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.

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?

1. On page 53 of Darklands Revisited, there is this sentence:
"The entire urdefhan species is purposed toward the wholesale extermination of other species across the world, for there can be no greater accomplishment than the final extinction of an entire people. Most urdefhans currently remain locked in the depths of the Darklands fulfilling one great endeavor: expunging the last descendants of lost Azlant. Perhaps, when they feel certain they have eradicated the underground remnants of that ancient human empire, they will turn their attention to the human descendants on Golarion's surface."

By "the wholesale extermination of other species across the world", does it mean the extermination of sentient species only, or the extermination of literally all life, including animals, vermin, plants, and microorganisms?

2. By "the wholesale extermination of other species across the world", does it mean the extermination of species on Golarion only, or does it include species on other planets as well? I'm not sure if urdefhans know about other planets or the cosmology though.

3. By "the wholesale extermination of other species across the world", does it mean the extermination of species in the Material Plane, or does it extend to species in other planes as well?

4. Why do urdefhans hate Azlant and its descendants so much? The book didn't mention it at all.

5. On page 53 of Darklands Revisited, there is this sentence:
"Every urdefhan has a third eye, located inconspicuously at the back of its mouth."

I'm not sure if I understood this correctly. So, if an urdefhan wishes to see using its third eye, it has to open its mouth? And if it shuts its mouth, the third eye becomes effectively blind? Since the arts for urdefhans don't clearly describe this third eye, I'm honestly not sure.

6. How do you pronounce "urdefhan"? I'm not sure whether it's a creation of Wizards of the Coast or Paizo, but I honestly don't know how to say it. I'm also not sure if urdefhans appear in Pathfinder Remaster, because I couldn't find them in Monster Core.

In The Hobbit film, Smaug's breath weapon is shown to be strong enough to blast apart stone towers during the sacking of Dale and Erebor. However, in the opening cinematic of Baldur's Gate 3, we see the fire breath of red dragons having virtually no effect on the nautiloid, the bizarre flying ship used by mind flayers, as if it is pure flame with no concussive force.

My main question is: Does the fire breath weapon of red dragons in D&D and Pathfinder lack any physical force, functioning more like a very large flamethrower? For example, if a red dragon were to use its fire breath on a stone tower, castle, palace, modern military tank, battleship, or starship, would it have virtually no effect at all, since stone is non-flammable? Likewise, if I were wearing bunker gear, the personal protective equipment used by firefighters, would it make me immune to a red dragon's breath weapon, since it has no physical force and only deals fire damage?

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.

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?

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.

Recently I realized that Asmodeus is not created by Wizard of the Coast. Instead, it came from the real world mythology so it is 100% safe for Paizo to use him! I wondered whether there are more similar cases other than him so I began searching. Turns out, many among the evil outsiders are from the real world mythology.

Among archdevils, there are Asmodeus, Baalzebul, Barbatos, Belial, Dispater, Geryon, Mammon, Mephistopheles, and Moloch.

Among infernal dukes, there are Alocer, Bifrons, Caacrinolaas, Crocell, Eligos, Furcas, Gaap, Haborym, Malthus, Nergal, Oriax, Ose, Sabnach, Titivilus, Vapula, Vassago, Zaebos, and Zepar. And it seems that all malebranches are from the real world mythology too.

I discovered there is a Finnish goddess called Kalma but I'm not sure whether the infernal duke Kalma was somehow inspired by her.

Among demon lords, Abraxus, Areshkagal, Baphomet, Behemoth, Dagon, Demogorgon, Flauros, Haagenti, Ipos, Lamashtu, Marbas, Nurgal, Orcus, Pazuzu, Shax, and Vepar are from the real world mythology.

Kostchtchie seems from D&D but I cannot find out whether he's created by Wizard of the Coast or not.

Even among daemons, I found out that Apollyon and Charon are from the real world mythology.

But strangely, there seems no similar cases among other evil outsiders like asura ranas, Forsaken, harbingers, oni daimyos, qlippoth lords, rakshasa immortals, sahkil tormentors, velstrac demagogues, though.

So I'm curious. Are the names of other demon lords not mentioned above, like, Aldinach, Andirifkhu, Angazhan, Cyth-V'sug, Deskari, Gogunta, Izyagna, Jezelda, Jubilex, Kabriri, Nocticula, Shamira, Sifkesh, Shivaska, Sithhud, Socothbenoth, Urxehl, Xoveron, Yhidothrus, Zevgavizeb, and Zura are 100% created by Paizo?

My memory may not be accurate, but as far as I remember, it has never been mentioned what would happen if you dig through the wall surrounding the Eye of Avarice or the Eye of Fury. The wall is not invincible, so digging it until the wall ends is technically possible, right?

Not sure if they are related, but according to the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition, the wall of the Runeforge is:
Attempts to move through the surrounding stone, either by magic or legitimate tunneling, reveal that Runeforge is contained in a void of dangerous entropy. The sphere of stone that holds Runeforge has a radius of a mile. Beyond is a maelstrom of nothingness, a black void that extends forever and contains nothing but air. A creature incapable of flight falls into the void and continues falling forever. Teleportation can save a PC from this fate as long as she teleports back into Runeforge.

So, can I assume that the wall of the Eyes has similar characteristics? That their thickness is roughly a mile, and if you dig through it diligently, you will eventually stumble upon the endless void?

Also, considering the mention that "Beyond is a maelstrom of nothingness," can I assume that the Runeforge is somewhere in the Maelstrom? And if so, can I assume that the Eye of Avarice and the Eye of Fury are also in the Maelstrom?

According to page 240 of Secrets of Magic, my runelord PC will lose the ability to prepare or cast any spell from his school's prohibited schools. He removes all spells of those schools from his spell list, meaning he can't even activate scrolls or wands of such spells.

Which raises three questions:

1. Can he still use Trick Magic Item feat to activate scrolls or wands of any spell from his prohibited schools?

2. Can he still use rituals from his prohibited school? For example, can a runelord of lust cast the Resurrect ritual, even though it belongs to the necromancy school? Does he need to use Trick Magic Item feat to cast a ritual from his prohibited schools?

3. I wish to make a runelord of lust PC but I think the restriction is too severe. Seriously, giving up two school? Actually I have no problem with prohibiting necromancy because there is no useful or powerful necromancy spell in the arcane list, I guess. But there are so many useful spells in transmutation! It's so painful to be denied by them. I guess my main question is, what if I make a house rule that says "The runelord archetype only requires you to give up one school. For example, a runelord of lust should choose between necromancy and transmutation. One of them will be his prohibited school."? I mean, would it make the runelord archetype too powerful and broken?

I just discovered there will be a new version of Pathfinder RPG this November. While Pathfinder Second Edition was clearly better than First Edition, it nevertheless contains several inherent flaws that I really hate. So recently I began losing interest to Pathfinder RPG. That was why I became so excited when I heard about Pathfinder 2.5. But after reading the blog post I cannot help but wonder, "Will the change really be as drastic as I hope?"

I mean, the Q&A below made me feel nervous and worried...

Q. Is this a new edition of Pathfinder?
A. No. The Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project does not change the fundamental core system design of Pathfinder. Small improvements and cosmetic changes appear throughout, but outside of a few minor changes in terminology, the changes are not anywhere substantive enough to be considered a new edition.

Q. Are my existing Pathfinder Second Edition books now obsolete?
A. No. With the exception of a few minor variations in terminology and a slightly different mix of monsters, spells, and magic items, the rules remain largely unchanged. A pre-Remaster stat block, spell, monster, or adventure should work with the remastered rules without any problems.

Sigh. Does that mean the remastered edition cannot even be compared to D&D 3.5? The change will be largely composed of erratas and name changes, and thus I cannot anticipate a huge upgrade to the rules?

With Wandering Oasis feat, a druid becomes immune to environmental heat and cold (up to extreme). But he cannot be protected from incredible heat and cold. Then what happens when the temperature becomes incredible cold? I mean, normally a druid would become fatigued after 2 hours and receive moderate cold damage every minute. But since Wandering Oasis would make him treat mild to extreme cold temperature as normal temperature, he would treat incredible cold as mild cold, right? In other words, he would become fatigued after 4 hours and would receive no cold damage? I ask this because I wander whether Wandering Oasis feat would make a druid survive in the world of Frostpunk or not. As you may know already, in that video game, the temperature starts at -20°C and it drops to -150°C in the end. But if Wandering Oasis makes the druid treat incredible cold (which includes -150°C) as mild cold, then it would be child's play for him to survive a glacial apocalypse or heat apocalypse, right?

Let's say an ogre killed a human knight and grabbed his fabulous magic sword. Would the magic sword become bigger so that the new owner (the ogre) can use it? Likewise, if a human kills a storm giant and snatch the giant's magic axe, would the axe become smaller so that the new owner (the human) can use it? My memory may be not accurate but I think this rule was present in Pathfinder First Edition and all editions of D&D. Surely looting would be meaningless if the magic items do not change their size according to the owner, right?

A druid can wild shape into the forms listed in Animal Form. According to the description text of Animal Form spell, the battle form becomes Large if heightened to 4th level, and Huge if heightened to 5th level. Wild Shape is a focus spell. Focus spells are automatically heightened to half your level rounded up. Which means I cannot un-heighten Wild Shape and thus my druid PC cannot turn into an animal and get into a narrow space. Can I un-heighten Wild Shape? Or can I retain all the other benefits from the heightened Wild Shape (Animal Form) like 15-foot reach, 20 temporary HP, AC = 18 + my level, attack modifier +18, and so on... and still remain Medium or Large?

By the way, I just found out in this webpage that, the damage bonus for 4th level (+9) is higher than that of 5th level (+7). Perhaps a typo?

In D&D 3.5 and 5th, druids can use weapons while using Wild Shape. In Pathfinder Second Edition, can a druid use weapons while using Wild Shape? Normally, whether or not a druid can do that would not matter at all since most creatures in the Wild Shape list do not have hands at all and so they cannot grab or wield weapons. But I found out that druids can turn into an ape too, and the real life apes do have hands and can use tools quite well. So I thought apes would be the most powerful Wild Shape form since it allows the druids can use powerful magic weapons while using Wild Shape. But then I found out this sentence in the Animal Form spell description: "One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can Strike with." Does that mean a druid who transforms into an ape cannot use weapons, even though the real life apes have hands and can use weapons?

Several years ago, while playing Pathfinder First Edition, I speculated that I would become immune to fire and cold damage if I'm under the effect of Endure Elements spell. I didn't have the chance to actually use this tactic in the gameplay, though. So I'm curious. According to Second Edition Core Rulebook, Endure Elements would prevent me from the severe or extreme weather. Can I logically assume that, since it blocks extreme heat and cold, it also blocks fire and cold damage as well?

According to my vague memory, in the video game Neverwinter Nights, if I cast Summon Monster, and then cast another Summon Monster, the previously summoned monster disappears immediately. But I found out that the rulebook doesn't specifically mention that I cannot activate several summoning spells simultaneously. So can I assume that I can control a huge number of monsters at the same time, by casting Summon Monster in round 1, casting another Summon Monster in round 2, casting Summon Nature's Ally in round 3, casting another Summon Nature's Ally in round 4, casting Summon Swarm in round 5...? If I can do this, then it would make spellcasters much more powerful than non-spellcasters, I'm guess.

According to this webpage, to benefit from the feats that have the Rage trait, you must be raging. But I found out that several feats like Acute Scent, Acute Vision, Animal Skin, Awesome Blow, Brutal Bully, Dragon's Rage Breath, Fast Movement, Furious Bully, Raging Athlete, and Raging Intimidation don't have the Rage trait and yet their description texts clearly mention that those feats are activated while raging. I also discovered that some feats like Cleave, Friendly Toss, Furious Grab, Furious Sprint, Instinctive Strike, Knockback, Mage Hunter, No Escape, Oversized Throw, Renewed Vigor, Shake It Off, and Terrifying Howl have the Rage trait and yet their description texts do not mention they are activated only when raging. So, even if a feat does have the Rage trait and yet its description text does not mention that it can be used only when you are raging, I can safely assume that it will be activated even when my barbarian PC is not raging?

I'm not sure which capstone feat to take for my wild order druid. At first I thought True Shapeshifter would be the natural choice. But recently I found out there's another capstone feat for wild order druid: Heart of the Kaiju. Which would be better? They seem a bit redundant to me, since both feats let me transform into a kaiju. So I'm still not sure which is better.

In First Edition, supernatural abilities and spell-like abilities are not negated by Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field and Disjunction, or identified by Spellcraft check, since they are not spells. Even the Mana Wastes, where magic simply does not work at all, did not pose a threat to druids, since Wild Shape is a supernatural abilities. But in Second Edition, supernatural abilities and spell-like abilities have been changed into innate spells or focus spells. Does that mean the Second Edition druids have become seriously weaker than their First Edition counterparts, because now Wild Shape can always be dispelled?

Recently I heard a shocking information in this webpage. It says, in Pathfinder, with the right feats and a high enough level, a caster can fire fifteen in a single round, with extra feats extending the range, increasing the damage, letting the missiles turn corners, or even ignore rolling damage altogether and just deal the maximum possible amount. While it didn't specify whether it's about First or Second Edition, I guess it's probably about First Edition. So, is it true? Can you please tell me how can I cast such powerful magic missile?

In First Edition there was a spell called arcane mark. In Second Edition its name is changed into sigil. Recently I found out that there is an upgraded version of this spell called synchronize. Can I assume that synchronize is clearly better than sigil in every way? Would it be redundant to learn both sigil and synchronize?

The skill feat arcane sense and the sorcerer class feat magic sense look very similar to me. They both allow my PC to cast detect magic for free. Can I assume these two feats are basically same? That if my PC take one feat, then he simply doesn't need to take the other at all? And if my PC is an imperial bloodline sorcerer, who learns detect magic for free, then he absolutely has nothing to gain from these two feats?

Also, I think I just found out an error. It seems that the detect magic spell in Second Edition doesn't have duration, while in First Edition both detect magic and arcane sight have duration. Perhaps a typo? I just found out that detect alignment doesn't have duration either.

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

Let's say an evil wizard cast Charm or Dominate on me. I successfully resisted the spell's effect but wish to pretend to be enchanted, so that when she least expects it, I can give her a hard punch in the face. How can I do that? Normally the caster would know whether her spell was resisted or not, right? Then how can I conceal the fact that I resisted her spell? Is there a suitable feat that lets me do that?

In First Edition, we have both ability scores and ability modifiers. Ability scores represent a character's most basic attributes. But we don't roll a check using an ability score. It is the ability modifier it creates that affects nearly every aspect of a character's skills and abilities. You apply the ability modifier to the die roll when your character tries to do something. When you increase one point of your ability score, nothing changes actually because to increase the ability modifier you must increase two points of an ability score. Maybe this is the reason Paizo didn't include ability scores in the monster statistics in Starfinder and Second Edition playtest. Thus I suggest, what if we delete ability scores from the game entirely and use ability modifiers only?