We have a fair number of necromancer type archetypes already, but do you have plans to add more archetypes that deal with inanimate objects given life? Like a clockwork mage, or a golemancer? Not even necessarily related to numeria, but something of a lower technological level.
Mr. James Jacobs,
From the Dragon Compendium vol. 1 which is your favorite class and prestige class?
Using a spell to get a higher level spell is, in a word, lame.
This is a good example of two similar rules elements that might work fine on their own but when combined together are greater than the sum of their parts.
I think that saying the spell turns half-elves into "the most powerful race for spontaneous spellcasters" is a bit of hyperbole, but it's certainly a strong choice. And a GREAT example of why any spell or effect that grants a player a temporary feat of their choice is just too good—because each time we invent a new feat, that spell becomes more powerful and versatile. We changed how polymorph spells work SPECIFICALLY to combat that same kind of problem (only with the spell getting more powerful each time a new monster is invented), so I think that the spell paragon surge basically needs to be erattaed. I'll be sending Jason an email suggesting this right after I post this message, in fact.
In the meantime, I would suggest either banning paragon surge form your game, or instead picking a small list of "bonus feats" that you can choose from when you cast the spell. THAT is going to be my suggestion to Jason... that the spell should be revised as follows:
** spoiler omitted **...
Thanks. I knew it couldn't be RAI, but it's very easy to miss all the implications of something new like this.
And, I really appreciate the work that you folks as Paizo put into keeping the game as munchkin/gamebreaking combo free as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have a fair number of necromancer type archetypes already, but do you have plans to add more archetypes that deal with inanimate objects given life? Like a clockwork mage, or a golemancer? Not even necessarily related to Numeria, but something of a lower technological level.
Not James Jacobs, but there is a canonical reference to mage-smiths that has never been developed. It goes all the way back to the days of the original Runelords AP. If I had to guess, it might have been referenced in the Guide to Varisia that appeared in Chapter Three. They were specifically golem-workers, I think. Based out of Janderhoff.
Basically they were mentioned along with hellknights. 99.9% of the community went "Ooooh, hellknights!" And I think I alone went "Oooooh, magesmiths!"
And the rest, as they say, is history. :D
James often asks people if they would like to see something. For the record, I would like to see such an archetype that Cheapy describes above.
If I were doing some retro-history, the magical tradition might be one from the Sky Citadels which is why few people have ever heard of them, and Janderhoff is one location where people practice that ancient craft in the modern era.
*******
James, my apologies for interrupting your thread. You may not be interested in the idea, which is fine. I wanted to share that bit of obscure lore that I remembered because I thought they sounded cool. I banish myself from your thread!
|
Some questions about the Arcane Mark, if you please.
- Can the "personal rune or mark" be changed by the caster at any point in their career, or are they stuck with whatever was picked when the spell was learned?
- What constitutes a "mark"? Could it be a picture, and if so: how complex?
- Is an Arcane Mark monochrome?
- Is its size fixed, other than by the "one square foot" limitation of the spell?
- Are they unique and if so: is there a way to connect a specific mark to a specific caster?
1) You can change your rune/mark whenever you want, but the more you do so, the less valuable it becomes as your personal rune and the more it becomes "the scribble of the month."
2) A mark is basically the fantasy version of a signature. It's a rune, essentially. It could easilly be as complex an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic, for example.
3) Only if you want it to be.
4) The spell limitation is all that limits its size. Just as you can sign your name huge or tiny, there is no "official" size for your arcane mark.
5) They are not unique, although it's not very classy to knowingly copy someone else's mark, and in some cultures doing so would be considered akin to forgery of a signature.
a) Seeing the popular idea of using "Arcane Mark" to writhe "Thief" or "Assassin" and similar words on a target, it is possible to change the text on the fly or you can change it only when you prepare your spells?
b) Similarly, a lot of people think that "If an invisible mark is made, a detect magic spell causes it to glow and be visible, though not necessarily understandable." mean that it will glow for all to see, so it will be a cheap way to pinpoint a invisible guy. They are right or not?
|
|
Aid another say: "In melee combat, ... If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack" and "You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check."
So it can never be used with missile weapons?
|
|
Using a spell to get a higher level spell is, in a word, lame.
This is a good example of two similar rules elements that might work fine on their own but when combined together are greater than the sum of their parts.
I think that saying the spell turns half-elves into "the most powerful race for spontaneous spellcasters" is a bit of hyperbole, but it's certainly a strong choice. And a GREAT example of why any spell or effect that grants a player a temporary feat of their choice is just too good—because each time we invent a new feat, that spell becomes more powerful and versatile. We changed how polymorph spells work SPECIFICALLY to combat that same kind of problem (only with the spell getting more powerful each time a new monster is invented), so I think that the spell paragon surge basically needs to be erattaed. I'll be sending Jason an email suggesting this right after I post this message, in fact.
In the meantime, I would suggest either banning paragon surge form your game, or instead picking a small list of "bonus feats" that you can choose from when you cast the spell. THAT is going to be my suggestion to Jason... that the spell should be revised as follows:
** spoiler omitted **...
LOL, most of my playing group (me included) will agree with you, but I am sure a few residents of these boards will scream for murder.
As the spell make you a paragon of the human and elf race, giving essentially the first level racial abilities, the feat should be limited to something that can be picked at first level only. And to the effect of picking it at first level.
So a extra spell would be a cantrip, a extra hex something a first level witch can take, and so on.
I don't know if it will be enough to balance this spell in all situations, but it would be a decent guideline to the power of the bonus feat.
What do you think of this suggestion?
|
|
We have a fair number of necromancer type archetypes already, but do you have plans to add more archetypes that deal with inanimate objects given life? Like a clockwork mage, or a golemancer? Not even necessarily related to Numeria, but something of a lower technological level.Not James Jacobs, but there is a canonical reference to mage-smiths that has never been developed. It goes all the way back to the days of the original Runelords AP. If I had to guess, it might have been referenced in the Guide to Varisia that appeared in Chapter Three. They were specifically golem-workers, I think. Based out of Janderhoff.
Basically they were mentioned along with hellknights. 99.9% of the community went "Ooooh, hellknights!" And I think I alone went "Oooooh, magesmiths!"
And the rest, as they say, is history. :D
James often asks people if they would like to see something. For the record, I would like to see such an archetype that Cheapy describes above.
If I were doing some retro-history, the magical tradition might be one from the Sky Citadels which is why few people have ever heard of them, and Janderhoff is one location where people practice that ancient craft in the modern era.
*******
James, my apologies for interrupting your thread. You may not be interested in the idea, which is fine. I wanted to share that bit of obscure lore that I remembered because I thought they sounded cool. I banish myself from your thread!
+1
There is a whole family clan in Kaer Maga dedicated to building golems (they are humans, not dwarfs). I would like to see a prestige class or archetype for them.
- * -
James, I have always felt that the feat cost for making golems was high, especially as the power return, when compared with the production cost is relatively low. You have ever considered changing that?
"Craft Construct (Item Creation)
You can create construct creatures like golems.
Prerequisites: Caster level 5th, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Wondrous Item."
2 crafting feats to be capable to craft golems seem a steep price. I prefer a direct approach, with "Prerequisites: Caster level 5th" and eventually specific golems requiring other craft feats or crafting skills.
|
Someone mentioning the idea of a "drow vs. serpentfolk" war got me to wondering:
1. Is it likely that we'll see new fleshwarping results for other races in the future?
2. If you've considered it and if it's something that you don't want to keep secret, what would you suggest as the fleshwarped result for serpentfolk?
3. Oh, and might that result and those for nagaji, vishkanya, and nagas vary as wildly as those between elves, humans, and gnomes?
What was the reasoning behind limiting rangers to only a few animal companion choices? Is it unbalancing to expand those choices to the entire animal companion list that druids can choose from, or including animals outside bestiary 1?
1. Can a wizard recharge a staff of the magi by casting spells into it?
2. A wizard with a staff of the magi has spell resistance from another source. If she wants her staff to absorb spells does she need to lower that SR as well, or just the one provided by her staff?
3. What's to keep a nalfeshnee's ability to spam feeblemind from being game-breaking, especially when it's summonable?
4. Likewise, what spells would be too powerful when spammable via a variant staff of the magi?
5. As a special purpose power, an intelligent item could spam monster summoning vii. If I want to replace that with an ability to conjure two powerful guardians/day instead of two CR 7 monsters/round, what CR should the guardians be?
6. How would handle a monster who uses a lot of charms and compulsions?
7. What narrative elements in previous D&D settings did you set out to avoid in Pathfinder?
Being the person who wrote those spells for Hordes of the Abyss, I feel compelled to defend them.
First of all, unlike paragon surge, embrace the dark chaos and shun the dark chaos are MUCH higher level than paragon surge. As an 8th level spell, I have much less of a concern that the spellcaster is doing something crazy powerful and versatile in that nature than a 3rd level spell that does a similar thing.
Furthermore, paragon surge has no material components. The two other spells both have SIGNIFICANT components in the form of XP costs. So each time you cast those spells, you pay experience points, which is a not-inconsiderable tax for casting the spells. (The flavor idea being that you're reworking your character's abilities by swapping out a part of your soul for new abilities infused into that hole left by the expenditure of the experience points.)
And on top of that, those spells are...
Just to clarify, I like those spells and can definitely see a cool usage where you bathe in the glory of the Abyss to be born anew with new abilities. But would you allow them to be used to swap out temporary feats for permanent feats, or swap out feats that you could not have chosen differently at the time you received them (i.e. Alertness from a familiar, ranger Endurance or wizard Scribe Scroll bonus feats, bonus Exalted feats from Vow of Poverty etc.)?
Oooh, mage-smiths! I'll quickly check the compiled RotRL before heading to work. Thanks Not-James-But-Jim!
This is fairly quick and sorry if it's been answered before, but does a paladin who uses feint in combat break any part of his ethos to do so? The arguement seems to be that feinting someone in a duel or whatever else sort of fight is the same as lying.
1)So what creature type(fey, undead, aberration, etc.) is the Thin Man?
2)How many creatures from Numeria are we getting in the Innersea Bestiary? Nex? Kyonon? Linnorm Kings? Mammoth Lords?
3)Since there are different types of lizard(-like) mounts for the Lashunta, is it a status symbol/social ranking related thing for what type a particular female Lashunta has?
4)There was a mention of sand elementals in the Innersea World Guide, are they a new creature or just a modified air or earth elemental?
5)Do the humans who were bread by that gold dragon on Hermea have any better/different racial mods, new/different racial traits, a template, etc. that would show the results of such a breading project?
I have a weird request. I’d like to see a Druid archetype that gets neither shapeshift OR animal companion. It would likely have two domains, plus some other coolness, maybe some sort of alter-self that lasts hours.
Does striking a vampire that is at 0 hitpoints and now in gaseous form with a disrupting weapon have a chance to outright destroy it?
Mage-smith! That ties into my question about if you are interested in characters who have mundane jobs. I love to have my characters be smiths and the motivation for adventuring is to find a rare or mystical component.
James, are clockwork type things in your interest or is it crossing too much into steampunk/sci-fantasy for you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last interruption: Mage smiths hearken all the way back to the Original 3.5 Rise of the Runelords players guide. So it looks like Wes made them up with hellknights, and one of those two concepts caught fire.
You can locate this obscure reference under the wizard's section as possible class choices.
Edit Honestly, I'd call em out as either a magus archetype with a crafting bent, or simply a magus with Craft Arms and Armor feat. Dedicated Craft skill choices. That 2+Int Skills might hurt a little though.
How does a cleric with either the rune domain or artifice domain cast instant summons since they don't get arcane mark?
Jason noted that awhile ago, and meant to change it. I don't think the change has happened yet, but he recommended at the time giving Greater Arcane Sight instead.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any pathfinder creatures directly inspired by Slenderman?Yes. The main one is coming up in Inner Sea Bestiary—the thin man. You can read more about these creatures RIGHT NOW by looking on page 157 of the Inner Sea World Guide and reading the entry for Nuat.Oh my god are you serious?
I--
I am so happy.
Dead serious. Monsters are serious business. That's why you haven't seen a jackalope in print yet.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have a fair number of necromancer type archetypes already, but do you have plans to add more archetypes that deal with inanimate objects given life? Like a clockwork mage, or a golemancer? Not even necessarily related to numeria, but something of a lower technological level.
None planned. We're actually kinda dialing back the archetype machine... actually, we HAVE dialed that machine back. I think there might be too many of them now as it stands.
I suspect we'll do more in the future as themes suggest them though.
|
Creative Director
|
5) They are not unique, although it's not very classy to knowingly copy someone else's mark, and in some cultures doing so would be considered akin to forgery of a signature.
I remember that in Forgotten Realms, purposely forging a wizard's Arcane Mark would draw down the Three Fold Curse of Mystra, which would essentially blast away your Int, Wis, and Chr cores down to feeblemind level.
In Arcanis, there was Sarish whose portfolio's included Oaths, which meant swearing an Oath of Sarish was not something that one did with any intention of breaking if possible.
I've noticed the lack of a diety or other power specifically with a portfolio regarding oaths. Was that intentional?
That's a pretty interesting bit of world lore for Forgotten Realms, and one that I'm aware of.
We chose NOT to do that in Pathfinder because it's already done in Forgotten Realms. There were a few other choices made for the same reason, such as not having a lot of dragons masquerading as humans (although some of that unfortunately snuck in during the early days anyway), or not having a blood war, or not having an elf-dwarf rivalry, or letting elves sleep.
When you have what are, essentially, two "generic" fantasy settings like Forgotten Realms and Golarion, it's important to make the effort to make a lot of the little differences mean something.
|
Creative Director
|
a) Seeing the popular idea of using "Arcane Mark" to writhe "Thief" or "Assassin" and similar words on a target, it is possible to change the text on the fly or you can change it only when you prepare your spells?
b) Similarly, a lot of people think that "If an invisible mark is made, a detect magic spell causes it to glow and be visible, though not necessarily understandable." mean that it will glow for all to see, so it will be a cheap way to pinpoint a invisible guy. They are right or not?
a) I wouldn't necessarily call it a "popular idea," since this is actually the first I've heard anyone doing this. Perhaps popular in a real-world region or a campaign—but remember, the game and its gamers are pretty widespread, and folks generally don't play the game the same. Is this something folks are doing a lot over in the Pathfinder Society? Anyway, the spell arcane mark is not called arcane word—it only allows you to inscribe your personal rune or mark, not any word you want. You can certainly change your personal rune or mark, just as easily as you can change your name, but whether or not the rest of the world acknowledges your name change depends on the world, not you. Frankly, if a spellcaster in my game tried to use this spell to write "thief" on a target (he couldn't write "assassin" since the spell limits your mark to 6 characters), I would start calling him "Thief" instead of whatever the character's real name was, just to drive home the in-game abuse of the spell.
b) Detect magic does not cause things to glow. It allows the caster to see auras. Someone watching someone else cast detect magic can't see the auras at all. If you cast detect magic and a person with an invisible rune on them is in the area of your spell, you'd detect the aura but you'd have to concentrate for 3 rounds (during which that person would need to stay in your area of observation and range of the spell) before you'd be able to detect the aura specifically coming from his or her mark, and even then you'd just see the aura, not the runes. It is not a cheap way to pinpoint someone who is invisible. It's a time-intensive (3 rounds of concentration) way for one person (the caster) to determine what square a target with an invisible arcane mark is in—he'd still have a 50% miss chance on attacks though.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aid another say: "In melee combat, ... If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack" and "You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check."
So it can never be used with missile weapons?
Correct.
Expanding the Aid Another act into helping with ranged attacks might make an interesting feat or alternative class ability, I guess, although I also suspect it'd rile up the powergamers for being too weak...
|
Creative Director
|
As the spell make you a paragon of the human and elf race, giving essentially the first level racial abilities, the feat should be limited to something that can be picked at first level only. And to the effect of picking it at first level.
So a extra spell would be a cantrip, a extra hex something a first level witch can take, and so on.
I don't know if it will be enough to balance this spell in all situations, but it would be a decent guideline to the power of the bonus feat.
What do you think of this suggestion?
I think it's far too complicated still. I think the correct way to fix the spell is to just list 5 or so "typical" or "easy" feats to gain as bonus feats for the duration—things like Toughness, Improved Initiative, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, or Iron Will. And if you happen to already have all the feats listed as options... good for you! That means you can probably just ignore this spell and spend your slot on something more useful for you.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James, I have always felt that the feat cost for making golems was high, especially as the power return, when compared with the production cost is relatively low. You have ever considered changing that?
"Craft Construct (Item Creation)
You can create construct creatures like golems.
Prerequisites: Caster level 5th, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Wondrous Item."2 crafting feats to be capable to craft golems seem a steep price. I prefer a direct approach, with "Prerequisites: Caster level 5th" and eventually specific golems requiring other craft feats or crafting skills.
Golems are not really intended to be PC buddies or minions. You can DO it, but they're supposed to normally be monsters you fight. Making it difficult to create golems helps to enforce this in-game preference of the game designers.
A different game and a different game world where building golems or construct minions is a key and supported part of the setting would handle the rules differently, but in Pathfinder and in Golarion, construct creation is supposed to be something that, while is an option for a PC, is mostly intended to be a GM tool.
Feel free to change the feat for your game if you want, but do so knowing that you'll change the setting realities to something away from what we expect players will be using in games.
As an example of a game setting where construct creation IS intended to be part of the options for PCs, in my (unpublished) Unspeakable Futures game, Craft Robot is the feat you'd take to build robots. And there's a class, the Scavenger, who actually uses a variant of this feat to build a robot companion similar to how a druid has an animal companion or a summoner has an eidolon. But that's an entirely different set of rules and a totally different game setting than Pathfinder and Golarion.
|
Creative Director
|
Someone mentioning the idea of a "drow vs. serpentfolk" war got me to wondering:
1. Is it likely that we'll see new fleshwarping results for other races in the future?
2. If you've considered it and if it's something that you don't want to keep secret, what would you suggest as the fleshwarped result for serpentfolk?
3. Oh, and might that result and those for nagaji, vishkanya, and nagas vary as wildly as those between elves, humans, and gnomes?
1) Yes. There's a fleshwarp race with stats in Inner Sea Bestiary (although it's one we've mentioned in print, we've never given it stats).
2) Haven't considered it. The result would be a new monster with a new name, neither of which have yet been invented.
3) Yes, they would all vary.
|
Creative Director
|
What was the reasoning behind limiting rangers to only a few animal companion choices? Is it unbalancing to expand those choices to the entire animal companion list that druids can choose from, or including animals outside bestiary 1?
The reason is that for the druid, the idea is that her animal companion will be the front-line combat machine while the druid hangs back with spells.
The ranger, on the other hand, is a full BAB class, and as such the game designers wanted his animal companion to NOT be a huge combat machine, since the fear was that adding a full combat animal companion to a full BAB class would be overkill. Also, it helps keep the ranger and the druid feeling somewhat thematically separate. ALSO, it helps to preserve the ranger's flavor by limiting his animal companions to things that are, for the most part, best used as mounts or scouts. There's a ranger archetype in Advanced Player Guide (the beastmaster) that lifts this restriction for those interested, of course.
|
Creative Director
|
1. Can a wizard recharge a staff of the magi by casting spells into it?
2. A wizard with a staff of the magi has spell resistance from another source. If she wants her staff to absorb spells does she need to lower that SR as well, or just the one provided by her staff?
3. What's to keep a nalfeshnee's ability to spam feeblemind from being game-breaking, especially when it's summonable?
4. Likewise, what spells would be too powerful when spammable via a variant staff of the magi?
5. As a special purpose power, an intelligent item could spam monster summoning vii. If I want to replace that with an ability to conjure two powerful guardians/day instead of two CR 7 monsters/round, what CR should the guardians be?
6. How would handle a monster who uses a lot of charms and compulsions?
7. What narrative elements in previous D&D settings did you set out to avoid in Pathfinder?
1) From the description of the staff of the magi: "Unlike a normal staff, a staff of the magi holds 50 charges and cannot be recharged normally."
2) If you gain spell resistance from multiple sources, you take the highest one and ignore the rest. If you have SR higher than 23, you ignore the SR granted by the staff, but can still chose to absorb spells if you lower your SR.
3) The fact that the nalfeshnee, at CR 14 and 14 HD, is not an easy creature to summon and requires high level spells. And that means that you'll probably have access to heal spells and other ways to defeat feeblemind, or will have pretty good saves anyway. And the fact that a nalfeshnee who only casts feeblemind every round is missing out on other options in battle.
4) Wish. Time Stop. Permanency. Temporal Stasis. Any spell that has a super-expensive material component. But then again... it's an artifact, so it's kinda okay if it DOES let the user go berserk with power.
5) I would pick something appropriate for the power level of the adventure in which you were having the weapon show up, and would then price it as appropriate.
6) By having it be encountered by the PCs with several charmed and compelled minions, after the PCs have already fought their way through a few more similar encounters with charmed and compelled guardians, and then I'd have the monster hang back while its minions engage the PCs in melee and it would try to charm and compel the PCs to either attack each other or otherwise inconvenience their allies. And if it charms/compels the whole party, I'd turn it into a 'quest giver' type monster that then sends the PCs out to do some of its dirty work in a way that still more or less allows the PCs to go on the adventure, but now they're under mind control and during the adventure to come would give them a few opportunities to escape.
7) Dragons who masquerade as humans all the time. Dwarf/Elf rivalries. The Blood War. Good-aligned drow. Male-dominated adventures and storylines. Boring goblins. Storylines that are too timid or not gritty/edgy enough.
|
Creative Director
|
Just to clarify, I like those spells and can definitely see a cool usage where you bathe in the glory of the Abyss to be born anew with new abilities. But would you allow them to be used to swap out temporary feats for permanent feats, or swap out feats that you could not have chosen differently at the time you received them (i.e. Alertness from a familiar, ranger Endurance or wizard Scribe Scroll bonus feats, bonus Exalted feats from Vow of Poverty etc.)?Being the person who wrote those spells for Hordes of the Abyss, I feel compelled to defend them.
First of all, unlike paragon surge, embrace the dark chaos and shun the dark chaos are MUCH higher level than paragon surge. As an 8th level spell, I have much less of a concern that the spellcaster is doing something crazy powerful and versatile in that nature than a 3rd level spell that does a similar thing.
Furthermore, paragon surge has no material components. The two other spells both have SIGNIFICANT components in the form of XP costs. So each time you cast those spells, you pay experience points, which is a not-inconsiderable tax for casting the spells. (The flavor idea being that you're reworking your character's abilities by swapping out a part of your soul for new abilities infused into that hole left by the expenditure of the experience points.)
And on top of that, those spells are...
No. Bonus feats, such as those granted by a familiar, or those granted by a monk's class levels, are class abilities, not feats. As such, they are not available to take an Abyssal Heritor feat in place of the one granted by the class.
Furthermore, if I had an exalted character take an Abyssal Heritor feat, that character would more or less IMMEDIATELY lose all of his good guy stuff (all options that class had from the Book of Exalted Deeds) because willingly choosing to infuse yourself with Abyss power is NOT something an exalted character would ever do.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is fairly quick and sorry if it's been answered before, but does a paladin who uses feint in combat break any part of his ethos to do so? The arguement seems to be that feinting someone in a duel or whatever else sort of fight is the same as lying.
Wow.
Feinting is hardly the same as lying. It's also a perfectly acceptable combat move. Being a paladin shouldn't bar you from being an effective combatant. A GM who told me that I lost my paladinhood because I tried to feint in combat would get from me a big belly laugh, and then I'd feint anyway, assuming the GM was just goofing around. And then if the GM were serious, I'd probably start looking for reasons to leave the game, because a GM that does that isn't there to run a game, but to make his players not have fun.
|
Creative Director
|
I have a weird request. I’d like to see a Druid archetype that gets neither shapeshift OR animal companion. It would likely have two domains, plus some other coolness, maybe some sort of alter-self that lasts hours.
Sounds like you want to play a cleric who worships a nature deity, or an oracle of nature.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1)So what creature type(fey, undead, aberration, etc.) is the Thin Man?
2)How many creatures from Numeria are we getting in the Innersea Bestiary? Nex? Kyonon? Linnorm Kings? Mammoth Lords?
3)Since there are different types of lizard(-like) mounts for the Lashunta, is it a status symbol/social ranking related thing for what type a particular female Lashunta has?
4)There was a mention of sand elementals in the Innersea World Guide, are they a new creature or just a modified air or earth elemental?
5)Do the humans who were bread by that gold dragon on Hermea have any better/different racial mods, new/different racial traits, a template, etc. that would show the results of such a breading project?
1) I think it's a monstrous humanoid. But I'm too lazy to load the PDF and check.
2) You'll have to wait and see. AKA: I'm not gonna go down this path, since it'll just open up more requests for how many monsters from Hermea, Varisia, Katapehsh, Geb, Brevoy, etc.
3) That's not something we've explored yet. It's probably something more to do with one type of mount being slower and tougher and the other being faster and more agile. Nothing to do with status at all.
4) Where was that mentioned? Because it shouldn't have been... should probably have talked about sandmen or something like that.
5) Ha! Humans bread by gold dragons! Are they rye humans or wheat humans... OR SOURDOUGH HUMANS? Saucy! :-P
|
Creative Director
|
Does striking a vampire that is at 0 hitpoints and now in gaseous form with a disrupting weapon have a chance to outright destroy it?
No. Because at 0 hit points, a gaseous vampire can no longer take damage, and is thus immune to weapons. Follow it back to its coffin, wait for its eyes to open, then smash it in the fangs.
Dead serious. Monsters are serious business. That's why you haven't seen a jackalope in print yet.
I think the Wolpertinger (Pathfinder 61, pg. 87) might beg to differ.
|
Creative Director
|
How does the Honored Fist of the Society trait ("You increase your ki pool by 1 point.") work for a Monk under level 4? Does he have a ki pool of 1 with nothing to use it on (that can actually decrease at 4th level if you have low Wisdom/Charisma) or is the trait worthless until he gets Monk 4, Ninja 2 or Champion of Irori 2?
A monk who doesn't have ki pool who gains ki points can't use those bonus ki points until he gains ki pool—until then, the bonus ki points are just waiting in rules limbo for the chance to be accessed.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mage-smith! That ties into my question about if you are interested in characters who have mundane jobs. I love to have my characters be smiths and the motivation for adventuring is to find a rare or mystical component.
James, are clockwork type things in your interest or is it crossing too much into steampunk/sci-fantasy for you?
I'm the reason there are clockworks in Golarion at all, in that I let Wolfgang put one into Rise of the Runelords, and in that I wrote the clockwork subtype for them in Inner Sea World Guide.
So... yeah, I like clockworks. Enough to make the climax of an Adventure Path be all about clockworks.
Clockworks, in my opinion, are NOT the same as steampunk or sci-fi. But I like those two elements a lot as well.
|
Creative Director
|
Last interruption: Mage smiths hearken all the way back to the Original 3.5 Rise of the Runelords players guide. So it looks like Wes made them up with hellknights, and one of those two concepts caught fire.
You can locate this obscure reference under the wizard's section as possible class choices.
Edit Honestly, I'd call em out as either a magus archetype with a crafting bent, or simply a magus with Craft Arms and Armor feat. Dedicated Craft skill choices. That 2+Int Skills might hurt a little though.
That's exactly what happened. In the early days of Golarion, we had a tragic shortage of proper nouns and world content. We were inventing a LOT of things in those days, and not everything stuck to the walls we were decorating. Mage-smith never really caught anyone's attention, and so we never really followed up on it, and now it's kinda too late. Not for SURE too late... but I think that at this point, a "mage-smith" is just someone who took the Master Craftsman feat.
|
Creative Director
|
How does a cleric with either the rune domain or artifice domain cast instant summons since they don't get arcane mark?
That's a bit of errata I thought the rules team had fixed.
The errata should be that the divine version of instant summons does not require arcane mark; it only requires your holy symbol to be part of what you summon.
|
Creative Director
|
Dead serious. Monsters are serious business. That's why you haven't seen a jackalope in print yet.I think the Wolpertinger (Pathfinder 61, pg. 87) might beg to differ.
If the wolpertinger scratches the itch of folks who want a jackalope, that's fine.
There's a difference in the genesis of those two creatures, though. The real-world origins of the wolpertinger are more interesting and less silly than the jackalope. Furthermore, and even more important, the word "wolpertinger" is a cool word, where as "jackalope" is silly and goofy.