Terrorforge's page

Organized Play Member. 4 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS


The Advanced Alchemy Feat from the Alchemist archetype (Player Core 2, pg.175) gives the player access to a flat 4 Advanced Alchemy items per day, unlike a full Alchemist who gets 4 + Int modifier.

By taking the Advanced Concoction Feat from that archetype, you can access the Efficient Alchemy Alchemist Feat, which includes this sentence:

Quote:
Increase the number of items you can create each day with advanced alchemy to 6 + your Intelligence modifier.

Advanced Efficient Alchemy has similar wording.

For a base class Alchemist, this just gives them two extra advanced alchemy items. But for a character with the Alchemist archetype, it also reintroduces the Int modifier, likely doubling their number of AA items, which seems unintentional.

And if it is intentional, it would be nice to have some confirmation that it is, because I feel like this is something that I might get into arguments over in PFS.


Also there are several references to preparing spells even though Inquisitors are spontaneous spellcasters. The description for Piercing Spell advises you to "have it prepared upon a spell" and a bunch of spells including but not limited to Animal Purpose Training, Bless Water and Know the Enemy talk about whether or not they're worth having prepared.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the Devastator section, under Improved Devastating Strike you write:
"You're starting to drop your crit confirmation range to 16-20 without any other helpers."
Which I can only interpret as "this feat lets you threaten a crit on 16 or up" and I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Surely "you gain a bonus on attack rolls to confirm a critical hit" means "you get +X on the second roll against AC to confirm the crit" not "your critical threat range expands by X."


Selsenay wrote:
Matthew Shelton wrote:

Curious now: the name "Arcanist"

what pronounciation do you use?

(a) arr CAN ist

(b) arr CANE ist

(c) ARR can ist

I've never had to say it out loud. Mentally I began with version B but at some point without noticing I've starting using version C and it's stayed that way.

It is definitely objectively b) arr CANE ist. Just about every online dictionary and pronunciation guide says so.

That's not how language works.