Thank you for answering my earlier question on free will! Hearing your perspective always gives me nice ideas for my campaigns :)
I have another somewhat layered question on the topic of infernal contracts: how does their power work?
What I mean is: say I trade my soul to a contract devil in exchange for a great singing voice.
Does this contract supernaturally give that devil the ability to grant a wish? Or where does my newfound talent come from?
(If you are annoyed by me explaining my questions please just say so and I will try to keep it shorter in the future - I'm only used to providing details for questions because of my profession and hope it's making it easier for you to give an answerw)
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for answering my earlier question on free will! Hearing your perspective always gives me nice ideas for my campaigns :)
I have another somewhat layered question on the topic of infernal contracts: how does their power work?
What I mean is: say I trade my soul to a contract devil in exchange for a great singing voice.
Does this contract supernaturally give that devil the ability to grant a wish? Or where does my newfound talent come from?
(If you are annoyed by me explaining my questions please just say so and I will try to keep it shorter in the future - I'm only used to providing details for questions because of my profession and hope it's making it easier for you to give an answerw)
It comes from Hell. Which means you are benefiting from Hell's favor and influence. It doesn't give the devil the power to grant you this... it allows Hell itself to reach out and bolster your power.
Hell is the engine and the fuel. The devil is the one who turns that engine on inside of your soul and fills up your tank with evil.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey James... question for you.
someone said that The Cheliaxians were jsut ethnic Taldane.( and they said you said it) But the old lore stated though when the Azlanti colonized what became Cheliax it was witheither the varisian or Ulfen. Wouldnt having them ne ethnic Ulfen or Varisian make more sense?
Chelaxian is a nationality, not an ethnicity. Before Taldor expanded into the region during the third army of exploration back in 1520 or thereabouts, the region known today as Cheliax had been for thousands of years a sparsely populated wilderness. Kellids were probably the most populous in the area, but not populous enough for their numbers to really make a difference once Taldor moved into the region in force.
Go back further from there, and you had Jistkans living there back circa –3500 AR, but they were pretty much gone for a few thousand years before Taldor came along.
And so the modern Chelaxian is mostly descended from Taldans. There's certainly been some mixing between ancestries, but in my opinion not enough to differentiate and justify "Chelaxian" as its own ancestry.
And so we changed it.
Dear James Jacobs,
If Rob Zombie and Tarantino were to team up on a movie, do you think it would be any good?
Hi James,
I was wondering if fey are naturally born on Golarion and if fey from the First World function like outsiders in terms of magic that affect the cycle of souls while they are on the Material Plane. Thanks!
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi James,
I was wondering if fey are naturally born on Golarion and if fey from the First World function like outsiders in terms of magic that affect the cycle of souls while they are on the Material Plane. Thanks!
Fey born into somewhere other than the First World have their souls treated like any other creature. Those born into the First World recycle back into the First World via reincarnation. Usually. There are exceptions.
|
What would you recommend doing if a spellcaster wanted a magic staff that was a bit sturdier to crack the heads of enemies that get too close to them? It seems pretty clear that all the magic staves in 2e are limited to the baseline staff that does 1d4 damage or 1d8 with 2 hands, but that doesn't seem very well reflective of someone who decides to put a flanged mace head on the top of their staff like this thing (this is less about doing actual damage with the weapon than it is about bringing the stats more in line with the aesthetic I want the character to display)?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would you recommend doing if a spellcaster wanted a magic staff that was a bit sturdier to crack the heads of enemies that get too close to them? It seems pretty clear that all the magic staves in 2e are limited to the baseline staff that does 1d4 damage or 1d8 with 2 hands, but that doesn't seem very well reflective of someone who decides to put a flanged mace head on the top of their staff (this is less about doing actual damage with the weapon than it is about bringing the stats more in line with the aesthetic I want the character to display)?
I feel like the classic magic staff should NOT be a powerful weapon. What you're looking for is something that rolls two held items into one—a magic mace, and a magic staff. It's certainly something you could do, but since it takes two different roles and mashes them into one and saves on hand-space, it's more powerful than a weapon or staff alone. If a PC wanted to craft something like this, I'd have the gathering of recipes and formulas and materials to create the item be the focus of a personal quest or three—I'd make the player work for it. If I were making this as a GM as a treasure, I'd absolutely make it a rare item that's custom made and serves as the reward for a longer adventure.
It kinda feels like what you want is a fighter who can cast spells as well as a wizard, more or less. That's not the way the game's designed—it's meant to split those roles among multiple characters, and thus among multiple treasures.
In a single-player solo game, that's a different story, and meshing things like this together can be a good way to kludge in a fix to make up for the fact that there's not a group of complimentary characters working together as a team, I suppose.
|
|
I see. It's not that I want to be a fighter who can cast spells as well as a wizard. It's more that I don't want to encounter awkward questions from GMs and fellow players like "You just described your magic staff as having a big flanged head, basically a greatclub, how the heck it that doing only 1d4 damage? A weapon that does 1d4 damage should look more like a twig. Is it made out of balsa wood?!"
How do I avoid that?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see. It's not that I want to be a fighter who can cast spells as well as a wizard. It's more that I don't want to encounter awkward questions from GMs and fellow players like "You just described your magic staff as having a big flanged head, basically a greatclub, how the heck it that doing only 1d4 damage? A weapon that does 1d4 damage should look more like a twig. Is it made out of balsa wood?!"
How do I avoid that?
You avoid it by not having a magic staff look like something it's not.
That doesn't mean your staff has to look like a twig. All staves do 1d4 damage (1d8 two-handed), and staves are not illustrated to look like twigs.
And staves often have decorative heads as well. Rather than say "my staff has a big flanged head" instead say "my staff has a flanged head" and don't describe it as a greatclub.
Or learn an illusion spell to make it look different, I guess.
You wouldn't play a fighter armed with a hatchet and describe the hatchet as a greataxe, so I'm not sure why you'd want to describe a staff not as a staff but as a greatclub.
When does Nocticula stop granting spells to her evil followers? I would guess that it’s around the time of the end of the Return of the Runelords AP, sometime in early 4719 AR.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When does Nocticula stop granting spells to her evil followers? I would guess that it’s around the time of the end of the Return of the Runelords AP, sometime in early 4719 AR.
When she ascended to full deity-hood. Around the time of Return of the Runelords, which is 4718 AR.
|
|
You wouldn't play a fighter armed with a hatchet and describe the hatchet as a greataxe, so I'm not sure why you'd want to describe a staff not as a staff but as a greatclub.
You're absolutely right, but I'm interested in designing a character that looks like the guy in the middle of this picture. Does that clarify what I'm trying to say?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You wouldn't play a fighter armed with a hatchet and describe the hatchet as a greataxe, so I'm not sure why you'd want to describe a staff not as a staff but as a greatclub.Mostly because I'm interested in designing a character that looks like the guy in the middle of this picture. Does that clarify what I'm trying to say?
What I think of when I look at that guy in the middle is that he's a champion or a cleric, not a wizard, and that the weapon he carries is a weapon, not a staff.
|
|
What I think of when I look at that guy in the middle is that he's a champion or a cleric, not a wizard, and that the weapon he carries is a weapon, not a staff.You wouldn't play a fighter armed with a hatchet and describe the hatchet as a greataxe, so I'm not sure why you'd want to describe a staff not as a staff but as a greatclub.Mostly because I'm interested in designing a character that looks like the guy in the middle of this picture. Does that clarify what I'm trying to say?
He's...supposed to be Merlin? I probably should have said that first, I'm sorry. :(
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's...supposed to be Merlin? I probably should have said that first, I'm sorry. :(What I think of when I look at that guy in the middle is that he's a champion or a cleric, not a wizard, and that the weapon he carries is a weapon, not a staff.You wouldn't play a fighter armed with a hatchet and describe the hatchet as a greataxe, so I'm not sure why you'd want to describe a staff not as a staff but as a greatclub.Mostly because I'm interested in designing a character that looks like the guy in the middle of this picture. Does that clarify what I'm trying to say?
Doesn't look like Merlin to me. And making "Merlin" in a game like Pathfinder is already going to be fraught—that character, like any legendary figure, is better built as an NPC than as a PC, so that the GM can fudge rules as needed.
So I've been running Rise of the Runelords converted to PF2 (well, to the playtest up until a couple weeks ago) and it works extremely well for a lot of things. I have noticed that many of the Runelords encounters use extremely weak enemies relative to the party's level, sometimes falling outside of the +/- 4 levels rule. Level 1 ghouls don't make much of a threat to level 6 PCs. And soon my 8th party will be taking on a bunch of 3rd level Kreeg ogres.
This certainly doesn't make for challenging encounters, but it is nice to let your PCs feel awesome and tear through some lower level foes. On the other hand, my more recent AP (Ironfang Invasion) seems to keep its enemies much closer to the PF2 encounter guidelines. Buffing some encounters is nothing new to anyone who has run for optimized PF1 PCs, so I'm curious if I should be doing so here.
James, would you mind sharing your thoughts on whether or not I should run these encounters as written? Perhaps share some insight into how the adventure design philosophy of encounters has evolved in the last ten years? Thanks!
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I've been running Rise of the Runelords converted to PF2 (well, to the playtest up until a couple weeks ago) and it works extremely well for a lot of things. I have noticed that many of the Runelords encounters use extremely weak enemies relative to the party's level, sometimes falling outside of the +/- 4 levels rule. Level 1 ghouls don't make much of a threat to level 6 PCs. And soon my 8th party will be taking on a bunch of 3rd level Kreeg ogres.
This certainly doesn't make for challenging encounters, but it is nice to let your PCs feel awesome and tear through some lower level foes. On the other hand, my more recent AP (Ironfang Invasion) seems to keep its enemies much closer to the PF2 encounter guidelines. Buffing some encounters is nothing new to anyone who has run for optimized PF1 PCs, so I'm curious if I should be doing so here.
James, would you mind sharing your thoughts on whether or not I should run these encounters as written? Perhaps share some insight into how the adventure design philosophy of encounters has evolved in the last ten years? Thanks!
I think it's important to let the players feel the result of their characters growing more powerful. If every fight is an edge of the seat thing, whether you're 1st level fighting a Severe encounter made of kobolds, or 20th level fighting a Severe encounter of pit fiends, the game feels the same. Now and then, it's good to let the PCs fight things that they completely outclass.
The pacing of that is best left to the individual GM, though. We generally don't do many of these in print these days because we have to stick to a schedule of encounters that actually award XP, so that the plot can progress to 20th level in the span of 6 adventures.
When converting an adventure from 1st edition, I would tend to try to preserve the original theme of the encounter, rather than the exact mechanics. So if that fight with a bunch of lower level foes in 1st edition was a medium-strength encounter, then in 2nd edition you should aim to build that encounter as a Moderate one. But don't lash yourself in—stay agile and willing to adjust on the fly as the game flow suggests.
I think it's important to let the players feel the result of their characters growing more powerful. If every fight is an edge of the seat thing, whether you're 1st level fighting a Severe encounter made of kobolds, or 20th level fighting a Severe encounter of pit fiends, the game feels the same. Now and then, it's good to let the PCs fight things that they completely outclass.
The pacing of that is best left to the individual GM, though. We generally don't do many of these in print these days because we have to stick to a schedule of encounters that actually award XP, so that the plot can progress to 20th level in the span of 6 adventures.
When converting an adventure from 1st edition, I would tend to try to preserve the original theme of the encounter, rather than the exact mechanics. So if that fight with a bunch of lower level foes in 1st edition was a medium-strength encounter, then in 2nd...
Thank you for the response, and for providing such a fun playground for me and my friends. Your advise mirrors my own thinking.
If I could use a specific example: what would you think about giving the Elite template to the Kreeg ogres at Fort Rannick? It would push them just to the point of what the encounter table considers relevant (APL-4) while still being crit magnets for the PC. It would also signify that the Kreeg ogres are a little more dangerous than average ogres, even in the rank and file.
Alternatively, I can just let them be cannon fodder-- most of them are going to die from burning or collapsing buildings anyway, and the named Kreeg fighters are the only really threats.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I could use a specific example: what would you think about giving the Elite template to the Kreeg ogres at Fort Rannick? It would push them just to the point of what the encounter table considers relevant (APL-4) while still being crit magnets for the PC. It would also signify that the Kreeg ogres are a little more dangerous than average ogres, even in the rank and file.
Alternatively, I can just let them be cannon fodder-- most of them are going to die from burning or collapsing buildings anyway, and the named Kreeg fighters are the only really threats.
The elite template works great when you're pressed for space (and don't have the room to create a full stat block) or time (and don't have the luxury of building a full stat block)... but if you're building up encounters and conversions before the game and have the time, it's always better to build the monster stat blocks in full.
For the Kreegs, I'd be tempted to build unique stat blocks for ALL the named ogres so that they'd all be individuals and memorable in their own way. I wouldn't consign them to being cannon fodder.
When does Nocticula stop granting spells to her evil followers? I would guess that it’s around the time of the end of the Return of the Runelords AP, sometime in early 4719 AR.When she ascended to full deity-hood. Around the time of Return of the Runelords, which is 4718 AR.
Might some other deity be quietly feeding those Nocticula worshipers their spells in her place?
The elite template works great when you're pressed for space (and don't have the room to create a full stat block) or time (and don't have the luxury of building a full stat block)... but if you're building up encounters and conversions before the game and have the time, it's always better to build the monster stat blocks in full.For the Kreegs, I'd be tempted to build unique stat blocks for ALL the named ogres so that they'd all be individuals and memorable in their own way. I wouldn't consign them to being cannon fodder.
Oh, I certainly don't want the named Ogres to be cannon fodder. I was already thinking that an ogre glutton with the stats of an ogre boss would make a pretty good Jolly, for example. I'd like to do cool stat blocks for each one, but the lack of monster creation rules coupled with the community hacks not having caught up yet makes that a tough process when you have multiple games going.
I suppose that could be as simple as using the Ogre boss's numbers for all of them but giving each some unique moves though. Food for thought!
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would a Were-T-Rex be something you’d like to put in an Adventure?
Nope. Size difference is too big. Maybe a giant, but by that point it's already kinda breaking the whole point of a werecreature, which is that it makes a human into a monster, not a monster into a monster.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Might some other deity be quietly feeding those Nocticula worshipers their spells in her place?When does Nocticula stop granting spells to her evil followers? I would guess that it’s around the time of the end of the Return of the Runelords AP, sometime in early 4719 AR.When she ascended to full deity-hood. Around the time of Return of the Runelords, which is 4718 AR.
Nope. Pathfinder clerics don't work that way. If only because I don't even want to IMPLY that it's okay for a GM to pull a fast one on a player by saying "Ha ha, your deity isn't the one you revere, but someone you hate." When a cleric prays to a deity, they are praying to that deity. If that deity can't or won't grant them power because they're dead or because the worshiper isn't worshiping appropriately (as in the case of an evil person worshiping Nocticula) the "worshiper" doesn't get cleric powers. It's pretty obvious to the worshiper. Their choice at that point is to adjust their attitude and worship in a way that meshes with that deity, or find a different deity more in line with their own interests.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to Lords of Chaos p. 37, nascent demon lords are able to grant spells to those creatures and individuals which worship them. Is this still in the case in second edition?
If so, then evil former followers of Nocticula would seem to have at least two choices for worship - Shamira, who is explicitly listed in the article on Nocticula in Midwives to Death, and Areelu Vorlesh, who has been discussed as a possible contender for Nocticula's position in this thread. As I understand it, both are nascent demon lords and thus potentially a source of divine spells. I imagine their worship is limited to chaotic evil and neutral evil creatures and individuals in second edition with its more nuanced worshiper alignment system. Does this sound about right?
What is your favorite '80s TV show?
|
|
since you can add runes to staves like normal, can't you simply add a shifting rune and have it look (and act) much closer to the melee weapon you want as well?Sure!
*jawdrop*
I forgot about the shifting rune! That's a great idea! Thank you, both of you, for your advice!
And now for a question so I don't bog down the thread:
Which of Golarion's cities (in your opinion) smells the worst?
|
Creative Director
|
According to Lords of Chaos p. 37, nascent demon lords are able to grant spells to those creatures and individuals which worship them. Is this still in the case in second edition?
If so, then evil former followers of Nocticula would seem to have at least two choices for worship - Shamira, who is explicitly listed in the article on Nocticula in Midwives to Death, and Areelu Vorlesh, who has been discussed as a possible contender for Nocticula's position in this thread. As I understand it, both are nascent demon lords and thus potentially a source of divine spells. I imagine their worship is limited to chaotic evil and neutral evil creatures and individuals in second edition with its more nuanced worshiper alignment system. Does this sound about right?
It's absolutely the case, as shown in Treerazer's stat block in the Bestiary.
Evil former followers of Nocticula have multiple options to choose from. Don't forget Lamashtu or Socothbenoth either—those are the two who'll probably pick up the majority of her remaining-evil worshipers. Shamira is a close third.
The vast majority of nascent demon lords are super specialized and only allow Chaotic Evil worshipers, but until we put more in print, feel free to adjust as you see fit.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So would Cindermaw be a Crimson Worm in 2e?
Kinda wondering since I don't remember it being CR/level 18 in original version if edition change made it more powerful :'D
Cindermaw is a crimson worm in 2nd edition, but also in 1st edition. Think of Cindermaw as a still-growing crimson worm if you wish. The edition change makes crimson worms more powerful, but unique individuals of ANY species in a 1st edition adventure path should remain at their power level if you convert.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is your favorite '80s TV show?
Hmmmmmm.
At the time, growing up in the 80s, I was a big fan of the D&D cartoon, Knight Rider, The A-Team, Miami Vice, the remake of Twilight Zone, and Tales from the Crypt.
But my favorite is probably Unsolved Mysteries.
From "The straitjacket of Rarity in P2E":
"I'm more than willing to chat with folks about how the rarity system can be utilized,"
Two questions, one in this post:
1) Are there any plans for a guidebook on how to alter it? I'm mainly thinking of spells, here.
2) Speaking of spells and Rarity, what was the design intention with the spell selection? Actually, for most things that aren't tied to a specific race (Dwarven/Elven weapons, etc), but especially the spells.
I'm mainly asking this and the previous question because I feel like the spells targeted for marking as Uncommon are the ones that most casters would make a beeline for.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a few episodes. What exactly about this cartoon puts it on your 'favs' list?What is your favorite '80s TV show?Hmmmmmm.
At the time, growing up in the 80s, I was a big fan of the D&D cartoon,
Knight Rider, The A-Team, Miami Vice, the remake of Twilight Zone, and Tales from the Crypt.But my favorite is probably Unsolved Mysteries.
The fact that I was deep into D&D at the time, was in elementary school, enjoyed the Saturday morning cartoon thing, and it was on one of the 3 TV channels we got reception to. All of that plus the fact that it was the only way at the time to see D&D stuff in an audio/visual way where recognizable monsters like Tiamat, beholders, hook horrors, driders, Lolth, shadow demons, etc. were doing things outside of the imagination.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From "The straitjacket of Rarity in P2E":
"I'm more than willing to chat with folks about how the rarity system can be utilized,"
Two questions, one in this post:
1) Are there any plans for a guidebook on how to alter it? I'm mainly thinking of spells, here.
I believe the Gamemastery Guide will chat about all sorts of things that will help GMs run the game, including this topic. SO... yes. There are plans.