shroudb's page

shroudb wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

The reasonable thing is to check when the suppression ends, whether the original cause for the effect is still valid.

If your friend was immobilized by being stuck under a boulder, was Sure-Footed, and walked away, then they shouldn't become immobilized again. Because the boulder can't do that at a distance.

If your friend was immobilized by magical goo, got Sure-Footed, walked away, but the goo is still on them, then afterwards they get immobilized again.

But then you are basically rulling that you fully counteracted the effect and not merely suppressed it.

Especially since the suppression effect mentions that the condition reappears without time having elapsed.

I'm not really seeing a better alternative that doesn't completely break suspension of disbelief.

I don't see the problem if RAW breaks suspension of disbelief that much to prohibit that scenario happenning altogether.

(Because strict RAW WILL have you immobilized from 30feet apart when the suppress ends, there's no second reading here, nothing "removed" the condition)

Or, as I said earlier, allow only magical effects to be suppressed.

The vague entry about:

This spell can't counteract or suppress conditions that are part of the target's normal state.

May well include things like "you are chained to the wall, so being bound is your 'normal state' at the moment".

The terms used are too vague either way to be certain that this wasn't the intention all along.

Because Save based spells use a static DC, which soon becomes obsolete (even when it starts, it's already 1 less than your spellcasters and from then on it only gets worse) I'd look on some Spell Attack options instead (since if you hit with the attack, you autohit with those)

A 3rd level hydraulic push as an example would be 7d6+shove, a Telekinetic maneuver would allow you to combine your strike with your choice of Trip, Shove, Disarm or Reposition, a Holy Light would be an extra 10d6 vs an Unholy target, and etc

The reasonable thing is to check when the suppression ends, whether the original cause for the effect is still valid.

If your friend was immobilized by being stuck under a boulder, was Sure-Footed, and walked away, then they shouldn't become immobilized again. Because the boulder can't do that at a distance.

If your friend was immobilized by magical goo, got Sure-Footed, walked away, but the goo is still on them, then afterwards they get immobilized again.

But then you are basically rulling that you fully counteracted the effect and not merely suppressed it.

Especially since the suppression effect mentions that the condition reappears without time having elapsed.

shroudb wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Curiouser and curiouser.

Especially since this applies to any physical based immobilization effect.

Even your example of getting your foot stuck:

You supress the immobilization from the boulder on top of your foot, so you move away, and 1 round later, your foot suddenly gets stuck on the floor, while the boulder is still in the same spot 30 feet away....

They kinda dropped the ball imo when they put that suppress thingy in, since it really doesn't make any sense in any non-magical scenario.

I would just think of it as suspending the forces that keep your body stuck. When the effect comes back in place, the forces come back and keep your muscles and bones immobile just like they were and for the same (rather short) duration. Even if you moved away from the source of the effect in the meantime.

Because it's magic.

So... you'd have to lift a boulder that's 30 feet away so that you can move again?

You'd have to have someone sneak back into the cell that your manacles were anchored and unlock them, or else you are just standing immobile outside of the prison now?

Let alone other considerations like "can the enemy spend an action to sustain the grapple even though you are now away?"

I know in my games which way I would rule, aka "suppress only works for magical effects"

Curiouser and curiouser.

Especially since this applies to any physical based immobilization effect.

Even your example of getting your foot stuck:

You supress the immobilization from the boulder on top of your foot, so you move away, and 1 round later, your foot suddenly gets stuck on the floor, while the boulder is still in the same spot 30 feet away....

They kinda dropped the ball imo when they put that suppress thingy in, since it really doesn't make any sense in any non-magical scenario.

What's funny is if you fail to counteract the effect, but the effect still falls within the "2 levels lower and you would have" clause.

What happens then?

Do you "suppress" the grapple, so the ally gets to move, and then suddenly, 1 round later, he becomes "grappled" again by a monster 30 feet away?

You free the target's limbs from ailments that impede mobility

Break shackles

Squiggit wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

which was meant be balanced by being a glass cannon

This is the only part of the post I disagree with. They're a little squishier than some of their contemporaries, but arguably in a better spot than a lot of post-CRB martials, especially those that rely on non-defensive secondary stats (like the Inventor, Magus, Investigator, and Thaumaturge).

The rogue is pretty clearly middle of the road here.

Well, all of those examples except the investigator have options that improve their durability. Armor Innovation, Inexorable Iron/Sparkling Targe, Amulet/Chalice implements. Plus some get native shield block access.

But really, I'd argue all those classes are trying to walk the same line as the rogue, with varying degrees of success. They all get martial accuracy with a damage enhancer, plus additional utility above your standard martial. The cost is 8 HP a level and no heavy armor, so you need to spend resources if you want to shore up defenses.

The only real difference is Thieves are less MAD than anyone without full plate, but Ruffians and Scoundrels suffer from the same woes as the post- CRB crowd.

Rogues also have defensive feats if they so choose to pick them up.

I'd argue that's a small price to pay compared to some of the very limited options of your list that you can only pick 1-2 on your whole career as opposed to the 10 feats you can pick.

Realistically, there's no reason for rogue to have "success>crit success" on all 3 of his saves when other martials don't.

p.s.
and no, it doesn't make them "op" to have so, but it is imo kinda unbalanced. Rogues were already very strong there was no reason to give them such a strong buff out of nowhere.

shroudb wrote:

For me, asides of theoreticals, in the vast majority of times that you will be facing incorporeal enemies you will be armed with magical items.

if said magical items interfere with what the ghost is made off enough to harm it, they interfere enough to also block his attacks.

Sure, in very low levels where you might come across the odd shadow before you get your magic items, it may be iffy, but in the majority of cases that won't be the case, so it doesn't break immersion that much.

You don't get magical armor until 5th level, though. And magical shields are probably affordable around the same point (and are a lower priority than weapons.) Using a magic sword to keep a ghost at bay seems more logical than mundane armor or shields.

I like Perpdepog's idea though. Ghosts have the spirit trait, so they're already a bit occult even if they skew more towards divine.

Most incorporeal enemies start appearing after 5 was my point.

Sure, very early on there might be like 1-2 encounters, but after that, there's no reason "magical" armor shouldn't inhibit a ghost any less that it inhibits a bear.

If a magical sword can cut a ghost, I assume that a magical armor can block it.

For me, asides of theoreticals, in the vast majority of times that you will be facing incorporeal enemies you will be armed with magical items.

if said magical items interfere with what the ghost is made off enough to harm it, they interfere enough to also block his attacks.

Sure, in very low levels where you might come across the odd shadow before you get your magic items, it may be iffy, but in the majority of cases that won't be the case, so it doesn't break immersion that much.

AC is a mixture of factors all together.

How well you can avoid creatures, how thick your skin is, how well armoured you are, and yes, if part of you is covered by an obstacle (cover), amongst other factors.

In fact, AC is so abstract that someone hitting your armor is AC while someone hitting your shield is not an AC thing but rather a Shield Block thing.

So, if the shield bonus to AC is NOT due to attacks hitting the shield, how are you so sure that it isn't simply due to the cover and thus the sensory limitations, that the shield provides?

That's especially since we also know that both Cover and Concealment offer the same sensory coverage since both allow you to Hide.

shroudb wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Did anyone look at the Remastered Cleric?

What a power boost for that class.

Better feats.
Don't have to worry about Charisma now.
Spirit damage hits everything except constructs and creatures without souls or spirits
Warpriest can get master proficiency in deity with weapon as well as master casting.

Cleric received better boosts to the class than ranger, wizard, or witch and they were already pretty strong.

There are even some subtle changes to the class to help it even further.

As an example, Channel Smite and such have been reworded to clearly say you "cast" the harm/heal.

So anything applying to cast spell (like harming hands) applies.

And they made it clear no save and critical fail save on a critical hit for channel smite.

Cleric got more upgrades than the wizard and I didn't see to many complaints about the class other than boring.

Warpriest was quite critisized, and most of the changes favor warpriest.

More combat oriented feats, consolidations of feats, ability to go Str without hurting either your spellcasting or your Font, and etc.

For me, the feats that really clicked as the flavour of warpriest that I wanted to play but couldn't were the shield feats (raise symbol and etc), Zealous rush, and more importantly Restorative strike.

So I can play a defensive oriented warpriest like the clerics of old, heavy armor, right in the thick of it, and healing my friends while I smack my enemies.

Alongside the change to Bless aura making it an amazing spell now, it truly has a place in the battlefield imo.

Which lantern is this? I'm looking around, but not finding it.

It's not a lantern, it's a Shining (holy) symbol.

The greater and major versions give weakness to spiritual damage.

Did anyone look at the Remastered Cleric?

What a power boost for that class.

Better feats.
Don't have to worry about Charisma now.
Spirit damage hits everything except constructs and creatures without souls or spirits
Warpriest can get master proficiency in deity with weapon as well as master casting.

Cleric received better boosts to the class than ranger, wizard, or witch and they were already pretty strong.

There are even some subtle changes to the class to help it even further.

As an example, Channel Smite and such have been reworded to clearly say you "cast" the harm/heal.

So anything applying to cast spell (like harming hands) applies.

But it deals fire damage...So not having Fire Trait is like saying Fireball shouldn't but they both deal Fire damage, so I am asking does the default Fire Trait on the Fire Elemental itself get used?

A torch deals fire damage and doesn't have the fire trait.

Similarly, attacks that deal fire damage don't necessarily have said trait.

Even if we look at something like a magma elemental, his molten fist doesn't have a fire trait.
While his launch magma attack, that creates magma, has it.

Fire trait is more for effects that create fire rather than for anything that's simply flaming.

Effects with the fire trait deal fire damage or either conjure or manipulate fire. Those that manipulate fire have no effect in an area without fire. Creatures with this trait consist primarily of fire or have a connection to magical fire.

So something with the Fire trait will deal fire damage but that doesn't simultaneously mean that everything that deals fire damage needs that trait.

Furthermore, looking at something like Elemental Weakness Hex, we can see that it acknowledges that there are effects without the trait that still deal fire damage. (Simplest example being a Strike with a flaming sword, in which the Strike itself lacks the trait)

It's been asked since the book released if it's up for errata and no-one has stepped forward saying that's a mistake.

So in the absence of errata we can only assume it's deliberate.

Why are you saying it's -1 at 17? Thaumaturges get Apex items too you know.

At level 2, when you get Loremaster Dedication, you would have a +8 while Thaumaturges have a +6 for general RK. This is the only time you're ever better than a Thaumaturge.

At levels 3-6, a Loremaster would be equal to a Thaumaturge.

At level 7, the Thaumaturge becomes a Master, making them +15 while a Loremaster is only +13. From here on out, the Thaumaturge is always better than the Loremaster at general RK. They also will likely be increasing their Cha at the same rate as the Loremaster's Int, so ability modifiers are irrelevant.

Yes, the Loremaster gets a couple feats that increase action economy, but remember that Diverse Lore also allows them to use the result of their Exploit check as a RK check, which also saves them on action economy. Not to mention, since they're using RK on a creature, they have +4 over a Loremaster.

Plus, action economy means nothing outside an Encounter. The only Loremaster feat that matters outside an Encounter is Loremaster's Etude, which for a focus point gives you advantage on one check. This can help for very important checks, but can't be done constantly. The Thaumaturge still has a +10% chance over the Loremaster for general purpose checks.

The point I am trying to make here is that we shouldn't have to dump multiple class feats and tons of money into magical items just to be on par with a single class feat from an overtuned class.

Thaumaturge will not go for a Cha Apex item, he will go for his main attack stat, either Str or Dex, while an Int main character will go for Int Apex item.

That's why it's -1

You don't have to dump multiple feats to be on par, you do have the option to dump feats/items to be quite above diverse lore though.

As far as action evonomy goes, a free RK every round beats a free RK when you already spend an action that's max 1/round. That's within the encounters. But, it does costs feats to get there indeed, I just find the option to take said feats existing to be an upside by iteself.

I acknowledge the 10% difference, but for a general "be generally ok with recalls for 1 feat (for both Loremaster and Diverse)" I don't find it that massive of a difference to be so "gamebreaking" as some posts elude to.

Archetype feats are class feats, plus Loremaster still requires investment in a skill that can Decipher Writing, meaning you're spending a class feat and 4 of your skill boosts (including your first Legendary boost) just to be 10% worse than a Thaumaturge who took a single class feat.

I agree with Robot above, the Int based classes need more feats that interact with Recall Knowledge. Currently, Investigators are the only class that gets a bunch of them, even though we also have Alchemist, Inventor, Rogue, Witch and Wizard all having Int as a key stat.

Archetype feats while they are bought using class feats are generally weaker than respective class feats of the same level. We can see that as the vast majority of archetypes which grant class feats grant them at a later level than the respective class feat is.

For loremaster, it's at the same bonus give or take until level 7 and then -2 afterwards and then (for Int classes) -1 from 17+. That's acceptable imo.

As pointed in the math above, anyone who wants to specialize in knowledges, trumps Thaumaturge. Thaumaturge, like Loremaster, are the easy "1 feat to be generally good" options, and they are close enough imo that it doesn't matter a lot.

Also, don't get me wrong, If you look at various of my posts, I agree that Int as a stat is in a bad place, but that's not because of Diverse lore.

One of the reasons why Int is weak is indeed a severe lack of great skill feats tied to Int skills indeed, regardless of class, that should help quite a bit the Int classes imo.

shroudb wrote:

I mean, any Intelligence caster can pick up Loremaster at level 2 and he will be just -2 (or even just -1 in later levels) compared to a Thaum. Plus the ability to reroll knowledge checks as free action, making them as free actions, or even make 5 of them on later levels if needed.

Loremaster Lore reaches Expert at level 15, assuming you become Legendary in Society or something. At the same time, Esoteric Lore becomes Legendary automatically, and from then on you're at -4 when Recalling on a creature, and -2 when recalling anything else. Unless you use Assurance, then you're -4, since Assurance ignores the penalty Diverse Lore gives.

You also need to invest additional feats to get those extra actions you mentioned, while Thaumaturges only have to invest the single feat.

Single class feat being 2 above than single archetype feat seems ok to me. Especially since said archetype allows further specialization.

As I said, the ability feels pretty ok powerwise for the main thing of a class, although imo it comes online a little bit earlier than what I would consider perfect.

shroudb wrote:

At the end of your Action equal use of the familiar as courier, the familiar is out of position, and needs more actions to remediate. Meaning it is not Action equal.

I also struggle to conceive of circumstances where the Alch moving is too dicey a proposition, but the familiar is fine to risk Striding away from the Alch.

The familiar is a much more fragile target, and as soon as they run across the field, they are liable to get smacked.

____________________

Your already in-reach example, with Independent, is much better. In that case, it's a matter of who is more likely to have a hand free. That Monk wont have trouble taking an elixir off the Alch, but that Champion sure will.

___

An Alchemist with 2-H weapons is not able to use items without additional action loss. While it's rather straightforwardly not using the actual primary feature of the class, 2-H a melee weapon is something an Alch PC could choose to do.

I must still reiterate it is literally playing antithetically to one's own class design. Like a Wizard intentionally leaving their spell slots stuck behind an extra action tax, to maybe Strike as good as a base martial. Sometimes, and with dangerous downsides.

It is absolutely an absurd edge case, but is also correct to say that someone finds/will find it appealing.

If an Alchemist is committed to a 2-H style, a familiar making something off the book instead of pulling a prepped item off a belt is real possible use-case.

While I've never played with anyone who has found alch items appealing enough to spend 2, or 3 with a Stride, Actions to pluck and use them, such players also likely do exist.

____________________

For me, the likelihood of all those required stars aligning is as I said "a once in a campaign" type event for general advice.

And frankly, it's not okay to give your analysis without the context in which it was actually useful.

The sheer number of asterisks*** shows how absurdly unlikely it is to apply for...

The fact that you fail to understand that a two handed mutagenist is a perfectly normal character to play bogles my mind, and it shows how your view is shoehorned into that single aspect of an alchemist and refuses to see anything else.

As I said earlier: in your very close interpetation of how a class "should" function, only then it is "too bad" of a feature.

a)The familiar has a free action each turn, so it wasting a "turn" getting back is no big deal.

b)It's not about how danagerous is for the alchemist to move, but how bad it is for him to break positioning if he is already setup, action economy wise.

c)Yes, it does depend if the party has free hands, but in this occasion, we know that the lachemist doesn't have free hands. So, at worst, it's just equal. At best, it is pure action gain.

d)you fail to realize that it's not "once per campaign" but "once per fight" for all those characters.

e)if you feel alchmical items aren't worth 2 actions, then why do you feel that they are worth 2 actions "from an alchemist"? Are your actions so much less valuable? Hint: Alchemist's first Strike should, if properly build, be better than someone's else 2nd Strike.

f)the regrip with reanged has been beaten to death already, and most posters do not share your viewpoint, no need to restart this argument here just because "you" can't see that viewpoint.

Attack the speaker, refuse to even attempt to debunk the presented points.

Seeking out new information, testing new theories, and challenging norms is the opposite of close minded.

___________________________

Moving an item between actors costs an Action. Familiars can't use items.

Even if the Alch is going 2-Handed. Regrip or Swap is 1 Action. And Reload provides a free Regrip inside it anyway.

The Alch PC using Q-Alch is -1 Action compared to it being in the familiar's hand at baseline.

Even when using Command's 2:1, the leftover action costs of moving the familiar, *especially* if a PC needs to take the item off the familiar and then use it, will lead to Lab Assistant being a net negative in the vast majority of cases.

It is theoretically possible a Restrained Alch would want to get a silver-bullet item like a Contagion Metabolizer to an ally, yes.

Have you genuinely ever saved an Action by using Lab Assistant?

_________________

It is good to play however it makes one happy. Especially when intentionally taking sub optimal options for flavor. It can feel great to make it work. Like choosing Alchemist to begin with.

It is not okay for that personal preference to twist discussions of options/rules in the abstract.

_____________________

The Independent + Manual Dex familiar is the improvised spine just barely holding the Alchemist class upright.

That reliable way to get "free Draws" for 1-A activations of alch items is how Alchemists can use their (non Q-Bomber) items in combat without performing at parody levels of inadequacy.

No experienced Alch player could honest suggest taking Lab Assistant instead of Independent for mechanical reasons.

I only responded to the personal attacks that you started because you didn't have any actual arguments.

All your points have been refuted already (mostly due to them being erroneous things that i never said to begin with).

Yes, it takes 2 actions for an ally to take and use the item. So? If you were to make and administer the item it would also be two actions. Independant Quick alchemy means 0 actions from you, 2 from the ally vs 1 to make +1 to administer. If you need to change grips, it is a net loss of actions for the party.

Yes, having the familiar make an item and move next to the target and the target taking and using the item is the same amount of party actions, 3 total actions either way. 1 command +2 to take and use, vs 1 to make, 1 to move, 1 to administer. If you need to change grips another net loss of actions. It also doesn't completely destroy your positioning.

In any combat that the party is already positioned, having to move to the ally to administer, or having the ally move to you to get items is a great loss of actions and tactical advantage as opposed to sending the familiar with the item, keeping the flnk going and the players positioned properly.

And etc multiple examples that you would have seen if you ever played with a twi-handed using alchemist.

So yes, it is great for specific alchemists, and bad otherwise. That's perfectly fine for a selectable ability.

I'm not going to argue the free regrip with reload thing, that has already been debated to death and there's no concensous, in my tables, it doesn't fly. In yours it may, but it still doesn't cover the most frequent two-handed alchemists, who are using melee reach weapons.

A fury mutagenist with polearm as an example can get attack bonuses equivalent to martials on most of the levels, and even greater than most martials on some levels by using a Crawling Hand familiar, which is the character that I was actually playing. 15ft reach, AoO, amazing attack bonuses on my 1st Strike of each turn. And no hands to use Quick alchemy (and certainly not wanting to mess up my flanks) if i needed to deliver a quick help in an ally somewhere in the battlefield.

Captain Morgan wrote:

The biggest problem with animal companions, IMO, is expectations. They are not player characters, or even cornerstone class features. They are feats. Feats which can flank with you for no actions and soak enemy hits that could put stronger PCs down. If you don't like their accuracy, use their support benefit instead.

A ranger with an animal companion can't be that much better than a ranger who spent their feats on something else. If you want your pet to be the star of the show, be a summoner instead.

My biggest gripe is how much the support benefits vary. None of them are useless, but some are general debuffs or DPR enhancers and others are niche and will only shine in certain parties. You either neither to reflavor or be really meta about your party composition instead of organically choosing a species.

It's a lot of feats though for not a cornerstone class ability. If it were one or two feats, sure, shouldn't be too powerful.

It's AC base feat, mature AC, then nimble or savage AC, then specialization. Then toss in a feat like get heal animal and side by side. You basically spent five feats for a nearly useless AC at high level. A five feat investment sure seems like you really invested a lot to build around an AC as a cornerstone feature of your character.

Once I found this out with my druid, I asked the DM to retrain out of my AC feats because it was too much of a pain to use at high level. Just a liability keeping it alive and clean of conditions. At high level so many monsters can apply multiple conditions passively or you get hit by waves of spells. It's just not worth the bookkeeping and resources to keep it alive and clean of negative effects for three dice of damage maybe once a round if the AC can actually get to the monster or punch through its DR.

tbf, even just the "free stride" that even stacks with Quicken (if you are riding the AC) +the free flank (from your example of side by side)

is a massive bonus, then you just spend feats imo to make certain that you can keep the mount reasonable alive in tougher and tougher situations.

Now, for a non-mount AC the benefits are much smaller, I agree.

He has already picked up the wizard dedication throgh Ancient Elf.
The only othr Int caster left is Psychic.

So the cantrips picked will be based off Int and not some other stat.

Plus, the extra Amp doesn't hurt, especially if he went with cauldron and not cackle at level 5 it means that it would also give him his 3rd focus point.

you can downcast them, not upcast them.

So, using let's say a 4th rank slot to cast your 2nd rank spell that isn't signature as a 2nd rank spell.

I mean, any Intelligence caster can pick up Loremaster at level 2 and he will be just -2 (or even just -1 in later levels) compared to a Thaum. Plus the ability to reroll knowledge checks as free action, making them as free actions, or even make 5 of them on later levels if needed.

As for bard, I don't mind that bardic knowledge is weaker since bard already has so much other stuff to offer either way.

In gameplay, I don't mind if there's a character in a group that can simply say every time i present something "can I recall on that?" since that just gives me more options to give background information to the players.

---

All that said, while i am not unhappy that Diverse lore exists, I do think that level 1 is kinda early, and I would have probably put it around level 6-8 instead.

shroudb wrote:

Quote:

Very, very rarely, a common poppet spontaneously manifests a spark of life—a tiny bit of life essence— and becomes a thinking, independent creature. These events are exceedingly rare; fewer than one in a thousand gain this spark.

It's interesting that for that to work lore-wise they should've gotten also a bit of mind essence. Otherwise they would be living, but still mindless creatures.

it does say that they become "thinking" independent creatures, so I assume that this spark of life does indeed come alongside with giving them minds as well.

You can, but honestly it's pretty weaksauce, because it's stupidly action intensive and also isn't likely to last very long compared to just investing in a Sturdy Shield.

You spend 1 action for Metal Carapace. You spend another action for Plate in Treasure. Let's also not forget that you need to spend a third action for Raise Shield, otherwise you can't block with it. Oh, and you need the Shield Block general feat as well, since you don't get it inherently. So it basically takes your entire turn, and you need an enemy stupid enough to go after you, so it will work on enemies like animals and...that's it.

Don't get me wrong, Plate in Treasure isn't actually a bad feat, since it lets you activate certain weaknesses/ignore certain resistances on the fly, but in this case, it's basically an action tax to be worse than if you just bought a Sturdy Shield and used it instead. Which is likely to have higher Hardness, way more HP, and doesn't require 2 actions at the start of combat to set up, which can be used for other more valuable buffs, or for certain specialty impulses.

Tbf, you do get Shield block for free through Metal Carapace.

Clad in Metal would need to be minimum rank 5 to make an adamantine shield (since adamantine shield is level 8 item, you need rank 5 Clad in Metal to make) so minimum Kineticist level 9.

At level 9, your Metal Carapace is giving an extra 2 hardness and an extra 8 HP to the shield.

So you end up at level 9 with a shield with Hardness 12 and 48 HP, compared to the level 7 sturdy shield that has 10 hardness and 40 HP.

It would take 2 actions to setup initially, but you can remake the shields for the rest of the combat with just 1 action.

At level 14 you also get to raise the shield as a free action each turn.

At that level, your standard grade adamantine shield (base hardness 10 base hp 20, is now up by +4 hardness and +16 hp, so you are making 14 hardness 56 hp shields, which is almost the same hardness as the level 13 sturdy shields (sturdy has 15 hardness instead of 14, sturdy has a lot more hp (160 vs 56), but the impulse ones can be remade with 1 action if they break)

Given that they also give you a general feat for free (shield block) and that you can raise them as a free action, it certainly ain't bad.

---

The above is assuming that you only make standard grade adamantine shields. Although a case can be made if an item made by a level 11+ impulse is a higher level item, which would allow someone to make higher grade adamantine shields which have higher hp totals and higher hardness.

personally, due to other item making spells saying you make base level items, i rule that you only make base level items, so that's why i went with the standard grade, but other, more forgiving, GMs may allow the interpetation that you can make higher level items as well.

Correct.

Normally poppets are Constructs.

Poppets are small, basic constructs that typically help their owners with simple tasks.

Most commonly made of cloth, wicker, and wood, poppets are among the simplest of constructs. They serve as helpers to fetch tools, clean dishes, tidy rooms, or perform other light tasks. Their size and appearance vary, but nearly all poppets appear humanoid in shape and between 1 to 3 feet tall. They're usually roughly made with button eyes sewn onto blank faces, strings of yarn in place of hair, and a simple dress or tunic made from coarse, cheap cloth. Wealthy families sometimes purchase poppets as toys, with their squishy bodies and stitched smiles, to keep their children company. Most poppets can't speak and lack the intellect to understand speech beyond preprogrammed orders.

Those aren't the actual player characters.

But as noted in their description a tiny amount of those constructs actually awaken:

Very, very rarely, a common poppet spontaneously manifests a spark of life—a tiny bit of life essence— and becomes a thinking, independent creature. These events are exceedingly rare; fewer than one in a thousand gain this spark.

THOSE few are the player characters.

Those, as noted in the Constructed Trait that they gain are actually "alive"

The materials of your body resist ailments that assail the flesh. You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to saving throws against death effects, disease, and poison as well as to saving throws against effects that would give you the drained, paralyzed, or sickened conditions. Your spark of life means that you're a living creature, and you can be healed by positive energy and harmed by negative energy as normal.

And thus, like a living creature, you are no longer immune to all the things that a mindless construct is immune, although you still have some resistance to those things (reflected by the +x to the saves against those things)

Slashing gust says:

Quote:

Make a spell attack roll against each target's AC.

I read that as one spell attack roll, or it would have said "make spell attack rolls against each target's AC."

I read it as two separate checks.

If it was one check it would say "compare the attack roll result against the AC of two foes" like similar abilities, but here it says "make an attack roll against each AC"

p.s.
if it was only one attack roll, then this sentence on the spell would be meaningless as well:

If you're attacking two creatures, this counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty, but the penalty doesn't increase until after both attacks.

I think everyone agrees fireball does one instance of damage to every target. You only roll the damage once though, not for each target individually. The same should be true of scorching ray, right?

Magic missile/force barrage is different because there is so much flexibility on how you target with it. I agree that no matter how you split up the missiles, each target only takes one instance of damage, and I think the spell should work where, after declaring targets, you roll damage for each shard separately. But the rules don’t state that very explicitly, and if you directed 1 missile at each target the spell would work very similarly to scorching ray. I don’t think it should work that way and don’t recommend running it that way, but it seems like Foundry VTT runs it that way and players seem confused about it.

No? Why would it be the same?

Fireball is 1 ball of flame, so it makes sense to have 1 number rolled for it.
Scorching ray is 3 distinctively seperate rays, so you roll 3 times.

Would you roll damage only once for something like Hunted Shot that targets two different targets with your arrows just because Impaling finisher rolls only once when it hits 2 targets?

I usually allow, but apply a "reaction tax" when players try to use one character's actions to basically give them to others.

So, a player using his action to help another player, and the other player spending his reaction to coordinate said help.

The Alchemist class is built around preparing and using items. Any time you could waste actions and familiar abilities on creating items via Q-Alch, they could have already been prepared. If you have a receptive party, they could even already be carrying the alch item themself.

In the rare event that Q-Alch seems needed, the scenario in which it is *more* desirable for the Q-Alch item to be in the familiar's hand is as "theoretical-maybe" as it gets. Familiars cannot Activate items! No matter how you try to pass the buck, once a 1-A item is put into a familiar's hand, an action has to be wasted to get it out, when a PC could have instead used the Activation.

Moreover, the familiar can already hand off items to allies without Lab Assistant, and without the 1A Q-Alch or the extra resource burn.

And, to top all this off, base Alchemist only gets 2 familiar abilities. Lab Assistant would be coming at the expense of Independent, which is absurd to consider.

Without Independent, any use of the familiar as described will tax your Actions again to finish. You did a Command( L-A + Stride). Now the familiar is standing there. Next turn you will need to Command it again to get it to safety. AND the ally member is taxed an action that would not have been needed it the Alch just moved and used it upon the ally.

_____________________

Here's a real bummer.

Without L-A, the Alch does Q-Alch, then Command (Take + Stride). The Alch has spent another Action up front, but because he has Independent instead, the Familiar gets to return without any extra total actions. More importantly, they have the benefits of Independent, with the familiar being able to draw + handoff and do whatever as as a pure action saver. Even in your imagined scenario, Independent + Dex is better than L-A.

(and the scenario in which it's a good idea for that Alch to send the familiar instead of just Striding over themself is *already* remote / I've literally never seen nor heard of it happening)...

The power of quick alchemy is the ability to make stuff on the spot that you haven't prepared.

Your whole tantrum about what alchemist is about is absolutely irrelevant.

I've seen quite a few alchemists that in combat don't have free hands, I've even played one.

Lab assistant is perfect for them.

It allows them to make items for their allies without wasting actions swapping grips.

Niche? Maybe, but certainly less niche than other familiar abilities like touch telepathy, amphibious, and the likes.

---

Because you lack the imagination to actually try stuff you don't have to resort to personal attacks just because you were wrong.

Because you lack the experience to have seen things, also doesn't make you right.

You can also bold stuff as much as you like, but please read first what you reply to. Where did I say a familiar activating anything?

---

In short, you have an extremely close minded, inexperienced, view of a class.

The ability is only tbtbt only within those strict confinements that you created for yourself.

There are still uses for it, not amazing, but enough to not be tbtbt, as a simple example:

If you make your alchemist use both hands, like sword+shield, or a twohander, and etc, it still allows the alchemist to use quick alchemy to help the party.

With independent you dont even waste an action.

The ally has then a full round to grab and use the consumable.

Even without independent, you can spend an action to both make the item and have the familiar move next to the ally so that he doesn't have to come to you.

That's just base functionality, no extra feats or anything.

YuriP wrote:

If it were a more general mechanic I think I probably wouldn't allow an exception to these ancestries, but as it's something very specific, for specific creatures, in a specific encounter I would let it pass for the sake of fun and making the encounter more unique and interesting.

Want to try putting numbers to that?

How many different things need to reference targeting a creature's skeleton in order for it to be a general mechanic?

Currently in this thread we have one creature and one AP specific spell. So that's two - which isn't much, but it is strange that it has happened more than once.

But I also haven't looked all that hard for them.

I don't think it's a straight up number. There is no need for such a number either.

In a campaign that you face that kind of creature daily for 5 lvels, then that's a clear advantage, even if it is "just one creature".

In another campaign that the party faces such things a couple of times through their journey from 1 to 20, then it is a neglible amount of times.

shroudb wrote:

Wow, I'm honestly surprised you find this reading objectionable.

__

It might be the computer programmer in me, but I read "uses your ___" like a function call. It activates your ability, with the normal input, cost, and outputs of your ability.

The default outcome of using your action is, ya know, using your action. Who, when, or why the function was called does not matter. The ability itself fires off its instructions / commands without any concern for what triggered it.

____

From another angle, changing where the item ends up is an assumption you are injecting to preserve verisimilitude. The text instructs to use your ability as is. To change where the item lands would require an additional line "and the item is in the familiar's hands."

In theory, you could argue this RaW is not RaI, and the designers forgot that extra clause.

___

Given the context of playing Alchemists, how Lab Assistant is written really seems intended to reduce the burden of trying to make Q-Alch viable/up to par. I also see the "must be in your space" condition as a rather strong piece of supporting evidence it was always intended to be forming the item atop your open palm.

_____

RaW, familiars cannot Activate anything. The only way for a familiar to help with an item is to put it in someone else's hand.

It is rather telling that you made no attempt to engage the "too bad to be true" issue.

Can anyone present a scenario in which the Lab Assistant "in familiar's hand" reading is actually beneficial and worth taking? Or at least better than a 1-star hyper niche scenario with that specific Feat?

Pathfinder 2e is explicitly written in casual, plain english, not in programmer language.

When something says "X uses Y" it is X that uses Y, not someone else.

In this case, the familiar is using the action, that's written 100% clearly.

I honestly can't see anyone reading it elsewise, in fact, after asking around at some of the tables that i play with, noone even comes close to somehow translating the ability in a way that lands the item in your hands.

The "your" is put there because it has to be put there in order to get the benefits of your abilities that synergise with Quick Alchemy and the familiar has no access to normally, but nowhere in the text of the ability it is stated that there any other change in how Quick alchemy works.

And quick alchemy works in a way that it puts the item in the users hands.

Now, in your games you can run it as you wish, but I honestly can't see any official table to accept your reading.

Yeah, I often had poppets bleed sawdust and the likes, that's an effect that's much more universally applicable.

But very specific things like having bone marrow I believe is fine to let roleplay win over mechanics in such isolated cases, make characters more unique and believable without being a major balancing concern.

shroudb wrote:

You bolded the wrong words:

IT can USE your action.

The familiar is using your action, so the results of the action ends up in its hands.

But as written it's no different than saying "the rogue can use your mesh kit to make food" it doesn't somehow magically make the food appear in your hands, even though he has does indeed uses your mesh kit.

I think a better comparison point would be between:

"the familiar is able to use the Steal action"

versus

"the familiar is able to use your Steal action"

Part of the action is creating an item, and it needs to go somewhere. That phrasing is very clever and informative.

_______________

It's not even a little ambiguous. The abnormal and unneeded "your Quick Alchemy" means you evoke the normal functions of your Quick Alchemy. Both the cost and result happen as if you had used your Quick Alchemy. Including where the item ends up. This is also why it's clearly compatible with Perpetuals, as it's removing any ambiguity about the familiar being a separate lil Alchemist with their own Q-Alch.

________________

_________________

and IMO, going with your reading ought to trigger a too bad to be true review.

Q-Alch items disappear the next turn.

If the Lab Assistant left the item in the familiar's hands, the ability would be virtually worthless.

If there is a need to spend an Action somewhere to get the item usable, it literally cannot be Action saver. One *theoretical* niche, putting the familiar on a party member's shoulder for long-range Alch delivery via Command, is disabled by the must share your space condition.

Valet would be net 0, as would any use of the PC's Command. The only way it could ever save an Action is if you took a special Feat to extend the duration of Q-Alch items a single turn, made the item via Independent, waited a round, then got a free handoff that second round via Independent.

That's beyond horrible. Dare I say, that reading of Lab Assistant is so bad, it's too...

You are simply wrong.

English is pretty clear here, as is raw:

"It uses" doesn't leave interpetation holes.

The one who is using Quick Alchemy is the familiar.

Exactly the same if it said Steal Action actually, the stolen item wouldn't magically get teleported to your hands.

As for the reason it says "your" Quick Alchemy is because the Action this way gets the benefits tied to "your" Quick Alchemy.

So, as an example, for a level 13 Chirurgeon, the Elixirs are maximised.

If it didn't say "your" and simply said "uses Quick Alchemy" then none of the benefits tied to your character would be applicable. (Since those benefits normally apply only when you use the action )

---

There's 0 leaway for your false interpretation here .

Even your "steal" example would still not leave what the one actually stealing in someone else hands. It would just means that whatever additive effect is tied to the Action called Steal apply to the one doing it.

---

It would be more ambiguous indeed if the ability said something along the lines of "uses Quick FOR you", or "uses his actions INSTEAD of you" but it doesn't.

As written, the only one performing an action, for itself, is the familiar.

No wriggle room anywhere here.

Ritunn wrote:

You make a fair point, that certainly passed by my mind when doing the write-up and it does end up in the familiar's. It does still have the advantage of being able to do quick alchemy and administering it, or simply doing it twice for the price of 1-action, so I value it plenty, however. I should mention that it will be in your familiar's hands though, as that is an important point.

If it is in the familiar's hands, then Lab Assistant is nearly worthless. Familiars can do manipulates via Manual Dex, but they cannot Activate items. As soon as the familiar needs a filler action to hand off the item for use, there is little reason not to just do it yourself. Not only would you need a Feat to make the Q-Alch item last another round, but it's not clear that it would apply to the familiar's Q-Alch.

______________________________

That said, I think the idea of the item being in the Alch's hand is actually correct.

Literally a single word is sticking rather significantly when reading Lab Assistant and trying to answer that question.

Lab Assistant wrote:

It can use your Quick Alchemy action. You must have Quick Alchemy, and your familiar must be in your space. This has the same cost and requirement as if you used it. It must have the manual dexterity ability to select this.

The familiar is not doing Quick Alchemy. The familiar is using its action to do *your* Quick Alchemy. This also rings harmonious with the mandatory condition of sharing space w/ your familiar. The little guy is shaping the reagent quintessences to form an item in your open hand.

And it also follows the trend of sloppy Alchemist band-aids that always miss the forest for the trees (Quick Alchemy itself sucks / is not optimal. But hey, infinite Skunks are so OP everything is fine, right? Right?).

I think it is RaW and RaI that the Lab Assistant item lands in the Alchemist's hand.

While Paizo might have forgotten that Alchemist does not get default access to 4...

You bolded the wrong words:

IT can USE your action.

The familiar is using your action, so the results of the action ends up in its hands.

But as written it's no different than saying "the rogue can use your mesh kit to make food" it doesn't somehow magically make the food appear in your hands, even though he has does indeed uses your mesh kit.

I think it totally depends if the one ascending was a native of golarion (through the lenses of still being mentally "you", just no otherworldly knowledge and such) or if it was "us" from here.

Answering from the side of being me, from here, being yoinked to golarion and ascending:

Areas of concern: Enjoying life, taking it easy, travel, mildness, mental health

Edicts: Take your time in doing things, go see new places, rest, help people with mental issues find peace, de-escalate conflict

Anathema: Overexerting yourself, provoking conflict, be too rigid in your beliefs.

Basically, with my current knowledge and current lifestyle, I'd push for something in the opposite spectrum, where one can simply chill and relax, enjoy a cup of wine while having polite discourse with a friend, go see the world, and through that see a different point of view than your own, and maybe help others find their peace.

In the same vein though, it is more consisntent because the enemy only needs to target as opposed to the ally having to both target AND succeed at the check.

As i said, Opportunist it is party dependent, with only 1 extra martial, it is often that it doesn't proc. I have seen it from our rogue (before he respec to swashbuckler) in the party that i gm that it only proced like 1/2 rounds, and that's with the rogue having animal companion to help the odds.

If there's only 1 other melee striker, especially if there are multiple enemies, it often fails. While on the same lineup, with onbly 2 frontliners, the frontline rogue is targeted once per round at minimum.

I'd say it has better consistency rather than less consistency.

You only need to be attacked once in order to activate the Roll, while for Opportune backstab your ally has to actually hit in order for it to trigger.

In some party combinations (especially now that the kineticist is very popular) there may not be enough Strikes against your target to reliably get Opportune backstab to trigger.

That said, as you pointed out, the second benefit is that it combines quite a few benefits:
+2 to AC/Reflex
Potentially moving you away from iterative attacks
Strike

vs
Strike

--

So, overall, the payout is still there, the conistency is still there (i mean, chances are that if you are in the middle of a melee, someone is going to try to attack you)

But indeed it comes at a feat cost.

That said, some Rackets don't particularily care about their enhanced debilitations.

---

Now, I haven't seen it in action, but ti does seem like the benefits for teh cost are there, so overall it seems like a balanced path to follow.

The point that I find strange about this logic of transferring a loaded staff is that this is something that not even the spellcasters themselves can do among themselves.

A spellcaster cannot used the staff to that was chaged by another spellcaster, allowing a character with a Trick Magic Item to do something that not even the native spellcaster of same tradition can is strange to say the least.

The other point is, would the specifics of prepared and spontaneous casters with the staff work like a Trick Magic Item?

Prepared spellcasters can add more charges to the staff while spontaneous spellcasters can use the staff's spells with their spell slots. And how does a char that isn't a caster use the staff that was prepared by a 3rd party? If it was prepared by a caster it will have the double of the charges? But if was prepared by an spontaneous there's no benefit?

I mean, what's so stange about it?

A divine caster cannot use an occult wand even if that wand is handed to them by a bard.
A character with Trick magic item can use that wand.

How is that different etween being given a wand or being given a loaded staff? Both are magic items that expend a resource that exists on the item to cast a spell.

---

As for it being prepared by a sorc or a wizard:

If a staff has 10 charges, or if it has 7 charges, or if it has 5 charges, what difference does it makes "how" it got those charges to begin with?

---

Overall, as a tactic, since a caster can prepare one and only one staff, I can't see this leading to shenanigans, the caster is giving his access to the daily charges so that another person can use them, it's not like they are somehow double dipping and getting free charges out of nowhere.

there is direct conflict here:
Specific familiar:

If your familiar gains more abilities than are necessary for that specific familiar, you can use the remaining abilities to select familiar and master abilities as normal.

Witch familiar:

One of your familiar’s two bonus abilities is

always the one listed here, a mark of your patron’s indelible
influence.

One ability always HAS to be the one given by your patron.

So, until you can have 1 extra ability than required by a specific familiar, to take the mandatory Patron ability, you cannot upgrade to that specific familiar.

The spell even says to combine the damage before adding bonuses and such, which is a step before actually applying it as damage to a character, I can't see how it can be considered anything else except one instance of damage.

I don't think so prepare still different from activate. As I said you still can activate it but there's 0 spells prepared in it.

Allows the Trick Magic Item to use a staff prepared from other players makes sense but I still think it's out of the scope of the skill feat activity. Anyway due the restriction of a caster only able to prepare on one staff per day another party member trick it would be very niche once you are preventing the original caster to use it at same time.

Also I consider this text as flavor part. The mechanics comes after it.

We aren't saying you are using Trick magic item to prepare the staff.

I agree that this is outside of the scope of the skill feat since it is not Activate to prepare the staff to begin with.

But if another person has already prepared the staff, then you can Trick it to use those prepared slots.

The staff rules say that "only the one who prepared it can activate the staff"
But the Trick item says that "you can activate an item that you can't normally activate"

---

This is the "conflicting text" that I'm talking about.

Both are specific rules, but one of them HAS to be more specific since they counter each other out.

---

I personally think that

For the rest of the current turn, you can spend actions to activate the item as if you could normally use it.

wins over

The person who prepared a staff can expend the charges to cast spells from it.

allowing you to actually use a staff like that. Something that he isn't allowed to (he isn't the one hwo prepared the staff) he is now allowed to.

It is very similar to your own example of a caster Tricking a staff to cast a spell not normally in his repertoire. Something that he isn't allowed to, now he is allowed to.

---

p.s. the mechnanics say nothing more than "you can activate the item". So even if we consider the first part a "flavour text"

Success: For the rest of the current turn, you can spend actions to activate the item as if you could normally use it.

The skill feat supersedes all restrictions per RAW. Including you not being the one who put the charges in the sstaff to begin with.

The "which is more specific" is (I guess) about casting from a staff that someone else has prepared.

The two conflicting rules here are:
Only the one who prepared it can activate it
Vs
You can activate it even if normally you can't.

So the GM has to make a call which one supersedes the other (or, which one is "more specific")

Imo, a staff prepared from someone else still falls within the category of

You examine a magic item you normally couldn’t use in an effort to fool it and activate it temporarily.

So you can indeed Trick a staff someone else prepared.

No.

A misfortune effect detrimentally alters how you roll your dice. You can never have more than one misfortune effect alter a single roll.

Trick only allows you to Activate magical items.
Preparing a magical staff is not Activating it.

So you could Trick it to activate it and cast the cantrip, or you could Trick a staff someone else has put charges in, but you can't put charges in yourself.

We only did the "place in order" thing for our couple first adventures. It did lead to funny stuff, but more importantly, back then, playing as "anything" was new to all of us, so we didn't mind playing whatever the fortune had in store for us.

After a couple of adventures though, some players did settle on favorite roles and classes, so we did the arrange where you want to facilitate being able to play those roles.

shroudb wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Gortle wrote:

You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before.

Roles clearly arrived before the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm, but they were different. In D&D, it was Skill monkey (Rogue)/Martial (Fighter)/Wizard (a role by itself)/Support caster (Cleric).

Also, with multiclassing and hybrid classes these roles were not rock solid and characters were able to cover multiple role simultaneously. It was actually very close to PF2 where classes cover multiple different roles more or less well.

MMOs created the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm that was not really enforced before WoW. And then a lot of players tried to shoehorn this paradigm into other games like YuriP indicates. But TTRPGs never used these roles outside 4th edition (where Striker + Controller cover more or less the DPS role).

And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong. In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).

The trinity as it is now known in mmorpgs originates from everquest, not WoW. It started as tank/healer/support(enchanter) and then devolved into tank/healer/dps.

But even before that, during eaarly dnd days, you still wanted the "roles" covered despite what those roles were called back then. I started back with black box dnd, and even then we wanted to spread around the characters to cover as much stuff as possible in a single party.

Which rolling method did you use ?

It's been so long since those days that my memory is fuzzy even about the rules, but I think we did 3d6, put in any order we want.

Those for sure were how we did when we switched to 2nd, but I think it was true for the box characters as well.

It wasn't until much later in uni when we switched to 3rd that we switched to 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as you want.