I used to think that the Int penalty from a Str boosting mutagen was terrible, because I was still stuck in "ability penalty = reduced ability" mode. But the ability penalty is just a penalty to spell DCs and some Int-based rolls. Int penalty does not affect:
- Throw Anything damage bonus
- Bomb save DC
- Int-based discoveries like Sticky Poison
Extracts that call for a saving throw...are probably affected.
As far as strength mutagens go, I like using it as to make a SCIENCEZERKER. Screw intelligence all the way and just hit things really hard while pumped up on alchemical drugs.
Why would an INT penalty reduce the DC of spells, but not bombs?
Because Int penalty specifically reduces the DC of Int based spells, by the definition of Int penalty.
|
You are looking at the definition of int penalty where? A book with spell casters but no bomb makers, the Core Rulebook? Consider expanding you definition to include logical steps with new rules in later books.
I almost never use the bombs, I take the class for the discoveries and extracts. One thing the int penalty might mess you up with is the loss of a bonus spell or the level of extractyou can make. I always try to get around it by picking an.hour duraTion spell in the spot that bonus extract would be. Then I make sure to use it before drinking the mutagen.
yes but an alchemist adds his int to bomb damage. -2 int = -1 dam
Sure. But there is no such thing* as "-2 Int", there's only "2 points of Int penalty". Core Rulebook, p. 555 tells us what this means - and by omission, what it doesn't mean.
You won't lose any spell slots, extract slots or the ability to cast spells/use extracts of a given level, either.
You are looking at the definition of int penalty where? A book with spell casters but no bomb makers, the Core Rulebook? Consider expanding you definition to include logical steps with new rules in later books.
I am looking it up in the Core rulebook, yes. But it's a good suggestion to look further; The APG doesn't say anything new about ability penalties. Neither does the Beastiar - which would be an obvious place to mention interactions between (Su) abilities and ability penalties.
To summarize: Ability Penalty and Ability Damage do not reduce your ability score or modifier. Thinking that they do is a 3.5-ism. They are conditions that reduce certain stats and rolls.
*I know, Ability Drain is actually -2 to [stat]. Irrelevant to the argument at hand.
I think it's pretty reasonable that RAI might be things beyond what's stated in RAW, even just for 'Core' stuff not getting beyond that, but Paizo needs to actually address that if RAW isn't the full scope intended. IMHO, the RAW is so narrow to beg believability... It could be Errata'd to work alot better (and in an open-ended way, reagardless of new Classes/Abilities) but the current RAW is not that. Knowing the rules and using them in PFS is probably the higher profile way to get attention to sketchy RAW, if it isn't addressed just from forum posts, PFS judges starting to discuss the topic is another route to Paizo's Rules team.
Extracts that call for a saving throw...are probably affected.
And since they aren't spells, per RAW, they are unaffected.
Mostly, it's kind of a shame when you realize how different classes are so unequally affected by the penalties.Even casters are relatively well off, since they get the full benefit of high level spells whose effects may not depend on DC,
while mundane melee/ranged types still rely on attack rolls for basically everything they can do.
I'm all for Intent-oriented readings over semantics. But the rules on ability penalties are crystal clear once you actually sit down and read them. A Paladin with a Cha penalty does not get a worse smite either, and a Monk doesn't lose AC from Wisdom damage, so it's not a question of new classes vs. old.
In the specific case of the Alchemist bombs, it's 1 point of damage and DC, and I reeeeally can't be arsed to explain to my GF that her bombs have minus piddly s+#! when she's using her mutagen.
Right, and what about if you are applying DEX to melee rolls?
What about if you apply CHA to saves? What if you apply WIS to attack rolls, etc...
There is so much things like this just in the Core Rules,
So cherry picking one comparison and saying it's 'obvious' RAI is this while RAW says that, doesn't hold up,
because there's tons of other things in Core that non-Core cases could also be compared to.
Ironically, it probably would have taken LESS room to just enumerate the classes of effects independent of stats or specific class abilities or other details, and just say 'DCs', 'attack rolls', 'saves', etc. Things could still fall thru the cracks, but much less than the approach taken by RAW. But the RAW went out of it's way to NOT take that approach, so claiming the intent is otherwise isn't really justifiable.
I'm all for Intent-oriented readings over semantics. But the rules on ability penalties are crystal clear once you actually sit down and read them. A Paladin with a Cha penalty does not get a worse smite either, and a Monk doesn't lose AC from Wisdom damage, so it's not a question of new classes vs. old.
In the specific case of the Alchemist bombs, it's 1 point of damage and DC, and I reeeeally can't be arsed to explain to my GF that her bombs have minus piddly s%*# when she's using her mutagen.
From the SRD...
"For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability..."
Bomb DC is a statistic based on your Int.
I would solemnly urge both you and your GM to take the cited list of what damage affects what as nothing more than a list of 'Here's some suggestions and a starting point' rather than a comprehensive list. Especially given that the class in question came out AFTER the rule in question. If not, that's fine, but BTW.... that means that you don't get a bonus to your infusion DCs or bomb DCs from your headband of int, because the wording there is the same, even for permanent gain
"Modify all skills and statistics as appropriate."
While we're playing this game, someone remind me if the ability score bonus you get from progressing up levels is a modifier to the 'base' ability score or a bonus to it. I know that from wish / miracle / manuals / tomes they are 'inherent bonuses'.
Your call. :)
Where is the 'Modify all skills and statistics as appropriate" quote coming from?
Ability Drain, not Ability Damage/Penalty. Drain is not the subject here.
If you go by your reading, what is the difference between damage/penalty and drain? Nothing.
Bizarrely, the specific examples of Ability Drain are things also lost by Damage/Penalty,
but the difference of wording between "all skills and statistics" and "skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability" retains meaning.
Mr. Bulmahn was very clear that PRPG's change (vs. 3.5) here was meant to NOT result in the full spectrum of consequences as 3.5's approach did (which was ALL consequences of lowering the stat, instead of a specific list).
Do you see the part in the text applicable to Damage/Penalty saying '...listed with the relevant ability'?
Do you see the subsequent enumeration of the abilities listing specific things affected for each one?
That is the difference between Ability Damage/Penalty and Ability Drain.
While we're playing this game, someone remind me if the ability score bonus you get from progressing up levels is a modifier to the 'base' ability score or a bonus to it. I know that from wish / miracle / manuals / tomes they are 'inherent bonuses'.
Why are you bringing this up? Things that say they are inherent bonuses are inherent bonuses, nothing else is, and if not given any type a bonus is untyped. Increases are not bonuses to begin with, that's why they're not called bonuses. The same dichotomy between bonuses and increases is used in Dragon Disciple (which increase Natural Armor and Stats).
From the SRD...
The section on ability score penalties is transcribed wrong; I'm arguing from the rulebooks.
"For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability..."
>
>
BTW.... that means that you don't get a bonus to your infusion DCs or bomb DCs from your headband of int, because the wording there is the same, even for permanent gain"Modify all skills and statistics as appropriate."
You claim that temporary penalties and permanent bonuses work the same. They do not. First of all, Permanent bonuses and Drain actually change your stat. Penalties don't.
Second of all, let's revisit your quote above. "listed with the relevant ability". This statement is then followed by....a list. That's what penalties affect."all as appropriate" is not the same as "As listed, on this list right here".
Bomb DC is a statistic based on your Int.
But not on the list of things affect by the condition "Int Penalty". If I suffered Int Drain, I would certainly recalculate it.
I would solemnly urge both you and your GM to take the cited list of what damage affects what as nothing more than a list of 'Here's some suggestions and a starting point' rather than a comprehensive list. Especially given that the class in question came out AFTER the rule in question.
I've already addressed the bolded point (Monks and Paladins are in the Core book); do you have anything to add?
As for the solemn urging, I'm going to have to reply that I don't think you understand yet how ability damage has changed since 3.5. I'll certainly expand the list to cover Weapon Finesse, Dervish Dance, Nature's Whispers and other stat replacers, because that would be in the spirit of the list as it is written. But Throw Anything is no more affected than Smite Evil.
If not, that's fine, but BTW.... that means that you don't get a bonus to your infusion DCs or bomb DCs from your headband of int, because the wording there is the same, even for permanent gain"Modify all skills and statistics as appropriate."
Bonuses use the same system as penalties and drain: Temporary modifiers go to the list, permanent changes do a full revision on all related stats. Core, p. 554 to p. 555, the part just before the first headline.
But I wouldn't gain a bonus to bomb DC from an extract of Fox Cunning, like I used to think.