TheJesterXIII's page

Please excuse the threadmancy...
I am pretty by the book for the most part..

But, here is your walk around all this pedantry for the sake of argument.

I am 5th level human alchemist I took Vestigial Arm twice at 2nd and 4th levels. Two-Weapon Fighting, Point-Blank Shot and Rapid Relaod feats at 1st and 3rd levels. I am using my Vestigial Arms to hold my crossbow and then reloading as a free action with my normal arms which I would be able to do anyway there for no extra actions. NOW they are not giving me any "extra" actions that I couldn't take without them. Here is why:

Round 1: Crossbows loaded shoot both. (Could do this anyway with TWF so no extra actions there. and the arms by RAW state they can attack for you.)

Round 2:
Free action to reload cross bow with my normal everyday arms that I already possessed from the get go. (And the other is not an extra action because I could have dropped the first if I wanted after loading it and then loaded the second as an additional free action then picked up the first as a move action. so there for no extra actions.)

Fire both Crossbows. (Still not no extra action as that is part of my already existing attack regiment.)

Repeat.

I can't see how this is not RAW.

He could do it with repeating light crossbows as it doesn't say you take a action to crank it you just use two hands.

That fact that you can preform a free action with it is beside the point really. Are you telling me that if I already have a poison in my Vestigial arm and a knife in each had I apply poison two one as a swift action and then fight TWF style you would not allow this because my extra am used a Swift action. Really? How is that different then I have it in my off hand apply, drop empty vial(free action), draw second knife (quick draw, free action) and do the same TWF attack actions. I am not asking for an extra move action or a standard action or even an attack I am asking to make life simple.

I personally would feel ashamed to do that to a player and would never play in a game with a GM like that. But hey, that's personal preference right.

Here is the thing i think it would get WAY out of control the standard way even if PrC do like they do in the examples.

Check this out going back to my first example wiz 2/Drd 2/Clr 2. This would be powerful without limitijg how many classes add into your class. Lets speed things up. At 18th level they would be 6/6/6 but caster wise they would be 12/12/12 caster thats 6th level spells with three classes seems overpowered to me. Worse lets tack on another class such as witch and now go for 6/6/4/4 thats 12/12/8/8 thats 6thit levle spells with two classes and 4th with two more. Losts of spells to throw it about.

Next lets say i did the favores class option as well wizard and i took it for cleric assuming i am not a half-elf. So i am 13th level now and feel its time to take the cleric levels. So next level i take clr 1 and i am casting loke a 2nd level cleric. I take another and i am casting as a 4th the growth seems too fast.

Finally lets say i require you to choose two classes while multiclassing between these two classes half of you level up to x2 that classes level count for each opposite class for determining spells perday and known as well as CL. Which is basicly the same thing as they have written but i require you to chose two class that have this benefit. So if you chose fighter and wizard half your fighter level apply up to two times you wizard level. And your half your wizard levels would apply if your fighter had casting but sense he doesn't only the wizard side gains the bonus. Only base classes can be chosen for this ability.
Sounds like i should make it a feat instead.

I might be misunderstanding you, but it seems that you may have misinterpreted an aspect of this "rule": That PrCs don't feed into the casting ability.

I thought so for a moment myself, but what it says is that:

"Any prestige class that adds caster levels to a primary spellcasting class (such as Arcane Archer or Dragon Disciple) only adds the caster levels specifically listed, you can’t count it (for the class it adds to) for the purposes of this rule."

Meaning you don't get double feed into the class it adds to. So, Arcane Archer 10 adds 7 levels of spellcasting to one of your casting classes, but you don't also get 5 levels on top.

It seems clear from the examples that PrCs give the same 1 for 2 level as Base classes do in all other ways.

-Cheers

PS: I think the Mystic Theurge feat chain is totally warranted.

No i understood that part it was favored classing i was having a meltdown with apparently. I still think this needs work i want to feel it is more on par witht the MT then under it.

And yeah i did like the idea of the MT feats as the class was going away.

Does human not get 2 as well? And yes i suppose i see your point i was under the impression you got a favored class bonus every level haha how stupid of me. And yes most do go for the optimum build to give them 9th level spells but i find it odd to go through the work to be sub-par with one casting class and decent with the other and gain no real class benifit.

Edit: No humans don't and i suppose he could do well as a half-elf if i really wanted to optimize him.

Mine would top out at 9th level and 6th level spells going 14/6 prep/prep

Because you have to remain even to get the benefit and you can't go more then x2 your level so he would be a 17/12 caster with bonuses added. 14+(6*.5)/6+[(14*.5)<6)] = 14+3/6+6= 17/12

TheJesterXIII wrote:

I am guessing you feel that the Mystic Thuerge's class granted abilities is what makes it more powerful?

No, the casting. A prep/prep mystic theurge tops out at 9th level main spells and 7th level secondary spells - your multiclass rule tops out at 9th main, 3rd secondary or 7th main 7th secondary.

Hmm i thought given that he would be an effective 15/15 caster he would get 8th in both...

The the 15 from 10 base class in both and 5 bonus from half of his other levels. Thanks to taking the favored class in the opposite each level. Meaning it would be on par with Mystic sense he is also 15/15 if he takes 5/5/10 using the PrC

Just to illustrate the rest of the feats for anyone that does want to use them or for anyone planning to come back to this thread and give there opinion on if they feel this is overpowered.

With the requirements I have set in place a character wouldn't be able to take each feat barring wizards bonus feats until:

9th for Combine Spells
13th for Improved Combine Spells
17th for Greater Combine Spells
19th for Spell Synthesis

making them the last feats you will take most likely and I feel that if you want to do what the Thuerge does then you can take feats to do so. Although in some respects you get them earlier in other you wouldn't. As the abilities would be gained earlier with the PrC, with the exception of combine spells (2nd level), which is nice plus you wouldn't have had to take feats. But I feel sense I am disallowing this class given the ruling on multiclassing spellcasters and the favored class option I am implementing for it. I feel this is a fair trade for the power to take your base classes to 10th level in each. And nothing says you have to take these feats but they are there.

Now that I feel that I plan on using this as a houserule in my game. I was wondering if anyone thought it would be over powered to allow the Mystic Theurge's class abilities as Feats available to those that wish to take them. For example do something like:

This works acceptably well (removing mystic theurge, etc.), but I prefer the much simpler solution of Magic Rating from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana (and the SRD). Essentially, just stack casting classes for purposes of caster level (only, no increased spells per day).

This way any dual-caster casts at full level, but doesn't get free spells per day. SR issues go away, effectiveness goes way up, without vastly changing the classes. It also works with or without prestige classes like mystic theurge (a Wiz5/Clr5 is different but equivalent to a Wiz3/Clr3/MTh4).

I have read this and while it makes sense. Seeing as just because you stop pursuing the abilities within that class does not mean your potential casting remains stagnate or would not increase at lest by some degree. BUT by that logic then why would your ability to cast new spells and of higher level not be available. Think about it, doesn't make much sense to say: "I am a Warrior Wizard and I took no time out of my life to continue study in magic after I started fighting but some how I grow more powerful and now I can cast low spells as if I was a high caster but never unlocked the potential for higher spells because that's not important." When of course it would be.

Not saying I don't like the Magic Rating system in fact I was about to call it quits and use it when I stumbled on to this in the first place.
In this version with my tweak it shows that even in the pursuits of another occupation you still are trying to stay fresh and learn new things along side it. As represented by spending your favored class option to do so. This also cost something instead of getting it for free. I mean even if I was going to allow the Magic Rating you presented I was still going to require them to use there favored class option to obtain it.

To be fair, at 20th level, I think a core mystic theurge is more powerful than this multiclass rule. However, that's the strongest level for a mystic theurge - and I'd much rather have your rule during levels 2-15.

I'm not even sure it would be broken to allow the mystic theurge with your favored class variant anyway. At most, we're looking at CL17/CL15 vs 17/13 or 15/15 in core. It's strong, but not sure it would be broken compared to the good ol' 20 straight.

I think you would be right 20th vs. 20th but so often do games get there. And as much as we like to think they will what if they didn't then all you did was waste time in the background being sub-par and while your character had flavor he never had anything to back him up.

I am guessing you feel that the Mystic Thuerge's class granted abilities is what makes it more powerful?

I liked it and as my players tend to Shy away form casting for whatever reason I feel it will be a rule I am house-ruling for most Casting NPCs really anyway. But as to make it fair anything I allow NPCs to take I allow PCs so this needed to be finalized.

The only problem I see is Non-spell boosting PrCs would end up gimping casters that go into them. But I don't see a big issue as I as a Wizard am not going to try and get into Duelist and expect not to be gimped in many ways.

And yeah the point being that a Wiz 5/Clr 5/MT 10 would be effective 15th in both and only 5 in the 2 base classes. And as with this a both base classes would be 10th and gain the benefits there of and be only 15th in both as well not much different except the road there is not as hard.

And the end isn't under powered but also doesn't seem over powered.

I thought about allowing it as a favored class option. Such as a Fighter4/Wizard 2 would take this favored class option for his levels of fighter. For example: its would be +1/2 to casterlevel and spells perday and known(when applicable)to a primary casting class that is not this class.

So for his Wizard levels he takes whatever he wants and then for his fighter levels instead of taking +1 hp or skill or and racial one he instead takes this. The restriction of no more then x2 your class level but this would allow him to be a 4th level fighter and a 3rd level wizard for spells and a 2nd in all other respects.

I find this would be great except for caster/caster class. For example a wizard 5/Cleric 5 would be an effective 7/7 for spells using the normal method. But using mine whichever class started as the 1st level wizard would have to take +1/2 to cleric without having levels in it. Although this could represent some form of apprenticing in the other casting class.

"However, you may not take your total caster level higher than double what it would otherwise be."

I assume this is meant to mean that you may not get more than double your actual class level in casting ability at all (and not just caster level). So a Fig10/Sor1 casts as a Sor2, not as a Sor6 for slots and spell access but only CL2.

I don't think that rule will break anything as long as you disallow +caster level gains from PRCs. Otherwise it'll get broken in no-time.

Well intrestingly enough they address that. They state that if it gives +to casterlevel then it only counts for that and not in addtion too. As to make sure that the reason they are losing those is for reason. So a PrC that already does this does it through that and base classes and PrC that don't do so through this ruling.

So hopefully everyone is just reading the rule?

Alright I kind of wanted my big baddy in my game to be a Dhampir Cruoromancer/Undead Lord but upon looking at the abilities and such he would not be getting much and even less if I "theurged" So I was stalking around for some people that had any homebrew fixes to help me not gimp my "Super" villain.

I came a crossed the GD over the Mystic Threuge and was reading a lot of things but no one found anything that didn't seem too over powered or still lacked in the end.

I came a crossed this sight that details a whole PF multiclass spell caster fix.

Pathfinder Spellcaster Multiclassing House Rule by 'Who ever posted it.'

I can't seem to find the author of the post. I do, however, know the DM that seem to come up with this name is Paul as it is stated there. So the idea goes to these two as it is not mine I am merely a conduit and very interested in its in game balance.

So let me know what you think. And if you find it would break your game table. While I do not promote. Extensive multiclassing or 'dipping' I do think this could be useful for not only my NPC but if PCs want to fill gaps in the small party we have.

With that said I was thinking of adding in the class you may choose only one class to gain this benefit for each primary casting class your have. For example a Wizard 2/Druid 2/Cleric 2 would all cast as if they were 3rd level. While this may not seem out of place except it gives spells perday and I think having them choose that adds the benefit is more balancing. If that is not confusing enough for you.

Look forward to this discussion let me know what you think.

Ok so feat in triat out here comes a relatied question. Lets assume i have the feat this means i can use a longsword built for a large creature one handed as intened but with a -2 penalty. So if i use it two hand would there be no penalty or would i jusf wield it as a longsword in two hands and gain the benifit of 1.5 str and still have -2? I know, why not just use a greatsword then. But understand i may have a magic large longsword and not a greatsword as a DM what whould you rule?

Icyshadow i used that to wield bigger pistols on a gunslinger once. The point is he wants to be human. And technicaly you would still have to use a feat anyway. As you are only "allowed" to choose what you want if you take the feat as per the section. Unless you have a lax dm.

Just to say detect magic he would have been using rounds to get to that point anyway i not to mention he skill sank into to umd and deat sank 2 feats to get that and its not like the + to the die is doubles right just the die itself and sense you can't crit he may be better casting leaden weapon. Then just using his other feat on improved crit and save the enlarge person or rather use it and have two chances to multiply all damage not just dice. All though i may be rembmering vital strike wrong but i think thats it. Its not infront of me so.

No a greatsword for a large creature would be a huge weapon as per weapon to size ratios. And a medium size creature can not wield a huge weapon as it is 2 sizes up. Or by these mechanics a -4 penalty at face value. But its still huge and a med can't use huge weapons as far as i know. And just to clearify i believe that this section of over side weapons is reffering to things like i pick up a giants longsword and wield it at a -2 in two hands because its large or i pick up a huge creatures shortsword and would have to use it two handed as well because of its size (large) and take a -4 there is a difference. The largest size weapon you can use doesn't change its the weapon it self.

Edit: maybe this is a RAW vs RAI instance but i don't lnow any DM that allows a huge weapon in the hands of a med creature even with -4 without some kind of feat or something.

I didn't know that feat existed... so let me get this stright readingthis feat right he could wield a greatsword built for a large creature with a -2 penalty. Which is what he wants... i find an extra 1d6 damage and a -2 to hit a little more then fair. Would you not?

So I have a player that is obsessed with wielding a weapon too big for him. And because of this I am reminded of Berserk in which the main charater Guts, if you are not familiar, was riased by mercinaries and they only allowed him to use weapons made for adults as such he grew stranger and later in life used a weapon that was massive for a human.

So I essentially want to make a trait that does the same. I want to restricted it to one weapon that he is already proficient with. More or less giving him powerful build with ONE weapon. And the choice can't be changed or retrained. Would this be overpowered and what kind of trait would you classify it? He says social because of the fact that it is your upbringing. I say combat because it directly effects combat.

Thanks. And I understand its lame to "borrow" ideas but it seemed to fit the sistuation as an example of something that already existed somewhere.

I like all the points I may have to check out the other archetypes. I just feel that if I am using a bow it odd to dance and chant haha. But I am creative I am sure I will think of something. I may go vanilla bard its not bad and I want to have fun with it. Maybe I can make witty banter with party members as well while I fight like Gimli and Legalos thanks for the advice. I will check this as I look through so feel free to advise more if you think of something. Thank you all again.

Arcane Duelist actually fits quite well for an acher bard, since Bladethirst isn't limited to melee weapons. Arcane Strike, which you get as a bonus feat on level 1, is also an excellent feat for a bard archer, in many ways superior to Deadly Aim since you don't take a penalty to your to hit.

I agree. I even though it seems that it would lean towards the melee side at no point does it state it has to be. An interesting tie bit this reminds me of the fact that the duelist's abilities can be used with range aside from uncanny defence which you would use while switch hitting if you ask me. Unfortunately you have to use a pistol to get the abilities to apply. Anyway back on topic.

How come you can't use bladethirst while inspiring courage because they are both performances?
Can some one clear that up. This will be my first pathfinder bard. In truth my first bard ingeneral. They always seemed so harsh to use... you either had to use an instrument taking up your hands or use some verbal means and singing in combat seemed a little silly to me. And I did understand the allocation of insults how can someone keep insulting through an entire combat or do you need only to make them on your turn?

I am fine with ranged just not sure which archetype would be best for that either. Animal speaker is out really not digging it for this play through and if I wanted to do that I would just go pack lord druid but they seem like a trap to me.

Let me just say this first: Thank you for your useful suggestions in advanced in the event I forget to thank anyone.

Alright so I have been involved in table top RPGs for a long time now for almost 15 years now not bad for someone as young as I.

I am currently going to be starting a game with plenty of new players basicly 4 person group including I, excluding the GM. The party is as fallows:

Aasmier Sorcerer (draconic) plans to head into Dragon Disciple (gold) with some possible melee thrown in.
Human Fighter up close and personal sword and board.
Halfling Rouge sneaky flanker with decent trapfinding at best.

And me the undecided... you see I don't really want to play an Orical, Druid, or Cleric to fill our obvious lack of a healer. Not that I have anything against those classes. While I resist the urge to double up for risk of out shining or removing the feeling they are contributing to the party in a major way.

So my solution is to fill in with bard its got enough going on. But I want to stray away from run of the mill bard and pick up an archetype. Here is the thing which one helps the most.

Arcane Duelist- run the risk of stepping on the fighters toes though I can make him ranged and be a good support to most. Wands and somespells will help fill in the healing gap and buff spells will fill the rest.

Magician- spell wielding bard may have some thing to offer here the extra spells added to list and the wand mastery will help things out for the healing and missing spells add in some buffs, may make for a well rounded party.

Dervish- While I like the flavor of this class and the cool factor. I feel this may step on miss "hit you with my hammer"'s toes and while another melee combatant is useful for the most part I am hesitant to use it.

As you can see I have done some thinking on my own. I am looking for other suggestions and advice on my current stands. What do you think this party needs.

Thank you again

Excuse my Threadmancy, And for the long post.

I know this thread is long dead, but it applies to an alchemist build I thought of recently using vestigal arms, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

Vestigal arms is written to make sure players know they only get one standard action per round, regardless of the number of arms they have, but that their extra arms can be used for two-weapon fighting (or multiweapon fighting) in combat.

An Alchemist with 4 arms and a Strength of 22[+6] (mutagen buffed) can wield a longsword in one and a shortsword, dogslicer, and handaxe in the others to make a standard attack action at -2/-2/-2/-2 for 1d8+6/1d6+3/1d6+3/1d6+3.

If he happened to be wielding two greatswords and had the same Strength, he could make a standard attack at -4/-4, as his off-hand greatsword is obviously not a light weapon, for 2d6+9/2d6+5. The +5 on the off-hand greatsword comes from the 1/2 Strength bonus on off-hand weapons coupled with the 1-1/2 Strength bonus from wielding a weapon with two hands, bringing it to a 3/4 Strength bonus of 4.5, which would likely be rounded up.

Both could also use a full-attack action, making all their attacks at full BAB and continuing through the BAB with their primary weapon. A fully leveled Alchemist with the greatswords would then get the normal 4 attacks (3 primary, 1 secondary) with his weapons at +17/+17/+12/+7, whereas the light-weapon alchemist would have a total of 6 attacks in his full-attack action (3 longsword, shortsword, kukri, handaxe) at +17/+17/+17/+17/+12/+7.

The two-weapon build has the greater damage capacity, with a possible total of 8d6+32 (Max 80) damage against 3d8+18 + 3d6+9 (Max 60) damage, of the two, especially when you factor in the extra attack granted by Improved Two Weapon Fighting. I'm not sure if the Multiweapon Fighter could take Improved Two Weapon Fighting due to the prereq of Two-Weapon Fighting...but it could certainly be argued.

I agree with this set up here. With the exception of one thing. Stated in the Multiweapon Fighting feat it says:

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

So I think there is no argument needed, it is two-weapon fighting if you have more then one off hand to attack with.

Most of you are mixing natural attacks in as well. These attacks as all natural attacks are stated to be added on at the end of a full attack. They are handed differently.

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

No. A limb with a weapon does not grant you an extra attack. A character with a greatsword and armor spikes would have two attacks. A character with two kukris would have two attacks. And a character with two kukris, armor spikes, a barbazu beard and two blade boots would have two attacks as well, although he'd be free to chose which weapon to use for his off-hand attack.

Blade Boot wrote:

You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon.

Barbazu Beard wrote:

A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beared with a two-handed weapon.

Attacking with a barbazu beard provokes an attack of opportunity. Because it is so close to the wearer's face, using a barbazu beard against creatures harmful to touch (such as fire elementals and acidic oozes) has the same risks as using a natural weapon or unarmed strike against these creatures.

Spiked Armor wrote: wrote:

You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case.

Even without extra arms, a character could wield six melee weapons. Without arms, he could wield four melee weapons. In both cases he would be able to attack with two weapons.

Well this is all not true now. The bold part is the first part is mine. I wanted to point this out because as it does say you can use Armor spikes as an off hand weapon it also states in that they can only be used if you have not made an other off hand attack so there goes your armor spikes. Blade boot allows you to attack with it as an off hand weapon because you are giving a limb a weapon. How is this not proving the point. the same can be said with the Beard. The point is, if you have have extra arms weather a racial trait gave them to you or a class feature you can wield weapons in them this allows you to use those weapons at penalties yes, but that is why the Multiweapon Fighting Feat exists for creatures and PCs who qualify for them. In this case I have four arms and I wield 2 great swords. I require Multiweapon fighting not because I am using 3 or more weapons but because my 3 or more hands are wielding weapons. It doesn't matter that that happens to net out to 2 great swords.

The Summoners pet can do it. And if the summons pet can use the summoners feats the summoner should be able to use the pet to qualify for feats. SO allowing Multiweapon fighting to be taken. As well as an alchemist would qualify with his Discovery because he has 3 or more hands capable of holding weapons. The point of putting that an alchemist does not gain extra attacks directly from the arm was to point out that if I took both arms by 3nd level(which you can) I would not run into combat with three attacks my two new arms and my normal attack. However if I were to take the Multiweapon fighting feat at 3rd level and my 4th arm at 4th level. I could make 4 attacks. So long as I wielded weapons. That would be my Normal attack plus my three off hand attacks not granted by Multiweapon fighting but granted because i am using them in fighting. I could use them without multiweapon fighting while wielding weapons and still get 4 attack. Even using the first example. But my main attack would be at -6 and my three off hand attacks would be at -10 because I don't have the feat that reduces the penalties.

If you don't see the difference I can't say I blame you the lines are all grey for the most part. But I am saying if I invested 2 discoveries (or 1 and 1 feat) and a extra feat to be able to wield 4 weapons or 2 tow-handed weapons. Or any combo legal therefor. Why are you freaking out? I mean is not Like I don't have a poor BAB and a d6 HP. All I can say is I would allow it in my game. Just like if someone was playing a Xill they would also be able to do the same.
As far as the wings granting you natural attacks I see no where in the discovery that says they do. And most things with wings don't get to use them for attacks until they or large or some larger so why would you?

First off, there's no such thing as a "divine potion." Potions, like wands and staves, are neither arcane nor divine. There is no difference (bar minimum caster level) between a potion of cure light wounds brewed by a bard and one brewed by a cleric.

Second, potions are neither spell trigger nor spell completion items. They are "use-activated" items.

PF SRD wrote:

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). the DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

So, in order to create a potion, you must "know" the spell you are putting into it. Fortunately, that is a common prereq which can be sidestepped by increasing the DC by 5, per the rules on meeting prereqs.

So, for instance, in order to create a potion of cure light wounds (CL 1), you need to meet the following prereqs:

Brew Potion
Cure Light Wounds known

You must also be able to hit a DC 6 Spellcraft or Craft (Alchemy) check (5 plus Caster Level).

You must, per the rules on meeting prereqs, meet the Brew Potion prereq. The spell knowledge prereq, however, may be met or ignored (which increases the DC by 5). So, if you can hit a DC 11 Spellcraft of Craft (Alchemy) check, you can brew CL 1 potions of Cure Light Wounds without the knowing the Cure Light Wounds spell.

Except where it says on page 549 of the core rule book last sentence of the second paragraph:

In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisite.

Which of course means as stated by others you can not do it. Because the magic item creation rules trump a feats description. And I belielive the book trumps the SRD unless some where I missed that the SRD was an errata site and not a free sharing site.

I personally believe the only real prerequisite outside of the item creation feat is the spell itself (meaning ONLY a single +5 increase) when it comes to potions, but had I been in your game, I would likely have accepted your ruling (as I can just take 10 and get a 23 at 3rd-level anyways).

I understand that it looks like the only one but if you think about it you have to meet all the requirements to do it normally or roll for in place of the ones you can't. Like I said its can be argued...

Exactly so even increasing it by 15 for everything would only make it a 21 for a first level potion... and that's means you can do it at 3rd level by taking a 10 anyway. So its irrelevant for 1st level spells at first level.
I would ask you DM what they would require you to increase it by. In my game personally I would say 15 but they my rule different just like in your game I am sure you would make it only a +5 to the DC.

Which now makes me wonder if my alchemist can do that. Hmm.

Thank you.

Awesome, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't running this wrong my whole D&D 3.0/3.5/pathfinder career.

I must have skipped over the multiple attack section on pg. 184.

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spelltrigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

I think you were going for this quote and that's fine if the game says you can increase the DC then that's fine.

That's about all I can say really I think in the end as a DM myself. I may let a party of people that don't have a character that can make them without this method, use it. But otherwise would have to say it seems a little off that means that you have to roll. a DC of 16 for a Sorcerer (with a 10 wis) to make a potion of cure light wounds (1d8+1)

I guess you can argue that is says you need to increase it for each thing you don't fulfill that the item needs. and if you ask me that divine caster, the known spell, and the needed ability score(assuming you don't have it).

So really I would say its up to your DM to allow you to use that. And with that rule given I would have to say as a by-the-book GM I would have to say you can do it with a +15 to the DC.

The easiest potions because simple for you now because you can create potions of any spell you don't have by increase the DC by 5.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Let me make sure I am reading this right.

As from what I can remember everyone I know has always ran Two-weapon fighting that you off hand weapon extra attack occurs at the end of a full-attack action.

But from what I am getting at in bold there and the fact that I have looked over and over and can't find it saying that anywhere it requires the full-attack action. I am led to believe that the way that I and everyone I know has been running this wrong.

This sounds to me that even if my level 10 Human Ranger with two-weapon fighting moved up 30ft he gets one attack with his primary hand but not is other granted BAB attacks. But in addition to this he gets his off hand attack as it says he gets one extra attack per round while wielding an second weapon. That's what it sounds like to me.

So please let me know your thoughts and if you can find some ruling to prove that its only at the end of a full-attack action.

Thank you.

Some magic items say you HAVE to have the spell prerequisites, whereas with others you can simply up the DC by 5 and bypass the prerequisite altogether.

Which are potions? Can my sorcerer with a limited spell list (but min/maxed spellcraft) make potions of healing? Or am I stuck with potions of enlarge person (the only potionable spell I know)?

The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in

the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or
bard) and must provide any material component or focus the
spell requires.

Sorry this means you can only create potions of spells you can cast. If you want you can grab yourself a level of cleric or a level of Alchemist and you can make it via the formula rule stated in the class. other then that its not much use if you have the feat maybe you can 'retrain' or ask the DM if you can change it. Its up to you. Sorry this wasn't the answer you were looking for but I hope it helped.

Alright I recently was browsing the Alchemist class. Now I took not to the rules on Craft (alchemy) and brew potion. Here is the thing. If I want to make a vial of Acid it takes me a week. Unless I supersede the cost of the item by Double or Triple the cost in silver. Sense to make acid takes a DC 15 that means the lowest you can do is 15x15= 225 Well over 10 times the silver cost of 20 sliver. 225/7 = 32 sliver which means it can be made in 1 day at the minimum check needed. And a check of 19 would be needed to make double the cost in silver for crafting by 1 day so I could do it in half a day. 19x15 = 285/7 =40. And to do it in 8 hours I would need triple the cost in silver a check of 28. 28x15 = 420/7 =60.

Now this means I can look at the craft by day rules. Now am I correct to assume that if I am double or triple it takes me half or one-third the day instead of 1 day like it states with crafting by the week?

Next question is why is it I can brew a potion in 2 hours (if the price is right) but I can't make a vial of acid in less time then 1 day?(Assuming my first question is a no)

Alchemist Abilities questions in relation to this.

Next I want to ask, if I have the Swift Alchemy ability that the Alchemist gets, does this mean I can create something that takes the by day rules or even the Double and Triple the cost rule that pretty much happens automatically (Assuming my first question is a yes) and cut those totals by half due to swift Alchemy?

Last question is if I have the Instant Alchemy class feature is there no limit to the amount of things I can make except for gold and the time? More less if I can pay the 32,640 and spend the 9600 rounds (assuming 8 hours of rest, 16 hours x 60 = 960 mins x 10 = 9600 rounds x 1 vial per round.) In 16 hours I can make 9600 vials of Acid for 32,640(3.4 x 9600)gold.

Alright hopefully I can get this cleared up I just want to make sure I am reading this correctly. And more of filling in the gray areas.

Thank you.