Why is Craft Alchemy linked to Casting in 3.5? Any prestige classes that bypass?

[Talionis]

I've always thought all the casters had good enough things to do and didn't need alchemy. Maybe at low levels it gives them more things to do during a day, but it would be nice if Rogues, Swashbucklers, and even Fighters could use and make Alchemical things?

Does anyone know why casting was added as a prereq to Craft (Alchemy)?

Are there any prestige classes that get around that? I guess in a way, Combat Trapsmith does because you don't have a casting requirement to enter it. Alchemist Savant is pretty cool, but it requires casting third level spells and the whole point would be to make a character not using magic.

[Yuki Akuma]

Because in 3e there was a trained-only skill called Alchemy that only appeared on the class lists of spellcasters.

No, seriously, that's the entire reason.

[HaikenEdge]

I've always thought all the casters had good enough things to do and didn't need alchemy. Maybe at low levels it gives them more things to do during a day, but it would be nice if Rogues, Swashbucklers, and even Fighters could use and make Alchemical things?

Does anyone know why casting was added as a prereq to Craft (Alchemy)?

Are there any prestige classes that get around that? I guess in a way, Combat Trapsmith does because you don't have a casting requirement to enter it. Alchemist Savant is pretty cool, but it requires casting third level spells and the whole point would be to make a character not using magic.

See if you can talk your DM into allowing you to take Craft (Chemistry) instead, then, instead of smokesticks, alchemist fire, tanglefoot bags and thunderstones, craft smoke grenades, incendiary grenades, glue grenades and flashbangs.

[Talionis]

See if you can talk your DM into allowing you to take Craft (Chemistry) instead, then, instead of smokesticks, alchemist fire, tanglefoot bags and thunderstones, craft smoke grenades, incendiary grenades, glue grenades and flashbangs.

Actually this is a good idea.

Any more prestige classes that are Alchemical?

[HaikenEdge]

Actually, by RAW, I'm not sure Combat Trapsmith lets you use Craft Alchemy, given that it doesn't actually turn you into a spellcaster. Yes, it's silly, but it's also RAW the same way monks aren't proficient with their own unarmed strikes.

[Diovid]

Any more prestige classes that are Alchemical?

Trapsmith (Dungeonscape), Combat Trapsmith (Complete Scoundrel), Alchemist Savant (Magic of Eberron) and Master Alchemist (Magic of Faerun) are the only ones that come to mind.

Well, I guess poisons could be alchemical-y, so see this handbook: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2714.0

The artificer base class (Eberron Campaign Setting) doesn't quite cast spells so that could also work.

One other option often mentioned is to take the pathfinder alchemist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist) and port it to 3.5.

[Azoth]

Another option is to take a race that has a racial SLA. This gets you a caster level and removes the need to play a caster. You could also take the feat that gives you a handful of cantrips to cast a day.

[HaikenEdge]

Another option is to take a race that has a racial SLA. This gets you a caster level and removes the need to play a caster. You could also take the feat that gives you a handful of cantrips to cast a day.

Won't work. Here's the pertinent line from the SRD (bold for emphasis):


To make an item using Craft (alchemy), you must have alchemical equipment and be a spellcaster.

Having an SLA does not qualify you as a spellcaster, so you'll need to gain the spellcasting ability elsewhere. Likewise, feats like Communicator, Insightful, Necropolis Born, Night Haunt, Soul of the North, and Spell Hand won't qualify you either, because they also grant SLAs.

[Azoth]

For some reason I thought it only required a caster level.

The feat Magical Training from PGtF should work. You gain 3 cantrips to cast as either a sorcer or wizard does. You are treated as a level 1 wizard or sorcer for the durations and all level based effects of the cantrips including ASF. The feat even gives you a spell book if you choose to prepare them as a wizard does.

[Dawgmoah]

I simply homebrewed it where a person could become an Expert and use the Craft skill: Alchemy. Lots of people out there in the world dabbling in "magic" at the lower end of the spectrum compared to the spell-gods of the higher levels.

[SinsI]

I'm more surprised that the ultimate Scientist of D&D - Artificier - doesn't get Alchemy as a class skill.

[HaikenEdge]

I'm more pissed of that the ultimate Scientist of D&D - Artificier - doesn't get Alchemy as a class skill.

Considering Artificers get all Craft skills as class skills, they do get Alchemy as a class skill. Whether they can actually use it, however, is another story entirely, dependent on whether the DM considers infusions to be spellcasting (which, by RAW, they're not).

[SiuiS]

Another option is to take a race that has a racial SLA. This gets you a caster level and removes the need to play a caster. You could also take the feat that gives you a handful of cantrips to cast a day.

My gosh that's brilliant. It means gnomes are the most prolific core alchemists.


Won't work. Here's the pertinent line from the SRD (bold for emphasis):


So warlocks cannot use craft: alchemy?

[SinsI]

Oh, reread it. Class description explicitly states that they can use it as if they were spellcasters.
So Artificier is a non-caster Alchemist.

[LibraryOgre]

Having an SLA does not qualify you as a spellcaster, so you'll need to gain the spellcasting ability elsewhere. Likewise, feats like Communicator, Insightful, Necropolis Born, Night Haunt, Soul of the North, and Spell Hand won't qualify you either, because they also grant SLAs.

As a note, this is part of things with the gnome... they have SLA, not the actual ability to cast spells, so their +2 to Alchemy is useless unless they are a caster class.

[HaikenEdge]

So warlocks cannot use craft: alchemy?

That is correct, because by RAW, they cast invocations, not spells.

[Lord Vukodlak]

That is correct, because by RAW, they cast invocations, not spells.

Several Warlock abilities are spell-like abilities. Which means they are by RAW spell casters and thus qualify for alchemy.


Having an SLA does not qualify you as a spellcaster,

Not according to the rules but your welcome to your opinion. Unless you can back up the statement that casting SLA doesn't make you a spellcaster. Then having SLA's qualifies you for craft alchemy NOTHING in the rules disputes that.

[Sir Chuckles]

This is why I always remove the Spellcaster prerequisite for alchemy...
And why I recommend doing so.

[LibraryOgre]

Several Warlock abilities are spell-like abilities. Which means they are by RAW spell casters and thus qualify for alchemy.


Can you provide a citation for that? It's contrary to what I have long heard.

[HaikenEdge]

Not according to the rules but your welcome to your opinion. Unless you can back up the statement that casting SLA doesn't make you a spellcaster. Then having SLA's qualifies you for craft alchemy NOTHING in the rules disputes that.

The key reason why being able to SLAs does not qualify you as a spellcaster by RAW is in the name "spell-like ability"; if a spell-like ability was in fact a spell, it wouldn't be called a "spell-like ability", but would instead be called a "spell ability".

Furthermore, SRD text does not refer to the use of SLAs as "casting" an SLA; it is instead written as "using" an SLA, which infers the process of using an SLA is different than casting a spell, an idea further supported by the fact SLAs cannot be counterspelled, nor can they be used to counterspell.

To use the old chestnut, saying that nothing in the rules disputes something means it is allowed can be taken the route of "nothing in the rules says animals don't run around shooting lasers out of their mouths", and then having bears run around murdering adventurers with their laser mouthbeams.

If you want to say SLAs allows you to use Craft (Alchemy), you can, but that's not how RAW works; RAW is as the text is written, and nothing in the text supports spell-like abilities are in fact spells, or that they're even "cast", and failing to qualify for either aspect would disqualify a character only being able to use SLAs as a "spellcaster", let alone with SLAs fail to qualify as both spells and as casting.

Edit: In fact, reading the Warlock entry on dndtools, the Warlock is never said to "cast" Invocations, and in fact, the verb used in conjunction with invocations is always "use", further backing the implication that Invocations, like other SLAs, are not spells.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Can you provide a citation for that? It's contrary to what I have long heard.

I don't have to, people claim that using spell-like-abilities doesn't make you a spellcaster but they can't actually support that assertion. The term spellcaster is vague and ill-defined. There is nothing to support that a warlock or even a gnome with only SLA's aren't spellcasters.

But to further my point the epic progression of the warlock from epic insights (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ei/20061027a) have "Augmented Alchemy" on the bonus feat list. A rather silly thing to add if warlocks aren't considered spellcasters.



Furthermore, SRD text does not refer to the use of SLAs as "casting" an SLA; it is instead written as "using" an SLA, which infers the process of using an SLA is different than casting a spell, an idea further supported by the fact SLAs cannot be counterspelled, nor can they be used to counterspell.
It does use the term caster level however, have concentration checks and there spells are subject to SR and dispel magic. They function as spells in all kinds of ways.

[LibraryOgre]

So, neither of you can support your assertion with a clear "Spell-like abilities are/are not enough to count one a spellcaster"?

[HaikenEdge]

So, neither of you can support your assertion with a clear "Spell-like abilities are/are not enough to count one a spellcaster"?

Not from direct text; however, I believe it is clear by RAW, firstly because spell-like abilities are not spells, and secondly because the action associated with spell-like abilities are never written as "cast" within RAW, but always "use".

Given these two facts, and definition of "spellcaster" being "one who casts spells", SLAs fail to qualify one as a spellcaster because (A) they are not spells, and (B) because they are not "cast".

However, you are correct that I cannot directly quote anything within the SRD that explicitly states whether SLAs are or are not enough to qualify one as a spellcaster.

[qwertyu63]

Does anyone know why casting was added as a prereq to Craft (Alchemy)?

Because WotC were dumb. I'd just ask your DM to remove it. I know I'd go for it.


Are there any prestige classes that get around that? I guess in a way, Combat Trapsmith does because you don't have a casting requirement to enter it. Alchemist Savant is pretty cool, but it requires casting third level spells and the whole point would be to make a character not using magic.

Not as far as I know (I know of a homebrew PRC that allows it, but I don't think that would help you).

[TuggyNE]

A spellcaster, per the glossary, is "A character capable of casting spells." Warlocks are of course characters; they apparently do not cast, and certainly have no spells.

1Of course, Craft: Alchemy should not require spellcasting anyway, so it's irrelevant for a sensible game.

[Azoth]

The Regional Feat Magical Training should work as I stated earlier. Sure it eats a first level feat, but does specifcally make you a spell caster.

[Talionis]

Do you think Factotems have the same problem Warlocks have since arcane dilettante doesn't exactly make you a Spellcaster?

[HaikenEdge]

Do you think Factotems have the same problem Warlocks have since arcane dilettante doesn't exactly make you a Spellcaster?

Absolutely. Arcane dilettante clearly states the Factotum "can mimic a spell as a spell-like ability".