Fox@gon's page

This is from Pathfinder Society, but:

"There aren’t default rules for a creature choosing to be hit[...], but you can allow an ally to improve their outcome by one degree of success against a willing target or allow the target to worsen the result of their saving throw by one step."

I didn't realize it when I made my first post, but this is from a printed sourcebook. It's from a liminal in the Bestiary 3, p. 143. It's an official optional rule.

This is from Pathfinder Society, but:

"There aren’t default rules for a creature choosing to be hit[...], but you can allow an ally to improve their outcome by one degree of success against a willing target or allow the target to worsen the result of their saving throw by one step."

So I'd run it by your GM. It makes sense that an ally willing to be hit with your healing bombs would make themselves an easy target, rather than hiding behind their shield or whatnot.

If it gets the greenlight, you'd still get the normal healing on a failed attack roll, and the limited healing on a crit fail.

Actually, only the Advanced Alchemy feature says it ignores all requirements. The Quick Alchemy feature states it ignores monetary requirements. This also means there's no way to increase the DC as an alchemist.

It makes me think that some clarification could help here as well. I don't think 30+ breath weapon attacks through Mukradi Jars at level 15 is intended, for example. Doubly so that the DC can't increase, meaning this big power jump becomes unimpressive as you level beyond it.

Hmm that might be so. As far as anything that has alchemical reagent costs *other* than the normal monetary costs, I can't think of anything off the top of my head except bottled monstrosities requiring corpses.

Even if the alchemist were to make 30 Mukradi Jars at Level 15, the action economy required to use them is high (generally 1 action to draw if not already held, 2 actions to use), plus all of the monstrosities have the Expandable trait. If there's not enough space for the Gargantuan Mukradi shell, it fails to activate. So I think there's probably not many situations that having 30 of them is really going to break an encounter, or even be all that helpful. And like you said, the usefulness is going to start falling off as DC won't increase if Quick Alchemy can't be used.

If they can't be made with Quick Alchemy, it's such a bummer for such interesting items. Hard to craft normally if you need a corpse for each one, plus downtime and costs. And if the DC can't be increased, most of them become irrelevant after just a few levels.

Oh hmm. I think it's definitely ambiguous. It *seems* like Splash should work as usual, but it doesn't specify. And Basic Saving Throw rules are pretty straight forward. Might just be a GM call. I think personally, since Splash is only avoided if you critically fail your attack roll (on a normal bomb), I think I'd rule that the Splash applies as normal unless the target(s) critically succeed their Reflex save against the Mega Bomb. And then halve or double the primary damage as usual. Mega Bomb apparently needs all the help it can get anyway lol...

My alchemist bomber is getting into the last tiers of gameplay, and I'm wondering about Mega Bomb. It seems strong, but I was hoping to hear from some people who have actually played a 20th level alchemist before. How does it fare? Is it hard to use? It seems like it might be hard to place without catching allies in the explosion...

What are your experiences with it?

Fox@gon wrote:

Forgive me if this has been answered elsewhere or is obvious, but I wanted to double check. :) I looked at the errata but don't see anything there yet.

The new "bottled monsters" from Treasure Vault all have the "Craft Requirement: The corpse of (insert creature)" line in them, or something similar.

Alchemist's Advanced/Quick Alchemy features say, "...and you ignore both the number of days typically required to create the items and any alchemical reagent requirements."

Is the corpse covered by "any alchemical reagent requirements?" Or is it a specific requirement that overrides it (requiring the corpse always)?

It doesn't seem OP to me for an alchemist to be able to Advanced/Quick Alchemy, but maybe I'm missing something. Thoughts?

The alchemy section intro more or less leaves it as GM call. "Bottled monstrosities in particular bear special mention, as most include a line like, “Craft Requirements Supply the corpse of a roc.” While these crafting requirements can be ignored for the sake of the story being told, they can also be a potent storytelling tool, enabling your players to directly convert their triumphs on the battlefield into new tools for adventuring."

But I think you'd be a bit hard-pressed to call "one entire roc corpse" an "alchemical reagent" if you want to ignore the intro, or feel like it's not applicable to the question.

Ah, I only glanced through a friend's copy and didn't see the intro section, but that makes sense that it's a GM call.

And yeah, I totally agree that it's a bit of a stretch on reality to call an entire monster corpse an "alchemical reagent," but it's not all that much more of a stretch than it already is, IMO. Alchemists already just "get" reagents every day that can be combined into literally any alchemical item. It's already pretty fantastical lol.

I can see the pros and cons for both arguments. But having looked at the items, I don't think it would be game breaking for an alchemist to be able to make them with Advanced Alchemy without corpses of the beasts. They're still only infused items, and expensive to use in terms of action economy. But if making a *permanent* one, needing to have the corpse on hand would make sense.

Forgive me if this has been answered elsewhere or is obvious, but I wanted to double check. :) I looked at the errata but don't see anything there yet.

The new "bottled monsters" from Treasure Vault all have the "Craft Requirement: The corpse of (insert creature)" line in them, or something similar.

Alchemist's Advanced/Quick Alchemy features say, "...and you ignore both the number of days typically required to create the items and any alchemical reagent requirements."

Is the corpse covered by "any alchemical reagent requirements?" Or is it a specific requirement that overrides it (requiring the corpse always)?

It doesn't seem OP to me for an alchemist to be able to Advanced/Quick Alchemy, but maybe I'm missing something. Thoughts?

I mean, right now, you can make four Quicksilver Mutagens and 15 specialist Bombs a day. As you're generally throwing one Bomb a fight, that will likely last you all day. (More than four Encounters a day is a lot. Happens sometimes, especially in some APs, but it's a lot.)

4 quicksilvers and up to 10 bombs. I can't make 3 per reagent until level 5, right? For my first adventuring day (I came into a level 2 party), I made 8 bombs of various types. And I definitely blew through half in just one encounter. So I felt like maybe I shouldn't have made so many elixirs of life to give to my party members haha

Hello! I recently started playing an alchemist (bomber), and currently level 2. With Extra Reagents from my familiar and 18 INT, I have 7 reagents each day. We play with Free Archetype and gradual ability boosts. So I picked up the Witch Dedication (Rune), and snagged Electric Arc. I've only ever played a Summoner until now, so it's a pretty big change.

What's a good split on how to use reagents? How many bombs should I make per day, vs how many reagents should I leave unused for as-needed Quick Alchemy? Does the ratio change through different tiers of play?

At low levels, should I focus mostly on bombs? Or maybe I should rely on Electric Arc for a bit? Are elixirs of life kind of a waste of reagents?

I've spent pretty much all my gold to get my hands on a variety of formulas (only common so far) because I'd like to be the guy that's like "Oh, I have an elixir for that!" As well as being able to supply the group members with some elixirs and/or mutagens.

And how does this change once alchemist gets Perpetual Infusions? And with Perpetual Infusions, what are some good choices for Bombers in terms of damage/utility/debuffing? I am thinking I will invest in the debilitating bomb feats, Sticky Bomb, and pick up Burn It! through Adopted Ancestry. Is Perpetual Breadth worth it? If so, double invest in Bombs? Or snag some perpetuals in Chirurgeon for free elixirs of life?

I have so many questions and keep flip-flopping on things. I'd really appreciate some advice, especially from anyone who has actually played alchemist a bit!

It's simple. A single action is a (one) single action which costs 1 action

Activities are: multiple actions bundled together as one action (Flurry is here), actions which cost 2-3 actions, actions which take longer than one round, and Cast a Spell is always an activity no matter its action cost except when it's cast as a reaction or free action

** spoiler omitted **

hmm yeah i see now the part you're referring to. Kind of a can of worms there. It certainly simplifies things if you simply can't flurry as a readied action.

Fox@gon wrote:

So it seems like "activity" and "actions" are exclusive terms and not interchangeable.

Eh, not really.

Actions wrote:

There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions.

Core Rulebook pg. 461

A single action is different from an activity, but they're both actions.

Single Actions wrote:

Single actions can be completed in a very short time. They’re self-contained, and their effects are generated within the span of that single action.

Activities wrote:

Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession.

plus the quote you have.

Flurry is an Activity, so it seems you can't use it with Ready. Which is interesting. This would make the issue of stunning things on their turn basically irrelevant.

This helped me clarify some things. My confusion of "actions" and "activities" is more specifically about "single actions" and "activities." Boiling down to: is an activity that uses 1 action an activity *only*, or is it also a "single action"?

Both Ready and Act Together call for "single actions." So 1) if an activity is NOT a "single action," we can't use Flurry of Blows, Shield, Tandem Movement, Boost Eidolon, Doctor's Visitation, etc. 2) If activities are ALSO "single actions" if they use 1 action, then we can Ready and Act Together with those things (and more).

Situation 2 is obviously the more flexible and powerful. And doubtless more fun. And nobody has to worry about which 1 action things are activities vs single actions. As a player and GM, I know which I would pick. But what has been irking me is I don't know if that is what is intended RAW lol

As for stunning things on their turn...I guess that also comes down to which ruling you play with. But Stunned doesn't kick in until a creature regains actions at the start of their turn (unless there are creatures that have ways of getting turns back during their turn). So stunning a creature on their turn isn't as useful as stunning them before their turn, I think? If a Monk can Ready Flurry of Blows, hits twice, and uses Stunning Fist, I think they can Stun a creature during its turn, but the creature doesn't lose any actions on the spot. It'd lose them at the start of its next turn.

I am trying to think of it metaphorically.

If Activities are like potions, Actions are the ingredients.

A potion might only have 1 ingredient (let's say rose hips), but it's still a potion.

My concern is that if a different potion recipe also calls for rose hips, the earlier potion isn't possible to use because it's a "potion-made-from-rose-hips," and no longer simply "rose hips."

The more I try to explain it, the more I start to feel crazy though haha X-D

I've also been worrying that I'm overthinking it and seeing a distinction where there isn't one lol. That's why I decided to post in the forums about it. I'm hoping the matter can be put to rest and I can stop wrestling with it.

I'm not sure if it's intended to be a limitation or not. Things like Act Together gave me the concern because both "activity" and "action" are used seemingly very specifically. With Shield, it's a spell that must be Cast. Casting a spell is an activity, whether it is one action or more actions.

My confusion basically comes from that. Does a single-action spell get disqualified from things like Ready and Act Together because it is an "Activity", not an action, OR, are single-action spells both an "Activity" and "single actions" for the purposes of Ready and such?

It's kind of that "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" thing maybe...

I believe Eldritch Archer gets a cantrip whether you're a spellcaster or not. It's just specifying that if you don't have a spellcasting tradition already, that you gain the ability to cast spells spontaneously.

"If you don't already cast spells from spell slots, you learn to cast spontaneous spells and gain the Cast a Spell activity. (Full stop) You gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice."

And yes, spellcasting classes can still get the basic, expert, and master spellcasting benefits. They're separate from your base class's spell slots.

Hello!

So recently someone asked me if they were able to Ready action Flurry of Blows. I did some searching and I think the answer is yes. Anyway, that led to a discussion about if we can Ready spells. That led me to wondering if I have been playing my summoner character incorrectly with Act Together. Here's the relevant text (emphasis mine):

Ready: "You prepare to use an action that will occur outside your turn. Choose a single action or free action you can use, and designate a trigger. Your turn then ends. If the trigger you designated occurs before the start of your next turn, you can use the chosen action as a reaction (provided you still meet the requirements to use it). You can’t Ready a free action that already has a trigger."

Act Together: "You and your eidolon act as one. Either you or your eidolon takes an action or activity using the same number of actions as Act Together, and the other takes a single action. For example, if you spent 2 actions to Act Together, you could cast burning hands (2 actions) and your eidolon could Strike (1 action), or your eidolon could use its Breath Weapon (2 actions) and you could Stride (1 action)."

Activities: "An activity typically involves using multiple actions to create an effect greater than you can produce with a single action, or combining multiple single actions to produce an effect that’s different from merely the sum of those actions. In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action."

Cast a Spell: "Casting a Spell is a special activity that takes a variable number of actions depending on the spell, as listed in each spell's stat block. As soon as the spellcasting actions are complete, the spell effect occurs. Some spells are cast as a reaction or free action. In those cases, you Cast the Spell as a reaction or free action (as appropriate) instead of as an activity. Such cases will be noted in the spell's stat block—for example, “Reaction, verbal.” "

So it seems like "activity" and "actions" are exclusive terms and not interchangeable. If so, then it would seem that you cannot Ready a 1-action spell because Casting a Spell is an "activity," not an "action." And Ready specifies "a single action." Likewise, in Act Together, it seems as if, for example, your dragon eidolon uses its 2-action Breath Weapon activity, the summoner would not be able to cast the 1-action Boost Eidolon spell because Act Together specifies that "the other takes a single action," and excludes activities.

Am I reading and interpreting this all correctly? It's been nagging at me if they are intended to be distinct, RAW, and if that prevents the Readying of spells and such that I mentioned above. I'm also curious to know how people play it at their own tables and if it's something that's handwaved, or if it's OP to handwave it, etc.