Eldrick's page

Seems like a good place to chime in. Maybe if enough of us do, we can actually make a case for those of us who DO care about durability.

I too would *LOVE* to buy more of these minis, if I trusted them to survive. I will only buy individuals, for various reasons. The last time I ordered, despite what should have been adequate protection in the packaging, 8 of about 80 minis were broken.

I sent them in, and made the mistake of bundling two packages together for Wizkids replacement. I received back only the 5 on one of the two packages back. Took about 6 weeks to get the whole thing straightened out, and in the end, 2 of those 8 returned showed up broken. I glued them together and vowed not to buy another one until this was addressed. (and I haven't)

Addressing brand new order shipping alone really doesn't cut it for me; if they aren't durable, how are they to survive:
* basic use
* dice ninjas
* a move
???

I've heard the new packaging has helped, but I also read (and forgive me, I couldn't find the direct quote again, but I believe it was Erik Mona who said this) about someone getting a new set in the new packaging and breaking two of them because they were too excited or enthusiastic popping them out. I'm sorry, but I expect that kind of breakage on pulling chocolate out of an advent calendar, not out of miniatures I intend to use for years to come.

I *REALLY* want to be able to permit myself to buy these again, and I still would if we had to sacrifice a little on the looks to get there. I'm obviously not alone in this...

These sets are fantastic (in theme, creature picks, etc), but I refuse to pay to bring garbage (I'm not trying to be nasty here... this is just how I feel about items I purchase that arrive broken...) into my home. On the upside, you guys are saving me a bundle of cash!!

Definitely more range than multiplier. For my money I like the Bastard Sword. It's no 18-20, but at (1d10) 19-20 x2, this is somewhat mitigated by the increased average and maximum damage. Then again, I'm still playing 3.x, so I don't get a critical threat on some creatures (something I think they changed in Pathfinder?), so it pays to keep the non-critical damage up.

Of course, when I go for critical hit builds, I like 2-weapon fighting. If I have a 25% chance of a threat on attacks, the more attacks the better.

I'm going to start a thread entitled "No more threads about no more threads about" complaining about how people keep starting threads telling other posters what threads they should or should not start on the boards.

The internet (and the Paizo messageboards) has given us all a voice. Many have decided to use it to complain. In this thread, many have chosen to use that voice to complain about the complainers. My new thread will be the natural extension to that; I shall complain about those who complain about complainers.[END_JEST]

OK, so some people don't think Pathfinder has done everything "right", or at least, that's the way they choose to approach their arguments. Perhaps instead of calling the issues they take with the rules "wrong", or "broken", or "ridiculously game breaking I can't believe anyone would shell out good money for this OMG seriously I think I'm going to gouge my own eyes out if I read one more page...", these posters could instead say something to the effect of "I have a bit of a problem with rule X for reasons Y and Z. Is anyone else finding this a problem, and if so, how are you addressing it in your game?". Maybe this would be a better approach, but let's face it, we aren't all diplomats, and many may lack the tact to make sure no one takes issue with HOW they say what they take issue with. What most of use are, is enthusiasts.

An enthusiast gets emotional. He gets annoyed. She gets angry and frustrated. He throws his dice across the table and curses when he rolls a 1 for hit points. She rolls her eyes and says, "You aren't playing next weekend, too, are you?" (Oops.. that's not an enthusiast, that's the reaction of a wife who is NOT an enthusiast)

What I'm coming to (the long way; the only way I know how) is that the gaming community is going to complain. They're going to gripe endlessly, and throw out words like "broken", "unbalanced", and "desperately needs a fix". You can't stop it, no matter how many times you beg and plead for it to stop. It's silly to try (says the guy who is trying to convince people they shouldn't bother to ask people to stop, knowing people are still going to try it...)

And more to the point: You shouldn't really want it to (but, feel free to want it to, that's your right). Sure, the approach many of these posters take is irritating, but the point is, they are getting people talking about the game(s) we all love. They may say "broken", but they sometimes point out weaknesses in the rules, places where they misunderstand the rules (possibly a sign they need clarification), or at least it brings issues others have and their solutions into the spotlight.

I don't think there is much that is strictly "right" or "wrong" in the rules, be they Pathfinder, 3.x core, splat, etc. For the most part, it comes down to what is right or wrong for your game or gaming group. One group's "broken" is another group's favorite rule. Pathfinder is really just another set of house rules. I've never played a game without. Some people just want to beg Paizo to make their houserules core, or to remove something that they feel "breaks" their game. If what they're saying makes sense, they might someday get their way. If the vast majority of us point out how flawed said houserule in, they probably won't. This is what Paizo excels at: listening to their audience and reacting appropriately. If people aren't talking (kindly or otherwise), we must not need anything more out of them. Hopefully that doesn't happen anytime soon. Guess that means I'm voting for more "let's change pathfinder" threads...

On the flip-side, to those saying, "I shouldn't need houserules to play the game." I'll say this: If Pathfinder was flawless for you, requiring not the slightest tweak to suit you, you can guarantee I will have to houserule some things to suit me. And that suits me just fine.

OK. I'm interested to know if my rejection was for any of the reasons I suspect. High on my list of problems:
1) Price(too high): I struggled with it, and the choice I made in the end to copy the weakest item with the same spell requirement was probably unwise.
2) Abuse: I didn't think of it at the time, but I suspect potential abuses might have hurt me.

Then again... why critique myself? I'm here to see what the experts think. Maybe it just isn't that cool. Here we go...

CLINGING CALTROPS
Aura Moderate transmutation; CL 11th
Slot -; Price 20,000 gp; Weight 2 lb.

DESCRIPTION
When spread in a 5-foot square and activated by command word, these mundane looking caltrops attack the first creature meeting any of the following triggering conditions: walking through the square they occupy; flying over the caltrops up to 10 feet above; disturbing the caltrops in any way. The caltrops spring at their target, focussing on the feet and legs of the victim, who is immediately subjected to 10 attacks (base attack: +6; 1d4+2 damage/each). At the start of each subsequent round, the target is subject to 5 attacks as the spines of the caltrops lance and retract, remaining fixed on the target. A full-round action is required to remove the caltrops. Once removed, the caltrops go dormant until reactivated. The victim can only move at ½ movement rate until he receives a heal check (DC 10 + caltrop damage dealt) or until half the damage dealt by the caltrops is treated with magical healing.
During activation, up to 6 persons can be designated as immune to the powers of the caltrops.

CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, animate objects; Cost 10,000 gp