Pathfinder Adventure Path #195: Heavy is the Crown (Sky King’s Tomb 3 of 3)

Announced for September! Product image and description are not final and may be subject to change.

This sounds AWESOME! Especially those articles in the back!!

What's especially curious about this one is the final line, no longer mentioning the OGL or The World's Oldest Roleplaying Game.

Given recent events and announcements, I take it this one might no longer be under the Open Game License (but presumably not under the ORC yet either)?

Oh, this is an interesting one! As keftiu says, the backmatter sounds particularly cool for this one.

Ya know come to think about it, I think we haven't really ever heard much about where dwarves came from and kinda just assumed Duergar are there?

Looks awesome! As others have already said, those articles in the back look especially sweet. September can't come fast enough.

Me see dwarves, me want.

REALLY good name for this one.

I wonder if you couldn't stitch together this AP, book 4 of Age of Ashes (set in a haunted dwarven city in the Darklands), and book 5 of Extinction Curse (set deep in the Darklands, in a desert vault where Urdefhan and a city of undead Drow endure) into some sort of franken-campaign.

You'd still need a book 6 to act as finale, and the plots would need to be extensively rewritten... but it's an idea.

If even hust a mock up, I love the cover

Final cover art is up.

As was mentioned on the September shipping page, the download link for this isn't currently working - both the single file and file-per-chapter versions show about 200 bytes.

As was mentioned on the September shipping page, the download link for this isn't currently working - both the single file and file-per-chapter versions show about 200 bytes.

Can confirm. Both options seem to be broken.

Our apologies - the files are now correctly available. If you've already generated an empty archive of ~200 bytes, clicking the "Problems downloading this file?" link for each will force them to be rebuilt correctly.

Our apologies - the files are now correctly available. If you've already generated an empty archive of ~200 bytes, clicking the "Problems downloading this file?" link for each will force them to be rebuilt correctly.

I have done as instructed as well as clearing my cache. The file now shows it as 121 bytes but is still broken after downloading.

Nevermind. It has corrected itself and I was able to download it

What's especially curious about this one is the final line, no longer mentioning the OGL or The World's Oldest Roleplaying Game.

Given recent events and announcements, I take it this one might no longer be under the Open Game License (but presumably not under the ORC yet either)?

I seriously doubt that part 3 of an adventure path would be licensed differently than parts 1 and 2, so almost certainly this one would have to still be under the OGL (as I think someone would have said something if part 1 was under ORC or no license).

RiverMesa wrote:

What's especially curious about this one is the final line, no longer mentioning the OGL or The World's Oldest Roleplaying Game.

Given recent events and announcements, I take it this one might no longer be under the Open Game License (but presumably not under the ORC yet either)?

I seriously doubt that part 3 of an adventure path would be licensed differently than parts 1 and 2, so almost certainly this one would have to still be under the OGL (as I think someone would have said something if part 1 was under ORC or no license).

It has the OGL printed at the end, as usual.

As per James Jacobs, all currently announced Adventure Paths (i.e. up to #200) will still be published under the OGL.

Anyone with the book happy to share the beasties in the backmatter?

Anyone with the book happy to share the beasties in the backmatter?

The Continuing the Campaign section in this one is especially juicy. A location and a deity are mentioned that are both quite pleasant surprises, and have me wondering about near-future plotlines…

I like that paizo keeps understanding how awesome gogiteths are with giving them lot of art :D out of all new 2e creatures I think it has most new appearances

I like that paizo keeps understanding how awesome gogiteths are with giving them lot of art :D out of all new 2e creatures I think it has most new appearances

It's not just that we like them a lot. They also sit in a very significant "hot spot" for a lot of factors that make them excellent choices for non-load-bearing monsters in a lot of adventures; they're pretty versatile creatures who can show up in a wide range of plotlines, so they get chosen for adventures a fair amount.

Regardless of exact things of why that is the case, I'm still happy to have at least three big full page pictures of them(catfolk article, highhelm book, this article here) <3

Any chance we could have the review removed of the individual who stated they did not even buy the product? :)

Any chance we could have the review removed of the individual who stated they did not even buy the product? :)

Yeah is it possible to ban a user who constantly leaves trolling reviews?

We can say it’s mikeawmids, his name’s on the review.

While I certainly don't like the content or tone of his reviews, I can't say most of them are trolling. This one obviously is. But StuntMonkeys/Rip Tanner will just make another account as usual and keep posting his one stars. can reviews even be removed?

While I certainly don't like the content or tone of his reviews, I can't say most of them are trolling. This one obviously is. But StuntMonkeys/Rip Tanner will just make another account as usual and keep posting his one stars. can reviews even be removed?

I saw it happen once some time ago.

The Raven Black wrote:

The most recent 1star reviews are most definitely nerdrage at its worst. Just check the posters' profile and see for yourself. Regrettably these fake reviews also pretty insulting to other reviewers BTW lower this product's rating. I did not imagine people stooping so low. I think these "reviews" should actually be discounted in the rating, or even taken down if the former is not possible.

Not only do they unfairly lower a product's rating and thereby its potential sales, they also devalue the work of honest reviewers on all products.

I propose that a flag system should be available for reviews similar to the one for posts

We don't currently have an ETA for when a flagging system for reviews will be available. In the meantime, please report these to community@paizo.com for us to look over.

I guess the mail adress can still be used for this.

Two trolling reviews on this one, now.

One wonders what it takes to catch a ban.

Very amused at Mikeawmids continuing to say he doesn't read these, as he seems surprised that it's about dwarves (or in fact anything at all?). This review also may as well be completely blank for all it says.

Anyone else looked critically at the map on page 14?

According to the description on page 15 says that the cavern is 2 miles by 4 miles.

Judging by the scale in the corner of the map on page 14 it should be 300 miles by 500 miles!

Quick math says that (assuming that the description is the correct one) the scale bar should read 0.8 miles (about 1400 yards), which os a really strange number for a scale.but then not as weird as a 15 mile wide cattle pen (A15).

There have been too many screw-ups with the maps in this Adventure Path.

Two trolling reviews on this one, now.

One wonders what it takes to catch a ban.

Dude is really asking for it, using an obvious sockpuppet account. Or the original one was banned. I really think the mods should be removing all the one star, no written reviews from him, since they are so obviously in bad faith.

keftiu wrote:

Two trolling reviews on this one, now.

One wonders what it takes to catch a ban.

Dude is really asking for it, using an obvious sockpuppet account. Or the original one was banned. I really think the mods should be removing all the one star, no written reviews from him, since they are so obviously in bad faith.

The new website might have a feature restricting reviews to people who actually bought the product. That could be a definite improvement.

magnuskn wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Two trolling reviews on this one, now.

One wonders what it takes to catch a ban.

Dude is really asking for it, using an obvious sockpuppet account. Or the original one was banned. I really think the mods should be removing all the one star, no written reviews from him, since they are so obviously in bad faith.

The new website might have a feature restricting reviews to people who actually bought the product. That could be a definite improvement.

I'm not so sure about that. If they did, people who buy their products from brick and mortar stores wouldn't be able to post reviews.