Unity

Aenigma's page

797 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 797 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Alghollthu words are so hard to pronounce. I wish to ask you the correct pronunciation of several words since you wrote the aboleth chapter of Lords of Madness. How do you pronounce Bolothamogg, Holashner, Piscaethces, Shothotugg, Y'chak(the five Elder Evils), uobilyth, Orluthian, Dupapn, Mavad'Nidhuned, Nevek'Dithasig, Sochsna, Torop'Jethixur, Urdol, Iltharshub, Yolinithili, Zlorthishen?


Did demon lords like Lamashtu, Pazuzu, Nocticula, Socothbenoth, Deskari and Baphomet exist before the imprisonment of Rovagug?


Other than Asmodeus, did non-good gods participate in the fight against Rovagug? Particularly, did Achaekek, the Speakers in the Depths, Groetus, Zon-Kuthon, the Bound Prince, Ghlaunder, Lamashtu, Pazuzu, Nocticula and Socothbenoth fight Rovagug as well? Or did they simply sit idly by and do nothing?


I dislike the Second Edition definition for ooze. How about you? Is there a possibility that the design team would change the definition for ooze in the second printing?


James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
While most Outer Gods and Great Old Ones are aberrations, some are not(Bokrug and Xhamen-Dor come to mind). I'm curious. Are there any Outer Gods or Great Old Ones that can be classified as oozes?
Not under the 2nd edition definition for ooze, no. There are plenty that are shapeless and blobby and ooze-like but they'd be categorized as aberrations, since the 2nd edition definition for ooze is very specifically denoting a creature with simple anatomy and low mental scores.

Which Outer Gods and Great Old Ones would have been classified as oozes if you had chance to stat them up in First Edition? Which are the first names that come to your mind?


While most Outer Gods and Great Old Ones are aberrations, some are not(Bokrug and Xhamen-Dor come to mind). I'm curious. Are there any Outer Gods or Great Old Ones that can be classified as oozes?


You once said Azathoth is more powerful than Rovagug. But if Yog-Sothoth and Nyarlathotep are more powerful than Azathoth, does that mean they are much more powerful than those most powerful deities like Pharasma and Rovagug?


Azathoth is definitely the most powerful Outer God. Then according to your opinion who would be the second and third most powerful Outer Gods? Yog-Sothoth or Shub-Niggurath? Perhaps Nyarlathotep, Ubbo-Sathla or Ngyr-Korath?


After death, a rakshasa's soul seeks a new host to be reborn in, continuing the vile cycle of fiendish reincarnation over and over again. That means rakshasas are free from the River of Souls and Pharasma's judgement. But I thought that the multiverse will cease to exist once Pharasma judged all souls. Can I assume that the world will never end since Pharasma can never judge rakshasas and thus can never finish her job? Turns out we should thank rakshasas for contributing(albeit unconsciously) to the preservation of the multiverse.


James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
Rakshasas always have one reversed element of their anatomy, which gives away their fiendish nature. Common examples include having reversed hands, ears that face backward, elbows that bend outward, toes that go from the smallest on the inside to the big toe on the outside, or even reversed knees. But I honestly cannot find any reversed element from the art on page 61 of City in the Lion's Eye. Can you tell me where it is?

Sometimes art messes up.

EDIT: I just looked at this illustration, and it's not messed up. The illustration shows the rakshasa in human disguise, so of course he wouldn't have any "tells" as to his true nature.

I have always thought that those rakshasas who assume human forms would have one reversed element of their anatomy as well, since the art on page 68 of City in the Lion's Eye said so. But you said differently. Now I'm really ocnfused. Then can I assume that the art on page 68 of City in the Lion's Eye is wrong and those rakshasas who assume human forms wouldn't have any "tells" as to their true nature?


Am I the only one who thinks Milon Jeroth in City in the Lion's Eye looks like Clint Eastwood?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rakshasas always have one reversed element of their anatomy, which gives away their fiendish nature. Common examples include having reversed hands, ears that face backward, elbows that bend outward, toes that go from the smallest on the inside to the big toe on the outside, or even reversed knees. But I honestly cannot find any reversed element from the art on page 61 of City in the Lion's Eye. Can you tell me where it is?


I understand that in Second Edition duergar and kobolds can train vermin without problems. But what about in First Edition? Luckily, I found a relevant feat called vermin heart in Advanced Player's Guide. Can I assume that in First Edition those duergar and kobolds who train and ride vermin did that thanks to this feat?


Duergar train giant spiders and other vermin to serve as mounts and guards. According to Kobolds of Golarion, giant ants serve kobolds as mounts and pack animals. But you have said several times that vermin can't be trained normally unless you have some sort of weird ability to interact with them, like mites. I'm not sure. Then how can duergar and kobolds ride vermin?


Undead are once-living creatures animated by negative energy or evil magic. I'm curious. Are there some undead animated by positive energy or good magic? I know most undead are evil and malevolent, but perhaps...?


If a fey or a human drinks water from a river that flows out of the blighted land, would he be infected with the blight? If so, the world will be doomed very quickly, because nothing can stop the influx of the blighted water and spores perfectly.


The Court of Ether is home to the twisted dark fey. Is it related to the blight? I ask this because I have always thought that all dark fey are blighted fey, or at least all dark fey like the blight and Cyth-V'sug very much.


Then can I assume that, while the first pechs were indeed created by the Vault Builders, after the First World learned of this new fey race it began to create its own pechs as well? In other words, some pechs nowadays are not related to the Vault Builders at all, because they were created by the First World directly or were born from the descendants of the so called First World born pechs, not created by the pech parents who are the descendants of the first pechs created by the Vault Builders?


I'm really not sure why Rovagug doesn't grant access to the Might domain, because I think it's more suitable for him than the Zeal domain.


Does the art depict Golarion? Does that mean we will finally see Golarion in the adventure path?


It seems that outsiders and fey are created by the planes themselves, not by the biological parents. Am I right?


So even the combined might of Desna, Asmodeus, Sarenrae and Calistria couldn't suppress Rovagug? Is he that powerful? Or he isn't, but his regeneration power is so potent that he's virtually unkillable?


At first I thought the Vault Builders created pechs. But then I found out that pechs are fey. That would mean they were not created by the Vault Builders, since fey originate from soul energy in the First World. So I ask you. Were pechs created by the Vault Builders? Or were they created by the First World but later forcefully enslaved by the Vault Builders?


The standard unit was the gold piece in First Edition. But in Second Edition, the standard unit is the silver piece instead. Why did Paizo change it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On Earth, while the South Pole lies on a continental land mass, the North Pole is located in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. What about on Golarion? Does the South Pole of Golarion lie on a continental land mass as well just like the Crown of the World?


How do you pronounce sahuagin, Krelloort(chieftain of the sahuagin tribe from Raiders of the Fever Sea), malenti and adacthys(names of two sahuagin mutations)?


Among all the proteans, only voidworms have an English name, unlike naunets, imenteshes and keketars, who have their unique names. Do they have a real, unique name? I really wish it would be revealed in the near future.


I heard in this post that shoggoths are not oozes in Second Edition because the design team felt it was important to keep creatures with the ooze trait as being relatively simple and very unintelligent. If so, will mezlans be aberrations instead of oozes in Second Edition?


What we called derros in First Edition we call deros in Second Edition. Is it a typo, or a deliberate change?


Some spell, such as dispel magic, can be used to eliminate the effects of other spells. In First Edition, supernatural abilities cannot be counterspelled because they are not spells. But since all supernatural abilities are now innate spells in Second Edition, can I counterspell a dragon's breath weapon or a medusa's petrifying gaze with dispel magic?


What we called traits in First Edition we call backgrounds in Second Edition. I remember a PC can have multiple traits in First Edition. Does that mean a PC can have multiple backgrounds in Second Edition too?


Your homebrew rules are quite good, but I have some questions.

First, allowing bards and sorcerers to effectively count all their spells as signature spells seems fine, but that makes signature spells meaningless. Maybe allowing bards and sorcerers to heighten their signature spells without spending higher level spell slots would help?

Second, what if reducing all cantrips to one action? Would it make spellcasters too powerful?

Third, according to this page the hand of the apprentice spell is too weak. Do you have a good idea regarding this spell?

Fourth, sorcerers can replace material components with somatic components, which means they effectively have the wizards' eschew materials feat for free. But I really hate the material components and wish to remove them from the game entirely. So I thought that giving sorcerers a 1st level class feat for free and removing their ability to replace material components with somatic components would be a good idea. Do you think it unfairly enhances sorcerers too much?


I have always been frustrated by the fact that while chromatic dragons have one breath weapon, metallic dragons have two. I thought it's really unfair. So I really wished Paizo to remove the secondary breath weaopns of metallic dragons in Second Edition. Did Wizards of the Coast give them two breath weapons because metallic dragons were considered inherently more powerful than chromatic dragons?


Hmm. Then if I make a dragon spellcaster without removing the dragon's Draconic Frenzy and Draconic Momentum abilities, should I increase the dragon's level? Or I don't have to, because it wouldn't enhance the dragon's combat power significantly?


To make a dragon spellcaster, I should remove the dragon's Draconic Frenzy and Draconic Momentum abilities. I'm not sure. Why should I do that? I remember in First Edition we didn't have to remove the dragon's abilities to make him a spellcaster. Also, if I give a dragon spells but don't remove Draconic Frenzy and Draconic Momentum abilities, would the dragon's level increase somehow?


In Second Edition, some dragons gain the change shape ability. In First Edition it would be a supernatural ability. But what about in Second Edition? Is it an innate spell? If so, would it be negated by a dispell magic, antimagic field or disjunction spell?


Kobolds speak Draconic. But according to page 142 of Inner Sea Races they were crafted by the vault builders. If that's the case, shouldn't they speak Terran or Orvian instead?


Wait, orcs have some unfortunate racist themes that have built up over the years? How are they related to racism? I thought hating and discriminating orcs are entirely okay because, while there are some good orcs, almost all of them are evil and do evil things.


It seems that in Second Edition witches still use the word patron. But I remember you said the word patron is a misnomer, and isn't really the right word to use for how their spells work. You also said that a better word would have been focus or area of study or specialization. I'm curious. Are the patrons adjusted greatly in Second Edition that the word patron is not a misnomer anymore?


In First Edition monsters have spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities. But in Second Edition it seems that monsters only have innate spells. Did Paizo remove spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities from the game entirely?


But I thought that druidism equals the Green Faith since druidism means the religion of the druids. Are these two completely different things after all?


Some scholars of the divine believe that druidism is older even than the concept of worshiping a deity. Legends hold that the Green Faith grew out of an ancient conflict between four sects of druids that battled for control of a vast wilderness. Did this battle take place in Azlant? Did it take place before Earthfall?


James Jacobs wrote:
3Doubloons wrote:
So, by my reckoning, that makes Archons, Angels and Azatas the main Celestials and Devils, Daemons and Demons the main Fiends. Why is it then that out of Proteans and Psychopomps, it's the lawful Aeons that break the pattern of Monitors starting with P? ;)
Because those letter matches are coincidences, not design goals. Had it been from the start, I would have pushed to have Aeons be called Primordials, I guess.

I'm curious. Has you or Paizo actually considered to have aeons be called primordials instead?


The word Monad is an English word. It isn't even a proper noun, considering the fact that we put "the" before it, unlike Treerazer, which has no "the" before it. Thus the Monad must be a nickname. Then what would be the true name of it? I really wish Paizo to reveal the true name of the Monad someday.


A magocracy is a country ruled by mages. Thassilon would be a great example for this type of government. Was Azlant a magocracy too?


Demons tempt mortals into committing sins. But qlippoth don't wish mortals to commit sins. All they want is just to take the Abyss back and live a happy and prosperous life. They don't even intend to conquer other planes like devils, daemons or demons do. Thus can I assume that while Rovagug and qlippoth are evil, they are not as evil as Lamashtu or demons, right?


Were Pharasma and the First Eight including Desna, Sarenrae, Ihys, Asmodeus and Rovagug deities when they were born, or were they at first merely a psychopomp, an azata, an angel, an archon, a devil or a qlippoth but later became deities?


The Echo Wood is my favorite region on Golarion(second only to Azlant). So I really wish to see the important figures in the Echo Wood like Baron Tervin Blackshield, Lady Tyressa Vishov and Lady Commander Audara Drovust in this book. I'm honestly not sure whether the mayors of some backwater towns in the backwater frontier can be included in the list for the 42 of the Inner Sea region's biggest personalities or not, though.


At first I thought that the Seal became Pharasma's Spire, because The Three Fears of Pharasma said that as she walked the spiral, the Seal itself grew outward, forming the Spire. But later the story also said that the Seal had vanished, leaving behind a featureless void. And it seems that even the Watcher himself had no idea where it went. I'm not sure. If the Seal ceased to exist, shouldn't Pharasma's Spire cease to exist as well, since Pharasma transformed the Seal into her spire?


I have always thought that the gods created the world of Lost Omens. Specifically, I thought that the gods created the planes. But if Azathoth has always been at the center of the Material Plane, does that mean all the planes already existed even before Pharasma was born?

1 to 50 of 797 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>