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


Off-Topic Discussions

17,551 to 17,600 of 78,956 << first < prev | 347 | 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

James, you have any insight in this discussion (it start with that post and then continue)?

The gist of it is that by RAW you can start a full attack , make the first attack and then decide to forgo the other attacks and move.
The basis for that argument is this piece under full attack: "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks,".
That open up a lot of weird manoeuvres, like a monk starting a flurry of blows, making his first attack at the enhanced BAB and then moving away, a archer using manyshot and the doing a full move and so on.

I am a bit ambivalent on that one. It change how some other game mechanic work, but it don't seem overpowered. But still it somewhat remove limitations to specific classes or character builds.

On a similar line there is another thread where one camp say that the malus for Two weapon fighting apply only to the attacks that are strictly part of the TWF sequence, so it don't apply to AoO, quickened spells with a touch attack, natural attacks and other attacks. The other party feel that the malus last till the character using TWF get to act again the next turn. Both interpretations are valid by RAW, AFAIK.

I only ask for your opinions as a GM with extensive experience in Pathfinder, not as a developer. The guys in those threads are the usual suspects, so any intervention on your part in that thread will get replies of "JJ is not the rule guy".

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

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!

Well... there's not really only one way to get a job as an RPG designer... but one thing you'll have to be comfortable with is the fact that the money you'll be making as an RPG designer is a small fraction of what you'd make as a lawyer.

Further... rules design is one thing, but having a strong background in writing is very important to RPG design—you can be the best rules designer in the world, but if you can't convey those rules in writing, you'd better have an ace team of editors and developers to back you up!

Beyond all that... the best way these days to "break in" to the RPG design scene is to do freelancing for established companies. Build up your reputation as a creative and reliable designer—hit your deadlines with writing and rules that are solid and easy to edit, and you'll be on your way. The trick is, alas, that there's a LOT of competition and not a heck of a lot of openings.

RPG Superstar is pretty much it these days for getting new authors out of the blue—that, or pitch adventures for the Pathfinder Society. That said, doing work for other companies can also help you build up your resume and list of credits.

It'll take a long time though.

I started working at writing for RPGs back when I was about 14 years old. I submitted adventures to Dungeon Magazine, and over the course of the next decade or so, got 3 adventures published. After college, where I majored in English, I moved up north from California to Washington, with the idea of getting a job at Wizards of the Coast; several years later, I DID get a job there, first as a temp, then later as a paid employee working in the sales department doing order entry. At the same time, I did lots and lots of freelance work, built up my reputation for being able to deliver good writing on time... and interviewed for jobs in the R&D department every time they came up. I was never hired full time at WotC as a designer, alas, but eventually, a year after Paizo spun off, they hired me on as an editor.

Every game designer has a different story about how they broke into the industry, but that's mine. Took me about 15–20 years to get there is all.

So... the big things would be:

1) Build up your reputation as a writer/designer.
2) Don't miss deadlines once you get assignments.
3) Be patient. Don't let rejection stop you.
4) Go to conventions. Meet folks in the industry.
5) If you want to work as more than a freelancer... you should really consider moving to the region where the company you work for is located. Being local, and being able to come in for physical interviews is pretty important.
6) And still be patient.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kajehase wrote:
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. ;)

Actually, while this post doesn't seem to be intentionally trying to help and is just trying to be "silly" or whatever...

... There's a kernel of truth in there. In the modern age... self-publishing is really a significant option. Self publishing, either on a website or with funding through Kickstarter or anything in between is a good way to get your work out there—and if it's GOOD work... folks will take notice!


Oh mighty dinosaur,

How long have Tengu been in Absalom?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

James, you have any insight in this discussion (it start with that post and then continue)?

The gist of it is that by RAW you can start a full attack , make the first attack and then decide to forgo the other attacks and move.
The basis for that argument is this piece under full attack: "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks,".
That open up a lot of weird manoeuvres, like a monk starting a flurry of blows, making his first attack at the enhanced BAB and then moving away, a archer using manyshot and the doing a full move and so on.

I am a bit ambivalent on that one. It change how some other game mechanic work, but it don't seem overpowered. But still it somewhat remove limitations to specific classes or character builds.

On a similar line there is another thread where one camp say that the malus for Two weapon fighting apply only to the attacks that are strictly part of the TWF sequence, so it don't apply to AoO, quickened spells with a touch attack, natural attacks and other attacks. The other party feel that the malus last till the character using TWF get to act again the next turn. Both interpretations are valid by RAW, AFAIK.

I only ask for your opinions as a GM with extensive experience in Pathfinder, not as a developer. The guys in those threads are the usual suspects, so any intervention on your part in that thread will get replies of "JJ is not the rule guy".

First of... sometimes I feel that replies of "JJ is not the rule guy" are just another way of saying "JJ doesn't support my interpretation of the rules and therefore his input would only damage my argument and stance and therefore I discredit his input" ... despite the fact that I've actually done quite a lot of rules design over the past 10 to 15 years or so, and despite the fact that as much as I enjoy rules design, I much prefer rules to exist ONLY to help tell stories. I try not to let it bother me... but it does at times.

Now... on to the question at hand.

If you make a full attack, and you "resolve" your situation after that first attack in your sequence (say, that first attack drops the foe)... only a hard-ass GM who's probably never played the game on the other side of the screen would say that you can't stop and do something other than complete your attack... even if you HAD done a flurry of blows. I mean... think it through. The difference between making 1 attack and moving and making only the 1st attack of a flurry of blows and then moving is that you may have made that one attack at a penalty to your roll. That's hardly unbalanced, in my book. Manyshot, on the other hand... that's a different story. In my book... as long as your attack was something that was a net "LESS" than a standard attack... I'm okay with letting a character move after that. Manyshot is hardly "LESS."

What I'm saying is that it's a case-by-case basis. GMs need and should be able to make those decisions without paralyzing the game by worrying about what the rules want.

TWF penalties apply only when you make TWF attacks. Attacks of Opportunity are not part of that, nor are quickened spells. Natural attacks have their own rules between primary and secondary attacks.

But... as they say, JJ isn't the rules guy, so...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Oh mighty dinosaur,

How long have Tengu been in Absalom?

Probably ever since that first Tian Xia contact. AKA several thousand years.


James Jacobs wrote:
First of... sometimes I feel that replies of "JJ is not the rule guy" are just another way of saying "JJ doesn't support my interpretation of the rules and therefore his input would only damage my argument and stance and therefore I discredit his input" ... despite the fact that I've actually done quite a lot of rules design over the past 10 to 15 years or so, and despite the fact that as much as I enjoy rules design, I much prefer rules to exist ONLY to help tell stories. I try not to let it bother me... but it does at times.

Personally, your interpretations carry more salt with me than the 'rule guys'.

BTW, working late or at home and staying up late?


I've been going through Faiths of Purity book, which is pretty neat by the way. I was surprised by this line on page 18 regarding the dragon god Apsu [bold added]:

"If you are a worshiper of Apsu, you are most likely a dragon, or perhaps a human with an extremely powerful obsession with everything draconic. You might come from any class (except cleric or paladin, for Apsu does not grant spells)"

Is this correct? Apsu does not provide spells to his clerics any more? (He used to in Gods and Magic).
If so, this seems odd to me. Any thoughts as to why the change?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Tels wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
First of... sometimes I feel that replies of "JJ is not the rule guy" are just another way of saying "JJ doesn't support my interpretation of the rules and therefore his input would only damage my argument and stance and therefore I discredit his input" ... despite the fact that I've actually done quite a lot of rules design over the past 10 to 15 years or so, and despite the fact that as much as I enjoy rules design, I much prefer rules to exist ONLY to help tell stories. I try not to let it bother me... but it does at times.

Personally, your interpretations carry more salt with me than the 'rule guys'.

BTW, working late or at home and staying up late?

At home staying up late.

Turns out... the convention prep season kinda gives me stress-induced insomnia.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neil Mansell wrote:

I've been going through Faiths of Purity book, which is pretty neat by the way. I was surprised by this line on page 18 regarding the dragon god Apsu [bold added]:

"If you are a worshiper of Apsu, you are most likely a dragon, or perhaps a human with an extremely powerful obsession with everything draconic. You might come from any class (except cleric or paladin, for Apsu does not grant spells)"

Is this correct? Apsu does not provide spells to his clerics any more? (He used to in Gods and Magic).
If so, this seems odd to me. Any thoughts as to why the change?

That's an error.

Apsu grants spells. Just as all other deities do. There are no deities in the Pathfinder setting that don't grant spells... because granting spells is one of the things that makes you a deity.

I honestly can't say why that line got in there, to tell the truth. It sneaked by the developers, who probably should have scrubbed it from the book. Things like that get by now and then.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Card Game, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I have a suspicion that both Ultimate Equipment and the NPC Codex are slightly less designer/developer intensive than potential alternatives - UE having a significant amount of recycled content, and no big rules additions to create and perfect, and the crunch of NPCs being easier to create and balance than the crunch of monsters.

1) Is my impression correct?

2) If so, was these factors leading to less pressure on the rules team part of the reason you went for these books as opposed to something more complicated?


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

Actually, while this post doesn't seem to be intentionally trying to help and is just trying to be "silly" or whatever...

... There's a kernel of truth in there. In the modern age... self-publishing is really a significant option. Self publishing, either on a website or with funding through Kickstarter or anything in between is a good way to get your work out there—and if it's GOOD work... folks will take notice!

Please, James - "silly?" I was going for subtle satire of the, from the outside, overly litigious nature of American society.

...yeeees, that's a good story, better stick to it.

To actually ask a question: Will there be any added information about the new PC-races from the Tian Xia books in the foreseeable future?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

James,

I have a situation, and I've been referred to you for help.

I was running a PFS scenario, in which the PCs encounter a couple of Sea Hags while about a week away from civilization. A couple of PCs died on the way home, and there's been dispute regarding the killing ability:

Evil Eye (Su) Three times per day, a sea hag can cast her dire gaze upon any single creature within 30 feet. The target must succeed on a DC 14 Will save or be staggered as strange nebulous distress and a gnawing sense of impending doom plagues the victim. If a sea hag uses her evil eye on someone already afflicted by this curse, the victim must make a DC 14 Fortitude save or be overwhelmed with fright and collapse into a comatose state for 3 days. Each day that passes, the comatose victim must make a DC 14 Fortitude save or perish. The evil eye is a mind-affecting fear effect. The save DCs are Charisma-based. Evil Eye Curse: Gaze—failed save; save Will DC 14; frequency 1/day; effect staggered (or fall comatose if already under the effects of the evil eye).

----------------

So the description says that if you get hit by a second curse, you have to make a Fort save or go comatose, and if you go comatose, you have to make daily Fort saves or die.

Meanwhile, the "statblock" (that last line, formatted like all the other afflictions) says you have to make Will saves each day, and failing one while staggered causes you to go into a coma.

From reading this, it was my conclusion that both were true: getting hit with a second curse and failing your daily Will saves were two different ways you could end up in a coma. After all, they both say so.

Others are suggesting that the "1/day" in the frequency entry is referring to the daily Fort saves once you're already in the coma, but that would make the effect entry (which says it *makes* you comatose) and the save entry (which says Will, not Fort) both incorrect.

Although I'm fairly confident in my reading of the curse, when PCs are on the line I want to be 110% sure. My VC said you had some insight on the intended deadliness level of this curse, so if you could show me whether I'm reading this right or not, that would be fantastic. Thanks!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.

I thought it was just continuing the traditions laid down in the Fiend Folio. Either that or JJ's Warcraft habit. Since pretty much all of the Elemental Lords in Azeroth are fond of giving mortals grief. :)

I'd strongly recommend Mark Hamill as the voice of the evil Fire Elemental Lord. He's had plenty of practise.


Hey James what do you think of an entire AP that is an Darklands delve? Basically going deeper and deeper?

Dark Archive

What do you think of double-bladed weapons? Are they cool or silly? I can not think of historical equivalent of double-bladed sword. Can you?


Do you ever or have you ever played 4th edition DnD? And what's your opinion on it?

Also: Which is your favourite WotC official DnD campaign setting?

Sovereign Court Contributor

nightflier wrote:

What do you think of double-bladed weapons? Are they cool or silly? I can not think of historical equivalent of double-bladed sword. Can you?

I can: the Madu (also called Maru, or Singuata), from India (of course). It had two blades extending out from a small buckler and was used in the left hand as a parry/secondary attack weapon - the length is 21 inches (not large). This weapon was carried by yogis and fakirs and by tribal groups (who made it from antelope horns covered in metal). The Yogis and Fakirs in general, with their love of chakrams and other unusual weapons seem to have used exotic weapons as part of their crazy and dangerous shtick. Here's a picture..

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

f you make a full attack, and you "resolve" your situation after that first attack in your sequence (say, that first attack drops the foe)... only a hard-ass GM who's probably never played the game on the other side of the screen would say that you can't stop and do something other than complete your attack... even if you HAD done a flurry of blows. I mean... think it through. The difference between making 1 attack and moving and making only the 1st attack of a flurry of blows and then moving is that you may have made that one attack at a penalty to your roll. That's hardly unbalanced, in my book. Manyshot, on the other hand... that's a different story. In my book... as long as your attack was something that was a net "LESS" than a standard attack... I'm okay with letting a character move after that. Manyshot is hardly "LESS."

What I'm saying is that it's a case-by-case basis. GMs need and should be able to make those decisions without paralyzing the game by worrying about what the rules want.

TWF penalties apply only when you make TWF attacks. Attacks of Opportunity are not part of that, nor are quickened spells. Natural attacks have their own rules between primary and secondary attacks.

Tongue in check:

The fist part of the post support my opinion so you are the rule guy, the second don't support my position so you aren't the rule guy.

More seriously, thank for the reply.
I have always applied the TWF modifiers from the start of the round in which the character decided to use them till the start of the next round when he get to decide again, so it is an eye opener.

So, some little adjustment to make at my gaming table.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Enlight_Bystand wrote:

I have a suspicion that both Ultimate Equipment and the NPC Codex are slightly less designer/developer intensive than potential alternatives - UE having a significant amount of recycled content, and no big rules additions to create and perfect, and the crunch of NPCs being easier to create and balance than the crunch of monsters.

1) Is my impression correct?

2) If so, was these factors leading to less pressure on the rules team part of the reason you went for these books as opposed to something more complicated?

Ultimate Equipment actually ended up being a bigger drain on developer time than we'd anticipated, alas. In a pretty significant way, unfortunately. That was the initial plan, at least... but it didn't pan out that way.

NPC Codex is more like a Bestiary though, so that one SHOULD be easier... but we'll see.

so, to answer your question...

1) Sadly, no.

2) The HOPE that those books would be easier was partially why we went with those topics instead of with others, but it sorta backfired.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kajehase wrote:
To actually ask a question: Will there be any added information about the new PC-races from the Tian Xia books in the foreseeable future?

I hope so.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jiggy wrote:

James,

I have a situation, and I've been referred to you for help.

I was running a PFS scenario, in which the PCs encounter a couple of Sea Hags while about a week away from civilization. A couple of PCs died on the way home, and there's been dispute regarding the killing ability:

Evil Eye (Su) Three times per day, a sea hag can cast her dire gaze upon any single creature within 30 feet. The target must succeed on a DC 14 Will save or be staggered as strange nebulous distress and a gnawing sense of impending doom plagues the victim. If a sea hag uses her evil eye on someone already afflicted by this curse, the victim must make a DC 14 Fortitude save or be overwhelmed with fright and collapse into a comatose state for 3 days. Each day that passes, the comatose victim must make a DC 14 Fortitude save or perish. The evil eye is a mind-affecting fear effect. The save DCs are Charisma-based. Evil Eye Curse: Gaze—failed save; save Will DC 14; frequency 1/day; effect staggered (or fall comatose if already under the effects of the evil eye).

----------------

So the description says that if you get hit by a second curse, you have to make a Fort save or go comatose, and if you go comatose, you have to make daily Fort saves or die.

Meanwhile, the "statblock" (that last line, formatted like all the other afflictions) says you have to make Will saves each day, and failing one while staggered causes you to go into a coma.

From reading this, it was my conclusion that both were true: getting hit with a second curse and failing your daily Will saves were two different ways you could end up in a coma. After all, they both say so.

Others are suggesting that the "1/day" in the frequency entry is referring to the daily Fort saves once you're already in the coma, but that would make the effect entry (which says it *makes* you comatose) and the save entry (which says Will, not Fort) both incorrect.

Although I'm fairly confident in my reading of the curse, when PCs are on the line I want to be 110% sure. My VC said you had some insight on the intended deadliness level of this curse, so if you could show me whether I'm reading this right or not, that would be fantastic. Thanks!

The Will save of the evil eye ability is used to resist first exposure and to resist being staggered for that day. If you fail this save, you're staggered for 24 hours. That's it. You don't fall into a coma as a result of more than one failed Will save, you just end up being staggered for extra days.

If a sea hag uses the ability a second time on a foe already affected, the victim THEN makes the Fort save to avoid being put to sleep for 3 days. He technically still makes the daily Will save to avoid being staggered, but while he's comatose the staggered condition is irrelevant. Each day that passes, he must make a new Fort save to avoid dying while in a coma.

There's two different elements to the curse, in other words. And the Fort save coma/death thing ONLY comes into play if a sea hag evil eyes a person already affected (aka staggered) by a previous application of the curse).

If you kill the sea hag before she can double-curse you... then you're safe from the comatose Fort save thing entirely, unless there's other sea hags about.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

LazarX wrote:

I thought it was just continuing the traditions laid down in the Fiend Folio. Either that or JJ's Warcraft habit. Since pretty much all of the Elemental Lords in Azeroth are fond of giving mortals grief. :)

I'd strongly recommend Mark Hamill as the voice of the evil Fire Elemental Lord. He's had plenty of practise.

It's certainly inspired by the fact that the elemental lords in Fiend Folio are evil. But we do have a reason. More to come soon.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The Minis Maniac wrote:
Hey James what do you think of an entire AP that is an Darklands delve? Basically going deeper and deeper?

I would love love LOVE to do an AP like that.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

nightflier wrote:

What do you think of double-bladed weapons? Are they cool or silly? I can not think of historical equivalent of double-bladed sword. Can you?

As far as I can tell, double-bladed weapons exist in the game only because of Darth Maul's double light-saber—that movie's trailer came out while 3rd edition was in playtest, and that light saber made a big impression on some of the designers. My theory, at least.

I've always hated double-bladed weapons like that. They're silly. That's why they almost never show up in a Golarion product wielded by any NPCs.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

James Jacobs wrote:

The Will save of the evil eye ability is used to resist first exposure and to resist being staggered for that day. If you fail this save, you're staggered for 24 hours. That's it. You don't fall into a coma as a result of more than one failed Will save, you just end up being staggered for extra days.

If a sea hag uses the ability a second time on a foe already affected, the victim THEN makes the Fort save to avoid being put to sleep for 3 days. He technically still makes the daily Will save to avoid being staggered, but while he's comatose the staggered condition is irrelevant. Each day that passes, he must make a new Fort save to avoid dying while in a coma.

There's two different elements to the curse, in other words. And the Fort save coma/death thing ONLY comes into play if a sea hag evil eyes a person already affected (aka staggered) by a previous application of the curse).

If you kill the sea hag before she can double-curse you... then you're safe from the comatose Fort save thing entirely, unless there's other sea hags about.

Thanks so much!

So the staggered condition is only supposed to be 24 hours per failed Will save? In that case, shouldn't that 24-hour duration be mentioned somewhere? What would it take to get that errata'd in?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Threeshades wrote:

Do you ever or have you ever played 4th edition DnD? And what's your opinion on it?

Also: Which is your favourite WotC official DnD campaign setting?

I played it once and quickly realized it was not the game for me. And if I hadn't, learning that succubi had been turned into devils would have done the same thing.

My favorite official D&D setting is Greyhawk.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:

More seriously, thank for the reply.

I have always applied the TWF modifiers from the start of the round in which the character decided to use them till the start of the next round when he get to decide again, so it is an eye opener.

So, some little adjustment to make at my gaming table.

Only if you feel that playing that way was bad. If adjusting the modifiers works for your table, then keep it that way. Changing the way your game works during the middle of a campaign is frustrating to the players, so I would suggest doing it as few times as you can.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jiggy wrote:
So the staggered condition is only supposed to be 24 hours per failed Will save? In that case, shouldn't that 24-hour duration be mentioned somewhere? What would it take to get that errata'd in?

That's what the "frequency 1/day" means. I guess to be super clear we could add "for 24 hours" just after the word "staggered" though.


Favorite snack?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

James Jacobs wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
So the staggered condition is only supposed to be 24 hours per failed Will save? In that case, shouldn't that 24-hour duration be mentioned somewhere? What would it take to get that errata'd in?
That's what the "frequency 1/day" means. I guess to be super clear we could add "for 24 hours" just after the word "staggered" though.

Thanks a million!


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
nightflier wrote:

What do you think of double-bladed weapons? Are they cool or silly? I can not think of historical equivalent of double-bladed sword. Can you?

As far as I can tell, double-bladed weapons exist in the game only because of Darth Maul's double light-saber—that movie's trailer came out while 3rd edition was in playtest, and that light saber made a big impression on some of the designers. My theory, at least.

I've always hated double-bladed weapons like that. They're silly. That's why they almost never show up in a Golarion product wielded by any NPCs.

How about something like the rapier d'Artagnan gets in Richard Lester's Three Musketeers movie - with a stiletto coming out of the sword-handle?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cheapy wrote:
Favorite snack?

Don't have one.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kajehase wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
nightflier wrote:

What do you think of double-bladed weapons? Are they cool or silly? I can not think of historical equivalent of double-bladed sword. Can you?

As far as I can tell, double-bladed weapons exist in the game only because of Darth Maul's double light-saber—that movie's trailer came out while 3rd edition was in playtest, and that light saber made a big impression on some of the designers. My theory, at least.

I've always hated double-bladed weapons like that. They're silly. That's why they almost never show up in a Golarion product wielded by any NPCs.

How about something like the rapier d'Artagnan gets in Richard Lester's Three Musketeers movie - with a stiletto coming out of the sword-handle?

Didn't see that one, but I get the idea. Not quite as silly, but still a little silly.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I noticed that all the gods of the test of the starstone are human. is there a reason for that? Is the starstone granting divinity by using all the human spirits of the azlanti it slayed to only empower humans?

Is there another reason? or is it just because no non-humans have passed yet?

Silver Crusade

James Jacobs wrote:
The Minis Maniac wrote:
Hey James what do you think of an entire AP that is an Darklands delve? Basically going deeper and deeper?
I would love love LOVE to do an AP like that.

Follow-up question:

Night Below, great 2nd edition adventure, or BEST 2nd edition adventure?


James Jacobs wrote:
But... as they say, JJ isn't the rules guy, so...

They say may say that, but you're a tyrannosaurus! A leg up in my book.

I think what the folks are trying to express (albeit ham-fistedly) is that there can be differences in opinions if you comment on something or Sean comments or Jason comments or whomever else comments on an issue. It can appear that not everyone is on the same rules "page" or maybe the same "page" but a different rules "paragraph". You like that? nudge nudge nudge wink.

It makes sense that there would be different answers because you're all different people, but I think some are looking for a "company stance" on x, y or z issue and end up with a few slightly different answers. I would love to see a Paizo podcast where you guys can voice your thoughts on rules and stuff, and see the points where they might differ - I'd listen.

Hail to you T-Rex overlord, may your seat on the high rules council be restored to its shining glory!

Also, don't get too stressed :)

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
uriel222 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The Minis Maniac wrote:
Hey James what do you think of an entire AP that is an Darklands delve? Basically going deeper and deeper?
I would love love LOVE to do an AP like that.

Follow-up question:

Night Below, great 2nd edition adventure, or BEST 2nd edition adventure?

I've got that sitting on my shelf, alongside "Ruins of Undermountain I & II", "Ruins of Zhentil Keep", and "Ruins of Myth Drannor". Maybe I'll get round to converting some of those over to Pathfinder rules. But that will be after I put together a mashup of all the Al Qadim odds and ends and Legacy of Fire. And before then I'll have to try and find time to run Skulls & Shackles, not to Mention Rise of the Runelords & Shattered Star.

P.S. "Dragon Mountain" is another 2E box set of about the same complexity as Night Below. I've got that one as well ...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Stratagemini wrote:

I noticed that all the gods of the test of the starstone are human. is there a reason for that? Is the starstone granting divinity by using all the human spirits of the azlanti it slayed to only empower humans?

Is there another reason? or is it just because no non-humans have passed yet?

Golarion is humanocentric. The starstone is located in a human city. It was raised from the deep by a human, who thereafter became the GOD of humanity.

By law of averages alone, it's not surprising that the first three gods to ascend via the starstone were human, but that doesn't mean the 4th one who comes along will be human.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

uriel222 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The Minis Maniac wrote:
Hey James what do you think of an entire AP that is an Darklands delve? Basically going deeper and deeper?
I would love love LOVE to do an AP like that.

Follow-up question:

Night Below, great 2nd edition adventure, or BEST 2nd edition adventure?

I played the first 2/3 of it, and it was fun.

When I was working on Lords of Madness, though, and went through the book looking for aboleth flavor text to pull and expand upon... I was actually shocked at actaully how little flavor text was in the adventure. It's got not much more than combat tactics in there, it seems.

Still... it was fun to play. Not the best 2nd edition adventure though. I would give that award to "The Gates of Firestorm Peak."

Scarab Sages

James,

You mentioned earlier that Greyhawk was your favorite D&D setting. Who was your favorite villain from that setting, either single or group? Favorite heroic character? Favorite member of the Circle of Eight?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Aberzombie wrote:

James,

You mentioned earlier that Greyhawk was your favorite D&D setting. Who was your favorite villain from that setting, either single or group? Favorite heroic character? Favorite member of the Circle of Eight?

Favorite villain: Tharizdun (single) or the Scarlet Brotherhood (group)

Favorite hero: Gord

Favorite member of the Circle of Eight: Rary


James Jacobs wrote:
The Minis Maniac wrote:
Hey James what do you think of an entire AP that is an Darklands delve? Basically going deeper and deeper?
I would love love LOVE to do an AP like that.

Then what's stopping you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Minis Maniac wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The Minis Maniac wrote:
Hey James what do you think of an entire AP that is an Darklands delve? Basically going deeper and deeper?
I would love love LOVE to do an AP like that.
Then what's stopping you?

I would go with Erik.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The Minis Maniac wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The Minis Maniac wrote:
Hey James what do you think of an entire AP that is an Darklands delve? Basically going deeper and deeper?
I would love love LOVE to do an AP like that.
Then what's stopping you?

Other APs that need to be done first.

Took me 4 years to get Jade Regent out, for example.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Who is your favorite Golarion god so far? and why?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Stratagemini wrote:
Who is your favorite Golarion god so far? and why?

Desna. Because she's one of the first ones I invented for my homebrew setting back in the 80s, and is the deity I think I could see myself worshiping the most out of all of them.


Justin Franklin wrote:
The Minis Maniac wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The Minis Maniac wrote:
Hey James what do you think of an entire AP that is an Darklands delve? Basically going deeper and deeper?
I would love love LOVE to do an AP like that.
Then what's stopping you?
I would go with Erik.

If it was Erik, James and I would just gang up on him, I'd give him a noogie while James gave him a purple nurple until he said uncle.

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

My players and I are having a discussion.

I have both a Cleric of Sarenrae and a Paladin playing through Legacy of Fire. As you are aware, Slavery is legal in Katapesh. So the Paladin and Cleric feels that they would have no issues with slavery as it is not against the law. I can understand their point, but there are indications in the adventure that good characters would have issues with recieving slaves as rewards.

Is there anything anywhere that discusses this??

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sanwah68 wrote:

My players and I are having a discussion.

I have both a Cleric of Sarenrae and a Paladin playing through Legacy of Fire. As you are aware, Slavery is legal in Katapesh. So the Paladin and Cleric feels that they would have no issues with slavery as it is not against the law. I can understand their point, but there are indications in the adventure that good characters would have issues with recieving slaves as rewards.

Is there anything anywhere that discusses this??

Slavery is legal... therefore lawful in those regions... but that doesn't make it good.

A paladin can oppose slavery if he feels it's causing pain... even if slavery's the law. Saying a paladin must obey all laws opens up too much potential for abuse... what if a paladin visits a place where the law says you must eat babies and must worship demons?

A cleric of Sarenrae would definately NOT be okay with slavery, and in fact that's part of the reason why the church of Sarenrae has "resistance fighters" and cultists and the like that work against some government factions in Qadira, Osirion, Katapesh, and Taldor.

If you have players in your group who would take offense at recieving slaves as rewards... change it. Just as you would, I would hope, if there were rewards of spellbooks to a party of all fighters.

17,551 to 17,600 of 78,956 << first < prev | 347 | 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 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.