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


Off-Topic Discussions

11,001 to 11,050 of 78,924 << first < prev | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | next > last >>

Quote:
In that case, the alchemist creates the infusion and then has to give it to someone; they can either drink it themselves or they can let the alchemist dose them up, although that takes a 2nd action beyond creating the infusion.

Hmmm.. this is what happens when i can't talk with my hands.

8 am breakfast: The alchemist with the infusion discovery passes out infusions of cure light wounds.

11am: The ranger is out scouting ahead of the party and catches a goblin arrow in the but. If the ranger wants to use the infusion of cure light wounds is it

1) A standard action as if the ranger were the alchemist

or

2) A move action to take out the infusion and a standard action to drink it, following the rules for a potion.

sorry.


James Jacobs wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

James Jacobs:

Bestiary 2, first printing, page 313, CR4 monsters.
What is a 'sicuel solifugid'?
It's not listed in the alphabetical listing of monsters at the start of the book; I just searched this website and found nothing...
Is it some cut-at-the-last-minute variant of the giant solifugid, and if so has it shown up/is it due to show up anywhere else?
The "sicuel solifugid's" name changed to "albino cave solifugid," so as to sync up "Into the Darklands'" critter with Bestiary 2, something the solifugid's original author didn't think to do.

Thanks. :)

Another monster related question though, I'm afraid. :-? I've checked the PFRPG core rules and bestiary 1 and 2 and I can't actually find guidelines listed anywhere as to just how big (in terms of feet and inches) each size category might be? Have I overlooked something in these books, and if so where? If not, roughly how big is something which is size 'huge'? (And what about the other categories?)
(As an aside, I think third edition had two different scales, depending on whether a creature extended horizontally or vertically, which slightly complicated things, although was understandable.)


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

James Jacobs:

Bestiary 2, first printing, page 313, CR4 monsters.
What is a 'sicuel solifugid'?
It's not listed in the alphabetical listing of monsters at the start of the book; I just searched this website and found nothing...
Is it some cut-at-the-last-minute variant of the giant solifugid, and if so has it shown up/is it due to show up anywhere else?
The "sicuel solifugid's" name changed to "albino cave solifugid," so as to sync up "Into the Darklands'" critter with Bestiary 2, something the solifugid's original author didn't think to do.

Thanks. :)

Another monster related question though, I'm afraid. :-? I've checked the PFRPG core rules and bestiary 1 and 2 and I can't actually find guidelines listed anywhere as to just how big (in terms of feet and inches) each size category might be? Have I overlooked something in these books, and if so where? If not, roughly how big is something which is size 'huge'? (And what about the other categories?)
(As an aside, I think third edition had two different scales, depending on whether a creature extended horizontally or vertically, which slightly complicated things, although was understandable.)

It is in the core rulebook in the combat chapter.


doctor_wu wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

James Jacobs:

Bestiary 2, first printing, page 313, CR4 monsters.
What is a 'sicuel solifugid'?
It's not listed in the alphabetical listing of monsters at the start of the book; I just searched this website and found nothing...
Is it some cut-at-the-last-minute variant of the giant solifugid, and if so has it shown up/is it due to show up anywhere else?
The "sicuel solifugid's" name changed to "albino cave solifugid," so as to sync up "Into the Darklands'" critter with Bestiary 2, something the solifugid's original author didn't think to do.

Thanks. :)

Another monster related question though, I'm afraid. :-? I've checked the PFRPG core rules and bestiary 1 and 2 and I can't actually find guidelines listed anywhere as to just how big (in terms of feet and inches) each size category might be? Have I overlooked something in these books, and if so where? If not, roughly how big is something which is size 'huge'? (And what about the other categories?)
(As an aside, I think third edition had two different scales, depending on whether a creature extended horizontally or vertically, which slightly complicated things, although was understandable.)
It is in the core rulebook in the combat chapter.

I seem not to be seeing it. :-?

Table 8-1 gives size modifiers to combat rolls.
Table 8-5 lists the amount of horizontal space (five foot squares) a creature of a certain size needs to fight in effectively.
Neither gives any idea of how tall a creature might be, or into what size category an invented new creature should be treated as falling.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Shoggothic wrote:

James,

I have found a map scale issue with the Candlestone Caverns mega-dungeon in the Dungeons of Golarion Campaign Setting and wanted your input as to what the correct scale should be.

According to the map scale on page 6 of DoG, each grid square for the Candlestone Caverns is equal to 10 feet. This cannot be the case.

The Pathfinder Society Scenario #37-'The Beggar's Pearl', describes Level 2 of the Candlestone Caverns in detail and the dungeon parameters measured from the Entrance to the Mushroom Caves indicates that The Hall of Wonders should be about 250 feet long by about 155 feet wide, not counting the 2nd floor.

So unless the 11 encounters featured on the 1st floor of 'Beggar's' Hall of Wonders are supposed to take place in what looks in DoG like area about 10 feet x 5 feet, the scale is incorrect.

The map scale error in the Candlestone Caverns is an error we know about; basically, NONE of the side view maps of the dungeons in that book should have scales at all, because none of hte side view ones are TO scale. They're merely representational of how the dungeons are all laid out.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Shoggothic wrote:

James,

At Gen Con you explained that 'surfaces' onto which a Symbol of Death, Fear, etc. could be drawn onto did not include flesh (so, no bare-chested Monks with Symbols of Death tattooed on them). What about armor or shields, such as a breast plate or a tower shield?

Also, since many golems are created from base materials that could also be a surface (i.e. stone or glass), could a golem have a Symbol drawn onto it?
.?

Nope; a "surface" isn't something mobile. It has to be something immobile for a symbol to be able to be inscribed on it.

How "immobile" should be the surface to quality?

I just had the awesome image of a pirate ship entering an enemy port with a symbol of Insanity or Fear draw on his sails or forecastle (it would have to be widened to cover a significant area, but the basic idea still make of a impressive entrance).

From your post the sails are not eligible but the forecastle is sufficiently "immobile", being part of a big structure or it would necessarily have to be a stationary structure?

Whether or not any one GM wants a symbol to be mobile enough (and thus something you can put on a sailing ship's sails or figurehead, which IS a cool idea) is up to your GM. I think it's a cool idea, though. But it falls into a gray area in the rules that not all GMs would be comfortable allowing. I'd allow it in my games, though.

But putting a symbol on a golem isn't legal. They're creatures, not surfaces.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
In that case, the alchemist creates the infusion and then has to give it to someone; they can either drink it themselves or they can let the alchemist dose them up, although that takes a 2nd action beyond creating the infusion.

Hmmm.. this is what happens when i can't talk with my hands.

8 am breakfast: The alchemist with the infusion discovery passes out infusions of cure light wounds.

11am: The ranger is out scouting ahead of the party and catches a goblin arrow in the but. If the ranger wants to use the infusion of cure light wounds is it

1) A standard action as if the ranger were the alchemist

or

2) A move action to take out the infusion and a standard action to drink it, following the rules for a potion.

Move action to take it out, standard action to drink it. Regardless of who's using that particular infusion, since it's been prepared ahead of time as a "fake potion" of sorts.

The ONLY time an infusion's creation and use all gets rolled together into one standard action is when the alchemist "casts" the infusion like a spell on himself.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Another monster related question though, I'm afraid. :-? I've checked the PFRPG core rules and bestiary 1 and 2 and I can't actually find guidelines listed anywhere as to just how big (in terms of feet and inches) each size category might be? Have I overlooked something in these books, and if so where? If not, roughly how big is something which is size 'huge'? (And what about the other categories?)

(As an aside, I think third edition had two different scales, depending on whether a creature extended horizontally or vertically, which slightly complicated things, although was understandable.)

Guidelines for how big monsters of any particular size BY size category existed in 3.5, but for whatever reason, we didn't copy those rules into Pathfinder. Which frustrates the heck out of me. Which is why I try to make sure that for all monsters, actual height and length and weight and that get into the descriptions as often as possible.

Here's the ranges I use, though (be they height or length):

Fine: fewer than 6 inches
Diminutive: 6 inches to 1 foot
Tiny: 1 to 2 feet
Small: 2 to 4 feet
Medium: 4 to 8 feet
Large: 8 to 16 feet
Huge: 16 to 32 feet
Gargantuan: 32 to 64 feet
Colossal: More than 64 feet


James Jacobs wrote:
NONE of the side view maps of the dungeons in that book should have scales at all, because none of hte side view ones are TO scale. They're merely representational of how the dungeons are all laid out.

So James, if the map of the Candlestone Caverns is a side-view map, how does the Tenebros River pass through the Thundering Gate without spilling into the levels below? Viewing the Caverns from a side-view perspective, there isn't a waterfall indicated at the Thundering Gap and the river seems to 'jump' over the passage leading down to Level 15 and continue on to the fork in the Tenebros River toward Kaldrifjaur Lake.


James Jacobs wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Another monster related question though, I'm afraid. :-? I've checked the PFRPG core rules and bestiary 1 and 2 and I can't actually find guidelines listed anywhere as to just how big (in terms of feet and inches) each size category might be? Have I overlooked something in these books, and if so where? If not, roughly how big is something which is size 'huge'? (And what about the other categories?)

(As an aside, I think third edition had two different scales, depending on whether a creature extended horizontally or vertically, which slightly complicated things, although was understandable.)

Guidelines for how big monsters of any particular size BY size category existed in 3.5, but for whatever reason, we didn't copy those rules into Pathfinder. Which frustrates the heck out of me. Which is why I try to make sure that for all monsters, actual height and length and weight and that get into the descriptions as often as possible.

Here's the ranges I use, though (be they height or length):

Fine: fewer than 6 inches
Diminutive: 6 inches to 1 foot
Tiny: 1 to 2 feet
Small: 2 to 4 feet
Medium: 4 to 8 feet
Large: 8 to 16 feet
Huge: 16 to 32 feet
Gargantuan: 32 to 64 feet
Colossal: More than 64 feet

I noticed a lot of the descriptions of existing creatures feature dimensions, yes, and was surprised I couldn't find a table.

Anyway, thanks for this. :)
Post private-listed as useful post...


Diego Rossi wrote:
How "immobile" should be the surface to quality?

I'm reminded of a discussion in the In Nomine mailing list lo many years ago. One of the powers that an angel can have in that game allows it to become immobile. So the question was, did that power stop continental drift? The rotation of the Earth? The Earth's revolving around the Sun? The Earth-and-Sun going around the center of the galaxy? The galaxy moving relative to other galaxies? The expansion of the Universe? Given the lack of a privileged reference frame in modern physics, isn't immobility impossible anyway?

"Immobile" always, by necessity, comes down to a GM's judgment call at some point between "can a mouse move it" and "can the Big Bang move it". If you're the player, you ask the GM. If you're the GM, you go with what seems best to you; you can always make an even-odd die roll if you really can't decide.


Two lines of inquiry, one rules related (for a friend about to play a dual-wielding type), and one Golarion related (for me)

1) If you cast a spell that changes an ability score -- say -- Enlarge Person, and lose 2 Dex, does your Two Weapon Fighting feat turn off if your Dex drops to 14 or lower? Now, ability scores penalties provides "these penalties function just like ability damage" and ability damage provides "This damage does not actually reduce an ability," which we assume means that, for example, if you have a 15 dex and take dex damage, you can still use Two Weapon Fighting. Enlarge person provides, among other things, "a -2 size penalty to Dexterity." I understand that to mean that Two Weapon Fighting, or other feats with dexterity requirements, would not be turned off by Enlarge Person or similar effects. Does that sound right?

2) Are you able to provide any details on how the elves of Kyonin are actually able to contain Treerazer and his forces? Queen Telandia Edasseril, while being one of the highest-level good aligned NPCs in the campaign setting, is still a "mere" L15 to Treerazer's CR 25 badassery. Does the Queen have a substantial number of allies that are in her weight class? Is Treerazer's fear of its own possible death what holds it back? Any insight you can provide would be appreciated.

Thank you.


I have a question about the sanity mechanic out of Wake of the Watcher from Carrion Crown, AKA #46.

here there be spoilers:
The sidebar on page 29 says that a character's starting sanity score is level + wisdom modifier. Fair 'nuff. Let's take a level 12 guy with a wisdom of +2. He's rocking a pretty self-respecting sanity score of 14. Not bad. As his sanity goes down from seeing unspeakable horrors he picks up a new insanity and his San score resets.

Question. Say at the boss battle he goes in there with 10 sanity points left. He fails his save at seeing the Spawn and sucks 8 sanity damage. He's rocking a whole two points when the Spawn is finally slain. And then he sees Shub-Niggurath herself. And rolls a one on his San check.

The DM rolls above average on the 6d6 sanity damage and he takes 24 San damage. Does he just take two points, gain a new insanity, and the 22 remaining San damage just fades away? Or does this damage carry over? Does he lose 2, gain insanity, then lose 14, gain another insanity, then 8 to leave him with six San left and twice as much crazy?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Shoggothic wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
NONE of the side view maps of the dungeons in that book should have scales at all, because none of hte side view ones are TO scale. They're merely representational of how the dungeons are all laid out.

So James, if the map of the Candlestone Caverns is a side-view map, how does the Tenebros River pass through the Thundering Gate without spilling into the levels below? Viewing the Caverns from a side-view perspective, there isn't a waterfall indicated at the Thundering Gap and the river seems to 'jump' over the passage leading down to Level 15 and continue on to the fork in the Tenebros River toward Kaldrifjaur Lake.

Because the side view isn't actually a giant "chop the planet in half view" of the dungeon. Looking at it top-down, you'd see the Tenebrous River perhaps carving a triple "S" shape through that level, with caves all over the place wherever the river DOESN'T flow. And some of those caves have tunnels that go deeper into the ground.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Zhangar wrote:

Two lines of inquiry, one rules related (for a friend about to play a dual-wielding type), and one Golarion related (for me)

1) If you cast a spell that changes an ability score -- say -- Enlarge Person, and lose 2 Dex, does your Two Weapon Fighting feat turn off if your Dex drops to 14 or lower? Now, ability scores penalties provides "these penalties function just like ability damage" and ability damage provides "This damage does not actually reduce an ability," which we assume means that, for example, if you have a 15 dex and take dex damage, you can still use Two Weapon Fighting. Enlarge person provides, among other things, "a -2 size penalty to Dexterity." I understand that to mean that Two Weapon Fighting, or other feats with dexterity requirements, would not be turned off by Enlarge Person or similar effects. Does that sound right?

2) Are you able to provide any details on how the elves of Kyonin are actually able to contain Treerazer and his forces? Queen Telandia Edasseril, while being one of the highest-level good aligned NPCs in the campaign setting, is still a "mere" L15 to Treerazer's CR 25 badassery. Does the Queen have a substantial number of allies that are in her weight class? Is Treerazer's fear of its own possible death what holds it back? Any insight you can provide would be appreciated.

Thank you.

1) No. That makes an already complicated situation (refiguring your modifiers due to size and ability changes) even worse. You only lose access to feats that require minimum ability scores when that score is PERMANENTLY lowered. Of course, if you're in a game where folks are all okay with overcomplication, you certainly COULD run it that enlarging person and thus reducing Dex could cut them off of having access to certain feats, but I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to play in such an overly complicated game...

2) Pathfinder #17 has an article about Kyonin and an adventure that covers some of the relations between Kyonin and Tanglebriar... but doesn't go into full detail about it. Tanglebriar and Treerazer and his relationship with the elven forest he lives next to/fights with/covets is from my homebrew world, though, and has been around for about 20 years. As a result, I have a LOT of information about how and why Tanglebriar works the way it does and how the elves keep things more or less in control... but I'm not yet ready to reveal that information. I will some day though.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ANebulousMistress wrote:

I have a question about the sanity mechanic out of Wake of the Watcher from Carrion Crown, AKA #46.

** spoiler omitted **

Any sanity damage you take in excess of what you CAN take goes away; if you're at 2 Sanity and take 54 points of sanity damage, the end effect is identical to you just taking 2 points of sanity damage.

So yeah... in that case, the "extra 52 points of sanity damage" is wasted, as far as inflicting insanity on the victim is concerned.


James Jacobs wrote:
Looking at it top-down, you'd see the Tenebrous River perhaps carving a triple "S" shape through that level, with caves all over the place wherever the river DOESN'T flow. And some of those caves have tunnels that go deeper into the ground.

James, thanks for the info and once again, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to answer my incessant ramblings. Looks like you'll be getting a painted copy of both Maralee and The Harbinger from the AoW at the next Paizocon (don't worry, I've got plenty of extras).


Quote:
Move action to take it out, standard action to drink it. Regardless of who's using that particular infusion, since it's been prepared ahead of time as a "fake potion" of sorts.

Thanks!


1)What is your top ten favorite horror movies?

2)Do you like Alfred Hitchcock movies? if so what are your top 5?

3)What will be the next product previewed this month?

4)How do you celebrate holloween?

5)When is the next major announcements for furture products? was it January last year? or Febuary?

6)Favorite face you have seen for a jack'o lantern?

7)How does Paizo and the people there in celebrate Halloween? Thanksgiving? and Christmas?

8)When you were working on Dragon magazine, what articles, creatures, magic items, etc. that you are most proud of? well other than the Kaiju template.

9)What is your favorite kingdom/culture in Golarion? favorite god? favorite goddess? favorite city? favorite villian? and favorite Hero

10)Do you have any animal type phobias? When you were a kid what were most afraid of?

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Hey James,

1. Which deities do you think are most likely to grant the Black Powder Inquisition from Ultimate Combat?

2. Which deities do tengu living in the Inner Sea region tend to worship? Do they have their own racial pantheon?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Hey James,

1. Which deities do you think are most likely to grant the Black Powder Inquisition from Ultimate Combat?

2. Which deities do tengu living in the Inner Sea region tend to worship? Do they have their own racial pantheon?

1) None come immediately to mind, so it'd probably be a super obscure one. That said... inquisitions aren't necessarily granted by deities since inquisitors don't necessarily have to worship deities.

2) Tengus usually worship Gozreh, Sarenrae, or Norgorber, depending on their attitude. There are tengu deities; one of them makes a debut in the upcoming Dragon Empires Gazetteer, but those deities aren't really worshiped all that much in the Inner Sea Region.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

James Jacobs wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Hey James,

1. Which deities do you think are most likely to grant the Black Powder Inquisition from Ultimate Combat?

2. Which deities do tengu living in the Inner Sea region tend to worship? Do they have their own racial pantheon?

1) None come immediately to mind, so it'd probably be a super obscure one. That said... inquisitions aren't necessarily granted by deities since inquisitors don't necessarily have to worship deities.

2) Tengus usually worship Gozreh, Sarenrae, or Norgorber, depending on their attitude. There are tengu deities; one of them makes a debut in the upcoming Dragon Empires Gazetteer, but those deities aren't really worshiped all that much in the Inner Sea Region.

Awesome, thanks for the info!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

1)What is your top ten favorite horror movies?

2)Do you like Alfred Hitchcock movies? if so what are your top 5?

3)What will be the next product previewed this month?

4)How do you celebrate holloween?

5)When is the next major announcements for furture products? was it January last year? or Febuary?

6)Favorite face you have seen for a jack'o lantern?

7)How does Paizo and the people there in celebrate Halloween? Thanksgiving? and Christmas?

8)When you were working on Dragon magazine, what articles, creatures, magic items, etc. that you are most proud of? well other than the Kaiju template.

9)What is your favorite kingdom/culture in Golarion? favorite god? favorite goddess? favorite city? favorite villian? and favorite Hero

10)Do you have any animal type phobias? When you were a kid what were most afraid of?

1) I'm sure I'll leave one or ten off by accident, but here goes, in no particular order: Alien, The Thing, The Exorcist, Psycho, Blair Witch Project, Jaws, Halloween, Hellraiser, The Ring, and Dawn of the Dead (1978).

2) I do! My top five Hitchcock movies are: Psycho, North by Northwest, Rope, Notorious, and Rear Window.

3) Dunno; I don't really make the blog decisions.

4) By watching horror movies! Although I do that normally, so it's hard to tell the difference...

5) Not sure when the next set of announcements is gonna happen; that's more of an Erik question.

6) Ummm... that goblin that just got posted to these boards is pretty sweet...

7) We don't really celebrate in the building that much; everyone kinda does their own thing.

8) I never actually worked on Dragon; I only ever worked on Dungeon. I wrote a lot of stuff for Dragon, though; I'm most proud of the Demonomicon articles.

9) Varisia, Rovagug, Desna, Sandpoint, Karzoug, Merisiel.

10) Nope; I've never been all that afraid of animals. I've certainly respected mountain lions and black widow spiders and great white sharks and the other animals that were local when I grew up who could kill me, though!


Looking over the equipment list last night, I was rather shocked and annoyed that there was no hatchet type weapon listed as simple, which is compounded by the Handaxe being a martial weapon.

I had always understood it that weapons listed as simple didn't require much in the way of true training to wield, and were also often everyday things that can become weapons.

Thus, a woodsmen type character, who used a hatchet or the Handaxe frequently, prior to becoming an adventurer would have no ability to use that rather familiar tool as a weapon, unless they entered a martial class.

Any chance something like this could be fixed, in likely Ultimate Combat??

Hells, there's not even a hatchet like tool listed in Core, how is one supposed to chop fire wood??


I know you believe in Sasquatches... do you believe in:
Loch Ness monster? Yeti? Chupacabra? Mothman? The Jersey Devil? Ghosts?

("If there's a steady paycheck involved, I'll believe anything you say.")

If you were walking in the woods and encountered a Sasquatch, what would you do? (At least, what do you hope you would do?)

Also, moving on to a hirsute guy who lives in the woods but is not a cryptid: can you tell me what part(s) of the Inner Sea World Guide Ed Greenwood worked on?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Andrew Crossett wrote:

I know you believe in Sasquatches... do you believe in:

Loch Ness monster? Yeti? Chupacabra? Mothman? The Jersey Devil? Ghosts?

("If there's a steady paycheck involved, I'll believe anything you say.")

If you were walking in the woods and encountered a Sasquatch, what would you do? (At least, what do you hope you would do?)

Also, moving on to a hirsute guy who lives in the woods but is not a cryptid: can you tell me what part(s) of the Inner Sea World Guide Ed Greenwood worked on?

Regarding cryptids, I WANT to believe in them all, but currently...

Loch Ness Monster: No (sad, although I believe in other lake monsters like Ogopogo)
Yeti: Yes.
Chupacabra: No
Mothman: No
Jersey Devil: No
Ghosts: No

I would HOPE that I'd not panic. Taking a picture would be good, of course!

His biggest contribution so far was helping in getting Kingmaker off the ground, mostly in the area of some cool bad guy ideas, several new monsters, and some neat locations. He also did some web fiction set in Alkenstar, and helped out with some other elements as well. And all around inspiration as well, of course.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Monkeygod wrote:

Looking over the equipment list last night, I was rather shocked and annoyed that there was no hatchet type weapon listed as simple, which is compounded by the Handaxe being a martial weapon.

I had always understood it that weapons listed as simple didn't require much in the way of true training to wield, and were also often everyday things that can become weapons.

Thus, a woodsmen type character, who used a hatchet or the Handaxe frequently, prior to becoming an adventurer would have no ability to use that rather familiar tool as a weapon, unless they entered a martial class.

Any chance something like this could be fixed, in likely Ultimate Combat??

Hells, there's not even a hatchet like tool listed in Core, how is one supposed to chop fire wood??

A hatchet is the same as a handaxe pretty much. And being able to wield a hatchet or handaxe in combat is VERY different than being able to use one as a tool. There are several martial weapons that began their "careers" as tools; axes aren't the only ones. Scythes, for example, or flails.

In the end, it's more about the actual weapon's stats that determine if it's a martial weapon or not.

If you REALLY want to have a woodsman who's great with hand axes (or hatchets), and he's of a class that doesn't grant proficiency with that weapon... that's more or less EXACTLY what the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat and the human's bonus feat were designed to take care of.


James Jacobs wrote:
I'm sure I'll leave one or ten off by accident, but here goes, in no particular order: Alien, The Thing, The Exorcist, Psycho, Blair Witch Project, Jaws, Halloween, Hellraiser, The Ring, and Dawn of the Dead (1978).

James, are you excited or appalled by the imminent release of the prequel to The Thing? Apparently, John Carpenter gave them his blessing as they production crew supposedly recreated the Norwegian camp piece by piece from the 1982 film, going so far as to use predominantly animatronics and practical effects as opposed to CGI.

Also, how do you feel about Tom Savini's redux of Night of the Living Dead from the early 90's? The special effects make-up is far superior to the original, and I felt making the female lead a stronger character was a good update.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Shoggothic wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
I'm sure I'll leave one or ten off by accident, but here goes, in no particular order: Alien, The Thing, The Exorcist, Psycho, Blair Witch Project, Jaws, Halloween, Hellraiser, The Ring, and Dawn of the Dead (1978).

James, are you excited or appalled by the imminent release of the prequel to The Thing? Apparently, John Carpenter gave them his blessing as they production crew supposedly recreated the Norwegian camp piece by piece from the 1982 film, going so far as to use predominantly animatronics and practical effects as opposed to CGI.

Also, how do you feel about Tom Savini's redux of Night of the Living Dead from the early 90's? The special effects make-up is far superior to the original, and I felt making the female lead a stronger character was a good update.

I've been closely watching the production of the prequel for years, actually, and now that we're less than 2 weeks away, I'm officially excited AND nervous. I'm not appalled at all, and I hope not to be once I see it. From what I've seen so far in previews and interviews and articles, and by the simple fact that the movie's actually rated R, I am very hopeful that it'll be both respectful of the original and entertaining in its own right.

And I don't care if they use all practical or all CGI effects, honestly. If the special effects are imaginative and cool... I don't care HOW they make them. I've seen plenty of CGI effects that give the masters of stop motion and other practical work a run for their money (District 9, for example, or to take an example from this year, Planet of the Apes). CGI is nothing more than another method of crafting special effects, and as with stop motion or any other type of effects work, you can have well done, shabby, or whatever in between. The effects I've seen in trailers for "The Thing" look quite good, in any event.

As for Tom Savini's version of NotLD from the 90s... I REALLY liked that movie a lot. And not only because I thought the changes to Barbara's character were cool, but because Tony Todd was awesome in that movie. I still prefer Romero's version (and I prefer Dawn of the Dead over NotLD), but Tom Savini's version is better than any zombie movie Romero's done SINCE Dawn of the Dead.


Another question on the sanity mechanic.

Do eidolons have sanity scores? Is that something the DM has to decide? Would where the eidolon originally comes from (manifestation of player's cheese, avatar of a long-forgotten god, a hound archon, a man-child's imaginary friend) matter?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ANebulousMistress wrote:

Another question on the sanity mechanic.

Do eidolons have sanity scores? Is that something the DM has to decide? Would where the eidolon originally comes from (manifestation of player's cheese, avatar of a long-forgotten god, a hound archon, a man-child's imaginary friend) matter?

Eidolons are weird... but they should have sanity scores.

My solution to that problem, of course, is not to allow summoners in games I run.


James Jacobs wrote:
If the special effects are imaginative and cool... I don't care HOW they make them

I agree, it's the end product that counts, but there is something to be said for the bleeding edge of prop animatronics and fx make-up pioneered during the '80's and '90's by such greats as Stan Winston and Tom Savini. I only despise the use of CGI to save money at the cost of quality. Case in point: Compare the Jabba the Hutt animatronic used in RoTJ with any of the CGI Jabbas from the prequels (or the horrid special-edition ANH) and you can see the the RoTJ Jabba looks like a living thing, while the prequel Jabbas look like a good console video game. Do you agree? Though, CGI gems like the aliens and technology featured in District 9 as well as that 1st scene in the original Jurassic Park with the T-Rex, will always stand the the test of time.

James Jacobs wrote:
and I prefer Dawn of the Dead over NotLD

Ah, the scenes of biker-trash ripping the jewelry off a zombie woman and hitting zombies in their faces with pies will be with me forever. Don't get me started on how they pulled off the scene with the zombie getting scalped by the helicopter rotor...

Btw, have you seen the deleted/alternate ending of Carpenter's remake of The Thing?

Jon Brazer Enterprises

James Jacobs wrote:
Jersey Devil: No

Live in New Jersey for a while. You'll know the Jersey Devil is real.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

The Jersey Devil...

...is that the person who came up with the idea for Jersey Shore?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Shoggothic wrote:
I agree, it's the end product that counts, but there is something to be said for the bleeding edge of prop animatronics and fx make-up pioneered during the '80's and '90's by such greats as Stan Winston and Tom Savini. I only despise the use of CGI to save money at the cost of quality. Case in point: Compare the Jabba the Hutt animatronic used in RoTJ with any of the CGI Jabbas from the prequels (or the horrid special-edition ANH) and you can see the the RoTJ Jabba looks like a living thing, while the prequel Jabbas look like a good console video game. Do you agree? Though, CGI gems like the aliens and technology featured in District 9 as well as that 1st scene in the original Jurassic Park with the T-Rex, will always stand the the test of time.

I do agree with the Jabba the Hut comparasions, but I think that problem arises from the fact that the animatronic Jabba was created when the industry was at the height of its skill with that art form—puppetry's been around for thousands of years, and that's a LONG time to be able to build up skills in that art form. CGI, in the meantime, had only been around for a decade or two AT MOST by the time Lucas was making the digital Jabba, and thus there's just no way the artists could be as skilled at using it as someone who spent their life building upon other lives to master puppetry.

Shoggothic wrote:
Btw, have you seen the deleted/alternate ending of Carpenter's remake of The Thing?

I've seen a few alternate endings to Carpenter's The Thing. Carpenter chose the right one for the movie—the actual ending is probably my FAVORITE ending to any movie ever.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Jersey Devil: No
Live in New Jersey for a while. You'll know the Jersey Devil is real.

I don't doubt it. That's the same reason why I think Bigfoot's real, after all...


Hello sir, before I launch into my question it has come to my attention that even though I have asked and you have answered several of my questions before I seem to have forgotten on each occasion to thank you. So for this question and all those that came before it, thank you.

Okay, here we go. Why is the Kusarigama not a finesse weapon? I understand that it CAN be homeruled but I'm just curious as why you made the Spiked Chain a finesse weapon but not the Kusarigama.


James Jacobs:
Latest 'Planet Dinosaur' to air here in the UK featured a theory that Stegasaurus and Camptosaurus may have existed symbiotically, with the camptosaurs acting look-out for the group against nasty ambush predators like Allosaurus sneaking around the Jurassic termite mounds. (And the stegasaurs providing the defence for the group, once the alarm was sounded, readying actions, so to speak, to whack anything which came into view with their thagomizers...)

Oh, there was also something about Kimmerosaurus and the currently unnamed 'Predator X'.


Oh, yes, question required.
Is 'thagomizer' too technical a word to make it into a Pathfinder product at some point in the foreseeable future?
:)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Roshan wrote:
Okay, here we go. Why is the Kusarigama not a finesse weapon? I understand that it CAN be homeruled but I'm just curious as why you made the Spiked Chain a finesse weapon but not the Kusarigama.

Because the person who designed the kusarigama, whoever that was, did not choose to make it a finesse weapon and the person who developed the rules did not choose to make it a finesse weapon.

Part of the problem is that the spiked chain in 3.5 was a VERY good weapon, and our design team has, I believe, been super careful to ramp back the spiked chain and any similar weapons.

But yeah... as for the exact reason why the kusarigama wasn't made a finesse weapon, that's a question for Jason, Sean, and Stephen over on the design team. I was not part of that decision.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

James Jacobs:

Latest 'Planet Dinosaur' to air here in the UK featured a theory that Stegasaurus and Camptosaurus may have existed symbiotically, with the camptosaurs acting look-out for the group against nasty ambush predators like Allosaurus sneaking around the Jurassic termite mounds. (And the stegasaurs providing the defence for the group, once the alarm was sounded, readying actions, so to speak, to whack anything which came into view with their thagomizers...)

Oh, there was also something about Kimmerosaurus and the currently unnamed 'Predator X'.

That's quite interesting! Neat!

Although not a question...

I'll insert my own:

"Who do you like more, stegosaurus, camptosaurus, or allosaurus?"

Allosaurus, no contest.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Oh, yes, question required.

Is 'thagomizer' too technical a word to make it into a Pathfinder product at some point in the foreseeable future?
:)

Ah; there's the question!

Maybe not too technical, but it IS the intellectual property of Gary Larson and we don't want to rile up the entire legal machine from the Far Side. As amusing as lawyers from the Far Side might be.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:

"Who do you like more, stegosaurus, camptosaurus, or allosaurus?"

Allosaurus, no contest.

Which judge did camptosaurus bribe to get on that list?

I would have totally put the ankylosaur, pteranodon and triceratops in that list instead!

Liking Terra Nova so far? I was hugely intrigued by the

Spoiler:
writings at the falls, wondering if they were going in a Pliocene Exile sort of direction with it
and am interested in the hidden agenda of the 'Sixers.'


[QUOTE="James Jacobs"
Whether or not any one GM wants a symbol to be mobile enough (and thus something you can put on a sailing ship's sails or figurehead, which IS a cool idea) is up to your GM. I think it's a cool idea, though. But it falls into a gray area in the rules that not all GMs would be comfortable allowing. I'd allow it in my games, though.

But putting a symbol on a golem isn't legal. They're creatures, not surfaces.

At this point I think it would be more appropriate for the GM and players wanting to do such a thing to design a variant spell, but in character and out of character. Maybe a level higher or something, and of course being a custom spell it would be totally unique.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

As a Call of Cthulhu fan, have you had a chance to look at Open Design's Red Eye of Azathoth? I've run the first two adventures so far, and I think it is my favorite collection of CoC adventures now. Do you think yourself or someone at Paizo will run an office game of it? ;)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Set wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

"Who do you like more, stegosaurus, camptosaurus, or allosaurus?"

Allosaurus, no contest.

Which judge did camptosaurus bribe to get on that list?

I would have totally put the ankylosaur, pteranodon and triceratops in that list instead!

Liking Terra Nova so far? I was hugely intrigued by the
** spoiler omitted ** and am interested in the hidden agenda of the 'Sixers.'

Camptosaurus got on that list because it was one of the dinosaurs Charles mentioned in his post.

And I like the special effects in Terra Nova... but the writing and characters, for the most part, aren't special enough. I'm hoping that as the season proceeds, the characters and storylines become at least half as interesting as the dinosaurs... but if they don't, I'll still watch it for the dinosaurs.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

deinol wrote:
As a Call of Cthulhu fan, have you had a chance to look at Open Design's Red Eye of Azathoth? I've run the first two adventures so far, and I think it is my favorite collection of CoC adventures now. Do you think yourself or someone at Paizo will run an office game of it? ;)

I just bought a copy of the PDF and flipped through it but haven't had a chance to read it yet.

I'm currently running "Masks of Nyarlathotep" and probably will be for the immediate future.


Quote:
Maybe not too technical, but it IS the intellectual property of Gary Larson and we don't want to rile up the entire legal machine from the Far Side. As amusing as lawyers from the Far Side might be.

-You may have an out here. Thagomizer became an anatomical term when, in reference to the comic, paleontologists actually used the word to describe a part of the dinosaur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thagomizer


I can confirm that the BBC spent several minutes of air time in their Planet Dinosaur (UK Broadcast) episode of the 5th October 2011 using the term 'Thagomizer' as a scientific term.
(I didn't think to check the programme credits though, to see if they'd paid anyone or otherwise obtained permission to use it. I may have to watch it again, umm, just for that purpose of course. ;) )


James Jacobs wrote:
LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

[

1) The Worldwound's rate of expansion is erratic; sudden increases separated by years or even decades. When it DOES expand, though, it's noticeable.

So it would be best to say that it expands like the speed of plot? I once used to describe Star Trek's Warp Factor as more a measure of drama than speed.
That's certainly one way to say it.

IIRC, "speed of plot" is a phrase from someone involved in Babylon 5 to describe how fast their ships went. Aaaand... once again, TV Tropes has the answer!

No questions at this time. I think you've answered enough. In fact, we're considering an intervention. "Have you tried... not answering questions?"

11,001 to 11,050 of 78,924 << first < prev | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.