|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Artifacts are not mere magical items: they do not have Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Forge Ring, Craft Staff, or Craft Rod as a construction requirement because they don't have construction requirements.
They also tend to be plot-specific in a way that doesn't favor the single-item format for RPG Superstar - Without the context of a campaign, they're just overpowered items. That let their author avoid one of the hardest parts of item design: pricing.
I won't speak for the judges, but Artifacts are flirting hard with DQ.
Intelligent items are legal: an intelligent sword is still a specific magic sword. But I'd avoid it for a number of reasons:
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say (how is a class that focuses on creation powers not 'Consciously' doing something?) but:
If this is something you think everyone does, regardless of character class, then you're not looking for a class or an archetype: you're trying to make it a racial ability or just game rule (otherwise you're going to have 'I think every character should have a level in X'.)
If you're looking for a class that can move heaven and earth at 1st level, that's overpowered. Just because you think some particular way of looking at the world is better, that is not a reason to break the game. I mean, do what you want for your home game, but that kind of input is really not helpful for a playtest for a book release.
Also, it's probably best not to involve how you think the real-world works. Clerics don't really parallel what priests in the real world do. Witches don't follow real pagan (or Satanic) traditions. Druidism was a Celtic religion, not a secret society of nature worshipers.
Frankly, I find the way you describe 'unconscious' action to be excessively Solipsistic for a team game, or in general, really. The idea that a fighter is unconsciously responsible for creating his sword, instead of the blacksmith who actually forged it robs the blacksmith of his agency: he's no longer a person with free will, but an automaton who entire existence serves to answer the fighter's one need. That's jarring enough applied to NPC, but can be destructive in the context of a team game: does the cleric exist purely so that your Conscious character has healing available when he desires it? What happens if two Conscious characters have conflicting goals?
I'm having a lot of difficulty reconciling your post above with your previous statements about thinking that a 3.5E Shaper Psion fills this role. What does a Shaper do that a Psychic focusing on Conjuration spells can't?
I don't think it's a particularly religious term. Mostly it seems used to sell self-help books.
But I'm getting off topic. My point wasn't to derail the thread with a discussion of The Secret's validity or lack therof. It was to discuss how appropriate EltonJ's idea was for the topic, and possibly how to drill it down to it's occult turn-of-the-(last)century roots.
I don't have access to a computer (on phone) or DSP's Psionics. So can someone give me, in 100 words or less, what Attraction and Shapers do?
Psions had to pick specialties the way wizards can. A Shaper was the psionic answer to a Conjurer.
The Law of Attraction thing, best I can tell, is the idea that one can 'attract' things or outcomes via force of will. As a general idea, that's been part of magic and/or prayer since ever. Under the term 'Law of Attraction', it appeared at the end of the 19th century, and it's most recent manifestation comes from Esther Hicks who claims to have gotten it from a non-corporeal entity named 'Abraham'. Her version became the film version of The Secret, which was then turned into a book of the same name.
I guess I should have posted this here, instead of in it's own thread:
Ross Byers wrote:
I've updated Cheapy's ACG post for Occult Adventures.
I’m not the end-all-be-all for what Paizo wants from this, but here are my thoughts on the topic.
Jason Nelson isn't a Paizo employee. He's a freelancer.
Most of Paizo's products are partially or fully written by freelancers. You may like some of those products more than others, but please don't take that as some kind of evidence that the ones you like weren't written by freelancers.
They already figured that out. Fire.
Look at it this way. We live in a world where if a genius works for their entire life, they can make a small improvement in human abilities. They get Nobel prizes or have scientific principles named after them. Marie Curie. Louis Pasteur. Alan Turing. Werner Von Braun. Newton. Einstein.
But in a world of magic, a genius working for his entire life can teleport or raise the dead. Two things mankind might not EVER be able to do in the world of science.
Sure, science might pay off more, for the masses and in a thousand generations. But for the guy who could actually generate progress, re-discovering the same arcane principles certainly holds more allure.
Magic isn't strictly a force for stasis, but it isn't democratic.
Spellbooks aren't standard: they need expert conversion and translation by the person using them.
Powerful magic is used by a tiny minority of high-level people, who can't easily share their knowledge with each other (and even if they could, that doesn't mean that a first level wizard could cast fireball.)
Magic items can be used by anyone, but are prohibitively expensive for even minor benefits. And magic items can't really help with making more magic items in the same way as using machines to create more machines: they can't be made in an assembly line, just by that small pool of powerful magic users.
In a world where every automobile had to be made by hand by a guy with a Ph.D. in engineering (an not even by a technician or underling with blueprints) there will be a lot fewer cars. (In this analogy, an airplane could only be made by the CEO of Boeing, by hand.)
And since you have to level up to use things, it is impossible to skip ahead: an apprentice wizard has to learn how a steam engine works before building a combustion engine before building a turbine. (As opposed to technological specialties, where the people who can design turbines in their sleep would probably fail at trying to make a working steam locomotive, at least on the first try.)
That's not so much stasis (where some force is actively holding progress back) so much as 'When you reach the limits of the potential there is no where else to go.'
In the simplest terms, nuclear fission breaks a single atom into two whereas nuclear fusion combines two atoms into one.
A few 'or mores' would improve this one. Also, these processes work on nuclei, not atoms.
Fusion, the holy grail of nuclear power, creates three to four times as much energy as fission.
More energy per what? Mass of fuel? Cost of fuel? Per reaction? Any assumptions on efficiency?
More importantly, fusion’s key advantage over fission is that it does not produce cancer-causing radioactive waste.
This is quite false. Hydrogen fusion doesn't produce radioactive material as spent fuel in the same way that uranium (or plutonium, or thorium...) fission does, but it still produces neutrons, which have to go somewhere, and aren't contained by magnetic fields (they aren't charged). In effect, the parts of the reactor will absorb neutrons and transmute into radioactive material. It's certainly LESS waste than a fission reactor, but way more than zero.
There is a theoretical helium-3 fusion process that does not emit neutrons, but it would need to be very carefully regulated to prevent more common dirty fusion from happening, and you'd need a supply of helium-3. The best source of which is probably the Moon, which kind of takes the 'cheap' and 'unlimited' parts of the benefit out.
cheap and plentiful hydrogen (deuterium and tritium)
Cheap is a relative term, especially when compared to uranium or coal, so I'm going to let that slide, but deuterium represents .0156% of the hydrogen on Earth. It's only plentiful in the sense of there being a LOT of ocean for us to process to get it. Tritium, on the other hand, basically does not occur naturally. There are a few ways to get tritium: 1) Bombard deuterium with neutrons 2) Bombard lithium with neutrons (to trigger a fission reaction) 3) Collect it as waste from a fission reactor. If tritium is cheap or plentiful, it is only because of fission plants. (Tritium is also radioactive, so say hi to cancer causing radiation again.)
enabling everything from unlimited fresh water to engines that take spacecraft to Mars in one month instead of six,
Fusion has no special relationship to those things. Any source of power can be used to desalinate water, and fission-based nuclear rockets have been designed since the 50's. I guess because you'll have a lot of desalinated water sitting around after you've gotten done sucking the deuterium out of it?
The key breakthrough involves using a “magnetic bottle” to contain the vast amount of heat,
This is just woefully short on details. We've been experimenting with magnetic containment for fusion since 1956. The key breakthrough might be something about magnetic bottles, or how their magnetic bottle works, or a unique way of deploying one, but I think we can agree it is false to call Lockheed's 'key breakthrough' something invented by the Soviets back before color TV.
Containing and controlling the staggering levels of heat and pressure involved has hampered countless previous efforts to use fusion for generating electricity.
The problem hasn't really been containing the power, it's been containing it in a way that uses less power than can usefully be extracted from the reaction.
Orcs of Golarion and Classic Monsters Revisited both explain that there is a great deal of variance orc appearance due to widely varying amounts of human blood and the possibility of more than one 'original' orc bloodline when they came up from underground.
This serves both as a great bit of in-world lore (that orc->half-orc->human is more of a continuum than neatly dividable) and provides a good deal of CYA for various artists having different ideas of what 'orc' might mean.
Town Cryer wrote:
THIS BREAKING NEWS just coming in (as of a few years ago), SCANDAL rocks the Asmodean Paladin Team as it's been discovered they've been been injecting serious doses of mistaken references to cover up the noncanoness of their existence! Asmodeus, in a rare instance of when he DIDN'T shoot his mouth off, could not be reached for comment.
It turns out that they were Champion of the Faith Warpriests and Hellknights the entire time.
I don't think I've made an argument that it shouldn't... the point of this thread was to learn what exactly the LGBT community was fighting for that wasn't already within its legal grasp.
And I think many people in this thread have provided excellent examples.Marriage comes with a lot of automatic legal rights that would require a lot of paperwork and legal fees to keep up to date a la carte.
Likewise, legal work-arounds often require extra paperwork and signatures when you try to use them. Oddly, many institutions will take a marriage at face value with no extra paperwork.
Marriages are recognized across state lines (in theory).
Marriage ties into hundreds of years of legal precedents, where domestic partnerships might not. (For instance, divorce law is well established. Dissolving a domestic partnership is less so.)
And of course, the whole thing where 'separate but equal' is, pretty much by definition, not actually equal.
'what you do in your bedroom is your business but I don't want to hear about it' to have to somehow be legally compelled to say aloud 'I accept your lifestyle'.
Legal gay marriage won't force bigots to publicly say "I accept your lifestyle" anymore than legalizing interracial marriage forced racists to say the same.
Anyone who says "What you do in your bedroom is your business but I don't want to hear about it." is either actually saying
1)'I don't want to see evidence that Gay people exist.', which is bigoted b~!*%*%~. It's asking gay people to stay closeted for the benefit of some stranger. (Because this wouldn't just apply to marriage. It applies to simple things like going out in public together.)
or 2) 'I have no problem with gay people but thinking about gay sex makes me uncomfortable', in which case they need to get over themselves. When you hear a straight couple is getting married, you don't immediately think about what they do in their bedroom.
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
but under the current magic item rules (and their implications even for simple things), they aren't low cost.
Those formulas are guidelines more than hard rules: the best indicator is to compare against existing items and figure out which a generic character would prefer. For cosmetic items with no mechanical benefit, like the self-chilling mug, that's kind of undefined, since a PC is unaffected by it. The price can be as low as your GM feels is reasonable.
The purifying well bucket, casting a 0 level spell with a defined mechanical benefit might cost a decent amount, but its a community investment and is still probably easier to create than a water treatment plant. It's the kind of thing a church might produce at-cost for the local parish.
A commoner with a rank in a profession has a profession bonus of +4. Taking 10, he earns 7 gp a week, or 1 gp a day. If he spent his feat on Skill Focus (Profession), his bonus is +7, and taking 10 earns him 8.5 gp a week.
This creates a contradiction. There are a few ways to reconcile it.
I'm not sure you actually can take 10 on a Profession check, but a single die is a linear distribution, so the 'average' result of a week is 10.5. Over the course of a year, we might as well assume they take 10.
That's completely untrained labor, from someone with no craft/profession skills. A middle class household, with an income based on a Profession skill and Skill Focus (Profession) has a vastly improved income. (Even if they're a level 1 commoner with a 10 Wis.)
1sp/day is 'minimum wage'. It doesn't represent an average.
I'm fairly sure I read somewhere in the lore that Nex in fact died during their war, but Geb couldn't accept that fact without solid proof. I'll have to do some hunting when I get home. Otherwise I'd assume the same as you.
Nex disappeared into a private demiplane and vanished. He may have been mortally wounded. He may have ceased to exist when the demiplane disappeared. He may have escaped, but aged to death in the intervening centuries. He may be trapped in another universe. He may be biding his time until he returns.
Because if you accidentally prove to Geb that Nex is still alive, then he would return to the world full-time and get back to the work of killing Nex.
In seriousness, there is a lot of possibilities for 'mundane' magical items that adventurers, governments, and other big spenders would have no interest in, that are within reach for middle-class families or lower-class villages. A water bucket at the well that casts purify food and drink on the well-water. Washboards that make for cleaner laundry. Drink mugs that are always cold. Kettles that boil themselves.
It's not that they don't exist, its that they are low-cost and low-value, so adventurers don't care, so they don't get space in rulebooks.
Well, the Pathfinder Longsword is actually a historical Arming sword or a broadsword, while the Bastard sword is the historical Longsword.
Historical weapons have shifted names and meaning several times: 'bastard sword' was originally a term for armorers and historians to refer to swords that don't neatly fit into their contemporary definitions, before it became a term for 'hand and a half sword'. That is, it once meant 'sword of uncertain/illegitimate origin', before it meant 'crossbreed sword'.
We don't need the 2nd edition Arms and Equipment guide that was exhaustive over different medieval specimens of weapons and armor with different rules for each, and 37 polearms. We need, for the game, broader weapon definitions that can apply to various weapons, the same way 'fighter' can be anything from a gladiator to a caravan guard to a knight to a grizzled mercenary.
'Longsword' should be able to able encompass any mostly-straight sword of sufficient length and heft to fight with a slashing motion, but not so long or heavy as to require two hands for a strong, skilled wielder. Longswords, broadswords, dao, katanas, and so on.
Scimitars and rapiers should, between them, cover most of the sabers, cavalry swords, and cutlasses.
Battleaxe should be able to encompass any axe bigger than a hatchet but small enough that it could be used with a shield.
Maces and morningstars do not need to be different weapons.
We don't need a billion different polearms just because weapons historians love to split those particular hairs. Does the game really benefit from having different (or repeated) rules for a glaive, naginata, halberd, and glaive-guisarme, despite them being fundamentally the same weapon?
The bastard sword (or the Dwarven waraxe) is the iconic hand-and-a-half weapon. But no one ever uses it as one: anyone interested in wading in two-handed would rather just use a greatsword (and save a feat), and most shield-and-sword builds would rather use a feat for something other than one-bigger die size and less-frequent loot drops.
Add to that the fact that the entire 'one-handed' weapon category are hand-and-a-half weapons in that you can switch to a two handed grip for more damage (assuming a Str > 14.) Historically, longswords/broadswords were likely to be hand-and-a-half hilted.
It might be interesting to re-evaluate the weapon categories from light/one-handed/two-handed to something like light (daggers, shortswords)/one-handed (sabers, rapiers, scimitars)/half-and-a-half (longsword, battleaxe, mace)/two-handed (greataxe, greatsword), perhaps with simple Str pre-reqs to proficiency instead of requiring a secondary feat.