Unity

Aenigma's page

961 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 961 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Thank you for your kind answers, everyone. It seems that, a druid with barbarian archetype can definitely use (and benefit from) rage when he's using wild shape. While RAW does not clearly specify that he receives bonus damage from rage during wild shape, it seems that according to RAI the druid should receive it, since it doesn't seem logical to me that wild shape or polymorph prevents one from receiving bonus damage from rage. I really wish Paizo to specify this part in the errata someday though.

A follow-up question. Can the druid benefit from such feats like furious grab or oversized throw, after he polymorphed into a fire elemental, purple worm or sea serpent using wild shape? I mean, logically, to use the grab or throw action, the creature must have a hand. But the rulebook didn't say you have to have a hand to grab or throw. So logically, the druid can still benefit from furious grab or oversized throw feat after polymorphed? Likewise, while the description text for farabellus flip implies that this feat allows the medium armor wearer to become more agile, it didn't say you have to wear a medium armor to benefit from the feat. So the GM cannot stop me from using it even when I'm wearing a heavy armor, not wearing an armor at all, or while using wild shape?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really wish to see a epic level or mythic tier rulebook very much. As for the Lost Omens line, I hope to see Lost Omens: Sunken Azlant or similar book as soon as possible.


So, the druid cannot benefit from rage while using wild shape? Sigh. I thought a wild order druid with barbarian archetype would be a super powerful build. But turns out it's a seriously flawed build after all? Was it the same in First Edition too?


I tried to make a wild order druid and found out the barbarian archetype would boost my druid's power a lot. Which led me to this question: Can I benefit from the feats while using wild shape? For example, would the barbarian feats like acute vision, sudden charge, acute scent, bashing charge, farabellus flip, fast movement, inured to alchemy, oversized throw, supernatural senses, swipe, attack of opportunity, cleave, giant's stature, sudden leap, terrifying howl, furious grab, et cetera still be usable even when the druid polymorphed into a monster such as a purple worm or a dragon? If not, then I see no reason to make the druid take the barbarian archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

3e? Has Paizo finally announced the creation of Pathfinder Third Edition? If it's true, then I'm so glad to hear that, because while Pathfinder Second Edition is way better than Pathfinder First Edition, some elements are very unsatisfying in fact. And even if it's not true... Paizo will eventually make Third Edition in the not too distant future, perhaps? First Edition was published in 2009, and Second Edition was published in 2019. So logically Third Ediiton will be published in 2029, right?


It's really frustrating that this book doesn't introduce the mesmerist class. Perhaps it will become a archetype that requires some psychic levels?


Squiggit wrote:

Serpentfolk aren't even nearly as bad as something like Strix anyways.

Like the baseline serpentfolk has... telepathy, scent, darkvision, venom. Zyss have some innate spells. The telepathy is the only really standout ability here and something that could easily be provided in a weak version early you can upgrade with feats.

Feels a lot more manageable than Strix or Dragons.

But strix don't have that many good abilities like serpentfolk. All they have is just a fly speed. So perhaps they are not that overpowered?


Now that serpentfolk is confirmed to become a playable ancestry, I really wish dero, troglodyte, and dragon to follow suit. The possibility is not that low, is it?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really wish Paizo to reboot Thornkeep and The Emerald Spire Superdungeon. The Thornkeep book should incorporate not only Thornkeep, but also the whole of Echo Wood. It should also include the detailed gazetteers for other settlements like Fort Inevitable, fort Riverwatch, and Silverlake. The Emerald Spire should become much bigger and deeper. It would be very satisfying if it includes mythic rules as well, likely granting the PCs mythic tiers once they defeat the final boss and touch the Emerald Root. As it has been more than a decade since the publication of Thornkeep, The Emerald Spire Superdungeon, and The Crusader Road, I think it would be more convenient to completely ignore these previous books and reboot the whole region entirely.


James Jacobs wrote:
Konradleijon wrote:

In the Book of the Dammed collected edition it’s mentioned Socothbenoth attacked Nocticula his sister/lover for whatever ever reason and she trounced him. knowing that Nocticula latter becomes a CN goddess. It seems to me that the reason for Socothbenoth attacked Nocticula was because he sensed that she was plotting to become a Goddess and did a preemptive Pazuzu on her. is that true?

also Noc and Socothbenoth are said to be siblings but what does that mean? where they “pure” demons born in Hell to demon parents instead of made from human souls. or something else?

That's the general idea—he figured something was up and tried to take advantage and seize whatever power she was building for himself and got his hat handed to him.

By "siblings" that means they identify as brother and sister. Whether that means they were both "born" from the same creature or location or created side by side or were both once mortal siblings before they came to the Abyss is not something we've explored much yet.

They cannot be mortal siblings before they came to the Abyss, right? I mean, all souls would lose memory after they died. So even if they were mortal siblings, there is no way they would never remember it.


James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
In Pathfinder First Edition, it was mentioned that we can use dispel magic to counterspell another spell being cast without needing to identify the spell being cast. Is it still true in Second Edition? I cannot find relevant information in the rulebook.
The ability to counterspell in 2nd edition isn't a function of dispel magic. It's a class feat available to some spellcasters. Sorcerers, witches, and wizards, it looks like. Not everyone can automatically do it.

Then can I assume that, in Second Edition, if I learns the counterspell feat, I certainly can use dispel magic to counterspell? Or should I cast the exact same spell that the foe is casting if I wish to counterspell?


In Pathfinder First Edition, it was mentioned that we can use dispel magic to counterspell another spell being cast without needing to identify the spell being cast. Is it still true in Second Edition? I cannot find relevant information in the rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why should low level PCs do all the dirty work to save the world while the high level NPCs sit idly by and do nothing? Why do good high level characters in the world not set things right? Why do they not strike directly against the evils that threaten Golarion? Why do all mighty folk of good heart not simply make everything right? Perhaps they are cowards? Perhaps they are not that good after all?


Is the skin of stone giants, gargoyles, and ropers made of stone? Likewise, is the skin of wood giants, dryads, arboreals, and leshies made of wood? I mean, would a scientist conclude that the skin of these monsters are chemically identical to the real stone and wood?


James Jacobs wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:

Hey James,

So, planar etymology question - is abyssal the original language of the qlippoth, or was it only invented by the demons and the qlippoth used something else/telepathy before then?

It's the original language of the Abyss, although I suspect qlippoth speak it with an archaic accent. Kinda like the difference between modern English and middle or even old English.
Thanks! Of course, I do have a follow up - is the same true of Infernal, with devils and asuras?

Yup, but on a much shorter timespan. Not that "shorter" in this case would be perceived as short by mortal minds, of course. Just that the qlippoth vastly predate the asuras.

I almost think that the qlippoth might even predate the concept of language, and that them speaking Abyssal is an evolution, and that before they either didn't communicate at all or used some other method of communication that isn't something humanity can comprehend. Something like the ideas of language that are explored in "The Arrival" for example.

Can I assume that, before qlippoth began speaking Abyssal, they communicated via telepathy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Konradleijon wrote:
it says that Intelligent devours host still have a “modicum of awareness” despite their brain being eaten. and i presume it is basic emotional states like fear and surprise. but i’d like to know what exactly “modicum of awareness” means.
I'm not sure what you're asking exactly about (seems like you skipped a word or two in the question), but the phrase "modicum of awareness" means that you retain a little bit of the ability to sense the world around you, sort of as if you were suffering from extensive brain damage or a lobotomy or the like—you're very limited in how you react to the world, and I"d say basic emotional states would be completely gone.
Wait. So if an intellect devourer burrows into the brain of a human and eat the brain, the human is still technically alive? And the human's soul still resides in his own body? Perhaps the human can become healthy again if a cleric casts heal or regenerate?
Nope. In that case the human is dead and the soul has moved on. What's left in the brainless body is, basically, a meat robot with broken programming. The rules, I believe, are pretty clear on how you fix being intellect devourered—you have to use something to restore life to death.

But you said that the brainless host still has a "modicum of awareness" and thus still retains a little bit of the ability to sense the world around him. Doesn't that mean the host is still alive? Am I missing something?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Konradleijon wrote:
it says that Intelligent devours host still have a “modicum of awareness” despite their brain being eaten. and i presume it is basic emotional states like fear and surprise. but i’d like to know what exactly “modicum of awareness” means.
I'm not sure what you're asking exactly about (seems like you skipped a word or two in the question), but the phrase "modicum of awareness" means that you retain a little bit of the ability to sense the world around you, sort of as if you were suffering from extensive brain damage or a lobotomy or the like—you're very limited in how you react to the world, and I"d say basic emotional states would be completely gone.

Wait. So if an intellect devourer burrows into the brain of a human and eat the brain, the human is still technically alive? And the human's soul still resides in his own body? Perhaps the human can become healthy again if a cleric casts heal or regenerate?


James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
When I first saw Pathfinder, I was a little bit disappointed because it doesn't contain kuo-toa. What monster would be the best alternative for kuo-toa in Lost Omens? Skum? Gillmen? Deep ones? Deep merfolk?

Kuo-toa are one of the creatures WotC didn't put into the SRD, like beholders and mind flayers and carrion crawlers.

Skum are the closet thing to a "replacement" they have, and in fact, there's a large city of skum in the Darklands I put there for just that purpose.

Actually I thought that deep ones are the closest thing to a replacement for kuo-toa, because I heard kuo-toa are heavily inspired by deep ones. But if the best replacement for kuo-toa are skum, than perhaps kuo-toa and deep ones are not alike that much?


When I first saw Pathfinder, I was a little bit disappointed because it doesn't contain kuo-toa. What monster would be the best alternative for kuo-toa in Lost Omens? Skum? Gillmen? Deep ones? Deep merfolk?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I realized that there's no treant in Bestiary. Do they not exist in Lost Omens anymore?


In First Edition, a cleric chooses two domains among those belonging to his deity. These two domains are for free. But in Second Edition, if a cleric doesn't learn domain initiate feat, then he would have no access to the domains of his deity and thus would not be able to cast domain spells? In other words, while domains were for free in First Edition, they are not free anymore in Second Edition?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
I have always thought that locathahs look like goldfish. But the art on page 164 of Second Edition Bestiary 3 reminds me of... I'm not sure, but... Coral? Jellyfish? Sea anemone? I have no idea what it is, but it surely doesn't look like a goldfish to me anymore. Is the art for locathahs in Bestiary 3 was a mis-step (just like the art for ogres) and will be swapped out eventually?
The 2nd edition is our look for them now.

I wish to ask: Do you think locathahs look like goldfish in Pathfinder First Edition and D&D? Also, do you think Second Edition locathahs look vastly different from First Edition locathahs?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have always thought that locathahs look like goldfish. But the art on page 164 of Second Edition Bestiary 3 reminds me of... I'm not sure, but... Coral? Jellyfish? Sea anemone? I have no idea what it is, but it surely doesn't look like a goldfish to me anymore. Is the art for locathahs in Bestiary 3 was a mis-step (just like the art for ogres) and will be swapped out eventually?


Do powerful undead like Auberon, Erum-Hel, Geb, Malyas, Tar-Baphon, and Zutha worship Urgathoa?


James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
Do powerful beings like Baba Yaga, Belimarius, Geb, Jatembe, Nex, Sorshen, and Tar-Baphon want to become gods?
None of those you listed do, except for Tar-Baphon.

Then can I assume that, while Urgathoa would like Geb very much, she would hate or perhaps be afraid of Tar-Baphon, since there's a high possibility that he would one day ascend and become a serious contender for the title of the god of the undead?


Do powerful beings like Baba Yaga, Belimarius, Geb, Jatembe, Nex, Sorshen, and Tar-Baphon want to become gods?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While dragons have arms, drakes don't. But house drakes clearly have arms. Do you think this monster is not named correctly? Would you have changed their name to house dragon if you have found out this error earlier?


Who created xiomorns? Perhaps you?


James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
Good elemental lords were defeated and sealed by evil elemental lords long ago. Does that mean the good elemental lords have not been able to grant spells to their clerics, paladins, and oracles? I personally doubt it because Rovagug can grant spells to his clerics freely despite hit imprisonment.
It doesn't mean that.

After Sairazul was imprisoned, all xiomorns abandoned her almost immediately and started worshiping Ayrzul very willingly. So I thought the good elemental lords were not able to grant spells or even communicate with their worshipers during the imprisonment. Can I assume that I was wrong, and the imprisoned elemental lords could grant spells to their worshipers, just like Rovagug did?


Good elemental lords were defeated and sealed by evil elemental lords long ago. Does that mean the good elemental lords have not been able to grant spells to their clerics, paladins, and oracles? I personally doubt it because Rovagug can grant spells to his clerics freely despite hit imprisonment.


A sorcerer gains his spell slots and the spells in his spell repertoire at the same rate. But the rulebook also said that "If a feat or other ability adds a spell to your spell repertoire, it wouldn't give you another spell slot, and vice versa." So can I assume that, while the sorcerer can add nine bloodline spells to his spell repertoire for free, he would not receive nine free spell slots (one for each spell level) at all?


I have always thought that hippocampi are aquatic creatures and thus can breathe in water and in air. But I found out that they have aquatic trait instead of amphibious trait. Does that mean hippocampi cannot breathe in air?


I found out that while an ogre glutton have swallow whole ability, an ogre boss, an ogre hunter, and an ogre warrior don't. Is it a typo? I mean, they are members of the same species. An ogre glutton and other ogres are biologically identical, right? Then how come only an ogre glutton have swallow whole ability? Likewise, while a jotund troll and a two-headed troll have swallow whole ability, a normal troll, a cavern troll, and a frost troll don't. Not sure whether it's a typo or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
I found out that dragons don't have swallow whole ability, while some monsters like froghemoths, jotund trolls, and ogre gluttons who are smaller than dragons have that ability. Shouldn't dragons also have swallow whole ability as well? They are very big. So logically it would be child's play to them to swallow something whole, right?
Dragons have enough already without extra complications for things. Size doesn't auto-grant swallow whole. If it did, it'd be part of the size category rules, and that makes them too complicated to be fun.

Hmm. I got it. I want to ask one more question. If I give swallow whole to all dragons who are huge or larger, should I increase the dragons' level? Or I don't have to, because it wouldn't enhance the dragons' combat power significantly?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I found out that dragons don't have swallow whole ability, while some monsters like froghemoths, jotund trolls, and ogre gluttons who are smaller than dragons have that ability. Shouldn't dragons also have swallow whole ability as well? They are very big. So logically it would be child's play to them to swallow something whole, right?


By 2nd edition, do you mean Pathfinder Second Edition?


I'm not sure who created bebiliths (perhaps you?) but I think you would know this: are bebiliths demons or qlippoth?


In Second Edition, will there be more Bestiary? Or is Bestiary 3 the final book?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can you tell me when Kingmaker Anniversary Edition, Kingmaker Bestiary, and Kingmaker Companion Guide will be released? Perhaps it's not decided yet?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How come Kingmaker Anniversary Edition, Kingmaker Bestiary, and Kingmaker Companion Guide still have not been released? I thought they were to be released in 2021. Why did you choose to delay their publication?


On page 235 of Second Edition Bestiary, it says that a dark and sinister power capable of rendering even the most beautiful merfolk into a degenerate and mutated wretch, and that the merfolk are unwitting puppets to some unknown entity lurking in the deepest depths of the seas. What are the dark and sinister entity mentioned here? Alghollthus, perhaps? And can they truly do such things?


Some creatures like amphisbaenas, ettins, hydras, jotund trolls, and tarn linnorms have more than one heads. Do they have more than one souls? I ask this because I'm not sure if I can regenerate an ettin's severed head via regenerate spell or not (let's assume this ettin is still alive and its another head is intact). Should I use raise dead or similar spells to heal an ettin's severed head?


I heard that a hexagon-based map is much better than a square-based map. Which do you prefer? Do you think it would have been better if Pathfinder RPG (both First and Second Edition) is based on hexagons instead of squares?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have always assumed that all types of cave worms are aquatic creatures because they have a swim speed. But recently I found out that, while azure worms have amphibious trait, crimson worms and purple worms don't. Is it a typo? Can crimson worms and purple worms breathe in water?


Do people in Lost Omens find it hard to differentiate a boggard from a grippli, since they look very alike? At least I definitely have trouble telling them apart just by looking the arts.


James Jacobs wrote:
HTD wrote:
In 2nd Edition, do insectoid werecreatures/entothropes still use belladonna instead of wolfsbane to cure their affliction?
We haven't made a decision on that yet since we haven't officially brought them into 2nd edition yet as far as I know. You can generally assume that lore from 1st edition holds fast for things though unless we specifically change it, and since we haven't here, then no change yet.

Are there insectoid werecreatures in Pathfinder? I thought there are only eight types of lycanthropes: werebats, werebears, wereboars, werecrocodiles, wererats, weresharks, weretigers, and werewolves.


A jungle drake is immune to poison. Which means it would not poison itself even if it accidentally stabs itself with its stinger. But I found out that a wyvern is not immune to poison. Does that mean a wyvern would be poisoned if it accidentally stabs itself with its stinger?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have always assumed that boggards are frogfolk. But recently I found out that gripplis look like frogs as well. So can I assume that gripplis are frogfolk, and boggards are toadfolk?


On page 80 of Eyes of Empty Death, there is an art of an aquatic monster. What does it depict, a deepwater dhuthorex or a dread dhuthorex?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Piracy is legal in several non-evil countries. For example, in Andoran, piracy against Cheliax and slavers are entirely legal. And in Taldor, piracy against Qadira is entirely legal. Piracy is also legal in the Shackles, I guess. Then what about in Varisia? I mean, Korvosa, Magnimar, and Riddleport seem very hostile to each other. Then can I assume that piracy and banditry against other two city states are entirely legal in these three states?

1 to 50 of 961 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>