Just wanted to clear up since it seemed a little odd.
Alchemist can only use spells on himself (or another via discovery).
But the Anthology comes with item based spells such as Full Pouch or From Rags to Riches:
Target 1 weapon, suit or armor, shield, tool, or skill kit
touched/5 levels
Duration 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw Fortitude negates (object); Spell Resistance no
The target object is enhanced to function as a masterwork item.
Is the extract essentially functioning as an oil used on the item?
How odes an alchemist pull out extra items with Full Pouch if his 'spells' can only be triggered by drinking them?
There's been a few threads on this in the past. As before, these sorts of spells being on the list are in error, as the alchemist can't actually make one into an extract (although I suppose since they can use wands, being on the list does allow for wand use for spells of level 4 or lower).
What's wrong with this book?
It seems like the authors of Arcane Anthology either never read the alchemist class or just changed the rules fr extracts without telling anyone. Or am I missing an extract update.
There's easily ten spells that while perfectly fit the alchemist theme, such as transmuting items or golems and manipulating alchemical items, they still ignore the fact that the extract has to be consumed by the alchemist, and doesn't trigger with "object/creature touched".
I agree. There are AT LEAST a dozen formulae that have this same error. In fact, every time a new release comes out, there are more. I've even read comments to the effect of "we got 'em all this time" yet lo and behold, the first one on the list in the new publication violates the rule. This needs a FAQ update to clarify how it actually works, since it seems every developer has a different idea in that regard.
I agree. There are AT LEAST a dozen formulae that have this same error. In fact, every time a new release comes out, there are more. I've even read comments to the effect of "we got 'em all this time" yet lo and behold, the first one on the list in the new publication violates the rule. This needs a FAQ update to clarify how it actually works, since it seems every developer has a different idea in that regard.
To be frank, I'd be hella okay with extracts functioning as oils/blaches when used on items/constructs like most of these Arcane Anthology spells seem to want fluffwise.
I agree. There are AT LEAST a dozen formulae that have this same error. In fact, every time a new release comes out, there are more. I've even read comments to the effect of "we got 'em all this time" yet lo and behold, the first one on the list in the new publication violates the rule. This needs a FAQ update to clarify how it actually works, since it seems every developer has a different idea in that regard.To be frank, I'd be hella okay with extracts functioning as oils/blaches when used on items/constructs like most of these Arcane Anthology spells seem to want fluffwise.
Allow thematically appropriate 'spells' to be usable? Heresy! Burn him at the stake! You KNOW the universe will spin out of control is they get a few 'spells' that don't target themselves... :P
I'll fite you all, come at me and my lubed up magical sword!
Alchemist don't cast spells.
Spell Knowledge - Discovery
We can actually cast spells, but whether or not we can cast spells wasn't the point of this thread. The point is why do they keep adding spells to alchemist list that we can't cast because of how extracts work.
*submits self for stake burning*
The wand argument falls on its face for investigators, too, since they have to UMD everything, even if it's on the list (the FAQ says it's intentional). Obviously you can rule 0 everything in your home game, which I do, but this is the rules forum...
The wand argument falls on its face for investigators, too, since they have to UMD everything, even if it's on the list (the FAQ says it's intentional). Obviously you can rule 0 everything in your home game, which I do, but this is the rules forum...
Not familiar with this, haven't had a chance to look at investigator yet, been gone a while from the game :(
Yeah, investigators do not get spell trigger items, even for spells on their formula list. It does not matter, however, since they get an insane UMD in general. My 12th level empiricist has never failed a check.
I've posted fairly regularly about the investigator, btw. It is, IMO, the best class out there.
I glanced at the class, was tempting but it doesn't have access to Alchemical Simulacrum and Dopperganger which I love too much.
Vivisectionist Alchemist tho, trades bombs for sneak attack and some other goodies, rather tempting to try.
Yeah, investigators do not get spell trigger items,
I don't see any language in the APG that supports this statement. Where are you getting this from?
(Edited to strike out misunderstanding.)
Contributor
|
Yeah, investigators do not get spell trigger items,I don't see any language in the APG that supports this statement. Where are you getting this from?
I suspect that this FAQ may be involved.
I suspect that this FAQ may be involved.
Never mind. I was looking at Inquisitor instead of Investigator. Because I am an idiot.
Yeah, the investigator doesn't have the same line as the alchemist regarding spell trigger items. They clarified that this in the FAQ that Kalindlara linked as an intentional omission, i.e., investigators don't get it. For my campaign, I'm running a 12th level empiricist with a +23 (er, I don't recall atm) UMD, so wands aren't an issue. As we begin to get higher level scrolls, however...
I glanced at the class, was tempting but it doesn't have access to Alchemical Simulacrum and Dopperganger which I love too much.
Vivisectionist Alchemist tho, trades bombs for sneak attack and some other goodies, rather tempting to try.
Yeah, the list they have access to is rather limited. The same for rogue talents, but there's only one of those that I really care about: trap spotter. I play investigator to fill that role. I'll have to look at the vivisectionist (I don't like the bombs feature).