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


Off-Topic Discussions

37,151 to 37,200 of 77,511 << first < prev | 739 | 740 | 741 | 742 | 743 | 744 | 745 | 746 | 747 | 748 | 749 | next > last >>

James Jacobs wrote:
Voyd211 wrote:
I'm reading the SRD for Mythic stuff, and the Archmage path ability Speedy Summons is kinda confusingly written. It's listed under 1st-Tier Abilities, but the description says "you must be at least 3rd tier." Why not just make it a 3rd-tier ability if that's the case?
That confuses me too.

What do you think it is? Should it be a 3rd- or 1st-tier ability?

Seriously, I hate how long it takes for non-summoners to projectile vomit bloody skeletons at enemies*.

*actual game experience


2 questions for you:

(1) What sorts of spells would you say can and can't be cast from inside a resilient sphere to have effects outside the sphere (or vice versa)?

(2) Have the Paizo powers-that-be ever considered developing a Pathfinder TV show, whether animated or live action?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Here's a question though. Do you see Aroden's thing with sword play as an affection which he dispenses with when things get truly serious? Or somehow as part of a viable strategy that kept him alive in the nasty brutal world of non-mythic high level campaigning? If the latter, how would you build him as say, a singleclassed 18?th level Wizard? (the way he's listed in the Inner Sea Magic book)

It's part of a viable strategy AND part of his character. I'm pretty sure, for example, that sword is an artifact. If it's a +5 spell-storing dancing keen longsword that also has all the powers of a staff of the archmagi... then does it feel better in a wizard's hands?

If Gandalf can use a sword, Aroden can.

Is this where we proved that Gandalf was really only a 5th level magic user and a 15th level fighter? (or bard?)

I wasn't really trying to be snide with my question, the point is that at a certain level of play, the truly incompetent are weeded out. (through death or retirement) and those who continue to progress have to be very good at facing the challenges thrown at it.


James Jacobs wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Which demon lords in Golarion are most closely related to dragons?

As in, any that might have an association with them and such?

I do recall Flauros being one, but surely there are more.

There was once a demon lord of dragons... but Nocticula killed him.

Currently no demon lords have a specific tie to dragons, but many chaotic evil dragons associate with demon lords and their religions.

How interesting.

When Nocticula killed Vyriavaxus, she stole his connection/portfolio of shadows. Why didn't she pick up the one for dragons from this particular dead demon lord? Didn't she want it?


Mr Jacobs

Is there anything published by paizo (rule/aventure/ whatever) that make you think something like
"This was great, I want to do more of this"
but you have not had the chance to do?


Starfinder Superscriber

Hey James,
I was running Rise of the Runelords and my group lost in the final fight, so I'm playing with allowing them to have these characters "raised" in 1000 years since their defeat. What do you think 1000 years of the Runelord of Greed's rule would be like?


Not sure if you're a fan of the Carrie movies, but I came across this and thought to share it. Telekinetic Coffee Shop

Also, it's a part of my very cunning and subtle plot to subconsciously influence you and the Paizo staff to come out with a Psychic Magic system.

Silver Crusade

Way back in issue 310 of Dragon Magazine you wrote an article about paladins of different alignments.

In it, you wrote 5 (or was it 8, with the three evil alignments?) variant paladin classes for (the new, at the time) 3.5 edition.

I had been wanting paladins to be 'any good', especially CG, for years. Decades, even! I always thought that the 'Ultimate Warrior of Good' should be, well, good! What's law got to do with it? To my mind it was simply a reflection of the pro-law bias shown in the game since the beginning; that, for some reason, lawful good was somehow a 'better' kind of good than chaotic good.

To me, the fix was simple: change the alignment requirement to 'any good', alter a single line of the code, and tweak the spell list. No other powers needed to be altered at all, simply because all of the powers were about good verses evil and absolutely none were about law versus chaos; just as it should be!

Imagine my disappointment when I turned to the CG variant to find that it wasn't battling evil, but battling law! I was not a happy teddy bear, I can tell you!

You've said that you weren't happy with that article yourself, and that you think paladins should only be lawful good? Fair enough.

My question is this: when you were given this assignment (write an article that allows players to make non-LG paladins), would it have been feasible to simply write that paladins of NG and CG just need the tweak I mentioned above but otherwise stay unaltered? Then write an 'any evil' anti-paladin variant?

Or would it have been that the magazine would consider the assignment unfulfilled and not paid you, and given it to someone who would do what he was told? : )


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I want to approach a previously hit upon question from a different direction if that's ok.

Q: Why should only paladins, clerics, and good outsiders benefit from Litany of Righteousness?

A few points that seem relevant.
A. The first sentence of the spell implies it should benefit 'good creatures'.
B. The class feature Good Aura only enhances the good aura that all aligned creatures of 5HD or more have.


How did you feel about the Bed of Chaos boss in Dark Souls?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In Dark Souls did you help people more or did you invade more often?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

James have you read the newest issue of the pathfinder comic and if so what do you think of the way it seems to portray the people of sandpoint?

Personally they come off to me as rather jerkish and makes me not really like the town all that much.


Is it just me, or is the Paizo staff 'seriously very very busy' these days?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

James, with your awesome level of involvement on these boards, I have no doubt that you've seen this thread, but in the interest of begging I thought I'd ask a related question in order to draw attention to it...

Have you seen the thread requesting an "Ultimate Evil" or "Ultimate Villainy" type book HERE? What do you think of Paizo producing such a book? Chances of it happening? Chances of it happening in 2014?


So what are you more excited about coming out this month?

A new Ramsey Campbell novel about psychics (Ghosts Know)

OR

A new Dan Simmons novel that includes (I think?) The Yeti (Abominable)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Voyd211 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Voyd211 wrote:
I'm reading the SRD for Mythic stuff, and the Archmage path ability Speedy Summons is kinda confusingly written. It's listed under 1st-Tier Abilities, but the description says "you must be at least 3rd tier." Why not just make it a 3rd-tier ability if that's the case?
That confuses me too.

What do you think it is? Should it be a 3rd- or 1st-tier ability?

Seriously, I hate how long it takes for non-summoners to projectile vomit bloody skeletons at enemies*.

*actual game experience

It looks to me like it should be a 3rd tier ability.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cleanthes wrote:

2 questions for you:

(1) What sorts of spells would you say can and can't be cast from inside a resilient sphere to have effects outside the sphere (or vice versa)?

(2) Have the Paizo powers-that-be ever considered developing a Pathfinder TV show, whether animated or live action?

1) Any spell that doesn't require line of effect.

2) That sure would be cool!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Here's a question though. Do you see Aroden's thing with sword play as an affection which he dispenses with when things get truly serious? Or somehow as part of a viable strategy that kept him alive in the nasty brutal world of non-mythic high level campaigning? If the latter, how would you build him as say, a singleclassed 18?th level Wizard? (the way he's listed in the Inner Sea Magic book)

It's part of a viable strategy AND part of his character. I'm pretty sure, for example, that sword is an artifact. If it's a +5 spell-storing dancing keen longsword that also has all the powers of a staff of the archmagi... then does it feel better in a wizard's hands?

If Gandalf can use a sword, Aroden can.

Is this where we proved that Gandalf was really only a 5th level magic user and a 15th level fighter? (or bard?)

I wasn't really trying to be snide with my question, the point is that at a certain level of play, the truly incompetent are weeded out. (through death or retirement) and those who continue to progress have to be very good at facing the challenges thrown at it.

It's the world where we had a wizard with a sword because it looked cool.

My point is that Aroden was a god. He can do what he wants.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Alleran wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Which demon lords in Golarion are most closely related to dragons?

As in, any that might have an association with them and such?

I do recall Flauros being one, but surely there are more.

There was once a demon lord of dragons... but Nocticula killed him.

Currently no demon lords have a specific tie to dragons, but many chaotic evil dragons associate with demon lords and their religions.

How interesting.

When Nocticula killed Vyriavaxus, she stole his connection/portfolio of shadows. Why didn't she pick up the one for dragons from this particular dead demon lord? Didn't she want it?

She didn't want it. Dragons are too noisy and clumsy and obvious.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Nicos wrote:

Mr Jacobs

Is there anything published by paizo (rule/aventure/ whatever) that make you think something like
"This was great, I want to do more of this"
but you have not had the chance to do?

Yup! Pretty much anything to do with demons, Lovecraft, elves, the Red Mantis, Varisia, the Darklands... and much much more! Turns out though, in time, I do get to do more!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

DJEternalDarkness wrote:

Hey James,

I was running Rise of the Runelords and my group lost in the final fight, so I'm playing with allowing them to have these characters "raised" in 1000 years since their defeat. What do you think 1000 years of the Runelord of Greed's rule would be like?

Very very very different.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Way back in issue 310 of Dragon Magazine you wrote an article about paladins of different alignments.

In it, you wrote 5 (or was it 8, with the three evil alignments?) variant paladin classes for (the new, at the time) 3.5 edition.

I had been wanting paladins to be 'any good', especially CG, for years. Decades, even! I always thought that the 'Ultimate Warrior of Good' should be, well, good! What's law got to do with it? To my mind it was simply a reflection of the pro-law bias shown in the game since the beginning; that, for some reason, lawful good was somehow a 'better' kind of good than chaotic good.

To me, the fix was simple: change the alignment requirement to 'any good', alter a single line of the code, and tweak the spell list. No other powers needed to be altered at all, simply because all of the powers were about good verses evil and absolutely none were about law versus chaos; just as it should be!

Imagine my disappointment when I turned to the CG variant to find that it wasn't battling evil, but battling law! I was not a happy teddy bear, I can tell you!

You've said that you weren't happy with that article yourself, and that you think paladins should only be lawful good? Fair enough.

My question is this: when you were given this assignment (write an article that allows players to make non-LG paladins), would it have been feasible to simply write that paladins of NG and CG just need the tweak I mentioned above but otherwise stay unaltered? Then write an 'any evil' anti-paladin variant?

Or would it have been that the magazine would consider the assignment unfulfilled and not paid you, and given it to someone who would do what he was told? : )

I wrote a new paladin class for every other alignment; the 3 evil ones showed up in issue #312 of Dragon.

And writing those articles did indeed convince me that paladins should stay lawful good. If you want a "holy warrior" class for another alignment, there are PLENTY of options now, with more to come. But really... just playing a battle-focused cleric is the best bet in my book.

When I was given the assignment, the whole point was to do a paladin for every class as a nod to the original article on the subject for 1st Edition AD&D back in Dragon #106, I believe it was. Simple tweaks to the paladin weren't an option to me, since that's kinda boring... the whole thing that DEFINES the paladin is her lawful good alignment, after all, and if I couldn't come up with strong roles for the other 8 that focus entirely on their alignment... I wasn't as interested in writing the article. I actually think the chaotic good one is one of the strongest of the classes as it worked out... mostly BECAUSE that class felt so unique and self supporting. Something that changes the paladin only barely is more akin to what we now call archetypes—not worth making into a new base class at all.

At the time, though, the editors pretty much gave me free reign to do what I wanted. And the fact that they published my solution tells me that they were happy enough with the results, even if over time I've grown to think differently.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

iammercy wrote:

I want to approach a previously hit upon question from a different direction if that's ok.

Q: Why should only paladins, clerics, and good outsiders benefit from Litany of Righteousness?

A few points that seem relevant.
A. The first sentence of the spell implies it should benefit 'good creatures'.
B. The class feature Good Aura only enhances the good aura that all aligned creatures of 5HD or more have.

Because it uses the word "litany" in its title, and "litany" is a word that is tied strongly to faith and religious services that it should create an effect that focuses only on the most devout of a faith's champions.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
How did you feel about the Bed of Chaos boss in Dark Souls?

Very cool but very tough fight.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Rysky wrote:
In Dark Souls did you help people more or did you invade more often?

Neither. I didn't do much invading or helping at all. I'd say 99% of my multi-player experience in that game was fighting invaders into my realm.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belle Mythix wrote:

Is it just me, or is the Paizo staff 'seriously very very busy' these days?

It's not just you. We've been seriously very very busy for 10 years.

We're really good at finding new ways to be even busier. Our latest discovery would have been the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game! :)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kevin Mack wrote:

James have you read the newest issue of the pathfinder comic and if so what do you think of the way it seems to portray the people of sandpoint?

Personally they come off to me as rather jerkish and makes me not really like the town all that much.

I read all the comics when they're in script form, both because I'm one of the folks who gets to help with script review and approval, but also because I write the backmatter for many of them and need to know what each volume is about early so I can write stuff that hopefully somewhat is on theme for that issue.

Sorry that you feel they portray Sandpoint as jerks... that's not the intent.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Wildebob wrote:

James, with your awesome level of involvement on these boards, I have no doubt that you've seen this thread, but in the interest of begging I thought I'd ask a related question in order to draw attention to it...

Have you seen the thread requesting an "Ultimate Evil" or "Ultimate Villainy" type book HERE? What do you think of Paizo producing such a book? Chances of it happening? Chances of it happening in 2014?

My preference would be to do a book like that in the Campaign Setting line where we can draw upon Golarion for flavor.

I'd love to do a book about bad guys, though... if only because that gives GMs more tools to create NPCs. But I'm not Paizo. I'm just me, and I don't make those decisions. At least, not on my own.

So... We'll see.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

question about the caravan mechanic and its implementation within the exploration system.

As written caravans just have a daily movement speed listed of 32 miles per day, does that mean that we should consider them to have the same round to round movement speed as other creatures that have an overland speed of 32 miles (that's 40 ft) for the purposes of determining their speed through hexes?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

MMCJawa wrote:

So what are you more excited about coming out this month?

A new Ramsey Campbell novel about psychics (Ghosts Know)

OR

A new Dan Simmons novel that includes (I think?) The Yeti (Abominable)

They've both been on pre-order from me on Amazon for many months... so I'd say it's a tie.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

doc the grey wrote:

question about the caravan mechanic and its implementation within the exploration system.

As written caravans just have a daily movement speed listed of 32 miles per day, does that mean that we should consider them to have the same round to round movement speed as other creatures that have an overland speed of 32 miles (that's 40 ft) for the purposes of determining their speed through hexes?

Exploration assumes you're spending the whole day exploring a 12 mile across Hex.

The caravan rules assume you're booking through ANY size hex at your best possible speed, and not exploring at all.

They're two different systems and I would recommend not combining them other than, perhaps, using the caravan rules to get to the unexplored area and then turning the caravan into a camp, and then using the exploration rules for the rest.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:

James have you read the newest issue of the pathfinder comic and if so what do you think of the way it seems to portray the people of sandpoint?

Personally they come off to me as rather jerkish and makes me not really like the town all that much.

I read all the comics when they're in script form, both because I'm one of the folks who gets to help with script review and approval, but also because I write the backmatter for many of them and need to know what each volume is about early so I can write stuff that hopefully somewhat is on theme for that issue.

Sorry that you feel they portray Sandpoint as jerks... that's not the intent.

Well if you dont mind me asking what was the intent because when the people you just saved from being butchured by goblins pretty much turn on you as far as using good old fashioned raceism I honestly cant see how it could be anything but jerkish. Also maybe it's just me but Ameiko just came across somewhat wrong (Since if anyone should know about an adventuring incident going wrong it would be her) So I would have thought she would be somewhat sympathetic.


LazarX wrote:


Is this where we proved that Gandalf was really only a 5th level magic user and a 15th level fighter? (or bard?)

That was a mostly bogus, badly written, rather outdated and somewhat tongue-in-cheek article. I could write one how Bruce Lee is a 1st level monk, or Dumbledore is a 7th level wizard or Merlin was really a druid or even just a faker.

Or perhaps Gandalf is really a only a 5th level wizard but with 20 levels in celestial and 10 mythic levels with a couple powerful artifacts. ;-)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kevin Mack wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:

James have you read the newest issue of the pathfinder comic and if so what do you think of the way it seems to portray the people of sandpoint?

Personally they come off to me as rather jerkish and makes me not really like the town all that much.

I read all the comics when they're in script form, both because I'm one of the folks who gets to help with script review and approval, but also because I write the backmatter for many of them and need to know what each volume is about early so I can write stuff that hopefully somewhat is on theme for that issue.

Sorry that you feel they portray Sandpoint as jerks... that's not the intent.

Well if you dont mind me asking what was the intent because when the people you just saved from being butchured by goblins pretty much turn on you as far as using good old fashioned raceism I honestly cant see how it could be anything but jerkish. Also maybe it's just me but Ameiko just came across somewhat wrong (Since if anyone should know about an adventuring incident going wrong it would be her) So I would have thought she would be somewhat sympathetic.

I don't actually write the scripts... I just approve them and offer advice and suggestions on changes.

The intent here, though, was to force the adventurers to increasingly rely on each other rather than on support from the town. I suspect that that came across too strong... but there's also other things at work that will be revealed in the long term that might not yet be apparent.


James Jacobs wrote:
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
How did you feel about the Bed of Chaos boss in Dark Souls?
Very cool but very tough fight.

Did you end up just getting thrown into pits repeatedly or did you not spend 95% of the fight just running back?

What was your favorite weapon? Or was there a weapon you really would have liked to use but never did? I'm pretty fond of the Dragonslayer Spear now since the Greatsword of Astorias will require 12 levels of buffing Int...


Mr. James Jacobs,

Would you approve of a group of pirates using a huge or larger sea monster as their ship? Would Besmara approve?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
How did you feel about the Bed of Chaos boss in Dark Souls?
Very cool but very tough fight.

Did you end up just getting thrown into pits repeatedly or did you not spend 95% of the fight just running back?

What was your favorite weapon? Or was there a weapon you really would have liked to use but never did? I'm pretty fond of the Dragonslayer Spear now since the Greatsword of Astorias will require 12 levels of buffing Int...

I ended up falling into pits relatively often, but never enough to get frustrated, really. It was a cool non-standard boss fight that was pretty much just right in complexity.

Current favorite weapon is the +5 lightning iatio. But Queelag's fire sword is pretty sweet too, as is the one I can't remember the name of that does huge bleed damage you get from the expansion. I would LIKE to like the Greatsword, or the Lifehaunt Scythe... but the big weapons are hard for me to use for whatever reason. They stress me out how long they take to swing and recover.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The NPC wrote:

Mr. James Jacobs,

Would you approve of a group of pirates using a huge or larger sea monster as their ship? Would Besmara approve?

Hmmm... it'd be better for them to use the sea monster as an ally than as a ship.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Here's a question though. Do you see Aroden's thing with sword play as an affection which he dispenses with when things get truly serious? Or somehow as part of a viable strategy that kept him alive in the nasty brutal world of non-mythic high level campaigning? If the latter, how would you build him as say, a singleclassed 18?th level Wizard? (the way he's listed in the Inner Sea Magic book)

It's part of a viable strategy AND part of his character. I'm pretty sure, for example, that sword is an artifact. If it's a +5 spell-storing dancing keen longsword that also has all the powers of a staff of the archmagi... then does it feel better in a wizard's hands?

If Gandalf can use a sword, Aroden can.

Is this where we proved that Gandalf was really only a 5th level magic user and a 15th level fighter? (or bard?)

I wasn't really trying to be snide with my question, the point is that at a certain level of play, the truly incompetent are weeded out. (through death or retirement) and those who continue to progress have to be very good at facing the challenges thrown at it.

It's the world where we had a wizard with a sword because it looked cool.

My point is that Aroden was a god. He can do what he wants.

That really wasn't the question... the question was how did he survive to get to that point, because presumably there was a time when he wasn't a god, and wasn't quite that uberpowerful a wizard.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
iammercy wrote:

I want to approach a previously hit upon question from a different direction if that's ok.

Q: Why should only paladins, clerics, and good outsiders benefit from Litany of Righteousness?

A few points that seem relevant.
A. The first sentence of the spell implies it should benefit 'good creatures'.
B. The class feature Good Aura only enhances the good aura that all aligned creatures of 5HD or more have.

Because it uses the word "litany" in its title, and "litany" is a word that is tied strongly to faith and religious services that it should create an effect that focuses only on the most devout of a faith's champions.

But the other dozen or so "litany" spells are not like this at all. As far as I can see Litany of Righteousness is the only Litany spell that an Inquisitor cannot benefit from.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

5 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

That really wasn't the question... the question was how did he survive to get to that point, because presumably there was a time when he wasn't a god, and wasn't quite that uberpowerful a wizard.

He survived the same way Gandalf or any other significant character in a story did—because the author(s) of the story had him survive.

Aroden is not and never was a player character. He's a historical NPC. Whether or not he "survived" to become the Last Azlant and then went on to become a god because he was lucky, or hyper-optomized, or protected by the gods, or whatever is irrelevant to a certain extent. He survived because we wanted him to survive so we could tell the story we wanted to tell.

The rules for whether a PC can make it to higher levels do not apply to historical NPCs. Especially if said NPCs have come and gone and are no longer a part of the world except as historical themes.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

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

I want to approach a previously hit upon question from a different direction if that's ok.

Q: Why should only paladins, clerics, and good outsiders benefit from Litany of Righteousness?

A few points that seem relevant.
A. The first sentence of the spell implies it should benefit 'good creatures'.
B. The class feature Good Aura only enhances the good aura that all aligned creatures of 5HD or more have.

Because it uses the word "litany" in its title, and "litany" is a word that is tied strongly to faith and religious services that it should create an effect that focuses only on the most devout of a faith's champions.
But the other dozen or so "litany" spells are not like this at all. As far as I can see Litany of Righteousness is the only Litany spell that an Inquisitor cannot benefit from.

Then I suggest you head over to the rules forum and ask. I wasn't involved in the design or development, and was just taking a guess as to what might have been the thought processes behind the scenes. Apparently I was wrong.

THAT SAID: Not every spell should be equally great for everyone who can cast it. Spiritual weapon, for example, is not as great when cast by an oracle when cast by a cleric. That's fine. That's good for the game.


James Jacobs wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:

Is it just me, or is the Paizo staff 'seriously very very busy' these days?

It's not just you. We've been seriously very very busy for 10 years.

We're really good at finding new ways to be even busier. Our latest discovery would have been the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game! :)

As long as Quantity doesn't affect Quality, we should be Ok with that.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Here's a question though. Do you see Aroden's thing with sword play as an affection which he dispenses with when things get truly serious? Or somehow as part of a viable strategy that kept him alive in the nasty brutal world of non-mythic high level campaigning? If the latter, how would you build him as say, a singleclassed 18?th level Wizard? (the way he's listed in the Inner Sea Magic book)

It's part of a viable strategy AND part of his character. I'm pretty sure, for example, that sword is an artifact. If it's a +5 spell-storing dancing keen longsword that also has all the powers of a staff of the archmagi... then does it feel better in a wizard's hands?

If Gandalf can use a sword, Aroden can.

Is this where we proved that Gandalf was really only a 5th level magic user and a 15th level fighter? (or bard?)

I wasn't really trying to be snide with my question, the point is that at a certain level of play, the truly incompetent are weeded out. (through death or retirement) and those who continue to progress have to be very good at facing the challenges thrown at it.

It's the world where we had a wizard with a sword because it looked cool.

My point is that Aroden was a god. He can do what he wants.

Slightly off topic, but I think it is worth mentioning that Gandalf was not Human, he and the other "Wizards" were actually functionally equivalent to Demigods. It requires a couple references to connect, but it is in there.

/pedant


James Jacobs wrote:
The NPC wrote:

Mr. James Jacobs,

Would you approve of a group of pirates using a huge or larger sea monster as their ship? Would Besmara approve?

Hmmm... it'd be better for them to use the sea monster as an ally than as a ship.

Can it be both?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The NPC wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The NPC wrote:

Mr. James Jacobs,

Would you approve of a group of pirates using a huge or larger sea monster as their ship? Would Besmara approve?

Hmmm... it'd be better for them to use the sea monster as an ally than as a ship.
Can it be both?

Not to me. Treating a giant sea monster as a ship is kinda too wahoo/over-the-top for my tastes. I much prefer the visual of a crew of pirates on a pirate ship, with a giant sea monster helping out rather than being the ship itself.


James Jacobs wrote:
kortzen wrote:

Can one feint intelligent undead at your table?

Feinting isn't mind-affecting. It's baseline trickery and misdirection. Anything that has a stimulus-response ability, which includes mindless creatures, should be able to be feinted.

One can feint any creature at my table as a result.

It may sound silly - what are the odds, that you gamedesigners inadvertently missed to declare intelligent undead immune to feint, although you intended them to be? Even if it is only mundane trickery. Hope you excuse my importunance, it preys on my mind.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
iammercy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
iammercy wrote:

I want to approach a previously hit upon question from a different direction if that's ok.

Q: Why should only paladins, clerics, and good outsiders benefit from Litany of Righteousness?

A few points that seem relevant.
A. The first sentence of the spell implies it should benefit 'good creatures'.
B. The class feature Good Aura only enhances the good aura that all aligned creatures of 5HD or more have.

Because it uses the word "litany" in its title, and "litany" is a word that is tied strongly to faith and religious services that it should create an effect that focuses only on the most devout of a faith's champions.
But the other dozen or so "litany" spells are not like this at all. As far as I can see Litany of Righteousness is the only Litany spell that an Inquisitor cannot benefit from.

Then I suggest you head over to the rules forum and ask. I wasn't involved in the design or development, and was just taking a guess as to what might have been the thought processes behind the scenes. Apparently I was wrong.

THAT SAID: Not every spell should be equally great for everyone who can cast it. Spiritual weapon, for example, is not as great when cast by an oracle when cast by a cleric. That's fine. That's good for the game.

I don't disagree with your 'THAT SAID' at all. It is true though that this one spell is literally useless to the Inquisitor.

Really though if one spell doesn't work right that isn't so bad considering the amazing system.

Silver Crusade

James Jacobs wrote:

I wrote a new paladin class for every other alignment; the 3 evil ones showed up in issue #312 of Dragon.

And writing those articles did indeed convince me that paladins should stay lawful good. If you want a "holy warrior" class for another alignment, there are PLENTY of options now, with more to come. But really... just playing a battle-focused cleric is the best bet in my book.

When I was given the assignment, the whole point was to do a paladin for every class as a nod to the original article on the subject for 1st Edition AD&D back in Dragon #106, I believe it was. Simple tweaks to the paladin weren't an option to me, since that's kinda boring... the whole thing that DEFINES the paladin is her lawful good alignment, after all, and if I couldn't come up with strong roles for the other 8 that focus entirely on their alignment... I wasn't as interested in writing the article. I actually think the chaotic good one is one of the strongest of the classes as it worked out... mostly BECAUSE that class felt so unique and self supporting. Something that changes the paladin only barely is more akin to what we now call archetypes—not worth making into a new base class at all.

At the time, though, the editors pretty much gave me free reign to do what I wanted. And the fact that they published my solution tells me that they were happy enough with the results, even if over time I've grown to think differently.

Thank you for satisfying my curiosity.

There are those of us who really, really want paladins (with the abilities they have now) to be 'any good'. It just doesn't make sense to us that the lawful part has any relevance for the 'Ultimate Warrior of Good'.

However, there is just as big a group that views non-LG paladins as an anathema. Fair enough. I don't think either group is going to change the opinion of the other.

That said, if half the people want something and half don't, then surely the best solution is to give the half that do what they want, because the other half don't have to play the non-LG paladins if they don't want to. It is not a good attitude to say 'I don't like it, so no-one can have it!'

I like your suggestion of an archetype! Please could we have a paladin archetype that allows any good alignment, while leaving hardly anything changed but a tweaked spell list?

37,151 to 37,200 of 77,511 << first < prev | 739 | 740 | 741 | 742 | 743 | 744 | 745 | 746 | 747 | 748 | 749 | 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.