Aenigma's page

In the real world, many cities, such as London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, and Vienna, were built along rivers, which provided a reliable source of drinking water. Even on Golarion, cities like Magnimar, Korvosa, and Kenabres were established along rivers for the same reason.

However, Absalom—one of the largest cities in the world—has no river at all. Since seawater is undrinkable, where does the city's drinking water come from? At first, I suspected that numerous aqueducts might supply fountains, public basins, baths, and private villas, but I am unsure whether Absalom actually has such infrastructure.

So I must ask: where does Absalom get the water needed to sustain such a large city? Similar questions can be asked about Xin-Shalast from Spires of Xin-Shalast, Xin from The Dead Heart of Xin, and Xin-Edasseril from The City Outside of Time.

Oh, so Tolkien was the one who made hobgoblins a type of goblin after all? It seems this wasn't a creation of Wizards of the Coast. And thus, it is entirely okay for Paizo to make hobgoblins related to goblins.

Sigh. I wasn't a great fan of First Edition mythic rules. But after reading War of Immortals, I started to think First Edition mythic rules were quite good. Second Edition mythic rules don't let me feel like I am a truly mythic, powerful being at all. I honestly have no idea why people hated First Edition mythic rules so much nowadays.

Well, perhaps making goblins and hobgoblins relatives is not Wizards of the Coast's intellectual property. Maybe Tolkien introduced this concept first? I'm not sure if he ever used the word hobgoblin in his books, though.

But regarding bugbears... wasn't making them related to goblins an original idea of Wizards of the Coast? In the real world myth, they have nothing to do with goblins, right?

Also, did Paizo create the term goblinoid?

Before the Remaster, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, and barghests were considered relatives. However, in Pathfinder Remaster, it seems that barghests are no longer classified as goblinoids. While the terms goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, and barghest originate from real word mythology rather than being creations of Wizards of the Coast, I always believed that grouping them together as goblinoids was a decision made by Wizards of the Coast.

My main question is, are hobgoblins and bugbears still considered part of the goblinoids?

Additionally, according to Classic Monsters Revisited, hobgoblins were originally created from goblins. The book states that enemies of the elves enhances goblins, increasing their size, physical strength, and intelligence, thus creating hobgoblins. As for bugbears, the book does not provide a definitive origin but mentions that the first bugbears were born from goblins parents. Are these two theories still considered canon in Pathfinder Remaster?

As far as I remember, the Oliphaunt appeared on Golarion only once, during an Azlanti invasion of Thassilon in -6301 AR, in the Age of Legend. So can I assume that the men in the art are Azlanti soldiers?

Vulot? I have never even heard that name. Has he ever been mentioned in other books? And since he is a demon lord, and also since demon lords' power range was from 26 to 30 CR in First Edition, his level would be 26, at least? And since Agyra's CR was 27 in First Edition, her level would be 27, I presume.

Speaking as a guy who saw some stuff, why are the kaijus not...kaiju-sized? Like, they're Gargantuan with nothing else. I can't believe that a Gargantuan creature can do the kind of damage that it's described from them.

Yeah, that's why I stil lthink removing the colossal size in Second Edition was a huge mistake. I think Paizo not only should bring the colossal size back in Third Edition, but also should add an even bigger size category, to properly represent truly big monsters like kaiju or the Oliphaunt!

Does this game use Pathfinder Remaster rules?

So while evil outsiders have two mythic destinies (apocalypse rider and archfiend), good outsiders have only one (ascended celestial)?

Sigh. I have no idea why Thurston Hillman (the author of Darklands Revisited) said urdefhans have three eyes in the book.

Thanks for the answers! Actually, I had a similar thought regarding Lightning Bolt. In Start of Darkness, a prequel book of the famous webcomic The Order of the Stick, Xykon kills a lizardfolk with a Lightning Bolt, which blasts the creature several meters back, killing him instantly. Since this webcomic follows D&D 3.5 rules very strictly (the most memorable example, in my opinion, is from this page where Vaarsuvius tries to scribe Power Word Blind into his spellbook. According to the laws of magic, it takes up seven whole pages, even though the spell is literally just one word. He still needs to leave the next six pages blank and cannot scribe another spell that day because the laws of magic somehow prevent anyone from scribing more than one spell per day. Facing this extremely illogical irrationality, he eventually has a mental breakdown and sobs. And he still has to pay 350 gp for the ink, despite only writing one word), I had always assumed that D&D and Pathfinder's Lightning Bolt could actually do that. Sigh. Perhaps I was mistaken.

I thought this game was cancelled, since the Kickstarter page does not open. Not sure why though.

Is it based on Pathfinder Remaster?

By the way, wasn't Aeteperax in The Dragon's Demand a green dragon? It seems that there appears a black dragon in the teaser trailer.

Thanks for the answer James.

Sigh. Actually, I didn't like storm giants that much, but in Pathfinder Second Edition, they've become my favorite giants due to the art change. While they looked like just giant Greeks (or perhaps giant Romans? I really can't tell the difference) in D&D and Pathfinder First Edition, the new art for storm giants in the Second Edition Bestiary really makes them feel like truly fantastic creatures. It's too bad they're removed from Pathfinder Remaster. :(

Now, I'm really looking forward to Monster Core 2 because I hope to see the return of the good old monsters in Pathfinder Remaster. I'm not sure if Paizo is inclined to bring them back, though. :)

On page 5 of The Armageddon Echo, James Jacobs said:

Elf ears are a funny issue. They're one of those things that everyone seems to have strong opinions about, and I'm not really sure why. The exact length and shape of these things sends our readers into shockingly passionate debates. I'm sure we didn't help things by going all over the board in the early days of Pathfinder as we experimented with a look that would be Golarion's. I knew I didn't want Spock-length ears (I wanted to save those for our half-elves), but I also knew that the overly huge "anime-ears" threw a lot of our readers into fits of rage. The direction of those ears caused problems too; do they stick straight up, straight out, or at some angle in-between?

After reading this, I have some questions.

1. My knowledge of Japanese animation is limited, but don't the elves on Golarion have overly huge anime-ears?

2. Can I also assume that the elves on Golarion have ears that stick straight up?

3. Azatas are the most elf-like of the celestial races. Do they also have overly huge anime-ears that stick straight up?

4. Can I assume that Calistria, Desna, Nocticula, and Socothbenoth have overly huge anime-ears that stick straight up?

5. Additionally, can I assume that elves in Dungeons & Dragons have short ears, like Spock-length, that stick straight out? At least, that's how the elves in Baldur's Gate 3 appear to me.

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?

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).

...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?

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!

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.

Is this book written using Starfinder First Edition rules?

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, no traditional true dragons in Monster Core? That's too sad, because I really like the unique appearances of true dragons in Pathfinder. For example, red and blue dragons in Pathfinder look clearly different from their D&D equivalents, and I really prefer the Pathfinder dragons to the D&D ones. Surely the category names like true dragons, chromatic dragons, or metallic dragons would be unusable because they are clearly created by Wizards of the Coast, but each true dragon can still be usable I presume? I remember there are adamantine dragons in D&D 4th but that didn't prevent Paizo from using adamantine dragons in Pathfinder Remaster, because aside from the name, most elements that comprise adamantine dragons in Pathfinder Remaster are purely created by Paizo I guess. So can I expect that the traditional true dragons would appear in later books (Monster Core 2 perhaps?)?

I actually guessed that kobolds would be emphasized as the creation of the Vault Builders and say goodbye to their draconic elements in Pathfinder Remaster. For example, after excavating one of the truly ancient ruins in one of the great vaults of Orv, some kobolds rediscover their true origin, that they were created by the Vault Builders and have nothing to do with dragons. This truth spreads like wildfire, eventually making kobolds rise in the worldwide rebellion against their draconic masters. Literally all true dragons are brutally killed and their eggs are ruthlessly smashed during this rebellion, resulting in the complete removal of chromatic and metallic dragons from the world of Lost Omens. :)

I honestly have no idea why Paizo decided to remove drow from the game entirely. If they are seriously concerned about not getting sued by Wizards of the Coast, simply removing the word "drow" and just calling them "dark elves" would be enough, just like they did with duergar, wouldn't it? And if Paizo doesn't want to anger black people by saying that elves with dark skin is evil, then simply saying that "the descendants of elves who escaped Earthfall by descending into the Darklands still retain white skin and they are genetically 100% identical to the surface elves. But they are called dark elves because they worship demons and do evil things." would be enough, wouldn't it? Even the dark elves in the Old World (which means, Warhammer Fantasy) are called such not because of their skin color (their skin is as white as high elves) but because of their evil deeds. So why Paizo decided to remove the most powerful and prosperous race in the Darklands, instead of simply renaming and reskinning them, is completely beyond me. I heard there are cavern elves in the Darklands now but they don't seem evil or powerful at all.

Now I come to think of it, if there have never been drow on Golarion, what's the point of the Lantern Bearers, an elven organization which is devoted to the redemption and eradication of drow? Was their supposed goal just another deception to hide the truth that humans are not meant to know?

Removing drow raises another question. If Monster Codex and Darklands Revisited are published after the publication of Pathfinder Remaster, which monster would have been included in those books, since drow surely would not have been allowed to join?

What? The names "intellect devourer" and "purple worm" are removed? I understand Paizo cannot use kuo-toa, neothelid, or yuan-ti because these names are 100% created by Wizards of the Coast. But intellect devourer and purple worm look like very generic English word to me. How can Wizards of the Coast own a generic word? By the same logic, I guess Paizo can use names like red dragons, blue dragons, gold dragons, silver dragons, et cetera freely without problem because these names cannot be owned by Wizards of the Coast.

Will there be a playtest for mythic rules?

The Spawn of Rovagug look like bugs. Which is very logical and natural, since their father Rovagug looks like a bug too. Even the rust monsters who were created by Rovagug look like bugs. Even the appearances of qlippoth reminded me those of bugs. But Tarrasque the Armageddon Engine is the only exception. While it is the greatest among the Spawn, it has no trace of a bug at all. Instead it looks like... a dinosaur? To me, Tarrasque looks more like Treerazer than it looks like a bug. Which has always irritated me. I'm not sure if Tarrasque is the intellectual property of Wizard of the Coast or not (as far as I know, the name Tarrasque is from the real world mythology so Paizo can use this monster freely perhaps?), but if Paizo is so concerned about removing every last trace of Dungeons & Dragons from Pathfinder RPG, why not revise Tarrasque as well? Completely changing its appearance so that it would look more like a bug would be a good idea. Changing its name to something else would be better. I honestly have no idea why Paizo decided to make Tarrasque one of the Spawn of Rovagug in the first place (perhaps James Jacobs decided that?).

P.S. I just realized that Urtleytlar (from page 68 of From Hell's Heart), who is a Lesser Spawn of Rovagug, does not look like a bug too. Thus Tarrasque was not the only exception after all. Perhaps it was just my terrible misunderstanding, and Rovagug (and qlippoth in general) actually has nothing to do with bugs?

By the way, I have another question. Chemnosit looks like an earthworm, Kothogaz looks like a slug, Ulunat looks like a beetle, Xotani looks like a centipede. But exactly which bug do Rovagug and Volnagur resemble? I honestly have no idea.

spoiler:

I would have loved to have him be the main villain in Return of the Runelords, but the backlash against mythic made me timid about doing that story, so I focused instead on Alaznist being the main villain for that one and pulled some story-fu to make it so Xanderghul wasn't a factor any more. By making him depowered, I could set him up as a mid-campaign foe, but to a lot of folks (myself included) that felt a bit hollow.

James. Does that mean, if the Return of the Runelords adventure path was developed as you initially planned, would Xanderghul have been the final boss, instead of Alaznist? Can you elaborate more on this unpublished mythic storyline? Maybe Sorshen allies with Xanderghul or Alaznist does not die or Xanderghul resurrects Karzoug in this original storyline? I'm not sure why Alaznist can be a final boss of a non-mythic campaign but Xanderghul cannot, even though both of them have archmage mythic tiers (I'm not sure if you ever said which mythic path Xanderghul chose but I guess his logical choice would be archmage).

Actually I was very depressed to hear that. The mythic adventure path that features Xanderghul as the final boss seems much more interesting than the current version of Return of the Runelords. The fact that Paizo decided to greatly change the storyline of that adventure path would be one of the biggest mistake Paizo has ever made, I guess (other similar mistakes would be the decision that it would not publish an adventure path that deals with the redemption of Nocticula or Sorshen, or the Last Theorem of the Dominion of the Black). The Last Theorem should have been a seed for an entire adventure path instead of a playtest. :(

It seems that many people hate the First Edition mythic rules very much due to flavor or balance issue. I actually quite liked the flavor of the First Edition mythic rules. I must confess that I have not actually played the mythic campaign in First Edition. So I have no idea whether it has the serious balance issue or not.

I'm curious, if First Edition introduced epic level rules instead of mythic tier rules, would it have no flavor or balance issue at all?

Wow. Will this book based on the upcoming Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster? Will it be based on the ORC License? Please say yes, because while Starfinder RPG is good, its rules are quite old and I have really anticipated the upgrade of rules so much.

It seems the funding for this Kickstarter project is much slower than I expected. Considering the huge successes of other Pathfinder Kickstarter projects, I thought this project will achieve the various stretch goals in no time. I wonder why Pathfinder players don't like this project. Perhaps Hack & Slash ARPG is not their liking?

Well, the issues I have with Second Edition are...

Major issues:

1. I cannot learn enough feats. I wish the PCs would be able to learn one class feat every level. I also wish that starting with two ancestry feats and gaining another at every odd level thereafter would become a default rule.

2. I cannot learn and cast enough spells. I hope the spell slots of caster classes would be doubled or perhaps tripled. For example, I wish a 20th level sorcerer will learn 8 spells for each level and 10 cantrips.

3. Focus spell system should be entirely overhauled. I have not found out satisfying house rules yet but I think removing focus point entirely and allowing PCs to cast focus spells freely, or perhaps using the D&D 3.5 recharge magic variant rule seems good enough.

4. Sustain a Spell should be removed entirely. I honestly have no idea why the developers thought forcing the casters to pay attention to the spell that has already been cast to sustain its effect would be a good idea.

5. The duration of most spells should be extended. I really miss the good old days when the spells lasted several hours.

Minor issues

1. Fine, Diminutive and Colossal size categories should return. Simply reading the size category helped me estimate the rough size of a creature a lot. But now that Paizo incorporated Colossal creatures into Gargantuan creatures, estimating the size of a creature that I'm not familiar with became quite hard and inaccurate. In First Edition, I can anticipate a purple worm would be clearly smaller than Tarrasque because their size category was different. Now they both are Gargantuan and thus it would not be quick and easy to compare the size of them. Actually, when I heard the Second Edition will be developed, I hoped there will be a new size category that is even bigger than Colossal, so that those truly big creatures (the Spawn of Rovagug, kaiju, mu spores) can have suitable size category. I honestly have no idea why Paizo removed Fine, Diminutive and Colossal.

2. Quickened casting should be less restricted. Seriously, once per day? I honestly have no idea why I should learn this feat so that I can cast two spells in a round only once per day. We could use quicken spell feat without such a restriction in First Edition!

3. Applying two or more metamagic feats to a spell should be available. I really liked to make my spell incredibly powerful via applying several metamagic feats at once in First Edition.

Perhaps there are one or two other issues that I cannot recall right now.

So, if the change in the remaster would not be so big, that means these issues will remain until Paizo develops Pathfinder Third Edition. :(

I didn't expect such a huge amount of change can be possible with an errata. Can I look forward to an even more radical change in the next errata? Like, allowing all PCs to learn a class feat every level, doubling all classes' spell repertoire and spell slots, allowing all PCs start with two ancestry feats and gains another at every odd level thereafter (in other words, treating all PCs as ancestry paragons), fundamentally redesigning focus spell system... I really wish to see this level of radical change!

1. Mythic rules, obviously. Not sure whether Paizo would do epic or mythic in Pathfinder Second Edition though. I really wish Paizo make both epic levels and mythic tiers for Second Edition, so that I can make a 30th level sorcerer with 10 archmage tiers!

2. Bestiary for much powerful monsters. I have always thought that the CR cap in Pathfinder First Edition was too low. I really wish to see the level cap will increase to 40 in Second Edition, so that the demigods and kaijus can finally become a truly horrific challanges!

3. Numeria and space related stuff.

4. Variant spellcasting system. I mean, the mana system. The Vancian magic system is one of my least favorite feature in Pathfinder First Edition and, to my great disappointment, it still remains in Second Edition! If Paizo and most players love the vancian magic so much, fine. But they can at least make a variant spellcasting system using mana, can't they?

Where does it say that Small & Medium creatures use the same weapons & armor in PF2? (Other gear I'm pretty sure has to be that way.)

Yes, they have the same stats, but so do all weapons from a tiny creature's longsword to a huge giant's (other than Bulk).

Wait, so a small goblin's greatword and a huge storm giant's greatword deal the same amount of damage? That's... totally illogical and unrealistic!

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

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?

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?