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


Off-Topic Discussions

20,801 to 20,850 of 78,501 << first < prev | 412 | 413 | 414 | 415 | 416 | 417 | 418 | 419 | 420 | 421 | 422 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

doc the grey wrote:
Is the Vulnadaemon meant to be able to posses others? As written in the book of the damned vol. 3 it's presented as having a true form like mist that posesses victims to foster terror and unrest. This goes as far as wanting sacrifices that they may possess to cause more death and murder but in bestiary 3 they don't have any possession abilities, incorporeal body, or even shape changing abilities. Is this a misprint of book of the damned, bestiary 3, or what?

There's a little bit of a disconnect between those two books, with decisions and developments during design, development, and art causing some changes. Which means that Book of the Damned is off-target, alas.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:

One of my players that is making an alchemist asked some interesting question about this piece of the rules.

1) if he were to drink a mutagen made by another alchemist at what level it will work, his level or the level at which it was made?
I think the latter, but as it is powered by the aura of the alchemist that is using it it is possible that the former would apply.

2) He can drink and be affected by a kind of mutagen he can't make, like a Cognatogen or a Feral mutagen?

3) A alchemist with Infuse mutagen can sell a mutagen to another alchemist as it will last until used. Producing it will cost 1.000 gp. What would be the sell price?
What extra price should be applied for extra powers added to the infuse?

1) It would function at the drinker's level, since the mutagen itself triggers the drinker's internal ability and capacity to transform... not the other way around. Also, mutagens are class abilities, and allowing a character to "cheat" a higher level class ability effect like this would be kinda sketchy.

2) Again, I would say no; the mutagen unlocks his own power to mutate. It doesn't actually mutate you, which is why non-alchemists gain no benefits from drinking a mutagen.

3) The price would be double the cost to create—2,000 gp. If there are extra powers added to it, you should increase it as appropriate for your campaign; that's not something I can really just assign off the top of my head. Another option, if this kind of thing weirds you out too much, is to simply get rid of the Infuse Mutagen ability entirely. Alchemists have plenty of other options so they won't miss one going away.


If you are willing to entertain more detailed questions on extradimensional metaphysics...

1. Can a demiplane border on another plane so that you can walk across? Such as a mystic island in a Golarion lake which is actually a demiplane, or a castle on a hilltop which is likewise?

2. If so, can magic like wish spells be used to realign the demiplane, so that it could be relocated to another "anchor" location on the host plane? I.e. would this work to make things like mystic islands that are not always in the same place, or magic castles which only appear at some points in time?

3. If so, is something like this involved with Baba Yagas hut?


James Jacobs wrote:
The NPC wrote:

Dear James Jacobs,

Of the non core 3.5 classes which was your favorite and least favorite? Also, what was your opinion of warlock?

Favorite = Binder

Least Favorite = something from Book of Nine Swords, probably.

I like the warlock. It's actually a really good class for someone who wants to play a spellcaster but who doesn't like having to manage giant spell lists... or who's new to the game and isn't quite ready for the complexity of a full spellcaster.

Binder: Awesome

Warlock: Favorite 3.5 class.

In regards to warlock ports into pathfinder.
What would you suggest for a 20th level capstone ability? Also, of these feats Deadly Arcane Strike, Deadly Aim*, Shot on the Run*, Extra Cantrips, and Dispelling Fist which would you allow a warlock to take?

*= In regards to an Eldritch Blast?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Analysis wrote:

If you are willing to entertain more detailed questions on extradimensional metaphysics...

1. Can a demiplane border on another plane so that you can walk across? Such as a mystic island in a Golarion lake which is actually a demiplane, or a castle on a hilltop which is likewise?

2. If so, can magic like wish spells be used to realign the demiplane, so that it could be relocated to another "anchor" location on the host plane? I.e. would this work to make things like mystic islands that are not always in the same place, or magic castles which only appear at some points in time?

3. If so, is something like this involved with Baba Yagas hut?

1) Yes. We do this a lot, in our adventures, in fact. In such a case, you wouldn't be able to teleport across this barrier, but you could plane shift.

2) Wish and miracle can do all sorts of things! Among them, realigning the access point of a demiplane via a portal in this manner.

3) Wait and see! ;-)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The NPC wrote:

In regards to warlock ports into pathfinder.

What would you suggest for a 20th level capstone ability? Also, of these feats Deadly Arcane Strike, Deadly Aim*, Shot on the Run*, Extra Cantrips, and Dispelling Fist which would you allow a warlock to take?

*= In regards to an Eldritch Blast?

It's been several years sine I've looked at the warlock, so I can't really say off the top of my head what to suggest for a capstone ability. Likewise, I can't really say about those feats. I'd have to look up the class, re-familiarize myself with it, and go from there... and I don't have that book in handy reach anymore (nor can I honestly remember off the top of my head WHICH of the various class books WotC published it was in...).


James Jacobs wrote:


It's been several years sine I've looked at the warlock, so I can't really say off the top of my head what to suggest for a capstone ability. Likewise, I can't really say about those feats. I'd have to look up the class, re-familiarize myself with it, and go from there... and I don't have that book in handy reach anymore (nor can I honestly remember off the top of my head WHICH of the various class books WotC published it was in...).

Complete Arcane.

Liberty's Edge

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

One of my players that is making an alchemist asked some interesting question about this piece of the rules.

1) if he were to drink a mutagen made by another alchemist at what level it will work, his level or the level at which it was made?
I think the latter, but as it is powered by the aura of the alchemist that is using it it is possible that the former would apply.

2) He can drink and be affected by a kind of mutagen he can't make, like a Cognatogen or a Feral mutagen?

3) A alchemist with Infuse mutagen can sell a mutagen to another alchemist as it will last until used. Producing it will cost 1.000 gp. What would be the sell price?
What extra price should be applied for extra powers added to the infuse?

1) It would function at the drinker's level, since the mutagen itself triggers the drinker's internal ability and capacity to transform... not the other way around. Also, mutagens are class abilities, and allowing a character to "cheat" a higher level class ability effect like this would be kinda sketchy.

2) Again, I would say no; the mutagen unlocks his own power to mutate. It doesn't actually mutate you, which is why non-alchemists gain no benefits from drinking a mutagen.

3) The price would be double the cost to create—2,000 gp. If there are extra powers added to it, you should increase it as appropriate for your campaign; that's not something I can really just assign off the top of my head. Another option, if this kind of thing weirds you out too much, is to simply get rid of the Infuse Mutagen ability entirely. Alchemists have plenty of other options so they won't miss one going away.

Thanks, reply 1 resolve all the other questions.

Unless I am mistaken it mean that it is not possible to get extra effects with Infuse mutagen unless you know them, so I don't see particular problems with allowing them.

I think the player will have no problems with this ruling. He is an optimizer (it come with being an engineer, I think) but at the same time he respect game balance so he avoid outrageous combos and excessive power playing. Getting what was the intended idea for the creator of the class is always nice.


James Jacobs wrote:


So.
If you take the Mystic Past Life trait, you need to have a spellcasting class already. In other words, you need at least 1 level in a spellcasting class. So, by taking that 1 level, you know whether or not that class is a divine or arcane spellcasting class. And you know what spell list that class has.
What this power lets you do is look at your chosen spellcaster class's spell list and add in spells that aren't on that list, but those spells must be chosen from the same type of magic (be it arcane or divine). In this case, what determines whether or not a spell is arcane or divine is merely the fact that the spell is on an arcane spellcaster's list or a divine spellcaster's list. Perhaps the MOST clear we could have written this would be:
"If you are an alchemist, bard, magus, sorcerer, summoner, wizard, or witch, you may add any spell to your spell list from the alchemist, bard, magus, sorcerer, summoner, wizard, or witch spell lists. If you are an antipaladin, cleric , druid, inquisitor, paladin, oracle, or ranger, you may add any spell to your spell list from the antipaladin, cleric , druid, inquisitor, paladin, oracle, or ranger spell lists."
When picking your spell, pick from the class spell lists, not from the spells themselves, because that way you can always tell if the spells you're looking at are divine (they're in the antipaladin, cleric , druid, inquisitor, paladin, oracle, or ranger lists) or arcane (they're in thealchemist, bard, magus, sorcerer, summoner, wizard, or witch lists).
We didn't write the power like that though for two reasons: 1) because it takes up more words and isn't a very fun sentence to read, but mostly because of 2) listing it that way unintentionally blocks out future spellcaster lists we haven't invented yet.

This one keeps coming back up in my mind, as a suggestion with the next printing some polish would go a long way in preventing confusion. Currently the example reads,

”For example, you could add divine power to your druid class spell list, but not to your wizard class spell list because divine power is a divine spell.”

Which can be interpited in a few different ways,
Divine Power cannot be added to an arcane spell list because
1) it has divine in its name similar to how cleric cure and inflict spells work, or
2) it is described as being divine in nature by its spell description, or
3) it does not appear on any arcane spell list making it divine in nature.

An alternative could be something along the lines of

”For example, you could not add divine power to your wizard class spell list because it does not appear on the base spell list of any arcane spellcasting class.”

It’s a very similar letter count so such a change shouldn’t disrupt the page layout and it portrays your described intent clearer than what is currently written.

While we are on the subject of Samsarans polishing, the Reincarnated Oracle Archetype revelation Spirit Memories starts out by saying “Once per day but then goes on to say ” You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.”

Kind of confusing about what the intent is on this one too, not sure what it’s supposed to be but we should pick one and go with it. We may have to go back to the writer on this one and find out the intent one way or the other. When you find out, let us know.

Some suggestions only, take them with a grain of salt, and again thank you for your time.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Why was the sword cane not made a finessable weapon? I know in a lot of other systems it's quite often either depicted as or synergized with some form of finesse feature similar to weapon finesse and I was wondering what the reasoning was behind making it just a straight strength weapon for pathfinder.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
doc the grey wrote:
Why was the sword cane not made a finessable weapon? I know in a lot of other systems it's quite often either depicted as or synergized with some form of finesse feature similar to weapon finesse and I was wondering what the reasoning was behind making it just a straight strength weapon for pathfinder.

Good question, and one best aimed at the designer of said weapon. Had I designed it, I probably would have made it a light weapon and thus presto, auto finessable. At the very least, it's equal to a rapier.

Scarab Sages

James,

Just curious - had you had seen this Bigfoot related article?

Personally, I find it too much to hope it could be real, but....


James Jacobs wrote:
The NPC wrote:

Dear James Jacobs,

Of the non core 3.5 classes which was your favorite and least favorite? Also, what was your opinion of warlock?

Favorite = Binder

Awesome.

Contributor

So let me take a moment and gush about my favorite AP that you guys have published- Legacy of Fire

From the raid on Kelmarane, to the masterful House of the Beast, the wonderful dinner party in Katapesh, the haunting reveal of the BBEG, the realm of Kakishon, the return home, and the wonderful ending, and most everything in between, I absolutely adored it. Not only was it, for the most part, well written and developed, but it oozed with flavor, history, and theming unlike any of the other APs I've read. I still really enjoy a lot of the other APs such as RotRL, CotCT, and KM, but none had the constant atmosphere that LoF had for me and my group. This was in good part because of all that was set in place that let me build our game into something more than just some numbers and silly voices. So, on behalf of all my players and myself, thank you for the most fun we've had with the game in our entire careers thus far.

Anyway, on to some questions.

1. Would you ever consider reusing the rules for the moldspeaker's weapon? i.e. Would you ever want to do another set of 'Legacy' weapons?

2. Was the underlying theme of Sarenrae vs Rovagug something that was intentional or did I just read too much into it?

3. What part(s) of the AP did you really enjoy and which were you not as happy with?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Aberzombie wrote:

James,

Just curious - had you had seen this Bigfoot related article?

Personally, I find it too much to hope it could be real, but....

I had not seen it, but with the Patterson Film revealed as a hoax, and with CGI being more believable than ever... let's just say it's harder to believe than before.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

donato wrote:

So let me take a moment and gush about my favorite AP that you guys have published- Legacy of Fire

From the raid on Kelmarane, to the masterful House of the Beast, the wonderful dinner party in Katapesh, the haunting reveal of the BBEG, the realm of Kakishon, the return home, and the wonderful ending, and most everything in between, I absolutely adored it. Not only was it, for the most part, well written and developed, but it oozed with flavor, history, and theming unlike any of the other APs I've read. I still really enjoy a lot of the other APs such as RotRL, CotCT, and KM, but none had the constant atmosphere that LoF had for me and my group. This was in good part because of all that was set in place that let me build our game into something more than just some numbers and silly voices. So, on behalf of all my players and myself, thank you for the most fun we've had with the game in our entire careers thus far.

Anyway, on to some questions.

1. Would you ever consider reusing the rules for the moldspeaker's weapon? i.e. Would you ever want to do another set of 'Legacy' weapons?

2. Was the underlying theme of Sarenrae vs Rovagug something that was intentional or did I just read too much into it?

3. What part(s) of the AP did you really enjoy and which were you not as happy with?

Thanks for the kind words about Legacy of Fire! It's always particularly nice to hear folks like that one because it kind of got overshadowed by the edition change.

1) We've got plans for a "legacy" style weapon, that would most certainly NOT call them legacy weapons. What we'll do with those plans... you'll have to wait and see.

2) Sarenrae vs. Rovagug is one of the big mythic stories of Golarion. And was a HUGE element of my homebrew (although Rovagug was called Obox-ob in those days). That's why we put a picture of the two of them fighting on the cover of Gods and Magic.

3) Since the authors of this AP are personal friends and employees in several cases, I'm not really comfortable saying what parts were my favorite and what parts were disappointing.


I thought the general direction going forward was to decouple classes from having things like racial requirements. This is why the Arcane Archer had Elf removed as a prerequisite. Why did the ARG reverse this trend to an extreme?


James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks for the kind words about Legacy of Fire! It's always particularly nice to hear folks like that one because it kind of got overshadowed by the edition change.

In that case, let me second that. It's my favorite AP as well. So colorful!

Has the likelihood of a Vudra or Jalmaray AP changed in the past few months with the other announced APs? Meaning, is it a low or high priority out of the next (safe number...) 10 APs? Or no priority at all? Cult of the Ebon Destroyers was a very good module indeed, and I'd love to see more like that. It scratched the itch for more stuff like Legacy of Fire.


James Jacobs wrote:
Which, I suppose, is good news for anyone who really likes the summoner, because my required changes to the class would only disappoint and anger those gamers.

Might we one day see an NPC summoner in a product somewhere that illustrates your ideal aesthetic for the class?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Buri wrote:
I thought the general direction going forward was to decouple classes from having things like racial requirements. This is why the Arcane Archer had Elf removed as a prerequisite. Why did the ARG reverse this trend to an extreme?

Good question. Jason Bulmahn would be the one to answer it... I don't know. I've actually not had a chance to look through that book in detail yet... is there not a section near the start that says something like "While this book presents options for races, feel free to mix and match and change requirements as you wish?"

Because it should, in my opinion.

That said... perhaps the fact that there are lots of options for ALL the zero HD races is why the design team felt okay with making lots of race-specific options. In the core rulebook, there's only a very few prestige classes, and limiting one of those few to only one race is kind of limiting the options. That's not as much a problem in a multi-hundred-page book on a single topic.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks for the kind words about Legacy of Fire! It's always particularly nice to hear folks like that one because it kind of got overshadowed by the edition change.

In that case, let me second that. It's my favorite AP as well. So colorful!

Has the likelihood of a Vudra or Jalmaray AP changed in the past few months with the other announced APs? Meaning, is it a low or high priority out of the next (safe number...) 10 APs? Or no priority at all? Cult of the Ebon Destroyers was a very good module indeed, and I'd love to see more like that. It scratched the itch for more stuff like Legacy of Fire.

The likelihood of a Vudra/Jalmeray AP actually went DOWN with the release of Jade Regent—not due to any feedback or sales info, but due to the fact that inventing a brand new country (needless to say, two new continents) in concert with a 6 part Adventure Path and in concert with 2 new base classes was the hardest thing I've had to finagle in this job yet. I'm not all that eager to duplicate that effort for something that would be even harder, since a Vudra AP would require us to answer the "how do psionics work in Pathfinder" question.

it is, as a result, very very low priority.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Which, I suppose, is good news for anyone who really likes the summoner, because my required changes to the class would only disappoint and anger those gamers.
Might we one day see an NPC summoner in a product somewhere that illustrates your ideal aesthetic for the class?

Rival guide had one as a sort of experiment along those lines—an Asmodeus-worshiping summoner who has as her eidolon a giant devilish serpent.

But frankly... summoners have several things stacked against them when it comes to them appearing in an adventure:

1) The creative director isn't fond of them.

2) There's not really a pre-established role for them in Golarion—this isn't the case for witches (Irrisen), oracles (all over), cavaliers (Mendev and Taldor), alchemists (all over, but particularly Thuvia and anywhere that has a poisoner vibe, like the River Kingdoms), magi (Kyonin), gunslingers (mana wastes), and inquisitors (Cheliax). Lost Kingdom's entry on Sarkoris talks a little bit about where summoners might have once been found, but unlike the other classes I mention above, if you go back to books we published before the Advanced Player's Guide, you won't really see a lot of places in Golarion products that talk about summoners by name or role (the closest you'll get would be things like demonoligists, diabolists, conjurer wizards, and the like—and you won't see ANYTHING about eidolons).

3) A summoner is a 2-statblock creature, moreso even than a druid. When we do a summoner, we have to build a stat block for his eidolon, which means this NPC takes up twice as much space in an adventure than, say, a conjurer specialist wizard.

4) We tend to want to illustrate our NPCs, but in the case of a summoner, we also need to illustrate the eidolon, because it has no frame of reference, with each one being a unique creature (even if it IS modeled after an existing theme of creature, like a demon). Art is one of the more expensive elements in a book, and since we pay artists by the character, a summoner essentially costs twice as much as any other NPC, which means that we have less art budget to support numerous summoner NPCs.


James Jacobs wrote:
Lost Kingdom's entry on Sarkoris talks a little bit about where summoners might have once been found...

That sounds cooooool.


In chapter 1 under Racial Archetypes there's the following:

Quote:
Typically, only members of the section's race can take the listed archetype, bloodline, or order, though such options rarely interact with the racial traits or alternate racial traits of that race. An archetype usually features a thematic link to the race, granting it class features that complement the abilities and the background of the race. Because adventurers are often societal outliers, sometimes these archetypes feature a theme that is the exception to the norm for racial tendencies.

Would the bolded sentence indicate the possibility to mix up archetypes and races you know... "according to the rules?"


Buri wrote:

In chapter 1 under Racial Archetypes there's the following:

Quote:
Typically, only members of the section's race can take the listed archetype, bloodline, or order, though such options rarely interact with the racial traits or alternate racial traits of that race. An archetype usually features a thematic link to the race, granting it class features that complement the abilities and the background of the race. Because adventurers are often societal outliers, sometimes these archetypes feature a theme that is the exception to the norm for racial tendencies.
Would the bolded sentence indicate the possibility to mix up archetypes and races you know... "according to the rules?"

The first word of the quote does.


Good point, Cheapy.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Buri wrote:

In chapter 1 under Racial Archetypes there's the following:

Quote:
Typically, only members of the section's race can take the listed archetype, bloodline, or order, though such options rarely interact with the racial traits or alternate racial traits of that race. An archetype usually features a thematic link to the race, granting it class features that complement the abilities and the background of the race. Because adventurers are often societal outliers, sometimes these archetypes feature a theme that is the exception to the norm for racial tendencies.
Would the bolded sentence indicate the possibility to mix up archetypes and races you know... "according to the rules?"

If you want.


How much NPC Gear is a creature supposed to have if it's CR is a fraction?
Table: NPC Gear begins at Level 1, but the Bestiary says to use the monsters CR as it's effective level.
Hope I framed the question in a way that's clear, let me know if I should rephrase that.

Liberty's Edge

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

The likelihood of a Vudra/Jalmeray AP actually went DOWN with the release of Jade Regent—not due to any feedback or sales info, but due to the fact that inventing a brand new country (needless to say, two new continents) in concert with a 6 part Adventure Path and in concert with 2 new base classes was the hardest thing I've had to finagle in this job yet. I'm not all that eager to duplicate that effort for something that would be even harder, since a Vudra AP would require us to answer the "how do psionics work in Pathfinder" question.

it is, as a result, very very low priority.

Sad.

I have never liked much how psionics have been treated in the D&D games but I would very much like a Vudra/Jalmeray AP.
And a Paizo interpretations of psionic powers would be interesting even if I feel that they are more a "modern day" games kind of stuff.

Some d20 modern day supplement has decent psionic rules but nothing stellar.


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

The likelihood of a Vudra/Jalmeray AP actually went DOWN with the release of Jade Regent—not due to any feedback or sales info, but due to the fact that inventing a brand new country (needless to say, two new continents) in concert with a 6 part Adventure Path and in concert with 2 new base classes was the hardest thing I've had to finagle in this job yet. I'm not all that eager to duplicate that effort for something that would be even harder, since a Vudra AP would require us to answer the "how do psionics work in Pathfinder" question.

it is, as a result, very very low priority.

Sad.

I have never liked much how psionics have been treated in the D&D games but I would very much like a Vudra/Jalmeray AP.
And a Paizo interpretations of psionic powers would be interesting even if I feel that they are more a "modern day" games kind of stuff.

Some d20 modern day supplement has decent psionic rules but nothing stellar.

Have you checked out Psionics Unleashed by Dreamscarred Press? I've heard a lot of good things about it.


James Jacobs wrote:

2) There's not really a pre-established role for them in Golarion—this isn't the case for witches (Irrisen), oracles (all over), cavaliers (Mendev and Taldor), alchemists (all over, but particularly Thuvia and anywhere that has a poisoner vibe, like the River Kingdoms), magi (Kyonin), gunslingers (mana wastes), and inquisitors (Cheliax). Lost Kingdom's entry on Sarkoris talks a little bit about where summoners might have once been found, but unlike the other classes I mention above, if you go back to books we published before the Advanced Player's Guide, you won't really see a lot of places in Golarion products that talk about summoners by name or role (the closest you'll get would be things like demonoligists, diabolists, conjurer wizards, and the like—and you won't see ANYTHING about eidolons).

Huh, interesting. With with this in mind, I can see why you aren't a big fan of summoners. (in addition to the other reasons)

Though, I do find this a little surprising that there was never anything in pathfinder that suggested the existence of this class since I've been finding 'summoner like' characters have become very common in other games and works of fiction.


Why has Paizo stopped doing as many playtests for their books, like Ultimate Equipment? I was just on another thread were it was pointed out this could be a cause for the vitriol(the word actually used) of the community towards the devs.


Azten wrote:
Why has Paizo stopped doing as many playtests for their books, like Ultimate Equipment? I was just on another thread were it was pointed out this could be a cause for the vitriol(the word actually used) of the community towards the devs.

If you mean my post here, I said that it was because of the incivility and vitriol during playtests that probably caused fewer playtests. Not the other way around. Ultimate Combat's playtest in particular was nasty, given the nature of adding the samurai, ninja, and gunslinger class.


Ah, I misread the post. Still, why the lack of playtesting for new books?


Odraude wrote:
Azten wrote:
Why has Paizo stopped doing as many playtests for their books, like Ultimate Equipment? I was just on another thread were it was pointed out this could be a cause for the vitriol(the word actually used) of the community towards the devs.
If you mean my post here, I said that it was because of the incivility and vitriol during playtests that probably caused fewer playtests. Not the other way around. Ultimate Combat's playtest was a travesty and by far made me ashamed to be a part of the hobby.

Ick. Sadly, this is what happens when a game gets more popular. Even if the player base is over all made up of 'good fans', the increasing number of 'bad fans' will make it harder for a company of do anything involving their fan base.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
since a Vudra AP would require us to answer the "how do psionics work in Pathfinder" question.

Or it would be the opportunity to simply bury psionics altogether and dismiss the old material as a 3.5 legacy mistake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
since a Vudra AP would require us to answer the "how do psionics work in Pathfinder" question.
Or it would be the opportunity to simply bury psionics altogether and dismiss the old material as a 3.5 legacy mistake.

And thus alienate a significant portion of the fan base, who actually liked psionics because they worked? Not likely.


Are you guys planning of changing the spell Calcific touch? I still believe it to be a little bit broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
since a Vudra AP would require us to answer the "how do psionics work in Pathfinder" question.
Or it would be the opportunity to simply bury psionics altogether and dismiss the old material as a 3.5 legacy mistake.
And thus alienate a significant portion of the fan base, who actually liked psionics because they worked? Not likely.

Agreed. Like I felt with the Gunslinger and the Samurai/Ninja classes is how I feel about psionics. I think it should be a part of the system as long as the rules for it are concise and most importantly, fun.

I have never played a psionic but hey, if people like it then there is no reason to block it from them. Personally, I'd like psionics to be tied to supernatural things and mysticism. Like a medium class or something based on the yogis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly? Dreamscarred Press has done a wonderful job, and I think Paizo should use their Psionic System.

And that's as much derailing of the thread I'm going to risk. :)


Odraude wrote:
Azten wrote:
LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
since a Vudra AP would require us to answer the "how do psionics work in Pathfinder" question.
Or it would be the opportunity to simply bury psionics altogether and dismiss the old material as a 3.5 legacy mistake.
And thus alienate a significant portion of the fan base, who actually liked psionics because they worked? Not likely.

Agreed. Like I felt with the Gunslinger and the Samurai/Ninja classes is how I feel about psionics. I think it should be a part of the system as long as the rules for it are concise and most importantly, fun.

I have never played a psionic but hey, if people like it then there is no reason to block it from them. Personally, I'd like psionics to be tied to supernatural things and mysticism. Like a medium class or something based on the yogis.

I love the fact that Paizo is staying away from the most broken system known as psionics.

Dreamscarred press's psionics as a reasonable outlet for giving psionics to players and GMs who want it.

I'm willing to bet there are many who do not want psionics to be officially introduced into pathfinder by Paizo as I am one of them, and am very adamant about it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azten wrote:
Ah, I misread the post. Still, why the lack of playtesting for new books?

Ultimate Equipment is nothing more than an equipment list. There's not really that much to test other than the power of individual items. And a good deal of it was nothing more than a codification of prepublished material, including equipment that had made it's presence known only in adventure paths.

There really wasn't enough that was worthwhile to include the extra delay of a playtest, especially since the goal was to get the books out for GenCon.


I was just using UE as an example.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azten wrote:
I was just using UE as an example.

So far that's the only rules book that did not come out with either advanced playtest material. Everything else including Advanced Race Guide DID.


Barely one playtest round for the ARG though, and none of the others were as long as the Core or the APG playtests were.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Grimmy wrote:

How much NPC Gear is a creature supposed to have if it's CR is a fraction?

Table: NPC Gear begins at Level 1, but the Bestiary says to use the monsters CR as it's effective level.
Hope I framed the question in a way that's clear, let me know if I should rephrase that.

It should have proportionally less. If a CR 1 creature should have 260 gp, a CR 1/2 creature should have 130 gp, while a CR 1/3 creature should have 86 gp. In fact, they should probably have less gp than that since they're mooks anyway. Up to the GM.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

The likelihood of a Vudra/Jalmeray AP actually went DOWN with the release of Jade Regent—not due to any feedback or sales info, but due to the fact that inventing a brand new country (needless to say, two new continents) in concert with a 6 part Adventure Path and in concert with 2 new base classes was the hardest thing I've had to finagle in this job yet. I'm not all that eager to duplicate that effort for something that would be even harder, since a Vudra AP would require us to answer the "how do psionics work in Pathfinder" question.

it is, as a result, very very low priority.

Sad.

I have never liked much how psionics have been treated in the D&D games but I would very much like a Vudra/Jalmeray AP.
And a Paizo interpretations of psionic powers would be interesting even if I feel that they are more a "modern day" games kind of stuff.

Some d20 modern day supplement has decent psionic rules but nothing stellar.

You're not alone in being sad that we've not done anything with psychic magic yet. But there's probably MORE people out there who are fans of psionics who would be even more sad with what we did to their precious power point system.

Dark Archive

Hey, James,
What would you do about a ghost NPC with an animal companion/familiar/mount? I want to make a ghost cavalier who rides a ghostly horse, but I don't know how to do it. Do I give the horse the ghost template too? Treat it as a phantom steed? Something else?
Thanks in advance.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Matrixryu wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

2) There's not really a pre-established role for them in Golarion—this isn't the case for witches (Irrisen), oracles (all over), cavaliers (Mendev and Taldor), alchemists (all over, but particularly Thuvia and anywhere that has a poisoner vibe, like the River Kingdoms), magi (Kyonin), gunslingers (mana wastes), and inquisitors (Cheliax). Lost Kingdom's entry on Sarkoris talks a little bit about where summoners might have once been found, but unlike the other classes I mention above, if you go back to books we published before the Advanced Player's Guide, you won't really see a lot of places in Golarion products that talk about summoners by name or role (the closest you'll get would be things like demonoligists, diabolists, conjurer wizards, and the like—and you won't see ANYTHING about eidolons).

Huh, interesting. With with this in mind, I can see why you aren't a big fan of summoners. (in addition to the other reasons)

Though, I do find this a little surprising that there was never anything in pathfinder that suggested the existence of this class since I've been finding 'summoner like' characters have become very common in other games and works of fiction.

There is, in fact. We've got LOTS of stories about spellcasters who summon monsters to do their bidding. The problem arises not from the summoner, but from the eidolon. Before APG, there was no such thing as an eidolon, and all the "summoners" in the world summoned elementals or demons or angels or whatever. They summoned established creatures. The summoner's main thing is that they summon up a brand new creature that is not only not part of any game world, but it's not even created by the game world's designer OR the GM. The summoner thus causes the same type of disruptions to campaign settings as would allowing each PC to make up their character's race from scratch using the Advanced Race Guide race creation rules—you'd likely end up with a party of four members of 4 different races that are represented by only one member of their species.

Put shortly, summoners are disruptive to the creative control a writer or GM needs over the world's continuity.


James Jacobs wrote:
Grimmy wrote:

How much NPC Gear is a creature supposed to have if it's CR is a fraction?

Table: NPC Gear begins at Level 1, but the Bestiary says to use the monsters CR as it's effective level.
Hope I framed the question in a way that's clear, let me know if I should rephrase that.
It should have proportionally less. If a CR 1 creature should have 260 gp, a CR 1/2 creature should have 130 gp, while a CR 1/3 creature should have 86 gp. In fact, they should probably have less gp than that since they're mooks anyway. Up to the GM.

Thanks that has been driving me crazy for months I don't know why I didn't ask here sooner. You rock.

20,801 to 20,850 of 78,501 << first < prev | 412 | 413 | 414 | 415 | 416 | 417 | 418 | 419 | 420 | 421 | 422 | 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.