So, with Instant Alchemy, you can make a alchemical creation as a full-round action. That's 6 seconds, mind you.
Take, say, Soul Stimulant, which has a base price of 300gp. If I'm understanding this correctly, you can make one of those in 6 seconds for the price of 100gp, and then sell it for 150gp? 50gp/6 seconds, it turns out, is 30,000gp in an hour. (Let's give our alchemist a break after an hour, shall we?) Provided you have someone to be handing you the materials. Philosopher's Stone gives you 50,000gp per month.
Now, of course, a reasonable DM is going to limit the materials that are available to craft these things, or limit the demand for them. But, still, there are an awful lot of different alchemical items to do this with, and an awful lot of places for a character to sell them.
Is there some other inherent limiting factor I'm missing here?
Nice catch, thanks; I'd say that cinches the interpretation for me as well, that the caster isn't meant to be prevented from polymorphing themselves.
I'm thinking specifically of the Verdant Bloodline capstone, which makes you immune to Polymorph effects. Now, as far as I can tell, immunity is never defined. I'm curious if a 20th level Verdant Bloodline sorcerer could use their own Polymorph spells on themselves, in the same way that a caster's own spells ignore spell resistance.
I'd probably allow it, but is there any RAW to this?
Hmm, those were my thoughts, too.
I wonder, now, if it *is* a Permanent Ability Bonus, how should skill points from higher intelligence be handled? As a DM, I would say you choose them once, and the choice is set. I'm not sure if there is any precedent, though, that would make more sense.
Even if you *don't* think the double 14 hour thing works, then the Mastery Chemyst prestige class allows the doubling of mutagen lengths, which would push it over 24 hours for a single one, and it would definitely work there.
In either case, even if you need to go Master Chemyst for two levels (the minimum needed for Extend Mutagen), definitely something to consider for an INT-based Alchemist, I should think.
It would need to be 24 hours of the same cognogen, if you could increase it to a single effect of 24 hours then it would but not off of two potions.
Why do you say that?
I guess we have different interpretations of the phrase "any existing mutagen becomes inert". I read that as referring to any existing dose that he has. Once he drinks a mutagen, he no longer *has* a mutagen, he's under the effects of a mutagen; I think that distinction is important. Having drunk it, there is no mutagen to become inert.
To back this up, note the previous line says " it remains potent until used." In other words, once you use the mutagen, it is no longer potent. Again: there is nothing to become inert.
Also potentially relevant is: "Whenever an alchemist drinks a mutagen, the effects of any previous mutagen immediately end.", which suggests that it's not the act of brewing a new mutagen, but of drinking a new one, which ends the previous effect.
So, suppose I'm a 14th level or higher Mind Chemist Alchemist, meaning I can create a Cognatogen that lasts 14 hours (or more at higher levels).
This seems to me to make it very plausible to literally never lose the effects of the Cognatogen: Drink one in the morning, spend an hour making a second one. In the evening, drink that one, then spend an hour making the next one, etc.
So, the question is, if you maintain the ability boost without end for 24 hours, does it become a Permanent ability boost? I'm not sure. I would probably say yes as a GM, but it's unclear by RAW. Of course, I would also say if you ever miss a dose, you lose all your bonus slots until you've maintained it for 24 hours again =D.
Secondary question is, do you still get the ability damage to physical scores, if the ability is never really ending? I'm thinking "yes" on that one, but I'm not 100% certain. I could see arguing either way.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
No, I wasn't; I was looking for input, and I now think you and a few previous posters are correct in that the combination won't work; The penalty once applied is stuck for the round; ah, well.
That being said, yes, it goes without saying that Crane Style is ridiculously good. Any combo with Combat Style Master that *doesn't* use Crane Style when it's not your turn is suspect. *Maybe* Snake style instead.
Thanks for all the input.
There are lots of neat things you can do with Combat Style master. The one I'm wondering about though, involves the following:
Tiger Pounce, among other things, says that when you are using the style, you can apply the Power Attack penalty to your AC instead of your attack rolls.
Combat Style Master allows you to switch styles as a free action.
So, I'm wondering if you could use Tiger Style during your turn, applying the Power attack penalty to your AC, then at the end of your turn, switch to a different style (such as Crane), and thus have the Power Attack penalty go back to your attacks since you were no longer using the style.
In other words, on your turn the Power Attack penalty would apply to your AC, and on other people's turns it would apply to your attacks (obviously this means it would penalize your AoOs, but meh.
Yes, well, some players tend to get upset when I axe or change things that are just plain ridiculously dumb (like Punishing Kick's inability to knock a target into a dangerous space, or off a cliff).
This is another example, as is anything else for which the justification doesn't go beyond "And lo, the balance gods descended from the heavens, and decreed it so that Bracers of Armor shall not be used in conjunction with Magic Vestments"
I'm trying to win them over to my point of view, in a way.
EDIT: To fictionfan, I believe that only works as spells are being cast, and in any case I'm 99% certain you can't use it against items that are generating a spell effect. Regardless, Bracers of Armor don't give you the spell Mage Armor, even if they use it as a prerequisite.
So, if one of my players is wearing Bracers of Armor with, say, +3 armor and Medium Fortification on them, does this mean that I can have a baddie cast Mage Armor on them, causing them to lose the Medium Fortification? The wording of Bracers of Armor states that:
...If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities....
Which seems a pretty big weakness to exploit.
Obviously they would get a save against the Mage Armor (or Magic Vestments), but presuming they failed this would cancel their fortification, yes?
Ansel Krulwich wrote:
A d7 is good for picking a random day of the week. Multiply it with a d4 to pick a specific day in a lunar cycle.
Multiplying it wouldn't work. (there would be no way to get a result of 13, for example, and some numbers would be more likely than others). Rather, it should be:
(7 x (1d4 - 1)) +1d7
This will generate numbers between 1 and 28 with equal probability.
My intuition tells me that this ability consumes a use of your judgment for the day, but the wording seems to indicate that, as long as you are currently using your judgment ability, the only limitation is the 1/creature/day thing, and the 1d4 rounds between uses. Is that accurate? It seems way too strong for something you can use on every single creature you meet in a given day.
At 20th level, an inquisitor can call true judgment down upon a foe during combat. Whenever an inquisitor uses her judgment ability, the inquisitor can invoke true judgment on a foe as a swift action. Once declared, the inquisitor can make a single melee (or ranged attack, if the foe is within 30 feet) against the target. If the attack hits, it deals damage normally and the target must make a Fortitude save or die. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the inquisitor's level + the inquisitor's Wisdom modifier. Regardless of whether or not the save is made, the target creature is immune to the inquisitor's true judgment ability for 24 hours. Once this ability has been used, it cannot be used again for 1d4 rounds.
Are you talking logically, or by the rules?
Both, really; I have a commitment I made as a DM to not enforce rules that can't be reasonably defended.
I think I like StreamOfTheSky's interpretation: you can right yourself as part of flying up, but it provokes since it's an awkward position.
So, suppose that you have a creature/player that has perfect fly and is just able to float everywhere at every which angle that they wish. They can float upsidedown, sideways, etc, etc.
Now, that creature/player voluntarily drops prone. Maybe they want to avoid some arrows; who knows.
Can that player/creature simply fly straight up from the ground on their next turn? If not, why not? Why would they have to stand up first?
Hmm, too bad, but I think Weirdo probably has the RAI. Otherwise, you could do, say, Unarmed Strike or Tiger Fork and get three groups. Crazy :)
I'm doing a fighter/monk gestalt build, which is why it became relevant. Guess I'll just have to be satisfied with the feats applying to all monk weapons :)
I think I'll let him choose between the +2 suggested by MechE to *just* get the size benefit, or the +3 to get all three benefits and the penalty. Perhaps it's not necessary to do the house rule at all, but I don't mind giving monks a little boost in the combat maneuver area.
The only thing left to do is come up with some flavor for the +2 version; possibly something like "Titanic Spirit", only usable if you have a ki pool. We'll see.
Thanks for the input!
Sorry, yeah, it's an armor enchantment from ultimate equipment, which counts as a +3 enhancement bonus
It does 4 things in total, 3 of them beneficial:
* First, the wearer is counted as one size larger for the purpose of combat maneuver limitations depending on size, such as what creatures you are able to trip.
One of my players argues that monks, if they can't deal damage like others, should at least be able to be at the top of the field in combat maneuvers, which is an argument that I am sympathetic to.
In any case, the player wants his monk to be able to get the Titanic ability, which can normally only be applied to armor (the wording and armor check penalty make it clear that this isn't something that's going to work as-in on Bracers of Armor). Most important he wants the part that makes his size count as one bigger for the purpose of maneuvers dependent on relative size.
I'm happy to oblige, but I'm having difficulty pricing that component on its own. That is, just taking the part that makes you count as one larger, apart from the ability to use enlarge person, or the armor check penalty.
Are there any other effects or items which give a similar boost? How would you go about pricing this? Input?
Martial Mastery feat:
Suppose I have combat feats targeting a weapon in two groups, such as Temple Sword, which is both in the Monk Weapons Group, and the Heavy Blades group. Do those feats then apply to all weapons in *both* groups? From Unarmed Strikes to Greatswords?
Perhaps this is just a variance in interpretation, but my reading is that non-actions that are taken as part of another action require that action to be doable.
If you can't perform the action that the non-action is part of, then you don't get to do the non-action.
In other words, if shifting grips is a non-action that is part of the attack action, then you need to be able to do the attack action before you can shift grips.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
A fix would be to add a clause to the Snap Shot feat to allow the drawing of ammunition as a non-action, or to state that the free action to draw ammunition can, like speaking, by done when it's not your turn.
I think either would work just fine; the problem is that there are many feats that implicitly change things like that without stating the technically necessary explicit modifications.
But this is why this game needs to be run by thinking humans, after all :)
I honestly think both interpretations are valid, to be honest. In any case, my view is that when you've knocked the arrow, your hand is already right where it needs to be to draw the arrow back. There's practically speaking no movement to put it back "on" the bow. This is a big difference from a hand off doing some other action.
From a purely technical viewpoint, if you say shifting grips is a non-action performed as part of an attack, you still *cannot* do it if you have a two-handed weapon held in one hand. You cannot make an attack from such a position, so there's no action to combine a grip-shift into.
No, no; I perfectly understood the argument being made, I just don't agree with the logic of it. Specifically this step:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
If it's a free action or not an action to add that free hand, then it's the same action, if any, to add your free hand to a melee weapon!
Drawing the arrow, nocking it, drawing it back and firing are all related actions with the same focus. I would regard both the nocking, and drawing back the arrow with your second hand as non-actions that are part of the attack. Using your second hand is a necessary, integral part of the attack.
In contrast, if you have a hand off of a melee weapon deflecting an arrow, it's off doing its own thing; placing it back on the melee weapon is *not* part of the attack. It's not necessary to attack if the weapon is one-handed, and there is no attack to be made if the weapon is 2-handed.
In that case, specifically if the Cleric rolled high enough that he *would* have identified it had it been undead, then I believe I would tell them that they know it's *not* an undead creature. The justification being that if you know enough about a subject, you're able to recognize when creatures are not part of that subject.
I would not, of course, tell him more than that.
I admit that the analogy is not a particularly strong one so, as per my previous post, I'm willing to drop that line of argumentation. To restate the second line of argument, though:
All the examples given of non-actions are things that are necessary parts of that action. That is, not all necessary actions are non-actions, but all non-actions are necessary.
Re-gripping a longsword held in one hand with a second hand is not necessary to attack with it.
And, again, a two-handed weapon held in one hand cannot be attacked with, so there is no action to combine non-actions into.
If you understood they weren't permanent, then I'm confused as to your question. Permanent negative levels do not require the player to "retool" their entire sheet. It's pretty simple, actually:
-5 max hp for each negative level
It's barely more complicated than applying an effect like sickened to them, really, which just applies -2 to their d20 rolls, and weapon damage rolls.
If your players have difficulty with this level of math, then perhaps they should be studying arithmetic with their time instead.
If you're concerned with the permanence, and don't want players to have to shell out 1,000 gold to remove one, then just make them temporary negative levels. Players get a new saving throw each day to remove a temporary negative level, and you could just make the DC for the better resurrection spells lower.
It is in the rules, yes, but the argument being made was one from a standpoint of common sense, not the rules. My point was that, if you argue that re-gripping a weapon is part of an attack, and therefore a non-action, you could make the same argument about drawing a weapon. Since the rules specify that drawing a weapon is a separate action, and therefore not part of an attack, it invalidates the first argument as well.
I then went on to make the separate argument that re-gripping a one-handed weapon is not a necessary part of attacking with it, and therefore cannot be thought of as a non-action in relation to the attack. You cannot make an attack with a two-handed weapon held in one hand, and therefore there is no attack action with respect to which to take a claimed non-action like re-gripping.
I don't think that drawing your weapon is part of the attack; that was the point of my analogy. Neither is placing a second hand on the weapon part of attacking. If it's a one handed weapon, you can attack just fine with the hand you have on it, thus it would be silly to assert that regripping with two hands is an integral part of attacking with it. If it's a two handed weapon, there's no attack to be made.
It case it wasn't clear, Xenh, the no doubt lovely Roberta is unleashing sarcasm on you. A "permanent negative level" in Pathfinder isn't actually a lost character level, but just a penalty that can be removed with the right spells, to the tune of about 1,000 gold.
Here's how I view it, if it's unclear:
Reload: Reloading a ranged weapon is an action whose time varies based on the specific weapon, and any feats/special abilities your character has. For a light crossbow, for example, it's a move action. The action includes removing one hand from the weapon if it is a two-handed weapon, retrieving the ammunition, placing it into the weapon, and replacing your hand on the weapon if it is a two-handed weapon.
So, in that sense, placing your hand back on a weapon as part of the reload is a non-action, yes. It is "so much a part of" the action of reloading, because the action is moving from a state of existence where you have an empty crossbow held in two hands, to having a loaded crossbow held in two hands.
In terms of a melee weapon, if you argue that placing a second hand back on the weapon is "so much a part of" attacking, you could easily argue the same thing about drawing the weapon.
If it's, for example, a longsword, placing a second hand on it certainly isn't an integral part of the attack. It it's a greatsword held in one hand, then you can't make an attack anyway, so there's no attack action to combine a re-grip into.
As said before, because when reloading the hand is already focused on dealing with the crossbow, etc. It's right there. If you have a hand off of a melee weapon then it's because that hand is performing some unrelated action; it has a separate focus.
Your interpretation is valid, don't misunderstand me. Making re-gripping a free action doesn't contradict any of the three conclusions in my earlier post, and thus I can't argue that your interpretation is wrong. Neither, however, have you convinced me that my interpretation is wrong.
Between the two consistent interpretations, I chose mine for balance reasons.
It's not that hard; if reloading is normally a move action, then I interpret the regrip as being part of that move action. If they take a feat which allows them to reload as, say, a free action, then I interpret the regrip as being part of that free action. That is, the feat affects the regrip as well.
The other hand has to be removed in order to be free. Once that's done, it's another free action to retrieve the ammunition. Once that's done, it's whatever reloading action to reload the gun. Once that's done, you need to put your free hand back on the gun.
I disagree with your interpretation. As said, I would view the load-regrip as a single move action, not as separate actions as you paint here.
If I were to allow firearms in my game, I wouldn't allow iterative shooting, no.
Ah, I don't know how firearms work (as they never exist in games I run), but I'm starting to see what you're saying, and here's where I disagree:
In the case of the gun, both hands are focused on the gun the entire time; the other hand is right there essentially, and it's part of a fluid motion. In other words, I view the load-regrip as a single move action. If someone took their hand off to use a wand or something, I would require them to regrip as a Draw-a-weapon action, yes.
In the case of a melee weapon, your other hand is off doing something else. Maybe it's deflecting an arrow, maybe it's deflecting an attack, maybe it's picking your nose. In any case, it's involved in some unrelated activity.
Malachi: Your assumption of holding the scabbard with one hand is a bit odd to me. For a greatsword, the scabbard would usually be on your back, and you're not going to be holding it in one of your hands, but rather reaching up with both hands.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, to be perfectly honest... If you shoot a bow, you are holding it in one hand; it requires two hands to use because of the fact that you have to use your other hand to grab an arrow, and then pull back the nocked arrow.
I also only allow players to do it on their turn. If there is no reason they couldn't communicate it freely to their party members, I announce the information aloud, for ease. If there is something preventing them from communicating (such as a silence spell), then I communicate the information privately.
Realism, if defined as being reflective of the real, physical world, is obviously not important in the fantasy setting. However, internal consistency is important. You want rules that make sense in relation to one another, rather that each rule being its own free-floating thing.
With that in mind, I've reached the following conclusions given the input in this thread:
1) Simply removing one hand from a weapon that you have two hands on cannot be more than a free action. Reason: To remove both hands is a free action; thus removing one hand must be for internal consistency. Note: This does not necessarily leave you in a position where you would be wielding the weapon in the one hand after removing the second, even if you could normally do so, as the position of your hands likely matters. You may simply be holding it.
2) Simply removing one hand from a weapon cannot be performed outside your turn. Reason: Dropping a weapon cannot be performed outside of your turn; if one was allowed to remove a hand from a weapon outside of your turn, it would have to follow for consistency that you could drop things outside of your turn.
3) Placing a second hand onto a weapon you already have in one hand can be more than a free action without violating internal consistency; the reasoning would be that it requires more focus to place your hand in a specific location than to remove it.
Note: This is not the only decision compatible with the three conclusions I drew above; it's simply the one that I personally think has the best balance of simplicity and game balance while staying within those conclusions.
Note 2: This decision would imply that it's a draw-a-weapon action plus a free action to switch a weapon from one hand to the other, as you'd first hold it in two hands, and then remove the first hand.