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


Off-Topic Discussions

11,951 to 12,000 of 83,732 << first < prev | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:

Would it be a possibility or a good idea for Paizo to do a Gazetteer style book for a continent ever 2 or 3 years?

I'm honestly not sure. The Inner Sea World Guide is doing quite well... but that's probably because it's supported by about 200 pages of support content a month. How well would a hardcover of similar size do if it only got about 200 pages of support content a year or even less? Probably not nearly as well...
I meant like the 64 page style ones.

OH! Gotcha.

Well... perhaps. The Dragon Empires Gazetteer was hands down the HARDEST 64 page book I've had to build, so unless there's a really really really good reason... like, say, an Adventure Path that's involved... I'd rather not. :-P

But we will see a Gazetteer for the Shackles, right?

Pretty please?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Vinland Forever wrote:
cibet44 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


I do agree that there are plenty of areas of the current game that could use revision—number one being the way we present information in the book. But I'm not really keen on an incremental "edition change" like what 3.5 was marketed as.

But would Lisa be keen on it?
Lisa knows what's best for gaming, trust me.
Just use the "Call of Cthullu" model where the game is forever compatible with itself no matter the "version".
This. I don't want to shell out a couple hundred bucks for a new set of rulebooks every time the game gets some revision.

The RIGHT revision is the one that you won't MIND shelling out more money for the revised book.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:

Would it be a possibility or a good idea for Paizo to do a Gazetteer style book for a continent ever 2 or 3 years?

I'm honestly not sure. The Inner Sea World Guide is doing quite well... but that's probably because it's supported by about 200 pages of support content a month. How well would a hardcover of similar size do if it only got about 200 pages of support content a year or even less? Probably not nearly as well...
I meant like the 64 page style ones.

OH! Gotcha.

Well... perhaps. The Dragon Empires Gazetteer was hands down the HARDEST 64 page book I've had to build, so unless there's a really really really good reason... like, say, an Adventure Path that's involved... I'd rather not. :-P

But we will see a Gazetteer for the Shackles, right?

Pretty please?

Wellllll... there's this. That count?


James Jacobs wrote:


Hmmm... I'm not sure. Looking more closely, as written, the totem warrior archetype doesn't really do anything. I'd assumed that it was the prerequisite for you to gain totem rage powers... but you don't need this archetype to do that. Looks like to me it's merely nothing more than a guideline for a player who wants some advice on which rage powers to pick, in which case, it's not an archetype an experienced player really ever needs to be concerned about.

Haven't tried Douglas Fir tea.

Give pine/fir tea a try next time you make it to the farmers market or just bluck some of the bright green needle clusters in the spring. It mixes very well with rasberry/blackberry leaf teas.

More than happy with the archetype being a guideline. It is a great way to add some color to your barbarian, and hey it has no cost so all is good.

Then UC came out and gave us this bit o'text

Ultimate combat wrote:


Totem rage powers grant powers related to a theme. A barbarian cannot select from more than one group of totem rage powers; for example, a barbarian who selects a beast totem rage power (see the Advanced Player's Guide) cannot later choose to gain any of the dragon totem rage powers (any rage power with “dragon totem” in its title), unless she has the totem warrior archetype.

Bolding mine.

So now in the post UC world Totem Warriors can take beast powers and spirit powers etc. As an idea it is great. The Totem Warrior now has a benefit, but it still has no cost.

This seems odd. Admited I can nix the UC text in my own games but was wondering if I failed to understand something along the line or if Pathfinder is moving away from the one totem line only as there is no reason for a barbarian not to be a Totem Warrior and freely mix and match totem powers.


James Jacobs wrote:
Vinland Forever wrote:
cibet44 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


I do agree that there are plenty of areas of the current game that could use revision—number one being the way we present information in the book. But I'm not really keen on an incremental "edition change" like what 3.5 was marketed as.

But would Lisa be keen on it?
Lisa knows what's best for gaming, trust me.
Just use the "Call of Cthullu" model where the game is forever compatible with itself no matter the "version".
This. I don't want to shell out a couple hundred bucks for a new set of rulebooks every time the game gets some revision.
The RIGHT revision is the one that you won't MIND shelling out more money for the revised book.

I'd shell out for one or two revised books, but for a whole set (CRB, APG, UM, UC, Bestiaries, and so on) every time the game gets a revision? That's where I balk.


Dal Selpher wrote:
With those criteria, who would you cast as ... Karzoug?
Evil Lincoln wrote:
please say max von sydow please say max von sydow please say max von sydow
James Jacobs wrote:
That's also an excellent choice.

Citation

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Dal Selpher wrote:
With those criteria, who would you cast as ... Karzoug?
Evil Lincoln wrote:
please say max von sydow please say max von sydow please say max von sydow
James Jacobs wrote:
That's also an excellent choice.
Citation

Chow Yun Fat Counter-Citation #1

Chow Yun Fat Counter-Citation #2


I just discovered that a popular fantasy video game's official RPG is being marketed as 4 Sets of books (player's guide, gamemaster guide, world sourcebook). $30 a set, each set gives you 5 levels. When I read it I thought and still think it's outright highway robbery... Base rules and setting with future worldbooks is one thing, but to split up the base rules among 4 sets totaling a cost of $120 dollars? That's insane to me. Especially when even Pathfinder, being $40 and the Inner Sea World Guide being $30 that's only $70.

As far as money making, new players that only want to play the game world and have never done PnP roleplaying before might buy it, but it seems to me most old school gamers would just use D&D or Pathfinder and use the WIki/COllector's Edition Strategy guide (has extensive character and world info as the bonus)/novels to know the world to play. So, they might get a lot of money from a few, but it's like is it better to get $120 from 10 people, or $40 from 100 people?

What do you think of this?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

I just discovered that a popular fantasy video game's official RPG is being marketed as 4 Sets of books (player's guide, gamemaster guide, world sourcebook). $30 a set, each set gives you 5 levels. When I read it I thought and still think it's outright highway robbery... Base rules and setting with future worldbooks is one thing, but to split up the base rules among 4 sets totaling a cost of $120 dollars? That's insane to me. Especially when even Pathfinder, being $40 and the Inner Sea World Guide being $30 that's only $70.

As far as money making, new players that only want to play the game world and have never done PnP roleplaying before might buy it, but it seems to me most old school gamers would just use D&D or Pathfinder and use the WIki/COllector's Edition Strategy guide (has extensive character and world info as the bonus)/novels to know the world to play. So, they might get a lot of money from a few, but it's like is it better to get $120 from 10 people, or $40 from 100 people?

What do you think of this?

To be fair... the Bestiary is a pretty essential book, and so that adds another 40 bucks to the Pathfinder Price, bringing us up to $110... or $150 or even $190 depending on how much you want the 2nd and 3rd Bestiaries... and more than that once you roll in our other rulebooks and lines.

But frankly, if said other company can get away with charging $120 bucks four times for their game, good for them!

I've quoted Erik before: "Make things people like and they'll trade you money for them." If said other company makes books people like and they can make money on that business model... excellent!


James Jacobs wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Dal Selpher wrote:
With those criteria, who would you cast as ... Karzoug?
Evil Lincoln wrote:
please say max von sydow please say max von sydow please say max von sydow
James Jacobs wrote:
That's also an excellent choice.
Citation

Chow Yun Fat Counter-Citation #1

Chow Yun Fat Counter-Citation #2

I always envisioned Karzoug as having much more presence than that. As in enough presence to make a rakshasa blush. I don't think there is a mere human actor who can do that.


James Jacobs wrote:

Chow Yun Fat Counter-Citation #1

Chow Yun Fat Counter-Citation #2

But then... Max von Sydow's got the voice. And he was in Conan.

Maybe we can convince them to breed?


ANebulousMistress wrote:
I always envisioned Karzoug as having much more presence than that. As in enough presence to make a rakshasa blush. I don't think there is a mere human actor who can do that.

Blashphemy!

(we now return you to your regularly queried James Jacobs)


James Jacobs wrote:


To be fair... the Bestiary is a pretty essential book, and so that adds another 40 bucks to the Pathfinder Price, bringing us up to $110... or $150 or even $190 depending on how much you want the 2nd and 3rd Bestiaries... and more than that once you roll in our other rulebooks and lines.

But frankly, if said other company can get away with charging $120 bucks four times for their game, good for them!

I've quoted Erik before: "Make things people like and they'll trade you money for them." If said other company makes books people like and they can make money on that business model... excellent!

Well, first you misunderstood it's only $120 TOTAL (or will be, see below), but still. A big problem I think of it for me is the fact that it's split up like that, also the fact I didn't mention but "Set 1" came out a year ago, Set 2 just came out 3 months ago... So they are releasing the game 1/4 at a time over the course of who knows how long? I think that really is the biggest problem I have with it... not to mention Set 1 is apparently sold out. Having a Player's Guide, Bestiary, and World Guide wouldn't be so bad I think if it wasn't this 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20 thing... No players I have ever played with would be cool with putting a game on hiatus for as long as this staggered release would require.

Oh and also, it's only sold as a SET of books... so like with Pathfinder, as a GM I'd buy the Core rules, Bestiary, and World Guide... but why should my players all have to do so also? At most I'd like them to have the Core book, but that's it... they don't need the GM guide, the Bestiary(s), etc. That is why the price sticks me as excessive.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

What character level range do you most enjoy designing adventures for?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Well, first you misunderstood it's only $120 TOTAL (or will be, see below), but still. A big problem I think of it for me is the fact that it's split up like that, also the fact I didn't mention but "Set 1" came out a year ago, Set 2 just came out 3 months ago...

Are you talking about Dragon Age? Because its a great RPG. You are looking at it the wrong way. A group can spend $30 and get gaming right away. If you like the game enough to make it to level 5, you only need to spend another $30.

I'm certain a Set 1 reprint will arrive soon.


James, can you clarify the designers intent for the Samurai weapon expertise ability? Do they actually REQUIRE a fighter dip to take fighter weapon feats?

Magus, Eldritch Knight have similar abilities that DON'T require a dip.

Liberty's Edge

James, can you ask one of the guys responsible for the FAQ to give a temporary answer to this discussion?

The main argument has been already commented in another thread, but there is a doubt about this:

Double weapons wrote:
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

RAW it seem to allow the use of a double weapon with one hand, getting the damage modifier of one handed weapons.

To me using what is a two handed weapon one handed without any special training seem very far fetched. And visually horrible.
The image of a guy using a two bladed sword with one hand like it was a normal sword without caring what the other blade do make me suffer.

Edit:
There are weapons where this will work well, like a kusarigama were I see using the sickle side like a one handed weapon without problem (and will have problem seeing it used as a normal 2 handed weapon) others, like the afore mentioned two bladed sword or a Orc double axe where I see the weapon working well used to handed for powerful attacks but I have problems seeing them used one handed.

So maybe we need a explicit mention on how the weapon can be used in each weapon description?


James, do you have the feats necessary to dual-wield creative-directorship and rules-design?

Did you spend level feats on those, or are they bonus feats from a class of some kind?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

STR Ranger wrote:

James, can you clarify the designers intent for the Samurai weapon expertise ability? Do they actually REQUIRE a fighter dip to take fighter weapon feats?

Magus, Eldritch Knight have similar abilities that DON'T require a dip.

I could be mistaken, but I believe someone else (SKR?) might have already clarified that you don't actually need fighter levels for that. Bugger if I can find it, though. :P


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
STR Ranger wrote:

James, can you clarify the designers intent for the Samurai weapon expertise ability? Do they actually REQUIRE a fighter dip to take fighter weapon feats?

Magus, Eldritch Knight have similar abilities that DON'T require a dip.

I could be mistaken, but I believe someone else (SKR?) might have already clarified that you don't actually need fighter levels for that. Bugger if I can find it, though. :P

It would make perfect sense, since they stack. 0 level fighter + 4th level Samurai = 4th level


I agree but damned if i can find SKR's post. If James says yes I'll save this page till errata fixes it...

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

Since you've indicated that if at some point in the future Paizo creates rules for post level 20 play, they will be called something other than Epic level rules (with Mythic being the name being used for now at least) would it make sense to update future printings of the Bestiaries to replace damage reduction /epic with DR /mythic?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:


My take is that first of all, a lot of folks seem to have more fun arguing rules than just playing the game.

This is my assessment as well, for this reason I intend to keep my niece who I'm introducing to Pathfinder (which will be her first roleplaying game) away from these boards during her formative gaming years. She'll be gaming with people I know who also stay away from these boards for the same reason.

I don't consider this the fault of Paizo or it's staff who try their best to counter the trend. I see it as an inevitable result of any messageboard that caters to gamers. Any attempt to diminish it is much like King Canute ordering the tides.


To be honest poking and playing with the rules is a grand way to fill time between games. And can any of us honestly say that we only buy gaming books because we are going to play them rather than simply because they are interesting?

Or is it just me?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Poor Wandering One wrote:

To be honest poking and playing with the rules is a grand way to fill time between games. And can any of us honestly say that we only buy gaming books because we are going to play them rather than simply because they are interesting?

Or is it just me?

Arguing over rules is not what I consider an enjoyable past time. For me it's actually what others dismiss as "fluff" that I enjoy reading most when it comes to poring over game books between sessions.


LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


My take is that first of all, a lot of folks seem to have more fun arguing rules than just playing the game.

This is my assessment as well

I think a lot of people buy and read the rules and, with no group to play them with, just come to the boards (these and other) to argue about theoretical corner cases they dream up.

I also think these theoretical corner cases have a nasty habit of working their way into the minds of the developers and from there into the actual rules and end up impacting those that actually play the game, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ANebulousMistress wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Dal Selpher wrote:
With those criteria, who would you cast as ... Karzoug?
Evil Lincoln wrote:
please say max von sydow please say max von sydow please say max von sydow
James Jacobs wrote:
That's also an excellent choice.
Citation

Chow Yun Fat Counter-Citation #1

Chow Yun Fat Counter-Citation #2

I always envisioned Karzoug as having much more presence than that. As in enough presence to make a rakshasa blush. I don't think there is a mere human actor who can do that.

Actaully... in "Curse of the Golden Flower," which is actually a big inspiration for certain elements of Karzoug and Xin-Shalast and even Curse of the Crimson Throne (beyond the title even!), Chow Yun Fat does indeed have some pretty imposing presence going on. Which is why I've always seen him as playing Karzoug.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Lord Fyre wrote:


What character level range do you most enjoy designing adventures for?

High level. 13th level and above.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

James Jacobs wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:


What character level range do you most enjoy designing adventures for?
High level. 13th level and above.

For comparison, then, what level range do you most enjoy playing?

How about GMing?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
STR Ranger wrote:

James, can you clarify the designers intent for the Samurai weapon expertise ability? Do they actually REQUIRE a fighter dip to take fighter weapon feats?

Magus, Eldritch Knight have similar abilities that DON'T require a dip.

NO class should require multiclassing to work as its own class. That's a fundamental philosophy of Pathfinder's design.

When we say: "The samurai levels stack with fighter levels," that's the same as saying, "For the purposes of meeting the prerequisite for feats like Weapon Specialization normally only available to fighters, the samurai treats his samurai levels as fighter levels.

Thus, a 4th level Samurai can take Weapon Specialization without multiclassing.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:
James, can you ask one of the guys responsible for the FAQ to give a temporary answer to this discussion?

The FAQ process is a bit more complex than just "answer a question." The design team is working on the FAQ, but they're also doing a lot of other things. Have patience!

(What I'm not interested in doing, in other words, is setting a precident where I turn into the FAQ prod stick that folks can go to for some instant gratification on the illusion that the FAQ process will go faster than it can—it's going as fast as it pretty much can already, without me becoming super annoying to the team that's already doing the best they can to do their job.)

In the meantime, if something seems far-fetched or awkward to you... if you're the GM, make a ruling! If you're a player, talk to your GM!

And in the meantime, hit the FAQ button when you feel the need. We didn't just put it there as a decoration. We actually DO use those button pushes.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Evil Lincoln wrote:

James, do you have the feats necessary to dual-wield creative-directorship and rules-design?

Did you spend level feats on those, or are they bonus feats from a class of some kind?

Yes. That's how I was able to develop Kingmaker and build the kingdom building rules, for example. Or how I was able to outline and help design and develop Inner Sea World Guide. Or how I was able to do traits and haunts and chase rules while also writing Adventure Path Installments.

I did have to spend level feats on them, though.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

JoelF847 wrote:
Since you've indicated that if at some point in the future Paizo creates rules for post level 20 play, they will be called something other than Epic level rules (with Mythic being the name being used for now at least) would it make sense to update future printings of the Bestiaries to replace damage reduction /epic with DR /mythic?

Mythic is the word we've been using around the office for a few years for this type of play... and I actually suggested we replace DR /epic with something like DR /artifact or DR /mythic during the Bestiary's development, but folks were a lot more nervous about making significant changes to the game back then and we generally ended up erring on the side of not changing things that weren't broken.

DR /epic will still work even if we so Mythic rules, in any event. That's a good example of a fiddly little change that shouldn't happen to the current rules, but when we do a 2nd edition, would be a really good time to make the change.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Poor Wandering One wrote:

To be honest poking and playing with the rules is a grand way to fill time between games. And can any of us honestly say that we only buy gaming books because we are going to play them rather than simply because they are interesting?

Or is it just me?

It's certainly not me.

The way I fill time between games is by writing adventures or building world content and the like. (By extension, I generally buy adventures and world books for my own private use, not character crunch options.)

Poking and fiddling with rules isn't as fun for every gamer, in other words. It's worth keeping that perspective in mind.

I DO know that I've seen a lot of really passionate arguments about how rules should work and how things should be run in, say, the Pathfinder Society, from people that actually don't play the game—they just read the rules and fiddle with them.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:


What character level range do you most enjoy designing adventures for?
High level. 13th level and above.

For comparison, then, what level range do you most enjoy playing?

How about GMing?

I most enjoy playing and running high level games as well... BUT ONLY if I start said game at 1st level.

I suspect that the majority of people who complain about high level play being too complicated didn't get there organically—by running a group of players with the same characters from 1st level up to high levels. It's a much easier game if you spend all that time learning your character, learning the other PCs habits and tactics, and basically "practicing" in one-level increments over the course of months or years, than it is to just jump into new high level characters with people or character's you've never played with before.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
James, can you ask one of the guys responsible for the FAQ to give a temporary answer to this discussion?

The FAQ process is a bit more complex than just "answer a question." The design team is working on the FAQ, but they're also doing a lot of other things. Have patience!

(What I'm not interested in doing, in other words, is setting a precident where I turn into the FAQ prod stick that folks can go to for some instant gratification on the illusion that the FAQ process will go faster than it can—it's going as fast as it pretty much can already, without me becoming super annoying to the team that's already doing the best they can to do their job.)

In the meantime, if something seems far-fetched or awkward to you... if you're the GM, make a ruling! If you're a player, talk to your GM!

And in the meantime, hit the FAQ button when you feel the need. We didn't just put it there as a decoration. We actually DO use those button pushes.

About using you as a FAQ button, yes, you are right, and for that I apologize.

I have chosen the post that best exemplifies the problem and hit the button.

It is that it linked so well to something you said earlier, my problem is more one of "game aesthetic" that of what the rule actually do.

James Jacobs wrote:


I get the fact that the designers' rulings are, in theory, more accurate than mine... but as an adventure developer, I have a better grasp on how those rules actually interact with the game and adventures than the designers, and as such often have different insights into how the rules might play out. Often, a designer gives his answer from an empyrical stance, with the rules and only the rules associated with the answer. Often, a developer gives an answer from a aesthetic stance, with the rules interpreted in a way that makes for a better story. No one type of answer is any more right than the other—just depends on if you approach the rules from a mathematical or an artistic viewpoint.

As I am the GM I will rule separately for each weapon, looking at its shape and size.

Naturally I will let the players know before they spend feats or other resources in them.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Poor Wandering One wrote:

To be honest poking and playing with the rules is a grand way to fill time between games. And can any of us honestly say that we only buy gaming books because we are going to play them rather than simply because they are interesting?

Or is it just me?

It's certainly not me.

The way I fill time between games is by writing adventures or building world content and the like. (By extension, I generally buy adventures and world books for my own private use, not character crunch options.)

Poking and fiddling with rules isn't as fun for every gamer, in other words. It's worth keeping that perspective in mind.

I DO know that I've seen a lot of really passionate arguments about how rules should work and how things should be run in, say, the Pathfinder Society, from people that actually don't play the game—they just read the rules and fiddle with them.

Sometime poking at the rules is interesting and can give both ideas for adventures hooks or better insight on how some thing work.

The problem is that we can and sometime will get carried away.
I am a rule lawyer, I must confess, but at the same time I generally prefer what I think is RAI over RAW, and so I suffer from a form of split personality when dealing with the rules.

Off topic edit:
there seem to be some weird problem with formatting. Now I am getting empty lines were I haven't left spaces.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can one of the Skulls and Shackles campaign traits be "Cabin Boy"?


Does Geb have much of a navy and is it crewed by living or undead?

Do you think coal should be able to be recognized through knowledge dungonering even though it is not technically a mineral?

Liberty's Edge

doctor_wu wrote:


Do you think coal should be able to be recognized through knowledge dungonering even though it is not technically a mineral?

Nice question. And what you should use to recognize peat? :)

Beside the half jest, it is a question I have actually posed to myself as I am placing a peat bog in my Kingmaker game as a resource.
Less glamorous than a gold or silver mine, but as important for a town development.

For peat I think to accept both a geography, nature or dungeonering check.

For coal? Dungeoneering should work.
Engineering maybe? it is a bit strained, but coal is une of the resources you will be using and you need to recognize it.

Dark Archive

given the other thread... how would you handle PCs hitting on monstrous women like cloud giantes, medusa, harpies, ect?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Coridan wrote:
Can one of the Skulls and Shackles campaign traits be "Cabin Boy"?

HA!

That's more of a Rob question, though. But Ha nonetheless.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

doctor_wu wrote:

Does Geb have much of a navy and is it crewed by living or undead?

Do you think coal should be able to be recognized through knowledge dungonering even though it is not technically a mineral?

Geb's navy... there's a topic I haven't really thought much about. They certainly WOULD have skeletons and zombies rowing the galleys though.

As for coal being recognized through Knowledge (dungeoneering)... that would depend on what skills the PCs brought to the table and whether or not it's really important or fun for the PCs to learn this. I treat the Knowledge skills VERY loosy-goosy in games I run, since certain bits of information are important or fun and I don't want to lock the PCs out of them just because no one has any ranks in Knowledge (dungeoneering).

Heck, I'd probably even allow something like Profession (miner) or some other coal-using Profession (or even Craft) have a chance to recognize it.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

ulgulanoth wrote:
given the other thread... how would you handle PCs hitting on monstrous women like cloud giantes, medusa, harpies, ect?

Same way I'd handle PCs hitting on same-species people, honestly. Just with tougher Diplomacy checks or more dangerous requirements, which more deadly consequences for failure. Or for success, in some cases.

And a lot would depend on the NPC in question as well.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Or for success, in some cases.

Snu snu!

Dark Archive

You seem quite pleased/giddy about today's blog James, good for you !

;-)

Incidentally, it's been sometime since we've seen you on the blog.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

baron arem heshvaun wrote:

You seem quite pleased/giddy about today's blog James, good for you !

;-)

Incidentally, it's been sometime since we've seen you on the blog.

Which is why I'm giddy about it. I'm just happy to be back!


Will there be any new dinosaurs in the Bestiary III?
Also, is the name of the Court of Hateful Smiles a reference to the tendency of chimpanzees to "grin" as a sign of aggression?


Dear James Jacobs,

You might recall that that about six weeks ago, I asked you for some advice on a character I was making for a campaign I'm playing in (I'm the one that is playing a dual-cursed oracle with the mystery of life, to whom you suggested that I go for a lyrakin as the haunter).

Well, we played a few sessions and one thing that has become clear to me is that our campaign is suffering a little because we don't have any access to arcane magic as a party. In order to remedy this, I was thinking about going the Mystic Theurge route, picking up levels in witch to meet the arcane spellcaster prerequisites. The idea would be that through the storyline, I adopt some azata as my patorn, and eventually (using the Improved Familiar feat) I gain the lyrakin that's haunting me as my witch's familiar.

So, here are my questions:

#1 - Do you (or any of your readers) have any suggestions for what patron I should take mechanically? I think the obvious choice is the Healing patron, but at the same time, I'm trying to keep my party in mind; seeing as we don't have any arcane spellcasters and the witch is a little limited.

#2 - Do my levels in Mystic Theurge stack with my witch level for determining if and when I learn my patron's spells? How about which spells are added to my familiar?

#3 - When the lyrakin refers to me needing to be a 7th level spellcaster to select it as an Improved Familiar, does it mean that I need to be a 7th level witch, or do my mystic theurge levels count for determining if I qualify?

#4 - Does my witch's familiar gain any additional benefits from my levels in mystic theurge? I'd be kind of crappy if my living, breathing spellbook becomes easy to kill simply because I decided to multiclass.

#5 - Do you think this idea is going to be worth the "hassle" of having two spellcasting classes that are several levels behind my allies?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Troodos wrote:
Will there be any new dinosaurs in the Bestiary III?

As long as I'm involved in bestiaries, there shall be dinosaurs. I like to explain it as a Jacobs Tax for my assistance.

Troodos wrote:
Also, is the name of the Court of Hateful Smiles a reference to the tendency of chimpanzees to "grin" as a sign of aggression?

Nope. At least, not that I know of...

11,951 to 12,000 of 83,732 << first < prev | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards