| 14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Alchemists are prepared "casters".
I assume the answer is no, but a debate never hurts.
I always thought that Alchemists aren't casters at all and extracts aren't spells. Considering it says as much in the APG.
However, I seem to recall a recent post stating that Alchemists are, in fact, casters, and extracts differ from spells in fluff only. Also, another post stating that, since Alchemists are casters, they can take Item Creation Feats.
Whether this means that Alchemists can use things like metamagic rods and pearls of power is unclear, since the apparent RAI clearly differ from the RAW.
I can't remember what threads I read these posts in, (I think one may have had something to do with Alcheist Liches).
Those were threads I started actually. And those are why I'm asking this one :)
The Pearls of Power restore spells to your head.
Extracts are not spells from your head.
So... no.
My alchemists from now on store all of their extracts in a headband.
You should watch out for his headbutt.
Alchemists are prepared "casters".
I assume the answer is no, but a debate never hurts.
Although the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells, he does have a formulae list that determines what extracts he can create
7th paragraph of the Alchemy entry, first line.
As the Alchemist doesn't cast spells, that would lead me to believe that they are not spellcasters and, therefore, not prepared spellcasters. Thus, they would not qualify as such for a Pearl of Power.
Serisan, between the interpretation of that fragment to mean he doesn't spells (emphasis on cast, which has been clarified above hand in the first paragraph that says "In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract. ") and James Jacob's post about the INTENT of the alchemist, I feel there is enough wiggle room for an argument that PoP could work with extracts.
Not a very good argument, but one that is not insubstantial. JJ's interpretations are his alone, but when he's talking about the intent, I feel there's a little more weight behind the statement.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm necroing this because I'd like to reopen a debate or at least get a few more people clicking FAQ. Cheapy's link about the intent of the alchemist seems like pretty good evidence that alchemists prepare and cast spells in their own way; the other side of the argument says that extracts are not spells and never the twain shall meet.
I would like to know an official ruling or see if FAQ'd so I can get some pearls for PFS. :)
Also, since I made that post, I learned that JJ is the original designer of the alchemist. I also learned that it went through quite a bit of revision. Take that as you will.
My alchemists from now on store all of their extracts in a headband.
Bombs too?
You should watch out for his headbutt.
Think of glass you will have to remove from your forehead... Unless your answer to the previous question is positive, then glass shards in forehead are the least of your problems.
My alchemists from now on store all of their extracts in a headband.Bombs too?
You should watch out for his headbutt.Think of glass you will have to remove from your forehead... Unless your answer to the previous question is positive, then glass shards in forehead are the least of your problems.
The bits of glass add extra damage when I headbutt.
Just throwing my .02$ into "Can we please get an anwser here?
I would LOVE to craft extra 2nd level slots for 2k a piece.
|
My opinions:
- Alchemist are spellcasters, even if the don't have spells
- a pear of power will not work, but as a GM I would allow you to craft or commission a magic item doing exactly the same thing with extracts (not with bombs). Note that spellcaster that memorize spells get the Pearl of power, spontaneous spellcasters get Runestone of power, so there is a precedent for a specific item.
I would price the "Philosophical stone of power" (patent and trademark pending) a a Runestoen of power (i.e. twice the price of a pearl) as it would restore a slot, not a specific extract.
As an alternative option you could craft a Philosophical phial that reproduce the extract that was in it when it is used. That would cost like a Pearl of power.
- Last thing, no offence meant: I clicked FAQ, but your OP is a bit bare, as the question is in the thread title.
Making an extract uses a little bit of the alchemists daily magic. A pearl of power makes a bit of daily magic of a particular spell for a prepared caster.
I'm not really sure where the magic that the alchemist puts into his extracts comes from, but I think its fair to say it probably comes from his head although the pearl of power doesn't mention heads just the ability to recall and have it prepared. I guess make the alchemist sit down for a minute and make another extract of the chosen type to make it fair.
Logically I cannot see a reason why it wouldn't work. If you really were hardcore against this you could make an item of identical function just for alchemists so that the alchemist can feel special, but it doesn't look necessary or even intended.
I'd either allow pearls to work, or allow something like Diego mentioned except it would have the exact same price and function as pearl of power, it'd just have a different name and couldn't be shared with the spellcasters in the party. Alchmeists prepare certain extracts, they're not spontaneous...extracters. No reason to use the spontaneous caster item for how theirs would work.
|
|
If they're spellcasters who prepare their spells, why would a pearl not work? Is it because the pearl calls out specifically which classes are allowed to use it? I was under the impression that those were just given as an example; otherwise, a magus is also not allowed to use a pearl of power.
The pearl allow you to recall a spell you have memorized.
A alchemist don't memorize his recipes. He recover his capacity to craft extracts when he meditate and then he can he can spend 1 minute for each extract to prepare it in advance, or he can leave them free and prepare them as needed (see the quote at the end of the post for references).So a "pearl of power" like object would be more powerful in the hands of a alchemist than in the hands of a cleric or wizard, as the alchemist could use it to produce any other extract of the level affected by the "pearl".
Actually it would be more powerful than of what the runestones of power are be for a spontaneous spellcaster as:
a) the alchemist will generally know more extracts than a equivalent level spontaneous spellcaster, especially of his highest level;
b) the alchemist could use the "Philosophical stone of power" immediately after he has prepared his extracts for the day, preparing another extract, instead of having to spend a spell slot and then recovering it, as a spontaneous spellcaster will do.
Essentially the effect would be more akin to that of a low power ring of wizardry (allowing a larger selection of prepared spells) than that of a pearl of power.
So I think the right price for a item that will allow the alchemist to recover a slot would be that of the runestone of power, i.e. x2 that of a pearl of power.
If, instead, the item was a "Phial of duplication" that will recreate the specific extract that was put in it after it has been used it would be slightly less powerful than a Pearl of power, as it would allow the recovery of a specific extract, not of any extract of that level prepared that day.
So a item of that kind could be priced even a bit less than a pearl of power.
When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and reagents in the extract with magic siphoned from his own magical aura. An extract immediately becomes inert if it leaves the alchemist's possession, reactivating as soon as it returns to his keeping—an alchemist cannot normally pass out his extracts for allies to use (but see the “infusion” discovery below). An extract, once created, remains potent for 1 day before losing its magic, so an alchemist must re-prepare his extracts every day. Mixing an extract takes 1 minute of work—most alchemists prepare many extracts at the start of the day or just before going on an adventure, but it's not uncommon for an alchemist to keep some (or even all) of his daily extract slots open so that he can prepare extracts in the field as needed.
"This seemingly normal pearl of average size and luster is a potent aid to all spellcasters who prepare spells (clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, and wizards). Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast that day. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast. The spell must be of a particular level, depending on the pearl. Different pearls exist for recalling one spell per day of each level from 1st through 9th and for the recall of two spells per day (each of a different level, 6th or lower)."
Yet again pearl of power mentions absolutely nothing about a spell being memorized. It mentions being prepared as such an alchemist that uses one, since he does prepare his spells, could only use a pearl of power on an extract that he had prepared and cast that day.
Jak has a very good point.
On the other hand, preparing an extract functions effectively the same as a wizard memorizing a spell. You spend time to prepare it, then cast it when you feel like it. If it's in your head, flask, or witches pet is just flavour, the effect is the same.
It states explicitly alchemists do not cast spells (though they in some cases are treated like spellcasters; apparently, spellcaster =/= someone who casts spells). pearls of power only work on spells youve just cast. Pop dont work on alchemists.
Please read the rest of the thread as well as Cheapy's link. As far as whether or not it works with them it is a RAI call.
|
|
Yes, Jack, you need to read all the post that Cheapy linked:
I don't mind you asking James Jacobs at all!The alchemist's extracts are not called spells because they are cast differently enough from spells to justify not calling them spells. In fact, a very early build had them labeled exactly that—as spells—but calling them spells kept messing with the flavor of the class and kept forcing us to put extra wordage in there... stuff like, "Even though the alchemist casts spells, he doesn't say magic words" and so on.
To a certain extent... using the word "extract" instead of "spell" is purely flavorful. And it's IMPORTANT flavor.
As you cited: "This seemingly normal pearl of average size and luster is a potent aid to all spellcasters who prepare spells".
To me it is pretty clear:
starting points
a)alchemists are spellcastrs
b) alchemist don't prepare spells
consequence:
c) they can't use a pearl of power.
RAI you can make a specific item for them and it will work without a hitch and be balanced with other stuff in game, but RAW and RAI they can't use a pearl of power.
I did read all of it.
"An alchemist can create only a certain number of extracts of each level per day. His base daily allotment of extracts is given on Table: Alchemist. In addition, he receives bonus extracts per day if he has a high Intelligence score, in the same way a wizard receives bonus spells per day. When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and reagents in the extract with magic siphoned from his own magical aura. An extract immediately becomes inert if it leaves the alchemist’s possession, reactivating as soon as it returns to his keeping—an alchemist cannot normally pass out his extracts for allies to use (but see the “infusion” discovery below). An extract, once created, remains potent for 1 day before becoming inert, so an alchemist must re-prepare his extracts every day. Mixing an extract takes 1 minute of work—most alchemists prepare many extracts at the start of the day or just before going on an adventure, but it’s not uncommon for an alchemist to keep some (or even all) of his daily extract slots open so that he can prepare extracts in the field as needed.
Although the alchemist doesn’t actually cast spells, he does have a formulae list that determines what extracts he can create. An alchemist can utilize spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formulae list, but not spell-completion items (unless he uses Use Magic Device to do so). 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. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level. Creating extracts consumes raw materials, but the cost of these materials is insignificant—comparable to the valueless material components of most spells. If a spell normally has a costly material component, that component is expended during the consumption of that particular extract. Extracts cannot be made from spells that have focus requirements (alchemist extracts that duplicate divine spells never have a divine focus requirement). An alchemist can prepare an extract of any formula he knows. To learn or use an extract, an alchemist must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the extract’s level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against an alchemist’s extract is 10 + the extract level + the alchemist’s Intelligence modifier. An alchemist may know any number of formulae. He stores his formulae in a special tome called a formula book. He must refer to this book whenever he prepares an extract but not when he consumes it. An alchemist begins play with two 1stlevel formulae of his choice, plus a number of additional forumlae equal to his Intelligence modifier. At each new alchemist level, he gains one new formula of any level that he can create. An alchemist can also add formulae to his book just like a wizard adds spells to his spellbook, using the same costs and time requirements. An alchemist can study a wizard’s spellbook to learn any formula that is equivalent to a spell the spellbook contains. A wizard, however, cannot learn spells from a formula book. An alchemist does not need to decipher arcane writings before copying them."
It refers to him as preparing his extracts, substitute spells as per JJ's comment, multiple times throughout the description of how his extracts work. Hence as I said it is a RAI intent question. If you think that they were intended to work as spells then he can use a pop because he prepares his extracts.
Edit for clarification: I don't know what else you'd need to think that they prepare spells. It states it several times throughout. They are not spontaneous casters despite the fact that they can sit down to prepare throughout the day.
@LazarX
Lets try this a different way. Pearls of power have nothing to do with peoples heads. They mimic a spell matrixes that has been cast by a prepared caster. When the spell in question is complete the spell matrix is restored to said prepared caster.
Alchemists have spell matrixs in their minds according JJ, but in order to cast these matrixs they have to put them in little bottles.
A pearl of power restores the spell matrix.
The alchemist has to finish prepping his spell in question.
As I said. It is a RAI question. If you believe according to JJ that extracts are spells then there is no contradiction. If you believe otherwise then the argument is irrelevant.
A pearl of power conjurers energy from nothing. A wizard casts said energy with somatic, verbal, and material components. An Alchemist puts it into a bottle using material components creating by function a delayed spell that without discovery only he can activate.
Edit: I can keep breaking it down if you don't understand, but I think you just disagree with the RAI.
Great thing though, I've yet to see an Alchemist in PFS with one of these pearls. And in my home campaigns as DM, I get to overrule RAI if I feel it does not jibe with my aesthetics.
That is true. JJ says its RAI cool. Would I be sure of being able to drag it into a PFS game? Absolutely not. I'd ask for a ruling first. If they said no I'd deal. However, it is perfectly legit otherwise unless a dm decides that he doesn't agree. Its RAI not pseudo-mandatory errata here.
I can see why you don't like the idea of homogenizing the two classes. When I read them, I see the Alchemist as an extension of the Wizard class. They are essentially combat buff wizards as bards are a combat buff extension of Sorcerers at least in my eyes. I can understand though the desire to separate the two more distinctively.
The plural of matrix is matrices.
Also, I fall on the Pearl of Power works fine for Alchemists side of the equation.
And if I had slept in the past thirty six hours I would know that. But I thank you for the clarification. I knew it looked painfully off even with that glowing red line I didn't care to right click despite my intense need for perfect spelling.
No.
But they could easily make a pearl of power/runestone equivalent. Perhaps a straw, stirring stick, or drinking vessel.
|
|
RAW extracts =/= from spell, you only need to read the text of the alchemist abilities.
I am amazed how we read 2 totally different things in JJ post.
To me these two phrases confirm that even JJ feel that Extracts are different from spells:
"The alchemist's extracts are not called spells because they are cast differently enough from spells to justify not calling them spells."
"To a certain extent... using the word "extract" instead of "spell" is purely flavorful. And it's IMPORTANT flavor."
Note how JJ capitalized important?
And jet you read it as non-important.
No I read the word IMPORTANT as being important to the flavor and idea of the class as the statement says. I do not derive extra meaning from it and believe that alchemists do not cast spells because of that sentence. If you'd like we'll set up a little faq and call him back and ask him if an extract should be treated as a spell for spell related functions despite the fact that imo he clearly outlined that earlier in the thread that you are referencing.
I don't know where the catch here is. The alchemist is a spellcaster. He has a caster level. A spell caster does what?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck it could be a mallard, but then a mallard is a type of duck.
BigNorseWolf: Why? Give me a rules-as-written reason why the alchemist, who is a prepared spells spellcaster, cannot use a pearl of power which is for prepared casters?
From the alchemist
Rather than cast magic like a spellcaster, the alchemist captures his own magic potential within liquids and extracts he creates (ie, he isn't casting anything)
Although the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells
Its definitely prepared, its just not a spell.
And if I had slept in the past thirty six hours I would know that. But I thank you for the clarification. I knew it looked painfully off even with that glowing red line I didn't care to right click despite my intense need for perfect spelling.
I can dig it. Sleep, man.
BigNorseWolf: So when he treats his extracts as spells when he is making items that doesn't at the very slightest heavily imply the ideology behind its function particularly when coupled with the statement that the name difference is a very Important flavor choice?
@ElCrabofAnger: Crazy bad insomnia.
BigNorseWolf: I misspoke. Given clarification from James Jacobs (the designer of the alchemist) who says that alchemists cast spells and they called them extracts purely for flavour reasons, why can alchemists not use pearls of power?
Well, thats a little different. I mean, its important flavor, so when it does or doesn't follow the rules of spellcasting is a little inconsistent. I think a lot of the intent got lost somewhere along the line.
I am not sure about whether a Pearl of Power should work for an Alchemist or not by the rules.
It seems by RAW it should not but maybe by the designers RAI it might.
But if a Pearl of Power did work for an Alchemist the mechanics I would use would be that the Alchemist took one of his vials that he had used an extract out of since his last rest period. He would drop the Pearl into the vial. Swirl it around, and it would recreate the same extract that was used out of the vial.
That would replicate the Pearl of Power’s effect for an Alchemist that it has for a Wizard. The logic being that a Wizard can concentrate on the Pearl and restore the magic matrix of a spell in his mind and an Alchemist can use the same power of the Pearl to restore the magic matrix of an extract in his vial.
I would probably prefer the Alchemist to have his own Rod of Reaction that he whirls around in an empty extract vial to restore a previously used extract but I could live with an Alchemist using a Pearl of Power.
|
|
I would probably prefer the Alchemist to have his own Rod of Reaction that he whirls around in an empty extract vial to restore a previously used extract but I could live with an Alchemist using a Pearl of Power.
Nice, it bypass the difference in power of the different solutions I proposed above, so this item is exactly as powerful as a Pearl of power.
bump.
There is an item in UE that makes this question useless. In addition, there's dev clarification that extracts are not spells.