Wrapping the Tourniquet around Bobs neck results in him dying by strangulation - but death is a easy condition to fix as the party has access to a 9th level cleric and the diamond dust... so they wait for the Tourniquet to repair Bobs body, re-growing his eyes and then have Raise Dead cast on him to bring him back from the dead with a new set of eyes.
Would that work?
The Trollskin works on corpses as described in its description.
Killing your comrade is an evil act even if it's to (eventually) restore him.
Again, with a 9th level cleric why not just cast Cleanse?
Because (as per the GM) he doesn't have the Condition "Blinded" - he just doesn't have eyes right now? So for example, the spell Countless Eyes will give him "eyes" to see with (for 1 hour/level), but it would not allow someone who has had Blindness/Deafness cast on them see - they still have eyes, they just have the Condition "Blind". Bob on the other hand doesn't have the Condition, he just doesn't have eyes any more.
As to killing Bob being an evil act... well, my first response would be "Clearly, you don't know Bob", but then I think I can live with doing one or two evil acts if it's to restore a friends eyes, esp. if no one else is harmed in the cure. (Barring the long term actions of Bob once he has his eyes back).
So...
Let's say we have Bob the Unlucky, who has had his eyes removed. Normally this would be the end of a PC career, but the band of adventurers gained a bunch of loot which included a Trollskin Tourniquet (lets see if my Auto Correct changes Trollskin to Troll again).
Wrapping the Tourniquet around Bobs neck results in him dying by strangulation - but death is a easy condition to fix as the party has access to a 9th level cleric and the diamond dust... so they wait for the Tourniquet to repair Bobs body, re-growing his eyes and then have Raise Dead cast on him to bring him back from the dead with a new set of eyes.
think... vanilla Alchemist. Keeping Mutagen + Cognatogen is very good for the times where you need high DEX for better aiming, vs the times you need higher INT for better DCs and damage.
Poison Use features are also super important. One of the best ways of debuffing is the Poison Conversion discovery: a lot of ingested poisons are really cheap and really deadly, and converting them into inhaled poisons can allow you to bring enemies to heel pretty effectively.
You want Swift Alchemy to make stuff like vials of holy/unholy water (and the Ranged Baptism talent to boot) when you need to target undead.
Bombs and Throw Anything are also good.
The only features you won't use much are Brew Potion and Poison Resistance, and no archetype replaces them without breaking anything else.
As for Bombs, Frost Bombs are very useful, so are Sand and Smoke.
Would the tail Trait for teiflings be a good idea for me
also how is this?
Discoveries
LV(2) Frost Bomb
LV(4) Ranged Baptism
LV(6) Poison Conversion
Feats
LV(1) Point Blank Shot
LV(1) Throw anything
LV(3) Precise Bomb Or Precise shot
LV(5) Rapid Shot or Extra Discvoery for a new Bomb (Likey smoke so I can take Stink Bomb later)
You get the Throw Anything for being an Alchemist, and while Point Blank Shot is a fine feat, early on Splash Weapon Mastery is IMHO better.
Precise Bomb is one you REALLY need quickly, whereas Precise Shot is less important (just rely on splash damages and throw at the ground for AC 5)
Frost Bomb would be good for the De-Buffer part of your character, but I actually often skip it for other Discoveries (Explosive Bomb for instance - to increase the splash radius and set things on fire...)
Having a tail able to draw things for you (such as Acid Flasks or Alchemist Fires) is totally a good thing for your Action Eco.
think... vanilla Alchemist. Keeping Mutagen + Cognatogen is very good for the times where you need high DEX for better aiming, vs the times you need higher INT for better DCs and damage.
Poison Use features are also super important. One of the best ways of debuffing is the Poison Conversion discovery: a lot of ingested poisons are really cheap and really deadly, and converting them into inhaled poisons can allow you to bring enemies to heel pretty effectively.
You want Swift Alchemy to make stuff like vials of holy/unholy water (and the Ranged Baptism talent to boot) when you need to target undead.
Bombs and Throw Anything are also good.
The only features you won't use much are Brew Potion and Poison Resistance, and no archetype replaces them without breaking anything else.
As for Bombs, Frost Bombs are very useful, so are Sand and Smoke.
Ah... how are you making holy/unholy water? These don’t actually have a Crafting DC. Are you using some type of gimmick to craft them?
Why wouldn't spellcasters always let people pay to copy from their spellbooks rather than make scrolls? Scrolls cost money to make, whereas letting someone copy doesn't cost a thing.
Wizards could easily charge persons for CASTING the spell, and if they are the only person in XXX miles that knows a particular spell...
Party of adventurers: "What the heck is this thing anyway? Any way we can find more out about this McGuffin?"
NPC Wizard: "Well.... I could cast Legend Lore."
Party of adventurers turns to their wizard.
PC Wizard: "Guys! I picked Disintegrate and Wall of Iron for my 6th level spells... Heck! Divination is my Prohibited School!"
NPC Wizard: "so, cost to cast a 6th level spell, with my caster level, plus the Material Components cost, plus Focus, plus Overage and Union Dues and Risk Insurance (have to handle the item), factor in a Spell Rarity Multiplier comes to... hmmm..."
yeah.
Got to be sure EVERYONE doesn't have access to this spell - wouldn't want to put ourselves out of business.
Why craft a scroll? not to pass the spell off to someone else - scrolls are to have the spell when you run out of spell slots. Or don't want to prep a spell that is very handy ... some times. Like Comprehend Languages.
A Cucurbita? Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus of herbaceous vines in the gourd family, Cucurbitaceae, also known as cucurbits, native to the Andes and Mesoamerica.
As long as we have multiple writers/developers in our game system, we will have multiple ways that disease works.
One set of writers/developers will be using the "evil spirits" Theory of Disease and then along will come another writer/developer who has a great idea for a "dirty" monster that lives in "filthy" conditions and so carries disease - because everyone KNOWS that Disease is caused by unclean conditions (see the notes on Dire Rats, etc.). Then we have BOTH the "evil spirits" Theory of Disease, and the "un-clean" Theory of Disease. Then someone will develop a monster that infects victims with a disease that is a curse (like Mummy Rot or Lycanthropy) and we get a third Theory of Disease... Until we have another form... etc.
"Destroying a Door Through Hit Point Damage "... well, is it fun?
Yes? Allow it. make up rules for doing it... and let the monsters do it too.
No? don't allow it. make up rules for WHY it can't be done and stick to them (realizing that the Players will come up with workarounds to any obstacle put in their path. In fact, just stating that it can't be done will get the PCs working on HOW to do it...).
A side note on the "hammer and pick" for digging thru rock - this is not the pick many people are thinking of...
hammer and pick:
"The hammer and pick, sometimes referred to as hammer and chisel, is a symbol of mining, often used in heraldry. It can indicate mining, mines (especially on maps or in cartography), or miners, and is also borne as a charge in the coats of arms of mining towns.
The symbol represents the traditional tools of the miner, a hammer and a chisel on a handle, similar to a pickaxe, but with one blunt end. They are pictured in the way a right-handed worker would lay them down: the pick with the point to the right and the handle to the lower left, the hammer with the handle to the lower right and the head to the upper left. The handle of the pick protrudes over the head, because the head is not permanently fixed, but can be swapped for a newly sharpened head when it is blunt from use."
They are normally used in hard rock mining by placing the pick (or chisel) against the rock face and striking it with the hammer. Picks are NOT used by swinging them against the rock face. So... it's really only in fantasy is a pick used to dig thru rock.
Air cystals are strictly worse than a potion of Air Bubble unless you go swimming in an anti-magic field. With the potion you can cast verbal spells (possibly even talk) and they don't taste bad.
Tanglefoot Bags are still pretty good, but they had a really nifty hidden use in 3.5: They severely limited a flying target's maneuverability and forced them to go straight or lose altitude if they couldn't hover. This still exists to some degree, but most fliers can make a DC10 check.
Potions underwater need a potion sponge to consume (full round action in addition to the move action to draw), air crystals only take a standard+draw time. Not terribly many circumstances where the difference matters, but they exist.
I actually tend to go with an Oil of Airbubble... for those times I need to ensure an item remains dry. Put it on a gun for example... or a torch. Map or note or other piece of paper...
1) Desiccating lubricant - the only alchemical weapon that I know of that does nonlethal damage. So an Alchemist can splash around some when you're wanting to NOT kill things...
2) Tress tincture - not because it's very effective, just because it is so FUNNY!
Outside of PFS I most likely could just discuss this with my GM... but for a PFS PC I'm afraid that "Table Variation" will prevent me from using Magical Knack for Alchemists.
But thanks for the well thought out and written up case for using MK with an Alchemist.
Thank you for the response... ah... where are these two from? What are they? Traits? Feats? ... Enduring Mutagen sounds like a Discovery... I'll see if I can find them.
#3 - If at all possible (and it is) push the INT up to 20. A starting stat array for an Elf of:
Strength 10, Dexterity 16, Constitution 10, Intelligence 20, Wisdom 10, Charisma 7
has served me very well. Besides the fact that it gives you another 1st level Extract at 1st level, one more bomb, one more Formula in your starting book, one more language, one more skill point per level, etc., etc.... it also means your bombs do a splash of 6 at 1st level. That is 3 if they make their save. (not 5/2 for an INT of 18). This also means that about the time you get a second bomb dice you'll be able to pick up an INT belt (by 4th level at least), so your bomb damage will be 2d6+6 with the splash doing 8 or 4.
#4 Check on the feat Splash Weapon Mastery from Adventurers Armory. I recommend picking it up early (I normally take it as my 1st feat, yeah- before Point Blank Shot).
So, as soon as we another book out we'll need to check to see if TPTB put in an item like...
"Droppable Self Sealing Vial, 3 gp. This vial is often used for potions and elixirs and resists damage when dropped onto hard surfaces from a height of less than ten feet. It's design requires someone using it to squeeze it to access the contents, and so when not in hand is sealed and will not leak."
and thus once it is published from that moment onward, all potions/elixirs dropped that are not in one of these DSS Vials will brake and spill. (Precedent established by the Potion Sponge ).
edit: nah, with that wording, some judges will still rule that the DSS Vial MIGHT brake - after all "resists does not mean always resists. If they had intended it to ALWAYS not brake, it would say that..."
Edit-Edit: or maybe we'll get a new Feat - something like "Bottle Dropper"...
you help organize a game so that your Alchemist/Wizard can swap spells with another players Wizard. As the rest of the PCs trickle in this seems to set the theme for the night.
Arcanist
Sorcerer
and
Sorcerer.
Yeah - your Alchemist (mind chemist) is the front liner, and the Healer... and the trapsmith... But heck, we've got arcane caster covered! Good thing we didn't face Golems!
The people who identify a Formian worker will be far more accurate about what its abilities and natures are. The people who identify a dragon are far more likely to 'know' abilities that are merely common myths.
Everyone knows what a dragon is thanks to legends. Only greatly learned people have actually sifted through the legends to know what the truth is.
"Everyone knows what a tiger tank is thanks to old World War II movies. Only Re-Enactors or Military History buffs have actually sifted through the hearsay and rumors to know what the truth is." Yeah, works for me...
"yeah, the Panther tank, much better vehicle. Or if ya really want a heavy tank, the Russian KV-85, now there was a ..." Nurse comes to wheel the old war-gamer back to his room.
- I glance at my Chronicles and see that he played The Confirmation... which MIGHT have a swarm of spiders in it. So he might have fought them before... with someone who would have told him how to fight them...
So, am I meta-gaming if I pull my flask of Alchemist fire and throw it at the swarm? Am I "reverse-meta-gaming" if I DON'T?
If you, the player, can't remember what your character did or did not do, then you should error on the side of conservatism and assume you didn't learn it, or your character has forgotten what exactly happened during the encounter. After all, PFS operates on the honor system and players should not try to exploit that.
The GM should not give a player info unless the character rolls the appropriate K. check. Whether or not your character would have remembered how to fight swarms or whether your character actually learned how to fight swarms is unknowable by the GM. If the player cannot recall such information unassisted, the GM should not provide it.
LOL! But I know what to do - did I learn it when I played that scenario? or when I played another? or when I RAN that scenario?
If I "should error on the side of conservatism and assume you didn't learn it" - then we can assume that I only know it if I happen to roll it. But if I actually never learned it, and it's all new to me, but I do happen to roll it (this time), then it's ok to assume I did learn it... at least until I have to roll it again and then miss it. At which point I never learned it...
But then, if I DO remember fighting swarms (with this PC), then it is ok to assume that my PC learned the things I, personally, know?
But if you fought something before, how would you magically forget that you fought it and forget important things such as, I don't know, what it's weaknesses are?
Your GM is correct, but he should have given you a bonus on the roll (honor system). Just because you remember doesn't mean your PC remembers.
Having said that, the Pathfinder Knowledge skills in general need to be streamlined and simplified more.
(Bolding mine) Wait, what if my PC remembers the monster, but I (the player) doesn't?
I mean, my PC has a photographic memory (mind chemist), but I don't. What if I fought the creature last adventure for the PC - but that was a year of real time for my less than photographic player memory. Can I get information about the beast - if I don't actually know I have encountered it before (but my PC would?)
let's take this even a step farther. Let's set up the situation
- The party encounters a Swarm of spiders.
- Initiative is rolled and I go first.
- My PC has no ranks in the required knowledge skill. (Kn: Nature?)
- I have no memory if my PC has encountered swarms before... it's been a long time sense I played him and I'm older than I once was (and I have a lot of PCs to try to keep strait...)
- I glance at my Chronicles and see that he played The Confirmation... which MIGHT have a swarm of spiders in it. So he might have fought them before... with someone who would have told him how to fight them...
So, am I meta-gaming if I pull my flask of Alchemist fire and throw it at the swarm? Am I "reverse-meta-gaming" if I DON'T?
But if you fought something before, how would you magically forget that you fought it and forget important things such as, I don't know, what it's weaknesses are?
Your GM is correct, but he should have given you a bonus on the roll (honor system). Just because you remember doesn't mean your PC remembers.
Having said that, the Pathfinder Knowledge skills in general need to be streamlined and simplified more.
(Bolding mine) Wait, what if my PC remembers the monster, but I (the player) doesn't?
I mean, my PC has a photographic memory (mind chemist), but I don't. What if I fought the creature last adventure for the PC - but that was a year of real time for my less than photographic player memory. Can I get information about the beast - if I don't actually know I have encountered it before (but my PC would?)
Some years back (in season 3 I think) I played a game where we convinced the judge to NOT give us the name of the creature - just it's description (paraphrased, not directly from the book). And some "important facts" about it... You know what? It was kind of fun.
heck, the first skeleton a Pathfinder is apt to encounter is a Burning skeleton... there are some in an Evergreen scenario after all. A LOT of 1st level Pathfinders to be are going to have encountered them...
Now - how come the second time they encounter skeletons they don't worry about the way they blow up doing fire damage to everything close (which burning skeletons do - but other kinds don't)? I mean, I can see this not...
Experienced PC to his buddies: "Ha! Skeletons! I encountered these guys last week! gotta keep your distance and shot them with missile weapons! They blow up when you kill them!"
Other than the part where the burning skeletons are actually on fire and the regular ones aren't.
Makes the distinction a little obvious.
Ha! after 3rd degree burns - I don't check so close any more... looks like the same creature that burnt me before!
heck, the first skeleton a Pathfinder is apt to encounter is a Burning skeleton... there are some in an Evergreen scenario after all. A LOT of 1st level Pathfinders to be are going to have encountered them...
Now - how come the second time they encounter skeletons they don't worry about the way they blow up doing fire damage to everything close (which burning skeletons do - but other kinds don't)? I mean, I can see this not...
Experienced PC to his buddies: "Ha! Skeletons! I encountered these guys last week! gotta keep your distance and shot them with missile weapons! They blow up when you kill them!"
I have seen PCs do this before! It's hilarious. (And should totally be encouraged, if that's how the character's career plays out.)
yeah, I can see it being a lot of fun ... in a home game once I ran a Bard that often got the Gather Information rolls wrong - so I would just "make stuff up" and the GM played along. Spent like two months looking for the "Lost Ogre Mine" - said to be the hangout of a one eyed Orc bandit lord... only to have to the GM produce something kind of like it, filled with goblin "bandits"... "Hay, this 'mine' looks a lot like a natural cavern." - "They must have moved in and extensively remodeled the old mine...". (Grin! roll a bluff check...)
heck, the first skeleton a Pathfinder is apt to encounter is a Burning skeleton... there are some in an Evergreen scenario after all. A LOT of 1st level Pathfinders to be are going to have encountered them...
Now - how come the second time they encounter skeletons they don't worry about the way they blow up doing fire damage to everything close (which burning skeletons do - but other kinds don't)? I mean, I can see this not...
Experienced PC to his buddies: "Ha! Skeletons! I encountered these guys last week! gotta keep your distance and shot them with missile weapons! They blow up when you kill them!"
Just remember this time the next time someone at the table actually gets a knowledge roll to "remember" important facts about something everyone (as players) have never encountered - or even read about, or heard of before.
Player: "So, does it have any Special Abilities?"
Judge: "Yeah, Say-how-again - spelled S-A-H-U-A-G-I-N - have 'blood frenzy' which is kind of like rage. It's triggered when they take damage."
Player: "What do they look like again?..."
Evoker: "Crud, I'm running low on bat guano for my fireballs. Well, that's why I picked up Baleful Polymorph. Hay Mr. Fighter, come here, I'm going to cast a spell on you that will improve you hearing...."
What? Dung beetles don't have good hearing.... Wait, you mean you weren't going to get the fighters help collecting the component? You don't expect ME to collect it MYSELF?
I have gotten most of my character's extra spells from other players. With the discovery that allows you to copy spells from an alchemist book my character has been able to take advantage of the alchemist players I have come across and actually copy spells from their books to my characters spell book. I have been lucky enough to play with some other players who had wizard characters , and our wizards diligently traded spells.
again thank you all for your thoughts
What is this "discovery" you are talking about? Is it a Feat or something?
I also have a Wizards spellbook (single level of Wizard). I actually have it (and keep it as filled as possible) so that I can return the favor of other wizards when they lend me their book to get spells for my Formula Book (Alchemist mostly).
Cure light wounds and antiplague/toxin is like antibiotics and limb splints. They're fixing entirely different things, snag both.
Of course, but if you have to decide then get the Wand. Save up for the Wand ASAP. Again the Wand works for every game, while the antitoxin or antiplaque comes in once in a while.
When in the world would it come to a choice?
Wand of CLW (or Infernal Healing or whatever) is a 1st level pick up, normally right after your first game. And it's got with PP. Making Alchemical items is just cheap, and costed (at 1st level and after) with GP.
and I have a Spellbook with spells in it. That I scribed. 'Cause I took a dip in the wizard pool... so I could do just that. Now I share spells with the wizards I meet (just played with an 8th level tonight, and picked up a lot of new spells for my book).
How about exploring that demi-plane that we own? Hao Jin's gotta have more things hidden away than Round Mountain, and one Temple of Korada. (Hell, maybe even a return to Round Mountain...see if we enacted any change?)
And a Vudran temple, and lizardfolk caves, and an Osirion tomb, and that Diamond Gate... :)
That being said, I would love to explore more of the tapestry.
Go back to the same old sites and do some more "in depth" adventures... We could even re-use parts of the older maps...
Hay! you could even get some circumstance bonuses to knowledge rolls if you were here "last year" (Same PC to run "lizardfolk caves" a second time.).
The adventure could even start with one of the Lizardfolk bringing the "adventure hook" to the attention of "site investigator" and we run the team to follow up on it.
I can foresee the use of "Tech" traps in the future - in NON tech related scenarios. This is after all an "undetectable" trap that can't be disabled by most rogues.
Locks that can't be picked... wow...
Maybe I shouldn't have pointed this out where scenario writers will read it.
"...using his connections within Numeria, the villian was able to install a techological trap on his secret lair ... that can only be detected/disarmed by someone with the Technologist Feat..."
ok... do I meta-game and assign this feat to my PC, realizing that I am doing it because I am going to be playing in Season 6 scenarios soon, or do I NOT take the feat (which would be meta-gameing to prevent the meta-gameing of taking the feat - oh, my head hurts....)
If I didn't realize that this feat changed the rules about how trained only skill checks work, and a PC has to have it to use Tech stuff, would I take it just for "Character Background"? or am I just fooling myself into thinking that?
wow, I am hearing this exact same thing from other players... I just got this from a friend in an email
" ... i'm reading some stuff about that technologist feat and I'm wondering if I should burn a feat and take it for my new character i plan on running through season 6. the feat is a little lackluster outside of robots and stuff..."
and
"i'm just not sure if it's worth it, the write up completely screws you if you you're playing with "that" judge or at a table with "that" player. 'uhn un you can't make that check unless you have the technologist feat. I just happen to have that feat so I'll make that roll'"
I'm wondering if this is going to be like Haunts back in Seasons 3-4, where a party needed to have someone to handle the haunt,....
some judges really like them, and "when run well they can be lots of fun" but when run by many judges they were just a real pain, often detracting greatly from the scenario they appeared in...
ok... do I meta-game and assign this feat to my PC, realizing that I am doing it because I am going to be playing in Season 6 scenarios soon, or do I NOT take the feat (which would be meta-gameing to prevent the meta-gameing of taking the feat - oh, my head hurts....)
If I didn't realize that this feat changed the rules about how trained only skill checks work, and a PC has to have it to use Tech stuff, would I take it just for "Character Background"? or am I just fooling myself into thinking that?
When you have a game, the content of which draws from a comprehensive set of rules and details, you have two options:
(i) Go ahead and let players bring what they have to the table, with the understanding that it might only be a subset of the whole, and this could impose asymmetrical challenges relative to what other (more "equipped") players may experience.
or
(ii) You require that all players have access to the entirety of the game's ouvre, possibly at considerable expense. This assures fairness, since everyone has everything.
Also, it's not as though Pathfinder has sprung, whole-cloth, into being, like Athena from Zeus' forehead - it's an evolving game. At this very moment, scenario authors are writing encounters which may be impacted by future rules of which they are unaware. Promises of future threads, surely.
So, some scenarios have been developed which are harder-than-intended, because of lack of coordination between scenario and rules development. Some (I, for one), will enjoy a bit of role-playing in lieu of roll-playing to resolve challenges; others will not, and they can't be faulted for this - it's just not their game. Fortunately, PFS has nearly 170 scenarios, not counting specials and modules, of which only three have presented players with this little surprise.
1.8% of scenarios are impacted - hardly worthy of crisis.
The path seems clear enough - run 6-01,2, and 3 with the skill restrictions posed by Technologist, and nod understandingly at players who avoid them. It might even be courteous for organizers to mention the feat in their game-day blurbs and postings, so players can better plan around them.
so am I understanding that your advice to me would be to avoid these three scenarios as I am a skill focused character without (so far - I will take it later) this feat?
(oh, and by the way, I enjoy both role-playing and roll-playing to resolve challenges... I do have a problem when I am told that I am unable to resolve a challenge thru role-playing (it requires a skill check) and a new rule blocks my roll-playing thru it also. Generally I try to make my role-playing match what I get with my roll-playing).
