I've run several 1st edition D&D adventures using Pathfinder, both 1st and 2nd edition. My "conversions" generally amount to swapping out stat blocks and adjusting treasure but that's pretty much it. Often I'll do all this work during the game, typically re-skinning a monster stat block as needed to fill the job and adjusting treasure at the spur of the moment as needed if what's listed in the adventure has no real analog in Pathfinder.
So eyeballing it is preferable to 2 conversions via official convertion guides; gotcha.
QUESTION
Is the setting in Red Hand of Doom also inspired by your hometown?
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've run several 1st edition D&D adventures using Pathfinder, both 1st and 2nd edition. My "conversions" generally amount to swapping out stat blocks and adjusting treasure but that's pretty much it. Often I'll do all this work during the game, typically re-skinning a monster stat block as needed to fill the job and adjusting treasure at the spur of the moment as needed if what's listed in the adventure has no real analog in Pathfinder.So eyeballing it is preferable to 2 conversions via official convertion guides; gotcha.
QUESTION
Is the setting in Red Hand of Doom also inspired by your hometown?
Nope. The plot and locations in Red Hand of Doom were created by Rich Baker. He created the outline and wrote the first quarter of the adventure—I was hired to finish the rest of it up following his outline when he had to shift to a different project.
So far, Sandpoint and Otari are the two locations that have had the most inspiration from my hometown (You'll see more of Otari soon!).
How do you feel about/deal with players trying to haggle with NPC merchants?
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you feel about/deal with players trying to haggle with NPC merchants?
I don't like it, and I don't encourage it in games I run. It's a waste of time unless it's built up as part of the storyline in which the players have to haggle in order to secure a plot device.
It's easier to simply assume the PCs buy the items they're shopping for at the listed prices, and to hand out discounts as rewards, rather than as roadblocks to enjoyment.
|
Creative Director
|
Hi again James! I don't know if you like to speculate like this, but how do you think things would have gone if Wizards had decided to renew the license for Dungeon magazine and Dragon magazine? Would things have turned out drastically different, or maybe things would still be in the same track, just at a different point?
Paizo would have likely remained focused on producing the magazines. Pathfinder would have never occurred, and Golarion would never have been invented. We would have likely done a genie themed Adventure Path similar to Legacy of Fire as the next Dungeon Adventure Path (this was the one we were already starting to lay the foundation for even as we were getting Savage Tide off the ground).
Then, assuming Fourth Edition rolled along in the same way it did, with a version of the game that I didn't enjoy, I would have likely eventually quit the company to seek new opportunities elsewhere.
In any event, if Paizo continued to focus only on magazines it would eventually go bankrupt or go online only.
AKA: My guess would be that things would have indeed been drastically different.
How come alchemists lost their eternal youth capstone in the edition change?
I'm guessing something related to the lore of the sun orchard elixir, but the Thuvian Alchemist prestige class got to make a personal-only version of that:
Eternal Youth (Su): At 10th level, a Thuvian alchemist learns how to formulate an imperfect duplicate of the sun orchid elixir that affects only her. This functions as the eternal youth grand discovery.
So it would seem that something along those lines would have been in line with existing practice.
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
How come alchemists lost their eternal youth capstone in the edition change?
I'm guessing something related to the lore of the sun orchard elixir, but the Thuvian Alchemist prestige class got to make a personal-only version of that:
Eternal Youth (Su): At 10th level, a Thuvian alchemist learns how to formulate an imperfect duplicate of the sun orchid elixir that affects only her. This functions as the eternal youth grand discovery.So it would seem that something along those lines would have been in line with existing practice.
I wasn't involved in the design or discussion of the class stuff to that extent, so I can't say for sure, but the fact that in Golarion we've got a "fountain of youth" type elixir (the Sun Orchid Elixir) that exists as a super rare expensive drinkable artifact invented by one of the most powerful alchemists in the setting probably had something to do with it. With 2nd edition's closer adherence to Golarion lore, giving that sort of thing out to just any alchemist erodes the lore itself.
Furthermore, with 2nd edition throwing out the tired old penalties for aging, the need for a way for PCs to deal with aging penalties to their ability scores is no longer really an issue. Eternal youth is a better story element or plot hook than actual PC advantage, since it almost never comes into play in 1st edition and comes into play even less in 2nd edition. Instead, they gave alchemists a capstone that is more useful.
The elixir of rejuvenation's ability to give Pharasma the finger is pretty neat :)
Thanks!
The elixir of rejuvenation's ability to give Pharasma the finger is pretty neat :)
Thanks!
I don't think so. You can still die to violence or, eventually, to some mundane accident. Just because they don't make interesting narratives it doesn't mean they don't happen.
What are the effects of the Sun Orchard Elixir on bleachlings or on gnome undergoing bleaching?
Humbly,
Yawar
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are the effects of the Sun Orchard Elixir on bleachlings or on gnome undergoing bleaching?
Humbly,
Yawar
Same as everyone else; it reverts you to a point in your youth that you desire.
Since bleaching is, to a certain effect, the result of living long enough to get bored with life, a bleached gnome who drinks a dose of the elixir will unbleach, if that's what they want. But it won't "reset" the gnome's boredom with life, so if the gnome doesn't immediately seek out new experiences, they'll just start bleaching again
I bet you've not read Robert Heinlein's Time Enough For Love have you? The books starts with the main character, who is immortal, undergoing what seems very much like bleaching. He's laying around waiting to die, and his descendants don't want him to, so they look for something to pique his interest. :-)
Not a Heinlein fan? What about (my favorite speculative fiction author) Philip K. Dick?
|
I have up to this point, understood summoning spells to draw the material from a specific plane to form the "platonic ideal" of the creature that's been summoned. I never quite understood where the summon nature's ally spells drew the material to create the creatures available to them, though. Even the animals from summon monster were flavoured as animals that would exist in the outer planes.
Is my understanding of how summoning magic works in any way correct? In addition to elementals and creatures from the outer planes, the second edition spells let you summon regular animals, fey, giants, and plants (which I guess were originally part of summon nature's ally), and also aberrations and constructs. Where do these summoned creatures come from?
|
|
In what ways do Shelyn's and Nocticula's Areas of Concern over Art differ? Is this portion of Nocticula's portfolio a subset of Shelyn's?Nocticula's concerns are more over artists, not art. She's more concerned with artists who aren't allowed to express themselves, and prefers art that challenges the viewer.
Shelyn, on the other hand is a goddess of art, not artists. She enjoys all art except art that has an agenda to spread pain and misery and suffering. Note, this is not the same as art that is ABOUT pain and misery and suffering.
An artist would pray to Shelyn in the hope that their art would be protected, while the artist would pray to Nocticula in the hope that they themself would be protected?
Goofy question inbound...
Which Golarion deity is the best at charades?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not a Heinlein fan? What about (my favorite speculative fiction author) Philip K. Dick?
I don't read a lot of science fiction at all. I prefer horror, and when I sit down to read, it's almost always horror that I read. Exceptions, when they occur, are because there's horror in the fiction (such as most post-apocalyptic sci-fi) or because I already read some of the author's horror and loved their style (such as with Dan Simmons).
I haven't read any Philip K. Dick either, although I've enjoyed many of the movies inspired by his writing.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have up to this point, understood summoning spells to draw the material from a specific plane to form the "platonic ideal" of the creature that's been summoned. I never quite understood where the summon nature's ally spells drew the material to create the creatures available to them, though. Even the animals from summon monster were flavoured as animals that would exist in the outer planes.
Is my understanding of how summoning magic works in any way correct? In addition to elementals and creatures from the outer planes, the second edition spells let you summon regular animals, fey, giants, and plants (which I guess were originally part of summon nature's ally), and also aberrations and constructs. Where do these summoned creatures come from?
It's all stuff that is summoned from raw potential of the multiverse, wether you're summoning a dog or a fire elemental or a satyr or a hill giant or a gibbering mouther or a demon. They don't "come" from anywhere. They didn't exist before the summon effect brought them into being, and they don't exist after that effect expires (or they're slain, whichever comes first). Summoned creatures don't have souls, nor do they have free will. They're magical conjurations, not real creatures.
As such, you can be a lawful good spellcaster, summon an agathion to fight for you, and not feel guilty if it dies. Likewise, a druid who summons a bear doesn't have to feel like they yanked an animal out of its den on some other world just to have it get killed in a fight.
Feel free to adjust things in your game, if you want, but this way you sidestep a lot of potential concern trolling and guilt among players who want to play someone who summons things to help in a fight.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An artist would pray to Shelyn in the hope that their art would be protected, while the artist would pray to Nocticula in the hope that they themself would be protected?
Yup. Or vice versa. Worshipers and prayers aren't only limited to semantic, exact interpretations of a deity's dogma. A worshiper could also pray to Shelyn in hopes of their friend recovering from an illness, and a worshiper could pray to Nocticula in hopes of a safe travel across the ocean.
But overall, Shelyn is a patron of art and Nocticula is a patron of exiled/marginalized/risky artists. Shelyn is a much more expansive faith than Nocticula, who is at this point much more specialized.
|
|
I have up to this point, understood summoning spells to draw the material from a specific plane to form the "platonic ideal" of the creature that's been summoned. I never quite understood where the summon nature's ally spells drew the material to create the creatures available to them, though. Even the animals from summon monster were flavoured as animals that would exist in the outer planes.
Is my understanding of how summoning magic works in any way correct? In addition to elementals and creatures from the outer planes, the second edition spells let you summon regular animals, fey, giants, and plants (which I guess were originally part of summon nature's ally), and also aberrations and constructs. Where do these summoned creatures come from?
It's all stuff that is summoned from raw potential of the multiverse, wether you're summoning a dog or a fire elemental or a satyr or a hill giant or a gibbering mouther or a demon. They don't "come" from anywhere. They didn't exist before the summon effect brought them into being, and they don't exist after that effect expires (or they're slain, whichever comes first). Summoned creatures don't have souls, nor do they have free will. They're magical conjurations, not real creatures.
As such, you can be a lawful good spellcaster, summon an agathion to fight for you, and not feel guilty if it dies. Likewise, a druid who summons a bear doesn't have to feel like they yanked an animal out of its den on some other world just to have it get killed in a fight.
Feel free to adjust things in your game, if you want, but this way you sidestep a lot of potential concern trolling and guilt among players who want to play someone who summons things to help in a fight.
Is the "raw potential" in this case the magic essence associated with the given spell (eg. spirit/life for summon fiend, material for summon animal, life for summon fey)?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the "raw potential" in this case the magic essence associated with the given spell (eg. spirit/life for summon fiend, material for summon animal, life for summon fey)?
It's undefined at this point. I'm not sure how in-depth we get in the upcoming Secrets of Magic book about these sorts of topics...
...but my preference is yes, the magic essence associated with the spell. It's certainly not "soul magic" or positive energy of the like, though, since there are spells to summon things that don't have souls or don't come from positive energy, so that wouldn't make sense.
Do you like and/or play Monster Hunter?
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you like and/or play Monster Hunter?
I own it. I played it a little. I love the look and aesthetic of the game, and the cats that make you food, and the design for the monsters and weapons and armor... but I never got too deep into the game. I started playing with a friend who played a lot and it was hard to keep up. I do like the style of game play, which feels a little like Dark Souls, and one day I can see myself trying it out again... but for now I'm pretty distracted by Fallout 76 again. The Wastelanders update to it really made it feel more like the type of Fallout game I enjoy playing.
What is the difference and relation between Essence(s) and Quintessence?
Oh! Also hi there James, I hope you're doing well?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is the difference and relation between Essence(s) and Quintessence?
Essences are types of magic.
Quintessence is what the outer planes (and the creatures that live there) are made of—it's solidified soul energy.
The fact that "essence" is int he word "quintessence" isn't meant to imply there's a direct relationship between the two.
Oh! Also hi there James, I hope you're doing well?I hope I am too, but I can't say for certain that I am. It's a really tough year to feel like I'm doing well.
I understand all too well, hang in there!
What's the inspiration, if any, for dividing the history of Golarion into named ages like the Age of Destimy, Age of Enthronement etc?
Hey James,
I've had a heated debate regarding the
I believe that whoever holds/wears/wields this item can change its form back and forth with the command word. As per standard rules for using an item.
The counter argument was, due to the wording "she can also revert it back...", that only the person that turned the BB from a belt into a weapon can revert it.
I believe that this paragraph was a single statement split in 2 sentences, mainly due to the word "also", and the intend was that whoever holds this item can manipulate it with the command word.
ie: Character A can turn the belt into a weapon, die, and centuries later their weapon is found by B. Through some magic the command word is identified and B can revert it back into belt (even though they didnt originally convert it).
The counter argument held the believe that the item 'knows' or 'remembers' who originally converted it and wouldn't revert back, as per their interpretation of the wording, which to me would be something only an intelligent item could do ('remembering/knowing' and denying things).
To me, that sentence merely clarifies that being disarmed or dropping the item doesn't immediately turn it back into a belt, but that it consciously needs to be commanded (and thus held) for it to revert back into a belt.
What are your thoughts on how this works? Is either or both of us misunderstanding the rules?
Lastly, on a related topic, this item occupies a belt slot (due to it being a belt), but does converting it into a weapon change its slot into mainhand (or offhand) instead?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does each individual hydra head have sapience and a soul? When you cut one off and it regrows is it the same head as before or is it a whole new entity more or less?
A hydra has one soul, as do all multiheaded creatures unless we specifically say otherwise (which to date we have not).
It also has one "sapience" as well. Ettins have two "sapiences" though, as pointed out by its Independant Brains ability... something a hydra does not have.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the inspiration, if any, for dividing the history of Golarion into named ages like the Age of Destimy, Age of Enthronement etc?
D&D campaign settings did the same, so I guess that was the primary inspiration.
It also allows us to reference an era in a flavorful way rather than a numerical one, which is more fun.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey James,
I've had a heated debate regarding the ** spoiler omitted **I believe that whoever holds/wears/wields this item can change its form back and forth with the command word. As per standard rules for using an item.
The counter argument was, due to the wording "she can also revert it back...", that only the person that turned the BB from a belt into a weapon can revert it.I believe that this paragraph was a single statement split in 2 sentences, mainly due to the word "also", and the intend was that whoever holds this item can manipulate it with the command word.
ie: Character A can turn the belt into a weapon, die, and centuries later their weapon is found by B. Through some magic the command word is identified and B can revert it back into belt (even though they didnt originally convert it).The counter argument held the believe that the item 'knows' or 'remembers' who originally converted it and wouldn't revert back, as per their interpretation of the wording, which to me would be something only an intelligent item could do ('remembering/knowing' and denying things).
To me, that sentence merely clarifies that being disarmed or dropping the item doesn't immediately turn it back into a belt, but that it consciously needs to be commanded (and thus held) for it to revert back into a belt.
What are your thoughts on how this works? Is either or both of us misunderstanding the rules?
Lastly, on a related topic, this item occupies a belt slot (due to it being a belt), but does converting it into a weapon change its slot into mainhand (or offhand) instead?
Sorry, I don't answer rules questions, particularly ones that come pre-loaded with debates, in this thread.
I HAVE answered rules questions now and then recently in a "I'd do so in my games like this" but that didn't stop people from weaponizing my replies to argue that Paizo/James doesn't know how to play the game they work on.
If you need a definitive final answer, you should ask your GM. If you're the GM... You'll need to ask them in the product's forum thread or in the rules forums and use the feedback from the resulting debates to make your own decision, since the design team has pretty much moved on from 1st edition rules answering these days, as far as I know.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh cool, (kinda figured you'd pick Lilitu :3) any particular reason for Nabasu?Favourite demon that isn't a Succubus?Nabasu, choosing from the D&D creations.
Lilitu, choosing from ones we created for Pathfinder.
Because it had some really cool new special attacks that weren't just copy/paste attacks from other monsters or just spell-like abilities. The ability to feed on mortals and grow powerful plus the ability to steal deaths from people plus being the original source of what eventually became the vampiric touch spell, combined with some really creepy great artwork, made it one of my favorite monsters in the 1st edition Monster Manual II overall, let alone my favorite new demon from that book.
To the extent that I miss being able to call it a "Nabassu". We can't because the version that got into Tome of Horrors and put into the OGL had a typo/error in its name, which omitted one of the s from it. Same thing happened to Jubilex/Juiblex.
Knighthood was, in Terran history, a prerogative of the nobility and involved mounted warriors, partly because horses were expensive. The path to knighthood became somewhat formalized during the Middle Ages, with sons of nobility becoming first pages and then squires before being knighted.
In Golarion, I don't get a sense that the path to knighthood is formalized at all, and in particular it seems not to be limited to the nobility. Anyone can be a knight, anybody can be a squire, horses are irrelevant, there is no formal path to knighthood. It's as if the world says "there are knights, you figure it out".
Am I missing something?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knighthood was, in Terran history, a prerogative of the nobility and involved mounted warriors, partly because horses were expensive. The path to knighthood became somewhat formalized during the Middle Ages, with sons of nobility becoming first pages and then squires before being knighted.
In Golarion, I don't get a sense that the path to knighthood is formalized at all, and in particular it seems not to be limited to the nobility. Anyone can be a knight, anybody can be a squire, horses are irrelevant, there is no formal path to knighthood. It's as if the world says "there are knights, you figure it out".
Am I missing something?
It's different for each type of knight, be it a Hellknight or an Eagle Knight or a (now defunct) Knight of Ozem or Taldan Knight or any one of the other dozens of knightly orders we've put into the world.
For some of these orders, we've published books or articles about the path to knighthood. For others, we haven't yet. It' snot a case of "there are knights, you figure it out," as much as it is "there are LOTS of different knights, so you need to decide which one you're interested in and then look through the various products we've published to see if we've talked more about that type of knightly order yet." If the answer is no, then until we do get around to publishing more in the future, THAT'S when you have to figure it out.
Click here for a good starting place to see where to look next.
Hey James,
Are you still taking questions about PF1? Specifically in relation to APs and their affect on Golarion?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey James,
Are you still taking questions about PF1? Specifically in relation to APs and their affect on Golarion?
Absolutely!
Just super wary about hyper-detailed super-specific inspired-by-online-debates rules questions (for any edition).
But questions about Adventure Path impacts on Golarion? Ask away!
Hey James,
Are you still taking questions about PF1? Specifically in relation to APs and their affect on Golarion?
Absolutely!
Just super wary about hyper-detailed super-specific inspired-by-online-debates rules questions (for any edition).
But questions about Adventure Path impacts on Golarion? Ask away!
Well, I hadn't been here in awhile, and I figured it was polite to ask!
Slight explanation first, so you understand why I'm asking this question:
I'm working on my own homebrew version of Golarion in which the vast majority of PF1 APs have failed, known as Broken Golarion. The bad guys have won, more or less, and things are *bad*. However, Varisia/the Runelords situation present some interesting and possibly complicated issues. As my question will include spoilers about the end of 3 APs, I'm going to spoil it.
Is it possible to reconcile the failed ends of Rise(Karzoug returning), Shattered Star(First King Xin coming back to life in his clockwork body) and Return(Alaznist brings about a Thassilon under her rule), as well as keeping Shorsen good and having her still found New Thassilon(as the separate, smaller nation that it becomes if the PCs win)?
I would also like to have more of the other Runelords return and be active, but I'm unsure if the above is possible, let alone including the other Runelords.
Any insight you could provide, even if it's just to tell me there's no way all 4 can happen, would be most appreciated.
I understand if not but is there anything interesting you can tell us about the unreleased genie adventure that would have followed Savage Tide? Maybe a recurring NPC or a new named outsider (like Adimarchus)?