Dustin Brants's page

...

Question for the fans: If such a collector product was made available, would you purchase it?

Sure, but I would want it real leather bound, archive quality paper, all of the to-date eratta and signed by everyone right out of the box.

So I guess the arcane bonded yoyo is right out. :-(

"Master Yo's Returning disk flail" Martial light weapon* 1d4 x2 crit

*(if you’re one of those people who can get one of those things to work then me and my meaty hands hate you :-), but you can treat it as simple.)

enjoy!

I picked this up a few weeks ago, and I think that it’s great. I’m waiting for the opportune time to drop a few of these into the game that I run.

One perform slot and three profession slots really?

I mean c'mon I don't think I've ever played a bard without at least two perform skills, but I can't think of a single time I've ever had a class with more than one profession skill with ranks in it.

okay I take that back my current new character has ranks in two profession skills, but that's specifically because I modeled him after myself.

Anywho can we please switch it up and have split the difference and have two of each?

I once had a changeling in an Eberron game with Profession (Baker) and Profession (Scribe). But that is sort of a corner case. I agree that there should be at least two perform slots on the sheet.

Landscape and sturdy would be great!

One other request would be for whenever something in the book is referenced, please give the page number.

So, a little bit of expansion on these ideas.

1. Mithral weapons - I am all for this because of the lore behind mithral as True Silver. I agree that not all materials need to be good as weapons and armor, but this is one case where it should be both.

2. Mithral armor - There are a couple roads I can take with this... listed from least nerf, to most nerf.

A - Leave it the way it is...
B - Make it so that the armor counts as one class lighter in all regards, except for proficiency.
C - Remove the one class lighter bit entirely.
D - Come to your house and rip up all character sheets of PCs that, in my supreme opinion, are abusing mithral, replacing them with 1st level commoners built using the standard array (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11).

I am thinking that B is the way to go.. although D sounds like fun, I just do not have the time. :-)

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I think "B" works well.

I lookes for a thread on this topic, and couldn't find one, so here it goes:

I was just wondering if I was the only one who thinks that most aligned spells should actually lose their alignment descriptor? Personally, I don’t like them because of the arguments that spring from them.
The classic example is animate dead. It has the [Evil] descriptor. Personally I don’t think it should have an alignment descriptor. In my view it’s no more evil than animate object (which, oddly enough, isn’t on the wizard spell list, but that’s another rant.)
A lot of people argue that, having the [Evil] descriptor, casting the spell is an evil act and will turn the caster evil with enough castings. Personally I think that that argument sounds about as silly as saying Fireball, having the [Fire] descriptor, will turn the caster into fire.
There are other examples of spells that shouldn’t have the alignment descriptor that they have, or just shouldn’t have an alignment descriptor at all.

I want to point out that I love monster books. Honestly, I stacked every monster book I have for just 3.x the other day and it was almost three feet tall. I say this because I want to point out one thing: The only monster manuals that I didn’t buy from WotC before they went to 4e were MM4 and MM5.
Why didn’t I buy them? Two reasons, one I don’t need pregens. “Oh look, 20 pages of gnolls with character levels. How useful.” Is not a sentence that I’ve ever said out loud. The second reason was that horrid stat block that they introduced in the late 3.5.
I’m asking, no I’m begging you to not use that stat block. Please, please, please use the normal 3.5 stat block!

So, let us assume that there will be dinosaurs in the Pathfinder Bestiary. A relatively safe assumption, since every edition of the game's core monster book has had them since 1st edition, yes?

So, working on that assumption, I would love to hear folks answer the following questions:

1) How many dinosaurs is the right amount to do a good show of it?

2) What four dinosaurs would you hope to see in the book more than any other?

3) How important is it to maintain all five dinosaurs from the MM? Can we get away with just one dromaeosaurid (probably the deinonychus), with the assumption that one can make a megaraptor by simply advancing the deinonychus?

4) If #3 above is true, would it better to replace the deinonychus with the velociraptor? Velociraptor is more well-known these days, and it's easy enough to say that a velociraptor advanced up one size category is a deinonychus.

5) Dinosaurs don't have to be boring. They don't have to simply be hit points and a bite attack. Currently living animals have a wide range of biodiversity, with special attacks like poison, constriction, electricity generation, stunning attacks, ranged attacks (like tarantulas flicking poison hairs, archerfish spitting balls of water, or cobras spitting poison), and the like. Would it be too strange to give some dinosaurs a bit more flavor by giving them attacks that aren't necessarily supported by the fossil record?

6) Is there anything in particular with how dinosaurs have been stattud up in the game before that rubs you the wrong way that you'd like to see changed?

Four dinosaurs work, it gives you more room for other monsters. The core three I would hope for are the t-rex (I seriously don’t think that one will be left out), the triceratops (it’s another classic from my childhood) and the pterodactyl (giving some flight for a little diversity).

Fighter: weapon training became +1 to hit/ +1d6 to damage every time he gets it, and while it hasn’t come up yet, I’m going to rule that the extra Xd6 do crit, as opposed to magically gained Xd6.

Black powder Weapons Proficiency: I’m running a Spelljammer game under pathfinder, so I replaced the need to pick up a feat for pistols and a feat for muskets and a feat for blunderbusses and exc. that they were all covered under one feat.

Con score bonus for hit points at first level. This also applies to NPCs and monsters.

Climb and swim were rolled into an “Athletics” skill. We’re still debating weather to add jump into that instead of acrobatics.

Once you take a level in a prestige class, you must finish that prestige class before you can take a level in a different prestige class.

No [Exalted] or [Vile] content.

I’ve basically banned anything that uses a per encounter mechanic instead of a per day mechanic.

We’ve come up with a variant Artificer for one person to play, basically no craft reserve, XP salavaging, and because we’re not playing with action points, he can quicken one infusion a day right now. (The game is still running at fourth level right now, that number will go up)

I’ll allow most material from WotC books and from third party supplements, as long as I get to see them first, and with the understanding that if it Borks the game we’ll have to sit down and fix it. There is one exception to this: If you bring Mongoose to my game, expect to get laughed at, then denied.

Also, the game is being run a as a ship of pirates, and I’m not going to make them hire you on if they don’t have a good in game reason to. This is a holdover rule from a few years ago when I tried to run an open game at the FLGS and got burned by it.

I had all four out at the same time. The dentist started before the anesthetic kicked in, and I almost ripped the arm off the chair.

I was reading the glossary and came across the part about ability score bonuses specifically this part:
“Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.” p.388

Am I correct in thinking that this is just a clearification on 3.5 and that this does not mean that a character can buy a +2 belt of strength and after a day take it off and forget about it? Or does this exactly mean that, and that the character does not need to fear that someone stealing his belt or walking into an anti-magic field will drop his ability score?

Personally I prefer the Rage system as it currently stands. (Option 1)

Hi there all,

It seems to me that there are a lot of folks on both sides of this issue. I am currently leaning toward keeping the +2/+2/-2 dynamic. It helps to encourage certain race roles that many find valuable and it will also allow us to open up a number of other "monster" races that were undesirable before due to their +1 level adjustment.

I am still open to debate on this issue, but over the life of a character, a single additional +2 bonus does not seem too unbalancing.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Personally I think that the +2/+2/-2 works great and would love to see it kept as is.