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


Off-Topic Discussions

7,351 to 7,400 of 77,292 << first < prev | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

No, the real champion is Mountain Dew Throwback. Caffeine and Pure Cane Sugar plus none of that High Fructose Corn Syrup garbage giving it a bitter aftertaste. You can't get it everywhere in the US anymore, but we have it all over the place here in Texas.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

DM Nickademus wrote:

Also, I just wanted to mention, I saw that you used gust of wind/rot grub swarm combo against Jason...awesome! Did anyone die?

Nope. The combat began with a ghoul priest using a wind fan on an altar covered with a layer of rot grubs that basically sprayed rot grubs over everyone in a 60 foot cone. Everyone in the cone had to make a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid letting any rot grubs dig in; they all made their saves.

Then, on each PC turn that followed, they'd have to make a NEW DC 15 Reflex save each round or the grubs would get on them and start doing their thing. "Fortunately" for the party, Jason's character went first in the round and managed to first make his Reflex save and then threw a fireball that killed all the grubs. Also did a fair amount of damage to the PCs, but they lived. Tim's character came close to dying, but that was more because he was surrounded by ghoul rogues; had he been in the fireball radius (he was outside of the whole rot grub fireball area) he would have died.

Later, though, Jason's character not only waded through Styx water (and took 10 points of Wisdom damage), but also ate some green slime (taking 2 Con damage before he cast burning hands on his face to kill the slime).

Good times.


I like the archtypes but I would also like to see some more prestiege classes.

1)Now that we have a Orc Sorcerer bloodline will there ever be one for elves,dwarves, and/or gnomes?

2)Will pathfinder rules allow for sorcerers, bards, or anyone else for that matters to some how get a familiar?

3)Last I heard there are no prestiege classes in Ultimate magic, is this true?

4)Is Baba yaga a Hag? and if so shouldn't all her daughters be changlings?

5)are there any monster(s) from myth, comics, books, movies, etc. would you like to see stated up in pathfinder?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

DM Nickademus wrote:

I almost spewed my drink on my laptop reading this. Too funny! But now you have me thinking... I know rot grubs are too powerful for the summon swarm spell, but if you were to create a hypothetical greater summon swarm spell for lets say rot gubs, stirges or even dire rats, what spell level would you make that? maybe 4?

Rot grubs are quick killers. I'd compare the amount of Con damage they can do, as well as how easy it is to get rid of them, to a spell like cloudkill, which is 5th level.

My gut feeling is that a rot grub swarm spell would probably be 6th level.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

1)Now that we have a Orc Sorcerer bloodline will there ever be one for elves,dwarves, and/or gnomes?

2)Will pathfinder rules allow for sorcerers, bards, or anyone else for that matters to some how get a familiar?

3)Last I heard there are no prestiege classes in Ultimate magic, is this true?

4)Is Baba yaga a Hag? and if so shouldn't all her daughters be changlings?

5)are there any monster(s) from myth, comics, books, movies, etc. would you like to see stated up in pathfinder?

1) Unlikely; the orc sorcerer bloodline was kind of a design experiment. I'm not sure it was a great idea. Certainly haven't heard much in the way of a demand for other racial bloodlines yet. Maybe someday...

2) Sorcerers can get familiars already. Take the arcane bloodline. As for other classes getting familiars... unlikely, since we generally don't like farming out class abilities like that. Which is why it's hard to gain something like sneak attack from any other way than gaining class levels in a sneak attack enabled class.

3) Yup. If folks are disappointed by the lack of prestige classes in Ultimate Magic... let us know! We can always make more of them!

4) We haven't revealed what Baba Yaga is yet... but it's 99% likely she's a unique creature.

5) Yup. Keep an eye on Pathfinder Adventure Paths, modules, the campaign setting line, and the Bestiaries to find out which ones I want to see statted up! Since when I want them to get statted up, they tend to get statted up.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:
One thing I would really like to see done for archetypes in future products is to fix their presentation. At the moment, there's a bit of Class Table algebra that you have to do to see what the archetype is even like, and it can be truly mind-bending and a little frustrating; especially when you lose a power but gain it back at a different level. I'll bet you know what I'm referring to so I will leave it at that.

That's what we're experimenting with via the samurai and the ninja. Not sure everyone agrees that's the best way to present archetypes though... it certainly takes up a LOT more room, though, which will help limit any coming "archetype bloat."


James Jacobs wrote:
3) Yup. If folks are disappointed by the lack of prestige classes in Ultimate Magic... let us know! We can always make more of them!

I am greatly disappointed. For a few reasons...

1) Archtypes in no way replaces PrCs...in my mind. My Rogue with the archtype of Spy is still going to go Master Spy...and the Lasher/dervish I have still needs to use those two prcs from 3.5. Archetypes are great...but they are not the be all and end all of character options. They are rather limiting in my opinion if you take out the PrCs.

2) I was hoping to see the Pathfinder versions of Archmage, Hierophant, and Thaumaturgist. Because in my humble opinion they really need to be redone.

I am going have to start calling the book Semi-Ultimate Magic...and reduce my desire for the book from a 11...to just a 9.

If Pathfinder was not compatible with 3.5 I would have to say my enthusism for it probably would have...gone away with the PrC hate here.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

John Kretzer wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
3) Yup. If folks are disappointed by the lack of prestige classes in Ultimate Magic... let us know! We can always make more of them!

I am greatly disappointed. For a few reasons...

1) Archtypes in no way replaces PrCs...in my mind. My Rogue with the archtype of Spy is still going to go Master Spy...and the Lasher/dervish I have still needs to use those two prcs from 3.5. Archetypes are great...but they are not the be all and end all of character options. They are rather limiting in my opinion if you take out the PrCs.

2) I was hoping to see the Pathfinder versions of Archmage, Hierophant, and Thaumaturgist. Because in my humble opinion they really need to be redone.

I am going have to start calling the book Semi-Ultimate Magic...and reduce my desire for the book from a 11...to just a 9.

If Pathfinder was not compatible with 3.5 I would have to say my enthusism for it probably would have...gone away with the PrC hate here.

1) I agree. I actually quite like prestige classes. Which is why I put some into the Inner Sea World Guide but didn't put ANY archetypes in there. While they're not going to be in Ultimate Magic or probably not in Ultimate Combat, they'll still be showing up in other books we do—there's some in the upcoming Inner Sea Magic book, due out at Gen Con, for example.

2) That's where we differ. The things that made those classes interesting are better served now as things that all wizards, clerics, and now summoners can do. Of course, the game's compatible with those classes, so if folks DO want to use them still... they can. They just no longer fit well with our design philosophy, so we have no plans to update them officially.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:


I don't think so. Do you?

Does anyone else? (I'm actually curious—I think that there IS a point where there's "enough" archetypes, just as 3.5 reached a point where there were enough prestige classes... I don't think we're there yet, but by the time Ultimate Combat is out, we'll be close.)

The fact that no matter how many archetypes are out there, you're still a rogue or a bard or a fighter pretty much means that the original classes aren't obsolete at all—that's one way that archetypes are, in my opinion, a stronger design paradigm than new base classes or prestige classes.

I don't. I don't think you can have too many good archetypes. Even whole classes can't be too many if they are good and balanced and supported.

Archetypes don't have to worry about lack of support, so long as the base class is supported.

The biggest problem with WoTC's bloat wasn't the number of classes and prestige classes, it was the poor (even extremely poor) design, power creep, and lack of further support.


I know that the arcane(and serpentine) bloodline grants a familiar but I am plaing a Fey blooded sorcerer in our kingmaker game and wanted to get a familiar/improved familiar like a brownie or lyrakien.


I **LOVE** Archtypes and I hope to see more, especially Golarion specific ones. I know there will most likely be some in Inner Sea Magic, but those are obviously for the casters.

While I know you can't reveal any future products not already announced, will the martial classes get Golarion specific Archtypes any time soon??(Beyond the 3 in Inner Sea Primer)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Monkeygod wrote:

I **LOVE** Archtypes and I hope to see more, especially Golarion specific ones. I know there will most likely be some in Inner Sea Magic, but those are obviously for the casters.

While I know you can't reveal any future products not already announced, will the martial classes get Golarion specific Archtypes any time soon??(Beyond the 3 in Inner Sea Primer)

Comming up, there'll be archetypes in Inner Sea Magic and the Pathfinder Society Field Guide.


James Jacobs wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

Mr. Jacobs,

Has the PathfinderRPG become so bloated with "Archetypes" that the original classes in the core rulebook have become obsolete?

I don't think so. Do you?

Does anyone else? (I'm actually curious—I think that there IS a point where there's "enough" archetypes, just as 3.5 reached a point where there were enough prestige classes... I don't think we're there yet, but by the time Ultimate Combat is out, we'll be close.)

The fact that no matter how many archetypes are out there, you're still a rogue or a bard or a fighter pretty much means that the original classes aren't obsolete at all—that's one way that archetypes are, in my opinion, a stronger design paradigm than new base classes or prestige classes.

No. We still got room for more.


Lord Fyre wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

Mr. Jacobs,

Has the PathfinderRPG become so bloated with "Archetypes" that the original classes in the core rulebook have become obsolete?

I don't think so. Do you?

Technically I never thought that "Archetypes" were really needed to begin with.

In most cases, an "Archetype" could be replicated just as well by feat, spell & skill choices.

Fluff(sorry James I meant flavor) wise probably, mechanically no. <runs off before anyone ask why I didn't just delete the word "fluff". >

Shadow Lodge

John Kretzer wrote:
2) I was hoping to see the Pathfinder versions of Archmage, Hierophant, and Thaumaturgist. Because in my humble opinion they really need to be redone.

Archmage - Wizard++ class. In other words, it's utterly pointless. If you're going to make a prestige class that's a no-brainer to take for a certain class, then eliminate the prestige class and make it's features part of the base class to begin with.

Hierophant - Cleric++ class. Again, pointless.

Thaumaturgist - Be a summoner instead.

Personally, I think we havev more than enough prestige classes already...we don't want to go down the road that WotC did and have a seperate class for every concept you can think of. Just because you want to play a left-handed arctic warrior who dual wields longswords while wearing snowshoes, that doesn't mean there needs to be a prestige class for it. :P


Kthulhu wrote:
Personally, I think we havev more than enough prestige classes already...we don't want to go down the road that WotC did and have a seperate class for every concept you can think of. Just because you want to play a left-handed arctic warrior who dual wields longswords while wearing snowshoes, that doesn't mean there needs to be a prestige class for it. :P

There is much to be said for playing that Left-handed Arctic Warrior what Dual Wields Longswords while Wearing Snowshoes at 1st level, and without having to do algebra to meet possibly irrelevant pre-requisites.

Long live the Archetypes!

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

James Jacobs wrote:
Does anyone else? (I'm actually curious—I think that there IS a point where there's "enough" archetypes, just as 3.5 reached a point where there were enough prestige classes...

I don't think PFRPG is close to the archetype bloat. Any chance of Golarion archetypes? Gray Gardener would be nice. Or would that be more of a PrC? There are still many unique archetypes that can be covered. Especially for alchemists, clerics, wizards, and cavaliers. Any chance on more wizard schools?

What I think is missing are some PrC for Golarion. I really want to see Blackfire Adepts, Riftwardens, and some of the other unique organizations covered.


James Jacobs wrote:
Does anyone else? (I'm actually curious—I think that there IS a point where there's "enough" archetypes, just as 3.5 reached a point where there were enough prestige classes...

I'd like to see more specific rather than generic archetypes. "Inner Sea Magic" will, I imagine, feed that desire - but personally I'm more fond of the non-magic focused classes, so I'm hoping for a follow-up.

I agree that there is a theoretical limit to how many archetypes should be published - but that limit is a far way off in my mind. Other than player orientated books with more archetypes (like the Ultimates) I expect to see the occasional archetype popping up in Companion and Campain Setting supplements - and especially in Adventure Paths: as a GM I really like the idea of having a couple of classed NPCs that my PCs will face that break the mold of expectations of my players. Similar to how a new monster can unsettle players, an unknown archetype can also mess with them. In a good way.


James Jacobs wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

James, do a familiar's racial abilities advance with their "effective hit dice?"

For example, would an imp's poison DC go up? Would a silvanshee gain increased healing from it's lay on hands ability? What about more basic stats? Do they get +1 ability score boost every four hit dice? A new feat every odd hit dice?

The rules say: "For the purpose of effects related to number of Hit Dice, use the master's character level or the familiar's normal HD total, whichever is higher."

This means that effects that target HD, such as cloudkill or circle of death or sleep, target your familiar as if it has your level in HD or its racial HD, whichever is higher. It's ACTUAL racial HD do not change at all, and thus it doesn't gain ability score boosts or new feats, nor does the DC associated with its special abilities increase.

Do you expect people to get that from reading the rules?, or are you planning on Errating this?

The rules clearly don´t say ´effects dependent on their target´s HD´, they say ´effects related to... HD´... Special Ability DCs are clearly a HD-related effect. Are we ALWAYS to read ´effects related to...X´ to mean ´effects related to their target´s...X´ wherever that phrasing pops up in the rules?

I can see a RAW-compliant way out for excluding ability increases, etc, because those are tied to HD ADVANCEMENT, i.e. level-up, and that never actually happens for Familiars in exactly the same way as when characters really advance their HD. I´m not asking this because I think Familiars really really really must have boosts like this, they´re just find without it, but I just can´t see any way a reasonable reader could be expected to make that very specific reading you just made, just from RAW. I´ve seen multiple threads with people asking about this issue, and never seen a claim in-line with your post on the subject... which is pretty strange since if it was even at all ambiguous, it seems like somebody should have advanced that claim.


LoreKeeper wrote:
I'd like to see more specific rather than generic archetypes. "Inner Sea Magic" will, I imagine, feed that desire - but personally I'm more fond of the non-magic focused classes, so I'm hoping for a follow-up.

+1

I´m also more inclined to want something like 1/3 magic, 2/3 non-magic focused...
Or perhaps 1/3 magic (full + 3/4 casters), 1/3 light magic (1/2 casters + monk types), 1/3 zero magic (full mundane)

I also ESPECIALLY like the idea of world-specific archetypes that semi-function as PrCs, since the abilities they swap out don´t come up until mid/high level and thus you don´t have to make the choice until then. Why not even have Pre-Reqs (e.g. skill, Feat) to go along, that already happens with some archetypes? (Nat. Wpn Ranger, Undead Master Cleric...)


James Jacobs wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
One thing I would really like to see done for archetypes in future products is to fix their presentation. At the moment, there's a bit of Class Table algebra that you have to do to see what the archetype is even like, and it can be truly mind-bending and a little frustrating...
That's what we're experimenting with via the samurai and the ninja. Not sure everyone agrees that's the best way to present archetypes though... it certainly takes up a LOT more room, though, which will help limit any coming "archetype bloat."

I think EL´s sentiment here is a common one with many players, especially with less rules-focused players who don´t semi-memorize a large amount of the rule-set such that they can virtually juggle abstact class-abilities in their head.

Aside from issues with the class variant balance itself, I think presenting ´integrated´ archetypes/variants ala Samurai/Ninja is something Paizo should continue doing, though not necessarily stopping the other kind, either. I see ´variants´ ala Samurai being especially appropriate to Golarion-specific variants introduced in an AP or whatnot...

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

About archetypes:
I jumped for joy when I saw them for the very first time. Just before the APG came out I was trying to work out how to build a character that resembled a Spartan. The shortspear wasn't working for me, so I came up with all sorts of options for my GM to consider. The day we were to finalize our characters is when my GM bought the APG and pointed me to the Phalanx Solider. I was a very happy gamer.

I feel there are many more possibilities for archetypes, but not all of them should be published. Anything that is too narrow will risk being little more then space filler in the book, and that only sees use in NPCs or really bored players who need characters for quick modules. The Fighter is going to hit the limit first, as the archetypes in place cover just about any general concept. There is still room for more, but I feel almost anything more is going to start becoming specific to setting or obscure combat tactics. I might be wrong, and I often am, so I won't complain if the ranger or rogue hit the limit first.

Has Paizo discussed what the limit would be on publishing archetypes, prestige classes, and new base classes? If so, has there been a consensus as to what that limit would be or even look like?

Slightly related question: Clearly you can't expect to print books like "Ultimate Magic" and "Ultimate Combat" forever. What does the future of Pathfinder look like after the time that there are no more "Ultimate" books to be written?

I wouldn't expect that for another few years. But it is fun to try and look ahead in time.


James, is there a geological equivalent of the Mariana trench beneath the seas of Golarion?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Quandary wrote:

Do you expect people to get that from reading the rules?, or are you planning on Errating this?

Honestly? I expect people to ask their GMs for clarification, and I hope that the GMs are self-confident enough to make the call. Perhaps after doing some research here, perhaps not.

If folks think it's worthy of being FAQed... post a question in an on-topic thread and FAQ button it.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

CalebTGordan wrote:

Has Paizo discussed what the limit would be on publishing archetypes, prestige classes, and new base classes? If so, has there been a consensus as to what that limit would be or even look like?

Slightly related question: Clearly you can't expect to print books like "Ultimate Magic" and "Ultimate Combat" forever. What does the future of Pathfinder look like after the time that there are no more "Ultimate" books to be written?

I wouldn't expect that for another few years. But it is fun to try and look ahead in time.

We have indeed talked about limits on publishing these things. My personal take: Ultimate Combat is that limit. Beyond that, I really REALLY hope we start doing some other types of books.

And we have been talking about those post-Ultimate Combat books. We won't be talking publicly about them for many months though.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:
James, is there a geological equivalent of the Mariana trench beneath the seas of Golarion?

I'm positive there is. I'm not sure where it might be yet, though.


Not in reference to anything in particular, but since there is a Mariana-analog... is there an Old One slumbering down there?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Dragon78 wrote:
I know that the arcane(and serpentine) bloodline grants a familiar but I am plaing a Fey blooded sorcerer in our kingmaker game and wanted to get a familiar/improved familiar like a brownie or lyrakien.

I'm not James but ... have you thought about (a) taking the Leadership feat or (b) dual-classing with Wizard?

Liberty's Edge

You could also dual-class with Witch if that fits the character better.


When an Animal Companion with an Int of 3 takes a level in Rogue, does it get Sneak Attack?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
harmor wrote:
When an Animal Companion with an Int of 3 takes a level in Rogue, does it get Sneak Attack?

Animal companions don't get class levels, so no?


James Jacobs wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Do you expect people to get that from reading the rules?, or are you planning on Errating this?

Honestly? I expect people to ask their GMs for clarification, and I hope that the GMs are self-confident enough to make the call. Perhaps after doing some research here, perhaps not.

If folks think it's worthy of being FAQed... post a question in an on-topic thread and FAQ button it.

I understand your point, but I as a GM don't want to make the call. I want to make the correct call. Corner cases should go to the GM, but regular rules situations clear, well as much as possible without having to need a law degree anyway. I stat that because well, it does not even need to be explained.


harmor wrote:
When an Animal Companion with an Int of 3 takes a level in Rogue, does it get Sneak Attack?

Animal companions don't get class levels.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Not in reference to anything in particular, but since there is a Mariana-analog... is there an Old One slumbering down there?

Probably not. It's probably got something to do with aboleths though.


You keep saying you want to do other books....ones without archetypes, PrCs in them(and would presume without feats, spells etc). So what exactly would these books contained? Exactly why would if I was a player want them? (Not speaking about me personaly because I'll buy books just filled with lore and such...but typically books have to contain some amount of crunch for most players top want them...atleast that seems to the industry assumption).

I guess what I am asking is what kinda books do you want to do...and what would be the appeal to players without crunch options for thier characters?


Does the gunslinger's "Scoot Unattended Object" ability work if the object is in flight? Like using a ready action stating "When the enemy fires an arrow, I want to use my scoot ability to attempt to send it off target." If not, then what constitutes an unattended object? Also this would be no where near as powerful as the deflect arrows feat which, as RAW, can slap firearm bullets away without a roll or using an action of any kind.

We have been discussing it here http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/unattenedObjects&page=1#33 with no resolution


Was Aroden a full god or a demigod?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jaçinto wrote:

Does the gunslinger's "Scoot Unattended Object" ability work if the object is in flight? Like using a ready action stating "When the enemy fires an arrow, I want to use my scoot ability to attempt to send it off target." If not, then what constitutes an unattended object? Also this would be no where near as powerful as the deflect arrows feat which, as RAW, can slap firearm bullets away without a roll or using an action of any kind.

We have been discussing it here http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/unattenedObjects&page=1#33 with no resolution

An unattended object is an object that's not attended. A thrown object is not attended, because it's not being held by someone else at that time.

That said... the game rules don't really allow for taking actions DURING another action unless that action's an immediate action, really. I'm honestly not familiar enough with the gunslinger to know if the Shoot Unattended Object is an immediate action (I've been working on pretty much every line BUT the Rulebook Line for the past few months), but if it's not, you really wouldn't be able to interrupt an act in progress. You could go before someone shoots an arrow or after, but not during.

What it boils down to is whether or not the GM thinks that deflecing an arrow with a bullet is cool and good for the game.

AKA: Shrug?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

John Kretzer wrote:

You keep saying you want to do other books....ones without archetypes, PrCs in them(and would presume without feats, spells etc). So what exactly would these books contained? Exactly why would if I was a player want them? (Not speaking about me personaly because I'll buy books just filled with lore and such...but typically books have to contain some amount of crunch for most players top want them...atleast that seems to the industry assumption).

I guess what I am asking is what kinda books do you want to do...and what would be the appeal to players without crunch options for thier characters?

I've listed some examples before: thinks like a book about mass combat and kingdom building, an "epic level" book, a book about equipment, a book about building character backgrounds, an advice book about running high (not epic) level games, etc. Sure, some of those books COULD have player crunch in them, but the book itself wouldn't be ABOUT player crunch. And they'd be more about OTHER stuff, which means that there might not be room for more of the same when it comes to archetypes and prestige classes and the like.

Whether or not we can avoid putting out things like Ultimate Magic 2 (which would be a really silly title anyway) because we know it'll sell well remains to be seen. Is it okay for us to print a book we know will be better for the game (by not rules bloating the game) even though it'll very likely sell less than one that would be worse for it?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The Guardian Beyond Beyond wrote:
Was Aroden a full god or a demigod?

Full god by the time he died. He probably started out as a demigod though.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Coridan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


And we have been talking about those post-Ultimate Combat books. We won't be talking publicly about them for many months though.

Would any of the following fall into this realm?

Mass-Combat style of play book

Terrain-focused play (Aquatic, Desert, etc)

Book of Magic Items

More specified rules, ala Savage Species

Yup (I posted as such in a reply a few seconds ago).


Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature alive, but
reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—
positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it. Format:
negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

With the Dhampir having this ability, I was wondering if this only apples to the cure x wounds and inflict x wounds spells, or do spells like consecrate and desecrate also apply?

I apologize in advance if I am asking too many questions and if the apology is unnecessary, then sorry again because I am Canadian and that is part of our nature.


James Jacobs wrote:

I've listed some examples before: thinks like a book about mass combat and kingdom building, an "epic level" book, a book about equipment, a book about building character backgrounds, an advice book about running high (not epic) level games, etc. Sure, some of those books COULD have player crunch in them, but the book itself wouldn't be ABOUT player crunch. And they'd be more about OTHER stuff, which means that there might not be room for more of the same when it comes to archetypes and prestige classes and the like.

Whether or not we can avoid putting out things like Ultimate Magic 2 (which would be a really silly title anyway) because we know it'll sell well remains to be seen. Is it okay for us to print a book we know will be better for the game (by not rules bloating the game) even though it'll very likely sell less than one that would be worse for it?

Ok I got it. It will be books that are focused on x...with maybe some player options that could be related to x.

If you go that way can you do a book for Intruige kinda of stuff? Please...I have been waiting for that book for years.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jaçinto wrote:

Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature alive, but

reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—
positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it. Format:
negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

With the Dhampir having this ability, I was wondering if this only apples to the cure x wounds and inflict x wounds spells, or do spells like consecrate and desecrate also apply?

I apologize in advance if I am asking too many questions and if the apology is unnecessary, then sorry again because I am Canadian and that is part of our nature.

Yup; since those spells use negative and positive energy, they affect dhampir as if they were undead.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

James, two questions.

One on the Dhampir question above. Is a Paladin's Lay on Hands ability considered positive energy for purposes of the Negative Energy Affinity? In other words, does the Dhampir take damage if he get's healed by Lay On Hands?

The other is concerning XP. In 3.5, it was explicit that you didn't get XP for an encounter that was not at all challenging. For example, a 12th level character taking out a CR 1/2 goblin. Not a tribe, a single goblin. That was explicitly a non XP generating encounter. However, that verbiage seems to have not made it to PF. Is the intent that a character get's the minimum 50XP for any encounter, no matter how much of a non-challenge? I'd always assumed the rules expected the GM to not be a moron and not give XP for something that was obviously not a challenge, but it seems a lot of people are telling me I'm violating the rules. I'd like to know if that was the design intention, or not.

Grand Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

James, do a familiar's racial abilities advance with their "effective hit dice?"

For example, would an imp's poison DC go up? Would a silvanshee gain increased healing from it's lay on hands ability?

What about more basic stats? Do they get +1 ability score boost every four hit dice? A new feat every odd hit dice?

The rules say: "For the purpose of effects related to number of Hit Dice, use the master's character level or the familiar's normal HD total, whichever is higher."

This means that effects that target HD, such as cloudkill or circle of death or sleep, target your familiar as if it has your level in HD or its racial HD, whichever is higher. It's ACTUAL racial HD do not change at all, and thus it doesn't gain ability score boosts or new feats, nor does the DC associated with its special abilities increase.

To increase those, the familiar's actual HD need to go up. There's not really a way in game at this point to really do this, but that might change at some point.

So spells a familiar can cast on their own or a breath weapon would never be able to increase the DC of their castings or use (for the breath weapon).

(just asking for the clarification purposes of my erratic mind and to placate the rules lawyer in me) :)


mdt wrote:

James, two questions.

One on the Dhampir question above. Is a Paladin's Lay on Hands ability considered positive energy for purposes of the Negative Energy Affinity? In other words, does the Dhampir take damage if he get's healed by Lay On Hands?

The other is concerning XP. In 3.5, it was explicit that you didn't get XP for an encounter that was not at all challenging. For example, a 12th level character taking out a CR 1/2 goblin. Not a tribe, a single goblin. That was explicitly a non XP generating encounter. However, that verbiage seems to have not made it to PF. Is the intent that a character get's the minimum 50XP for any encounter, no matter how much of a non-challenge? I'd always assumed the rules expected the GM to not be a moron and not give XP for something that was obviously not a challenge, but it seems a lot of people are telling me I'm violating the rules. I'd like to know if that was the design intention, or not.

Spoiler:
I don't think any GM would, but I was giving you RAW. I do wish they would have included it in the book, but I don't think killing a gold fish is going to be an issue. If someone tries to game the system I just shut that nonsense down.

Actually it is not even RAI, but it is a good rule of thumb. Even if James agrees it won't be a rule since it is not even hinted at in the book.

RAW:If it aint written it aint a rule.
Unofficial common sense rule: If it aint written that does not automatically make it ok.


James Jacobs wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:

Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature alive, but

reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—
positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it. Format:
negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.

With the Dhampir having this ability, I was wondering if this only apples to the cure x wounds and inflict x wounds spells, or do spells like consecrate and desecrate also apply?

I apologize in advance if I am asking too many questions and if the apology is unnecessary, then sorry again because I am Canadian and that is part of our nature.

Yup; since those spells use negative and positive energy, they affect dhampir as if they were undead.

Thanks. I do think the fact that the ability only mentions heals trips people up. I guess I can FAQ it since it is not clear. That way it can be compiled into the FAQ or errata'd.


As a total Lovecraft fan and being about to play Carrion Crown, I read about Ustalav in the inner sea world guide and noticed that Illmarsh is essentially Innsmouth. I was wondering if there are any other towns based off of Lovecraft towns like Kingsport and Dunwich. Trying to pick a location for my Dhampir Cleric of The Old Ones to be from.

Also, I recently bought the Dunwich expansion for Arkham Horror so would you like to come up here to Kitimat, British Columbia, Canada for a few games? I'll let you take your pick of character rather than randomizing it like I usually do with my players.

Another note: Is there any place to get the expansions cheaper, without being used, than $65 Canadian? Because the only shop here in that sells them is a collecters' shop.

Oh just remembered one more thing. Would you suggest any books for the Call of Cthulhu d100 based RPG other than the core book and Delta Green?

Last question for this post: Would you bake me some cookies?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:


RAW:If it aint written it aint a rule.
Unofficial common sense rule: If it aint written that does not automatically make it ok.

I think it's important to know if that was the intention or not, however. If it was an unintended modification brought about by editing for a specific size of book, then I think the Creative Director might want to know that it has had an unintended effect.

If it was the intention, then that's fine, it means I need to take a weed whacker to the rules for XP and do some serious pruning and shaping in my campaign.

I'm one of those people that prefers to know when something is a house rule, and when it's RAW/RAI. I have no issues house ruling something, but I like to know when I'm doing that and not just reading the rules wrong. If nothing else, if I'm reading those rules wrong, I might be reading something else wrong too.

7,351 to 7,400 of 77,292 << first < prev | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 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.