thegreatpablo's page

That might be the least risky, but that would not be the good thing to do. A good PC killing a helpless person would automatically become neutral at best in any game I GM.

I think this is the crux of the issue. A single action shouldn't change a character's (player or otherwise) alignment. It's a series of actions that slowly move you toward an alignment.

In the case of the attackers, they were lawful neutral characters who presumably have either never or very rarely done evil acts in the past. They are soldiers to their country first and foremost and follow orders for what they believe to be the greater good.

Well considering the DM has admitted to not having thought things out, I don't think an assumption that he was "doing it wrong" is necessarily incorrect.

A few things, as others have already pointed out, a creature of 5HD or lower will not show up when using detect spells, so the entire issue was moot from the very beginning.

But I had already planned that the alignment of the attackers was lawful neutral. The only parts I hadn't really thought out completely were things like what these attackers had been doing all their lives, their actual role in the military, etc. Essentially, I didn't build out entire character histories for a few throw away NPCs.

Making a situation so specific that it forces predetermined options onto the players is called railroading. I hate GMs that do that...

I try to follow one simple rule when GMing, I provide the problems and the players provide the solutions.

I tend to agree, however the situation presented above is a very real and possible problem. As someone else pointed out above, sometimes it's not the GM's fault when a situation degrades to either a no win scenario or one with very few options. It's very possible that the party put themselves into that situation as well.

Liath Samathran wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Liath Samathran wrote:

The problem here is that I'm not the captain. I'm a paladin. I do not even have the luxury of having enough skill points to put into Profession: Sailor.

No, the situation was you are the captain, you don't get to change it to make the choice easier.

Where was this stated in the situation?

The example was from the film Master and Commander, where the morality of the commander's decision to sacrifice one member of the crew to save the ship and rest of the crew was being debated, and whether or not there was a 'third option'. My contention is that there was not a third option for the captain, as any such option would mean abandoning his post where he was needed.

There are other factors you could build into the scenario if you did in fact want to narrow it down to two options. Any rope that was on the deck of the ship has either gone overboard or is being used in some other capacity. It would take too long to get any more. The rope that's holding the mast to the ship is too taut to do anything with, etc.

thegreatpablo wrote:

I don't really have a relevant opinion (when it comes to paladins). I personally believe that cutting the ropes is the "good" act because it saves the most number of lives with the least risk.

Saving the most number of lives with the least risk certainly makes it the Best option, and perhaps more Good than the alternative, but Best and Good are two different things altogether.

It sounds to me like perhaps you're deciding what is Good in this instance by asking what a Good character would do (hence you call it "the" good act, as opposed to "a" Good act). Is that accurate, or am I reading way to much into your comment?

hehe I think you might be reading too much into it at this point.

Given the options available to me, as a person (not a character) I would choose to cut the ropes. I think someone else pointed out the option a paladin would take, and that would be to cut all the ropes, save one, then tie it around yourself and cut it free from the ship and attempt to save the individual who was on the crow's nest. This saves the people on the ship and whether successful or not, you are attempting to save the drowning person as well.

I won't lie, as a person, there's no way I would do the same thing as the paladin. I simply don't trust my ability to save a person and in my personal view, losing two lives (one of which being my own) is too great a risk at that point.

'You have the option of cutting the ropes and dooming the individual from the crow's nest or capsizing the entire ship causing many more deaths.'

*raises eyebrow*

I'm not going to sit here and list out every single option that's possibly available to you. I was pointing out the obvious options.

thegreatpablo wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Man I love when people try to narrow things down to only two choices, and it just doesn't work. You'd almost think there is never a time when there are only two choices.

My example wasn't meant to be narrowed down to two choices, just removing the demon from the equation.

I'm curious, would you say that one of the two choices you mentioned in that situation is a [Good] act? If so, why?

I don't really have a relevant opinion (when it comes to paladins). I personally believe that cutting the ropes is the "good" act because it saves the most number of lives with the least risk.

Man I love when people try to narrow things down to only two choices, and it just doesn't work. You'd almost think there is never a time when there are only two choices.

My example wasn't meant to be narrowed down to two choices, just removing the demon from the equation.

What if we simply took the demon out of the equation? I was just watching Master and Commander, so some of you will recognize this scenario. Let's say that there's a ship full of people in a storm. Part of the mast broke off with the crow's nest and it fell into the sea along with the person in the crow's nest. That person is hanging on for life to the broken part of the mast, however the ropes that were attached to that part of the mast are causing a drag on the ship that is threatening to capsize it. You have the option of cutting the ropes and dooming the individual from the crow's nest or capsizing the entire ship causing many more deaths.

My character certainly wasn't optimized, but I had a TWF Fighter build with two kukris and the crit feats. At level 11 I was dishing out some serious damage, definitely a personal favorite of mine if you're looking for sheer combat effectiveness.

thegreatpablo wrote:

Let me outline the scenario. The party was working with one kingdom and was summoned by the king to discuss an important matter. They were travelling with a caravan to the kingdom with a group of civilians and a single guard. During the night (they didn't bother to set up any watches) a small band of assassins (in name only, not the prestige class) entered the camp and killed all of the civilians in the caravan and attacked the guard. They were not able to kill the guard without alerting the party and a battle ensued. The assassins only did non-lethal damage to the party and only when they had no other choice and were focused on killing the guard. The lead assassin shouted to the party "This battle does not concern you, stand down" and the party responded by telling the assassins that they would not stand down and that the guard was part of their party. Eventually the assassin's knocked the guard unconscious and one of the party members stood over his body, to protect it. The assassin's moved in and killed the guard while he was unconscious.

Now, a little bit of backstory regarding the assassins. They were employed by a neighboring kingdom. They were told and were led to believe through a lot of behind the scenes discussion (which I revealed to the players afterward through a discussion with the assassins) that the party was in grave danger. They were told that they were either being held against their will by the guard and the caravan or that they were being escorted back to the King who would execute them. The assassins were also told that the King had planned to use information that the party had to obtain an incredibly powerful artifact that could be used to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives and put him in power as the supreme ruler of the land.

So they believed that they were saving the party. So they went all that way, killed all those people, and then just let the party go on to their (they believed) certain doom.

They also believed that the party...

I won't lie. I hadn't really thought all of the details through.

So what happened next? What did the party do?

As the Paladin I would demand that the NPC surrender and take them in to face justice. If they refused I would attack. All evidence indicates that they just murdered a whole lot of people in cold blood. Whether they register as Evil or not with Detect Evil is irrelevant.

Another point about the "Leave no witnesses" isn't leaving the party behind leaving witnesses behind?

Well, the party was not to be harmed. The party decided NOT to follow the assassins, aside from one member of the party who was from the province that the assassins were from and they told him that he would have to come along with them.

The paladin did attempt to arrest the assassins however since the paladin was not in his home province (which they knew) and the assassins were from another province as well, they told him that he simply didn't have jurisdiction. He decided not to attack since he knew that they had a relatively high AC and would be hard to subdue without the possibility of one of his party members dying.

The rest of the party went to the castle where they were confronted by the king and they gave him some information and he sent them on a mission to go retrieve a container for the artifact (little do they know, he is in fact manipulating them still) and the party member who went back to his home province was asked to rejoin the party and keep a close eye on them and the king and at the first opportunity, try to recruit the party to their side.

I think the PCs expectations are getting in the way of his happiness...

Expectations the one reason I talk to my DM b/4 I ever even think about playing a paladin...........

Yeah, he expressed regret for not having done that. He lives in a world where morality is black and white, which is fine for him...however it doesn't really work in the world I had created and he was upset when things weren't black and white.

In that case I may be wrong about everything except the last point. Making a character feel useless is always a mistake IMHO.

I agree, and while that wasn't my intent, it did exacerbate the situation, so that was my bad.

But then, what was the point of sending the Strike Force? What was their objective? Was just killing everyone around the PCs enough to prevent the Evil King from carrying out his Evil Plan? How? If the Strike Force's (or I guess now Assassins) only goal was to kill everyone with the PCs, but then let the PCs continue on to help out the Evil King, what was accomplished?

To be honest, I hadn't given much thought to the backstory of the assassins, what their exact orders were, why, etc. I can easily fill that in now and make it fit into the story. However, the general idea was that their objective was exactly what they told the party. To rescue them and dispatch anyone who could identify them.

As far as the Evil King, it was that the party had information that could be used to aid the Evil King and the neighboring province needed to ensure that the information did not get to the King.

They were in no position to force the party to go along with them, nor would they have wanted to. They were not aware, however, that the party wasn't being held against their will. And by the time they had encountered the party (when they woke up and fought along side the guard) they were forced to kill the guard to ensure that he didn't report what happened and who was involved. They didn't realize that the party wasn't being held prisoner until it was too late.

I have to ask how the defended NPC was killed the PC defending would have gotten an AoO against any opponent that tried to come in....

I am not sure how this happened (maybe some dm fiat?) maybe that was the proverbial "straw" that broke the paladins back as it were.....

I still think alot of information is missing from how it went down.

It's actually pretty easy. The defender did get an AoO, but they missed. The attacker killed the guard in one hit.

Really, when I posted this, I didn't have all of the information. I wasn't entirely certain why he was angry. He made it clear when he said that he thought it was foolish of me to expect that the party follow the assassins after what they had just done (As a matter of fact, here's an excerpt from the followup e-mail: "What were you expecting us to do when your NPC murdered someone at my feet, just to say OK we will go with you now. No experienced GM or half way competent one would expect that to happen."). And as I explained before, I had prepared for the party to swing either direction with storyline, dialogue, and major plot points set up depending on what they decided.

Name Violation wrote:

I love the vampiric ability from Magic item compendium in 3.5 its a +2 bonus it deals an extra d6 and heals you for a d6, effectively countering vicious' d6 damage.

At which point, you have +3 enhancements that do 3d6 damage to the target and (on average) none to you. That still seems balanced.

The other potential downside to the +1 merciful vicious weapon is when the other side has healing. If anyone is doing lethal damage to the same target, it gets double benefits from any healing that it receives.

Yeah, it's definitely not ideal in all situations. But you can turn the merciful off at will and still have a +1 weapon that does 2D6 to the enemy and 1D6 to you.

To add my 2cp I think thegreatpablo made a few mistakes.

Well, you seem to be making the same assumption that the player who got upset made...that I had intended for the players to see the Strike Force as good, trustworthy, or both. That wasn't my intention. I had storyline planned out for either scenario, whether the party decided to go with the Strike Force or not.

I'm not playing in it anymore, but I had a dual wielding kukri crit build that used this enchant combo on each weapon, the damage output compared to the others in the party was ridiculous and I actually kind got bored when I was dealing 120-150 damage per round (at level 11ish) and they were dealing 40-50.

I admit I'm engaging in a bit of hyperbole. The real point is that you're doing the monster's job for it, at least a little bit, by damaging yourself with each strike. Sure, you're using a weapon with the merciful property, so the damage is nonlethal damage. But in a nasty fight you could still manage to KO yourself as a bruiser beats you down until your low in hp (but still positive), but the nonlethal damage you've accumulated catches up to you. Overall, I like the weapon and it's one I've seen before. I'm obliquely trying to point out that the weapon isn't undercosted or broken, but rather has some issues you need to be prepared to deal with if you use it.

I must be tired. Now I see the weapon as a big fluffy pillow with a brick in it, wielded by Bugs Bunny. Yup, definitely tired.

One of the "cooler" aspects of using it, I suppose if you call it that, is that the damage dealt back to you (since merciful is pretty specific that all damage dealt is non-lethal) gets healed on top of lethal damage. So, if I've taken 10 points of lethal damage and 6 points of non-lethal damage, a well rolled cure light wounds would heal all 16 points of damage.

Anything wrong with this? Seems awfully cheap for 3D6 added damage...granted some of it comes back and it's all non-lethal...so there's a tradeoff, but in MOST circumstances, those are non-issues.

thegreatpablo wrote:

So, the question: Were the assassins or those who hired them evil?

Given the circumstances, parameters, and events, my opinion is: Yes, definitely evil.

What? The actions or their alignment?

Think you're killing despicably evil people to prevent a massive disaster? Okay, that could be reasonably non-evil... "Leave no witnesses"? Yeah... evil.

So, let's say it's a politically charged climate and if there were witnesses who were able to identify the attackers and place blame on the neighboring province for it, it caused a war...then we're looking at thousands of people who could die versus just a few.

I also agree with your player's lack of trust in your alignment judgement (since it is personal for everyone). In such situations, you need to be very clear with him and always give him a second (or third!) chance when it comes to alignment, since you clearly do have differing views.

(Note that all this is IMO only - it will be different for different people.)

It's not a matter of me giving the player additional chances, he only gave me one and then quit the game.

I think the scenario itself is causing the OP some problems that he didn't necessarily need. It just doesn't ring true that the assassins would try to kill everyone in their sleep without informing the pc's that they were there to help and working in their best interests. It's not exactly a great way to introduce yourselves by murdering everyone in the pc's group, most of whom are not military types other than one guard. As written, I don't think there's any question the acts were evil.

If the OP wanted to set up a scenario where the assassins are actually the good guys, he should have had them position themselves to subdue the caravan people or the guard at least, and then explain the situation to the pcs.

I mean, in real life if you were travelling with a group of people and someone walked up and calmly pulled a gun out and blasted everyone else with you and then told you they were the good guys trying to save you, would you buy that?

This entire scenario was set up specifically to be morally ambiguous and force the party to take pause and assess who they should trust. It was not my intention to force or even sway the party in any particular direction.

Ah, but they were not killing for cash, they were killing for patriotism. They were, so far as they knew, facing a caravan full of guards, not civilians - in fact, perhaps they were ALL agents of the other government.

Now, the paladin should be thinking: 'Hang on, if these people are the despicable evil people I think they should be for what they did, why am I not detecting evil?' from which they can deduce that something else is going on and things are not as they seem. What the player is thinking: 'These people should be evil from what I have seen them do, therefore I should detect evil, therefore the DM has done things wrong.'

This is the real issue here, not the question of the act being evil or not, or the assassins being evil or not.

Thank you, this is the very core of the issue, and something I couldn't put my finger on. The player was challenging the DM rather than the character challenging his assumptions.

The other thing is every DM seems to want to create these long drawn out scenarios of how the evil guys aren't really evil b/c whatever reason.....

90% of the time BBEGs should be evil (hence the E in BBEG).

Eh, this simply isn't the case. I'll give you guys a little more information regarding the situation. The person who gave the order ends up having most of the correct information. The king is in fact going to try to use the artifact to kill thousands of people and will be using the party as long as they are beneficial and then attempting to dispose of them.

There were no women or children in the caravan, it was all men, and the assassins had no indication of who were combatants and who weren't.

Then DMs want to try to figure out how to "screw" the paladin over......

Maybe this is a recent trend, but it seems like there is alot of "reasons" to take away the benefits of detect evil/smite evil etc.....

If you as the DM don't want paladins simply don't allow them.

I have no problems with paladins, and I had no intention of screwing over the paladin. As a matter of fact, the paladin had taken his first level of paladin at the start of that gaming session and I had no idea that he was going down that road when I had prepared the game.

I would make a druid or bard or monk or ...... for the game........

Also need to have a big discussion about expectations prior to character creation regarding this issue

See numerous threads
limitations of the paladins code for inspiration.

Isn't part of the challenge of roleplaying to make your character work in a hostile world where not everything is going to go their way? It seems silly to me to sit down and plan out which characters will and will not work in a particular campaign, that strips most of the fun out of it.

For the record, the player apologized and explained that his views of morality are more black and white than most and that he should have shied away from playing a lawful good character with a DM who he knew to have tendencies of putting the players into situations where the "right" choice isn't always clear. He's still not going to play, but we've put the issue behind us as friends.

wait wait wait- were these people career assassins (ie. did the deed on a regular basis) or was this a one-time thing that they were tricked into doing? I wouldn't be so fast to pass judgment on them from such a small description. After all, Batman is LE, NE, and CE (as well as N, CN, LN, NG, CG, and LG), lest you all forget ;P. The thing that I think gets most people is that when they think of alignment-shifts, they think of the paladin and his amazing ability to lose every one of his powers from a single evil act. That's not the case, because there doesn't need to be any shift for the paladin to lose powers, just a breach of code. These people were obviously (in my humble opinion) at the very least neutral before this started if not good because they were setting out to save the PC's lives along with thousands of others. The act of killing the civilians who they believed were evil (in a merciful way, actually- coup de grace in the sleep is painless as long as they fail the save) does not make them evil. Case in point, they would probably be horrified to learn that they were misled like that.

Of course, we use alignment as a judge of how the character thinks and acts in our games, not how the universe sees him.

EDIT: okay, a couple of my questions answered. And might I add "wow"? He left because of a silly alignment debate? Not to be one to throw stones, but that seems extremely childish
EDIT EDIT: Batman!

They weren't necessarily "tricked" into doing it. They were simply told that they were serving their country by doing it and that the fate of the party as well as thousands of lives (and their own province for that matter) depended on them completing their mission.

thegreatpablo wrote:

2. The question isn't really whether or not the act in and of itself was evil. But merely whether or not this act (alone) would cause someone to show up as evil if detect evil was used against them.

Nope. Changing alignment requires a trend, not an individual act. Good characters can commit Evil acts, but too many and they shift to Neutral.

TriOmegaZero, thanks for that chart posted above. From a strict rules standpoint, this addresses the issue.

Unfortunately, the damage is done. The player no longer feels that I'm competent enough to run the game and has dropped out. It's unfortunate because he's a good player.

EDIT: I do have plans for his character though that involve him not ever knowing who to trust and eventually going a little crazy for it. Some day, he'll be back as a villain for the party to face. ;)

Dark_Mistress wrote:

Weather it is evil or not will depend on person to person. I think the real problem here is that one of the players, the player of the paladin is saying he won't trust the GM anymore because the GM made a ruling he doesn't like basicialy.

I think this is indeed the bigger issue.

Yes, it is the bigger issue. I think that the player was under the impression that I fully expected the party to follow the assassins blindly after the fact. However, that simply wasn't the case. The party decided not to follow the assassins, and I had planned for that and was ready with more story in that direction.

A lot of good information here. I wanted to add a couple of points.

1. These "assassins" weren't assassins by trade necessarily. They were simply ordered on a special mission from their government. So this isn't something they do on a day to day basis.

2. The question isn't really whether or not the act in and of itself was evil. But merely whether or not this act (alone) would cause someone to show up as evil if detect evil was used against them.

thegreatpablo wrote:

.however he took it out of character and explained that he couldn't trust me as a GM if I was disagreed that their actions made all involved characters evil in alignment.

Explain this part again please.

Essentially, the player believed that the actions taken by the government and those hired as assassins made the alignment of the characters involved 100% evil. I disagreed and explained (out of character) that they believed they were doing what they needed to do in order to preserve thousands of lives, even if that meant killing a few people along the way.

I argued that their actions put them more toward neutral and maybe even good, but in no way did it make them of the "evil alignment".

Hey all,

I know that many GMs and players have struggled with questions such as the one I'm about to ask for a long time, but I thought I would throw it out there again to get a feeling for what others think.

Let me outline the scenario. The party was working with one kingdom and was summoned by the king to discuss an important matter. They were travelling with a caravan to the kingdom with a group of civilians and a single guard. During the night (they didn't bother to set up any watches) a small band of assassins (in name only, not the prestige class) entered the camp and killed all of the civilians in the caravan and attacked the guard. They were not able to kill the guard without alerting the party and a battle ensued. The assassins only did non-lethal damage to the party and only when they had no other choice and were focused on killing the guard. The lead assassin shouted to the party "This battle does not concern you, stand down" and the party responded by telling the assassins that they would not stand down and that the guard was part of their party. Eventually the assassin's knocked the guard unconscious and one of the party members stood over his body, to protect it. The assassin's moved in and killed the guard while he was unconscious.

Now, a little bit of backstory regarding the assassins. They were employed by a neighboring kingdom. They were told and were led to believe through a lot of behind the scenes discussion (which I revealed to the players afterward through a discussion with the assassins) that the party was in grave danger. They were told that they were either being held against their will by the guard and the caravan or that they were being escorted back to the King who would execute them. The assassins were also told that the King had planned to use information that the party had to obtain an incredibly powerful artifact that could be used to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives and put him in power as the supreme ruler of the land.

So, the question: Were the assassins or those who hired them evil?

On one hand, killing an unarmed and unconscious man can be seen as an evil act. However, the intentions behind it were, in my opinion, good. They believed that they were working toward preventing a holocaust. The assassins themselves were following orders to a T. They were told to rescue the party, using any force necessary, and to leave no witnesses so there would be no evidence as to who was involved. So, that leaves me thinking that at minimum, the assassins were lawful neutral in their acts and those who hired them were either simply "Good" or possibly chaotic good. What are your thoughts?

EDIT: I should add that one of the players firmly believed that the actions of the assassins and their government were evil with no question and that their alignment should be evil. He was playing a paladin, so I can understand from an in character perspective of being upset at killing an unconscious guard and the civilians...however he took it out of character and explained that he couldn't trust me as a GM if I was disagreed that their actions made all involved characters evil in alignment.

Was hoping to get some feedback on this.

tl;dr version: Does the alchemist have to take infusion and force the target to drink Nightmare in order for the extract to work as intended?

Ditto to everything,

Plus no looking up rules...

Like the old gambler song, about counting money (or looking up rules) wait until after the game....and do it on your own time....

Besides any encounter should be able to go in the RP direction rather than the hack N slash.

And yes the DM rules at the time, if later you were wrong correct for the future and if you feel the urge explain that one instance (if not ignore it)...

No rule mongering/debates/etc (it takes away from that limited game time....

I disagree with most of this actually as long as it's within reason. If it results in having to look up rules every single combat, that can get excessive, but if it's once or twice per session, I see no problem with this.

As a player, it would be INCREDIBLY disheartening to want to try to do something that I know is within the rules but be told no by the DM because we had a "no looking up rules" houserule.

thegreatpablo wrote:

PHB2. :)

It is indeed PHB2, good call.

If I remember right (been a while) I think it even stacks with Throw Anything, Point Blank Shot, and Weapon Focus.

Eric The Pipe wrote:

Can I get some good suggestions for feats for the alchemist? My DM allows all the WoTC stuff so any suggestions are good.

Some feats would depend on your focus, I know Im gonna play an bomb focused alch soon, and Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot would be nice. I forget the exact book, I think Complete Adventurer, but there is a grenadier feat that is +1 to hit and damage with splash weapons, IIRC. After that, I haven't really planned much further.

PHB2. :)

I THINK it was stated somewhere that the alchemist can brew potions of any of the extracts he knows, even ones that are usually not permitted because of the personal range/target. They're special!

"Brew Potion (Ex): At 1st level, alchemists receive Brew

RAW, you are correct. It does say "any".

Nightmare:
"You send a hideous and unsettling phantasmal vision to a
specific creature that you name or otherwise specifically
designate."

So the Alchemist drinks the extract which is casting the spell, then they make a connection with the the creature they are trying to afflict the nightmare on. The Will Save Modifier is adjust by knowledge of the creature and by connection.

So if this is how the extract works, which I'm perfectly fine with, it does change how ALL targeted spells work including buffs, cures, etc rendering Infusion nearly useless.

Cure Light Wounds:
"When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel
positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per
caster level (maximum +5)."

So the Alchemist drinks the extract which is casting the spell, then they lay their hands upon the ally who needs healing (or undead who needs killing).

I guess my point is that the wording for how extracts work says that the imbiber is always the target of the spell, making an exception for Nightmare seems arbitrary.

Hey all,

Probably a silly question, but when crafting alchemical items (such as sunrods, tanglefoot bags, etc) do alchemists use the standard rules for item creation until they get Swift Alchemy and Instant Alchemy? So any item would take a week to craft (assuming you didn't double or triple the gold piece value)?

Also, I'm a little unclear on crafting, does it require you to pay attention to the item the entire time, or are you working on it in your spare time for a week between adventuring and such?

This might have been covered elsewhere, but quick question regarding Nightmare. How does this mechanic work? Does the Alchemist imbibe the Nightmare extract and then is able to "cast" it on another? Or does it assume you have Infusion and are tricking (or forcing) someone to drink it?

EDIT: In other words, is the imbiber of the extract always the target? If not, then aside from self only spells, targeted spells like Cure might be broken since you could technically "cast" it on another person. This would also remove a LOT of the benefit from Infusion.

EDIT 2: Replaced "potion" with "extract" where appropriate.

EDIT 3: "An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking
alchemist."

So, that answers that. So you would have to either trick or force someone into drinking the Nightmare extract to get the proper use out of it AND have the Infusion discovery.

thegreatpablo wrote:

The Fool wrote:

The funny thing is I didn't, but I totally forgot about his racial proficiency. :P

Thanks for the reminder!

I might actually back off of the scroll/wand use, bring my charisma back down to a 7 and pump my dex to an 8 and pick up a long bow.

I'll definitely look into the Grenadier feat, but if I go with a long bow, point blank shot might offer more bang for my buck.

For my first level extracts, I think I took these (don't have my character in front of me):

Comprehend Languages
Cure Light Wounds
Endure Elements
Enlarge Person
Reduce Person
True Strike

Any suggestions here would be helpful as well. :)

Well I do have one: Shield! I can't begin to describe how many times that extract has saved my rear these last weeks. It might be a good idea to ditch one of the extracts that you feel you won't be using daily in order to make room, for shield.

True strike is an excellent choice, though. You won't regret it.

Ah yes, I forgot that Shield is a Shield bonus and not an armor bonus (stupid me). Good call. I tried to get some utility in there, and enlarge person isn't always the best thing (especially without infusion, yet, and having mutagens). So I'd probably replace that with Shield.

The funny thing is I didn't, but I totally forgot about his racial proficiency. :P

Thanks for the reminder!

I might actually back off of the scroll/wand use, bring my charisma back down to a 7 and pump my dex to an 8 and pick up a long bow.

I'll definitely look into the Grenadier feat, but if I go with a long bow, point blank shot might offer more bang for my buck.

For my first level extracts, I think I took these (don't have my character in front of me):

Comprehend Languages
Cure Light Wounds
Endure Elements
Enlarge Person
Reduce Person
True Strike

Any suggestions here would be helpful as well. :)

got ya you wish the use the benefit but not use the drawback of such a thing.

That is what you call abusing the system and pure loophole hunting.

Isn't the point of a playtest to weed out the loopholes?

Anyway, this ability, as it's currently worded not only applies to Mystic Theurge, but to also Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, and the Dragon Disciple.

EDIT: Not to mention further PRCs down the road.

ChrisRevocateur wrote:

Then the Mystic Theurge class wouldn't say to choose which arcane caster class to increase the spellcasting of at each level. It would say "You can only increase the level of the arcane spellcasting class that gave you the prerequisites for the Mystic Theurge class" which it does not. I'm not picking and choosing rules, you're making rules up.

But you are. You cast arcane spells for meeting the prequest as on slot higher. Meaning any arcane spell you cast from advancement in the PRC would use the same style as your requirement.

You did not meet the requirement as a sorcerer, but as an oracle casting arcane spells in a higher level slot. so yes while you could cast as a level 1 sorcerer any advancement in arcane caster level from the PRC would use the same style you used to gain the PRC

You are picking and choosing.

The real crux is "the ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells". With the character I outlined above, do they have the ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells? Yes.

I can't really see a way this can be exploited or problematic...however, for the sake of argument and for clarification, perhaps the wording of Arcane Archivist should be rewritten to exclude "the ability to cast arcane spells".

Again you are not an arcane caster. It allows you just once per day to exchange a higher slot for it. You can not cast 2nd level arcane spells. You can use a 3rd level slot to cast a 2nd level spell, or a 2nd level slot to cast a 1st but you can not cast a 2nd level spell in a 2nd level slot.

If you can not use the spell level in the spell slot you do not have the ability to cast that level of spell. You simply are not a 2nd level arcane caster. Your a caster that can once a day cast an arcane spell.

It is not the same thing. You are not an Arcane caster.

I understand what you are saying completely, however interpreting as such isn't the same as literal RAW.

I would say no. As you must be ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells.The ability grants you the power to convert say a 3rd level slot into "one" single 2nd level spell.

You do not have the ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells. You would have to be 11th level anyhow, but I would not allow it.

It says "Your experience with lore-filled tomes has granted you the ability to cast arcane spells as if they were on your spell list."

Bolded for emphasis.

Curious what the thought on this is. If you take a single level of sorcerer then take several levels of Oracle, take the Lore mystery and the Arcane Archivist revelation, you meet the prereqs of Mystic Theurge. Granted, this method would severely limit your arcane spell casting, but it lets you into the Mystic Theurge prestige class by only multi-classing for a single level.

Any way this could be a problem or exploited?

Looks good so far. Early on make sure and have a nice longbow to plunk away at enemies. This will fall out of style after a level or two. A suit of studded leather armor will help for sure.

If you want to be a bomb specialist you might consider a level dip into fighter so you can wear full-plate and use a tower shield. That way you can also get Precise shot at first level.

Neither bombs or extracts are hindered by using armor. I don't know if using a wand with UMD is though... I suppose you'd still have the spell failure. By the time you get a wand or two though you'll have plenty of bombs per day.

Depending on how your party plays either Infusion or Precise Bomb will likely be your first Discovery.

Thanks for the input! Dipping into fighter isn't a bad idea. . .will see how that affects my character overall.

So I'm rolling an Alchemist for a new game starting at level 1. I just rolled up this character and was curious if people had feedback for me:

Race:
Elf

STR: 10
DEX: 17
CON: 14
INT: 18
WIS: 12
CHA: 10

Skills:
Craft: Alchemy
Disable Device
Fly
Knowledge Nature
Perception
Sleight of Hand
Spellcraft
Survival
Use Magic Device

Feat:
Point Blank Shot

My goal is to focus almost primarily on bomb use, but also to be able to use wands when it's not feasible for me to use a bomb or when I'm out for the day.

Anyone have any thoughts or feedback? Thanks!

thegreatpablo wrote:

Power attack is a good idea, just need to find a place to fit it in that makes sense.

Stand Still.

I was actually thinking about replacing combat reflexes. My GM doesn't really let enemies take AOOs if he can avoid it. So in 10 levels, I've never had the opportunity to use combat reflexes.

But I have to convince him to let me retrain one feat.

I ended up going the weapon finesse route to get all of the TWF feats that are only available with a high dex score, otherwise I lose out on extra attacks (each attack is an extra chance to crit).

Level 5's "OPTIONAL" feat was Double Slice. Power attack is a good idea, just need to find a place to fit it in that makes sense.

KaeYoss, thanks for the info. I think once I start stacking the bleeding criticals, my damage potential will sky rocket as well. :)