RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
Jason, I have a question for you. It may in fact be the most important and mentally taxing question you'll ever be asked. Here goes:
If you were a sandwich, what kind of sandwich would you be?
I'm going to jump in and put the bull before the horns here and just call roast beef right now ;)
Lead Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jason, I have a question for you. It may in fact be the most important and mentally taxing question you'll ever be asked. Here goes:
If you were a sandwich, what kind of sandwich would you be?
I am gonna go with a bacon sandwich... none of that other filler.. just bacon.
Phew.. that was hard...
|
Lead Designer
|
I'm going to jump in and put the bull before the horns here and just call roast beef right now ;)Jason, I have a question for you. It may in fact be the most important and mentally taxing question you'll ever be asked. Here goes:
If you were a sandwich, what kind of sandwich would you be?
Bull.. horns... roast beef...
Is that some jab at the Minotaur.. dont make me trample you...
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The next iteration of Dungeons & Dragons is coming out. What do you, as a designer, want to see from it?
What do you think will distinguish the Pathfinder brand from a new version of D&D that is closer in spirit to previous editions of the game than 4th Edition / Essentials has been?
What are you, as a fan, looking forward to seeing?
|
Lead Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The next iteration of Dungeons & Dragons is coming out. What do you, as a designer, want to see from it?
What do you think will distinguish the Pathfinder brand from a new version of D&D that is closer in spirit to previous editions of the game than 4th Edition / Essentials has been?
What are you, as a fan, looking forward to seeing?
Considering how much the last edition caught me off guard, I am not sure what to expect from the next edition. As someone in my position, I have learned not to speculate....
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
I'm going to jump in and put the bull before the horns here and just call roast beef right now ;)Jason, I have a question for you. It may in fact be the most important and mentally taxing question you'll ever be asked. Here goes:
If you were a sandwich, what kind of sandwich would you be?
Bull.. horns... roast beef...
Is that some jab at the Minotaur.. dont make me trample you...
I would never steer you astray with Minotaur puns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to jump in and put the bull before the horns here and just call roast beef right now ;)Jason, I have a question for you. It may in fact be the most important and mentally taxing question you'll ever be asked. Here goes:
If you were a sandwich, what kind of sandwich would you be?
Bull.. horns... roast beef...
Is that some jab at the Minotaur.. dont make me trample you...
Well, it wasn't going to be a braised short-rib sandwich, that's for sure. ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
Jason,
Do you recall the "combination advancement" feats from 3.5? An example would be a feat that required, say, +1d6 sneak attack and flurry of blows, and when you took the feat your levels of rogue counted with your monk level for your unarmed strike damage (or things of the sort). I believe the first of those were introduced in Complete Adventurer.
What were your thoughts on feats like those in 3.5? Do you feel feats of that nature, that help synergize multiclassing, have a place in Pathfinder?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
Well, it wasn't going to be a braised short-rib sandwich, that's for sure. ;-)I'm going to jump in and put the bull before the horns here and just call roast beef right now ;)Jason, I have a question for you. It may in fact be the most important and mentally taxing question you'll ever be asked. Here goes:
If you were a sandwich, what kind of sandwich would you be?
Bull.. horns... roast beef...
Is that some jab at the Minotaur.. dont make me trample you...
Neil, your jabs need to be registered as lethal weapons.
Well, we did not include diminutive because as a PC race it introduces a lot of problems with ability score balance. If you were going to do an entire campaign of diminutive creatures, I would just build them normally and add the diminutive on top at zero cost (since everyone will have it). As far as ability scores, Str -10, Dex +6, Con -2.. which is pretty rough.If one wanted to make a diminutive fey race using the ARG, what would be the RP cost of diminutive, its ability score adjustments and the like be?
(A diminutive/tiny fey campaign could be fun.)
I thought it would be closer to the different X Shape/Form/etc spells... And neither Sprite or Atomie have -10 str (granted Sprite get -8).
Do you have any objections to rules for clinging? Have you thought about working on those types of rules for Pathfinder?
What I mean, is a ruleset for climbing gargantuan or colossal sized things? Like the game Shadow of the Colussus.
|
Lead Designer
|
I thought it would be closer to the different X Shape/Form/etc spells... And neither Sprite or Atomie have -10 str (granted Sprite get -8).
Those numbers were from reversing the bonuses granted by going up in size. If the creature had a +2 to Str, added to the -10, you end up with -8, which is stronger than your average Diminutive creature (which would normally be at about a 1)
|
Lead Designer
|
Do you have any objections to rules for clinging? Have you thought about working on those types of rules for Pathfinder?
What I mean, is a ruleset for climbing gargantuan or colossal sized things? Like the game Shadow of the Colussus.
No objections, in fact I've played around with such rules in the past, but it has never made it into any product.
Those poor poor colossi... I felt so bad for them by the end of that game.
I know! I felt like a terrible person just after the 1st one!
Who are some of your favorite authors?
Loved Dungoenscape btw! :)
The Pale :)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
Since it hasn't gone to print yet, would it be too late to remove all of the reprinted feats/monster rules from the back of Bestiary 4 (that were printed in bestiary 1/available on the SRD) to include rules for climbing large foes, since this bestiary introduces kaiju?
I for one would applaud that transition away from duplicative printing in favor of new monster-related rules!
Lord Jason,
What is your favorite beer you have brewed?
Have you brewed, or would you consider brewing, mead?
What do you think of the argument that at level X, Wizards / Clerics can do Y, so therefore martials being able to do Z is OK?
How about the effects of feat prerequisites on balance?
|
Favorite authors.. hmm.. in no particular order
Mieville, King, Martin, Dick, Vonnegut, Vance, Lovecraft, Abnett, Stross, Leiber, Moorcock, Howard, Larson, and Palahniuk.
Abnett's great. Have you read his most recent non-40K, non-Who book, "Embedded?"
Did you have to look up how to spell Chuck Palahniuk's name?
|
Lead Designer
|
Since it hasn't gone to print yet, would it be too late to remove all of the reprinted feats/monster rules from the back of Bestiary 4 (that were printed in bestiary 1/available on the SRD) to include rules for climbing large foes, since this bestiary introduces kaiju?
I for one would applaud that transition away from duplicative printing in favor of new monster-related rules!
Tempting, but in the end, we have to make sure our books have everything they need in them, so that a GM with only Bestiary 4 (for example) can still run all the monsters in the book.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think of the argument that at level X, Wizards / Clerics can do Y, so therefore martials being able to do Z is OK?
How about the effects of feat prerequisites on balance?
Loaded question... we have different benchmarks for each of the classes. Where they line up is usually intentional, but there are so many factors to deal with, it is never as simple as folks try to boil it down to (ie.. its all about damage output... or its all about survivability... etc).
Feat prerequisites are there for us to peg the point at which a character can gain access to a feat, or to enforce understood roles a feat is meant to play in the game... at least, that is their general intent.
|
Lead Designer
|
Abnett's great. Have you read his most recent non-40K, non-Who book, "Embedded?"
Did you have to look up how to spell Chuck Palahniuk's name?
Have not read Embeedded, but I might need to check it out. As for chuck's name, the correct spelling of that one happens to stick with me for some reason...
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
Tempting, but in the end, we have to make sure our books have everything they need in them, so that a GM with only Bestiary 4 (for example) can still run all the monsters in the book.Since it hasn't gone to print yet, would it be too late to remove all of the reprinted feats/monster rules from the back of Bestiary 4 (that were printed in bestiary 1/available on the SRD) to include rules for climbing large foes, since this bestiary introduces kaiju?
I for one would applaud that transition away from duplicative printing in favor of new monster-related rules!
To that end, the Advanced Player's Guide didn't reprint rules from the Core Rulebook. I had always assumed that the Core Rulebook and the first Bestiary were assumed to be the "core set" of books you needed to successfully run the game. Between the accessibility of the PRD and the unlikelihood that someone is running the game with only the Bestiary 4, I feel like an argument could be made to include newer monster-related rules in newer monster-related books (or simply cutting the page count, including more monsters, or any number of alternatives).
|
Lead Designer
|
To that end, the Advanced Player's Guide didn't reprint rules from the Core Rulebook. I had always assumed that the Core Rulebook and the first Bestiary were assumed to be the "core set" of books you needed to successfully run the game. Between the accessibility of the PRD and the unlikelihood that someone is running the game with only the Bestiary 4, I feel like an argument could be made to include newer monster-related rules in newer monster-related books (or simply cutting the page count, including more monsters, or any number of alternatives).Tempting, but in the end, we have to make sure our books have everything they need in them, so that a GM with only Bestiary 4 (for example) can still run all the monsters in the book.Since it hasn't gone to print yet, would it be too late to remove all of the reprinted feats/monster rules from the back of Bestiary 4 (that were printed in bestiary 1/available on the SRD) to include rules for climbing large foes, since this bestiary introduces kaiju?
I for one would applaud that transition away from duplicative printing in favor of new monster-related rules!
True, but out Bestiaries have always been self referential. We do this to try and make the GMs job easier. We also try to keep our bestiaries focused on monster content. Rules for climbing a monster (as an example) really should go elsewhere since we would probably want feats, magic items, or spells to work with such a new system. That would mean that we end up with PC content in a monster book, which we generally avoid.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
True, but out Bestiaries have always been self referential. We do this to try and make the GMs job easier. We also try to keep our bestiaries focused on monster content. Rules for climbing a monster (as an example) really should go elsewhere since we would probably want feats, magic items, or spells to work with such a new system. That would mean that we end up with PC content in a monster book, which we generally avoid.To that end, the Advanced Player's Guide didn't reprint rules from the Core Rulebook. I had always assumed that the Core Rulebook and the first Bestiary were assumed to be the "core set" of books you needed to successfully run the game. Between the accessibility of the PRD and the unlikelihood that someone is running the game with only the Bestiary 4, I feel like an argument could be made to include newer monster-related rules in newer monster-related books (or simply cutting the page count, including more monsters, or any number of alternatives).Tempting, but in the end, we have to make sure our books have everything they need in them, so that a GM with only Bestiary 4 (for example) can still run all the monsters in the book.Since it hasn't gone to print yet, would it be too late to remove all of the reprinted feats/monster rules from the back of Bestiary 4 (that were printed in bestiary 1/available on the SRD) to include rules for climbing large foes, since this bestiary introduces kaiju?
I for one would applaud that transition away from duplicative printing in favor of new monster-related rules!
That's a pretty reasonable response, and one I hadn't considered. I guess this raises the inevitable (with this line of discussion) question of what book or line of books do you think would be the best fit to support something like this? I think the game, as far back as I can remember into the bowels of 2nd edition, has never really had solid rules for this sort of stunt, but it shows up in literature and pop culture all the time.
I know any product with rules like this would be an immediate pre-order for me.
Hey Jason! Have a question for you:
I'm a big fan of rangers, both the flavor, abilities and my always trusty animal companion.
Rangers don't get an animal companion till 4th level, and I believe it was mentioned they didn't need a bad ass companion because they are already good at fighting, and instead the animal companion was more of a scout. However with the introduction of the Mad Dog archetype from the Animal Archive book, we now have a full BaB, powerhouse Barbarian having a full druid list of animals to choose from and they get their companion at level 1.
1) Is there any ideas currently of creating a ranger archetype with a companion at level 1?
2) Do you have any input on class features that could be switched or removed to make having an animal companion at first level viable for a ranger? (Currently there is the "Falconer" archetype, which restricts choices to only bird companions, and the companion is much weaker until the ranger hits 4th level, which now seems out of place considering the Barbarian Archetype).
Ideas that come to mind are reduced Favored Enemy bonuses (halved?), pushing back the ability to cast spells till later (or reducing the number of spells per day). Alternatively, what about a Combat Style that focuses on an Animal Companion? Such that the animal companion begins with the player at level one, but they are locked into the Combat Style, thus "balancing" them powerwise with the other classes?
Sorry if that was a little wordy. Thanks!
Those numbers were from reversing the bonuses granted by going up in size. If the creature had a +2 to Str, added to the -10, you end up with -8, which is stronger than your average Diminutive creature (which would normally be at about a 1)
I thought it would be closer to the different X Shape/Form/etc spells... And neither Sprite or Atomie have -10 str (granted Sprite get -8).
In the ARG, Small has no bonus or penalty, and Tiny only has -2 STR and +2 DEX... Unless this got errata'ed.
Will there be future support for the Qinggong Monk archetype in the form of new Ki Powers?
|
Have not read Embeedded, but I might need to check it out. As for chuck's name, the correct spelling of that one happens to stick with me for some reason...Abnett's great. Have you read his most recent non-40K, non-Who book, "Embedded?"
Did you have to look up how to spell Chuck Palahniuk's name?
Ohh have you been keeping up on the Horus Heresy books? If so what are your favorite and least favorite books thus far? Also have you managed to read Betrayer by Aaron Dembski-Bowden yet?
When looking over the Performance Combat feats, the entire section seems to be filled with unnecessary feat taxes. You need a feat to grant most weapons the perform special weapon quality, you need Dazzling Display in order to qualify for most of the feats (which has its own prerequisite feat unless you belong to the Order of the Cockatrice), and then you need a third feat in order to use Performance feats outside of a performance combat, which accounts for a wide majority of the combats players will be entering in the first place, and even if you take that feat you still need to roll a hard-to-modify performance check before you can even use the feat in the first place.
What are your thoughts on the combat performance rules and the feats that accompany them?
If a PC takes the Leadership feat, who gets to design the cohort - the player or the GM?
For that matter, should the GM present via roleplay a number of possibilities (at the right character level for the Leadership score), and let the player/PC choose a cohort from among them (and only then let the player see the nitty-gritty information like stats)?
|
Lead Designer
|
When looking over the Performance Combat feats, the entire section seems to be filled with unnecessary feat taxes. You need a feat to grant most weapons the perform special weapon quality, you need Dazzling Display in order to qualify for most of the feats (which has its own prerequisite feat unless you belong to the Order of the Cockatrice), and then you need a third feat in order to use Performance feats outside of a performance combat, which accounts for a wide majority of the combats players will be entering in the first place, and even if you take that feat you still need to roll a hard-to-modify performance check before you can even use the feat in the first place.
What are your thoughts on the combat performance rules and the feats that accompany them?
We always intended performance combat to be a bit niche. If your campaign makes use of it frequently, they will pay dividends, if not, they are not your best option unless you have a very specific character in mind.
|
Lead Designer
|
If a PC takes the Leadership feat, who gets to design the cohort - the player or the GM?
For that matter, should the GM present via roleplay a number of possibilities (at the right character level for the Leadership score), and let the player/PC choose a cohort from among them (and only then let the player see the nitty-gritty information like stats)?
Usually the player, but I could see some very interesting opportunities if you let the cohort be a GM vehicle. Just think of all the questions you could pose, a mysterious past, new enemies for the group, etc. It could become an entire plot arc.
|
Lead Designer
|
Mr Bulmahn.
1)Why there are so few fighter only feats in the game (particularl high level ones)?
It seems like paladins, barbarians and ranger get nicer and nicer things with every new book (powerful paladins and ranger spells and powerful rage powers) but fighter do not.
2) is there any plan for a new base class?
3)Is there a chance for "martials" of the inner sea?
4) is there any chance for a fighter archetype that get a decent mount?
5) of the book you have done, which is yor favorite?
1. Well, ever feat we put out is another option for the fighter. Since they get about twice as many as other classes, they have a much greater opportunity to utilize this new content.
2. Not at the moment, but that does not mean I am ruling them out either.
3. There could be, but that is not my area of expertise. I am focused solely on the hardcover rulebooks.
4. Of course there is.. now, what that chance might be is another matter entirely.
5. Hard to beat the core rulebook, but the APG was the first book of entirely new content so I'd have to go with that one.
When's my next fix from Minotaur Games? I'm craving more!
When's my next fix from Minotaur Games? I'm craving more!
Wednesday... :)
If a PC takes the Leadership feat, who gets to design the cohort - the player or the GM?
For that matter, should the GM present via roleplay a number of possibilities (at the right character level for the Leadership score), and let the player/PC choose a cohort from among them (and only then let the player see the nitty-gritty information like stats)?
Usually the player, but I could see some very interesting opportunities if you let the cohort be a GM vehicle. Just think of all the questions you could pose, a mysterious past, new enemies for the group, etc. It could become an entire plot arc.
Thank you for your response!
|
|
A Jason thread. Nice!
Firstly, I wanted to extend my thanks to you for writing a great game set. Secondly, I wanted to thank you for signing my 1st printing book way back when you came to Gen Con OZ many moons ago. I was all geeky and couldn't think of anything to ask you so I just offered you a coffee. You'd just finished one <sigh>.
Ok, some questions.
1. As a DM, how often do you try out your new rules on your onging campaigns? Is that something you only try on in house game testing I guess is what I'm asking.
2. When I first met you, we chatted a bit about how cool is game design. You loved it then. Are you still enamoured with it or is it becoming too much like work nowadays? I ask becasue one of my concerns in pursuing alternate careers is that maybe the thing I love doing will lose its lustre if it becomes work.
3. I'm not sure if this one's been done yet, so forgive me if this is a repeat. Which rules set/update etc. did you write for pathfinder that you find most satisfying? Feel free to expand on why if its ok.
4. What's one set of rules you'd like another pass at if given the chance and less issue with backwards compatability. (If any that is, it may be presumptuous of me to think otherwise i guess).
Think I'll leave it as that. Very cool to see you in a thread like this.
Cheers
When's my next fix from Minotaur Games? I'm craving more!Wednesday... :)
Huzzah!!
|
Lead Designer
|
A Jason thread. Nice!
Firstly, I wanted to extend my thanks to you for writing a great game set. Secondly, I wanted to thank you for signing my 1st printing book way back when you came to Gen Con OZ many moons ago. I was all geeky and couldn't think of anything to ask you so I just offered you a coffee. You'd just finished one <sigh>.
Ok, some questions.
1. As a DM, how often do you try out your new rules on your onging campaigns? Is that something you only try on in house game testing I guess is what I'm asking.
2. When I first met you, we chatted a bit about how cool is game design. You loved it then. Are you still enamoured with it or is it becoming too much like work nowadays? I ask becasue one of my concerns in pursuing alternate careers is that maybe the thing I love doing will lose its lustre if it becomes work.
3. I'm not sure if this one's been done yet, so forgive me if this is a repeat. Which rules set/update etc. did you write for pathfinder that you find most satisfying? Feel free to expand on why if its ok.
4. What's one set of rules you'd like another pass at if given the chance and less issue with backwards compatability. (If any that is, it may be presumptuous of me to think otherwise i guess).
Think I'll leave it as that. Very cool to see you in a thread like this.
Cheers
1. As often as I can. Right now, my home group is using the downtime rules, which is well after I can make changes to the system, but at least it is giving me a headsup on potential issues.
2. Its still awesome. There are always days when it feels like work and that does take some getting used to, but it is totally worth it.
3. As far as rules sets go, I am very happy with how the upcoming Mythic Rules turned out. Its a whole new way to play the game and if done right, it can really be a fantastic addition to an ongoing story.
4. If I did not have to worry about backwards compatibility, I would probably take apart the core scaling mechanic of the game. It breaks down at higher levels, leading to some unfortunate situations.
Did I make you angry/annoyed?
Those numbers were from reversing the bonuses granted by going up in size. If the creature had a +2 to Str, added to the -10, you end up with -8, which is stronger than your average Diminutive creature (which would normally be at about a 1)
I thought it would be closer to the different X Shape/Form/etc spells... And neither Sprite or Atomie have -10 str (granted Sprite get -8).
In the ARG, Small has no bonus or penalty, and Tiny only has -2 STR and +2 DEX... Unless this got errata'ed.
Unless I'm missing something?
Do you guys have any plans for more in-depth blog posts about confusing areas of the rules? Sort of like the Poison or Animal Intelligence one.