|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think that Alchemist's should be able to Craft Construct, thru either:
A. Counting their class level as caster level for taking the appropriate feats (Craft Arms & Armor, Craft Wondrous Items, Craft Construct); or
B. By taking Master Craftsman to qualify for Craft Arms & Armor, Craft Wondrous Items & Craft Construct
My reason involves the Carrion Crown AP
Count Caromarc is a lvl 13 alchemist who is the creator of the Beast of Lepidstadt and other additional flesh golems. So either A. or B. should be correct.
So either the alchemist’s class level does count as a caster level for the purpose of taking the crafting feats, or by using Master Craftsman an alchemist can use a craft skill to become eligible for the crafting feats (of course a slight problem with this is that Master Craftsman does not mention being able to use the craft skill for Craft Construct).
Have I missed a piece of logic?
Option C> The plot says so.
The plot armor is thick on this one.
However if asked for a mechanical method of solving this I would go with the master craftsman taken twice (once for craft(sculpture) and once for craft(armor) for arms and armor) then allow it to apply to craft construct as well, with the argument that craft construct wasn't in the game when the feat was created and that since it covers the prerequisites it isn't insane to allow it to cover the final feat.
As an alternative I would suggest creating some discoveries that allow the alchemist to craft constructs, if not an archetype for it.
there should be something along the lines of golem constuctor for alchemists. There isn't, but there should be.
Option C> The plot says so.
The plot armor is thick on this one.
However if asked for a mechanical method of solving this I would go with the master craftsman taken twice (once for craft(sculpture) and once for craft(armor) for arms and armor) then allow it to apply to craft construct as well, with the argument that craft construct wasn't in the game when the feat was created and that since it covers the prerequisites it isn't insane to allow it to cover the final feat.
As an alternative I would suggest creating some discoveries that allow the alchemist to craft constructs, if not an archetype for it.
Wait, the APG came out before the Bestiary?
Wait, the APG came out before the Bestiary?
No but master craftsman was in the Core rulebook which was out before the bestiary which carried the feat I was referencing (craft construct). I am sorry for not being more precise in my initial post.
|
|
Option C> The plot says so.
The plot armor is thick on this one.
However if asked for a mechanical method of solving this I would go with the master craftsman taken twice (once for craft(sculpture) and once for craft(armor) for arms and armor) then allow it to apply to craft construct as well, with the argument that craft construct wasn't in the game when the feat was created and that since it covers the prerequisites it isn't insane to allow it to cover the final feat.
As an alternative I would suggest creating some discoveries that allow the alchemist to craft constructs, if not an archetype for it.
Well I will admit that personally I don't like Option C, but you are correct, that is an option that I didn't previously think of.
However, I think depending on how a DM interprets the rules, the alchemist would need the craft skill for Flesh Golems (I think it is leather-working)... but that does kind of limit the benefit from taking the Crafting Feats if you can only enchant leather magical items.
Either way it should be either a 3 or 4 feat cost to make flesh golems.
Option C> The plot says so.
The plot armor is thick on this one.
However if asked for a mechanical method of solving this I would go with the master craftsman taken twice (once for craft(sculpture) and once for craft(armor) for arms and armor) then allow it to apply to craft construct as well, with the argument that craft construct wasn't in the game when the feat was created and that since it covers the prerequisites it isn't insane to allow it to cover the final feat.
As an alternative I would suggest creating some discoveries that allow the alchemist to craft constructs, if not an archetype for it.
Well I will admit that personally I don't like Option C, but you are correct, that is an option that I didn't previously think of.
However, I think depending on how a DM interprets the rules, the alchemist would need the craft skill for Flesh Golems (I think it is leather-working)... but that does kind of limit the benefit from taking the Crafting Feats if you can only enchant leather magical items.
Either way it should be either a 3 or 4 feat cost to make flesh golems.
My thoughts: Retool him as an Arcane Bomber wizard, who makes potions instead of spells. Keep the spell list the same.
Take Golem Constructor (Flesh) as an arcane discovery.
|
|
My thoughts: Retool him as an Arcane Bomber wizard, who makes potions instead of spells. Keep the spell list the same.Take Golem Constructor (Flesh) as an arcane discovery.
Why? I want alchemists to be able to Craft Constructs... kind of makes sense for Alchemical Golems after all... I just want to confirm that the example from Carrion Crown is what the intent of the rules.
Well, I've noticed in the final Carrion Crown module, there is a
Well, I've noticed in the final Carrion Crown module, there is a
** spoiler omitted **
Nope I'm chalking that one up to the same thing that happened in CoT
Vital striking, spring attacking monks with bladed scarves that had 10 foot reach.
AKA -- writer not knowing the rules or not caring.
Hmm, apparently because my query used Carrion Crown it got put into the AP instead of the rules questions... /sigh.
Aren't alchemists considered spellcasters? Why wouldn't they be able to take craft magical items and constructs? They would take the same penalties as all other casters for "spells not known" during the creation process (-5 per required spell not provided I think).
I and my group have been under the impression that alchemists were not actually spellcasters, that they emulate some spells through potion-like extracts but do not actually have a caster level. Am I incorrect here? Is there a ruling on this?
I and my group have been under the impression that alchemists were not actually spellcasters, that they emulate some spells through potion-like extracts but do not actually have a caster level. Am I incorrect here? Is there a ruling on this?
Good question. I'd never considered they weren't.
Just looked and it doesn't specifically say. It does say that for most effects extracts are considered spells and the alchemist's level is treated as his caster level. I'm not a rules lawyer but it seems to me that it's not out of the scope of the class.
Didn't feel like putting a lot of copy/paste blocks: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist
It's very simple -- if you don't have the spells line in your class features then you are not a spell caster.
You might have supernatural abilities, you might have spell-like abilities, you could even have both and something else completely, but you aren't a spell caster.
All spell casting classes have a version of the following:
SpellsA cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list. Her alignment, however, may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells. A cleric must choose and prepare her spells in advance.
or
SpellsA wizard casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time.
and possibly the following for spontaneous casters:
SpellsA sorcerer casts arcane spells drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. She can cast any spell she knows without preparing it ahead of time. To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a sorcerer's spell is 10 + the spell level + the sorcerer's Charisma modifier.
Without something that specifically states, "a (x) casts (type) spells..."
You don't cast spells.
|
I find it silly that the Alchemist doesn't actually have a caster level. Every ability it has that might require a caster level states that the alchemist treats its' alchemist level as caster level for the purpose of determining X and Y.
Besides, I find the ideas they have used for Alchemist's in this adventure to be pretty awesome. Lich Alchemist (secret to undeath through chemicals!) and a golem crafter (was Dr. Frankenstein NOT an alchemist!? come on!)
So by the rules, it doesn't expressly state that you have a caster level. Discuss it with your GM and see how they feel about it. Explain your reasoning and see how they feel. GM's -should- be nothing, if not reasonable. :)
i'm going to allow the alchemist levels as caster levels otherwise the whole adventure doesn't make a lick of sense (well that might be an exaggeration). maybe one of the people like james jacobs, richard pett or jason buhlman would like to chime in a clarify:)