Creative Director
|
I feel a Merisiel/Archer crossover fanfic brewing... =]If Alain made Kyra cry what would Merisiel think his fate should be?I'd force him to eat cobwebs. And then throw his clothes off the top of a building. And then maybe rub sand in his eyes. Coarse sand... if I get to pick the grit level.
Yyyyyyuuuuup!
|
Creative Director
|
I was just wondering because most characters are bipedal. Thanks for the quick reply!Does a Synthesist Summoner get stuck with only the Biped Eidolon form? If the answer is yes, could you explain why?Where does it say that a synthesist summoner has to have a bipedal form? Cause I'm not seeing it.
Most characters are, but that's not the case for ALL creatures. The GM gets to make summoners too, remember!
Anyway, nothing in the synthisist's powers really interact with the eidolon's base shape, since the eidolon's merged with the summoner anyway it doesn't really matter WHAT shape the eidolon otherwise would have been.
|
Creative Director
|
Anyway, nothing in the synthisist's powers really interact with the eidolon's base shape, since the eidolon's merged with the summoner anyway it doesn't really matter WHAT shape the eidolon otherwise would have been.So, to be clear, when a Synthesist Fuses with his Serpentine Eidolon, he would be serpentine himself? I'm seeing the Fused Eidolon like a robot suit the Synthesist wears, if that helps you understand the question.
Nothing about the synthesist says "you take the shape of your eidolon" either. Essentailly, if you fuse an eidolon into your body, YOU become the base form. Since your eidolon doesn't really have a body of its own, the choice of base form doesn't impact that non-existant body—it serves only as a starting place for you to hang your evolution points.
Good luck finishing up what is left for the Gen Con releases. And thanks for all of the hard work.
You'll have to make that ruling for yourself, since what one person finds to be super-awesome-sweet art is something someone else will hate.
Honestly, I can't think of much (read: nearly any) art in any Paizo product that wasn't super-awesome-sweet. You have fantastic standards and great artists. So as long as there's a picture of Gallowspire in all its menacing glory, I think the "super-awesome-sweet" part can be assumed. :-)
In all seriousness, the art in your products is of a very high quality, and I've used it to hook several people on Pathfinder, in a "Come for the pretty, stay for the fun" kind of way. This is from a guy who's been playing RPGs since 1977 and has seen more than his share of really terrible art detracting from otherwise good products. Paizo maintains high quality right across the board.
Nothing about the synthesist says "you take the shape of your eidolon" either. Essentailly, if you fuse an eidolon into your body, YOU become the base form. Since your eidolon doesn't really have a body of its own, the choice of base form doesn't impact that non-existant body—it serves only as a starting place for you to hang your evolution points.
This KIND of makes sense, but at the same time kind of doesn't. I think the "taking the shape of your Eidolon" interpretation came from the fact that you gain its physical ability scores, speak through its voice, etc., I can kind of see where your answer is coming from, but it only seems to make things more complicated instead of less. Obviously the Eidolon's base form matters when it comes to physical ability scores, but do you benefit from the free evolutions or only what you spend points on? Do you use your own form or the Eidolon's to determine which evolutions you access and how you benefit from them?
Another thing I want to know is how does the Synthesist go about healing his Eidolon? Since the only HP it has is the temporary HP it gives you (and I don't believe temp HP can be healed), and the Eidolon never heals on its own, is there any way to restore its HP aside from "killing" it and summoning it back at half HP the next day?
Sorry if this is too many questions for you, but trying to wrap my head around the Synthesist has been rather difficult even though I like the concept.
|
Creative Director
|
Nothing about the synthesist says "you take the shape of your eidolon" either. Essentailly, if you fuse an eidolon into your body, YOU become the base form. Since your eidolon doesn't really have a body of its own, the choice of base form doesn't impact that non-existant body—it serves only as a starting place for you to hang your evolution points.This KIND of makes sense, but at the same time kind of doesn't. I think the "taking the shape of your Eidolon" interpretation came from the fact that you gain its physical ability scores, speak through its voice, etc., I can kind of see where your answer is coming from, but it only seems to make things more complicated instead of less. Obviously the Eidolon's base form matters when it comes to physical ability scores, but do you benefit from the free evolutions or only what you spend points on? Do you use your own form or the Eidolon's to determine which evolutions you access and how you benefit from them?
Another thing I want to know is how does the Synthesist go about healing his Eidolon? Since the only HP it has is the temporary HP it gives you (and I don't believe temp HP can be healed), and the Eidolon never heals on its own, is there any way to restore its HP aside from "killing" it and summoning it back at half HP the next day?
Sorry if this is too many questions for you, but trying to wrap my head around the Synthesist has been rather difficult even though I like the concept.
Chances are good you know more about the synthesist than I do, honestly, since I've only read it once when i was answering the first question on this topic. The VAST majority of my time at Paizo is spent on pretty much everything BUT the hardcover rulebooks these days. You'll probably get more satisfying rules questions if you ask them on those messageboards rather than hear, I suspect.
You don't heal the eidolon at all if it only gives you temp HP. It might help to stop thinking of the synthesist as a "summoner with an eidolon" but a "summoner IS the eidolon" sort of way. AKA: To heal your "eidolon" you just heal yourself.
Chances are good you know more about the synthesist than I do, honestly, since I've only read it once when i was answering the first question on this topic. The VAST majority of my time at Paizo is spent on pretty much everything BUT the hardcover rulebooks these days. You'll probably get more satisfying rules questions if you ask them on those messageboards rather than hear, I suspect.
You don't heal the eidolon at all if it only gives you temp HP. It might help to stop thinking of the synthesist as a "summoner with an eidolon" but a "summoner IS the eidolon" sort of way. AKA: To heal your "eidolon" you just heal yourself.
Honestly, it's so vague on how to use the archetype that it's pretty much an 'Up to the GM' archetype. Each GM is going to have to make a ruling on each and every eidelon, because how all those evolutions interact with a human body is just going to be confusing.
One GM might rule that you're body is subsumed into the Eidelon, so your eidelon is all that appears, not your body at all.
Another GM might rule it's an amalgam, so if you have a serpent base form, you look like a lamia, a quadruped looks like a centaur, etc.
Another GM might rule that the eidelon is an armor suit that can be pierced and damage the summoner inside.
|
Creative Director
|
Honestly, it's so vague on how to use the archetype that it's pretty much an 'Up to the GM' archetype. Each GM is going to have to make a ruling on each and every eidelon, because how all those evolutions interact with a human body is just going to be confusing.
One GM might rule that you're body is subsumed into the Eidelon, so your eidelon is all that appears, not your body at all.
Another GM might rule it's an amalgam, so if you have a serpent base form, you look like a lamia, a quadruped looks like a centaur, etc.
Another GM might rule that the eidelon is an armor suit that can be pierced and damage the summoner inside.
Leaving it up to the GM couldn't make me happier. The game needs more of that philosophy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leaving it up to the GM couldn't make me happier. The game needs more of that philosophy.
But wouldn't that require GMs to take responsibility for their games?
::sneaky grin::All joking aside, I agree. GMs abdicate too responsibility to other Powers and Principalities, like the 'Rule Books', 'the Man on the Messageboard', and sometimes the 'Dice'.
Leaving it up to the GM couldn't make me happier. The game needs more of that philosophy.Honestly, it's so vague on how to use the archetype that it's pretty much an 'Up to the GM' archetype. Each GM is going to have to make a ruling on each and every eidelon, because how all those evolutions interact with a human body is just going to be confusing.
One GM might rule that you're body is subsumed into the Eidelon, so your eidelon is all that appears, not your body at all.
Another GM might rule it's an amalgam, so if you have a serpent base form, you look like a lamia, a quadruped looks like a centaur, etc.
Another GM might rule that the eidelon is an armor suit that can be pierced and damage the summoner inside.
Fair enough. I always joked with my friends that the Summoner's effectiveness was proportional to how much your GM liked you. Having an idea of a class's intent is always nice though.
As for getting back temporary HP, I guess one could always just stab himself until he could trigger Fused Link, then heal himself back to full. I'm sure there'd be plenty of things out there willing to help with the stabbing anyway.
|
Creative Director
|
Fair enough. I always joked with my friends that the Summoner's effectiveness was proportional to how much your GM liked you. Having an idea of a class's intent is always nice though.
You can say that about ANY class. For example:
Illusionists: Suck if the GM nerfs illusions because he hates them.
Bards: Suck if the GM never puts in roleplaying encounters and most of the encounters are against undead or other creatures immune to mind affecting stuff.
Clerics: Suck if the GM runs a game that has lots of planar travel and that uses rules that limit how many cleric spells you can regain based on your current locaiton.
Fighters: Suck if the GM runs a game that's all about political intrigue and can go for several sessions in a row without a single combat.
Rogues: Suck if the GM never uses traps and is really stingy on allowing sneak attacks to work and never really puts a lot of skill challenges in the game.
And so on.
Summoners do some REALLY different and weird new stuff, and a lot of conservative GMs are afraid or annoyed by new things, I suspect, so it's likely that summoners get hit with the "GM hates the class and so you'd better not play it" stick relatively often.
Ever gone paintballing?
What books are considered "Core"? Like is it just Bestiary I and Core Rulebook or is it all books in the Roleplaying Game Subscription (Core, Bestiary I/II, GMG, APG, UM, etc.)?
Lastly I don't know where to put this but the 4th level spell in Ultimate Magic listed in Cave Domain on page 34 "Blackwing Host" doesn't exist in chapter 5 of the book. If you can pass this on to the errata people and let me know what spell replaces this or what this unknown spell does would be awesome.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What books are considered "Core"? Like is it just Bestiary I and Core Rulebook or is it all books in the Roleplaying Game Subscription (Core, Bestiary I/II, GMG, APG, UM, etc.)?
Lastly I don't know where to put this but the 4th level spell in Ultimate Magic listed in Cave Domain on page 34 "Blackwing Host" doesn't exist in chapter 5 of the book. If you can pass this on to the errata people and let me know what spell replaces this or what this unknown spell does would be awesome.
All of them are core. If you don't buy all of them, you're a bad customer. Alternatively, you can note that we've only put the word "core" on one book, which would indicate that THAT one book is the one we consider "core." In games I run, I treat the Core Rulebook, the Inner Sea World Guide, both bestiaries, and the GameMastery Guide as the core books. For Adventure Paths and other products, we generally assume a GM has access to ALL our hardcovers. We put enough in there so you can fake it if you don't have things like the APG or the like, but you really do need the Core Rulebook and both Bestiaries to run APs these days. Or printouts from the PRD of all the relevant monster stats you'll need if you want to go the more portable, less expensive route.
I'll pass on the missing blackwing host info.
All of them are core. If you don't buy all of them, you're a bad customer. Alternatively, you can note that we've only put the word "core" on one book, which would indicate that THAT one book is the one we consider "core." In games I run, I treat the Core Rulebook, the Inner Sea World Guide, both bestiaries, and the GameMastery Guide as the core books. For Adventure Paths and other products, we generally assume a GM has access to ALL our hardcovers. We put enough in there so you can fake it if you don't have things like the APG or the like, but you really do need the Core Rulebook and both Bestiaries to run APs these days. Or printouts from the PRD of all the relevant monster stats you'll need if you want to go the more portable, less expensive route.
I'll pass on the missing blackwing host info.
I guess what I'm really asking is for the d20pfsrd. A discussion has arison on what is "Core" and what is "Non-Core". Some people say all books like Core Rulebook, Gamemastery Guide, Bestiaries, APG, UM, etc. are "Core" whereas the Adventure Paths, Chronicles, Companions, etc. are not. There are others that say only Bestiary I and Core Rulebook are "Core" and the rest aren't since in the Adventure Paths if a monster is mentioned from Bestiary II then a full stat box is listed as well meaning you don't need the book.
I personally own all the books in the Roleplaying Game Subscription, some Companions, all Adventure Paths, and the Inner Sea World Guide and consider everything Paizo to be "Core" since it is all one world. Just trying to get an opinion from a Paizo person on this that might help the discussion one way or the other.
Will we ever see polymorh spells for Fey, Outsiders, Aberrations, and/or Constructs?
Also with the new polymorph spells for Vermin, Monstrous humanoid, and Undead forms, are they added to "Polymorph", "Grater polymorph", and/or "Shapechange" spells?
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will we ever see polymorh spells for Fey, Outsiders, Aberrations, and/or Constructs?
Also with the new polymorph spells for Vermin, Monstrous humanoid, and Undead forms, are they added to "Polymorph", "Grater polymorph", and/or "Shapechange" spells?
Yes.
Not officially, but that's a cool house rule.
|
Creative Director
|
I guess what I'm really asking is for the d20pfsrd. A discussion has arison on what is "Core" and what is "Non-Core". Some people say all books like Core Rulebook, Gamemastery Guide, Bestiaries, APG, UM, etc. are "Core" whereas the Adventure Paths, Chronicles, Companions, etc. are not. There are others that say only Bestiary I and Core Rulebook are "Core" and the rest aren't since in the Adventure Paths if a monster is mentioned from Bestiary II then a full stat box is listed as well meaning you don't need the book.
I personally own all the books in the Roleplaying Game Subscription, some Companions, all Adventure Paths, and the Inner Sea World Guide and consider everything Paizo to be "Core" since it is all one world. Just trying to get an opinion from a Paizo person on this that might help the discussion one way or the other.
We don't have an official "core" designation beyond the fact that the "Core Rulebook" has the word "core" on it.
I'm not sure what's more offensive to me: the idea that Paizo might say that all of our books are considered "core" and thus imply that a customer who doesn't buy all the books is somehow doing it wrong, or the idea that anything beyond what we publish as the Core Rulebook is optional and somehow less important.
Thus, the easiest solution is to just say that the "Core Rulebook" is the core. It's the one you NEED to play the game. All the rest, even the bestiary, is optional.
My preference? All hardcovers are "core" and we expect folks who want to get full use out of our books are at least familiar with the hardcovers. Depending on the product at hand, other books could well get grandfathered into this "core." An adventure set in the Darklands, for example, would denote "Into the Darklands" as a core book.
The problem is further complicated by the fact that what "core" means to gamers has further been confused by differing definitions from various editions of D&D, alas.
Frankly, I'd rather not use the word at all except when talking about the "Core Rulebook."
I would like to know your point-of-view regarding NPC/PC class demographic numbers and the cities stat-blocks.
One of the things I enjoyed about the city stat blocks in 3.0/3.5 was the inclusion of how many of each class resided in the community. The extrapolation of this data and seeing how it applied was always a fun aspect for me.
In Pathfinder that seems to have largely fallen by the wayside. This of course is by no means such an essential thing to me that it detracts from the game - but I am just curious.
Do you have any insight on this?
Hey James a couple of questions...
Are the ninja, samurai, and the gunfighter getting archetypes? Or can alternative classes even have archetypes?
|
Creative Director
|
I would like to know your point-of-view regarding NPC/PC class demographic numbers and the cities stat-blocks.
One of the things I enjoyed about the city stat blocks in 3.0/3.5 was the inclusion of how many of each class resided in the community. The extrapolation of this data and seeing how it applied was always a fun aspect for me.
In Pathfinder that seems to have largely fallen by the wayside. This of course is by no means such an essential thing to me that it detracts from the game - but I am just curious.
Do you have any insight on this?
It's fallen by the wayside because I much prefer the freedom to assign class mixes as I think that the particular city SHOULD Have its class mixes be set up. And I suspect a lot of GMs feel the same. So we didn't put that into the book as part of the core. Some day I suspect we'll do something that looks into cities and nations and stuff like that with a lot more detail, at which point an in-depth examination about the topic can be explored with plenty of options and choices.
I am the GM, but thanks!Assuming a string of RP plays out, what would be the product of a gnome and a halfling getting together?
Ask your GM.
If I'm your GM, I'd say a night of exotic bliss and, perhaps, a morning or longer of weird social awkwardness.
No babies, in any event.
Halfling Sorcerer with the Fey Bloodline?
|
Probably you have noticed the simulacron discussion that has arisen from the UM book.
So a few questions:
1) A simulacron should be treated as a construct or as a living creature?
It [yes, this show my position ;)] need to eat, sleep and so on?
2) what can be duplicated? Apparently now the spell allow to duplicate any creature if ti fall within the HD limits.
We can duplicate incorporeal creatures? Elementals? Outsiders?
3) What powers they keep from the original creature? EX, SU, Spell like?
4) They receive divine magic spells/powers and from what kind of source?
5) They have personality and are capable to go against the creator wishes if not directly commanded? (I have seen some player suggesting this as a limitation)
I know that it will be a core, but probably a simulacron template with some clear instruction on the effects of scaling down the HD/levels would be a nice addition to the game.
Probably adding back the requirement for some part of the creature to copy as in the older versions will be a good way to keep the spell power under control.
I thought the stats for one of the sky metals was going to be in the tomb of the iron medusa? was I mistaken? or was it cut?
He does look like a happy dog though. Not sure why he needs my approval, when it looks like he's pretty pleased already.
I just wanted an excuse to show him off. :)
And thanks, he is a pretty happy dog.|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) A simulacron should be treated as a construct or as a living creature?
It [yes, this show my position ;)] need to eat, sleep and so on?
Living creature. It needs all the same things whatever it was based on, including sleep and food and water and all that as necessary.
2) what can be duplicated? Apparently now the spell allow to duplicate any creature if ti fall within the HD limits.
We can duplicate incorporeal creatures? Elementals? Outsiders?
Every monster is unique, and some are tougher than others. HD is actually a pretty bad limit on things, I think, since CR is a better way to estimate a monster's power. The limits as to what you can create with the spell should be left to the GM, though.
3) What powers they keep from the original creature? EX, SU, Spell like?
All of them. Again, the GM should limit some spells that are too over the top; wish from genie simulacurms being a good example of something you should limit.
4) They receive divine magic spells/powers and from what kind of source?
Same source their original got them. But if the simulacrum is ordered to do things out of alignment with this original source, it'll lose those powers pretty quickly.
5) They have personality and are capable to go against the creator wishes if not directly commanded? (I have seen some player suggesting this as a limitation)
I know that it will be a core, but probably a simulacron template with some clear instruction on the effects of scaling down the HD/levels would be a nice addition to the game.
Probably adding back the requirement for some part of the creature to copy as in the older versions will be a good way to keep the spell power under control.
A simulacrum has a personality, but can't go against its creator's commands. Once a creator dies, a simulacrum's got a lot more flexibility in what it can do.
The spell IS a pretty complex one, and it's also one that requires a lot of GM interpretation and decisions. Even more than wish, in my opinion. That doesn't make it a bad spell, though, and I actually quite like the spell... I disagree with allowing spellcasters to get access to the spell at lower levels, though, and in my games there aren't "lesser" versions of it available.
If a GM isn't comfortable making his own decisions about what the spell can and can't do... it's a good one to just omit from the game.
|
|
2) what can be duplicated? Apparently now the spell allow to duplicate any creature if it fall within the HD limits.
We can duplicate incorporeal creatures? Elementals? Outsiders?Every monster is unique, and some are tougher than others. HD is actually a pretty bad limit on things, I think, since CR is a better way to estimate a monster's power. The limits as to what you can create with the spell should be left to the GM, though.
Fully agree with on basing the limits on CR.
I had done something similar with the old shapechange spell in the 3.5 version, limiting what you could copy by CR. What you (Paizo) have done with the polymorp line of spells is even better.
A simulacrum has a personality, but can't go against its creator's commands. Once a creator dies, a simulacrum's got a lot more flexibility in what it can do.
Nice to know. I was still struck with the old version were the simulacron was little more than an automaton, but this link better to the origin of the spell in the Harold Shea series by de Camp & Fletcher (even if it probably was based on something in the Faerie Queene).
In that story the similcrum of the Lady Florimel had a personality and was transformed in a real human being in the third novel of the series.On the other hand it mean that if I get to play instead of GMing I will not be capable to create a simulacron of myself and let him handle all the mundane cores I don't want to tackle.
You can't always win ;)
In Ultimate magic the wild blooded Draconic bloodline(Linnorm) still gets its wings ability. Shouldn't it have been replced since Linnorms do not have wings?
I want to run my players through an introduction to the campaign setting and the new ruleset, but I notice that rise of the runelords is built for 3.5. Should I start with a different published adventure path? What is the ultimate introduction to pathfinder, in your eyes?
|
Creative Director
|
I want to run my players through an introduction to the campaign setting and the new ruleset, but I notice that rise of the runelords is built for 3.5. Should I start with a different published adventure path? What is the ultimate introduction to pathfinder, in your eyes?
Runelords may be 3.5, but as it was the first AP built for Golarion, it remains a pretty good way to introduce players to the world, since part of Runelords' goal was to ease new players into the world. It starts small and lets the PCs organically learn about one of the major bits of history in the world.
The Command Undead feat says:
"Undead that fail their saves fall under your control, obeying your commands to the best of their ability, as if under the effects of control undead. Intelligent undead receive a new saving throw each day to resist your command."
But the Control Undead spell has a duration of 1 min./level.
So, is the Command Undead feat's duration permanent or is that "each day" an error? Or what else?
Runelords may be 3.5, but as it was the first AP built for Golarion, it remains a pretty good way to introduce players to the world, since part of Runelords' goal was to ease new players into the world. It starts small and lets the PCs organically learn about one of the major bits of history in the world.
Would you be worried that pathfinder characters would be over-powered for the campaign?
|
Would you be worried that pathfinder characters would be over-powered for the campaign?Runelords may be 3.5, but as it was the first AP built for Golarion, it remains a pretty good way to introduce players to the world, since part of Runelords' goal was to ease new players into the world. It starts small and lets the PCs organically learn about one of the major bits of history in the world.
I would say "probably not". There are plenty of conversions out there, and the GMG goes over how to level up a 3.5 campaign so that it's still challenging.
1)Can a creature with the grap special ability constrict you the same round it grappled you?
2)In a battle a sandpoint devil it had surrounded it self with it's fog cloud spell and used it hellfire breath twice but ruled that the fire has no effect on the fog cloud. Is he right? I mean obscurring mist is gotten rid of by fireball and similiar effects but a fog cloud spell isn't?
|
Creative Director
|
The Command Undead feat says:
"Undead that fail their saves fall under your control, obeying your commands to the best of their ability, as if under the effects of control undead. Intelligent undead receive a new saving throw each day to resist your command."But the Control Undead spell has a duration of 1 min./level.
So, is the Command Undead feat's duration permanent or is that "each day" an error? Or what else?
Command Undead lasts as long as the undead you command continue to fail their saves. Which could indeed be forever. It's much better way to command undead than the spell.
|
Creative Director
|
Would you be worried that pathfinder characters would be over-powered for the campaign?Runelords may be 3.5, but as it was the first AP built for Golarion, it remains a pretty good way to introduce players to the world, since part of Runelords' goal was to ease new players into the world. It starts small and lets the PCs organically learn about one of the major bits of history in the world.
Not really. The difference in power level between 3.5 and Pathfinder isn't as immense as most folks think... especially when you factor in the XP progression rate—characters in 3.5 increase in level more quickly than do characters on the Medium XP track in Pathfinder. Individual player experience is a more important factor in most cases.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1)Can a creature with the grap special ability constrict you the same round it grappled you?
2)In a battle a sandpoint devil it had surrounded it self with it's fog cloud spell and used it hellfire breath twice but ruled that the fire has no effect on the fog cloud. Is he right? I mean obscurring mist is gotten rid of by fireball and similiar effects but a fog cloud spell isn't?
1) Yup; that's exactly how constriction and the grab ability works.
2) That's a GM call, but normally a big fire effect like that would indeed burn off a fog cloud.
Why do you think Hollywood's seems to be having issues writing either a movie or tv series based off Wonder Woman?First I've heard of it, but then again I don't follow superhero movie news nearly as well as I do monster movie news.
How come we haven't had a decent monster movie recently then? All I get to see is the B grade shlock from SyFy like Sharktopus, Megashark, Crocsaurus, Megashark vs Crocosaurus, Gatoroid, Crocosaurus vs Gatoroid, and so on.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have a serious addiction to bad monster b movies, but they aren't very good. :)
I'm also one of the few people I know that liked Brodrick and Rene in Godzilla, but hated Cloverfield (I liked the premise of cloverfield, but the handcam scinematography gave me naseua watching it).
Yeah I thought a big fire would destroy a fog cloud spell but it doesn't list it in the fog cloud's spell description but it has it in obscurring mist. Plus Fog cloud does not say "acts like obscurring mist..." description in the beggining of the spell.