Sqrl's page

Sturmir wrote:

In the example he gave, he states approaching a mineral vein, and using knowledge dungeoneering to identify the mineral, using engineering to identify the tools used, using geography to identify what the region is known for in minerals.

If he's asking something basic, just assume he takes 10 on the knowledge and tell him what type of mineral it is. If he's asking something irrelevant, like the tools used or the type of plant the creature is eating, just say, "Who cares? Stop wasting everyone's time."

Regardless of the situation or player I think declaring any question you don't immediately understand the point of as a waste of time is just going to cause more drama.

A far better way to handle that is giving the person a little bit of rope and if things don't seem to come together in some sort of coherent idea after a moment you can move on to another player saying "OK that is going to take you some time to research" (or whatever fits) at the appropriate next question and then just turn to the next player and say "What are you doing during all of this?" and continue doing so until all of the other players have had a shot in the spotlight before returning to him. Let the player come to the conclusion they are wasting their own time in the spotlight rather than declaring, quite aggressively I might add, that they are wasting everyone's time. After all this is an RP, they can do what they want with their characters and follow any line of reason. Its far better to nudge them by giving them the chance to draw the conclusion for themselves that their effort is taking too long and bearing no fruit than it is to seek out a confrontation.

Of course if they are deliberately trying to be a nuisance to the game and they create the confrontation you won't have a choice. But then its time to boot them from the group and seeka another player.

I really disagree with the idea of applying penalties to them. It still results in multiple rolls and and it feels like they're being penalized (i.e. it will only escalate the issue).

The standard way that we handle this for my group is the GM calls for a Knowledge (x) roll. If it could be covered by more than one skill you call for X or Y. Player's choice which one.

Having said that I do understand the frustration of the player as well. He has invested probably no small number of ranks into his skills and aligned his character to be good at this. In short he paid the price to be this good at this and just wants to feel like he got value out of that effort.

I think the idea of providing circumstance bonuses based on the related skills is also fine. I would just caution you may want to tie it to a certain number of ranks so its not a single rank dump to get the bonus.

Full disclosure, I am currently playing a character who at level 7 has at least 5 ranks in all 10 of the "typical" knowledge skills with bonuses all in the low to mid 20s. It only gets worse from here, and I really only ever need the 1 roll.

Epic thread necromancy.

Also, Downtime rules supersede SHB by a good margin. There are some missing bits. If those don't get picked up by a 3PP I might see if I can crunch some rules up myself.

Fair point on the necro, I just found the thread via google search. I tend not to mind a necro on a high google result just because such threads have moved beyond just the context of the thread in its time and into informational resources. An update doesn't hurt.

And I totally agree on the downtime rules, they are pretty well done. As with anything there are things to gripe about, but its a solid and worthwhile effort.

I have had SHB Guide since it came out. The prices for some things are fairly reasonable but for other things they are truly ridiculous.

A pretty good example of that is the Luxury Dining Hall which nets you polished wooden or marble tables with your choice of one long table to seat 16 or several smaller to seat 30. The head chair is exquisitely carved for the head of household. The tables are covered with the finest linens and the room is stocked with fine silverware and china. The walls have fine artwork, busts of well-known heroes, and there is a "beautiful chandelier". Finally, you get your choice of marble or parquet floors.

This is certainly a luxury dining hall, no doubt about it. And its all yours for the low low price of 50,000 pieces of gold!

-If we assume your standard long banquet table is 100 gp, we add in a masterwork component of 300 (probably high) and we have 400 gp table.
-Lets say its 50 gp for a chair, and 350 for the exquisitely carved one costing (15*50)+350=1,100 gp for chairs.
-Fine linens..100 gp maybe?
-Fine Silverware and China 250gp each so 500 gp total.
-Fine artwork. The room is 2 SS so about 20x40 with a total perimeter of 120 feet. Its safe to assume double door grand entry and at least 2 servant doors, probably 4-6 floor to ceiling grand windows looking out into probably a garden or something. So call that 8 five ft sections already spoken for (no fireplace? wow lame). So we have 16 five ft sections of wall we can put art on. Assuming 250 gp per art piece plus a grand main piece worth 1,000 gp this is 4,750 gp.
-Lets assume 8 busts at around 100 gp each for 800 gp.
-Call it 2500 gp for the marble flooring.
-And finally our chandalier is probably a solid 1500 gp.

All totaled up we have 11,650 gp. Which is actually very close to the 10k gp GM's gut geeling I had before I began this process. Either way 50k gp is absolutely insanely overpriced.

But wait, you cannot have that Luxury dining hall until you also have your Luxury Kitchen (it is required by SHB).

-2 Full Stoves each with griddle, stovetop, and large oven.
-Open fireplace for roasting (up to a full pig).
-2 Marble Basins for the Scullery
-Polished marble or tile floor.
-Copper pots and pans.

So lets go wild and say 500 gp per stove, 250 gp for a nice fire pit setup (likely far less in truth), 50 gp each on the basins, 2500 gp for marble floors and 1000 gp for a complete set of copper pots and pans. So that comes out to 4,850 gp compared to the book price of 50,000 gp again.

So you've just spent 100,000 gp by SHB for a kitchen and a dining hall. Let that sink in for a moment. Does anyone actually think these are reasonable values? No, I take that back, does anyone actually think a quarter of these prices are reasonable values? Consider the costs of the breakdown if you scale it up so it actually costs 50,000 gp per room, a quick run through just the dining hall and your party rogue could walk off with about 26,000 gp in art, busts, linens, china, and silverware.

And its not just the luxury stuff, there are issues with the taverns and inn prices as well....

Remember that an untrained laborer only makes 1 sp a day according to the rules. A trained one makes 3 sp a day. We might be able to use the rules and imagine a guy who has a +10 to his skill who can save up to build an inn or tavern but consider the thousands and thousands of inns and taverns that dot the countryside and it doesn't take long to see there simply aren't enough people with the skill of +10 and the foresight to save that long to start these establishments. Particularly since keeping such a place running in the face of the drunken patrons who break things, the employees who steal things (food, gold, forks, plates, you name it), and lords who want to tax your good fortune and its easy to see how even those who manage to get the skill and save up the money for almost two decades might not stay in the business for long. Particularly, if he was expecting the revenue rates discussed above from his 1 to 3 sp wage per day patrons.

In order to justify the inns and taverns that show up in every thorpe, hamlet, and village in fantasy settings the cost of building a basic lot is probably little more than 200 to 600 gp depending on economic factors in the area, and not all of that necessarily needs to be in direct gp.

My solution: I am not sure it was out when this thread was started, but I think the Ultimate Campaign supplement is probably the closest to getting this right in terms of hitting the right economic scale as well as a good system for tracking the costs of such things without getting too bogged down (or outrageously expensive). Regardless of if you are looking for rules on just a single establishment, building a whole town, or an entire kingdom I think UC is the way to go.

Before UC I was house ruling anything to do with buildings and the like because at the end of the day your player's gold should be for kitting up to kick butt and when they go and spend on more story or RP related things you should be rewarding them with bargain prices not highway robbery.

When you are running a game what you reward you will get more of, what you punish you will get less of. If you want your players and their characters invested in the world then when they start looking at carving out a small piece of it to call their own you should encourage that. Particularly when it is so rewarding as a GM when your players give you so many fantastic plot hooks. I hear people complain about "My adventuring group wants to build a home, I thought they were adventurers!"...well they are, they are just currently motivated by something a little off the beaten path. So adjust your story hooks accordingly, instead of "The princess has been kindapped..." its "There are tales from the dwarves who dwell in the Ashor'ai Mountains that a strange new and exotic stone has been discovered with bizarre properties unlike anything ever seen by mortal men. These stories came down from the mountain with a fury on the lips of everyone traveling the roads betwixt. But then a week ago the the stories went stale, and people began to notice that the normal influx of trade has ground to a halt. Now we fear the worst, have the dwarves finally delved too deep and bitten off more than they can chew?" etc....

But I digress...

Those articles no longer exist. Wizards of the Coast has removed them.

I found this post doing a google search and I just wanted to point out that those articles are definitely still available:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

More to the point the the section relevant to the OP's question is from Part 3:

For game purposes, we can define "studying" an illusion as taking an action (which DMs can choose to make a move action since this is an extrapolation of the rules and not an actual rule) to observe an illusion effect and note its details. Some DMs I know require a Spot or Search check to disbelieve an illusion. That's going too far. Merely pausing and using an action to make the check is enough to allow a saving throw.

Also for game purposes, we can define "interacting" with an illusion as doing something that could affect the illusion or allowing the illusion to have an affect on you. You have a valid claim to an interaction with an illusion when you attack it, touch it, talk to it, poke it with a stick, target it with a spell, or do something else that one might do with a real creature or object.

It's also worth noting the particular situation is of importance. Did the trolls make a spellcraft check and know the spell that was being cast? Did they see the fire appear out of nowhere? Was it there when they arrived? Is it blocking an important objective or is it merely obstructing a route you don't want them to take (one that you know, but they do not know, might lead them towards innocent civilians for example)?

All of those things can greatly modify how they might react to a bonfire's presence. When I GM I run illusions by considering what the deceived knows and what their goals and objectives are (as they understand them anyways). Usually, this leads to a handful of reasonable options, of which one or two stand out strongly as the most likely. From there I tend to apply the "best for the game" test and failing that I decide randomly.

Good luck in your trickery!

SiliconDon wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

somewhere in the magic or magic item rules.

The only reference to Standard Actions is for casting spells or command words for activating magic items. I am doing neither of those things. As far as I can tell, Retrieve Item sets conditions that are triggered by speaking a word and snapping your fingers (both free actions). Similar to how Explosive Rune can be triggered by reading it (also a free action).

To turn that around: Where is snapping your fingers stated to be a free action?

Here

Rules as written the familiar has the abilities of the animal it is mimicking, is treated as a magical beast for the purposes of effects that depend on it's type(as are most if not all non-improved familiars), possesses the abilities of a familiar based on the alchemist's caster level(with some alterations), and can attach and detach from the alchemist gaining fast healing 5 when it is attached. The rules for the ability do not state it gains anything else so by the rules as written it would not gain your racial abilities.

Mechanically if it did gain your racial abilities it wouldn't be that much more powerful in most cases, but there would exist some situations where you could get a lot more power out of it than your GM would expect.

Interesting point, it states it gains the animals abilities but not that it retains yours. Though this is perhaps more of an RAI argument it is still interesting.

If you are saying "It might well be your race but in the absence of an ability stating it retains racial abilities it wouldn't get them." how do you feel about this in context with the racial bonus quote from earlier (See below)?

Racial A racial bonus comes from the culture a particular creature was brought up in or because of innate characteristics of that type of creature. If a creature's race changes (for instance, if it dies and is reincarnated), it loses all racial bonuses it had in its previous form.

Is it unreasonable that it was covered by the way racial bonuses work?

PS - To be clear I am more and more of the opinion there is no absolute answer. IMO by pure RAI it doesn't work, IMO by pure RAW it is ambiguous, and by the fun test IMO its a neat idea. I tend to regulate such things in my game by saying something like "Sure go for it, lets see if something fun can come of it. But abuse it and lose it....".

It's a familiar, exactly the same as any other familiar (save you can attach it to your body and grant it fast heal). There is absolutely no other difference stated or implied.

This is how you believe it works, not how it is worded.

The thing with RAW is that you still haven't established where in the rules your familiar gains your racial abilities. The onus is on you to show where it states the familiar gains your racial abilities.

Or to put it another way - why would it gain your racial abilities?

Tumor Familiar wrote:

The alchemist creates a Diminutive or Tiny tumor on his body

I'm still not seeing the RAW that it's literally part of you, or that it gains your racial abilities.

OK, so the thing is I am not trying to win a debate so there is no onus at all. I am just looking for information and people can agree or disagree with any part or all of the conclusions we might draw.

On that point though, a few posts back I said this:

The trouble is does the familiar retain your race because the Tumor familiar ability does not explicitly modify it.

Or does it gain the animal race because...actually I'll be honest I am now having a hard time seeing this argument, does someone else have a good case for why it would get the animal's race in spite of it numerous times avoiding saying that it is the animal?

It says things like "as if it were" and "has all the abilities of the animal it resembles". These strongly indicate to me that it is NOT that creature but you made to look like that creature.

Someone set me straight.

My point is pretty simple, it neither says it is your race or the animal's race. But, as I noted in the last paragraph of the quote above, it does go out of its way to avoid saying the tumor familiar is actually that animal.

So just as a mental excercise let's suppose, for arguments sake, that it is definitely not the racial type of the animal. What other possible choices are there? Certainly this does not mean that it is those other possibilities, but if you had to list the options what would they, in your view, be?

Sadly the magical beast thing doesn't seem to pan out =/

A familiar is an animal chosen by a spellcaster to aid him in his study of magic. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type. Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar. An animal companion cannot also function as a familiar.

Sqrl wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

Is there a reason you need a RAW answer when RAI is fairly clear? Is a player asking or something? If so, I propose the severed arm test. If the racial trait applies to your arm when it's cut off, it wouldn't be unreasonable to apply it to the tumor familiar, GM willing. If you want RAW, then the racial traits are stated to be for that race. Your tumor familiar is not that race, subtype, or type. It is a magical beast.

A fair question and an approach I had considered but not formalized as you have.

Can you reference the magical beast piece? That would clear it up nicely.

Nope, I'm on my phone. It's in the familiar section. But until you can prove that it's a Strix, your Strix Alchemist's tumor-turtle does not have a fly speed.

I will check there then.

As for this argument, I am not sure I follow. The tumor familiar states it gains the abilities of the animal.

Thinking about it, presuming the familiar even started as the PC's race does changing its type (Humanoid in most cases) to magical beast actually alter its race?

Is there a reason you need a RAW answer when RAI is fairly clear? Is a player asking or something? If so, I propose the severed arm test. If the racial trait applies to your arm when it's cut off, it wouldn't be unreasonable to apply it to the tumor familiar, GM willing. If you want RAW, then the racial traits are stated to be for that race. Your tumor familiar is not that race, subtype, or type. It is a magical beast.

Apologies I neglected to answer your question.

I do not consider any one aspect of rules evaluation when deciding how something works in my games (e.g. RAI, RAW, is it fun?) I tend to look at them all and take them on balance for what I think is in the overall interest of the game as a whole. I was not concerned with RAI because I felt it was so clear that it was not of interest to pursue it further. Thus, I was trying to focus people onto the parts I was still unsettled on.

Is there a reason you need a RAW answer when RAI is fairly clear? Is a player asking or something? If so, I propose the severed arm test. If the racial trait applies to your arm when it's cut off, it wouldn't be unreasonable to apply it to the tumor familiar, GM willing. If you want RAW, then the racial traits are stated to be for that race. Your tumor familiar is not that race, subtype, or type. It is a magical beast.

A fair question and an approach I had considered but not formalized as you have.

Can you reference the magical beast piece? That would clear it up nicely.

I found something.

From the definition of bonuses:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Racial-Bonus

Racial A racial bonus comes from the culture a particular creature was brought up in or because of innate characteristics of that type of creature. If a creature's race changes (for instance, if it dies and is reincarnated), it loses all racial bonuses it had in its previous form.

Initially I thought this ruled out the idea of racial bonuses applying nicely, but then I reread the Tumor Familiar ability...

Tumor Familiar (Ex)

Benefit: The alchemist creates a Diminutive or Tiny tumor on his body, usually on his back or stomach. As a standard action, the alchemist can have the tumor detach itself from his body as a separate creature vaguely resembling a kind of animal suitable for a familiar (bat, cat, and so on) and move about as if it were an independent creature. The tumor can reattach itself to the alchemist as a standard action. The tumor has all the abilities of the animal it resembles (for example, a batlike tumor can fly) and familiar abilities based on the alchemist’s caster level (though some familiar abilities may be useless to an alchemist). The tumor acts as the alchemist’s familiar whether attached or separated (providing a skill bonus, the Alertness feat, and so on). When attached to the alchemist, the tumor has fast healing 5. An alchemist’s extracts and mutagens are considered spells for the purposes of familiar abilities like share spells and deliver touch spells. If a tumor familiar is lost or dies, it can be replaced 1 week later through a specialized procedure that costs 200 gp per alchemist level. The ritual takes 8 hours to complete.

This now adds to the ambiguity because we can say the tumor familiar doesn't modify the familiars race, but we can also say it doesn't grant racial bonuses.

But it has to have a race as this is important for many effects with specific targeting mechanisms (i.e. charm/hold person etc..).

The trouble is does the familiar retain your race because the Tumor familiar ability does not explicitly modify it.

Or does it gain the animal race because...actually I'll be honest I am now having a hard time seeing this argument, does someone else have a good case for why it would get the animal's race in spite of it numerous times avoiding saying that it is the animal?

It says things like "as if it were" and "has all the abilities of the animal it resembles". These strongly indicate to me that it is NOT that creature but you made to look like that creature.

Someone set me straight.

As far as I can tell RAI and RAW there is nothing about the ability that would give your tumor familiar your racial abilities. If the intent was that your tumor familiar gained your racial abilities it would be spelled out in the ability.

...

If the bolded part were true the concept of RAI versus RAW would not even be a thing. I do so wish it were true, but it is flatly not.

I am not disagreeing that it is against RAI, and in fact I personally believe it shouldn't be allowed to work this way. However, thinking it shouldn't and having a rule that says it shouldn't are different things. Furthermore, it is trivial to construct examples to show how a lack of explicit RAW can be used as a reason for something to work or for it not to work. Any inference based on the lack of explicit ruling is more likely to be indicative of the presenters particular view on the subject than anything else. But not for nothing, this is a game that people play and a sense of fair play is certainly important, so I do not entirely discount the fact that people have such a gut reaction to the question. It is just simply that I am, at this time in particular, looking for rules references that support or refute the interaction.

Also, something I was looking at after I posted this is the idea that in terms of mechanics the "animal"'s racial package just might supersede yours - I have just been unable to find a reference on that.

Mostly because while it's a part of you, it's not actually you. It's just a fancy familiar. It gets the abilities of a normal familiar, nothing more nothing less.

I understand the RAI view of things, but I think this is clearly not true. Normal familiars don't get fast healing 5 while attached to you...for that matter normal familiars don't get to attach and detach from their masters. That and you're kind of loosely saying well its "you" but its not "you you". Which I am not really sure has merit/meaning beyond just a feeling a particular person has as a gut reaction to the question.

Having said that I wasn't very clear with my original question. For clarity (too late to edit now) I am looking for rules references that say it does/doesn't work and or mechanical reasoning for why it would be problematic (above and beyond the typical mechanical shortcomings we see every session).

Apologies, for not being more clear in my question.

Note: This is not for PFS.

So the question is simple, since the tumor familiar is literally a part of you and the RAW grants that part of you the ability to detach and attach, the animal's abilities, and level appropriate familiar abilities, why would it lose the racial abilities you have?

The problem with this is of course where do you draw the line? Would it include just bonuses to saves or skills, or would a static racial feat also transfer? What about racial stat modifiers? Etc...

That's kind of the arguments for and against I see. I am curious if people have anything to add to this?

Tumor Familiar (Ex)

Benefit: The alchemist creates a Diminutive or Tiny tumor on his body, usually on his back or stomach. As a standard action, the alchemist can have the tumor detach itself from his body as a separate creature vaguely resembling a kind of animal suitable for a familiar (bat, cat, and so on) and move about as if it were an independent creature. The tumor can reattach itself to the alchemist as a standard action. The tumor has all the abilities of the animal it resembles (for example, a batlike tumor can fly) and familiar abilities based on the alchemist’s caster level (though some familiar abilities may be useless to an alchemist). The tumor acts as the alchemist’s familiar whether attached or separated (providing a skill bonus, the Alertness feat, and so on). When attached to the alchemist, the tumor has fast healing 5. An alchemist’s extracts and mutagens are considered spells for the purposes of familiar abilities like share spells and deliver touch spells. If a tumor familiar is lost or dies, it can be replaced 1 week later through a specialized procedure that costs 200 gp per alchemist level. The ritual takes 8 hours to complete.

Sqrl wrote:

Question on the Hybridization Funnel:

-Can hybrid weapons be recombined? I only ask because the Admixture Vial indicates you cannot keep combining, while funnel has no language on it.

For example:
-I have Acid Flask and Alchemist Fire and I combine them to make "Acid Fire". When thrown Acid Fire would have the effect of Acid Flask and Alchemist Fire.
-Next I make a separate item from Unholy Water and Liquid Ice which together we can call "Unholy Ice". When thrown Unholy Ice would have the effect of Unholy Water and Liquid Ice.
-Finally, Combine "Acid Fire" with "Holy Ice" to create "Unholy Freeze-Burn". When thrown Unholy Freeze-Burn would have the effect of Acid Flask, Alchemist Fire, Unholy Water, and Liquid Ice.

The last step is where the question really comes in. And if it works it raises the next (potentially more degenerate) question of whether you can mix "Acid Fire" with an Acid Flask again.

For my games I would be inclined to allow this with increasing DCs (since failure means you lose the whole thing!). Something like +4 for every basic alchemical item in the completed concoction beyond the first 2 and the base DC starts at 30 whenever Holy or Unholy are included. So in the Unholy freeze burn example you would be at DC 38 (Base 30 b/c of Unholy water, and +8 because of 4 base ingredients). Either way I am curious about what the "official" (if such a thing even exists) ruling on this is or even just the player consensus (if such a thing even exists). Having said that I would definitely warn my players going down this path that these rules could change rapidly if it gets too crazy.

No to both.

Quote:

Mixing a substance with a similar or identical substance (such as alchemist's fire with alchemist's fire) has no effect. A mixture cannot be combined with another mixture.

Indeed, I apparently glossed over it.

That covers that then.

Sqrl wrote:

PS - Thanks for the tip on the beads/flasks Ozy, I was looking all over for something like that!

No problem, also look for:

Hybridization funnel
Forumla Alembic
Admixture vial

The 2nd level extract, Alchemical Allocation is great for reusing potions, so for a 2nd level extract slot you could reuse a 3rd level cure serious wounds potion, or high level heroism/barkskin/shield of faith/etc... If you're friends with a summoner, you can try to get potions of greater invisibility and stoneskin. You could then use alchemical allocation with a potion of stoneskin, and never have to worry about material component costs.

The 3rd level extract Amplify Elixir will empower or extend all the potions/elixirs you drink over the next several round (1 rd/level) so you can drink that extract, and then buff using Alchemical Allocation for double length potion effects.

The alchemist has a lot of ways to boost the effectiveness of potions, but fewer option to boost the power of their extracts. About the best you can do is try to improve action economy with things like the poisoners gloves, and the sipping jacket if your GM lets you use that for extracts.

Finally, your bombs can have debuffing effects with DCs that can scale much, much higher than normal spells, and completely bypass SR. You can chuckle mercilessly as your bomb damage punches right through golem spell immunities, demonic SR, and so on. You really do have a good shot of knocking someone down, staggering them, or even blinding them even at high CR encounters, so I'm not really sure I see the need of adding more power to the class by treating alchemical levels as caster levels and opening up access to metamagic.

Question on the Hybridization Funnel:

-Can hybrid weapons be recombined? I only ask because the Admixture Vial indicates you cannot keep combining, while funnel has no language on it.

For example:
-I have Acid Flask and Alchemist Fire and I combine them to make "Acid Fire". When thrown Acid Fire would have the effect of Acid Flask and Alchemist Fire.
-Next I make a separate item from Unholy Water and Liquid Ice which together we can call "Unholy Ice". When thrown Unholy Ice would have the effect of Unholy Water and Liquid Ice.
-Finally, Combine "Acid Fire" with "Holy Ice" to create "Unholy Freeze-Burn". When thrown Unholy Freeze-Burn would have the effect of Acid Flask, Alchemist Fire, Unholy Water, and Liquid Ice.

The last step is where the question really comes in. And if it works it raises the next (potentially more degenerate) question of whether you can mix "Acid Fire" with an Acid Flask again.

For my games I would be inclined to allow this with increasing DCs (since failure means you lose the whole thing!). Something like +4 for every basic alchemical item in the completed concoction beyond the first 2 and the base DC starts at 30 whenever Holy or Unholy are included. So in the Unholy freeze burn example you would be at DC 38 (Base 30 b/c of Unholy water, and +8 because of 4 base ingredients). Either way I am curious about what the "official" (if such a thing even exists) ruling on this is or even just the player consensus (if such a thing even exists). Having said that I would definitely warn my players going down this path that these rules could change rapidly if it gets too crazy.

For gray areas I tend to err on the side of allowing things with the forewarning that I could change my mind if it gets out of hand. I think this sentiment largely goes without saying, but actually saying it, I've found, alleviates some of the angst players have if it needs to change (and it very rarely does).

Also, back on the funnel, am I correct in thinking that INT would only apply once (regardless of how many alchemical items you can or do combine) since the ability is from throw anything and you are ultimately only throwing the one splash weapon. That part seems fairly clear.

As for the "need" (I would say preference personally) to make them a caster, I think for me and the games I run it boils down to simplicity. Complexity is not a bad thing of course, but a well run game manages complexity to where it is interesting and away from where it causes frustration. I just don't think alchemists are different enough from casters to provide the interest commensurate with the complexity they create as non-casters.

Casting rules already make sense to me for Alchemists and there is a substantial amount of confirmed rules information on how they can interact with the world and the massive number of items/feats/abilities/etc.. that players have to choose from. So for me it just makes sense, which is I suppose what house rules are for =)

Not quite sure, I just know he hadn't realized it wasn't considered a caster until he was done making the character...he may chime in here and ask himself.

/waive

One thing you had not mentioned yet is that this is a gestalt game and my other half is an Arcanist.

Couple examples of the types of things I'd like to do in a perfect world:

Metamagics - empower/maximize/echo/etc on self-heals
Feats - spell focus/penetration on extracts (there are spells that have DCs and allow SR, usually done in the stlye of fire breathing)
Items - Tons of interesting things for casters only to do Dweomer's Essence, meta rods, etc..

One other thing I just thought of: Contingency! The way its worded you would just cast the extract with contingency and it would delay the onset. Honestly reading contingency it almost sounds like it was written by a time traveler for Alchemist dual classing (minus the whole extracts != spells thing)!

Anyways, as Kryz alluded to, we had a discussion after some research on the (endless) threads about alchemist around here and basically it seems we both (I more than he obviously) feel its kind of strange to cut off a spellcasting class with a re-skin from all of the trappings of a spellcasting class just to service the re-skin and then modify well-established rules in new ways to that end (Which from what JJ has said apparently this state of affairs is largely to avoid printing "Even though these are spells they are silent" over and over and instead shorten it to "extracts").

I would go further in submitting that the majority of the angst about the alchemists abilities is born of the disconnect between what the majority of people intuit should be the basic mechanics behind an alchemist and what they can actually do - largely because of how foreign and unclear these rules can be without a lot of knowledge of the system. Now, it is certainly fair to say that not everything needs to be 100% intuitive, but when something causes this much turmoil in my humble opinion I would say it is a sign it could be done better.

But I digress....

PS - Thanks for the tip on the beads/flasks Ozy, I was looking all over for something like that!

Those stats are redonkulously good. WOW.

I agree with the assessment that Arcane casting is currently quite limited. I think that the Cleric/Shaman is going to handle a bulk load of casting support, though, and if they have similar stats, they'll be able to effectively Wandering Spirit into Lore for the Sorc/Wiz spells you need each day.

That leaves you with a couple interesting options that still focus on melee: Magus, Bloodrager, Bard, and Skald are all good additions in terms of adding casting versatility. If I were to pick from those options, my choice would definitely be Bloodrager due to the nature of Gestalt play, which would tick you up to full BAB and make use of those stats extremely well. Having a "dump stat" Int of 14 is craziness.

Str: 18
Dex: 16
Con: 18
Int: 14
Wis: 17
Cha: 15

Recommended Bloodlines: Arcane, Elemental (Air), or Aberrant - these are the best 3, by far.

Archetypes: Primalist for sure, which will allow you to take a small selection of Rage Powers in place of the Bloodline Powers you might not like with no actual penalty. Steelblood is also good and you can take both it and Primalist.

To be honest both Kryz and I have a particular knack for rolling stat columns that are downright sick. I have had GMs insist I re-roll columns with them watching only to improve a 92 pt column to 101 (7 shy of max). Then having decided the dice were loaded he proceeded to give them a shot himself rolling a few columns never breaking 80 (statistical average for our rolling method is ~80.6). Call it a gift, gamebreaking, or whatever but it does makes a lot of fun builds you wouldn't otherwise be able to play possible and at the end of the day its more about the fun than anything else....of course it does occasionally go the other way..but its best not to think about those things...yes best not to dwell on them....

So, anyways, I rolled for the Cleric/Shaman in our group who agreed to take whatever I got regardless. Luckily this time he got a result we can dwell on, as I recall it was pretty nearly identical to what Kryz got. Which he of course happily took over the 84 pt column he rolled for fun whilst awaiting his fate.

re: The wandering shaman for sor/wiz spells

Great minds think alike! I had suggested the same thing to him, with one added twist. I think the Spirit Talker feat to open up off-spirit choices is a good idea in general. But particularly with the lore spirit which (outside of the sor/wiz spells) can be quite a poor choice on those days when a Shaman expects to get into combat.

Anyways, we appreciate the feedback and any other ideas you might have =)

Well, the original purpose of Gestalt was to make sure that the big 4 roles (Martial, Arcane Magic, Divine Magic, and Skills) were filled in parties that were smaller then 4 people. Right now you have a pure divine caster (cleric/shaman), a mediocre skill guy (monk/ninja), a beatstick (Barbarian/Psi Warrior) but you have no Arcane support at all. So I would recommend an arcane class, Wizard if you can live without armor or Magus if you still want to front-line. Honestly, if you could convince the rest of your part to diversify a bit and each take an "off-role" (a skill guy who can off-heal, a divine caster that also had full BAB progression, etc.), you would be better off if somebody got knocked out of the fight or even just had to miss a session.

Hey I take exception to you labeling me a mediocre skill guy!

I'm not in this for the skills, they are just a bonus.

I am actually doing a martial artist monk/ninja build converting a lot of my ninja tricks to feats.

The general gist of what I am doing is combining flurry /w sneak damage and fighter feats with a bent towards generating attacks of opportunity (e.g. outflank, opportunist, lunge, trip, etc...). Later on smoke bombs and stunning fists for Medusa's Wrath and Dastardly Finish.

Having said that, I'm always open to ideas on a better way to do a Flurry/Sneak/AoO build or even other melee gestalt builds you think might be an improvement.

As to the issue of the helm being a fake-out:

If we assume the GM was just faking the players out and had no planned flavor reasons then we are into a trust issue with the GM and the helm is not the problem anymore. GMs and players need a certain level of trust. The GM gets to bend the rules when they deem that it is necessary. If you, as a player, can't trust your GM to use that power for the best interests of the game, then you may just be in the wrong game.

If we assume the GM did have a planned flavor in mind, then again, its fine to let players make assumptions and act on them, so long as they have the option to think things through and make a roll if they actively choose to do so.

I think a lot of what is discussed here is the exact wrong way to handle this and the exact right way to take all fun out of a game.

RPG's are about exploration through the eyes of the characters, not a series of triggering events that cause the GM to call for dice to be rolled.

If the players want to assume things, let them.

If they want to say "Hey, my character is wondering about that helm, and what is causing that strange effect." That is when the GM should call for the appropriate roll.

Granted, your players should understand this is how you handle information but doing it this way makes the game MUCH more fun. Then your players get to figure things out on their own, and its not the responsibility of the GM to spoon-feed you info whenever you're about to make a mistake.

As a player if you're not responsible for your own assumptions and interactions with the world, then what exactly are you doing to actually RP?

As a GM if you're not letting your players manage their own assumptions and interactions with the world, then why exactly are they even there?