Foxwander's page

Calth wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

No.

Here's the full entry of that exploit:

Bloodline Development wrote:

The arcanist selects one sorcerer bloodline upon taking this exploit. The arcanist gains that bloodline's 1st-level bloodline power as though she were a 1st-level sorcerer. The arcanist must select an ordinary bloodline with this ability, not one altered by an archetype. As a swift action, the arcanist can expend 1 point from her arcane reservoir to bolster her latent nature, allowing her to treat her arcanist level as her sorcerer level for the purpose of using this ability, which lasts for a number of rounds equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1). She does not gain any other abilities when using this exploit in this way, such as bloodline arcana or those bloodline powers gained at 3rd level or higher. If this ability is used to gain an arcane bond and a bonded item is selected, the arcanist can only use that item to cast spells of a level equal to the level of spell that could be cast by her equivalent sorcerer level (limiting her to 1st level spells unless she spends a point from her arcane reservoir). If the arcanist already has a bloodline (or gains one later), taking this exploit instead allows her arcanist levels to stack with the levels of the class that granted her access to the bloodline when determining the powers and abilities of her bloodline.

The first sentence of that exploit explicitly calls out for a Sorcerer Bloodline. The exploit repeatedly mentions Sorcerer Bloodlines, and only Sorcerer Bloodlines.

In a home game, it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow it to work with Bloodrager Bloodlines; nor would it be overpowered. But as far as a PFS or by-the-book game is concerned, it does not work.

That's not really true. The sorcerer bloodline restriction is only relevant for when the arcanist has no bloodline. While the original text is in the opposite order, the rule is really: If you have a bloodline, arcanist levels stack with...

Considering all of the prior text specifically involves Sorcerer Bloodlines, it's most likely the intent that the whole stacking subject will still refer to Sorcerer Bloodlines only.

I understand the RAW argument, but again, I highly doubt it's RAI.

Sorry for the thread necro, but I found this while researching arcanist bloodlines just like someone else might (besides, nothing really dies on the internet). Anywho, I just wanted to add that it is clearly RAI for this to bolster ANY bloodline the Arcanist might already have, not just Sorcerer bloodlines. The last line of the exploit specifically does NOT mention Sorcerers. In fact, it goes out of the way to specify that it will "stack with the levels of the class that granted her access to the bloodline." If it were intended to work with Sorcerers only it would have called that out just like all the other Sorcerer mentions, but in the line about stacking they use the specifically generic "the class" that grants the bloodline. Seems pretty clear they mean any class, not just Sorcerers.

I would not suggest combining the archetype that lets you buff your Int score with the one that removes your ability to add int to damage rolls.

Just my opinion...

Losing Throw Anything would take Int damage away from thrown splash weapons but not from bombs (that's built into the Bombs ability). So far I haven't used any other splash weapons but that may become more important in the future- so yeah, I may want to rethink that.

If your DM doesn't mind letting beastmorph work with cognatogen, regardless of the RAW, there's no need to change your character. Is he dead set on strict RAW (which I still think is unclear and could go either way, but you seem convinced)?

I agree the RAW could be a little clearer on this. Even with Mike's comments there's still some wiggle-room on letting Beastmorph work with cognatogens. For instance- they still grant the natural armor bonus so there IS a physical transformation aspect to cognatogens, so it can still work thematically (as well as the excellent Beast example you provided). In fact, the way the NA part is worded ("Otherwise, this ability works just like the mutagen ability (including the natural armor bonus)." emphasis added) could be said to imply the two abilities are interchangeable. But the bits Mike points out above ("mutagen-like" and "may instead prepare a cognatogen.") also imply an explicit difference. That, combined with Beastmorph repeatedly specifying "mutagen" for its abilities, makes me lean more towards saying it doesn't work rather than wanting to fight for saying it does.

Also- changing my character isn't that big of a deal. We're only 4th level and the Beastform ability has only come up once- and even then it wasn't relevant to the encounter- so losing it won't retroactively "change" anything. We're playing thru the Skull and Shackles AP and honestly I'd only chosen Beastmorph as a way to get a swim speed (which grants water-breathing since it's based on a polymorph effect). I'd completely overlooked Internal Alchemist which grants a much better and more accessible way of dealing with underwater adventures right at first level. So I think I'll try to convince my DM to let me exchange BM for IA.

As for the rules side...

<-snip->

Excellent breakdown, Mike. Barring word-of-god saying otherwise, that seems to be a fairly definitive "no" to my question then. Unfortunately that means I have to change my character. :p

I would say that they don't work together. I think a plain reading of the archetypes support this, but my main reasoning isn't the specific limitations of the crunch. Beastmorph improves the alchemist's mutagens to enhance his physical capabilities. The mindchemist though is focused on enhancing his mental capabilities. I think the goals of each archetype are fundamentally at odds and trying to combine them diminishes the flavor of both. Now, if the mindchemist goes ahead and takes the mutagen discovery, then sure, mix beastmorph in there, but it would only apply to mutagens, not cognatogens.

That is a good point. I hadn't considered the thematics behind both archetypes. Beastmorph and Mindchemist are definitely physical vs. mental so limiting Beastform to strictly MUTAGENS makes sense in that regard. But there's still the rules side to consider where they make a point to say cognatogens should be treated the same as mutagens. So there's still the crunch vs. fluff issue. I'm fine with making things work different for the thematic issues you brought up (ie- make the crunch match the fluff) but it'd be nice to have it clarified from an official source one way or another.

There is a question at my game about whether Beastmorph works with cognatogens- specifically with the Mindchemist archetype whose cognatogen ability replaces the standard Alchemist's Mutagen ability. The Beastform Mutagen ability specifically mentions that it work's off "a beastmorph’s mutagen". Since a Mindchemist/Beastmorph doesn't necessarily have "Mutagens" (unless they take it as a discovery) it could be interpreted that they cannot use the Beastform Mutagen ability (which obviously makes Beastmorph a useless archetype combo for them). However, the cognatogen discovery description says it "works just like the mutagen ability" and "All limitations of mutagens apply to cognatogens as if they were the same substance". THAT can be interpreted to say Beastform works just fine with cognatogens (in fact, that is the view of what discussions I've found about it on this board). But even then one could say that it still requires having the "mutagen" ability in the first place, that is Mindchemists could not also be Beastmorphs without taking "mutagen" as a discovery- they could then trigger Beastform with their cognatogens. Although that seems to be arguing semantics rather than the intention which I think is: cognatogen = mutagen therefore Mindchemist + Beastmorph works just fine. So the question is- can Beastmorphs use their abilities with cognatogens regardless of whether they have the mutagen ability?

I've searched but haven't found if this has been answered definitively. I've found that it seems more books will be out come November (great news!), but will they include the errata?

I am playing an Urban Druid in my current campaign. I'm really liking the class- good balance and great flavor, especially for the type of game I'm in. The animated object companion has been especially useful. (I chose a small pile of rope, which equated to 300 feet of animated rope!) But it's spell list, while thorough, is certainly lacking considering the plethora of spells released beyond those in the PHB.

Any chance of getting an expanded spell list that includes the Spell Compendium and PHB2? If not an "official" expanded list, then at least some guidance and suggestions from someone at Paizo? It's a shame to have such an interesting class effectively hampered by a spell list which seems quite limited in comparison to "normal" druids and other spell casters. I'd greatly appreciate any help beefing up the list. Thanks.