Coboney's page

I feel like it's a 2k gp handwave tax to become immune to plot elements like starvation, poisoning and genuine fatigue.

Yes you can magic your way out of it anyway but that's a resource expenditure at the very least.

It annoys my hunger to create conflict as a storyteller.

In a case like that, it feels like your players may be saying these are the types of conflicts they aren't really interested in, which is also worth considering.

As for the Ring itself, I'm of mixed minds.

A bit of a digression first though, I've felt that infinite cantrips was the type of thing that has a big impact in PF1 that was ignored, especially spells like Create Water, due to the fact that in societies of the age Golarion generally matches, availability of water was a major factor. Create Water as a spell opens up areas that normally were reluctantly or minimally settled or new settlement paths then were done.

Digression over - so the Ring of Sustenance - I have seen it used more by caster then mundanes, and larger for the two-hour sleep benefit. I don't run many night-time ambushes in my games, unless they are relevant to what is going on or it feels like a good spot pacing wise. The Ring does let spellcasters get their spells done easier and minimize some troubles that come there but it's not anywhere close to a game breaker or really a pusher on the martial/caster imbalance.

What was always kinda odd about the Ring of Sustenance was its price due to many items in the area that impact food, drink and the like being more expensive. There are good arguments to be made I think that the adjustment should probably go the other way - bring the cost of some of those odder, more often flavor use items costs down and then Ring of Sustenance doesn't seem like such an outlier.

If you are running a game where survival is a major part, then ya this is probably an item you should not make available or it should be significantly more expensive. In a world where everyone is struggling to get food, sleep safe from dinosaurs and dangerous wildlife and get clean water, this item would become immensely valuable.

But in normal campaigns its an item that says you don't want to deal with a few things, gives some advantages in areas, but mostly stands out because it doesn't have much in the same cost area as colleagues.

I wonder how crafting alchemical items will be dealt with, monetary speaking. I played a high level alchemist once, who could craft anything she wanted, but I quickly stopped crafting because it was way too costly.

There's the daily stuff and on the fly stuff which do not cost money so that's fine. That puts the crafting alchemy items more in comparison with scrolls to some extent.

While I don't have much details - I was told crafting is getting overhauled some and including a new trade-off system for time/money (so you can spend more time in downtime to get an item at less, or more money to do it faster compared to the base crafting cost).

Blog wrote:

a formula book for free, along with four bonus alchemical item formulas (for a total of eight, including the four from Alchemical Crafter). Each time he levels up, he gains two more formulas. This is on top of ones he either discovers or invents.

What exactly is an alchemical forumla here? 8+(19*2)= 46 formulas base. Plus more discovered or invented? Will alchemy be a full blown not-magic system? I don't know what to think about that possibility

Talking with Stephen - he did confirm there will be over 46 items. Note that this probably counts poisons as well. Alchemy is basically becoming its own little system there in the playtest

John Lynch 106 wrote:

The alchemist never excited me much with the bomb throwing. I always like the Dr Jekyll, Mr Hyde format. I'm surprised no mention was made of the alchemist's companion: a golem. From the early interviews I believe that was confirmed. If that replaces the mutagen (for builds that go the golem route) I could see the alchemist doing a pretty good impersonation of the Eberron artificer. For now I'll just wait and see.

If they can get a golem companion, that's a pretty significant thing to leave out of this preview. That could be pretty awesome.

There is the Alchemical Familiar class feat Stephen told me about in the interview - I don't have any other details on it, but the fact it is an option would lead me to believe that for the base alchemist it's not getting a golem - until possibly high levels feated into.

Or via an archtype.

Techraptor Interview wrote:

One of the defining elixirs is the elixir of life, which gives the alchemist the ability to heal himself and others by having folks drink up. While its raw healing ability scales slower than healing spells, it has its own advantages in that it provides resistances if drank when at full HP, and that the Alchemist can further enhance it with class feats. Most notably at high levels, the Miracle Worker class feat can let you resurrect the dead with a true elixir of life.

Of course, if it was just healing that would be boring. Elixirs typically tend to be transmutative, meaning something changes to make them work. A few other examples given were a cheetah elixir that gives you increased speed, an elixir that improves jumping, an elixir that transforms you into the mist, and several others that transform the body.

I like what I see here. It does make me wonder though why mutagen is even a class feature. Just make the various mutagens and cognatogens into elixirs you can learn to make. Even if mutagen-as-elixir didn't come until until 3rd or 4th level when the alchemist gets "2nd tier elixirs," to...

I'm not quite sure where they are going - but I think they want to keep it separate there and the mutagen can function under different rules. Also by being a class feature and not a base alchemical item, it means that it is unique to the alchemist (barring archtypes and the like) and not just open to anyone who takes the Craft Alchemy skill feat. By opening it to cognigions and the like base it also reduces the odds it becomes a dead class feature.

I'm glad to see the various elemental bombs are being brought forward, which should give the alchemist much more flexibility right from the word go. I also see that the Tanglefoot Bag now counts as a bomb (!) and its DC will go up, which is also excellent to hear.

This is one of the things that interests me a lot because it means even if you don't want to be tossing damaging stuff around. It boosts bombs from being about one thing to being a much more flexible tool.

Well this is good news. Some classes can shift things like Resonance to alternate ability scores that better fit the class in question. Also the Alchemist apparently gets bonus Resonance on top of this. This also helps alleviate worries about burning Resonance needed for magic items. :)

They do get extra resonance as they level up. Also, for using their own items they don't have to pay to drink it if anyone was concerned about that.

If you guys have any other questions based on the interview feel free to fire away here or on the TR questions and I'll try to answer as I can.

Personally, I'm excited to see what the class ends up as and like the feel of the class flavorfully using the magic in the world around them and mixing it together. I liked 1e alchemist but it was always a bit restrained and abstract flavor because of having to be built on rules that had a certain foundation. Working him in here from the start lets alchemy find it's own niche.

Greetings

Since we know the seal has a Kami in it giving it some sort of intelligence I was wondering if it would mess up anything later in the campaign by having it become effective a tertiary character in the game by having its own personalty and speaking when opened up in the warding box as per an intelligent item.

I'm a bit worried as it feels like that there's some more planned there and I don't want to be running head first against the campaign itself.

My thoughts for the personalty (for those interested ) are basically that of an old man who's tired of all this, not happy with how long it took to rescue him, recalling old times when he'd speak up and so forth.

Any thoughts on the matter ?

They could in the text of it or such put something like - the following weapons gain the Tricky trait if you are playing with the Dirty Tricks combat maneuver in the APG:

They aren't shy about referencing the other books in the supplementals and such so I don't see why it'd be an issue. So no you don't add it in the core rulebook but in the APG - and any other weapons you add later on.

I'd say you should read again the "steal" entry in the APG.

APG page 322 wrote:

Although this maneuver can only be performed if the

target is within your reach, you can use a whip to steal an
object from a target within range with a –4 penalty on the
attack roll.

Okay I forgot about that. So... one weapon gets that for that. Still doesn't answer why its not been backwards or forwards supported anywhere else really though.

Really what worries me about it is it shows one of the biggest issues wotc splat books had - failure to integrate stuff between books.

Not only that - the way its place there - its easy enough for people not to know it - thats why those 'special' tags were invented in the first place.

I can't imagine any true weapon being helpful in a stealing action... however you could add Dirty Trick to something like a sap. I can see a sap being used to attack the genitals or to give somebody a nice knock in the head that dazes them.

Go to Google. Start finding images of the weapons. If you can imagine a use for them in a Maneuver... add it. And post it here.

Alright - Whip - I'd say Drag and Steal both fit with it.

Monk's Spade - Dirty Tricks - the Crescent blade is perfect for tossing dirt up or cutting someone's pants as you attack (both examples in the manuever)

Ogre Hook - Drag.

Scythe - Drag regardless of whether War or Farm built as the hook end there can pull someone in. This is a bit of a reach on the War Scythe though.

Katar, Tri-Bladed for Steal. Wouldn't be unreasonable that with the threat of the other two you can use one to pull off the item.

How about Thorn Bracer for Steal (This is a touch of a reach here I will say) given it lets you threaten and possibly knock the item out with thorns or grab it.

ManCatcher - Drag and Reposition for it both scream out.

Lasso - Drag and Reposition again.

Thats all off the top of my head here on a quick run through of the weapons list.

this is a game based on your imagineation (i know i cant speel) make one up.

Thank you for your very helpful commentary.

This message is automated to tell you that it while the DM in question does and will continue to make homebrew items he prefers when possible to use the stuff that's already there as it would make life easier and less time is spent on a side thing. Additionally, the fact is not all GMs like having players submit homebrew due to the largely varying quality of it.

So - with Ultimate Combat released (along with the APG and UM) we have 4 new Combat maneuvers (Drag, Reposition, Steal, and Dirty Tricks) that were not in core.

Oddly, though - despite Ultimate Combat introducing new weapon abilities, new weapons and the Adventurer's Armoury and APG coming out with weapons, not one of these weapons have been given a special ability.

For reference we have (in the books + Core)
Tripping
Disarming,
Sunder,
and Grapple.

In the same area we also have Distracting weapons.

Now some Combat Maneuvers don't lend themselves to weapons in general cases - Like Bull Rush, Overrun and such. But why do none of these maneuvers get one? A Drag weapon makes sense - a variant of the whip maybe or a hooked polearm. Dirty Tricks doesn't take much imagination with how broad it is.

So why is it that we don't see any of these weapons out so far in all the books that have come out - 1 of them focused mainly on combat?

Why spend a precious feat on Improved Trip, Improved Sunder, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Disarm and all those other maneuver feats when you only need a Tank (ex: Shield Fighter in Full Plate) with Mobility to execute all those maneuvers with little risk? You see, all those feats only give you a +2 to your CMB for executing a specific maneuver without provoking an AoO. As a Tank with Mobility, you only need to move around in circle within the threatened squares of your opponents to make them waste their AoO on you. After this, you, and all your allies, can try to perform the maneuver you want on them without provoking AoO, unless your opponent have Combat Reflexes, until the end of the round.

Sure, some monsters will be able to hit the Tank even with his Mobility bonus to AC. However, you don't really want to try a maneuver on those kind of monsters. ;)

Its possible to do that yes. You're also worst at performing those maneuvers then the person as you lack the bonus and you take the attacks which can injure you absorbing precious supplies. Not only that it takes the right circumstance to be able to do your ability.

Also you lack the ability to hit the greater feats that grant special abilities and at that point you fall even further behind compared.

I was wondering as I pondered something with a new character I built - does Hardness count as Damage Reduction given its effect is similar in nature.

IE. Would a Lantern Archon's Light Ray attack bypass the Hardness of an iron door?

What about Oracle? The Oracle has several mysteries and subsequent revelations that are solid for melee types - sounds like the Battle one would be particular good for you as it helps with maneuvers and such while still letting you play the healing role as needed.

An artificer class would be awesome, yes. It's one of the few classes I think the game could really benefit from, (without adding in something huge like psionics, that is).

So, what we all seem to want is:

• All the magic items in one place
• expanded and/or reprinted mundane gear
• Improved and all-inclusive treasure generation tables
• Rewards that aren't exactly treasure, but work the same way, such as body parts or locations
• Base building stuff
• A variant for getting by without the vanilla bonus items
• An artificer-type class

is that about right?

Think that has most - but also - rules on redoing the craft system. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top. I have players who love that type of thing and it would be a great help to have actual functional indepth rules on that.

Also - not a huge fan on the artificer but some of that might be that I dislike the 3.5 and tome of secrets one so much because of its brokenness.

Alright apologies EvilLincoln but I'm going to ignore your instructions after reading these 9 pages and give my view on the matter.

Personally I think that the APG/UM/UC is a bit fast released but I can understand. I would prefer to see them slow down on the large player option based books to 1 every year or so and a bit smaller that don't tend to require as much looking. Even with most of the stuff online finding it can take time and not everyone plays with an active internet connection.

What would I like to see:
1) Better editing on books. - Its why I'm not a subscriber in a lot of ways because I don't want to buy the new ones off the shelf due to the large amount of issues in each book. I pick them up later because its more readable, more accurate and easier to use.
2) Pathfinder Treasury - That would be a great idea I think and help a lot.
3) Campaign Settings Guide - including things like effecting levels of magic, inter-planar, Urban centres, and various other options.
4) Beastiary's with perhaps some better tools available for editing monsters to make life easier on GMs.
5) NPC Books - a great idea I think as I tend to use a lot of npcs with class levels and putting sheets together for them is one of the largest drains of time.
6) Alternate Rules systems - Epic Rules - Psionic Rules - and so forth.
7) Kingdom building rules (more in depth - wasn't a big fan of the Kingmaker one to be perfectly honest), Building creation rules ( A fixed and functional Stronghold Builder's guide could be a nice tool for players and a source of inspiration for GM's)
8) While I don't know if Paizo is willing to go down this line - more tools that make life easier on GMs. I know there's some 3rd party stuff but in my experience that tends to be hit/miss.

There's more out there I'm sure but this is my 2 cents on the topic.

I must point out that Tounges is a second level bard and third level wizard spell so E6 allows it anyway and those other spells can be deleted or modified if they cause too many problems without really effecting the game as a whole.

That being said the difference between level 6 and level 8 also allows 3/4 bab classes to get multiple attacks and the next tier of combat feats which may impact on the melee character a fair amount.

You're right - my mistake there. I thought I had double checked on that but must have missed on that one.

8th level also opens up a lot of class abilities - some of which are nice - some not so much (from a balance stand point).

I like the break E6 has really though I think for PF to keep the feel you'll want to make a couple house rules (like limiting the number of cantrips. Though for my sanity when thinking about things like setting I want to do that anyway as my brain starts to melt when I consider things like impact on economy and such).

8 on the other hand is the natural pathfinder cut off. A lot of abilities come in at 8 as mentioned by others.

One thing I do like about such a cap is that it allows the assumption of lots of low level commoners, guards and low level aristocrats to make more sense in context. It means a mid-high level character can't decide to basically take over a region and do it quickly without trouble alone. Level 9 mayors in small towns (unless there's a good reason) can now pass away as you don't have to worry so much about showing Authority Equals Asskicking because in this rule set comparatively mundane powers are the highest level of power.

Shadow - my issue with Level 8 is that 4th level spells are where I find things start to break a bit. They are for a lot of combat purposes not as good as 3rd level in a lot of occasions but for plot breaking and such it starts to break down here.

A quick list of 4th level spells (all core) which illustrate this: (note some of them are 'cool' but to me often feel like they should be more of a plot device or something that's more situational)

Scrying
Divination
Tongues
Black Tentacles
Dimension Door
Lesser Geas

Scrying isn't too bad without 5th level spells but it does ruin a lot of different plot ideas and areas. If you went to 10th level though it gets pretty bad - Scry and Fry enters.

Divination just bypasses mysteries at times. You can work on riddles and such but if the Gods *want* to help their subject it doesn't make a lot of sense unless you have rules for cosmology.

Tongues is another mystery cracker and personally my feeling is if it obligatory to the situation that they *must* learn to speak with them there should be another way. But then - I change Comprehend Language to be like Jump for any game I think thats going to come up (+10 to linguistics checks +20 at 5th etc and lets you make the check untrained).

Black Tentacles is just a whole combat ender. An I win button a lot of the time.

Dimension Door's issue is the fact with decent range (720 at level 8 ) you can move without line of sight or effect. So it can bypass whole regions and such. Not as egregious as Teleport and less combat useful due to the fact it ends the turn but still a long range no-sight-required teleport. (On another note - Wizards at mid-levels who aren't ethically constrained don't really have to worry about money with spells like teleport and DD. I mean unless you get someone to make an anti-teleport magic item for your room/house, they can just hop in, steal what they need and be out in under 30 seconds).

Lesser Geas is up there as its a weaker dominate type effect. Whereas Charm Person influences Geas forces for a week or so if its at all possible.

My issue with a lot of these things is how it renders skills and thinking down to just pulling the right spell/scroll up. Though as I said 4th level is far from the worst for some stories.

Now I've played and enjoyed and GMed my fair share of high fantasy dnds but I brought this up as I was curious if anyone has and I've been thinking about something a little different in tone lately.

Greetings...

So recently I've been thinking of running a lower level game, with less of a focus on high magic and such that I normally have seen in my games and my friends as well as lower magic setting that base dnd/Pathfinder doesn't encourage.

A while back I read the E6 Rules for dnd (Findable here: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=352719). Basically the idea is that characters stop leveling at level 6 and every 5000 xp they get a bonus feat and that's all. Part of what it is does is stop some of the dungeon breaking spells and spellcaster dominance / setting breaking that can happen.

So I was wondering - has anyone played Pathfinder with E6 rules? If so how did it work? What did you like/dislike of it?

Thanks for your time,
Cob

Didn't want to post thanks in the bugs thread so I am here.

Thanks for updating GMG and APG into the PRD website. Now I can go back to using *only* the PRD site instead of flip-flopping between a few different websites.

Let me take this moment to echo Archmagi1's comment as I find the PRD site nice and easy to use and now that it's updated it is more usable. Hopefully with future releases it can happen quicker as everything gets more organized

I like it as a feature as it makes it easier to mine things without having to completely brew it up though some players I know take it to extremes.

What I find it an issue on is areas like Bard feats which don't convert at all (generally speaking).

Overall backwards compatability is a plus for me and one I'm happy to see but its far from seamless and requires updates a lot of the time.

I've come from my shadows, lurking, to the light to post a few questions here. Thanks in advance for your time.

1) Does an extract that is inert due to not being in an alchemist possesion have a magic aura? It can't do anything and its siphoned off part of your magic aura (according to the flavour text) so... not sure.

2) If the Alchemist cannot make extracts with focus components - why are spells like Fly on their Formulae list? So they can use Wands of Flying?

3) Does Item Creation via the Brew Potion bonus feat work the same as it would for a normal caster? Can Alchemists ignore the pre-req of needing the extract on their list by raising the DC by +5?

4) Mutagens make a mention that other alchemists can use them. Does this apply to things such as bombs and/or extracts? If Alchemist 1 makes it - can Alchemist 2 use it?

5) Does Deflect/Snatch Arrows work on bombs? If so, snatching the bomb makes it inert correct?

With that done - I think the Alchemist is a nice and interesting class though with some confusion on wordings in there and I don't believe I've ever read the word inert as much anywhere. Also, it could really use some formatting help to make it easier to read.

Thanks for your time,
Coboney

I converted favoured soul over pretty easy for my game - can't say on the others in practice but it is very simple overall.

lastknightleft wrote:

and now to say, I have to side with the group that doesn't like the idea of Drow lite.

This comes from the "remove LA as a game mechanic" position at Paizo.

Without Level Adjustments, you can't have Drow gain all the same benefits OR you can't have PC Drow.

So you either forbid players playing Drow or you make a watered down Drow you call the "Drow" and say that the beefy Drow are non playable "Noble Drow."

I always thought Level Adjustment was an elegant mechanic and I never really understood the seething hatred for the mechanic that you see on forums.

The only other way you might be able to duplicate the LA mechanic without doing LA's is to make a new experience chart based on Level Adjustment +1 and up that requires different experience totals to level.

Maybe something like LA +1 chart would require 3000 (3.5 difference between Level 1 and Level 2) / 20 = 150 more experience per level. So to get to 2nd level you would need 3150 experience instead of 3000 experience. Maybe this would be easier to understand to the few that found LA confusing or frustrating?

----------

As for Oracle, I love the name myself.

As for LA... on my side at least ... part of the issue was balancewise and it does always suck. Pretty much LA classes say no casters allowed.

Also I love the name oracle myself - while the blind seer is a common use there are other uses of it which fits it extremely well - the name is flavourful and works.

And Divine Flavour is right :P (Note: Coboney is Canadian. )

DarkWhite wrote:

Cavalier - martial class. Horse skills are important, but can't take a horse with you on every adventure. Braggart of the battlefield. Kind of like a bard but more of a jerk. Helps boost the party, but generally only one person "get up there you sluggard". More skill-focused for a melee class, CHA will be important. (audience suggestion: perhaps like a martial bard?)

Minus the horse, the description sounds like a 3.5E Marshal(Miniatures Handbook) to me... and there will be many orders barked! Whatever they call it, I'll take it.

Thanks for the info DarkWhite!

Actually made me think of the Knight from PHB 2.

I can't say I use Pathfinder Society but I am running 2 PF games and in 2 others ( 3 over maptools and one of the ones I DM is over IRC.) I can say it works very well for me as the whole and the games are very different styles.

I can say I'm very happy with the final PF release.

If anyone's interested the site I use to play on is The Tangled Web ( www.thetangledweb.net ) which is a very nice site with all sorts of games and mediums in my experience. A great community etc. etc. :P

Ok I'll be clearer - what I meant was the base mechanic of the roll and +5 DC.

Also - what are the rules on item creation in the final? Same as beta?

Thanks for all this guys and thanks to Paizo for a great game!

Did Master Craftsman make the final release? Any changes to it ?