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


Off-Topic Discussions

21,301 to 21,350 of 72,223 << first < prev | 422 | 423 | 424 | 425 | 426 | 427 | 428 | 429 | 430 | 431 | 432 | next > last >>
Contributor

Askanipsion wrote:
6) Prestige classes - right now there is only ONE!

Sadly, that's not the developer's fault. Its an unfortunate byproduct from Witch (and Oracle to a similar extent) being heavily dependent on witch levels rather than caster level. This namely comes into play with Witch Hexes and Oracle Revelations not getting a boost from most Prestige Classes.

You can totally take other Prestige Classes with the witch aside from Winter Witch; you'll just lag behind because the Witch trades the Wizard's broad spell list for witch hexes that won't improve. That said, a simple homebrew solution is to add a multiclassing feat that lets a witch use her caster level in place of her witch level when calculating the effectiveness of witch hexes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1)Could the Prismatic and Force be "Mythic" Dragons following the new mythic rules and add 3 other ones like Mana, Time, and Void?

2)Will the Book of Righteous be about Angels only or will we get other Celestialsas well?

3)I know we have been getting all these new product anouncements but most of these items haven't been given a reales date, so can you say when? I already have an idea for the hardcovers though.

4)I am happy to hear about Kobolds of Golarion but I would like to know what made yous guys choose them as the next race book?

5)Any chance of any Japanese mythical criiters getting into any products in the next 6 months or so?


James Jacobs wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:

3.5 has the following text:

Quote:
If you're successfully hidden with respect to another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you.

Pathfinder does not.

Was that taken out deliberately? If so, it seems a sneaking rogue can't sneak attack creatures after the surprise round, even if they haven't seen the rogue yet.

As far as I know that was not taken out deliberately. Rogues can still sneak attack creatures that haven't noticed the rogue, be it due to their blindness, the rogue being invisible, the rogue making a successful Stealth check, and so on.

Thanks.

The problem arises when attempting to convince people that want RAW. Invisibility, blindness and such have specific clauses denying Dex to AC. Stealth, as far as can be found, does not seem to. Will we see an errata to this effect somewhere down the line?


would it be possible to take all the previous adveture paths and combine them into a single pdf file each of their adventure path title names?

ie: all of the second darkness ap in a pdf file etc

or is it this way already.....


If it's not too personal...

James Jacobs wrote:
I had more time than ever before to do things other than work, and this was the first time since my first Gen Con (back in 2004 or maybe 2005) that I actually had time to walk the exhibit hall; picked up some fun stuff

What'd you buy?


James:

Two questions about reach (I know you answered Lunes questions but mine, while related are different or restated for clarification purposes):

CRB p141 wrote:
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

Please note the bolded section for the following questions.

1) A tiny or smaller creature has a reach of zero. Double of zero = zero.
1A) What is the reach of a tiny or smaller creature with a longspear? 1B) If greater than zero can the tiny or smaller creature attack in his own square or adjacent squares?

2) A Small or Medium creature using a Whip has a reach of 15'. This is not 'double natural reach' but is in fact triple the natural reach.
2A) What is the reach of a Large creature with a natural reach of 10 when using a whip? (20feet is double, 30feet is triple)
2B) What is the reach of a Huge creature with a natural reach of 15 when using a whip? (30feet is double, 45feet is triple)
2C) What is the reach of a Tiny or smaller creature with a natural reach of 0 when using a whip? (0feet is double, 0 feet is triple, see question 1)

Thanks for your time as always and welcome back!

- Gauss

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Will we ever see the full Tiamat write up?

I have dying to build up a Inquisitor of Tiamat, but there is nothing to work with.

If not, any suggestions for Alignment, Favored Weapon, Domains, Subdomains, Inquisitions?

Contributor

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Will we ever see the full Tiamat write up?

I have dying to build up a Inquisitor of Tiamat, but there is nothing to work with.

If not, any suggestions for Alignment, Favored Weapon, Domains, Subdomains, Inquisitions?

I could very well be wrong, but I thought that Tiamat the dragon was Wizard IP and therefor could not be in Golarion, the same way that Apsu kinda/sorta takes Bahamut's place in the cosmology.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1)What is your favorite type of Linnorm? Imperial Dragon?

2)If/When you guys do Psionics, you will not be using that "magic point" system, correct?

3)I heard that sometime after GenCon you guys are going to "fix" the monk, is this true?

4)Have you the old japanese movie "Yokai Monsters 100 monsters"(1968)? If so did you like it?

5)So will next year bring yes anything First World related?

Liberty's Edge

I haven't sorted through all the posts but pardon me if this has been asked already.

JJ - Erik Mona said once when I asked that you guys weren't going to do an Arcadia book is that still the case just wondering..

Thanks

Mike

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
doctor_wu wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

James hasn't answered any questions since Tuesday. He must have something or other going on.

:D

Gencon.
Yeah, I know. That's why the big smilie. :D

Methinks James is tuckered out...

... and now I suddenly have a picture of James in his hotel room, wearing Paizo Golem jammies and snuggling with his Goblin plushie.

There's something wrong with me...

While Gen Con is indeed exhausting, and does indeed leave me with very little time to do idle stuff like answering questions on these boards... my lack of easy access to the internet is also a reason that I didn't answer many questions over the past few days.

Now that I'm home sick with Con Crud, though... that's a different situation entirely.

Sorry to hear it got you. Get better soon James.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Mikael Sebag wrote:

It's a common observation that high level spellcasters in most iterations of the 3.X rules are vastly superior to other classes of the same level. Obviously, mastery of the rules can help players to narrow the gap in power between casters and non-casters, but will the Mythic rules, with its earlier comparison to superheroes, aim at narrowing the divide further?

I can't see how it could do anything but widen it. It's just the nature of a D20 system as the levels climb. Martial skill simply don't keep up with the leveraging of spells as the levels climb.

But that doesn't mean that you can't have fun as a martial. Just don't expect equality with the casters.

Dark Archive

LazarX wrote:


I can't see how it could do anything but widen it. It's just the nature of a D20 system as the levels climb. Martial skill simply don't keep up with the leveraging of spells as the levels climb.

But that doesn't mean that you can't have fun as a martial. Just don't expect equality with the casters.

Having finished two adventure paths after doing a 6-7 years of avoiding higher level stuff, I am not sure that's actually the case.

Our casters felt that DCs just were not high enough. Our sorcerer tried and failed to measure up to our scythe barbarian, staff magus, or zen archer. The best things our casters could do was cast level 3-4 spells on allies (haste, invis sphere). Though in the final part of jade reagent, disintegrate was used to destroy cover.

The more fundamental thing is that a party isn't supposed to be "equal", it is supposed to be complementary. If everyone is fighting for the exact same piece of cake (corner, center with no sides, side not a corner), then you end up making a crappy cake.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
thebwt wrote:
LazarX wrote:


I can't see how it could do anything but widen it. It's just the nature of a D20 system as the levels climb. Martial skill simply don't keep up with the leveraging of spells as the levels climb.

But that doesn't mean that you can't have fun as a martial. Just don't expect equality with the casters.

Having finished two adventure paths after doing a 6-7 years of avoiding higher level stuff, I am not sure that's actually the case.

Our casters felt that DCs just were not high enough. Our sorcerer tried and failed to measure up to our scythe barbarian, staff magus, or zen archer. The best things our casters could do was cast level 3-4 spells on allies (haste, invis sphere). Though in the final part of jade reagent, disintegrate was used to destroy cover.

The more fundamental thing is that a party isn't supposed to be "equal", it is supposed to be complementary. If everyone is fighting for the exact same piece of cake (corner, center with no sides, side not a corner), then you end up making a crappy cake.

I actually don't have a problem with this. WOTC however listened to those who kept screaming about it, and gave them Fourth Edition in response. In retrospect, perhaps they paid too much attention to a very vocal subset.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1)Will the Dragon Lairs book have unique dragons, and by unique i mean like the Tarrasque, there are no other kinds like it?

2)Any chance of seeing a Linnorm in the Dragon Lair book?

3)I noticed there hasn't been a revisited monster book anounced for next year yet, so how long will we have to wait for one? I love those books and I am really hoping for a Fey book, a another dragon book for Primal/Imperial dragons, maybe something as well lovecraftian.

4)I have seen sorcerer archtypes that use int/wis instead of cha but what are the odds of getting archtypes like a cha based magus, wis based witch, cha based druid? How about a spontanous caster version of a magus or a prepared caster bard?

5)Will the Monkey Goblin in the Innersea Bestiary have rules as a 0HD playable race?


James, could you go into your views on the "supposed martial caster split" you mentioned above?


Another Night Hag related question. If it is indeed true that the union of a Fiend (Night Hag in this case) and a Humanoid (let's use a normal Human as an example) always results in a Half-Fiend, is it not true that the child of these two is a Half-Fiend Changeling if it refuses to turn into a Night Hag (assuming Night Hags actually spawn Changelings like other Hags do), and the child of said Half-Fiend would be a Changeling/Tiefling hybrid? I've been trying to wrap my head around this genetics puzzle for quite a while now.

I think the problem is that children of Hags are always Changelings, and the children of Fiends are always Half-Fiends...but what is the result of the blood dwindling (I ask since I am crazy and want to play a Changeling with Night Hag blood instead of Annis, Green or Sea Hag heritage)?


So t'other day I was flipping through the Dragon Empires Gazeteer and I read about Shaguang and Yjae, the last of the Shory cities. As I read, it struck me that this has "PLEASE MAKE AN AP OUT OF ME!!!" written all over it and I got very excited about the possibilities inherent in the situation. So what are the prospects for an AP dealing with this sometime in the dimly foreseeable future? Would you categorize it as a "keep your eyes open" or a "don't hold your breath, bucko"?


James Jacobs wrote:
In any event, if YOU have pounce and you're mounted, you can't use the effects of pounce because YOU (not your mount) has to charge in order to activate pounce.

If you are not charging when your mount charges, will we ever get errata for Spirited Charge, Mighty Charge, and Supreme Charge? They all require that you charge / use the charge action / make a charge attack while mounted. But if your mount charging doesn't count as you charging, they are all impossible to use.


Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
In any event, if YOU have pounce and you're mounted, you can't use the effects of pounce because YOU (not your mount) has to charge in order to activate pounce.
If you are not charging when your mount charges, will we ever get errata for Spirited Charge, Mighty Charge, and Supreme Charge? They all require that you charge / use the charge action / make a charge attack while mounted. But if your mount charging doesn't count as you charging, they are all impossible to use.

Stuff like this is why I avoid mounted combat like the plague, lol.

Grand Lodge

Hi James,
I am so sorry to keep asking about this issue that is going around the rules question area.
Can you please explain how to or why you can not (I think you already have) as a magus use a 2 handed weapon and spellstrike.
With out using house rules.
A indepth interpritation of how a magus' turn would go would be great.
I thought that since you are not wielding a 2 handed weapon when you cast your spell you could not use the spellstrike ability even if you regriped the weapon with two hands until the next turn.
**Notice to all those reading this that I did not metion spell combate in my question.**
Once again sorry about adding frustration but I think we would love to see at least your opinion even if you have to lable it so.
If you got Jason Bulmahn to pop in and give his two cents I would be over joyed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Time for me to add to the pile of Mythic questions! :D

So, I've read in a few places that even with the Mythic rules that Players won't be able to fight even lesser gods. Does this mean...

Serpents Skull Spoiler:
That even level 20 normal + level 10 mythic characters won't be as powerful as Savith was when she defeated Ydersius? Or was Ydersius just really weak as far as Gods go?

Granted, Ydersius didn't really 'die', while Savith died from his poison afterwards, but being beheaded and becoming almost a non-threat is a pretty big defeat for a god.


Hi James.

::offers tea:: Do you feel better yet?

I made cookies...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

With Mythic rules, will we see new size classes even larger than those currently in the system. Like Godzilla sized?

Is there any plan/hope to stat up Kaiju as mythic monsters instead of "regular" monsters? Or would you rather they be statted up the way current high CR monsters are.


James Jacobs wrote:
Fulmir wrote:

A Buckler specifically says that you can't get the shield bonus in the same round that you fire a bow with the shield. A Ring of Force Shield creates a Heavy Shield of force which can be turned on and off as a free action. Can you gain the benefits of a Ring of Force Shield by turning it off, firing your bow, and then turning it back on again at the end of the round?

I liked the clarification on Blink from... about 100 pages ago but I still have a question. The wording in Blink talks about incorporeal AND Ethereal, so does it drop you straight into the Ethereal plane or does it just blink you Incorporeal and would a Ghost Touch weapon work (something that's never been stated to be a Force Effect and in fact uses Plane Shift in its creation).

A ring of force shield is the best kind of shield for an archer or the like, because yes, you CAN turn it on and off that fast.

Blink is still a kind of complicated spell. In earlier editions of the game, there WAS no "incorporeal" status, really—such effects were considered instead to be "ethereal" or "partially ethereal." With 3rd edition, they added incorporeal as a status, but did a pretty poor job separating it from being on the ethereal plane, and in a couple of cases, that poor wording crept into Pathifnder.

When you blink, in any event, you are not ethereal. Ghost touch weapons don't help.

Sorry this kind of confused things again. Blink says, in 3.5 at least, that you become Ethereal, meaning a Force Effect would hit you but a Ghost Touch weapon would not.

"Ghost Touch: A ghost touch weapon deals damage normally against incorporeal creatures, regardless of its bonus. An incorporeal creature's 50% reduction in damage from corporeal sources does not apply to attacks made against it with ghost touch weapons. The weapon can be picked up and moved by an incorporeal creature at any time. A manifesting ghost can wield the weapon against corporeal foes. Essentially, a ghost touch weapon counts as both corporeal or incorporeal."

If you're becoming incorporeal then a ghost touch weapon would negate part of the miss chance (per the rules for Blink) and a Blinking character could weild a Ghost Touch weapon to ignore his own 20% miss chance for suddenly being (ethereal, incorporeal, or something).

Sorry to keep taking up your time with this one, it's one of my favorite tricks and then a friend of mine pointed out it shouldn't work and I want to know what Pathfinder's intent is. (I'd repost the wording for Blink but it's HUGE, it is however here -> http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/blink.html and oh wow did you guys fix the wording, guess that answers my question...)

Silver Crusade

James Jacobs wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Will Demon Blight Crusade be high-fantasy, well suited for Paladins? AKA: A little less grey morality than the usual stuff.

All of our Adventure Paths, in fact, all of our adventures in Golarion, make the same assumptions about whether it's low-fantasy or high-fantasy.

It WILL, though, use the Mythic Adventures rules, so it'll be more high powered than most adventure paths.

And it's also very much a "you're the good guys" adventure path. A paladin is a GREAT choice for Demonblight Crusade. There's going to be a LOT of redemption themes in Demonblight Crusade as well, and not a lot of "side up with the evil character who's not as bad a threat as this other evil character so you can work together to defeat the greater evil" at all.

That said, there WILL be some "side with this normally evil character and help redeem them to be good" elements.

I really, really want to get to play in this AP.

I don't really have any issue with "team up with the lesser evil" when it's done well, like in AP NAME REDACTED BUT EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, though I can see where some arguments from the past may have come from. That said, very excited by these bolded parts. :D

Wanna bring back my idealistic tiefling paladin now...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
deuxhero wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Snip
Does "simulacrum can't learn" mean just stuff with a statistical effect or does it mean it can't do something like "ask that guy for directions and tell them to me" because it can't remember the directions?

It means it can't gain levels, learn new spells, learn new feats, learn new languages, gain skill ranks, gain hit dice, and so on.

It can still ask for directions, assuming it's got the ability to understand language in the first place. A simulacrum can retain memories. It simply can enhance and improve its statistics that way.

How does the bold work for a simulacrum of a Wizard?

Pharasma hates undead: Is this only a restriction on her clergy, or does it effect her soul judging stuff as well?

A wizard simulacrum cannot learn new spells. It knows only the spells it has prepared when it's created (aka: only the spells that the original source wizard had prepared).

Undead prevent a soul from being judged. As long as you're undead, your soul is trapped. That's why pretty much all undead are evil. Being undead throws a monkey wrench into the cycle of souls and life, and that's why Pharasma hates them.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Askanipsion wrote:

Will there be any upcoming new stuff for non-frost witches? It seems like the Witch has fallen behind all the other classes with new stuff.

Things I would like to see

1) new Hexes - been a long time since we got any new hexes

2) Patrons - would love to see this expanded - maybe some feats tied to it - also new Hexes tied to specific Patrons....kind of like Domain abilities

3) Familiar feats!

4) new Archetypes - most of the existing ones are not really that great (though the ones in Advanced Races were nice)

5) Some fey flavor as an option

6) Prestige classes - right now there is only ONE!

We'll continue doing more stuff for witches, but with the Reign of Winter Adventure Path on the horizon, that's why so much stuff is focused on Winter Witches for now—we're actually preparing some rules we need to use for lots of NPCs in that adventure path. The fact that players can use these particular rules is, to a certain extent, a side benefit.


Fulmir wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Fulmir wrote:

A Buckler specifically says that you can't get the shield bonus in the same round that you fire a bow with the shield. A Ring of Force Shield creates a Heavy Shield of force which can be turned on and off as a free action. Can you gain the benefits of a Ring of Force Shield by turning it off, firing your bow, and then turning it back on again at the end of the round?

I liked the clarification on Blink from... about 100 pages ago but I still have a question. The wording in Blink talks about incorporeal AND Ethereal, so does it drop you straight into the Ethereal plane or does it just blink you Incorporeal and would a Ghost Touch weapon work (something that's never been stated to be a Force Effect and in fact uses Plane Shift in its creation).

A ring of force shield is the best kind of shield for an archer or the like, because yes, you CAN turn it on and off that fast.

Blink is still a kind of complicated spell. In earlier editions of the game, there WAS no "incorporeal" status, really—such effects were considered instead to be "ethereal" or "partially ethereal." With 3rd edition, they added incorporeal as a status, but did a pretty poor job separating it from being on the ethereal plane, and in a couple of cases, that poor wording crept into Pathifnder.

When you blink, in any event, you are not ethereal. Ghost touch weapons don't help.

Sorry this kind of confused things again. Blink says, in 3.5 at least, that you become Ethereal, meaning a Force Effect would hit you but a Ghost Touch weapon would not.

"Ghost Touch: A ghost touch weapon deals damage normally against incorporeal creatures, regardless of its bonus. An incorporeal creature's 50% reduction in damage from corporeal sources does not apply to attacks made against it with ghost touch weapons. The weapon can be picked up and moved by an incorporeal creature at any time. A manifesting ghost can wield the weapon against corporeal foes. Essentially, a ghost touch weapon counts as both...

Pretty sure meant to say you are not incoporeal but you are ethereal.. at least half the time..

The mention of incorporeal in the end is an unfortunate result of edition crossover, incorporeal as a condition was meaningless in former editions, ethereal creatures are invisible however and can pass through objects. They are just not prone to the rules for incorporeal creatures, it would have been better to replace incorporeal with insubstantial (at least to creatures in the material plane) or something of that nature.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

1)Could the Prismatic and Force be "Mythic" Dragons following the new mythic rules and add 3 other ones like Mana, Time, and Void?

2)Will the Book of Righteous be about Angels only or will we get other Celestialsas well?

3)I know we have been getting all these new product anouncements but most of these items haven't been given a reales date, so can you say when? I already have an idea for the hardcovers though.

4)I am happy to hear about Kobolds of Golarion but I would like to know what made yous guys choose them as the next race book?

5)Any chance of any Japanese mythical criiters getting into any products in the next 6 months or so?

1) Certainly, although I'm not fond of those particular choices. Again, we're already working on Mythic Adventures and deciding how dragons fit in there is something we'll be handling soon.

2) It will focus mostly on the Emperyal Lords, who consist of agathions, archons, angels, and azatas.

3) No release dates are public yet. They'll be public when they need to be.

4) The fact that kobolds are popular, both among our fans and customers and among our employees.

5) There's a chance, I guess, but not a big one. Jade Regent was the big time to get those things into print. Going forward, with adventure paths focused on Varisia, winter, and demons, you can expect monster themes to follow that route.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:

3.5 has the following text:

Quote:
If you're successfully hidden with respect to another creature, that creature is flat-footed with respect to you.

Pathfinder does not.

Was that taken out deliberately? If so, it seems a sneaking rogue can't sneak attack creatures after the surprise round, even if they haven't seen the rogue yet.

As far as I know that was not taken out deliberately. Rogues can still sneak attack creatures that haven't noticed the rogue, be it due to their blindness, the rogue being invisible, the rogue making a successful Stealth check, and so on.

Thanks.

The problem arises when attempting to convince people that want RAW. Invisibility, blindness and such have specific clauses denying Dex to AC. Stealth, as far as can be found, does not seem to. Will we see an errata to this effect somewhere down the line?

People who want RAW are only setting themselves up for frustration. The game does not play NEARLY as well when you don't give the GM the respect and trust to interpret and adjudicate rules.

If they're looking for "errata," go ahead and reference them to my original answer to your thread. If word from the Creative Director of Paizo doesn't do it for them, there's not much more I can do to help.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Steelfiredragon wrote:

would it be possible to take all the previous adveture paths and combine them into a single pdf file each of their adventure path title names?

ie: all of the second darkness ap in a pdf file etc

or is it this way already.....

This isn't something we do. Keeping the Adventure Paths as six separate PDF files is the way we want the product to look and to be branded, especially since combining them into one big megafile would confuse folks by bloating the category unecessarilly, make the files WAY too big for most computers to easily navigate, would have to cost a lot and would cause all sorts of weird complications on the web store.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Antimony wrote:

If it's not too personal...

James Jacobs wrote:
I had more time than ever before to do things other than work, and this was the first time since my first Gen Con (back in 2004 or maybe 2005) that I actually had time to walk the exhibit hall; picked up some fun stuff
What'd you buy?

Lich Dungeon (signed by Frank Mentzer!)

Call of Cthulhu Keeper's Screen (actually a gift from Charlie Krank, but I'll list it here anyway since it's still New Stuff from Gen Con)
The Modern Weird Tale by S. T. Joshi
Four pre-painted minis from Fantasy Flight (servitor of the outer gods, dhole, dark young, and the Dunwich horrror)
Grindhouse edition of Lamentations of the Flame Princess
Bumps in the Night (CoC adventures from Pagan Publishing)
Carcosa (setting for OSR/Lamentations of the Flame Princess)
Some dice as gifts for friends who couldn't make it to the con.

And: Became a patron for "Horror on the Orient Express," "Gamers III," Monte's new game, and upped my pledge to Reaper's Bones.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

James:

Two questions about reach (I know you answered Lunes questions but mine, while related are different or restated for clarification purposes):

CRB p141 wrote:
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

Please note the bolded section for the following questions.

1) A tiny or smaller creature has a reach of zero. Double of zero = zero.
1A) What is the reach of a tiny or smaller creature with a longspear? 1B) If greater than zero can the tiny or smaller creature attack in his own square or adjacent squares?

2) A Small or Medium creature using a Whip has a reach of 15'. This is not 'double natural reach' but is in fact triple the natural reach.
2A) What is the reach of a Large creature with a natural reach of 10 when using a whip? (20feet is double, 30feet is triple)
2B) What is the reach of a Huge creature with a natural reach of 15 when using a whip? (30feet is double, 45feet is triple)
2C) What is the reach of a Tiny or smaller creature with a natural reach of 0 when using a whip? (0feet is double, 0 feet is triple, see question 1)

Thanks for your time as always and welcome back!

- Gauss

First off... all of these situations are strange corner cases that the rules don't specifically address, really, but here's how I'd answer all of them:

1) Giving a tiny or smaller creature a reach weapon allows it to attack adjacent foes as if it were a Small or Medium creature.

2) Small is a weird size category that, for the purposes of reach weapons, works identically to Medium because that makes it easier and more balanced for Small PC races. And whips are unusual weapons in that they grant a much larger reach than normal.

2A) 30 feet.
2B) 45 feet.
2C) 10 feet.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Will we ever see the full Tiamat write up?

I have dying to build up a Inquisitor of Tiamat, but there is nothing to work with.

If not, any suggestions for Alignment, Favored Weapon, Domains, Subdomains, Inquisitions?

No, for two reasons.

1) She's a deity. As a god, we won't be publishing stats for her, even once Mythic Adventures comes out—that book will allow us to stat up demigods, but not actual deities like Tiamat.

2) While Tiamat is, of course, based on a real world ancient deity, the version that has been in D&D since the start is a 5-headed dragon. She's one of the most iconic creatures in the game as well, having appeared in LOTS of art and adventures, as a monster in the D&D Saturday Morning cartoon back in the 80s, and with a slight disguise as Takhisis in Dragonlance, one of the best-known D&D settings of all time. Pathfinder, and Golarion, are NOT D&D, but they share a LOT of the same inspirations and themes, and were we to do much more with Tiamat, we'd have to develop her as something other than a 5 headed dragon, since that incarnation of her is the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast. (This is, by the way, the same thing that keeps us from doing much more with Demogorgon.) When we first started doing Golarion stuff, we were really nervous that folks wouldn't want to come along with us, so we relied a bit more on the game's thematic links to D&D traditions than we do today, which is why we brought Tiamat along for the ride. But we can't and won't be doing much more with her... today, our evil dragon god is in fact Dahak, who comes from the exact same set of myths and stories that Tiamat does, but does NOT have a lot of pre-established lore and tradition tied up with D&D. So... going forward, Dahak is our bad-guy dragon god, and it's him to which I would suggest building your inquisitor around. If you want to build an inquisitor of Tiamat, you'll need to work with your GM, who (unlike us) CAN draw upon all the wealth of information about her that D&D has established and built upon over the last several decades. Including things like Favored Weapon, Domains, and the like. That's not something I'm comfortable saying much more about, even on a message board post, since it starts to cleave uncomfortably close to similar material that is the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast. Sorry! :(

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

1)What is your favorite type of Linnorm? Imperial Dragon?

2)If/When you guys do Psionics, you will not be using that "magic point" system, correct?

3)I heard that sometime after GenCon you guys are going to "fix" the monk, is this true?

4)Have you the old japanese movie "Yokai Monsters 100 monsters"(1968)? If so did you like it?

5)So will next year bring yes anything First World related?

1) Tarn linnorm. Forest dragon.

2) I certainly hope not, because we already have rules for magic. I've NEVER been a fan of "if you want to cast a spell to read minds, use ruleset A, but if you want to use psionics to read minds, use ruleset B... oh, and sorry those two rulesets don't fit together nicely."

3) The monk doesn't need to be "fixed." The mindset that the monk is a front-line combatant meant to be on par with barbarians, fighters, and rangers is what needs to be fixed. Monks are meant to be more like rogues or bards—support characters who have strong defenses and excellent mobility that help the other classes do their thing.

4) Haven't seen it.

5) Yes—we'll be doing "Fey Revisited," which will surely have some First World stuff in it.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Qstor wrote:

I haven't sorted through all the posts but pardon me if this has been asked already.

JJ - Erik Mona said once when I asked that you guys weren't going to do an Arcadia book is that still the case just wondering..

Thanks

Mike

No plans at this time to do an Arcadia book.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

LazarX wrote:
Mikael Sebag wrote:

It's a common observation that high level spellcasters in most iterations of the 3.X rules are vastly superior to other classes of the same level. Obviously, mastery of the rules can help players to narrow the gap in power between casters and non-casters, but will the Mythic rules, with its earlier comparison to superheroes, aim at narrowing the divide further?

I can't see how it could do anything but widen it. It's just the nature of a D20 system as the levels climb. Martial skill simply don't keep up with the leveraging of spells as the levels climb.

But that doesn't mean that you can't have fun as a martial. Just don't expect equality with the casters.

If we do it right, it won't widen or narrow this so-called "gap" but will maintain the status quo, only "turned up to 11."

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
James, could you go into your views on the "supposed martial caster split" you mentioned above?

In brief...

Pathfinder isn't designed to be a solo, or even a one on one game. It's designed to be a cooperative, team game. That means that the game presents different types of classes and roles for players to take on to form parts of that team. And in order to make each team member different and able to provide different roles, some do things better than others.

Fighters are capable of doing lots of damage over the course of a day. They do just as much damage with a full round attack on round 1 of a battle as they do on round 20 of the 20th battle in a day.

Wizards can do a lot more damage and do a lot more things than fighters... but their resources are MUCH more limited than a fighter's. By the end of a day on the 20th round of the 20th battle, the wizard is reduced to using cantrips or crossbows, a pale shadow of what he can do with his more powerful spells.

What it REALLY boils down to is the fact that the more often your group rests and recovers resources, the more the classes with built in limits to what they can do in a given day start to outshine classes built to have more staying power.

A good GM has lots of tricks and methods to prevent the dreaded 15-minute adventuring day, and will do so in order to make wizards and similar characters be more tactical and careful about using all their tricks up at once, and perhaps choosing (as the game intends) to let the fighter types handle things while they hang back and support the group.

In the end, in my style of game, I've not seen a "disparity" between the power level of a fighter or a gunslinger or a wizard or a cleric or a bard... but that might be because I run adventures and customize them to fit the mix of the party, and perhaps have been blessed with players who generally understand the roles their characters can and should serve in a game.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

1)Will the Dragon Lairs book have unique dragons, and by unique i mean like the Tarrasque, there are no other kinds like it?

2)Any chance of seeing a Linnorm in the Dragon Lair book?

3)I noticed there hasn't been a revisited monster book anounced for next year yet, so how long will we have to wait for one? I love those books and I am really hoping for a Fey book, a another dragon book for Primal/Imperial dragons, maybe something as well lovecraftian.

4)I have seen sorcerer archtypes that use int/wis instead of cha but what are the odds of getting archtypes like a cha based magus, wis based witch, cha based druid? How about a spontanous caster version of a magus or a prepared caster bard?

5)Will the Monkey Goblin in the Innersea Bestiary have rules as a 0HD playable race?

1) Probably not.

2) Probably not.

3) We announced "Fey Revisited." There's a 2nd revisited book coming later in the year (we normally do 2 a year, after all), but we haven't announced what that one is yet.

4) We'll likely be pulling the brakes on the speed at which we release archetypes, I think... the game's got more than enough for now in my opinion. Archetypes like you request could well be something we do in the future, if the design team likes the concept and if the concept gets enough requests.

5) Monkey Goblins are a zero HD race.


Is the first world one of the places to make leshies easier since nature spirits are common? Leshy are in bestiary 3.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

Another Night Hag related question. If it is indeed true that the union of a Fiend (Night Hag in this case) and a Humanoid (let's use a normal Human as an example) always results in a Half-Fiend, is it not true that the child of these two is a Half-Fiend Changeling if it refuses to turn into a Night Hag (assuming Night Hags actually spawn Changelings like other Hags do), and the child of said Half-Fiend would be a Changeling/Tiefling hybrid? I've been trying to wrap my head around this genetics puzzle for quite a while now.

I think the problem is that children of Hags are always Changelings, and the children of Fiends are always Half-Fiends...but what is the result of the blood dwindling (I ask since I am crazy and want to play a Changeling with Night Hag blood instead of Annis, Green or Sea Hag heritage)?

We're deliberately vague on how half-fiends (and half-celestials) come about, because the less we say, the more potential stories we allow. A night hag and a human who have a child can have whatever type of child the story you want to tell needs.

That said... night hags are NOT technically fiends. "Fiend" is a catch-all term we use for the evil planar "races" like daemons, demons, devils, qlippoth, rakshasas, kytons, divs, demodands, etc. Night hags are not in one of those race categories.


James Jacobs wrote:
Gauss wrote:

James:

Two questions about reach (I know you answered Lunes questions but mine, while related are different or restated for clarification purposes):

CRB p141 wrote:
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

Please note the bolded section for the following questions.

1) A tiny or smaller creature has a reach of zero. Double of zero = zero.
1A) What is the reach of a tiny or smaller creature with a longspear? 1B) If greater than zero can the tiny or smaller creature attack in his own square or adjacent squares?
- Gauss

First off... all of these situations are strange corner cases that the rules don't specifically address, really, but here's how I'd answer all of them:

1) Giving a tiny or smaller creature a reach weapon allows it to attack adjacent foes as if it were a Small or Medium creature.

2) Small is a weird size category that, for the...

Thank you for your answers. One question remains. Is a tiny creature with a longspear (reach weapon) able to attack his own square with the longspear? (My thought on it is no.)

- Gauss

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
In any event, if YOU have pounce and you're mounted, you can't use the effects of pounce because YOU (not your mount) has to charge in order to activate pounce.
If you are not charging when your mount charges, will we ever get errata for Spirited Charge, Mighty Charge, and Supreme Charge? They all require that you charge / use the charge action / make a charge attack while mounted. But if your mount charging doesn't count as you charging, they are all impossible to use.

heavy sigh

Those feats work fine. The language might not be 100% super precise, but you can assume that in the cases of those feats, a charging mount that you're riding lets you use the feats as written.

If you think they need errata, post in the proper book's thread and hit the FAQ button.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
So t'other day I was flipping through the Dragon Empires Gazeteer and I read about Shaguang and Yjae, the last of the Shory cities. As I read, it struck me that this has "PLEASE MAKE AN AP OUT OF ME!!!" written all over it and I got very excited about the possibilities inherent in the situation. So what are the prospects for an AP dealing with this sometime in the dimly foreseeable future? Would you categorize it as a "keep your eyes open" or a "don't hold your breath, bucko"?

Those prospects are very very slim.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Xyllen wrote:

Hi James,

I am so sorry to keep asking about this issue that is going around the rules question area.
Can you please explain how to or why you can not (I think you already have) as a magus use a 2 handed weapon and spellstrike.
With out using house rules.
A indepth interpritation of how a magus' turn would go would be great.
I thought that since you are not wielding a 2 handed weapon when you cast your spell you could not use the spellstrike ability even if you regriped the weapon with two hands until the next turn.
**Notice to all those reading this that I did not metion spell combate in my question.**
Once again sorry about adding frustration but I think we would love to see at least your opinion even if you have to lable it so.
If you got Jason Bulmahn to pop in and give his two cents I would be over joyed.

Because the magus is a one-handed one-spell character. That's his thing. That's the flavor of the class.

Making a magus who fights with a 2 handed weapon is pushing the rules and the flavor beyond what the class was intended to handle, in the same way that building a heavilly armored wizard who prefers to fight with a sword and shield pushes things. It's taking things beyond the intended scope of the game, and beyond my personal preference for how a class should behave in the game, and deep into house rule territory.

As a result, I can't help you in the way you want.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ANebulousMistress wrote:

Hi James.

::offers tea:: Do you feel better yet?

I made cookies...

Thanks!

I do fell better. I'm at work, at least! :-)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Matrixryu wrote:

Time for me to add to the pile of Mythic questions! :D

So, I've read in a few places that even with the Mythic rules that Players won't be able to fight even lesser gods. Does this mean...

Spoiler:
That even level 20 normal + level 10 mythic characters won't be as powerful as Savith was when she defeated Ydersius? Or was Ydersius just really weak as far as Gods go?
Granted, Ydersius didn't really 'die', while Savith died from his poison afterwards, but being beheaded and becoming almost a non-threat is a pretty big defeat for a god.

Mythic Adventures is meant to let players fight against demigods, but NOT deities.

Spoiler:
Ydersius was a demigod. If I had to pin him with a CR, it would probably be about CR 30 or CR 35. Similar to other demigods like Achaekek or the demon lords.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

MMCJawa wrote:

With Mythic rules, will we see new size classes even larger than those currently in the system. Like Godzilla sized?

Is there any plan/hope to stat up Kaiju as mythic monsters instead of "regular" monsters? Or would you rather they be statted up the way current high CR monsters are.

I would LOVE to some day have rules for creatures of that size. Mythic Adventures will hopefully have such rules, but in the grand scheme of things, those rules are pretty low priorities at this point for that book.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Fulmir wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Fulmir wrote:

A Buckler specifically says that you can't get the shield bonus in the same round that you fire a bow with the shield. A Ring of Force Shield creates a Heavy Shield of force which can be turned on and off as a free action. Can you gain the benefits of a Ring of Force Shield by turning it off, firing your bow, and then turning it back on again at the end of the round?

I liked the clarification on Blink from... about 100 pages ago but I still have a question. The wording in Blink talks about incorporeal AND Ethereal, so does it drop you straight into the Ethereal plane or does it just blink you Incorporeal and would a Ghost Touch weapon work (something that's never been stated to be a Force Effect and in fact uses Plane Shift in its creation).

A ring of force shield is the best kind of shield for an archer or the like, because yes, you CAN turn it on and off that fast.

Blink is still a kind of complicated spell. In earlier editions of the game, there WAS no "incorporeal" status, really—such effects were considered instead to be "ethereal" or "partially ethereal." With 3rd edition, they added incorporeal as a status, but did a pretty poor job separating it from being on the ethereal plane, and in a couple of cases, that poor wording crept into Pathifnder.

When you blink, in any event, you are not ethereal. Ghost touch weapons don't help.

Sorry this kind of confused things again. Blink says, in 3.5 at least, that you become Ethereal, meaning a Force Effect would hit you but a Ghost Touch weapon would not.

"Ghost Touch: A ghost touch weapon deals damage normally against incorporeal creatures, regardless of its bonus. An incorporeal creature's 50% reduction in damage from corporeal sources does not apply to attacks made against it with ghost touch weapons. The weapon can be picked up and moved by an incorporeal creature at any time. A manifesting ghost can wield the weapon against corporeal foes. Essentially, a ghost touch weapon counts as both...

At this point, my advice is to cut blink from your game entirely. Just use displacement. It more or less does the exact same thing at the exact same spell level, but does so MUCH less confusingly, apparently.

21,301 to 21,350 of 72,223 << first < prev | 422 | 423 | 424 | 425 | 426 | 427 | 428 | 429 | 430 | 431 | 432 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.