Does the Alchemist count as an arcane spellcaster with regards to the Spell Failure?
What about bards? [/QUOTE
Bards: Under weapon and armor proficiency, it specifies that he can cast spell without spell failure when wearing light armor and shields. Medium or heavy armor incurs spell failure as normal.
Alchemist: They don't mention spell failure, so since they don't cast spells, but just drink an extract, I would really assume that they don't have to make make the check.
Does the Alchemist count as an arcane spellcaster with regards to the Spell Failure?
I have been wondering the same thing, but it has more implications than just spell failure. For example, can an alchemist qualify for (and use) feats for arcane spellcasters, like Arcane Strike/Arcane Shield, Spell Focus> Tenacious Transmutation, or even Metamagic feats like Extend Spell?
From the Alchemist class:
Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist’s level as the caster level. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.
So, since potions don't take into account spell failure, neither extracts do.
Well, you can take the metamagic feats, tenacious transmutation because they don't have a Caster Level as a prereq, but you cannot take arcane strike or arcane schield or every other feat that has a Caster Level as a prereq because Alchemist don't have a caster level and that's because they don't have a spellcasting ability:
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.
From the Alchemist class:
Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist’s level as the caster level. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.So, since potions don't take into account spell failure, neither extracts do.
Well, you can take the metamagic feats, tenacious transmutation because they don't have a Caster Level as a prereq, but you cannot take arcane strike or arcane schield or every other feat that has a Caster Level as a prereq because Alchemist don't have a caster level and that's because they don't have a spellcasting ability:
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.To recap from above (and things which got buried in mistyped quote tags:
Bards cast arcane spells and have a spell failure chance. They have a class ability which lets them ignore this in light armor and shields, but not in medium or heavy armor. There are bard archetypes that change this.
Alchemists are not casters, and do not have a spell failure chance.
They do not qualify for any item creation feats or any feat with a caster level as a prereq (as they have no caster level). They get Brew Potion as a specific exception, using their class level as their caster level.
They can take metamagic feats, which do not have a CL requirement, but they cannot apply these to their extracts, as metamagic only applies to spells, and they do not cast spells. This also applies to things like spell focus (they can take it, but it has no effect).
you cannot take arcane strike or arcane schield or every other feat that has a Caster Level as a prereq because Alchemist don't have a caster level and that's because they don't have a spellcasting ability:
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.
So, Arcane Strike (unlike Shield and Blast) does not actually have a Caster Level requirement, just "ability to cast arcane spells." I'm pretty sure alchemists still don't qualify for that though.
To recap from above (and things which got buried in mistyped quote tags:
Alchemists are not casters, and do not have a spell failure chance.
They do not qualify for any item creation feats or any feat with a caster level as a prereq (as they have no caster level). They get Brew Potion as a specific exception, using their class level as their caster level.
They can take metamagic feats, which do not have a CL requirement, but they cannot apply these to their extracts, as metamagic only applies to spells, and they do not cast spells. This also applies to things like spell focus (they can take it, but it has no effect).
I agree about anything requiring a Caster Level or actual spell casting. However, as quoted above, extracts (and potions) effectively become spells once consumed. For example, as I understand it, if you are under the effect of "Shield," it makes no difference whether it originated from an extract/potion or a cast spell. Perhaps the Metamagic feats require casting, although they only specifically refer to spells. However, I see no reason Spell Focus would not apply to spell effects from extracts and potions with you as the "caster."
You can't increase your DC when you are casting a spell from a wand and having the spell focus feat, unless you have an ability to do so. The only item that uses your, as the spellcaster, save DC calculated is a magical staff.
It's good although that you can benefit from the Tenacious Transmutation feat, because the Alchemist has plenty of transmutation extracts and he's likewise susceptible to dispel effects...
So, Arcane Strike (unlike Shield and Blast) does not actually have a Caster Level requirement, just "ability to cast arcane spells." I'm pretty sure alchemists still don't qualify for that though.
Yup. Alchemists do not cast arcane spells. Anything with that as a prereq, they do not qualify for.
I agree about anything requiring a Caster Level or actual spell casting. However, as quoted above, extracts (and potions) effectively become spells once consumed. For example, as I understand it, if you are under the effect of "Shield," it makes no difference whether it originated from an extract/potion or a cast spell. Perhaps the Metamagic feats require casting, although they only specifically refer to spells. However, I see no reason Spell Focus would not apply to spell effects from extracts and potions with you as the "caster."
They effectively become spells, but they aren't spells. You can't apply metamagic to an extract. They are not spells. Even though metamagic does not require spell casting, it does require spells. Same with Spell Focus:
Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select.
(emphasis mine)
Alchemists don't cast spells, so they gain no benefit from this. Tenacious Transmutation, however, they can benefit from, as it applies to all transmutations, not just transmutation spells. They still have to eat the spell focus (transmutation) tax, though. Also, I suspect this might have been an oddity of language in writing the feat and it is supposed to not be applicable for alchemists. For now, though, RAW says they can use it.
They effectively become spells, but they aren't spells. You can't apply metamagic to an extract. They are not spells. Even though metamagic does not require spell casting, it does require spells. Same with Spell Focus:
Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select.(emphasis mine)
Alchemists don't cast spells, so they gain no benefit from this. Tenacious Transmutation, however, they can benefit from, as it applies to all transmutations, not just transmutation spells. They still have to eat the spell focus (transmutation) tax, though. Also, I suspect this might have been an oddity of language in writing the feat and it is supposed to not be applicable for alchemists. For now, though, RAW says they can use it.
I was actually thinking the same thing about Tenacious Transmutation, but didn't bring it up since (I agree) it seems to be just an incidental omission of the word "spells." However, I have since found what I think to be a crucial passage in the Metamagic Feats description (p. 113, Core Rulebook):
Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.
So, although someone using an existing magic item may be unable to modify the effect, it seems clear that the opposite is true for the person creating the item. Also, the reference to storing a spell here seems to likewise imply that similar feats like Spell Focus possessed by the creator at the time of creation would likewise apply.
They effectively become spells, but they aren't spells. You can't apply metamagic to an extract. They are not spells. Even though metamagic does not require spell casting, it does require spells. Same with Spell Focus:
Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select.(emphasis mine)
Alchemists don't cast spells, so they gain no benefit from this. Tenacious Transmutation, however, they can benefit from, as it applies to all transmutations, not just transmutation spells. They still have to eat the spell focus (transmutation) tax, though. Also, I suspect this might have been an oddity of language in writing the feat and it is supposed to not be applicable for alchemists. For now, though, RAW says they can use it.I was actually thinking the same thing about Tenacious Transmutation, but didn't bring it up since (I agree) it seems to be just an incidental omission of the word "spells." However, I have since found what I think to be a crucial passage in the Metamagic Feats description (p. 113, Core Rulebook):
Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.So, although someone using an existing magic item may be unable to modify the effect, it seems clear that the opposite is true for the person creating the item. Also, the reference to storing a spell here seems to likewise imply that similar feats like Spell Focus possessed by the creator at the time of creation would likewise apply.
Yes, you can make a potion, scroll, or wand which has a metamagic feat applied to it. What you cannot make is an extract which has a metamagic feat applied to it, because an extract is not a spell and you can only apply metamagic to a spell.
When you make a wand, scroll, or potion, you are casting a spell and then storing that magic. It makes sense that if you cast a metamagiced version of it, you store the metamagiced version. This is not the case with an extract, in which there is no spellcasting, so there is no metamagic.
Spell focus has absolutely no effect on magic items. If it did, you would have to track separately whether that wand of fireball you just bought was made a spell focus (evocation) wizard or not. Also, it would cost the same regardless, which clearly isn't right. Here is the paragraph from Magic Items about their save DC,:
For a saving throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item, the DC is 10 plus the level of the spell or effect plus the ability modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that level of spell.
You assume the lowest possible ability to cast the spell, and calculate the DC accordingly. Spell focus has no effect on magic items. Nor do any other feats you might have which would affect it (such as tenacious transmutation or augment summoning)
Metamagic is different from this because metamagic affects the spell level, which means the wand of silent fireball is going to cost more than the wand of normal fireball.
Also, spell focus has no effect on extracts because they are not spells.
For a saving throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item, the DC is 10 plus the level of the spell or effect plus the ability modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that level of spell.You assume the lowest possible ability to cast the spell, and calculate the DC accordingly. Spell focus has no effect on magic items. Nor do any other feats you might have which would affect it (such as tenacious transmutation or augment summoning)
Metamagic is different from this because metamagic affects the spell level, which means the wand of silent fireball is going to cost more than the wand of normal fireball.
Good call, I had never seen that there were specific rules for magic item DC's.
I'm not sure I see any relevant difference between extracts and potions in the rules. Sure, they are made differently, but they appear to function the same. From the Alchemist's Extract description:Yes, you can make a potion, scroll, or wand which has a metamagic feat applied to it. What you cannot make is an extract which has a metamagic feat applied to it, because an extract is not a spell and you can only apply metamagic to a spell.
When you make a wand, scroll, or potion, you are casting a spell and then storing that magic. It makes sense that if you cast a metamagiced version of it, you store the metamagiced version. This is not the case with an extract, in which there is no spellcasting, so there is no metamagic.
In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist’s level as the caster level. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.And, a few paragraphs later:
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.
Although extracts are not literally spells, they are based on potions and seem to use spells in the same way.
Also, you do not technically need to cast a spell in making a potion:
The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.
Material components are consumed when he begins working, but a focus is not. (A focus used in brewing a potion can be reused.) The act of brewing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster’s currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)
By the way, thanks for discussing this so in-depth with me, I enjoy trying to figure out this kind of stuff. I knew these ideas were kinda pushing it, but maybe still not 3 strikes... and at least I'm remembering how to do post formatting.
Potions and extracts behave, in many ways, the same. But they aren't the same, and there are plenty of examples to show this (accelerated drinker, any of the discoveries that affect potions not applying to extracts, potions keep working when the crafter puts them down, potions don't continue to occupy spell slots the next day, lvl 3 limit on spells in potion form, difference in target restriction, an alchemist can't use alchemical allocation on an extract, perception cannot be used to identify an extract, etc.)
Ultimately, it comes down to a few things. The first, and I feel like I am beating a dead horse here, is that extracts aren't spells. They very clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly aren't spells. Anything which requires spells to function, which includes metamagic and spell focus does not function on extracts. Extracts are a Supernatural (Su) ability.
I'm going to give that last sentence it's own paragraph. I hope it doesn't come across as flippant, I just think it is a really, really important point to take note of:
Extracts are a Supernatural Ability.
The second is that the thing with spell focus is kind of silly to begin with. It would only matter if anyone ever made a save against an alchemist's extracts, but they don't. The alchemist is the only one who can drink them unless he takes a discovery letting others, and even then his list is all buffs, and who would want to save against those?
Extracts are a Supernatural Ability.
Damn. I think you got me. Most of the other differences I could argue are called out specifically, but... yeah, Alchemy(Su), didn't see that. And I hadn't thought about that issue of identifying through perception, that's interesting.
I was thinking of Spell Focus for the Tenacious Transmutation effect, increasing the DC for people trying to dispel, and just assumed that Spell Focus' +1 was just a more general version. Oops, save DC's. I suppose Tenacious Transmutation would still work, I was just hoping that Spell Focus wasn't a total waste.
Anyway, thanks again. Could always just ask for DM approval if I really still want one. Now I'm just hoping Paizo will FAQ the natural armor bonus from Advanced Mutagen- Nimble, since it's already been discussed to death.
|
Extracts are a supernatural ability.
I think this may be of some interest, as it being a supernatural ability would give credence to an Alchemist qualifying for feats such as Arcane Strike. Let's take a look at the rules for antimagic, according to d20pfsrd.com:
An antimagic field spell or effect cancels magic altogether. An
antimagic effect has the following powers and characteristics.
No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an
area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work).
Now, the question posed by this entry is 'Why would a supernatural ability be negated by an antimagic effect?'. Because it's inherently magical. In the alchemist's case, probably arcane rather than divine, as the alchemist pulls this power for his extracts from HIMSELF (found on the entry of the Alchemist's Alchemy(su):
When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and
reagents in the extract with magic siphoned from his own magical
aura.
With the note that an alchemist empowers his extracts with magic power from himself is establised a fact. We will now look at the Arcane Strike feat:
Arcane Strike (Combat)
You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your weapons with
magical energy.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a
fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage
and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage
reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus
increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
If we ignore the fact that it requires the ability to cast arcane spells, is it so much of a leap of logic to suggest that an alchemist can infuse a weapon with magical power, as well as his extracts?
This seems like a completely viable case for anyone wanting to get this feat for their alchemist when talking to a rule-mongering DM.