Alchemist Savant - Can artificers benifit from it? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alchemist Savant - Can artificers benifit from it? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
glorystain
12-09-07, 09:33 PM I was wondering whether Artificers can make use of the Craft (alchemy) skill and the associated class abilities of the Alchemist Savant (MoE).

The PHB states that in order to make items using Craft(alchemy), the user must be a spellcaster, which Artificers are not. Is there an exception to the rule somewhere, or does this restriction apply to artificers as well?
Trannic
12-09-07, 11:56 PM Oddly enough yes, it's the artificer class itself. The item creation class ability allows them to mimic traditional spellcasting for the making of any item for which they have the skills and/or feats, which is pretty close to everything in the game.
glorystain
12-10-07, 01:38 AM Oddly enough yes, it's the artificer class itself. The item creation class ability allows them to mimic traditional spellcasting for the making of any item for which they have the skills and/or feats, which is pretty close to everything in the game.

I already looked at that. RAW, it doesn't work - the ability allows an artificer to make a UMD check in order to emulate the spells required to create an item, but it doesn't make him a spellcaster. And since certain spells aren't required to craft with alchemy, it can't be used for that either.

Unless spellcasting is a class feature? DM ruled it wasn't, so I'm trying to either find an exemption to the (stupid) restriction to alchemy or some other way around it.
Nived
12-10-07, 02:02 AM So a guy who can make any magic item in the game, a guy who can cast any spell in the game (through scribing scrolls), a guy who can brew potions, can't make Alchemy items?

That'd just be silly.

So yeah Artificers can make alchemy items.
Trannic
12-10-07, 10:38 PM Besides, did you not notice in the prereq's, it specifically states spells or infusions. As well, by raw, as long as you have ranks in the skill, and the appropriate raw materials, anyone can make a craft alchemy check.
glorystain
12-11-07, 12:09 AM Besides, did you not notice in the prereq's, it specifically states spells or infusions. As well, by raw, as long as you have ranks in the skill, and the appropriate raw materials, anyone can make a craft alchemy check.

Oh, artificers qualify to enter the class, the question is whether they can use alchemy.

Infusions are not specifically NOT spells, and artificers are specifically NOT spellcasters. And since it says you must be a spellcaster to create anything with alchemy, then yes, RAW alchemists, a class capable of producing any magic item in the game, cannot create anything with the use of Alchemy.
glorystain
12-11-07, 12:10 AM Besides, did you not notice in the prereq's, it specifically states spells or infusions. As well, by raw, as long as you have ranks in the skill, and the appropriate raw materials, anyone can make a craft alchemy check.

Oh, artificers qualify to enter the class, the question is whether they can use alchemy.

Infusions are not specifically NOT spells, and artificers are specifically NOT spellcasters. And since it says you must be a spellcaster to create anything with alchemy, then yes, RAW alchemists, a class capable of producing any magic item in the game, cannot create anything with the use of Alchemy.

As for ignoring the rule, my DM is strict about following the books and will not arbitrarily remove the restriction unless it says otherwise.

Obviously there is a loophole somewhere, I just need to find it.
Kinger
12-11-07, 11:49 AM You could point out that the 3.5 version of Craft: Alchemy was made prior to the publishing of the Artificer Class and thus cannot be expected to take it into account.

And I'm quite sure that the distinction is made between spells and infusions mainly to prevent wands of Personal Weapon Enhancement, using scrolls of Light without a UMD check, etc, not to deny the Artificer access to Craft: Alchemy.
Elderich
12-11-07, 01:24 PM How is an artificer NOT a spell caster? They spellCAST infusions. Infusions have a spell level. Infusions "follow all the rules for spells and function just like spells."

The stupid thing is they just should have said "item creation feats cannot be applied to infusions" and avoided all of this.
Nived
12-11-07, 02:54 PM So artificers can make any magic item regaurdless of prerequisits besides alchemy items?

Explain this to me.
glorystain
12-11-07, 04:31 PM So artificers can make any magic item regaurdless of prerequisits besides alchemy items?

Explain this to me.

Simple. They do not meet the requirements set forth in the Craft (Alchemy) skill. Specifically, they do not meet the spellcasting prerequisite.

It is stated multiple times in numerous sources that artificers are not spellcasters, starting with the description of the class itself. Infusions are not spells. And there is no use of UMD (that I've found) that would allow an artificer to bypass that restriction. This is what I'm trying to find.

No, it does not make sense. Yes, I think the rule is stupid and should have been abolished long, long ago. But the simple fact of the matter is that in all the sources I've examined there is no loophole that would allow an artificer to craft alchemical items. And since my DM is strictly by-the-book, there's not much that can be done about it. That is what I'm looking for.
Trannic
12-11-07, 06:24 PM However, if you read the Item creation class skill again, the Artificer uses the UMD check to emulate the prereq, so, one can argue that as long as you can use your UMD, you can make alchemical items just like anyone else because you substitute your UMD check for the spellcasting requirements.
glorystain
12-11-07, 07:49 PM However, if you read the Item creation class skill again, the Artificer uses the UMD check to emulate the prereq, so, one can argue that as long as you can use your UMD, you can make alchemical items just like anyone else because you substitute your UMD check for the spellcasting requirements.

Actually no, they cannot, for a few reasons.

Alchemy requires you to be a spellcaster, not to fake spells. Using UMD to replicate a spell prerequisite does not make you a spellcaster. Neither is spellcasting a class feature, so you can't use UMD to meet the prerequisite that way either. That is the problem

Again, going by strict interpertation of the rules, but you see the dilema
Trannic
12-11-07, 11:31 PM Unfortunately, I don't see the dilemma. I apologize if I offend, but your interpretation of the craft(alchemy) text, is not strict, it's damn right microscopic. You're taking a single word and claiming it alone says that artificers cannot make alchemy checks when the artificer, the quintessential crafting class, which is designed specifically to be able to make everything in the game, cannot use the skill that allows it to be able to make everything in the game to make something that, really, is almost pathetically easy for the artificer to make. Using your logic, the artificer cannot actually make any item that requires spellcasting, since, as you pointed out, he's not technically a spellcaster in the first place, magical infusions not withstanding. Now, you're probably going to say that, well making magic items is different the making alchemical items. No it isn't. They still require specific craft checks and being a spellcaster so that you can use the specific spell to make the item in question. So, how do you want it, can an artificer make anything at all, or not?
Elderich
12-12-07, 10:15 AM I am remembering an eberron book that mentioned the Artificers "spellcaster"-e-ness with regard to PrC's. Did it not suggest there was no reason to consider them not spell casters?
Nundahl
12-12-07, 12:15 PM This argument is frustrating on so many levels. Unfortunately the OP has a DM that is strict beyond reason, I've been there and done that. It's very, very easy to see the Rules as Written as law not to be questioned, but I can't ever reccomend this. Plain and simple, the game isn't balanced out of the book, so you cannot be afraid of breaking it.

Now, that said, give players an inch and they beg for a mile. I'm well aware from personal experience that giving a player who doesn't cast spells, say a Rogue, the ability to use Craft: Alchemy is just going to upset the Fighter who now wants a feat made so he can learn a few spells (this all pre-Eberron/Dragonmarks and the like). Rather than multiclass, he wanted a feat that would make him a sub-level 1 (but with 1st level spells) Sorceror. I of course said no, and he got upset. I won't go into the drama.

The simple point is this, the OP asked for advice regarding RAW, is there a way to convince the DM that by the RAW Artificers are Spellcasters? As much as I would argue at my own table, yes they qualify for all intents and purposes, by the book they are not Spellcasters. Infusions are not spells, and though I let Artificers use Alchemy and PrC into spellcasting classes to gain more Infusions/Day, until someone can point to a page where it says, "Artificers are Spellcasters for these purposes" the OP is still stuck with a (somewhat irrational) DM that will not allow it.

So please, give him a page reference if possible where it says he can do this, otherwise Glorystain you're out of luck pal. I do feel that the argument presented previously regarding reasoning with the DM and suggesting that Infusions weren't considered when those rules were written is a fair one, failing someone finding a RAW example.

By the way, horrible name, no clue what it means but "Glorystain" just sounds awful.
Trannic
12-12-07, 03:01 PM You're right nundahl, and I hope this helps. On page 53 of magic of eberron, it states how an artificer qualifies for Prc, any class that advances spellcasting (ie. +1 level of existing [U]spellcasting[U] class). They still qualify as spellcasters even though infusions aren't spells (which it also says), they just don't for any Prc that requires arcane or divine spellcasting, since they are neither, they use raw magic to power their infusions.
Nundahl
12-12-07, 03:43 PM They still qualify as spellcasters even though infusions aren't spells

This doesn't quite solve the OP's problem, but it does give him fuel for the fire to go back to his DM and say look pal, about a bajillion folks online agree and I've got this to back me up, let me use Alchemy. If not, nothing short of a black and white "Artificers qualify for Craft: Alchemy" will suffice for this DM methinks.
Elderich
12-12-07, 04:08 PM Of course we could all just ask Cust Serv, and post the answers...

Thats official.
Edymnion
12-12-07, 08:17 PM Like a spellcaster, an artificer can apply item creation feats and metamagic feats to his infusions. Like a sorcerer, an artificer can apply a metamagic feat to an infusion spontaneously, but doing this requires extra time. An artificer can craft alchemical items as though he were a spellcaster.Yes, Artificers can make alchemical items just fine. :)
Kinger
12-12-07, 08:23 PM ... All this, and we didn't bother to check the class description?
Nundahl
12-13-07, 08:31 AM *whistles*
Edymnion
12-13-07, 12:33 PM ... All this, and we didn't bother to check the class description?Heh, I know, I love it. :D
Trannic
12-13-07, 03:45 PM nothing like not looking in the right place.
Elderich
12-14-07, 11:01 AM Heh, I know, I love it. :DAgain +1 for Edymnion.
Forged_Fury
12-14-07, 08:05 PM Endymion just failed his Will Save to resist the compulsion to post the quotation from the ECS. First time I read the post the rule about artificers bing able to craft alchemical items jumped in my head. But, there seemed to be a bit of... belligerence, so I wanted to see how long it would go on. Thanks Endymion, you weak-willed rapscallion, :D

Hope that solves your dilemma Glorystain.

-FF
glorystain
12-19-07, 07:14 PM *feels very stupid*

tytytytytytytytytytyty
elondria420
12-28-07, 05:03 AM LOL Sometimes things hide in plain sight! No need to feel stupid there Glorystain, given the sheer volume of information in all the books it's easy to miss things sometimes. I think this is one of the many reasons online forums where gamers can come to exchange information and discuss the game is useful, as it is very difficult for most people to absorb all of the information about the game. Another reason not to feel bad: Your "by the book" DM missed that too! :D I guess neither of you have the Research feat! :P
Edymnion
12-28-07, 08:23 AM LOL Sometimes things hide in plain sight! No need to feel stupid there Glorystain, given the sheer volume of information in all the books it's easy to miss things sometimes.I'll say, it just came up in a conversation that one of the guys I play with face to face, who has been in the game as long as I have (at least back to 2e), that he thought the dex cap from armor applied to *EVERYTHING*. He was rather shocked when I said (in a debate about classes being restrictive) that, mechanically, an archer should be in full plate. He didn't realize you still got full dex bonus to your attacks.
Ricohard_Draconis
01-06-08, 10:14 AM Even if it were not in the class couldn't you argue that given that the Artificer can use its UMD to craft items that you could use the 'Emulate a class ability' version of the UMD skill to 'fake' being a spell caster for the purposes of crafting...
Kinger
01-06-08, 10:27 AM Not really, no, since the Artificer's faking ability only works for crafting magical items, and alchemical items, despite requiring a spellcaster to craft them, are not magical.
Count Nerindil Van Seraph
01-06-08, 03:45 PM I'll say, it just came up in a conversation that one of the guys I play with face to face, who has been in the game as long as I have (at least back to 2e), that he thought the dex cap from armor applied to *EVERYTHING*. He was rather shocked when I said (in a debate about classes being restrictive) that, mechanically, an archer should be in full plate. He didn't realize you still got full dex bonus to your attacks.

I have been playing D&D since about a month after 3.0 came out. How in the hell am I only just leaning this now.

Next you'll be telling me you have grapple figured out. But then I know you'd be lying.
Edymnion
01-06-08, 05:10 PM I have been playing D&D since about a month after 3.0 came out. How in the hell am I only just leaning this now.:rofl:
You have go to be kidding me?Next you'll be telling me you have grapple figured out. But then I know you'd be lying.Why do people have such a hard time with grappling? Its freaking simple. The grappler makes an opposed strength check against the grapple-ee's strength or dex, whichever is higher.

Seriously, I've never seen why people can't figure that out.
Kinger
01-06-08, 06:15 PM The grappler makes an opposed strength check against the grapple-ee's strength or dex, whichever is higher.

Seriously, I've never seen why people can't figure that out.

No... actually, it's more of an opposed attack roll, in which the attacker uses strength and the defender may use strength or dexterity. Base Attack Bonus factors into it.

You're thinking of tripping.

Unless you were being sarcastic about the whole thing... In which case I'm pretty sure you need to make a reflex save somewhere.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
glorystain 12-09-07, 09:33 PM	I was wondering whether Artificers can make use of the Craft (alchemy) skill and the associated class abilities of the Alchemist Savant (MoE). The PHB states that in order to make items using Craft(alchemy), the user must be a spellcaster, which Artificers are not. Is there an exception to the rule somewhere, or does this restriction apply to artificers as well?
Trannic 12-09-07, 11:56 PM	Oddly enough yes, it's the artificer class itself. The item creation class ability allows them to mimic traditional spellcasting for the making of any item for which they have the skills and/or feats, which is pretty close to everything in the game.
glorystain 12-10-07, 01:38 AM	Oddly enough yes, it's the artificer class itself. The item creation class ability allows them to mimic traditional spellcasting for the making of any item for which they have the skills and/or feats, which is pretty close to everything in the game. I already looked at that. RAW, it doesn't work - the ability allows an artificer to make a UMD check in order to emulate the spells required to create an item, but it doesn't make him a spellcaster. And since certain spells aren't required to craft with alchemy, it can't be used for that either. Unless spellcasting is a class feature? DM ruled it wasn't, so I'm trying to either find an exemption to the (stupid) restriction to alchemy or some other way around it.
Nived 12-10-07, 02:02 AM	So a guy who can make any magic item in the game, a guy who can cast any spell in the game (through scribing scrolls), a guy who can brew potions, can't make Alchemy items? That'd just be silly. So yeah Artificers can make alchemy items.
Trannic 12-10-07, 10:38 PM	Besides, did you not notice in the prereq's, it specifically states spells or infusions. As well, by raw, as long as you have ranks in the skill, and the appropriate raw materials, anyone can make a craft alchemy check.
glorystain 12-11-07, 12:09 AM	Besides, did you not notice in the prereq's, it specifically states spells or infusions. As well, by raw, as long as you have ranks in the skill, and the appropriate raw materials, anyone can make a craft alchemy check. Oh, artificers qualify to enter the class, the question is whether they can use alchemy. Infusions are not specifically NOT spells, and artificers are specifically NOT spellcasters. And since it says you must be a spellcaster to create anything with alchemy, then yes, RAW alchemists, a class capable of producing any magic item in the game, cannot create anything with the use of Alchemy.
glorystain 12-11-07, 12:10 AM	Besides, did you not notice in the prereq's, it specifically states spells or infusions. As well, by raw, as long as you have ranks in the skill, and the appropriate raw materials, anyone can make a craft alchemy check. Oh, artificers qualify to enter the class, the question is whether they can use alchemy. Infusions are not specifically NOT spells, and artificers are specifically NOT spellcasters. And since it says you must be a spellcaster to create anything with alchemy, then yes, RAW alchemists, a class capable of producing any magic item in the game, cannot create anything with the use of Alchemy. As for ignoring the rule, my DM is strict about following the books and will not arbitrarily remove the restriction unless it says otherwise. Obviously there is a loophole somewhere, I just need to find it.
Kinger 12-11-07, 11:49 AM	You could point out that the 3.5 version of Craft: Alchemy was made prior to the publishing of the Artificer Class and thus cannot be expected to take it into account. And I'm quite sure that the distinction is made between spells and infusions mainly to prevent wands of Personal Weapon Enhancement, using scrolls of Light without a UMD check, etc, not to deny the Artificer access to Craft: Alchemy.
Elderich 12-11-07, 01:24 PM	How is an artificer NOT a spell caster? They spellCAST infusions. Infusions have a spell level. Infusions "follow all the rules for spells and function just like spells." The stupid thing is they just should have said "item creation feats cannot be applied to infusions" and avoided all of this.
Nived 12-11-07, 02:54 PM	So artificers can make any magic item regaurdless of prerequisits besides alchemy items? Explain this to me.
glorystain 12-11-07, 04:31 PM	So artificers can make any magic item regaurdless of prerequisits besides alchemy items? Explain this to me. Simple. They do not meet the requirements set forth in the Craft (Alchemy) skill. Specifically, they do not meet the spellcasting prerequisite. It is stated multiple times in numerous sources that artificers are not spellcasters, starting with the description of the class itself. Infusions are not spells. And there is no use of UMD (that I've found) that would allow an artificer to bypass that restriction. This is what I'm trying to find. No, it does not make sense. Yes, I think the rule is stupid and should have been abolished long, long ago. But the simple fact of the matter is that in all the sources I've examined there is no loophole that would allow an artificer to craft alchemical items. And since my DM is strictly by-the-book, there's not much that can be done about it. That is what I'm looking for.
Trannic 12-11-07, 06:24 PM	However, if you read the Item creation class skill again, the Artificer uses the UMD check to emulate the prereq, so, one can argue that as long as you can use your UMD, you can make alchemical items just like anyone else because you substitute your UMD check for the spellcasting requirements.
glorystain 12-11-07, 07:49 PM	However, if you read the Item creation class skill again, the Artificer uses the UMD check to emulate the prereq, so, one can argue that as long as you can use your UMD, you can make alchemical items just like anyone else because you substitute your UMD check for the spellcasting requirements. Actually no, they cannot, for a few reasons. Alchemy requires you to be a spellcaster, not to fake spells. Using UMD to replicate a spell prerequisite does not make you a spellcaster. Neither is spellcasting a class feature, so you can't use UMD to meet the prerequisite that way either. That is the problem Again, going by strict interpertation of the rules, but you see the dilema
Trannic 12-11-07, 11:31 PM	Unfortunately, I don't see the dilemma. I apologize if I offend, but your interpretation of the craft(alchemy) text, is not strict, it's damn right microscopic. You're taking a single word and claiming it alone says that artificers cannot make alchemy checks when the artificer, the quintessential crafting class, which is designed specifically to be able to make everything in the game, cannot use the skill that allows it to be able to make everything in the game to make something that, really, is almost pathetically easy for the artificer to make. Using your logic, the artificer cannot actually make any item that requires spellcasting, since, as you pointed out, he's not technically a spellcaster in the first place, magical infusions not withstanding. Now, you're probably going to say that, well making magic items is different the making alchemical items. No it isn't. They still require specific craft checks and being a spellcaster so that you can use the specific spell to make the item in question. So, how do you want it, can an artificer make anything at all, or not?
Elderich 12-12-07, 10:15 AM	I am remembering an eberron book that mentioned the Artificers "spellcaster"-e-ness with regard to PrC's. Did it not suggest there was no reason to consider them not spell casters?
Nundahl 12-12-07, 12:15 PM	This argument is frustrating on so many levels. Unfortunately the OP has a DM that is strict beyond reason, I've been there and done that. It's very, very easy to see the Rules as Written as law not to be questioned, but I can't ever reccomend this. Plain and simple, the game isn't balanced out of the book, so you cannot be afraid of breaking it. Now, that said, give players an inch and they beg for a mile. I'm well aware from personal experience that giving a player who doesn't cast spells, say a Rogue, the ability to use Craft: Alchemy is just going to upset the Fighter who now wants a feat made so he can learn a few spells (this all pre-Eberron/Dragonmarks and the like). Rather than multiclass, he wanted a feat that would make him a sub-level 1 (but with 1st level spells) Sorceror. I of course said no, and he got upset. I won't go into the drama. The simple point is this, the OP asked for advice regarding RAW, is there a way to convince the DM that by the RAW Artificers are Spellcasters? As much as I would argue at my own table, yes they qualify for all intents and purposes, by the book they are not Spellcasters. Infusions are not spells, and though I let Artificers use Alchemy and PrC into spellcasting classes to gain more Infusions/Day, until someone can point to a page where it says, "Artificers are Spellcasters for these purposes" the OP is still stuck with a (somewhat irrational) DM that will not allow it. So please, give him a page reference if possible where it says he can do this, otherwise Glorystain you're out of luck pal. I do feel that the argument presented previously regarding reasoning with the DM and suggesting that Infusions weren't considered when those rules were written is a fair one, failing someone finding a RAW example. By the way, horrible name, no clue what it means but "Glorystain" just sounds awful.
Trannic 12-12-07, 03:01 PM	You're right nundahl, and I hope this helps. On page 53 of magic of eberron, it states how an artificer qualifies for Prc, any class that advances spellcasting (ie. +1 level of existing [U]spellcasting[U] class). They still qualify as spellcasters even though infusions aren't spells (which it also says), they just don't for any Prc that requires arcane or divine spellcasting, since they are neither, they use raw magic to power their infusions.
Nundahl 12-12-07, 03:43 PM	They still qualify as spellcasters even though infusions aren't spells This doesn't quite solve the OP's problem, but it does give him fuel for the fire to go back to his DM and say look pal, about a bajillion folks online agree and I've got this to back me up, let me use Alchemy. If not, nothing short of a black and white "Artificers qualify for Craft: Alchemy" will suffice for this DM methinks.
Elderich 12-12-07, 04:08 PM	Of course we could all just ask Cust Serv, and post the answers... Thats official.
Edymnion 12-12-07, 08:17 PM	Like a spellcaster, an artificer can apply item creation feats and metamagic feats to his infusions. Like a sorcerer, an artificer can apply a metamagic feat to an infusion spontaneously, but doing this requires extra time. An artificer can craft alchemical items as though he were a spellcaster.Yes, Artificers can make alchemical items just fine. :)
Kinger 12-12-07, 08:23 PM	... All this, and we didn't bother to check the class description?
Nundahl 12-13-07, 08:31 AM	whistles
Edymnion 12-13-07, 12:33 PM	... All this, and we didn't bother to check the class description?Heh, I know, I love it. :D
Trannic 12-13-07, 03:45 PM	nothing like not looking in the right place.
Elderich 12-14-07, 11:01 AM	Heh, I know, I love it. :DAgain +1 for Edymnion.
Forged_Fury 12-14-07, 08:05 PM	Endymion just failed his Will Save to resist the compulsion to post the quotation from the ECS. First time I read the post the rule about artificers bing able to craft alchemical items jumped in my head. But, there seemed to be a bit of... belligerence, so I wanted to see how long it would go on. Thanks Endymion, you weak-willed rapscallion, :D Hope that solves your dilemma Glorystain. -FF
glorystain 12-19-07, 07:14 PM	feels very stupid tytytytytytytytytytyty
elondria420 12-28-07, 05:03 AM	LOL Sometimes things hide in plain sight! No need to feel stupid there Glorystain, given the sheer volume of information in all the books it's easy to miss things sometimes. I think this is one of the many reasons online forums where gamers can come to exchange information and discuss the game is useful, as it is very difficult for most people to absorb all of the information about the game. Another reason not to feel bad: Your "by the book" DM missed that too! :D I guess neither of you have the Research feat! :P
Edymnion 12-28-07, 08:23 AM	LOL Sometimes things hide in plain sight! No need to feel stupid there Glorystain, given the sheer volume of information in all the books it's easy to miss things sometimes.I'll say, it just came up in a conversation that one of the guys I play with face to face, who has been in the game as long as I have (at least back to 2e), that he thought the dex cap from armor applied to EVERYTHING. He was rather shocked when I said (in a debate about classes being restrictive) that, mechanically, an archer should be in full plate. He didn't realize you still got full dex bonus to your attacks.
Ricohard_Draconis 01-06-08, 10:14 AM	Even if it were not in the class couldn't you argue that given that the Artificer can use its UMD to craft items that you could use the 'Emulate a class ability' version of the UMD skill to 'fake' being a spell caster for the purposes of crafting...
Kinger 01-06-08, 10:27 AM	Not really, no, since the Artificer's faking ability only works for crafting magical items, and alchemical items, despite requiring a spellcaster to craft them, are not magical.
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 01-06-08, 03:45 PM	I'll say, it just came up in a conversation that one of the guys I play with face to face, who has been in the game as long as I have (at least back to 2e), that he thought the dex cap from armor applied to EVERYTHING. He was rather shocked when I said (in a debate about classes being restrictive) that, mechanically, an archer should be in full plate. He didn't realize you still got full dex bonus to your attacks. I have been playing D&D since about a month after 3.0 came out. How in the hell am I only just leaning this now. Next you'll be telling me you have grapple figured out. But then I know you'd be lying.
Edymnion 01-06-08, 05:10 PM	I have been playing D&D since about a month after 3.0 came out. How in the hell am I only just leaning this now.:rofl: You have go to be kidding me?Next you'll be telling me you have grapple figured out. But then I know you'd be lying.Why do people have such a hard time with grappling? Its freaking simple. The grappler makes an opposed strength check against the grapple-ee's strength or dex, whichever is higher. Seriously, I've never seen why people can't figure that out.
Kinger 01-06-08, 06:15 PM	The grappler makes an opposed strength check against the grapple-ee's strength or dex, whichever is higher. Seriously, I've never seen why people can't figure that out. No... actually, it's more of an opposed attack roll, in which the attacker uses strength and the defender may use strength or dexterity. Base Attack Bonus factors into it. You're thinking of tripping. Unless you were being sarcastic about the whole thing... In which case I'm pretty sure you need to make a reflex save somewhere.