How much of the hinted at things in the lore is already there in your minds and how much of that is just a placeholder for further adventures?
I'm talking about things like the cause of death of Aroden, the Patronage of Clarethe Iomedar, the Plans of Kevoth-Kul and so on.
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How much of the hinted at things in the lore is already there in your minds and how much of that is just a placeholder for further adventures?
I'm talking about things like the cause of death of Aroden, the Patronage of Clarethe Iomedar, the Plans of Kevoth-Kul and so on.
I can't speak for other writers who have introduced elements into their work, but for me, whenever I drop in a hint of lore like that, I always have at least a vague idea about future stories for those things. Sometimes I'll drop a character in specifically because I know that including them early will really help set up something down the road. Ameiko being from Minkai is a great example; I dropped her into Sandpoint in Burnt Offerings becasue I knew that at some point in the future I wanted to reveal her larger role in the world in Jade Regent.
Another example is the timeline of recent events. If you look at page 37 of the Inner Sea World Guide we published for 1st edition, pretty much all of the events from 4700 on were things that either were callbacks to previous adventures that had already been published, or hints at upcoming adventures or campaigns I had in mind to start. Some of those hints (such as the eyeless krakens) haven't yet played out, but others (like 4709's giant metal scorpion setting up Iron Gods) were there to set up entire Adventure Paths.
And EVERY time I have an adventure or story where an established villain is defeated, I try to put in at least one more to fill the gap and serve as a new villain for the future. Such as in my adventure in Doomsday Dawn, where...
Tricksy hobbit! :-)
Which should take precedence?
* - Pathfinder Lost Omens: Legends? - for consistency with later 2nd Edition Products.
* - Events from a group's 1st Edition Campaigns?
Because, for example, a former PC might well be the Hurricane King.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which should take precedence?
* - Pathfinder Lost Omens: Legends? - for consistency with later 2nd Edition Products.
* - Events from a group's 1st Edition Campaigns?
Because, for example, a former PC might well be the Hurricane King.
That's 100% the GM's call, but it's more fun if what takes precedence are events and developments from your home game, isn't it?
That's 100% the GM's call, but it's more fun if what takes precedence are events and developments from your home game, isn't it?Which should take precedence?
* - Pathfinder Lost Omens: Legends? - for consistency with later 2nd Edition Products.
* - Events from a group's 1st Edition Campaigns?
Because, for example, a former PC might well be the Hurricane King.
Except, a collective of high level characters (a.k.a., the Skull & Shackles PCs) could quite plausibly crush the revolt of Vidrian when they declined to continue to pay "protection" to the Hurricane King.
One could, very rapidly, get into butterfly effect territory
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's 100% the GM's call, but it's more fun if what takes precedence are events and developments from your home game, isn't it?Which should take precedence?
* - Pathfinder Lost Omens: Legends? - for consistency with later 2nd Edition Products.
* - Events from a group's 1st Edition Campaigns?
Because, for example, a former PC might well be the Hurricane King.Except, a collective of high level characters (a.k.a., the Skull & Shackles PCs) could quite plausibly crush the revolt of Vidrian when they declined to continue to pay "protection" to the Hurricane King.
One could, very rapidly, get into butterfly effect territory
Then reset the world after every campaign you play if that's easier for you. We aren't interested in making Golarion a static world where nothing ever changes, but we do try to make those changes align with the expected norm for how things typically play out.
I realize it's a bit late for Paizo to go this route, but what do you think of N. Robin Crossby's idea of publishing data on a setting that only goes up to a specific date, everything that happened before that date is history, and everything that happens after that date establishes a specific "alternate" world, so that every campaign can have its own future?
Yeah, it would make publishing APs maybe a bit difficult, too. Or at least different. :-)
James, do you feel there is any "Lovecraftian" theme to the old module "Expedition to Barrier Peaks" ? And would you in any way related the story "At the Mountain of Madness" to the adventure "Expedition to Barrier Peaks"?
|
How much of the hinted at things in the lore is already there in your minds and how much of that is just a placeholder for further adventures?
I'm talking about things like the cause of death of Aroden, the Patronage of Clarethe Iomedar, the Plans of Kevoth-Kul and so on.
I can't speak for other writers who have introduced elements into their work, but for me, whenever I drop in a hint of lore like that, I always have at least a vague idea about future stories for those things. Sometimes I'll drop a character in specifically because I know that including them early will really help set up something down the road. Ameiko being from Minkai is a great example; I dropped her into Sandpoint in Burnt Offerings becasue I knew that at some point in the future I wanted to reveal her larger role in the world in Jade Regent.
Another example is the timeline of recent events. If you look at page 37 of the Inner Sea World Guide we published for 1st edition, pretty much all of the events from 4700 on were things that either were callbacks to previous adventures that had already been published, or hints at upcoming adventures or campaigns I had in mind to start. Some of those hints (such as the eyeless krakens) haven't yet played out, but others (like 4709's giant metal scorpion setting up Iron Gods) were there to set up entire Adventure Paths.
And EVERY time I have an adventure or story where an established villain is defeated, I try to put in at least one more to fill the gap and serve as a new villain for the future. Such as in my adventure in Doomsday Dawn, where...
** spoiler omitted **
Speaking of said character what other books as he been mentioned/hinted in besides the doomsday dawn one? (I know there is a quote mentioning him at the end of one of the Ap's and a brief mention in the sandpoint book but that is all that comes to mind.)
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James, do you feel there is any "Lovecraftian" theme to the old module "Expedition to Barrier Peaks" ? And would you in any way related the story "At the Mountain of Madness" to the adventure "Expedition to Barrier Peaks"?
Only insofar as much as Expedition is super pulpy, really. I wouldn't relate it to "Mountains of Madness" at all. They're telling very different stories.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I realize it's a bit late for Paizo to go this route, but what do you think of N. Robin Crossby's idea of publishing data on a setting that only goes up to a specific date, everything that happened before that date is history, and everything that happens after that date establishes a specific "alternate" world, so that every campaign can have its own future?
Yeah, it would make publishing APs maybe a bit difficult, too. Or at least different. :-)
I think that won't work. The primary reason why we shifted away from something more like this in 1st edition to the more active progression of the timeline in 2nd edition is very much a response to gamer expectations and simply the way so many of our customers treated our adventure paths and products like there was a living timeline anyway. In part, that's a side effect of running a robust Org Play program, I guess, but it's also in part due to the fact that we publish a very robust line of products that gives the impression that the world is constantly growing, both physically and temporally.
Publishing data on a setting that only goes up to a specific date works better for a company that focuses more on multiple game settings rather than one, that doesn't have an active and huge orgplay program, and that doesn't publish adventures that interconnect with each other.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of said character what other books as he been mentioned/hinted in besides the doomsday dawn one? (I know there is a quote mentioning him at the end of one of the Ap's and a brief mention in the sandpoint book but that is all that comes to mind.)
There's been hints here and there, as you've noted, but the next adventure where his presence plays a key role hasn't been published yet. But it will be soon.
I just saw that Treerazor is going to be the gargantuan mini for the next Pathfinder Battles set.
Was this your doing?
Are you excited about the Mini getting produced?
Care to tease any upcoming produces that might need such a magnificent mini?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just saw that Treerazor is going to be the gargantuan mini for the next Pathfinder Battles set.
Was this your doing?
Are you excited about the Mini getting produced?
Care to tease any upcoming produces that might need such a magnificent mini?
It's Treerazer with an "e", not an "o". He destroys trees. He doesn't shave them. :-P
It's not 100% my doing. I pushed for us to replace the tarrasque in the 2nd edition Bestiary with Treerazer, to have a Pathfinder creature in the role of "toughest monster in the book" rather than one we borrowed from the SRD, though, and have been pushing for Treerazer to get a mini for many years. But when it came time for folks to decide what Gargantuan mini to do in this set, they were the ones to pick him, not me. Although they surely wouldn't have picked him if I hadn't been pushing his "brand" over the years!
I am indeed excited for this! Along with the miniatures of Shensen, it's one of the characters I've had the most investment in creating who have made the transition to minis format. Very fun!
As for upcoming Treerazer-themed products... nothing to say there.
I realize it's a bit late for Paizo to go this route, but what do you think of N. Robin Crossby's idea of publishing data on a setting that only goes up to a specific date, everything that happened before that date is history, and everything that happens after that date establishes a specific "alternate" world, so that every campaign can have its own future?
Yeah, it would make publishing APs maybe a bit difficult, too. Or at least different. :-)
I think that won't work. The primary reason why we shifted away from something more like this in 1st edition to the more active progression of the timeline in 2nd edition is very much a response to gamer expectations and simply the way so many of our customers treated our adventure paths and products like there was a living timeline anyway. In part, that's a side effect of running a robust Org Play program, I guess, but it's also in part due to the fact that we publish a very robust line of products that gives the impression that the world is constantly growing, both physically and temporally.
Publishing data on a setting that only goes up to a specific date works better for a company that focuses more on multiple game settings rather than one, that doesn't have an active and huge orgplay program, and that doesn't publish adventures that interconnect with each other.
I thought I had seen the idea floated here that the death of Aroden and the end of prophecy was (more metatextually than literally in-game) connected to, or enabled, the idea of a multiverse of alternate campaign worlds. Does that ring a bell at all?
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought I had seen the idea floated here that the death of Aroden and the end of prophecy was (more metatextually than literally in-game) connected to, or enabled, the idea of a multiverse of alternate campaign worlds. Does that ring a bell at all?
Prophecies are among the tiredest and most cliched of all fantasy tropes, and they're particularly troublesome in RPGs where players are often super resistant to the idea of being "railroaded." They simply don't work well in an interactive, collaborative storytelling venue like an RPG.
As such, I've often said that us deciding to set our campaign setting in a fantasy world soon after prophecies started to fail to come true is a symbol of us "letting PCs into the world." It's certianly not something that we've leaned into in print, but is more of a metaphor for the difference between one person building a setting for a series of stories they control verses a group of people setting up a setting for use by countless others.
The idea that the events at the onset of the Age of Lost Omens might be connected to a multiverse of alternate campaign worlds likely grew from this metaphor, but that's more in the realm of fan theory than anything intrinsic to the lore of the setting.
|
Creative Director
|
What makes it part of Avistan as opposed to Garund or being it's own thing?
An arbitrary decision I just made in the previous post after never having considered the question in the first place, since I've long looked at the area simply as the Inner Sea region.
I made that decision because Avistan is the smallest of all the continents, so giving it Kortos seems only fair.
In the grand scheme of things, though, it doesn't matter since "Avistan" and "Garund" aren't nations; they're continents.
The spell Pest Form does not specifically grant a climb speed, saying that the form you take doesn't effect the forms abilities.
If you were running a game, would you allow a PC who took the form of a spider to have a climb speed?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell Pest Form does not specifically grant a climb speed, saying that the form you take doesn't effect the forms abilities.
If you were running a game, would you allow a PC who took the form of a spider to have a climb speed?
No. Because doing so with a 1st level spell erodes the value of a 2nd level spell, spider climb.
Hi James, Hows you day going so far?
I was wondering, I know it isn't supported by the rules at the moment, but lore wise, are Fetchling half-elves something that can exist in world?
|
Creative Director
|
Hi James, Hows you day going so far?
I was wondering, I know it isn't supported by the rules at the moment, but lore wise, are Fetchling half-elves something that can exist in world?
Day's technically only 15 minutes in, since it's just past midnight, but yesterday wasn't bad once work was over and I got to see one of the best movies of the year, "Come True."
Since half-elf is a heritage, applying it to something other than human is a pretty easy home-game hack. We don't have any half-elf fetchlings in Golarion yet, and no rules to support them yet, nor any plans to do so.
On the topic of tech vs magic (not looking for an argument, I swear) the 3.5 book Complete Arcane says that magic is highly exclusive, like how anybody with the correct instructions can create a tech item but only a special few can create even minor magic spells or items.
However, in Pathfinder/Starfinder this is clearly not the case, not only because of the existence of the latter game, but also in the Master Craftsman feat, and the ability to craft consumable magic items via Crafting.
On a side note, in 2e, for example, alchemical crafting is a feat, while we IRL have even children using science kits.
To get back to the main point, what is the fundamental difference, mechanically (as in, rules wise), that allows for magic in Pathfinder to become "industrialized" as you have discussed earlier on this thread?
PS: To clarify, I am (mainly) focused on the 1e rules since they are closest to the OG 3.5 rules
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of tech vs magic (not looking for an argument, I swear) the 3.5 book Complete Arcane says that magic is highly exclusive, like how anybody with the correct instructions can create a tech item but only a special few can create even minor magic spells or items.
However, in Pathfinder/Starfinder this is clearly not the case, not only because of the existence of the latter game, but also in the Master Craftsman feat, and the ability to craft consumable magic items via Crafting.
On a side note, in 2e, for example, alchemical crafting is a feat, while we IRL have even children using science kits.
To get back to the main point, what is the fundamental difference, mechanically (as in, rules wise), that allows for magic in Pathfinder to become "industrialized" as you have discussed earlier on this thread?
PS: To clarify, I am (mainly) focused on the 1e rules since they are closest to the OG 3.5 rules
Complete Arcane is for a game several editions in the past, produced by a different company, so citing that as a source for 2nd edition Pathfinder content is somewhat irrelevant.
And the fundamental difference is that we have different opinions and interests as content creators at Paizo than did those from Wizards of the Coast in the early 2000s. We wanted and still want magic to be at the forefront for the stories we want to tell, and the long string of questions you've been answering on this topic have sapped my energy for getting into greater details. It's the way we want it to be. If you or anyone else wants a different set of core assumptions, the fact that you can kitbash or homebrew your own settings is one of the coolest parts about tabletop RPGs.
On the topic of tech vs magic (not looking for an argument, I swear) the 3.5 book Complete Arcane says that magic is highly exclusive, like how anybody with the correct instructions can create a tech item but only a special few can create even minor magic spells or items.
However, in Pathfinder/Starfinder this is clearly not the case, not only because of the existence of the latter game, but also in the Master Craftsman feat, and the ability to craft consumable magic items via Crafting.
On a side note, in 2e, for example, alchemical crafting is a feat, while we IRL have even children using science kits.
To get back to the main point, what is the fundamental difference, mechanically (as in, rules wise), that allows for magic in Pathfinder to become "industrialized" as you have discussed earlier on this thread?
PS: To clarify, I am (mainly) focused on the 1e rules since they are closest to the OG 3.5 rules
Complete Arcane is for a game several editions in the past, produced by a different company, so citing that as a source for 2nd edition Pathfinder content is somewhat irrelevant.
And the fundamental difference is that we have different opinions and interests as content creators at Paizo than did those from Wizards of the Coast in the early 2000s. We wanted and still want magic to be at the forefront for the stories we want to tell, and the long string of questions you've been answering on this topic have sapped my energy for getting into greater details. It's the way we want it to be. If you or anyone else wants a different set of core assumptions, the fact that you can kitbash or homebrew your own settings is one of the coolest parts about tabletop RPGs.
Yes, but what about me specifically asking for examples from 1e (although perhaps the deletion of xp to craft/cast certain spells has something to do with that)?
Also, about the side note in my OG post, can you explain that?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of tech vs magic (not looking for an argument, I swear) the 3.5 book Complete Arcane says that magic is highly exclusive, like how anybody with the correct instructions can create a tech item but only a special few can create even minor magic spells or items.
However, in Pathfinder/Starfinder this is clearly not the case, not only because of the existence of the latter game, but also in the Master Craftsman feat, and the ability to craft consumable magic items via Crafting.
On a side note, in 2e, for example, alchemical crafting is a feat, while we IRL have even children using science kits.
To get back to the main point, what is the fundamental difference, mechanically (as in, rules wise), that allows for magic in Pathfinder to become "industrialized" as you have discussed earlier on this thread?
PS: To clarify, I am (mainly) focused on the 1e rules since they are closest to the OG 3.5 rules
Complete Arcane is for a game several editions in the past, produced by a different company, so citing that as a source for 2nd edition Pathfinder content is somewhat irrelevant.
And the fundamental difference is that we have different opinions and interests as content creators at Paizo than did those from Wizards of the Coast in the early 2000s. We wanted and still want magic to be at the forefront for the stories we want to tell, and the long string of questions you've been answering on this topic have sapped my energy for getting into greater details. It's the way we want it to be. If you or anyone else wants a different set of core assumptions, the fact that you can kitbash or homebrew your own settings is one of the coolest parts about tabletop RPGs.
Yes, but what about me specifically asking for examples from 1e (although perhaps the deletion of xp to craft/cast certain spells has something to do with that)?
Also, about the side note in my OG post, can you explain that?
Please re-ask your question without cluttering it by referencing other games that have no real bearing on a 1st edition Pathfinder question, without overly complicating things. AKA: Your question is indecipherable to me on a Saturday afternoon while I'm playing Pathfinder via roll20 with friends.
I'm playing Pathfinder via roll20 with friends.
What is the campaign about? Are you the GM or PC?
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing Pathfinder via roll20 with friends.What is the campaign about? Are you the GM or PC?
I'm a PC. Jason Nelson is the GM; he's running us through the Legendary Planet Adventure Path his company published, but upgraded to be mythic. My character JUST NOW leveled up to 15th level; she's a Halfling Swashbuckler Guardian named Kiku who fights with a starknife, and we just killed a colossal charybdis.
Please...On the topic of tech vs magic (not looking for an argument, I swear) the 3.5 book Complete Arcane says that magic is highly exclusive, like how anybody with the correct instructions can create a tech item but only a special few can create even minor magic spells or items.
However, in Pathfinder/Starfinder this is clearly not the case, not only because of the existence of the latter game, but also in the Master Craftsman feat, and the ability to craft consumable magic items via Crafting.
On a side note, in 2e, for example, alchemical crafting is a feat, while we IRL have even children using science kits.
To get back to the main point, what is the fundamental difference, mechanically (as in, rules wise), that allows for magic in Pathfinder to become "industrialized" as you have discussed earlier on this thread?
PS: To clarify, I am (mainly) focused on the 1e rules since they are closest to the OG 3.5 rules
Complete Arcane is for a game several editions in the past, produced by a different company, so citing that as a source for 2nd edition Pathfinder content is somewhat irrelevant.
And the fundamental difference is that we have different opinions and interests as content creators at Paizo than did those from Wizards of the Coast in the early 2000s. We wanted and still want magic to be at the forefront for the stories we want to tell, and the long string of questions you've been answering on this topic have sapped my energy for getting into greater details. It's the way we want it to be. If you or anyone else wants a different set of core assumptions, the fact that you can kitbash or homebrew your own settings is one of the coolest parts about tabletop RPGs.
Yes, but what about me specifically asking for examples from 1e (although perhaps the deletion of xp to craft/cast certain spells has something to do with that)?
Also, about the side note in my OG post, can you explain that?
OK, here goes: Complete Arcane is a 3.5 book, and it includes quote, the idea "that magic is highly exclusive, like how anybody with the correct instructions can create a tech item but only a special few can create even minor magic spells or items."
Meanwhile, PF1E, which is heavily, HEAVILY influenced and based off of 3.5, does not seem to have this attitude towards magic as evidenced by Starfinder (the explicit future of Pathfinder) where magic is industrial.
So I am asking, what mechanical changes in 1e are allowing magic items to be industrialized when in 3.5, which 1e IS HEAVILY BASED OFF OF, the book asserts they cannot be?
I'm a PC. Jason Nelson is the GM; he's running us through the Legendary Planet Adventure Path his company published, but upgraded to be mythic. My character JUST NOW leveled up to 15th level; she's a Halfling Swashbuckler Guardian named Kiku who fights with a starknife, and we just killed a colossal charybdis.I'm playing Pathfinder via roll20 with friends.What is the campaign about? Are you the GM or PC?
Ooh, I kickstart backed that! Tell Jason that at least one person on the internet think it's one of the best APs he's read. I'm disappointed that the group I had fell apart due to work obligations in the middle of the second book, but look forward to running it some day.
Did your party start on the space station as strangers, or did you run through the Assimilation Strain prologue on Golarion (or another world)?
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, here goes: Complete Arcane is a 3.5 book, and it includes quote, the idea "that magic is highly exclusive, like how anybody with the correct instructions can create a tech item but only a special few can create even minor magic spells or items."
Meanwhile, PF1E, which is heavily, HEAVILY influenced and based off of 3.5, does not seem to have this attitude towards magic as evidenced by Starfinder (the explicit future of Pathfinder) where magic is industrial.
So I am asking, what mechanical changes in 1e are allowing magic items to be industrialized when in 3.5, which 1e IS HEAVILY BASED OFF OF, the book asserts they cannot be?
Pathfinder doesn't have that attitude because it's one of many things we did not want in our game.
The concept of magic being highly exclusive mentioned in Complete Arcane is, to me, fundamentally flawed, since every adventure published for D&D in that era has plenty of examples of magic being used by low-tier mooks. And there's not really any gatelocks in place that model this so-called exclusivity into player character creation as well. ANYONE who wants to play a spellcaster in that game can. So the idea that magic is "highly exclusive" is, to me, an example of lore not being supported by the rules or the flavor of the game it's written for.
Pathfinder never even picks up on this thread because of that; because it's not supported by the way the game is built (anyone can play a spellcaster) and the way the world is built (pretty much every location has magic in there, and allows you to support a spellcasting PC with shopping options in any settlement, for example).
You're basing your take on a concept that has never been well supported by the game and is thus awkward lore to begin with. Furthermore, the way the OGL works FORBIDS us in any event from using any material in a book like Complete Arcane anyway.
Our original vision for what to do with Pathfinder, when we made the 1st edition RPG, was influcenced by our fear that customers would reject the game in mass if we deviated too far from the D&D rules that inspired them, so we kept our rules changes on the light side of things.
Today, with 2nd edition, we do not have that fear. Many of the changes you see in 2nd edition reflect what we learned from using 1st edition and 3.5 and all the editions back of D&D to the start of what worked and what didn't work, and this was the first time we felt empowered and safe enough to change those rules. Pertinent to this specific point... in 2nd edition, you are not limited by your associated mental ability score in what your maximum level of spell casting can be. A wizard with an Intelligence of 10 can cast any level of spell, if they want. They won't be as talented as a higher INT wizard, but that low INT doesn't lock them out of casting spells. That's one example of how the rules of 2nd edition do not foster a sense of "exclusivity" of magic.
How common or rare magic is is best decided by the lore of the story. If we wanted magic to be exclusive, as Complete Arcane seems to say, then spellcasting classes in 1st edition would and should have been presented solely as tough-to-qualify for prestige classes. That's not the game we wanted to publish.
So we didn't.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh, I kickstart backed that! Tell Jason that at least one person on the internet think it's one of the best APs he's read. I'm disappointed that the group I had fell apart due to work obligations in the middle of the second book, but look forward to running it some day.Did your party start on the space station as strangers, or did you run through the Assimilation Strain prologue on Golarion (or another world)?
Will do, but it's even BETTER if he hears that from a customer, in the form of an email or, even better, a nice review or feedback online. Jason Nelson already knows I think he's a great writer and GM and designer, in that I've been gaming with him for over 20 years and hired him many times to write adventures and content first for Dungeon Magazine and later for Pathfinder. I thank him for his work after every session (and I firmly believe that's something EVERY player should do after EVERY session their GM runs for them unless the GM is legitimately awful, in which case the player should just leave the game). Reading direct kudos and praise from customers is really crucial to a game designer's morale and inspiration and really helps us want to keep doing what we do. Hearing that something we helped create brought delight to someone else is the best way to encourage us to do more. Bad reviews and pointing out errors can certainly help us learn from our mistakes and correct them, but seeing them focused on or (worse) seeing the internet never let go of an error we corrected and continue to hold it against us is one of the main reasons game designers and writers leave the industry.
Anyway... I joined the campaign during the 2nd adventure, and as work on 2nd Edition heated up I had to take about a year off from the game and missed a big chunk of the 3rd and 4th adventures, so I missed out on the start of the whole thing. I do know that Kiku, my PC, is from Golarion, so there's at least SOME link to the setting there, but I honestly don't know what happened in this group's play-through of the Assimilation Strain.
"in 2nd edition, you are not limited by your associated mental ability score in what your maximum level of spell casting can be. A wizard with an Intelligence of 10 can cast any level of spell, if they want. They won't be as talented as a higher INT wizard, but that low INT doesn't lock them out of casting spells. That's one example of how the rules of 2nd edition do not foster a sense of "exclusivity" of magic."
So in-universe what changed? Would you say that magic has evolved due to research or better understanding? Do you think it would be good/feasible to transplant such things as the "no longer necessary high int to cast spells") into PF 1E? As in, would it fundamentally break the game and/or be OP?
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"in 2nd edition, you are not limited by your associated mental ability score in what your maximum level of spell casting can be. A wizard with an Intelligence of 10 can cast any level of spell, if they want. They won't be as talented as a higher INT wizard, but that low INT doesn't lock them out of casting spells. That's one example of how the rules of 2nd edition do not foster a sense of "exclusivity" of magic."
So in-universe what changed? Would you say that magic has evolved due to research or better understanding? Do you think it would be good/feasible to transplant such things as the "no longer necessary high int to cast spells") into PF 1E? As in, would it fundamentally break the game and/or be OP?
The rules changed, but the world didn't. We tell the same stories in 2nd edition as we did in 1st edition.
Frankly, I think that rather than transplant rules like this back into 1st edition it's better to just play 2nd edition. If someone prefers 1st edition, you're not gonna make them have more fun by faking 2nd edition using 1st edition.
Then reset the world after every campaign you play if that's easier for you. We aren't interested in making Golarion a static world where nothing ever changes, but we do try to make those changes align with the expected norm for how things typically play out.
Wait!
Yawar
Was it anywhere mentioned which planetary system the orrery in the Wandering Spheres is showing?
Any plans for more Comics and / or novels?
TV-Show? (okay, just half kidding).
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then reset the world after every campaign you play if that's easier for you. We aren't interested in making Golarion a static world where nothing ever changes, but we do try to make those changes align with the expected norm for how things typically play out.Wait! ** spoiler omitted **
Yawar
We don't expect players to do anything, really. That's a big part of why we generally avoid doing adventures or the like in areas where we JUST did an adventure path; that region needs time to "cool down" from the PC impacts.
With the launch of 2nd edition, we had to go through all of the previous adventures and Adventure Paths and make decisions as to how the world would advance. In cases where a PC could become the new ruler of a region, such as with Skull & Shackles, but also as in cases like Curse of the Crimson Throne, Kingmaker, or even Jade Regent, we don't have access to your PCs or the stories you made, so we had to give those roles to NPCs.
|
Creative Director
|
Was it anywhere mentioned which planetary system the orrery in the Wandering Spheres is showing?
Any plans for more Comics and / or novels?
TV-Show? (okay, just half kidding).
As far as I know, nope. And since I had to google "Wandering Spheres Pathfinder" to find out what you were referring to, that should be proof that we've not got much planned for this tidbit. :-)
We're always looking for more opportunities for our stuff (Pathfinder AND Starfinder) to transition over into other entertainment venues, be they comics, novels, shows, movies, video games, audio dramas, etc. But we're also super protective of it too, and that's meant turning down almost all of the opportunities that we've had to do so. It takes a long time, sometimes literally years, for an opportunity to go from "Okay this sounds good for us, let's do it!" to the point where anything is ready enough to announce to the public. So... stay tuned and once those moments come, we'll not hide them!
Will we see an official announcement about the Runelords minis soon?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are the rankings in the Razmir clergy?
I know there's Masks of the 12th Step and Visions of the 15th Step. Do they do different things?
I have no idea. I've not done much at all in the area of thinking about Razmir and his organization (beyond not wanting to call them "clergy" of course), since that whole thing is so very much Jason Bulmahn's creation. That's his story to tell.
Speaking of Razmir, might there be an upcoming Adventure Path on the horizon with him playing a prominent role? I realise this question has been asked a while ago but I'm getting the impression he's getting a bit more attention as of late (though that might be my imagination).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your least favorite campaign setting and why?
Mine, personally, is Forgotten Realms, if in only because what is written in the actual campaign setting book not only does not match up with the world any of the writers wrote up in novels or modules, it is not even consistent with itself; ie temples of knowledge deities are common enough the humblest peasant in the average land can read and write, but magic is "highly exclusive" and rare? Not to mention this weird underlying current of "tech is superior to magic..."
So basically, too many examples of lore not being supported by the rules or the flavor of the game it's written for.
|
Creative Director
|
Speaking of Razmir, might there be an upcoming Adventure Path on the horizon with him playing a prominent role? I realise this question has been asked a while ago but I'm getting the impression he's getting a bit more attention as of late (though that might be my imagination).
Razmir is a part of the setting, and that's all you need to possibly be in any product we publish, including but not limited to Adventure Paths.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is your least favorite campaign setting and why?
Mine, personally, is Forgotten Realms, if in only because what is written in the actual campaign setting book not only does not match up with the world any of the writers wrote up in novels or modules, it is not even consistent with itself; ie temples of knowledge deities are common enough the humblest peasant in the average land can read and write, but magic is "highly exclusive" and rare? Not to mention this weird underlying current of "tech is superior to magic..."
So basically, too many examples of lore not being supported by the rules or the flavor of the game it's written for.
I do have a least favorite setting, but I don't enjoy publicly talking about things I don't like, since I know for a fact that my least favorite campaign setting is others' favorites, and some of those others are friends, including some who work on that setting. And the internet already has way too much negativity. And negative feedback is more impactful to creators than positive feedback, alas, so yeah... I don't really enjoy badmouthing anything online. Regardless of what it is I'm badmouthing, unless I'm actively trying to fight against something awful that other people are doing to spread hate or pain or fear.
I'm much more interested in talking about my favorite campaign settings, and the Forgotten Realms is in my top five of those favorites.
What is your least favorite campaign setting and why?
Mine, personally, is Forgotten Realms, if in only because what is written in the actual campaign setting book not only does not match up with the world any of the writers wrote up in novels or modules, it is not even consistent with itself; ie temples of knowledge deities are common enough the humblest peasant in the average land can read and write, but magic is "highly exclusive" and rare? Not to mention this weird underlying current of "tech is superior to magic..."
So basically, too many examples of lore not being supported by the rules or the flavor of the game it's written for.
I do have a least favorite setting, but I don't enjoy publicly talking about things I don't like, since I know for a fact that my least favorite campaign setting is others' favorites, and some of those others are friends, including some who work on that setting. And the internet already has way too much negativity. And negative feedback is more impactful to creators than positive feedback, alas, so yeah... I don't really enjoy badmouthing anything online. Regardless of what it is I'm badmouthing, unless I'm actively trying to fight against something awful that other people are doing to spread hate or pain or fear.
I'm much more interested in talking about my favorite campaign settings, and the Forgotten Realms is in my top five of those favorites.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. For me, FR is OK for one shots and such, but the immensely extended timescale/way way too many uber casters/deific conspiracy to keep people in Medieval Stasis serve less to help my gaming experience and more to hinder it. For example, if I want to create a campaign around industrializing a small town and eventually a kingdom in FR, I would have to somehow get around the fact that the canon FR has literal deities who will probably send gangs of inevitables to kill you and/or send Elminster to kill you and /or alter physics so that nothing you try to do works.
On that note, how can physics in PF possibly work so as to allow the advancements that canonically happened in Starfinder, or on Earth? I mean, Pathfinder is a world where the four elements supplant chemical reactions, for crying out loud. As in, fire is an untamable elemental force and not a reaction in physics. Not to mention inherently untamable lightning elementals vs. electricity (Discworld comes to mind).