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


Off-Topic Discussions

76,501 to 76,550 of 77,083 << first < prev | 1526 | 1527 | 1528 | 1529 | 1530 | 1531 | 1532 | 1533 | 1534 | 1535 | 1536 | next > last >>

In Second Edition, Rovagug has the air and earth domains. I understand he would be suitable for the earth domain, because he is imprisoned below earth. But why did you give him the air domain? The air or the sky has nothing to do with Rovagug, I guess. Shouldn't he have the might domain or something like that?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
In Second Edition, Rovagug has the air and earth domains. I understand he would be suitable for the earth domain, because he is imprisoned below earth. But why did you give him the air domain? The air or the sky has nothing to do with Rovagug, I guess. Shouldn't he have the might domain or something like that?

Rovagug is, among other things, a god of disasters. That includes natural disasters, like hurricanes and tornadoes and storms. In first edition, this was expressed by giving him the Weather domain. There is no Weather domain in the 2nd edition Core Rulebook—that was rolled into the Air domain.

Hence, Rovagug grants access to the Air domain.

Dark Archive

The Lost Omens books implies previous Lord-Mayor of Magnimar died in mysterious circumstances. Would it break setting too much if I decided he instead faked his death because he got paranoid enough and wanted to retire? :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

How come paizo products generally only give sample first names for playable races and not family/second/clan/nick names?

I really love looking into the lore of a setting and making characters that fit in, so it was a bit embarrassing to find out that elven nicknames are meant to be things like Skywatcher or Cutter instead of a different elven sounding name.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
The Lost Omens books implies previous Lord-Mayor of Magnimar died in mysterious circumstances. Would it break setting too much if I decided he instead faked his death because he got paranoid enough and wanted to retire? :D

What you decide to do is up to you. If we later say something different, that doesn't have to be the case in your version of the game.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

shepsquared wrote:

How come paizo products generally only give sample first names for playable races and not family/second/clan/nick names?

Because we decided to do it that way.


Can I assume that Rovagug has the Earth domain simply because he was imprisoned deep within the earth?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
Can I assume that Rovagug has the Earth domain simply because he was imprisoned deep within the earth?

Not entirely. He's got the Earth domain because, again, he has province over natural disasters. Earthquakes, landslides, volcanos, etc. but ALSO because he has province over the Darklands and influences the deeper caves and realms therein.

Note: we got rid of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil domains when we went to 2nd edition, so that means we had to pick new domains for pretty much EVERY deity.


In First Edition, deities had five domains and demigods had four domains. But in Second Edition every deity and demigod has four domains. Sigh. Why did Paizo strip deities of a domain?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
In First Edition, deities had five domains and demigods had four domains. But in Second Edition every deity and demigod has four domains. Sigh. Why did Paizo strip deities of a domain?

Because the design team adjusted how domains work, and they decided that all divinites (be they deity, demigod, or quasi-deity) should grant an equal number of domains so that there's not a perception that a cleric of, say, Lamashtu is "better" than a cleric of Pazuzu. A cleric of ANY god can potentially be just as powerful as any other, whether their god is Pharasma or a quasi-deity.

And that said, if you're wishing that there were more domains to choose from for clerics, then just hang on. World Guide 3: Gods and Magic, will have rules to pick up alternate domains for deities, including many brand new domains to round things out for more obscure deities. You can't do Yog-Sothoth without a Void domain, for example.


There is an art of a bird on page 96 of Second Edition Bestiary. But that page includes information about dinosaurs, not birds. Is it an editorial error?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
There is an art of a bird on page 96 of Second Edition Bestiary. But that page includes information about dinosaurs, not birds. Is it an editorial error?

The "bird" is in fact a velociraptor, which is the stat block right next to it. The description text just above the stats and art makes it pretty clear that...

Bestiary wrote:
...[velociraptors] have manes of feathery plumage...

This isn't something we made up out of the blue. It's science. Some dinosaurs had feathers, and velociraptors outside of the Jurassic Park movies are often depicted as having feathers.


I have always thought that there should be a new size category in Pathfinder to describe the creatures bigger than Colossal, like the Oliphaunt, kaiju or colossi. Massive would be a suitable name for this new size category, considering kaiju's massive special ability. But instead of adding a new size category, Second Edition deleted an existing one. It seems there is no Colossal size category in Second Edition. I'm not sure. Did those colossal creatures suddenly shrink in Second Edition?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
I have always thought that there should be a new size category in Pathfinder to describe the creatures bigger than Colossal, like the Oliphaunt, kaiju or colossi. Massive would be a suitable name for this new size category, considering kaiju's massive special ability. But instead of adding a new size category, Second Edition deleted an existing one. It seems there is no Colossal size category in Second Edition. I'm not sure. Did those colossal creatures suddenly shrink in Second Edition?

The size category of Gargantuan encompasses all creatures of that size and larger. Creatures that were classified as Colossal in 1st edition are Gargantuan in 2nd edition, but they didn't actually change physical size.

For example, in the 1st edition Bestiary, a tarn linnorm is colossal and 120 feet long.

In the 2nd edition Bestiary, a tarn linnorm is gargantuan and 120 feet long.

The way size categories work in 2nd edition has been simplified.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Bestiary wrote:
...[velociraptors] have manes of feathery plumage...
This isn't something we made up out of the blue. It's science. Some dinosaurs had feathers, and velociraptors outside of the Jurassic Park movies are often depicted as having feathers.

From the article you linked: "Far from being a scaly-skinned reptilian monster, Velociraptor would have been a fluffy, feathered poodle from hell."

Would you consider this an appropriate description in-game? :-)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Bestiary wrote:
...[velociraptors] have manes of feathery plumage...
This isn't something we made up out of the blue. It's science. Some dinosaurs had feathers, and velociraptors outside of the Jurassic Park movies are often depicted as having feathers.

From the article you linked: "Far from being a scaly-skinned reptilian monster, Velociraptor would have been a fluffy, feathered poodle from hell."

Would you consider this an appropriate description in-game? :-)

I would not.

It makes it sound comical, and velociraptors shouldn't be portrayed as goofy or jokes. They're serious gut-cutting, flesh eating, pain-training serious business.

And poodles are floofgoofs.


Wrath of the Righteous as represented in 2e

The question:
So, I see from the Lost Omens World Guide that Deskari is dead. Is Baphomet dead, too?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
james014Aura wrote:

Wrath of the Righteous as represented in 2e

** spoiler omitted **

Still alive!

Spoiler:
The expectation for Baphomet is that he was defeated but not killed forever; he was probably slain by PCs but his Abyssal Resurrection restored him to life and he went into hiding for a year so he could avoid the TRUE DEATH. This is also a good reason why Baphomet didn't chase after the PCs into the last adventure in Wrath of the Righteous or continue to be a thorn in the PCs sides.

In Deskari's case, he was also defeated by the PCs and Abyssal Resurrection brought him back to life, but as suggested on page 57 of "City of Locusts," the closing of the Worldwound as the PCs defeat Deskari disrupts his connection to his Abyssal Realm and deactivates his Abyssal Resurrection at just the right (wrong for Deskari) time.

THAT said, I think the actual reason he died is because Nocticula swooped in and finished the job after the PCs defeated him. It's a nice bit of closure there, having Deskari's assassination be the last demon lord that Nocticula slays, and having her kill him behind the scenes after the PCs kill him the first time prevents it from being anticlimactic or robbing the players of the sense of victory.

In any event... yeah, Deskari is dead dead and Baphomet is fine—the year of "probation" has passed and his Abyssal Resurrection ability has recharged.


So what movies are you looking forward to see before the end of the year?


G'day James Jacobs,

I just recently played in Thornkeep: The Enigma Vaults with a 5th level Bloodrager character of mine in a party of 4, for Pathfinder Society play.

When we came up against the Visitant, the way that the GM ran the encounter was that when it performed a full-attack, it would attempt the grab on every attack that it made. If the grab was successful it would deal the eviscerate damage and then let go as a free action before making its next attack.

If all attacks would hit, this resulted in 4d4+16+8d6 damage to a single character. At minimum, this is 28 damage. On average, 64 damage (my maths could be wrong). That is how much HP my character had, while raging. This is not including the potential for 4d4 of ability damage.

Is this the correct way to run this encounter? It feels as though the grapple rules are being abused in such a way that it would max-out its damage and thus TPK with ease. My high-health 5th level Bloodrager died in two rounds against this creature, with arguably the most health you could probably get at 5th level. He had a single round to do anything, and this is while grappled. This is in a module designed for 3rd and 4th level characters.

I would like your opinion as to whether or not this was run properly, as I am disputing that the encounter was handled in such a way that it was (for the most part) against the spirit of the game (The point isn't to kill us, it's to provide a challenge). On top of this, the GM was rolling d8's for the Sneak Attack damage. I don't understand how any GM can possibly see that running this encounter in this way would be a good idea for a PFS module.

I'm hoping that I could get the Chronicle for this made null-and-void due to the inappropriate handling, and I was hoping that I could get some input from you.


It seems that in Second Edition monsters are no longer categorized according to challenge ratings. Is the term Challenge Rating deleted from the game entirely?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe it cannot be said often enough: thank you so much for answering all our questions!
What makes you keep doing this after all these years?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In First Edition, Pharasma had access to the Water domain. I always liked that since it was an unexpected pick for a death goddess and it was a nice metaphor for the River of Souls. Was its loss in Second Edition simply a casualty of dropping domains to four for everyone and Water being the least central to Pharasma's identity/creed?

Thanks as always.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
So what movies are you looking forward to see before the end of the year?

It: Chapter 2

Doctor Sleep
Haunting of Bly Manor
Color Out of Space
Ad Astra
First Love
Parasite
The Lighthouse
Terminator: Dark Fate
Knives Out
Jumanji: The Next Level
1917

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deluril wrote:

G'day James Jacobs,

I just recently played in Thornkeep: The Enigma Vaults with a 5th level Bloodrager character of mine in a party of 4, for Pathfinder Society play.

When we came up against the Visitant, the way that the GM ran the encounter was that when it performed a full-attack, it would attempt the grab on every attack that it made. If the grab was successful it would deal the eviscerate damage and then let go as a free action before making its next attack.

If all attacks would hit, this resulted in 4d4+16+8d6 damage to a single character. At minimum, this is 28 damage. On average, 64 damage (my maths could be wrong). That is how much HP my character had, while raging. This is not including the potential for 4d4 of ability damage.

Is this the correct way to run this encounter? It feels as though the grapple rules are being abused in such a way that it would max-out its damage and thus TPK with ease. My high-health 5th level Bloodrager died in two rounds against this creature, with arguably the most health you could probably get at 5th level. He had a single round to do anything, and this is while grappled. This is in a module designed for 3rd and 4th level characters.

I would like your opinion as to whether or not this was run properly, as I am disputing that the encounter was handled in such a way that it was (for the most part) against the spirit of the game (The point isn't to kill us, it's to provide a challenge). On top of this, the GM was rolling d8's for the Sneak Attack damage. I don't understand how any GM can possibly see that running this encounter in this way would be a good idea for a PFS module.

I'm hoping that I could get the Chronicle for this made null-and-void due to the inappropriate handling, and I was hoping that I could get some input from you.

I try to avoid answering questions like this, becasue my answers tend to be used as ammunition for others' agendas in "weponizing the rules" against GMs. Sorry you had a bad experience in the game, but in this case, particularly since it run for PFS, you should voice your concern and complaint to that group, not to me.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
It seems that in Second Edition monsters are no longer categorized according to challenge ratings. Is the term Challenge Rating deleted from the game entirely?

"Challenge Rating" is no longer a term in Pathfinder 2nd edition.

Monsters (and everything in the game) have levels instead, which helps to bring everything in using the same scale, rather than having different measuring scales for different things (which would be like directions for building a house using feet and inches for some things and meters and centimeters for other things).

That said, in most cases, the numbers between the games stay the same. A CR 4 monster in 1st edition would be a Level 4 creature in 2nd edition, unless we changed the level to correct an error from 1st edition (a good example here is how we upped the banshee up to level 17 from CR 13, to account for the fact that it uses what is essentially a 9th level spell all the time).

Paizo Employee Creative Director

13 people marked this as a favorite.
RumoWolpertinger wrote:

I believe it cannot be said often enough: thank you so much for answering all our questions!

What makes you keep doing this after all these years?

I'm pretty passionate about the game and proud of the work I've put in on it, and I feel like sharing that passion and excitement with others is a good way to keep things positive. I like interacting with other gamers via this medium—I've got some pretty crippling social anxiety things going on that make it tough for me to deal with situations like parties or conventions where there's a lot of people all at once, so a thread like this, or perhaps a stream where I'd answer questions or a seminar or the like (public speaking doesn't bother me, regardless of the size of the crowd—it's when I'm IN the crowd that I get freaked out), is my favored way to interact with other gamers who I don't know personally as friends or coworkers.

And also, with internet culture growing so increasingly hostile, unforgiving, and toxic in a lot of areas, I feel like this particular thread is my little bulwark against the poisonous virtual ocean out there, I guess. Had someone come in and started getting super toxic or abusive in this thread I would have shut it down long ago. I DID have to do just that at one point a few years back, but the thread recovered after a few weeks of time out, thankfully.

And no, that's not a challenge to the internet to bring this thread down. I don't doubt that you could, internet, if you wanted. But every day you don't and every day folks post fun and interesting questions in here is another day forward for me with reminders that not everyone is awful.

So... thank you everyone who posts in this thread for being amazing and great and imaginative and wonderful!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
FallenDabus wrote:

In First Edition, Pharasma had access to the Water domain. I always liked that since it was an unexpected pick for a death goddess and it was a nice metaphor for the River of Souls. Was its loss in Second Edition simply a casualty of dropping domains to four for everyone and Water being the least central to Pharasma's identity/creed?

Thanks as always.

I suspect it was a combination of the dropping of a domain to the standard four and the design team not being aware of the symbolism of the domain. It WAS a pretty obscure bit of symbolism, but I did like it. I do miss Pharasma's access to Water... but I wasn't the only one making those decisions for the game. Water might have been a better swap for knowledge, but ... that's not the way things developed.


Can I assume that a level 20 monster and a level 20 PC are all the same power level?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Aenigma wrote:
Can I assume that a level 20 monster and a level 20 PC are all the same power level?

Since I have no idea what you mean by "power level," I can't answer your question. There's no such thing as a generic "power level" in the game, since you can't measure a monster or a PC or a spell or a feat or a magic item or a settlement (all things that have levels) against each other. That's like asking "Is an orange the same power level as a softball?" because the two are about the same shape and size.

BUT... If what you're looking for is advice on how to build balanced encounters, then check pages 488–489 of the Core Rulebook.


What I wished to ask was "Is a level 20 monster as powerful as a level 20 PC?" Anyway, I have a new question. I thought the Tarrasque would be in Second Edition Bestiary, but turns out it doesn't. Sigh. Maybe Paizo plans to include it in a later book, but shouldn't the Tarrasque be in Bestiary no matter what?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
What I wished to ask was "Is a level 20 monster as powerful as a level 20 PC?" Anyway, I have a new question. I thought the Tarrasque would be in Second Edition Bestiary, but turns out it doesn't. Sigh. Maybe Paizo plans to include it in a later book, but shouldn't the Tarrasque be in Bestiary no matter what?

We've already announced that we'll be statting up Tarrasque in the 6th Age of Ashes bestiary.

We decided to replace Tarrasque's position as the "tentpole, most powerful monster" in the first Bestiary with Treerazer because we wanted our book to show off one of OUR favorite powerful monsters, rather than another company's powerful monster.

With 2nd edition, we're more confident about our own creations and feel less bound to cling to those of our competitors, in other words.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
With 2nd edition, we're more confident about our own creations and feel less bound to cling to those of our competitors, in other words.

And it's vastly appreciated by those of us who swim in Paizo's lore!

In that vein, I noticed that a lot of critters in the bestiary got new "proper" names and some other adjustments- Ankhravs, Bloodseekers, Web Lurkers, and so forth.

What process did you guys use in deciding which creatures would get new names and which didn't?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
What I wished to ask was "Is a level 20 monster as powerful as a level 20 PC?" Anyway, I have a new question. I thought the Tarrasque would be in Second Edition Bestiary, but turns out it doesn't. Sigh. Maybe Paizo plans to include it in a later book, but shouldn't the Tarrasque be in Bestiary no matter what?

We've already announced that we'll be statting up Tarrasque in the 6th Age of Ashes bestiary.

We decided to replace Tarrasque's position as the "tentpole, most powerful monster" in the first Bestiary with Treerazer because we wanted our book to show off one of OUR favorite powerful monsters, rather than another company's powerful monster.

With 2nd edition, we're more confident about our own creations and feel less bound to cling to those of our competitors, in other words.

Is there a reason you are going out of your way to avoid saying "Wizards Of The Coast"?


James Jacobs wrote:
Deluril wrote:

G'day James Jacobs,

I just recently played in Thornkeep: The Enigma Vaults with a 5th level Bloodrager character of mine in a party of 4, for Pathfinder Society play.

When we came up against the Visitant, the way that the GM ran the encounter was that when it performed a full-attack, it would attempt the grab on every attack that it made. If the grab was successful it would deal the eviscerate damage and then let go as a free action before making its next attack.

If all attacks would hit, this resulted in 4d4+16+8d6 damage to a single character. At minimum, this is 28 damage. On average, 64 damage (my maths could be wrong). That is how much HP my character had, while raging. This is not including the potential for 4d4 of ability damage.

Is this the correct way to run this encounter? It feels as though the grapple rules are being abused in such a way that it would max-out its damage and thus TPK with ease. My high-health 5th level Bloodrager died in two rounds against this creature, with arguably the most health you could probably get at 5th level. He had a single round to do anything, and this is while grappled. This is in a module designed for 3rd and 4th level characters.

I would like your opinion as to whether or not this was run properly, as I am disputing that the encounter was handled in such a way that it was (for the most part) against the spirit of the game (The point isn't to kill us, it's to provide a challenge). On top of this, the GM was rolling d8's for the Sneak Attack damage. I don't understand how any GM can possibly see that running this encounter in this way would be a good idea for a PFS module.

I'm hoping that I could get the Chronicle for this made null-and-void due to the inappropriate handling, and I was hoping that I could get some input from you.

I try to avoid answering questions like this, becasue my answers tend to be used as ammunition for others' agendas in "weponizing the rules" against GMs. Sorry you had a bad experience in the...

All good, I completely understand!

I must admit I've been annoyed over this for a while and have been trying to get some guidance from people on it. I also don't really know who it falls to for deciding what happens. Is it the GM of the session or is it more a Venture Captain thing?

Anyway, thanks for your time!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
With 2nd edition, we're more confident about our own creations and feel less bound to cling to those of our competitors, in other words.

And it's vastly appreciated by those of us who swim in Paizo's lore!

In that vein, I noticed that a lot of critters in the bestiary got new "proper" names and some other adjustments- Ankhravs, Bloodseekers, Web Lurkers, and so forth.

What process did you guys use in deciding which creatures would get new names and which didn't?

There were two reasons we gave new names to creatures:

1: The creature was a monster that was invented for D&D, and we only get to use it in Pathifnder because we use the OGL. This covers things like ankhegs (ankhravs) and stirges (bloodseekers) and ettercaps (web lurkers). Giving these creatures our own name helps reinforce that they're our spin on the creature, which can be slightly or significantly different than the D&D tradition, but also lets us reference them in non-OGL things like miniatures.

2: The creature was of a society that should have it's own name for themselves that previously only had a name that would have been given to them by humans. Catfolk and ratfolk are great examples here; creatures that have their own language and own culture wouldn't call themselves "catfolk" any more than we humans call ourselves "primatefolk."

And there's some monsters for which 1 and 2 are both applicable; lizardfolk, troglodytes, and dark creepers, for example.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Lord Fyre wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
What I wished to ask was "Is a level 20 monster as powerful as a level 20 PC?" Anyway, I have a new question. I thought the Tarrasque would be in Second Edition Bestiary, but turns out it doesn't. Sigh. Maybe Paizo plans to include it in a later book, but shouldn't the Tarrasque be in Bestiary no matter what?

We've already announced that we'll be statting up Tarrasque in the 6th Age of Ashes bestiary.

We decided to replace Tarrasque's position as the "tentpole, most powerful monster" in the first Bestiary with Treerazer because we wanted our book to show off one of OUR favorite powerful monsters, rather than another company's powerful monster.

With 2nd edition, we're more confident about our own creations and feel less bound to cling to those of our competitors, in other words.

Is there a reason you are going out of your way to avoid saying "Wizards Of The Coast"?

Nope.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Deluril wrote:
I must admit I've been annoyed over this for a while and have been trying to get some guidance from people on it. I also don't really know who it falls to for deciding what happens. Is it the GM of the session or is it more a Venture Captain thing?

I honestly don't know.

While I do understand and appreciate the value that PFS brings, and love that it gives so many people a chance to play together, my own social anxieties have always prevented me from taking part in games like this, so I'm probably the person at Paizo that's LEAST helpful in answering these questions for you.


Now that Second Edition is out, I can finally ask this question. Will there be epic levels or mythic tiers in Second Edition? I really wish there will be both epic levels and mythic tiers in Second Edition!

Scarab Sages

Hi James! Longtime reader, first-time poster. I have a question about Nethys’ anathema, which is to “pursue mundane paths over magical ones” (CRB 439). I’m not sure what this means. Could you give an example of what a cleric or champion of Nethys could do in order to violate this anathema?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are Hellion and Unity assumed to dead or still at large in 2e?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What would Nocticula's domains as a demon lord have been in PF2? Darkness and Passion are obvious, Secrecy seems likely, but I'm stuck on the fourth.


Hi JJ,

If I wanted to play a Shriikirri-Quah Shoanti ranger, what weapons would you suggest using that could work well with ranger feats and the Flurry Hunter's Edge from a cultural perspective? Essentially, if this character had to choose a main martial weapon and an agile one, what might culturally work best for the concept - or, except for earthbreakers, Shoanti bolas and totem spears, none of which have been statted yet, which weapons do you see as most appropriate for the Shoanti?

Relatedly, do you reckon rangers will mainly keep relying on dual-wielding in melee, or does Paizo foresee different possible combat styles for them? Is that invading the design space of barbarians and fighters?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
Now that Second Edition is out, I can finally ask this question. Will there be epic levels or mythic tiers in Second Edition? I really wish there will be both epic levels and mythic tiers in Second Edition!

We've made no announcement for this yet. Personally, I'd rather not bring back Mythic in the same way, but I do love the idea of stuff to do after 20th level. We'll see. It'll be a while before we make the decision, and a while beyond that before we say anything about that decision to go forward or not with beyond 20th level play. It'd be irresponsible and foolish to dive right into that immediately. Give the new rules time to breathe and say hi!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Hi James! Longtime reader, first-time poster. I have a question about Nethys’ anathema, which is to “pursue mundane paths over magical ones” (CRB 439). I’m not sure what this means. Could you give an example of what a cleric or champion of Nethys could do in order to violate this anathema?

Building a house with a hammer and nails alone rather than use magic to help create it.

Going into an adventure and never once using magic to solve problems or defeat foes.

Etc. Basically, attempting anything of significance without some way using magic to handle things. You can certainly eat breakfast or go shopping or ride a horse without using magic without violation, but if it's supposed to be a big deal, you'd better use at least SOME magic!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.
FallenDabus wrote:
Are Hellion and Unity assumed to dead or still at large in 2e?

Hellion and Unity are dead.

Well... as dead as anything gets in a game with multiple ways to come back to life. I'm pretty sure ONE of them is dead forever, but there's a few ideas bumping around in my head involving one of them coming back to "life" in one way or another. AKA: the concept of an undead AI is too neat to leave alone for long...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FallenDabus wrote:
What would Nocticula's domains as a demon lord have been in PF2? Darkness and Passion are obvious, Secrecy seems likely, but I'm stuck on the fourth.

They would have been Artifice, Chaos, Darkness, Good, and Travel, probably.

Chaos and Good because those would have been required (lame).
Darkness because of her association with midnight.
Artifice because of her association with the creation of art.
Travel because of her association with exiles, but this one's sort of an awkward fit. Could see Liberation go here as well.

The new Nocticula is certainly a lot friendlier, and she's certainly not chaste, but lust/passion are not Domain-level things for her anymore. She left that level of influence over that thing behind when she stopped being a demon.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think that question was meant to be if she hadn't been redeemed and was still a demon lord in second edition, what would her four 2E domains be?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

Hi JJ,

If I wanted to play a Shriikirri-Quah Shoanti ranger, what weapons would you suggest using that could work well with ranger feats and the Flurry Hunter's Edge from a cultural perspective? Essentially, if this character had to choose a main martial weapon and an agile one, what might culturally work best for the concept - or, except for earthbreakers, Shoanti bolas and totem spears, none of which have been statted yet, which weapons do you see as most appropriate for the Shoanti?

Relatedly, do you reckon rangers will mainly keep relying on dual-wielding in melee, or does Paizo foresee different possible combat styles for them? Is that invading the design space of barbarians and fighters?

I'd go with agile, since birds are more about agility hunting than they are earthbreakers. A bow, even, since they actually incorperate birds into the design.

My understanding of the themes is that the barbarian's theme is to be a hard hitter, the fighter's theme is about mastery over a weapon and shield, and the ranger's theme is mastery over a specific style of fighting. There's crossover, sure, but in the same way that spellcasters also share some spells. Not too worried about design space invasions.


Mr. James Jacobs,

I didn't pay too much attention to the playtest adventers, so a question. Did the playtest adventures have to deal with just the Countdown Clock in Osirion or the Countdown Clock and the Stars Becoming Right?

76,501 to 76,550 of 77,083 << first < prev | 1526 | 1527 | 1528 | 1529 | 1530 | 1531 | 1532 | 1533 | 1534 | 1535 | 1536 | 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.