Imnotbob's page

Ok, this may have been asked, but when

Did I miss something?

Ok, this may have been asked, but when the drakes attack the riverboat and abscond with the old warhorse, the horse is taken off to the drakes cave. Once in the cave the horse is dropped off in the front (unwounded?) while the drake goes into the back of the cave, around a corner, "feasting on a rotting cow carcass" while the horse waits patiently for someone to come along and save him.

So why doesn't the horse just run away out the front of the cave?

Did I miss something?

Anyone have any recommendations?

Yes, let the Paladin enjoy his chance to shine.

The first deals should be simple, easy and hardly Evil at all, and come with great (but not long lasting) rewards.
Maybe the first gift is free..

I was always a fan of this book. Will there be any new material?

Order #3125515 The PDFs are available but the hard copies are not coming for some reason?

Same thing has been happening with me all day. If you can get it done from your end that would be delightful.

Imnotbob wrote:

The warrior knows wizards have spells that can protect them, he also knows that he has yet to strike a "really good blow" (crit) so why not keep trying.

How? If he doesn't have one of the following three things, how does he know ANYTHING about the wizard's protections or whether or not he can EVER get past them?

1) Spellcraft ranks
2) Knowledge: Arcana ranks
3) Previous experiences with spellcasters using the same or similar spells.

Without those skills he may not know Specific information, but in a world with Real Magic he would know that wizards use magic and that magic does stuff and some of that stuff is protecting the wizard.

Being a warrior he would also know that he has yet to get in a Really Good Hit, so why give up?
Now, if he did get in a Really Good Hit (crit) or two and there was no effect then I could see your point.

Imnotbob wrote:

Hits are actual blows, not "near misses", with a lot of hit points they are more like scratches and cuts.

One would think that the axe wielder would think "Eventualy I'll get a good shot, and so far he hasn't hurt me that much".

That's another debate entirely. Groups tend to interpret damage differently. Even if you consider hits to be mere nicks and cuts until you get a critical or until the guy goes down, a competent fighter seemingly unable to get anything OTHER than nicks and cuts on his opponent might come to believe that getting a solid hit is next to impossible.

Well, you did bring up the 'near miss' arguement but lets leave that for now.

Ravingdork wrote:

In practice, I find this is not the case in most peoples' games. In fact most games are rife with unconscious metagaming. A warrior doesn't retreat because he can't hurt the wizard. He often goes after another target that he can hurt.

In none of the examples do you mention anyone getting hurt by the "invincible" opponents, that in my experience, is when people retreat.

That's because it isn't directly relevant to the discussion.

Oh but it is, you have not hurt them but they have not hurt you either. So far it sounds like a tie.

The Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid, they will believe something because they want it to be true; or because they're afraid it might be true.

What is to keep people from believing wizards and other heroic characters to be invincible?

Take a wizard with shield and mage armor for example (or more powerful protections if you wish). If a warrior attacked him five times to no avail (failing to hit the AC) then said warrior may well think the wizard's magic insurmountable. After all, he is not wearing armor or wielding a shield--things that might leave openings he can search for. All he knows is that his sword is bouncing off some invisible force field. Add on other "invisible" magical items such as bracers of armor, rings of protection, and amulets of natural armor and even high level warriors may find themselves thinking the wizard's defenses insurmountable (whether or not this is actually true).

The warrior knows wizards have spells that can protect them, he also knows that he has yet to strike a "really good blow" (crit) so why not keep trying.

If an illusionist pumps his save DCs and tricks his enemies into believing a project image spell is actually him, and that he is an invincible god that cannot be harmed by "mere mortals." Then what is to keep his enemies from being utterly convinced short of successful saves or great foreknowledge of magic (such as ranks in Spellcraft and/or Knowledge: Arcana)?

"Maybe it's an illusion, wizards are tricky like that".

A barbarian with two-hundred hit points takes multiple successive hits from a battleaxe and doesn't even flinch. What is the wielder of the battleaxe supposed to think? Even in a game where the participants assume abstract hit points where a successful hit from a battleaxe is a "near miss" rather than an actual blow, the wielder of said axe is likely thinking "I can't seem to hit this guy, maybe I'm WAY in over my head here."

Hits are actual blows, not "near misses", with a lot of hit points they are more like scratches and cuts.

In practice, I find this is not the case in most peoples' games. In fact most games are rife with unconscious metagaming. A warrior doesn't retreat because he can't hurt the wizard. He often goes after another target that he can hurt.

In none of the examples do you mention anyone getting hurt by the "invincible" opponents, that in my experience, is when people retreat.

Why isn't he running away?

He has a job to do, or he doesn't want to get hit in the back?

Or reassessing the situation?

One does not have to run away to reassess.

The wizard is no less dangerous for his invincibility. To go after another target is to turn one's back on him, and thus to invite tragedy. No one in their right mind would do this in reality. If an experienced SWAT team member empties a clip into a bank robber, and his bullets do nothing, he's going to fall back and reassess the situation, not reload and open fire on a second bank robber.

Unless his partner happens to have a better gun.

Or there are civilians nearby and by continuing to shoot he gives them a chance to escape.

Or, he knows about body armor and knows that one good shot will finish the guy.

I would love a copy of this.

Thanks

I may be running a one-on-one PbEM for someone using Golarion. What I am considering for an over-arching plot is that a Cult of Reason has sprung up. Power hungry men are using the frustration of the poor and downtrodden at unsympathetic gods. The argument will be that the gods abuse their power while millions suffer. Therefore, the gods are unworthy of worship.

Obviously, the gods would crush such a movement (well, maybe not obviously, but in my world they would) …unless one of the gods is secretly aiding it.

I would like to pick one god that is actively aiding this movement, things like actually granting spells to Clerics of this movement. Perhaps Calistria just for the trickery? I would also like at least one god 'duped' into helping the movement. Perhaps Calistria convinces Cayden Cailean that mortals should not only be free to choose which god they worship, they should be free to worship no god at all.

Thoughts?

Perhaps the long lost founder of this Cult of Reason passed the Test of the Starstone, and intentionally kept his/her success quiet.

So basically, is the act of owning a slave evil or good, or chaotic or lawful?

Evil.

what if you spare someone's life on the condition that they become your slave?

Slave = Evil.

should a neutral good cleric be strongly opposed to a character in their party taking a slave to the point that they are willing to fight about it?

i know that creating party conflict is bad, but who is the one creating it, the slave owner or the good cleric.

The cleric should be opposed; The players should not be jerks and figure out a way to work it out without ruining the game.

for background information on laws of the region, we are doing Legacy of Fire adventure path which is in Ketapesh, soo slavery is totally legal and common, but would a cleric be opposed to it, the cleric in this game is of Sarenrae.

Legal and common does not mean ok, it means Good has a lot of work to do.

These two players are more or less cornerstones of the group, and the other three players drop in and out casually, and they both have had this competitive style ever since they first played with one another (yet they are great friends in real life), and in most other games its not such a big deal, but I'm just wondering if theres any other advice out there to help harmonise things without alienating these key players.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions/ideas

Your best bet, find a new group. Perhaps more players would stick around if these two were somewhere else.

So I'm having trouble challenging my party. 3 members, dwarf fighter, human paladin, and a ranger/wizard/arcane archer, all level 10. So far, they just sort of blast through everything I throw at them. I could use some advice on trying to slow them down. Also we've been talking of adding a fourth member, any suggestions would be great.

Really long hit and run combats where they are up against the clock.

I guess instead of saying "Power Gaming" I should have said "Optimized". An experienced player helped make them characters that could have maximum damage at first level, so the barbarian regularly does 15-40 points of damage, and the Paladin does slightly less, but at reach.

Don't get me wrong, those guys had a lot of fun pulverizing all the monsters to oblivion, but I thought they would have enjoyed it more if they were the wee bit challenged, and the other players seemed bored.

Curious as to how a 1st level character is doing 15-40 damage?

As for the other players being bored maybe give them some hints as to things they could do also, don't let them just sit and watch.

Yeah I would so do all of those things if this was a home game, but seeing as this is a Pathfinder Society game, I have to strictly abide by the stats for the encounters as written. Unfortunately, the barbarian and paladin are twin brothers new to Pathfinder, and they had an experienced veteran help create their characters for power-gaming, so they are more like fourth or fifth level characters instead of level two, but I'm still restricted to the "Tiers 1-2" monsters. They're power gaming without even realizing it, and since they're so new, they don't think of it as a bad thing. But the other two players were pretty much useless, since the monsters were already dead before the fight began.

Having a spear and hitting someone before they hit you is power gaming? Really?

Here is my advice if this situation comes up in the future: Let Them, that is what spears are for after all.

I am just not sure how to deal with the whole, let's send a druid in to scout, and then use shape stone to tunnel toward the end of the dungeon. Any suggestions?

One thing you could try is do occasionally (all of the time would be heavy handed) have something “Interesting” happen to the rest of the party while the Druid is off on his own.

Another idea would be to put something other than dirt and stone in-between rooms, an underground spring or two every now and then could at the very least slow the druid down a bit. Also, dungeons don’t always have to be made of dirt/stone.

All that said, sometimes its ok to let a character do something well.

I am not trying to start a is killing baby goblins wrong thread i am trying to get practical advice and honest feedback to what I understand Lawful good to be. let me start with an example that some one used

I am a paladin and the land lord is just about to evict a old women and her children because they can't pay the rent. Her husband died in the last war as a paladin I have a few options

1. sell my gear to pay for her rent

2. ask my church to help her

3. ask the landlord to have a heart.

4. help the land lord evict them ....READ FURTHER BEFORE REPLYING

4.“...and let her move in with you and/or find her another home with a landlord who is less of a jerk”

If i am the only legitimate law in some po-dunk town isn't it my sworn duty to uphold the law?

That would depend if it is a Lawful Good law.

and if all other options fail and the land lord asks me to execute a lawful legal request don't i have to comply? I may hate it but it s my duty so it wouldn't be lawful evil because I take no pleasure in it. right?

Nope. If your Chaotic Evil lord starts telling you to go out and do Chaotic Evil things, then the proper response is to not do them.

what if i catch a run away slave and his master catches up with me and him and he provide she a legal Writ of ownership I am then bound to return the slave Correct? this situation to me is much more frustrating to a paladin then the goblin baby scenario

I would say no in most cases. Unless the slave is a convict serving off a sentence there could be some merit to this argument, but if it was your stereotypical chattel slavery, not a chance.

Did you ask about the Paladins motivation?

If it was “I like to kill things” then yeah, that’s trouble for the Paladin. If on the other hand it was “Kobolds are dangerous, if we let them go they will whole tribe will be down on us. A quick, clean death is best” then no, that’s perfectly acceptable Paladin behavior.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that someone will come to the party asking them to do some difficult task for little to no reward. And the good guys will do it. But the evil one, in my mind, would think this was stupid. Why would he/she go along?

Maybe the Evil guy has some other motivation other than money. What if the known bad guys happen to be a group/race/things that the evil guy has a grudge against? Maybe the Evil guy just likes killing things?

If the character is Lawful Evil it’s even easier; “Sure they are a bit sentimental but you have to stick together, besides I am sure that they will come around with me here as a good example”.

What are some creative ways to create this tension - this goal setting in the game. I want the players to feel like they can die, but I don't want the game to be over.

The BBG isn’t trying to kill them for whatever reason. Perhaps the BBG is just toying with them for fun, or wants slaves or a fresh food source. Maybe the characters don’t even make it to the BBG, killing a minion or two but using up everything they have to do so.

Icyshadow wrote:

I love it how one act will instantly turn you from a mortal Archon wanna-be into a mortal Daemon wanna-be. These guys deserved it, there were no other options left and she did challenge them to explain themselves which leads me to assume that if they had tried to plead mercy, they might have received it. Then again, I personally wouldn't have shown mercy to those bastards, so I guess that makes me Lawful Evil.

Killing out of moral outrage I can see, but mutilating the bodies takes it a little more over the top.

One can be good and still kill when they have to. Mutilating, and or torture however falls into the evil category regardless of how much they deserve it.

They were already dead, right? How is chopping someone up post mortem (quite likely as an object lesson for those who find them) worse than chopping them up while they are alive while trying to kill them?

First, LG means you operate within the law, even if it appears to be immoral. You still have your lawful ethics.

“I’m sorry, but I can’t help you track down the goblins that burned down this village. Their chief passed a law saying that Paladins were not allowed in their lair”

Original thread.

This character hates corruption, and believes that for the law to be effective it needs to be purged of such elements as the guards in the thread linked to above. Somebody needs to keep the guards in line, and it may as well be her. That said, she believes that the rule of law is essential for any civilization in order for it's people to have good lives, and for the law to be upheld. She isn't chaotic by any means, she just feels it necessary to purge those elements of the law that are corrupting it so that it can function for the good of all. Her favored method is to show up in the middle of the night when her prey is sleeping and give them one chance to justify their actions, knowing full well they can't do it. They she administers justice.

So, should I put her alignment as lawful good or neutral good? She's an inquisitor now, so she can be either alignment.

I’m going to go against the general consensus and go with either LG or NG. Trying to work within the system (by the barmaid being dead at the hands of the guards) has been shown not to work so someone has to see to it justice is served. What really matters is the motivation of the character though, and it sounds like the motivations could be either NG or LG.

prd wrote:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

(emphasis mine)

I still think it is quite obviously a chaotic act to put yourself above the law because of your moral or ethical opinion. I didn't say noone would take offense by the concept of slavery, it's just that Spartacus were chaotic in PF terms.

I wouldn't say that. Sparticus was a slave who didn't care for being a slave. Nothing Chaotic or Lawful about not wanting to be a slave.

You are right!

But also he immidatly said he does not want to be the "healer-b++@@". Which made mie think that he is over excited of blasting skeleteons and haunts away instead of focusing on group support and balanced play!

well we will see and I will of course talk to him!

What would be the problem with this? Being really good at "blasting skeletons and haunts" is a great way to support the group (unless the group is made up of skeletons and haunts) and balances out quite well when facing things that are neither skeletons nor haunts.

Really bother me. Specifically the ones that take place in small, remote locations far away form civilization. Rise of the Rune Lords, King Maker, and now Carrion Crown begin in these back woods areas.

I complain because I notice a trend when this happens: we kill bad guys, advance the plot, and gain levels, but are stuck with no way to get rid of the loot we have found! This results in characters several levels behind the recommended wealth charts because we can't use the majority of the junk we find, and we can't sell it to buy equipment we can actually use. And then you get into the logistics of how you are carting around 12 suits of masterwork armor/weapons, etc...

Unless they are on a strict time table, there is no reason they can not stash the bulky stuff and come back for it later, with some horses or a cart.

James Sutter wrote:

I'm fine with the idea that certain outsiders (demons/devils) are moral abstractions and therefore totally, irredeemably evil. But for the vast majority of monsters, well... it seems that the concept of Manifest Destiny is built into the alignment system.

Which is why alignment is awesome. Because it's fun to go down the metaphysical rabbit hole, both in-character and out. :)

Morality is subjective, no matter how much we wish that somethings were objectively 'always evil.'

Except ‘In Game’ Good and Evil are actual measurable forces in the universe. Sure , regular folk can sit around and argue about morality and what the definitions of Good and Evil are, but once you have access to Detect Good and Detect Evil any argument goes out the window.

I am currently playing in a game where I am playing a CN Rogue, as CN suggests, I will do whatever is best for me at the time and for the most part it goes with the best interest of the party, all of whom are some sort of good alliance.

We were in the middle of a dungeon crawl through what were basically the layers of hell, obviously evil, when we came across a monster that was sleeping. The paladin in the group confirmed it was evil so my rogue went up and basically coup de grace'd it. I was told, later by my group, that this was an evil act. I disagreed but my question is, as a CN character, wouldn't it be in his nature to sometimes commit evil acts if they are in his best interest?

I have always seen CN as personal freedom first, everything else second. Don’t go out of your way to help people and don’t go out of your way to hurt people either.

That said, Killing a sleeping Evil creature in the "layers of hell" is not Evil, it's smart. IMO the Paladin could have walked up and done the same and not had even so much as a blemish on their Paladinhood.

Not Evil does not equal stupid and/or suicidal.

A Six-hour con game…

One hour of character creation.

Two hours of GM back-story.

One (and only one) combat where only the NPC could touch the monster (the rest of us ran, hid and healed each other) that lasted for over one hour.

Probably about an hours total worth of breaks.

But rest of the time, not very memorable.

this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:

Charender wrote:

It also removes the it was big, mean, and ugly looking from the equation. To me what a creature looks like doesn't matter. What if it had been a half copper dragon/wyvern, a half-celestial wyvern, or a celestial wyvern? Big, check. Flying, check. Poisonous, check.

In the case we are discussing, it is not a cozy home with some sleeping humanoids they intrude on. It is a nest of big, mean, and ugly looking creatures. Big, flying, posionous, carnivorous, don't give a purple gnome's ass for conversations with adventurers, reptilian monsters.

Everything in bold is assumed based on what? Previous encounters with wyverns? Stories told around the campfire to scare children?

And if it had been a half-copper dragon/wyvern?

It would have been a nest of a big and ugly looking creature. Big, flying, poisionous, carnivorous, but looking for someone to trade some jokes with, maybe a prank or two.

The thing some people seem to be missing here is that Paladins don’t have to be correct all the time; they have to be Good.

Kamelguru wrote:

*sigh* I shall use smaller words then, so my intents here cannot be misinterpreted, or easily twisted.

The encounter is SILLY. Two beasts _sleeping in plain view_ is SILLY. It should not happen. Imagine now if your GM sent a purple gnome in an ice-cream truck that shoots pizza. It should not happen EITHER. It is AS silly.

Got that? Good.

Regarding detect evil: In this encounter, the wyverns were several hundred feet away. The paladin's range of detection is 60 feet. 60 feet < several hundred feet. When something is out of range, he CANNOT detect them.

Got that one too? Have a nice smiley-face sticker.

I know the range of detect evil, all it means is that the paladin is too lazy to walk over 60 feet from a sleeping wyvern.

If I was sleeping next to my wife and was woken by a delicious cheeseburger walking into my room to check if I was Evil, well it wouldn’t go to well for the cheeseburger is all I am going to say.

I wonder if those against him falling for this, would be against him falling for it if those actually weren't wyverns but half-(copper)dragon monitor lizards.

For all he knew, they could as well had been.

Heck, for all he knows it could have been two Lawful Good Arch Angles who disguised them selves as Wyverns. He Should Have Checked!

Imnotbob wrote:

Charender wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Charender wrote:

I think the key part is the the player didn't even try to figure out if the target was evil.

This is true, but in his defence he could have seen them as merely animals, and dangerous.

So I am good to go on my plan to poison my neighbor's pit bull because it is an animal and possibly dangerous? Slippery slope there.

Is it a giant flying poisonous pit bull?

You are basically say that you are good to kill an animal you think is dangerous because it is big, flying and poisonous.

Or at least Not Evil.

What if it is merely big and poisonous? What about flying and big? What if it is just big like say a Terrasque?

A dog bite causes nasty infections. That makes them kinda poisonous, and they can be 80 pounds. So poisonous and medium size creature that may attack me in the future, am I cleared to kill it?

An oleander tree is large and poisonous. That is 2 out of 3, KILL IT!

Good to know I am now clear to kill lots of things just because they have one dangerous aspect and I think they may be a threat to me sometime in the future.

I guess it depends on how you define Danger. A dog safely behind a fence is not as dangerous a Giant Mobile Carnivorous Oleander or a Wyvern for that matter.

This topic was touched on in another thread, but I am interested in the various views here. One recent comment in particular really got me thinking:

"The GM is telling you more than he needs to. He could tell you, "because I said so and if you don't like it, there's the door".

<snip>

On the other hand, I'm led to believe there are some places where players are lined up in the street looking for anyone with a pulse to DM.

It’s a give and take on both parts. The GM is running the game and has final say during the game. The players should agree to play in the GMs world and not try to rock the boat too much. However the GM should take care to keep the players happy (note: this does not mean always giving them everything they want), as without players the GM is just a lonely guy with a bunch of books.

I would hope it has little to do with the number of players available. I like to game with my friends and I would hope that everyone involved is able to act like an adult and not be threatened with ‘replacement’.

Seriously. I've never seen anything good come about with having that.

<snip>
Really other than those two things which can be worked around fairly easily I might add, what makes keeping alignment around as a 'vital stat' worth all the headaches that it causes?

To be honest, in real life I have never experienced any arguments or ‘headaches’ regarding alignment. I didn’t even know people disagreed so vehemently about it until I started reading the arguments on line.

Perhaps it’s just that I like the tradition, but I like the idea of ethical magic and the other associated features of alignment.

In the end though, I guess it really just depends on the group you are with

Dabbler wrote:

Charender wrote:

I think the key part is the the player didn't even try to figure out if the target was evil.

This is true, but in his defence he could have seen them as merely animals, and dangerous.

So I am good to go on my plan to poison my neighbor's pit bull because it is an animal and possibly dangerous? Slippery slope there.

Is it a giant flying poisonous pit bull?

The problem that I have with CN PCs is there is no way to motivate them apart from giving them treasure or having NPCs browbeat them into doing what they want. That makes adventure hooks pretty hard.

Easily solved. Before the next game ask, “So guys, just what do you want to do in this game anyhow?”

Incoming rant...

Now I know that as the GM I can impose consequences to deter such behavior (the hobgoblin can stab him while he is sleeping or a horde of destrachans can come up from the earth and destroy his stronghold) but I do not want to punish him for roleplaying his character. At the same time, I can't justify the unbalancing effects that his behavior has on my game.

So, last session I simply told him when he decided to subjugate the hobgoblin that under no circumstances would I let him do it and that he cant have the dungeon after the party is through with it. He seemed to take it pretty well but I dont want any friction in the future and I dont want to be seen as an ogre.

Thanks for reading my rant!

Reasonable consequences <> Punishment.

Perhaps one of the reason he does these things is due to the lack of consequences?

Also, I don’t see the problem with “Setting up shop” in a dungeon.

With all the discussions about Paladins on these boards, it is very clear to me that it is not easy to play one correctly.

So, what then would be some good ways of determining if a player "has what it takes" to actually play a Paladin "properly"? (i.e., avoid an unintended fall from grace.)

The best way to find out takes two steps. Step one, ask yourself "Is my game master a jerk" if the answer is "No" go on to step two. Step Two, say "Hey GM, I want to play a Paladin".

Paladins are no harder to play than any other kind of character, assuming your GM isn’t a jerk that is out to screw with the players.

I'm truly enjoying running my Kingmaker AP but I'm expecting to have a few problems working up the players interest in taking the reins of leadership. I know I can simply use the kingdom in the background rules but that kind of defeats the point of running an adventure to build a kingdom.

My best suggestion is to say to the players “I want to run a game called Kingmaker” and then let them come up with reasons why there characters would want to rule a kingdom.

The problem in question is this. What action does a stealth check use?

The rules are not clear enough on this and its causing a dispute between me and my rogue/shadowdancer player.

Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth
check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate
action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged
attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

Now the problem is my player is claiming he can roll a stealth check in every round (shadowdancer, hide in plain sight) and attack away. But I am claiming he must move in order to do a stealth check.

Any official clarification to this? I searched whole day but coudnt find response to this specific question.

Thanks in advance

Not official answer, but having to move to be 'stealthy' seems a bit silly to me. He attacks, then makes a new check. Of course there would be, imo, quite a few bonuses to the check to spot the guy attacking.

At what point dow a lawful character need to stop following the 'law of the land'?

Is there a point where a lawful character simply has to break the law in order to do what needs to be done? This includes, but is certainly not limited to an evil empire with opressive and even down right evil laws.

Where does a Lawful character, especailly a Lawful Neutral one, get his or her laws from, does the lawful character maintain the laws of where he was born, or does this need to swithc to fit the 'Laws of the Land' he or she is currently in.

The further away from Lawful the law gets the more likely a Lawful character would be to break it.

Imnotbob wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

You should have just received an email about the preorders, as they have been moved back into your sidecarts.

Bob,

I have fixed the quantities of the four doubled books.

Thanks,
cos

I was charged $293.31 (the amount with the unreleased books) when the total listed for the pending order is $64.68 (only the released books).

Please fix this.

Thanks,

John

What you're seeing is the initial authorization put through on the 12th, before I removed the extra books. When we ship the order, the charge will be the proper $64.68.

Thanks,
cos

Thanks, I see this now. My bank changed its online format recently and it looked like a charge.

John

You should have just received an email about the preorders, as they have been moved back into your sidecarts.

Bob,

I have fixed the quantities of the four doubled books.

Thanks,
cos

I was charged $293.31 (the amount with the unreleased books) when the total listed for the pending order is $64.68 (only the released books).

Please fix this.

Thanks,

John

The second question is a more complicated problem, how could a dwarf make himself popular or at least not hated in a city inhabited by mostly goblins, especially if said dwarf is a dog owner?

You could always give him a high bluff and intimidate and a big axe.

“I am a goblin”

“Hmm..him could be goblin..”

*natural 20* “Wait, him no goblin!”

*axe to head*

“Yep, him a goblin, yep.”

You should have just received an email about the preorders, as they have been moved back into your sidecarts.

Bob,

I have fixed the quantities of the four doubled books.

Thanks,
cos

Thanks so much!

Btw, I am not bob.

It seems that all the items I had on preorder are all shipping (and being charged) this month. Some of the items are not released until December. Shouldn’t preorders send and be charged as they are released?

FYI, here is a list of the products I am supposedly getting in May.

1x Call of Cthulhu: Bumps in the Night
1x Pathfinder Adventure Path #33: The Varnhold Vanishing (Kingmaker 3 of 6) (PFRPG) Print Edition
1x Pathfinder Chronicles: NPC Guide (PFRPG) Print Edition
2x Pathfinder Chronicles: Faction Guide (PFRPG) Print Edition
2x Pathfinder Chronicles: Heart of the Jungle (PFRPG) Print Edition
2x Pathfinder Chronicles: City of Strangers (PFRPG)
2x Pathfinder Chronicles: Book of the Damned—Volume 2: Lords of Chaos (PFRPG)
1x Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting World Guide: The Inner Sea (PFRPG) Hardcover
1x Pathfinder Chronicles: Misfit Monsters Redeemed (PFRPG)
1x Pathfinder Chronicles: Lost Cities of Golarion (PFRPG)
1x Pathfinder Companion: Gnomes of Golarion (PFRPG) Print Edition

Also, if it is possible, of the four items I somehow managed to order 2 of switched to 1 each?

Thanks