|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Most games I play in raise the cost of Monk's Robes by 50%. The formentioned bracers also get price raised.
Some games I have played in ban PC made items with wishes in them.
The making of Mountains into Islands and Islands into Plains seems like just a bit of mana shuffling, not too game breaking unless it affects the other player's lands. Wait... wrong game.
strayshift: So what bloodline power would you get? There is only one bloodline power listed for Sylvan.
To be clear an animal companion at CL-5 is fairly weak for a 2 feat investment. It isn't like you are getting more for that bloodline choice than the others. For a third feat (Boon Companion) you could even get it at CL-1! ...still pretty meh for a 3 feat investment.
I understand you are going for the one punch trick thing here but to me it doesn't seem as worth while to invest in both Nature Magic and Grasping Strike to situationally (foliage in the area has to exist) gain the same advantage that you could accomplish simply by throwing a net at them.
If you don't care and you just want to add whatever effects you can (even situational ones) to you punch as possible then feel free to ignore this post.
Still looking for an answer to this:
Me, earlier wrote:
Rogar: I thank you for having logical arguments. However, I have good reason to see them as the same thing. There is a distinction between Bloodlines that are Sorcerer Bloodlines and and Bloodlines that are not Sorcerer Bloodlines. For example there is the generic term "bloodlines" that is just referring to your character's ancestry and is something that mostly belongs in a character's background. There are also Bloodlines that are not available to a Sorcerer like a Bloodrager's Bloodlines. There are also templates that talk about having a bloodline as to the cause of inheriting the template like half-dragon.
But Wildblooded Bloodlines? Yeah. Those are Sorcerer Bloodlins.
As I have said before, I am not the only one with this opinion. In fact, I believe it is the popular opinion of those on these boards as I have seen from previous threads on this issue. I do not slight others for their opinions on intention but it appears to me that there are people who are reading words in that do not exist in RAW. That is also what Ravingdork sees if I read him correctly and others who have posted on this topic repeatedly in other threads.
fretgod99: The rules state that you get the Bloodline Power. It is (regardless of other things it also is) a Bloodline Power. Honestly, that is as simple as it is. If you don't get it then you would be getting nothing for taking a feat and I truly do not believe that is what is intended. Do you believe it is intended for you to take a feat and get nothing?
fretgod99: I didn't handwave it away. You are correct that it counts as an Arcana. But that does not make it NOT count as a Bloodline Power. For that I think YOU are handwaving it away. And I think that YOU are adding words that do not exist as there is nothing that says you do NOT get the Bloodline Power. That is the letter of the rules.
fretgod99: The concern that it replaces two abilities IS a balance related concern. Is it not? As I said before, "Leadership > Eldritch Heritage. And that is one feat."
Taking two feats to accomplish less than what a single feat accomplishes doesn't even ping on my balance radar. But I guess in that regard my equipment is less sensitive than others'.
Majuba, Rogar Stonebow: It is impossible for you to know my attitude as words do not carry that sort of thing well. I can tell you that I do not have an attitude about any of it. If you took offense by something I'm said, I am sorry you did so. No offense was intended. Looking back at what I said, it is hard for me to imagine what it was. Especially considering the things said to me. I mean, people got so passionate as to call me "superior", "disingenuous" and attacking my character as you are. None of this is relevant to the discussion. My suggestion would be to return to that before someone violates a board rule and the thread gets locked.
By the way, the RAW that I am using to support my stand has been stated multiple times. I wasn't even the first person to post it. Eldritch Heritage says to "Select one Sorcerer Bloodline". It does not specify further about what type of Bloodline must be selected. It does not disclude Wildblooded Bloodlines. That is something that is being read into rules that does not exist. Wildblooded Bloodlines are Sorcerer Bloodlines.
Rory: Whether or not the animal companion is an arcana or not does not disclude it from being a Bloodline Power. It is, in fact, listed as a Bloodline Power. While Eldritch Heritage says that you do not gain any of the other Bloodline Abilities, it also does not say that you lose your Bloodline Power. That is something that is being read into the rules that is not there. That is why it is not RAW.
You are suggesting that not only does it not grant the other bloodline abilities but it doesn't grant the bloodline power and it just does not state that.
If not, then why do you get to take an ability which stands in for both?
Because of the wording of Eldritch Heritage.
All of your concerns about why it shouldn't work are balance related concerns. Those are understandable too. However, Leadership > Eldritch Heritage. And that is one feat.
Mathius: I think I have seen you share this in a different thread on the same topic. It is a valid point and a fresh look into the reasoning.
Because the free haste gives them access to more 3rd level spells.
Also, did you read my actual suggestion?
Zhayne: He covered that. With his system he would arbitrarily reduce your point buy when you get casting ability. I know how much players like that mid adventure retcon nerf, right?
Rogar, I am sorry you do not like the words that I used but I never invalidated anyone's viewpoint. In fact, I have stated several times that people are allowed to make their own house rules and have opinions about what is balanced. What I have an issue with is someone saying what their opinion is on a ruling and then saying that ruling is RAW.
This is the same thing that Ravingdork is saying when he said:
Wildblooded sorcerers are still sorcerers. Mutated bloodlines are still bloodlines. People who go deeper than that are over thinking it or unintentionally making up rules where none exist.
I am glad that we agree on what is RAW, though, so I'm not sure what we are disagreeing with?...
If we take the rules out of the equation for a moment (I know, weird, right?) and look at it from a logical perspective...
Eldritch Heritage is a feat that you take to represent what?
A Wildblooded Bloodline represents what?
I have been accused of being closed minded. Are we really going to say that it is not possible for a being to have been born with Wildblooded Bloodline that ISN'T a Sorcerer? Because to me, that seems like what is being said here. Am I wrong?
Wait... what? Haste is a spell that benefits martials FAR more than it does casters. Whats the big deal with that?
Also, I think you are way off on your opinion that casters use wealth better than martials and I believe you will find that a lot of people here disagree with that statement as well.
On a constructive side there is an old 3.5 book called the Book of Erotic Fantasy that had a fatigue casting system in it that I liked a lot. It could probably be tweaked a bit and seems to fit in with most fantasy trope. Reminds me a lot of Rastlin casting spells and getting tired. There is a lot of great pictures in it too... ;)
ryric: I'm stepping out from your argument actually. You will have to find someone else to argue with, I'm afraid. When you start asking for "irrefutable quotes" and I feel that I have given them but you continue to refute them I can not give what you ask. I feel like any evidence that I give you would refute. And where will that get anyone?
It boggles my mind that you believe that Sorcerer Bloodlines are not Bloodlines, mutated bloodlines are not bloodlines and bloodlines are not bloodlines. You state this as hard evidence but provide no proof yourself. You ask for irrefutable quotes but when I show you in your own words that you are saying "bloodlines" but not seeing that they are "bloodlines", do you consider this "irrefutable"?
Please bare in mind that I wasn't even the first one in this thread to point this out. Perhaps you would like to argue with Ravingdork instead? Or perhaps it would be more constructive to argue with the OP?
In the mean time I will be over here ignoring you and declaring myself the winner, I suppose. Gosh, I'm blushing. First you all call me superior then a winner. I'm honored.
Yes, that is yet a different discussion, Petty Alchemy. On that topic I can see both sides.
But the two questions are:
2. Can you take the Sylvan Bloodline with Eldritch Heritage?
The first one has no issues with RAW, we have no answer on intention, and it seems to have no balance issues. It is totally legal in RAW and I always allow it.
For the second, while I can see both sides of that argument I can't reconcile not allowing someone to take one Bloodline and not another. And while Eldritch Heritage states that it gives you only the bloodline power that IS, in fact, all that you are getting with Sylvan. It just so happens that the particular Bloodline doesn't get an Arcana. RAW this has no bearing on whether it works or not. Intention has still not been given at any point. At this point it is only a matter of game balance. So then you have to ask yourself, "Self, do you think it is too powerful to gain an Animal Companion at CL -3 for the cost of two feats?" Personally, I do not believe that there is a balance concern here. I allow it. Regardless, RAW allows for it.
Ryric: You have successfully proven that Wildblooded Bloodlines are Archetypes. Congratulations. This does not disprove that they are not also Bloodlines. It is right in their name.
You can not say that "RAW they aren't bloodlines" and then call someone "disingenuous" when they point out that your opinion is not RAW. RAW, all Bloodlines are Bloodlines.
As previously stated, you have a lovely opinion. But it is just that. This is a hotly debated topic but what people are debating is intention, not RAW. RAW is very clear.
Maybe some day we will get what the intention was out of a developer. But even that doesn't change RAW. RAW only changes when errata changes it.
In the mean time feel free to rule how you want in your home games. You do not need to argue with people on the internet to do that.
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
I see. So it is ok for you to act superior, but not me? How about I keep acting the same way and if you judge it as superior then I just take it as a compliment? :)
You see, the burden of proof here doesn't lie with me. I do not need to prove that Wildblooded Bloodlines are bloodlines. They may be mutated bloodlines, archetypes and other things that do not disclude them from being bloodlines. But they are still bloodlines.
It is just as Ravingdork said earlier:
The link that Durngrun posted shows that it is an Archetype. That does not disclude it from also being a Bloodline. It just makes it have to conform to guidelines for both.
Debated issues do not change RAW. People are interpreting intention, not RAW. RAW is very clear on this topic; it works.
What is disingenuous is coming to a thread where the OP clearly is going by the RAW and declaring that it doesn't work. There is no RAW evidence to backup that view point and there has been no official ruling on it to change RAW. Saying that it doesn't work is stating an opinion and calling it a fact.
Mutated bloodlines ARE bloodlines.
That is RAW.
This topic has brought up several times. There has been no official ruling against this. By RAW it works.
If you don't want it to work in your own home games then you are allowed to house rule against it. Arguing that you opinion on the intention of the rules is the only possible correct opinion will get you nowhere. You will not convince anyone with the opposite opinion any more than they will convince you.
Hm. Looking back over it I think my best suggestion is to go with Half-Elf and take the Elf Favored Class Bonus. This allows you to get the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat for free at first level and the extra 1/6 aracana per level. Of course this was all assuming going Hexcrafter rather than Kensai (Hexcrafter is better for debuff stacking). If you go Kensai then it is moot as you get the Exotic Weapon Proficiency for free from Kensai.
IMO you should not adjust encounters to fit a party. I have this opinion both from a DM and player experience.
As a DM I believe that it is the player's responsibility to creatively find a way to thrive as a party. From a player's experience I would actually be offended if I found that my DM was catering encounters to make it easier for myself or my party. It would make me think that the DM thinks that either my character or my party is inadequate. If I found this to be the case then I would seek to find ways to fill the gap either with my character or via suggestions to the other players as to how to fill those gaps.
And I think that is what needs to happen here. Others have filled in the reason why. It wouldn't be so bad if the Summoner wasn't purposefully removing himself and his Eidolon from melee combat as a potential target. That is just going to serve to make things more difficult as it is going to leave the rest of the party to be taking just as many hits among fewer targets.
If the Witch focuses on battlefield control and the cleric is a passable tank then this might help. Having the Cleric focus a bit on summoning might help to give more targets as well. If all else fails there are always hirelings and pets.
On the topic of PCs knowing about the existence of all the magic items present in the Pathfinder books...
I'm with wraithstrike on this one. Why would they not? We do. As players most of us know the properties of most of the magic items. I don't think I am nearly as intelligent as many of the characters with ranks in knowledge: arcana or spellcraft are. Or at least not as skilled in those fields. But how is it that I could know more than they do on those particular topics?
Does anyone honestly think that it is beyond a PC's ability to read a 300 page book and commit it to memory? Or at least the section about magic items?
The way I prefer to handle it in game is with knowledge checks for some things that might not be so common of knowledge but for many magic items it is assumed they know.
As for the topic at hand I think that the RAW method is a quick and easy way of going about a moderate approach to availability. As for the roleplaying aspect of this, well... I think that depends on where the PCs are at that they are shopping for said items. It so greatly depends on this that I can't think of any general advice to give.
JoCa: No problem on the thread necro. I actually appreciate the subject getting more attention.
I agree with your evaluation of it's uses, just that there aren't a lot of good extracts on the Alchemist list to use for it. You are right though and perhaps some spell research is called for here. The Poison spell seems like a good choice. Perhaps Contagion?
We have a Witch in my party with the Brew Potion feat so that might help. I'd rather be more self sufficient though but perhaps even having her teach my character some spells would help with spell research. *shrug*
Also, and I'm being as polite as I can here: you might get more answers if you were being a little less acidic with the responses to posts you don't like. You may not be trying to or realize that you are, but you're coming off as being kind of rude.
My responses were meant to be taken exactly as I wrote them. They were not rude responses. It is possible that someone took them that way but whether they did or not that has nothing to do with my intent.
I am frustrated and annoyed however when I specifically say "Lets go with the assumption that the GM in question would disallow any personal range spells like Skinsend. I would assume any sane GM would not allow that but more importantly mine does not." ...and then the next posts contain 3 posts on that exact kind of spell. Then I point that out again and to please not suggest that same thing. What happens? BAM. Same suggestion again. At that point I move off from my kid mittens and call the person out for suggesting that very thing again.
Yeah, I don't think the problem is there me being rude. I asked nicely. Twice. You suggest the same thing again expect to be called out for reading retention fail. That is the last I'll say on that. You got a problem with something I say then bring it up with me privately and leave it out of this thread. It is no longer a constructive course of conversation (and never really was).
The rest of your suggestions were somewhat helpful. Thank you for remaining constructive.
Tomos: I do not care if you think it should be ruled one way and not another. I disagree. You will not change my mind on this, I'm sure I will not change yours. Moreover, you could not possibly change my DM's mind as he isn't even here for you to convince. I will ask you once again to please move off the topic of Skinsend and Polypurpose Panacea. Your suggestions on that topic are not helpful.
I think a size large enemy with a greataxe would be more than inconvenienced by dropping to size medium. Guess that's just my opinion though.
Really? Why? His Greataxe moves to size small as well. He can still use it. In fact, you just gave him a +2 Dex, +2 AC (including the Dex), +1 Ref save, and +1 to hit. All for taking a -2 to Str? That could easily be considered a buff.
I think our theories on what is considered "very useful" vary pretty widely.
I said it was the point of Infusion. Not Touch Injection. Touch Injection is just an alternate delivery method for liquids. Some liquids can be infusions.
Ah, yes. I guess I misread that. My mistake. It probably comes from all the people wanting to argue with my DM's ruling in this thread (not helpful!). You are correct. However, I will not be getting Infusion. I am the party's tank so I will need to be focusing my feats and discoveries on that. So, unfortunately in my circumstance it is moot.
Rushley son of Halum: I actually am a Chirurgeon and while Breath of Life is awesome and awesomely useful for this I will not be getting it as I will never get to 10th level Chirurgeon. I will be going into Master Chymist. Also... he is a half-orc, but no great sword. He does have a merciful greataxe but rarely uses it. Instead he typically fights with natural attacks that he has permanent +3 greater magic fang on.
LessPopMoreFizz: I respectfully disagree. I think that the whole point of it is to allow spells that target "creature touched", not personal range no save spells that are meant only for voluntary use by one's self. In fact, I am willing to bet that if you ran this by a developer or JJ that they would back me up on it. Furthermore, I can't think of any situation of where a sane GM would allow this to happen more than once.
But this is irrelevant. Because my GM doesn't allow it. Period. Move on from Skinsend and Polypurpose Panacea, please.
I still feel that I am missing some good stuff here. Surely someone has used Touch Injection (or as LessPopMoreFizz pointed out, Poisoner's Glove or a Medlance) before.
I think that all the posts that start with this assumption need to add a disclaimer. Something like, "Assuming, for the moment, that these things statck..." Just so the threads don't get derailed into further debates on it. Maybe add to the disclaimer the link that Under a Bleeding Sun posted stating, "If you would like to discuss whether or not this works or not please follow this link and click FAQ."
Personally per RAW I am for it working. From a balance perspective though... I dunno, it is pretty strong. I can't think that something so obvious was an oversight though, so perhaps it is intended. I dunno, I'm on the fence.
Tomos: Read the first line of my first post. Then read my last post. Stop suggesting Skinsend.
Blindness isn't on the Alchemist list. And I challenge you to find the offensive spells on the Alchemist list (as I requested in the original post). Am I blind? Because I'm not seeing them. That is kinda what this whole post is about. I'll even make it easier on you. Here is a list.
You can't make a potion of Fireball because the rules state:
The Rules wrote:
It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects.
The only thing even remotely useful you have offered is Reduce Person which I find a hard time classifying as "offensive" though "inconvenienced" might be a better description. Even that is iffy.
To everyone who suggested the exact same thing repeatedly: Yes. I do mean outside of Panacea.
Please reread my original post where I said:
Me. Just earlier on the very first line of my post. wrote:
Lets go with the assumption that the GM in question would disallow any personal range spells like Skinsend. I would assume any sane GM would not allow that but more importantly mine does not.
Joe: Thank you for that useful suggestion. I was looking at the other drugs too. I was thinking of some way to combine it with Imbue With Addiction.
Lets go with the assumption that the GM in question would disallow any personal range spells like Skinsend. I would assume any sane GM would not allow that but more importantly mine does not.
Also, I would prefer spells or alchemical items that the Alchemist would have access to himself rather than from an outside source. However, if it is just too good to pass up, please enlighten me.
I'm not seeing a lot, to be honest. Poisons are fairly hard to come by from my experience and ridiculously hard to manufacture if you use the rules for crafting mundane items. The Alchemist extract list doesn't really lend itself too well to offensive spells that you could put in them.
For the record I am thinking of using these for a Hyde type Alchemist that I am playing currently. I was thinking of combining them with Deliquescent Gloves, Greater Magic Fanged natural attacks (I know there is nothing official but my GM allows the delivery via natural and unarmed attacks), Touch Injection, and a Spell Storing Amulet of Mighty Fists. Maybe some other things if I can think of them. I actually really wanted to think of a way to mix up some concoction in one of the gloves using an Admixture Vial and something in the other glove using a Hybridization Funnel. Maybe even using Drugs (GM ok'ed this as well).
Perhaps it is a distinct lack of creativity but I am coming up a bit short of things that would be good to combine here. I need some inspiration.
I am assuming you are using the Crossblooded Rager archetype? I know that this is more of a thought experiment but I would like to point out that Ragechemist is never a good choice. This is particularly true when mixing with the Crossblooded Rager. This character would at best be a liability to any party he would be in, at worst be the source of a TPK.
I also question why to go with a Bloodrager anyway as the Bloodrage ability doesn't stack with the bloodline granted morale bonus. It just kinda seems a waste unless I'm missing something?