Creative Director
|
Since the Pathfinders have appropriated several related Azlanti magic items (wayfinders, their connections to ioun stones, and the pathfinder coin), and presumably they don't know the full history and original purpose for these items and their connection, will it ever be revealed what the Azlanti actually created these interacting items for? I.e. is there a secret to them that might one day be revealed?
Perhaps.
Hey James,
My GM has recently started running the 3.5 module "Red Hand of Doom". At the moment, his knowledge of Golarion is not sufficient for him to try and place the module somewhere in the Inner Sea. He has also said that, should we find a place in the Inner Sea region that could be a decent place to house the Module, he would be willing to ret-con the campaign to take place there.
Since I am a big fan of Golarion, and the module lists you as one of the authors, I was hoping you could help. Any suggestions on where in Golarion we could place it?
Thanks for the help!
Bishop
|
Creative Director
|
Hey James,
My GM has recently started running the 3.5 module "Red Hand of Doom". At the moment, his knowledge of Golarion is not sufficient for him to try and place the module somewhere in the Inner Sea. He has also said that, should we find a place in the Inner Sea region that could be a decent place to house the Module, he would be willing to ret-con the campaign to take place there.
Since I am a big fan of Golarion, and the module lists you as one of the authors, I was hoping you could help. Any suggestions on where in Golarion we could place it?
Thanks for the help!
Bishop
Best place for "Red Hand of Doom" is probably Isger. Or along the borderlands near Isger, Molthune, and Druma.
If we do a Mythic level book... we'd be kind of stupid, I think, considering our track record of doing playtests, to NOT do a playtest of the Mythic rules, don't you think?Hi James , sorry for asking this type of question.
In a future announcement(sooner,sooner please!!!!) of an epic/mystic level book , will it have a playtest on the rules ?
Yes.
Thanks.
"IF we do a Mythic level book..." or "WHEN we do a Mythic level book..."?
Best place for "Red Hand of Doom" is probably Isger. Or along the borderlands near Isger, Molthune, and Druma.Hey James,
My GM has recently started running the 3.5 module "Red Hand of Doom". At the moment, his knowledge of Golarion is not sufficient for him to try and place the module somewhere in the Inner Sea. He has also said that, should we find a place in the Inner Sea region that could be a decent place to house the Module, he would be willing to ret-con the campaign to take place there.
Since I am a big fan of Golarion, and the module lists you as one of the authors, I was hoping you could help. Any suggestions on where in Golarion we could place it?
Thanks for the help!
Bishop
In my Golarion, Red Hand of Doom is basically what happened during the Goblinoid Wars.
If we do a Mythic level book... we'd be kind of stupid, I think, considering our track record of doing playtests, to NOT do a playtest of the Mythic rules, don't you think?Hi James , sorry for asking this type of question.
In a future announcement(sooner,sooner please!!!!) of an epic/mystic level book , will it have a playtest on the rules ?
Yes.
Thanks.
"IF we do a Mythic level book..." or "WHEN we do a Mythic level book..."?
Oh, it's still "if." Believe me, this is something I've been keeping a close eye on for several years, and they still 100% maintain "we'd like to do it but it's not definite we ever will."
Personally, I'm positive they will, and my guess for a while has been the playtest will start in 2013.
Secondly, to avoid what you were talking about in your first reply James, how would I attack the situation where I want to use a feat or spell (Game mechanic) that has Darklands in the name?
I see a bit of Mel's vs Melf's here. Would I still be able to use it without the Darklands portion of the title and/or text and credit it the original works in Sec 15?
My understanding is that you could use the name as is, but just not in the context. You wouldn't be able to explain WHY the theoretical spell is called "breath of the Darklands" at all, which might be annoying to you. A better solution would simply to be to rename it to something like "breath of the underworld" or something like that in your publication... or just to not use the spell at all.
At our end, we do try to avoid using IP names in our hardcover prodcts, but sometimes we do.
It's not quite the same thing as "Melf" though, since there's nothing in the spell "acid arrow" that requires anyone to know who or what a Melf is.
And again... is there a specific use of the word "Darklands" that you're talking about? If this is all just academic... I'm not sure there's much else I need to say...
Actually, the answer to that is that our declaration of Product Identity (that is, the stuff you can't use under the OGL) includes proper names, which "Darklands" is. So if we had such a spell, then, like the Melf's Acid Arrow example, you'd need to change the name.
There is not a specific use of Darklands that I was talking about... just the use of mechanics that had IP attached to it. Feats/Spells/Abilities that have IP in there title/name/text. I got that I change the name :D but do I still credit the orignial work or what?
|
Creative Director
|
Change the name and I'm good? Or change the name and still credit? I'm not trying to be over analytical just thorough is all.Secondly, to avoid what you were talking about in your first reply James, how would I attack the situation where I want to use a feat or spell (Game mechanic) that has Darklands in the name?
I see a bit of Mel's vs Melf's here. Would I still be able to use it without the Darklands portion of the title and/or text and credit it the original works in Sec 15?
My understanding is that you could use the name as is, but just not in the context. You wouldn't be able to explain WHY the theoretical spell is called "breath of the Darklands" at all, which might be annoying to you. A better solution would simply to be to rename it to something like "breath of the underworld" or something like that in your publication... or just to not use the spell at all.
At our end, we do try to avoid using IP names in our hardcover prodcts, but sometimes we do.
It's not quite the same thing as "Melf" though, since there's nothing in the spell "acid arrow" that requires anyone to know who or what a Melf is.
And again... is there a specific use of the word "Darklands" that you're talking about? If this is all just academic... I'm not sure there's much else I need to say...
Actually, the answer to that is that our declaration of Product Identity (that is, the stuff you can't use under the OGL) includes proper names, which "Darklands" is. So if we had such a spell, then, like the Melf's Acid Arrow example, you'd need to change the name.
You'll still need to include the OGL in whatever you do. With the exception of the 20 deity names, all of the rules in our core rulebook lines are open content anyway. We don't have any spells named after NPCs, and I'm pretty sure that "Darklands" doesn't appear in any of the rulebooks but if it does as part of a name of a feat or whatever, you don't have to change the name at all. Again... I'm not sure what it is you're asking about in specific. Being coy doesn't help me help you. ;-)
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question about Empower Spell, and if it's been covered elsewhere, please feel free to direct me there, but neither the RAW nor the FAQ have covered this: Does the 50% increase in variable numeric effects result in an increase in dice rolled, or in a 50% increase of the total roll of the dice?
Example: Does an Empowered Lightning Bolt at 10th level result in rolling 15d6, or do you roll 10d6 and add 50% of the total to the damage (this is how my gaming table has been playing it thus far, for the sake of simplicity).
I appreciate the Devs' time (I know it's valuable), and I hope that one of you can give me a definitive answer. Thank you.
Nowhere do things like Empower Spell indicate you roll more dice; you only increase the variable effects of a spell. Dice are not spell effects, but damage and healing are. So you roll the dice normally, then increase the result (aka the effects) by 150%.
If we do a Mythic level book... we'd be kind of stupid, I think, considering our track record of doing playtests, to NOT do a playtest of the Mythic rules, don't you think?Hi James , sorry for asking this type of question.
In a future announcement(sooner,sooner please!!!!) of an epic/mystic level book , will it have a playtest on the rules ?
Yes.
Thanks.
"IF we do a Mythic level book..." or "WHEN we do a Mythic level book..."?
Oh, it's still "if." Believe me, this is something I've been keeping a close eye on for several years, and they still 100% maintain "we'd like to do it but it's not definite we ever will."
Personally, I'm positive they will, and my guess for a while has been the playtest will start in 2013.
Thanks for the reply .
2013 is so far away. I hope they change to 2012.
I think my kingmaker campaing will end in july /2012.
Would a cyclop toothless albino shark be a cool monster ?
cause it exists
Have you seen The Thing yet?
|
If we do a Mythic level book... we'd be kind of stupid, I think, considering our track record of doing playtests, to NOT do a playtest of the Mythic rules, don't you think?Hi James , sorry for asking this type of question.
In a future announcement(sooner,sooner please!!!!) of an epic/mystic level book , will it have a playtest on the rules ?
Yes.
Thanks.
"IF we do a Mythic level book..." or "WHEN we do a Mythic level book..."?
Oh, it's still "if." Believe me, this is something I've been keeping a close eye on for several years, and they still 100% maintain "we'd like to do it but it's not definite we ever will."
Personally, I'm positive they will, and my guess for a while has been the playtest will start in 2013.
Thanks for the reply .
2013 is so far away. I hope they change to 2012.
I think my kingmaker campaing will end in july /2012.
Mythic is almost certain to be a Gencon release, which puts it's Playtest as being early on in that year. The '12 Gencon release has been announced as Ultimate Equipment, thus '13 is the earliest it can be
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would a cyclop toothless albino shark be a cool monster ?
cause it exists
Give it teeth and it would be cool. Without teeth it's a pokemon.
|
Creative Director
|
Have you seen The Thing yet?
I have; took the day off work yesterday to see it, in fact.
It's not as bad as I'd feared, but not NEARLY as good as Carpenter's version. But it obviously feels very respectful of Carpenter's version (which is MORE than I can say for the remake of "The Fog" or even "Halloween").
Not a great movie, but a fun one, even if Carpenter's is vastly superior to it in pretty much every way.
|
Creative Director
|
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/armor/haramaki
that armorits says under the eastern armor on the armor page that a number of these armors mix and match
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/combat/easternArmorAndWea pons.html
I'm still not 100% clear on what you mean by "mage's robe." If you mean nothing more than "robes a wizard might wear" then yes, you can wear a haramaki and those robes at the same time.
Actually, the answer to that is that our declaration of Product Identity (that is, the stuff you can't use under the OGL) includes proper names, which "Darklands" is. So if we had such a spell, then, like the Melf's Acid Arrow example, you'd need to change the name.
Change the name and I'm good? Or change the name and still credit? I'm not trying to be over analytical just thorough is all.
You'll still need to include the OGL in whatever you do. With the exception of the 20 deity names, all of the rules in our core rulebook lines are open content anyway. We don't have any spells named after NPCs, and I'm pretty sure that "Darklands" doesn't appear in any of the rulebooks but if it does as part of a name of a feat or whatever, you don't have to change the name at all. Again... I'm not sure what it is you're asking about in specific. Being coy doesn't help me help you. ;-)
Originally, I was wondering if all PF subterrain was called the Darklands. This would have lead to me sticking with common terms if the Darklands was not being considered IP. Since it is specifically part of the Golorian CS, it is IP and thus I won't be using it. I am assuming there is no cross spectrum common term for subterrain in Pathfinder.
Now I'm confused. I get having to include the OGL... obviously that is what is simple about the license.
Now if for whatever reason there is a spell or feat that includes Paizo IP... how do I handle that situation? Vic says change the name... you say I'm good to go. This has got me a little curious. If it is as you say and I'm good to go, then cool. If Vic is correct, then once I change the name... I'm sure I'd have to credit the original works... and so how would I go about doing that?
I'm really not trying to be coy, I really just wanted to know if Darklands was a common OGL term for subterrain or if it was not OGL due to it being IP. Sorry if I'm making your head hurt. When in doubt consult Flying Bobcats Incorporated.
|
Creative Director
|
Originally, I was wondering if all PF subterrain was called the Darklands. This would have lead to me sticking with common terms if the Darklands was not being considered IP. Since it is specifically part of the Golorian CS, it is IP and thus I won't be using it. I am assuming there is no cross spectrum common term for subterrain in Pathfinder.
Now I'm confused. I get having to include the OGL... obviously that is what is simple about the license.
Now if for whatever reason there is a spell or feat that includes Paizo IP... how do I handle that situation? Vic says change the name... you say I'm good to go. This has got me a little curious. If it is as you say and I'm good to go, then cool. If Vic is correct, then once I change the name... I'm sure I'd have to credit the original works... and so how would I go about doing that?
I'm really not trying to be coy, I really just wanted to know if Darklands was a common OGL term for subterrain or if it was not OGL due to it being IP. Sorry if I'm making your head hurt. When in doubt consult Flying Bobcats Incorporated.
In Pathfinder, we don't have a name for any vast underground region, since that's a world-specific construct. Not every campaign has that feature. In Golarion, this region is called the Darklands. In the Forgotten Realms it's called the Underdark. In Dragon Age, it's called the Deep Roads. There is no name for it in the core rules, though, since the core rules are world-neutral.
As for if we have a spell or feat or something that includes Paizo IP... you DO have to change the name. Vic knows a lot more about the whole setup than I do. So yeah, change the name, or even better just don't use that feat or spell or whatever, I guess. There's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of options that are fine without any name changing required, after all...
Stuff about Darklands
I recommend any 3PP that is wanting to create non-world specific stuff should just call it the Underworld. It's real world mythology, so nobody can claim it as IP. But everyone will understand what sort of region you are talking about and can use the material in the Underdark/Darklands or whatever they call it in the game world they play in.
If you want to build your own world you may want to come up with some creative new name.
But I like Underworld for its connection to mythology, and it is easy to substitute Cloak of the Darklands* with Cloak of the Underworld or wherever you find you need to strip Darklands from a spell/feat/prestige class/race/OGL game mechanic.
*May not be an actual item.
I'm gonna be starting up a Pathfinder-ized Planescape game soon, and one of the things that's bugged me about 3.X Planescape is that the planetouched races are not only slightly more powerful, but they're also immune (by virtue of being Outsider (native)s) to the lower level charm and dominate spells. We're talking a good chunk of the NPCs/PCs of any given Planescape game being that much harder (by at least 4 spell levels) to enchant.
I'm considering either: A) changing the target type of Charm/Dominate Person to be "Humanoid or native Outsider", B) changing the description of the (native) subtype to say something to the effect of "these creatures are treated as Humanoids for purposes of enchantment effects", or C) simply changing the type of Aasimar/Tiefling/Genasi to Humanoid for that game/future Planescape games.
Which, in your opinion, is the more elegant solution?
Stuff about DarklandsI recommend any 3PP that is wanting to create non-world specific stuff should just call it the Underworld. It's real world mythology, so nobody can claim it as IP. But everyone will understand what sort of region you are talking about and can use the material in the Underdark/Darklands or whatever they call it in the game world they play in.
If you want to build your own world you may want to come up with some creative new name.
But I like Underworld for its connection to mythology, and it is easy to substitute Cloak of the Darklands* with Cloak of the Underworld or wherever you find you need to strip Darklands from a spell/feat/prestige class/race/OGL game mechanic.
*May not be an actual item.
JJ pretty much cleared it up as best as I'm going to get it cleared up. With what you are saying it seems to me that you are thinking I'm trying for a different plane which isn't the case. Maybe if the subterrain worked as a passage to Hell or the Abyss but that's not necessarily the case.
Dear James Jacobs,
Do you have any good tricks for determining the CR of 0 Hit Die races with class levels? (Such as the CR of a Cavalier 13 or a Witch 5)
|
|
Dear James Jacobs,
Do you have any good tricks for determining the CR of 0 Hit Die races with class levels? (Such as the CR of a Cavalier 13 or a Witch 5)
I'm not James, but the rule on this one is very simple.
The CR of an NPC of a 0-HD race with PC class levels is equal to their class level -1. So an Orc Barbarian 2 is a CR 1, a Half-Elf Cavalier 13 is CR 12, and a Gnome Witch 5 is CR 4. For NPC class levels it's levels -2, IIRC.
|
Creative Director
|
I'm gonna be starting up a Pathfinder-ized Planescape game soon, and one of the things that's bugged me about 3.X Planescape is that the planetouched races are not only slightly more powerful, but they're also immune (by virtue of being Outsider (native)s) to the lower level charm and dominate spells. We're talking a good chunk of the NPCs/PCs of any given Planescape game being that much harder (by at least 4 spell levels) to enchant.
I'm considering either: A) changing the target type of Charm/Dominate Person to be "Humanoid or native Outsider", B) changing the description of the (native) subtype to say something to the effect of "these creatures are treated as Humanoids for purposes of enchantment effects", or C) simply changing the type of Aasimar/Tiefling/Genasi to Humanoid for that game/future Planescape games.
Which, in your opinion, is the more elegant solution?
One elegant solution would be to use the new Advanced Race Guide playtest to "rebuild" aasimars and tieflings as humanoids. Another elegant solution would be to just call aasimars and tieflings humanoids.
But before you do that... remember that aasimars and tieflings are ALSO immune to some beneficial spells, like enlarge person, due to the fact that they're not humanoids.
Frankly... I wouldn't change a thing. Players WANT to play aasimars and tieflings for what they are familiar with, and if you change things you run a very real chance of making the race unattractive to the same players who you're trying to entertain. Maybe solve it by just giving humanoids a bonus feat?
James, (or anyone who knows).
Can we get an answer on whether or notFamiliars get feats?
Nothing is mentioned in their familiar progression chart (like their IS in the Animal Companion chart) but alot of people argue since they advance by levels they should get feats.
Your ruling?
Further, can a Nosoi Improved familiar use Wands. They don't have any hands but thier text DOES say they can use medium size writing implements with no problems (being scribes and all) The opinion on the Advice board seems to be 'well if they can write with thier claws, they can use a wand'.
|
Creative Director
|
Dear James Jacobs,
Do you have any good tricks for determining the CR of 0 Hit Die races with class levels? (Such as the CR of a Cavalier 13 or a Witch 5)
Yup; what Kvantum said. CR of a 0 HD race with PC class levels is equal the level -1. If the NPC has only NPC class levels (like warrior or commoner) it's level -2.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James, (or anyone who knows).
Can we get an answer on whether or notFamiliars get feats?
Nothing is mentioned in their familiar progression chart (like their IS in the Animal Companion chart) but alot of people argue since they advance by levels they should get feats.
Your ruling?
Familiars do not gain real Hit Dice, and thus they don't gain feats beyond what they gain from their racial hit dice. They gain new abilities and benefits as their master gains levels, but their HD do not actually advance, and so they don't gain additional feats.
A nosoi could perhaps use wands... but not until it gains Use Magic Device ranks.
Sorry to bug you James. But I was wondering if you have hidden statistics somewhere for the Runelords other than Karzoug somewhere in the books? I have found Alaznists "levels" but they just indicate "CE Female Azlanti eviker 20+; presumed dead" 20+ showing that she is "at least" 20th level(if not mythic) and I am unsure as to if she is pure blood Azlanti(gaining +2 to every stat) In retrospect though, You gave Karzoug in the same book "NE Male Azlanti transmuter 20; presumed dead" while in the RoTRL AP you stated him with Archmage levels. Question 1: do you have stat blocks or items(such as their swords) for any other runelords?
Question 2: Which incarnation should I use for Karzoug to keep accurate(my players just inched by the haunted dwarven mining camp in book 6)
Question 3: Any word yet on the Mythic level or epic level books under development? My players have been playing my game for almost a year solid and aside from the occasional "ok DM sean needs to beat up some goblins, you guys can run" it has been very consistent and my players want to continue into epic levels.
|
Creative Director
|
Sorry to bug you James. But I was wondering if you have hidden statistics somewhere for the Runelords other than Karzoug somewhere in the books? I have found Alaznists "levels" but they just indicate "CE Female Azlanti eviker 20+; presumed dead" 20+ showing that she is "at least" 20th level(if not mythic) and I am unsure as to if she is pure blood Azlanti(gaining +2 to every stat) In retrospect though, You gave Karzoug in the same book "NE Male Azlanti transmuter 20; presumed dead" while in the RoTRL AP you stated him with Archmage levels.
Question 1: do you have stat blocks or items(such as their swords) for any other runelords?
Question 2: Which incarnation should I use for Karzoug to keep accurate(my players just inched by the haunted dwarven mining camp in book 6)
Question 3: Any word yet on the Mythic level or epic level books under development? My players have been playing my game for almost a year solid and aside from the occasional "ok DM sean needs to beat up some goblins, you guys can run" it has been very consistent and my players want to continue into epic levels.
Answer 1: I do vaguely know what the levels of the other Runelords are... but not for sure, since we don't have solid rules for post-20th level characters. I do know that Alaznist, Sorshen, and Xhanderghul are higher level than Karzoug, who is established by Rise of the Runelords to be 20th level already. So... no. Don't have stats for them yet.
Answer 2: You can still use the version of Karzoug in the adventure, but if you want to rebuild him for Pathfinder, make him a 20th level transmuter. We'll have official stats for him in the middle of next year in the updated Rise of the Runelords hardcover.
Answer 3: No word yet on a Mythic level book yet.
1. Does Pathfinder really require "mythic" level rules or rules beyond level 20?
2. What is the most difficult concept that has thus far prevented this content from being produced?
3. Do you believe that levels 15-20 are "epic" or "mythic" enough?
4. How many games have you played/ran that actually went from 1 to 20+?
|
Creative Director
|
1. Does Pathfinder really require "mythic" level rules or rules beyond level 20?
2. What is the most difficult concept that has thus far prevented this content from being produced?
3. Do you believe that levels 15-20 are "epic" or "mythic" enough?
4. How many games have you played/ran that actually went from 1 to 20+?
1) Depends on who you are, I guess. I for one would LOVE to have Mythic rules, since I'd love to be able to stat up demon lords and use them as foes in my games.
2) Making Mythic rules be compatible with the core game is a tricky stunt, but the most difficult step to deal with the game so far is the time and resources required to make it happen.
3) No.
4) I've run 2 campaigns so far that went into post 20th level, and played in 2 more.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will epic levels be epic or will they be like D&D epic levels where all thats special is that you lose like 1/2 your abiliteies because they do not upgrade consistantly? Also can you tell me how to increase spells per day for wizards in epic levels because I need to do that.
Thank you.
The one thing I know about what we'll do with Mythic Levels... IF we do something with them... is that they'll work differently than the rules for Epic level worked for 3rd edition. Hence why I call them Mythic level and not Epic level rules. Beyond that, I can't say anything yet.
|
|
Are there any books discussing some of the details of the Pathfinder Iconics pasts? Whether it be Campaign Setting material or Pathfinder Tales.
Also, will we be seeing more sample spell books/ alchemists formula books in the future through other projects? I really liked those in UM and have used a few on occasion with my party.
|
|
Sorry to bug you James. But I was wondering if you have hidden statistics somewhere for the Runelords other than Karzoug somewhere in the books? I have found Alaznists "levels" but they just indicate "CE Female Azlanti eviker 20+; presumed dead" 20+ showing that she is "at least" 20th level(if not mythic) and I am unsure as to if she is pure blood Azlanti(gaining +2 to every stat) In retrospect though, You gave Karzoug in the same book "NE Male Azlanti transmuter 20; presumed dead" while in the RoTRL AP you stated him with Archmage levels.
Question 1: do you have stat blocks or items(such as their swords) for any other runelords?
Question 2: Which incarnation should I use for Karzoug to keep accurate(my players just inched by the haunted dwarven mining camp in book 6)
Question 3: Any word yet on the Mythic level or epic level books under development? My players have been playing my game for almost a year solid and aside from the occasional "ok DM sean needs to beat up some goblins, you guys can run" it has been very consistent and my players want to continue into epic levels.
Answer 1: I do vaguely know what the levels of the other Runelords are... but not for sure, since we don't have solid rules for post-20th level characters. I do know that Alaznist, Sorshen, and Xhanderghul are higher level than Karzoug, who is established by Rise of the Runelords to be 20th level already. So... no. Don't have stats for them yet.
Answer 2: You can still use the version of Karzoug in the adventure, but if you want to rebuild him for Pathfinder, make him a 20th level transmuter. We'll have official stats for him in the middle of next year in the updated Rise of the Runelords hardcover.
Answer 3: No word yet on a Mythic level book yet.
In regards to the runelords should they have the Azlanti racial modifiers and if so do you think that in itself would be enough to raise Cr by 1 or would it need to be in Conjunction with something else?
In regards to the runelords should they have the Azlanti racial modifiers and if so do you think that in itself would be enough to raise Cr by 1 or would it need to be in Conjunction with something else?Sorry to bug you James. But I was wondering if you have hidden statistics somewhere for the Runelords other than Karzoug somewhere in the books? I have found Alaznists "levels" but they just indicate "CE Female Azlanti eviker 20+; presumed dead" 20+ showing that she is "at least" 20th level(if not mythic) and I am unsure as to if she is pure blood Azlanti(gaining +2 to every stat) In retrospect though, You gave Karzoug in the same book "NE Male Azlanti transmuter 20; presumed dead" while in the RoTRL AP you stated him with Archmage levels.
Question 1: do you have stat blocks or items(such as their swords) for any other runelords?
Question 2: Which incarnation should I use for Karzoug to keep accurate(my players just inched by the haunted dwarven mining camp in book 6)
Question 3: Any word yet on the Mythic level or epic level books under development? My players have been playing my game for almost a year solid and aside from the occasional "ok DM sean needs to beat up some goblins, you guys can run" it has been very consistent and my players want to continue into epic levels.
Answer 1: I do vaguely know what the levels of the other Runelords are... but not for sure, since we don't have solid rules for post-20th level characters. I do know that Alaznist, Sorshen, and Xhanderghul are higher level than Karzoug, who is established by Rise of the Runelords to be 20th level already. So... no. Don't have stats for them yet.
Answer 2: You can still use the version of Karzoug in the adventure, but if you want to rebuild him for Pathfinder, make him a 20th level transmuter. We'll have official stats for him in the middle of next year in the updated Rise of the Runelords hardcover.
Answer 3: No word yet on a Mythic level book yet.
well, if i may say so here(sorry to butt in on the thunder here james) but the NPC CR being PC Class level -1 anyways...the +1 from pureblood azlanti and the additional +1 from his "better than average gear" would keep Karzoug at least at his PC levels +1, which he currently is at. That is just my DM interpretation of the ruling is all, and in no way should reflect how Paizo is ruling. Just my speculation is all.
OOH! my player just brought up a serious issue as well i hope you might be able to elaborate on, He currently has the rune of wrath(from the highlady in #5) he was wondering if the mark from the champion of greed does the same(go to the player who takes the final swing)?
if so, how would the two interract?
would karzoug have control over that PC in the final showdown?
|
Creative Director
|
Are there any books discussing some of the details of the Pathfinder Iconics pasts? Whether it be Campaign Setting material or Pathfinder Tales.
Also, will we be seeing more sample spell books/ alchemists formula books in the future through other projects? I really liked those in UM and have used a few on occasion with my party.
Apart from the "Meet the Iconics" blog posts, we haven't done much with the iconics at all.
We don't have plans for doing more spell books in the future, although if folks liked them we could certainly do more.
|
Creative Director
|
In regards to the runelords should they have the Azlanti racial modifiers and if so do you think that in itself would be enough to raise Cr by 1 or would it need to be in Conjunction with something else?
The runelords are indeed pureblood Azlanti, and should thus gain a +2 bonus to all six ability scores. This isn't enough in and of itself to raise their CR at all, though.
|
Creative Director
|
OOH! my player just brought up a serious issue as well i hope you might be able to elaborate on, He currently has the rune of wrath(from the highlady in #5) he was wondering if the mark from the champion of greed does the same(go to the player who takes the final swing)?
if so, how would the two interract?
would karzoug have control over that PC in the final showdown?
That'd be up to your GM. You won't have any spoilers from me!