If you allow your players to play "characters" that qualify for options that are designed explicitly for "monsters", such as, what, maybe devil archetypes, dragon feats, or alternate swarm abilities, then you have lost anyway (in my eyes). :)
Having racial archetypes that are only available to non-player races doesn't break the paradigm that PCs and NPCs are built from the same blocks at all.
What James describes sounds very much like a book I'd love to get. Much more than a potential "NPC Codex 2", and very much more than yet another "Freak Races Options for PCs" type book.
My name is Commander Shepard and this is my favorite post on the Citadel.
Why does Paizo market USELESS products? Pathfinder Paper Minis are totally Useless! They can't even indicate the direction a character is facing. I wouldn't even want them for free.
So, don't buy them. But please, don't presume that noboby likes these products. I'm sure plenty of customers—me included—actually love them.
You know, most of us play by the rules of the Pathfinder PRG, where "the direction a character is facing" is of no consequence to the game.
One more thing:
<redacted> Terms and Conditions wrote:
You may not create a link to this website from another website or document without Endzeitgeist's prior written consent.
Um... really? What kind of policy is that? Don't you want visitors? Did you give Google a written permission to link to your web site?
Very nice! If I may offer a possible improvement in layout (in my opinion): when looking at the timeline of all reviews of of all reviews of a certain type, I think it might be better if not all reviews were presented in full length, maybe just a teaser and a link to a full review page, otherwise you must scroll and scroll and scroll to get to the next review. I think it might look better if you could see more than one review at a time. Just my 2 cents. Otherwise, a great site, and you just convinced my to by The Horn of Geryon!
The feat Improved Natural Armor does indeed improve the base natural armor of a creature. The creature is then still fully affected by any enhancement bonus to its natural armor, such as from an amulet of natural armor.
The spell barkskin "grants a +2 enhancement bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus". That means it stacks with a creatures base natural armor, but not with any other enhancement bonuses it might have to its natural armor, such as from an amulet of natural armor.
So, if you are a "smelly lizard man" with a base natural armor bonus of +2 with the feat Improved Natural Armor, an amulet of natural armor +1 and the spell barkskin cast upon you, your total natural armor bonus would be:
for a total of +5. The amulet's enhancement bonus is lost because it does not stack with the spell's higher enhancement bonus.
All damage is lethal, unless specifially called out as non-lethal. Period.
Actually, "lethal" isn't even a defined gamwe term in this contect. There is "damage", and there is "non-lethal damage":
THE RULES wrote:
Actully this rule just got clarified/corrcted in the newest FAQ update:
Core Rulebook FAQ wrote:
I would rule that ablative barrier affects only attacks that would otherwise be affected by damage reduction. I base this on the second clause which makes the spell grant specific DR against attacks that deal nonlethal damage. So, for example, damage from a scorching ray spell would not be affected, even though it requires attack rolls.
By the way, "nonlethal" is a damage qualifier that can be added onto any other damage type. For example, the frostbite spell specifically deals nonlethal cold damage, and an attack with, say, a sap deals nonlethal bludgeoning damage.
The FAQs however are supposed about "how does this rule work" and not about "why is the rule like A and not like B". The answer to the former is important because it affects how to play the game. The answer to the latter has no bearing on the game because the rule is A no matter what the answer to the question is.
I just want to drop in to say that I am very positively surprised how good and useful this book is. Certainly not what I was expecting – I guess I expected something lukewarm, corner-case stuff – well to be honest I don't exactly know what I was expecting. I any case I wasn't really looking forward to this, but the actual book has convinced me otherwise. Well done!
Now, I finally know how expensive a tyrannosaur is, should I ever want to buy one! :)
You know, I've really had it with monsters now. They really are everywhere, we've come to a point now where you almost can't buy a Pathfinder book without it having more and more monsters. You can pretend they're different, undead, oozes, dragons, or animals, but really they're all the same. Bestiaries are FULL of them, when there really should be more variety. A quick check of the PRD reveals over 1000 dragons/undead/outsiders/they're-all-the-same-really-anyway. I really can't see what people want with all these monsters. And don't get me started on NPCa!
In case anyone is still playing this and is using the Pathfinder RPG rules as I am, I'd like to contribute my conversion of Dr. Davaulus I made for my campaign. I reworked him as an alchemist, but I kept some of his previous expert levels. As the alchemist cannot cast misdirection, which I deem necessary for Davaulus's masquerade, I created unique ring for him (see below). Here's the statblock:
Dr. Reiner Davaulus CR 9
Ring of Misdirection
Dave Gross wrote:
So often the fiction I most want to read--or write--is something that occurs to me only after I see the AP. For instance, after I read CotCT, the AP story I'd most like to write is The Adventures of Blackjack.
That said, but for the logistics, I wouldn't mind seeing fiction along the lines of what you're suggesting. I'm not certain I'd read it, but I like the concept.
I could get behind that kind of fiction. Nualia's back story as a short story, maybe even one episode only, that could have been awesome.
I used to read the AP fiction, but somewhere along the line I've stopped doing it, for no special reason, actually. Gorbacz has the truth in that Paizo's output of Pathfinder fictio hast increased dramatically since the time fiction was originally established as part of an adventure path. Even at the time the switch from the long format of Eando Kline's journal to the current shorter format six-part novellas vaguely associated with the adventure path occurred, there was no other fiction line. Now, there's the bimonthly novel line and weekly web fiction, which really is quite a lot.
So, while I've previously supported keeping the fiction in the AP volumes, today I would not mind if they were actually replaced with something gaming-related, and if it isn't possible to expand the adventure itself—which seem a little weird when we're routinely told that this and that had to be cut for space from almost every volume—then I think I'd prefer another short support article, more NPC spreads, or even an expanded bestiary over keeping the fiction.
I don't think additional maps are a good idea, especially battle scale maps. While those can be useful, having them perfect-bound into an AP volume, I think, reduces that usefulness (of course one could always print them from the PDF). The German edition of Pathfinder Adventure Path usually replaces the ads in the back with reprinted maps from inside the adventures, sometimes half-page maps scaled up to a full page, sometimes full-page maps. While this is a nice idea, I've found that for me the fact that the maps are bound into the book reduces their usefulness, because you still have to flip back and forth.
In any case, I'd also be OK with keeping the fiction, but I've come to a point now where I'd look favorable on any decision to replace it with useful gaming material.
Shallowsoul, let me ask you something. What exactly is it that you are trying to achieve with your crusade against the magic item creation rules?
Do you want Paizo to drop what they are doing and put out Pathfinder 2.0 with your improved version of those rules instead of those that have been "proven" (where?) not to work? Or do you honestly think they'll replace the current rules with new rules in a new printing by way of errata?
I'm reasonably sure neither of this is going to happen, no matter how much you protest and demand, and I'm quite certain you know that, too.
So, please tell me, what do you want? I mean, besides telling us all over and over again that you don't like the rules, or as you say it, they don't work and it has been proven.
Please enlighten us.
Is not like Paizo named the dhampirs...
I know that :)
As an aside, I think the argument "I don't want to play World of Darkeness!" is tired. If You don't like it, don't play it. Paizo reaches out to demographics - its why they're successful.
I',m not saying they should not have published this book. And I don't mind the occaslional book I have little use for. I just found it interesting that this is the first book that really has nothing at all useful for me. And on top of that it feels to me as if it were written for a different game.
It is all fair and well for people to say they like it and they'd like to get something similar for werewolves. But it should be just as fair for me to say I'd rather not see a book like that.
I haven't seen people complaining about the Pirates of the Inner Sea shouting "I don't want to play Pirates of the Carabbian, Paizo!"
Well I have, at the time.
Weid, I thought that was playtesting was all about. Play, test, report findings. This is just a playtest, Paizo is not soliciting us as designers.
As a GM, I was very frustrated with this AP, especially once we reached book 3. Unfortunately, "City of Seven Spears" is a very unfinished adventure, basically no more than a rough draft and requires extensive work by the GM the make sense in the first place. I wasn't enjoying myself at all and I didn't have the time and the motivation to do all the work myself, so I gave up on that AP at that point. My players were supportive, some being frustrated with the campaign for various reasons, too. It just hadn't turned out the way it seemed to when it started out. Now we are playing Curse of the Crimson Throne, and having a lot of fun!
Correct, the DR rule talks very specifically about "at least +6 enhancement bonus".
There are ways to do it, though. A +4 bane weapon striking at the correct creature type, for example.
Ah, very good! That is indeed a way.
Sorry, but to me your choice of word feels disrespectful to Jason and Paizo. This sense of customer entitlement these days drives me crazy. It's not like Paizo committed to a certain date here, it's not even a product. And if your whole game is hung up on this, maybe you're doing something wrong. Sorry, but I had to say that.
I second the vote for a set of summonable creatures. Cool would be having celestial and fiendish variants where appropriate, and considering that up to 5 of each can be summoned (or 6 with the Superior Summoning feat).
James Jacobs wrote:
Wow, I thought I was the only one who feels exactly like that about his show, especially the "borders onoffensive" part.