This is quite nice. Even if I don't want to make my encounters challenging, I can still use this to gauge a lower challenge fight. It gives solid guidelines for determining appropriate CR for an encounter.
I also noticed that 9 people were viewing the document, which is impressive for such an old document. Cheers, thanks for the great read.
Hmm, so with the 3 action system, I can now do 3 actions that were swift actions before. In pathfinder you cant do 3 swift actions, which is dumb since they supposed to take "less" time. For instance, you can't use two spring loaded wrist sheaths in the same round. But with the 3 action system, you could write the wrist sheath to say something like... "drawing the item and using it only takes 1 action." So, in theory you could wrist sheath a dagger into your hand and attack as 1 action and then wrist sheath a potion into the other hand and drink it as your 2nd action.
I'm sure it will take some balancing, but this system does sound like it will have some great potential.
The best use i've seen for a Kasatha is wielding a kinetic melee weapon and an energy melee weapon for use with Deflect/Reflect projectiles. You could wield a Longarm as well, and that would make you deadly in a firefight.
You can fire with no penalties with your Longarm, same as anyone else. But whenever someone fires upon you, you get a chance to reflect those attacks, whether they be energy or kinetic.
In my game, I said that only armor and weapons have removable batteries. Other technological items have stationary batteries that cannot be removed.
I ruled that the stationary batteries in technological items can be recharged by removable batteries, but that removable batteries can't be recharged by stationary batteries.
I know that is a very loose interpretation of how it is written, but it makes logical sense, and saves the problem of the comm unit having an 80 charge battery. The battery can't be removed or used for anything other than the comm.
So the Phase Shield has a capacity of 40 and a usage of 2 but no duration on the usage. Same with the Titan Shield which has a capacity of 40 and a usage of 10 but no duration on the usage. How long do these items continue to operate? Are they use once and gain a constant effect until disabled? If so, that just boggles the mind and defies physics. Can i leave a titan shield on forever?
Thanks for your input Orfamay Quest.
I was thinking of working with the cleric to create various potions to infuse the Homunculus with Spell-LIke Abilities. Cure Serious Wounds with the monster feat "Empower Spell-Like Ability" seems like it could be useful. Maybe some spells like Barkskin and Shield of Faith.
My primary fear is that, even though I don't intend to have the Homunculus fighting on the front lines, an errant fireball or lightning bolt could destroy the poor little guy, and then i'm left with nothing.
I guess that is always a concern with companions. The more I think about it though, the homunculus just doesn't seem to be a worthwhile investment for the risk involved.
I have a level 10 wizard and I am considering building a Homunculus using the Craft Construct feat. I have some questions regarding the rules, primarily
1) How many HD can it have maximum? Is the Homunculus limited in its HD by size and/or HD of my wizard?
2) How many feats can it have based on HD? Which feats would be available (monster feats only or all feats)?
Also, does anyone have experience with building constructs in general or specifically a Homunculus, and what advice would you give regarding design?
My wizard already has a familiar, so I am building the Homunculus as a second companion, rather than as a familiar.
How come this thread died without any discussion? This is the exact line of questioning that I have as well.
What are the limits of a crafted homunculus with regards to the "Building and Modifying Constructs" page?
Is my homunculus capped at 8HD based on the CR limit for a tiny construct?
@JackofDust: That ability is obscure at best, and it doesn't explicitly state that extracts do in fact provoke attacks of opportunity. You are implying that extracts provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances because the ability's text says that they do not when having this ability. However, if they do not provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances, they still would not provoke while under the effects of this ability.
Since the rules for pathfinder do not state that extracts provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances anywhere, including here, it seems that you had it right when you said, "The first part of this ability mentioning an extract would not be at all necessary."
It is in fact, not at all necessary, because regardless of whether you have this ability or not, extracts do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
You are implying an attack of opportunity from a line of text which is at best ambiguous. It does not say "refer to the rules for potions" or any such thing. It simply says that you drink extracts. If you can find a rule that explicitly states that all items which you must drink provoke attacks of opportunity, I will concede the point to you. Until you are able to produce such a rule, you have no ground upon which to stand with your argument. It might "make sense" in an intuitive way, but that has nothing to do with the way that pathfinder rules work.
"In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist's level as the caster level. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not."
They are not potions, though they do behave like potions in many ways. However, It is not even clear that extracts are liquids.
from the potion text
"A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed. Potions vary incredibly in appearance."
from the extract text
"When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and reagents in the extract with magic siphoned from his own magical aura."
It doesn't say anything about being a liquid, and I'm not trying to make any wild claims that extracts aren't liquids, all I'm saying is that whatever they are, the composition isn't the same as that of a potion.
There is a big difference between taking a sip of something, and having to stop in combat to chug a big ol' hefty potion. While this point might seem to you to be arbitrary for some reason, it simply reiterates the fact that extracts and potions are not the same thing, they are not created the same way, the action required to drink them is different, and basically everything about extracts and potions is different, except for the fact that they must be imbibed through the mouth.
And I realize that this point has been made many times, but if your argument is somehow that drinking extracts IS THE SAME as drinking potions, then the rules for accelerated drinking would work. There is no convincing argument which you can make for the act of drinking extracts being the same as the act of drinking potions in light of the following rule:
"Does the Accelerated Drinker feat allow a character to drink an alchemist extract as a move action?
For two actions to be identical, they must be identical. That is simple tautological logic. If drinking an extract is not affected by Accelerated Drinker, then drinking extracts and drinking potions IS NOT THE SAME.
They do not provoke attacks of opportunity until you can find an explicit rule that states that all objects which you drink provoke attacks of opportunity.
'An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion'
If you are getting hung up on this, perhaps you should read this:
"It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spell casting."
Drinking a potion DOES NOT "include retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spell casting."
Therefore, when combining ALL of the text regarding an extract specifically, it reads:
"An extract is 'cast' by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion. It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spell casting."
That IS NOT the same as drinking a potion, it simply involves putting it into your mouth, the same as you put potions.. or tacos for that matter.. in your mouth. Furthermore, nowhere in that text does it explicitly state that extracts provoke AOOs.
Extracts are Su magical items, they are not potions. It might seem counter intuitive, pathfinder has many quirks and nuances, but using extracts does NOT provoke AOO.
According to the table at https://secure.paizo.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/DirectAction/creat eNewPost?post=v5748gbin0dop&thread=v5748rzs2rh00#newPost
Actions that provoke AOOs.
"Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil: NO"
"Drink a potion or apply an oil: YES"
"Use supernatural ability: NO"
According to the Alchemist Class descriptions at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist
"An alchemist can create three special types of magical items—extracts, bombs, and mutagens are transformative elixirs that the alchemist drinks to enhance his physical abilities—both of these are detailed in their own sections below."
Here it clearly states that Extracts are magical items. They are also Su abilities. They are NOT potions.
To give you an example from the alchemist ability list, bombs, which are also magical items and Su, and the text for which explicitly states AOO status:
"Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb requires a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity."
This is a clear example of what the text would say if extracts provoked AOOs, taken from the Alchemist text itself.
Extracts DO NOT provoke AOOs.
You may close the thread now.