That Crazy Alchemist's page

Perfect!

Thank you sir!

Price is the total amount of currency needed to purchase a complete item. Cost is half the price of a complete item and is only spent when crafting. Given that the feat mentions that you can only use it for a quarter of the cost when crafting then it seems pretty self explanatory to me.

That makes a lot of sense, thank you!

Are those two things formally defined anywhere, or is that mostly coming from context in the way Paizo material uses those two words?

I love the flavor of the Harvest Parts feat. Bit I'm a little unsure exactly how much the maximum discount on an item crafted with harvested parts is.

Benefit(s): You can attempt a Craft or Heal check, as though making a trophy, to gain usable resources from a creature that has been dead for less than an hour. Only creatures with a CR of 1 or higher yield usable parts. The value of the parts you harvest is equal to the creature’s CR squared × 10 gp (increases to CR derived from class levels or templates do not contribute to this value). This value can be used only as raw materials for crafting alchemical, masterwork, mundane, or magic items. Items crafted using creature parts must be made of a suitable material—typically bone or hide, with metal only in extraordinary cases. No more than a quarter of a crafted item’s cost can be supplied with harvested parts. Harvested parts remain usable for 2 days before they rot (unless used to craft objects or somehow preserved). Creature parts that are harvested in this manner can’t be bought or sold in most settlements.

Bolded part is where my question is.

Is the "items cost" referring to the items normal market cost, or does it refer to the raw materials cost?

So say I'm crafting a +1 cloak of resistance, 1000gp market value, for 500gp of raw materials. If I use harvested parts to supplement it, can I use up to 250gp of harvested parts (1/4 market value) or only 125gp of harvested parts (1/4 raw materials)?

Pretty much all of them. At this point me and my group have houseruled some part of pretty much every class.

Sometimes because it's unbalanced. Sometimes because it's not fun. Sometimes just for flavor. We love this game and also enjoy improving upon it because no matter how fun it is, Pathfinder is also a deeply flawed game in need of a little homebrew repair.

I'm shocked no one's mentioned Brilliant Planner. One of my favorite feats.

It's so much fun being able to just say "yeah i kinda figured someone was going to steal all our food and camping supplies tonight, so back when we were in town I paid a guy to go buy some supplies and deliver them to us in a wagon at, coincidentally, this exact spot. He should be arriving in about 10 minutes or so."

It's a feat that gets more powerful and useful the more creative you get.

Why not just set it to whatever DC you'd like it to be? You are already making a custom creature here, and even considering a custom formula for its DC. So why bother trying to stick to a formula and just make it what you want it to be?

When I'm GMing and making custom content, I don't really get too bogged down by all the Advancement rules and such. I consider those guidelines at best. What is the most important factor to me is the party. What are their capabilities? Say you wanted them to have about a 40% chance of seeing it, then set its DC to 40% of 10 + the highest perception score in the party or something along those lines. Don't worry so much about what it's "supposed" to be.

CR is also completely meaningless in this game beyond determining XP. It isn't actually a measurement of how difficult a creature will be for the party, because every party is different. One party might stomp a creature 7 CR above their level but then almpst wipe on one 2 CR under their level. Its a meaningless metric. So just set your new custom creatures CR to whatever the amount of XP you want to give them would be.
The only real factor that matters is your parties capabilities. Figure out what they can do and make encounters, custom creatures, skill check DC's, etc, accordingly.

Why are mindless undead evil aligned?
They are mindless, they have no wants and desires so how could they be evil?

Wouldn't it have made more sense for them to be true neutral like vermin, oozes, constructs and (I think) literally every other mindless creature in the game?

Ok, I kind of figured that's probably how it would go, and honestly that makes the most sense from a balance perspective anyway. Figured it couldn't hurt to check though since I wasn't positive about it.

Thanks fellas!

Would these two allow one to use bodyguard at range? The typical rule is "specific trumps general". But both of these are feats, both change the typical rules for aid another, so neither is really more specific than the other so I'm not quite sure here.

Benefit: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC. You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally’s attack roll with this attack.

Ranged Aid (base attack bonus +1): You’ve learned to use your mage hand to tug at an opponent’s hair, clothing, and equipment. You can use the aid another action at range, attempting a ranged touch attack instead of a melee attack.

If they are high level, most of the 500-5000gp range stuff is likely to be fairly pointless to them and are likely to just get sold.

I'd make some custom "carnival-y" items for the carnival prizes prizes instead. Stuff they can only get there. And they should be consumable to make them even more exclusive and special feeling. Things like:

- Luck Tokens. Consumable item, allows you to roll twice and take the better result on any d20 roll. Must be used before the rolls are made.

- Power Plushies. Consummable. Summons a monster the plushy depicts that is under your control as if cast by a Summon Monster spell.

- Belch Beer. Consumable. Drinking this causes you to unleash a hurricane force wind from your mouth per the Control Winds spell (directional) for 1 round. Creatures caught in the area of the winds are sickened for 1d4 rounds.

Etc.

You could be Samsaran and get one of the many wings-adding cleric spells added to your spell list.

It's really hard to make being wheel-chair bound into a disability without completely borking your characters ability to function in the game.

Anytime the party needs to swim, climb, jump a gap, or move over difficult terrain you are going to pretty much be incapable of doing it.

Now, as others have suggested, you could make it a flying wheelchair. But at that point is it really a disability now?

In Pathfinder 1e, Large sized weapons and armor were 2x the cost of Medium sized. Might be a good place to work off in lue of an official answer.

Ok, I think I like the more natural progression concept rather than the sudden jumps each level., but wasn't clear on if the sudden jumps were how you were "supposed" to play. But to me, that would be like adhering so strictly to the WBL that everytime the players leveled up they are suddenly given a huge pile of credits to spend, which just seems silly to me.

But no I totally agree on the no BP to Credits thing. I was surprised at how many threads about BP were about that. Seems like a terribly efficient way to screw over your campaigns economy. No bueno.

I'll have to check out that book Fly Free or Die, treating BP as a commodity definitely sounds more in line with how my table would want to play. Good suggestion!

Every CURRENT class has small arms proficiency. That's the kind of thing that can change. Not doing easy future-proofing would be bad design.

...A mistake they made with pathfinder, and thankfully have learned from. I swear the majority of the 1e Rules Questions involving how certain things interacted with one another were answered with "Because that feat/ability/creature/etc was printed before that other feat/ability/creature/etc"

So my group is making the switch in a few months from Pathfinder to Starfinder, and I'll be GM'ing it. I'm a very long time Pathfinder veteran, but will be totally new to Starfinder, but it appears the switch won't be terribly difficult since it seems like 80% of the rules carry over.
I've been reading extensively all that I can find about the system, but there is one thing I'm not fully understanding that I hope some Starfinders like yourselves could help clear up. BP.

1) How do the players get BP? Is it awarded to them for completing missions and defeating enemy starships, much like credits? Or is it just something that happens automatically whenever they level up?

2) If the players want a new ship, do they sell the old one to recover a percentage of the BP used in making it? Or do they get to just liquidate the BP completely getting back 100% of it to spend toward a new ship so that there is never any BP loss?

3) On a similar note to the previous question, can Ship components ever be salvaged from enemy ships? Or must they always be purchased with BP? Can ships and components be sold for BP?

Based on the wording in the book it sounds like a fair bit of this is up to the GM but I'm not entirely sure, and my group likes to stick pretty loyally to the rules. But if that's the case, and the above questions are intentionally left up to the GM, then I'm curious to know how all of you out there handle these questions at your tables, and if you have any recommendations for a budding Starfinder GM?

Thanks in advance guys!

The Sacrament Alchemist is an alchemist archetype and has an ability that is a bit unclear to me.

(Su)

At 3rd level, a sacrament alchemist’s faith inspires him with ideas for novel alchemical achievements, although the mental strain means that he can’t reliably repeat them. Once per day while preparing extracts, for a period of 24 hours, a sacrament alchemist can gain an alchemist discovery for which he qualifies. He treats his alchemist level as 2 lower for the purpose of this discovery.

This ability replaces swift alchemy.

I bolded the part I'm a bit confused by. What exactly is affected by the 2 levels lower thing?

- Qualification for the discovery in question?
- DCs and level-based effects of only effects granted by the discovery?
- DCs and level based effects of ALL effects of an ability that is modified by the discovery, even if the discovery does not affect that part of an ability? (ie choose Smoke Bomb as discovery, does this lower the bomb damage too? Or how about caster level for extracts used with the Infusion discovery?)

As a full-round action, a creature with the trample ability can attempt to overrun any creature that is at least one size category Smaller than itself. This works just like the overrun combat maneuver, but the trampling creature does not need to make a check, it merely has to move over opponents in its path. Targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature’s slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier. Targets of a trample can make an attack of opportunity, but at a –4 penalty. If targets forgo an attack of opportunity, they can attempt to avoid the trampling creature and receive a Reflex save to take half damage. The save DC against a creature’s trample attack is 10 + 1/2 the creature’s HD + the creature’s Str modifier (the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). A trampling creature can only deal trampling damage to each target once per round, no matter how many times its movement takes it over a target creature.

There's nothing in the Trample rules about double speed, and it takes a full round action to perform, so no way to double move.

The immense Tortoise is a creature printed in the Bestiary 4. It is a Colossal (5x5) creature with the trample ability and only 20 base speed.

My question is, how is the tortoise able to use it's trample ability when it's movement speed isn't enough to bring it's full 5 squares past even an enemy that's right in front of it, with only 4 squares of movement speed?
Normally you can't end your movement on top of an enemy. Is there a rule somewhere about creatures with significant size differences being able to occupy the same square? Would make sense, but I can't find it if there is.

This could be pretty interesting if you have a burrow speed and can make your way underneath your opponent.

The new, and much more literal, Geysermancer!

The belt is as inexpensive as it is because the bonus it provides is an enhancement bonus.

Well, no, it's because the bonus can only be used 3 times per day.

This is why the weapon enchantment dueling is worded the way it is. Even going so far as to clarify that the bonus it provides stacks with the weapon's enhancement bonus.

That's an actual property of the weapon itself though, the same source that the enhancement bonus is coming from. It's not possible (outside of certain methods) to even have the Dueling enchantment without also having an enhancement bonus, so clarification for new players (which is who the PFS Field Guide was catered to) was called for.

But really, conversations on these forums regarding RAI are notoriously pointless unless a Dev miraculous decended from the heavens to grace us with their intention. So we are spinning our wheels here lol.

Interesting. So since Combat Maneuvers made with weapons are just regular attack rolls using the attackers CMB in place of his normal attack bonus, and since magic weapons apply enhancement bonuses to attack rolls made with the weapon (including CM's), then it stands that Combat Maneuvers made with magic weapons would apply the magic weapons bonus as an actual enhancement bonus directly to the attack roll (rather than CM's using your combined attack roll bonus as an untyped bonus to the CM's attack roll as I had originally thought), and would therefore not stack with the belts enhancement bonus.

This is, however, really stupid and likely unintentional. If it were my game Is let them stack.

Dazing spell has always been problematic. I have always ruled that "a successful save negates the daze effect" means that the entire Dazing Spell daze effect for that creature is negated. Basically means that any creature taking damage from a Dazing Spell only ever has to make a single successful saving throw per casting of a Dazing Spell.

I could see a real stickler GM might try to rule that since Lead Blade deals more damage by increasing the weapons density, and that a weapon made of magical force might not be affected by increased density. But there is nothing in the rules to support a ruling like this.

Based on the unusual wording, I think that you can share them. But I wouldnt, that's how you get AIDS.

I'm confused. You seem to be looking for rules that prevent activity that is only able to happen by going outside the rules in the first place...

Magical Masks are head slot items, so you would be able to only enchant it with head slot effects. Note that the Head slot and the Headband slot are different slots, so the Headband of Vast Intellect would be incompatible with it.

You're in houserule territory here as the rules don't cover the haggling of prices. If it did, whatever means by which prices got haggled would be a considered mandatory to powergamers.
Entirely up to your GM. If it were me I wouldn't allow it, but I don't allow crafting anyway due to the abusive nature of the crafting rules. So I probably shouldn't have much of an opinion here lol

As someone who hates the existence of Eldritch Heritage for basically giving any class the most defining feature of another class, I can't say I much like the idea of this since it just does the same thing to another class. I mean, why stop there, why not have a feat that grants Spell Schools, or one that gives Sneak Attack Progression, or Bomb progression, Lay on Hands, or Wildshape. Why even have classes when we can just give any class another classes best features for the price of a feat or three. But I digress...

As for balance, I'd say this is quite a bit stronger than Eldritch Bloodline. With Eldritch Bloodline, you start at the lowest rung and have to work your way up the feat chain to get the best stuff, regardless of your level. With your feats they can just go straight for the best goodies from the Oracle with the very first feat, as long as they meet the level requirement.
To balance this, I would put a cap on the level requirement of the revelation you can pick for each one.
So the first one might say "you may only choose a Revelation that a 1st level Oracle could choose"
The next one might be for 7th level, the next one for 11th or whatever. Make them have to climb the ladder, don't let them start at the top.

It is likely intended to have been a polymorph effect, but just got left out. The blood hag is even a shapechanger, a subtype that all have some kind of Change Shape Universal Monster Ability, which specifies that it is a polymorph effect.

So RAI probably not. But RAW, sure I guess, though I'm not sure how it'd be making claw and bite attacks as a fiery ball without limbs. If it's your game, run it how you'd like, but if it were my game I wouldn't give it the attacks.

As for your second question, that's a pretty clear Yes, the blood hag would provoke.

Oozemorph, a poorly designed archetype to a poorly designed class.

Ah I see what you're saying, missed that the first time. I think you might be right there.

I'm with LordKailas. In the case of the Forest Dragon, the sorcerer DR specifically isn't DR/slashing and bludgeoning. You gain DR against piercing, which means that if damage you are inflicted contains a piercing compeonent, regardless of other types, then you gain DR against that damage.

This is one reason why I dislike that DR is written as "what damage you DONT reduce" whereas resistance is written as "what damage you reduce".
Inconsistency in rules formats like this always bothers me...

Benefit: If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you rather than knocking her prone.

You may use this weapon in two different ways:

Meteor: In meteor mode you use it as a double weapon.
Fortress: In fortress mode you cannot use it as a double weapon but gain reach and a +1 shield bonus to AC.
Switching between these two modes is a free action decided at the start of your turn

Bolded section explains it pretty well. Not understanding where the confusion lies.

(Also, it looks like you created 3 of the same thread on accident. Might want to go delete the other 2)

Since there are no rules for this, "enraged" isn't a defined condition and isn't specified in the creatures statblock, so it just means angry is all.
To me a creature trying to kill you is angry. Therefore, if you are in combat with it, it's spines generate heat.
But you are the GM, you can rule it however you'd like.

A "regular move" seems like pretty unambiguous wording and that it's pretty clearly supposed to be a move action spend to move your character. Pathfinder doesn't actually have a word for that so "regular move" is the closest we'll get.
(Honestly, it should be called the Move Action, and what we currently call a move action should be called something like a Minor Action, but that's a different discussion)

Don't let RAW get in the way of what makes sense, or ease of play. If you're going to let a little bit of ambiguity in the text of single spell cripple your game to that degree while you hash out the infinite ramifications of what such an interpretation would allow among your players then you're going to have problems.
Just take the more sensible interpretation and don't overthink it so much.

Try to imagine it like real life. If you and I are facing each other.
Can I throw you a ball without needing to move my feet? Of course! I could move my head and upper body around all I wanted and I'd be able to throw a ball at you no problem. That's what not having any cover is.
Now say there's a 1 foot pillar in the way, is it still possible for me to throw you a ball without first moving my feet? Of course, I can just peek around the pillar and throw it to you. That's regular cover. I can still see you and throw something at you without needing to move somewhere else but only if I move my upper body in just the right way.
No imagine there's a 10 feet wall between us. Can I still throw the ball to you without moving my feet? No, no matter how I bend and twist my upper body there's simply no possible way to throw the ball to you. I'd have to move my feet and get to a place where I'd be able to see you. That's Total Cover.

The lines you draw between the corners of you and your target are checking your sightlines. Seeing if there is a way to see your target while in the space you are currently in.

Spell-likes are still spells. The only real difference is in how they are cast. But after they've been cast they are identical in every way. Same bullet, different gun.
So yes, it'd be the DC of a spell.

Raw, there's nothing stopping you from creating multiple non-contiguous area effects with shapeable spells. I personally am of the opinion that that is not RAI and will always houserule that shapeable spells must be contiguous in my games.
But RAW, yep, your player is correct until you houserule otherwise.

The easiest and likely most intended interpretation is that Wish cannot be used as a divination-like way to DIRECTLY gain information about an MB target. All your examples about using Wish to teleport things that contain information to you, or to summon things to retrieve the information for you, or any other indirect and non-divination-like way should work just fine, all the others that function like divination magic would indeed fail, yes.

Whilst I really appreciate your answer, especially as it confirms my reading of the rules, your 'make sense' explanation doesn't make sense to me as Force Ward has no effect on a grapple unless it is a free grapple. This is illogical to me, think I will house rule this one so that this type of creature grapples as standard action with a free attack on a successful grapple.

Thank you for your reply.

Sounds like you've already got it sorted out. But I feel the need defend my "make sense" argument a bit just in case

A grapple is a full on bear hug, tentacle wrap, or whatever. Your whole body is involved. A grab is simply a limb reaching out to snag someone so that the subsequent full body grapple can then commense.

A limb can be deflected, swatted away, or whatever, an entire body cannot, or at least not so easily. Ever had someone try to grab your arm? How about try to hug you when you didn't want to be? One can be batted away with a hand. The other requires a you to fight them away or dodge completely out of the way.

This is how I imagine Force Ward works. It tries to deflect oncoming attacks rather than being a wall or sheild against them. It sort of swats them away like you would to a hand trying to grab you or a ball being thrown at you.

Dunno if that made it make more sense or not. Either way it doesn't particularly matter lol.

Force Ward would not protect against grapples since grapples aren't "attacks" in the technical sense, since an attack requires an attack roll, which grapples do not make, they make CMB rolls.
It WOULD protect you from the free grapple granted by Grab since the grapple is riding on an attack. But the fact that it's a grapple is irrelevant, the ability negates ANY effect that occurs from being hit by an attack.

If you are looking for a "make sense" answer for how force ward would protect you from a grab is that you can look at it like a force field. It's not a solid "shell" that an enemy could just pick up with you in it. It's more like an intangible force that reacts and repels attacks as they happen. A creature trying to grab a Force Warded creature would find his tentacle simply sliding off him as it tried to get traction.

Reaching Vines doesn't appear to be a reach weapon so I'm not sure the reach weapon rules apply here.

And this isn't a one-off corner case issue either, there are several occurrences of this issue in the game. The White Haired witches Prehensile Hair which similarly has a specified reach of 10 without stating that it is a "reach weapon".
An Eidolon with the Reach evolution is the same way (yes I know the Large evolution states it's interaction with the Reach evolution, but as has been pointed out numerous times in the past, the Large evolution and Enlarge or other size changing effects are two very different effects)

Seems like an issue that I'm surprised has never been officially cleared up.

If a player were to have this Fungal Graft and then quaff an Enlarge Person potion, what is the reach of the Reaching Vines?

A) 10ft, because Enlarge says that only your Natural Reach increases, and Reaching Vines doesn't use your Natural Reach?

2) 20ft, because Enlarge Person doubles your reach

Three) 15ft, because Enlarge essentially just adds 5ft to your attacks' reach.

IV) 0ft, because reasons...

=) Orange, because the voices in my head told me so.

Templates were not made with players in mind, they were intended to be used only by monsters. Therefore there are no rules for handling that kind of thing.
By allowing your players to take templates you are in Homebrew territory, and you'll need to come up with something on your own.

I think we can chalk this up to a difference in playstyles really.

I prefer to play on a grounded ruleset that tells me and my fellow players exactly what we can do, and the GM's job is to fill in the cracks where the rules aren't covered. The GM is a moderator, rather than a god.

Whereas you prefer to play with a softer ruleset where the written rules are usually adhered to but ultimately it's the GM's job to tell you what you can do. The GM is a god, rather than merely a moderator.

Neither playstyle is worse or better. Just different. I wouldn't want to play at your table and you wouldn't want to play at mine. Nothing wrong with that though :)

Oddly worded, and odd dice usage. But it's definitely (1d2+1) per 2 caster levels.

This doesn't actually help you catch up, since this FCB is so powerful that it's effectively become the default. It's not that humans are ahead, it's that non-humans are behind, because human sorcerer has become the gold standard for sorcerers. If we were to have a serious conversation on the merits of Wizard vs Sorcerer vs Arcanist, I would be presuming the human sorcerer favored class bonus is in play in that discussion.

Of course, but I was discussing means of mitigation, not completely removing the negatives. If there was a way of doing that it's be broken as hell, and no one would ever pick anything other than Crossblooded.

The point I was making here is that the existence of the human favored class bonus actually mitigates the damage significantly.

Let's compare spells known of different kinds of level 11 sorcerer's:

9/5/5/4/3/2 (28) - non-human vanilla sorcerer
8/4/4/3/2/1 (22) - non-human Crossblooded sorcerer
11/7/7/6/5/2 (38) - human vanilla sorcerer
10/6/6/5/4/1 (32)- human Crossblooded sorcerer

Non-human Crossblooded sorcerer's have about ~27% fewer spells than the vanilla counterpart (ouch).
While the human Crossblooded sorcerer has only about ~18% fewer spells (less ouch).

Because of the Human FCB the penalties for Crossblooded are only about 50% as bad as they seem at first glance.

7 year necro. Not bad.