Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Coutal

JiCi's page

1,128 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

@ all 3 of you, I'll answer this all at once.
1) I'm having trouble figuring out how many AP monsters so far would be reserved for a Golarion-exclusive setting, when every one of them can be adapted to any setting the DM can think of based on the native environment alone.

2) If they are revising monsters, then I don't see why reprinting them on a compendium would be problematic.

3) If the later Bestiaries were more about new monsters than reprinted ones, then I also don't see why having a 5th Bestiary with on AP monster, only new ones would be a problem either. Budget? Huh... yeah... I don't see a big difference between having to get 90% of the artworks compared to 100%. Again, B4 had like, what, 10 monsters from AP... on 300 or so?

4) I have absolute faith in Paizo to come up with even more new creations... or else we would have never gotten monsters in APs in the first place.

5) How many monsters have been suggested in the "Bestiary 5 wish list" topic again? Believe me, they HARDLY will ever run out of ideas.


Arachnofiend wrote:
JiCi wrote:
You guys make me laugh when you request a Mystic Theurge and an Arcane Trickster... when they're ALREADY Prestige Classes. Look, they cannot convert PrCs into actual classes, ok? So let them be..
Uh... You do realize this is exactly what the Magus did with the Eldritch Knight, right?

That's almost on a league of its own... Because the Eldrith Knight BARELY give new abilities...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys make me laugh when you request a Mystic Theurge and an Arcane Trickster... when they're ALREADY Prestige Classes. Look, they cannot convert PrCs into actual classes, ok? So let them be...

Honestly, for missing classes? Hmmm...
- Artificer/Tinkerer: someone who can fabricate gadgets that duplicate spells. If that's problematic to you, pretty sure Numeria would have such a class amongst their ranks.

- Swordsage/Warblade/Crusader: Yes, I'm asking this, because I really liked how Tome of Battle was written and ruled. Look, the fighter is literally paling in comparison when it comes to "having something unique". These 3 classes made an awesome alternate fighter option. Tian Xia could be loaded with these right now. Basically, give the fighter spell-like abilities in the forms of unique attacks.


(Ok, that might have been discussed a few times before, but might as well post it here for future purposes.)

I'd like to get a Compendium composed of monsters that appeared in Adventure Paths and Adventure Modules. Just so you know, some of the monsters ALREADY made it into Bestiaries 2, 3 and 4, but, considering the HUGE number of exclusive monsters, that might take forever to make them accessible to everyone via the Core Books.

Why is it posted in "Paizo Products", and not in "Pathfinder Campaign Setting Products"? As I said, several monsters were reprinted in previous Bestiaries. Also, I... don't really see the AP/M monsters as solely exclusive to Golarion, as many can be adapted to any setting. If it was the case... then why would Paizo have added some of them in Bestiaries in the first place?

So yeah, I would like to suggest one or more monster compendiums, composed exclusively of creatures that were published in Adventure Paths and Modules. Seeing that each 6-booklet series presents 30 monsters on average, they could take 9 or 10 APs, take all the monsters, remove the ones already reprinted in Bestiaries (:P), add monsters from Modules to fill the blanks... and they'll have a 300-monsters Bestiary in no time. To put you in perspective, they could take EVERY monster from Rise of the Runelords to Skull & Shackles (maybe Shattered Star since I'm sure that at least 30 monsters were already reprinted) and make a compendium with it. That tells you how huge they could make it.

Now, before saying that it would bust the idea to purchase APs and Modules, let me remind you that you're buying for the setting, the locations, the NPCs and such, NOT just for the monsters.

At best, Paizo could make an exclusive Pathfinder Campaign Setting book named "Monsters of Golarion" or "Golarion Bestiary", like WotC did with "Monsters of Faerun". My point is that Paizo could make such a book using their monthly publications.

So, what do you say?


Samy wrote:

Blood of Dragons will probably show up eventually, don't worry.

I just hope they don't make the same mistake they did with Blood of Elements, and try to put too many races in.

Well... the Half-Elemental Template had like 8 variations, plus the Half-Janni Template... That's a lot of cover.

A Blood of Dragons booklet should only have 1 [new] race and 5 bloodlines (chromatic, metallic, primal, imperial and outer), no need to add more actual races to the mix, like Kobolds and such.


The Beardinator wrote:
Its really all in how you (the GM) interprets the dragonborn. Bahamut gave people the CHOICE to become a dragonborn. It was not forced. If you wanted to rigidly enforce it, you could. As long as the dragonborn player is fighting evil dragons and protecting the lesser races from evil dragons, that should be fine. Plus, you got to choose between the awesome abilities of either wings granting flight or a breath weapon that can do any of the four basic elemental damage. The third option seemed pretty weak to me by comparison. The first campaign I ran, I allowed the party's fighter the option of becoming a dragonborn after he had performed several goodly, dragon related deeds. He loved it. He chose the breath weapon and took a couple of feats to support it and had a great time. Bahamut IMHO is a truly goodly god in that he seeks to do the most good while thwarting Tiamat. He protects the weaker masses from evil dragons and the few non-dragon worshippers he has are greatly appreciated. Hence, the OPTION of becoming a dragon based humanoid.

Ok... that it's a choice for PCs, I can accept that. You can accept or refuse. I also have no problem with the abilities it grants... except for the numerous grey zones that people keep having trouble with rule-wise.

What I had a problem with the race was with the fact that it imposes a code of conduct even MORE rigid than your standard paladin code, piled on the rule that the Template can be literally and painfully ripped from you if you don't follow that code. What if I don't GET to fight evil dragon related stuff in the current campaign?

The race wasn't lenient enough. Everything you had to do HAD to be related to your fight against Tiamat. Demons and devils? Nope, screw it, Bahamut kills you if you even care about a fiendish incursion that wipe the Material Plane and even if Tiamat is essentially living in Baator.

If Bahamut let loose a little and went for overly good deeds, NOT just for dragons, than I would have tolerated a bit more, because it would have been similar to a paladin code. Right now, Dragonsborns are for the die-hard followers who basically forsake their humanity for a single narrow-minded cause.

A DM with a Dragonborn ALMOST needs to use evil dragons and Tiamat or else a Dragonborn has little to no purpose...


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Samy wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Samy wrote:
Yeah, since Elements, I'm inclined to think one race per book anymore. With subraces/heritages, of course.
The one problem with this is that it would take years before paizo even got around to covering half of the races we want covered :(

Yeah but it's better than getting none of the races covered in sufficient depth.

I'd rather take 16 pages of one race than 1 page of 16 races each.

Yea it is kind of true. Every time a book doesn't cover races sufficently means that *at best* an opportunity has been lost for years.

This was essentially the problem with the 2 page races in the APG, abilities that should have been detailed and fun archtypes or bloodlines got watered down into weak feats due to space issues.

*points to my suggestion*

HELLO?!?

Sounds like a no-brainer at this point...


Ok... the Alchemy Handbook introduced grafts [source], more specifically fungal grafts. One of them is the Reaching Vines, which essentially gives you two vine attacks that deal no damage, but can be used to pull opponents in.

What if I could weaponize them even further?

Here are homebrewed feats that use the Reaching for more potent effects.

Whipping Vines
You have learned to use your vines as effective weapons.
Prerequisites: Fungal-grafted (Reaching vines), base attack bonus +2.
Benefit: You can use your vines as primary natural attacks, dealing 1d4 plus your Strength modifier. You can still use the pull maneuver instead of dealing damage if you wish.
Normal: The vines deal no damage and are used as secondary attacks.
Special: This feat counts as Whip Mastery for the purpose of feats, prerequisites and such.

Grasping Vines
Your vines can tighten your grip on objects you held.
Prerequisites: Fungal-grafted (Reaching vines)
Benefit: You can wrap your vines around your hands and objects you currently hold. This grants you the same benefits and properties of a locked gauntlet, with the exception that you cannot make lethal unarmed strikes. You can wrap only one of your vines around one of your hand if desired, such as to hold a one-handed melee weapon, but you can also wrap both vines to grasp a two-handed object, doubling the bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense. Wrapping one vine is a move action and wrapping both vines at once, be for one or two objects, is a standard action. Unwrapping either or both vines at once is a move action.
Normal: The vines cannot be used to lock your objects in hand.
Special: If you possess the Quick Draw feat, you can wrap one vine as a swift action or both as a move action, and unwrap them as a swift action.

Flailing Vines
You can wield a weapon like a long flail using your vines.
Prerequisites: Fungal-grafted (Reaching vines), Grasping Vines, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: After wrapping a weapon with one or both vines, as a free action, you can choose to release it and use it similar to a flail. Your weapon attacks gain reach. If the weapon already had reach, add 5 feet to your reach. You can snap the weapon to your hands as a move action. You cannot use the pull maneuver while wielding a weapon in such a manner nor can you hold another object while the vine is extended.
Special: If you possess the Quick Draw feat, you can snap the weapon back as a swift action.

Rapid Vines
You have learned to use your vines as fast as any weapon.
Prerequisites: Fungal-grafted (Reaching vines), Whipping Vines, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: You can use your vines to make iterative attacks. The vines are treated as light weapons and you can use both at the same time, but doing so occurs all the usual penalties from wielding two weapons, including adding only half of your Strength modifier to an off-hand attack.

Versatile Vines
You have learned to use your vines for various maneuvers
Prerequisites: Fungal-grafted (Reaching vines), base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: You can use the Disarm, Trip, Drag, Reposition and Steal maneuvers in addition of the Pull maneuver. However, you cannot let go of the vines if countered.

So, what do you think?


Name Violation wrote:

it looks like you can be a card caster and staff magus.

interesting

True, but the card master doesn't allow you to use spellstrike with melee weapons anymore, only your cards.


Please... please... please tell me that among the new archetypes, there are some of the magus that involve wielding a two-handed weapon or using 2 weapons TWF.


Peter Stewart wrote:

I'm quite amused by all the people defending the status quo... who don't actually know the status quo. Lets cover the important points real quick.

1. Recharging a staff must be done in the morning, when you prepare spells. The slot used is unavailable for the rest of the day. You cannot simply dump an unused spell slot into a staff at the end of the day at no cost.
2. You use a spell slot of the highest level available within the staff to recharge it, and said slot charges only a single charge.
3. You cannot recharge more than a single charge per day.
4. You cannot recharge more than a single staff each day.
5. You must know at least one spell that is stored within the staff.

There are a few obvious takeaways from these restrictions.

1. Staves that contain primarily spells of the same level are likely to be a better investment than those with wildly varying levels. Using a 6th level spell slot to recharge the 1st level sleep spell you used on your staff of enchantment is an awfully raw deal.
2. Staves that focus on lower level spells are probably easier to recharge - and thus more likely to see consistent use - than staves that contain higher level spell slots you may need.
3. Staves are much more useful in campaigns that involve short periods of activity followed by relatively long stretches of leisure.

Keeping these limitations - and the extremely high cost of any given staff - in mind, I don't think it's a surprise that some people feel they are a bit overly restrictive or limited. Campaigns that take a slower pace between adventures or between each adventuring day are tend to find staves more valuable, but those tend to see consistent action over long stretches of time are likely to rapidly reduce a given staff to a phenomenally expensive paperweight. In addition, the stave you find can dramatically alter your perception.

Finally, someone who understands my point.

Where are the options to do as follow:
- "I burn a 5th-level spell; I recharge my staff by 5 charges."
- "I burn 2 5th-level spells; I recharge my staff by 10 charges."
- "I burn 2 5th-level spells; I recharge 2 staves by 5 charges each."
- "I can craft a staff that recharges itself by 1 or 2 charges per day."

Yes, 3.5E staves couldn't be recharged... but they had 50 charges. You know that 3rd-level spell you had in it? You could use it 16 times. In PF, only 3 times...

Yeah, practical...


mswbear wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
JiCi wrote:

I'll drop this here.

After five booklets on templates-turned-weaker-PC-races (celestials/aasimars, fiends/tieflings, vampires/dhampirs, lycanthropes/skinwalkers, elementals/oreads, sylphs, undines and ifrits), how about addressing THE most requested PC race?

Beside, it's not like you cannot make a Dragonborn similar to WotC's now can't you...?

I wouldn't exactly call a post with 3 favorites over 4 months an indication of THE most requested PC race ;-)
I agree and honestly the whole dragonborn thing is done to death. I think that the most requested would be for kitsune. I still think that they could manage a Blood of Beasts book. (Catfolk, Ratfolk, Tengu, Grippli, Kitsune, Nagaji, Vanara)

1) Just because it wasn't that much "favored" doesn't mean it's not popular. Favoring a topic doesn't seem to be a common practice here.

2) I wouldn't call this being "done to death" when nothing has been done to make an alternative to the inability to play a half-dragon. Furthermore, aasimars, tieflings, dhampirs, oreads, sylphs, undines and ifrits weren't THAT popular to begin with... and yet, they had booklets. The lycanthrope template is popular and I could understand why it got a booklet and an alternate race.

3) Kitsune? Really now? They add the Dragon Empires books and the Advance Race Guide. There's not much to add there. The ONLY thing I would like to see for the kitsunes is a reworked Magical Tail feat so I would tyake only ONE time and have it grow along as I level up instead of taking it 8 times and screwing up my build.


You have to burn a spell to recharge ONE SINGLE CHARGE... and no, there's nothing that would allow a spellcaster to recharge a staff faster, such as a feat or class ability that allow him or her to use a spell to recharge a number of charges equal to that spell's level.

Why has it become so hard to recharge a staff?


I'll drop this here.

After five booklets on templates-turned-weaker-PC-races (celestials/aasimars, fiends/tieflings, vampires/dhampirs, lycanthropes/skinwalkers, elementals/oreads, sylphs, undines and ifrits), how about addressing THE most requested PC race?

Beside, it's not like you cannot make a Dragonborn similar to WotC's now can't you...?


Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much potential :D

Please tell me vehicles will be included, such as tanks and choppers, and please tell me that there will be animated versions of them, similar to the Animated Tack in Reign of Winter :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:
Kind of reminds me of the last of the 3.5 Monster Manuals only it sounds like you are doing a better job with the idea.

My thought exactly... a Monster Manual/Bestiary should be about new monsters only, not about recycling old monsters with stat blocks.


(Ok, I honestly don't know where to put this, but please change it to the right directory if necessary)

This isn't a topic about what book(s) should be considered for the future, but more what content should be added in future books. Y'know, a portion of what a book could contain. So what features, rules, abilities, items and such would you like to see in future Paizo products, be general or Golarion-specific, if judged adequate?

1) Rules to make intelligent constructs
Ok, hear me out: yes, the Bioconstruct Modification (brain) can make a construct intelligent... but I'm talking making your own construct as intelligent, Wise, Charismatic and thus independent as you see fit. What does it takes to give a construct Int 15?

2) A feat to transform breath weapons into ballistic projectiles
I think I've lost track of how many times I've seen monsters in fiction spitting out stuff as rapidly as someone firing arrows. I'd like to see either a rule or a feat that allows the creature to use its breath weapon as a ranged touch attack, instead of an area of effect, using attack rolls and such.

3) Either more weapons or weapon equivalencies
You cannot imagine Paizo listing just about every different sword, spear, axe and bow that people in history made. It's true that a few weapons can have their own entries. However, what could be useful is a list of weapons that would have the same stats as another weapon. For instance, you could have a list of 4, 5 or 6 different swords that would have the same exact stats as the standard longsword. So... if a player would like to use a specific weapon for his or her character, you'll have this to help out.

4) More combination weapons
Ok, that might be more for firearms, which might be considered "wrong" by the Pathfinder community, but in history, we've seen swords, whips and polearms with gun barrels attached (axes, shields and hammers have been listed in UC already). Then again, what about whips with hidden daggers? rapiers with hidden daggers? bows with hardened wood and spiked grip? Even better, what about pistol keys and other items that were doubled as weapons?

5) More monster variants
As with weapons, not every monster can be listed; that's why variants can be used. While that might be reserved for booklets, more variants for existing monsters would be a nice addition, based on legends or even other previous editions of D&D, if possible.

6) More racial weapons
Gnomes are familiar with... only the gnome hooked hammer. Halflings are familiar with slings and... the halfling sling staff. Orcs are familiar with greataxes, falchions and... the orc double axe. Yeah... I have a feeling that dwarves and elves have a bigger arsenal of familiar weapons than the other races. The culture is varied and the world is huge, so I'm sure that more "racial exclusive" weapons for gnomes, halflings and orcs could added to the mix.

7) Futuristic weaponry
Now before flaming the skin out of me, please note that Paizo isn't a stranger to anachronistic weapons: "Rasputin must die" has a handful of modern/early 1900s firearms and in Numeria, robots with laser guns and plasma cannons have been spotted. While I don't except a full section, these weapons could be added if time travelling and dimension hopping is done. Maybe that wasn't in the works when the Game Mastery Guide was published, but that could be revisited in a later product.

That's pretty much what i can think of. What about you?


Thanks a bunch, that's awesome ^_^


Ipslore the Red wrote:

Specifically, PrCs being the best options forever, 100 base classes and 500 PrCs, a zillion special materials, and so on.

I ask because of the paper-bound abomination known as Inner Sea Gods and the monstrosity known as Evangelist. From what I have seen of the book, namely Walter's guide to it, it seems to be almost universally terrible from a balance standpoint. Especially evangelist. You lose one level- one fricking level-of your class, and it's easy to get a feat to bring class features back to hit dice. Then you get 100% free features for another 9 levels.

And then exalted has straight spellcasting progression, permanent protect from ______, AND a free domain.

Sentinel is disgustingly cheesy as well. Bonus feats, free +1s to hit and damage, fricking LEADERSHIP for free, +4 to initiative DR, Diehard, and cure critical wounds as a swift action on yourself?

Am I overreacting or should this book never have been written and its authors terminated posthaste?

1) Pathfinder is not suffering from any bloat whatsoever. Prestige Classes have been kept "rather low" in the base game's books; Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat didn't have ANY PrC at all. Sure, Paths of Prestige added several PrCs, but those are often setting-specific, same goes for the other PrCs presented here and there, which aren't much numerous.

2) Archetypes are new concepts that actually avoid bloating the system with too many PrCs. In fact, MANY PrCs could have been replaced by archetypes. Right now, there is a nice balance between the two.

3) The Evangelist PrC is fine, I kinda wished that PrCs would allow you to pursue your base class instead of halting it dead.

4) The book itself is great, quit complaining...


Orthos wrote:

It kind of boggles my mind that the things you listed as driving you away from the race were pretty much every single thing that makes me love them.

To each their own I suppose.

Well, to me, it just felt forced upon players to follow a very rigid code of life, which is not even a code on conduct. You couldn't stray away from the path without some consequences. Betraying Bahamut was also "out of character": Bahamut is a LG God... who basically only cared about the Dragonfall War against Tiamat; Heironeous was a LG God, paladin-like almost, but he never felt as rigid as Bahamut. For Bahamut, dragons were his only concern, which came out of nowhere.

Granted, DMs could change everything around... but if so, that's basically because they felt it was too rigid for their own games.

3E dragonborns lacked that freedom of character. They lacked some sort of liberty to how to play their characters. All it needs for a Paizo version would be for the race to be unrelated to a God.


@ everyone who talks about Nagajis

Huh, guys, Nagajis are based on Nagas, not Dragons. Also, if you're looking for Yuan-tis, they're not here and they won't be, as they are trademarked by WotC; the Serpentfolks are the closest thing you'll find.

Orthos wrote:
Quote:
Ok, for me, I honestly don't want a carbon copy of WotC 3E's Dragonborn. I didn't like the idea of having your character become a draconic servant of Bahamut out of absolute loyalty. That concept was too farfetched for me and it should technically have been a Template rather than a full-fledged race.

See, I was the exact opposite. I loved the "devoted servants who undergo metamorphosis to become more like their god" theme much, much more than 4E's "just a race of draconic humanoids" version.

Thankfully it's pretty easy to convert up the 3.5 version into PF mechanics.

I'm pretty sure if Paizo creates a draconic race, though, it'll be unique from both versions of WOTC's Dragonborn.

Here are some of the issues I had with the 3E Dragonborns:

- It's a conversion, but a full-fledged race

- The Dragonborn's racial traits replaced your character's traits. Believe it or not, that causes a LOT of confusion, because people kept asking for individual races what was kept and was for replaced. Size was a HUGE problem, because the book (Races of the Dragon) showed Medium and Small Dragonborns, but that same book NEVER addressed the actual size of the resulting creature. Same goes with speed, as swim speeds (such as for merfolks) and fly speeds (such as for raptorans) were traits, which in turn were supposed to be replaced.

- It made Bahamut look "bad". I could have understood if Tiamat would have done it and would punish followers who wouldn't follow her command, but Bahamut? No, just... NO. Bahamut was usually depicted as a good and gentle God, with a decent amount of respect for non-draconic followers. Why the whole rigidity about the Dragonborn and the Dragonfall War? Which leads me to...

- The fact that you could essentially lose the Dragonborn Template, with some DIRE consequences: you took damage for a number of rounds equal to your HD.

- You basically had to forsake your character's humanity, as it made you a rigid and narrow-minded soldier, who had to follow Bahamut's will every single time. You think paladins are rigid about their code of conduct? Dragonborns were worse... Also, being that single-minded character made for some boring roleplay.

Upon reading the 4E Dragonborn, I was relieved that they weren't so adamant about their belief. They were a full-fledged race born from a dead god, not some die-hard fanatics.

If Paizo tries their hands with a dragon-related race, I'd be more than ok with a real race, be dragon-blooded sorcerer descendants or half-dragon descendants, but for the love of Apsu, NOT a religious ritual.


Hayato Ken wrote:

Then, what happened in a later edition, i really didn´t like the flavor of that. That´s a personal opinion though.

A dragonborn flavor like it was installed by wotc would simply not fit Golarion in my eyes. The only place left to have something similar would be Arcadia or one of the unmentioned continents. A very splatty splatbook then.

Oh... I get it now...

Ok, for me, I honestly don't want a carbon copy of WotC 3E's Dragonborn. I didn't like the idea of having your character become a draconic servant of Bahamut out of absolute loyalty. That concept was too farfetched for me and it should technically have been a Template rather than a full-fledged race.

What I'd like to get to something akin to the 4E's Dragonborn. In short, the race was born when Io was killed and his blood was splattered across the lands. That actually would make more sense as a creation myth.

It can be anything though... except having humanoids becoming one...

Hayato Ken wrote:
Also, to me that feels a lot like dragonlance somehow. Which had a clever fluff there, abusing the eggs of good dragons to hatch evil dragonborn and use those to conquer the world.

Yeah, I heard about, but in Golarion, it wouldn't fit much. The Dragon Gods aren't are present and if a devilish republic won't get you, a portal to the Abyss will.

Guy St-Amant wrote:

Yeah,

Aasimars aren't Celestial/Half-Celestial.
Tieflings aren't Fiend/Half-Fiend.
Ifrits, Oreads, Sylphs and Undines aren't Elementals/Half-Elementals.
Dhampirs aren't Vampires.
Skinwalkers aren't Lycanthropes.
Kobolds aren't Dragons/Half-Dragons.
Etc...

They're close enough though...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hayato Ken wrote:
Since i played it from the first day on i know that very well. Not having "dragonborn" was and is an essential relaxing esperience, differentiating PF from another game.

How exactly? Not having a dragon-headed character has caused trouble for you before?

Hayato Ken wrote:
In PF, kobolds have that niche. They are next to dragons and connected to them in many ways.

Except that kobolds are the cannon fodders of draconic characters. They're not the gnome or halfling équivalents, but the goblin ones.

Oh, and like goblinoids, they're mostly evil, frail, dumb and vile. In Races of the Dragon, I had a hard believing that kodolds could be LN or even LG and ration for once.

Hayato Ken wrote:
Dragons are cool. As NPC´s and enemies. As PC´s you get a totally different game.

Diffeent how? having an aasimar isn't the same as having an actual angel, just like having a skinwalker isn't the same as having a lycanthrope.

Once again, it feels like you just had a bad moment with draconic characters in the past.


Hayato Ken wrote:

This theme is just sucked so dry and overdone.

Hopefully Paizo will stay away from this for a very long time and come up with newer, more refreshing and entertaining options^^

You know Pathfinder has been out for almost 7 years, right?


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Pretty sure.

You can only have one demon summoned at a time, but you have a number of true names at your disposal, so you can summon this kind of demon at one point, and then summon a different demon at some other point. Summoning is different than the number of true names you know. While you can only summon one demon at a time (unless you have the twin summoning class feature at 18th level), there are a number of demons bound to you by your knowledge of their true name.

Oh, ok I get it: you have multiple demons at your service, BUT only one at the time... until level 18th... and they only have their basic stats, yet I'm pretty sure that they are subject to just about any feat or ability that would enhance them when summoned, like a regular eidolon.

Thanks for the clarification... and y'know, now that I think about it, it is quite possible to make an alternate version of that archetype for devils, simply by swapping the monsters on the summoner's list.

Wolfgang Baur wrote:
JiCi, the spell creator line is a neat idea, but I fear it would add a few more pages to the total length of a book this size, meaning 2 less pages of actual spells. However, the designers are acknowledged in the credits (including some designers whose spells appeared in prior Kobold Press books), and the backers who submitted a spell are acknowledged on the Kickstarter site.

Well, of course, for huge projects like these, it can be problematic, but for small projects, it could be a possible addition.


James Jacobs wrote:

Also, sometimes we order art and it comes in bad so we decide not to use it and go with art we already have.

And sometimes we do like the art and feel it's perfect already, and in cases where the artwork hasn't appeared in a hardcover book, putting it into a hardcover to give it more exposure (often ten times more the exposure or more) is a good thing. (NOTE: This was the category for why we re-used art from Gods & Magic... Eva's work on the deities was too excellent to let go out of print).

And sometimes we don't have enough money to lavishly illustrate a book.

And sometimes at the last minute we have to cut text, or realize we don't have enough text to fill a page, and dropping in a piece of recycled art can sometimes make the difference between us hitting our deadline or not (it takes far less time to place an appropriate if re-used piece of art on a page than it does to write and develop and edit and copyfit several hundred words of brand new text... especially if the author of the original work isn't availalble and the new author needs to read text to figure out what needs to go in its place).

And so on, and so on. There's actually a LOT of reasons why we do the things we do. Most of the time, they're really good reasons.

Points taken...

Like I said, I like the book for the content. I just thought it was a little baffling to see the same artworks.


Dragon78 wrote:
Undead Unleashed is a "unleashed" book not a "revisited" book;) Though I would love to see a Kaiju Unleashed or Revisited book.

If that Kaiju Unleashed book stats ALL of the remaining Kaijus, that'll be an instant buy... and they could also have that Kaiju Template they wanted to add in B3, but couldn't because the template was like 6 pages long or something.


Ross Byers wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Is there a reason why some of Gods & Magic artworks were used? Did the team ran out of time and budget?
F. Wesley Schneider wrote:
We definitely did pick up many of the more awesome pieces from relevant APs—if we were happy with the look of this priest or that monster I didn't think it made sense to change it.
JiCi, art is expensive. All budgets are finite, so of course it 'ran out'. That doesn't mean it was a mark of desperation: Paizo plans how much art and text they need to order for each book. It they HAD ordered new art for the things you would have liked, then some other new piece of art would have had to go away, leading to either recycling different art (and thus leading to the same complaints) or just having less art overall (making the book less awesome and leading to different complaints.)

Woaw, woaw, woaw... where did I ever say that it was a "mark of desperation"? Please quote me on that one.

I only reconized Gods & Magic artworks, because I have absolutely no clue on what artworks came from other books. I "only" own Gods & Magic, so those are the ones that stroke me. How? Different highlights and shadows that make the new artworks look like paintings where the others look like drawings, literally. There's a glaring visual consistency problem with the deities' artworks. That kinda bugs me, as if some of the job was finished, but the rest wasn't even completed.

THAT feels like a rushed product, because it looks more like a time issue than a budget issue. Not having much money would either have led to a smaller book or a longer delay. Not having much time, however, leads to pretty much every problem imaginable, even if you have all the money in the world.

The priests' artworks are recycled as well? Oddly enough, I haven't seen them until now, same goes with the heralds and servants, same goes with the two-page images for each chapter, same goes for the rest of the images. First time I see most of the artworks in this book, honest... except the deities' artworks which I saw in Gods & magic, which I bought here.

As for the artworks, I thought that Paizo had their own in-house artists with fixed salaries, not freelancers with varying payments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:
Jeven wrote:
nighttree wrote:
A little disappointed that so much of the art is recycle...but other than that it's looking good.
That's a shame. Part of the reason I was going to buy it was for the new art. Since I already have all the articles from the APs and both the art and the content is mostly rehashed there doesn't seem much point buying it.
Just a minor point of the recycled art...all the Core 20 gods did (I believe) get new art. I believe also they recycled the art of all the gods from the AP articles. Also the art that starts each chapter is really great.

Correction: only 5 deities got new full-body artworks (Adabar, Cayden, Gozreh, Inori and Torag); the rest all has their Gods & Magic artworks. Please note that I'm not talking about the deities' artworks on every 2nd page of their sections in Chapter 1, but about their artworks at each 2nd-to-last page.

Same goes with the chapter artworks which to me are brand new. Maybe they were used elsewhere prior to this book.

Is there a reason why some of Gods & Magic artworks were used? Did the team ran out of time and budget?

I personally would have loved new poses, such as Calistria sitting sideways on the back of a large wasp, arms crossed with a small wasp on her shoulder, Erastil on a rocky cliff, one leg up on a rock like a step, looking afar with his bow on his back, Iomedae kneeling with her shield in her back, holding her sword, tip toward the ground looking up, as if addressing a king, Shelyn leaned sideways on a curved Olympian-styled bench, resting her head cupped in one hand and holding a dove with a rainbowed tail with her finger on her other hand, or Zon-Kuthon in a battle stance, wildly swining his chains and smiling with madness.

Those are just a wishlist, but updated artworks would have been nice, as I said earlier.


I'd homebrew a 2-point evolution for wheels instead of legs.


MMCJawa wrote:
Paizo just announced the fall hardcover: Monster Codex. So no Bestiary 5 this year, although maybe still a softcover Bestiary.

Honestly, I'd rather have monstruous NPCs in a separate book than inside a Bestiary. Do I really need to remind you how clumsy, cumbersome, slot-wasted, useless and pointless THAT was in Monster Manuals 4 and 5?


If I may suggest something for future projects like these, how about adding the spell's creator(s) after the stats, like after Duration, Spell Resistance and such, there would be a "Creator" line?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I finally got my hands on the book, and guess what? Very interesting read, great additions to the game, LOVE the Heralds and servitors and yes, it is a great compliment to Gods & Magic. However, it's not perfect. Without sounding too much like a whiner, I'd like to point out some flaws about the book... before you get disappointed yourself:

- Recycled artworks; For the Core Deities, 75% of the deities' artworks are recycled from Gods & Magic. Really guys? You could only afford 5 new artworks? Considering the rest of the illustrations, all brand new, that would have been nice to see.

- The "300 deities" is barely scratched; The best interpretation of that statement would be that there's a HUGE list of deities as an appendix, with names, alignments, portfolios, domains, fovared weapons and such. However, they don't go beyond that, as the more your read the book, the less info you start to get on other deities. Maybe that's held back for other modules/companions/books, but yeah... it's almost a false advertisement, but it's not that they didn't try to cram 300+ deities in the book.

- The lesser deities could have used some expanded info; If there's one thing I would have loved for Paizo to take notes from Wizards of the Coast, it's to get some of the lesser deities and make them greater ones, like WotC upgraded Bahamut (Wind, Cold), Kurtulmak (Traps), Lolth (Spiders, Darkness) and Tiamat (Conquest) from lesser racial deities to core deities. Are Achaekek, Besmara, Groetus, Milani, Razmir and Sivanah still not that important to the pantheon as we speak? I was expecting the lesser deities to get 1 one 2 pages of info each, along with character artworks (there are 14 lesser deities, grouped by 2 on one page; 1 page per deity or 2, which is half the number compared to the greater deities, would have been better IMO). Finally, considering their very small number, the dragon deities could have used the same coverage as the lesser deities... in any form.

Aside from that, pretty good book, great work people ^_^


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
JiCi wrote:

I recently got the book, and I really like the stuff in there ^_^

Especially the demon binder summoner archetype >:D

However, I have a question related to that archetype: does your demonic minion's stats/HD/abilities increase with levels, like an eidolon, or are they fixed to the basic stats?

Hi JiCi,

I'm Stephen, and I'm a demonologist.

Okay, that's not true, but I am the guy who designed the archetype. Your bound demon is fixed to the basics stats as a demon of that type, and it does not increase with the demonbinder's stats. Instead, you can bind a number of demons to you, and steadily increase the number of demonic true names that you have and the power of demons that you can bind. The bound demon class feature entirely replaces the eidolon class feature.
I hope it helps, and I'm glad you like the demon binder.

Emphasis mine

You sure?

Deep Magic wrote:
A demon binder can summon only one bound demon at a time. She must dismiss a summoned bound demon before she can perform the ritual to summon another bound demon. This ability replaces the eidolon ability.

It says here that I can only have one bound demon at a time... hence why there is the Twin Summoning ability later on.


I recently got the book, and I really like the stuff in there ^_^

Especially the demon binder summoner archetype >:D

However, I have a question related to that archetype: does your demonic minion's stats/HD/abilities increase with levels, like an eidolon, or are they fixed to the basic stats?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Khshar'naja wrote:
Cr500cricket wrote:
Khshar'naja wrote:
Cr500cricket wrote:
Temporal, Spatial, Distortion, Primal good/ Primal evil/ Primal Law/ Primal Chaos, Truth, Ideals, and Weather dragons

why no Fruit Dragons?

?!

a weird genus of dragons whose eggs act like seeds, they are considered both Dragons and Plants.

* Lemon Dragon: a bright yellow dragon with electrified breath weapon, its cytric breath can blind targets and its bite is supernaturally painful;
* Grape Dragon: a reddish purple dragon with a fiery breath weapon, its breath can daze targets and it can breath an intoxicating mist;
* Melon Dragon: a striped green dragon with sonic breath weapon, its breath also deals piercing damage and it can fire a volley of bullet-like seeds;
* Coconut Dragon: a brown and white dragon with a freezing breath weapon, its breath is a stream of milky cold water that can bull-rush enemies and its tough hide makes it very hard to kill;
* Maracuja Dragon: a dark violet dragon with an acidic breath weapon, its breath clings to the victim for ongoing damage and its it sprays acidic blood when wounded.

Congratulations, you just requested 5 new chromatic dragons XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It could be ANYTHING from ANY region, be the Inner Sea or further.

I'd be down for an AP focused on the Archdevils this time around, like in Cheliax.


Seems that Blood of the Elements is the next in line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can't April 30th come any faster? I have to wait for the PDF to be available.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

A senior developer told you you could.

You obviously found that answer unsatisfactory, so,... No, you can't.

Pick whichever answer pleases you more.

Oh, didn't notice the title :P

Alright then, multiple attacks with a flamethrower it is ^_^


I would assume that double-barrelled pistols would count as a volleys if both cannons are used, thus applying the spellstrike only once... but for scatter shots? I dunno...

While we're at it, how about automatic weapons presented in PF #71? The machine guns affect lines. Does Spellstrike carry over all targets as well?


So... what about it? Can I make iterative attacks with a flamethrower?


137ben wrote:
And it will expand it even more with future stretch goals!

30K for a 5K pledge? My goodness O_o


I tried to post something on the forums, but each time, I get a "Inaccessible Page" error, with this line "ERR_SSL_BAD_RECORD_MAC_ALERT", saying that the address is temporarily down or that it changed place.

I tried to sign out and then sign back in... and I got that same problem, meaning that I cannot log in using Chrome.

It worked before and now it stopped working...

(P.S. I'm using the latest version of IE to post this message.)


Zathyr wrote:

Not exactly what you're asking, but ... Leadership? A cohort with the spell would sort of serve the purpose.

Is there already an animated suit of armor in the party, or might you be able to take one as a cohort? ;)

What I'm asking is "how can I get Fabricate as an alchemist formula?".


I'm trying to get Fabricate for an Alchemist... with a spear and a prosthetic arm and leg (Go figure the reference)... because the Alchemist cannot learn the spell.

Some feats exist, such as Unsantioned Knowledge for Paladins, but what about other spellcasters?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
So between the Technology Guide and People of the Stars books coming out, I'd really love to see creatures similar to the Xenomorph aliens and the Predator aliens. In particular, the Xenomorphs' design is so evocative of fear and, well, alien physiology while still having a resemblance to something familiar. To me, that's the essence of horror. And there are few that can really capture what Giger did. Although I'll admit, the Nightmare Ettercap in the Bestiary 4 came close :)

The Book of Vile Darkness had the Kythons, which were essentially a nod to Aliens's xenomorphs... down right to the special ability of having a tongue that ended with a maw.


Dot

Any other input?


How about one that accompanies faithfully a wizard, because that catfolk used to be his or her cat familiar before being reincarned after dying?


That Inner Sea book is great and all... but I still think that a 2nd Codex would be a nice product to have. It could be presenting alchemists, cavaliers, inquisitors, oracles, summoners, witches, magi, gunslingers, samurais and ninjas, as well as battle heralds, holy vindicators, horizon walkers, master chymists, master spies, nature wardens, rage prophets and stalward defenders, in addition of the new iconic characters.

It would contain "less" content, because there would be 1 les class and 2 less PrCs, but still, it would be a good thing to have.

And THEN, we could also get a 3rd Codex with any new class in the works for the Advanced Class Guide.

1 to 50 of 1,128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.