Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the new Alchemist formula are actually invalid as they target objects. Alchemist formula must target a creature and that creature is always the drinker of the Extract/Infusion.Wasn't the consensus on that simply one would just pour the extract on said object? Yeah Paizo should have made some sort of extra sentence or two in the errata to make this more obvious, but I believe it's obvious enough, no?Option 1: Someone not experienced with the Alchemist thought it would be nice to add them to some new spells in a low volume player companion. Unfortunately, it's a screwup that doesn't work with the rules, so Alchemists obviously can't actually use these spells.
Option 2: A completely new, never before seen mechanic that completely changes the way Alchemist extracts work was incorporated into a low volume player companion, but only by inference, not any actual rule changes.
I think the obvious thing is that Option 1 is what happened here.
As I mentioned a few posts up, there is precedent for this. But some guidance on exactly how it works is clearly clawed for.
I think you have something backwards here. That ability allows you to use the magic item creation rules to craft MUNDANE things. Specifically you use the half-cost clause of magic item creation and you can make up to 1,000gp worth of an item a day, unless you choose to take a +5 to the DC to fast craft it as that is another clause of magic item creation. Considering it says, "You otherwise follow all of the rules and options of magical crafting" and that you're spending a magical boon to create mundane items, I'd say you could use Spellcraft as the final crafting check, or you could use the relevant Craft skill.Lots of interesting stuff in this book, especially pleasing considering the signal to noise ratio in other recent paizo offerings. Thank you authors.
Anyway, I didn't see if this has been brought up yet but one of the Preparation rituals for The Last Azlanti's Analects (Level 15 Universalist) on page 6-7 that I thought solved a big tax problem (especially for certain feat starved builds).
Efficient Creator
** spoiler omitted **
I'm assuming you roll a relevant Craft skill instead of Spellcraft (armorsmithing for magic armor, leatherworking for bags, alchemy for potions, etc), but I was wondering if anyone had some thoughts on the matter?
While it was past my bedtime when I read this entry and my reading comprehension may have been off, after re-reading it again, barring the author popping up and clarifying, I think my first interpretation still stands. Reading the first line...
You can spend this boon to use the magic item creation rules to create items with the Craft skill for one day."
Is very wonky using your interpretation considering these are the magic item creation rules. While the author doesn't use the word MUNDANE, next line he separates out that while you are now using a Craft skill you don't pay the normal 1/3rd as you would when using that skill and now pay 1/2 market.
"When doing this, your material costs are equal to half the final value of the item crafted (rather than the normal 1/3 of the cost for using the Craft skill. You can craft items with a cost greater than 1,000 gp by expending this boon over successive days, in the same way magic items with a cost over 1,000 gp can be crafted over multiple days."
Which brings us to the last line and the word 'all'....
You otherwise follow all the rules and options for magic item creation.
While it is possible this could have been written a bit better if the intent was for example...
"You may spend this boon to accelerate the daily progress to make a mundane item of an appropriate type to 1,000 gp a day while using a Craft skill. When doing this, your material costs are equal to half the final value of the item crafted (rather than the normal 1/3 of the cost for using the Craft skill. You can craft items with a cost greater than 1,000 gp by expending this boon over successive days, in the same way magic items with a cost over 1,000 gp can be crafted over multiple days. The creator may adjust this progress (and Craft DC) as found under the magic item creation rules."
Granted, I may be mistaken on intent with the definition of 'all' when it comes to 'otherwise follow all the rules and options for magic item creation when looking at it (and the the paragraph's first line as well), but that's an error on the editing and writing side rather than on the reader end, if the author's meaning was otherwise.
Yeah, I agree. Its wording could definitely use a clarification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am hoping for some clarification on the Sword Binder Wizard archetype. They have to choose a sword as their Bonded Object and they get proficiency with that sword. But it seems that there is no clear definition of "sword" that I can find.
The following are definitely swords because they are identified as such in the wording of their descriptions: butterfly sword, cutlass, double chicken saber, double walking stick katana, estoc, falchion, gladius, greatsword, katana, longsword, pata, rhoka sword, scimitar, seven-branched sword, shortsword, shotel.
There is also a group of weapons that are not specifically called out as swords in their descriptions, but which have "sword" in their names: bastard sword, nine-ring broadsword, sword cane, temple sword, tri-point double-edged sword, two-bladed sword. Some, like the bastard sword, are clearly swords, but I'm not sure about others like the tri-point double-edged sword.
There is a third group that I think would be considered swords in the real world, but aren't labelled as such in game: elven curve blade, falcata, rapier, sawtooth sabre, urumi.
It would be great if someone who worked on this book could let me know which weapons were intended to count as swords for this archetype.
|
I am hoping for some clarification on the Sword Binder Wizard archetype.
It would be great if someone who worked on this book could let me know which weapons were intended to count as swords for this archetype.
I dunno, but probably the same or similar to the list for the Swordtrained Tengu racial trait and the Sword Saint samurai archetype.
The Tengu at least includes a partial list, but it was set when the race was first introduced and there have been a lot of swords (e.g. Katana) added since then.
Agreed. The Sword Binder could use some clarification. A Wizard weilding a Falchion? Katana? Falcata? Greatsword? Some of that sounds like too much, but I would really like the originator to weigh in on that...
I am hoping for some clarification on the Sword Binder Wizard archetype.
It would be great if someone who worked on this book could let me know which weapons were intended to count as swords for this archetype.
I dunno, but probably the same or similar to the list for the Swordtrained Tengu racial trait and the Sword Saint samurai archetype.
The Tengu at least includes a partial list, but it was set when the race was first introduced and there have been a lot of swords (e.g. Katana) added since then.
Unfortunately the Tengu Swordtrained trait grants proficiency with 'swordlike' weapons rather than 'swords.' It isn't much use here since separating the actual swords out of the swordlike weapons is precisely the thing I am trying to do.
I followed your link to the Sword Saint archetype, but I didn't see any list of weapons.
Agreed. The Sword Binder could use some clarification. A Wizard weilding a Falchion? Katana? Falcata? Greatsword? Some of that sounds like too much, but I would really like the originator to weigh in on that...
As I mentioned, the falchion, katana, and greatsword are all specifically called out as swords in their descriptions (UE). The falcata though...
Yeah, I agree. Its wording could definitely use a clarification.
If the author meant non-magical instead of magic items, otherwise when the entry tells me to use 'all' of the magical creation rules and options it means all:-). If the author meant only non-magical creations, there's tons of ways that entry could have been written to make that intent perfectly clear. Barring the author posting a correction or errata changing the wording, I think it's pretty evident what the preparation ritual does. It changes a feat tax into a skill points tax.
If it is your interpretation, it's a pretty useless preparation ritual considering the book is roughly in the WBL range of a caster that can have the [url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fabricate]Fabricate[/link] spell. With the spell (a core book spell which should be in the list any devoted crafter, magic or mundane) a caster can use a craft skill to instantaneously make an item using the usual 1/3rd cost in raw materials.
Yeah, I agree. Its wording could definitely use a clarification.
If the author meant non-magical instead of magic items, otherwise when the entry tells me to use 'all' of the magical creation rules and options it means all:-). If the author meant only non-magical creations, there's tons of ways that entry could have been written to make that intent perfectly clear. Barring the author posting a correction or errata changing the wording, I think it's pretty evident what the preparation ritual does. It changes a feat tax into a skill points tax.
If it is your interpretation, it's a pretty useless preparation ritual considering the book is roughly in the WBL range of a caster that can have the [url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fabricate]Fabricate[/link] spell. With the spell (a core book spell which should be in the list any devoted crafter, magic or mundane) a caster can use a craft skill to instantaneously make pretty much any mundane item using the usual 1/3rd cost in raw materials.
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
I certainly hope so. Otherwise, it is a very nerffed spell from the get go.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?None.Why...it sounds *awfully* tempting to keep on using Infernal Healing...
How delightfully evil!
You heard it here first, Asmodeus had one of his sketchy LN associates create celestial healing (and make some coin on the side selling dubiously sourced angel blood) to 'prove' that evil is just flat out better!
No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He can either stick to the straight and narrow and use Celestial Healing, or get more bang for his buck...at the expense of his soul getting just that little bit more tarnished...and go with Infernal Healing.
Asmodeus knew what he was doing with that spell, I tell you.
It's even worse than that.
Infernal Healing can't cure 'good' damage, such as that caused by many good outsiders.
So... one of the few times you would want to use Celestial Healing over Infernal Healing? When you are fighting good outsiders. And as an added bonus... their blood is the material component you need for the spell!
|
|
He can either stick to the straight and narrow and use Celestial Healing, or get more bang for his buck...at the expense of his soul getting just that little bit more tarnished...and go with Infernal Healing.
Asmodeus knew what he was doing with that spell, I tell you.
It's even worse than that.
Infernal Healing can't cure 'good' damage, such as that caused by many good outsiders.
So... one of the few times you would want to use Celestial Healing over Infernal Healing? When you are fighting good outsiders. And as an added bonus... their blood is the material component you need for the spell!
I was wondering about what is ethical way of getting blood for the spell :D
I totally get that Celestial Healing should be worse than Infernal Healing, but it's so much worse that it's basically a waste of text as written...So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?None.
Yea, it is basically on the list of spells that will almost never be used. If you're high enough level to actually get good healing out of Celestial Healing, you may as well just summon an outsider who can cast Heal on you to get some real celestial healing!
|
|
I was wondering about what is ethical way of getting blood for the spell :DHe can either stick to the straight and narrow and use Celestial Healing, or get more bang for his buck...at the expense of his soul getting just that little bit more tarnished...and go with Infernal Healing.
Asmodeus knew what he was doing with that spell, I tell you.
It's even worse than that.
Infernal Healing can't cure 'good' damage, such as that caused by many good outsiders.
So... one of the few times you would want to use Celestial Healing over Infernal Healing? When you are fighting good outsiders. And as an added bonus... their blood is the material component you need for the spell!
I wonder if the decendents of celestials could be used as a substitute. Maybe ask for a blood donation in exchange for some aid to their endevours or as a favour being repayed.
Is the Nameless One a reference to the villain from the D&D cartoon from the 1980s?Could also be Planescape Torment reference. Or just "Being Nameless is really cool name" :P
Being Nameless is just really cool. No references intended. (If you want to connect dots, however, go for it!)
|
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?None.Well what was the point of making a useless spell that will never get used?
It heals 1 point at level 1. 2 at level 3, I mean c'mon that ridiculous it's worse than a cantrip. (Not counting the unlimited casting thingie)
Cantrips don't heal.
|
He can either stick to the straight and narrow and use Celestial Healing, or get more bang for his buck...at the expense of his soul getting just that little bit more tarnished...and go with Infernal Healing.
Asmodeus knew what he was doing with that spell, I tell you.
It's even worse than that.
Infernal Healing can't cure 'good' damage, such as that caused by many good outsiders.
So... one of the few times you would want to use Celestial Healing over Infernal Healing? When you are fighting good outsiders. And as an added bonus... their blood is the material component you need for the spell!
Yep... mind blown here... both infernal and celestial healing seems pretty evil to me. LOL (although celestial healing blood requirement can be swapped for holy water for the good guys I guess... and the good guys have less of a healing problem due to channeling positive energy... clearly infernal healing is just a patch to fix the 'bad guys have no healing' problem... due to a certain recent evil party AP... :P I don't really want to start seeing wizard PCs running around with healing...)
|
|
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?None.Well what was the point of making a useless spell that will never get used?
It heals 1 point at level 1. 2 at level 3, I mean c'mon that ridiculous it's worse than a cantrip. (Not counting the unlimited casting thingie)
Not ridiculous for a morally upstanding wizard who wishes to stabilize automatically when in a jam... i.e. when he's facing foes he *knows* will get the better of him.
|
|
I totally get that Celestial Healing should be worse than Infernal Healing, but it's so much worse that it's basically a waste of text as written...So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?None.
I think Infernal Healing is a patch for Hell's Vengeance, who may be a real challenge for many partys heal-wise (clerics don't get cure spells spontaneously, and well, they're also evil, and in some partys may not have the whole 'teamwork' thing down; by adding Infernal Healing they've added a measure of survivability for a large amount of people...)
|
|
But with the *1 round* casting time, he's not going to be using that while in battle - that just guarantees he'll get killed. The short duration means that in any battle where it last s long enough to come into play, he'll be facing things that will easily chew through his wizard HP and be much more likely to send him to -CON.Not ridiculous for a morally upstanding wizard who wishes to stabilize automatically when in a jam... i.e. when he's facing foes he *knows* will get the better of him.So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?None.Well what was the point of making a useless spell that will never get used?
It heals 1 point at level 1. 2 at level 3, I mean c'mon that ridiculous it's worse than a cantrip. (Not counting the unlimited casting thingie)
I've seen some wizards buff while invisible in the past. Granted, it's not really a combat spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Infernal Healing was published in 2011. It's not a patch for Hell's Vengeance.
I have to say that I wasn't blown away by this book when I bought it. I recently had the chance to start playing a bard with the Arrowsong Minstrel archetype from this book and I have to say that I absolutely love it so far!
So kudos to whomever the developer was for that archetype. I love the story and theme behind it and am really impressed with the versatility of the archetype. I am about to add my first bardic masterpiece with the Arrowsong's Lament and can't wait to see how it opens the class up.