Tengu Verymuch's page

Any chance of getting some dwarves or halflings in this set? Or a gnome spellcaster of somekind?

I am not familiar with PFS rules, so, some of my suggestions may not be legal.

"Fates Favored" trait is a MUST. There is no reason you wouldn't want to improve your bonuses by an extra +1.

The second trait is up to you. Both Matt2VK's suggestion for that extra initiative ("Reactionary") or keerawa's suggestion for "Maestro the Society" are excellent suggestions. I would go with the latter for the extra 3 rounds of Archaeologist Luck.

I learned about Lingering Performance could be applied to Archaeologist Luck on these boards actually. Again, there is no reason to not accept extra opportunities to use your luck. I have to disagree on Matt2VK's point of vue of "Lingering Performance" usefulness in low combat games. Bards are usually the group's skill monkey and Archaeologist Luck can be used on skill checks, so even if the game lacks combat encounters, extra uses of luck is never a bad thing.

I also built an halfling archaeologist and I went with a dip into Ranger with Wild Stalker and Trapper archetypes. The Trapper archetype gives you Disable Device (and "Trapfinding") as a class skill without spending a trait for it , and the Wild Stalker archetype gives you nice perception bonuses with "Strong Senses".

"Strong Senses (Ex): At 1st level, a wild stalker's life among the wild has sharpened his senses. He gains low-light vision and a +1 bonus on Perception checks. If he already has low-light vision, he gains a +2 bonus on Perception checks instead. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels after 1st..."

A level dip into Ranger also gives you the same number of skill points as a bard, +1 BAB, +1 on REF and FORT saves, access to better armor and weapons, tracking.

I would keep DEX at 18 and go for the archery option as the OP. The bard was always meant as a support character, not a frontliner. Plus, a halfling with high DEX makes a VERY stealthy scout, adding extra trapfinding, better perception/senses, and tracking only makes sense.

Young Boromir wrote:

So far this set looks great! 21 of 22 minis previewed to date for Reign of Winter are winners to me, and the only one (Maftet) that's not, could grow on me. I'm betting I won't be as fond of some of the weirder rates coming up, but am glad to see such a strong set so far. Love the previews. Definitely fun for a guy who loves minis! Thanks.

Lol you take humans and goats over cool monsters?

Why can't we have both?

Especially after last set that was all about demons, I could use some more basic stuff that the Pathfinder Battles line is missing.
I for one, am VERY happy to see more humans, and more animals in this set. Maybe it's because I don't like to mix different miniature lines in the same game. Golarion has it's own colors and themes. Just look at their goblins that sure don't look like any other goblins from other publishers.

I am all for cool monsters, but do I need half dozen variants of succubus-types? Not really. In most of my games, I will use and reuse more humans and other PC proxies (dwarves, halflings, gnomes, etc.) than most big monsters that might only see play once or twice (except for classic rank and file monsters like goblins, orcs, zombies, etc).

In the game I just started last week-end, my players had to make do with miniature that looked very little like their character because they are still too little options for PCs (except if you are a human pirate!). Our gnome fire-wielding sorcerer has to use the Eel from the Skull & Shackles set as a proxy because they are no male gnome caster in any set. He is crossing his fingers that Balazar will be the second iconic in this set. In my games, the party almost always have riding dogs or a donkey or a horse to carry extra equipment. I would love to use an actual mini instead of using a token (or the awkward jumping wolf from the first set as proxy for a dog).

I prefer to see more miniatures that have the potential to see more use/time on the grid map, than too many weird monster that I might never use. Sure, once in a while, a cool miniature might inspire me to include a monster I might not have considered playing otherwise, just for the fun of dropping it on the grid and see my players react to it. All I'm saying is the Pathfinder Battles line is still young and has many holes to fill, and I am happy this set looks like it will do just that.

Sweet Desna!

An owl!!!

How cool is that!?

I was just going to proxy last preview's Falcon as most bird familiars, but this is just SO much better.

And the actual miniature looks great too.

Happy, happy! Joy, joy!

I did not see the goat coming (never read the AP), but yeah sure. I sure can use some. As Vigil pointed out, they add some non-fantastic color to Smuggler's Shiv. The goat add another much needed option for familiar, can be used to populate farms, small towns, a perfect innocent looking polymorphed enemy/monster, etc. I am already thinking about ways to put goats in as many game as I can GM as a quirky running gag... It just stimulate my GM creativity as I am writing this...

The two human casters looks very nice too. Nazenha, in particular, is beautiful with the flowing robe and all. And Radosek might just be the perfect stand-in for my planned cameo appearance of Tim Pratt's Rodrick in my game when my players get a few more levels (the Ice woand looks almost like a sword).

This looks like THE set that will make me go crazy and go for a full case... The only thing I dread are those probable out-of-time russian soldiers... I hope they are not too many of those. Those and tanks, and Rasputin, are the reason I didn't buy this AP. Not a big fan of historical figures invading my fantasy world. A Rasputing mini wouldn't bug me though, I would just use him for something else.

Erik Mona wrote:

I'd be interested in hearing if anyone else thinks that's a good idea. I have rather a lot of Large monsters I'd prefer to do sooner, personally.

I agree with Alexander on both statements. The idea of enlarged icons-presumably for the Enlarge Person spell or other such effects-is very niche. I'm now running several campaigns, and in only one of them is a player using an iconic piece as their pc's miniature. Thus, even if you did produce these, I'm not entirely positive I'd be purchasing any at all.

I do think the idea of size enlargement bases holds merit. That would allow us to customize which pc's are "enlarged". It would even give us added flexibility to use with creatures, thus representing the "Animal Growth" spell and other such effects. Personally, that spell has seen much more use in my campaigns than Enlarge Person.

I would rather all those Large-sized monster miniatures see the light of day before any enlarged iconics. And financially speaking, I'm much more likely to purchase multiple monsters.

+1 on "NO enlarged Iconics for me".