|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Darrell Impey UK wrote:
That's happened now and then with some of my books. Not sure who that guy is, but I got paid for my work on Crimson Throne so I'm okay with it.
The art is placeholder. The logo is correct. As for the actual questions... hopefully I'll be able to talk about them tomorrow—Erik is out sick today, and he's the one that gets to decide when we talk publicly about things like this... even when the timing of releasing information is kinda messed up.
So... ask me again tomorrow.
Oh, trust me. It's in there, in ugly black and white. That, plus a needlessly detailed table to generate random prostitutes and some other stuff that very much deserves to stay in the past.
Et cetera et cetera wrote:
1) I don't have as strong a grasp on the good outsiders, but here goes.Archons are soldiers and defenders who seek to protect Heaven and mortal life from fiends.
Angels are agents of the good gods and act as messengers or generals.
Agathions embody peace and enlightenment, and seek to serve as diplomats and work to keep law and chaos friendly in being good.
Azatas want to party, and want you to have fun partying with them.
2) Aeons embody dualities, and seek to maintain the balance in the universe between the various dualities.
Legacy of Fire used D&D's 3.5 rules. I don't remember off the top of my head how it worked in that game, but in Pathfinder, a noble djinn can grant 3 wishes per person if they're captured—it can do this as often as it wants, but only if it's captured and only up to 3 times per captor. Which is a really weird limitation, but also a neat and flavorful one.
This does mean that a noble djinn can't grant wishes to someone willingly; the conditions are really weirdly specific and pretty limiting.
I suspect that the ability WANTS to work more like it does for an efreeti: 1/day grant 3 wishes to a non-genie, and that's probably the best way to interpret the rules if you're in non-pedantic, rules-as-intended mode, I suppose.
Magnimar is a city from my homebrew and one that I've put a lot of work into. I have a LOT of ownership over many of the elements in Magnimar (with the help of Wes, of course, who added a lot of his own work in Pathfinder #2 to the city). I also wrote the Magnimar book.
Kaer-Maga is 100% James Sutter's creation; it was never a part of my homebrew. Although I do like Kaer-Maga, it's not "mine" and I don't really have the interest in personally adding to it.
Furthermore, an unusual group like the Cult of the Redeemer Queen is more interesting in Magnimar than it is in Kaer Maga, where weird is the norm. Adding another outlier group to Kaer Maga wouldn't have the same effect, and they'd just get lost in the shuffle. In Kaer Maga, weird is normal, which is a flavor I've always kind of not liked that much, frankly.
But the main reason? The Cult of the Redeemer is my invention, so I wanted to put it in one of "my" cities.
Unrevealed for Szuriel and Trelmarixian's mortal origins—that's the type of deep continuity I'd rather not reveal until it's important for a story element. That said, it's more likely to be the case for Trelmarixian, since he's 100% made up for Pathfinder, while Szuriel is from real mythology to a certain extent.
My favorite example of this is in the excellent movie, Die Farbe, a German film adaptation of "The Colour Out Of Space." In that movie, which transplants the storyline to Germany but keeps most of everything else the same, is filmed in black and white but the Colour itself, when it shows up, is in lurid magenta/pink/red full color. It's a really fantastic and incredible way to show something that is of a color that doesn't exist in the natural world.
It's kind of a bad idea to use a player character's abilities to punish them that way. If you go ahead with this, the PC should have at the very least a save to resist it. I would ACTUALLY treat it like a curse that takes several days to fully manifest so that the PCs could have a chance to fix it, even if that meant going on another adventure of your own design to seek out a cure... but that's kind of anticlimactic and doesn't work well with abridging a game since it makes it even longer. That said, if you're running this as a one-shot adventure and your players are open to potentially not having everyone live, having the character transform like this could be an interesting and spooky ending. I wouldn't go so far as to do PVP; I'd instead leave that part unsaid, with the infected character running off into the night and then, over the next few months, rumors spread. Having that information be, essentially, read-aloud text you inform the PCs of at the end of the adventure is a creepy way to put a spooky coda at the end of a one-shot adventure; I do this a LOT in one-shot Call of Cthulhu games.
If you're going to have the possessed monk be a single foe that faces the PCs, his CR should be Average Party Level +2 or +3.
There's actually a template coming in a few months in the Strange Aeons AP that would be perfect for this... the Child of Yog-Sothoth (which is the template that lets you make Wilbur Whatley, the more human-looking twin brother of the original Spawn of Yog-Sothoth).
Cole Deschain wrote:
Saw it several years ago when it was making the limited theatrical run.
The pitch: A group investigates a mysterious wilderness trail that swallowed up a township in 1940 and finds more than they bargained for.
Is prophecy broken across the material plane and the planes, or just on Golarion?
It's pretty much broken in all the products we do, since we have no real interest in doing any prophecy-themed adventures or products. Which more or less means that, yes, it's broken across all of all of it.
1) Another Brick in the Wall
2) Wary and suspicious and frustrated and not trusting. Things to watch out for, but not things to crusade against.
3) She thinks they're mostly cute and fun and intriguing but also dangerous and unpredictable. Handle with care, but handle nonetheless.
4) Not to the extent that we see with Sarenrae. Mostly because I don't think complicating good religions in that way is something that benefits the game.
Et cetera et cetera wrote:
1) Sure; here goes. But keep in mind that a lot of these fiends have very similar or overlapping themes; that's intentional. They arise, after all, from a diverse range of real-world cultures all of whom created these ideas out of the same basic fears and terrors we all share as humans.
Devils want to corrupt mortals and conscript them to servitude in Hell, either as damned souls to torment or as potential new devils.
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
Thing about wanting to play something like the Hulk? That's not a problem with the archetype; that's a problem with player expectation and the desire to play what is essentially a superhero in a regular hero game. The best way to play the Hulk is to use the Mythic Adventures rules and play a mythic barbarian, frankly. Which is not everyone's cup of tea, but it certainly sounds like what a player who wants to play the Hulk wants out of their game.
Not in the slightest. The whole point of Misfit Monsters Redeemed was to give things like flumphs a chance at said redemption. That book's original genesis in a meeting was actually sort of a joke when we were brainstorming what next revisited book to do, but it gained traction almost immediately as the challenge of redeeming things like flumphs and flail snails really REALLY appealed to us.
Maybe some day we'll live in a world where the vast majority of gamers know flumphs only from Misfit Monsters Redeemed, at which point they'll TRULY be redeemed, but since the Internet loves dredging up old skeletons out of closets and content the designers might rather stay buried, I'm not too hopeful of that.
Anyway, don't let the fact that other folks don't like flumphs discourage you. They're not you and you're not them.
Gnoll Bard wrote:
No, the Inner Sea Gods definition is the right one we use and the one I use, it's just had the benefit of having the author have more time to compose the words and then having a developer and several editors improve it more than my off-the-cuff definition had.
Gnoll Bard wrote:
It indicates a worshiper of a faith. That is it. Doesn't imply anything about positions of authority in the faith. It's a one word shortcut to saying "Individual who worships this deity or follows this religion." It's a synonym, in that regard, with things like clergy or worshiper.
And bards who follow or worship Cayden Cailien can ABSOLUTELY be priests if they want to be part of the organization. If they merely worship him, they are not priests.
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
To begin with, I'm sorry about the poor grammar to begin with in the earlier submission. I was a bit rushed. What I should of asked was, as the creative director, what is your opinion of the archetype? Am I alone? Have you heard any other negative feedback yet? In my poorly worded question earlier, I meant to say does an archetype ever get changed up a bit if there is a good bit of legitimate feedback that pushes for it? With that class and archetype in mind, what would you do to make it like what it appears to be modeled after?
I don't have an opinion of the archetype because I haven't read it beyond an initial editing pass I made many many months ago. As a general rule, though, once something is published we try to leave it alone. My preference is to not constantly tinker with things. If something's truly "broken" and too powerful or too weak, we'll either just ignore it (too weak) and try again with a different tack on the design space later, or we'll issue errata or ban it from PFS and let individual GMs at home games decide to keep it or not. Rules elements that are too weak are thus less disruptive to play than too strong, so there probably IS an element of erring on the soft side there.
That ALSO said, I generally don't comment on the design work/development work of our freelancers or my fellow designers if I think something isn't great. I'm from the "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" school of thought, as far as publicly talking about the hard work of my friends, co-workers, and those I hire to write for products I head up.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
What's going on here is a bit of poetic license in describing how a skull makes its saving throw against the speak with dead spell combined with some skulls simply not being intact enough to be able to speak well enough to resolve the questions.
A corpse that has been defiled and mangled (as in the case of having its tongue torn out) is different than one who has not been defiled and mangled.
And in the end, it's all about GM fiat whether or not remains can reply. Without this limitation, the spell is simply FAR too powerful at being able to "undo" plots; GMs and adventure writers alike need to be able to tell stories they want without having the spells destroy them. At the same time, the game and GM and adventure writers need to allow ENOUGH of those dead bodies to speak so that speak with dead isn't completely useless.
The only real solution is to leave it vague and allow GM interpretation, otherwise we'd have to indicate for every single dead body in the game if it can or cannot be spoken with via speak with dead. And if it comes down to that, I'd just cut the spell from the game for being too complex. Which would be a shame since it IS a very evocative and spooky and interesting spell.
"Priest" is a word we've often used in our books to denote a person who is part of a faith's religion. A priest can be of any class. It's a gendered word, so it's not the BEST option (which is why you see us sometimes use words like "worshiper" or "clergy" instead).
The fact that we haven't associated the word "priest" with specific class names or rules or other things is intentional, as it's very valuable for us to retain some words so that the only definition that matters is the word's actual definition. (We can no longer indiscriminately use the word "hunter" to talk about folks who make a living hunting for food, for example, or the word "arcanist" as a catch-all word for all arcane spellcasters.)
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
I really enjoyed Ultimate Intrigue but was let down by the Brute archetype. I've always loved the "tortured beast within" concept of Mr. Hyde and The Hulk. What happened with that archetype? A lot of it was cool but I felt is missed out on enhanced inanimate object damage, had an incredibly will save to resist the change, missed out on high leap bonuses, was very easy to kill with only 1d8 hit points (derived from class, I know), and had a really low ac. Have thought about beefing it up with some errata?
I had nothing to do with Ultimate Intrigue or its archetypes. I do think that some designers tend to err too much on the side of rules and in the pursuit of game balance over flavor, though. I suspect that had they instead made the brute a barbarian archetype that it would have fit your needs better. Dunno. You'll have to ask the design team to get the actual reasons.
In any event, I've not thought about fixing anything in that book with errata. Not really my job.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Absolutely. That said, games I run in Golarion tend to become canonical once elements in them get pulled into books by myself or players in those games (since most of my games these days are with co-workers).
Actually, manes have a better chance to come to Pathfinder than the ixitxachitl or water weird, as the manes is from mythology and the other two are closed content owned by Wizards of the Coast. That said, no manes (or bonesnapper or caturwaul for that matter) in Bestiary 6.
The Doomkitten wrote:
If Nocticula ascended to CN goddesshood, would Redemption be part of her Portfolio? And what would her relationship be with Sarenrae?
Deities and demigods in Pathfinder don't have "portfolios." That's a D&D term.
Nocticula's areas of concern upon becoming a CN deity would be artists, outcasts, and the glories of midnight.
Sarenrae would likely be the good deity who got along best with Nocticula, and would do what she could to help and encourage her rise from evil.
Depends on who you ask. For me, I'd certainly put leshies in this category, but I know other folks here love them.
Et cetera et cetera wrote:
1) Unrevealed. When I say "unrevealed," I usually mean a combination of "It's secret" and "I haven't thought about it and don't want to make up something at this time because that does a disservice to the question" and "This is something that's more valuable to keep vague so that each individual GM can tailor it to their campaign to have maximum impact for their game." Me giving a non-canon answer disrupts all of the above as much as a canonical answer. And furthermore, even if I say "non-canonical" a lot of folks won't take that at my word, since it's so easy to quote out of context.
2) Everything you love and hold dear, be it your home, your loves, your society, your accomplishments, your sanity, or your flesh.
3) Everything that allows demons to form.
4) Internet hate and misogyny and racism.
That is, in fact, the point of the joke. Ha.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I think that now's a good chance for gamers to show themselves to be mature and better people than Jack Chick and not get all snarky about his death.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Cheers. Do his followers delude themselves into thinking they'll somehow be spared in the destruction? Or is it an ultimately self-destructive religion where they just hope to be destroyed later than others?
Some do. Others have no illusions and welcome their role in bringing about the end. Others are opportunists who believe that the end will happen long after they're dead and gone.
Et cetera et cetera wrote:
2a) Yes, but we haven't built mechanics to support them yet, so for now, those avatars can be whatever they need to be for story purposes.
2b) Yes. That would be the whole point of having an avatar in a game like this.
3) No; you could have a creature that's more powerful than CR 30 but isn't a deity.
4) Yes. Daemons want to destroy life, but not daemons and not existence. Rovagug wants to destroy everything. Daemons and existence included.
1) It's because the southern portion of the Mwangi Expanse extends quite a way off the south edge of the map.
2) I think that enslaving elemental souls to power things is indeed an evil act. There's an element (ha!) of this that crept into Pathfinder in the animation of golems, and that slipped by into print alas. Had I a time machine, I would have instead had the animating force for a golem be a mote of positive energy, but elemental spirits have been the cause traditionally in D&D since the start (from an era where players couldn't create golems so the ethical questions mattered less).
3) Unrevealed. But I would probably put it at 21st.
4) All of her demonic minions would abandon her. She would not be interested too much in proteans, and would likely need to create a brand new race of outsiders to serve her.
5) No, he'll revert to his normal CR 15 stats.
6) They are not undead.
7) Looks more like a wasp to me than a mosquito. And the Menotherian can change shape into an elf at will, so that's covered in that she can appear exactly how she needs to appear.
I'm considering a character who is a sorcerer, but who is even more intelligent than they are charismatic. As you see the game and setting, does this make sense (as an unusual case), or is it too far outside type to fit?
I love the idea. Playing a character whose highest stat is NOT the one that optimizers would say is the right choice to make the highest stat is very attractive character design to me.
That said, I would strongly encourage you NOT to try this character in PFS, because it only takes one immature player to ruin things. Alas, this kind of character build is probably best saved for home games where you are playing with friends and people you trust to accept the choices you make.
Durvin Gest is Erik Mona's creation and he has some VERY specific and exact plans for him. So until Erik has more time and energy and interest in exploring Durvin Gest... nothing more is planned.
The Decemvirate are more interesting the less we know about them. Furthermore, due to the nature of PFS play, the less we say about them, the more useful they are as story elements.
There's a fair bit of hunting after long-lost legendary figure in Serpents Skull.
8) They could, but not easily. And there was nothing "easy" about the one that the Lirgeni built. It was a one-of-a-kind construction.
9) I do indeed think that powering things on living energy is evil, even when the thing that provides the power is also evil. If you're good, it's better to kill the vrock rather than torture it by siphoning its life away over the course of years. If you're good and you need that much energy, there are other avenues to explore... they might be more difficult, but that also plays in to my belief that it's easier to be evil than good.
10) I don't remember, but it's not blue.
11) Depends 100% on whether Pharasma judges those souls or not. AKA It depends 100% on your GM's whim. It's pretty cheesy to just let them come back, and that's not something a GM should do in a case like this.
12) To a certain extent, perhaps, but also keep in mind that Nocticula has a proven track record for assassinating demon lords, and she can kill them dead without their other defenses kicking in, and when they die they become islands in her realm rather than going to the Rift of Repose. There's some powerful mysterious stuff going on with Nocticula that the other demon lords don't understand, but they know it's worth being afraid of.
13) Because she didn't want to. The timing has to be right on her attack too; it's not "easy" for her to kill another demon lord, and if she kills them too often, yes, she risks them rising up to join forces against her. She spreads out her kills over thousands of yeras.
14) Areelu's familiar is a unique and unusual case; normally a familiar can't have class levels, but this one does, as part of her legendary status among the greatest villains of the Inner Sea Region.
Cole Deschain wrote:
1) Yup; long ago. Great movie!
2) Japan. France comes in a close second.
3) Not really. I actually quite enjoy seeing new cultural stuff through the lens of a film.
4) Their artistry, their beauty, their ties to nature, their grace, their skill with magic, their focus on graceful weaponry, and their ears.
5) Not really. Dwarves are extremely into traditions and are stubborn, and for lack of better words, those traits are valued by and often possessed by folks who love dwarves, it seems. Dwarves, and dwarf fans, seem to be less open to change than fans of other races, or are exceptionally vocal about their preferences for dwarves as they traditionally are. I'm not all that interested in ruining something someone else loves in an attempt to make something I don't enjoy potentially something I'd MAYBE enjoy. I'd rather hire writers who love dwarf stuff to build on dwarf stuff.
6) Not so much. Unlike dwarves and elves, gnomes and halflings don't have as vocal or strong of a fan base. I suspect because previous editions of the game never really bothered to put much energy into them. (Witness the fact that in 2nd edition, gnomes and halflings had their handbook combined into one book rather than let them have two books.) I am quite proud of what we've done with our gnomes, if only because it moves them away from the "skinnier dwarves who tinker" motif that they'd been stranded in for so long.
7) Gamers (and by extension game designers) are pretty good at interpreting alignments in different ways. My guess... Gygax felt orcs were more lawful in their strict adherence to tribal traditions.
8a) Sounds like something they'd do.
9) Not really, although "The Terror" is one of my favorite books.
Adam Daigle wrote:
Weird to answer and kind of tiring, but not hard to answer. Kinda annoying though, when folks use the thread to joke around.
Depends on how you feel about chatting with our fans, I guess.
Et cetera et cetera wrote:
2) Tired and sick
3) At home
5) I ask that question myself now and then
6) This one
7) See #2 above.