Hobbun's page

Hobbun wrote:

Fumarole wrote:

I'd say the chances of this being the case are extremely likely.

Well, it’s really hard to tell sometimes in written replies. But when you see comments in stating the obvious, or like “It is 4 x 4, isn’t it?”, it certainly does sound like sarcasm or being snarky.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, i really wanted to know the measurements (they are 3 x 3 actually). :-)

I really hate warped minis, i hope you'll receive a replacement, Hobbun.

As i am writing most posts from my mobile, i think i was writing that post before your post showed up, so that wasn't even a response but just a general question. ;-)

I do apologize then, Marco. My bad. I meant to get back to you last night on your questions, but we lost power with the storm. I will let you know tonight.

Hobbun wrote:

Joe M. wrote:

And the picture of the glass cannon character sheets in this tweet shows that they'll be playing at level 7. So that'll be a nice break from the level-1 slog of Oblivion Oath.

Also shows:
* Rock Dwarf
* Gutsy Halfling
* Woodland Elf
* A half-orc
* Miner, Gambler, and Noble backgrounds
* CG Champion, Sorcerer

Tweet appears to have been taken down.

Try here. Looks like he reposted it. Maybe there was a typo in the text or something.

Yep, that works.

Thanks Joe and Jason. Will definitely take a look at that Glass Cannon stream!

So you want the same book they are already making for 2E as a 1E book and you want to pay $30 less?

Excellent point. I had forgotten what the cost of the 2e Kingmaker book was. I would certainly have no issues paying the same amount for a 1e book as part of an add-on.

Keep in mind I am saying it would be an add-on. I wouldn't expect them to allow people to purchase the 1e book instead of the 2e book, as this was the drive of the campaign. Just some of us want the treatment done for 1e as well as we still love and play it.

But that was the point of the Rise and Curse books too, updating for a new edition. Both of those were originally written for 3.5.

It doesn't have to be a previous edition to only make it worthwhile. Also remember that there were other changes and updates done with the other compilations as well, at least I know with Rise of the Runelords. And Paizo has made it clear there are going to be a number of updates to this Kingmaker as well, besides converting it to 2e. Those of use whom still love playing 1e would appreciate those also, besides it being condensed in a nice hardcover volume.

I understand Paizo "wants to move on" with 2e. I respect that. With new sourcebooks I would completely understand that. I wouldn't expect them to release a 1e counterpart with every new hardcover that is released. But when releasing something originally from 1e, and the book is also being updated with a chock full of new info as well, I do feel in those situations releasing it also in 1e is reasonable to ask for.

I truly do appreciate they are releasing a Bestiary for 1e with the converted monster and NPC stats, as well as other 'rules' (as they've indicated). But for those of us that will want to run this new Kingmaker in 1e, I just have concerns there will be a lot in the book that will still need to be converted, so it would be great if we could get the new version of Kingmaker AP in 1e, as well.

Lesser amount of spell slots would not be as much of an issue for me if the system still worked how it did in 1e. However, with the need to burn higher level spell slots to heighten the spells it would only make sense to me to keep the same amount of spell slots from 1e, or at least very close to it. From what I recall with the Sorcerer, their slots max at 4. It was 6 in 1e, but those 2 are a huge difference, especially considering they also did away with the bonus spells slots due to your ability score.

On you saying that others not bringing this up during the playtest as an issue at all, actually surprises me a bit.

What about casters getting more spells per level? What I remember from the playtest, even the Sorcerer received a pitiful amount of spell slots.

Gorbacz wrote:

Marco Massoudi wrote:

That being said, D&D IS outselling Pathfinder 10 to one atm, hopefully that will change with the Playtest.

Got any source for that 10 to 1 statement?

That's nonsense, flat out.

There's no need to worry—current plans already extend well into the future.

Thanks for the confirmation, Vic!

Glad to hear that 10 to 1 is not true. Although would have to say Wizards does have some good ideas on the upcoming maps and props being released with the D&D miniature line.

The spell effects are nice, especially the walls of fire/ice. And there is a large boat that is supposed to be released at the end of this year. (Star Falling?)

Would love to see some additional aspects like this as part of the Pathfinder Battle line.

But one thing that truly stands out with PFB over Icons of the Realms is the superior paint job. It may seem strange as WizKids does both lines, but we know it's because of the higher standards on quality from Paizo on that one. Don't ever back down from that.

Why does a potion not do anything until someone drinks it? Why doesn’t a Ring of Force Shield maintain a shield after you take it off? A spell happens as soon as it’s cast, called into existence, but items generally seem to require something about a person. The thing that they require is being given rules.

If Resonance only came into play for magic items that you wore to give you permanent effects, I would not have as much an issue with that.

But Resonance is used with 'any' magic item that you wear or use that day, including consumables, and I have a real problem with that. But again, I am going off information that I've only been given 'so far'. I am hoping there is more to it that will help assuage my concerns.

Wondering if today we will see the Magic Item / Resonance blog

Kind of afraid to see this blog.

Not a fan of what I've heard of Resonance, at all. But been telling myself I'm reserving my final judgement until I get the whole story on it.

But afraid to get the blog, getting more detailed info it, and not liking it even more than what I've already heard.

I love Alchemist's in P1E, but not sure if I like what I'm hearing in 2e.

So if I understand this correctly, you will make bombs from the standard items like Alchemist's Fire, Liquid Ice, Acid, etc? And the big thing is requiring resonance to do so.

One thing I liked in 1e is if I ran out of bombs, I could craft a lot of standard alchemical items as a back-up. It's not unusual for my Alchemists to carry 10+ of each of the offensive alchemical items.

With this, that won't be possible. As you are making bombs out of the those same items, and you have a limit due to your resonance. Unless you can still make a 'standard' Alchemist's Fire, besides making a bomb of it. If you can, I hope you can still get your INT modifier added to damage.

Also, I'm assuming the resonance is shared between my bombs and any magic items I want to have equipped/use?

I'm not a fan of resonance in the first place, I think it's a horrible limiting factor, but that the Alchemist needs it for one of his cornerstone abilities is not something I am a fan of at all.

On crafting again, I have always loved crafting in games, whether it's tabletop RPGs or video games. But in 3.0/3.5 and P1e, it just was too unrealistic and time consuming to be a crafter and adventurer. The only one you could get away with it was being an Alchemist with the Master Alchemist feat.

Hopefully in P2e taking the crafting skill is a worthwhile endeavor for an adventuring PC, and where it doesn't take them many months, or even years to make equipment.

Better yet, if you pick up the Magical Crafter skill feat, your dwarven fighter could even make magic weapons! This feat is available to anyone who is an expert crafter, making the creation of magic items available to all.

Really like seeing that. So you truly can now be the 'Bruenor Battlehammer' and craft the magical warhammer.

Also not one who really understands the need to 'fix' CLW wands. When you have a party that can't heal, and even heal well, they are pretty much a necessity.

I know PF2e will have more means to heal with each class, but I doubt they will be 'good' means to heal. At least compared to having a dedicated healer (like a Cleric or maybe Paladin).

And I disagree that design is based around going into combat with HPs down. Used resources, yes. Less spells, used up potions, scrolls, less charges on wands. But I look at going into battle with less HPs than full (unless you are talking about a minuscule amount) it's just foolish. I see situations like that happening where if you do go down, and maybe even die, you find yourself regretting you did that extra healing.

So that you use your CLW wand to heal the party up between battles I see nothing wrong with that.

There is going to be three versions of the Playtest Rulebook. A standard hardcover, a deluxe hardcover and a softcover. So that's probably what you saw for pre-order at Amazon.

My question to Paizo is will we be able to order our book(s) via your website and then pick them up at Gen Con? Or if not, will you have copies at the convention to purchase, even the deluxe version?

I don't want to pre-order from your website only to be able to purchase them at the con and not be able to cancel my pre-order and then have multiple copies. But I also don't want to be in the situation where I didn't preorder and then not able to buy them at the convention, I plan to buy a deluxe and hardcover version. The easiest solution (for me) is hopefully we can preorder on the website and pick up at the con.

What do you suggest?

Mark Seifter wrote:

Dαedαlus wrote:

I feel like calling everything 'proficiencies' and 'feats' might get a bit confusing, but maybe that's just me.

Also, it seems strange that the adventurer who's spent all his life plundering Ancient Osirani tombs might go to the sea and immediately be better at sailing than someone who's spent decades on the deck of a ship.

That said, I am all for making skills awesome again. By the time you hit level 15, logic goes out the window, and I can't wait to make a thief with Skyrim-style pickpocketing.

Your tomb raider actually wouldn't be able to practically sail at all, though you might know basic facts like the names of different ships that you read about somewhere. An actual sailor trained in the skill would be able to practice sailing. Now if your tomb raider became trained in it, that's a different story.

But that's part of the problem. If your higher level character somehow becomes "trained" in Sailing they immediately jump from "I know the names of some ships" to "I am better at this than everyone on the boat because I'm a 15th level character". That strains credulity. I'm not sure I like the way that level mixes in to this at all.

I'm also not a fan of the low numerical range between "I know nothing" and "I'm a legend". First it eventually gets dwarfed by level, and second the portion of the range between "trained" and "legend" itself seems super small numerically.

Now maybe all of this is less of an issue when you see the specifics of what types of per-skill stuff you unlock as you go from trained to legend, but if that's the case you really need to provide some actual meaningful examples of what those unlocks look like to help sell people on the system, because as it currently stands it's hard to buy in to it.

But that's no different than PF1 where you pick up a feat and suddenly learn a new ability.

But I have to agree, I do think there should be some more disparity between the proficiency levels on the modifiers. However, it is pretty clear the biggest difference between the proficiency levels is what they give you/allow you to do, than the modifiers.

It's nice to hear that the bonuses work out at level 20 but this is not representative of common gameplay. I would be more interested to see how things work at level five because it's way more common to play at that level.

Agreed.

Hobbun wrote:

Here, this is what I am referring to from the Leveling Up! blog post:

Quote:

That's why every class gets specific class talents (which include spells for spellcasters) at 1st level and every other level thereafter, increases to skills every other level, and feats at every level!

Where do those come into play? The increase in skills (I am guessing you choose similar to PF1?). This doesn't sound like your "level+modifiers", as it's every other level.

That is one of the ways you can increase your ranks in a skill.

Thanks Mark!

Ok, so it looks like you can have more disparity or variance with still gaining skill points/ranks. So it won't be as flat as we may all think.

Of course it depends on how many skill points we receive every other level, as well. And not sure I like it is not more often. One of my favorite things from PF1 when leveling is where do I put my skill ranks, so that it is cut in half is a bit disappointing.

Here, this is what I am referring to from the Leveling Up! blog post:

That's why every class gets specific class talents (which include spells for spellcasters) at 1st level and every other level thereafter, increases to skills every other level, and feats at every level!

Where do those come into play? The increase in skills (I am guessing you choose similar to PF1?). This doesn't sound like your "level+modifiers", as it's every other level.

I just received one of my cases today, haven't had a chance to crack it open yet.

Thanks for everything, Erik. I really mean it. I know a lot of us don't say that enough.

Right. Neither Paizo nor WizKids has used the term "very rare" or "super rare" in connection with these minis—if you see that, some fan came up with that tag, and it has no basis in the actual distribution method used by WizKids. Frankly, I feel that it's use is just plain misleading. You should see set dressing pieces in roughly the same proportion as rares in each case of minis, which is to say 1 or 2 of each per case. (They're not technically rares because they sometimes appear in uncommon slots, but they're not significantly more or less rare than rare.)

From the recent posts I’ve been reading on frequency of the dressing items, this is what I was getting the impression. And that is there is no higher rarity with the dressing pieces.

The numbers I’ve been seeing is actually very similar to what I saw with my dressing pieces in my Dungeons Deep cases.

If I get at least one of each, with the occasional two of a dressing item, in a case, I will be happy with that. Which is exactly what I received in Dungeons Deep.

Now we just need some chairs for those tables. :)

Thanks for clarifying, Vic.

Just received email notification yesterday that my Rusty Dragon Inn cases (well, at least one of the two) will be mailing out this week. Both case incentives are part of this first shipment, though.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, I can see why WizKids would not want to make a set of dungeon dressing. By keeping them limited to rares in current boxes, they are promoting the purchasing of boxes by people that are searching for dungeon dressing. It may make more business sense for them to keep the demand high under the current model than give us what we want :)

When companies begin thinking like that, it is when I start to look elsewhere. It’s one thing thinking “We are going to make the best (plastic) miniatures on the market so consumers will continue to purchase them”, it’s another to think “We are going to make the most desirable miniatures the most rare (hard to get a hold of) so they have to buy more boxes.” That reminds more along the lines of what Wizards did with DDM where you would need to buy multiple cases to complete a set.

It may be good business sense to do this, as there are those who will buy more, but I don’t consider it good practice. The sets for PB are doing well in sales already (at least when I spoke with Erik at Gen Con it was), let’s not try to sock it to those who are already supporting PB.

If WizKids doesn’t do a dedicated set for the more popular dungeon dressing, then I would like to see them an uncommon slot, or at least a normal ‘rare’ slot, instead of this ‘ultra rare/very rare’ slot I keep hearing about.

Have to say I'm pretty disappointed with the new procedure on singles, and considering the dressings are already sold out.

I know Erik indicated that it may be restocked, and that they are selling out this fast, gives more incentive on opening more cases to sell singles.

But all that means is I have to constantly watch the website to see if more singles open up which will probably sell out immediately again.

It's good for Paizo, but bad for us as we only have a limited time to get any extras, or forbid we don't get any of a rare in our case.

Please don't put this limitation on singles, continue to have them available for awhile, considering they are selling out fast.

I would also be open to seeing a dedicated dressing line.

I usually get a couple of cases, so I'm normally good about the amount of minis I have, with maybe some of the rares.

My question is, when do cases begin shipping for subscribers in relation to the release date?

Shouldn't you keep the option to purchase singles up at least couple of weeks after the longest projected time a subscriber should receive their shipment?

What I think I will do if I don't have my cases yet is just buy the more rare miniatures that I will want multiples of, and maybe some of the uncommon ones. Like most of the dungeon dressings, and maybe the horses.

So what is normally the allotment for uncommons in a case now? Meaning, how many of one uncommon do we usually see in a case?

I get that the alternative ways such as encounter packs and separate huge add-ons didn't work. Hence why my question was referring to the old way things worked in the original DDM line. Though I could easily see Kalindlara's explanation beinf the reason.

Do we have any sort confirmation that War of the Dragon Queen, Against the Giants, and such huge sets in the old DDM didn't make enough money to justify their cost?

Well, I did say the reason was because the huge minis just didn't sell, which is one in the same in being 'unprofitable'. So yes, as Kalindlara had also indicated.

As for the old DDM lines, if you remember, the quality of the PPM went down as the line got further along. A lot of that having to do with the mounting cost, which has been said more than once (and by Erik) that PPM are more expensive, much more expensive now, to produce.

If you remember, a booster box of DDM was only $8.99, and that was for eight miniatures. Now, you get four minis with the price almost doubled. So yes, much more expensive.

If I remember correctly, with War of the Dragon Queen, a booster box being around $20 for one huge and 4 medium/small sized minis. For something like that now, it probably would be at least $35 for one booster box, and you'd probably only get the huge mini or one medium, if you are lucky. There would be very little people that would be willing to pay that kind of money. And almost no one willing to pay for a case of it.

Love all 3, but especially the Dancing Girl. I'm surprised that one hasn't been covered in prepaints before! And the digital image looks great. Important to get a good paint job on that one's face, though....

Will have to echo Cleanthes on all aspects, the Dancing Girl is my favorite, and also that the face is extremely important to have a good paint job.

The Minis Maniac wrote:

Let's face it. The commoner minis are super necessary for combat especially in urban campaigns, they may not be exciting. BUt when a fight breaks out on a city street, all these merchants, and commoners are bound to be in the way. As for dungeon dressing, again it makes life much easier to have physical representations of stuff.

I've found that just mancala pieces work amazing for that. Grab a handful, throw them on the board (literally), and there are commoners.

I also use the same method for difficult terrain and obstacles, which really are all the commoners are :D

What are mancala pieces? I am guessing they are similar to the colored stones we use for large groups of creatures/NPCs.

Those work well if the NPCs are all the same, but it’s nice to have minis for the important NPCs, to differentiate them. Like combat at a farmhouse, where you’ve gotten to know the family well. It’s nice to have minis for each of the family members if they get involved somehow in a combat.

Mike and I got a crack on the setlist for the next set today.

I'm at the same time super excited about the cool stuff in there and dreading the inevitable disappointment each of these reveals seems to bring.

But, as this message board is not a personal diary, I think I'll leave it at that for now.

Hope you enjoy what we have coming up next week.

Some of you won't. :)

I wanted to first comment on the bold for a bit. Erik, I think it's great that you do take it to heart on what we like and don't like. But please don't take it too personally (let it get to you too much). We are all fans of miniatures here (otherwise we wouldn't be eagerly looking for your blog post every Friday), but all have our own preferences, and not all are going to mesh, there are just too many of us to have that happen. :)

So where I appreciate you do your best to satisfy us, I am glad you are going in new areas and testing to see how well they do. Thanks for the hard work and dedication. It isn't said enough on here.

As for the Rusty Dragon Inn set, I actually love seeing it. I agree, you can't have a complete set of commoners, but I have been hoping for more common folk for awhile now, so I am glad we are (probably) going to get a lot more here.

In our campaign, we do use the common folk, so these minis will be well put to use.

As for the case incentive, I will need to hold off judgement until I get a better picture and understanding that everything that comes with it. But even with my like of more common folk minis, I am a bit leery on a bar. If it's a really detailed bar with several components, I will be happy with it. Either way, I know we will put it to use.

Erik, are we going to see more peasant/noble minis for the next set(s)? I know some don't like them and prefer more monsters or adventurers, but we use the commonfolk minis, as well.

Unfortunately, all of the Spawn are Colossal, and Colossal minis "aren't economically feasible". :(

I really hope they are able to move past that restriction, eventually. I know with myself, I would be willing to spend the extra money to support colossal minis.

As for the thread topic, where there are still a lot of options for dragons, I would also like to see something else, at least for a few sets.

I can’t think of any specific gargantuan creatures off the top of my head, but I am pretty open besides seeing another dragon right now.

I cannot remember if this has been answered or not, but will we be seeing less iconics in full sets because of the Iconic Heroes boxed sets?

Where I do love and appreciate my iconic heroes, I actually would like to see less in full sets as they will have their own boxed sets now and less of them in full sets would allow for more monsters/NPC townsfolk/etc. Not asking to stop iconics completely in full sets, but I certainly would be ok in seeing less of them. Especially considering the number of (unique) slots in a full set has been reduced now.

Also, try as we might, the colored shirts never sell as well as black t-shirts. :\

That's a shame, as I also get tired of seeing black gaming t-shirts. And it's not just Paizo related, but the GenCon t-shirts usually have a black background, as well.

A nice white or grey background would be nice to see for once.

Cat-thulhu: I haven't yet revealed ALL of the different ways of getting a better Feiya. I ask you to hang tight for a bit longer, as I think once the whole story is out there you'll be pretty satisfied.

Ok, I really hope there is more to it, Erik.

With how many times I've heard "you will be really pleased what WizKids has in store", to be told we will be able to replace her through WizKids normal replacement process is quite disappointing.

Like Cat-thulhu, I am no fan of how WizKids has handled replacements.

I still await the info that will 'really make me pleased'.

I know, I was kidding, therefore the smiley face at the end. :) Although it is a bit tucked away off to the left, so may not be that easy to see.

I’m exceptionally grateful to Scotty’s for what they have done not only this year, but previous years as well. Thank you Scotty’s!

With the past pages of quotes, and the above, being said...

I'm now thinking what I need to do is gather up all of my ruined-faced Iconics and Rares to take photos of. That is, all of those with terrible paint, not necessarily ALL of my Iconic and Rare Humanoids.

I've been sighing and feeling let down set after set with those key minis and thinking... "5 foot rule, 5 foot rule". Is WizKids planning to replace the horrible paintjobs (wouldn't think so...)?

But, in all honesty I've been quiet for a long time on this subject and now feel like I shouldn't have been. Sorry if this is overly critical, Vic and company, but it's really been bugging me for a long time now.

As for WizKids replacement methodology (and the post for the poor guy waiting 4 months now for replacement!), I know Paizo and WK have to protect themselves from people taking advantage, but honestly, the WK replacement model is ridiculously costly, complicated, and inefficient.

The problem with this is ‘ruined faces’ or especially ‘terrible paint jobs’ is extremely subjective between consumer and manufacturer (i.e. WizKids).

With Feiya, it is already confirmed that her paint (sculpt?) job is unacceptable, and steps are being taken to resolve this.

But the question is on some of the other minis on what, if anything, would be done. I do agree there are some other minis (besides Feiya) that are not up to acceptable levels, and I am not even truly that picky. But when a face is a big blob (Queen Ileosa) or the eyes are painted on the cheeks/mouth on the chin (Queen Elvanna), that is not acceptable for me.

I think I have an idea what is going to happen with Feiya from what I have heard, but I don’t want to post anything as I don’t want to give inaccurate information (in case I am wrong) and I don’t want to post it ahead of Erik’s blog post. I do think everyone will be pleased with what is being done with Feiya (if I am correct), but I am certain I also don’t have the whole story, either. And I am also hoping Erik’s “encouraging discussions with WizKids” are some kind of assurances for future minis as well, and hopefully even resolutions for really bad paint jobs on other minis, besides Feiya.

But, I really want to see what Erik says in his blog post before I make any further criticisms.

The Unchained book sounds very interesting. It actually sounds like their version of a 'rules fix/update' on some of the needed areas. And I like hearing about not feeling 'chained' to 3.5 backwards compatibility as we fully play PF rules in our campaigns, anyways.

Mark,

When was your first official workday at Paizo? And have you been hit with any big bombs in regards to projects that make you go "I will have no free time..."

I assume it's pretty crazy with PaizoCon coming this weekend and then GenCon coming soon after.

Oh, sorry, another question, but will you be at GenCon? :)

I agree, new sculpts would be the best solution. But there are so many different iconics out there now, why not minis for the newer ones?

Could we not do an iconic set for the upcoming ACG iconics?

That's great news on the RoW huge pack selling well enough. I also vote on the two elemental huge packs. That's probably something I would actually buy two of (each).

Actually, the RotRL set, including the Rune Giant, is a great set. I don’t remember any issues in regards to QC at all for this set.

It’s your call, obviously, but you would be passing up one of the best sets that have been released.

Edit: I can only speak for my miniatures, of course. But I bought two cases of RotRL and I believe I only received one broken mini. And I don’t remember any horrible paint jobs like that have cropped up more recently. IMO, there was actually a lot of wonderful paint jobs in RotRL.

So last night Erik, Lisa and I went down to the warehouse and pulled random singles, as well as every single Feiya we had on hand.

The good news is that our spot checks of figures other than Feiya went pretty well. The bad news is that about half of our Feiyas were pretty bad, and a couple of them approached the level of the photo above. This is especially frustrating because WizKids knows how important our iconic characters are, and they have regularly allowed us to add a few more paint ops to the iconics to make them even a bit nicer than the average rare.

Erik is meeting with WizKids at Origins this week, and he is bringing along our three worst Feiyas to show them. (I have also pointed them to this thread; that includes their CEO and their production manager.)

This is what makes Paizo the best company in the gaming business. Well, not the only reason, but how many large companies do you know where the CEO, CCO and CTO personally follow up on a product issue and then also keep their customers personally informed on the status and what they are doing to resolve it.

With another company you might receive an automated email from customer service saying “We appreciate your business and are doing our best to resolve your problem”, but that’s usually about the best you will get.

This is one of the reasons I buy from Paizo.

I just wanted you to know that we see this and that it is appreciated, Vic.

Ok, thanks for the explanation, Wesley. I still would love to see Paizo find some way to use the nice vinyl maps, but I understand what has been said so far on why you can't.

Either way, I am looking forward to getting my Emerald Spire Superdunegon book and maps. :)

I think we need to keep in mind that (most of?) the preview images are paint masters, which are going to be better than the average outcome of the mass production process (because there are a lot more hours going into them and they are not mass produced).

But if you look at this previewed Feiya and scale down your picture to the same size which is only slightly bigger than "life size Feiya" the difference is not quite as big anymore. Again, I'm not arguing that yours isn't particularly bad, but the paint master only has black dots as eyes (albeit smaller and less "comicky" than yours) and a simple line as a mouth (albeit finer and seemingly of a reddish hue). [Edit: Mine is luckily somewhere in the middle between yours and the preview]

Actually, I feel the difference is quite big between Daniel’s photo and the previewed image, even if his photo wasn’t already scaled up. I would have been completely fine with the previewed image (single black dot eyes and line mouth), but with Daniel’s Feiya, that actually looks like the face was melted.

Guys, don't get me wrong, I do accept that my PPM will never look as good as the custom painted minis I pay $20 each for. But what I do think is reasonable is for the final mini I get to look at least close to the previewed mini or to the picture on the box.

I am not asking for the quality of paint job I get when I pay one of the pro painters to paint. I am asking for at least close to the preview or to the picture they show on the box.

If they are going to show X quality in the preview and on the packaging that should reasonably set my expectation. Regardless of what X quality is. If the preview or the photo on the box had looked odd and disfigured well then we got what we were shown.

But I also understand and agree with many of the points Isil-zha and Zorka have made. I agree that we should not have too high of expectations. Maybe the real question is; Are the previews and marketing photos on the packages too unrealistic and thus need to change to reflect the real quality that we should expect?

This.

I don’t feel it’s unreasonable to expect we get the miniatures that are previewed/advertised, especially what is shown on the box. Most people don’t peruse the internet looking at the previews, only the dedicated collectors like ourselves. For your everyday consumer, they are going to go by what they see on the box.

Just think of this for a moment. A mother is shopping for her 12 yr old son who roleplays, or just likes to play with miniatures in general. She sees PFB boxes at the local game store, sees the good quality pictures on the booster boxes and thinks this is a good choice.

However, when the boy opens it up at home, he sees the example of Feiya, looks at the booster box photo, and is quite bummed. And the mother, she is quite upset (understandably so).

Granted, this is only theoretical example, but my point is what is advertised to the general consumer should be what we receive, or at least close to it.

I am hoping the example of Daniel’s Feiya is a rare exception, but then someone else indicated their Feiya is the same. So I hope this doesn’t become more widespread, as I can only think of Queen Ileosa of Legends of Golarian.

That said, I have found a majority of the miniatures look very good to stunning. So we know that quality can be achieved, and therefore I don’t feel we should make excuses because they are plastic minis compared to resin, or that they are mass produced.

I agree, you aren’t going to have professional quality, and that expectation is unreasonable. But again, you should receive what is advertised to you.

I also think that he came across as fairly abrasive at times on the message boards...much more so than you would expect from the employee of a company that's trying to sell you stuff.

Sean is one of the nicest people you can ever meet. Always a smile on his face and always willing to take time and answer questions. Not sure how many times I bugged him at GenCon for rules clarifications.

But for the messageboard, he probably suffered the same issues as many on written communication, misunderstanding on how someone comes across.

Also, I think, like any human being, he had his moments of frustration when someone made a silly or inane comment.

I’m 42.

But I’ve been told I look 30 act 15.

Owen and Wolfgang,

Thanks for the replies to my question.

And Owen, when I said I would rather pay more, what I was referring to was very difficult content to cut, not where they could put ‘everything’ in. I just don’t like hearing of situations later on where a designer said they really wanted an idea in the module, even though the other material was just as important, but they needed to cut it out because of word count or because it wouldn’t fit on the map.

I’m just saying I would prefer to pay extra to have the designer be able to put in all of the ‘very’ important information.

Another reason is I’d like Paizo to know they don’t have to keep flip-mats all the same size. I wouldn’t be opposed to having a ‘huge’ flip-mat for special projects like Emerald Spire. :)

I’m looking forward to trying out the Arcanist. From what I understand, he prepares his spells for the day, but can cast any of those prepared spells any number of times up to his number of slots (similar to a Sorcerer in that regards)?