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

PaizoCon 2014!

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


Off-Topic Discussions

25,001 to 25,050 of 44,777 << first < prev | 496 | 497 | 498 | 499 | 500 | 501 | 502 | 503 | 504 | 505 | 506 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bishop083 wrote:
Have you contemplated an alias named Senor Jacobs? Would it look just like James Jacobs, except the T-Rex would have a mustache, and possibly a sombrero? Should such a thing be allowed to exist?

That's silly. They don't make sombreros that big.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Rysky wrote:

Well then someone will have to ask this very awesome/useful Wes creature thing to produce the other one for viewing, both awesome movies.

Noticing things mentioned I'm wondering if you have read Goth by Otsuichi ? It's quite possibly my favorite horror novel, possibly favorite novel period, I highly recommend it

Many, many thanks for continuing to not only taking the time to reply to my questions but to everyone else's as well :)

Have not read "Goth."

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jiggy wrote:

That doesn't sound like what he's saying at all. "A potion should be something that affects the drinker" seems to support, rather than refute, my thinking that personal spells should exist as potions. Turning personal spells into potions doesn't make it "more like a potion that lets you cast a spell", which is apparently his concern.

So I'm pretty sure JJ and I are not talking about the same thing.

Sounds like someone somewhere along the line got overly complex in their question.

SO!

Re-ask if it's still not answered.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Belle Mythix wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:
Just that a few months ago it was: "Right now; Paladin, Cleric, Inquisitor and Bard, these are subject to changes" , kinda fit 'All Casters'... so at the time was it a consideration?
Nope. It wasn't. Those four were picked because they were right for adventure path, aesthetically. (And for the record, although paladins have spells... they're full BAB classes and don't really count in my book as "casters.")

Well, for a full BaB class, Paladins are kinda loaded on Supernatural abilities and they get spells... so 4/10 casters?

(shrug)

We picked the paladin because a paladin's a good thematic choice for a "fighting undead" adventure path.


*reads Remove Disease scroll*

Hope you get better soon, boss!


James Jacobs wrote:
Run, Just Run wrote:
If a paladin were to become a graveknight through wish so as not to kill inocents and had atonement cast upon him by RAW would he regain all his abilities as a paladin back or would he not because he is undead? Would he have to kill himself because he was undead? Thanks in advance.
As long as he's a graveknight, he's evil and can't be a paladin.

Helm of Opposite Alignment + Atonement (Redemption or Temptation) as cast by a LG caster = LG Paladin Graveknight.

Shadow Lodge

first a two-part question...in the advanced race guide the samsarans have a racial oracle archetype called the Reincarnated Oracle...one of its revelations, Location Memories, allows the samsaran to "search their past lives for memories of or insight about your current location"...among other things this grants the character low light vision...

crunch-wise, the samsaran already has low light vision as a racial trait, so should this be changed to darkvision or is it intended for races other than samsarans?

flavour-wise, since samsarans on golarion are from Tian Xia would this ability even work in the inner sea region?

unrelatedly...an earlier post got me thinking about the azlanti and their +2 bonus to all stats...did this bonus also to ancient thassilonians such as the runelords?...if so, when did humanity lose this racial trait?...during earthfall?...after?


Be glad you don't have grad school like I do, James, that should help you feel better.

Now, questions.

Suppose I'm using multiple wishes to debuff Treerazer. Can I use a wish to…

1. Reduce his spell resistance? Remove it?

2. Make his summoned demons disappear? Prevent him from summoning them?

3. Reduce his bonus to reflex (or one other) saves? Or to all saves? Remove being able to make reflex (or one other) saves? Or (again) to all saves? Reduce his dexterity to 1? To 0?

4. Remove his fire resistance? Remove his energy resistances? Remove his poison (or other)immunity? Remove all his immunities?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

James Jacobs wrote:

Sounds like someone somewhere along the line got overly complex in their question.

SO!

Re-ask if it's still not answered.

Sounds like someone somewhere is starting to know me too well.

SO!

Why can't I make a potion of see invisibility? Or a potion of true strike, mirror image, divine favor, false life, or longstrider? Those all seem like exactly the type of spells one would expect to exist as potions, yet the rules won't let them be potions. Why?

EDIT: And what really gets me is that I can make a potion of magic missile and the drinker will take 1d4+1 force damage. But I can't make a potion of see invisibility. How does that make sense? If someone told me that between magic missile and see invisibility, only one of them could be made into a potion, I'd have guessed it would be see invisibility because that actually makes sense. But by the rules, it's the other way around: potions of magic missile (or nearly any other attack spell) are totally legal while potions of see invisibility (or dozens of other beneficial spells that would make sense as potions) are a no-go. Why?

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
Will we see Mythic this week?
Unless there's some sort of unforeseen disaster or event, the plan is that this week, the Mythic Adventures Playtest goes live.

I remember way back in the heady days of the release of Core Rules, when someone was asking you why some old classic PrC's the Archmage and the Hierophant among others hadn't been revamped the way some other DMG prc's were.

Were you guys simply being so awesomely Xanatosian that you had Mythic secretly planned out that far back?


James Jacobs wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:
Just that a few months ago it was: "Right now; Paladin, Cleric, Inquisitor and Bard, these are subject to changes" , kinda fit 'All Casters'... so at the time was it a consideration?
Nope. It wasn't. Those four were picked because they were right for adventure path, aesthetically. (And for the record, although paladins have spells... they're full BAB classes and don't really count in my book as "casters.")

Well, for a full BaB class, Paladins are kinda loaded on Supernatural abilities and they get spells... so 4/10 casters?

(shrug)

We picked the paladin because a paladin's a good thematic choice for a "fighting undead" adventure path.

Paladins do better vs Undeads and Evil Outsider than most of the other Full BaB classes with similar level/gears, so of course they are a good choice for the WorldWound AP.

<_<

>_>

Get well Soon!

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1. What do you think of for the Mythic Merisiel sketches in the Mythic Playtest?

2. Do you like Mythic Lem's new coat?

3. Are you recovered from your disease yet? If not, good luck making your fort saves!

4. What are the major trade routes to and from Varisia? I know of the Path of Aganhei, but are there any others? and do they have Names?


I must be getting blind (or the lack of sleep for half a week), where is the stuff for the Mythic playtest?


Here -> http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/mythicAdventuresPlaytest

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Belle Mythix wrote:
I must be getting blind (or the lack of sleep for half a week), where is the stuff for the Mythic playtest?

Quick answer to help J.J.

Here is a quick link to yesterday's main blog entry, you'll find a link there to download the PDF

This link takes you to the store page where you can download the PDF for free! Its the same link from the Blog Entry, just listed here for ease.

Here are the mythic playtest forums, broken into four sub-forums, relating to different aspects of the playtest

My Regrets to James for jumping in, I just wanted you to get started ASAP.


Mr. Jacobs,
I made a post in the rules forum about the about the Samsaran Mystic Past Life ability which sparked quite a debate. I’m hoping I can get some clarification from you about what the truth is:

Mystic Past Life: You can add spells from another spellcasting class to the spell list of your current spellcasting class. You add a number of spells equal to 1 + your spellcasting class's key ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, and so on). The spells must be the same type (arcane or divine) as the spellcasting class you're adding them to. For example, you could add divine power to your druid class spell list, but not to your wizard class spell list because divine power is a divine spell. These spells do not have to be spells you can cast as a 1st-level character. The number of spells granted by this ability is set at 1st level. Changes to your ability score do not change the number of spells gained.

There are basically three questions…four actually:
1. Can a multi-classed Samsaran use this ability more than once? Is the ability tied to *character* level one, or *class* level one? If a Samsaran Wizard takes a level of Cleric, can they select their bonus spells at that time, since they are still level one as a Cleric. It would seem as written this is the case, although the # of spells they get would be defined by their base INT/WIS/CHR.

2. If the answer is it only applies at *character* level one, and not *class* level one, what about multi-class Samsarans? If I am building an Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, and I take the melee class first and the caster class later, does that mean I am just out of luck? This does not seem fair, since it would require Samsaran characters to take an inoptimal, squishy approach to their builds. Traits like Magical Knack only kick in after multi-classing, or things like the Fertile Soil Oread trait don’t have any connection to character level, and that seems to work just fine.

3. Does the ability only allow you to take spells from ONE other class? AKA if you are a Cleric, and you take a Paladin spell, you can *only* take Paladin spells. RAW this does not seem to be the case to me, I would say the only restriction is the Arcane/Divine limitation, and total # of bonus spells; which list it comes from seems superfluous.

4. And finally, does this allow you take early entry into spells by taking something like Haste as a 2nd level spell, since Summoners get it at that point. I do not believe so, since it does say ‘another spellcasting class list’ which would seem to me you can’t take something that is on your own list; but it comes up frequently, so I may as well ask.

I would say I don’t think it is going to be game-breaking either way, since even someone who built their character around taking a level of Wiz/Cleric/Bard to get bonus spells based on their INT/WIS/CHR would still only be looking at about a total of 6-12 extra spells with no extra spells slots, no improved action economy, and still be extremely MAD. Not to mention they couldn’t get to level 9 casting in all 3, or even 2 of those classes, so the overall balance would be maintained.

At any rate, I hope you can help clarify these questions. Thank you.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Why can't I make a potion of see invisibility? Or a potion of true strike, mirror image, divine favor, false life, or longstrider? Those all seem like exactly the type of spells one would expect to exist as potions, yet the rules won't let them be potions. Why?

Because those spells are balanced at their level assuming that only the caster can use them. If anyone can use them, they'd be much more powerful than their current level.

Cheliax

would you rule to add levels to the spells to make them potions? live truestrike at lv3?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Why can't I make a potion of see invisibility? Or a potion of true strike, mirror image, divine favor, false life, or longstrider? Those all seem like exactly the type of spells one would expect to exist as potions, yet the rules won't let them be potions. Why?
Because those spells are balanced at their level assuming that only the caster can use them. If anyone can use them, they'd be much more powerful than their current level.

Really? I mean, I can see things getting a little silly if I was talking about making the spells themselves "touch" instead of "personal", letting the wizard go around and mirror image the whole party without the recipients having to spend any actions or other resources. But for the extra monetary and action costs of a potion, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

But I guess I have been playing this game a much shorter time than you, so perhaps I'm just being nooby.


Jim Groves wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:
I must be getting blind (or the lack of sleep for half a week), where is the stuff for the Mythic playtest?

Quick answer to help J.J.

Here is a quick link to yesterday's main blog entry, you'll find a link there to download the PDF

This link takes you to the store page where you can download the PDF for free! Its the same link from the Blog Entry, just listed here for ease.

Here are the mythic playtest forums, broken into four sub-forums, relating to different aspects of the playtest

My Regrets to James for jumping in, I just wanted you to get started ASAP.

Thanks, didn't notice it since it is in the part of the Messageboard main page that I don't pay attention to these days.


Is Brigh associated with the Machine Armory?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Really? I mean, I can see things getting a little silly if I was talking about making the spells themselves "touch" instead of "personal", letting the wizard go around and mirror image the whole party without the recipients having to spend any actions or other resources. But for the extra monetary and action costs of a potion, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

(Side discussion; I don't mean to derail, but I doubt it'll snowball into a large conversation)

I feel the same way, so I've house ruled that "personal" potions are in. See invisibility, in fact, is mainly why I've done so, since there are situations where there's an invisible opponent, and the fighter can't contribute at all, unless the casters decide it's worth their time to enable the fighter to hop in, or the fighter invests in Use Magic Device. On the other hand, a potion of shield is a bit powerful, but it only lasts so long, and if balance is a concern, just give some to the enemies.

The self-only restriction also has some notable exceptions. For example, a druid can give some potent self-only spells to her animal companion. Alchemists get to skirt the self-only restriction with the Infusion discovery as well. So I think with all these exceptions, the non-magic users end up the worst for it. Of course, this is just my opinion. The power level of characters increases with the allowance, but it also becomes a bit more level, I think. And as long as the bad guys benefit as much from a change as the heroes, it's okay in my book. IMHO, of course.

In any case, if you're allowing the creation of custom magic items, as I think many groups do, a potion from a personal spell then becomes a wondrous item in that scheme, so you end up with personal potions anyway. And not to mention that Craft Wondrous Item is way too good as it is (obviously more so, if custom items are enabled, so that is more of a "problem", but it sounds common to me, so it's worth mentioning).

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Really? I mean, I can see things getting a little silly if I was talking about making the spells themselves "touch" instead of "personal", letting the wizard go around and mirror image the whole party without the recipients having to spend any actions or other resources. But for the extra monetary and action costs of a potion, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

"The extra monetary and action costs of a potion" is just another way of saying "taking a class-specific ability of one character and giving it to any character who wants it." Also known as the ring of evasion.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

"The extra monetary and action costs of a potion" is just another way of saying "taking a class-specific ability of one character and giving it to any character who wants it." Also known as the ring of evasion.

Derail:
This makes sense, and in fact makes me wonder whether potions in their current form should exist at all. But that's a whole different ball of wax. My real question is why your point is more relevant to some spells than others. Why the divide?

If "potionizing" a personal spell is "taking a class-specific ability of one character and giving it to any character who wants it", then why isn't the same true of a touch spell?

As far as class infringement goes, what's the difference between:
• A potion of darkvision and a potion of see invisibility?
• A potion of shield of faith and a potion of shield?
• A potion of cure light wounds and a potion of false life?
• A potion of bless and a potion of divine favor?

Why are they different?
If I want to magically augment my vision to see hidden foes, then their means of concealment determines whether or not I'm stealing class features?
If I want to buff my AC, then the arguably better buff is fine but the other steps on casters' toes?
If I want to put some distance between me and death, then swiping the effects of a cleric's iconic spells is fine while the arcane version is a no-go?
If I want to call upon divine guidance to make me more capable in combat, I can bottle the morale bonus but not the luck bonus?

I could understand if you didn't want to bottle ANY spell effects, but being able to bottle some effects but not others, even if they have near-identical effects or even come from the same spell lists, just makes no sense to me.


James Jacobs wrote:
bishop083 wrote:
Have you contemplated an alias named Senor Jacobs? Would it look just like James Jacobs, except the T-Rex would have a mustache, and possibly a sombrero? Should such a thing be allowed to exist?
That's silly. They don't make sombreros that big.

In South Carolina , there’s a Sombrero tower that’s 200’ high.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Really? I mean, I can see things getting a little silly if I was talking about making the spells themselves "touch" instead of "personal", letting the wizard go around and mirror image the whole party without the recipients having to spend any actions or other resources. But for the extra monetary and action costs of a potion, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

"The extra monetary and action costs of a potion" is just another way of saying "taking a class-specific ability of one character and giving it to any character who wants it." Also known as the ring of evasion.

This is pushing it a bit, make me wonder how long a non-caster last in the games your are GM'ing.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Jiggy, in general, personal only spells are more powerful than spells of an equal level due to the assumptions that the designer can make about the spells that they can't make otherwise. In this way, personal spells can be seen as closer to class features than other spells due to the fact that the other spells cannot have the same assumptions made. If they could be made as a potion, a very easy to get feat, a lot of this assumption is lost. That's my take at least.

As a side note, I love that alchemists can give away their personal range extracts with infusion. It's a very special ability due to the normal restriction :)


James Jacobs wrote:
bishop083 wrote:
Have you contemplated an alias named Senor Jacobs? Would it look just like James Jacobs, except the T-Rex would have a mustache, and possibly a sombrero? Should such a thing be allowed to exist?
That's silly. They don't make sombreros that big.

I see your silly and raise you a wizard, good sir.

I mean, if a wizard can take an owl and a bear and find a way to create a new species that is capable of procreation, then I cannot see why they wouldn't be able to take a sombrero and make it big enough for a T-Rex to wear. Especially if the T-Rex in question gives the wizard the options of making said sombrero or being invited to dinner.

As the main course.


James Jacobs wrote:
Run, Just Run wrote:
If a paladin were to become a graveknight through wish so as not to kill inocents and had atonement cast upon him by RAW would he regain all his abilities as a paladin back or would he not because he is undead? Would he have to kill himself because he was undead? Thanks in advance.
As long as he's a graveknight, he's evil and can't be a paladin.

So atonement wouldn't make him LG, although it says 'Restore Class: A paladin, or other class, who has lost her class features due to violating the alignment restrictions, (i.e. "going evil") of her class may have her class features restored by this spell.' Just want to make 100% sure, I've heard of a vampire Paladin from the 5th book who regains his powers after someone casts atonement on him. Thanks in advance.


Interestingly enough, a Cracked Vibrant Purple Prism Ioun Stone (2000gp, Spell Storing 1 spell level) can be used to bypass the whole potion issue. Hand Ioun Stone to wizard, wizard casts Shield into Ioun Stone and hands it back to the 2handed fighter. 2handed fighter can now cast Shield.

- Gauss


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For those curious, the item Gauss refers to is from the Pathfinder Chronicles: Seeker of Secrets book.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Run, Just Run wrote:
If a paladin were to become a graveknight through wish so as not to kill inocents and had atonement cast upon him by RAW would he regain all his abilities as a paladin back or would he not because he is undead? Would he have to kill himself because he was undead? Thanks in advance.
As long as he's a graveknight, he's evil and can't be a paladin.
Helm of Opposite Alignment + Atonement (Redemption or Temptation) as cast by a LG caster = LG Paladin Graveknight.

And that's one of the fun things about the game. There's always a way for rules and creativity to come up with an exception.


Run, Just Run wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Run, Just Run wrote:
If a paladin were to become a graveknight through wish so as not to kill inocents and had atonement cast upon him by RAW would he regain all his abilities as a paladin back or would he not because he is undead? Would he have to kill himself because he was undead? Thanks in advance.
As long as he's a graveknight, he's evil and can't be a paladin.
So atonement wouldn't make him LG, although it says 'Restore Class: A paladin, or other class, who has lost her class features due to violating the alignment restrictions, (i.e. "going evil") of her class may have her class features restored by this spell.' Just want to make 100% sure, I've heard of a vampire Paladin from the 5th book who regains his powers after someone casts atonement on him. Thanks in advance.
Atonement wrote:
Redemption or Temptation: You may cast this spell upon a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match yours. The prospective subject must be present for the entire casting process. Upon completion of the spell, the subject freely chooses whether it retains its original alignment or acquiesces to your offer and changes to your alignment. No duress, compulsion, or magical influence can force the subject to take advantage of the opportunity offered if it is unwilling to abandon its old alignment. This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.

The idea is that the Helm of Opposite Alignment switches the alignment to the opposite. If the Graveknight is CE it becomes LG, problem solved. If its NE, it becomes either LG or CG, if it's LE, it becomes CG. Since the Helm will make any Evil creature be LG or CG, then the only one we have to worry about is CG.

So now a LG Cleric uses Atonement to 'Tempt' you into becoming LG yourself. If you choose to do so. BAM, LG Paladin Graveknight.


James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Run, Just Run wrote:
If a paladin were to become a graveknight through wish so as not to kill inocents and had atonement cast upon him by RAW would he regain all his abilities as a paladin back or would he not because he is undead? Would he have to kill himself because he was undead? Thanks in advance.
As long as he's a graveknight, he's evil and can't be a paladin.
Helm of Opposite Alignment + Atonement (Redemption or Temptation) as cast by a LG caster = LG Paladin Graveknight.
And that's one of the fun things about the game. There's always a way for rules and creativity to come up with an exception.

Does the now LG Paladin have to Smite himself for being undead though? 0.o

Paizo Employee Creative Director

nohar wrote:

first a two-part question...in the advanced race guide the samsarans have a racial oracle archetype called the Reincarnated Oracle...one of its revelations, Location Memories, allows the samsaran to "search their past lives for memories of or insight about your current location"...among other things this grants the character low light vision...

crunch-wise, the samsaran already has low light vision as a racial trait, so should this be changed to darkvision or is it intended for races other than samsarans?

flavour-wise, since samsarans on golarion are from Tian Xia would this ability even work in the inner sea region?

unrelatedly...an earlier post got me thinking about the azlanti and their +2 bonus to all stats...did this bonus also to ancient thassilonians such as the runelords?...if so, when did humanity lose this racial trait?...during earthfall?...after?

The fact that it grants low-light vision is an error, alas. It should increase their low-light vision to double the effect, probably. Like how dragon senses work.

The ability works regardless of where the samsaran is... unless the GM says otherwise.

The Runelords were Azlants, and thus had the +2 to every stat. Humanity lost that trait when the Azlants vanished. The idea there being that while the Azlants had better stat mods... that wasn't enough for them to keep alive and not go extinct, and now humanity has evolved into something more tolerant and versatile.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

AlgaeNymph wrote:

Be glad you don't have grad school like I do, James, that should help you feel better.

Now, questions.

Suppose I'm using multiple wishes to debuff Treerazer. Can I use a wish to…

1. Reduce his spell resistance? Remove it?

2. Make his summoned demons disappear? Prevent him from summoning them?

3. Reduce his bonus to reflex (or one other) saves? Or to all saves? Remove being able to make reflex (or one other) saves? Or (again) to all saves? Reduce his dexterity to 1? To 0?

4. Remove his fire resistance? Remove his energy resistances? Remove his poison (or other)immunity? Remove all his immunities?

You could probably do all of those things, perhaps multiple things with one wish depending on how it was worded. Wish is entirely in the hands of the GM as to what it can do in a case like this.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Why can't I make a potion of see invisibility? Or a potion of true strike, mirror image, divine favor, false life, or longstrider? Those all seem like exactly the type of spells one would expect to exist as potions, yet the rules won't let them be potions. Why?

EDIT: And what really gets me is that I can make a potion of magic missile and the drinker will take 1d4+1 force damage. But I can't make a potion of see invisibility. How does that make sense? If someone told me that between magic missile and see invisibility, only one of them could be made into a potion, I'd have guessed it would be see invisibility because that actually makes sense. But by the rules, it's the other way around: potions of magic missile (or nearly any other attack spell) are totally legal while potions of see invisibility (or dozens of other beneficial spells that would make sense as potions) are a no-go. Why?

First off... if you want to make an "illegal potion," you can still do so. It's just a wondrous item; call it an elixir or something like that.

As for why you can't... it's due to the nature of how potion creation rules were created. Rather than spend a HUGE amount of text listing all the possible potions (a task we would have to update whenever we made up new spells), potions instead have a relatively limited type of spell that can work for them. They're intentionally limited in that manner. That's why you can make them at 1st level, for one thing.

If it vexes you, and you're the GM, you can change it in your game easy. If it vexes you, and your the player, talk to your GM about changing it.

But it's the way it is in Pathfinder now because it's meant to be relatively simple and limited; the time to change how that works would be in Pathfinder 2nd edition, and that's not gonna be happening anytime soon.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:
Will we see Mythic this week?
Unless there's some sort of unforeseen disaster or event, the plan is that this week, the Mythic Adventures Playtest goes live.

I remember way back in the heady days of the release of Core Rules, when someone was asking you why some old classic PrC's the Archmage and the Hierophant among others hadn't been revamped the way some other DMG prc's were.

Were you guys simply being so awesomely Xanatosian that you had Mythic secretly planned out that far back?

As a matter of fact, yes. At least, I think so...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Belle Mythix wrote:

Paladins do better vs Undeads and Evil Outsider than most of the other Full BaB classes with similar level/gears, so of course they are a good choice for the WorldWound AP.

That's absolutely right. You're catching on!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Stratagemini wrote:

1. What do you think of for the Mythic Merisiel sketches in the Mythic Playtest?

2. Do you like Mythic Lem's new coat?

3. Are you recovered from your disease yet? If not, good luck making your fort saves!

4. What are the major trade routes to and from Varisia? I know of the Path of Aganhei, but are there any others? and do they have Names?

1) It's okay... but I've put in a request for the final to have her chest reduced in size. Part of becoming mythic for Merisiel should not involve a boob job. Also, I'm glad they took my initial request to up the dagger count. Her initial sketch had her wielding fewer daggers than she does at 1st level. That was silly.

2) Is okay.

3) For the most part. Not entirely.

4) There's some mentioned in the Inner Sea World Guide, and some more mentioned in Varisia: Birthplace of Legend, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ulgulanoth wrote:
would you rule to add levels to the spells to make them potions? live truestrike at lv3?

No.

I would make them elixirs and have them be wondrous items.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ecw1701 wrote:

Mr. Jacobs,

I made a post in the rules forum about the about the Samsaran Mystic Past Life ability which sparked quite a debate. I’m hoping I can get some clarification from you about what the truth is:

Mystic Past Life: You can add spells from another spellcasting class to the spell list of your current spellcasting class. You add a number of spells equal to 1 + your spellcasting class's key ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, and so on). The spells must be the same type (arcane or divine) as the spellcasting class you're adding them to. For example, you could add divine power to your druid class spell list, but not to your wizard class spell list because divine power is a divine spell. These spells do not have to be spells you can cast as a 1st-level character. The number of spells granted by this ability is set at 1st level. Changes to your ability score do not change the number of spells gained.

There are basically three questions…four actually:
1. Can a multi-classed Samsaran use this ability more than once? Is the ability tied to *character* level one, or *class* level one? If a Samsaran Wizard takes a level of Cleric, can they select their bonus spells at that time, since they are still level one as a Cleric. It would seem as written this is the case, although the # of spells they get would be defined by their base INT/WIS/CHR.

2. If the answer is it only applies at *character* level one, and not *class* level one, what about multi-class Samsarans? If I am building an Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, and I take the melee class first and the caster class later, does that mean I am just out of luck? This does not seem fair, since it would require Samsaran characters to take an inoptimal, squishy approach to their builds. Traits like Magical Knack only kick in after multi-classing, or things like the Fertile Soil Oread trait don’t have any connection to character level, and that seems to work just fine.

3. Does the ability only allow you to take spells from ONE other class? AKA if you are a Cleric, and you take a Paladin spell, you can *only* take Paladin spells. RAW this does not seem to be the case to me, I would say the only restriction is the Arcane/Divine limitation, and total # of bonus spells; which list it comes from seems superfluous.

4. And finally, does this allow you take early entry into spells by taking something like Haste as a 2nd level spell, since Summoners get it at that point. I do not believe so, since it does say ‘another spellcasting class list’ which would seem to me you can’t take something that is on your own list; but it comes up frequently, so I may as well ask.

I would say I don’t think it is going to be game-breaking either way, since even someone who built their character around taking a level of Wiz/Cleric/Bard to get bonus spells based on their INT/WIS/CHR would still only be looking at about a total of 6-12 extra spells with no extra spells slots, no improved action economy, and still be extremely MAD. Not to mention they couldn’t get to level 9 casting in all 3, or even 2 of those classes, so the overall balance would be maintained.

At any rate, I hope you can help clarify these questions. Thank you.

1) Nope. It's tied to character level 1. The flavor is that you've had this ability in your past lives, and if you don't have it at 1st level, you just don't have it.

2) If you're planning on multiclassing and want to use this ability, make sure you take your spellcasting class at 1st level unless you have a generous GM.

3) Just one other class. Again... unless you have a generous GM.

4) It would indeed let you do that, but the spell still functions as a lower level spell, which can have some bad side effects. (As another side note... summoner spell lists are kinda messed up and I've been kinda silently hoping they'd get errataed for a long time now, but that ship's mostly sailed, it seems...)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Troodos wrote:
Is Brigh associated with the Machine Armory?

Nope.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

DrDeth wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
bishop083 wrote:
Have you contemplated an alias named Senor Jacobs? Would it look just like James Jacobs, except the T-Rex would have a mustache, and possibly a sombrero? Should such a thing be allowed to exist?
That's silly. They don't make sombreros that big.
In South Carolina , there’s a Sombrero tower that’s 200’ high.

I bet it falls apart if you try to pick it up and put it on my head, though.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

AND: Let's move the potion discussion to another thread, since it seems to have taken on a life of its own.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Do the Gearmen visually resemble Brigh? Or her most common form.


Is there any reason why I can't put special bolts into a repeating crossbow case and fire them? Is it sealed in some way a gruff fighter type can never hope to open and close?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What is the most annoying rules question you have been asked?


James Jacobs wrote:
ecw1701 wrote:

Mr. Jacobs,

I made a post in the rules forum about the about the Samsaran Mystic Past Life ability which sparked quite a debate. I’m hoping I can get some clarification from you about what the truth is:

Mystic Past Life: You can add spells from another spellcasting class to the spell list of your current spellcasting class. You add a number of spells equal to 1 + your spellcasting class's key ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, and so on). The spells must be the same type (arcane or divine) as the spellcasting class you're adding them to. For example, you could add divine power to your druid class spell list, but not to your wizard class spell list because divine power is a divine spell. These spells do not have to be spells you can cast as a 1st-level character. The number of spells granted by this ability is set at 1st level. Changes to your ability score do not change the number of spells gained.

There are basically three questions…four actually:
1. Can a multi-classed Samsaran use this ability more than once? Is the ability tied to *character* level one, or *class* level one? If a Samsaran Wizard takes a level of Cleric, can they select their bonus spells at that time, since they are still level one as a Cleric. It would seem as written this is the case, although the # of spells they get would be defined by their base INT/WIS/CHR.

2. If the answer is it only applies at *character* level one, and not *class* level one, what about multi-class Samsarans? If I am building an Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, and I take the melee class first and the caster class later, does that mean I am just out of luck? This does not seem fair, since it would require Samsaran characters to take an inoptimal, squishy approach to their builds. Traits like Magical Knack only kick in after multi-classing, or things like the Fertile Soil Oread trait don’t have any connection to character

...

Not the answers I'd hoped for, but they answers I foresaw coming.

Thank you for clarifying!

25,001 to 25,050 of 44,777 << first < prev | 496 | 497 | 498 | 499 | 500 | 501 | 502 | 503 | 504 | 505 | 506 | 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.