Alch's page

386 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.

Don't the rules for the Small and Tiny size traits contradict the established rules.

The 'Reduce Person' spell clearly states that for a size reduction by one category there is a strength penalty of -2 and a dexterity bonus of +2.

Since medium is the default, the small trait should thus confer -2 STR and +2 DEX and the tiny trait -4 STR and +4 DEX.
[Note that right now both medium and small are considered default and thus cost 0 RP.]

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

While preparing a lengthier post on historically more accurate rules for the Pathfinder polearms in the Core and APG books, I noticed that the Chain Spear has some strange stat line entries.

Here are my questions:

1) Is the Chain Spear a double weapon?
The damage entries make it look like one [Dmg(S) 1d4/1d4 | Dmg(M) 1d6/1d6], however it doesn't have the 'double' weapon special feature nor does the description explicitly say it is a double weapon.
The only explanation I have is that it is only possible to attack with either the chain end OR the spear end and that the 1d6/1d6 damage stat represents the damage for each end. However, that would make the Chain Spear the only weapon in Pathfinder with such a notation. Other weapons that have multiple separate ways to attack, like the Halberd (either piercing with the tip or slashing with the axe blade) only have one damage stat.

2) Shouldn't the damage type just be piercing instead of piercing AND slashing?
Both weapons the Chain Spear is based on, for each of its ends, are piercing weapons: The Shortspear and the Spiked Chain both have the piercing damage type.

I just found out that the errata for the Adventurer's Armory supplement, where the Chain Spear was first introduced, adds the 'double' special feature to the stat line. This really makes it look like a mistake in the APG.
Also, in the same errata, the damage type is changed to piercing OR slashing. This means we have two different damage type rules for the Chain Spear.

I always understood Sneak Attacks as pinpoint attacks at vulnerable spots.
Somehow doing this with, say, an axe seems strange...

I know it's a bit late, but I already asked these questions when the Adventurer's Armory came out (from which the APG took over the new polearms).

How is it possible for a weapon that doesn't deal piercing damage to have the 'brace' special rule?
Also, historically, the Bardiche was not a 'reach' weapon. It almost never was taller than it's wielder.
See these links:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Strelsy.jpeg&filetimest amp=20070711015037

Same as for the Bardiche, how can a weapon without piercing damage have the 'brace' special rule?
Especially since both the Glaive and the Guisarme don't have 'brace'.

Again, why does a weapon that doesn't deal piercing damage have the 'brace' special rule?

4)Bec de Corbin/Lucerne Hammer:
These two weapons have almost exactly the same rules. This, ironically, makes sense since they just represent two different names for one and the same historical weapon.
It is detrimental for the game however since it effectively reduces the player's available weapon choices.
Since, historically, these polearms also existed with shorter hafts (in fact most of them were about the length of a halberd), I would propose removing the 'reach' special rule on one of them, thus differentiating them more and increasing the player's choices.
'Reach' could be replaced with 'trip' since, just like the halberd, a non-reach version is ideal for tripping opponents (which would be too hard to pull off at reach).

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Here are a few questions about the new rules for Alchemists in the Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat rulebooks. They mainly concern archetypes and feat requirements.

1)Instant Alchemy:
Does 'Instant Alchemy' still work in the same way for those archetypes that don't get 'Swift Alchemy' and 'Swift Poisoning' (Internal Alchemist, Beastmorph and Ragechemist)? IE, when they get 'Instant Alchemy' at level 18, do their alchemical crafting and poisoning speeds "catch up" with those of a normal Alchemist.

2)Clone Master:
Does the 'Clone' spell, which is added as a 6th level extract at level 16, only clone the Alchemist or can it be used on a piece of flesh of any creature?

3)Internal Alchemist:
-Since the Internal Alchemist does not have the 'Throw Anything' class feature, does that mean he only adds his Intelligence modifier to damage from 'Bombs' but NOT to damage from thrown splash weapons like a flask of 'Alchemical Fire'?
-Why is 'Extra Ki' listed among the possible 'Bonus Feats'?

At level 10, 'Dream' and 'Nightmare' are added as 4th level extracts, while they are available as 5th level extracts in the Formulae list of the Advanced Player's Guide. Is this intentional? If so, could a Psychonaut then also add and prepare them as 5th level extracts?

5)Tumor Familiar:
Does an Alchemist with this discovery count has having the "familiar class feature" (which is the prerequisite for certain feats like: 'Evolved Familiar')?

6)Bottled Ally:
-Does an Alchemist with this class feature count as having the "ability to cast summon nature's ally" (which is the prerequisite for certain feats like: 'Moonlight Summons')?
-In the same way, does an Alchemist with this class feature AND the 'Planar Preservationist' feat count as having the "ability to cast summon monster" (which is the prerequisite for certain feats like: 'Skeleton Summoner')?

7)Rage Mutagen:
Does an Alchemist with this class feature count as having the "rage class feature" (which is the prerequisite for certain feats like: 'Furious Finish')?

My current group plays Pathfinder in English, but that's because we're all really good at it (native speakers, people with long stays in English speaking countries).
In one previous (D&D) group I managed to convince them to translate everything on the go. Most of the time though, I'm left with playing native or translated RPGs.

The archetypes for the core classes are yet another great idea from Paizo's designers. Now I'm wondering if we'll be seeing this concept applied to the new base classes in the APG? And if so, when and where?

Are there any plans for the future involving rules (rulebooks) for post level 20 characters?

Could anyone explain this to me?
It doesn't make any sense to me... What does personality have to do with using magic devices? Wouldn't intelligence or maybe wisdom be the obvious choice?

8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.

Here are a few points from the rules of the master chymist that I have questions about:

- Bomb-Thrower:
"Add the character’s alchemist and master chymist levels together to determine the damage done by her bombs."

Does this mean that, for the other bomb variables that depend on the number of alchemist levels (number of bombs per day and DC for the reflex save of splash damage), the master chymist does NOT add his alchemist and master chymist levels?

- Mutate:
"...and adds together her alchemist and master chymist levels together to determine her effective alchemist level for the duration of this form."

(First of all, there's a typo: the second "together" is redundant)

Does this mean that, if the she starts out in her normal form and either uses her mutate ability or drinks her mutagen to change into her mutagenic form, the duration of the mutagenic form depends solely on the number of her alchemist levels, but if she already is in her mutagenic form and uses her mutate ability or drinks her mutagen the duration depends on the sum of master chymist and alchemist levels?

In the same vein: "(with the new mutagen’s modifiers replacing the current modifiers, and the longer duration taking precedent)"

Is the "longer duration" only due to the renewed use of the ability (thus refreshing the duration) or is it also a reference to the addition of both the number of master chymist and alchemist levels to determine the duration (instead of just using the number of alchemist levels)?

"The chymist remains in her mutagenic form until its duration expires, her magic is interrupted (as with an antimagic field), or she expends another use of her mutate ability."

Does this mean that, in the mutagenic form the mutate ability can be EITHER used to refresh the duration (and possibly change the modifiers) of the mutagenic form OR used to return to the normal form?

- Dual Mind:
"If she has no more uses of the mutate ability remaining for the day, she cannot use dual mind."

Does this mean that, if she has no more uses of the mutate ability, she also loses her +2 Will bonus? Or does "using" dual mind only refer to the re-roll in the next round?

- Nimble:
"The master chymist’s lithe physical frame gives her an alchemical bonus on all Dexterity checks, Dexterity skill checks, and CMD, and a natural armor bonus to her Armor Class."

Shouldn't the AC bonus be a dodge bonus and not a natural armor bonus?

I posted a question about special grappling actions in a different thread but there was no answer, so I'm reposting it as a separate thread.


On a side note, I have a question about the special grappling actions (like the "Move" mentioned above). As I understand it, they work the following way:

In order to take a special grappling action, you must succeed at a grapple check AND be the "grappler" (ie the one that can stop grappling with a free action) before you take it.
Being the "grappler" means that you succeeded at a grapple check in the previous round AND that the foe did not manage to free himself or reverse the grapple (becoming the "grappler" himself) in between. If the foe manages either of the two, the grapple check you would make on your turn would count as a "new" attempt at grappling (ie you have to become the "grappler" first again).

This whole "two-round-grappling" is because making a grapple check costs a standard action and you can only take one per round, although you would need two: one to become the "grappler" and one to take the special action.
The second grapple check ALSO prolongs the grappling (although one could argue that prolonging it is the main goal and the special action is just an added bonus).

Is that the correct interpretation? The rules could be clearer about this (especially about the whole "grappler" thing).

I was wondering if, from a licensing point of view, a PFRPG pc game is possible. This is independent of any questions of desirability.

Would Paizo be allowed to sell the license for a game based on PFRPG mechanics?

I'm looking for an alchemical item that is a bomb - a BIG bomb.
Something that is too dangerous to directly use it in combat and that does massive damage. Its primary use should be for destroying structures (buildings, walls, rock,...), rather than killing enemies (although it should be quite lethal to anyone within the blast radius once it goes of).

As far as I know there are no rules for such an item yet. Anybody have any ideas?

I was thinking of simply extrapolating from the fuse grenade, especially damage and price wise. I'd use the same craft DC of 25. A few differences would be that it can't be thrown, has a longer fuse (maybe freely settable) and maybe even requires several rounds (maybe 10) and a successful alchemy craft check (15 or 20?) to set up and light.

Damage and price extrapolation from the fuse grenade:
I suspect a linear price-damage relation is unbalanced, so I'll go with a square relation. Thus a bomb that does 10 times the damage (10d6 fire and 20d6 bludgeoning) should cost 10² as much (10,000 gp). The range is should have a linear relation to the damage (thus for 10*dmg = 100 feet).

What do you think? Is this reasonably balanced?

EDIT: Maybe the bludgeoning damage type should be replaced with force damage, since most damage comes from the shockwave?

The problem I am having is that I post something in the correct sub-forum, only to have it completely ignored, because the sub-forum is visited maybe once a month.

If you ask me there are way too many different sub-forums. The community's attention/activity is focused on only a very few of them.

At least give us the possibility to move our thread from one sub-forum to another.

Made my day!

Tell me how it tasted ;)

This is a repost from the official AA thread (it seems to be dead).


Hi there!

As a big polearm fan, I am very happy that so many new ones were added in this book.

However there seem to be quite a few problems with their entries in the weapons table and I am surprised nobody noticed anything.

Some of the issues I have actually touch on a problem in the core book, that up until now I had dismissed as an unavoidable balancing "artifact". However this book flatly contradicts my assumption. What I am talking about is the fact that while the halberd has the "brace" rule, the ranseur and lance don't. My assumption was that they didn't have it because they were "reach" weapons and thus were too long and unwieldy to quickly brace. This book however flatly contradicts this "rule". I would really like a clarification with a consistent argument. By the way, another assumption I made is also contradicted in this book: I always thought that the "brace" rule is only for weapons with piercing damage and an upward facing spear-head.

Another general problem is that in the real world, there are a lot of different designs summarized under the same polearm name. A good example for this is the Guisarme. Originally it was a spear with an attached pruning hook. However there were also voulge- or bill-like designs with blades. Since in the core book the damage is slicing(S), I assumed it referred to the blade variant. Now that this book adds so many new designs, I strongly recommend a change back to the original form of a "spear-and-hook" (giving it piercing(P) damage and maybe "brace" - depending on your answer to the question on reach and brace going together or not).

Here is the list of the polearms in this book that from my perspective seem problematic:

- Bardiche: Historically this weapon had the same size as a halberd (about 5 feet) and should thus not be a reach weapon. It also doesn't have a upward facing spear-head with which one could effectively impale a charging enemy, thus no "brace".

- Bec de Corbin/Lucerne Hammer: In terms of medieval weapons' classifications the difference between these two weapons is very vague. As with most names for medieval weapons, the different denominations are more often due to linguistic/regional differences than distinctive designs. At face value both weapons are the same (one might argue that they favor different ends of their heads, but that is conjecture, as it depends as much on the smith making the weapon and the person commissioning it, than anything else). It would be much better to look at the general class of weapons called pole-axes (to which the halberd also belongs) and then to differentiate by the real differences in design.
Generally these weapons' heads have three "slots". The top is always occupied by a spear-head. For the two side-slots there are three options. It could either be an axe, a hammer (with or without prongs) or a pick (sometimes as a hook). Thus in all we have three possibilities: axe-pick (aka halberd), axe-hammer and hammer-pick (aka Lucerne Hammer or Bec de Corbin). [Interestingly there are also rare occurrences of pole-axes with 2 hammer or 2 axe heads.]
Instead of making the minimal difference between these two weapons, I would strongly recommend to only add one of them and to replace the other with the axe-hammer combination and call it "Poleaxe" (sometimes also written as "Pollaxe") or "Hache" (from the French "Jeu de la Hache"). While I'll leave the damage and crit up to you, the damage type for the axe-hammer/Poleaxe has to consequently be "B or S or P". Also generally pole-axes weren't much longer than 5 feet (ie halberd->sized) and thus shouldn't have "reach". "Brace" is a given for all of them and those with a pick on the side should have "trip".

- Bill: As a classification for weapons this name is almost as bad as pole-axes. I'll go with the original design, which similarly to the guisarme was due to peasants attaching agricultural tools to poles. In the bill's case they used billhooks (a mix between a knife and an axe, normally used for snedding and limbing). It's defining feature is that the sharp edge is on the side of the hook, thus making it a curved blade.
I strongly disagree that the hook was used for parrying as the text mentions. It was used for dismounting and tripping. The original also didn't have a pointed spear-tip (although later versions commonly had both a spear-tip and a hook on the blunt side). Accordingly the special rules should be: "reach, trip, see text" and the text shouldn't have the +1 AC rule. Also, one might argue that the damage type should be slashing AND piercing (S and P).

- Glaive-Guisarme: Essentially this is a glaive with a hook on the dull side of the blade (making it the inverse of the bill). As such it shouldn't have the "brace" rule. It should however have the "trip" rule (like the guisarme). I would also make it slightly heavier than the normal glaive.

That's pretty much it. Hope this helps.


I would like to know if there are specific vital statistics (esp. height and weight) for the different human sub-races published somewhere?

PS: This is a repost. I originally posted this in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting part of the Messageboards (which to me seems the correct place for this question), but there was no reaction whatsoever. There seems to be a real problem with structure of these forums. There are so many branches/sub-forums that some parts are totally devoid of activity.

I would like to know if there are vital statistics for the different human sub-races published somewhere?