snappa's page

If you're planning on playing the modules with a regular home group, and never attend cons/retail games, the best method is to divide up the GMing responsibilities so that you only have to eat one module in 5 or 6. Based on the adventure blurbs, you can kind of decide ahead of time which adventures don't appeal to you or your character and eat those.

Down here in the Tampa area, we have a few active con-goers who tend to play the modules at cons, and then come home and run them for the rest of the people who GM at the retail stores and home games. This worked out pretty well for LG, where any DM in the area would only have to eat a couple of modules a year, often core modules that didn't sound appealing to them in the first place.

It will be a bit more difficult with PS modules, since none of us are attending GenCon this year, but we'll probably schedule a day to play all 4 of the first set, with a different person running each. That will let us all play 3 and eat 1, and thus advance our characters to level 2, and have a group of 5-6 GMs who can then run all 4 for the rest of the area. Obviously, if there is more than one group of active PS players in the area, the play to eat ratio quickly increases to where you're only eating a couple of modules a year.

If it really becomes a problem finding people willing to eat a module, a possible GM perk, and something similar to what Blackmoore does, would be to allow a GM who eats a module to add an experience point to one of his/her characters, but not gain any of the other benefits to playing an adventure (coins, item access, faction prestige, etc). Obviously there would have to be some sort of paperwork for this which would document the adventure eaten and the players who played it.

I grabbed the free one to check out the writing before I spent the money on the others. Likewise, it failed to personalize.

You know . . . now that we know what direction Paizo is going, this seems like it could be a really good idea again . . . although I imagine that we probably have to see if there are any changes to conditions overall.

I'd love to see these things though.

And to expand on the idea, once the final list of spells and how they work are set, how about "buff" cards for players to set on their sheets to remind them of various spells, with the breakdown of what they do?

I went looking for condition cards, and my google-fu lead me to this old post. Couldn't find what I was looking for available for .pdf, so I made a set of cards (one for each of the conditions in the SRD) in MS Publisher as business cards.

They are pretty simple, a black box with the condition name in large white text, and a bordered text box beneath it with a one-sentence description of the condition in italics, and a bulleted list of modifiers beneath that.

For example:

Prone
You are on the ground.

• You take a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon other than a crossbow (at no penalty).
• You gain a +4 bonus to AC against ranged attacks.
• You suffer a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
• Standing is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.

I'm going to try to convert them to pdf format with 10 conditions on each page (standard business card printing is 2x5 per page). Would anyone be interested in the .pdf when it's finished? They're 3.5 SRD now, but I intend to create a set for PRPG Beta one the rules are released.

A box of 400 good-quality non-perforated business cards (40 sheets) is about $30, so to print a set isn't too big of an investment. Considering how often my group forgets about little things like sickened effects, I think they'll be a big hit at the next game session.

Okay, I was so proud of my players today I have to share. I had been dreading the giant attack at the beginning of Fortress of the Stone Giants. A huge battle that was going to be very long, involve lots of creatures and NPC's, and cover the entire city, making it practically unplayable on a grid. My players hate playing without a grid, and I don't much like long fights, so I wasn't looking forward to running the fight. I almost changed the fight entirely, making the attack happen before the characters arrived at Sandpoint. God I'm so glad I didn't.

This was one of the most epic battles I have ever ran. The party was running, or riding, through the city fighting giants. Making use of their haste and fly spells. The scout of our group stole a horse during the commotion and rode through the streets, shooting her shortbow at giants and direbears.

The highlight was the dragon fight however. Longtooth swooped through the town, set fire to the Garrison and the Cathedral. Then perched on the armory across the square from the cathedral and roared a bit. The wizard, who casted fly on himself at the beginning of the fight, dimensioned doored himself, the scout, and the horse she was riding, 40 feet above the dragon.

The scout succeeds a ride check, holds on to the horse as it plummets. The dragon failed a perception check to notice the horse and rider falling on his head. The horse hits the dragon on the head with a resounding thud, dealing enough damage to the horse to kill it, and enough damage to Longtooth to really piss him off. The scout was able to tumble off the horse and onto the dragons back.

Next round, the dragon takes off. The scout again succeeds a ride check to hold on. She pulls a rope from her pack and succeeds a dexterity check to toss the rope around the dragon and tie herself to its back. The dragon begins doing barrel rolls and flying at full speed (300 feet per round).

The wizard, in a shockingly intelligent move, sees this dragon flying so fast, and throws an invisible force wall...

Wow. That is some of the coolest bit of cinematic DMing I've seen in a long time.

It reminds me of a 2nd edition game I was running where the party rogue's intelligent CN shortsword (appropriately named 'Havoc') dimension doored him onto the back of a black dragon flying 100 feet or so overhead. He had made the mistake of bragging that 'if that dragon was down here I'd show him who's boss).

I allow the player to control his animal companion unless I see that player is having his companion do things that are outside of that companions ability. Examples: An animal intelligence companion starts taking actions that are beyond the tricks he has been taught. (setting up flanks, blocking escape routes, targeting obvious spellcasters without being directed to, etc) Or to the ridiculous where a player had a summoned celestial buffalo attempt to grapple a human opponent.

In cases like that I will step in and control the NPC.

I agree with all of the above with one exception. Any animal that in real life is a 'pack hunter', such as a dog, wolf, or lion, I will allow to set up flanks, and adjust 5' to better surround or flank. This is instinctual for such animals and it's not too much of a stretch for them to see their druid/ranger master and his/her companions as their pack.

My living greyhawk character was a riding dog with a druid/beastmaster companion (well it felt that way at times). With barding, and the insane natural ac bonuses companions get, they are often a better 'corking' tank than anyone else in the party up until 7th or 8th level.

I'm thinking of playing a druid soon for a new campaign and am considering the augment summoning feat. However, the prerequisite is Spell Focus (conjuration) (unless Pathfinder Beta changes that!). Does anyone have a list of druid conjuration spells that require a saving throw? Is the spell focus worth it for a druid?

I don't have the list you're looking for, but having played several druids, I can tell you that regardless of the usefulness of spell focus on its own, I find augment summoning well worth the extra feat slot. I would be surprised if the beta changed the preqreq, as the augment summoning feat is generally considered (in my circles) as a must-have for any summoning focused character. Removing the prereq makes it an almost automatic choice for any druid/wizard/cleric who uses summons even some of the time.

Case in point. My wizard's cohort is a druid 4. We just started the 3rd adventure in RotRL and are fighting monsters that tend to hit very hard, but have low ACs/CR. On 3 separate occasions last night, the extra 4 hps her wolf summons received from augment summoning made the difference between getting dropped in one hit, or sticking around that extra round for another trip attempt/flanking bonus. The extra +4 strength make a large difference in damage with claw/claw/bite summons and bite/claw/claw+improved grab/rake/rake kitties.

snappa wrote:

Breaking is spending a standard action on your own turn in order to escape the grapple. The text specifies this: "If you are grappled..." meaning you have the grappled condition because someone succeeded on a grapple check against you, "you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action..."

Okay. It's a standard action. Does the PC have the make a combat maneuver to break the grapple? What is the DC? Exactly what mechanic is used? Or is that the grappled PC gives up his "standard action" for one round and is now not grappled?

As it reads, it seems that grappling is very hard, but breaking a grapple takes nothing more than giving up a standard action. That can't be right.

I guess I should have quoted the whole thing:

If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple
as a standard action by making a combat maneuver
check (DC 15 + opponent’s CMB, this does not provoke
an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (DC 10 +
opponent’s CMB). If you succeed, you break the grapple
and can act normally.

The same mechanic would be used to escape a pin. As the description of the Pinned Condition says, a pin is just a more severe type of grappled condition:

Pinned
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few
actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is f lat-footed.
A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to
his armor class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions
that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to
free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or
Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and
mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a
somatic or material component. A pinned creature that
attempts to cast a spell must make a Spellcraft check (DC
15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more
severe version of grappled.

TK342 wrote:

pssqd wrote:

One strategy my groups use to good effect when grappling happens is to have the rouges get grappled just so they can sneak attack the foe to death.

What you're suggesting doesn't work in 3.5. Grappling Combatants only lose their Dex bonus to those outside the grapple. They retain their Dex bonus against those they are grappling with.

That being said, the party I'm DMing at the moment has the following standing strategy. Monk grapples someone. Everyone else surrounds and sneak attacks the hell out of it.

TK342 (a relative of TK421 perhaps, and why aren't you at your post) is correct here. The loss of Dex will not be returning to the grapple rules any time soon I think. It made grapple a bit too good. As for the monk and rogue grapple/sneak attack combo, you can still accomplish this with flanking pretty easily.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I thought the same thing myself, Jason. A rogue/grappler combo still works very well, as the grappler prevents the opponent from moving. This makes it much easier for the rogue to move into a flank, using the grappler to flank the grapplee, and then stay there in order to gain iterative sneak attacks. And all without the kludgy "move into the grappler's square" from 3.5.

I think you hit close to the perfect combination of simplicity and power with the latest version. I haven't had a chance to playtest yet, but just doing the math in my head, I do think the base DC of 15 may be a bit too high. Of course, lowering it too much, and the +5 bonus on subsequent rounds becomes too powerful. It's definitely something I hope to playtest when I start DMing CotCT for my group as our playtest campaign.

After a session today, we discovered another example of why the DC for CMB should be lowered to 10 + Target's CMB. The Monk PC attempted a one-handed grab with Improved Grapple and found it next to impossible to do, since a one-handed grab takes a -4 penalty. That makes the base DC for a one-handed grapple a 19! Before CMB is even figured in!

And just out of curiosity, is the text on breaking a grapple a hold over from previous editions? Since there is no opposed role, how would a target actively prevent ("break") a grapple attempt. The DC is static. Does Escape Artist come into play? Did I miss something?

I see breaking and preventing as two different things. Preventing or defending yourself against the grapple is passive, and is represented by your CMB adding to the DC of the initiator's check. Breaking is spending a standard action on your own turn in order to escape the grapple. The text specifies this: "If you are grappled..." meaning you have the grappled condition because someone succeeded on a grapple check against you, "you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action..."

In the paragraph above the one I quoted, the +5 circumstance bonus is awarded subsequent rounds, and the mention of the opponent breaking the grapple is alluding to the attempt on their round.

2. Sorcerors gain a "spontaneous counterspell" class feature, similar to option 1, but in that they spontaneously convert a spell slot into a rampant snarl of magical energy to "bugger up" an enemy spell (using the Dispel Magic rules for counterspelling). Again, determining if this is a immediate action or not might still be the deal breaker, but it certainly gives Sorcerors an interesting tactical option, and makes them extremely attractive, at least in my eyes, relative to wizards. Of course, if any level of spell could be sacrificed, the maximum caster level bonus on the counterspell roll would have to be appropriately adjusted for the level of spell. Perhaps they could get a maximum bonus equal to the spell level x2+1? That means the bonus caps right before getting the next level of spells.

I had just posted in the other counterspell thread that I thought making counterspells into actual spells would give sorcerers too much of an advantage over wizards as far as counterspelling goes, but now that I think about it, your second idea (which I hadn't read when I posted my idea in that thread <grin>) would be a nice way to give sorcerer's a boost which, even with the bloodlines, they still need in comparison to wizards.

I think the immediate action may be a bit too good, and would also suggest that you require the sorcerer to give up a spell slot of equal or higher level than the spell being cast to even have a chance of countering. If he/she makes the free-action spellcraft check to identify a spell as it's being cast, great, he/she knows exactly what to burn. If not, they may have to spend their highest level slot and hope it's enough.

Interesting, but it looks like it would make sorcerers much better at counter-spelling than their wizard counterparts by virtue of always having it available if they know it. I'd rather see an alternate mechanic where a wizard or sorcerer could convert a spell slot of equal or higher level than the spell being cast in order to make a dispel check. The arcane version of divine casters' spontaneous casting, if you will.

Depending on how much of a role you want counter-spelling to play in your campaign, it could either be a class trait, or a feat with a prerequisite of Improved Counterspell.

I'm not a big fan of the ability boosters in 3.5. I think the changes in Alpha 2 are a step in the right direction, but may end up hurting certain character concepts which require boosts in multiple physical or mental stats to keep up with the high level math. I'd rather see the ability boosts as an inherent part of leveling up, than something found in a treasure trove.

I've been working out the math on an ability-progression system that could replace the ability boosters without affecting the overall power-level of the character at any particular level. I hope to use it as a house rule in my campaigns. Obviously, it will be necessary to also reduce the average wealth by level by an equal amount to that saved by getting the stats for free when leveling up.

My problem comes with determining what the average amount of ability-boosts from items is at certain levels. Currently, I'm using the following baseline:

3.5 ruleset
-----------
4th lvl: +1 total/+1 max to any one stat (+1 from levels)
6th lvl: +3 total/+3 max to any one stat (1 +2 item, +1 from levels)
8th lvl: +6 total/+4 max to any one stat (2 +2 items, +2 from levels)
12th lvl: +9 total/+7 max to any one stat (1 +4 item and 1 +2 item, +3 from levels)
16th lvl: +14 total/+10 max to any one stat (1 +6 item and 1 +4 item, +4 from levels)
20th lvl: +17 total/+11 max to any one stat (2 +6 items, +5 from levels)

To those DMs that regularly run games up to 20th level, does this look like a fair average for your typical PC? Most of my 3.5 experience has come from playing and judging Living Greyhawk, where stat-boosting items were relatively common due to the ease of gaining access to them. Most home games I've run have ended between 8th and 12th level, so I don't have a lot of data on the higher level toons.

I've toyed around with awarding 2 ability points every other level which must be applied to different abilities. It tends to overpower the lower levels, which don't need any more boosts beyond those already made in the PRPG. 20th level characters come out a bit ahead of their current 3.5 counterparts if the 3.5 character uses two slots of magical items, and a bit behind if the 3.5 character has boosters in 3 slots. Here's the breakdown on that advancement, shown at the same levels as above:

4th lvl: +4 total/+2 max to any one stat.
6th lvl: +6 total/+3 max to any one stat.
8th lvl: +8 total/+4 max to any one stat.
12th lvl: +12 total/+6 max to any one stat.
16th lvl: +16 total/+8 max to any one stat.
20th lvl: +20 total/+10 max to any one stat.

So, I'm torn. I really don't want to boost the low levels any more, but also don't want to get too complex with the scaling on the system. I also like the point-per-level gain of this system. Its symmetry appeals to me.

Maybe it's not as big an issue as I'm making it. We've been starting with 28 or 32 point buys to add some survivability at the low levels. If I switch to a 25 point buy or elite array, that should solve the low-level power creep.

Gary Teter wrote:

If you insist.

Go to your My Downloads page and get all the Alpha 2 goodness!

See also the shiny new forums.

Did it replace the old ones? I'm not seeing a new document among the rest.

Yup, and it's still named 1110. Be sure you don't save it over your old one when you extract it from the zip. I opened the pdf in the zip folder and then saved as Alpha2.

If you insist.

Go to your My Downloads page and get all the Alpha 2 goodness!

See also the shiny new forums.

Woohoo! Downloaded!

Hitting refresh over and over isnt helping....dammit

Go back to the main forums page. Alpha 2 forums are up.

I'm a fan of keeping classes as distinct as possible, and think the alpha release 1, and the barbarian spoilers from alpha 2 are a great example of this. Having a points-based system for rage, with different powers costing different amounts of points gives the barbarian a unique 'feel' while playing it. Similarly, the rogue's ability to pick from a list of powers unique to the rogue, with some having prerequisites mirrors feat progression, but keeps the majority of the rogue's powers in the hands of the rogue class.

Along similar lines, I'd love to see a perform-based powers system for bards. Elsewhere, it's been stated that perform is an almost-completely useless skill for other classes, other than its role-playing value. 3.x pretty much guaranteed that bards would keep perform maxed in order to gain new bard powers at the level which they became available, but didn't really give a compelling reason for a bard to branch out into multiple sub-skills of perform.

My friend (the other DM of our gaming group) and I had a long discussion about revamping the bard class recently. We both agreed that the bard class needs a better definition of 'scope' as it were. (Sorry, we're both IT developer geeks) Bards have been called 'jacks of all trades, masters of none', but truly, they aren't even _good_ at many things other than combat support and social encounters.

The SRD bard is obviously meant to fulfill a 'support' role in the party, but does so only adequately. The Inspire <X> bardic music powers are a good start, and the bard's spell list supports them well, but it is certainly possible to play a buffing-oriented transmuter or cleric who provides much more combat support to the rest of the party in terms of sheer bonus number potential. In fact, it could be argued that the cleric is the true 'support' class of D&D when healing is grouped under 'support'.

The other role where the current bard excels is as the party face. No other SRD class save the rogue has class-skill access to all three of the social skills (diplomacy, bluff, sense motive) and the skill points to keep all at effective levels. And rare is the rogue with enough charisma to match a bard. Combined with available enchantments and the fascinate/suggestion bardic music abilities, there's no one who can swing a non-combat encounter in a party's favor like the bard from a game-mechanics perspective.

Both of us are huge fans of the beguiler class from the PHB2 from a flavor/role standpoint. However, our experience playing/running for a beguiler fell far short of expectations. By throwing all of its eggs in one basket spell-wise (illusion + enchantment...will save magic), the beguiler ended up being almost completely useless in any encounter featuring opponents unaffected by illusions or enchantments. Considering the campaign in question was the Savage Tide, the character ended up being a poor excuse for a rogue in almost half of the encounters in the first 2 adventures (undead, enchantment-immune savage template, etc).

The same problem would exist with a bard class designed with enchantment/mind affecting abilities as its focus. Hence, the party face/charm bard would fall short anywhere except social encounters. Again, this relegates the bard shining in a a certain subset of adventure types, namely socially-driven campaigns. In my experience with those, however, a given player's ability to role-play often outweighs the ranks in the diplomacy skill. A 10-charisma wizard played by a well-spoken and intelligent player will often have more of an impact on a role-playing encounter than the 18-charisma bard played by an introvert who grabs a die and says 'Diplomacy check'. Such is the nature of mimicking real world social interaction in an imaginary environment.

Taking all this into account, we sought to redefine the bard as the ultimate social animal and group buffing class. This would ensure that the bard would have its moments to shine in non-combat encounters, but still pull its own weight when swords (or lutes) are drawn. The actual execution of this would be a two-part task. First, to revamp bardic music to a deeper and more unique system which would reward high perform-check rolls rather than just ranks in the skill (fulfilling a requirement of making the class unique and compelling to play mechanically). Second, to revise the bard's spell list, or replace its spell-casting with more bardic music powers which fit the redefined class's role.

Our conversation never went beyond the mental masturbation stage, and we didn't get into specific powers or design, but here are some of the ideas we had based on the current state of the alpha rules:

-Increase bardic music uses per day at lower levels. In keeping with the idea of at-will abilities for specialist wizards and cleric turning-based healing, the bard's music should not limit him to a 15-minute adventuring day. Is the +1 damage from Inspire Courage so much better than Bless that it, and a few 0 level spells per day are a fair trade-off in comparison to a 1st level cleric?

-Replace the standard action requirement with a move action to continue certain bardic music abilities with a move action.

-Scale the effects of bardic music based on a target DC for a perform check similar to the new grapple rules. At +N over the target DC the effect is increased, or harder to resist (higher save DC for the target), or affects a greater area or number of targets, etc. The target DC should remain low enough that a bard built with the standard array should rarely 'fail' the check entirely.

-Allow for re-rolls on the perform check to increase the effect if the original result was not to the bard's liking, but with the danger of a failed check ending the ability early.

For example, consider the following redefinition of bardic music and the Inspire Courage and Fascinate abilities:

Bardic Performance

Beginning at first level, a bard can use his Perform skill to produce magical effects on those around him (usually including himself, if desired). These abilities fall under the category of bardic performance, and represent the bard reciting poetry, chanting, singing lyrical songs, singing melodies, whistling, playing an instrument, or dancing to produce the effect. Each ability requires a minimum bard level and a Perform check to activate.

A bard begins play with a number of daily uses of Bardic Music equal to two, plus his charisma modifier (if positive). For every class level gained, the bard gains an additional two uses of bardic music per day. Higher level bardic music abilities may require more than one use of the ability to activate.

Starting a bardic music effect is a standard action which does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Some bardic music abilities are considered ongoing performances, which means the bard may devote a move-equivalent each turn, declared at the beginning of his turn, to maintain an ongoing effect. While performing, the bard may not cast spells that require verbal and/or somatic components, nor activate items by spell-trigger, spell-completion, nor spells requiring a command word.

Just as for casting a spell with a verbal component, a deaf bard has a 20% chance to fail when attempting to use bardic music. If he fails, the attempt still counts against his daily limit.

Any subsequent use of bardic performance after a given performance ends requires another standard action to activate and consumes more uses per day equal to the cost of the performance being activated.

Level 1 Bardic Performance: Inspire Courage (Su) (DC 10)

By spending one use of bardic performance, a bard can begin a performance designed to inspire courage in his allies (including himself), bolstering them against fear and improving their combat abilities. This ability affects the bard, and all allies within 30 feet who are able to hear or view the bard's performance. An affected ally receives a +1 morale bonus on saving throws against charm and fear effects and a +1 morale bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls. For every 8 points by which the check exceeds the target DC, the bonus increases by 1 (to a maximum of +5). A bard may continue this performance on subsequent turns (see above). He may choose to use a standard action to re-roll the Perform check each round as desired, altering the bonus provided based on the new check's result. However, the bard must abide by the result of the new Perform check, even if it is lower. The performance and bonuses provided end immediately when the bard fails a Perform check, or chooses not to continue the performance.

Level 2 Bardic Performance: Fascinate (Sp) (DC 13)

By spending one use of bardic performance, a bard can begin a performance designed to fascinate one or more creatures within 90 feet, and able to perceive the performance. With a successful Perform check, the bard causes the targets to make a Will save against a DC equal to the result of the Perform check, or remain fascinated (as the condition) with the bard's performance until the performance ends, or until the condition is broken (see definition). The total HD of creatures fascinated must be less than or equal to the bard's class level. For every 5 points by which the check succeeds, the bard may affect an additional four HD of creatures. The bard may choose as many eligible targets as are in range before the Perform check is made. Creatures targeted with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the bard are affected first. Hit Dice that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted. A creature succeeding in its will save against this ability is to any further Fascinate attempts by that bard for 24 hours. Fascinate is an enchantment (compulsion), mind-affecting ability.

Considering the scope of changes and additions that occured with this document, Alpha release 2 will contain all of the content from release 1. We wanted to do them as seperate documents, but the amount of changes meant that it did not make much sense to do it that way.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

As a software designer, I can say better to have a large scope of changes than large changes to scope during alpha. (little design humor there)

My character fell for Ameiko, and now they are an item. (and she's pregnant, though they don't know that yet.)

Anyone else have any love stories to share?

Thanks

My wizard, Hamburg, is currently involved with Shayliss Vinder. What started as an innocent rat hunt turned into a bloodless, but dangerous war with her father. A botched bluff check in the basement led to a lucky color spray escape.

Later, at the conclusion of Burnt Offerings, our adventuring party threw a party at Ameiko's inn and invited all the movers and shakers in town. Ven's family's invitation was a bit different than the others passed out, in that it announced a wake in memorium of my character. Ven was quite displeased when he arrived to find me whole and hale.

Worse, was later that night when a pair of invisibility spells led to Shayliss and I making our escape from the party. While we were gone, the DM decided to segue into the second adventure with the discovery of the stuff that happens at the mill (thread title doesn't have spoilers in it).

I missed the following game session, so for a while, my wizard was a suspect. When we returned, it was with a cover story that we had run off and gotten married, which, strangely enough, seems to have brought an end to the hostilities between and his "new stepfather".

Shayliss is acting like they really did get married, so Hamburg is a bit confused, but going with the flow for now. Besides, he's about to leave on a trip to Magnimar, and she's still got her final year at Turandarok Academy to finish, so she'll be staying with her folks while he's gone.

He's still trying to find a way to tell Shayliss about his other girlfriend, a priestess of Desna that he met on the boat to Sandpoint, but parted ways with in Magnimar. It hasn't come up so far, but knowing my DM's love for dramatic moments, she'll wander back into Hamburg's life at just the right time.

True... but 18th level commoners are a pretty good example of something I don't see us EVER doing, no matter how brilliant the idea. Because honestly, once a commoner hits 10th level... he's certainly not "common" anymore. He may not be the equivalent of a 9th level fighter, but he's certainly hale and hearty enough to hold his own against lower level foes. At which point, the "brilliant idea" would not only have to convince me why the high-level commoner exists in the first place, but why he never took a level of a REAL class.

Agreed, at that point the NPC should be dipping into the Local Legend NPC-only prestige class, that features such abilities as 'smack down smarmy low-level PC' and 'detect impure intentions toward daughter'.

James Jacobs wrote:

Adding in monsters from d20 sources is certainly possible. But keep in mind we can't afford to produce a 600 page monster book all at once...

Lol.. 600 page monster manual oh my.

No no no, I'm thinking more along the lines of pulling out the monsters from the Monster Manual that people don't use, don't see a lot of use, no one likes, and replacing them with more desirable third party options.

I have Monster Manual 1-5, Creature Collection 1 & 2, Advanced Bestiary, Tome of Horrors 1 & 2.. wait that's 10 lol.. Monsters of Faerun.. 11.. oye!

Anyway.... all I'm saying is there's room to improve "the Monster Manual" and I believe it's by trading out some monsters.

Ask 20 DMs to tell you their 20 most favorite and 20 least favorite monsters in the Monster Manual, and you'll get a list of about 200 different monsters. Several of those monsters will be on most favorite and least favorite lists. It would be very hard to come up with a list of rejects that'll make everyone happy. Every DM I know has their own personal 'rarely-used favorite' monster that they would rail about were it dropped from the Paizo manual.

Besides that, anything in the WOTC Monster Manuals after the 1st (and even some monsters in it), as well as monsters from any other WOTC adventure/supplement are off-limits as they aren't open source. I'm not familiar with most of the others, but since they're posted under OGL, I'm guessing most of those companies chose to share.

I'd prefer to see all of the SRD monsters updated, as well as some of the favorites from the first 3 Pathfinder APs which would make it easier to convert those adventures to PRPG. Later books can reprint some of the other OGL monsters out there. Tome of Horrors PRPG Edition would be sweet.

I am forced to step in to defend Amiri's honor!

Keep in mind that this blog post isn't intended to be a preview of Amiri's stats. It's a preview of the barbarian stats as they'll look in Alpha Release 2 of the Pathfinder RPG. Fans of Amiri's large sized bastard sword can rest assured that she'll retain said sword when she gets statted up in Pathfinder.

Jason keeps finding ways to vex me! I must now craft some sort of revenge...

Amiri sounds like one of your brainchildren, James.

Why give different experience to different people based on class choice? Is a class/race combo from a 3.5 splatbook going to be inherently more powerful than a PFRPG base class? It seems like the alpha raised the power levels of the base classes enough to make them all viable to 20th.

I thought the idea behind the 3 xp charts was to allow DMs to make the pace of gaining levels fit their and their players' gaming style. Maybe I'm just a communist at heart, but other than the occasional token RP award, I award equal experience to everyone at a session (and our group recently voted to share exp equally with people who miss a session through no fault of their own).

So I got the bright idea to compare notes with other DMs on their Character Creation Guidelines for this, the newest of Paizo's Adventure Paths.

Here's mine, you can critique them, post your own, whatever.

--------------------------------------------------

Character Creation Guidelines for The Curse of the Crimson Throne

Background: Your characters are all citizens of (or, at least, people who live within) the city-state Korvosa; a thriving metropolis of nineteen thousand souls. The city is more deeply detailed in Paizo's Guide to Korvosa supplement. Also, every character has been hurt or wronged by the same man; Gaedren Lamm, a despicable low-life who abducts orphans and uses them as a slave-labor thieves' network. More on this is detailed in the Curse of the Crimson Throne Player's Guide.

The Basics: Remember the Rule of Vaskos – Don't be a f***. Neither you, nor your character, should be a f***; this also includes douchebag related behaviors and other team-killy or f***tardish things.

Attributes: 36 point buy. We cool?

Races and Classes: All non-Psionic +0 ECL races and non-Psionic classes from published WotC 3.5 sources. Pathfinder is not very Psionics friendly, and I really don't want to retool the entire world to suit your “I want to be a wizard, but without all the books; however, I also do not want to play a sorcerer” character. Just play a sorcerer and focus on Enchantment and other psychic-ish spells.

The bit about Roles: As we learned in our last group, a poorly balanced group can be shatteringly effective in the right circumstances (as seen by the Striker, Striker, Striker, Leader team from Savage Tide; or the Striker, Striker, Striker, Defender team from our last Pathfinder game.) but can be easily defeated by something outside their typical focus. This leads me to the point I'd hoped to make; Remember, you can play whatever you want, just don't be surprised if a lopsided group isn't as effective and/or fun as it could be.

Starting Hit Points: Max HP based on...

I'm planning on using COTCT to playtest the Pathfinder RPG rules (they'll probably be in beta by the time we get finished with ROTRL, so I'm not going to be as open with splatbook sources as I usually am. My tentative plans for character creation guidelines are as follows:

Stats: 28 point buy (with the racial adjustments, the net effect is closer to a 32 point buy). I've given some thought to a 22-point buy with a stat point every 2 levels instead of 4. If I did that, I'd use the +Con score starting HP rule though.

Races: Core Pathfinder RPG races only

Classes: Core Pathfinder classes only. Multiclassing allowed, and I may allow for prestige classes out of the PHB2 and Complete series in order to compare the base class progression versus 'tooled' builds at higher levels.

Starting HP: haven't decided which method from the alpha I'll use, but leaning toward the racial bonus.

Party Balance: my players are good about picking one of each archetype. It usually comes down to an argument over who gets stuck playing heal-b++&&, which is usually the person who hasn't played a healer lately.

If the pregenerated characters can fit on a pair of pages (single page front and back), I don't think that's too much room in a 32 page supplement, and like the idea of their inclusion. If they have particularly interesting backstories, I could even see taking up 4 pages total (one character per page). I wouldn't devote any more room to the guide than that.

I agree that the regional feats are 100% win. Every AP I've run or played in, at least a couple of players have made good use of them. Currently, I'm taking a break from DMing, and had a great time explaining in my character backstory how a wizard of Chelish descent ended up with a Varisian evocation tattoo.

I'd like to see a short write-up on what kind of feats and builds will be appropriate for each class, like in the Shackled City hardcover. Likewise, a short write-up of local communities where the non-human races may live would come in handy if the starting town is not very cosmopolitan.

One thing that I didn't like about the Savage Tide PG was the focus on Sasserine. For the first adventure, it was great, with my players really feeling like they were a part of the city. And the backdrop of Sasserine itself was one of the finest fantasy cities I've seen created.

However, my players' painstakingly created backgrounds and ties to the city became useless after the second adventure. If future APs follow similar structure of leaving for parts unknown, less emphasis on the starting locale would be appreciated.

Owww....

Does anyone know of a way to add about 12 hours to every day...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

A methamphetamine/appetite suppressant addiction?

Woah. You could dump paladin spells entirely, weaving some of the common abilities (bless weapon) into class abilities (which the paladin needs after mid-level anyway). I played one up to 17th level and I only ever cast two or three different paladin spells.

I wouldn't miss paladin spells at all.

I concur wholeheartedly. I've been playing paladins since 1st edition AD&D, and I don't ever remember a paladin spell saving the day. A few swings with a holy avenger, or a well-timed lay on hands on the other hand...

The problem with paladin and ranger spell lists are very similar to the problems the original Everquest had with balancing the hybrid classes. By the time the paladin gets access to a spell, its power curve is so far behind that of full spellcasters that the spell is next to useless in conflicts with most foes of appropriate CR. Considering the amount of raw fighting power the paladin gives up in order to get those spells, (3 fighter bonus feats by 4th level alone) the result is less than impressive.

I'm crazy about the rogue talents and the spell-like ability replacements for domain spells and specialist school slots featured in the alpha. Something similar for the paladin (and to a lesser extent, the ranger) would be awesome. While it would be more work, and probably take up a lot of space, separate lists based on the domains of eligible paladin deities would be awesome, and give paladins of each deity a unique feel. Balance between them on the other hand could be a challenge.

Unless they are undead themselves, it could be argued that they will be damaged by their own Rebuke attempt.

In the second paragraph below the heading 'Rebuking Effects' it states "You can choose whether or not to include yourself in this effect."

Even if that is not the case, a cult of evil clerics attempting to bolster their undead followers is going to decimate itself when Evil Cleric A attempts to Rebuke and also hits Evil Clerics B, C, D, E, and F. And when each of the Evil Clerics A-F all attempt to Rebuke, they end up as smoking piles of ash consumed by the negative energy of each others' Rebuke attempts.

This is actually kind of flavorful for an evil cleric. They are eeevil after all. Harming their living allies (and opponents) while they bolster their undead minions seems like the kind of trade-off an evil cleric would make.

Still, you're right, there is a balance issue there. I'd suggest as a possible fix, altering the AOE from a 30' burst centered on the cleric to a 30' cone. This would allow clerics to use the turn/rebuke more tactically, and give Paizo a reason to commission a new pair of effect templates from Steel Sqwire. Hell, I'd buy 'em.

Even without there being a group of evil clerics, putting the adventurers (presumably goodish) against an opposed evil group with a cleric tips the advantage unfairly in favor of the adventurers because the evil cleric can't use the same abilities available to the good cleric without harming his own group. The good cleric can just position himself 30 feet from as many of his allies as possible while staying 35 feet or more from any enemies and channel positive energy in combat as a healing boost to augment his other curative abilities.

Part of the problem here is that the rationalization is based on the positive/negative energy paradigm. If it were changed to some other function that converted Turn/Rebuke attempts into a bolstering effect for allies, then it would be equally useful to both sides. It would be similar in concept to the many and varied feats that convert Turn/Rebuke attempts into everything under the sun and could be introduced as a free feat to Clerics and Paladins as well as other classes that are able to Turn/Rebuke.

There are already a ton of feats in D&D 3.5 that do convert turns to do other things. Unfortunately, some are subjectively useless and others are extremely overpowered. (Divine Spellpowered Holy Word/Blasphemy anyone?) I do like the idea of either separating the healing/damaging aspects to the effect, or perhaps making them alignment dependent rather than flat positive/negative energy. By separating them, a positive energy cleric could choose to heal his allies OR deal damage to the undead while an negative energy cleric could heal his undead OR damage his allies.

Making them alignment dependent, the good clerics turning effect would heal good characters and deal damage to undead, and the evil cleric could deal damage to good characters and heal the undead. Neutral characters could suffer a lesser effect (half damage before the save, or half the healing rolled). Of course, neutral positive energy clerics would kind of get the shaft, as their own positive energy would only heal them half as well as their more pure allies.

I am not in any way dissatisfied with the quality of the product. I just find I am not getting the use out of them that I had expected.

Please CONTINUE my Pathfinder subscription. I am very happy with Pathfinder, and our gaming group intends to continue using the adventure paths for our campaigns.

I find it much easier to be interested in Paizo's campaign setting than to worry about the WotC ones these days, as you might imagine.

Oh, and Golarion has only one moon, so I'm afraid we offer little respite on that front.

Yes, but you have PLANETS. When will the info on Golarion astrology be released? I know one of you has to be working on it. ;)

So, there's a new Dungeon adventure up on the WOTC site. I'm sure glad they aren't charging for content yet. This lvl 20 adventure features a decent eater egg for Greyhawk grognards, but not much else. I just finished skimming through it, and as far as I can tell, it's one 'dungeon', a bunch of combat encounters (over half of which seem to be against solitary opponent), and a few random traps. There's absolutely no social encounters, set pieces, or anything that made me go 'wow, epic!'

“The Essence of Evil” is a Dungeons & Dragons® adventure
designed for four to six 20th-level characters. Player
characters who complete this climactic event should
advance to 21st level or higher. “The Essence of Evil” is
designed to be the conclusion of a long campaign—a
capstone to an excellent series of adventures. The plot is
broadly sketched to allow Dungeon Masters to link it to
nearly any campaign in any campaign setting. Alternatively,
this adventure can make for a brutal stand-alone
scenario, allowing players and DMs a deadly scenario
to explore high-level games.

The text goes on to give about a page of background on the story. In short, an elder evil has been loosed upon the world and good ol' Tharizdun is set to be freed from his prison. Only the heroic actions of the PCs can stop the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT. Epic enough plot. However, the adventure itself feels like one of the dungeons my friends and I cobbled together on graph paper and loose-leaf when we were 11. Stock a random map with encounter after encounter of big, nasty looking monsters and set the players loose. I haven't played that kind of D&D for 20+ years.

It doesn't help that the work makes overuse of templated, obscure creatures from MM4 & MM5. There's even an opponent with class levels from a ToB (Book of 9 Swords?) class. There's a sidebar with the maneuvers information, but someone forgot to include the crunchy bits for the stances. Typical WOTC hack editing at its finest.

I'm still withholding judgment on 4E, but this digital initiative has now completely lost me. Only two of the five adventures would be something I'd consider buying if I had to pay for them. (Logue's, and Marmell's Innsmouth rip-off)

Size Bonus/Penalty!!! One of the most frequent errors in WOTC stat blocks seems to be the author/editor forgetting the size modifiers to AC and attacks.

Fine, let me play devil's advocate:

Does anyone seriously believe that this particular suggestion is so lacking in merit that it /shouldn't/ be in the book? Will it not in any way be helpful to enough new and old DMs that it's just a waste of print?

I think the idea of experience rewards for achievements above and beyond the mindless slaying of monsters or 'defeating' of tactical encounters is a great idea and firmly belongs in the new edition. If it is implemented properly, with 'quests' forwarding the plot of the story and adding to the complexity of adventure, I think it's a definite move in the right direction as far as encouraging more than just mindless hack and slash.

Personally, I would like to see a larger percentage of the experience awards given out for reaching plot milestones or achieving closure to subplots. It's something I'm toying around with in my current 3.5 campaign, but it'll be a few weeks at least before I can see how successful it is.

I don't see these as mindless collect X quests like you would find in an MMO. I think of them more as 'story rewards' as they appeared in earlier editions of the game. By having such rewards built into the experience formulas of the game, it allows the DM or adventure writer to figure these rewards in when calculating how much experience an adventure should award characters to keep level advancement on pace.

Now, if the first WOTC published adventures come out with a bunch of 'find the lock that this key fits and gain 500 xp' and 'bring me 8 gnoll ears for 200xp and 50gp', I'll retract all of the above. However, I think that in the right hands, a system of quests will encourage deeper and more intricate plots in adventures.

Personally, I'm not too keen on the idea of cards handed out any time players begin a 'quest'. I'd rather let my players figure out what's important and run with it themselves. Giving out experience because they found a key in a dungeon, and later found the door it opened is kind of silly. However, the earlier example quests in the article, where several different factions are after the same item or have competing goals is intriguing.

I worry that as presented it could cause too much interparty conflict, especially when the completion of a quest would provide a tangible reward for one player and exclude the others. To me, anything that gives to one player's character at the expense of others is a rather poor design decision for a game which is supposed to promote group problem solving. Still, with the right players and the right kind of campaign, it could make for some interesting roleplaying.

* Does Kobold King really get the PCs to level 5 for a straight roll through to Carnival of Tears? If not, what would you recommend I run in between?

My players finished it yesterday. With a group of three, they made almost enough experience to advance to level 6. A group of 4 would easily be 5th level if they face even 3/4s of the opponents in the adventure.

Is there a reason in your campaign fluff for why 'dead is dead'? If so, you can use that. Throw them a complete curve ball. She's dead, but they find something (in the vein of one of Lovecraft's books of forbidden, blasphemous knowledge) that indicates that maybe your rule isn't that ironclad after all. Maybe they can bring her back. In fact, the method of doing so seems easy, though not too easy, and it breaks every universal, cosmic law in your campaign.

When they do though, it's not her spirit returning to her body from the afterlife, but something else. You can tie the nature of the princess-thing to this demiplane business. She may now be the corrupted agent of the its evil powers. The party will unwittingly unleash something even more horrible than a horde of goblinoids upon the empire.

This works even better if you draw it out. When she's first 'resurrected', everything seems all peachy keen. She's reunited with the emperor, assumes her station as if she were never gone, and unites the armies of the land to repel the goblin invaders. She is seen as the savior of the land, and the party is acclaimed as heroes for their part in her return. Only then does her true nature begin to shine through the cracks of her beatific facade. By the time your players realize what their characters have done, it may be 'too late'. Now, they've got to work against her, as she puts into motion plans that will make the goblins look like teletubbies.

The players will obviously want to stop her. It's personal now. However, a head-on assault is not going to be feasible. She's an empress now. She's got an adoring empire of loyal servants who don't know what the players know. If they try to speak out against her, people react very negatively. They'll be the ones branded as villains.

It's not stereotypical Hollywood horror, true, but good horror isn't about deranged templates or monsters from a horror supplement. It's about getting your players to react to what's happening to their characters in a certain way. Personally, I find adding game mechanics to represent horror as kind of cheesy. As soon as you turn something into a numbers game, it takes your players out of the psychology of the moment and puts them into 'gaming' mode. Make the horror the natural reaction of what happens during the game, not something that happens during the game that provokes a reaction.

DB Admin/Developer for a small GPO. (group purchasing organization)

English bulldogs are also really cool. My younger brother has one of those. The big problem with them, from what he's told me, is that they can overheat very easily. If you live in a really hot environment, you have to really watch them sometimes.

Aye, I've got an English bull and live in Florida, so she doesn't go out except to potty, or in an air conditioned car about 8 months out of the year. Unfortunately, the OP mentioned a lack of drool as a pre-req, and most, but not all bulldogs are drool factories. My little girl happens to be an exception. She makes up for it in other, more odorous ways.

Dead Alive (1992), the unrated version. Released as Braindead in New Zealand. Early film by none other than Mr. Peter Jackson.

Full of such memorable lines as:
'I kick ass for the Lord'
'He's got...the bite!'
'Your mother ate my Dog.'
'Story goes, these great big rats come scuttling off the slave ships and raped all the little tree monkeys.'

Also, wins the award for most creative use of a lawn mower. Movie blood was pumped out at 5 gallons/second for this scene.

This will probably get me hunted down by creative writing students from small liberal arts colleges around the country, but I've never been able to stand Hemingway.

There will be NO reprinted content in this book. This is a sourcebook that will make gthe various adventures set in this region easier to incorporate into a regional campaign, but it is not itself an adventure book.

Stop putting books on the schedule! I'm going to end up spending more on Paizo products than I do on rent. Oh wait, I own. It's paid off. I'm single. Carry on, then. More product!

I'm looking forward to ordering my 3 copies of this book once I know that it's going to be v.3.5 or v.Paizo.

Until the announcement is official one way or the other, I'll just wait and pray.

From Erik's post it sounds like the vast majority of the information is going to be version-neutral world information. If that's the case, I'd dare say you could get almost full value from the book for a 3.5 campaign even if it is designed for 4.0.

If we see 4.0 and we like 4.0 and the new OGL allows us to do what we want, this thing (or rather a couple of chapters of it) will be 4.0. If we stick with 3.5, it'll be 3.5.

The vast majority of this book will be background detail and notes.

It will cover about the same number of countries as we include in the Gazetteer (about 40 or so), but each entry in the Gaz gets something like 600 words. Each will probably get 6 pages in this book, with encounter charts, history, customs, flags, livery, etc.

The Gazetteer is a good overview of the world. This book will give you just about everything you need to set a campaign just about anywhere within that world.

Good answer and one that will certainly ensure my preorder. A crunch-light, heavy on the backdrop campaign setting is far preferable to one with tons of npc stats and little detail on the people, places, and things that make the world come alive. Whether this ends up being 4.0 or 3.5, I'm sold.

I think the warboar/dire boar is the quintessential dwarven mount. Built like a tank, low to the ground, and hard-hitting, just like its rider. My friend ran a mounted dwarven fighter in my Red Hand of Doom game and his boar, Meat, was one of the highlights of that adventure. More so when Meat met his untimely end in the coils of a Behir, and literally became the party's dinner.

The lord of the land eventually rewarded the dwarf with a new mount after the battle of Brindol. Pork served him well, but was a poor replacement for ol' Meat.

I guess every experience is different. I grew up in the american south (Florida), and I've never experienced a single example of the whole devil-worship thing. I started playing with my friends at a campground that my grandparents took me to every summer. My grandparents (both sets) and one of my aunts were responsible for my entire original collection of books. I very clearly remember opening the AD&D DMG with the giant devil on the cover, and Deities and Demigods under the Christmas tree. Over the course of my childhood, I branched out into many other games (settled on MERP for a LONG time). In High School, my teachers had no problem with some of the more advanced students playing D&D in the library during review sessions that we didn't need. If any figure of authority in my childhood ever had a problem with my favorite hobby, they never expressed it to me.

As an adult, I've converted many folks to RPGs, and the only stereotype I can remember running into is the whole "D & D is for geeks" thing. Maybe being on the football and weightlifting team insulated me from that stuff as a kid, or maybe it just wasn't there. Hard to say.

What part of Florida, Luke. It sounds like you were in tolerant town. I'm a transplant (moved down here to the Tampa area in '92), and it seems the farther you go from the big cities, the more 'conservative' the religious folk. My friend told me horror stories about the Mt. Dora area.

--------------------------

Myself, I grew up in suburban Maryland. (I'm 32 now) My introduction to D&D came from my neighbor and best friend at the age of 10. At first, my folks, who are devout Roman Catholics, only knew what they had heard in the media. They asked me if the game was satanic and I had no clue what that was. Mom let us play at the kitchen table one day while she was making dinner, and by the time dinner was served, any of her worries disappeared.

Interestingly enough, soon after, I discovered Heavy Metal and learned all about pseudo-satanism. I had more problems with my parents concerning my choice in music than I ever did with D&D. That pretty much ended when, at the age of 12, I asked my dad if he had a copy of Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner because Iron Maiden wrote a song about it and I wanted to read the original.

Once I joined the Boy Scouts, I met several friends who played and D&D grew from a hobby to a lifestyle. During the summer, our gang would meet almost every day to play. The only person whose parents objected to the game was ironically the eldest of our group. Church of Christ, or one of the other non-denominational Christian faiths that live by the comics of Jack Chick. Unsurprisingly, he was the least socially-adjusted of the group.

Flash forward to modern times, and I was involved with the RPGA and Living Greyhawk for the past few years. I ran RPGA events at some of the local shops in the Tampa Bay area. Some of the regulars were surprisingly young, only a couple years older than I was when I got started. Their parents tend to be fairly young, well-educated, and see D&D as a great hobby/pastime for the kids. It encourages creative thinking, problem solving, working together as a group, and most importantly, turning off the tv and leaving the house.

Assuming you guys get the SRD and make the decision to move to 4E, will this be a 4E product?

I should add, as well, that if sales of this adventure are strong we will certainly produce more material with an Egyptian flair. I am really hoping that we can do this, as there is the subject matter is especially meaty.

I hope so, too. Next to the standard euro-centric setting, the Egyptian theme is definitely my favorite. I'd love to see some more ties to real-world Egyptian mysticism such as the numerology present in J1. Being pretty familiar with the works of Crowley and his blend of Egyptian Magick and the hermetic tradition, such material resonates with me.

Another great thing about this adventure is the Expeditionary, which in some ways influenced my thinking on Cheliax (which still isn't fully written tonight). Mike named one of his guys a "paracount," which helped me to imagine the framework for the new diabolical aristocracy that has come to dominate the nation's politics since the Battle of a Hundred Kings.

Cheliax is definitely one of the pieces of the setting that I look forward to reading more about. When my Gamemastery campaign reaches its conclusion, my buddy will be taking over the DM seat for Rise of the Runelords. I'm planning on playing a Chelish wizard who left the nation after making enemies with the wrong noble family after dueling their spoiled offspring. I've got his background pretty fleshed out, I just need to fill in the little details that will solidify it.

From this point forward I feel that the GameMastery Modules and Pathfinder start to take some cues from one another in a way that is really bringing the world to life for us in the office.

It's great to be able to share that with all of you.

As much as I would have loved it if you guys had magically gotten the license for Greyhawk, I'm finding this brand new setting even more to my liking. It must be a blast for you guys at Paizo to be creating something of your own, and it is certainly resonating with my gaming group. After just a couple of Gamemastery modules, you've got my group of thirty-something grognards saying things like 'this is the most fun I've had playing D&D in a long, long time.

E1 might get em the levels they need perfectly as soulkeeper pointed out. I think, I'd have to check, but I think E1 is for 4th or 5th level characters. And it's set in Falcon's Hollow, so good follow up to Crown, and there are NPC in their that may make even better Pathfinder candidates.

J1 is the bomb! Kudos Kortes!

Sweet, I hadn't read the blurb on E1, but it sounds perfect. Especially for my party, which includes a Fey-blooded warlock and a druid.

I really like Falcon's Hollow.

And yes, there are more player-oriented things on the horizon as well... stuff I'm not allowed to say much about.

Erik spilled the beans in another thread.

We have some plans for Cheliax, oh do we have some plans. Expect a brief write-up in the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer (by yours truly), a great deal of information by association in the Guide to Korvosa (by Mike McArtor), and an adventure somewhere down the road by our illustrious Dr. James Jacobs.

Oh, and probably five or six pages in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (did he just say what I think he just said?)

Here

I just had a chance to skim through this today and I am blown away...

Aye, I've downloaded the .pdf and read most of it, and am waiting eagerly for my hard copy. I've already decided that it will be the next adventure I run for my current game after we finish Crown of the Kobold King. Assuming they live through it. That should give me a level or two to get the players down to Osirion. I think I'll make the crappling bard in Nick's adventure into a member of the Pathfinders giving the players an 'in' with the organization.

Figure a short adventure to 'induct' them, and then off to sandy land.

I love the