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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

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


Off-Topic Discussions

11,901 to 11,950 of 49,547 << first < prev | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | next > last >>

James Jacobs wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Someday we'll see Bel, Zariel, Glasya, Bensozia, Levistus and the Dark Eight in Golarion's Hell? Where? When? Why? I really miss they all, specially the Dark Eight and his troops.
We've done a LOT about our version of hell—see "Princes of Darkness." Why are some of those names missing? Because they're not open content, nor are they actually mythological names—they were invented and are owned by TSR/Wizards of the Coast, and are thus product identity, and are not available for us to play with.

Hmm... really! I'm so stupid! Hahahahah! (sorry about that, was the lack of sleep...) Actually, Paizo's Hell is very good, but lacks some "personality", even for a new campaign setting. BotD 1 is awesome, and have really good clarifications about devil, but maybe need more history. I now, is a hard job to do, and have other things in Paizo, but will I be expecting, ok? XD

But I miss a official consort to Asmodeus, not just the Whore Queens. Also miss great, renowned generals to Hell troops (malebranches is a really good hook idea) and a more charismatic/warrior archdevil to Avernus, not a vermin with beard and many ears.

(Perhaps it all may just be my hate of Barbatos. Ha-ha)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Will the Beastary 3 have...

1)More Azatas?

2)More Aeons?

3)More Angels?

4)More Inevitables?

5)More Psychopomps?

6)More Agathions?

7)More Archons?

8)More Titans?

9)More Kami?

10)More CN outsiders (other then Proteons)?


Page 238 got all meta!

Ask James Jacobs about what to ask James Jacobs!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

11)More Qlippoths?

12)More LN Outsiders(not Inevitables)?

13)More Rakshasa?

14)Azura?

15)Div?


illuminar wrote:


I've been playing a magus and I don't get this arcane mark loop hole that everyone talks about. Where does that come from?

As written, Arcane Mark can be delivered by a spellstrike; it just doesn't have a combat effect. Our group found that neat - if he didn't want to blow a real spell, the magus could use Arcane Mark with spell combat to get all Zorro on somebody and get his extra spellstrike stab for the round in the process.

So it's a way for a magus to get an extra hit in without expending resources. Your mileage may vary as to whether that's overpowered.

And for Mr. Jacobs:

What happens to a cleric to Asmodeus when they die? Do they go into the lemure slag pile just like everyone else? Do they get fast tracked to promotion, assuming they were competent in life? Can they covenant with the Dark Lord to receive a better position in the afterlife?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

The question he asked is the rules issue that's been raging the boards lately.

Mainly the idea is that you can fight iteratively, assuming that BAB is 6+ with two weapons and as long as you don't take any more attacks than you do with a single weapon that the following would apply, or in essence (The Two Weapon Fighting mechanics would not apply)

1. No penalties to the attacks of either hand.

2. Full strength bonuses be applied to the attacks of both hands.

Your take on this?

My take is that first of all, a lot of folks seem to have more fun arguing rules than just playing the game.

My take on this is that it's a GM call, honestly. Frankly, I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with a character taking only a single weapon's worth of attacks in a round with different weapons. I see no difference between:

1) An 11th level fighter attacking 3 times in his action with three strikes from his longsword.
2) An 11th level fighter attacking 1 time with his longsword and 2 times at -5/-10 with the scimitar in his off hand.
3) An 11th level fighter attacking 1 time with his longsword, 1 time with his off-hand scimitar at –5, and then dropping the scimitar, using Quick Draw to draw a dagger, and then throwing that dagger at a –10.

In all three examples, the fighter's only taking 3 attacks in sequence, one after the other, and that's fine with me. All three attacks would gain normal Strength bonuses to damage, since they're all happening in sequence.

When you Two Weapon fight, you have TWO WEAPONS attacking in parallel, and that's (in my opinion) the reason your off hand weapon does less damage. That, and the fact that you're squeezing one (or more) additional attack out of your round than you normally could means you take a penalty.

Whether or not this solves all the internet's woes (I doubt it will)... that's my take on the matter.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Run, Just Run wrote:
What do you like better titan Mauler (Barbarian), or Two-Weapon Warrior (fighter)? Also I think a dual-weilding Barbarian would be an awesome archetype.

I haven't really looked at either in detail, but I think I'm more partial to the two-weapon warrior just on thematics.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Were the goblins your idea? If so, I'm going to need to send you a manhug in a package.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Run, Just Run wrote:
Could you weild 2 Taiahah because their double sided but also one handed.

You could... but that wouldn't grant you any extra attacks. It works just like any other double weapon. Wish we'd made it 2 handed, though, just to avoid the confusion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When(if you still can) you get a Faerie dragon as a familair can you choose what spells it knows or are you stuck with what is in the book?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

illuminar wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The only time the game cares about your off hand is when you wield a second weapon in it.

Hate to say it, but people are going to jump on that. I think, based on your next sentence or two, that you're saying there's no such thing as an off-hand when you're employing the TWF mechanic because to do so would be unnecessarily complex. But since all you said was "when you wield a second weapon" (as opposed to, say, "when you wield a second weapon to gain an extra attack"), people will use that line as support to show that you do have an off hand in non-TWF iteratives as long as your +6 and +1 are made with different weapons.

Maybe you should institute a blanket policy of not answering rules questions. Or emailing answers to me for editing first. ;)

I am guilty of supporting the rulings that agree with me too, but that does not mean JJ's opinions are not right. I like his idea of cantrips not counting for the Magus's special abilities. I would like to see it made into an official rule since otherwise arcane mark is just a loophole IMHO.

I've been playing a magus and I don't get this arcane mark loop hole that everyone talks about. Where does that come from?

A deliberate mis-interpretation rules abuse that arises from some somewhat poorly-worded design regarding the nature of cantrips.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Cheapy wrote:
Were the goblins your idea? If so, I'm going to need to send you a manhug in a package.

You can package those?

Sell them; you'll make a fortune.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

drumlord wrote:

Anybody who doesn't appreciate your availability on these boards is a fool. I hope nobody would argue that.

The problem is that there is a perception that there is a wall between the designers' offices and the developers' offices at Paizo and if you don't get a ruling from somebody who writes the rules, it's no better than getting your rulings from a fortune cookie...unless this fortune cookie happens to support your argument.

Obviously there is no magical non-communication wall. 99% of the time every rules answer from all Paizo staff I've seen has been spot on and when they are suggestions, not rules, they have been labeled as such.

That said, there are cases when both developers and designers have answered rules questions that were later FAQ'd to become something different or where Paizo staff publicly disagree with each other. That's why I think if you really really want to go by the rules, you should stick with RAW, the FAQ, and whatever your GM says goes. Does this put me into the willfully obtuse category? Perhaps, but I think it also puts me in the reasonable category. I have used your posts, James, on multiple occasions to put clarifications in my house rules docs; this is because whether I am GMing or playing, the people I game with are reasonable...most of the time ;)

I notice your outlook on this issue is pessimistic. I would say your fear is half right that many people really aren't looking for "insight" into the rules. But don't go right for the worst case scenario that these folks are looking for ammo against their GM. I and probably many other posters are merely enjoying discussions of the game mechanics, possibly for future use in a game, but not to get fuel in an offline argument with other people. Whether we are being pains in the ass or not, this is all just a sign of how passionate people are about the game. By its very nature passion leads to foolhardy behavior ;)

Part of the problem as well is the perception that the designer is always right. We're people too, and we can make mistakes. That includes rules rulings. That includes FAQs even. We try our hardest to get things right, but when a thousand people ask the same question on a hundred different threads, chances that more than one of us here will try to help are very high, at which point there's a chance that we'll interpret and rule things differently.

I get the fact that the designers' rulings are, in theory, more accurate than mine... but as an adventure developer, I have a better grasp on how those rules actually interact with the game and adventures than the designers, and as such often have different insights into how the rules might play out. Often, a designer gives his answer from an empyrical stance, with the rules and only the rules associated with the answer. Often, a developer gives an answer from a aesthetic stance, with the rules interpreted in a way that makes for a better story. No one type of answer is any more right than the other—just depends on if you approach the rules from a mathematical or an artistic viewpoint.

drumlord wrote:
Since I just spewed words NOT for what this thread is about, I'll contribute. James, are the tables that generate random treasure open content (including in the upcoming equipment book) or would I need to make my own if I made an app to streamline this process?

The random treasure tables from the Core Rulebook and from the GameMastery Guide are open content.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

JoelF847 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

It's kind of like me saying "In a month I'm gonna give you a bowl of ice cream," and you instead say, "I also want a birthday cake, a pumpkin pie, and a chocolate bar."

Wait until you try that ice cream. You might get full after you eat it. You might not even LIKE it.

James, it sounds like you have some experience with children. I've had that discussion before with my son...I'd say that there's a lot of similarities between children and rabid gaming fans. They both always want more, even before they have the first part of something.

I had two younger sisters growing up, and I have a niece and a nephew I get to see and hang out with for a few days each year (usually around the holidays when the whole family gets together), but otherwise... no.

I DO have experience with gamers and people playing characters and being jackals at the game table and ganging up on the poor GM in an attempt to raise mayhem, though! :-P

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

Will the Beastary 3 have...

1)More Azatas?

2)More Aeons?

3)More Angels?

4)More Inevitables?

5)More Psychopomps?

6)More Agathions?

7)More Archons?

8)More Titans?

9)More Kami?

10)More CN outsiders (other then Proteons)?

Yes to some, no to others.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

11)More Qlippoths?

12)More LN Outsiders(not Inevitables)?

13)More Rakshasa?

14)Azura?

15)Div?

See above; yes to some, no to others.

The book's almost here. We'll be doing some previews starting tomorrow on the blog. Patience!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Zhangar wrote:
What happens to a cleric to Asmodeus when they die? Do they go into the lemure slag pile just like everyone else? Do they get fast tracked to promotion, assuming they were competent in life? Can they covenant with the Dark Lord to receive a better position in the afterlife?

Depends how accomplished and faithful a cleric he was. When he dies, his soul goes to Pharasma's Boneyard and she judges him like any other soul. If he exemplified the lawful evil alignment, Asmodeus's religion, and didn't stray from his path, he gets to become a petitioner in Hell and becomes one of the damned, but is higher on the "to ascend to devil form" than someone who was less loyal or perfect in his worship of Asmodeus. In some rare cases, a damned soul might hit Hell and IMMEDIATLY get ascended to become a devil.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cheapy wrote:
Were the goblins your idea? If so, I'm going to need to send you a manhug in a package.

The look of the goblins was 100% Wayne Reynolds.

I came up with pretty much all the rest in Burnt Offerings, and since then have had plenty of help from other writers in expanding the goblin mythos.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Dragon78 wrote:
When(if you still can) you get a Faerie dragon as a familair can you choose what spells it knows or are you stuck with what is in the book?

Any monster with spellcasting can have its spellcasting list customized, be it for an encounter, a cohort, a familar, a PC race, or whatever.


Zhangar wrote:
illuminar wrote:


I've been playing a magus and I don't get this arcane mark loop hole that everyone talks about. Where does that come from?

As written, Arcane Mark can be delivered by a spellstrike; it just doesn't have a combat effect. Our group found that neat - if he didn't want to blow a real spell, the magus could use Arcane Mark with spell combat to get all Zorro on somebody and get his extra spellstrike stab for the round in the process.

So it's a way for a magus to get an extra hit in without expending resources. Your mileage may vary as to whether that's overpowered.

In my games I would be okay with this but it means the bad guys get to do it back. And they probably have cooler runes. In general I'll allow things that increase the flavor of a character but only if the intent is to add a flavor that isn't cheese. I know most people don't have players quite so "this looks so cool!" instead of "I can pile so much cheese!"

On topic...

It sounds like I might be able to get to write a review paper on caffeine's use as a painkiller. I know the paizo boards isn't a source, you're not a dry stuffy paper written by PhDs, but have you ever had any experience where you found caffeine to be useful in treating something other than tired? I know it's FDA approved to treat migraines and I use it to treat leg pain (better than vicodin!).

Taldor

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber
JoelF847 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

It's kind of like me saying "In a month I'm gonna give you a bowl of ice cream," and you instead say, "I also want a birthday cake, a pumpkin pie, and a chocolate bar."

Wait until you try that ice cream. You might get full after you eat it. You might not even LIKE it.

James, it sounds like you have some experience with children. I've had that discussion before with my son...I'd say that there's a lot of similarities between children and rabid gaming fans. They both always want more, even before they have the first part of something.

Which begs the question: do children who are patient in the Marshmallow Test also grow up to become better gamers?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

It's kind of like me saying "In a month I'm gonna give you a bowl of ice cream," and you instead say, "I also want a birthday cake, a pumpkin pie, and a chocolate bar."

Wait until you try that ice cream. You might get full after you eat it. You might not even LIKE it.

James, it sounds like you have some experience with children. I've had that discussion before with my son...I'd say that there's a lot of similarities between children and rabid gaming fans. They both always want more, even before they have the first part of something.

I had two younger sisters growing up, and I have a niece and a nephew I get to see and hang out with for a few days each year (usually around the holidays when the whole family gets together), but otherwise... no.

I DO have experience with gamers and people playing characters and being jackals at the game table and ganging up on the poor GM in an attempt to raise mayhem, though! :-P

Just to add to this I already know I will like the ice cream. ;) And I want the option for other flavors. ;) (specifically gaming in Iblydos with the Mythic rules. ;))

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ANebulousMistress wrote:
It sounds like I might be able to get to write a review paper on caffeine's use as a painkiller. I know the paizo boards isn't a source, you're not a dry stuffy paper written by PhDs, but have you ever had any experience where you found caffeine to be useful in treating something other than tired? I know it's FDA approved to treat migraines and I use it to treat leg pain (better than vicodin!).

Whether or not drinking coffee cures migraines because it cures migraines or because I'm addicted to coffee and get migraines when I don't drink it, I can't say.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Justin Franklin wrote:
Just to add to this I already know I will like the ice cream. ;) And I want the option for other flavors. ;) (specifically gaming in Iblydos with the Mythic rules. ;))

Why stop there? Why not a mythic mesmerist gargoyle-kin armed with steampunk gear from his sailing ship that he used to sail to Iblydos?


James Jacobs wrote:

when I see a bad review of an adventure I wrote cite lots of GM changes to the adventure as evidence that I'm a bad adventure writer when, in fact, they merely have a GM who can't read.

I like this one. It is even worse when the player's GM claims to be running it as written. Maybe the GM can read, but he is a liar. :)

Andoran RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Just to add to this I already know I will like the ice cream. ;) And I want the option for other flavors. ;) (specifically gaming in Iblydos with the Mythic rules. ;))
Why stop there? Why not a mythic mesmerist gargoyle-kin armed with steampunk gear from his sailing ship that he used to sail to Iblydos?

You heard it hear first folks! James Jacobs announces the plot of the adventure path after Skull and Shackles! :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
JoelF847 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Just to add to this I already know I will like the ice cream. ;) And I want the option for other flavors. ;) (specifically gaming in Iblydos with the Mythic rules. ;))
Why stop there? Why not a mythic mesmerist gargoyle-kin armed with steampunk gear from his sailing ship that he used to sail to Iblydos?
You heard it hear first folks! James Jacobs announces the plot of the adventure path after Skull and Shackles! :)

Pretty sure that is after Shattered Star. ;)

James: So yeah if you could get all of those books needed for that out in the Rulebooks as soon as possible that would be great. ;) Although I would seriously buy every one of the books you just referenced. :)


Zhangar wrote:
illuminar wrote:


I've been playing a magus and I don't get this arcane mark loop hole that everyone talks about. Where does that come from?

As written, Arcane Mark can be delivered by a spellstrike; it just doesn't have a combat effect. Our group found that neat - if he didn't want to blow a real spell, the magus could use Arcane Mark with spell combat to get all Zorro on somebody and get his extra spellstrike stab for the round in the process.

So it's a way for a magus to get an extra hit in without expending resources. Your mileage may vary as to whether that's overpowered.

Ah with that and a re-read I get what they are doing. I suppose I would be on board with saying that cantrips aren't considered spells unless they are raised to level 1 or higher via metamagic.

And with that let me keep on task and transition into a good and somewhat related question to James.

There has been a lot of discussion lately in regards to Pathfinder being due for an update (or point update). Being that it started with the D&D 5E rumors I wouldn’t be surprise if Paizo has little to nothing in the pot yet. But it has generated some discussion on how certain classes or rules could benefit from some tweaking.

Now I know you can't reveal if this would or is happening but hypothetically I if did, would you lean towards keeping Golarian the same or would you try creating some world changing event like gamers usually got from Forgotten Realms with any rule set revision?

AND

Would you lean towards it being a point upgrade and keeping a strong compatibility with existing rulebooks or a full version upgrade that largely rewrites the rules?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

JoelF847 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Just to add to this I already know I will like the ice cream. ;) And I want the option for other flavors. ;) (specifically gaming in Iblydos with the Mythic rules. ;))
Why stop there? Why not a mythic mesmerist gargoyle-kin armed with steampunk gear from his sailing ship that he used to sail to Iblydos?
You heard it hear first folks! James Jacobs announces the plot of the adventure path after Skull and Shackles! :)

That's ridiculous. What I've said has nothing to do with blood-drinking robots from Orv teaming up with heretics of Milani who ride intelligent seaweed golems as reverse mounts.

(More to the point, we've already announced the AP after Skull & Shackles!)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

illuminar wrote:

There has been a lot of discussion lately in regards to Pathfinder being due for an update (or point update). Being that it started with the D&D 5E rumors I wouldn’t be surprise if Paizo has little to nothing in the pot yet. But it has generated some discussion on how certain classes or rules could benefit from some tweaking.

Now I know you can't reveal if this would or is happening but hypothetically I if did, would you lean towards keeping Golarian the same or would you try creating some world changing event like gamers usually got from Forgotten Realms with any rule set revision?

AND

Would you lean towards it being a point upgrade and keeping a strong compatibility with existing rulebooks or a full version upgrade that largely rewrites the rules?

I don't think the game needs an update yet. I do think that, going forward, our rulebooks will increasingly be less about character class options and more about other topics, though—we intentionally wanted to get all the character class option books out ASAP.

I do agree that there are plenty of areas of the current game that could use revision—number one being the way we present information in the book. But I'm not really keen on an incremental "edition change" like what 3.5 was marketed as.

Beyond that, and beyond the hopefully obvious bit that I'd be loath to build a new version of the game that's not compatible with the thousands of pages of content we've produced over the last 4.5 years, I don't yet have much to say on the subject.


James Jacobs wrote:
I do agree that there are plenty of areas of the current game that could use revision—number one being the way we present information in the book.

Woot!

James Jacobs wrote:
But I'm not really keen on an incremental "edition change" like what 3.5 was marketed as.

Woot again!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
You heard it hear first folks! James Jacobs announces the plot of the adventure path after Skull and Shackles! :)
That's ridiculous. What I've said has nothing to do with blood-drinking robots from Orv teaming up with heretics of Milani who ride intelligent seaweed golems as reverse mounts.

And here I thought Skull and Shackles would have a unique story. Turns out it's more of the same old hat. If I had a cp for every time robot pirates riding thinking seaweed backwards showed up in an adventure path...


James Jacobs wrote:
ANebulousMistress wrote:
It sounds like I might be able to get to write a review paper on caffeine's use as a painkiller. I know the paizo boards isn't a source, you're not a dry stuffy paper written by PhDs, but have you ever had any experience where you found caffeine to be useful in treating something other than tired? I know it's FDA approved to treat migraines and I use it to treat leg pain (better than vicodin!).
Whether or not drinking coffee cures migraines because it cures migraines or because I'm addicted to coffee and get migraines when I don't drink it, I can't say.

Probably both, based on my own migraines. I wonder if they are more common among creative people (all the guys I know who get them are at least somewhat creative, though of course, we're far rarer than female sufferers). This article argues that caffeine helps with processing painkillers so you don't have to take as much.

Hmm. Migraines as an Oracle Curse? What do you think?


James Jacobs wrote:


I don't think the game needs an update yet. I do think that, going forward, our rulebooks will increasingly be less about character class options and more about other topics, though—we intentionally wanted to get all the character class option books out ASAP.

I do agree that there are plenty of areas of the current game that could use revision—number one being the way we present information in the book. But I'm not really keen on an incremental "edition change" like what 3.5 was marketed as.

Beyond that, and beyond the hopefully obvious bit that I'd be loath to build a new version of the game that's not compatible with the thousands of pages of content we've produced over the last 4.5 years, I don't yet have much to say on the subject.

Well I hope Paizo uses "Call of Cthullu" as its rules update model. I don't play the game, but from what knowledgeable players tell me you can pick up a 20 year old core rule book and it is still wholly compatible with the version in print today. That's a pretty good model.


Good afternoon Mr. Jacobs, might I inquire as to you favored blend of tea? I am partial to Pu-ehr myself.

And since you opened the door to rule questions.

I am stumped by the Totem Warrior archetype in the APG. Any hint as to what exactly it does?

There is also some odd text in UC implying that a Totem Warrior can take rage powers from multiple different Totems?

As one does not give up anything to be a Totem Warrior is this a case of getting something for nothing?

If so would not all barbarians be Totem Warriors and the only one totem type restriction become meaningless?

Thanks in advance and thank you for making yourself so available.
~will


My gaming group had a blast a while ago brainstorming who we'd cast as the heroes and villians of our homebrew campaign if it were turned into a movie.

The 2 guidelines we used were: 1)Budget is unlimited & 2)for kicks, we said whoever was cast still had to be alive, but we were ok with younger versions if that's what suited the idea.

With those criteria, who would you cast as the iconics?
Karzoug?


Dal Selpher wrote:

My gaming group had a blast a while ago brainstorming who we'd cast as the heroes and villians of our homebrew campaign if it were turned into a movie.

The 2 guidelines we used were: 1)Budget is unlimited & 2)for kicks, we said whoever was cast still had to be alive, but we were ok with younger versions if that's what suited the idea.

With those criteria, who would you cast as the iconics?
Karzoug?

The answer is Brian Blessed. For all of them.

Actually Brian Blessed works as the answer to just about any question.


Dal Selpher wrote:
With those criteria, who would you cast as ... Karzoug?

please say max von sydow please say max von sydow please say max von sydow


Does True Seeing reveal someone concealed by Dust of Disappearance?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Poor Wandering One wrote:

Good afternoon Mr. Jacobs, might I inquire as to you favored blend of tea? I am partial to Pu-ehr myself.

And since you opened the door to rule questions.

I am stumped by the Totem Warrior archetype in the APG. Any hint as to what exactly it does?

There is also some odd text in UC implying that a Totem Warrior can take rage powers from multiple different Totems?

As one does not give up anything to be a Totem Warrior is this a case of getting something for nothing?

If so would not all barbarians be Totem Warriors and the only one totem type restriction become meaningless?

Thanks in advance and thank you for making yourself so available.
~will

I don't really have a favorite blend of tea. I am partial to those with raspberry in them. My current "on the desk" tea here at work is jasmine green tea.

The totem warrior archetype is nothing more than a "gateway" for the totem rage powers. I believe the idea was that all barbarian powers should be extraordinary, NOT supernatural... but with the APG we wanted to relax that a bit by experimenting with the totem stuff. This way, if you don't want supernatural barbarians in your game, just say, "No Totem Warrior archetype" and presto, you're done!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dal Selpher wrote:

My gaming group had a blast a while ago brainstorming who we'd cast as the heroes and villians of our homebrew campaign if it were turned into a movie.

The 2 guidelines we used were: 1)Budget is unlimited & 2)for kicks, we said whoever was cast still had to be alive, but we were ok with younger versions if that's what suited the idea.

With those criteria, who would you cast as the iconics?
Karzoug?

I've actually already answered this question. I believe on this very thread.

(does thread searching)

Found it!

Valeros: Ray Stevenson
Seoni: Scarlett Johansen
Merisiel: Keira Knightly
Kyra: Rose McGowan
Ezren: Terrane Stamp
Harsk: Bruce Willis (CGI'd down in size)
Seelah: Zoe Saldana
Lem: Peter Dinklage
Amiri: Michelle Rodriguez
Lini: Mila Jojovich (CGI'd down in size)
Sajan: Idris Elba
Seltyiel: Cillian Murphy
Alain: Brad Pitt
Feyia: Eihi Shiina
Imrijka: Angelina Jolie (CGI'd up in size)
Damiel: Jared Leto
Alhazra: Salma Hayek
Balazar: Brad Dourif (CGI'd down in size)
Hayato: Ken Watanabe
Lirianne: Kate Beckinsale
Reiko: Ziyi Zhang

I didn't cast Karzoug in that one, but I will now: Chow Yun Fat.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Mr Haldol wrote:
Does True Seeing reveal someone concealed by Dust of Disappearance?

yes

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Dal Selpher wrote:
With those criteria, who would you cast as ... Karzoug?
please say max von sydow please say max von sydow please say max von sydow

That's also an excellent choice.

Andoran RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

James Jacobs wrote:
(More to the point, we've already announced the AP after Skull & Shackles!)

D'oh! That's what I get for posting at work! But vampire robots, eh? That sounds like a good plot for a bad movie! I'm also intrigued by the concept of a reverse mount.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:


I do agree that there are plenty of areas of the current game that could use revision—number one being the way we present information in the book. But I'm not really keen on an incremental "edition change" like what 3.5 was marketed as.

But would Lisa be keen on it?


James Jacobs wrote:


I don't really have a favorite blend of tea. I am partial to those with raspberry in them. My current "on the desk" tea here at work is jasmine green tea.

The totem warrior archetype is nothing more than a "gateway" for the totem rage powers. I believe the idea was that all barbarian powers should be extraordinary, NOT supernatural... but with the APG we wanted to relax that a bit by experimenting with the totem stuff. This way, if you don't want supernatural barbarians in your game, just say, "No Totem Warrior archetype" and presto, you're done!

Problem is I love the totem powers and I love that barbarians are limited to only one track so to speak.

My confusion stems from the fact the the Totem Warrior archetype appears to do nothing. Which makes it unique in pathfinder. Now that UC is out Totem Warrior is the only archetype that grants a benefit without a cost. Still unique.

When I think something is unique the first thing I do is question my own understanding. Which is why I come to you.

Questions boiled down.

1. Does the Totem Warrior archetype allow a barbarian to take rage powers from more than one totem rage power line.

2. If one is true then what does the Totem Warrior give up to gain this exemption from the rules?

I apologise for not being clear earlier.
~will

Have you tried Douglas Fir tea? Very tasty and free in the spring.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cheapy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


I do agree that there are plenty of areas of the current game that could use revision—number one being the way we present information in the book. But I'm not really keen on an incremental "edition change" like what 3.5 was marketed as.

But would Lisa be keen on it?

Lisa knows what's best for gaming, trust me.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Poor Wandering One wrote:

Problem is I love the totem powers and I love that barbarians are limited to only one track so to speak.

My confusion stems from the fact the the Totem Warrior archetype appears to do nothing. Which makes it unique in pathfinder. Now that UC is out Totem Warrior is the only archetype that grants a benefit without a cost. Still unique.

When I think something is unique the first thing I do is question my own understanding. Which is why I come to you.

Questions boiled down.

1. Does the Totem Warrior archetype allow a barbarian to take rage powers from more than one totem rage power line.

2. If one is true then what does the Totem Warrior give up to gain this exemption from the rules?

I apologise for not being clear earlier.
~will

Have you tried Douglas Fir tea? Very tasty and free in the spring.

Hmmm... I'm not sure. Looking more closely, as written, the totem warrior archetype doesn't really do anything. I'd assumed that it was the prerequisite for you to gain totem rage powers... but you don't need this archetype to do that. Looks like to me it's merely nothing more than a guideline for a player who wants some advice on which rage powers to pick, in which case, it's not an archetype an experienced player really ever needs to be concerned about.

Haven't tried Douglas Fir tea.


James Jacobs wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


I do agree that there are plenty of areas of the current game that could use revision—number one being the way we present information in the book. But I'm not really keen on an incremental "edition change" like what 3.5 was marketed as.

But would Lisa be keen on it?
Lisa knows what's best for gaming, trust me.

Just use the "Call of Cthullu" model where the game is forever compatible with itself no matter the "version".


cibet44 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


I do agree that there are plenty of areas of the current game that could use revision—number one being the way we present information in the book. But I'm not really keen on an incremental "edition change" like what 3.5 was marketed as.

But would Lisa be keen on it?
Lisa knows what's best for gaming, trust me.
Just use the "Call of Cthullu" model where the game is forever compatible with itself no matter the "version".

This. I don't want to shell out a couple hundred bucks for a new set of rulebooks every time the game gets some revision.

11,901 to 11,950 of 49,547 << first < prev | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.