Thoughts? Would you allow an alchemist to qualify for prestige classes that require arcane spell casting ability?
I'm looking at a few of the PrC and an alchemist would be a fun fit for a few. Obviously the bombs and mutagens would not increase with the PrC levels, but could they possibly gain the +1 level to existing arcane spellcasting class for the purpose of determining formulae?
looking for feedback
No, he has no spell casting ability at all. He has no caster level and is not in fact a caster.
Thoughts? Would you allow an alchemist to qualify for prestige classes that require arcane spell casting ability?
I'm looking at a few of the PrC and an alchemist would be a fun fit for a few. Obviously the bombs and mutagens would not increase with the PrC levels, but could they possibly gain the +1 level to existing arcane spellcasting class for the purpose of determining formulae?
looking for feedback
Any other thoughts? We have one comment from the extreme side against it, any others who view it less black and white.
I personally think the alchemist is more magical that just a chemist with glass vials. The book does state "the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells, but they are almost identical to the spell in everyway. I'm looking for more feedback, I'm not convinced either way, I just know I don't share the black and white view froma previous post.
the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells, but they are almost identical to the spell in everyway.´
Well, even I have to say no. Alchemist uses inqredients like spell-casters do, the potions acts in same way as spells do but they don´t share the same qualities in this case thus they used the wording here 'they are almost identical to teh spell in everyway"
About the formula: they do indeed write them up and study like spellbooks... but if now just we say to something like fantasy / real-life situation based-> recognize spell-> you need spellcraft=trained only skill and chemistry = high level mathic (well depends) and not everyone can do it, write formulas done etc without training and understanding
I see your point here but I will have to say also no. It just wont add up´to magic or spells
|
You can't view it "less black and white", because the rules are pretty much clear on the issue. The Alchemist is not a spellcaster and does not cast arcane spells. "Casting" means all the associated stuff form general magic rules (components, concentration, counterspelling etc.) The Alchemist emulates some aspects of arcane casting but is not a caster per se.
No, he has no spell casting ability at all. hmmm, it's funny how he has a list of spells aka formulaes that are almost identical to othe spells in every aspect.
He has no caster level and is not in fact a caster.
I think their is enough refferences to alchemists possesing magical powers to make this statement a little naive, or at least anything but clear cut facts. RAW- The Alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on a caster level"
|
Let me first say, it's your game run it how ever you like.
Now on to my thoughts. Plan and simple the alchemist does not cast spells. His abilities (alchemy, mutagen, bomb) are all supernatural abilites, again not spells. So he doen't qualify for things like eldritch knight, arcane trickster and so forth.
But again it's your game if you feel that allowing the alchemist to qualify for classes and feats that would normally required a character to cast, knock your socks off.
the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells, but they are almost identical to the spell in everyway.´
Well, even I have to say no. Alchemist uses inqredients like spell-casters do, the potions acts in same way as spells do but they don´t share the same qualities in this case thus they used the wording here 'they are almost identical to teh spell in everyway"
About the formula: they do indeed write them up and study like spellbooks... but if now just we say to something like fantasy / real-life situation based-> recognize spell-> you need spellcraft=trained only skill and chemistry = high level mathic (well depends) and not everyone can do it, write formulas done etc without training and understanding
I see your point here but I will have to say also no. It just wont add up´to magic or spells
some interesting points; I'm not decided either way, but I could still see myself accepting a good story on why an alchemist/ fighter could make an eldritch knight or something....
|
some interesting points; I'm not decided either way, but I could still see myself accepting a good story on why an alchemist/ fighter could make an eldritch knight or something....
If evryone says they don't cast spells, don't have caster levels, etc. (which they don't), and then you just keep saying that you don't want to hear that, why would you post the question in the first place. It seems to me that you just want someone to come along and tell you that your right in spite of ALL the rules saying otherwise. But having said that its your game if you want Alchemists to qualify for spellcasting prestige classes (and it seems like you do) the go with it.
|
|
some interesting points; I'm not decided either way, but I could still see myself accepting a good story on why an alchemist/ fighter could make an eldritch knight or something....
As we've said, alchemists are not spell-casters or any sort ESPECIALLY arcane ones. They emulate spell-casting ability through their ingenuity and alchemy. It is also worth noting that the class is specifically balanced around the fact that they are NOT true spellcasters, eg, have no arcane spell failure and cannot craft magical items beyond potions.
here's the key problems
Alchemist + Heavy Armor = 0% arcane spell failure
Alchemist already has a specific PrC if you want to do something more Fighterish with it.
lets go alphabetically
Arcane Archer , as Alchemist you can qualify at 8th level , have a mutgaen to beef whatever stat you want by 4. wear whatever armor you want no arcane spell failure, and be full alchemist casting minus 3 over 10 levels of AA, plus as a alchemist bomber you already want the prereq feats for your bombs.
...no, just .... no
consider they specifically didn't make the alchemist a caster for the very reason your asking for arcane PrC's with it.
so no
some interesting points; I'm not decided either way, but I could still see myself accepting a good story on why an alchemist/ fighter could make an eldritch knight or something....the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells, but they are almost identical to the spell in everyway.´
Well, even I have to say no. Alchemist uses inqredients like spell-casters do, the potions acts in same way as spells do but they don´t share the same qualities in this case thus they used the wording here 'they are almost identical to teh spell in everyway"
About the formula: they do indeed write them up and study like spellbooks... but if now just we say to something like fantasy / real-life situation based-> recognize spell-> you need spellcraft=trained only skill and chemistry = high level mathic (well depends) and not everyone can do it, write formulas done etc without training and understanding
I see your point here but I will have to say also no. It just wont add up´to magic or spells
If your GM then you know your players will abuse this to the extreme
If your a player looking for arguments to take to your GM don't bother odds are your GM won't go for it.
Here's a thought
why not post the exact characters class levels you think should be allowed although with the key abilites you'll be taking and then we can discuss the specific case and if it is or isn't broken.
the flat rule alchemist can qualify for arcane PrC = broken , I like everyone here could come up with several borken combos pretty quick
an individual ruling for one character that we can see all 20 levels , maybe but we'd have to see it.
and again I stress Master Chymist gets you the BAB and d10 your probably looking for legally.
personally alchemists = random unpredictable stuff that goes stink/purple/boom which is nothing remotely like an eldrich knight
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your GM then you know your players will abuse this to the extreme
This is the problem I have with people on these forums. Too many of you assume too much. You don't know his players, so don't you dare assume they're like yours.
RAW be damned. As is you have to remake a bunch of prestige classes in order to have them be alchemist friendly. To heck with that. Just allow the ones you want to work the way you want them too.
Enjoy.
|
|
If your GM then you know your players will abuse this to the extreme
This is the problem I have with people on these forums. Too many of you assume too much. You don't know his players, so don't you dare assume they're like yours.
RAW be damned. As is you have to remake a bunch of prestige classes in order to have them be alchemist friendly. To heck with that. Just allow the ones you want to work the way you want them too.
Enjoy.
Sure. And then have suddenly an overpowered character who overshadows the other players leading to bad taste at the table. The game has rules for some reason, and balance is one of them.
Guys this came up in the playtest{a few times]. They have no caster level and do not qualify for any PRC that needs you to be a caster.
They are not spellasters at all.
As for alchemists... they use arcane magic, but they don't actually cast spells. They're sort of experimental in that regard, and we're still finessing out what all of that means in the final incarnation of the class... but for now, an alchemist probably shouldn't be able to use things like Arcane Strike or qualify for spellcasting classes.
prob a more solid answer out there, but that is what a fast search turned up.
So no man they are not casters and do not gain caster levels at all.
No dude, it is not opinion it is the rules. They do not cast spells, they are not spellcaster of any type.
Now if you would like to House rule them as spellcaster, do so. But you asked if they counted as a spellcaster for feats and PRC requirements and they do not.
You have your answer, you just did not like it.
If your GM then you know your players will abuse this to the extreme
This is the problem I have with people on these forums. Too many of you assume too much. You don't know his players, so don't you dare assume they're like yours.
RAW be damned. As is you have to remake a bunch of prestige classes in order to have them be alchemist friendly. To heck with that. Just allow the ones you want to work the way you want them too.
Enjoy.
Minus 10 point for you for only reading the first line of a post
care to read just a wee bit further down i reasonably offer that we could advise if a specific build was presented just for his game.
but since the OP seems to have well ....
not much point in going any further is there
No, he has no spell casting ability at all. He has no caster level and is not in fact a caster.
I'm not sure how that comment is "extreme" when it is actually the truth
I removed a couple posts (and replies to them.) Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements.
|
|
Arcane Archer , as Alchemist you can qualify at 8th level , have a mutgaen to beef whatever stat you want by 4. wear whatever armor you want no arcane spell failure, and be full alchemist casting minus 3 over 10 levels of AA, plus as a alchemist bomber you already want the prereq feats for your bombs.
Keep in mind here the extract list the alchemist has is very limited in scope. Arcane archer shoots bows with spells imbued in them... the number of offensive spells an alchemist has? Umm... none really. Detonate?
Basically the arcane archer is in almost every way worse than the Chymst, no bomb advancement, no brutality, no additional mutagens, in exchange for a archer powers? Eh... if a player in my campaign asked for this I'd give it to him.
Same goes for most arcane prestige classes, overall very few would be overpowering.
Chemical Trickster? This sounds like a nice mix actually, I'd love to see a dedicated PrC for this but using the arcane trickster wouldn't be horrible.
Mystic Theurge -> I don't see how this could ever be OP, with the alchemist it's likely even wimpier. The lack of Arcane spell failure is nice but otherwise this isn't very powerful.
Overall the bigger problem is that arcane prestige classes are designed to only advance casting and alchemists aren't extremely powerful 'casters'. It's not that they would be too powerful, they would almost always be too weak.
consider they specifically didn't make the alchemist a caster for the very reason your asking for arcane PrC's with it.
My feeling is they made them to be not casters because they wanted the class to drink potions to get power... it's more a flavor and feel thing than a balance thing IMO.
It's always tricky trying to second guess the designer's thought process. *shrug*
Of course all this is just stuff I would let fly in my game, as seeker said in the first reply they are not casters and don't actually qualify for the classes.
I know alchemsits aren't spellcasters and don't cast spells, but they do have a caster level. What else would you call it?
From the Alchemist class ability:
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.
...that seems pretty clear to me. The wording is nearly identical to that of traditional casters.
I know alchemsits aren't spellcasters and don't cast spells, but they do have a caster level. What else would you call it?
From the Alchemist class ability:
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.
...that seems pretty clear to me. The wording is nearly identical to that of traditional casters.
no where bar one single entry in the entire alchemist class description is the word "arcane" mentioned.
An alchemist does not need to decipher arcane writings before copying them. is the only reference to arcane magicarcane spell failure is not mentioned
if you allow arcane PrC's then you'd have to allow arcane feats including arcane metamagic
|
|
no where bar one single entry in the entire alchemist class description is the word "arcane" mentioned.
An alchemist does not need to decipher arcane writings before copying them. is the only reference to arcane magicarcane spell failure is not mentioned
if you allow arcane PrC's then you'd have to allow arcane feats including arcane metamagic
IMO you would be forking the prestige class to allow a non-spellcasting with similar abilities to use it. GMs have the ability to set aside individual rules in a way that game supplements do not.
Chemical Trickster? This sounds like a nice mix actually, I'd love to see a dedicated PrC for this but using the arcane trickster wouldn't be horrible.
Mystic Theurge -> I don't see how this could ever be OP, with the alchemist it's likely even wimpier. The lack of Arcane spell failure is nice but otherwise this isn't very powerful.
I'm actually working on some stuff for both of those -- an fireworks sort of pyro~ish trickster type, and well lets face it a mystic theurge variant is just painfully easy to do, bombs every 3 levels, spell casting and formulas every level no discoveries, or mutagen advancement.
This whole debate has sparked memory of the 3.5 Warlock. Since Warlocks didn't cast spells, they didn't qualify for any normal spellcasting Prestige Classes...which is exactly why the Complete Books started offering PrCs that had an entry requirement of Caster Level 5th instead of Must be able to cast 3rd level spells.
Any PrCs floating around like this, the Alchemist would likely qualify for...but he doesn't cast spells.
I know alchemsits aren't spellcasters and don't cast spells, but they do have a caster level. What else would you call it?
From the Alchemist class ability:
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.
...that seems pretty clear to me. The wording is nearly identical to that of traditional casters.
The reference to uses his caster level simply means if the spell being duplicated is X rounds per caster level, it works for X rounds per alchemist level. The reference is to how strong/long/etc the effect of the extract is.
Stating that the alchemist level determines the variables based on caster level is in no way saying an alchemist is a spellcaster. He uses his alchemist level in a manner similar to caster level.
Perhaps the writers should have said ...uses his level as caster level, but is not a spellcaster, but then the book would be twice as long as they would have to put explanatory clauses/disclaimers on every second sentence.
At some point simple English comprehension mixed with some commonsense needs to be applied. But then that would negate the need for a lot of the threads on this messageboard ;-)
IMO you would be forking the prestige class to allow a non-spellcasting with similar abilities to use it. GMs have the ability to set aside individual rules in a way that game supplements do not.no where bar one single entry in the entire alchemist class description is the word "arcane" mentioned.
An alchemist does not need to decipher arcane writings before copying them. is the only reference to arcane magicarcane spell failure is not mentioned
if you allow arcane PrC's then you'd have to allow arcane feats including arcane metamagic
GM's can of course do whatever the please as the fun police is unlikely to break down thier door with a swat team for ruling an Alchemist can take a caster PrC.
you would imo need to allow PrC's/Alch to take caster feats since hte caster PrC will suffer would suffer without it
and if your making severa house rules to accomodate a single charcter then you might as well write up the whole character from 1-20 and tweak each level to make a unique class
e.g. Arcane trickster and alchemist totally don't work becuase bombs specifcally can't use sneak attack damage, however as a GM you could easily put togther 20 levels of such a class that does work.
The issue with open PrC access as I see it is that your probably going to make additonal house rules as you go to sort out rule confilicts with the combo. and if you going to do that you might as well save yourself the headache and just write out all 20 levels before starting so you can have each level in check balence wise with the group.
and heavily underpowered charcter is just as much a problem as a heavily overpowered charcter in a group.
and like I said to the original OP in the case of Alchemist / Eldrich Knight , Master Chymist is plenty close enough to not need to make special rules.
fluff wise there nothing stopping you calling yourself an eldrich knight.
just like there's nothing stopping a charcter with fighter class levels calling himself a ranger (without acutaly having any ranger levels) for all the fluff componets of a game.
no where bar one single entry in the entire alchemist class description is the word "arcane" mentioned.
An alchemist does not need to decipher arcane writings before copying them. is the only reference to arcane magicarcane spell failure is not mentioned
if you allow arcane PrC's then you'd have to allow arcane feats including arcane metamagic
Where did I say he could take arcane prestige classes (or that he was even arcane)?
Stating that the alchemist level determines the variables based on caster level is in no way saying an alchemist is a spellcaster. He uses his alchemist level in a manner similar to caster level.
I specifically stated that an alchemist was NOT a spellcaster.
Arcane trickster and alchemist totally don't work becuase bombs specifcally can't use sneak attack damage, however as a GM you could easily put togther 20 levels of such a class that does work.I think the the Trickster would work ok even with the bomb issue if it didn't have a lousy BAB.
the d6 kinda hurts as well
capstone ability won't work with bombs read in the strict sense as bombs are not spells.
mid levels might be ok since your going in with 3/4BAB rogue and 3/4BAB alch BAB
I guess fogcutter lenses, smoke bombs and a focus on being a ranged bow rogue could net something playable, I think you'd need a near maxed DEX to pull it off.
1-2 levels of alchemist for a rogue however works a treat , 3 natural attacks you can sneak with at 3rd level and smoke bombs to make attacking from concealment alot easier, a dex or str mutagen dosent hurt either.
no where bar one single entry in the entire alchemist class description is the word "arcane" mentioned.
An alchemist does not need to decipher arcane writings before copying them. is the only reference to arcane magicarcane spell failure is not mentioned
if you allow arcane PrC's then you'd have to allow arcane feats including arcane metamagic
Where did I say he could take arcane prestige classes (or that he was even arcane)?
you didn't I was just making a statement after reading your statement , could have just done an add reply instead I guess
|
|
the d6 kinda hurts as well
I was thinking in terms of this being tied to the BAB.
capstone ability won't work with bombs read in the strict sense as bombs are not spells.
mid levels might be ok since your going in with 3/4BAB rogue and 3/4BAB alch BAB
I guess fogcutter lenses, smoke bombs and a focus on being a ranged bow rogue could net something playable, I think you'd need a near maxed DEX to pull it off.
1-2 levels of alchemist for a rogue however works a treat , 3 natural attacks you can sneak with at 3rd level and smoke bombs to make attacking from concealment alot easier, a dex or str mutagen dosent hurt either.
*shrug* I was thinking more in terms of using mutagens and extracts to self buff and sneak attack in combat. Definitely the lower attack bonus and hp kind of kills that for a longer run. I forgot about that.
The more I think about it the more I think alchemist in wizard PrCs is just too wimpy to be worth it.
Stating that the alchemist level determines the variables based on caster level is in no way saying an alchemist is a spellcaster. He uses his alchemist level in a manner similar to caster level.I specifically stated that an alchemist was NOT a spellcaster.
Yes, I can read. My post was a general comment about whether alchemists are spellcasters for the purposes of PrCs in light of comments about caster levels etc.
A lot of the alchemist threads are similar to the discussion of Artifiers when Eberron came out - are they this like this? are they not like that? what are infusions?......
I just want to appologize to anyone who had to read my inappropriate post last night; I took some sleeping medication and should have gone to sleep, not type on the computer.
I'm truly sorry and very embarassed for my offensive language
RAW, of course, Alchemists aren't casters and don't qualify for caster PRCs. However, that's no reason you, as The DM, can't tweak an existing PRC to suit an Alchemist. Extracts are so similar to spells, you might only have to make cosmetic changes. I wouldn't recommend a blanket rule, but, on a case by case basis, you can experiment with house variants on PRC. If a particular variant doesn't work quite right, just tweak it. It may require some work on your part, but most good house rules do.
No, he has no spell casting ability at all. He has no caster level and is not in fact a caster.Funny considering they get Brew Potion as a starting feat which required 3rd level caster to even get, makes me believe that the class in fact CAN cast spells. Otherwise, you couuld just get craft: alchemy and any class could be two classes at once.
"In effect,
an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients
into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by
drinking the extract."they still cast, they still have spells, why arent they a caster class again?
They do not in fact cast spells. They prepare an extract but they are not casters.
The book also uses this line "the alchemist doesn’t actually cast spells" which seems to make it clear they do not cast spells. He makes spell-trigger items, he does not cast spells
So no he is not a spellcaster.
No, he has no spell casting ability at all. He has no caster level and is not in fact a caster.Funny considering they get Brew Potion as a starting feat which required 3rd level caster to even get, makes me believe that the class in fact CAN cast spells. Otherwise, you couuld just get craft: alchemy and any class could be two classes at once.
"In effect,
an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients
into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by
drinking the extract."they still cast, they still have spells, why arent they a caster class again?
Because they don't cast spells. Check again... look at the word "casts" note that it is in quotes -- they don't actual cast anything. In fact the ability is supernatural if you look at the beginning of the extract area -- therefore it can not be spell casting.
Also note that alchemist do not have a caster level. They are treated as if they do for the extracts, but again -- they are treated which means of course they don't actually have one.
If you look over at 3.5 Eberron, there are plenty of classes that can add to spellcasting class or "infusion imbuing" class. The Alchemist Savant from Magic of Eberron is a good example, and I believe the only "infusion imbuing" class they came out with was the Artificer. Of course the Artificer wasn't OGL and thus "infusion-imbuing" isn't either. But even before Pathfinder, there were people asking if the Master Alchemist from 3.0 Magic of Faerun could be stacked with the Artificer even though it didn't allow it in the text because this was before the Artificer was invented (unless you count the Gnomish Artificer in the same book who had a completely different mechanic).
Roll forward to present day. We've now got the Pathfinder Alchemist who has the "extract" power. It's a GM call as to whether this could be stacked with an "infusion-imbuing" class and it will pretty much always be a GM call with these older classes because a lot of the older stuff wasn't OGL.
Would I allow a player to stack the Alchemist with the Alchemist Savant and the Master Alchemist? For a personal game, why not? Sure, I'd probably have to tinker a few things around for balance and playability, but it sounds doable. Is it RAW? Only insofar that conversions of older material are a regular part of the game. You have to convert 3.0 material to 3.5 and make judgement calls, like saying that it's fine for Eberron Artificers to take Faerunian prestige classes that were originally written only for spellcasters. Converting 3.5 to Pathfinder? Same thing. It seems completely reasonable to look at anything that has "Alchemist" or "Artificer" in the class title and see if there isn't something that would be workable as extra material.
There are also judgement calls that would have to be made against things as well. Shadow Weave magic works fine for Forgotten Realms, but while porting that bit of theology/metaphysics into a home-brewed world for a Pathfinder game is fine, it isn't going to mesh with Golarion, or at least not official Golarion. If I wanted to pop in stuff from the Gnomish Artificer, especially the shoddy devices and discoveries, I'd have to slip out the stuff about the fancier ones using shadow-weave magic to make them work and just let it be alchemy and chemistry.
I'm certain we'll be getting official Alchemist prestige classes before long, and these new classes will likely give a model to better adapt older alchemy-based classes to the new ruleset. But until it does, I'd take a glance at the Alchemist Savant, Master Alchemist, and to a lesser extent the Gnomish Artificer and the Sublime Chord. The last would give a model for how to put an alchemist up to full level 9 caster equivalent, if you want some super-advanced extracts, many of which you could easily pull from likely candidates in 3.5 sources.
For example, there's some Wu-Gen spell that lets you immolate yourself like a phoenix and be reborn. Having an alchemist do that as a 9th level extract? Fine by me. Same with the Wu-Jen spell that lets you grow to the size of Godzilla. I see nothing wrong with Attack of the 50-foot Alchemist. And so on.
So no item creation feats? Or as they treated as a caster for that too?
Because they don't cast spells. Check again... look at the word "casts" note that it is in quotes -- they don't actual cast anything. In fact the ability is supernatural if you look at the beginning of the extract area -- therefore it can not be spell casting.
Also note that alchemist do not have a caster level. They are treated as if they do for the extracts, but again -- they are treated which means of course they don't actually have one.
No item creation feats except for Brew Potion. Alchemists have a class ability that let's them count as casters and make any potion in their book. Note that regular casters do not have to know a spell to brew a potion, they can add +5 to the DC for not meeting a pre-req; Alchemists cannot do this.