|
1. An alchemist can give a party member his extracts if he has the "Infusion" Discovery.
2. Yes, but they most follow the same rules for Potion Creation as any other spellcaster.
3. It is a sentient being. The exact personality is up to the summoner, but since the Eidolon is the same alignment as it's summoner... As for the exact relationship, that is also left up to the player.
My group just rolled up two new characters from the APG (Alchemist and Summoner) and three questions popped up. I tried searching but couldn't find anything so my apologies if these have been asked.
1.) An Alchemist infusions? or whatever they are called say they lose their potency if he loses possession of them. But can the alchemist "feed them" to another character?
Careful there. The terminology matters.
Elixir is what you're thinking of. This is the term for the alchemists spells. He cannot feed these to other people because they're inherently based on his own magic.
And infusion is a discovery. At 2 4 6 8 10 etc level , the alchemist gains a discovery.(he can also learn extra discoveries with the extra discovery feat) One of those discoveries is the infusion discovery. This allows the alchemist to by pass the rule of only being able to use his elixirs on himself and turn them, effectively, into potions. He puts a little of his own "soul" into the bottle and it keeps the elixir active for up to 24 hours.
So if an alchemist has the infusion ability, he can either feed the infusion to someone , or hand it off to them and let them do that themselves. There are rules for pouring a potion down someone's throat,if they're unconcious and an infusion would work the same way. The DM would have to decide what sort of action it would be feed an infusion to someone who's concious (probably a move action on each of their parts, or allow you to pour it down someone's throat)
2.) Summoner spell list. Stone skin, fire shield, etc. at level 3. Does this mean that potions of Stoneskin and similar other "potionable" spells of the level 3 summoner list are now available for use/creation/purchase?
Yes. But they should be rarer (how many summoners take brew potion) and they will be more expensive than most other 3rd level potions (because the cost buy a potion is 50X caster levelX spell level and a summoner needs to be 7th level to cast 3rd level spells.
3.) Relative autonomy of the Eidolon. If I command the Eidolon to go "set off a death trap" does it obey without question, does it have a personality to speak of? I hate to say it.. but the Summoner description of the Eidolon is a little 4th editiony to me.. it's all focused on the crunch of the KEWLNESS.. rather than having any description of the exact relationship between summoner and eidolon.
Probably up to the DM. The idea behind summoned critters and edilions is actually kind of deep. The idea is that the creature is really just projecting its consciousness into our reality: sort of like a reverse matrix. I'd imagine setting off the death trap HURTS.. but the creature knows that it will really be fine.
1) Dragonborn is correct.
2) Just remember that a Alchemist needs to caster level 7 to cast these spells which effects the cost.
3) I play with a summoner...he plays it as the Edilon has it's own personalty and such....but has to obey the summoner...so if the summoner says set of that death trap....he will...or if undser a charm effect and orders the edilon to attack a party member it will even though it is not under a charm effect. That is how that groups play it.
|
|
Careful there. The terminology matters.
Elixir is what you're thinking of. This is the term for the alchemists spells. He cannot feed these to other people because they're inherently based on his own magic.
Sorry BNW, but this was too funny to pass up. You say to be careful about the terminology, then use the wrong terminology yourself. :)
You were thinking "Extract". Elixers are wondrous items... ;)
Careful there. The terminology matters.
Elixir is what you're thinking of. This is the term for the alchemists spells. He cannot feed these to other people because they're inherently based on his own magic.
Sorry BNW, but this was too funny to pass up. You say to be careful about the terminology, then use the wrong terminology yourself. :)
You were thinking "Extract". Elixers are wondrous items... ;)
Dammit.. i got the E right at least!
My group just rolled up two new characters
Someone talking about "rolling up characters" and then complaining about eidolons being too much about numbers is being very ironic. :P
2.) Summoner spell list. Stone skin, fire shield, etc. at level 3. Does this mean that potions of Stoneskin and similar other "potionable" spells of the level 3 summoner list are now available for use/creation/purchase?
Theoretically, yes. Since they're 3rd-level spells for summoners, they can create potions of those spells, and then sell them.
However, you should check with your GM about availability - or think about availability if you're the GM.
Just because potion-crafting summoners could exist doesn't mean that they do exist. It depends on a lot of stuff, like how common summoners are (the standard assumption is that the APG base classes are a lot less common than the core classes) and how generous the GM wants to be.
Personally, I wouldn't just put them in stores. I don't see "potion maker" to be something many summoners want to branch into. So unless one of the characters is that guy, they'll have fun looking for a potion-making summoner. And the guy will probably know that he practically has a monopoly on some potions and will adjust the price accordingly.
3.) Relative autonomy of the Eidolon. If I command the Eidolon to go "set off a death trap" does it obey without question, does it have a personality to speak of? I hate to say it.. but the Summoner description of the Eidolon is a little 4th editiony to me.. it's all focused on the crunch of the KEWLNESS.. rather than having any description of the exact relationship between summoner and eidolon.
I think that was deliberately left vague to allow more options. You can play an eidolon as nothing more than a smart robot or you can play him as a companion and partner to the summoner. You can even play the eidolon as the actual character, the summoner being the pet. You can do it however you want.
Someone talking about "rolling up characters" and then complaining about eidolons being too much about numbers is being very ironic. :P
What other term would you use for rolling 4d6 six times?
"Using an inferior system for character generation"? ;-P
Even in a game like World of Warcraft where no random number generation is used, the term "rolling a new character" is used.
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement. Nothing against WoW, but I don't really associate that with deep immersion storytelling...
What I mean is that there is so much more about a character than the ability scores - whether you roll them or use some point system (like Pathfinder's Purchase system or the standard character generation method for almost all other RPGs).
"Rolling up a character" always sounds to me like the stuff you roll is all that matters.
So you may roll ability scores (except when you don't), but does not really mean you roll a character (unless you don't care about a character's, well, character. And even then, Pathfinder characters' stats are about far more than the ability scores)
"Using an inferior system for character generation"? ;-P
So one person is using the original system using dice used since the invention of the game, and the other is using a system designed to "balance" the players out like an mmorpg...and the dice roller is the one being videogamey?
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement. Nothing against WoW, but I don't really associate that with deep immersion storytelling...
What he's saying is that rolling a character is an Old term. Wow appropriated it from D%D because in D&D you traditionally rolled dice.
So one person is using the original system using dice used since the invention of the game, and the other is using a system designed to "balance" the players out like an mmorpg...and the dice roller is the one being videogamey?
"Using an inferior system for character generation"? ;-P
We can keep ignoring that emoticon there, sure. D&D and Pathfinder are in the vast minority: Almost every other game out there doesn't involve any dice in character creation. D&D has a reputation as a power gamer's game of choice while those other games are quite often called the "Roleplaying games for actual roleplaying". So there! :P
What he's saying is that rolling a character is an Old term. Wow appropriated it from D%D because in D&D you traditionally rolled dice.
He might imply it, but he certainly doesn't say it. I do know where it comes from and how things were done in the Old Days.
|
We can keep ignoring that emoticon there, sure. D&D and Pathfinder are in the vast minority: Almost every other game out there doesn't involve any dice in character creation. D&D has a reputation as a power gamer's game of choice while those other games are quite often called the "Roleplaying games for actual roleplaying". So there! :PHe might imply it, but he certainly doesn't say it. I do know where it comes from and how things were done in the Old Days.
That's funny. I've never heard of d&d as a power gamer's game. Or of point-based systems as "roleplaying games for actual roleplaying".
If anything, I'd say that tabletop rpgs don't cater as well to power gamers as other games, since the dm provides a constant rebalancing of encounters to power level. It makes it harder to stat up a player who can easily conquer any challenge before him/her.
Also, why are you nitpicking terminology? Does it matter to you that people point out ever implicit fact that they use? Even in something so trivial as "rolling up characters"?
That falls into the common knowledge category of being synonymous for any sort of character creation. Make a new dnd character? You "rolled" it up. New wow character? Rolled him up. New Darkness character? Rolled him up. New diablo character? Rolled him up. It serves the same purpose.
That's like trying to call someone out for saying "Good Morning" when it's just past noon. It serves no purpose beyond irritating the people who encounter it.
That's funny. I've never heard of d&d as a power gamer's game. Or of point-based systems as "roleplaying games for actual roleplaying".
Really? You clearly don't hang out enough in message boards with snobby Vampire aficionados.
I'm not claiming it's a deserved reputation, but it's one of the most common weapons in the System Wars (they're like Edition Wars, only with a different line in the sand).
If anything, I'd say that tabletop rpgs don't cater as well to power gamers as other games
They're all tabletop RPGs.
And Pathfinder really has a focus on combat, tactical or otherwise. It doesn't mean that other stuff is impossible, but compared to other RPGs, the ratio of combat rules compared to all game rules is bigger in Pathfinder than in many of the other "big" games.
Vampire (whether :The Masquerade or :The Requiem) has a big reputation of being a lot more about the deep immersion storytelling. Other World of Darkness games (Werewolf, Mage, and lots of others) are pretty much the same.
The games even reflect this in their languages. Pathfinder has parties (like war parties), campaigns, a Game Master (mainly because they can't use "Dungeon Master") etc. Vampire has coteries (though that is specific to Vampire, the other games have names for the groups that fit the specific game better), chapters and chronicles, and a Storyteller.
Of course, there's only so much in a name, but it does set the tone. There certainly is a suggestion (albeit a subtle one) encouraging to play those games in a certain way. I have seen this suggestion be overcome either way (D&D campaigns with a huge storytelling ratio and hack'n'slash WoD games), but that doesn't make it disappear.
Another observation: The Pathfinder/D&D rules are closer to a video game's rules than other RPGs, and 4e turned that aspect up to 11.
Look at certain stuff: Pathfinder has classes and levels. There are hit points - which rise continuously, so a low-level character has practically no chance killing a high-level character with a lucky hit. Magic can just patch you up.
Other games (like Vampire), on the other hand, don't have classes or levels. When you gain XP (which are not based on how many monster you kill, btw. That's another thing computer games have copied from D&D and stuck with it) you spend them directly on your attributes, skills, and other abilities, and barring some special supernatural stuff, everything is open to everyone. You don't need to be a "fighter" to be highly specialised in hitting things.
You have some "health points", but they don't rise when you gain levels (since you don't gain levels). Usually they depend on something like constitution, and don't let you shrug off bullets with impunity. As as WoD character, being shot can drop you instantly - even if you're a veteran of several decades (and have already spent lots and lots of XP), a character where the ink on the sheet isn't dry yet.
And a lot of the time, it's not as easy as casting a spell to be back to full health. Unless you're some supernatural being with special healing abilities, you're probably facing surgery and days (maybe even weeks) of rest to be good as new again.
A lot of computer games (even ones being worked on right now) are using concepts they got from D&D. D&D never "grew out of them", but a lot of other RPGs never adopted them.
Again, I'm not saying you can't do proper Storytelling in D&D or Pathfinder, but the tone does set the mood, and PF's strength clearly lies in its combat system.
Also, why are you nitpicking terminology? Does it matter to you that people point out ever implicit fact that they use? Even in something so trivial as "rolling up characters"?
Yes, it actually bothers me a bit. Not too much, mind you, which was why I said everything in jest (I know you can't hear my voice, but those sideways smiley faces are usually a dead giveaway). I was half-serious at most.
That falls into the common knowledge category of being synonymous for any sort of character creation. Make a new dnd character? You "rolled" it up. New wow character? Rolled him up. New Darkness character? Rolled him up. New diablo character? Rolled him up. It serves the same purpose.
No, I didn't. I didn't do any rolling. Again, I was not dead serious when I mentioned it, but I am serious now: You use the words you want, I use the words I want. Use "rolling up" as much as you want, but I won't.
And I have my reasons beyond "there's no rolling involved". Mainly because I associate that term with character creation in some older AD&D 2e games I played in for a while. The game style was almost everything I didn't like, so when I left behind those groups and that ruleset, I left behind "rolling up" characters.
That's like trying to call someone out for saying "Good Morning" when it's just past noon. It serves no purpose beyond irritating the people who encounter it.
Well, if they flip out about that, they should not use the wrong terms. Because that is irritating to some people, too.
Everyone has the right to be irritated.
I dunno. Diff'rent strokes I guess. I would prefer people didn't say 'roll up a character', but it's part of the vernacular now, so you might as well roll with it.
I won't just roll over and take it!
|
|
I dunno. Diff'rent strokes I guess. I would prefer people didn't say 'roll up a character', but it's part of the vernacular now, so you might as well roll with it.
And some people do still prefer to roll for attributes rather than use point buy. Hell, if I'm feeling really old-school I roll 'em in order with no re-arranging.
Str:
Dex:
Con:
Int:
Wis:
Cha:
I'm a Barbarian! RAWR!
And some people do still prefer to roll for attributes rather than use point buy.
Of course. With your name, one must expect insanity ;-P
Note my previous argument that you don't really roll up a character, just his or her ability scores. And they're just a small part of the whole that makes up a character.
So for misusing language in such a callous manner, you are hereby sentenced to roll up your characters.
Ability Scores: Roll 3d6 in order.
Race: Roll 1d8
1- Human
2- Half-elf
3- Half-orc
4- Halfling
5- Gnome
6- Elf
7- Dwarf
8- Roll again
Class: Roll 1d12
1- Fighter
2- Barbarian
3- Ranger
4- Paladin
5- Rogue
6- Bard
7- Monk
8- Druid
9- Cleric
10- Wizard
11- Sorcerer
12- Roll again 2x, you must multiclass (repeat until you get something besides 12 or you come up with a character that needs to get levels in all 11 classes
Alignment: Roll 2d3
1- Lawful
2- Neutral
3- Chaotic
1- Good
2- Neutral
3- Evil
I'll leave the rest of the work to you. You need charts for Skill Points, Feats, all possible class ability options, and so on.
For additional details, a lot of work is done for you (age, hight, weight), but you'll have to add here (a chart for religion, one for home, Some sort of system where you first roll how long the character's name is and then roll every letter. A d100 could be helpful, what with all the different characters that can be used)
:P
|
|
Race:
Class:
1- Fighter
2- Barbarian
3- Ranger
4- Paladin
5- Rogue
6- Bard
7- Monk
8- Druid
9- Cleric
10- Wizard
11- Sorcerer
12- Alchemist
13- Cavalier
14- Inquisitor
15- Oracle
16- Summoner
17- Witch
18- Magus
19- Roll for NPC class
20- Roll again 2x, you must multiclass (repeat until you get something besides 20 or you come up with a character that needs to get levels in all 11 classes
Alignment:
I'll proceed from there...
KaeYoss, you missed important 1d6 roll:
1-3 Male
4-6 Female
That's kinda bordering on F.A.T.A.L. right there. If I get male should I roll for my manhood? :PKaeYoss, you missed important 1d6 roll:
1-3 Male
4-6 Female
You roll on EVERYTHING!
That's kinda bordering on F.A.T.A.L. right there. If I get male should I roll for my manhood? :PKaeYoss, you missed important 1d6 roll:
1-3 Male
4-6 Female
Diameter and length too.
Then roll on Kinsey scale for your sexual orientation! Wait... It isn't homoxesuality on Golarion thread...|
|
That's kinda bordering on F.A.T.A.L. right there. If I get male should I roll for my manhood? :PYou roll on EVERYTHING!
Please note, you do NOT want to click to see this spoiler:
Length: The height (or length) of the character (or creature) in feet is converted directly to inches (6’ = 6”; 5’ 10” = 5.83”). This is the Base Length of his Manhood.
Then roll 10d100, divide the sum by 5, and subtract 1 from the total [(10d100 / 5) - 1]. Consult the table below:
Manhood Roll Size Modifier1
1-6 - 70%
7-12 - 68%
13-18 - 66%
19-24 - 64%
25-30 - 62%
31-36 - 59%
37-42 - 56%
43-48 - 52%
49-54 - 48%
55-60 - 43%
61-66 - 38%
67-72 - 33%
73-78 - 27%
79-84 - 21%
85-90 - 14%
91-96 - 7%
97-102 -
103-108 + 7%
109-114 + 16%
115-120 + 24%
121-126 + 33%
127-132 + 43%
133-138 + 53%
139-144 + 63%
145-150 + 74%
151-156 + 85%
157-162 + 97%
163-168 + 109%
169-174 + 121%
175-180 + 134%
181-186 + 147%
187-192 + 160%
193-199 + 175%The resultant percentage is applied to the Base Length of the character’s Manhood, determining the actual length. For instance, a manhood roll of 115 indicates a Size Modifier of + 28%. If the character were 6’ tall, then the length of his Manhood would now be 7.68 inches (28% of 6 = 1.68; so, 6 + 1.68).
Note that this is the shortest measurable length, taken from the top or belly-button side, not the bottom or testicular side, and constitutes all that a female may take from a missionary position. However, if the female were to mount the Manhood from above while facing her partner and leaning back, she would actually take 1.15 times the Base Length, accounting for the remainder. For instance, with a Base Length of 6 inches, with experimentation, it is possible for the female to enjoy 6.9 inches, depending on the angle.
Circumference: The Base Length of the Manhood is now multiplied by 0.85. This is the Base Circumference of the Manhood in question.
Finally, roll [(10d100 / 5) - 1], observe the Size Modifier on the table above, and apply this modifier to the Base Circumference to determine the actual circumference.
Height - = 6'3"
Length: ( / 5) - 1 = 6.6875"Circumference: ( / 5) - 1 = 4.940625"
I told you.
Please note, you do NOT want to click to see this spoiler:
You, sir, is a horrible horrible person for even having a copy of The Game That Must Not Be Named to quote from.
*shudder*
|
|
Roll 1d20
1-10 = Core Bloodline
11-20 = APG Bloodline
Core
Roll 1d10
1 = Abberant
2 = Abyssal
3 = Arcane
4 = Celestial
5 = Destined
6 = Draconic(roll another d10 for dragon type)
7 = Elemental(roll a d4 for Elemental type)
8 = Fey
9 = Infernal
10 = Undead
APG
Roll 1d10
1 = Aquatic
2 = Boreal
3 = Deepearth
4 = Dreamspun
5 = Protean
6 = Serpentine
7 = Shadow
8 = Starsoul
9 = Stormborn
10 = Verdant
Another observation: The Pathfinder/D&D rules are closer to a video game's rules than other RPGs, and 4e turned that aspect up to 11.
What video game is 4e like? Or vice versa.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
2.) Summoner spell list. Stone skin, fire shield, etc. at level 3. Does this mean that potions of Stoneskin and similar other "potionable" spells of the level 3 summoner list are now available for use/creation/purchase?Theoretically, yes. Since they're 3rd-level spells for summoners, they can create potions of those spells, and then sell them.
However, you should check with your GM about availability - or think about availability if you're the GM.
Just because potion-crafting summoners could exist doesn't mean that they do exist. It depends on a lot of stuff, like how common summoners are (the standard assumption is that the APG base classes are a lot less common than the core classes) and how generous the GM wants to be.
Personally, I wouldn't just put them in stores. I don't see "potion maker" to be something many summoners want to branch into. So unless one of the characters is that guy, they'll have fun looking for a potion-making summoner. And the guy will probably know that he practically has a monopoly on some potions and will adjust the price accordingly.
But remember, other characters with Brew Potion can make potions of those spells even if they are not on their list by adding 5 to the DC.
Potions are not spell completion or spell trigger items so knowing the spell is not an absolute necessity.
Plus since you do know the spell (as a not Summoner) you could put the increased DC towards not meeting other requirements.
(...)
Personally, I wouldn't just put them in stores. I don't see "potion maker" to be something many summoners want to branch into. So unless one of the characters is that guy, they'll have fun looking for a potion-making summoner. And the guy will probably know that he practically has a monopoly on some potions and will adjust the price accordingly.But remember, other characters with Brew Potion can make potions of those spells even if they are not on their list by adding 5 to the DC.
Potions are not spell completion or spell trigger items so knowing the spell is not an absolute necessity.
I would also point out the little:
"...(although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed)."
So if the Summoner is the "spell acces-source" and an Alchemyst (in the party) the brewer. Then that party gets them faily easily, not in store by default but made with a brewer.