinder is late, then Paizo loses money—I've been tasked with getting it back on schedule so balancing time spent on editing against hitting the schedule's a big part of my job recently.
The material in the back isn't going anywhere, though. It's as important to Pathfinder as the adventures themselves. It's not "robbing" content from you. When I solicit an adventure from an author, that author has a very specific word count to hit. He also has to hit several key elements to make the adventure work in the context of the campaign as a whole. When an author goes over word count, I have to get it back in shape. If an author HITS his word count but neglects to include some elements that are required to make that adventure work with the ones that come before or after, I have to either get that author to write more or I have to write it and that causes other elements to be cut.
We (and when I say that, I'm talking about us here at Paizo and our freelancers) are still sorting out how to do these larger adventures and articles for Pathfinder. Working on adventure paths for Dungeon was GREAT training for this, but it's a different beast in several ways and in some ways we've had to go back to the drawing board, where we were when we started Shackled City. With each Pathfinder, though, we're getting closer and closer to where we need to be. There'll be some bumps along the way, but hopefully there'll be fewer and fewer to come in the future.
|
Creative Director
|
Another curious question: was this cut down a lot from its original draft the way #3 was? It kind of feels like it, especially the two missing sections of the seven-sins floorplan.
As Steve mentioned, the big cuts from the adventure occurred between Sandpoint and the dragon encounter. The dungeon itself is pretty much intact, with some changes here and there (I cut an encounter with an enormous gray ooze, for example, mostly because no matter how I swung the encounter and advanced the ooze... it's AC was so low that it simply couldn't present a challenge to higher level characters).
When Steve wrote the adventure, he didn't have access to a completed copy of Burnt Offerings, so the final turnover felt a bit rushed to me. I wanted there to be a stronger and more lengthy section based in Sandpoint, since it's SUPPOSED to be the home-town for the PCs and I set up the Catacombs of Wrath to foreshadow a larger event there. So I expanded what was originally a single encounter with the scribbler into the small dungeon that saw print. That did eat up some wordcount, and rather than cut stuff from Runeforge itself (which was the most important part of the adventure), I decided to cut out the lengthy "Locating/Getting to Runeforge" section from the middle. Frankly, I felt that this section bogged the flow of the adventure down; it was REALLY complicated and required a lot of puzzlework and repetitive scavenger hunt type quests that didn't really add much to the adventure overall; I think the adventure's stronger for losing this section, honestly. Further part of the problem was that much of this section of the adventure just didn't match what we'd already developed in the previous four about Thassilon and its history (and particularly the fact that it was 10,000 years in the past).
Paul, I've humored the rest of your concerns with responses,"Humored"? That's a pretty poor choice of words, and a little harsh - especially since your responses clearly show that Paul was correct, and Sins of the Saviors did suffer from some pretty significant sloppy editing. One nitpicky item (admitted to by the poster) doesn't erase the rest. (Especially since you're the author and not the editor, where apparently most of the problems lie.)
In any case, I agree with Paul - Sins of the Saviors very much does suffer from sloppy editing. It's also apparent to me that some of the superfluous "back page" stuff about Golarion this and Golarion that is seriously hurting the adventures themselves, thanks to page-count issues - which is where virtually all the problems of previous Pathfinders lie, as well.
Chronicles? Cut. Dragons of Golarion? Hack. Deity articles? Slice by half or more. (OTOH, the city articles are great, because the PCs actually go there in the adventure. I.e. more Dungeon mag style "backdrops", less... everything else.)
Man, the thing I love about messageboards is how someone can latch on to a word and suddenly be incensed over it. Relax, man. It was late. I said in my response my brain was shutting down. And, I was a little peeved by the 7.5 feet comment. I certainly didn't mean anything too rude by it (just slightly barbed), and perhaps "humored" wasn't the word I was looking for. How's "responded to" work for you? Anyway, Paul didn't seem too offended by it and I certainly don't feel that there's enough there for you to be either. Sorry, if it bothered you, though.
::aaaaaaaand back to the topic at hand::
|
Creative Director
|
In any case, I agree with Paul - Sins of the Saviors very much does suffer from sloppy editing. It's also apparent to me that some of the superfluous "back page" stuff about Golarion this and Golarion that is seriously hurting the adventures themselves, thanks to page-count issues - which is where virtually all the problems of previous Pathfinders lie, as well.
One more point... since the implication that the adventures in Pathfinder should be longer is kind of sticking in my craw...
As it stands right now... one person has to be the primary editor/developer for a series of adventure path adventures. That one person is me. Why does it have to be this way? So continuity between adventures can be stronger; if you have two or three people working on an adventure, then you dramatically increase the chances of having errors appear, same as if you have a week or two less to edit/develop an adventure (as is the case with Sins of the Saviors, alas).
ALSO: In order to increase Pathfinder's value, it HAS to have non-adventure material. Articles that build the world of Golarion, present new monsters or spells or items, and otherwise go beyond the adventure make your purchase useful before, during, AND after you run the adventure. It also gives someone who might not be all that interested in the current adventure more opportunities to find something of value to them in that volume of Pathfinder. I can't make every volume of Pathfinder 100% perfect for every reader. What I CAN try to do is make at least 50% of every volume of Pathfinder perfect for MOST of the readers.
As it works out, a 50 page adventure is pretty close to the physical limit of what one person can develop and edit on a monthly basis. That said... now and then you CAN expect to see us focus more on the adventure and less on the back matter. As early as Pathfinder 6, in fact, where the adventure itself takes up, if I remember right, close to 60 pages. The support articles in #6 are a 4 page article about Karzoug and a 4 page article about high-altitude adventuring.
But don't expect that too often. When the adventure deserves or needs to be longer, it'll be longer. But probably not more than once per Adventure Path.
At the risk of sounding like a company "yes man", I also like the stuff at the back. I'm running a campaign, and my players like the whole background. As it is, there are some details I have to make up or fake. Not a lot, mind you, most of the important stuff is covered, but my point is there's always something about the background we want to know.
As evidenced by these boards, and how often we, the readers, take advantage of our editor-in-chief, associate editors, and publisher. Look around, there's no shortage of people asking Mr. Jacobs one metric ton of questions about everything. That's not going to improve by cutting the stuff at the back. ;-)
Anyway, he spoke for himself, he doesn't need my validation. Nonetheless, there's my two cents.
Man, the thing I love about messageboards is how someone can latch on to a word and suddenly be incensed over it.
Are you kidding me? We're great at that. (Of course, "incensed" is also a bad word to use, as well... Stop that!).
Steve Greer - the man badly in need of an editor. :D
One more point... since the implication that the adventures in Pathfinder should be longer is kind of sticking in my craw...
As it stands right now... one person has to be the primary editor/developer for a series of adventure path adventures. That one person is me.
Yowza. That's a big job, and I see why making it harder, especially while already on a tight time schedule, is not going to be a win for you guys.
I do love the continuity. There's a lot fewer dropped threads than in SCAP or AoW, where often a previous module just seemed to be forgotten in later ones.
ALSO: In order to increase Pathfinder's value, it HAS to have non-adventure material. Articles that build the world of Golarion, present new monsters or spells or items, and otherwise go beyond the adventure make your purchase useful before, during, AND after you run the adventure.
I like the idea of having background material, but the 50% useful/ useless rate has been frustrating. Maybe it's inevitable; maybe every single one of the things you put in was useful to 50% and useless to 50%. But reader feedback is, after all, one of the ways you can find out.
Mary
|
Creative Director
|
I like the idea of having background material, but the 50% useful/ useless rate has been frustrating. Maybe it's inevitable; maybe every single one of the things you put in was useful to 50% and useless to 50%. But reader feedback is, after all, one of the ways you can find out.
Mary
It's absolutely inevitable, but by tying the background matter in some way to the adventure and/or current campaign, the theory is that if you happen to enjoy the campaign, you should enjoy the back matter. And I'd hope that the breakdown would be more like 50% useful and 50% just interesting reading, rather than 50% useless. ;-)
Pathfinder is 100% uesful to 100% of me!!!
|
|
I really enjoy the background stuff. Getting the adventure, module specific monsters, Pathfinder fluff & stuff, along with the journal seems like a good combination.
Web enhancements are a great way to add content, especially with the dungeon sections. I would really like to see several web enhancements per series with side treks, additional dungeon encounters, additional flavor stuff, as well as tactical maps. While I would like to see a web enhancement for every volume, that is probably not realistic. I am ok with the dungeon getting cut short as long as it is added back in with web enhancements.
Steve Greer - the man badly in need of an editor. :D
Hmmmm. Too bad we don't have signature lines on these boards or I'd quote you in mine. ;)
|
Creative Director
|
Web enhancements are a great way to add content, especially with the dungeon sections. I would really like to see several web enhancements per series with side treks, additional dungeon encounters, additional flavor stuff, as well as tactical maps. While I would like to see a web enhancement for every volume, that is probably not realistic. I am ok with the dungeon getting cut short as long as it is added back in with web enhancements.
Yeah... as I've said before... web enhancements really do bog down the art and editorial teams. They aren't easy to produce, and usually end up resulting in some of us working weekends or late nights. When you pile that on top of the fact that Team Pathfinder's already working weekends and late nights, well... the end result is "sloppy editing" from the "sleep-deprived editors."
I appreciate the discussion about the editing issues. I spent 7 years in the digital print industry in purchasing and inside sales/customer service and am very aware of the time and skill it takes to edit a monthly publication like this. I can only imagine that more than one resident of Bellevue has unknowingly (hopefully) had their life in danger from driving on the same road as James after a late night of putting the most recent project to bed. His crossed and bleary eyes after that many hours staring at a computer screen has to make all of those white lines on the street pretty much look the same! :)
That said, I have a question and an offer:
From the discussion on here, it sounds like there has been web enhancements to earlier issues of Pathfinder. Here I'm going to admit to my own blindness and ask, "where?". I can't find them. :(
On the offer end of things, I'm local to the Paizo home office (Everett) and would be willing to add my admittedly nit-picky eye to any penultimate draft you want. I've often found that the reason for many of the kinds of issues getting through that I brought up comes from the editorial staff being too close to the work. You already know what it's "supposed" to say, so in the long and late hours, the brain just adds in the "missing" info. Having a proofreader that doesn't have any idea what a product is "supposed" to say, might be the perfect way to take these products from great to stellar. I realize that the odds of you letting someone do something like this is fairly slim, but the offer is here and I'm in your database if you want to find me. Heck, I'd even do it for a copy of the final product, so I'd be cheap nit-picker and easy to justify in the budget. ;)
On a personal note, since it happens to be my particularly baby: We're not cutting the Pathfinder's Journal any time soon. We're just not. If you love it, great! If you don't - it's just six pages, and includes some cool sketches for iconic monsters. Either way, it's of vital importance to me that we continue to have what is, essentially, setting-based fiction in each volume so that those people who aren't as interested in the crunch side of things or don't want to delve into the adventure right away have something light and flavorful that helps them get a feel for our world and sparks their imaginations.
Thank you for standing up for your 'baby' in the face of those many "drop the journal already!" posts :). On behalf of those of us who dig them, it's very much appreciated, really.
On the offer end of things, I'm local to the Paizo home office (Everett) and would be willing to add my admittedly nit-picky eye to any penultimate draft you want. ... I realize that the odds of you letting someone do something like this is fairly slim, but the offer is here and I'm in your database if you want to find me. Heck, I'd even do it for a copy of the final product, so I'd be cheap nit-picker and easy to justify in the budget. ;)
I would also be willing to do this.
Mary
This is something I do not want to see in my Pathfinder campaign, once it starts, and is therefore why I will be converting to True20. The material I have read for Pathfinder is fantastic and is very easy to convert to True20, and have seen many encounters that when run in True20 will be truly epic. Those same encounters in D&D rules would become extremely rules heavy and bogged down and I could see my group really struggling with them.
I looked at the True20 jumpstart rules, and I couldn't figure out how the GM was supposed to deal with the damage-track mechanic while running large numbers of NPCs--as in, for example, the Sandpoint arc of #4. Shadowrun uses that mechanic and we found it prohibitively complex for the GM in large fights. Is there a simplified version meant for grunt NPCs?
Mary
|
|
My card hasn't been charged, nor I have received the usual communication. ARGH!This is because you've selected to hold all of your subscriptions for monthly shipment. We're currently anticipating that Pathfinder 6 will arrive before the end of the month.
Yup, I suspected that. My idea of "I'll wait a couple of days more before freaking out" was not so bad, after all. ;p