Cwylric's page

shroudb wrote:

Wait till you reach the base class abilities that allow you to make 3 different items in one hand but no way to hold them...

Simplicity itself with the Enduring Alchemy feat!

Round 1, Action 1: Create three items with quick alchemy, drop one.

Round 1, Action 2: Drink/throw item.

Round 1, Action 3: Drink/throw item, or other action.

Round 2, Action 1: Interact action to pickup dropped item.

Round 2, Action 2: Drink/throw item.

Round 2, Action 3: Other action, or drink/throw item kept from previous round.

Viola! Resource efficient, action wasteful.

Uh... I guess. But it seems like shroudb is right in assuming that it is a wash, which makes this a non-ability. It also assumes a status quo situation, during all that kibitzing.

And... well... it just makes for a really silly image.

Wait till you reach the base class abilities that allow you to make 3 different items in one hand but no way to hold them...

Ugh... Didn't even think of that...

You're totally right. I just control F'd through the pdf and found nothing about Mutagens being keyed to a person anymore. This is really baffling. I hope the people at Paizo are checking out these threads because Alchemist is one of my favorite classes and I really have not been enjoying what I've seen of it in 2e.

I second that. Since posting my original two threads, I've done more digging, and it seems like all of my concerns were valid. I was just hoping I had missed... several... somethings. I had heard from a reliable and very Pathfinder-savvy source that the new Alchemists - especially, Mutagenists - were underwhelming and kind of boring to play (vis-à-vis getting to enjoy any limelight, in a typical group), at least at low level, but I was hesitant to believe that, without a thorough examination, of my own. At this point, I'm afraid I couldn't argue the point.

More problems...

Aren't Alchemists looking at serious encumbrance issues? Alchemist gear = 2 bulk. Formula book = 1 bulk. Healer gear = 1 bulk. Uh... Isn't the Chirurgeon going to start with 4 bulk, before even buying weapons, armor, and an adventurer's pack? This seems like some kind of typo or glitch or something...

And I'm unsure how you would even start to do the absolutely classic Jekyll/Hyde or Banner/Hulk build, now. As near as I can see, there is no way to enhance your physical power, without just getting critter parts. And the basic Bestial Mutagen is just... sad. 1d4 slashing claws? My dagger can do that. 1d6 piercing bite? Morningstar, anyone? And my dagger and morningstar don't wear off or wreck my AC and Reflex.

Again, I feel like I'm missing something, here. Because if I'm not, Alchemists seem to have... issues.

I feel like I must be missing something, here, but isn't the 1st level portion of the Mutagenist Research Field kind of useless, until you reach at least 7th level? Let's break this down:

1) You get two extra formulae. Good, but they all get that, so it's a wash, comparison-wise.

2) You can safely use mutagens that were not specifically brewed for you. Uh.... can't everyone? I know that non-tailored mutagens in 1st edition could make you sick, but I can find no sign that this is true in 2nd. Check out page 546, for example. No hint of it. So, this seems to be a non-ability.

3) Your unarmed proficiency keeps pace with your simple weapon proficiency. Okay, this is a lot more useful... but only at 7th level. Until then it does absolutely nothing. Isn't that like giving a 1st level Wizard an ability that only works on 4th level and higher spells? Or a 1st level Fighter an ability that enhances Weapon Specialization? Wouldn't it make a LOT more sense to grant this feature at a level where it would actually do something? Otherwise, if I never make it to 7th level, I effectively never have any ability, at all.

As near as I can see, when compared to the 1st level Bomber and Chirurgeon options, this just seems sad. The Chirurgeon ability isn't that big of a deal, but at least it lets you use your (presumably higher) Intelligence for Medicine, instead of Wisdom, right away, while having it improve with your Crafting, later. And the Bomber option... well, it's just better than both of them. Protect your allies from your splash damage, while harming your foes. That is going to come up all the time - and long before 7th level.

Again, am I missing something, here?

Concentration is still going to be a hell of a lot easier to maintain than in 0e, 1e, 2e, B/X, BCMI, or RC.

How do you figure? You weren't limited to only a single concentration spell, in those editions. And they didn't give clerics, rangers and such a bunch of spells to cast on themselves and the party that would end if they got hurt. Spell use expectations are very different, in 5E (or 3E or 4E or Pathfinder, for that matter).

Actually, come to think of it, there were no concentration spells, other than a few illusions, in those editions, and concentration meant something somewhat different. So, you're kind of comparing apples and oranges, here.

If you are referring to the fact that damage might disrupt a long-term spell, you have a point, but there is no other connection. And, even in those editions, there was some debate as to how that applied to a spell that was already cast and simply became "part of" the target or gained an existence of its own, so to speak - Mage Armor, to give a more modern example (which, BTW, is one of the few non-concentration defensive spells in 5E).

I could see changing Concentration to match how we want to play.

Maybe DC 5 or 1/4 damage dealt.
Or just use the Playtest version and damage doesn't disrupt except maybe on a crit.

There's going to be a lot of "season to taste" going on group by group.

My personall pet project is savage humanoids using high quality manmade gear (goblins wielding scimitars versus say clubs or sharp sticks).

I'm not sure that reducing the DC would entirely solve the problem, at least with defensive spells. There would still be a reasonable chance of the spell crumbling before it actually does anything. And remember that, while the DC goes up, at higher levels, the bonus for the roll usually doesn't.

I actually don't have a big problem with this, if the defensive spell is supposed to be "ablative" - that is, if it is supposed to, say, take some damage and then collapse. But none of the 5E spells work that way, so far. In fact, I can't help but think that the folks at WotC didn't even bother to run the numbers, on this one. And who knows what their "playtesters" were doing...

And, of course, none of this solves the problem that you cannot have more than one spell going at a time - a problem that might not even be a problem, if so many spells weren't concentration spells, in the first place. I mean, I know we don't want to over-buff, but does anyone really have a problem with the cleric putting up Shield of Faith and then Blessing the group? Or the wizard protecting himself, a little, with Blur, while using a Flaming Sphere or letting his buddy Spider Climb? And do we really want that Spider Climb to fail, when the wizard gets hit?

The best solution would probably be to just have less cocnentration spells, in the first place - especially, in the defensive department. As stands, there are far too many of them.

I've decided to start a new thread for posting some of the adventures I've been working on for the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, rather than have them scattered all over the place. So, here we go...

Pathfinder's version of psionics will be called psychic magic and will be nothing like the magic point system from past systems.

From what's been said about this, Paizo isn't a fan of the power-point system, which is one of the reasons why they wouldn't just use DSP's system.

I'm not heavily invested in the idea of point-based mechanics for psionics - I just like Dreamscarred's work and appreciate the fact that they're the only ones doing it.

Having said that, I'd rather a point-based system than a "psychic magic" system that just treats psionic powers as spells with different names. Seems to me that psionics should feel different from spells; otherwise, there is really not much point in having them, in the first place. I suspect that Paizo feels similarly but is unsure as to how they would make the two phenomena feel different without using a point-based system. Figuring that out is probably not a high priority, for them - they have a lot of stuff in the works, already, that is.

So, in the meantime, I'll stick with Dreamscarred.

Ugh. Well, it's official: Pathfinder really has replaced D&D. You can tell, since they're starting to turn out the kind of books WotC did (especially, when they ran out of ideas for 3.5 and 4). I hated it when WotC kept trying to tell me how to make my characters "efficiently" - the word "build" still gives me shudders. Not keen on having Paizo do the same (although I at least trust that the writing style will be less condescending).

Okay, that might be a little mean, and, to be fair, I can see that beginners might find this useful. From a business point of view, though, the price tag may scare them off - maybe this should have been a softcover?

Anyway, this will definitely be the first PF hardcover that I have ever passed on. Absolutely no interest in this one.

You could easily have a Lawful barbarian, who is committed to the traditions of his people and is obedient to the tribal elders, who believes that a warrior must be honourable and keep his word, but who allows himself to be overcome by furious spirits (loss of self-control) in order to fight the enemies of his people. This barbarian may have a number of tribal rituals preparing for battle or for purifying himself after a rage.

Absolutely. In point of fact, many historical tribes, in the real world, have been quite regimented, having many taboos, rituals and so forth, i.e. they have been quite Lawful. And with good reason: living in a truly Chaotic culture is not conducive to long-term survival, in the wild. For this reason, the whole "barbarians can't be Lawful" thing has always bugged me. It smacks of a very pulp/cinematic - but not very realistic - understanding of what tribal life is really like.

As for monks... well, Paizo has already put the horse's head in the door, with martial artists (who can have any alignment), drunken monks (lawful? yeah, right...), and so forth. Seems to me, the alignment restriction should probably be ditched for them, too.

Really, the only alignment restrictions I think are best left in place are those that involve ties to the divine, i.e. a cleric's need to mirror his deity's alignment, etc. Having said this, I sometimes wonder if paladins should simply be restricted to Good, rather than Lawful Good. It would make just as much sense and allow for interesting possibilities. By extension, it would also imply that anti-paladins need only be Evil (I want my Lawful Evil anti-paladin!).

There is something else worth noting. I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this before, but most of the alignment restrictions were originally put in place as a balancing mechanism (in the days of 1st edition D&D and even the original brown books). Paladins, for example, had a code of conduct (along with tithes, possession restrictions, etc.) to make up for the fact that they were simply better than fighters in every other way. These days, with the classes being more internally balanced, that particular use for alignment restrictions is long gone. So, if it's simply a flavor thing, shouldn't that depend on the campaign in question?

We recently updated and finalized our house rules for Pathfinder, and I took the opportunity to balance most of the races, as per the Advanced Race Guide. Basically, any that were worth less than 10 RP were brought up to 10 RP (and dwarves were actually given a minor weakness, to bring them down to 10 RP). I haven't tinkered with aasimar, tieflings, drow or any of the other really high point, more obscure races, as any changes there would probably have to be too major (and would make the "Blood of ..." books, which I quite like, harder to use).

Anyway, since I have seen this topic brought up on the messageboards, now and then, I assume that others might be interested in this. Here is a link to a document, which details all of the changes:

Balanced Racial Traits

I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, actually. 4 pts is way too high for just a feat. Especially given other racial bebefits.

Most feats can not come close to a LOT of lower priced abilities.

It should be lowered in cost, imo.

Gotta agree with TSiD on this one. If Skill Focus (Adaptability) is worth only 1, quadrupling the cost just to get to choose a feat is too much. Yes, getting to choose is nice and maybe worth 1 extra point - but 3 extra? No way. To be honest, I think Adaptability should be raised to 2; then, 3 points (that is, 1 point more) would be about right for a bonus feat of choice.

But, then, I've already talked a bunch about this here.