>>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<<


Off-Topic Discussions

6,851 to 6,900 of 77,094 << first < prev | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

John Kretzer wrote:
So did you miss posting on the forums during the period of downtime due to maintance or did you sorta view it like a vacation?

It was kinda nice. In THEORY it would have let me get a lot more writing done... but in FACT I kinda wasted large portions of yesterday taking naps to overcome some poor sleeping habits that I had over the past several days of my writing vacation.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

If a character kills an NPC "on a hunch" even though he has absolutely no evidence that this NPC is evil or has done anything wrong, is the killing still an evil act even if the character turns out to be right?

Liberty's Edge

I have noticed that in most cases when an animal hits 4th or 7th level it gains a Size class, and then also gains stat bonuses/penalties.
Is it fair to assume that these stat bonuses/penalties are classed as Size modifiers?

Now this is a fairly important question because it actually impacts on the effects of spells, most notably Animal Growth which modifies the stats of the target creature with Size typed enhancements.

Obviously this may be what is intended or not , but depending on the answer it alters the target use of the spell from primarily used to buff summoned animals vs only used to enhance the animal companion.

Let me provide an example to hopefully make this clearer:

Druid takes a Dog companion.
13 17 15 2 12 6 Small
At level 4 it gains a size class to Medium and gains Str +4, Dex –2, Con +2.
The default profile (regardless of other level increases) is
17 15 17 2 12 6 Medium

If these modifiers are considered Size modifiers (and after all the animal companion has indeed grown)then the spell Animal Growth will only replace these modifiers on the dog raising its stats by effectively only +4 size bonus to Strength and a +2 size bonus to Constitution with no further penalty to Dexterity giving us:
21 15 19 2 12 6 Large

If the level 4 increase isn't a size modifier then Animal Growth alters the profile to:
25 13 21 2 12 6 Large

So in the first case Animal Growth is probably better used on summoned animals because you get the "full effect" on the summoned animal as no prior size modifiers have been applied.
In the second case Animal growth is only used on the companion because when applied to the companions that get level 7 boosts they effectively double dip their stat increases (see Tiger, Ape Wolf and the like).

So what I'm curious here is what the intent was of this rule especially how the other growth type spells did in fact get toned down from 3.5 to Pathfinder while Animal growth was left alone.

Thanking you all
Nik


I really like the article from Dragon on Staff Familars. Is there any chance we could see PF rules that are similar for Arcane Bond items?? If not from you guys, perhaps I'll ask for such from a 3pp.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Huh,
Just found something out in a separate thread. A swift action, which is defined as taking less effort than a standard, but more than a free, can't be performed using a standard action (which by definition takes more effort than the swift action).

You end up with the absurdity of a Paladin, for example, laying hands on themselves as a swift, and then taking a 5 foot adjust and laying hands on their teammate, but unable to lay on hands on themselves, five foot adjust, and then lay hands on themselves again.

James, was that intentional, or was it merely a bit of copy/paste from 3.5 that didn't get cleaned up?

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Is there any relationship between Kingmaker and the Fellnight Queen? The later almost seems like a condensed version of the former, having many elements of the AP as a whole (in spoilers below for those who want to avoid such things). Was that intentional or coincidental? Did one borrow from the other?

Spoiler:

Similarities:
Evil fey trapped by other fey due to prior bad acts
Armies being raised/attacking towns
Similar antagonists (spriggans, will-o-wisps)


Throughout history people have been fascinated with fame and the prestige that accompanies it. Is it fair to say that adventurers are Golarions celebrities, or are there other standards one has to uphold to achieve celebrity status?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Have you seen both films and why do you think that (at least in haunted house style films) the bad things are so often 'in the basement' (into which the lead characters for a variety of often contrived reasons inevitably seem to stray instead of sensibly staying upstairs)? Could it be a relic of mythology of an 'underworld' that leads to basements so often being the place where 'bad stuff goes on', or might it be that they offer directors the biggest and best excuses/opportunities for 'dark and confined' environments?

If you mean "Thir13een Ghosts" then yes, I've seen it. Didn't like it—I much prefer ghost stories that are more subtle. They can still be violent or gory, of course, but they need to be well-written above all else.

I have seen "Hellboy," and quite loved that one.

As for bad things being in the basement... I'd say the obvious reason is because the basement is closer to hell. Also: basements are dark; that's where spiders live; they're secluded and have few escape options.

Of course, in horror movies, it seems like the attic is often just as deadly and scary and horror filled as the basement. "The Exorcist," "Paranormal Activity" are both great examples of trouble in the attic, along with "Insidious" which just came out a week or two ago.

Basically, attics and basements are both dark, creepy places in your home where you don't really live, where the bugs and bats hide, and as such they're sinister mysterious "caves" inside of your house. What could be scarier?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

bodrin wrote:

I've only recently run the Kaiju Carrion Crawler from AoW Kings of the Rift, superb WTF moment from all 9 of my players. However after digging out the Dragon issue with the template inside I wondered if you'd ever done an official OGL v3.5 update for D20 or were considering a PFRpg version. If yes to OGL 3.5 is it available anywhere other than dragon mag?

A Kaiju Jabberwocky would be all kinds of crunchy! *maniacal laugh*

I believe there's a PFRPG Kaiju template in Wayfinder 2. We've not yet taken on an official version of this template yet. Partially because monsters that big kinda don't work well with the rules.

I have a hard time imagining Godzilla fitting into a 30-foot-cube, basically.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ulgulanoth wrote:
would a steam powered or clockwork zombie be a construct or undead and why?

A steam powered or clockwork zombie sounds more like a steam powered or clockwork flesh golem to me, and thus it'd be a construct, not an undead.

Undead already have an animating force, and thus don't NEED clockworks or steam power to go.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Brotato wrote:
So a player in a campaign I'm running has sort of a History of Violence type backstory and has been running from his former associates for his entire PC career. As part of the full realization of his backstory, I decided to bring back one of his former partners that he killed during his escape as a Revenant. In the Reason to Hate ability, it states that the revenant exists as long as its murderer exists, but doesn't say mechanically how this plays out if you get the revenant to 0 hp. Is this something similar to a bloody skeleton's rejuvenation, or was this left intentionally vague so that I can give a false sense of security only to bring the revenant back at a later time?

That's up to you.

Technically, if the revenant is dropped to 0 hit points, it's destroyed and done.

But there's nothing to say that it can't just rise again as a new revenant to continue its quest for revenge if its body remains intact enough.

I'd suggest having the revenant show up to attack the PC, but stage it in an area where the revenant's body can be lost—maybe it attacks on a bridge over a raging river and falls into the river with the death blow, for example.

Or maybe the PCs just don't bother destroying the body when it dies—PCs don't NORMALLY grind up their victims.

Once the PCs realize it's still coming for them, though, you should let them finish the revenant off for good if they do grind up or burn or otherwise physically destroy the remains.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Fatespinner wrote:
If a character kills an NPC "on a hunch" even though he has absolutely no evidence that this NPC is evil or has done anything wrong, is the killing still an evil act even if the character turns out to be right?

I'd say it's a chaotic act for sure. As for whether it was evil... that mostly depends on what the guy was doing to give the PC the hunch in the first place.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Nikolaus Athas wrote:

I have noticed that in most cases when an animal hits 4th or 7th level it gains a Size class, and then also gains stat bonuses/penalties.

Is it fair to assume that these stat bonuses/penalties are classed as Size modifiers?

The bonuses to stats animal companions get at 4th or 7th level are untyped modifiers. They're basically the same type of modifiers PCs get every 4 levels. If they were considered size modifiers, the text would have called them out as such.

And, of course, the reason that we didn't make them size modifiers was BECAUSE an animal companion is Target #1 for things like animal growth. It'd be lame if that spell ended up not working good on Target #1.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Monkeygod wrote:
I really like the article from Dragon on Staff Familars. Is there any chance we could see PF rules that are similar for Arcane Bond items?? If not from you guys, perhaps I'll ask for such from a 3pp.

Unlikely—arcane bond is mostly doing the same thing as a "staff familiar." Not necessarily rules-wise, but character concept-wise.

Of course, one of the main reasons we made Pathfinder backwards compatible in the first place was so folks could still use those old articles with minimal conversion effort...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

mdt wrote:

Huh,

Just found something out in a separate thread. A swift action, which is defined as taking less effort than a standard, but more than a free, can't be performed using a standard action (which by definition takes more effort than the swift action).

You end up with the absurdity of a Paladin, for example, laying hands on themselves as a swift, and then taking a 5 foot adjust and laying hands on their teammate, but unable to lay on hands on themselves, five foot adjust, and then lay hands on themselves again.

James, was that intentional, or was it merely a bit of copy/paste from 3.5 that didn't get cleaned up?

That sounds like a Jason Bulmahn question, not a James Jacobs question.

But preventing a paladin from hitting a single target twice in a round (be that target himself or whatever) with lay on hands is the whole point. I've no problem at all with a paladin being able to heal himself AND someone else in one round, but healing himself TWICE in one round is a bit much.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Sebastian wrote:

Is there any relationship between Kingmaker and the Fellnight Queen? The later almost seems like a condensed version of the former, having many elements of the AP as a whole (in spoilers below for those who want to avoid such things). Was that intentional or coincidental? Did one borrow from the other?

** spoiler omitted **

No... that's actually a case of parallel development.

We already had Kingmaker in development when "Fellnight Queen" won the RPG Superstar contest.

On one level, that made me happy, since it was proof that folks were looking for that kind of adventure. But on another, it annoyed me because that meant we'd have two very similar adventures coming out. It did force us to make some significant changes to the way the climax of Kingmaker played out to avoid having the two adventures be even MORE similar.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Talonne Hauk wrote:
Throughout history people have been fascinated with fame and the prestige that accompanies it. Is it fair to say that adventurers are Golarions celebrities, or are there other standards one has to uphold to achieve celebrity status?

Absolutely. And more to the point, it's fair to say that the number ONE celebrities in this category are the Player Characters.

Since your player characters are pretty much the ONLY part of Golarion we can't nail down and hardwire into canon, that means that how they're treated as celebrities is up to you, the GMs.

Grand Lodge

1. Who's your favorite pokemon?
2. Who's your favorite cannonical person/deity/monster/devil/whatever on golarion that you came up with?
3. Who's your favorite cannonical person/deity/monster/devil/whatever on golarion that you didnt come up with?
4. How did you shave the beard off your dinosaur face with those tiny little arms?
5. Do you wanna be my friend? Yes[ ] No[ ] Maybe[ ]


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

Is there any relationship between Kingmaker and the Fellnight Queen? The later almost seems like a condensed version of the former, having many elements of the AP as a whole (in spoilers below for those who want to avoid such things). Was that intentional or coincidental? Did one borrow from the other?

** spoiler omitted **

No... that's actually a case of parallel development.

We already had Kingmaker in development when "Fellnight Queen" won the RPG Superstar contest.

On one level, that made me happy, since it was proof that folks were looking for that kind of adventure. But on another, it annoyed me because that meant we'd have two very similar adventures coming out. It did force us to make some significant changes to the way the climax of Kingmaker played out to avoid having the two adventures be even MORE similar.

I actually like that they are thematically similar. It means you can easily add Fellnight Queen to a Kingmaker campaign without too much trouble.

Of course, my favorite thing about Kingmaker is how easy it is to drop modules in as sidequests.


Why the 10 post needed before creating alias rule?

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

deinol wrote:


I actually like that they are thematically similar. It means you can easily add Fellnight Queen to a Kingmaker campaign without too much trouble.

Of course, my favorite thing about Kingmaker is how easy it is to drop modules in as sidequests.

I agree. Plus, you could play Fellnight Queen and have a condensed version of Kingmaker. I don't know that I'd want to see Paizo try this on a routine basis (creating a module that overlaps so heavily with an AP), but I think it worked in this instance because Fellnight Queen is such a strong module.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

godsDMit wrote:

1. Who's your favorite pokemon?

2. Who's your favorite cannonical person/deity/monster/devil/whatever on golarion that you came up with?
3. Who's your favorite cannonical person/deity/monster/devil/whatever on golarion that you didnt come up with?
4. How did you shave the beard off your dinosaur face with those tiny little arms?
5. Do you wanna be my friend? Yes[ ] No[ ] Maybe[ ]

1. Charizard!

2. Ameiko Kaijitsu. Or maybe the Runelords. Or mabye the town of Sandpoint. ALL THREE.
3. Sandpoint Devil (thanks, Wes!)
4. They're longer than the media would have you believe. Also, razor extenders.
5. Maybe!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Ralif wrote:
Why the 10 post needed before creating alias rule?

To confound spammers? To give newcomers a reason to post ten times? Both?


James Jacobs wrote:
I have a hard time imagining Godzilla fitting into a 30-foot-cube, basically.

But... creatures larger than 30x30x30 are awesome fantasy staples. I don't mean Kaiju, necessarily, but zaratans and even Pathfinder's own havero. Also, even Rune Giants as depicted in artwork look problematically large, and I'm eager for a good way to represent them.

What are the chances we might see some rules for really really big creatures? On the blog, or maybe packed in with the "mythic" level rules when they come about?

I know the reason they don't really exist at present is tied up with the role of miniatures in the game, but I still think there's a great opportunity here for "monsters as maps" like you had in A History of Ashes.

Developer Blog maybe? Or are there any other plans?

Silver Crusade

How do you always seem to know exactly what I'm looking for? Are we on the same wave length, or are you committing some other form of mental scrying?

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Nikolaus Athas wrote:

I have noticed that in most cases when an animal hits 4th or 7th level it gains a Size class, and then also gains stat bonuses/penalties.

Is it fair to assume that these stat bonuses/penalties are classed as Size modifiers?

The bonuses to stats animal companions get at 4th or 7th level are untyped modifiers. They're basically the same type of modifiers PCs get every 4 levels. If they were considered size modifiers, the text would have called them out as such.

And, of course, the reason that we didn't make them size modifiers was BECAUSE an animal companion is Target #1 for things like animal growth. It'd be lame if that spell ended up not working good on Target #1.

Thank you sir.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Ralif wrote:
Why the 10 post needed before creating alias rule?

We don't have such a rule; there's no minimum number of posts you must make before you can create an alias.

We do have a rule that once you've posted with a particular alias 10 times, you can no longer change the name of that alias—that's to prevent people "messing with history."

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
I have a hard time imagining Godzilla fitting into a 30-foot-cube, basically.

But... creatures larger than 30x30x30 are awesome fantasy staples. I don't mean Kaiju, necessarily, but zaratans and even Pathfinder's own havero. Also, even Rune Giants as depicted in artwork look problematically large, and I'm eager for a good way to represent them.

What are the chances we might see some rules for really really big creatures? On the blog, or maybe packed in with the "mythic" level rules when they come about?

I know the reason they don't really exist at present is tied up with the role of miniatures in the game, but I still think there's a great opportunity here for "monsters as maps" like you had in A History of Ashes.

Developer Blog maybe? Or are there any other plans?

I think that truly enormous monsters will probably have to wait for us to figure out how to deal with post-20th level play. Either that, or we'll handle them as a case-by-case basis where we can limit interactions and such as necessary for a single encounter.

Silver Crusade

James Jacobs wrote:
I think that truly enormous monsters will probably have to wait for us to figure out how to deal with post-20th level play. Either that, or we'll handle them as a case-by-case basis where we can limit interactions and such as necessary for a single encounter.

What about Shadow Of The Colossus-style encounters, where the creature is so big as to also be the map? Creatures that have to be scaled, or even fought upon?

Now I'm wondering about doing something like that for low-level adventurers...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ThornDJL7 wrote:
How do you always seem to know exactly what I'm looking for? Are we on the same wave length, or are you committing some other form of mental scrying?

I can't reveal ALL my secrets! Also, the mindslugs won't let me.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

martinaj wrote:
Hey James, I know that there's been a buzz about epic level support, but if it does come around, what kind of support should we expect? Would it be a single rulebook? Would there be modules to support epic-level play? What about adventure paths? Personally, I think it would be pretty sweet to see a series of "sequel" APs, in which players are encouraged to once again take the reigns of characters they'd completed standard APs with and bring them into some high-level scenarios. Is there ever a chance we'd see something like this, or would it detract too much from the completion of the extant style of APs?

How much we support post-20th level play is one of the many questions we need to find an answer for. At this point, we don't have that answer. There's a chance we might do a post-20th level Adventure Path... and a "Sequel" AP would be a no-brainer, really. We might do a new campaign setting, we might just do a few adventures... not sure.

What DOES seem apparent, though, is that if we DON'T provide support, it'll turn into a ghetto, which means that we SHOULD support it. Because if we support it, it'll sell better, frankly, and if we're going to put a legitimate effort into a post-20th level book, it'd be stupid NOT to do all that we can to make sure it sells.

Whether we can actually do all that and keep the core game equally supported is another question.

Lots of question = lots of complexity, in other words. All of which have worked together so far to make us not take the plunge into the deep end of the high-level pool yet.


Has there been any thought toward providing a few more high-level modules in the run up to post-20th rules?

I imagine that would be a good way to a)practice and b) make sure your fanbase has a bunch of PCs lying around pushing 20th level...


Evil Lincoln wrote:

Has there been any thought toward providing a few more high-level modules in the run up to post-20th rules?

I imagine that would be a good way to a)practice and b) make sure your fanbase has a bunch of PCs lying around pushing 20th level...

Well, if people have been running APs (which it seems they have been), we've probably got a nascent nation of 17th level PCs hanging around, and my best epic-level campaigns have really taken off around then.

With an average party level of 17, you can tantalize them a bit, tease them with epic level bosses. These were the parties (at least in 3rd edition) that were perfect for throwing a single 21st level NPC against, making a show of their awe-inspiring abilities, and basically saying "Hey guys, check out what you get in a couple more levels." Yeah, you can look at the abilities, plan them out on paper, and all that other jazz, but the added anticipation that comes along with seeing it in action prior to achieving it yourself makes it so much sweeter when you get there.


Currently working on a Summoner-variant that uses 'Dolls' or Golems rather than Eidolons, swapping out the organic abilities for abilities that are reminiscent of old-style Mecha shows and 80's early morning cartoon shows, spells that focus on non-living targets/items, much like the old 3.5 D&D 'Urban Druid' variant class. Two questions (assuming I ever get this sodding thing finished and play-tested, grrrrrrrrrrrrrr...)

1) Would a 'Golem Mage' be somewhat jarring in your view of Golarion?

2) Who was a bigger badass for you as a child? The T-Rex or Grimlock?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

James Jacobs wrote:

Of course, in horror movies, it seems like the attic is often just as deadly and scary and horror filled as the basement. "The Exorcist," "Paranormal Activity" are both great examples of trouble in the attic, along with "Insidious" which just came out a week or two ago.

So I take it that you've seen Insidious? I caught that this weekend. What did you think of it?

(Personally, I enjoyed it and found it effectively scary, but thought the second half was somewhat flawed.)


James Jacobs wrote:


How much we support post-20th level play is one of the many questions we need to find an answer for. At this point, we don't have that answer. There's a chance we might do a post-20th level Adventure Path... and a "Sequel" AP would be a no-brainer, really. We might do a new campaign setting, we might just do a few adventures... not sure.

What DOES seem apparent, though, is that if we DON'T provide support, it'll turn into a ghetto, which means that we SHOULD support it. Because if we support it, it'll sell better, frankly, and if we're going to put a legitimate effort into a post-20th level book, it'd be stupid NOT to do all that we can to make sure it sells.

Whether we can actually do all that and keep the core game equally supported is another question.

Lots of question = lots of complexity, in other words. All of which have worked together so far to make us not take the plunge into the deep end of the high-level pool yet.

How would you feel about having another company(a subsidiary of Paizo) take on the responsibility of publishing the epic level materials? I don't know how this would work with the licensing but then people at Paizo could still concentrate on putting out the excellent quality material they are putting out and the fans would still get epic level support.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Has there been any thought toward providing a few more high-level modules in the run up to post-20th rules?

I imagine that would be a good way to a)practice and b) make sure your fanbase has a bunch of PCs lying around pushing 20th level...

There has... but not this year.

I'd love to print a 20th level module some day though...


That would require a creative director with the Tyrannosaurus Rex depictor to be ... tyrannical. ;-)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

martinaj wrote:
Well, if people have been running APs (which it seems they have been), we've probably got a nascent nation of 17th level PCs hanging around, and my best epic-level campaigns have really taken off around then.

Only if there's some weird portal that allows all the PCs from all the various incarnations of Golarion to suddenly abandon their home world and go gather in this weird new parallel world... Remember, even if a bazillion players play in an adventure path... the only ones that actually exist in your particular Golarion are the 4 or 6 or so that are in your group. Not a very big nation, in other words...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

cynarion wrote:
1. Which forest(s) do they log?

Mostly Whisperwood and the northern edge of Mosswood.

cynarion wrote:
2. I presume the felled logs reach the lumber mill via the Turandarok. Do the Scarnettis drive their logs downstream more than once a year, or is it just the once with the spring thaws? (Supplemental question: does it even snow in the lowlands of Varisia?)

Trees harvested are hauled by wagon and horse train to the Turandarok, where they're dumped in and float down to the lumber mill. It's not a particularly FAST operation. It only rarely snows in Varisia, and the rivers never freeze in the lowlands.

cynarion wrote:

3. I presume the logging camp(s) are by necessity somewhat self-sufficient out in the woods. Do they come under attack often?

Lumber camps are indeed necessary, and they do have problems with goblins and less often with ghouls. Attacks aren't SUPER frequent, though; the lumberjacks are pretty tough and able to put up a fight, so the goblins usually don't attack to attack but sneak in to steal saws and axes and stuff and invariably get caught and chased off. Maybe once or twice a year.

cynarion wrote:
4. Is the mill powered by water? Or miniature giant space hamsters in wheels?

Water powers the lumber mill.

cynarion wrote:

5. Burnt Offerings mentions that Banny and Ibor have been running the log splitter in the lumber mill day and night, and in the opening of The Skinsaw Murders one of the murder victims has been killed by being fed through the selfsame log splitter. As I understand it, a log splitter makes firewood, it's not the part of a mill that creates dressed boards suitable for construction. It also shouldn't make that much noise, I would have thought (the mill's neighbours are beginning to complain about the noise as Banny runs the mill at night). I presume that noise comes from the actual sawing equipment they use to create dressed lumber--see this 1-minute video of a water-powered sawmill in operation. Compare with this antique log-splitter, which is powered by an engine. Replace the petrol engine with a water wheel and I can't see it creating all that much noise--or making an enormous mess of the poor NPC who ends up going through it. Dead yes. A set of 'mangled, ruined remains' not so much.

Unless the log splitter is the kind that involves black powder. That would be a messy (and loud!) end for the poor victim.

So, my actual question*: if you were me would you handwave the inconsistencies above and just run with it, or would you have the murder victim killed by being fed through the saw blades instead? That being said, a water-powered saw doesn't operate all that quickly; a log splitter or sawing blade that imparts 6d6 damage in a round (as the ones from later in Skinsaw do) seems to require unnecessarily dangerous design--the first knot in the timber and a fast-moving sawblade powered only by water would jam or shatter.

* I wish I didn't need to ask, but I know my players will tear the scene apart (metaphorically speaking) looking for evidence and will be confused by the inconsistencies.

The log splitter is basically a big contraption that uses a giant saw blade to saw trees into lumber and boards, combined with several block & tackle type devices to lift and move trees and lumber. The "noise" comes from the grinding of the saw blade and the crashing of trees and lumber being stacked and moved about. The sawblade itself is powered by the mill and probably uses some sort of spring/crude clockwork type device to grind through logs—it doesn't move NEARLY as fast as a modern circular saw, but makes a lot of racket.

That said, if your players are the type to either become super obsessed with how the mill works or are super knowledgeable about historical lumber operations and will pick apart things... make changes as you need. As long as you know more about the stuff than the PCs, your'e set!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:

Currently working on a Summoner-variant that uses 'Dolls' or Golems rather than Eidolons, swapping out the organic abilities for abilities that are reminiscent of old-style Mecha shows and 80's early morning cartoon shows, spells that focus on non-living targets/items, much like the old 3.5 D&D 'Urban Druid' variant class. Two questions (assuming I ever get this sodding thing finished and play-tested, grrrrrrrrrrrrrr...)

1) Would a 'Golem Mage' be somewhat jarring in your view of Golarion?

2) Who was a bigger badass for you as a child? The T-Rex or Grimlock?

1) Probably. Especially if it was a summoner, since summoners don't make golems.

2) Tyrannosaurus, of course. Grimlock was the coolest transformer... but that only makes him the coolest transformer, which is quite bit LESS cool than the average actual dinosaur, and Tyrannosaurus is FAR from average.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

CNichols wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Of course, in horror movies, it seems like the attic is often just as deadly and scary and horror filled as the basement. "The Exorcist," "Paranormal Activity" are both great examples of trouble in the attic, along with "Insidious" which just came out a week or two ago.

So I take it that you've seen Insidious? I caught that this weekend. What did you think of it?

(Personally, I enjoyed it and found it effectively scary, but thought the second half was somewhat flawed.)

The first two thirds of Insidious were relatively brilliant. VERY well done, and probably the scariest PG-13 movie I've seen since "The Ring." I agree that the last part started to fall apart a bit. It was still interesting, but the less subtle and the more action-movie the movie got, the worse it got.

By the end, though, and overall... I still quite liked the movie.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

mathpro18 wrote:
How would you feel about having another company(a subsidiary of Paizo) take on the responsibility of publishing the epic level materials? I don't know how this would work with the licensing but then people at Paizo could still concentrate on putting out the excellent quality material they are putting out and the fans would still get epic level support.

I'd actually be very interested and curious to see how another company could handle the rules. Whether or not they'd be good enough for me to want to use in Golarion... not sure. Certainly I'm not interested in letting another company handle the flavor/world side of things for Golarion in this arena.

But, just as Dreamscarred Press is tackling psionics, if another company wants to tackle "epic levels" that'd be cool! Not necessarily something we'd ever use, though, especially if the rules were nothing more than a Pathfinderization of the current epic-level SRD. The 3.5 Epic rules aren't really workable in my opinion; giving them a level cap, though, is a good start toward their redemption.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:
mathpro18 wrote:
How would you feel about having another company(a subsidiary of Paizo) take on the responsibility of publishing the epic level materials? I don't know how this would work with the licensing but then people at Paizo could still concentrate on putting out the excellent quality material they are putting out and the fans would still get epic level support.

I'd actually be very interested and curious to see how another company could handle the rules. Whether or not they'd be good enough for me to want to use in Golarion... not sure. Certainly I'm not interested in letting another company handle the flavor/world side of things for Golarion in this arena.

But, just as Dreamscarred Press is tackling psionics, if another company wants to tackle "epic levels" that'd be cool! Not necessarily something we'd ever use, though, especially if the rules were nothing more than a Pathfinderization of the current epic-level SRD. The 3.5 Epic rules aren't really workable in my opinion; giving them a level cap, though, is a good start toward their redemption.

I also found the epic spell system quite awkward, what was your opinion on them?


Hey James some questions about psionics.

Alot(or a vocal few) don't like psionics in D&D becausae it just does not fit in their view of D&D. Personaly I have always liked the added dimension of it. Anyway...here are the questions.

1) Do you personaly think that psionics fit in D&D?

2) Do you think psionics fit into Golarion? Do they already have a place in Golarion?

3) Will Pazio come out with rules for psionics? If so can you guess when? Before or after we see the rules for after 20th level play?

Dark Archive

if a game has the players playing kingdoms, no dice or GMs are involved, does it still count as roleplaying?


One of the largest issues of postepic play for me is providing a reasonable growth base for my characters.

I often wonder if epic characters could stop gaining experience points de jure but continue to gain experience points that award feats or skill points or new/existing class abilities/spells. I feel that horizontal growth is appropriate for epic pcs because it fills the basic desire to improve.

My question is, then, is epic vertical growth (BAB, saves, spells per day etc) a significant source of unbalance in the pathfinder setting? Is horizontal growth (spells known, feats, skill points, etc?)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
mathpro18 wrote:
How would you feel about having another company(a subsidiary of Paizo) take on the responsibility of publishing the epic level materials? I don't know how this would work with the licensing but then people at Paizo could still concentrate on putting out the excellent quality material they are putting out and the fans would still get epic level support.

I'd actually be very interested and curious to see how another company could handle the rules. Whether or not they'd be good enough for me to want to use in Golarion... not sure. Certainly I'm not interested in letting another company handle the flavor/world side of things for Golarion in this arena.

But, just as Dreamscarred Press is tackling psionics, if another company wants to tackle "epic levels" that'd be cool! Not necessarily something we'd ever use, though, especially if the rules were nothing more than a Pathfinderization of the current epic-level SRD. The 3.5 Epic rules aren't really workable in my opinion; giving them a level cap, though, is a good start toward their redemption.

I also found the epic spell system quite awkward, what was your opinion on them?

I suspect I find that system even more awkward than you found it. AKA: Not a fan.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

John Kretzer wrote:

Hey James some questions about psionics.

Alot(or a vocal few) don't like psionics in D&D becausae it just does not fit in their view of D&D. Personaly I have always liked the added dimension of it. Anyway...here are the questions.

1) Do you personaly think that psionics fit in D&D?

2) Do you think psionics fit into Golarion? Do they already have a place in Golarion?

3) Will Pazio come out with rules for psionics? If so can you guess when? Before or after we see the rules for after 20th level play?

Psionics fit into D&D, yes... ESPECIALLY if you build classes and options that feel "fantasy." Stuff like a mesmerist or a fakir or a swami, perhaps. Part of the problem with 3.5's psionics is that they made up new stuff that didn't feel like ANYTHING. A "wilder" doesn't scream psionics to me by its name, which is a problem.

Psionics fits into Golarion... but not really the Inner Sea region. They've got a place in Golarion, though—the subcontinent of Vudra.

At this point, I would probably guess that rules for post-20th level play would be more likely for us to explore first. I suspect that our take on psionics (which would most likely present them as a form of magic akin to divine or arcane, and would completely abandon point-based systems in favor of the Vancian system) would rile up too many people for us to want to give it a try, alas.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ulgulanoth wrote:
if a game has the players playing kingdoms, no dice or GMs are involved, does it still count as roleplaying?

Only if the players talk in funny voices!

6,851 to 6,900 of 77,094 << first < prev | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.