Creative Director
|
So I asked this on it' own thread, but would be cool to get semi-official response... :)
Ok, so I am a bit confused on the rules between the witch's Nails hex and the Aspect of the Beast feat.
Now, first we look at the Nails Hex. It says it's a secondary attack, which means you get a -5 penalty when you use it, yes? If so, how is this at all useful to a witch? She's not melee combat strong in the first place with a caster's BAB, so ANOTHER -5 is like... why waste a hex choice?
As for Aspect of the Beast, is your hand permanently bestial or is it a minor shapeshifting ability since you have to have shapeshifting already to learn it? Also, if one were a werewolf, would the feat then make it so you have 3 primary attacks? Bite and two claw attacks, or would the bite become secondary?
A secondary attack has a –5 penalty on attack rolls, and only gets half of your Strength bonus to damage modification. The nails hex creates a specific kind of natural attack, one that we call out specifically as being a secondary attack. Since you can use this hex as often as you want starting at 1st level, it needs to be something that's less powerful than aspect of the beast, which isn't something you can gain until 5th level (since you need wild shape to qualify for it, but don't get a feat until a level AFTER you qualify as a druid).
Furthermore, a druid is supposed to be better at combat than a witch, so it makes sense that a druid power that grants a natural attack would be better than a witch power that grants a natural attack.
As for "wasting a hex choice," that depends entirely on the player's character concept. Nails might not be the best choice for most witches since it plays against their strengths, but if you want to build a combat-themed witch, it's not a bad choice at all. It's also not a bad choice if you start doing some weird multiclassing things with other classes.
In both cases (hex AND feat), the natural attack you gain is there all the time; it's permanent (although for the hex, you can temporarily remove the effect by trimming your nails).
If you were a werewolf and gained "Aspect of the Beast," you would retain your claw attacks in all three forms. You would thus have 3 primary attacks. In Pathfinder, claws and bites are always primary attacks, unless otherwise stipulated (as in the case of the nails hex); check out page 302 of the Bestiary for the breakdown of how you determine if a natural attack is a primary or secondary one.
James,
Whose idea was the handling of Sin Magic in Inner Sea Magic? I need to start/join a fan club.
@Run, Just Run: its quite explicit that there is no known way of killing the Tarrasque. If James revealed something here, there'd be a known way of killing the Tarrasque.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my most heartfelt gratitude for the recent set of Paizo products. Maybe it is due to constructive inference, but the start of Jade Regent, the Field Guide, Inner Sea Magic, and Ultimate Combat are incredible. Really and truly a raising of the bar. I sincerely hope that the kind of powerful creativity and design is just a heads-up of more to come.
If you can sway any votes or decisions on the matter, I would really appreciate if future products (perhaps Heroes of the Dragon Empires?) could feature more "style" feats.
|
Creative Director
|
James Jacob,
What are the ways of killing the Tarrassque that you couldn't put into the monster manuel?
Still missing the "S" at the end of my name...
In previous editions, you had to reduce the tarrasque to –30 hit points and then use a wish to make it stay dead.
We took that out of our Bestiary because we want the exact method of killing the tarrasque to be something that a high level party has to go on a dangerous adventure itself to figure out, leaving the actual method of killing it forever into the hands of the GM.
Got a subject here I'd be interested in hearing a Savage Tide and Golarion developer's opinion on.
When my ST group initially started, we weren't gaming in any particular setting beyond what was from the adventure. Over time, we've adopted enough Golarion material from deities to regions to ethnicities that we're pretty much gaming in the setting, if with some parts of Greyhawk mixed in.
I'd thus be curious to know where geography-wise you might locate Sasserine, the Isle of Dread and Scuttlecove?
|
Creative Director
|
Got a subject here I'd be interested in hearing a Savage Tide and Golarion developer's opinion on.
When my ST group initially started, we weren't gaming in any particular setting beyond what was from the adventure. Over time, we've adopted enough Golarion material from deities to regions to ethnicities that we're pretty much gaming in the setting, if with some parts of Greyhawk mixed in.
I'd thus be curious to know where geography-wise you might locate Sasserine, the Isle of Dread and Scuttlecove?
I would put Sasserine on the coast to the west of Bloodcove, probably near (but not in) the Shackles.
Scuttlecove I'd probably put somewhere south of the bottom edge of the map, somewhat out to sea.
The isle of dread I would put WAY to the southwest, out in the ocean halfway between Garund and Azlant.
Just got my Ultimate Combat book yesterday, and I have to say that it is brimming with sheer awesomeness. I had a couple of Ultimate Combat-based questions for you, if you're willing to talk about them slightly before GenCon. I'll try to stay as vague as possible to not run the fun for people who haven't gotten theirs yet.
#1 Kudos to whomever came up with the Pup Shape spell. It's hilariously awesome. Quick question about it, though. It mentions that it reduces the creature's HD, would you rule that it reduces the creature's HD-dependent abilities? It comes fairly close to a beastly one-shotter against its targets if so.
Also, how does the spell interact with Magical Beasts who are the size category listed in the description or smaller? Do they just stay the same size ... but get adorable?
#2 What is your take on the Wounds / Vigor system? Is it something you'd use or have played with yet? I was curious because you mentioned a page back that you were a fan of HP systems.
|
Creative Director
|
Just got my Ultimate Combat book yesterday, and I have to say that it is brimming with sheer awesomeness. I had a couple of Ultimate Combat-based questions for you, if you're willing to talk about them slightly before GenCon. I'll try to stay as vague as possible to not run the fun for people who haven't gotten theirs yet.
#1 Kudos to whomever came up with the Pup Shape spell. It's hilariously awesome. Quick question about it, though. It mentions that it reduces the creature's HD, would you rule that it reduces the creature's HD-dependent abilities? It comes fairly close to a beastly one-shotter against its targets if so.
Also, how does the spell interact with Magical Beasts who are the size category listed in the description or smaller? Do they just stay the same size ... but get adorable?
#2 What is your take on the Wounds / Vigor system? Is it something you'd use or have played with yet? I was curious because you mentioned a page back that you were a fan of HP systems.
1) It's good to hear that you like that spell, since a lot of folks here at Paizo (not me) quite hate that spell with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns. The spell actually only exists because we had something of an art order error and that art came in not looking exactly like what we were expecting it to look like—it was originally ordered for something for Ultimate Magic (I think some sort of reduce animal spell or something) and then that element got cut for whatever reason, and we needed art for Ultimate Combat's spell chapter, so we built a spell that makes animals into cute little critters. Even so, it's a really weird spell to be found in a book that's supposedly about combat... but whatever. As for your actual question about the spell... yes, it reduces an animal's HD and thus reduces its attacks, saves, saving throw DCs for special attacks, and the like as appropriate. Frankly, I think that's a LOT of work to do in the middle of the combat, and if anyone casts the spell in my games, I'll be homebrewing a revision to the spell that simply reduces the animal's hit points to what it would have as a 1 HD creature and leave all the rest untouched. In any case, yes, it's a pretty good way to nerf a monster. Compared to hold animal, which is one level lower, it's not that outlandish though, I suppose. If you cast the spell on something that's already Tiny or smaller, it won't change anything, I guess; it'd just give them the cuteness defense.
2) I don't like wounds/vigor systems at all. Too complex and un-fun. Hit points are superior in every way.
|
2) I don't like wounds/vigor systems at all. Too complex and un-fun. Hit points are superior in every way.
That's too bad
For me it was a brilliant add - with some work it actually returns HP back to 1st/2nd ed level of hp (Type VI demon goes from 370 hp to 110 w/72 wounds!). It also restores the place of evocation as useful spell choice, reduces the need for layers of damage output (flaming, shock and acid) on weapons and possibly the need to have as much equipment.
Now I just need a way to A) tone down damage or B) expand the Armor as DR section.
I wish these sections had more love (and I know they will be forgotten in the future), but I am grateful that they were included in with the release of the book. The variant rules section is probably the only part if the book I will use (no interest in gunslinger, ninja, samurai). I actually continued my sub just for the variant section.
So if you don't mind me asking who wrote the variant rules and pushed to get them into UC?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) I don't like wounds/vigor systems at all. Too complex and un-fun. Hit points are superior in every way.That's too bad
For me it was a brilliant add - with some work it actually returns HP back to 1st/2nd ed level of hp (Type VI demon goes from 370 hp to 110 w/72 wounds!). It also restores the place of evocation as useful spell choice, reduces the need for layers of damage output (flaming, shock and acid) on weapons and possibly the need to have as much equipment.
Now I just need a way to A) tone down damage or B) expand the Armor as DR section.
I wish these sections had more love (and I know they will be forgotten in the future), but I am grateful that they were included in with the release of the book. The variant rules section is probably the only part if the book I will use (no interest in gunslinger, ninja, samurai). I actually continued my sub just for the variant section.
So if you don't mind me asking who wrote the variant rules and pushed to get them into UC?
I don't agree with the concept that evocation spells are "weak." They're actually pretty good at doing what they do—lots of damage to lots of targets. Folks looking for spells that instead do lots of damage to single targets should look to necromancy or perhaps things like disintegrate. But for dealing with large numbers of foes at once, evocation is the place to go.
Anyway, I'm not sure who wrote the rules; that's a Jason Bulmahn or a Sean K Reynolds question.
Wow, this is the best thread ever. I can't believe I didn't find it sooner. I have some rules questions that I think are worth asking, that I have looked for/asked/FAQ-clicked in the rules section. So, any of these you feel like answering would be much appreciated:
1. If you hit an enemy more than once in a round while using the Stunning Assault feat, does that enemy have to make multiple saves?
2. If you have reach and the Pushing Assault feat, and an enemy attempts to move adjacent to you but you successfully hit your AoO and push it back, does this interrupt the move or can it continue the same move action from the new location?
3. The Master Chymist's Advanced Mutagen, Nimble, states it gives a Natural Armor bonus, but this would not stack with the NA bonus always granted by a mutagen. Do you know the RAI on this?
4. Also, Nimble gives a bonus on "Dexterity checks" in addition to Dex skill checks. Initiative is the only thing in the rules that appears to be a plain Dex check, is this for "in X situation GM says roll a Dex check?"
5. Although the Alchemist is not a spellcaster, might he be able to benefit from the Tenacious Transmutation feat, or apply metamagic feats to extracts?
Sorry if some of these are overly nit-picky. I'm playing my first-ever D&D (Pathfinder) campaign as a currently 3rd-level Alchemist, and really getting into it. I think I've persuaded my GM to allow a homebrew Mutagenist archetype based on a heavily toned-down version of Cody Coffelt's idea. Any thoughts on such an archetype?
Anyway, thanks for the system and thanks a bunch for this thread.
EDIT: Should be more off-topic, so... I saw you liked Paranormal Activity, in which case I definitely recommend Insidious if you haven't seen it. I think it's from the same people, and I liked it even better than PA 1&2.
EDIT: Should be more off-topic, so... I saw you liked Paranormal Activity, in which case I definitely recommend Insidious if you haven't seen it. I think it's from the same people, and I liked it even better than PA 1&2.
There's a chance that there many be movie spoilers for Paranormal Activity 1 and 2, Insidious, and Inception here. Proceed with caution.
Ugh, I hate suspense movies. I don't find them scary at all. Like, the scene in Insidious where the ghost-kid is just standing there in the laundry room. My friends are all like, "Ah!" and I'm all like, "Who cares, so Pip from Great Expectations lives in her house. That's not scary." I also hate the "OH MY GOSH TWIST YOU DON'T KNOW THE ENDING" endings. To me, it's lazy story telling. Hated Paranormal Activities 1 and 2 for it, hated Insidious for it, and hated Inception for it too.
It's good to hear that you like that spell, since a lot of folks here at Paizo (not me) quite hate that spell with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns. The spell actually only exists because we had something of an art order error and that art came in not looking exactly like what we were expecting it to look like—it was originally ordered for something for Ultimate Magic (I think some sort of reduce animal spell or something) and then that element got cut for whatever reason, and we needed art for Ultimate Combat's spell chapter, so we built a spell that makes animals into cute little critters. Even so, it's a really weird spell to be found in a book that's supposedly about combat... but whatever.
I have a Halfling Sorcerer in my current campaign with the Childlike Feat who finds the spell completely awesome for his character as well; so rest assured that people are getting enjoyment from the art blunder.
To be honest, spells and abilities that alter a creature's age category are the kind of thing I'd like to see more of in the game. It always bugged me in 3.5 why so many classes got immunity to aging effects when there weren't any in the game aside from natural aging. After Ultimate Magic came out, I actually ended up homebrewing an aging subschool for Necromancy and made a bunch of spells based off of Sands of Time from the same book.
Granted, Pup Shape is Transmutation and doesn't actually affect the creature's true age or mind, but it still kind of fits in with that big "chunk" of magic that I have felt has always been awkwardly absent from the game.
I'm actually quite fond of the vigor/wound system - I'll be sure to at least try it. What I like about it is how it obviates the need for excessive healing - as overnight rest recovers all vigor (the primary health pool) thus allowing even a quite heavily wounded group to adventure on and fight with a reasonable capacity. It always struck me as tremendously breaking suspense of disbelief that all adventuring groups have a cleric (or at least some facsimile thereof, if only in the form of a wand).
Could be worse we might call you Jacob Jaime. :)First off... my last name has an "s" at the end of it. (Just a pet peeve of mine when folks call me James Jacob.)
I'm thinking you will be receiving a "package" that may or may not contain a variety of poisonous critters sometime in the future for calling Mr. Jacobs by that particular moniker.
I wrote that section of Inner Sea Magic. Wes and I came up with the original flavor and themes for Sin Magic back when we were creating Rise of the Runelords.James,
Whose idea was the handling of Sin Magic in Inner Sea Magic? I need to start/join a fan club.
I hope you realize that those rules actually re-validated a number of obsolete wizard statblocks. Going in to running Pathfinder #5 right now, I cannot thank you enough for the work you have saved me. I won't need to fill in oppositions schools in spellbooks, or in any way change the prepared spells per day.
It's a very elegant rules solution to the 3.5->PF conversion for those adventures, and a truly stellar piece of game design. Thanks again!
Dear James Jacobs,
I'll be DMing the Jade Regent AP, and one of my players wants to be Ameiko's little brother... but he wants wants to take the childhood crush trait. Do you think I should allow it, or make him choose?
Yours sincerely,
Amaranthine Witch
There's a chance that there many be movie spoilers for Paranormal Activity 1 and 2, Insidious, and Inception here. Proceed with caution.** spoiler omitted **
So you prefer... even more expected endings? I certainly agree that forced twist endings and jumpy suspense can be really cheesy, but I thought the examples mostly did these things well. As long as there's a good story to set up a twist or suspense, I usually like it. This even includes Shutter Island, which I really enjoyed but many people hated and said (rightly) was predictable. Any twist endings you liked?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just don't use those images you extract for anything public. We're all fine here at Paizo if you use our artwork to enhance your home games—that's the reason we put the art in our books in the first place, really! But using extracted artwork to enhance public stuff or for-sale products (including using that art for conventions or on public websites) is a no-no.
Wait, wait. I'm confused. I might have been breaking the rules.
I run Pathfinder Society games at conventions, and I've used maps extracted from scenarios and blown up to battlemap scale.
Is that not okay?
So you prefer... even more expected endings? I certainly agree that forced twist endings and jumpy suspense can be really cheesy, but I thought the examples mostly did these things well. As long as there's a good story to set up a twist or suspense, I usually like it. This even includes Shutter Island, which I really enjoyed but many people hated and said (rightly) was predictable. Any twist endings you liked?
There's a chance that there many be movie spoilers for Paranormal Activity 1 and 2, Insidious, and Inception here. Proceed with caution.** spoiler omitted **
I don't necessary want an expected ending. I want there to BE an actual ending. I don't consider the big "WHAT IF" question an actual ending. By nature, an unexpected shift in story must occur for it to be called a twist. Ending the movie is not an unexpected shift in story, it is just the story teller not telling you what happened next. It is a poor man's attempt to set up the possibility of a sequel.
As for twists I've liked? That's plenty easy. Let's go with Insidious. I LOVED the twist they ended up doing with the boy, right in the middle of the story. The direction they took ghostly hauntings and exactly WHAT was haunted in the movie was awesome. Like I mentioned, I don't consider 'what if' endings a twist, because we never find out what happens. Like I mentioned before, it's like the writers decided that they couldn't come up with an ending that they knew would be enjoyable, so they just ended it.
I also don't like the idea that a suspense movie cannot have a happy ending or even a bittersweet ending. A perfect example of this is the movie Signs, where the entire movie is very, very suspenseful, but the family in question has a happy ending (the aliens being silicon life forms, and thus defeated by the planet's inhospitable environment was something of a twist that I enjoyed as well. Nice change from the whole "badass humans control this place" or "humans are nothing and will be destroyed" approach most alien movies of that caliber take). They could have had the wife kill the husband. They could have had the husband force his way back in. They could have shared hosts. They are tons of ways they could have ended that movie, and instead they decided to roll the credits. I think, and will always think, that it is a lame technique.
To put it this way, it's like going through the Rune Lords adventure Path, fighting through five books to the last boss, beating him ... and then the book's rules specifically stated that rocks fall, the campaign ends, and no one knows if their characters are still alive. And then you roll up new characters and play Jade Reagent. That's lame.
I'm thinking you will be receiving a "package" that may or may not contain a variety of poisonous critters sometime in the future for calling Mr. Jacobs by that particular moniker.Could be worse we might call you Jacob Jaime. :)First off... my last name has an "s" at the end of it. (Just a pet peeve of mine when folks call me James Jacob.)
Apparently live Scorpions or bees.:)
|
Creative Director
|
1. If you hit an enemy more than once in a round while using the Stunning Assault feat, does that enemy have to make multiple saves?
When you ask questions (and by "you" I mean everyone, of course... not just you) about things not from the Core Rulebook, it really helps to mention where the rules you're asking about are from. My focus is MUCH more on the Campaign side of things; with the exception of the Bestiaries (which I do full development/editorial passes on), I'm actually not super familiar with all the contents of things like the APG, Ultimate Combat, or Ultimate Magic.
THAT SAID: I figured out that Stunning Assault is in the APG, so here's the answer for that one. Yes, if you use Stunning Assault to hit an enemy more than once, he has to make multiple saves to avoid being stunned. Neither feat extends the duration of the stun effect, though, so once an enemy fails its save and is stunned, any further stunning fists on him that turn are pretty much just wasted.
2. If you have reach and the Pushing Assault feat, and an enemy attempts to move adjacent to you but you successfully hit your AoO and push it back, does this interrupt the move or can it continue the same move action from the new location?
Pushing Assault does not stop a target's movement; if you push a target away with an AoO Pushing Assault, it can still finish the rest of his move normally.
3. The Master Chymist's Advanced Mutagen, Nimble, states it gives a Natural Armor bonus, but this would not stack with the NA bonus always granted by a mutagen. Do you know the RAI on this?
While the natural armor bonus won't stack with the bonus granted by the basic mutagen... it will eventually exceed that granted by the basic mutagen, in which case you take the better. The name of the advanced mutagen makes me think that it shouldn't have an effect on natural armor at all though... If I were developing this, I would have cut the part where "nimble" increases natural armor and just said it gives you an increasing alchemical bonus to AC. THAT SAID, while it's not really all that obvious, the nimble ability MIGHT be trying to say that the increase to natural armor bonus is an alchemical bonus, in which case it DOES stack; it would work similarly to how barkskin works on a creature that already has natural armor. I suspect that this isn't the case, though, since there's not specific info talking about that.
4. Also, Nimble gives a bonus on "Dexterity checks" in addition to Dex skill checks. Initiative is the only thing in the rules that appears to be a plain Dex check, is this for "in X situation GM says roll a Dex check?"
Yes.
5. Although the Alchemist is not a spellcaster, might he be able to benefit from the Tenacious Transmutation feat, or apply metamagic feats to extracts?
Not unless your GM house rules it.
EDIT: Should be more off-topic, so... I saw you liked Paranormal Activity, in which case I definitely recommend Insidious if you haven't seen it. I think it's from the same people, and I liked it even better than PA 1&2.
I quite liked Insidious; one of my favorite movies of the year. Its last 3rd got a bit wacky... but not TOO wacky. I much prefered the first 2/3 where things were a lot subtler. The introduction of the weird ghosthunter element shifted it from a Paranormal Activity style movie into a Poltergeist style movie. Both great movies... but my preference is for the Paranormal Activity style movie (AKA: horror that is more insidious in creeping up on you).
|
Creative Director
|
EDIT: Should be more off-topic, so... I saw you liked Paranormal Activity, in which case I definitely recommend Insidious if you haven't seen it. I think it's from the same people, and I liked it even better than PA 1&2.There's a chance that there many be movie spoilers for Paranormal Activity 1 and 2, Insidious, and Inception here. Proceed with caution.
** spoiler omitted **
Huh.
You sound like the type of person I hate going to see movies with, then...
|
Creative Director
|
To be honest, spells and abilities that alter a creature's age category are the kind of thing I'd like to see more of in the game. It always bugged me in 3.5 why so many classes got immunity to aging effects when there weren't any in the game aside from natural aging. After Ultimate Magic came out, I actually ended up homebrewing an aging subschool for Necromancy and made a bunch of spells based off of Sands of Time from the same book.
Granted, Pup Shape is Transmutation and doesn't actually affect the creature's true age or mind, but it still kind of fits in with that big "chunk" of magic that I have felt has always been awkwardly absent from the game.
One of the design philosophies of 3rd edition was the REMOVAL of all aging effects aside from natural aging. And honestly, I can't remember any classes that got immunity to aging effects at all in 3rd edition, apart from the druid and monk who actually STOPPED aging, if I recall correctly. Which is a lot different than immunity to aging effects.
The problem with aging effects is that it's easy to screw them up, since 10 years is a big deal for a human but not for an elf, and it could outright kill a kobold. Worse... pretty much ALL of the mosnters in the game (you know, the ones that your PCs are most likely to cast aging spells on?) don't have their age categories listed. So each time you cast an aging spell, the GM would have to ad hoc the results if they didn't just do something like age the target into the next age category.
Worse... there are monsters that have different types of rules for aging. Dragons, primarily. Casting an aging spell on a dragon is INCREDIBLY powerful, and since the rules for dragon aging are so different, you'd have to include a separate set of rules in any aging attack that adds years to cover how the effect works on dragons.
And what about outsiders or constructs or undead? How does aging affect creatures that don't age at all? Are they immune?
Basically, the game doesn't have "aging" as a depletable resource in any way that works the same across the board. You can reduce hit points or level or ability scores or all that fine, since those elements work the same for everything. Aging doesn't.
The best way to handle aging effects in the game is to simply simulate them; say "the target suffers penalties as if advanced to old age" or even better, just have the effect do some sort of ability drain and then stack some flavor text on there that says something like, "The target ages rapidly."
|
Creative Director
|
Could be worse we might call you Jacob Jaime. :)First off... my last name has an "s" at the end of it. (Just a pet peeve of mine when folks call me James Jacob.)
Wouldn't bother me at all. Might bother Jacob. I certainly wouldn't answer the questions, because it's not my place to answer other folks' questions for them. I would probably move it to the "Ask Jacob Jaime questions!" thread though.
|
Creative Director
|
I'm actually quite fond of the vigor/wound system - I'll be sure to at least try it. What I like about it is how it obviates the need for excessive healing - as overnight rest recovers all vigor (the primary health pool) thus allowing even a quite heavily wounded group to adventure on and fight with a reasonable capacity. It always struck me as tremendously breaking suspense of disbelief that all adventuring groups have a cleric (or at least some facsimile thereof, if only in the form of a wand).
If you're annoyed with excessive healing, just say that "overnight rest restores all your hit points." Easy fix, and you get to keep a simpler rules system that everyone already understands.
And as for all adventuring groups having a cleric (or healer)... what's so weird about that? Sounds like common sense to me... in the same way that all armies have medics and all platoons have people trained in first aid.
|
Creative Director
|
I hope you realize that those rules actually re-validated a number of obsolete wizard statblocks. Going in to running Pathfinder #5 right now, I cannot thank you enough for the work you have saved me. I won't need to fill in oppositions schools in spellbooks, or in any way change the prepared spells per day.
It's a very elegant rules solution to the 3.5->PF conversion for those adventures, and a truly stellar piece of game design. Thanks again!
I absolutely realize that those rules re-validated those stat blocks. That's why I did it. And furthermore, I really REALLY like how it makes Thassilonian magic seem different than modern magic. It feels somehow more primitive and more powerful at the same time.
THAT SAID... even if these rules didn't exist, there'd be no reason why you'd have to go "fill in opposition schools" for updating old adventures anyway. Just because the rules changed doesn't mean the game has to change as well. In fact, if you wanted to maintain the feel of Thassilonian magic before Inner Sea Magic came out... you SHOULDN'T fill in opposition schools at all. The way Thassilonian magic is set up, it hurts the story if those wizards have full access to magic.
|
Creative Director
|
Dear James Jacobs,
I'll be DMing the Jade Regent AP, and one of my players wants to be Ameiko's little brother... but he wants wants to take the childhood crush trait. Do you think I should allow it, or make him choose?
Yours sincerely,
Amaranthine Witch
Make him choose. That's part of what the trait system is supposed to do... make players think about their backgrounds and wrestle with choices.
|
Creative Director
|
Just don't use those images you extract for anything public. We're all fine here at Paizo if you use our artwork to enhance your home games—that's the reason we put the art in our books in the first place, really! But using extracted artwork to enhance public stuff or for-sale products (including using that art for conventions or on public websites) is a no-no.Wait, wait. I'm confused. I might have been breaking the rules.
I run Pathfinder Society games at conventions, and I've used maps extracted from scenarios and blown up to battlemap scale.
Is that not okay?
That's fine.
If you were using those blown up maps as signage to promote the convention as a whole or to promote something other than Pathfinder Society, then you'd be doing something naughty.
EDIT: Should be more off-topic, so... I saw you liked Paranormal Activity, in which case I definitely recommend Insidious if you haven't seen it. I think it's from the same people, and I liked it even better than PA 1&2.There's a chance that there many be movie spoilers for Paranormal Activity 1 and 2, Insidious, and Inception here. Proceed with caution.
** spoiler omitted **
Huh.
You sound like the type of person I hate going to see movies with, then...
When I get invited to see movies, my friends draw straws to see who has to sit next to me :(. It's very easy for me to get knocked out of a movie's immersion factor, and I get bored if I'm not immersed in the world that the movie is trying to show me.
On that note, while my ... meticulousness makes me a relatively poor movie going companion, it also makes me a very meticulous homebrewer and GM, and I am constantly astounding my players with the shear number of plot connections that are slowly cropping up in their adventure. ^_~
THAT SAID... even if these rules didn't exist, there'd be no reason why you'd have to go "fill in opposition schools" for updating old adventures anyway. Just because the rules changed doesn't mean the game has to change as well. In fact, if you wanted to maintain the feel of Thassilonian magic before Inner Sea Magic came out... you SHOULDN'T fill in opposition schools at all. The way Thassilonian magic is set up, it hurts the story if those wizards have full access to magic.
I regard it as a duty to my players that the NPCs have every advantage that PCs do. The NPC spellbooks would have been modified to add spells that they ought to have been able to cast.
Thankfully, due to your handling of it in ISM, this is no longer deemed necessary (by the GM, yours truly). An additional bonus spell shall serve nicely.
EDIT: And regarding Paizo's policy of image use, I am very happy that you are so understanding about that. Images are really important to how I play, and they are a big part of my investment in Pathfinder.
|
Creative Director
|
I regard it as a duty to my players that the NPCs have every advantage that PCs do. The NPC spellbooks would have been modified to add spells that they ought to have been able to cast.
Thankfully, due to your handling of it in ISM, this is no longer deemed necessary (by the GM, yours truly). An additional bonus spell shall serve nicely.
EDIT: And regarding Paizo's policy of image use, I am very happy that you are so understanding about that. Images are really important to how I play, and they are a big part of my investment in Pathfinder.
That might just be where we differ in opinion I guess. I don't see a difference between building an NPC to fill specific story requirements and building an NPC to challenge PCs. Sometimes, NPCs just need to be less powerful and less optimized than the PCs. Sometimes, they need to be able to "cheat" and be more powerful. Whatever the story needs.
Story first, rules second. Story reigns, rules serve. And so on.
That all said... glad that the ISM rules solved the problem for you! (Even if that bonus spell doesn't every really kick in—unless an NPC's around long enough to have cast ALL of his spells and thus gets that bonus one in... it doesn't really matter, balance wise, if the NPC had 1 bonus spell or a thousand.)
|
|
Hey James,
Was wondering if you could help with some stuff on posession and exorcism for the game. I have a player who just joined one of my PbP's and he's taken the inquisitor build that focuses on posession. (From Ultimate magic)
I'm going to spoiler the next bit in case players in that game are reading this. If you are one of the players in my Runelords PbP, please don't read the spoiler below.
My question is are there any rules specifically dealing with posession and subsequentially exorcism?
For this instance I have made the NPC bound to the demon by a number of thread items which the inquisitor has to first discover then remove before he can safely banish the demon completely. Until they are gone, it can take the girl at leisure. It sounded great when I first started writing it out, but looking over it now it seems very "Harry Potter" (in a Horcrux kind of way). Any advice on how I could handle future posession threads would be more than welcome.
We're running Rise of the Runelords, so I was figuring to let him use a number of his abilities with Hauntings as well, since they are close to a posession.
Thanks in advance for wahtever help or advice you can provide.
Cheers
Anyway, back to questions, I have a couple about the creation of the iconics. First, are the iconics based off of characters that the Paizo gang plays? To be bluntly honest, I got that impression based on Merisiel's line about troll-fighting in Ultimate Combat alone (Kill it! Kill it with fire!).
Second, you mentioned elsewhere that Seltyiel was originally the iconic Multiclass character before becoming the iconic Magus. Out of curiosity, why was the choice made to change what he stood for? (Though to be honest, his appearance in the Core Rulebook totally makes it seem like Paizo had always intended to add the Magus class now for newer players xD)
Finally, if Seltyiel is based on a Paizo employee's character, did he actually switch his version of the character to the Magus upon its release?
When you ask questions (and by "you" I mean everyone, of course... not just you) about things not from the Core Rulebook, it really helps to mention where the rules you're asking about are from. My focus is MUCH more on the Campaign side of things; with the exception of the Bestiaries (which I do full development/editorial passes on), I'm actually not super familiar with all the contents of things like the APG, Ultimate Combat, or Ultimate Magic.
Understood, sorry about that, if it had been anything but a rulebook I would have thought to specify. Thanks so much for all the helpful answers.
While the natural armor bonus won't stack with the bonus granted by the basic mutagen... it will eventually exceed that granted by the basic mutagen, in which case you take the better. The name of the advanced mutagen makes me think that it shouldn't have an effect on natural armor at all though... If I were developing this, I would have cut the part where "nimble" increases natural armor and just said it gives you an increasing alchemical bonus to AC. THAT SAID, while it's not really all that obvious, the nimble ability MIGHT be trying to say that the increase to natural armor bonus is an alchemical bonus, in which case it DOES stack; it would work similarly to how barkskin works on a creature that already has natural armor. I suspect that this isn't the case, though, since there's not specific info talking about that.
Any of those make sense, I had thought it should maybe be a dodge bonus, seeing as it's named "Nimble" and affects Dex. The natural armor bonus would max out at +5 (no earlier than level 18) versus Grand Mutagen's +6 (available at 16), though I suppose you could take Nimble instead of Grand Mutagen. Do you think a dodge bonus would be significantly more powerful than, say, an alchemical bonus to natural armor? I'm not sure how the tradeoffs stack up late-game.
I quite liked Insidious; one of my favorite movies of the year. Its last 3rd got a bit wacky... but not TOO wacky. I much prefered the first 2/3 where things were a lot subtler. The introduction of the weird ghosthunter element shifted it from a Paranormal Activity style movie into a Poltergeist style movie. Both great movies... but my preference is for the Paranormal Activity style movie (AKA: horror that is more insidious in creeping up on you).
I really liked the design of the demon, so I slightly preferred the end portion. I should probably get around to watching Poltergeist sometime. One of my very favorite movies is The Thing, from 1980ish, with Kurt Russell. Thanks again for the help.
|
Creative Director
|
Hey James,
Was wondering if you could help with some stuff on posession and exorcism for the game. I have a player who just joined one of my PbP's and he's taken the inquisitor build that focuses on posession. (From Ultimate magic)
I'm going to spoiler the next bit in case players in that game are reading this. If you are one of the players in my Runelords PbP, please don't read the spoiler below.
** spoiler omitted **
We published an entire article about possession in Pathfinder #28; all sorts of rules about possession in there.
|
Creative Director
|
Anyway, back to questions, I have a couple about the creation of the iconics. First, are the iconics based off of characters that the Paizo gang plays? To be bluntly honest, I got that impression based on Merisiel's line about troll-fighting in Ultimate Combat alone (Kill it! Kill it with fire!).
Second, you mentioned elsewhere that Seltyiel was originally the iconic Multiclass character before becoming the iconic Magus. Out of curiosity, why was the choice made to change what he stood for? (Though to be honest, his appearance in the Core Rulebook totally makes it seem like Paizo had always intended to add the Magus class now for newer players xD)
Finally, if Seltyiel is based on a Paizo employee's character, did he actually switch his version of the character to the Magus upon its release?
None of the iconics are based on characters anyone at Paizo played. They were all pretty much originally created by Wayne Reynolds; we'd give him super basic directions, like "This is a female elf rogue with a rapier and leather armor" and we got back Merisiel. Then I (and eventually others) would come up with stats and character stories for them, and over the course of several years we've got a lot of info about them.
When we originally decided to introduce our iconic characters on the covers of Pathifnder, we weren't initially all that worried that we had 11 classes and 12 volumes in the first to adventure paths. We were more worried about being able to finish ONE adventure path at the time! By the time we got to Pathfinder #12, the decision to make Seltyiel the iconic multiclass character was pretty much just a kludge... a kind of graceful and creative one, but a kludge nonetheless.
So when we decided to do a magus character in Ultimate Magic, and when we were thinking of who and what to order for that character for an iconic... the idea of just making Seltyiel, who was already doing everything a magus does, the iconic magus just seemed like a perfectly logical idea.
|
Creative Director
|
Any of those make sense, I had thought it should maybe be a dodge bonus, seeing as it's named "Nimble" and affects Dex. The natural armor bonus would max out at +5 (no earlier than level 18) versus Grand Mutagen's +6 (available at 16), though I suppose you could take Nimble instead of Grand Mutagen. Do you think a dodge bonus would be significantly more powerful than, say, an alchemical bonus to natural armor? I'm not sure how the tradeoffs stack up late-game.
We're generally VERY skittish about handing out dodge bonuses, since those stack with everything.
I really liked the design of the demon, so I slightly preferred the end portion. I should probably get around to watching Poltergeist sometime. One of my very favorite movies is The Thing, from 1980ish, with Kurt Russell. Thanks again for the help.
"The Thing" constantly fights with "Alien" in my head for the role of best movie ever made, as a matter of fact.
|
|
We published an entire article about possession in Pathfinder #28; all sorts of rules about possession in there.Hey James,
Was wondering if you could help with some stuff on posession and exorcism for the game. I have a player who just joined one of my PbP's and he's taken the inquisitor build that focuses on posession. (From Ultimate magic)
I'm going to spoiler the next bit in case players in that game are reading this. If you are one of the players in my Runelords PbP, please don't read the spoiler below.
** spoiler omitted **
Thanks, I figured there must be some rules somewhere since you have an archetype for it.
Will purchase a copy of that on with my next pay.
Cheers
Hi James--
I am slowly making my way through The Brinewall Legacy and just wanted to let you know how impressed I am by this adventure. I'm really looking forward to running it. My favourite part so far is--perhaps unexpectedly--the
--Mike
