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


Off-Topic Discussions

11,201 to 11,250 of 83,601 << first < prev | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | next > last >>

Possible overreach: will the Runelords hardcover include info on treating Turtleback/Rannick as a settlement using the kingdom rules? Rules for treating the giant invasion as a war? Those are both very popular mods.

True or false: It is likely that most players in Runelords campaigns expected Ft Rannick to be attacked by giants after the Battle of Sandpoint?

If not rules for war, is there a chance that Ft Rannick will see its relevance expanded in a narrative way?

Will we get any bonus maps for scenes that really wanted maps but didn't get them (for logical reasons I am certain)?


Some weird results occur when you try to use the Kingmaker army numbers with the giant armies from Runelords #3 and #4. Any chance we're going to see a revision of the battlesystem some day that jives a little better with those canonical numbers (or would you rather see the canonical numbers change)?

For posterity, I found that shifting the army CR chart by two steps did the trick quite nicely (and for a number of other battles besides).

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
My players STILL remember and brag about some of those types of wins (such as the time a wizard PC used polymorph any object to turn a demon lord into a brick), and that's really cool.
Whatever became of that sinister brick?

It got smashed to gravel.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Possible overreach: will the Runelords hardcover include info on treating Turtleback/Rannick as a settlement using the kingdom rules? Rules for treating the giant invasion as a war? Those are both very popular mods.

True or false: It is likely that most players in Runelords campaigns expected Ft Rannick to be attacked by giants after the Battle of Sandpoint?

If not rules for war, is there a chance that Ft Rannick will see its relevance expanded in a narrative way?

Will we get any bonus maps for scenes that really wanted maps but didn't get them (for logical reasons I am certain)?

We won't be incorporating mass combat or kingdom rules into the Runelords hardcover.

False. In fact, I don't believe I've heard that at all—there was a lot of concern that players who finished the 3rd adventure would just head right up to the next adventure without going back to Sandpoint, and thus missing the start of the 4th adventure—that's a great example of where player feedback is gonna help a lot.

There'll be some more information about the Lamatar element of the story, but Fort Rannick's presence in the adventure is not going to change all that much.

There will be some new maps. Some will be for areas that, in retrospect, needed more map support. Others will be for brand new areas.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Some weird results occur when you try to use the Kingmaker army numbers with the giant armies from Runelords #3 and #4. Any chance we're going to see a revision of the battlesystem some day that jives a little better with those canonical numbers (or would you rather see the canonical numbers change)?

For posterity, I found that shifting the army CR chart by two steps did the trick quite nicely (and for a number of other battles besides).

I suspect the chances of us revising and reprinting both the kingdom rules and the mass combat rules in a product some day are VERY high. They will NOT be part of the Runelords hardcover, since mass combat isn't a part of Rise of the Runelords. The big battles there are handled fine without introducing that additional complication.

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

What XP advancement track with the Rise of the Runelords hardcover use, fast or medium?

Will story awards be added for XP in the revision?

I've found that with the party of 5 I'm running through now, at the end of Skinsaw, they just hit 6th level, so I'm running a filler adventure tonight that will get them most of the way to 7th. Since they never dealt with Malfeshkenor, this forces the issue.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

JoelF847 wrote:

What XP advancement track with the Rise of the Runelords hardcover use, fast or medium?

Will story awards be added for XP in the revision?

I've found that with the party of 5 I'm running through now, at the end of Skinsaw, they just hit 6th level, so I'm running a filler adventure tonight that will get them most of the way to 7th. Since they never dealt with Malfeshkenor, this forces the issue.

At this point, my guess will be that the Runelords hardcover will use the Fast XP track.

Story awards will be added in, although there's already a fair amount of story awards in there I think...

As for Skinsaw... I assume you gave out XP for all the haunts? Not giving out Haunt XP is a great way to be short on XP in that adventure...

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

I certainly gave out XP for the haunts. The XP shortfall is in part because I'm using the medium advancement, in part because there are 5 PCs instead of 4, and in part because they skipped some of the XP from Burnt Offerings, by not dealing with the bunyip or Malfeshkenor.

I did increase the number of enemies for encounters with multiple creatures some to account for the extra PC, and added some story awards for finishing each book, as well as for "figuring out things" related to investigations and piecing together some of the back story involved in the first two books as well.

Dark Archive

This may have already been asked before but I assume new bits of art will be introduced in the hardcover book? Also in said art will it just be the 4 Iconics from the origonal or will the others be in there as well?


James Jacobs wrote:
Sleep-Walker wrote:

Hey James,

How would you limit the use of a Lyre of Building in a non-Kingmaker game?

I mean would you put limits on it? If not what kind of humans do you use as the base 100 humans [laborers, unskilled, craftsman etc]

Thanks

I wouldn't put limits on it. If I had a problem with a lyre of building's long-term campaign effects, I just wouldn't put them into the game nor would I allow them to be purchased.

Sorry for the follow-up.

So using the Lyre of Building as it is written....

1) Does the player need to provide the materials?
2) How skilled are these 100 humans? I mean building a mine requires some skills.
3) Is there any reason [apart from fatigue/hunger/thirst] why the person cannot play the thing for a week straight?
4) Don't you think its a bit good for a 13k item?


I've been going over the First Worlder, and I still think more fey should be added to the Summon Nature's Ally spell for it.

Do you agree?

If so, what fey would you add?

EDIT: Also, Moonlight Summons and Sunlight Summons kind of negates the benefits of Starlight Summons, was that intentional? Are we supposed to only really choose one of those feats or take them all?


Is the term/name "Darklands" IP of Paizo or is it OGL?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

JoelF847 wrote:

I certainly gave out XP for the haunts. The XP shortfall is in part because I'm using the medium advancement, in part because there are 5 PCs instead of 4, and in part because they skipped some of the XP from Burnt Offerings, by not dealing with the bunyip or Malfeshkenor.

I did increase the number of enemies for encounters with multiple creatures some to account for the extra PC, and added some story awards for finishing each book, as well as for "figuring out things" related to investigations and piecing together some of the back story involved in the first two books as well.

There's your problem right there.

Rise of the Runelords used 3.5's XP progression, which is, in fact, even FASTER than the Fast XP track we provide in Pathfinder. Having more than 4 PCs certainly didn't help the situation.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kevin Mack wrote:
This may have already been asked before but I assume new bits of art will be introduced in the hardcover book? Also in said art will it just be the 4 Iconics from the origonal or will the others be in there as well?

There's a LOT of new art coming in the Hardcover. I'm not sure how much art we're replacing overall... but it might be more than half of it overall.

We aren't changing around any of the iconics in the art.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sleep-Walker wrote:

So using the Lyre of Building as it is written....

1) Does the player need to provide the materials?
2) How skilled are these 100 humans? I mean building a mine requires some skills.
3) Is there any reason [apart from fatigue/hunger/thirst] why the person cannot play the thing for a week straight?
4) Don't you think its a bit good for a 13k item?

1) Yes. The lyre only provides the energy to construct things. It can't create materials. You'd need a big stack of lumber or stone, along with the mortar and nails and all that. The lyre only replaces the tools and the people you need to wield the tools.

2) They're "workmanlike." Aka, the lyre doesn't make things artistic at all, or particularly well-made. It's pretty much the bare minimum skill required to get it done.

3) As long as you can keep making those DC 18 Perform checks, you can keep building with the lyre. I'd say that, as with ANY action requiring work (such as traveling), after 8 hours of making perform checks you'd start to become fatigued and exhausted and all that, and eventually you WILL collapse from exhaustion. At a certain point, though, you'll run out of materials (see #1 above) and have to stop anyway. If I were the GM, I'd probably just limit the use of this item to a maximum of 8 hours at a time, regardless of how bad-ass your Perform checks were.

4) How many times have you seen a PC buy this item? I've never seen it happen. I think that it's price is, if anything, TOO much, as a result. (Shrug) If you think it's too inexpensive and you want players in your game to actually have to build things by hand, just get rid of it in your game.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

That Guy With the Fox wrote:

I've been going over the First Worlder, and I still think more fey should be added to the Summon Nature's Ally spell for it.

Do you agree?

If so, what fey would you add?

EDIT: Also, Moonlight Summons and Sunlight Summons kind of negates the benefits of Starlight Summons, was that intentional? Are we supposed to only really choose one of those feats or take them all?

Adding more fey to the lists is fine... I wanted to keep them relatively short because I didn't want to "force" people to buy more books than the two bestiaries just to play the class, but also because limiting it to one or two creatures gives the ability more flavor than if each one had so many choices that it just became, essentially, a random list. Furthermore, adding TOO many more choices makes it harder to play the character by introducing more opportunities for option paralysis. And finally... you can define things as much as what they CAN'T do as by what they CAN do. So, go ahead and (if your GM is fine with it) add more summons to the list... but limiting the options does do a lot more than just limit options. I wouldn't allow more fey to be added to the list in my game, unless you as the First Worlder underwent some sort of quest to earn the right to add a new creature to your list.

I believe the idea with Moonlight, Starlight, and Sunlight Summons Feats are that you would pick which one matches your character's themes and personality and history best, not that you'd pick all three. Just as all three of those types of light don't all necessarily work well together (or even exist together), the feats don't have to work well together. Whether or not you want to take all three or just take one is up to you—since they're not all part of the same chain of feats that require each other to work (like Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack, for example), we don't really expect anyone will take all three. They'll just take the one they like the best.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Obakararuir wrote:
Is the term/name "Darklands" IP of Paizo or is it OGL?

The Darklands, like Cheliax or Varisia or Taldor, is part of Golarion, and as such it is part of Paizo's intellectual property and is not part of the OGL... except in cases, I suppose, where it gets put into part of a feat name or spell name or whatever. But the concept of a tripartite underground realm being called the Darklands is absolutely Paizo IP.

I get the feeling you're not asking the whole question, though... I'd like to know why you want to know this?


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber

Question about the swarm subtype -

Swarms possess the distraction universal monster rule. Spellcasting or concentrating on spells within the area of a swarm requires a caster level check (DC 20 + spell level). Using skills that involve patience and concentration requires a DC 20 Will save.

Is this correct? Caster level checks seem to apply to spells like dispel magic and the like. It seems strange to have a unique non-concentration check just for swarm distractions.

Shouldn't this be a concentration check?


What are your favorite wizard prestige classes or wizard schools?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Run, Just Run wrote:
What are your favorite wizard prestige classes or wizard schools?

Hmmm... my favorite wizard school is probably enchantment. I haven't played enough wizards to have a favorite prestige class, but an arcane trickster wizard has tempted me for some time... Problem is I can't seem to ever want to play anything other than a cleric or a bard or a rogue these days.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Tirion Jörðhár wrote:

Question about the swarm subtype -

Swarms possess the distraction universal monster rule. Spellcasting or concentrating on spells within the area of a swarm requires a caster level check (DC 20 + spell level). Using skills that involve patience and concentration requires a DC 20 Will save.

Is this correct? Caster level checks seem to apply to spells like dispel magic and the like. It seems strange to have a unique non-concentration check just for swarm distractions.

Shouldn't this be a concentration check?

Probably makes a lot of sense for it to be a concentration check. That's what I'd do in my games.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
I personally find the tone of the AP forums vastly more pleasant than the majority of forums that staff are somewhat obligated to look through (playtests and rules forums I am looking at you!)

Hear hear!

I'd like to chime in on the whole Lyre of Building thing, that it sounds really fantastic. I'd have word spread about this bard as far as Absalom. A legendary bard, weaving a kingdom out of song.

I'm unfamiliar with the kingdom building rules, but is there a role for players who actively contribute? I'd add a flat circumstance bonus (+10?) to this player's rolls throughout the downtime. I wouldn't worry about things being unbalanced. Your player will get bored of "I build x, x, x, and y." pretty quickly.


James Jacobs wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
Is the term/name "Darklands" IP of Paizo or is it OGL?

The Darklands, like Cheliax or Varisia or Taldor, is part of Golarion, and as such it is part of Paizo's intellectual property and is not part of the OGL... except in cases, I suppose, where it gets put into part of a feat name or spell name or whatever. But the concept of a tripartite underground realm being called the Darklands is absolutely Paizo IP.

I get the feeling you're not asking the whole question, though... I'd like to know why you want to know this?

On the other hand, use of the name "Darklands" to denote something other than a tripartite underground realm can't possibly be Paizo IP, most obviously because Joe Dever's "Lone Wolf" series has been using it for twenty years or more to denote the territory of the world of Magnamund ruled over by the Darklords of Naar.


Also you're probably sick of us self-entitled GMs badgering you, James... But have you had much to do with the Skinsaw Murder's rewrite?

Do you have any advice on assigning the haunts to a group of too-few or too-many players? Mine ended up being really sporadic with a group of 3. They were triggered by the few players I could coax out of the safety of the hallways.

I definately need to do a lot more prep work next time to scare the bajeezus out of my PCs. Things creeping around the halls. Creaking doors. Curtains flickering. I want to prepare a whole lot of descriptions to keep my PCs on their toes, so it doesnt become a crawl from haunt to haunt next time I run it.

I'm not sure having ghouls in the house is too much or not, but I had an isolated PC who was just asking to dissapear. I let him off, because I didn't want to feel petty. We'd just had a disagreement over the rules for breaking objects.

But really, staying in the basement, banging on an iron door while the party run upstairs. Why did I waste an opportunity like this? I have a lot to learn about GMing.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
Is the term/name "Darklands" IP of Paizo or is it OGL?

The Darklands, like Cheliax or Varisia or Taldor, is part of Golarion, and as such it is part of Paizo's intellectual property and is not part of the OGL... except in cases, I suppose, where it gets put into part of a feat name or spell name or whatever. But the concept of a tripartite underground realm being called the Darklands is absolutely Paizo IP.

I get the feeling you're not asking the whole question, though... I'd like to know why you want to know this?

On the other hand, use of the name "Darklands" to denote something other than a tripartite underground realm can't possibly be Paizo IP, most obviously because Joe Dever's "Lone Wolf" series has been using it for twenty years or more to denote the territory of the world of Magnamund ruled over by the Darklords of Naar.

Correct... although you'd probably confuse and befuddle Pathfinder fans if you did a Pathfinder compatible product that used a Darklands that WASN'T a tripartite underground realm, which would probably annoy your customers in a way that would not result in better sales or customer loyalty. Just like we'd probably not win over any Greyhawk fans if we put a region called the Sea of Dus into Golarion and made that place into something entirely different than the Sea of Dust that appears in Greyhawk.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Twigs wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
I personally find the tone of the AP forums vastly more pleasant than the majority of forums that staff are somewhat obligated to look through (playtests and rules forums I am looking at you!)

Hear hear!

I'd like to chime in on the whole Lyre of Building thing, that it sounds really fantastic. I'd have word spread about this bard as far as Absalom. A legendary bard, weaving a kingdom out of song.

I'm unfamiliar with the kingdom building rules, but is there a role for players who actively contribute? I'd add a flat circumstance bonus (+10?) to this player's rolls throughout the downtime. I wouldn't worry about things being unbalanced. Your player will get bored of "I build x, x, x, and y." pretty quickly.

Well... if you allow lyres of building in your game as what they are (mid-powered magic items), there'll be plenty in the world already and some would have definitely been used IN Absalom over the past several thousand years. Heck, Absalom itself and the entire island it sits on was created by a single wizard WITHOUT using a magic item. News of someone using a lyre of building somewhere else would not really impress Absalom as a result, any more so than would news of someone using a +3 longsword or a ring of water walking would.

The kingdom building rules are detailed in full in Pathfinder #32, and they involve the entire party. And I believe they incorporate the lyre into their rules, although it's been a while since I wrote the rules...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Twigs wrote:

Also you're probably sick of us self-entitled GMs badgering you, James... But have you had much to do with the Skinsaw Murder's rewrite?

Do you have any advice on assigning the haunts to a group of too-few or too-many players? Mine ended up being really sporadic with a group of 3. They were triggered by the few players I could coax out of the safety of the hallways.

I definately need to do a lot more prep work next time to scare the bajeezus out of my PCs. Things creeping around the halls. Creaking doors. Curtains flickering. I want to prepare a whole lot of descriptions to keep my PCs on their toes, so it doesnt become a crawl from haunt to haunt next time I run it.

I'm not sure having ghouls in the house is too much or not, but I had an isolated PC who was just asking to dissapear. I let him off, because I didn't want to feel petty. We'd just had a disagreement over the rules for breaking objects.

But really, staying in the basement, banging on an iron door while the party run upstairs. Why did I waste an opportunity like this? I have a lot to learn about GMing.

I was the one who developed and actually designed the haunts in The Skinsaw Murders, and I'm also the one in charge of the Runelords Hardcover update. Whether or not I'll be keeping the "assign haunts to the players" element in the haunted house or whether I'll be adjusting those haunts to function as normal haunts, I can't say yet.

But as for adjusting things to a group with more or less than 4 players, I'd probably try to make sure that ALL the haunts were assigned, even if that means that some players had to share haunts or if some haunts had to share players.

As for disruptive players who insist on doing their own thing like wandering away from the rest of the group to rile up monsters on their own... that's a hard lesson for a lot of GMs to learn. But yeah, you probably should have taken that player aside into another room and have had a bunch of diseased rats or ghouls attack him. Give him a chance to realize the error of his ways and run away, but if he doesn't... the rest of the group will probably have to fight one more ghoul than normal and they'll end up with one less player.


Thoughts on this?


James Jacobs wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
Is the term/name "Darklands" IP of Paizo or is it OGL?

The Darklands, like Cheliax or Varisia or Taldor, is part of Golarion, and as such it is part of Paizo's intellectual property and is not part of the OGL... except in cases, I suppose, where it gets put into part of a feat name or spell name or whatever. But the concept of a tripartite underground realm being called the Darklands is absolutely Paizo IP.

I get the feeling you're not asking the whole question, though... I'd like to know why you want to know this?

Unfortunate as it is, since I've switched systems from 3.5 to PF for the development of my campaign setting, I haven't had whole lot of time to look through Golorian. I only knew bits and pieces. A term I had heard was "Darklands".

I'm looking for a name for the underground region of my CS. Its a great deal important because a race has a huge complex within it.... having its own name, just as different regions of the surface world have different names, so do the regions of my subterrainean world.

I was looking for something to call it as a whole, a generic term. As Darklands is a porper term and not generic in the system that is Pathfinder, I'll move on. My world's subterrain isn't by design or specification tripartite. Irregardless, you've answered my question, but if I haven't let you know why or what my full question was then please feel free to ask.


James Jacobs wrote:
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
Is the term/name "Darklands" IP of Paizo or is it OGL?

The Darklands, like Cheliax or Varisia or Taldor, is part of Golarion, and as such it is part of Paizo's intellectual property and is not part of the OGL... except in cases, I suppose, where it gets put into part of a feat name or spell name or whatever. But the concept of a tripartite underground realm being called the Darklands is absolutely Paizo IP.

I get the feeling you're not asking the whole question, though... I'd like to know why you want to know this?

On the other hand, use of the name "Darklands" to denote something other than a tripartite underground realm can't possibly be Paizo IP, most obviously because Joe Dever's "Lone Wolf" series has been using it for twenty years or more to denote the territory of the world of Magnamund ruled over by the Darklords of Naar.

Correct... although you'd probably confuse and befuddle Pathfinder fans if you did a Pathfinder compatible product that used a Darklands that WASN'T a tripartite underground realm, which would probably annoy your customers in a way that would not result in better sales or customer loyalty. Just like we'd probably not win over any Greyhawk fans if we put a region called the Sea of Dus into Golarion and made that place into something entirely different than the Sea of Dust that appears in Greyhawk.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

And in this I whole-heartly agree... I do apologize for the ambiguity of the question. I was wondering if Darklands when referring to the subterrain of a Pathfinder based Campaign Setting was a common or proper name. Was it in the Material Plane category or the Inner Sea category. As it was in the Inner Sea category... I'll move on.

Secondly, to avoid what you were talking about in your first reply James, how would I attack the situation where I want to use a feat or spell (Game mechanic) that has Darklands in the name?

I see a bit of Mel's vs Melf's here. Would I still be able to use it without the Darklands portion of the title and/or text and credit it the original works in Sec 15?


Obakararuir wrote:

Secondly, to avoid what you were talking about in your first reply James, how would I attack the situation where I want to use a feat or spell (Game mechanic) that has Darklands in the name?

I see a bit of Mel's vs Melf's here. Would I still be able to use it without the Darklands portion of the title and/or text and credit it the original works in Sec 15?

Underlands? Cavernlands? Darkbad? Scarytown? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:

Secondly, to avoid what you were talking about in your first reply James, how would I attack the situation where I want to use a feat or spell (Game mechanic) that has Darklands in the name?

I see a bit of Mel's vs Melf's here. Would I still be able to use it without the Darklands portion of the title and/or text and credit it the original works in Sec 15?

Underlands? Cavernlands? Darkbad? Scarytown? :)

Subterranean evil twin races land?


Kajehase wrote:
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:

Secondly, to avoid what you were talking about in your first reply James, how would I attack the situation where I want to use a feat or spell (Game mechanic) that has Darklands in the name?

I see a bit of Mel's vs Melf's here. Would I still be able to use it without the Darklands portion of the title and/or text and credit it the original works in Sec 15?

Underlands? Cavernlands? Darkbad? Scarytown? :)
Subterranean evil twin races land?

I've got it.... S'dnalkrads'nairologton.

"Can you spell that?" "Not a chance." - R.A. Salvatore on hip shooting a name, proper house name, rank, and city of origin for his Barbarian warrior's side kick... the dark elf.

No like I said before I was wanting a PF System generic name. IE Material Plane. If there isn't one that's fine, I was just wondering is all.


Are sliding doors common in minkai?

Does giving player a strength check as an immediate action if they are standing in front directly in front of an open door and the doorframe when hold portal is cast seem like a resonable house rule. Having it close with them standing there going through it makes little sense.

Dark Archive

what would you do, if you James Jacobs got teleported into Sandpoint as you are now?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

JMD031 wrote:
Thoughts on this?

Awesome!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Obakararuir wrote:

Unfortunate as it is, since I've switched systems from 3.5 to PF for the development of my campaign setting, I haven't had whole lot of time to look through Golorian. I only knew bits and pieces. A term I had heard was "Darklands".

I'm looking for a name for the underground region of my CS. Its a great deal important because a race has a huge complex within it.... having its own name, just as different regions of the surface world have different names, so do the regions of my subterrainean world.

I was looking for something to call it as a whole, a generic term. As Darklands is a porper term and not generic in the system that is Pathfinder, I'll move on. My world's subterrain isn't by design or specification tripartite. Irregardless, you've answered my question, but if I haven't let you know why or what my full question was then please feel free to ask.

Well... if you have no plans to publish your setting, you can call your underland world anything you want: Darklands, Underdark, Deepearth, the Underworld, the Deep Roads... It doesn't matter if the name's taken by another game if the name is just for your home games, and you can make any changes you want. It only matters once you decide to publish your setting or make it public in some way (such as by putting the details on an open website that anyone can visit—a private website accessible only by password is okay).

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Obakararuir wrote:

Secondly, to avoid what you were talking about in your first reply James, how would I attack the situation where I want to use a feat or spell (Game mechanic) that has Darklands in the name?

I see a bit of Mel's vs Melf's here. Would I still be able to use it without the Darklands portion of the title and/or text and credit it the original works in Sec 15?

My understanding is that you could use the name as is, but just not in the context. You wouldn't be able to explain WHY the theoretical spell is called "breath of the Darklands" at all, which might be annoying to you. A better solution would simply to be to rename it to something like "breath of the underworld" or something like that in your publication... or just to not use the spell at all.

At our end, we do try to avoid using IP names in our hardcover prodcts, but sometimes we do.

It's not quite the same thing as "Melf" though, since there's nothing in the spell "acid arrow" that requires anyone to know who or what a Melf is.

And again... is there a specific use of the word "Darklands" that you're talking about? If this is all just academic... I'm not sure there's much else I need to say...


James Jacobs wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:

Unfortunate as it is, since I've switched systems from 3.5 to PF for the development of my campaign setting, I haven't had whole lot of time to look through Golorian. I only knew bits and pieces. A term I had heard was "Darklands".

I'm looking for a name for the underground region of my CS. Its a great deal important because a race has a huge complex within it.... having its own name, just as different regions of the surface world have different names, so do the regions of my subterrainean world.

I was looking for something to call it as a whole, a generic term. As Darklands is a porper term and not generic in the system that is Pathfinder, I'll move on. My world's subterrain isn't by design or specification tripartite. Irregardless, you've answered my question, but if I haven't let you know why or what my full question was then please feel free to ask.

Well... if you have no plans to publish your setting, you can call your underland world anything you want: Darklands, Underdark, Deepearth, the Underworld, the Deep Roads... It doesn't matter if the name's taken by another game if the name is just for your home games, and you can make any changes you want. It only matters once you decide to publish your setting or make it public in some way (such as by putting the details on an open website that anyone can visit—a private website accessible only by password is okay).

And I do plan on publishing... which is why I asked. Don't exactly have the money to hire another lawyer to spell all this out for me so I'm doing the best I can. It's a solo project, one of which I started in August 2008 while in Iraq. Once I do have a publishable draft, I'll hire a lawyer and talk over possible points of contention.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Obakararuir wrote:
Kajehase wrote:
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:

Secondly, to avoid what you were talking about in your first reply James, how would I attack the situation where I want to use a feat or spell (Game mechanic) that has Darklands in the name?

I see a bit of Mel's vs Melf's here. Would I still be able to use it without the Darklands portion of the title and/or text and credit it the original works in Sec 15?

Underlands? Cavernlands? Darkbad? Scarytown? :)
Subterranean evil twin races land?

I've got it.... S'dnalkrads'nairologton.

"Can you spell that?" "Not a chance." - R.A. Salvatore on hip shooting a name, proper house name, rank, and city of origin for his Barbarian warrior's side kick... the dark elf.

No like I said before I was wanting a PF System generic name. IE Material Plane. If there isn't one that's fine, I was just wondering is all.

The best choice for a generic name for a big deep underground realm is probably: "The Underground." Or perhaps "The Underworld."

Both of those are not only generic, but to pretty much all gamers, those words immediately tell them what it is you're talking about without you needing to explain anything. In that regard, "The Underground" works even better.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
doctor_wu wrote:

Are sliding doors common in minkai?

Does giving player a strength check as an immediate action if they are standing in front directly in front of an open door and the doorframe when hold portal is cast seem like a resonable house rule. Having it close with them standing there going through it makes little sense.

Yup; there are sliding doors in Minkai, just like in Japan.

The way I see it... hold portal can't be cast on an open door. The door has to be closed before it's held, just as a door has to be closed before you lock it. I know it doesn't say in the spell "The door must be closed for this spell to work," but neither does the spell say "If the door is open, this spell causes it to slam shut quickly enough that it might knock down or otherwise mess with someone in the doorway."

I think this is a case of you reading too much into the spell; I'd say that you can't catch someone in a door with hold portal at all since the door has to be closed before you can hold/lock it anyway. BUT IF YOU DID... I'd make it a new spell called slam door or something like that, and I'd not involve Strength at all. I'd give the PC a Reflex save to decide what side of the door he wants to stand on.

A more complex version of it would be to assign the door a CMB check and then roll that against the player's CMD to see if it pushes the player out of the way or pins him in the door. Those things are all beyond what a hold portal spell can normally do, though, and if you pull that kind of stunt you can expect to see the players start using hold portal in the same exact way, so take care!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Obakararuir wrote:
And I do plan on publishing... which is why I asked. Don't exactly have the money to hire another lawyer to spell all this out for me so I'm doing the best I can. It's a solo project, one of which I started in August 2008 while in Iraq. Once I do have a publishable draft, I'll hire a lawyer and talk over possible points of contention.

Involving an IP Lawyer is a smart move for anyone who's seeking to publish, honestly. And publishing your own setting and coming up with your own unique names for regions in that setting is even smarter—it builds your setting into something you can be proud of, for one, but that's YOURS and not some sort of shared world type thing. In which case, I can't really offer you advice on what to do with your underworld, of course.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ulgulanoth wrote:
what would you do, if you James Jacobs got teleported into Sandpoint as you are now?

I'd start looking for a job. Probably as some sort of spooky mind reader since I'd know more about the town than anyone else, but maybe as a treasure hunter. Because I don't have any gp on me and would need to earn some to pay for food and lodging and clothes and stuff. BUT! Quest #1 would be to make enough cash to go buy some curried salmon at the Rusty Dragon.


James Jacobs wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
And I do plan on publishing... which is why I asked. Don't exactly have the money to hire another lawyer to spell all this out for me so I'm doing the best I can. It's a solo project, one of which I started in August 2008 while in Iraq. Once I do have a publishable draft, I'll hire a lawyer and talk over possible points of contention.
Involving an IP Lawyer is a smart move for anyone who's seeking to publish, honestly. And publishing your own setting and coming up with your own unique names for regions in that setting is even smarter—it builds your setting into something you can be proud of, for one, but that's YOURS and not some sort of shared world type thing. In which case, I can't really offer you advice on what to do with your underworld, of course.

Oh I am proud of the work I've put into this thing. Staying original is one of the hardest things to do really. Especially since in order to copyright my material it has to be publishable within the next two years and I can't dedicate the amount of time needed to make that happen because of my obligations to the Army.

Still pisses me off... Prince Edward Cullen... then that whole damn Twilight series surfaces and poof... there goes the name sake of one of my backstory's key players.

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

James Jacobs wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
what would you do, if you James Jacobs got teleported into Sandpoint as you are now?
I'd start looking for a job. Probably as some sort of spooky mind reader since I'd know more about the town than anyone else, but maybe as a treasure hunter. Because I don't have any gp on me and would need to earn some to pay for food and lodging and clothes and stuff. BUT! Quest #1 would be to make enough cash to go buy some curried salmon at the Rusty Dragon.

Would your story of travelling from another world and the strange and wonderous things back on Earth be enough of an adventure story for Ameiko to give you a free meal and room for a bit? (assuming it's before she heads over to Minkai.)


Hi James , sorry for asking this type of question.

In a future announcement(sooner,sooner please!!!!) of an epic/mystic level book , will it have a playtest on the rules ?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

kaymanklynman wrote:

Hi James , sorry for asking this type of question.

In a future announcement(sooner,sooner please!!!!) of an epic/mystic level book , will it have a playtest on the rules ?

If we do a Mythic level book... we'd be kind of stupid, I think, considering our track record of doing playtests, to NOT do a playtest of the Mythic rules, don't you think?


James Jacobs wrote:
kaymanklynman wrote:

Hi James , sorry for asking this type of question.

In a future announcement(sooner,sooner please!!!!) of an epic/mystic level book , will it have a playtest on the rules ?

If we do a Mythic level book... we'd be kind of stupid, I think, considering our track record of doing playtests, to NOT do a playtest of the Mythic rules, don't you think?

Yes.

Thanks.

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

Since the Pathfinders have appropriated several related Azlanti magic items (wayfinders, their connections to ioun stones, and the pathfinder coin), and presumably they don't know the full history and original purpose for these items and their connection, will it ever be revealed what the Azlanti actually created these interacting items for? I.e. is there a secret to them that might one day be revealed?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

James Jacobs wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:

Secondly, to avoid what you were talking about in your first reply James, how would I attack the situation where I want to use a feat or spell (Game mechanic) that has Darklands in the name?

I see a bit of Mel's vs Melf's here. Would I still be able to use it without the Darklands portion of the title and/or text and credit it the original works in Sec 15?

My understanding is that you could use the name as is, but just not in the context. You wouldn't be able to explain WHY the theoretical spell is called "breath of the Darklands" at all, which might be annoying to you. A better solution would simply to be to rename it to something like "breath of the underworld" or something like that in your publication... or just to not use the spell at all.

At our end, we do try to avoid using IP names in our hardcover prodcts, but sometimes we do.

It's not quite the same thing as "Melf" though, since there's nothing in the spell "acid arrow" that requires anyone to know who or what a Melf is.

And again... is there a specific use of the word "Darklands" that you're talking about? If this is all just academic... I'm not sure there's much else I need to say...

Actually, the answer to that is that our declaration of Product Identity (that is, the stuff you can't use under the OGL) includes proper names, which "Darklands" is. So if we had such a spell, then, like the Melf's Acid Arrow example, you'd need to change the name.

11,201 to 11,250 of 83,601 << first < prev | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 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.