Alchemist Swift Action Spells


Rules Questions


This question is specifically about spells on the alchemist spell list that have a casting time of “1 swift action”, such as full pouch. I am not looking for any other traits or feats which reduce the time to drink potions or other “potables” as there are many threads discussing such things.

Specifically limited to swift action spells, has there ever been any official ruling or FAQ on how that works for alchemists/investigators?


It would still be a standard action to drink the swift action spell as an extract. Basically, you couldn't take out your alchemical item and use it in the same round because you need your standard action to use the Full Pouch spell to duplicate your item.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
It would still be a standard action to drink the swift action spell as an extract.

That’s a fine interpretation but my question is whether there has been an official clarification from Paizo. The only ruling I have seen is the general guidance from this FAQ:

FAQ wrote:
It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.

IMO, the phrase, “in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting” implies that the act of drinking an extract should be treated like casting an equivalent spell.

This is particularly a pronounced issue for Full Pouch which thematically should be able to be used by an alchemist but which mechanically doesn’t make sense if drinking the spell is a standard action. This is why I am wondering if there are any other official rulings—including if PFS had any rules for how it worked.


no, there has not been an FAQ or anything else on the topic. Neither forn the general topic, nor for the spell itself.

That FAQ you quoted was later incorporated into the class text in the second printing of the APG, where it says "An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action." APG pg. 27 That makes the RAW crystal clear, albeit unsatisfactory.

MargarineMeadow wrote:
IMO, the phrase, “in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting” implies that the act of drinking an extract should be treated like casting an equivalent spell.

For the purpose of drawing components. That's all it is about, that there is no additional action cost required for drawing the components.

MargarineMeadow wrote:
including if PFS had any rules for how it worked.

You can check PFS alterations here. It has a ruling on Full Pouch, but none that addresses the Alchemist issue.

Shadow Lodge

When you actually look closely at the Alchemy class feature, you'll find it is full of 'is this supposed to work, and if so, how?' issues: Extracts of spells that specifically target objects (like Full Pouch) and infusions of Communal spells are probably the most common ones and a search of the 1st edition forums should provide plenty of discussion to look at but no actual official answers (that I am aware of at least)...

MargarineMeadow wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
It would still be a standard action to drink the swift action spell as an extract.

That’s a fine interpretation but my question is whether there has been an official clarification from Paizo. The only ruling I have seen is the general guidance from this FAQ:

FAQ wrote:
It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.

IMO, the phrase, “in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting” implies that the act of drinking an extract should be treated like casting an equivalent spell.

This is particularly a pronounced issue for Full Pouch which thematically should be able to be used by an alchemist but which mechanically doesn’t make sense if drinking the spell is a standard action. This is why I am wondering if there are any other official rulings—including if PFS had any rules for how it worked.

That ruling just clarifies that you don't need to spend a separate move action to actually 'draw' your extract/mutagen/bomb before using it as this would completely kill the character's action economy: If they meant for you to use the casting time of the original spell (which potions definitely do not), they presumably would have said as much.

As such, Full Pouch is a spell that shouldn't really work as an extract for two separate reasons ('Casting' time makes it impractical and targeting an object shouldn't work at all): There is an argument that spells like this are intended to be used from a wand* (since Alchemists (but not Investigators) can use wands) but it seems more likely it was included on the extract list because it fit the theme and no one verified that the mechanics actually worked...

*Note that Wands seem to have a minimum casting time of 1 action, so even that option wouldn't work with this particular spell...

The Exchange

We had a discussion about extracts that target objects a couple of months ago.

Someone pointed to a previous thread where Paizo developer Mark Moreland essentially said that any “impossible” extracts (ones that don’t target the drinker) are errors and shouldn’t be on the alchemist spell list.

That takes care of full pouch, but there’s no general FAQ or developer posts on swift extracts.

Shadow Lodge

Belafon wrote:

We had a discussion about extracts that target objects a couple of months ago.

Someone pointed to a previous thread where Paizo developer Mark Moreland essentially said that any “impossible” extracts (ones that don’t target the drinker) are errors and shouldn’t be on the alchemist spell list.

That takes care of full pouch, but there’s no general FAQ or developer posts on swift extracts.

Nice to see there was some feedback at the time this particular spell was published (reproduced below for anyone who doesn't feel like following links):
Terminalmancer wrote:

There are a number of new spells in Arcane Anthologies which are on the Alchemist's extract list, but which cannot possibly target the alchemist. For example, the Full Pouch spell is listed as Alchemist 2, but the target is 1 object touched. There's at least 3 or 4 others with similar problems.

I've theorycrafted alchemists before but haven't yet played one, so... am I missing something here? I thought alchemist spells could only target the alchemist.

Mark Seifter wrote:
These impossible extracts are errors that manage to slip through. Logan and I have been cracking down on this lately in the RPG line; I think we didn't have any in OA or UI (hopefully).

...

Mark Seifter wrote:
Personally, I would ignore the alchemist level on anything an alchemist can't use.

A real pity there was never an official errata on this sort of issue...


The best worst part is the communal issue was well known when that thread was made and they didn't bother to weigh in at all on when it affects multiple targets.

The Exchange

AwesomenessDog wrote:
The best worst part is the communal issue was well known when that thread was made and they didn't bother to weigh in at all on when it affects multiple targets.

Because that had already been addressed years earlier.

Still should have made it into a FAQ at some point.


Belafon wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
The best worst part is the communal issue was well known when that thread was made and they didn't bother to weigh in at all on when it affects multiple targets.

Because that had already been addressed years earlier.

Still should have made it into a FAQ at some point.

It’s actually been addressed multiple times by various different devs (sorry typing from phone, can’t look up all the links), each one giving a completely different and sometimes contradictory answer…

One says they are intentional and work like their non communal versions, but GM permitting could be shared via Infusions.

Another says they are there only for Wand use.

A third says they (and all other spells that do not target the alchemist) are a mistake and should be ignored.

A few even simply say “we leave it up to table variation”.

So… really… no… it hasn’t actually been properly adressed… if even the devs can’t agree on how they work then we know there is a problem.


I guess this is what I get for opening the can of worms but it’s absolutely nonsensical for there to be any sort of “official” ruling that alchemists cannot even use Full Pouch—a spell which both thematically and mechanically is 100% their domain. Considering that never made it into any form of errata, TFG, I’ll continue using it—albeit in a limited capacity. Appreciate all the insight everyone

The Exchange

Chell Raighn wrote:
Belafon wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
The best worst part is the communal issue was well known when that thread was made and they didn't bother to weigh in at all on when it affects multiple targets.

Because that had already been addressed years earlier.

Still should have made it into a FAQ at some point.

It’s actually been addressed multiple times by various different devs (sorry typing from phone, can’t look up all the links), each one giving a completely different and sometimes contradictory answer…

One says they are intentional and work like their non communal versions, but GM permitting could be shared via Infusions.

Another says they are there only for Wand use.

A third says they (and all other spells that do not target the alchemist) are a mistake and should be ignored.

A few even simply say “we leave it up to table variation”.

So… really… no… it hasn’t actually been properly adressed… if even the devs can’t agree on how they work then we know there is a problem.

When you get a chance, can you dig up those links? The only designer post I've ever seen is SKR's post linked above.

Shadow Lodge

MargarineMeadow wrote:
I guess this is what I get for opening the can of worms but it’s absolutely nonsensical for there to be any sort of “official” ruling that alchemists cannot even use Full Pouch—a spell which both thematically and mechanically is 100% their domain. Considering that never made it into any form of errata, TFG, I’ll continue using it—albeit in a limited capacity. Appreciate all the insight everyone

RAW, using an extract is a standard action, so no errata is required on that specific issue. As for targeting an object, that is clearly against the rules of the alchemy class feature and should have been errata-ed, but errata is only issued when a new printing is ordered, which I'm guessing never happened for this player companion...

Alchemist / Alchemy(Su) wrote:

...

An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.
...

You are correct that this spell fits the alchemist thematically, but mechanically it just doesn't work...


Taja the Barbarian wrote:
errata is only issued when a new printing is ordered, which I'm guessing never happened for this player companion...

The only softcover book that ever got a second printing, and thus got errata, was Adventurer's Armory. There is an FAQ section for such books, but it only has eight entries.

MargarineMeadow wrote:
it’s absolutely nonsensical for there to be any sort of “official” ruling that alchemists cannot even use Full Pouch—a spell which both thematically and mechanically is 100% their domain.

There is no official ruling on this specific spell, but the interaction is covered by the existing rules. The spell is incompatible with the mechanics of the Alchemist, and either shouldn't be on the Alchemist list, or have extra text that makes it work for them via specific exception (something like "an extract of Full Pouch targets the user, and allows drawing the item as part of drinking the extract").


Belafon wrote:
Chell Raighn wrote:
Belafon wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
The best worst part is the communal issue was well known when that thread was made and they didn't bother to weigh in at all on when it affects multiple targets.

Because that had already been addressed years earlier.

Still should have made it into a FAQ at some point.

It’s actually been addressed multiple times by various different devs (sorry typing from phone, can’t look up all the links), each one giving a completely different and sometimes contradictory answer…

One says they are intentional and work like their non communal versions, but GM permitting could be shared via Infusions.

Another says they are there only for Wand use.

A third says they (and all other spells that do not target the alchemist) are a mistake and should be ignored.

A few even simply say “we leave it up to table variation”.

So… really… no… it hasn’t actually been properly adressed… if even the devs can’t agree on how they work then we know there is a problem.

When you get a chance, can you dig up those links? The only designer post I've ever seen is SKR's post linked above.

Even beyond other people weighing in, SKR is not dev team and has the same level of authority on the rules as JJ, which have both gotten things wrong.

The Exchange

AwesomenessDog wrote:
Belafon wrote:
Chell Raighn wrote:
Belafon wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
The best worst part is the communal issue was well known when that thread was made and they didn't bother to weigh in at all on when it affects multiple targets.

Because that had already been addressed years earlier.

Still should have made it into a FAQ at some point.

It’s actually been addressed multiple times by various different devs (sorry typing from phone, can’t look up all the links), each one giving a completely different and sometimes contradictory answer…

One says they are intentional and work like their non communal versions, but GM permitting could be shared via Infusions.

Another says they are there only for Wand use.

A third says they (and all other spells that do not target the alchemist) are a mistake and should be ignored.

A few even simply say “we leave it up to table variation”.

So… really… no… it hasn’t actually been properly adressed… if even the devs can’t agree on how they work then we know there is a problem.

When you get a chance, can you dig up those links? The only designer post I've ever seen is SKR's post linked above.
Even beyond other people weighing in, SKR is not dev team and has the same level of authority on the rules as JJ, which have both gotten things wrong.

This is almost completely incorrect for multiple reasons:

1) In RPGs, the people who are responsible for rules mechanics are called designers, not developers. Developers' jobs require a wide skillset but the responsibility can be closest described as "project manager."

2) Sean K Reynolds was a key member of the design team from the Core Rulebook through his entire career at Paizo. You will find him credited as such in all the books published before he left for a new career in 2014. Including the time when that post was made.

3) You are correct about James Jacobs not being a rules source. Partly because he is the Creative Director, but also because he specifically says many times in his "ask James Jacobs" thread "this is what I would do in a home game, don't quote me as a rules source."

Seriously, ask anyone who was active in that time. Before the "Pathfinder Design Team" account was created in 2013, almost all rules questions (that got an answer) were answered by Sean. And even after that account was created, Sean was the one who used it most of the time. And he continued to answer questions of people who were confused but that didn't warrant a full FAQ. Don't worry, you're not the first person to not realize that Sean spoke with full authority.

Except I'm not wrong. I got a consensus of the rest of the design team, I wrote the FAQ in question, and I posted it using the PDT account.

Your idea of "sample mistaken theory" isn't in the rules anywhere, and it's not an idea the design team supports.

The Exchange

I really do mourn the loss of SKR to other opportunities. Not only was he kind enough to spend time answering our questions; he was also tough enough to take the abuse of people who were convinced everyone else was an idiot and that they alone had divined the proper reading of a rule; and blunt enough to say "You are wrong. I wrote/was part of the team that wrote that rule and you are trying to twist the language to make it say something it doesn't say." When he left we almost completely lost designer interaction on the messageboards until Mark Seifter started engaging in that role.

Spoiler:
Mark was more diplomatic and had a general philosophy of "don't engage with the jerks." Probably a good life philosophy but left a vocal tiny minority of users who continued (and still continue) to spout out bad information with no one to slap them down.


You're right... it's been a while and I forgot he wasn't just a writer for many of the APs. It's also been a while since I have cracked open a real book.


Which one of the officials was it who insulted himself by comparing slings to waterbaloons, back in the day?

The Exchange

Are you referring to the post where Sean used hyperbole to demonstrate that

SKR wrote:
Some options are worse than others because the game actually tries to model that some options in life are worse than others. And by "worse" I mean "does less damage per round."

?


Derklord wrote:
There is no official ruling on this specific spell, but the interaction is covered by the existing rules. The spell is incompatible with the mechanics of the Alchemist, and either shouldn't be on the Alchemist list, or have extra text that makes it work for them via specific exception (something like "an extract of Full Pouch targets the user, and allows drawing the item as part of drinking the extract").

Even if I agreed with that interpretation of the Alchemist mechanics as RAW or RAI (I don’t), such an interpretation should instantly be dismissed. Think of the variety of spells that would no longer be available to Alchemists: Tears to Wine, Deathwine, Empower Holy Water, Waters of Maddening, and Liquefy to name a few. These spells target objects and literally perform some form of alchemical alteration to said objects.

Any interpretation of the rules which views these all as “mistakes” which are mechanically incompatible with alchemists needs to seriously re-evaluate what the class is. Alchemists which are mechanically restricted from performing alchemy? Doesn’t pass the smell test.


MargarineMeadow wrote:
Even if I agreed with that interpretation of the Alchemist mechanics as RAW or RAI (I don’t)

If you don't agree that RAW using an extract is a standard action, per "An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.", then you're denying reality.

MargarineMeadow wrote:
Any interpretation of the rules which views these all as “mistakes” which are mechanically incompatible with alchemists needs to seriously re-evaluate what the class is. Alchemists which are mechanically restricted from performing alchemy? Doesn’t pass the smell test.

Do you even know what the word "interpretation" means? And do you know what RAW means?

RAW means, interpreting (=trying to figure out what a text/statement means) the rules as closely based on the written text as possible, without adding personal believes or feelings. Whether they're good or bad, whether they make sense or not, the RAW are what the text says.

Don't get mad at me. You saw the same thing I saw, that the existing rules don't really work here. That's why you asked about an FAQ or similar.
Note that I didn't say anything about RAI. Neither in the above, nor in my last post. I also didn't say how it should be ruled, or how I would rule it. That would be what you're asking for, a ruling. Not an interpretation.

MargarineMeadow wrote:
Think of the variety of spells that would no longer be available to Alchemists: Tears to Wine, Deathwine, Empower Holy Water, Waters of Maddening, and Liquefy to name a few.

I guess I could've been clearer, so I don't fault you for this, but I was talking about the 'drinking time', not the 'target' part. There're but three swift action spells on the alchemist list (and no immediate action spells), and the other two still work (Burst of Speed and Bouncing Bomb Admixture). And yes, I don't think it's weird that they'd make a alchemist-only swift action spell. I don't know what the mistake there was, though, whether the word "swift" was an error, or the author didn't know the Alchemist rules well enough.

MargarineMeadow wrote:
Alchemists which are mechanically restricted from performing alchemy?

Duplicating items isn't alchemy.


MargarineMeadow wrote:
Derklord wrote:
There is no official ruling on this specific spell, but the interaction is covered by the existing rules. The spell is incompatible with the mechanics of the Alchemist, and either shouldn't be on the Alchemist list, or have extra text that makes it work for them via specific exception (something like "an extract of Full Pouch targets the user, and allows drawing the item as part of drinking the extract").

Even if I agreed with that interpretation of the Alchemist mechanics as RAW or RAI (I don’t), such an interpretation should instantly be dismissed. Think of the variety of spells that would no longer be available to Alchemists: Tears to Wine, Deathwine, Empower Holy Water, Waters of Maddening, and Liquefy to name a few. These spells target objects and literally perform some form of alchemical alteration to said objects.

Any interpretation of the rules which views these all as “mistakes” which are mechanically incompatible with alchemists needs to seriously re-evaluate what the class is. Alchemists which are mechanically restricted from performing alchemy? Doesn’t pass the smell test.

I agree with you… though by RAW they only work as potions… honestly, the rules for Extracts SHOULD have stated that they function as “potions or oils” rather than simply “as potions”. It is quite clear by the sheer number of spells that affect objects specifically that appear on the alchemists spell list that functioning as oils was an intent originally. It is possible that the writer forgot about the existence of oils when they wrote the extracts section and assumed potions could be used on objects just fine, or a clarification was meant to be added and never made it into the rules… or design intent was changed but the oil spells were left by mistake (as one designer stated).

Either way, I know Myself and my group all play alchemists with extracts functioning as potions or oils because it just makes sense… of course to use an extract on someone else’s item (be it friend or foe) you first need the Infusion discovery still.


Derklord wrote:
And yes, I don't think it's weird that they'd make a alchemist-only swift action spell.

Argh. I do think it's weird. *shakes fist at the stupid nonsensical edit time limit*

Chell Raighn wrote:
It is quite clear by the sheer number of spells that affect objects specifically that appear on the alchemists spell list that functioning as oils was an intent originally.

I'm not sure about this, actually. The "originally" part, that is. There's only a single such spell on the original Alchemist list (i.e. the CRB+APG list), Absorbing Touch, and that one really shouldn't target an object.

What are on that original list, however, are a bunch of no-target spells like Dragon's Breath, and by strict reading those don't function, either - and there can be no doubt that isn't intended.


Derklord wrote:
Duplicating items isn't alchemy.
Oxford Languages wrote:

Alchemy noun

*) the medieval forerunner of chemistry, based on the supposed transformation of matter. It was concerned particularly with attempts to convert base metals into gold or to find a universal elixir.
*) a seemingly magical process of transformation, creation, or combination.

Similar: chemistry, magic, sorcery, witchcraft, enchantment

Origin
late Middle English: via Old French and medieval Latin from Arabic al-kīmiyā', from al ‘the’ + kīmiyā' (from Greek khēmia, khēmeia ‘art of transmuting metals’).

It's a magical process of creation, so, yeah, it can be alchemy.

Derklord wrote:
If you don't agree that RAW using an extract is a standard action, per "An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.", then you're denying reality.

I think it's easy to agree that the base rule is 'an alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.' and that there can be things that modify that in total or for specific instances.

Specific trumps general. So, although I'm not actually trying to defend the position, I think it could be easy and reasonable to a point to think that normally an extract can be drunk as a standard action but certain extracts with the timing of swift are extracts that can be drunk as a swift action... because that's what the spell text says... since you're making the point that Rules As Written should be applied with as little preference and bias as possible.

(...There's something funny about 'denying reality' being applied to a specialized game of pretend...)

Shadow Lodge

Te'Shen wrote:

...

Specific trumps general. So, although I'm not actually trying to defend the position, I think it could be easy and reasonable to a point to think that normally an extract can be drunk as a standard action but certain extracts with the timing of swift are extracts that can be drunk as a swift action... because that's what the spell text says... since you're making the point that Rules As Written should be applied with as little preference and bias as possible.
...

The problem is that 'An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.' is the specific rule, trumping both the general spellcasting (use the casting time listed for the spell) and potion (move action to draw plus a standard action or more to consume) rules.


For Taja, I suppose:
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
The problem is that 'An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.' is the specific rule, trumping both the general spellcasting (use the casting time listed for the spell) and potion (move action to draw plus a standard action or more to consume) rules.

And? ... Alchemists get a lot of practice at keggers in college. It's also where their good fortitude save comes from.

Really though... I'm not trying to die on that hill, but could it be that it's folding the draw (move) and drink (standard) together the same way with a base attack of +1 a character can draw a weapon as part of a move when both the move and the draw cost a move action? Or that you're getting faster with practice like the quick draw feat making some move actions free actions and some standard actions move actions? That some spells take less visualization/energy/etc. that they're easier to crack out quicker whether it's a wizard's spell bullet or an alchemist's hip flask?

The 'An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action' applies to every alchemist. How long does spellcasting take? It depends on the spell. For better or worse, every spell in a bit different. Some are fast. Some are slow. Some are gone in a moment. Some hang around. Every spell is its own specific instance. Normally things may work X way for everybody but Y way for a class or two but spell Z always breaks the rules for it's duration... or it ignores the normal reality and substitutes its own. So yes, the alchemists' rules on drinking are specific, I just don't think they're more specific than individual spells.

The questions on how an alchemist works or the subsequent alchemist arguments just feel a little 'too many cooks in the kitchen' for me. I'm pretty sure the person who originally envisioned the alchemist had one idea in mind, and then it got handed off to somebody else, and edited by more somebody elses... and now we have things that it wasn't meant for or things it was meant for got chopped... and now we get to rule it when we come across it as storytellers. Alchemist, to me, feels like it instills magic in substances, like a focused artificer from 3.5 (where it likely drew a fair bit of inspiration... or I could be wrong), so making it's effects function as potions and oils, as Chell Raighn mentioned up thread seems sensible. Allowing for communal versions of spells to work as long as an alchemist has the infusion discovery makes sense (as SKR mentioned at one point). I find it No End Of Humor in Belafon linking a short recent post where Diego Rossi makes a good point about brew potion and needing the spells to make magical items. A player understood pretty easily alternate uses for a spell/forumula that the one of the employees didn't. I remember somebody complaining about alchemist extracts being able to make personal use infusions that potions couldn't duplicate as a loophole. I see it as an interesting and balanced feature.

So the more links that others post to designers and developers weighing in officially and unofficially, the more I think that Chell Raighn has the right of it. That alchemist is an everyone who could make AUTHORITIVE STATEMENTS about knew how they thought it worked so nobody bothered to make it work. In fact, most of the 'issues' with the alchemist I didn't know existed until I came here. ... I guess that just means I'm a filthy casual.


Te'Shen, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here. Swift action spells are not a special case, they follow the general rules same as other spells: The casting time is what the casting time line says. Extracts on the other hand diverge from the spell rules where specified, and every such specification is a more specific rule than the general spell rules. The "An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action." line overwrites the casting time, and is thus the more specific rule.

Indeed, if if that line wasn't a more specific rule, it didn't have any reason to exist. And remember, they FAQ'd and errata'd it, both times explicitly saying "standard action". Contrast "A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description." CRB pg. 221

Most of the above also applies to wands and staffs, by the way.

Te'Shen wrote:
In fact, most of the 'issues' with the alchemist I didn't know existed until I came here.

That's because every GM houserules it, often unconsciously. There're many such rules, like applying the polymorph rules to Wild Shape (RAW they only apply to spells), or having proficiency feat grant proficiency (which none of them do, in addition to the armor prof feats not doing anything, Simple Weapon Prof removing all penalties, and Exotic Weapon Prof being as vague as possible).

Te'Shen wrote:
It's a magical process of creation, so, yeah, it can be alchemy.

The original meaning is all about a) transforming materials and b) creating potions that cure diseases, provide immortality, and stuff like that.


Belafon wrote:

Are you referring to the post where Sean used hyperbole to demonstrate that

SKR wrote:
Some options are worse than others because the game actually tries to model that some options in life are worse than others. And by "worse" I mean "does less damage per round."
?

No, still not sure what... Although he is historically and ergonomically wrong in the actual arguments he is making (not that particular one) in that thread.

@Te'Shen, Welcome to paizo editing. Keep reading all the books and you'll find infuriatingly inconsistent rules and wordings, even within the same book and especially the closer to the end of 1e we get as more and more resources were being pulled from 1e development to the secret 2e development, and then you get to realize that paizo mistook the majority of the vocal complaints about this inconsistency as a cry to make a game that is derivative of 5e DnD instead of simply fix what exists but is broken, and so now we will never get an answer on our own. Also, no one attacked you, they said "this is the raw answer you asked for, it doesn't matter what you think of it, this is what the baseline is before you can then decide you want to stick with it for consistency, find away to rework the stuff that does and doesn't RAW work together, or just ignore it and go with whatever else instead."

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Alchemist Swift Action Spells All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.