>>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<<


Off-Topic Discussions

65,951 to 66,000 of 83,732 << first < prev | 1315 | 1316 | 1317 | 1318 | 1319 | 1320 | 1321 | 1322 | 1323 | 1324 | 1325 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Why are last names always the hardest thing to figure out for a character?

I have equal difficulty coming up with first names. Maybe last names are tough because you've used up your naming mojo on the first name and need to wait for said mojo to recharge for the last name?


James Jacobs wrote:
Rovagug wants to destroy everything. Daemons and existence included.

Including himself? Or does he imagine himself persisting beyond the multiverse once he destroys everything (else)?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Rovagug wants to destroy everything. Daemons and existence included.
Including himself? Or does he imagine himself persisting beyond the multiverse once he destroys everything (else)?

Not including himself.


Cheers. Do his followers delude themselves into thinking they'll somehow be spared in the destruction? Or is it an ultimately self-destructive religion where they just hope to be destroyed later than others?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Cheers. Do his followers delude themselves into thinking they'll somehow be spared in the destruction? Or is it an ultimately self-destructive religion where they just hope to be destroyed later than others?

Some do. Others have no illusions and welcome their role in bringing about the end. Others are opportunists who believe that the end will happen long after they're dead and gone.


Ah. Cool (I hadn't considered the last group, cheers!)


Dear Mister Jacobs,

With the demise/passing of Jack Chick, do you think we should have wake for his passing or just consign to the same graveside as Jerry Falwell?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Dear Mister Jacobs,

With the demise/passing of Jack Chick, do you think we should have wake for his passing or just consign to the same graveside as Jerry Falwell?

I think that now's a good chance for gamers to show themselves to be mature and better people than Jack Chick and not get all snarky about his death.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If it's not revealing too much, can you give us a hint of what it was like for Sarenrae to go from servitor to goddess? I'm sure she handled it with class, but any nuggets or anecdotes you'd care to share?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kryzbyn wrote:
If it's not revealing too much, can you give us a hint of what it was like for Sarenrae to go from servitor to goddess? I'm sure she handled it with class, but any nuggets or anecdotes you'd care to share?

Nope; no nuggets to share at this time.


James Jacobs wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Cheers. Do his followers delude themselves into thinking they'll somehow be spared in the destruction? Or is it an ultimately self-destructive religion where they just hope to be destroyed later than others?
Some do. Others have no illusions and welcome their role in bringing about the end. Others are opportunists who believe that the end will happen long after they're dead and gone.

Which of these do you see your Rahotep as?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
If it's not revealing too much, can you give us a hint of what it was like for Sarenrae to go from servitor to goddess? I'm sure she handled it with class, but any nuggets or anecdotes you'd care to share?
Nope; no nuggets to share at this time.

Thought that might be the case :(

When a being ascends, does their personality change at that instant? Does a god's personality dictate their domains or areas of influence, or do the domains change them? Or is it a little of both?

Grand Lodge

Good day sir.

I was browsing Bestiary 5 when I came to the karkadann. I was reading the description of the karkadann horn, and I was curious what you think a reasonable market price would be for such an item. I'm thinking of including a karkadann horn as part of a specific treasure hoard, but I wouldn't put it past my PCs to try and sell it off instead of use it. Nothing official obviously, but I was wondering WWJD.


Will there be more revealed about flumphs and their role against the Dark Tapestry?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Belltrap wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Cheers. Do his followers delude themselves into thinking they'll somehow be spared in the destruction? Or is it an ultimately self-destructive religion where they just hope to be destroyed later than others?
Some do. Others have no illusions and welcome their role in bringing about the end. Others are opportunists who believe that the end will happen long after they're dead and gone.
Which of these do you see your Rahotep as?

Rahotep was very much a combination of the last two. He was ready to live forever, and was calculating on being a god himself by the time it came to Rovagug so he could replace his own god and then rule a reality populated only by the undead. Rovagug, of course, suspected as much, which is partially why he wasn't too concerned about Rahotep getting imprisoned/killed/etc.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kryzbyn wrote:
When a being ascends, does their personality change at that instant? Does a god's personality dictate their domains or areas of influence, or do the domains change them? Or is it a little of both?

Not at all. In fact, a being's personality has the STRONGEST influence on what they are when they become a deity, and in some cases is the ONLY thing that doesn't change.


Hey James Jacobs! I'll provide the questions and you'll provide the answers.

1) Does Rovagug have any plans for after he destroys everything? If the answer is unrevealed, can you give a noncanon answer?

2) What do demons want to destroy?

3) What do qlippoth want to destroy?

4) What do you want to destroy?

5) Does Rovagug hate his spawn a little less than everything else?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Strife2002 wrote:

Good day sir.

I was browsing Bestiary 5 when I came to the karkadann. I was reading the description of the karkadann horn, and I was curious what you think a reasonable market price would be for such an item. I'm thinking of including a karkadann horn as part of a specific treasure hoard, but I wouldn't put it past my PCs to try and sell it off instead of use it. Nothing official obviously, but I was wondering WWJD.

For all "trophies" taken from a monster, you should assume they cost about what you would expect for the monster's "treasure value." The game economy doesn't notice if you earn 7,000 gp from killing a CR 11 monster by taking 7,000 gold coins out of its pockets, looting 7,000 gp worth of magic items, or cutting off a horn that's worth 7,000 gp. Or any combination of the three.

For something like the karkadann horn, which has specific value once harvested, it's the game designer's and developer's responsibility to indicate what the harvested item is worth. That didn't happen for the karkaddann, and that's our fault/error. Fortunately, its properties aren't incredibly outrageous, and aren't out of line with the 1,150 gp a CR 4 monster's treasure normally represents. Since the horn's used up when you use it, it's essentially a one-use magic item that grants a +5 bonus on a skill check, more or less.

As it works out, that's pretty close in function to antitoxin, which grants a one-time +5 bonus to Fort saves vs. poison an hour. Antitoxin is 50 gp per dose.

Since the karkadann horn is more versatile in that it has multiple uses, and more exotic than antitoxin, and it stacks with antitoxin, so let's double that final cost to 100 gp; still well under the monster's expected wealth.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

knightnday wrote:
Will there be more revealed about flumphs and their role against the Dark Tapestry?

God I hope not. I think we've said enough about flumphs. I'd rather not spend more of Paizo's energy building up the lore of a goofy monster we can only use because of the SRD—if we're gonna build lore for a goofy monster, I'd rather it be something we made up ourselves.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Et cetera et cetera wrote:

Hey James Jacobs! I'll provide the questions and you'll provide the answers.

1) Does Rovagug have any plans for after he destroys everything? If the answer is unrevealed, can you give a noncanon answer?

2) What do demons want to destroy?

3) What do qlippoth want to destroy?

4) What do you want to destroy?

5) Does Rovagug hate his spawn a little less than everything else?

1) Unrevealed. When I say "unrevealed," I usually mean a combination of "It's secret" and "I haven't thought about it and don't want to make up something at this time because that does a disservice to the question" and "This is something that's more valuable to keep vague so that each individual GM can tailor it to their campaign to have maximum impact for their game." Me giving a non-canon answer disrupts all of the above as much as a canonical answer. And furthermore, even if I say "non-canonical" a lot of folks won't take that at my word, since it's so easy to quote out of context.

2) Everything you love and hold dear, be it your home, your loves, your society, your accomplishments, your sanity, or your flesh.

3) Everything that allows demons to form.

4) Internet hate and misogyny and racism.

5) Yup.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
When a being ascends, does their personality change at that instant? Does a god's personality dictate their domains or areas of influence, or do the domains change them? Or is it a little of both?
Not at all. In fact, a being's personality has the STRONGEST influence on what they are when they become a deity, and in some cases is the ONLY thing that doesn't change.

What would happen when/if a being ascends that has a similar personality or outlook to an existing god? Do they have a meeting and find a way to coexist? Would the "rules of the universe" prevent this from happening in the first place?

Grand Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:

For all "trophies" taken from a monster, you should assume they cost about what you would expect for the monster's "treasure value." The game economy doesn't notice if you earn 7,000 gp from killing a CR 11 monster by taking 7,000 gold coins out of its pockets, looting 7,000 gp worth of magic items, or cutting off a horn that's worth 7,000 gp. Or any combination of the three.

For something like the karkadann horn, which has specific value once harvested, it's the game designer's and developer's responsibility to indicate what the harvested item is worth. That didn't happen for the karkaddann, and that's our fault/error. Fortunately, its properties aren't incredibly outrageous, and aren't out of line with the 1,150 gp a CR 4 monster's treasure normally represents. Since the horn's used up when you use it, it's essentially a one-use magic item that grants a +5 bonus on a skill check, more or less.

As it works out, that's pretty close in function to antitoxin, which grants a one-time +5 bonus to Fort saves vs. poison an hour. Antitoxin is 50 gp per dose.

Since the karkadann horn is more versatile in that it has multiple uses, and more exotic than antitoxin, and it stacks with antitoxin, so let's double that final cost to 100 gp; still well under the monster's expected wealth.

Wow! That's an INCREDIBLY useful rule-of-thumb, thanks! I guess it also has an advantage over antitoxin in that it can also be used after-the-fact, whereas the antitoxin is taken before as a preventative measure.

EDIT: Well, I guess so can antitoxin, for future saving throws you'll take beyond the initial save.


James Jacobs wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Will there be more revealed about flumphs and their role against the Dark Tapestry?
God I hope not. I think we've said enough about flumphs. I'd rather not spend more of Paizo's energy building up the lore of a goofy monster we can only use because of the SRD—if we're gonna build lore for a goofy monster, I'd rather it be something we made up ourselves.

I know I'm wandering into dangerous, talking-down-your-own-brand territory here, but are there any Paizo-created monsters you consider well crafted but flumph-level goofy?


James Jacobs wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Will there be more revealed about flumphs and their role against the Dark Tapestry?
God I hope not. I think we've said enough about flumphs. I'd rather not spend more of Paizo's energy building up the lore of a goofy monster we can only use because of the SRD—if we're gonna build lore for a goofy monster, I'd rather it be something we made up ourselves.

I understand completely. I'm less interested in the flumph and more if there are more enemies of the Dark Tapestry that we'll see in the future, outside of the usual suspects (PCs and their ilk.)

Thanks for answering all these questions, as an aside.


If Nocticula ascended to CN goddesshood, would Redemption be part of her Portfolio? And what would her relationship be with Sarenrae?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kryzbyn wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
When a being ascends, does their personality change at that instant? Does a god's personality dictate their domains or areas of influence, or do the domains change them? Or is it a little of both?
Not at all. In fact, a being's personality has the STRONGEST influence on what they are when they become a deity, and in some cases is the ONLY thing that doesn't change.
What would happen when/if a being ascends that has a similar personality or outlook to an existing god? Do they have a meeting and find a way to coexist? Would the "rules of the universe" prevent this from happening in the first place?

There's plenty of room for overlapping deities in this regard. They might coexist, they might fight, they might ignore each other. The "rules of the universe" don't interfere.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Will there be more revealed about flumphs and their role against the Dark Tapestry?
God I hope not. I think we've said enough about flumphs. I'd rather not spend more of Paizo's energy building up the lore of a goofy monster we can only use because of the SRD—if we're gonna build lore for a goofy monster, I'd rather it be something we made up ourselves.
I know I'm wandering into dangerous, talking-down-your-own-brand territory here, but are there any Paizo-created monsters you consider well crafted but flumph-level goofy?

Depends on who you ask. For me, I'd certainly put leshies in this category, but I know other folks here love them.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Doomkitten wrote:
If Nocticula ascended to CN goddesshood, would Redemption be part of her Portfolio? And what would her relationship be with Sarenrae?

Deities and demigods in Pathfinder don't have "portfolios." That's a D&D term.

Nocticula's areas of concern upon becoming a CN deity would be artists, outcasts, and the glories of midnight.

Sarenrae would likely be the good deity who got along best with Nocticula, and would do what she could to help and encourage her rise from evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Me giving a non-canon answer disrupts all of the above as much as a canonical answer. And furthermore, even if I say "non-canonical" a lot of folks won't take that at my word, since it's so easy to quote out of context.

When you run games in Golarion, do you adjust it to fit your preferences? Or do you run 'canonical' Golarion, once an element has been introduced that you perhaps disagree with or at least think should have been slightly different?


I really enjoyed Ultimate Intrigue but was let down by the Brute archetype. I've always loved the "tortured beast within" concept of Mr. Hyde and The Hulk. What happened with that archetype? A lot of it was cool but I felt is missed out on enhanced inanimate object damage, had an incredibly will save to resist the change, missed out on high leap bonuses, was very easy to kill with only 1d8 hit points (derived from class, I know), and had a really low ac. Have thought about beefing it up with some errata?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Why does Balazar wear that hat? Does he think it makes him look taller?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Me giving a non-canon answer disrupts all of the above as much as a canonical answer. And furthermore, even if I say "non-canonical" a lot of folks won't take that at my word, since it's so easy to quote out of context.
When you run games in Golarion, do you adjust it to fit your preferences? Or do you run 'canonical' Golarion, once an element has been introduced that you perhaps disagree with or at least think should have been slightly different?

Absolutely. That said, games I run in Golarion tend to become canonical once elements in them get pulled into books by myself or players in those games (since most of my games these days are with co-workers).

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Why does Balazar wear that hat? Does he think it makes him look taller?

Because he likes hats.


James Jacobs wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Dear Mister Jacobs,

With the demise/passing of Jack Chick, do you think we should have wake for his passing or just consign to the same graveside as Jerry Falwell?

I think that now's a good chance for gamers to show themselves to be mature and better people than Jack Chick and not get all snarky about his death.

Okay Mister Jacobs. If I seem bitter it's because of him (I'm positive) that I caught hell in Middle and High School for fantasy roleplaying.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
I really enjoyed Ultimate Intrigue but was let down by the Brute archetype. I've always loved the "tortured beast within" concept of Mr. Hyde and The Hulk. What happened with that archetype? A lot of it was cool but I felt is missed out on enhanced inanimate object damage, had an incredibly will save to resist the change, missed out on high leap bonuses, was very easy to kill with only 1d8 hit points (derived from class, I know), and had a really low ac. Have thought about beefing it up with some errata?

I had nothing to do with Ultimate Intrigue or its archetypes. I do think that some designers tend to err too much on the side of rules and in the pursuit of game balance over flavor, though. I suspect that had they instead made the brute a barbarian archetype that it would have fit your needs better. Dunno. You'll have to ask the design team to get the actual reasons.

In any event, I've not thought about fixing anything in that book with errata. Not really my job.


The limits of Speak With Dead are treated inconsistently in the new Curse of the Crimson Throne. In Chapter 2 it states of Rois Vindmel, the Urgathoan cultist on the sunken ship:

Quote:
Rois’s body has been partially eaten by crabs and fish, particularly his face. Apart from making his corpse so grisly, his lack of a tongue makes speak with dead essentially useless (attempts to use this spell might be able to secure yes or no answers, but details about his life should be difficult to decipher).
But in Chapter 3 Loari Vaus is doing this:
Quote:
Periodically, Laori uses speak with dead to try to communicate with the skulls, but the results of these castings are generally too garbled to make much sense of.

Which is the correct interpretation of the limits of Speak With Dead? Obviously skulls don't have any tongue at all, so if it works on them Rois shouldn't be limited by that lack. But the spell text itself states that the corpse needs at least a "mouth," which to me includes lips and flesh, not a jaw. So I'd say the most common interpretation of the spell would be that you can talk to Rois with difficulty, but what Loari is doing shouldn't work at all.

Is this a case of different writers treating the spell differently and it not being ironed out in development? How do you treat speak with dead in your games as far as corpse damage limitations go?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

The limits of Speak With Dead are treated inconsistently in the new Curse of the Crimson Throne. In Chapter 2 it states of Rois Vindmel, the Urgathoan cultist on the sunken ship:

Quote:
Rois’s body has been partially eaten by crabs and fish, particularly his face. Apart from making his corpse so grisly, his lack of a tongue makes speak with dead essentially useless (attempts to use this spell might be able to secure yes or no answers, but details about his life should be difficult to decipher).
But in Chapter 3 Loari Vaus is doing this:
Quote:
Periodically, Laori uses speak with dead to try to communicate with the skulls, but the results of these castings are generally too garbled to make much sense of.

Which is the correct interpretation of the limits of Speak With Dead? Obviously skulls don't have any tongue at all, so if it works on them Rois shouldn't be limited by that lack. But the spell text itself states that the corpse needs at least a "mouth," which to me includes lips and flesh, not a jaw. So I'd say the most common interpretation of the spell would be that you can talk to Rois with difficulty, but what Loari is doing shouldn't work at all.

Is this a case of different writers treating the spell differently and it not being ironed out in development? How do you treat speak with dead in your games as far as corpse damage limitations go?

What's going on here is a bit of poetic license in describing how a skull makes its saving throw against the speak with dead spell combined with some skulls simply not being intact enough to be able to speak well enough to resolve the questions.

A corpse that has been defiled and mangled (as in the case of having its tongue torn out) is different than one who has not been defiled and mangled.

And in the end, it's all about GM fiat whether or not remains can reply. Without this limitation, the spell is simply FAR too powerful at being able to "undo" plots; GMs and adventure writers alike need to be able to tell stories they want without having the spells destroy them. At the same time, the game and GM and adventure writers need to allow ENOUGH of those dead bodies to speak so that speak with dead isn't completely useless.

The only real solution is to leave it vague and allow GM interpretation, otherwise we'd have to indicate for every single dead body in the game if it can or cannot be spoken with via speak with dead. And if it comes down to that, I'd just cut the spell from the game for being too complex. Which would be a shame since it IS a very evocative and spooky and interesting spell.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Will there be more revealed about flumphs and their role against the Dark Tapestry?
God I hope not. I think we've said enough about flumphs. I'd rather not spend more of Paizo's energy building up the lore of a goofy monster we can only use because of the SRD—if we're gonna build lore for a goofy monster, I'd rather it be something we made up ourselves.
I know I'm wandering into dangerous, talking-down-your-own-brand territory here, but are there any Paizo-created monsters you consider well crafted but flumph-level goofy?
Depends on who you ask. For me, I'd certainly put leshies in this category, but I know other folks here love them.

Speaking as one of those folks, THEY'RE ADORABLE! Right up there with pseudodragons and their house drake cousins for Pathfinder's cutest creatures! :D

Now for a question: Is the Lands of the Linnorm Kings undergoing a paradigm shift away from raiding towards more trading and stuff? That seems to be the vibe I got from reading stuff about the place, that the jarls who represent raiding culture are getting old and dying off, and visionaries like White Estrid are leading them in a new direction?


James Jacobs wrote:
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
I really enjoyed Ultimate Intrigue but was let down by the Brute archetype. I've always loved the "tortured beast within" concept of Mr. Hyde and The Hulk. What happened with that archetype? A lot of it was cool but I felt is missed out on enhanced inanimate object damage, had an incredibly will save to resist the change, missed out on high leap bonuses, was very easy to kill with only 1d8 hit points (derived from class, I know), and had a really low ac. Have thought about beefing it up with some errata?

I had nothing to do with Ultimate Intrigue or its archetypes. I do think that some designers tend to err too much on the side of rules and in the pursuit of game balance over flavor, though. I suspect that had they instead made the brute a barbarian archetype that it would have fit your needs better. Dunno. You'll have to ask the design team to get the actual reasons.

In any event, I've not thought about fixing anything in that book with errata. Not really my job.

To begin with, I'm sorry about the poor grammar to begin with in the earlier submission. I was a bit rushed. What I should of asked was, as the creative director, what is your opinion of the archetype? Am I alone? Have you heard any other negative feedback yet? In my poorly worded question earlier, I meant to say does an archetype ever get changed up a bit if there is a good bit of legitimate feedback that pushes for it? With that class and archetype in mind, what would you do to make it like what it appears to be modeled after?


Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
I really enjoyed Ultimate Intrigue but was let down by the Brute archetype. I've always loved the "tortured beast within" concept of Mr. Hyde and The Hulk. What happened with that archetype? A lot of it was cool but I felt is missed out on enhanced inanimate object damage, had an incredibly will save to resist the change, missed out on high leap bonuses, was very easy to kill with only 1d8 hit points (derived from class, I know), and had a really low ac. Have thought about beefing it up with some errata?

I had nothing to do with Ultimate Intrigue or its archetypes. I do think that some designers tend to err too much on the side of rules and in the pursuit of game balance over flavor, though. I suspect that had they instead made the brute a barbarian archetype that it would have fit your needs better. Dunno. You'll have to ask the design team to get the actual reasons.

In any event, I've not thought about fixing anything in that book with errata. Not really my job.

To begin with, I'm sorry about the poor grammar to begin with in the earlier submission. I was a bit rushed. What I should of asked was, as the creative director, what is your opinion of the archetype? Am I alone? Have you heard any other negative feedback yet? In my poorly worded question earlier, I meant to say does an archetype ever get changed up a bit if there is a good bit of legitimate feedback that pushes for it? With that class and archetype in mind, what would you do to make it like what it appears to be modeled after?

to add on to his who would be a good person to ask?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:


Now for a question: Is the Lands of the Linnorm Kings undergoing a paradigm shift away from raiding towards more trading and stuff? That seems to be the vibe I got from reading stuff about the place, that the jarls who represent raiding culture are getting old and dying off, and visionaries like White Estrid are leading them in a new direction?

No... there's just more to the Lands of the Linnorm Kings than raiding. The elevator pitch is "Brutal land of violent viking raiders" but the more we talk about it, the more room we have to explore other regions.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
To begin with, I'm sorry about the poor grammar to begin with in the earlier submission. I was a bit rushed. What I should of asked was, as the creative director, what is your opinion of the archetype? Am I alone? Have you heard any other negative feedback yet? In my poorly worded question earlier, I meant to say does an archetype ever get changed up a bit if there is a good bit of legitimate feedback that pushes for it? With that class and archetype in mind, what would you do to make it like what it appears to be modeled after?

I don't have an opinion of the archetype because I haven't read it beyond an initial editing pass I made many many months ago. As a general rule, though, once something is published we try to leave it alone. My preference is to not constantly tinker with things. If something's truly "broken" and too powerful or too weak, we'll either just ignore it (too weak) and try again with a different tack on the design space later, or we'll issue errata or ban it from PFS and let individual GMs at home games decide to keep it or not. Rules elements that are too weak are thus less disruptive to play than too strong, so there probably IS an element of erring on the soft side there.

That ALSO said, I generally don't comment on the design work/development work of our freelancers or my fellow designers if I think something isn't great. I'm from the "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" school of thought, as far as publicly talking about the hard work of my friends, co-workers, and those I hire to write for products I head up.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
I really enjoyed Ultimate Intrigue but was let down by the Brute archetype. I've always loved the "tortured beast within" concept of Mr. Hyde and The Hulk. What happened with that archetype? A lot of it was cool but I felt is missed out on enhanced inanimate object damage, had an incredibly will save to resist the change, missed out on high leap bonuses, was very easy to kill with only 1d8 hit points (derived from class, I know), and had a really low ac. Have thought about beefing it up with some errata?

I had nothing to do with Ultimate Intrigue or its archetypes. I do think that some designers tend to err too much on the side of rules and in the pursuit of game balance over flavor, though. I suspect that had they instead made the brute a barbarian archetype that it would have fit your needs better. Dunno. You'll have to ask the design team to get the actual reasons.

In any event, I've not thought about fixing anything in that book with errata. Not really my job.

To begin with, I'm sorry about the poor grammar to begin with in the earlier submission. I was a bit rushed. What I should of asked was, as the creative director, what is your opinion of the archetype? Am I alone? Have you heard any other negative feedback yet? In my poorly worded question earlier, I meant to say does an archetype ever get changed up a bit if there is a good bit of legitimate feedback that pushes for it? With that class and archetype in mind, what would you do to make it like what it appears to be modeled after?
to add on to his who would be a good person to ask?

The design team is the group who worked on the book.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Will there be more revealed about flumphs and their role against the Dark Tapestry?
God I hope not. I think we've said enough about flumphs. I'd rather not spend more of Paizo's energy building up the lore of a goofy monster we can only use because of the SRD—if we're gonna build lore for a goofy monster, I'd rather it be something we made up ourselves.

Do you regret Flumphs being put into Misfit Monsters Redeemed?

MMF is where I first found out about Flumphs, and I thought they were really cool. So it's kinda disheartening when I see you and the others being so vehemently against using them.


I am not really familiar with the D&D 3 system, neither is my gaming group. Since your adventure paths are so awesome I tried to learn and teach the basic core Pathfinder rules to myself and my group many times with no luck. We end up playing a boardgame instead (or we play AD&D clones).
What would you do in my place? Convert pathfi der adventure paths to an AD&D clone or try to teach the group some more?
Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
To begin with, I'm sorry about the poor grammar to begin with in the earlier submission. I was a bit rushed. What I should of asked was, as the creative director, what is your opinion of the archetype? Am I alone? Have you heard any other negative feedback yet? In my poorly worded question earlier, I meant to say does an archetype ever get changed up a bit if there is a good bit of legitimate feedback that pushes for it? With that class and archetype in mind, what would you do to make it like what it appears to be modeled after?

I don't have an opinion of the archetype because I haven't read it beyond an initial editing pass I made many many months ago. As a general rule, though, once something is published we try to leave it alone. My preference is to not constantly tinker with things. If something's truly "broken" and too powerful or too weak, we'll either just ignore it (too weak) and try again with a different tack on the design space later, or we'll issue errata or ban it from PFS and let individual GMs at home games decide to keep it or not. Rules elements that are too weak are thus less disruptive to play than too strong, so there probably IS an element of erring on the soft side there.

That ALSO said, I generally don't comment on the design work/development work of our freelancers or my fellow designers if I think something isn't great. I'm from the "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" school of thought, as far as publicly talking about the hard work of my friends, co-workers, and those I hire to write for products I head up.

I completely understand. That is an excellent policy to have. Thank you for your response. I'll homebrew that myself for my player who wants to play it as a more "Hulk" class as a barbarian archetype as you suggested.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Will there be more revealed about flumphs and their role against the Dark Tapestry?
God I hope not. I think we've said enough about flumphs. I'd rather not spend more of Paizo's energy building up the lore of a goofy monster we can only use because of the SRD—if we're gonna build lore for a goofy monster, I'd rather it be something we made up ourselves.

Do you regret Flumphs being put into Misfit Monsters Redeemed?

MMF is where I first found out about Flumphs, and I thought they were really cool. So it's kinda disheartening when I see you and the others being so vehemently against using them.

Not in the slightest. The whole point of Misfit Monsters Redeemed was to give things like flumphs a chance at said redemption. That book's original genesis in a meeting was actually sort of a joke when we were brainstorming what next revisited book to do, but it gained traction almost immediately as the challenge of redeeming things like flumphs and flail snails really REALLY appealed to us.

Maybe some day we'll live in a world where the vast majority of gamers know flumphs only from Misfit Monsters Redeemed, at which point they'll TRULY be redeemed, but since the Internet loves dredging up old skeletons out of closets and content the designers might rather stay buried, I'm not too hopeful of that.

Anyway, don't let the fact that other folks don't like flumphs discourage you. They're not you and you're not them.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Mantriel wrote:

I am not really familiar with the D&D 3 system, neither is my gaming group. Since your adventure paths are so awesome I tried to learn and teach the basic core Pathfinder rules to myself and my group many times with no luck. We end up playing a boardgame instead (or we play AD&D clones).

What would you do in my place? Convert pathfi der adventure paths to an AD&D clone or try to teach the group some more?
Thanks!

The best bet is to start out with the Beginner Box; it's whole goal is to teach folks how to play Pathfinder. I would personally prefer if you thought your group to play and love Pathfinder, of course, since that equates to more active customers and, bottom line, that helps us at Paizo remain employed. But that said, I'm currently running Temple of Elemental Evil from 1st edition for a Pathfinder group, so I know the conversion in that direction works. Conversion in the other direction should work fine as well. In my experience, though, conversions work BEST when the GM is very familiar with both rules.

In any event, good luck and have fun!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:

I completely understand. That is an excellent policy to have. Thank you for your response. I'll homebrew that myself for my player who wants to play it as a more "Hulk" class as a barbarian archetype as you suggested.

Thing about wanting to play something like the Hulk? That's not a problem with the archetype; that's a problem with player expectation and the desire to play what is essentially a superhero in a regular hero game. The best way to play the Hulk is to use the Mythic Adventures rules and play a mythic barbarian, frankly. Which is not everyone's cup of tea, but it certainly sounds like what a player who wants to play the Hulk wants out of their game.

65,951 to 66,000 of 83,732 << first < prev | 1315 | 1316 | 1317 | 1318 | 1319 | 1320 | 1321 | 1322 | 1323 | 1324 | 1325 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards