No, Eschew Materials affects spells, and extracts are not spells.
Full Pouch is from an era of player companions that erroneously gave the Alchemist spells that it can't actually use. Alchemist's can only make extracts that target themselves, Full Pouch targets an item, so it can't actually work even though a freelancer mistakenly put Alchemist on the class list that can use it and a developer let it through.
No, Eschew Materials affects spells, and extracts are not spells.
Alchemists CAN cast spells. The Spell Knowledge discovery turns the alchemist into a very limited arcane caster and the spell picked could be affected by Eschew Materials.
IMO taking a discovery, a feat and having the spell take 1 level higher slot just to save a single gp isn't really a good use of resources but it can be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Full Pouch is from an era of player companions that erroneously gave the Alchemist spells that it can't actually use. Alchemist's can only make extracts that target themselves, Full Pouch targets an item, so it can't actually work even though a freelancer mistakenly put Alchemist on the class list that can use it and a developer let it through.
That doesn't follow really. Eyebite is on the base list: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Sending is on the base list: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Dream is on the base list: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Mutagenic Touch in UC: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Arcane Eye on base list: Creates external sensor.
There are PLENTY of hardback examples of spells that fail the "Alchemist's can only make extracts that target themselves", so I don't give that theory much credence. That might have been the original intent but that intent didn't even survive the initial spell list, let alone subsequent hardbacks. It's NOT a result of an errant freelancer in a softcover but because some "developer let it through" at creation.
Alchemist would lose a bunch of spells of they actually removed ann the ones that don't target the caster.
Why the heck would anyone spend a feat just to save some handfuls of gold? that would be a huge waste of a feat regardless of whether it was allowed.
I hope no one WOULD, just pointing out that an alchemist could take the feat and have it work.
A better option would be Shrouded Casting[transmutation] magic trait. Does the same thing but just for that school of spells.
Full Pouch is from an era of player companions that erroneously gave the Alchemist spells that it can't actually use. Alchemist's can only make extracts that target themselves, Full Pouch targets an item, so it can't actually work even though a freelancer mistakenly put Alchemist on the class list that can use it and a developer let it through.That doesn't follow really. Eyebite is on the base list: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Sending is on the base list: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Dream is on the base list: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Mutagenic Touch in UC: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Arcane Eye on base list: Creates external sensor.
There are PLENTY of hardback examples of spells that fail the "Alchemist's can only make extracts that target themselves", so I don't give that theory much credence. That might have been the original intent but that intent didn't even survive the initial spell list, let alone subsequent hardbacks. It's NOT a result of an errant freelancer in a softcover because some "developer let it through" at creation.
Alchemist would lose a bunch of spells of they actually removed ann the ones that don't target the caster.
Thank you for bringing to our attention these additional spells that the Alchemist loses due to development error.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for bringing to our attention these additional spells that the Alchemist loses due to development error.Full Pouch is from an era of player companions that erroneously gave the Alchemist spells that it can't actually use. Alchemist's can only make extracts that target themselves, Full Pouch targets an item, so it can't actually work even though a freelancer mistakenly put Alchemist on the class list that can use it and a developer let it through.That doesn't follow really. Eyebite is on the base list: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Sending is on the base list: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Dream is on the base list: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Mutagenic Touch in UC: not personal, targets/affects other creatures. Arcane Eye on base list: Creates external sensor.
There are PLENTY of hardback examples of spells that fail the "Alchemist's can only make extracts that target themselves", so I don't give that theory much credence. That might have been the original intent but that intent didn't even survive the initial spell list, let alone subsequent hardbacks. It's NOT a result of an errant freelancer in a softcover because some "developer let it through" at creation.
Alchemist would lose a bunch of spells of they actually removed ann the ones that don't target the caster.
IMO the 'development error' was 'only gets spells that target self'. It was clearly abandoned before the class got it's spell list. And not instituted in new spells in another hardback. Or a third hard back. Or half a dozen soft backs... You see where this is going right? it's never been a 'rule/intent' that was actually ever followed.
There are three options:
1. Paizo is so incompetent they haven’t noticed this screw up yet, all is chaos, the Alchemist is a fundamentally busted class.
2. The spell list is wrong, but it’s so screwed up and would cause so much disruption to fix (either removing a lot of text or having to come up with a lot of replacement spells) that they’ve left it alone and trusted intelligent people to realize what’s going on.
3. The “only on self is wrong,” but they’re too lazy to eliminate a single line.
That last one, your position, seems the least likely.
The big reason a lot of spells are on the alchemist list that they can't actually make extracts of, is that it enables them to use wands and scrolls of that item without having to make UMD checks.
I believe that a developer confirmed this is their reason for leaving those spells on the spell list despite not being usable as extracts, but I can't remember in which thread the individual made the statement.
The big reason a lot of spells are on the alchemist list that they can't actually make extracts of, is that it enables them to use wands and scrolls of that item without having to make UMD checks.
I believe that a developer confirmed this is their reason for leaving those spells on the spell list despite not being usable as extracts, but I can't remember in which thread the individual made the statement.
You beat me to it. This is it exactly.
The big reason a lot of spells are on the alchemist list that they can't actually make extracts of, is that it enables them to use wands and scrolls of that item without having to make UMD checks.
I believe that a developer confirmed this is their reason for leaving those spells on the spell list despite not being usable as extracts, but I can't remember in which thread the individual made the statement.
I recall Mark Seifter saying something like that, but I don’t remember if he was saying that’s why they did it (before his time), or proposing a post hoc justification for it so that their inclusion on the list isn’t entirely useless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recall Mark Seifter saying something like that, but I don’t remember if he was saying that’s why they did it (before his time), or proposing a post hoc justification for it so that their inclusion on the list isn’t entirely useless.The big reason a lot of spells are on the alchemist list that they can't actually make extracts of, is that it enables them to use wands and scrolls of that item without having to make UMD checks.
I believe that a developer confirmed this is their reason for leaving those spells on the spell list despite not being usable as extracts, but I can't remember in which thread the individual made the statement.
Doesn't eyebite put the lie to that justification? Alchemists can't use scrolls without UMD, and it's too high level to put on a wand.
Eyebite’s target line is wrong, or leaf incomplete. It clearly effects the caster as well for rd/lvl, granting the ability to make subsequent attacks on different targets. So it, at least, seems like a legitimate subject for the Alchemist list, as would any of the spells that grant ongoing touch attacks, even if the simplified target line isn’t capturing all of that nuance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eyebite’s target line is wrong, or leaf incomplete. It clearly effects the caster as well for rd/lvl, granting the ability to make subsequent attacks on different targets. So it, at least, seems like a legitimate subject for the Alchemist list, as would any of the spells that grant ongoing touch attacks, even if the simplified target line isn’t capturing all of that nuance.
If we can make that justification, that why can't we use that exact same justification for full pouch? If I can grant a touch attack to myself to damage a target that why can't I grant myself a touch attack that transforms/alters a target? If we make the leap to affecting others it seems super arbitrary to draw a line in the sand to exclude some and not others. Why it is bad to affect an object but ok for a creature?
It's the class that is a mess, and continues to be a mess.
There's even a FAQ that states True Strike Infusions are legal, even though the spell has a Focus and thus can't be made into an Extract or Infusion.