|
Carrion Crown has quite a few little hiccups in it in that regard. Including an alchemist lich.
From the PRD:
"Each lich must create its own phylactery by using the Craft Wondrous Item feat. The character must be able to cast spells and have a caster level of 11th or higher. The phylactery costs 120,000 gp to create and has a caster level equal to that of its creator at the time of creation."
Alchemist: Is an alchemist a spellcaster for the purpose of crafting magic items other than potions?
As written, no, alchemists are not spellcasters, and therefore can't select feats such as Craft Wondrous Item.
The design team is aware that this creates some thematic problems with the idea of an alchemist creating golems and so on, and plan to examine this in the future.—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
We know they are aware of these issues and will deal with it at some point.
But this still leads me to wonder a couple things.
How long "in the future" may be?
Does "alchemist creating golems and so on" include having to take the Master Craftsman in order to get Craft Wonderous Items or is that going to be left as is?
Has anyone seen anything to give an indication on either of these questions?
What has been the point of contention was that when you said,
"Just because an alchemist doesn't actually cast spells doesn't mean he doesn't have or require a caster level for his abilities."
It opened the door to a discussion of what the possibility of having a caster level without casting spells. Hence the discussion of extracts and SLA's, all with very clear comments within them that I'm aware they aren't spells or being used by spellcasters.
It opened the door to a discussion of having a caster level to use abilities like having a caster level to use spells.
Which doesn't change the fact that alchemists aren't spellcasters and don't actually have a caster level.
It opened the door to a discussion of texts that supported one interpretation over another.
And when a secondary text contradicts the primary text, and there hasn't been a ruling that says "the secondary text is how we want to do it and we're going to change the primary text," then the secondary text is wrong.
I honestly don't know what you want at this point, which is perhaps why we're arguing past each other here. I've been trying to restate your arguments because I don't understand what you are arguing for and I'm hoping I stumble upon what you want to get out of this.
Maybe what needs clarification/updating isn't the Alchemist... but the Core Role book then to accomodate non-"casters".
Why is that needed? The rules work perfectly well.
If Paizo wants to make a non-casting class that has a de jure Casting Level which qualifies for things just like any other Casting Level (without actually casting spells), THEY CAN, nothing in the Core Rules stops them from doing so... They just need to actually write a class which includes 'Caster Level progression' without actually granting Spellcasting. Nothing to do with the Core Rule book. And if Paizo doesn't want to ever 'accomodate' non-casters, then they won't, and the rules reflect that as well. If you disagree with Paizo's design decisions, then you just have to house-rule. Claiming some 'need' isn't going to make Paizo change their design decisions. They're well aware that Alchemists, and Fighters, don't have an actual Casting Level, and the implications of that, and were aware of that when the classes were published, it's not just some sort of oversight on their part that would be Errata'd.
Carrion Crown has quite a few little hiccups in it in that regard. Including an alchemist lich.
Your quoted method is only the standard method for becoming a lich, it doesn't preclude any other means. Paizo doesn't even have to specify those other means mechanically, the lich template can simply be applied to any character and presumably SOME means was used, even if we don't know the details on what those were. From what I've seen, Paizo is open to, and is likely to implement, alternate means for Alchemists to do alot of the things they can't by current rules options. That doesn't require Errata'ing them to simply have a Caster Level.
I just don't get this whining from Ximen. He wants to rely on some indirect implication from a supplemental rules source (which we have Paizo Developer's word that it's badly written). Well, if you want to rely on indirect implication, rather than direct RAW, you can't just cherry pick your indirect implication. EVERY OTHER RULE FOR ALCHEMISTS, in the original class itself and expansion material, works by saying 'for this ability it uses an effective caster level equal to the alchemist level'. If the alchemist did have a caster level, why are all those abilities not referencing it? All those references massively outweigh the very few conflicting implications that comes up once or twice. Outside of this weak indirect implication case (from a rule explictly acknowledged to be poorly written by a Paizo Developer, i.e. it's RAW shouldn't seriously be considered to be binding over other rules), there just is absolutely nothing to discuss, except that Ximen might personally wish Alchemists to work differently than Paizo designed them.
I just don't get this whining from Ximen.
Actually reading my posts where I talk about the lack of a definition of caster level, the possibility of having a caster level without being a spellcaster based on a variety of sources including the initially quoted SKR post on this thread, the functional similarities between spells based off caster level and caster levels for spell-equivalent class features, you might 'get' it.
Abstaining from passive aggressive douchey put-downs like the one quoted might help as well.
If you want to call those APs or modules to attention for potential Errata, great,
but that in no way means the rules need clarifying...
APs and modules can and do break many rules, it just happens, that doesn't mean the rules need Errata.
been really reading this thread for the past few days and I think I would like to point out as I am sure every one know that what requirements feats have and weather alchemist are spell casters or not is really a matter of the guy running the game. while I respect every ones opinion in your home game who cares. it only in Pathfinder Society games that it matters and I believe that there is no crafting any way.
that being said I really enjoy this thread and it has changed how I am going to run alchemists in my game.
|
|
To be more precise, the alchemist lich, has Craft Wondrous Item without having the Master Craftsman feat.
In one of the early parts of the AP, there is a special golem... crafted by an alchemist.
So while not RAW, the flavor of Carrion Crown at least supports the concept that alchemists being able to craft constructs & wondrous items which implies they qualify for those feats without special exceptions.
On the other hand, Carrion Crown is an adventure, not rules. :)
Ximen, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by referring to your whining. Whining is a human capability, I can do it, Sean can do it, anybody can do it. Of course, I wasn't just engaging in personal attacks on you (noticing that your posts were whining was a pretty brief aside that wasn't linked to any other conclusion), I directly addressed the only remaining rules debate that I could perceive you engaging in, and gave that subject my earnest attention: which happened to result in it not seeming to have any valid substance to sustain a debate of the actual rules. You neglected to respond to the vast majority of that post. My response established why there is no real rules debate stemming from that topic, so I don't see any reason to continue a rules debate there, and apparently neither do you, so I think this 'Rules Question' is answered now.
I would agree that the Carrion Crown AP writers apparently being on board the idea of Alchemists crafting Golems and achieving Lichdom does seem like it was a good opportunity to have developed the enabling crunch for that to happen within RAW (without Master Craftsman, although I don't see anything wrong with MC being the means for Alchemists to craft some magic items), and it's unfortunate if that opportunity was wasted. Not that I would expect any of those means to amount to granting the Alchemist a caster level across the board.