I would say he could since formulaes are not arcane or divine. I would suggest pressing the FAQ button also.
|
Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods.
...Independent Research: A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.
I would say that the alchemist can do formulae research exactly as a wizard can do spell research, so they can add lesser restoration that way too.
I don' like it too much* but I think that RAW a alchemist can copy a clerical scroll as a formula if it is on the alchemist list.
*I don't like it too much simply because I don't like much the option to automatically get a whole spell description from a scroll.
I prefer the old 1st and 2nd edition mechanism where a scroll was a valid starting point to research the spell in it.
3.X edition mechanic mean that if I allow a wizard to get a scroll the spell will become part of that wizard spell book as soon as he can copy it. The treasure will not be the ability to use the spell once but the ability to add it to his spellbook.
Simply a matter of taste.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I know an alchemist can add formulae to his book as a wizard adds spells to his spellbook, but what about formulae that are essentially divine spells and would never be found in an arcane scroll or wizard's spellbook? Is the "one new formula per level" mechanic the only way for an alchemist to add, e.g., lesser restoration?
Unless I am overlooking something in the alchemist class description the answer would definitely be *no* by RAW. It explicitely states that an alchemist
1. cannot use spell completion items, i.e. scrolls2. "can study a wizard’s spellbook to learn any formula that is
3. "alchemist can also add formulae to his book just like a wizard adds spells to his spellbook, using the same costs and time requirements.
equivalent to a spell the spellbook contains.", i,e learn from another formulae book.
It states nowhere that an alchemist can learn from scrolls, be they divine or arcane, and #1 indicates that they should not be able to either.
3. "alchemist can also add formulae to his book just like a wizard adds spells to his spellbook, using the same costs and time requirements.
equivalent to a spell the spellbook contains.", i,e learn from another formulae book.
It states nowhere that an alchemist can learn from scrolls, be they divine or arcane, and #1 indicates that they should not be able to either.
Except that Wizards can learn spells and add them to their spellbook from scrolls. If that were the case, he's just looking for a ruling on whether it matters because it's a Divine spell, which Wizards normally can't copy.
Except that Wizards can learn spells and add them to their spellbook from scrolls. If that were the case, he's just looking for a ruling on whether it matters because it's a Divine spell, which Wizards normally can't copy.
3. "alchemist can also add formulae to his book just like a wizard adds spells to his spellbook, using the same costs and time requirements.
equivalent to a spell the spellbook contains.", i,e learn from another formulae book.
It states nowhere that an alchemist can learn from scrolls, be they divine or arcane, and #1 indicates that they should not be able to either.
I was aiming at wizard's not being able to copy from divine scrolls :-)
Wizards cannot copy from divine spells. I would want a ruling from the developers on alchemists converting divine scrolls into formulae. My immediate reaction is "no."
I'm excited if this exploit works. Oh wait nvm DM won't allow.
|
Just noticed that the Alchemist description doesn't actually mention copying from another alchemist's formula book, only from a wizard's spellbook - but I've always assumed another formula book was fair game for copying. Any other support one way or the other?
Ooh, did my alchemist cheat when he got all those shiny new extracts? That would be severely disappointing.
I don't see where it says they can learn them from scrolls at all- arcane, divine, or otherwise. Just spellbooks. Am I missing something?
If they can't do it from scrolls at all then.. it doesn't really matter if its arcane or divine.
-S
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It says they learn spells just like a wizard.
An alchemist can also add formulae to his book just like a wizard adds spells to his spellbook, using the same costs, pages, 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.
Wizards can learn spells from scrolls.
Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to his book whenever he encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
Now the twist, it looks like DB hit on somethign. It says Alchemists learn spells just like Wizards and wizards can not learn from Formula books. Therefore, Alchemists can not learn spells from formula books. I do not agree with that but, the logic seems to fit the wording and I can not find wording that says otherwise.
|
Has someone come up with an answer for this yet? I mean, I kind of understand what is going on: Here are the arguments I see for and against it.
(Here's this, just for reference:)
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 1st-level 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, pages, 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.
Arguments for learning from scrolls:
1)Alchemists only get 1 extract automatically per level. This limits alchemists to around 3 extracts per level aside from first (assuming they always learn an extract from their highest level slot). Now, wizards get four per level, AND can learn from a much easier resource: scrolls.
2) The book says an alchemist can put spells in his formula book exactly like a wizard can, and wizards can learn from scrolls.
3) It says that alchemists don't need to cast read magic before copying spells. So while they can't use spell-completion items, they can copy from them.
4)Without this ability, alchemists can only learn spells from one of three ways. Another alchemist (which may not work, see below, and even if it does, alchemists, according to flavor, are a lot more rare than wizards.) 2) A Formula Alembic. This is a magical wondrous item that might be difficult to find, and that alchemists can't even make them because they can't gain craft wondrous. Plus, learning from potions: it can only teach up to 3rd level spells (max spell for potions), and cannot teach ranged-personal spells (unless you get another alchemist to teach you, see above). 3)Blood transcription, but this requires you to fight enemies with spells on your extract list, DOESN'T work on other alchemists (because it says spells, not extracts), and is a decidedly evil spell, so, y'know, the party paladin is probably gonna have a problem with it. Seems pretty limited to me. The fourth way, learning from a wizard, doesn't work very well as there are a LOT of spells on the alchemist's formula list that are not on the wizard spell list.
Arguments against:
1) Nowhere does it say that Alchemists can use scrolls to copy spells into their formulae books. The bolded statement above (about copying spells like wizards) is intended to say that mundane transfer of knowledge can happen, and follows the rules of the wizard (i.e. when you run into a wizard, you CAN use their spellbook to augment your formula book, but you need to spend the money on special inks, etc.)
2)Alchemists are expressly forbidden from using spell completion items, such as scrolls, in the rules.
3)Alchemists CAN'T EVEN READ scrolls. Read magic isn't part of their spell list. Like, at all. They can ignore the use of read magic while copying a wizard's spell list, but no where else.
ODDITIES:
1) The RAW also doesn't expressly say that Alchemists can learn formulas from other alchemists' formula books. Like, it's not a thing . . . at all. Most would assume it's covered under the blanket term 'can copy formulas into their books like wizards' but it isn't clear. Sure they can transfer knowledge with a Formula Alembic, but that costs 200 gold (problematic for low lvl characters), requires the giver to have the infusion discovery, and may be hard to find (especially because an alchemist can't build one, unless he takes 5 ranks in craft-lab equipment, then master crafter, then craft wondrous device). Mentioned above, but it is problematic if true.
2) While it is true that alchemists can't use scrolls as a base class, they CAN use scrolls with Use Magic Device. If an alchemists makes a successful UMD check, can he then 'act' like the class he wants to be and read a scroll to put it in his formula book? It says he can make use of spell-completion items if he has UMD, so if he can read a magic scroll through UMD, does THAT give him the spell knowledge to copy it into his formula book?
Alchemists can't copy from scrolls. If they could, however, they ought to be able to copy from divine scrolls. Since alchemists are neither arcane nor divine (go ahead, check), there's no reason to prefer one over another.
Alchemists can copy from scrolls (of whatever kind), "just like a wizard" can, since that's entirely how it says they work.
Given the time period, the "Answered in FAQ" response often meant "the answer is clear in the text".
|
|
Your logic is faulty. Just because it says that Alchemists can learn formula on their list from wizard spell books does not imply that it's an exclusive method. Alchemists can most certainly learn from other alchemist formulae books as long as it's a formula that's not exclusive to an archetype the learning alchemist does not share.Now the twist, it looks like DB hit on somethign. It says Alchemists learn spells just like Wizards and wizards can not learn from Formula books. Therefore, Alchemists can not learn spells from formula books. I do not agree with that but, the logic seems to fit the wording and I can not find wording that says otherwise.
As much as I agree that an alchemist SHOULD be able to learn spells from another alchemist, I don't see your proof. I think this might be Rules as intended, but technically it isn't written down.
Also: RAW says that alchemists can't make Formula Alembrics (on the FAQ page of the SRD it says they aren't spellcasters, and thus can't learn item creation feats, with the exception of brew potion which they get as a class feature), but making an alembric REQUIRES the creator to be an alchemist, meaning that there are only a few ways to make one.
1)A crafter takes the +5 DC hit when making one
2)An alchemist nags a Magic Item crafter for a day on how to make an alambric that the alchemist itself can't make (no, it need's to have a magic funnel-thing. No, I don't know how, make it happen though!)
3)Best way: The alchemist takes 5 ranks in the appropriate craft skill (say, craft-equipment, so they can make a few other things), then master crafter, then craft wonderous item, requiring them to be at least lvl 7 (for the two feats) and have 5 ranks in a skill that is all but useless.
I whipped up THIS item for this very purpose...
3)Best way: The alchemist takes 5 ranks in the appropriate craft skill (say, craft-equipment, so they can make a few other things), then master crafter, then craft wonderous item, requiring them to be at least lvl 7 (for the two feats) and have 5 ranks in a skill that is all but useless.
I would say craft(alchemy) is a pretty valid skill on this case, you are crafting tools to handle the craft skill.
@Topic
So alchemists can use wands and staves, but not scrolls?
Seems pretty illogic to me.
|
|
Go to Ultimate Magic. Look at the chapter with the pre-made example spell books. You'll see that at least one of them is an alchemist formula book. If an alchemist can't make use of another formula book, why put it in the section? You folks really need to get out of this obsession with RAW.Your logic is faulty. Just because it says that Alchemists can learn formula on their list from wizard spell books does not imply that it's an exclusive method. Alchemists can most certainly learn from other alchemist formulae books as long as it's a formula that's not exclusive to an archetype the learning alchemist does not share.Now the twist, it looks like DB hit on somethign. It says Alchemists learn spells just like Wizards and wizards can not learn from Formula books. Therefore, Alchemists can not learn spells from formula books. I do not agree with that but, the logic seems to fit the wording and I can not find wording that says otherwise.
As much as I agree that an alchemist SHOULD be able to learn spells from another alchemist, I don't see your proof. I think this might be Rules as intended, but technically it isn't written down.
That's a pretty good sign that they can then. I wasn't trying to argue with you, just wanted to make sure I knew what the ruling was. Last time I didn't follow RAW, a Titan mauler I was GMing was running around with a giant's 2 handed sword. (That, btw, isn't allowed, check the srd.)
I whipped up THIS item for this very purpose...
Sorry for the necro. I just found it amusing that this item requires a multiclass character or a two characters with the cooperative crafting feat. RAW specifically states that alchemists cannot take Craft Wondrous Item.
As written, no, alchemists are not spellcasters, and therefore can't select feats such as Craft Wondrous Item. The design team is aware that this creates some thematic problems with the idea of an alchemist creating golems and so on, and plan to examine this in the future.
-
-
-
emphasis not mine
I love the item though and will be using it!!!