CalisNight's page

That you (Paizo) and they, in partnership, decided that you need your customers to subsidize development costs is incomprehensible to me. This is a disgusting business model for you to use, and if it speaks to what kind of plans you might have for future projects, it's dire. You seem to have a grave misunderstanding on how much money Paizo makes/has to throw around, especially for a side project.

And, I'm afraid, a misunderstanding of what crowdfunding IS. I wouldn't back some guy named Bubba Hotep's new game unless he had SIGNIFICANT backing by art/dev studios who knew what they were doing. Helping Paizo underwrite something has a significantly better chance of success, and a proven track record of good communication with their community. Yes, there is some potential that it means a better profit margin if enough of the task is underwritten, but investors still get product, and something else they, at least, find value in: supporting their hobby directly and whatever exclusive DLC is involved in the crowdfund. Paizo and partners get both seed money and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, a feel for the depth of interest in the project. Crowdfunding is as much about information gathering as it is investment. The cards are all on the table, and no is making anyone do it. You ask me, this is better than the stock market, where you actually have to be wealthy to get the best benefits.

Is it just me, or does Torag seem a little vindictive for a LG deity?
I have another option . . . and some proposed options for a certain deity who has largely been neglected so far.

Part of the reason for this is I needed to convert Clash of the Kingslayers to use for a size 7 APL12 party of ex-Living Greyhawk mercenary players.

If anyone is interested, I have updated stats suitable for running this adventure at this level.

No one here appears to have mentioned that archers have a pretty decent advantage, period, in the game. They get to full attack much more often than their melee brethren and benefit from a lower risk of getting their hide damaged to boot. In 6 years of LG and 3 in a home campaign I saw lots of v3.x archers, none of whom came off badly vs melee with the current rules for arrows (with the exception facing off against DR x/-, which can now be overcome with Deadly Aim). All carried multiple types of arrows and seemed to get by just fine.

Because it's relatively cheap to pick up, say, 10 arrows for every occasion (bypass 5 types of DR for the cost of a +2 Weapon!), if you make this less expensive, what you really end up doing is cheapening the effect of DR for one specific type of character.

While I'm not opposed to making DR less effective (OK, I am, I actually love DR) if you'e going to do it, you might find a way that benefits characters a little more equitably.

Long story short, archers do not need more advantages; the nature of their weapon makes them more flexible and something needs to stand in the way of them simply outclassing melee types on every front.

dulsin wrote:

In that calculation I did forget that to make the enchanted arrows you need master work. So add another 300gp to the cost or 6gp per arrow.

(750+300) / 50 = 21gp

Still allot better and it will make a booming market for all would be fletchers.

6gp for +1 to hit isn't highway robbery at low levels, anyway.