Helmet

Alch's page

386 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 386 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

I'm really looking forward to the Advanced Races Guide, as it is the perfect tool for creating balanced races for my own campaign setting (which uses the pathfinder rules).
Another important element of a campaign setting are the weapons available to the players. As I don't really like/agree with a lot of the weapon and weapon special rule combinations in the rulebooks, I have - so far unsuccessfully - tried to decode the balancing rules behind the stat allocation, in order to make my own weapons.
So I was wondering if you will publish, in some way or other, the rules by which the weapon stats are balanced. That way it would be possible to make custom weapons in the same way as one can make custom races with the upcoming Advanced Races Guide.
Note that I'm not necessarily talking about making new special rules, I just want to recombine them to new weapons with different damage types, damage dice, feat requirements, etc.


Don't the rules for the Small and Tiny size traits contradict the established rules.

The 'Reduce Person' spell clearly states that for a size reduction by one category there is a strength penalty of -2 and a dexterity bonus of +2.

Since medium is the default, the small trait should thus confer -2 STR and +2 DEX and the tiny trait -4 STR and +4 DEX.
[Note that right now both medium and small are considered default and thus cost 0 RP.]


I would interpret the rules this way:

Regenerate only affects the body part that is regenerated. So it only affects scarifications/tattoos on the severed parts. And then only if the body part is regrown from scratch and not just reattached.

Cure spells affect the whole body, but mostly heal dangerous/deep wounds. So I would say superficial things like scarifications/tattoos are not affected.

Resurrection also affects the whole body and is quite profound, but again, it depends on what is left of the body.


I think comparing it to the "Gather Information" use of the Diplomacy skill is a good idea.
Both skills can acquire the same knowledge, but through different means. Diplomacy does it through talking to people, while Knowledge(local) is scholarly knowledge gained through studying (ie mostly reading books).


Irulesmost wrote:
With my gaming group, it doesn't represent how much you KNOW about a given area, but how easily you are able to access the local lore, and how inclined your character is to do so, such that when we find ourselves in a brand new location, we assume that a character who made a good KN: Local check spent the travel time and downtime learning X information.

This is how I would interpret it too.


I found the rules in the Adventurer's Armory. I don't own the legacy of fire AP so I couldn't tell you what the rules are in there.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Actually all it requires is a craft(alchemy) check.

I don't think so. It's categorized as a weapon, so normally a craft(weapons) check would apply. However, in the case of an emptied and scored skull filled with vermin, I think it's safe to assume that that skill wouldn't apply. And I think Craft(alchemy) doesn't apply either, since there is nothing alchemical about a stingchuck.

Also, since it has no associated item cost, I think it's only fair to require a more exotic craft skill such as taxidermy or butchery.


Sure, but think about the amounts you need. Even filling one skull requires over 5 cubic inches of them.

If you ask me the only reliable way of creating more than 1 or 2 a day would require an insect farm. Or maybe a druid specialized on vermin (Blight Druid archetype) in the party.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
An adventurer should have plenty of corpses (which attract vermin) to use to create stingchucks. My old alchemist character always found treasure of sorts from slain foes. As an alchemist, you are going to want some muleback cords and a handy haversack. If you still have problems carrying stuff, you can always get a tumor familiar to ease the load, and improved familiar to carry even more.

The vermin take days before they infest a corpse in any significant number, so you would still have to go back to the corpses.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Even weirder, have your familiar carry a heavy load, then merge with you, and then it weighs nothing. My tiefling alchemist did this for hiding things, my DM said I basically looked pregnant.

I don't think that's not how the merging works. I would rule that the familiar has to drop anything he is carrying and wearing before merging (as part of the standard action required to merge).

Edgar Lamoureux wrote:
If you were to max out intelligence, it'd be 38, giving 34 bombs per round.

34 bombs per day (per round would be a bit extreme :D).


How is your cat gonna do splash damage?... I mean... and stay alive... LOL


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Stingchucks can fill the gaps when bombs run out. They cost nothing, are splash weapons, and thus get int to damage. They bludgeoning damage, so no need to worry about elemental resistance.

The problem with stingchucks is that they weigh 9 lbs per "chuck".

And the fact that they are free just means you have to make them yourself.
This entails collecting and preparing the skulls as well as collecting and/or breeding the vermin. These aren't things you can do between encounters. Even making them once a day is unlikely, unless you are in the right environment, like the jungle.
In any case making them requires several different skill checks: Survival [DC 10] in order to find the "ingredients" and Craft(butchery/taxidermy) [DC 5] in order to make the stingchuck.


Chuck Wright wrote:

Does it truly become a dragon or simply take the FORM of a dragon?

There's a huge difference between being turned into an actual dragon and being made to LOOK like an actual dragon.

In which case - tough luck on that breath weapon, faux-dragon.

This.

Just because a creature has the form of a dragon, doesn't make it a real one. I would interpret the one time breath weapon as the remnant of the transformation's spell energy being ejected. ;)


mdt wrote:
It is not Zatochi's cane. The fact you ranted at someone for not reading the description, then try to say a quarterstaff with two swords in it is the same as a cane with one sword in it really does not make you look very good.

He said he was looking for a wakizashi length sword in a cane:

Hayato Ken wrote:
What im talking about is something close to a wakizashi, hidden in a walking stick. Look at the movie "Zatoichi, the blind samurai" for an example. You could use the stick scabbard for a combat trick scabbard, thats all.

Which is exactly what the Double Walking Stick Katana that I proposed to him is. If he only wants to use one of the two swords, he can do so.

And even if Zaitoichi's sword is longer than a Wakizashi, it is definitely not a Katana. The difference is the curvature.

And here is an example of a Zatoichi Sword which is shorter than the one you linked to:

Zatoichi's Sword
Blade lenght: 22"

Also, just because the description says "can be used like a quarterstaff", it does not mean it has to be just as long as one. And considering that the two blades are only about wakizashi length, I suspect that the length is about 4 to 5 feet.


mdt wrote:
Zatochi's shikomizue was a single katana blade in a cane. Not two short wakizashis. He certainly didn't do TWF.

Zatoichi's blade was a wakizashi length sword in a cane. The only difference between his and the Double Walking Stick Katana is that you get 2 for the price of 1. No one forces you to use both.

The Sword Cane on the other hand has NOTHING to do with Zatoichi's Shikomizue. It is a length of steel that is exclusively used for piercing (hence only P as damage type).


Hayato Ken wrote:

I don´t agree, because this is a double weapon.

What im talking about is something close to a wakizashi, hidden in a walking stick. Look at the movie "Zatoichi, the blind samurai" for an example. You could use the stick scabbard for a combat trick scabbard, thats all.

Still i also think it should be finessed.
But the path here leads to the endless STR vs DEX discussion and artefacts from D&D.

Did you even read the description???? This weapon is Zatoichi's shikomizue.

mdt wrote:
Yeah, I knew about the Zatochi variety, but given it's on the normal weapon list, rather than the Eastern weapons list, I assume the one from the UC is not the eastern type but the western type.

?

The one in UC is the eastern type...


Hayato Ken wrote:

mdt, your example for a sword cane is fine. Especially for european renaissance or late middle age styles. Its kind of an rapier then, a slim light blade for piercing or slashing.

However sword canes can have an asian flavour too, where they are normally like very light katanas (but not like katanas themselves), often used in a different fighting style where you hold the blade downward in your hand.
Its often used by more small framed guys or women too.
The blade is conceiled unto the last moment and then drawn out fast, dealing heavy damage. So its like finessable and with easy crit.

Ok, have to move, will finish this later.

The asian version you are talking about already has its own rules in Ultimate Combat (page 132).

Quote:

Katana, Double Walking Stick: This single case

conceals a pair of matched fighting swords perfectly
balanced to be wielded as a pair. Despite their name,
the blades more closely resemble the shorter wakizashi.
When the blades are concealed in their case, this weapon
can be used as a quarterstaff.

As for the topic, I agree with other posters that the Sword Cane shouldn't have access to Weapon Finesse.

It is not a light weapon, being around 3 feet long. And it is foremost designed for stealth and not for speed or balance, thus precluding any special rule for it as a one-handed weapon.


I find it reasonable within the setting. As you said, he has 36 dexterity.
That means he has godlike dexterity. He has extremely fast movements.


Bobson wrote:
By that logic, Acrobatics, Ride, Bluff, and Disable Device are all equally Int based.

Exactly. They all require theoretical knowledge and learned experience AS WELL AS the other abilities.

Bobson wrote:
Which then negates the "Having quick fingers does not help you to figure out how to disable a complex trap" bit. An idiot savant orc (20 dex, 5 int) who puts his single skill point per level into disable device is going to be much better at understanding and disabling highly complex mechanisms than a genius wizard (20 int + stat boosters).

"Disable Device" is about disabling devices with your hands. Knowledge on how the devices work is required, but just as important is the ability to have is dextrous hands. Knowing how the trap works only gets you that far. You need dextrous hands to disable it.

And the fact that the idiot orc spent all his skill points on disable device means that he spent his ENTIRE life learning one single skill. In the end (that is, if his low intelligence even enables him to get to such a high level) he most likely disabled every type of trap and lock that exists. Think of a tracking dog, it isn't really smart but it excels at one skill because it was intensely trained in it.


Happler wrote:
I agree. But was using that as part of the argument against it being an int based skill. If it was meant to be int based, then the wizard (int based maser of magic) should have it as a class skill, as it would help to represent their "vast knowledge of magic".

Then why DO alchemists and witches have it as a class skill?

And why DON'T oracles, paladins and inquisitors have it?

As I see it, having UMD as a class skill has nothing to do with how it works, that is, if it should be dependent on cha or int.

Happler wrote:
And strangely they use their CHA to manipulate this possibly non-sentient power source to give them the magic. Since you are separating the sorcerers body and mind, you are also stating that their source of power is, by default, mindless.

Sorry, you are right, I slipped up on that one.

I meant: "their bloodline is controlled by their subconscious and not their mind". And their subconscious is sentient, although on a low level.

An alternative explanation would be that, although magic by itself isn't sentient, when it is mixed with a bloodline it does get some sort of sentience and can thus be influenced. This obviously only works if said bloodline is present (ie not in items).

Happler wrote:
The RAW for some of the skill state that the skill can only be used against non-mindless things, but the RAW for the stat does not.

It does. The RAW for the charisma stat say:

"Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
These are all properties that do not affect "mindless" beings.

Happler wrote:
But where does that get it's power. It is not "Turtles all the way down!" There is some logic in the system. Dragons do not use their vast intellects to manipulate magic in Pathfinder, they use their force of personality to bend it to their will. A sorcerer does too, they just get the ability to from their bloodline.

It doesn't matter where their bloodline get's its power. What matters, is that sorcerers can use their charisma to influence their bloodline (ie the subconcsious that controls it) to make it release its power.

Happler wrote:
Why is there not a skill that allows another character to apply their wisdom to their AC? Instead there is a class that does that (monk). In this case there is a whole class (several actually) that is(are) allowed to use their CHA to work magic not stored in items.

Yes, and my question remains: Why could they use their charisma to influence magic in items with UMD, but not magic outside of items with a different skill?

I think the answer is that one can't influence magic inside or outside of items with cha and that UMD should thus be based on int.


Bobson wrote:
Assuming you ignore UMD. And ignoring UMD because it doesn't fit your definition of Charisma, if your definition of Charisma only works because you ignore UMD is circular.

First of all, I am not ignoring UMD. Nothing in the description and working of UMD supports charisma.

The only thing I am disputing is that UMD is charisma based. You cant use the very thing I am criticizing as an argument against it. Talk about circular reasoning...

Alch wrote:

How do you perform blur, light, cat's grace, or so on? One of those changes where you appear to be even if there's no one around to see. The next makes a physical object glow. It expressly can't be cast on creatures, let alone influencing them. Cat's grace certainly affects a being, but you can cast it on a construct, an animated object, mindless undead... All things that aren't sentient even by your defintion.

So how does a bard's performance (and a bard can choose to have no skill ranks in any perform skills) affect his spells?

It is the ability to perform art (well) that is dependent on charisma. Not the single performance.

A world renowned musician can make his best performance with nobody present.


Fromper wrote:
Bards don't always channel their magic through their art. That's only for bardic performance, not spellcasting.

From the Bard's 'Spells' class feature:

Quote:
Every bard spell has a verbal component (song, recitation, or music).
Fromper wrote:

And there are other classes that cast spells based on charisma (sorcerer, oracle, paladin). Obviously, charisma is directly tied to magic in Pathfinder.

All classes with charisma based casting have an (external) source of their magic that is outside of their mind (the sorcerers bloodline is in their body and not in their mind). When they cast or prepare spells they influence the power source to give them the magic.

Here is a list of the sources and who is influenced for every class:
Paladin: their patron god
Sorcerer: their bloodline which is controlled by their subconscious.
Inquisitor: their patron god
Oracle: the gods that connected to their 'mysteries'
Summoner: their eidolon

The only exception to this is the Bard. He is cha based because he performs art to cast his spells. And performing art is cha based.


Happler wrote:


Only if you try to make Use Magic Device as a bluff skill versus a non-mindless force. The RAW does not state anything about mindless or non-mindless, and not all the skills deal with non-mindless only.

They most certainly do. "Mindless" is a creature trait of all oozes and vermin and many constructs, plants and undead.

"Mindless" creatures don't have an Intelligence score, they are immune to mind-affecting effects and all effects that require understanding of language (or understanding of anything else for that matter), they get no skill points and they don't have any feats.

Happler wrote:
Not all skills use the attribute like you would expect. For example, why is disable device a dex based skill and not a int based skill. Having quick fingers does not help you to figure out how to disable a complex trap, it just makes it easier.

Disable device is indirectly Int based since you can only gain skill ranks if you have intelligence. So it is primarily based on dex and indirectly on int.

UMD only uses intelligence. So it should also only be based on int.

Happler wrote:
CHA may not help you figure out the words to use, but it is the "touch of power" needed to make the power work.

There is no mention of any "touch of power" in either the description of Charisma or the description of how UMD works.

Explain to me how your "touch of power" enables you to 'decipher a written spell'?

Happler wrote:
you say that Sorcs power comes from their bloodline. Where does a dragons power come from? They are a CHA based caster also (they cast as sorcerers).

Eeeh... their bloodline? (Which is the same as the draconic bloodline of a sorcerer btw.)

Happler wrote:
Pathfinder uses CHA as the stat for raw manipulation of magic power (thus the spontaneous casters use CHA for the most part). This is why it is used for UMD.

If that is so, why is it not mentioned in the descrption of Charisma?

And why isn't there a cha based skill like UMD for magic that doesn't come from items?

Happler wrote:
Since UMD is showing the raw/brute force manipulation of the magic powering a magic item, and why it is a class skill for sorcerers and not for wizards.

Wizards don't have it because they already have all the knowledge required to manipulate all magic items. Why would they take a skill that represents knowledge they already have?


Larry Lichman wrote:


Applying this to your question: The reason UMD applies to magic, but Intimidate doesn't (even though they are both Charisma-based skills) is the same reason Knowledge (Arcana) doesn't influence the number of Bonus Spells a Wizard obtains at each level - they are different aspects of the ability.

Your argument that Intimidate should be able to influence a Fireball (or other magic effect) just because another Charisma-based skill influences your ability to use magic is simply not a valid one.

Saying all skills based on the same ability should apply equally to all situations where the ability itself can apply defeats the entire reason for skills in the first place.

I was answering to the statement that magic has some sort of sentience.

But for your argument, let me reformulate my question.
Why can't one use UMD on an oncoming fireball? OR Why isn't there a charisma based skill for manipulating magic other than in magic items (since, as you say, it is part of the aspect of charisma)?

Larry Lichman wrote:
Your argument that Charisma is merely the ability to infuence non-mindless beings is not supported by RAW either, so playing that card to trump my interpretation is still not valid. This is your interpretation based on an out-of-game definition of Charisma that you have applied in game.

That interpretation of charisma is absolutely supported by RAW. Look at the description of Charisma and the description of the skills and checks related to charisma. They all support that interpretation.

Larry Lichman wrote:
To further support this, Bards also use Charisma as their base ability to use magic and cast spells. If Bloodlines are the only thing that Sorcerors use to cast spells, how do you explain the Bard's reliance on Charisma to cast spells?

As I said, Bards cast their magic by performing art. The ability to perform and how good a performance is, depends on how well one can influence sentient beings. Thus, by the proxy of artistic performance, bardic casting is Charisma based.

Happler wrote:

Your definition there is also not in the rule book. It says nothing at all about mindless or non-mindless. It just states:

Quote:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

All these qualities are things that influence other sentient beings, but do not affect mindless ones.

Happler wrote:

If you go by the dictionary definition of Charisma you end up with this:

Quote:


1.Theology . a divinely conferred gift or power.

2.a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.

3.the special virtue of an office, function, position, etc., that confers or is thought to confer on the person holding it an unusual ability for leadership, worthiness of veneration, or the like.

Looks like it would work quiet well for UMD to me.

Really? I don't see anything about magic or magic items.

What I DO see are 2 definitions that directly apply to sentients ("large numbers of people", "leadership" and "veneration").


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Are there examples of items described as an "Alchemical item" that are also magical?

No, and there can't be, because alchemical items are defined as "nonmagical".

Tyki11 wrote:
But apparently you follow the index to the written page and pick what's what.

One doesn't just pick what's what. One reads the description. If it mentions something magical, then it isn't an "alchemical item". That's it.

Tyki11 wrote:
It actually says 'Mundane alchemical substances'. Not Alchemical Items. Those are two different things, as you have argued.

"Mundane alchemical [whatever]" is equivalent to "alchemical item".

Why? Because "mundane" means "nonmagical". Thus if a term includes the two defining properties of an "alchemical item" (nonmagical and alchemical) it is equivalent.


I don't know if there is a official definition. It really isn't important. My point was that there are "mindless" beings and "non-mindless" beings (which I dubbed sentient).

"Mindless" beings and objects can't be influenced by "human behaviour". They are immune to mind-affecting effects, language dependent effects and any other effects that require understanding by the opponent (you cant intimidate or bluff a mindless being for example).

And if magic had sentience, then why is it only influenceable by UMD and not any other Cha-based skills? Why can't one Intimidate a Fireball flying one's way?

Happler wrote:
Remember, if it was based on "knowing the tricks", then you should be able to get a bonus to it by having high ranks in either Kn: arcana or spellcraft.

Check out the 'Magical Aptitude' feat. It gives a bonus to both Spellcraft and UMD. Also, there aren't any synergies between Spellcraft and Kn:arcana either.

Larry Lichman wrote:

This is it exactly. Think Sorceror. They don't learn how to use magic, they just know how to do it. The ability that allows them to do this is Charisma, as all of their DCs and other spell-dependent abilities rely on this ability. Same thing with Bards.

Pathfinder (and D&D 3E before it) extended Charisma beyond its original meaning and added a magical affinity aspect to it. Innate arcane casters draw upon Charisma when they cast their spells - they don't learn spells like Wizards, they have an innate talent for using magic and harnessing it. This part of the game-specific Charisma trait is what UMD is based on. The more Charisma your PC has, the easier it is to tap into his/her natural affinity for magic, making it easier to use a magic device they are unfamiliar with.

There is no such definition of Charisma in the rulebooks. Charisma is simply your ability to influence "non-mindless" beings.

The only exception are undead, for whom Charisma has an additional meaning as a measure for their "lifeforce".

Sorcerers have a bloodline that is the source of their magical power. Their Charisma let's them influence their subconscious selves which is part of their bloodline.
Bards cast their magic by performing art. How well you perform your art is dependent on how well you influence your audience. Hence, just like the Perform skill, it is based on Charisma.

In both cases magic itself isn't influenced.


Bobson wrote:
I'll give you that, based on the standard dictionary. The sci-fi and fantasy genres tend to use it for what would be Int >= 3, which is how I was using it. So we're both right, and its use is unhelpful here. :p

I wasn't quoting any dictionary. I'm talking about the Pathfinder rules. You have "Mindless" beings and objects and you have sentient beings. The difference is whether they have an Int score or not.

The only difference between beings with an Int score of 3+ and those with less is that they can't understand, speak or read language.

Bobson wrote:
I don't see that in the skill description at all.

From the skill:

"You are skilled at activating magic items, even if you are
not otherwise trained in their use."


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Define sentient.

Anything with an Intelligence score. The opposite to "Mindless" beings/objects, which are defined by not having an Int score.


Bobson wrote:
Replace the bolded section with "impose your will" and it makes perfect sense.

Not really. "Imposing one's will" on a non-sentient object means physically manipulating it (like the Fonz hitting a jukebox). This doesn't have anything to do with Cha.

[OTOH, imposing one's will on a sentient being is obviously all about Cha.]

Bobson wrote:
Handle Animal's also a Cha skill and it expressly does not work on sentient beings. Basically, UMD isn't "I know all these little tricks to get things to work" - think of it as the Fonzie touch. Then it makes sense.

Handle Animal expressly ONLY works with sentient beings. Which is exactly why it is Cha based. Just like Diplomacy and Intimidate.

And if you read UMD's description, "I know all these little tricks to get things to work" is exactly how it works.


I have a few questions about the Advanced Race Guide:

- Will there be alternate Vital Statistics for the core races (especially for normal sized elves)?
I know something like that is exceedingly easy to houserule, but something official would be nice.

- Why do the elemental blooded races (ifrit, oread, sylph and undine) have so low RP numbers (5-7 vs 10 for most other standard races)? And why is there such a large discrepancy even among them (5 for oread, 6 for ifrit/sylph and 7 for undine)? Will the ARG contain "standardized" versions of these and the other expanded races (ie with an RP score of exactly 10)?

Happy New Year!


Fromper wrote:
Provos wrote:
I think there should be some sort of check involved when characters do not have the spell actually known.

Think of it this way: If you started to study a foreign language, learned a few hundred words, how to conjugate some of the verbs, etc, but weren't fully fluent, don't you think you'd have an easier time trying to understand native speakers than if you had never studied the language at all?

It's the same way with wands. If the magical concepts are similar to what you've studied, you'll have an easier time using them than some guy with no magical training whatsoever. The Use Magic Devices skill includes some minor magical training to help you fake it, but the difference is like someone with a 100 word vocabulary in a language trying to understand vs someone with a 1000 word vocabulary in that language.

This. Good explanation.

What disturbs me most about UMD is that it is Cha based and not Int based.

UMD is all about knowledge of the principles of magic applied to magic items. What does Cha have to do with it?
Cha represents how well you can influence sentient beings. Neither magic nor magic items are sentient. In fact the special rules for handling intelligent magic items do not include UMD.


There are plenty of items that are alchemical and magical: The Alchemist's extracts, mutagens and bombs as well as all magical items of the 'Potions' type.
But BECAUSE they are alchemical and magical they are not "alchemical items".

This is also clearly explained in the Alchemist's 'Alchemy' class feature:

Quote:
Alchemy (Su): Alchemists are not only masters of creating mundane alchemical substances such as alchemist’s fire and smokesticks, but also of fashioning magical potion-like extracts in which they can store spell effects.

As you can see "mundane" is the official term for "nonmagical" (the rules also use this term for "mundane disguises" and "mundane ink" in order to differentiate them from their magical counterparts). And the 'Alchemy' class feature explicitly differentiates the two types of items in the case of alchemy.

"Alchemical item" is the official term for the class of items that are alchemical and nonmagical.


Yes, and their descriptions clearly state that they are magical and thus not "alchemical items". It is also because of these items that the category is called "Special Substances and Items" and not "alchemical items".
However, this doesn't change the fact that all the "alchemical items" in the game are listed in the "Special Substances and Items" subsection and that this is the ONLY section where they are listed. This also goes for all the other rulebooks, "alchemical items" are always listed in the "Special Substances and Items" subsection (Advanced Players Guide, Adventurer's Armory).

And the "Nonmagical Treasure" and "Mundane Gear" categories clearly only say "alchemical items" and NOT "Special Substances and Items". So holy water and everburning torches are not "Mundane Gear" and not "Nonmagical Treasure".


Cheapy wrote:
Those are the primary non-fluff / non-supportive material due to the nature of a book that exists about these items in the CRB.

There also is the Index entry which directly links "alchemical items" to the "Special Substances and Items" subsection and thus provides a direct definition for what "alchemical items" are.

And on page 400:

"Nonmagical Treasures: This expansive category includes
jewelry, fine clothing, trade goods, alchemical items,
masterwork objects, and more."


Cheapy wrote:
Please stay civil. There are already exceptions toward what counts as "alchemical items", so there's reason to think there could be more. This is a question about RAI.

How am I not being civil?

Also, there is exactly ONE exception towards what counts as "alchemical items" and it is limited to 3 class features of the Alchemist class. It was clearly stated in the FAQ for the APG. At the same time the FAQ entry clearly states that for everything else than this exception (hence the name) poisons and "alchemical items" are not the same.

If there had been other exceptions (especially if they also concerned the Alchemist) they would have been addressed at the same time. Not to mention that all that was more than a year ago.

Tyki11 wrote:
Taking to the last line of my post, you could just have agreed to disagree rather than follow up on stuff you don't agree on. I think two of us talking is over now.

This isn't about me agreeing or not. It's about the RAW. And all the points you made in your post directly contradict the RAW. This isn't about interpretation or semantics.


Wow! I am utterly stunned... You actually manage to get every single point in your "rant" wrong.
And that after I explained everything to you in detail, several times.

As it is, you haven't understood how the Alchemist class, crafting, creating magic items and the feats you quoted work.

If you carefully read the rules, you will see that:

- All "alchemical items" are "nonmagical" and thus "mundane".

- Poisons are NOT "alchemical items".

- "Alchemical items" are NOT the only ones to give "alchemical bonuses" and are NOT the only ones that require the 'Craft(alchemy)' skill.

- The 'Bomb', 'Extract' and 'Mutagen' class features don't have ANYTHING to do with "alchemical items".

- 'Swift Alchemy' and 'Instant Alchemy' ONLY work with "alchemical items" and poisons.

- Potions are NOT "alchemical items".

I will not reference anything here, since it has already been done in this thread and others (not to mention that everything is clearly described in the rulebooks).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What are Tucker's Kobolds???

They are what separates the good dungeon crawlers from the rest.

Trapdoors, murder holes, acid pits, falling boulders, crushing walls, burning garbage heaps, boiling oil, hordes of snipers, endless tunnels and secret passages... You name it... AND DIE!

PRAISE KURTULMAK!!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with both of you.

I think the motto should be "as close as possible" to PF, within the frame of a real-time MMO.

...And make the elves human-sized...


Tyki11 wrote:
Alch wrote:
Tyki11 wrote:

Didn't mean to come off as offensive. Just a long day.

Any chance you could point me to any text on alchemical bonus or other that mentiones alchemical items as mundane only, I'm sorry, but I really don't think a guideline to making npc treasure trumphs alchemical bonus = alchemical item, and we'll just have to disagree on that, but I'd like to have all the text handy when I present this to some of my buddies.

That's what I'm trying to explain all the time.

There is NO text/rule that says "alchemical bonus" = only "alchemical items".

What the SRD says on that subject is just plain wrong.

Kay, let's skip and forget SRD, it was wrong of me to link that text, but it was the only I found.

Where other than Hoard guidelines can I find text stating that alchemical items are mundane only?

Pages 400-401. But as I said before, the index entry is all you need. It's crystal clear.


Tyki11 wrote:

Didn't mean to come off as offensive. Just a long day.

Any chance you could point me to any text on alchemical bonus or other that mentiones alchemical items as mundane only, I'm sorry, but I really don't think a guideline to making npc treasure trumphs alchemical bonus = alchemical item, and we'll just have to disagree on that, but I'd like to have all the text handy when I present this to some of my buddies.

That's what I'm trying to explain all the time.

There is NO text/rule that says "alchemical bonus" = only "alchemical items".

What the SRD says on that subject is just plain wrong.

Also, the index of the CRB says that "alchemical items" are everything in the "Special Substances and Items" section and nothing else.


Tyki11 wrote:
Alch wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

No, the PRD is the definitive source.

My first edition CRB says a lot of things that are not true anymore.

To be honest, I am flabbergasted that someone would argue that the printed version trumps the REFERENCE DOCUMENT. The very document that you reference against to see what the rules are. I even think that the CRB specifically says "go to the PRD to see the most up to date rules. "

Sorry to break this to you, but the CRB + Errata is the definitive source. No question about it.

First, the "reference" in PRD means that it is a resource players can refer to and not that it is THE reference.

Second, it doesn't say ANYWHERE in the CRB that you should go to the PRD for the most up to date rules.

And most importantly:

Third, this is what it say in the introduction to the PRD:

"This compendium is NOT the official Pathfinder Roleplaying Game! Players interested in a user-friendly introduction to the Pathfinder system will want to purchase the complete Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook and the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, which comes complete with more than 350 monsters to menace your player characters."

A short line like cheapy's would suffice, I said I got it, and hammering it in when I admitted fault is uncalled for.

This is directed at Cheapy, not at you.

I am explaining to him that the Core Rulebook (CRB) is the definite source and not the Pathfinder Reference Document (PRD).

This isn't about the SRD, which as Cheapy correctly noted, is fan made and in no way official.

Tyki11 wrote:

As for PRD intro, it says it's not the game, which is a different thing from a reference document, no?

Further down it specifies it holds all new official content.

"The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document contains all errata to the Core Rulebook, Bestiary, and Advanced Player's Guide as of 11/30/11.

11/30/11 Added errata for the 5th printing of the Core Rulebook and corrected minor formatting errors and links."

That's right and I added that too.

It means the PRD only contains what the CRB contains and that it is even updated at a later date, since the errata for the 5th printing was available on 11/22/2011. That's 8 days earlier than the PRD update.

So in conclusion, THE definitive source is the CRB. It contains more than the PRD AND is updated earlier.


Cheapy wrote:

No, the PRD is the definitive source.

My first edition CRB says a lot of things that are not true anymore.

To be honest, I am flabbergasted that someone would argue that the printed version trumps the REFERENCE DOCUMENT. The very document that you reference against to see what the rules are. I even think that the CRB specifically says "go to the PRD to see the most up to date rules. "

Sorry to break this to you, but the CRB + Errata is the definitive source. No question about it.

First, the "reference" in PRD means that it is a resource players can refer to and not that it is THE reference.

Second, it doesn't say ANYWHERE in the CRB that you should go to the PRD for the most up to date rules.

And most importantly:

Third, this is what it say in the introduction to the PRD:

"This compendium is NOT the official Pathfinder Roleplaying Game! Players interested in a user-friendly introduction to the Pathfinder system will want to purchase the complete Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook and the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, which comes complete with more than 350 monsters to menace your player characters."

And:

"The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document contains all errata to the Core Rulebook, Bestiary, and Advanced Player's Guide as of 11/30/11."

Which is to say, the books get updated first and then the PRD (11/22/2011 vs 11/30/2011). So, not only does the CRB contain more, it also gets updated first.


Cheapy wrote:
Alch, you can't use the "Fluff should be ignored" reasoning, then use fluff to support your view.

I am not saying anything should be ignored. I just said that in the very same feat description they say "alchemical items" 2 sentences later to describe the same thing. Thus "mundane alchemical items" is equivalent to "alchemical items", since both refer to the same items.

Furthermore, all "alchemical items" ARE mundane as specified by the "mundane gear" entry.

Cheapy wrote:
Once the index for the CRB makes it into the system reference document (or Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document, if you want to be specific), then you can start using that as the justification for a view. Until then...if your argument relies on the index for a definitive answer, you should really reconsider the argument.

Say what?

The CRB is THE definitive source. Everything else is just an incomplete copy.

Cheapy wrote:
But there are already exceptions to what "counts as an alchemical item for class abilities", and it's quite logical that an item that is introduced under "alchemy", gives "alchemical" bonuses, and is for a class named "alchemist" would...be an alchemical item! And that's why I hope people would hit the FAQ button on the first post.

As I said before, "alchemical items" are clearly defined. And the 'Alchemy' class feature explicitly differentiates between the magical alchemy of the alchemist's class features and mundane "alchemical items".

The reason they had to clarify the question about poison, was because poison is non-magical and doesn't belong to any of the categories in the Equipment chapter. This meant there was ambiguity.

In the case of extracts and mutagens there is no ambiguity.


Tyki11 wrote:

Until the faq, you couldn't find poison in a hoard. Now you can.

Funny how things can change.

Let's scrap the rest.
Mutagen is Su ability, and gives alchemical bonus.
Alchemical bonus states that it's received from a non-magical alchemist items.

Is one text wrong?
Is one ignoring another?
Is Mutagen to follow the older rule, changing from Su to Ex(as alchemical bonus is from nonmagical only), like poisons that only recently became alchemical items with the non-magical hoard?

First of all, where did you get the strange idea that only non-magical alchemical items give alchemical bonuses?????

That sentence you keep quoting doesn't exist in any rule book.

Second, Mutagen is a supernatural ability and thus magical in nature. Period.

And poisons are NOT alchemical items, they are ONLY considered as such for the 'Alchemy' class feature of the alchemist. That's it.


Tyki11 wrote:

As cheapy pointed out, there's a feat that specifies mundane alchemical items, if there's just mundane ones, why exactly specify it?

Could you point out the Alchemical Items index or what it was, I can't seem to find it. Below are a few texts that bug me, and in your last posts, you effectively told to ignore them.

Bombs:
- the alchemist can create this liquid catalyst from small amounts of chemicals from an alchemy lab.

Alchemy Lab:
This lab is used for making alchemical items.

Mutagen:
granting him a +2 natural armor bonus and a +4 alchemical bonus to the selected ability score

Bonus (Alchemical):
An alchemical bonus is granted by the use of a non-magical, alchemical substance such as antitoxin.

Colour me blue, but bombs really suggest that the alchemy skills are alchemical items. Mutagen is a newer text than alchemical bonus, so logically it's a more precise one. Unless the alchemical bonus line is correct, but being non-magical, it means the mutagen becomes an EX ability and not SU.

As you said there are only mundane "alchemical items" (with "mundane gear" being defined on page 401 of the CRB).

In fact, in the same feat, the actual description of how the feat works just says "alchemical items".
The first sentence with the "mundane" word is just a fluff sentence.

The index is at the end of the CRB.

Just because a bomb can be created with materials from the alchemy lab does not make it an "alchemical item" rules-wise. This is as if you said that because magic weapons use the same base materials as normal weapons, that makes the normal ones magical as well.

The bomb rule IN NO WAY suggests it is an "alchemical item".

This is whole thing an non-issue. "Alchemical items" are clearly defined in the index.

In fact, the "mundane gear" section clearly defines that any mundane items (and thus also "alchemical items") are non-magical, since they are listed under "non-magical treasures" (pages 400-401).

Thus it is impossible for extracts, mutagens, elixirs and potions to be affected by these class features.

Cheapy wrote:
From a verisimilitude point of view, I think it does work. Alchemy is alchemy.

This is incorrect. Alchemy is NOT alchemy.

There is normal ("mundane alchemy") and there is the alchemist's alchemy that is magical in nature.
First sentence in the 'Alchemy' class feature:
"Alchemists are not only masters of creating mundane alchemical substances such as alchemist’s fire and smokesticks, but also of fashioning magical potionlike extracts in which they can store spell effects."


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Some elixirs require craft alchemy, would those, with craft wondrous item, qualify for this ability?

Elixirs are not "alchemical items". They are "wondrous (magic) items".

So, no.


"Alchemical item" is a standard term in the Pathfinder rule set.

All the 3 three class features explicitly mention it.

The index explicitly mentions it and refers to a specific section.

That's pretty much as clear as it gets.

And the index is not a table. It is more like a glossary and thus the very place to go for definitions. Especially if a term isn't defined anywhere else in the rule book.


Why go to such extremes? Wouldn't just removing the tattooed skin be enough? (Which, admittedly, is painful enough.) I don't think you would even need to waste the vial of regeneration on that.


Tyki11 wrote:

Bonus (alchemical)

An alchemical bonus is granted by the use of a non-magical, alchemical substance such as antitoxin.

I don't really see what the fact that different sources can grant an alchemical bonus has to do with the definition of what an "alchemical item" is.

'Alchemy', 'Swift Alchemy' and 'Instant Alchemy' all only work for "alchemical items".

The Core Rulebook's index clearly defines "alchemical items" as all the items in the "Special Substances and Items" section.

Thus, that's the only items these class features apply to (plus poisons, as the FAQ clarified).


GunnerX169 wrote:
Besides that's how tall Tolkien said elves were supposed to be. If you are going to make short elves they need to be like the Keebler and shoe-making elves.

Tolkien said elves were as tall as humans. That's all I'm asking for.

Also, the physical stats of your girlfriend don't sound healthy. Even professional female marathon runners have a BMI of about 18.


Matthew Trent wrote:
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. The'res no shortage of people willing to defend the Pathfinder Campaign Setting as the best thing since sliced bread on more relevant areas of these broads.

Well, of course. This IS the Pathfinder forum after all.

Matthew Trent wrote:

I find both those games severely lacking compared to equivalent systems developed for use in video games at the same time such as Deus Ex and Fallout.

The Temple of Elemental Evil is the only reasonably satisfactory implementation of D&D mechanics into a computer game that I have experienced and its fairly clear that adapting that style of play to an MMO would be disastrously bad.

Edit: I take that back. Planescape: Torment was also a lot of fun. It played so fast and loose with the rules as to be a bit silly at times. It still managed to tell a compelling story though.

Yeah, Planescape Torment used the same system as the Baldur's Gate (1&2) and Icewind Dale games. And those games beat Fallout and Deus Ex every day in my book. Not to mention that Deus Ex is a FPS with a few RPG elements and Fallout didn't adapt any existing P&P RPG rule set.

Kryzbyn wrote:
Or...it could be that they are a different race entirely, and they have more efficient muscles...or any other number of possible make believe reasons, since hey, they're elves.

Can't be too different from humans though, because they can make little half-elves. :-P

Gorbacz wrote:
Legolas walking across the snow is laughing at your physics :)

At least he was only human sized...

1 to 50 of 386 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>