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


Off-Topic Discussions

7,501 to 7,550 of 83,732 << first < prev | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jaçinto wrote:
From what I remember about the Lovecraft mythos, the shoggoth is the source of all human life from bacteria falling off of it and evolving. Is it that way in Golarian as well? Or is it just a monster due to wanting to keep Pathfinder and Golarion your own thing and just pay homage to Lovecraft?

That's not quite accurate.

At the Mountains of Madness spoilers follow!

Spoiler:
The old ones created shoggoths as slaves to do heavy lifting and the like, and then eventually shoggoths evolved intelligence and rose up against the old ones and brought them to an end.

Humans, as well as all life on the planet, were created by the old ones as well for different reasons.

As for how it worked on Golarion... we haven't revealed the truth about Golarion's prehistoric eras and the source of life and all that. The AtMoM genesis story is certainly one strong possibility, but it's not the ONLY possibility. Until we actually do an adventure or something about the dawn of Goalrion and all that, we're not going to nail down what really happened that far back in time.


When you are blind can you still use Detect spells?


James Jacobs wrote:

Starts juggling severed clowns' heads in tiny little forearms, taking a bite out of each one as they pass the mouth—the clowns' heads are giggling like babies as they get eat eaten away, and what drips from the heads isn't blood but ants that spell out the names of dead serial killers on the ground as they land

Also, more Mwa ha has.

Ok, now that's just kind of cool :) But those Mwa ha has need more boom. I mean, c'mon, T-rex, the primal carnivore, I'm thinking something with some bite, you know? Just not literally!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
harmor wrote:

Has Pazio considered making a "Colossus" Product that is everything Pazio has in their product package as single product? This product would be upgraded each time a new Pazio product comes out and would not duplicate anything already purchased.

What do you think about that?

I think I'd rather spend my time doing things like making new projects.

Or sleeping, eating, and having a life beyond Paizo. None of which would be possible if we did a "Colossus" product like that. No thanks! :P

I thought it was part of your job description to be on call for us 24/7? ;) And what products are coming out in November? ;) I am still awaiting the live scorpions.

The Exchange

Sebastian suggested I also get a pronouncement of Sanity. Do you deem me sane, even in the slightest James?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Lord Fyre wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Or sleeping, eating, and having a life beyond Paizo. None of which would be possible if we did a "Colossus" product like that. No thanks! :P

Are things like "sleeping, eating, and having a life beyond Paizo" possible now?

You do seem to spend a lot of time on these boards. :)

They're tough. Which is why adding a "Colossus" product, or even just 1 more hardcover, would be a backbreaker.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Genova wrote:
Do you think a terrasque could stand up to todays modern weaponry?

Depends how those weapons are statted up, and if we want a world where the tarrasque versus a modern army should be an exciting fight. If I were statting them up, I would say yes, the tarrasque could indeed withstand most modern weaponry.


I just bought a deck of Plot Twist cards. I've played with Whimsy Cards before, so I'm pretty excited to break these out with my group. Have you used them yet, and do you have any advice or opinions regarding their use?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
I'm sorry if this has been raised before, but I was wondering about the design decisions that went into updating the paladin for Pathfinder. Don't get me wrong -- for Lawful Good, the paladin is an awesome class. However, I was wondering if any thought had gone into broadening the class so that it was open to all alignments. After all, one assumes that the deities of Law and Good aren't the only ones who want to empower devout warriors with divine power. Was this sort of idea ever considered, and if so, why was it rejected? Is it something you have any plans to do in the future (maybe in Ultimate Combat)?

What makes a paladin a paladin is her adherence to Law and Good. Her abilities pretty much all stem from that core concept.

Beyond exploring the opposite of this (the antipaladin in the APG, which is all about chaos and evil), we thought about exploring paladins of other alignments, but the way the paladin is built means that there really AREN'T a lot of things for other aligned "paladins" to do to set them apart enough to justify their alignment change. We were going to have a variant form of paladin in the APG that did this, but there just weren't enough powers or themes to carry the day without it basically turning into a fighter, ranger, cavalier, or other similar class.

Several years ago, I wrote up a pair of articles for new types of paladins for the various alignments for Dragon magazine, and it was REALLY hard. And I'm not all that pleased with how those articles turned out, both because some of the "paladins" were kinda silly, underpowered, or overpowered... but because they devalued the meaning of the word.

When I say "Paladin" to a gamer, he thinks of a lawful good hero. A game based on the traditions Pathifnder is built on that muddies what the word "Paladin" means isn't Pathfinder. So by NOT doing variant paladins, we let paladins be what they should be.

Characters who want to play a paladin-like holy warrior type character do have options, primarily in the venue of the cavalier, the ranger, and the cleric.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Lathiira wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Starts juggling severed clowns' heads in tiny little forearms, taking a bite out of each one as they pass the mouth—the clowns' heads are giggling like babies as they get eat eaten away, and what drips from the heads isn't blood but ants that spell out the names of dead serial killers on the ground as they land

Also, more Mwa ha has.

Ok, now that's just kind of cool :) But those Mwa ha has need more boom. I mean, c'mon, T-rex, the primal carnivore, I'm thinking something with some bite, you know? Just not literally!

Isn't it creepier if the mwa has are all soft and sneaky when they come from a creature with a skull that's as big as a human?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Crimson Jester wrote:
Sebastian suggested I also get a pronouncement of Sanity. Do you deem me sane, even in the slightest James?

Nnnnnope. CERTIFIED LOONIE.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Talonne Hauk wrote:
I just bought a deck of Plot Twist cards. I've played with Whimsy Cards before, so I'm pretty excited to break these out with my group. Have you used them yet, and do you have any advice or opinions regarding their use?

I have used them, both as a player and as a GM. They're great fun, and really help to improvise new story elements into a game.

I generally use them as a sort of hero point mechanic—you can use the cards to get out of sticky situations or even to prevent sudden PC death. I give them out whenever a PC gains a level. And sometimes as prizes for doing cool stuff.


Dies Irae wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Starts juggling severed clowns' heads in tiny little forearms, taking a bite out of each one as they pass the mouth—the clowns' heads are giggling like babies as they get eat eaten away, and what drips from the heads isn't blood but ants that spell out the names of dead serial killers on the ground as they land

Also, more Mwa ha has.

...

...

...

Thanks James for that wonderful mental image... You'll be getting the bills for my therapy shortly.

Will you be paying with cash or check?

Friendly neighborhood therapist.

The Exchange

James Jacobs wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Sebastian suggested I also get a pronouncement of Sanity. Do you deem me sane, even in the slightest James?
Nnnnnope. CERTIFIED LOONIE.

That explains why everything around here is padded. Thanks James.


James Jacobs wrote:

What makes a paladin a paladin is her adherence to Law and Good. Her abilities pretty much all stem from that core concept.

Beyond exploring the opposite of this (the antipaladin in the APG, which is all about chaos and evil), we thought about exploring paladins of other alignments, but the way the paladin is built means that there really AREN'T a lot of things for other aligned "paladins" to do to set them apart enough to justify their alignment change. We were going to have a variant form of paladin in the APG that did this, but there just weren't enough powers or themes to carry the day without it basically turning into a fighter, ranger, cavalier, or other similar class.

Several years ago, I wrote up a pair of articles for new types of paladins for the various alignments for Dragon magazine, and it was REALLY hard. And I'm not all that pleased with how those articles turned out, both because some of the "paladins" were kinda silly, underpowered, or overpowered... but because they devalued the meaning of the word.

When I say "Paladin" to a gamer, he thinks of a lawful good hero. A game based on the traditions Pathifnder is built on that muddies what the word "Paladin" means isn't Pathfinder. So by NOT doing variant paladins, we let paladins be what they should be.

Characters who want to play a paladin-like holy warrior type character do have options, primarily in the venue of the cavalier, the ranger, and the cleric.

I can understand how it would be challenge. I guess part of the problem is the term "paladin," which is just a subtype of a broader class of "divine warriors," or whatever terminology might be selected. Hmmm, it's worth me giving it some thought...


James Jacobs wrote:

Starts juggling severed clowns' heads in tiny little forearms, taking a bite out of each one as they pass the mouth—the clowns' heads are giggling like babies as they get eat eaten away, and what drips from the heads isn't blood but ants that spell out the names of dead serial killers on the ground as they land

Also, more Mwa ha has.

Well... Saw it... Can die now...


Might we see a white or green dragon cover from Wayne Reynolds on later major rulebooks (high-level guide, mythic rules etc, Bestiary III)? Is there any sense of working towards all five chromatics, or would you repeat red or blue or black on the cover? Metallics?


James Jacobs wrote:
Lathiira wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Starts juggling severed clowns' heads in tiny little forearms, taking a bite out of each one as they pass the mouth—the clowns' heads are giggling like babies as they get eat eaten away, and what drips from the heads isn't blood but ants that spell out the names of dead serial killers on the ground as they land

Also, more Mwa ha has.

Ok, now that's just kind of cool :) But those Mwa ha has need more boom. I mean, c'mon, T-rex, the primal carnivore, I'm thinking something with some bite, you know? Just not literally!
Isn't it creepier if the mwa has are all soft and sneaky when they come from a creature with a skull that's as big as a human?

Why yes, it is indeed.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Might we see a white or green dragon cover from Wayne Reynolds on later major rulebooks (high-level guide, mythic rules etc, Bestiary III)? Is there any sense of working towards all five chromatics, or would you repeat red or blue or black on the cover? Metallics?

Not on a Bestiary (since Bestiaries have to have monsters that are actually in the book), but wayne's done a white dragon cover for us already (Pathfinder #5); we used that same cover for the cover of the Beta Pathfinder game.

Green would make a lot of sense for the next one to have him paint for a cover, since at that point, it's the only chromatic dragon we haven't seen from him.


Well then, might I be the first to suggest a cover image of totally gear-tricked-out iconics converging on a great wyrm green dragon for the cover of the High-Level Campaign Guide — or whatever it is called — when it finally comes into being?

My Players May Not Read This:
Running Pathfinder 5 right now, no joke! Hope my players don't see this and make the connection.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

James Jacobs wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
3)Do have any favorite artist?(comic, anime/manga, D&D, old style painters, non-japanese animation,etc.)
3) I do. Wayne Reynolds, Eva Widermann, and Steve Prescott are three of my current favorite artists. Beyond RPGs, I'm also a fan of several of the old pulp magazine illustrators, photomanipulator J. K. Potter, alien creator H. R. Giger, Dark Tower (and other awesomeness) illustrator Michael Whelan, comic book master Bernie Wrightson, movie poster master Drew Struzan, M. C. Escher, and lots more.

It's my goal to have original art from three artists: Wayne Reynolds (check, and apparently I lucked out and got one of the pieces of Pathfinder art before it became Paizo policy to buy them all :), Micheal Whelan (he has a lot of his original stuff at a gallery in Cape Cod, but the cheapest reasonable one is way outside my price range and the good stuff is like $40k), and Patrick Nagel (though with him being dead and all, odds are pretty good I'm outta luck on that one unless I win the lottery.

There's a few others out there, but those are the big three for me. I do have a signed print of Whelan's "Lovecraft" pair, but that's as close as I am for him. Nice guy though, I met him last year on the Cape, when the curator threw me under the bus.

Curator: (Interrupts Michael Whelan, who is in the middle of a conversation) "Hi! This is Burt Smith, he came all the way from Connecticut to see you."
Me: "Uh, hi?"

My girlfriend thought it was hilarious.

The Exchange

Kthulhu wrote:
harmor wrote:

Has Pazio considered making a "Colossus" Product that is everything Pazio has in their product package as single product? This product would be upgraded each time a new Pazio product comes out and would not duplicate anything already purchased.

What do you think about that?

I'm not even really sure I understand this question. Obviously, this wouldn't be a print product, since you're advocating updating it every time Paizo published a new product...a print product would be obsolete before it even left the press. Not to mention the fact that it would be far too large to be a bound book.

All the books already exist as PDFs....I'm not really sure what compiling them into one overly-large PDF would really accomplish, short of making it very sluggish on most computers.

You really want this? Subscribe to the RPG, AP, Module, Campaign Setting, and Player's Companion lines.

I interpreted this as a way to buy everything that Paizo has put out that you have not yet bought through the store with a single click — not as a physical 1 book product.

This would actually have saved me an hours work when I bought everything that had been produced before I became a subscriber. I've still got to repeat that to fill in the gaps for PDFs at some point...

The Exchange

Hi James.

I've got a player in an an upcoming game who wants his character to at some point join the Hellknights. I feel there is little information on the pre-requisite of killing a devil.

Why do hellknight initiates have to kill a devil? The fact that devils are LE and hellknights are anti-chaos seems odd. Are the devil's summoned for the purpose of the initiation or are initiates asked to go out into the world and find their own devil to kill and bring back evidence?

Any insight on this would be most appreciated?

Please keep up the good work.


Are there any rules anywhere for making special armor from animal hides like a Bulette?

Do the Turn Undead and Command Undead feats work on a Dhampir? I know channel energy does but I just want to make sure about this one.

Is it right for a DM to deduct experience points from an encounter even if the players win? Example: Today at our game, we encountered a Great Cyclops. My Gunslinger had no idea what it was other than it was huge, getting close to our camp, and we had killed a bunch of regular cyclops earlier. Failed my knowledge check to know what it was so i just attacked it. We ended up winning because it ran away but my DM reduced the encounter exp because "we should have known better than to fight it."

This one you probably can not answer but is there any chance the fifth horseman in the upcoming book is the horseman of Conquest? Curious because the common four you see in most things are not the original four horsemen from Revelations. They were Conquest, War, Famine, and Death. Pestilence essentially was death at the time. It would be neat for him to be the fifth since that horseman is pretty much forgotten in place of the others and wears a crown to signify his station.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

What happened to the neh-thalggu? Back in the Dungeon mag (and maybe other sources) they were crazy metamagic fiends with a constantly changing spell list, an absolute blast to run. Now they're...physically buff sorcerers. Unless I'm missing something, they seem to have lost their jazz without the ability to absorb the brains to power spells.

Paizo offices are closed down for a week, and you have tons of free time on your hands. What do you do? How long until you go stir crazy?

Sorry if either of these has been asked already. This thread is monter long.


Have you heard any recordings by Paizo Kvartetten (the Paizo Quartet)?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jaçinto wrote:
Are there any rules anywhere for making special armor from animal hides like a Bulette?

Not in one place. For a bulette in particular, thought, you should check out "Dungeon Denizens Revisited." For the most part, though, regular old hide armor (or leather) is what you get from pretty much all skinned monsters and animals.

Jaçinto wrote:
Do the Turn Undead and Command Undead feats work on a Dhampir? I know channel energy does but I just want to make sure about this one.

Nope. Negative energy affinity only counts against damage and healing from positive or negative energy. Dhampir remain living creatures, and aren't actually undead; they can't be Turned or Commanded by these feats.

Jaçinto wrote:
Is it right for a DM to deduct experience points from an encounter even if the players win? Example: Today at our game, we encountered a Great Cyclops. My Gunslinger had no idea what it was other than it was huge, getting close to our camp, and we had killed a bunch of regular cyclops earlier. Failed my knowledge check to know what it was so i just attacked it. We ended up winning because it ran away but my DM reduced the encounter exp because "we should have known better than to fight it."

In the rules as written in Pathfinder, XP is never deducted. Once you earn it, it can't be taken away. If you attack a tougher-than-normal foe and somehow manage to defeat it or kill it or drive it off, you should get the full XP award. GMs who don't want to risk having to give out bigger than anticipated XP awards for monsters shouldn't throw bigger than expected monsters at a party. And if they do, they really shouldn't tell the PCs things like "I'm reducing the XP because you did something I didn't expect and excelled at it as you did it." That's a good way to encourage your players to not take risks. If a GM is going to arbitrarily dock a party XP because he doesn't want them advancing as fast as they have earned the XP, he should just make adjustments behind the screen and not announce those adjustments at all. Of course, each GM is free to run his/her game as they see fit, but personally... docking XP because the party exceeded GM expectations is kinda lame.

Jaçinto wrote:
This one you probably can not answer but is there any chance the fifth horseman in the upcoming book is the horseman of Conquest? Curious because the common four you see in most things are not the original four horsemen from Revelations. They were Conquest, War, Famine, and Death. Pestilence essentially was death at the time. It would be neat for him to be the fifth since that horseman is pretty much forgotten in place of the others and wears a crown to signify his station.

I can answer. We've dropped hints about a "fifth horseman" before, and while the upcoming "Horsemen of Apocalypse" book will talk a little bit about this mythical, rumored fifth... there won't be much detail at all, because the four established horsemen (Death, Pestilence, Famine, and War) are the four that are already set up as active in Golarion's Great Beyond. This book is about them and the daemons that serve them. In any case, since daemons personify the myriad ways a mortal can die, "Conquest" isn't really in line with the way they work in the Great Beyond. You don't die from being Conquered. Not direcltly, at least, and that's what daemons and the Horsemen are about. Direct death.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Orange Toque wrote:

What happened to the neh-thalggu? Back in the Dungeon mag (and maybe other sources) they were crazy metamagic fiends with a constantly changing spell list, an absolute blast to run. Now they're...physically buff sorcerers. Unless I'm missing something, they seem to have lost their jazz without the ability to absorb the brains to power spells.

Paizo offices are closed down for a week, and you have tons of free time on your hands. What do you do? How long until you go stir crazy?

Sorry if either of these has been asked already. This thread is monter long.

The neh-thalggu that appeared in Dungeon were reverse engineered from their incarnation in the Epic Level Handbook to serve as a mid CR threat for a product owned by Wizards of the Coast. That version of the neh-thalggu in Dungeon is and remains closed content owned by Wizards of the Coast. That version is not available to non-WotC publishers like Paizo.

But the neh-thalggu is an awesome monster, and so with Bestiary 2 we did that same work over again; we took the epic level version as a baseline and lowered it down to a mid CR monster (which, by the way, is the niche they filled originally back in the early 80s when they were first introduced to gaming in the adventure "Castle Amber").

Even though we at Paizo created the Dungeon version, we couldn't recreate it exactly without crossing the non-open line. And so we chose to create a DIFFERENT mid-CR version of the monster. Personally, I like the Pathfinder version a LOT better, if only because it's a lot easier to run. And easier to run = easier to customize. The Dungeon version required a LOT of extra work if you wanted to put a neh-thalguu in an adventure that didn't have a full allotment of brains, and that's not necessarily good game design.

Of course, you have an advantage we do not. You get to pick which version of the monster you want to use in your Pathfinder game.

As for the idea of free time... I'd probably spend it playing video games, watching movies, reading, writing, and going to check out something like the Olympic Peninsula or Mt. Rainier. Of course... just because Paizo closes down doesn't mean work stops—we've closed Paizo for a week before for Christmas breaks (not so much anymore, since a web store closing down during Christmas week is a poor idea), and work keeps on trucking.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kajehase wrote:
Have you heard any recordings by Paizo Kvartetten (the Paizo Quartet)?

Nope.


James,

Do you think that one could enchant masterwork thieves tools in a way similar to that of enchanting arms and armor? If so, how would one go about doing that?

Thanks!
L76M

Liberty's Edge

Some time ago in another thread you wrote

James Jacobs wrote:
Sammy123 wrote:
Can a paladin do LoH with during combat when holding a sword and light shield?
I believe so. A light shield allows spellcasters to use their hand to cast, and lets you carry an object; the only thing it actually prevents is wielding a weapon. Since lay on hands only requires you to touch someone, you could indeed use this ability while wearing a light shield.

and

James Jacobs wrote:


Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action, so the end result is the same whether or not you use the light shield hand to lay on hands or your weapon hand after switching your weapon to the off hand, and then back to your weapon hand.

The fact that allowing you to use your light shield hand to do so without so many fiddly steps is why I'd say it's fine to let it work that way.

I see no reference anywhere about spellcasting while a hand is encumbered by a light shield and the other is encumbered by a weapon or other thing and I have a bit of trouble accepting that you can use the same hand that grip the handle of the shield to do the "measured and precise movement of the hand" to do the somatic part of a spell.

I agree that you can freely shift the weapon to the other hand and cast without problems.

I have a bit more problem when the sequence is something like this:

1) left hand shield right hand weapon
2) grab your weapon with the left hand and release it with your right
3) pick up your spell components
4) somatic gesture and cast spell (possibly doing a touch attack too)
5) pass back your weapon from left to right
6) be ready to do your attacks of opportunity
7) in the meantime move your full movement

My opinion is that there are too many "free actions" in there. I would limit the guy doing that to a 5' adjustment and not full movement .

Your opinion?


Diego Rossi wrote:

Some time ago in another thread you wrote

James Jacobs wrote:
Sammy123 wrote:
Can a paladin do LoH with during combat when holding a sword and light shield?
I believe so. A light shield allows spellcasters to use their hand to cast, and lets you carry an object; the only thing it actually prevents is wielding a weapon. Since lay on hands only requires you to touch someone, you could indeed use this ability while wearing a light shield.

and

James Jacobs wrote:


Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action, so the end result is the same whether or not you use the light shield hand to lay on hands or your weapon hand after switching your weapon to the off hand, and then back to your weapon hand.

The fact that allowing you to use your light shield hand to do so without so many fiddly steps is why I'd say it's fine to let it work that way.

I see no reference anywhere about spellcasting while a hand is encumbered by a light shield and the other is encumbered by a weapon or other thing and I have a bit of trouble accepting that you can use the same hand that grip the handle of the shield to do the "measured and precise movement of the hand" to do the somatic part of a spell.

I agree that you can freely shift the weapon to the other hand and cast without problems.

I have a bit more problem when the sequence is something like this:

1) left hand shield right hand weapon
2) grab your weapon with the left hand and release it with your right
3) pick up your spell components
4) somatic gesture and cast spell (possibly doing a touch attack too)
5) pass back your weapon from left to right
6) be ready to do your attacks of opportunity
7) in the meantime move your full movement

My opinion is that there are too many "free actions" in there. I would limit the guy doing that to a 5' adjustment and not full movement .

Your opinion?

It is not so much about the number of free actions, but also the nature of the free actions. A hasted, rapid shot, many shot archer is making a free action for every arrow drawn. A zen archer monk is making a free action for every flurry of blows attack. That is 7 attacks. Add in the previous 2 feats and a haste, and you have about 10 free actions.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Level76mage wrote:

James,

Do you think that one could enchant masterwork thieves tools in a way similar to that of enchanting arms and armor? If so, how would one go about doing that?

Thanks!
L76M

Absolutely... only they'd be Wondrous Items, not armor or weapons. Check out the vest of escape in the Core Rulebook (page 532) as an example.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

I have a bit more problem when the sequence is something like this:

1) left hand shield right hand weapon
2) grab your weapon with the left hand and release it with your right
3) pick up your spell components
4) somatic gesture and cast spell (possibly doing a touch attack too)
5) pass back your weapon from left to right
6) be ready to do your attacks of opportunity
7) in the meantime move your full movement

My opinion is that there are too many "free actions" in there. I would limit the guy doing that to a 5' adjustment and not full movement .

My opinion is that that's an awful lot of clutter going on in the middle of a combat, and that I would indeed become annoyed at a player trying to do all of that at once because it slows down the game.

My take: you can do two of these three things in a round:

1) cast a spell
2) gain AC from a buckler or light shield
3) threaten with a weapon so you can take attacks of opportunity

Pick the two you want and that's the two you get.

And in the 2nd edition of Pathifnder, I'd champion adding "switch objects held in hands" to be a swift action, which would limit you to doing one per round.

Liberty's Edge

concerro wrote:


It is not so much about the number of free actions, but also the nature of the free actions. A hasted, rapid shot, many shot archer is making a free action for every arrow drawn. A zen archer monk is making a free action for every flurry of blows attack. That is 7 attacks. Add in the previous 2 feats and a haste, and you have about 10 free actions.

I don't know if you are agreeing or disagreeing. :)

I agree that the kind of action matter.
Your zen monk using a flurry of blows make 9 free actions (haste is a spell effect, so automatically outside the "normal"boundaries) but he is taking the arrow from a quiver that is designed to allow for fast drawing them.
He is well above what is humanly possible but this is a heroic game and he is not pushing too much. It is within the boundaries of game balance.

Casting a spell with somatic components wiggling left pinkie and thumb seem a bit outside those boundaries.

Switching your weapon so that you have a firm enough grip to move or use it is fast but not instantaneous.
Allowing the full use of shield, spellcasting, AoO, movement to a guy with shield and draw weapon (possibly a bastard sword) at the same time seem to go outside the boundaries too.

It stand on par with a wizard doing some tricky flying while wielding 2 wands in a hand, a staff in the other and spellcasting. Too much good stuff at the same time.

The Exchange

James Jacobs wrote:
kingpin wrote:

Hi James.

I've got a player in an an upcoming game who wants his character to at some point join the Hellknights. I feel there is little information on the pre-requisite of killing a devil.

Why do hellknight initiates have to kill a devil? The fact that devils are LE and hellknights are anti-chaos seems odd. Are the devil's summoned for the purpose of the initiation or are initiates asked to go out into the world and find their own devil to kill and bring back evidence?

Any insight on this would be most appreciated?

Please keep up the good work.

All that the Hellknight needs to do is kill a devil. Exactly HOW that comes about is up to the Hellknight-to-be.

One thing that's easy to forget about Hellknights is that they don't see themselves as allies of devils at all... they modeled their organization on Hell and use the names to help inspire intimidation, basically. They, like the Chelish government, see Hell and devils as tools that can be used to keep law and order and power. A Hellknight would be perfectly okay with summoning up a devil to aid in a fight against criminals, but wouldn't be as fine with entering into an alliance with a non-bound, non-controled devil.

By killing devils, Hellknights exert their dominance and prove that they're the ones in charge, basically, not the devils. The initial killing of a devil is a sort of initiation into the ranks; if you're good enough to kill a devil, you're good enough to join the Hellknights because the devil can't control you... you control him.

Whether or not the devil to be killed is summoned up for a spectator-style gladiatorial battle or the devil is killed in the course of an adventure doesn't matter. For PCs, the devil kill is more likely to happen during an adventure, of course.

Would it not behoove the devils to send weaker types of devils for this?? Maybe a devil that can pretend to be a more powerful type.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Who will bring Lamashtu presents on Mother's Day?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Crimson Jester wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
kingpin wrote:

Hi James.

I've got a player in an an upcoming game who wants his character to at some point join the Hellknights. I feel there is little information on the pre-requisite of killing a devil.

Why do hellknight initiates have to kill a devil? The fact that devils are LE and hellknights are anti-chaos seems odd. Are the devil's summoned for the purpose of the initiation or are initiates asked to go out into the world and find their own devil to kill and bring back evidence?

Any insight on this would be most appreciated?

Please keep up the good work.

All that the Hellknight needs to do is kill a devil. Exactly HOW that comes about is up to the Hellknight-to-be.

One thing that's easy to forget about Hellknights is that they don't see themselves as allies of devils at all... they modeled their organization on Hell and use the names to help inspire intimidation, basically. They, like the Chelish government, see Hell and devils as tools that can be used to keep law and order and power. A Hellknight would be perfectly okay with summoning up a devil to aid in a fight against criminals, but wouldn't be as fine with entering into an alliance with a non-bound, non-controled devil.

By killing devils, Hellknights exert their dominance and prove that they're the ones in charge, basically, not the devils. The initial killing of a devil is a sort of initiation into the ranks; if you're good enough to kill a devil, you're good enough to join the Hellknights because the devil can't control you... you control him.

Whether or not the devil to be killed is summoned up for a spectator-style gladiatorial battle or the devil is killed in the course of an adventure doesn't matter. For PCs, the devil kill is more likely to happen during an adventure, of course.

Would it not behoove the devils to send weaker types of devils for this?? Maybe a devil that can pretend to be a more powerful type.

The devils don't get to choose who mortals summon... unfortunately for a lot of low CR devils.


I cannot believe this came up as a serious issue of contention; but allow me to refer to you to offer clarity between RAW and RAI and common sense:

Core, page 59 wrote:
At 4th level, ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Bestiary 2, page 298 wrote:
Incorporeal (Ex) An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities.

What's under discussion is whether a monk with ki strike (magic) can hit an incorporeal creature. The ki strike (magic) states it is limited to only overcoming damage reduction - which doesn't cover the incorporeal conditions.


What's Paizo's unofficial take on the Valeros/Imrijka pairing? Any other Iconics who are in a relationship (Canon?) or otherwise connected (Fandom?)


I've noticed that some of the archetypes are things you can't choice at first level. Is there anything horribly wrong with a archetype you couldn't pick till much higher level? Maybe a caster that can do a bit more with certain high level spells or such?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

LoreKeeper wrote:

I cannot believe this came up as a serious issue of contention; but allow me to refer to you to offer clarity between RAW and RAI and common sense:

Core, page 59 wrote:
At 4th level, ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Bestiary 2, page 298 wrote:
Incorporeal (Ex) An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities.

What's under discussion is whether a monk with ki strike (magic) can hit an incorporeal creature. The ki strike (magic) states it is limited to only overcoming damage reduction - which doesn't cover the incorporeal conditions.

I would say that yes, ki strike would let you hit incorporeal ghosts. You get the power at about the point weapon-using characters would have magic weapons anyway; the point of the power is to let monks play along when so many creatures have DR/magic. No reason not to extend that to incorporeal as well.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

MisterSlanky wrote:

James, have you seen these two pictures by one of your esteemed contributing artists?

Link!

Do you think this possible, or was the victory really just in the imagination of the artist?

I've had the first one on my computer's art-rotation screensaver for a few years. Don't have the second one, since it's sad.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:
What's Paizo's unofficial take on the Valeros/Imrijka pairing? Any other Iconics who are in a relationship (Canon?) or otherwise connected (Fandom?)

There are no iconic sexual relationships in canon at all, but there's been a lot of them showing up in fandom.

As for Valeros/Imrijka... it's heart-warming to see that even Valeros can be loved.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

dunelord3001 wrote:
I've noticed that some of the archetypes are things you can't choice at first level. Is there anything horribly wrong with a archetype you couldn't pick till much higher level? Maybe a caster that can do a bit more with certain high level spells or such?

Nothing wrong with a high-level archetype at all.


Do you have an opinion about this guy's argument about the skill point system?

http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57#p/u/14/1M5pxBh7pWw


James Jacobs wrote:
dunelord3001 wrote:
I've noticed that some of the archetypes are things you can't choice at first level. Is there anything horribly wrong with a archetype you couldn't pick till much higher level? Maybe a caster that can do a bit more with certain high level spells or such?
Nothing wrong with a high-level archetype at all.

Any plans for high level archetypes?


Thanks James.

If you would be so kind, please go and inspire the Ultimate Magic shippers by your awesome presence ;) - maybe I'm lucky :)


I think I should ask a non-rules related question, to balance out my forum karma a bit :)

I've been preparing diligently for the last 5 months, working on two of my RPG Superstar entries (the wondrous item, and an archetype, hopeful that it will be relevant). I'm very happy how they have turned out, and I'm pretty confident the judges will like them too. I've tremendously enjoyed the development around the contest - and obviously was delighted that a good friend of mine - Jerall Toi - got so far!

What I'd like to know is: what (if any) special expectations you have for the 2012 RPG Superstar competition? Given the surging popularity of Pathfinder, it is likely to explode all boundaries of the competition that we've known up to now.

Sovereign Court

James Jacobs wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Might we see a white or green dragon cover from Wayne Reynolds on later major rulebooks (high-level guide, mythic rules etc, Bestiary III)? Is there any sense of working towards all five chromatics, or would you repeat red or blue or black on the cover? Metallics?

Not on a Bestiary (since Bestiaries have to have monsters that are actually in the book), but wayne's done a white dragon cover for us already (Pathfinder #5); we used that same cover for the cover of the Beta Pathfinder game.

Green would make a lot of sense for the next one to have him paint for a cover, since at that point, it's the only chromatic dragon we haven't seen from him.

Nothing could beat Prescott's green dragon from PF15! I love that art, it looks like a dinosaur charging forward.

7,501 to 7,550 of 83,732 << first < prev | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards