The Power of the Spongebob Occult Conch Toy: Fact or Fiction?

The Spongebob occult conch toy is a popular item among fans of the cartoon character Spongebob Squarepants. The toy is based on an episode of the show called "Club Spongebob" in which Spongebob and his friends consult a mystical conch shell for guidance. The toy itself is a small plastic replica of the conch shell, complete with colorful designs and a picture of Spongebob on the front. The main feature of the toy is a button that, when pressed, plays various phrases and sounds from the episode. While the Spongebob occult conch toy is primarily marketed towards children, it has gained a following among older fans as well. Many collectors view the toy as a nostalgic item, reminding them of their love for the show as a child.

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.

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. 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.

Many collectors view the toy as a nostalgic item, reminding them of their love for the show as a child. Some fans also enjoy the novelty of owning a piece of Spongebob history, as the conch shell episode is considered a classic among fans. However, there is a certain irony in the popularity of the toy, as the episode it is based on actually parodies the concept of consulting mystical objects for guidance.

Automatic Bonus Progression needs a second look

Automatic Bonus Progression is frankly my absolute favorite variant rule in Pathfinder 2e. It has completely unshackled me from being forced to hand out potency, striking, and resiliency runes, and allowed my players far more freedom when it comes to spending their treasure on consumables and utility magic items.

However, it should be noted that it appears Paizo completely forgot that Alchemy exists when creating this variant rule. The problematic line is buried in the second paragraph under the "Adjusting Items and Treasure" section of the variant rule.

Items that normally grant an item bonus to statistics or damage dice no longer do, other than the base item bonus to AC from armor.

This completely neuters alchemical mutagens, making Alchemists bar-none the worst class in the game when using an incredibly simple variant rule.

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?

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.

Ignore the rule for mutagens and other consumables that normally stack.

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.

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.

Yeah it wouldn't surprised me if they forgot about Alchemist while writing those rules.

Alchemist overall have gotten chafted one way or another since PF2 began. Remember when Mutagenist was effectively unplayable because it lacked the proper rules to do anything?

Alchemist overall have gotten chafted one way or another since PF2 began.

I'm not sure what chafted means, but it sounds painful! ;)

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.

Yep. Just count alchemical item bonuses as potency bonuses. Makes them function as you would expect. How ABP functions with bombs? No idea.

I'll be honest it was a typo. But didn't know it was an actual word combination, the more you know.

Don't forget that bombs both lose their item bonuses and get a massive damage boost.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.)

It would make the item bonuses from buildings in Kingmaker2e hilariously effective instead of just gone. So that's fun.

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.

ABP has the added buff to unarmoured characters (well, DEX characters in general) that DEX or 22 or 24 increases your AC, since they aren't limited by needing Explorer's Clothing or Bracers of Armour anymore.

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.

There's a lot that are light or heavy only yeah. Losing a couple energy resists is inconvenient, but having +2 AC more than makes up for that.

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.

Yeah! Take that, Simone!

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.

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.

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.

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.

In the episode, Spongebob and his friends become lost in the wilderness and seek answers from the conch shell, leading to comical and absurd results. Nonetheless, fans of the show seem to appreciate the humor and enjoy the toy as a lighthearted tribute to the episode. Overall, the Spongebob occult conch toy is a popular item among fans of Spongebob Squarepants, appealing to both children and adults. Its nostalgic value and connection to the beloved conch shell episode make it a sought-after collector's item for many fans of the show..

Reviews for "The Mysterious Disappearances Linked to the Spongebob Occult Conch Toy"

1. John Doe - 1 star - This Spongebob occult conch toy is absolutely ridiculous! I purchased it for my 6-year-old daughter thinking it would be a fun toy, but I was shocked to find out that it actually encourages occult practices. The toy itself is poorly made and does not function as it should. I am extremely disappointed and would not recommend this to anyone.

2. Jane Smith - 2 stars - I was excited to buy this Spongebob occult conch toy for my nephew as he is a big fan of the show. However, when I received it, I was taken aback by the strange symbols and references to the occult on the toy. It was not anything I expected from a Spongebob-themed toy. Additionally, the sound effects were garbled and barely audible. I was very disappointed with the purchase and ended up returning it.

3. Mike Johnson - 1 star - I cannot believe this Spongebob occult conch toy even exists. I bought it for my grandson, thinking it was an innocent toy based on his favorite cartoon. However, the toy's design is highly inappropriate with occult symbols and references. It is completely unsuitable for children. The poor quality and lack of functionality further add to the disappointment. I strongly advise against purchasing this toy.

4. Sarah Thompson - 2 stars - I am not a fan of the Spongebob occult conch toy at all. The concept is bizarre, and the toy itself is poorly made. The sound effects are hardly recognizable as anything related to the show, and the inclusion of occult symbols is concerning. It is definitely not worth the money and I regret buying it for my son. Seek out other Spongebob toys instead.

5. Rebecca Miller - 1 star - The Spongebob occult conch toy was a huge disappointment. As a parent, I was taken aback by the occult references and symbols on a toy marketed towards children. Additionally, the toy broke within a few days of use, making it a total waste of money. I would not recommend this toy to anyone due to its questionable content and lack of durability.

Inside the Cursed Spongebob Occult Conch Toy