Monstrous Graft


Pathfinder Society

1/5

Just curious, what were they thinking when they allowed Monstrous Graft to be a legal options? How is this an option, but Drow stuff is a no-no?

Inner Sea Monster Codex wrote:

Monstrous Graft (Ex): The alchemist can replace up

to four of his own amputated limbs with those of a
monstrous beast of the same size category. If the grafted
limb is an arm, the alchemist gains either a climb
speed of 15 feet or a claw or slam natural attack that
deals 1d6 points of damage (1d4 for a Small alchemist).
If the grafted limb is a leg, the alchemist gains one of
the following benefits: a +5 bonus to land speed, a swim
speed of 15 feet, or a +5 bonus on Acrobatics checks when
jumping. For each limb the alchemist replaces in this
manner, he takes a –2 penalty to Wisdom as he loses his
sense of self. Derros are immune to this penalty.

4/5 ****

Because Drow are canonically evil and irredeemable and are incredibly rare on the surface due to among other things kill on sight policies from most intelligent beings that are aware of them.

The monstrous arm is just icky.

Pathfinder Chronicles, Volume 44 (On Drow):

The drow are a race unlike any other, their vindictive nature the basis for an entire self-eroding civilization. Having lived in disguise in their capital for several months, I can say with certainty that these fallen elves possess no redeeming qualities. Their vast subterranean empire is built on debased sacrifices and slavery, like meat into a constantly churning grinder. Only their continued infighting and petty political backstabbing keeps them from turning their attention to the surface world. Were they ever to be united in common purpose, their armies might only be rivaled by those that pour forth from the Worldwound in wickedness.

—Koriah Azmeren

The Exchange 1/5

Although it would be fun having a 1 wisdom alchemist...

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

leonvios wrote:
Although it would be fun having a 1 wisdom alchemist...

Are we sure it's legal for that reason alone?

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

MadScientistWorking wrote:
leonvios wrote:
Although it would be fun having a 1 wisdom alchemist...
Are we sure it's legal for that reason alone?

It would be legal. Kind of cheesy. but legal.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

Why not? Alchemists have a ton of monstrous options... Tumor familiars, extra arms, bat wings, vestigial twins... I have to say that I have delighted in grossing out my fellow players with the monster-obsessed Alchemist I play in my home game. If any class can go off the deep end, it's alchemists.

Hmm

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Why not? Alchemists have a ton of monstrous options... Tumor familiars, extra arms, bat wings, vestigial twins... I have to say that I have delighted in grossing out my fellow players with the monster-obsessed Alchemist I play in my home game. If any class can go off the deep end, it's alchemists.

Hmm

Because it's not exactly like PFS bans stuff for being disruptive and this seems more painful than the roll a d38 archetype.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Monstrous Graft All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.