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

25,101 to 25,150 of 50,713 << first < prev | 498 | 499 | 500 | 501 | 502 | 503 | 504 | 505 | 506 | 507 | 508 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


I think the summoner's got rules problems and story problems. I'd rebuild it from the ground up if I had the chance—I'd make his spells map to the normal spell levels and completely remove the eidolon from the scene entirely, replacing it with an "outsider companion" that has rules more akin to how druids work; you'd pick a specific type of outsider like an archon or a demon or a devil or a protean or whatever and it would have a MUCH more narrow set of options. You wouldn't really build it from scratch; you'd build it in the same way a druid builds, say, a tiger companion.

That sounds like a great idea. The main problem with the summoner is the “build your own”, not only can that be very powerful, it’s very easy to accidentally make a mistake and have a super-pet.

That being said, I’d also make it easier for the summoner to heal his eidolon.

Honestly, I would say that's the second biggest problem. The biggest problem, for me, is that it takes vital world-creation elements away from the GM and lets anyone build monsters, which is, in my experience, kind of dilutes the world's flavor. Might be GM-elitism talking, but I've seen a LOT more goofy off-canon silly eidolons than ones that actually tried to fit into the world without being disruptive.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Haladir wrote:
Just a comment: I like the sketch of Mythic Kyra in the playtest document. Is this the first piece of Kyra artwork depicting her with her hair down?

Nope.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:
Cpt. Caboodle wrote:
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.
Well, the alchemist is watering down that restriction. He can give out see invisible, true strike and false life as infusions.

About infusions:

PRD wrote:


Infusion: When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist's daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.

Unless I am mistaken this mean that the infusion would last beyond the 24 hours duration of a regular extract.

James, as I am not completely sure of my interpretation I would like a clarification from you.

A infusion last only 24 hours, like a extract, or it last forever, tying down a alchemist extract slot until it is used?

The infusion lasts until it is used. That means if you give it to someone and they stash it away in a vault and never use it... you're kinda out that infusion slot and can't access it. Don't give infusions to your enemies!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kevin Mack wrote:
I was wondering if you would have any suggestion on what a female redcap looks like (Only description I can find is of a male one.)

A haggy, sharp-toothed, bug-eyed, scary gnome.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cerberus1441 wrote:

James,

Possibly going to be DMing a new homebrew campaign here in a few months. I just wanted to ask if you had any general advice and/or handy tips for someone who's only done this in limited quantities years ago.

Also, I've been wondering: what tricks and favored enemies did Merisiel and Harsk take? I'd ask about Seoni's bloodline, but since I think UM stated she has a tatoo familiar I think that means she's arcane.

Many thanks!

I would suggest starting small. Don't try to do too much at once. Focus on a small starting village with a few local dungeons. Or really... using published adventures for the bulk of the campaign, that way you can focus on the connecting bits. That's how I've done the majority of my campaigns, in fact.

As for Merisiel's stats and Harsk's stats... and everyone else's... they're in the appendix of the NPC Codex.

Harsk hates giants, though, I know that!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Filby Pott wrote:
Around what Challenge Rating range should one of the Whore Queens or Malebranche fall into?

Whore Queens CR 26–30, while the Malebranche are probably 21–25.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Belle Mythix wrote:

Then I suggest you stay away from rule-34 sites in particular and "Fan"-art sites in general.

@ JJ: do Elvan females tend to be "less endowed" than Human Females?

Rule-34 sites and Fan art doesn't count for that, since the goal of that art is entirely different.

Elven women, in theory, are less curvy than human women, yes. But artists tend to, well... blur those lines.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Quandary wrote:

Would Paizo issue Errata to just make the current RAW more clear?

As is, different sections of the rules contain contradictory info, or at least it's massively confusing and causing some sections to become basically superfluous (e.g. the multiple sections that say 'concealment' allows for stealth (i.e. including blur), while another section says that only dim lighting allows for stealth basically making the other concealment references superfluous (since dim lighting itself is concealment, thus it's not really useful to be told that any type of concealment can work, except that only works when dim lighting concealment is in place). MANY people just see the rules as straight-up contradictory, and will rule one way or the other basically by GM fiat.

Why can't all relevant restrictions be stated in the Stealth skill itself? (hopefully not contradicting itself) I'm not expecting (at this point) to see ALL the changes of the Stealth Blogs, specifying the 'duration' of Stealth effect, etc, but just cleaning up what the rules currently say would improve the rules alot. Of course, it also seems pretty simple for Stealth to actually say what it does on a succesful check, e.g. make you unobserved. This type of thing would seem in line with what Paizo do put out as Errata, not the deeper change as seen in the Blog Posts.

Or just having a FAQ/Blog Post describing how the current Stealth RAW is meant to work, covering these controversial areas, would be a help.

In my opinion, no... I think the rules are fine.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

blue_the_wolf wrote:

What exactly is the pathfinder definition of "interaction" when it comes to illusion magic.

most illusion magic offers a will save once a person "interacts" with the spell.

suppose some one casts a major image and controls it from hiding.
the image is standing 30 to 60 feet from the target.

I assume that physical contact of any kind falls under interaction...

but what about tossing a rock at it (which the controller directs the image to sidestep)

what about a conversation (the caster has a conversation with the target via the major image)

what about if there is no conversation the caster simply directs the image to be a man running down the road saying "run for your life the dragon is coming"

If there is no current definition would paizo consider defining it?

Interacting with an illusion means you're doing something to it, or acting in response to it. Physical contact pretty much always accounts for interaction. In some cases, seeing or hearing counts. It's really something best left to the GM to decide, frankly. That's their job. We can't do their entire job for them.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

AlgaeNymph wrote:

I'd like to stat up Sorshen for the playtest, either for GMs to pit against PCs or to pit against monsters. However, I understand that you're going to be the one to stat her up officially.

If you do give me permission to stat her up, will that legally prevent you from stating her up similarly if my idea comes close to yours? (I hope not!)

I don't need to give you permission to stat her up, and if you stat her up, that doesn't prevent me from statting her up at all even if I decide to do the exact same things. Sorshen is Paizo's intellectual property, so the only thing that could probably happen is that if you statted her up and then tried to sell those stats to make money off them, we could come after you with our army of lawyers. :P

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Run, Just Run wrote:
can constant supernatural abilities such as a graveknights auras be repressed at will?

Usually, yes.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
SquishyPoetFromBeyondTheStars wrote:

What sort of classes do you have in your Unspeakable Futures games?

Do you use prestige classes and archetypes in Unspeakable Futures?

Base Classes =

Arcanist
Esper
Mystic
Sniper
Wastrel
Scavenger
Gunslinger
Mercenary
Survivalist

I do use prestige classes, but they're not yet updated to the most recent version of the rules:
Black Talon Operative
Guardian of the Ancient Ways
Incarnate
Overmind
Road Warrior

No archetypes yet.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Stratagemini wrote:

So, I just pitted some PCs against their first mythic encounter, and it occurs to me, there really aren't all that many High CR/MR Mythic foes for me to Playtest Higher Level/tier PCs against.

Can you give us some High CR Mythic foes to pit Hapless PCs against? The Simple Templates and Mythic Subtype are only so useful and while Agile Simple Template terrasques are absolutely Hilarious to Pit the PCs against, the fact that the terrasque can't actually die makes Playtesting it Problematic.

To add to that, there's only one monster over CR 25 I know of in Pathfinder, and The Red mantis God is from 3.5.

So, yeah, some CR 25+ foes would be super useful in my attempts to playtest Level 20/Tier 10 PCs.

I've been on vacation all week, and next week's a short week for me, but I'd like to post a few really high CR foes for folks to try to fight with high-level characters.

In the meantime, and if I don't get a chance, any of the demons from the demonomicon should be able to stand in for a fight if you want. Or simply give a balor 10 or 15 fighter levels.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
...There is friction between the Thrunes and the chruch of Asmodeus... but the misogyny in the church is only one of the reasons.

What are the other reasons (at least the ones, if any, you're willing to discuss at this point)?


James Jacobs wrote:
blue_the_wolf wrote:

What exactly is the pathfinder definition of "interaction" when it comes to illusion magic.

most illusion magic offers a will save once a person "interacts" with the spell....

Interacting with an illusion means you're doing something to it, or acting in response to it. Physical contact pretty much always accounts for interaction. In some cases, seeing or hearing counts. It's really something best left to the GM to decide, frankly. That's their job. We can't do their entire job for them.

Fair point.

the problem with illusions (especially audio illusions) is that they are almost impossible to use without alerting the player.

Suppose the players are looking for an NPC. the NPC hides in the bushes to the right and casts ghost sound or ventriloquism to create sounds to the left.

the players get there and roll a perception check high enough to hear the illusory sounds but too low to notice the hidden caster, you say "to the right you hear the sound of someone quickly moving away... roll a will save"

1st if any ONE player makes the save they basically all did.

2nd just the fact that they had to make a save upon hearing a sound will cause many players to meta-game even if unintentionally.

now as GM you could not give them the will save for the sake of story... but some people would be offended that they didnt get the save the rules say they should get.

What I find most interesting is that similar use of a visual effect like the silent image of a shadow moving down a hallway or a wall blocking a passage, would not prompt an automatic will save. in the case of visual images more 'interaction' is required beyond simply noticing it.

is it intended that illusions have such limited utility or or that different kinds of illusions have essentially different rules?


Blue the wolf:

What I do is I ask my players to roll a D20 for me and then hand me their sheets. The D20 is rolled behind a screen so they cannot see the roll. When I move the screen away I knock the die so that it rolls (now they cannot tell what the roll was). I check the sheet, compare whatever stat I want to the roll and then tell them something, or nothing. They rarely ever have an idea why they rolled.

I could do the rolling for myself, I used to, but my players eventually protested because my dice seem to roll quite badly for them. We arrived at this compromise.

I do not do it very often so it isnt a major hindrance to the flow of the game.

- Gauss


James Jacobs wrote:
Haladir wrote:
Just a comment: I like the sketch of Mythic Kyra in the playtest document. Is this the first piece of Kyra artwork depicting her with her hair down?
Nope.

Are you referring to this bathhouse picture, or is there another one?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Did you have a good vacation?

Did you do anything really fun you wouldn't mind sharing with us?

Game related question: When you give an AP outline to one of your authors, how detailed is it? What I'm asking is how much meat the author gets to add to the bones.

Thanks for all you do. This is my favorite thread on the boards.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So now the contents of the inner sea bestiary have been revealed:

1: What is your favorite monster in the book (that you didn't work on)

2: What is your favorite monster that you did submit?

3: I see that we have a 3 new psychopomps. These guys are one of my favorite outsider groups, but so far I have only seen them in campaign setting related material. What are the odds they might make it into a hardcover "non-setting" bestiary.

Given that Lamashtu is a super demon, Rovugug is a super Qlippoth, etc, is Pharasma a super Psychopomp?


You have said that the thassilonian specialization cannot use focused schools, but i might just make an exception for my stating of Sorshen for my continuation of CotCT campaign. I find the idea of the Force of Will ability still getting the PC's with high will saves puts a pleasing evil GM smile on my face, such as our wizard making his will save but having a precious wish spell used for her benefit via a dominate effect.

Do you think it is too much to change it in such a way? I find that given the centuries since Sorshen and the original seven runelords assassinated Emperor Xin they have had ample time to delve deeply into and modify the original teaching Xin laid out when he first laid the groundwork for thassilons magic. Since she would not able to change to a focused school after she chose it after coming under Xin's tutelage, i am personally thinking of an artifact of her own construction enabling her to somehow shift to the contoller school or other enchantment focused schools. Thoughts? Comment?


James Jacobs wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:

Then I suggest you stay away from rule-34 sites in particular and "Fan"-art sites in general.

@ JJ: do Elvan females tend to be "less endowed" than Human Females?

Rule-34 sites and Fan art doesn't count for that, since the goal of that art is entirely different.

Elven women, in theory, are less curvy than human women, yes. But artists tend to, well... blur those lines.

IMHO, if you are a fan of a character, you should like him/her/it as he/she/it is.

Dark Archive

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

So this was brought up in another thread but is there any possibility of full blown deities being given stats in the near or far future. Or Paizo making rules for stating full deities?

Thread in question is this one here

Stats for gods

Grand Lodge

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


I think the summoner's got rules problems and story problems. I'd rebuild it from the ground up if I had the chance—I'd make his spells map to the normal spell levels and completely remove the eidolon from the scene entirely, replacing it with an "outsider companion" that has rules more akin to how druids work; you'd pick a specific type of outsider like an archon or a demon or a devil or a protean or whatever and it would have a MUCH more narrow set of options. You wouldn't really build it from scratch; you'd build it in the same way a druid builds, say, a tiger companion.
James, that sounds like it would make a pretty good class variant (spellcasting issues aside) with just the alternate "eidolon" presentation. Potentially it could make a good alternate class, provided that enough flavor/fluff could be devised for it. Designing/including something like that in time for Wrath of the Righteous would be... well... righteous.
I'd rather it be a class replacement, not a variant. And I'm not interested in half-measures for this situation.

Would you say perhaps that that class replacement already exists in the form of the Conjuration specialist Wizard who can summon a permanent companion scaled to his level, as opposed to one constant companion that scales up?

Dark Archive

Hope you had a good vacation James.

James Jacobs wrote:
I've a rogue played by Mark Moreland in another game—and he UNLOADS the damage when he gets in position. True, if he plays the tactics game poorly, he gets squashed, but that's more his fault for bad tactics (rushing in first to combat, for example) than the rogue's fault.

Mark has grown as a developer but I see he still uses the same old combat tactics from years back. They failed him then too.

Wait, using old tricks even when they don't work? When did Mark become a Grognard?!

Welcome brother Moreland!

:)

I know your not a big Star Wars fan JJ, but who would be your top two picks to direct Episode VII?

Bonus Question: Over 25,000 posts here sir! Congratulations! Will you give us one secret of Golarion that you were hesitant to give back during post number 1.


I had a few questions about Low Light Vision, a couple of things about it are confusing, mostly due to how crucial details about it are split up into two sections (Light & Vision rules and the Glossary).

I 'take it' that the actual implementation of 'you can see twice as far in dim light' (Glossary) is SOLELY the altered radius's for light sources given in Light & Vision... Which would mean that in 'general conditions' of Dim Light (e.g. moonlit night or a bunch of only-Dim-Light-creating candles spread everywhere), there ISN'T any mechanic actually making you see 'twice as far'?

I had thought that halving distance penalties to Perception is a reasonable interpretation of 'seeing twice as far', but such a specific mechanic doesn't really seem sufficiently justified by RAW, especially since very similar language is being used in the Light & Vision rules specifically to describe the light source radius doubling...???

My other question was re: the Glossary mention of 'seeing as well in moonlight as during the day'... Mechanically, is that just referring to not applying Unfavorable Conditions modifiers to Perception (making you see about 10' further), as well as not suffering Concealment Miss Chance? And is Moonlight uniquely supposed to have that quality, or is it meant to apply to any Dim Lighting conditions across the board? (I assume that folks with LL Vision are meant to suffer the full 'normal' penalties for Perception/Miss Chance in the enlarged Dim Light radius/area, and not 'double dip' with their 'see as well as daylight' benefit, regardless of whether that applies to just Moonlight or all Dim Light)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Ravenmantle wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
...There is friction between the Thrunes and the chruch of Asmodeus... but the misogyny in the church is only one of the reasons.
What are the other reasons (at least the ones, if any, you're willing to discuss at this point)?

There's several, but the main ones have to do with the power struggle. Both groups think of themselves as the ones REALLY in charge of Cheliax, when in fact neither and both are right. There's also a lot of various personal rivalries between various members of the two groups.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

blue_the_wolf wrote:

Fair point.

the problem with illusions (especially audio illusions) is that they are almost impossible to use without alerting the player.

Suppose the players are looking for an NPC. the NPC hides in the bushes to the right and casts ghost sound or ventriloquism to create sounds to the left.

the players get there and roll a perception check high enough to hear the illusory sounds but too low to notice the hidden caster, you say "to the right you hear the sound of someone quickly moving away... roll a will save"

1st if any ONE player makes the save they basically all did.

2nd just the fact that they had to make a save upon hearing a sound will cause many players to meta-game even if unintentionally.

now as GM you could not give them the will save for the sake of story... but some people would be offended that they didnt get the save the rules say they should get.

What I find most interesting is that similar use of a visual effect like the silent image of a shadow moving down a hallway or a wall blocking a passage, would not prompt an automatic will save. in the case of visual images more 'interaction' is required beyond simply noticing it.

is it intended that illusions have such limited utility or or that different kinds of illusions have essentially different rules?

One way to look at illusions is to consider the spell level. Lower level illusions are just not as good as higher level ones, and so you can simulate that by, for example, automatically giving PCs a saving throw to disbelieve/resist a zero level illusion like ghost sound, but if you present them with a higher level thing like vision, they'll have to specifically interact with it or declare that they're disbelieving the suspected illusion.

If one person in a group saves against an illusion and that character communicates that fact to the other players... the other players get a +4 bonus on further saves to resist the illusion. In some cases, they can certainly just take the PC's word for it and ignore the illusion. If your players aren't mature enough to leave player knowledge away from character knowledge, feel free to roll illusion saving throws in secret, so that the PCs won't really know who made it and who didn't, at which point they'd have to make educated guesses—"Well, Bob the paladin is the only one who doesn't believe the wall of fire is real, but he's got a really high Will save, so we'll take his word for it."

Illusions have ALWAYS been kind of hard to adjudicate in the game, because certain players are always trying to treat the ability to cast an illusion as carte blanche to "fake" any spell in the book, and as a GM it can be tricky using them against players who can see their saving throw results... rolling those saves behind the GM screen is a good way to solve that latter one.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ShadowFighter88 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Haladir wrote:
Just a comment: I like the sketch of Mythic Kyra in the playtest document. Is this the first piece of Kyra artwork depicting her with her hair down?
Nope.
Are you referring to this bathhouse picture, or is there another one?

That's the one.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

MeanDM wrote:

Did you have a good vacation?

Did you do anything really fun you wouldn't mind sharing with us?

Game related question: When you give an AP outline to one of your authors, how detailed is it? What I'm asking is how much meat the author gets to add to the bones.

Thanks for all you do. This is my favorite thread on the boards.

Actually, the vacation was kinda disappointing. I did get a fair amount of Assassins' Creed III playing in, and watched a LOT of TV shows and the like... but that's mostly because I ended up spending Sunday to pretty much yesterday sick, unfortunately. :(

Didn't get much writing done or other stuff done as a result, but it was certainly relaxing... as relaxing as it can get while you're dealing with a sore throat and a cough and snot and aches and the like.

When we give an AP outline to an author, they get the whole thing. A typical AP outline is about 15,000 words or so (for comparasion, a module is about 18,000 words, generally). It's a big outline. The specific outlines for each adventure are generally about 1,000 words or so, with some (usually the earlier ones) being longer than others. The authors then have to take that initial outline and give me back a more detailed one that includes foes and traps and stuff like that for approval before they get writing.

In the end, between my outline and the development/rewriting, usually what ends up in print is about 75% author, 25& me (or Rob, in the case of adventures he develops). Sometimes, in the case of authors we use lots, that can go a bit higher, to like an 85%/15% split or more, but it can just as often dip or even reverse to 25% author, 75% me. Rarely, it drops as low as 5% author/95% me... or even worse... but those cases are thankfully not too common now that we're not using nearly as many untested authors on the Adventure Paths...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

MMCJawa wrote:

So now the contents of the inner sea bestiary have been revealed:

1: What is your favorite monster in the book (that you didn't work on)

2: What is your favorite monster that you did submit?

3: I see that we have a 3 new psychopomps. These guys are one of my favorite outsider groups, but so far I have only seen them in campaign setting related material. What are the odds they might make it into a hardcover "non-setting" bestiary.

Given that Lamashtu is a super demon, Rovugug is a super Qlippoth, etc, is Pharasma a super Psychopomp?

1) The robots, which I ended up doing a pretty significant amount of re-design and re-writing to, or maybe charnel colossus. Not sure...

2) Probably the fungus queen... maybe the android.

3) They'll get into a hardcover some day. Pharasma isn't a super psychopomp, even though she DID create the race.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Zarkin Frood wrote:

You have said that the thassilonian specialization cannot use focused schools, but i might just make an exception for my stating of Sorshen for my continuation of CotCT campaign. I find the idea of the Force of Will ability still getting the PC's with high will saves puts a pleasing evil GM smile on my face, such as our wizard making his will save but having a precious wish spell used for her benefit via a dominate effect.

Do you think it is too much to change it in such a way? I find that given the centuries since Sorshen and the original seven runelords assassinated Emperor Xin they have had ample time to delve deeply into and modify the original teaching Xin laid out when he first laid the groundwork for thassilons magic. Since she would not able to change to a focused school after she chose it after coming under Xin's tutelage, i am personally thinking of an artifact of her own construction enabling her to somehow shift to the contoller school or other enchantment focused schools. Thoughts? Comment?

What do you mean by "focused schools?"

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Mack wrote:

So this was brought up in another thread but is there any possibility of full blown deities being given stats in the near or far future. Or Paizo making rules for stating full deities?

Thread in question is this one here

Stats for gods

If Mythic Adventures goes over really well, and if folks love it enough to want another ramping up of the power level as an option, the next step up from Mythic Adventures being Deific Adventures makes a fair amount of sense.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

LazarX wrote:
Would you say perhaps that that class replacement already exists in the form of the Conjuration specialist Wizard who can summon a permanent companion scaled to his level, as opposed to one constant companion that scales up?

Nope.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
baron arem heshvaun wrote:

I know your not a big Star Wars fan JJ, but who would be your top two picks to direct Episode VII?

Bonus Question: Over 25,000 posts here sir! Congratulations! Will you give us one secret of Golarion that you were hesitant to give back during post number 1.

My top two picks to direct Episode VII would be directors who have talent, aren't looking to use the franchise to bolster their own fame (since said fame is already established), and are able to take the franchise in a new direction while remaining true to the established lore and feel of things. As an example of what I feel is the BEST way to handle Star Wars... look no further than the Bioware video games.

My favorite two nominations for director of Episode VII would be Joss Whedon or J J Abrams. Speilberg would be a great choice but he's already said no. Cameron would also be a good choice, and I'd REALLY love to see what a non-obvious director like Cronenberg or Scorsese could do for it. BUT! If I were picking ANYONE WHO EVER LIVED... I'd pick Kurosawa.

Bonus Answer: Nope!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Quandary wrote:

I had a few questions about Low Light Vision, a couple of things about it are confusing, mostly due to how crucial details about it are split up into two sections (Light & Vision rules and the Glossary).

I 'take it' that the actual implementation of 'you can see twice as far in dim light' (Glossary) is SOLELY the altered radius's for light sources given in Light & Vision... Which would mean that in 'general conditions' of Dim Light (e.g. moonlit night or a bunch of only-Dim-Light-creating candles spread everywhere), there ISN'T any mechanic actually making you see 'twice as far'?

I had thought that halving distance penalties to Perception is a reasonable interpretation of 'seeing twice as far', but such a specific mechanic doesn't really seem sufficiently justified by RAW, especially since very similar language is being used in the Light & Vision rules specifically to describe the light source radius doubling...???

My other question was re: the Glossary mention of 'seeing as well in moonlight as during the day'... Mechanically, is that just referring to not applying Unfavorable Conditions modifiers to Perception (making you see about 10' further), as well as not suffering Concealment Miss Chance? And is Moonlight uniquely supposed to have that quality, or is it meant to apply to any Dim Lighting conditions across the board? (I assume that folks with LL Vision are meant to suffer the full 'normal' penalties for Perception/Miss Chance in the enlarged Dim Light radius/area, and not 'double dip' with their 'see as well as daylight' benefit, regardless of whether that applies to just Moonlight or all Dim Light)

It's too bad that design didn't specifcically list vision distances in the rules, because that would have simplified low-light vision and other things quite well.

As it stands, the way low light vision works is that you can see twice as far as a human. So... whatever the GM lets a human see, you see twice as far. In the case of something like torchlight, that's easy: a torch provides illumination to 20 feet and then dim illumination to a further 20 feet; for someone with low-light vision, that doubles to 40 feet and then 40 more feet for dim illumination.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Hey JJ,

I was just curious if there is ever going to be a reprint of Elves of Golarion or Cheliax Empire of Devils?

Trying to get my hands on a copy under $100

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Suz wrote:

Hey JJ,

I was just curious if there is ever going to be a reprint of Elves of Golarion or Cheliax Empire of Devils?

Trying to get my hands on a copy under $100

We currently have no plans to reprint them. In fact, the logistics of reprinting a 32 page product more or less ensures that they'll probably never be reprinted in that format.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Would you say perhaps that that class replacement already exists in the form of the Conjuration specialist Wizard who can summon a permanent companion scaled to his level, as opposed to one constant companion that scales up?
Nope.

This tendency towards excess verbosity in your replies should be looked at. :)

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Awesome job to Paizo on the mythic playtest!

What's the proper way to format mythic tiers into NPC statblocks? Alongside class levels?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Would you say perhaps that that class replacement already exists in the form of the Conjuration specialist Wizard who can summon a permanent companion scaled to his level, as opposed to one constant companion that scales up?
Nope.
This tendency towards excess verbosity in your replies should be looked at. :)

I chuckled. I chuckled long and hard.


James Jacobs wrote:
If Mythic Adventures goes over really well, and if folks love it enough to want another ramping up of the power level as an option, the next step up from Mythic Adventures being Deific Adventures makes a fair amount of sense.

With that in mind, I really appreciate that y'all are putting out mythic rules first as a foundation and holding off on deific rules, instead of putting them both out at once like 3.0 did with epic and deities, leading to neither working particularly well together.

Which leads me to another question: to what degree did you look at 3E's epic rules, what it did right and what it did wrong, when designing mythic rules? Are there any particular conclusions you drew?

Sovereign Court

How do you adjudicate knowledge of debilitating spells or effects? I mean specifically with regards to the powers that remove them. I am talking about Break Enchantment, or Bard songs like Countersong and Distract. Does a player with these abilities know that they can use them to help their ally, or do they need to succeed on a Spellcraft or Knowledge(Arcana) to determine what is affecting their friend before they use it? I understand you can just try it and see if it works, but that's rather wasteful or can be meta-gamey.


James Jacobs wrote:
ShadowFighter88 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Haladir wrote:
Just a comment: I like the sketch of Mythic Kyra in the playtest document. Is this the first piece of Kyra artwork depicting her with her hair down?
Nope.
Are you referring to this bathhouse picture, or is there another one?
That's the one.

Is it just me, or does Mersie look upset in that picture. Judging by Valeros's face, I have to assume he said / or implied something stupid and Kyra is just being a good friend.

What do you think is going on in that picture, assuming you don't already know for certain?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Calder Rooney wrote:

Awesome job to Paizo on the mythic playtest!

What's the proper way to format mythic tiers into NPC statblocks? Alongside class levels?

Dunno yet. Probably won't know for several months.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Filby Pott wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
If Mythic Adventures goes over really well, and if folks love it enough to want another ramping up of the power level as an option, the next step up from Mythic Adventures being Deific Adventures makes a fair amount of sense.

With that in mind, I really appreciate that y'all are putting out mythic rules first as a foundation and holding off on deific rules, instead of putting them both out at once like 3.0 did with epic and deities, leading to neither working particularly well together.

Which leads me to another question: to what degree did you look at 3E's epic rules, what it did right and what it did wrong, when designing mythic rules? Are there any particular conclusions you drew?

That's mostly a question for the design team.

That said... since the epic level handbook is open content, I do hope that they consider some of the cooler ideas from that book for inclusion into Mythic Adventures where appropriate. Spells like mass frog and feats like Spell Stowaway are fun!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:

Is it just me, or does Mersie look upset in that picture. Judging by Valeros's face, I have to assume he said / or implied something stupid and Kyra is just being a good friend.

What do you think is going on in that picture, assuming you don't already know for certain?

Valeros jumped into the bath and disrupted some personal time with Merisiel and Kyra, and he's totally oblivious about it.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

RtrnofdMax wrote:
How do you adjudicate knowledge of debilitating spells or effects? I mean specifically with regards to the powers that remove them. I am talking about Break Enchantment, or Bard songs like Countersong and Distract. Does a player with these abilities know that they can use them to help their ally, or do they need to succeed on a Spellcraft or Knowledge(Arcana) to determine what is affecting their friend before they use it? I understand you can just try it and see if it works, but that's rather wasteful or can be meta-gamey.

A player with those abilities does indeed know that they can be used to help an ally suffering from them. A player's abilities and spells should not be mysteries to him.


James Jacobs wrote:
Zarkin Frood wrote:

You have said that the thassilonian specialization cannot use focused schools, but i might just make an exception for my stating of Sorshen for my continuation of CotCT campaign. I find the idea of the Force of Will ability still getting the PC's with high will saves puts a pleasing evil GM smile on my face, such as our wizard making his will save but having a precious wish spell used for her benefit via a dominate effect.

Do you think it is too much to change it in such a way? I find that given the centuries since Sorshen and the original seven runelords assassinated Emperor Xin they have had ample time to delve deeply into and modify the original teaching Xin laid out when he first laid the groundwork for thassilons magic. Since she would not able to change to a focused school after she chose it after coming under Xin's tutelage, i am personally thinking of an artifact of her own construction enabling her to somehow shift to the contoller school or other enchantment focused schools. Thoughts? Comment?

What do you mean by "focused schools?"

The Focused Arcane Schools from the APG, such as admixture, controller,counterspell schools.


Mr. James Jacobs,

In the final mythic book will there be any ability or way for a character or creature to change their creature type? For example from humanoid to outsider.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A question about "diminished spellcasting" and cantrips (not only for the magus but any archetype with that limitation):

PRD wrote:
Diminished Spellcasting: A soul forger casts one fewer spell of each level than normal. If this reduces the number to 0, he may cast spells of that level only if his Intelligence allows bonus spells of that level.

RAW I think it applies to cantrips too but I would like to ask my GM (I am the player in this instance) if he would remove the drawback from cantrips. You think that it would weaken the drawback in a significant way? Maybe I am a bit greedy as the magus get more cantrips than a wizard.

About cantrips, beside having all the spell levels having the same number of spells, there is any reason why clerics, druids and wizards should have less cantrips than bards and magi?

During Pathfinder development you have thought about giving extra cantrips to spellcasters, based on the appropriate characteristic?

As you can guess I like them, not for the power but for the ability do do minor magic tricks that make life easier. For me the idea that the wizard will be reading using a light spell instead of straining his eyes using a candle or use prestidigitation to do the house cores seem only right.

25,101 to 25,150 of 50,713 << first < prev | 498 | 499 | 500 | 501 | 502 | 503 | 504 | 505 | 506 | 507 | 508 | 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.