|
I posed this question in the Ultimate Magic PFS thread, but got no official answer to it.
The Vivisectionist alchemist archtype from UM replaces bombs with sneak attack, counting alchemist levels as rouge levels for purposes of sneak die. In PFS, the Alchemist gets Extra Bomb instead of Brew Potion as a first level feat. In PFS, does the Vivisectionist get a different feat, or is he stuck with one that modifies a class ability he no longer has?
I posed this question in the Ultimate Magic PFS thread, but got no official answer to it.
The Vivisectionist alchemist archtype from UM replaces bombs with sneak attack, counting alchemist levels as rouge levels for purposes of sneak die. In PFS, the Alchemist gets Extra Bomb instead of Brew Potion as a first level feat. In PFS, does the Vivisectionist get a different feat, or is he stuck with one that modifies a class ability he no longer has?
We're digging out of the PaizoCon hole but I wanted to jump in and say that we're working on this and that Alchemists with archetypes that don't get bombs will replace Extra Bombs with Expanded Arcana, which grants an additional 1st-level extract.
This will appear in Additional Resources in July since the June update has already been submitted to the web team.
|
We're digging out of the PaizoCon hole but I wanted to jump in and say that we're working on this and that Alchemists with archetypes that don't get bombs will replace Extra Bombs with Expanded Arcana, which grants an additional 1st-level extract.
This will appear in Additional Resources in July since the June update has already been submitted to the web team.
Alchemists don't qualify Expanded Arcana do they? The wording on the feat is "You can only take this feat if you possess levels in a class whose spellcasting relies on a limited list of spells known, such as the bard, oracle, and sorcerer."
The alchemist being a prepared caster that can learn all the spells on his class list seems to fall on the opposite end of the spectrum and be banned from taking this feat.
See my answer above. :)
|
Everything you say was pointed out immediately after Hyrum's comment. Right now Hyrum and Mark are the only ones who know how it's going to be worded on the resources page. It's kind of hard to discuss something which we can only conjecture about based on a casual forum post.
And FWIW no-one is 'stuck' with it because it's not in the guide yet so it's not legal for play.
|
I think people's main point is that, by the rules, the feat doesn't do what Hyrum says it does normally. I wouldn't even try to reference it in the official post, just say that they get the extra 1st level extract instead of a bonus feat.
So? His explanation clearly defines how the feat should be applied to an Alchemist in this situation. What more explanation is needed?
I posted that Expanded Arcana is where we were leaning but that the July update would have the final ruling and it still will. Until the July update goes live you're stuck with Extra Bombs.
Hyrum.
|
|
I posted that Expanded Arcana is where we were leaning but that the July update would have the final ruling and it still will. Until the July update goes live you're stuck with Extra Bombs.
Hyrum.
Umm Hyrum, the point others are making is that they have no idea what Expanded Arcana is supposed to do for an Alchemist.
Special: You can only take this feat if you possess levels in a class whose spellcasting relies on a limited list of spells known, such as the bard, oracle, and sorcerer. You can gain Expanded Arcana multiple times.Did you mean it to be a feat to give an extra extract per day? Akin to giving an extra spell slot?
Or are you in essence giving a wizard type caster a spell known?
-James
Umm James, Hyrum said we won't know exactly what is planned until the new guide comes out.
Also, why would this suddenly change the way the feat works for other classes?
The feat would remain as written, except for the lone exception made for the Alchemist.
Why does everyone have to read things into statements that aren't there to be read?
|
|
Can't we just ban the vivisectionist?
It breaks one of the rules and takes one of the most important aspects of the rogue class and gets away with it.
A vivisectionist can be a better rogue than a rogue.
Heh... I made one and came to the conclusion that it really does just fine with no bonus feats. Getting an extra extract is a booby prize at best but it doesn't need anything. Of course the same could be said of the alchemist and Extra Bombs... but I don't think Extra Bombs is an amazing feat either. My alchemist character who bombs a lot rarely runs out.
|
|
Umm Hyrum, the point others are making is that they have no idea what Expanded Arcana is supposed to do for an Alchemist.Special: You can only take this feat if you possess levels in a class whose spellcasting relies on a limited list of spells known, such as the bard, oracle, and sorcerer. You can gain Expanded Arcana multiple times.The limited list for the alchemist is one issue. The fact that alchemists are not spellcasters at all is another issue. Alchemists get alchemy, which results in the effect of spells, but they do not have the class ability "spells." They have no CL, but use their class level for effects that depend on CL. Some might see this as a pedantic distinction. Others might see it as a big deal. Intentionally stating that a feat is substituted, when it doesn't apply, is just moving the problem to another type of problem.
If Hyrum and Mark disagree regarding my observation that Alchemists are not spellcasters, maybe the work around would be for them to campaign with the designers to get the matter clarified through FAQ/Errata. It may merely be moot, given the limited list issue.
|
|
Also, why would this suddenly change the way the feat works for other classes?
What are you talking about?? Who mentioned other classes?
Imagine if he said we're giving Quicken Spell to Fighters, or a quick memorization feat to oracles... it doesn't make any sense.
If you're going to make something out of whole cloth, why tie it to a feat for spontaneous casters?
-James
What are you talking about? Seriously man. You post up some query about not understanding how this feat works for an alchemist (when Hyrum clearly stated what they were thinking about, which clearly explained what the feat would do for an alchemist) and then say something about a Wizard or some such.
It isn't rocket science. Should they go with what Hyrum originally posted, it is quite clear what the Alchemist will get, and it is also quite clear that will not change what anyone else who can take the feat will get.
So why are we generating questions that don't make any sense in relation to what was originally stated?
