Working with WotC and Paizo


Product Discussion

301 to 350 of 445 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

John Kretzer wrote:

I'll just say this on the subject of Pathfinder 2nd ed....if it comes I hope it is not because they have ran out of ideas for Golarion....and use the edition change to relaunch a bunch of 'updates' to Golarion...or a new campaign setting. IE I hope 2nd ed is not tied to the campaign setting side of things.

If there ever is a PF2E you can be sure that Paizo won't publish something that will obsolete their existing material (especially already published APs). They have been pretty adamant and consistent regarding this strategy. So should a PF2E ever get published I believe it will be about as different from PF1E as PF1E is from 3.5. Which is to say, not very.

IMHO, I think Paizo should leave the rules as they are and concentrate on game and world material. Every once in a while a new set of rules would be fine (like kingdom building added to Kingmaker, or very high level rules for a very high level AP) but these addendum should be tied directly to an adventure (again like Kingmaker did). But of course I felt the same way about 3.5 when the 4E rumblings began and look how wrong I was about 4E, I mean that was a huge success, right?

I don't play Call of Cthulhu (btw, "Cthulhu" is recognized by my spell checker now, a sure sign of something) nor have I ever read the rules for it but it seems to me like they have a pretty good rules publishing model. From what I can tell almost all versions of CoC are compatible with each other and I think they are on 7.0 now.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MicMan wrote:
Same story as what happened to WotC with "Fallen Empires" the first Expansion to Magic:TG after their worldwide success of the "Revised" Edition. They produced an amount of cards that could never be sold ever and thus FE was considered a failure when in reality it was quite successful (despite the cards being mostly crap).

Fallen Empires was the 3rd expansion after "Revised", however otherwise completely correct.


Well, yes, if you just look at the release dates it really is. But, initially Revised was printed in a much too small print run AND had several problems which Wizards sought to correct in their famous "Summer Magic" printing. This failed and the "Summer Magic" cards were returned to Wizards and destroyed (leaving the few remaining ones as the most expensive M:TG cards to date).

Only after that was Revised printed in a large enough number so that it became readily available world wide. That was around October 1994. In November/December 1994 FE was realesed and readily availabe just about everywhere.

Thus FE can be viewed as the first expansion after the world wide success of M:TG with the Revised Edition.


MicMan wrote:
Later I was enarmored with White Wolfs Vampire and Mage books but couldn't get anyone to play it because it wasn't d20.

If you're still up to that, have a look at Monte Cook's World of Darkness. It's a d20 WoD Ruleset and alternate WoD setting. You don't really have to use the alternate system if you don't want to.

Sovereign Court

Taliesin Hoyle wrote:


The accepted epithets are

3tard.
4ron.

Oh I LIKE these. :D


Elf_NFB wrote:
Taliesin Hoyle wrote:


The accepted epithets are

3tard.
4ron.

Oh I LIKE these. :D

Hey, I mentioned those pages ago! ;-)


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MicMan wrote:

Well, yes, if you just look at the release dates it really is. But, initially Revised was printed in a much too small print run AND had several problems which Wizards sought to correct in their famous "Summer Magic" printing. This failed and the "Summer Magic" cards were returned to Wizards and destroyed (leaving the few remaining ones as the most expensive M:TG cards to date).

Only after that was Revised printed in a large enough number so that it became readily available world wide. That was around October 1994. In November/December 1994 FE was realesed and readily availabe just about everywhere.

Thus FE can be viewed as the first expansion after the world wide success of M:TG with the Revised Edition.

Ahh ok, I see what you were going for now. :)


MicMan wrote:
So, from my experience, the failure of 4e and the success of Pathfinder didn't have much to do with 3PP and OGL but instead with WotC failing at designing a worthy successor to 3.5

This too ... you could have a character in any flavour you wanted, as long as it was vanilla.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
MicMan wrote:
So, from my experience, the failure of 4e and the success of Pathfinder didn't have much to do with 3PP and OGL but instead with WotC failing at designing a worthy successor to 3.5
This too ... you could have a character in any flavour you wanted, as long as it was vanilla.

I think there was also a misapprehension of a lot of their customers and what they appreciated from combat. One of the things that jarred me the most was looking into the monster manual and seeing the fluff of how powerful an orc was, and how the orc warrior was the shock troops of the species, and then seeing the sample first level orc having 1 hit point.

Killing an orc in combat was just a blah thing, it was like, ok, big surprise, I killed it. I did 8 pts of damage and killed it. The wizard stabbed one with his dagger and did 1 pt and killed it. Whooptey Doo...

I think that turned off a lot of old school gamers who felt like combat had basically become a pen and paper version of Dynasty Warriors. I love Dynasty Warriors for just mindless slaughter and no real thought, but that's not what I want from an RPG game.


Yeah, at the risk of igniting an edition war, I'm going to say I strongly disagree...game design wasn't 4E's problem. WotC was 4E's problem. But that's all I'm going to say about that. :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Yeah, at the risk of igniting an edition war, I'm going to say I strongly disagree...game design wasn't 4E's problem. WotC was 4E's problem. But that's all I'm going to say about that. :)

Don't think it's about an edition war. I can have an opinion of a game system without turning it into an edition war. I have negative comments about WoD, SR4, GURPS4, Hero5, PF, and other systems. If you want them, I'll start a new thread on it. Edition wars is someone taking the stance of 'You suxx, I rulez, lol lol'.


mdt wrote:
Don't think it's about an edition war. I can have an opinion of a game system without turning it into an edition war. I have negative comments about WoD, SR4, GURPS4, Hero5, PF, and other systems. If you want them, I'll start a new thread on it. Edition wars is someone taking the stance of 'You suxx, I rulez, lol lol'.

In theory, I agree. In practice, it always seems to escalate, no matter how well intentioned many of the posters are. A lot like the off-topic forum (which I entirely abandoned a few weeks ago, largely for exactly the same reason...).

So, no, please don't start a thread. I offered my view, and that's good enough for me. :)


bugleyman wrote:
Yeah, at the risk of igniting an edition war, I'm going to say I strongly disagree...game design wasn't 4E's problem. WotC was 4E's problem. But that's all I'm going to say about that. :)

Oh I won't deny that mechanically the system was very sound, it just didn't have the flavour of ... well ... D&D!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Yeah, at the risk of igniting an edition war, I'm going to say I strongly disagree...game design wasn't 4E's problem. WotC was 4E's problem. But that's all I'm going to say about that. :)
Oh I won't deny that mechanically the system was very sound, it just didn't have the flavour of ... well ... D&D!

Agreed, the rules were much tighter, and it was written in a much easier to understand way (mostly). Doesn't mean it was fun however to play, at least for me. I find GURPS to be very well written (mostly, with one big exception in 4.0), and it's got a lot of detailed explanations. That doesn't mean it's not a pain in the butt to learn.

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:
Agreed, the rules were much tighter, and it was written in a much easier to understand way (mostly). Doesn't mean it was fun however to play, at least for me. I find GURPS to be very well written (mostly, with one big exception in 4.0), and it's got a lot of detailed explanations. That doesn't mean it's not a pain in the butt to learn.

I'm compelled to agree that, regardless of what I thought of the rules and mechanics, they way they were presented was a big advancement in many ways. Streamlined, bullet-pointed, easily accessible while gaming. I dont know that I need my game that way. I'm more of an AD&D guy (which I think is what Pathfinder is), but I appreciate the "tech" update of the way things were presented in 4E.


I find GURPS to be closer to AD&D, then Pathfinder or 4E. If you are playing fantasy. The only downside to GURPS is learning a new system, and finding someone to DM it. I did not find any problems with playing GURPS 4th versus 3rd, and the changes were not drastic. But I agree with bugleyman that WOTC (Hasbro) is it's own worse enemy, and Paizo is locked into the OGL and 3.5. So I expect 3.5/Pathfinder/4E to be in a rut for a while, until someone decides to implement some significant changes. But I think it is very evident the WOTC and Paizo will not be working with the other any time soon, or maybe after hell freezes over, or whenever that supplement is released.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post - please post civilly, thanks!


Clark Peterson wrote:
I'm compelled to agree that, regardless of what I thought of the rules and mechanics, they way they were presented was a big advancement in many ways. Streamlined, bullet-pointed, easily accessible while gaming. I dont know that I need my game that way. I'm more of an AD&D guy (which I think is what Pathfinder is), but I appreciate the "tech" update of the way things were presented in 4E.

for what it's worth - 4e reads (and plays) like a pen and paper version of World of Warcraft. If I want to play Warcraft, I'd log in and re-activate my old character(s).

I like pathfinder. Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader too for that matter...but when it comes to fantasy RPG games, pathfinder is what i'm sticking with.

EDIT - spelling.


HAH HAH NEVERMIND, I screwed up


Mr. Quick wrote:
Clark Peterson wrote:
I'm compelled to agree that, regardless of what I thought of the rules and mechanics, they way they were presented was a big advancement in many ways. Streamlined, bullet-pointed, easily accessible while gaming. I dont know that I need my game that way. I'm more of an AD&D guy (which I think is what Pathfinder is), but I appreciate the "tech" update of the way things were presented in 4E.

for what it's worthy - 4e reads (and plays) like a pen and paper version of World of Warcraft. If I want to play Warcraft, I'd log in and re-activate my old character(s).

I like pathfinder. Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader too for that matter...but when it comes to fantasy RPG games, pathfinder is what i'm sticking with.

I love these comments because I saw the 2e -> 3e shift, and guess what?

Replace "4e" with "3e" and "World of Warcraft" with "Diablo" and they are completely identical.

As I have stated previously, we will not see a fifth edition until Blizzard makes a new fantasy IP for fans to compare it to.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
As I have stated previously, we will not see a fifth edition until Blizzard makes a new fantasy IP for fans to compare it to.

Diablo 3?

/duck!


I honestly have no idea how 4e and it's various product lines are doing. I don't play it because the folks in my area who run D&D 4e games are rude opinionated jerks. when I show up to run things at my local game store, I don't want to get into a shoving match over which game system is 'better', I just want to run my game for my players and have a good time.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
Removed a post - please post civilly, thanks!

Saying "WotC and Pathfinder both own, neither one is dying" is not posting civilly, but stating 4e is dying and isn't really D&D isn't?

Distressing.

Dude... It's not what you said. It's how you said it.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
Removed a post - please post civilly, thanks!

Saying "WotC and Pathfinder both own, neither one is dying" is not posting civilly, but stating 4e is dying and isn't really D&D isn't?

Distressing.

The post was pretty obviously hidden for the second half, where you used a fairly colorful euphemism.

Contributor

Jumping into this thread randomly, all I can say is that I've never had a bad experience working with Paizo*, and they're really cool folks in person. It's awesome to not be the most gigantic nerd in the room :D Awesome folks and awesome game world.

I don't have much to compare to however since I've never worked for WotC, though I had a roommate who was on their payroll for a while as a coder and WizO, and one friend of friend who coded much of the offline 4e character builder. Not sure if I could compare their experience (Gleemax and its fallout) to what writers and game designers would experience.

*even when they cut stuff from a book that I thought was totally cool. Why must my apparent sceaduinar fetish not be shared? Why?! *emphatic gestures and doctor claw style fist of rage* Why do you hate those helpless harbingers of anti-life? ;)


Said it before, Saying it again Thank you Paizo


Erik Mona wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
Removed a post - please post civilly, thanks!

Saying "WotC and Pathfinder both own, neither one is dying" is not posting civilly, but stating 4e is dying and isn't really D&D isn't?

Distressing.

The post was pretty obviously hidden for the second half, where you used a fairly colorful euphemism.

Derf, forgot I even added that. Methinks I need to stop posting on so many different forums all at the same time. Editing my post.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:


I love these comments because I saw the 2e -> 3e shift, and guess what?

Replace "4e" with "3e" and "World of Warcraft" with "Diablo" and they are completely identical.

As I have stated previously, we will not see a fifth edition until Blizzard makes a new fantasy IP for fans to compare it to.

Your problem Prof, is you equate one thing to another, when they are not the same. Or rather, the people are not the same. I was thrilled with the update that 3.0/3.5 represented. I always found AD&D to be full of rules holes and rules that conflicted with each other rather blatantly.

WoTC get's huge props from me for taking a giant ball of tangled yarn that had been sitting in a sewer for quite a few years, untangling it, snipping out the worst of the snarls, washing the yarn until it was clean again, and then weaving it into a nice doily. TSR really hosed up the system a right mess.


mdt wrote:

Your problem Prof, is you equate one thing to another, when they are not the same. Or rather, the people are not the same. I was thrilled with the update that 3.0/3.5 represented. I always found AD&D to be full of rules holes and rules that conflicted with each other rather blatantly.

WoTC get's huge props from me for taking a giant ball of tangled yarn that had been sitting in a sewer for quite a few years, untangling it, snipping out the worst of the snarls, washing the yarn until it was clean again, and then weaving it into a nice doily. TSR really hosed up the system a right mess.

You are missing what I am saying;

"<Game> is really <video game>" has been around for ages. Calling 4e World of Warcraft is meaningless, just as calling 3e Diablo is meaningless. I think at one point I saw someone claim AD&D was little more then a roguelike compared to GLORIOUS BECMI. You're absolutely right that the people are not the same, which is why it's so hilarious. The same people that would fight to the bone on 3e not being a video game are turning around and making the exact same comment.


The comment is simpler, the reasons for the comparison are not. Wotc went as far as to use games common to MMo's and a layout for their books that looked very much like a game manual.

The "Is this a WoW game" comments are not limited to RPG players nor are they limited to folks who dislike 4e.

It simply is not a pot shot at 4e for being 4e, but a real comment on the look and feel of the system and the books from people who have not dug deep into the system and then some who have still feel it Looks like WoW on some levels.

So while the words are similar their is a very good reason why the comment is still around and in common use.

Blame WoTc for the book design and naming on that one.

Note: This is not an attack on 4e or wotc, just saying it like it is.

Paizo Employee CEO

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:
MicMan wrote:
Same story as what happened to WotC with "Fallen Empires" the first Expansion to Magic:TG after their worldwide success of the "Revised" Edition. They produced an amount of cards that could never be sold ever and thus FE was considered a failure when in reality it was quite successful (despite the cards being mostly crap).
Fallen Empires was the 3rd expansion after "Revised", however otherwise completely correct.

Actually, you are both wrong. :)

1. Arabian Nights
2. Antiquities
3. Legends
4. The Dark
5. Ice Age
6. Fallen Empires

-Lisa

Dark Archive

Lisa Stevens wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
MicMan wrote:
Same story as what happened to WotC with "Fallen Empires" the first Expansion to Magic:TG after their worldwide success of the "Revised" Edition. They produced an amount of cards that could never be sold ever and thus FE was considered a failure when in reality it was quite successful (despite the cards being mostly crap).
Fallen Empires was the 3rd expansion after "Revised", however otherwise completely correct.

Actually, you are both wrong. :)

1. Arabian Nights
2. Antiquities
3. Legends
4. The Dark
5. Ice Age
6. Fallen Empires

-Lisa

I'll bet you still have the sets.... ;)


Lisa Stevens wrote:

Actually, you are both wrong. :)

1. Arabian Nights
2. Antiquities
3. Legends
4. The Dark
5. Ice Age
6. Fallen Empires

-Lisa

Actually, Ice Age was released in June 1995, while Fallen Empires was released in November 1994 :)


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
MicMan wrote:
Same story as what happened to WotC with "Fallen Empires" the first Expansion to Magic:TG after their worldwide success of the "Revised" Edition. They produced an amount of cards that could never be sold ever and thus FE was considered a failure when in reality it was quite successful (despite the cards being mostly crap).
Fallen Empires was the 3rd expansion after "Revised", however otherwise completely correct.

Actually, you are both wrong. :)

1. Arabian Nights
2. Antiquities
3. Legends
4. The Dark
5. Ice Age
6. Fallen Empires

-Lisa

But wasn't revised released after Antiquities?


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

The comment is simpler, the reasons for the comparison are not. Wotc went as far as to use games common to MMo's and a layout for their books that looked very much like a game manual.

The "Is this a WoW game" comments are not limited to RPG players nor are they limited to folks who dislike 4e.

It simply is not a pot shot at 4e for being 4e, but a real comment on the look and feel of the system and the books from people who have not dug deep into the system and then some who have still feel it Looks like WoW on some levels.

So while the words are similar their is a very good reason why the comment is still around and in common use.

Blame WoTc for the book design and naming on that one.

Note: This is not an attack on 4e or wotc, just saying it like it is.

Yet again, everything said here was said about 3e and Diablo, but I guarantee people here would fight tooth and nail against that.

Besides, as someone who plays Pathfinder, 4e, and used to play WoW, I've found 3e has had more WoW-isms then 4e ;p

The comment that it isn't meant to be a pot shot is disingenuous. Nobody says "<edition of D&D> is just like <video game> and I'm so happy about it!" Nobody talks about the "good" of <edition> being like <video game>. It is at it's core a simplistic insult. Nobody said 3e being like Diablo was a good thing. And nobody saying 4e is like WoW means it positively, either.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Justin Franklin wrote:


But wasn't revised released after Antiquities?

I think it was after Legends, if i remember my own booster pack buying days.

Beta
Arabian Nights
Antiquities
Legends
Revised
The Dark
Fallen Empires
Ice Age

Is what i recall.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
And nobody saying 4e is like WoW means it positively, either.

I am not so sure. I know of at lest 1 guy who bought the 4e books to learn based solely off it did indeed remind him of WoW. Which I have a sinking feeling he was 4e's target audience to start with.

Not saying that is a bad thing, or a good thing. But people keep thinking it is anti-4e and only anti 4e folks who use that or think that.

And if we are being honest here, compare 4e's layout to game manuals The do the same for near any other RPG. I think that videos game look was aimed at. Which really is what also so confused me about the red box as it clearly was not aimed at those it should have been but, eh wotc {or the hasbro management of Wotc maybe} have dropped so many balls on 4e is has to be a record or something.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
And if we are being honest here, compare 4e's layout to game manuals

Which?

Because if you're like me and you enjoy older games, the game manuals are awesome. They're filled with super sweet artwork and has a ton of fluff in them on top of teaching you about the games.

Alternately, do you mean modern games? Because those typically don't even have manuals anymore.

See? "They're just like x" doesn't work if x is an entire industry.


According to wikipedia Fallen Empires is the 5th of the expansion sets and was released in November of '94. It was preceded by: Arabian Nights, Antiquities, Legends and The Dark.

Revised was released in April of '94 and was the 4th of the base sets, preceded by: Alpha, Beta and Unlimited.

Ice Age was the 7th expansion set - with Homelands inbetween The Dark and Ice Age.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Because if you're like me and you enjoy older games, the game manuals are awesome. They're filled with super sweet artwork and has a ton of fluff in them on top of teaching you about the games.

The coolest old games came with a decoder wheel and a book of journal entries to cut down on disk space :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Sweetman wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Because if you're like me and you enjoy older games, the game manuals are awesome. They're filled with super sweet artwork and has a ton of fluff in them on top of teaching you about the games.
The coolest old games came with a decoder wheel and a book of journal entries to cut down on disk space :)

Viva Bard's Tale!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Sweetman wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Because if you're like me and you enjoy older games, the game manuals are awesome. They're filled with super sweet artwork and has a ton of fluff in them on top of teaching you about the games.
The coolest old games came with a decoder wheel and a book of journal entries to cut down on disk space :)

Decoder wheels were the stupidest thing prior to DRM. They were supposed to prevent piracy, because nobody had access to copy machines (oh wait, yes they did). The ones with the funny red filters were slightly more secure, until you realized that a copier could copy them by downing the contrast (since the older copiers had trouble with red).

All they did was irritate valid purchasers (like me) when they fell apart and had to be held together by hand, or got lost.

Dreamscarred Press

mdt wrote:


All they did was irritate valid purchasers (like me) when they fell apart and had to be held together by hand, or got lost.

Ain't that the truth.

I remember just picking one of the words and using it over and over until it worked because I couldn't be bothered to dig it out.


mdt wrote:
Decoder wheels were the stupidest thing prior to DRM.

Well... I liked them I miss my cloth maps as well.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Sweetman wrote:
mdt wrote:
Decoder wheels were the stupidest thing prior to DRM.
Well... I liked them I miss my cloth maps as well.

Decoders would have been fine as a bonus (IE: If you have the decoder and put in the right word, you get a boost randomly in game, like extra resources from travelling do gooders or something), but as a method of DRM they sucked.

The giant fold out maps or cloth maps were very cool of course. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

i miss the cloth maps also =(

Dark Archive

Yeah the old cloth maps that use to come in some video games boxes where very cool.

Paizo Employee CEO

joela wrote:
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
MicMan wrote:
Same story as what happened to WotC with "Fallen Empires" the first Expansion to Magic:TG after their worldwide success of the "Revised" Edition. They produced an amount of cards that could never be sold ever and thus FE was considered a failure when in reality it was quite successful (despite the cards being mostly crap).
Fallen Empires was the 3rd expansion after "Revised", however otherwise completely correct.

Actually, you are both wrong. :)

1. Arabian Nights
2. Antiquities
3. Legends
4. The Dark
5. Ice Age
6. Fallen Empires

-Lisa

I'll bet you still have the sets.... ;)

You would be right. And unopened booster packs. And display boxes. I am a bit of a collector it seems. :)

-Lisa


Nice,

however I said "the first expansion after M:TGs worldwide success with Revised".

Spoiler:
You list the expansions that were at some time between Revised and 4th (but Ice Age was the first Standalone and well after Fallen Empires, even Homelands was in between but was widely regarded as the worst expansion ever, so maybe you erased it from your memory).

However Revised got released in April 94 just before Legends hit the table and after Antiquities. BUT initially there was an insufficient printrun (and Beta was in much higher demand given that the best cards were missing from Revised).

So many remember buying Revised "after Legends" or even "after The Dark" (if you lived as far out as I do) and thus Fallen Empires was for many the first expansion after they bought Revised and while Revised was readily available.

Source: Wikipedia

___________

Back on topic:

While I remember some chatter about 3e being some sort of "computerized" AD&D, the changes really were not that big compared to 3.5 and 4e. Basically it was only streamlining of the mechanics which didn't affect how the game was played at all apart from rolling high was important where rolling low was before.

4e broke with tradition in several key areas in that almost everything is geared toward combat making 4e almost some sort of miniature table top game. The sections that could soften this approach were under developed (Rituals, Skills) or unexciting (Crafting, Multi-classing).

This was shown by the questions of many beginners regarding things that happened out of combat, of which they had no clear concept and it showed how WotC envisioned how this game should be played: as a series of encounters (best with miniatures and mat) only loosely connected by a story and with barely any action in between (as illustrated by their first few adventures).

I won't say this is a bad thing and many like that approach. It certainly is much more accessible (a main advantage of 4e that was promptly shot down with the introduction of a plethora of books and core versions).

301 to 350 of 445 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / Working with WotC and Paizo All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.