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


Off-Topic Discussions

24,301 to 24,350 of 77,082 << first < prev | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 | 492 | next > last >>

Starfinder Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
DJEternalDarkness wrote:
So, not to be a bug, but any update on the Mythic playtest?
The last update was, in case you missed it, the Mythic Playtest will be starting once Jason gets back from Italy at some point during the second week of November.

I did miss it, sorry!


James Jacobs wrote:
Note: Mythic allows you to continue gaining power after 20th level, but does not increase the level cap.

Yep, I know. The only thing is that it is likely that the mythic rules will be used by some people to extend the length of a game. One of my gms is thinking about not applying mythic rules until the party hits level 20 for example...

For extended games like that it is likely that the players will continue acquiring wealth. I mostly just curious if that was part of the calculations. Though, since there aren't 'epic' items to collect, then in theory the party won't become that much more powerful I guess.


A question about the spell Daylight.

Daylight has the text that says, "Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."

1)Does this mean that when a 2nd level Darkness spell overlaps with a 3rd level Daylight spell, the overlapping area is suppressed for both spells? That's what it seems to be implying.

2)Or does Daylight, a 3rd level Light spell, overwhelm the Darkness spell and continue to function?

3)If you Heighten a Darkness spell (Deeper or Regular) to 4th level or higher, do they still suppress one another?

4) Or would the higher level Darkness spell overwhelm the lower level Daylight?

5) Let's say there are 3 overlapping spells, Deeper Darkness, Deeper Darkness, and Daylight, similar to a Venn Diagram like this one. Where A, B and C are overlapping, what is the lighting condition in that region?

Is it:
A) Ambient lighting because Daylight suppresses both spells in areas it overlaps?
B) That the light level has dropped by 2 steps because the second Deeper Darkness is unsuppressed by the Daylight spell?
C) Ambient lighting because, even though Daylight is suppressing one of the Deeper Darkness spells, the effects of the second one don't come into play because that would be the same as stacking two Darkness spells together? (DD + Daylight + DD can only result in a 2 step decrease, which the first one provides, even if it's suppressed by Daylight, so the second can't re-apply the 2 step decrease in the suppressed area.)

I will say, this question did come up in a rules thread, but I honestly would like your opinion. I always thought the answers to the above were:

1) No
2) Yes
3) No
4) Yes
5) B

But the rules discussion has me a little confused and unsure as to the answer. Lighting spells play a large part in my groups tactics, and I'd like to make sure we're playing them right.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

A hypothetical worldbuilding question.
What if the villains win?
Where would you see Golarion be if the PC parties consistently fall in the final encounters of an AP and no one is there to immediately keep the pressure on?
How would you see each AP's story play out in that case?
How would the PCs failure affect the rest the world in the long run?


Hello James,

1) Does the development team discuss various threads or posts made on the forum?

2) To what degree does the forum impact things, if at all?

Just curious.

Daniel

Lantern Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:
CanisDirus wrote:

Are there dates (years, at least) for the start of each of the Mendevian Crusades?

The pathfinder wiki page for the crusades seems to give a few of them, but not the most recent two.

Thanks very much!

No dates yet. There will be soon, though, as part of the backstory info for "Wrath of the Righteous."

Should I assume that's going to be a sequel to the much-desired-by-me "Chronicle of the Righteous" ? :-)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Lucent wrote:

JJ,

First, some praise:

Who created the clockwork familiar and can you give them a high-five for me? Because that is just awesome.

More interrogatively:

The clicking caverns in Tian-Xia appear to be festooned with clockworks. Given previous discussions about their origins, is that place more associated with the ancient history of clockworks from Azlant, or is there some long-range Thassilonian experiments waiting to be unearthed in Tian-Xia?

I'm relatively sure that James Sutter created the clockwork familiar, with Adam Daigle developing it.

The Clicking Cavern clockworks do not have ties to Thassilon or Azlant. The clockworks within there are MUCH more recent than those ancient empires... although the clockworks therein are still pretty old.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Matrix Dragon wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Note: Mythic allows you to continue gaining power after 20th level, but does not increase the level cap.

Yep, I know. The only thing is that it is likely that the mythic rules will be used by some people to extend the length of a game. One of my gms is thinking about not applying mythic rules until the party hits level 20 for example...

For extended games like that it is likely that the players will continue acquiring wealth. I mostly just curious if that was part of the calculations. Though, since there aren't 'epic' items to collect, then in theory the party won't become that much more powerful I guess.

You absolutely CAN continue to extend the length of the game, and waiting until 20th level to apply mythic rules is absolutely a great way to use the game.

I'm honestly not 100% sure how much support for post 20th level play the book will have. I hope a lot. But I'm not designing it. If you want there to be some robust post 20th-level stuff in the book, make sure to let your desires be known! Saying so here helps... but since I probably want this element to be in the game as much if not more than you... don't neglect letting other threads/employees of Paizo know as well, is all I'm saying.

I do know that there'll be mythic items in the book. And that implies that the impact that mythic tiers have on expected PC wealth should be part of the book. That's a similarly complex problem to how a mythic character's XP progression works, though...


Matrix Dragon wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Note: Mythic allows you to continue gaining power after 20th level, but does not increase the level cap.

Yep, I know. The only thing is that it is likely that the mythic rules will be used by some people to extend the length of a game. One of my gms is thinking about not applying mythic rules until the party hits level 20 for example...

For extended games like that it is likely that the players will continue acquiring wealth. I mostly just curious if that was part of the calculations. Though, since there aren't 'epic' items to collect, then in theory the party won't become that much more powerful I guess.

Well, whatever else mythic is used for, the ability to actually have some playtime in which to actually get to use your class's capstone ability instead of having just run into the adventuring ceiling right as you got it is one thing I'm looking forward to.

On a question note that this reminded me of, is there any way currently for players to pierce DR/Epic, and if not, will there be in Mythic?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Tels wrote:

A question about the spell Daylight.

Daylight has the text that says, "Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."

1)Does this mean that when a 2nd level Darkness spell overlaps with a 3rd level Daylight spell, the overlapping area is suppressed for both spells? That's what it seems to be implying.

2)Or does Daylight, a 3rd level Light spell, overwhelm the Darkness spell and continue to function?

3)If you Heighten a Darkness spell (Deeper or Regular) to 4th level or higher, do they still suppress one another?

4) Or would the higher level Darkness spell overwhelm the lower level Daylight?

5) Let's say there are 3 overlapping spells, Deeper Darkness, Deeper Darkness, and Daylight, similar to a Venn Diagram like this one. Where A, B and C are overlapping, what is the lighting condition in that region?

Is it:
A) Ambient lighting because Daylight suppresses both spells in areas it overlaps?
B) That the light level has dropped by 2 steps because the second Deeper Darkness is unsuppressed by the Daylight spell?
C) Ambient lighting because, even though Daylight is suppressing one of the Deeper Darkness spells, the effects of the second one don't come into play because that would be the same as stacking two Darkness spells together? (DD + Daylight + DD can only result in a 2 step decrease, which the first one provides, even if it's suppressed by Daylight, so the second can't re-apply the 2 step decrease in the suppressed area.)

I will say, this question did come up in a rules thread, but I honestly would like your opinion. I always thought the answers to the above were:

1) No
2) Yes
3) No
4) Yes
5) B

But the rules discussion has me a little confused and unsure as to the answer. Lighting spells play a large part in my groups tactics, and I'd like to make sure we're playing them right.

1) It's saying "Darkness brought into an area of daylight is also temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."

2) Nope.

3) Yup. The thing that heightening those spells lets you do is counterspell oppositional illumination spells of a lower level automatically if you use the higher level light/dark spell to counterspell the lower level dark/light spell.

4) Nope. Works normally.

5) A.

I believe that in 3rd edition, your answers were more accurate, but in Pathifnder, we wanted to make these spells retain their use at higher level. It was frustrating and kinda poor design for darkness to be on so many high CR monster's spell-like abilities but to simply not function at all in the area of a daylight spell, for example. Darkness and light spells that overlap simply work to suppress each other rather than impose one of their realities.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

WampaX wrote:

A hypothetical worldbuilding question.

What if the villains win?
Where would you see Golarion be if the PC parties consistently fall in the final encounters of an AP and no one is there to immediately keep the pressure on?
How would you see each AP's story play out in that case?
How would the PCs failure affect the rest the world in the long run?

If the villains win, you have an area where there's more adventuring opportunities for good guys. We've got several areas in Golarion where the villains have already pretty much won: Worldwound, Tanglebriar, Razmiran, Geb, Mediogalti, Irrisen, the Shackles, Sodden Lands... and depending on your viewpoint you could even add areas like Cheliax or Rahadoum or even Hermea.

A Golarion where the PCs keep failing in an Adventure Path would slowly but surely have more regions like those I just listed above. Note that not many Adventure Paths DO end in "world-ending" or even "world changing" events, so that in the case of something like the PCs failing at Curse of the Crimson Throne or Council of Thieves or Kingmaker or Skull & Shackles or the like, the end changes are pretty localized. So... it'd really depend on WHICH Adventure Path the PCs failed at.

We generally try to put a "What if the PCs lose" element into each Adventure Path's ending. We'll be doing more of that starting with the "Continuing the Campaign" article for Shattered Star.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
danielc wrote:

Hello James,

1) Does the development team discuss various threads or posts made on the forum?

2) To what degree does the forum impact things, if at all?

Just curious.

Daniel

The development team absolutely discusses these various threads. And the forums impact things SIGNIFICANTLY.

Without these forums, for example...

1) Skull & Shackles would not exist.

2) The Wrath of the Righteous Adventure Path would have a different name.

3) The redemption themes of Shattered Star would likely not exist.

4) We wouldn't have done nearly so much with genre-bending subjects, like Distant Worlds or Kaer Maga.

5) Misfit Monsters Revisited would not exist.

6) Kingmaker would not exist.

7) The Lovecraft elements we include periodicly would happen MUCH LESS often.

8) We would not have revised the Inner Sea World Guide to the extent we did.

9) The Pathfinder RPG would likely not exist in the first place, and if it DID, it would be much more like 3.5.

Those are just 8 examples of how feedback from these forums have helped shape what we publish.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hi James

Someone mentioned that Reign of Winter will be visiting Triaxus AND Verces? I know Triaxus is confirmed, but hadn't heard anything about Verces. Is this true, or merely wishful thinking?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

CanisDirus wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
CanisDirus wrote:

Are there dates (years, at least) for the start of each of the Mendevian Crusades?

The pathfinder wiki page for the crusades seems to give a few of them, but not the most recent two.

Thanks very much!

No dates yet. There will be soon, though, as part of the backstory info for "Wrath of the Righteous."
Should I assume that's going to be a sequel to the much-desired-by-me "Chronicle of the Righteous" ? :-)

Nope.

Wrath of the Righteous is the 13th Adventure Path. It'll be launching at Gen Con, 2013, and will be about the Worldwound vs. Everyone Else.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The Golux wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Note: Mythic allows you to continue gaining power after 20th level, but does not increase the level cap.

Yep, I know. The only thing is that it is likely that the mythic rules will be used by some people to extend the length of a game. One of my gms is thinking about not applying mythic rules until the party hits level 20 for example...

For extended games like that it is likely that the players will continue acquiring wealth. I mostly just curious if that was part of the calculations. Though, since there aren't 'epic' items to collect, then in theory the party won't become that much more powerful I guess.

Well, whatever else mythic is used for, the ability to actually have some playtime in which to actually get to use your class's capstone ability instead of having just run into the adventuring ceiling right as you got it is one thing I'm looking forward to.

On a question note that this reminded me of, is there any way currently for players to pierce DR/Epic, and if not, will there be in Mythic?

It's not really talked about in the core rules... but if you as the GM know what level your campaign is going to be "capped" at, there's no reason you can't artifically drop each class's capstone ability down to that level. Althoguh, if you do this, you really should consider inventing some capstone abilities for the cleric, which for whatever reason, is the only class that doesn't have a capstone ability... grrrrrr....

And there will indeed be methods in Mythic Adventures for PCs to penetrate DR/Epic.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

Hi James

Someone mentioned that Reign of Winter will be visiting Triaxus AND Verces? I know Triaxus is confirmed, but hadn't heard anything about Verces. Is this true, or merely wishful thinking?

We've not revealed all the secrets yet of where Reign of Winter's adventures will be going. As a result, some folks are guessing or mis-interpreting rumors or facts.

I can confirm this, though. Reign of Winter only visits two planets in Golarion's solar system, one of which is Golarion.


Magic item creation rules Question.

When it come to magic item creation rules, there's a line that states the following,

SRD wrote:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.

The question comes down to the DC increase due to missing prerequisites. To make most items, the player needs the appropreate feat, gold equal to half the items value, must be a specific level, and have the spell needed to make the item memorized.

Of these prerequisites, Only the gold and feat are absolutely required. All other prerequisites can be overcome via adding 5 to the DC.

In terms of the spell requirement, can the player avoid the +5 DC penalty if they buy a scroll of the required spell and used that during creation? Does the spell have to be on their spell list if it does bypass the DC penalty, if they can use the scroll?


James,

Do you have a suggestion for a cleric's capstone ability? Even just a couple of general ideas would be helpful. I actually created a houserule for my Runelords campaign where the capstone ability is granted at 17th level (great minds think alike). However, I didn't actually look at the classes, though, and so I didn't notice clerics don't get one!


A seemingly simple design choice would be to include a section in an upcoming supplement with an "optional" rule for giving clerics capstone abilities based on the domains they chose. Each domain grants a different capstone ability, and the cleric chooses one (or alternately, make them 50% as good as a normal capstone and a cleric gets two).

Then with future domains added to the system, you can add new "capstone" domain abilities.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Sentack wrote:

Magic item creation rules Question.

When it come to magic item creation rules, there's a line that states the following,

SRD wrote:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.

The question comes down to the DC increase due to missing prerequisites. To make most items, the player needs the appropreate feat, gold equal to half the items value, must be a specific level, and have the spell needed to make the item memorized.

Of these prerequisites, Only the gold and feat are absolutely required. All other prerequisites can be overcome via adding 5 to the DC.

In terms of the spell requirement, can the player avoid the +5 DC penalty if they buy a scroll of the required spell and used that during creation? Does the spell have to be on their spell list if it does bypass the DC penalty, if they can use the scroll?

In order to avoid the +5 DC penalty by buying a scroll... you'd need to buy a scroll for EVERY DAY of the item creation process. So... if you're making an item that takes 10 days to craft, you'd need to buy 10 scrolls of that spell, and you'd need to make all the appropriate checks to cast the spell from the scroll if it's not a spell you could normally cast for your ability score and caster level. Miss just one of those castings or days and you're back to the +5 DC penalty automatically.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Lucent wrote:

A seemingly simple design choice would be to include a section in an upcoming supplement with an "optional" rule for giving clerics capstone abilities based on the domains they chose. Each domain grants a different capstone ability, and the cleric chooses one (or alternately, make them 50% as good as a normal capstone and a cleric gets two).

Then with future domains added to the system, you can add new "capstone" domain abilities.

Not a fan of creeping core rules.

The right time to fix this would be with the 2nd edition of the game.


I would think ideally cleric capstones would be dependent on deity or domain, but for something easier you could give channeling as a swift action and/or a couple free channel feats, including maybe ones that I don't think exist yet such as being able to harm and heal with the same channel *shrugs*

But I'm no game designer!


James Jacobs wrote:
Lucent wrote:

A seemingly simple design choice would be to include a section in an upcoming supplement with an "optional" rule for giving clerics capstone abilities based on the domains they chose. Each domain grants a different capstone ability, and the cleric chooses one (or alternately, make them 50% as good as a normal capstone and a cleric gets two).

Then with future domains added to the system, you can add new "capstone" domain abilities.

Not a fan of creeping core rules.

The right time to fix this would be with the 2nd edition of the game.

So you endorse PF2.0? (Sorry, I had to.)


James Jacobs wrote:
In order to avoid the +5 DC penalty by buying a scroll... you'd need to buy a scroll for EVERY DAY of the item creation process. So... if you're making an item that takes 10 days to craft, you'd need to buy 10 scrolls of that spell, and you'd need to make all the appropriate checks to cast the spell from the scroll if it's not a spell you could normally cast for your ability score and caster level. Miss just one of those castings or days and you're back to the +5 DC penalty automatically.

Lead up questions.

Can someone else cast the spell for you?

Say you have a Druid in the party who knows Barkskin, and wants to help craft an "Amulet of Natural Armor" with the Wizard. Can the Druid be the one casting the spell, and thus negate the penalty for the wizard who is creating the item?

Does the druid need to have the "Craft Wondrous Items" feat?

Does the druid need to be there for the entire magic item creation time or just needs to show up once a day, for 10 minutes to assist, and then can go back to adventuring, if multiple days of crafting are involved?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Hitdice wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Lucent wrote:

A seemingly simple design choice would be to include a section in an upcoming supplement with an "optional" rule for giving clerics capstone abilities based on the domains they chose. Each domain grants a different capstone ability, and the cleric chooses one (or alternately, make them 50% as good as a normal capstone and a cleric gets two).

Then with future domains added to the system, you can add new "capstone" domain abilities.

Not a fan of creeping core rules.

The right time to fix this would be with the 2nd edition of the game.

So you endorse PF2.0? (Sorry, I had to.)

I don't endorse calling it "PF2.0" for sure. But a 2nd edition of the game is inevitable as long as the game continues to gain popularity. That said, while the current game is still continuing to grow more popular, now is very much NOT the right time to do a 2nd edition. That's still something in the future that'll happen when it needs to and should happen.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Golux wrote:

I would think ideally cleric capstones would be dependent on deity or domain, but for something easier you could give channeling as a swift action and/or a couple free channel feats, including maybe ones that I don't think exist yet such as being able to harm and heal with the same channel *shrugs*

But I'm no game designer!

The BEST way, in my opinion, would be to have added one more domain ability to each domain to give each domain a capstone... but that would have increased the length of the book by about 4–5 pages. And since the book had already reached its maximum size, that would have meant cutting 4-5 pages of content. And since clerics were already the largest section in the book... that solution was a no-go.

That said, I would have loved to just have a generic capstone ability. Even something as simple as the wizard's capstone like a bonus feat, or something like "You can now use channel energy at will" or something. Ah well.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Sentack wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
In order to avoid the +5 DC penalty by buying a scroll... you'd need to buy a scroll for EVERY DAY of the item creation process. So... if you're making an item that takes 10 days to craft, you'd need to buy 10 scrolls of that spell, and you'd need to make all the appropriate checks to cast the spell from the scroll if it's not a spell you could normally cast for your ability score and caster level. Miss just one of those castings or days and you're back to the +5 DC penalty automatically.

Lead up questions.

Can someone else cast the spell for you?

Say you have a Druid in the party who knows Barkskin, and wants to help craft an "Amulet of Natural Armor" with the Wizard. Can the Druid be the one casting the spell, and thus negate the penalty for the wizard who is creating the item?

Does the druid need to have the "Craft Wondrous Items" feat?

Does the druid need to be there for the entire magic item creation time or just needs to show up once a day, for 10 minutes to assist, and then can go back to adventuring, if multiple days of crafting are involved?

Yes, someone else can cast the spell for you. They don't need the Craft feat or anything like that—they only need to be there to cast the spell for you once a day, every day, for the duration of however long it takes to create the item.


James Jacobs wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Lucent wrote:

A seemingly simple design choice would be to include a section in an upcoming supplement with an "optional" rule for giving clerics capstone abilities based on the domains they chose. Each domain grants a different capstone ability, and the cleric chooses one (or alternately, make them 50% as good as a normal capstone and a cleric gets two).

Then with future domains added to the system, you can add new "capstone" domain abilities.

Not a fan of creeping core rules.

The right time to fix this would be with the 2nd edition of the game.

So you endorse PF2.0? (Sorry, I had to.)
I don't endorse calling it "PF2.0" for sure. But a 2nd edition of the game is inevitable as long as the game continues to gain popularity. That said, while the current game is still continuing to grow more popular, now is very much NOT the right time to do a 2nd edition. That's still something in the future that'll happen when it needs to and should happen.

It started out as a joke, but it's becoming real! That is, in the event of a rewrite of the CRB, do you imagine that said rewrite would compile the various variant rules, or completely reboot the rules system? Not that I expect it happen tomorrow, or even within this decade, just wondering.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Hitdice wrote:
It started out as a joke, but it's becoming real! That is, in the event of a rewrite of the CRB, do you imagine that said rewrite would compile the various variant rules, or completely reboot the rules system? Not that I expect it happen tomorrow, or even within this decade, just wondering.

I'd rather that a 2nd and 3rd and 4th and 5th and 6th edition of the rules would still allow me to play previous editions' games with as minimum an amount of rebuilding as possible, but while at the same time fixing parts of the game that need fixing.

It would not, I would hope, be a complete reboot.

Nor is it really something I'm ready to really talk much more about at this point.

Shadow Lodge

We can ask anything here right?

I was looking for information on Iomedae, and I had a couple questions:

Iomedae used to be human before ascending to godhood, what is her last name?

Concerning the Knights of Ozem, I can't find any reference to Ozem outside of the knights, where does the Ozem part come from?


Dylos wrote:

We can ask anything here right?

I was looking for information on Iomedae, and I had a couple questions:

Iomedae used to be human before ascending to godhood, what is her last name?

Concerning the Knights of Ozem, I can't find any reference to Ozem outside of the knights, where does the Ozem part come from?

Not all cultures have last names, and according to Knights of the Inner Sea, Jason Buhlman came up with Ozem name because he needed the name of the knights who fought the Whispering Tyrant to be "Awesome, Totally Ozem."

Shadow Lodge

The Golux wrote:
Dylos wrote:

We can ask anything here right?

I was looking for information on Iomedae, and I had a couple questions:

Iomedae used to be human before ascending to godhood, what is her last name?

Concerning the Knights of Ozem, I can't find any reference to Ozem outside of the knights, where does the Ozem part come from?

Not all cultures have last names, and according to Knights of the Inner Sea, Jason Buhlman came up with Ozem name because he needed the name of the knights who fought the Whispering Tyrant to be "Awesome, Totally Ozem."

But she's Chelish, and the Chelish have last names.


Fair enough, was just saying it was a possibility.


James Jacobs wrote:
If the villains win, you have an area where there's more adventuring opportunities for good guys. We've got several areas in Golarion where the villains have already pretty much won: Worldwound, Tanglebriar, Razmiran, Geb, Mediogalti, Irrisen, the Shackles, Sodden Lands... and depending on your viewpoint you could even add areas like Cheliax or Rahadoum or even Hermea.

Wait, why wouldn't Cheliax be considered villainous?


The Thrunies and their devil-kissing friends are good at making the food dole arrive on time, and do a decent job of keeping bandits out of the parts of the country they care about.

Of course, what they call bandits could just as well be a heroic halfling and his friends leading a group of freed slaves to freedom. And the food dole isn't for everyone, you have to agree to certain things in order to qualify for it.


Hi james.

I have a question about red hand of doon, more precicely ozirrandyon (the green dragon in the skull gorge)

I am Dming a pathfinderized versiond of the aventure and i do not know if it would be better to use the stats of ozyrradion given in the aventure or it would be better to use the stats for a young green dragon of the bestiary.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

What race was Tar-Baphon during his life?


Does Siege Damage override any type of DR?
for instance: if I shoot a light ballista at a regular run of the mill skeleton, it has a decent chance of surviving the attack, thanks to it's DR/bludgeoning.

This makes sense by the rules, but not by logic.

Shouldn't a ballista deal, like, bludgeoning and piercing to creatures of a certain size? ballista bolts are thick enough that a skeleton's silly DR would be worthless against it's pure girth.

I guess I'm just wondering your thoughts on this particular thing.

Contributor

With the future holding Mythic Adventures and Ultimate Campaign, what other ideas would you maybe like to see in rulebook form? Is everything covered or are there a still few things that you are wanting?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shattered Star 3:
Yay Catfolk! Boo Female!

C'mon, when we gonna get to see some male catfolk art done in the bestiary 3 style?


One of my players asked me this earlier today, while planning out the magic stuff he wants to get his hands on:

Can you enchant the shield part of a klar with the bashing special ability and, if so, does that make the damaging part of it (which says it is treated as an attack with shield spikes) also get improved?

For that matter, would the bashing enhancement improve a shield's damage that has shield spikes on it, and to what if it does?


Can a Lore oracle with both the Lore Keeper ("You may use your Charisma modifier instead of your Intelligence modifier on all Knowledge checks.") and Focused Trance ("When you come out of your trance, you may make a single Intelligence-based skill check with a +20 circumstance bonus.") Revelations use Focused Trance on Knowledge checks?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
JMD031 wrote:
As a mental health therapist...I disagree about Diplomacy used in this sense. Sense motive certainly, but I honestly think Bluff is the better skill. Seems a bit awkward but if you think about it, therapy is all about convincing the person that they are not abnormal.
And as a game designer, I'd say Sense Motive is the best solution here, because there's already PLENTY of reasons to take ranks in Bluff and in Diplomacy.

I know you don't like much adding new professions, but this wouldn't be the best case of a Profession (mental health therapist) skill, with the possibility to use Bluff, Sense Motive and maybe even diplomacy to lower the skill check DC?

Making it a profession skill would mean that it would be taken by NPC mostly or very dedicated players and that seem appropriate to me. Playing the psychiatrist in a D&D game seem a bit odd, we are here to play heroes, not therapists.

Liberty's Edge

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

I suspect that it'll last about a month or so. After that, folks will still be welcome to play with the playtest as normal, and while we'll be watching, we won't be as involved in hands-on feedback.

While organic growth in a mythic campaign would be good information to gain... There won't be time to do a normal mythic campaign before the book goes to the printer. And the design of the book will need to be done well before that, even.

What I'm hoping for instead is folks to just playtest various levels of character builds against various powerful monsters. How the mythic tiers power you up for fighting tougher foes is my primary interest.

A month seem terribly short for something that will have a so fundamental impact on the game.

You need someone like Ravindork that will try to find the weaknesses in the system.
Some of the thing I have heard trouble me as they will have a big impact, especially in groups that are larger than the 4 man party used as a baseline.

If the choice is between a rushed rule system and delaying the Wrath of the Righteous and the hardbound I would vote for the second option, but I realize that it will not be the best choice for Paizo.

James Jacobs wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Only a month? Ick, there probably won't even be time for my campaigns to get to mythic levels then because we weren't planning on introducing them until near level 20. I'll have to look at the rules and decide on whether or not I want to introduce them earlier I guess, hmm.

Again... the best way to help in this case is NOT to playtest how adding the mythic rules affects an ongoing campaign.

It's to playtest specific builds of characters against mythic monsters and short adventures that are NOT attached to ongoing campaigns.

I'm much less interested in finding out how the mythic rules impact a home game than I am in finding out what CR of monster is a good threat to use against, say, a party composed of 16th level tier 7 characters.

Playtesting CAN be fun... but it's not always a good idea to merge playtesting with an established campaign. I've done that before, and in most cases, it results in the death of the campaign due to significant derailment and too-many-rebuilds syndrome.

You are interested in testing by a large than normal group? Let's say 6 PC?

Existing stand alone modules against short home-made adventures?


Diego Rossi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
JMD031 wrote:
As a mental health therapist...I disagree about Diplomacy used in this sense. Sense motive certainly, but I honestly think Bluff is the better skill. Seems a bit awkward but if you think about it, therapy is all about convincing the person that they are not abnormal.
And as a game designer, I'd say Sense Motive is the best solution here, because there's already PLENTY of reasons to take ranks in Bluff and in Diplomacy.

I know you don't like much adding new professions, but this wouldn't be the best case of a Profession (mental health therapist) skill, with the possibility to use Bluff, Sense Motive and maybe even diplomacy to lower the skill check DC?

Making it a profession skill would mean that it would be taken by NPC mostly or very dedicated players and that seem appropriate to me. Playing the psychiatrist in a D&D game seem a bit odd, we are here to play heroes, not therapists.

PTSD.

Sometimes, Heroes need help.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

But having another guy with PTSD helping you generally don't help much. :-)

More seriously, I feel that helping helping characters regaining mental health without the use of magic is something that would work best if left in the hands of NPC. Generally it is a long process, most players would try to reduce it to. "I have rolled a 25 in my skill check, he is cured?".
If the cure has to be done "off stage" it is better if it don't involve other PC as the doctor.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I believe in this instance, Magic would pretty much replace medication for mental health. Magic could help with short term assistance that will require regular "doses" of the magic to ensure the patient remains stable. Therapy is like Diego says and best done "behind the scenes".

I should ask a question...

Do any of the iconics have any mental disorders?


Seyltiel is... kind of a sociopath.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Damiel has some issues too. To a certain extent, self-induced. But it was for SCIENCE!

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

What are the imperial dragon's breath weapons? The Bestiary 3 doesn't say, only what type of damage they do.

24,301 to 24,350 of 77,082 << first < prev | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 | 492 | 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.