Creative Director
|
How would transhumanism work in a setting where the afterlife is known to exist, like Pathfinder? Death really is a new beginning and petitioners, particularly good-aligned ones, have a real chance of becoming superpowered beings.With a new set of rules to support this type of currently relatively unsupported mode of play, perhaps with a title like "Afterlife Adventures" or the like.1. I mean how would the philosophy work? Why bother enhancing mortal experience when there's post-mortal experience? Why bother with invention and technology at all when enhancement is based on the afterlife?
"The damned of Hell are populated by the souls of […] non-evil people who failed to live up to the expectations of their beliefs and faith."
2. Could you elaborate on that? That reads like more than hypocrites going to Hell. How much do people have to live up to their ideals to avoid damnation? Because "people who failed to live up to the expectations of their beliefs and faith" applies to just about everybody! Would someone who only pays lip service to a belief, but isn't sanctimonious about it, end up in hell? Do people who like a belief have to be activists to avoid damnation? And what about people who try their best and fail?
1) Again... that's a bigger question than I can answer here without designing a new game setting and ruleset.
2) If you worship Abadar, but you end up betraying a city or blaspheming in a moment of weakness and then die before you can atone, you may or may not get judged by Pharasma and sent to hell. If you're a worhsiper of Asmodeus and your huge plan to sacrifice a town to him is derailed by a band of adventurers who kill you and save the town, you end up tormented in hell. And if you're a just plain evil/bad person who doesn't really worship much deities at all becuase you'd rather spend your time doing something like robbing folks or mugging people or cheating on your wife over and over, you might end up tormented in hell. You might end up in the Abyss or being hunted in Abaddon as well. Pharasma's the one who decides, based on your life story and all your triumphs and failings. There is no real "equation" you can apply to any one person of any one alignment and faith to determine what their afterlife will be. Only Pharasma knows that.
|
Creative Director
|
3. Something else to think about, what about lawful evil people who don't worship The Devil? I know people don't think in game-stat terms but where do people who justify cruelty think they go when they die?
4. How does Asmodeus measure success? Would a high priest who got killed off but managed to preserve his accomplishments end up damned rather then a devil? Would a small-time cultist who dies of old age become a devil rather than be damned?
3) Lawful evil people who don't worship Asmodeus but in turn, say, worship Zon-Kuthon or someone else entirely might end up going to serve their chosen deity in the afterlife, might end up being tormented in their deity's realm, or might STILL end up in Hell.
4) Asmodeus does so using his own rules. Not something we will ever quantify.
In the end, what exactly happens to someone's soul when they die, are judged by Pharasma, and are sent on to their final reward or punishment depends ENTIRELY on whoever is the GM or the writer of the event in question. They get to decide on a case by case basis what happens for the good of the game or the story. Since once someone's judged and moved on to their reward/punishment they can no longer be restored to life via mortal magic, it doesn't really matter in game anyway how this all works out.
Something else to think about, what about lawful evil people who don't worship The Devil? I know people don't think in game-stat terms but where do people who justify cruelty think they go when they die?Lawful evil people who don't worship Asmodeus but in turn, say, worship Zon-Kuthon or someone else entirely might end up going to serve their chosen deity in the afterlife, might end up being tormented in their deity's realm, or might STILL end up in Hell.
1. I don't mean worshipers of different gods, I mean cruel people who nonetheless serve the community and who don't particularly worship or venerate a deity.
2. Which leads me to ask, just how religious are people in Golarion? Isn't there anyone who goes through life without thinking about deities one way or another beyond "they're really powerful?"
"If you worship Abadar, but you end up betraying a city or blaspheming in a moment of weakness and then die before you can atone, you may or may not get judged by Pharasma and sent to hell."
3. What I mean to ask is, how often to innocent people go to Hell just because they're not perfect or they commit thoughtcrime at the wrong time?
Because I can't seem to find it, which only means my searchfu is weak, I have a question. What was the design reason behind limiting Vital Strike and other single attack style options from synergizing with Spring Attack. I still have the mental disconnect from being able to understand Why you can't use both. I understand that the way it's written you can't I just don't seem to get why it was done that way. I think I also noticed somewhere that you can't Vital Strike on a Charge. I'm just curious why the decision was made to restrict these tactical options when it seems like they were a match made in Heaven for that kind of character.
Something else to think about, what about lawful evil people who don't worship The Devil? I know people don't think in game-stat terms but where do people who justify cruelty think they go when they die?Lawful evil people who don't worship Asmodeus but in turn, say, worship Zon-Kuthon or someone else entirely might end up going to serve their chosen deity in the afterlife, might end up being tormented in their deity's realm, or might STILL end up in Hell.1. I don't mean worshipers of different gods, I mean cruel people who nonetheless serve the community and who don't particularly worship or venerate a deity.
2. Which leads me to ask, just how religious are people in Golarion? Isn't there anyone who goes through life without thinking about deities one way or another beyond "they're really powerful?"
"If you worship Abadar, but you end up betraying a city or blaspheming in a moment of weakness and then die before you can atone, you may or may not get judged by Pharasma and sent to hell."
3. What I mean to ask is, how often to innocent people go to Hell just because they're not perfect or they commit thoughtcrime at the wrong time?
IANJ, but as he said it depends on your GM or the writer of the adventure. Essentially, there is no absolute answer.
How often do you want to answer questions in this thread with "because"?
Hand of the Apprentice (Su): You cause your melee weapon to fly from your grasp and strike a foe before instantly returning to you. As a standard action, you can make a single attack using a melee weapon at a range of 30 feet. This attack is treated as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, except that you add your Intelligence modifier on the attack roll instead of your Dexterity modifier (damage still relies on Strength). This ability cannot be used to perform a combat maneuver. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Prone: The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
{My bold}
Can a wizard use Hand of the Apprentice while prone? Normally, you can't make a ranged attack while prone, but he's not really throwing his weapon; it's just treated as a ranged attack.
Last night I was rereading Faiths of Purity (and a huge thank you for the Faiths books -- they are FANTASTIC) and specifically the two-page spread on paladin codes. First off, that two-page spread (and the sidebar in Faiths of Balance about paladins of Abadar) is the best explanation I've ever read about how paladins of different gods can end up dramatically opposing each other, even on basic principles, so kudos to whomever wrote that bit.
However, there's one bullet point in that spread that has always seemed unclear to me, so I thought I'd come to you for your take on it. Namely, in the Iomedan code, there's a bullet to the effect that (and I'm sorry for differences in wording, I don't have the book in front of me at the moment), "When in doubt, a paladin of Iomedae may accept an enemy's surrender. If he does, however, the paladin becomes responsible for the enemy's life."
This is a fascinating point that raises a couple questions. First, this seems to imply that Iomedan paladins are closer in outlook to paladins of Torag, who only take cultural enemies prisoner to..."interrogate" them, than to those of Shelyn, who will nearly always take prisoners; it sounds to me like Iomedans will generally not take evil creatures prisoner, but they can if they feel there's either some doubt about the creature's malevolence or that the creature can be redeemed. Is this correct?
The second question is about the "responsible for the prisoner's life" part. This could be read in the literal sense of, "Now I have to protect this evil guy from my buddies who want to skin him alive," and I think that's clearly part of what's intended. However, I wonder if there's also a second layer of meaning that relates back to the first part of the bullet, about "may take prisoners if in doubt." To me, it seems like a valid reading could also say that, if the paladin takes someone prisoner, he becomes morally responsible for the actions that creature may take in the future -- so, if the paladin spares, for example, an orc who makes a convincing case that he wants to turn over a new life, and then the orc goes on to continue being an orc and raping and pillaging and murdering and whatnot, the paladin shares moral culpability for those crimes because he could have prevented them by not accepting the surrender and killing the orc when he had the chance. Is that a valid reading, in your opinion, or is it simply thinking too hard?
|
In my Kingmaker campaign I am thinking to introduce a Numerian faction
1)Members of the Technical league have access to androids and robots?
2) Androids and robots are spawned by sentient AIs in the belly of the Iron mountain (sp) and operate under orders from them?
3) or are created by automatic systems with no special programming?
4) There are androids that go around thinking to be free beings but in reality have hidden programs in their mind that will override their free will and make them obey their masters (that could be the above sentient AIs or members of the Technical league)?
On a calse of 1-10, how mean is using a Bloody Tyrannosaurus Skeleton that has had greater invisibility cast on it against my players?
Have you read Roadside Picnic, seen Stalker, or played the PC game S.T.A.L.K.E.R? If so, where in golarion would you set something up like that? Mana Wastes?
|
Creative Director
|
Something else to think about, what about lawful evil people who don't worship The Devil? I know people don't think in game-stat terms but where do people who justify cruelty think they go when they die?Lawful evil people who don't worship Asmodeus but in turn, say, worship Zon-Kuthon or someone else entirely might end up going to serve their chosen deity in the afterlife, might end up being tormented in their deity's realm, or might STILL end up in Hell.1. I don't mean worshipers of different gods, I mean cruel people who nonetheless serve the community and who don't particularly worship or venerate a deity.
2. Which leads me to ask, just how religious are people in Golarion? Isn't there anyone who goes through life without thinking about deities one way or another beyond "they're really powerful?"
"If you worship Abadar, but you end up betraying a city or blaspheming in a moment of weakness and then die before you can atone, you may or may not get judged by Pharasma and sent to hell."
3. What I mean to ask is, how often to innocent people go to Hell just because they're not perfect or they commit thoughtcrime at the wrong time?
1) That wasn't really a question, so, moving on to...
2) People on Golarion, overall, are probably 20% more religious than folks in the real world are. There's more actual priests of religions in the world, but the bulk of its inhabitants are only religious on holy days, special events, or when the compulsion to pray for something pops up, in which case they'll pray to whatever deity seems the most appropriate.
3) Innocent people do not go to Hell. Pharasma doesn't make mistakes like that. She's capable of and considers extenuating circumstances in a person's life. But... People who THINK they're innocent but are not in some way do go to Hell though.
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because I can't seem to find it, which only means my searchfu is weak, I have a question. What was the design reason behind limiting Vital Strike and other single attack style options from synergizing with Spring Attack. I still have the mental disconnect from being able to understand Why you can't use both. I understand that the way it's written you can't I just don't seem to get why it was done that way. I think I also noticed somewhere that you can't Vital Strike on a Charge. I'm just curious why the decision was made to restrict these tactical options when it seems like they were a match made in Heaven for that kind of character.
That's a question for Jason to answer more fully. I've asked and argued with him before on the subject, but he's stood firm on his ruling for his reasons—I don't want to repeat those reasons here because I don't remember them 100% and I don't want to put words in his mouth. But since he's the Lead Designer, and I respect him, after I presented my arguments and points and still didn't change his mind, I conceded the ruling to him.
Personally, I like any option that takes the mindset of "If I don't make a full attack, I'm wasting my character's potential, so I'll make some terrible tactical decisions based on the fact that if I move more than 5 feet, I'll lose the ability to make that full attack!" out of the game. Allowing Vital Strike to combine with charge and Spring Attack and the like does just that. It prevents higher level characters from standing around making five foot steps or wasting actions delaying in the hope that the monster comes to them. (Example: In a game I ran 2 days ago, we essentially had a TPK because of poor tactics used in just this situation.)
|
Creative Director
|
Hand of the Apprentice (Su): You cause your melee weapon to fly from your grasp and strike a foe before instantly returning to you. As a standard action, you can make a single attack using a melee weapon at a range of 30 feet. This attack is treated as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, except that you add your Intelligence modifier on the attack roll instead of your Dexterity modifier (damage still relies on Strength). This ability cannot be used to perform a combat maneuver. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.Prone: The character is lying on the ground. A prone attacker has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A prone defender gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.{My bold}
Can a wizard use Hand of the Apprentice while prone? Normally, you can't make a ranged attack while prone, but he's not really throwing his weapon; it's just treated as a ranged attack.
"Treated like a ranged attack" is not the same as "This is a ranged attack." In cases like this, you need to look at the whole concept of the rule in question. In this case, it's a supernatural ability that allows you to telekinetically hurl your weapon at a target. It doesn't really require you to move at all; you just launch your weapon out at your foe like you're Carrie hurling a potato peeler or a fork at your overbearing mother.
So, yeah, you can use this ability when you're prone. UNLESS in your game the GM imagines the power works differently, of course, and actually does require you to throw the weapon physically.
James,
1) Is this funny?
2) Are you a fan of caveman science?
3) What are the best Lovecraft related gifts for this holiday season?
4) Do you have any favorite Rammstein songs?
5) Does your love of cats extend to cat-people? Are the Na'vi to be included in this category?
6) Do you know about Rifftrax? Which are your favorite, so far? (I really recommend 300 and the Matrix).
7) Are these questions, A) awesome B) stale C) hungry or D) "HULK SMASH"?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Last night I was rereading Faiths of Purity (and a huge thank you for the Faiths books -- they are FANTASTIC) and specifically the two-page spread on paladin codes. First off, that two-page spread (and the sidebar in Faiths of Balance about paladins of Abadar) is the best explanation I've ever read about how paladins of different gods can end up dramatically opposing each other, even on basic principles, so kudos to whomever wrote that bit.
However, there's one bullet point in that spread that has always seemed unclear to me, so I thought I'd come to you for your take on it. Namely, in the Iomedan code, there's a bullet to the effect that (and I'm sorry for differences in wording, I don't have the book in front of me at the moment), "When in doubt, a paladin of Iomedae may accept an enemy's surrender. If he does, however, the paladin becomes responsible for the enemy's life."
This is a fascinating point that raises a couple questions. First, this seems to imply that Iomedan paladins are closer in outlook to paladins of Torag, who only take cultural enemies prisoner to..."interrogate" them, than to those of Shelyn, who will nearly always take prisoners; it sounds to me like Iomedans will generally not take evil creatures prisoner, but they can if they feel there's either some doubt about the creature's malevolence or that the creature can be redeemed. Is this correct?
The second question is about the "responsible for the prisoner's life" part. This could be read in the literal sense of, "Now I have to protect this evil guy from my buddies who want to skin him alive," and I think that's clearly part of what's intended. However, I wonder if there's also a second layer of meaning that relates back to the first part of the bullet, about "may take prisoners if in doubt." To me, it seems like a valid reading could also say that, if the paladin takes someone prisoner, he becomes morally responsible for the actions that creature may take in the future -- so, if the paladin spares, for example, an orc who makes a convincing case that he wants to turn over a new life, and then the orc goes on to continue being an orc and raping and pillaging and murdering and whatnot, the paladin shares moral culpability for those crimes because he could have prevented them by not accepting the surrender and killing the orc when he had the chance. Is that a valid reading, in your opinion, or is it simply thinking too hard?
Iomedae paladins are not compelled to kill off evil prisoners is what that means. In most cases, when an evil foe is defeated, death is the result for the evil foe, but if the paladin thinks that keeping the foe alive will result in a greater good or something to that effect, she can absolutely stay her hand and take the evil foe prisoner. Be it to interrogate, to allow the prisoner a chance at redemption, or simply because whatever the foe was doing wasn't in the paladin's mind a crime punishable by death but by some lesser sentence.
Being "responsible for the prisoner's life" means you can't do the classic "I won't kill you if you tell me what you know," and then when the bad guy does, you turn your back and let your buddy kill him, since you only promised YOU wouldn't kill him. It also means that if you take a prisoner and there's someone in the party who wants to kill or torture or whatever him, you have to protect him—you can't save someone's life only as a means to draw out their agony and torment, in other words. If you take someone prisoner, you do so because you DON'T want them dead or tormented. It doesn't mean that if you take a prisoner and then at a later point that prisoner causes more death or mayhem that the death is your fault—that DOES mean though that, since the prisoner caused more evil, you can punish the prisoner for this new evil as you see fit, within the bounds of your religion. In most cases for Iomedae, that'd mean death or imprisonment.
|
Creative Director
|
In my Kingmaker campaign I am thinking to introduce a Numerian faction ** spoiler omitted ** so I have some question about two of your creations:
1)Members of the Technical league have access to androids and robots?
2) Androids and robots are spawned by sentient AIs in the belly of the Iron mountain (sp) and operate under orders from them?
3) or are created by automatic systems with no special programming?
4) There are androids that go around thinking to be free beings but in reality have hidden programs in their mind that will override their free will and make them obey their masters (that could be the above sentient AIs or members of the Technical league)?
1) They have access to both, but robots and especially androids do not take kindly to being poked and prodded. Some robots, like the gearsmen, work well with the Technic League, but others do not. Androids are probably hunted down and captured for interrogation and vivisection and the like by the Technic League. I imagine that androids HATE the Technic League.
2) We haven't revealed exactly where or exactly what creates robots or androids, or even if they're created by the same thing or in the same place.
3) See #2 above. We're not ready to reveal that.
4) It's possible... but that's more of a gearsman schtick, though.
|
Creative Director
|
Are you familiar with Eve Online? Because many of the ways that PFO has been sold to this crowd by Ryan Dancey has been refernces to Eve Online. And that game is essentially gangs of players attacking other gangs of players in unending corporate warfare. From my understanding Eve Online does seem to be the main inspiration with how they are looking to make the game work.
I've tried playing Eve Online twice. I quit playing both times after an hour or so because I got bored, frustrated, and annoyed. And while I don't enjoy Eve Online, I do recognize that a lot of people do. I'm certainly hoping that Pathfinder Online plays and feels a LOT different than Eve Online, obviously.
That wasn't really a question, so, moving on to...
1. Lemme rephrase that then. Why would someone be lawful evil if they're not powerful or part of a lawful evil religion? Come to think of it, why would anybody who isn't a supervillain or a cultist be evil? How ignorant are most people of the afterlife?
Moving on to…
2. Why did you give androids red blood? Wouldn't they have something more efficient, and synthetic, like something analogous to perflubron (which is white)?
3. You said that androids are "dispersed to the world beyond via unrevealed methods." Does that mean one can be sent right after creation by UFO to, for example, Andoran and saved the trouble of trudging to the nearest returning crusader barge?
4. What sorts of Sorshen questions are you willing to answer in greater detail than "we're not ready to reveal that yet"?
5. What was you're inspiration for Sorshen, anyway?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you familiar with Eve Online? Because many of the ways that PFO has been sold to this crowd by Ryan Dancey has been refernces to Eve Online. And that game is essentially gangs of players attacking other gangs of players in unending corporate warfare. From my understanding Eve Online does seem to be the main inspiration with how they are looking to make the game work.I've tried playing Eve Online twice. I quit playing both times after an hour or so because I got bored, frustrated, and annoyed. And while I don't enjoy Eve Online, I do recognize that a lot of people do. I'm certainly hoping that Pathfinder Online plays and feels a LOT different than Eve Online, obviously.
A few questions back you mentioned how you would have loved to see Pathfinder play more in the style of Baldur's Gate or Mass Effect. Have you ever considered pitching the property as a licensing deal to Obsidian Entertainment or Bioware/Electronic Arts for something in that nature? Pathfinder is a globally recognized brand with a large customer base that already has a sizable population of computer/console gamers on the ground floor.
Needless to say, I'd love a game like that too (far, far more than an MMO).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you familiar with Eve Online? Because many of the ways that PFO has been sold to this crowd by Ryan Dancey has been refernces to Eve Online. And that game is essentially gangs of players attacking other gangs of players in unending corporate warfare. From my understanding Eve Online does seem to be the main inspiration with how they are looking to make the game work.I've tried playing Eve Online twice. I quit playing both times after an hour or so because I got bored, frustrated, and annoyed. And while I don't enjoy Eve Online, I do recognize that a lot of people do. I'm certainly hoping that Pathfinder Online plays and feels a LOT different than Eve Online, obviously.A few questions back you mentioned how you would have loved to see Pathfinder play more in the style of Baldur's Gate or Mass Effect. Have you ever considered pitching the property as a licensing deal to Obsidian Entertainment or Bioware/Electronic Arts for something in that nature? Pathfinder is a globally recognized brand with a large customer base that already has a sizable population of computer/console gamers on the ground floor.
Needless to say, I'd love a game like that too (far, far more than an MMO).
Amen. Doubly so if it's something in the vein of Neverwinter Nights - a single-player game with the tools and capability for the players to turn it into something multiplayer.
|
Creative Director
|
James,
1) Is this funny?
2) Are you a fan of caveman science?
3) What are the best Lovecraft related gifts for this holiday season?
4) Do you have any favorite Rammstein songs?
5) Does your love of cats extend to cat-people? Are the Na'vi to be included in this category?
6) Do you know about Rifftrax? Which are your favorite, so far? (I really recommend 300 and the Matrix).
7) Are these questions, A) awesome B) stale C) hungry or D) "HULK SMASH"?
1) Dunno. Took too long to load for some reason so I gave up waiting.
2) Never heard of it 'till now.
3) A copy of "The Whisperer in Darkness" movie.
4) I do, but I don't remember the names of them. Sonne is one of them, I think.
5) I like some cat people. I really REALLY like the look Carolina came up with for the catfolk in Bestiary 3... but I'm frustrated and not as pleased with the illustrations we've published since then — they look cool, but I just prefer the sleek design of the original one. I do like Na'vi; they're cool, but I don't think of them as cat people.
6) I do know about Rifftrax. I'm quite fond of the "Last Airbender" one, and the shorts are always fun. I actually really REALLY prefer the Rifftrax of bad movies over the ones of good movies. It seems that when they do good movies, there's more dead space in the track because they either can't think of something to say or they're distracted by watching the movie. Saw the Rifftrax for Halloween, one of my favorite movies, and the experience was agonizing and very unpleasant. Not because of the Rifftrax per se, but becasue I saw it with folks who did NOT particularly respect Halloween and were super noisy and lame and too eager to try "helping" the rifftrax.
7) C, hungry, because I need to go get a sandwich before my 2:00 meeting and time is running out!
|
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
hello!
I'd like to ask a quick question regarding readied actions:
rules on the readied action give the possibility of making a 5 foot step as part of the readied action, and also tell thatAssuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.let's say that a PC fight 1 on 1 an NPC and both are melee combatant without ranged options nor reach. what happens if those two following situation arise?
1) the PC win on initiative and ready an attack with the trigger if some one try to strike me i'll strike him. the NPC charge, the PC strike him as the npc stops to hit him and take a 5 foot step backward.
2) same but without the charge, meaning the npc take a move action to get at melee range and the PC strike and step back.
as long as the terrain allow it the pc will get strikes without getting it in return ? since the NPC had to move to get in melee range he wont be able to 5 foot step to follow the PC ...
thanks for your time.
If the PC manages to step back with that five foot step into a square that the charging foe can't reach, he avoids the charge. But if the charger still has movement left and can still reach the PC in his charge, he can still finish the charge and attack. Essentially, this models a person waiting to the last minute to attack a charging foe and then dodging aside. Note: the person who readies such an action needs to tell the GM that's what his plan is—to attack and then five foot step aside, and you need to be able to make a 5-foot step as part of your action in the first place.
If the NPC moves to get in melee range, he can still finish his movement to follow the PC, provided the NPC didn't use ALL of his movement to just barely reach the PC.
For example, if a barbarian with a speed of 40 runs up to attack a PC, and spends 30 feet of movement to reach the PC, and then the PC's readied action of stab and step takes place and the PC moves 5 further feet away from the barbarian, the barbarian still has 10 feet of movement left in his move and can use that to continue to close the gap to the PC. If the barbarian were charging, and he can continue to close that gap in a way that maintains the straight line of his charge, his charge attack still works as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...involved a god-slaying apocalypse cult allied with a race of vengeful exiled proto-angels has yet to manifest in print...
So, could you expound on these guys a bit? Because that's one of the coolest sentence fragments ever.
Not asking for anything Golarion-specific here, obviously. I'm just wondering how that played out in your home game.
Cheers!
Landon
What did you think of 3.5's Hellbred? (Fiendish Codex II if your memory needs jogging =) )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a decent weapon, but I wish it's real-world awesomeness was a bit more reflected in game stats.
=P
Cheapy, that one took me a second to get. But when I did, it was worth it.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That wasn't really a question, so, moving on to...1. Lemme rephrase that then. Why would someone be lawful evil if they're not powerful or part of a lawful evil religion? Come to think of it, why would anybody who isn't a supervillain or a cultist be evil? How ignorant are most people of the afterlife?
Moving on to…
2. Why did you give androids red blood? Wouldn't they have something more efficient, and synthetic, like something analogous to perflubron (which is white)?
3. You said that androids are "dispersed to the world beyond via unrevealed methods." Does that mean one can be sent right after creation by UFO to, for example, Andoran and saved the trouble of trudging to the nearest returning crusader barge?
4. What sorts of Sorshen questions are you willing to answer in greater detail than "we're not ready to reveal that yet"?
5. What was you're inspiration for Sorshen, anyway?
1) You can, for example, be a corrupt politician who takes money as bribes and thus be lawful evil without being religious. An even better example would be a member of an organized crime ring that isn't associated with a religion—that's the classic lawful evil person. The truth of how the afterlife functions is not something that most folks know about in game, and it's not something that a lot of people worry about since they're focused on the full-time-job of being alive in the first place. And then there's the fact that while you can travel to hell in the game and see the torments... that's not something that most people have an option to do, and until you experience something, for a lot of people it's just academic or theory. AKA: Some people are simply incapable or uninterested in what happens after they die.
2) I gave them watery red blood (which looks like watered down cherry kool aid, so it DOES look different than human blood) because that gives us one less thing to remember and worry about if and when some time down the line we illustrate a wounded android. I specifically did NOT give them white blood because they're already pretty heavilly inspired and influenced by the androids from the Alien franchise, and I didn't want to be completely blatant and obvious about it. It's one thing to be inspired by something, but another to just copy it. I didn't want to just copy the androids from Alien/Aliens/Prometheus.
3) "Dispersed to the world beyond via unrevealed methods" serves two purposes. First, it sums up in a few short words something to tide folks over about where they come from in a format that fits the very small word count I had to talk about androids. Second, it remains mysterious and undefined, because I DO know where and how they show up and where they're from, and that revelation will be part of something that Paizo hopefully publishes at some point in the future.
4) Cant' say until I see them... but most of them will be "not ready to reveal."
5) The name's inspired from the name Sorsha from Willow and Shensen, one of my favorite PCs. The character of Sorshen herself is a mix of the classic succubus, various evil queens from Disney movies, Elizabeth Batheroy, and various other evil queens who've inspired me through the ages.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you familiar with Eve Online? Because many of the ways that PFO has been sold to this crowd by Ryan Dancey has been refernces to Eve Online. And that game is essentially gangs of players attacking other gangs of players in unending corporate warfare. From my understanding Eve Online does seem to be the main inspiration with how they are looking to make the game work.I've tried playing Eve Online twice. I quit playing both times after an hour or so because I got bored, frustrated, and annoyed. And while I don't enjoy Eve Online, I do recognize that a lot of people do. I'm certainly hoping that Pathfinder Online plays and feels a LOT different than Eve Online, obviously.A few questions back you mentioned how you would have loved to see Pathfinder play more in the style of Baldur's Gate or Mass Effect. Have you ever considered pitching the property as a licensing deal to Obsidian Entertainment or Bioware/Electronic Arts for something in that nature? Pathfinder is a globally recognized brand with a large customer base that already has a sizable population of computer/console gamers on the ground floor.
Needless to say, I'd love a game like that too (far, far more than an MMO).
Lisa covers this a little in her latest retrospective blog.
The short version—we were and still are busy building up Pathfinder's brand, and were and are still mostly in the "waiting for suitors to come to us" phase rather than actively out there trying to get Pathfinder into new venues.
Pitching Pathfinder to other content producers is outside of and above my pay grade, in any event.
"Treated like a ranged attack" is not the same as "This is a ranged attack." In cases like this, you need to look at the whole concept of the rule in question. In this case, it's a supernatural ability that allows you to telekinetically hurl your weapon at a target. It doesn't really require you to move at all; you just launch your weapon out at your foe like you're Carrie hurling a potato peeler or a fork at your overbearing mother.
So, yeah, you can use this ability when you're prone. UNLESS in your game the GM imagines the power works differently, of course, and actually does require you to throw the weapon physically.
In this case, I'm the GM. :) Just started a game with a universalist wizard in the party and wanted to make sure I had a handle on the ability, as I imagine it's going to come up a lot.
What about the -4 penalty for shooting into melee, and/or soft cover from intervening creatures? Applies or not?
|
Creative Director
|
"Treated like a ranged attack" is not the same as "This is a ranged attack." In cases like this, you need to look at the whole concept of the rule in question. In this case, it's a supernatural ability that allows you to telekinetically hurl your weapon at a target. It doesn't really require you to move at all; you just launch your weapon out at your foe like you're Carrie hurling a potato peeler or a fork at your overbearing mother.
So, yeah, you can use this ability when you're prone. UNLESS in your game the GM imagines the power works differently, of course, and actually does require you to throw the weapon physically.
In this case, I'm the GM. :) Just started a game with a universalist wizard in the party and wanted to make sure I had a handle on the ability, as I imagine it's going to come up a lot.
What about the -4 penalty for shooting into melee, and/or soft cover from intervening creatures? Applies or not?
Yup; those penalties still apply as appropriate.
How would you portray a creature with average Intelligence and Wisdom but a Charisma score of 1 or 2, such as a gearsman or lizard familiar?
|
It functions as the druid's animal companion, but doesn't stack with druid levels. "Functions as" is just how we avoid reprinting the entire section on druid animal companions in the samurai entry.
Uh James, I think you made an error. Even if "Functions as" means you don't have to reprint the druid animal companions section for the samurai entry, the druid companion section clearly says that multiple classes that grant an animal companion stack for purposes of determining the character's effective druid level. So Druid and Samurai would stack, the same way Druid and Ranger stack.
James j Frost delved into the question a bit in 2010: link
It doesn't mean that if you take a prisoner and then at a later point that prisoner causes more death or mayhem that the death is your fault
Oh wow, that's a huge load off my mind. I thought that was exactly what was meant by that. Not letting your friends kill or torture someone you've taken prisoner didn't strike me as something that needed to be explicitly stated.
Anyway though, questions! For a combination of some crazy over-ambitious project and having handy answers for when players keep trying to shrink each other to be carried by other people, I could use some fairly hard numbers on size categories and height/weight stuff. So...
1- What would you say is the ratio of relative height at various different sizes? i.e. I have a Medium character who is exactly 50 inches tall. If I cast enlarge person on her, making her Large she would be X inches tall. Reduce Person would make her Small, with a height of Y inches. Etc. etc. for all size categories. Going up, I'd assume each size category would correspond to one change of an interval of your starting height, so 50 (M) 100 (L) 150 (H) 200 (G), but the medium-small ratio in particular is tricky to work out.
2- Going the other way around, let's say I'm stating something out, I know its exact height, I'm trying to work out a size category. Happen to have some ballpark ranges?
3- Special bonus question! What weight ratios would go with those values?
Enlarge person and reduce person as written say height x2 weight x8 (or height/2 weight/8) but looking at the actual typical height ranges for every race, and the fact that large and small characters share the same space/reach, I'm thinking that might be a case of quick and dirty math.
|
Creative Director
|
How would you portray a creature with average Intelligence and Wisdom but a Charisma score of 1 or 2, such as a gearsman or lizard familiar?
Charisma is a measure of personality. Something with a 1 or 2 charisma is devoid of personality—devoid of emotions, devoid of a sense of humor, devoid of an urge to get revenge, devoid of the ability to love, devoid of care. They're classic robots, in other words. Taking Star Wars as an example, all the droids that get destroyed by the hundreds in "The Phantom Menace" would have a charisma of 1 or 2, whereas droids with personality like C3P0 or R2D2 would have average or even high charismas.
|
Creative Director
|
Mighty Dinosaur:
1) Can you have both the cross blooded and tattooed sorceror archetypes at once?
2) Have you read order of the stick? What is your favourite joke from it?
3) What happened to the super tough stat blocks you said you would release?
1) You could, but that makes a very complicated character that for a lot of people wouldn't be worth the complexity.
2) I have, but I don't really like Order of the Stick, and as such don't have any favorite jokes from it.
3) I went on vacation, had a Thanksgiving holiday, and mixed in with all that ended up having to do some emergency development on a module that's behind schedule. AKA: I ended up not having the time to build the big stat blocks, which is sort of what I feared would happen. Had I not been hit with that emergency development, I probably would have been able to get a few stat blocks up... but that's not going to be possible, alas.
|
Creative Director
|
It functions as the druid's animal companion, but doesn't stack with druid levels. "Functions as" is just how we avoid reprinting the entire section on druid animal companions in the samurai entry.Uh James, I think you made an error. Even if "Functions as" means you don't have to reprint the druid animal companions section for the samurai entry, the druid companion section clearly says that multiple classes that grant an animal companion stack for purposes of determining the character's effective druid level. So Druid and Samurai would stack, the same way Druid and Ranger stack.
James j Frost delved into the question a bit in 2010: link
There ya go. The lesson there is to read all associated rules very carefully before you ask for clarification or before you render clarification.
|
Creative Director
|
It doesn't mean that if you take a prisoner and then at a later point that prisoner causes more death or mayhem that the death is your faultOh wow, that's a huge load off my mind. I thought that was exactly what was meant by that. Not letting your friends kill or torture someone you've taken prisoner didn't strike me as something that needed to be explicitly stated.
Anyway though, questions! For a combination of some crazy over-ambitious project and having handy answers for when players keep trying to shrink each other to be carried by other people, I could use some fairly hard numbers on size categories and height/weight stuff. So...
1- What would you say is the ratio of relative height at various different sizes? i.e. I have a Medium character who is exactly 50 inches tall. If I cast enlarge person on her, making her Large she would be X inches tall. Reduce Person would make her Small, with a height of Y inches. Etc. etc. for all size categories. Going up, I'd assume each size category would correspond to one change of an interval of your starting height, so 50 (M) 100 (L) 150 (H) 200 (G), but the medium-small ratio in particular is tricky to work out.
2- Going the other way around, let's say I'm stating something out, I know its exact height, I'm trying to work out a size category. Happen to have some ballpark ranges?
3- Special bonus question! What weight ratios would go with those values?
Enlarge person and reduce person as written say height x2 weight x8 (or height/2 weight/8) but looking at the actual typical height ranges for every race, and the fact that large and small characters share the same space/reach, I'm thinking that might be a case of quick and dirty math.
Reduce person and enlarge person specifically tells you how to adjust a target's weight. Just adjust weights as necessary, add up the total weight, then compare that to the carrier's encumbrance limits. So for all of these questions... ratios don't matter. Enlarge person says your height is doubled and your weight is multiplied by 8. Reduce person says your height is halved and your weight is divided by 8. Just apply those equations to your base height and weight, and that tells you what you can fit into and what a person's strength needs to be to pick you up and carry you.
James:
I was wondering how you would run a certain encounter in CoT:
The battle on the slave barge (encounter R) with 4 Erinyes (CR12 combined).
I am having a hard time seeing how this is not a TPK. At a minimum once the players are on the barge all 4 Erinyes should teleport up about 100feet above the barge and then unleash round after round of Unholy Blight (average 45damage per round if the PCs save against all 4 Unholy Blights).
Unless a group is built to deal with ranged combat they will probably die via this tactic.
If I had not decided to go with inferior options (bow) I would have had a TPK.
So in short: how would you run it?
- Gauss
Hi James,
Just found myself wondering about why will you never release the truth about Aroden's death. I mean, if you never release it, it's actually totally irrelevant that there exists the "Truth" of the matter.
So I guess my question is, what is your motivation for saying there is a definitive canon reality to the how and why of Aroden's death, but no one will ever know?
I ask this for two reasons, the first being that this kind of definite "I know the truth, but you will never know!" really tweaks my insatiable curiosity - if it exists, I want to know about it, particularly if it's a secret :)
(So why you mess with my mind like this!?!?!)
But also, I tend to be one of those GMs that like to stick to canon in published CSs, and such a statement makes me unlikely to go anywhere near Aroden. Likewise Sorshen - the hints that she may be appearing in future products means I don't want to raise her from her slumber myself, as I really want to run any Sorshen-related adventures when they appear. In a similar way, I feel it's unlikely that no one but you will ever know what happened to Aroden, and so the eventual publishing of this little secret seems inevitable ;)
So, why do you tell us there exists a canonical reality concerning Aroden, but that we will never know?
(If I didn't want people annoying me with stupid questions like this, I probably wouldn't mention that a canonical truth, that they would never know, existed - which makes this stupid question kind of your fault :) )
Also, does anyone else know? I mean, surely you've let it slip to others, hmmm? Because I absolutely would not start hassling these other potential weak links...
What do you prefer to keep the feet and ankles warm in cold weather, knitted woolen socks of regular length, or ones that are thinner but cover the whole lower leg?
As you have said that you could go on forever about Varisia which includes Riddleport, I will ask you:
I have checked the few sources available about Riddleport (Pathfinder 13 & 14, Player's Guide to Second Darkness, Varisia Birthplace of Legends, the Inner Sea World Guide, the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, and the Journal of Shattered Star). However, I am still not entirely satisfied with my knowledge of Riddleport as most of these sources repeat the same data.
1. Are there other sources about Riddleport besides the one I have checked?
2. Are there any hidden plotters in Riddleport like Lorthact and Ileosa (i.e. Sorshen) in Korvosa?