H's page

Wiggle them guts. Cast them spells.

I also just noted a possible errata in the Penangallan template. Their slam attack is not listed as having grab, while it shows they have it in the stat block.

I apologise for thread Necro, but what are the thoughts on the case of Penangallan spellcasters (which they are traditionally) in floating head and viscera form?

Well during the encounter with said undead barbarian ghoul (which we easily ID'd as a ghoul from knowledge checks and such) my DM screamed and described that she 'flies into a rage'. So I was like '...uh, she's a barbarian? Well that explains why she's not getting caught flat footed ..uh.. wouldn't an undead not get rage bonuses since they're morale related?' and we both looked at each other with the same face of 'yeah why DO they get rage bonuses?' I think the statblock even had it improve Charisma instead of Constitution. We of course looked at it after the fact and said 'whatever it can rage' .

I don't mind if undead rage. I had two undead characters pre-Pathfinder that could rage. It was pretty darned cool for the fluff reasons why too. I want to know why they can ignore the little 'morale' bit now when they're supposed to be immune to those bonuses.

So, several iterations of APs and such have things like ghouls and undead with barbarian levels, gaining at least the strength bonus from Barbarian rage. Barbarian rage is a Morale bonus, which undead are strictly immune to. I've searched through threads, and there are scant few where people go 'oh it's morale, but why do all these NPCs have undead that rage?' --

Why? Because Barbarian rage being a morale bonus is something that happened with the change to Pathfinder from 3.X. Barbarian rage used to be a flat 'bonus' not a 'morale bonus'. I suppose some people still think it's the case, because they played 3.5, and the Barbarian (and now Bloodrage) rage features read almost exactly the same as how they used to.. just with 'morale' neatly tucked in there.

Can there be an official ruling on this? How would I change NPCs who don't actually benefit from rage, such as several adversaries in the Mummy's Mask AP? I'm not looking at the book, but I even think they swapped over the Con score bonus to Cha!

Wes! Hello! It's my first post in your thread. I came over here from J.J's thread after he mentioned your love of Castlevania to me. SPEAK TO ME. :D I know you made a Belmont somewhere along the lines in Pathfinder. I want to know if you had any snazzy ideas on making the Vampire Killer! Or just Castlevania PCs in particular. (I mean, Isaac is quite literally a Summoner.. the class is literally made for him).

My Belmont character is after the recent Alucard/Trevor, he's a Dhampir Kensai Bladebound Magus (whip) / Maneuver Master Monk (only 2 levels) and works in a pretty stellar fashion. But I can't seem to get Undead or Vampire bane on my main weapon in any fashion outside of perhaps the Bane Baldric (body slot) item. Any ideas?

This...this Wes. Bring him to me. I wish to speak to him. About Castlevania. Can you make that happen? (Haha, I must be missing his forum name should he have one) I always love seeing concepts come to life that are backed up by a few egregious feat and class selections. Normally when I make a character, I have this idea of what I want it to do.. and then I start to craft it; optimization be damned. If it's good and works, its awesome.

How about you? Ever make that character out of an idea or movie or video game that you're like 'Man that would be awesome to play but I don't think it'd be viable in Pathfinder rules' then suddenly there it is in front of you and it's awesome?

(Err, ran into a forum error..sorry if this double or triple posts or some weird stuff.)

James, do you like Castlevania? I personally am an avid lover of the series. I even managed to make a Belmont-style character with the myriad of whip-feats available. The Vampire Killer makes a very good Black Blade for the Magus as well. I've run into a snag however; I can't make it good at killing undead (other than amping my damage in various ways and doing shennanegains, and high level magus arcana which is too LATE for it really to be totally awesome). I was wondering your thoughts on making it good at what it should do?

This is, of course considering I cannot make a standard 'upgrade' that I can buy/add to the whip to give it the Bane enhancement vs Undead (or just vampires) since it's a 'named' unique weapon.

While I have looked over additional resources, I was trying to get a clarification: Are the altars (if you start the game in a major city for instance) legal? Thematically I would like my character to pray to Pharasma's Altar daily due to his particular bent against undead.

Dhampir Bladebound Kensai Magus/Maneuver Master of Pharasma, born in Geb to a loving pairing of human and vampire, left after mother passed away peacefully and his weapon of choice is the whip.

*cue Castlevania music*

Ooh, Race post! Well, I've only two PFS characters, but I've got a rich diversity in my gaming career.

1 Half-Elf
1 Dhampir

EDIT: Well, I suppose my third character will be all Bride of Hell - like and be a tentacle hair witch grappler type ..best bet is Tiefling for an appropriate Lovecraftian-spawned horror.

1 Tiefling

As for pregens being a dumpster fire.. I actually played Ezren in Bonekeep 2, and managed to survive. Not only survive, Ezren even kicked serious ass in every single encounter. I also had a good team, and there wasn't one moment where I held my teammates back.

That being said, Harsk is still a dirty word and no one should ever say it. >_>

Winfred wrote:

So if I was going to "use" your post in an ongoing argument I would say hey this is what James Jacobs said. He is not a part of the rules team so this well may be a house rule but I tend to find his responses to be level headed so any gms who need a decision right now could use this until the FAQ team gets around to it.

Now would you still be uncomfortable with that? If so I won't do it...Just trying to figure out what is helping other people vs making James mad!

In fact, that's precisely the type of use of my posts that makes me uncomfortable.

One of the things that bothers me the most is the implication that I know the rules of the game less than the design team, despite the fact that I've been using the rules for longer than most of the design team, and AS long as Jason has been... and in fact have much more experience in implementing the rules into the form of adventures than the rules team does... but somehow, my input on rules is deemed/interpreted as faulty or flawed by some. It's frustrating and kind of insulting, but I try not to let it get to me. One of the ways I try to not let it get to me, frankly, is by avoiding getting embroiled in topics or threads that give folks opportunities to take this stance against me.

The fact that I choose to spend a fair amount of my free time and a portion of my work hours online here answering questions is my own choice. The fact that the design team doesn't have as active a role on these forums is more an indication that they have busier personal lives than I do than any real desire for them to not take part in these threads.

AKA: I've been burned enough online by folks reacting poorly to my attempt to provide rules feedback, and have had some in-house blowback from management and the design team, that I'm just increasingly hesitant and uninterested in providing feedback, clarifications, and rulings on content that's appeared in the rulebook line.

I'm ABSOLUTELY WILLING to provide feedback and clarifications and...

But I like your rulings. You're the spirit of the rules guy to me. The entire fact that you've been using the rules longer than pretty much the entire design team is why I asked my previous questions. Please don't stop answering my questions if I ask them! At my table, I prefer to run by intent. I don't post on these forums often. And everyone at my Favorite Local Gaming Store value your knowledge and/or opinion on things we're unclear with because we respect you.

I always email a photo of boon...

Then mail original...

But thats just me.... I trade boons..alot

It does a lot to assuage the fear of being jilted too; because on the internet that feeling is real. Someone doing something legit for fun is the whole point of this boon thread, isn't it?

James, why do people not like taking your rulings on things as well and good?

I mean, you're the Creative Director after all. You kinda know a thing or two about the game and the intent of the rules. While there is Mike and other 'Rules guy' members of the team, I prefer to think that if you answer a rules question, and the 'rules guys' don't overrule you, that we should take that as them accepting your judgement.

After all, I believe they have commented on a couple rulings you've made in the past and said 'this is how it SHOULD be'. I dunno. I'd rather trust the guy who's been around since development.

H wrote:

Hi James, I was wondering if you could solve a little conundrum for me. There are two conflicting rules for Alter self.

One is the spell itself.

The other is listed under Polymorph under Transmutation in the magic section.

For clarification purposes, does Alter self if I want to say, turn into a lizard folk grant me +5 Natural Armor, the +2 for polymorphing into a medium creature, the swim speed, and the natural attacks?

Or does Alter self only grant me +2 Strength and a Swim speed? (As polymorph spells state, I would also technically gain the ability to breathe underwater while swimming, but Lizardfolk only have hold breath, so would I gain that instead? this is to the above as well)

EDIT/PS: I'm sorry if this was already asked. There are a LOT of posts in this thread, many about Alter self and I haven't found this particular question broached with clarity!

EDIT 2: I'm not asking you to pick one or the other. I'm more looking for the RIGHT answer, what was intended and should be gleaned from it. There are a lot of rules monkeys on these forums and at every gaming table.

If you're looking for the RIGHT answer, you should ask in the rules forums. If you're looking for MY answer (whether or not anyone thinks this is the RIGHT one is up to them... it's certainly the RIGHT one for me), then Alter Self only grants +2 Str and swim speeds, since it's only a 2nd level spell after all...

Your answer is good enough for me.

Hi James, I was wondering if you could solve a little conundrum for me. There are two conflicting rules for Alter self.

One is the spell itself.

The other is listed under Polymorph under Transmutation in the magic section.

For clarification purposes, does Alter self if I want to say, turn into a lizard folk grant me +5 Natural Armor, the +2 for polymorphing into a medium creature, the swim speed, and the natural attacks?

Or does Alter self only grant me +2 Strength and a Swim speed? (As polymorph spells state, I would also technically gain the ability to breathe underwater while swimming, but Lizardfolk only have hold breath, so would I gain that instead? this is to the above as well)

EDIT/PS: I'm sorry if this was already asked. There are a LOT of posts in this thread, many about Alter self and I haven't found this particular question broached with clarity!

EDIT 2: I'm not asking you to pick one or the other. I'm more looking for the RIGHT answer, what was intended and should be gleaned from it. There are a lot of rules monkeys on these forums and at every gaming table.

I believe this post is as good of a clarification as we will have by a Developer that takes his time to clarify rules that people have debates over.

Wrist Sheath and AoOs

Honestly, one of my favorite races to play are goblins, they're just zany and fun, no matter how you play them. Something about them is odd and unique, making them good adventurers.

Previously, I never considered playing a Dhampir before joining PFS. I had a few concepts that fell flat, so I settled with a build I wasn't sure of.

I'm very new to PFS but not to Pathfinder or RPGs in general.. and have a few friends that DO play PFS and may have a boon laying around they don't want.

Out of curiosity, what would someone want for a Dhampir, or Goblin boon that they were willing to trade or give up?

I'd really enjoy it if a rules dev WOULD make a statement on Scorpion Whip, as it's something of a pain in the butt to deal with with some rules-gurus without an official wording. PFS tables are skewed too; some say it's like a lethal whip, some say it isn't and you have to jump through hoops for a 1d4 whip that does lethal outside of whip mastery or two EWPs.

Sounds pretty good, aside from the fact that their natural armor is only +3, I could just stagger their stat bonuses.

oh, No no. It was a little of both. Sorry if I was unclear.

In 3.5, everyone in a 30 ft radius has to save vs a 'passive' gaze. Then you can pick *one* person within 30 ft if you want to attempt to petrify as a standard action. The gaze rules really havent changed much at all from 3.5 to pathfinder.

There are a ton of things immune to petrification though. Like undead. Freakin' undead and their immunity to everything. And Fort saves get really, REALLY high as the levels go on, as opposed to other saves.

Ah the makeup was just a gaze progression. In effect, her 'gaze' if unveiled hits everyone in 30 ft radius, not just a cone at the beginning of their turns, and as a standard action I can make a gaze attack, forcing at least one person to make two saves. That wasnt the issue though, yeah I found it was Cha based after, thanks MDT.

I'm still a 3.5er, I havent completely converted to Pathfinder yet but I use a grand majority of their stuff because its mostly fantastic. I'm just interested to see how to integrate it better.

If I were going to use it in my game, I would just modify ALL Medusa's to have a number of rounds of use per day equal to HD/2 + CHA modifier.

This would give a CR 7 encountered Medusa 7 rounds per day, which would make them pretty much the same as the unmodified one when you encounter one (still having 7 uses). A PC would have limited uses, more than a wizard of course, but they're also giving up 7 class levels (to start with). So that's not a bad tradeoff. Plus, they have to be careful not to stone their own allies, so that limits it's usefulness (gaze attacks affect anyone in line of sight unless that's been changed, although allies have a 50% chance to not have to make a save).

Line of Sight for Medusa is 30ft all around, thanks to their vision. Hmm, I like your general limited use of it. I might consider that, though make it full on HD+Cha modifier, or Con modifier, whichever their save is based off of.

The Medusa's stats are honestly pretty tame. Her only *really* startling point is the stone gaze. I had created a template/level progression in 3.5, allowing her 'gaze' to grow working similar to Daze, Daze monster in Active/passive uses, starting at 3-5 times a day and eventually growing to at will usages. As she caps out, I let her petrify more and more permanently, until she reaches a full 30ft in range, and it can be both active and passive like normal gaze attacks.

All in all its an extremely useful ability, but it's not the be-all-end-all. However, it is the ability that the DM usually blanches at in playability against encounters. The saving throw isnt honestly that high - it's problem is you can screw your PC buddies by keeping the 'passive' gaze effect on, forcing them to fort save or petrify every round :) and if you run out there all like 'lol gonna make all the enemies stone' you suddenly became the big huge glaring target and you get dropped.

FAST.

'Shit this (expletive deleted) is turning us to stone. KILL.'

A Medusa PC would have to be careful and only use 'active' gazes as standard actions, nailing who they chose to unless they thought they could get away with AOEing folks. Pumping their save DC would be of course needed for this to be useful, and they'd be giving up a lot.

Abilities -- Stat buffs. (+4 Dex, +8 Con, +2 Int, +2 Wis, +4 Cha)

8 Hit dice (Fighter BaB) OK saves all around, can't be flanked, +4 Perception. Darkvision 60ft, A nifty natural attack that poisons (good but not AMAZING) -- and their stone gaze.

I love all the ideas here I've seen and the options for monstrous PCs in the Bestiary, and generally like them. There are a lot of *easy* fixes, just by looking at older rules for a vast majority of the monsters in there. I like that HD mean less as you get higher level, but the problem of frontloading is always the main issue. Bugbears, goblinoids and several other races (especially my favorite, the Gnoll) can be done with about five minutes of your time...and JUST GLANCING at the old 3.5 material which I know ALL OF YOU HAVE.

One of the biggest issues I find is the use of monsters that you would *think* would work well, but due to one keystone ability, throw the whole thing out the window.

My issue is the Medusa. Now, I love Medusa, and the portrayal of it in the new Bestiary. That Fortitude save or permanent petrification is a major whammy, however! All my thoughts of making that character go somewhat the way of the Dodo, as the DM gets scared I will overuse such a powerful ability.

(Honestly, why would I not use it if I'm a Medusa? It's a great fear inducing tool after all, and the threat of being petrified by a legendary monster like her would be enough to stop any politician in his boots..aside from the societal penalties that might give.)

Medusa are CR 7. Wizards can petrify people at this point, but not all day long. They also have a pretty healthy amount of HD (8!) But other than this, they have few abilities which make them truly fearsome.

How do you balance this with the new rules honestly? I'm looking for interesting replies and rules cranking to get this to work out well. They're specifically built to hide themselves and actually *not* go around making tons of statues because then it would become a 'zomg, Medusa hunt!'

I love all the ideas here, and I liked seeing the basics in the bestiary about making monstrous PCs. There are a lot of *easy* fixes, just by looking at older rules for a vast majority of the monsters in there. I like that HD mean less as you get higher level, but the problem of frontloading is always the main issue.

One of the biggest issues I find is the use of monsters that you would *think* would work well, but due to one keystone ability, throw the whole thing out the window.

My issue is the Medusa. Now, I love Medusa, and the portrayal of it in the new Bestiary. That Fortitude save or permanent petrification is a major whammy, however! All my thoughts of making that character go somewhat the way of the Dodo, as the DM gets scared I will overuse such a powerful ability.

(Honestly, why would I not use it if I'm a Medusa? It's a great fear inducing tool after all, and the threat of being petrified by a legendary monster like her would be enough to stop any politician in his boots..aside from the societal penalties that might give.)

Medusa are CR 7. Wizards can petrify people at this point, but not all day long. They also have a pretty healthy amount of HD (8!) But other than this, they have few abilities which make them truly fearsome.

How do you balance this with the new rules honestly?