I've been looking into building a alchemist/arcane trickster lately, to see how it would handle, and it seems to be possible to hit all the requirements except possibly for one, which makes me unsure.
Specifically, that's whether an alchemist's extracts count as spells to hit the "at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher" part of the AT requirements, and whether the AT would thus add to the vivisectionist's extracts per day.
(As a note, the alchemist would qualify for Sneak Attack through the vivisectionist archetype, and Mage Hand through the Arcane Talent feat.)
They do not.
That said, it wouldn't take much to adjust many PrCs to fit an alchemist in a home game. Extracts progression is just like spells.
I don't see why that wouldn't work, extracts are an alchemist's spells but just called something different for fluff. If you look at the mechanics the only difference between an alchemist's spells and a wizard's (besides their spell list's of course) are that an alchemist's are in the form of a potion while a wizard's have no form until cast. And the alchemist's can only be used on himself (unless you get the infusion discovery).
Hm, so it's not RAW by virtue of a bit of wording eh?
Ah well, seems like one of the easier things to convince a GM of, considering there's practically no difference between extracts and spells aside from additional restrictions and less variety.
Might as well. They count for qualifying for item creation feats, at least according to dev posts.
Do note that having Mage Hand as a SLA does not satisfy the requirement for Arcane Trickster. Spell-like Abilities are not spells.
...not to mention that alchemist extracts are very so much NOT arcane.
...not to mention that alchemist extracts are very so much NOT arcane.
I'm just curious about this, if they are not arcane, what are they? Pretty sure they are not divine spells since you are not getting them from some deity. So unless there is a 3rd category, wouldn't they be considered more arcane than divine?
They're neither :)
They're neither :)
lol XD But aren't all spells/potions/wands/scrolls either arcane or divine?
Not necessarily, I think. SLAs are neither arcane nor divine.
Not necessarily, I think. SLAs are neither arcane nor divine.
True, you got a point there. But I didn't mention spell like abilities, they are in their own separate category.
Do note that having Mage Hand as a SLA does not satisfy the requirement for Arcane Trickster. Spell-like Abilities are not spells.
The requirements just say "Ability to cast mage hand" though, nothing about having it on a spell list. The wording on SLAs in the Core rulebook (CRB 221) does specifically use the words "casting time" in regards to them, and says that aside from their casting time they function in all other ways just like a spell.
I also don't see anything written under Spell-Like Abilities that says they can't be used to fulfill PrC requirements, nor anything under Prestige Classes or Arcane Trickster specifically that says Spell-Like abilities can't be used to fulfill requirements.
Since SLAs supposedly function in all ways but casting time like spells, and there seems to be nothing that says they can't be used to qualify for spell requirements, I'd say that they can in fact be used.
...not to mention that alchemist extracts are very so much NOT arcane.
Really? They can learn their extracts from wizards' spellbooks, and apparently "An alchemist does not need to decipher arcane writings before copying them". By that logic, they're copying the arcane writing directly into their formula books, which would mean their formulas are primarily, if not totally arcane. The formulas are definitely closer to arcane by that reasoning than they are to being the only other option, divine.
And a quick skim of extracts (though admittedly I only looked at the 1st and 2nd level ones, too many to go through them all) reveals only 4 spells that can be cast by only the alchemist and divine casters, compared to 28 that can be cast by only alchemists and arcane (admittedly a few of those can be picked up by divine casters through domains, but it still leaves far more than the only alchemist/divine list). Between arcane and divine, they're far more arcane. I guess the "neither" category is an option, but then it seems odd that they can copy arcane writings directly into their formula books to produce supposedly non-arcane effects.
They are not spells. The rules and FAQs are abundantly clear on this one. I've had this discussion a few times before. That last link is actually about someone trying to do the same thing you are :)
Just like you can't use Supernatural abilities to qualify as spells, you can't with SLAs either.
There's no text to say they are arcane spellcasters. They aren't affected by arcane spell failure *at all*. They don't even deal with the hallmark of arcane spellcasters, the intricate and precise motions their spells need to make, one bit.
The Alchemy ability is a supernatural ability. Supernatural and spell-like abilities don't have arcane or divine divisions. They're a different kind of magic.
The reason they can copy a wizard's spellbook directly is because they can't cast Read Magic.
...since this is the Rules Questions forum and not the Suggestions / Homebrew forum, I want to be clear on that as it is an oft-overlooked aspect of the class. All that said, an alchemical trickster would be awesome, even though ranged legerdemain doesn't really make sense, alchemically speaking.
Agreed very much on the last bit. :P
Meh, well regardless of the rest, I guess it still falls into "easy to justify allowing it" either way, since the extracts vs. spells and SLAs vs. spells are still almost exactly the same.
(And although at this point I'm being nitpicky,and I apologize for that, the mage hand requirements for AT still don't say you have to have the spell mage hand. Just that you have to be able to cast mage hand. If SLAs have a casting time then doesn't that imply that one would be casting mage hand with the mage hand SLA, and would thus qualify for that part of AT despite it not being a spell?)
You activate SLAs, not cast them :)
At least, if "cast a spell" also meant use a SLA, there are a ton of instances throughout the rules with useless text that differentiates between casting a spell and using / activating a SLA. Like Combat Casting.
Hmm... Well I guess that's everything then. I'll probably still bring it up with a GM next time I'm playing a game rather than running them like I usually do.
I doubt it'd break anything, so I wouldn't be surprised if a decent number of GMs would allow it.
An alchemical archer instead of arcane archer would be awesome too, but that's a different topic.
An alchemical archer instead of arcane archer would be awesome too, but that's a different topic.
I would suggest simply staying Alchemist and taking the explosive missile discovery myself.
Yea, I was thinking that'd be a requirement for the PrC. I might make a post on that later, hm.
Ooh, neat. I look forward to seeing it. ^_^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fun.
