Jabbersnatch's page

I'm also brand new to PbP but familiar with Pathfinder, would probably love to join (would like a little more info too). Would probably like to try a Tetori Monk.

When you ask questions (and by "you" I mean everyone, of course... not just you) about things not from the Core Rulebook, it really helps to mention where the rules you're asking about are from. My focus is MUCH more on the Campaign side of things; with the exception of the Bestiaries (which I do full development/editorial passes on), I'm actually not super familiar with all the contents of things like the APG, Ultimate Combat, or Ultimate Magic.

Understood, sorry about that, if it had been anything but a rulebook I would have thought to specify. Thanks so much for all the helpful answers.

While the natural armor bonus won't stack with the bonus granted by the basic mutagen... it will eventually exceed that granted by the basic mutagen, in which case you take the better. The name of the advanced mutagen makes me think that it shouldn't have an effect on natural armor at all though... If I were developing this, I would have cut the part where "nimble" increases natural armor and just said it gives you an increasing alchemical bonus to AC. THAT SAID, while it's not really all that obvious, the nimble ability MIGHT be trying to say that the increase to natural armor bonus is an alchemical bonus, in which case it DOES stack; it would work similarly to how barkskin works on a creature that already has natural armor. I suspect that this isn't the case, though, since there's not specific info talking about that.

Any of those make sense, I had thought it should maybe be a dodge bonus, seeing as it's named "Nimble" and affects Dex. The natural armor bonus would max out at +5 (no earlier than level 18) versus Grand Mutagen's +6 (available at 16), though I suppose you could take Nimble instead of Grand Mutagen. Do you think a dodge bonus would be significantly more powerful than, say, an alchemical bonus to natural armor? I'm not sure how the tradeoffs stack up late-game.

I quite liked Insidious; one of my favorite movies of the year. Its last 3rd got a bit wacky... but not TOO wacky. I much prefered the first 2/3 where things were a lot subtler. The introduction of the weird ghosthunter element shifted it from a Paranormal Activity style movie into a Poltergeist style movie. Both great movies... but my preference is for the Paranormal Activity style movie (AKA: horror that is more insidious in creeping up on you).

I really liked the design of the demon, so I slightly preferred the end portion. I should probably get around to watching Poltergeist sometime. One of my very favorite movies is The Thing, from 1980ish, with Kurt Russell. Thanks again for the help.

There's a chance that there many be movie spoilers for Paranormal Activity 1 and 2, Insidious, and Inception here. Proceed with caution.

** spoiler omitted **

So you prefer... even more expected endings? I certainly agree that forced twist endings and jumpy suspense can be really cheesy, but I thought the examples mostly did these things well. As long as there's a good story to set up a twist or suspense, I usually like it. This even includes Shutter Island, which I really enjoyed but many people hated and said (rightly) was predictable. Any twist endings you liked?

Wow, this is the best thread ever. I can't believe I didn't find it sooner. I have some rules questions that I think are worth asking, that I have looked for/asked/FAQ-clicked in the rules section. So, any of these you feel like answering would be much appreciated:

1. If you hit an enemy more than once in a round while using the Stunning Assault feat, does that enemy have to make multiple saves?

2. If you have reach and the Pushing Assault feat, and an enemy attempts to move adjacent to you but you successfully hit your AoO and push it back, does this interrupt the move or can it continue the same move action from the new location?

3. The Master Chymist's Advanced Mutagen, Nimble, states it gives a Natural Armor bonus, but this would not stack with the NA bonus always granted by a mutagen. Do you know the RAI on this?

4. Also, Nimble gives a bonus on "Dexterity checks" in addition to Dex skill checks. Initiative is the only thing in the rules that appears to be a plain Dex check, is this for "in X situation GM says roll a Dex check?"

5. Although the Alchemist is not a spellcaster, might he be able to benefit from the Tenacious Transmutation feat, or apply metamagic feats to extracts?

Sorry if some of these are overly nit-picky. I'm playing my first-ever D&D (Pathfinder) campaign as a currently 3rd-level Alchemist, and really getting into it. I think I've persuaded my GM to allow a homebrew Mutagenist archetype based on a heavily toned-down version of Cody Coffelt's idea. Any thoughts on such an archetype?

Anyway, thanks for the system and thanks a bunch for this thread.

EDIT: Should be more off-topic, so... I saw you liked Paranormal Activity, in which case I definitely recommend Insidious if you haven't seen it. I think it's from the same people, and I liked it even better than PA 1&2.

Anyone got any tips? Never used this feat before.

** spoiler omitted **

Running around with a Falchion and Lunge.

I'm late to this thread, and I'm not sure how useful this would actually be in practice, but I had the idea that Pushing Assault could be used in combination with any kind of reach and Combat Reflexes to make you difficult to close with. Even with just a longspear, an enemy attempting to move from more than 10' away into one of your adjacent squares would be vulnerable to an AoO, which could then push him back a square (or two). You'd obviously have to hit with this AoO, but the larger your reach, the more chances you'd have.

I'm not entirely sure how this interruption of the enemy's move would work, i.e. would it end that move action? But even assuming they could still move afterwards, with combat reflexes you could push them back as many times as you have an available AoO and hit with it.

This might be somewhat silly though, since it is a strategy for a melee character (albeit one with reach) to prevent being in melee range. Also it could be bypassed by Spring Attack, missing/using up your AoO's, etc.

You can use the attacks at any point in the attack routine that you want, as nothing in the wording of any of them restricts it otherwise.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest.

So it has no bearing on bonus attacks. Thanks for helping again.

Do bonus attacks have to follow the descending-BAB order in a full-attack sequence? For example, would a character with a BAB of +6 and a Haste buff be able to take the bonus attack last (sequence of +6/+1/+6), or would they have to follow +6/+6/+1?

What about conditional bonus attacks, like those from the Medusa's Wrath feat, where the sequence could determine whether the attacks are granted at all? For example, a level 20 monk performs an unarmed Flurry of Blows using the Dazing Assault feat (+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3/-2), and hits and dazes the opponent with his 3rd unarmed strike. Would the monk be able to take the bonus attacks from Medusa's Wrath this round? Could he choose when to take them, or would they need to be taken immediately (being the highest-BAB attacks available at that moment)?

Thanks for any help.

Oddly, the Nimble Advanced Mutagen is the only advanced mutagen which doesn't mention that it works in the mutagenic form, which leads me to believe that perhaps it works all the time, not just when in the mutagenic form?

When in mutagenic form, though, it doesn't seem like it would stack. Neither it nor the typical mutagen grants an enhancement bonus to natural armor an increase to natural armor, just a flat natural armor bonus, which won't stack with other flat natural armor bonuses. Definitely a FAQ, though, for that and the question of when it is on... unless someone has an answer to that?

Advanced Mutagen(Su): At 2nd level, the mutagenic form of the master chymist continues to evolve and develop as she grows in power. The master chymist selects an advanced mutagen, a power that changes how her mutagen form works or can only be accessed in her mutagenic form.

Do you know of any other Dexterity Checks in the rules, by chance?

Extracts are a Supernatural Ability.

Damn. I think you got me. Most of the other differences I could argue are called out specifically, but... yeah, Alchemy(Su), didn't see that. And I hadn't thought about that issue of identifying through perception, that's interesting.

I was thinking of Spell Focus for the Tenacious Transmutation effect, increasing the DC for people trying to dispel, and just assumed that Spell Focus' +1 was just a more general version. Oops, save DC's. I suppose Tenacious Transmutation would still work, I was just hoping that Spell Focus wasn't a total waste.

Anyway, thanks again. Could always just ask for DM approval if I really still want one. Now I'm just hoping Paizo will FAQ the natural armor bonus from Advanced Mutagen- Nimble, since it's already been discussed to death.

Does the natural armor bonus from the Nimble advanced mutagen from the master chymist prestige class stack with standard mutagen's natural armor bonus?

I know the general rule is that like bonuses don't normally stack, but if it doesn't stack, why was it made into a natural armor bonus in the first place? If they don't stack, then then bonus might as well not exist (since you already get it).

Please FAQ this if you think it needs official clarification.

It would make much more sense as a dodge bonus anyway, although perhaps they considered this too powerful. Anyone know what the bonus to "Dexterity checks" applies to? The only non-skill Dex check I've seen that I think would be affected is Initiative, although even that alone would be pretty good.

Quote:

For a saving throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item, the DC is 10 plus the level of the spell or effect plus the ability modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that level of spell.

You assume the lowest possible ability to cast the spell, and calculate the DC accordingly. Spell focus has no effect on magic items. Nor do any other feats you might have which would affect it (such as tenacious transmutation or augment summoning)

Metamagic is different from this because metamagic affects the spell level, which means the wand of silent fireball is going to cost more than the wand of normal fireball.

Good call, I had never seen that there were specific rules for magic item DC's.

Yes, you can make a potion, scroll, or wand which has a metamagic feat applied to it. What you cannot make is an extract which has a metamagic feat applied to it, because an extract is not a spell and you can only apply metamagic to a spell.

When you make a wand, scroll, or potion, you are casting a spell and then storing that magic. It makes sense that if you cast a metamagiced version of it, you store the metamagiced version. This is not the case with an extract, in which there is no spellcasting, so there is no metamagic.

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.

An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist.

Although extracts are not literally spells, they are based on potions and seem to use spells in the same way.

Also, you do not technically need to cast a spell in making a potion:

The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.

Material components are consumed when he begins working, but a focus is not. (A focus used in brewing a potion can be reused.) The act of brewing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster’s currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

By the way, thanks for discussing this so in-depth with me, I enjoy trying to figure out this kind of stuff. I knew these ideas were kinda pushing it, but maybe still not 3 strikes... and at least I'm remembering how to do post formatting.

They effectively become spells, but they aren't spells. You can't apply metamagic to an extract. They are not spells. Even though metamagic does not require spell casting, it does require spells. Same with Spell Focus:

Spell Focus wrote:

Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select.

(emphasis mine)

Alchemists don't cast spells, so they gain no benefit from this. Tenacious Transmutation, however, they can benefit from, as it applies to all transmutations, not just transmutation spells. They still have to eat the spell focus (transmutation) tax, though. Also, I suspect this might have been an oddity of language in writing the feat and it is supposed to not be applicable for alchemists. For now, though, RAW says they can use it.

I was actually thinking the same thing about Tenacious Transmutation, but didn't bring it up since (I agree) it seems to be just an incidental omission of the word "spells." However, I have since found what I think to be a crucial passage in the Metamagic Feats description (p. 113, Core Rulebook):

Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.

So, although someone using an existing magic item may be unable to modify the effect, it seems clear that the opposite is true for the person creating the item. Also, the reference to storing a spell here seems to likewise imply that similar feats like Spell Focus possessed by the creator at the time of creation would likewise apply.

you cannot take arcane strike or arcane schield or every other feat that has a Caster Level as a prereq because Alchemist don't have a caster level and that's because they don't have a spellcasting ability:

Quote:

Although the alchemist doesn’t actually cast spells, he does have a formulae list that determines what extracts he can create. An alchemist can utilize spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formulae list, but not spell-completion items (unless he uses Use Magic Device to do so). An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.

So, Arcane Strike (unlike Shield and Blast) does not actually have a Caster Level requirement, just "ability to cast arcane spells." I'm pretty sure alchemists still don't qualify for that though.

To recap from above (and things which got buried in mistyped quote tags:

Alchemists are not casters, and do not have a spell failure chance.

They do not qualify for any item creation feats or any feat with a caster level as a prereq (as they have no caster level). They get Brew Potion as a specific exception, using their class level as their caster level.

They can take metamagic feats, which do not have a CL requirement, but they cannot apply these to their extracts, as metamagic only applies to spells, and they do not cast spells. This also applies to things like spell focus (they can take it, but it has no effect).

I agree about anything requiring a Caster Level or actual spell casting. However, as quoted above, extracts (and potions) effectively become spells once consumed. For example, as I understand it, if you are under the effect of "Shield," it makes no difference whether it originated from an extract/potion or a cast spell. Perhaps the Metamagic feats require casting, although they only specifically refer to spells. However, I see no reason Spell Focus would not apply to spell effects from extracts and potions with you as the "caster."

Does the Alchemist count as an arcane spellcaster with regards to the Spell Failure?

I have been wondering the same thing, but it has more implications than just spell failure. For example, can an alchemist qualify for (and use) feats for arcane spellcasters, like Arcane Strike/Arcane Shield, Spell Focus> Tenacious Transmutation, or even Metamagic feats like Extend Spell?