I would like to collect miniatures for all the monsters in the BB, but I don't think there is a regular Barghest available.
Nope, no medium-sized Barghest in PFB miniatures yet; but there was one made in the first D&D miniatures set (Harbinger), and I've seen a good many of them on eBay. I got a D&D Shadow Mastiff to be my medium-sized Barghest. It works just fine ... a flat-faced dog-ish critter.
I'm putting together the same type of collection, and mine are pretty much evenly split between Pathfinder minis and D&D minis. The only one I'm still missing is a medium-sized Salamander. The only one yet released was in the D&D 'Dragoneye' assortment.
If I ever get stranded on a desert island with one other person, I want the ASL Rulebook, some map boards and the Germans and Russians orders of battle. If there are several people on the island then I want the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, the Bestiary, a set of dice and box full of miniatures.
A late (and unrelated) comment, but really: I enjoy a good game as much as anyone, but if I'm going to be stranded on a desert island, forget rulebooks, dice, and miniatures. I want a woman, some kind of shelter, and LOTS of non-perishable food! :-)
That is very different from the impression i got from you originally, but there is still the fact that you dont use the CR system (or was that hyperbole as well?). CR is how encounters are made, encounters are what 85% (probably more) of the rules are about. If we are not agreeing on that 85% there is a very big difference between the games we place.
I quite agree that encounters are highly important, but have what seems to be a fundamental difference on the meaning of the word. You seem to be using the word 'encounter' interchangeably with 'combat.' My group only enters combat every two to three sessions, and would do so even if we used the Pathfinder rules EXACTLY as written. I don't use the CR system because storyline and logical matters trump encounter balance every time...and also because I only use a certain percentage of the available critters as a 'Monster Manual' to begin with ('normal/(some)dire' animals, goblins, orcs, some others that are occasionally useful...I use Pathfinder, but not Golarion).
The King isn't going to send two divisions of elite infantry to collect your taxes simply because your party members are now all 17th-level. He's going to send the same 1st-level 'nobody' tax collector and two 2nd-level warrior 'guards' that he did when you were all 2nd-level shlubs.
Similarly, I won't reduce the size of a village full of goblins because a friend of your 5th-level party has been captured. If there are too many goblins to consider an all-out assault, find another way to rescue the prisoner...including simply buying him back - goblins can be reasonable when faced with enough gold. (...and in my game, the DM [me] awards just as much experience for rescuing him buy buying him back that he does for defeating the goblins in combat.)
I meant that you saw the game as flawed, not the concept.
No more so than any other game, and a LOT less so than most.
When you say you houseruled the crap out of pathfinder, my assumption is that you found lots of things in the game that are either missing or not to your liking. Is this not accurate? That would imply to me that you saw it as flawed.
Nothing "missing or not to my liking," just stuff that isn't useful for my players/game. I have to apologize for the hyperbole in the 'house-ruled the crap out of' bit. My house rules involve dropping bits my group has no use for (such as classes other than the four "classic" base classes) and reinstituting things we wanted back (more "save or die" or "save or [insert detrimental effect here]" type things). It actually takes up less than a page of 10-point Times New Roman font.
But as to the original topic, you are coming from a completely different direction then people who use the system as is. How exactly can you and I have a conversation on what is or isnt neccessary when we dont have the same founding system to play with?
We DO have the same system - Pathfinder/pseudo-3e. You just use parts of it that I don't; and I don't use it as often as you do.
Thats fine, but that isnt the edition we are talking about here. We are talking about something that is 3 decades later, and has a whole new generation of players.
Actually, I am one of the people who play the game we're discussing...just not as often as the older edition. (...and, for the record, 4 out of my 5 players are most assuredly from a 'new generation' of players.)
So why do you think it important to discuss a potential element of this game you already see as very flawed compared to your favored game?
I don't see it as 'flawed,' just unnecessary; and that is what the point of the conversation is: is there a necessity for a fighter/wizard base class?
If its not your cup of tea why does it matter if it exists or not? You are unlikely to buy it regardless.
Actually, I will buy it; I both play (house-ruled) Pathfinder and purchase a great deal of the material Paizo puts out. I may not use it for anything other than an idea mine, but I like their product, so I support them in every way I can.
A Man In Black wrote:
Then you have no frame of reference to comment on a conversation which is about the CR-level balance system in 3e. Thank you for making this clear.
If this were a conversation about such a topic, that would be a valid point. This, however, is a conversation about whether there is a need for a 'fighter/wizard' base class in Pathfinder. Your contention that there is such a need and mine that there is not are of equal validity. You desire such a class, so your POV is valid for you, and I do not, so my POV is valid for me. The CR-level balance system is of no matter.
A Man In Black wrote:
I do enjoy games which are not designed to be balanced in the way that 3e is, but those games are not 3e and not part of this conversation.
Actually, 3e has fighter/wizard classes. This is a conversation about Pathfinder, which is not exactly 3e (far better than 3e IMO, but not quite what I prefer).
You clearly differ from my group as well, and any i have known.
I've known a great many people who play the way I do.
The concept of game balance is important to quite a few players of this game.
...and of little consequence to others. Again, to each his own.
Personally I find nothing fun when a player is sitting there doing nothing, especially in combat when things can take hours of real life time. That is why the rogue and the bard are both given combat options even though they are skill centric characters. The game itself is moving towards keeping players involved in all aspects of the game.
Combat doesn't take hours of real-life time in my games ... several minutes at most.
While I respect your choice to play as you wish, you are in the minority, and the minority is the realm of house rules.
...or older editions. :-)
If you want to park a balor in front of level 3 characters no rules or character options will stop you and your players can run for thier lives all the same.
Actually, I wouldn't, but they might encounter a dragon. I don't really use 'planar' creatures.
I however am not as capable of balancing a class as the proffessional game designers at paizo. Thats why I give them money for books, for them to do it for me.
To date, I've really only given Paizo money for one rulebook, and have already house-ruled the crap out of it. All my other Paizo stuff, I bought for 'fluff.'
My guess is you will have to do your stuff yourself no matter what options you use.
:-) The option I use most often is called Basic/Expert D&D from around 1981 or so (I think). It works quite effectively for playing the way I like. :-)
Pax Veritas wrote:
Darrell - I hadn't quite realized just how many years have passed since the days of OD&D, but be assurred you're right that some would. However, many still enjoy OD&D.
Yeah. I'm one of 'em. :-)
Pax Veritas wrote:
A world of "restrictions" weren't thought of as such early-on. The modern notion of "character-build" is what the world thinks of today as D&D, but was not always so.
I never thought of them as 'restrictions' so much as 'goals to work toward,' and a 'character build' was a pre-game process that took 5-10 minutes (if you didn't already have a character).
Pax Veritas wrote:
In its day, the description and character roleplay were focus, with rules in periphery, with little concern over them. In many ways, this still makes for a great game. Try running a game of D&D where you invite folks who have not played and tell them, "don't worry about the rules, just tell me what your character does." Back then, we shared not only our actions, but our thoughts, intentions, and with 1 minute combat rounds had a lot more dramatic dialogue before and during moments when the bbeg was killed.
Heh. Unlike 'A Man in Black,' I have a feeling that you or I would feel perfectly comfortable in a game run by the other, though there may be a bit of adjustment needed here or there. Again, to each his own. :-)
A Man In Black wrote:
Level-appropriate means able to contribute effectively to challenges of a CR approximate to its level. For example, a level 3 character should contribute meaningfully to a fight against an ogre, and a level 20 character should contribute meaningfully to a fight against a balor.
Heh. Considering that my group ignores both CR and 98% of the 'monster manual,' that level 3 character might be the one facing the balor...in which case, his meaningful contribution might be being the first to realize that it's time to run. Meticulously balancing classes, powers, and creatures for a game lost our interest before 3.5 came out. We want to have those times when one or more party members has no 'meaningful' way to contribute to a situation. For us, it's more fun when the wizard has tapped out for the day, and the fighters have to do double duty protecting them and hacking up critters; or when the fighters have to sit and twiddle their thumbs while the rogue and wizard figure out how to open a magically-protected and mechanically-rigged set of doors. You and I seem to want different things from the game. I suspect that you would be less than satisfied playing with my group, and I with yours. To each his own.
A Man In Black wrote:
It does not mean "doing the best with what you have" or anything of the like.
...to you. To me, that's exactly what it means. That's why I play B/X D&D more than anything else right now, as well as why my players and I cast aside all classes except Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue when we play Pathfinder.
A Man In Black wrote:
No, it doesn't work. There's no build that gives you a capable melee character who supplements their martial abilities with arcane magical ones in a level-appropriate way except at a very narrow level range specific to that build. And sitting on your thumb until (or worse, after) you hit that level range isn't very fun, and this is a game.
That depends on what you consider "level-appropriate" to be. For some of us, "level-appropriate" means working within the limitations available at your current level, rather than wanting all the benefits at once.
Sorry to come into this so late, but after reading only a few pages, I get the feeling some people out there would run screaming into the night if they had to function under a system like the old "basic" D&D, where there were only a few classes to choose from at all, the fighter/wizard-type character was called an 'elf' (and came with its own set of limitations), and clerics couldn't cast spells at all until second level.
Actually a gay character in a Star Trek movie has already been done. Forget what the actor or director have to say. The character has been established as gay in canon, and rather simpathetically so, I'd say.
Uhhhhh....no. For the most part, Trek 'canon' = TV & Movies only, regardless of what some people would like to think. Novels, videogames, and fanfics are all ultimately in the same category - fun, but free to be roundly ignored by writers (especially Abrams, since he's essentially doing a 'reboot,' 're-imagining,' or whatever). Hawk's sexuality was not addressed in the film, since he was (ultimately) nothing more than a high-profile redshirt, so mentioning him as a gay character in a couple of 'book-versions' doesn't really matter in the end.
Erik Mona wrote:
1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?
At present, no; I do not plan to convert. My plans at this time are to purchase only D&D Miniatures and Dungeon Tiles products from WotC after the advent of 4e. I will either stick with 3.X/d20 or move to a 'rules-lite' form of d20 for gaming.
Erik Mona wrote:
2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?
If Paizo converts, I will give serious thought to converting my own games (and, in truth, will probably wind up converting). At that point, even if I decide not to convert to 4e, I will still purchase non-edition-specific products from Paizo (map packs, flip-mats, etc.).
Erik Mona wrote:
3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?
If Paizo remains with 3.X/d20, I will definitely continue to shovel money at my FLGS for Paizo product; and will seriously consider some form of Paizo subscription in the future.
Basically, my viewpoint with regard to 4e amounts to something along the lines of, "Wheresoever goes Paizo, so go I."
Without trying to sound like too much of a suck-up, from the first day you took over Dragon and Dungeon, Paizo has consistently put out high-quality product, and has responded very well to the concerns of their customer base. I have been very pleased by every purchase I have made since you began the Pathfinder and Gamemastery lines; and it is in my nature to remain loyal to companies and products I have come to know and enjoy.
So, all that said, in essence, this is where I stand...I'm waiting to hear from you guys, just as much as you're waiting to hear from us. If Paizo goes 4e, I probably will, too; If Paizo doesn't go 4e, I definitely won't.
As for crits? <SNIP> Its a change that I'm mostly indifferent to...
And 4e, pretty much in toto inasmuch as we've been given so far, is a change to which I am "mostly indifferent," if not leaning to the negative side.
I can tell you up front, in the event I were to switch to 4e, confirming criticals and save-or-die effects would be put right back in, and dragonborn and tieflings taken right back out.
For everyone like you who doesn't find it 'fun' to have your character die or be otherwise inconvenienced while adventuring, there is another who doesn't find it 'fun' to always win, without incurring any real risk in doing so.
With regard to your assertion that anti-4e players amount to little more than a drop in a proverbial bucket to WotC, that may be more-or-less accurate by corporate reasoning; but the rabid pro-4e crowd is an equally small subset of the community. Far more common are those who really don't care, who are entirely apathetic to 4e.
These people will quite often play whatever game someone is willing to run. If their DM wants to keep playing 3e/d20, then they will; if the DM wants to switch to 4e, then they'll do that; if the DM wants to run another system entirely, they'll do that, too. A good many of these players will not be buying 4e, because their DM is going to keep playing 3e (or 2e, 1e, etc.).
In my opinion, a lot of the new players WotC is hoping to attract (seemingly at the expense of older players) will not be coming on board. Rather than spending a couple of hundred bucks on the 4e materials and DDI stuff, they'll spend it on the latest MMORPG or computer game system. I may be wrong, but somehow, I don't think so.
The sterotype that I routinely see brought up is either the socially inept guy or the person that is so out of touch with reality that they cannot operate in the real world.
Yeah, I know what you mean. "Simpsons 'Comic Shop Guy' crossed with rabid Trekkie plus a smattering of computer geek; add in a pocket protector and a high-school football player giving him a wedgie = D&D player." That sort of thing.
The professions listed about tend to be thought of a professional jobs and not associated with the geek nature that once were part of.
Oh, I know; and I agree. I just found it funny that your list featured about 80% traditionally 'geek' professions. :) (Oh, and if you don't think those professions are still associated with their 'geek natures,' you need to talk to more 'blue collar comedy' types. Here in North Carolina, even 50-60 year olds still make fun of anyone not involved in NASCAR, pro football, or college basketball.)
Not that I can talk. I'm an actor and a magician. In high school, I not only played D&D, but I did magic tricks and performed with both the drama department and the show chorus (didn't get into computers until college). Hardcore geek over here. :)
I am always amused at how gamers are sterotyped. My current group includes a librarian, a lawyer, a legal assistant, a computer programer, a CAD operator (myself), and a store manager. Other gamers that have played include 2 scientist, a lab tech, and another programer.
Stereotyped? Librarian...computer programmers...scientists...CAD operator (you)...lab tech...
No stereotypes here. ;-)
I see the point you were tryin' to make, but, really, dude, this is a geek pantheon. :-) The only thing that could be more 'geeky' is if the store manager was managing a comic shop/LGS.
Dorje Sylas wrote:
I think more people are on that 3.75 page Darrell. I don't think "Cave" is the correct word to describe what's going to happen with the current nay-sayers. Clubbing 4e over the head making off with platinum while leaving the tons of useless copper coinage seems the most likely outcome. I am actually expecting one or more 3rd party publishers or groups to write such an "edition" if the new OGL/d20 allows for that.
Even if the new OGL doesn't allow for it, I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of "3.75" product released under the current OGL. (I can't be revoked, after all; that clause is part of the OGL itself.) My own preference would be that Paizo release a "Pathfinder" or "GameMastery" RPG which fixes some of the current problem areas (grappling, Turn Undead, etc., etc.) with 3.5, but continues with about 90% of the current edition's mechanics and conventions.
At this point, I'd buy such a product sight unseen, simply by virtue of the quality the Paizo-folk put into their work. In fact, I did pick up the first issue of Pathfinder based solely on the Paizo run of Dungeon and Dragon. The strength of that first issue led me to have my FLGS add it to my "pull" file on an ongoing basis.
However, as I said previously, I'll wait to see the direction Paizo takes with 4e. If they switch, I probably will, too; but if they don't, then neither will I. I'll still be a WotC customer, however, because I happen to like the miniatures line (problematic though the random packaging issue may be).
Hmmm...well, I'm a bit late to this party, but...
The fact of the matter is, I am, and will continue to be, a WotC customer...simply by virtue of the fact that I buy D&D Miniatures. On the 'book' end of the deal, however, I own the PHB, DMG, and MM, and that's it. I bought a metric ton of 3.X product, but found that I never used it. In fact, most of my 'non-mini' gaming cash went to Dungeon and Dragon.
Currently, my purchases are entirely Paizo (Pathfinder and GameMastery product) and WotC (D&D Miniatures). I purchase Pathfinder primarily because it's quality material--as I expected from the word "go." Paizo gained my trust with high quality work on Dungeon and Dragon magazines, and continues to hold it through the quality of their current material. Therefore: wherever goes Paizo, I follow.
If the Paizo-folk decide to switch over, I probably will, too. If not, I'll stay right where I am. My personal preference would be a Pathfinder "3.75" RPG; because then more of my 'gaming' money would be going to a company who has consistently worked to gain and keep my respect.
Well, that's about enough outta me.
OK, more questions, Chris... :)
So far, you've mentioned the Knights of Subricon and (via one of the Maps of Mystery) the Elestial Eye.
Do you have any specific information regarding either of those organizations? Also, are there any other groups (knighthoods, arcane brotherhoods, thieves' guilds, etc.) that are specifically mentioned in the Gazetteer?
I'm currently trying to come up with a few organizations and prestige classes for my upcoming campaign. I was thinking of using one of the knightly prestige classes from Complete Warrior for the Knights of Subricon, and making them rather more far-ranging than the city itself.
Anything you might have, even just an organization's name, would be appreciated.
I was just wondering if there have been any further developments, with regard to the gazetteer. Any chance of seeing the full document in the immediate future?
Failing that, could you post the entries for the general evirons around Far Cove? I'm starting a new campaign in the next week or so, and I've pretty much decided to make the Lands of Mystery my campaign setting for the foreseeable future, because I like the idea of a setting I can develop on my own, beyond some basic information provided by the creator (kind of like Greyhawk originally was).
I'm using your Stillsquall map from "Box of Flumph" as Far Cove, and would like to see what you had envisioned for the nearby area, specifically:
Also, I'd been giving some thought to using some of the 'poster map' cities from Dungeon as substitutes for cities in the Lands of Mystery (I'd prefer to use your maps exclusively, but I don't have many city maps that you've done.), in the same way that Stillquall is 'becoming' Far Cove in my campaign. I've gone over the map for geographically suitable locations, and have come up with a few. What would your thoughts be on the following substitutions?
Diamond Lake = Winecrest or possibly Outcast
I also have an older poster map of Hommlet (it came in either Dungeon or Dragon around the time of the release of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and thought it might fit as somewhere like Hallowdale or Heathshire.
I'm really looking forward to the gazetteer. Everything you've posted from it so far has been very thought-provoking, in a campaign-planning sort of way. :)
Christopher West wrote:
It is possible, I suppose, that future Maps of Mystery in WotC's online continuation of Dungeon will refer to places on the Lands of Mystery map. I would ask you folks, though: is that something you'd like to see? Or should no further places from the Lands of Mystery poster be mapped? My plan was to leave these cities and dungeons and wilderness places undeveloped, but enough people have been asking for more that I might consider revisiting them. Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing?
I'm rather two-mided on that. I actually like that there's no further 'planned' support, in that it lets me place things the way I want 'em, and use things that catch my eye from other places (such as the Stillsquall map I mentioned earlier) without fear of later 'official' contradiction. On the other hand, I absolutely LOVE your maps, Chris, and would relish further maps of towns, cities, dungeons, etc. from the Lands of Mystery. In fact, it's one of the few things that might induce me to shell out some $$ for WotC's online version of Dungeon.
Christopher West wrote:
I do have the right to exhibit the maps in my own portiolio, and the companies I've worked for have always been gracious about the work shown in my portfolio site. That said, my storage space and bandwidth are currently very limited. I'm planning to update my website and make it more robust in the (hopefully) near future, though, so when that happens I may be able to create a section dedicated to the Lands of Mystery and the maps related to it.
I'll keep a hopeful eye out. :) It doesn't even need to be ALL of the Lands of Mystery-related maps - just the ones from before the Dungeon map download pdfs started. It'd be nice to be able to get some of the earlier ones (Town of Deepwatch, Pirate Sea Cave Stronghold, Githzerai Monastery, etc.) without tracking down back issues.
(RE: The Stillsquall map in the Lands of Mystery)
Christopher West wrote:
Hmm. If you want to add it to the map, I'd suggest the coastline southeast of Creeper's Lodge--across the water from Northern Elmwood. If you want to pick a location to swap out for Stillsquall, I suggest the town Far Cove. It's got that "way out on the edge of civilization" feel to it.
Far Cove it is! :) Its 'edge of civilization' quality, combine with its proximity to a couple of decent adventuring locales make it a perfect 'base' for a group of adventurers.
I really can't say enough how much I enjoy this map, Chris. It's started me thinking and planning in a way that many other recent RPG products (that I've spent FAR more to get) haven't. Thank you.
Have to add my voice to all the praise for this map!
I'm probably gonna be setting a campaign in the Lands of Mystery in the near future, as well. I can't wait to see the gazetteer. One of the things I've missed in the proliferation of setting books is a bare-bones map-and-basic-descriptions "toolbox" world. It was always my favorite kind of thing, anyway. :)
I'd also like to suggest that the Paizo-folk talk to the WotC-folk and see about releasing the 'pre-map download' Maps of Mystery connected with the Lands of Mystery as a separate .pdf file (or just put ALL the Lands of Mystery-related maps into a single file). Depending on the call for such a thing, it might even be worthwhile to consider a hard-copy product collecting the assorted Maps of Mystery involved, the poster map, and Chris' gazetteer write-up as an all-in-one product. Hell, I'd pay for it. :)
Speaking of the pre-download' maps, for anyone who might not be aware, the "Guildport" map from Dungeon #85 and the "Red Dragon's Lair" map from Dungeon #102 are available on Chris' website.
Chris: Is there any chance that you might be able to put some of the other maps on your site? I suppose you'd have to get permission from WotC or someone, but it would really be nice to be able to get hold of them to finish out the stuff related to the Lands of Mystery map. Also, do you have any suggestions as to somewhere one might place the town of Stillsquall from "Box of Flumph" in the Lands of Mystery? It's always been one of my favorite of your maps, and I've used it as a "base town" for several groups.
Six months is sufficient to cover a single adventure path. Even if you don't offer 1-year or 3-year subscriptions, I have to say I think it'd be foolish not to allow someone to pre-pay for an entire AP.
I'll second that. I won't do the 'ongoing subscription' thing, because I NEVER use credit/debit cards for online or phone purchases; but I'd pay the (MSRP) 100-120-ish bucks for six issues in a heartbeat. Maybe someday I can.
'Til then, I'll be buying via the FLGS.
Alas, I will not have the coveted "Charter Subscriber" tag following my name on the messageboards. :(
I do not, and will never, use credit or debit cards (hell, I don't even write checks...with me, EVERYTHING is cash or money order), so I cannot subscribe to Pathfinder.
You can count on the fact, however, that my FLGS will be instructed to get every Pathfinder release for me.
Furthermore, should the day ever come when you offer a "real" subscription to Pathfinder (as in the traditional, 'I send you a set, pre-determined amount of money, you send me a set, pre-determined amount of books' type of subscription), I'll be one of your first customers. Until then, I'll guess I'll be waiting at the FLGS with twenty bucks in my hand every month. :)
I had put off subscribing because I've always preferred to support the LGS, and buy my magazines there. But between the actions of Lisa (and by extension, the Paizo staff) on this matter and the unfortunate fact that my LGS will be closing in the next few months, I'll be subscribing to Dungeon soon.
I'd much rather send my money directly to Paizo (a company who obviously cares for and supports their customer base) than the area Waldenbooks/Barnes & Noble outlets.
James Jacobs wrote:
There will be poster maps AND backdrop articles for Savage Tide. Issue #139 will have both, a poster map of Sasserine and a backdrop of the city. Beyond that, we've got plans for a few more of each but it's still too early to announce them.
Cool. The "backdrop/poster map" issues are the ones I tend to buy multiple copies of. I seem to get more use out of 'em than I do the regular issues. Even though I'm not running AoW right now, my current party started in Diamond Lake, has spent a great deal of time in the general area (resulting in one of the poster maps being framed and hung on the wall during game sessions and the virtual destruction of one issue through sheer overuse), and is about to go to the Isle of Dread (I'm going to be running a modified version of X1, with an eye toward "Torrents of Dread" in the near future). I had planned to take them to Alhaster...'cuz I like the 'evil city' plot possibilities, but they wanna do some seagoing stuff, so here we go.
Can't wait to see Sasserine, and whatever else you guys may have in the wings.
I believe I've read in one post that the first issue of the Savage Tide AP is going to feature a poster map of Sasserine, similar to the maps of Diamond Lake and Alhaster from Age of Worms; and James said that there will be a map showing the relative locations of Sasserine, Isle of Dread, Scuttlecove, and all later on.
Are there any other such maps planned? Scuttlecove, perhaps?
And, if so, are backdrop articles planned for these locations?
I'm sincerely hoping so, because these types of issues are my favorites since Paizo started handling Dungeon. I've never run a single adventure from either AP, but I've used the crap out of Diamond Lake (had to replace the issue, eventually), and will probably be doing the same with Alhaster soon (the PCs are headed that way).
Backdrop articles are the best thing to happen to Dungeon since...well...Paizo.