Pathfinder Battles Heroes & Monsters Preview: Common Courtesy

COMMON CREATURES
Goblin Warrior
Goblin Hero
Dire Rat
Gnome Fighter
Orc Brute
Orc Warrior
Skeleton
Watch Guard
Watch Officer
Lizardfolk Champion
Zombie
Giant Spider
Wolf

Is there any reason the Lizardfolk Champion is a Common, and possibly more numerous than his potential troops?

"Too many chiefs spoil the broth", or somesuch.

Is there any reason the Lizardfolk Champion is a Common, and possibly more numerous than his potential troops?

"Too many chiefs spoil the broth", or somesuch.

Maybe the "champion" was part of team. So all the members of the team are "champions".

Is there any reason the Lizardfolk Champion is a Common, and possibly more numerous than his potential troops?

Not really. I just decided to call him that. The standard lizardfolk from the Bestiary (which I would probably call "Lizardfolk Warrior") is armed with a morningstar, and not a trident. Next time we do a lizardfolk mini, we'll probably do one like that. But we had a cooler image of a lizardfolk with a trident we preferred to use for the mini, so I decided to call it something else.

That's why the Orc Warrior is called the Orc Warrior, and the Orc Brute is called something else. If we were to stat the Orc Brute up, he would be tougher and armed with a spiked club.

I have no idea if this miniatures line will be successful enough to sustain multiple sets, but I certainly hope it will. If that is the case, we will probably do other orcs down the road.

For the lizardfolk, "champion" just sounded right to me for the way this guy looked.

We'll do more.

I have a celestial black bear mini from the DnD sets that sees allmost zero play due to the stupid gold highlights.

But that's just me.

Torger

Got your solution for that, right HERE.

But seriously, I agree; I'd rather see different natural shades of animals, than metallic 'angel' effects, or suchlike.

And if I want a 'frost' wolf, I'd rather it be a surprise for the players, when my normal pale wolf deals cold damage, than if I place an electric-blue canine on the table, and they all chug a potion of resist cold...

On a related note; please, please, please, keep up the good work with dire animals being represented by larger versions of their base creature, rather than the D&D 3E practice, of having meaningless and unworkable spikes jutting out all over the place?

A realistic large wolf can represent a druid's companion, enlarged or evolved.
A wolf with ice-cream cones stuck to its head, not so much.

I would like to point out the obvious fact that there are a TON of basic Orcs, Gnomes, skeletons, manticores, lizardfolk, etc... available to buy on ebay and online shops.

Here is a great opportunity to get some Pathfinder-specific monsters and Iconics in mini-form. Sandpoint Devil, Chupacabra, Devilfish, Pugwampi, Karzoug the Runelord, Skinsaw man, Sin-spawn, (the never produced in PPM) Peryton, & Mimic.

I dont need more of the same, unless it is spectacular. Give us a good sized portion of NEW. (and not just new sculpts, new monsters).

D&D miniatures got fewer and fewer of my dollars because I didn't need or want a 27th version of a Dwarf with Axe, a 3rd version of a Harpy, or a Giant riding an Elephant. Get the monsters from the main monster books DONE, and keep retreads to a minimum.

Snorter wrote:

Is there any reason the Lizardfolk Champion is a Common, and possibly more numerous than his potential troops?

"Too many chiefs spoil the broth", or somesuch.

Maybe the "champion" was part of team. So all the members of the team are "champions".

Now I imagine a lizardfolk bard singing with the group of Trident wielders. " We are the champions my friends..."

D&D miniatures got fewer and fewer of my dollars because I didn't need or want a 27th version of a Dwarf with Axe, a 3rd version of a Harpy, or a Giant riding an Elephant. Get the monsters from the main monster books DONE, and keep retreads to a minimum.

*shrug* they need to mix the two for a few reasons. 1) some of the D&D monsters don't look like the Pathfinder ones 2) there are people who started with pathfinder who don't have your or my 20 skeletons to choose from. 3) things like the harpies - there are 3 harpy scults in &D minis. 2 of them are rare, and the 3rd is ugly. I only have the ugly one (and I have over 2000 minis, 950+ unique sculpts) so just because you or I might not want something, doesn't mean the market doesn't - I could do without any humans.... but I still want Karzoug and Ameiko... not because they're human, but because of their unique personalities. I also want the iconics for PFS people playing pregens

Here is a great opportunity to get some Pathfinder-specific monsters and Iconics in mini-form. Sandpoint Devil, Chupacabra, Devilfish, Pugwampi, Karzoug the Runelord, Skinsaw man, Sin-spawn, (the never produced in PPM) Peryton, & Mimic.

You'll probably see more than a few of them in the specific ROTR set.

I do agree with your basic request, though; there are some archetypes that have been done to death. They do need to cover those bases, but not to the extent they've been done in the past.

Brinebeast wrote:

Quick suggestion for the paizo folk.

For the Wolf, Dire Rat, and Giant Spider if you do packaged sets in the future a repaint of these with reds and blacks, or whites, golds, and blues can easily turn these into fiendish / celestial versions of these monsters. This can add a lot of milage to the amount of use you can get out of these sculpts. And the variation between the regular sets and smaller targeted packaged sets would be appreciated!

That's an interesting idea. We probably will do Encounter Packs featuring some of these types of creatures somewhere down the line. Would people prefer this approach, or would it be better to just have variant versions with more traditional fur colors?

I don't know without seeing them. My feeling is that for an encounter pack, my kneejerk reaction is that I will ALWAYS prefer new sculpts and paints if asked the question -- but that demand sated, if the encounter then offered *even more* variation after the "new scupts button" has been pressed, then it probably would be considered a "bonus".

Which, come to think about it, really is the entire key to using variants/repaints to extend a minis product line.

What it's really about is marketing. If people think repaints are being offered INSTEAD of new sculpts, they will feel dissatisfied and complain about being "ripped off". "Effin Greedy Paizo and GREEDY WizKIDS blah blah blah..."

If the marketing spin says nothing about the repaints at all -- announces the set and people have an expectation and interest based upon the announced details? And then a month before release, the repaints are announced to extend the encounter set even MORE than already announced "HEY it's not seven figures in the encounter pack, it's NINE figures!!", then people are more likely to see the repaints as a "bonus" and treat them as such.

To quote David St. Hubbins, it's such a fine line between clever and stupid.

By way of another example, one thing I wouldn't mind seeing would be color variations of a common figure within a set. So say in some theoretical "Awesome Pathfinder Battles Set", there was a common mini in the set of a kobold soldier dude. And let's say that mini was sculpted and masked the same way, but on ONE of the kobold soldier minis Wizkids went with green skin and the other with black or red? (all other steps on the paint job being the same). I'm totally down with that approach if it would permit even more minis within a set and extend some variations between commons, too.

In the above kobold example, if one counted the # of minis in the set to be 60 -- 61 if you include the variant paint color of "mini X" -- again, that's going to make people very happy, not sad. It's about being persuaded they are getting something in ADDITION TO what they would "normally" get, and not INSTEAD OF. If you can create that sort of customer reaction to a variant/repaint, I think you're golden.

It is called Pathfinder Battles Heroes & Monsters.

That was a comment on Wizards of the Coast originally leaving gnomes out of the players guide and including them as monsters with lairs in 4e.

What will be the relative frequency of the various rarities? Are 'sealed cases' intended to have a more even distribution than random? Is it reasonable to expect 3 of each common, 2 of each uncommon, and one of each rare (all +/- 1)in a case, for example? Could we even expect a consisted distribution of each rarity, or would it be unsound to make any predictions about a sample as small as a case?

By way of another example, one thing I wouldn't mind seeing would be color variations of a common figure within a set. So say in some theoretical "Awesome Pathfinder Battles Set", there was a common mini in the set of a kobold soldier dude. And let's say that mini was sculpted and masked the same way, but on ONE of the kobold soldier minis Wizkids went with green skin and the other with black or red? (all other steps on the paint job being the same). I'm totally down with that approach if it would permit even more minis within a set and extend some variations between commons, too.

In the above kobold example, if one counted the # of minis in the set to be 60 -- 61 if you include the variant paint color of "mini X" -- again, that's going to make people very happy, not sad. It's about being persuaded they are getting something in ADDITION TO what they would "normally" get, and not INSTEAD OF. If you can create that sort of customer reaction to a variant/repaint, I think you're golden.

You don't even need to make it a 'different' mini. Just announce that there will be 60 different minis, and that some will have recolors. If you count a 'kobold footpad, green' and a 'kobold footpad, red' as two different models, I'm going to be cynical and be turned away from the product line, but if you present a 'kobold footpad (two color schemes)' as one model, I'm going to want to have several green AND several red ones, so I can play games where two different groups of kobolds interact...

Lizard Champion???

This looks like a half donkey - half sahuagin mini!

Please send this back for a re-sculpt!

To better illustrate my point:

http://www.d20.ca/images/lizdonk.jpg

That was a comment on Wizards of the Coast originally leaving gnomes out of the players guide and including them as monsters with lairs in 4e.

I can't believe I forgot to suggest that on the "what rules from 4e should Pathfinder adopt" thread! <Grin>

What will be the relative frequency of the various rarities? Are 'sealed cases' intended to have a more even distribution than random? Is it reasonable to expect 3 of each common, 2 of each uncommon, and one of each rare (all +/- 1)in a case, for example? Could we even expect a consisted distribution of each rarity, or would it be unsound to make any predictions about a sample as small as a case?

Yes. The cases will be seeded, so that you get as even a distribution of miniatures as possible - at least, that is the plan, and their intention is to have all cases be this way. The problem is that the seeding and packing is done by humans, and those bastards aren't perfect and will make errors no matter how hard you hit them ;-).

In the first set (Heroes and Monsters), one case should give you a complete set (barring the occasional human error where they, I don't know, accidentally leave out a kobold and instead put in a huge black dragon, they look so alike).

With later sets, it's likely that one case won't give you a full set (which means that statistics being the b$$$& they are, no amount of cases will ever guarantee you a full set)

Dragnmoon wrote:

It is called Pathfinder Battles Heroes & Monsters.

That was a comment on Wizards of the Coast originally leaving gnomes out of the players guide and including them as monsters with lairs in 4e.

Well, that's the difference between wizards and Paizo, perfectly illustrated by the gnome situation: wizards made them monsters, Paizo made them interesting. ;-P

Daniel Powell 318 wrote:

What will be the relative frequency of the various rarities? Are 'sealed cases' intended to have a more even distribution than random? Is it reasonable to expect 3 of each common, 2 of each uncommon, and one of each rare (all +/- 1)in a case, for example? Could we even expect a consisted distribution of each rarity, or would it be unsound to make any predictions about a sample as small as a case?

Yes. The cases will be seeded, so that you get as even a distribution of miniatures as possible - at least, that is the plan, and their intention is to have all cases be this way. The problem is that the seeding and packing is done by humans, and those bastards aren't perfect and will make errors no matter how hard you hit them ;-).

In the first set (Heroes and Monsters), one case should give you a complete set (barring the occasional human error where they, I don't know, accidentally leave out a kobold and instead put in a huge black dragon, they look so alike).

With later sets, it's likely that one case won't give you a full set (which means that statistics being the b~&+@ they are, no amount of cases will ever guarantee you a full set)

Thanks- I understand the human error aspect; at the point where they are packed, all the boosters have to look identical, so there is no good way to perform quality control. I'm quite satisfied with a chance at a full set roughly equal to the chance that human error will occur and that a given human error will result in a figure not being present. Do you have/are you an industry source, or is this simply standard procedure?

I just want to point out for the future that horses should absolutely be common and with multiple sculpts to boot. Might be nice if they had flat-ish saddles as well, so you could stack riders on them without requiring a special rider mini!

Do you have/are you an industry source, or is this simply standard procedure?

Paizo CEO Lisa Stevens herself said so. Follow this LINK.

the gnome situation: wizards made them monsters, Paizo made them interesting.

I couldn't agree more. Much like serial killers and flesh-eating disease gnomes are both interesting and completely repugnant. For the same reasons, no less.

Lizard Champion???

This looks like a half donkey - half sahuagin mini!

Unfortunately you'll have to wait until the upcoming Low Tide Love Children set for the half-donkey/half-sahuagin.

Until then, consider what an incredible job the sculptors did on this troglodyte after flipping to page 42 of Pathfinder #32.

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

Lizard Champion???

This looks like a half donkey - half sahuagin mini!

Unfortunately you'll have to wait until the upcoming Low Tide Love Children set for the half-donkey/half-sahuagin.

Until then, consider what an incredible job the sculptors did on this troglodyte after flipping to page 42 of Pathfinder #32.

Wait, so it is not a lizardman after all?

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

Lizard Champion???

This looks like a half donkey - half sahuagin mini!

Unfortunately you'll have to wait until the upcoming Low Tide Love Children set for the half-donkey/half-sahuagin.

The Burro and the Brinesmaid?

Wait, so it is not a lizardman after all?

Did I say troglodyte? I meant lizardfolk (just like he is described above AND in Pathfinder). I'll fix that as soon as my mysteriously absent revisionist history privileges turn back on.

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

Lizard Champion???

This looks like a half donkey - half sahuagin mini!

Unfortunately you'll have to wait until the upcoming Low Tide Love Children set for the half-donkey/half-sahuagin.

Until then, consider what an incredible job the sculptors did on this troglodyte after flipping to page 42 of Pathfinder #32.

They did do a good job capturing the essence of the depicted lizardfolk. I'm still partial to the "traditional" lizardman image, so it will take me some getting used to... much like it did for me to re-acclimate myself to Paizo's goblins.

I think the sculpt could use a little fine tuning though. I have tried my hand at a little scuplting myself and have realized that its far easier to criticize other people's sculpts than it is to make my own :)

OBI am very excited about this product line. Are there going to be skirmish rules?

So every Gnome Fighter comes with a Dire Rat, and every Dire Rat comes with a Gnome Fighter?

Are all the packs specifically fixed like this?

I really hope that's not the case.

Remember that there are Large Boosters and Standard Boosters. Large Boosters contain one Large figure, and Standard Boosters contain *either* one Medium figure or two Small figures. In the latter case, the two small figures are always paired, so, for the common Smalls, you'll get either A) two different goblins, or B) the dire rat and the gnome. You should never get the rat and a goblin, or a goblin and a gnome. (This actually helps ensure even distribution, so brick and/or case buyers won't end up with, say, a bunch of gnomes and no rats.)

Merkatz wrote:

So every Gnome Fighter comes with a Dire Rat, and every Dire Rat comes with a Gnome Fighter?

Are all the packs specifically fixed like this?

I really hope that's not the case.

Remember that there are Large Boosters and Standard Boosters. Large Boosters contain one Large figure, and Standard Boosters contain *either* one Medium figure or two Small figures. In the latter case, the two small figures are always paired, so, for the common Smalls, you'll get either A) two different goblins, or B) the dire rat and the gnome. You should never get the rat and a goblin, or a goblin and a gnome. (This actually helps ensure even distribution, so brick and/or case buyers won't end up with, say, a bunch of gnomes and no rats.)

Are you confirming that the two goblins will be packaged together, instead of one goblin with the gnome and the other one with the dire rat?

What will the goblin mystic be packaged with?

Are you confirming that the two goblins will be packaged together, instead of one goblin with the gnome and the other one with the dire rat?

What will the goblin mystic be packaged with?

since there are 4 goblins in the set and 6 smalls (Erik has said this at least 3 times) I'm guessing the goblin mystic is with another goblin that we don't know about yet

Daniel Powell 318 wrote:

Are you confirming that the two goblins will be packaged together, instead of one goblin with the gnome and the other one with the dire rat?

What will the goblin mystic be packaged with?

since there are 4 goblins in the set and 6 smalls (Erik has said this at least 3 times) I'm guessing the goblin mystic is with another goblin that we don't know about yet

Erik confirmed on the previous page that the Dire Rat and the Gnome Fighter will be packaged together. Looking at the list of commons, you'll note that there are only two common smalls left—Goblin Warrior and Goblin Hero. I'm confirming that those two are packaged together (a fact that was already obvious to many, I'm sure).

I don't believe we've announced what the sixth Small is yet, but yes, that's the figure that will be packed with the Goblin Mystic.

I don't believe we've announced what the sixth Small is yet, but yes, that's the figure that will be packed with the Goblin Mystic.

What's the timeline for a full list?

Vic Wertz wrote:

I don't believe we've announced what the sixth Small is yet, but yes, that's the figure that will be packed with the Goblin Mystic.

What's the timeline for a full list?

We know all but 2 minis see Here for the list of what we know so far

Erik confirmed on the previous page that the Dire Rat and the Gnome Fighter will be packaged together. Looking at the list of commons, you'll note that there are only two common smalls left—Goblin Warrior and Goblin Hero. I'm confirming that those two are packaged together (a fact that was already obvious to many, I'm sure).

I don't believe we've announced what the sixth Small is yet, but yes, that's the figure that will be packed with the Goblin Mystic.

I believe in a post around November 3rd, Erik mentioned that the Goblin Mystic was scrapped from the set. Apparently the scale was off. Could you please confirm if the Goblin Mystic has been scrapped or not. Erik mentioned that it was being replaced with another goblin.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Erik confirmed on the previous page that the Dire Rat and the Gnome Fighter will be packaged together. Looking at the list of commons, you'll note that there are only two common smalls left—Goblin Warrior and Goblin Hero. I'm confirming that those two are packaged together (a fact that was already obvious to many, I'm sure).

I don't believe we've announced what the sixth Small is yet, but yes, that's the figure that will be packed with the Goblin Mystic.

I believe in a post around November 3rd, Erik mentioned that the Goblin Mystic was scrapped from the set. Apparently the scale was off. Could you please confirm if the Goblin Mystic has been scrapped or not. Erik mentioned that it was being replaced with another goblin.

I think in the same post erik said they changed the pacakging, so the gnome will be with a goblin, and the rat will be with a goblin

I think in the same post erik said they changed the pacakging, so the gnome will be with a goblin, and the rat will be with a goblin

In Erik's post he said that they were changing the rarity of the dire rat / gnome combo to uncommon, so that people didn't end up with a hoard of gnomes.

I suggested then, that since people would like hoards of dire rats, that they instead package the gnome with the goblin mystic to make them both uncommon, and package the rat with a golin in a common set. On the plus side, that would ensure every small set gave a goblin.

That is when Erik replied and said they were scrapping the goblin mystic.

The smalls are arranged like so:

Common:
Goblin 1/Goblin 2
Goblin 3/Goblin 4

Uncommon:
Dire Rat/Gnome Fighter

Erik hasn't explained what all four of the goblins are yet, other than that they include Goblin Warrior and Goblin Hero, and do *not* include Goblin Mystic.