|
If Bioware made a Pathfinder CRPG in the vein of Mass Effect or Dragon Age two, featuring the iconics as recruitable NPCs:
1) What race/class would you play?
2) Which iconics would you keep in your 4 man party (remembering your character takes one of the slots)?
3) Which character's romance quest would you like to complete?
James, do you think it would be unbalancing to allow, on a case by case basis, Fey to have the Undead or another type and the Fey type at the same time, with an explanation of which features of which type override features of the other type (such as hit dice, skills, and BAB)? I plan to use Fey heavily, and I may stat out some from my books of folklore. However, IRL the lines between a Fey and an Undead were very, very blurred, and a lot of creatures classified as Fey in folklore would fit the Undead type as logically as they would fit the Fey type. Therefore, I'm considering allowing some Fey to multitype if it makes sense for the folklore behind them.
An interesting idea that I think would need to be playtested before one could say how it might work out. Players and the way they interact with and freak out about damage reduction is a weird arena of possibilities....James, I wanted to run something by you to see if it makes sense. In my campaign setting, I'm considering making advanced firearms the most common weapons, with melee being mostly a secondary method of fighting. However, I want there to be some melee combat, so I came up with an idea to encourage it. Make metal based damage reduction common for magical creatures that favour melee combat. A blade is larger than a bullet, and therefore has more of the metal that bypasses the DR. Therefore, whenever they bypass DR, they get extra damage that a bullet wouldn't get, because they have so much more of the harmful materiel.
Does this explanation for why melee weapons are deadlier against creatures with DR make sense? Do you think it would encourage melee combat it certain circumstances while leaving firearms as the more common weapons?
To be clear about something, guns can still bypass DR fully, as can melee weapons. The change is that melee weapons do an as yet undetermined amount of bonus damage whenever they do this, while guns don't. This also only applies to metal based DR, not any other type of DR.
Can you link me to any past discussions I could read to get a better idea of how players feel about DR?
Rogue, ranger, witch, cleric, bard, bard, dawnflower dervish, because I like them, that last one had no question mark.favorite melee class?
favorite ranged class?
favorite full arcane caster class?
Favorite full divine caster?
favorite 3/4 bab class?
favorite partial caster?
Favorite archytype?
Why for all answers?
diplomacy or disguise check (depending on which is harder for you to succeed at noticing to get you too tell us when mythic level handbook will come out. 1d20+10
whoops, my disguise check worked on me not you ):
Creative Director
|
If Bioware made a Pathfinder CRPG in the vein of Mass Effect or Dragon Age two, featuring the iconics as recruitable NPCs:
1) What race/class would you play?
2) Which iconics would you keep in your 4 man party (remembering your character takes one of the slots)?
3) Which character's romance quest would you like to complete?
1) Human bard
2) Merisiel, Kyra, and Amiri
3) Merisiel's, of course!
|
Creative Director
|
James, do you think it would be unbalancing to allow, on a case by case basis, Fey to have the Undead or another type and the Fey type at the same time, with an explanation of which features of which type override features of the other type (such as hit dice, skills, and BAB)? I plan to use Fey heavily, and I may stat out some from my books of folklore. However, IRL the lines between a Fey and an Undead were very, very blurred, and a lot of creatures classified as Fey in folklore would fit the Undead type as logically as they would fit the Fey type. Therefore, I'm considering allowing some Fey to multitype if it makes sense for the folklore behind them.
Not unbalancing, but philosophically wrong. An undead is undead, not a fey. Monster types are not intended to be "multiclassable." Best you could probably get would be to make heavy use of undead templates on fey creatures.
|
Creative Director
|
To be clear about something, guns can still bypass DR fully, as can melee weapons. The change is that melee weapons do an as yet undetermined amount of bonus damage whenever they do this, while guns don't. This also only applies to metal based DR, not any other type of DR.
Can you link me to any past discussions I could read to get a better idea of how players feel about DR?
I cannot, since my experience with players and DR comes from playing the game.
Have you ever used an egg as a macguffin?
James, do you think it would be unbalancing to allow, on a case by case basis, Fey to have the Undead or another type and the Fey type at the same time, with an explanation of which features of which type override features of the other type (such as hit dice, skills, and BAB)? I plan to use Fey heavily, and I may stat out some from my books of folklore. However, IRL the lines between a Fey and an Undead were very, very blurred, and a lot of creatures classified as Fey in folklore would fit the Undead type as logically as they would fit the Fey type. Therefore, I'm considering allowing some Fey to multitype if it makes sense for the folklore behind them.Not unbalancing, but philosophically wrong. An undead is undead, not a fey. Monster types are not intended to be "multiclassable." Best you could probably get would be to make heavy use of undead templates on fey creatures.
The thing is, in folklore the two are often one and the same. There are a lot of undead fey creatures that I have read about. The thing is, I want to classify the fey I make as fey. I normally wouldn't suggest this type of thing, but history didn't have D&D's divide between monster types, and fey and undead get muddled together so much that I think I should make an exception to the rule against multiple types for this one case. There are enough such creatures to warrant the work of making a hybrid type, and like I said, the folklore I'm reading supports the idea that one can be both fey and undead.
Gah, I trundle off the Forums for a few weeks to help get our next campaign schedule set-up and there's over 150 posts in this channel, gah!
Continuing the line of questions about the Elder Scroll games, how did you like the idea that the High Elves had been taken over from within by a splinter group of Racial Purists and had used the chaos after Martin's death to take over the homelands of the Khajit and Wood Elves?
I was thrilled that Elves, especially the much-vaunted High Elves, were suddenly the Tamriel-version of Super Magic Nazis, and done so in a way that made me actively hate them and go out of my way, even when playing the Imperial route, to ruin them in Skyrim and free every last prisoner they had, and the almighty Empire was beginning to show some real injuries at the loss of the former Imperial Bloodline.
|
Can you make a stealth check, while in plain sight of another, when under a blur effect.
I don’t think you can, and below is my reasoning. But we have some rules lawyers demanding that you can because upthread you indicated blur provides concealment.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
Concealment and Stealth Checks: You can use concealment to make a Stealth check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Stealth check.
And
Ignoring Concealment: [u]Concealment isn't always effective.[/u] An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source. Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues).
The subject's outline appears blurred, shifting, and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
A see invisibility spell does not counteract the blur effect, but a true seeing spell does.
[u]Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell's effect[/u] (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own).
Use my highlighted parts of the above rules to justify why stealth can’t be done with Blur.
Basically my reasoning goes like this- Concealment isn’t always effective (up to GM interpretation of the rules set).
- When someone is blurred, their outline appears blurry. When someone isn’t looking at or cannot see the subject, the effect of the spell ends. This implies that the subject can be seen, they are just blurry.
I cannot seem to find this anywhere else, and do not know whether there is a better thread for it.
How loud is a witch's Cackle? It has an effective range of 30', does that mean that you could cackle quietly and only be heard within 30', sort of like a loud whisper? What I am really wondering is that under the rules, a person could Fortune Hex the whole party, and then just cackle all day long. But how loud would this be, would it alert every monster within miles, or just make surprising the next room more difficult?
|
|
In my game I allow Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat options and spells only after reviewing them as I am not so sure they are balanced.
The oracle has asked to use Chain of Perdition:
Level cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 3A floating chain of force with hooks at each end appears within an unoccupied space of your choosing within range. This chain is a Medium object that has a 10-foot reach. Physical attacks cannot hit or harm the chain of perdition, but dispel magic, disintegrate, a sphere of annihilation, or a rod of cancellation affects it normally. The chain's AC against touch attacks is 10 + your Charisma modifier (sorcerer), Intelligence modifier (wizard), or Wisdom modifier (cleric).
The chain can perform the dirty trick (blind or entangle), drag, reposition, and trip combat maneuvers, using your caster level in place of your Combat Maneuver Bonus, and your Charisma modifier (sorcerer), Intelligence modifier (wizard), or Wisdom modifier (cleric) in place of your Strength or Dexterity modifier. The chain does not provoke attacks of opportunity for making combat maneuvers. It suffers no penalty or miss chance due to darkness, invisibility, or other forms of concealment.
As a move action, you can move the chain up to 30 feet. If the chain goes beyond the spell's range or out of your sight, it returns to you.
If a creature that the chain attacks has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the chain performs a successful maneuver against that creature. If the chain is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell.
I have some big doubt about the bolded part of the spell. A third level spell that is not affected by a large number of defensive actions and that, if you successfully cast it, somewhat nullify invisibility as the chain position will pinpoint the invisible target position?
It seem a bit too powerful.What is your opinion?
Then I have a problem with the movement of this thing. If the target move, the chain follow him?
Or the caster should always be the one to move it if the target move away from the chain (that would somewhat mitigate the problem above)?
|
Creative Director
|
Continuing the line of questions about the Elder Scroll games, how did you like the idea that the High Elves had been taken over from within by a splinter group of Racial Purists and had used the chaos after Martin's death to take over the homelands of the Khajit and Wood Elves?
I thought that was really unusual and very interesting; I love it when a world like this evolves and changes and goes in directions different than the tired, old "Dwarves and Elves hate each other" type stuff.
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
...wrote lots about stealth...
My take on Stealth is this: It's used to hide. And Perception is used to notice you. If in my games a person logically has a chance to hide, I let him roll a Stealth check. Then I let the observers try to notice him with an opposed Perception check.
It's really the only sane way to handle the rules. Making an enormous list of yes/no qualifiers for when you can't and can attempt to roll Stealth isn't the type of game I run or enjoy playing in.
If someone is looking right at you and sees you and you cast a spell that just blurs your outlines... logic tells me that he can still see you and thus that's not a case where I would let you roll a Stealth check. Regardless of what complicated weird rules ephemera may or may not exist.
(For the Record: I don't regard the current Stealth/Perception rules to be broken. They've NEVER been a problem in any game I've run or played in.)
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot seem to find this anywhere else, and do not know whether there is a better thread for it.
How loud is a witch's Cackle? It has an effective range of 30', does that mean that you could cackle quietly and only be heard within 30', sort of like a loud whisper? What I am really wondering is that under the rules, a person could Fortune Hex the whole party, and then just cackle all day long. But how loud would this be, would it alert every monster within miles, or just make surprising the next room more difficult?
A witch's cackle only affects targets within 30 feet... but it sounds like a normal cackle in all other ways. You could cackle all day long, sure, but as soon as someone goes out of range of the cackle that stuff stops... even though they can still hear you cackling. And I would also rule that if you DID try to cackle all day long, you'd have a significant penalty to Stealth checks (perhaps to the extent of not even being allowed to try), and after a while, I'd probably start asking you to make concentration checks and Constitution checks to avoid hyperventilating or collapsing from lung exhaustion or something like that.
Logic and common sense must not be thrown out the window.
|
Creative Director
|
I have some big doubt about the bolded part of the spell. A third level spell that is not affected by a large number of defensive actions and that, if you successfully cast it, somewhat nullify invisibility as the chain position will pinpoint the invisible target position?
It seem a bit too powerful.
What is your opinion?
Then I have a problem with the movement of this thing. If the target move, the chain follow him?
Or the caster should always be the one to move it if the target move away from the chain (that would somewhat mitigate the problem above)?
Glitterdust is a 2nd level spell that has the potential to blind AND negate invisibility/concealment for multiple targets. So on the base of it, no, it doesn't seem TOO powerful.
The spell itself is similar to spiritual weapon and should probably function like that. My recommendation; let it play out as written a few times and if you find it to be too powerful for your game, make some changes or simply ban it from your game. There's enough spell options for spellcasters that removing a few troublemakers from the options won't hurt anything.
Remembering talk about a game-world set in Prehistoric/Primitive times (thanks to TvTropes), I want to play a Barbarian wearing only a loincloth, I know there is nothing in the rules against this, but it would also mean no armor, so... (not to mention "he" wouldn't fit in many game world, or hardly fit in)
Ever wished Billions of dollars just appeared in your bank account?
I was looking at the White-Haired witch archetype and thought it was pretty cool. The only time I've seen that before was in the fairly recent Jackie Chan/Jet Li movie Forbidden Kingdom. Are there other movies (or other mediums) where the inspiration for the class was drawn from?
I was looking at the White-Haired witch archetype and thought it was pretty cool. The only time I've seen that before was in the fairly recent Jackie Chan/Jet Li movie Forbidden Kingdom. Are there other movies (or other mediums) where the inspiration for the class was drawn from?
.
.Not JJ but, maybe Video Games and Manga/Anime.
|
Creative Director
|
Remembering talk about a game-world set in Prehistoric/Primitive times (thanks to TvTropes), I want to play a Barbarian wearing only a loincloth, I know there is nothing in the rules against this, but it would also mean no armor, so... (not to mention "he" wouldn't fit in many game world, or hardly fit in)
Ever wished Billions of dollars just appeared in your bank account?
Check out the Savage Barbarian archetype on page 79 of the Advanced Player's Guide. That'll let you play the shirtless barbarian quite well. Erik's character Ostog the Unslain uses it in the game I've been running for a year or two here at Paizo, and he's not yet had to change the "Unslain" part of his character's name yet, so it works pretty well.
And... yes, I have wished that.
|
Creative Director
|
I was looking at the White-Haired witch archetype and thought it was pretty cool. The only time I've seen that before was in the fairly recent Jackie Chan/Jet Li movie Forbidden Kingdom. Are there other movies (or other mediums) where the inspiration for the class was drawn from?
Yup; it's a trope that appears several times in various kung-fu type movies. The version we settled on is a combination of various movies, though.
Like The Bride with White Hair, for example...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you ever used an egg as a macguffin?
Mmm... sausage and egg macguffin.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think this would make a cool weapon for an evil Cleric necromancer?
Sure! We already gave guns that look similar to the pale stranger, after all.
How do you play the gods in your game (assuming you do!)? The adventure paths tend to imply that certain regions have temples in villages and cities. Do your players just pop in for spells? Again the APs imply yes. Are there alignment issues with this? Is this just part of normal life (ooops I just chopped me arm orf. Off to the temple!). Do the gods take notice of the goings on in these temples, or appear to the priests, lay or otherwise??
Outside of temples do gods appear here or the as required (Greek style) or are they mor e unknowable and alien (I guess in a lovecraft way)?
Actually just realized that whole, elves only meditating for 4 hours thing doesn't even exist in Pathfinder so good on you guys for answering the question years before it came up. I'll ask something better now:
Have you ever Seen Ong Bak, if so how awesome is Tony Jaa?
|
Creative Director
|
How do you play the gods in your game (assuming you do!)? The adventure paths tend to imply that certain regions have temples in villages and cities. Do your players just pop in for spells? Again the APs imply yes. Are there alignment issues with this? Is this just part of normal life (ooops I just chopped me arm orf. Off to the temple!). Do the gods take notice of the goings on in these temples, or appear to the priests, lay or otherwise??
Outside of temples do gods appear here or the as required (Greek style) or are they mor e unknowable and alien (I guess in a lovecraft way)?
In game, the gods themselves rarely, if ever, interact with things. I sometimes have them show up in visions or the like, but for the most part, it's the faithful whom the PCs interact with at temples, and that gives me a wider range of how things might play out. It really depends on the religions of those who enter the temple and the religion of the temple itself as well... there's no real formula since individual priests of the same deity can have different personalities.
The gods DO take notice, but they don't show it, in other words.
It's something between the Greek and Lovecraft modes—they're not at all unknowable, but they don't often come down to Golarion often to slum with mortals.
|
|
I have some big doubt about the bolded part of the spell. A third level spell that is not affected by a large number of defensive actions and that, if you successfully cast it, somewhat nullify invisibility as the chain position will pinpoint the invisible target position?
It seem a bit too powerful.
What is your opinion?
Then I have a problem with the movement of this thing. If the target move, the chain follow him?
Or the caster should always be the one to move it if the target move away from the chain (that would somewhat mitigate the problem above)?Glitterdust is a 2nd level spell that has the potential to blind AND negate invisibility/concealment for multiple targets. So on the base of it, no, it doesn't seem TOO powerful.
The spell itself is similar to spiritual weapon and should probably function like that. My recommendation; let it play out as written a few times and if you find it to be too powerful for your game, make some changes or simply ban it from your game. There's enough spell options for spellcasters that removing a few troublemakers from the options won't hurt anything.
Taking away after you have given out something is always hard.
Especially for a oracle that could have developed a character around the spells she has available.I agree with your glitterdust argument, but I feel that defeating invisibility is one of the main point of that spell, while for Chain of Perdition the main point is getting a high CMB trip and special manoeuvres capability through the use of a spell.
The "defeat concealment" ability seem something bolted to the spell to resolve some problem that I don't see.
You see a problem with the spell performance it concealment/invisibility/darkness did work normally against it? some reason why it will become uninteresting?
|
Creative Director
|
I know it was in the works last summer, but I was wondering what the updates were on the Stealth playtest. I'm not opposed to the current stealth rules, but I was just wondering if Paizo had scrapped this yet or not?
No updates yet.
And as I mentioned above, I never thought that we needed to do the Stealth playtest in the first place. It's not something that needs to be fixed by making the rules more complex, it's something that needs to be fixed by instilling in GMs a greater acceptance of and comfort in using the specific situation at hand to determine when a check can or can't be made.
|
Creative Director
|
Actually just realized that whole, elves only meditating for 4 hours thing doesn't even exist in Pathfinder so good on you guys for answering the question years before it came up. I'll ask something better now:
Have you ever Seen Ong Bak, if so how awesome is Tony Jaa?
Yes. He's VERY awesome.
How do you play the gods in your game (assuming you do!)? The adventure paths tend to imply that certain regions have temples in villages and cities. Do your players just pop in for spells? Again the APs imply yes. Are there alignment issues with this? Is this just part of normal life (ooops I just chopped me arm orf. Off to the temple!). Do the gods take notice of the goings on in these temples, or appear to the priests, lay or otherwise??
Outside of temples do gods appear here or the as required (Greek style) or are they mor e unknowable and alien (I guess in a lovecraft way)?
In game, the gods themselves rarely, if ever, interact with things. I sometimes have them show up in visions or the like, but for the most part, it's the faithful whom the PCs interact with at temples, and that gives me a wider range of how things might play out. It really depends on the religions of those who enter the temple and the religion of the temple itself as well... there's no real formula since individual priests of the same deity can have different personalities.
The gods DO take notice, but they don't show it, in other words.
It's something between the Greek and Lovecraft modes—they're not at all unknowable, but they don't often come down to Golarion often to slum with mortals.
Very cool. Certainly aligns with my preference for gods/mortal interaction. I like to play it this way because if a god is just a level 30 dude (1st Ed ADND style) there is always the possibility that you can destroy them.
It raises another stylistic point. Given that paganism is the worship of gods outside the mainstream and unlike the real world there are acknowledged many gods as a default pantheon, would pagans in Golarion worship beings they "think" are gods (my play style) or other real but lesser known gods, or do they worship the real gods but in way less "socially acceptable ways" (ritual sacrifice, yes even LG sacrificing CE beings)?
Or paganism just does not exist as it does not fit the world model?
|
|
Totally unrelated with the above posts, but one of my player was bitten by a werewolf and the oracle pointed out that belladonna would give him a new ST (it is one of the few ST I roll hidden, so they don't know if he is infected or not [BTW he is the same player, but different character, that got lycantropy from a wererat in the severs of Korvosa, it is destiny]).
So I have discovered that someone in 3.5 thought that belladonna and wolfsbane are the same thing ...... and that idea was somewhat repeated in Pathfinder, where in the Crore Rulebook it say that belladonna can be used to cure lycantropy (but in the bestiary it say wolfsbane).
I hope nest time I see my oculist he will not use aconitine instead of atropine to dilate my pupils.
From old game lore wolfsbane is the plant to be used to cure lycantropy.
So, what is the correct Pathfinder plant? Belladona, as said in the Core rulebook or wolfsbane as said in the Bestiary?
And if it is wolfsbane, when it can be administered? there is a time limit?
|
Creative Director
|
Totally unrelated with the above posts, but one of my player was bitten by a werewolf and the oracle pointed out that belladonna would give him a new ST (it is one of the few ST I roll hidden, so they don't know if he is infected or not [BTW he is the same player, but different character, that got lycantropy from a wererat in the severs of Korvosa, it is destiny]).
So I have discovered that someone in 3.5 thought that belladonna and wolfsbane are the same thing ...... and that idea was somewhat repeated in Pathfinder, where in the Crore Rulebook it say that belladonna can be used to cure lycantropy (but in the bestiary it say wolfsbane).
I hope nest time I see my oculist he will not use aconitine instead of atropine to dilate my pupils.From old game lore wolfsbane is the plant to be used to cure lycantropy.
So, what is the correct Pathfinder plant? Belladona, as said in the Core rulebook or wolfsbane as said in the Bestiary?
And if it is wolfsbane, when it can be administered? there is a time limit?
We noticed that as well, but very late in the game. And since the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary had a weird overlap, the change to one didn't get updated to the other. It should come as no surprise that we prefer the more classical real-world mythology in this case where belladonna and wolfsbane are NOT the same thing.
At this point, go with whatever version you prefer—my preference is to go with belladonna as in the core rulebook, though. Wolfsbane, if I recall correctly, didn't really enter into werewolf lore until 1941's Universal pictures production of The Wolf Man.
Totally unrelated with the above posts, but one of my player was bitten by a werewolf and the oracle pointed out that belladonna would give him a new ST (it is one of the few ST I roll hidden, so they don't know if he is infected or not [BTW he is the same player, but different character, that got lycantropy from a wererat in the severs of Korvosa, it is destiny]).
So I have discovered that someone in 3.5 thought that belladonna and wolfsbane are the same thing ...... and that idea was somewhat repeated in Pathfinder, where in the Crore Rulebook it say that belladonna can be used to cure lycantropy (but in the bestiary it say wolfsbane).
I hope nest time I see my oculist he will not use aconitine instead of atropine to dilate my pupils.From old game lore wolfsbane is the plant to be used to cure lycantropy.
So, what is the correct Pathfinder plant? Belladona, as said in the Core rulebook or wolfsbane as said in the Bestiary?
And if it is wolfsbane, when it can be administered? there is a time limit?
There is some detail in Carrion Crown - Broken Moon on this very topic. I do not have my copy handy unfortunately :-(
Ok. Pathfinder #45 (Broken Moon) has an article that expands on lycanthropy, including clarified rules for curing one who has contracted the disease. To sum it up, you can be only be cured by a remove disease or heal spell cast by a 12th level caster* within the first three days of contracting lycanthropy - any longer and the disease can only be cured while the curse is active. Wolfsbane allows a new save, provided you survive the effects of the poison. So kinda against what James mentioned :-)
|
Creative Director
|
Ok. Pathfinder #45 (Broken Moon) has an article that expands on lycanthropy, including clarified rules for curing one who has contracted the disease. To sum it up, you can be only be cured by a remove disease or heal spell cast by a 12th level caster* within the first three days of contracting lycanthropy - any longer and the disease can only be cured while the curse is active. Wolfsbane allows a new save, provided you survive the effects of the poison. So kinda against what James mentioned :-)
No worries.
Turns out, I can't keep everything we've ever published in my head. I can't even READ everything we publish.
1) Remembering talk about a game-world set in Prehistoric/Primitive times (thanks to TvTropes), I want to play a Barbarian wearing only a loincloth, I know there is nothing in the rules against this, but it would also mean no armor, so... (not to mention "he" wouldn't fit in many game world, or hardly fit in)
2) Ever wished Billions of dollars just appeared in your bank account?
1) Check out the Savage Barbarian archetype on page 79 of the Advanced Player's Guide. That'll let you play the shirtless barbarian quite well. Erik's character Ostog the Unslain uses it in the game I've been running for a year or two here at Paizo, and he's not yet had to change the "Unslain" part of his character's name yet, so it works pretty well.
2) And... yes, I have wished that.
.
.1) not exactly what I had in mind, but yeah.
2) so do I... Where is the Devil when you need him/her?
Ok. Pathfinder #45 (Broken Moon) has an article that expands on lycanthropy, including clarified rules for curing one who has contracted the disease. To sum it up, you can be only be cured by a remove disease or heal spell cast by a 12th level caster* within the first three days of contracting lycanthropy - any longer and the disease can only be cured while the curse is active. Wolfsbane allows a new save, provided you survive the effects of the poison. So kinda against what James mentioned :-)No worries.
Turns out, I can't keep everything we've ever published in my head. I can't even READ everything we publish.
In a game with so much published content nobody can blame you! I only knew because I am currently prepping Broken Moon for my players and read it last night. (I will be running it using 4th Ed rules!)
|
Creative Director
|
Do you have any favorite CRPGS from the late '80s/early '90s?
Did you ever play Darklands, Starflight, Betrayal at Krondor? Like them?
My favorites from that era are:
Baldur's Gate II (still my favorite CRPG ever)
Fallout 1 and 2
Planescape: Torment
Betrayal at Krondor
Eye of the Beholder II
Azure Bonds
Pools of Darkness
Unlimited Adventures
All the other D&D gold box games
Never played Darklands or Starflight.
Starflight was a lot of fun, but the same concept was better realized in Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters. The first Star Control was a pure space combat sim, but the sequel was a massive exploration/adventure game. Notably for D&D players, the aliens and their ships were all designed by Erol Otus (he also composed some of the music). It didn't have quite the same market penetration, but a lot of those gamers who did play it talk about it the way console gamers of a certain generation tend to talk about Final Fantasy VII. You can find a freeware version of it (for both Windows and Mac) here, if you ever feel like a little old school computer gaming.
James. I read through City of Seven Spears last night. It seems to me that the city itself ends up being generally a massacre or a long series of assassinations. There seems to be few ways to peacefully form an alliance. And generally the exploration of the city is a little sparse. But the AP sort of implies that these things should be part of the story.
Have I somehow completely missed something here?
I mostly am asking here as you are in the writing credits!!
1)If you are subscriber and there is an item you do not want, you have to cancel your subscription to not get it, correct?
2)Seen any movies lately? if so did you like them?
3)What is the weirdest thing you have ever seen a person do in game? out of game?
4)What is the scariest animal you have ever encountered in the wild?
5)Have you ever been to the circus? if so what is the weirdest one you have been too?
6)Top five favorite tv shows you are currently watching?
7)Is the next revisited book after the giants one going to be monster based? if so then will it be something other then undead or evil outsider related?
1) If you are subscriber and there is an item you do not want, you have to cancel your subscription to not get it, correct?
Correct.
James, do you like the Eldritch Knight?
Ever played an Eldritch Knight?
Ever made a BBEG that you love very, very dearly?
Ever qualified for Eldritch Knight without any levels of Fighter or Wizard?
Do you like the idea of a Ranger/Witch (Gravewalker archetype)/Eldritch Knight lich who fights with a scythe as a BBEG?
Do you like Libris Mortis?
Do you like the stitched flesh familiar feat (It's like a flesh golem, but a kitty!) from Libris Mortis?
Do you like the idea of letting the above lich have a familiar instead of the poppet Gravewalkers normally get so that she can take the stitched flesh familiar feat?
Is it bad for me, as a GM, to treat this BBEG as a character?