Oxlar's page

I haven't played pathfinder for a few years. If Paizo can decouple itself from the OGL and make PF2 stand on its own, I will definitely cast my line with Paizo for my future gaming needs. Either way, I won't be spending any more money on WoTC products.

1549 posts about the first announcement and 600 odd since I last looked at it, what could they still be talking about?

600 odd posts later it turns out the answer is absolutely nothing. I feel stupider for having read the last two pages about how no-one understands the game and we're all playing it wrong.
...

This^^^^^^

Came here to actually discuss the change in game mechanics only to sift through pages of how to roll stats and what role playing is. LAME.

I was quite excited to hear of a 2nd ed Pathfinder. But to be honest, after learning more, this is not the direction I had hoped would be taken. It all seems too meta video gamey. I've read stuff about retraining skills that are just complete cheese.

I've been playing some 5th ed D&D lately, and I gotta say I'm not really a big fan on the 'unified proficiency' thing, especially when it comes to things like wizards being just able to hit with melee weapons just as easily as a warrior.

One of the areas of pathfinder that I really wanted to see addressed was the magic item micromanagement/bloat and commonality. I see you are trying to address that but it sounds like every item is basically an artifact and I'm not sure that's the way to go.

I haven't been a big fan of rpgs over the last 10+ years trying to assign encounter levels and what not to monsters. Honestly, I preferred the way things were with AD&D. A good GM learned what monsters to use by understanding the monster and often times there were variants listed or the GM tweaked something. It seemed so much simpler and easier back then. So heading even further down the rabbit hole isn't a step in the right direction for me.

The different 'play modes' seem condescending to me. Don't arbitrarily put generalized caps on activities, spells, etc... because of a change between 'modes'. I'm old enough to tell time and count. Don't dumb things down and create situations that have to occur but don't seem logical like spells ending just because combat ends. A spell should last as long as the spell should last regardless of which game mode you are in.

And what is the deal with Ancestry? Is saying 'race' not PC anymore? Come on, stop changing nomenclature just for the sake of changing it.

Janet, check your PM.

I hate the implementation of minions. There shouldn't be some arbitrary deliniation of minion, standard, rare, elite, etc... like some stupid mmo.

Looks like we have 3-4 people so far. Looking to add 1 or 2 more. We will probably be gaming near or in the redmond area. Anyone interested in getting in on a new group send me an email at tirionoyara (at) yahoo (dot) com.

Looks like we have 3-4 people so far. Looking to add 1 or 2 more. We will probably be gaming near or in the redmond area. Anyone interested in getting in on a new group send me an email at tirionoyara (at) yahoo (dot) com.

That would be one hell of a commute. It might be worth it if you could find a game that was a whole day event every other week.

If anyone is still looking for another player or to start a new group in the Seattle area let me know. I'm living in Seattle near Georgetown and would like to find something around there or around Bellevue . . . preferably on a Friday night or sometime on the weekend. During the week is tough since I work until 7pm.

I'm putting a new group together. There are about 3-4 of us so far. We have not met yet, but we are planning a one off or meet and greet to make sure everyone is comfortable with one another.

Send me an email if your still looking for a new start with a fresh group. tirionoyara (at) yahoo (dot) com

Email sent, abeltda.

Sounds good. I've had some response on a meetup site as well. Lets get the ball rollin. I'll send an email.

Hey guys, jsut recently moved to the Issaquah area from across the country. I have friends who run a gaming store up in Everett but that seems a long way to go on a regular basis.

Any games going on in the Issaquah/Bellevue nearby area that needs another player?

I'm looking for a game as well. I'm in Sammamish. I wouldn't be opposed to trying to put a group together if needed. If you have found a good group and there is room for another let me know.

Blackbloodtroll, I just sent you an email about your game and if you would like another player. I'm in Sammamish.

As the OP I would like to remind people that, whatever my personal feeling in Magic-Item Shops, I am applying the rules in PF RAW. I figured I can't be accused of being an unfair GM then.

Someone complained that when they arrived new in town X and asked the local inn keeper for the location ubiquitous Magic-Item Shop. The inn keep did so, and the player walked up on day one in town and said I'll buy Item-Y. Item-Y was not within the town budget. The store keeper says (after the GM randomly rolls the other non-budget items in the town), "No kind Sir we don't stock that level of quality item". Grumble went the player.

"What about Item-Z?" said the player - in budget of the town. "Let me look." says the store keeper. GM tells the player to choose a number between 1 and 4 - then roll a d4, if you get that number it IS NOT in stock. The player rolls the dice and... Stupid system grumbles the player.

The store keeper then says "Sorry not in stock, but I can may be get you one." "When?" says the interested player. I look as GM at the surrounding towns, roll some d4's and decide the closest available item of that type and the travel time. The store keeper replies "about 2 and half weeks."

"Screw you" the player replies.

Close certain with the GM sighing and the other players rolling their eye-balls at the player.

I am unreasonable?
S.

Nope, you have a cry baby player who expects everything to be handed to them. They don't want a GM. They want a table top version of a video game where the GM is doing the job of the program. Good riddance to a player like that. I'd go open the door for them and blow them a kiss as they walk out.

Oxlar wrote:

amethal wrote:

The equalizer wrote:

You know a party is cool when there is a tale behind every mystical blade or armor which the party has on them.

My first 3rd edition character was an elf sorcerer, who (after we completed the Sunless Citadel) ended up with Sir Bradford's magical longsword because no one else in the party wanted it. It was cool to have a magic item with a story behind it, and I still look back on it with fondness.

However, what is not cool is to then fall behind the power curve because you have a load of (comparatively) useless items. The longsword was worth about the same as a cloak of charisma +2, but it was a darn sight less useful to my character than the boring old cloak would have been.

If you have a load of useless items, your GM is doing it wrong. Again, this is not a video game. A GM who doesn't actively steer resources into the hands of the players is LAZY.

Or the GM just might not prefer to have a more organic world where the equipment and treasure that the players find aren't perfectly suited to their own specializations. We have a guy in our group who is specialized in wielding a Scythe. That didn't stop him from finding a +1 frost greataxe, because that's just what he found.

The game assumes that you will keep what you want, sell the rest, and convert gold into resources by either A) buying, or B) crafting. I see no problem with this. It amazes me that people seem to think that it's somehow inherently gamist to have a shop in a magical world where people preform and trade magic that sells magical items that people have created, and yet tailoring the treasure that your party finds to suit them is somehow less gamey and more of a GM just doing his job.

What? O.o

Ok, to you and the poster above you: The original complaint was a 'LOAD OF USELESS ITEMS'. Did I say to customize EVERY SINGLE magic item according to the players? Um....NO. Don't polarize my response thank you.

The equalizer wrote:

You know a party is cool when there is a tale behind every mystical blade or armor which the party has on them.

My first 3rd edition character was an elf sorcerer, who (after we completed the Sunless Citadel) ended up with Sir Bradford's magical longsword because no one else in the party wanted it. It was cool to have a magic item with a story behind it, and I still look back on it with fondness.

However, what is not cool is to then fall behind the power curve because you have a load of (comparatively) useless items. The longsword was worth about the same as a cloak of charisma +2, but it was a darn sight less useful to my character than the boring old cloak would have been.

If you have a load of useless items, your GM is doing it wrong. Again, this is not a video game. A GM who doesn't actively steer resources into the hands of the players is LAZY.

I personally try to limit magic item shopping in my games as much as possible. If the party is out in the middle of nowhere, then its not an issue since asking the adjacent bit of shrubbery for a +1 sword isn't going to work out. Even in a large city like korvosa, I put it down to cost of the item, what it does and how much in demand it would be. It comes down to certain factors and a luck roll. One player pouted and was unhappy about being unable to buy his ring of sustenance with ease. Alot of the gaming groups I came across from years back had a very similar approach. It was almost 2nd ed with the underlying message being "get out there and do cool stuff if you want those cool nifty mystical trinkets." It worked out though, since the players were pretty seasoned and had moved beyond the magic item obsession. They were still loaded with magical loot. The only difference being that they earned their items the old-fashioned heroic way. You know a party is cool when there is a tale behind every mystical blade or armor which the party has on them.

Exactly. It takes the story out of the story. There should be history behind something magical like that. Otherwise your just substituting the word mundane with magical. It loses its meaning and endearment.

Kolokotroni wrote:

Personally I hate the 3.x dependence on magic items. It is there though, the characters do need items that help them do what they do and add flexibility to be able to deal with additional situations. I have since replaced the magic item system in my game, but prior to that I stopped using the magic item shop and instead, used a wishlist stystem and tailored rewards from powerful patrons. I also allowed gather information (now diplomacy) checks to locate sources for specific items, and buyers for items that have been replaced in a character's inventory.

You mean previous editions where warriors literally cannot hurt something without +X weapons? Oh look, it's a baby vampire. Oops, you don't have a +2 or better weapon, so you cannot damage it at all. Prepare to die. If anything 3.x has eased off of the need for magic items to be effective in a variety of venues.

As I noted, my players do stock up on magic items, but they only really feel like they need a handful of items, and most of those are defensive and at higher levels. Most of their magic items follow a Jarlaxel type approach, where they have something for every occasion tucked away in their coat pocket. :P

Back in the day, the DM had control of what was in his game. If he put in a vampire with no way of the party to deal with it, then the party is probably meant to run or avoid it. But usually its the DM's job to properly place encounters according to his campaign and party.

Blaming it on a system mechanic is well...a lazy DM. Its your game. If its a problem, then don't put it in your game.

Another reason why I think CL for enounters is just another excuse for a DM to be lazy.

I've read the rules. I still hate the idea of Magic-Mart. No thanks.

Hopefully if they do an updated edition to pathfinder, they will make the rules work better balance wise with the presumption of NOT buying magical items and keep the magic shops mechanics as optional stuff. But the system itself should not be balanced on the assumption that PCs are going to go fill out their 'slots' with gear specialized for their class or motif. Its silly and very video gamey.

I would like to say that this is fantasy and if two shields can work mechanically within the rules, then why not let people be 'fantastic' in a fantasy setting?

That being said, I really respect that last post of JJ. Thank you for being honest with yourself and us. It makes me happy to know that your passion for the game as a gamer trumps being a businessman. I have more hope for a company run with such passions than a company that puts business first above all else and most of the time to the detriment of the game. We all know what examples we already have of these types of companies.

I don't think its an issue of game mechanics. I think its an issue of common sense. I just don't see how a tiny monkey could possibly load any kind of crossbow other than a hand crossbow. Not enough mass and strength.

No more forums!

I would say that the weapon doesn't get a bonus to hit for the weapon damage, but if the attack missed by 3 then the shocking grasp would still go off and hit. In other words, sword hits but doesn't get through armor but target still gets zapped by spell.

try a rogue 3/ myrmidarch (magus) 7/ arcane trickster 10 ? rely on touch spells heavily along with that traits and feats that improve your caster level. Personally I'm in love with the intensified shocking grasp so you can get that intensified, empowered shocking grasp. you want something thats viscious in one shot there you go. 15d6 shocking damage + 7d6 sneak attack + Weapon Damage + Int Modifier

I'm pretty sure you can't do normal touch spells through a ranged weapon with myrmidarch, only ranged touch spells. I'f I'm wrong, let me know.

Email sent.

I've got a current group, but may be looking to find a second game with another group. So if there are any upstart pathfinder games out there thats looking for another player. Let me know.

I may be available. Let me know if your still looking.

Any of you still looking for players?

#1 On weapon crits, only allow the weapon damage + weapon enchantment to be multiplied. Don't multiply str bonuses or other damage additives.

#2 Decouple the commonality of 'buying' magical items. Montey haul sucks and magic item marts suck even more.

I can't seem to find this question addressed anywhere:

Can you take an archetype for a new class that you multi class into later. For example, can I start out as a storm druid at level one and then at level two take sorcerer with the wildblood archetype?

I see lots of questions about multiple archtypes for the same class and I think the rules are quite clear about that. But what about archetypes for different classes? The book says 'when you select a class'. But is it just refering to level 1 or anytime you select a new class for the first time?

Thanks

Devilkiller wrote:

It seems a little silly to me that if you have 100gp before the game starts you can either spend them on 50gp worth of stuff or keep them and make 100gp worth of stuff the first time you get a few days off. It is almost like the DM would have to push the PCs into the first adventure real fast to make sure there's no time to scribe. If the party decides to stop and scribe/craft for a few days what's wrong with that?

It may be entertaining to note that the section of rules that explains how to handle this situation says

CRB page 140 wrote:

Each character begins play with a number of gold pieces that he can spend on weapons, armor, and other equipment.

It does not actually say that you are allowed to keep the leftover gold - and since it is stating what you can do with the gold it is implying anything other than what is listed can not be done.

With that said, I do not allow characters with item creation feats to apply the "I created it" pricing during the character creation/starting wealth process.

It's not about whether or not the character had the time to craft items before the story begins - it's about letting everyone start on a level playing field, and making sure that said level playing field also matches up to the expected power level of the campaign.

Otherwise the starting wealth section would simply say "You also start with any equipment that your GM agrees is fitting to your life experiences up to this point."

Example: Wizard says "I take at least 2 days off from my job as a librarian every week, so I've been scribing scrolls and storing them up for a while," to justify that he should be able to have twice the number of scrolls to start with - instead of being limited by their 25 gp cost.

I say he pays 25 gold, you say he pays 12.5.

Fighter says "My grandfather was a famed lieutenant in the imperial army and passed his specially commissioned suit of armor down to my father, who kept it well cared for but never used it and has...

Wow, that seems heavy handed to me. The game may start on day one. But the point is that the characters existed prior to day one of gaming. As long as the value does not exceed what they are supposed to start with then, I don't see why DMs should be such a hard ass to not allow them the fruits of their labor. If they have a craft skill and want to have invested a portion of their starting wealth into products of that craft, then why not? Is this a control issue? Why cant a character with a weapons smith background not have invested stock on hand, that he created, when the game starts? Why make such a fuss over it when you can just backstory a week or two of personal one on one roleplaying between you and that character to go over some crafting rolls? Unless the game begins with them in a limited environment, like a prison, or something I just don't see the reasoning in such punishment.

I'm still trying to figure out how those saying the staff magus isn't what its cracked up to be is also saying that the ONLY build worthwhile is the dex based dervish. I know I never said that. I think you could go with a str based bastard sword build if you wanted as well. You could go with a lot of weapons.

My only issue with a staff archtype build is the limited decent range in which to crit the spell. And to me, that is the bread and butter of this class. Being able to use your weapon crit range for your spells while striking with the weapon at the same time.

@Oxlar

What magus archetype are you using for the magus 7/EK 7? because the vanilla magus surely doesn't help you.
You lose will save, you lose improved spell recall, you lose two magus arcana, you lose heavy armor prof., you lose one caster level (ok this doesn't hurt much after some level), your arcane pool points don't increase, you are stuck with a +2 increase of your weapon through the arcane pool, you don't gain hit points*, you don't qualify for more fighter feats**, and you gain one more bonus feat, a +2 increase in BAB and most importantly one more iterative attack.

So what's your way of doing it because i don't really think that it's worth it this way.

*remember that PrCs don't get favored class hp which means that the magus' d8 is the practically the same as EK's d10

** a 14th level magus counts as 7th level fighter and so does a 7th level EK

PS I have no problem with the bronze dragon/air elemental crossblooded sorcerer 1 level dip, in fact the benefits seem to outweight the costs big time.

Your right on the HP. They should come close to being equal, if not a half a point per level on average in favor of the EK.

I thought those 'fighter levels' are cumulative, thus it comes out to a total of 10 qualifying fighter levels for meeting prereqs.

The bonus to attack and the extra attack are key. And if you have a touch attack that can fire off multiple times, thats much more quicker that you can discharge it. Thinking of stuff like chill touch.

The spell recall isn't that big of a deal because your biggest punch is for the lower level spells.

And since he is a dexer, I figured no big loss on the heavy armor.

Lastly your losing one bonus feat. You would have gotten two from EK, but only pick up one extra from full magus.

Granted your arcane pool is more limited and won't go as far in a prolonged fight, but I usually like the enduring blade arcana to offset something like that.

Thats how I'm weighing it anyways. But you may find other things more important than me.

Oxlar wrote:

Actually I never called 'you' or 'your group' out as anything. I was generalizing. Go back and check the context of my prose if you so wish.

I was simply pointing out how mechanically easier the game systems made it to 'munchikin' from 3rd ed and beyond. I also pointed out that its human nature to to take advantage of that and then justify choices and that I think ignorning those simple truths is naive.

You took it personally for some reason. I'll leave that up to you as to why there is significant percieved persecution and a need to defend yourself from a generalization.

You admit to generalizing and then imply that your sweeping generalizations were in no way directed at me despite being in direct response to me. Generalizations are by definition inclusive and not concerned with actuality as opposed to exclusive and concerned with specificity. Surely you don't expect people to assume exclusion from stated sweeping generalizations, unless of course you are trying to tell me that your choice of words and choice to generalize was unintentionally done. But somehow I get the impression it was very deliberate.

Defective induction is still a fallacy last time I checked. Just saying.

I think what you intended to say (see above quoted text) is far different then what you said via generalizing. Yes it is mechanically easier - and yes many do take advantage of that. But not all and perhaps not even most. Assuming that the sample group of the posters on forums is reflective of the greater base of players is still and always will be faulty reasoning.

My initial response to you was one of specificity (I was not ignoring anything simply pointing out that not everyone approches the game the way you seem to think most do and that I have and entire group of people who look for different things out of their RPGs) - and you respond with a dismissive generalization - that in and of itself is enough discourtesy to "strike a nerve."

Maybe a laxative, warm bubble bath,and xanax will do you some good.

Seriously, relax. The internet is a big place. If your going to throw a hissy fit over everything said by someone, your in for a tumultuous ride.

Loss of itemization seems like a rather huge hit to take for a class who's eidolon is the entire function of the class. I would think they need to make a special exception for the eidolon or your pretty well just screwed. Play a different class I suppose.

Oxlar wrote:

Sounds like I struck a nerve. Must have been food for thought. Natural reaction really.

You did - but not for the reasons you hoped for. Your discourtesy in telling me why I and my players play this game and how we go about character conception and how I was dishonest in my statements of what we focus on was the only thing I gave thought too. And yes - it is my natural reaction to not silently stand by while my integrity is impugned without basis.

Actually I never called 'you' or 'your group' out as anything. I was generalizing. Go back and check the context of my prose if you so wish.

I was simply pointing out how mechanically easier the game systems made it to 'munchikin' from 3rd ed and beyond. I also pointed out that its human nature to to take advantage of that and then justify choices and that I think ignorning those simple truths is naive.

You took it personally for some reason. I'll leave that up to you as to why there is significant percieved persecution and a need to defend yourself from a generalization.

Well, Magus + Eldritch Knight is one of the worst combos in the game, IMHO. The strength of the ElK is in full BAB with 9 levels of +1 to spellcasting. That favours spellcaster classes which get the most out of spells as they level, and doesn't favour spellcasting classes which get nifty Class Features as they level (but which won't be increased by the levels of ElK taken). Fighter 1 / Wizard 5 / ElK 10 is a good way to go, Magus + ElK is horribly self-nerfing. YMMV, of course, and this has been discussed to death in other threads anyway, so back to the Staff Magus...

By the time a trip-build Staff Magus and his non-trip scimitar Magus friend reach level 20, the Staff Magus is winning on several points:

1st of all, I don't build out to level 20. I build to level 15 as that is ususally the average top end of the APs.

And the magus + EK is NOT one of the worst combos in the game. Get real. Your getting an extra attack, qualifying for more fighter feats, full attack bonus, more hit points, and doing it while adding more spell casting to your existing arcane class (the magus). 7 magus, 7 EK, 1 sorc.

Most of the magus power comes from the first few spell levels. All you need is a casting level of 10 for your magus.

Offense:

Assuming that both Magi use haste or something similar, they're getting a basic +15/+15/+10/+5 attack routine at level 20 (before bonuses). The staff and the scimitar do the same base damage (1d6), and we'll assume they both have double their usual critical range (so 15-20 for the scimitar, and 19-20 for the staff).

So, under optimal circumstances, and assuming each result on a d20 comes up once over the course of 20 die rolls, over the course of 5 rounds each Magus misses once (the '1' result) and hits 19 times. We'll assume all criticals confirm though, so the scimitar Magus is getting 25 damage rolls (19 basic and 6 extra for the criticals), and the Staff Magus only 21 damage rolls (19 basic and 2 extra for the criticals). However, that's not the game the Staff Magus is playing...

Whilst the scimitar Magus does...

And what your forgetting is the synergy of the dexterity bonuses and the dervish feat. Your getting your dex bonus to damage and don't have to build str for damage bonus like you do with a staff.

And how many feats do you need to get to the twirling tripping staff? Where as the scimitar dervish is easy to get to and is performing much earlier.

And your still not taking in consideration that the scimitar crits 2 and a half times more often which also means that that entensified shocking grasp/empowered shocking grasp hits 2 and a half times more.

And don't pad stats with magic items, thats just silly, unless its someething the character can produce himself in his build.

Sounds like I struck a nerve. Must have been food for thought. Natural reaction really.

<puts on his oh so serious Fez (that 70's show) accent>

"I said good day!"

Oxlar wrote:

Haskul wrote:

When did D&D become a game about DPR and not role playing...

3rd edition and beyond. I thought it was obvious.

That is sad. It never became that way at my table, fortunately. But we are all old-school players most of us hailing from first edition and the youngest from 2e.

My advice - don't let optimization be a driving force in determining what to play or how to build/advance your character. This is first and foremost a roleplaying game - if your backstory or concept means choosing less "optimal" feats or weapons - do it and do so unrepentantly. It is better for your character to be what you WANT it to be then what others think it should be or want it to be.

I would rather play a character that makes me think, that I enjoy playing, and is original then something canned and labeled as "the best way to go." Because in the end - the best way to go is what you are going to have fun with while being challenged.

Reality is reality. People will always look for more synergistic combinations and then try and justify choices via background and story. I think feigning altruism is not being honest with the system and human nature. It didn't happen as much in 2nd edition and prior because you didn't have 'builds'. Your development path, mechanically speaking, was pretty much set from the beginning.

I play with people that make the very same claim and harp on people who make decisions based off of 'abilities' and then does the same damn thing but its ok because they have an acceptable backstory to go with it.

So please spare me. The system is what it is and has changed. And that change mostly happened from 3rd ed on.

When did D&D become a game about DPR and not role playing...

3rd edition and beyond. I thought it was obvious.

Sure if your going for theme and flavor. But everything said just pales in comparison to an extra 20% chance to do 20d6 or 30d6. I'll take the scimitar magus/eldritch knight combo thank you very much. Throw in a craft wand and wand wielder in there and you've got way more than what the staff magus can ever supply. And don't forget the dip into crossblood/wild sorc for the +2 damage per dice. Yeah, that extra crit range is looking mighty fine.

The critical flaw (pun intended) is the lack of crit range on the staff for a staff magus. The extra crit range for your touch spells on spell strike is your bread an butter in a magus class. Thus any weapon that is crit on 20 only, is just not worth it.

Until they fix this with the archetype, its just too weak compared to other magus.

I seriously don't understand the point of a book like this. 10 items?

I'm sitting here looking at my four encyclopedia magica for 2nd edition with well over a thousand magical items in it, many detailed. Now thats what I could use. A book with unique items with a couple paragraphs of history on each one. A book like that can save a lot of work for a GM and add a lot to the game at the same time.

But wasting a whole book on 10 items just seems like ...well... a waste. I mean, even the book of artifacts in 2nd ed had way more than 10. Honestly this book seems like stuff that should have been added to other books.

I really like a lot of the pathfinder stuff, but then there seems to be times that I feel like I'm in a cash shop for an MMO or being sold half a video game and expected to pay for DLC that should have already been included.

But I'm not talking about meta magic feats. I'm talking about other class abilities/bloodline bonuses/or domain bonuses. I understand that meta magic feats have spell level altering side effects and don't mesh, and that there is even a feat for those instead. But my concerns are with a different aspect of modification.

So even though its a spell like ability and the orc bloodline says 'spell', it will still add to it?

What about something like the draconic bloodline that gives you +1 damage to all spells of a certain element type? If you get +1 damage to all fire spells would that apply to sorcerer spell like abilities like an elemental ray that you can get at 1st level?

The maps are not battle maps. They're larger scale maps that depict things like entire islands or cities or regions.

Older map folios reprinted dungeon-type maps from the adventures at the same scale that they appeared in print.

I did the math at one point to determine how much it'd cost to do all of the maps in an typical adventure path at battle map scale, and it ended up being something close to 500 pages or so. And we'd have to charge WELL over a hundred bucks for a single AP's battle maps as a result (since a page of map costs a LOT more than a page of text).

Don't do every encounter, just the large ones or main encounters. Pick and choose which ones to do. I always loved it in modules when they did a fold out poster that was battle map sized for minis in a key area. We can draw out the little stuff.

Ideally I think you should do one big color poster like you are currently doing with 'street names' if applicable but not have secret info or encounter numbers. Then do two fold out poster battle maps of big key encounter areas or dungeon, and a handful of small single sheet battle maps for other key encounters and leave it at that. Let us worry about drawing out all the smaller/optional encounters.

I would buy something like that. Make a product that your customers are asking for and your going to be successful at it.

I wonder if they are starting to get the hint, that the product people want are encounter battle maps for figs for each AP?

I personally thought thats what the map folios were until I started reading the discussions about them. I was dumbfounded that the product was not what it obviously should be.

I don't mind the random format as I understand how it keeps productions costs and inventory overhead down.

However, am I the only one on this thread that thinks the minis are way too cartoony with very little depth? Give them a dark inkwash or something, please. After collecting thousands of DDM minis, I'm not impressed by these minis at all. Paizo should be shooting for the height of DDM which was the bloodwar set. Thats the quality and design brass ring. These look like they are cartoons.

Well good thing I didn't make a post about whether or not something was 'cheese'. I just wanted to know if it was acceptable by the rules, which isn't subject to one's personal definition of 'uncool'.

But thanks for the additional input that it rubs you the wrong way.