|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Nick O'Connell wrote:
Actually, it COULD happen. We'd just need to repeat the legal text and arrange it, but we've got a really good relationship these days with Chaosium so I doubt that'd be a problem.
Beyond Ydersius, there's not really any one obvious choice. Serpentfolk are themselves neutral evil, so Urgathoa and Norgorber are both good choices. They aren't really about daemons or apocalypse stuff and wouldn't normally worship the Horsemen. I could see some of them worshiping arch devils or demon lords though. The version of Yig we've incorporated into the setting is, unlike the version of Yig in other games, NOT likely to have serpentfolk worshipers, for Yig and Ydersius are enemies, not allies. The rare few serpenfolk who would worship Yig would be chaotic neutral and traitors to their nation and kind.
Serpentfolk are control freaks, and while they'd certainly not be above allying with other races that share their outlooks, they'd want to stay the ones in charge. To a serpentfolk, a slave is MUCH better than a friend.
Oh. That was even further from my mind. I found the bosses in Dark Souls 3 to be the least memorable of all the souls games, alas—too many of them were just "oh another big person in armor."
That's not a sum we've published, because of the game's hesitance for publishing gp values for artifacts. It sells for "market value" and that changes each time one goes up for sale, but as mentioned in the Inner Sea World Guide on page 301 where we present rules for the elixir, no dose has ever sold for less than 50,000 gp.
I'm not sure who you're talking about... and then I realized you were asking about Warcraft weapons and not just the generic weapons themselves. The halberd is better becasue it's more interesting looking than a longspear. I have no opinion about Warcraft versions of them since my character uses a bow.
I will, in fact, go as far as to say that Paizo will NOT Publish epic level rules. It's not something we're interested in. Mythic Adventures is our solution to that play style.
I think that the Abominations have some individually interesting monsters in there, but that the category doesn't make much sense and is too loosely defined. Furthermore, the whole design element for epic that there is no level cap means that no matter WHAT you do to design ANY monster for that system, you're guaranteed to have your monster be either ridiculously overpowered or ridiculously underpowered for the vast majority of gamers who use Epic Rules (which is my #1 reason for not liking how the Epic Level rules work—add in a PC level cap, and my dislike of the rules amps down a LOT).
I love the movie. It's not perfect, but it's no-contest in my top 5 Lovecraft adaptions.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
As a T-Rex, it is my sworn duty to correct you and point out I'm from the Cretaceous, not Jurassic.
The Playtest PDF Medium went away. One of the whole points of a playtest is to test how these things work, and the playtest revealed to us that the initial version of the Medium was not the right version and it was riddled with design errors or false starts or we simply came up with better ideas as a result of the playtest. I do know that linking it to the Harrow deck
Eric Hinkle wrote:
Atlach-Nacha has never been a drow deity. Mazmezz is meant to replace Lolth, more or less, but is much more obscure even among drow, who aren't 100% spider themed in Pathfinder.
That said, yes, Atlach-Nacha is one of the six Great Old Ones we're publishing in the Strange Aeons Adventure Path, as part of our connection/agreement/team-up with Chaosium. (Since Clark Ashton Smith's creations are not yet in the public domain, we worked with Chaosium to use their license to do game-related content of their versions of his creations.)
If I wanted to run an adventure path and use all the miniatures Paizo will eventually release that are designed for said AP how long do I need to wait after the AP's release? 2 years? 3?
I suspect we'll never have all of the characters in an Adventure Path available as miniatures.
Cole Deschain wrote:
I like that they're non-standard dwarves, but neither is in my top 10 Pathfinder iconic list.
I like both "Let Me In" AND "Let the Right One In" in fact, and often accidentally confuse the two titles because they are basically the same movie, but different in ways make each one interesting.
AKA: Sometimes remakes are as good as the originals.
Beyond the information about her in Rise of the Runelords, Shalelu has also appeared in Second Darkness (part 3) and Jade Regent. She has a full NPC entry, including lots of details about how she would interact with a party, in Jade Regent #1.
Nick O'Connell wrote:
I know that all the Chaosium creatures in Strange Aeons and Carrion Crown's " Wake of the watcher" can only be in those bestiaries, But does that mean they can't be in any other adventures, except the ones whose bestiaries they are in?
It means that we can use them all we want in print, but whenever we do, we have to attribute Chaosium. Further, I'd drop in thanks and maybe advertisements to them as well in such a case. They aren't open content, so they're not good candidates for inclusion in a Bestiary unless they are specifically creatures inspired by Lovecraft or another public-domain author (of which there ARE a few such critters in there).
Third party publishers cannot use them in their products unless they get permission from both Chaosium AND from Paizo to reprint them. Home games can use them all they want.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Cats are awesome, but since we're currently talking about a poorly-defined what-if future, my assumption was that I would be allied with my new feline overlords, based purely on my current real-world preference for the company of cats and the fact that I have plenty of cat friends.
I've never read the original book.
One: I think that having a bloodline manifest physically is neat, and that's always been my assumption. Many bloodlines specifically have physical effects built into their powers already, so it's not a big stretch to say they have other cosmetic influences.
Two: I'd say it'd be permanent, and would transition your character into an NPC. Your GM may well have a different interpretation.
Three: They do indeed have familial bonds.
The Doomkitten wrote:
There's nothing in that battlecry that a worshiper of a goddess of healing, honesty, redemption, and the sun would take offense at, and a lot they'd like, so yes it's a good one.
I like Varric because he's snarky, because he's well-written, because he uses profanity, because he has a cool and amusing relationship with his crossbow (a non-traditional dwarf weapon), because he doesn't have a huge beard, because he questions dwarven traditions, and because he's a storyteller in a bard-sort-of-way. I like him because a lot of his characteristics are NOT classic dwarf tropes.
When designing feats, do you prefer to focus on the mechanic effect (and it's impact) or the rule of cool?
Almost ALWAYS the flavor today. There are several core feats that exist to do specific things that are sort of required, classically, by feats (things like Iron Will and Toughness and Power Attack), but we've had HUNDREDS of feats in that category. Today, I prefer a feat to start life as a cool flavorful idea and then, if all goes well, the mechanics are born out of that and are fun as well.
That's a great question! I'd say that they can regain consciousness provided the temporary hit points would technically put them at or over an effective hp of zero, but do not stabilize. They would continue to lose 1 hp per round until they stabilize, but the hp per round they'd lose would come first from temporary hit points, so when the temp hp are used up or expire, they just go right back to whatever negative hit point total they were at before they went under.
The Doomkitten is 100% correct.
The act of intentionally creating undead is evil, and as a result most undead are evil, because they're filled with a burning desire and need to bring harm to life and to consume living energy and spread pain and sickness and so on.
But ghosts aren't usually intentionally created. They arise when a spirit is unwilling to move on, when a soul is not allowed to rest due to a great injustice. As detailed in the bestiary...
"Although ghosts can be any alignment, the majority cling to the living world out of a powerful sense of rage and hatred, and as a result are chaotic evil—even the ghost of a good or lawful creature can become hateful and cruel in its afterlife."
The primary reason why most undead (and even most ghosts) are evil is simple—that's the classic role they play, and the role undead are most well-suited to play. Look at all the world's stories about undead. Yes, there are examples of them being non-evil, but those examples are not the majority, and I can think of several that portray undead as non evil that are common targets of ridicule, which hardly makes them a good contender for something to aspire to.
For me, as creative director of Paizo, I prefer the stories where the undead are evil, where they propel horror stories, since "fear of death" is at the core of all undead stories. But there are exceptions, and in most cases, those exceptions are ghost stories. I can think of MANY ghost stories that are great but don't portray evil ghosts, but even then most ghost stories are about bad ghosts.
Beyond ghosts, I'd say that vampires probably come in second in the "sometimes they're not evil" but that's both rarer AND (in my opinion) easier to turn into something ludicrous than a non-evil ghost. (For the record, when I say good movies about non-evil vampires, I'm specifically referring to "Near Dark" and the Underworld movies and "Let Me In," but whether or not the vampires in those movies are actually good or are just not-all-out-evil is kind of a matter of opinion.)
I don't count that as its baseline stats unless it's a constant spell-like ability.
If an animal species were to "evolve" into a humanoid version of themselves and take over the world, making humans second class citizens/slaves, similar to Planet of the Apes, which animal would be your preference, and which animal would be the worst choice if you had to live in that world?
Lizards or cats would be my preference.
Dogs would be the worst choice. Or maybe cows.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
He could have if he wanted. But. He had better things to do, being a powerful wizard, than that.
The NPC wrote:
Not really, since I don't really see Shadow Over Innsmouth as having any "classic prejudices" in it (unlike, say, Horror at Red Hook).
There's been more modern movie adaptations of Shadow Over Innsmouth as examples—Roger Corman's "Humanoids from the Deep" and Stuart Gordon's "Dagon" both come to mind immediately. Looking to our own products, I suppose "Wake of the Watcher" and "From Shore to Sea" would be the best examples of a Pathfinder version of this story.
And of course, it's one of Lovecraft's most famous books, and there's been a LOT of other authors expanding on the themes of Shadow Over Innsmouth over the years. In fact, there are entire anthologies about this very topic. In particular, the follwoing three anthologies:
There's LOTS of examples in those books on how to do the story differently.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Elves are Forlorn when they are raised by non-elves. An elf can be raised by elves in any region of the Inner Sea Region, or by non-elves in any region of the Inner Sea Region. Whether or not your elf is forlorn is up to you, in other words.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I'm not familiar with the Lore mechanic in Unchained, but I'd certainly allow Knowledge (planes) to do this or even Profession (sailor) at a much higher DC.
Eric Hinkle wrote:
Thanks Kalindlara. And while it's likely impossible, I'd love to see references to Mythos material by Brian Lumley like Yibb-Tstll or Bugg-Shash -- what? I like his stuff; it has a very fantasy feel to it. Ramsey Campbell did some amazing work as well, though I suppose Glaaki is still stuck on Earth.
Our license with Chaosium does not extend to using mythos content from Lumley or Campbell for Strange Aeons, but that doesn't mean that some day in the future for some other product we can't pursue license agreements with either of them to do more with their creations in another book, I suppose. I would LOVE to do more with Campbell's creations in particular some day.
Jareth Elirae wrote:
1) Imprisonment goes as deep as it needs go go. I've always assumed that it's below the Darklands even. In any case, easily deep enough to not be impacted by the collapse of Iz.
2) Yup; you need to be in the basic area where the effect first came into being. In this case, a fly or levitate or similar spell would be required... but the wording is kinda vague, so in theory, and at the GM's whim, the "locale" could either refer to the 5-foot-square where the paladin was last standing or simply the area—so you could be standing on the new ground where Iz collapsed to or on a cliff's edge looking over the new chasm.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Yup; I've preferred Marksman since day one, more or less. I played a little bit with Beastmaster back in one of the first expansions since it let you tame Devilsaurs, but got tired of it and went back to Marksman. I've never enjoyed survival. If I wanted to do melee, I would have played a rogue.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
In Legion instead of going through infinite weapon replacements, you'll be just using one weapon per spec. I've obtained the artifact weapon for two of my specs and will soon be going for the third and last.
Yup, and in my case only ever using the bow, since I'm not all that into switching specs.
I haven't 100% decided yet. I have the recent hardcover reprint from WotC and might just use that, but I might use the brown-cover compilation that came out after Temple, if I can find my copy.
As with the previous one, I'll be running it as close to as-is in print as I can. Unlike Temple or Queen of the Spiders, though, I've actually NEVER run the Slavers adventures and haven't read them in ages, so I have no idea what the "party at Dame Gold's" is referring to off the top of my head. So, no interesting ideas at this point.
Nope. It's rare for an outsider to retain mortal memories because that's not the norm, and in almost all cases the process of going from mortal to soul to outsider is so potent that it wipes things clean.
An outsider that DOES retain its memories is much more likely to behave in more familiar ways and forge more relationships outside of their expected role; these outsiders tend to be movers and shakers among their kind as a result, but also tend to attract enemies faster as a result as well.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Yup; been tinkering a little bit with transmogs but then immediatley found better gear so for the moment I'll be holding off on that. That said, I can't imagine replacing my bow, so maybe I'll get it fancied up... not sure yet.
baron arem heshvaun wrote:
They got to nearly the end. In fact, tonight is the last session, and they're going to finish it off so that in 2 weeks they'll be starting on Slave Lords.
My goal for the game was not to do too many adjustments or tweaks to the game, but to present it as-is, with as little adjustment to the story as possible. There's plenty of cool plot twists in the adventure, obviously, but I didn't create any new ones really. There have been some fun unexpected combat results (such as Rob using his wand of a wonder to create a tree in the middle of a fight with a demon and using that as a "throne" of sorts to pump up party morale so that rather than flee they fought the hezrou and, with the aid of a stack of plot twist cards, managed to win the battle), but nothing that I've intentionally added to the plot to deviate things from the text as written.
I'm not including the nodes, after some consideration. That whole section of the adventure is very much set up as a "Now do the rest of this yourself; have fun!" which on one level is very cool for a GM who has lots of time and the energy and will to make the last four huge regions his/her own... but that's not of much interest to me. I want to show the players the original 1st edition feel and have fun glorying in nostalgia, and the nodes don't have that since they're not actually detailed in print.
They haven't found the trapped prince. I doubt they will.
The Zuggtmoy stuff happens tonight. My Golarion stand-in for Iuz is Lamashtu.
Torvald Nom wrote:
PFS is not a great place to do things like this, frankliy, where the game demands so much exact rules. You might get a GM on day one who's okay with your reskinned tiny dog, but the next day your GM might think you're tyring to pull some sort of fast one and won't allow your dog, and on day three you might have a GM who doesn't care but hits your party with a fireball and kills your dog outright, not knowing (or even not caring) how much of an attachment you've formed with the dog.
I would save this character concept for a non PFS game, or if you MUST do it, just say you have a pet pug but he stays at home and doesn't show up on screen in the game.
(If this was a game I was running, I would ABSOLUTELY just have you size down a Small dog to Tiny, and be done with it. But I can't vouch for how any one of any number of random PFS GMs might respond to the situation, and there aren't specific rules in the game for Tiny dogs, so you're kinda out of luck.)
Outsiders don't really have much free will—they're driven by their alignments. That's why it's so rare to see an outsider of an unexpected alignment; those are the very rare few outsiders who manage to escape their nature. Outsiders don't need to eat or drink, either. Their lives are VERY different than mortal lives as a result. For the most part, what they do is what's detailed in their description—they do that more or less all the time, and to them, doing what they were made to do IS "fun" for them. Some of them can have relationships with others, but relationships outside the norm of their themes would tend to be unusual.
For example, a hound archon is a soldier and a sentinel. He may well have buddies who are also soldiers and they might share battle stories or the like, and enjoy each other's company in the way soldiers do, but they would be unlikely to have a family they'd go home to since heaven's army IS their family. On the other hand, a lillend is a tale-teller and artist, so she'd likely spend her time studying about art history or seeking out new performances or art to admire or creating them herself, perhaps sharing that time with fellow artists seeking inspiration. She'd be unlikely to have "war stories" and probably does have a small group of particularly inspiring friends that help her with her art.
Falling in love with a mortal does happen for outsiders, but it's very rare, and as such tends to be the type of thing significant stories are told about or that have long-term repercussions on things both from the outsider and the mortal side of things.
Isaac Aronson wrote:
Indeed, the primary purpose of this updated version is to update it to use the Pathfinder Rules. That includes the Pathfinder Bestiaries.