Can you use fabricate in order to make modern materials? If so how high DC?

[Arrius]

burkoJames wrote:

I have cited rules supporting my position in this thread. Knowledge, by the a literal read of the skill in the core rule book, only represents what is known by the character.

You mean this?

Knowledge wrote:

The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.

The highlighted section assumes a failed check. Nothing more--nothing less. It is not a prerequisite for a check. What would help your position is something like this in Knowledge (Int; Trained Only):

Knowledge wrote:

You may only use this skill with regards to knowledge you would reasonably be exposed to. That applies to historic events, local persons, the identification of creatures, minerals, and cultures you might have encountered or read about. You automatically fail to identify something that is outside what may be considered possible.

When it comes to research...

Research and other shenanigans:

burkoJames wrote:

Its not that it doesn't do research well, its that it doesn't do research. That is not the point of the skill.

Research in my definition is getting little bits and pieces of knowledge of the natural world and tying them together. Since the skill allows bit-by-bit acquisition of knowledge, I fail to see your point.

Yes, the system is clunky and insipid, but that's why GMs and houserules exist.

burkoJames wrote:

Knoweldge check to 'learn' how to create a chemical reaction.

Knowledge (Alchemy) or Craft (Alchemy) are centered around creating chemical reactions. It isn't that far of a stretch to allow this to fall under that.

burkoJames wrote:

Why are you touching zinc and copper together and then to you bicep? Seems a bit contrived.

Because science! Alchemists imbibe wacky and unstable substances all the time--it's part of their class feature. Since when did they have reservations doing strange crap?

burkoJames wrote:

Again...Fabricate check?

I meant a fabricate check to create the required part. Please ignore that part.

burkoJames wrote:

I don't see how either a knowledge or fabricate check tells you about the previously nonexistant concept of current (finding the rules of which took years). Please cite a rules supporting how this is arrived at outside of GM Fiat.

Easy.

Knowledge (Relevant): Answer a question related to profession.
Young Boy: Excuse me, reality-bending sage. I have a question: why is it that I get a shock when I touch X and Y?
Reality-bending Sage: Good question, little boy.
@GM: What do I need to roll?
GM: Roll the relevant knowledge check. You can then answer the question. I'd say DC 30.
Reality-bending Sage rolls a 46.

Reality-bending Sage: See that lightning I cast on enemies? It's like that, but smaller.
Young Boy: Oh, gee whillickers, Mr. sage! I'm going to tell that to my mom!

Rules-legal. It's a valid question as per RAW. He passed the check.

burkoJames wrote:

"Develop this idea". That sounds like a narrative event, which would be the realm of GM fiat. That certainly seems to be something that you do outside the knowledge check system.

Maybe. Maybe developing the idea is just making another knowledge check after a couple of years in the lab about the next step: "what conducts electricity". Your mileage may vary, of course. Some may require more or less steps.

Again--the crux of my argument here is the 'answer a question' related to the check. If answering a question is restricted by previous knowledge, I'll need to have that written down.

[thejeff]

Isn't this all way off the actual rules question.

If you're trying to use fabricate to make something, you need to make an appropriate Craft check, not a Knowledge one.

What's your Craft(laser pistol)?
Or Craft(kevlar)?
Or Craft(Whatever high-tech thing you're trying to duplicate)?

[Arrius]

@thejeff:

We did sort of deviate. It is a craft check indeed--but we reached this point by following very valid argument:
"You can't craft something you don't know about."

So, the only medium to reach that area is the Knowledge skill--that or GM fiat.

After that, it is a Craft check.

Zhangar clarified that the spell Fabricate can't do the job. So it does indeed fall under Craft.
So Craft (Technology), with technologist feat as a prerequisite.

But what constitutes high-tech and requires the feat is left to the GM. Maybe cement doesn't require high-tech. Maybe it does. It's pretty general and ambiguous.

[graystone]

thejeff wrote:

Isn't this all way off the actual rules question.

If you're trying to use fabricate to make something, you need to make an appropriate Craft check, not a Knowledge one.

What's your Craft(laser pistol)?
Or Craft(kevlar)?
Or Craft(Whatever high-tech thing you're trying to duplicate)?

By the rules it's be Craft (mechanical).

Also:

Researching Technology

A character can use the following skills to research technological subjects. Other skills may have research applications as well, subject to GM approval.

Heal: Used to identify and understand pharmaceuticals.

Knowledge (arcana): Although robots are constructs, Knowledge (arcana) cannot be used to identify robots or their abilities and weaknesses.

Knowledge (engineering): This is the most important skill with regard to technological subjects. Knowledge (engineering) can be used to identify a robot's abilities and weaknesses. Knowledge (engineering) is also used to identify and understand unknown technological objects in a similar manner to how Spellcraft is used to identify the properties of a magic item. The DC to correctly identify and understand an unknown technological object is equal to the object's Craft DC. An object with a Craft DC of 15 or less can be automatically identified and understood by someone trained in Knowledge (engineering) who also has the Technologist feat.

Knowledge (geography): Used for astronomy.

[thejeff]

graystone wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Isn't this all way off the actual rules question.

If you're trying to use fabricate to make something, you need to make an appropriate Craft check, not a Knowledge one.

What's your Craft(laser pistol)?
Or Craft(kevlar)?
Or Craft(Whatever high-tech thing you're trying to duplicate)?

By the rules it's be Craft (mechanical).

See, this is where I give up. We've got dozens of specific for specific fields, but everything modern/future gets "mechanics".

Still, that pretty much answers the question. Take Technologist and Craft Technological Item and the requisite Engineering and Craft skills and you can make your laser pistol or kevlar.

I'd say it's the Technologist Feat that gives you the background knowledge to start figuring any of that out. What your RP justification for gaining that knowledge/taking the feat might be is up to you and your GM.

Cement shouldn't be a problem. It dates, in a slightly more primitive form to the Roman era. Way before plenty of other things in standard PF. Not sure why you'd use in a flying castle though.

[graystone]

Yep, it's pretty much Craft (mechanical)/Knowledge (engineering) for everything unless it's drugs.

I can understand the urge for "dozens of specific for specific fields" but that goes for most skills. History, religion, planes, nobility, geography, and arcana could ALL be broken down dozens of ways. Several crafts, like carpentry, painting, clothing and even weapon and be broken down a lot too.

[burkoJames]

Arrius wrote:

Maybe. Maybe developing the idea is just making another knowledge check after a couple of years in the lab about the next step: "what conducts electricity". Your mileage may vary, of course. Some may require more or less steps.

So you admit its down to the dreaded "table variation". Meaning the GM has to make a ruling because the rules don't cover it.

[Liz Courts]

Removed a post and their replies. There's no need to be a dismissive of other posters' opinions.

[Kthulhu]

Talonhawke wrote:

If your the DM simply apply the rules from spell research and extend as needed for your belief of how long you think it should take.

If your the player sit down and talk to your DM there are no hard coded rules for this short of you researching a spell like transmute rock to concrete.

Ok, let's assume that the current state of technology in the avarage fantasy world is approximately equal to ~1000 AD (this is likely being very generous, as if you take away magic, most of the high-magic fantasy worlds that Pathfinder models would probably regress much further back that this).

So basically, we're talking about 1000 years of research.

But wait. That was achieved by hundreds of thousands of people. We're discussing ONE person trying to skip ahead to building laser pistols (which, I might add, aren't even viable in our world in 2015).

So we need to multiply that base of 1000 years by maybe 100,000.

So we're looking at a good million years of research.

Good luck on that. I'm pretty sure your campaign will be over by then.

And the tyranids will probably have destroyed Golarion by then as well.

[graystone]

Kthulhu wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

If your the DM simply apply the rules from spell research and extend as needed for your belief of how long you think it should take.

If your the player sit down and talk to your DM there are no hard coded rules for this short of you researching a spell like transmute rock to concrete.

Ok, let's assume that the current state of technology in the avarage fantasy world is approximately equal to ~1000 AD (this is likely being very generous, as if you take away magic, most of the high-magic fantasy worlds that Pathfinder models would probably regress much further back that this).

So basically, we're talking about 1000 years of research.

But wait. That was achieved by hundreds of thousands of people. We're discussing ONE person trying to skip ahead to building laser pistols (which, I might add, aren't even viable in our world in 2015).

So we need to multiply that base of 1000 years by maybe 100,000.

So we're looking at a good million years of research.

Good luck on that. I'm pretty sure your campaign will be over by then.

And the tyranids will probably have destroyed Golarion by then as well.

You're off by about 600 years. Flintlock weapons are available and those showed up around 1600.

[Ashiel]

graystone wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

If your the DM simply apply the rules from spell research and extend as needed for your belief of how long you think it should take.

If your the player sit down and talk to your DM there are no hard coded rules for this short of you researching a spell like transmute rock to concrete.

Ok, let's assume that the current state of technology in the avarage fantasy world is approximately equal to ~1000 AD (this is likely being very generous, as if you take away magic, most of the high-magic fantasy worlds that Pathfinder models would probably regress much further back that this).

So basically, we're talking about 1000 years of research.

But wait. That was achieved by hundreds of thousands of people. We're discussing ONE person trying to skip ahead to building laser pistols (which, I might add, aren't even viable in our world in 2015).

So we need to multiply that base of 1000 years by maybe 100,000.

So we're looking at a good million years of research.

Good luck on that. I'm pretty sure your campaign will be over by then.

And the tyranids will probably have destroyed Golarion by then as well.

You're off by about 600 years. Flintlock weapons are available and those showed up around 1600.

Also Plate Mail. Wasn't even around until about the 1300s and hit its peak around the 1600s.

[LazarX]

graystone wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

If your the DM simply apply the rules from spell research and extend as needed for your belief of how long you think it should take.

If your the player sit down and talk to your DM there are no hard coded rules for this short of you researching a spell like transmute rock to concrete.

Ok, let's assume that the current state of technology in the avarage fantasy world is approximately equal to ~1000 AD (this is likely being very generous, as if you take away magic, most of the high-magic fantasy worlds that Pathfinder models would probably regress much further back that this).

So basically, we're talking about 1000 years of research.

But wait. That was achieved by hundreds of thousands of people. We're discussing ONE person trying to skip ahead to building laser pistols (which, I might add, aren't even viable in our world in 2015).

So we need to multiply that base of 1000 years by maybe 100,000.

So we're looking at a good million years of research.

Good luck on that. I'm pretty sure your campaign will be over by then.

And the tyranids will probably have destroyed Golarion by then as well.

You're off by about 600 years. Flintlock weapons are available and those showed up around 1600.

You mean arguebus weapons... that would WISH they were nearly as reliable as flintlocks. Compared to them, flintlocks are advanced technology.

[LazarX]

Ashiel wrote:

graystone wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

If your the DM simply apply the rules from spell research and extend as needed for your belief of how long you think it should take.

If your the player sit down and talk to your DM there are no hard coded rules for this short of you researching a spell like transmute rock to concrete.

Ok, let's assume that the current state of technology in the avarage fantasy world is approximately equal to ~1000 AD (this is likely being very generous, as if you take away magic, most of the high-magic fantasy worlds that Pathfinder models would probably regress much further back that this).

So basically, we're talking about 1000 years of research.

But wait. That was achieved by hundreds of thousands of people. We're discussing ONE person trying to skip ahead to building laser pistols (which, I might add, aren't even viable in our world in 2015).

So we need to multiply that base of 1000 years by maybe 100,000.

So we're looking at a good million years of research.

Good luck on that. I'm pretty sure your campaign will be over by then.

And the tyranids will probably have destroyed Golarion by then as well.

You're off by about 600 years. Flintlock weapons are available and those showed up around 1600.

Also Plate Mail. Wasn't even around until about the 1300s and hit its peak around the 1600s.

And met it's doom vs pikemen in the Battle of Agincourt not that much longer afterward.

[Aratrok]

The early firearms in Ultimate Combat tend to group up in the 1600s to 1700s (with the pepperbox being one of the newest in the late 1700s), with the culverin and hackbut as kinda odd outliers.

Which isn't that surprising, since tech levels in a single location in Golarion at any given mention might as well be drawn out of a hat. And giving an entire campaign setting an "average tech level" isn't very useful when that average includes spacefarers and cave men (it's kitchen sink fantasy for a reason).

[Ashiel]

Aratrok wrote:

The early firearms in Ultimate Combat tend to group up in the 1600s to 1700s (with the pepperbox being one of the newest in the late 1700s), with the culverin and hackbut as kinda odd outliers.

Which isn't that surprising, since tech levels in a single location in Golarion at any given mention might as well be drawn out of a hat. And giving an entire campaign setting an "average tech level" isn't very useful when that average includes spacefarers and cave men (it's kitchen sink fantasy for a reason).

What's pretty hilarious is it's not even that far fetched in the sense that "average tech" is pretty varied. We live in modernized countries, typing on computers, chatting about space stations and stuff. Meanwhile at the same moment elsewhere in the world, people wearing loincloths are fishing with spears.

[Aratrok]

As far as drawing tech levels out of a hat, I meant something like the same city as described by two different authors is likely to look pretty different. Tech is defined barely at all, anywhere other than maybe Alkenstar.

How would you even define the "average tech level" of a world, even ours, with any useful metric anyway?

[Ashiel]

Aratrok wrote:

As far as drawing tech levels out of a hat, I meant something like the same city as described by two different authors is likely to look pretty different. Tech is defined barely at all, anywhere other than maybe Alkenstar.

True that. :)

Quote:

How would you even define the "average tech level" of a world, even ours, with any useful metric anyway?

I don't even know. I guess best case scenario it might, suggest if you might find a piece of traded tech-piece floating around in unusual places (like finding a cell-phone battery floating around a tribal village), maybe? Honestly I can't think of much point other than maybe something like that (but that's less average tech and more trading opportunity, I think).

[thejeff]

Aratrok wrote:

As far as drawing tech levels out of a hat, I meant something like the same city as described by two different authors is likely to look pretty different. Tech is defined barely at all, anywhere other than maybe Alkenstar.

How would you even define the "average tech level" of a world, even ours, with any useful metric anyway?

Generally "average" isn't useful. Top tech level is more meaningful.

Or top public, to allow for things like secret alien bases or the super-hero or villain with future tech the general public doesn't have.

Then you can divide up regions and look at the level in each and how much penetration the high end stuff makes into the more primitive areas.

[LazarX]

Ashiel wrote:

Aratrok wrote:

The early firearms in Ultimate Combat tend to group up in the 1600s to 1700s (with the pepperbox being one of the newest in the late 1700s), with the culverin and hackbut as kinda odd outliers.

Which isn't that surprising, since tech levels in a single location in Golarion at any given mention might as well be drawn out of a hat. And giving an entire campaign setting an "average tech level" isn't very useful when that average includes spacefarers and cave men (it's kitchen sink fantasy for a reason).

What's pretty hilarious is it's not even that far fetched in the sense that "average tech" is pretty varied. We live in modernized countries, typing on computers, chatting about space stations and stuff. Meanwhile at the same moment elsewhere in the world, people wearing loincloths are fishing with spears.

...while listening to transistor radios. Tech divisions aren't that cut and dried unless you're dealing with one of the few TRULY isolated tribes, and that doesn't last long once contact is made.

[Zilvar2k11]

Arrius wrote:

Zilvar wrote:

Is that in any way good for the game as a whole, or your specific game? To devolve every form of game interaction to nothing more than a skill check with no context and no interaction required?

Zilvar wrote:

I guess some people will try to argue that's already what the game does.

Indeed. It is already what the game does.

That's why we have GMs who ask us 'what did you tell the guard when you rolled the bluff check?'. The rules are there to guide the game--not play it for us. Is rolling checks blindly good game design? No--but the game assumes a GM who is fleshing out the encounters and mindless dice-rolling.
It's good for a GM to impose 'stages of learning' with Knowledge checks. One must know about electricity before they learn about conductivity. One must know about X to learn...

I'm inferring a couple of things from this comment which may or may not be your intent.

First, the rules are neutral (at best) on non-spell-research. You've attached it to Knowledge because you feel it's a best fit.

Second, it's all GM fiat. If it's GM fiat, it is (by definition) not covered (sufficiently, perhaps) in the rules, so anyone arguing for RAW is being possibly being dishonest (other possibilities exist, I suppose, but this is what I'm inferring).

Third, you admit that it's not good for the game to be able to make a knowledge check and make a discovery or just KNOW something that is undiscovered or obscure (only one person might know it). If, as you argue, it's good for a GM to impose stages of learning or rational things, then there is an implicit agreement with 'The check represents what you know.' and everything beyond that appears to just be an attempt to convince everyone that 'what you know' can be permissively extended to 'what I can convince the GM is a logical extension of what I know'.

If that's good for your table, go for it. I don't believe that it would be good for mine.

[Arrius]

Quote:

So you admit its down to the dreaded "table variation". Meaning the GM has to make a ruling because the rules don't cover it.

The rules explicitly state that the succeeding character 'knows something'. If the player of RBS (Reality-Bending Sage) asked his GM about electricity and passed the check, then the character knows about it. Would RBS in-character know about conductivity when exposed to information about electricity? Make the appropriate check, RBS. You will have to fiat this and say 'no, your character has no way of ever knowing this'. This is house-ruled.

RAW, there is nothing 'inherently unknown'. Any claim otherwise needs to be backed up.

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

First, the rules are neutral (at best) on non-spell-research. You've attached it to Knowledge because you feel it's a best fit.

There's also Profession and Craft who have the 'answer a question' function. How else should one know anything in-character, if everything in the game world is tied to a skill roll and DC (from bodily functions, to emotional struggles, to combat)?

You have to answer the following question, really:
Does knowledge represent things you must have reasonably been exposed to, or is knowledge an abstract cloud of information one could draw upon?
The rules do not add a restrictive clause--so it's the option number 2. Adding one is GM fiat.

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

Second, it's all GM fiat. If it's GM fiat, it is (by definition) not covered (sufficiently, perhaps) in the rules, so anyone arguing for RAW is being possibly being dishonest (other possibilities exist, I suppose, but this is what I'm inferring).

How you understood that from my post is beyond me. If you want to say that there is no 'research DC', I'll argue that that might not even be how research works. Ask questions and pass the DC, and you know.

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

Third, you admit that it's not good for the game to be able to make a knowledge check and make a discovery or just KNOW something that is undiscovered or obscure (only one person might know it). If, as you argue, it's good for a GM to impose stages of learning or rational things, then there is an implicit agreement with 'The check represents what you know.'

If I did impose stages of learning, that would be my own restriction and fiat for the good of the campaign world-- not RAW.

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

and everything beyond that appears to just be an attempt to convince everyone that 'what you know' can be permissively extended to 'what I can convince the GM is a logical extension of what I know'.

I'd like to know what your point is here before answering this.

Are you saying that GM Fiat is needed to handle this problem (as I agreed with you before), or are you saying there is no problem because that's not how the skill works?
Because if you're saying that 'You can't know about X because you can't research with the skill/it will break the setting', that's a clause not present in the skill entry.

"The check represents what you know," means nothing by itself until after the check is made. It is thus inherently useless for a position in this argument.

[thejeff]

Arrius wrote:

Quote:

So you admit its down to the dreaded "table variation". Meaning the GM has to make a ruling because the rules don't cover it.

The rules explicitly state that the succeeding character 'knows something'. If the player of RBS (Reality-Bending Sage) asked his GM about electricity and passed the check, then the character knows about it. Would RBS in-character know about conductivity when exposed to information about electricity? Make the appropriate check, RBS. You will have to fiat this and say 'no, your character has no way of ever knowing this'. This is house-ruled.

RAW, there is nothing 'inherently unknown'. Any claim otherwise needs to be backed up.

Yes, if the GM gives you a DC and you beat that roll, you know it.

If the GM doesn't give you a DC or deliberately sets one you can't make, you don't know it. None of that is house rule, unless you're going to a claim there is a maximum DC that lets you answer any question.

[Zilvar2k11]

Arrius wrote:

Does knowledge represent things you must have reasonably been exposed to, or is knowledge an abstract cloud of information one could draw upon?
The rules do not add a restrictive clause--so it's the option number 2. Adding one is GM fiat.

I answer 1, otherwise 'what did the BBEG write in his diary this morning' is a reasonable DC 30 check by your interpretation.

If you disagree with this, you'll have to expand on why because I am not seeing how it differs in any significant fashion from 'I know how mirrors work so I should be able to make an awesome laser'

Arrius wrote:

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

Second, it's all GM fiat. If it's GM fiat, it is (by definition) not covered (sufficiently, perhaps) in the rules, so anyone arguing for RAW is being possibly being dishonest (other possibilities exist, I suppose, but this is what I'm inferring).

How you understood that from my post is beyond me. If you want to say that there is no 'research DC', I'll argue that that might not even be how research works. Ask questions and pass the DC, and you know.

Shouldn't be beyond you, but I guess I failed to adequately explain. If the GM has to impose structure to the check ('no, you can't make a dc 30 check on knowing about lasers without having to made 859 other checks first'), then you agree that the rules are insufficient to cover the situation. I don't believe you can argue 'this is RAW' if you're saying 'your GM has to wing it' in the same post.

Arrius wrote:

"The check represents what you know," means nothing by itself until after the check is made. It is thus inherently useless for a position in this argument.

I don't think that's a supportable position. I might agree with you if the line had been written in past tense (the check represents what you knew). I believe it's not only a better plain-english parse to assume that the line is explanatory (knowledge skills represent what you know), but it is also more in line with common sense.

Even if you disagree with that, where is the provision in the knowledge skill for experimentation and discovery? Time required? Costs? Dangers? Failure by more than 5?

If it was an intended application of the skill, shouldn't that be at least touched on? The more questions I think of, the more I feel like this belongs in a well-written house rules document.

[Talonhawke]

Kthulhu wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

If your the DM simply apply the rules from spell research and extend as needed for your belief of how long you think it should take.

If your the player sit down and talk to your DM there are no hard coded rules for this short of you researching a spell like transmute rock to concrete.

Ok, let's assume that the current state of technology in the avarage fantasy world is approximately equal to ~1000 AD (this is likely being very generous, as if you take away magic, most of the high-magic fantasy worlds that Pathfinder models would probably regress much further back that this).

So basically, we're talking about 1000 years of research.

But wait. That was achieved by hundreds of thousands of people. We're discussing ONE person trying to skip ahead to building laser pistols (which, I might add, aren't even viable in our world in 2015).

So we need to multiply that base of 1000 years by maybe 100,000.

So we're looking at a good million years of research.

Good luck on that. I'm pretty sure your campaign will be over by then.

And the tyranids will probably have destroyed Golarion by then as well.

This is what i call RAMVORD (Rules as my views of Reality Dictate), also know as the therom that reality applies as strictly as possible to anyone not using magic.

We aren't talking earth. We are talking a world where if the worlds smartest minds want to communicate from across the world it is a spell away. If a guy has enough money or is a high enough level caster and wants to they can contact other planes for information. They could teleport in for meetings with other like minded individuals. There is no need for long days of travel and waiting for the post to arrive. I also would say that 1000 AD might be pushing it. We have fairly high end ships in existance, mad scientist who make Frankenstein horrors, air ships made and powered without magic. Drawing parallels to our world doesn't quite work.

Also I find it odd that a mage could come up with a brand new never before heard of spell effect in far less time than you seem to want to allow even the smallest possible advance in the worlds tech level.

[thejeff]

Talonhawke wrote:

Also I find it odd that a mage could come up with a brand new never before heard of spell effect in far less time than you seem to want to allow even the smallest possible advance in the worlds tech level.

A) We're not generally talking about "the smallest possible advance", but giant leaps.

B) The argument is mostly not that it shouldn't be allowed, but that the current rules don't really cover it. You can't point at RAW and go "It takes an X DC knowledge check to know how some random modern/future tech works, even if you're just inventing it without an example"
B-1) Actually there is RAW for tech that falls under the Technologist feat, so I guess we're really only talking about stuff that might not fit there?

To which the answer remains simple: The rules don't cover it. House rule it to fit how you want your game to work.
If the GM doesn't want you inventing modern tech, you're not going to do it. If he does, he can make it easy.

[Talonhawke]

I was responding to the fact that apparently it would take 1 million years to develop a light weight strong material such as concrete but a wizard could in a few years make a spell to permanently reduce the weight of stone if he wanted.

My original post was about the best way with the rules to handle in my opinion use the spell research rules and tweak them. Then some one came along and decided that to research tech clearly takes longer than intelligent existence but spells meh even a short lived race could develop 2-3 in a lifetime.

[thejeff]

Talonhawke wrote:

I was responding to the fact that apparently it would take 1 million years to develop a light weight strong material such as concrete but a wizard could in a few years make a spell to permanently reduce the weight of stone if he wanted.

My original post was about the best way with the rules to handle in my opinion use the spell research rules and tweak them. Then some one came along and decided that to research tech clearly takes longer than intelligent existence but spells meh even a short lived race could develop 2-3 in a lifetime.

That was talking about developing laser pistols, not concrete.

I'd say concrete already exists. Or at least could be easily redeveloped, since it existed in Roman times.

An individual, setting out from medieval technology to invent a laser pistol and all the technologies necessary to do so, would take quite some time. Of course you're right that he wouldn't actually do so on his own, but he also wouldn't do so in secret. I'd say that genius elf could probably do so in his lifetime, but that research project over a few hundred years would change the world. All the spinoff tech would bring the world up to modern levels in many ways, jump starting the industrial and technological revolutions we've seen.
Edit: If he's trying to do it secretly on his own without letting any advances leak out, it's not going to happen in even an elf's life.

Or he could, by RAW, take the technologist feat and the appropriate Craft Tech feat and be done with it quickly.

[Talonhawke]

I know what you guys were talking about. My post which was quoted was directly referencing the concrete issue which is why I responded in the manner I did.

It also depends on how powerful and cheap he would want said pistol and if complete non magic was the goal.

A modified rod that could cast a fire ray of frost wouldn't be cheap or allow a full attack action but it would present a low end method of a limitless firing pistol.

For a probably at least 10k a scorching ray version could be done.

[thejeff]

Talonhawke wrote:

I know what you guys were talking about. My post which was quoted was directly referencing the concrete issue which is why I responded in the manner I did.

It also depends on how powerful and cheap he would want said pistol and if complete non magic was the goal.

A modified rod that could cast a fire ray of frost wouldn't be cheap or allow a full attack action but it would present a low end method of a limitless firing pistol.

For a probably at least 10k a scorching ray version could be done.

The million years estimate you quoted specifically mentioned laser pistol, not concrete, though he did quote your concrete post.

You could easily develop a magical thing to do something similar. That's well covered in the rules and isn't the question at hand.

Though it would probably be the direction any clever wizard would go if someone gave a functional description of a laser pistol to him.

[fictionfan]

Why is everyone stuck on laser pistols. Being about to fabricate modern materical that we can make, but are hard to make would be more useful.

Such as carbon nano fibers.

[thejeff]

fictionfan wrote:

Why is everyone stuck on laser pistols. Being about to fabricate modern materical that we can make, but are hard to make would be more useful.

Such as carbon nano fibers.

Because laser pistols are cool.

But sure, if the GM wants to allow it. Decide what properties you want it to have. Decide whether it falls under the Technology category or not. I'd say yes, but your mileage may vary. If so, use those rules. If not, determine a price for it. Remember that prices are set for utility and balance, not on supply and demand or what you think the raw materials should cost. Then come up with a DC, pay half the cost in raw materials and go to town.

Remember there's nothing special about you. Anyone else who can make the Craft roll can make the stuff too.

[Vod Canockers]

fictionfan wrote:

Can you use fabricate in order to make carbon nanofiber?

Can you use fabricate to make Plastics?

How about kevlar?

If so what would the craft DCs be?

Why would you want Kevlar? It's a fairly useless material in fantasy world, about the only thing it would provide a decent AC against is sling bullets.

Kevlar is a fabric made of thread, it is fairly easy to cut, and a knife will cut through it easily. It is difficult to break, which is why it stops bullets. I suppose it would make good rope or nets.

[Tacticslion]

Vod Canockers wrote:

fictionfan wrote:

Can you use fabricate in order to make carbon nanofiber?

Can you use fabricate to make Plastics?

How about kevlar?

If so what would the craft DCs be?

Why would you want Kevlar? It's a fairly useless material in fantasy world, about the only thing it would provide a decent AC against is sling bullets.

Kevlar is a fabric made of thread, it is fairly easy to cut, and a knife will cut through it easily. It is difficult to break, which is why it stops bullets. I suppose it would make good rope or nets.

... so... quilt cloth armor? :D

Zhangar wrote:

@ Tacticslion - a victim of poor wording perhaps? "You convert material(s) into a product that is of the same material(s)" would probably do the trick.

Though interestingly, the 3.X PH examples all work as a like to like conversions - raw wood to a wooden bridge, raw hemp to a hemp rope, raw cloth to clothing.

A fabricate that's restricted to "like-to-like" can still do a lot (clothing, gemcutting, goldwork, leather armor, chainmail, dragonhide armor, swords, etc.) but hits some amusing limitations.

(Notwithstanding the limitation of 11th+ level wizards who can sit around and cast a few fabricates a day are actually pretty damn rare, outside of doomsday organizations designed to challenge PCs.)

Aaaaactually...

Also, Leather Armor needs treated leather (which means it's not a single material, really), chainmail is worthless without it's padded undercoats, and swords are expressly made of multiple materials in the same way that a spear is.

Quote:

Thus, you can fabricate a wooden bridge from a clump of tress,

Never seen a manufactured bridge of leaves before. Similarly, never seen a wooden bridge made entirely without rope and/or stone, or at least without being successfully embedded into such or the nearby environment... unless fabricate just means you knock the trees over the gorge, which would be a really weird thing for it to try to indicate.

But sure, let's presume it makes a product (or "really" a finished good?) that is simply a bridge that sets on top of nothing and covers nothing - it is entirely self-reliant, like one of those display bridges or something, I guess that just go over the ground?

Quote:

a rope from a patch of hemp,

Fair 'nough.

Quote:

clothes from flax or wool, and so forth.

Also fair 'nough (though I am curious how such clothes stay on? Can you make anything other than full-body "robe-like" clothes?)

However, the kicker:

Quote:

You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship (jewelry, swords, glass, crystal, and the like).

The very first two items on the list require multiple materials. The third either requires multiple materials, or is really boring. The third is... I don't know, there are so many things that fall under "crystal" that it's really hard to guess what they mean. Maybe exceptionally fine "glass" (that isn't made of actual "glass", but you know what I mean)? Regardless "and the like" is a clear indicator that items other than jewelry or swords can be made of multiple materials.

QUASI-EDIT: Actually, after looking it up, glass is actually "multiple" materials, while crystal is as varied as I was thinking, but they were likely referring to a blended crystal "lead glass".

The thing is, either the spell actively and actually doesn't do anything in game-terms, or actually allows you to do what it indicates. To me, it's a question of reading the game in a way that makes it mostly work as a means for allowing the player to do stuff. But that's just me. I understand that many GMs don't share that view, as they like harder limits. Whatever works, one supposes.

[fictionfan]

thejeff wrote:

fictionfan wrote:

Why is everyone stuck on laser pistols. Being about to fabricate modern materical that we can make, but are hard to make would be more useful.

Such as carbon nano fibers.

Because laser pistols are cool.

But sure, if the GM wants to allow it. Decide what properties you want it to have. Decide whether it falls under the Technology category or not. I'd say yes, but your mileage may vary. If so, use those rules. If not, determine a price for it. Remember that prices are set for utility and balance, not on supply and demand or what you think the raw materials should cost. Then come up with a DC, pay half the cost in raw materials and go to town.

Remember there's nothing special about you. Anyone else who can make the Craft roll can make the stuff too.

Of course there is something special about me! I'm a PC.

[Aelryinth]

Oh, thought you were an Apple user. Apologies.

==Aelryinth

[insaneogeddon]

fictionfan wrote:

Can you use fabricate in order to make carbon nanofiber?

Can you use fabricate to make Plastics?

How about kevlar?

If so what would the craft DCs be?

Even with a 38 intelligence its beyond you as its to do with your creativity score not intelligence.

PCs don't have creativity scores, least of all the ones that are reliant on the boards, only npcs get creativity scores and are capable of invention.

PCs get a plagiarist score. As seen in action above.

[VRMH]

Who's to say modern materials even exist in the game world(s) anyway? There's no mithral in the real world either. Plus we're talking about a universe based (loosely) on Greek elemental building blocks, rather than atoms and molecules.

[D3stro 2119]

Well modern materials, or at least materials that are basically the same as modern materials do exist in PF, especially when we get to SF tech levels.

A thing to take into account is that it is BECAUSE PF has a lot of fantasy materials like mithral et al that when they are "advanced" we get things that are similar in function to IRL stuff but different in origin/composition. Like, IRL we got plastic from shellac. We STILL prefer natural rubber. In SF we have Estex, which is basically the science fantasy version of Kevlar created by analyzing the resilient fibers of giant spiders or something.

In any case, I'm with Ashiel on this one. Magic in 3.X/PF is basically a science anyways.

[Coidzor]

Since we've necromanced this up from 5 years ago anyway, I'd just like to mention that making aluminum out of bauxite is a fairly obvious thing that Fabricate would allow for, and is technically a "modern" material due to its historical rarity due to the shortage of native aluminum on Earth.

Various magical methods would allow people to determine that bauxite is an ore of aluminum, even if electrolysis hasn't been developed beyond the occasional mad scientist/wizard/mad scientist wizard or it hasn't been applied to producing aluminum from bauxite.

Other ores where it would be difficult or uneconomical to extract it using the conventional means that exist at whatever tech level would be accessible to Fabricate.

[Diego Rossi]

Coidzor wrote:

Since we've necromanced this up from 5 years ago anyway, I'd just like to mention that making aluminum out of bauxite is a fairly obvious thing that Fabricate would allow for, and is technically a "modern" material due to its historical rarity due to the shortage of native aluminum on Earth.

Various magical methods would allow people to determine that bauxite is an ore of aluminum, even if electrolysis hasn't been developed beyond the occasional mad scientist/wizard/mad scientist wizard or it hasn't been applied to producing aluminum from bauxite.

Other ores where it would be difficult or uneconomical to extract it using the conventional means that exist at whatever tech level would be accessible to Fabricate.

Fabricate wrote:

You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material.

Aluminum isn't the same material as bauxite. Fabricate doesn't refine minerals, it transforms them into a finished product of the same mineral.

You can get bricks out of clay or a statue out of marble, but not aluminum and slag out of bauxite.

And:

Fabricate wrote:

You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

Smelting requires craftmanship. For iron, it can be little craftmanship, for something that requires modern methods and a lot of equipment it requires an appropriate die roll.

[D3stro 2119]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Coidzor wrote:

Since we've necromanced this up from 5 years ago anyway, I'd just like to mention that making aluminum out of bauxite is a fairly obvious thing that Fabricate would allow for, and is technically a "modern" material due to its historical rarity due to the shortage of native aluminum on Earth.

Various magical methods would allow people to determine that bauxite is an ore of aluminum, even if electrolysis hasn't been developed beyond the occasional mad scientist/wizard/mad scientist wizard or it hasn't been applied to producing aluminum from bauxite.

Other ores where it would be difficult or uneconomical to extract it using the conventional means that exist at whatever tech level would be accessible to Fabricate.

Fabricate wrote:

You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material.

Aluminum isn't the same material as bauxite. Fabricate doesn't refine minerals, it transforms them into a finished product of the same mineral.

You can get bricks out of clay or a statue out of marble, but not aluminum and slag out of bauxite.

And:

Fabricate wrote:

You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

Smelting requires craftmanship. For iron, it can be little craftmanship, for something that requires modern methods and a lot of equipment it requires an appropriate die roll.

I think that since the Fabricate problem has been answered, I'll rerun my point and say it is kind of amusing to think that the Golarians will wind up developing the *exact* same "advanced" materials that we do. Not to say they won't invent any, but as I have pointed out Estex could very easily be the Kevlar of the PF verse.

BTW-- on Fabricate's complexity depending on the needed tools, one could argue that making steel needs very many tools and processes too (the forge, mining the ore, heating the stuff) too, and thus make the check for a simple sword unreasonably high which we know is not the case since it is only like DC 15. In any case, if you invent UPBs and everything becomes "stick these together to make item", I could see Fabricate DCs going down, which might also tie into the prevalence of magic in industrial processes in SF.

[Coidzor]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Fabricate wrote:

You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material.

Aluminum isn't the same material as bauxite. Fabricate doesn't refine minerals, it transforms them into a finished product of the same mineral.

You can get bricks out of clay or a statue out of marble, but not aluminum and slag out of bauxite.

And:

Fabricate wrote:

You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

Smelting requires craftmanship. For iron, it can be little craftmanship, for something that requires modern methods and a lot of equipment it requires an appropriate die roll.

Well, which argument are you trying to make here?

You can't say "Oh, you can't do that because the DC would be arbitrarily high because of the idea of someone making aluminum breaks my sense of verisimilitude" and "Oh, you can't do that because Fabricate doesn't allow refinement or processing of materials" at the same time. You're working at cross purposes here.

Either you can't smelt at all, or you can smelt and it can be rolled for and any build worth their salt will be able to make any DC that isn't deliberately set so as to be unattainable.

D3stro 2119 wrote:

I think that since the Fabricate problem has been answered, I'll rerun my point and say it is kind of amusing to think that the Golarians will wind up developing the *exact* same "advanced" materials that we do. Not to say they won't invent any, but as I have pointed out Estex could very easily be the Kevlar of the PF verse.

There is that whole bit about how the starship hull in Numeria is made out of an alloy of steel and a tiny fraction of adamantine.

Someone capable of determining that would then be able to recreate it, even if they don't have the industrial base to mass produce it outside of any number of means of spamming Fabricate.

[D3stro 2119]

Coidzor wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Fabricate wrote:

You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material.

Aluminum isn't the same material as bauxite. Fabricate doesn't refine minerals, it transforms them into a finished product of the same mineral.

You can get bricks out of clay or a statue out of marble, but not aluminum and slag out of bauxite.

And:

Fabricate wrote:

You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

Smelting requires craftmanship. For iron, it can be little craftmanship, for something that requires modern methods and a lot of equipment it requires an appropriate die roll.

Well, which argument are you trying to make here?

You can't say "Oh, you can't do that because the DC would be arbitrarily high because of the idea of someone making aluminum breaks my sense of verisimilitude" and "Oh, you can't do that because Fabricate doesn't allow refinement or processing of materials" at the same time. You're working at cross purposes here.

Either you can't smelt at all, or you can smelt and it can be rolled for and any build worth their salt will be able to make any DC that isn't deliberately set so as to be unattainable.

D3stro 2119 wrote:

I think that since the Fabricate problem has been answered, I'll rerun my point and say it is kind of amusing to think that the Golarians will wind up developing the *exact* same "advanced" materials that we do. Not to say they won't invent any, but as I have pointed out Estex could very easily be the Kevlar of the PF verse.

There is that whole bit about how the starship hull in Numeria is made out of an alloy of steel and a tiny fraction of adamantine.

Someone capable of determining that would then be able to recreate it, even if they don't have the industrial base to mass produce it outside of any number of means of spamming Fabricate.

Huh. I always figured it would be made out of some super space age chemical plastic alloy, like Starship hulls in SF are implied to be. Then again, the Androffan ship was made by what is mostly 100% mundane science, so the kookier fantasy materials that could be used for materials science in PF's future might not exist on Androffa.

BTW, where are the stats/description for the hull again?

[Coidzor]

The alloy is named Glaucite, sorry, I should have looked it up again before posting.

AONPRD gives its source as Pathfinder #85: Fires of Creation pg. 18.

Skymetal Alloys mentions it in passing on the d20pfsrd, and is the only version I could find quickly that allowed a link to go directly to it. You can also find it on the bottom of the legacy page on Technological Hazards.

[D3stro 2119]

Rereading this thread, it occurred to me just how much magic is like technology, going by the tech guide alone. I mean, in PF, magic is basically a science, with fields of study and everything (a la the Magic is a Science section in this book: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4E22DL0XscIMDM0MmUyOTktZDc2MS00NzU3LWE3MD YtMTUwYTY5NDgwYTUx/view).

Heck, Starfinder's mechanics even confirm this!