Search Posts
So, what would be the best way to notify a staff member about this, so that this can be fixed? Do they already monitor the forums? It isn't a Paizo error. The .pdf is correct according to what Mathmuse said. The Archives of Nethys team is a licensed partner, but they are separate. I expect that they have their own process for people reporting errors.
The vast majority of Reddit comments on this over the year agree with me that Sense the Unseen/See Invisibility doesn't help against Disappearance. So... Appeal to the Majority fallacy. ----- This entire debate hinges on whether Invisibility means anything more than 'Undetected to the sense of vision'. That and truncating the rule quote from Disppearance. The full quote is "count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have". The idea that 'count as invisible' means something other than being Invisible for the sense of vision doesn't really hold up when you look at the full quote. The Invisibility condition only references vision as a sense. The full quote from Disappearance is making it clear that the same style of condition is applied to all senses, not just vision. What 'count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have' means is that you do have the standard Invisible condition. And you have a variant, unnamed condition similar to Invisible that foils the sense of hearing. And you have a variant, unnamed condition similar to Invisible that foils tremorsense. And you have a variant, unnamed condition similar to Invisible that foils Scent. And you have a variant, unnamed condition similar to Invisible that foils echolocation. And you have a variant, unnamed condition similar to Invisible that... You get the idea. So yes. See the Unseen would interact with the Invisibility to vision condition that is part of, but not the entirety of, the Disappearance spell. You could even homebrew a Smell the Unseen variant spell that counters the Invisibility to Scent part of Disappearance.
If you don't like the way it is written because of the level disparity, houserule in a counteract check to it then. At that point the level disparity doesn't cause problems. Don't try to tell me that it isn't written the way that it is written. Invisibility makes you Undetected to vision. Disappearance makes you undetected to vision and all other senses. See the Unseen works on Invisibility. So See the Unseen works on the visual sense of Disappearance. Same as it works on Invisibility. It won't overcome the other sensory Undetected conditions.
And that is what sounds like trying to game the system by nit-picking the wording. What does Invisible do? Oh, right. It causes the creature to be Undetected to everyone using vision as their only precise sense. So 'being invisible' and 'counting as invisible' both mean that you are Undetected to people looking for you and See the Unseen does interact.
The multiple attack penalty applies only during your turn, so you don't have to keep track of it if you can perform a Reactive Strike or a similar reaction that lets you make a Strike on someone else's turn. Strike is just an example. Other Attack trait actions such as Escape would follow the same rule. No you would not take a MAP penalty on Escape actions that you make as a reaction or free action when not your turn. No matter how many of them you (somehow) make during one round.
OK. Two things with the same name. Cool. I still wouldn't let Disappearance completely negate the See the Unseen spell. If See the Unseen only lets you negate the invisibility, then that is still sufficient to let you see the target of Disappearance by sight as described in the See the Unseen spell. You still wouldn't be able to detect the target of Disappearance by scent, or tremorsense (so hiding from you would still be easier). But you could find them by sight using See the Unseen.
No, that sounds like players trying to game the system by nit-picking the wording. Disappearance would cause the target to become Undetected to all senses. Sight, scent, even tremorsense. But See the Unseen would mean that while the Goloma happens to be adjacent to that target, it is still only Hidden instead of Undetected, and only needs a DC 5 flat check to target them successfully.
That doesn't give you any additional spell slots, just additional spells in your repertoire. Exactly. Rule citation for that: Though you gain them at the same rate, your spell slots and the spells in your spell repertoire are separate. If a feat or other ability adds a spell to your spell repertoire, it wouldn't give you another spell slot or vice versa. But once you do have some 6th level spell slots from Bloodrager, go for it. Barbarian Lich is completely on the table.
I can't think of any reason why not.
One is Medic dedication, and in actual play, on a Forensic Medicine Investigator; this amplifies their non-magical healing capacity from A-tier to S-tier by nature of improving its Battle Medicine healing, as well as increasing its frequency in-combat as well as throughout the adventuring day.Without it, the in-combat healing would be A-tier at the most, or more accurately, B-tier compared to Chirurgeon Alchemist (who could probably reach SS-tier with it). That is still available without Free Archetype. Like I said way back here, "I think the mistake many people make is in comparing a Free Archetype build with a build that uses no archetypes at all. That is not the comparison that is needed. The comparison should be between a Free Archetype build and a build using the standard archetype rules." That may be an S-tier ability. But it is an S-tier ability that is available with the default rules. Free Archetype didn't add it. All Free Archetype is adding to the build is giving back the Class feat slots so that they can used for other things instead of having to spend those Class feat slots on the Medic archetype feats.
Prerequisite from Adopted Ancestry is "don’t require any physiological feature that you lack" Also to note: That restriction is on the choice of Ancestry Feats - not on the choice of Ancestry. The full rule is You can select ancestry feats from the ancestry you chose, in addition to your character’s own ancestry, as long as the ancestry feats don’t require any physiological feature that you lack, as determined by the GM. So, for example, the GM could rule that you couldn't pick Orc: Tusks, or Goblin: Hard Tail because the Halfling lacks the necessary anatomy. But that doesn't restrict picking Orc or Goblin as a valid choice for Adopted Ancestry in general. Just those specific feats.
Class Archetypes are different from regular Archetypes. Class Archetypes will affect your character starting at level 1. Regular Archetypes won't affect your character until you take the Dedication feat for them. With the rules as-written, you can put a Class Archetype's Dedication feat in your level 2 Free Archetype feat slot, leaving your level 2 Class feat slot available for a Class feat of your choice. Because that Class Archetype Dedication feat is just a normal Archetype feat. Even though it is coming from a Class Archetype. You couldn't take a different Dedication with your level 2 Class feat slot unless you have one of the Class Archetypes that don't have the restriction on needing additional feats before being allowed to take another Dedication. All that said, Free Archetype is often houseruled. Allowing multiple Dedication feats is one of the most common houserules.
I'm going to try explaining this one more time. Because I think this is just a terminology difference, not even a difference of opinion. Power is how high you can get a number. Flexibility is how many high numbers you can get. So a standard character will have some A-tier powerful numbers, a few more B-tier numbers, and some C-tier or lower numbers. A Free Archetype character will have more A-tier numbers. But they still won't have any S-tier or SS-tier numbers. So by my terminology, Free Archetype is adding flexibility - more A-tier numbers. It is not adding power - S-tier or SS-tier numbers. And I think you can even agree with that. I'm GMing SoT right now and I gave my players FA. It hasn't been a problem. But it absolutely did make them stronger. (Not enough to make the rituals doable, though.) They would need more power (higher numbers) in order to succeed at Rituals. The Flexibility of Free Archetype doesn't give that. ----- Another meaning of Power would be abilities that have a larger effect or impact. For example, Whirlwind Strike is a more powerful effect than Swipe. Free Archetype doesn't add more power in this way either. Because any combination of abilities that you can find and piece together using archetypes is generally available without the extra feats from Free Archetype. And Free Archetype doesn't give more actions in a round. A Fighter with a spellcasting archetype still has to choose whether to spend their actions on spellcasting or on weapon attacks. They don't get to do both at the same time by having an additional pool of Archetype actions to use during their turn. ----- Yes, it can also be called Power to increase those B-tier or C-tier abilities up to A-tier. The reason that I am trying to make that distinction is because this meaning of Power isn't something that the GM or AP writers really need to adjust for. It isn't causing characters to be able to do things that exceed expectations of the adventure preparations. ----- So what I find misleading to me is to say that Free Archetype 'adds power to the characters' if it doesn't mean changing A-tier numbers and abilities up to S-tier. Increasing C-tier abilities up to A-tier is not going to break anything and doesn't exceed the power cap.
Or summon two minions at once, using the free sustain to have 3 actions left for the second summon. That is true. It would be a more reasonable scenario if summoning creatures wasn't such a waste of actions and spell slots in the first place. A better scenario might be to cast a Wall spell such as Wall of Force or Wall of Stone mid-battle after you already have a sustained spell active.
That's what I am calling giving flexibility and options. Not power. Yes, with Free Archetype you are getting more abilities. But none of the abilities that you can get are more powerful than normal. You get more options of what to spend your actions on. You don't get more powerful actions to use. And yes, as I said initially, the flexibility is useful and can be considered power as well. Especially in PF2 where combats often feel more like a puzzle to be solved. It is power of a different form though.
I don't believe that Free Archetype adds a noticeable amount of actual power. It can add flexibility, and flexibility can be useful or powerful. I think the mistake many people make is in comparing a Free Archetype build with a build that uses no archetypes at all. That is not the comparison that is needed. The comparison should be between a Free Archetype build and a build using the standard archetype rules. Most of the combinations that add notable power to a build can be done without Free Archetype feat slots. You just have to give up a bunch of secondary things for the loss of those slots. For example: A character that gets free archetype, chooses Acrobat, and picks up Dodge Away reaction is getting a huge power boost as they get a reaction to increase their AC and move for free, as well as progression a skill that has some generally pretty awesome feats in it. With Free Archetype, that build comes available at level 6 - the level of Dodge Away. Without Free Archetype, that same combination is still available at level 6. You can absolutely have both Acrobat dedication and Dodge Away at that level under the standard archetyping rules. So be sure that in talking about a 'power boost' of Free Archetype, you aren't just talking about the power of the archetypes themselves. I do agree with the idea that adding Free Archetype can be more complexity than some players want to deal with. I also agree with the idea that some players don't want a particular character to have an archetype. Forcing one with Free Archetype would be a problem. I also believe that the value of Free Archetype is highest with fewer numbers of player characters. If you are playing a table with 6 characters, Free Archetype may be a bit too much. It may be better to have the characters more narrowly defined in order to allow them to specialize and get screen time of their own. I can understand the idea of having a campaign that gives Free Archetype with a particular list of archetypes available in order to have the characters follow a theme - such as Strength of Thousands. Or the undead/monster themed campaign that I am currently joining. But there is nothing wrong with allowing unrestricted Free Archetype. It isn't going to cause pretty much any problems. The published APs don't need adjustments for it.
It may be a bit strange that repairing an item does not require the same feats that crafting the item in the first place does (such as having Magical Crafting to repair magical items). But that requirement is not written in there. Only the DC is the same as the initial crafting DC. You could even try repairing high level items while untrained in Crafting. It... wouldn't work because of the DC... but you could try.
Anyway, I can't comment on your analysis of Trade Life For Death without its full text Same boat. Just going off what was posted, it looks like it targets any creature, so you could target yourself. I am assuming that enemies would get a save of some sort. Overall I'd say it's a Rube Goldberg machine of a healing solution when there are so many other "unlimited out of combat healing" options available in the game. I would probably roll my eyes but allow anything that's w/i the rules except the bag of rats if you pulled it at my table It looks like an average of 8 HP net gain per minute. I'm guessing per rank. Which would be about 80 HP per rank in 10 minutes. Witch can also get Life Boost to do 8 HP per 10 minutes. That is 10 times slower, but will still get the job done. And it isn't even one of the better options. Ocean's Balm from Kineticist does 1d8 per 'Rank' equivalent, but does it to the entire party every 10 minutes. Depending on party size that is up to about half as fast as this Trade Life for Death option. And then we get to Garden of Healing from Animist. 1d4 per rank healing per round to the entire party for an entire minute, then a 10 minute focus point recharge. That is an average of 20 HP per 10 minutes for the entire party. With a 4 person party, that matches the 80 HP per rank in 10 minutes of Trade Life for Death as presented. Out of combat healing has diminishing returns for speed. At some point, fast enough is fast enough.
Wow that's not a very good focus spell than. Thank you for clarifying that. It would have been quite good if it was for the entirety of the spell but for one round I would definitely pass on it. Having that cost is what makes it balanced. Otherwise it would be a must-pick for nearly every spellcaster to pick up Witch Dedication and Cackle. A free action Sustain is still very powerful. Even with the focus point cost. Focus points are renewable. Being able to Stride to position to effectively cast a 2-action line or cone AoE spell ... and be able to maintain a sustained duration spell... From as early as level 1. That's pretty good.
No. For the cost of a focus point and your Hex for the round, you get a bog standard Sustain for a free action instead of the normal 1-action cost that Sustain has. Well, almost bog standard. It is limited to only being able to Sustain a spell.
It basically looks like I'd get 3 (odd levels) or 4 (even levels) of max rank spells per day plus obviously some focus spells. Do Sorcerers have anything like Drain Bonded Item for Wizard to restore some spell slots? Not really, no. But being spontaneous casters, they can cast the same spell repeatedly until they run out of spell slots. For Heal, I have found that I don't even always need top Rank spell slots for it (Playing a Divine Witch in Age of Ashes). It is just an emergency measure to keep people away from the danger zone of dropping. Often, Max-1 Rank or even Max-2 Rank works well enough for that as long as you are using the 2-action version. Having everyone end the battle at 30% HP is good enough. And as long as you have Heal as a signature spell (highly recommended if you are taking on the role of primary in-combat healer), you can choose on the fly which Rank of slot to cast it from. You can also augment with scrolls, wands, or staff of healing.
Again, mirrors are not definitionally 'Magic Hand Held Items' or 'Held Items'. A Thaumaturge Mirror Implement is defined as: thaumaturges always choose small, portable, handheld mirrors as implements so they can use them easily while adventuring. Which makes them a held item. And I am done arguing this. You cannot turn a shield into a Mirror Implement or hold a shield and still benefit from Implement's Empowerment while at my tables. I'm hiding this thread.
And that is where I have to draw the line and say that this is not RAW. Having a magical item as an implement is fine. That is specified in the rules for an implement. But it has to be the same type of item. Having a Bottomless Stein as your Chalice implement works just fine. (No, it wouldn't let you increase the frequency that you could use your Chalice Implement abilities) Personally, I wouldn't allow by RAW creating a Shield with a mirror-like surface and calling it a Mirror Implement. That is the wrong item type. But even if you could, it is still a Shield if you are able to use it as a shield. And holding a shield means that you are violating the requirements of Implement's Empowerment. You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica You don't even need to be wielding the shield. Holding it is sufficient to turn off Implement's Empowerment.
I'm not sure what is unclear here. It doesn't matter what the 'usual check' is. you can roll Diplomacy in place of the usual check You replace the usual check - whatever it happens to be - with Diplomacy. You roll Diplomacy as your Aid check. For whatever action your ally is using and you are aiding them at.
This essentially makes flexible spellcasting a free and good choice for them, from what I can tell, all you lose are 2 cantrips and a second level feat, which is probably worth it for flexible spellcasting. Exactly. Free and good choice... all you lose are 2 cantrips and a second level feat. Which is too good to be true. The requirement is: Prerequisites: You must have a class, such as clerics, druids, witches, and wizards, that prepares spells in spell slots using the same number of prepared spells per day. Focusing only on the 'same number of prepared spells per day' part makes it seem like a class that has 2 spell slots per level would qualify because 2 is the number and it is the same for all spell levels. But, as mentioned earlier, that would be too good to be true because then the Flexible Spellcasting table would remove no spell slots. You would still have 2 spell slots per level after applying the changes. So the proper interpretation of that requirement is that you have to have the same number of prepared spells per day as those example classes of Cleric, Druid, Witch and Wizard. What we often call a 3-slot caster.
Fascinating. And while the Shield/Mirror is being wielded as a shield and used for Raise a Shield and Shield Block, does it still only qualify as an Implement (and not a Shield) and therefore doesn't turn off Implement's Empowerment (which specifically doesn't allow holding anything other than one weapon and Implements)?
A Hostile Action is defined, even if it is defined loosely. And it is definitely defined as something different from the Attack trait. A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm. Escape is my go-to example of an action that has the Attack trait but is not inherently a Hostile Action. There are some others, but they are more situational. Such as using Grapple to prevent an ally from stepping off of a precipice because they are confused or fleeing or fooled by an illusion. That usage of Grapple definitely does not qualify as a Hostile Action. Grappling an enemy to hold them down while you or an ally stabs them repeatedly is a Hostile Action. The stabbing is also Hostile, but the Grappling is itself Hostile as well.
The Illuminate cantrip is also an amazing way to accidentally burn a house down because you didn't notice a candle fell and rolled under a couch. Hah. That is phenomenal.
Monk with witch archetype would probably make the best hair martial. Then pick up the generic martial feats like Flurry of Maneuvers and Mixed Maneuver to do interesting things with your hair. Yeah. Pretty much Clinging Shadows but 4 levels earlier, takes up an archetype buy in, and costs two feats instead of one. It is good if you already want Witch archetype on your Monk for other reasons.
Wait you so your take away from "historically silver mirrors as polished bits of metal are also available in the game rules" is that I'm talking about RL physics? No, it is more the "Mirrors have existed out to 8000 BCE and made of various materials including obsidian, silver, and copper" part. And that being 'polished to a mirror finish' changes the game's classification of item type.
Strawman is where I present a warped and twisted variation of your argument and argue against that modified version. I am not doing that. Poking holes in your argument is not a strawman. Neither is presenting my own argument that these item types are separate. These shields you mention don't even have 'mirror' in the name. A Silver shield doesn't even have any reflective properties. And the reflective properties of the Turnabout Shield never causes it to be classified as a 'mirror' item type. All that a Turnabout Shield reflects is ammunition. Being 'polished to a mirror finish' doesn't make the item type turn into a mirror. A Mirror is adventuring gear. That is its item type. An Enigma Mirror is a spellheart. A Void Mirror is mounted in a frame. A Mirror of Sorshen is a held magical item. And an artifact, but that isn't as important. A Mirror Implement does not have an item type of 'Mirror' and it certainly doesn't have an item type of 'Shield'. It has an item type of Held Item. Of those 'Mirror' items that I listed, only the adventuring gear Mirror and the Mirror of Sorshen has an item type that matches the Mirror Implement: held item. A shield definitely does not have a matching item type, no matter how reflective it is.
IMO Paizo puts feats like this in to function as a third action option. If you think about it as 'this feat gives me an extra MAPless attack if I can't get out of melee and I've already cast a spell...but with my proficiency and attributes it's about like another PC's MAP -5 attack' then you're probably thinking about it right. Which is why the Hair one is the only one that is even remotely viable - because it does have Finesse and you don't need to drop DEX and your resulting AC in order to use it with more than a +0 attribute bonus. The Nails having Agile and not Finesse is just bonkers. No Witch should be using two STR-based melee physical attacks in one round.
What makes the Armaments Nails bad is that you could save yourself a couple of feats and bump your spell attack attribute back up to max at the cost of dropping your STR and getting a dagger or other Finesse weapon. It would be a couple points lower in damage, but you aren't a high damage dealer anyway.
I've played two Oracles in PFS. Flames Oracle and Lore Oracle. I would probably still play both of them now if I had the time. As a spellcaster class, Oracle is pretty good currently. I think it holds its own in competition with the other spellcasting classes like Sorcerer, Cleric (Cloistered), or Witch. It is just - as I mentioned initially - not able to be built in strange ways now after the Remaster. It is now fully a spellcasting class. Plenty of people don't like that change. I'm mostly fine with it. Though even I am not impressed with how Battle Oracle was handled. Because that Mystery is still trying to say that you can build Oracle as something other than a full spellcaster - and it doesn't work. Battle Oracle would probably need to be a Class Archetype in order to get stats more along the lines of Warpriest in order to fill that spellcaster hybrid role again.
Nice. Physical obstacles can't hold back your fury. While you are raging, you gain a climb Speed and swim Speed equal to your land Speed, and the DC of High Jumps and Long Jumps decreases by 10... Yeah, that's Raging Athlete.
But I'm not using RL physics at any point in my arguments, that is a straw man. Don't try to gaslight us.
So a Cosmos Oracle that gets the same Oracular Warning feat (or any other Oracle that pays for the feat) and puts a point of their training in Athletics is just as much a Battle Oracle as a Battle Oracle is.The mystery didn't grant Athletics, so no on that. I never said it does a GOOD job at delivering the flavor text, just that it did so. The game has plenty of things in it that are subpar and 100% intended and not in need of errata and that is my point here: it'd be nice to see a rework on some things, but that doesn't mean that are in error. Not doing a good enough job to the point that the character fantasy doesn't even work (at a mechanical level) isn't good enough. No, saying that Witch's Armaments: Eldritch Nails still exists isn't a sufficient excuse. I'm not really expecting that this is going to ever be changed. Battle Oracle is now just something that doesn't get played because it is so comparatively bad at delivering on what is listed on the tin. Play a Warpriest or Animist specced in to Embodiment of Battle instead. But if Paizo staff ever want Battle Oracle to be regarded well, then it will need errata.
Well, you should be allowed to jump off a cliff if you want to. But you can't land in midair. There are no rules saying that you can. You have to resolve the 'jumping off a cliff' action (whichever action you want to use to represent that) before you use any other actions. So by RAW, you go splat before you can Glide. Either that or you are jumping off of a 500+ foot high cliff. Or you are using Glide while on the ground before you jump off the cliff so that you can hang in the air at the end of your turn. Yes, it makes no sense to run the game this way. That is why it needs errata.
In this case, I don’t think that the plain language even produces the result that Finoan is putting forth, but even if it did, that would be an absurd result, so I think it’d be pretty reasonable to disregard it. I am legitimately confused by this idea. The way that I present the rules for Alchemist's Versatile Vials and Quick Alchemy is how I am reading it. I'm not trolling here - I have a different alias for that. I listed out here what that interpretation results in. The Alchemist has 6 or so Versatile Vials that they can use per battle. They can be crafted into consumables with Quick Alchemy, or crafted into Versatile Vial bombs with Quick Alchemy, or crafted into Field Vials with Quick Alchemy. All for 1 action each. And then the bombs can be thrown or the consumables used. How is that idea so crazy that it is stated as being 'absurd'? Even if the Alchemist player decides to quick bomber two bombs per round, that is still three rounds that they are bombing with before they even touch their daily Advanced Alchemy items.
Another thought. Since Investigator: Alchemical Sciences uses Versatile Vials and says to reference the Alchemist class for definition of what that means, can an Investigator throw a Versatile Vial directly as a bomb? Alchemical Sciences doesn't by itself let the Investigator put bombs of any form into their formula book. Do they recharge their Versatile Vial count back up to their maximum during exploration mode?
Because the alternative interpretation that I am reading this as does still make sense. With the distinction between daily Versatile Vials and the very temporary Versatile Vials, then it makes full sense that: You can use Quick Alchemy to craft a Versatile Vial into a consumable. Or you can use Quick Alchemy to craft a Versatile Vial into a very temporary Versatile Vial and throw it as a bomb (the stats of which are listed in the sidebar). You can't throw a daily Versatile Vial directly. Those stats currently written in the book for Versatile Vial bombs are referencing the very temporary Versatile Vials made from Quick Alchemy. Now, this is not the way that you are interpreting the wording. But is it objectively wrong? Or is it just that you don't read it that way and refuse to acknowledge that the alternative is a valid interpretation and doesn't cause things to be non-functional - just differently-functional. Yes, I do find it very odd that you use Quick Alchemy to turn a Versatile Vial into a Versatile Vial. That is why I really dislike that those two very different concepts are given the same name. Versatile Vial should be for the ones that can be stored for the day in your Alchemist Tools. The ones created by Quick Alchemy should be given some other name like calling it a Quick Vial and changing the sub-action of Quick Alchemy to "Create Quick Vial".
Those sentences are very much equal.Nah man, you can't tell me 3 - 2 = 1 is the same as 2 - 3 = 1. Because that's basically what you're saying right now. The math comparison would be more that -2 + 3 = 1
And after we are done hashing out the first sentence of Quick Alchemy, we can move on to the overloaded term "Versatile Vials". It is pretty obvious to me that the Versatile Vials that you keep stored indefinitely (up to your next daily preparations) in your alchemists tools are very much different than the Versatile Vials that are 'especially short-lived' that are created by using Quick Alchemy: Quick Vial and only last until the end of your current turn. So which version of Versatile Vial is the sidebar referencing that has the bomb stats? In short - can you actually throw a Versatile Vial directly from your Alchemists Tools or do you have to use Quick Alchemy (to possibly turn the Versatile Vial into a Versatile Vial) and throw that Versatile Vial instead?
Those sentences are very much equal. In both cases you are spending money. And getting one of cake, or stale bread. The first sentence sounds 'wrong' to my brain as a whole. The phrasing sounds clunky. If you want to say that the bread doesn't cost money, I would phrase it as: you can either use money to get cake or not use money to get stale bread.
"You can either use the car to go to the store or to attend the fair." And that very obviously means that you are walking to the fair? So obviously that people who are not English majors are going to read it that way 100% of the time and anyone who reads it differently is in the bottom 10% of literacy of the population.
This one is not too hard to untangle because the intention is so obvious. The intention is not obvious. It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to have Quick Alchemy cost a vial for any of its uses. Versatile Vials are a renewable resource. People like to believe that everyone else thinks the same way that they do. That isn't the case. "Clear and unambigous" means that people can't read it wrong and come to a different conclusion. This needs errata because it is most definitely not "clear and unambiguous".
It says you create a versatile vial, and unlike Create Consumable, makes no mention of expending a versatile vial to create it. It doesn't need to explicitly mention expending a versatile vial if the general rules for using Quick Alchemy say that it will do so for both processes. ----- Do you see why I say that this needs errata more than any of the other classes in PC2? Oracle is at least clear in how bad some of the Mysteries are and how they don't do what they used to. Rogue saving throws may look strange, but RAW is understandable (houserule as desired). Alchemist Versatile Vials we can't even agree on how to read it to know what RAW is.
Just from reading Shift Immanence from Pathbuilder I am seeing the following: That ikon ... is empowered in a way that matches your growing divinity, granting the ikon the divine trait and granting you that ikon's immanence effects for as long as your divine spark is empowering it. Your spark is indivisible, so it can empower only one ikon at a time. So it seems pretty iron-clad that you can only have one Immanence effect active at once. Even if it is allowed to put two or more ikons into the same item, you could only power one ikon in there at a time.
Party of six that all take heroism, bless, or inspire courage aren't going to work very well together either. You don't need six people with Thievery when only one person can pick the lock at a time either. Redundancies being ill advised is nothing new. Inspire Courage I will agree with. No need to have multiple characters with that. Heroism and Bless cost a spell slot to use. If the party decides to, they can all cast Heroism on one character - one each for each of the 5 battles during the day. Casting them all on the same character on the same battle would be a waste, but having them all available is not redundant. Multiple characters with Battle Medicine also isn't redundant. And I don't know why it would be better if it was.
Sentence parsing: You can either use up a versatile vial to make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice or create an especially short-lived versatile vial. You can either use up a versatile vial to: 1) make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice or 2) create an especially short-lived versatile vial. Why are you saying that I am the one misunderstanding this?
With a great heave, you seize a piece of your surroundings, such as a boulder, log, table, wagon, or chunk of earth, and hurl it at your foes. ... Yeah, no. That's Oversized Throw. I'm sure the AoN team will get that fixed shortly.
|
