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


Off-Topic Discussions

76,001 to 76,050 of 77,320 << first < prev | 1516 | 1517 | 1518 | 1519 | 1520 | 1521 | 1522 | 1523 | 1524 | 1525 | 1526 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voltron64 wrote:
Is the dwarf on page 34 of the new CRB a rivethun?

Could be.


There is a spell called Magic Missile in Pathfinder. What does the word missile mean in this context? Does it mean any object used as a weapon by being thrown or fired through the air, such as stone, arrow or bullet? Or des it mean a self-propelled projectile whose trajectory can be adjusted after it is launched?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With a deeper reading of PF2, may I withdraw my worries (without being too embarrassment)?


If an NPC's statline displays 'vampire' without stating which type of vampire, is it safe to assume that this NPC is a moroi vampire as presented in Bestiary 1?

Dark Archive

Does Cheliaxian language still exist in 2e?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

The whole POINT of Sorshen's redemption is that she does not WANT to conquer nations or cities...

Sorshen isn't stupid. She knows that the world is a different place, and her goal is to rule in harmony, not in disharmony. She chose the region she did to establish New Thassilon specifically because no heroes would be compelled to rise up and defend a land she's conquering, because the Kodar Mountains and Xin-Shalast and the neighboring lands are wilderness regions.

So Lost Kingdoms laid the grounds for a campaign involving the slow colonization of Xin-Shalast by various Varisian factions. Additionally, Rise of the Runelords has a Continuing the Campaign bit about the heroes continuing to "pacify" Xin-Shalast.

Assuming that these plot threads were followed and a decent community consisting of a few high-level post-Rise adventurers has begun to form in Xin-Shalast, how might Sorshen react to these people who already call Xin-Shalast home?

Obviously something like this is up to GM interpretation, but a little insight into how a redeemed Sorshen might go about negotiating with adventurers who aren't especially keen to handing over Xin-Shalast to another Runelord would be nice.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
There is a spell called Magic Missile in Pathfinder. What does the word missile mean in this context? Does it mean any object used as a weapon by being thrown or fired through the air, such as stone, arrow or bullet? Or des it mean a self-propelled projectile whose trajectory can be adjusted after it is launched?

It means what the word missile means in the english language. It has no rules context whatsoever. It is and always has been flavor. The rules for how it works are in the spell itself. Don't overcomplicate things by reading in things that aren't there.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Does Cheliaxian language still exist in 2e?

There's never been a "Cheliaxian" language in 1st edition Pathfinder, and there's not one in 2nd either. The national language of Cheliax is Infernal, but most of its citizens speak Common for day-to-day stuff.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
With a deeper reading of PF2, may I withdraw my worries (without being too embarrassment)?

Absolutely. One of the most frustrating things we have to deal with here is the gulf between customers/gamers/readers assuming the worst when we can see that their assumptions are, in many cases, baseless, but we can't put those fears to rest since trying to do so before the books are out just adds fuel to the fire because folks read into what we say what they fear or think and make more assumptions.

FOR EVERYONE (Not just Lord Fyre!): Now that the game is out, I consider it a hard reset on folks, honestly, building opinions and feedback on the rules. If you love them, great! Let us know! If you don't love them, that's understandable too; let us know what bothered you or concerns you, but do it without being insulting or antagonistic, please... otherwise your feedback won't work because it'll get drowned out by the vitriol.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

5 people marked this as a favorite.
HTD wrote:
If an NPC's statline displays 'vampire' without stating which type of vampire, is it safe to assume that this NPC is a moroi vampire as presented in Bestiary 1?

If nothing else in the text for the character says otherwise, yes. But 2nd edition is more reliant on context and less reliant on coding all information into rules, so it's important to take the context of a character's description and role into account.

If/when we start putting in other types of vampires, we'll likely call them "nosferatu" or whatever rather than "Nosferatu vampire".

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bananahell wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

The whole POINT of Sorshen's redemption is that she does not WANT to conquer nations or cities...

Sorshen isn't stupid. She knows that the world is a different place, and her goal is to rule in harmony, not in disharmony. She chose the region she did to establish New Thassilon specifically because no heroes would be compelled to rise up and defend a land she's conquering, because the Kodar Mountains and Xin-Shalast and the neighboring lands are wilderness regions.

So Lost Kingdoms laid the grounds for a campaign involving the slow colonization of Xin-Shalast by various Varisian factions. Additionally, Rise of the Runelords has a Continuing the Campaign bit about the heroes continuing to "pacify" Xin-Shalast.

Assuming that these plot threads were followed and a decent community consisting of a few high-level post-Rise adventurers has begun to form in Xin-Shalast, how might Sorshen react to these people who already call Xin-Shalast home?

Obviously something like this is up to GM interpretation, but a little insight into how a redeemed Sorshen might go about negotiating with adventurers who aren't especially keen to handing over Xin-Shalast to another Runelord would be nice.

Sorshen would not react well. She'd defend her lands from colonization as best she could, and she's pretty good at that.

Frankly, that suggests to me an interesting potential plot where the PCs are exiles in New Thassilon and have to defend themselves from aggressive Linnorm Kings or Varisians or Shoanti, which would be an interesting inversion of the expected plot line.

THAT SAID: Going forward, I'm hoping that New Thassilon and Varisia will develop into a more friendly alliance than an aggressive one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
bananahell wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

The whole POINT of Sorshen's redemption is that she does not WANT to conquer nations or cities...

Sorshen isn't stupid. She knows that the world is a different place, and her goal is to rule in harmony, not in disharmony. She chose the region she did to establish New Thassilon specifically because no heroes would be compelled to rise up and defend a land she's conquering, because the Kodar Mountains and Xin-Shalast and the neighboring lands are wilderness regions.

So Lost Kingdoms laid the grounds for a campaign involving the slow colonization of Xin-Shalast by various Varisian factions. Additionally, Rise of the Runelords has a Continuing the Campaign bit about the heroes continuing to "pacify" Xin-Shalast.

Assuming that these plot threads were followed and a decent community consisting of a few high-level post-Rise adventurers has begun to form in Xin-Shalast, how might Sorshen react to these people who already call Xin-Shalast home?

Obviously something like this is up to GM interpretation, but a little insight into how a redeemed Sorshen might go about negotiating with adventurers who aren't especially keen to handing over Xin-Shalast to another Runelord would be nice.

Sorshen would not react well. She'd defend her lands from colonization as best she could, and she's pretty good at that.

Frankly, that suggests to me an interesting potential plot where the PCs are exiles in New Thassilon and have to defend themselves from aggressive Linnorm Kings or Varisians or Shoanti, which would be an interesting inversion of the expected plot line.

THAT SAID: Going forward, I'm hoping that New Thassilon and Varisia will develop into a more friendly alliance than an aggressive one.

But in this supposition it's Sorshen that'd be colonizing another people's land. I'd like clarification on this, because I was also wondering.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
bananahell wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

The whole POINT of Sorshen's redemption is that she does not WANT to conquer nations or cities...

Sorshen isn't stupid. She knows that the world is a different place, and her goal is to rule in harmony, not in disharmony. She chose the region she did to establish New Thassilon specifically because no heroes would be compelled to rise up and defend a land she's conquering, because the Kodar Mountains and Xin-Shalast and the neighboring lands are wilderness regions.

So Lost Kingdoms laid the grounds for a campaign involving the slow colonization of Xin-Shalast by various Varisian factions. Additionally, Rise of the Runelords has a Continuing the Campaign bit about the heroes continuing to "pacify" Xin-Shalast.

Assuming that these plot threads were followed and a decent community consisting of a few high-level post-Rise adventurers has begun to form in Xin-Shalast, how might Sorshen react to these people who already call Xin-Shalast home?

Obviously something like this is up to GM interpretation, but a little insight into how a redeemed Sorshen might go about negotiating with adventurers who aren't especially keen to handing over Xin-Shalast to another Runelord would be nice.

Sorshen would not react well. She'd defend her lands from colonization as best she could, and she's pretty good at that.

Frankly, that suggests to me an interesting potential plot where the PCs are exiles in New Thassilon and have to defend themselves from aggressive Linnorm Kings or Varisians or Shoanti, which would be an interesting inversion of the expected plot line.

THAT SAID: Going forward, I'm hoping that New Thassilon and Varisia will develop into a more friendly alliance than an aggressive one.

But in this supposition it's Sorshen that'd be colonizing another people's land. I'd like clarification on this, because I was also wondering.

AH! If folks have generalized it in print as "New Thassilon wants to colonize all its neighbors" then that's an error of overgeneralization, alas.

At the outset, New Thassilon is in a state of flux, with two potential leaders. To the east you have Sorshen who wants the nation to be a haven for exiles and a safe place for those who flee other nations to pursue their arts. To the west, you have Belimarius, who is classic evil runelord and who IS trying to conquer the surrounding lands... both parts of Varisia, parts of the LInnorm Kingdoms, what remains of the elven stuff in Mierani... and her fellow runelord, Sorshen.

The burgeoning civil war in Thassilon is a potential plot. Sorshen isn't one to step in and squash Belimarius because she's trying to be above that, having seen other runelords try it over and over and get burned for it. Her take is that Belimarius is going to get what's coming to her soon enough from angry heroes, after which point or during which point Sorshen might provide aid or assistance to the heroes so she can come off as an ally rather than as another tyrant.

It's all kinda set up for a potential storyline that I'd love to tell in a novel or an Adventure Path or something at some point... but externally and internally there's a sort of "I've had enough runelords/Varisia" stuff going on so I'm letting it lie low for now.

Dark Archive

Ooooh yeah Cheliaxians didn't have regional language, dunno how I forgot that.

So come to think about it, if paizo ever does orc ancestry, do you need new ancestry feats for them since half orc heritage lists a lot of orc ancestry feats already?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think I'm not explaining what I mean well enough (english is my 3rd language, sorry). I mean, if the PC's of Rise of the Runelords continued the campaing claiming Xin-Shalast and/or delegations from the varisian city-states moved there, how would Sorshen deal with that in establishing New Thassilon?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
So come to think about it, if paizo ever does orc ancestry, do you need new ancestry feats for them since half orc heritage lists a lot of orc ancestry feats already?

There's nothing in the Core Rulebook that says "These are the only ancestry feats we'll ever create." Stay tuned for more!

Silver Crusade

Amaranthine Witch wrote:
I think I'm not explaining what I mean well enough (english is my 3rd language, sorry). I mean, if the PC's of Rise of the Runelords continued the campaing claiming Xin-Shalast and/or delegations from the varisian city-states moved there, how would Sorshen deal with that in establishing New Thassilon?

If I can help out here, I believe what Amarenthine Witch is saying is: The "Continuing the Campaign" section of Rise of the Runelords suggests that the PCs might want to, effectively, colonize Xin-Shalast. If that happens, in that GM's timeline, immediately after Rise of the Runelords and before Return of the Runelords, Sorshen does not have an empty wilderness to claim unchallenged.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Amaranthine Witch wrote:
I think I'm not explaining what I mean well enough (english is my 3rd language, sorry). I mean, if the PC's of Rise of the Runelords continued the campaing claiming Xin-Shalast and/or delegations from the varisian city-states moved there, how would Sorshen deal with that in establishing New Thassilon?

That'd depend entirely on what sort of game you wanted to run. If you wanted one where the Sorshen was the enemy, she'd oppose them. If you wanted one that was more about politics she'd have a more diplomatic interaction. It's up to you.

If it were MY game, I'd have Sorshen strike a deal with the PCs to fight against Belimarius to help cement an alliance with the Sorshen side.


When I found out the occult spell list was included in the playtest, I was very confused, because no occult class was present in the book. Then I found out that, in the playtest and in Second Edition, the bard class is an occult spellcaster instead of an arcane spellcaster. Then if Paizo decided to make the bard class as an arcane class intead of an occult class, would there be no occult spell list in the playtest and Second Edition Core Rulebook?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
When I found out the occult spell list was included in the playtest, I was very confused, because no occult class was present in the book. Then I found out that, in the playtest and in Second Edition, the bard class is an occult spellcaster instead of an arcane spellcaster. Then if Paizo decided to make the bard class as an arcane class intead of an occult class, would there be no occult spell list in the playtest and Second Edition Core Rulebook?

A core element of 2nd edition Pathifnder is that there are four traditions of magic, as discussed on page 299 of the rules.

We wanted to include a full spellcaster for each of the four traditions, and have a 5th one in the form of the sorcerer be one who can use any of those four, giving us 5 spellcasting classes out of the 12 base classes.

That meant we needed to assign four of the base classes to those four traditions.

Wizard, Cleric, and Druid all were easy. Arcane, Divine, and Primal.

The tricky one was Occult. We COULD have put a psychic or something like that into the book, but I wasn't about to let there not be a bard in the book! :P

We decided to make bards be occult spellcasters as a result, and the fit really does mesh pretty well.

If we decided to keep the bard as an arcane spellcaster, it wouldn't have been in the core rules. Likewise, if we'd decided to keep the druid as a divine spellcaster, it wouldn't have been int he core rules.

I feel that these changes—the additions of occult and primal magic—make the game FAR more interesting, especially when viewed as four essences of magic (see page 300). It not only allows us to go forward with new books without having to build custom spell lists for any new spellcaster classes we come up with (something that grew increasingly awkward and clumsy in the later rulebooks), but helps to flavor the magic in Pathfinder in a very unique and different way that makes it feel less like a D&D clone and more like its own thing.


James Jacobs wrote:
If we decided to keep the bard as an arcane spellcaster, it wouldn't have been in the core rules. Likewise, if we'd decided to keep the druid as a divine spellcaster, it wouldn't have been int he core rules.

I'm not sure what does the pronoun "it" refer to in this context. Does the paragraph above mean "If we decided to keep the bard as an arcane spellcaster, the occult spell list wouldn't have been in the core rules. Likewise, if we'd decided to keep the druid as a divine spellcaster, the primal spell list wouldn't have been in the core rules."? Or does that mean "If we decided to keep the bard as an arcane spllcaster, the bard class wouldn't have been in the core rules and other occult spellcasting class would have been included instead. Likewise, if we'd decided to keep the druid as a divine spellcaster, the druid class wouldn't have been in the core rules and other primal spellcasting class would have been included instead."?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
If we decided to keep the bard as an arcane spellcaster, it wouldn't have been in the core rules. Likewise, if we'd decided to keep the druid as a divine spellcaster, it wouldn't have been int he core rules.
I'm not sure what does the pronoun "it" refer to in this context. Does the paragraph above mean "If we decided to keep the bard as an arcane spellcaster, the occult spell list wouldn't have been in the core rules. Likewise, if we'd decided to keep the druid as a divine spellcaster, the primal spell list wouldn't have been in the core rules."? Or does that mean "If we decided to keep the bard as an arcane spllcaster, the bard class wouldn't have been in the core rules and other occult spellcasting class would have been included instead. Likewise, if we'd decided to keep the druid as a divine spellcaster, the druid class wouldn't have been in the core rules and other primal spellcasting class would have been included instead."?

The pronoun "it" refers to the class. Having four magic traditions in 2nd edition is one of the things that we were 100% committed to, and the four spellcasting classes that epitomized those four needed to each be focused on one of them.

We wanted four magic traditions, and four spellcasters to match. We also wanted to preserve as many of the core base classes as base classes.

Bard was the best thematic choice to change, and so we did.


Dear James Jacobs,

Since 2nd edition clearly changes some things, does that mean that some of the Great Old Ones that were CN are now CE? Or that's just a case by case basis?


First Edition Core Rulebook was published in 2009 and Occult Adventures was published in 2015. Does that mean we have to wait six years to actually play other occult spellcaster classes in Second Edition?


James Jacobs wrote:
FOR EVERYONE (Not just Lord Fyre!): Now that the game is out, I consider it a hard reset on folks, honestly, building opinions and feedback on the rules. If you love them, great! Let us know! If you don't love them, that's understandable too; let us know what bothered you or concerns you, but do it without being insulting or antagonistic, please... otherwise your feedback won't work because it'll get drowned out by the vitriol.

I'm looking forward to the next slot opening up in my gaming groups' schedule so I can try out the final rules. I only got 3 games with the playtest, and we generally liked how it played, with just one game design peeve. We felt that characters should have gotten more options at low level.

Maybe it's because we were coming off end-of-product-life PF1 where you'd start with some traits, and you'd swap out some abilities with an archetype. Maybe it's because all four players were paladins who start off with a whole suite of boons that now take until I think level 8 to acquire. We just wanted more stuff our characters could do.

Then again, we've been gaming for years. Maybe we'll just start our next campaign at 8th level.

---

This is a questions thread, so I'm curious, what's your favorite lore change/update with the timeline progressing?

I rather love the small tweak that they're called aeon stones now.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
First Edition Core Rulebook was published in 2009 and Occult Adventures was published in 2015. Does that mean we have to wait six years to actually play other occult spellcaster classes in Second Edition?

We are not going to mirror our releases for 2nd edition to the schedule of releases from 1st edition, nor are we going to reveal what our plans out to six years are. If you want to see us update something from 1st edition to 2nd, let us know in the appropriate places on these boards, but keep in mind that we want to do new things too.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Dear James Jacobs,

Since 2nd edition clearly changes some things, does that mean that some of the Great Old Ones that were CN are now CE? Or that's just a case by case basis?

Nocticula is the only divinity whose alignment got a big change in the switchover, and that's because of a long-term story arc, not an edition change (note that her change in alignment actually happens during Return of the Runelords, several months BEFORE the edition change).

The rest of the deities are staying the same alignment.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RangerWickett wrote:

This is a questions thread, so I'm curious, what's your favorite lore change/update with the timeline progressing?

I rather love the small tweak that they're called aeon stones now.

The Nocticula change is my favorite. It's one that I'd wanted to have happen years ago, but for various reasons it got put off a bit too long.


James Jacobs wrote:
RangerWickett wrote:

This is a questions thread, so I'm curious, what's your favorite lore change/update with the timeline progressing?

I rather love the small tweak that they're called aeon stones now.

The Nocticula change is my favorite. It's one that I'd wanted to have happen years ago, but for various reasons it got put off a bit too long.

The timing was great. Our group wrapped up PF1 with a campaign involving four paladins, and around, oh, 14th level they delved into the Darklands to find a rift to Rovagug's cage so they could rescue someone who had been sucked inside.

Along the way they basically redeemed a drow city through a mix of ass-kicking, using a psychic monster's own web of mind control to cast good hope on the whole city, and then convincing a CN priestess of Nocticula who had a rapport with one PC to ask her mistress for guidance.

And Nocticula granted her the spell hallow to bless her temple, as a sign that it was time to change.

---

By the by, who responds to queries sent to licensing@paizo.com?


In both First and Second Edition, if Feiya cast Charm Person or Dominate Monster on Ezren and the spell failed or Ezren successfully resisted the spell's effect, would the caster(in this case, Feiya) immediately know her spell failed or was resisted? I ask this because I'm not sure whether Ezren can pretend to be enchanted or not.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

In the skills chapter of the PF2E CRB there's an example of Ezren "crafting a rune". To me, a rune is a symbol. It has to be put somewhere, like on a weapon or armor, or a runestone. So where is Ezren putting this rune? Have I missed something?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

RangerWickett wrote:

The timing was great. Our group wrapped up PF1 with a campaign involving four paladins, and around, oh, 14th level they delved into the Darklands to find a rift to Rovagug's cage so they could rescue someone who had been sucked inside.

Along the way they basically redeemed a drow city through a mix of ass-kicking, using a psychic monster's own web of mind control to cast good hope on the whole city, and then convincing a CN priestess of Nocticula who had a rapport with one PC to ask her mistress for guidance.

And Nocticula granted her the spell hallow to bless her temple, as a sign that it was time to change.

---

By the by, who responds to queries sent to licensing@paizo.com?

Thanks for sharing the cool story, and thanks for wrapping up with a question!

I'm not sure who responds to queries sent there, but it'd probably be someone on the Marketing Team.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
In both First and Second Edition, if Feiya cast Charm Person or Dominate Monster on Ezren and the spell failed or Ezren successfully resisted the spell's effect, would the caster(in this case, Feiya) immediately know her spell failed or was resisted? I ask this because I'm not sure whether Ezren can pretend to be enchanted or not.

Yes. The caster always knows if the spell fails. The "I pretend to be enchanted" is something that requires specific feats or abilities or the like, and even then it's not automatic.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
In the skills chapter of the PF2E CRB there's an example of Ezren "crafting a rune". To me, a rune is a symbol. It has to be put somewhere, like on a weapon or armor, or a runestone. So where is Ezren putting this rune? Have I missed something?

Runes are a new magic item in 2nd edition; check the magic item section. They're ways to transfer or carry weapon and armor magic qualities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What was the reason behind the choice to make Goblins a Charisma Boosted ancestry? It seems strange to have such a reviled species only just a decade ago suddenly become charming. I've seen arguments for their love of singing, but they also love crafting things out of garbage, so Intelligence seems to be equally viable.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bananahell wrote:
What was the reason behind the choice to make Goblins a Charisma Boosted ancestry? It seems strange to have such a reviled species only just a decade ago suddenly become charming. I've seen arguments for their love of singing, but they also love crafting things out of garbage, so Intelligence seems to be equally viable.

Just because something is ugly doesn't mean it can't be charismatic. In fact, look at how popular goblins have become! That's not because they're smart or wise... it's because they've got the perfect combo of cute and scary meshed together. Plus we've established that they have strong bard traditions with their singing.

They do craft things out of garbage, but the things they make are still kinda garbage and not well made.

And from a game mechanic viewpoint, the designers wanted to spread the Int, Wis, and Cha around between the three short races, if I recall correctly, rather than double up. For a time, goblins and halflings had identical boosts and folks (rightly) pointed out how weird that was.

I could see halflings being wise OR charismaic (and gnomes own intelligence pretty hard), but goblins? Not wise.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Going off a question I asked a ways back, what would the current Nocticula's opinion be on one of her followers summmoning/using a Succubi as a model for a piece of art?


Can you tell me which feats or abilities do I need to pretend to be enchanted in both First and Second Edition? I ask this because I really wish to use this tactic someday!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Going off a question I asked a ways back, what would the current Nocticula's opinion be on one of her followers summmoning/using a Succubi as a model for a piece of art?

She'd think they were playing with fire, but often memorable art needs to have an element of danger to it. She doesn't micromanage her artist worshipers, though, so it's not really ever gonna be an issue.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Aenigma wrote:
Can you tell me which feats or abilities do I need to pretend to be enchanted in both First and Second Edition? I ask this because I really wish to use this tactic someday!

Not off the top of my head.

It sounds like the type of tactic that Ultimate Intrigue would have covered for 1st edition. I'm pretty sure the option for this hasn't shown up in 2nd edition yet.

You'd be better served asking on other threads where other players can help, I guess. Asking in the PFS threads might be a good bet; those folks really know a lot about player options.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

What are some of the monsters that you're excited to bring over into 2e?
And a sub question (sorry, breaking your rules), are you contributing to Bestiary 2, which was just announced?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

What kind of offerings/tasks does Nocticula like? Aside from making art I’m assuming.

(Tried thinking of something that might not be covered in Gods and Magic)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shadram wrote:

What are some of the monsters that you're excited to bring over into 2e?

And a sub question (sorry, breaking your rules), are you contributing to Bestiary 2, which was just announced?

Treerazer!

And while I wasn't hired to do any of the initial design for Bestiary 2, I am going to be developing every one of those monsters, so in a way I'm doing all of them! :P

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

What kind of offerings/tasks does Nocticula like? Aside from making art I’m assuming.

(Tried thinking of something that might not be covered in Gods and Magic)

Works of art are the best option.


Treerazer hates elves. Does he hate drow, aquatic elves, snow elves, and wild elves as well? Maybe he likes drow very much because they are chaotic evil and worship demons?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
Treerazer hates elves. Does he hate drow, aquatic elves, snow elves, and wild elves as well? Maybe he likes drow very much because they are chaotic evil and worship demons?

He hates them all, but values drow as pawns and minions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
shadram wrote:

What are some of the monsters that you're excited to bring over into 2e?

And a sub question (sorry, breaking your rules), are you contributing to Bestiary 2, which was just announced?

Treerazer!

And while I wasn't hired to do any of the initial design for Bestiary 2, I am going to be developing every one of those monsters, so in a way I'm doing all of them! :P

So, when you write adventures or monsters you're essentially a freelancer?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Loving 2nd edition so far and really looking forward to GMing my first session of it next week. One dilemma I'm facing is that it seems Hero Points are a mandatory part of the system this time around rather than an optional rule. If I were to remove Hero Points would that leave my players underpowered?


what happens when an Alchemist uses double brew/alchemical alacrity?

do the extra 1-2 vials just drop to the ground, does he holds them all in his one hand, can he just use it in sort of like a "two-three action activity" to give them to someone else some to hold as he makes them/drink some of them as he makes them (adhering to the +1 action per drunk/given vial ofc)?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

One problem I am seeing with the way the summon lists have been broken up, the Chelish Diabolist is no longer a valid concept.

These characters have, until now, been wizards. But wizards can no longer summon fiends.

Can you suggest a work-around?

76,001 to 76,050 of 77,320 << first < prev | 1516 | 1517 | 1518 | 1519 | 1520 | 1521 | 1522 | 1523 | 1524 | 1525 | 1526 | 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.