Unity

Aenigma's page

1,077 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,077 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm really frustrated because this adventure path is a three-book adventure path. I honestly think it has the potential to be a six-book adventure path. Sigh. I know recently Paizo makes three-book AP only, but this particular AP, where the PC face and kill the iconic monster of Paizo, should have been a full six-book AP! Not sure why Paizo made such a decision.

This is not a mythic adventure? Sigh. It seems I need to wait several more months to see a true mythic adventure path where the final boss is a level 30 demon lord, rather than just a nascent demon lord like Treerazer. I thought Treerazer is described as a non-mythic creature in Monster Core only because there were no mythic rules then, and since we will have mythic rules very soon, he will become a mythic creature in the upcoming Spore War adventure path!

James, can I assume that all demon-infested lands are blighted lands, as described on page 60 of Prisoners of the Blight? In these areas, the trees grow eyes, the skies are unnaturally dark, and it feels as if nature itself has become an enemy to all living things?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure "Spore War" is a good name for the adventure path featuring Treerazer. This name would be more fitting if the final boss were related to fungi or vermin, such as Cyth V'sug, Deskari, Jubilex, Mazmezz, or Yhidothrus. However, Treerazer, while known for his environmental destruction, resembles a dinosaur or dragon, not a fungus or vermin.

James, if First Edition mythic rules were much more successful, would this adventure path have been published in First Edition?

"Treerazer" is just a nickname, and we still don't know his real name. I really hope his real name is revealed in this adventure path, as it would be the perfect opportunity (and likely the last, since Treerazer will be killed in this adventure path and won't appear or be mentioned again).


ornathopter wrote:
I guess we have another reason why they couldn't call the mythic destiny Horseman of the Apocalypse - the iconic is riding a goblin dog.

I don't remember I have ever seen that particular art. Where can I see it?


So the mythic power is not a post level 20 content? Sigh. I really wish the mythic power would let my wizard do truly mythic deeds, like: Raising an island from the bottom of the sea (just like what Aroden did) so that he would recreate the drowned Azlant once again! Or transporting thousands soldiers with one teleport spell so that he would conquer literally anywhere in the world! Or an outright planet-destroying spell, perhaps. But if it's a below level 20 content, that means my mythic wizard would not be able to do such things?

I really wish Paizo to publish post level 20 rules someday. I like the flavor of the mythic power, sure, but advancing beyond level 20 seems better I guess.


I honestly have no idea why Paizo decided to make minotaurs a PC race. I mean, they are mostly evil. They are the minions of Baphomet. If minotaurs can be a PC race, I guess ogres and trolls can too, but surprisingly Paizo has no intention to make them PC races at all though. Also, I'm still not sure whether making a large race into a PC race is desirable or not.


I just realized that Great Planar Ally can only summon an outsider (not sure if the word "summon" is appropriate in this context though). And Tarrasque, the herald of Rovagug, is a magical beast, not an outsider. So even if Great Planar Ally has no HD limit, it can still not be used to summon Tarrasque right? Sigh. It's clearly disadvantageous for Rovagug worshippers.


Pathfinder First Edition Core Rulebook was published in 2009, and Second Edition Core Rulebook was published in 2019. So logically Paizo will publish Third Edition in 2029! I only need to wait five more years, which thrills me a lot!

I'm not sure when Starfinder Second Edition will come out, but since Starfinder First Edition Core Rulebook was published in 2017, logically the new edition will be published in 2027 I guess.


In Herald of the Ivory Labyrinth, Baphomet transformed Iomedae's herald into his own. His CR is 20 and he also has 8 MR. Does that mean, while he is the herald of a god, he cannot be conjured with Greater Planar Ally spell?


I was very curious about this so I checked the core rulebooks of Pathfinder First Edition, Second Edition and Starfinder again yet still found nothing. Can I assume that the OP's assumption (teleportation is accomplished by going through the Astral or Ethereal plane to move to the destination) has no evidence at all? Not sure if it was mentioned somewhere in the D&D rulebooks but I honestly have no idea.


exequiel759 wrote:
We know that magical teleportation is accomplished by going through the Astral or Ethereal plane to move to the destination, which I assume what happens is that you actually move that direction within the Ethereal Plane in a split second and then shift back to the Universe.

Is it? Where is it mentioned? I don't remember reading it in any of the D&D, Pathfinder, or Starfinder rulebooks. Can you tell me?


I have a similar question. The endonyms of serpentfolk and troglodytes are sekmin and xulgath respectively (plural forms are sekmins and xulgaths). Likewise, do elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, orcs, goblins, and boggards have their own endonym too?


James Jacobs wrote:
It's the third time Paizo has had to do a big shift as a result of being dependent on another company, and in the grand scheme of things was the simplest one to pull off (the other two being losing the Dragon and Dungeon magazine licenses resulting in the creation of the Pathfinder brand and Pathfinder Adventure Path, and 4th edition not being friendly to the OGL resulting in the creation of the Pathfinder RPG).

Does that mean, originally Paizo didn't plan to make Pathfinder RPG at all? That if Wizards of the Coast didn't take away the Dragon and Dungeon magazine licenses from Paizo, Paizo would not have created the Lost Omens campaign setting in the first place?

Or if D&D 4th was friendly to the OGL, then Paizo would have used D&D 4th and 5th rules, not creating Pathfinder RPG?

Also, if the OGL crisis didn't happen, would Paizo still have used the OGL?

I ask these because I have always thought that creating its own rules and dumping each and every OGL element (including the OGL monsters like chromatic and metallic dragons, or golems, and the alignment system) entirely are Paizo's eventual goals from the beginning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
...compounded by the fact that the tradition of doing city maps where every individual building is shown is the industry standard and the customer expectation even though that means that if you do it right, you need poster maps or rolls of butcher paper or a parking lot in order to do that right for a city that's got hundreds of thousands or millions of people living in it.

Wait, so does that mean the maps of various settlements like Magnimar, Korvosa, or Oppara do not exactly describe the settlements like Google Earth? I mean, the number of buildings and houses drawn in the maps are clearly fewer than the actual buildings and houses needed to accommodate the population?

I have always thought that the map in City of Lost Omens Poster Map Folio accurately describes the city, that it includes literally every house and building in Absalom. Well, I didn't actually count the numbers of the houses to find out if there are enough houses to accommodate more than 300,000 people, though. Turns out even that map is not entirely accurate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Magnimar is growing rapidly? I'm glad to hear that. I have always thought that Magnimar's population is too small considering its area.

It seems that even GM Core has no information about the approximate population of each settlement size category. Not sure if pre-Remaster Second Edition rulebook has mentioned this or not though.

If Paizo remakes Rise of the Runelords or Return of the Runelords using Pathfinder Remaster, how high would Xin-Shalast's or Xin-Edasseril's settlement level be? Near 20 perhaps, because of the presence of the runelord?

By the way, can the settlement level be higher than 20? If a settlement is very populated and developed, and has many high level mythic characters, then perhaps...? For example, I think the Eternal City of Axis' settlement level would be much higher than 20!


Sigh. I'm still not sure if not doing a playtest for the mythic rules is a good idea.

What is the giant mushroom creature on the cover of Pathfinder Godsrain?

Is Battlecry the name of the book? Have it been announced before? I have never even heard it.

On the cover of Divine Mysteries, are the three deities behind Arazni Sarenrae, Pharasma, and Asmodeus?

I still have no idea when and how Arazni has become a deity. In Tyrant's Grasp, Arazni was not even a demigod, just a powerful mythic character. Now, Tar-Baphon is still a mortal (albeit very powerful), yet Arazni has become a full-fledged deity? Did she touch the Starstone?


I didn't even know there would be this stream today! Was it announced on the website? Will it be uploaded on YouTube?

Now that Gorum's death is confirmed, does that mean The Godsrain Prophecies are over and there will be no part eleven?


Does that mean there will be no playtest for the mythic rules?

Perhaps the cover art implies that Szuriel will be a deity in Pathfinder Remaster?


James Jacobs wrote:
We don't officially categorize what the height break point is for creature sizes in 2nd edition...

According to this webpage, in Pathfinder First Edition the typical height and length of each creature size are concretely defined. I have always thought that Paizo has categorized the creature sizes in Second Edition just like it did in First Edition. But turns out there is no such concrete numbers in Second Edition and Remaster?

By the way, I tried to find the description about the typical height and length of each creature size that can be found in the above link from the First Edition Core Rulebook but I couldn't. Do you know on which page that particular content is located?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought this adventure takes place in Magnimar because of the Skinsaw Man... turns out the Skinsaw Cult is in Ravounel too? Sigh. I really wish we would revisit Magnimar as soon as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is this book written using Starfinder First Edition rules?


I have always thought that the Sandpoint Devil is the name of a race, just like bearded devils, horned devils, and sea devils. Is the Sandpoint Devil the name of a specific creature, and not the name of a race? In other words, is there no baby Sandpoint Devil at all?

Also I recently discovered that the alignment of the Sandpoint Devil is neutral evil. Then why does people of Sandpoint call it the Sandpoint Devil, instead of the Sandpoint Daemon? Well, considering Saul Vancaskerkin and all those who have participated in the Cheat the Devil and Take his Gold tournament in Shadow in the Sky didn't realize that succubi are actually demons rather than devils and would be considered mortal enemies of the latter, perhaps normal humans on Golarion have no knowledge or interest in the finer distinctions of the Lower Planes. Thus it would not be unlikely for the people of Sandpoint not being able to properly distinguish devils from daemons. Sigh. If the Sandpoint Devil lived near a developed city like Magnimar or Absalom, then perhaps it got a proper and correct name. :)


Not sure if I understood correctly. So qlippoth is purely the creation of Paizo, but shoggti, nyogoth, chernobue, and Shiggarreb cannot be used in Pathfinder Remaster? I didn't know they were created by Green Ronin because they appeared in First Edition Bestiary 2 and Book of the Damned. But if they were created for Pathfinder in the first place instead of D&D, perhaps they are still usable in Pathfinder Remaster?


Qlippoth still exist? I thought they are created by D&D. Turns out they are purely Paizo's creation?

I'm very frustrated that kobolds now have nothing to do with dragons. I have liked them very much due to their resemblance to dragons. Is the depiction of kobolds as little dragons a creation of D&D too, and not part of the origianl mythology?

CorvusMask wrote:
I do find it funny that thanks to ogl removal, the "sea devils" finally got better name than that

Not sure if I understood correctly, but does that mean you didn't like the name "sea devils" and like the new name "sedacthy"? I actually hate the new name very much, and am very surprised that Paizo cannot use the name sahuagin. Is sahuagin created by D&D as well?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sigh. No more remaster books? I really wish Secrets of Magic to be remastered. That book gave detailed information about magic, essences, and schools. Since the previous information regarding magic schools are completely useless now, I wish to see the remastered version of Secrets of Magic someday.


1. Does aboleth still appear? While it is an OGL monster, simply removing it would create a huge lore error since aboleth is the basic form of all alghollthus, according to page 74 of The Lost Outpost.

2. Do intellect devourer, locathah, neothelid, owlbear, sahuagin still appear?

3. Are golems completely removed? If so, I wonder what would happen to the Golemworks in Magnimar. Perhaps it would suddenly go bankrupt and its name is changed to the Clockworkworks or the Robotworks? :)

4. I heard that, while traditional dragons are completely removed, traditional giants still appear. Is it true? I have always thought that giants in Pathfinder (cloud, fire, frost, stone, storm...) are 100% created by D&D and thus unusable in the ORC.

5. Are barghests still related to goblins and have the ability to change shape into goblins? While barghests are from the real world mythology, that they belong to goblinoids is purely D&D creation, as far as I know.


Sigh. I'm really frustrated that this is a one-book adventure path. I honestly think it has the potential to be a six-book adventure path. I wonder why Paizo made such a decision.


I think that, aside from it being the prison of Rovagug, Golarion is exceptionally special among the thousands of planets in the Material Plane because, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of sentient races on Golarion, while most other planets have only one or two sentient races (according to Distant Worlds and Starfinder I guess). Also, Golarion is not a planet of hats, unlike most other planets, whose inhabitants all share a single defining characteristic.


I just watched the YouTube video about this adventure path. Is the narrator Nualia? I totally didn't expect she would come back! I wonder who the voice actor is.

Am I the only one who thinks her voice sounds irritated and sore, or do others think so too?

By the way, for example, Burnt Offerings and Spires of Xin-Shalast are the titles of the adventure books, while Rise of the Runelords is the title of the adventure path. So if Seven Dooms for Sandpoint is the title of this book, then what is the title of this adventure path?

Does this adventure path have OGL-only monsters? I really wish it doesn't, because that would help GMs use this adventure path under Pathfinder Remaster.


I didn't read this book but... let's assume that a lawful evil man recently decided to worship Iomedae and, while technically still evil and thus still subject to champions' Smite Evil, he's actively trying to become less evil than before... In this case, can this man be considered to have Iomedae's (temporary) permission to be evil?

By the way, I just realized that, in Second Edition, Smite Evil does not specify the target's alignment should be evil. Does that mean if a good champion wrongfully mistook a good goblin for a murderous raider used Smite Evil on him, this Smite Evil would still work?


James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
Does it mean the chance for Paizo remastering all the true dragons with different names is very slim?
Not slim at all. You need look no further than scrolling up to the blog this comment is on for proof.

Well, this particular blog post only proposed the creation of an entirely new dragon that bears some resemblance to green dragons, which differs entirely from my hope of the return of true dragons with different names.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Strigiform-ursine hybrids and cuboid gels? The former seems owlbears but what are cuboid gels?

Anyway, sigh. Does it mean the chance for Paizo remastering all the true dragons with different names is very slim? I really wish Paizo to do that, like:

Red: fire dragon or flame dragon
Blue: storm dragon (I think making them amphibious creatures instead of desert-dwelling creatures would help differentiating them from their D&D counterparts)
Black: skull dragon or swamp dragon
Green: forest dragon
White: snow dragon or ice dragon

I cannot think of suitable alternate names for metallic dragons though. Well, I don't like them that much anyway. :)


James Jacobs wrote:
The name and look can't be in the remaster, but the flavor we've given them as aliens and agents of the Dominion of the Black is ours. As revealed in the "Return to the Darklands" these creatuers now look more like four-tentacled octopuses with a brain for a body, and are knowna as Xorians, or "corpse riders."

What is the "Return to the Darklands"? I have never even heard it. Is it the name of a Lost Omens setting book that is not published yet?

By the way, is Shadows Under Sandpoint not the name of a book, rather the name of a campaign you mastered, James? Can I assume that all the contents in that campaign are included in the setting books that have been published so far?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not an intellect devourer in any case I guess, since intellect devourer is an OGL thing and thus cannot appear in Pathfinder Remaster, just like aboleth, flumph, neothelid, owlbear, or Tarrasque.


I think "Thassilon hates divination" is not canon anymore since in Pathfinder Remaster the divination school is completely removed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
The two things—the Thassilonian specialiast and the Runelord archetype are NOT the same things.

1. Sigh. I'm really frustrated because there is no Thassilonian specialist archetype in pre-Remaster Second Edition. Perhaps Paizo will make one for Pathfinder Remaster later?

2. In Thassilon, would non-wizard arcane casters (sorcerers, witches, magi, and summoners) be regarded as strange eccentrics at best and hostile invaders from Azlant at worst, just like those wizards who specialized in other ways (aka non-Thassilonian specialists or universalists) would?

3. Regarding the Eye of Jealousy, you once said that, even if Belimarius did notice the flaw in the advice given by Karzoug, it would have been beyond her power to fix it. You also said that even if Karzoug gave her the real recipe she'd still fail to create a runewell. Then how many levels should one need to create a runewell? Obviously 18 is not enough, because Belimarius, a 18th level wizard, failed. Krune, a 17th level wizard, would also fail, and Zutha too (though I have no idea how many levels does Zutha had) I suppose. Then perhaps 19 would be enough? Dang it. If Belimarius gained only one more level by going on an adventure and killing several powerful monsters, she would surely have discovered Karzoug's trick and fixed it properly, preventing Xin-Edasseril from being trapped outside of time and thus saving her subjects.


James Jacobs wrote:
Nope. Archetypes as we presented them in the rules didn't come about until the creation of the Advanced Player's Guide, which came out many years and an entire edition after Rise of the Runelords.

As far as I know, the Thassilonian specialist archetype in First Edition was introduced in Inner Sea Magic, which was published in July 2011. And Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition was published in July 2012. So I thought that the runelords were built using the Thassilonian specialist archetype. And also I thought that the Thassilonian specialist archetype in First Edition is equal to the runelord archetype in Second Edition. But turns out they are two similar but different archetypes? Perhaps Paizo will publish the Thassilonian specialist archetype for Pathfinder Remaster someday? Or perhaps the two are actually identical, and just like the runelord archetype, the Thassilonian specialist archetype was a very recent addition to the world that rose from modern folks developing something that apes what a traditional runelord is?

Anyway, if you are gamemastering for a group set in pre-Earthfall Thassilon using the First Edition rules or the pre-Remaster Second Edition rules (since the specifics of the Remaster runelord archetype are still unclear to me), and one of the PCs is an apprentice of Runelord Karzoug with aspiration to become the Runelord of Greed someday, would you allow him access to the Thassilonian specialist archetype or the runelord archetype, or would you force him to be a normal transmuter instead?


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Not James, but I took the point to mean that the original Runelords were more or less unique individuals. The Runelord archetype didn't exist because the Runelord archetype is for modern wizards to mimic their singular and unique trend without necessarily grasping their power. You couldn't make a Runelord using PC abilities because there is no game mechanic to model creating and tapping into a runewell and possessing mythically powerful wizardry.

Well, because in First Edition, Alaznist, Belimarius, Karzoug, Krune, Sorshen, Xanderghul, and Zutha were built using the Thassilonian specialist archetype, which was the First Edition equivalent of the runelord archetype. So I thought ancient Thassilonian wizards did use the runelord archetype.


1. Wait, what? Back in the day of ancient Thassilon, the runelord archetype didn't exist?

I have always thought that Xin created the runelord archetype and taught his apprentices (the first seven runelords) this archetype. But if there was not the runelord archetype and it is merely a very recent and modern development...

Assume that, after the rules for the runelord archetype is published for Pathfinder Remaster, Paizo decides to publish Rise of the Runelords again using the Pathfinder Remaster rules. Then, if you build the stats for Karzoug and his apprentice Khalib as if they are PCs (instead of NPCs, I mean), would you give them the runelord archytype?

James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
9. A female god is called a goddess. A female king is called a queen. A female lord is called a lady. A female master is called a mistress. Then, shouldn't a female runelord be called a runelady?
Not in this case. If the word were kept as two separate words, like "rune lord" then perhaps, but as a compound word it's gender neutral.

2. Hmm, interesting. Perhaps that's why Shorafa Pamodae in Riddleport is called a crimelord instead of crimelady, and why Neferpatra Ahnkamen in Absalom is called the scion lady and the first lady of laws? But strangely, Lady Darchana of House Madinani is called the second spell lord of Absalom instead of spell lady, so I'm really confused.

Anyway, if that is the case, does that mean female demon lords, qlippoth lords, empyreal lords, and pirate lords like Lamashtu, Nocticula, Oaur-Ooung, Arshea and Tessa Fairwind should be called demon ladies, qlippoth ladies, and empyreal ladies instead? I guess the proper terms for female infernal dukes, female monitor demigods, female protean lords, female balor lords, and male Queens of the Night would be infernal duchesses, monitor demigoddesses, protean ladies, balor ladies, and Kings of the Night (or perhaps Whore King?) then?

3. I also discovered that Jilia Bainilus of Kintargo and Sabriyya Kalmeralm of Magnimar are called lord-mayors instead of lady-mayors. I'm not sure if there has ever been a female watcher-lord in Lastwall, but I wonder if they would have been called watcher-ladies? But the real world female Lord Mayors of London are just called lord mayors, not lady mayors.

4. What is the reason for Paizo's decision to use the term lord-mayor instead of lord mayor? I mean, in the real world, the City of London uses the title lord mayor, not lord-mayor. Even in Lost Omens, there exists the title lord mayor as well (Ioseph Sellemius of Restov is one). So why did you choose to use the unhistorical title instead?

5. By the way, can you tell me what's the reason behind the complete redesign of the Eye of Avarice in Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition? Not sure if you made this decision, though.


Not sure if I got this right. So, in the Cthulhu Mythos, Dagon is the name of a race (advanced deep ones?), not the name of an individual, right? Just like Medusa is the name of an individual in Greek mythology but is the name of a race in Pathfinder? I have no idea if the medusa race is still a thing in Pathfinder Remaster though.

Baphomet is usable in Pathfinder Remaster? I thought that, while Baphomet is indeed a public domain, Baphomet as a demon lord who is worshiped by minotaurs is a purely D&D creation (though it seems to me that the D&D Baphomet and the Pathfinder Baphomet look vastly different).

Will the statistics for Deskari written and revealed eventually? I mean, will his areas of concern, edicts, anathema, and divine attribute be published someday, or at least posted on Paizo Blog? I know Deskari is dead and will never be resurrected (not sure if Pharasma has already judged his soul or not though), but I really wish to see those information.


Thank you very much James. I have a few follow-up questions.

1. You said the lava is created by the demiplane. Then where does the excess lava go? I mean, in the Eye of Fury, the lava lake never rises or falls in volume, even though the massive cascade of molten rock keeps adding more lava.

2. Does the Grand Mastaba also have the bas-relief sculpture of the naked Sorshen on each side of it?

3. According to page 9 of Cult of Cinders, nothing exists outside of the walls of the Huntergate way station, and any attempt to dig into the surrounding stone reveals only more stone. As you can see, unlike the Eyes or Runeforge, the walls of the Huntergate way station don't end at all. No matter how much I dig, the wall will never end and I cannot see the endless void outside the wall, if it exists at all. Does that mean the way stations of Alseta's Ring are indeed infinite demiplanes?

4. If the Eyes, Runeforge, and the way stations of Alseta's Ring are demiplanes, then where are they located? In the Astral Plane perhaps?

5. The Void is another name for the Negative Energy Plane. And it is mentioned that outside the wall of the Eyes and Runeforge there is the void. Does that mean the Eyes and Runeforge are somewhere in the Negative Energy Plane?

6. The collective term for the Seven Swords of Sin is the Alara'hai. The collective term for the set of intelligent weapons crafted by Xin for the runelords as their symbols of office is the Alara'quin. Then what is the collective term for the Eye of Arrogance, the Eye of Avarice, the Eye of Desire, the Eye of Fury, and the Eye of Jealousy? At first I thought the answer is the runewells, but later I discovered that the runewells are not as same as the Eyes.

7. Does Xin have any special weapon like the Alara'quin?


As for Dagon, I have always had no idea why he is a demon lord or a qlippoth lord in Lost Omens. I mean, he is from the Cthulhu Mythos right? Shouldn't that make him a Great Old One instead?


1. Why are the Eyes called such? I mean, in Spires of Xin-Shalast, I could understand why the Eye of Avarice was named such, because it was round, just like an eye. But in Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition, the shape of the Eye of Avarice changed drastically. I still have no idea what is the reason behind this change (I honestly likes the former version more). Why are they called the Eye, even though they don't look like an eye anymore?

2. I thought that no plane is infinite. Even the Abyss, which is the biggest among the planes, is not infinite. But if there is an endless void outside the wall of the Eye and Runeforge, does that mean these demiplanes are infinite?

3. It is mentioned that the lava lake in the Eye of Fury is only 20 feet deep. But there is no such a mention about the Eye of Avarice. Is the lava lake in the Eye of Avarice bottomless?

4. Are the Eyes and Runeforge in the same demiplane? I mean, for example, can I literally fly from the Eye of Avarice to the Eye of Desire or to Runeforge, if I know the correct direction? Can I move from one Eye to another Eye using Teleport or Gate spell?

5. The book said that I can get into or get out of Runeforge using Plane Shift or Gate spell. How about the Eyes? Can I get into or get out of the Eye of Avarice or the Eye of Fury using Plane Shift or Gate spell, without touching the anima focus? I'm honestly not sure about this because, if I can, then surely Karzoug would have escaped the Eye of Avarice long ago using Gate.

6. According to page 66 of Rise of the New Thassilon, a massive cascade of molten rock tumbles to one side of the Eye of Fury, yet the lava lake itself is only 20 feet deep and never rises or falls in volume. Where does this lava come from? Is there a possibility of two small portals, one for the lava to come in and another for the lave to go out, connecting the Eye of Fury (and the Eye of Avarice too, since there is also a lava lake in that demiplane) to the Plane of Fire?

7. According to page 253 of Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition, Runeforge sustains those within its walls constantly, keeping them nourished and reviving the body and mind. No creature needs to eat, drink, or sleep in Runeforge, except for pleasure. Air is constantly refreshed in Runeforge, and the air supply in the complex never runs out despite the fact that the dungeon is entirely enclosed. Do the Eyes have the same feature? I personally think they do, because if not, the runelords who sheltered themselves in the Eyes (Alaznist, Karzoug, and Sorshen) would have died of starvation long ago.

8. What is the pyramid-like building on page 2 of Rise of the New Thassilon? Is it the Grand Mastaba in Korvosa, or the Sunken Queen? Both buildings look like a pyramid so I honestly have no idea. As far as I know, each side of the Sunken Queen is embossed with a bas-relief sculpture of the naked Runelord Sorshen. But according to the art on page 2 of Rise of the New Thassilon, only one side of that particular building has the bas-relief sculpture of the naked Sorshen. Is each side of the Grand Mastaba also embossed with a bas-relief sculpture of the naked Runelord Sorshen?

9. A female god is called a goddess. A female king is called a queen. A female lord is called a lady. A female master is called a mistress. Then, shouldn't a female runelord be called a runelady?


Adam Daigle wrote:
If conspirator dragons were an option when I came up with Deyrubrujan I would have totally made her one rather than the blue I had available at the time.

Hi Adam. You are the one who created Deyrubrujan in Dragons Unleashed? If so, I wish to ask this: How should I pronounce Deyrubrujan and Mierusildas?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
After all, where's the fun in adventuring in a world devoid of ethical dilemmas?
I haven't seen anyone at Paizo or in this thread suggest this, so I'm not really sure who you're replying to.

My intention was to express concern about the trend of toning down certain elements of fantasy worlds in the pursuit of political correctness. I worry that removing certain themes entirely may detract from the richness and complexity of those worlds.

Squiggit wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
There ought to be monsters, slavers, and criminals who revel in all manner of evil deeds
There are. Not so much slavers and rapists, because Paizo doesn't really want to write about them, but that hasn't really precluded Pathfinder (or D&D in general) from including lots of villains for PCs to fight.

Yeah, I get that there are still evil races to fight, but I think my point still stands. Like, if they're suddenly our friends, what's the deal with all those old stories about them being evil and enemies of humanity?

Squiggit wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
If goblins and kobolds are now portrayed as allies rather than murderous and deranged creatures who think nothing of enslaving and butchering humans, it begs the question of why they exist at all.

Well, presumably because a writer thinks they're interesting and wants to tell stories about them. This feels kind of non-sequitur.

Some writers might find these new takes on goblins and kobolds interesting, but what I'm saying is, if they're suddenly the good guys, what's the point of having them around? We've already got plenty of friendly races like elves, dwarves, and gnomes. I think goblins and kobolds are more interesting when they are murderous monsters. Having a few rogue goblins and kobolds who break the mold and refuse to be murderous monsters? Totally cool. But flipping the whole script and making the entire race the good guys? That's a whole different story. It's like they're erasing all the history and lore that made those creatures unique in the first place. I still remember reading The Armageddon Echo. In that book Paizo straight-up said that drow are by their nature cruel, calculating, and evil. I was really fascinated by this particular statement, since it was a nice break from the whole "humans are the real monsters" vibe.

Squiggit wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
Imagine if Tolkien had suddenly decided, 'Oh, I believe orcs are depicted as too malevolent in my book. It's clearly discriminatory and detrimental to readers' mental well-being. I'll revise this aspect. Henceforth, orcs in Middle-earth are a proud warrior race who vehemently oppose slavery and rape.' If he had really done that, I highly doubt his legendarium would have become as famous and masterful as it is.
So you postulate that Tolkien's success doesn't have to do with his worldbuilding or storytelling ability, but specifically because it had orcs that behaved in a certain way?

My analogy to Tolkien was perhaps not the best example, but I really like the portrayal of orcs in Middle-earth as inherently evil and antagonistic. My concern is that by drastically altering the portrayal of certain creatures in fantasy games, we risk diluting the unique identities and dynamics of those worlds.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

Sigh. Ogres are being retconned too? First goblins, then kobolds, and now ogres? I really dislike Paizo's trend of redesigning the world to conform to political correctness. While steering the real world in a politically correct direction may have its merits, the fantasy realm need not, and should not, follow suit. After all, where's the fun in adventuring in a world devoid of ethical dilemmas? There ought to be monsters, slavers, and criminals who revel in all manner of evil deeds (whether it be murder, cannibalism, raiding, rape, or slavery) for PCs to confront. While I abhor real-world slavery, I have no qualms about its portrayal in the fantasy realm. If goblins and kobolds are now portrayed as allies rather than murderous and deranged creatures who think nothing of enslaving and butchering humans, it begs the question of why they exist at all. Moreover, many esteemed works of fantasy literature feature themes of slavery. Imagine if Tolkien had suddenly decided, 'Oh, I believe orcs are depicted as too malevolent in my book. It's clearly discriminatory and detrimental to readers' mental well-being. I'll revise this aspect. Henceforth, orcs in Middle-earth are a proud warrior race who vehemently oppose slavery and rape.' If he had really done that, I highly doubt his legendarium would have become as famous and masterful as it is.


SuperBidi wrote:
I hope they'll make Mythic rules to actually replace Free Archetype. Free Archetype is clunky and imbalances the game. Proper Mythic rules built to complement any kind of character would be much more fitting.

Is that so? I thought Free Archetype rule is the must-have for every player. I have personally thought that allowing all classes to gain a class feat every level and making the Free Archetype rule default are two must-haves for every game, since they would make the game even more interesting and balanced, I guess.


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Capstone level? It seems to me the level cap is 20 and probably the least interesting thing 2e Mythic could do is just give more levels. Or perhaps you mean players can punch up to the 30's and 40's which... I personally feel like 30 would be the most realistic top of the scale in those regards but on the other hand Paizo could be reinventing the scale. Might be interesting to see when we get there.

What I meant was the capstone level for monsters. For example, the capstone level for monsters was 30 in First Edition.

Gaulin wrote:

From the initial animist/exemplar play test comments from Jason Buhlman;

Mythic rules are categorically NOT an extension of the game past 20th level.

Which makes me think the mythic rules will be more akin to a set of archetypes that somehow let you fight more mythical battles. Personally I hope they're not crazy overpowered.

Hmm. Does that mean, we can still expect to see epic level rules in Pathfinder Remaster someday, since the mythic rules in War of Immortals do not make the PCs particularly powerful? I really wish to see my PC gain 30 of 40 class levels!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I'm most curious about is that how high the capstone level would be. 30? 40? I personally hope it would be 40, because I have always thought the capstone CR in First Edition (which was 30) was too low.


James Jacobs wrote:

Pathfinder #201 will be the first remastered adventure. Everything up to #200 will be OGL. We haven't yet announced the name of the next standalone adventure, but it's a remastered adventure and is done and will be coming out later this year.

Really? But Hellknight Hill, the first adventure path book written using Second Edition, was published on August 1, 2019, the same day Second Edition Core Rulebook was published. Player Core and GM Core were published on November 15, 2023, yet the adventure path books and Lost Omens setting books published after that still use pre-Remaster rules?

By the way, I heard that there will be the settlement stat block for Sandpoint in Seven Dooms for Sandpoint. Since it is written using pre-Remaster rules, can I assume that the settlement stat block in that book would be different from the one that will be written using Pathfinder Remaster rules?


What I'm most curious about is that if aboleth would appear in Moster Core or not, since it's an OGL monster. But simply removing it would create a huge problem in the lore, since aboleth is the basic form of all alghollthus. According to page 74 of The Lost Outpost, aboleths transform into other forms (including veiled masters and omnipaths) by undergoing a chrysalis-like metamorphosis. Thus if aboleths are completely removed from the world, perhaps there should be a huge revision in alghollthu lore?

Are sedacthy the Pathfinder Remaster equivalent of sahuagin? Sigh. While I generally prefer recent arts to older ones (kobolds, hobgoblins, and storm giants are the most obvious examples), I think the art for sedacthy is not as good as the ones for pre-Remaster sahuagin. They don't look as scary as sahuagin to me.

Elfteiroh wrote:


They also said in a recent stream that there won't be a "golem" category anymore. They are keeping a couple of them, and making new ones, but they have new names, and unique abilities without a 100% coherent shared mechanic. They stop being a "family" and become specific, more "stand alone" designs.

Really? I thought golems are immune to the OGL crisis since they are from the real world mythology. I must confess I much prefer clockworks and robots to golems in Pathfinder though, because... golems look too primitive to me, while clockworks and robots look very modern and refined.

1 to 50 of 1,077 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>