|James Jacobs Creative Director|
Still. Please do a full on Lovecraft, Call of Cthulhu RPG inspired Adventure Path sometime. The most optimistic part of me is hoping Bestiary 4 is groundwork for one next year.
I would LOVE to. But I have to build up my skin a bit thicker to deal with the folks who would get all angry about the decision first. As well as convince management it's a good idea. And since when we DO do Lovecraftian stuff, those products tend to sell quite well... shouldn't be a tough sell.
The only minor problem I have with this is that I know you folks have a real lovefest for the Mythos. I just really don't think it's that good an idea to tie Earth up with Golarion, even if it's Victorian Earth. A one off visit in an AP is fine, but it really shouldn't become a regular feature of the campaign world.
It hasn't. We've had connections to Earth via the mythos for over 5 years, and Golarion's been fine. It will continue to be fine after Bestiary 4, which doesn't mention Earth at all.
And while you call it a "real lovefest," believe it or not we've been pretty sparing with mythos elements. If we weren't, and if we HAD incorporated as much mythos stuff as I personally would have liked, there would be a LOT more in Golarion. I understand that not everyone's into Lovecraft, but more are than aren't as this thread's another example. So... it's in the game, but it's not the FOCUS of everything in the game. Which is, overall, the best way to do it.
Joe Hell wrote:
I'd like to see that too. I'm running Rise of the Runelords at the moment (the adventurers are just about to fight Nualia) and the amount of errata identified here is a bit overwhelming.
Turns out, a missing +1 here and there isn't going to ruin your game. If you feel the errata is overwhelming... just run it as is. Your players won't notice, and if your game is anything at all like the games I run, the errors you and your players introduce accidentally in the game will be on par with playing with the "errata" ignored anyway. And while the thread is big, there's also a fair amount of errors in the supposed errata as well.
Don't let the possibility of errors get in the way of having fun, in other words!
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Hidden beyond the mists. Those mists being the fumes of Intellectual Property and Copyright Law. We can't see through them, but your GM probably can.
That's entirely up to the GM.
My preference is to let the player design the cohort. It's the player's feat, after all, and I as the GM have plenty of work already. Likewise, I require the player to come up with an in-game reason why the cohort is a cohort and wants to follow the PC.
An exception would be if the player wanted to make an established NPC ally into a cohort—in this case, I've got the stats done already and just hand them over to the player who gets to make all the level-up decisions.
I am NOT a fan of the school of GMing where the GM hides lots of information from the players, including things like not letting the player see the stats for a cohort before accepting the cohort, as well as other things like rolling their perception checks for traps.
Yup; that was kinda my intent to give that impression, actually. There's more going on there. We'll have more to say relatively soon!
It's actually not all that complicated. Lovecraft was pretty specific about where R'lyeh was located... down to exact latitude and longitude coordinates for it.
A location that puts it pretty close to the oceanic pole of inaccessibility, as it turns out, which is another way of saying "It's at the most inaccessible part of the planet for us land-dwellers." Which is pretty cool, I think!
Anyway... R'lyeh is on Earth, and we're not really using any of Derleth's additions to the mythos anyway, since that content's not in the public domain. Among other reasons.
I'm also worried that this module will "wussify" dragons. Of course, there's more than one way to defeat a foe than fight them, but if that's how the dragon is defeated...
If you bring a 20th level character into the adventure, the dragon will be a chump, yes.
If you play the adventure as written, for a starting group of 1st level characters, the dragon will not feel like a pushover. Trust me.
The latest places we've done much with hobgoblins was Fangwood Keep and part four of Jade Regent. Nothing else hobgoblin related of not in the near future.
Eric Hinkle wrote:
Well... if we were going to update Falcon's Hollow, you'd think we'd go hire one of the folks who helped define that region in the first place.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I think we've all had that happen. Best we can do is try to keep the criticism constructive.
Being able to interpret helpful and constricting criticism can be difficult, especially when reading internet criticism where anonymity, passion, and the lack of body language/tenor can obscure valid criticism with the perception of hostility.
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
Has Paizo been satisfied with the sales of the RotRL hardcover? Satisfied enough that you'd consider giving the same treatment to other hard-to-get APs in the future? What about an occasional (as in when you can allocate resources) AP that only appears in hardcover, such as the Emerald Spire book from the Kickstarter?
We are very satisfied with the sales.
That's not what decides whether or not we do something like that again, though. The primary point of the RotR Anniversary Edition wasn't to make money, but was to celebrate our anniversary. We might do something like this again in the future for another anniversary or event, but at the same time we are VERY concerned about the perception that folks can stop buying APs as they're published so they can wait for the compiled edition. If that happens, no one gets any APs because we'd stop being able to publish them.
Why is that? Costs.
Look at it from the customer viewpoint first. What's easier on your wallet? Spending 22 bucks a month for 6 months for an AP? Or spending 132 bucks all at once for the same product?
The same goes for us, but it scales up dramatically, since we not only have to pay for every piece of art and every single word all at once if we were forced to switch over to doing full AP products because folks stopped buying the serialized ones... but we'd also lose 5 months of cash flow every six months. That's a good way to go out of business.
I can certainly understand the interest in having more planetouched races... but the design space for such entities is pretty narrow. In the beginning, aasimars and tieflings were just made-up words; now that they've been around for so many years they have their own gravitas and feel like they've been around forever, and the problem there is that anything new we introduce will feel just that—new. They won't have the same weight to them, and as a result, they'll feel like last-minute additions to the Great Beyond, which isn't what they should feel like since, in theory, they're as old as aasiimars and tieflings.
Furthermore, the aasimar and tiefling already pretty much cover a significant portion of "planetouched" race options (and you'll note we actually never use the word "planetouched" in print... at least, I don't THINK we do...). Aasimars cover good, be it lawful, neutral, or chaotic. Tieflings cover evil, be it lawful, neutral, or chaotic. All that's left is neutral, be it lawful, true neutral, or chaotic.
The problem THERE is that whereas there's a specific theme that covers all the types of good (celestials) and one that coves all evil (fiends), there's not one for neutrality. Between inevitables, proteans, aeons, and psychopomps, we actually have a VERY diverse selection of outsiders, and I've never really seen how they could all be lumped under one umbrella like "celestial" or "fiend." Which suggests 3 "planetouched" races, which seems wrong as well. Furthermore, I'd really not want overlap between the planetouched races—I wouldn't want the lawful one to, say, cover good, neutral, and evil, because then it's encroaching on the territory of aasimars and tieflings.
And on top of that... there's just not a lot of mythology about humans and non-celestials or non-fiends interbreeding. Part of that's because so many of the neutral outsiders aren't really based for the most part on real-world myth but are wholly invented for the game (the psychopomps being the one exception), but part of that is their natures—they aren't really into mixing with mortals for the most part. While that could certainly explain why the neutral "planetouched" race is so much rarer than aasimars or tieflings, in my mind it just as easily explains why there are NO neutral planetouched races.
Furthermore, I am not a fan of "forced symmetry." That is... if we invent a neutral evil and a chaotic evil race of fire-based flying bat people, that doesn't mean that there has to be a lawful evil one. In fact, without a LE one, the other two, in my opinion, become MORE interesting, because asymmetry is more interesting than symmetry to me. This is why there's not a fiendish equivalent to angels, or why the Empyreal Lords are one category while the fiends have several categories of demigods. And it's a big part of the reason why there's no neutral planetouched race in the game.
And finally, there is such a thing as overdesign. Some types of monsters have nearly infinite design space—devils, demons, angels, true dragons, psychopomps, oni, kami, azatas, archons, daemons, and agathaions all feel like there could be dozens or even hundreds of variants. That's not the same with other races, like proteans, dark folk, rakshasas, linnorms, sphinxes, and so on. We've certainly done a lot with some of those by exapnding them, but I'm of the opinion that these races have a soft ceiling beyond which more variants is less interesting.
Obviously which races have soft ceilings and which ones don't will change from person to person, and I'm not looking to get into a debate online about which ones do or don't or which ones do or don't deserve to have ceilings... the point is that myself and the others here at Paizo feel that way about some monster categories, and as a result you'll probably never see a huge proliferation of these creatures as you do with demons and devils and azatas and dragons and the like. Because if we aren't passionate about something, it's a disservice to the concept to do half-assed job with it.
And to be frank, no one here at Paizo is all that passionate about new planetouched races.
That may change in the future, but that's the way it is for the moment. Which makes it an excellent place for other designers or other companies to come in and fill the void, I suppose.
Sorry for the somewhat rambling and long-winded response; hope that makes more clear some of the philosophies we have at Paizo about monster design though!
The Golux wrote:
No choice. Iterative attacks slow the game down and trick/force fighters and other martial characters into bad tactics and/or make combat boring AND overly complex.
Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Because having 2 Adventure Paths a year has many advantages that outweigh having only 1 a year.
The biggest being if you don't like any one AP, you only have to wait 6 months for the next one rather than a year.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
No. When I say "re=entry" I mean "atmospheric entry." As in when something falling through the atmosphere gets all hot and bright and smoky.
Jose Suarez 916 wrote:
Sounds like it's a FAQ candidate for the rules forum now.
Bleed damage, though, never applies in the round it's caused. It only ever happens at the start of a bleeding character's turn on the round AFTER the wound that caused it is delivered.
It's specifically set up so that it can be defined by the GM. In my opinion, it should be a special power that helps to codify the character as being a great leader. Spellcasting wouldn't necessarilly count, but a character who up to that point has displayed an affinity toward casting spells that bolster allies or manipulate people would. A monk's immunities or a cleric's channel energy ability wouldn't count, but a bard's bardic performance or a cleric with the Nobility domain would count.
Would it be possible to milk a venomous familiar/animal companion for poison? For instance, if you want to coat a weapon with, oh, I dunno, giant wasp venom.
Milking ANY animal for its poison isn't something the rules let you do, unless you use the Craft skill rules to make the poison. Which as we all know is a can of worms.
My house rule:
If you want to milk venom from an animal or harvest its poison from a freshly killed animal, make a skill check—Handle Animal for milking or Survival for harvesting. DC = 15 + the animal's CR. On a success, you extract one dose of poison. For each 5 points by which you exceed the target DC you get a 2nd dose. Regardless, you have the standard 5% chance of poisoning yourself unless you have poison use. Poison harvested in this manner remains viable for 24 hours before it spoils—making preserved poison that lasts longer requires Craft checks.
judas 147 wrote:
Of course, you could do that with any answer I provided for that question, including NOT answering the question.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Personally, I dont think there's anything wrong with just granting the capstone ability at whatever you think is likely to be the final level of the campaign.
Oh my god how I wish we'd put this in print in the core rules. "Your capstone ability can be gained at the final level planned for your campaign."
Of course, I also wish we'd given a capstone ability to clerics... but that's a different story.
They might have throat-singers.
But as for how a dwarf song sounds? See Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" for the answer there.
Lawful GM wrote:
1) A caster always knows if a target of a spell makes or fails its save unless rules specifically say otherwise.
2) I'm not sure that's really covered at all—with limited space to cover an entire planet's worth of differences, we had to pick and choose what we focused on. That said, I wasn't involved in the writing, development, or editing of that volume, so I can't say for sure; that's a Rob and Adam question.
3) The Graz'zt volume of the Demonomicon was one I wrote for an early online Dragon, a few months or so after the magazines stopped being in print. I'm not sure how to get to it these days, but it would be on WotC's site. I suspect you'll need a D&D Insider sub to see it.
We won't really know how much folks dig how the mythic rules work in an AP until a few months after the last Wrath of the Righteous volume is out in January of 2014. By that point, the adventures for the 2014 AP will allready be in writing, at which point it's too late to pull back and make the AP a mythic one. It's just the way it is. Furthermore, we've got the modules more or less planned out until 2015, and none of them are mythic.
If folks REALLY love the mythic rules, we'll see if we can't take evasive action to give them more, but my suspicion is that they won't eclipse the popularity of the Core Rules. If they do, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
NOTE: They don't have to eclipse the popularity of the Core Rules to be successful. No other book we've done yet has, I would say, eclipsed the popularity of the core rules in toto.
As for seeing mythic creatures and characters statted up... stay tuned!
1) Keep an eye on our site for job announcements, first of all. If you're looking to join the design/development/editorial team, start building up your credits and begin writing and designing for the game; take part in RPG Superstar and the open call for PFS scenarios; come to Gen Con and/or PaizoCon if you can and attend the various seminars where we talk about how to write for Paizo, and do lots of work if you can for other publishers.
2) There isn't a position for "adventure writer" at Paizo, no. The closest position to that at Paizo would be "developer," which often requires rewriting (sometimes extensively so) of projects to fit with the company's needs. We don't publish enough adventures to justify an "adventure writer" full-time position, basically.
Richard Loh wrote:
1) Automatic. No caster level check needed.
2) Yes; it takes down the whole sphere and anything within.
That's more of a Rob question at this point. Were I designing such an NPC, it'd be an open book with any possibility. The NPC would have the traits that were most appropriate for her personality and role in the campaign.
As for a motivation to leave Irrisen if you were a Jadwiga... being good aligned is the best motivation I can think of.
It's entirely compatible with Pathfinder. It uses the Pathfinder rules. You can take elements from Unspeakable Futures and put them right into Pathfinder and they'll work fine. I've already done this, in fact, with androids and robots. You can absolutely do the same thing with anything else from Unspeakable Futures, such as deep one hybrid PC races, sniper and scavenger classes, Hacking and Piloting skills, etc.
The rules for firearms and other WW1 era tech in Rasputin Must Die is NOT the same rules as the tech rules from Unspeakable Futures, though. Nor do these rules draw upon d20 Modern much at all either.
the Haunted Jester wrote:
That's an interesting idea. And a kind of tricky one, since unlike a novel, where the author has complete control and doesn't have to worry if one of her characters is "left out" of a scene... with Pathfinder, you have a whole party of characters and it's tricky building elements like that into the game.
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
If by "fancy" you mean a 3 dollar blue beachball with rough continent outlines drawn in ink that smudges if you mis-handle it...
The Equator runs more or less right through Nagajor in Tian Xia. It doesn't touch the Inner Sea region at all... it's a few hundred miles south of the bottom edge of the Inner Sea region map. (The Inner Sea region is about 1/5 the size of Tian Xia.)
Pesh is indeed a type of cactus. Katapesh itself is part desert, part savannah. I don't recall off the top of my head what the capital's bay is called, but if we HAVE mentioned it... it's either in Pathfinder #21 or Dark Markets.
Lord Snow wrote:
The odds are 100%.
Wrath of the Righteous spends almost but not quite half of its page count on the Abyss. It's probably closer to about 40% of its page count on the Abyss.
Beyond Wrath of the Righteous, we'll certainly be looking at doing planar stuff as well.
I know that. But, OTOH, if you fear change that much, I think that this will negatively impact on the costumer base, too, if not now, then in a few years when people want something new. I just think that you are underestimating the adaptability of your costumers on this issue.
I've been watching reactions to changes to campaign settings/timeline advances for a long time... both as a customer and as an industry professional. And my observations of how such changes have gone have informed my decisions about timeline advances—it's not something I just decided on a lark. And the same goes for the publisher and owners of Paizo. Timeline advances/drastic campaign setting changes are very risky, and making them when the setting is still gaining popularity is not the best move. When you're doing something right, as evidenced by Pathfinder's continued growth, changing things drastically is a fundamental risk.
I'm certainly watching reviews, feedback, and post counts for Shattered Star, since that's one of the biggest timeline advancement things we've done. And while the AP has been pretty well received... it's not looking like it's a game-changer as far as our existing policy on timeline advancing so far.
I think oratory is auditory too. Maybe Jason got confused? It's an easy enough fix to house rule if ya want.
We've actually kinda had nanites in the game since the 3rd module we published about 6 years ago... "Seven Swords of Sin." James Sutter's a big fan of mixing sci-fi with fantasy. The point is... the nanites are already hear and the game survived... ;P
And I still think you overestimate that danger. ;) Every consumer of other serial media manages to live with things not staying static. Gamers are no more conservative than comic fans in my estimation.
I know you do. But since dozens of people's salaries rely upon Pathfinder's and Golarion's continued popularity and success... Well, I'd rather overestimate the dangers.
I'm honestly not sure there's any advantage for advancing the timeline for a long-time subscriber. In fact, I'd think most such folks would consider a timeline advance as a turn-off.
As I said, at BEST he's lawful neutral. If we make him lawful evil, he's really sneaky about it, and something like a great wyrm gold dragon has PLENTY of tricks and methods and resources to trick folks into thinking he's got the best of intentions toward him.
As long as you have the actions to do so, yes, you can start and stop new performances as often as you want. Each time you activate one, though, it uses up a daily use of the ability, remember, so make sure not to run out before you want!
Bards are about performance, and music is a huge part of that. We'd likely try to make it a bit more clear that just as not every cleric has to be a healer and not every wizard needs to cast fireballs and not every fighter needs to use longswords that not every bard needs to be a musician... but we'd absolutely keep music as a big part of the bard's themes.
I've been working on my own apocalyptic game, Unspeakable Futures, for over a decade. I'd LOVE to get it out there. At the same time, though... essentially going into competition with my employer unsettles and disturbs me a little bit, so I'd be much more likely to polish up Unspeakable Futures and then try to get Paizo to produce it. We'll see.