Hi, Melanie. I believe some earlier responses to questions of this nature mentioned there would be new elements and what-not that got introduced in each individual product (for instance, each GameMastery module introduces a new monster, and depending on its location in the world of Golarion, the adventure might flesh things out a tiny bit more). However, having said that, you can also see there's a Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer on its way, as well as the potential for several Guide to... products that develop major locations like Korvosa, and so on.
So, bottom line for me, it looks like if you want it all...you would need to buy it all. But if you cherry-pick the location-specific products and snap up the world-covering Gazetteer, you'll have most of your bases covered. And, by the way, if you liked D0 and D1, you may want to grab E1: Carnival of Tears, since it also takes place in Falcon's Hollow.
--Neil
Seems like you can stick to the Pathfinder titled books and be alright. While the Game Mastery stuff does take place in the same world, we've been told it takes place on like the other side of it, so what goes on in it probably doesn't really effect Pathfinder at all.
Not entirely correct. Seven Swords of Sin takes place in Kaer Maga (which is in Varisia), and Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale has a very close link to Korvosa, which is the basis of the second AP. In fact, if you run CoBV after you have run CotCT.. you actually have to change the adventure hook.
I would say that if you want every tidbit of information about Golarion, you probably need to buy every product.
I would say that if you want every tidbit of information about Golarion, you probably need to buy every product.
But that still begs the question, "Do you need every tidbit of information about Golarion?" To which, I would answer, "No." Particularly if you pick up the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer in January 2008...and possibly the Guide to Korvosa and any future "guide" books of that nature. Those products should stand well enough by themselves to give a GM what he or she needs to properly envision the campaign setting.
Just my two-cents,
--Neil
I would say that if you want every tidbit of information about Golarion, you probably need to buy every product.But that still begs the question, "Do you need every tidbit of information about Golarion?" To which, I would answer, "No." Particularly if you pick up the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer in January 2008...and possibly the Guide to Korvosa and any future "guide" books of that nature. Those products should stand well enough by themselves to give a GM what he or she needs to properly envision the campaign setting.
Just my two-cents,
--Neil
No, by all means. Maybe I misunderstood the OP, but IIRC, the Gazeteer isn't going to print a lot of redundant stuff. Everything pertinent to an adventure path will be in the modules or the player's guide.
Contributor
|
I love, love, love Burnt Offerings. And I love D0 and D1. But I don't get to GM enough to make subscribing to the Game Mastery series worthwhile. Am I going to miss out on a lot of over-all world development if I don't purchase all of the GM stuff? Or will the material be presented later in some of the suppliments?
A LOT of world development takes place in Pathfinder, to the tune of 48 pages' worth a month.
Each module also has a little bit of information about the world, but for the most part that stuff is limited in scope to what is important to the module. No ecology-type articles, for example.
Everything you need to run a module or a Pathfinder adventure is in that product or one of the core rulebooks (DMG, MM, PH). If we use a creature or other mechanic from a different source, everything you need to know about that creature or mechanic is reprinted in the product.
But as has been pointed out, there will a significant chunk of world-building stuff in the forthcoming gazetteer.
|
It seemed like half the monsters in Pathfinder #1 required the Tome of Horrors to get the full effect (there is a stat block, but no pictures and I'm not sure that they all had stat blocks).
Can we get enough info to run the modules or suggestions on which monsters to use instead if you don't have access to the suggested monster?
Ed
|
It seemed like half the monsters in Pathfinder #1 required the Tome of Horrors to get the full effect (there is a stat block, but no pictures and I'm not sure that they all had stat blocks).
You don't need the Tome of Horrors. Each encounter in Pathfinder 1 comes with a description of the monster, you don't need a picture.
Example..
Bunyip. It's an evil seal with razor sharp teeth. Who doesn't know what a seal looks like?
(The Skinsaw Murders spoilers)
You don't because the ability isn't relevant to the adventure, it takes 6 or more hours for the spawn to rise, your PCs shouldn't be hanging around that long.
Although most probably you are right, I don't like creatures that spawn creatures I cannot build. I don't want to say this is really an issue to me, but it is disturbing... like the whole module itself... disturbing.
|
|
No, I'm definitely right. The corpses don't reanimate until sunrise.
None of the encounters with Dread stuff is setup in such a way that the players are going to need or even want to rest in the middle of a bastion of evil.
Listing the template is useless and a waste of paper. This plays into one of the many problems of 3/3.5e, paragraphs upon paragraphs of creature write up who are on the scene for less then 10 minutes of play time. If you're interested in Dread creatures to use in your own homebrew campaigns buy Advanced Bestiary. But don't pretend like anyone is going to need the full page write up from Advanced Bestiary for this adventure, because they are not.
|
|
But if you're trying to sell me a $20 a month continuing series of adventures, the fact that you are using monsters that I don't have access to rapidly becomes annoying and a reason not to continue to purchase said adventures.
Access to rapidly? I can't imagine anything quicker then having the monster right there next to the encounter description. Oh wait, that's exactly what Paizo has done. Everything you need to run the encounter is printed right there in the encounter. NOTHING you don't need for that encounter, in THAT book is printed there. These monsters probably won't appear in any other Pathfinder adventure and if they do, their stats will appear again in that adventure.
The Pathfinder books are self contained, they're selling you an Adventure Path, not a Monster Manual. If they printed "how to make a Dread Ghoul" in the book, that would be 1 less page for something else. Why 1 less page? Because that's how much space the "how to make a Dread Ghoul" takes up in Advanced Bestiary.
If you like Dread monsters buy Advanced Bestiary. That's the point of OGL. Publishers hope you see their stuff in other products and check out the original source.
For those of us that don't plan on using Dread monsters ever again, we're glad the "how to make a Dread Ghoul" is not taking away from the Magnimar, Desna, or Journal articles.
Side note, we could look at all the complaints about Eyrlium from Pathfinder 1 being too hard as an example of printing too much. Seems a lot of DMs abused her abilities and used them contrary to how the encounter is described as going, which made the encounter A LOT harder then it needed to be.
No, I'm definitely right. The corpses don't reanimate until sunrise.
Who claimed something else? But I still don't like having access to the template, perhaps I have to buy AB. :)
Oh and BTW, sometimes encounters don't run the way they should. :(
|
It seemed like half the monsters in Pathfinder #1 required the Tome of Horrors to get the full effect (there is a stat block, but no pictures and I'm not sure that they all had stat blocks).
Can we get enough info to run the modules or suggestions on which monsters to use instead if you don't have access to the suggested monster?
Ed
and if you don't know what a monster looks like, google it searching images - usually you will find it n the first page
|
and if you don't know what a monster looks like, google it searching images - usually you will find it n the first page
This fails with the Bunyip and the Tentamort in Burnt Offerings.
And, while Sinspawn, Goblin Dogs, Goblins, and most of the NPCs are all illustrated in the module, unless I spend an additional 13 dollars for the PDF on top of the 20 I paid for the book, I can't show them without revealing important text/stats.
|
|
and if you don't know what a monster looks like, google it searching images - usually you will find it n the first pageThis fails with the Bunyip and the Tentamort in Burnt Offerings.
google search for tentamort: tentamort and a google image search for bunyip Bunyip so this DOES work with these two (although the tentamort was on the second page to find a picture)
|
|
This fails with the Bunyip and the Tentamort in Burnt Offerings.
I see what the problem is. You're too lazy to read the description of the monster from Pathfinder to the players and let them use their imaginations, you must have pictures of monsters. Makes way more sense now.
I wonder how many people miss out on the fun of NOT knowing what they're facing because the DM gives them a rough description instead of showing them the picture right out of the DMG.
|
as I said in anther post it is nice to see the cross reference of both materials (take Pf #2 & Gallery of Evil this month), but I could have ran the adventure (when I get to Pf #2 of course) without knowing what happens to a certain NPC in GoE)
still I guess I'm a packrat when it comes to world/campaign info, so I love having as much as I can about Golarion as possible. Reminds me allot of my older rpg days, really.
I will admit when 3.0 came out I bought the WOTC books & a couple other company's books mainly S&S due to the bookstore here had access to them & WOTC, but when they dried up (good term for businesses that die in my town) & I now use my card shop guy as my wizard book store, I stopped getting the other publishers, with Paizo using the other publisher's stuff, it makes me want to go out & get those books & catch up on stuff I've been missing.
I've bought the Book of Fiends, & I thought about the Adv books, now I'll have to get the Bestiary book for sure now, but I'm not being forced to go get those books, I just want them to see the other stuff that is out there.
RM
|
google image search for bunyip: Bunyip
The link for the Bunyip was not working, so here you have a fixed one.
|
|
And, while Sinspawn, Goblin Dogs, Goblins, and most of the NPCs are all illustrated in the module, unless I spend an additional 13 dollars for the PDF on top of the 20 I paid for the book, I can't show them without revealing important text/stats.
Subscribing would get you printed copy at PDF cost and a free PDF as well.
A buck or two and a good photocopy machine at your local store could do the job too. OK, probably B&W, but still better than nothing!
You could also cut out a piece of paper that allows players to see the picture from the book and hides the rest.
Just thinking aloud here...
|
|
I see what the problem is. You're too lazy to read the description of the monster from Pathfinder to the players and let them use their imaginations, you must have pictures of monsters. Makes way more sense now.
Or, some of us have visually oriented players who get more out of a picture than any amount of verbal description, and you're a patronizing jerk.
Totally makes sense.
|
|
The link for the Bunyip was not working, so here you have a fixed one.
google image search for bunyip: Bunyip
Hm. Is that the interpretation of Bunyip they went with in Tome of Horrors, then? Bunyip's problem for me was there's SO MANY ways to describe Bunyip that even the description wasn't helping me narrow it down.
Subscribing would get you printed copy at PDF cost and a free PDF as well.A buck or two and a good photocopy machine at your local store could do the job too. OK, probably B&W, but still better than nothing!
You could also cut out a piece of paper that allows players to see the picture from the book and hides the rest.
Just thinking aloud here...
That last thought was something I'd definitely considered, actually. Labor intensive, but free. Photocopying was a distant second, and a subscription based on having seen ONE issue of Pathfinder was something I wasn't willing to do. I'd gladly pay 4-5 bucks for a PDF of JUST monster and character art, Paizo. Hint hint.
|
|
google search for tentamort: tentamort
That's interesting. I wonder why that doesn't appear at all on a Google Image Search...
|
|
I see what the problem is. You're too lazy to read the description of the monster from Pathfinder to the players and let them use their imaginations, you must have pictures of monsters. Makes way more sense now.
I wonder how many people miss out on the fun of NOT knowing what they're facing because the DM gives them a rough description instead of showing them the picture right out of the DMG.
SirUrza, I appreciate that you think Pathfinder gets things pretty right, and that you disagree with the comments of some of the other posters in this thread – I happen to be in general agreement with you.
However, you might be better served by toning down the rudeness of some of your responses here. Otherwise you’ll just end up with some self-righteous jerk making comments like “monster pics are in the Monster Manual not the DMG!” rather than focusing on the good sense behind your arguments.|
|
However, you might be better served by toning down the rudeness of some of your responses here. Otherwise you’ll just end up with some self-righteous jerk making comments like “monster pics are in the Monster Manual not the DMG!” rather than focusing on the good sense behind your arguments.
I was trying to be a jerk.. I just happened to screw up the sentence and you noticed it. ;)
DMs showing players the picture of what they're fighting annoys me to no end. For some players, they remain clueless. For others, it's instant recognition and they know what their fighting. Sure, it's less likely with D20 OGL products, but it's one of the highest levels of DM laziness IMHO.
And if you can't imagine what a seal with razor sharp teeth looks like without a picture...
|
I agree with SirUrza on this. I think it would be pretty cheap of Paizo to give you the full template for Dread Ghouls if it is in another company's publication. Use the monster and namecheck the source, but lifting the text wholsesale would be, I dunno, non-communitarian. These companies are facing up against the d20 behemoth of WotC, which has decided to cut up rough. While it is allowable under OGL it somehow doesn't seem right to actually give you the full description and template so you never need to go near the book it came from. Surely the point should be that if you like the monster, you look at the book and decide if you want to buy it? Cannibalising other companies' products would seem quite wrong.
And, probably more importantly, it would be a waste of space. Descriptions for Paizo monsters not in the MMI were not given in Dungeon, only the stats for that 'particular' monster which may, but often was not, a vanilla version. So why start giving full descriptions for non-Paizo monsters in Pathfinder. There is no precedent for it.
|
|
This fails with the Bunyip and the Tentamort in Burnt Offerings.I see what the problem is. You're too lazy to read the description of the monster from Pathfinder to the players and let them use their imaginations, you must have pictures of monsters. Makes way more sense now.
So the fact that I expect value from something that I'm paying $20 a month for makes me lazy? That's a hell of a way to get customers.
I'm getting the first 4-5 free due to my subscriptions to Dragon and Dungeon. I'll pick up the other 1-2 to complete the first series. And then I'm going to make a decision on whether it's worth the money to subscribe.
And pompous asses like you do absolutely nothing to encourage me to subscribe. It's too bad that no one official has anything to say.
Ed
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Guys, let's try to tone it down here, please?
The policy on monsters for Pathfinder is identical to the one we used for five years on Dragon and Dungeon. If the monster is not from the Monster Manual, we try to give a good description of what it looks like so that GMs can set a flavorful scene for their friends.
A picture of a monster costs us about $150-$300, depending on size. It is impractical for us to order a new piece of art for every monster we use, so sometimes the text description must suffice.
Searching the internet for images is one way to get around this problem if your players vastly prefer images of their monsters to verbal descriptions. I will talk to the Pathfinder staff and see if they have any additional ideas.
--Erik
When I saw the Hollow's Last Hope module (which I made sure I got to the store to get), I was extremely excited about the direction paizo was taking. They were breathing new life into creatures that had become blah (razorcrows, dunlied, etc), as well as making new exciting creatures (tatzywyrm). Even the graypelt with his warrior levels was a bit exciting. So I really looked forward to the Pathfinder Adventure Path.
But I have been slightly disappointed (only slightly) with the fact that instead limiting themselves to continuing to breath life into creatures from the open content or using their own creatures, they have on occasion used creatures from other sources. It just feels like a bit of a copout. Why is something like this dread ghoul thing necessary? Why couldn't a vampire or some other kind of undead be used (perhaps just changing the name like what was done for razorcrows), a wight maybe? Or why not create a brand new undead, like the revenant.
As for not needing the template, well who can say? Maybe the party get to the BBEG, and starts rolling really poorly. They realize they are going to be TPKed if they don't run, except not everyone makes it. Those that do, run for it and try to get away in order to come back stronger. Now we have a situation where the template would make sense to use, but no template there.
As for the description and pictures, well comments about "And if you can't imagine what a seal with razor sharp teeth looks like without a picture...", it should be noted that the person who linked a picture of the creature and the person who drew it obviously didn't see it that way, because that picture looks like a saber-toothed cat with webbed feet a heck of lot more than a seal with razor sharp teeth.
Or course wanting pictures or wanting just descriptions is purely a personal preference just as wanting minis that look similiar to the creature you are fighting or just wanting any old mini (hopefully of the same size). Some people gain more from a visual than others do.
|
|
So the fact that I expect value from something that I'm paying $20 a month for makes me lazy? That's a hell of a way to get customers.
I'm getting the first 4-5 free due to my subscriptions to Dragon and Dungeon. I'll pick up the other 1-2 to complete the first series. And then I'm going to make a decision on whether it's worth the money to subscribe.
That seems eminently sensible and reasonable.
It's a shame that another person posting on this board has riled you, hopefully you won't hold it against Paizo or the other people on here.
However, I am surprised at the suggestion that what you're already getting from RotRL is not good value. Even more good stuff is always popular with me, but I reckon that the current contents of my RotRL is pretty good value for money.
I find that a good picture can really draw in some of my players, but if i'm describing what it looks like I also get to do actions and voices - which is sometimes more scary, sometimes more funny, and always pretty entertaining :D
|
|
Why is something like this dread ghoul thing necessary? Why couldn't a vampire or some other kind of undead be used (perhaps just changing the name like what was done for razorcrows), a wight maybe? Or why not create a brand new undead, like the revenant.
Cause they needed an undead, that could control other undead, whose undead could pose as scarecrows, who could remain in the sun. Vampire can't do that last one. :)
As for creating a new undead, you run into the problem of using up space that's not need.
I've never seen a module designed for that "what if the Party starts to get killed" scenarios everyone gets paranoid about.
|
|
However, I am surprised at the suggestion that what you're already getting from RotRL is not good value. Even more good stuff is always popular with me, but I reckon that the current contents of my RotRL is pretty good value for money.
Some people find it easier to make demands, question quality, and withdraw support then deal with not always getting what they want. Fact is, he plays D&D, and he plays 3E/3.5. That alone shows he's willing to pay for inferior product with questionable value.
And lets face it, if he can't deal with me, he'd hide under his bed and never come out because the world and lol the Wizards of the Coast forums are nasty nasty places.
|
Creative Director
|
But I have been slightly disappointed (only slightly) with the fact that instead limiting themselves to continuing to breath life into creatures from the open content or using their own creatures, they have on occasion used creatures from other sources. It just feels like a bit of a copout. Why is something like this dread ghoul thing necessary? Why couldn't a vampire or some other kind of undead be used (perhaps just changing the name like what was done for razorcrows), a wight maybe? Or why not create a brand new undead, like the revenant.
On one level, the dread ghoul/ghast template was an artistic choice. It also did everything we needed to do, both on a mechanical level (allows an undead creature to control an army of lesser undead) and on a flavor level (allows an undead creature that is relatively minor, visceral, and regional). Vampires have too much baggage and presupposed flavor, and more to the point, a vampire is awkward as a minion to a non vampire. In this case, since the undead murderer had to be the pawn and patsy of a more powerful villian in the adventure, it made more sense to go with a less grandiose undead template.
And again... and I can't state this enough... it's an artistic choice. It's no more a cop-out than the choice to use goblins instead of kobolds in Burnt Offerings, or the decision to use a giant gecko for Ripnugget's mount instead of a monitor lizard.
Guys, let's try to tone it down here, please?
The policy on monsters for Pathfinder is identical to the one we used for five years on Dragon and Dungeon. If the monster is not from the Monster Manual, we try to give a good description of what it looks like so that GMs can set a flavorful scene for their friends.
A picture of a monster costs us about $150-$300, depending on size. It is impractical for us to order a new piece of art for every monster we use, so sometimes the text description must suffice.
Searching the internet for images is one way to get around this problem if your players vastly prefer images of their monsters to verbal descriptions. I will talk to the Pathfinder staff and see if they have any additional ideas.
--Erik
I actually prefer textual descriptions of monsters because it allows me to spruce up the wordage a bit to make it come alive... It's a lot more satisfying than pointing at a picture and saying, "You see this." As long as the text description is not too vague, it's all good.
|
|
I actually prefer textual descriptions of monsters because it allows me to spruce up the wordage a bit to make it come alive... It's a lot more satisfying than pointing at a picture and saying, "You see this." As long as the text description is not too vague, it's all good.
And the "You see this" is the most irritating DM cop-out I've ever encounter. Aside from it being poor DMing IMHO, any player that knows the monster instantly will recognize it and remember it's weaknesses.
|
|
I actually prefer textual descriptions of monsters because it allows me to spruce up the wordage a bit to make it come alive... It's a lot more satisfying than pointing at a picture and saying, "You see this." As long as the text description is not too vague, it's all good.
I *personally* prefer text descriptions, but I have players who prefer pictures. Art's always one of the most expensive elements of any game book, so I'm aware that sometimes those players will have to suck it up and draw their own damn picture or go to the internet. Where I get tripped up on descriptions or searching the internet, however, is when a creature, such as a bunyip or yeth hound, deviates significantly from the mythic or fictional primary source, or, like the tentamort, it is an obscure and rarely used monster.
I can find dozens of pictures of goblins and trolls and ogres. Knowing my mythology can get me through mythic critters like the Senmurv, Peryton, and Coatl. But when faced with Tentamorts, Wolf-In-Sheep's-Clothings, and Squarks, I'm at sea, and even a good description can lead to wildly differing expectations among players. And when a critter isn't anything at all like its inspirational source, like Lamias, Gorgons, or Bunyip, you run into similar problems. Even after reading the description, a player probably has an existing mental image that hasn't been broken by the verbal description. And hitting the internet for obscure monsters or monsters that look different than their mythic namesakes can be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
I do not consider the lack of pictures of the Tentamort or Bunyip in RotRL#1 to be a FLAW, and it won't make any difference in any reviews I would write, but IN MY GAME, it keeps a great project from being perfect.
Cause they needed an undead, that could control other undead, whose undead could pose as scarecrows, who could remain in the sun. Vampire can't do that last one. :)
Vampire was just one suggestion, but I guess some people lack creativity to look for others.
As for creating a new undead, you run into the problem of using up space that's not need.
Here let me take a wild shot at making up an undead to do what you want. Let's call it a "Master Ghoul".
Master Ghoul (use stats for Wight with the following exceptions)*Command Lesser Undead (Su) - A master ghoul can make lesser types of undead (skeletons, zombies, ghouls, and ghast) do what they command.
*Create Spawn (Su) - If the creature killed has at least 4 HD, it rises as a master ghoul, other wise it rises as a ghoul.
Wow, you're right, that was insanely hard. Who could have possible have done that?
I've never seen a module designed for that "what if the Party starts to get killed" scenarios everyone gets paranoid about.
You have never seen a module take into account that the PCs might fail at some part? Well, there is always deus ex machina.
Vampires have too much baggage and presupposed flavor, and more to the point, a vampire is awkward as a minion to a non vampire.
As I said to Urza, that was just one example of an intelligent undead. Though again, if you change the name and flavor, then there is no presupposed flavor.
And again... and I can't state this enough... it's an artistic choice. It's no more a cop-out than the choice to use goblins instead of kobolds in Burnt Offerings, or the decision to use a giant gecko for Ripnugget's mount instead of a monitor lizard.
Well I didn't say it was a cop-out, merely that if felt like one. Just as using the some new PC classes to fulfill a specific role that could be done by using 2 standard PC classes feels a bit like a cop-out. Though your example here is actually what I was really excited to see, new creatures instead of depending on someone else's work.
And the "You see this" is the most irritating DM cop-out I've ever encounter. Aside from it being poor DMing IMHO, any player that knows the monster instantly will recognize it and remember it's weaknesses.
*Research shows that most people remember something like 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see, 50% of what they hear and see, 70% of what they have to explain themselves, and 90% of what they have to do and explain. So if you want your players to have a better idea of what they are fighting, seeing a picture and having it described to them will help them remember it more than just hearing it or just seeing it. Of course if you don't really care that players have any idea as to what they are fighting, then heck you could even just call them monster widget or monster X or whatever.
Or course this is the same issue as to whether drawing a map or using miniatures are better than having the DM just describe everything. With miniatures or drawn maps, you rarely have comments like, "What do you mean there is a chasm between us, you didn't say that!"
*I believe these values are approximately correct based on a quick search of some sites.
And the "You see this" is the most irritating DM cop-out I've ever encounter. Aside from it being poor DMing IMHO, any player that knows the monster instantly will recognize it and remember it's weaknesses.
But the point is that few DMs who use pictures do say "You see this" and hand the players a picture--there is usually a significant amount of additional description. In fact I handed a picture out last weekend and said this is roughly what it looks like following a description of it and its behavior.
Yet your sweeping statement casts me as a bad DM even though that picture and encounter is less than 1% of what I have done to create this campaign.
And just another point here. None of my players have ever seen the picture before and they don't know the weaknesses of every monster that comes along. Not everyone has played D&D for years, my friend.
But if you just want something to quarrel over... be my guest. As you were.
|
|
And just another point here. None of my players have ever seen the picture before and they don't know the weaknesses of every monster that comes along. Not everyone has played D&D for years, my friend.
Again, never said anything about playing D&D for years, I said owning a book and recognizing the picture in it when the DM uses it as a visual aid as "this is what you're fighting."
In any regard, you're right. This debate isn't getting anywhere and really has nothing to do with the original posters topic. You don't need to buy everything because you won't miss out on anything.