jscott991's page

In Inner Sea Magic, Abrogail Thrune II is listed as 2Ari/16 Sor. This 2011 book is set in, I think, 4711, when Abrogail Thrune is 19 years old. The Cheliax, Infernal Empire book confirms her levels (although it is set in 4715, making her 23 at the time). One of the themes of a lot of the 1E Golarion books is that Abrogail is young and inexperienced.

Does it make sense that she's already a level 16 sorceress (and has 18 class levels over all) at this young of an age?

If I were trying to explain how she accumulated so many levels so quickly in life (without really ever adventuring because she is royalty), what would a good in-universe explanation be?

If I was going to set adventures in 4711 (before a lot of the setting is disrupted by the constantly advancing timeline), would it make more sense to have Abrogail be less personally powerful?

Thank you for any help.

Vampire spawn have always been a confusing concept. They started, I think, in 3.0 for creatures with few HD and for creatures slain by the vampire's slam attack. Then they became a template. Then, in Libris Mortis, they became kind of a playable class.

They are supposed to be weaker than vampires, but share their weaknesses.

Pathfinder doesn't make them any more clear. Vampires can now create either spawn or full vampires, at will, regardless of their attack (Bestiary 1). Vampire spawn doesn't seem to be a template any more in the Bestiary. Bizarrely, it says use the statistics for a Wight (even for like a gnome vampire? won't this make some creatures ability scores get worse or better illogically?).

If I'm reading this correctly, a vampire could kill a level 20 halfling fighter and recreate them as a vampire spawn with the stats of a wight and a CR of 4. The halfling fighter would basically lose all of their other abilities. This probably makes very little sense.

But the vampire spawn seemed to have gotten a makeover in the Monster Codex. Here vampire spawn are back to being a template. The template allows vampire spawn to keep their class levels. It's a major improvement, but there seem to be some flaws in the template's design. For example, the vampire spawn only gains +2 CHA and no strength. That kind of clashes with most depictions of vampires.

It is also very strange that the text says this template can only apply to characters with 4 or more HD, and the example spawn is a level 2 rogue with 2 HD.

So what is the best solution here? Is it to just use the D&D rules on vampire spawn? To use the template but give it more strength?

Has this been clarified somewhere else?

If you google Queen Ileosa, you can find out a lot of bits and pieces about her past as a Chelaxian and her motives for coming to Korvosa in the first place. But I can't find the actual book where this information comes from, or I'm just reading over it.

I own the hardcover Curse of the Crimson Throne and the Guide to Korvosa. She doesn't get much attention in the Guide to Korvosa or the CotCT player's guide. She gets a lot of attention in the hardcover AP, but almost all of the information after the first few pages is about her role in the campaign and not about her past.

Am I just missing her biography somewhere in the hardcover book?

Is it in something else?

Incidentally, in her wiki, they say she was 30 when she died. When you match this up with information about her being less than a third of Eodred's age, it means the king was over 90. He really was pretty negligent about trying to get an heir.

I'm trying to create some NPCs to fill out a scenario I'm writing and I was curious about what the level curve looks like in Golarion (or, more accurately, what people think it looks like).

I'm a long-time Forgotten Realms gamer, so I'm used to just automatically creating 20th level BBEGs because of the nature of that setting.

It doesn't seem like that's the case in Golarion, though. Whereas virtually every nation in Faerun seems to be dominated by a 20th level spellcaster of some sort, there seem to be very few max level NPCs in the Inner Seas Setting book and the various sourcebooks that I have (Taldor, Cheliax).

What do people think? If I wanted to create a wizard who really stands out as powerful, but isn't the most powerful being on the planet, what level would be appropriate?

Based on a lot of the NPCs in Cheliax and Taldor, I was thinking between 12 and 15.

When people read in Taldor: The First Empire or Echoes of Glory that the Taldor army is made up of units called legions, how big do most assume that unit is?

A classical legion is 6,000 men (Roman), without auxiliaries.

Taldor has a lot of legions, which would suggest a pretty big population if the Taldor unit is that big.

For example, Echoes of Glory says that 12 legions are stationed at Maheto and "scores" are at Zimar.

That's about 180,000 men right there (assuming just 20 legions at Zimar), which would give Taldor at least 3.6 million people if that's 2% of the population (which is actually a little high for a medieval state). The Roman Empire had an army of about 400,000 men in the first century AD with a population around 50 million (just under 1% of population).

Does that seem right or do people think a legion is bigger / smaller?

I don't want to start a thread about inserting real world politics into Adventure Paths, but I have to say that Crownfall has as its premise something that contradicts a lot of what has been written about Taldor, including the First Empire book that supposedly sets the stage for it.

I own, I think, basically everything that's been written about Taldor since the first Campaign Setting book 10 years ago. This includes Echoes of Glory, First Empire, the Inner Sea setting book, and, now, Crownfall. It's by far my favorite country in Golarion (despite the weird Grand Prince / Emperor title reversal thing).

This idea that Taldor is sexist and that its gender politics are out of date is completely contradicted by First Empire.

It is true that Eutropia is barred from being empress. But other than that, the Empire is filled with females in positions of power.

Here is just a partial list, using only First Empire:

General Relyson Gwein, commander of Taldor's cavalry
Grand Duchess Mella Denzarni, governor of Kazuhn
Grand Duchess Destalita Solari, governor of Ligos
Grand Duchess Breateeza Fahlspar, Northern Tandak
Grand Duchess Vivexis Darahan, Whitemarch
Grand Duchess Cisera Tiberan, Tandak

The Grand Duchesses are mostly appointed by the Emperor -- an emperor painted in Crownfall as sexist and antiquated.

The existence of all of these powerful females just doesn't make sense with a lot of the text in Crownfall. In fact, it's impossible to square with this by Crystal Frasier on p. 2: "a ruling class steeped with the racism and sexism most of Golarion discarded long ago." Or " while hardliners (especially elder nobles) believe the vote to be another wound in the great history of the empire, allowing not only the rabble-rousing Eutropia to inherit family power, but every ill-deserving woman" by Thurston Hillman (p 6). I hate to break it to Mr. Hillman (and these supposed elder nobles), but women have been inheriting power in Taldor for a long time, just not the throne. The player's guide is also filled with sentences that contradict the state of gender politics shown in First Empire.

I've always loved the character of Eutropia. And I have looked forward to her being Empress of Taldor since the setting was first published. But I don't think painting her as a crusader for gender rights in a misogynist empire that discriminates against women matches much, if any, of the setting information we've been given so far. Taldor has lots of problems in need of reform. But gender inequality isn't really one of them, at least according to everything published before Crownfall.

There's a lot of great stuff in Crownfall. There's even more in First Empire. I just wish they were a little more careful in their language and in keeping things consistent.

I recently read the First World: Realm of the Fey book.

It's not quite my preferred treatment of the Fey, but it was certainly interesting.

It left me with a question. It references a lot of Fey cities and talks about the residents of the First World who live and work there. There are also a number of pictures of fairly humanoid (but fancifully dressed) figures throughout the book.

What type of Fey are these?

Who are the more humanoid Fey that you typically see in illustrations that make up Faerie courts? D&D used to have a few generic fey types, but I can't find that anything like that officially exists in Pathfinder / Golarion.

I'm really interested in Fey that aren't loner threats to parties (like nymphs, dryads, rusalka, nereids, etc.) or extremely small (like pixies, sprites, etc.). You see a lot of illustrations of Fey that are just oddly colored humanoids with longer, elf-like ears, but I'm not clear just what kind of Fey those are supposed to be.

What types of Fey could be used to fill out Fey cities and Royal Courts (like the very unseelie-like Court of Ether or the Fey that appear in Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell)? What types of Fey would be soldiers in Fey armies (like the kind that must battle in the neverending siege described in the First World book)?

Thanks for any help! My solution at this point is to maybe just apply the Fey creature template to elves.

I'm curious because Taldor is the nation that interests me the most and I see the latest path focuses on it.

Will it end up getting a nice hardcover collection book?

Or is there no guarantee?

Hi all,

I used to be a fairly regular player and reader of Pathfinder products, but I drifted away shortly after the release of Bestiary 1 (I wasn't fond of the stat block / background information ratio).

I find my interest drifting back to fantasy and would like to start to update my Pathfinder book collection.

I'm curious, though, which of the new books would be best. I'm most intrigued by the updated Golarion book (I have the original Pathfinder Campaign setting book, released shortly after 3.5 went away at Wizards), the new Taldor and Cheliax setting books (the updated 64 pagers), all of the bestiaries, the advanced race book, and the various codexes.

My question, though, is how much text in each book is dedicated to game mechanics (which don't interest me much any more) and how much is dedicated to information?

Which books would be best for a fan who just wanted to read about fantasy and not really play DnD or Pathfinder as a tabletop RPG? I'm open to almost any suggestion, but am a little biased toward hardback books.

Is there enough new information in the updated Golarion setting book (it's a lot longer, I think 320 pages v. 250) to justify purchasing it if I own the original?

How much new information is in the updated Cheliax and Taldor books compared to the first releases (which I have)/

And have the Bestiaries evolved to include more background information on the monsters v. just stat dumps (much like the 3.5 monster manuals evolved, particularly starting with 4 and 5).

Thanks again!

And that's not a good thing.

I had a long, ranty post mapped out with a lot of details about why the Bestiary has sent me retreating from any plans to purchase more Pathfinder products, but I don't really see the point of eviscerating a product on a company website.

I will say that I am extremely disappointed in the book. I didn't care much about the delays, but I do care that almost every monster is simply a stat block, with almost no flavor text.

Considering the universal outcry against the 3e original Monster Manual and the short shrift it gave everything but stats (which led to the improved 3.5e manual, and vastly improved monster books as 3.5 winded down), I can't believe that both Wizards and Paizo reverted to this style with the 4e monster book and the Bestiary, respectively. Wizards treatment of monsters is a major reason I abandoned them in recent months and decided to plunge into Pathfinder. So the Bestiary has left me with an awful taste in my mouth.

Considering that Paizo's Chronicles products have some of the stronger flavor and background text of any fantasy roleplaying product since 2e TSR books, the Bestiary is just a major letdown.

There are other issues with the book that I could go into (including the lack of templates, level adjustments, dragon age categories, etc.), but it really doesn't seem appropriate to focus on details when something very general is wrong. The Bestiary represents a major step backward from 3.5 materials and seemed almost a wasted purchase.

Anyway, the art is great, but for the first time a Paizo product has left me thinking that I need to be more careful when purchasing books in the future.

I have a number of products that mention the drow (the rulebook, the main setting book, and Into the Darklands come to mind), but unless I'm just missing it, they never receive any statistical treatment.

Are Drow's stats the same in Golarion as in mainstream 3.0/3.5? Are they going to be in the bestiary?

I have some other thoughts on the Drow in Golarion, but I'll save that for another post. It's disappointing to me that the rather mediocre and illogical treatment of dark elves in Faerun carried over to Golarion. Maybe some day, some setting will discard the notion that drow are border-line insane and can't form stable political entities.

Ok, I'm addicted. I wasn't going to purchase all the smaller books, but the ones I purchased based on the title have all been excellent.

I'm left wondering where to go from here.

I currently own:

Pathfinder Core Rulebook

Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting

Cheliax, Empire of Devils

Taldor, Echoes of Glory

Classic Monsters Revisited

Gods and Magic

Into the Darklands

Dragons Revisited

I have preordered the Bestiary.

What other Golarion-themed books are must-haves? I admit I'm mostly interested in flavor (the game has plenty of rules as it is) and in southern Avistan.

I recently bought the Cheliax supplement. It was a very nice read, but, of course, too short to really satisfy my curiosity about this nation. Still, for its size, it compared favorably to most flavor products I've purchased in the past. (A certain other publisher is notorious for beautiful, long hardback books that are filled with very little information beyond prestige classes and feats.)

However, this book only reinforced a question that the setting book left me with.

When you refer to Abrogail II as Her Infernal Majestrix, the Queen of Cheliax, that makes Majestrix sound like an honorific, akin to referring to Elizabeth II as Her Royal Majesty. Majesty is not a separate title; it is an honorific (a form of address, like Your Honor for judges). Certainly, Majestrix looks like a feminized version of Majesty. And that's another question, would a male King be referred to as Majestrix or Majesty. If Majesty, then the use of Majestrix described below is very odd indeed.

However, the word is also used as a noun in the supplement. Several references are made to "the Majestrix", as though Majestrix is another title in addition to being Queen of Cheliax. This would be more akin to older British Monarchs claiming to be King of England and King of France.

Which is right? Is Majestrix just a special honorific for the Queen of Cheliax? Or is Majestrix a title born by the Queen? Would a King of Cheliax bear a title of Majesty? ("The Majesty of Cheliax issued an edict on poaching earlier this year." That sounds very weird.)

On a side note, and this is something that can easily be ignored by DMs or readers who care, Golarion is riddled with title confusion, especially regarding Cheliax, Osirion, and Taldor.

The monarchs in Cheliax and Taldor are sometimes referred to as emperors, but seem to formally bear a much less impressive title (Queen and Grand Prince). Osirion seems to switch between Ruby Prince, Pharaoh, and Forthbringer at random.

Obviously real life rules don't apply to a fantasy setting, but it is weird to see juxtaprosed titles like this. Emperor is a much grander title than Prince or even King. If a monarch could righfully claim to be an emperor, they would never allow themselves to be addressed by their lower hereditary title. For example, Peter the Great of Russia might have been Prince of Muscovy, but if you addressed him as such in a letter instead of Emperor of Russia, he probably would have been insulted. The same applies to Pharoah versus Prince. It is unlikely that a monarch would willingly adopt a lower title. When Napoleon III revived the French Empire in 1853, there was never any chance he would have allowed himself to be called "Prince of France" instead of Emperor. So it would be odd for the new rulers of Osirion to adopt the lesser title of Prince, instead of Pharoah or something equivalent.

Again, another nitpicky point. If I ever do a campaign in the region, I can call the monarchs whatever I want. But it is a strange thing to read. It has caused me to shake my head a number of times as I read through the Taldor and Cheliax supplements, and the setting book.

How often do nobles, nations, or powerful organizations use teleport?

I asked this once long ago on the FR boards and never did get a satisfactory answer.

If Cheliax wants to send an ambassador to Taldor, would they bother to outfit a warship and have the ambassador sail there or would they just teleport him?

Greater teleport is a fairly high level spell (7th wizard), but it seems to me that it wouldn't be all that uncommon for every court to have a wizard capable of casting it. If that were the case, how reliant would nations be on overland or overseas communication?

For some reason, I have always DM'd and scripted scenarios assuming that teleport was rare, but the more I read the DM Guide and the Pathfinder rulebook, I'm not sure anymore. I don't think kings, queens, wizards, or the wealthy would ever risk travelling by caravan or ship if they could avoid it and it seems they could avoid it fairly easily.

But I prefer the idea of it being rare, I just wonder how much sense that makes.

I posted a long list of quibbles and my thoughts on the Chronicles Campaign setting book, but I put it in a forum that is infrequently visited (this board is really kind of hard to use; and thanks to Charles Evans who suggested I try here).

One of my big complaints about the book is that the nations are not given population totals. This puts a bit of a burden on a GM, since not even the continents and world are given rough totals to extrapolate from.

My first question is whether this information is available anywhere and, if not, how one would go about figuring out the rough population of most of the major nations and regions.

This information is important in extrapolating army sizes and the actual relative balance of power between nations in order to craft believable backstories of political intrigue.

I have other questions and comments, but I'll stick to this for now.

Thanks.

These aren't the best message boards I've ever seen, and I think I posted this in the wrong place.

Oh well. I still hope someone replies.