Steelrat's page

The Additional Resources Document states “The Master Alchemist feat may only be selected by Alchemists and Poisoners.” (Poisoners referring to the rogue archetype, by precedent.) The Blog stating that investigators are "able to craft as if they were alchemists" refers to the crafting ability and is not explicit permission for the feat, which is limited in another document.

The difference may seem slight, but I've had GMs disallow other, more clearly stated things due to lack of explicit enough wording. Yes, allowing the feat makes sense based on the crafting allowance, which is why I started the thread. Resolving this here makes me think there will be more playtime for everyone at the tables.

This was stated by someone else in another thread but bears repeating.

It is no secret that the Pathfinder Society recruits from all areas of the alignment spectrum and the agents often work in teams. Anyone who joins the Society would know this as well as the importance of the mantra "Explore, Report, Cooperate".

With this in mind, why would anyone join the Society if they know their religious (or other) convictions would just get them, at best, kicked out? Why even associate with the Society?

Now there are plenty of reasons why any religion would make exceptions to have members in the Society. The Society has a lot of resources and international sway. Perhaps they just want to keep an eye on them. Use your imagination. This has the added bonus of having a Society compatible character.

Granted, cooperation goes both ways. (e.g. The party necromancer agreeing to allow the destruction of raised undead after the mission.)

Not healing fellow party members because "that is what my character would do" not only violates "don't be a jerk" but (in a non-PFS kind of way) would probably give the Society reason to retaliate or at least boot him out.

That said I doubt this post says anything new or profound and outside of PFS, YMMV.

In modern crossbows, the rail (bolt groove) is often lubricated (Rail Snot is a common brand). The stuff is like thin grease that won't run all over (viscous). Put a poisoned variety at the end of the rail such that the tip of the bolt is coated when inserted. Adjust DC as / if appropriate. At least that's how I would pitch it to my GM.

Using wound poison rather than contact poison would lower the chances of poisoning one's self.

Blogs, FAQs, Forums, books and more books, unofficial resources . . . almost makes me miss legal research.

Thanks for the link. Looks like FAQ update hasn't happened yet. I'd say its a ruling for crafting though. That just leaves the Master Alchemy feat.

Thanks for the link. Seems I'm just looking for a bit of follow up on crafting and word on the Master Alchemist feat.

The PFS FAQ entry “How can alchemists craft in Pathfinder Society Organized Play?” is, probably due to the age of the listing, specifically limited to Alchemists. Furthermore, the Additional Resources Document states “The Master Alchemist feat may only be selected by Alchemists and Poisoners.” I would recommend that this be expanded to include Investigators. There is no language that I could find (and please correct me if I am wrong) that would allow Investigator to take Alchemist feats (unlike Brawlers and the Martial Training class feature).

My reasoning behind this is simply based on the Alchemist being a parent class of the Investigator and the Investigator inherits all of the alchemy crafting and poison features of the Alchemist. It seems fairly straightforward inclusion and appears to be in line with game design / campaign intent. Thanks!

This was not intended to advocate Hero Lab as any sort of source of rule legality. Paizo is the one that determines what is or is not legal in PFS. That said, Hero Lab is a convenient tool for me and my wife. When I find what I interpret as errors in their program I let them know, and often enough they correct it. When rule questions come up at the tables I've played at, everyone reaches for their source books (shorter debates, more playing).

@ John Compton: Thank you for your time and prompt response!

I am not thrilled about doing this as I suspect I’m kicking a hornet’s nest, but I am looking for an official ruling as to whether a summoner (unchained) with an evil subtype eidolon is allowable in PFS. (e.g. a lawful neutral summoner with a devil subtype eidolon). I request a ruling for two reasons: (1) I do not want to have to rebuild my character later due to rule misinterpretation and (2) LWD Technologies Inc. (makers of Hero Lab) stated a formal ruling was needed before they will eliminate the error messages that come up when creating such a character with their software.

The conflict arises from two sections of the rules. First, page 9 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play it states that "No evil alignments are allowed in Pathfinder Society Organized Play." The second come from page 25 of Pathfinder Unchained which states “An eidolon must be within one alignment step of the summoner who calls it (so a neutral good summoner can call a neutral, lawful good, or chaotic good eidolon) . . . .” This was not an issue for summoners until the unchained summoner was mandated as the original class required the eidolon’s alignment match the summoner’s (APG p 55).

My interpretation of this issue would allow such characters based on the following presidents and arguments. First off, there are plenty of “evil” things allowed in PFS that do not breakdown the game although they do get debated frequently. Spells with an evil descriptor are allowed without impacting alignment (although the use of any spell in an evil manner could be an issue, as I understand it). Summoning demons and devils to do one’s bidding is a valid tactic (e.g. see Summon Monster lists, etc.). Neutral clerics who worship evil gods are playable as are diabolists (who are lawful neutral). Bloodlines which are reflective of traditionally evil subtypes are allowed (e.g. Infernal and Abyssal bloodlines for sorcerers and bloodragers). In light of this, playing a neutral summoner with an eidolon with of an evil subtype should be not any more of a problem than the examples above.

Banning evil subtypes eliminates a third of the available eidolon options. While it is impossible for anyone to read the mind for the intent of the game designers, similarity of wording between the rules for summoner/eidolon alignment and cleric/deity alignment make me suspect that no ban was intended.

In searching the forums, I have found most of the aforementioned examples have been a source of debate, mainly stemming from their potential interaction with the “no evil alignments” rule and fear that the game will be made unfriendly. I doubt this sort of arguing will ever be settled. The most damning counterargument I could find to a summoner with an evil subtype eidolon was concern about encountering players who play their eidolons as their characters and that this would allow an evil character to sneak in. In response to this I would say the problem stems from the actions of the player (see “don’t be a jerk”) and not the label of “evil”. In the end, ensuring characters are made in such a way that they can “explore, report and cooperate” with other characters, regardless of alignment, seems to be the best route to ensure everyone can have fun at the table.

The Effortless Trickery feat which allows one to maintain concentration on an illusion as a swift action states:

While you may only maintain one spell as a swift action, you may take your move and standard actions to maintain other spells normally, if you wish.

Does this imply that one can use their standard action to cast spells (e.g. start another illusion) while maintaining another with effortless trickery?

Noting that the Core Rulebook states:

You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one.

I am unclear if the feat language overrides what is stated in the core (as feats tend to do).

If the feat language does not take precedent over the core rulebook, what would be the means of casting the "other spells" inferred by the feat? I suspect starting 2 spells at once (one being quickened) may suffice, albeit it seems a steep price for the use of the feat.

My searches have not revealed any ruling on this with regards to PFS, and any insight or ruling would be appreciated.

Thanks!

It depends on the weapon and in some cases (e.g. Katana) how it is used. UC has two tables for eastern weapons - one for martial and one for exotic. (In UE eastern weapons are integrated with all the other weapons in their appropriate category).

A katana is considered martial if used with two hands, exotic if used in one hand.