Pathfinder Battles Heroes & Monsters Preview: Common Courtesy

Wow. Just wow.
These are more works of art that just table minis.
I love the attention to detail on making them 3-d creations from the Bestiary.
How many other companies would bother with toe counting!
Paizo has set this bar very very high.

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed that the Gnome Fighter is a common. Not sure what I am going to do with that many of that figure. I definetely want him, but I would rather have a kobold or something in the common slot. The rest I can understand and am looking forward to having. The orcs look great.

Those are awesome and I love your approach to what is common vs. uncommon vs. rare.

I can't wait to see what you eventually do with Gnolls. They are a part of the Pathfinder Bestiary aren't they?

Woohoo! A Common wolf! This will be *very* useful in my games!

I'm not really a fan of the lizardfolk's face, but the orcs look absolutely fantastic.

I must agree with Caineach that the gnome fighter seems like an odd choice for a common. But all of the others are perfect -- just the sort of thing a DM needs lots of.

Thank you!

Forget about the orcs-the lizzy is just mouthwatering-gah!

Well, I'll bet the gnome fighter can serve as a halfling fighter in a pinch. Also, this is just the first 13 commons, so I expect to see that the dwarf fighter and the human fighter and the elf fighter may also be on the commons list... in which case the gnome fighter isn't that weird.

EDIT: oh he said it was the entire list, my bad.

I am assuming there is a numbers reason for this, but why are there so few commons?

And super rare? I was hoping you would stay away from more then 1 category of rare, I wish you just had comon, uncommon and rare.

I am assuming there is a numbers reason for this, but why are there so few commons?

Well, there are only 40 sculpts in the set. 13 commons is 1/3 of the set. My guess is that they went with something like 13 common, 13 uncommon, 13 rare, and 1 super-rare. Of course, that's just pure speculation ;-)

.
Looks like I'll be sending a gnome horde against the player's village.

Dragnmoon wrote:

I am assuming there is a numbers reason for this, but why are there so few commons?

Well, there are only 40 sculpts in the set. 13 commons is 1/3 of the set. My guess is that they went with something like 13 common, 13 uncommon, 13 rare, and 1 super-rare. Of course, that's just pure speculation ;-)

Erik said above that there are 10 uncommons, as that's next week's post.

So 13 Common, 10 Uncommon, 17 Rare or above.

It's also quite interesting that there are no Large minis in there, or is it that it's actually:

13 Common, 10 uncommon, x :arge & (17-x) rare and above figures?

Watch Guard
Watch Officer

Excellent... These interest me the most.

Erik said above that there are 10 uncommons, as that's next week's post.

So 13 Common, 10 Uncommon, 17 Rare or above.

It's also quite interesting that there are no Large minis in there, or is it that it's actually:

13 Common, 10 uncommon, x :arge & (17-x) rare and above figures?

I stand corrected.

I think you're probably right. Since there aren't any Large figures in this set, it's probable that the Larges are either outside of the rarity distribution, or else have separate rarity.

.

So 13 Common, 10 Uncommon, 17 Rare or above.

To me that seems backwards, Common should have the most, then Uncommon, then Rare.

I eagerly await these weekly reveals, and I'm very impressed by most of the figures revealed already. But I am in agreement that it is a mistake to make the gnome fighter a common, and I hope that the decision will be reconsidered. The same with the Watch Officer, which also is unlikely to be encountered in groups. Generic monsters should be the focus of the commons. Kobolds or gnolls would be great, as mentioned by previous posters. Even a generic townfolk, barbarian, or militia spearman or archer.

I'm curious to know the distribution ratio of common/uncommon/rare/super rare. I expect I'll be chipping in for two or three bricks, and hoping that I get a majority of the set. I don't care if I have the full set, but it would be annoying to know that there were figures that are so rare that I really don't have a hope of getting them, or that I'm likely to end up with a half dozen gnome fighters that I can't even trade away.

The figs look spifftacular. Though I also echo the huh? regarding a common gnome fighter. I didn't realize they were so militaristic a race. :)

I love the quality of the sculpts, especially the Orc Warrior which nails the reference are and suggests excellent details on the models! Nice!

Without putting too fine a point on it, the details on these "greens" are excellent and seem to share far more in common with Reaper's greens then they do with the early sets of D&D Minis of days done by (Harbinger to Deathknell, say.)

That said, all the awesome details can be lost (or greatly muted) depending on the nature of the final paint jobs, masks and wash effects used in the painting process. So... "it all depends" is still an accurate summation from all of these minis previews.

Agreed that the common wolves will be important to all GMs. Near as I can tell, it does not seem possible for a GM to have too many wolf miniatures. Maybe if we had thirty or fourty of 'em, I might want to ease up on the gas pedal, but until that time, bring em on!

(Though *ahem* it is very possible to have too many frikkin gnomes!)

Still, exciting pics just the same.

Though I also echo the huh? regarding a common gnome fighter. I didn't realize they were so militaristic a race. :)

Could pass for a sneak-attacking halfling rogue in a pinch, maybe?

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed that the Gnome Fighter is a common. Not sure what I am going to do with that many of that figure. I definetely want him, but I would rather have a kobold or something in the common slot. The rest I can understand and am looking forward to having. The orcs look great.

I second that, unless we are making a gnome/halfling village or orphanage I'd rather have another creature from uncommon swap that slot

I am assuming there is a numbers reason for this, but why are there so few commons?

And super rare? I was hoping you would stay away from more then 1 category of rare, I wish you just had comon, uncommon and rare.

I assume Seelah the Iconic Paladin will be super rare, mainly because you wouldn't need 2 of her.

I just wanted to point out that just because a watch officer might be more on the uncommon or rare side in a game, the mini (along with the watch guard) is effectively just a human fighter. Any larger group of human fighters, mercenaries, militia, guards, etc could use the watch minis.

Also, while in the first set, it might seem strange to have a gnome fighter, once a few more sets are out and there's also dwarf fighters, elf fighters, etc, it will just be rounding out the core races. Also, another good reason for common gnome fighters is so you can re-paint the hair color on different ones.

I must agree with Caineach that the gnome fighter seems like an odd choice for a common. But all of the others are perfect -- just the sort of thing a DM needs lots of.

The Gnome Fighter being common is a result of the set list being in motion before WizKids decided how they wanted to package these things. They aren't used to doing "Small" miniatures, so when they decided to pack Smalls two per booster, they had to make the "sets" out of the minis that were already in production, which meant the Gnome Fighter got paired with the Dire Rat.

I don't expect to have to make this sort of compromise in the future.

The Watch Officer will easily double as a Watch Guard, human fighter, or any kind of "mook" warrior.

I would have to agree about the disappointment with the gnome fighter being a common figure. Kobolds would be preferable. Or some other commonly used miniature that will see use. Hell, with my current group of players, I'm the first person to play a gnome in the two years I've been with them... and unlike some other games gnomes don't strike me as monster material.

and unlike some other games gnomes don't strike me as monster material.

It is called Pathfinder Battles Heroes & Monsters.

The Watch Officer will easily double as a Watch Guard, human fighter, or any kind of "mook" warrior.

Erik, this is the second time you've mentioned a manticore when talking about this set (the other was one of the Gencon interviews) should we take that to mean there is one as a large in this set?

and unlike some other games gnomes don't strike me as monster material.

This is prolly due to the... outrage RPGers had with DDM minis never releasing gnome minis

What? The Gnome Fighter is a common? Awesome! Nothing better then an ambush by a group of evil fey Gnomes. PC's never expect Gnome commandos.

Going to have to think of more Gnames though... Gnigel, Gnorman, Gnevil, Gnancy.... :-)

Gnorton, Gneuman, Gnadine....

The Gnome Fighter is boxed with the Dire Rat, incidentally, so for every "extra" Gnome Fighter you get, you'll also get a Dire Rat.

(Though *ahem* it is very possible to have too many frikkin gnomes!)

I thought so, too, but then I realized it just gives me more of the little buggers to kill.

I'll go the OTHER extreme. One of my biggest problems with the D&D mini sets, was a LACK of gnomes and halflings. I'm all sorts of Geeked right now to see the lil' fellas getting some more support!!

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!

The Gnome Fighter is boxed with the Dire Rat, incidentally, so for every "extra" Gnome Fighter you get, you'll also get a Dire Rat.

How do you tell the difference? [/bad standup comedian]

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?

Can we get some info on the genders. Are all the commons male (or at least the ones we can easily tell the gender for)? I guess looking at list that leaves Watch Guard and Watch Officer as possible females (all the others we already know or the gender probably isn't obvious).

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'd rather have "normal" colors. There aren't going to be that many situations where you have to differentiate between a fiendish giant spider and a celestial giant spider on a battlemat, but there will be many times there's more than one giant spider in play and it would be nice to have a black one and a brown one, etc., for easy reference.

That is, traditionally-colored animals can serve as normal or templated animals and cover a wider spectrum of use. But that's just my opinion. I'm new to minis with the Pathfinder line so I don't already have lots of spiders and goblins and things like a lot of veteran mini collectors do.

Can we get some info on the genders. Are all the commons male (or at least the ones we can easily tell the gender for)? I guess looking at list that leaves Watch Guard and Watch Officer as possible females (all the others we already know or the gender probably isn't obvious).

The commons in this set are all male or animals of indeterminate gender. This gives a somewhat skewed perception of the set, though, which has several female minis in it as well.

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 think both options can be useful, as summoning packs can include either a fiendish/ celestial wolf, or both. In addition a variation of sculpts and fur patterns/ colors can be included for variety and used in animal companion packs. I am in favor of either idea, as they are both good and do bring longevity to the sculpts, and am waiting for the announcement of the first sets of encounter packs.

I'd post a request again for cheaper unpainted versions of these :) Even though I know its not going to happen.

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.

for those who may be interested, previous wizkids figure correlation with heroclix:

booster 5 figs
brick 10 booster
case 2 brick

total 100 figs a case
led to about
3-4 each of the commons
2-3 each of the uncommons
1 each of the rares, maybe less (16 total, usually got 12-16 rares)
1/2 of the super rares in the set (usually 8 total, 4 per case)

so you may speculate as you will about the amount of the different rarities you will get per case.

Erik Mona wrote:

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 think both options can be useful, as summoning packs can include either a fiendish/ celestial wolf, or both. In addition a variation of sculpts and fur patterns/ colors can be included for variety and used in animal companion packs. I am in favor of either idea, as they are both good and do bring longevity to the sculpts, and am waiting for the announcement of the first sets of encounter packs.

To add to this a fiendish wolf repaint could proxy for a Yeth Hound or be distinguishable as the pack leader. Personally repaints are a great way to go with the Encounter Packs. It makes them useful for both those that have full sets of Heroes and Monsters and for those that don't. Hopefully though we can see a Yeth Hound figurine, maybe flying, in the next set.

Really like the Orcs and Lizard Man. The detail is truly superior.

Later,

Mazra

Would people prefer this approach, or would it be better to just have variant versions with more traditional fur colors?

For what my two cp is worth I'd rather have variants of more traditional (real world) animal colorings than planar version. I have a clesestial black bear mini from the DnD sets that sees allmost zero play due to the stupid gold highlights.

But that's just me.

Torger

(Though *ahem* it is very possible to have too many frikkin gnomes!)

<kneecaps Steel_Wind>

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...

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...

Wow, you must have a really accurate minis collection. My players would probably go, "Cool! The wolf is actually a medium-sized quadruped!" ;-)

Awesome! All of these commons appeal! The orc brutes hand seems strangely proportioned (the one holding the club) but this may just be the angle. The lizard is great but his head is a little horselike (the teeth maybe). However the orc warrior is phenominal. That leaves me drooling in anticipation of the skeleton, zombie, wolf and spider, I'dlove to see these - given the detail on the other reveals, these could be amazing! as for super rares, where is this coming from? I can't find any sign of this. Didi I miss something?

pres man wrote:

Can we get some info on the genders. Are all the commons male (or at least the ones we can easily tell the gender for)? I guess looking at list that leaves Watch Guard and Watch Officer as possible females (all the others we already know or the gender probably isn't obvious).

The commons in this set are all male or animals of indeterminate gender. This gives a somewhat skewed perception of the set, though, which has several female minis in it as well.

Doesn't that just mean the set reflects the gender of gamers in general? ;-)

I would like to see more variation (number) in commons, and less in rares. But I don't produce/sell these things for a living, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

I'd LOVE to see different color schemes on minis in the same set at the common rarity. If half are one color sceme, half are another, that'd be like 26 different commons in this set, making more reason to keep buying...

as for super rares, where is this coming from? I can't find any sign of this. Didi I miss something?

It looks like that sentence from the blog was taken down.

Well, regarding the lizardfolk champion, his overall look/appearance reminds me of Vesket; the Lizard King from "Rivers Run Red" part 2 of the Kingmaker Adventure Path.

I'd provide a link... but my "Link-Fu" is weak. ;)

~Dean

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...

Wow, you must have a really accurate minis collection. My players would probably go, "Cool! The wolf is actually a medium-sized quadruped!" ;-)

"Can I run round it, to engage its jelly baby handlers?"