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


Off-Topic Discussions

17,501 to 17,550 of 78,524 << first < prev | 346 | 347 | 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | next > last >>

Almighty Creative Dinosaur of Paizo do you think it's within Wish's limit to grant the Quickness supernatural ability?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

donaldsangry wrote:
Almighty Creative Dinosaur of Paizo do you think it's within Wish's limit to grant the Quickness supernatural ability?

As in the choker's ability?

I would probably allow that. But I tend to be pretty generous with wishes.

The only reason I'd hesitate is because I tend to think that granting player characters additional actions is one of the sketchiest things you can do—swift and immediate actions are REALLY good at overcomplicating the flow of the game, and the quickness ability is a similar case. For two reasons.

1) The PCs already outnumber most encounters' actions; they already get to go a lot more often in a battle than the GM, and giving them MORE actions makes that balance even harder to maintain.

2) If only one player gets the Quickness ability... he's taking 1 extra move action each round. That means his turns in a combat take 1 move longer to resolve. Unless you expand the game session's length by an amount of time equal to that which all those extra move actions take up during the session, what this does is effectively shorten the amount of time everyone else in the group, players and GM alike, get to actually "play the game" and take their own actions. Now granted, 1 additional move action every round isn't THAT bad... but in my experience, the players who would be wishing for quickness are the types that already use haste a lot, have lots of quickened spells, and use lots of other methods to artifically increase the number of actions they can take in a round. Essentially stealing gameplay time from the other players while simultaneously making themselves more powerful than the game might expect.

In the end, whether or not I'd allow a wish to grant Quickness permanently, or for a day or a week, or not at all—that would depend mostly upon the nature of the PC who was asking for the wish, I guess.


James Jacobs wrote:
harmor wrote:

Hi James,

Does using ** spoiler omitted **
require a concentration check (DC 15 + level of the spell) when:

1) Hovering
2) Moving less than half speed
3) Moving at half or greater speed

Appreciate your time.

Why would it?

The question-answerer ... asking ... a question?

Does not compute.
Does not compute.
Does not *BAM!*


donaldsangry wrote:
Almighty Creative Dinosaur of Paizo do you think it's within Wish's limit to grant the Quickness supernatural ability?

Sure is! When they wish for it, just have the wish permanently polymorph any object the player into a roper. Copying polymorph any object is well within wish's powers!


James Jacobs wrote:
harmor wrote:

Hi James,

Does using ** spoiler omitted **
require a concentration check (DC 15 + level of the spell) when:

1) Hovering
2) Moving less than half speed
3) Moving at half or greater speed

Appreciate your time.

Why would it?

I meant when casting a spell. Do #1-3 and then cast a spell or visa versa.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

harmor wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
harmor wrote:

Hi James,

Does using ** spoiler omitted **
require a concentration check (DC 15 + level of the spell) when:

1) Hovering
2) Moving less than half speed
3) Moving at half or greater speed

Appreciate your time.

Why would it?
I meant when casting a spell. Do #1-3 and then cast a spell or visa versa.

Unless you're flying in a windstorm, the simple act of flying does not require Concentration checks. No more than any other movement does.


I've been playing with Words of Power a bit and I've been enjoying it quite a bit. Will we see more support for this system in other supplements and such?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Odraude wrote:
I've been playing with Words of Power a bit and I've been enjoying it quite a bit. Will we see more support for this system in other supplements and such?

We have no plans to do anything more with Words of Power.


James Jacobs wrote:
Sleet Storm wrote:

I have a Question regarding the Summoner.

How do they gain their Powers?

Every Class has some kind of explanation why they can do what they can do except the Summoner.

Do they have Sorcerer Ancestry? Does it come from their Eidolon? A Patron?

How a summoner gains their powers depends on the Campaign. And likely depends on various things IN the campaign.

My preference is to say that they learn their powers by studying conjuration type magic and by exposing themselves to weird planar energies and by learning tricks from weird outsider and planar forces.

Does the Academae teach summoners in addition to conventional wizards? Of all the magic schools we've seen, they seem the most likely to do so... at least, as long as you're happy with an imp eidolon. :)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
Does the Academae teach summoners in addition to conventional wizards? Of all the magic schools we've seen, they seem the most likely to do so... at least, as long as you're happy with an imp eidolon. :)

Nope; only wizards.

Although that's probably because no summoner has ever applied. That... and the fact that they'd not really accept summoners anyway if they don't summon actual devils, which eidolons are not.


James Jacobs wrote:
harmor wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
harmor wrote:

Hi James,

Does using ** spoiler omitted **
require a concentration check (DC 15 + level of the spell) when:

1) Hovering
2) Moving less than half speed
3) Moving at half or greater speed

Appreciate your time.

Why would it?
I meant when casting a spell. Do #1-3 and then cast a spell or visa versa.
Unless you're flying in a windstorm, the simple act of flying does not require Concentration checks. No more than any other movement does.

Even the wings from a Wings of Flying? The description says that bat/bird-like wings sprout up allowing you to fly. In this case physical wings are not causing violent motions, correct?

Basically I'm confused when because it says "average maneuverability".

Paizo Employee Creative Director

harmor wrote:

The description says that bat/bird-like wings sprout up allowing you to fly. In this case physical wings are not causing violent motions, correct?

No more physical violent than any motion. No more so than walking.

Physically violent motion means standing on a raft in the rapids or being thrown by a giant or, in the case of flying, flying in a storm or soemthing like that. Just the act of flying doesn't count at all.


+100 Bonus XP, thanks James.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
Does the Academae teach summoners in addition to conventional wizards? Of all the magic schools we've seen, they seem the most likely to do so... at least, as long as you're happy with an imp eidolon. :)

Nope; only wizards.

Although that's probably because no summoner has ever applied. That... and the fact that they'd not really accept summoners anyway if they don't summon actual devils, which eidolons are not.

Summoners can cast planar binding spells along with the best of them. My summoner's Eidolon may not be a devil, but that doesnt' mean he can't summon or bind one in the same way a wizard could.

Reconsidering it on the basis of the Summoner's SLA, and spell list, wouldn't they be ideal applicants?


They are also exceedingly rare in Golarion, right?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
They are also exceedingly rare in Golarion, right?

What's rare? Wizards aren't common, but they're not unknown. I'd assume that anything that's eligible for a player class isn't that rare in the world. I would warrant that Summoners are probably more common than Conjurer Wizards.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
Does the Academae teach summoners in addition to conventional wizards? Of all the magic schools we've seen, they seem the most likely to do so... at least, as long as you're happy with an imp eidolon. :)

Nope; only wizards.

Although that's probably because no summoner has ever applied. That... and the fact that they'd not really accept summoners anyway if they don't summon actual devils, which eidolons are not.

Summoners can cast planar binding spells along with the best of them. My summoner's Eidolon may not be a devil, but that doesnt' mean he can't summon or bind one in the same way a wizard could.

Reconsidering it on the basis of the Summoner's SLA, and spell list, wouldn't they be ideal applicants?

Nope... The Acadamae is very much a wizards' school. And not just ANY wizard's school... it's pretty much for specialist wizards only, with a specific focus on conjurers. Summoners, not being wizards, would have a very rough time getting accepted. The Acadamae is big on traditions, after all, and one of those is that you learn to be a wizard, not a summoner, by attending.

So no... summoners are no more ideal an applicant for the acadamae than a bard or a sorcerer or a cleric. Or a paladin or a rogue or a fighter for that matter.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

LazarX wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
They are also exceedingly rare in Golarion, right?
What's rare? Wizards aren't common, but they're not unknown. I'd assume that anything that's eligible for a player class isn't that rare in the world. I would warrant that Summoners are probably more common than Conjurer Wizards.

Cheapy is talking about summoners.

Conjurers are quite common, actually. Summoner NPCs are VERY rare... less common in Golarion than gunslinngers in fact. And there's not a lot of gunslinger NPCs.

There used to be more summoners... particularly up north, but the Worldwound fixed that.

Today... summoners are just about the rarest class you'll see show up in Golarion.

Simply being a PC class by no means indicates that class is common, or even known about in any region. It merely means that it's a PC option.

PCs are, after all, the rarest creatures of them all. There's usually no more than a few in any one campaign setting, after all!


What deities, if any, are each of the genie races being most likely to follow?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gordon the Whale wrote:
What deities, if any, are each of the genie races being most likely to follow?

Themselves perhaps? Geniekind tend to be an arrogant bunch.


A vaguely decadent question, tying into something I asked previously on Genie-binding, Middle Eastern-flavoured undead. The Sahir-Afiyun of Katapesh are pesh addicts who gain additional magic power from the drug. Would a lich Sahir-Afiyun, being an ambulatory corpse, have to use some form of polymorph or alter self effects in order to be able to ingest the drug and benefit magically from it?


LazarX wrote:
Gordon the Whale wrote:
What deities, if any, are each of the genie races being most likely to follow?
Themselves perhaps? Geniekind tend to be an arrogant bunch.

Just saying "elemental lords" is a pretty easy fiat as well.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Gordon the Whale wrote:
What deities, if any, are each of the genie races being most likely to follow?

Any of them. They don't really have racial deities. So it'd depend on their class and personality.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Analysis wrote:
A vaguely decadent question, tying into something I asked previously on Genie-binding, Middle Eastern-flavoured undead. The Sahir-Afiyun of Katapesh are pesh addicts who gain additional magic power from the drug. Would a lich Sahir-Afiyun, being an ambulatory corpse, have to use some form of polymorph or alter self effects in order to be able to ingest the drug and benefit magically from it?

I'd say a lich would be immune to drugs, since drugs are pretty close to poison, and undead are immune to poison.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Golden-Esque wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Gordon the Whale wrote:
What deities, if any, are each of the genie races being most likely to follow?
Themselves perhaps? Geniekind tend to be an arrogant bunch.
Just saying "elemental lords" is a pretty easy fiat as well.

Not really. All of the elemental lords are neutral evil. Genies and their ilk aren't all into that scene.


James Jacobs wrote:
Golden-Esque wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Gordon the Whale wrote:
What deities, if any, are each of the genie races being most likely to follow?
Themselves perhaps? Geniekind tend to be an arrogant bunch.
Just saying "elemental lords" is a pretty easy fiat as well.
Not really. All of the elemental lords are neutral evil. Genies and their ilk aren't all into that scene.

I can't hear elemental lords without thinking about Hyadain's version of the Appearance of the Four Elemental Lords from FF4.

Also, why are the elemental lords Neutral Evil? Sadly I don't know much about them, if any at all.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Odraude wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Golden-Esque wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Gordon the Whale wrote:
What deities, if any, are each of the genie races being most likely to follow?
Themselves perhaps? Geniekind tend to be an arrogant bunch.
Just saying "elemental lords" is a pretty easy fiat as well.
Not really. All of the elemental lords are neutral evil. Genies and their ilk aren't all into that scene.

I can't hear elemental lords without thinking about Hyadain's version of the Appearance of the Four Elemental Lords from FF4.

Also, why are the elemental lords Neutral Evil? Sadly I don't know much about them, if any at all.

We haven't said much about the elemental lords yet... or why they're all neutral evil... but there IS a reason. We'll reveal that some day.


James Jacobs wrote:
Odraude wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Golden-Esque wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Gordon the Whale wrote:
What deities, if any, are each of the genie races being most likely to follow?
Themselves perhaps? Geniekind tend to be an arrogant bunch.
Just saying "elemental lords" is a pretty easy fiat as well.
Not really. All of the elemental lords are neutral evil. Genies and their ilk aren't all into that scene.

I can't hear elemental lords without thinking about Hyadain's version of the Appearance of the Four Elemental Lords from FF4.

Also, why are the elemental lords Neutral Evil? Sadly I don't know much about them, if any at all.

We haven't said much about the elemental lords yet... or why they're all neutral evil... but there IS a reason. We'll reveal that some day.

Inner Sea World Guide rumors it is because they killed off their more benevolent kin.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Tels wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Odraude wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Golden-Esque wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Gordon the Whale wrote:
What deities, if any, are each of the genie races being most likely to follow?
Themselves perhaps? Geniekind tend to be an arrogant bunch.
Just saying "elemental lords" is a pretty easy fiat as well.
Not really. All of the elemental lords are neutral evil. Genies and their ilk aren't all into that scene.

I can't hear elemental lords without thinking about Hyadain's version of the Appearance of the Four Elemental Lords from FF4.

Also, why are the elemental lords Neutral Evil? Sadly I don't know much about them, if any at all.

We haven't said much about the elemental lords yet... or why they're all neutral evil... but there IS a reason. We'll reveal that some day.
Inner Sea World Guide rumors it is because they killed off their more benevolent kin.

It sure does, doesn't it? :P


So after reading the description of the Distant Worlds supplement book, I was pretty hyped to read more about "the insectile legions of the Forever Queen". I ordered it and today it arrived. Now I was disappointed to not find any rules on either the Queen nor any part of her legions in the actual book.

Are there or will there be rules for these creatures somewhere else?

(I'm in love with swarm creatures like these (Aliens, Zerg, Slivers from MTG, SST etc) and would love to use them in a campaign)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Threeshades wrote:

So after reading the description of the Distant Worlds supplement book, I was pretty hyped to read more about "the insectile legions of the Forever Queen". I ordered it and today it arrived. Now I was disappointed to not find any rules on either the Queen nor any part of her legions in the actual book.

Are there or will there be rules for these creatures somewhere else?

(I'm in love with swarm creatures like these (Aliens, Zerg, Slivers from MTG, SST etc) and would love to use them in a campaign)

Perhaps some day. The goal of Distant Worlds was to focus on those worlds... not the monsters. We put as many critters as we could fit into the book's bestiary, but there's certainly room for more in a later publication. We'll see!

Dark Archive

So is there a chance for a Golarionverse "outerworlds" bestiary? Something more setting focus bestiary?

Dark Archive

Did the empire of Kelesh and the Imperial Lung Wa empire ever have a war against each other?

If not what would happen (in an alternate Golarion) if they had fought each other?


Can you explain how multiattack, multi-weapon fighting, two-weapon fighting and natural attacks work with iterative attacks?

Right now I have a player with a BAB with +9/+4. They are a Alchemist 10/Barbarian 2/Rogue 1 with multi-attack, multiweapon fighting, vestigial limb x2, tentacle, gore barbarian rage ability. If they full attack, do they actually get 7 attacks?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ulgulanoth wrote:
So is there a chance for a Golarionverse "outerworlds" bestiary? Something more setting focus bestiary?

Yes.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ulgulanoth wrote:

Did the empire of Kelesh and the Imperial Lung Wa empire ever have a war against each other?

If not what would happen (in an alternate Golarion) if they had fought each other?

No; they're separated by a large swath of land, then an ocean, and then the world's highest mountain range. They had relatively little contact, in fact—certainly not enough to have a war.

And I try not to get embroiled in "what if on alternate Golarion" discussions, since that's an "anything is possible" question crossed with a "do a second campaign" assignment. I'd rather not explode this already huge thread with questions resolving issues that might or might not arise in an infinite number of possible alternate Golarions.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Caoulhoun wrote:

Can you explain how multiattack, multi-weapon fighting, two-weapon fighting and natural attacks work with iterative attacks?

Right now I have a player with a BAB with +9/+4. They are a Alchemist 10/Barbarian 2/Rogue 1 with multi-attack, multiweapon fighting, vestigial limb x2, tentacle, gore barbarian rage ability. If they full attack, do they actually get 7 attacks?

Yup. See below:

Spoiler:
A player with a BAB of +9 and that unwieldy somewhat-ridiculous combination of abilities would work like this:

He'd get his full iterative attacks with one weapon in one hand. Let's say it (and all other weapons) are daggers.

The tentacle discovery grants the alchemist a natural attack that he always has access to.

The vestigial arm discovery (I assume this is what you're talking about with "vestigial limb x2") does not grant natural attacks, just options for additional weapon attacks.

The barbarian gore ability doesn't exist as far as I can tell; if it DOES exist, I assume it works similarly to animal fury, in that it gives the barbarian an additional natural attack when he rages... and ONLY when he rages. It's not a natural attack he can use at all times.

So, when your mutated raging character attacks, he has: 1 attack with a primary dagger, 3 attacks with off-hand daggers (one for his real 2nd arm, and one each for his two vestigial arms), 1 tentacle, and one gore.

Multiattack has as a prerequisite "three or more natural attacks," and this character has only one natural attack—the tentacle. The gore doesn't count, since it's a temporary addition and not something he's always got. So this character cannot take Multiattack, so that doesn't enter into the picture.

Multiweapon Fighting has as prerequisites "Dex 13 and three or more hands" which, for the sake of this argument, I'll assume this character has a Dex 13 at least.

SO! Not bothering with any additional modifiers to attack rolls from ability scores or magic... and ONLY factoring in the –2 penalty for all weapon attacks and the –5 penalty for secondary natural attacks... this character would get the following attack sequence as a full attack:

dagger +7/+2
dagger +7
dagger +7
dagger +7
tentacle +2
gore +2

For a total of seven attacks. He'd have full STR mods to damage on his main dagger, but half STR mods for every other attack.

It's certainly a lot of attacks... but keep in mind that in order to make full attacks you have to start a round close to an enemy... and in many cases, that means that the enemy or enemies get to do the same to you.

Furthermore, even assuming a generous number of modifiers (say, +8 total from ability and magic and other buffs), he's still only at a +15 for his best attacks and +10 for his worst ones.

He's a 13th level character. The average monster he'll be facing is a CR 13 foe, and they generally have an AC of 28. He'll need to roll a 13 to hit that monster, or an 18 to hit with a secondary attack. AKA: He's got a lot of attacks, but he'll miss more often than he hits. And that's assuming generous ability scores—if he has NO buffs at all, he has to roll natural 20s on every attack to hit a monster. This character will probably be more effective and do far more reliable damage each round with his bombs.


Have you ever run a game where you were able to convince your players that a monster was more dangerous then it actually was? If so, care to host story time with James Jacobs?

As an aside, I was able to convince my players that a CR 6 mothman was some sort of epic spellcaster. Which, of course, I retconned into reality because my players already thought he was.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hi James,

First, let me thank you for your wonderful work on monsters and demons in general. Fiendish codex I, Demonomicon articles, that awesome bestiary at the end of "Into the Wormcrawl Fissure"... all of them are fantastic resources.

I have a few questions, if you don't mind:

WARNING: AGE OF WORMS SPOILERS AHEAD!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

- The wormdrake is a nasty critter with that Gate spell-like ability. What creature would you summon with it? an advanced broodfiend, perhaps? A Treerazer-like demon?

- I dunno what to do with the dragons. In 3.5 they had more HD than in Pathfinder. Should I keep the hit die the same and convert the rest? The goal here is to preserve the difficulty level on those dragon battles.

- What do you think about introducing the thane in Tilagos island? For example turning Harrowdroth into an advanced Bandersnatch and the Ancient Night Twist into a Sard.

- I find the nabassus growth mechanic a bit weird. You end up with a monster with huge attack and hitpoint bonuses but lousy base attack bonus, low Hit Dice and fewer feats than its CR would indicate. Is there any particular reason you decided not to create a lesser and mature version? (as in FC1)

Thanks!

Contributor

What is one aspect (nation, organization, event, etc.) of Golarion that you feel needs to be more developed? This is regardless of whether it will actually be fleshed out or not in print.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Is the 0 HD construct going to be in the Inner Sea Bestiary?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Golden-Esque wrote:

Have you ever run a game where you were able to convince your players that a monster was more dangerous then it actually was? If so, care to host story time with James Jacobs?

As an aside, I was able to convince my players that a CR 6 mothman was some sort of epic spellcaster. Which, of course, I retconned into reality because my players already thought he was.

Often. I usually don't tell PCs what a monster is—I describe it. Sometimes I change things significantly—such as describing a flock of ravens with glowing red eyes and razor-sharp bloody beaks who seem to caw all at once in a single voice. That got the party really nervous, even though behind the scenes it was just stats for a bat swarm.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
donato wrote:
What is one aspect (nation, organization, event, etc.) of Golarion that you feel needs to be more developed? This is regardless of whether it will actually be fleshed out or not in print.

Numeria.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:
Is the 0 HD construct going to be in the Inner Sea Bestiary?

There will be 4 0-HD races in the Inner Sea Bestiary. None of them are constructs, but one of them will be construct-like.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Is the 0 HD construct going to be in the Inner Sea Bestiary?
There will be 4 0-HD races in the Inner Sea Bestiary. None of them are constructs, but one of them will be construct-like.

Damn, I am slacking on extracting as much info from your posts as possible that I missed that it was construct-like and not a construct.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

selphie wrote:

1- The wormdrake is a nasty critter with that Gate spell-like ability. What creature would you summon with it? an advanced broodfiend, perhaps? A Treerazer-like demon?

2- I dunno what to do with the dragons. In 3.5 they had more HD than in Pathfinder. Should I keep the hit die the same and convert the rest? The goal here is to preserve the difficulty level on those dragon battles.

3- What do you think about introducing the thane in Tilagos island? For example turning Harrowdroth into an advanced Bandersnatch and the Ancient Night Twist into a Sard.

4- I find the nabassus growth mechanic a bit weird. You end up with a monster with huge attack and hitpoint bonuses but lousy base attack bonus, low Hit Dice and fewer feats than its CR would indicate. Is there any particular reason you decided not to create a lesser and mature version? (as in FC1)

1) I'd probably summon something almost as but not AS powerful as the wormdrake. Not only because this helps a little bit to keep the encounter from getting too powerful, but it also helps keep the wormdrake as the "boss" of the encounter and prevents it from being upstaged.

2) Just use CR appropriate dragons. If the original adventure called for a CR 13 dragon... use a CR 13 dragon in its place. Don't worry about trying to duplicate the stats in this case; just duplicate the CR.

3) This confused me... then I realized you were talking about "tane" (no H) and not "thane" (which are from the Land of the Linnorm Kings, not the First World). I think that'd be cool, though. That Island fits well into the First World themes.

4) Space reasons for the first part... but also, there IS a "mature" version. It's the vrolikai demon from Bestiary 2. As for the nabasu, don't forget that while it doesn't gain HD, it does increase its attack rolls, CMB, saves, level checks and skill checks by +1 for each growth point. It doesn't gain more feats, but its attacks and skills increase equally well as if it HAD gained HD... and it actually gains BETTER saves than it would have otherwise.

A nabasu with 15 growth points, for example, would gain the following:

+15 on all attacks
+15 on all CMB checks
+15 on all saves
+15 on all caster level checks
+15 on all skill checks
+150 hp
Natural armor bonus increases by +7
SR increases by +7
CR increases by +7

Which actually puts it pretty close to CR 15, according to table 1–1, and in fact puts it over those expectations in some categories.

It DOES retain its lower HD, which is a (deliberate) weakness for effects based on HD.


Justin Franklin wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Is the 0 HD construct going to be in the Inner Sea Bestiary?
There will be 4 0-HD races in the Inner Sea Bestiary. None of them are constructs, but one of them will be construct-like.
Damn, I am slacking on extracting as much info from your posts as possible that I missed that it was construct-like and not a construct.

This book just went from "MUST BUY!" to "MUST SUBSCRIBE TO THE LINE!"


Dear J. Jacobs,

I'm more than halfway through law school but the idea of a career as a lawyer has me really bummed.

I'm much more interested in getting involved with game design, specifically designing and editing rules and systems for RPGs. How can one get their foot in the door for this sort of job? I'm more interested in the rules side of things (coming from law, naturally) and less well suited towards writing adventures and fluff, though I have done that too, on occassion (in my spare time). I also don't have an english lit, writing or publishing background. Is there any hope for me, and what can I do now to work towards an eventual job of this kind?

Thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Lawman wrote:

Dear J. Jacobs,

I'm more than halfway through law school but the idea of a career as a lawyer has me really bummed.

Your graduation thesis should be a lawsuit against your school and teacher for not instilling enough passion for practising law into their students. Then use the proceeds to start your own small-press RPG publishing firm. ;)

17,501 to 17,550 of 78,524 << first < prev | 346 | 347 | 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 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.