|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
doesn't the alchemist like tear off a part of his magic and shove it into a bomb? why doesn't the alchemist explode himself occasionally?
That's like asking why a Fire Bloodline Sorcerer or Evocation Wizard doesn't spontaneously blow up. They don't because your magic needs to be directed to do things, it doesn't just happen on it's own. Not even for a Sorcerer, mostly, and certainly not for those who do their magic through reason and discipline like a Wizard or Alchemist.
They aren't flask sized. They're little vials, the small kind you use in a centrifuge in highschool, that are half the length of a pencil and maybe twice as thick. They're lal premixed and in bomb cases they charge kind like Gambit's throwing cards when he throws them they explode when something jarring happens; kinda like nitro once charged.
You can also make them out of metal, if you like (a fact noted here on somewhat larger vials).
And this interpretation (aside from the metal, which is simply logical) is borne out by the art of our Iconic Alchemist. See how many of those vials are larger than a test tube? It's like two of them. They are made of glass, but that's almost necessary artistically for us to know what they are.
So, in short, an adventuring Alchemist has a number of small, metal, vials. That's pretty easy to deal with. Now, the kits listed in the post above are a bit bigger and likely more breakable...but also utterly unnecessary for an Alchemist to do his basic work.
I think you are misrepresenting things more than a little (not as much as the person who claimed that the only spell affected by this was Magic Weapon, but still).
You made a statement that characters were limited to one buff spell...which is false. I was providing counterexamples proving that point, not trying to claim a lot of buff spells weren't Concentration duration.
These spells in the Basic 5e rule set are Concentration spells:
Yeah...but far from all of those are buff spells (which is what we were talking about), and several you list are Concentration duration even in Pathfinder to boot.
It's slightly misleading to say that. Neither spell is self-only, so with two spellcasters you can indeed have both on one person. That said, yes, it cuts down on spell buffs somewhat...but given the very short and preliminary spell list, it's anyone's guess whether that'll stay true even once the corebook is out.
Ross Byers wrote:
You're technically right, I was misremembering the downtime rules slightly...but anyone with Wis 10 can do "skilled labor" with an untrained Profession check and get 1 gp. So it's hardly uncommon.
That's Concentration duration spells only. And, actually, true of Concentration spells in Pathfinder as well. The only difference is that several more (by no means all) buffs are Concentration in 5th Ed. Aid, Freedom of Movement, Heroes Feast, Mage Armor, Spiritual Weapon, are all rather definitively not, for example.
I suspect that many aasimars end up becoming adventurers and thus don't often use the basic array.
Right...but adventurers are normally like, 5% of the population at most (that's the figure I use for all people of PC classes, actually). Even if Aasimar are 10 times as likely to become adventurers, that's still only half of them.
Huh? Where's that said? The only reference I can find (on p. 81) says that different magical effects stack fine, with only the same specific effect not stacking with itself. And most of them lack a Concentration duration as well.
Uh...both are 6 points different. Plus the stat differences. A 20th level 5th Ed. character has a +6 Proficiency Bonus, which the Cleric adds to Wis Saves and the Rogue doesn't.
The only real difference is in magic items, and is because we don't have any rules for such items from the free 5th Ed. PDF. So...that means basically nothing.
James Jacobs very much implied (if not outright said) awhile back he's be Lawful Evil. I tried to find the time I asked him so I could quote it, but all I could find was when someone else asked and he said he didn't want to say yet...
There's a reason for that. As noted in point #10 here, James Jacobs does indeed believe as you say...while James Sutter, who's actually written most of Mengkare's stuff, thinks he is LG. Which makes which is canonically true...ambiguous at the moment.
Its actually not a "big issue". I've provided a real world guide for playing this character and its limits. That's just a nickle-and-dime argument that doesn't really change the point.
Uh...if dolphins, with IQ 42, averaged Int 7 your whole argument falls completely apart. So...the fact that the dolphin Int is wrong is indeed sorta an issue there. Now, personally, I think 7 is stretching it a bit for a score like that (though I also think dolphins are probably smarter than IQ tests indicate)...but the simple fact that the basic numbers for your comparison (specifically, Int 2 = IQ 42) are completely off invalidates the numbers you derive from them completely.
Agreed, more or less.
A pack of Deinonychus is both level appropriate and nasty. I'd highly recommend it.
A Saurian Shaman Druid is also a spiffy encounter, especially summoning some extra dinosaurs to back him up. At 7th level, he can both assume the form of several interesting dinosaurs, and can have the good Animal Companions.
An ankylosaur defending it's territory or a hunting Allosaur are also good possibilities, and attacks by pteranodons could be interesting.
EDIT: Ninja'd somewhat. Ah, well.
Nah. Pathfinder is still as solidly balanced as it ever was. Summoner was a definite problem, but not as much so as Druid or Wizard, and only Arcanist is a potential issue with the ACG. Really, the calculus of class and race balance (and thus 'cheese') hasn't changed a whole lot since the game came out, and not much at all since the APG.
D&D Next isn't looking notably more balanced than Pathfinder, just simpler in the sense of there being less options. And how are less options inherently a good thing? I'm also not a big fan of the way the skill system is set up.
Oh, and on a pedantic note, the Gunslinger was in UC, not the APG.
Oooh, excellent point. That's probably less than half of Aasimar. Dropping the number to, say, 8 or so as a high end estimate, and probably more like 4 or so in reality.
They don't actually need to be as high level. Action economy is a hell of a thing. A group of four people as much as four levels lower actually have better than even odds against a single enemy. At 3 levels lower the target is likely to be screwed. Add in the very low number of high level spell casters around, and a single team of, say, 9th-10th level characters or so can do for a city of 20,000 people (plus some lower level folks of course).
EDIT: Semi-ninja'd, but it bears repeating.
They make good muscle for your teams. And heck, most of the advantages and disadvantages sound like what you would expect from a superstitious barbarians (strong, magic resistant, might go berserk, needs a handler so things don't go badly... price comes from booze, women, and damages though...heh)
The Barbarian can use Spell Sunder and a bow. And, unlike golems, someone can cast Fly on a Barbarian and let them pursue the fleeing Wizard. Still, you have a point. I'd still advocate a Tetori instead, grapples are brutal on spellcasters.
First agreeing to roll for stats and than making a character that will die immediately ON PURPOSE because your rolls dind't agree with you feels dishonest to me. Frankly, if you do not want to do random roll you should say so before you roll.
Agreed entirely. If you aren't willing to deal with rolling, say so upfront, and loudly if needed.
Most people here probably wouldn't be against rolling if they had rolled three 18s...
Actually, I got very nearly that on the last Pathfinder character I rolled. I still hate rolling for stats, because my problem with rolling isn't my character being potentially too weak, it's the characters not being balanced with each other, which I hate in a game system and strive to minimize.
Its is a greater challange to build and play a character this way. It's why you roll in the first place.
Yeah...that's not fun for me at all, either.
Golems aren't a bad idea, but they're expensive as hell, require a handler, have the potential to go wrong, and are actually easily countered by a clever spellcaster (who can just fly away, for example).
I'd use them in concert with teams of professionals, not instead of them.
This also touches on one of the quandaries of the game: states of existence that you can't help are options that are easily interchangeable with trained techniques, and just as easy to choose and switch between for the player. Plus, it brings up the problem that the characters can't just look at the character sheets to tell who has what.
You'll note that my recommended team are all of classes that can represent formal training of some sort. :)
If we're doing squads, I'd suggest a Wizard (Diviner or Abjurer...dabbling in the other), a Spellkiller Inquisitor, an Investigator, and a Tetori Monk (or Superstition Barbarian...though I'd prefer the Tetori, myself). That gives a good mix of skills, spells, investigative techniques, and the stuff needed to take down a Wizard.
"I wouldn't be that traumatized" reflects a lack of empathy. Empathy is not about projecting your reaction in the same situation onto everyone else, but trying to appreciate they have a completely different perspective and reaction.
No, it reflects a desire to point out the flaw in your statement, which was phrased as an absolute...and needs to be an absolute to be universally applicable. My not feeling that way proves that not everyone feels that way, and I don't have to prove that nobody feels that way (nor would I try since some people clearly do) to prove your assertion incorrect.
"If they don't find out" is a cheap excuse that can be used to excuse any crime.
Not necessarily. Most things people say that about are wrong for other reasons (cheating on one's spouse is wrong because it breaks one's word, stealing things from someone is wrong because they still lose the thing even if they don't find out you took it, etc.) but that's not necessarily true of cannibalism. That's not morally wrong for any reason except it potentially causing slight emotional trauma if revealed.
And besides, I'd say that hurting someone's feelings in order to not die slowly and horribly is, in fact, not an Evil act.
It causes harm to the loved ones of the deceased, so its evil. I would be traumatized if something like that happened.
I wouldn't be that traumatized knowing it happened (though I might be if I saw it done). And besides, they're only traumatized if they find out, so you just don't tell them. Frankly, this logic makes telling them what happened Evil, not the eating itself.
When someone you loves dies you don't then see them as just a corpse.
No, you don't. But that makes eating them emotionally difficult, not Evil.
Much as I hate rolling for stats, I don't think deep-sixing a character intentionally so you can reroll is usually appropriate. By agreeing to use rolled characters, you are implicitly entering a social contract to abide by what you roll, and not do that sort of thing.
Violating that social contract is the same reason cheating on dice rolls is wrong, and wrong to about the same degree.
Cap. Darling wrote:
That's...not accurate to Golarion. Look at the Settlement Rules or my Population Demographics. 1 in 300 is too high a number for anrti-magic cops, but not at all for cops in general, and they could easily be 3rd-4th level or higher pretty universally if they're well trained.
The best Anti-Wizard police are other Wizards. Indeed, Wizards make pretty solid investigators in general.
Also, one per 300 people is more than a bit high. The U.S. has slightly less than one cop per 400 people. Now, double or triple that number of police isn't uncommon, but even at the high end of that, you're saying half the police are explicitly anti-magic...and that's really high given the 5%-10% or so of the population that are magic users in Golarion and most other settings.
Potentially 20 such aasimar in the whole world? That's actually more than I would have thought.
That's a really high-end estimate, assuming both a higher population for Golarion and a higher Aasimar percentage of that population than is likely. Half that number seems a lot more reasonable.
Detect Magic wrote:
Sounds like cultural memetics might also play a role, since many people aren't aware of these complications. Rather than experience disease and madness themselves, they trust in the age-old traditions of their people (which tell them that eating the dead is taboo).
Aasimar are way less than 1% of the population in most of Golarion. Though there is one whole nation with a bunch of them, so maybe call it 2% total. Golarion also almost certainly has less than 1 billion people. So that's a max of 20 million Aasimar, and probably much less. So less than 20 people worldwide. I'd speculate less than 10.
Actually, the taboo against cannibalism is probably at least partially genetic. No other food is as likely to result in sickness due to diseases jumping between individuals of the same species more easily than between species, and can even result in the human version of mad cow disease if you eat the brains, which makes people and cultures that indulge in cannibalism less prone to survive and prosper.
Also, your 'good reasons' are pretty much the slippery slope and nothing else...which tends to be logically suspect.
Or a dervish dancer build could work as well.
Only if you're gonna not wear armor. No armor is light enough not to encumber you when you add in a scimitar.
On a more general note, I'd go Charisma and go Conversion Inquisitor, as suggested, or grab the student of Philosophy Trait. The 4 will hurt a bit, but be doable with that.
Parker is absolutely not a Slayer, not gonna get in an argument of which class is better because I disagree, but Parker not only never kills anyone, she only rarely engages in combat of any kind and when she does she uses a taser. She is a Rogue. Any further discussion should probably be moved to a separate thread.
Class =/= Flavor, Slayer can be used for everything from a soldier to sneak-thief pretty readily. And besides, Parker wins every hand-to-hand fight she gets in, and is mentioned by Elliot as the second most likely of the protagonists to kill someone (not in quite so many words, but the implication is there). And yeah, I'll leave it at that.
Actually I did find a FAQ post that states any class that can choose a domain can choose an inquisition. It had Ultimate Magic as it source.
Right, absolutely. Because they count as Domains in pretty much all ways. But...Druids aren't allowed to pick a Domain from the Domain list, they're only allowed to pick from a very specific and limited list...which has no Inquisitions on it.
Sophie is a Bard, Hardison and Parker are both Rogues with their skill points put in different places.
Eh, I'll agree with Sophie, but not the others. Parker certainly could be a Rogue, but I'd be inclined to go Slayer (because it's a better Class), and Hardison, in Pathfinder, is obviously some sort of Int-based caster, with Wizard and Alchemist (Mindchemist) being the obvious choices.
Yes, taboos against cannibalism are linked to culture. But RPGs in general and Golarion in particular are based on our common Western culture, in which cannibalism is a particularly heinous taboo, universally recognized as evil. Yes, we can conceive of cultures where this is not true, and there *may* be actual or historical cultures where the taboo against canibalism is articulated differently (depending on how accurately informed we are, oh ye junior anthropologists). However, in the eyes of the dominant western culture, these hypothetical cannibalistic societies are also evil.
Firstly, as others mention, no, Pathfinder's morality isn't entirely and specifically Western, and secondly (also as mentioned) no, that's not a universal feature of Western culture. And thirdly, and most importantly, this is an awful basis for a moral system. Things aren't right and wrong because people have said they are, they're right and wrong because they vioate actual moral principles, like the aforementioned hurting, killing, or oppressing others. Frankly, if you ever think something is morally wrong you should ask yourself why, and if your answer is "Because it is." or "Because people say so." not anything more philosophical or well thought out, then it's probably not wrong.
A human (or by extension, any sentient being) does not simply "become" meat or protein that can then be consumed without guilt or remorse.
Who said anything about 'without guilt or remorse'? People often do (and even should) feel guilty about things that aren't actually wrong or Evil if those things violate their cultural taboos or are particularly bad situations (casual sex for example, or failing to save a friend's life...though neither of those should result in guilt).
C'mon, I just don't buy it. Even if you're chaotic neutral, dining on the dead is just plain evil.
As stated above, why?
What if told your Paladin fell for lying if telling the truth meant a family of innocents dying? (Lets say for this example this is like Speed, but the bus explodes if the paladin doesn't tell at least 50 lies per hour.)
Slightly Off Topic Argument:
Actually I have, and will continue to, strongly argued that not lying isn't actually a part of the Paladin's Code per se. It's not listed in the actual text of the code, but as an example of being honorable, with being honorable the actual part of the Code. Therefore, I would argue, a Paladin may freely lie when it is honorable to do so. Now that's a rare circumstance, but one that could certainly come up.
Just for the record.
Agreed 150% actually. That's what blew my mind about it. Here you have a magical doohicky that some poor kid died for, against his will even, but at least his soul could know that it saved someone else's life. I, personally, would be comforted by the idea that if I was going to be murdered, that it would at least have a silver lining like saving the life of some kid with leukemia.
Yep. The Nazi Research analogy used above really does apply.
If a GM told me my Paladin fell for using said scroll on said child, I'd walk out and never associate with him or her again. Not because of the game ruling, but because I would want to stay far, far away from that human being.
Eh. I could sorta see it being a no-win situation, where using the Scroll was a lesser Evil, but still Evil. I wouldn't run it that way, but it seems somewhat reasonable.
The idea that not using a way to save an innocent child's life is somehow not Evil is the part I disagree with profoundly, I can sorta see using black magic powered by the deaths of children as inherently Evil regardless of whether it comes pre-powered and what you're using it for...it's just not nearly as Evil as the alternative of letting a child die and letting the life used to make the scroll go to waste.