Windbit's page

Wow, it feels cool to have two of the head honchos behind Pathfinder anwering my questions!

The mystery of why the rift in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings does that will have to remain a mystery for now (unless you the GM want to give it a reason, which is kinda what all these little world tidbits are for!).

I'm probably misunderstanding you here, but will there be parts of the Pathfinder setting that will never have official answers, parts that will always be left for a DM to "fill in the blank"?

And now for a completely new question:

4) I may be mistaken, but I remember reading about a "Merfolk Consortium" somewhere. How prominent is the consortium? Do merfolk routinely trade and interact with the people of coastal cities like Magnimar and Korvosa?

1) What do the golems produced at the Magnimar Golemworks do? Would it be common-place in Magnimar to see a golem helping construction workers or being used to load supplies on a ship? Does Magnimar export golems to other cities?

2) What exactly is the First World like? All I know is that it used to be where the fey lived, there's a rift to the First World in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings, and that for some reason people who go there are turned into undead. Is it a Negative Energy plane now or what?

3) In the issue of Pathfinder detailing dragons, it states that the dragons have lived on many different planets throughout time. Is this the same for related monsters like the Tatzlwyrm and the Wyvern, or are they specific to Golarion? And if so, how did they come about?

I remember reading that the creators of Pathfinder hope to have a lot of extra space for their monster book. While new monsters and monsters from other OGL sources would be great, I think a lot of people would appreciate it if the book provided premade monsters with levels in the classes most often associated with them, such as a few orcs with various levels of barbarian.

Would this be possible at all?

Awesome guide. I'd been thinking about converting the seven sin domains and the virtue domains from their respective Dragon issues, so this is definitely helpful.

No new races. Period.

SirUrza wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

SirUrza wrote:

Don't get too excited, he said in a perfect world and that none of it was planned. Such a Monster Manual as described by #1 would break 700 pages in order to JUST "updates all the SRD monsters" and likely carry a $75+ price tag.

Never going to happen.

Never say never...

Pffft. I'll believe it when I see it. Necromancer was in the best position in 3E to do that and they opted for 3 hardcovers instead.

In any event... we haven't really started to think about what we're going to do with a Pathfinder RPG Monster Book, beyond the obvious fact that we'll NEED one. At the very least, it'll more or less amount to reprinting the SRD monsters (illustrated, likely, with a combination of new art and art harvested from our other products), which would give us a book roughly the size of the 3.5 Monster Manual. Honestly... that's all that book really needs to be, but I'd like to add in more monsters, of course. The 3.5 Monster Manual is only 320 pages long. Adding 100 pages to that would basically give us another 150 to 200 or more monsters to add in. We know we can make and sell a 400 or so page book... that's how big the Shackled City hardcover was, after all. A big monster book like this is ABSOLUTELY not impossible.

It is, however, well over a year away at the VERY LEAST. So it doesn't make much sense for me to talk much more about it, aside from confirming the hopes/suspicions that we are very likely to have a big thick monster book to support the Pathfinder RPG. It'd be stupid not to do that, I would think.

At least 150 more monsters...wow! I'd like to see the monsters from the SRD, at least a few from the various adventure modules and bestiaries (especially the tatzlwyrm and the reefclaw), and the best of the best from other open content.

Personally, I thought that the final version of the Pathfinder RPG rules would be the PHB, DMG, and MM all rolled into one. Am I mistaken?

To tell the truth, I'd rather them not use the thaumaturge exactly as it is. After the necessary domain changes, maybe they could make it so the class' corruptions don't make the thaumaturge so obviously evil, what with the deformities and such. Maybe they could change many of the corruptions so that they give them an unnatural aura of menace instead.

I thought a neat idea for the Pathfinder RPG would be special classes for villains. For example, the thaumaturge class that has been featured twice already in Pathfinder would be an interesting addition. I don't know if the publishers of the book that the thaumaturge debuted in would allow it, though.

Oh, an anti-paladin class would be good, too. I thought it strange that there was a "champion of good" base class, but that the "champion of evil" was a prestige class.

Here's my wish list:

- Aboleth
- Barghest
- Centaur
- Fey
- Hags
- Lamia
- Locathah
- Merfolk
- Planetouched

I agree that "sword and board" characters need some love. Two weapon fighting builds have too much of an advantage. It makes sense for them to deal the most damage, and they should, but there should be great uses of the shield for those who want to use them.

Getting rid of the Dex 15 requirement would be a great step toward enabling more sword and shield warriors.

I'd also love to see feats that let shield users block attacks (check using BAB and strength vs opponent's attack roll), shield adjacent allies, etc.

PRPG mentions that you can rule certain types of creatures as being immune to sneak attacks. For example, I'd think that a zombie would be vulnerable to a sneak attack (sever the head or destroy the brain), while a skeleton warrior wouldn't.

Oh, that's where it is? I was thinking of running Into the Haunted Forest for some beginners. If it goes over well, I could run Crown of the Kobold King next, and eventually Carnival of Tears.

I'm no game designer, but how about "half max damage plus die roll" for critical hits? You can't deal as much damage as normal, but it can still be better than max damage without risking a disappointing (I'm looking at you, two!) result.

Windbit wrote:

From what I understand, the Barbarian was one of the most well-designed classes in 3.5 edition. While I think the new rage abilities are interesting, I don't like the idea of "rage points." I'd rather keep the x/day mechanic. So, instead of having to keep track of points, each power would use up a certain amount of /day uses. It's similar, but is still coherent with the overall system.

Well, the "x/day uses" mechanic and the "rage points" mechanic are equivalent if there's an ability that costs one point to use. The problem with having one barbarian rage = one "point" is that core barbarians don't get many rages per day; that means that every new ability that costs one "rage" would have to be pretty powerful or long-lasting. With a pool of points, there's more freedom to say "a +4 bonus to Intimidate costs 1 point, a one-round boost to speed costs two points, a regular barbarian rage costs three points" etc. (as All DMs Are Evil pointed out).

Damn, you're right...but I still don't like the use of the term points for some reason. Maybe it has to do with how we don't use points for spellcasting, so it seems odd that we'd use points in other places other than HP.

Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, and Sorcerer.

From what I understand, the Barbarian was one of the most well-designed classes in 3.5 edition. While I think the new rage abilities are interesting, I don't like the idea of "rage points." I'd rather keep the x/day mechanic. So, instead of having to keep track of points, each power would use up a certain amount of /day uses. It's similar, but is still coherent with the overall system.

I like bards and would be sad to see them gone. Luckily, because PRPG is focused on compatibility, it's not too likely at all that they will axe bards.

I very much like this idea. I once had character concept for a human woman who was adopted by dwarves as a child and wondered how I might alter the human stats to accommodate dwarven racial traits.

Ninjas are too similar to the rogue to merit being a core class. Personally, I feel that the ninja is best represented as a rogue with appropriate flavoring. However, if it really must be statistically unique, a rogue variant class or even just variant levels should suffice.

Say, now this is a pretty neat idea!

I'm of the opinion that there is no problem to be fixed. If a wizard runs out of spells and has to resort to the crossbow, that's not the game system's fault. It's the wizard's fault for not conserving his spells or spending time to obtain scrolls or wands.

Seriously, if you're playing a wizard and keep running out of spells, either find a way to budget your spell use or play another class.

Another vote for optional.

Wow, everyone agrees on something!

Personally, I couldn't understand what the heck the cover section was saying. I gave up after trying to wrap my head around it three times and went on to the much simpler and pleasant CMB mechanic.

I personally don't think a new core race is a very good idea, and I hope that the creators of Pathfinder RPG don't put a new one in, but if they did...

I'd say either hobgoblins or some type of medium-sized cyclops.

Goblins and kobolds are too weak, a flying race would be a headache as it could overcome challenges that other races couldn't without magic, giants would be problematic as most adventures are designed to accomodate small or medium PCs, and I personally feel that more humanoid, mammalian races are better suited to being PCs.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that. Assigning skill points to NPCs is a major hassle, not to mention that converting creatures from the Monster Manual to Pathfinder rules will entail lots of skill point reassignment if they don't keep the new, simplified skill system.

I much prefer the new skill system. Even if Paizo does decide to return to skill points, I for one will use the skill system presented in Alpha Release 1.

I thought I had already posted this, but I can't find it. So here I go again...

What does the name Pathfinder Chronicles refer to? I thought that was the official name, but so far the adventure paths and the new RPG are simply "Pathfinder".

Personally, I feel that a name like "Pathfinder RPG" is a bit underwhelming and not as likely to make someone interested in looking to see what it's all about. Also, whenever I think "Pathfinder" I think of that viking movie from a few years ago, even though I never even saw it. In fact, one of the people I told about the Pathfinder adventure paths immediately asked me if Pathfinder was a DnD adaptation of said viking movie.

So my point is this: How about naming the rpg "Pathfinder Chronicles RPG", or even simply "The Pathfinder Chronicles"? It's a more appealing name in my opinion, and this one is less likely to make people think of vikings.

Well okay, vikings are cool and all, and the people of the Lands of the Linnorm Kings are viking-like, but a title that makes people think that the product is largely related to vikings could turn off those who are less enthusiastic about vikings.

When I first saw that there was a fly skill, I was nearly dumbstruck. Why have a skill for something that can only be attained by magic at higher levels? It's nearly as useless as Use Rope.

Hrmm...I guess that would be okay as long as it wasn't anything huge...

Exactly. Besides, removing Vancian casting will make it much harder for the new rules to be compatible with other 3.5 material. I'm excited for the Pathfinder RPG, but I'll admit that if they do change the spellcasting system after talking about how much they want the game to be compatible with the majority of 3.5 material, then I won't bite.

Not that I really think this has that good of a chance of happening. I really think the guys in charge of development would know better than to outright ax Vancian casting in a product priding itself on compatibility.

Personally, I'm of the school of thought that Wizards don't need to be able to cast spells all the time. Pathfinder is already giving them new powers to choose from, and if a Wizard wants to blast fireballs every round then he should invest in a wand of fireball.

I'm personally not a fan of new races. Maybe playable versions of monsters that usually have Level Adjustment, but not the cliche bird people (Raptorans) and the like. I especially don't want a million subraces. Maybe one or two, but personally I'd rather there be none at all. I mean, by the gods, do people really need aquatic elves?!

Also, if Paizo unveils a new cat-person race I will...will...try my best to pretend it doesn't exist.

Pathfinder is more of an organization than an actual class, but it has been hinted previously that a Hellknight PrC class may be in the works, so if anything Pathfinders should be a PrC.

However, I would like it the Thaumaturge was included, even if it was just intended as a "villains-only" class. It's already been used in RotR twice that I know of.

It's more like a pacific northwest lake island meets the Lost island meets a Japanese ghost movie.

--Erik

That's, like, the best thing evar.

Personally, I've always thought that psionics was just a modern name for magic. As such, it doesn't make sense to me why we need two systems of magic.

I like having Lovecraftian elements in DnD, but I personally think Paizo is putting in too much too quickly. I'd like mythos creatures every now and then, but having them in every other issue of Pathfinder is pushing it.

What about creatures from Dungeon and Dragon? I liked the Springheel from the last creature compendium.

Man, I am a lazy bastard. I'm definitely going to at least start on my illo of Miss Scrimm tomorrow.

In Pathfinder #2's article on the goddess Desna, butterfly-like creatures called night monarchs are mentioned. A night monarch is a CR 8 creature, so I guess you could summon one with Summon Monster VII.

I'm clearly in the minority, but I just don't think that a whole new class should be made for the ninja. I think a variant of the rogue with some ki powers as optional special abilities would be better.

Mike McArtor wrote:

Ninjas = yes.

Is there going to be some kind of OGl ninja class, or are they just black-clad folks with rogue levels and neat items?

I personally don't see any reason to make a whole new class for ninjas, seeing as they are pretty similar to rogues. Maybe a rogue variant would be better?

I've seen several people asking for info about Pathfinder's gods that they can use for clerics and paladins. Since there is still a lot we don't know, and since the Pathfinder staff can't possibly answer every question we ask (although they are very informative and have dropped some tantalizing info), I thought it may be a good idea for us to write up some fluff to use for deities until the official info is revealed.

Here are some of my ideas on the beliefs and practices of worshipers of Urgathoa and Rovagug.

Urgathoa: Worshipers of Urgathoa believe that the world is theirs' for the taking, and those who lack the ambition to take what they want deserve to be taken advantage of. Because the average person's only plan is to live from day to day, followers of Urgathoa use disease to eliminate the weak and passion-less common folk. Those with necromantic ability animate the corpses of their victims, creating undead servants to take care of the work while they enjoy the fruits of their victories. Some of Urgathoa's most faithful willingly become carriers of disease themselves; though they themselves cannot die from their afflictions, those they come into contact with can.

Rovagug: The deity of destruction's worshipers are nihilists who hate the world with a passion. Their hatred of mortal life is so great that instead of merely killing themselves, they would rather go out in a blaze of chaotic violence, aiming to take as much down with them as possible. Followers of Rovagug only create things that are used to destroy; the creation of anything not intended to take lives or otherwise wreak destruction is taboo, even the creation of items intended to glorify Rovagug. Temples are never built to honor the god of wrath. Quite the contrary: Rovagug's worshipers destroy the temples of other gods, desecrating broken altars for his glorication. The faithful avoid comforts and go out of their way to make things more difficult for themselves to ensure that they never become apathetic to the negative aspects of the world. Some followers of Rovagug become anti-paladins, unholy champions of chaos and evil who bring death in their wake. Unless worshipers are acting together in a greater plan (which is an incredibly rare occurrence) they usually fight to the death. Rovagug's warriors who flee from battle become disgusted and ashamed of themselves, often opting to end their lives in the form of suicidal rampage through a town or city until they are finally killed.

I'm using the PHB classes for PCs. The base classes presented there cover all the bases without being too specialized.

I've got the anti-paladin that was in Dragon 312 and the thaumaturge from the book of fiends as villain-only classes. It'll be fun to have an anti-paladin of Rovagug as a villain.

Ilsurian was on the border between Shalast and Eurythnia, though... I doubt there was anything of note there in Thassilonain times, though, since there are no Thassilonian monuments in the immediate area.

What about the ruins on the southern edge of the lake Ilsurian is just north of?

I personally thought of the bloatmage as being similar to the troll fortune tellers who use their entrails or the Varisian fortune tellers. Maybe being a bloatmage doesn't actually make one better at casting spells? Maybe it's just a superstition?

So... I'm deducing that JJ and co. are holding back on these races so that they can deal with the new 4e status of Elves and Gnomes.

God I hope not. Pathfinder's treatments of the gnomes so far have made me like them. I used to not like gnomes at all, but now they're one of my favorite races.

Look what I found!

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/campaignJournals/ageO fWormsAdventurePathPlaytestTyralandiScrimm

As Rockfall says, there are no official stats for any of the characters. The cleric and paladin had unofficial stats, as James and Wes used them as inspirations for their Age of Worms campaigns, but I think those particular combinations of numbers no longer exist.

What about names? I'd love to make unofficial stats for the late magazines' iconics, and I'd at least like them to have the right names.

Seeing as I'm a fledgeling artist, I think I'll make a few character images of some of the iconics and make 1st-level stats for them. I'll post mine here later, and I like to see Rockfall22 and others' versions of the characters.

EDIT: I bought a back issue of Dungeon from a comic shop today, and I just found an interesting tidbit. Apparently, the lady cleric dressed in red armor is named Tyralandi Scrimm, and is also one of James Jacobs's characters!

I think I'll illustrate and stat-up Miss Scrimm first! I can't wait to post my work so James can tell me how wrong I got his character!

I'm wondering if any background information, stats, or even the names of the magazines' iconic characters were ever revealed. Several of them were pretty cool looking, and I thought I'd ask if there were any issues of either magazine with their info.

I personally don't like the idea of resurrection being so easy to procure. When I start up a group, I'm going to use one of the variant rules for making it harder to raise the dead that was detailed in an issue of Dragon. I'm not sure which, though.