How does an Alchemist use liquefy? Do they have to apply the extract directly onto the object in question?
Alchemist has several spells they can't use. They may be useable by certain archetypes at some point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This spell is available as alchemical formula and thus can be used by an Alchemist.
As I understand it: you drink the extract, which "charges the spell". With this "charged spell" you then have the ability to turn one object within the given size- and range-limitations to liquid.
the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist
You aren't an object, so invalid target, spell has no effect.
An extract is not a potion, it enables the alchemist to use the spell, the intent is obviously as Turing said, even though the the spell is not the standard, self targeting version, or is the arcane anthology as poorly written and edited as the ACG?
lots of alchemist spells are poorly edited. I'm pretty sure a DEV commented that a few continue to slip through.
An extract is not a potion, it enables the alchemist to use the spell, the intent is obviously as Turing said, even though the the spell is not the standard, self targeting version, or is the arcane anthology as poorly written and edited as the ACG?
It's not that a particular book is poorly edited- it's just a really easy thing to miss during editing, since Alchemist is such a special snowflake when it comes to casting. Arcane Anthology isn't the only place where it has happened.
This is slightly off-topic but underlines that extracts are in fact mechanically decoupled from potions.
Alchemist: Does the Accelerated Drinker feat from Cheliax, Empire of Devils allow a character to drink an alchemist extract as a move action?
the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist
You aren't an object, so invalid target, spell has no effect.
This is true and by pure RAW, the spell would only be able to transform the Alchemist (or, if he has the Infusion discovery, the drinking person) into liquid. This would be kind of funny in some ways, save that the object is not allowed to be over 20 pounds.
I think the developers would not (intentionally) give a spell to a class, which then cannot be used by this class.
The developers have given alchemists a lot of spells that can't use because people writing the spells keep forgetting alchemist "spell casting" works differently (can only affect alchemist, unless using infusion) and then a lot of things have slipped through editing over the years.
In truth, they need to just go through and remove all those offending spells and put a big note in offices for the future that reminds them alchemist extracts can't target non-creature things or create effects that don't affect the drinker.
In truth, they need to just go through and remove all those offending spells and put a big note in offices for the future that reminds them alchemist extracts can't target non-creature things or create effects that don't affect the drinker.Alternatively, they could errata the Alchemy class feature to have their extracts function as either potions (the ones that are currently "legal" formula options by RAW) or oils (the ones that by strict RAW can't be used as an extract).
While you could make the argument that they keep forgetting the stipulation that Alchemist extracts can "only affect the drinker" when giving them new spells, that doesn't explain why they've never gone back to remove these spells from the alchemist's when there are several erratas from the same books that introduced them. Considering this, it seems like the "only the drinker" limitation may have been intended to prevent them from providing AoE buffs with things like haste.
That creates other issues now. There's an archetype that gets all Wizard Necromancy spells (1st through 6th) for next to nothing because only a small selection of those spells are useable.
But outside an official fix, the GM should probably handle the invalid spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would be kind of funny in some ways, save that the object is not allowed to be over 20 pounds.
Actually, it doesn't say that! It's just one pound a level, so if you increase your caster level above 20 (there's a few ways), you can liquefy larger things.
And female halflings can get as light as 27 pounds, so you wouldn't even need too many of them!
A high level halfling alchemist, whose only life goal is to liquefy herself into a potion bottle and trick somebody into drinking her.
This would be kind of funny in some ways, save that the object is not allowed to be over 20 pounds.Actually, it doesn't say that! It's just one pound a level, so if you increase your caster level above 20 (there's a few ways), you can liquefy larger things.
And female halflings can get as light as 27 pounds, so you wouldn't even need too many of them!
A high level halfling alchemist, whose only life goal is to liquefy herself into a potion bottle and trick somebody into drinking her.
... Polymorph Any Object?
Its useful to have on their spell list because they can use a wand of that spell. If it wasn't on their list, then they would have to make a UMD check, but because it is on the list, they can automatically do it.
In truth, they need to just go through and remove all those offending spells and put a big note in offices for the future that reminds them alchemist extracts can't target non-creature things or create effects that don't affect the drinker.
If you take a look at the achemist's spell list, you will see that it is the shortest of all "spellcasters". Cutting it down would harm the class I think.
Its useful to have on their spell list because they can use a wand of that spell. If it wasn't on their list, then they would have to make a UMD check, but because it is on the list, they can automatically do it.
Although the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells [...]
Thus, an Alchemist cannot use the corresponding wand and such a formula would indeed be useless for an Alchemist. He could brew the spell into a potion, but this potion would be useless as well.
In truth, they need to just go through and remove all those offending spells and put a big note in offices for the future that reminds them alchemist extracts can't target non-creature things or create effects that don't affect the drinker.If you take a look at the achemist's spell list, you will see that it is the shortest of all "spellcasters". Cutting it down would harm the class I think.
I don't think you're correct. I imagine that the paladin, antipaladin, bloodrager, ranger are all shorter than the alchemist.
Aside from that, I'm still strongly set that they need to remove the offending spells from the list and clarify that otherwise multi-target spells (like haste) only work on the imbiber (or better clarify since the restriction is there but people fail to understand it often).
Now, despite that I'm totally okay with adding other spells to the list for alchemists to make up what they're losing.
All that aside, the alchemist is a strong class and as long as a few staple spells that it uses stick around it really shouldn't have many problems.
Thus, an Alchemist cannot use the corresponding wand and such a formula would indeed be useless for an Alchemist. He could brew the spell into a potion, but this potion would be useless as well.
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. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.
Alchemists can use wands for spells on their list.
Thus, an Alchemist cannot use the corresponding wand and such a formula would indeed be useless for an Alchemist. He could brew the spell into a potion, but this potion would be useless as well.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. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.Alchemists can use wands for spells on their list.
Huh nice one. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't think you're correct. I imagine that the paladin, antipaladin, bloodrager, ranger are all shorter than the alchemist.
Aside from that, I'm still strongly set that they need to remove the offending spells from the list and clarify that otherwise multi-target spells (like haste) only work on the imbiber (or better clarify since the restriction is there but people fail to understand it often).
Now, despite that I'm totally okay with adding other spells to the list for alchemists to make up what they're losing.
All that aside, the alchemist is a strong class and as long as a few staple spells that it uses stick around it really shouldn't have many problems.
I got curious, using the Paiso PRD spell list index I get these totals.
Paladin: 152
Anti-Paladin: 108
Bloodrager: 206
Ranger: 186
And of course, alchemist: 245
I will disagree. I think having the spells on their list is a benefit, because they can use wands or other spell-trigger items for spells on their list.
In truth, they need to just go through and remove all those offending spells and put a big note in offices for the future that reminds them alchemist extracts can't target non-creature things or create effects that don't affect the drinker.If you take a look at the achemist's spell list, you will see that it is the shortest of all "spellcasters". Cutting it down would harm the class I think.I don't think you're correct. I imagine that the paladin, antipaladin, bloodrager, ranger are all shorter than the alchemist.
Aside from that, I'm still strongly set that they need to remove the offending spells from the list and clarify that otherwise multi-target spells (like haste) only work on the imbiber (or better clarify since the restriction is there but people fail to understand it often).
Now, despite that I'm totally okay with adding other spells to the list for alchemists to make up what they're losing.
All that aside, the alchemist is a strong class and as long as a few staple spells that it uses stick around it really shouldn't have many problems.
Please do not forget that all listed classes can only cast spells up to 4th level. If you take a look for casters casting up to 6th level (Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Mesmerist, Occultist, Spiritualist, Summoner; I hope I got all) you get:
Occultist (1st-6th): 442
Bard (1st-6th): 388
Mesmerist (1st-6th): 354
Inquisitor (1st-6th): 327
Spiritualist (1st-6th): 267
Magus (1st-6th): 251
Alchemist: 245
Summoner (1st-6th): 225
Granted, Summoner (even with his Cantrips) has less spells than an Alchemist.
By your own report, the magus alchemist, summon, and spiritualist all virtual have the same number of spells.
And while I did specifically choose all 4th level spell casters, the original reason I made the statement is because the statement was made that it had the shortest spell list of all spell casters. Which is clearly not a true statement.
If the statement had been it has the shortest spell list of all 6th level spell casters, it still wouldn't have been true and as I just mentioned 4 6th level casters have virtually the same number of spells.
Thanks for the responses. My play group was of the mindset that thought the spell was simply a mistake.I didn't realize there was a lot of this thing with Alchemist spells.
Alchemists can use wands for spells on their list.
Quite correct of course. It's just a pity they:
A) Can't actually make wands, not being casters.B) Have spells on their list that can't be made into wands, extracts, infusions or potions and thus are useless.
Alchemists can use wands for spells on their list.Quite correct of course. It's just a pity they:
A) Can't actually make wands, not being casters.
B) Have spells on their list that can't be made into wands, extracts, infusions or potions and thus are useless.
What about Wand of Cure [Light/Moderate/Serious] Wounds, Wand of [Enlarge/Reduce] Person, Wand of Haste... ? I would argue that a lot of common spells are there. But the argument "it is there so you can cast it with a spelltrigger-item" is in my opinion invalid. An indicator for this is the spell "Air Walk, communal". It is a Level 5 spell and thus cannot be stored in a wand and wands are the most common spelltrigger items.
What me boggles much more is that
The highlighted portion of the first paragraph suggest that a) a spell made into an extract can be more potent than the corresponding potion and b) you can create extracts of 4th, 5th and 6th level spells, as well as personal spells. But at least the assumption about the "more potent effect" is in fact not true, because the highlighted portion of the second paragraph lets only the alchemist have the effect of this extract. This means Haste (a Level 3 spell) is now a single-target buff, which is on par with the potion. A wand would grant the full "buff", as it would allow multiple allies to be affected.
Then there are the obvious spells on the formulae list (everything "Communal"). Either this is a mayor oversight or the passage regarding extracts needs serious rewording wrt. the target of an extract.
A) An extract can be of 4+ level. That is more powerful than lower level potions.
B) The downside is that yes, everyone only effects the alchemist. Everything communal is on the list because they also have the single target spell. Air walk makes sense for them to put in an extract. Air walk, communal is there in case they find a staff with the air walk, communal spell on it. You could even make an "Alchemists staff" that has a bunch of these spells that aren't worth making into extracts on it. (Of course he needs someone else to recharge it, since he isn't a spellcaster...)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have to assume those were editing mistakes, where the choice to add them to alchemist spell list was made without referring to the alchemist method of casting which requires targeting themselves.
In other words, if they have the spell and it only targets objects then they can target an object when using their extract. If it targets both, then an alchemist may only target themselves.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that alchemists have brew potions as a class ability. Several of the mistakes can be made into oils with that ability, but you can make potions/oils only of spells/formulas you know and have prepared. So if we remove them, we shorten the list of the potions that the alchemist can make.