Raestlin's page

Rather than specific cantrips you could just easily alter the Element ability at level one to say that you can freely conjure small amounts of your element at will for various effect.

It could quickly explain that fire could create a small flame like the Spark cantrip, air could do something like Breeze, Water could create a gallon of water like Create Water or the Drench cantrip. Earth could what make an amount of unworked soil, replace simple materials like the mending spell? That last one is getting pretty arcane.

Wizards cannot cast spells from divine scrolls (not unless they use UMD or something similar).

But can a wizard add a spell from a divined spell scroll into his spellbook (provided that it IS on his spell list)?

An arcane spellcaster with use magic device could maybe cast the spell, but never learn it.

I see it this way, an arcane spell scroll is tons of magical theory the workings etc; a divine scroll is the proper prayers and supplications etc.

In short they are totally different, if your GM allows it cool, but I think its pretty clear the rules say no.

Glitterdust blinds you with a Will save. Sometimes things are wonky.

I can see your point, but isn't the intent of the will save to show mental willpower, isn't that directly opposed to madness save in areas where the madness is a result of physiology such as poison or spores?

"Gift of Madness (Su): ... to become confused for 1 round. A successful Fortitude save negates the effect. This is a mind-affecting compulsion effect..."

Shouldn't this be a will save? Its mind affecting and clearly has a mental method of provoking the confusion.

Jason can probably give you the best answer on that, but I suspect it relates to:

1) Monk using flurry is supposed to correspond to TWF fighter.
2) TWF fighter has to have two magic weapons.
3) Thus the monk's cost is double the cost for one weapon.

Keep in mind also that the amulet of mighty fists doesn't need to have a +1 base enhancement bonus before you put other abilities on it. So when TWF fighter is paying for two +1 flaming frost shock weapons (+4 total bonus, 32,300 gp each, 64,600 gp total), the monk only has to get a +3-equivalent amulet of mighty fists (45,000 gp).

And the monk doesn't have to buy armor to keep his AC up, so that frees up more income compared to the fighter.

Anyway, I suspect those are some of the reasons.

You can have frost flaming, the abilities can all be activated.

I guess this matter is closed, in the thread I posted this from he shows the dice stacking. I was incorrect, good show to everyone that posted corrections to some of my factual errors and got this thread on track. I wanted a Dev answer and I got one, thanks to everyone that took the time on this one.

Alright, I disagree with your interpretation of the "until another command is given" sentence, but assuming you are correct if a crafter sets the command word for both the flaming and the cold properties to be the same word then both would activate at the same time, there would never be "another command given." This is possible because of the way command words are set, a weapon's ability can...

That is possibly a scenario that could be claimed, as a GM I would still say that whichever one ends the previous effect.

Also I am not claiming that there isn't a command to deactivate them, just that any other command deactivates it as well as the deactivate command. I would really like to see a Developer post on this, a Pathfinder developer not a 3 dollar an hour WOTC intern.

EDIT: You may also want to consider that activating a single ability costs a standard action, allowing them to tie several abilities to a single command word may be overpowered.

Raestlin wrote:

Jiraiya22 wrote:

Raestlin, I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text for flaming. Your problem is that Flaming says that it stays in effect until another command is spoken correct? Here's the text that allows you to activate all of a weapon's abilities at the same time.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text.

Thats kind of what I meant when I said that we are at impasse because we are both reading the same words and coming to different conclusions. I think you are misinterpreting, and you think I am misinterpreting.

I know, that's why I tried to find an argument that fit with your interpretation, although I may be misunderstanding your difficulty. If so, please tell me exactly why you don't think a weapon can have multiple effects at the same time?

My point is that it can be enchanted with both, but the way I read the rule is that both abilities cannot be activated at the same time. As the command for the second elemental ability would "turn off" the first one. I believe this because it states that the flaming property persists until "another command is given" and to activate the frost property you must "give a command" that satisfies the above condition and the flaming property is turned off and the frost is turned on. Note that it doesn't say a command to turn it off turns it off, just that when it recieves another command it will cease being activated.

That is how I am reading it, but we may disagree on the interpretation.

I have explained this argument previously, but it was pretty agressively attacked on this thread, so I'll explain it here again.

Fact 1: Rule X uses Wording W in both PF and 3.5.
Fact 2: Reference R, usually an FAQ or "Rules of the Game" article, clarifies Rule X and the meaning of Wording W as it applies to 3.5.
Conclusion: Because PF uses the same Wording W for Rule X, it is reasonable to assume that, unless told otherwise, Reference R can be used to clarify Rule X and the meaning of Wording W as it applies to PF as well.

The reason why you were attacked is you are using flawed logic.

Just because some aspects of Pathfinder agree with 3.5 does not imply that the rest of it does.

Raestlin, I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text for flaming. Your problem is that Flaming says that it stays in effect until another command is spoken correct? Here's the text that allows you to activate all of a weapon's abilities at the same time.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid your misinterpreting the text.

Thats kind of what I meant when I said that we are at impasse because we are both reading the same words and coming to different conclusions. I think you are misinterpreting, and you think I am misinterpreting.

Yeah I guess its a waste of time to buy something called a Core Rulebook for Pathfinder, I mean its just 3.5 right?

Pathfinder is Pathfinder. Its based on 3.5 in much the same way as 3.0 is based on 2nd edition, which is to say that it could be called a continuance of the same spirit but is very much not the same game.

if you're looking at DPR then +1 to hit and damage is slightly better than +d6 damage

also a +1 flaming, frost, acid, weapon cant overcome the dr/admantine,cold iron, and silver a +4 sword could.

and by the time you can afford a weapon like that (according to WBL), just about everything has at least resist 5 or better to 2 or more of the elements

We are comparing apples to apples, not apples and oranges and bears that like to eat apples but not oranges. Definitely there are situations where the +2 would be better ex) a creature immune to cold and electricity that is weak against fire. But thats a contrived scenario made to tailor to one side of the argument. My post was referring to how the multiple active elemental abilities seems unlikely.

I don't think you're using "balanced" correctly. Balance is a mechanical term, which means two (or more) things are roughly equal for their costs. Your arguments have been mostly based on one way of reading the rules (which is perfectly valid) and the logic of a weapon that's both freezing and burning (which is also perfectly valid). However, those are not balance arguments.

That is a valid interpretation coming from the idea that it was intended for you to have flaming frost shock weapons. I however think they intended you to NOT do that, which is why it stacks terribly if you go that route.

Lets compare two weapons:

a +1 flaming frost shock shortsword under your rules (Equivalent +4)
with a +2 flaming burst shortsword (Equivalent +4)

the +1 weapon deals 1d6 +3d6 (fire, frost, shock damage) on every hit
the +2 weapon deals 1d6 +1d6 fire damage (+1d10 fire on a crit)

the +1 weapon deals an average of 4+9 damage, total 13
the +2 deals an average of 5+3, total 8 (13 only on crit)

Do you see what I mean by unbalanced? The burst properties start to lose any value unless its on a high crit x4 weapon. Not only that, but the +1 three elemental sword means that a creature with an immunity to one element likely is weak against another mitigating the immunity while the +2 sword deals no additional damage.

[EDIT: Added additional to +2 sword deals no damage]

Raestlin wrote:

I stand corrected Happler, thanks for quoting the source. I missed that somehow.

[dryly] You're welcome. [/dryly]

You quoted a general rule much as I had, Happler quoted a specific rule that overrode the general rule I had posted.

That is the difference between his posts and yours. Not trying to be a dick but that's why I disagreed with you and agreed with him.

The specific overrides the general.

From the PRD on Magic weapons and activating them:

Quote:

Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by attacking with it. If a weapon has a special ability that the user needs to activate, then the user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action). A character can activate the special abilities of 50 pieces of ammunition at the same time, assuming each piece has identical abilities.

So,...

I stand corrected Happler, thanks for quoting the source. I missed that somehow.

At this point I think we are running into a wall. The same words are meaning two different things to two different groups.

I think we need a developer like Sean K Reynolds to answer this question.

So far I see only two reasonable interpretations.

1)Activating a command ability ends any other command ability on the weapon. This is my interpretation from how its written and seems to me to fit a more balanced mechanic.

2)Activating a command ability DOES NOT end any other command abilities currently on that weapon. However each ability must be activated on its own and ended on its own command. This is Bobson's interpretation and while it seems more unbalanced to me, it has merit.

Some people in this thread advocate the multiple sublinked command words that all lead to varying combinations of on and off abilities. I do not think that is correct but maybe a dev can clear this up.

Actually Rae, you didn't.

Table 8-2 (pg 183 of the PDF) has "Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil" as a standard action.

And on page 184, under "Activate a magic item" "Unless otherwise
noted, activating a magic item is a standard action."

Text and table agree. Also please find for me a citation that activating a weapon property is a swift action.

There's also no text indicating you can only have one energy function at a time.

Edit: Changed 'free' to 'swift'

From the Combat Section of the Players Handbook wrote:

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.

Its from page 1 where I posted it. Using magic items generally is a standard action, as you are using them for an action, such as a Ring of the Ram projecting a blast of force or throwing a handful of Dust of Appearance. Commanding a weapon to be engulfed in flame seems like more of the swift action type.

Karuth wrote:

I didn't know activating flaming etc. on a weapon was a standard action o.O

Speaking a few sentences is a free action. Uttering a single word is a standard action?

Yes . It's because of balance. And because it's magic. It's more than just speaking a word. You have to put your will behind it.

So you can say a few words as a free action. Let's say 10.

So I get 10 items that unleash powerful stuff at command. As a free action, I speak all their command words, and where before stood an unprepared opponent now stands an invulnerable juggernaut who will just wipe you out.

Its not a standard action, its a swift action. I posted the source in the Core Rulebook earlier in this thread.

Kaeyoss, we can disagree on your point. To me the rules say that when another command is given, not necessarily to deactivate it, just another command. Say Frost after Fire is already active; thats another command.

So flaming swords and and the Leadership feat don't work together? You command your cohort to charge and your sword winks out?

I believe I answered this earlier, activating a command on an item ends any current commands ON THAT ITEM. Yelling charge at a cohort is a free action, its not activating a magic item. Even if yelling at a cohort was activating a magic item, its a different item that you are activating and its not ending effects on other items.

Raestlin wrote:

Kaeyoss, we can disagree on your point. To me the rules say that when another command is given, not necessarily to deactivate it, just another command. Say Frost after Fire is already active; thats another command.

Would you say that activating any other magic item with a command word also deactivates your sword? Winged boots, for example, are command-based. If I say "Fly", does my sword no longer flame or frost?

No because the sword doesn't recognize the command for the boots. Say you have three command words, Fire for your sword, Frost for your sword, and Fly for your boots. Fire or Frost are commands for the sword, and alternately wreathe the sword in flame or chilling cold. If Frost is active and you say Fire, the sword gets a new command which ends the Frost effect. If Fire is active and you say Fly, the boots activate from the command and you fly, nothing happens to the sword as its not a command for the sword.

Ridiculous dice stacking? I increase all of those things based on the enhancement bonus of the weapon. (Natural, no GMW allowed)

A +5 flaming sword deals 5d6 fire damage. +5 flaming burst deals 5d6 plus 5d10 on a crit. +5 wounding sword deals 5 bleed.

Thats.... thats not the case at all. That is 100% wrong. A +5 flaming sword is +5 to hit, +5 to damage, with 1d6 fire damage.

Kaeyoss, we can disagree on your point. To me the rules say that when another command is given, not necessarily to deactivate it, just another command. Say Frost after Fire is already active; thats another command.

Sonchezz wrote:

This is exactly how it's supposed to work and why fighters do not continually stack damaging powers like this.

James Jacobs wrote:

The rules for activating and unactivating a weapon's energy damage is not in the game to force users of those weapons to spend an extra action to get ready above the action of drawing a weapon. The rules are mostly there for the cases where you want to turn OFF the effect, such as if you're entering an encounter where having visibly magic weapons might be a disadvantage.

Otherwise, the game assumes that the energy damage effect is left on all the time. It's not like those weapons will run out of power if they're left on all the time, after all.

James Jacobs wrote:

While it's a command word to activate or deactivate a weapon like a flaming or a frost weapon... once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically, and when you draw the weapon later it's ready to go. You'd only want to turn off the energy effect, as a previous poster said, when you're facing something that using that type of energy against is a bad idea.

As to the multiple abilities with one word, you have to go back to the 3.5 FAQ on that one, but it lists that you can set the same word for multiple abilities, but then they activate all or none (I believe the FAQ also said you could set multiple words on an item, to activate each power individually, one at a time, or all at once, as you needed).

The FAQ also confirmed that while the flaming/frosting/etc didn't hurt the wielder, if he put it down, it would harm the environment while unattended. So don't put your flaming sword under your pillow unless it's in a sheath or you turned off the flaming. :)

Okay the only thing this brings up, is that a single command, say flaming activates a specific ability that remains on. Notice use of a very important qualifer or, or is not in fact and. It specifically says that if you have flaming on, and then you use a command for another ability, it quenches flaming. Using the same command word for multiple abilities on one weapon is never mentioned in PATHFINDER rules, and the only thing I remember from 3.5 is that you could do flaming and frost at the same time on a DOUBLE WEAPON.

It could be ruled that "until another command is given" means that activating the next elemental type deactivates any currently active effects. This would work if you favor not mixing the types.

I wouldn't say could be ruled, that is how it is. Each ability has a command that activates it, you choose that when you make the ability or when you find it out from an existing item. Maybe an artifact or whatever has multiple elemental stacking types, but the way the rules are written the command looks to be tied to each ability.

Can a weapon be enchanted with both frost and flaming special abilities?

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.

Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.

Bold is me.

This prevents ridiculous dice stacking.

HD/BAB are right on target, he gets bard spell progression, bard HD/BAB, 6 skill per level. He is a full caster with skills and combat ability tacked on. If you upped his HD/BAB his casting would have to drop to a half caster like a paladin/ranger

We already have 2 divine half caster while we have no bard like divine caster. Bumping BAB/HD {they are tied now you bump both} would call for a total rewrite of the class.

I agree totally with regard to the balancing you presented. I just completed the Skinsaw Murders with an Inquisitor and the spells rarely came up. It might be just how I am playing the class, but I close melee early and if I cannot reach a target I use my Magic Domain to give my mace the returning property. I rarely used spells, but others might build it differently.

You seem to be missing the fact that the inquisitor doesn't get the spells granted by the domain, only the abilities.

A lot of these abilities are standard actions that grant some sort of ability for one round. I didn't particularly care for them on the cleric and I like it less on the inquisitor, since he is less about party support and more about direct combat. Most of the abilities don't do much for the inquisitor, and some do nothing at all, like the level 1 Sun domain ability. Sun themed inquisitors sound pretty good until you realize that you don't get anything by choosing that domain until level 8. The domains that are any good at all are pretty hard to fit the theme of an inquisitor. I WILL SMITE THEE IN THE NAME OF TRAVEL, SCUM! I know the domain abilities get better at level 8, but until then most of it's just junk.

Also, the thread name is great!

I play an Inquisitor and the Magic Domain has been working pretty great for me. I can use my mace as a melee and ranged weapon doubling its effectiveness.

I could see some of the domains being less effective, but honestly each deity gets like 3-4 so I am sure you can find something useful in one of them.

PLEASE change the Inquisitor name to Avenger, I am begging you Paizo! It's much better than Inquisitor.

Look up the Inquisitors of Cheliax. Notice the asmodeus holy symbol on the class page. Inquisitor makes sense.

Raestlin wrote:

Wizard with Conjuration focus is simply better than the summoner now without argument.

Derp herp.

.......

Although the exact power level is debatable, the wizard is by no means "simply better".

I could argue with you, but since a battle of opinions has no winner it would be worthless.

From my playtest, the summoner generally did little save buff his eidolon and summon meat shields. The medium attack bonus never really came up. Limiting the spell selection would just take away options on the summoners turn and weakening the eidolon just means its more likely that its going to die leaving the weakened summoner half a character class.

Wizard with Conjuration focus is simply better than the summoner now without argument.

I loved the summoner class when it first came out, and while there definately needed to be changes, it seems like it was gutted and would be better served as a prestige class than a normal one.

64d6+32? At level 10?

256 damage to one target. About 85 DPR assuming everything hits.

A wizard 10 can do 180 in 3 rounds with 3 maximized fireballs to everything within 20ft. Easily achieved with a rod of lesser maximize. Using up just three 3rd level slots. Your alchemist is using up 1/3 of his offensive capabilities for that. The wizard is still packing all his 4th and 5th level spell slots. Which could include up to 3 maximized scorching rays.

Does your DM not allow evokers in his sessions either? or double bladed sword wielding barbarians

You've made a glass cannon that'll die in 2 hits from a fire giant.

So you are comparing a level 10 wizard burning magic item charges over a period of 3 rounds to an alchemist simply attacking over 2 rounds?

Yeah, that is totally apples to apples.

lvl 10 human alchemist lvl 1 and 3 feats are point blank shot and weapon focus(bomb) leaving you with a few undetermined feats.

18 dex (start at 16 +2 from lvls 4 and 8) 18 int 10 every other stat. drink a dex mutagen taking my dex to 22 so i have a +15/+10 to attack with a bomb. Dex with a penalty to wisdom? seriously who needs it when you stand in the back throwing bombs.

All discoveries are 3 potent bombs + fast bombs + sticky bombs.

14 times / day you can throw 2 bombs / round if you just stand still with a +15/+10 attack bonus that deals 16d6 dmg each, each lasts an extra round.

So what you are saying is the first round is 8d6/8d6 total is 16d6. Round 2 is 16d6/16d6 total 32d6. Thats beyond ridiculous. This needs addressed immediately.

Kraven Evilfart wrote:

Except alchemy in the form of chemistry simple does not work, you can't make lead into gold.

Playing devil's advocate here, but you can in fact turn lead into gold using physics... it just requires an incredible amount of energy to get the lead to drop an electron. They don't do it regularly because it costs more in energy than the gold is worth in the market.

I do agree that the alchemist abilities need to be supernatural. Take the magic out and make it completely mundane and you open the door to "If his extracts are mundane, why can't the cleric use them?"

My friend, you mean that you would need to strip PROTONS from the nucleus. That would require you surmounting the Strong Force, literally the strongest force in the universe that overpowers electromagnetism utterly. Not only is the strong force insurmountable but we know almost nothing about its carrier particle the theorized Higgs-Boson.

You cannot make lead into gold with modern day physics, its impossible.

Again, your logic seems to come down to circular reasoning. You dislike it because you dislike it. And claiming that your players will start creating gunpowder or engines is patently rediculous.

Lastly, I feel the need to point out that the person I was originally responding to stated that it couldn't happen because "that's not how things in the Dark Ages worked." That's the logic I have an issue with.

Technology that is not based on magic is generally at the medieval level in Pathfinder. Your suggestion is that the alchemist has capabilities of more modern day technology. Those two ideas do not jive together.

Really :|

We're going to throw out the realism card in a game where you actually benefit from lighting yourself on fire rather then fighting in total darkness?

Really?

A dragon's breath weapon is considered Supernatural. It could be considered to be a natural process for the dragon and non magical. But its not its considered supernatural, alchemy could be considered non magical and simply mixing chemicals together. Buts its not its considered a spell infused into those chemicals.

In short, my statement wasn't saying Pathfinder has to be realistic. My statement was that Pathfinder considers the alchemists bombs magical. Thus it wouldn't make sense for it to be EX. Stop pushing for it.

I have only one real comment about the Alchemist so far, it seems to work pretty well. It is a bit bland in some areas BUT I do have one suggestion that I think may help it keep it's flavor and uniqueness without adding "more power" to the stew, so to speak.

I noticed all the alchemy related class features were listed as Su (Supernatural). This seems to take the wind out of the sails for what is supposed to be a concept who deliberately chooses a path away from magic in the traditional sense and in the context of D&D 3.0 and 3.5 (of which Pathfinder is a continuation), the strength of alchemy in that it is "mundane" and able to function in the absence of magic.

I propose that all of the Alchemist's class abilities be downgraded in category to Extraordinary abilities, allowing them to function in Anti-Magic Shells, in campaign ares where magic does not function, etc.

By doing this, it gives the Alchemist strength that in the general context does not overpower or imbalance the game, but provides a certain flavor of uniqueness and flair of choice. After all, there has to be a reason for someone to want to take to this class, and if it's just another spellcaster, it might as well not be called an Alchemist, no?

The alchemist is a spellcasting class, making it EX would be foolish and unbalancing? Medieval alchemists did form the foundation of chemistry, but I can guarantee you the bombs they were able to make took a long time, were unreliable, and were not as powerful as you think.

I've always liked the concept of blackguards, don't get me wrong. I just see them as black knights - I'm here, I'm evil and you'd better get used to it.

With what code of conduct are you shackling the players? :P

A code of conduct doesn't really work for evil characters. Many times an evil character is good til a crucial moment, or blends in while working behind the scenes.

I think it would be a mistake to assume the Blackguard should be a inverse paladin. It simply doesn't work nor would just inverting the powers. Playing an evil character is completely different than a good one.

Raestlin wrote:

I don't see auras on any divine caster other than the paladin and the cleric.

Nope, every aligned creature (above 5 HD) and magic item (above CL 5) has an aura. Clerics, paladins, undead, and outsiders have particularly potent auras, however.

The aura class ability under the paladin and cleric classes aren't so much a true class ability as they are a reminder that your HD scale differently on the detect evil/good scale.

Right, I meant the original comment I was referring to seemed to imply that it had to have that different scale.

All divine casters have an appropriate aura. Why is the blackguard any different?

I don't see auras on any divine caster other than the paladin and the cleric.

Mahrdol wrote:

If your Eidolon has dr 5/good is its natural weapons consider to be good aligned?

Why would it?

A creature with damage reduction can usually breach that damage reduction with its natural attacks.

I know this basically over and done with and there is very little chance of an art work change. Still....

The Cavalier Iconic should be a Gnome riding a Giant Gecko! It's to colorful not to be done! And it would be good to have support for the Gaint Gecko as a Cavalier mount in the ruled at some point.

Really? Are you for real? Is this really happening?

Abraham spalding wrote:

The following is in the Bestiary:

" If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on attack rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type."

So if all you have is the pincers then they would be treated as primary. if you only have one attack then it works as if it is primary too.

How specific is a type of attack? Is it slashing/piercing/bludgeoning, or it it more specific. For example, would claws and pincers be different types of attacks even though they both deal slashing damage?

Natural attacks are usually Slam, Claws, or Bite. Thats what I believe it means by type. Not slashing piercing or bludgeoning.

The following is in the Bestiary:

" If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on attack rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type."

So if all you have is the pincers then they would be treated as primary. if you only have one attack then it works as if it is primary too.

Thanks for the post, this wrapped up quite a few questions I had.

Ceefood wrote:

They would become secondary attacks

I don't agree. After describing pincers, it goes on to say: "Alternatively, the eidolon can replace the claws from its base form with pincers (this still costs 1 evolution point)." I read this as saying you can add pincers, or "alternatively" you can modify your base claws into pincers. And the fact that you're modifying a primary attack, and still have to pay 1 evolution point, leads me to believe if you evolve your base claws they stay primary attacks. No one is going to spend 1 point to reduce their attacks from primary to secondary.

I do have a question however. With the pincers, are you still able to hold items/weapons, open doors, manipulate items, etc.?

That is what I was thinking, if you are adding pincers to limbs without an existing attack it should be secondary. However, if you are converting the existing claws which are a primary attack into pincers it should remain primary.

Wouldn't "if you only have one attack its always primary" apply?

Raestlin wrote:

I understand that the claws on a bipedal eidolon are considered primary attacks. If you modify the claws with the Pincer evolution does that keep it as a primary attack or would it become a secondary as written?

Just to clarify - claws on ANY eidolon are considered primary

as for the pincers the way I read it is you have to replace claws with the pincers based on what is written in the playtest document "the eidolon can replace the claws from its base form with pincers (this still costs 1 evolution point)" - it also says that "This evolution can be selected more than once, but the eidolon must possess an equal number of the limbs evolution" so I take that to mean for every pincer evolution there must be a set of limbs & does not state that it allows claws as well

I meant do the pincer attacks that replace the claw attack remain primary, or do they become secondary attacks?

I understand that the claws on a bipedal eidolon are considered primary attacks. If you modify the claws with the Pincer evolution does that keep it as a primary attack or would it become a secondary as written?

"Only spells and Spell-like abilities are subject to Spell Resistance. Extraordinary and Supernatural abilities (including enhancement bonuses on magic weapons) are not." - Pathfinder RPG Players Guide (page 564)

So you don't need to worry about Spell Resistance on your bombs at least.

As for an Antimagic field, it states that items created by magic but are thereafter self sustaining such as golems are unaffected. You could make an argument that the bomb requires magic to be infused, but thereafter sustains itself til it explodes. However you would still have to be outside the field to infuse it, and within range to throw it.

To me the Witch is a seriously underpowered class for a player character. I am not one to insist on damage output, or battle worthiness but the witch doesn't even really seem like a viable choice.

The reliance on touch attacks seems odd for such a soft class. Not to mention that most of the buffs and debuffs are once per person/day.

At best I think the Witch class is better viewed as an NPC class, but your playtest shows even that might be hoping for too much.

Exactly what I have been saying, good post Stipe.

There have been people comparing simple damage output of wizard to alchemist as if its apples to apples. Why not compare damage output of a fighter to a bard?

The alchemist is clearly a class of choices, yes the bombs are not quite as good as a wizards fireball but the alchemist can also change the properties of the bombs, use poison, or even drink mutagen to help out if it needs to be melee time.

Touch of Flame, Wintry Touch, Touch of Acid, and Touch of Electricty all provide a benefit to melee at level 11. The oracle of bones focus has a touch based attack that does not gain any benefit at level 11. Is there a reason that Bones doesn't level accordingly? I personally think even if it made any weapon you wielded a wounding weapon it would be better than nothing.

After thinking about I think that all the "Seer" revelations should be granted at level 1 with no revelation choice. By this I mean Voice of the Grave for the Oracle of Bones, Gaze of Flames for the Oracle of flames, Crystal Sight for the Earth Oracle, etc. I think it makes sense that an Oracle should have some kind of seer ability related to their focus as they are in fact an Oracle.

Rearrange the revelations as below. This might result in empty levels but it may actually benefit more for players. I would like to see this playtested.

So revelations would be given at 2/5/8/11/14/17. That gives you one more revelation than normal but I think it would give the class more oomph.

I was looking for a way to either increase or redistribute revelations to make them a little more accessible at lower levels.

The last normal revelation that you get is at level 19, honestly that late in the game a revelation isn't going to have much impact. I believe that if you removed the level 19 revelation and added another revelation at level 2, you could then move all the other revelations up one to even levels.

This would increase access to revelations that are only useful at lower levels and increase people taking more flavor based revelations such as Voice of the Grave, Gaze of Flames, Crystal Sight, Etc.

"It self buffs with mutagen -- Barbarians do the same with rage with better bonuses and less penalties on a full BAB chassis."

But its not a barbarian, the barbarian rage is better, but thats the whole class. You cannot really believe that the alchemist should be able to ape a front line melee fighter with all the other abilities and options it gets.

"It blasts with bombs -- Something people have gone over a lot. It deals less damage than any other blaster (blasters are weak to begin with too) to a smaller area, with more time needed, and more difficulty in getting it done."

While each individual bomb is weaker, you definately get more per day than a wizard or sorceror.

"It buffs/heals -- however to do this to others it requires a discovery, and even then it's barely even at this most of the time, as the buffs only affect the target, meaning that haste isn't as useful for the alchemist (only one target instead of the party). However once it has the discovery the others could buff themselves with move actions -- something no other buffer has the ability to give."

Once again you are sacrificing straight up power for versatility.

"It specializes -- with discoveries but so many of the discoveries end up being "must haves" just to make everything else work that you don't have enough to actually get good at one thing."

It seems like one of your complaints is that you have to choose class features instead of being assigned them. Its a class that can do many different things, how you build the character is up to you.