Hello Sir.
I was wondering, are the Outer Gods following the same policy as the Gods in that they will never be statted up? If so, I am pleased.
Given the season, I was curious what your favorite charities are?
For example, my Christmas list includes: Give Directly, Heifer Project International, and Mercy USA.
They don't think much about Groetus overall. And while I don't think they'd admit it, they're afraid of Rovagug, since he's super-powerufl and represents qlippoth, AKA the "Things that were there in the Abyss long before daemons were ever even an idea."Part of what helps me manage the answers is when folks don't put multiple questions into the same post. Sometimes, I have only time to answer one or two posts before I have to run, and if there's a LOT of questions in one post, that causes problems, so please keep it to one question per post. For this one, please re-post your additional question.Oh, I didn't realize. I'll be sure to keep any posts I make here more narrow in scope in the future!
What do Daemons think of Rovagug and/or Groetus? Beyond just "more gods that need to disappear", of course.
On the other side of the alignment spectrum, what do daemons think about Asmodeus and/or Zon-Kuthon?
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Iomedae was a Paladin when she was a mortal. Who was her deity, and what is her standing with said deity now that she is a deity herself?
She was a paladin of Aroden. Her standing with him is that he's dead and she inherited his role in large part as a champion of humanity, but she does it in a MUCH nicer and friendlier way, since she's good, not neutral.
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming that compatibility with the original D20/OGL game is part of Pathfinder's appeal, do you feel that a new edition could be feasible at some point in future or would that largely defeat the point of the line?
I'm more interested in stories than rules, so if something like this DOES happen, I'll be more interested in making sure that the stories continue in a way I like. Rules should always support the story and serve the plot.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello Mighty T Rex,
James, while I am sure you may have covered this in some form before, could you please give your opinion, in the way Demogorgon, Orcus, Graz'zt, Pazuzu and to a lesser extent Fraz-Urb’luu, where able to style themselves ‘prince’ above the other demon ‘lords’ in earlier editions of the game, on Golarion, which of the Abyssal lords could conceivably, by might or hubris, be elevated to that position?
None. We don't use the concept of a "demon prince" in Pathfinder.
Once a demon lord gains enough power to step up to the next tier of power, she or he becomes a deity rather than a demigod. So far that's only happened once, with Lamashtu, but it will very likely happen a second time soon with Nocticula ascending to the role of a chaotic neutral goddess of midnight, artists, and outcasts.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello Directorsaur!
Curious, how locked into their alignments would you say Geniekind are since they don't have an Alignment subtype? Are they closer to mortals and their "normal" alignment is more culture/nurture, or do they have innate leanings (outside of their innate animosity towards each other, which I attributed to being opposed on the Elemental spectrum)?
They're non-native outsiders, and as with all non-native outsiders, their body and soul are one. They don't have free will and can't easily shift their alignments. It's as rare for a genie to be off-alignment as any other non-native outsider. Alignment subtypes have no real bearing on that effect; alignment subtypes are mostly just about setting aside what magical effects interact with the outsider, and mostly come into play in the case of outsiders from one of the Outer Planes, which is all about alignment in a way the Inner Planes are not.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello Sir.
I was wondering, are the Outer Gods following the same policy as the Gods in that they will never be statted up? If so, I am pleased.
We don't intend to ever stat up things of "deity" stature. That includes the Outer Gods.
If you DO want rules governing how an Outer God interacts with the game, check out what I did for Sandy Petersen's Cthulhu Mythos for Pathfinder book. The Outer Gods there still don't have stats (although some have avatars); their presence alters reality in various ways though.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the season, I was curious what your favorite charities are?
For example, my Christmas list includes: Give Directly, Heifer Project International, and Mercy USA.
I don't really have a favorite charity. I've never really been in a position where I've been fortunate enough to donate to charities in an official capacity like that. I prefer acts of individual charity between myself and other individuals, rather than between myself and large organizations, and also prefer to do so locally with local charity groups rather than with larger national organizations.
That said, I guess I did just recently donate some money to Wikipedia, so I guess that counts?
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other side of the alignment spectrum, what do daemons think about Asmodeus and/or Zon-Kuthon?They don't think much about Groetus overall. And while I don't think they'd admit it, they're afraid of Rovagug, since he's super-powerufl and represents qlippoth, AKA the "Things that were there in the Abyss long before daemons were ever even an idea."Part of what helps me manage the answers is when folks don't put multiple questions into the same post. Sometimes, I have only time to answer one or two posts before I have to run, and if there's a LOT of questions in one post, that causes problems, so please keep it to one question per post. For this one, please re-post your additional question.Oh, I didn't realize. I'll be sure to keep any posts I make here more narrow in scope in the future!
What do Daemons think of Rovagug and/or Groetus? Beyond just "more gods that need to disappear", of course.
Stuffy blowhard and/or bickering children.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi James. Just what I can do if there's an opposite reading of a rule and I like to ask to you devs? I mean, that's a really old question, that date back since the 3.5, and inherited form PF. But never get an answer... maybe it's not so important, but really, every now and then it pops out. And I like an answer from someone of you devs... Aside FAQing the topic, there's something other that I can do? It's really important for me to know the answer.
In the time since Wrath of the Righteous has your stance towards mythic rules softened (I know you were pretty jaded by some of the fan feedback... although my group quite liked them and were sad to see them not really reappear in another adventure path... although there was one opening in a certain adventure path you developed after)? It seems mythic characters would be necessary to stand against the Runelords/ and or redeem Nocticula.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi James. Just what I can do if there's an opposite reading of a rule and I like to ask to you devs? I mean, that's a really old question, that date back since the 3.5, and inherited form PF. But never get an answer... maybe it's not so important, but really, every now and then it pops out. And I like an answer from someone of you devs... Aside FAQing the topic, there's something other that I can do? It's really important for me to know the answer.
Your GM needs to be the first person you go to in order to clarify a rule. If YOU are the GM, and you're looking for advice on how a rule works, feel free to ask around on these boards—the best place to ask is in a thread associated with the product the rule came from, or in the rules questions portion of the boards. Or even better, make the decision as best fits your game but keep an open mind to the possibility of changing your ruling if, in play, it becomes obvious that the ruling is causing more problems than it solves. You can use feedback from others who post responses to the question to inform your decision.
The truth of the matter is that the right answer varies according to each table. What I say is right may not work for your table, and what the design team says is right might not work for my table.
THAT SAID, now I'm curious. Go ahead and ask your question here if you want. I'll provide my answer if I can, with the caveat that this is my interpretation and that I'm providing it as someone who has over a decade of professional experience with the game(s) in question but that it's not an "official clarification/errata."
(I honestly the idea that there's only ever one possible interpretation for every rule is ludicrous.)
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the time since Wrath of the Righteous has your stance towards mythic rules softened (I know you were pretty jaded by some of the fan feedback... although my group quite liked them and were sad to see them not really reappear in another adventure path... although there was one opening in a certain adventure path you developed after)? It seems mythic characters would be necessary to stand against the Runelords/ and or redeem Nocticula.
Nope. I remain a fan of using mythic rules for monsters and NPCs, but not for PCs.
The upcoming Return of the Runelords AP does not require mythic PCs, and neither would a plot to aid in Nocticula's redemption.
They COULD use mythic PCs, but then again, EVERY ADVENTURE PATH plot we've done could in theory be developed for mythic PCs, since every one of those adventure paths presents a significant and legendary storyline.
At this point, my preference is for individual GMs who are comfortable running Mythic games and enjoy that content to use them as add-ons for games they run. That does mean that such a GM would have a bit of extra work to do to adjust the adventures, but frankly, if you're complicating your game by adding Mythic options to it, you're kind of self-selecting to play a harder, more complex game anyway, and thus this shouldn't be an issue.
Mr. James Jacobs,
Is it wrong that I watch Miraculous Ladybug and ponder who would worship which Pathfinder deity?
I have a question on how I should be reading and running adventure paths.
So, like, to use an example, in the Catacombs of Wrath, it just says Sinspawn (Bestiary 2 246) and has no treasure listed. The Sinspawn entry says they have standard treasure. Should I be making my own treasure to add in, or is it written in a way that my players will get the treasure in other rooms, because there are some points in the AP where they just come across gear?
Thanks
Hello Mighty T Rex,
James, while I am sure you may have covered this in some form before, could you please give your opinion, in the way Demogorgon, Orcus, Graz'zt, Pazuzu and to a lesser extent Fraz-Urb’luu, where able to style themselves ‘prince’ above the other demon ‘lords’ in earlier editions of the game, on Golarion, which of the Abyssal lords could conceivably, by might or hubris, be elevated to that position?
None. We don't use the concept of a "demon prince" in Pathfinder.
Once a demon lord gains enough power to step up to the next tier of power, she or he becomes a deity rather than a demigod. So far that's only happened once, with Lamashtu, but it will very likely happen a second time soon with Nocticula ascending to the role of a chaotic neutral goddess of midnight, artists, and outcasts.
If Nocticula did ascend in a way to make her CN, given enough time would demons still be her servitors, would she just have protean servitors, or would she have a selection of servitors ranging from CG to CE (or none of the above)?
THAT SAID, now I'm curious. Go ahead and ask your question here if you want. I'll provide my answer if I can, with the caveat that this is my interpretation and that I'm providing it as someone who has over a decade of professional experience with the game(s) in question but that it's not an "official clarification/errata."(I honestly the idea that there's only ever one possible interpretation for every rule is ludicrous.)
Yup, I agree... normally. But it seems that's should be one way only.
All revolve around the "threatened squares" definition.
Plain and simple, the definition is: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
Now, I have one thesis on how this work, the other person has another.
My thesis is: "In the time you need to know if you threaten, you mest check if you can do regular attacks or aoo. That means that out of your turn, since your regular attacks are normally denied, you only have to check if you can aoo (-> nothing block you from do aoos - that doesn't include if you has reached the max aoo you can do in the round, if you reached max you still threaten), since if you can do aoo that's a threatened square (the counternominal of <IF you threaten THEN you can aoo> is <IF you can't aoo THEN you don't threaten>, those two are logically equivalent). So, things like a foe under cover, total concealment or if you're flat-footed, negate your threat, since those negate your aoos."
The other thesis says: "The rules says "You threaten [...] even when it isn't your turn", so if it where your turn and you threaten (like you're not paralyzed, nauseated, and so on), you still threaten, because even if you're not in your turn, you must evaluate if you threaten as if it where your turn, because rules says so, and you can't check the aoos because the aoos requires a thretened area before you can check if you can do them".
As you can see, there's nothing of capital importance, but I feel that it should be only one answer to this, because I feel this rule is something like "Roll a d20 and add bab, str, and the other modifiers to that, if you get a number equal to AC or higher, you hit". This should be a sort of "one way rule" like that. Because it drastically change how you threaten. This question popped out in the old wotc boards sometimes (there was even FAQs and RotG quoted), and searching here, I saw at least 5 topics that arise the theme, without any answer. I think I'm really open minded, but that thing of evaluating the threatened area "as if it where my turn" even if it isn't my turn is kinda disturbing.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question on how I should be reading and running adventure paths.
So, like, to use an example, in the Catacombs of Wrath, it just says Sinspawn (Bestiary 2 246) and has no treasure listed. The Sinspawn entry says they have standard treasure. Should I be making my own treasure to add in, or is it written in a way that my players will get the treasure in other rooms, because there are some points in the AP where they just come across gear?
Thanks
When you run a published adventure, you don't have to go in and adjust things—the purpose is to do all of that work for you so that you can focus on other GM duties and/or don't have to spend as much time prepping the game.
A monster's treasure entry in their stats is a guideline for how much treasure the monster would carry, but that doesn't mean that every monster needs treasure.
The amount of treasure overall that's given out in an adventure can come from monsters, from gear looted from NPCs, from rewards, from hidden caches, from gifts, and from all sorts of other sources, but when we publish an adventure we set things up so that, overall, the amount of treasure given out is approximately twice that that a party of 4 PCs are expected to earn for the adventure (we go twice over to account for the fact that not every piece of treasure will be recovered, that there'll be some "spoilage" or unexpected losses/payments for stuff, and to account for the fact that when magic items are sold, they're sold at half price).
TL;DR: No, you don't need to add additional treasure unless you prefer more treasure in your games.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Nocticula did ascend in a way to make her CN, given enough time would demons still be her servitors, would she just have protean servitors, or would she have a selection of servitors ranging from CG to CE (or none of the above)?
There are a LOT of really interesting and intriguing complications and implications of an event like this. Nocticula would not gain protean servitors—proteans make no sense when serving a goddess of outcasts, artists, and midnight. Nor would she continue to gain demon minions, because she's no longer evil—she would likely lose almost ALL of her demon minions in fact.
It'd be more likely that she'd gain the service of some azatas, and in time she might even drift toward chaotic good.
I could see valkyries serving a CN Nocticula, but more likely, this transition would result in the generation of a new type of outsider.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
THAT SAID, now I'm curious. Go ahead and ask your question here if you want. I'll provide my answer if I can, with the caveat that this is my interpretation and that I'm providing it as someone who has over a decade of professional experience with the game(s) in question but that it's not an "official clarification/errata."(I honestly the idea that there's only ever one possible interpretation for every rule is ludicrous.)
Yup, I agree... normally. But it seems that's should be one way only.
All revolve around the "threatened squares" definition.
Plain and simple, the definition is: "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."Now, I have one thesis on how this work, the other person has another.
My thesis is: "In the time you need to know if you threaten, you mest check if you can do regular attacks or aoo. That means that out of your turn, since your regular attacks are normally denied, you only have to check if you can aoo (-> nothing block you from do aoos - that doesn't include if you has reached the max aoo you can do in the round, if you reached max you still threaten), since if you can do aoo that's a threatened square (the counternominal of <IF you threaten THEN you can aoo> is <IF you can't aoo THEN you don't threaten>, those two are logically equivalent). So, things like a foe under cover, total concealment or if you're flat-footed, negate your threat, since those negate your aoos."
The other thesis says: "The rules says "You threaten [...] even when it isn't your turn", so if it where your turn and you threaten (like you're not paralyzed, nauseated, and so on), you still threaten, because even if you're not in your turn, you must evaluate if you threaten as if it where your turn, because rules says so, and you can't check the aoos because the aoos requires a thretened area before you can check if you can do them".
As you can see, there's nothing of capital importance, but I feel that it...
And this is another reason I shy away from rules questions—folks tend to write walls of text and want a hyper-exacting resolution that requires entire books of text written. That's not a fun way to play the game to me. I prefer quick and simple rules resolutions, while keeping my mind open and willing to adjust those resolutions when corner cases or exceptions come up at a later date.
That said... The reason you don't have an answer to this is that there isn't actually a question in your post. I am not interested in getting into rules debates or theorycrafting or actual rules design in this thread.
If you do actually have a question, please just post it in as succinct and simple a way as you can. If you don't have a question, this isn't the correct thread to post in.
If you do actually have a question, please just post it in as succinct and simple a way as you can. If you don't have a question, this isn't the correct thread to post in.
Right, my bad. I'm sorry, I always tend to overwrite practically everywhere. The question isreally simple indeed: do I threaten out of my turn if I can't do aoo because something/someone negate me the aoos (like flat-footed or similar conditions)?
I'm really sorry for the wal of text. It wasn't my intention, really.
And this is another reason I shy away from rules questions—folks tend to write walls of text and want a hyper-exacting resolution that requires entire books of text written. That's not a fun way to play the game to me. I prefer quick and simple rules resolutions, while keeping my mind open and willing to adjust those resolutions when corner cases or exceptions come up at a later date.
That said... The reason you don't have an answer to this is that there isn't actually a question in your post. I am not interested in getting into rules debates or theorycrafting or actual rules design in this thread.
If you do actually have a question, please just post it in as succinct and simple a way as you can. If you don't have a question, this isn't the correct thread to post in.
Hi Mr. Jacobs,
I admit i'm interested in your point of view about this so, following what you said, i give you an example with a question:Jonh the warrior have a longspear. In front of him there is a goblin.
Between Jonh the warrior and the goblin there a little wall that provides cover to the goblin.
Behind the goblin there is Jack the Rogue a pal of Jonh the warrior.
Jonh and Jack...are flanking the the goblin?
Thank you in advice for your answer!
|
Creative Director
|
If you do actually have a question, please just post it in as succinct and simple a way as you can. If you don't have a question, this isn't the correct thread to post in.Right, my bad. I'm sorry, I always tend to overwrite practically everywhere. The question isreally simple indeed: do I threaten out of my turn if I can't do aoo because something/someone negate me the aoos (like flat-footed or similar conditions)?
I'm really sorry for the wal of text. It wasn't my intention, really.
Threatening a foe means just that—you threaten the foe. Your presence is threatening. As long as that is the case, then you threaten the foe, even if you can't take attacks of opportunity... but THAT SAID, if your foe KNOWS you can't take attacks of opportunity, then it won't consider you to be a threat. It's not an all-or-nothing binary situation, and your GM needs to be able to make the call as the case demands, and the player needs to respect that GM call.
And the GM needs to maintain the trust with his players by not being a jerk and starting to do things like, "Oh this guy is so powerful that he doesn't consider you a threat and therefore you can't flank." That's lame.
|
Creative Director
|
And this is another reason I shy away from rules questions—folks tend to write walls of text and want a hyper-exacting resolution that requires entire books of text written. That's not a fun way to play the game to me. I prefer quick and simple rules resolutions, while keeping my mind open and willing to adjust those resolutions when corner cases or exceptions come up at a later date.
That said... The reason you don't have an answer to this is that there isn't actually a question in your post. I am not interested in getting into rules debates or theorycrafting or actual rules design in this thread.
If you do actually have a question, please just post it in as succinct and simple a way as you can. If you don't have a question, this isn't the correct thread to post in.
Hi Mr. Jacobs,
I admit i'm interested in your point of view about this so, following what you said, i give you an example with a question:Jonh the warrior have a longspear. In front of him there is a goblin.
Between Jonh the warrior and the goblin there a little wall that provides cover to the goblin.
Behind the goblin there is Jack the Rogue a pal of Jonh the warrior.Jonh and Jack...are flanking the the goblin?
Thank you in advice for your answer!
Cover does not negate your ability to attack, it just makes it harder to hit a target. Flanking doesn't care how hard your roll is to make.
Jonh and Jack are flanking the goblin.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mr. James Jacobs, the spell Vile Dog Transformation transforms a dog into a creature similar to the Hell Hound. It specifies the creature is normally Neutral Evil, but is Lawful or Chaotic if the caster is also so. When would there be an instance when the caster’s alignment wouldn’t influence the spell causing the clause “normally Neutral Evil” to take effect?
When the caster isn't lawful or chaotic. Therefore, when the caster is neutral, neutral good, or neutral evil.
Seems pretty clear to me.
(And yes, if a non-evil character keeps casting a spell that creates an evil monster, then yes, they SHOULD swiftly turn evil themselves. Actions MUST have repercussions.)
|
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Following up on Vile Dog Transformation, I want to run a scenario past you:
Cast Create Greater Demiplane with the Timeless (only in regards to magic) trait. Cast Permanency on the Demiplane. Bring a bunch of dogs into the demiplane and cast Vile Dog Transformation on them. Make them breed for natural born “Vile Dogs” that won’t disappear on the Material Plane, because the Vile Dog Transformation spell was technically never cast on them.
Is this possible to do, and if so, why hasn’t any crazy wizard thought this up before me?
A bunch of aeons show up to punish the wizard for disrupting the flow of life and creation.
Threatening a foe means just that—you threaten the foe. Your presence is threatening. As long as that is the case, then you threaten the foe, even if you can't take attacks of opportunity... but THAT SAID, if your foe KNOWS you can't take attacks of opportunity, then it won't consider you to be a threat. It's not an all-or-nothing binary situation, and your GM needs to be able to make the call as the case demands, and the player needs to respect that GM call.
And the GM needs to maintain the trust with his players by not being a jerk and starting to do things like, "Oh this guy is so powerful that he doesn't consider you a threat and therefore you can't flank." That's lame.
Well, I never let the "threatening" presence mix with the "threatened squares" thing. I never let any of my player do things like that, nor I do when I play. But I like, as player, use intelligent positioning.
And I like, as gm, to reward the same. So, that's all, I like to know if the rules themselves rewards the players for strategic placement. After all, nothing that I can't handle at my table.And, anyway, thank you for your time :)
Dear Mister Jacobs,
Do you think having druid levels for Santa Claus is appropriate? (Not a rules question merely an inquiry.)
Most outsiders can do so, yes. Genies included.Can Genies other than Janni reproduce in the biological manner? (I mean, other than with humans to produce ifrits, oreads, sylphs and undines.) I seem to recall references to families and children of genies, but those could have been from other settings, or could be families of choice rather than origin.
What about angels? Can they have children with each other? Or other Outsiders?
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about angels? Can they have children with each other? Or other Outsiders?Most outsiders can do so, yes. Genies included.Can Genies other than Janni reproduce in the biological manner? (I mean, other than with humans to produce ifrits, oreads, sylphs and undines.) I seem to recall references to families and children of genies, but those could have been from other settings, or could be families of choice rather than origin.
That's why I said "Most." That basically includes all outsiders except for the ones that specifically say otherwise. Whether or not an outsider wants to have kids is up to them, of course; part of being an outsider is having different interests than us mortals. It's not very common at all though. Most outsiders come about when a petitioner ascends to the role.
There's not a lot of kid outsiders out there, in other words. Most are "adults" from second one of their lives and do not age. I'd say that those who are born "biologically" age to adulthood somewhere between instantly and on a human scale, as the story requires.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any lore on where angels originally come from in the Pathfinder multiverse and why and how they are the degree of distinct they are from archons/agathions/azata ?
Check Chronicles of the Righteous for some info.
I believe that angels are probably the first of the good outsider races to have popped up; certainly Sarenrae, as one of the oldest deities, is a very ancient angel herself. They were initially created by the good gods as messengers, in any event. They're disinct from the others in that they skew more powerful overall and can be ANY good alignment and are mostly humanoid in appearance; the other three mix up their appearance a lot more.
If you were to give Santa Claus levels, what class, or classes would you give him.
Would Oozemorph/Unchained rogue be a good fit if we're going to do Saint Nick?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would Oozemorph/Unchained rogue be a good fit if we're going to do Saint Nick?
No. Again, he'd be a unique monster.
And no, I'm not gonna stat him up. IF folks wanna take a stab at it, starting a new thread to show off Santas is the way to do it.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So since Christmas is coming, what is good place to look for Christmas themed/fitting monsters besides Krampus from Bestiary 6?
I think that any and all monsters make for good starters for a Christmas-themed adventure. Each one would suggest their own unique story.
That said, gremlins come immediately to mind, as does the boogeyman.
Oh Great Directosaurus Rex,
Is Ruithvein the Dracula of Golarion?
I am also a huge fan of gremlins :P
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh Great Directosaurus Rex,
Is Ruithvein the Dracula of Golarion?
I am also a huge fan of gremlins :P
No. Especially since I have no idea who Ruithvein is and had to do a search on the wiki to figure it out... (to the extent that I totally missed including him in Book of the Damned... he's way too stealth for his own good); if he were Golarion's "Dracula" I would have known. Furthermore, Ruithvein is an infernal duke, not a vampire, so he's not a Dracula anyway.
The closest thing we've come to having a character directly inspired by Dracula would have been Kazavon, and even then, he's more inspired by Vlad the Impaler, not Dracula.
The FIRST vampire was Urgathoa, in any event.
I am thinking of playing a barbarian in a Numeria campaign. I will eventually get a brilliant energy longsword. I plan on yelling Demon Dogs! and "You failed wizard" as much as I can. However, If my character screams out "Lords of Light!", who would he be refering to? Sarenrae? Some faction of the Iron gods?
|
Creative Director
|
I am thinking of playing a barbarian in a Numeria campaign. I will eventually get a brilliant energy longsword. I plan on yelling Demon Dogs! and "You failed wizard" as much as I can. However, If my character screams out "Lords of Light!", who would he be refering to? Sarenrae? Some faction of the Iron gods?
Up to you, since there are no "Lords of Light" in canoncial Golarion lore.