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


Off-Topic Discussions

14,501 to 14,550 of 78,176 << first < prev | 286 | 287 | 288 | 289 | 290 | 291 | 292 | 293 | 294 | 295 | 296 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Could a witch use "Bestow Curse" to rob someone of their voice, or to only communicate in the form of song?
That's a bit more potent an effect than bestow curse could normally generate... especially when one considers the implications on spellcasters.

Must. Make. Ursula.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Theos Imarion wrote:
Will you change the rules about duel wield shields since their is proof of it being a real fighting style, would it be a monk weapon as in the video a monk was wielding the two shield. monk double shield fighting for those who do not know what I am talking about.

If we decide to put a dual-shield fighter type option into the game, it'll be in the form of an addition (like a prestige class or a feat chain or an archetype or something like that), not a rules change.

More to the point, messing with how AC works overcomplicates the game, and that type of change (like letting multiple shields work or stack) isn't something I'd idly want to add to the game anyway.


Ok cool, but hey you didn't say no so maybe sheilded duel weilding monk could work which is awsome, although it would be a long way off.


Cheapy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Could a witch use "Bestow Curse" to rob someone of their voice, or to only communicate in the form of song?
That's a bit more potent an effect than bestow curse could normally generate... especially when one considers the implications on spellcasters.
Must. Make. Ursula.

There is a Steal Voice spell:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/steal-voice


The leaders of the Nations in the Inner Sea all decide to run for the position of President of the United States. Who will you vote for this November?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Analysis wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Could a witch use "Bestow Curse" to rob someone of their voice, or to only communicate in the form of song?
That's a bit more potent an effect than bestow curse could normally generate... especially when one considers the implications on spellcasters.
Must. Make. Ursula.

There is a Steal Voice spell:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/steal-voice

Granting a spellblight is not that outlandish a curse, honestly, and having a curse grant something like caster croak is a legitimate use of the spell, I would say. (Note that the effects of steal voice don't 100% negate someone's ability to speak, and that while the spell says "permanent," spellblights can be removed by numerous effects.)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Golden-Esque wrote:
The leaders of the Nations in the Inner Sea all decide to run for the position of President of the United States. Who will you vote for this November?

Kendra Deverin.

Shadow Lodge

Favorite Venture Captain? (Damn Shadow Lodge getting me confused :P)


James Jacobs wrote:
Golden-Esque wrote:
The leaders of the Nations in the Inner Sea all decide to run for the position of President of the United States. Who will you vote for this November?
Kendra Deverin.

Did you get much use of her in your own Sandpoint game? How did you characterize her?

I'm struggling to give her any screentime in my own runelords game. I personally find the sherrif much more compelling.

Spoiler:
I made my player's jaws hit the floor with a badass interrogation of Tsuto (after a few failed rolls on my player's part) but in future I think I'll leave this purely in my player's hands.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:

Thanks for the compliments!

A setting where magic items aren't considered a source of character power would require a more or less total rewrite of the rules, as you saw happen with Iron Heroes and Conan.

Well, Conan basically just left the section out, and just chopped out the whole notion of using CRs, and said "Decide what's an acceptable challenge for your characters without any tips from us!". They did include more cool melee stunts that anyone could do, and made them easier to do without feat-expenditure, and that I'm all for - I've recently started playing with melee feat rules to encourage that. Giving away some of the first tier "improved" maneuver feats for free (or just the AoO part), making it easier to work them into attack routines, giving vital strike to everyone who qualifies. Stuff to cut down on the amount of "stand still and full attack" and encourage more melee variety.

There are some attempts in the houserules section which might prove inspiring. I think I saw one where you had different types of "character enhancement points" which let you get the bonuses of the various "big six" magic items inherently, and choose which bonuses fit your build. If I recall correctly, the points directly correlated with gold values.

A subsystem like that but with a Paizo spin might be pretty awesome. Maybe not APG sized (though a sword and sorcery book that size would be amazing), but I imagine you could easily get a good 96 page softcover out of it. There are definitely those of us interested in such a beast.
And a way to make level progression a bit more gradual would help for those who want to draw out a specific level range.

There are several houserules approaches floating around on these boards, all of them have a few great ideas, most of them seem to have a few drawbacks as well, though I think a "Paizo Professional" approach could make something pretty sweet.

James Jacobs wrote:
It would also require a complete revision of Golarion. Mythic rules, being additive, can attach onto a setting like Golarion relatively easy, but subtractive rules like what you propose are a lot harder to pull off. As a result, we don't have plans to do much in that area...

Oh yeah. Definitely makes sense. I wouldn't expect any rewriting of the campaign setting, and I don't think it has a place in PFS, but I think it might make a good splat book for home games that are not set in Golarion, or GMs willing to make the effort to adapt Golarion for it.

James Jacobs wrote:
but it's a challenge and an interesting idea that, hopefully, we'll try something with. Stay tuned!

Awesome! I hope when you guys talk it over you make a very exciting announcement. But I understand that you can't make any promises.

James Jacobs wrote:
I don't run or play in the Forgotten Realms anymore. In fact, I've never run an FR campaign; I've played in two really long-running ones though. I don't post over on Candlekeep.

Okay. Personally Forgotten Realms is still my favorite setting. Its pretty common to see me bring my 3e Realms books with my Pathfinder rulebooks. But then, I do really like elven empires. And I use alot of 2e elf-related modules, and the 2e Myth Drannor boxed set still sees a decent amount of use in my Pathfinder Games.

Golarion is in a solid lead for second place, and I don't think it gets much better than Cheliax. Cheliax is fantastic, as are the Lands of the Linnorm Kings.

As for not visiting Candlekeep, fair enough. I frequent several RPG boards. Lately its the one I visit the least (I havent seen a new FR product I really wanted since the spellplague happened.) They do have a pretty rocking list of elven names though.

Thanks for the Answers!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Samuel Grundy wrote:
Favorite Venture Captain? (Damn Shadow Lodge getting me confused :P)

Sheila Heidmarch!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Twigs wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Golden-Esque wrote:
The leaders of the Nations in the Inner Sea all decide to run for the position of President of the United States. Who will you vote for this November?
Kendra Deverin.

Did you get much use of her in your own Sandpoint game? How did you characterize her?

I'm struggling to give her any screentime in my own runelords game. I personally find the sherrif much more compelling. ** spoiler omitted **

She's actauly not had that much "screen time" in my Sandpoint game at all as it turned out, so I never did really characterize her much at all. But if I had... she would have been a very liberal leader who is almost supernaturally patient with her political enemies.


Hi!

How does one effectively wield a star-knife?

I have one in real life (Krull) and being in my 30's, my parents are no longer over my shoulder chanting "bad idea".

So... When I get the bright idea to play with it, I always cause damage to myself... I cannot figure out how it should be thrown, it is very difficult to spin.

Perhaps the folks at Paizo can clear office space and test this weapon under the guise of adding descriptive realism to the game?

Now if only someone will give me a sawtooth sabre...


Hi.

of the books/articles you wrote/collaborated which ones are your favorites?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:

Hi.

of the books/articles you wrote/collaborated which ones are your favorites?

Burnt Offerings

Inner Sea World Guide
Lords of Chaos
Dungeon magazine (particularly #112, #119, #134, #139, and #159)
Red Hand of Doom
Fiendish Codex I
Lords of Madness
Into the Darklands
The Demonomicon articles in Dragon magazine

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Keltoi wrote:

Hi!

How does one effectively wield a star-knife?

I have one in real life (Krull) and being in my 30's, my parents are no longer over my shoulder chanting "bad idea".

So... When I get the bright idea to play with it, I always cause damage to myself... I cannot figure out how it should be thrown, it is very difficult to spin.

Perhaps the folks at Paizo can clear office space and test this weapon under the guise of adding descriptive realism to the game?

Now if only someone will give me a sawtooth sabre...

In melee: Like a shield. You hold the middle crossbar and stab with it—there's a blade sticking up and down so you can cut up or stab down like you were holdilng a knife in your fist—in this case, one of the blades sticks out like an extension from your hand likea punching dagger, while the fourth blade pushes back and rests snug against the outside of your forearm. (You should wear a bracer, probably, just like you do when you're shooting arrows.)

As a ranged weappon: Hold one of the blades like you were holding a throwing dagger, then throw the whole thing and release before the spinning blades come back and getcha.

The fact that this weapon (and others) get little to no actual description in the Core Rulebook in favor for MOAR RULEZ! is kind of unfortunate, but it is what it is.


Hi.

why paladin and monks have to be lawful and cavalier and samurai do not?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Nicos wrote:

Hi.

why paladin and monks have to be lawful and cavalier and samurai do not?

Simply because they were designed that way.


James Jacobs wrote:
Nicos wrote:

Hi.

why paladin and monks have to be lawful and cavalier and samurai do not?

Simply because they were designed that way.

and why is that?


Nicos wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Nicos wrote:

Hi.

why paladin and monks have to be lawful and cavalier and samurai do not?

Simply because they were designed that way.
and why is that?

Because they aren't meant to be paragons of Law and Good.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Correct. Cavaliers are not meant to be always law abiding—they certainly CAN be, but you can have scoundrelly cavaliers. And since the samurai is technically a cavalier, we didn't want to mess with that.

Whereas monks and paladins have a LONG tradition of being lawful, and thus we wanted to preserve that tradition. And furthermore, these classes have ALWAYS been very closely aligned to lawful acts.


Must resist urge to rail against the rules forbidding NG and CG Paladins and non-lawful Monks. Must. Resist.

James, what are your favorite 3.5 D&D splatbooks?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Must resist urge to rail against the rules forbidding NG and CG Paladins and non-lawful Monks. Must. Resist.

James, what are your favorite 3.5 D&D splatbooks?

It's good that you resisted that railing, because I'm not interested in that argument At All. Paladins are lawful good, always have been. If that doesn't sit well with your game, it's an easy fix to change. But that's not a change that we'll be doing officially, and so I'm just not interested in falling into that black hole of an internet argument. Even though I'm teetering close to doing just that rihgt now.

First of all, I don't use the term "splatbook." Like the term "fluff," I find the term "splatbook" to be unpalatable—it sounds demeaning. THAT SAID, I don't really have a "favorite" one of these books from 3.5, since I much preferred more GM-oriented books. All the player option books kind of ran together for me as a result.


I see. I never saw the term as unpalatable. I happen to love such books. I couldn't imagine not having Heroes of Battle and Libris Mortis in my collection.

What was your favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I see. I never saw the term as unpalatable. I happen to love such books. I couldn't imagine not having Heroes of Battle and Libris Mortis in my collection.

What was your favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5?

Even if I did use the term, I wouldn't qualify Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis as splatbooks—to me, splatbook speaks to a book that's mostly ONLY about character options, like Complete Warrior or Complete Divine. A book like Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis does FAR more than just give out new character options—they introduce entire new rules subsets (like mass combat) or are filled with GM tools (like new monsters and support for the same in Libris Mortis).

Discounting the books I helped write for 3.5... I'd have to say that my favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5 was probably the Book of Vile Darkness.


What's a subsystem you would like to see in the future?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
What's a subsystem you would like to see in the future?

Mythic rules. That was an easy one!


James Jacobs wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I see. I never saw the term as unpalatable. I happen to love such books. I couldn't imagine not having Heroes of Battle and Libris Mortis in my collection.

What was your favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5?

Even if I did use the term, I wouldn't qualify Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis as splatbooks—to me, splatbook speaks to a book that's mostly ONLY about character options, like Complete Warrior or Complete Divine. A book like Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis does FAR more than just give out new character options—they introduce entire new rules subsets (like mass combat) or are filled with GM tools (like new monsters and support for the same in Libris Mortis).

Discounting the books I helped write for 3.5... I'd have to say that my favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5 was probably the Book of Vile Darkness.

I put a used copy of Book of Vile Darkness on my birthday list :D

Which official WOTC 3E/3.5 supplements did you help write?

Did you help write the core rulebooks for 3E or 3.5?


I'm not sure if that qualifies as a subsystem, but let's run with that :-)

What are some of the more subtle difficulties or considerations you see with mythic rules that previous attempts at similar rules failed at? In your opinion, of course.


James Jacobs wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Must resist urge to rail against the rules forbidding NG and CG Paladins and non-lawful Monks. Must. Resist.

James, what are your favorite 3.5 D&D splatbooks?

It's good that you resisted that railing, because I'm not interested in that argument At All. Paladins are lawful good, always have been. If that doesn't sit well with your game, it's an easy fix to change. But that's not a change that we'll be doing officially, and so I'm just not interested in falling into that black hole of an internet argument. Even though I'm teetering close to doing just that rihgt now.

.

.
3.5 Unearthed Arcana says Hi, so does 4E but you probably don't care about that one.

Also, there are times when one cannot be/act both Lawful and Good at the same time.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I see. I never saw the term as unpalatable. I happen to love such books. I couldn't imagine not having Heroes of Battle and Libris Mortis in my collection.

What was your favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5?

Even if I did use the term, I wouldn't qualify Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis as splatbooks—to me, splatbook speaks to a book that's mostly ONLY about character options, like Complete Warrior or Complete Divine. A book like Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis does FAR more than just give out new character options—they introduce entire new rules subsets (like mass combat) or are filled with GM tools (like new monsters and support for the same in Libris Mortis).

Discounting the books I helped write for 3.5... I'd have to say that my favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5 was probably the Book of Vile Darkness.

I put a used copy of Book of Vile Darkness on my birthday list :D

Which official WOTC 3E/3.5 supplements did you help write?

Did you help write the core rulebooks for 3E or 3.5?

Not counting my work on Dungeon or Dragon magazine... and not counting books like Monster Manual 2 or the Spell Compendium that picked up stuff I'd designed from elsewhere to reprint, the 3rd edition books I worked on were:

World of Warcraft Campaign Setting (this never saw print from WotC, but it was the first hardcover book I worked on for D&D)

Races of Faerun

Fiend Folio

Frostburn

Dungeon Master's Guide II

Lords of Madness

Red Hand of Doom

Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk

Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss

Elder Evils

I think that's it... but I feel like I might be forgetting one in there somewhere...

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belle Mythix wrote:
Also, there are times when one cannot be/act both Lawful and Good at the same time.

And those are the times that paladins are the most fun to play - to squirm and finally make a choice that will require you to atone and make things right. Playing a paladin when you can always take the safe moral/ethical path is boring.


Why do you fear the FAWTLpocolypse James?

Resistance is futile.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belle Mythix wrote:

3.5 Unearthed Arcana says Hi, so does 4E but you probably don't care about that one.

Also, there are times when one cannot be/act both Lawful and Good at the same time.

Not a fan of the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, to tell the truth.

And when you can't act both lawful and good at the same time... you do the best you can. How you react to those situations is more what makes you a paladin than just writing it on your character sheet.

As an aside... back in Dragon #310 and #312, I actually wrote a pair of articles that detailed a paladin for every single alignment. Folks interested in checking out those kinds of solutions to the problems should check those out—they're 3.5, so they transfer over to Pathfinder not that bad. That said... my experience writing that article ended up solidifying my opinion that having more than one version of the Paladin is a bad thing for the game.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cheapy wrote:

I'm not sure if that qualifies as a subsystem, but let's run with that :-)

What are some of the more subtle difficulties or considerations you see with mythic rules that previous attempts at similar rules failed at? In your opinion, of course.

The fundamental flaw in the 3rd edition epic rules was the decision to not have a level cap. Level caps define everything, and not having them means you can't design anything for the game, since you don't know how powerful to make things for any one particular group.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Lord President Moorluck wrote:

Why do you fear the FAWTLpocolypse James?

Resistance is futile.

I have no idea what you're talking about. So maybe I fear it because I fear the unknown? That is, after all, the oldest and strongest kind of fear.


James Jacobs wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:

3.5 Unearthed Arcana says Hi, so does 4E but you probably don't care about that one.

Also, there are times when one cannot be/act both Lawful and Good at the same time.

Not a fan of the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, to tell the truth.

And when you can't act both lawful and good at the same time... you do the best you can. How you react to those situations is more what makes you a paladin than just writing it on your character sheet.

As an aside... back in Dragon #310 and #312, I actually wrote a pair of articles that detailed a paladin for every single alignment. Folks interested in checking out those kinds of solutions to the problems should check those out—they're 3.5, so they transfer over to Pathfinder not that bad. That said... my experience writing that article ended up solidifying my opinion that having more than one version of the Paladin is a bad thing for the game.

Can you post those or email them to me, or does WOTC own them?


James Jacobs wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I see. I never saw the term as unpalatable. I happen to love such books. I couldn't imagine not having Heroes of Battle and Libris Mortis in my collection.

What was your favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5?

Even if I did use the term, I wouldn't qualify Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis as splatbooks—to me, splatbook speaks to a book that's mostly ONLY about character options, like Complete Warrior or Complete Divine. A book like Heroes of Battle or Libris Mortis does FAR more than just give out new character options—they introduce entire new rules subsets (like mass combat) or are filled with GM tools (like new monsters and support for the same in Libris Mortis).

Discounting the books I helped write for 3.5... I'd have to say that my favorite GM-oriented supplement from 3.5 was probably the Book of Vile Darkness.

I put a used copy of Book of Vile Darkness on my birthday list :D

Which official WOTC 3E/3.5 supplements did you help write?

Did you help write the core rulebooks for 3E or 3.5?

Not counting my work on Dungeon or Dragon magazine... and not counting books like Monster Manual 2 or the Spell Compendium that picked up stuff I'd designed from elsewhere to reprint, the 3rd edition books I worked on were:

World of Warcraft Campaign Setting (this never saw print from WotC, but it was the first hardcover book I worked on for D&D)

Races of Faerun

Fiend Folio

Frostburn

Dungeon Master's Guide II

Lords of Madness

Red Hand of Doom

Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk

Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss

Elder Evils

I think that's it... but I feel like I might be forgetting one in there somewhere...

Aw, I don't have anything you wrote. I've borrowed Lords of Madness from the library, and have Frostburn on hold from them right now, but I own none of these and don't plan to buy them. What I want to get is Heroes of Horror, Book of Vile Darkness, and assorted 3PP offerings.

I DO, however, own all eight hardcover Pathfinder rulebooks, so I do have something you wrote :D


James Jacobs wrote:


And when you can't act both lawful and good at the same time... you do the best you can. How you react to those situations is more what makes you a paladin than just writing it on your character sheet.

As an aside... back in Dragon #310 and #312, I actually wrote a pair of articles that detailed a paladin for every single alignment. Folks interested in checking out those kinds of solutions to the problems should check those out—they're 3.5, so they transfer over to Pathfinder not that bad. That said... my experience writing that article ended up solidifying my opinion that having more than one version of the Paladin is a bad thing for the game.

.

.
Neutral/X, X/Neutral and True Neutral could be more chalenging to play, especially if the Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil thing must stay balanced for some cosmic reason.

Also, if you go by the fluff, Paladin should be Good first, Lawful in second.

Maybe make a class that is more or less a cross between Cavalier/Samurai and Paladin or something...


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:

3.5 Unearthed Arcana says Hi, so does 4E but you probably don't care about that one.

Also, there are times when one cannot be/act both Lawful and Good at the same time.

Not a fan of the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, to tell the truth.

And when you can't act both lawful and good at the same time... you do the best you can. How you react to those situations is more what makes you a paladin than just writing it on your character sheet.

As an aside... back in Dragon #310 and #312, I actually wrote a pair of articles that detailed a paladin for every single alignment. Folks interested in checking out those kinds of solutions to the problems should check those out—they're 3.5, so they transfer over to Pathfinder not that bad. That said... my experience writing that article ended up solidifying my opinion that having more than one version of the Paladin is a bad thing for the game.

Can you post those or email them to me, or does WOTC own them?

I believe you can buy the PDFs here on Paizo

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Montana MacAilbert wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:

3.5 Unearthed Arcana says Hi, so does 4E but you probably don't care about that one.

Also, there are times when one cannot be/act both Lawful and Good at the same time.

Not a fan of the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, to tell the truth.

And when you can't act both lawful and good at the same time... you do the best you can. How you react to those situations is more what makes you a paladin than just writing it on your character sheet.

As an aside... back in Dragon #310 and #312, I actually wrote a pair of articles that detailed a paladin for every single alignment. Folks interested in checking out those kinds of solutions to the problems should check those out—they're 3.5, so they transfer over to Pathfinder not that bad. That said... my experience writing that article ended up solidifying my opinion that having more than one version of the Paladin is a bad thing for the game.

Can you post those or email them to me, or does WOTC own them?

They appeared in Dragon magazine, so yeah, they're owned by Wizards of the Coast.

PDF versions are availalbe here at Paizo.com though:

Dragon #310

Dragon #312


Read a bit of Dragon #310, so Divine Health is Lawful Good only?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Void Munchkin wrote:
Read a bit of Dragon #310, so Divine Health is Lawful Good only?

It's been years and years since I wrote the article. But if divine health isn't showing up for any of the other classes, yeah... if you want divine health, you have to be the lawful good paladin.


James Jacobs wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

I'm not sure if that qualifies as a subsystem, but let's run with that :-)

What are some of the more subtle difficulties or considerations you see with mythic rules that previous attempts at similar rules failed at? In your opinion, of course.

The fundamental flaw in the 3rd edition epic rules was the decision to not have a level cap. Level caps define everything, and not having them means you can't design anything for the game, since you don't know how powerful to make things for any one particular group.

Interesting. Do you think that the inclusion of capstone abilities in PF changes things? They seem like abilities that are powerful because they wouldn't be used often.

Which reminds me. Do you have any insight into why the cleric lacks a capstone? I can only assume that it was intentional.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

I'm not sure if that qualifies as a subsystem, but let's run with that :-)

What are some of the more subtle difficulties or considerations you see with mythic rules that previous attempts at similar rules failed at? In your opinion, of course.

The fundamental flaw in the 3rd edition epic rules was the decision to not have a level cap. Level caps define everything, and not having them means you can't design anything for the game, since you don't know how powerful to make things for any one particular group.

Interesting. Do you think that the inclusion of capstone abilities in PF changes things? They seem like abilities that are powerful because they wouldn't be used often.

Which reminds me. Do you have any insight into why the cleric lacks a capstone? I can only assume that it was intentional.

Not really. In fact, I kind of wish we'd included language to the effect of this in the rules:

"When you run a campaign, decide what you want the level cap of that campaign to be. Move the capstone ability normally granted at 20th level down to that level cap."

My theory: If you play a campaign that's designed to go to a certain level and then stop at some point before you level up beyond that level (as is somewhat implied by adventure paths), then allowing the PCs to get a final cool superpower at the end of the campaign isn't a bad thing.

The cleric's lack of a capstone is, I suspect, an oversight. I wish we'd given them a capstone, but for whatever reason, that slipped through the cracks. Were I designing the game this instant, I'd absolutely give clerics a capstone ability—probably something along the lines of the monk's capstone, or perhaps the ability to self resurrect once per year.


Did you ever look through Complete Warrior for 3.5? I'm flipping through a library copy and thinking of converting a bunch of the prestige classes into archetypes for the Pathfinder base classes. I'm also thinking of turning the Swashbucker base class it has into a Fighter archetype. Do you have any ideas for which prestige classes you think I should archetype?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Did you ever look through Complete Warrior for 3.5? I'm flipping through a library copy and thinking of converting a bunch of the prestige classes into archetypes for the Pathfinder base classes. I'm also thinking of turning the Swashbucker base class it has into a Fighter archetype. Do you have any ideas for which prestige classes you think I should archetype?

I absolutely have—I've looked through all of those books for 3.5.

And in fact, I would suggest NOT converting prestige classes over to archetypes. The game's got plenty of archetypes already in my opinion, and frankly, I actually prefer prestige classes since they're so much more flexible.


I don't like prestige classes, but I do love having a mountain of archetypes to choose from. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.


Are you watching this thread, James?


I almost wish there are a number of choices for capstone abilities. For some classes (bard, rogue, for example), the ability may be shoehorning you into a concept that you your character doesn't follow.

Kelsey, Adamant Entertainment's Tome of Secrets has a fairly well done Swashbuckler class, and there are print copies of the book. In my opinion it is very hit and miss, but the Swashbuckler is on the "hit" side.

14,501 to 14,550 of 78,176 << first < prev | 286 | 287 | 288 | 289 | 290 | 291 | 292 | 293 | 294 | 295 | 296 | 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.