|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So, now that the bloodrager has hit the ground, I have a question about their bloodlines. Currently, all of the bloodlines match the sorcerer's. Going forward, would you rather see the bloodrager diverge in bloodlines (as in having entirely unique bloodlines) or keep in line with the sorcerer?
I'd rather see the bloodrager stick to established sorcerer bloodlines and not outpace those bloodlines.
2) Some do, some do not.
3) They're enemies of the Dominion of the Black.
4) Nope; mi-go technology remains its own weird combination of magic and tech, as detailed already. They're not humans, and therefore their technology doesn't follow the rules listed in the Technology Guide.
5) Not really.
6) Tradition. They're inspired by Asian movies, and therefore they dwell in the region of our world inspired by Asia. Same reason gnomes dwell in the region inspired by European myth, or rakshasas dwell in the region inspired by Indian myth.
7) Not anytime soon.
8) Mi-go serve mi-go with class levels, who in turn serve the Great Old Ones or Outer Gods.
10) Could be any of them, but my preference would actually be the Dominion of the Black, since I'd rather not directly tie flumphs into Lovecraftian mythology if I can help it.
I was speaking from an idle story viewpoint, not a "I've run the numbers and done mock battles to see if they really could."
Thurston Hillman wrote:
He was not.
He was the god of Humanity in the Inner Sea Region. Had he lived longer than he did, he might have branched out, but no... he wasn't well known at all in regions outside of Avistan or north Garund.
That's kind of one of the things you have to just accept and move on...
There's basically two economies in a pen and paper fantasy world.
1) The economy driven by PCs buying and selling magic items.
2) The economy driven by in-world NPCs and trade and the like.
They don't really play well together, and it's best not to make them try in my opinion. At least, not without completely redesigning how the game handles magic item pricing, balance, and creation from the ground up.
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Ah... interesting. Had a feeling it was something like this.
Those people should instead use their GMs as sources of rulings, frankly. And if there are confusing parts of the Warpriest or any other element in Advanced Class Guide... those questions need to be posted to the rules forum so the design team can see them when they get tagged with a FAQ.
It's amusing/annoying to me if folks are citing me as a source for rulings, because I wasn't actually directly involved in that book's creation. My general attitude for problems like these is to encourage the GM to make a ruling as best fits his/her gameplay style and to not worry too much about whether that ruling is "right" or not. It's right if it makes your game more fun.
The endless arguments over how to pedantically interpret rules is too exhausting at times. I'd rather play the game than game the play.
1) Undecided at this time. Perhaps.
2) Yes, there are a lot of body shapes. Zimivra is a serpent. Queen Vorgozen is a blob type thing. Cimurlian is a quadruped. More might exist.
3) Keeping in mind that I'm not the one who makes those choices... I'd pick Steve Prescott, Eva Widermann, Ben Wootten, Lars Grant-West, and Warren Mahy.... although ask me again in a day or an hour and that list might change.
4) Yes, we established that months and months ago. And while there's only like a 1% chance it'll change... there's still a chance, and so I'm not ready to reveal publicly those page counts.
5) Yes. That's part of the point of the book. Just like Inner Sea Gods.
6) Some more than others, but for the most part I have at least vague ideas for all of them. A few I have very clear ideas.
7) No. Not interested in retconning existing creatures into kaiju.
9) It will be soon, but we don't want to announce it before we know it's ready. Which, I suppose, means it'll be a surprise at the last minute. Or at least the last week.
10) ummmmm... I assume you mean "recently." I haven't actually seen any recently since the last time I did an update to my recent movies seen. Been too busy.
Races with more than 2 arms really start to blow the lid off of game balance for PCs for reasons like this.
My advice... mixing Multiweapon fighting with Improved Two Weapon Fighting should work... but should ONLY increase the number of iterative attacks for ONE off hand, not all of them.
Thus... a kasatha wielding 4 short swords gets 4 atatcks. With Improved Two Weapon Fighting, it would get 5 attacks, not 8.
Giving a PC that many attacks is bad for TWO reasons:
A better solution, in my opinion, is to just not allow kasathas or 4-armed races as PC options, and use them ONLY as NPCs or monsters. They're built fine to do damage they need for their CR, and don't need to boost their attacks, so they should never be given feats like Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. Give them other feats entirely.
Yeah... for solo play, you'll need to do a lot more. You'll want to design encounters with fewer foes to keep the action economy a bit balanced, but you'll also want to rework all the effects that result in losing your turn. Things like stunning, paralyzation, sleep, and the like should either be reduced to 1 round durations or at the very least treated as hold person so that the PC can attempt a new save each round to throw the effect off.
In fact, I often allow the hold person save each round to end the effect early for ALL immobilizing effects in the game, because it keeps the players involved. In the end, even if they make their first save to escape, they're still out of combat for 2 rounds, and that's still significant... especially when you consider that the player may have had to endure no actions for dozens of real-world minutes depending on the complexity of the fight.
Spawn of Rovagug are designed to occupy a game-play niche where they serve as big-bad-end-guys for a core game against a 20th level party. Hence the fact that the spawn range in CR from 21 to 25.
Kaiju are designed for a game-play niche that's higher than that—CR range of 26 to 30. This could be mythc play, but could also be for a game where fighting the monster isn't so much the goal of a campaign as it would be PREVENTING the fight from ever happening.
For what it's worth, I invented the monowhip and the agile weapon property. I'd let Agile add Dex to the monowhip in my game, and that was absolutely the intent of the two to let them work.
The flavor is that no matter how hard you swing a monowhip, it won't do more damage because there's not really any mass to work with. It cuts where it cuts. But using Dexterity to aim better and to hit more accurately WOULD make a difference.
As an industry leader now, it's really Paizo's responsibility, in my opinion, to try to make the industry itself more welcoming and friendly and safe for people of all walks of life to take part in the hobby. I suppose that would mean that we have an agenda... but that agenda is "Make the game welcoming to us all."
That has pretty much ZERO impact, though, on how long it takes us to produce a product, since it takes just as long to design a gay character as it does a straight one.
If you can finagle a way to gain Dex to damage with a monowhip, then yes indeed you can apply that modifier to your monowhip. The monowhip only prevents Strength from modifying damage... which makes it more or less a great weapon for a character who has a Strength penalty. If you can get another ability score to adjust damage to the weapon, it works fine that way.
Slashing Grace not counting for light weapons is, I can only hope, an error that will be eventually cleared up in an errata... although that's not my call, alas. My assumption is that this text was initially meant to say something like "choose any one-handed or smaller slashing weapon," since there are no flavor reasons to prevent swashbucklers from using light slashing weapons, and since light weapons do less damage than one-handed ones I can't think of a game balance reason to limit it as well. But again... not my call. FAQ the question though, and maybe it'll get fixed!!!
The agile weapon quality would work fine on a monowhip, in any event.
For control of the realm he once ruled, NOT for anything associated with his divinity. Dragons don't care about some dead god of humanity. They just want his stuff he left behind after he died.
Also if your players are good with the rules and know the gameplay/system then you are going to need to made serious work, especially at high levels, don't be surprised if you have to rebuild nearly all the encounters in books 5 and/or 6. If you don't let them go crazy and/or tell them to tone it down, your job will be a lot easier and require a lot less adjustments/rebuilding.
Alternately, you can have your really good with the rules players use a 10 point buy for their characters. They're experienced gamers. They should be playing the game on "hard" mode anyway!
The closest you'll get to a "written statement" is the core rulebook, which indicates that the "standard fantasy" point buy is 15 points. The APs are designed with that expectation—that, and 4 players using the medium XP track. The more you deviate from those norms, the more you'll need to adjust the encounters.
So more like the xenomorphs from the Alien series and other H. R. Giger style stuff?
That's a better comparison, yes. They're not intended to be the actual xenomorphs though, of course.
"Valley of the Brain Collectors" will reveal a lot. There's more tidbits in "Occult Mysteries" as well.
The point of a free action is that the time it takes to perform is relatively insignificant... but it DOES still take time to drop a sword or shout a warning or do any of the other numerous actions.
If, for example, you do a 1-minute long real world soliiquy to the bad guys on your turn in combat... the GM is justified in pointing out that talking for 1 minute is not a free action because it takes longer than a combat round to finish.
It's kind of a catch-all category, and it doesn't benefit from overcomplication. The GM should be free to make rulings as he/she sees fit.
Adam Ross wrote:
Also by design. It's meant to be a slow introduction to the idea of weapons like this, after all, and something that doesn't immediately overwhelm your game with a strange new flavor. It's a sip, not a gulp. The gulping comes later.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Yes, just as any other disease. We've not yet statted up cancer yet though as far as I know.
Askaan sounds more Kellid to me... but I can't think of it without thinking of "Ass Can." Call it the editor's curse of having to have a filthier mind than all of your writers...
Yes. We are absolutely doing things to try to let us do a better job on Occult Adventures.
Did someone say something?
Weird. My computer indicated someone made a post to this thread... but I'm not seeing anything.
Hmm. Must have been the wind!
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Quoted for truth... for better or worse.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Not without sacrificing the quality we're hoping to give for our current projects. Which would be self-defeating and cause more problems than it would (in theory) solve.
They're nonmagical, yes... but they're built and balanced and priced and treated treasure-wise as if they WERE magic items.
The fabricate spell shouldn't give an end-run around this fact.
You cannot make a high-tech item from Technology Guide with fabricate. If your GM does allow it as a house rule, your GM should also allow the creation of full-fledged magic items with the spell as well, because the impact on the game is the same.
The whole point of not having the adventures be canon is to simplify entry into the world for new players, new GMs, and new authors.
What happened at the Worldwound depends on your version of Golarion, in other words. We just give you the tools you need to determine that is all.
NOTE: The Pathfinder Society organized play campaign is NOT canon for Golarion. It is, like your home game and my home game, canon only for itself. The fact that, unlike my home game and your home game this particular campaign has thousands and thousands of players does kind of muddy the waters... but a campaign's size is irrelevant when it comes to answering the question of what is canon for baseline Golarion.
The answer to that is "What's in the campaign setting line, and what's presented in adventures as historical material, but NOTHING of the current events of any adventures."
Which, of course, lets you play them in any order. And more important to us, means that we don't obsolete the older adventures whenever we publish a new one.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
How much "uniqueness" can a character have before you'd decide they're "Mary Sues" that wouldn't fit in the campaign. I'm always concerned when I create a character that I won't be accepted because, even if it's only a first level character, the character's too much of a speshul widdle snowfwake that seems unrealistic for the setting, or is like a Drizzt clone or something?
Everyone has a different threshold for that kind of thing.
And if a PC isn't a special snowflake... as far as I'm concerned, the player's doing it wrong! ;-)
AKA: You're SUPPOSED to like your character!
Thurston Hillman wrote:
What's in Jade Regent and Dragon Empires Gazetteer is pretty much all we've said about the fall of Lung Wa so far. There's not much information about it because we haven't done much with Lung Wa or central Tian Xia yet is all... we might do more some day, but until we do, yes, it was left intentionally vague because we didn't have the time or resources to detail it much more than we already had.
Lung Wa fell quite a while ago, in any event, which means that there's absolutely time to hear lots of conflicting rumors or historical notes.
It's certainly interesting seeing someone take apart something I wrote and rebuild it into something different. Sometimes the result is an improvement. Sometimes it ruins the whole thing. As long as the GM and players have fun with the results, though, it's all good!
The MOST frustrating element is when you see a bad review of an adventure you wrote, and then go to read it wondering if you screwed something up and hoping to learn from your mistake, and the bad reveiw is entirely because of...
A) The player of the adventure got his character killed, or even worse...
B) The GM made a lot of changes, every one of which incrementally made the adventure worse, so that in the end it was a tangled unplayable disappointing wreck, and then a player, who hadn't been allowed to read the adventure, posts a review of the adventure, when it's pretty obvious to anyone who's read the adventure that the player is actually posting a review instead of his GM.
The funny thing about B is that whenever I see this type of review... the player is ALWAYS blaming the adventure author or editors, and says things like, "My GM is the best and he went out of his way to try to fix the adventure but it was SUCH a failure that even he couldn't save it from itself!"
And then reading through the review itself and seeing how every single thing that the player complained about was a change the GM made... and in some places, the suggestions the player had for how the adventure could have been better were actually and apparently unknowingly suggestions that mirrored the way the adventure actually originally worked before his GM made the changes.
In any case... there's nothing an author can really do in a case like that.... it's frustrating, but you really CAN NOT step in to defend yourself against a critic review, even if you're right. There's basically no way for the author of a work to not come out looking like an ass, in my opinion, so there's a lot of training yourself to simply have a thick skin and try to focus on the good reviews instead of the bad ones.
(The adventure that "B" happened to me was, by the way, "Red Hand of Doom," so that was more amusing than annoying, since that particular adventure's got a pretty good reputation...)
What archetypes from the ACG were you (or others at paizo, if there's any talkative standouts) particularly keen on getting into?
None. I don't really get into archetypes that much, frankly. Partially cause I don't know what kind I might or might not want till I know the game I'm making a character for—I tend to build characters for the story, and if that suggests an archetype... I choose then.
zon-kuthon's article in Inner sea gods says sacred bonus from the obedience, is that typo? or is it because he was once a good deity (dou-bral)??
It's a typo. Should be a profane bonus.
That said... I don't think the game should have both of those bonus types. There should just be a "sacred" bonus type, since the word "sacred" doesn't actually imply any sort of morality or ethics...
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I do not. Titillation and fan service is just as legitimate as any other sort of fan art or fiction. Whether or not any one person is offended by it is up to them, and has nothing to do with "legitimacy" as far as I'm concerned. (For the record, I'm not one to be offended by it.)
There's certainly some fan art/fiction that's heads and shoulders above the rest in terms of quality and skill and beauty (the erotic stuff included), but the fan art/fiction that I don't like is more a case of art being subjective than anything to do with respect or disrespect. In fact, I would say that all of the Pathfinder fan art/fiction I've seen is born from respect for what we produce.
Erotic fan art/fiction is just as valid and entertaining as any other genre. And in fact, one might argue, this category of fan art/fiction is more important than others because it's one of the few categories of art that Paizo DOESN'T produce.
There will be ways...
...to learn about what caused the ship to crash, yes... and they're going to be... unusual.
Slithery D wrote:
I got confused by my original tunover and various discussions that happened in development. Further complicated by some other stuff that crept into print in parallel with the Tech Guide.
But yes, that's actually the original intent. Batteries are 100 gp, can be recharged, and have a chance of being destroyed.
Once they're destroyed, they're 10 gp silverdisks. You can't recharge a silverdisk; you just spend it.
The answers I provide are not "official rulings," but I like to think they could be.
How should memory of function work? i noticed that the spell might have been revised at some point but there was leftover text from the previous version.
The spell really should be two different spells—one that functions as a resurrection for constructs (and thus equals the resurrection spell's 10,000 gp material component and instantaneous duration) and one that temporarily restores a timeworn item to full functionality (with a duration of 1 hour/level and a less expensive material component cost—say, 1,000 gp).
The simplest solution is to say that the spell cannot remove the timeworn condition, and that when it is cast on a timeworn object, it merely recharges the object to full capacity (something you normally cannot do).
It actually lists Sarenrae as a good deity she has a problem with; not that she dislikes Sarenrae, but she's disgusted by some of her followers who practice slavery.
Which was a bit I wanted removed, but it slipped through. Sarenrae's followers who practice slavery aren't actually following Sarenrae.
If I were to play a character that writes music, what skill would that fall under? I'm debating with Craft, Perform or Profession, but am unsure.
Craft is the skill you'd use for creating artwork.
Perform is the skill you'd use for sharing or showing the artwork.
Profession is the skill you'd use to sell other people's artwork.