| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really understanding what you are meaning. Maybe an example of that would help.
What bonus numbers would an alchemist have under the normal rules that they don't have under ABP?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really understanding what you are meaning. Maybe an example of that would help.
What bonus numbers would an alchemist have under the normal rules that they don't have under ABP?
Alchemical item bonuses normally outscale their traditional counterparts, like bestial mutagen giving +1 to hit before you could get runes and +2 to hit at level 3.
The items also in general are designed to provide relatively cheap, temporary access to various bonuses.
Effectively, a bestial mutagenist using ABP is -1 to hit compared to their non-ABP counterpart and can no longer gain temporary bonuses via things like cognitive or silvertongue mutagens.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignore the rule for mutagens and other consumables that normally stack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. OK.
One variation that I heard that I liked was to keep the item bonuses, but not allow them to stack with the potency bonuses that you get automatically.
That doesn't work for skill bonuses though. ABP only gives you a few of them, but you can choose them freely. Items give you as many as you can afford.
But it does nicely solve the problem for things like mutagens and the Mage Armor spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I would simply allow alchemist mutagens and mage armor to function as they would have normally.
The goal of ABP isn't to screw over a class normally reliant on items, it's to put the power into the characters instead of their items but also prevent things from stacking in ways they couldn't under the normal rules.
As long as your not ending up with bonuses higher than what you could normally get under the normal rules, I'd say it's fine.
ABP is also a variant rule. Basically an official houserule. I don't think it is used in PFS, so all you need to do is convince the other people at your gaming table that something is wrong.
Alchemist overall have gotten chafted one way or another since PF2 began.
I'm not sure what chafted means, but it sounds painful! ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I would simply allow alchemist mutagens and mage armor to function as they would have normally.
The goal of ABP isn't to screw over a class normally reliant on items, it's to put the power into the characters instead of their items but also prevent things from stacking in ways they couldn't under the normal rules.
As long as your not ending up with bonuses higher than what you could normally get under the normal rules, I'd say it's fine.
This is how I handle it. And given that ABP is an optional rule anyway, I don't find it particularly troublesome to tweak it. I find ABP is great for low magic games, where Alchemists should be in their element. Making them weirdly worse instead is just not a great feeling.
I'm not sure what chafted means, but it sounds painful! ;)
Ah yes, Chafted. Equal parts chafed and shafted. For when you feel wronged, AND irritated.
|
Don't forget that bombs both lose their item bonuses and get a massive damage boost.
A boost that not only gives damage but ALSO makes it CRAZY BROKEN affordable for the Alch to simply never prepare Bombs with their Reagents at higher levels since they can easily just spend something like 10% - 0.5% of their estimated/intended WBL depending on what level they actually are playing at to stock up on dozens of level 1 Bombs and far more efficiently use the Reagents on non-Bomb Infused Alch items.
Don't forget that bombs both lose their item bonuses and get a massive damage boost.
Can you explain how bombs get a damage boost? What am I not seeing.
|
|
Don't forget that bombs both lose their item bonuses and get a massive damage boost.Can you explain how bombs get a damage boost? What am I not seeing.
Bombs are Weapons and valid targets for Runes (though it's a TERRIBLE use of funds to do so) and also have stated Weapon Damage Dice. With ABP all Bombs gain additional Weapon Damage Dice according to the individual who is using it which means a 3gp level 1 Lesser Alchemist Fire will deal the same number of Weapon Damage Dice (though the additional Splash and Persistent Damage don't get upgraded) as a 2500gp level 17 Major Alchemist Fire.
It's another notch in the belt tracker for ways that Alchemical Items weren't accounted for with ABP, and a VERY big one if applied literally and without tweaks for the table. They'd lose the Item Bonus which makes it harder to hit, admittedly, but that is still something that impacts the higher level more costly versions of Bombs equally. Ran as RAW the cost savings is absolutely BONKERS over the top too good to be true.
I keep forgetting they choose to tweak how ABP worked from PF1 to PF2.
In PF1 you had to choose a specific weapon to receive the bonus, although you could change it once a day IIRC.
Anyways, probably shouldn't apply the ABP rules to bombs either.
|
|
Don't forget that bombs both lose their item bonuses and get a massive damage boost.Can you explain how bombs get a damage boost? What am I not seeing.
Most weapons gain additional damage dice via Striking runes, which ABP removes. Bombs don't: their dice are an innate part of the item. Lesser alchemist's fire deals 1d8 damage (plus persistent and splash), and with Devastating Attacks it increases over a character's lifetime to 4d8. Starting at level 7, Perpetual Infusions means a bomber can now make unlimited level-1 bombs via Quick Alchemy, and non-bombers can just buy a ton when at a character level where the price is pocket change. No reagents spent, and with Calculated Splash even the splash damage will be on par or better than higher-level bombs.
And that is why it is probably best, and simplest, to simply exempt bombs from interacting with ABP at all. I mean, you wouldn't say that Snares should get any bonus damage from ABP, right? So why should bombs?
I think ABP should be changed to only affect Magical items that grant item bonuses anyway, instead of using ambiguous wording. Mutagens should still work. Bombs should just use the bomb's statistics. Expanded Healer's Tools should still grant a +1, etc...
And I am confident that many parties probably naturally play it this way. I know mine did. Doing otherwise simply removes too much from the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyways, probably shouldn't apply the ABP rules to bombs either.
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be easier to just say that ABP applies to permanent items but not consumables or spells. Any item bonuses from consumables or spells gets changed to potency bonus, but no other changes are made to the consumables or spells (including increasing the damage).
That also prevents questions about how ABP applies to polymorph battle form spells and their listed and heightened damage amounts too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about the other way around? What if you did allow bombs to profit from ABP? Maybe even let mutagen item bonuses stack with potency bonuses (to a point)?
Would it make the alchemist too powerful, or just powerful enough to feel really good?
I always felt mutagens that put you 1 above level for something felt rather humdrum. But if they put you 2-4 above, they get pretty interesting.
(I haven't run the math on this. Maybe it's totally over the top. But is it really too much?)
There's actually an argument to be made that ABP only alters MAGIC items. Everything in the introduction to the rule references magic items, but the adjustments located at the end don't make the distinction between magic and mundane. But if you take only targeting magic items as the intention, then mutagens actually become way stronger since they stack with potency. Neither outcome seems intended,though. (Though this reading does allow things like Infiltrator's tools to still apply bonuses, which I personally like.)
|
|
There's actually an argument to be made that ABP only alters MAGIC items.
You can get a small taste of the problem with that reading right now when looking at Mage Armor, which isn't item-based but provides an item bonus. Stack that with the potency bonus to AC and saves, and suddenly the champion running around in a tin can is very jealous.
|
I use ABP for my home game, since it's my favorite variant rule. One of my PCs is a mutagenist, and I allow his mutagens to work normally. I also let weapon traits like grapple and trip provide item bonuses.
However, invested magic items no longer provide item bonuses, and item bonuses and potency bonuses never stiack.
There's actually an argument to be made that ABP only alters MAGIC items.You can get a small taste of the problem with that reading right now when looking at Mage Armor, which isn't item-based but provides an item bonus. Stack that with the potency bonus to AC and saves, and suddenly the champion running around in a tin can is very jealous.
I mean, I'm not really blown away by a caster getting +3 instead of +2 at 5th from Mage Armor. +4 and +6 at later levels is a bit more problematic, making Mage Armor basically better Medium armor.
But you can always invoke the too good to be true rule, and just not allow them to stack. Which makes casting Mage Armor basically useless past 5th, saving Caster's a slot.
Basically, which do you think is less problematic?
1. Mage Armor being better Medium Armor at 11th and up.
2. Caster's saving a spell slot/day on not having to cast Mage Armor past 4th level.
Go with that one.
Edit: Almost forgot to mention:
Under No Circumstances should you let the bonus to Saves stack. That is pretty clearly too good to be true, at least in my opinion. +2 to saves at 8th? Nah, probably not chief.
You still need Explorer's Clothing (at least) for Armor Property Runes. There are some good ones. Just something to consider.
You still need Explorer's Clothing (at least) for Armor Property Runes. There are some good ones. Just something to consider.
I'm not sure they are THAT good, especially removing the heavier armor options.
I would not allow someone to benefit from the unarmored APB armor and resilience bonuses without either explorer’s clothing or bracers of armor equipped. Simone dedicated to dexterity builds could get the +7 ability modifier normally, but cannot benefit from runes with the full ability bonus. No reason to change that just for APB.
I would not allow someone to benefit from the unarmored APB armor and resilience bonuses without either explorer’s clothing or bracers of armor equipped. Simone dedicated to dexterity builds could get the +7 ability modifier normally, but cannot benefit from runes with the full ability bonus. No reason to change that just for APB.
How you run it is up to you and all, but I see ABP as being purposefully built to enable such characters to make due without armor. Or a character who uses more than two weapons being able to be equally effective with any weapon they wield.
If ABP had specified that the Defense Potency required or augmented the AC bonus from Armor specifically, then sure, you would have a point.
But it doesn't, does it?
At 5th level, you gain a +1 potency bonus to AC. At 11th level, this bonus increases to +2, and at 18th level, to +3.
No mention of needing any gear whatsoever to qualify.
Again, I'm not saying you are wrong for seeing it the other way around, what I am saying is that it makes much more sense to just give out the stipulated bonuses as the sub-system asks without checking if the character is wearing explorer's clothes or Bracer's of Armor. Especially given that such bracers are basically useless under ABP anyway, aside from giving you somewhere to hang a talisman I guess.
I mean, after all, the whole point of ABP is to reduce the number of items that a character MUST have to be on parity, right? Why would they then make wearing some form of armor a requirement?
Are the standard clothes on a given character's back not good enough for you?
But it doesn't, does it?
I mean, this thread has established that there are a lot of things ABP doesn't say.
It's kind of a half baked variant.
But it doesn't, does it?I mean, this thread has established that there are a lot of things ABP doesn't say.
It's kind of a half baked variant.
Eh, and it works either way really.
I have nothing specifically against requiring explorer's clothes or BoA. I just can't read ABP and come to that conclusion personally. It makes a lot more sense to me to just follow what the variant says.
So at 5th, without looking at a character sheet, I know that everybody's AC just went up by 1.
It is a buff to unarmored characters. Just like Attack potency or Devastating attacks is a buff to weapon dabblers and truly unarmed characters.
Or does a monk still have to have Handwraps to qualify? Because I personally do not think that they do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a buff to unarmored characters. Just like Attack potency or Devastating attacks is a buff to weapon dabblers and truly unarmed characters.
I don't think that's quite an equivalent comparison though. It saves money for weapon dabblers, and lets you carry more weapons, but none of those weapons will actually be stronger than they could have been otherwise.
For the unarmored character it's a pure numbers buff that eventually makes them better than anyone else in the game.
Also probably worth pointing out that being able to carry more weapons can benefit anyone who would have had a weapon anyways (and even characters who normally wouldn't), whereas unarmored AC only improves a specific subset of characters at a specific level range.
I mean it's fine if you want to run it that way at your tables, but the comparison isn't great regardless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a buff to unarmored characters. Just like Attack potency or Devastating attacks is a buff to weapon dabblers and truly unarmed characters.I don't think that's quite an equivalent comparison though. It saves money for weapon dabblers, and lets you carry more weapons, but none of those weapons will actually be stronger than they could have been otherwise.
For the unarmored character it's a pure numbers buff that eventually makes them better than anyone else in the game.
Also probably worth pointing out that being able to carry more weapons can benefit anyone who would have had a weapon anyways (and even characters who normally wouldn't), whereas unarmored AC only improves a specific subset of characters at a specific level range.
I mean it's fine if you want to run it that way at your tables, but the comparison isn't great regardless.
I suppose I see what you are getting at, given they would have no cap on their Dex. I had not thought of that tbh.
I still don't have an issue with it though. At worst I would impose a universal max dex of 5. I still would not require players to purchase gear to take advantage of the ABP bonuses however. Especially given how they are worded.
If Simone the Monk wants to run around buck naked, then by Shelyn she should have that right.
I would not allow someone to benefit from the unarmored APB armor and resilience bonuses without either explorer’s clothing or bracers of armor equipped. Simone dedicated to dexterity builds could get the +7 ability modifier normally, but cannot benefit from runes with the full ability bonus. No reason to change that just for APB.How you run it is up to you and all, but I see ABP as being purposefully built to enable such characters to make due without armor. Or a character who uses more than two weapons being able to be equally effective with any weapon they wield.
If ABP had specified that the Defense Potency required or augmented the AC bonus from Armor specifically, then sure, you would have a point.
But it doesn't, does it?
At 5th level, you gain a +1 potency bonus to AC. At 11th level, this bonus increases to +2, and at 18th level, to +3.No mention of needing any gear whatsoever to qualify.
Again, I'm not saying you are wrong for seeing it the other way around, what I am saying is that it makes much more sense to just give out the stipulated bonuses as the sub-system asks without checking if the character is wearing explorer's clothes or Bracer's of Armor. Especially given that such bracers are basically useless under ABP anyway, aside from giving you somewhere to hang a talisman I guess.
I mean, after all, the whole point of ABP is to reduce the number of items that a character MUST have to be on parity, right? Why would they then make wearing some form of armor a requirement?
Are the standard clothes on a given character's back not good enough for you?
The point is to prevent having a +7 ability modifier while also benefiting from potency runes, which could not be done normally. The explorer’s clothing and bracers have a built-in +5 ability cap (dexterity) presumably to prevent dexterity builds being the best at reaching the highest AC.
Given that explorer’s clothing is a standard starting item for any non-armored adventurer, I don’t see any issue with it. Plus as it has also been pointed out by another, property runes, talismans, and spellhearts can all be attached to the clothing or bracers.In the end, the point is to keep the math the same.
Bombs are Weapons and valid targets for Runes (though it's a TERRIBLE use of funds to do so)This is (probably) incorrect, BTW.
Runes must be etched onto permanent items, such as armor, weapons, or runestones to grant their benefit.
Heh. Good find. That is somewhat buried in the rules since it isn't mentioned in the rules regarding the runes themselves. Instead it is in item usage rules.
|
|
Traditionally crafted Bombs (not ones made with Reagents that expire) ARE permanent items, they have no shelf life and even fall under the examples that follow the bolded text, "Weapons" so they very much qualify.
They are Martial Weapons and are explicitly included in the Weapon Profs for the Alch Class. Trying to assert that they aren't Weapons breaks untold dozens of hundreds of options that are perfectly legal and intended to mix with Bombs.
Traditionally crafted Bombs (not ones made with Reagents that expire) ARE permanent items, they have no shelf life
Are you actually serious here?
Bombs have the Consumable trait. Same as ammunition, scrolls, potions, elixirs, fulu, ...
I'm not finding anywhere in the rules that properly defines what a "Permanent Item" is, but it is pretty heavily implied that it means items that are not consumable items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Starfinder you can put a Weapon Fusion on grenades and ammunition, though that is often considered a waste of money even with it being half the cost.
|
|
Yes, I'm serious. Bombs are Weapons and therefore eligible for Runes, full-stop. Even the supporting text shown above clearly spells out that if something is a Weapon then it is considered a Permanent Item, that's what "such as" means.
Beyond that, the base definition explicitly calls them Weapons, it doesn't matter if they're destroyed once used, they are still Weapons and eligible for Runes, and the effect of them by way of things like Magic Weapon.
An alchemical bomb combines volatile alchemical components that explode when the bomb hits a creature or object. Most alchemical bombs deal damage, though some produce other effects. Bombs have the bomb trait.
Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet. When you throw a bomb, you make a weapon attack roll against the target’s AC, as you would for any other weapon. It takes one hand to draw, prepare, and throw a bomb. Due to the complexity involved in preparing bombs, Strikes to throw alchemical bombs gain the manipulate trait. The bomb is activated when thrown as a Strike—you don’t have to activate it separately.
Also, those rules you linked from the GMG quite simply don't apply either as those are the rules for building custom homebrew equipment and have no bearing whatsoever on existing published equipment.
Yes, I'm serious. Bombs are Weapons and therefore eligible for Runes, full-stop.
I'll agree that bombs are weapons, full-stop. But that doesn't by itself qualify them for runes. You also have to look at the usage entry for the runes - which say that they have to be etched onto permanent items in order to have any effect.
So to ask this again more clearly, are you seriously arguing that an item with the Consumable trait is still a Permanent Item?
Also, those rules you linked from the GMG quite simply don't apply either as those are the rules for building custom homebrew equipment and have no bearing whatsoever on existing published equipment.
*facepalm*
Fine. How about the APG
The second portion of this chapter consists of a catalog of new alchemical items, snares, and both consumable and permanent magic items, including runes.
Or the CRB.
The next several columns provide suggestions for breaking down that total into permanent items, which the PCs keep and use for a long time; consumables, which are destroyed after being used once; and currency, which includes coins, gems, and other valuables primarily spent to acquire items or services.
|
|
Nowhere in the rules for Runes does it say anything about restricting them to Permanent Weapons or Items, the words "Permanent" and 'Consumable" don't appear even once. In other words, they don't care one lick about the Consumable status whatsoever. The rules for Runes are what govern this, not pricing tables, not WBL guidelines, and certainly not options for the creation of custom equipment.
Now, with that said, I'm not opposed to a future revision of said Rune rules that clarifies that Consumable Weapons aren't eligible for Runes but as it stands that is not currently the case.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nowhere in the rules for Runes does it say anything about restricting them to Permanent Weapons or Items, the words "Permanent" and 'Consumable" don't appear even once.
Quoting this rule again for clarity.
Runes must be etched onto permanent items, such as armor, weapons, or runestones to grant their benefit.
The "such as" is giving a list of examples. And since weapons are generally permanent items (even though consumable weapons do exist), and there are two entire categories of runes specifically meant to be put on weapons, it makes sense that 'weapons' makes it onto the example list.
But the rule is still very clear that your weapon rune has to be put on a permanent item.