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

19,001 to 19,050 of 50,294 << first < prev | 376 | 377 | 378 | 379 | 380 | 381 | 382 | 383 | 384 | 385 | 386 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

Morain wrote:
What if any are your favourite class or classes as a player?

Currently my favorite 3 classes are bard, cleric, and rogue.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Alex_UNLIMITED wrote:

Another question.

Quote:

Martial Arts Master (Ex)

At 4th level, a martial artist may use his monk level to qualify for feats with a fighter level prerequisite when those feats are applied to unarmed strikes or weapons with the monk special quality.
Quote:

Crusader's Flurry

Prerequisites: Channel energy class feature, flurry of blows class feature, Weapon Focus with your deity’s favored melee weapon.

Benefit: You can use your deity’s favored weapon as if it were a monk weapon.

So a falchion can become a monk weapon? If yes, can i benefit for martial arts master?

Yes.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Alex_UNLIMITED wrote:
And... The oread has a level equal to character level? Or i must start one level lower?

The idea of starting lower level (aka, the use of "level adjustment") is a 3.5 rules mechanic. That mechanic does not exist in Pathfinder. If you play an oread or any other non-core zero-Hit Die race, you're at the same level you would be if you're a human. You just need the GM's permission to play an oread. The Advanced Race Guide which is just releasing now has lots more info about playing non-core races.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
I found this great combo that my GM says is overpowered, can you call him up and tell him he is doing it wrong?
What is this combo?

I'm 99.9943% sure Justin's being snarky, and mocking the idea that perhaps some people who post questions about character builds here are asking for my blessing so that they can return to their games where their GMs have already forbidden that character build for it being too powerful or game breaking to that particular game, and thus hope that armed with "permission from the creative director" they can trump their GM's decision. Which kind of frustrates me, but I tend to try to assume that NO one's doing this because it's a cheesy move and I like to think that people are better than that, given no indication that they're anything else.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Coridan wrote:
How does a Marut inevitable deal with the fact that most who can cheat death repeatedly enough to get noticed can whoop a Marut's ass?

This isn't necessarily true, first of all.

But if there's a death cheater who's too tough for a generic marut to handle... they kick that project upstairs to more powerful maruts. Remember... monsters can advance in Hit Dice or gain character levels!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

GeraintElberion wrote:

If you are playing on Golarion then this is going to be impossible with a Falchion.

A very good point.

While a monk doesn't have to worship a deity that's within 1 step of his alignment in order to gain monk powers... a monk DOES have to be lawful, and a monk who doesn't worship a lawful deity is increasingly not being lawful because he either...

1) Is devoutly worshiping a non-lawful deity, and thus behaving in a non-lawful manner.

or

2) Is only lip-servicing a non-lawful deity, which is not very lawful in that deity's religion, and thus not behaving in a lawful manner.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:

One of my players told me that the answer to a question I have was answered in this thread, but a messageboard search returned nothing so either my search-fu was weak or my player was incorrect; both are distinct possibilities. So, at the risk of covering ground that has already been addressed, here goes:

I'm GMing a Skull and Shackles campaign and one of the PCs is a ranger with the aquatic favored terrain. Does he gain his favored terrain bonus' when he is piloting a vessel on the water? How about when he is walking in partially submerged caves (e.g. knee deep water)?

My gut feeling is that he should receive his bonus' in both cases, but I wanted to ask your opinion on the matter.

Again, I apologize in advance if this was already addressed.

As long as a ranger has the aquatic favored terrain, and as long as the boat he's on is in the water (regardless of whether or not there's a roof overhead), he gains the benefits of the terrain.

A mount or vehicle does not replace what terrain you're in, in other words.

If he's wading in water, though, he's probably not in aquatic terrain. He's in swamp terrain, or at best something weird like "coastal" terrain. That's a pretty wishy washy gray area though, and should be something that the GM decides—it could certainly go in either direction.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kieviel wrote:

Hi James,

As GM of a Skull & Shackles campaign how appropriate would it be to force my players to take a shot of rum everytime the roll a nat 1 or get a critted on?

Also, is the super secret hardcover the often rummored Advanced Guide to Hobgoblin Mating Habbits (AGHMH)?

Thanks :-)

Not really all that appropriate, because drinking is a standard action and forcing them to... oh. Wait. You said PLAYERS. VERY appropriate... as long as you drink responsibly, of course. (By which I mean drink good rum.) And as long as you're not worried about the fact that your game will self-destruct once your drunk players decide it's more fun to vomit on the game table than it is to keep playing.

And no, because you spelled "habits" wrong. BOOK CANCELLED.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Mystic_Snowfang wrote:

James, you kinda ignored my question.

What would an alchemist's injections do to an expecting mother? Would the baby come out ... all weird, or just get some random bloodline, or something.

Turns out if I get a wall of a lot of questions, I can miss questions.

And other times I ignore questions because they're silly.

In this case, your question fell into the first category—I just never saw it. In which case reposting is the correct tactic.

That said...

Pathfinder does not have official rules for what happens to a developing fetus—we don't cover rules for how an unborn baby might be harmed by things like the mother being in combat and getting stabbed in the belly, or what happens if the mother is possessed by a demon, or what happens if she's poisoned by a giant spider. And by extension, we don't have rules for how a potion or alchemical injection or mutagen would affect an unborn child. (I suspect the reasons why we don't cover this in the game should be obvious.)

AKA: This lies entirely in the hands of your GM.

If this were to occur in a game I run (which is not completely unlikely—my games tend to be pretty mature in tone and content), it would depend a lot on the conditions at the time—what the injection was, what the point of the injection was, how recently I'd seen Prometheus, etc. I could see plenty of options, ranging from no effect to miscarriage to giving the baby weird mutations or a template or (if the baby grows up to be a sorcerer) a specific bloodline. But whatever happened would be something I'd decide on the moment based on the circumstances and how much I think the player could handle something that gets so creepy or disturbing or mature as that.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
blue_the_wolf wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
do you guys have any plans to do a 20 lvl class for the mystic theurge in the near future like that for the eldritch knight/magus?
Nope.
Is there some reasoning behind this or is it just something you guys haven't thought about?

Your saying a class that totally revamps the concept of mistic theurge and make it a base class in the same way Magus total revamped the fighter mage concept into something awesome?

my guess is lack of demand and issues with balance... but it will be interesting to see what JJ says. the idea is something i find interesting on an intellectual level but not one i actually want to see in game

Yeah I meant like a 20 lvl class revamp like the magus got where they get revamped into something with a lot of style and flavor that just makes them begged to be played. Also kind of wanted to just see what that would look like from a designers perspective.

Also thank you James for the quick answer.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

doc the grey wrote:

Yeah I meant like a 20 lvl class revamp like the magus got where they get revamped into something with a lot of style and flavor that just makes them begged to be played. Also kind of wanted to just see what that would look like from a designers perspective.

Also thank you James for the quick answer.

Further... "replacing the eldritch knight" was not a design goal or even the inspiration for us to build the magus.

The primary reason we built the magus was to fill a very specific role in the game—the fighter/wizard multiclass, which has long been the classic multiclass option. It's also a role that a lot of people were asking for, and were arguing about how best to pull the build off. Far and above any other multiclass option.

In short, we did the magus because there was a strong demand for that class. FAR stronger than any other multiclass option.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Kieviel wrote:

Also, is the super secret hardcover the often rummored Advanced Guide to Hobgoblin Mating Habbits (AGHMH)?

Thanks :-)

And no, because you spelled "habits" wrong. BOOK CANCELLED.

Actually, I think he misspelled "hobbits" ... which of course still leaves the answer as "no" due to licensing issues.

Anyways.

Given an assumption that sooner or later there will be mythic gameplay support, how do you see source material support for that being handled?

Do you picture occasional mythic modules, or something like a "part 7 of 6" adventure where there's sometimes a part 7 of an adventure path?

And what would you expect to see beyond an initial sourcebook? Bestiaries? Location books? Or just something like 32-page "mythic appendices" to existing books?


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

You mentioned that there'd be a golarion half-construct race coming out in a bit. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the half-construct option in the ARG. Is the race out yet?

Edit: oh, just found the post saying that it'll be in ISB and will be construct-like, not necessarily half-construct. So nevermind.


James Jacobs wrote:


Pathfinder does not have official rules for what happens to a developing fetus—we don't cover rules for how an unborn baby might be harmed by things like the mother being in combat and getting stabbed in the belly, or what happens if the mother is possessed by a demon, or what happens if she's poisoned by a giant spider. And by extension, we don't have rules for how a potion or alchemical injection or mutagen would affect an unborn child. (I suspect the reasons why we don't cover this in the game should be obvious.)

AKA: This lies entirely in the hands of your GM.

I chuckled at this exchange because a)I've submitted questions that got ignored for being silly and/or douchy and b) we had a pregnant priestess of a fertility diety and ignored it when a rogue snuck attacked her to death and she was res'd later. (ok, she was pregnant with quadruplets and her goddess gave her a 5th somewhere along the way who ended up being a divine birth, but I digress.)

At any rate, questions!

So James, i totally forgot what i was going to ask. Probably something like, "Do you think the market could bear 3rd party supplements to Pathfinder that were more along the 'greater than PG13' or more like rated R or NC17?"

I mean who doesn't want to adventure in a brothel? (well, gaming groups with immature weirdos, but what about mature gamers?)

Then out of rampant curiosity, if someone did actually sit down and write naughty supplements for Pathfinder and they asked you to write the foreword, would you do it?

~Tundra


James Jacobs wrote:
doc the grey wrote:

Yeah I meant like a 20 lvl class revamp like the magus got where they get revamped into something with a lot of style and flavor that just makes them begged to be played. Also kind of wanted to just see what that would look like from a designers perspective.

Also thank you James for the quick answer.

Further... "replacing the eldritch knight" was not a design goal or even the inspiration for us to build the magus.

The primary reason we built the magus was to fill a very specific role in the game—the fighter/wizard multiclass, which has long been the classic multiclass option. It's also a role that a lot of people were asking for, and were arguing about how best to pull the build off. Far and above any other multiclass option.

In short, we did the magus because there was a strong demand for that class. FAR stronger than any other multiclass option.

Not only that, but its debatable on whether or not the Magus actually replaces the Eldritch Knight, considering that a properly built Eldritch Knight has access to much higher levels of magic than a Magus does.

Anyway, I had a mechanics question of my own if you wanted to take a stab at it.

At 2nd level, a Cavalier of the Order of the Cockatrice gets an ability called "Braggart." Braggart basically states that the Cavalier gets Dazzling Display as a bonus feat, but it also mentions that the cavalier must spend a standard action to "extol his own accomplishments."

Normally, using Dazzling Display is a full-round action. Does Braggart effectively allow a Cavalier to use Dazzling Display as a standard action instead? Braggart is quoted from the Advanced Player's Guide in the spoiler below.

Spoiler:
Braggart (Ex) wrote:

At 2nd level, the cavalier can spend a standard action to extol his own accomplishments and battle prowess. He receives Dazzling Display as a bonus feat. He does not need a weapon in hand to use this ability. The cavalier receives a +2 morale bonus on melee attack rolls made against demoralized targets.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

gbonehead wrote:

Given an assumption that sooner or later there will be mythic gameplay support, how do you see source material support for that being handled?

Do you picture occasional mythic modules, or something like a "part 7 of 6" adventure where there's sometimes a part 7 of an adventure path?

And what would you expect to see beyond an initial sourcebook? Bestiaries? Location books? Or just something like 32-page "mythic appendices" to existing books?

If we do mythic rules, we'll probably try to support them at least as much as we support any and all of our books. I feel that the #2 reason Epic rules for 3rd edition D&D are so maligned is BECAUSE they were only so rarely supported.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Do you think an Urban Sprawl Adventure Path would be fun? I know a couple modules have been set in cities but I'm talking a whole AP set in one city, though it'd have to be a real big one. Thieves guilds, gang wars, obstructive bureaucrats, the whole deal. If you do think it would be fun, do you think it'll happen?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Tundra Dragondust wrote:

So James, i totally forgot what i was going to ask. Probably something like, "Do you think the market could bear 3rd party supplements to Pathfinder that were more along the 'greater than PG13' or more like rated R or NC17?"

I mean who doesn't want to adventure in a brothel? (well, gaming groups with immature weirdos, but what about mature gamers?)

Then out of rampant curiosity, if someone did actually sit down and write naughty supplements for Pathfinder and they asked you to write the foreword, would you do it?

~Tundra

I think the market would absolutely bear RPG products about content that would be "rated R" or "Rated NC17." I mean... look at Game of Thrones, both the novels and the HBO series. Both are INSANELY popular and successful. Both have content that, were they released theatrically, would likely be rated NC17 more often than simply rated R. I think that there's a huge appetite out there for mature fantasy content, if only because people who grow up playing D&D or Pathfinder or reading Twilight or Harry Potter retain those tastes for the fantastic when they're adults.

As for adventures in a brothel... check out Dungeon #95 for a D&D (and thus Pathfinder compatible) adventure set in a brothel. Written by me, in fact.

If someone did produce a 3rd party book that was about mature topics for Pathfinder and they asked me to write the foreword... the content would not be why I said yes or no. It'd more be a factor of who was doing it, frankly, and whether or not I felt that they could handle the topic in a way that would live up to the same quality expectations I prefer from my own favorite RPG books or from Paizo products.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Normally, using Dazzling Display is a full-round action. Does Braggart effectively allow a Cavalier to use Dazzling Display as a standard action instead?

Yup.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Squeakmaan wrote:
Do you think an Urban Sprawl Adventure Path would be fun? I know a couple modules have been set in cities but I'm talking a whole AP set in one city, though it'd have to be a real big one. Thieves guilds, gang wars, obstructive bureaucrats, the whole deal. If you do think it would be fun, do you think it'll happen?

Yes.

We already did an AP set pretty much entirely in a city, in fact. Council of Thieves does take a few side treks just outside the city walls... but one of the specific goals we had for that AP was that the ENTIRE ADVENTURE PATH had to take place in locations that we could tag on the city map.

So... yeah, I think it would be fun, and not only has it happened already, I can pretty much guarantee that some day it will happen again.


James Jacobs wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

If you are playing on Golarion then this is going to be impossible with a Falchion.

A very good point.

While a monk doesn't have to worship a deity that's within 1 step of his alignment in order to gain monk powers... a monk DOES have to be lawful, and a monk who doesn't worship a lawful deity is increasingly not being lawful because he either...

1) Is devoutly worshiping a non-lawful deity, and thus behaving in a non-lawful manner.

or

2) Is only lip-servicing a non-lawful deity, which is not very lawful in that deity's religion, and thus not behaving in a lawful manner.

The Martial Artist monk archetype doesn't have Alignment restrictions.


James Jacobs wrote:
Tundra Dragondust wrote:

So James, i totally forgot what i was going to ask. Probably something like, "Do you think the market could bear 3rd party supplements to Pathfinder that were more along the 'greater than PG13' or more like rated R or NC17?"

I mean who doesn't want to adventure in a brothel? (well, gaming groups with immature weirdos, but what about mature gamers?)

Then out of rampant curiosity, if someone did actually sit down and write naughty supplements for Pathfinder and they asked you to write the foreword, would you do it?

~Tundra

I think the market would absolutely bear RPG products about content that would be "rated R" or "Rated NC17." I mean... look at Game of Thrones, both the novels and the HBO series. Both are INSANELY popular and successful. Both have content that, were they released theatrically, would likely be rated NC17 more often than simply rated R. I think that there's a huge appetite out there for mature fantasy content, if only because people who grow up playing D&D or Pathfinder or reading Twilight or Harry Potter retain those tastes for the fantastic when they're adults.

As for adventures in a brothel... check out Dungeon #95 for a D&D (and thus Pathfinder compatible) adventure set in a brothel. Written by me, in fact.

If someone did produce a 3rd party book that was about mature topics for Pathfinder and they asked me to write the foreword... the content would not be why I said yes or no. It'd more be a factor of who was doing it, frankly, and whether or not I felt that they could handle the topic in a way that would live up to the same quality expectations I prefer from my own favorite RPG books or from Paizo products.

Like the:
Book of Erotic Fantasy? (and a few others) maybe with different writting...
Paizo Employee Creative Director

Belle Mythix wrote:

The Martial Artist monk archetype doesn't have Alignment restrictions.

Fair enough, although I was talking about monks in general. If you're playing a chaotic martial artist monk who worshiped Lamashtu, then yeah, you could do this. Although in my opinion, that's kind of a weird flavor for a monk anyway.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

C. Nutcase wrote:
...mentioned the infamous Book of Erotic Fantasy...

Yes... although I've always felt that RPG books and products that use photos as illustrations instead of paintings are lazy and dull ways to provide art for imaginary settings, regardless of the actual content of the RPG product. In the case of that particular book, it makes it feel more like titillation/pornography than an actual legitimate book covering a rarely-covered (ha) topic for RPGs.


James Jacobs wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Normally, using Dazzling Display is a full-round action. Does Braggart effectively allow a Cavalier to use Dazzling Display as a standard action instead?
Yup.

Perfect. I have a movement-and-Charisma-based villain who absolutely needed that to be successful and awesome. Thanks!


James Jacobs wrote:
C. Nutcase wrote:
...mentioned the infamous Book of Erotic Fantasy...
Yes... although I've always felt that RPG books and products that use photos as illustrations instead of paintings are lazy and dull ways to provide art for imaginary settings, regardless of the actual content of the RPG product. In the case of that particular book, it makes it feel more like titillation/pornography than an actual legitimate book covering a rarely-covered (ha) topic for RPGs.

I agree. The photography in that book only really serve to make the book feel more awkward and less legitimate.


James,

Forgive my bringing up a problem twice but someone just pointed the bolded line out to me.

CRB p106 wrote:
You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

By the CRB it appears that a Human with a speed of 30 has the following options:

Move action of 15' (no penalty)
Move action of 25' (-5penalty)
Cannot make a move action of 30' (proscribed via the bolded text above)
Double Move action of 30' (no penalty)
Double Move action of 55' (-5penalty)
Cannot make a double move action of 60' (proscribed via the bolded text above)
Cannot uses stealth via a charge action or run action (a given)

The question: Is any of the above incorrect? If so which ones and why?

- Gauss

P.S. Again, I apologize for bringing this up twice.


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

We already did an AP set pretty much entirely in a city, in fact. Council of Thieves does take a few side treks just outside the city walls... but one of the specific goals we had for that AP was that the ENTIRE ADVENTURE PATH had to take place in locations that we could tag on the city map.

So... yeah, I think it would be fun, and not only has it happened already, I can pretty much guarantee that some day it will happen again.

When we finally get an Absalom AP, right? ;)

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Lost Kingdoms ?:

1) Was the Tekritanin League left out of Lost Kingdoms due to space or another reason?

2) The League lasted about 400 years longer than Jistka, did nothing of note happen there? Or were they overshadowed by their neighbors?

3) Were they subservient to Osirion? Seems like they would not pose much of challenge.

4) Any close historical Earth city-state culture similar to the League?

5) Did the Pharaohs of Ascension alignments match the true alignment planes (good, evil, chaos, & law)?

6) What is up with the Paizo love of black goo? Silver Mount fluid, qlippoths, mumia, Sable Sands tar, black blood from Orv... Did I miss any more black goo?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Gauss wrote:

James,

Forgive my bringing up a problem twice but someone just pointed the bolded line out to me.

CRB p106 wrote:
You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

By the CRB it appears that a Human with a speed of 30 has the following options:

Move action of 15' (no penalty)
Move action of 25' (-5penalty)
Cannot make a move action of 30' (proscribed via the bolded text above)
Double Move action of 30' (no penalty)
Double Move action of 55' (-5penalty)
Cannot make a double move action of 60' (proscribed via the bolded text above)
Cannot uses stealth via a charge action or run action (a given)

The question: Is any of the above incorrect? If so which ones and why?

- Gauss

P.S. Again, I apologize for bringing this up twice.

A human with a speed of 30 can move 30 feet as a move action twice per round.

If you sneak, that cuts down to 15 feet as a move action twice per round.

If you do the fast sneaking, you take the –5 penalty and can move 30 feet twice per round.

The -5 penalty does NOT apply to your speed. That penalty applies to your Stealth check.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

deinol wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

We already did an AP set pretty much entirely in a city, in fact. Council of Thieves does take a few side treks just outside the city walls... but one of the specific goals we had for that AP was that the ENTIRE ADVENTURE PATH had to take place in locations that we could tag on the city map.

So... yeah, I think it would be fun, and not only has it happened already, I can pretty much guarantee that some day it will happen again.

When we finally get an Absalom AP, right? ;)

I would love to do an Absalom AP. If only because it'd give us an excuse to do a big revision of the Absalom book and do a new and better map of the city.


James Jacobs wrote:
Gauss wrote:

James,

Forgive my bringing up a problem twice but someone just pointed the bolded line out to me.

CRB p106 wrote:
You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It’s impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

By the CRB it appears that a Human with a speed of 30 has the following options:

Move action of 15' (no penalty)
Move action of 25' (-5penalty)
Cannot make a move action of 30' (proscribed via the bolded text above)
Double Move action of 30' (no penalty)
Double Move action of 55' (-5penalty)
Cannot make a double move action of 60' (proscribed via the bolded text above)
Cannot uses stealth via a charge action or run action (a given)

The question: Is any of the above incorrect? If so which ones and why?

- Gauss

P.S. Again, I apologize for bringing this up twice.

A human with a speed of 30 can move 30 feet as a move action twice per round.

If you sneak, that cuts down to 15 feet as a move action twice per round.

If you do the fast sneaking, you take the –5 penalty and can move 30 feet twice per round.

The -5 penalty does NOT apply to your speed. That penalty applies to your Stealth check.

My apologies for my lack of clarity: The -5 penalty is of course for the skill penalty. But the wording states that you have a -5 skill check penalty when you are moving more than 1/2 speed but LESS than normal speed.

Thus, if you do not suffer a -5 skill check penalty when moving normal speed (30' single move or 60' double move) what do you suffer?

- Gauss

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

I'm unspoilering your questions.

1) Was the Tekritanin League left out of Lost Kingdoms due to space or another reason?

2) The League lasted about 400 years longer than Jistka, did nothing of note happen there? Or were they overshadowed by their neighbors?

3) Were they subservient to Osirion? Seems like they would not pose much of challenge.

4) Any close historical Earth city-state culture similar to the League?

5) Did the Pharaohs of Ascension alignments match the true alignment planes (good, evil, chaos, & law)?

6) What is up with the Paizo love of black goo? Silver Mount fluid, qlippoths, mumia, Sable Sands tar, black blood from Orv... Did I miss any more black goo?

1) They were more like a loosely federated group of nomads, not a culture that built empires/kingdoms and had lots of buildings. Since the other six did, they made better choices.

2) They were overshadowed and not as motivated/ambitious. Not every ancient society is equally successful in leaving an impact on history.

3) Depends on the era, but yeah, for much of their existence they pretty much were thralls to Osirion.

4) Generic desert-dwelling nomads.

5) They had alignments for sure, but they were alignments appropriate to their personalities, not to any outer plane patterns.

6) Black goo is gross. Therefore fun to put in adventures.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Gauss wrote:

My apologies for my lack of clarity: The -5 penalty is of course for the skill penalty. But the wording states that you have a -5 skill check penalty when you are moving more than 1/2 speed but LESS than normal speed.

Thus, if you do not suffer a -5 skill check penalty when moving normal speed (30' single move or 60' double move) what do you suffer?

That's annoyingly written and overly fiddly.

I'd just say –5 if you move up to your normal speed while stealthed.


James, I agree it is badly written. Honestly, I am not trying to be a pain here. I have argued the same POV you have stated but I get the RAW verbage thrown back at me.

- Gauss

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

James, I agree it is badly written. Honestly, I am not trying to be a pain here. I have argued the same POV you have stated but I get the RAW verbage thrown back at me.

- Gauss

This is a case of not RAW causing you problems, but RAPW—"Rules As Poorly Written."

Personally, I prefer games where I can sneak around fast and the GM just makes the decision on whether I'm limited to a speed of 30 feet or 25 feet or 29 feet or whatever and then moves on with the interesting part of the encounter. A game where a GM and/or the players spend even a fraction of the amount of time we've spent here going back and forth over the rules is a game I'd rather ditch and instead go play a video game or watch a movie or read a book or sleep or anything else. :-P


James, thankfully Im the GM in my own games so this is not an issue in mine. Even in an upcoming game where I will not be the GM I am the declared 'keeper of the rules' (I know them better than our upcoming GM).

This is just a case where someone had a question on the rules board and I was going off the same idea you have only to see the RAPW problem appear. Perhaps you can bump this up to those people who make minor verbage corrections?

- Gauss


Ulmaxes wrote:

In the Golarion setting, what does spellcasting (arcane or divine) actually *look* like? We know it has verbal and somatic components (mostly), but outside of that I'm not aware of too much specificity on what that actually looks and sounds like.

I've tried more than once to roleplay how my character casts -spell X-, but mostly end up mumbling some gibberish and flailing my hands about like I'm trying to tickle an imaginary cat.

Any insight on how you see this actually playing out?

Personally, I'd go with whatever fit the character and the tone of the game. Sometimes I might describe my character's magic like what's in Fairy Tail or a lot of the Warmachine artwork with lots of magical circles or runes forming in the air around the caster or target. Other times it could just be a short gesture followed by a large explosion.

Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
I've speculated for a while that it's not really that First World fey don't have souls... it's that the entire First World is one gigantic soul as big as the Material Plane, playing games with itself.

Wasn't there a suggestion ages ago (it's mentioned on Pathfinder's TV Tropes page at least) that the whole cataclysm in the First World was a total fabrication? On the game's TV Tropes page it's got this under Our Gnomes Are Weirder:

"It's darkly hinted by the developers that the story of the disaster may be a fabrication, and gnomes are really humanoid interface devices through which vastly more powerful beings can study the material world."

Is this still in the game or has that been ret-conned out?


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Gauss wrote:

James, I agree it is badly written. Honestly, I am not trying to be a pain here. I have argued the same POV you have stated but I get the RAW verbage thrown back at me.

- Gauss

This is a case of not RAW causing you problems, but RAPW—"Rules As Poorly Written."

Personally, I prefer games where I can sneak around fast and the GM just makes the decision on whether I'm limited to a speed of 30 feet or 25 feet or 29 feet or whatever and then moves on with the interesting part of the encounter. A game where a GM and/or the players spend even a fraction of the amount of time we've spent here going back and forth over the rules is a game I'd rather ditch and instead go play a video game or watch a movie or read a book or sleep or anything else. :-P

Amen.

I don't know how many times I've said "we'll just do X, I don't feel like looking it up right now," and doing something that seems like it makes sense.

James, how often do you play vs. run, and which do you prefer?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Gauss wrote:

James, thankfully Im the GM in my own games so this is not an issue in mine. Even in an upcoming game where I will not be the GM I am the declared 'keeper of the rules' (I know them better than our upcoming GM).

This is just a case where someone had a question on the rules board and I was going off the same idea you have only to see the RAPW problem appear. Perhaps you can bump this up to those people who make minor verbage corrections?

- Gauss

I could. But it's also not a bad idea to hit the FAQ button on the thread where the question first came up.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ShadowFighter88 wrote:

"It's darkly hinted by the developers that the story of the disaster may be a fabrication, and gnomes are really humanoid interface devices through which vastly more powerful beings can study the material world."

Is this still in the game or has that been ret-conned out?

That's still in the game. Whether or not it's true or not, we have not yet said.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gbonehead wrote:
James, how often do you play vs. run, and which do you prefer?

On average these days...

I run the game about 20 hours a month, and play the game about 10 hours a month. That mix can change, of course, but that's what it's pretty much been lately.

I actually prefer playing the game more than running the game these days, but I suspect that's because I run the game more than I play it. If those hours reverse, then I suspect my preferences would soon reverse as well.

Which is why I kinda like to keep my play time and GM time pretty balanced.


James Jacobs wrote:
C. Nutcase wrote:
...mentioned the infamous BoEF...

Yes... although I've always felt that RPG books and products that use photos as illustrations instead of paintings are lazy and dull ways to provide art for imaginary settings, regardless of the actual content of the RPG product. In the case of that particular book, it makes it feel more like titillation/pornography than an actual legitimate book covering a rarely-covered (ha) topic for RPGs.

It has rules for pregnancy that some people use.

And poked fun that children are rarely mentioned outside plot points (like when they get kidnapped).

Come to think of it, child characters are rarely mentioned/incorporated (outside backstory), any idea why?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

C. Nutcase wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
C. Nutcase wrote:
...mentioned the infamous BoEF...

Yes... although I've always felt that RPG books and products that use photos as illustrations instead of paintings are lazy and dull ways to provide art for imaginary settings, regardless of the actual content of the RPG product. In the case of that particular book, it makes it feel more like titillation/pornography than an actual legitimate book covering a rarely-covered (ha) topic for RPGs.

It has rules for pregnancy that some people use.

And poked fun that children are rarely mentioned outside plot points (like when they get kidnapped).

Come to think of it, child characters are rarely mentioned/incorporated (outside backstory), any idea why?

Two reasons come to mind:

1) Because the rules don't really support children. You could, I guess, apply the young template to a PC... but still, what class is your 1st level wizard when he's 4 years old? Is he still a wizard? If not, then what class is he? And what happens to that class when he becomes a wizard once he reaches his starting age? The game simply doesn't directly support children characters that well at all, and so we generally don't use them a lot.

2) Because people get worked up and nervous when we put children into adventures and the like, for whatever reason. We had a bunch of kids in peril in several of our earlier adventures (Crown of the Kobold King and Edge of Anarchy both come to mind), and we did have a fair amount of people complaining that it wasn't cool of us to do "kids in peril" in adventures. So we've shied away from that.

It's particularly frustrating to me that, for example, the game doesn't really support running a Game of Thrones type adventure, since we wouldn't be able to really model a robust character like Arya Stark without kludging together some rules for how to stat up a 12-year-old rogue or getting a lot of "think of the children!" emails.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
ShadowFighter88 wrote:

"It's darkly hinted by the developers that the story of the disaster may be a fabrication, and gnomes are really humanoid interface devices through which vastly more powerful beings can study the material world."

Is this still in the game or has that been ret-conned out?
That's still in the game. Whether or not it's true or not, we have not yet said.

Where can I read about this? Gnomes of Golarion?


James Jacobs wrote:
C. Nutcase wrote:

It has rules for pregnancy that some people use.

And poked fun that children are rarely mentioned outside plot points (like when they get kidnapped).

Come to think of it, child characters are rarely mentioned/incorporated (outside backstory), any idea why?

Two reasons come to mind:

1) Because the rules don't really support children. You could, I guess, apply the young template to a PC... but still, what class is your 1st level wizard when he's 4 years old? Is he still a wizard? If not, then what class is he? And what happens to that class when he becomes a wizard once he reaches his starting age? The game simply doesn't directly support children characters that well at all, and so we generally don't use them a lot.

2) Because people get worked up and nervous when we put children into adventures and the like, for whatever reason. We had a bunch of kids in peril in several of our earlier adventures (Crown of the Kobold King and Edge of Anarchy both come to mind), and we did have a fair amount of people complaining that it wasn't cool of us to do "kids in peril" in adventures. So we've shied away from that.

It's particularly frustrating to me that, for example, the game doesn't really support running a Game of Thrones type adventure, since we wouldn't be able to really model a robust character like Arya Stark without kludging together some rules for how to stat up a 12-year-old rogue or getting a lot of "think of the children!" emails.

Make a Lovercraftian horror disguised as a cute kid?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cheapy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
ShadowFighter88 wrote:

"It's darkly hinted by the developers that the story of the disaster may be a fabrication, and gnomes are really humanoid interface devices through which vastly more powerful beings can study the material world."

Is this still in the game or has that been ret-conned out?
That's still in the game. Whether or not it's true or not, we have not yet said.
Where can I read about this? Gnomes of Golarion?

I'm not sure where that little throwaway line showed up, honestly. It's a really neat and interesting concept, which means I suspect it came from James Sutter, which means it's probably mentioned in his article on the First World in Pathfinder #36... but that's only a guess.


James Jacobs wrote:
ShadowFighter88 wrote:

"It's darkly hinted by the developers that the story of the disaster may be a fabrication, and gnomes are really humanoid interface devices through which vastly more powerful beings can study the material world."

Is this still in the game or has that been ret-conned out?
That's still in the game. Whether or not it's true or not, we have not yet said.

Ahk, thought I'd read somewhere that that'd gone the way of Paladins of Asmodeus. Must be thinking of something else.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

American public goes ballistic if:

1. Nipples are exposed
2. Children are in danger

Anything else is generally fine with an average Yankee - ultraviolence, disembowelment, genocide, homicide, suicide, more ultraviolence. But the moment you expose boobies or hint that little Sue might get a load of spiked tentacles in all the wrong places, John and Jane hit the panic button and send "please stop this or we'll notify our local religious right organization" emails.


To continue our discussion, pain points is the martial artist's ability (UC monk archetype).
So, the ability applies only to humanoid or at all?

The ki focus weapons channel the wielder's ki, but martial artist has not the ki. He still has quivering palm and stunning fist. The ki weapon focus said:

Quote:
The magic weapon serves as a channel for the wielder's ki, allowing her to use her special ki attacks through the weapon as if they were unarmed attacks. These attacks include the monk's ki strike, quivering palm, and the Stunning Fist feat (including any condition that the monk can apply using this feat).

The ki is in every living creature, infact the hungry ghost monk steal the ki by other creatures.

So, can a martial artist have a focus ki weapon only for use quivering palm and stunning fist, even if he can not use the ki?

19,001 to 19,050 of 50,294 << first < prev | 376 | 377 | 378 | 379 | 380 | 381 | 382 | 383 | 384 | 385 | 386 | 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.