Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Cayden Cailean's divine fighting technique = spell combat for alchemists?


Rules Questions

201 to 231 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Again, this is getting off the actual point.

We have ample evidence from past FAQ that the relationship to potions and the extent of the similarities from extracts to potions can lend them to often be excluded from "liquid" and "potion" use.

Which results in table variance as one table reads the RAW to include them and another reads the RAW to exclude them. Neither is strictly wrong as both are right with their version of RAW.


What is being added?

An Extract is a liquid and, the feat works with any liquid. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Firewarrior44 wrote:

What is being added?

An Extract is a liquid and, the feat works with any liquid. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I agree!!!!!

But they are never called out as liquids in the APG.
Only described as potions (which are liquids) and you drink them.

In any event, this is the most tenuous point I was trying to make. I get it is easy to attack weak points. It's fun even to attack weak points.

It doesn't lessen the issue that the use of liquid in this feat is almost certainly restricted to things you would want in a tankard to drink for benefits other than spellcasting with the exception of potions.

Scarab Sages

James Risner wrote:
Lune wrote:
Actually, James, you argued that extracts are not liquids. That was your response in the second post in this thread.

Read all my posts again.

We interpret them (myself included) as liquids, but they are never said they were liquids in the class write up. In fact they only said:

Quote:
... he alchemist captures his own magic potential within liquids and extracts he creates ...

That could be interpreted to be liquids (such as infusions and potions) and extracts being non liquids or it could be a list of two liquids.

I don't think and never thought extracts are non-liquid. But we don't have a rule saying they are in APG. The hint that they are come from a companion line book, outside the PDT RPG books.

Can you drink something that is not a liquid?

If I said I was going to drink some H2O then can that be ice or steam? Or does the word drink fully describe the state of the H2O?

Drink Definition wrote:
to take liquid into the mouth for swallowing

With that, then, I ask by what method does an alchemist 'cast' his extracts?

Alchemist wrote:
In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract.

This means that by definition the substance being ingested in is a liquid. So, an extract is a liquid by the APG.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Lorewalker wrote:
So, an extract is a liquid by the APG.

Congratulations, you have just added liquid to the definition of extracts as a result of interpreting the rules.

The same action that can be performed to exclude extracts from "other liquids" in context.

Is my point really this unclear? - not being snarky. I genuinely don't understand why this point isn't clear. I'm confused or missing something.

Scarab Sages

James Risner wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:

R.A.W = Read As Written

R.A.I = Read As Intended

If you interpret text using the RAW method then you do not add any information to the text.

RAW doesn't exist as a valid concept, as all RAW is interpreted by the reader.

Your version of "do not add any information" may not be my version of "do not add any information" and may not agree with their version of "do not add any information".

Most of the FAQ result from two people taking the same text and using their RAW interpretation to get two rulings. The FAQ makes it clear which one is correct and which one is incorrect.

I think you are confusing "words in a text having multiple possible meanings" and "adding additional meanings not based on words in the text."

Your "everything is subjective" argument doesn't fly. As go cannot mean stop. So if you say you have a RAW interpretation that makes go mean stop... then it can not be RAW. As the information for go is not included in stop. I get that english can be a difficult language to parse but some things are fairly clear.

Say you are at a job and your boss sends you a memo stating, "Get a form T1050 and fill it out using the information from account 110334." Can you later tell your boss you interpreted his memo to mean that you can leave early for the day? In no way is leaving early mentioned in the memo explicitly or implicitly.

Scarab Sages

James Risner wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
So, an extract is a liquid by the APG.

Congratulations, you have just added liquid to the definition of extracts as a result of interpreting the rules.

The same action that can be performed to exclude extracts from "other liquids" in context.

Is my point really this unclear? - not being snarky. I genuinely don't understand why this point isn't clear. I'm confused or missing something.

Implicit information is not the same thing as adding additional information.

The rules states that an extract is a liquid by the fact that it is a drink, this is implicit and already exists within the text. The rules state that the fighting style can be used with all liquids, this is explicit. The rules state that extracts can not be used with Potion Glutton, this is also explicit. This is all RAW as it requires no new information.

But, the moment you say that an extract can not be used with the fighting style because it doesn't work with Potion Glutton then you have added information that doesn't exist within the text. Meaning it is not a valid way to read the text and thus can not be RAW.

It is RAI, though. And this point seems to be agreed upon, that it should be judged that extracts are not included.

You are clear. You just also happen to be incorrect in your word usage. I have attempted to explain to you the difference because I think your input is valuable but your method hampers your effectiveness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think stating RAW is all that counts while admitting there's a RAI that is based on a RAW from similar texts is just not the best way to read this.

It creates a "I'm not being told not to" that turns into "omg nerf!" When eventually told not to.

I can't deny however the basics that it says liquid and that could include extracts. I just don't think it does based on something similar.

I'd imagine that most of the people on one side are players and the other side are gms. More a thought then something worth expanding.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

As James Risnar points out, there's a history of FAQs, design team rulings, and content that pretty much says that extracts are treated differently than potions and other liquids you drink.

You can chalk that up to the alchemy class feature being a poorly written wall of text.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pounce wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
toastedamphibian wrote:

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but someone on page 1 said the tankard had to be the offhand weapon, but the feat does not say that. It says light weapon in one hand, tankard in the other.

It also lets you treat a tankard as a light mace (a light weapon).

3 (11bab) +2 (improved twf) +1 (haste) = 6 attacks.

Dual weild magic tankards. 4 from A and 2 from B in one round, 4 from B and 2 from A in a later round. 12 extracts in 2 rounds, plus 3 more in a third round if you use your swifts to fill it...

Also would work well on one of those druids that make free potions.

Unless your tankards teleport the extract from the vial as a free action, I don't see how you can do that. You are missing "a few" move actions to refill the tankards.

Get a couple of Cailean Fighting Tankards, and you're set :)

Also, I'm decently certain that the best usage of this is a Separatist Cleric with the Alchemy subdomain. It even specifically calls out that the cleric is creating "potions", so there's no question of whether it should work with the Fighting Style or not.

So, theoretically, if we allow this, this feat could allow the "casting" of 12 spells in a round.

PRD wrote:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.

As this point, and considering the bolded text, I agree with James.

If a ability don't say explicitly that it affect the speed at which a extract is drunk, it don't affect the speed at which an extract is drunk.
We have a specific rule about the speed a which an extract can be drunk by an alchemist. To overrule that we need another specific text, one mentioning extracts, not a generic term like "liquids".

Note how the speed at which an alchemist draw and drink an extract override the normal casting time of the base spell. Whether it is restoration with a 3 round casting time or a spell with a swift casting time, for a alchemist it is a standard action.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Pounce wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
toastedamphibian wrote:

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but someone on page 1 said the tankard had to be the offhand weapon, but the feat does not say that. It says light weapon in one hand, tankard in the other.

It also lets you treat a tankard as a light mace (a light weapon).

3 (11bab) +2 (improved twf) +1 (haste) = 6 attacks.

Dual weild magic tankards. 4 from A and 2 from B in one round, 4 from B and 2 from A in a later round. 12 extracts in 2 rounds, plus 3 more in a third round if you use your swifts to fill it...

Also would work well on one of those druids that make free potions.

Unless your tankards teleport the extract from the vial as a free action, I don't see how you can do that. You are missing "a few" move actions to refill the tankards.

Get a couple of Cailean Fighting Tankards, and you're set :)

Also, I'm decently certain that the best usage of this is a Separatist Cleric with the Alchemy subdomain. It even specifically calls out that the cleric is creating "potions", so there's no question of whether it should work with the Fighting Style or not.

So, theoretically, if we allow this, this feat could allow the "casting" of 12 spells in a round.

PRD wrote:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.

Unless you have 12 Standard Actions to spend, you wouldn't be able to do that.

I suggest you re-read this relevant FAQ, which states that, for a Bomb, Mutagen, or Extract, the Standard Action includes the requirement of drawing the relevant components, akin to spellcasting (which the Combat Chapter notes drawing such components is a Free Action).

So, if you already have the components out (such as in the Tankard, ready to drink), you're still spending a Standard Action to consume it; you just don't have to spend the relevant Free Action to draw the components out in the first place.

Also, nobody's suggesting we get 12 extracts consumed in a round by dual-wielding two tankards. That's a strawman argument (I think), so using it as a basis for defense isn't really feasible.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The point, Darksol, is that the Extract would not be able to be used in conjunction with TWF with the Tankard, which is what the thread is about. Diego is talking about a high level character using his iteraves and TWF to keep "casting" the extracts contained within the Tankard. Even a Wizard can only cast one "quickened" spell.

We both agree that Extracts and Infusions would take a "standard" action, it is using it in the full round action that is questioned, which is the OP question who compared it to a Magus Spell Combat.


thaX wrote:

The point, Darksol, is that the Extract would not be able to be used in conjunction with TWF with the Tankard, which is what the thread is about. Diego is talking about a high level character using his iteraves and TWF to keep "casting" the extracts contained within the Tankard. Even a Wizard can only cast one "quickened" spell.

We both agree that Extracts and Infusions would take a "standard" action, it is using it in the full round action that is questioned, which is the OP question who compared it to a Magus Spell Combat.

Because the limit of how many consumables you can take is based off of your BAB (and TWF attacks), which is broken even without Extracts.

Take a Drunken Monk. Out of Ki? After a Full Round Action, I'm back at Max Ki because I drank a dozen pints of booze. Take a character with Brew Potion. Need time to superbuff your martial, but don't want to waste time in-combat to do so? Just give them the tankard and they can spend a Full-Round Action applying all of their favorite buffs.

I imagine there are other equally absurd things you can do with this combination, but really, everyone's problem should not be with Extracts being applicable to the feat, and be with the poorly written mechanics of the feat itself allowing such abuse to begin with.

Ironically, the fix is simple: it should only replace the highest BAB attack you get, and you only get to drink from the tankard once per round. It's basic, it's consistent (most other rules function like this), and it makes the idea of Extracts being used with the feat not broken.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To be sure, only the off hand attacks at the very least can be used in such a way as it is now, since that is the hand the Tankard is in, and TWF has a set progression of attacks.

I do agree that once a round should be a limit for this feat.


My take on the old Potion Glutton FAQ was "Things that are specified to work only with potions do not work with extracts unless they say they do."

I guess other people took something else away, like "Nothing works with extracts unless they say they do."

And I don't see any reason to think this working isn't RAI. If a high level Fighter who makes the investment can use this to give himself multiple buffs in a round (using a very specific +1 Light Hammer magic item as an off-hand weapon) by sacrificing attacks (and potions) then I see no problem with that. I don't see any real problem with Alchemists doing the same thing. It's not as game-breaking as Teleport or Simulacrum. It's useful, but any character who buffs in advance gets the same benefit without making the same sacrifices.


Feat does not say "tankard in off hand". Says tankard in ONE hand, and a light weapon in the other. Double fist tankards, requirement is met for each, as tankards are treated as light maces.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So, if you already have the components out (such as in the Tankard, ready to drink), you're still spending a Standard Action to consume it; you just don't have to spend the relevant Free Action to draw the components out in the first place.

Also, nobody's suggesting we get 12 extracts consumed in a round by dual-wielding two tankards. That's a strawman argument (I think), so using it as a basis for defense isn't really feasible.

Actually it was suggested in the post i cited (12 in 2 rounds, to be exact, one for each attack that you use to drink an extract instead of attacking). 6 spells in a round is already 4 above the maximum allowed.

Having the components in hand allow you to cast a spell at a faster speed than standard? If the reply is yes, why the quicken spell feat, with its heavy cost, exist?

The problem is that while my argument is valid for extracts, it is weak when we speak of infusion.
As already said, the whole set of the alchemy rules need a serious clarification.

The speed at which you cast/drink the spell can be changed?
There are several spells with a range or a target of "an object" in the alchemist list that can't be used with extract or infusion. Some are really thematic. How we should treat them? They are errors, they are there to allow the use of wands and to make oils?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey, toasty...

One tankard, as the first hand needs a Rapier or another one handed/light weapon, which the tankard is not. (it is considered a light mace when wielded as the Feat dictates)

So the question is, Main hand (more attacks to sip) or off hand (Better to hit chances with Main Hand weapon)?

If a FAQ does come out, it will likely either exclude Extracts/Fusions, or limit them to once per round.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thaX wrote:

Hey, toasty...

One tankard, as the first hand needs a Rapier or another one handed/light weapon, which the tankard is not. (it is considered a light mace when wielded as the Feat dictates)

So the question is, Main hand (more attacks to sip) or off hand (Better to hit chances with Main Hand weapon)?

If a FAQ does come out, it will likely either exclude Extracts/Fusions, or limit them to once per round.

You can choose every round what is your main and off hand. And the feat text is:

Quote:
Initial Benefit: You can wield a tankard (or mug) as a weapon, treating it in all ways as a light mace appropriate for your size.

Not the usual "wielding it as", but "treating it in all ways as a light mace". Extremely open ended. The guy taking that feat has some strong argument that for him, for all purposes, the tankard is a light mace, including feats like weapon focus, specialization and two handed combat.


And even if he could not, the magic tankards being discussed are also treated as light hammers as part of their magic...

Why bother excluding extracts? Brewmaster prc, Heriophant mythic path, Druidic Herbalism...

Problem is the RATE, yeah? Stick a "once per round" in there, and you should be good.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
toastedamphibian wrote:

And even if he could not, the magic tankards being discussed are also treated as light hammers as part of their magic...

Why bother excluding extracts? Brewmaster prc, Heriophant mythic path, Druidic Herbalism...

Problem is the RATE, yeah? Stick a "once per round" in there, and you should be good.

Still stepping of the toes of an iconic ability of another class (i.e. getting something very similar to spell combat, with a spell list that is way better at self boosting), but that limitation would change the situation.

Still, RAW, extract have a specific rule about "casting" time. You need a specific rule that explicitly say that it affect extract to override that.

Infusions .... with those there is a lot of uncertainty, as it is very unclear what they inherit and what they don't from the extract rules.


Not just one a round when you can combine 2 extracts into 1. Which kind of WAS the alchemist way of quickened, now doubled up.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So, if you already have the components out (such as in the Tankard, ready to drink), you're still spending a Standard Action to consume it; you just don't have to spend the relevant Free Action to draw the components out in the first place.

Also, nobody's suggesting we get 12 extracts consumed in a round by dual-wielding two tankards. That's a strawman argument (I think), so using it as a basis for defense isn't really feasible.

Actually it was suggested in the post i cited (12 in 2 rounds, to be exact, one for each attack that you use to drink an extract instead of attacking). 6 spells in a round is already 4 above the maximum allowed.

Having the components in hand allow you to cast a spell at a faster speed than standard? If the reply is yes, why the quicken spell feat, with its heavy cost, exist?

The problem is that while my argument is valid for extracts, it is weak when we speak of infusion.
As already said, the whole set of the alchemy rules need a serious clarification.

The speed at which you cast/drink the spell can be changed?
There are several spells with a range or a target of "an object" in the alchemist list that can't be used with extract or infusion. Some are really thematic. How we should treat them? They are errors, they are there to allow the use of wands and to make oils?

Yes, but it doesn't particularly matter if it's an Extract or a Potion, the latter of which is explicitly allowed, because consuming 6 Potions as a Full Round action is similarly broken (even if costly).

Never said that. All I said is that the Standard Action for consuming an Extract also includes the action required to draw spell components (normally a Free Action in the Combat Actions Table), and that if you already have your Extract out, you don't spend the (assumed) Free Action to drink it. We have a FAQ that explicitly tells us this.

A more silly interpretation would be that you can't ever have Extracts out ready to drink, and/or that whenever you'd spend a Standard Action to drink an Extract that you already have out, you have to draw a second one. Different perspective, equally ridiculous, and regardless of which side you take, a middle ground would be required to avoid mechanical catastrophe.

Not the entire rules, but some parts of them do. The biggest one being is "Do Extracts count as Potions for abilities and effects?" Which, based on its current wording, it is "Yes, unless the rules tell you otherwise (or explicitly mention Extracts)." Another big question is "Do Communal spells (which are on Alchemist spell lists) let you consume only part of the Extract/Infusion so it can be shared with allies, or is it just a bunch of holdover for posterity's sake?" Which, based on how Potions work (and Extracts/Infusions have mechanics identical to Potions), the answer would be "No, you can't share it."

The action required to drink an extract doesn't change unless we have a rule that tells us that it changes, which this feat does. It changes the Extract consumption from '1 Standard Action' to 'In place of an attack while TWFing with a Tankard.' Problem is that they didn't take into account iterative attacks in the feat design (ironic, since the feat requires hefty BAB to acquire it), and instead assumed a 1/round limit.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The main problem here, rules-wise, is that the alchemist tried to do casting but without casting. They then linked that not-casting to a mundane task. Now anything that modifies that mundane task also modifies not-casting.

The alchemist is just a bundle of issues because of this design choice. Honestly, being able to drink their mutagen faster is already pretty powerful. This is why you shouldn't create a thing that is not that thing. It creates murkiness.

The style is also from a splat book. A breeding ground for rules that cause trouble.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Fully agreed, Lorewalker.
The alchemist is a nice idea, but it need a more specific ruleset for how its alchemy ability work.

I have opened a thread about the duration of infusions, one of the open questions about alchemists, it is here, so if you are interested, go there, and click for a FAQ.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Still stepping of the toes of an iconic ability of another class (i.e. getting something very similar to spell combat, with a spell list that is way better at self boosting), but that limitation would change the situation.

Still, RAW, extract have a specific rule about "casting" time. You need a specific rule that explicitly say that it affect extract to override that.

Infusions .... with those there is a lot of uncertainty, as it is very unclear what they inherit and what they don't from the extract rules.

Eh, I don't know alchemists that well. Seems to me though, that we where talking about infusions. That's the extracts turned into temporary potion thing, right? Anyways, why on earth would the ALCHEMIST be the one taking this feat?

No, let the rogue, the ranger, the slayer take it. Alchemist / Brewmaster / Herbalist just needs to fill the cup.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
thaX wrote:

Hey, toasty...

One tankard, as the first hand needs a Rapier or another one handed/light weapon, which the tankard is not. (it is considered a light mace when wielded as the Feat dictates)

So the question is, Main hand (more attacks to sip) or off hand (Better to hit chances with Main Hand weapon)?

If a FAQ does come out, it will likely either exclude Extracts/Fusions, or limit them to once per round.

You can choose every round what is your main and off hand. And the feat text is:

Quote:
Initial Benefit: You can wield a tankard (or mug) as a weapon, treating it in all ways as a light mace appropriate for your size.

Not the usual "wielding it as", but "treating it in all ways as a light mace". Extremely open ended. The guy taking that feat has some strong argument that for him, for all purposes, the tankard is a light mace, including feats like weapon focus, specialization and two handed combat.

To sip from the tankard, you are TWF with it as you do so. TWF is specific as to what weapon is wielded and how the attacks are made. (you are gaining extra attacks with the Off Hand weapon) This is more specific when the light weapon is in the off hand and a One Handed is in the main hand, as when you use the One Handed weapon in the off hand, the penalties would go up for doing so...

Now, you can decide which hand is main and which is off when using your normal attack progression without TWF, but that isn't the subject at hand.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thaX wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
thaX wrote:

Hey, toasty...

One tankard, as the first hand needs a Rapier or another one handed/light weapon, which the tankard is not. (it is considered a light mace when wielded as the Feat dictates)

So the question is, Main hand (more attacks to sip) or off hand (Better to hit chances with Main Hand weapon)?

If a FAQ does come out, it will likely either exclude Extracts/Fusions, or limit them to once per round.

You can choose every round what is your main and off hand. And the feat text is:

Quote:
Initial Benefit: You can wield a tankard (or mug) as a weapon, treating it in all ways as a light mace appropriate for your size.

Not the usual "wielding it as", but "treating it in all ways as a light mace". Extremely open ended. The guy taking that feat has some strong argument that for him, for all purposes, the tankard is a light mace, including feats like weapon focus, specialization and two handed combat.

To sip from the tankard, you are TWF with it as you do so. TWF is specific as to what weapon is wielded and how the attacks are made. (you are gaining extra attacks with the Off Hand weapon) This is more specific when the light weapon is in the off hand and a One Handed is in the main hand, as when you use the One Handed weapon in the off hand, the penalties would go up for doing so...

Now, you can decide which hand is main and which is off when using your normal attack progression without TWF, but that isn't the subject at hand.

You are trying to say that the TWF rules somewhere lock you into using a hand as your main hand forever? If so cite the relevant piece of text.

They lock you into selecting every round what is your main and your secondary hand and sticking to that selection for the whole round, but no more than that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So when you take the full round action, one weapon is in the main hand, and the other in the Off Hand. It matters not which hands they are, but the weapons are locked to the Main/off hand for that full round action when the character does his attacks.

I am just saying that there is a limit on how many sips are available according to which hand (Main or Off) is used to wield the Tankard. You can only sip as many times as you have attacks made with the Tankard. This is assuming one would want to do this more than once in the first place.


Of course. But if your using 2 tankards: 4 from A, 2 from B. Then 4 from B, 2 from A. As mentioned when I noted you could do it 6 times in a round if so inclined.


I think it's a bit absurd that someone would argue that being potion-like and something you drink is "not a liquid".

That's far greater reaching that assuming something you drink falls into "other liquids".

I can understand the design behind making potion glutton not work with extracts, to keep them from being overpowered, however, to assume this ruling extends to other effects, is ridiculous.

If that ruling was intended to work with other effects (which existed at the time that potion glutton was changed to reflect the distinction of excluding extracts), then they would have been changed as well.

The writers may not have known about an ability or feat or trait when creating a new one, but when errata happens, they review other relevant cases.

Potion Glutton was changed because comparatively to other ways to drink potions and liquids, it was far FAR more powerful than something like Accelerated Drinker, A sipping jacked, or this Blade and Tanker feat.

Extracts are absolutely liquids, anyone arguing they're not is insane or being willfully dishonest with simple definitions.

201 to 231 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Cayden Cailean's divine fighting technique = spell combat for alchemists? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.