tigger1tom's page

I think getting some folks more involve in overall content creation/function coding would be the best thing we could do for this sheet! I'm actually ramping up for yet another life adventure--adopting from China--and I can already see (as I'm sure you all have...) that my time to do all the work on this sheet will suffer as a result. So long as those contributing continue to respect and utilize the OGL, I support anybody helping out.

So, point away!

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Path_Forge/

Along that note Brooks, erian_7, I took the liberty of starting a yahoo group, PathForge ;-) http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Path_Forge/ if you would be interested in putting it 'out there' to the community.

TT

erian_7 wrote:

Oh yes, I'd definitely love to make this a more community-based effort! We've been trying to get something like that going for a while now.

Ken, I shot that spreadsheet with the layout your way.

Thanks!

P.S. No luck on tests on the Adam--the file size is to large for Quickoffice. I'll have to do some sit-down time to figure it out, but that would be after the APG material is done.

There might be a few folks that have contributed to the HeroForge excel character sheet over the years that seem to be growing disenfranchised with the idea that HeroForge Software, LLC has refused to allow them to add Pathfinder to the current HeroForge free excel sheet, and the president of HeroForge Software, LLC was on the forum being somewhat.... difficult.... because he claims that his company actually owns the entire content of the HeroForge free spreadsheet by copyright, even though neither he nor the original creator of HeroForge have contributed anything to it in several years.

If you're really interested in getting additional community based assistance, I'll point the folks at the HeroForge forums over to this forum (or to some other method of getting in touch with you).

Brooks

How do I fix the 'lance' on the sheet? says can only be wielded two handed without shield, even when mounted. takes two hands when you're on foot, but on horse its one hand and shield.

thanks
TT

"I'm getting a new game together in Shippensburg, PA. If you're
interested, either 3.5 or Pathfinder, the latter preferred, get in touch at the below email or phone.
I would like to play either Friday night or Saturday afternoon or
evening. I have myself and one other guy for sure, possibly one
or two others, just waiting to hear from them.

John Karns"
717-532-4945
jkarns@comcast.net"

Marc Radle wrote:

Gruumash wrote:

Also I have a question if we are exclusing comedic films wouldn't you need to remove Princess Bride?

Hmmm ... good point ...

OK, I think I've re-thought the funny movie thing a little. I still want to stay with mainly "serious" movies but I agree that The Princess Bride is obviously not a serious movie. And, as others have pointed out, Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail is SUCH an iconic gamer movie, it really needs on the list.

So, I'm going to break the only serious movies rule in only 2 cases:

Princess Brides stays AND Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail is going to go on the list. Of course, that means something already on the list needs to come off to make room ...

Sorry for this being off point, but been trying to get in touch with you Marc, your email changed. :-(. You still in South Central PA? If you are, can you email me at tigger1tom at yahoo dot com. Thanks

Kitty Somerville wrote:

First off, I'd like to say I'm already loving the sheet! Great work! I have a suggestion though.

I'd prefer to have the feat descriptions on the character sheet to show the mechanics of the feat. For example: Combat Casting says, "You are adept at spellcasting when threatened or distracted." That doesn't do me much good in game because I still have to look up the mechanics of the feat. The text "+4 bonus on concentration checks for defensive casting." is much more helpful, I believe.

Well, thanks for the great work! Good luck on the project!

Amanda

Thanks, glad you like it!

For the feats, that's exactly what v.0.7 will do (and then some). I had the mechanics summary displaying at one point, but since I don't have those yet for any of the Golarion feats I switched it to the description summary. I can switch it back for now (knowing that all Golarion feats will then display nothing) until a v.0.7 update?

Some history and a look forwarad...

• V.0.5 was the starting point, with basic functionality from the home game sheet I've been using for years.
  
• V.0.6 is going to be the culmination of play-testing to date on all the class automation (most of the previous 4 pages of this thread).
  
• V.0.7 will build on that, not only updating the information displayed for each feat but also automating game mechanics as much as possible (adding Power Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting "switches" to weapons, auto-updating Channel Energy based on feat selection, etc.).

With v.0.6 going out this week, I'll be starting the play-test on this functionality next week, so watch this space and keep the feedback coming!

Hello erian_7, love what I've seen so far, are you still looking for beta testers? Or is the release 0.5.8.1 the beta? :)

Cheers
TT

But he also said that he will release the 3.5 stats for those who want to play in 3.5 (since they are already written).

So it's all good. :)

Actually, it WOULD be all good if it were already out in 3.5:)

Uh, is it soon yet Mike?

I had the original at one time, I think it would be great to get this in 3.5. Is there a snowballs chance in Hades that it will make it before Halloween?

Isss verrrry vicccious. A true nightmare for a party:)

tigger1tom wrote:

If anyone ever actually READ ALL of my posts, they would note that I thought a gay Paladin is fine, after all, this is a fantasy world, if it is lawful in that fantasy world, which it is here, and the man is good, as Jasper most assuredly must be, so he would be LG!

I think you are making a slight mistake here.. I think you mean it is legal, not lawful, something can be lawful and not be legal, just as it can legal but not lawful. What it means to be lawful is:

SRD wrote:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

Being a homosexual has nothing to do with any of those by default, either way. Though it is possible that it could in theory. For example homosexual behaviour could be thought of as disregardling traditional relational structure, thus it would not surprising to learn the most "conservative" family (LN) had problems with it. On the other hand it might be very traditional for paladins from a particular faith to be called who are homosexual, in that case it would be consistent with a lawful alignment.

You are correct, there is a difference between legal and lawful. A prime example, don't get excited everyone, is gun control in this country. Congress passes laws to make it legal or illegal to own a gun. That is legal, but those very laws are not lawful because they violate the Constitution.

Man Paizo, you guys ARE awesome too, just like Sandpoint is.

Want me to tell you why? Huh? Huh? Becuz I've been a baaad, baaad, booyyy, and you guys just let me run with it!! Sorry if I pissed anyone off, but I was having sooooooo much fun;-) You see, I'm not gay either, BUT, I am bisexual ;-)

NOT!!! In all truth, I am a straight man that has been happily married to the same wonderful woman for 13 years next month. I have 31 wonderful children of the furry four legged variety that go meow, and yes, some of them are gay kitties:) Therefore any REAL opinion I have on the 'education system':), is moot, it doesn't affect me in the least way, (sorry about that IconoclasticScream, I WAS a bad boy for yanking your chain that way, I do give heartfelt apologies if I truly offended you)

Point being, why does everyone get so fired up about something someone says. A person can say anything, and it doesn't really matter in the big picture. Someone called someone disingenuous the other day, anyone and everyone can be that way on a board, and everyone is at one time or another in the real world. We say things to appease people that we don't wish to offend sometimes, and sometimes we nail them to the proverbial cross if we care nothing for them. Part, and I mean PART of what I said here, I believe is true, whether it is or not, in the end, is between me and God and no one else, and which parts I believe is my business and no one else's, you can guess if you wish, I don't care about that, we're all allowed our fantasies. If anyone ever actually READ ALL of my posts, they would note that I thought a gay Paladin is fine, after all, this is a fantasy world, if it is lawful in that fantasy world, which it is here, and the man is good, as Jasper most assuredly must be, so he would be LG! To compare real world morality to fantasy is a farce and should not be tried, after all, do you REALLY pray to Desna? I do actually have gay friends, and Wiccan friends as well, so those inclusions by Paizo into their AP were a brave bold statement that do not bother me in the least. THIS IS ONE AWESOME COMPANY WITH ONE AWESOME PRODUCT!!

I jumped in on this for 2 reasons, first, because absolutely everyone was jumping on pres-man and I didn't feel he should take ALL of that himself, though the way he stood by his principals, he could have handled that. Second, to remind everyone this is a FANTASY ROLEPLAYING GAME AND NOT REAL!!! Oh, there is a third, it was FUUUUUUNNNN!

BRING ON THE NINJAS WITH MOLTEN GLASS THONGS!!!

Man Paizo, you guys ARE awesome too, just like Sandpoint is.

Want me to tell you why? Huh? Huh? Becuz I've been a baaad, baaad, booyyy, and you guys just let me run with it!! Sorry if I pissed anyone off, but I was having sooooooo much fun;-) You see, I'm not gay either, BUT, I am bisexual ;-)

tigger1tom wrote:

There we go with that sensitivity thing again! I will say this one more time, the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, so therefore, it is NOT OK TO BE GAY.

I don't remember the Bible being one of my textbooks in public school, though.

And for the record, like Larry Craig, I am NOT GAY, and I've NEVER BEEN GAY.*

--Erik

* I do, however, have a "wide stance."

I have a "wide shadow", as in bow to stern, and not port to starboard, is that ok? :)

My lips are sealed on those other verboten statements.
Sandpoint IS awesome!!

Bring on the ninjas and molten glass thongs please, I think we've finally finished flaming one another.

tigger1tom wrote:

I think that you'll find that the word that you're looking for is 'then' mister educator.

That's Mr. English Major, thank you very much. And while I do know the difference between "then" and "than", and have taught those often, there's a reason that I have three or four people proof my documents or manuscripts before I send them out to editors or submitted them for grades. I'm a terrible editor of my own writing. I'm haunted by these things called "typos". The bane of my existence. Much more a thorn in my side than the people who have nothing else left in the form of a valid argument than* to attempt to point out my shortcomings as an educator.

As for everything else you've said, I'm pretty much finished with you. As soon as you made your first personal attack on me I marginalized your contribution to the world of public discourse.

*I used the right word. I must be learning.

Oh, and you didn't attack me personally first did you? I love that second part there too "I marginalized your contribution to the world of public discourse." My, aren't WE pompous, WE can do it and its okay, but if you reply, WE'LL ignore you because you're one of the little unimportant people.

tigger1tom wrote:

If you, as a teacher, attempt to tell my child that 'it is okay to be gay', then I say you have the 'skewed perception' of right and wrong.

I have told students that, and I'll continue to. I've said that to students one-on-one, and I've said it in front of entire classrooms, both high school and college. I'll tell you why I do it-

It's okay to be gay.

Period. End of story.

Intolerant and possibly homophobic, though? That's a completely different story.

And just FYI, I'm not queer. I just have the good sense to understand that people are born that way and that there's nothing wrong with it (although even if it was a choice, it would still be a fine decision). I like to think that it's the way God made them. :)

There we go with that sensitivity thing again! I will say this one more time, the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, so therefore, it is NOT OK TO BE GAY. And no, God didn't make them that way, because God would not make someone sin and separate themselves from Him for eternity, because God loves everyone, even you. Homosexuality is a sin, I don't hate gays, though you no doubt think I do. I even have gay friends, though I don't agree with them, I don't hate them. And no, I'm not perfect either, I struggle with the sin of lust all the time, we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God, that is why the only way to the Father is through the Son, if we accept Him, all of our sins are washed away by His blood!

Finally, you accuse the education system of name calling and labeling those who it finds insensitive. Let's examine then what you call "sensitive".

tigger1tom wrote:

I think we're being very sensitive, we don't stone them anymore, or burn them at the stake, do we? Be thankful you don't live under Islamic law, they still kill homosexuals, don't they?

As stated before in a previous post, though in poor taste, it was meant as a joke. The end part is true though. In ancient Israel, under Torah and the rest of the Old Testament, unruly children, adulterers, and homosexuals were stoned, as they are still today under the Koran in the Arab world, and 'witches' were burnt at the stake, and not so long ago I'll remind you.

By "them" you are undoubtedly referring to queers.

So your definition of sensitivity is not murdering through torture members of the GLBT community? Are you kidding me? I'm going to remind you that I'm speaking as an individual and not a representative of the education system right now and tell you that if that's what you really believe than

you're worse than a bigot. If that's what you really believe, the words that you deserve to be called would sully this message board and I won't use them. Perhaps you should consider moving to one of those countries under extremist Islamic law where the murder of homosexuals is condoned. I suspect you'd be much happier there.

Excuse me, where did I say I condone anything even remotely related to murder? I condone nothing of the sort, not even on unborn children. Being the liberal 'enlightened' educator that you are, you most likely are a person that believes in the 'right to choose', which, if you do, on the other hand, would be a person that condones murder. So who should be where? As a Christian in America, where we're SUPPOSED to have freedom of religion, though so-called 'lawmakers' would love to change it, we can still teach the Bible as written, and I'm sorry, the Bible does NOT say it is okay to be gay, it says that any man that lies with man is an abomination in the eyes of God. Guess what? That means its NOT okay to be gay. You, as an 'enlightened' educator, that never teaches morals because it is the duty of the parent, would never nay say that to my child, would you? And you get off on telling me what is moral and what isn't! Excuse me, but I wouldn't let you near my child, let alone teach him anything of your corrupt point of view.

It could be argued (and perhaps would be, so let me head this off before it even happens) that schools should be teaching morality. Other than a few concepts which are no-brainers (don't murder, don't torture, don't steal- all of which should have been learned outside of the classroom anyway) "morality" is subjective and has no place being taught in a school. This is complicated by the fact that the morality you want taught in schools is a conservative, surely fundamentalist, Christian morality.

That might be good for you, but it isn't for me (and, for the record, I'm Christian), and it's certainly not for a countless number of other people. Here's why- a) it's a morality based on a text that has been translated, changed, edited, and manipulated for millennia by accident and by people with far spookier agendas than the education system could come up with, all of which makes its morality suspect at best, and b) the religious morality that you want taught comes from an arrogant belief that the meaty little brains we humans possess could ever begin to comprehend the thoughts and desires of whatever high consciousness or divine powers might exist.

I think I just read there that you are a Christian. If you believe what you wrote in 'a', that the Bible is a 'book' that has been changed so much that it is meaningless, and 'b', "whatever high consciousness or divine powers might exist", I guess you don't even know what a Christian is and therefore can't be one. You may go to Church, but you're still a hypocrite. A "whatever high consciousness or divine powers might exist" is not God, and since you don't believe the Bible, as it has been "translated, changed, edited, and manipulated for millennia" you obviously can't accept the Truth.

As this appears to be too big to respond to all at once, I'll have to try to break it down by paragraph.

tigger1tom wrote:

I think it is called teaching your children morals, something the 'education system' is doing their absolute best to do away with. They just turn to name calling then and label you a bigot for not being 'sensitive' to others.

As a member of the "education system" you find fault with, I thought I'd take a moment to clear up some of your misguided confusion. The role of educators in a classroom is not to teach morality. We are there to teach language skills, mathematics, social studies, fine arts, foreign languages, science, or a myriad of other subjects. The responsibility to instill in a child morality- the difference between right and wrong- falls on the all-too-often-narrow shoulders of that child's parents.

I never said it was the job of the 'education system' to teach morals, I said they were trying to do away with them altogether. I just wish they would stick to teaching the named subjects above, maybe there wouldn't be so many functionally illiterate people in this country then. It is a parents job to teach morals, whether they do it or not, but, it is also not the job of 'educators' to nay say parents and attempt to thrust their moral interpretation on a child.

When a child sets his first foot into the kindergarten classroom, unless he is a sociopath or was raised by sociopaths, he should have a fundamental understanding of the difference between right and wrong. And by the time I see students (in high school) that understanding is etched in stone (perhaps not inexorably, but certainly close enough for this discussion). If a teacher believes that a student possesses a skewed perception of what is right and what is wrong, that teacher may try to get the student to see another point of view. However, a good teacher will do this outside of the classroom, making it the action of an individual rather than the system.

If you, as a teacher, attempt to tell my child that 'it is okay to be gay', then I say you have the 'skewed perception' of right and wrong.

tigger1tom wrote:

I think we're being very sensitive, we don't stone them anymore, or burn them at the stake, do we? Be thankful you don't live under Islamic law, they still kill homosexuals, don't they? I know that the punishment for adultery is still stoning for a fact. I don't know their standing on 'witchcraft', which is what the herbalist would have been accused of, would be, I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant.

Excuse me? I'm supposed to be grateful that you don't automatically, legally and routinely (not to mention, with God's divine sanction) kill me by torture, immolation or mob violence, just because I'm gay, or perform abortions, or don't believe in your God, or have brown skin, or some other arbitrary thing about me you don't like? Really? I, or anyone else should be grateful?

Did I sum up the argument you just made correctly?

Because if I did, I think we can safely conclude that your philosophy and outlook on life is morally bankrupt, and you have no place talking about instilling morals and values in children, in society, in gaming products, or in these threads.

That was meant to be a joke, guess it fell flat on its face. I knew I should have put the little ":)" in there so everyone knew that.

I'm a player about to start in a Rise of the Runelords campaign and so we're all talking about characters and house rules. Many of the players are concerned that though this campaign says it is made for 4 characters of 1st level, that may not actually be the case (we've had some bad experiences with that sort of thing before).

So far, our parameters are 1st level, 32 point buy, SRD only, and (probably) 5 players.

Is that appropriate to start out this series? We've talked about upping skillpoints, or hit points, or starting at level 2 or 3, or starting with a free CLW wand. I've played the start of Burning Sky (which was overly deadly) and Age of Worms (which seemed just about right). Where does Runelords fall in the deadliness spectrum? Can normal roleplayers survive without help, or does it assume an uber squad of tweaked out munchkins drawing exploits from every splat book and magazine under the sun?

And PLEASE, no spoilers! :)

You don't like munchkins? I love munchkins, they're tasty with ketchup! As far as how deadly is an adventure? That depends a lot on the 'luck' of the dice (or die, if you prefer), doesn't it? I've seen 5 kobolds tpk a group of 5 3rd level adventurers. If you're having a bad day at the table, and the DM is on fire, you're toast. The opposite also applies too, as I've seen a group of 3rd levelers take out a CR7 in 2 rounds without a scratch.

SRD only? Who'd a thunk it? Base character classes and everything from the PH, almost no prestige classes, (just in DMG). I like that actually, as I don't stray from those very often anyway. Though I do stray for some of those cool feats.

Sandpoint

The homosexual couples could be seen as simply "two people that like each other's company". The herbalist could be seen as simply "helping a pregnant woman". In fact, I dare say that if these situations were not called attention to they would be barely visible to a young gamer, unless they were taught to explicitly look for these things. It is only seen as something "bad" because they have been taught to think that way. That they could be "harmed" by something that...

I think it is called teaching your children morals, something the 'education system' is doing their absolute best to do away with. They just turn to name calling then and label you a bigot for not being 'sensitive' to others. I think we're being very sensitive, we don't stone them anymore, or burn them at the stake, do we? Be thankful you don't live under Islamic law, they still kill homosexuals, don't they? I know that the punishment for adultery is still stoning for a fact. I don't know their standing on 'witchcraft', which is what the herbalist would have been accused of, would be, I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant.

Now can we bring on the goblins with molten glass thongs, and pirates, and ninjas, and Shaolin monks,...??? Please?...Pretty Please??

Sandpoint would be TRULY amazing if those evil Shaolin Monks were beaten off by the lawful good Ninja Pirates!!!!!:D

Then we could have a celebration, and have those wonderful little goblins burn EVERYONE at the stake with molten glass thongs!!!

Yeeeaaaa!!!!

By the way Paizo, Sandpoint IS amazing, seriously, one can tell a lot of time and thought were put into the product. It doesn't matter what you do, you can never make everyone happy all of the time, but, you do make most of the people happy most of the time.

Defining a microscopic pile of cells as a life is not consistent with legal understanding in the past or today. Only the right to life movement would put it in such terms.

Hmmm, legal understanding in a lot of places want to have their cake and eat it too, as in, 'having an abortion is ok, its not really a life' but, if, God forbid, someone kills a pregnant woman, they're charged with two murders? Why is it a life in one case, but not the other? Therefore, I'd say you can't really bring 'legal understanding' into the question, nor can you say only the 'right to life movement would put it in such terms', when plainly the state also defines it as such, 'in certain circumstances.'

Now, bring on the ninjas!!!!!

tigger1tom wrote:

I disagree with Pres Man about the Paladin, from a Christian point of view, homosexuality may be a sin, but it is not AGAINST the law, therefore it is lawful, and if the man is good, he is lawful good by alignment. Because you disagree with him does not make you good or him evil. As far as the herbalist goes, I won't go there.

Ah, what? I don't think I have specifically talked about the paladin, I think you might be confusing me with someone else.

Sorry pres man, reading so many posts at the same time, ohhhhh I'm sooooo confussssed!! I apologize.

BRING ON THE NINJAS AND PIRATES!!! Woo hoo!!!, and don't forget the back stab, this should probably die before someone gets truly offended.

James Jacobs wrote:

I have no illusions that some of Pathfinder's content will alienate some customers. I'd rather do that than err on the side of political correctness or not ever include controversial elements in the adventure. I trust that our readers are mature enough to know that Pathfinder's not trying to reprogram them or promote a hidden agenda any more than J. K. Rowling is trying to turn today's youths into Satanists.

Actually, I think what Paizo did here, in todays world, is "politically correct", nobody wants to upset 'the homosexual agenda, gotta include them so they're not offended'. That part actually offends me, but, as I like the rest of it, I'll overlook and ignore it. Controversial elements are great in an adventure, but some things should not really be discussed, i.e. politics, religion, (real world, and this topic IS real world), as someone WILL be upset, and things start going down hill from there.

I think that I was misunderstood here, JJ said "I'd rather do that than err on the side of political correctness or not ever include controversial elements in the adventure". To me, he's saying he'd rather add controversial elements than be politically correct, I, on the other hand, merely was pointing out that the 'controversial elements' that were included, in the liberal media today, ARE considered politically correct. Nobody wants to offend any other group by excluding them, so all are included.

I disagree with Pres Man about the Paladin, from a Christian point of view, homosexuality may be a sin, but it is not AGAINST the law, therefore it is lawful, and if the man is good, he is lawful good by alignment. Because you disagree with him does not make you good or him evil. As far as the herbalist goes, I won't go there.

I have no illusions that some of Pathfinder's content will alienate some customers. I'd rather do that than err on the side of political correctness or not ever include controversial elements in the adventure. I trust that our readers are mature enough to know that Pathfinder's not trying to reprogram them or promote a hidden agenda any more than J. K. Rowling is trying to turn today's youths into Satanists.

Actually, I think what Paizo did here, in todays world, is "politically correct", nobody wants to upset 'the homosexual agenda, gotta include them so they're not offended'. That part actually offends me, but, as I like the rest of it, I'll overlook and ignore it. Controversial elements are great in an adventure, but some things should not really be discussed, i.e. politics, religion, (real world, and this topic IS real world), as someone WILL be upset, and things start going down hill from there.

Well, I guess that since my questions aren't worthy of a reply, I'll not ask any more. Maybe I'll dump my subscription too, who knows?

Is there more info on the Cyphermage anywhere other than the little blurb in the Pathfinder Player's Guide? I would like to learn more about them.

Hmmm, I must be alone here.

Is there more info on the Cyphermage anywhere other than the little blurb in the Pathfinder Player's Guide? I would like to learn more about them.

coach wrote:

wotc knows where their bread is buttered

(FR sales more than double the combined sales of all other settings combined and you are fooling yourself to think any differently)

What a ridiculous statement. Of course FR is outselling "all other settings combined". Have you seen how many books WotC puts out for FR?

Better yet, how many books from any other setting period? FR and Eberron is all they have, if they supported Greyhawk at all, it would be way different.

How about a little *Sprite* to go with that pixie stick?

Who said they have to be within a year or two of each other? It COULD be 18 to 20 years apart and then there is no problem. I like the idea behind it, it gives you continuity with different characters.

I wouldn't necessarily say set rules, but there should be some set standard maybe. The Harpers from FR was pretty wide open and left pretty much to role play, but there was no way to advance that I recall.

Very well done Erian! Has anybody tried campaign cartographer, they do have a free viewer for those that don't actually have the program so that they can view the maps.

Try Nox Arcana, VERY good music!!, and of course Midnight Syndicate.

Ok.

I'm aware that many Paizo customers will not be converting to 4e. Honestly, before I heard some of the things I've heard at this show, I wasn't sure I wanted to convert either. So I sympathize.

My two groups have decided that there is more than enough out there to continue with 3.5 indefinitely. You spend a thousand dollars or more to get the books and Hasbro brings in the greed factor mid stride. It doesn't matter how 'streamlined' it is, we stay 3.5.

As a gamer I would be a lot happier with a game that doesn't require two hours of prep-time for four hours of play. I have heard that the new system addresses this problem, and that strikes me as excellent.

Hmmm, what am I doing wrong? I only spend about 20 minutes or so prepping for a game.

Is it just a simple character generator? Which HeroForge does thousand times better for free?

Hear! Hear! I agree completely, I've used HeroForge for free for a couple of years now, and they keep it pretty up to date. I don't think I'll be dropping $35.00 for a character generator ANY time soon, heck, thats another Pathfinder issue and a GameMastery Module!

I seem to remember recently seeing that the RotRL players guide pdf is planned to be released this Friday (Aug 3). I would assume that this would coincide with the first shipments of the new product (thats just a guess tho).

I saw somewhere that they tentatively planned to start shipping Pathfinder 1 this coming week, I'm not sure who from Paizo it was that stated it. Since no email was sent out notifying of an impending shipment, is that still on or not? I hope it is still on as I am impatiently waiting to get my greedy little hands on it. Thanks, and keep up the good work guys.

Just wondering how you number your GameMastery Modules, D0, D1, W1, E1, etc., etc.? I apologize if this info is elsewhere and I'm rehashing an old question, but how do they relate to one another and what is the significance of the system?