Joesi's page

Your best bet would be with stuff like Burrow and Gaseous Form (or both at the same time which I think works; Burrow is extraordinary ability so seemingly not lost). But they are spells so obviously only usable limited number per day for a limited duration.

Alchemist can use those spells as low as level 4 (with Alchemical Allocation), but would take 2 turns to cast. In theory an alchemist (or at least Investigator dipped) could get more ("unlimitedish") uses per day via Inspiring Cognatogen Inspired Alchemy. Wizards can cast it much faster (standard action), but don't get it until level 5 and generally can't cast both many times per day (without spending 9000 gp for extra casts per day)

Overall like people said Pathfinder is probably not the option for this. The one case where it might be a valid option is if you or someone else spends time to make a custom class that gains these sorts of abilities (and not much else unfortunately, due to it's high power), and that the party starts at a high enough level (probably minimum level 9 or such). Certainly you'd want someone knowledgeable in game balance to review/create the custom class.

Also on the matter of whether it affects base damage dice or not, I tend to agree with Diego Rossi that the intent would have been for it to only affect the base, specifically because they mention "weapon or alchemical item". Otherwise they could have just said "attack". Technically I suppose the way it's written could be argued that it's excluding rays, but it seems like an odd exception to make— particularly if it wasn't referring to only base damage.

I would say that the RAW is quite clear that it would apply to all damage dice rolled for the attack though.

Overall though because the RAI effect is a bit weak and the RAW effect isn't excessively strong, personally I'd GM it as the RAW effect. Personally I think that when one is GMing it's important to weigh balance above RAI and RAW. It is very strong though and I could see people not allowing it to work for all damage dice for that reason.

While your ultimate question has been answered well, nobody gave their thoughts on the title question.

As far as I recall, both my interpretation of the rules and the general consensus here was that alchemist bombs are not alchemical items. alchemical items are a game term, and refers to items that are labeled as such; namely anything found on this list, and generally would also include the alchemical tools page as well but those don't can't be used for attacks (outside of possibly improvised weapons) so wouldn't apply in this case.

Alchemist bombs are a class special ability; and also are weird/exceptional in that they only exist when being thrown yet are also still considered weapons. I think it would have been more congruous for them to have not been considered weapons, but just be treated as weapons for certain purposes such as weapon focus (just like rays). Either that, or else maybe making them proper/"normal" items/weapons, but magically enhanced/imbued-with-power by the alchemist when thrown.

Not classes/archetypes, but:

Dreamed Secrets is a feat that gives any divine caster access to nearly any wizard spell (short of all the level 9 ones I suppose).

Bountiful Bottle effectively replicates any potionable spell. Alchemist's Alchemical Allocation does the same (Although I think it's dumb that Bountiful Bottle's cost only 4000 gp considering that they're effectively giving the unique class-only AA spell to anyone who wants it, including non-casters for the same price as just buying a level 2 spell slot refill.)

Any spells that affect your skin should carry over to the new form.

I was going to say in my post that this is also a rather viable way of ruling, but probably less RAW-based and more realistic/logical extension of the rules (because the skin is technically a new creature so nothing should carry over by RAW unless explicitly stated).

And while it is certainly viable, it can result in some confusion/uncertainty and a lot of houseruling as to what transfers over to the skin and what does not. It would likely involve a lot of OOC metagame conversation to see what will work and what won't.

Perhaps the biggest issue would be deciding how HP spell effects transfer over, since the new creature's HP is already set to half the current HP of whatever the caster had, and transferring over the spell effect on top of that would double-dip the HP, giving more HP overall than it should (1.5x effectiveness). I guess you could say that the base skin creature HP would just not use any temporary HP of the caster (which as far as I know goes against RAW, but in this case might be RAI, or at least is balanced)

I've had a fondness for Skinsend and I've thought a lot about it, so I wonder why I never thought much about polymorphing with it. It might have crossed my mind once but then didn't get into it.

I understand your proposed reasoning, but I'd say it wouldn't work like that. At the least for balance reasons, but I think this conclusion (or at least interpretation) can be obtained from the RAW too.

Perhaps I'm biased in saying the following, but I'd say that the only thing it could prolong is any spell effects that buff HP since it specifically says that the creature is created with half your current HP (and temporary HP counts towards current HP). It effectively converts temporary HP into permanent/base HP (probably not intentional to be fair, but it doesn't seem too bad to me considering that one gets it all cut in half along with their base HP). This is because aside from that specific claim on HP, it talks about being identical to the PC, not identical to the PC with spell effects. Like it's not going to copy Barkskin or Stoneskin; or at least I would assert that it would not, maybe you would disagree. As you can see it would apply to more than just polymorph spells, but a whole can of worms that would be even more OP than the already OP of a single polymorph spell getting partially or entirely copied.

Because of this, I would tend to say that Skinsend would have a bit of a nonsensical effect when polymorphed in that it would somehow cause your natural form's skin to peel off the polymorphed form's body. I know that that doesn't make much sense; how would it work? magic, I guess. Let's say that as the skin peels off it creates the form of the creature's base form with that skin, and any extra skin either shrinks into itself, or just stays sloughed off in a pile going unused (and if the polymorph form is smaller then the skin expands). So I guess with dragon form you'd still look like a draconianish humanoid.

Sorry for my late reply; I'm guessing that there's a low chance the post would even be seen to the main intended viewer, but other people can share their views too of course.

Joesi wrote:

Personally I'd say "don't allow custom wondrous items to be crafted that have direct spell effects at all". Or at least with only very rare exceptions....

an interesting perspective but I disagree.

The magic item crafting section is there for GMs and Players to express their creativity

Sure, express your creativity through rings that duplicate specific spell effects (which is not creative at all by the way; making up new effects would be creative rather than copying existing spells)*. Or else make up your own magic effects for a wondrous item, which I never said I have anything against*. Or even just add the item to a wish list and hope that the GM gives a chance for the PC to obtain it. I was only against player-crafting custom wondrous items that replicate specific spell effects because like I said Craft Wondrous Items is already an OP feat on it's own with existing items, it doesn't need to be stronger by replicating specific spells. Leave that to rings or else re-balance the crafting feats (ex. craft magic consumables (potions, elixirs, explosives, talismans), craft accessories, craft magic staves wands and weapons, craft magic clothing and armor, etc.). I could maybe allow PCs finding a crafter NPC and getting custom order work done, but in that case one really needs to watch out for item balance like you were talking about.

Because with CWI even if the custom items were perfectly in line with balance of existing items, that extra flexibility to make any spell effect is already lots of extra power that the feat gets that it doesn't need and which makes an overpowered feat even more overpowered. The item power itself is only an issue if it's special ordered and made by an NPC. But when it's player-crafted it doesn't even necessarily matter if the items are OP, because making non-OP items is OP in itself when you can make any spell effect on any gear slot, and with any consumable/casts-per-day/permanent options.

* I don't mean to be saying how you should play, just expressing how I think it can be balanced while still fitting with some of the things you said. I could have just as well said "me and my players" instead of implying you or your players. Maybe that was clear already, but I'm just clarifying just in case.

Personally I'd say "don't allow custom wondrous items to be crafted that have direct spell effects at all". Or at least with only very rare exceptions.

This is because Craft Wondrous Item is already an extremely powerful (overpowered) feat, and making it also have effects similar to wand/potion/scroll crafting makes it even more powerful.

So not only should such a thing cost 3000 gp, it shouldn't be allowed to be crafted at all.

Ok for the "distortion in the system", but 3000gp? 5000? For an item that cast a single lvl 1 spell (CL1)?

Did you not read the custom item creation section that talks about how all sorts of spells are broken if you just look at their spell level? Stuff like Shield and True Strike. Spell level is frequently irrelevant. It's about how it's used and the cost of similar sort of effects.

This lasts all day (so it would inherently be equivalent to a permanent bonus), and it provides a stackable luck bonus rather than just a common enhancement bonus. Between those two things it easily makes it worth well over 2500 gp. And like I said CWI is one of the most powerful feats in the game and being able to get +5 on crafting them is a powerful effect.

I'm surprised that nobody is talking about how it seems very clearly intended to only boost damage for attacks, namely attacks that took the penalty. Magic Missile is not an attack, so even if you did use a quickened one after an attack it still shouldn't get any bonus.

Surely "ranged damage" is never really referred to in the rules anywhere aside from this feat, right? Or at least if it is I'd assume it again has a strong implication of only attacks.

The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting

Huh, I never knew this or I forgot. I know Iron golems obviously had an exception but I didn't realize that essentially/seemingly all constructs are not affected by AMF. Interesting mechanical choice. I guess it would be to easy to deal with them if it wasn't the case? (granted there are spells like disable construct and control construct)

It's not related to hitting or missing, but on the topic of Sharding, Vaporous Potions seem like they can be abused by the RAW with Sharding Gloves of Improvised Might. A GM could still easily shoot it down if they wanted though, since it seems like an unintended oversight.

It does also have a lot of downsides (over 36000 gp cost, can only use what's in your hand, limited range, needs to hit, limited spell selection, only up to level 3 spells), but still seems like it would be overpowered if built around it.

Game rules don't specify so its up to you.

However I will say that if something becomes inert, so should it's effects. So both from a logical guess of intent and just logical mechanics would be for its effects to end once the other mutagen is finished.

Overall it seems inconsequential though since nauseating a single enemy at level 7 if it fails a fort save doesn't seem like an issue when it also would require using some costly ability Like Poisoners Gloves or Touch Injection to deliver the Mutagen.

To me it feels like allowing a player to do this is like allowing them to self-sabotage themselves and/or the party due to it's costs of time and abilities to pull off for such a weak effect.

They are perfect copies of the character, so they'd have the same base HP as the character's base HP.

Note that things like abilities and spell effects are counted per consciousness, so it's not like you get refilled spell slots or uses per day of abilities by switching clones. And you'd have to reequip all your items too.

I'm on the side of losing it, but since monstrous humanoid is not an animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, nor vermin, it could maybe be argued to the GM that it could be reasonable to keep.

Personally I think that since many monstrous humanoids are barely/hardly humanoid (ex. frequently more limbs or missing other organs/limbs), I still think it's a weak argument unless they were polymorphing only into another regular humanoid rather than some 6-armed winged creature.

Overall I'd tend to side with the ruling that regardless of the polymorph form that the arm would either pop off (becoming mostly useless), or meld with the polymorph form, but depending on the case (especially regular humanoid) I'd maybe accommodate a player. I think rules doesn't really factor into it.

There's been a fair bit of discussion of Alchemical Simulacrum in the past. It is a bit contested regarding what the RAI would be for this ability, along with what would be balanced (I think it's even more the case with Doppelganger Simulacrum), but the RAW is relatively clear at least. And no there has not been any proper clarification/buff on it.

One thing I'll say is that since it doesn't use a spell slot, It SEEMS as though a character could grow a large number of simulacrum all at once since it seems like it has a short/negligible action time.

If this was the case— namely if it was intended, then the higher cost than the wizard spell could be justified. But obviously if one interprets or rules that the 24 hours means that the character has to just pull an all-nighter and literally can't do anything else at all for 24 hours, then it would make strong sense to houserule a significantly cheaper cost for creation, like maybe half that of a normal wizard's simulacrum.

Personally I'd probably just soft ban both the spells and the discoveries because they're complicated, have more gray area when it comes to certain interactions/mechanics, slows combat more if they're ever used in combat, and has significant potential to be abused in overpowered/cheesy ways.

They almost have to stack, because then you get weird questions about what to leave out. And Pathfinder tends to avoid issues like that. Say you have a +1 bow with an additional +7 worth of abilities. Combine that with an arrow that is +5 with an additional different +2 worth of abilities. What is the result of the final attack? What gets kept and what gets left out?

I'm not saying that I disagree with the apparent RAW, but I'd say the "how else would you do it?" is a weak argument (assuming it's rhetorical), since there would be consistent ways to do it, just no method provided by the rules.

One could say that ammunition takes priority, and that any spare "slots" from spell/ability/item/weapon are chosen by the attacker to fill in as desired, with such sources being unable to fill in a +2 or +3 ability if the ammunition already had +4 of ability enhancements and +5 enhancement bonus.

Of course while this could be considered a "house rule", one could argue that it's just a consistent viable way of following the rules, assuming that one does either interpret the rules with the global net +10 limit, or house-rules a modification.

If you're level 3 you would have only 3 ranks in Spellcraft. That is the limit (1 per level), and I think there's no mechanics in the game that ever change it. I'd say that it's misleading to say that you have 8 Spellcraft, particularly since someone here even seemed to interpret it as having 8 ranks.

+8 Spellcraft, or +8 total to Spellcraft (ideally) would be the way to say it to help avoid confusion.

This means that you'd be 4 away from being able to craft the ioun stone [reliably], and hence will/should need to find a way to increase the bonus before crafting it.

Also keep in mind that certain bonus types (such as circumstance or enhancement) do not stack with others of the same type, only other bonuses

zza ni wrote:

Derklord wrote:

Joesi wrote:

zza ni wrote:

loose it's magical abilities as per the rules of improvising magical weapons

Where is that stated?

In this FAQ.

thx for picking that one up. i clearly remembered reading it , but couldn't point out to where.

He didn’t have to look far… he linked that same FAQ once already in his first post in this topic…

Yeah, for me too as well I had also read that linked FAQ from this thread previously; I had just also forgot as I continued reading through the posts, hah.

Although with regards to this, I still somewhat wonder if that would also apply to a Monk of the Empty Hand, since for them regular weapons are used as improvised weapons even though they aren't explicitly stated to be used any differently than how the weapon is intended to be used (although maybe it's lightly implied that they are to be used differently?). I think logically —or at least to maintain consistency— that it probably would/should still apply to that case (and Shikigami Manipulation)

This is going to sound a bit dumb, but by the RAW can ranged attacks even be made without line of sight though? The combat rules state that ranged attacks require line of sight. The Seeking enhancement implies that ranged attacks can be made to empty squares, however that may still be by having line of sight of the square. I know the total concealment section talks about attacking squares, but aside from not specifying that ranged can do this (which I know is kind of silly to require specifying), it seems logical that it would still mean seeing the square that one wants to attack into when it's a ranged attack.

Logically/realistically speaking (instead of the silly previous paragraph of going by a strict literal RAW) aiming at the square/target then closing eyes and firing without changing aim would have the same effect as not closing ones eyes, meaning that it should have a chance of hitting an image. and if they close their eyes before they aim then they wouldn't be able to aim at the right square/target that they would want to.

Because of these reasons, I'd say that it would not work with a seeking ranged attack. You'd have to be in melee using a Heartseeker weapon instead.

from the description the user throws the weapon, not the duplicate.

What? I'm not sure what you mean. The user does not throw the weapon; where are you getting that from?

The duplicate flies off "as if" thrown by the user. There's a fine difference between the two but that fact kills off most of this speculation.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. How is that relevant?

Secondly the first line limits this to melee and thrown weapons. It will not work with Improvised weapons.

Improvised weapons are not some sort of alternate category of weapon mutually exclusive to thrown or melee, they are an additional quality on certain weapons. Improvised weapons are still thrown/melee weapons. What's more is that Gloves of Improvised Might's whole purpose is to apply special ability enhancements (and flat bonuses) to improvised weapons. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, by your logic you'd seem to be saying that no enhancement whatsoever would function with the GoIM.

I'm really confused as to how you think things are supposed to work, or what you specifically think would not function.

Bombs and alchemical weapons unfortunately aren’t affected by gloves of improvised might… much to the dismay of many alchemist players… they should be… but they unfortunately are not…

That said, if you were to find a valid way to grant them the sharding ability, then the following would likely be how each of them interact with it:
Bombs - one use of the bomb ability must be expended at the start of the attack, a fully functioning bomb is split off from the active bomb when the mimed throw is performed, at the end of the attack the real bomb is either thrown as the final attack or rendered inert. Sharding would in effect extend your uses of bombs when used with fast bombs but have no beneficial effect when used as part of a standard action attack.

While not necessarily 100% explicitly supported by the RAW, the rules generally imply that alchemist bombs are not weapons (specifically not actual items), just a special attack. The only exception being that they can still qualify for feats like weapon focus (which IIRC had to even be clarified by a FAQ?). I say this because they're not held in hand, have no weight, and follow special rules that involves drawing the item, drawing another item (catalyst), combining them, and then throwing it, all as a single action (and potentially multiple times with the Fast Bombs discovery). Another exception seems to be with Orichalcum Dust annointing, however I think this is more of an author error having no idea how bombs are treated (I do think it makes sense for that to work with bombs since it seems to be RAI, but it should be worded differently, such as functioning with a weapon or the next bomb they use)

Because of this —or even just saying that only catalyzed bombs are weapons but still require a special attack to use, not a regular attack from the Gloves— I'd say that bombs probably wouldn't/shouldn't work with the Gloves. Ironic, because I actually made a post on Reddit suggesting/discussing the combo 4 years ago combined with Monk of the Empty Fist dip to count bombs as improvised weapons. But after doing more thinking I've kind of changed my mind regarding it working (although I wasn't suggesting using it with Sharding)

loose it's magical abilities as per the rules of improvising magical weapons

Where is that stated?

Although one thing you didn't seem to notice, and which I've actually been silently and casually (on/off occasionally) researching for the past year is a character build that uses Vaporous Potion with Sharding GoIM. VP specifically calls out being used as an improvised weapon, so by this technicality it seems like it gets past most or all of the roadblocks that seemingly literally every other item would have with regards to using Sharding GoIM. In other words, I think that seemingly makes this combination work— aside from it's power problems resulting it probably getting vetoed by GM. It is limited to a small range of low level spells (the vast majority of spells cannot be potions), but still I think that a GM may still consider infinitely reusable potions to be too strong, even at high levels (this would be at minimum a lvl 9 or 10 build). Maybe by like level 16 it would be allowed by some people though? since by that point casters —or characters in general— have all sorts of other more accepted ways of being broken. Granted I don't know about you guys, but I never really play such high level campaigns; 10 is already quite high.

That's under the assumption that splashs weapons don't fall under the GoIM's "normal weapons", which is highly questionable ("A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact"). Quite frankly, I would consider anything that lets you make an attack roll without using the improvised weapon rules to be a "normal weapon" for the gloves.

I don't disagree, however Monk of The Empty Fist (or even Shikigami Manipulation) kind of makes it more confusing/possible, since now it explicitly allows normal weapons (or magic items) to be treated as improvised weapons.

A year or two ago I was theorizing some crazy shennanigans combining that monk dip with Sharding GoIM and like focusing flasks, but there would obviously be debate about if the contents of the focusing flask would be copied. I think with potions it's not as debatable because they are treated as homogeneous objects unlike focusing flasks filled with other items.

Joesi, what is the distance of the sword from you when it is in the Bag of holding?

This is a good question, and it's relevant even if the bag is open. This is because BoH does not have any defined internal dimensions. It's an issue that goes beyond whether it's contents is extraplanar or not. Keep in mind that we're dealing with impossibilities here; paradoxes. There's no way for it to make proper sense with physics regardless of whether you put it on another plane or not. BoH1 has 30 cubic ft max volume(which might as well be a sphere), putting the sword's distance at about 2 feet away from someone holding the bag (0-3.8 if on the edge).

The extradimensional spaces aren't in other planes, but neither they are in the character plane. What is in them is accessible only through the specific access to that extradimensional space.

I understand this reasoning, and it can certainly be a valid way for a GM to rule, but it's not like there's any RAW or realism that can be applied to say that it is the correct way of doing things.

I'd assert that for my system those limitations only apply to material things, and that certain types of magic —such as those which do not need line of effect such as Divination magic— and probably even incorporeal entities can travel through the extradimensional gateway even when it is closed. We're dealing with magic and fantasy here, so it's not like one can say that doesn't make sense that magic goes through some stuff.

("... each is like a bag of holding ..." thus different planes) thus Called won't function.

Bag of holdings say nothing about being extraplanar. And the rules regarding extradimensional spaces in general merely says:"These spells and magic items create a tiny pocket space that does not exist in any dimension.". "Dimension" is a vague word, which could be interpreted in various ways. It could just mean does not exist in normal 3D space, but still on the same plane, for instance.

Archives of Nethys reference the spell Simulacrum when the discovery says: "The alchemist learns how to create a simulacrum,". If that is correct, your Simulacrum has the limits of the Simulacrum spell.

There's no reason to believe it's anything more than just an erroneous automatic hyperlink. Not only that, but the book that I have doesn't even include "a simulacrum,"

On the other hand, the discovery doesn't say that it works like the spell, while Alchemical Simulacrum says that.

exactly.

As Alchemical Simulacrum is a prerequisite of Doppelganger Simulacrum. I would apply them.

No that's totally invalid logic.

Why would anyone even take this discovery if all it did was the same thing just where the Simulacra are dead and useless instead of alive and was ALSO limited toONLY copies of the alchemist? Literally a downgrade in multiple ways, especially considering that they would only last 1 hr per level after that 1 week creation time by your logic. (since the prerequisite is AS, not GAS)

In fact the problematic discoveries are the two non-doppelganger simulacrum discoveries that alchemists have access to (or mostly just one of them). It doesn't explicitly state their duration, which is a problem, because the 24-hour creation time seems to imply that lesser simulacra should last more than just 1 hour per level. One could just argue that it's a completely terrible and almost entirely useless discovery though, since that 1h/lvl duration doesn't cause any rule problems, it's just silly/stupid. GAS is conversely kind-of/almost OP in that it can be healed for cheap and costs 5 times less to create. Granted at level 14 characters (or at least high magic users) become quite absurd anyway.

But, as we assume that the duplicate has your stat at the time of duplication, they are updated when your level increases?

When your stats get a permanent increase?
If your stat suffer some temporary or permanent damage?
The duplicate age? Does it age only when inhabited? Do your body age when uninhabited?

No rule stating that they would change, nor any logical reason to think that they would change. (at least physical. Reincarnate and Magic Jar implies mental stats would be moved over)

The only good question is regarding aging. I've had the conversation before with a person. It's up for debate, but I'd say they do age. They just do not decay. There's no mention that they are suspended animation; even objects age, they just normally do not gain any problems from it for most time scales. This issue could be up for debate though, and hence vary per GM.

I personally do not like ruling extradimensional spaces as being on alternate plane. I would only do-so for those that say something that specifically implies it.

For instance, Rope Trick says that spells cannot traverse the entrance, which seems to functionally indicate that it's on another plane. Even if it wasn't, due to spells not traversing it seems functionally equivalent. Frankly considering the duration and level of the spell, I'd consider even making certain particularly long-range spells work through Rope Tricks as well. (like Rope Trick travels "inwards" 1200 ft in all directions, so any spell would have to have a longer range than that to work, while also not requiring LOS/LOE)

Other stuff like Bag of Holding or Create Pit don't really imply that at all, and hence just have warped space. This prevents everyone from performing certain cheesy tactics such as hiding stuff from divinations (which includes detection magic such as Detect Magic) just by putting it in a Bag.

So to answer the question, I'd personally say a Called weapon could be teleported from a BoH, yes. But it's pretty much up to GM choice as to how they want the extradimensional mechanic to work.

I tell my players that enemies who have a 20+ Intelligence might as well have your character sheet in front of them.

Although this might not make sense in the cases where they are using illusion or polymorph spells to appear different (and while rarer, Mind Blank, Magic Aura or Nondetection as well)

It generally won't change things too much, but as a GM I recommend that you make anything that is both immune to stuns and immune to mind-affecting effects to also be immune to dazed condition. You could potentially even reduce it to just one of the immunities, such as mind-affecting.

(most plants, constructs, oozes, and undead, for example, but also more powerful special monsters)

(1) CRB 447: A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action...What about administer a potion to an conscious creature? Is it a standard action as usual?

I think it's ok.

This question has come up a lot. By following RAW as close as possible it would be a full round action, but that's still problematic. I think making it a standard action PLUS a standard action from the recipient (only if they are able to) makes more sense. A standard action without the recipient losing anything does not make sense to me unless the recipient took a feat to do so (custom feat).

(2) According to PFS FAQ, Arbiter, Avian, Biped [claws], Biped [hands] are able to grasp and carry one object at a time in their paws, claws, or hands, including weapons, rods, wands, and staves, but most of Familiars can not use them.
Can they use potions? Can they administer a potion to another creature?

My opinion —which I think matches the rules more-or-less (at least for PFS if I recall)— is that none of the base familiars can use a consumable magic item (or any other use-based items in general I think), and that you'd have to get an advanced familiar to do so.

People may argue that a monkey should realistically be able to, but this is a case where balance needs to be considered over realism. It doesn't make sense for one specific familiar type to get such a huge advantage over the others for realism sake.

Also note that when it comes to wands specifically (but not potions) a monkey doesn't normally speak a language, and hence would not be able to activate it (while a bird wouldn't be able to aim it at anything properly)

Bombs are even worse. They don't have an energy damage type until they are mixed, but the Bomb ability say:

Quote:

Bombs are unstable, and if not used in the round they are created, they degrade and become inert

so you don't have the time to annoint them after mixing them.

I would allow you to annoint the catalyst before making the bomb, but again we are in RAI/houserule territory. RAW simply it doesn't work

It explicitly calls out as working for bombs, even though I agree that bombs are in a very odd position when it comes to definitions and categorizations (a non-item (non-weapon. No official weight or carrying method) used to make attacks as if using a weapon)

The alchemist sprinkles a small quantity of colorful dust that comprises the essence of all four elements. By favoring one element over another in this mixture, the alchemist temporarily changes the energy type of one weapon into another. For example, the alchemist can choose for a bomb to deal acid damage or a weapon with the shocking burst special ability to deal fire damage instead. Once an elemental effect is changed, it cannot be changed again until the anointing’s duration expires.

I feel like unless developers chime in on this —which seems highly unlikely to me(maybe the writer would come forward unofficially?)— I don't expect any definitive conclusion, but I'm still curious what you guys think of this.

Orichalcum Dust is an Alchemist/Investigator Annointing (available as/instead-of a discovery) from Arcane Anthology which says that it converts the energy type of the energy damage of a weapon to any other. However in it's flavor text it also mentions "four elements". Now whether sonic is an "element" might be irrelevant (debatable), but it is an energy type, and the description of the skill says "the energy type of one weapon into another" without listing any restrictions.

So it seems like sonic may not have been considered when this skill was created, however would it be considered too strong for the ability to convert to and from sonic? One could easily assert that they simply forgot that sonic was an option and that they would still allow it.

Alchemists already have the ability to take Concussive Bombs for instance (which does not waste a round of combat, and which allows changing bomb damage types on the fly. The only downside being dealing a little less damage). In fact, it would be a quite underpowered ability if one was to rule that each bomb has to individually have a round spend to alter the energy type, but even if it affected all bombs, there's no way for the player to deal multiple different elements of damage for the entire duration of the effect, which is also a downside (I suppose much less-so if it was sonic damage though).

I suppose another question would be would you allow the ability to work on all of a character's arrows/bullets/bombs or only one at a time?

Come to think of it, another issue with Orichalcum dust is that it doesn't state anything about special bombs. Would it still function to convert the damage of an Explosive Bomb to cold, while also causing the Explosive bomb to ignite the target with a cold fire? or maybe a normal fire?

This is a super obscure ability, as it seems like nobody on the internet used it or asked about it, except one case I found just a month ago asking the same question about sonic type. It would be nice to see a bit of use, but if people rule it a certain way then it will probably never really see any use.

It would be nice at the least to see someone wielding Lemongrab's sound sword. Granted that would be extremely weak and bad, but at least it would be cool.

Note that the Greater hat of disguise is not made for Pathfinder game system but rather D&D 3.5, and is very powerful, almost certainly significantly underpriced.

Granted, in your specific use case it might not be especially powerful, so when confined to that usage it might be a fair price.

That being said, for your speaking obstacle, the Decoy familiar archetype will allow the familiar to speak all the languages of it's master all the time.

In addition, they can also be in humanoid form for half of the active day, but with the downside of it having a duty cycle of max ~11 minutes and requires level 11 character.

So to get something more powerful than a familiar's good/powerful level 11 ability early on, 6-12 kgp is a pretty good buy (if allowed)

Interestingly enough, to go more back on topic with clothes, alter self changes you physically, meaning you would by RAW have the issue of clothing being worn when going this route. Disguise self wouldn't have that issue. Granted, I think alter self in the Decoy's case would be meant to match clothing as well I'd say (RAI), but that's probably more debatable for the Greater Hat of Disguise.

I think it's a Pathfinder Society rule, but I think it's a good one: If a spell is available for any of the full caster core classes (cleric/wizard, or sometimes druid), that spell level is used for the price of the item regardless of who created it (of course PFS also doesn't have player crafting for that matter too).

Although ignoring that, it says that the crafter of the wand is what decides the level of the spell, so it seems like donating the spell wouldn't help.

off-topic:

It seems like an odd thing to get potion crafting feat since potions are expensive. Usually wands or scrolls work better (AT LEAST for long-duration or instantaneous spells like mage armor or healing), and if you really need a potion, alchemists get the feat for free (or infusions which generally work out better for the party, even though he doesn't have access to spells like Mage Armor specifically)

Globe of tranquil water and swim anywhere you please (that spell is stupid broken. Jet through the sky as a giant squid, +8 to AC vs anyone outside the bubble because underwater combat rules, grab your foes from 30 feet away and drown them).

You're interpreting it wrong. Like 100% wrong for sure.

You even said yourself it's broken as you interpreted it. Maybe you just didn't catch it's intent, and that on second glance you would agree it doesn't do that at all. I didn't realize the proper interpretation until it was pointed out as well, but it's definitely the right interpretation (the calming aura that doesn't create nor move any water)

Wow this is a terribly worded spell description. Well not the whole description, just really a single word or two. It's 100% a mistake.

After people here explained to the OP how it works I agree with them 100%. The spell is definitely an aura of calming, and should be called that. Entirely ignore the word "bubble of calm water" (or re-read it as "bubble that calms water"). If it actually generated a sphere of water it wouldn't talk about how it protects from rain. Think about it! Same sort of thing with the specific way that it talks about preventing creatures from being moved. It's referring to how the water is calmed.

In addition if it did generate a sphere of water, there would be some sort of other text describing how it works or interacts, or just something else confirming that it exists. It would mention about how the caster would or wouldn't need a water breathing spell, the protection that the water offers, how well you can see through the water, that it could float in the air (or not), etc. There's nothing confirming it providing a water sphere whatsoever.

As Velcro Zipper said in their first post, their interpretation is extremely powerful. They didn't say OP, but it is OP. "OP" hardly even gives it's power justice, it's closer to broken. Constant full cover (it would never be partial cover) protects from nearly everything.

The spell essentially calms any whether/environment effects around you, except lighting as explicitly stated. I'd also say that it would protect from harmful vapors (ex. cloud kill), since if it moves fog it should be moving all air particulates.

I'd assert that if you cast Longarm first that your form is one with the reach, and has polymophing changes your form and hence you would lose that bonus reach.

Same sort of thing as if you gained a natural attack and then polymorphed.

So in summary, I'd say that you'd need to cast the polymorph spell first, although this could be up for debate.

I'm pretty sure that they are not supposed to catch anything on fire. They'd work like a fireball. They are magic fire after all, so I think it's not even a matter of debate, and that there's specific rules indirectly relating to it.

That said, immolation bomb is more debatable if it could light something on fire, but I still think the answer is no (aside from it's normal DoT effect).

Explosive bombs WOULD start fires though.

For the record in case you needed more of a backup, I 100% agree with MrCharisma's original statement. It's also not even an issue of opinion, the GM is flat out wrong, and there should be no consensus of people required (unless the issue is somehow of balance, which it really shouldn't be. If the GM somehow thinks the character is too strong, this ability is not the one to make that point).

Normally tremorsense wouldn't prevent an attack from missing, but in this specific case it definitely allows blasts (not other attacks) to be performed without any additional miss chance.

The issue seems to be with what the GM considers to be concealment. They are probably thinking of specific things (like fog or cover) blocking vision, which is not [entirely] true. There are other sources of concealment such as invisibility (invisibility providing concealment is WELL document, and he is ignorant or crazy to think that it does not), and invisibility does nothing to evade detection from tremor sense.

He states they still have a miss chance, because tremorsense does not pinpoint location but just the square they are in

Yes that is normally completely true, but he's completely ignoring the fact that this isn't normal tremor sense, and that it specifically states that it ignores concealment (for earth blasts), and concealment is the only thing that invisibility gives to add a miss chance roll.

Enhancement bonus stacks with alchemical bonus, yes. However it seems as though you failed to accurately calculate what 18+6 equals.

Also as a side note, I think experienced players have said that ragechemist is quite bad. You'll have a high chance of falling in battle or outright dying. The loss of will makes you susceptible to a lot of save-or-die —or kind of worse: save or kill your allies— to become practically guaranteed.

You can mitigate it with feats like iron will and other stuff though, which I would recommend if you do decide to go ragechemist for that extra 1 damage (which is more valuable at lower levels, but becomes more insignificant at higher levels). I guess since he will be a partial monk you'll get a bit better will saves there, as well as probably a fair bit of points into wisdom, but you will probably want more than that as well.

Correction: direct hit effect.

Marker dye is an anomaly, possibly even an oversight, which doesn't have a splash effect, it is merely just thrown as a splash weapon.

Considering that it has a fort save, anything immune to fort-based effects would presumably be immune to this (undead, constructs), since while it doesn't say that it doesn't affect objects, I would tend to assume such considering that it's incorporeal.

That's probably all it could mean in my opinion. This would mean that the majority of incorporeal creatures would be immune to it (due to usually being undead).

I'd say that the intent is 100% to be a consumable. It's just flat out broken to be a focus, even if it is technically RAW-legal.

Granted, it's annoyingly expensive to use as a consumable though,since there are other things that can be used to get that same sort of bonus, they're just more limited in functionality (like only working with necromancy spells, or enchantment spells, etc.). I guess the cost of convenience is pretty significant.

If it's too expensive I'd maybe just lower the price. Consider asking the GM to reduce the price to 100 gp or something (if you're even willing to pay that).

This is outside of RAW so it boils down to what the GM and/or group think is fair.

My opinion is that I'd probably think like a computer game and not have the projectiles exist _at all_ (until they miss and not break).

With regards to readied action, I'd say no because not only is it difficult to react in time even if you had no action to do, but casting a spell or making an attack takes significant extra amount of time (lets say 0.5-4 seconds) which makes it even more unreasonable.

strength damage does not effect encumbrance, where penalty does

Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.

So neither seem to affect carrying capacity. Which is "good" in that it simplifies things (at least until ability drain pops up, which will certainly reduce carry capacity)

Given that bombs themselves are splash weapons and effervescent bombs are stated to work like bombs apart from swapping direct damage for the "puddle of fire" effect, on what do you base this statement?

Because splash weapons always deal direct damage. This does not deal direct damage. It states having an AoE of 5 ft radius without dealing direct damage which makes it a [non-splash] AoE. It also specifically overrides normal bomb mechanics in this way as well: "Each creature within this area takes 1d4 points of fire damage immediately and again each round it remains within or enters the puddle".

Isn't the splash damage part of the direct damage though? Effervescent bombs create a special effect, they don't do that direct damage.

I think you're replying to blahpers and giving the same argument that I gave? you just worded it poorly, because the perfumer bombs don't have direct damage, and the AoE damage shouldn't be called splash damage either.

It does still make sense to count the AoE damage as splash area for the purposes of bomb discoveries though (even though by strict, unreasonable RAW interpretation it technically wouldn't be allowed), but that's not the same thing as saying that it is splash damage.

What about someone with a reach weapon?

That wouldn't matter; since if they can't provoke those squares in the first place there's no point to say that they won't get an AoO.

when a creature is moving into your square, isn't it the square that the creature is leaving that you'd have to threaten

Yes, but I'm talking about moving through an opponent's square. The FAQ talked about how moving through an opponents square won't trigger an additional AoO despite the fact that there's those two separate actions of leaving a threatened square and crossing the opponent's square.

I suppose one could also say that it might not even count as crossing an opponent's square if they're ending their turn on that square, in which case the FAQ clarification is 100% pointless as far as I can tell.

There'd be no way to cross over a target that can provoke it's own square without provoking normally (leaving a threatened area). I guess alternatively one can say that the rule "moving through another creature's square provokes an AoO" is 100% useless instead.

Either way it's strange.

Warning on the metamorph: I retired mine after level 7 because it was so broken overpowered.

Ehh, Doesn't really get particularly strong until level 9 (pounce), and is somewhat weak below level 5.

I wouldn't say they're THAT strong. Lots of other classes can be equally strong around that time, as well as be useful for more than just combat.

They're a cool class, but reasonably well balanced; perhaps even a bit weak.

Do their levels count as caster levels even though they don't get spells since the base class being modified gets spells or is the whole thing moot and they can just sprout wings and gain a fly speed via shapechanging?

Officially/RAW, Wings won't do anything. Any reasonable person should allow it. Overall it's a moot point because like you said one would just shapechange into a creature that can fly in the first place

This doesn’t mean that a Tiny or smaller creature entering a creature’s space and moving out of a threatened square with a move action provokes two attacks of opportunity from that creature, for the same reason that moving out of multiple of a creature’s threatened squares in the same move action doesn’t provoke two attacks of opportunity.

Huh... This is a very strange thing for them to say when they're talking about a small or larger sized creature. What's the point in even discussing if moving into the square provokes if the threatened area is going to be larger than their square and leaving that area will provoke anyway?

In fact there's hardly reason to be mentioning this (entering a square provoking an AoO) at all, since it seems to be saying that moving through a creatures square [doesn't] provoke an AoO, because it's impossible for something that can attack to not be threatening it's own square. Meaning the only case the two AoOs apply is when one ends their turn on the opponent's square, and the opponent is tiny or smaller (or otherwise has no additional reach), since that is the only situation where entering a square could effectively provoke an AoO.

Because they don't word it like that, it is a very dubious clarification/rule on their part if you ask me.

I don't consider it confusing or poorly worded at all. The only problem is it isn't more specific about the discoveries that it does/doesn't work with, such as Explosive missile.

Overall, it's pretty easy to decide using common sense and reasoning.

Just to be clear, effervescent bombs ARE NOT SPLASH weapons. They are [non-splash] AoE, just like fuse grenades. AoE is not the same thing as splash. Splash has a main target and splash damage. AoE just hits everything with the same damage.

Effervescent bombs are really weak and bad because of this. At high levels they have potential to deal some more damage than normal bombs, but only if the opponents aren't able/willing to get out of the AoE, which means 90% of the time they're significantly worse.

It's a cool concept, but failed in execution. I recommend that a GM works to improve the archetype to be a bit more useful (just don't go overboard!)

Examples of common sense rulings for discoveries:
* Explosive Bomb: Yes, just treat "splash" as AoE (applies to some other discoveries as well). Officially/RAW this would not work, but there's no reason to disallow it, and it would be stupid to disallow it, particularly when it's already weak.
* Any bomb that has an effect on a direct hit: direct hit effect won't work, making these discoveries really bad.
* Healing Bomb: perhaps the one exception to being easy to interpret. Either you allow it to heal the minimum amount for multiple rounds and let that be the Perfumer's 1 good thing and not buff him (which in my opinion is lame, as it would make him a very bland one-tricky pony healer), or else you go the more RAW route and just have it function for the one single bit of instantaneous healing.
* Immolation bomb: simply wouldn't work. Also note that anyone who wants to deal actual decent damage while having bombs that work like a perfumer, this is the discovery to be taking. Very good for efficient bomb damage if you have the time for bombs to burn and/or rule that the DoT stacks.

I'm personally a fan of giving the perfumer a buff to specific discoveries that will work with them, or which would be fitting to MAKE workwith them, such as Smoke Bomb or Stink Bomb, or Poisoned Explosive (normally wouldn't work, but you could have it affect everything in the first round, or have it apply poison to everyone no more than once even if they stay in the cloud), Inferno Bomb, Plague Bomb, Poison Bomb.

I'm also a fan of increasing the damage to 1d6 nonlethal (at least if the player likes it), allowing greater and grand pheremones, as well as buffing greater and grand pheremones.

Without buffs, the perfumer is weaker than the Blazing Torchbearer (the previously weakest/worst alchemist archetype). Speaking of which, Blazing Torchbearer is an archetype I kind of like the style of too. It's a shame they just made it an NPC class instead of something cool (I don't know why there aren't any melee-bomb alchemist archetypes, like that use a blowtorch instead of bombs, or have a bomb that detonates around them in a 5 or 10 foot ring.

I'm aware of the rules regarding spell recovery. I'm not trying to recharge my spells more often then once a day. It's the nine hours to recover spells I dislike. I have had several GMs screw me with the resting nine hours to recover spells. Ring of Sustanence and armor with Restful decrease the time to recover spells. Instead of 9 hours it's only 3. It's that extra six hour that can make a huge difference. Some dungeons and adventures have encounters set up just to do this.

I'm not trying to break the rules regarding spell recovery. I'm not looking for more then once a day. I was trying to remove something that I felt hindering. 8 hours plus an hour to recover spells. I'm perfectly happy with using armor with Restful quality and shrink that time to 2 hours then an hour recovery.

I guess the key piece of information that you have still never said —yet which is very pertinent— is that no one else in the party needs to sleep? (or at least for more than 2 hours)

I'm stating the obvious here, but unless the previous statement was true (or unless you were otherwise doing something specific while one or more other party members were sleeping) reducing the required rest time wouldn't be useful.

In my above example, the wizard would be unconscious if he took another point of Strength damage from the poison, but no further Strength penalties can apply (such a hit from ray of enfeeblement)?

No, an additional point of strength damage from poison would put him at 10 - 9 (=1) with a -2 penalty (min 1, hence =1), where the -2 penalty has no effect because they're already at minimum 1 strength.

Penalties would always be calculated after damage.