AlQahir's page

So I am GMing and AP for the first time, in fact this is the first time I have GMed a world I haven't created. I am running Rise of the Runelords Aniversary Ed. and I have to say it is trickier than I thought. It is interesting trying to keep track of all the details of the world that is not my own. But I have thrown myself into the material and tried to make the campaign as fluid as possible.

Additionally we are play the game RAW, no modifications. It is kind of an experiment for our group as we return to Pathfinder after playing in a homebrew end world of a modified form of Warhammer's d10 rules. I thought it might be interesting to see how the game feels when we start tracking everything weight, ammo, money, etc.

So with this in mind there is a lot more book keeping than we normally have and I wanted a way to generate loot in the fashion designed by the game, but in a more efficient manner. My wife got me Ultimate Equipment for Christmas and I like the tables in the appendices, but I was wondering if there was an app or automated version where I can plug in the CR level of the encounter and out comes the loot? I found an online version, but it dealt with percentages, and there was an old link in these forums, but it was dead. Is there anything new or current? This seems like a good app for paizo to make and sell for themselves, but I can only find their two decks (crits/fails) in the App Store.

Thanks in advance for the help, and Merry Christmas :)

I am interested in making/playing a flank buddy summoner, and would like the character to be optimized, if such a term can apply to a concept that starts well outside of traditional bounds. Basically I want a fighter that is good enough with a sword to do acceptable damage, and has a high enough ac to not be constant liability.

My current thoughts are: Half Elf Fighter 1/ Summoner 19. As a first level fighter I will get access to more weapons and armor, full BAB, and the bonus feat. My primary Stat would be Dex with just enough charisma to get me access to spells, so probably 14. Feat wise I intend to take Weapons Finesse and Dodge/Toughness. At second level I would take Dervish Dance. So with the half Elf I can take two favored classes, so I don't miss out on the hp at level one, and I can regain some of the points for my eidolon that I missed out on by dipping into fighter. I toyed with going Bard at level one and just taking Dervish Dancer at the outset, but I didn't want to have tow levels of 0 BAB.

Does this build look okay for what it is? is there a better way to build my concept of a fighter with his scary pet Hell Hound?

I love the summoner class, but not because of the summons. I love the eidolon and think because of its build whateveritisyouareimagining mechanic it is one of the funnest classes in the game. That said I am less pleased with the summoner himself. While playing one I always feel lackluster, as though I am playing second fiddle to my pet. Now I am GMing a campaign and I have a player who has expressed similar concerns. So this is my proposed solution:

Get rid of the Summon Monster (sp) and replace it with Eldrich Blast (sp). Eldrich blast works like the warlock Eldrich blast of 3.5 except it can be used 5+(chr) times per day, and it increases in damage every third level instead of every other. The summoner is actually siphoning off some of the power of their bound minion, and thus must be within 30 feet of their eidolon to use this ability. Lastly because their eidolon is being taped as an energy source it isn't as powerful as otherwise might be (fewer evolution points). This eidolon has a perfectly linear evolution point growth starting at three and ending at 22, instead of 26.

With this change I envision a feat that increases the number of Eldrich blasts in a day, and the distance allowed between summoner and eidolon increasing at higher levels.

I feel this archetype is pretty balanced over all, and allows the character to participate in battle. I also think it is good because for this archetype charisma is no longer a minimal stat, and would be the focus of the class, as I feel it should be.

I know both the warlock and summoner are controversial, so combining the two will hardly be popular. That said does the archetype look mostly balanced? Have I made any glaring oversights? Constructive criticism is appreciated. Lambasting either the summoner or warlock as being broken/horrible/stupid isn't really what I'm looking for.

I really like the modularity of the new words of power system. I think the Words of Power system is about having the right tool available for the job. Casters can create the appropriate spell for each situation. I love this concept! I think this system is much more akin to the things I read in fantasy novels. Not the primary impetus for creating the system, I'm sure, but many gamers are influenced by novels.

This being said, I don't think Words of Power has gone far enough. I would like to see Words that increase the damage of spells. This would allow casters to fine tune each of their spells for the situation at hand. Have a bunch of low level mooks running around? No need to waste a 10d6 fireball. Need to quell a rioting mob? How about a mass stun that you can beef up to affect as many HD as necessary.

This would also limit the number of words a caster would need to learn. Learn one acid spell and then apply damage and shape as needed. I think the same system could be applied to summoning, healing, sleep, hold person, and a myriad of other type of spells. This would also make words learned at level one to be effective throughout the entire duration of a character's career.

Just my 2c.

I really like the Magus. I think paizo has done an excellent job especially considering the disparity over what the magus should do. There are a few different ideas I thought I would throw out there. Some of these ideas are not my own, but are ideas I have liked from other posters that I have incorporated into my magus (I have tried to cite posters of the original idea).

Arcane Pool (as proposed by TL03). I saw this on a different board and loved it and thought it would be a good way of implementing some of the ideas later in my post. This works similar to Ki points.

Spellstrike (as proposed by Kortz) which works similar to sneak attack and the magus would be able to vary the type of damage (Fire, ice, acid, etc.). I think this is a great ability to be powered by the Arcane Pool.

Spell Combat (as proposed by me). There has been a lot of argument about whether or not there should be a penalty if so how much, etc. I would like to propose that this depends on the type of spell being cast. I think that the penalty as proposed now works fine for non-combat spells. What I mean by this is if the magus is attempting to cast a control spell (say color spray) that the penalties are fine as is. But if the magus is attempting to do a combat spell (touch or range touch) that the penalties and how the spells function should be different. In the case of a touch spell I think it should function just as TWF. The magus would take a penalty to both attacks and would not have to cast defensively or make a special concentration check. If the magus is casting a range-touch the magus takes penalties to attack and would be subject to an AoO (similar to a character who wanted to make an attack with a hand crossbow). I think that a feat (similar to the one in the APG that does the same thing for archers) or Magus Arcana that negates AoO for those with the ability would be a cool option too.

Magus Arcana (Disciplines) (as proposed by me). I would like to see the magus have customization similar to that of the oracle or cavalier. These could be different orders or schools of thought, but I have called them Disciplines. My idea for the Disciplines is to lump a group of abilities together that would alter the Magus’ style of play. As noted above I think one of the biggest challenges facing the developers is the disagreement among fans on what they want from the magus. The disciplines would offer away a way for the developers to create options that will satisfy all these different play styles. I decided to use gemstones. Don’t know why, I guess I wanted something distinct from other orders, schools, domains, etc. Sample ideas:

Diamond Discipline-
Focus: Armored Defense. This would allow for those who wish to use heavy armor from the get go. Spell failure would be given as percentage reduction that would increase as the character leveled.
Abilities: Medium and Heavy armor proficiencies, shield proficiency
Fast Cast: Bull’s Strength, False Life, Haste

Ruby Discipline-
Focus: Mobility. This is for those who don’t wish to stand and fight, but are more skirmishers.
Abilities: dodge, mobility, spring attack
Fast Cast: Cat’s Grace, Blink, Invisibility

Sapphire Discipline-
Focus: Arcane defense. This is for those who disdain mundane methods of protection and rely on magical protection.
Abilities: Arcane armor last’s all day, but still requires the expenditure of a spell slot.
Fast Cast: Shield, Bear’s Endurance, Displacement, Stoneskin

Fast Cast (as proposed by me). I think the magus should not be better than the fighter, but I do like the idea of the magus being as good as a fighter or as good as a rogue depending on if the character was oriented. Instead of relying on physical prowess (BAB, HP, armor, etc) the magus would rely on arcane abilities to supplement their physical attacks (Arcane weapon, False Life, stone skin, etc). And while this is feasible through many existing spells a character would require several rounds to buff up leaving her companions to face the brunt of the attack. I think a way around this would be to cast certain spells as swift actions. Each Discipline would have a list of spells they can Fast Cast. To Fast Cast a character would have to burn X (1 per spell level?) points from their arcane pool, and would be able to cast the spell as a swift action.

I bought this book and really like the way they have done the magic system. It seems there are unlimited spell possibilities and a myriad of ways to make unique spell casters. As with all 3p material balance is an issue as is getting the DM to sign of on it. To that effect, has anyone used it in a PF game (or at all for that matter)? I am looking for a non-vancian/free form magic system so if anyone has replaced/supplemented the PF system with this or any other such system and can relate how that worked out it would be appreciated.

I have wanted to play a Dragon Rider character for quite awhile now, and with the summoner I have the tools to make that character concept happen. Summoner is by no means perfect, and there are a lot of things I don’t like about the class, however you work with what you have and this is the only way I can see making the character using RAW.

Character concepts: My character is just a regular adventurer (fighter) who is wandering the forest and discovers a small rift into the elemental plane of energy. Being quite curious he ventures into the rift to see what lies beyond. He enters the plane and is instantly bombarded by raw energy, but instead of destroying him it infuses him with energy. After his transformation/energization he sees a planar lord and his minions chasing after one of the denizens of that plane, a young elemental dragon. The dragon heads for the rift, and the adventurer, wisely not wanting to get involved with planar politics, follows. The planar lord screams in rage and slams the rift shut, before all of the dragon’s energy/essence can enter the adventure’s plane, leaving the dragon greatly reduced. The adventurer finds that all the energy he absorbed while on the other plane has come through the rift with him. The dragon did not bring enough energy to stay alive and starts to fade. The adventure intuitively helps the dragon imparting some of his new found energy into the dragon, preventing it from dying. During this process the adventurer discovers that he can access a small pocket of the plane of energy (a necessary story element since the dragon will have to go somewhere every time the summoner sleeps) a place of refuge for the dragon. The dragon and adventure decide to team up each benefitting from the other.

I would like help optimizing this class, which I have admittedly severely handicapped with my restrictions. Please give me good eidolon evolution and feat choices, as well as good feats and stats for the summoner. So here are the restrictions Core + APG only, 15 point buy, evolutions cannot be changed once chosen (meaning you cannot recreate the eidolon each level, just add new evolutions), the ‘Summoner’ is going to be focusing on mounted combat of some type, the ‘Summoner’ will not be using the SLA (role playing that he doesn’t even have the SLA), and the ‘Summoner’ will not be using much magic (Eidolon buffs only, no summons, damage, or control spells). Caveat if there is a way to work sorcerer levels in without overly crippling the eidolon I may pursue that option for blasty goodness while riding the eidolon.

The concept I came up with is:
Halfling Dragon Rider (Summoner) Outrider Racial Trait
Favored classes: Summoner 19HP
S- 11, D- 18, C- 10, I- 12, W- 8, Ch- 14 (15pt buy)
Level 1 Fighter Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
Level 2-20 Summoner
Feats:
3- Mounted Combat
5- Mounted Archery
7- Rapid Shot
9- Ride-by Attack
11- Many Shot
13- Dodge
15- Weapon Focus
17- Trick Riding
19- Mounted Skirmisher

Dragon (Eidolon)-
Level 1: Quadruped, Tail, Claws, Mount [3 Evol. Avail./ 3 Used] Power Attack
Level 2: Pounce [4EA/4]
Level 3: Improved Damage (claws) [5EA/5] Toughness
Level 4: Sing [7EA/6]
Level 5: Wings [8EA/8]
Level 6: None [9EA/8] Dodge
Level 7: None [10EA/8]
Level 8: None [11EA/8]
Level 9: Large [13EA/12] Cleave
Level 10: Energy Attacks [14EA/14]
Level 11: None [15EA/14] Bloody Assault
Level 12: Improved Natural Armor [16EA/15]
Level 13: Rend [17EA/17]
Level 14: Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack (Sting) [19EA/19] Combat Reflexes
Level 15: None [20EA/19]
Level 16: None [21EA/19]
Level 17: None [22EA/19] Mobility
Level 18: Breath Weapon [23EA/23]
Level 19: Natural Armor Boost, +20ft flying [25EA/25]

I originally had half elf for the option of getting a bow without dipping into fighter and for the 4 extra evolutions, but that character couldn’t actually get air born until level 8. I would also consider gnome for race.

In a different thread (I can't find which one) one of the developers (James Jacobs IIRC) stated that augment summoning works on the summoners SLA. With the changes made to the SLA and the eidolon essential making them two sides of the same coin (and the reason they don't work together) does augment summoning work on the eidolon?

I have a couple of questions regarding the Eidolon Breath Attack:

1- Can it be improved by the Improved Damage Evolution bumping it up to d8/HD?
2- Do you get an extra d6 if you have the Energy Attack evolution which grants 1d6 energy damage on all attacks?
3- Can the breath weapon be used in conjunction with pounce/all other primary attacks?

I used to play "Star Wars Saga" and in that system there was a talent in one of the PrC talent trees that allowed a character to add their dex bonus to damage rolls instead of strength. I was wondering if there is a PF feat or class ability that does the same thing.

Which adventure paths were designed for 3.5 and which ones were designed for Pathfinder? I know Rise of the Runelords and Curse of the Crimson Throne are both 3.5, but I am unsure about all the subsequent ones.

Has anyone play tested any of the non-vancian magic systems with pathfinder? I am thinking specifically of Elements of Magic, True Sorcery, or Monte Cook's World of Darkness, but if there are any other good ones I have missed feel free to point them out. I am just wondering inf the magic systems are already balanced for pathfinder or if they need tweaks. Thanks!

No one has heard anything additional?

On a related note: has anyone ever used the magic systems from Elements of Magic Revised or True Sorcery in one of their pathfinder games? If so were the systems pretty balanced with the rest of pathfinder's game mechanics?

I thought I would start a thread where people can post things the would and would not like to see in the new Magus class. It seems there is a new fighter-mage (Magus) thread every other week, but this time it is more of a wish list of abilities that we would like the Magus to have. Since the developers want Magus to supplant "Gish" as the word that means fighter-mage, and since many never liked the word gish to begin with, AND since we all want to earn extra credit from the developers so they'll listen to our ideas, lets make this a 'gish-free thread :)

Things I'd like to see in the new Magus class:

1- An ability to deliver spells through a weapon.
2- Flexible armor penalty reduction to support multiple build concepts. Meaning not just "can cast spells in X armor . . ." but "reduces the spell failure of armor by X% . . ." This supports those that want to wear all types of armor.
3- Bonus to casting spells in melee.
4- D10 hit die.
5- A broad or multiple spell list(s) to facilitate different builds or concepts.
6- Cool flavor. I would love to see something along the lines of the cavalier orders that would give the magus different abilities, and control which spells they had access to.
7- Magus (or even better, order) specific spells.

Things I DON'T want to see:

1- Paladin/ranger spell progression.
2- Full spell progression.
3- Full BAB
4- Prohibited magic schools.
5- Unrestricted access to all schools like a sorcerer or universalist wizard.

I know some of the things I put on the list seem contradictory (d10 hit dice with 3/4 BAB), and others seem like I was obfuscating (not wizard/sorcerer spell progression and not ranger/paladin which leaves . . .), but I think that this class may be an opportunity to break the mold. I don't think the magus must have a bard equivalent spell progression, but that a brand new magus spell progression might be the way to go.

Likewise I wouldn't mind seeing a different casting mechanic then we have seen before. Depending on flavor text I could support either charisma-spontaneous or intelligence-prepared, but I would love to see something different then either of these. Constitution comes to mind. It would be interesting if the magus had to balance how many spells they used or start taking damage/penalties because they are sapping their strength every time they cast.

Does any one have or know of a Truenamer conversion that makes the truenamer a legitimate party member in a pathfinder game? I really like the idea of the naming magic, and would love to play this class. The problem of the neigh impossible DCs is a little daunting, though. I am all about having a story driven character, and I am not a power gamer, but there is a difference between power gaming and being utterly ineffectual. If anyone knows of a good pathfinder conversion I a would be really interested in reading it.

I wasn't sure if I should ask this here or in the homebrew section, since what I am looking for could be seen as both. Does any one have or know of a Truenamer conversion that makes the truenamer a legitimate party member in a pathfinder game? I really like the idea of the naming magic, and would love to play this class. The problem of the neigh impossible DCs is a little daunting, though. I am all about having a story driven character, and I am not a power gamer, but there is a difference between power gaming and being utterly ineffectual. If anyone knows of a good pathfinder conversion I a would be really interested in reading it.

Question one: Is it true that the hoof attacks of a horse change to a primary attack if the horse is war trained, if so then can someone please post the reference. I thought it was in the beastiary but I can't find it now.

Question two: I read in a forum, that I can no longer locate, about some interesting feats related to mounted combat. The poster referenced either a pathfinder campaign setting, adventure path, or chronicle. Does anyone know any pathfinder products that have mounted combat related feats?

Thanks!!

I was wondering if anyone with Monte Cook's Collected Book of Experimental Might could give me a brief description of the Runeblade. This class is sounds intriguing, and since I'm a sucker for gish classes anyway I think I'll like it. However, I am interested in how compatible it is with pathfinder, since it was written for 3.5. I am not looking for a full class build up, just enough to make sure it is worth the $10, since that is really the only part of that book I am interested in. Thanks for the help.

I have never done play-by-post, and I am really interested in playing one. I am playing in a local game, which is a lot of fun, but it is a homebrew world (a really well done one), and I really want to try playing one of the pathfinder built campaigns. The problem is I haven't had any luck finding a new game. I searched the forums but haven't had any luck finding someone who needs a new player. Where do I find a new game, or does anyone need another player? If anyone can point me in the right direction I would really appreciate it.

Does anyone know of feats that will decrease the armor penalty for cavaliers? I know the order of the sword has the mounted mastery ability, and the animal affinity will help with the penalty while riding. Short of multi classing into fighter is there anyway to reduce these penalties? Thanks for the help.

Is it possible for the mount to do an over run/trample attack and the rider to do a mounted charge at the same time? It seems to me that the horse would charge, then get its over run trample attack. The rider of course gets an attack as part of the charge I guess the real question is a natural attack the only option for the mount at the end of its charge?

Jason stated on the Alchemist/Inquisitor sticky the possibility of revisions to the classes from the play tests in mid-January, time permitting? A couple of questions:
1- are these revisions for another round of play testing, to polish up the classes?
2- will we see the revisions for all classes or only those that received extensive changes?
**crosses fingers for cavalier changes**
Anyway thanks for the opportunity to play test, I have really enjoyed it thus far.

In a post elsewhere Jason hinted that part of the Inquisitor play test may actually be for the cavalier, which is a great idea. It tests out the mechanics of a certain different groups of abilities to see which actually works better, with the better of them possibly being used in both classes albeit with different nuances.

Along these lines I would like to see the eidolon type customization cross over to the alchemist. I like that the alchemist can already focus his research in a particular direction refining his bombs or mutagens to become his primary offensive form, but I would like to see personalized recipes. I think it would be interesting if every level the alchemist received so many research points, and they could use those points to refine their own personal elixir. Their elixirs, like eidolons would have basic forms bombs, mutagens, or enhancement, from there however the alchemist could add his own twists to his creations to personalize them to his needs. This is after all at the very heart of alchemy.

I would break from the eidolon format in one regard. I would allow the alchemist to conclude one recipe and move on to others. If a recipe ever gets to the point that the alchemist doesn't want to add any more to it, he can move on and start on another. All the research points used on the original are permanently used up, and the alchemist cannot add to or take away from it once he has finalized his creation.

Anyway I think this would be yet another way to customize the alchemist, and it utilizes the evolution point system, which I think is a really great idea and should be spread around to other classes.

I was reading a forum earlier where someone who jokingly mentioned a person who was playing a wiz 3/ sorc 3 and how bad that character would suck, which is true. It got me thinking that a wiz 3/ cleric 3 sucks pretty bad too but Mystic Theurge is a really good PrC. So if the Theurge class allowed any two casting classes to combine and gain full caster levels for both would sorcerer/wizard be a powerful combination?

I think it would be a great role playing class. I like the idea of some one having an inherent ability to cast magic then applying them selves with study. As opposed to the iconic bumbler sorcerer:
Kahlan- "Hey Dick, what spell is that?"
Dick- "I call it 'Deus ex Machina'!!"
Kahlan "Oooo sounds exotic"
Dick- "Oh, it is . . . I just have no idea how I did it"

Anyway, I think having an Arcane Theurge type caster would be a really powerful combination, and give you some of the best elements of both wizards and sorcerers.

Thoughts?

I have just finished reading MinstrelintheGallery’s sorcerer guide and found it very useful. I have addition questions but I didn’t want to jack his thread so I thought I’d start a new one and see what kind of advice I get.

I am going to be playing a sorcerer for an upcoming game and would like help optimizing the character. Things I am interested in:

1- A character that has good social skills for good role playing and out of combat use
2- A multifaceted approach to combat. I am not interested in a glass cannon build but I would like to focus on damage and battlefield control
3- Thematically I think I am going to go for a chromatic type sorcerer and eventually jump into the Initiate of the Seven Fold Veil PrC.
4- I will be using a 15 point buy, the stats I came up with are S-8, D-14, C-12, I-12, W-8, Ch-16 (18 after the bump), but theses can be modified if I have screwed something up.
5- Races I’m primarily looking at are Half-elf and Human, but I have not ruled the Gnome out yet (not really interested in playing a Halfling).
6- The books that I can draw from are Pathfinder core, any of the completes, and the spell compendium.

Where I really need help is in feat and spell selection. I have never played a caster before and so I don’t want to grab some spell or feat thinking it sounds cool only to find out that I made a classic first time caster mistake. Thanks for any and all help!!

How do the half-elf rules work with elven weapon proficiencies? Would half-elves treat this (and other elven weapons) as martial weapons or is that for elves only and so the half-elves would have to take a feat?

No love/interest in seeing any additional mounts for medium sized characters? It strikes me as strange at how many aquatic and small character mount options there are, and there are essentially two for medium characters (and I don't see many people charging into battle on their trusty camel). Oh well I guess I can hope that they throw in a couple new ones in the advanced players guide.

I plan on making a cavalier to play in a game this weekend and in an effort to avoid mount issues in a dungeon I wondered about training an animal that wasn't on the animal companion list. Specifically I am interested in a lizard type mount, like a giant frilled lizard, which would be large enough to ride, but more capable in a dungeon setting (at least to my minds eye). My question is if you rear a wild animal can that animal become your animal companion and therefore gain hit dice and feats as you progress in the class, or those things limited to just those animals list on the animal companion lists?

In light of the new changes to summoner I am trying to find something for the actual summoner to do during combat. I don't want this to be a discussion of whether the changes made are good, bad, or otherwise there are plenty of other forums for that. So far I have only play tested the summoner at low levels (3-5 thus far) and I have to say while the eidolon is awesome the summoner himself leaves something to be desired. The summoner lacks the sufficient spells to be a decent buffer, has no ranged damage spells, and has lack luster melee performance in low point buy games when the points are used up in the primary stats. Anyone have good multiclass or other ideas so that the summoner and not just his pet(s) (which at low levels the other summons are pretty brief) is a contributing member of the party.

So to start it off I'll throw out bard/summoner. Not the most powerful of classes, but the bard would be able to increase the summoners buffing capabilities, and give access to much needed social skills so the summoner can contribute something outside of combat.

My party just reached the entrance to the Embassy of Leng at the end of last session, and I've been re-reading through the last parts of the book the make sure I don't miss anything. Reading through Cadrilkasta's statblock and tactics, I've got a question:

How long is the tunnel from F9 (The Great Temple to the Crawling Chaos) to F10 (The Cursed Dragon) supposed to be?

Since Cadrilkasta sends her Lillends up the tunnel to the PCs after they're done healing her up, I don't imagine it can be more than a couple of hundred feet long, since the Lillends are only around for 15 rounds. The only thing I could find relating to the length is in the description of the temple itself, where it states that "A long tunnel connects the temple's far side to a higher ledge on the other side of the mountain," which doesn't really help to clarify anything.

This puzzled me as well. Originally I envisaged it as half a mile or so, because the temple is not that large, and if you enter on one side of the mountain and exit on the other, for it to be a short tunnel they temple must be set in the peak of the mountain, or else the top of the mountain forms a long, thin, spire. In fact, the latter must be the case because when the pcs arrive through the portal, we're told that the mountain extends upwards for another mile above them. So I can't really reconcile it.

No, you don't sometimes fail at things that are ingrained in you like that.

A master chef is never going to sometimes forget how to make a grilled cheese sandwich.

A master swordsman is never going to cut at something and fail so hard he severs his own leg.

Things like that are things that don't happen in reality, with normal people, so why should it happen in a fantasy game with people who are beyond human?

By 6th level you've surpassed humanity. You should be getting better at things without a 1% chance of going "Whoops, guess all my training is useless".

And NOBODY is going to forget something as simple as 2+4, even for a moment, much less a guy who makes his living on numbers. Come on now. Even when you brain fart, I doubt it's something to do with your livelihood, and as you said...you know the answer, you just can't vocalize it. It's not the same thing.

You might go "Hand me that...thingy over there" when you mean a screwdriver, but you're not suddenly going to be like "And what's this for again?"

Also the way Knowledge checks work mean you CAN never try again but that's a whole 'nother basket of stupid that's not related to your rule at all.

I'm not going to go as far as to say your rule is horrible and you're terrible for using it or whatnot, I've fooled around with fumble rules too, but I don't think it makes sense like you implied it did.

I get what you're saying here, and, after all, house rules are for the individual GM, but I can't help feeling that fumble does not necessarily = 'forget how to do it.' Sometimes, freakishly, circumstances are just against you. I've gone to make a grilled cheese sandwich and the knife has just flown out of my hand, or the match has snapped in half. We've all seen YouTube vids where Olympic athletes fail at doing something they've excelled at all their life - equipment breaks, or they slip.

So that Barbarian - if he rolled a 1 one at my table while trying to kill a cowering child - well, I'd say 'ok, the rock that you put your weight on while you swing down is actually unstable, and twists under your foot, throwing you off balance. Your swing goes wide.'

Circumstances can be against you, and that's what I use fumble for, not intimating that the player / character forgot everything they ever learned in an instant.

Also, if the Paizo moderators have a bias against aggressive, jerky, demeaning, homophobic, misogynistic and racist comments, I am OK with their bias.

You see, I don't know if I am. I would rather such views were challenged wherever they appear, so they can be shown to be offensive. Is silencing debate good or moral in and of itself? Being aggressive, yes, because that's not an opinion it's just bullying, but I would rather someone were called out for being homophobic / misogynistic / racist because those are legitimate opinions, however misguided, and I would hold out the hope that people who hold them could have their opinions changed. Just putting your hand over someone's mouth isn't going to change their world for the better.

I don't know, I'm ambivalent about this. I do believe the above, but I don't necessarily believe that a family friendly forum like Paizo's is the place for it, or that folks on an internet forum are necessarily going to respond appropriately. I guess the danger is that being 'jerky' is rather a moveable feast, and whilst it's easy to identify things that fall into the category of 'demeaning / homophobic / racist' and get those removed, I'm not so confident that there isn't someone who can be offended by anything. One of my co-workers has just made an official complaint about the girl she works with for being too quiet. And if that person is a Moderator are they always adhering to company policy on what's offensive?

I dunno. 'Who'd be a Mod?' seems to be the lesson I'd take from this thread. The bigger and more successful Paizo becomes, the harder the job is.

I've kind of suspected from the beginning that The Real Issue here is: "some moderators express views which I don't like (and even worse, by voicing these views they empower others), so let's build an elaborate argument against them taking part in discussion".

I think that's quite unfair, although it's an easy shot to take. I love that the staff engage in debate, or take up cudgels in defence of their own world view and cultural position. It's what really sets this company apart from other forums that I belong to. I think what's being objected to is the danger that Mod A states a position, and poster B objects to that position and states an opposite one, does Mod A then remove said post or let it stand and counter it by reasoned debate? Can you be objective where you are emotionally invested? Should you even try? The company I work for will not allow anyone to work on a case where there is a conflict of interest, and that includes moral objection to a client's business where this is likely to interfere with the job being undertaken, where the staff member in question thinks this may prove problematic.

What you're suggesting is that the entire thrust of this thread is that people would like to see opinions from mods that run contrary to their own censored. It might be the case, but which statements in the thread do you believe support this view?

I have to say I've never had a problem with the moderation on the site personally, and I've never been subject to anything heavy handed (or even light handed). I have seen a few people behave like asses or state things that I thought were pretty objectionable, but the mods have for the most part let those views be challenged in open debate. So, for me, it's more a consideration of what seems logical.

Arnwyn wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It might also be a good idea for staff not to moderate discussions they're taking part in. Pass it on to someone else.

Holy cow - this, so much this.

In fact, I'm shocked this even needs to be brought up.

Moderating a thread in which you're also taking part is deeply inappropriate. (There's at least one Paizo staffer who does this far too often, and probably a couple more.)

Very inappropriate.

How is it inappropriate? You will find that most staffers and or mods even from different sites take place in conversations and such in most threads. If they were to excuse themselves from moderating simply because they are taking part in the thread they would not be much of a moderator then.

If you have a problem with a moderator and their discussion and or moderation actions you have the report link in their post. Many mods and staffers have brought this up.

Isn't the issue that - when participating in a thread they personally feel strongly about the subject matter of - the moderation runs the risk of becoming subjective rather than objective?

Two of my favourites from Doctor Who:-

• Soldeed watching his plans go up in smoke - 'You interfering hussy!'

• Minions destroyed, attempted palace coup thwarted, soundly beaten in climactic swordfight - Count Grendel pauses before leaping from battlements into the moat to escape: 'Next time I shall not be so lenient!'

Another big thumbs down for the cover, I'm afraid. After appropriate / thematic illustrations for other region specific APs like Jade Regent, Skull and Shackles, and Reign of Winter, I find this a crushing disappointment as I really hoped this would shout Egyptian / Osiriani. Poor decision, IMO.

My own unfamiliarity with HeroLab necessarily limits my ability to add this functionality. Perhaps an enterprising member of the HeroLab forums/community could set themselves up to provide HeroLab-conversant support/service to enable more 3PPs to add HeroLab support for their products. Perhaps this has already happened?

Thanks for your comments! And regarding the above (and I can only speak for myself), but I don't expect publishers to provide this kind of content for free. I'd be happy to pay extra for Print + HeroLab (or PDF + HeroLab) in the same way I currently would for Print + PDF.

Sure, there has been in the past some below par 3PP material. But, really, the cream has risen to the top and the field is now, if anything, full of top quality products and designers. I simply don't understand how someone can say '90% crap' when they're often the exact same designers as Paizo use. Maybe they think the design philosophy or something is different, I dunno.

So, there are a bunch of 3PPs I would love to buy stuff from, but I'm really limited to those that produce Hero Lab files for their products, which I use extensively in my game. I have several players who have disabilities in the reading area and wading through hundreds of pages of text simply isn't an option, so Hero Lab is a must have product. This limits me from a lot of the players option type 3PP products out there, unfortunately, although whenever there's a kickstarter with HL files I'm usually there.

Probably just as well, considering the amount of stuff I'd buy if I could use them.

GeraintElberion wrote:

If this was a UK forum then 'bastard' would be censored in the same way that 't+$!', 's!$&' and 'wanker' would be.

I've been turning it over in my head all evening, and the only place where I've heard the word used to represent a 'mixture' would be in 'bastardise', and even then it implies corruption and pollution.

To be fair, it's used often in faux mediaeval literature to denote illegitimate - I'd be astonished if it hasn't appeared in Game of Thrones, for instance. Of course it still carries a pejorative tone, hence the corruption of the original word into one of abuse.

The main reason for this product is that I believe the Core Rulebook presents a number of barriers to entry into the game for many people, among them...

(list)

This book is intended to solve those problems, and I believe that it will bring many more players to the table.

Wasn't that the Beginner Box though? Back at the time of that product, I remember a discussion (and it may have been from James, or I may be misremembering) that one of the perceived problems of D&D 4th Ed was the number of 'entry products.' There were too many books on the shelves whose intention seemed to be to 'bring players to the table.' It confused people and led in itself to a barrier to play. I remember Paizo staff being very conscious of that and wanting something that was clearly labelled 'Start Here.' To me, the title of this product doesn't say 'start here', and if it doesn't, how will it aid in recruiting gamers? And, if it does, then aren't we back at the headscratching of new gamers / parents looking at the Core Rulebook / Beginner Box / Strategy Guide and thinking 'what the heck?'

If the driver for this is a perceived failing in the design / complexity of the core product, then maybe that's an argument for revisiting that book rather than increasing the range of product offering overall?

Pitching in here with my tuppence ha'penny worth (that's 2 cents I guess for you US folks); I say lose the fiction. I've been a subscriber since Serpent's Skull, never read it, never will. Nothing against it, but it's not what I buy gaming product for. I have NEVER wanted fiction in a gaming product, and that goes back to 1st Edition. Nothing against fiction at all. Everything has its place, but an adventure game product isn't it. I'm a published writer, I can do my own, thanks. What I'm not is an adventure designer. I've read tons of fantasy, I've got tons that I haven't read queued up, and tons more on my Amazon wishlist. I don't care what fills the space; I understand maps / adventure expansions aren't practical, but to be honest I'm happy for any kind of crunch - more monsters, more ideas, perhaps extra info on locations in the adventure, more anything. I must admit, when I first bought Serpent's Skull I assumed the fiction was going to be that - the storyline of the AP fictionalised, which I thought might at least give me a couple of ideas. When I realised it wasn't it seemed to have even less point, and I was baffled at its inclusion other than a fairly cheap way of filling the page count.

In a way the Adventure Paths are an amalgam of what Dungeon and Dragon used to be, but to my mind I'd rather it was more of the Dungeon plus crunchier articles from Dragon, than the fluff. I've no time for it - to my mind it's plagued gaming products for years. I realise I'm an extreme case - I don't even like flavour text in rulebooks - but I'd rather get at something that helped me at the gaming table. I play rpgs because I have an imagination; I can visualise adventures, create characters and immerse myself in an ongoing, complex storyline. The help I need for that is for someone to provide the skeleton, not flesh, bones and formal attire as well.

I'm aware James Sutter has said up thread that it's a risk to drop it, and for commercial reasons Paizo have to balance the folks (like me) who keep buying even *though* the APs have fiction, against the folks who'd cancel if they didn't, but seriously? How many people on here buy the APs for 6 pages of fiction, and would cancel their sub if it went? Has anyone in this thread so far - even those who really, really like the fiction - said they'd stop buying if the fiction was dropped? Where's the sense in that? That must be the most expensive six pages of fiction on the market.

The Adventure Paths are to my mind just about the best ongoing gaming product out there right now, and I've got no doubt at all that when D&D reappears in its new guise there'll be a monthly adventure sub built in. I suspect there will be a fiction component there too, but I'd like to see Paizo having evolved to the next stage before then.

I don't like this AP, but not because I'm bored per se. Individually I've actually really enjoyed most of the volumes - particularly The Asylum Stone and Beyond the Doomsday Door. I have two main complaints though. First and foremost, I don't like the dungeon-centric nature of SS. I prefer one or two main dungeons per AP with the others being smaller and more interspersed with roleplaying elements, travel, etc. Up until now every AP has followed this pattern, so I understand that SS is an effort to mix things up and throw a bone to the mega dungeon crowd. It just so happens I'm not in that crowd.

And that's really exactly what it is, and is why I'm enjoying it so much. As James has stated, APs offer a variety of styles of play to satisfy different players. Our group wasn't interested in Pirates or Far East, so although I kept up my sub, we sat the adventures themselves out. This is a hark back, not only to Paizo's early years, but also to the 'traditional' dungeon crawl. That's never going to be to everyone's taste, but for those for whom it's an ideal mix of 'dungeons and diplomacy', I think we shouldn't begrudge either the idea or the execution of the AP. People who 'don't like the dungeon-centric nature of SS' should sit this one out, in the same way folks who don't like horror, or urban, or pirates have sat out others. That way, really, the AP line retains something for everyone.

Like others here, I'm not sold on the Pathfinders though. In my campaign I have a powerful and longstanding NPC family who have been targeted over the last few years by a powerful and unknown enemy. So, the matriarch of the family has hired the party to take up Sheila Heidmarch's quest, but covertly do so for her with every intention of siezing the Sihedron when it's complete. We'll see how that plays out, but really, the point is that a creative GM doesn't need to foreground the Pathfinders or require undying loyalty towards them from the team.

Presumably something manufactured by Blackbook though, for the benefit of their customers, and thus unlikely to form part of a Paizo subscription.

Having said that, they look gorgeous, and I would snap one up without hesitation if Paizo were to produce something similar.

The postman thrust a large box into my hands as I was leaving this morning - I cannot WAIT to get home and open it! As an added bonus I'm working from home tomorrow; the likelihood of there being any actual work done is minimal :)

Is the adventure prequel 'The Reaping Stone' a print or pdf only product? And, frankly, a hardcover of Bleeding Hollow sounds too awesome for it not to happen.

I very much like the suggestions around expanding the information beyond simple bestiary entries (not that they're particularly simple, but...). Sure, new Demon Lords etc are always welcome, but definitely more detail on their domains, specific locations, and variant uses for their abilities and agendas. More stuff like the 3e Hordes of the Abyss - rules for possession and exorcism, demon crafted items designed to entrap mortals, devilish contracts, how the brave, greedy and foolhardy summon and treat with nether planar beings. More on unique beings - servants of the greater lords and ladies that could be used to challenge lower level parties (note, not 'low' level, just lower than the upper echelons needed to battle DC20+), examples of plots and campaigns undertaken on prime material realms, rules for demon hunters and devil slayers. What about lower planar constructs and machines? And just how does the economy of a town or fortress in the Abyss or Nine Hells work? I mean, I find it hard to imagine these beings living in any kind of normal society. How would such a place function?

Also, and this is kinda hard to quantify, I want these places to be strange. Back in the days of 1e I would leap on any mention of other planes, of the inhabitants thereof that occasionally showed up in places like Vault of the Drow. They radiated otherness, something weird, alien, inhuman and malignant, and really stirred my imagination. And then along came Planescape which, for me, just didn't succeed in conveying that convincingly. It was just another adventure location that 1st or 2nd level characters could - with a bit of preparation - head off to. Heck, they even lived there. To me, that just demolished what was different and forbidding about the lower planes. Going there should have been tantamount to suicide; only the high level, or incredibly lucky, could hope to venture there and come away unscathed. In fact, in all likelihood, no-one could hope to come away unscathed in some way. Much of it should have been too much for mortal minds to even contemplate (of course, eventually, that arena was usurped by the Far Realm). I'd like to see those inhuman vistas beckoning again from the edge of madness and evil.

I mean, really, all kinds of stuff. That's just off the top of my head. Personally, I'd be quite happy to immerse myself in a hardback on the subject, because I'm darned sure it would get more use than many others on my shelves, but that's just me.

I wonder when the overseas ones will start arriving? Monday and Tuesday are public holidays here in the UK, so maybe the back end of next week. Cannot wait!

And reading on the other thread that Mr Vaughn is going to be working on a campaign guide, well. And the Sword of Air! Having been a long time follower of Necro, I think my excitement levels for FG products have now exceeded those for Paizo itself!

I might chime in yet if my finances permit, but my budget is pretty thinly stretched right now and if I am investing in this, then only $250-level - I want all levels!

The $250 level was the sweet spot for me - it was really somewhat outside my budget, and more than I've ever spent on a single rpg product - but the rewards at that level were really too good to ignore. I think Bill pitched it just perfectly. Had those rewards been at the higher levels I wouldn't have been able to justify the expenditure, no matter how much I wanted them, and wouldn't have been able to take up a pledge. As it is, it's just doable, and the higher levels can remain pitched at groups rather more than individuals.

I don't think there's any point in continuing to belabour the point. We've all provided examples of why the OP's position is absurd, but he / she isn't engaging with any of the arguments beyond the repetition of 'that's metagaming.' Clearly they've argued their case against their players so much that it has become inviolable and impervious to all reason or appeal. I'm not sure what would persuade them - clearly they want a developer to step in and state the official position, but I honestly have no idea how any argument could be advanced that hasn't been already, beyond 'you're wrong.'

I think I'm done here.

Interesting ideas, guys! Let me throw out a couple of ideas and see if any of it stirs up some conversation.

Viking Saga -- You are the bloodsworn crew of a viking raider plying the seas in search of glory and plunder in a mythic norse setting. What strange lands will you find? What mysteries will you discover? And who will know your fury? The saga isn't over until you die in battle and arrive in Valhalla where the brave shall live forever.

The Guildmaster -- You start small-time, a local batch of hoods, eager to make a name for yourself with whatever small jobs you can manage. By the time you're done, you will control this great metropolis. You will be the corruption at this city's heart, with eyes on every street, fingers in every pie. You will, if you can survive, be the Guildmaster.

The Great Game -- Once the gods warred, but now they resolve their differences with the Great Game. Whoever wins, to them shall be awarded dominance in the coming age. What are its rules? How is it played? Who can say? The gods are mysterious. But you are players in the great game -- brought here along with beings from across the multiverse. You will need cunning, might and wisdom to prevail at the Great Game. You must be ruthless. Only one faction can win. And the prize for victory -- to return home.

What do you think?

Gary McBride
Fire Mountain Games

First two - not so much - Vikings perhaps, if the exploration aspect was emphasized. Small time hoods, nope. Great Game - sounds intriguing but I would wait to see what that actually involved in concrete terms.

I would buy an Underdark / underground themed AP; something in which numerous practical and environmental hazards caused problems, and in which the PCs couldn't simply teleport out, using the kind of material that was presented in the old Dungeoneers Survival Guide. Lost for months at a time, traversing hundreds of miles of tunnels, chasms, subterranean rivers, buried cities and unspeakable horrors. Something like Night Below, in fact, which was probably the pinnacle of my DMing career.

Your response to Prismatic Spray is pure metagaming. You said that it was one of the most popular spells in the PHB.

... other stuff

Well, firstly, no I didn't - I didn't mention the phb at all. By 'the book' I'm speaking metaphorically (ie, 'that's the oldest one in the book'). I apologise for not being clearer.

But, ok, your point is valid. Not every game world is the same. There are worlds where magic is rare, and precious, and restricted to a few. But you're positing knowledge checks for everything that the pcs don't have direct personal experience of. There is no way, to my mind, that knowledge of Prismatic Sphere is metagaming. Here's how I would handle an encounter with such.

Me: OK, the guy in the robes is making gestures and intoning something. It doesn't look good. Roll that knowledge check, see if you can work out what it is before it goes off.
PC (fails).
Me: You can't tell what it is from the gestures, or the half heard incantation. It's way beyond what you've come across in your own studies. Suddenly the room is engulfed in a shifting, multi hued ball of light. With horror, you realize what it is, and just have time to gasp 'Thor's balls! It's a Prismatic Sphere!'

In your world there are no bards telling heroic stories, there are no fables, myths, legends, no tales of empty ruins on the hill and the hollow eyed ghosts within. There's no Homer, no Shakespeare, no Dante. Nobody sits around the campfire trying to scare the pants off each other.

That's fine. There's no way anyone is going to persuade you you're wrong. You're interpreting the rules in a certain way, and I, and a lot of other people here - heck, everyone here - thinks you're wrong. But it's your game. It's just as well you didn't have to wait until you played it before you could go into a FLGS and ask for it.

Wolf Munroe wrote:

Well anyway, that's my pitch for a module series anyway.

It's an interesting idea, and we've had varying degrees of success going that route in the past. Hum, hum, hum...

I can't help feeling that the money people are pouring into Frog God for the likes of Slumbering Tsar and Rappan Athuk demonstrate there's an appetite for adventures that are larger than the module line can accommodate. As you point out, there are so many great ideas in Golarion crying out for more exploration, maybe that's a market that Paizo should take a tilt at, IF you guys can figure out a way to make it work.

I had a party TPK’d whilst facing the gold dragon in the bottom of the 2nd edition Greyhawk Ruins. It was the third time they’d faced a dragon, and the third time they decided a good tactic would be to stand together in a group. I described the dragon swinging his head round to face them as they stood on the balcony, opening his mouth etc, and the response to each action was ‘we’ll stand here and see what happens.’ Well, what happened was 300 hp of breath weapon. Only survivor was an npc dwarf who had resistance to fire, great constitution saves, and was uninjured to begin with. He crawled away, only to be captured and killed by a bunch of folks they’d annoyed on their way down.

The problem I had was that the party were in the middle of the Night Below campaign. By then we’d been on it for two years, real time. They had a lot of investment in the characters, and as I tend to be story heavy there were many, many ongoing subplots and outside themes based on their characters. So, I decided to have them resurrected, but like others here have said, you can’t really let it become a ‘death where is thy sting’ type affair. So I thought about what the consequences would be to the world of the failure of their quest in Night Below. The *spoilers omitted* succeed in their dastardly plot, the sun goes out, all manner of vile beings flood onto the surface world, civilisation falls. So I designed a world 200 years hence, a world ruled by drow, mind flayers, undead, perpetual darkness, Vecna the only god left. *Then* I had them resurrected as slaves for a Mind Flayer mining operation – boneheaps regularly mined for food / undead / slaves and the group ended up getting lucky. Or not, since they lost all their gear and had their memories erased, with little to look forward to except being worked to death or dinner.

This lead to an equally epic ‘escape, and spend months fighting your way across the entire continent to Tovag Baragu (the only place with possible time travel capabilities), and somehow work out how to get back to your own time and prevent that future coming to pass’ quest. And deal with the resulting paradox.

They still lost all their gear and magic though, and they NEVER stood bunched together in front of a dragon again.

Sounds like you gave them every opportunity to rethink the attack. But, like you say, would losing those characters damage their overall enjoyment of the game. I would find a way to bring them back, but make their loss so great in other areas that they make damn sure it never happens again.

Herolab is in the works for all FGG stuff! We are awaiting details on contract revisions.

Seriously. That is fantastic news.

quite good to do a non themed back to basics, though am less than thrilled with the region chosen (hopefully all the goblins are dead)

I think for Golarion not advancing timelines is good....but would be cool if a 3PP where allowed to have a pop at it.....basically expanding on some of the further plots in book 6 of APs

And that's *definitely* not going to happen. Not only does giving 3PP Golarion to play around with remove the quality control from Paizo, but it actually makes the scenario outlined above by James more, not less, likely - if Paizo struggles to keep a handle on its OWN metaplot advancement, letting other people undertake it makes that all but impossible. And how do you ensure that different publishers don't conflict with each other OR with stuff Paizo may have in the pipeline - 'oh, wait, we had this character returning in AP X, but publisher Y just killed him in their own module.' And if there's some kind of 'Setting overseer' (ie, James) reviewing ALL the material coming out of 3PP, then a) that stops him working on Paizo stuff, and b) what's the point in giving it to 3PP in the first place?

Seriously... ain't gonna happen.

Nah, I don't really care if people like or dislike WotC. Has zero bearing on my day to day life. Just pointing out to Diffan that maybe some people at WotC think maybe they overstepped by changing D&D too much from its roots. The labels are all the same (monster names, the stats, some spell names, etc), but the feel of the game, whether you like it or not, is markedly different from earlier iterations, and a decent number of people felt is "wasn't D&D" enough to move on and take their dollars elsewhere.

I don't have a negative or positive opinion of 4e, I tried it, it's ok and can be fun sometimes, but I prefer Pathfinder (well, a heavily houseruled version, anyway) and 1e for my D&D style gaming. But a lot of gamers really dislike it. And, frankly, if 4e were as rousing a success as the fans claim it is, 5e (D&DNext or whatever they're calling it) wouldn't be in production right now. WotC is making a business choice, and they're reaching out to the customers they lost. And, unless they are completely incompetent, that must me more people than stayed or are new to the game all together.

Putting all mechanics and sacred cows aside, it's obvious WotC sees 4e as a mistake, a failed experiment that did a nice job of creating a huge schism in...

See this, really, is the whole point. It strikes me the entire argument over whether Vancian is a retrograde step is irrelevant (not to your enjoyment, but to the development of 5e), and folks who are suggesting this really aren't understanding the driver behind the entire machine that has gotten underway at Wizards. Vancian could be the worst, most misbegotten thing in the history of roleplaying, and 4e could have been brought down from the Mount by Moses. Doesn't matter at WOTC. At Will powers, per encounter, whatever - great system, and not in any way germaine to the discussion. For Wizards, 4e was a commercial failure and they have stated repeatedly that they intend to 'unite' the fanbase, bring back players into the D&D fold and unify the systems. For all that, read 'we want our customers back.' So, the first thing the dev team will have sat down with wasn't 'how can we improve on 4e and make it a better system', it was 'We know where our customers went, so how do we go about getting them back?'

Beautiful, fair, elegant rules? You think Hasbro gives a stuff about that? When it's released, if all the reviewers say 'wow, this sucks', yet the game generates $50 million dollars revenue, there'll be smiles all round. If the two things coincide, then there'll be backslapping going on at Wizards, but the only one that's necessary is the second.

Have to add my voice to the call for a print version. This looks awesome, but printing 100 page pdfs with amazing art to run games from just isn't my thing. I would buy this like a shot if there were a print option, although I understand the marketing realities.

theneofish wrote:

Yep - 'Shade' as in the template creature I believe. Back in 1st / 2nd edition, the alternate method for a wizard to become immortal by infusing themselves with Shadowstuff. Ended their level progression but enabled various shadow related powers, and bestowed eternal life. I'd love to see something similar as a Shadow Plane alternative to Lichdom.

*makes furious notes*

There will be. Thanks for the idea.

Awesome! Double awesome now I'm back from work and able to watch the trailer. I'll be adding this to the 'how much more can my bank account take' category.

theneofish wrote:

This looks really cool, particularly with the high level angle, and is shaping up to be a must buy. Two questions; will there be rules for Shades, and are these going to be print products?

Shades as in variant shadows? Or "Shadow" template creatures? Or ... ?

And yes, all the covers previewed in the trailer are going to be print. We have a few PDF only supplements but they're more web enhancements (monsters that had to be cut due to space, haunts, some player options (but we haven't determined which yet), an adventure or two), but the majority of what is going to be released for this will be print).

Yep - 'Shade' as in the template creature I believe. Back in 1st / 2nd edition, the alternate method for a wizard to become immortal by infusing themselves with Shadowstuff. Ended their level progression but enabled various shadow related powers, and bestowed eternal life. I'd love to see something similar as a Shadow Plane alternative to Lichdom.

Definitely going to be investing in this, regardless!

Why the Plane of Shadows. In this post, I detail the background decisions that let up to us deciding to detail the plane of shadows.

This looks really cool, particularly with the high level angle, and is shaping up to be a must buy. Two questions; will there be rules for Shades, and are these going to be print products?

Endzeitgeist wrote:

Nice review, D_M! This one is also on my list of things to review. :)

Yeah this was one of those I wanted to like it more cause it was well written but it had a couple of issues IMHO.

@theneofish yes this is not a mega dungeon but a collection of 4 mini dungeons that use the mega dungeon maps. I also thought the same thing when I got it. I that it was a 4 level mega dungeon with each level done by someone different. I honestly think i like the way they did it better, but I can see how people would get the wrong impression since I did.

And, you know, that's fair enough. There's probably as many - if not more - folks interested in seeing how the authors respond to the freedom of coming up with something completely fresh each time, rather than being limited to one big structure. I would still have preferred something at least interlinked though... I've got a lot of short adventures.

Ah well, perhaps next time. In the meantime, I've still got Citadel of Pain to finish reading.

nobody needs any more town guards, dwarf fighters, elf bowmen etc

That's great, thanks. Saves me the trouble of checking out my minis to see what I need to get. It also saves anyone new to the hobby from buying stuff like dwarves and elves they're never going to encounter in game.

BTW, I don't buy the Players Companion line. From this I can infer that nobody else does, so can Paizo stop doing them?

Oh, wait.

Man, these look fantastic. But the price... my wallet / wife / kids whom I will no longer be able to feed are gonna hate me. But I shall imagine how their little faces will brighten up as I smash their characters to pulp with a large blue frost giant.

PS - And a 'Rise of the Runelords' set? With most of the hard copies of the AP sold out? To me that's as big an indication as anything of an imminent hardbound rerelease.

theneofish wrote:

edduardco wrote:

and given that Paizo only interested in money

OK.. I'm hoping that something has been lost in translation here. Paizo only interested in money? Rather than, say, artistic credibility, pride in one's work and a well thought out and balanced rules system?

No, that's exactly what I meant. Because that is what I understand: "The community is very small"

Ok, then I can't say how strongly I disagree with you, and in fact think it's a completely indefensible position. The very fact that I - or anyone else - in this community, can come on these boards and get replies to my questions from the CEO, Creative Director, Publisher etc - and not just once, but repeatedly - gives the lie to that statement. Everyone on staff give up their time to respond courteously and cogently to the most trivial question about their system and game world... none of which makes them any money, or strikes me as being motivated by money.

It's just, well. I'm dumbfounded by that position; but it's not on topic, so I'll leave it there.

Also, in addition to the above replies, I thought the Beginner Box was aimed at solving the 'what do I start with' question that is currently so problematic with 4e. You go into a shop, there are all these rulebooks - what do you actually need to sit down and start playing? So the logic from that has to be - buy the Beginner Box, then you're ready to dive into the 'a la carte' menu of the full game. The moment you start introducing 'Beginners Box 2' or 'Further Beginners This Way' or 'Son of Beginner Box' you're taking people back to the head scratching and 'so what do I start with' point, and you've straightaway defeated one of your initial aims.

Surely there should only ever be one point of entry, and that shouldn't be open to confusion?