Caedwyr |
Caedwyr wrote:I'd like to play a Aya Brea type character from Parasite Eve 1. The basis of her power is semi-aware mitochondria that allows her to manifest a number of abilities from a pool of energy that recharges over time. The character is generally martial in nature despite the supernatural/extraordinary abilities.
Abilities are the following:
Heal (self-heal, varying strengths depending on energy expenditure)
Scan (reveals target's health condition and any weaknesses)
Slow (slows targets' movement/actions)
Detox (cures poison)
Barrier (attacks against the character drain the energy pool before doing HP damage)
Energy Shot (dump all remaining energy into a large medium ranged blast that damages target)
Confuse (causes confusion effect in target)
Haste (self-only)
Gene Heal (activatable fast healing)
Medic (removes all negative status effects)
Preraise (contingent self-heal when HP reduced below zero)
Full Recover (self-only Heal effect)
Liberate (transform into powerful creature with wings capable of doing high melee damage for a period of time. Doing so drains all of the energy pool. When the transformation expires, the character is staggered for a time).I'd appreciate any advice on how to build such a character using the Pathfinder rules (no 3pp).
90% of these abilities can be done easily with an alchemist, just pick up exotic weapon proficiency firearms and you are set. My biggest issue was the energy shot but you could technically fluff the alchemist bombs at being some kind of energy shots. The self-heal is way too easy with stuffs like making a potion of heal, drinking it and activating when you are low on hp, it's one of the alchemist discoveries. You have of course, the good ole Resurrection trick for alchemist using alchemical allocation and philosopher stone. There is of course, the other ugly solution...mystic theurge you would get all the abilities but you will be playing a mystic theurge.
I thought of the alchemist, but the big issue I've run into is the lack of a regenerating resource pool and the slot-casting method, which is very different in thematics than a more point-based combined resource pool to better represent the pool of internal energy. If I can figure out some way to allow the alchemist to regenerate their resource pool, some sort of spontaneous casting alchemist with a combined resource pool it could be made to work.
DrDeth |
DrDeth wrote:Aragorn was gifted with a "magical scabbard, any sword sheathed in this scabbard will never break"Okay, that's a bit of a stretch. That's just protecting the sword when it's not in use. It may be magic, but it sounds like a pretty lame enchantment to include on this list. :P
Umm, no, what they mean is that the sword will never break, even in use, when the sheath is used. Note what happened to Narsil.
DrDeth |
DrDeth wrote:Rynjin wrote:Again, simply Holy water will kill incorporeal undead. It's listed as Alchemical, not magical....
EDIT: It's not created by non-magical methods, you are omitting the portion:
Equipment wrote:Any of these substances except for the everburning torch and holy water can be made by a character with the Craft (alchemy) skill.
Still, it's categorized as Alchemical.
Despite the fact that there's a large difference between "magical" and "supernatural" since they are treated the same under one spell, Rynjin claims they are the same.
Heck, the World of Golarion was "created by magic" thus everything is magic by that definition.
Kobold Catgirl |
Kobold Cleaver wrote:Umm, no, what they mean is that the sword will never break, even in use, when the sheath is used. Note what happened to Narsil.DrDeth wrote:Aragorn was gifted with a "magical scabbard, any sword sheathed in this scabbard will never break"Okay, that's a bit of a stretch. That's just protecting the sword when it's not in use. It may be magic, but it sounds like a pretty lame enchantment to include on this list. :P
Eh, that ain't how it reads to me. Reads to me as, "Any sword sheathed in this scabbard will never break", as in, "the sword won't break when in the scabbard".
Besides which, "immune to sunderings" isn't exactly much of a power with regards to the current conversation. You could accomplish about the same by making a sword out of mithril (or, in Pathfinder, adamantine). :P
Thomas Long 175 |
(wiki) "Sting was exceptionally sharp. Bilbo managed to thrust it without effort deep into a wooden beam at Rivendell. Frodo also wounded a troll in Moria, after Boromir notched his own sword with his attempt. Sting was useful in Shelob's Lair when it cut through Shelob's webs with ease, and also stabbed Shelob, being the first blade to ever do so. "
Glamdring and Orcrist were described as pretty high level swords.
The Phial of Galadrial could blind: (ME wiki) " Frodo used the mere touch of it to ease the thought of the One Ring when he, Sam Gamgee, and Gollum were watching the Witch-king lead his army out of Minas Morgul. He also used it while entering into Mordor to defend himself from the spider Shelob. When Shelob first approached, Sam reminded him of the "star-glass" and its light drove her away. Frodo gave the light to Sam to hold while he cut through Shelob's webbing and Sam wielded it when he attacked Shelob to rescue Frodo. The star-glass shone particularly bright in response to his indomitable spirit. He used it twice to get past the Two Watchers who guarded the tower of Cirith Ungol; the second time the phial shone out lightning-bright in tribute to his hardiness and faithfulness."
Aragorn was gifted with a "magical scabbard, any sword sheathed in this scabbard will never break"
Legalas had a unbreakable...
Exceptionally sharp... Notching one sword in something hard as opposed to something else wounding doesn't prove anything about the respective blades. In order to truly account for only the blades they'd have to be swung by equals in the same way, at the same point. Striking at different portions of a troll with vastly different attack methods will bring out incredibly different results.
As for Shelob, have you actually read about shelob? She freaking sits in the mountains and preys upon things that get caught in her web. Of course she's never been stabbed! She goes after random things in the mountains on the edge of sauron's domain, namely the minions sauron doesn't like. He freaking described her as his cat.
Pretty high level=... basically nothing. It doesn't give you any level of comparison, just "pretty high level." Aka, they're masterwork.
Oh, I'm sorry it can blind too. That gives it a 2nd level spell. But wait, it doesn't blind just anyone. It blinds creatures with freaking light sensitivity. Considering shelob has spent nearly her entire life buried in the caverns of that mountain region, and is descended from a life form that literally consumed light and in its place "spun webs of gloom."
Oh wow, a scabbard that keeps your sword from breaking... maybe a +1? Possibly?
Finally for legolas' bow, possibly a +1 or it could just be yet another special wood type, not all that unrealistic considering where he's from.
Alzrius |
a buncha folk wrote:...Sam and Dean from Supernatural...Were using Ghost Salt Shotgun shells and magic rituals to banish spirits. Oh hey I just solved your irreconcilable equation. Are we done here?
I'm not sure you solved it.
The essence of this thread - as I understand it - is that when it asks if there's any concept that can't be made using the "existing rules," those last two words are meant to be taken as "class abilities."
In the case of Sam and Dean, they don't have any particular class abilities that grant them any non-natural powers (the major caveat being Sam's demon blood-powers in the second through fourth seasons...and I agree, he's since retrained those away).
Everything else they do is either using equipment (mostly mundane, occasionally magical), skill checks, or incantations, all of which are available to anyone.
Of course, that's all something of a moot point anyway. The fact is that Pathfinder can make Sam- and Dean-style characters just fine; the problem is that it can't make them viable 1) at the higher-levels, and 2) in a setting where magic and highly magical monsters are both prevalent and powerful.
Supernatural takes place on an Earth that's pretty clearly a low-magic, E6-style campaign. Pathfinder can do that easily - heck, doing that is just a matter of what you take away, rather than what you add. But something that's viable under those circumstances isn't going to necessarily be the case in "baseline" Pathfinder. (I once wrote stats for Sam, with his demonic powers in the fourth season, using a Pathfinder-compatible point-buy character-generator - I was able to place him as being a 3rd-level character).
There's really nothing wrong with that, that I can see. Unless they received some sort of major power-up (which might be the case for Dean going into Season 10...), they'd get their asses consistently kicked in a higher-power world. After all, we see them get their asses kicked in their own world quite often as it is.
Robert Carter 58 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, there are plenty of concepts that can't be done with Pathfinder. Which is why I don't understand why point buy... truly creative systems for fantasy roleplay don't get more traction. I love love love mutants and masterminds 2nd edition (they have a warriors and warlocks supplement). It uses the d20 engine, I can build any fantasy character concept I can imagine with it... but there are no adventures for it, and I am truly too lazy (and busy working, writing other things, living my life) to write adventures. Otherwise, THAT would be my system of choice. Hey- game designers! Write stuff for this! I'll buy it!
Ashoka |
First, this:
I mean, the setting says magic is *real*. Any opposition to it is like being opposed to technology in a modern or futuristic setting. A hypothetical anti-magic character, by hating magic, hates the way the world works.
Yeah, that was a dumb thing for me to try to bring into the equation. If anything, he'd be anti-sword not anti-magic.
Anyway, I think what I'd want is just for this potential class (maybe call it a tinker?) to do its tinkering and inventing independent of magic. It means his inventions couldn't get past DR -- but maybe at higher levels he can craft things that are magical (or he could figure out a technological way to overcome magic, but that seems like a potential for breaking things). So, at higher levels he can craft something to overcome DR, but if he encounters antimagic or wants to avoid detect magic, then he can still craft lower level mundane things. I think the "crafting/tinkering" mechanic would probably resemble spells or alchemist powers, but not be magical (unless explicitly stated as so for certain higher level abilities).He used modern science. I mean I'm going off of some pretty dusty memories but I remember a LOT of his toys and tricks were either using modern manufactured products or exploiting weaknesses of modern manufactured products. Simple example: he makes a sound-effect that sounds like the fire of automatic weapons to cause bad guys to shoot at things in this one episode. That only works because they have guns themselves and know what guns are. Dude with a crossbow would definitely be distracted, but he wouldn't think "gunfire! panic!" because he doesn't know what guns are. Another example; he sabotaged a missile launch by jamming a leather coat (or something?) into the air-intake of it's jet engine. This worked because there was a missile with a jet engine. A world where magic is standard (and has discrete rules to how it works) would reasonably have magic (and alchemy) tricks and workarounds.
To me, this doesn't really present a problem. The "how does he do it?" is mostly a question of flavour and RP, the way I see it. It's like spell components and other things -- it doesn't really matter what he does to the cannon to stop it from working, the important part is that if he's adjacent to an enemy, he can use a power/invention/improvisation to force it to miss fire. Same with an improvised flashbang (it's just a distraction or temporary blindness/deafness or something). The "how" is something that can be flavoured and figured out in-game; the mechanics are what's missing for me.
I'm picturing a character that carries around a backpack full of materials and things. At the beginning of combat, he backs up a couple steps, starts pulling things out of his backpack, maybe picks up something from the environment, then spends a full round crafting something. Next round he uses that thing (maybe it gives a buff/debuff, maybe it's offensive, maybe it's defensive, whatever). Some things would take shorter to create, some things longer. Some things would only be one use, others might last the whole encounter. Sometimes he'd have to get up close to affect something, other times it could be ranged or area. Outside of combat, he'd be doing similar things. Basically "building" things to do the equivalent of spells, skills and stuff.
I think that in many ways, it would look very similar to a reflavoured wizard -- although some bard-alchemist combo might be a better starting place. Actually, if the Technic Scavenger Rogue archetype was expanded into a full non-rogue class, it would probably be really close. The 5e tinker gnome subrace also has similar flavour to what I'm thinking of, but it's features look basically useless.
Only if you don't want it to. Sufficiently Analyzed Magic = Science after all.
Except, that would mean that technology and magic are susceptible to the same things. That would mean that antimagic disrupts scientific devices (like wheels and levers and pulleys.. and guns) and that science should be able to get around magic DR. Also means that detect magic would give you crazy results because it also functions as "detect science." But, I'm just being silly and I realize this just is an analogy (ie, sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from science, and vice versa -- it doesn't mean that they actually are the same thing).
Interesting tangent: in Numeria (robots and technology country) the local "superstitious barbarian tribes who distrust strange things and deny them" are INCREDIBLY magic-friendly, because magic is something they can trust and duplicate. Magic is practiced by their cousins and neighbors and is perfectly acceptable/understandable. It is the evils of technology, practiced by the oppressive overlords of the Technic League, that they distrust and hate.
That sounds incredibly full of potential. I must learn more...
Didn't he not carry guns because he was never actually looking for or expecting a violent adventure? I'm asking because I don't remember, but I was under the impression he was always kind of "dragged into" the various adventures and excitement that were his everyday life.
I was young when I watched the show and I don't think they ever really got deep into the "why" of the adventures and stuff. However, he did work for some sort of secret agency and was sent on specific missions (but almost always as an explicit non-combatant). The gun-thing is one of the only things I actually remember: When Mac was a kid, his friend (or brother?) got shot (or shot himself?) and died right in front of him. I think he felt guilty about it.
But this does bring up an important point that makes Macgyver a poor example to work with: the show was very non-violent and non-lethal. Mac never killed anybody and almost always used indirect non-lethal methods. That makes for an interesting and unique action TV show, but it doesn't work when the whole point of the game is to kill things and take their stuff (along with some RP, etc). Batman (or an unarmoured Tony Stark?) might be a better example because he and his gadgets are explicitly not magic and not super.
I still think it's a shame that I haven't come across a (mostly) non-magical tinker/inventor/technologist class or archetype. Artificer is almost what I'm thinking, but it's still magic at its core. With all the PF books they've released, I'm surprised this doesn't really fit anywhere.
chbgraphicarts |
I have to imagine that most people here complaining about the ubiquity of magic in a high-magic game would have detested Jackie Chan Adventures, considering one of Uncle's favorite mantras was "Magic must defeat Magic".
Also, for the Batman example - Batman has the use of insane amounts of technology. And we all know Clarke's take on technology...
And while he is a major help during Crisis-level events, keep in mind that he is the least directly-effective of all the Justice League.
Batman is effectively a Brawler/Cavalier: he is phenomenal at tactics, strategy, and split-second analysis; he's the go-to commander during a conflict, while Superman is the face, especially for PR stuff.
On smaller fights, Batman can be on the front lines. But once Kryptonian-level beings or up get involved, Batman is in the back calling the shots, with the heavy hitters like Manhunter, Superman, Wonder Woman, or Green Lantern leading the charge. Batman is too squishy to directly tussle with enemies who can send SUPERMAN flying.
Doesn't make Batman any less badass - just changes the dynamic of how he plays the game and proves his badassery.
Giridan |
How would one do a Hybrid class of Oracle/Sorcerer?
That would be amazing! They could have reduced spell casting charts of max 6th level and have slower spell progression, but could be the perfect entry class into mystic thruege. Something like inquisitor or magus spell charts with the appropriate lists though.
Squirrel_Dude |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On smaller fights, Batman can be on the front lines. But once Kryptonian-level beings or up get involved, Batman is in the back calling the shots, with the heavy hitters like Manhunter, Superman, Wonder Woman, or Green Lantern leading the charge. Batman is too squishy to directly tussle with enemies who can send SUPERMAN flying.
Ashoka |
I have to imagine that most people here complaining about the ubiquity of magic in a high-magic game would have detested Jackie Chan Adventures, considering one of Uncle's favorite mantras was "Magic must defeat Magic".
Also, for the Batman example - Batman has the use of insane amounts of technology. And we all know Clarke's take on technology...
Well, there are insane amounts of technology in PF (I don't think Batman ever had a graviton reactor or an extinction wave device). That argument against a technological hero sounds similar to arguing against the ubiquity of magic in a high magic world.
Also, Clarke's law (and Niven's corollary) states that magic and high technology are indistinguishable, not equivalent and not "the same." TV looks like magic to a caveman (or a native of Golarion), but it isn't magic no matter what. OTOH, a scrying mirror looks like high technology, but it isn't -- it's magic. The may look the same but one is affected by antimagic and the other is affected by an EMP. And if technology=magic in PF... well, levers and pulleys and wedges are technology and I don't think anybody counts them as magic.
I can understand if people aren't happy with the Batman or MacGyver examples. But I don't know why a technologist/tinker/inventor is so hard to do (and why some people seem to think it doesn't fit fantasy). Ignore the pop culture references and look at the description I gave in my previous post. It's almost an alchemist, but not quite.
And while he is a major help during Crisis-level events, keep in mind that he is the least directly-effective of all the Justice League.
Batman is effectively a Brawler/Cavalier: he is phenomenal at tactics, strategy, and split-second analysis; he's the go-to commander during a conflict, while Superman is the face, especially for PR stuff.
On smaller fights, Batman can be on the front lines. But once Kryptonian-level beings or up get involved, Batman is in the back calling the shots, with the heavy hitters like Manhunter, Superman, Wonder Woman, or Green Lantern leading the charge. Batman is too squishy to directly tussle with enemies who can send SUPERMAN flying.
I don't want to nitpick too much, but Batman has actually defeated Superman and many other cosmic-level supers many times. I'm not sure if Superman has ever won in a head-to-head battle against Batman. (Even when Bats didn't "win," that was usually part of his strategy and so he still "won" by not winning, if that makes any sense.) Of course he needs help or some kinda gadget to win -- because that is his schtick. That is his "superpower." I'd like a character class with similar powers.
I realize that this is more an issue with me wanting a class that doesn't exist, yet. Actually, I don't think I've seen a class like this in any fantasy game (at least not anything in the D&D/PF lineage). An alchemist combined with aspects of a warlord, an artificer, and a bard. It's a new idea to me, but the more I think about it the more I really like the potential of this class and wish it was available in a game that I played.
I'll stop complaining now. I'll just wait for Paizo to make me a new character.
Thomas Long 175 |
I don't want to nitpick too much, but Batman has actually defeated Superman and many other cosmic-level supers many times.
I've seen those matchups. DC determines who wins in their fights by whose popular, not what's realistic based on power levels. It would be fairly easy for superman to sit in space and blast batman with an orbital strike as soon as he saw him with his telescopic x ray vision.
But he doesn't. Because batman's more popular, and thus was predetermined to win the fights.
Rynjin |
Rynjin wrote:Again, simply Holy water will kill incorporeal undead. It's listed as Alchemical, not magical....
It's an option...but I'd hardly call it a viable one.
Trying to whittle the Wraith's 47 HP down by attacking its AC for a maximum of 8 damage while it whacks your Touch AC for 1d6 damage +1d6 CON DRAIN will only end in tears.
Even if you win, you'll probably end up having taken a good chunk of Con drain...which now requires magic to fix anyway. So, you're back to relying on magic.
And that's one of the lower CR incorporeals, alone. God help you if they appear in numbers.
Though an Alchemist could probably put the fear of gods in them, adding the Int damage to each flask helps a lot.
Kobold Catgirl |
Ashoka wrote:I don't want to nitpick too much, but Batman has actually defeated Superman and many other cosmic-level supers many times.I've seen those matchups. DC determines who wins in their fights by whose popular, not what's realistic based on power levels. It would be fairly easy for superman to sit in space and blast batman with an orbital strike as soon as he saw him with his telescopic x ray vision.
But he doesn't. Because batman's more popular, and thus was predetermined to win the fights.
The moment we get meta, the whole fictional discussion loses something. That's like saying, "Of course [the good guy] beat [the bad guy]. If she hadn't, we wouldn't have a story." Or, alternatively, "The good guy is the author's favorite."
And both boil down to, "Of course _____ happened. That's what the author wanted to happen."
Meta reasons don't matter. All that matters is the story the author decides to tell.
Of course, Batman vs. Superman is complicated by there being multiple authors, but it's still one canon.
Ashoka |
Ashoka wrote:I don't want to nitpick too much, but Batman has actually defeated Superman and many other cosmic-level supers many times.I've seen those matchups. DC determines who wins in their fights by whose popular, not what's realistic based on power levels. It would be fairly easy for superman to sit in space and blast batman with an orbital strike as soon as he saw him with his telescopic x ray vision.
But he doesn't. Because batman's more popular, and thus was predetermined to win the fights.
Hmm.. I think that I both agree and disagree with that. I think it's more complicated than that. Writers don't roll dice to determine where the story goes and the characters aren't being controlled by other people, so comparisons between fiction and RPGs don't always work very well. They are two forms of entertainment that achieve similar goals in different ways and using different media. The audiences are also very different. Also, not only are the PCs the "main characters" just like Batman -- and therefore mostly "predetermined to win" or to at least have a good chance of winning -- I furthermore agree with the Dungeon World philosophy that the GM should be the PCs biggest fans. PCs would basically then be the "most popular" characters in the story.
I mean, the hero always wins -- especially in fiction. When you're reading LOTR you wonder "how will these feeble hobbits ever defeat the dark lord?" you don't wonder if they're going to defeat the dark lord. When Luke is getting his ass kicked at the end of Jedi, you don't say "oh no, the emperor is going to win!" you say "I wonder how the emperor will be defeated now?" I know there are lots of examples of antiheroes and heroes that don't completely win in the end, as well as lots of heroes that don't live. There are also cliffhangers that make you wait until the next episode to see the hero win. There are also stories that tell of the victories of villains. But there are very few stories where the hero just outright fails, because that wouldn't be an entertaining story for many people unless it had something else going for it (like a profound lesson or insight or some artistic quality, etc).
Marcus Robert Hosler |
Rynjin wrote:God help you if they appear in numbers.The Gods helping them is clarified to be magic in this setting.
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that Guts from berserk is not a viable mundane guy because he forged an artifact sword by bathing it in the blood of demons as he slayed them with pure martial skill. But since he uses a magic weapon, he's just not mundane enough.
*Before he got his artifact armor.
Rynjin |
Thomas Long 175 wrote:Rynjin wrote:God help you if they appear in numbers.The Gods helping them is clarified to be magic in this setting.
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that Guts from berserk is not a viable mundane guy because he forged an artifact sword by bathing it in the blood of demons as he slayed them with pure martial skill. But since he uses a magic weapon, he's just not mundane enough.
*Before he got his artifact armor.
He's viable, he's just not completely non-magical.
Though he kicks just as much ass WITHOUT the sword, so I'd say he counts when he doesn't use it.
Chengar Qordath |
Hey, I didn't want to bring this up (because, honestly, I know little-to-nothing about it), but did Conan use a magic weapon?
All I remember is, "This...this you can trust."
And I learned that from Jontron.
As I recall from the films, his sword sits in that ambiguous middle area where it could be magic, or it could just be superior craftsmanship.
Thomas Long 175 |
The moment we get meta, the whole fictional discussion loses something. That's like saying, "Of course [the good guy] beat [the bad guy]. If she hadn't, we wouldn't have a story." Or, alternatively, "The good guy is the author's favorite."
And both boil down to, "Of course _____ happened. That's what the author wanted to happen."
Meta reasons don't matter. All that matters is the story the author decides to tell.
Of course, Batman vs. Superman is complicated by there being multiple authors, but it's still one canon.
Yet, you have to evaluate them from such a standpoint. Batman vs Superman is good guy vs good guy. Its a battle where neither party dies and the world isn't destroyed. So how do you determine who wins? By what will satisfy the reading base the most!
That doesn't make it remotely realistic or intelligent. A good story will have reasonable progression based on its own continuity. In its continuity, superman is a superhuman who can live in space, shoot lasers from his eyes that melt through metal in seconds, has senses that can listen in on people talking on the phone from lower orbit and pick out conversations, the ability to see through most materials, fly, and move at superspeeds.
Batman is well loved, and an underdog, something the fanbase loves. But would it be in anyway realistic in this continuity based on their physical and mental limitations? Superman is no idiot either. In fact, he's also supposed to have a genius iq. The idea that he wouldn't simply destroy an opponent who might have the resources to gain access to his one weakness from range is rather idiotic to say the least.
And as for the GM being the PC's biggest fans, and the PC's are supposed to win. Agree and disagree. Failure should be a real possibility. If you lose that end fight with the big bad, he should be capable of conquering the kingdom and slaughtering thousands of innocents. Roll up a new campaign to bring down the evil emperor the pc's failed to kill.
It is not realistic, intelligent, or a good story for that matter for the villain to pull punches and throw the game at the end of the story just so everyone can get the happy ending they love. If that was the case everyone could have gone home from the start because "He'll leave his chamber and find the nearest peasant to throw himself onto the pitchfork. This world always has a happy ending no matter what."
Thaine |
I don't want to nitpick too much, but Batman has actually defeated Superman and many other cosmic-level supers many times. I'm not sure if Superman has ever won in a head-to-head battle against Batman. (Even when Bats didn't "win," that was usually part of his strategy and so he still "won" by not winning, if that makes any sense.) Of course he needs help or some kinda gadget to win -- because that is his schtick. That is his "superpower." I'd like a character class with similar powers.
Can you offer some examples? I'm seeing this repeated a lot in this thread but I can't recall anytime batman has beaten superman in a head to head battle in canon.
TDKR by Frank Millar is the usual suspect but that was only once and is not canon. Other then that the only time I can think of is the tower of babel arc, if you count a stolen plan with months of prep-time used in a trap a head to head fight. I think of it more as a symbolic victory for batman.
Not sure about superman wins but off the top of my head he thrashed batman in the maxwell lord arc and again in their first meeting in the New 52. So that's at least two.
On Topic: It seems like the least magical we can get and still remain competitive is with liberal use of items. Even in our examples of famous literary characters they all had assistance of advanced magical or technical gadgets. So with that in mind it looks like an artificer of some type is the way to go.
JoeJ |
Kobold Cleaver wrote:The moment we get meta, the whole fictional discussion loses something. That's like saying, "Of course [the good guy] beat [the bad guy]. If she hadn't, we wouldn't have a story." Or, alternatively, "The good guy is the author's favorite."
And both boil down to, "Of course _____ happened. That's what the author wanted to happen."
Meta reasons don't matter. All that matters is the story the author decides to tell.
Of course, Batman vs. Superman is complicated by there being multiple authors, but it's still one canon.
Yet, you have to evaluate them from such a standpoint. Batman vs Superman is good guy vs good guy. Its a battle where neither party dies and the world isn't destroyed. So how do you determine who wins? By what will satisfy the reading base the most!
That doesn't make it remotely realistic or intelligent. A good story will have reasonable progression based on its own continuity. In its continuity, superman is a superhuman who can live in space, shoot lasers from his eyes that melt through metal in seconds, has senses that can listen in on people talking on the phone from lower orbit and pick out conversations, the ability to see through most materials, fly, and move at superspeeds.
Are you seriously asking for a realistic story about an invulnerable flying space alien who shoots laser beams out his eyes?
Thomas Long 175 |
Are you seriously asking for a realistic story about an invulnerable flying space alien who shoots laser beams out his eyes?
You know perfectly well that I'm saying if you make one character unto a god in physical prowress and a genius in mental attributes, do not be surprised when I dismiss a battle where you write him as an idiot so that he can lose.
In short, make whatever continuity you choose. But stick to it after you've written it. Don't constantly alter people because it fits what you want at the time.
chbgraphicarts |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So with that in mind it looks like an artificer of some type is the way to go.
I keep hoping that Paizo will put out a non-Caster craft-monkey in a similar vein as the Alchemist.
I do realize, however, that that idea runs afoul of the "PFS doesn't allow Crafting" idea.
Perhaps an Artificer would be something akin to a hybrid between the Alchemist and Summoner - a non-magic-half-caster like the Alchemist, with a Contraption that gets progressively more and more ludicrous, ala an Eidolon. The Extracts would probably be things like Mending, Animate Objects, etc. that largely focus around items & objects.
Ashoka |
Ashoka wrote:I don't want to nitpick too much, but Batman has actually defeated Superman and many other cosmic-level supers many times. I'm not sure if Superman has ever won in a head-to-head battle against Batman. (Even when Bats didn't "win," that was usually part of his strategy and so he still "won" by not winning, if that makes any sense.) Of course he needs help or some kinda gadget to win -- because that is his schtick. That is his "superpower." I'd like a character class with similar powers.Can you offer some examples? I'm seeing this repeated a lot in this thread but I can't recall anytime batman has beaten superman in a head to head battle in canon.
TDKR by Frank Millar is the usual suspect but that was only once and is not canon. Other then that the only time I can think of is the tower of babel arc, if you count a stolen plan with months of prep-time used in a trap a head to head fight. I think of it more as a symbolic victory for batman.
Not sure about superman wins but off the top of my head he thrashed batman in the maxwell lord arc and again in their first meeting in the New 52. So that's at least two.
Yeah, you caught me, I'm not a huge fan of DC and I can't offer a lot of specific examples. There's Red Son, but I think that's only a temporary victory for Bats. It's also a Superman book and not canon, I guess. More knowledgeable friends have said the same thing (but I didn't ask them for examples). Somebody also posted a pic of him beating Darkseid and he's bested some other high powered enemies. But I'm just going to bow to your superior knowledge of the specifics and shut up for now.
On Topic: It seems like the least magical we can get and still remain competitive is with liberal use of items. Even in our examples of famous literary characters they all had assistance of advanced magical or technical gadgets. So with that in mind it looks like an artificer of some type is the way to go.
Sounds pretty good.
Ashoka |
Thaine wrote:So with that in mind it looks like an artificer of some type is the way to go.I keep hoping that Paizo will put out a non-Caster craft-monkey in a similar vein as the Alchemist.
I do realize, however, that that idea runs afoul of the "PFS doesn't allow Crafting" idea.
Perhaps an Artificer would be something akin to a hybrid between the Alchemist and Summoner - a non-magic-half-caster like the Alchemist, with a Contraption that gets progressively more and more ludicrous, ala an Eidolon. The Extracts would probably be things like Mending, Animate Objects, etc. that largely focus around items & objects.
That sounds crazy awesome.
JoeJ |
JoeJ wrote:Are you seriously asking for a realistic story about an invulnerable flying space alien who shoots laser beams out his eyes?
You know perfectly well that I'm saying if you make one character unto a god in physical prowress and a genius in mental attributes, do not be surprised when I dismiss a battle where you write him as an idiot so that he can lose.
In short, make whatever continuity you choose. But stick to it after you've written it. Don't constantly alter people because it fits what you want at the time.
When it comes to tactics and preparation Superman is an idiot compared to Batman. That's been an established part of Batman's character for a very long time. However the writers didn't have Batman's tactical expertise, so they just had to do the best job they could.
chbgraphicarts |
As I said, you can't really get away from using Magic once antagonistic Magic is involved, whether that be innate power via being a Caster, or by using magical gear (which most heroes of myth & legend do). Even some WARRIORS were partially casters - several of Arthur's Knights were said by some authors to be able to use minor magic.
The fact that warriors have the most gear made for them, and make best use of the gear out there, is actually one of their "qualities". It's not hard-coded into the classes as in some games/versions (in 4th Edition, PFS, and FantasyCraft, your level and other factors give you better gear, and warriors always get the best scores to detemine that, while casters get very little), but that is still a factor that needs to be taken into account - yes, a Wizard CAN have a +5 Keen, Flaming, Speed greatsword, but a same-leveled martial character will use it more effectively than him any day of the week.
Just an example: Cuchulainn is the ur-example of a Barbarian with his Warp-Spasm, but even he had a magic spear, magic armor, and ESPECIALLY Caladbolg, which with a single swing could lop the tops off of three mountains.
If even the Irish Herakles needed a weapon that could alter the terrain of the land to defeat ALL his enemies, then just accept that martial characters are going to be in the same boat.
chbgraphicarts |
When it comes to tactics and preparation Superman is an idiot compared to Batman. That's been an established part of Batman's character for a very long time. However the writers didn't have Batman's tactical expertise, so they just had to do the best job they could.
Most people are idiots compared to Batman. It's basically a given that only people like Diana, Ra's Al Ghul, Amanda Waller, Vandal Savage, and a few others who have been trained intimately in tactics their whole lives are on Bruce's level.
Clark's major downfall is his good nature - he's bad at tactics because John and Martha ingrained into him SUCH a sense of justice and fairness that he just can't think underhandedly.
Bruce, on the other hand, is constantly verging on becoming a villain himself (albeit a "benevolent dictator" sort of villain), and of anyone in the League is the most likely to use outright-evil tactics to get the job done (short of actually killing anybody).
Epic Meepo RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32 |
Hey, I didn't want to bring this up (because, honestly, I know little-to-nothing about it), but did Conan use a magic weapon?
In the first Conan story ever written ("The Phoenix on the Sword"), a wizard casts a buff spell on Conan's sword so Conan can defeat a demon that can't be harmed by non-magic weapons.
Bandw2 |
Bandw2 wrote:chaoseffect wrote:the most current seasons have them running around with the anti-demon knife and anti-angel spear thing almost all the time. also, Sam retrained and is no longer a psion. though like I said, he can cast divine magic from memory. basically banishment I guess.Bandw2 wrote:They killed a s+%+ ton of things without the artifact level items they had access to at times and most of their magic seemed to fall into Use Magic Device territory as opposed to actual magic use per Pathfinder rules. Except when Sam took levels in Psion via demon blood, but that's third party territory.Rynjin wrote:Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:Lessee, some have already been stolen, the most prominent being Zoro (and to an extent Sanji, and maybe Franky going the tech route) and the Winchesters.Rynjin wrote:There are a lot.Name some. Because even the low level fellowship of the ring had magic weapons. A high level concept without magic or ki being able to fight ghost and other high level concepts.people keep bringing up Sam & Dean and forget they had a Gun that could kill anything but 4 things, a knife that could kill demons, a (hand spear?) that could kill anything. they had runes carved into their rib cage to make them unscryable, and a tattoo to make them unpossessable.
they were covered in magic. and this isn't even counting the fact that they know how to cast some divine magic and write runes from memory, and the hundreds of rituals they know how to prepare.
Ritual magic isn't really covered to well by Pathfinder, so it's a bit of a grey area I think. Maybe he has levels in a hyper specialized prestige that gives an anti-outsider effect as an SLA so many times per day.
Also didn't cold iron also have some affect on ghosts in Supernatural or am I misremembering? I kinda lost interest after the whole Armageddon scenario.
it's not cold-iron in supernatural, it's rod-iron basically, iron has to be magical for it to effect incorporeals, right? thus iron is technically magical by pathfinder definitions.
also, it's not ritual spells, Sam literally reads out passages from the bible from memory to banish demons. Also, you can look at a lot of their prepared stuff as prepared potions or extracts. they honestly haven't used rocksalt in a while.
Alzrius |
Are you seriously asking for a realistic story about an invulnerable flying space alien who shoots laser beams out his eyes?
To paraphrase Wolfgang Baur:
"Realism" in this context is shorthand for "functions according to internal logic and consistency of the setting," not "functions according to real-world physics."
DrDeth |
Ashoka wrote:I don't want to nitpick too much, but Batman has actually defeated Superman and many other cosmic-level supers many times.I've seen those matchups. DC determines who wins in their fights by whose popular, not what's realistic based on power levels. It would be fairly easy for superman to sit in space and blast batman with an orbital strike as soon as he saw him with his telescopic x ray vision.
.
Better yet, as I saw in a cartoon, Supes just travels in the past and saves Bruce's family from being shot. It's a good deed, even. :-)
DrDeth |
DrDeth wrote:Rynjin wrote:Again, simply Holy water will kill incorporeal undead. It's listed as Alchemical, not magical....
It's an option...but I'd hardly call it a viable one.
Trying to whittle the Wraith's 47 HP down by attacking its AC for a maximum of 8 damage while it whacks your Touch AC for 1d6 damage +1d6 CON DRAIN will only end in tears.
This is moving the goalposts, sorry.:-)
And, with some feats you could toss lots of HW!
Thomas Long 175 |
Thomas Long 175 wrote:JoeJ wrote:Are you seriously asking for a realistic story about an invulnerable flying space alien who shoots laser beams out his eyes?
You know perfectly well that I'm saying if you make one character unto a god in physical prowress and a genius in mental attributes, do not be surprised when I dismiss a battle where you write him as an idiot so that he can lose.
In short, make whatever continuity you choose. But stick to it after you've written it. Don't constantly alter people because it fits what you want at the time.
When it comes to tactics and preparation Superman is an idiot compared to Batman. That's been an established part of Batman's character for a very long time. However the writers didn't have Batman's tactical expertise, so they just had to do the best job they could.
That's just flat out wrong. Heck, currently superman's iq is estimated to be higher than batman's. Even if he were just a little less intelligent it would be highly feasible for him to win, but superman is renown throughout the comics for designing and creating technology on levels earth can't even comprehend. He analyzes alien technology on levels even batman can't come close to.
chbgraphicarts |
That's just flat out wrong. Heck, currently superman's iq is estimated to be higher than batman's. Even if he were just a little less intelligent it would be highly feasible for him to win, but superman is renown throughout the comics for designing and creating technology on levels earth can't even comprehend. He analyzes alien technology on levels even batman can't come close to.
That's according to Grant Morrison. Morrison drools over nostalgia and throws in stuff authors discarded decades ago; a lot of other authors just straight-out ignore things he does (which is for the better), and while most will concede that Superman is very intelligent (likely in the high 130s or higher IQ range, vs Bruce who is probably into the 160s or up), he's not on the level of Batman, who generally gives Lex Luthor a run for his money in the intelligence department.
Superman used to be a super-genius during the Silver Age (along with being more powerful than God, in all honesty), but thankfully since John Byrne's reboot, his intelligence, like all his powers, have been reduced to generally-balanced levels; even writers that put his powers back to Silver Age levels of insanity leave his intelligence largely untouched.
Marroar Gellantara |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kobold Cleaver wrote:The real question is, is Batman Lawful Good, Neutral Good, or Chaotic Evil?Wow, and I thought Batman vs Superman was off topic internet cliche shenanigans, arguing Batman's alignment is about as off topic internet cliche shenanigans as it can get short of linking cat videos.
Rynjin |
Rynjin wrote:This is moving the goalposts, sorry.:-)DrDeth wrote:Rynjin wrote:Again, simply Holy water will kill incorporeal undead. It's listed as Alchemical, not magical....
It's an option...but I'd hardly call it a viable one.
Trying to whittle the Wraith's 47 HP down by attacking its AC for a maximum of 8 damage while it whacks your Touch AC for 1d6 damage +1d6 CON DRAIN will only end in tears.
Not really. The "viable" clause was there from the start.
And, with some feats you could toss lots of HW!
Ooh, actually, I can think of a build that might be pretty rad for firing Holy Water at people. Alchemist 1 (for Int to damage)/Slayer (Grave Warden) 2/Whatever X, since the Grave Warden can actually throw Holy Water as part of a full attack.
Ventnor |
The real question is, is Batman Lawful Good, Neutral Good, or Chaotic Evil?
Haven't you heard? He is every alignment, all at the same time!
Thaine |
About the comic discussion:
Superman used to be a super-genius during the Silver Age (along with being more powerful than God, in all honesty), but thankfully since John Byrne's reboot, his intelligence, like all his powers, have been reduced to generally-balanced levels; even writers that put his powers back to Silver Age levels of insanity leave his intelligence largely untouched.
Hate to break it to you but superman has had a big genius intellect for years now.
When we talk about comparing intelligence we need to establish that there is a difference between being smart and being clever. A difference between intelligence and cunning. Superman has a genius IQ and processes information faster then any supercomputer. And Lex is just ridiculous. The guy cured cancer in just minutes and can trade intellectual blows with Braniac.
Bruce doesn't have their book smarts, but he's got them beat by miles with street smarts. He's a master tactician that preys on his enemies weaknesses and psychosis. That's the difference IMO. They are a different kind of smart.
Topic:
Considering that Pathfinder's system assumes readily available magic (in pretty large quantities too) why is it important that a purely non-magical hero be able to compete?
In fact, if this character type was created would he not then easily become overpowered by decking himself out with magic items and buff spells?
Ashoka |
Considering that Pathfinder's system assumes readily available magic (in pretty large quantities too) why is it important that a purely non-magical hero be able to compete?
This thread has brought me to the realization that a non-magical hero goes against the system's inherent assumptions. Like someone said upthread, it's "arguing against the ubiquity of magic in a high magic setting." It would be cool to play something like that, but that's not what PF was built for. It might be possible if you spend enough time searching through books and experimenting with different builds and combos -- but that whole process is basically working against the system. Trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Like wanting a linebacker the same size as myself (I'm small) or a hockey player that doesn't use a stick. You're not breaking rules by doing those things or pursuing those goals, but you're trying to do something the system wasn't designed for. You need houserules or 3PP or something.
Same goes for a lot of other games. I missed the beginning of 4e, but it seems like they started with the same high magic assumption. However, once they brought in the Inherent Bonuses it became possible to actually build a party of completely non-magical characters carrying mundane equipment that could take on Orcus or any other superpower. I'm not saying it would necessarily be easy, but a party of 5 or 6 level 30 "pure" martials armed with clubs and thrown rocks would at least have a chance against even the most powerful foes. (I realize that magical powers, or abilities that appear to probably be magical, are hard to avoid when you look at epic destinies, but few things are directly called out as "magic" either mechanically or flavour-wise.) It's an absurd concept in relation to PF and other D&D editions -- but then again, the whole fantasy thing is absurd to varying degrees -- but within the context of a different game, it can make sense and be completely consistent (the setting obviously has something to do with establishing consistency, too).
I really enjoy PF and I'm not complaining about it or trying to badmouth it. It just took me a while to realize why it doesn't work with certain things that I like and that if I want some of those things in the game, I'll have to figure it out on my own (until they release a new sourcebook that does it for me). I'm not going to stop playing it or buying books, though. I'll just look elsewhere when I want to escape the high magic ubiquity.
In fact, if this character type was created would he not then easily become overpowered by decking himself out with magic items and buff spells?
Definitely possible. But if Paizo wanted to make a class like that, they could probably work balancing mechanics into the design. Like developing the power to hit insubstantial creatures without magic at higher levels, but only doing half-damage or something (that's probably a bad example because I'm not a designer nor a PF expert).
RJGrady |
A character who is not all the impressive, but deep down believes in herself, giving her a huge Will save and immunity to fear, and is blessed with all kinds of luck, including a ridiculous ability to always end up with a magical item she needs to defeat a powerful opponent.