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

Aenigma wrote:

Orcs are infamous for slave labor. Then what about goblins? Do goblins catch other humanoid races like humans or elves and use them as slaves?

Not really no.

Hmm. Interesting. I thought goblins would not hesitate to use human slaves because Hadregash is the god of slavery and Goblins of Golarion hinted that goblins uses goblins and other races as slaves. The Screamwing tribe on page 19 and the tribes in the Shackles on page 22 would be good examples. Does that mean they only use goblin slaves and do not use non-goblin slaves? It seems that goblins are quite nice and kind to humans after all.

Rysky wrote:

What are some of your current favourite words?

Buffalope (a name I came up with for giant trample-saurus monsters we fought in a Starfinder game I'm playing in)

Hmmm. It's weird. It's easier for me to come up with my least favorite words these days now that I think of it. Words that have been so overused by elements in the real-world whose goals and personality traits bother me so much that those words have been tainted.

The word "actually" is probably my least favorite word these days as a result. I actively try NOT to use it, and whenever I see myself write it and notice that I wrote it (which is most of the time) I take pains to go back and restructure the sentence so that it doesn't need that gross word in there.

I just don't like how the word "actually" seems to be used by folks so often in an attempt to "correct" someone's opinion with one of their own.

Also not a fan of "decimate" since no one uses it for its definition and instead uses it as a synonym for "destroy," when it actually means only 10% of destroy.

*(see how removing the word "actually" from that prior paragraph doesn't change the sentence's meaning but does make it feel less antagonistic? Maybe that's just me...)

*nods*

*hugs*

... giant trample-saurus you say? :3

James Jacobs wrote:

Aenigma wrote:

Orcs are infamous for slave labor. Then what about goblins? Do goblins catch other humanoid races like humans or elves and use them as slaves?

Not really no.

Hmm. Interesting. I thought goblins would not hesitate to use human slaves because Hadregash is the god of slavery and Goblins of Golarion hinted that goblins uses goblins and other races as slaves. The Screamwing tribe on page 19 and the tribes in the Shackles on page 22 would be good examples. Does that mean they only use goblin slaves and do not use non-goblin slaves? It seems that goblins are quite nice and kind to humans after all.

Goblins are more into taking stuff and having fun and being spontaneous than they are micromanaging slaves. They prefer using pets or trained animals/monsters to help with guarding lairs. Going forward into 2nd edition, goblins will be presented as not so one-note evil as well.

Furthermore, with so many different humanoid races, it's important to diversify. If every "evil" race is all about slavery, that's boring.

... giant trample-saurus you say? :3

Yup. Lots of them. Plural of buffalope is buffalopes. A group of buffalopes is called a thunder.

We were beset upon by a thunder of buffalopes.

Then what would goblins do to the captured humans or goblins, if they don't use slaves? Would they simply eat the prisoners?

Then what would goblins do to the captured humans or goblins, if they don't use slaves? Would they simply eat the prisoners?

They generally don't capture things in the first place. They'd generally kill them and take their stuff.

There are always exceptions of course. AKA: What the goblins would do would be whatever the story wants them to do, which varies by GM.

For me, at this point, I've pretty much told all the "Goblins attack people" stories I'm interested in telling, and I'm ready to move on to other stories involving other creatures and let goblins transition over into a less "always bad guy" and into something more of the "if you want to play a monster PC, then try a goblin" role. With goblins as one of the core races, you can expect us to do far fewer monochromatic villainous goblin tribe stories overall, in the same way you don't see us using gnomes or dwarves or elves or halflings or humans for that purpose. (There's certainly plenty of villains of those ancestries, but not so much presented globally as such—there's more examples of non-villains of those races.)

So, what exactly kept the Runelords together? Besides the fact that they had an empire to run. They all seem to hate each other. I guess I’m surprised they made it work for so long.

Did runelords treat other school specialist well? For example, if a person in Cyrusian became an evoker, or a person in Bakrakhan became a transmuter, would he get arrested, persecuted, or worse?

So, what exactly kept the Runelords together? Besides the fact that they had an empire to run. They all seem to hate each other. I guess I’m surprised they made it work for so long.

Tradition, a shared obsession with magic, a general detachment from the day-to-day (I suspect that for a runelord, spending a decade or three here and there on a retreat or some experiment or whatever was the norm, leaving the rule of the land in the hands of minions who were more able to cooperate), and the fact that them all enjoying being the boss of their own little nations outweighed self-destructive elements.

Did runelords treat other school specialist well? For example, if a person in Cyrusian became an evoker, or a person in Bakrakhan became a transmuter, would he get arrested, persecuted, or worse?

They'd be mocked and looked down upon. Treated as second-class citizens, but still treated better/more respected than non-wizards. But also, in several cases, specialists of opposing schools were valued for their skills and abilities. Wrath specialists, for example, valued sloth specialists for their ability to conjure demons.

I really like the Dominion of the Black. That's one of the greatest elements in Pathfinder(other greatest elements include Azlant, Thassilon, serpentfolk, alghollthus, and the Vault Builders). But one thing about them frustrates me. That is, the Dominion monsters are very heavily inspired by the brains. Most Dominion monsters so far like to eat brains, or look like a brain. I actually feel jealous of the Mythos because there are so many gorgeous, non-brain themed monsters in the Mythos. That's why I like vespergaunts, because they are not particularly related to brains, despite being the Dominion monsters. Would Paizo publish more non-brain themed Dominion monsters eventually?

Generic GM wrote:

So, what exactly kept the Runelords together? Besides the fact that they had an empire to run. They all seem to hate each other. I guess I’m surprised they made it work for so long.

Tradition, a shared obsession with magic, a general detachment from the day-to-day (I suspect that for a runelord, spending a decade or three here and there on a retreat or some experiment or whatever was the norm, leaving the rule of the land in the hands of minions who were more able to cooperate), and the fact that them all enjoying being the boss of their own little nations outweighed self-destructive elements.

That makes a lot of sense to me. Of the final seven runelords, did any of them have cordial relationships with one another? Or was it like estranged family with Alaznist and Karzoug actively warring.

I really like the Dominion of the Black. That's one of the greatest elements in Pathfinder(other greatest elements include Azlant, Thassilon, serpentfolk, alghollthus, and the Vault Builders). But one thing about them frustrates me. That is, the Dominion monsters are very heavily inspired by the brains. Most Dominion monsters so far like to eat brains, or look like a brain. I actually feel jealous of the Mythos because there are so many gorgeous, non-brain themed monsters in the Mythos. That's why I like vespergaunts, because they are not particularly related to brains, despite being the Dominion monsters. Would Paizo publish more non-brain themed Dominion monsters eventually?

The brain-association the Dominion of the Black has is intentional. There are some creatures in the dominion that aren't brain-themed, but they're more obscure.

James Jacobs wrote:

Generic GM wrote:

So, what exactly kept the Runelords together? Besides the fact that they had an empire to run. They all seem to hate each other. I guess I’m surprised they made it work for so long.

Tradition, a shared obsession with magic, a general detachment from the day-to-day (I suspect that for a runelord, spending a decade or three here and there on a retreat or some experiment or whatever was the norm, leaving the rule of the land in the hands of minions who were more able to cooperate), and the fact that them all enjoying being the boss of their own little nations outweighed self-destructive elements.

That makes a lot of sense to me. Of the final seven runelords, did any of them have cordial relationships with one another? Or was it like estranged family with Alaznist and Karzoug actively warring.

Karzoug and Alaznist's war was the "hottest" war of the final seven. None of them really had full-on friendships, though. They were all competitors and kinda broken people who were incapable of working together. That's one of the themes of Thassilon—the nation was initially founded with a goal of inclusivity and working together to an extent that was more progressive than Azlant's norms, but ended up being consumed from within by the original runelords in a "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" sort of way that ended up making Thassilon much more broken than the nation it fled from. Thassilon is in this regard a tragic example of civilization, and not intended to be a "successful" one. The ramifications of Return of the Runelords sort of hit the reset button on Thassilon, with the fate of New Thassilon being in the air and potentially something that PCs can have a hand in influencing in home games as GMs see fit. We might, in time, explore more there in print. We'll see.

Dear James Jacobs,

Remember Meenlocks? They are aweseomely horrible monsters (especially as described in their 3.0 iteration) - particularly since they embody an all-too-real-and-relevant type of true Evil. I assert that "Meenlock" deserves to become a popularly-recognized concept on par with "gaslighting", "catch-22", and "The Dark Side" (as should "granfalloon", but that's not your bit).

Would you happen to know where they originally came from? Were they dredged up from obscure folklore (they sound like they could be from British/Celtic mythology), or did somebody at TSR/Wizards of the Coast make them up?

Dear James Jacobs,

Remember Meenlocks? They are aweseomely horrible monsters (especially as described in their 3.0 iteration) - particularly since they embody an all-too-real-and-relevant type of true Evil. I assert that "Meenlock" deserves to become a popularly-recognized concept on par with "gaslighting", "catch-22", and "The Dark Side" (as should "granfalloon", but that's not your bit).

Would you happen to know where they originally came from? Were they dredged up from obscure folklore (they sound like they could be from British/Celtic mythology), or did somebody at TSR/Wizards of the Coast make them up?

Oh I absolutely remember them. They're one of my favorite monsters!

They appeared in the 1st edition Fiend Folio back in 1981. According to that book, they were originally invented by a man named Peter Korabik, a name I don't recognize off the top of my head. Either they were a new invention for the book, or they were invented for something like the old White Dwarf magazine. As far as I know, they're not based on any particular real-world mythology. My guess, given the construction of the word "meenlock" and the fact that they live underground at the bottom of creepy deep holes, is that the author was originally inspired by H. G. Welles' morlocks from "The Time Machine."

Generic GM wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Generic GM wrote:

So, what exactly kept the Runelords together? Besides the fact that they had an empire to run. They all seem to hate each other. I guess I’m surprised they made it work for so long.

Tradition, a shared obsession with magic, a general detachment from the day-to-day (I suspect that for a runelord, spending a decade or three here and there on a retreat or some experiment or whatever was the norm, leaving the rule of the land in the hands of minions who were more able to cooperate), and the fact that them all enjoying being the boss of their own little nations outweighed self-destructive elements.

That makes a lot of sense to me. Of the final seven runelords, did any of them have cordial relationships with one another? Or was it like estranged family with Alaznist and Karzoug actively warring.

Karzoug and Alaznist's war was the "hottest" war of the final seven. None of them really had full-on friendships, though. They were all competitors and kinda broken people who were incapable of working together. That's one of the themes of Thassilon—the nation was initially founded with a goal of inclusivity and working together to an extent that was more progressive than Azlant's norms, but ended up being consumed from within by the original runelords in a "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" sort of way that ended up making Thassilon much more broken than the nation it fled from. Thassilon is in this regard a tragic example of civilization, and not intended to be a "successful" one. The ramifications of Return of the Runelords sort of hit the reset button on Thassilon, with the fate of New Thassilon being in the air and potentially something that PCs can have a hand in influencing in home games as GMs see fit. We might, in time, explore more there in print. We'll see.

Well, hopefully New Thassilon turns out better than its predecessor. The ideas that Xin had for the creation of Thassilon were noble and it's a shame that it failed so spectaculalry.

The fashion of Thassilon seems extremly varied, given how each Runelord dresses so differently. Did each provence of the empire dress in a particular fashion, and if so what were they?

What I mean by this is that Zutha's outfit seems very reminiscent of Henry VIII, while Karzoug's attire seems more akin to ancient Chinese attire. So is it a matter of their personal tastes or rather a Gatash - Shalast fashion trends thing.

Well, hopefully New Thassilon turns out better than its predecessor. The ideas that Xin had for the creation of Thassilon were noble and it's a shame that it failed so spectaculalry.

The fashion of Thassilon seems extremly varied, given how each Runelord dresses so differently. Did each provence of the empire dress in a particular fashion, and if so what were they?

What I mean by this is that Zutha's outfit seems very reminiscent of Henry VIII, while Karzoug's attire seems more akin to ancient Chinese attire. So is it a matter of their personal tastes or rather a Gatash - Shalast fashion trends thing.

We've not gone into much detail about Thassilonian fashion. I suspect there were lots of fashions that came in and out of style over the many centuries the nation existed, but no attempt to codify them is really something we've made attempts to do.

Generic GM wrote:

Well, hopefully New Thassilon turns out better than its predecessor. The ideas that Xin had for the creation of Thassilon were noble and it's a shame that it failed so spectaculalry.

The fashion of Thassilon seems extremly varied, given how each Runelord dresses so differently. Did each provence of the empire dress in a particular fashion, and if so what were they?

What I mean by this is that Zutha's outfit seems very reminiscent of Henry VIII, while Karzoug's attire seems more akin to ancient Chinese attire. So is it a matter of their personal tastes or rather a Gatash - Shalast fashion trends thing.

We've not gone into much detail about Thassilonian fashion. I suspect there were lots of fashions that came in and out of style over the many centuries the nation existed, but no attempt to codify them is really something we've made attempts to do.

Ah, that would make sense for such a long lived empire. Well thank you for answering these questions on my favorite Pathfinder subject, the Runelords. congrats on finishing your Runelord trilogy. Return of the Runelords has been most interesting thus far.

One final question for you. Since Areelu Vorlesh presumably died during the events of Wrath of the Righteous, in Pathfinder 2, will she have risen to a place of prominence in the Abyss?

One final question for you. Since Areelu Vorlesh presumably died during the events of Wrath of the Righteous, in Pathfinder 2, will she have risen to a place of prominence in the Abyss?

Unrevealed.

Although I kinda like the idea of her replacing Nocticula...

On the subject of Meenlocks (god I love those nasty little beasts):

Monsters that transform their victims into creatures like themselves have a lot of traction (Vampires and werewolves being the most... well, publicly romantic and therefore popular examples).

Do you have any particular favorite creatures that operate in this wein that are less well-known?

Generic GM wrote:

One final question for you. Since Areelu Vorlesh presumably died during the events of Wrath of the Righteous, in Pathfinder 2, will she have risen to a place of prominence in the Abyss?

Unrevealed.

Although I kinda like the idea of her replacing Nocticula...

Oooo, what about a succubi civil war situation full of intrigue for the next successor?

The Vancian system clearly has several problems. Thus I hoped we can finally ditch the Vancian system and adopt the mana system(aka the spell point system) in Second Edition. It seems that my wish will not be fulfilled. But I want to ask this. What do you think about adopting the mana system as an optional rule to Pathfinder or Second Edition? Do you prefer the Vancian system to the mana system?

On the subject of Meenlocks (god I love those nasty little beasts):

Monsters that transform their victims into creatures like themselves have a lot of traction (Vampires and werewolves being the most... well, publicly romantic and therefore popular examples).

Do you have any particular favorite creatures that operate in this wein that are less well-known?

The fear of losing one's self is one of the more visceral types of fear—the whole "body horror" genre is all about his topic. And since it's about physicality, the genre also often blends into sexual elements, which is something you see a lot in vampire stories in particular.

It's certainly a feature that I end up giving monsters I design a lot. Yamasoth, for example, is all about transformations.

I don't really have any particular favorites that are less well-known; none come to mind. But it's worth noting that my two favorite movies, Alien and John Carpenter's The Thing are about this very type of creature.

Oooo, what about a succubi civil war situation full of intrigue for the next successor?

That's one possible story, although not one we'd probably be able to do in Pathfinder.

The Vancian system clearly has several problems. Thus I hoped we can finally ditch the Vancian system and adopt the mana system(aka the spell point system) in Second Edition. It seems that my wish will not be fulfilled. But I want to ask this. What do you think about adopting the mana system as an optional rule to Pathfinder or Second Edition? Do you prefer the Vancian system to the mana system?

I do not like mana systems AT ALL for tabletop games. They're too complicated, too fiddly, and cause far to much option paralysis during the game when spellcasters take too long to decide what spell they cast. And then when spellcasters DO get used to their options with a mana system, the reverse comes true—the spellcaster gets lazy and only ever casts one type of spell.

I much much much prefer the Vancian system. It's easier to use in play. I enjoy the tactical element of needing to plan ahead for what types of spells you think you'll need for the day. I enjoy the resource management element of determining where and when to use your prepared spells.

Remember, I work at Paizo and I'm one of the folks who decides what the game is going to be. As a result, the game that gets published is pretty much the one I and the rest of us here at Paizo prefer. If we publish a game we don't enjoy, we'll lose the passion for working on the game, and that'll kill the game faster than if no one buys the game.

We need to try to straddle the line and find a balance between producing a game we enjoy and are passionate about and one that the players are passionate about. The introduction of spontaneous spellcasters is a great example of that blurring of the line between a mana system and a Vancian system. The words of power system from Ultimate Magic is an even further push into a mana type system, but it's worth noting how we made that optional and don't support it in our world content—it's an option we want folks out there to have, and want them to see that the game CAN support this type of choice, but it's not our preferred choice.

Long story short: If second edition Pathfinder adopted the mana system as its primary magic system, I'd lose interest in playing the game. We might do an optional mana type system some day, but just as it took years for us to get to that in 1st edition, it's gonna take years, if ever, for us to do so in 2nd edition.

What do you thing of the idea that everything is a skill, and your success (or lack thereof) at doing any particular thing depends on how skilled you are at it?

What do you thing of the idea that everything is a skill, and your success (or lack thereof) at doing any particular thing depends on how skilled you are at it?

AKA: The way Skyrim does it? I'm fine with it, but it doesn't work really well with a class-based system, and as such isn't a great method for Pathfinder. Nor is it really a great method for tabletop stuff since it's awkward to track how many skills you do each time you use them.

Call of Cthulhu sort of has this system and it works really really gracefully and simply though. I quite admire the Call of Cthulhu character system.

111phantom wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

111phantom wrote:

Since I can't find any notes of it in the Construct Handbook, but it was mentioned it'd be there from the comments...

What are the "alternate methods that aren't "stealth evil" soul-enslavement methods for golem construction" in the lore?

Getting freely given, non-coerced permission from a creature to use its soul after death for construction.

So it's impossible to make a golem without an elemental spirit?

I'd say no; that's kinda the theme of what makes a golem. Using an elemental spirit to animate a thing made out of "elements" like iron or clay or wood or whatever.

What kind of Elemental would an Alchemical Golem be animated by then?

With the new Steam-Powered Clockwork template (one of my favourites, especially for its low cost) in the Construct Handbook, that means steam powered machinery exists on Golarion. How common on Golarion is steam power and where would it be most common other than Alkenstar?

James Jacobs wrote:

111phantom wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

111phantom wrote:

Since I can't find any notes of it in the Construct Handbook, but it was mentioned it'd be there from the comments...

What are the "alternate methods that aren't "stealth evil" soul-enslavement methods for golem construction" in the lore?

Getting freely given, non-coerced permission from a creature to use its soul after death for construction.

So it's impossible to make a golem without an elemental spirit?

I'd say no; that's kinda the theme of what makes a golem. Using an elemental spirit to animate a thing made out of "elements" like iron or clay or wood or whatever.

What kind of Elemental would an Alchemical Golem be animated by then?

Any.

With the new Steam-Powered Clockwork template (one of my favourites, especially for its low cost) in the Construct Handbook, that means steam powered machinery exists on Golarion. How common on Golarion is steam power and where would it be most common other than Alkenstar?

Very very rare. Not in Alkenstar, anymore than anywhere else.

Ed Reppert wrote:

What do you thing of the idea that everything is a skill, and your success (or lack thereof) at doing any particular thing depends on how skilled you are at it?

AKA: The way Skyrim does it? I'm fine with it, but it doesn't work really well with a class-based system, and as such isn't a great method for Pathfinder. Nor is it really a great method for tabletop stuff since it's awkward to track how many skills you do each time you use them.

Call of Cthulhu sort of has this system and it works really really gracefully and simply though. I quite admire the Call of Cthulhu character system.

Possibly the way Skyrim does it, I haven't played that game. It is the way Harnmaster does it, which is where I picked it up. Of course, that's not a class-based system. In theory anyone can learn any skill. Including spells. :-)

I'm gonna have to look more deeply at Call of Cthulhu. I have their "beginner rules" around here somewhere.

Isaac Bonewits proposed a magic system in which everyone has some potential for "psychic abilities" and that it's those abilities that allow the manipulation of reality (i.e., magic). Mana is involved, but the tracking doesn't seem onerous to me. You've said you don't like such systems, but what if the system were less complicated than those with which you're familiar?

Isaac Bonewits proposed a magic system in which everyone has some potential for "psychic abilities" and that it's those abilities that allow the manipulation of reality (i.e., magic). Mana is involved, but the tracking doesn't seem onerous to me. You've said you don't like such systems, but what if the system were less complicated than those with which you're familiar?

Not a fan. Sounds too much like how psionics worked in D&D, and I saw that abused too often to wreck game play and complicate combat too much to be worth the trouble. Making them more like the ones I prefer only makes me wish that they were the ones I prefer while disappointing those who prefer the mana/point system, so I feel like that's a waste of time.

Aenigma wrote:

The Vancian system clearly has several problems. Thus I hoped we can finally ditch the Vancian system and adopt the mana system(aka the spell point system) in Second Edition. It seems that my wish will not be fulfilled. But I want to ask this. What do you think about adopting the mana system as an optional rule to Pathfinder or Second Edition? Do you prefer the Vancian system to the mana system?

I do not like mana systems AT ALL for tabletop games. They're too complicated, too fiddly, and cause far to much option paralysis during the game when spellcasters take too long to decide what spell they cast. And then when spellcasters DO get used to their options with a mana system, the reverse comes true—the spellcaster gets lazy and only ever casts one type of spell.

I much much much prefer the Vancian system. It's easier to use in play. I enjoy the tactical element of needing to plan ahead for what types of spells you think you'll need for the day. I enjoy the resource management element of determining where and when to use your prepared spells.

Kinda sounds like you dislike Bards, Oracles, Sorcerers, etc there...

Guessing a Mana-Points system would be hard to balance without bloating the rules too much?

James Jacobs wrote:

Aenigma wrote:

The Vancian system clearly has several problems. Thus I hoped we can finally ditch the Vancian system and adopt the mana system(aka the spell point system) in Second Edition. It seems that my wish will not be fulfilled. But I want to ask this. What do you think about adopting the mana system as an optional rule to Pathfinder or Second Edition? Do you prefer the Vancian system to the mana system?

I do not like mana systems AT ALL for tabletop games. They're too complicated, too fiddly, and cause far to much option paralysis during the game when spellcasters take too long to decide what spell they cast. And then when spellcasters DO get used to their options with a mana system, the reverse comes true—the spellcaster gets lazy and only ever casts one type of spell.

I much much much prefer the Vancian system. It's easier to use in play. I enjoy the tactical element of needing to plan ahead for what types of spells you think you'll need for the day. I enjoy the resource management element of determining where and when to use your prepared spells.

Kinda sounds like you dislike Bards, Oracles, Sorcerers, etc there...

Guessing a Mana-Points system would be hard to balance without bloating the rules too much?

Me not liking a mana point system has nothing to do with spontaneous spellcasting. They're different things. Bards are my favorite class, in fact. The spontaneous caster system uses the same underlying rules as a prepared spellcaster; there's no new point system like 3rd edition psionics that depletes when you use them, allowing you to cast more high level spells than the game expects you to in a rest period. Spontaneous casters aren't a mana point system to me. You can't spend extra points to "nova" if you're a spontaneous caster, and you don't have to look at an exhaustive spell list or spell effect list when choosing which spells to cast, which is a problem for full point systems that let spellcasters create spells on the fly in-game.

A mana point system wouldn't bloat a system any more than anything else, unless it's an additional way to resolve magic. It's not good for the game if every spellcaster has different rules for casting spells. Makes it tough to learn new classes, and puts a HUGE strain on the GM who now has to juggle multiple different systems in order to handle a party with PCs made of characters who each have what amounts to a separate rulebook to run.

Which outsider races are never or rarely formed from once-mortal petitioners?

Who is your favorite character from an Adventure Path or Module that is specifically called out as a good choice to be a Cohort (through Leadership) or NPC party member (if the players are doing poorly and need help)?

If you have to list derro, drow, duergar, goblins, kobolds, and serpentfolk in order of most to least technologically advanced, how would you rank them?

Hi James,

How do you think Pathfinder characters refer to mythic power, in-character?

For example, what did Runelord Alderpash call that elusive quality possessed by Sorshen and Xanderghul, but not by him?

Hi Mister,

So... I have a question in my mind for a while now.

I looove Pathfinder and I really love the Sihedron stars.
But I have so much question about it.

I like it when the star is black, but I really like the Rune with it (Pride, Wrath, Gluthony, Greed etc etc)

But... there is my question.

The sihedron star artefact AND the artwork of the sihedron star have different color for the rune or the shard.

Soooo

What are the real color that represent the rune and/or the shard better...

Wrath :
Pride:
Envy:
Greed:
Gluthony:
Lust:
Sloth:

?

The color of the artefact itself (so much blue there!) or the color of the rune ? :P

Thank you!! I appreciate it!!! ( Someday I really want the Sihedron for a tats :P )

Which outsider races are never or rarely formed from once-mortal petitioners?

Not sure I can think of any.

Who is your favorite character from an Adventure Path or Module that is specifically called out as a good choice to be a Cohort (through Leadership) or NPC party member (if the players are doing poorly and need help)?

Shensen, of course!

If you have to list derro, drow, duergar, goblins, kobolds, and serpentfolk in order of most to least technologically advanced, how would you rank them?

Serpentfolk first, goblins last, the rest in the middle in pretty much tied position.

Hi James,

How do you think Pathfinder characters refer to mythic power, in-character?

For example, what did Runelord Alderpash call that elusive quality possessed by Sorshen and Xanderghul, but not by him?

Mythic power. Why make up something new when we already have words for it?

Hi Mister,

So... I have a question in my mind for a while now.

I looove Pathfinder and I really love the Sihedron stars.
But I have so much question about it.

I like it when the star is black, but I really like the Rune with it (Pride, Wrath, Gluthony, Greed etc etc)

But... there is my question.

The sihedron star artefact AND the artwork of the sihedron star have different color for the rune or the shard.

Soooo

What are the real color that represent the rune and/or the shard better...

Wrath :
Pride:
Envy:
Greed:
Gluthony:
Lust:
Sloth:

?

The color of the artefact itself (so much blue there!) or the color of the rune ? :P

Thank you!! I appreciate it!!! ( Someday I really want the Sihedron for a tats :P )

See part 4 of Return of the Runelords. That's the first time we've really made an effort to associate colors with the seven Thassilonain schools; they are the same colors of the seven hues of a prismatic ray, but I don't remember them off the top of my head.

Which regions on Golarion are likely to have the Cipactli in their mythology?

See part 4 of Return of the Runelords. That's the first time we've really made an effort to associate colors with the seven Thassilonain schools; they are the same colors of the seven hues of a prismatic ray, but I don't remember them off the top of my head.

Thanks a lot for your fast response to me! :D

Half a dozen years ago you answered a question about how Magical Knack interacts with other Caster Level increases, which I believe set a precedent for how effects with a level cap should interact with other such increases.

Other people disagree, so here's the relevant abilities and the question we're discussing.

***

***

Let's say a level five (Rogue 3/Fighter 2) character with Accomplished Sneak Attacker has 3d6 Sneak Attack.

In some way or another, they benefit from a CL 3 casting of Sense Vitals, which would normally raise their Sneak Attack by 1d6.

What is their number of Sneak Attack dice?