Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are your opinions on tabletop role playing game mechanics that award or punish a certain kind of role-play:
I.e Punishing divine classes from roleplaying a different alignment / deity’s ethics,
Awarding Mediums with more influence for role-playing characteristics similar to their spirit
Or even other tabletop RPG built-in mechanics that give bennies / slaps for rolepaying in a particular way?
I don't think it's "punishment."
It's a reward for focusing your character's themes on a specific in-world element, and a way for you to weave your character's story into the world's lore.
If someone sees having to follow a deity's teachings as a punishment, or having less influence if they don't roleplay in sync with their purported beliefs, they should instead play one of MANY character options that have no such element to them.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since a few deities have the death of another in their backstory, why aren't they statted with combat abilities?
Asking this since IIRC Lamashtu's ascension was from causing the death of Desna's teacher, that means Demigods can harm gods... and (probably Mythic) PCs can slay demigods - and, with the right Mythic Path abilities PCs can basically become said demigods.
Novelists don't need game rules to determine how their plots play out. Neither should GMs or publishers of RPGs when they want to decide how deific elements play out.
Demigods and mortals alike can harm deities, but those events are either handled by story elements created by the author or GM of the work, or are things that complex adventures or campaigns cover.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... as her creator you might know... what is Bezlarue going to do with Valeros' flask?
And as the person who wrote the art brief for that particular scene, yeah. I do indeed know what she's going to do with it. Sorry, Valeros. Pay more attention next time!
The yithians were first introduced in Wake of the Watchers. But in Occult Bestiary, a new race called the yithian elders were introduced. They even have the famous lightning guns. Are the yithians and the yithian elders two different species? And only the elders have access to the lightning guns?
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The yithians were first introduced in Wake of the Watchers. But in Occult Bestiary, a new race called the yithian elders were introduced. They even have the famous lightning guns. Are the yithians and the yithian elders two different species? And only the elders have access to the lightning guns?
I'm pretty sure the Yithians were first introduced by Lovecraft in "The Shadow out of Time" back in the mid '30s. And the Yithians themselves were first introduced to Pathfinder in Bestiary 4.
That said, Yithians and Yithian elders are from the same society, and as such either could have lightning guns, depending on how you want things to work. The relationship between the two is akin to the drow and drow matriarchs; same species, different powers.
Oops, sorry. I thought yithians were first introduced to Pathfinder in Wake of the Watchers, but clearly they weren't. Anyway, I have a new question. I didn't know the existence of the yithian elders before reading Occult Bestiary. Do they appear in the original Lovecraftian books? Or they didn't, and Paizo, maybe you, created them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does Norgorber have the Daemon subdomain? (or daemons as servitors, for that matter.) I'd gotten the impression he didn't have all that much in common with them besides alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James, were you aware that, an 18 inch pizza gives you more pizza than two 12 inch pizzas?
(That's a link to a reddit post discussing it. The math seems legit!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi James,
Once more, a question about Shelyn—who is, in fact, my favorite Pathfinder deity (thanks for telling us more about her in Planar Adventures, by the way!).
My question is: does Shelyn appreciate mathematical beauty?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your favorite summer activity.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oops, sorry. I thought yithians were first introduced to Pathfinder in Wake of the Watchers, but clearly they weren't. Anyway, I have a new question. I didn't know the existence of the yithian elders before reading Occult Bestiary. Do they appear in the original Lovecraftian books? Or they didn't, and Paizo, maybe you, created them?
Many of the monsters introduced in the Occult Bestiary were created purely to provide variants/versions of existing monsters that were already quite adjacent to the rules in Occult Adventures, but having been invented years before that book was published couldn't take advantage of those rules or concepts. And rather than just provide duplicate stats for occult versions (which is what WotC did with some psionic creatures when they did a similar thing for 3rd edition D&D), we decided to create those variants.
We invented the Yithian elder, but not to fill a missing link from Lovecraft. We did so merely to create a version of the monster that interfaced more easily and naturally with the Occult rules.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does Norgorber have the Daemon subdomain? (or daemons as servitors, for that matter.) I'd gotten the impression he didn't have all that much in common with them besides alignment.
Because there's not a lot of other options, for one thing; all non-neutral deities have one or two of the alignment domains, and those domains as they appeared in Advanced Player's Guide had no other option but outsider-race-themed subdomains. Which makes for a relativey workable solution for a generic-world presentation but doesn't work well for a world that has fully realized deities or specific roles that don't exactly map to the available outsider races (none of our core chaotic neutral core deities are particularly protean themed, for example).
But they had to give them sub-domains. In short, it's a case of an earlier hardcover just not working 100% perfectly with Golarion's flavor is all. Something we're working a LOT harder to correct in 2nd edition (and indeed something we'be been working a LOT harder to correct for the past several years anyway).
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
James, were you aware that, an 18 inch pizza gives you more pizza than two 12 inch pizzas?
(That's a link to a reddit post discussing it. The math seems legit!)
Math is weird.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi James,
Once more, a question about Shelyn—who is, in fact, my favorite Pathfinder deity (thanks for telling us more about her in Planar Adventures, by the way!).
My question is: does Shelyn appreciate mathematical beauty?
Not nearly as much as she would appreciate a mathematatician's passion for it.
All runelords are specialist wizards. But I think the undead master archetype in Horror Adventures would be a good choice for the runelord of gluttony. Do you think the necromancers of Gastash would have found this archetype disirable? Or they would not, because they don't use any archetypes?
|
Creative Director
|
All runelords are specialist wizards. But I think the undead master archetype in Horror Adventures would be a good choice for the runelord of gluttony. Do you think the necromancers of Gastash would have found this archetype disirable? Or they would not, because they don't use any archetypes?
Archetypes are mostly rules options for players to focus their character build, not tools for GMs to build NPCs. Sure, a GM can use archetypes, but a GM can also just make arbitrary design decisions when building an NPC to make them do whatever the story requires.
So no... I would say no, the necromancers of Gastash wouldn't. Keep archetypes for players and let GMs do whatever they want is my preference.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Ephialtes Kytons'(Twice Damned Prince's bestiary) picture is unique in that it is only kytons that don't look remotely human. Is that the intentional with them being so tortured and malformed that they look nothing like other kytons or was that artist miscommunication?
There are a few other kytons who don't look humanoid. That said, I wasn't involved in the design or development of the ephilates kyton so I can't say for sure what the thought was behind it.
Will Pathfinder 2.0 deal with relatively recent changes to the lore and multiverse such as Nocticula's rise or the Elemental Lord Ranginori's escape from the Untouchable Opal?
I am glad at the possibility of 'good' aligned Elemental Lords being out and about as it gives more options for non-evil Elemental-themed characters.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will Pathfinder 2.0 deal with relatively recent changes to the lore and multiverse such as Nocticula's rise or the Elemental Lord Ranginori's escape from the Untouchable Opal?
I am glad at the possibility of 'good' aligned Elemental Lords being out and about as it gives more options for non-evil Elemental-themed characters.
Not in the core rules, no, but in the setting, yes. Events in 1st edition, as well as events in 2nd edition, will progress the events of 2nd edition forward as the stories we choose to tell determine those events.
What are the chances I could get a holy avenger as a wall ornament in 2019? Or should I just ask for Mjolnir like everyone else?
It has been stated several times that Azlanti have no facial hair. But Auberon in Ruins of Azlant and Xanderghul clearly have facial hair. I'm not sure. Maybe Paizo didn't want them to have facial hair but the illustrators made a mistake?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has been stated several times that Azlanti have no facial hair. But Auberon in Ruins of Azlant and Xanderghul clearly have facial hair. I'm not sure. Maybe Paizo didn't want them to have facial hair but the illustrators made a mistake?
Not sure where we said that Azlanti have no facial hair, but if we did, I'd say that should be adjusted to something like, "Azlanti men were often clean-shaven." We've said that ELVES have no facial hair, and that it's rare for half-elves.
There's nothing genetic in their code that says "no facial hair" though.
Xanderghul and Krune are devout worshiper of the Peacock Spirit and Lissala. Likewise, can I assume that Karzoug and Alaznist are devout worshiper of the demon lords, especially Lamashtu?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Xanderghul and Krune are devout worshiper of the Peacock Spirit and Lissala. Likewise, can I assume that Karzoug and Alaznist are devout worshiper of the demon lords, especially Lamashtu?
Nope.
Karzoug wasn't really particularly religious at all, and didn't really favor one deity over another.
Alaznist made a lot of alliances with demon lords and qlippoth lords, but saw them more as equals than as things to worship.
Will the Bestiary of Second Edition use those arts used in First Edition, or will Paizo order whole new arts for Second Edition?
Storm giants have brown skin and wear greek costumes. I personally didn't like this, because they look like normal greek people rather than fantastic creatures to me. That's why I liked the illustration of Volstus in Giantslayer very much. His costume and violet skin really made him look fantastic. I wish that in Second Edition the storm giants will all have violet skin. Will they?
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Storm giants have brown skin and wear greek costumes. I personally didn't like this, because they look like normal greek people rather than fantastic creatures to me. That's why I liked the illustration of Volstus in Giantslayer very much. His costume and violet skin really made him look fantastic. I wish that in Second Edition the storm giants will all have violet skin. Will they?
The art we got in for the storm giant in the Bestiary came in off-model with the wrong skin color; Volstus is much more where they should be, with violet skin. (You'll note that in the description for storm giants in the Bestiary we mention that some have violet skin; we had to adjust the text to indicate that violet skin is "rare" because of the last minute art mistake that we were unable to correct.) Going forward in 2nd edition, we've got a LOT more time AND money (two things we didn't have the luxuries of having the first time around), and will be working hard to get not only the storm giant skin color right, but get a lot of other things that could stand to be updated and/or corrected taken care of too.
Are you deeply involved in the development of Second Edition?
Who are you cheering for in the World Cup? Also should I wear plaid?
In First Edition, the highest CR a creature can have was 30. What about in Second Edition? I really wish the CR cap to be 40 in Second Edition. Demigods and kaiju should be more powerful, I must say.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who are you cheering for in the World Cup? Also should I wear plaid?
Not really cheering for anyone. I don't follow soccer. I did watch a few games on TV while on my vacation though, and was weirded out by how soccer counts time up rather than down.
|
Creative Director
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
In First Edition, the highest CR a creature can have was 30. What about in Second Edition? I really wish the CR cap to be 40 in Second Edition. Demigods and kaiju should be more powerful, I must say.
We'll see.
In Pathfinder 1st edition, the highest CR was always capped at "5 over the maximum average party level." The highest average party level possible is 20th, so in the first portion of the game, the CR cap was 25, so that we could present creatures up to a CR that would be a powerful challenge on their own against a group of 4 20th level characters. Going much above an APL +5 CR creature is kinda ridiculous and enters increasingly into the potential of just being an unfair encounter (I know there are plenty of ways for advanced players to number-crunch a group to smack down all sorts of powerful foes, but from the game design side, we can't design rules to cater to that subset of players—we have to aim at averages.)
When Mythic Adventures came out, the design teams estimate was that a fully mythic character would cap out more or less at an effective CR of 25 or thereabouts, so we raised the monster CR to 30.
To a certain extent, the CR cap is arbitrary. The way the numbers progress for monster expected values in Table 1–1 of the Bestiary could be extended upward to CR 40 or CR 50 or CR 100 or CR 666 or whatever, but regardless of what arbitrary "cap" we'd choose, some folks would want something 10 higher (see your request as an example) simply because of the perception or desire for something "just a bit tougher."
That doesn't work for me, and it doesn't work for game design.
In designing creatures, we need to know a limited range of powers, so that we have something like a toad at CR 1/10 or whatever it is representing the least dangerous a creature can be and CR 30 for the most dangerous. This lets us say, in print, "This monster is the most powerful three headed dragon in the world" and then we design it as a CR 30 creature without worrying that someone (including one of us) some day might invalidate our claim and design a CR 31 three headed dragon.
D&D's 3rd edition epic level rules had no cap to CR, and it was a frustrating and annoying situation to design powerful monsters in. What CR do you give the most powerful demon lord in that system? If the rules specifically say "there is no upper limit," no matter WHAT CR you design that demon lord to be, the rulebook itself will prove you wrong the instant you publish it by implying that there could always be a tougher demon.
CR caps (and level caps) exist for a very specific reason as a result—they give us a design space to work in.
Will there be subdomains in Second Edition? I ask this because I really wish there will be no alignment domains and outsider subdomains in Second Edition.
|
Creative Director
|
Will there be subdomains in Second Edition? I ask this because I really wish there will be no alignment domains and outsider subdomains in Second Edition.
You'll need to wait until 2019 to see the final game, but I invite you to make your opinion known during the playtest in 2018 as well.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So was reading through Barzillai's proclamations(they are great) and started to think, is there anywhere similar list for stuff Ileosa has proclaimed? I'd really love to introduce players' example of stuff he has proclaimed :D
Ileosa's rule is a different thing than Barzillai's. She's not nearly as organized as he was, and doesn't have a list of micromanagement issues that she wants to place in effect. Feel free to come up with some of your own design, of course, but the two tyrants are intentionally not similar in that way as written.
Between Janderhoff and Kravenkus, which sky citadel would be detailed and introduced first, according to your guess?
If you had to choose: Which writer would you want to do Superman: Robert J Schwalb or Owen K Stephens?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you had to choose: Which writer would you want to do Superman: Robert J Schwalb or Owen K Stephens?
Neither. Superman is boring, and I would rather not have talented writers like Owen or Robert waste their time with him and instead focus their talents on something (anything) else.
In Burnt Offerings, Warchief Ripnugget has a pet giant gecko at his side. According to the art in page 42 of the book, it has teeth and claws. But according to the art in the anniversary edition, it has teeth but no claws. According to the art in page 186 of Bestiary 3, a giant gecko have no teeth but has claws, though I'm not sure if this art depicts a giant gecko or a giant chameleon. According to the art in page 106 of Monster Codex, a giant gecko has claws but no teeth. Thus I must ask you. Does a giant gecko have teeth and claws?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Burnt Offerings, Warchief Ripnugget has a pet giant gecko at his side. According to the art in page 42 of the book, it has teeth and claws. But according to the art in the anniversary edition, it has teeth but no claws. According to the art in page 186 of Bestiary 3, a giant gecko have no teeth but has claws, though I'm not sure if this art depicts a giant gecko or a giant chameleon. According to the art in page 106 of Monster Codex, a giant gecko has claws but no teeth. Thus I must ask you. Does a giant gecko have teeth and claws?
The art in Bestiary 3 is a giant chameleon.
A giant gecko has teeth and claws if it's built with teeth and claws, regardless of art. Real world geckos don't have claws, though. Sometimes we take artistic license.
I was travelling last week and stepped in at a gaming store and saw a couple of (very dusty) Gamemastery "Compleat Encounters" sets. I couldn't help but buy them. I noticed you wrote one of them (about the ape-king, I think), and I was wondering if you could talk more about them--their origin, how they were received, etc.. It was really interesting seeing some concepts (like the demon lord Anghazan and the Whispering Tyrant) before they officially appeared in a Golarion context.