Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jack_SSW 08-23-05, 11:48 AM	First of all, I would like to appologize if I'm not the first person to ask this. Ok, so here's my problem. Alchemy is like the art of science isn't it? So then why do you need caster level 1 just to do alchemy? Since when did science become magic? Yes, there is a science of magic, and I can image alchemy being magical if you intend it to, but alchemy was original born because there was no magic, and we had to make up "fake magic." That was actually my first question, and if anyone has any great suggestions to make non-magical and magic alchemy I'd most appreciate it. My secound question. Ok, now again, non-maigcal alchemy is very limited, I can see that. I don't expect to make the cure to aids with non-maigcal alchemy. But I would expect to make pretty neat potions and poisions. Why is there really no rules for making non-magical alchemy items, especially custom items. If that's not enough, while non-maigcal alchemy is limited, magical alchemy, should, be limitless! Magic is magic, not science! Physics and the laws of nature are not obsticals, or at least, they can be easily bypassed, with magic. And yet, there is very little you can make, without making something that that has already been made. Yes, in real life it's not easy to invent things at all, but this is not real life, this is D&D! (Sorry for the long read :( ) So is anyone can help me with any of these problems I'd most appreciate it! Thanks! :)
green_yawgmoth 08-23-05, 12:09 PM	You don't have to have a caster level to make alchemical items. It's just that casters are way better at it, just like a rogue is better at picking locks that a wizard. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Callista 08-23-05, 12:26 PM	Are you in 3.0 ed.?
Sinaz 08-23-05, 12:59 PM	First of all, I would like to appologize if I'm not the first person to ask this. Ok, so here's my problem. Alchemy is like the art of science isn't it? So then why do you need caster level 1 just to do alchemy? Since when did science become magic? Yes, there is a science of magic, and I can image alchemy being magical if you intend it to, but alchemy was original born because there was no magic, and we had to make up "fake magic." Well, I think your reasoning is a little muddled here. Alchemy has an archaic connotation of science and chemistry with no real scientific understanding (not amateurish... just primal and misunderstood) and is also considered mystical or occult. Historically, it focused around transmuting lead into gold. It is also associated with creating medicinal elixers from weird ingrediants that have occult related magical properties... like how witch's potions always have things like eye of newt and bile from a worm born under the harvest moon or some such nonsense. There's not much science to it. But if you had to find a word that described "making magical potions from mundane ingrediants" the only word appropriate would be 'alchemy.' See? That was actually my first question, and if anyone has any great suggestions to make non-magical and magic alchemy I'd most appreciate it. My secound question. Ok, now again, non-maigcal alchemy is very limited, I can see that. I don't expect to make the cure to aids with non-maigcal alchemy. But I would expect to make pretty neat potions and poisions. Why is there really no rules for making non-magical alchemy items, especially custom items. If that's not enough, while non-maigcal alchemy is limited, magical alchemy, should, be limitless! Magic is magic, not science! Physics and the laws of nature are not obsticals, or at least, they can be easily bypassed, with magic. And yet, there is very little you can make, without making something that that has already been made. Yes, in real life it's not easy to invent things at all, but this is not real life, this is D&D! (Sorry for the long read :( ) So is anyone can help me with any of these problems I'd most appreciate it! Thanks! :) Here, you're thinking too hard. There are rules concerning making alchemal objects and substances... I can't quote it here because it isn't SRD, but it is covered under the Alchemy(INT) skill... I don't even know where it's published, I referenced it in the eTools help documentation. But really, you could sit down with your DM and work out rules. Look at how items with spell charges are made and simply convert it over to potions. Instead of making a rod with so many charges of spells, you are making a flask with so many 'doses' of a spell. Just remember... Alchemy is not science. Alchemy, broken into its three main components, was... Transmutation of base metals into precious metals at no cost, Creating a miracle elixer to cure all and prolong life, and Creating life... Using the percieved mystical powers of the cosmos, the primal elements, and directionless expirementation... It is like a naive proto-typical version of chemistry... although it could also be seen as a precursor to modern chemistry... it wasn't science by today's standards.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-23-05, 01:14 PM	You don't have to have a caster level to make alchemical items. It's just that casters are way better at it, just like a rogue is better at picking locks that a wizard. In 3.5, you do, because of incompetance.
Centauri 08-23-05, 01:14 PM	Ok, so here's my problem. Alchemy is like the art of science isn't it? So then why do you need caster level 1 just to do alchemy? Since when did science become magic? Yes, there is a science of magic, and I can image alchemy being magical if you intend it to, but alchemy was original born because there was no magic, and we had to make up "fake magic." Alchemy in the Real World is strictly scientific and, although some of its effects might seem supernatural, there are rational explanations for all of them. In D&D Alchemy is tied to magic and vice versa. What ingredients do you need to make a fireball? Bat guano and sulfur. In the Real World, we can get saltpeter out of bat guano, combine it in the right proportions with sulfur and some other ingredients and get gunpowder. Diamond, known for its hardness and endurance, is a key component to many spells. Silver combats lycanthropes and undead because of its connections to true purity and the moon. Spellcasters are trained to understand these kinds of fundamental properties of mundane materials, so it makes sense (if you want it to) that they are the only ones who can perform alchemy successfully.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-23-05, 01:30 PM	Spellcasters are trained to understand these kinds of fundamental properties of mundane materials, so it makes sense (if you want it to) that they are the only ones who can perform alchemy successfully. Anyone taking ranks in it should be able to do this.
Centauri 08-23-05, 01:36 PM	Anyone taking ranks in it should be able to do this. But they can't. I use my imagination to come up with reasonable explantions for the rules. You use yours to come up with reinterpretations of the rules. Your way is more work, but if it makes the game fun for you, go for it.
Lalkin 08-23-05, 01:51 PM	I dislike the requirement as well. It would seem reasonable if alchemy produced magical items but it doesn't. And while I've seen the, "Spellcasters are trained in the rudiments of alchemy thus they can pursue the craft." that seems far-fetched IMO since if all spellcasters were trained in alchemy why do they have to train the skill to make stuff? :rolleyes: That all said if your group doesn't want to throw the requirement out the window I would feel it reasonable to create a feat that grants the training of alchemy. Acolyte Training Prereq.: Character level 1 Benefit: Having spent your youth as an acolyte at a local temle you picked up enough secondhand knowledge to pursue alchemy if you wish. You also gain a +1 apprentice bonus to all Knowledge(religon) checks. Wizard's Apprentice Prereq.: Character level 1 Benefit: Having spent your youth as an apprentice to a local wizard you picked up enough secondhand knowledge to pursue alchemy if you wish. You also gain a +1 apprentice bonus to all Knowledge(arcane) checks.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-23-05, 01:56 PM	I use my imagination to come up with reasonable explantions for the rules. I do too. It usually involves the designers and whiskey :P
Centauri 08-23-05, 02:04 PM	I dislike the requirement as well. It would seem reasonable if alchemy produced magical items but it doesn't. Acid may not be magical, and there may be Real World equivalents to tindertwigs, tanglefoot bags, antitoxin, smokesticks, alchemists fire, sunrods, and thunderstones, but in D&D these things are possible because of the same properties that make magic possible. Hitting a gold-tipped iron rod is not going to produce light, but gold is the "sun metal," so it makes "sense." And a single serum is not going to protect against all poison, but something that bolsters the "humors" just might. And while I've seen the, "Spellcasters are trained in the rudiments of alchemy thus they can pursue the craft." that seems far-fetched IMO since if all spellcasters were trained in alchemy why do they have to train the skill to make stuff? If this is referring to what I said, I don't mean that spellcasters are trained in alchemy, therefore only they can use alchemy. I mean that only spellcasters are familiar with the potent interactions of seemingly inert substances. A Fighter with 5 ranks Craft(Alchemy) would be familiar with alchemical items and could help tell you what they'd be worth (with his bonus to Appraise), but he'd never be able to make any on his own, because he just doesn't get how carving runes on a clay pebble and soaking it in a brew for a while makes a thunderstone, any more than he knows how to turn bat guano and sulfur into a huge fire ball. When he takes the time to learn even the most fundamental spells, though, the pieces all come together for him. I'd like to see a more fleshed out Craft(Alchemy) - heck, the entire Craft skill could do with being more useful - but I don't need my Fighters and Barbarians whipping up Alchemist's Fire. The game works well enough without that. That all said if your group doesn't want to throw the requirement out the window I would feel it reasonable to create a feat that grants the training of alchemy. Acolyte Training Prereq.: Character level 1 Benefit: Having spent your youth as an acolyte at a local temle you picked up enough secondhand knowledge to pursue alchemy if you wish. You also gain a +1 apprentice bonus to all Knowledge(religon) checks. Wizard's Apprentice Prereq.: Character level 1 Benefit: Having spent your youth as an apprentice to a local wizard you picked up enough secondhand knowledge to pursue alchemy if you wish. You also gain a +1 apprentice bonus to all Knowledge(arcane) checks.[/QUOTE]
Centauri 08-23-05, 02:06 PM	I do too. It usually involves the designers and whiskey Reasonable and non-snarky explanations.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-23-05, 02:16 PM	Reasonable and non-snarky explanations. There's no reasonable explaination why someone can train and train and train and learn everything there is to know about alchemy -- and yet be physically unable to tip a stick with phosphorus and get a bleeding tindertwig.
rbrt_Spade 08-23-05, 02:25 PM	i get the point of the op. i would just talk to your dm and see if you can change the rule to 3.0 where even the commener can be a master alchemist. for more alchemy things supplements usually have more.-i know that tome & blood has some. also make up some rules with your dm for this, some d20 company makes a complete book on alchemy
Centauri 08-23-05, 02:33 PM	There's no reasonable explaination why someone can train and train and train and learn everything there is to know about alchemy -- and yet be physically unable to tip a stick with phosphorus and get a bleeding tindertwig.Because just training in alchemy doesn't provide you everything you need to know about making stuff with the skill. There's more to dipping a stick in phosphorus and getting a tindertwig, just as there's more to capping an iron rod with gold and getting a sunrod. I don't know what it is, and neither does the Fighter with 23 ranks in Craft(alchemy). It's a certain inexplainable something that those who channel magic just "get." Mainly though, it just doesn't fit the flavor that Wizards is trying to promote, so that's the way they did it. If you want a different flavor, go for it. Alchemy is certainly not a game breaker, though neither is having to just buy alchemical items. I was under the impression that the Craft skills are generally pretty useless anyway.
Serielle 08-23-05, 05:52 PM	The way I look at it is that certain materials have magical properties, but they can be triggered through physical manipulation. There's where alchemy comes in, as an alchemist you don't need to understand the magical properties of what you're working with, but as long as you manipulate it correctly you'll get the same effect. I'll accept that wizards will be better at it, for a wizard can actually understand the underlying magic inherent in the materials. Some items may actually need invocations to produce, but there's where the difference between Alchemy the skill and the brew potion feat comes in. And if alchemy is the domain of just casters, why have it as a skill at all? You don't require a check to make magic items. You can make a +10 weapon, and as long as you have the money and other requirements, you can't fail. Centari- If I'm gonna spend a feat to be able to craft alchemical items, it better make it so that I don't have a change of failure, otherwise it's a monumental waste of a feat.
LordHell 08-23-05, 07:23 PM	This is the most absurd rule in 3.5 - You need magic to create non-magical potions. WTF? Get your DM to houserule it. Make Craft(Alchemy) a class skill for spellcasters and a cross-class skill for everyone else.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-23-05, 08:21 PM	Get your DM to houserule it. Make Craft(Alchemy) a class skill for spellcasters and a cross-class skill for everyone else. Also rogues and experts.
Lalkin 08-23-05, 09:20 PM	Acid may not be magical, and there may be Real World equivalents to tindertwigs, tanglefoot bags, antitoxin, smokesticks, alchemists fire, sunrods, and thunderstones, but in D&D these things are possible because of the same properties that make magic possible. Hitting a gold-tipped iron rod is not going to produce light, but gold is the "sun metal," so it makes "sense." And a single serum is not going to protect against all poison, but something that bolsters the "humors" just might. When I say alchemy doesn't create anything magical I mean that in the literal sense. Nothing you make with alchemy shows up to a detect magic. All alchemy products work just fine in an anti-magic sphere. Hence they are not magical. Everything else is moot. By the RAW only casters can perform alchemy. getting around it requires your DM allowing houserules. the RAW just doesn't make sense to me. :D
DM-Vigilance 08-23-05, 09:41 PM	I don't agree with the 3.5 ruling that casters only should be restricted to the more potent alchemical items. In a low-magic campaign, or a campaign with no arcane spellcasters, the perfect solution is an intelligent fighter or rogue who can make some simple concoctions to help fighting foes with resistances or the like. Of course, if alchemy had no caster level restrictions, then it is imaginable that every character would try to max it out. There are a few solutions, including the 3.0-ism of making alchemy cross-class for noncasters. You might alternatively require that non-spellcasters find recipe/ritual books. A ritual brings the mystical element of the skill to the forefront, and mechanically it requires that each player with the skill find their own. And I'd say that the healing aids (not cure potions) and just about anything made with the skill is perfectly acceptable. I mean, if a 5th level mage can throw a couple of fireballs a day, what's the point in spending a week and some gold making alchemist's fire?
UltimateReality 08-23-05, 10:47 PM	That's been houseruled out in our group. Anyone who want to and has Craft on their class list can take ranks in Craft (Alchemy). It still doesn't see play very often.
vezina 08-25-05, 02:19 AM	Okay, let's consider this. Let's say the same fighter being discussed takes 23 ranks (or 11, if we want to keep it non epic) in Spellcraft. He can identify potions, he can look at a wizard casting a spell and know what it is, he can identify what spell was cast on him after he makes a saving throw, and so forth. Shouldn't he, by the same logic, be able to cast the spells that he's so adept at identifying? This is the same argument that Centauri is making about Craft (Alchemy). I support his views. There's something to alchemical processes, as well as magical processes, that a non-spellcaster can identify and relate to the real world, but they just can't catch on as far as how to reproduce the effects without special training in magic.
Norhg 08-25-05, 07:16 AM	I have made away with this restriction. It is unnecessary and doesn't add to the game in form of balance or anything else. Player creativity is number one and at times I might want to create rogue alchemists too.
Shatteredtower 08-25-05, 08:16 AM	Then the rogue just has to be "creative" enough to know a little spellcasting or a spellcaster. It's not like you have to be a spellcaster to use a smokestick or a tindertwig.
digoraccoon 08-25-05, 08:31 AM	I must have missed that requirement for the Craft (Alchemy) skill. In my games I allow anyone to take this skill, even without caster levels. The items produced aren't magical, they just seem like chemical effects that can be recreated if you have a decent knowledge of chemistry and the right supplies. A Tindertwig is basically a match. Achemist fire acts like an explosive liquid, perhaps something unstable like Nitro. A Sunron is phosphorus on a stick. :) I've had no problems with non-spell casters taking this skill.
Jack_SSW 08-25-05, 11:09 AM	You know, after reviewing what everyone has said so far, I was thinking of a system where as long as the ingrediants make sense together and the effects aren't going to give the character immortality or anything, it should work. Of corse alowing the DM to say how long, and what DC it should have. Now, for making alchemy that has the affect of an actual spell, that should require casterlevels. And, if their a spellcaster they might get a bonus to overcoming the DC due to the fact they have magic. Though this thread focuses on Alchemy, we should also come up with a way to make these craft skills useful even in high to epic levels.
green_yawgmoth 08-25-05, 12:51 PM	I must have missed that requirement for the Craft (Alchemy) skill. In my games I allow anyone to take this skill, even without caster levels. The items produced aren't magical, they just seem like chemical effects that can be recreated if you have a decent knowledge of chemistry and the right supplies. A Tindertwig is basically a match. Achemist fire acts like an explosive liquid, perhaps something unstable like Nitro. A Sunron is phosphorus on a stick. :) I've had no problems with non-spell casters taking this skill. I've thought AF as more of a napalmish type thing, since it sticks to the flesh and burns for 12 seconds. Nitro is more of an explosion. /nitpick http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Lord Schpungus 08-25-05, 01:55 PM	sure, these "Chemicals" work in Modern Society, but in D&D, it's all just a bunch of handwaving, a la MAGIC. You're looking at it with 2005 eyes. Stop it.
vezina 08-25-05, 07:19 PM	sure, these "Chemicals" work in Modern Society, but in D&D, it's all just a bunch of handwaving, a la MAGIC. You're looking at it with 2005 eyes. Stop it. Agreed. Nitro wasn't even discovered until almost modern times. I think the 19th Century. You're telling me these guys just come up with Nitro or Napalm because of training? Yeah, okay.
rannar the mage noob 08-25-05, 07:39 PM	alchemy: 1.the change of metal to gold and silver 2. old chemestry You probally need magic for transmuting or another thing how the hell can u make metal to gold and silver Why its science....uhh probally cause of the chemestry or u need certain kinds of metals so i hope that solves ur answer
digoraccoon 08-26-05, 08:08 AM	I've thought AF as more of a napalmish type thing, since it sticks to the flesh and burns for 12 seconds. Nitro is more of an explosion. /nitpick Hmmm, yeah that seems to make more sense then my idea. :) I'll go with that. sure, these "Chemicals" work in Modern Society, but in D&D, it's all just a bunch of handwaving, a la MAGIC. You're looking at it with 2005 eyes. Stop it. Not necessarily. Fantasy can have items & equipment that work like modern chemicals, though primative compared to modern versions and definitly likely to be not as potent. History is full of inventions and knowledge that have been lost and then "rediscovered". The Egyptians are credited to inventing the first battery. The first "Flame thrower" I believe was made in Babylonian times. In the case of D&D items like Alchemist Fire and Tindertwigs, I can suspend my belief in reality and think that in this ancient world someone had figured out a way to gel a combustable fuel or cake sulphur on a stick so it would light when struck. I wouldn't consider it game breaking to allow non-spellcasters to have Alchemy since a player would still need to invest points into the Craft skill, aquire the raw materials, and then spend down time making such items. Alchemy could work like a primitive form of chemistry. If a player wanted to get greedy and try making C4, well that's when the DM steps in to say "No, it's too complex." But something like making different colored chalk or a bar of soap doesn't sound like a bad idea.
darkness ninja of light 08-26-05, 09:54 AM	If a rogue wants to be an alchemist. That's fine. He just needs to take a level of a spellcasting class (or articifer, if you're in Eberron) first. Is that really so hard? To me, this is just like asking the DM if you can change your halfling's favored class to sorcerer so you won't get a multiclassing penalty when you go for Dragon Disciple. Even if he does make some background to support it (favored classes really don't work that way anyways...), it's changing the rules so you can avoid an inconveniant prerequisite. Alchemy is changing and manipulating the very nature of something to produce an effect you want. To me that sounds like exactly what spellcasters do. A spellcaster learns how to command and manipulate these forces in his training. Sure, a fighter could go spend years studying in his room everything he needs to know about alchemy.....but then again....shouldn't he be learning how to fight?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-26-05, 04:58 PM	Alchemy is changing and manipulating the very nature of something to produce an effect you want. To me that sounds like exactly what spellcasters do. A spellcaster learns how to command and manipulate these forces in his training. Sure, a fighter could go spend years studying in his room everything he needs to know about alchemy.....but then again....shouldn't he be learning how to fight? No, its not. Alchemy is knowing that if you mix tarum root and mandragora, you get tanglefoot material. Alchemical items do not detect as magical and thier effects are never subject to SR. THEY ARE NOT MAGICAL. By taking ranks in a craft skill, you learn all methods and ingredients needed to create the items related to that skill.
UltimateReality 08-26-05, 05:05 PM	By taking ranks in a craft skill, you learn all methods and ingredients needed to create the items related to that skill. Well, except for that little part on the chart that says "1 You must be a spellcaster to craft any of these items". The idea is that because it duplicates a spell-like effect, you have to have knowledge of spells first. (Though I don't see why, say, a rogue with UMD and a scroll of the similar spell shouldn't be able to try and have a small chance of success.) I don't think the requirement is right either, and if you want to be picky about it, make them make a Spellcraft check to duplicate the most appropriate spell. That'll force some cross-class ranks, stopping your barbarian from making alchemist's fire or whatever too soon. People get all bent out of shape over the rules...just use it or change it. Our group has never had a problem with opening Craft (Alchemy) to all and sundry, so that's how we do it. Other groups do it differently.
darkness ninja of light 08-26-05, 06:00 PM	No, its not. Alchemy is knowing that if you mix tarum root and mandragora, you get tanglefoot material. Alchemical items do not detect as magical and thier effects are never subject to SR. THEY ARE NOT MAGICAL. By taking ranks in a craft skill, you learn all methods and ingredients needed to create the items related to that skill. Just mixing ingrediants is more chemistry then alchemy. The end product does not need to show up with detect magic to show that it was made through a small magical process. If that were so, then every adventurer would glow like a lightbulb because of all the cure light wound spells cast on them and dispel magic would be lethal. Pretty much the prerequisite seems to say to me that the craft alchemy skill requires training like that of a spellcaster's. Alchemy isn't just mixing ingrediants as it is changing or manipulating the very nature of something to produce a desired effect. Lead doesn't change into gold. It COULD change into gold if you changed it around a bit with a ritual, though. It's the same as how you manipulate the energies in magic. Philosopher stones are considered magical, if I recall. Would all the gold coins made with it be considered magical? In any case, I don't think it's wrong to allow non-spellcaster's use alchemy. It's a bit off from the nature of alchemy, but it can make sense. I'm just with the idea that a level of a spellcasting class/articifer isn't something to complain about.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-26-05, 06:14 PM	Lead doesn't change into gold. There are not game rules that allow you to change lead to gold. Lead to gold is the dream of alchemists, but the ancient real world ones and fantasy ones. Then can't actually do it.
darkness ninja of light 08-27-05, 04:02 PM	I was using that as an example. Just change "lead" and "gold" to other alchemical things. It was just the most easily identifiable thing with alchemy that I could think of. You can actually do that in D&D with the Philosopher's Stone, though.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-27-05, 08:47 PM	1) Alchemists created acid, greek fire and the concept of volume, and poinson weaponry. 2) They wanted to make gold, but failed. They wanted to make the dead alive, but failed. They failed because science can't do that. 3) The Philosopher's stone doesn't exist in DnD, but if it did it would be a Magic Item that allowed PaO at will and not have anything to do with alchemy. 4) DnD Alchemy is Ancient Greek Alchemy, not FMA (despite it being a cool show) alchemy. Ed and Al are Transmuters in DnD terms, not alchemists.
darkness ninja of light 08-27-05, 08:56 PM	Huh? Who brought Full Metal Alchemist into this? I'm not even that fond of the show! Check the Dungeon Master's Guide though. The Philosopher's Stone is in the Magic Items section. It's a bit different from the normal legend, but it does do the "turn into gold" and "bring dead back to life" thing.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-27-05, 09:07 PM	Its an artifact. And it doesn't even mention the word alchemy. It does mention 'transmute' as in 'transmuter' I mention FMA because that's the style you're misconceiving DnD alchemy has. You aren't magically transforming jack. You are combining components to creat a compound.
darkness ninja of light 08-27-05, 09:19 PM	If this thread had shown up before Full Metal Alchemist even existed then I would have been saying the same thing! From what I've heard of old alchemists, they were people very much tied in with crude magic who tried to mix chemistry and magic for producing certain things that would otherwise not be possible. In D&D, it seems that they really DO use magic. In fact, alchemy and transmutation magic are probably linked. Thus, it would make sense that the Philosopher's Stone is strong transmutation. Where is the D&D definition of alchemy anyways?
Gellion 08-27-05, 09:25 PM	I just ruled that it can be used by anyone who puts ranks into it. I treat it as a Fantastic form of chemistry in my game. But the products are all non-magical. Truth be told for all intents and purposes it may as well be called Craft(Chemistry) when I DM.
Kldran Achran 08-27-05, 09:50 PM	Alchemical items do not detect as magical and thier effects are never subject to SR. THEY ARE NOT MAGICAL. The same could be said of Golems, and they definitely require magic to make.
Antioch 08-28-05, 02:33 AM	I completely agree with Vaal, and see no reason why you shouldnt remove this illogical prerequisite. A fighter should be learning to fight you say? Okay, so I guess in your games a fighter cannot take ranks in Craft (bookbinding) or Craft (basketweaving), except that oh, they can! Huh, guess they arent out fighting 24/7, or at least during some point in their lives they learned a useful tradeskill. And here I was thinking that all fighters were two-dimensional hatchetmen. :rolleyes: Seriously, there is no reason that the skill should demand a caster level. Period. As Vaal said, none of its magical, none of it ceases to function in areas where magic does not work, and you get no benefit to SR. Emulating a spell? Hardly. Also, if you were going to alter the basic nature of mundane items to get a desired effect, that sounds like transmutation to me. What if your caster takes transmutation as a barred school? Sorry, it just makes no sense no matter how you try to half-arse it.
Antioch 08-28-05, 02:38 AM	I mention FMA because that's the style you're misconceiving DnD alchemy has. You aren't magically transforming jack. You are combining components to creat a compound. And if you think you might be doing it FMA style, you're gonna be maintaining that three point array for a long time depending on your craft roll. :P
Antioch 08-28-05, 02:39 AM	The same could be said of Golems, and they definitely require magic to make. And this fact is explicitly noted in the MM. This is not the case in the Craft (alchemy) section.
Gilean 08-28-05, 10:48 AM	Of course alchemy uses magic. That is the entire point of it. It is poor man's magic. Which means, it should be available to everyone. Just because it is magic doesn't mean it shouldn't be available to those who haven't dedicated their lives to magic, or born with excessive amounts of it.
darkness ninja of light 08-28-05, 11:07 AM	The same could be said of Golems, and they definitely require magic to make. And this fact is explicitly noted in the MM. This is not the case in the Craft (alchemy) section. The fact is, with alchemy, it SAYS SPECIFICALLY that it requires 1 level of a spellcasting class. This should pretty much prove that Yes, in D&D alchemy has SOMETHING to do with magic. It says so right there. Golems REQUIRE "craft construct" which requires a certain spellcaster level. Craft: Alchemy REQUIRES 1 level of a spellcasting class. Both are made through a magical process. Thus, when I said "a fighter should (perhaps "could" is a better word choice?) learn to be fighting" I was saying that learning alchemy goes into the path of taking a level in spellcasting. A fighter learning alchemy would be on his way to taking a level of a spellcasting class, which takes a lot of time and effort, instead of approaching a next level of fighter or so, which takes an equal amount of time an effort. Learning Craft: Bookbinding, however, is a much easier trade since he already has the mundane skills needed to pursue such a craft. It's clearly not magical.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-28-05, 01:26 PM	I just love the lengths people will go to to make thier own flavor to cover bad rules, yet how little they're willing to do to get rid of bad flavor WotC puts out.
Gilean 08-28-05, 01:28 PM	I just love the lengths people will go to to make thier own flavor to cover bad rules, yet how little they're willing to do to get rid of bad flavor WotC puts out.*Nod.* Includes bad mechanics.
Antioch 08-28-05, 01:30 PM	It's clearly not magical. The same could be said for alchemy, since for some reason its "magic" defies the very laws of magic yet produces no magical benefits. Period. I take it in your games then that alchemical items dont work in an antimagic shell and can be dispelled?
Antioch 08-28-05, 01:31 PM	I just love the lengths people will go to to make thier own flavor to cover bad rules, yet how little they're willing to do to get rid of bad flavor WotC puts out. I know. Since I've scratched off the inane spellcaster prereq, none of my players have noticed, since they didnt notice that it needed on in the first place. Also, it has not unbalanced the game at all, and makes more sense.
Antioch 08-28-05, 01:33 PM	Golems REQUIRE "craft construct" which requires a certain spellcaster level. Craft: Alchemy REQUIRES 1 level of a spellcasting class. Both are made through a magical process. I guess I also didnt state it correctly. When you craft a golem, it specifically mentions what spells are needed to create it, the experience lost like any other magical creation, etc. Do you demand that players burn XP as well as gold when creating alchemy items?
Centauri 08-28-05, 01:36 PM	how little they're willing to do to get rid of bad flavor WotC puts out. I don't consider it bad flavor.
Gilean 08-28-05, 01:41 PM	I don't consider it bad flavor.If referring to the alchemy requirement, the bad flavour part is that it requires spellcaster levels. Magic is inherent in settings D&D is made for, there is no need to take arcane levels to be able to use a skill.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-28-05, 02:22 PM	Actually, the spellcaster thing is a bad rule. There's no flavor there at all. Not even some BS about you transmuting materials. Bad flavor is an entirely different thread altogether.
darkness ninja of light 08-28-05, 02:34 PM	I like the flavor. It's a magical craft! No other craft works like that. It's unique and only specialized people would be able to take it. It's like "craft wondrous item" only lesser, and you can improve it. Just because you think it's bad flavor, doesn't mean it is to the rest of us! Why wouldn't alchemy items work in an anti-magic field? I see no reason why they wouldn't. Instantaneous magic effects keep working in a magic field, and since alchemy is processed through magical technique, but no spell actually sustains it, then it would thus, continue to function. As I said before, would every Cure spell ever cast on you cease to function in an anti-magic field? Of course not! Does water from the Create Water spell disappear? Nope! Golems are notably immune to anti-magic fields. In fact, some golems have anti-magic fields as one of the spells needed to create them. I don't really see a need to say exactly what spells are required to pull off alchemy. If you are a level 1 spellcaster, then you have the skills to properly produce alchemical items. An example would be Craft Magic Arms and Armor. It doesn't say that you need "Magic Weapon" on your spell list to change a masterwork sword into a +1 sword. Does that mean that it is silly that you actually don't need to be a level 5 spellcaster to take the feat? I bet someone could make a pretty strong argument for it, but it's obvious that magic is required in general for it to work. Even if the wizard never learned "Magic Weapon", then they'd still be able to pull it off. If you want to add in such a thing to alchemical items, it shouldn't be too hard to find spells that would fit the bill. I just love the lengths people will go to to make thier own flavor to cover bad rules, yet how little they're willing to do to get rid of bad flavor WotC puts out. I thought we were in a debate here....
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-28-05, 02:55 PM	It's a magical craft! Craft Wondrous is a magical craft. Craft Arms and Armor is a magical craft. Alchemy is not a magical craft. No other craft works like that. My point exacty. It's unique and only specialized people would be able to take it. Which was something 3.5 proports to get rid of, but then again, 3.5 porports to be reverse compatable. It's like "craft wondrous item" only lesser, and you can improve it. No, you can't. You can't augment alchemy without your DM allowing new alchemical items. Just because you think it's bad flavor, doesn't mean it is to the rest of us! I just got through saying its a bad rule. There's no flavor to it at all. Why wouldn't alchemy items work in an anti-magic field? I see no reason why they wouldn't. Instantaneous magic effects keep working in a magic field, and since alchemy is processed through magical technique, but no spell actually sustains it, then it would thus, continue to function. 1. Alchemical items still maintains active properties. no instantaneous spell does that. Stone walls, water et all are not chemical fire or acid. 2) The bolded part is once again your own flavor put up to justify the rule. An example would be Craft Magic Arms and Armor. It doesn't say that you need "Magic Weapon" on your spell list to change a masterwork sword into a +1 sword. Does that mean that it is silly that you actually don't need to be a level 5 spellcaster to take the feat? I bet someone could make a pretty strong argument for it, but it's obvious that magic is required in general for it to work. Even if the wizard never learned "Magic Weapon", then they'd still be able to pull it off. Craft arms and Armor is a Feat, not a skill. If you want to add in such a thing to alchemical items, it shouldn't be too hard to find spells that would fit the bill. That only makes alchemy more laughably useless. Noone is going to pay 10gp and spend a week to make a flask of acid when they can cast acid splash for free. I thought we were in a debate here.... The second you don't have to make things up to explain the rule, we can have one. Until then, I stand by 3e and the Arms and Equipment guide that were actually written rules rather than your personal justification for a footnote in the skills section.
darkness ninja of light 08-28-05, 03:35 PM	Craft Wondrous is a magical craft. Craft Arms and Armor is a magical craft. Alchemy is not a magical craft. According to the rules as well as some historical justification it is! My point exacty. It makes it interesting an unique and helps to keep spellcasters as the source of these sort of things (constructs, weapons, armor, wondrous items, etc. <= all spellcasters) Which was something 3.5 proports to get rid of, but then again, 3.5 porports to be reverse compatable. Where is that coming from? The prerequisite isn't hard at all while still having the interest of being a craft skill for magic users. No, you can't. You can't augment alchemy without your DM allowing new alchemical items. I meant that you can get better at it, which you can only do by additional caster levels and spells with the feats. You can make any alchemical item you want with craft alchemy! I just got through saying its a bad rule. There's no flavor to it at all. Nor is there flavor to the other crafts, but we pretty much know what alchemy and weaponsmithing and bookbinding is. With alchemy it says "you need 1 spellcaster level" so it seems to add the additional comment "alchemy in D&D needs some spellcasting" which goes with historical alchemy. 1. Alchemical items still maintains active properties. no instantaneous spell does that. Stone walls, water et all are not chemical fire or acid. 2) The bolded part is once again your own flavor put up to justify the rule. Golems maintain their properties. Water created by Create Water would still put out fires in an anti-magic field. Chemicals created by magic that are not magic themselves would still function. You're saying yourself that alchemy is non-magical and just a mixing of ingrediants. That's giving it your own flavor even moreso than I am with saying that since the rules say it requires a caster level, then it uses magic. Craft arms and Armor is a Feat, not a skill. I'm not sure what difference that makes, but regardless. It seems like craft alchemy would be too weak to be a feat, but still a thing that spellcasters should have and be able to improve. Thus, it is a skill. That's an opinion though. I was using the feat as an example that you could argue that under, let's say, Craft: Weaponsmithing the option to create +1 weapons with no magical technology exists similar to how Craft: Alchemy is being argued that since it doesn't say what spells it uses, it doesn't require magic. That only makes alchemy more laughably useless. Noone is going to pay 10gp and spend a week to make a flask of acid when they can cast acid splash for free. Well, it would actually be really beneficial. It's making a scroll of Acid Splash with TWICE the potential potency, none of the xp, and no usage of a spell slot! The second you don't have to make things up to explain the rule, we can have one. Until then, I stand by 3e and the Arms and Equipment guide that were actually written rules rather than your personal justification for a footnote in the skills section. As stated before I'm just using the rules.
Laranis Callirr 08-28-05, 04:07 PM	It makes sense for Alchemy to have a caster pre-requisite, as most most of alchemy is a farce, and not a real science. As for creating acids and all that kind of crazy stuff, they shouldn't even call that alchemy - chemistry would be more fitting. And of course, you wouldn't need a caster level for that.
Always-Late 08-28-05, 04:32 PM	Flavor argument, and thus irrelevant to the rules discussion, but whatever: I see alchemy as the precursor of what could be called modern science. I figure that in that case, a guy could sit around in his lab all day, with pages and pages of calculations or what-not. Take a mad scientist or an electrical engineer, and stick him into D&D, and it follows that that kind of person would become an alchemist. The Greeks didn't need magic to make greek fire, and we don't need magic to make thermite. The science end of the magic v. science doesn't even exist, since all the science is magic. I just think that you should be able to choose which road you want to follow, but the science road doesn't even exist. Actually, in retrospect, I don't think that made any sense.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-28-05, 05:16 PM	1) Historical alchemy was not magic. They may have though they were making magic, just like cavemen thought they were making magic when they rubbed sticks and got fire, but their ignorance does not mean we have to be ignorant as well. 2) There is not a single alchemical item in the core that does not have a historical analog. All of them are items people in our world acutally made. Unless you believe that the middle easterners that used naphta (alchemist's fire), indians that used smoke pots and glue bags (smokes sticks, tanglefoot), or aztecs that used checmical lanterns (sunrods) all had spellcaster levels, there is nothing magical about these things.
Centauri 08-28-05, 05:27 PM	1) Historical alchemy was not magic. D&D alchemy is not historical alchemy. The alchemical items in the PHB do have historical analogues, but there are differences. Antitoxin works on all poisons. All of the items are inert and sturdy, ready for use at any time, despite being bashed about.
Antioch 08-29-05, 05:26 AM	According to the rules as well as some historical justification it is! No, the rules say you need spellcaster levels. No note is given that its magical, and by what we know of alchemy items and the rules, they are NOT magical in any way. Try to keep your facts straight; if you can cite where it says that they are affected by an antimagic field, dispel magic, or similar effect that destroys them or renders them useless, I'd like to see it. Until, then there is no statement in the game, or in history, that proves alchemy is geared around magic. It makes it interesting an unique and helps to keep spellcasters as the source of these sort of things (constructs, weapons, armor, wondrous items, etc. <= all spellcasters) Why do you think that by removing this incredibly illogical requisite that it will somehow render spellcasters obsolete? Where is that coming from? The prerequisite isn't hard at all while still having the interest of being a craft skill for magic users. Sacrificing a character level just to start garnering ranks in a Craft skill is a big loss. Especially if you werent planning on multiclassing and arent playing your races' favored class. Guess what, now you get -20% XP. I meant that you can get better at it, which you can only do by additional caster levels and spells with the feats. You can make any alchemical item you want with craft alchemy! So despite your completely unsupported claims that it holds a basis in magic, a 19th level barbarian/1st level wizard with an Int of 3 could make the exact same alchemy items, though it would take longer? Looks like this is yet another contradiction to how spells work. Of course, maybe you dont know how magic works in D&D. Nor is there flavor to the other crafts, but we pretty much know what alchemy and weaponsmithing and bookbinding is. With alchemy it says "you need 1 spellcaster level" so it seems to add the additional comment "alchemy in D&D needs some spellcasting" which goes with historical alchemy. Except it doesnt. Golems maintain their properties. Water created by Create Water would still put out fires in an anti-magic field. Chemicals created by magic that are not magic themselves would still function. If you knew how creation effects worked, it would all make sense. By your example magic arms and armor should work as well. You're saying yourself that alchemy is non-magical and just a mixing of ingrediants. That's giving it your own flavor even moreso than I am with saying that since the rules say it requires a caster level, then it uses magic. Except that me and Vaal have evidence that the designer's are wonked. We have pointed out numerous flaws that suggest it is not magical in any shape, way, or fashion. Aside from your teeny clause, you have nothing. I'm not sure what difference that makes, but regardless. It seems like craft alchemy would be too weak to be a feat, but still a thing that spellcasters should have and be able to improve. Thus, it is a skill. That's an opinion though. Any and all alchemy items could be sorted into various magic item categories with little difficulty. Since none are magical, they arent. How hard is that to see? I was using the feat as an example that you could argue that under, let's say, Craft: Weaponsmithing the option to create +1 weapons with no magical technology exists similar to how Craft: Alchemy is being argued that since it doesn't say what spells it uses, it doesn't require magic. I have no clue what you are trying to say here, but from the sounds of it you are making a very skewed argument to support your flimsy flavor. The difference is that the +1 sword is clearly labeled as magical. Well, it would actually be really beneficial. It's making a scroll of Acid Splash with TWICE the potential potency, none of the xp, and no usage of a spell slot! You can scribe said piddling cantrip in the span of a day. You wont be brewing up acid nearly as soon until higher levels where acid probably isnt going to be terribly useful. As stated before I'm just using the rules. And technically you would be correct, good thing we arent arguing that. Also, if you just want to be right, you dont have to invent inane reasons as to why the rules say what they do, we can all read.
darkness ninja of light 08-29-05, 01:20 PM	No, the rules say you need spellcaster levels. No note is given that its magical, and by what we know of alchemy items and the rules, they are NOT magical in any way. Try to keep your facts straight; if you can cite where it says that they are affected by an antimagic field, dispel magic, or similar effect that destroys them or renders them useless, I'd like to see it. Until, then there is no statement in the game, or in history, that proves alchemy is geared around magic. Have you even read what I've been saying? Something doesn't have to be affected by an anti-magic field/dispel magic/whatnot in order to be magical! Anti-magic fields/dispel magic/detect magic aren't some magic security devices that flawlessly divide the boundaries of magic/nonmagic. I've given you MANY examples! In addition, there would not be a requirement for a spellcasting level unless alchemy was geared around magic! If something requires dexterity as a prerequisite, then you can be PRETTY sure that it in some way uses the character's nimbleness to pull it off. The feat Combat Expertise needs Intelligence 13 (not 12, not 11...) but it doesn't say HOW he uses his INT score, but I'm pretty sure that you can understand that trading attack for AC involves a higher intelect from the prerequisite (quick thinking, perhaps?). Also, silversheen is a wondrous item that applies its properties to a weapon to turn it into an alchemical silver weapon that glows with faint transmutation. Why do you think that by removing this incredibly illogical requisite that it will somehow render spellcasters obsolete? Where have I implied such a thing? It is simply consistant with the rest of the game. I've never seen a non-spellcaster/non-articifer make scrolls, wondrous items, golems, magic swords, potions, etc. and for good reason. Alchemical items are their territory as well. Alchemical items are quite powerful compared to early spells, and are still quite powerful for higher level games. Acid, the easiest alchemical item to make, deals 1d6 acid damage and 1 point of splash damage to anyone within 5 feet, costs only 3.33gp to craft (if you mess up badly, it's only half that to try again), no experience, is not affected by anti-magic fields, and if you only JUST hit the DC to craft, it should only take about four days. If you actually take ranks and have an int bonus, it should take less. Sacrificing a character level just to start garnering ranks in a Craft skill is a big loss. Especially if you werent planning on multiclassing and arent playing your races' favored class. Guess what, now you get -20% XP. Similar to a lot of cases in D&D. If you don't want to be a spellcaster, then don't be an alchemist. If you want trapfinding but don't want to be a rogue (or similar class with the ability), then tough luck! Otherwise, something like that could definately enrich a character. It sounds like Favored Classes is your problem, not alchemy. Since it is used untrained and does not require a feat, craft: alchemy is pretty much just a nice class ability given to spellcasters. Should non-lycanthropes (and other were-whatevers) be able to take ranks in Control Shape? So despite your completely unsupported claims that it holds a basis in magic, a 19th level barbarian/1st level wizard with an Int of 3 could make the exact same alchemy items, though it would take longer? Looks like this is yet another contradiction to how spells work. Of course, maybe you dont know how magic works in D&D. Umm...I have no idea where you are getting with this. Completely unsupported? I think the rules support me quite well. I'm also not saying that Alchemist's Fire is a spell....and that it works like a spell. You can't cast Alchemist's Fire... Wait, are you talking about the fact that a wizard with Int 3 couldn't cast Cantrips? He couldn't make scrolls or potions, but if he were a level 5 wizard with an INT 3 then he could still make the majority of magic weapons and armor. It would also most likely take him longer to do any craft, not just alchemy. Though I must say extreme examples aren't always the best ones. That character is a sham as a wizard and it doesn't seem like the player really had in mind "alchemist" when he made the character. He could also have been a druid for spellcasting but the Int penalty is just not someone I would see being an alchemist, nor would anyone see it that way unless it was a joke character. I assume that he took wizard early on, so that he'd have access to the craft skill, so it would also be unlikely he would have survived or successfully been able to craft anything easily (having to pay half the cost of the raw materials again every time he failed by 5 or more). Except it doesnt. Except it doesn't what? Go with historical alchemy? The only times I learned about alchemists in school/anywhere they were people who were using "magic" to fuel their science. I assume you don't mean "it doesn't say that you need 1 level in spellcasting to use craft: alchemy". If you knew how creation effects worked, it would all make sense. By your example magic arms and armor should work as well. They sure don't! Magic weapons are just that- magic weapons. Golems and Homunculi were created through magic, but they don't stop living/working in the anti-magic field. Same thing goes with alchemy and several other spells/things created through magic (ex. silversheen would work). Familiars actually say specifically that they are made through a magic ritual, but they don't require a specific spell and also survive anti-magic fields. You're saying that I don't know how creation effects work. Care to explain then? Also, explain the "it doesn't" in the "except it doesn't" comment, please. Except that me and Vaal have evidence that the designer's are wonked. We have pointed out numerous flaws that suggest it is not magical in any shape, way, or fashion. Aside from your teeny clause, you have nothing. Where is this evidence that the designers are wonked? Did you find a press release? Frankly a lot of people think the designers were quite justified with this. I've been giving out my own points on how alchemy is related to magic, and the teensy little clause is quite a big help ("you must have a spellcaster level to craft: alchemy" translates into "you need magic to craft alchemy"). I've also found other things in D&D that work similarly, all magical. It seems I have a lot more than just a belief that alchemy is a magical process. Any and all alchemy items could be sorted into various magic item categories with little difficulty. Since none are magical, they arent. How hard is that to see? So you'd rather have a feat AND be a spellcaster to craft alchemy? Alchemical items, holy water, and continual flame are all given their own special section "Special Substances and Items". All of these items require spellcaster levels and are not in any "magic item" section, though you could easily organize them into such. I have no clue what you are trying to say here, but from the sounds of it you are making a very skewed argument to support your flimsy flavor. The difference is that the +1 sword is clearly labeled as magical. I admit the sentences run together on that one terribly. I was showing how someone could argue that simply because the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat needs spellcaster levels, but does not say how magic is used or what spells it requires, one could almost argue that you don't need a spell caster to make a amazing sword of +1 attack and damage. Same goes with alchemy. Alchemy, I should note, is also clearly labeled as needing magic to craft. You can scribe said piddling cantrip in the span of a day. You wont be brewing up acid nearly as soon until higher levels where acid probably isnt going to be terribly useful. If you are an actual alchemist (as in, someone who actually has ranks and an int bonus), it should take only a few days. In addition, it takes fewer gil, no xp, no spell slots, no components, doesn't require a feat, does 1d6 damage versus 1d3, and does 1 damage to those within 5 feet compared to acid splash's single target. Compare also alchemist's fire 2d6 fire damage and splash. Splash weapons also can be VERY useful. Ever been attacked by a swarm? You can't hurt them by most single target attacks. Thunderstones can seriously destroy spellcasters. Tanglefoot bags are like a miniature Entangle spell that doesn't require plants. Anti-toxin is likely your only hope against poisons at low level. And technically you would be correct, good thing we arent arguing that. Also, if you just want to be right, you dont have to invent inane reasons as to why the rules say what they do, we can all read. Inane reasons? I could easily flip that around and say that you are the one making up inane reasons as to why the rules SHOULDN'T say something. Using the rules to back up my side of the debate is what I'm doing and there's nothing wrong with that. Accusing me of making stuff up isn't going to help your argument. 1) Historical alchemy was not magic. They may have though they were making magic, just like cavemen thought they were making magic when they rubbed sticks and got fire, but their ignorance does not mean we have to be ignorant as well. 2) There is not a single alchemical item in the core that does not have a historical analog. All of them are items people in our world acutally made. Unless you believe that the middle easterners that used naphta (alchemist's fire), indians that used smoke pots and glue bags (smokes sticks, tanglefoot), or aztecs that used checmical lanterns (sunrods) all had spellcaster levels, there is nothing magical about these things. Historical alchemy not being real magic, thus it isn't real magic in D&D is similar to saying that historical holy water wasn't made through real divine magic, so anyone could make it in D&D if he just blessed it himself. In Eberron, there are trains and robotic dogs and whatnot, but they are all created through magic. Things like this in D&D are always magically created unless the DM wants to change such things to suit his whim. Otherwise, the world becomes more scientific and less magical. If that's the world you want, then so be it, but it doesn't make core alchemy less magically created elsewhere.
Antioch 08-29-05, 03:10 PM	Have you even read what I've been saying? Something doesn't have to be affected by an anti-magic field/dispel magic/whatnot in order to be magical! Such as...? Anti-magic fields/dispel magic/detect magic aren't some magic security devices that flawlessly divide the boundaries of magic/nonmagic. I've given you MANY examples! You mean, golems? Cause thats about it. Avoiding a specific class of creatures, can you cite a non-artifact magic item of any sort, since thats what your delusional mind akins mundane alchemy items as? Oh, on that note, guess what part of the treasure table in the DMG categorizes them as. Here's a hint; you wont find them under magic items. In addition, there would not be a requirement for a spellcasting level unless alchemy was geared around magic! If something requires dexterity as a prerequisite, then you can be PRETTY sure that it in some way uses the character's nimbleness to pull it off. The feat Combat Expertise needs Intelligence 13 (not 12, not 11...) but it doesn't say HOW he uses his INT score, but I'm pretty sure that you can understand that trading attack for AC involves a higher intelect from the prerequisite (quick thinking, perhaps?). Feats arent like skills, sorry. Also, silversheen is a wondrous item that applies its properties to a weapon to turn it into an alchemical silver weapon that glows with faint transmutation. And what does a wondrous item have to do with alchemy? Are yous saying that if I use a spell to temporarily create a rock, that all rocks are magical? Good god, man. :rolleyes: Where have I implied such a thing? It is simply consistant with the rest of the game. I've never seen a non-spellcaster/non-articifer make scrolls, wondrous items, golems, magic swords, potions, etc. and for good reason. And this statement has anything to do with what? You are comparing a skill to feats by the by. Alchemical items are their territory as well. Alchemical items are quite powerful compared to early spells, and are still quite powerful for higher level games. Acid, the easiest alchemical item to make, deals 1d6 acid damage and 1 point of splash damage to anyone within 5 feet, costs only 3.33gp to craft (if you mess up badly, it's only half that to try again), no experience, is not affected by anti-magic fields, and if you only JUST hit the DC to craft, it should only take about four days. If you actually take ranks and have an int bonus, it should take less. Its not that they are more powerful than other spells, they allow you do TO things that other spells cant, but they certainly are not much more powerful. 2nd level spells and up pretty much outshine them in terms of damage, so thats about the point when they start to suck. However, despite your claims they are quite worthless at about mid-level games except for possibly antivenom. Similar to a lot of cases in D&D. If you don't want to be a spellcaster, then don't be an alchemist. What cases? How many cases does a certain class prevent you from taking a skill rank. Please avoid using examples with feats, we're talking about skills here. If you want trapfinding but don't want to be a rogue (or similar class with the ability), then tough luck! Too late, you are talking about class features now. You've almost run the complete gamut here, and still lack supporting evidence! Otherwise, something like that could definately enrich a character. It sounds like Favored Classes is your problem, not alchemy. Since it is used untrained and does not require a feat, craft: alchemy is pretty much just a nice class ability given to spellcasters. Should non-lycanthropes (and other were-whatevers) be able to take ranks in Control Shape? Then it should be a class feature. In case you dotn play 3.5E, they took out Animal Empathy (formerly a ranger and druid only skill) and made it a class feature for the respective classes. Also, I fail to see how I even implied that favored class was the source of the problem. Quit trying to divert the argument here, which is that alchemy has an illogical requisite of spellcaster levels. Umm...I have no idea where you are getting with this. Completely unsupported? I think the rules support me quite well. I'm also not saying that Alchemist's Fire is a spell....and that it works like a spell. You can't cast Alchemist's Fire... Oh, ya think? Your argument is unsupported except for that little sentence at the end of the Special section of Craft. I also didnt say any alchemy items were spells. Heck, they arent even magical in the least. Wait, are you talking about the fact that a wizard with Int 3 couldn't cast Cantrips? He couldn't make scrolls or potions, but if he were a level 5 wizard with an INT 3 then he could still make the majority of magic weapons and armor. It would also most likely take him longer to do any craft, not just alchemy. Ah, again with the feats. Our example retarded wizard could indeed craft magic items so long as none of them demanded spells to be cast during the process. Otherwise, he must find someone else to cast them. Except it doesn't what? Go with historical alchemy? The only times I learned about alchemists in school/anywhere they were people who were using "magic" to fuel their science. I assume you don't mean "it doesn't say that you need 1 level in spellcasting to use craft: alchemy". No, I mean that its not magic, like Vaal mentioned. They sure don't! Magic weapons are just that- magic weapons. Golems and Homunculi were created through magic, but they don't stop living/working in the anti-magic field. Same thing goes with alchemy and several other spells/things created through magic (ex. silversheen would work). Familiars actually say specifically that they are made through a magic ritual, but they don't require a specific spell and also survive anti-magic fields. Again, you are referring solely to creature types here. You havent cited non-sentient objects to support your claims. You're saying that I don't know how creation effects work. Care to explain then? If you were to reference Creation in your PH (pg 173) you would know that creation spells that are instantaneous are assembled by magic, but are not dependant on it. So undead created by create undead will not register as magic and have no problem going through antimagic fields, and cannot be dispelled since its no longer a spell, but a result. Where is this evidence that the designers are wonked? Did you find a press release? Frankly a lot of people think the designers were quite justified with this. I've been giving out my own points on how alchemy is related to magic, and the teensy little clause is quite a big help ("you must have a spellcaster level to craft: alchemy" translates into "you need magic to craft alchemy"). I've also found other things in D&D that work similarly, all magical. It seems I have a lot more than just a belief that alchemy is a magical process. Nice stab at sarcasm there. It also seems that people here disagree. Like I said (and you seem to have ignored), we arent arguing whether you need to or not, but why you should or shouldnt. So yeah, if we were arguing whose right about it demanding one, you would have one. Thankfully, we arent. What other things have you found in D&D that work similarly? Is there a skill that allows you to generate magic items for less? So you'd rather have a feat AND be a spellcaster to craft alchemy? Alchemical items, holy water, and continual flame are all given their own special section "Special Substances and Items". All of these items require spellcaster levels and are not in any "magic item" section, though you could easily organize them into such. No. See, in my games I took out the requisite. I admit the sentences run together on that one terribly. I was showing how someone could argue that simply because the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat needs spellcaster levels, but does not say how magic is used or what spells it requires, one could almost argue that you don't need a spell caster to make a amazing sword of +1 attack and damage. Same goes with alchemy. Alchemy, I should note, is also clearly labeled as needing magic to craft. Not clearly, and not not magical. It says that you must be a spellcaster. And its tucked in at the end, so many might miss it. The difference is that AGAIN you are mixing skills and feats to support yourself, which doesnt work. We can clearly see that a +1 sword is magical since it states that its radiates magic, is made by magic, and the FEAT for it is Craft Magic Arms and Armor. If you are an actual alchemist (as in, someone who actually has ranks and an int bonus), it should take only a few days. In addition, it takes fewer gil, no xp, no spell slots, no components, doesn't require a feat, does 1d6 damage versus 1d3, and does 1 damage to those within 5 feet compared to acid splash's single target. Compare also alchemist's fire 2d6 fire damage and splash. Splash weapons also can be VERY useful. Ever been attacked by a swarm? You can't hurt them by most single target attacks. Thunderstones can seriously destroy spellcasters. Tanglefoot bags are like a miniature Entangle spell that doesn't require plants. Anti-toxin is likely your only hope against poisons at low level. Yes, and acid will take awhile to craft one vial. If you game doesnt have a time crunch, then this may be a viable option. Of course, simply casting burning hands also works, and tanglefoot bags have a woefully low DC that does not escalate as your Int does (though the druid can affect many things and it gets harder to resist if her Wis rises, or if she heightens the spell). Also, many poisons have pitiful save DCs to avoid, and if you have someone with Heal at max ranks, its pathetic. Inane reasons? I could easily flip that around and say that you are the one making up inane reasons as to why the rules SHOULDN'T say something. Using the rules to back up my side of the debate is what I'm doing and there's nothing wrong with that. Accusing me of making stuff up isn't going to help your argument. You are not only making things up, but you are running to feats and monsters to provide evidence. Historical alchemy not being real magic, thus it isn't real magic in D&D is similar to saying that historical holy water wasn't made through real divine magic, so anyone could make it in D&D if he just blessed it himself. In Eberron, there are trains and robotic dogs and whatnot, but they are all created through magic. Things like this in D&D are always magically created unless the DM wants to change such things to suit his whim. Otherwise, the world becomes more scientific and less magical. If that's the world you want, then so be it, but it doesn't make core alchemy less magically created elsewhere. Historically alchemy was indeed not magic. However, your problem is that you think that me and Vaal are saying because of that, thats why it shouldnt be. No no no. Let me explain it to you a little more clearly. Creating any sort of magic item demands a specific feat. Creating any sort of magic item demands XP. Creating any sort of magic item demands a minimum caster level. Some magic items require you to cast spells during the creation process. Magic items radiate auras based on a representing school of magic. Magic items can be detected through the detect magic spell unless stated otherwise. Magic items are suppressed in an antimagic field unless stated otherwise. Magic items can be temporarily suppressed by dispel magic. Alchemy items require NONE of these. Aside from your teeny nebulous clause, which does not state them as being magic, it would seem that since they follow none of these rules that they are in fact not magic at all.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-29-05, 09:06 PM	Except it doesn't what? Go with historical alchemy? The only times I learned about alchemists in school/anywhere they were people who were using "magic" to fuel their science. Okay, quick question: Do you believe that the alchemists of old who invented greek fire, naphta, glue and sterilizing compounds -- used magic?
darkness ninja of light 08-30-05, 01:31 PM	Okay, quick question: Do you believe that the alchemists of old who invented greek fire, naphta, glue and sterilizing compounds -- used magic? Personally no. Do I believe that the "wizards" of old used magic? No! There are certainly people in this world who do continue to "use magic" and believe that alchemists did use magic. (You'll find plenty on this board, as well as people of all types of beliefs.) In D&D though, that's different, they really do use magic. Clerics cure diseases and heal wounds. Druids change into beasts. Fortune tellers in D&D use divination magic, while our modern fortune tellers probably don't. This stuff is all based on what fantastic things churned up in historical times. Mermaids camefrom sightings of sea cows. Does that mean mermaids have no special abilities? Otherwise, you just as well might change everything fantastic in D&D into something else. Such as...? You mean, golems? Cause thats about it. Avoiding a specific class of creatures, can you cite a non-artifact magic item of any sort, since thats what your delusional mind akins mundane alchemy items as? Oh, on that note, guess what part of the treasure table in the DMG categorizes them as. Here's a hint; you wont find them under magic items. For one thing, cut it with the insults. Adding "delusional" and "inane" to comments about me is not going to help you. It just makes you sound like a Troll (the board type, of course). This is a discussion, we're not screaming at each other. You should understand that I'm not fighting to say that alchemical items are magical in the sense that an everburning torch is magical, but in the sense that magic is involved in it's creation. It doesn't affect the end product, but you need it in order to create it. It goes along with the old idea of alchemy as well, since gold created from lead wouldn't really be magical. You can unlock a door using levitation magic and a key that you couldn't physically get to otherwise, but that door doesn't lock itself again in an antimagic field and an open door isn't magical. See what I mean? Yep! Alchemical items do appear on the mundane items list! They're right next to Holy Water (Bless Water) and the Everburning Torch (Continual Flame). Feats arent like skills, sorry. I wasn't talking about feats. I was talking about prerequisites. Control Shape (a skill) requires lycanthropy. You can bet it uses the victims familiarity with lycanthropy to pull off. And what does a wondrous item have to do with alchemy? Are yous saying that if I use a spell to temporarily create a rock, that all rocks are magical? Good god, man. Riiight. I was saying just a minute ago that water created by magic isn't magic. I'm also a girl, but still. In addition, what does a wondrous item have to do with alchemy? A wondrous item that makes a weapon alchemical silver doesn't have anything to do with alchemy? And this statement has anything to do with what? You are comparing a skill to feats by the by. Nope, I'm comparing battle items and how it's consistant with the game that they come from magical sources. Its not that they are more powerful than other spells, they allow you do TO things that other spells cant, but they certainly are not much more powerful. 2nd level spells and up pretty much outshine them in terms of damage, so thats about the point when they start to suck. However, despite your claims they are quite worthless at about mid-level games except for possibly antivenom A lot of things start to become less useful at mid-levels. Alchemical items are still quite handy to have by though. The main thing is that they still have no spell slots, components, and use no xp. Alchemists fire is a quick and dangerous firemaker (2d6 damage plus splash is quite nice). Level 0 spells can be useless when you're level 10, but you still prepare em because they can be handy in just the right situation. It may be unlikely that most enemies you face would be affected by the caltrops you have, but in the right situation they could be perfect! What cases? How many cases does a certain class prevent you from taking a skill rank. Please avoid using examples with feats, we're talking about skills here. Then it should be a class feature. In case you dotn play 3.5E, they took out Animal Empathy (formerly a ranger and druid only skill) and made it a class feature for the respective classes. Also, I fail to see how I even implied that favored class was the source of the problem. Quit trying to divert the argument here, which is that alchemy has an illogical requisite of spellcaster levels. It IS a class feature. Well, you're a spellcaster now. You can take Craft: Alchemy! With the Animal Empathy, that was a very limited skill. Now though, it actually is just a Wild Empathy check (not a skill) that uses the class levels as a bonus. Alchemy can be used by anyone with a spellcaster level. Putting "craft:alchemy" into the class features is redundant. The problem you had in your example was that if you wanted to multiclass for alchemy, but neither of your classes was your favored class, that you would get the 20% xp penalty. It had nothing to do with craft alchemy, actually, since I could bring up the same problem with wanting Wild Empathy but getting an xp penalty for multiclassing to druid when I'm already an elf rogue 4. I in no way wanted to argue about favored classes, so I can assure you that it was not trying to divert the argument. Oh, ya think? Your argument is unsupported except for that little sentence at the end of the Special section of Craft. I also didnt say any alchemy items were spells. Heck, they arent even magical in the least. Then don't accuse me of not knowing how spells work, when we aren't talking about spells, please. Ah, again with the feats. Our example retarded wizard could indeed craft magic items so long as none of them demanded spells to be cast during the process. Otherwise, he must find someone else to cast them. Exactly, is this not what you were getting at when you were claiming alchemy didn't work the same way as other spells, in that an INT 3 wizard could make them? Here's an idea, if you want an alchemist who is not a spellcaster, get him a spellcaster to do the magical work for him as an aid. There is nothing to say that a non-spellcaster can't take ranks in Craft: Alchemy, but the fact is that he cannot make items without spellcaster levels. You can still get money from making checks. Again, you are referring solely to creature types here. You havent cited non-sentient objects to support your claims. Actually, golems are essentially magic items. They have no Intelligence. They are just objects that are shaped to look like humans. If you were to reference Creation in your PH (pg 173) you would know that creation spells that are instantaneous are assembled by magic, but are not dependant on it. So undead created by create undead will not register as magic and have no problem going through antimagic fields, and cannot be dispelled since its no longer a spell, but a result. As alchemy is a result? It's not dependant on any spell to sustain, but magic is required to form it. Seems to work the same way. Nice stab at sarcasm there. It also seems that people here disagree. Like I said (and you seem to have ignored), we arent arguing whether you need to or not, but why you should or shouldnt. So yeah, if we were arguing whose right about it demanding one, you would have one. Thankfully, we arent. What other things have you found in D&D that work similarly? Is there a skill that allows you to generate magic items for less? It also seems that people here AGREE. Well I'm arguing that alchemy is indeed justified as being magical. If we were arguing that one COULD rule that it is NOT magical, then it is no contest just as if we were arguing whether or not a DM could allow a player to play a half dragon kobold dragon disciple. If you want examples, see my other posts and this one. If you demand me to show you a skill that works EXACTLY like craft: alchemy, then I obviously couldn't unless WotC puts Craft: Alchemy 2 into its errata sometime. It's just as how I couldn't show you a skill that works just like Knowledge: Local without going into Bardic Knowledge and other some such. Skills are unique like that. Spellcraft is just a cheap, less effective, way of identifying stuff, for instance. Not clearly, and not not magical. It says that you must be a spellcaster. And its tucked in at the end, so many might miss it. The difference is that AGAIN you are mixing skills and feats to support yourself, which doesnt work. We can clearly see that a +1 sword is magical since it states that its radiates magic, is made by magic, and the FEAT for it is Craft Magic Arms and Armor. How is it unclear? It requires you to be a spellcaster. Being tucked at the end doesn't suggest that it was a mistake, too. In the craft chart where it shows the DCs to create, each alchemical item is also listed with the superscript "You must be a spellcaster to craft any of these items". It's very hard to look at the rules for making alchemist's fire without seeing it. It's clear enough that alchemy is created through the use of magic since it states "you must be a spellcaster to craft any of these items". Yes, and acid will take awhile to craft one vial. If you game doesnt have a time crunch, then this may be a viable option. Of course, simply casting burning hands also works, and tanglefoot bags have a woefully low DC that does not escalate as your Int does (though the druid can affect many things and it gets harder to resist if her Wis rises, or if she heightens the spell). Also, many poisons have pitiful save DCs to avoid, and if you have someone with Heal at max ranks, its pathetic. Simply casting Burning Hands also takes up a spell slot. Those are very precious at low levels especially. When facing weak opponents, tanglefoot bags can still hit the DC (in fact, fighters have poor reflex saves at any level) and thunderstones can really kill arcane spellcasters who usually don't have a Fortitude save to speak of (nor a Reflex save). I've also been in more games where the bags were used for useful things besides entrapping enemies. Alchemical items can be used in a pinch for lots of things. Tindertwigs are also useful for quick, safe, torch-lighting at any level. Does it really matter how useful alchemical items are, though? You are not only making things up, but you are running to feats and monsters to provide evidence. What am I making up? Also, I've already taken care of a the feats and monsters thing. Historically alchemy was indeed not magic. However, your problem is that you think that me and Vaal are saying because of that, thats why it shouldnt be. No no no. Let me explain it to you a little more clearly. Creating any sort of magic item demands a specific feat. Creating any sort of magic item demands XP. Creating any sort of magic item demands a minimum caster level. Some magic items require you to cast spells during the creation process. Magic items radiate auras based on a representing school of magic. Magic items can be detected through the detect magic spell unless stated otherwise. Magic items are suppressed in an antimagic field unless stated otherwise. Magic items can be temporarily suppressed by dispel magic. Alchemy items require NONE of these. Aside from your teeny nebulous clause, which does not state them as being magic, it would seem that since they follow none of these rules that they are in fact not magic at all. -You're mixing alchemical items with Magic Items in the sense that alchemical items produce magical effects, instead of being made with magic. Alchemical item's creation is involved with magic, but it is not a "magic item". - I don't believe that there is a rule that magic items are made with feats. I didn't need a feat to make my holy water and my everburning torch did I? -Experience? Not true, making items through feats do, though. Holy Water doesn't require experience, for example. -The alchemical items don't necassarily linger with the magic used in its making, similar to golems. Also, universal spells are not picked up, as they aren't in a school. -Anti-magic/Dispel Magic, same thing, not true in every case. The magic has come and gone. -Minimum caster level is 1.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-30-05, 01:59 PM	Personally no. Do I believe that the "wizards" of old used magic? No! There are certainly people in this world who do continue to "use magic" and believe that alchemists did use magic. (You'll find plenty on this board, as well as people of all types of beliefs.) Then you agree that you do not really need magic to create these items. Second: Do you actually believe Archemedes, Socrates, Galileo, Di Vinci and Hippocrates were believed to be wizards or any other sort of magical men?
Centauri 08-30-05, 02:18 PM	Then you agree that you do not really need magic to create these items. This assumes that these items are identical to what we can create without magic. They might be close, but they're not the same. A doctor doesn't need magic to make an antidote for a single toxin, but something that can help counteract every toxin (like D&D's antitoxin) would be beyond his reach. The Greeks may have had Greek Fire but they didn't carry it around in easily throwable containers. Based on the item's description, a chemical glowstick is not a sunrod. Whatever the difference is, in D&D, the ability to cast spells somehow bridges the knowledge gap that keeps a completely mundane crafter from successfully making D&D's alchemical items.
wrecan 08-30-05, 03:21 PM	Then you agree that you do not really need magic to create these items. Those items are superficially similar to alchemy in D&D 3.5, but are not identical by any means. Antitoxin, sunrods and tnaglefoot bags either have no real-world basis or operate much better than their real world analogs. Second: Do you actually believe Archemedes, Socrates, Galileo, Di Vinci and Hippocrates were believed to be wizards or any other sort of magical men? With the exception of Da Vinci, none of those men were considered alchemists, so I'm not sure why you reference those men. But real-world alchemists (most of whom were probably self-deluded or hucksters) were considered to be magicians of no small power: John Dee, Albertus Magnus, John Cremer, Isaac Hollandus, Paracelsus and Galen. All these men were either self-described or described commonly as being magicians (and usually members of some sort of Hermetic order). Until you get to Leonardo Da Vinci and Francis Bacon in the 16th century, most dabblers in what would become chemistry were considered wizards and many of them considered themselves magicians as well. In fact, the development of chemistry as a science in Europe, and not an aspect of sorcery, is one of the hallmark's of Europe's emergence from the medieval period (when D&D is set) into the Renaissance. I could certainly see a Renaissance D&D setting doing away with the spellcaster requirement. But the default campaign of D&D is not the Renaissance.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-30-05, 04:05 PM	A doctor doesn't need magic to make an antidote for a single toxin, but something that can help counteract every toxin (like D&D's antitoxin) would be beyond his reach. Anti-toxin isn't an antidote. It increases your natural fortitude to resist poison. The Greeks may have had Greek Fire but they didn't carry it around in easily throwable containers. Based on the item's description, a chemical glowstick is not a sunrod. Using a flask instead of a cask requires magic? Magnesium is magical? As for tanglefoot, Indian hunters used a viscous organic glue in thier traps thousands of years ago.
Centauri 08-30-05, 04:16 PM	Anti-toxin isn't an antidote. It increases your natural fortitude to resist poison. The point remains that there isn't a mundane substance that does that against all poisons. Using a flask instead of a cask requires magic? You can carry it around and it lights when it breaks. I doubt you could have done that safely with Greek Fire. However, I concede this point, as I don't know much about Greek Fire. Magnesium is magical? No, but sunrods don't use magnesium. They use gold and iron. As for tanglefoot, Indian hunters used a viscous organic glue in thier traps thousands of years ago. Right. What they didn't do, to my knowledge, was throw a bag that burst on contact, and lost its effectiveness within 30 seconds.
wrecan 08-30-05, 04:34 PM	A note on Greek Fire, since Vaalingarde raised it as an example of "real-world" alchemy. Greek fire was used by the Byzantine Empire and was developed by a Syrian Christian named Callinicus, who was reputed to have mystic powers (although this is often disputed, as the Byzantine Empire was strictly Christian and thus anti-magic). Greek fire does not work in any way like any alchemical substance in D&D. It was the medieval equivalent of a flame thrower, or possibly in large earthnware vessels. Why wasn't it placed in a glass or thin ceramic flask? Because it would weaken the flask and burst all over the user. These casks were not hand-thrown. They were tossed from small catapults or ballistae.
darkness ninja of light 08-30-05, 04:35 PM	Then you agree that you do not really need magic to create these items. Second: Do you actually believe Archemedes, Socrates, Galileo, Di Vinci and Hippocrates were believed to be wizards or any other sort of magical men? In real life, no I do not believe that magic can be used to make alchemist's fire and acid and other some such. However, in D&D, a world where wizards, who were inspired by people who claimed to use magic to do such and such, truly use magic? It makes sense to me that alchemy, which was inspired by people called alchemists who believed that they used magic to fuel their science, uses magic in D&D! Someone might not believe in a divine, higher power, but that doesn't mean they have any right to claim that holy water in D&D isn't actually holy. It's just the same as claiming that alchemy was not magic, because you don't believe in magic. Also, you'd probably get a different answer from those of religions that do use magic. Anti-toxin isn't an antidote. It increases your natural fortitude to resist poison. But it still works against every poison! We'd drink it every day if it existed.
Centauri 08-30-05, 04:38 PM	But it still works against every poison! We'd drink it every day if it existed. Assuming it was covered by our health plans.
darkness ninja of light 08-30-05, 04:47 PM	Assuming it was covered by our health plans. :pint: Haha, right!
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-30-05, 05:19 PM	A note on Greek Fire, since Vaalingarde raised it as an example of "real-world" alchemy. Greek fire was used by the Byzantine Empire and was developed by a Syrian Christian named Callinicus, who was reputed to have mystic powers (although this is often disputed, as the Byzantine Empire was strictly Christian and thus anti-magic). Greek fire does not work in any way like any alchemical substance in D&D. It was the medieval equivalent of a flame thrower, or possibly in large earthnware vessels. Why wasn't it placed in a glass or thin ceramic flask? Because it would weaken the flask and burst all over the user. These casks were not hand-thrown. They were tossed from small catapults or ballistae. Greek fire was pumped through hoses to ignite enemy ships. It was stored in clay pots and sealed against moisture. Greek fire ignited on contact with water like liquid potassium. Naphta was refined from 'fire springs', where it bubbled out of the ground. It was a petroleum product that was a very light and unstable liquid. In the middle east, it was kept in sealed jars and exploded on impact. its not known wheither the impact or the air ignited refined naphta as the
wrecan 08-30-05, 06:14 PM	And how is anything you posted 1) supportive of your larger position that alchemy in D&D v.3.5 should not require spellcasting ability, or 2) contradictory to what I said? Unable to defnd your point are we now to engage in a battle of medieval trivia? Even taking your description of naptha and Greek Fire at face value (which appears to be a partial cut and paste from wikipedia or similar source), it doesn't accurately describe D&D's alchemical fire, which is not stored in large ceramic casks and is capable of inflicting serious damage being thrown from small handheld flasks. I would not suggest handling either Greek Fire or naphtha in such a manner. It will not be nearly as potent in such small quantities and is very likely to give you a nasty burn when it explodes, jangling about in your backpack or belt pouch. So to recap: almost all of the nonmagical alchemical materials created in D&D 3.5 by a spellcaster with the Craft (Alchemy) skill cannot be created using real-world 16th century non-magical alchemy/chemistry. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that these mundane materials are created using magical knowledge (ie, knowledge of things that do not work in the real world), which explains the requirement for a spellcaster. Could the rule have been written differently? Of course. See v3.0. Want to house-rule it away? Go nuts. But is the RAW justifiable from a fantasy campaign/historical fantasy context? You betcha.
wrecan 08-30-05, 06:58 PM	Let's take a look at the alchemical substances that can be made by a spellcaster with Craft (Alchemy) and their real world analogs. Acid: You can throw a flask of acid as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A direct hit deals 1d6 points of acid damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the acid hits takes 1 point of acid damage from the splash. Real World Analog: This is probably oil of vitriol, now known as sulfuric acid. First introduced to Europeans through alchemist (and reputed wizard) Albertus Magnus, who learned it from Islamic scholars. This is a pretty good fit, actually. Of course, it makes sense in D&D that acid would require a magician's knowledge. After all, it was developed in Europe by a reputed wizard/alchemist. Alchemist’s Fire: You can throw a flask of alchemist’s fire as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage. If desired, the target can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking this additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a DC 15 Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target a +2 bonus on the save. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire. The real world analog: "Greek fire" and or "naphtha." This is not a good fit. First of all, nobody tosses around hand grenades of naptha or Greek Fire. Second water doesn't extinguish Greek fire. Some scholars believe water was the catalyst for the reaction! Greek fire and maptha were contained in thick clay casks and held in the dark because anything thin would quickly corrode. Anybody who carried a flask of this stuff on their person was likely to end up burning their leg. Anybody hit by a grenade of the stuff would be minorly inconvenienced. The Byzantines used it formidably because they would spray gallons of it over the enemy. Antitoxin: If you drink antitoxin, you get a +5 alchemical bonus on Fortitude saving throws against poison for 1 hour. Real world analog: antivenom (http://www.kingsnake.com/toxinology/old/antivenom/antivenom.html). This is a horrible fit. Antivenom must be administered after the bite, not before. It reduces the damage from a bite if it is of the right type of venom. There are seven differen types of snake antivenom alone. That doesn't include spider, scorpion and other antivenoms. Many animals (notably poisonous toads) have no available antivenom. There is nothing in the real world that is like antitoxin. Smokestick: This alchemically treated wooden stick instantly creates thick, opaque smoke when ignited. The smoke fills a 10- foot cube (treat the effect as a fog cloud spell, except that a moderate or stronger wind dissipates the smoke in 1 round). The stick is consumed after 1 round, and the smoke dissipates naturally. Real world analogy: Smudge pot. This is a pot of some sort of pitch that is ignited to create a smokescreen. Definitely available to medieval people (it was known to Egyptians and Chinese independently), but it's nothing like it's D&D counterpart. First, there's nothing instant about a smudge pot, which can take at least a minute to get going. Second, the smoke is a lot more than a ten foot cube. And there's no way this smoke dissipates naturally. Even a poor smudgepot will create a smokescreen that could last an hour, easily. Sunrod: This 1-foot-long, gold-tipped, iron rod glows brightly when struck. It clearly illuminates a 30-foot radius and provides shadowy illumination in a 60-foot radius. It glows for 6 hours, after which the gold tip is burned out and worthless. Vaalingrade Ashland had mentioned some sort of Aztec chemical lantern. I cannot find any information on this. I am going to go out on a limb and assume the Aztecs did not actually know how to ignite gold melted on the end of an iron rod so that it could be used as a 6-hour torch. Tanglefoot Bag: When you throw a tanglefoot bag at a creature (as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet), the bag comes apart and the goo bursts out, entangling the target and then becoming tough and resilient upon exposure to air. An entangled creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity and must make a DC 15 Reflex save or be glued to the floor, unable to move. Even on a successful save, it can move only at half speed. Huge or larger creatures are unaffected by a tanglefoot bag. A flying creature is not stuck to the floor, but it must make a DC 15 Reflex save or be unable to fly (assuming it uses its wings to fly) and fall to the ground. A tanglefoot bag does not function underwater. A creature that is glued to the floor (or unable to fly) can break free by making a DC 17 Strength check or by dealing 15 points of damage to the goo with a slashing weapon. A creature trying to scrape goo off itself, or another creature assisting, does not need to make an attack roll; hitting the goo is automatic, after which the creature that hit makes a damage roll to see how much of the goo was scraped off. Once free, the creature can move (including flying) at half speed. A character capable of spellcasting who is bound by the goo must make a DC 15 Concentration check to cast a spell. The goo becomes brittle and fragile after 2d4 rounds, cracking apart and losing its effectiveness. An application of universal solvent to a stuck creature dissolves the alchemical goo immediately. The real world analogy: Glue. However, I say this hesitantly, because there are no known used of glue in battle. Well, superglue was sometimes used as an emergency first aid measure during the World Wars. But nothign like a tanglefoot bag. Could glue have been used in traps? Sure. I can't find any reference to it, but it's possible. It seems like a waste of resources since it's so difficult to make large quantities of it. That's why most people used glue to help them make more useful items like arrows and tools. There is nothing in the real world like a tanglefoot bag. Thunderstone: You can throw this stone as a ranged attack with a range increment of 20 feet. When it strikes a hard surface (or is struck hard), it creates a deafening bang that is treated as a sonic attack. Each creature within a 10-foot-radius spread must make a DC 15 Fortitude save or be deafened for 1 hour. A deafened creature, in addition to the obvious effects, takes a –4 penalty on initiative and has a 20% chance to miscast and lose any spell with a verbal component that it tries to cast. Since you don’t need to hit a specific target, you can simply aim at a particular 5-foot square. Treat the target square as AC 5. Real world analogy: I have no idea. A bomb that causes deafness? I really can't find anything analogous. Tindertwig: The alchemical substance on the end of this small, wooden stick ignites when struck against a rough surface. Creating a flame with a tindertwig is much faster than creating a flame with flint and steel (or a magnifying glass) and tinder. Lighting a torch with a tindertwig is a standard action (rather than a full-round action), and lighting any other fire with one is at least a standard action. Real world analog: matches (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blmatch.htm). No surprise here, except that matches didn't exist until the 17th century. Technically, the 19th century, when strikable matches first appeared. Those matches stank to high heaven, and tindertwigs do not. Odorless matches didn't show up until 1889. Could medieval or even Renaissance alchemists have done it? No. Well, maybe with a little magical help. In short, only three alchemical substances in D&D have real-woirld analogs. Two (Greek Fire and Acid) were introduced to European medieval societies by reputed magicians. Matches didn't exist during any D&D era. Had it existed, it would undoubtedly have been heralded as the work of magic. The remaining substances are physically impossible (to modern science, anyway). Thus, production of these items requires knowledge beyond the ken of mere mortals. Would it be too much of a stretch to call that "magical knowledge"? I think not.
Centauri 08-30-05, 07:24 PM	Smokestick Tanglefoot Bag Thunderstone The remaining substances are physically impossible (to modern science, anyway). Thus, production of these items requires knowledge beyond the ken of mere mortals. Would it be too much of a stretch to call that "magical knowledge"? I think not. Well, to be fair, smokesticks and a thunderstones are similar to certain kinds of grenades. And then there's sticky foam (http://www.zarc.com/english/non-lethal_weapons/sticky_foam.html). It's not in thrown form, and doesn't lose effectiveness, but can definitely entangle.
Shaken, not Stunned 08-30-05, 08:24 PM	Why are arguments based on the real world being flung about? The only relavent question is "Does it balance?" Giving a fighter the ability to purchase effects similar to a few level 0 and level 1 spells may not e game breaking, I don't know not having play-tested it. It seems a little powerful at lower levels, but in a party I don't see this as being a problem because the wizard could make that stuff for him anyway. So, in an effort to make this productive, is there any game balance reason to allow or dissallow non-casters to make full use of craft: alchemy that anyone has seen of believe they would see?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-30-05, 11:06 PM	So, in an effort to make this productive, is there any game balance reason to allow or dissallow non-casters to make full use of craft: alchemy that anyone has seen of believe they would see? Okay, here we go: In 3e, contary to popular belief, Alchemy was not an exclusive skill. Nor did the creation of alchemical items require caster levels. I've been on these boards a long time an not once have I seen a post of 'well damn, the rogue used alchemy as a cross classed skill and now my game exploded'. In fact, the main classes that used alchemy were Expert and Rogue. Experts were the justification of alchemical items being in the world, they were the guys that sold them and the A&EG lists experts (alchemy) as someone you can hire to make items exclusively for you. Rogues got a lot of use making smokesticks and alchemist's fire. Spellcasters, particularly the three that had it as a class skill (bard, sorcerer, wizard), really have no use for crafting alchemy. For free (not even a feat as they get it for free), a wizard can scribe seven scrolls in the time it costs to craft one flask of acid and at a lower cost per unit. In the end, the change in 3.5 takes the skill away from the characters that used it entirely. In fact, it may take it away from more characters than the designers even considered: Look closely at the offending footnote: You must be a spellcaster to craft any of these items. Spellcaster, eh? Well, how do we define spellcaster? Clearly pure casters (wizards, druids, clerics, et al) are spellcasters, but what about classes like Paladin or Ranger (which one of the designers excitedly pointed out could now use alchemy, while hanging the poor rogue out to dry) that don't gain spellcasting ability until later in thier career? What about monsterous PCs with spelllike abilities? What about a clever rogue who casts spells off scrolls all the time? Don't laugh, remember that he can identify a spell being cast or even unknown magical effects via Spellcraft.
darkness ninja of light 08-30-05, 11:50 PM	You can change a lot of things in the game and you would hardly notice a thing, but that's not a reason to change them. If you make all rules decisions simply on the basis of balance with small rules, then you potentially become one of those DMs that has a page filled with nothing but little house rules. Little things matter too. You could argue that someone could take Combat Expertise with an INT of 12 instead of 13 (same +2 bonus) because they didn't want to spend their rare attribute point on INT and it wouldn't imbalance things. You could let a fighter take Decipher Script as a class skill and it wouldn't imbalance things. If you let non-spellcasters have craft: alchemy (being a craft skill, this would also mean that joe commoner could do it without taking a single rank) then spellcasters would become less useful for ready-made battle items. Not every spellcaster has the feats for scribing scrolls or brewing potions, but any spellcaster could make up alchemist's fire and thunderstones for the party's use with the rules as they are. It's part of their job as the item creators. Need a handy battle item? Turn to a spellcaster, he'll help you out. Balance is important. In this case, it's balanced how it is written now. What comes next is "does it make sense". Alchemy requiring magic makes sense, since its historic basis shows that alchemy was a science practiced by magicians and wizards. Also, it's really not "COULD you have alchemy not require a spellcaster" in which case, the answer is yes, since it's up to the mind of the DM. It's more "SHOULD alchemy require being a spellcaster?". I say yes for consistency, and the general meaning of alchemy. a wizard can scribe seven scrolls in the time it costs to craft one flask of acid and at a lower cost per unit. It only takes three gold to make acid! Three gold for a 1d6 acidic splash weapon! Technically it's three gold, three silver, and three copper, but still. It also does not require experience. Spellcaster, eh? Well, how do we define spellcaster? Clearly pure casters (wizards, druids, clerics, et al) are spellcasters, but what about classes like Paladin or Ranger (which one of the designers excitedly pointed out could now use alchemy, while hanging the poor rogue out to dry) that don't gain spellcasting ability until later in thier career? What about monsterous PCs with spelllike abilities? What about a clever rogue who casts spells off scrolls all the time? Don't laugh, remember that he can identify a spell being cast or even unknown magical effects via Spellcraft. Paladins and Rangers get access to it when they gain spells! Spell-like abilities wouldn't count, since they are indeed spell like abilities and not spells. Rogues "convince" the scroll that they know the spell (UMD is bluff for magic items) thus it is cast, but they know nothing of how magic works, else they'd be able to cast their own spells. Spellcraft is just being able to say "I've seen that kind of spell before somewhere...". As I said before, it's consistant and it also makes sense with the definition of alchemy. Why else would they change the rule?
TheNatealator 08-31-05, 12:23 AM	I'm sorry, but I haven't bothered to read all of the second page. If no-one is willing to put the definitions of "Extraordinary ability", "Spell-Like Ability", or "Supernatural Ability" up here, then I will. We already know that spells are magical and affected by anything affecting magic. Extraordinary Abilities (Ex): Extraordinary abilities are non-magical. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training (...). A monk's ability to evade attacks and a barbarian's uncanny dodge are extraordinary abilities. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. Spell-Like Abilities (Sp):Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are spells and magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or nrhsyrf (such as an antimagic field). Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. This far-reaching category includes the basilisk's petrifying state, the monk's ki strike, and the ghoul's paralytic touch. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is supressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. that was a :censored: to type out, but there it is. There's a table on the next page (the first row, last column "yes" is wrong, though). So let's see, what is Craft(Alchemy)? It functions in an antimagic field, so it's not a spell-like ability, and it's not a supernatural ability. It must be an extraordinary ability. Wait, what's this? Most class features fall into this category? What? Skill ranks are class features? I guess skill checks are extraordinary abilities, (at least the trained only ones) are extraordinary abilities, if anything. That makes them decidedly NOT MAGIC in my book, and that rediculous footnote is houseruled out of my campaign, because anyone can learn "Mix this and that get what you want". From there, they can get better at mixing them. Trust me, this summer I spent 30+ hours a week in a research lab. In the beginning, I had never seen the pipets they use before, and by the end, I could mix 0.7 microliters of this with 3 microliters of that with the best of them. I couldn't tell you what exactly was going on between these chemicals, but I could give you a general idea. For reference, I am starting my senior year in high school. I could hardly say I have any class levels in Expert, yet. I also have a question regarding this. A sorceror in my campaign has a rank in Craft (alchemy) (and plans to get more). His big beef with the skill, though, is that you can create a total of 8 different things with the skill. Does any book list other alchemical products? Someone mentioned A&E for 3.0. Would that be worth trying to convert into 3.5? I imagine the stats would be the same, but the prices different. Any 3.5 alchemy materials? Is there a 3.5 equivalent of Arms and Equipment out or coming soon? I would definitely buy it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-05, 12:37 AM	Little things matter too. I'm pretty sure that's why this thread exists. When alchemy changed, it stole an ability from the characters that acutally used it. If you let non-spellcasters have craft: alchemy (being a craft skill, this would also mean that joe commoner could do it without taking a single rank) then spellcasters would become less useful for ready-made battle items. Spellcasters never used alchemy in the first place. Experts and rogues were the ones that used it cross-class. Spellcasters have much better things to do with thier time and money. Not every spellcaster has the feats for scribing scrolls or brewing potions, but any spellcaster could make up alchemist's fire and thunderstones for the party's use with the rules as they are. It's part of their job as the item creators. Need a handy battle item? Turn to a spellcaster, he'll help you out. Casting spells is thier job. On top of which, the time it takes a spellcaster to make alchemical materials could have been used making a much more useful item. Balance is important. In this case, it's balanced how it is written now. Not really because as I said, the characters that used the skill can no longer use it. That is not balanced. What comes next is "does it make sense". Alchemy requiring magic makes sense, since its historic basis shows that alchemy was a science practiced by magicians and wizards. :banghead: Listen very, very carefully: there were no gorram real life wizards. NONE! They may have been called wizards, hells, Edision was the Wizard of Menlo Park, but that does not mean they were spellcasters. Also, it's really not "COULD you have alchemy not require a spellcaster" in which case, the answer is yes, since it's up to the mind of the DM. It's more "SHOULD alchemy require being a spellcaster?". I say yes for consistency, and the general meaning of alchemy. Consistancy would have been leaving it alone and letting rogues use it like they were in 3e. The meaning of alchemy in the sense you want it to mean is called Transmutation in DnD. It only takes three gold to make acid! Three gold for a 1d6 acidic splash weapon! Technically it's three gold, three silver, and three copper, but still. It also does not require experience. Four gold and a week for 1d6 damage w/ 1 damage splash. Vs. 12 gold and a night for a scroll that deals 1d4+1 and NEVER MISSES, putting 4 kobolds to sleep, or giving a weapon a +1 enhancment for 20 attacks. Paladins and Rangers get access to it when they gain spells! Because we all know the main thing on a 4th level Paladin's list is makin' some matches. Spell-like abilities wouldn't count, since they are indeed spell like abilities and not spells. And clearly, a creature who actually is magical and is trained in alchemy is still incapable of making these substances which some kid that wakes up with wierd mutant powers (Sorcerer) can. Rogues "convince" the scroll that they know the spell (UMD is bluff for magic items) thus it is cast, but they know nothing of how magic works, else they'd be able to cast their own spells. First... guh? Second; "This scientist knows everything about quantum mechanics, therefore he should be able to alter his own phase state at will." Spellcraft is just being able to say "I've seen that kind of spell before somewhere...". Understand a strange or unique magical effect, such as the effects of a magic stream.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-05, 12:43 AM	I also have a question regarding this. A sorceror in my campaign has a rank in Craft (alchemy) (and plans to get more). His big beef with the skill, though, is that you can create a total of 8 different things with the skill. Does any book list other alchemical products? Someone mentioned A&E for 3.0. Would that be worth trying to convert into 3.5? I imagine the stats would be the same, but the prices different. Any 3.5 alchemy materials? Is there a 3.5 equivalent of Arms and Equipment out or coming soon? I would definitely buy it. Complete Adventurer features some gimptastic alchemical items and I think that's the only 3.5 book that does. If you want some decent alchemical materials, I'm just finishing a playtest cycle and will have about 12 new alchemical items on my World of Ere site by Friday (Despite this week being the Culture Issue).
TheNatealator 08-31-05, 12:59 AM	Why do you have to understand something at the fundamental level in order to use it? Are you saying that you have memorized and understand the source code for every software that you use, from Microsoft Word to Photoshop? No? you don't? What do you do? Learn the commands that make it work, use them repeatedly, and assume similar programs work in similar ways? That ctrl+i is usually italics in a word proccessor, or apple+i on macs? Do you know where in the source code it says ctrl+i = italics? Or do you just assume that eh, if it works for one program it should work for the next one. Do you think your average DnD PC or NPC should be any different? Besides, mechanically, Craft(alchemy) is tied to Int. Not tied to whatever your spellcasting ability is. Your spellcaster level doesn't affect any of the DCs to resist the effects, and it doesn't say anything about how much Int you need to make it, since producing an x-level spell requires a relevant ability score of 10+x. What happens when your relevant ability is different from your int (like that ever happens). Can you craft items with similar properties to a spell you can't cast? Speaking of which, why can a Druid make acid, when no spell with "acid" in it is on the druid spell list? IMO, this requirement was not well thought out and should be scrapped from anyone's game. Yes, it's RAW, but it's like "This table needs another footnote!!! Throw one on quick!!!1one OMGBBQ"
wrecan 08-31-05, 09:14 AM	Well, to be fair, smokesticks and a thunderstones are similar to certain kinds of grenades. And then there's sticky foam (http://www.zarc.com/english/non-lethal_weapons/sticky_foam.html). It's not in thrown form, and doesn't lose effectiveness, but can definitely entangle. Similar is not the same. Smoke pellets and bombs work nothing like smokesticks at all. As far as I know there are no grenades whose goal is simply to deafen people fora short while. There are bombs that make loud noises to stun people, but that's much different. And sticky foam, while fun in a mad scientist way, functions much differently than tanglefoot bags. In short, other than matchsticks and sulfuric acid, there are no modern equivalents for any of the listed alchemical substances and matchsticks are completely anachronistic. That leaves sulfuric acid, which, in the medieval era, was believed to have been invented by wizards and knowledge of its manufacture was limited to people who joined secret magical orders. Vaalingrade's argument that alchemy should be allowed to rogues because real-world alchemy is not magical is bunk. Real-world alchemy did not produce the substances producible in D&D alchemy, with the exception of acid, which, in the medieval period that serves as the default setting for D&D, was limited to people who believed themselves to be (and were believed by others to be) wizards. I know of no historical medieval alchemist who fits the description of a rogue. So from a setting point of view, the rule makes sense. From a game balance point of view, neither the 3.0 version (rogues and spellcasters get alchemy) or the 3.5 version (only spellcasters get alchemy) seem unbalancing. Vaalingrade's only argument of merit is that rogue alchemists got totally rooked by the upgrade to 3.5. Well, yes they did, by definition. Every change in the rules is going to be to some person's detriment and another's benefit. What was once a viable character concept is now not. Kind of the way all those 1st edition bards and monks were made non-viable when 2d edition AD&D was intorduced. Personally, I was disappointed that my own rogue alchemist character concept had to discarded. I had to reinvent him as a halfling Sorcerer/Rogue. But I did appreciate that the new rule was, in fact, truer to the setting than the prior rule. That makes them decidedly NOT MAGIC in my book Well, yes, Knowledge (Alchemy) is an Extraordinary Ability. But it is an extraordinary ability that requires knowledge of laws that allow you to do and manufacture things not possible with modern science (except acid). The process of making alchemical items is not magical, in that you can manufacture a tanglefoot bag while within an antimagic sphere. But the knowledge required is the knowledge gained (through study or intuition) when one learns who to harness magical forces.
darkness ninja of light 08-31-05, 01:16 PM	There are a few more alchemical items in the Eberron setting (alchemist's frost, alchemist's spark, acidic fire, noxious smokestick). I don't see how skill points could really be any of those three category-wise. Everyone has skill points. Everyone also has hit dice and ability scores. It does not make them "extraordinary abilities". I'm pretty sure that's why this thread exists. When alchemy changed, it stole an ability from the characters that acutally used it. Spellcasters never used alchemy in the first place. Experts and rogues were the ones that used it cross-class. Spellcasters have much better things to do with thier time and money. Casting spells is thier job. On top of which, the time it takes a spellcaster to make alchemical materials could have been used making a much more useful item. Still seems like it's still available to them. An adept or magewright (Eberron) can craft alchemy if you want NPC alchemists. It fits their role much better too and gives adepts a place in the world. Rogues, for one thing, are powerful enough that they aren't hurt at all by the fact that they can't make their own alchemy. It's just the same as how they aren't hurt at all by the fact that they have to find a spellcaster to make them boots/a cloak of elvenkind. For another thing, it won't hurt a rogue to multiclass into a spellcasting role if he just HAS to have alchemy. There are a ton of various spellcasting/rogue prestige classes too. Arcane Trickster anyone? Also, spellcasters, as I said, do not necassarily have the feats required to craft a thing, but regardless, if you want handy battle items, then you go to the spellcasters who do have this ability. You don't go to your neighborhood rogue "can you make me some alchemist's fire and a potion of barkskin?". Only wizards have Scribe Scroll right from the beginning. I see more spellcasters spending their feats on metamagic or other spell enhancing feats rather than always going for the latest item creation feat. Alchemy is the one thing they all can do. As for time an money, not only can you become faster at crafting alchemy, but it generally costs less than any of the other things he can make, and it costs NO EXPERIENCE. My articifer in the Eberron setting has every creation feat up to level 4 (being an articifer) but she still put ranks in craft: alchemy, and does indeed craft alchemy, scribe scrolls, etc. etc. without a problem. She doesn't even have the feat that allows her to finish her work in 25% less time. Not really because as I said, the characters that used the skill can no longer use it. That is not balanced. If rogues had access to the scribe scroll feat, you'd be sure that they would all be making scrolls they could use in battle with use magic device. Isn't scribing a scroll just writing the spell down on paper? If Wizard's decided to restrict it, then you'd be sure it would take away from rogues, who would definately have used it. After all, rogues DO have the ability to cast spells from scrolls and they CAN identify a spell in place. Does that mean they know how to scribe scrolls too? Forgery is a class skill for them. In addition, rogues still have access to alchemy, and it provides no problems in game. Just because a class could put ranks into a skill, but now can't, does not mean "unbalanced". Some things become unbalanced if you DON'T remove certain, favorable rules. Listen very, very carefully: there were no gorram real life wizards. NONE! They may have been called wizards, hells, Edision was the Wizard of Menlo Park, but that does not mean they were spellcasters. You still have no right to say that. You don't have any proof for one thing, other than the belief that magic is not real. Despite the fact that I agree, it is not our place to say that those of beliefs that do involve the casting of magics to be naive or delusional, and thus D&D shouldn't portray them as the actual thing. In addition, if there were no real life wizards, and that is your only reason for saying alchemy is not something "wizards" did with their magical/mystical powers, then why aren't you arguing that wizards and sorcerers shouldn't have access to magic at all? There's no real such thing as magic. They were all just faking it. Same thing with clerics and druids and whatnot. Consistancy would have been leaving it alone and letting rogues use it like they were in 3e. The meaning of alchemy in the sense you want it to mean is called Transmutation in DnD. Then consistancy would also have meant keeping it impossible to hurt a monster with out the correct type of magic weapon? Consistancy would also have meant leaving the Ranger being great with two handed weapons and being only okay with a bow? Consistancy must also be that only humans can get to level 20 and every class needs a different amount of experience to gain a level. Consistancy is 1st edition. Transmutation spells are spells. Alchemists didn't use alchemy to whisper a message at a distance, nor did they use it to shrink people. In fact, most of the spells on the transmutation list don't seem to have much to do with alchemy. Though it is the next closest thing to alchemy, it is not alchemy. Four gold and a week for 1d6 damage w/ 1 damage splash. Vs. 12 gold and a night for a scroll that deals 1d4+1 and NEVER MISSES, putting 4 kobolds to sleep, or giving a weapon a +1 enhancment for 20 attacks. It does not take a week, unless you really screw up. Not every spellcaster has Scribe Scroll. The scroll takes xp. It might not take a lot, but if you spend every night making a scroll of magic missile, sleep, or magic weapon (and chances are you just aren't using one scroll per day) then that adds up. Also, making a more powerful magic missile (or longer sleep /magic weapon spell) at a higher caster level definately adds things up in both the gold and xp department. Even if you miss with the splash weapon, chances are that the target will still get hurt for at least 1 damage which is not much less than a magic missile's 2 damage. Also, magic missile can be counterspelled or Shielded. What about Magic Resistance? Because we all know the main thing on a 4th level Paladin's list is makin' some matches. You asked, I gave you the answer. In any case, if a Paladin is not an alchemist,then he doesn't have to be. All rogues certainly weren't forced into alchemy. Paladins also DOES have a use for tindertwigs, since he doesn't have a light spell until his 3rd spell level (daylight). And clearly, a creature who actually is magical and is trained in alchemy is still incapable of making these substances which some kid that wakes up with wierd mutant powers (Sorcerer) can. Spell-like abilities still aren't spells. Gnomes don't ALL know the secrets of alchemy despite the fact that they have illusory magic spell like abilities, though with their sensitive noses they can be quite good at it once they get into magic. Their spell like abilities work differently then magic and they access them in different ways then spells (gnomes don't need components to use their spell-likes, for instance). Also, a level 1 sorcerer isn't someone who has woken up and suddenly is able to cast magic missile. A level 1 sorcerer has spent a great deal of time understanding his power and learning his spells. A sorcerer can learn new spells. A drow can't learn a new spell like ability. First... guh? Second; "This scientist knows everything about quantum mechanics, therefore he should be able to alter his own phase state at will." I'm not quite sure what this has to do with a rogue not knowing the intamacies of spellcasting. All right, for Spellcraft, "hmmm from the way the magic is flowing....from what I can tell I think it does......". It still doesn't mean you can cast or reproduce the effect if you don't have that ability. Why do you have to understand something at the fundamental level in order to use it? Are you saying that you have memorized and understand the source code for every software that you use, from Microsoft Word to Photoshop? No? you don't? What do you do? Learn the commands that make it work, use them repeatedly, and assume similar programs work in similar ways? That ctrl+i is usually italics in a word proccessor, or apple+i on macs? Do you know where in the source code it says ctrl+i = italics? Or do you just assume that eh, if it works for one program it should work for the next one. Do you think your average DnD PC or NPC should be any different? Someone who does not know about computers or word processors can't use those shortcuts. I'd definately have to say that spellcasting in D&D is A LOT harder to work out than learning simple program shortcuts. Also, those programs were made and the reason they are so similar is probably because they made them that way. Magic has been in D&D for a LONG time. It's not something that's been made user-friendly for the wizard's convenience. If you don't know how computers work, you can't use one. If you don't know how magic works, you can't be an alchemist. I've never met someone who was a full fledged programmer who didn't know anything about how computers worked. Can you make a computer without the knowledge of how they work? If you learned how to make them, then wouldn't you be a pretty darn good programmer? I've never heard of a real alchemist who didn't claim (or was thought) to use magic in his work. It doesn't make sense that joe commoner would be able to without the slightest training in magic. Besides, mechanically, Craft(alchemy) is tied to Int. Not tied to whatever your spellcasting ability is. Your spellcaster level doesn't affect any of the DCs to resist the effects, and it doesn't say anything about how much Int you need to make it, since producing an x-level spell requires a relevant ability score of 10+x. What happens when your relevant ability is different from your int (like that ever happens). Can you craft items with similar properties to a spell you can't cast? Speaking of which, why can a Druid make acid, when no spell with "acid" in it is on the druid spell list? IMO, this requirement was not well thought out and should be scrapped from anyone's game. Yes, it's RAW, but it's like "This table needs another footnote!!! Throw one on quick!!!1one OMGBBQ" You need intelligence to craft something, regardless as to if it has anything to do with your spellcasting abilities. Somoene who is unintelligent should not try to toy with alchemy. It requires magic and the intellect to know HOW to craft the item, not just to wield the forces that help create it. You need intelligence to know how to work a pen just right to make calligraphy. You can't just will acid to be with charisma or ask your deity/higher power to craft it for you with your wisdom. Alchemy is not tied to magic spells, it is created from using magic somehow. A sorcerer can craft acid, even if none of his spells has anything to do with acid, because he knows how to use his magic with science and make acid. A druid can see acidic things in nature and replicate it. A druid is also more likely to make something like anti-toxin or tanglefoot bags and what not. You should probably read the second page, since we covered a lot of the stuff about alchemy not being an item created from magic in the sense that a scroll is. The magic you use is not active in the final product, but it does not exist without the magic. The only requirement for making it is a minimum caster level of 1, just as you don't need anything but the feat and caster level to make a magic +1 weapon.
Thievingrouge 08-31-05, 01:48 PM	You only need one caster level to create most things. Not everything.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-05, 01:51 PM	You still have no right to say that. You don't have any proof for one thing, other than the belief that magic is not real. Sweet, evil Pelor, I quit the thread. Words... hurt mind... must... not smash... computer... @_@
wrecan 08-31-05, 02:26 PM	You can't leave yet. You didn't bother to respond to a single one of my points! Come back!
TheNatealator 08-31-05, 03:36 PM	I will deposit two more cents into this thread before unsubscribing. Why won't I continue the debate? because you'll do what works for your games, and I'll do what works for mine, no matter what the outcome of this thread. Anyways. First, I see no reason why someone can't follow a recipe for an item without knowing how to work magic. One wizard can't read another's spellbook without a read magic or decipher script or the wizard being there to help him, because each wizard has a slightly different approach to magic, and writes it down differently from the next. But alchemist's fire is alchemist's fire is alchemist's fire. You mix chemicals or whatever in the right way, and out comes alchemist's fire. Always does the same thing. 1d6 damage. You can't improve the alchemist's fire itself, you can only get more efficient at making it. The rules say nothing at all about why they have this rule, and Craft (Alchemy) is a class skill for everyone (since every craft skill is a class skill for everyone). Anyone can have their lvl+3 ranks in it. The only limitation the book gives is that every item that can be made by Craft (alchemy) can be made only by a spellcaster. So, according to the RAW, a level 20 barbarian can have 23 ranks in Craft (alchemy), but he can't make a thing. How come the rules say you can take ranks in Craft (alchemy) but not make anything without knowing how magic works (even though most spellcasting classes have different understandings of how it works (Sorc-from self, Cleric/Paladin-from god, druid/ranger-from nature/god, Wiz- from study)? Think about that. The rule is whack. Have fun with this guys, and I'll see you in another thread.
Antioch 08-31-05, 04:03 PM	For one thing, cut it with the insults. Adding "delusional" and "inane" to comments about me is not going to help you. And neither is reason, apparently. You should understand that I'm not fighting to say that alchemical items are magical in the sense that an everburning torch is magical, but in the sense that magic is involved in it's creation. Except its not. No spells or spell slots are expended in any alchemical creation. It doesn't affect the end product, but you need it in order to create it. It goes along with the old idea of alchemy as well, since gold created from lead wouldn't really be magical. You can unlock a door using levitation magic and a key that you couldn't physically get to otherwise, but that door doesn't lock itself again in an antimagic field and an open door isn't magical. See what I mean? Nope. You are saying magic is necessary to make an alchemical item (though its not), but it doesnt affect the end result, then you go off on a completely unrelated tangent about unlocking doors that you didnt use magic to actually unlock, but to simply access, and make an inane attempt to somehow call it related? Yep! Alchemical items do appear on the mundane items list! They're right next to Holy Water (Bless Water) and the Everburning Torch (Continual Flame). Both of which are created using spells (listed in their respective texts). Neither of them can be made using alchemy, by the by. Dont try to use that to make alchemical items as such simply because they are lumped in the same equipment category. The reason why they are also not magical items is because you cant make them using item-creation feats. They are made not through skills or feats, but by spells. I wasn't talking about feats. I was talking about prerequisites. Control Shape (a skill) requires lycanthropy. You can bet it uses the victims familiarity with lycanthropy to pull off. For obvious reasons. See, you can apparently be familiar with all the inner workings of alchemy, but never, ever, make a single item with it unless you can cast say...daze. Would it work with my theoretical orc with a Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma of 3? I can take levels in all the spellcasting classes but cant cast spells, meaning that I am unable to manipulate any sort of magical energy. Nope, I'm comparing battle items and how it's consistant with the game that they come from magical sources. Oh, so like a dart or sword then? :rolleyes: It IS a class feature. Its not. Well, you're a spellcaster now. You can take Craft: Alchemy! Sounds like a feat to me. With the Animal Empathy, that was a very limited skill. Now though, it actually is just a Wild Empathy check (not a skill) that uses the class levels as a bonus. And this class feature is clearly listed in the classes that possess access to it. Alchemy can be used by anyone with a spellcaster level. We know, but it doesnt make sense, you see. Putting "craft:alchemy" into the class features is redundant. Yes, since it is a skill and shouldnt be one. If they were to put it in the first line of the wizard, sorcerer, and bard class tables, then it would make more sense. Actually, no. They'd still have to explain how it works in various magic-affecting conditions. The problem you had in your example was that if you wanted to multiclass for alchemy, but neither of your classes was your favored class, that you would get the 20% xp penalty. It had nothing to do with craft alchemy, actually, since I could bring up the same problem with wanting Wild Empathy but getting an xp penalty for multiclassing to druid when I'm already an elf rogue 4. At least wild empathy as a class feature makes sense for the nature oriented classes that get it. Also, you can argue why you cant have Weapon Specialization, but again you are using class features and not skills to defend yourself. Different options and abilities are categorized for a reason. Then don't accuse me of not knowing how spells work, when we aren't talking about spells, please. Except, we are. To note, I would accuse you all the same if we were. Actually, golems are essentially magic items. They have no Intelligence. They are just objects that are shaped to look like humans. They are creatures. As alchemy is a result? It's not dependant on any spell to sustain, but magic is required to form it. Seems to work the same way. If you want examples, see my other posts and this one. If you demand me to show you a skill that works EXACTLY like craft: alchemy, then I obviously couldn't unless WotC puts Craft: Alchemy 2 into its errata sometime. No, you couldnt, plain and simple. There are no other skills that work like that because they were allegedly abolished during the revamp to 3.5. It's just as how I couldn't show you a skill that works just like Knowledge: Local without going into Bardic Knowledge and other some such. Skills are unique like that. Spellcraft is just a cheap, less effective, way of identifying stuff, for instance. So you are comparing class features to skills again. Simply casting Burning Hands also takes up a spell slot. Those are very precious at low levels especially. When facing weak opponents, tanglefoot bags can still hit the DC (in fact, fighters have poor reflex saves at any level) and thunderstones can really kill arcane spellcasters who usually don't have a Fortitude save to speak of (nor a Reflex save). I've also been in more games where the bags were used for useful things besides entrapping enemies. Alchemical items can be used in a pinch for lots of things. Tindertwigs are also useful for quick, safe, torch-lighting at any level. Does it really matter how useful alchemical items are, though? No, only that you prove that they are magical. I could care less how useful they are. -You're mixing alchemical items with Magic Items in the sense that alchemical items produce magical effects, instead of being made with magic. Alchemical item's creation is involved with magic, but it is not a "magic item". So it shouldnt demand spellcaster levels. - I don't believe that there is a rule that magic items are made with feats. I didn't need a feat to make my holy water and my everburning torch did I? Neither of which are considered magic items. Next please. -Experience? Not true, making items through feats do, though. Holy Water doesn't require experience, for example. Again, holy water is not a magical item. -The alchemical items don't necassarily linger with the magic used in its making, similar to golems. Also, universal spells are not picked up, as they aren't in a school. Golems are magic items. -Anti-magic/Dispel Magic, same thing, not true in every case. The magic has come and gone. For spells, possibly. Also, I did say that the item will note if its an exception to this.
wrecan 08-31-05, 04:36 PM	Tap. Tap. Tap. Hello? Is this thing on? Is anybody going to discuss the points I made?
darkness ninja of light 08-31-05, 07:06 PM	And neither is reason, apparently. I'm using reason. You're using reason. That's how we discuss things. That's how debates are conducted. Insults have no place in this. Except its not. No spells or spell slots are expended in any alchemical creation. No spells and spell slots are used in making magic weapons. Why couldn't the same thing happen with alchemy? I'm showing you this because it is another example of an item created through magic that does not involve using up spell slots. You can wield magic without having to cast a full blown spell. The difference is that with alchemy, the magical effect is simply used to shape the final product, but it does not continue to define the final product. I've heard a scenario before in some D&D book (I can't remember where, it was probably in the DMG or so) where a certain door can be opened by a certain level of cleric and up. It does not require that a cleric spend any of his spells or turn undead attempts. He simply uses his divine magical power to open the door that could not be opened otherwise. It's the same thing with spellcasters in general and alchemy. They do not have to use a full spell in order to produce something and only they can produce it. Nope. You are saying magic is necessary to make an alchemical item (though its not), but it doesnt affect the end result, then you go off on a completely unrelated tangent about unlocking doors that you didnt use magic to actually unlock, but to simply access, and make an inane attempt to somehow call it related? The door was a metaphor. You couldn't open the door without using magic to manipulate the physical object. Afterwards, you get an open door that is not magical, but was produced through using magic. With alchemy, you use magic to manipulate ingrediants (door and key) in a way that is not possible through physical means (magic). What you get is a product of that that could not be achieved otherwise (alchemical items), but it is not magical. Both of which are created using spells (listed in their respective texts). Neither of them can be made using alchemy, by the by. Dont try to use that to make alchemical items as such simply because they are lumped in the same equipment category. The reason why they are also not magical items is because you cant make them using item-creation feats. They are made not through skills or feats, but by spells. You were telling me that alchemical items, because they were listed under "mundane items" were non-magical. Now I've shown you two things that both are made through magic and are considered "mundane items" and you're telling me that because bless water, and continual flame require spells but don't require feats, they are not magic items? Why? For obvious reasons. See, you can apparently be familiar with all the inner workings of alchemy, but never, ever, make a single item with it unless you can cast say...daze. Would it work with my theoretical orc with a Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma of 3? I can take levels in all the spellcasting classes but cant cast spells, meaning that I am unable to manipulate any sort of magical energy. A spellcaster can't cast his cantrips until he understands how to wield magic. You're using an extreme example again though. With a WIS, INT, and CHA of 3, it's a wonder he knows who he is. The rules aren't designed with extreme examples in mind. In any case, you can't cast spells, but having a spellcaster level in the first place means that yes, you indeed went through some CONSIDERABLE training in order to be able to manipulate magical energy. You can't cast cantrips or orisons, but you are considered a wizard, druid, etc. etc. Using the example above, if a door required a wizard to open, your ability to wield a wizard's arcane power, however much, would be enough. Oh, so like a dart or sword then? Those are weapons. Though they are indeed "items" I figured you would know the difference and I'm sure you do. A weapon is good for the main parts of battle, but battle items are supplementary and supportive. I say "battle items" because I have a lack for a word that describes them all. Magic weapons also come from magic sources (and the magic assists, but does not do the primary damage the weapon provides), but wondrous items, potions, scrolls, wands, rings, rods, staffs, and alchemical items all belong to the spellcasters. Its not. Class feature is something that someone gets from joining the class, right? Why couldn't Craft: Alchemy be considered such? It's not something that you would write under "class features" on a character sheet, but you wouldn't do that with your spells either. Sounds like a feat to me. So you're a wizard now! You've got wizard spells! Does that sound like a feat to you? And this class feature is clearly listed in the classes that possess access to it. Yep, and craft: alchemy is listed as something that spellcasters get. We know, but it doesnt make sense, you see. Well, it certainly makes sense to a lot of us! Yes, since it is a skill and shouldnt be one. If they were to put it in the first line of the wizard, sorcerer, and bard class tables, then it would make more sense. Actually, no. They'd still have to explain how it works in various magic-affecting conditions. They don't need to tell you in the first line of the various spellcasting classes exactly what you have or do not have access to now that you're whatever class. If they crammed all the skills that are now class skills for you, and all the feats you now have the prerequisites for, into the first line, then it would be very crowded. It would also be redundant because it tells you what skills are class skills in the skill chapter and your class write up as well as what feats you have access to in the feats section. At least wild empathy as a class feature makes sense for the nature oriented classes that get it. Also, you can argue why you cant have Weapon Specialization, but again you are using class features and not skills to defend yourself. Different options and abilities are categorized for a reason. If you can't see similarities in rules among the various "categories" in D&D, then you're limiting yourself in the "can't see the forest for the trees" sense. You get wild empathy when you become a druid. You get craft: alchemy when you become a spellcaster. If you want to have something exactly like craft: alchemy, then you need craft: alchemy 2, which does not exist. There is no other skill like craft:alchemy just as there is no other skill like concentration. Except, we are. To note, I would accuse you all the same if we were. How are we discussing spells as opposed to say, spellcaster levels or alchemy? They are creatures. Golems are magic items. Well, for one thing, you said both of these things in the same post. (You also bolded the wrong part of the conversation afterwards. Just pointing it out, since it looks like I said your response and vice versa.) If you saw an animated kitchen knife, would you call it a creature? Golems and these things are simply items, as you said later. No, you couldnt, plain and simple. There are no other skills that work like that because they were allegedly abolished during the revamp to 3.5. I couldn't show you a skill that worked just like craft: alchemy just as there are no other skills that work like use magic device or swim. That's what I'm trying to say. So you are comparing class features to skills again. Yes! I was using that to show you a point! There is no other skill like Knowledge:Local, but if you needed something that worked in a similar way, you would have to go to Bardic Knowledge, a class feature! It works in the same way that I am using other things in D&D to compare Craft: Alchemy, because as all skills are, it is unique! So it shouldnt demand spellcaster levels. So something that is made using magic ,even if it makes something that is essentially non-magical, shouldn't require the ability to use magic to make it in the first place? Neither of which are considered magic items. Next please. Again, holy water is not a magical item. How are holy water and continual flame not considered magic? Again, there isn't a rule that magic items are only made through feats.
Antioch 08-31-05, 07:22 PM	The instance you are referring to is an ad hoc ruling by the DM to allow a cleric to burn a turn undead attempt to cleanse an area. Such a ruling is perfectly acceptable and makes logical sense. If alchemy were to be a class feature, its perfectly easy to write it under the sorcerer class (or bard, for that matter) and cross-reference it in the wizard section as was done with Summon Familiar. Easy enough to do as a class feature if it were meant to be that way. Also, in your door example, a spell is used. When you create many magic items, spells are used (XP is also used to represent making such effects more or less permanent or stable). Also, magical auras are detailed as well as a caster level. Wizard spells do not sound like a feat at all, mainly because gaining level-based access to magic effects is far too powerful for even an Epic feat. Touching on class features (again), they dont have to tell you every skill you gain as a class skill, simply that alchemy is gained since it does not accessed like a normal skill. Mind you, this is if I were to agree that alchemy is even remotely magical. To clarify what I mean by that alchemy does not function like any other skill (since you didnt grasp the meaning), what I am referring to is that NO other skill demands that you have a specific class. Also, in regards to this: So something that is made using magic ,even if it makes something that is essentially non-magical, shouldn't require the ability to use magic to make it in the first place? Thats only if you think alchemy should require magic to make. The results of it are certainly somewhat fantastic, but not so completely outside of reality so as to demand a magical origin. I can see any and all alchemy items being made through mundane (if somewhat abstract) methods. Therefore, it shouldnt require magic. Holy water and an everburning torch are not magical because they are not made through Item Creation feats and that they do not drain XP, for starters.
Ogmug 08-31-05, 07:36 PM	not to stir the fire too much.. but an antimagic field is not really a good test of a magic. Ghosts disappear in them too, and not all ghosts are created by create undead...... certain spells set precedence for not being affected by it (see walls), etc.
Antioch 08-31-05, 07:47 PM	certain spells set precedence for not being affected by it (see walls), etc. Its not the spells, but the school that does that. Like I said, Conjuration (creation) effects assemble the effect but do not fuel it. So slapping AM field over a wall of stone after its all said and done wont do anything because the wall is no longer magic. Before you use that as an argument, the alchemy skill does not prevent one who cannot cast conjuration or transmutation spells from crafting them.
Ogmug 08-31-05, 07:56 PM	certain spells set precedence for not being affected by it (see walls), etc. Its not the spells, but the school that does that. Like I said, Conjuration (creation) effects assemble the effect but do not fuel it. So slapping AM field over a wall of stone after its all said and done wont do anything because the wall is no longer magic. Before you use that as an argument, the alchemy skill does not prevent one who cannot cast conjuration or transmutation spells from crafting them. Actually, it is spells that are affected. Summoned creatures (school, conjuration) are affected by an antimagic field. So your school arguement does not hold water. Nor does antimagic prevent a sword from being a sword, it just suppresses its magical abilities. It is still a masterwork sword, and does not cause it to wink out. Antimagic field cast upon a summoned creature causes it to make a will save, or suffer its effects. Create undead (school necromancy) is also unaffected by an antimagic field, unless you summon incorporeal undead, nor are animated undead from the spell of the same name (also a necromancy school). prismatic sphere is also unaffected (school abjuration) Your words: the wall is no longer magic - do bring a point. Alchemy belonging to spellcasters might "imbue" items with magic, but once they are created.. they are no longer magic........ Just a thought. All in all, alchemy being a domain of a spellcaster is really just fluff. It is flavor, added to make it seem like an alchemist would use magic to create the wonderous (to the common man) items.
darkness ninja of light 08-31-05, 08:18 PM	If alchemy were to be a class feature, its perfectly easy to write it under the sorcerer class (or bard, for that matter) and cross-reference it in the wizard section as was done with Summon Familiar. Easy enough to do as a class feature if it were meant to be that way. Touching on class features (again), they dont have to tell you every skill you gain as a class skill, simply that alchemy is gained since it does not accessed like a normal skill. Mind you, this is if I were to agree that alchemy is even remotely magical. The fact that you get access to craft alchemy and saying so is just the same as saying "you have access to these feats" and "you have access to these prestige classes" and "these other skills are also class skills for you". It's unnecassary, every class gets them. Not every spellcaster gets summon familiar or wild empathy. All spellcasters get craft: alchemy. It'd be an eyesore if in every class that had spells it would say under Special: "Spells" and "Craft: alchemy". Also, in your door example, a spell is used. When you create many magic items, spells are used (XP is also used to represent making such effects more or less permanent or stable). Also, magical auras are detailed as well as a caster level. Again it was a metaphor. The "spell" was the magic used to produce the alchemical item which could not be brought about in any other way. Created Water is not magical, nor does it require xp or have an aura. To clarify what I mean by that alchemy does not function like any other skill (since you didnt grasp the meaning), what I am referring to is that NO other skill demands that you have a specific class. It's not a specific class. It's 7 out of the 11 core classes. Control Shape requires having a specific template. I'm saying that simply because it is different is no reason to say it's a bad rule. There are certain aspects of other skills that require spellcasting to pull off. It's not much different. I can see any and all alchemy items being made through mundane (if somewhat abstract) methods. Therefore, it shouldnt require magic. What you're seeing is modern day chemistry, which doesn't really fit in with D&D. Looking at the inspiration for alchemy, it would be strange that it would not require magic. Holy water and an everburning torch are not magical because they are not made through Item Creation feats and that they do not drain XP, for starters. Something that is made through a feat is magical, yet something that is made through actual magic (in this case, actual spells) isn't?
TheNatealator 08-31-05, 10:19 PM	I'm sorry. I said I was leaving this thread, but I couldn't resist looking at this last page. To those defending this silly (IMO) rule: It would not be "an eyesore" to see something redundant in every class description. It would be "convenient". Is it "an eyesore" to see the books have "and every x levels after (yth, (y+x)th, (y+2x, etc.)". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but Wizards includes that so there is no ambiguity. Is it "an eyesore" to have a table in the beginning of the classes chapter with every class and it's HD, only to have in each class description its HD? Not IMO; it's putting the information in places that different people would look. Redundancy is not "an eyesore". There are hardly any debates about rules if they are explained or referenced multiple times in the core books. The debates are about things only given a small paragraph, or footnote. Examples: TWF attack order, Speed stacking from two different weapons, just about everything relating to monks and what happens when they do unusual stuff. WotC is basically trying to DM for millions of players (us). DM's know how hard it is to anticipate what just their party will do. WotC has to do that times millions, and I give them credit for that. To cover their behinds, they established Rule 0, being that the DM can make the rules work (can't do that in a computer game). Rule 0 exists for exactly this reason: negating or defining underdefined rules.
Serielle 08-31-05, 10:28 PM	Just on the golems note.... Golems aren't nmagic items. The body is made from mundane material, which is why you need a craft check to succeed at it, and it can be made by someone other than the mage creating the golem. The golem is animated by an elemental spirit. The only magical part of creating a golem is fusing the spirit into the material body (and making it so the body can accomodate the spirit), which after done, no longer requires magic to keep in. Once it's done, there's no more magic to it. The spirit fuels the golem, thus it's not a walking magic item.
Antioch 08-31-05, 10:30 PM	Actually, it is spells that are affected. Summoned creatures (school, conjuration) are affected by an antimagic field. So your school arguement does not hold water. Actually, it does. Since you didnt read the complete description, I'll at least explain that a summoned creature does not come from a Conjuration (creation) effect, but a Conjuration (summoning). There is a spell chapter, please read it. Nor does antimagic prevent a sword from being a sword, it just suppresses its magical abilities. It is still a masterwork sword, and does not cause it to wink out. Uh-huh. I know this. Antimagic field cast upon a summoned creature causes it to make a will save, or suffer its effects. You're wrong, if you read the spell it does not allow a saving throw. Create undead (school necromancy) is also unaffected by an antimagic field, unless you summon incorporeal undead, nor are animated undead from the spell of the same name (also a necromancy school). Yes, because it has an instantaneous duration. I know this also. prismatic sphere is also unaffected (school abjuration) Yes, because this is specifically noted in the spell, and not because of the school. There was no reason to state this. Your words: the wall is no longer magic - do bring a point. Alchemy belonging to spellcasters might "imbue" items with magic, but once they are created.. they are no longer magic........[b/] Which would be a transmutation effect. Your statement loses all ground when I point out that you can do such things without access to transmutation or conjuration at all. [b]All in all, alchemy being a domain of a spellcaster is really just fluff. It is flavor, added to make it seem like an alchemist would use magic to create the wonderous (to the common man) items. And AGAIN, aside from that little line at the end of Craft, there is nothing that supports this, and since this isnt an argument about whether it does, but rather whether it should, that line means nothing.
Antioch 08-31-05, 10:37 PM	Again it was a metaphor. The "spell" was the magic used to produce the alchemical item which could not be brought about in any other way. Created Water is not magical, nor does it require xp or have an aura. Yes, but thats the results of a specific spell. Your alleged arcane alchemy doesnt require any specific spells, caster level, or even access to one school. It's not a specific class. It's 7 out of the 11 core classes. Control Shape requires having a specific template. I'm saying that simply because it is different is no reason to say it's a bad rule. There are certain aspects of other skills that require spellcasting to pull off. It's not much different. Like what? Note how Control Shape isnt in the PH? Why is Craft: Alchemy not in the class section where it would normally belong? A simple sidebar isnt an eyesore when there are plenty already. What you're seeing is modern day chemistry, which doesn't really fit in with D&D. Looking at the inspiration for alchemy, it would be strange that it would not require magic. It works just fine without magic. Just because its "modernized" does not mean its bad for fantasy. Something that is made through a feat is magical, yet something that is made through actual magic (in this case, actual spells) isn't? Mechanically its not a magic item. Do you see it on any random magic item tables? You did seem to see it under "special substances", however. I gave you the requisites for a magic item, which fit perfectly with the way it works in game.
Antioch 08-31-05, 10:38 PM	Just on the golems note.... Golems aren't nmagic items. I think that was my 4th rule of magic items: the end result cannot possess a creature type such as Construct (though it may transform into one, create, or summon one as part of item's nature).
Ogmug 08-31-05, 11:01 PM	So basically your "logic" is false and your arguements are shakey. You claim an everburning torch is not magic, yet it requires in the item description that continual flame be cast upon it. As to the reason you will probably never find it in a magical treasure list is one of 2 reasons: either it was an oversight, or whoever editted the tables thought it was a stupid reward (who would want one and not feel gipped). Either way we have no way of knowing it. (the correction is that a creature with SR causes a caster level check to affect the creature if it already exists). But back to the topic. You can provide no evidence from within the game to support your claim that Alchemy should not be restricted to characters with levels of spellcasting, nor can others produce concrete evidence within the game other than that is the way the rules are written. Sorry but the majority of "teh win" is leaning towards those that support the arguement that alchemy is for spellcasters simply due to the RAW.
Ogmug 08-31-05, 11:02 PM	Just on the golems note.... Golems aren't nmagic items. I think that was my 4th rule of magic items: the end result cannot possess a creature type such as Construct (though it may transform into one, create, or summon one as part of item's nature). The key is in the folowing words: my 4th rule Can you quote an official WotC source? If so, I shall gladly concede a majority of the points.
Antioch 08-31-05, 11:08 PM	So basically your "logic" is false and your arguements are shakey. You claim an everburning torch is not magic, yet it requires in the item description that continual flame be cast upon it. No, I didnt say that it was not magic, just that it is mechanically not considered a magic item. As to the reason you will probably never find it in a magical treasure list is one of 2 reasons: either it was an oversight, or whoever editted the tables thought it was a stupid reward (who would want one and not feel gipped). Either way we have no way of knowing it. Holy water isnt on there either. The reason is that its not a magic item. But back to the topic. You can provide no evidence from within the game to support your claim that Alchemy should not be restricted to characters with levels of spellcasting, nor can others produce concrete evidence within the game other than that is the way the rules are written. I can and have in my favor. Alchemy items demand nothing in the term of spells or magic energy, radiate none, and are not made in any way similar to that of normal magical items. Also, alchemy is not magical even in RL. You have your one line clause. Sorry but the majority of "teh win" is leaning towards those that support the arguement that alchemy is for spellcasters simply due to the RAW. Hey, whatever helps you sleep.
Antioch 08-31-05, 11:09 PM	Can you quote an official WotC source? If so, I shall gladly concede a majority of the points. Though I never tried to make that rule sound official, there of course is no "official" statement about that. I have a simple collection of four factors that define what is and is not a magic item. Of course, its not official, so its not part of this argument.
Ogmug 08-31-05, 11:10 PM	And the above post is exactly why your arguements are so hard to believe. You have not been able to succinctly prove a single thing, and your logic has been shakey at best. The statements on golems lost a lot of cred, etc.
Antioch 08-31-05, 11:55 PM	Oh? Sorry but thats the way the rules are on that. At least it makes a semblence of sense.
Ogmug 09-01-05, 12:03 AM	Oh? Sorry but thats the way the rules are on that. At least it makes a semblence of sense. /laugh the rules state: To make an item using Craft (alchemy), you must have alchemical equipment and be a spellcaster. Makes a lot of sense to me.. It is kinda spelled out.. isn't it? yet you are arguing aginst said rules but trying to say "that is the way the rules are on that". /chuckles. You cannot, and have not displayed any cut and dried evidence to the contrary, yet there it is in black and white.
darkness ninja of light 09-01-05, 12:19 AM	So if EVERY spellcaster class had under their class features "spells" and "can use craft: alchemy now" you wouldn't eventually think "You know, they really don't need to say that. I already know." It doesn't need to say "you can get *so and so* feats and access *so and so* prestige class because you can see that for yourself. Every spellcaster gets it so you already know "spellcaster class-> craft alchemy". From this debate, I do agree that a little more descriptive text should have been given to show how magic is used in the alchemical process. From how it is now though, I don't see why it wouldn't require magical ability to pull off. Not only does it go more in line with what the alchemist's did, but it fits in with D&D, and the role of spellcasters as the "special item" crafters. If this debate had not happened, I would have just said that it was up to the DM's ruling as to how it was used. It doesn't mean that alchemy doesn't require magic simply because there is no flavor text describing exactly how it's used. You're wrong, if you read the spell it does not allow a saving throw. As Ogmug already mentioned, if an anti-magic field is placed on a summoned creature, then it requires a caster check or the summoned creature stays. And AGAIN, aside from that little line at the end of Craft, there is nothing that supports this, and since this isnt an argument about whether it does, but rather whether it should, that line means nothing. Well there's still the historical definition of alchemy which supports that it "should". Flavor/the fact that it fits in general is still a good reason why something "should" happen. It doesn't unbalance things. Etc. etc. It's also consistant. Yes, but thats the results of a specific spell. Your alleged arcane alchemy doesnt require any specific spells, caster level, or even access to one school. Create Water might need a specific spell, but alchemy just needs magic in general. It does not require spells or access to a school (caster level 1, again) because it just needs magic manipulation in general. Like what? Note how Control Shape isnt in the PH? Why is Craft: Alchemy not in the class section where it would normally belong? A simple sidebar isnt an eyesore when there are plenty already. Control Shape is still a core skill. It's in the Monster Manual because that's where lycanthropes are. Craft: alchemy is in the PHB because that is where the spellcasters are. The sidebar is in the skill section. As for aspects of other skills that require specific levels (more specific than craft: alchemy anyways). Only a rogue or dwarf (with stone) can use search to find a magical trap without using magic. Only a wizard can use spellcraft to copy a spell through a spellbook. Little, more specific things like that. It works just fine without magic. Just because its "modernized" does not mean its bad for fantasy. It works fine WITH magic too, in addition to making sense and fitting in. Modern chemistry in D&D might work for you, but it certainly doesn't belong in most of our games. Wizards obviously didn't think it fit in with the style either. Mechanically its not a magic item. Do you see it on any random magic item tables? You did seem to see it under "special substances", however. I gave you the requisites for a magic item, which fit perfectly with the way it works in game. No, I didnt say that it was not magic, just that it is mechanically not considered a magic item. They are not "wondrous items" nor are they potions, scrolls, wands, rods, etc. That is why you won't find it under their respective tables.There are no requisites for saying something is a magic item or not. I can and have in my favor. Alchemy items demand nothing in the term of spells or magic energy, radiate none, and are not made in any way similar to that of normal magical items. Also, alchemy is not magical even in RL. You have your one line clause. Just as how wizards weren't really magical in RL? That's not a reason to say they aren't in D&D. It is a world where things really are as they seemed back then. You don't get charmed by manatees swimming around your boat. You get charmed by the merfolk. A wizard or druid isn't just some occultist/mystic that claims he wields unearthly powers. He really does so. An alchemist doesn't just claim to use magic in creating powerful items previously unseen. He really does. If we've been giving all these reasons and apparantly still only have this "one like clause". Then what do you, who also has been giving his reasons, have?
Antioch 09-01-05, 01:12 AM	No, D&D is not "how it seemed back then". If that were the case then the world would be flat and evil spirits would tbe the causes of our maladies. D&D is very much different from the real midieval era. Just because there is a rule that emulates something from our RL past does not mean it must adhere to how misinformed people thought. So if EVERY spellcaster class had under their class features "spells" and "can use craft: alchemy now" you wouldn't eventually think "You know, they really don't need to say that. I already know." It doesn't need to say "you can get *so and so* feats and access *so and so* prestige class because you can see that for yourself. Every spellcaster gets it so you already know "spellcaster class-> craft alchemy". No more than I would when I see the class feature Summon Familiar. The difference is no other skill states that you must be of a certain class, and very few feats do that as well. From how it is now though, I don't see why it wouldn't require magical ability to pull off. Not only does it go more in line with what the alchemist's did, but it fits in with D&D, and the role of spellcasters as the "special item" crafters. Except alchemists did NOT use magic. Ignorant people only thought they did. What part of that is not registering in your brain? It doesn't mean that alchemy doesn't require magic simply because there is no flavor text describing exactly how it's used. Which is why I think it shouldnt require a spellcaster level. Well there's still the historical definition of alchemy which supports that it "should". Flavor/the fact that it fits in general is still a good reason why something "should" happen. It doesn't unbalance things. Etc. etc. It's also consistant. So its consistent with ignorance. It works fine WITH magic too, in addition to making sense and fitting in. Modern chemistry in D&D might work for you, but it certainly doesn't belong in most of our games. Wizards obviously didn't think it fit in with the style either. So you assume. Also, WotC apparently thought it was fine back in 3.0 when not only could anyone USE it, but you could also ID certain magical items. They are not "wondrous items" nor are they potions, scrolls, wands, rods, etc. That is why you won't find it under their respective tables.There are no requisites for saying something is a magic item or not. How about they probably just arent magic in general. And Ogmug, the last time I am going to talk to you since you obviously are not listening. I know what the rules say. I know that it says that you must be a spellcaster to use alchemy. Thats not the point. The point of this argument is that I and others think that the necessity of being a spellcaster makes no sense to craft normal, non-magical items. Again, here is why. Use of Craft (alchemy) does not require you to expend XP. Special items made through Craft (alchemy) do not require the use of spells. Special items made through Craft (alchemy) do not radiate magic of any sort. Special items made through Craft (alchemy) do not require a minimum caster level. Special items made through Craft (alchemy) cannot be suppressed or destroyed by a dispel magic, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, or similar effect. They do not follow any pattern in relation to true magic items. You could make them in dead magic zones if you wanted to without difficulty. Had they been magical in any shape way, or fashion, why didnt WotC make any mention of this in any of the books, considering that the requisite was only added during the revision, and never in any of the other books (T&B, A&EG) where it talked about magic and/or equipment?
Ogmug 09-01-05, 01:55 AM	So you assume. Also, WotC apparently thought it was fine back in 3.0 when not only could anyone USE it, but you could also ID certain magical items. [ Your arguement here falls apart. In 3.0, rogues and bards were the only ones who could use the "use magical device" skill. In 3.5 everyone can train in it. In 3.0, Alchemy was not a crafting skill. It was a skill all its own. When WotC moved it to crafting, they added a stipulation. In 3.0 there were more skills. Read lips, that went away. Scry, gone In 3.5 they did away with a greater majority of the class restrictions. want to do slight of hand as a paladin? go for it. Want to have decipher script as a barbarian (it doesn't have a prerequisite of literacy!) go for it (previously, only rogues and bards could do this). Heck, a barbarian with ranks in UMD and Decipher script could use a scroll! Why? because people complained .. it isn't fair! He can do that.. i can't. It is what is killing the game and blowing suspension of belief in my eyes.
Gilean 09-01-05, 09:21 AM	No, D&D is not "how it seemed back then". If that were the case then the world would be flat and evil spirits would tbe the causes of our maladies. D&D is very much different from the real midieval era. Just because there is a rule that emulates something from our RL past does not mean it must adhere to how misinformed people thought.Medieval people, mostly, did not think that world was flat. Vikings didn't think that, either. Nor did greeks. Or, probably, aztecs. That said, my campaing world is round and diseases are caused by spirits, emotions by demons and virtues, and so on. Fantasy world, one in which magic is inherent, ought not work like our world does. The scientific thinking flattens fantasy.Except alchemists did NOT use magic. Ignorant people only thought they did. What part of that is not registering in your brain?Except druids din't use magic. What part of that is not registering in your brain?So its consistent with ignorance.As is all magic, and dragons, and dungeons as usually portrayed (have you been to a real cavern)? The entire game is based on ignorance! Run for the hills!Again, here is why.Good, a list.Use of Craft (alchemy) does not require you to expend XP.Holy water.Special items made through Craft (alchemy) do not require the use of spells.+n armours and weapons with no other qualities.Special items made through Craft (alchemy) do not radiate magic of any sort.Holy water.Special items made through Craft (alchemy) do not require a minimum caster level.They do, in fact. 1 caster level. In any spellcasting class.Special items made through Craft (alchemy) cannot be suppressed or destroyed by a dispel magic, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, or similar effect.Holy water. Golems.They do not follow any pattern in relation to true magic items. You could make them in dead magic zones if you wanted to without difficulty. Had they been magical in any shape way, or fashion, why didnt WotC make any mention of this in any of the books, considering that the requisite was only added during the revision, and never in any of the other books (T&B, A&EG) where it talked about magic and/or equipment?They do follow the pattern set for other items created with magic. Understand the difference? Not magical, just created with it. Just like some conjurations. T&B and A&EG are 3,0.
darkness ninja of light 09-01-05, 11:52 AM	Wow, Gilean and Ogmug pretty much said what I was thinking. No, D&D is not "how it seemed back then". If that were the case then the world would be flat and evil spirits would tbe the causes of our maladies. D&D is very much different from the real midieval era. Just because there is a rule that emulates something from our RL past does not mean it must adhere to how misinformed people thought. Now that I think of this. Who said the material plane was round? Also, a LOT of maladies are indeed caused by monsters (especially the living dead ones) and magical plagues. Who said that the common cold isn't a malevolent spirit? I've never seen fever medicine in D&D. In any case, it's obvious that things in D&D were inspired by myths and tales and beliefs. If mermaids were half-fish half-cow then you would bet people would be complaining. That's not how the sightings went. Sailors thought they saw half-fish PEOPLE. We would use old tales of merfolk to show that they should be as how they were imagined to be seen, not what REALLY was sighted. No more than I would when I see the class feature Summon Familiar. The difference is no other skill states that you must be of a certain class, and very few feats do that as well. Not every spellcaster class gets to summon a familiar. If it said "every spellcaster can summon a familiar" then it would become tedious and a waste of space to put it on EVERY spellcaster's "special" section (including supplements). It also doesn't say "you could purchase Scribe Scroll now!" Except alchemists did NOT use magic. Ignorant people only thought they did. What part of that is not registering in your brain? Those "ignorant people" also believed in wizards and sorcerers and dragons and etc. etc. etc. It's also quite possible these "ignorant people" are your friends. It might not be true to us, but why should that mean it can't be in a FANTASY setting when everything else remotely similar to it IS? So its consistent with ignorance. I still wouldn't use the word ignorance, but yes you could say that. As many people like to say on these boards: "Gasp! D&D isn't like real life? NOOOO!" Which is why I think it shouldnt require a spellcaster level. Just because it says "it is used" instead of "it is used this way" it shouldn't "use it" at all? So you assume. Also, WotC apparently thought it was fine back in 3.0 when not only could anyone USE it, but you could also ID certain magical items. They changed the ruling. I'm pretty sure the same reasons for changing it as we have in defending alchemy's magical origins. 3.5 is the "update", afterall. How about they probably just arent magic in general. And Ogmug, the last time I am going to talk to you since you obviously are not listening. I know what the rules say. I know that it says that you must be a spellcaster to use alchemy. Thats not the point. The point of this argument is that I and others think that the necessity of being a spellcaster makes no sense to craft normal, non-magical items. Again, holy water and continual flame are very much magic. Continual flame on a stick (everburning torch) is no different whatsoever from continual flame cast on a person's head (no proper name). It's still magic. So you won't "listen" to Ogmug because you think he's not "listening" to you? I also recall that no one has responded to Wrecan's points. You shouldn't just ignore the arguments you don't like. Use of Craft (alchemy) does not require you to expend XP. Special items made through Craft (alchemy) do not require the use of spells. Special items made through Craft (alchemy) do not radiate magic of any sort. Special items made through Craft (alchemy) do not require a minimum caster level. Special items made through Craft (alchemy) cannot be suppressed or destroyed by a dispel magic, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, or similar effect. Again, holy water, continual flame, items made/dirt made through prestidigitation. SILVERSHEEN Create Water, Golems, anything instantaneous Minimum spellcaster level is one Again, with the instantaneous, golems, stuff like that Also, remember the discussion about Golems not being magic items since they are "creatures" with the Construct type? Well, what about Intelligent Items? They are specifically in the magic items section and referred to as Magic Items. It specifically says they are creatures with INT, WIS, and CHA. It also specifically says that they should be treated as if they had the Construct type. They also do not necassarily need to have actual spells cast upon them, depending on what they do.
wrecan 09-01-05, 12:18 PM	So you won't "listen" to Ogmug because you think he's not "listening" to you? I also recall that no one has responded to Wrecan's points. You shouldn't just ignore the arguments you don't like. Thank goodness someone noticed. I was beginning to think I had discovered some sort of Invisibility to Forums ability. :ghosted:
Antioch 09-01-05, 12:40 PM	Now that I think of this. Who said the material plane was round? Also, a LOT of maladies are indeed caused by monsters... Yes, but monsters are not all magical. Those "ignorant people" also believed in wizards and sorcerers and dragons and etc. etc. etc. It's also quite possible these "ignorant people" are your friends. It might not be true to us, but why should that mean it can't be in a FANTASY setting when everything else remotely similar to it IS? I'm all for fantasy elements. Dragons are fine. So are demons, elementals, magic, etc. When you take something so mundane and ordinary such as making acid, and claim it to be magical, then I have an issue. Just because it says "it is used" instead of "it is used this way" it shouldn't "use it" at all? If it doesnt make any sense. They changed the ruling. I'm pretty sure the same reasons for changing it as we have in defending alchemy's magical origins. 3.5 is the "update", afterall. And many people dont agree with it, like certain other changes made. I'm defending that it should require spells to make acid. Again, holy water and continual flame are very much magic. Continual flame on a stick (everburning torch) is no different whatsoever from continual flame cast on a person's head (no proper name). It's still magic. But its not considered a magical item. So you won't "listen" to Ogmug because you think he's not "listening" to you? I also recall that no one has responded to Wrecan's points. You shouldn't just ignore the arguments you don't like. Again, holy water, continual flame, items made/dirt made through prestidigitation. Those are specifically created by spells. Minimum spellcaster level is one Its not a caster level. Again, with the instantaneous, golems, stuff like that. Those still have listed spells used in their creation. Well, what about Intelligent Items? They are specifically in the magic items section and referred to as Magic Items. It specifically says they are creatures with INT, WIS, and CHA. It also specifically says that they should be treated as if they had the Construct type. They also do not necassarily need to have actual spells cast upon them, depending on what they do. The above list are not things that every true magic item needs, just things that alchemy does not have that many actually magical things do have. Also, I couldnt find the notation on intelligent items being considered constructs, but since the stat blocks do not list HD then it certainly sounds like it would be considered, and not truly one. So therefore that argument falls flat. Fantasy world, one in which magic is inherent, ought not work like our world does. The scientific thinking flattens fantasy. Wrong. Except druids din't use magic. And if D&D was trying to emulate RL druids, then it might be an issue.
darkness ninja of light 09-01-05, 02:02 PM	Yes, but monsters are not all magical. You forgot to quote the part after that where I said "especially the living dead ones" aka spirits or mummys and whatnot and I also mentioned magical plagues. In addition, monsters may not be magical....but certainly they are mythical. We were talking about how myths inspire D&D. I'm all for fantasy elements. Dragons are fine. So are demons, elementals, magic, etc. When you take something so mundane and ordinary such as making acid, and claim it to be magical, then I have an issue. Making ooze that bursts into flame/sparks/frost when exposed to air and is kept in a small glass vial may be mundane to you or the modern world, but back then this was not just something you can do through ordinary means and without some major equipment (in D&D, the equipment only gives you a +2 bonus). Magical? Sounds like it fits. In addition, we've already stated about how well D&D alchemy fits in with the stuff we make today. But its not considered a magical item. it's an item that is magical........magic item.....it does not need to be made with a feat to be magical... In addition you forgot to bold my quote about wrecan and Ogmug Those are specifically created by spells. Just as alchemy is specifically made by magic both in D&D and in history. You also failed to respond to Silversheen, as it does not require any spell to create. Its not a caster level. How is it Spellcaster level 1 not a caster level? Those still have listed spells used in their creation. Ah, but they don't radiate the magic, do they? That was the point I was making. It's clear that magic was used to bring about the effect, but it is not shown afterwards. The above list are not things that every true magic item needs, just things that alchemy does not have that many actually magical things do have. Also, I couldnt find the notation on intelligent items being considered constructs, but since the stat blocks do not list HD then it certainly sounds like it would be considered, and not truly one. So therefore that argument falls flat. From the SRD and DMG page 268 (second paragraph under Intelligent Items): Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. If the above list are not things that every magic item needs, then why should alchemy require them all when some of the most powerful and/or obviously magical items in the game don't require them? Wrong. :uh-huh: Umm...okay. Interesting response. And if D&D was trying to emulate RL druids, then it might be an issue. Actually they do have a LOT in common with real life druids. I learned about some of the older druids (not sure if they're still like that) in a class of mine. They are not illiterate because the druids actually were very well educated. A lot of people were wondering why druids are profficient with sickles (all metal), but the truth is that during new years celebrations, the druids would lead the faithful to a sacred tree (I forget which kind...oak?) and the more nimble druids would climb it and use a golden sickle to cut down the sacred mistletoe (which is the D&D druid's divine focus). Other aspects of the druids probably came from druidic beliefs or from the beliefs/myths around other druid-like beliefs. It's not hard to imagine nature-worshippers as believing they can turn into animals, befriend special animal companions, or summon the spirits of these animals to aid them.
wrecan 09-01-05, 02:03 PM	When you take something so mundane and ordinary such as making acid, and claim it to be magical, then I have an issue. Why? In the medieval period from which D&D's fantasy elements are taken, acid was thought to have been produced through magical means. Specifically, by Albertus Magnus legendary alchemist and mage. In my prior post, which you so assiduously ignore, I point out that acid is the only D&D alchemical material that could actually be created using pre-Renaissance technology. Every other alchemical material was impossible under pre-Renaissance technology, and many of them are impossible to create even today. Any modern-day analogs are much different from D&D alchemy (with three exceptions that I noted in that post). If we accept magic-using druids based on their legends, and mermaids based on their legends, why are you having so much difficulty accepting alchemy being produced by a process requiring knowledge of supernatural laws (ie, spellcasting ability) according to their legends? Minimum spellcaster level is one Its not a caster level. Since when is "one" not a caster level? if D&D was trying to emulate RL druids, then it might be an issue. But D&D isn't trying to emulate RL alchemy either. So why is that an issue but magical druids is not?
Gilean 09-03-05, 11:42 AM	Antioch, you are conveniently ignoring the strong arguments being thrown at you. Also, I have posted a thread at Regdar's consideringFantasy world, one in which magic is inherent, ought not work like our world does. The scientific thinking flattens fantasy. Wrong.this. Except druids din't use magic. And if D&D was trying to emulate RL druids, then it might be an issue.And if D&D was trying to emulate RL chemistry, then it might be an issue.
Antioch 09-03-05, 02:24 PM	To surmise, one last time. Hopefully, at least one of you will get this. Everyone knows, that by the RAW, alchemy demands you to be a spellcaster (minor technical note, this is not a caster level entry, as even items with a caster level of 1 will note that). Everyone knows that. My argument is not whether it does, but whether it should. Historically alchemy was a combination of many things, namely chemistry and physics, though lacked any stable procedures. Apparently the practice also used astronomy and even mysticism (which is important to note is not magic). The practice was essentially a precursor to modernized science, or at least science that actually had tried and true methods. Regardless as to whether people thought they were using magic, we know they werent, which may be where the whole misconception started, and why in the update alchemy got its spellcaster req. The only support I've seen opposing this is ninja's continuous statements of that its already magic, which isnt arguing against my point. Additionally, she tries to pull the classic argument that if one wants to make something more realistic, then why have any fantasy at all? She probably cites that because part of my reasoning is that if you remove the prerequisite, it becomes more historically similar to our alchemy. Mind you, thats only part of it. If alchemy had the ability to make any form of magical item, that would be different. As it stands, however, it does not. Not only is each item mundane, but as I have said has no ties with magic at all. No auras, no spells, not even a random spell slot used. Also, you are ignoring my arguments about barred schools and the like as well. If you are going to change the properties of an object, that demands transmutation. You are simply ignoring that fact, which is a major conflict with the ruling, but also in favor of my thinking that it in fact should not demand spells. Also, about your little silversheen argument. Its a Wondrous Item. It doesnt matter what it does, its a Wondrous Item and therefore does not support your claims in any fashion. Alchemical silver is simply D&D's answer to the fact that normal silver would be easily destroyed in normal use, so wanted to avoid having to replace silver weapons constantly. Alchemical silver is just alchemically reinforced silver that is much more durable. I have NO idea why you would cite a magical item that acts like alchemical silver as an argument. In regards to your close-minded thinking of fantasy does not equate to reality, I say why not? In the games I've run thus far, each world is run just like ours is. There is mass, gravity, laws of conservation, etc. You seem to think that when people want to use reality or any form of scientific thinking, that we also want (or for some reason MUST) change the entire world into ours, discarding all fantasy elements. To that, I say you are wrong. If you want to break down all the building blocks and recreate how every aspect in your game works, then I guess you could. Too much work, and I'd rather be telling a story than figuring out how acceleration works now.
Gilean 09-03-05, 03:57 PM	To surmise, one last time. Hopefully, at least one of you will get this. Everyone knows, that by the RAW, alchemy demands you to be a spellcaster (minor technical note, this is not a caster level entry, as even items with a caster level of 1 will note that). Everyone knows that. My argument is not whether it does, but whether it should.That is known.Historically alchemy was a combination of many things, namely chemistry and physics, though lacked any stable procedures. Apparently the practice also used astronomy and even mysticism (which is important to note is not magic). The practice was essentially a precursor to modernized science, or at least science that actually had tried and true methods. Regardless as to whether people thought they were using magic, we know they werent, which may be where the whole misconception started, and why in the update alchemy got its spellcaster req.Well, the people were using magic when using alchemy. Unfortunately, it didn't work, as far as we know. I can even say that the alchemists were wizards, but magic simply doesn't work in our world. Though Occam's razor kills that. The point is, much like druids didn't use actual magic, alchemists didn't. Much like druids in D&D do use actual magic, so do the alchemists. I can understand your point of view, and hope you can understand mine.The only support I've seen opposing this is ninja's continuous statements of that its already magic, which isnt arguing against my point. Additionally, she tries to pull the classic argument that if one wants to make something more realistic, then why have any fantasy at all? She probably cites that because part of my reasoning is that if you remove the prerequisite, it becomes more historically similar to our alchemy. Mind you, thats only part of it.Well, that part of it should require spellcasting, in the same way that druids can cast spells. Next one, please ;) If alchemy had the ability to make any form of magical item, that would be different. As it stands, however, it does not. Not only is each item mundane, but as I have said has no ties with magic at all. No auras, no spells, not even a random spell slot used. Also, you are ignoring my arguments about barred schools and the like as well. If you are going to change the properties of an object, that demands transmutation. You are simply ignoring that fact, which is a major conflict with the ruling, but also in favor of my thinking that it in fact should not demand spells.It demands manipulating magical forces, as written. Personally, I think that it should require manipulating magical forces, but shouldn't require a caster level. But that's just me. At the same time, you are ignoring that creating magical arms and armour doesn't use spell slots, and some other items are created with magic, but not sustained by it (also, wall of iron).I have NO idea why you would cite a magical item that acts like alchemical silver as an argument.Neither do I.In regards to your close-minded thinking of fantasy does not equate to reality, I say why not? In the games I've run thus far, each world is run just like ours is. There is mass, gravity, laws of conservation, etc. You seem to think that when people want to use reality or any form of scientific thinking, that we also want (or for some reason MUST) change the entire world into ours, discarding all fantasy elements. To that, I say you are wrong. If you want to break down all the building blocks and recreate how every aspect in your game works, then I guess you could.You run games your way, I run my games the other way. Just previous session, a player of mine asked (paraphrased and translated): "What happens if I mix [ingredients of gunpowder]?". I said, nothing special.Too much work, and I'd rather be telling a story than figuring out how acceleration works now.A good setting (or world) is enhanced by appropriate magical and technological paradigms. I will gladly argue the point when the thread is posted. I'll post a link or PM you, Antioch. But let us agree to disagree for a moment in order to not derail this thread more. FYI, I really don't figure out how acceleration works. Weather phenomena, on the other hand, are caused by around 3 or 4 gods, depending on the method of counting. One is double-aspected.
Antioch 09-03-05, 04:08 PM	Actually, I'm leaving history completely out of the argument. The only reason I recall bringing up history was because Vaal and Ninja both attempted to counter-argue with historical references. On that note, very little of alchemy was even reputed to have mystical origins. Most of it was in terms to actual science, though that is no longer a supporting statement in my side so that I can focus on the real issue. the real issue, I realized, is not that alchemy is not following historical alchemy, but that despite that little one-liner clause, is that it actually does not follow any recognizable traits of magical items or effects. Since it does not follow any set pattern, I realized that it therefore shouldnt require a spellcaster to use. You counter that many magical items do not require specific spells or spell slots. I agree. However, in exchange you also have to have a feat and burn XP. This is not the case with alchemy items, which if you were to categorize them as magic items (if they were magic items), would be wondrous items. Seeing as they lack that, that leads me again, away from the arcane alchemy ballpark. The problem is that they have absolutely no similarities to magic items of any sort. When you look at true magic items in the DMG, they all follow a set pattern of needing a minimum caster level, gp and XP cost, some kind of an item creation feat, and some require specific spells. I havent looked over each and every item, but I'm also fairly certain that most if not all radiate some kind of magical aura. Using Craft (alchemy) only demands gold and has none of the side-effects.
Antioch 09-03-05, 04:13 PM	It demands manipulating magical forces, as written. Personally, I think that it should require manipulating magical forces, but shouldn't require a caster level. But it doesnt specifically state that you need magical forces to use it. Though it is implied, I suppose, by the clause, its also not supported by the inherent lack of magic in the rest of the alchemical equation. Just previous session, a player of mine asked (paraphrased and translated): "What happens if I mix [ingredients of gunpowder]?". I said, nothing special. So you are so adamant against reality in a game that you wont allow players to make simple gunpowder? How do they make swords then, good intentions? FYI, I really don't figure out how acceleration works. Weather phenomena, on the other hand, are caused by around 3 or 4 gods, depending on the method of counting. One is double-aspected. Thats fine. I'm not saying that D&D should completely lack fantastical elements. I've considered doing a world that is in fact flat, and really dont care to work all the physics around that. However, if players want to integrate certain scientific methods that their character might reasonably know (such as making gunpowder), I'm not about to stop them.
darkness ninja of light 09-04-05, 12:05 AM	To surmise, one last time. Hopefully, at least one of you will get this. Everyone knows, that by the RAW, alchemy demands you to be a spellcaster (minor technical note, this is not a caster level entry, as even items with a caster level of 1 will note that). Everyone knows that. My argument is not whether it does, but whether it should. So is ours. I don't believe anyone's said "it's this way cause it says it in the rules" for quite a while. And if a level of spellcaster is not a "caster level" then what IS a caster level? Historically alchemy was a combination of many things, namely chemistry and physics, though lacked any stable procedures. Apparently the practice also used astronomy and even mysticism (which is important to note is not magic). The practice was essentially a precursor to modernized science, or at least science that actually had tried and true methods. Regardless as to whether people thought they were using magic, we know they werent, which may be where the whole misconception started, and why in the update alchemy got its spellcaster req. Again, it is just as we believe that wizards didn't cast magic today, that we also do not believe alchemists used magic. It is myths like these that are used in D&D. Mysticism can indeed be thought of as magical. It falls under "divine magic" am I right? I think that wrecan can give you a better explanation of alchemy than I can. Also, you "know" they weren't using magic? Can you honestly go back in time and prove it? Like I said, there are religions out there (wicca, for instance) that believe magic exists. I may not agree, but I also know that it's quite possible it could be true. It's like saying "we know there's no such thing as Vishnu" when you're not of the Hindu religion. The only support I've seen opposing this is ninja's continuous statements of that its already magic, which isnt arguing against my point. Additionally, she tries to pull the classic argument that if one wants to make something more realistic, then why have any fantasy at all? She probably cites that because part of my reasoning is that if you remove the prerequisite, it becomes more historically similar to our alchemy. Mind you, thats only part of it. Continuous statements that it's already magic? I haven't brought up that point for quite a while. With my "classic" argument, I'm not saying "why have any fantasy at all" I'm saying that historical bases installed into D&D should remain true to their inspiration, as is everything else. Allowing something more scientific when it is historically is based in fantasy is killing some of the fantasy while allowing only a small bit of convenience for rogues. It's like saying all mermaids are manatees, because that's what they were. If you remove the prerequisite, it becomes LESS historically similar to our alchemy. When have rogues/non-spellcasters ever been scientists anyways? If alchemy had the ability to make any form of magical item, that would be different. As it stands, however, it does not. Not only is each item mundane, but as I have said has no ties with magic at all. No auras, no spells, not even a random spell slot used. Also, you are ignoring my arguments about barred schools and the like as well. If you are going to change the properties of an object, that demands transmutation. You are simply ignoring that fact, which is a major conflict with the ruling, but also in favor of my thinking that it in fact should not demand spells. Again, the items it creates do not have to be magical in order to require magic in creation. Once again, magic items do not all have the need for spell slots, auras, etc. Alchemy, if you were to give it a school, would have Universal. Prestidigitation can change objects (and permanently as well, with nonmagical results). A specialist without transmution can cast Prestidigitation. Also, if you claim we are "ignoring" everything you say, then why do you tend to skip over several of our arguments without comment? Also, about your little silversheen argument. Its a Wondrous Item. It doesnt matter what it does, its a Wondrous Item and therefore does not support your claims in any fashion. Alchemical silver is simply D&D's answer to the fact that normal silver would be easily destroyed in normal use, so wanted to avoid having to replace silver weapons constantly. Alchemical silver is just alchemically reinforced silver that is much more durable. I have NO idea why you would cite a magical item that acts like alchemical silver as an argument. Do you read the comment you post that I respond to (the ones that I quote, that is)? You don't seem to know what I'm arguing against a lot of the time. Silversheen was in response to the fact that you cited that magic items need spells/spell slots. You didn't respond to it in your last comment that quoted everything near it, so I reminded you. Silversheen is an item that needs magic to create, but it does not need a spell. In regards to your close-minded thinking of fantasy does not equate to reality, I say why not? In the games I've run thus far, each world is run just like ours is. There is mass, gravity, laws of conservation, etc. You seem to think that when people want to use reality or any form of scientific thinking, that we also want (or for some reason MUST) change the entire world into ours, discarding all fantasy elements. To that, I say you are wrong. If you want to break down all the building blocks and recreate how every aspect in your game works, then I guess you could. Too much work, and I'd rather be telling a story than figuring out how acceleration works now. It's close-minded to think that fantasy does not equate to reality? Again, your world is indeed your world. It even comments in the DMG that the player's will assume that there is mass/gravity/round world/etc. It's the basic stuff. You are also able to change it. D&D does not automatically expect players to go with scientific thinking before fantasy. "So in your world....are there REAL wizards?" You certainly shouldn't be assuming that any scientific thinking changes the entire world into ours, but inconsistancies spoil what should be a nice fantasy. Actually, I'm leaving history completely out of the argument. The only reason I recall bringing up history was because Vaal and Ninja both attempted to counter-argue with historical references. On that note, very little of alchemy was even reputed to have mystical origins. Most of it was in terms to actual science, though that is no longer a supporting statement in my side so that I can focus on the real issue. I'd definately say that all or a large majority of alchemy was reputed to have mystical sources. That's why it's alchemy and not chemistry. the real issue, I realized, is not that alchemy is not following historical alchemy, but that despite that little one-liner clause, is that it actually does not follow any recognizable traits of magical items or effects. Since it does not follow any set pattern, I realized that it therefore shouldnt require a spellcaster to use. If the end products were indeed magical (as in, fueled by actual spells still in effect, with spell school listings and over 1 caster level requirements) then I might agree. Alchemy is simply the most minor creation item they can make. It's "Level-0" of the item creations. All spellcasters can use it, all spellcasters can make them. It's consistant with the fact that spellcasters are the item crafters and it is also consistant with history. You counter that many magical items do not require specific spells or spell slots. I agree. However, in exchange you also have to have a feat and burn XP. This is not the case with alchemy items, which if you were to categorize them as magic items (if they were magic items), would be wondrous items. Seeing as they lack that, that leads me again, away from the arcane alchemy ballpark. In exchange you need the first level and expend skills points and burn gp and time. If "bless water" and "everburning torch" were to be categorized, they too would be in "wondrous items". The problem is that they have absolutely no similarities to magic items of any sort. When you look at true magic items in the DMG, they all follow a set pattern of needing a minimum caster level, gp and XP cost, some kind of an item creation feat, and some require specific spells. I havent looked over each and every item, but I'm also fairly certain that most if not all radiate some kind of magical aura. Using Craft (alchemy) only demands gold and has none of the side-effects. Once again, true magic items are what you define as something in the DMG chapter "magic items". Yes those do require those things, but not consistantly. Other magic items do not require such things. Things that are created/affected by magic do not necassarily have to radiate a thing. They are powerful items that have effects that no non-magical character has ever been able to produce in any other way. Most are not even items that real life people have been able to make. But it doesnt specifically state that you need magical forces to use it. Though it is implied, I suppose, by the clause, its also not supported by the inherent lack of magic in the rest of the alchemical equation. Look, I know you don't like me to say "it says in the rules that you need magic to make alchemy" but before you say "it doesn't say you need magic to use it" LOOK at the clause. It would not be there if they were not implying that "yes, you need magic to use craft alchemy" just as it says "you need to be an actual lycanthrope to use Control Shape". Why else would the clause be there if not to say that? I don't see why you're using the "it doesn't say it in the rules" argument when it does (and then complain that we used a comment about the rules). As you say, we're arguing why it "should". So you are so adamant against reality in a game that you wont allow players to make simple gunpowder? How do they make swords then, good intentions? D&D doesn't really support gunpowder unless you plan to advance the timeline several hundred years (DMG). He isn't restricting anything. Why should someone use OOC knowledge to make gunpowder (though I'm not certain that's what he was doing)? In Stormwrack it even advises against gunpowder, since it just doesn't work with D&D. It does say you "can" though. Gunpowder would take a genius to make, in any case. It's not something you can just come up with. Thats fine. I'm not saying that D&D should completely lack fantastical elements. I've considered doing a world that is in fact flat, and really dont care to work all the physics around that. However, if players want to integrate certain scientific methods that their character might reasonably know (such as making gunpowder), I'm not about to stop them. Again, this is your game. In general D&D, most of our scientific stuff is handled by the spellcasters (wizards are indeed like scientists of D&D). There's even cloning that's magical.
Gilean 09-04-05, 04:54 AM	But it doesnt specifically state that you need magical forces to use it. Though it is implied, I suppose, by the clause, its also not supported by the inherent lack of magic in the rest of the alchemical equation.I hope you realise that things can be created with magic, but not radiate magic afterwards? This is what alchemy (and holy water) do. RaW, or at least RaI.So you are so adamant against reality in a game that you wont allow players to make simple gunpowder? How do they make swords then, good intentions?I don't want gunpowder in the setting. It is a lot more logically consistent to say it doesn't work, than it is to say that it just isn't arbitrarily invented. Also, an exercise of mind to think about a world with completely different rules than ours does. As for swords, the bronze ones are made in the place players are from, but all iron things are exported. SPOILER, should you be one of my players. I suggest not to read, or at least to forget. And, according to elves, the iron and the fire is ripping the entire continent asunder.I'm not saying that D&D should completely lack fantastical elements. I've considered doing a world that is in fact flat, and really dont care to work all the physics around that. However, if players want to integrate certain scientific methods that their character might reasonably know (such as making gunpowder), I'm not about to stop them.I say the matter is more all-or-nothing. Otherwise, it just feels half-way done. And, for completeness, the character was an alchemist (what a coincidence), an expert one at that. He does know quite a bit of useful recipes. PM for more details, if interested. One of my players occasionally reads these boards.If the end products were indeed magical (as in, fueled by actual spells still in effect, with spell school listings and over 1 caster level requirements) then I might agree. Alchemy is simply the most minor creation item they can make. It's "Level-0" of the item creations. All spellcasters can use it, all spellcasters can make them. It's consistant with the fact that spellcasters are the item crafters and it is also consistant with history.Agreed. The alchemistic items are a bit too weak to treat as wondrous items and require experience.
Antioch 09-04-05, 02:00 PM	I hope you realise that things can be created with magic, but not radiate magic afterwards? This is what alchemy (and holy water) do. RaW, or at least RaI. I know that nonmagical objects can be created through magic. However, in your holy water example, it was created by a specific spell. Craft (alchemy) does not list any. I don't want gunpowder in the setting. It is a lot more logically consistent to say it doesn't work, than it is to say that it just isn't arbitrarily invented. Also, an exercise of mind to think about a world with completely different rules than ours does. If I were going to invent a completely alien world with my own list of elements and the like, I might agree. However, when you decide that you will use virtually identical methods for building things and physics, you're really just limiting yourself by not allowing it. Or, you are too close-minded to think that gunpowder could never exist in fantasy. As for swords, the bronze ones are made in the place players are from, but all iron things are exported. So you allow alloys, but you would never allow gunpowder? I say the matter is more all-or-nothing. Otherwise, it just feels half-way done. Too bad. I know that they can go hand in hand. Agreed. The alchemistic items are a bit too weak to treat as wondrous items and require experience. Uh huh. And this is after ninja stated that they are better than many 0-level spells, which would still cost you a feat and XP to make into scrolls. On that note, they are also much more useful than sovereign glue, which requires Wondrous Item and XP. If you remove the prerequisite, it becomes LESS historically similar to our alchemy. When have rogues/non-spellcasters ever been scientists anyways? Its not my fault that you arent original enough to come up with a plausible character background that could have had a basis in science that isnt a wizard. Also, it would be similar in the sense that it was only had very minor ties to mysticism and was in fact not magical. Prestidigitation can change objects (and permanently as well, with nonmagical results). A specialist without transmution can cast Prestidigitation. Wrong. Any changes made to an object beyond cleaning, soiling, or moving an object only last one hour. The reason why its Universal is that it can perform different effects that would categorize it into different spells (namely Conjuration and Transmutation both). The main purpose of it is to take the place of the cantrip spell from 2E. So if you were to use that as a rationale, your alchemy item would destabilize within the hour. Once again, magic items do not all have the need for spell slots, auras, etc. All true magical items do, in that they all meet at least three of the criteria (feat, XP, and caster level). The two items that you cite that can be created by spells are either not magical in nature (holy water), or not an item at all (everburning torch). Its not the stick thats magical, its the effect itself (the light) that it is attached to. Really though, it doesnt matter if the stick is magical or not, the point is that a spell is mentioned. Mysticism can indeed be thought of as magical. It falls under "divine magic" am I right? Nope. Mysticism is belief in God, some other divine source, or learning the "universal truth" of reality through inspiration. Magic apparently never does enter into the equation. Dictionary.com defines it as this: "Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God." Definition 3 also caught my eye: "Vague, groundless speculation."
darkness ninja of light 09-04-05, 09:09 PM	I know that nonmagical objects can be created through magic. However, in your holy water example, it was created by a specific spell. Craft (alchemy) does not list any. Alchemy requires only magic (unschooled) just as magic weapons and armor do. If I were going to invent a completely alien world with my own list of elements and the like, I might agree. However, when you decide that you will use virtually identical methods for building things and physics, you're really just limiting yourself by not allowing it. Or, you are too close-minded to think that gunpowder could never exist in fantasy. Player: Hey, DM, what happens when I do this? (explains methods for creating a lightbulb and a proper power source) DM: Wow! You've made a lightbulb! Now everyone's got one. Player: Great! *pulls out instructions for building a car* Now let's try... It's not a simple thing to invent guns. Stormwrack even suggested using an alchemical substance named Smokepowder before letting the fantasy go and using simple mundane gunpowder. So you allow alloys, but you would never allow gunpowder? People have been making weapons out of materials in the ground for years. It's a much less time period that people have been using gunpowder to make guns. It's perfectly all right for a DM to say no to other things that ruin the feel of the game or the balance, why should he let gunpowder in when it tends to do both? If he wants to use it, it's fine, it's a different setting. In addition, you can be a weaponsmith, blacksmith, armorsmith, and whatever in D&D. There's no job that allows you to make gunpowder. Too bad. I know that they can go hand in hand. I also know that they can ruin each other. Uh huh. And this is after ninja stated that they are better than many 0-level spells, which would still cost you a feat and XP to make into scrolls. On that note, they are also much more useful than sovereign glue, which requires Wondrous Item and XP. Not all 0-level spells are useless compared to alchemy. That is for certain. Detect spells are common scroll material, for instance. If you are in a hurry, the 0-level spells that are a bit overshadowed can be made in a day with a set time. Alchemy, if you are actually good at it, can take only a day or two more than that and is less. However, if you roll poorly and are poor at alchemy, it might end up costing more or taking longer depending on your rolls. Also, the 0 level spells are used in different ways. Alchemy is certainly not as strong as all 0-level spells. Are you kidding me? Sovereign glue is REALLY powerful! Not everyone has a bottle of the solvent and even so, you aren't just using it to stick creatures to walls for fun. You're using it to fortify structures, make makeshift immovable rods, and all kinds of stuff. It's very versatile and certainly powerful. Its not my fault that you arent original enough to come up with a plausible character background that could have had a basis in science that isnt a wizard. Also, it would be similar in the sense that it was only had very minor ties to mysticism and was in fact not magical. If Vaal was correct in saying that rogues were the only ones who used it, then somehow a whole lot of rogues had a great deal of background in complex science. Wrong. Any changes made to an object beyond cleaning, soiling, or moving an object only last one hour. The reason why its Universal is that it can perform different effects that would categorize it into different spells (namely Conjuration and Transmutation both). The main purpose of it is to take the place of the cantrip spell from 2E. So if you were to use that as a rationale, your alchemy item would destabilize within the hour. Cleaning and soiling it is changing it. That's actually what I was referring to. You can remove tarnish/any other mess or add it. You've changed the object's location and it does not change back. Alchemy can do lots of different effects as well. Why should only someone with the conjuration and transmutation schools be able to make it? All true magical items do, in that they all meet at least three of the criteria (feat, XP, and caster level). The two items that you cite that can be created by spells are either not magical in nature (holy water), or not an item at all (everburning torch). Its not the stick thats magical, its the effect itself (the light) that it is attached to. Really though, it doesnt matter if the stick is magical or not, the point is that a spell is mentioned. Well all "true magic items" to you mean "items in the DMG chapter Magic Items". Holy Water and Continual Flame both require magic to make. Alchemy requires magic to make as well (and such is mentioned). It's not inconsistant with anything. Nope. Mysticism is belief in God, some other divine source, or learning the "universal truth" of reality through inspiration. Magic apparently never does enter into the equation. Dictionary.com defines it as this: "Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God." Definition 3 also caught my eye: "Vague, groundless speculation." Well, "magic" never entered into the equation of a Christian belief in God, but in D&D it sure does (holy water is even created through a spell. Divine magic comes from a higher power. Thus, a mystic would wield divine magic. Druids and clerics would enter into this category. It's a "spiritual" thing. Some mystics were thought to have magical powers as well.
Gellion 09-04-05, 09:24 PM	Is there anyone else like me who just treats it as a mundane Fantasy Chemistry? It can create fantastic substances, but it is not magical.
TheNatealator 09-05-05, 12:18 AM	Ok, i'm back again. This time with words from a designer. What can be more official than what a designer says in an interview shortly after 3.5 is released? That is the best way to know what their intentions were in making the version, IMO. So here it is, taken from this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20031102a): talinthas: Could you explain the reasoning behind giving sorcerers and wizards all these cool creation and metamagic feats, and then not giving them nearly enough slots to use them? Also, could you provide an explanation as to why the alchemical DCs are astronomically high? I can't even see a common alchemist NPC being able to make those items. Andy Collins: Feat selection is tough -- not every character can hope to get every feat that interests him. That's a feature, not a bug -- it means that character choice serves to differentiate them. Wizards can afford to take a fair number of those feats thanks to their bonus feats, but most wouldn't really want to take more than a couple metamagic and a couple item creation feats. As for sorcerers, few get much bang from taking item creation feats (because of their limited list of spells known). Picking up a metamagic feat or two is easy, though. As for alchemical DCs -- most are DC 20 or 25. A 1st-level expert can get +10 if he focuses on it (4 ranks, +1 Int, +2 for masterwork tools, and +3 for Skill Focus). That means that DC 20 is only a "Take 10" away. He cites a level one expert making alchemical items. The expert is definitely not a spellcasting class, and I doubt that this was an oversight on his part, considering that he wasn't corrected by any of the other designers there, and the fact that he had been designing and playtesting 3.5 for a long time by then. So no, Gellion (Edit: nice avatar, BTW), you are not the only one that treats alchemy like non-magical fantasy chemistry, so do I, and apparently the designers. QED
Lord Schpungus 09-05-05, 01:22 AM	It may be nonmagical, but it still requires the exact same knowledge as a spellcaster needs to cast spells. So it requires Spellcasting ability.
Antioch 09-05-05, 03:19 AM	Alchemy requires only magic (unschooled) just as magic weapons and armor do. Again, they also cost a feat and XP as well, not to mention a minimum caster level. Player: Hey, DM, what happens when I do this? (explains methods for creating a lightbulb and a proper power source) DM: Wow! You've made a lightbulb! Now everyone's got one. Player: Great! *pulls out instructions for building a car* Now let's try... Nice exaggerated and skewed example. Both things you cite would require materials (constant electrical source and a LOT of gas) that players would not have ready access to, in additiont o being much, MUCH more complicated than making gunpowder. It's not a simple thing to invent guns. Stormwrack even suggested using an alchemical substance named Smokepowder before letting the fantasy go and using simple mundane gunpowder. Gunpowder, smokepowder, blackpowder, whatever you want to use, the fact is that its not magical but still demands Craft (alchemy) to use. Also, gunpowder (or blackpowder) was invented fairly early on in recorded history so I see no reason why you couldnt have it in D&D normally. As exotic weapons with limited access to ammunition, I certainly do not see guns as overpowering in any fashion. People have been making weapons out of materials in the ground for years. It's a much less time period that people have been using gunpowder to make guns. It's perfectly all right for a DM to say no to other things that ruin the feel of the game or the balance, why should he let gunpowder in when it tends to do both? If he wants to use it, it's fine, it's a different setting. In addition, you can be a weaponsmith, blacksmith, armorsmith, and whatever in D&D. There's no job that allows you to make gunpowder. And hey, there is no "job" that allows you to make anything you just mentioned. They are all various Craft skills, and alchemy is the one you would be looking at for gunpowder. Finally, since you seem to have a hard time thinking outside of the box, you are perfectly within you rights to invent more Craft and/or Profession skills, as they are not all-encompassing. I also know that they can ruin each other. Technically, I guess that particular result is a possibility. Are you kidding me? Sovereign glue is REALLY powerful! Not everyone has a bottle of the solvent and even so, you aren't just using it to stick creatures to walls for fun. You're using it to fortify structures, make makeshift immovable rods, and all kinds of stuff. It's very versatile and certainly powerful. Heh, if you insist. :rolleyes: If Vaal was correct in saying that rogues were the only ones who used it, then somehow a whole lot of rogues had a great deal of background in complex science. Yes, as only wizards could ever, under any circumstance, have any form of scientific knowledge (like mixing alloys). Cleaning and soiling it is changing it. That's actually what I was referring to. You can remove tarnish/any other mess or add it. You've changed the object's location and it does not change back. Alchemy can do lots of different effects as well. Why should only someone with the conjuration and transmutation schools be able to make it? Because I fail to see how access to Enchantment spells can allow you to create anything. Oh wait, it cant. Like I said, prestidigitation would be useless if not for its versatility. If it could only make extremely minor temporary alterations, no one would use it. Since its effects can vary greatly, it doesnt belong to any single one school. [/b]Well all "true magic items" to you mean "items in the DMG chapter Magic Items". Holy Water and Continual Flame both require magic to make. Alchemy requires magic to make as well (and such is mentioned). It's not inconsistant with anything.[/b] Again, both items are specifically made by, or are the result of, a spell effect. Alchemy makes no mention of any spells, schools, or anything else magic related, and also does not perform any magical effects. Finally, none of the items on the alchemy list seem too fantastical to be magical in the first place (especially acid). Well, "magic" never entered into the equation of a Christian belief in God, but in D&D it sure does (holy water is even created through a spell. Divine magic comes from a higher power. Thus, a mystic would wield divine magic. Yes, in D&D, where the major difference is that there is no belief in God or a higher existance, but hard knowledge. Clerics know that their God exists because unlike real-life, clerics can actually perform great miracles on command. So I guess it wouldnt be "true" mysticism at all, leastwise not how we would define it.
Antioch 09-05-05, 03:21 AM	Oh wait, a game designer cites a non-magical class as being able to use it. Yay for my camp. :cool:
Antioch 09-05-05, 03:25 AM	...you are not the only one that treats alchemy like non-magical fantasy chemistry, so do I, and apparently the designers. Dont forget Vaal and myself.
Gilean 09-05-05, 09:20 AM	I know that nonmagical objects can be created through magic. However, in your holy water example, it was created by a specific spell. Craft (alchemy) does not list any.Oh, now I see it. The problem is alchemy being different? With your arguments, I could very well argue that magic item creation should work differently, just because other ways of creating items are different? Alchemy works in a unique manner, but each and every portion of it has similar things in other creations, either magical or mundane. Namely, once again: Caster level as many magic items No specific spells as magic arms and armour No aura as holy water Uses skill as other crafts do, including fine details with some creation- or shaping-spells Does not require feats as holy water So it is, of course, unique, but works similar to other item creation.If I were going to invent a completely alien world with my own list of elements and the like, I might agree. However, when you decide that you will use virtually identical methods for building things and physics, you're really just limiting yourself by not allowing it.For physics? I only have mentioned that I don't worry about acceleration. You are jumping to conclusions. Mechanics, for the simplest part, may be unaltered, but there probably is no such concept as pressure, heat, cold and fire work radically differently, as do light and darkness. There is no space, nor vacuum. Void there may be, or may not be. The concept is. The building of things (I assume you are referring to smithing here) may seem similar, but principles are radically different. In essence, you take two different varieties of what could be called earth elementals, burn them, and they merge as the fire transforms them. Fire is transformation, but results depend on circumstances (for example, acid is fire in elemental watery form, and it transforms flesh into air and possibly nothing). Next, the blade is shaped. Is this thermodynamics to you?Or, you are too close-minded to think that gunpowder could never exist in fantasy.The world is very gritty, iron is extremely rare. Wolves are a threat, as are bears. The weather is a threat. Gunpowder doesn't really fit. ...apparently the designersA designer stated something. Have you ever read sample NPCs in the books? Many that have PrCs couldn't, in any way, qualify for them. The designers are not infallible. Also, the interview is neither errata nor even FAQ. It holds no authority over anything. Also, apparently single designer, as opposed to the consensus PHB must have been.It may be nonmagical, but it still requires the exact same knowledge as a spellcaster needs to cast spells. So it requires Spellcasting ability.Making it require N ranks in knowledge (arcana) and spellcraft could be a substitution, or alternate way of qualifying, as far as I am conserned.
darkness ninja of light 09-05-05, 10:39 AM	He cites a level one expert making alchemical items. The expert is definitely not a spellcasting class, and I doubt that this was an oversight on his part, considering that he wasn't corrected by any of the other designers there, and the fact that he had been designing and playtesting 3.5 for a long time by then. So no, Gellion (Edit: nice avatar, BTW), you are not the only one that treats alchemy like non-magical fantasy chemistry, so do I, and apparently the designers. As Gilean said, it is quite possible it was an oversight (just check out the errata!). Plus, that article is very old, almost two years. Certainly an expert could do it, but not without adept or other spellcaster levels. Again, they also cost a feat and XP as well, not to mention a minimum caster level. And WHAT does this mean? It only means to you that an item can be magical. Feats and xp go to items that are too powerful to make without such. It's a balancing factor. Holy Water does not require a feat or xp, but LIKE MOST MAGIC ITEMS it requires a specific spell and caster level. Does this mean that Holy Water should not require spellcasting ability? There is no rule "all spellcaster creation items must require specific spells or need feats and xp". Again, minimum caster level is 1. Nice exaggerated and skewed example. Both things you cite would require materials (constant electrical source and a LOT of gas) that players would not have ready access to, in additiont o being much, MUCH more complicated than making gunpowder. If you have no knowledge of how to make gunpowder, and no knowledge of the materials of making gunpowder, then you have to start from scratch (ah, the properties of sulfur are interesting...I must further experiment to see how it works). You can't just go to a pharmacy and buy all this stuff. In addition, what are you going to do once you make gunpowder? Invent guns and cannons? Gunpowder, smokepowder, blackpowder, whatever you want to use, the fact is that its not magical but still demands Craft (alchemy) to use. Also, gunpowder (or blackpowder) was invented fairly early on in recorded history so I see no reason why you couldnt have it in D&D normally. As exotic weapons with limited access to ammunition, I certainly do not see guns as overpowering in any fashion. No, actually smokepowder was alchemical, the gunpowder was just common everyday stuff because the whole world went into a different time period. In the DMG, the gun weaponry with gunpowder actually is a different time period, for a different type of game. It's certainly not for core D&D. If you want a gun, get a repeating crossbow! And hey, there is no "job" that allows you to make anything you just mentioned. They are all various Craft skills, and alchemy is the one you would be looking at for gunpowder. Finally, since you seem to have a hard time thinking outside of the box, you are perfectly within you rights to invent more Craft and/or Profession skills, as they are not all-encompassing. Craft skills are proffession skills that produce something. You get money per week just as if you had a proffession skill. Crafting things is your job. Of course you can make new craft and proffession skills. Of course, with craft you not only need DM permission but you need to figure out the DCs for items you create. Cut it with the insults again. Technically, I guess that particular result is a possibility. As is the possibility that it will work just fine together. Yes, as only wizards could ever, under any circumstance, have any form of scientific knowledge (like mixing alloys). I was saying that spellcasters are the "scientists" of D&D. I've actually heard this mentioned in other threads as well. Magic is the Science of D&D, a primarily magical world. Of course other characters can have "scientific" knowledge, but not in the sense that a spellcaster understands the primary science art of magic. Because I fail to see how access to Enchantment spells can allow you to create anything. Oh wait, it cant. Like I said, prestidigitation would be useless if not for its versatility. If it could only make extremely minor temporary alterations, no one would use it. Since its effects can vary greatly, it doesnt belong to any single one school. Certainly evocation "creates" a fireball, right? Enchantment can give an item it's properties when creating a magical item correct? The schools tend to run over into others a lot, if you haven't noticed. The point is, prestidigitation is a universal spell because it combines bits from every school. Then how is it that a person who has forsaken one of those schools is able to produce a prestidigitation effect just like that school? It's just magic, unschooled. Again, both items are specifically made by, or are the result of, a spell effect. Alchemy makes no mention of any spells, schools, or anything else magic related, and also does not perform any magical effects. Finally, none of the items on the alchemy list seem too fantastical to be magical in the first place (especially acid). Again, alchemy is specifically made through magic, just as holy water and continual flame are. In those days, acid was very fantastical. An alchemist who was thought to have magical powers (thus the term alchemist) created it. Yes, in D&D, where the major difference is that there is no belief in God or a higher existance, but hard knowledge. Clerics know that their God exists because unlike real-life, clerics can actually perform great miracles on command. So I guess it wouldnt be "true" mysticism at all, leastwise not how we would define it. Clerics without gods can do miracles on command. Druids could revere only nature. Not everyone in D&D actually believes in gods. I'm citing Races of Destiny here, but they did have a list of the different sort of things people believe in. Some say the gods are just egoistic outsiders with power. Some say they are all just made up. Some say they are all just different aspects of one god. Etc. etc. There is no "knowledge" that there are gods. In Eberron, people have no idea where the gods are. It's people's faith in what they believe in and worship that grants powers. A lot of people don't believe they exist. Yet the world still works the same as in D&D. In addition, in Eberron magic is also "technology". Of course, that's a campaign setting.
TheNatealator 09-05-05, 10:40 AM	OK, I'm back, to stay this time. A designer stated something. Have you ever read sample NPCs in the books? Many that have PrCs couldn't, in any way, qualify for them. The designers are not infallible. Also, the interview is neither errata nor even FAQ. It holds no authority over anything. Also, apparently single designer, as opposed to the consensus PHB must have been. So now you're discounting something said by a desiginer of the core books? He said this immediately after 3.5's debut, you know. Yes, he was an "additional designer," but if you read the interview, you would see that all of the designers were there at the same time. He was also talking about their intention. They set the DC's for Craft (alchemy) with the intention of making it hard, but doable, for a level 1 NPC or PC to make. They could focus and get +10 to their check, making it within the "take 10" range, or they could just put ranks in it, and be able to take 10 at higher levels. Sure, this interview holds no authority, if putting the intentions of the designers (not so easily gathered just from reading the core books) in black white doesn't count. Yea, it's not official, if an official article on the wizards site isn't official. You say that the designers are not infallible, that they can make mistakes in an interview (BTW, if you read the whole thing, you'd see that most of the designers were there), but then you go on to defend the existence of a single footnote? I say the footnote was the error. In the interview, Andy said that the designers intended to allow a level one expert with "4 ranks, +1 Int, +2 for masterwork tools, and +3 for Skill Focus" to make acid, alchemist's fire, smokestiks, and tindertwigs while taking 10. And no, he was not a single designer, by himself. Two other designers gave an answer to that same question. And by the way, Andy Collins reviewed the PHB. That was his job. He was checking to make sure that his experts could perform alchemy, and must have missed the little footnote on the little table. I know I did. So go ahead, defend what the designers put in the PHB. As for Antioch, Vaal, myself, and others, we shall defend what the designers wanted in the PHB. (Sorry for not mentioning you before, and thanks for staying with this thread long enough for me to find that gem of an article).
TheNatealator 09-05-05, 10:47 AM	Oh, a post one minute before mine. As Gilean said, it is quite possible it was an oversight (just check out the errata!). Plus, that article is very old, almost two years. Certainly an expert could do it, but not without adept or other spellcaster levels. And is it utterly IMpossible that the footnote was an oversight? We are here to defend or challenge its existence. And yes, the article is very old. It came out immediately after the first Gen Con to be held with 3.5 (if I understand the introduction correctly). Besides, what does its age have to do with anything? It's more recent than the PHB itself. To me, he clearly states that this level one expert is a level one character. "4 ranks". An adept/expert would have 5 ranks. I would bet money that a designer can accurately determine the max skill ranks of a character. Heck, it's just adding 3 to their total level (for craft at least, because it's a class skill for EVERYONE). I can do that.
darkness ninja of light 09-05-05, 11:40 AM	So now you're discounting something said by a desiginer of the core books? He said this immediately after 3.5's debut, you know. Yes, he was an "additional designer," but if you read the interview, you would see that all of the designers were there at the same time. He was also talking about their intention. They set the DC's for Craft (alchemy) with the intention of making it hard, but doable, for a level 1 NPC or PC to make. They could focus and get +10 to their check, making it within the "take 10" range, or they could just put ranks in it, and be able to take 10 at higher levels. The official designers of the core rule books do very much make mistakes. The books are looked over and over and there are still mistakes in final products. Why should designers who are just talking about the rules somehow be unable to make mistakes? Keith Baker was the main author of the Eberron setting, but his "Ask Keith Baker" thread is not official in the least. He also makes mistakes sometimes when he talks of his own world. He even house rules things occasionally, as designers are allowed to do. This does not mean that they are official or even better rules. Yes, the intention was letting a level 1 NPC or PC to be able to make alchemy if he tries hard enough. Characters besides experts can hit craft DCs of 20 or 25. Sure, this interview holds no authority, if putting the intentions of the designers (not so easily gathered just from reading the core books) in black white doesn't count. Yea, it's not official, if an official article on the wizards site isn't official. They never said "it was our intention to let experts make alchemy". It was their intention of making alchemy hard but doable. The official article is official because it's what the designers said. You can't just change quotes so they are in line with the rules. There's official errata for the core books, but you aren't going to find official errata for an actual dialogue among designers. In fact, some of that could be misquoted an unless it makes a big deal (puts the designer in a bad light) they probably won't bother changing it. You say that the designers are not infallible, that they can make mistakes in an interview (BTW, if you read the whole thing, you'd see that most of the designers were there), but then you go on to defend the existence of a single footnote? I say the footnote was the error. In the interview, Andy said that the designers intended to allow a level one expert with "4 ranks, +1 Int, +2 for masterwork tools, and +3 for Skill Focus" to make acid, alchemist's fire, smokestiks, and tindertwigs while taking 10. And no, he was not a single designer, by himself. Two other designers gave an answer to that same question. And by the way, Andy Collins reviewed the PHB. That was his job. He was checking to make sure that his experts could perform alchemy, and must have missed the little footnote on the little table. I know I did. The "single" footnote is actually repeated within the craft descriptions. It was not erratad. It is also in the 3.5 update booklet. Again, they did not say they intended for an expert to do it, but instead they intended it to be possible but difficult. The designers don't memorize every single little rule. They make sure the final product is as good as it can be, but there are still mistakes. An interview shouldn't be considered more final than the actual books and errata. As for other designers there, it's not their job to correct every little mistake their colleagues make if it's not official rulings. It's not the article's job to quote every little side conversation that might have started while the interview was taking place. It only needs to quote the person's answer to the question at hand. In addition, I doubt he actually flipped through the books to go make sure everything he said was in line with the new rules. So go ahead, defend what the designers put in the PHB. As for Antioch, Vaal, myself, and others, we shall defend what the designers wanted in the PHB. (Sorry for not mentioning you before, and thanks for staying with this thread long enough for me to find that gem of an article). Obviously the designers changed alchemy so significantly for a reason. They weren't "forced" into it. They didn't accidentally write it in the phb several times as well as in the 3.5 update booklets (more than one, I might add).
Antioch 09-05-05, 01:41 PM	Oh, now I see it. The problem is alchemy being different? With your arguments, I could very well argue that magic item creation should work differently, just because other ways of creating items are different? Alchemy works in a unique manner, but each and every portion of it has similar things in other creations, either magical or mundane. Namely, once again: Caster level as many magic items It says spellcaster, not a caster level. Small detail. No specific spells as magic arms and armour Wrong. Some demand spells during creation. No aura as holy water Holy water is not magical. Uses skill as other crafts do, including fine details with some creation- or shaping-spells Not as all other Crafts. Craft (alchemy) is the only skill that has a non-logical prerequisite. No other skills force you to have anything. Does not require feats as holy water Again, holy water isnt magic. So it is, of course, unique, but works similar to other item creation. No, it works almost like normal Craft skills, and thats it. No...in many campaigns that do not cross planar borders I'm sure it all works. [b]There is no space, nor vacuum. Void there may be, or may not be. The concept is. The building of things (I assume you are referring to smithing here) may seem similar, but principles are radically different. In essence, you take two different varieties of what could be called earth elementals, burn them, and they merge as the fire transforms them. Fire is transformation, but results depend on circumstances (for example, acid is fire in elemental watery form, and it transforms flesh into air and possibly nothing). Next, the blade is shaped. Is this thermodynamics to you?The world is very gritty, iron is extremely rare. Wolves are a threat, as are bears. The weather is a threat. Gunpowder doesn't really fit. I sure hope you are referring to your own campaign world. -.- Making it require N ranks in knowledge (arcana) and spellcraft could be a substitution, or alternate way of qualifying, as far as I am conserned. You dont "qualify" for skills like its some kind of feat. SKills with "this class only" were abolished.
Antioch 09-05-05, 01:53 PM	And WHAT does this mean? It only means to you that an item can be magical. Feats and xp go to items that are too powerful to make without such. It's a balancing factor. Holy Water does not require a feat or xp, but LIKE MOST MAGIC ITEMS it requires a specific spell and caster level. Does this mean that Holy Water should not require spellcasting ability? There is no rule "all spellcaster creation items must require specific spells or need feats and xp". Again, minimum caster level is 1. Holy water does not require a caster level, period. Its also not magical. If you have no knowledge of how to make gunpowder, and no knowledge of the materials of making gunpowder, then you have to start from scratch (ah, the properties of sulfur are interesting...I must further experiment to see how it works). You can't just go to a pharmacy and buy all this stuff. In addition, what are you going to do once you make gunpowder? Invent guns and cannons? Uh-huh, yeah, and the Chinese had a good grasp of the concept pretty early on. In FRCS, for instance, the gnomes of Lantan are already turning out firearms. No, actually smokepowder was alchemical, the gunpowder was just common everyday stuff because the whole world went into a different time period. In the DMG, the gun weaponry with gunpowder actually is a different time period, for a different type of game. It's certainly not for core D&D. If you want a gun, get a repeating crossbow! No, guns werent for core D&D because they gave them ludicrous amounts of damage. Personally, I prefer the ranges given in D20 Modern if I'm going to use any kind of firearm. Many things arent for "core" D&D, but that doesnt mean you should completely discount the option. I was saying that spellcasters are the "scientists" of D&D. I've actually heard this mentioned in other threads as well. Magic is the Science of D&D, a primarily magical world. Of course other characters can have "scientific" knowledge, but not in the sense that a spellcaster understands the primary science art of magic. And why are spellcasters the scientists? Wizards I could possibly see, if they werent spending so much time learning how to cast spells. Sorcerers, no. Its all natural to them. Also, I view magic from various perspectives, pretty much by race. Not all races would call it a science, or use it in the same way (this is why you need to make Spellcraft checks to decipher magic, its NOT a science because everyone can do it differently). Certainly evocation "creates" a fireball, right? Enchantment can give an item it's properties when creating a magical item correct? The schools tend to run over into others a lot, if you haven't noticed. Magic items that detail spells during their creation tend to make sense. Enchanting a sword with keen requires the keen edge spell, for example. The point is, prestidigitation is a universal spell because it combines bits from every school. Then how is it that a person who has forsaken one of those schools is able to produce a prestidigitation effect just like that school? It's just magic, unschooled. Thats actually a good point. However, the spell is long enough, probably not oft used, and also really not worth the time to get into extreme technical detail that if a player cannot cast Illusion spells they should not be able to use the illusory aspect of it. However, D&D includes many simple abstractions, and its really not that big of a deal. Again, alchemy is specifically made through magic, just as holy water and continual flame are. In those days, acid was very fantastical. An alchemist who was thought to have magical powers (thus the term alchemist) created it. Those two items you continually cite are created through specific spells, and only one is magical. Clerics without gods can do miracles on command. Druids could revere only nature. Not everyone in D&D actually believes in gods. I'm citing Races of Destiny here, but they did have a list of the different sort of things people believe in. Some say the gods are just egoistic outsiders with power. Some say they are all just made up. Some say they are all just different aspects of one god. Etc. etc. This varies by campaign setting. In default D&D, there are existing gods that everyone knows of, and can also commune with from time to time. This argument was against mysticism, and while someone with that kind of view could technically cast divine spells, it doesnt mean its because of it. The two arent dependant on eachother. There is no "knowledge" that there are gods. In your campaign, maybe not. In Eberron, people have no idea where the gods are. It's people's faith in what they believe in and worship that grants powers. A lot of people don't believe they exist. Yet the world still works the same as in D&D. In addition, in Eberron magic is also "technology". Of course, that's a campaign setting. Yes. that is a campaign setting. In FR, the Gods are very well known, and have been forced to walk the earth before (not to mention killed).
Ogmug 09-05-05, 03:04 PM	One thing not mentioned... Holy water cannot be made by alchemists (not on thier list of things in the craft to start with). It is made by clerics in the temples. Chapter 7, page 128, Holy water "Temples to good dieties sell holly water at cost (making no profit) because the clerics are happy to supply people with what they need to battle evil" This pretty much states that it takes a cleric to make holy water. Typically this is done by casting bless or other sanctify spell on the water (which would have the same effect of making it magical, in the same way that an everburning torch is magical, but not listed in the dmg under treasure, simply because it would be crappy treasure!) The problem is people are comparing "generic" D & D to real world. In its generic form, it is worldless. It is not associated with any particular world, not faerun, not eberron, not real world earth. The "rules" are the scientific explanation of the world as the locals percieve them. If it the rules state it takes someone who is a spellcaster to create alchemical items, then it does. It means the writers believed that the locals, who would normally have no idea of what science is, and seeing a magical concoction that suddenly explodes in a loud bang, would assume it is magical. They then associate an alchemist as a spellcaster (through ignorance). The rules are guidelines. It is perfectly acceptable to say alchemists base thier works off of Terra (real world) and therefore any character can do it. But others accept the rules as written and work that into thier worlds. Lets face it.. THIS IS A GAME, not some real world in an alternate dimension that we have control of how it is affected. (though that would be an interesting campaign) To people like vaal, antioch, and others, it does not make sense. They are basing thier decision on the fact that Alchemists are not considered wizards here on earth. But.. again think like the common man, the man who can't read, who worked the fields in the medieval times. To him.. there was no difference to a man who claimed he was a wizard or one who claimed he was an alchemist. To him, they were both magic users since he didn't understand how either could do what they claimed to do.
Antioch 09-05-05, 03:16 PM	One thing not mentioned... Holy water cannot be made by alchemists (not on thier list of things in the craft to start with). It is made by clerics in the temples. Of which at least I am well aware. This pretty much states that it takes a cleric to make holy water. Typically this is done by casting bless or other sanctify spell on the water (which would have the same effect of making it magical, in the same way that an everburning torch is magical, but not listed in the dmg under treasure, simply because it would be crappy treasure!) Its not listed in the magic items section because it is not a true magic item. The problem is people are comparing "generic" D & D to real world. In its generic form, it is worldless. It is not associated with any particular world, not faerun, not eberron, not real world earth. The "rules" are the scientific explanation of the world as the locals percieve them. If it the rules state it takes someone who is a spellcaster to create alchemical items, then it does. It means the writers believed that the locals, who would normally have no idea of what science is, and seeing a magical concoction that suddenly explodes in a loud bang, would assume it is magical. They then associate an alchemist as a spellcaster (through ignorance). I'm sorry, but global ignorance doesnt change reality. Just because some people think that the sun is drawn across the sky in a chariot of fire does not mean it actually is. Though we dont know the true intent of the designers, I seriously doubt it was a decision of, "Well, the local yokels think its done this way, so they wont even try to learn it until the cast magic." Such a thing suggests that it does in fact not require magic at all, just that they are too...timid, perhaps, to try it out themselves before learning to cast cantrips. Ludicrous. The line suggests that the use of magic somehow ties into alchemy, but I have yet to see it. The skill defies many otherwise concrete aspects fo the game. The rules are guidelines. It is perfectly acceptable to say alchemists base thier works off of Terra (real world) and therefore any character can do it. But others accept the rules as written and work that into thier worlds. Which is kind of sad. When I see an illogical rule, I change it. Thankfully, aside from a minor grappling tweak, the half-orc, and this, I havent really had to change anything. Lets face it.. THIS IS A GAME, not some real world in an alternate dimension that we have control of how it is affected. (though that would be an interesting campaign) Not an alternate dimension, no, but again unless you decide to overhaul your world the laws of physics are considered to be in place unless you rule that they are not. Gravity works, light works, and mass works. But.. again think like the common man, the man who can't read, who worked the fields in the medieval times. To him.. there was no difference to a man who claimed he was a wizard or one who claimed he was an alchemist. To him, they were both magic users since he didn't understand how either could do what they claimed to do. Sufficienty advanced science wil always seem like magic. If it doesnt, that means its not sufficiently advanced enough. Regardless, it does not make it magic, which is what wizards and sorcerers use. Not advanced science, its arcane power that defies all of our known laws of how things work, which is fine.
Ogmug 09-05-05, 03:28 PM	Sufficienty advanced science wil always seem like magic. If it doesnt, that means its not sufficiently advanced enough. Regardless, it does not make it magic, which is what wizards and sorcerers use. Not advanced science, its arcane power that defies all of our known laws of how things work, which is fine. Seem.. therefore to the common ignorant man.. is magic. why do you like to contradict yourself so much in your posts, yet claim you aren't? Earlier you claim ignorance does not make it magic, yet you cannot see the irony that claiming that sufficiently advanced science can seem like magic.. therefore furthering the perception that it is magic? To further it.. D & D is not real world. If you think it is, you really should see someone about that. Remember.. this is a GAME. It has RULES, created by a HUMAN. NOT A REAL WORLD, and therefore does not have to follow our real world physics. Can a man fly in the real world through magic? Can a person be brought back to life simply because someone sacrifices diamonds to some deity? No, I guess not. Therefore D&D isn't the real world, does not need to be even remotely based on the earth, etc. /golf clap
TheNatealator 09-05-05, 03:43 PM	Arguments about the interview with designers aside, it still makes no sense why taking ranks-training-in a skill doesn't make it useable. How do you justify that? They know exactly how to mix the chemicals, but they can't make anything without a fundamental understanding of magic? First of all, the PHB explains how each spellcasting class has a diferent view of what magic is, so even (especially) one level in such a class does not give a "fundamental" understanding of magic. "A bard's magic comes from the heart." They don't need intelligence, and don't need to understand their own magic. Does their description say anything about bards trying to figure out what exactly in their heart causes magic to spring from their music? Not where I can find. "A cleric uses the power of his god to make the god's will manifest." No need to understand the magic. Clerics don't even need intelligence. They just pray and their god casts the spell through them. "The druid gains her power not by ruling nature but by being at one with it." Again, this doesn't imply to me an understanding of how magic works. Maybe nature, and how nature's energy can be channeled as magic. No intelligence need either. The paladin prepares spells the same way a cleric does, and he doesn't need intelligence. No understanding necessary. The ranger casts spells like a druid, also wisdom-based, not intelligence. No understanding of the magic needed, he just knows how to use it for the spells he knows "Sorcerers create magic the way a poet creates poems, with inborn talent honed by practice." They practice using magic until they get it right. They don't study how they came to have this power. They're start out talented at magic, like a poet or musician might, and practice to get it to work. What happens if they study their magic? They become a wizard, or sor/wiz "For a wizard, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art." Yes, they, of all the classes, cast spells based on intelligence, and study magic, but they treat it like an art, not a science. They don't need to understand how magic works. They just need to understand how to manipulate arcane magical energies to do what they want. It takes a spellcraft check to read someone else's spellbook. That shows that each wizard has his own understanding of magic, as well as approach. So none of the class descriptions gives a hint at being able to create alchemical items because they "know how magic works" But anyways, this whole strain of argument is moot because of "Table 3-8: Mundane Items" Right there in black and white, the FIRST entry is "Alchemical item". What are alchemical items? Alchemist's fire Acid Smokesticks Holy water Antitoxin Everburning torch Tanglefoot bags Thunderstones Alchemical items are no more magical than armor, weapons, or tools and gear, according to the DMG. (which would have the same effect of making it magical, in the same way that an everburning torch is magical, but not listed in the dmg under treasure, simply because it would be crappy treasure!) Completely incorrect. Holy water is a mundane item. Everburning torches are mundane items. They are both listed as treasure. They are not crappy treasure. Are you saying that all alchemical items are crappy? If so, then why would any spellcaster, even, make them? Why do you need a fundamental understanding of magic (which noone has) to make something "crappy"? What about a 110 GP everburning torch makes it crappy treasure? If anything, you can sell it for 55 GP (5 more than the worth of the material component for the spell which created it). It looks like the designers are once again on my side by categorizing alchemical items as mundane items. (Definition of mundame items- "While nonmagical, these items are worth-while as treasure because they are useful or valublue or both") Again, the houserule in my campaign is that the spellcaster req. is out, but Craft (alchemy) is now a "trained only" skill.
Antioch 09-05-05, 03:59 PM	Seem.. therefore to the common ignorant man.. is magic. why do you like to contradict yourself so much in your posts, yet claim you aren't? Because I am in fact not. You are apparently confused, so let me explain. I state that alchemy should not require magic, because aside from that one clause, nothing about it suggests magical needs. Since this is an argument about not whether it needs to, but whether it should, that clause helps little. You state that because it seemed like magic, therefore it should. I claim that despite people being ignorant, it should not, then state that advanced science will always seem like magic to some people, but that still does not make it magic. I have not contradicted myself at all. However, that doesnt help your argument because I have not seen anything in the rules that follows in alchemy's favor. Earlier you claim ignorance does not make it magic, yet you cannot see the irony that claiming that sufficiently advanced science can seem like magic.. therefore furthering the perception that it is magic? Not at all. The heart of the phrase is that when you advance a procedure far enough, there will always be people who will think its nigh-magical because they simply dont understand. The process is not magical in the sense of how D&D defines magic, despite people believing it to be so. If people in D&D thought fire was the results of magic, would fire become magical? To further it.. D & D is not real world. If you think it is, you really should see someone about that. Remember.. this is a GAME. It has RULES, created by a HUMAN. NOT A REAL WORLD, and therefore does not have to follow our real world physics. Again you are confused. I never said that D&D is the real-world, or that I think it is truly real. What I DID say was that because it has grounds in our real world, that its perfectly fine to assume that the laws of physics, conservation of energy, etc work like they do here. You can take it as far or as little as you like, but thats generally the consensus I see many people use. Not every little facet of the game need be perfectly translated to a real-world parallel, but even saying that a dragon flies because of magic is perfectly acceptable because you have to include the fact that magic exists in this equation. Its not that magic inherently makes RL laws obsolete. Can a man fly in the real world through magic? Can a person be brought back to life simply because someone sacrifices diamonds to some deity? No, I guess not. Therefore D&D isn't the real world, does not need to be even remotely based on the earth, etc. Those things work by magic. Magic is a perfectly reasonable solution to a problem in a world where magic exists.
Ogmug 09-05-05, 04:01 PM	Would you say creating an item with the use of magic would make it magical? In the purest sense of the word that is. It would not necessarily have to continue to radiate magic, but it would be created by magic? When a person detects magic on something created by magic, does it always radiate magical aura? For example, if a person created an item by a wish? Does a mundane item with a spell cast upon it have a magic aura? Lets say i cast continual flame on a regular torch.... does it radiate magic? Alchemists cannot create holy water, it isn't in the list of items under craft : in the table listed as alchemy. and yes, alchemical items are crappy. would a 10th level character be happier to have a +1 sword, or a bottle of acid? The sword could at least be sold for more than the acid, so to me, yes. Alchemy is a cruddy treasure (at least for a bbeg type creature.. for his minions? hey, the more the better).
Antioch 09-05-05, 04:11 PM	Would you say creating an item with the use of magic would make it magical? In the purest sense of the word that is. It would not necessarily have to continue to radiate magic, but it would be created by magic? Items created by magic are not inherently magic. Water made through create water, for example. However, in any instance where an item can be fabricated through magic, its always the result of a specific spell. As in, the item must come from somewhere. Not all items created through the Item Creation feats radiate magical auras. Many do, but that is not a requisite of being a true magic item. Also, not all magic items detail specific spells in their creation. They always cost XP and an Item Creation feat, however. When a person detects magic on something created by magic, does it always radiate magical aura? For example, if a person created an item by a wish? This varies by item. A rock would not, but a +1 sword would radiate Evocation as all +1 swords do. Does a mundane item with a spell cast upon it have a magic aura? Lets say i cast continual flame on a regular torch.... does it radiate magic? The torch would not, as it is not magical. The magical effect is attached to the torch, and it (the effect) would radiate magic, if anything. and yes, alchemical items are crappy. would a 10th level character be happier to have a +1 sword, or a bottle of acid? The sword could at least be sold for more than the acid, so to me, yes. Alchemy is a cruddy treasure (at least for a bbeg type creature.. for his minions? hey, the more the better). Not according to one Ninja. It is in my opinion that many alchemy items have limited use at lower levels, and it only scales downward the higher level you get. Some are useful distractions or backup ammunition, but I rarely find myself ever building a character around their use. A rogue that specializes in throwing weapons, however, comes to mind as an interesting concept.
Ogmug 09-05-05, 04:16 PM	And a rogue specializing in poisons would also find it useful. However Alchemy does not necessarily come into play with poisonmaking. Being able to extract the poison gland safely and create a biological toxin does not necesssarily take the knowledge of chemicals. Creating a mustard gas type substance however might. But I digress... IF you cast detect magic in a room full of torches, and one of them has continual flame cast upon it, the torch would show up as magical as you scan the room, as it would inherit the spell (a permenant spell upon the object). Just as Nystul's magic aura causes an ITEM to radiate magic, so does a spell cast upon an item. A darkness spell cast upon a stone would cause the stone to radiate a magical aura. In one of your earlier posts, you state an item that is not created by the use of a specific spell is not magical, yet just now you state that an item (water) created by a spell (create water) is not magical, in the purest sense of the word. Which is it?
TheNatealator 09-05-05, 04:26 PM	Wow, page 4, but I can't let Antioch have all the fun. Would you say creating an item with the use of magic would make it magical? In the purest sense of the word that is. It would not necessarily have to continue to radiate magic, but it would be created by magic? One might think so, yes, but according to the DMG, alchemical items are mundane items, and mundane items are not magical. This includes holy water and everburning torches, which are created by specific spells, but are still mundane, aka nonmagical, items. and yes, alchemical items are crappy. would a 10th level character be happier to have a +1 sword, or a bottle of acid? The sword could at least be sold for more than the acid, so to me, yes. Alchemy is a cruddy treasure (at least for a bbeg type creature.. for his minions? hey, the more the better). Of course a mundane item is crappy compared to any magical item. That's why it's on the same table as nonmagical armor, masterwork weapons, and other tools and gear, and not a list of magical items. If they were magic, you should be able to put more magic energy into them to make them better, like you can with most spells. Curse my slow typing In one of your earlier posts, you state an item that is not created by the use of a specific spell is not magical, yet just now you state that an item (water) created by a spell (create water) is not magical, in the purest sense of the word. You're twisting his words there. Those two statements do not contradict each other. He said items created without spells are nonmagical, and he said that water created from the spell "create water" is nonmagical. These two statements are not exclusive, and nothing in the spells description says that it makes magical water. He doesn't have to defend either statement.
Ogmug 09-05-05, 04:52 PM	You're twisting his words there. Those two statements do not contradict each other. He said items created without spells are nonmagical, and he said that water created from the spell "create water" is nonmagical. These two statements are not exclusive, and nothing in the spells description says that it makes magical water. He doesn't have to defend either statement. Good lord, i would love to be a prosecuting attorney and have you as the defense counsel. The statements are classic contradiction. A: Items created without spells are non-magical. b: but what about create water! It is a spell, and creates water. A: Oh, except that spell. It does not create a magical water, not even in the purest sense. But for an item to be magical, it must be created by a spell or with the use of a spell. b: Ok, so a spell, that creates something does not create magic, even though it uses magic. A: Right. What we are experiencing here is a discussion that really has several factions: faction 1: The "real world imposed on D &D " reality faction. This faction supports that alchemists in the real world were not magicians in any sense. They did not "use" spells, but instead used science. faction 2: The "real world imposed on D &D" perception faction. This faction supports that alchemist in the real world were PERCEIVED as magicians, and even though they did not use magic, the science they used was far beyond the comprehension of normal man, and was perceived as magic. faction 3: The "its a game and thems the rules" faction. This faction supports the fact that is is written in black and white. faction 4: The "its a game, and the rules apply as I see fit" faction. This faction choses to ignore or change rules that it does not feel fit with their game world. I think that might sum up the various opinions. Are any of them right? Not really, as the game rules are GUIDELINES. Page 6 of the DMG states: "The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons, and leading entire nations is in your hands (the dm). You are the master of the game . . . the rules, the settings, the action and ultimately, the fun. " That means ultimately, it is upto you to decide how it is in YOUR campaign. If you don't like the way the DM handles things, it is upto the player to discuss it, or if the action warrants it, find another DM.
Ogmug 09-05-05, 04:55 PM	As a side, i think there might be another faction: faction 5: The consistency faction This faction believes that since all other skills are not restricted then why should a portion of a skill that is otherwise unrestricted to any class be restricted to only spellcasters. I tend to believe in faction 5. /shrug.
TheNatealator 09-05-05, 05:43 PM	Sorry, Ogmug, but I don't believe any one of those factions fit me completely. I believe that real-world alchemists did not use magic, and that they did not use science, in any way, shape or form. Scientists use the scientific method, which alchemists did not. I think that arguement is silly, and can be just solved by making Craft (alchemy) a trained only skill. Anyone can be trained in it, without having to know about magic in general. They're making mundane items, after all. It says in black and white two things. It says (as a footnote, and in the body of text, which I missed (:embarrass)) that you must be a spellcaster, and it says in the DMG that they are mundane items. It offers no sort of explanation as to why alchemical items are the only mundane items that need to be made by a spellcaster (except for everburning torches and holy water, which need someone to cast continual flame or bless, respectively) I guess I have said that I changed my rules (using rule 0) for alchemy so that they are more consistent with those for every other skill in the book. I have been arguing why I feel this rule is necessary, while you continue to say that alchemical items are magical, making the rule necessary. Well, I never would have guessed this is your position, but OK. I agree with that concept, although it is only part of my argument. I'm saying that except for the skill's description, nothing about Craft (alchemy) suggests it involves magic, except where it specifically states where an item costs XP, requires a feat, and/or a specific spell. Holy water and everburning torches fall into the third category, but they are not made by craft (alchemy). They are mundane items created by a spell. I can't recall anything outside of chapter 4: Skills, that enforces the notion that alchemical items are magical, and require a spellcaster to make. Therefore, in order for Craft (alchemy) to be consistent with the rest of the game (and consequently, real life) a houserule like mine is the logical route to follow. And I still fail to see how his statements were contradictory. He didn't say that an item is nonmagical iff (if and only if) it's created without a spell. He said simly that items created without spells are nonmagical. He then said that water created by "create water" is nonmagical. It's like saying food grown on trees is fruit, and then saying that strawberries are also fruit. The first statement said that you can get fruit from trees, nothing more. The second statement said that strawberries are also classified as fruit. If he had said "Items created by spells are magical" and then "Water created by create water is nonmagical" that would have been contradiction. His entire point is that not every spell creates a magical item. Your example conversation just shows that person b is illogical.
TheNatealator 09-05-05, 05:59 PM	Ok, this post is about explaining A's logic, because he's right. A: Items created without spells are non-magical. ok, here's his first statement, which is true. It says nothing about items created by spells, one way or the other. b: but what about create water! It is a spell, and creates water. Here's where b changes the subject to spells creating items. A: Oh, except that spell. It does not create a magical water, not even in the purest sense. But for an item to be magical, it must be created by a spell or with the use of a spell. Create water is not the only spell that is the exception. Spells do what their spell description says. If it says it creates "wholesome, drinkable water, just like clean rain water." then I don't think it creates magical rain water. It creates water that is "just like" rain water. It only creates something magical if it says so. Cure light wounds doesn't give you "magical" HP. b: Ok, so a spell, that creates something does not create magic, even though it uses magic. Yes, person b gets it, now. A spell can create a nonmagical item through magical means. A spell can move a nonmagical item, and the item doesn't become magical. Spells are so different from each other that you have to go by the description of the spell. A: Right. Right So, a "classic contradiction" with my fruit/strawberry example would be: A: All fruit grows on trees B: What about strawberries! They're fruit, but they don't grow on trees A: Well, yea, they're fruit, too, even though they don't grow on trees. B: So let me get this straight. You said all fruit grows on trees, but now you say that strawberries (grow in the ground) are fruit, too? Maybe there's some other quality that defines something as fruit. A: Right.
darkness ninja of light 09-05-05, 11:57 PM	Boy I have a lot of catching up to do. It says spellcaster, not a caster level. Small detail. Level in spellcaster class, caster level......different words but not different things. Wrong. Some demand spells during creation. Yep, but the main point was that +1, 2, 3, etc. arms and armor don't. In addition, you only need to be a monk to make a ki focus weapon. Also, you don't need a spell to make a spell storing weapon (but you need Caster Level 12). Holy water is not magical. Again, holy water isnt magic. Holy water does not require a caster level, period. Its also not magical. Uhh...how is it not magical? You need Cleric 1 or Paladin 1 (caster level) and 25gp. It's the direct result of a spell, as you mention. You dont "qualify" for skills like its some kind of feat. SKills with "this class only" were abolished. Again, I cite Control Shape. You can't take it unless you're a lycanthrope and with good reason. Uh-huh, yeah, and the Chinese had a good grasp of the concept pretty early on. In FRCS, for instance, the gnomes of Lantan are already turning out firearms. Firearms did not come out of China for quite a while. It was an amazing thing to the rest of the world when people came out of China talking about their fireworks (and I'm also sure a lot of people thought it was magical). It did not suddenly make firearms available around the world. I'm not incredibly familiar with Forgotten Realms, but I do not recall firearms being a very advanced or remotely used thing. The gnomes may have invented it, but it's not something just anyone can make and use and trade yet. In Eberron, gunpowder techonology is not seen at all, though the world is much more "magical-technologically" advanced. No, guns werent for core D&D because they gave them ludicrous amounts of damage. Personally, I prefer the ranges given in D20 Modern if I'm going to use any kind of firearm. Many things arent for "core" D&D, but that doesnt mean you should completely discount the option. It IS an option. If you're going to set the world in a different time period then you can certainly use the option of firearms. And why are spellcasters the scientists? Wizards I could possibly see, if they werent spending so much time learning how to cast spells. Sorcerers, no. Its all natural to them. Also, I view magic from various perspectives, pretty much by race. Not all races would call it a science, or use it in the same way (this is why you need to make Spellcraft checks to decipher magic, its NOT a science because everyone can do it differently). Well, I already explained why spellcasters are considered the "scientists" of D&D in the quote you bolded. Sorcerers understand the science of magic through their natural ability and different races may indeed look at the "science" differently. Modern, real life science can be done differently in other cultures as well. Magic items that detail spells during their creation tend to make sense. Enchanting a sword with keen requires the keen edge spell, for example. I'm not sure what this had to do with my quote, but again, regular +1 weapons and armor don't require spells. Silversheen doesn't require a spell. Etc. etc. Thats actually a good point. However, the spell is long enough, probably not oft used, and also really not worth the time to get into extreme technical detail that if a player cannot cast Illusion spells they should not be able to use the illusory aspect of it. However, D&D includes many simple abstractions, and its really not that big of a deal. Yep, I agree with you on why it's not included in Prestidigitation. Using this logic it also makes sense as to why alchemy does not require specific spells or schools. Those two items you continually cite are created through specific spells, and only one is magical. As alchemy is specifically created through magic and both are indeed magical. This varies by campaign setting. In default D&D, there are existing gods that everyone knows of, and can also commune with from time to time. This argument was against mysticism, and while someone with that kind of view could technically cast divine spells, it doesnt mean its because of it. The two arent dependant on eachother. There is nothing in default D&D that says there is definate knowledge of the existance of the gods. Faith governs divine magic. Mysticism is faith. Clerics without gods can cast spells and be just as divine and powerful as a deity-bound cleric. Its not listed in the magic items section because it is not a true magic item. Why does it have to be listed in the Magic Items section in the DMG to be "magical". The magic items section is there to show the list of magic items you can make with various feats (and also how to make them and other magic items). Holy water and an everburning torch already have their instructions in the PHB and are more common than the Magic Items. I'm sorry, but global ignorance doesnt change reality. Just because some people think that the sun is drawn across the sky in a chariot of fire does not mean it actually is. Though we dont know the true intent of the designers, I seriously doubt it was a decision of, "Well, the local yokels think its done this way, so they wont even try to learn it until the cast magic." Such a thing suggests that it does in fact not require magic at all, just that they are too...timid, perhaps, to try it out themselves before learning to cast cantrips. Ludicrous. The line suggests that the use of magic somehow ties into alchemy, but I have yet to see it. The skill defies many otherwise concrete aspects fo the game. I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say here, but I'll give it a shot. What suggests that people are too timid to make alchemy before they can cast cantrips? At level 1 you have the ability to use your magical ability in alchemical creation. You didn't have the ability before. There is also nothing in history that says alchemy ever dealt with scientists without magical ability. Not an alternate dimension, no, but again unless you decide to overhaul your world the laws of physics are considered to be in place unless you rule that they are not. Gravity works, light works, and mass works. And magic exists, which means those things may very well work in different ways. How can one cast spells of darkness when darkness is only an imaginary concept in our real world (darkness is only the absence of light)? Sufficienty advanced science wil always seem like magic. If it doesnt, that means its not sufficiently advanced enough. Regardless, it does not make it magic, which is what wizards and sorcerers use. Not advanced science, its arcane power that defies all of our known laws of how things work, which is fine. and in D&D, that "sufficiently advanced science that only seemed like magic" really IS magic Arguments about the interview with designers aside, it still makes no sense why taking ranks-training-in a skill doesn't make it useable. How do you justify that? They know exactly how to mix the chemicals, but they can't make anything without a fundamental understanding of magic? You could know how to mix the non-magical bits of alchemy, but without the key ingrediant of magic it does not form the final product. If you don't know how to program, you can't make a computer. You can build and hook it up mostly right, but it's no computer without programming knowledge. As for each spellcasting class using a different source of magic, what's wrong with that? An expert with levels in perform certainly can't cast magic. However, a bard has indeed learned how to use and wield magical abilities. He activates it through his very soul. Clerics and druids do it through their faith. Etc. Etc. Regardless of where it comes from, those classes have learned to use magic. They use their magic to create alchemy. But anyways, this whole strain of argument is moot because of "Table 3-8: Mundane Items" Right there in black and white, the FIRST entry is "Alchemical item". What are alchemical items? It looks like the designers are once again on my side by categorizing alchemical items as mundane items. (Definition of mundame items- "While nonmagical, these items are worth-while as treasure because they are useful or valublue or both") Again, the houserule in my campaign is that the spellcaster req. is out, but Craft (alchemy) is now a "trained only" skill. As I said before, you should really read the entire thread. We've already discussed this point. Right next to alchemical items on the mundane items list is Holy Water and Everburning Torch. Those are most certainly magical. Thus "mundane items" are not mundane as in "nonmagical" though they aren't "magic items" in the sense that they don't fit into the DMG chapter Magic Items. It looks like the designers are once again on my side by categorizing alchemical items as mundane items. (Definition of mundame items- "While nonmagical, these items are worth-while as treasure because they are useful or valublue or both") Again, the houserule in my campaign is that the spellcaster req. is out, but Craft (alchemy) is now a "trained only" skill.[/QUOTE] As I said before, you should really read the entire thread. We've already discussed this point. Right next to alchemical items on the mundane items list is Holy Water and Everburning Torch. Those are most certainly magical. Thus "mundane items" are not mundane as in "nonmagical" though they aren't "magical items" in the sense that they don't fit into the DMG chapter Magic Items. Because I am in fact not. You are apparently confused, so let me explain. I state that alchemy should not require magic, because aside from that one clause, nothing about it suggests magical needs. Since this is an argument about not whether it needs to, but whether it should, that clause helps little. You state that because it seemed like magic, therefore it should. I claim that despite people being ignorant, it should not, then state that advanced science will always seem like magic to some people, but that still does not make it magic. I have not contradicted myself at all. However, that doesnt help your argument because I have not seen anything in the rules that follows in alchemy's favor. Not at all. The heart of the phrase is that when you advance a procedure far enough, there will always be people who will think its nigh-magical because they simply dont understand. The process is not magical in the sense of how D&D defines magic, despite people believing it to be so. If people in D&D thought fire was the results of magic, would fire become magical? Not at all. The heart of the phrase is that when you advance a procedure far enough, there will always be people who will think its nigh-magical because they simply dont understand. The process is not magical in the sense of how D&D defines magic, despite people believing it to be so. If people in D&D thought fire was the results of magic, would fire become magical? History suggests magical needs. That is one reason why it "should". You can say that magic does not even exist in our real world, but this isn't a proven fact, believe it or not. If people in D&D thought fire was the result of magic, would it be magical? That's an interesting question, but I'm not sure how the beliefs of people in D&D would change the world the DM has. Again you are confused. I never said that D&D is the real-world, or that I think it is truly real. What I DID say was that because it has grounds in our real world, that its perfectly fine to assume that the laws of physics, conservation of energy, etc work like they do here. You can take it as far or as little as you like, but thats generally the consensus I see many people use. Not every little facet of the game need be perfectly translated to a real-world parallel, but even saying that a dragon flies because of magic is perfectly acceptable because you have to include the fact that magic exists in this equation. Its not that magic inherently makes RL laws obsolete.QUOTE] Things that mess up the idea of medieval european fantasy (default D&D) should not be in ME fantasy worlds. Little things like that are what we are referring to. Mermaids are not manatees. Cloning is a magical process. Alchemy is not chemistry. [QUOTE]Those things work by magic. Magic is a perfectly reasonable solution to a problem in a world where magic exists. Yep! That's how alchemy fits in as well. This is really long. I'll cut off here and start again.
Ogmug 09-05-05, 11:59 PM	Yes, but the person did not state that all fruit grows on trees. So your analogy falls apart. That is where the contradiction comes in. He implies that all magical items are created with a spell. ALL. Not that some, or most. However the reverse SHOULD hold true, in order to prove the hypothesis. If it doesn't then the hypothesis is flawed. The statement that all fruit comes from plants is true. All vegetables come from plants is also true. But the statement that all fruit comes from trees is flawed and cannot be proven, but rather is disproven by the fact that strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, grapes, and even tomatoes come from plants that are not considered trees. Of course a miscommunication could possibly exist somewhere.
darkness ninja of light 09-06-05, 12:28 AM	Items created by magic are not inherently magic. Water made through create water, for example. However, in any instance where an item can be fabricated through magic, its always the result of a specific spell. As in, the item must come from somewhere. Not all items created through the Item Creation feats radiate magical auras. Many do, but that is not a requisite of being a true magic item. Also, not all magic items detail specific spells in their creation. They always cost XP and an Item Creation feat, however. An item fabricated through magic is not always the result of a specific spell. Magic arms and armor. The items in the Magic Items chapter of the DMG may require xp and a feat, but there is NOTHING that says "to need to be made through magic, an item must require xp and a feat". The one thing in common with all DMG magic items, holy water, (alchemy,) and continual flame is that they all, in general require MAGIC. Arcane archers can make +1 arrows (an higher) without any time, gold, feats, and/or xp just by shooting them. It does not mean they aren't actually magical. This varies by item. A rock would not, but a +1 sword would radiate Evocation as all +1 swords do The difference is that +1 swords have the magic continuing its effect. The rock does not. Also, where does it say that +1 swords radiate evocation? Does that mean spellcasters without the evocation schools cannot craft them? Why doesn't it mention evocation in the auras of the specific weapons in the DMG? Not according to one Ninja. It is in my opinion that many alchemy items have limited use at lower levels, and it only scales downward the higher level you get. Some are useful distractions or backup ammunition, but I rarely find myself ever building a character around their use. A rogue that specializes in throwing weapons, however, comes to mind as an interesting concept. -------- One might think so, yes, but according to the DMG, alchemical items are mundane items, and mundane items are not magical. This includes holy water and everburning torches, which are created by specific spells, but are still mundane, aka nonmagical, items. Alchemical items can be useful if you know how to use them. They certainly aren't powerful compared to most treasure and they aren't in the DMG under "Magic Items". Thus they are "mundane" items. Of course a mundane item is crappy compared to any magical item. That's why it's on the same table as nonmagical armor, masterwork weapons, and other tools and gear, and not a list of magical items. If they were magic, you should be able to put more magic energy into them to make them better, like you can with most spells. Most spells, not all. It's up to your DM to allow you to make greater alchemical items. In Eberron, there is Acidic Fire, for instance. I believe that real-world alchemists did not use magic, and that they did not use science, in any way, shape or form. Scientists use the scientific method, which alchemists did not. Does not mean it can't be magic in D&D. There is no proof that they didn't use magic, in any case. I think that arguement is silly, and can be just solved by making Craft (alchemy) a trained only skill. Anyone can be trained in it, without having to know about magic in general. They're making mundane items, after all. It does not make sense with how alchemy is defined in the real world. Spellcasters also as a consistancy have access to battle items. It says in black and white two things. It says (as a footnote, and in the body of text, which I missed ()) that you must be a spellcaster, and it says in the DMG that they are mundane items. It offers no sort of explanation as to why alchemical items are the only mundane items that need to be made by a spellcaster (except for everburning torches and holy water, which need someone to cast continual flame or bless, respectively) Alchemy needs magic, bless water and continual flame needs magic. I'm saying that except for the skill's description, nothing about Craft (alchemy) suggests it involves magic, except where it specifically states where an item costs XP, requires a feat, and/or a specific spell. Holy water and everburning torches fall into the third category, but they are not made by craft (alchemy). They are mundane items created by a spell. I can't recall anything outside of chapter 4: Skills, that enforces the notion that alchemical items are magical, and require a spellcaster to make. Therefore, in order for Craft (alchemy) to be consistent with the rest of the game (and consequently, real life) a houserule like mine is the logical route to follow. In order to be consistant with history and spellcaster's roles, it needs to be magical. In addition, there is no explanation to craft: basketweaving simply because it assumes people understand the meaning of "basketweaving" just as how it seems to assume people understand the concept of alchemy.
Antioch 09-06-05, 04:01 AM	And a rogue specializing in poisons would also find it useful. However Alchemy does not necessarily come into play with poisonmaking. Being able to extract the poison gland safely and create a biological toxin does not necesssarily take the knowledge of chemicals. Creating a mustard gas type substance however might. If you cast detect magic in a room full of torches, and one of them has continual flame cast upon it, the torch would show up as magical as you scan the room, as it would inherit the spell (a permenant spell upon the object). The effect's point of origin would, not the entire torch. Just as Nystul's magic aura causes an ITEM to radiate magic, so does a spell cast upon an item. A darkness spell cast upon a stone would cause the stone to radiate a magical aura. Again, the effect's point of origin would. The stone itself is not magical, but is linked to the effect. I would suppose its possible for a caster to confuse this, however. In one of your earlier posts, you state an item that is not created by the use of a specific spell is not magical, yet just now you state that an item (water) created by a spell (create water) is not magical, in the purest sense of the word. You are wrong. The only qualifications for a true magic item are a caster level, item creation feat, and loss of XP. I said that many have magical auras tied to them in addition to necessary spells as part of the creation process.
Ogmug 09-06-05, 04:26 AM	Ah yes. you said SOME require spells.
Antioch 09-06-05, 04:29 AM	Yep, but the main point was that +1, 2, 3, etc. arms and armor don't. In addition, you only need to be a monk to make a ki focus weapon. Also, you don't need a spell to make a spell storing weapon (but you need Caster Level 12). And I never said that true magical items all demand specific spells. Uhh...how is it not magical? You need Cleric 1 or Paladin 1 (caster level) and 25gp. It's the direct result of a spell, as you mention. The same way that water generated through create water isnt magical. Again, I cite Control Shape. You can't take it unless you're a lycanthrope and with good reason. Wrong (again). There is nothing that prevents you from taking ranks in Control Shape. However you gain no benefit from it unless you are a lycanthrope, simply because there are no conditions that normally cause you to do so. Firearms did not come out of China for quite a while. It was an amazing thing to the rest of the world when people came out of China talking about their fireworks (and I'm also sure a lot of people thought it was magical). It did not suddenly make firearms available around the world. I'm not incredibly familiar with Forgotten Realms, but I do not recall firearms being a very advanced or remotely used thing. The gnomes may have invented it, but it's not something just anyone can make and use and trade yet. In Eberron, gunpowder techonology is not seen at all, though the world is much more "magical-technologically" advanced. Because gun, smoke, or blackpowder, despite being crafted through Craft (alchemy) is not magical. Since it is in fact a mundane substance and Eberron has chosen to represent a world that has advanced largely through magical means, its probably not going to be seen for awhile. It IS an option. If you're going to set the world in a different time period then you can certainly use the option of firearms. Since D&D does not draw a direct parallel to our world, you could have them in any scenario you choose. Well, I already explained why spellcasters are considered the "scientists" of D&D in the quote you bolded. Sorcerers understand the science of magic through their natural ability and different races may indeed look at the "science" differently. Modern, real life science can be done differently in other cultures as well. A sorcerer's view of magic is not the same as a wizard's, hence the differing dependant ability score and method of casting. I'm not sure what this had to do with my quote, but again, regular +1 weapons and armor don't require spells. Silversheen doesn't require a spell. Etc. etc. Silversheen is also not alchemy. Again, I never said that all magic items require specific spells. Yep, I agree with you on why it's not included in Prestidigitation. Using this logic it also makes sense as to why alchemy does not require specific spells or schools. The difference is that the methods you claim go into alchemy are tied into only Conjuration and Transmutation. As alchemy is specifically created through magic and both are indeed magical. There is nothing in default D&D that says there is definate knowledge of the existance of the gods. Faith governs divine magic. Mysticism is faith. Clerics without gods can cast spells and be just as divine and powerful as a deity-bound cleric. There is no faith with factual knowledge, and any cleric that selects a deity has more or less actual knowledge that yes, his or her god is real. You work their miracles every day and should you turn your back on them, you lose your benefits. You can summon allies from the upper (or lower) planes, you can alleviate baleful maladies with a word. Without your holy symbol, your spells are for naught, and you pray for them everyday. That sort of restriction would be all but a slap in the face that yeah, your god is real. Why does it have to be listed in the Magic Items section in the DMG to be "magical". The magic items section is there to show the list of magic items you can make with various feats (and also how to make them and other magic items). Holy water and an everburning torch already have their instructions in the PHB and are more common than the Magic Items. Because its a comprehensive list of all TRUE magic items. Holy water isnt magic, but the permanent effect created by continual flame is. However, its not a true magic item but the remainder of a spell effect. I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say here, but I'll give it a shot. What suggests that people are too timid to make alchemy before they can cast cantrips? At level 1 you have the ability to use your magical ability in alchemical creation. You didn't have the ability before. There is also nothing in history that says alchemy ever dealt with scientists without magical ability. Understandable, but I'll clarify anyway. Ogmaug (sp) said the following, "It means the writers believed that the locals, who would normally have no idea of what science is, and seeing a magical concoction that suddenly explodes in a loud bang, would assume it is magical. They then associate an alchemist as a spellcaster (through ignorance)." His assumption seems to be that it is only considered magical (and is in fact not) because so many think its magical (due to global ignorance). This suggests that since people think you need magic, they dont even try unless they can cast spells (at which point they would realize that hey, they dont need magic at all). And magic exists, which means those things may very well work in different ways. How can one cast spells of darkness when darkness is only an imaginary concept in our real world (darkness is only the absence of light)? Because its magic. That in itself is good enough for me. And in D&D, that "sufficiently advanced science that only seemed like magic" really IS magic Its not though. Simple metallurgy is certainly not arcane in nature, so why would mixing acid be? As for each spellcasting class using a different source of magic, what's wrong with that? An expert with levels in perform certainly can't cast magic. However, a bard has indeed learned how to use and wield magical abilities. He activates it through his very soul. Clerics and druids do it through their faith. Etc. Etc. Regardless of where it comes from, those classes have learned to use magic. They use their magic to create alchemy. Well, lets see. First of all not every caster is arcane, and not every caster are item crafters. In fact, not many players (especially not clerics) would seem to delve heavily into item creation due to the XP loss. Finally, as wizards and sorcerers are unable to tap into the Conjuration (healing) subschool, how can they use their magic to make antivenom? For that matter, what about healing balm? Wizards under no circumstances ever gain access to the ability to restore lost damage since their mastery of this "universal" science prevents them from accessing healing effects without question. Therefore, we find another flaw in your rationale. As I said before, you should really read the entire thread. We've already discussed this point. Right next to alchemical items on the mundane items list is Holy Water and Everburning Torch. Those are most certainly magical. Thus "mundane items" are not mundane as in "nonmagical" though they aren't "magic items" in the sense that they don't fit into the DMG chapter Magic Items. While thats certainly your opinion, I would find an everburning torch more useful than the "numerous" instances that one would have a better use for glue, as you claim. It looks like the designers are once again on my side by categorizing alchemical items as mundane items. (Definition of mundame items- "While nonmagical, these items are worth-while as treasure because they are useful or valublue or both") Again, the houserule in my campaign is that the spellcaster req. is out, but Craft (alchemy) is now a "trained only" skill. I wouldnt even go that far. Nothing about alchemy seems to fantastical to be something that a normal person in a big city couldnt tackle as a profession of sorts. As I said before, you should really read the entire thread. We've already discussed this point. Right next to alchemical items on the mundane items list is Holy Water and Everburning Torch. Those are most certainly magical. Thus "mundane items" are not mundane as in "nonmagical" though they aren't "magical items" in the sense that they don't fit into the DMG chapter Magic Items. Ah, so even contradictory text isnt good enough. The only one on that list that is even arguably magical is the torch. History suggests magical needs. That is one reason why it "should". You can say that magic does not even exist in our real world, but this isn't a proven fact, believe it or not. Though I said I was leaving history out of this bit, again that was due to ignorance. The making of many things in historical alchemy wasnt regarded of magical, but the practice itself seemed to include mysticism as part of the bag. Things that mess up the idea of medieval european fantasy (default D&D) should not be in ME fantasy worlds. Little things like that are what we are referring to. Mermaids are not manatees. Cloning is a magical process. Alchemy is not chemistry. Yet you have so little evidence to prove otherwise.
Antioch 09-06-05, 04:39 AM	Arcane archers can make +1 arrows (an higher) without any time, gold, feats, and/or xp just by shooting them. It does not mean they aren't actually magical. You are confused. The arrows are not true magical items, but temporarily modified with an enhancment effect until it strikes the target, or misses. A paladin's sword is no more magical than those arrows when she uses smite evil. The difference is that +1 swords have the magic continuing its effect. The rock does not. Also, where does it say that +1 swords radiate evocation? Does that mean spellcasters without the evocation schools cannot craft them? Why doesn't it mention evocation in the auras of the specific weapons in the DMG? Its mentioned in your DMG in the magic item chapter. Alchemical items can be useful if you know how to use them. They certainly aren't powerful compared to most treasure and they aren't in the DMG under "Magic Items". Thus they are "mundane" items. Many items in the DMG have arguable use, but that does not make them more or less magical. An items power grade or general usefulness does not determine its magical qualification. Most spells, not all. It's up to your DM to allow you to make greater alchemical items. In Eberron, there is Acidic Fire, for instance. Does not mean it can't be magic in D&D. There is no proof that they didn't use magic, in any case. Well gee, then I guess that means there is no proof that mermaids didnt exist because we cant go back in time to see if they were all hunted to extinction or evolved into Atlanteans right before sinking under the sea. If thats the best defense you can muster, dont bother. It does not make sense with how alchemy is defined in the real world. Spellcasters also as a consistancy have access to battle items. You are dead wrong. What you have done is make one great big grand generalization. Spellcasters have the capacity to take Item Creation feats, but that does not mean they have to. Sacrificing your own personal resevoir of XP just so a fighter can have a +1 greatsword is not something that is really on many PC caster's To-Do List. The only reason why a caster is demanded is because the items are clearly labeled as being magical and it would make no sense to allow a straight up fighter to craft Magic Arms and Armor. Alchemy makes fuzzy distinctions at best that have some conflicts that make me wonder whats really up. You may as well say all barbarians are illiterate morons. Alchemy needs magic, bless water and continual flame needs magic. So does create water, but guess what? Its not magical, either. In order to be consistant with history and spellcaster's roles, it needs to be magical. In addition, there is no explanation to craft: basketweaving simply because it assumes people understand the meaning of "basketweaving" just as how it seems to assume people understand the concept of alchemy. No, in order to be consistent with history, it needs to be regarded by ignorant people as magical.
Gilean 09-06-05, 09:32 AM	Antioch, are you reading this? Repeat after me: Some items require magic to make them. Such as holy water or water created through create water. After that, they don't radiate magic. Alchemical items are such. Is it that hard to understand? It is of no relevance that alchemical items are no longer magical (ninja, they aren't). No relevance.Things that mess up the idea of medieval european fantasy (default D&D) should not be in ME fantasy worlds. Little things like that are what we are referring to. Mermaids are not manatees. Cloning is a magical process. Alchemy is not chemistry. Yet you have so little evidence to prove otherwise.The burden of proof lies on you. It has been demonstrated that A) They require a level of spellcaster, by RaW B) The effects can't be reproduced through chemistry in that time (and not necessarily in this time, reliably, though I'm not sure), in one of the first pages C) Other things (see mermaids, etc.) that are nonmagical or inexistant in RW are magical/existent in D&D EDIT As for other classes making magic items, that makes perfect sense. For example, in Drizzt series, the dwarf (Bruenor), who probably is a fighter or equivalent, make the Aegis-fang, a magical returning weapon. Generally, when the entire world is magical, it makes no sense that only those trained specifically in it, or those getting it from god, or those who are practically soaked in it, should be able to use it. I say, that any character, given necessary boost of power, such as great emotion or death, should be able to utter a curse on someone, or give a last wish, or something.
Jack_SSW 09-06-05, 12:33 PM	Have any of you guys notice, due to the multiclass and waste of valuable class levels, how utterly uselless it is to get alchemy? Think about it. Let's say your a rogue, and you want to be able to make smoke sticks. Hell, smoke sticks of all things! It's like a freakin' sigar that's not supposed to make you high, just blind people. Yet that poor rogue, has to take a level in a spellcasting class just to do that. Thus wasting a valuable level in rogue. He may never use magic as well. The worst part about alchemy is that it becomes worthless if you have magic or in later levels. Most of the time you can just buy anything you want. But what if that same rogue wants smoke sticks that make blue smoke, or something special like that(probably something with a good advantage)? I personally believe that alchemy, is almost like take 0.5 levels in a spell casting class. Not enough to cast spells, but enough to understand them. So by learning alchemy you automaticly learn how to make mundane magical items with the absolute lowest form of magic. I don't know, it just seems like the current rules for alchemy make it pointless or not worth while to get. If I was a spell caster, what would I need alchemy for? And if I were a rogue that could have a significant advantage with using alchemy, I have to take a level in spell caster, which wastes my time, and for such a low-level advantage(Usually only good at low levels). Just my opinion.
darkness ninja of light 09-06-05, 12:50 PM	Again, the effect's point of origin would. The stone itself is not magical, but is linked to the effect. I would suppose its possible for a caster to confuse this, however. No, the aura is applied to the entire item as if it were magical. If already magical, the aura of the item is supressed, the effect's point of origin isn't only suppressed. The only qualifications for a true magic item are a caster level, item creation feat, and loss of XP. Again, where does it say that it is a rule? Yes, all the magic items in the Magic Item chapter have these things, but it is no rule. The same way that water generated through create water isnt magical. I'm actually not sure about this. Bless Water is transmutation and create water is conjuration (creation). Wrong (again). There is nothing that prevents you from taking ranks in Control Shape. However you gain no benefit from it unless you are a lycanthrope, simply because there are no conditions that normally cause you to do so. Nothing prevents you from taking Craft: alchemy, but you can't use it to make alchemy unless you're a spellcaster. Because gun, smoke, or blackpowder, despite being crafted through Craft (alchemy) is not magical. Since it is in fact a mundane substance and Eberron has chosen to represent a world that has advanced largely through magical means, its probably not going to be seen for awhile. Only smokepowder was the one proposed to be made with alchemy. Gunpowder was assumed that once you let it into your campaign, you're dealing with a different, more modern setting and you aren't worrying about such things. Since D&D does not draw a direct parallel to our world, you could have them in any scenario you choose. An option to be in a different time period (as in, the option of playing in the rennaissance era in the DMG), as I said A sorcerer's view of magic is not the same as a wizard's, hence the differing dependant ability score and method of casting. but it's still using and understanding magic Silversheen is also not alchemy. Again, I never said that all magic items require specific spells. We aren't talking about alchemy. You mentioned that it made sense that magic items detailed spells in their creation. Like I said I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make. The difference is that the methods you claim go into alchemy are tied into only Conjuration and Transmutation. No, they can fit into other schools. Evocation for one. There is no faith with factual knowledge, and any cleric that selects a deity has more or less actual knowledge that yes, his or her god is real. You work their miracles every day and should you turn your back on them, you lose your benefits. You can summon allies from the upper (or lower) planes, you can alleviate baleful maladies with a word. Without your holy symbol, your spells are for naught, and you pray for them everyday. That sort of restriction would be all but a slap in the face that yeah, your god is real. Not necassarily, there are clerics without gods who gain their spells in no different way from regular clerics. Planar allies have nothing to do with the gods themselves. Their magic comes from faith. People in real life can see a miracle performed and make up some excuse as to how it could have been faked. Because its a comprehensive list of all TRUE magic items. Holy water isnt magic, but the permanent effect created by continual flame is. However, its not a true magic item but the remainder of a spell effect. There are several non-magical items in the Magic Item chapter. Adamantine Breastplates, for instance, are listed. It seems more of a list of more exotic and powerful magic items/a list of magic items someone with the appropriate item creation feat can make rather than a complete list of all true magic items. Understandable, but I'll clarify anyway. Ogmaug (sp) said the following, "It means the writers believed that the locals, who would normally have no idea of what science is, and seeing a magical concoction that suddenly explodes in a loud bang, would assume it is magical. They then associate an alchemist as a spellcaster (through ignorance)." His assumption seems to be that it is only considered magical (and is in fact not) because so many think its magical (due to global ignorance). This suggests that since people think you need magic, they dont even try unless they can cast spells (at which point they would realize that hey, they dont need magic at all). Once again, wizards and sorcerers and druids and ALL spellcasters came through this same sort of "ignorance" as you call it. In D&D they trully cast magic. Why shouldn't alchemy come about through magic as well? Because its magic. That in itself is good enough for me. but when alchemy is magical, it's not? It doesn't make sense because it's doesn't work like our real world? Its not though. Simple metallurgy is certainly not arcane in nature, so why would mixing acid be? because in D&D, that sort of thing IS magical. Acid itself was created by an alchemist with famed magical ability. Well, lets see. First of all not every caster is arcane, and not every caster are item crafters. In fact, not many players (especially not clerics) would seem to delve heavily into item creation due to the XP loss. Finally, as wizards and sorcerers are unable to tap into the Conjuration (healing) subschool, how can they use their magic to make antivenom? For that matter, what about healing balm? Wizards under no circumstances ever gain access to the ability to restore lost damage since their mastery of this "universal" science prevents them from accessing healing effects without question. Therefore, we find another flaw in your rationale. Arcane has nothing to do with alchemy. If they don't want to choose item creation feats, then that's fine with them. What does that have to do with what I've said? Antivenom is a building up of an immunity rather than curing anything. I believe arcane spellcasters without conjuration(healing) are able to cast "bear's endurance" correct? Even if they have not conjuration and transmutation, then abjuration (protection) would seem to work as well. In any case, the magic used to create anti-venom doesn't necassarily have to have anything to do with the final product. It's used to create it, but perhaps it magically brings about the effect by unleashing a hidden power within the non-magical ingrediants? There are several possibilities. While thats certainly your opinion, I would find an everburning torch more useful than the "numerous" instances that one would have a better use for glue, as you claim. Yep, that's your opinion too. It seems that whenever my party goes into a dungeon everyone brings out several of their own personal light sources much brighter and controllable than an everburning torch. I always get sick of bringing extra light sources into dungeons for that reason. Whatever works. Ah, so even contradictory text isnt good enough. The only one on that list that is even arguably magical is the torch. Since the text is part of the rules, alchemy most certainly requires magic to create, the torch is permanent magic, and the holy water is a transmutation effect. It seems that "mundane" does not mean it nonmagical but, rather, not a powerful item (since adamantine weapons and such are located in the Magic Item chapter). It doesn't provide proof that alchemy shouldn't require a caster level. Though I said I was leaving history out of this bit, again that was due to ignorance. The making of many things in historical alchemy wasnt regarded of magical, but the practice itself seemed to include mysticism as part of the bag. That's why it requires magic in D&D. As for ignorance, once again I ask can you prove magic does not exist? Go up to a wiccan and tell him it doesn't exist and that they are ignorant. You gotta respect people and the beliefs that you can't disprove. Yet you have so little evidence to prove otherwise. I can just as easily say that you have so little evidence to prove your point. It's not an effective argument. You are confused. The arrows are not true magical items, but temporarily modified with an enhancment effect until it strikes the target, or misses. A paladin's sword is no more magical than those arrows when she uses smite evil. but they are temporarily made magic items when magic is imbued into them! If you read the arcane archer segment it even says they are magic weapons, though they aren't created through normal means. For balance's sake they don't stay that way (arrows are destroyed once used in any case). The point I was trying to make was that there is no xp, feat, etc, but they make magic items. It only works for an arcane archer though. With alchemy, you can make items that couldn't be made otherwise (though the effect is nonmagical) using magic. Its mentioned in your DMG in the magic item chapter. Ah, I see it now. Still, a non-evoker, non-abjurer could make those items, correct? Well gee, then I guess that means there is no proof that mermaids didnt exist because we cant go back in time to see if they were all hunted to extinction or evolved into Atlanteans right before sinking under the sea. If thats the best defense you can muster, dont bother. Hahaha, its technically true, but that's not what I was saying. Saying mermaids don't exist so they shouldn't exist in a fantasy game is just as strange as saying that magic is not real so it shouldn't be in a fantasy game. The other point I mentioned before. Magic is a non-provable thing. Ghosts are a legend, but you see all sorts of strange things that can suggest they are real. People even hunt ghosts. People believe in magic and claim they cast magic spells today. Some people believe in a divine power. It certainly does not mean they can't all be true in a fantasy game. You are dead wrong. What you have done is make one great big grand generalization. Spellcasters have the capacity to take Item Creation feats, but that does not mean they have to. Sacrificing your own personal resevoir of XP just so a fighter can have a +1 greatsword is not something that is really on many PC caster's To-Do List. The only reason why a caster is demanded is because the items are clearly labeled as being magical and it would make no sense to allow a straight up fighter to craft Magic Arms and Armor. Alchemy makes fuzzy distinctions at best that have some conflicts that make me wonder whats really up. You may as well say all barbarians are illiterate morons. As I mentioned before, alchemy is the level-0 of item creation. Every spellcaster has access to it and I don't believe anyone would take it if it were a feat. It's still item creation though and that's the realm of a spellcaster. Hey, barbarians can use their skill points however they want. So does create water, but guess what? Its not magical, either. But the point is that they REQUIRE MAGIC. It's not an issue of spells or feats or xp. The argument you gave was that alchemy was somehow the only mundane item that required "magic". It's not true. I pointed that out to you. You should read the quote that I give from you so you can see why I'm responding the way I am. No, in order to be consistent with history, it needs to be regarded by ignorant people as magical. Umm...so according to you it's consistant with history? That's what I said right?
darkness ninja of light 09-06-05, 12:56 PM	We've already covered the topic of a rogue wanting alchemical items. If the rogue wants smokesticks, he can just go to the closest spellcaster and ask for them. Same with blue smokesticks. It's like saying the rogue needs to take three levels of a spellcaster class in order to make boots and cloaks of elvenkind (and turn into an elf, of all things) so he can be a properly sneaky guy. Everyone turns to the spellcasters for these things. It's their job. The main difference is that not every spellcaster has the proper feats. Everyone can get simple utility alchemical items from them though. It's much easier. In addition, rogues multiclass into magic users quite often. For one thing, a lot of good prestige classes come up (arcane trickster). Another thing is that spells are very useful to the work of a rogue (buff, utility, etc. etc.). You can sneak attack with spells, remember. Rogue/spellcasters are a common and effective combination.
TheNatealator 09-06-05, 04:49 PM	First of all, my last fruit example did not "fall through". I specifically stated that last example I gave WAS a "classic contradiction". Second, I am going to examine the two sides of this issue. There are only two sides to this issue, although each person may have thier own set of the following reasons/justifications. I will put my views on each argument immediately after, and in italics. If I miss any, PM me or post a reply and I will edit this. All of these mile-long quote and argue sentence-by-sentence posts are getting rediculous. With this, I am trying to establish the issues and my position on them. "Leave the spellcaster requirement in" These people think that because of various other sources, there is a precedent in the other rules that makes the requirement logical. Reasons include (but are not limited to): There is something magical about creating alchemical items that makes it impossible for anyone without a spellcasting class (they don't even have to be able to cast spells, according to the RAW) Nothing about the raw suggests that they are magical. They are categorized under “mundane” aka nonmagical items. Right next to other items that do require spells to create, which brings me to the next point. Now, if in your campaign, alchemical items are created by magic because you said so, that’s fine. There’s a section on “magic in your world” in the DMG. Please leave any arguments like this out of this thread. This goes for everybody. This debate is about whether or not this rule makes sense. If you have to say what happens in your campaign, or anything more specific about how alchemy works, back it up with rules, please. Other similar items are created by magic. Commonly mentioned items are holy water and torches of continuous flame. No other alchemical item mentions spells needed for its creation. All alchemical items are listed as mundane, aka nonmagical. Even those two examples (which aren’t really created by, but more like modified by spells) are listed as nonmagical. The description of “Bless Water” says that it imbues a flask of water with positive energy. The glossary says that positive energy is “a white, luminous energy that originates on the Positive Material Plane. In general, positive energy heals the living and hurts undead creatures” No mention of magic. The duration of continual flame is permanent, and the effect is “Magical, heatless flame” The flame is magical, not the everburning torch itself. Create water. How can a spell create something nonmagical? The definition/explanation of a Conjuration (creation) school spell is that it manipulates matter, and holds it together for the specified duration by magical means, unless the duration is instant. As is the case for create water. The magic has left, just like for all spells of instantaneous duration. Please, look at the description of things before trying to make arguments about them. I consider myself to have a good memory, but I still look these things up. Alchemical silver. No, this is not magical either. It is listed as a “Special Material” on page 284-5, right next to darkwood, adamantine, cold iron, and mithral. It’s made by “a complex process involving metallurgy and alchemy.” Nonspellcasters don't need to make alchemical items anyways. If they do, they can multiclass. Well, who are you to say what a character does and doesn't need to do? Every item can have its use, and a rogue with alchemist's fire can do a ton of fire sneak attack damage (when target is within 30'). Don't underestimate a PC. I might have more to say on this later, when I have more time "Take the spellcaster requirement out" Every magical item is created using a feat, XP, and spells (sometimes universal spells). Now, I’m not sure if this can be said for every magical item, because there are usually exceptions to every rule. But I have yet to see an item that the book defines as magical (and gives a spot in chapter 7 of the DMG) that does not fit this category Alchemical items are not magical, because real life alchemists were not magical, or that’s not how it works in this campaign setting, or because I think so. Any of these reasons would be fine for an individual campaign (see similar point in above category), but they are not needed in this debate Well, I have other things to do now, but I’ll post this partial list. Antioch, I know you have things to add to this list, and everyone else is also welcome to add to the list (but you can’t change what is in italics). I’m just trying to establish what issues we need to sort out, so that side A isn’t saying one thing about subject Y while side B unintentionally changes to subject Z. So far, though, it looks like only Antioch and I are interested in reading what the rules have to say, other than the entry for Craft (Int).
Antioch 09-06-05, 05:40 PM	Again, where does it say that it is a rule? Yes, all the magic items in the Magic Item chapter have these things, but it is no rule. Its consistent, which is really all I wanted. I'm actually not sure about this. Bless Water is transmutation and create water is conjuration (creation). [b]Nothing prevents you from taking Craft: alchemy, but you can't use it to make alchemy unless you're a spellcaster. You could technically make Control Shape checks as often as you want, like many other skill checks, its just that nothing would happen. Since the point of making a Craft check is to build something, you cant until you can cast spells. Not necassarily, there are clerics without gods who gain their spells in no different way from regular clerics. Planar allies have nothing to do with the gods themselves. Their magic comes from faith. People in real life can see a miracle performed and make up some excuse as to how it could have been faked. Actually they do. Celestial creatures suggests the existence of a heavenly realm. A couple ranks in Knowledge (religion) and you could easily find factual evidence to back this up. Also, a "miracle" in real life is much different than in D&D, where said actual miracle can be performed numerous times, consistently. As for godless clerics, thats more in the realm of faith. There are several non-magical items in the Magic Item chapter. Adamantine Breastplates, for instance, are listed. It seems more of a list of more exotic and powerful magic items/a list of magic items someone with the appropriate item creation feat can make rather than a complete list of all true magic items. I've already explained this. Once again, wizards and sorcerers and druids and ALL spellcasters came through this same sort of "ignorance" as you call it. In D&D they trully cast magic. Why shouldn't alchemy come about through magic as well? Because evidence of its so called magical reliance is brought into question. Antivenom is a building up of an immunity rather than curing anything. I believe arcane spellcasters without conjuration(healing) are able to cast "bear's endurance" correct? Even if they have not conjuration and transmutation, then abjuration (protection) would seem to work as well. In any case, the magic used to create anti-venom doesn't necassarily have to have anything to do with the final product. It's used to create it, but perhaps it magically brings about the effect by unleashing a hidden power within the non-magical ingrediants? There are several possibilities. You ignored healing balm. Since the text is part of the rules, alchemy most certainly requires magic to create, the torch is permanent magic, and the holy water is a transmutation effect. It seems that "mundane" does not mean it nonmagical but, rather, not a powerful item (since adamantine weapons and such are located in the Magic Item chapter). It doesn't provide proof that alchemy shouldn't require a caster level. And they are specifically listed as nonmagical. The items you cite are simply detailed on the treasure list so that you wouldnt have to flip back and forth rolling up crap. Wouldnt make much sense to have two weapon tables when its clearly not needed. If it meant "not-a-powerful-item", then why did they put universal solvent on the list? Its only good for one thing and only costs 50 gp (like some alchemy items). That's why it requires magic in D&D. As for ignorance, once again I ask can you prove magic does not exist? Go up to a wiccan and tell him it doesn't exist and that they are ignorant. You gotta respect people and the beliefs that you can't disprove. Prove that it does. I can just as easily say that you have so little evidence to prove your point. It's not an effective argument. You have a clause. I've told you that in any instance where something requires a spell to create, we have a specific spell. In any instance of a normal magic item, we have need of a feat, XP loss, and minimum caster level. No skills demand that you have a certain condition before you use them except for alchemy. but they are temporarily made magic items when magic is imbued into them! If you read the arcane archer segment it even says they are magic weapons, though they aren't created through normal means. For balance's sake they don't stay that way (arrows are destroyed once used in any case). The point I was trying to make was that there is no xp, feat, etc, but they make magic items. It only works for an arcane archer though. With alchemy, you can make items that couldn't be made otherwise (though the effect is nonmagical) using magic. They are considered magical, yes, until they either hit or miss. Its not a permanent effect. I have no idea why you even brought it up. Ah, I see it now. Still, a non-evoker, non-abjurer could make those items, correct? By the rules, someone with barred access could indeed make those items, yes. Whether they should is the topic for another argument, however. Hahaha, its technically true, but that's not what I was saying. Saying mermaids don't exist so they shouldn't exist in a fantasy game is just as strange as saying that magic is not real so it shouldn't be in a fantasy game. The other point I mentioned before. Magic is a non-provable thing. Ghosts are a legend, but you see all sorts of strange things that can suggest they are real. People even hunt ghosts. People believe in magic and claim they cast magic spells today. Some people believe in a divine power. It certainly does not mean they can't all be true in a fantasy game. And I'm not saying they arent, shouldnt, and cant. What I'm saying is that there is little in the actual rules of the game that backs your side up. As I mentioned before, alchemy is the level-0 of item creation. Every spellcaster has access to it and I don't believe anyone would take it if it were a feat. It's still item creation though and that's the realm of a spellcaster. Item Creation only in the sense that they require spellcaster levels to take. No caster is the end all crafter of everything. Any class can take any Craft skill and make whatever they want (except for some reason, alchemy). To say that spellcasters are item factories is severely limiting your perceptions. But the point is that they REQUIRE MAGIC. It's not an issue of spells or feats or xp. The argument you gave was that alchemy was somehow the only mundane item that required "magic". It's not true. I pointed that out to you. You should read the quote that I give from you so you can see why I'm responding the way I am. Yes, create water requires a specific spell. Alchemy makes no such specifications. Umm...so according to you it's consistant with history? That's what I said right? Probably not. The spirit of that statement was that to be consistent it would have to be REGARDED as magical, but not truly as such.
darkness ninja of light 09-06-05, 05:52 PM	Nothing about the raw suggests that they are magical. They are categorized under “mundane” aka nonmagical items. Right next to other items that do require spells to create, which brings me to the next point. Now, if in your campaign, alchemical items are created by magic because you said so, that’s fine. There’s a section on “magic in your world” in the DMG. Please leave any arguments like this out of this thread. This goes for everybody. This debate is about whether or not this rule makes sense. If you have to say what happens in your campaign, or anything more specific about how alchemy works, back it up with rules, please. You're confusing magical with made by magic. We already know that alchemical items do not have lingering magical effects in their final products. Several other things created by magic have this same effect. In the rules as written, however, it DOES SAY that alchemical items are created through magic. This ISN'T A HOUSERULE. Ruling that alchemical items do NOT require magic is a houserule. We are indeed providing our evidence through the rules and general flavor that the rule as written is justified. No other alchemical item mentions spells needed for its creation. All alchemical items are listed as mundane, aka nonmagical. Even those two examples (which aren’t really created by, but more like modified by spells) are listed as nonmagical. The description of “Bless Water” says that it imbues a flask of water with positive energy. The glossary says that positive energy is “a white, luminous energy that originates on the Positive Material Plane. In general, positive energy heals the living and hurts undead creatures” No mention of magic. The duration of continual flame is permanent, and the effect is “Magical, heatless flame” The flame is magical, not the everburning torch itself. Alchemical items do not need spells mentioned to create them. Other magic items don't. In fact, Antioch even says that items created through magic do not necassarily need specific spells. "Mundane" obviously does not mean "nonmagical" because a SPELL is actually listed in the mundane items list. As you say, the everburning torch is simply a spell on a stick. As for holy water, you're saying that magic is causing positive energy to imbue water. You say the final product is nonmagical. Yet you can't get Holy Water without using magic. It doesn't seem to suggest that any old Joe Schmoe can make holy water. It's not a reason why alchemy isn't justified to require magic. Water needs magic to become holy water. Alchemy as written now, needs magic to make alchemical items. Create water. How can a spell create something nonmagical? The definition/explanation of a Conjuration (creation) school spell is that it manipulates matter, and holds it together for the specified duration by magical means, unless the duration is instant. As is the case for create water. The magic has left, just like for all spells of instantaneous duration. Please, look at the description of things before trying to make arguments about them. I consider myself to have a good memory, but I still look these things up. I quoted the entire thing because I don't understand why this is an issue. Are you saying that we think created water is magical? You go on to explain why it is not magical. We've been using created water as an example of something created by magic that is NOT magical. Thus, it's showing something that works similar to alchemy. The magic is used in creation, does not stick around. Alchemical silver. No, this is not magical either. It is listed as a “Special Material” on page 284-5, right next to darkwood, adamantine, cold iron, and mithral. It’s made by “a complex process involving metallurgy and alchemy.” When has alchemical silver EVER been an issue here? Other than when Antioch thought I was referring to Silversheen as an example of alchemy (I was only using it as an example of a wondrous item without a spell) did it come up. If it's made through alchemy though, it's the same issue (not magical now, made through magic). Other than that, there's been no special mention of alchemical silver. Well, who are you to say what a character does and doesn't need to do? Every item can have its use, and a rogue with alchemist's fire can do a ton of fire sneak attack damage (when target is within 30'). Don't underestimate a PC. I might have more to say on this later, when I have more time If a character wants to make his OWN alchemical items, then all he needs to do is get a spellcasting class (MANY options). Spellcasters fit rogues well. If he doesn't want to multiclass he isn't restricted to being alchemy-less. Its' quite available to him. In fact, it's more available to him than the ever-coveted boots and cloaks of elvenkind or +1 weapons. It's the same as saying that having class features is too strict because you'd have to multiclass to get them. Why can't I have sneak attack? I want to do extra 1d6 damage! My character's been studying up on how to hit vital areas of the body and he's super dexterous! "Well, just take rogue next level and..." What? I can't take rogue! I'm a ranger! Now, I’m not sure if this can be said for every magical item, because there are usually exceptions to every rule. But I have yet to see an item that the book defines as magical (and gives a spot in chapter 7 of the DMG) that does not fit this category Alchemy, once again, is not magical in its final form. I wouldn't expect it in the DMG. What's it saying? Secondly, it's somewhat specific to mention that items need to be defined as magical (though there's no real definition given for a magical item, I'll assume I know what you mean) and given a spot in the DMG Magic Items chapter. This rules out holy water and everburning torches because they are not in the Magic Item chapters. It also rules out Adamantine breastplates, daggers, whatnot even though they are in the Magic Items chapter, because they are clearly nonmagical. Thus, it's quite natural that all that's left are the magical items in the DMG as requiring those things. It's part of the reason that they are in there (to give a good guide to those looking on how much gold, how much xp, what feats, what guidelines for deviation, etc. for those making/purchasing magic items). Just by limiting yourself to the Magic Items chapter you're ignoring anything that can be found OUTSIDE of it. It's natural you couldn't find any magical, Chapter 7 item without those things. That's where they put them. Any of these reasons would be fine for an individual campaign (see similar point in above category), but they are not needed in this debate This doesn't seem to be an argument against us, I think. In any case I'll comment that our position is that since alchemy is historically magical (in fact, the magic is what seperates alchemy from chemistry) that it fits well with the RAW that it requires a spellcaster level. So far, though, it looks like only Antioch and I are interested in reading what the rules have to say, other than the entry for Craft (Int). This seems rather rude. You use the rules to justify rules arguments. We use the rules to justify rules arguments (and certainly not just the one footnote). Saying this only makes you seem like you are purposely ignoring our arguments.
Ogmug 09-06-05, 06:30 PM	So far, though, it looks like only Antioch and I are interested in reading what the rules have to say, other than the entry for Craft (Int). Shall we look at this then? So far, none of you have used official sources that state unequivocally the rules in the way you INTERPRET them. You both have stated that logically this is the way it looks like magic works (and correctly I must add for it does appear that that logic is quite sound). However, none of you have stated anything that is written down in any of the WOTC books. All has been conjecture. The RAW is broken up into sections. It is done this way to make it easy to deal with a specific portion of the rules. Feats are governed under a section called feats. Applying rules described in other sections unless specifically called out by the feat itself is contrary to the rules. Skills are spelled out in a section called “Skills”. This is where the set or rules governing the use of skill is discussed. Unless otherwise specified (ie - exceptions noted), you would not apply the same rules to skills that you would to feats. An example of this is the roll of a 1 on a dice. It is not an automatic failure with skills, but it is an automatic miss with to hit. Combat is described in separate section, and has its own rules to follow. Would you allow a “take 10” during combat? Or even a “20”, thereby guaranteeing a critical? No, again because rules applied to skills do not apply to combat, and vice-a-versa. Therefore, based off of the inherent logic in the breakdown and discussion of rules and organization of said rules it makes absolutely no sense to apply the rules governing magical item (discussed in a different book and with no exceptions noted ANYWHERE, not in errata, not in supplements, and not in any of the core books) to the discussion of the skill - alchemy. All exceptions have come from the interpretation of individuals of the rules. No official source has yet to be cited to the contrary of the RAW, barring the interview question with a developer at the time of release of 3.5. To whit, that discussion was not about the current issue being discussed, and instead a totally different question was asked and therefore answered in a way that is not germane to this discussion. If you want to quote rules, quote rules specific to skills. Not magical items, not feats, not class abilities and certainly not personal interpretation of the rules or conjecture on what the “developers intended”. No one here is Ms Cleo or the Amazing Kreschkin, and no one can read the minds of the developers. All anyone can do is make a guess at what they THINK they were thinking. (note: emphasis has been placed because it is human nature to ignore things that are often pertinent. In this case, an exception is noted and called attention to.)
darkness ninja of light 09-06-05, 06:47 PM	Ah, I should have checked if Antioch posted before I did. Its consistent, which is really all I wanted. Yet it's not consistant with everything. The magical items that require xp, feats, and whatnot are vastly different from the items that require only spells to form and are not in the Magic Items chapter. Having alchemy require feats and xp would make it completely detestable. Again, caster level 1. You could technically make Control Shape checks as often as you want, like many other skill checks, its just that nothing would happen. Since the point of making a Craft check is to build something, you cant until you can cast spells. So Control Shape and Craft Alchemy are actually quite similar in this regard. Actually they do. Celestial creatures suggests the existence of a heavenly realm. A couple ranks in Knowledge (religion) and you could easily find factual evidence to back this up. Also, a "miracle" in real life is much different than in D&D, where said actual miracle can be performed numerous times, consistently. As for godless clerics, thats more in the realm of faith. Celestial creatures can suggest a different world but don't provide hard evidence of deities. An alien could come to our planet and some would say "Life on other planets!", others would say "A being from heaven!", some would say "an elaborate government hoax!". It's not really a miracle if something is done over and over again. Miracles are something completely impossible. It's just magic as they know it. "Hey cleric, I know you're like the only one I know who can cure wounds except for that druid chick and that bard guy and the paladin and ranger, but can you ask your god to cast the Freedom spell for me?" By RAW (without DM fudging) a cleric can't do this. Clerics have the Miracle spell, yes. Wizards/Sorcerers have wish. Only VERY high level wizards and clerics have these spells in any case. These are exceedingly rare people, mind you. I've already explained this. I apologize but where is your explanation? I was simply making the point that the Magic Items chapter is not a list of all true magic items, because lots of non-magical ones are included in those lists. Because evidence of its so called magical reliance is brought into question. I'm a bit confused here. Do you believe that wizards, sorcerers, druids, etc. casted veritable magic but alchemy's magic is not for certain? You ignored healing balm. Healing balm? And they are specifically listed as nonmagical. The items you cite are simply detailed on the treasure list so that you wouldnt have to flip back and forth rolling up crap. Wouldnt make much sense to have two weapon tables when its clearly not needed. If it meant "not-a-powerful-item", then why did they put universal solvent on the list? Its only good for one thing and only costs 50 gp (like some alchemy items). Universal Solvent is most likely on the list because it's effect is continuous and specifically is designed to counter another wondrous item (thus, it significantly increases its power). Also, universal solvent dissolves several types of sticky goo (tanglefoot bags, sovereign, and kuo-toa adhesive). Again, if you and I say Holy Water is created through magic and not a final product magic item (and I also say that with alchemy), then why is it so hard to believe it says "nonmagical"? Doesn't make it any less of an item made through magic. Prove that it does. I can't. I can't disprove that magic exists. I can't prove that it does. That was my point. We can't say "alchemy was not magical because magic is a proven falsehood". Wizards of the Coast is not a great judge that can say "No, there's no such thing as magic, we can't put that in our fantasy game!" You have a clause. I've told you that in any instance where something requires a spell to create, we have a specific spell. In any instance of a normal magic item, we have need of a feat, XP loss, and minimum caster level. No skills demand that you have a certain condition before you use them except for alchemy. The one thing they all have in common is that they require magic to create. Alchemy does not cite that it needs a specific spell, so no specific spell is mentioned. It does not go under a feat so obviously it doesn't need a feat or xp. Control Shape has a condition. They are considered magical, yes, until they either hit or miss. Its not a permanent effect. I have no idea why you even brought it up. As I said, while they are considered magical they don't require a feat or xp (though they do have somewhat of a caster level) yet they are no different from regular +1 arrows. By the rules, someone with barred access could indeed make those items, yes. Whether they should is the topic for another argument, however. Ah, but the point I was making was that you could make those items without evocation or abjuration, just as you can make alchemical items without the need for schooled magic. And I'm not saying they arent, shouldnt, and cant. What I'm saying is that there is little in the actual rules of the game that backs your side up. Flavor backs me up and I think the rules back me up. I don't think the rules backs your side up, but you indeed do. It certainly doesn't make it a fact that the rules do or don't back up your side or my side. That's why we're debating this. It's a little early to say either side of us factually has less evidence. Item Creation only in the sense that they require spellcaster levels to take. No caster is the end all crafter of everything. Any class can take any Craft skill and make whatever they want (except for some reason, alchemy). To say that spellcasters are item factories is severely limiting your perceptions. No non-spellcaster can make items that do any amount of fire/ice/cold/whatever damage, splash or no splash, up your immune system, insta-light, entangle, or instantly make deafening noise. These are more in the realm of magic and magical items. Crafters have TONS of options they can choose and if they become one of the majority classes that have spellcasting, they can have this too. Spellcasters may not all have each item creation feat but the one thing they do get for free is craft: alchemy. Spellcasters might not be all of the same level, but the one thing they all have in common is the minimum: 0-level spells. Yes, create water requires a specific spell. Alchemy makes no such specifications. Huh? You give me the same answer when I'm telling you the topic was about something else. We were talking about mundane items specifically. Alchemy was not the only mundane item that required magic to create, that was my point. Probably not. The spirit of that statement was that to be consistent it would have to be REGARDED as magical, but not truly as such. Then that would mean that all spellcasting is to be regarded as magical but not truly such.
TheNatealator 09-06-05, 10:39 PM	OK, I'll focus on skills. The only other skill that is limited remotely like the way Craft (alchemy) is, is Control Shape. Control Shape is in the Monster Manual, meaning that it is "typically used only by monsters." The first line of the skill description says "Any character who has contracted lycanthropy and is aware of his condition can learn Control Shape as a class skill. (An afflicted lycanthrope not yet aware of his condition can attempt Control Shape checks untrained)" I interperet this as until you're aware of your lycanthropy, you can't put any ranks in the skill. Once you are aware of your lycanthropy, you treat it as a class skill. So now to Craft (alchemy). Under special, it says "To make an item using Craft (alchemy) you must have alchemical equipment and be a spellcaster." (Yes, I missed it before). This, and the table, are the only places that I can find in the book where it specifically states that only spellcasters can make alchemical items. This is where it stops making sense to me. It does not say that you must put magical energy into any of the items listed on the table in the skill section. Note that this does not include holy water or everburning torches. They are not related to craft (alchemy) because it specifically states that "bless water" creates holy water, and that an everburning torch is an "otherwise normal torch [that] has a continual flame cast upon it." If we need to talk about just Craft (alchemy) then we need to talk about just acid, alchemist's fire, antitoxin, smokesticks, sunrods, tanglefoot bags, thunderstones, and thundertwigs. They are the only 8 items that can be created by Craft (alchemy), according to the PHB. The entry in the equipment chapter "Special Substances and Items" leads with this text: These special substances are prized by adventurers. Any of them except for the everburning torch and holy water can be made by a character with the Craft (alchemy) skill (page 70) So, the first thing that this says is (a) Alchemical items are not crap, (b) what I just said about only the 8 items being made by the skill, and (c) that they can be made by a character with the Craft (alchemy) skill. Now, as far as I can tell, any character can take ranks in Craft (alchemy) as a class skill. If you can find somewhere that it says otherwise, I'll probably change my tune. So according to the PHB, those 8 alchemical items can be made by any character with ranks in Craft (alchemy). There's a "classic contradiction" for you. Now, only one of these statements can be correct. Lets see if any of the descriptions of these 8 alchemical items suggests that they were created by magic. So far we've only found that they're created by spellcasters, or created by anybody. Acid- nope Alchemist's fire- the only mention of "magic" is that "magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire" Smokestick- It's "alchemically treated", and I have yet to find a passage in the PHB that "specifically" states that alchemy is magical. It only says that it can only be done by spellcasters (which it then contradicts). Sunrod- no mention of magic here. Tanglefoot bag- "alchemical goo" Thunderstone- no mention of magic here, either. Tindertwig- "alchemical substance on the end" but no mention of magic For good measure, I read the description of an alchemist's lab. For the record, it has no mention of magic as well. So what do we have here? To summarize, two instances in the PHB that state that Craft (alchemy) can be used only by spellcasters. Nowhere in the PHB does it say that holy water or everburning torches (both alchemical items) are made by the Craft (alchemy) skill. Instead, it specifies exactly how each is created. One instance in the PHB that says "a character with the Craft (alchemy)" can make all but the two alchemical items we know about. Nowhere does the PHB say that alchemy involves magic. It only seems to imply so, IMO, because it says that only spellcasters can make items using Craft (alchemy). It doesn't say that non-spellcasters can't take ranks in the skill. It doesn't make sense to me that someone with ranks in the skill can't use it, period. Control shape is in a whole different book, first of all, and it also has very different wording from Craft (alchemy). Frankly, I think it has a much better (though not perfect) wording than Craft (alchemy). As far as other skills goes, nothing is very relevant. I would say that the entry in "Equipment" for "Special Substances and Items" and listing evrery alchemical item covered in the core rulebooks. Which is why I examined those sections. I also found something that states "unequivocally" the rules the way I interperet them. Which was a pleasant suprise. I was merely trying to show that there are no other rules in the core books that suggest that Craft (alchemy) requires magic. "Spellcasters might not be all of the same level, but the one thing they all have in common is the minimum: 0-level spells." Unless you don't consider high level rangers or paladins to be spellcasters, this is false. Not every spellcasting class has level 0 spells. According to the RAW, every spellcasting class CAN make alchemical items (no matter how you interperet them)
darkness ninja of light 09-07-05, 12:17 AM	Unfortunately I had to retype this whole thing since my browser suddenly decided to refresh. *sigh* OK, I'll focus on skills. The only other skill that is limited remotely like the way Craft (alchemy) is, is Control Shape. Control Shape is in the Monster Manual, meaning that it is "typically used only by monsters." The first line of the skill description says "Any character who has contracted lycanthropy and is aware of his condition can learn Control Shape as a class skill. (An afflicted lycanthrope not yet aware of his condition can attempt Control Shape checks untrained)" I interperet this as until you're aware of your lycanthropy, you can't put any ranks in the skill. Once you are aware of your lycanthropy, you treat it as a class skill. Exactly, it's a restriction and for good reason. So now to Craft (alchemy). Under special, it says "To make an item using Craft (alchemy) you must have alchemical equipment and be a spellcaster." (Yes, I missed it before). This, and the table, are the only places that I can find in the book where it specifically states that only spellcasters can make alchemical items. This is where it stops making sense to me. It does not say that you must put magical energy into any of the items listed on the table in the skill section. Note that this does not include holy water or everburning torches. They are not related to craft (alchemy) because it specifically states that "bless water" creates holy water, and that an everburning torch is an "otherwise normal torch [that] has a continual flame cast upon it." Why else would it require spellcaster levels? If it requires spellcasters, you can bet it has something to do with their ability to use magic. If you look at ANY prerequisite, there's a very good chance that it WON'T tell you how the prerequisite is used. For example, Natural spell requires Wis 13 and wild shape. It does not say WHY it requires those things anywhere in the description. Wizards can polymorph and have a suitable wisdom, so why couldn't they take Natural Spell? If you think about it, it's easy to justify those prerequisites. You can imagine a druid being in tune with nature through his understanding of it by his own mind and his ability to assume animal form. You could also imagine that since a druid's magic comes from nature, he can fully unite the ability to cast spells of nature and become an animal of nature. Regardless how you see it, you know "wis 13" and "wild shape" and you know those things are used in the final ability. A different example, Dragon Disciple requires Knowledge Arcana 8 ranks. It does not say WHY he needs those 8 ranks, but it makes sense that the dragon disciple needs knowledge of dragons and magic to transformation into a half-dragon. The other craft abilities do not mention how they are brought about. Magic swords aren't even given a description on how they are made. Why should alchemy get a detailed description of how the magic is used when very few things like it (and no craft items) don't? As for holy water and continual flame, no one has said they are made through craft alchemy. They are examples of other "mundane" items that use magic in their creation. That's it. If we need to talk about just Craft (alchemy) then we need to talk about just acid, alchemist's fire, antitoxin, smokesticks, sunrods, tanglefoot bags, thunderstones, and thundertwigs. They are the only 8 items that can be created by Craft (alchemy), according to the PHB. The entry in the equipment chapter "Special Substances and Items" leads with this text: Quote: These special substances are prized by adventurers. Any of them except for the everburning torch and holy water can be made by a character with the Craft (alchemy) skill (page 70) So, the first thing that this says is (a) Alchemical items are not crap, (b) what I just said about only the 8 items being made by the skill, and (c) that they can be made by a character with the Craft (alchemy) skill. Now, as far as I can tell, any character can take ranks in Craft (alchemy) as a class skill. If you can find somewhere that it says otherwise, I'll probably change my tune. So according to the PHB, those 8 alchemical items can be made by any character with ranks in Craft (alchemy). There's a "classic contradiction" for you. I don't think alchemical items are crap. No one has said that there were any other PHB items that were made through craft alchemy. As for contradictions, if you check the errata, you'll see that any time a rule contradicts itself and is not in the errata, then you should consult the primary ruling. Not only is Skills before Equipment, but the Craft skill is the primary source for craft alchemy. In addition, the special substances description is not a rule, it is a description. As for the "no magical description", Holy Water is created by a spell, but there is no mention of its magical origin in it's description. Why would each alchemical item mention anything about the magic used in its creation? It's a description of what the item DOES. As for alchemist's labs, it does not necassarily have to aid in the magical part of the creation, so I don't see why it would mention magic either. So what do we have here? To summarize, two instances in the PHB that state that Craft (alchemy) can be used only by spellcasters. Nowhere in the PHB does it say that holy water or everburning torches (both alchemical items) are made by the Craft (alchemy) skill. Instead, it specifies exactly how each is created. One instance in the PHB that says "a character with the Craft (alchemy)" can make all but the two alchemical items we know about. Nowhere does the PHB say that alchemy involves magic. It only seems to imply so, IMO, because it says that only spellcasters can make items using Craft (alchemy). It doesn't say that non-spellcasters can't take ranks in the skill. It doesn't make sense to me that someone with ranks in the skill can't use it, period. I thought so. The bolded part confirmed to me that you thought we said holy water and everburning are made through craft alchemy. That's far from the truth. I've already mentioned the errata and contradictory rules bit and such in this post so I'll address the rest. As we've both said, someone maybe could take ranks in Control Shape and not be able to use it. It doesn't say we can, doesn't say we can't. It's the same as someone putting ranks in craft alchemy without the ability to make items. It's strange. Technically anyone can take metamagic feats, even fighters. They can't use it though. Control shape is in a whole different book, first of all, and it also has very different wording from Craft (alchemy). Frankly, I think it has a much better (though not perfect) wording than Craft (alchemy). As far as other skills goes, nothing is very relevant. I would say that the entry in "Equipment" for "Special Substances and Items" and listing evrery alchemical item covered in the core rulebooks. Which is why I examined those sections. I also found something that states "unequivocally" the rules the way I interperet them. Which was a pleasant suprise. I was merely trying to show that there are no other rules in the core books that suggest that Craft (alchemy) requires magic. Being an entire skill on its own, it has the advantage of having more wording to its name. Craft really would be bogged down by a description of its primary crafts. I don't see where you're finding this rule that states "unequivocally" the rules the way you interepret them, though. Flavor says magic, text says magic, things have been found that show craft alchemy is not alone in its properties. I'm still pretty sure I've got a case. "Spellcasters might not be all of the same level, but the one thing they all have in common is the minimum: 0-level spells." Unless you don't consider high level rangers or paladins to be spellcasters, this is false. Not every spellcasting class has level 0 spells. According to the RAW, every spellcasting class CAN make alchemical items (no matter how you interperet them) Ah that's right. Well, they all have their first level/0-level spells, the basics, essentially.
Antioch 09-07-05, 01:13 AM	If it requires spellcasters, you can bet it has something to do with their ability to use magic. And if any of the alchemy items even seemed remotely magical in nature, I might be inclined to agree. Why would each alchemical item mention anything about the magic used in its creation? It's a description of what the item DOES. As for alchemist's labs, it does not necassarily have to aid in the magical part of the creation, so I don't see why it would mention magic either. Because constructing anything that requires magic requires either a very specific spell (and thus a spell slot), or XP. As we've both said, someone maybe could take ranks in Control Shape and not be able to use it. Since they are not lycanthropes, they can use it, its just not going to do anything. Craft feats are used to make stuff, and you cant even attempt to make them by the ruling. Its a subtle difference. It's strange. Technically anyone can take metamagic feats, even fighters. They can't use it though. Its not really that strange, when you actually put some thought into how metamagic feats work. Also, this is a feat, not a skill. Flavor says magic, text says magic, things have been found that show craft alchemy is not alone in its properties. I'm still pretty sure I've got a case. Flavor does not say magic, and while one clause states as such, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that it shouldnt.
darkness ninja of light 09-07-05, 10:02 AM	And if any of the alchemy items even seemed remotely magical in nature, I might be inclined to agree. Smokesticks specifically says they work exactly like the fog cloud spell only they dissipate with a moderate or strong wind in 1 round. How's that for magical? In any case, you know as well as I do that the end product does not have to be magical in order to be created by magic. A la created stuff, holy water, everburning torch, etc. Because constructing anything that requires magic requires either a very specific spell (and thus a spell slot), or XP. Regardless of whether this is even true or not, it does not answer my question about why it NEEDS to have a "created by magic" description in each and every alchemy description when not even Holy Water mentions its origins. Since they are not lycanthropes, they can use it, its just not going to do anything. Craft feats are used to make stuff, and you cant even attempt to make them by the ruling. Its a subtle difference. They can use it, but it doesn't do anything? How is that different from not being able to use craft: alchemy? Its not really that strange, when you actually put some thought into how metamagic feats work. Also, this is a feat, not a skill. When I said "it's strange" I was actually referring in general to taking something you can't use (putting ranks in a useless skill or taking a useless feat). How is it not strange that a fighter can take Extend Spell? Flavor does not say magic, and while one clause states as such, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that it shouldnt. Flavor (i.e. the very definition and inspiration of alchemy) does indeed say magic. You can say I only have one clause and that there is evidence on your side but I do have a lot of evidence myself. That's why we're still continuing this debate, correct?
Antioch 09-07-05, 01:18 PM	Smokesticks specifically says they work exactly like the fog cloud spell only they dissipate with a moderate or strong wind in 1 round. How's that for magical? Not at all. In any case, you know as well as I do that the end product does not have to be magical in order to be created by magic. A la created stuff, holy water, everburning torch, etc. However it still requires the use of a spell. Even the most minor of items (such as say, a spoon) would require a spell to make. Regardless of whether this is even true or not, it does not answer my question about why it NEEDS to have a "created by magic" description in each and every alchemy description when not even Holy Water mentions its origins. Holy water is made through a specific spell, though I have no clue as to why they dont directly state it. At any rate, that doesnt change anything, as I havent stumbled upon some global alchemy spell. They can use it, but it doesn't do anything? How is that different from not being able to use craft: alchemy? Like I said, subtle difference. You cant attempt to use Craft (alchemy), but you can use Control Shape. Regardless of the check result, nothing will happen because you arent a lycanthrope. When I said "it's strange" I was actually referring in general to taking something you can't use (putting ranks in a useless skill or taking a useless feat). How is it not strange that a fighter can take Extend Spell? Again, if you think about how metamagic feats work, its not terribly strange. Also, what "useless" skills would you be referring to? Flavor (i.e. the very definition and inspiration of alchemy) does indeed say magic. You can say I only have one clause and that there is evidence on your side but I do have a lot of evidence myself. That's why we're still continuing this debate, correct? "Flavor" (ie, history, which I will say AGAIN I'm keeping out of this argument) actually says the origins of what has become modern day chemistry. It wasnt all hocus pocus, and I'd daresay that even very little of it was. And we're continuing this debate because I absolutely refuse to give up without good, solid evidence.
darkness ninja of light 09-07-05, 01:46 PM	Not at all. Of course, it isn't a final-product magic item, but it does give evidence of an alchemical item that duplicates the effect of a spell. However it still requires the use of a spell. Even the most minor of items (such as say, a spoon) would require a spell to make. Or, more generally, it requires magic to make. Holy water is made through a specific spell, though I have no clue as to why they dont directly state it. At any rate, that doesnt change anything, as I havent stumbled upon some global alchemy spell. Exactly, holy water is made through magic but doesn't mention it. Why would alchemical items need to mention that it is made through magic then? Like I said, subtle difference. You cant attempt to use Craft (alchemy), but you can use Control Shape. Regardless of the check result, nothing will happen because you arent a lycanthrope. Subtle difference, same outcome I guess Again, if you think about how metamagic feats work, its not terribly strange. Also, what "useless" skills would you be referring to? I was asking you. How is it not strange? Useless skills are just like useless feats, you can take them but they are completely useless to you. Craft Alchemy for non-spellcasters and control shape for non lycanthropes. "Flavor" (ie, history, which I will say AGAIN I'm keeping out of this argument) actually says the origins of what has become modern day chemistry. It wasnt all hocus pocus, and I'd daresay that even very little of it was. And we're continuing this debate because I absolutely refuse to give up without good, solid evidence. Its the origins of modern day chemistry, yes, but that only seems to suggest more that alchemy is not chemistry. Alchemy is science with magic. Chemistry is science. I doubt either of us will manage to find "good solid evidence" for our case (since most debates can't) but I too refuse to give up without good reason! Have at ye!
TheNatealator 09-07-05, 03:50 PM	"Of course, it isn't a final-product magic item, but it does give evidence of an alchemical item that duplicates the effect of a spell." Not at all. The item does not duplicate the effect of a spell. It obscures vision in the same way that the spell does, but it is blown away much faster. Also, if it was so similar to a "fog cloud" spell, it would say, either in the description of the spell or the item, that the spell can make smokesticks, or that smokesticks must be made with a fog cloud spell, respectively. "Exactly, holy water is made through magic but doesn't mention it. Why would alchemical items need to mention that it is made through magic then?" It still mentions in the description of "Bless water" that the spell creates holy water. If you notice, the cost of holy water "at no profit" is 25 GP. The material component of "Bless water" is 25 GP. I think that it is not a large step to make the connection. However, I believe that the step from "can only be made by a spellcaster" to "can only be made by magic" is much larger, and is not logical based on the rest of the rules. I'm sure Antioch agrees with this. "Subtle difference, same outcome I guess" The difference is that Control Shape is its own skill, and Craft (alchemy) is a Craft skill. Every Craft skill is for making something. Control Shape is not for making something. By the rules, you can have intense training in alchemy, have an alchemist's lab, but still fail to make even acid. You need to be a spellcaster. The RAW does not specify why. Everything alchemical has been "alchemically treated" or made by an "alchemical process". There is nothing that directly says alchemical processes are magical. "I was asking you. How is it not strange? Useless skills are just like useless feats, you can take them but they are completely useless to you. Craft Alchemy for non-spellcasters and control shape for non lycanthropes." Aside from alchemy, you only mention one "useless" skill. Every other skill (in the PHB, the one for PCs) has some use for any PC. Whether or not it's the best use is not in question. A fighter with max ranks in spellcraft can still identify spells as they are cast. Why he wouldn't just let the wizard do this doesn't really matter. "Its the origins of modern day chemistry, yes, but that only seems to suggest more that alchemy is not chemistry. Alchemy is science with magic. Chemistry is science." I'm not sure why we are talking about RL alchemy again, but ALCHEMY IS NOT SCIENCE. They did not use the scientific method. No source that I have found suggests this. Alchemists (at least, the European variety, I'm not sure if the Chinese considered themselves alchemists, or if they were even similar) claimed to be using magic to turn base elements into gold. They claimed to do this using magic, but did they? Nope. If I remember correctly, the only element that was isolated by an alchemist was phosphorus (by a large process involving letting urine sit for about a month). If alchemists used magic, one would think that they ended up doing something. Now in DnD, there are no scientests (except for possibly experts), especially among the spellcasters. Clerics and paladins cast spells from something holy (or unholy), rangers and druids from nature, bards from their heart, sorcerors from innate talent, and wizards treat it as an art. I already posted all of this. I don't think that all of these varied approaches to magic can lead to one common skill that can't be used by anyone else. If wizards can learn magic as an art, why can't a fighter learn the art of alchemy (as a whole) by taking ranks in the skill? <==My biggest problem with the rule, right there! "I doubt either of us will manage to find "good solid evidence" for our case (since most debates can't) but I too refuse to give up without good reason! Have at ye!" I think that if we can all get our logical centers all moving in the same direction, this will end, so I'll be staying until that happens.
Antioch 09-07-05, 08:42 PM	Of course, it isn't a final-product magic item, but it does give evidence of an alchemical item that duplicates the effect of a spell. Even if it did duplicate fog cloud, that wouldnt mean anything. However, it does not, but it does share similar aspects. It is also much smaller (only a 20 ft. cube) and easier to disperse. Or, more generally, it requires magic to make. No, there is a specific spell. This is not the case with any alchemy item. Exactly, holy water is made through magic but doesn't mention it. Why would alchemical items need to mention that it is made through magic then? You ignored the important part in that there is an identifiable spell that makes it. Subtle difference, same outcome I guess. Similar in the respect that you get no output. However, in the case of alchemy, you cant even try. Its the origins of modern day chemistry, yes, but that only seems to suggest more that alchemy is not chemistry. Alchemy is science with magic. Chemistry is science. They still adhered to the scientific method in that they made observations and a hypothesis on experiments performed before coming to a conclusion. While one aspect of alchemy may have involved magic, I see nothing about the existing alchemy items that suggests the necessitation of its involvment in the crafting process. I doubt either of us will manage to find "good solid evidence" for our case (since most debates can't) but I too refuse to give up without good reason! Have at ye! I've listed it, several times in fact.
darkness ninja of light 09-07-05, 11:54 PM	Not at all. The item does not duplicate the effect of a spell. It obscures vision in the same way that the spell does, but it is blown away much faster. Also, if it was so similar to a "fog cloud" spell, it would say, either in the description of the spell or the item, that the spell can make smokesticks, or that smokesticks must be made with a fog cloud spell, respectively. Even if it did duplicate fog cloud, that wouldnt mean anything. However, it does not, but it does share similar aspects. It is also much smaller (only a 20 ft. cube) and easier to disperse. It says specifically in the item description to treat it like a fog cloud spell with exceptions that make it somewhat less powerful. It is obviously "similar" to fog cloud but certainly doesn't need the exact spell (why would you use fog cloud to make an item WEAKER than fog cloud?) I've never known any item that a non-spellcasting character could make that actually resembles a second level spell. It still mentions in the description of "Bless water" that the spell creates holy water. If you notice, the cost of holy water "at no profit" is 25 GP. The material component of "Bless water" is 25 GP. I think that it is not a large step to make the connection. However, I believe that the step from "can only be made by a spellcaster" to "can only be made by magic" is much larger, and is not logical based on the rest of the rules. I'm sure Antioch agrees with this. So, if you look at the method of creation for Holy Water, Bless Water, you can see clearly it requires magic to make. However, you cannot find this out by the description of the item in the Equipment Chapter. The "25" gold cost just refers to the silver used after all. Similarly, if you look at the method of creation for alchemical items, Craft: alchemy, you clearly see it requires magic ability to create. However, you cannot find this out by the description of the item in the Equipment Chapter. They both mention in the description of their origins how they are made. The point was that it doesn't need to mention magic in it's item description to show it was made with magic. If "must be a spellcaster" does not mean "you use your magic for this, so no one but a spellcaster can" then what could it POSSIBLY mean? There are so many different types of spellcasters that the only thing they possibly have in common is the ability to cast magic! That's what "spell" and "caster" mean! The difference is that Control Shape is its own skill, and Craft (alchemy) is a Craft skill. Every Craft skill is for making something. Control Shape is not for making something. By the rules, you can have intense training in alchemy, have an alchemist's lab, but still fail to make even acid. You need to be a spellcaster. The RAW does not specify why. Everything alchemical has been "alchemically treated" or made by an "alchemical process". There is nothing that directly says alchemical processes are magical. Alchemically treated, alchemically processed, that does suggest creating something with "craft: alchemy" correct? By the rules it does say you can only do that if you're a spellcaster. I don't see why Control Shape and Craft: Alchemy are so different that one can have a requisite and the other can't. I also don't see why they can't be compared because "one makes something and the other doesn't". That's like saying "prove to me that Craft: Alchemy is like other skills...but you can't use any other skills because they don't make anything!" You can have WIS 12 and Wild Shape and practice night and day but still never gain the Wild Shape feat until you get a 13 WIS (both are +2 bonuses). You just don't have the wisdom to unite natural form and natural spellcasting. If you were given all the parts needed to make a computer and a big construction guide for making them, but were never taught how to program, then you can't make a computer. If you're given all the ingrediants to mix acid, including the lab, and you know all the steps, but don't know how to DO the steps with magical bits, then you can't finish the acid. Aside from alchemy, you only mention one "useless" skill. Every other skill (in the PHB, the one for PCs) has some use for any PC. Whether or not it's the best use is not in question. A fighter with max ranks in spellcraft can still identify spells as they are cast. Why he wouldn't just let the wizard do this doesn't really matter. No fighter can prepare spells from borrowed spellbooks using spellcraft. They also cannot do a lot of the things a spellcaster could do with spellcraft, unless they also had an unwordly amount of use magic device ranks and the proper magic items as well(these are both cross class for him, where's he getting these skills points?) Otherwise spellcraft is just saying "hmm..I've seen magic like that before...something like that usually works this way...". He can't cast spells with spellcraft. Anyone can understand magical effects, they can't wield those effects themselves without training in a spellcasting class. I'm not sure why we are talking about RL alchemy again, but ALCHEMY IS NOT SCIENCE. They did not use the scientific method. No source that I have found suggests this. Alchemists (at least, the European variety, I'm not sure if the Chinese considered themselves alchemists, or if they were even similar) claimed to be using magic to turn base elements into gold. They claimed to do this using magic, but did they? Nope. If I remember correctly, the only element that was isolated by an alchemist was phosphorus (by a large process involving letting urine sit for about a month). If alchemists used magic, one would think that they ended up doing something. You and Antioch just contradicted each other. I bring up RL alchemy because the origin of alchemy is important as to why its ruled the way it is. The main reason it requires spellcaster levels is because alchemists were all associated with magic (thus the term alchemy as opposed to chemistry). What do elements have to do with the discussion though? Anyways, again, you have no idea whether they really used magic. The important thing is that that is what made alchemy alchemy. Also, if you claim that alchemy is not science, then why do you say that non-magic users can make it? Now in DnD, there are no scientests (except for possibly experts), especially among the spellcasters. Clerics and paladins cast spells from something holy (or unholy), rangers and druids from nature, bards from their heart, sorcerors from innate talent, and wizards treat it as an art. I already posted all of this. I don't think that all of these varied approaches to magic can lead to one common skill that can't be used by anyone else. If wizards can learn magic as an art, why can't a fighter learn the art of alchemy (as a whole) by taking ranks in the skill? <==My biggest problem with the rule, right there! Wizards don't treat it as an art, necassarily. According to the wizard write-up, human wizards tend to learn it as a curiousity, for power, and/or just to do something with their lives. Other races either don't like it, treat it as art, treat it as science/art (gnomes), or simply find it powerful yet intriguing. Wizardry isn't just learning art. It's a serious study on learning how to wield magic. Alchemy also needs magic. There's no getting around that with the RAW. If you take the "art of alchemy" you need to overcome the boundary of the fact that you need to study how to access magic in order to complete the processes of alchemy. No, there is a specific spell. This is not the case with any alchemy item. Last time I checked, a specific spell is "magic". They both are alike in that they require magic to create. There's no rule that states an item made using magic must be made through a specific spell. The thing they both have in common is magical creation. You ignored the important part in that there is an identifiable spell that makes it. I sure didn't! I'm pointing out that the identifiable spell that makes it isn't even mentioned in the holy water item description! Why should you expect alchemy to? Similar in the respect that you get no output. However, in the case of alchemy, you cant even try. I can't imagine a human with no were-template trying to control his own shape... In any case, you can "try" alchemy "okay...that's perfect.....alright...this beaker is in place for the final step...hey...what? Channel magic energy? I can't do that..." They still adhered to the scientific method in that they made observations and a hypothesis on experiments performed before coming to a conclusion. While one aspect of alchemy may have involved magic, I see nothing about the existing alchemy items that suggests the necessitation of its involvment in the crafting process. They aren't items that non-spellcasters would usually make. We've already pointed out that D&D alchemical items don't fit into our real world for the most part. They can reproduce the effects of several spells pretty decently too. The fact that historical alchemy involved magic makes it fit. There's nothing to suggest that magic is not used in its process as well. I've listed it, several times in fact. And I've listed mine too, several times! Like I said, it's unlikely we'll find "good hard evidence". That's not how a lot of debates end up.
Ogmug 09-08-05, 01:39 AM	To further muddy the waters: Rogues (and other characters with the trapfinding class feature) can disarm magic traps. A magic trap generally has a DC of 25 + the spell level of the magic used to create it. Another example of a restriction on a skill. Only rogues (and those with the trapfinding class feature) can disable magical traps. This correlates to craft (alchemy) to those with spellcasting class feature. The difference that one can find is that it is listed as a restriction. Either an oversight in editting, or some other explanation heretowith unsaid. Another example of a skill giving preference to a class or type of character: Handle animal. It is a move action for everyone but a druid or a ranger, but of course, only with thier animal companion. Hide allows a ranger of 13th level to hide in natural terrain, even if that doesn' allow cover. At 17th, it is given to them even if they are in plain sight (class feature, much like spellcasting is a class feature of some classes). On the reverse, a particular class of characters is completely immune to the skill intimidate (paladin) Knowledge (religion) gives +2 to turn attempts to clerics... but.. Other characters do not get this bonus (class feature again, just as spells are a classfeature.. spells require the ability to cast spells, which means.. spellcasting) Rangers get a bonus to listening vs favored enemy (skill related yet again to a class feature) Searching for traps over dc 20 requires a rogue.. and only a rogue.. so no matter what your skill ranks, it does no good if the area is filled with dc21 traps or better. This basically means.. search is a useless skill after a certain level for non rogues (or dwarves in a stone environment). Related to the fact that craft (alchemy) is a subset of craft: Only a wizard can use spellcraft to read a spell, scribe a spell, or learn a spell. The above are examples of how the game limits or otherwise affects how a player can or cannot use a skill, or otherwise makes a skill useless.
Gilean 09-08-05, 12:09 PM	I think that if we can all get our logical centers all moving in the same direction, this will end, so I'll be staying until that happens.A lot of patience you have, I hope. I have stated my reasons, they have been ignored, so I'll just wait till something interesting comes up. BTW, you had a few compelling arguments on some page, almost convinced me. Not bad.
TheNatealator 09-08-05, 02:55 PM	"Another example of a restriction on a skill. Only rogues (and those with the trapfinding class feature) can disable magical traps. This correlates to craft (alchemy) to those with spellcasting class feature." I do not think that being a spellcaster is a class feature in the same way that having the trapfinding ability is a class feature. This might be overly technical, but it says "be a spellcaster," not "be able to cast spells." Spells are a class ability, but being able to cast spells isn't neccessarily. Spellcaster isn't defined. Is a Rogue with lots of ranks in UMD a spellcaster? Is someone under the effect of "Imbue with Spell Ability" a spellcaster? "Another example of a skill giving preference to a class or type of character: Handle animal. It is a move action for everyone but a druid or a ranger, but of course, only with thier animal companion." Rangers and Druids have that as a class feature. It says so in their descriptions. Not so with spellcasters. "Hide allows a ranger of 13th level to hide in natural terrain, even if that doesn' allow cover. At 17th, it is given to them even if they are in plain sight (class feature, much like spellcasting is a class feature of some classes)." Class feature. Says so in their entry. Everyone else can still use the skill to hide. "On the reverse, a particular class of characters is completely immune to the skill intimidate (paladin)" Says so in their class description (Immune to fear at 3rd level, intimidate is a fear effect). "Knowledge (religion) gives +2 to turn attempts to clerics... but.. Other characters do not get this bonus (class feature again, just as spells are a classfeature.. spells require the ability to cast spells, which means.. spellcasting)" That is a synergy bonus. We're not talking about those. Well, if we were, someone would have mentioned that Gnomes have +2 because of their noses. Not because they have spell-like abilities. A gnome fighter would have +2 in an useless skill...hmm... "Rangers get a bonus to listening vs favored enemy (skill related yet again to a class feature)" Says so in their class description. "Searching for traps over dc 20 requires a rogue.. and only a rogue.. so no matter what your skill ranks, it does no good if the area is filled with dc21 traps or better. This basically means.. search is a useless skill after a certain level for non rogues (or dwarves in a stone environment)." It's not useless. They can make search checks for other things with a DC higher than 20. This restriction applies only to traps, and is complemented by a similar statement in the rogue class description. "Related to the fact that craft (alchemy) is a subset of craft:" picky, but Craft (alchemy) isn't really a "subset" of craft, in the way you mean. "Like ..., Craft is actually a number of separate skills." Craft (alchemy) is a completely different skill from Craft (basketweaving). Both are completely different from Craft (painting). They all follow similar rules and have a similar theme, however, so they were grouped into one skill description. The only exception is Craft (alchemy) which has requirements that the others do not. It is a skill (all by itself) that is COMPLETELY useless to some characters. These characters can make trained checks with the skill and accomplish nothing. "Only a wizard can use spellcraft to read a spell, scribe a spell, or learn a spell." But anyone can use spellcraft to identify a spell as it's being cast. A fighter could use this to see whether or not an enemy wizard cast a buff spell on himself or some offensive spell that the fighter can't see yet. If no other character with spellcraft is around, then this can be useful to the fighter. Yes, the fighter has to spend cross-class skill points on the skill, but I think you might be confusing "useless" with "not the best" "The above are examples of how the game limits or otherwise affects how a player can or cannot use a skill, or otherwise makes a skill useless." Yes, the game limits how other skills in the PHB can be used. It doesn't make any skill entirely useless as it does Craft (alchemy). Nice try though, Ogmug (not meant to be condescending :)). Gilean: If you posted on my page 2, then I probably missed it. I'll have to find what you posted after writing this. Ninja: I'll see if I can respond to your post later.
TheNatealator 09-08-05, 04:10 PM	Gilean: Your posts were not completely ignored (I went back through the thread), but if you really want responses, here I go. Be careful what you ask for. 47 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7092185&postcount=47) You seem to agree with me here...It's kind of what I'm saying now. I'm saying that by putting ranks in the skill, you learn everything about it. I mean, wizards learn magic, and other than that, they're normal people. Weaker than normal people, because of the d4 HD. Why can't anyone else learn to use alchemy (something that every wizard can learn to do at no cost)? (from a flavor and consistency standpoint, I know that they can't because of the RAW). Ninja says that they would learn all the steps involved in the mixing, but wouldn't be able to work the magic. In DnD, magic exists, and anyone that tries (wizard) and has enough int (wiz) can cast spells. Or, they could go casting magic by several other paths if the magic is not an inherent ability for them. You don't even have to have a level in a spellcasting class to be a "spellcaster" if you define the term as "someone who can cast spells." Just have your friendly cleric cast "Imbue with Spell Ability" and bam, you can cast spells, aka spellcaster. 55 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7092185&postcount=55) You agree with me still here... 118 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7092185&postcount=118) What happened? You turned to the darkness side (of light)!! I'll ignore your historical references, as I don't think any of us agree on that, and it has no bearing on this debate. Whether or not history is similar to any person's side is irrelevant. Now for the rest of your points: *Holy water is not made by Craft (alchemy) (see, ninja? Someone was confused about this) *+n stuff still requires a feat and XP *to make things with Craft (alchemy) requires you to be a "spellcaster" which is not defined in the RAW. The most obvious way to become a spellcaster is to gain a class level in a spellcasting class and have an above average score in the relevant ability score. *Holy water and golems are not made through Craft (alchemy). They are made by spells. (golems also by a feat and XP) *They don't follow the pattern for any other item created with magic. No magical item is created with Craft (alchemy). Alchemical items (and not all of them, even) are made with Craft (alchemy). In their final states, they are not magic. They are mundane. I will say, they could be made by magic, but that magic can be learned along with everything else learned by taking a rank in Craft (alchemy). It's just as possible that they aren't created by magic, IMO. Antioch may not agree with me here, but hey, we're different people. Conjuration (creation) spells are completely diff, btw. 124 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7092185&postcount=124) If we were trying to say that it has anything to do with real life chemistry, than arguements along this strain would be relevant. I'm not sure who was the first person to mention RL was, but I don't think it was Antioch. 126 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7092185&postcount=126) More RL...and hey, you still agree with us, apparently, and then you go back to ignorance about the rules. Things specifically created by spells, feats, and/or XP don't really relate to Craft (alchemy)...and then you go into your personal game. OK, that's nice. You'll play the way you want to play, and I'll play the way I want to, and we can't change that, but it still doesn't affect this debate at hand. Well, I know that you have made around 3 more posts after that one, but I don't have the time at the moment to address them. I have the patience, but not always the time. Ninja: What I said about not being able to compare CS and C(a) was a slip. What I meant is that you can't compare them because CS is in the MM, and not on the big table in the skills chapter. Only afflicted lycanthropes can take ranks in the skill. Anyone trying to use it untrained that is not a lycanthrope will not do anything, and I don't really have a problem with that. Afflicted lycanthrops have a nonzero chance of a sucessful check to pass any of the DCs if they have a +5 to the skill (with or w/o ranks). Any character with ranks in C(a) will still have a zero percent chance of a result, even on a successful check without being a spellcaster. Name me one skill that prohibits a character from accomplishing ANYTHING whatsoever, even when having ranks in the skill, for any sort of check, against any DC. To my knowledge, there is some aspect of every skill that can be used by every single class. Oh, and I'm referring to only the skills in the PHB chapter on skills (the PRIMARY location for skills). That requirement of having to also make something is dropped, completely.
darkness ninja of light 09-08-05, 05:08 PM	I do not think that being a spellcaster is a class feature in the same way that having the trapfinding ability is a class feature. This might be overly technical, but it says "be a spellcaster," not "be able to cast spells." Spells are a class ability, but being able to cast spells isn't neccessarily. Spellcaster isn't defined. Is a Rogue with lots of ranks in UMD a spellcaster? Is someone under the effect of "Imbue with Spell Ability" a spellcaster? How are spells a class ability but being able to CAST spells not? You don't just have spells that you can't cast. You're asking the PHB to be more specific then it needs to be. If you look through the PHB you'll see several mentions of spellcaster. Just try reading the beginning of the Spells chapter or Magic chapter without it being fairly obvious what "spellcaster" refers to. At the beginning of the spells chapter specifically it says "This chapter begins with the spell lists of the spellcasting classes". A rogue can "activate" magic items with Use Magic Device, but he isn't casting them. He doesn't know how the spell really works, but he's forcing the effect out. The case is interesting with imbue with spell ability. I'd say this is up to DM ruling. It does say it gives him the ability to cast those spells, but it is unlike actual spellcasting in that the actual power and type spells is based on the bestower and the recipient only knows how to activate them. It depends on your perspective as to how the spell works. In addition, if you've run out of spells then you lose the ability all together. If you say it magically gives you the full fledged ability to cast spells (though only the ones you've been given) then I wouldn't be surprised if the DM ruled that you could make alchemy while under the effect! As for all the "have that in their class descriptions" etc. It's in the class descriptions because its specific to them. Spellcasters are just too common for every single one of them to have "Can use craft: alchemy" in their descriptions. Just having spellcasting is enough to tell you this. picky, but Craft (alchemy) isn't really a "subset" of craft, in the way you mean. "Like ..., Craft is actually a number of separate skills." Craft (alchemy) is a completely different skill from Craft (basketweaving). Both are completely different from Craft (painting). They all follow similar rules and have a similar theme, however, so they were grouped into one skill description. The only exception is Craft (alchemy) which has requirements that the others do not. It is a skill (all by itself) that is COMPLETELY useless to some characters. These characters can make trained checks with the skill and accomplish nothing. There are differences between crafts, not just craft alchemy. You can't make masterwork alchemist's fire or a masterwork spoon (in the sense of "masterwork" as giving you a bonus), but you can make masterwork thieves' tools or swords. They follow similar rules, but they don't have to be the same. It's only a completely useless skill if you, for some reason, decide to put ranks in it. But anyone can use spellcraft to identify a spell as it's being cast. A fighter could use this to see whether or not an enemy wizard cast a buff spell on himself or some offensive spell that the fighter can't see yet. If no other character with spellcraft is around, then this can be useful to the fighter. Yes, the fighter has to spend cross-class skill points on the skill, but I think you might be confusing "useless" with "not the best" Yes, the game limits how other skills in the PHB can be used. It doesn't make any skill entirely useless as it does Craft (alchemy). Nice try though, Ogmug (not meant to be condescending ). Yep, spellcasters (or wizards specifically) get the most out of Spellcraft while fighters get less and also have to pay more for it. Regardless, it's a restriction and all these examples show how craft alchemy isn't alone in its restrictions.
darkness ninja of light 09-08-05, 05:58 PM	I think Gilean was referring to a more recent post. I've had posts or comments ignored as well so I can relate. I hope you don't mind me responding to his comments, Gilean. All those posts show up the same for me. You seem to agree with me here...It's kind of what I'm saying now. I'm saying that by putting ranks in the skill, you learn everything about it. I mean, wizards learn magic, and other than that, they're normal people. Weaker than normal people, because of the d4 HD. Why can't anyone else learn to use alchemy (something that every wizard can learn to do at no cost)? (from a flavor and consistency standpoint, I know that they can't because of the RAW). Ninja says that they would learn all the steps involved in the mixing, but wouldn't be able to work the magic. In DnD, magic exists, and anyone that tries (wizard) and has enough int (wiz) can cast spells. Or, they could go casting magic by several other paths if the magic is not an inherent ability for them. You don't even have to have a level in a spellcasting class to be a "spellcaster" if you define the term as "someone who can cast spells." Just have your friendly cleric cast "Imbue with Spell Ability" and bam, you can cast spells, aka spellcaster. From a flavor and consistency standpoint, magic takes some serious study in order to learn. It's not some side ability that just goes with your INT (or other ability) that anyone can use. If you have wizard magic, then your INT applies to it, not the other way around. I've already mentioned "Imbue with Spell Ability". (you also forgot to quote my "class description" quote.) What happened? You turned to the darkness side (of light)!! I'll ignore your historical references, as I don't think any of us agree on that, and it has no bearing on this debate. Whether or not history is similar to any person's side is irrelevant. History certainly has a bearing on this debate. If you want to look at a reason for a ruling, as long as each side isn't terribly breaking anything, you tend to look at the real world source. Now for the rest of your points: *Holy water is not made by Craft (alchemy) (see, ninja? Someone was confused about this) The comment about holy water was that it is made through magic yet does not require XP. I can't speak for Gilean but I'm almost entirely sure he didn't mean it as saying Holy Water was Craft Alchemy. If he were, he wouldn't use it as a counter-example of "If Alchemy requires magic, why doesn't it require XP like the item creation feats do?" Otherwise, he'd just be pointing out that Holy Water is an alchemical item that also does not require xp (which is what was being argued). *+n stuff still requires a feat and XP *to make things with Craft (alchemy) requires you to be a "spellcaster" which is not defined in the RAW. The most obvious way to become a spellcaster is to gain a class level in a spellcasting class and have an above average score in the relevant ability score. *Holy water and golems are not made through Craft (alchemy). They are made by spells. (golems also by a feat and XP) Those sort of arguments were given out a lot, back and forth. Yes, magic arms and armor do require feats and xp. They're POWERFUL and those things are there to limit it. A level 20 wizard could just make awesome +5 vorpal swords all day and there'd be no downside besides gold, which he'd get from his customers all day. As for holy water and golems, to cast a spell (or make the scroll that casts the spell, in the case of holy water) you need to be a spellcaster. *They don't follow the pattern for any other item created with magic. No magical item is created with Craft (alchemy). Alchemical items (and not all of them, even) are made with Craft (alchemy). ALL alchemical items are made with craft: alchemy. Which ones aren't? In their final states, they are not magic. They are mundane. I will say, they could be made by magic, but that magic can be learned along with everything else learned by taking a rank in Craft (alchemy). It's just as possible that they aren't created by magic, IMO. Antioch may not agree with me here, but hey, we're different people. Conjuration (creation) spells are completely diff, btw. If magic is learned, then you have gained a level of a spellcasting class. You can't just "learn" an important aspect of a class. I'm a wizard but I want the rogue's ability to have Move Silently as a class skill. If I train really hard and put ranks in move silently, then have I the understanding to train in it as easily as a rogue (or anyone with it as a class skill) can? No. It goes MUCH farther saying that you actually have an entire ability (such as trapfinding) without going into rogue levels. It makes the rogue less useful as well. If we were trying to say that it has anything to do with real life chemistry, than arguements along this strain would be relevant. I'm not sure who was the first person to mention RL was, but I don't think it was Antioch. By taking out the magic, it becomes chemistry. If D&D were emulating chemistry, then obviously the spellcaster level is inappropriate. More RL...and hey, you still agree with us, apparently, and then you go back to ignorance about the rules. Things specifically created by spells, feats, and/or XP don't really relate to Craft (alchemy)...and then you go into your personal game. OK, that's nice. You'll play the way you want to play, and I'll play the way I want to, and we can't change that, but it still doesn't affect this debate at hand. Are you calling him ignorant? I can't really tell, but that's just wrong. Things created by spells, feats, and xp are all things made through magic. They're good things to compare to. Ninja: What I said about not being able to compare CS and C(a) was a slip. What I meant is that you can't compare them because CS is in the MM, and not on the big table in the skills chapter. Only afflicted lycanthropes can take ranks in the skill. Anyone trying to use it untrained that is not a lycanthrope will not do anything, and I don't really have a problem with that. Afflicted lycanthrops have a nonzero chance of a sucessful check to pass any of the DCs if they have a +5 to the skill (with or w/o ranks). Any character with ranks in C(a) will still have a zero percent chance of a result, even on a successful check without being a spellcaster. Name me one skill that prohibits a character from accomplishing ANYTHING whatsoever, even when having ranks in the skill, for any sort of check, against any DC. To my knowledge, there is some aspect of every skill that can be used by every single class. Oh, and I'm referring to only the skills in the PHB chapter on skills (the PRIMARY location for skills). That requirement of having to also make something is dropped, completely. Control Shape is where it where it will most likely be found, in the monster manual where the lycanthropes are. Craft Alchemy is where the spellcasters are. They are both in core rule books. So now you want me to find a skill that is can't accomplish anything when having ranks in the skill. Assuming you can even have ranks when you can't use them, both Control Shape and Craft Alchemy do this. Yes, I'm sure you wanted me to find a third skill, but there is none. You wanted me to find a skill that worked like craft alchemy in regards to use and restrictions so I found Control Shape. Now you seem to be telling me "okay, now find another one!" Two is pretty good, if you ask me. Well, I know that you have made around 3 more posts after that one, but I don't have the time at the moment to address them. I have the patience, but not always the time. I can relate, if you've responded once I post this, I think I'll have to leave it for later as well.
Ogmug 09-08-05, 06:05 PM	"Another example of a restriction on a skill. Only rogues (and those with the trapfinding class feature) can disable magical traps. This correlates to craft (alchemy) to those with spellcasting class feature." I do not think that being a spellcaster is a class feature in the same way that having the trapfinding ability is a class feature. This might be overly technical, but it says "be a spellcaster," not "be able to cast spells." Spells are a class ability, but being able to cast spells isn't neccessarily. Spellcaster isn't defined. Is a Rogue with lots of ranks in UMD a spellcaster? Is someone under the effect of "Imbue with Spell Ability" a spellcaster? Not quite. First, in order to be a "spellcaster" you must be able to cast spells. Spells is listed as a class ability, to indicate that the class gets spells and has the ability to cast them. Hence: spellcaster. Rogues do not "cast spells". The "trick" (as per the description) the item into believing they have the appropriate ability. UMD applies to all magical devices, not just scrolls. If an item were "paladin only" the rogue could "convince" the item he was an appropriate class with the right roll. Imbuing with a spell ability is not the same as giving them the ability to cast spell, but rather making them a conduit for a spell the spellcaster has already cast. The person imbued cannot learn the spell in any way, or otherwise understand. He is simply a weapon (such as imbuing a weapon or other item with a spell. Does that make the sword a spellcaster? No, it makes it a conduit) "Another example of a skill giving preference to a class or type of character: Handle animal. It is a move action for everyone but a druid or a ranger, but of course, only with thier animal companion." Rangers and Druids have that as a class feature. It says so in their descriptions. Not so with spellcasters. "Hide allows a ranger of 13th level to hide in natural terrain, even if that doesn' allow cover. At 17th, it is given to them even if they are in plain sight (class feature, much like spellcasting is a class feature of some classes)." Class feature. Says so in their entry. Everyone else can still use the skill to hide. Yes, everyone can hide, but not everyone can hide in plain sight. "On the reverse, a particular class of characters is completely immune to the skill intimidate (paladin)" Says so in their class description (Immune to fear at 3rd level, intimidate is a fear effect). "Knowledge (religion) gives +2 to turn attempts to clerics... but.. Other characters do not get this bonus (class feature again, just as spells are a classfeature.. spells require the ability to cast spells, which means.. spellcasting)" That is a synergy bonus. We're not talking about those. Well, if we were, someone would have mentioned that Gnomes have +2 because of their noses. Not because they have spell-like abilities. A gnome fighter would have +2 in an useless skill...hmm... synergy bonuses apply to skills, not class features. Turn undead is a feature and therefore restricted to TWO classes. Paladin and Cleric. Much as the same way craft(alchemy) is restricted to spellcasters. So, by your logic, that would make it a synergy bonus .. .. .. "Rangers get a bonus to listening vs favored enemy (skill related yet again to a class feature)" Says so in their class description. Still restricting a subset of rules of listen to a single class. Much more restrictive than craft(alchemy) which restricts 1 subset of a rule to 6 or so "Searching for traps over dc 20 requires a rogue.. and only a rogue.. so no matter what your skill ranks, it does no good if the area is filled with dc21 traps or better. This basically means.. search is a useless skill after a certain level for non rogues (or dwarves in a stone environment)." It's not useless. They can make search checks for other things with a DC higher than 20. This restriction applies only to traps, and is complemented by a similar statement in the rogue class description. yet it is still a restriction of the use of search. To be consistent for those who want alchemy to be allowed to create items by non spellcasters, you would have to allow search to work for all DC's and all types of traps for non rogues. "Related to the fact that craft (alchemy) is a subset of craft:" picky, but Craft (alchemy) isn't really a "subset" of craft, in the way you mean. "Like ..., Craft is actually a number of separate skills." Craft (alchemy) is a completely different skill from Craft (basketweaving). Both are completely different from Craft (painting). They all follow similar rules and have a similar theme, however, so they were grouped into one skill description. The only exception is Craft (alchemy) which has requirements that the others do not. It is a skill (all by itself) that is COMPLETELY useless to some characters. These characters can make trained checks with the skill and accomplish nothing. If it were it's own skill, they would be listed as a seperate skill. In the charts, and in the description, craft skills are given as examples, but are not limited to those examples, nor are they given their own entries. Additionally, to dispute your claim that craft alchemy accomplishes nothing by a player that cannot create the item, they still get the synergy bonus to appraise, and more imporatantly, the ability to identify alchemical items as such, and their components. So using your later arguement about spellcraft, it is still useful, but not to its full potential by a player that does not have spellcasting as a feature of its class... From the SRD, under appraise : If you have 5 ranks in any Craft skill, you gain a +2 bonus on Appraise checks related to items made with that Craft skill. "Only a wizard can use spellcraft to read a spell, scribe a spell, or learn a spell." But anyone can use spellcraft to identify a spell as it's being cast. A fighter could use this to see whether or not an enemy wizard cast a buff spell on himself or some offensive spell that the fighter can't see yet. If no other character with spellcraft is around, then this can be useful to the fighter. Yes, the fighter has to spend cross-class skill points on the skill, but I think you might be confusing "useless" with "not the best" And anyone can use craft(alchemy) to get a bonus to thier appraisal of items "The above are examples of how the game limits or otherwise affects how a player can or cannot use a skill, or otherwise makes a skill useless." Yes, the game limits how other skills in the PHB can be used. It doesn't make any skill entirely useless as it does Craft (alchemy). Nice try though, Ogmug (not meant to be condescending :)). As shown above, craft (alchemy) is not a useless skill just because you cannot make an item. You get a nice little synergy bonus to appraise. Gilean: If you posted on my page 2, then I probably missed it. I'll have to find what you posted after writing this. Ninja: I'll see if I can respond to your post later. So as you can see, the craft(alchemy) acts in the way that many skills do. it restricts it use to certain classes that have a certain feature (ala listen, etc) it offers a synergy bonus to another skill (appraise in this case) Any character can take it, but to use its full potential you need to meet all of its criteria. It is a subset of a parent skill (ala Knowledge skills, perform, etc)
TheNatealator 09-08-05, 10:17 PM	One thing before I resume my homework. "ALL alchemical items are made with craft: alchemy. Which ones aren't?" Holy water and Everburning torches. I thought you said that yourself before, if i'm not mistaken Actually two. About me saying "ignorance about the rules". I went back and reread that part of the post, and I have NO idea where I got that from. First of all, it was overly harsh to say to begin with, and second of all he didn't even display ignorance in that post. It must have been from trying to do soooo much at once. I humbly and thoroughly apologise to you, Gilean. I am getting carried away, and possibly too attached. I think it would be best for me to take a break from this thread for a while until I can cool off a bit and maybe my RL schedule will ease up on me. Once again, sorry Gilean and anyone else I have offended in this thread, and TTFN.
darkness ninja of light 09-08-05, 10:35 PM	Wow, that was really nice of you to apologize like that Natelator. This thread does take up a lot of time to respond to doesn't it? Well, it does for me anyways. Holy Water and the Everburning Torch aren't alchemical though. I don't know where I've said that, but there WAS that one thread where someone asked "how do you make holy water?" and I mistakenly answered "through craft alchemy" then when I looked at the book I had to quickly edit that. That was a while before I even joined this thread though. In any case I've had it etched in my mind since then that they're not alchemical (I was only thinking about the Special Substances list rather than the actual alchemical list). Perhaps it seemed like I said it, or I really did say it. I don't know.
Ogmug 09-08-05, 10:41 PM	/claps Nate, that is a class act. It takes a bit to apologize, even on anonymous forums such as this.
Antioch 09-08-05, 11:14 PM	Another example of a restriction on a skill. Only rogues (and those with the trapfinding class feature) can disable magical traps. But the skill is not rendered completely obsolete. It is still useful to anyone who wants to disable traps up until a point. Alchemy does not allow the creation of any items, period. This correlates to craft (alchemy) to those with spellcasting class feature. Similar, but still wrong. Another example of a skill giving preference to a class or type of character: Handle animal. It is a move action for everyone but a druid or a ranger, but of course, only with thier animal companion. Again, you list a skill that provides an additional benefit if you happen to meet some other criteria. While similar, you are still wrong. Hide allows a ranger of 13th level to hide in natural terrain, even if that doesn' allow cover. At 17th, it is given to them even if they are in plain sight (class feature, much like spellcasting is a class feature of some classes). Is this leading anywhere relavent? On the reverse, a particular class of characters is completely immune to the skill intimidate (paladin) Oooookay. This has nothing to do with our current situation. I'm going to omit the rest of the post until I find something that actually pertains to this discusion. The above are examples of how the game limits or otherwise affects how a player can or cannot use a skill, or otherwise makes a skill useless. You cited many class features that augment the benefits of some skills, or class features that provide benefits to some skills. I'm sure this took some time to generate, but it doesnt pertain to our discusiion, so sorry. What I am looking for is a skill that cannot be used, period, unless you have a specific class feature, or requires you to be a certain class, as these were all but done away with during the revision.
darkness ninja of light 09-08-05, 11:39 PM	But the skill is not rendered completely obsolete. It is still useful to anyone who wants to disable traps up until a point. Alchemy does not allow the creation of any items, period. Some skills restrict more, some restrict less. Craft: Alchemy is just one of the skills that restricts more. It doesn't make it different from other skills though. Similar, but still wrong. Similar but still wrong? I don't know what you're trying to say here. What's wrong? As I continue reading it seems that you just didn't understand where Ogmug was going with his examples. He was giving an extensive list on what sort of restrictions skills give based on what class you are. If you're not a druid or ranger, handle animal is move action and has limited skills and no special bonus besides synergy with five ranks. Thus, alchemy isn't alone in its restrictions based on class. I was trying to make that point too but Ogmug did it much better :) It's relevant to the discussion in that sense. If you want a skill that greatly restricts, see Control Shape. The other skills aren't exactly completely open to everyone either, though.
Ogmug 09-08-05, 11:51 PM	Another example of a restriction on a skill. Only rogues (and those with the trapfinding class feature) can disable magical traps. But the skill is not rendered completely obsolete. It is still useful to anyone who wants to disable traps up until a point. Alchemy does not allow the creation of any items, period. and to use your own arguement against you, taking craft(alchemy) and not being a spellcrafter does not make it completely useless either, as it gives you a synergy bonus to appraise items created with alchemy This correlates to craft (alchemy) to those with spellcasting class feature. Similar, but still wrong. similar means similar. your statement should not include an oxymoron.Similar but not quite would be a better term and would not be as incongrous. Another example of a skill giving preference to a class or type of character: Handle animal. It is a move action for everyone but a druid or a ranger, but of course, only with thier animal companion. Again, you list a skill that provides an additional benefit if you happen to meet some other criteria. While similar, you are still wrong. Just as craft(alchemy) gives an additional benefit if you happen to meet the requirement of being a spellcaster. Your point is? Hide allows a ranger of 13th level to hide in natural terrain, even if that doesn' allow cover. At 17th, it is given to them even if they are in plain sight (class feature, much like spellcasting is a class feature of some classes). Is this leading anywhere relavent? are you in the habit of not reading everything? This particular statement was discussing the skill "hide", a skill that everyone can have (as most skills are). However, if you are not a ranger, you cannot use your skill in Hide to hide in plain sight, NO matter how many ranks you have. A ranger of 17th level with no ranks in hide (since it is an untrained skill) can use it to hide in plain sight. On the reverse, a particular class of characters is completely immune to the skill intimidate (paladin) Oooookay. This has nothing to do with our current situation. I'm going to omit the rest of the post until I find something that actually pertains to this discusion. pretty convinient that you choose to ignore discussion of skills and how they apply restrictions (or in this case an empowerment) to certain classes, which in reality is the crux of the whole arguement. It really does make your case .. well, less convincing since you are exhibiting the "I don't like it... la la la" syndrome. The above are examples of how the game limits or otherwise affects how a player can or cannot use a skill, or otherwise makes a skill useless. You cited many class features that augment the benefits of some skills, or class features that provide benefits to some skills. I'm sure this took some time to generate, but it doesnt pertain to our discusiion, so sorry. What I am looking for is a skill that cannot be used, period, unless you have a specific class feature, or requires you to be a certain class, as these were all but done away with during the revision. And you have yet to provide one. craft(alchemy) can still be taken by a player without spellcasting, they just can't make items with it. However they can use it to gain insight (the synergy bonus) as to the value of alchemical items. And furthermore, craft(alchemy) is not a "skill" in the true sense of the word. It is a subset of a skill called Craft. Just as Knowledge(religion) is a subset of the skill Knowledge, and Perform(dance) is a subset of perform, and Profession(sailor) is a subset of profession. All of those present thier own restrictions on the parent skill.
spectralphoenix 09-09-05, 12:55 AM	In all honesty, how much of a difference does it make? By the time the PC's have enough ranks to reliably make an alchemical item, the item won't compare to what the PC's already can do, and they have enough cash that they could just buy a dozen vials of acid or whatever and avoid all of the bother anyway. Even if you do craft an alchemical item, it will take week or so to complete one. In fact, you're better off having a bard perform to get money for an item than you are getting a wizard to make it, especially when you consider the 500gp, 40 lb alchemist's lab he needs.
Antioch 09-09-05, 03:28 AM	He was giving an extensive list on what sort of restrictions skills give based on what class you are. Or, more accurately, benefits that having certain classes provide. Its not that Hide is restricting you by virtue from hiding while being observed, its that being a high level ranger lets you get around this logical limitation. Some skills restrict more, some restrict less. No, most of the skills (aside from alchemy) allow you to perform certain things up to a limit, but if you have a certain class or class feature, you can do more. None of them say (again, aside from alchemy) you can take ranks in this, representing training and knowledge, but you cant use it...period...unless you can do this. Your argument would be more accurate if alchemy let you make some things, but if you can cast spells, you can make better things.
Antioch 09-09-05, 03:32 AM	All of those present thier own restrictions on the parent skill. Actually each skill is their own skill, but thats not the point. The point is that you say each imposes their own restrictions, when in fact none of them do but alchemy. In fact, alchemy is the only skill that even demands you have "this class feature" to use it in the first place. Any other craft allows me to build, any profession lets me work, etc.
darkness ninja of light 09-09-05, 10:01 AM	In all honesty, how much of a difference does it make? By the time the PC's have enough ranks to reliably make an alchemical item, the item won't compare to what the PC's already can do, and they have enough cash that they could just buy a dozen vials of acid or whatever and avoid all of the bother anyway. Even if you do craft an alchemical item, it will take week or so to complete one. In fact, you're better off having a bard perform to get money for an item than you are getting a wizard to make it, especially when you consider the 500gp, 40 lb alchemist's lab he needs. Haven't we covered a lot of this already? For cheap items, it's much faster to make a craft check each day. You don't need a week to craft most alchemical items. My articifer in eberron (not a Cannith, mind you) was making alchemy at levels 2 and 3 just fine too. She was a gnome but she also only put 1 point into the skill. As far as the alchemist's lab, you don't need it. It says so right in its description. It doesn't penalize you for not having it either. Plus, that bard you mentioned could make it himself. Or, more accurately, benefits that having certain classes provide. Its not that Hide is restricting you by virtue from hiding while being observed, its that being a high level ranger lets you get around this logical limitation. Yes, they are benefits to those with the correct class. Those who are not the correct class will never be eligible for those benefits. They are restrictions. Those who are spellcasters get the benefit of craft alchemy. No, most of the skills (aside from alchemy) allow you to perform certain things up to a limit, but if you have a certain class or class feature, you can do more. Again, some skills are more restrictive than others, thus they benefit other classes greater. Craft Alchemy benefits over half the core classes as it is. If you REALLY want to take ranks in Craft Alchemy without being a spellcaster, you do get the benefit of training in what alchemy is (allowing the appraise synergy), but you can't make items with it as you lack the necassary abilities to craft alchemy. None of them say (again, aside from alchemy) you can take ranks in this, representing training and knowledge, but you cant use it...period...unless you can do this. Actually each skill is their own skill, but thats not the point. The point is that you say each imposes their own restrictions, when in fact none of them do but alchemy. In fact, alchemy is the only skill that even demands you have "this class feature" to use it in the first place. Any other craft allows me to build, any profession lets me work, etc. Again I cite Control Shape. You also can't use important aspects of some some skills like spellcraft without being the proper class. Without trapfinding, no matter how many ranks in Search you have, you won't have a chance versus a trap with DC 20 or higher. Your argument would be more accurate if alchemy let you make some things, but if you can cast spells, you can make better things. Alchemy doesn't work that way though, since all of them do run into magic-user territory. You could have it that way in your campaigns though. It's a pretty good idea.
Ogmug 09-09-05, 11:27 AM	He was giving an extensive list on what sort of restrictions skills give based on what class you are. Or, more accurately, benefits that having certain classes provide. Its not that Hide is restricting you by virtue from hiding while being observed, its that being a high level ranger lets you get around this logical limitation. And alchemy benifits you MORE if you are a spellcaster. The RAW does not say you cannot take alchemy, and it does have benefit to a non spellcaster. Just not as much benefit to them. Sorry but your arguement here is weak. Some skills restrict more, some restrict less. No, most of the skills (aside from alchemy) allow you to perform certain things up to a limit, but if you have a certain class or class feature, you can do more. And craft(alchemy) lets you perform.. appraisal of an item if you are not a spellcaster. Sorry, again, your arguement here defeats itself. None of them say (again, aside from alchemy) you can take ranks in this, representing training and knowledge, but you cant use it...period...unless you can do this. The only restriction craft(alchemy) does, is make it so you cannot make an item. It still allows you to better identify the value of alchemical products. So the skill has value, albeit a very low one. Just as spellcraft has value to a fighter, but a very low one. Your argument would be more accurate if alchemy let you make some things, but if you can cast spells, you can make better things. Just as spellcraft perhaps? Spellcraft lets you do things, but if you can cast spells, you can do more.
Ogmug 09-09-05, 11:33 AM	All of those present thier own restrictions on the parent skill. Actually each skill is their own skill, but thats not the point. The point is that you say each imposes their own restrictions, when in fact none of them do but alchemy. In fact, alchemy is the only skill that even demands you have "this class feature" to use it in the first place. Wrong. Has already been proven yet you still try to propigate this deceit Any other craft allows me to build, any profession lets me work, etc. Craft, Peform, Profession, Knowledge are a parent skill. They represent what can be tagged to any "idea" that comes along and represent a governing rule for all that type. If they were there own skill, why are they not listed in a seperate entry, instead of a few lines in the main description. Why are they not listed in the table as possible different skills. The only ones that are like that are a few of the Knowledge sub skills. (arcana, architecture and engineering, dungeoneering, geography, history, local, nature, nobility and royalty, religion, and the planes). However, Craft is listed as Craft. There are no subskills listed beneath its entry.
Antioch 09-09-05, 01:01 PM	Craft, Peform, Profession, Knowledge are a parent skill. They represent what can be tagged to any "idea" that comes along and represent a governing rule for all that type. Like I said, the fact that they are their own skills was not important. Wrong. Has already been proven yet you still try to propigate this deceit Umm, actually I am correct. You cannot use alchemy at all unless you are a spellcaster. The little +2 bonus to Appraise checks is still not using alchemy, and even then, using that as justification to take it without intent to use it is a pretty sad case. Just as spellcraft perhaps? Spellcraft lets you do things, but if you can cast spells, you can do more. And without being a spellcaster, you cannot use alchemy at all, thats the difference. I'm sorry if you arent grasping that. Again I cite Control Shape. And again I say that it can be used. Nothing in the skill says you must be a lycanthrope to use it. Alchemy doesn't work that way though, since all of them do run into magic-user territory. You could have it that way in your campaigns though. It's a pretty good idea. I'm sorry, I refuse to believe that acid demands magic to create. Or a tindertwig. Or really anything on that list. Thats the point of this argument. It says you need it, but nothing supports that. Considering the lack of any magical aspects of any given alchemy item, the more logical option is to make them all mundane and make a differing set of alchemy items that actually requires magic to utilize.
Ogmug 09-09-05, 01:23 PM	Craft, Peform, Profession, Knowledge are a parent skill. They represent what can be tagged to any "idea" that comes along and represent a governing rule for all that type. Like I said, the fact that they are their own skills was not important. It is very important. Your whole arguement falls apart because you claim that a skill is useless. However, craft(alchemy) is not a skill by itself, it is a subset of a skill called craft. You cannot have a worthless skill if it is not a true skill to begin with. Wrong. Has already been proven yet you still try to propigate this deceit Umm, actually I am correct. You cannot use alchemy at all unless you are a spellcaster. The little +2 bonus to Appraise checks is still not using alchemy, and even then, using that as justification to take it without intent to use it is a pretty sad case. You are far from correct. Regardless of why a person takes a skill, it still shows a value. The raw does not state you cannot use alchemy, just that you cannot create an alchemical item from it Just as spellcraft perhaps? Spellcraft lets you do things, but if you can cast spells, you can do more. And without being a spellcaster, you cannot use alchemy at all, thats the difference. I'm sorry if you arent grasping that. you just validated the whole arguement. Do you even keep track of what you say? Your whole post has been one large contradiction. First alchemy is no good because it only lets you do certain things if you are a spellcaster, but spellcraft is good because it only lets you do certain things if you are a spellcaster. Can you honestly not see the contradition there? Again I cite Control Shape. And again I say that it can be used. Nothing in the skill says you must be a lycanthrope to use it. Show me the value in control shape to a person who does not change shapes. Show me how they use it in everyday situations. Alchemy doesn't work that way though, since all of them do run into magic-user territory. You could have it that way in your campaigns though. It's a pretty good idea. I'm sorry, I refuse to believe that acid demands magic to create. Or a tindertwig. Or really anything on that list. Thats the point of this argument. It says you need it, but nothing supports that. Key word there.. I. That is your own personal opinion and obviously not reflected in the RAW Considering the lack of any magical aspects of any given alchemy item, the more logical option is to make them all mundane and make a differing set of alchemy items that actually requires magic to utilize. Your whole post is full of contradictions. You complain: Alchemy is useless unless you can make something with it This is countered with the fact that you can use it for appraisal. This however is not good enough. YET you then go on: Alchemy is a skill of its own Yet nowhere in the RAW or its tables is it listed with its own description or entry. It is mentioned in passing in the last paragraph of Craft. Alchemy restricts its usage to only those that use spells (spellcasters) And it has been shown that NUMEROUS skills restrict part of thier usage to classes that have certain features. Alchemy cannot be taken by someone who is not a spellcaster Yet nowhere in the rules does it say craft(alchemy) cannot be taken by a non spellcaster. It only states that you cannot make things with it if you aren't. The skill is uselss unless you are a spellcaster (yes, repeated 2x because you seem so adamant about it.) It has been shown that several skills (or subsets of skills in this case) have uses for every character, but several are not FULLY used. Spellcraft is not fully used by a fighter, and craft(alchemy) is not fully used by a non-spellcaster. Sorry, but your arguements just don't hold water, and you continually ignore or inneffectually argue against points brought up, and supported by the raw. The only arguements you have presented are suppositions and personal interpretations.
darkness ninja of light 09-09-05, 01:24 PM	Umm, actually I am correct. You cannot use alchemy at all unless you are a spellcaster. The little +2 bonus to Appraise checks is still not using alchemy, and even then, using that as justification to take it without intent to use it is a pretty sad case. And without being a spellcaster, you cannot use alchemy at all, thats the difference. I'm sorry if you arent grasping that. All we're saying is that it isn't unlike other skills. Technically you can also roll Craft like a proffession check, getting money every week. You could be working with a spellcrafter with alchemical items (you do the mixing, he does the magic), you could be an entrepreneur selling alchemical equipment or even partially finished alchemy that saves the wizard time, or perhaps you just want to be an all around expert at appraising things. It's a very strange case for someone to take craft alchemy without simply taking the level in spellcasting, but there are some interesting ideas in store for someone with reason. And again I say that it can be used. Nothing in the skill says you must be a lycanthrope to use it. Any character with lycanthropy can learn it as a class skill. It says specifically that the skill determines whether an afflicted lycanthrope can control his shape. You can't use it unless you're a lycanthrope. I'm sorry, I refuse to believe that acid demands magic to create. Or a tindertwig. Or really anything on that list. Thats the point of this argument. It says you need it, but nothing supports that. Considering the lack of any magical aspects of any given alchemy item, the more logical option is to make them all mundane and make a differing set of alchemy items that actually requires magic to utilize. Well wrecan gave a lot of that info already. Acid was invented by an alchemist, as were most (or maybe all, not sure) of those items. Several of them can't be made even in modern times. Plus, I've already mentioned that smokesticks function like Fog Cloud and the other alchemical items can be compared to spells while they cannot be compared to any mundane items (though the sunrod and tindertwig are reasonably a lantern or flint and steel without the trouble and possible danger, a sunrod being more like a Light spell).
Gilean 09-09-05, 02:24 PM	I humbly and thoroughly apologise to you, Gilean. I am getting carried away, and possibly too attached. I think it would be best for me to take a break from this thread for a while until I can cool off a bit and maybe my RL schedule will ease up on me. Once again, sorry Gilean and anyone else I have offended in this thread, and TTFN.No harm, no foul. If I knew what TTFN means, everything would be good again in this thread. The ignorance was mainly to Antioch. He keeps ignoring parts of my posts. And ninja's. Nothing wrong with you. I hope you don't mind me responding to his comments, Gilean.No problem. I am a bit busy just now, and then there is the time difference. Acid not magical? Sure. An average commoner has 2 hit points. Acid deals d6 points of damage, and 1 to surroundings. In other words, it is pretty much guaranteed to kill the target hit and has around 1/4th chance of killing nearby commoners. Not bad at all, so would you care to offer an example of A) A modern substance of similar effect and B) A medieval version thereof This applies to most of the alchemical goodies. Though a tindertwig works a bit like matches do. As for my stance on the subject, I don't think there should be a spellcaster requirement. Antioch's methods of argument and reasons for it made me switch sides. An enemy of my enemy... I think that a truly magical world has enough magic floating around that it can be manipulated without A)Divine intervention B)Years of study C)Being overflowed by dragonic magic Examples include UMD and alchemy, were I the GM.
darkness ninja of light 09-09-05, 04:49 PM	TTFN means "ta ta for now" or "see ya later". You're switching sides? After that acid example and through the reasoning of a guy who's been ignoring your posts? Eh...all right... I think that a truly magical world has enough magic floating around that it can be manipulated without A)Divine intervention B)Years of study C)Being overflowed by dragonic magic Examples include UMD and alchemy, were I the GM. I don't see what the spellcaster requirement has to do with manipulating the world. It's not the fact that the wizard, cleric, sorcerer, whatever uses A, B, or C to create alchemy. Those things are how he gains his magic. Magic is what he needs in order to create alchemy, as it was with real Alchemy. No one besides the spellcasters in default D&D have ever been able to produce any sort of self made magic. So why should non-spellcasters be making items that can be as potent as spells? It's easy enough to manipulate the world through your own actions, but some things require abilities that take some time to learn. Think of a doctor or a lawyer. They have studied for years to get the skills they need to be able to make what someone else could only just understand, legal documents, medicines, whatever. Without the painstakingly honed (or prodigiously natural) talent of actors and actresses, you couldn't possibly make a movie theater film even if you had all the best equipment and hired hands. They're real world examples so it doesn't quite fit so well, of course. Use magic device is just a bluff check for magic items. You aren't actually casting magic. The magic isn't coming from out of nowhere either. You can only trick magic in magic item form. You're manipulating magic, yes, but you're only able to because it's already been cast. You need a spellcaster to get that magic in the first place.
Antioch 09-09-05, 10:22 PM	Alchemy is useless unless you can make something with it This is countered with the fact that you can use it for appraisal. This however is not good enough. YET you then go on: Of course its not good enough! Why would you want to take a skill solely for the purpose of getting a minor bonus to a completely different skill that you may not use in the first place? I'm sure for inanely mercantile characters that are so hard up on cash that they want to squeeze every last gp out of EACH item they come across might benefit from the +2 bonus to appraising alchemy items that you would get, but that is NOT justification to say; "Dude, its totally fine! You cant actually use it, but hey, you know their value. Thats good...enough, right?" On a side not, that is still NOT using the skill. Alchemy is a skill of its own Yet nowhere in the RAW or its tables is it listed with its own description or entry. It is mentioned in passing in the last paragraph of Craft. As I had said, its not a major point, but if you persist, check the 2nd paragraph where it states that Craft is actually a number of separate skills. Alchemy restricts its usage to only those that use spells (spellcasters) And it has been shown that NUMEROUS skills restrict part of thier usage to classes that have certain features. In some of your cases you are confusing restrictions with the fact that having certain classes allows you to use the skill above and beyond what the skill was intended to do. The skills only allow you to go so far, but the presence of certain classes lets you gain more out of it. Possibly, it could just be a semantic thing. Regardless, no skill completely prevents use without demanding a certain class. Alchemy cannot be taken by someone who is not a spellcaster Yet nowhere in the rules does it say craft(alchemy) cannot be taken by a non spellcaster. It only states that you cannot make things with it if you aren't. So its completely useless if you dont have spellcasting levels. The skill is uselss unless you are a spellcaster (yes, repeated 2x because you seem so adamant about it.) It has been shown that several skills (or subsets of skills in this case) have uses for every character, but several are not FULLY used. Spellcraft is not fully used by a fighter, and craft(alchemy) is not fully used by a non-spellcaster. Its not useable at all, you mean. While some skills have additional benefits for certain classes, none says that you cannot use it, period, except for alchemy.
Antioch 09-09-05, 10:35 PM	Acid not magical? Sure. An average commoner has 2 hit points. Acid deals d6 points of damage, and 1 to surroundings. In other words, it is pretty much guaranteed to kill the target hit and has around 1/4th chance of killing nearby commoners. Not bad at all, so would you care to offer an example of A) A modern substance of similar effect and Show me how a modern house cat can take down an average, healthy man in two hits. D&D sports an abstract damage system, so no point in trying to belly up that. B) A medieval version thereof See A. This applies to most of the alchemical goodies. Though a tindertwig works a bit like matches do. Many of the items, while somewhat fantastic in nature, do not seem so much that it should require magic in any sense of the world. Vaal I think tried to make some modern corellations, which is fine. The point is that not only do I see none of those items as possessing powers so strange and mysterious as to delve into the realm of magic, but creation, and the nature of the items goes against all the rules of magic items. The whole smokestick-acting-like-a-tindertwig is a complete loss because it simply provides that as a focal point for explaning how it functions (and at a far weaker performance); its still not magical in any way. I think that a truly magical world has enough magic floating around... Its not even that there is too much magic (though the fact that most everything seems to HAVE magic, to some degree, is rather irksome). Its just that for something that allegedly utilizes magic, there is nothing to show it in the rules. No spells used up, no XP, no feats, nothing like that. Ninja also goes so far as to say that it demands channeling magic. Well, thats certainly not detailed in the rules, but to say that it channels so little as to neglecting the need for even a cantrip slot (the most useless of all spells), is preposterous. If thats were possible, whats to stop someone from channeling just a little bit...over and over...saving it for something even larger? Apparently there is no limit to this "minor channeling", as even a wizard who neglects to prepare spells for say...a year, can still craft. When does it add up? When does it stop?
Ogmug 09-10-05, 12:41 AM	Alchemy is useless unless you can make something with it This is countered with the fact that you can use it for appraisal. This however is not good enough. YET you then go on: Of course its not good enough! Why would you want to take a skill solely for the purpose of getting a minor bonus to a completely different skill that you may not use in the first place? I'm sure for inanely mercantile characters that are so hard up on cash that they want to squeeze every last gp out of EACH item they come across might benefit from the +2 bonus to appraising alchemy items that you would get, but that is NOT justification to say; "Dude, its totally fine! You cant actually use it, but hey, you know their value. Thats good...enough, right?" On a side not, that is still NOT using the skill. is this the best arguement you can come up with? it has been shown it can be used but you still try to say it can't be. /chuckle Alchemy is a skill of its own Yet nowhere in the RAW or its tables is it listed with its own description or entry. It is mentioned in passing in the last paragraph of Craft. As I had said, its not a major point, but if you persist, check the 2nd paragraph where it states that Craft is actually a number of separate skills. Correct. That means that Craft in reality is a misclassed skill and therefore should be placed under Profession(alchemist) instead. Alchemy restricts its usage to only those that use spells (spellcasters) And it has been shown that NUMEROUS skills restrict part of thier usage to classes that have certain features. In some of your cases you are confusing restrictions with the fact that having certain classes allows you to use the skill above and beyond what the skill was intended to do. The skills only allow you to go so far, but the presence of certain classes lets you gain more out of it. Possibly, it could just be a semantic thing. Regardless, no skill completely prevents use without demanding a certain class. And you still persist that both control shape (which does have the caveat that you must be stricken with lycantrope, otherwise they CANNOT EVEN LEARN IT) and spellcraft have usages to those that do not need them. As has been PROVEN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, control shape cannot even be taken by a character unless he has been stricken by lycanthrope and becomes aware. If you don't believe me, read the first line of the skill. Spellcraft does not give a player the ability to scribe scrolls, only identify what is being cast. So, by YOUR OWN logic, it is useless. If it is useless to gain a +2 to appraise alchemical items, it is useless to a fighter to know that the wizard is casting fireballs at him. Alchemy cannot be taken by someone who is not a spellcaster Yet nowhere in the rules does it say craft(alchemy) cannot be taken by a non spellcaster. It only states that you cannot make things with it if you aren't. So its completely useless if you dont have spellcasting levels. Just as useless for a fighter to take spellcasting or a non lycanthrope character to take control shape The skill is uselss unless you are a spellcaster (yes, repeated 2x because you seem so adamant about it.) It has been shown that several skills (or subsets of skills in this case) have uses for every character, but several are not FULLY used. Spellcraft is not fully used by a fighter, and craft(alchemy) is not fully used by a non-spellcaster. Its not useable at all, you mean. While some skills have additional benefits for certain classes, none says that you cannot use it, period, except for alchemy. And control shape. A skill you convieniently dismiss. Sorry but your logic constantly fails and you have consistently been shown wrong by the RAW. Very little of what you say carries any weight.
Antioch 09-10-05, 12:53 AM	No, you are wrong, actually. You seem to conveniently dismiss the fact that you can take it, but that a lycanthrope can take it as a CLASS skill. As has been said, there are no longer any skills that require a certain race or class to take anymore. Also, could you point out what part of my arguments carry so little weight? I've yet to see anything concrete beyond the little one-line clause. Also, I'd overlooked something that Ninja brought to light. You can make money each week by making a skill roll. Even if you are not a spellcaster you can still make money doing so on a skill roll. Though Ninja tries to wrap this up in personal flavor of working under a spellcaster, you do not have to. You can open up a shop in the middle of town, by yourself, and do it.
Antioch 09-10-05, 01:00 AM	And you still persist that both control shape (which does have the caveat that you must be stricken with lycantrope, otherwise they CANNOT EVEN LEARN IT) As I said, the skill states as a class skill. It does not at any point restrict you from taking it otherwise. However, this skill does have no use to anyone that is currently not a lycanthrope, but hey, it just proves my point. and spellcraft have usages to those that do not need them. This has no relevence to the topic. So, by YOUR OWN logic, it is useless. If it is useless to gain a +2 to appraise alchemical items, it is useless to a fighter to know that the wizard is casting fireballs at him. Wow, way to blow that out of proportion, though I suppose from your skewed view of the world that a measly +2 to appraise checks on one item time may be as useful as the ability to accurately guess exactly what spells are being cast (though you for some reason chose to use a spell, that when cast, allows to opportunity to avoid it anyway). In reality, however, Spellcraft may be useful to identify personal buffs that a monster uses, or perhaps charm spells. Some spells are good to know about as they are cast, or even provide worthwhile information after the fact, you just chose to pick one that wouldnt have mattered if you knew it was coming or not.
Ogmug 09-10-05, 01:15 AM	And you still persist that both control shape (which does have the caveat that you must be stricken with lycantrope, otherwise they CANNOT EVEN LEARN IT) As I said, the skill states as a class skill. It does not at any point restrict you from taking it otherwise. However, this skill does have no use to anyone that is currently not a lycanthrope, but hey, it just proves my point. actually it proves the point that not all skills have uses to all characters. That isn't your point. Your point, as you have presented it, is that a skill SHOULD always have some use. Nice try and spellcraft have usages to those that do not need them. This has no relevence to the topic. Extremely relevant. You however refuse to see it. too bad. So, by YOUR OWN logic, it is useless. If it is useless to gain a +2 to appraise alchemical items, it is useless to a fighter to know that the wizard is casting fireballs at him. Wow, way to blow that out of proportion, though I suppose from your skewed view of the world that a measly +2 to appraise checks on one item time may be as useful as the ability to accurately guess exactly what spells are being cast (though you for some reason chose to use a spell, that when cast, allows to opportunity to avoid it anyway). show me how a fighter can avoid a fireball just because he KNOWs the wizard cast fireball. There are NO bonuses for knowing what is hitting you. In reality, however, Spellcraft may be useful to identify personal buffs that a monster uses, or perhaps charm spells. Some spells are good to know about as they are cast, or even provide worthwhile information after the fact, you just chose to pick one that wouldnt have mattered if you knew it was coming or not. For spellcraft to be used by the fighter for the uses you need, he would need to beat a DC of 20+spell level. Charm is a 1st level spell, but the effects of a charm spell only make a person one step closer to friendly, and do not directly control a character. Suggestion is 3rd, so a typical fighter would need to have a mininum of 2 points (1 rank) and a roll of 19 or better to even attempt IF his int bonus was +3. Most fighters will use this as a tertiary stat, dumping most points into str, dex, and con, leaving the int below that of wisdom. So it isn't likely that a fighter would have enough ranks in spellcraft to make this skill even remotely useful (why dump 6 skill points into a skill like that? not worth it at all, just as it isn't worth dumping points into alchemy by your logic.) That is the most assinine use of a skill, and it is no wonder you suggested it. As for determining a spell After the effects? Not very likely that a fighter would have a spellcraft score of enough to beat 25+ much less even attempt to identify a potion.
Antioch 09-10-05, 03:00 AM	actually it proves the point that not all skills have uses to all characters. That isn't your point. Your point, as you have presented it, is that a skill SHOULD always have some use. Nice try Thanks, except you have missed the point again. The entire purpose of this argument, in case you forgot, is that from what there is in the books, Craft (alchemy) should not demand a spellcaster level. I never said that a skill should always be used, or useful, but useable (try to keep up here). The fact that 3.5 allegedly did away with skills that demanded a requisite to even use them (and the bonus granted to Appraise is not using the skill) was a major point. I'd forgotten that Craft allows you to make money each week, which seems strange in that you can make money, you just cant craft with it. That seems to also go contrary. So it isn't likely that a fighter would have enough ranks in spellcraft to make this skill even remotely useful (why dump 6 skill points into a skill like that? not worth it at all, just as it isn't worth dumping points into alchemy by your logic.) Its called RPing, mayhap you've heard of it. Also, the logic is that its not worth it to place ranks in a skill solely for the purpose of just garnering a small boost to Appraise. That is the most assinine use of a skill, and it is no wonder you suggested it. And after you suggest that the bonus provided to Appraise skills is validation enough.
Ogmug 09-10-05, 03:14 AM	actually it proves the point that not all skills have uses to all characters. That isn't your point. Your point, as you have presented it, is that a skill SHOULD always have some use. Nice try Thanks, except you have missed the point again. The entire purpose of this argument, in case you forgot, is that from what there is in the books, Craft (alchemy) should not demand a spellcaster level. I never said that a skill should always be used, or useful, but useable (try to keep up here). The fact that 3.5 allegedly did away with skills that demanded a requisite to even use them (and the bonus granted to Appraise is not using the skill) was a major point. I'd forgotten that Craft allows you to make money each week, which seems strange in that you can make money, you just cant craft with it. That seems to also go contrary. then why did you bring up the validity of skills and the usage of skill by players at all. YOU brought it up and are angry that your own arguements were turned against you. Do try to keep up, even if you get lost in your own words. So it isn't likely that a fighter would have enough ranks in spellcraft to make this skill even remotely useful (why dump 6 skill points into a skill like that? not worth it at all, just as it isn't worth dumping points into alchemy by your logic.) Its called RPing, mayhap you've heard of it. Also, the logic is that its not worth it to place ranks in a skill solely for the purpose of just garnering a small boost to Appraise. Gee.. so.. just maybe.. using the bonus to synergy to becoming an appraisal expert is RPing too? GASP, you are making this way to easy. You cannot claim to use spellcraft for a fighter is roleplaying and ignore the fact that a player who might take craft alchemy because it suits his player to be knowledgeable about alchemical items is also roleplaying. What it does, is make you look like you really don't know what you are trying to say. That is the most assinine use of a skill, and it is no wonder you suggested it. And after you suggest that the bonus provided to Appraise skills is validation enough. No, I gave a reason that the skill is not USELESS. It has a use, just not a completely useful one. This is in counter to your arguements that is is USELESS. This has been disproven. In order to prove any arguement false, you just have to find ONE instance in which the hypothesis does not hold true. And in this case, game, set, match.
Gilean 09-10-05, 03:18 AM	TTFN means "ta ta for now" or "see ya later".Okay.You're switching sides? After that acid example and through the reasoning of a guy who's been ignoring your posts? Eh...all right...No. Antioch is the reason I am at your side.I don't see what the spellcaster requirement has to do with manipulating the world. It's not the fact that the wizard, cleric, sorcerer, whatever uses A, B, or C to create alchemy. Those things are how he gains his magic. Magic is what he needs in order to create alchemy, as it was with real Alchemy. No one besides the spellcasters in default D&D have ever been able to produce any sort of self made magic. So why should non-spellcasters be making items that can be as potent as spells?Yes, magic is what is needed to make alchemy. IMO, one can manipulate it [the magic, not world] without spellcaster levels, as the magic is a part o the world, and a large part at that. For example, see psionic feats.Use magic device is just a bluff check for magic items. You aren't actually casting magic. The magic isn't coming from out of nowhere either. You can only trick magic in magic item form. You're manipulating magic, yes, but you're only able to because it's already been cast. You need a spellcaster to get that magic in the first place.Not arguing with that. Still, it is manipulating magic. do you want me to argue against both sides at the same time?Show me how a modern house cat can take down an average, healthy man in two hits. D&D sports an abstract damage system, so no point in trying to belly up that.Oh, true. Cats killing elves to extinction, and so on. It was a good thread. Anyway, good point.Many of the items, while somewhat fantastic in nature, do not seem so much that it should require magic in any sense of the world. Vaal I think tried to make some modern corellations, which is fine. The point is that not only do I see none of those items as possessing powers so strange and mysterious as to delve into the realm of magic, but creation, and the nature of the items goes against all the rules of magic items.Such as sunrods? They definately are mystical in nature, as the principle is that of similarity; gold and sun are keyed to each other through the principle. And, once again, they are not magic items, and what properties magic items may or may not have is irrelevant.If thats were possible, whats to stop someone from channeling just a little bit...over and over...saving it for something even larger? Apparently there is no limit to this "minor channeling", as even a wizard who neglects to prepare spells for say...a year, can still craft. When does it add up? When does it stop?When one runs out of experience with which to craft, or to take sorcerer levels, as written.
Antioch 09-10-05, 04:25 AM	When one runs out of experience with which to craft... Not following this one. Are you referring to XP?
Antioch 09-10-05, 04:28 AM	then why did you bring up the validity of skills and the usage of skill by players at all. YOU brought it up and are angry that your own arguements were turned against you. Do try to keep up, even if you get lost in your own words. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm far from angry. Gee.. so.. just maybe.. using the bonus to synergy to becoming an appraisal expert is RPing too? GASP, you are making this way to easy. You cannot claim to use spellcraft for a fighter is roleplaying and ignore the fact that a player who might take craft alchemy because it suits his player to be knowledgeable about alchemical items is also roleplaying. What it does, is make you look like you really don't know what you are trying to say. This argument is not about whether the skill is useful, but useable. Irrelevent to the topic, and also based entirely on opinion. We can argue which skills rule, and which suck all day and all night, and no one will be correct. No, I gave a reason that the skill is not USELESS. It has a use, just not a completely useful one. This is in counter to your arguements that is is USELESS. This has been disproven. In order to prove any arguement false, you just have to find ONE instance in which the hypothesis does not hold true. And in this case, game, set, match. Semantics. The skill is not useable, but no feasible rationale is given. If you think you are completely correct in this regard, then please hop onto another thread and continue on your merry way.
Antioch 09-10-05, 04:32 AM	Such as sunrods? They definately are mystical in nature, as the principle is that of similarity; gold and sun are keyed to each other through the principle. And, once again, they are not magic items, and what properties magic items may or may not have is irrelevant. Its actually very pertinent. While I wont argue what elements and materials may be associated with whatever (sun and gold, moon and silver, etc), it doenst mean that the item is necessarily magical in nature, or even made by magic. My argument is that Craft (alchemy) should not demand a spellcaster level, since none of the items are so fantastical so as to deem it necessary, not to mention that it follows none of the guidelines mapped out for true magic item construction, nor do any of the items respond in the usual fashion for most any magic item. Also, skills with use prerequisites were allegedly supposed to have been done away with, but we're still stuck with this one. At least if some of the items had bizarre properties, it would make more sense. As it stands, they dont.
Ogmug 09-10-05, 04:39 AM	then why did you bring up the validity of skills and the usage of skill by players at all. YOU brought it up and are angry that your own arguements were turned against you. Do try to keep up, even if you get lost in your own words. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm far from angry. Gee.. so.. just maybe.. using the bonus to synergy to becoming an appraisal expert is RPing too? GASP, you are making this way to easy. You cannot claim to use spellcraft for a fighter is roleplaying and ignore the fact that a player who might take craft alchemy because it suits his player to be knowledgeable about alchemical items is also roleplaying. What it does, is make you look like you really don't know what you are trying to say. This argument is not about whether the skill is useful, but useable. Irrelevent to the topic, and also based entirely on opinion. We can argue which skills rule, and which suck all day and all night, and no one will be correct. No, I gave a reason that the skill is not USELESS. It has a use, just not a completely useful one. This is in counter to your arguements that is is USELESS. This has been disproven. In order to prove any arguement false, you just have to find ONE instance in which the hypothesis does not hold true. And in this case, game, set, match. Semantics. The skill is not useable, but no feasible rationale is given. If you think you are completely correct in this regard, then please hop onto another thread and continue on your merry way. You really do make this way too easy. If the arguement is about whether or not a skill is useable, then your stance on Control shape is invalid if the player is not a lycanthrope. Keep clutching at the straws, but your ship sank quite a while ago.
Antioch 09-10-05, 04:43 AM	A character may take Control Shape as a cross-class skill, and may use it even, however by virtue of not being a lycanthrope will not have any effect. This differs from Craft (alchemy) in that you may not even attempt to build anything with it (the primary purpose of the Craft skills). In light of information provided by Ninja, you may however, use your Craft (alchemy) skill to procure gp each week based on a skill roll, regardless as to whether you are a spellcaster. If you cannot listen or contribute anything to the discussion 'Mug, then why are you here?
Ogmug 09-10-05, 04:52 AM	A character may take Control Shape as a cross-class skill, and may use it even, however by virtue of not being a lycanthrope will not have any effect. This differs from Craft (alchemy) in that you may not even attempt to build anything with it (the primary purpose of the Craft skills). In light of information provided by Ninja, you may however, use your Craft (alchemy) skill to procure gp each week based on a skill roll, regardless as to whether you are a spellcaster. If you cannot listen or contribute anything to the discussion 'Mug, then why are you here? How is it useable. Show the relavance. It is as useful to a character that cannot change shape, as alchemy is to a non spellcaster. Keep trying though. So far, you have not contributed a new thought to this thread since page 4. You have spouted the same drivel, and consistently ignored valid statements. Sorry, but in reality? You have yet to show even one iota of understanding how the rules work, and as such, your arguements only serve to strengthen the position that alchemy requires spellcasting, simply from the weakness of your posts. You have yet to provide any concise and official source for your position. So far, Gilean, Ninja, and a few others have countered and called into question the tenuous position you claim, and refuted all arguements you have presented. You claim the skill is useless, but others show it has its uses. You claim the skill is unuseable, but it has been shown it is though not for the narrow view you claim. you claim no other skill is useless, it is shown that all skills have stipulations that make them useless to some characters at some time. you claim that no other skill prevents a player from using it, it has been shown that skills are often restrictive based on classes. you claim that skills could be taken for roleplaying purposes even if they don't benefit the character, but when the same is pointed out about alchemy, you stick your fingers in your ears and start singing "la la la can't hear you" Do you see the pattern or are you too blind to see? /laughs.
Antioch 09-10-05, 04:59 AM	Show the relavance. It is as useful to a character that cannot change shape, as alchemy is to a non spellcaster. Again, this is NOT a measure of which skill is most useful, or whether its useful, but useable. You have yet to show even one iota of understanding how the rules work, and as such, your arguements only serve to strengthen the position that alchemy requires spellcasting, simply from the weakness of your posts. Here, we have ignorance. You have yet to provide any concise and official source for your position. So far, Gilean, Ninja, and a few others have countered and called into question the tenuous position you claim, and refuted all arguements you have presented. Please list the arguments and the manner in which they have been refuted. You claim the skill is useless, but others show it has its uses. I never claimed that it is useless. You claim the skill is unuseable, but it has been shown it is. It is not useable to Craft items unless you are a spellcaster, by RAW. You apparently have trouble reading. you claim no other skill is useless, it is shown that all skills have stipulations that make them useless to some characters at some time. Incorrect. I stated that no other skill is unuseable barring required classes. you claim that no other skill prevents a player from using it, it has been shown that skills are often restrictive based on classes. Yes, no other skill prevents a player from using it. Show me another skill that says "you cannot use this skill unless you are whatever". Laugh all you want, you have one more post to demonstrate a modicum of understanding before I simply ignore you.
Ogmug 09-10-05, 05:48 AM	You truly are misguided aren't you. Shall we define something for you? useable adj 1: fit or ready for use or service; "the toaster was still functional even after being dropped"; "the lawnmower is a bit rusty but still usable"; "an operational aircraft"; "the dishwasher is now in working order" [syn: functional, usable, in working order(p), operable, operational] 2: able to be put to use; "usable byproducts" [syn: usable] 3: convenient for use or disposal; "the house is available after July 1"; "2000 square feet of usable office space" [syn: available, usable] And useful adj 1: being of use or service; "the girl felt motherly and useful"; "a useful job"; "a useful member of society" [syn: utile] [ant: useless] 2: of great importance or use or service; "useful information"; "valuable advice" [syn: valuable, of value] 3: capable of being turned to use or account; "useful applications of calculus" 4: having a useful function; "utilitarian steel tables" [syn: utilitarian] do you see the similarity in the two definitions? so your arguement: Again, this is NOT a measure of which skill is most useful, or whether its useful, but useable. is null and void. for an item to be useful, it must be useable. summary of arguements since you asked: 1. alchemy items are not magical in anyway, so why require spellcaster levels. This has been shown by several different factors, the most supported is the simple fact that it is in the RAW. 2. It is illogical to have alchemy require spellcaster levels. this is a personal conjecture. It has also been shown the various possible reasons for it ranging from historical misconceptions, to fantasy elements. 3. It makes no sense to sacrifice a character level just to get spellcaster level. your own defense of "Ever hear of RPing" is very effective against you here 4. historical alchemy was not magical several times it has been cited (with references) as to the historical reference of alchemists to both mysticism and wizardry 5. Skills are not restricted by class While you are correct that skills generally are not limited by class, there are still prerequisites placed upon many skills. It has been shown that not only do skills change base upon what class you are, but some skills are absolutely worthless unless you meet the criteria (control shape) 6. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is either delusional, inane, or unable to reason. Typical defense of a person who has no arguement worth truly defending. 7. Since alchemical items are on the mundane list, they are non magical. several items have been shown that require magic to create them but are on the mundane list. By definition, items created by magic are magical, but they may not radiate a magical aura. mag·i·cal Audio pronunciation of "magical" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mj-kl) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or produced by magic. 2. Enchanting; bewitching: a magical performance of the ballet. 8. Items are not magic unless they are made through item creation feats this has been proven false, items are indeed magical if created using magic. However they may not radiate magic any longer as the magic that created them is no longer present. 9. Anitmagic/Dispell magic is a test of magic Precedence has been show that spells at times can bypass the ability of anti-magic, etc. 10. Magic items need to follow 4 rules You have been unable to provide an official source for YOUR rules, only your interpretation of the rules 11. If it isn't a fantastical creature (dragons, demons, elementals) it should work exactly like real world. Yet other things don't work the same way. Falling down is mundane. If a person dropped 60 feet, chances are he would be dead, no matter how healthy he is. Yet a high level character can easily survive. 12. spellcaster is not a caster level Yet in order to be a spellcaster, you have to cast spells, and in order to cast spells, you have to be at least level 1 in a class. Follow the logic here. Able to cast spells = 1 level Spellcaster. It is not a class, but a classification of a group of classes. 13. Since D&D is not trying to emulate real life druids, it is ok that they don't act like real life druids. Yet because alchemical items emulate real life items, it is not ok that it doesn't act like real life alchemy. However, alchemy is a quasi science. You want D&D alchemy to act like chemistry. 14. If the item doesn't appear in the Magical Item list, it isn't magical. Furthermore items in the magical items list are made with magic and feats/spells/xp When confronted with silversheen, your only defense is "its a wondrous item". Yet it is a contradiction to your arguement, and another item you convieniently chose to ignore.
darkness ninja of light 09-10-05, 12:01 PM	I can't believe I missed so much. A lot of the arguments have been covered so I'll just try an find a few things to respond to. Oh, and remember people, keep it clean! Ninja also goes so far as to say that it demands channeling magic. Well, thats certainly not detailed in the rules, but to say that it channels so little as to neglecting the need for even a cantrip slot (the most useless of all spells), is preposterous. If thats were possible, whats to stop someone from channeling just a little bit...over and over...saving it for something even larger? Apparently there is no limit to this "minor channeling", as even a wizard who neglects to prepare spells for say...a year, can still craft. When does it add up? When does it stop? If you use so much unspelled energy that it becomes something larger, then it most certainly would demand xp a la Magic Arms and Armor. Little things don't require xp. Big things do. A wizard who doesn't prepare spells for a year certainly could still use the small magical forces at his disposal, he just doesn't have the means to weave them into spells (which is what preparing a spell is all about). Also, I'd overlooked something that Ninja brought to light. You can make money each week by making a skill roll. Even if you are not a spellcaster you can still make money doing so on a skill roll. Though Ninja tries to wrap this up in personal flavor of working under a spellcaster, you do not have to. You can open up a shop in the middle of town, by yourself, and do it. Making money each week by a roll, might I add, is using the skill, and making it somewhat useful. Yes, I gave rp reasons why someone could make money with non-crafting ranks of craft alchemy. Of course you don't have to have rp reasons. You could definately say that you make full-fledged alchemy with no help and sell those goods. Of course, you can also use adamantine weapons the instant you see a golem without IC knowledge of their weakness, only the fact that you've seen the MM. You can have your barbarian acting fully literate without spending two skill points. You can multiclass from fighter to druid with absolutely no IC reason except you wanted a pet with all the druid benefits of animal companions and handle animal. Then again, you can have good reasons for these too. Someone who manages to make money without being able to craft alchemy can find other ways (it's indeed a proffession check with the added benefit of the +2 in appraise). As I said, the skill states as a class skill. It does not at any point restrict you from taking it otherwise. However, this skill does have no use to anyone that is currently not a lycanthrope I still don't understand how a non-lycanthrope can use it. It's less useful to him than if he took craft: alchemy. No. Antioch is the reason I am at your side. Wait. So you're still on our side? Oh... My argument is that Craft (alchemy) should not demand a spellcaster level, since none of the items are so fantastical so as to deem it necessary, not to mention that it follows none of the guidelines mapped out for true magic item construction, nor do any of the items respond in the usual fashion for most any magic item. Also, skills with use prerequisites were allegedly supposed to have been done away with, but we're still stuck with this one. At least if some of the items had bizarre properties, it would make more sense. As it stands, they dont. Again, alchemical items aren't trying to be "true magic items". They contain properties that no non-magical item has and some even resemble actual spells. It's been shown that items made with magic and items that even radiate magic can overcome dispel magic and anti-magic fields.
Antioch 09-10-05, 06:34 PM	To dismiss any question, you failed. This will be the last response you get from me, so I'll try to make it clear enough. is null and void. for an item to be useful, it must be useable. Perhaps, but the reverse is certainly not true. Something can be used, but not be useful, so I dont know why you brought this up. 1. alchemy items are not magical in anyway, so why require spellcaster levels. 2. It is illogical to have alchemy require spellcaster levels. From what I've seen in the rules (history aside) this does indeed seem to be the case. Aside from that one little clause there is nothing that supports the rule that it in fact, does. 3. It makes no sense to sacrifice a character level just to get spellcaster level. This should have been someone else's argument, that or you are taking something I said out of context. At any rate, its not pertinent to the argument. That being said, it can make no sense to sacrifice a character level, depending on the goals you and your character have in mind. 4. historical alchemy was not magical Yeah, it sure wasnt. 5. Skills are not restricted by class Yeah, they sure arent. 6. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is either delusional, inane, or unable to reason. Dont put words in my mouth. I'm only starting to think these things about you. 7. Since alchemical items are on the mundane list, they are non magical. That should have been Nate's framework for a stance. The only item on there that could even be regarded with any magical effect is the everburning torch. Its not a true magic item since its not an item, but a placeholder fro an effect, but it is magic. 8. Items are not magic unless they are made through item creation feats This is true. There isnt a single magic item that isnt. I'm not sure how to explain it, but an everburning torch is not a magic item. The torch itself is not magic, its simply holding an effect that is tied to it. Kind of like how ground under he AoE of a hallow spell isnt magic. If you can find a magic item that doesnt require it to create, I'd love to see it. 9. Anitmagic/Dispell magic is a test of magic Though not foolproof against all forms of magic, it makes for a very nice way of testing in a generic sense. However, this was not a catch-all way of determining it, as I have said. 10. Magic items need to follow 4 rules True magic items do indeed follow those four guidelines. Find one that doesnt. 11. If it isn't a fantastical creature (dragons, demons, elementals) it should work exactly like real world. Never said that, again you are taking what I've said out of context or putting words in my mouth. 12. spellcaster is not a caster level This is not relevant to the argument, but no, its not. A caster level is a hard value, being a spellcaster is not a number. It means you most certainly HAVE a caster level, however. Like I've said (again and again) its a minor difference, and not really part of the argument. I dont know why you bring it up, either. 13. Since D&D is not trying to emulate real life druids, it is ok that they don't act like real life druids. Yet because alchemical items emulate real life items, it is not ok that it doesn't act like real life alchemy. You've taken something out of context that was brought up by someone else, but yeah, if thats what you think. The only reason I brought up alchemy is that it was changed during the revision, and for no reason that can be seen. 14. If the item doesn't appear in the Magical Item list, it isn't magical. Furthermore items in the magical items list are made with magic and feats/spells/xp It depends what you mean by magical, however all true magic items are made using the aforementioned methods, so...I guess thats more or less true.
Ogmug 09-10-05, 08:33 PM	To dismiss any question, you failed. This will be the last response you get from me, so I'll try to make it clear enough. is null and void. for an item to be useful, it must be useable. Perhaps, but the reverse is certainly not true. Something can be used, but not be useful, so I dont know why you brought this up. Shall I show you the posts where you claim the skill is UNUSEABLE? Working backwards - - Instance 1: "Incorrect. I stated that no other skill is unuseable barring required classes." - Antioch, Post 223. Instance 2: "It is not useable to Craft items unless you are a spellcaster, by RAW. You apparently have trouble reading" - Antioch, Post 223 Instance 3: "Semantics. The skill is not useable, but no feasible rationale is given. If you think you are completely correct in this regard, then please hop onto another thread and continue on your merry way."- Antioch, Post 218 Instance 4: " This argument is not about whether the skill is useful, but useable." - Antioch, Post 218. Instance 5: "I never said that a skill should always be used, or useful, but useable (try to keep up here)." Antioch, Post 214 Instance 6: " Its not useable at all, you mean. While some skills have additional benefits for certain classes, none says that you cannot use it, period, except for alchemy." - Antioch, Post 208. 1. alchemy items are not magical in anyway, so why require spellcaster levels. 2. It is illogical to have alchemy require spellcaster levels. From what I've seen in the rules (history aside) this does indeed seem to be the case. Aside from that one little clause there is nothing that supports the rule that it in fact, does. And NOWHERE in the rules do you cite anything that supports your position. At least those that support the side that alchemy can point to an official refernce. You on the other hand, cannot. I do not see one single quote from SRD, PHB, DMG, or other WOTC books as yet to support your position. 3. It makes no sense to sacrifice a character level just to get spellcaster level. This should have been someone else's argument, that or you are taking something I said out of context. At any rate, its not pertinent to the argument. That being said, it can make no sense to sacrifice a character level, depending on the goals you and your character have in mind. OH, you mean this other person's arguement? "Sacrificing a character level just to start garnering ranks in a Craft skill is a big loss. Especially if you werent planning on multiclassing and arent playing your races' favored class. Guess what, now you get -20% XP." - Antioch, Post 64. 4. historical alchemy was not magical Yeah, it sure wasnt. Convieniently ignoring the following "But real-world alchemists (most of whom were probably self-deluded or hucksters) were considered to be magicians of no small power: John Dee, Albertus Magnus, John Cremer, Isaac Hollandus, Paracelsus and Galen. All these men were either self-described or described commonly as being magicians (and usually members of some sort of Hermetic order)." - Wrecan, Post 71 As well as documented articles such as "http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a1/alchemy.asp", referenceing that alchemy was brought to the arabs "tinged with magic". This sets precedence that alchemy in the beginning was considered magical. Today we know it as the forerunner of chemistry, but that does not deny or degrade they historical signifigance. 5. Skills are not restricted by class Yeah, they sure arent. Yet the above sentence isn't clear to you. A better sentence is there is nothing in any skill that makes it restricted by class. While this is true on the surface, it has been shown that a great majority of skills do indeed restrict aspects of themselves based soley on class. 6. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is either delusional, inane, or unable to reason. Dont put words in my mouth. I'm only starting to think these things about you. I can see another set of posts attributed to you are in order, and lets expand it to the various things that are derogatory in your posts.: Instance 1: "you have one more post to demonstrate a modicum of understanding before I simply ignore you." - Antioch, Post 223 (relevance? Sets precedence that you chose to ingore those you feel do not understand.) Instance 2: "Here, we have ignorance." - Antioch, Post 223 Instance 3: "If you cannot listen or contribute anything to the discussion 'Mug, then why are you here?" - Antioch, Post 221 (See relevance above) Instance 4: "If you think you are completely correct in this regard, then please hop onto another thread and continue on your merry way." - Antioch, Post 218 (Ditto) Instance 5: "And neither is reason, apparently" - Antoch, Post 95 Instance 6: "Avoiding a specific class of creatures, can you cite a non-artifact magic item of any sort, since thats what your delusional mind akins mundane alchemy items as?" - Antioch, Post 66 Instance 7: "You are not only making things up, but you are running to feats and monsters to provide evidence." - Antioch, Post 66 (here you accuse people of just making things up.) Instance 8: "Also, if you just want to be right, you dont have to invent inane reasons as to why the rules say what they do, we can all read."- Antioch, Post 64 Instance 9: "Of course, maybe you dont know how magic works in D&D." - Antioch, Post 64 This is not to say that it is wrong or bad, after all we all do get heated from time to time (i am the worst) -- but to claim ignorance of your own words? 7. Since alchemical items are on the mundane list, they are non magical. That should have been Nate's framework for a stance. The only item on there that could even be regarded with any magical effect is the everburning torch. Its not a true magic item since its not an item, but a placeholder fro an effect, but it is magic. Do you deny this then? "Oh, on that note, guess what part of the treasure table in the DMG categorizes them as. Here's a hint; you wont find them under magic items." - Antioch, Post 66 "Mechanically its not a magic item. Do you see it on any random magic item tables?" - Antioch, Post 106 8. Items are not magic unless they are made through item creation feats This is true. There isnt a single magic item that isnt. I'm not sure how to explain it, but an everburning torch is not a magic item. The torch itself is not magic, its simply holding an effect that is tied to it. Kind of like how ground under he AoE of a hallow spell isnt magic. If you can find a magic item that doesnt require it to create, I'd love to see it. By defintion,anything created by magic, is magical. However it does not have to eminate an aura, or have any special properties. 9. Anitmagic/Dispell magic is a test of magic Though not foolproof against all forms of magic, it makes for a very nice way of testing in a generic sense. However, this was not a catch-all way of determining it, as I have said. I will concede this, as I am too tired to continue to find incongruity, if it indeed exists in this case. 10. Magic items need to follow 4 rules True magic items do indeed follow those four guidelines. Find one that doesnt. This is your interpretation of the rules. Show in any official WOTC publication where this is written. 11. If it isn't a fantastical creature (dragons, demons, elementals) it should work exactly like real world. Never said that, again you are taking what I've said out of context or putting words in my mouth. This comes from your arguement that acid is a real world item, therefore should be "I'm all for fantasy elements. Dragons are fine. So are demons, elementals, magic, etc. When you take something so mundane and ordinary such as making acid, and claim it to be magical, then I have an issue" - Antioch, Post 121 12. spellcaster is not a caster level This is not relevant to the argument, but no, its not. A caster level is a hard value, being a spellcaster is not a number. It means you most certainly HAVE a caster level, however. Like I've said (again and again) its a minor difference, and not really part of the argument. I dont know why you bring it up, either. Because of the following: " spellcaster (minor technical note, this is not a caster level entry, as even items with a caster level of 1 will note that)" - Antioch, Post 125. This is relevant as pertains to the following from the glossary from the PHB: Page 313: Spellcaster- a character capable of casting spells. Following the logic, it means you must have at least one level in that class, and in some cases 3-5. Therefore, Spellcaster is synonymous with caster levels (number undetermined). 13. Since D&D is not trying to emulate real life druids, it is ok that they don't act like real life druids. Yet because alchemical items emulate real life items, it is not ok that it doesn't act like real life alchemy. You've taken something out of context that was brought up by someone else, but yeah, if thats what you think. The only reason I brought up alchemy is that it was changed during the revision, and for no reason that can be seen. "And if D&D was trying to emulate RL druids, then it might be an issue." - Antioch, Post 121. This is your defense to acid being a real life item that D&D is trying to emulate. 14. If the item doesn't appear in the Magical Item list, it isn't magical. Furthermore items in the magical items list are made with magic and feats/spells/xp It depends what you mean by magical, however all true magic items are made using the aforementioned methods, so...I guess thats more or less true. Again, convieniently ignoring the very definition of magical. How does all the above claptrap relate? It shows relevance in that your own arguements are contradictory, at times inflamatory, and have no hard evidence posted to support. Furthermore, you ignore and blatantly disregard cited evidence. All of that, and more as evidenced above call into question the validity of your arguements.
darkness ninja of light 09-10-05, 09:28 PM	I think the arguments in your post should also have been addressing his arguments as well as the issues, since a few of your responses just seem to say basically "I agree". This will be the last response you get from me, so I'll try to make it clear enough. You're quitting? Something can be used, but not be useful, so I dont know why you brought this up. Well, regardless, alchemy has been shown to have at least a LITTLE use for non-spellcasters. The craft check gp and the +2 in appraise can do something. This should have been someone else's argument, that or you are taking something I said out of context. At any rate, its not pertinent to the argument. That being said, it can make no sense to sacrifice a character level, depending on the goals you and your character have in mind. Well, it's just a part of D&D. There are many ways you can plan a character and realize that you might just have to take a new level. It's not a punishment. -20%xp penalties aren't so bad anyways. Dont put words in my mouth. I'm only starting to think these things about you. Well, you were definately using those words when this debate started. Wow...Ogmug got them all too :eek: That should have been Nate's framework for a stance. The only item on there that could even be regarded with any magical effect is the everburning torch. Its not a true magic item since its not an item, but a placeholder fro an effect, but it is magic. Well, I think we've agreed that alchemy and holy water are nonmagical at the end, but that doesn't erase the fact that holy water does require magic and is on the mundane list. So it isn't odd that alchemy is on there as well. This is true. There isnt a single magic item that isnt. I'm not sure how to explain it, but an everburning torch is not a magic item. The torch itself is not magic, its simply holding an effect that is tied to it. Kind of like how ground under he AoE of a hallow spell isnt magic. If you can find a magic item that doesnt require it to create, I'd love to see it. True. Of course, we still know that alchemy is made through magic, and not a magic item in the sense that the item creation feats have anything to do with it. That's why Holy Water also fits. Plus, if an item didn't require the feat to make it, it would just be the same as an everburning torch. Technically, you could think of a Carpet of Flying as just a regular carpet with the overland flight and permanency spells on it. Of course, it's so powerful and rare that it needs the feat and xp to keep it balanced.
TheNatealator 09-11-05, 12:20 AM	Hey guys, I'm back. I'm glad I didn't offend anyone (I didn't think I had, but I didn't want to continue getting worse). I'm not sure where I stand with Antioch's arguements, either. He has been (for the most part) doing his own thing, and we haven't been communicated. This thread has been going in so many directions, I'm tempted to start a new thread. But anyways, I think that I've been quoting the rules the most here, of all of us. Dictionary definitions can't always be applied to DnD either, because if so, then there wouldn't be a glossary, IMO. So, the DMG, p. 283 "CREATING MAGIC ITEMS To create magic items, spellcasters use special feats. They invest time, money, and their own personal energy (in the form of experience points) in an item's creation. For details on creating the different types of magic items, see the appropiate below as well as the information on item creation feats in Chapter 5: Feats, in the Player's Handbook." Personally, I'm suprised it took this long for someone to go and read the section on creating magic items. Even though Antioch didn't say where he got the rule, it's there. This section is a little more vague when it comes to whether or not spells are required, I think because +n things do not cite a specific spell, but just that they show up as a specific school of magic under "Detect Magic" As for using alchemy to make GP by the week, I agree that it is more like using Profession (alchemy), than Craft (alchemy). Discussion about the useablity, or usefullnes, whatever of a skill clearly isn't getting anywhere. Yes, they both have very similar definitions, but they have different connotations to each of us. I would like to bring everyone's attention back to the description of the Craft group of skills (aside: why anyone would post in this thread without all 3 rulebooks in front of him/her, is beyond me. Knowing exactly what a rule says is better than appearing to be ignorant. I don't expect you to know the rule, I expect you to look it up, like I do). Third paragraph: "A Craft skill is specifically focused on creating something". Fifth paragraph: "The basic function of the Craft skill, however, is to allow you to make an item of the appropriate type." Except by being a spellcaster, no other character can perform the basic function of Craft (alchemy). Rather than issue a challenge to find another skill (in the PHB, p. 62 it says "Table 4-2 shows ALL skills..." (emphasis mine). Control Shape isn't on there, I don't think it's a skill that can be taken or used by anyone unless they are afflicted lycanthropes. They might be able to make checks to transform into their animal or hybrid form willingly, but for normal characters, these forms are their normal forms. Any arguments you have involving Control Shape will be ignored by me, sorry. Start another thread about it). (Okay, one more thing about Control Shape. It's not "useless" to a non-lycanthrope because of some text in the description that says "only lycanthropes can attempt skill checks of this type. It's useless becasue of the 6 kinds of checks a character can make with the skill, none of them can accomplish anything. Non-lyacnthropes don't have animal or hybrid forms, and they don't have involuntary changes to resist. Control Shape simply doesn't work for non-lycanthropes. Craft (alchemy) is limited to spellcasters because of something the PHB says directly, with no direct explanation. You may think it does have enough explanation, but if it's vague enough that two sides of the issue can have self-contradicting arguements, then it's too vague for me. that limits any character from performing the basic function of itself, I will go through each skill. I'm looking for a skill that only allows some characters to perform it's basic function. Any extra abilities are irrelevent, IMO. Also, I am not writing this entire list to imply that you don't know what skills are. I just want you to know that I have indeed looked at every skill in the PHB. Appraise-anybody can attempt to estimate an items worth, regardless of class Balance- anyone can attempt to keep their balance, regardless of class Bluff-anyone can attempt to make the outrageous or untrue seem plausible, regardless of class Climb- anyone can attempt to climb, regardless of class Concentration-anyone can attempt to focus on a task at hand (doesn't have to be casting a spell, could be using a skill), regardless of class Craft (all but alchemy)-anybody can attempt to make an item of the appropriate type for the particular skill being used, regardless of class Craft (alchemy)- "to make an item using Craft (alchemy), you must have alchemical equipment and be a spellcaster" here's a skill restricted to spellcasting classes (or anyone that has spell-like abilities (Gnomes) I think). We already know about this one. Decipher Script- doesn't even mention literacy as a requirement to be able to attempt to obtain meaning from otherwise meaningless messages, and I suppose that since it isn't really a language-dependant skill, it doesn't need such a requirement. A barbarian could use this skill to read something in his own language (he'd need training in how to do so, but he could use this skill instead of just spending two points on...something) Diplomacy- anyone can attempt to negotiate, regardless of class Disable Device-anyone can attempt sabotage, regardless of class Disguise-, anyone can change their appearance, regardless of class Escape Artist- anyone can attempt to escape from something that limits movement, regardless of class Forgery- only barbarians are restricted from writing a fake document. However, their illiteracy is a class feature, mentioned in their description.. It also specifies in the skill description that Forgery requires a character to be able to read and write the language. Barbarians still don't have to multiclass to qualify; they can just spend two skill points. I don't see this much explanation for the restriction on alchemy (and alchemy's restriction isn't even listed as a restriction, it's a "special." If the limitation on Craft (alchemy) was given even this little explation, I would be inclined to accept it. Gather information- anyone can attempt to find out information from an area, regardless of class Handle animal-anyone can attempt to control an animal, regardless of class Heal- anyone can attempt to heal another creature, regardless of class Hide- anyone can attepmt to hide from observers, regardless of class Intimidate- anyone can attempt to bully/threaten another creature, regardless of class. Jump- anyone can attempt to jump, regardless of class Knowledge skills- anyone can know something (and hey, it says "like Craft and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of UNRELATED skills" (capitals mine)) about a field of study, regardless of class Listen-anyone can hear things, regardless of class Move silently- anyone can attempt to move without making noise, regardless of class Open Lock- anyone can attempt to pick a lock, regardless of class Perform- anyone can attempt to express themselves artistically and impress an audience, regardless of class Profession- anyone can have a profession, regardless of class Ride- anyone can attempt to ride a mount in combat, regardless of class Search- anyone can attempt to look for something (trapfinding isn't a basic function, and simple traps can still be found), regardless of class Sense Motive- anyone can attempt to tell when someone is bluffing you, regardless of class Sleight of Hand- anyone can attempt to do stuff with his or her hands, regardless of class Speak Language- anyone can learn another language, regardless of class Spellcraft- anyone can attempt to "identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place," regardless of class. The DC as a spell is being cast is only 15+spell's level. So a fighter has a chance of determining whether the LN Cleric cast "Bless" on himself, or say...Bull's Strength. With bless, the fighter would know that the cleric didn't get a big advantage, but if the spell was bull's strength, the fighter would know to keep his distance. Spot- anyone can attempt to notice something they're not looking for, regardless of class Survival- anyone can attempt to follow tracks (albeit of DC<10 for those w/o the Track feat) and survive in the outdoors, regardless of class Swim- anyone can attempt to swim, regardless of class Tumble- anyone can attempt to "dive, roll, somersault, flip, and so on" and avoid AoOs from enemies while moving, regardless of class Use Magic Device- anyone can attempt to activate magic items that you could not otherwise activate, regardless of class Use Rope- anyone can attempt to tie knots, undo knots, and bind other creatures, regardless of class Some notes about the list: I didn't make any distinction between trained only skills and the rest, but for those skills, you can just add the words "with training" to what I said. If you think I have misinterpreted any of the basic functions of above skills, say so, and quote where in the skill's description it contradicts my interpretation. Well, I'm pretty sure I came up with other things to say on this topic, but that darn list of skills took so long to write, that I've forgotten what they were. I hope you know, though, that my position is that there isn't any explanation for the limitation on Craft (alchemy), and that there are many factors that can lead to an interpretation that the skill check wouldn't need to be made by a spellcaster, if it were not for the plain fact that the RAW says otherwise. Some of these factors include the lack of similar wording anywhere, the lack of similarity between items labeled "alchemical" and those labeled "magical" or made of "special materials." Also it is the only skill where it's basic function cannot be attempted even with training for certain characters. Ranks in a skill represent ability beyond that of what is needed for everyday tasks. (i'm pretty sure something like this is said in the skills chapter, maybe in a sidebar) Magical items as defined in the chapter on magic items require a feat and xp to make, while alchemical items do not. Every item made by craft (alchemy) is categorized as an alchemical item. These alchemical items are made by Craft (alchemy), which creates a circular loop of logic, justified by only the statements in the skill description that alchemical items can only be made by a spellcaster, with no actual description of the alchemical process. I also don't think it messes with the game balance to houserule against the requirement, because it doesn't make very powerful items (according to most), and it would give non-spellcasters something to do during downtime, while the party wizard would be say...learning new spells. Oh yea, and whoever said that acid was "invented" by an alchemist? That's total BS. It was discovered. It occurs naturally. In LOTS of places. You can't invent something that already exists. EDIT: I think that in this debate, some are trying to rationalize/justify the RAW, while others are trying to justify/rationalize a house rule. I don't think any prooving is going on, or can go on (I know that this may be contradictory to some of my previous statements, maybe in this very post, but that's why this is an edit)
Ogmug 09-11-05, 01:37 AM	Hey guys, I'm back. I'm glad I didn't offend anyone (I didn't think I had, but I didn't want to continue getting worse). I'm not sure where I stand with Antioch's arguements, either. He has been (for the most part) doing his own thing, and we haven't been communicated. This thread has been going in so many directions, I'm tempted to start a new thread. But anyways, I think that I've been quoting the rules the most here, of all of us. Dictionary definitions can't always be applied to DnD either, because if so, then there wouldn't be a glossary, IMO. So, the DMG, p. 283 "CREATING MAGIC ITEMS To create magic items, spellcasters use special feats. They invest time, money, and their own personal energy (in the form of experience points) in an item's creation. For details on creating the different types of magic items, see the appropiate below as well as the information on item creation feats in Chapter 5: Feats, in the Player's Handbook." Personally, I'm suprised it took this long for someone to go and read the section on creating magic items. Even though Antioch didn't say where he got the rule, it's there. This section is a little more vague when it comes to whether or not spells are required, I think because +n things do not cite a specific spell, but just that they show up as a specific school of magic under "Detect Magic" As for using alchemy to make GP by the week, I agree that it is more like using Profession (alchemy), than Craft (alchemy). Discussion about the useablity, or usefullnes, whatever of a skill clearly isn't getting anywhere. Yes, they both have very similar definitions, but they have different connotations to each of us. I would like to bring everyone's attention back to the description of the Craft group of skills (aside: why anyone would post in this thread without all 3 rulebooks in front of him/her, is beyond me. Knowing exactly what a rule says is better than appearing to be ignorant. I don't expect you to know the rule, I expect you to look it up, like I do). Third paragraph: "A Craft skill is specifically focused on creating something". Fifth paragraph: "The basic function of the Craft skill, however, is to allow you to make an item of the appropriate type." Except by being a spellcaster, no other character can perform the basic function of Craft (alchemy). Rather than issue a challenge to find another skill (in the PHB, p. 62 it says "Table 4-2 shows ALL skills..." (emphasis mine). Control Shape isn't on there, I don't think it's a skill that can be taken or used by anyone unless they are afflicted lycanthropes. They might be able to make checks to transform into their animal or hybrid form willingly, but for normal characters, these forms are their normal forms. Any arguments you have involving Control Shape will be ignored by me, sorry. Start another thread about it). (Okay, one more thing about Control Shape. It's not "useless" to a non-lycanthrope because of some text in the description that says "only lycanthropes can attempt skill checks of this type. It's useless becasue of the 6 kinds of checks a character can make with the skill, none of them can accomplish anything. Non-lyacnthropes don't have animal or hybrid forms, and they don't have involuntary changes to resist. Control Shape simply doesn't work for non-lycanthropes. Craft (alchemy) is limited to spellcasters because of something the PHB says directly, with no direct explanation. You may think it does have enough explanation, but if it's vague enough that two sides of the issue can have self-contradicting arguements, then it's too vague for me. that limits any character from performing the basic function of itself, I will go through each skill. I'm looking for a skill that only allows some characters to perform it's basic function. Any extra abilities are irrelevent, IMO. Also, I am not writing this entire list to imply that you don't know what skills are. I just want you to know that I have indeed looked at every skill in the PHB. Appraise-anybody can attempt to estimate an items worth, regardless of class Balance- anyone can attempt to keep their balance, regardless of class Bluff-anyone can attempt to make the outrageous or untrue seem plausible, regardless of class Climb- anyone can attempt to climb, regardless of class Concentration-anyone can attempt to focus on a task at hand (doesn't have to be casting a spell, could be using a skill), regardless of class Craft (all but alchemy)-anybody can attempt to make an item of the appropriate type for the particular skill being used, regardless of class Craft (alchemy)- "to make an item using Craft (alchemy), you must have alchemical equipment and be a spellcaster" here's a skill restricted to spellcasting classes (or anyone that has spell-like abilities (Gnomes) I think). We already know about this one. Decipher Script- doesn't even mention literacy as a requirement to be able to attempt to obtain meaning from otherwise meaningless messages, and I suppose that since it isn't really a language-dependant skill, it doesn't need such a requirement. A barbarian could use this skill to read something in his own language (he'd need training in how to do so, but he could use this skill instead of just spending two points on...something) Diplomacy- anyone can attempt to negotiate, regardless of class Disable Device-anyone can attempt sabotage, regardless of class Disguise-, anyone can change their appearance, regardless of class Escape Artist- anyone can attempt to escape from something that limits movement, regardless of class Forgery- only barbarians are restricted from writing a fake document. However, their illiteracy is a class feature, mentioned in their description.. It also specifies in the skill description that Forgery requires a character to be able to read and write the language. Barbarians still don't have to multiclass to qualify; they can just spend two skill points. I don't see this much explanation for the restriction on alchemy (and alchemy's restriction isn't even listed as a restriction, it's a "special." If the limitation on Craft (alchemy) was given even this little explation, I would be inclined to accept it. Gather information- anyone can attempt to find out information from an area, regardless of class Handle animal-anyone can attempt to control an animal, regardless of class Heal- anyone can attempt to heal another creature, regardless of class Hide- anyone can attepmt to hide from observers, regardless of class Intimidate- anyone can attempt to bully/threaten another creature, regardless of class. Jump- anyone can attempt to jump, regardless of class Knowledge skills- anyone can know something (and hey, it says "like Craft and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of UNRELATED skills" (capitals mine)) about a field of study, regardless of class Listen-anyone can hear things, regardless of class Move silently- anyone can attempt to move without making noise, regardless of class Open Lock- anyone can attempt to pick a lock, regardless of class Perform- anyone can attempt to express themselves artistically and impress an audience, regardless of class Profession- anyone can have a profession, regardless of class Ride- anyone can attempt to ride a mount in combat, regardless of class Search- anyone can attempt to look for something (trapfinding isn't a basic function, and simple traps can still be found), regardless of class Sense Motive- anyone can attempt to tell when someone is bluffing you, regardless of class Sleight of Hand- anyone can attempt to do stuff with his or her hands, regardless of class Speak Language- anyone can learn another language, regardless of class Spellcraft- anyone can attempt to "identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place," regardless of class. The DC as a spell is being cast is only 15+spell's level. So a fighter has a chance of determining whether the LN Cleric cast "Bless" on himself, or say...Bull's Strength. With bless, the fighter would know that the cleric didn't get a big advantage, but if the spell was bull's strength, the fighter would know to keep his distance. Spot- anyone can attempt to notice something they're not looking for, regardless of class Survival- anyone can attempt to follow tracks (albeit of DC<10 for those w/o the Track feat) and survive in the outdoors, regardless of class Swim- anyone can attempt to swim, regardless of class Tumble- anyone can attempt to "dive, roll, somersault, flip, and so on" and avoid AoOs from enemies while moving, regardless of class Use Magic Device- anyone can attempt to activate magic items that you could not otherwise activate, regardless of class Use Rope- anyone can attempt to tie knots, undo knots, and bind other creatures, regardless of class Some notes about the list: I didn't make any distinction between trained only skills and the rest, but for those skills, you can just add the words "with training" to what I said. If you think I have misinterpreted any of the basic functions of above skills, say so, and quote where in the skill's description it contradicts my interpretation. Well, I'm pretty sure I came up with other things to say on this topic, but that darn list of skills took so long to write, that I've forgotten what they were. I hope you know, though, that my position is that there isn't any explanation for the limitation on Craft (alchemy), and that there are many factors that can lead to an interpretation that the skill check wouldn't need to be made by a spellcaster, if it were not for the plain fact that the RAW says otherwise. Some of these factors include the lack of similar wording anywhere, the lack of similarity between items labeled "alchemical" and those labeled "magical" or made of "special materials." Also it is the only skill where it's basic function cannot be attempted even with training for certain characters. Ranks in a skill represent ability beyond that of what is needed for everyday tasks. (i'm pretty sure something like this is said in the skills chapter, maybe in a sidebar) Magical items as defined in the chapter on magic items require a feat and xp to make, while alchemical items do not. Every item made by craft (alchemy) is categorized as an alchemical item. These alchemical items are made by Craft (alchemy), which creates a circular loop of logic, justified by only the statements in the skill description that alchemical items can only be made by a spellcaster, with no actual description of the alchemical process. I also don't think it messes with the game balance to houserule against the requirement, because it doesn't make very powerful items (according to most), and it would give non-spellcasters something to do during downtime, while the party wizard would be say...learning new spells. Oh yea, and whoever said that acid was "invented" by an alchemist? That's total BS. It was discovered. It occurs naturally. In LOTS of places. You can't invent something that already exists. EDIT: I think that in this debate, some are trying to rationalize/justify the RAW, while others are trying to justify/rationalize a house rule. I don't think any prooving is going on, or can go on (I know that this may be contradictory to some of my previous statements, maybe in this very post, but that's why this is an edit) Nice summarization. The only caveat i have is this. Any character can take craft(alchemy), and it can even be used as a synergy bonus on appraise. But the restriction placed on it is that only a spellcaster can create an item. Perhaps it wasn't made clear. The correlation that is being drawn is that some skills have restrictions placed on them. Only Rogues can use search to find magical traps, or disable device to disarm them. Only wizards can use spellcraft to read a spellbook and scribe from it, etc. etc. In this light, only spellcasters can use alchemy to make items, AND get the synergy bonus to identify alchemical items. Is that a lot of uses for it? Heck no, and I really don't think anyone is arguing against that. Similarities (summarized for ease) 1. craft(alchemy) can be taken by anyone. It does not state anywhere in the RAW that you can't take it if you are not a spellcaster. <i>all skills can be taken by anyone.</i> 2. craft(alchemy) has a restriction placed on it. Only a spellcaster can create items. <i>Many skills have restrictions placed on them, ranging from class to level.</i> 3. craft(alchemy) can still be used by a non spellcaster, albiet for a use that is not considered optimal <i>this is similar to spellcraft for a non-spellcaster. It can still be taken, but they cannot use as effectively as a spellcaster</i> Now whether or not it makes sense, is a matter of personal opinion. It is in the RAW for some reason. Only the original designers responsible for the remake of skills for 3.5 know thier reasons. WE can only speculate, on either side. (as has been said before). Historical reference, flavor, lack of clear definition, who knows.
Antioch 09-11-05, 02:24 AM	You're quitting? Definately not, just not going to regard 'Mug's posts any further. Well, regardless, alchemy has been shown to have at least a LITTLE use for non-spellcasters. The craft check gp and the +2 in appraise can do something. The key argument is that the crafting aspect of the skill is non-useable. How much use you will garner from a bonus to another skill is dubious, and not under conjecture here. To clarify my stance even farther: I do not think that non-spellcasters should be barred from using the crafting aspect of the skill. Also, the fact that one can use the Craft check to earn gp each week brings the inconsistency again into question. Well, it's just a part of D&D. There are many ways you can plan a character and realize that you might just have to take a new level. It's not a punishment. -20%xp penalties aren't so bad anyways. Its not a matter of simply multiclassing and taking a possible dive. I'm well aware that if you want certain class features, you need to multiclass. Well, you were definately using those words when this debate started. Wow...Ogmug got them all too :eek: Rather creepy that he apparently got them all...and that you know that. I'm not going to bother checking, however. Well, I think we've agreed that alchemy and holy water are nonmagical at the end, but that doesn't erase the fact that holy water does require magic and is on the mundane list. So it isn't odd that alchemy is on there as well. It is because no alchemy item is made by a spell. If, say, a tindertwig were made by a spell and was on there, more power to it. At least we could comb the spell section and locate create tindertwig, or whatever. True. Of course, we still know that alchemy is made through magic, and not a magic item in the sense that the item creation feats have anything to do with it. That's why Holy Water also fits. Plus, if an item didn't require the feat to make it, it would just be the same as an everburning torch. Technically, you could think of a Carpet of Flying as just a regular carpet with the overland flight and permanency spells on it. Of course, it's so powerful and rare that it needs the feat and xp to keep it balanced. Its not that its "too powerful", its because its a "true" magic item. You need to understand the fact that an everburning torch is not a magic item, just as holy water isnt. An everburning torch is simply an item that has a continual flame effect linked to it, like you could with any other object or point in space. A rock with the spell does not become magical; a detect magic reading is simply detecting the magical effect attached to it. I'd rather not get into another argument about which wondrous item is more powerful, but if the everburning torch were a true magic item, it could just as easily have been in both locations.
Gilean 09-11-05, 02:39 AM	Antioch, if you still insist on the difference between usability and usefulness, try making a speak language check.
Ogmug 09-11-05, 02:41 AM	You're quitting? Definately not, just not going to regard 'Mug's posts any further. Only because everytime he has, i have used his own posts against him. Well, regardless, alchemy has been shown to have at least a LITTLE use for non-spellcasters. The craft check gp and the +2 in appraise can do something. The key argument is that the crafting aspect of the skill is non-useable. How much use you will garner from a bonus to another skill is dubious, and not under conjecture here. To clarify my stance even farther: I do not think that non-spellcasters should be barred from using the crafting aspect of the skill. Also, the fact that one can use the Craft check to earn gp each week brings the inconsistency again into question. Well, it's just a part of D&D. There are many ways you can plan a character and realize that you might just have to take a new level. It's not a punishment. -20%xp penalties aren't so bad anyways. Its not a matter of simply multiclassing and taking a possible dive. I'm well aware that if you want certain class features, you need to multiclass. Well, you were definately using those words when this debate started. Wow...Ogmug got them all too :eek: Rather creepy that he apparently got them all...and that you know that. I'm not going to bother checking, however. Not really creepy, just extremely naive to think that a person cannot go back and look at past posts. What, did you think they magically disappeared and no one would be able to call you to the carpet? Well, I think we've agreed that alchemy and holy water are nonmagical at the end, but that doesn't erase the fact that holy water does require magic and is on the mundane list. So it isn't odd that alchemy is on there as well. It is because no alchemy item is made by a spell. If, say, a tindertwig were made by a spell and was on there, more power to it. At least we could comb the spell section and locate create tindertwig, or whatever. True. Of course, we still know that alchemy is made through magic, and not a magic item in the sense that the item creation feats have anything to do with it. That's why Holy Water also fits. Plus, if an item didn't require the feat to make it, it would just be the same as an everburning torch. Technically, you could think of a Carpet of Flying as just a regular carpet with the overland flight and permanency spells on it. Of course, it's so powerful and rare that it needs the feat and xp to keep it balanced. Its not that its "too powerful", its because its a "true" magic item. You need to understand the fact that an everburning torch is not a magic item, just as holy water isnt. An everburning torch is simply an item that has a continual flame effect linked to it, like you could with any other object or point in space. A rock with the spell does not become magical; a detect magic reading is simply detecting the magical effect attached to it. I'd rather not get into another argument about which wondrous item is more powerful, but if the everburning torch were a true magic item, it could just as easily have been in both locations. Regardless of Antiochs attitude, I can understand his position, and even respect it. However it still does not make it how the rules are written. It does not change the fact, nor was he able to present evidence that convinced people otherwise. In fact, his arguements were able to convince people to the opposite effect.
Antioch 09-11-05, 02:46 AM	Antioch, if you still insist on the difference between usability and usefulness, try making a speak language check. I insist that an item can be useable, but not useful. Leastwise, not to everyone.
hobbitboy 09-11-05, 02:51 AM	Good Grief! After eight pages of to-ing and fro-ing do you seriously believe that your arguments are going to convince anyone to change camps now? After wading my way though all arguments and counter-arguments I still find I have the same opinion I had at the begining, namely that I prefer the consequences that arise from having the spellcasting requirement in the Craft (Alchemy) skill to the consequences (minor that they may be) that can arise from taking it out. Thanks, - John
darkness ninja of light 09-11-05, 10:22 AM	So, the DMG, p. 283 "CREATING MAGIC ITEMS To create magic items, spellcasters use special feats. They invest time, money, and their own personal energy (in the form of experience points) in an item's creation. For details on creating the different types of magic items, see the appropiate below as well as the information on item creation feats in Chapter 5: Feats, in the Player's Handbook." Ah, finally someone's found it. Regardless though, we understand that alchemy is not a final product magic item. It was made through magic, but not magic, like holy water. We also know the feats and such are in there for balance. This section is a little more vague when it comes to whether or not spells are required, I think because +n things do not cite a specific spell, but just that they show up as a specific school of magic under "Detect Magic" Also notice that it doesn't require that school to make those items though (unless you rule it that way). As for using alchemy to make GP by the week, I agree that it is more like using Profession (alchemy), than Craft (alchemy). Though it does give the bonus to appraise, unlike proffession, as well as the potential to be used to make items later on. Table 4-2 shows ALL skills..." (emphasis mine). Control Shape isn't on there, I don't think it's a skill that can be taken or used by anyone unless they are afflicted lycanthropes. They might be able to make checks to transform into their animal or hybrid form willingly, but for normal characters, these forms are their normal forms. Any arguments you have involving Control Shape will be ignored by me, sorry. Start another thread about it). Table 4-2 certainly doesn't show ALL skills. Perhaps all skills in the PHB or all skills used by non-monster (lycanthrope) characters, but certainly not all skills. Control Shape very much so says it is a skill. Control Shape is in the place where it's most needed too. Don't ignore valid rules. there are many factors that can lead to an interpretation that the skill check wouldn't need to be made by a spellcaster, if it were not for the plain fact that the RAW says otherwise. Many factors? It seems there would also be many factors that lead to the justification, and not just the interpretation, that it would indeed need to be made by a spellcaster. Some of these factors include the lack of similar wording anywhere, the lack of similarity between items labeled "alchemical" and those labeled "magical" or made of "special materials." Also it is the only skill where it's basic function cannot be attempted even with training for certain characters. Ranks in a skill represent ability beyond that of what is needed for everyday tasks. (i'm pretty sure something like this is said in the skills chapter, maybe in a sidebar) Magical items as defined in the chapter on magic items require a feat and xp to make, while alchemical items do not. Every item made by craft (alchemy) is categorized as an alchemical item. These alchemical items are made by Craft (alchemy), which creates a circular loop of logic, justified by only the statements in the skill description that alchemical items can only be made by a spellcaster, with no actual description of the alchemical process Lack of similar wording anywhere: Well, there's a lack of a NEED for similar wording anywhere. Also, there's a lack of wording against the rule as well. Lack of similarity between items: Well we've actually pointed out a lot of similarities among alchemy and magic items (such as the unspelled magic of magic weapons and armor). There are also obvious similarities among alchemy and the special substances category that it belongs to. It all requires magic to make, though the end product is nonmagical except for Continuous Flame, which is a spell on a stick. They don't require feats or xp, but they do require gold. Only skill restricted: We've pointed out that other skills restrict as well. They can restrict pretty heavily though. Control Shape obviously restricts. Only rogues can use search for DC 20+ traps, an important thing to have. Etc. etc. Ogmug listed them. Alchemy has no restriction against taking it. No description: It doesn't need one. Magic Items don't have any description for creation. Holy Water doesn't have a description for creation (you have to come up with your own idea of how they get 25gp in silver into a little vial that dissolves). Feats don't have descriptions for their requisites (usually). Prestige classes don't usually either. If you get rid of the requisite every time there's no description, then you're getting rid of a LOT of things. I also don't think it messes with the game balance to houserule against the requirement, because it doesn't make very powerful items (according to most), and it would give non-spellcasters something to do during downtime, while the party wizard would be say...learning new spells. So, the party wizard is learning new spells, but the fighter isn't learning how to fight? The wizard can't make alchemy either? Again, even little things have their place in balance. As I was saying before, you open up the chance to get rid of a LOT of things based on the same logic. Sure you can house-rule it, but as a core rule? It just doesn't go with consistancy or the meaning of alchemy. Oh yea, and whoever said that acid was "invented" by an alchemist? That's total BS. It was discovered. It occurs naturally. In LOTS of places. You can't invent something that already exists. What a nice thing to say to Wrecan. His lesson on historical alchemy is total BS. Very nice. If you recall, he was referring to sulfuric acid, the alchemical acid, which was indeed invented by alchemist Zakariya Al-Rasi. Now for Antioch...... Definately not, just not going to regard 'Mug's posts any further. Now if there was ever a time to call someone ignorant, this is it. I've been in this argument for quite a while and the only people you've ever threatened to ignore happened to be the ones that were making the best arguments against you. Coincedence? Is there a REASON you're ignoring him? The key argument is that the crafting aspect of the skill is non-useable. How much use you will garner from a bonus to another skill is dubious, and not under conjecture here. To clarify my stance even farther: I do not think that non-spellcasters should be barred from using the crafting aspect of the skill. Also, the fact that one can use the Craft check to earn gp each week brings the inconsistency again into question. One can indeed use craft to earn gp each week. Of course, you're gonna need to have a good explanation for it. It's possible. I've given plenty. Rather creepy that he apparently got them all...and that you know that. I'm not going to bother checking, however. You were basically saying you didn't say those things. I remembered specific times when you did. Then I looked at Ogmug's post and saw them. Simple as that. It is because no alchemy item is made by a spell. If, say, a tindertwig were made by a spell and was on there, more power to it. At least we could comb the spell section and locate create tindertwig, or whatever. But it isn't odd because by the rules alchemy is made by magic, like Holy Water. You can find the Craft skill and see it on there. If there was NO magical requirement, then it would be the only one within the Special Substances category that did not have one. Its not that its "too powerful", its because its a "true" magic item. You need to understand the fact that an everburning torch is not a magic item, just as holy water isnt. An everburning torch is simply an item that has a continual flame effect linked to it, like you could with any other object or point in space. A rock with the spell does not become magical; a detect magic reading is simply detecting the magical effect attached to it. I'd rather not get into another argument about which wondrous item is more powerful, but if the everburning torch were a true magic item, it could just as easily have been in both locations. A bag of holding is just a bag with a Leomund's Secret Chest spell cast on the inside. A brooch of shielding is just a brooch that has Shield cast on it. They just have effects tied to them. It's not that different. And for the halfling, do you seriously believe that your arguments are going to convince anyone to change camps now? Nope nope! Course that would be an interesting end. I'm mostly fighting to help prove that the argument is valid for anyone else who finds this thread wondering if alchemy should have the requirement (then again, I don't know if anyone would read it all to the end). I'm also just plain interested in how this thread will end. Plus, this is kind of fun.
TheNatealator 09-11-05, 04:16 PM	"Ah, finally someone's found it. Regardless though, we understand that alchemy is not a final product magic item. It was made through magic, but not magic, like holy water. We also know the feats and such are in there for balance." But by your definition of magical, anything made by magic is and always will be magical. However, in DnD, magical is generally taken as a term describing something currently posessing magic. Your third sentence confuses me. Do you think you could word that a little better? Did you mean to write "[by] magic, like holy water."? If so, then you are referring to something specific to your own campaign. In your campaign, maybe, alchemy is a magical process. The RAW only says that there are alchemical processes that can be done only by spellcasters. It is up to the DM to decide what that means (whether it's made through magic, or only spellcasters attempt alchemy, or whether the restriction is bogus or not, to name a few). Maybe the feats are in there to signify that someone received training in making magic items of a specific type, much as someone would receive training in making other, mundane (in their final states, at least) items, such as alchemical items, regular swords, or baskets. But how do you justify the lack of an XP requirement? "Also notice that it doesn't require that school to make those items though (unless you rule it that way)." It does say, actually, something about this. "Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed)." I think this covers someone who is trying to make a magic item with a school that he knows nothing about. "Though it does give the bonus to appraise, unlike proffession, as well as the potential to be used to make items later on." I don't think synergy bonuses or making GP per week are the "basic function" of Craft skills. I think the "basic function" is making something. Yes, it does have the potential for making items later on, but not for non-spellcasters putting ranks in it. "Table 4-2 certainly doesn't show ALL skills. Perhaps all skills in the PHB or all skills used by non-monster (lycanthrope) characters, but certainly not all skills. Control Shape very much so says it is a skill. Control Shape is in the place where it's most needed too. Don't ignore valid rules." I'm not saying that Control Shape isn't a skill, or doesn't exist. I'm saying that it's not in the PHB because it's meant for monster creatures. If it were meant to be equally available to all PCs, then it would be in the PHB. "Many factors? It seems there would also be many factors that lead to the justification, and not just the interpretation, that it would indeed need to be made by a spellcaster." Which is why this is a two-sided debate. Thing is, I'm still not convinced that some of your justifications are valid. "Lack of similar wording anywhere: Well, there's a lack of a NEED for similar wording anywhere. Also, there's a lack of wording against the rule as well." There's a lack of a need because there is no rule remotely like this restriction, is what I have implied from what you just said. Sounds almost like you're contradicting previous statements you made about alchemical items being similar to lots of things. If they were similar enough, then the restriction on Craft (alchemy) would be worded like other restrictions, or at least be mentioned both in the skill itself, and the class description. "Lack of similarity between items: Well we've actually pointed out a lot of similarities among alchemy and magic items (such as the unspelled magic of magic weapons and armor)." +n armors and weapons are indeed created without a specific spell. However, the creator's XP is also imbued within them, and they are magical in all senses of the word. Alchemical items (the ones made by Craft (alchemy), even if they were originally created by magic, don't seem to get their magical energy from anywhere. Not from a spell, and not from the spellcaster (otherwise there'd be an XP cost). "There are also obvious similarities among alchemy and the special substances category that it belongs to. It all requires magic to make, though the end product is nonmagical except for Continuous Flame, which is a spell on a stick. They don't require feats or xp, but they do require gold." If alchemical items are similar to items made with special materials, then that should be an argument for my side. The 'magic' of special materials comes from "innate special properties" and a character does not need feats to make an item out of a special material. Using special materials is a way of making a better-than-mundane item without having to wield magic, pay XP, or take a feat. With my houserule, I would say that like weapons and armor made from special materials, the 'magic' of alchemy comes from the elements and chemicals mixed themselves, and not from magic energy within the caster (again, which would be XP). "Only skill restricted: We've pointed out that other skills restrict as well. They can restrict pretty heavily though. Control Shape obviously restricts. Only rogues can use search for DC 20+ traps, an important thing to have. Etc. etc. Ogmug listed them. Alchemy has no restriction against taking it." He has listed which skills have extra aspects restricted to certain characters. I have listed that no other skill except forgery limits a character from performing the BASIC function of the skill. Yes, lots of skills restrict aspects of themselves to characters. Only forgery (because it's language-based, and illiterate characters (which, according to the core rules, are only barbarians) can't read or write any language) and Craft (alchemy) (simply because it says so) limit characters from performing their basic function. Well, there's also Control Shape, but that's restricted from normal characters simply because it is in a book that according to Wizards, only the DM needs. Search was not meant to be a skill for finding traps first, and everything else second. It was meant for searching for things. Say, a particular book in a library, a particular treasure in a chest, or face in a crowd. While spot checks just happen, a search check is actively looking. If you don't know how to look for complex or magical traps, then you don't know how to. The trapfinding ability is mentioned in the rogue class description as well as in the search description. "No description: It doesn't need one. Magic Items don't have any description for creation. Holy Water doesn't have a description for creation (you have to come up with your own idea of how they get 25gp in silver into a little vial that dissolves). Feats don't have descriptions for their requisites (usually). Prestige classes don't usually either. If you get rid of the requisite every time there's no description, then you're getting rid of a LOT of things." I'm sorry, but Magic Items have their own section detailing how they are created. Holy water itself doesn't have a description, but the description of Bless water says that it makes holy water. More powerful magic items require higher caster levels for game balance, and because they usually require higher level spells, as well. Requirements for feats, PrCs, etc. are different from requirements for skills, or aspects of skills. Skills, meant to be something that EVERY class has in common, while other classes can use some skills better, should be available in their basic form to everyone. Where there are restrictions (illiterate characters for forgery, non-wizards for spellcraft, characters without trapfinding for search), there is either an explanation, or the restriction is specifically addressed in another section. "So, the party wizard is learning new spells, but the fighter isn't learning how to fight? The wizard can't make alchemy either? Again, even little things have their place in balance. As I was saying before, you open up the chance to get rid of a LOT of things based on the same logic. Sure you can house-rule it, but as a core rule? It just doesn't go with consistancy or the meaning of alchemy." I have a question for you, that I hope you take and answer seriously and honestly, because I'm curious. If the PHB had been printed, and there was no mention whatsoever, anywhere (not even where it's mentioned now), of a spellcaster requirement, would you have thought there should be such a requirement? "What a nice thing to say to Wrecan. His lesson on historical alchemy is total BS. Very nice. If you recall, he was referring to sulfuric acid, the alchemical acid, which was indeed invented by alchemist Zakariya Al-Rasi." I'm saying that "invented" is not the right term. Sulfuric acid existed long before Zakariya Al-Rasi was ever born. He was simply the first to isolate it and recognize it for what it was. He did not do this by magic. Even if he did, there are other ways of isolating sulfuric acid today without magic (unless you consider modern chemistry magic). The term "invented" is hardly used when describing chemical compounds. Sure, he invented a method of isolating it, but his was not the only method. Nature has many methods of making it, and I'm sure that scientists today have at least one method of isolating it. As for my purposes of continued posting: I'm not really trying to get anyone to switch sides to defending my position, but merely trying to show that houseruling against the RAW in this instance can be a good idea. You are perfectly reasonable in defending the RAW, Ogmug and Ninja (usually that is my position), by defining how alchemy works in your world in a way that doesn't interfere with the RAW. I just happen to believe that ruling that alchemy is nonmagical in my world only goes against the spellcaster requirement to make alchemical items in the RAW. I still don't think nonmagical alchemical processes are inconsistent with the rest of the RAW, while you think that they are inconsistent. I hope you know that I am no longer (if I was before) attacking your position; I am simply defending mine. Antioch is defending his own position.
Ogmug 09-11-05, 05:09 PM	I think with Nate's discovery/revelation of forgery skill restricting barbarians from taking it, we can now throw out the "All skills are useable by all characters except craft(alchemy)" defense, or address it that there are now two skills that need re-writing to make it more definative.
darkness ninja of light 09-11-05, 05:31 PM	But by your definition of magical, anything made by magic is and always will be magical. However, in DnD, magical is generally taken as a term describing something currently posessing magic. Your third sentence confuses me. Do you think you could word that a little better? Did you mean to write "[by] magic, like holy water."? If so, then you are referring to something specific to your own campaign. In your campaign, maybe, alchemy is a magical process. The RAW only says that there are alchemical processes that can be done only by spellcasters. It is up to the DM to decide what that means (whether it's made through magic, or only spellcasters attempt alchemy, or whether the restriction is bogus or not, to name a few). Maybe the feats are in there to signify that someone received training in making magic items of a specific type, much as someone would receive training in making other, mundane (in their final states, at least) items, such as alchemical items, regular swords, or baskets. But how do you justify the lack of an XP requirement? My definition of magical is that anything made my magic will always be magical? Where did you get this? Created Water is made my magic but it is not magical. Holy Water is created by magic and it is not magical. Alchemy is made through magic and it is not magical. It doesn't mean it didn't have to require magic to make in the first place though. Yes, the D&D term "magical" usually does refer to that, which is why the mundane items table refers to those items as nonmagical. My third sentence? Alchemy requires magic to make, similar to how Holy Water requires magic to make, yet, they are not magical. Thus, it doesn't require feats or xp and whatnot. Frankly, I don't see what "must be a spellcaster" could POSSIBLY mean besides "you must use magic". That's the very definition of spellcaster. If it just required training, then it would be available to everyone. Lack of xp requirement? The only things that need an xp requirement are rare and/or somewhat powerful items. It's a balancing thing. If Holy Water had an xp requirement, then this argument would be harder to justify. It does say, actually, something about this. "Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed)." I think this covers someone who is trying to make a magic item with a school that he knows nothing about. I'm saying that someone making a sword who swore off evocation doesn't seem to have anything stopping him from making the sword, even if he had no other access to the evocation school. The sword happens to be picked up with Detect Magic as "evocation" when it's done though. I don't think synergy bonuses or making GP per week are the "basic function" of Craft skills. I think the "basic function" is making something. Yes, it does have the potential for making items later on, but not for non-spellcasters putting ranks in it. When I said it had the potential, I meant that non-spellcasters always have the potential to gain the spellcaster levels. In any case, the basic function of the craft skill as a whole is to create items. Anyone can make whatever untrained. However, spellcasters get the bonus of also being able to make alchemy untrained. I'm not saying that Control Shape isn't a skill, or doesn't exist. I'm saying that it's not in the PHB because it's meant for monster creatures. If it were meant to be equally available to all PCs, then it would be in the PHB. That's what I was saying too. Being in the PHB or being in the MM doesn't matter, it's a core skill. Which is why this is a two-sided debate. Thing is, I'm still not convinced that some of your justifications are valid Exactly There's a lack of a need because there is no rule remotely like this restriction, is what I have implied from what you just said. Sounds almost like you're contradicting previous statements you made about alchemical items being similar to lots of things. If they were similar enough, then the restriction on Craft (alchemy) would be worded like other restrictions, or at least be mentioned both in the skill itself, and the class description. I was responding under the impression that you were talking about the fact that there wasn't any other line in the books that said "Alchemy requires spellcaster levels" to prove that it wasn't just an oversight by the designers. Again, Control Shape for a rule like it. No, there was no contradiction, since I mention the similarities in the next part of the post. Why would it be mentioned in the class description? We already know spellcasters have it. As for showing it wasn't just an oversight. I found some lines in the Eberron Campaign setting mentioning alchemy. The only change to alchemy that Eberron made was that Articifers can craft alchemy (being that they are EXTREMELY like spellcasters, yet not, they indeed put this fact into their class description, though not on their class ability block) and also that a few more items can be made with it. Other than that, they are using 3.5 core rules. Under Special Substances and Items: "Alchemy is a well-developed science on Eberron, and articifers as well as more traditional spellcasters expore new ways to enhance the adventuring proffesion through alchemy". No mention of non-spellcasters/Articifers. Again, it's only to show wording showing it wasn't an oversight. +n armors and weapons are indeed created without a specific spell. However, the creator's XP is also imbued within them, and they are magical in all senses of the word. Alchemical items (the ones made by Craft (alchemy), even if they were originally created by magic, don't seem to get their magical energy from anywhere. Not from a spell, and not from the spellcaster (otherwise there'd be an XP cost). Once again, Holy Water doesn't have an XP cost and you can CLEARLY see the magic it comes from. Not every item imbued with magic has an xp cost. The cost is a balancing tool so that people don't go running around hog wild with their strange item creations. If alchemical items are similar to items made with special materials, then that should be an argument for my side. The 'magic' of special materials comes from "innate special properties" and a character does not need feats to make an item out of a special material. Using special materials is a way of making a better-than-mundane item without having to wield magic, pay XP, or take a feat. With my houserule, I would say that like weapons and armor made from special materials, the 'magic' of alchemy comes from the elements and chemicals mixed themselves, and not from magic energy within the caster (again, which would be XP). What? I was talking about Special Substances and Items. I'm not talking about special materials. I never said those were similar. He has listed which skills have extra aspects restricted to certain characters. I have listed that no other skill except forgery limits a character from performing the BASIC function of the skill. Yes, lots of skills restrict aspects of themselves to characters. Only forgery (because it's language-based, and illiterate characters (which, according to the core rules, are only barbarians) can't read or write any language) and Craft (alchemy) (simply because it says so) limit characters from performing their basic function. Well, there's also Control Shape, but that's restricted from normal characters simply because it is in a book that according to Wizards, only the DM needs. Search was not meant to be a skill for finding traps first, and everything else second. It was meant for searching for things. Say, a particular book in a library, a particular treasure in a chest, or face in a crowd. While spot checks just happen, a search check is actively looking. If you don't know how to look for complex or magical traps, then you don't know how to. The trapfinding ability is mentioned in the rogue class description as well as in the search description. Control Shape is only restricted because it's in the book only the DM needs? More like it's for lycanthropes only. As for Forgery, you are indeed stating an exception. Alchemy is not alone. Forgery and Control Shape have the benefit of it being their own skills, thus a little more description to them. The craft skill has a lot of space already dedicated to itself and doesn't really have the room to describe the process of basketweaving, stonemasonry, alchemy, etc. It just assumes that if you take it, you know what it is. It is causing a problem in this case, but I don't see it as a reason to get rid of a restriction. I'm sorry, but Magic Items have their own section detailing how they are created. Holy water itself doesn't have a description, but the description of Bless water says that it makes holy water. More powerful magic items require higher caster levels for game balance, and because they usually require higher level spells, as well. Requirements for feats, PrCs, etc. are different from requirements for skills, or aspects of skills. Skills, meant to be something that EVERY class has in common, while other classes can use some skills better, should be available in their basic form to everyone. Where there are restrictions (illiterate characters for forgery, non-wizards for spellcraft, characters without trapfinding for search), there is either an explanation, or the restriction is specifically addressed in another section. They don't give the exact details though. Where does the xp go in? How does it go in? How does he make the item glow or not? If you aren't creating the armor (as in, it is already made) are you still working on it (with tools and a heat source, etc.)? Etc. Requirements for feats, PrC, etc. are indeed different from requirements for skills, I suppose. HOWEVER, it does not stop the fact that you say you want your requirements to have explanations and that those things often do NOT have these explanations. In addition, all classes have skills, yes, but all classes vary greatly on how they have access to these skills. Craft Alchemy is no exception. I have a question for you, that I hope you take and answer seriously and honestly, because I'm curious. If the PHB had been printed, and there was no mention whatsoever, anywhere (not even where it's mentioned now), of a spellcaster requirement, would you have thought there should be such a requirement? Yes, it isn't alchemy and it just isn't for non-spellcasters. Though I honestly wouldn't have acted upon it since I try to avoid house rules, especially little ones. The fact that it is a core rule makes me quite happy. I'm saying that "invented" is not the right term. Sulfuric acid existed long before Zakariya Al-Rasi was ever born. He was simply the first to isolate it and recognize it for what it was. He did not do this by magic. Even if he did, there are other ways of isolating sulfuric acid today without magic (unless you consider modern chemistry magic). The term "invented" is hardly used when describing chemical compounds. Sure, he invented a method of isolating it, but his was not the only method. Nature has many methods of making it, and I'm sure that scientists today have at least one method of isolating it. Hey, there's ways of doing a lot of scientific things today without magic. Doesn't mean that the D&D world has them commonplace where everyone can do it without magic. Okay, the method for isolating sulfuric acid was invented and discovered. How's that? We also don't know he didn't use magic. He was an alchemist though, which seems to say that he was at least thought to have, as the wizards were thought to use magic themselves.
TheNatealator 09-11-05, 10:29 PM	My definition of magical is that anything made my magic will always be magical? Where did you get this? Created Water is made my magic but it is not magical. Holy Water is created by magic and it is not magical. Alchemy is made through magic and it is not magical. It doesn't mean it didn't have to require magic to make in the first place though. Yes, the D&D term "magical" usually does refer to that, which is why the mundane items table refers to those items as nonmagical. I'm sorry, it was Ogmug who said "By defintion,anything created by magic, is magical. However it does not have to eminate an aura, or have any special properties." Unlike you, I have to respond to two posters on the same side with simlar reasons. I'm sorry if this causes confusion. My third sentence? Alchemy requires magic to make, similar to how Holy Water requires magic to make, yet, they are not magical. Thus, it doesn't require feats or xp and whatnot. Holy Water requires a spell to make because there is a spell that says it makes holy water. I would say that is requiring "whatnot" Frankly, I don't see what "must be a spellcaster" could POSSIBLY mean besides "you must use magic". That's the very definition of spellcaster. If it just required training, then it would be available to everyone. The restriction on forgery says that the character must be able to read and write in the language you are trying to forge something in. This does not, in fact, restrict barbarians completely, or solely. It restricts any non-druid from forging a druidic document. It restricts anyone from forging a dwarven document (if they can't write dwarven). It restricts a barbarian from forging a document until he learns to read and write. He can do this in two ways. Either by multiclassing, or spending two skill points. (I would also rule that a barbarian could forge something that doesn't have words, like a picture, which would be more like a Craft (drawing) check followed by a Forgery check to see if the resulting drawing is close to the original when the drawing is scrutinized). The "special" on Craft (alchemy) can only be circumvented by multiclassing, or finding some other way to be a spellcaster. Lack of xp requirement? The only things that need an xp requirement are rare and/or somewhat powerful items. It's a balancing thing. If Holy Water had an xp requirement, then this argument would be harder to justify. OK, this is beginning to get a little tiring. I say XP requirement, you say Holy Water. I say spell requirement, you say +n stuff. I'd say we're using different aspects of each example for our own arguements. I'm going to address it all once again. An item is made by magic if it is made by a character using an item creation feat, spending XP, AND/OR a specific spell. I do not believe that there are any items besides those made by Craft (alchemy) that are not created with one of these things. Every other item created by magic (except the major artifacts) also has a specific minimum caster level required to make them. If the item is just created by a spell, than the minimum caster level is the minimum caster level required to cast the spell. I'm saying that someone making a sword who swore off evocation doesn't seem to have anything stopping him from making the sword, even if he had no other access to the evocation school. The sword happens to be picked up with Detect Magic as "evocation" when it's done though. I'd say that he learned how to use evocation for the purposes of making magical weapons when he took the feat "Craft Arms and Armor" much like a character would learn how to manipulate the magic (if any) involved in alchemy by taking ranks in the skill, but this is my interpretation. When I said it had the potential, I meant that non-spellcasters always have the potential to gain the spellcaster levels. In any case, the basic function of the craft skill as a whole is to create items. Anyone can make whatever untrained. However, spellcasters get the bonus of also being able to make alchemy untrained. But Craft (alchemy) is not Craft (anything else) is not Craft (something different). According to the RAW, all characters get some Craft skills (because that's what they are, not aspects of Craft skills, as say, searching for complex traps is an aspect of the Search skill), and spellcasters get more Craft skills. There is no "craft skill as a whole". The main purpose of Craft (alchemy) is to make alchemical items. The main purpose of Craft (basketweaving) is to make baskets. The main purpose of Craft (cooper) is to make barrels. Non-spellcasters get the side benefits of Craft (alchemy) (synergy bonus, being able to make money), but not the main benefet, of being able to make something. That's what I was saying too. Being in the PHB or being in the MM doesn't matter, it's a core skill. It's a core skill, but it's not a PC skill. It's a monster skill, hence being in the monster manual. If the PC becomes a monster, then he would gain this skill. I was responding under the impression that you were talking about the fact that there wasn't any other line in the books that said "Alchemy requires spellcaster levels" to prove that it wasn't just an oversight by the designers. Again, Control Shape for a rule like it. No, there was no contradiction, since I mention the similarities in the next part of the post. Why would it be mentioned in the class description? We already know spellcasters have it. All right, I will admit that the rule wasn't necessarily an oversight. Control Shape is detailed in the Skills and Feats section, but also mentioned in the section "Lycanthropy as an affliction" on page 178 of the MM. The monster manual would have different wording, because it is meant for monsters, not for normal PCs. Why would trapfinding be in the class description of rogues? From the skill description, we already have it? Why would we have BAB and saves in the class tables when they could just say they have good/average/poor BAB and saves? It would save room. They already tell you in a separate table what good/average/poor progressions are. They should have included something about Craft (alchemy) in the spellcasting classes' description, or in the magic section, somewhere, at least for the sake of completeness. It's the players "handbook" so that rules can be easily found. If something is related to magic, it should be in the magic section. If something is related to a skill, it should be in the skills section. If something is related to a class or classes, it should be in the class section. I'm not saying that I don't like the PHB, or any of the core books, and I'm not saying that this doesn't happen in most cases. I can appreciate all of the work put into these books, and I think that with all the details they had to juggle, this kinda got shoved to the side. As for showing it wasn't just an oversight. I found some lines in the Eberron Campaign setting mentioning alchemy. The only change to alchemy that Eberron made was that Articifers can craft alchemy (being that they are EXTREMELY like spellcasters, yet not, they indeed put this fact into their class description, though not on their class ability block) and also that a few more items can be made with it. Other than that, they are using 3.5 core rules. Under Special Substances and Items: "Alchemy is a well-developed science on Eberron, and articifers as well as more traditional spellcasters expore new ways to enhance the adventuring proffesion through alchemy". No mention of non-spellcasters/Articifers. Again, it's only to show wording showing it wasn't an oversight. I'm wondering, was Eberron created by the same designers of the Core books? If not, they could have been just going off of what was written in the book. I mean, the spellcaster requirement is RAW. (I've been saying this for a while, now) Once again, Holy Water doesn't have an XP cost and you can CLEARLY see the magic it comes from. Not every item imbued with magic has an xp cost. The cost is a balancing tool so that people don't go running around hog wild with their strange item creations. As I said above: Feat, XP, and/or specific spell. At least one. The xp is also because the item's creator puts some of him or her self into the item. Doesn't always happen. What? I was talking about Special Substances and Items. I'm not talking about special materials. I never said those were similar. Sorry, I misunderstood you completely. As for special substances and items, the paragraph immediately under the heading specifically says that all of the items listed (except for e.t.'s and h.w.'s) can be made by Craft (alchemy). Whether or not alchemy requires magic or not is completely up to the player. Control Shape is only restricted because it's in the book only the DM needs? More like it's for lycanthropes only. As for Forgery, you are indeed stating an exception. Alchemy is not alone. Forgery and Control Shape have the benefit of it being their own skills, thus a little more description to them. The craft skill has a lot of space already dedicated to itself and doesn't really have the room to describe the process of basketweaving, stonemasonry, alchemy, etc. It just assumes that if you take it, you know what it is. It is causing a problem in this case, but I don't see it as a reason to get rid of a restriction. Well, I already talked about Control Shape and Forgery above, but you say that Craft already takes up a lot of space? Since when did the PHB have a page count limit? Handle Animal's description is longer, Jump's is almost as long (due to more tables), and use magic device's description is much longer. And they're already saving a lot of space by describing all of the Craft skills at once. Going into detail on one part of the skill would have been appreciated by many people, IMO. For some people, what they gave is enough, yes, but for others, it isn't. I also hope you know that I'm not saying you should get rid of the restriction. They don't give the exact details though. Where does the xp go in? How does it go in? How does he make the item glow or not? If you aren't creating the armor (as in, it is already made) are you still working on it (with tools and a heat source, etc.)? Etc. Requirements for feats, PrC, etc. are indeed different from requirements for skills, I suppose. HOWEVER, it does not stop the fact that you say you want your requirements to have explanations and that those things often do NOT have these explanations. In addition, all classes have skills, yes, but all classes vary greatly on how they have access to these skills. Craft Alchemy is no exception. I'm saying that when there is no explanation, it is up to the DM to make the explanation, or lack thereof, for his or her personal campaign. If his or interpretation of the rules or his or her particular campaign setting does not mesh with a requirement, then he or she is perfectly capable of rule zeroing it, and I think you would agree with me on that. What you disagree with me is my reasoning for making the house rule, no? Craft (alchemy) is an exeption to how different classes get different things out of a skill, because for all of these class exceptions, the exception is listed as a class feature and in the skill itself. Illiteracy is the third class feature listed of the barbarian, and it's even on their table. Yes, it isn't alchemy and it just isn't for non-spellcasters. Though I honestly wouldn't have acted upon it since I try to avoid house rules, especially little ones. The fact that it is a core rule makes me quite happy. Interesting, so you wouldn't make a house rule about this no matter the situation. Hey, there's ways of doing a lot of scientific things today without magic. Doesn't mean that the D&D world has them commonplace where everyone can do it without magic. Okay, the method for isolating sulfuric acid was invented and discovered. How's that? We also don't know he didn't use magic. He was an alchemist though, which seems to say that he was at least thought to have, as the wizards were thought to use magic themselves. OK, i'm glad we got that tangent sorted out. I would have ignored it, but I'm kind of a stickler when it comes to terminology, especially when it's science related.
Gilean 09-12-05, 09:15 AM	OK, this is beginning to get a little tiring. I say XP requirement, you say Holy Water. I say spell requirement, you say +n stuff.What we are saying is that each of the arguments has a counter. Alchemical items are not holy water or magic items, they can have different combinations of the requirements. Each skill is different. You can't find another weapon that has reach and can be used to threaten adjoining squares besides spiked chain. Is spiked chain wrong? (This is rhetorical, an analogy, no need to tell that spiked chain is or is not overpowered.)
darkness ninja of light 09-12-05, 10:43 AM	I'm sorry, it was Ogmug who said "By defintion,anything created by magic, is magical. However it does not have to eminate an aura, or have any special properties." Unlike you, I have to respond to two posters on the same side with simlar reasons. I'm sorry if this causes confusion. Haha, I have two posters to respond to too ya know :P Holy Water requires a spell to make because there is a spell that says it makes holy water. I would say that is requiring "whatnot" Wait, isn't that that looping logic thing you talked about before (or was that Antioch) well in any case, holy water requires a spell (magic), alchemy requires spellcasters (magic). The restriction on forgery says that the character must be able to read and write in the language you are trying to forge something in. This does not, in fact, restrict barbarians completely, or solely. It restricts any non-druid from forging a druidic document. It restricts anyone from forging a dwarven document (if they can't write dwarven). It restricts a barbarian from forging a document until he learns to read and write. He can do this in two ways. Either by multiclassing, or spending two skill points. (I would also rule that a barbarian could forge something that doesn't have words, like a picture, which would be more like a Craft (drawing) check followed by a Forgery check to see if the resulting drawing is close to the original when the drawing is scrutinized). The "special" on Craft (alchemy) can only be circumvented by multiclassing, or finding some other way to be a spellcaster. That didn't answer my question.... Oh well, regardless the point of the forgery thing was that non-literate barbarians are unable to use the main purpose of the forgery skill, while they can still do SOMETHING. OK, this is beginning to get a little tiring. I say XP requirement, you say Holy Water. I say spell requirement, you say +n stuff. I'd say we're using different aspects of each example for our own arguements. I'm going to address it all once again. An item is made by magic if it is made by a character using an item creation feat, spending XP, AND/OR a specific spell. I do not believe that there are any items besides those made by Craft (alchemy) that are not created with one of these things. Every other item created by magic (except the major artifacts) also has a specific minimum caster level required to make them. If the item is just created by a spell, than the minimum caster level is the minimum caster level required to cast the spell. Gilean's got it here. You can see in the rules how alchemy is similar to other things. It's not out of place. You're adding the spell as one of the requirements just to trip me up on Holy Water and Continual Flame, I believe, but we know that there is nothing in the rules like this. The truth is, there is one similarity between ALL these things, and that is that they require spellcasters/magic to make them. Holy Water and Continual Flame do, they just go more specific with specific spells (magic). The item creation feats certainly use up feats and xp for balance, but you also definately need spellcasters/magic to make them. The minimum caster level is spellcaster level 1. I'd say that he learned how to use evocation for the purposes of making magical weapons when he took the feat "Craft Arms and Armor" much like a character would learn how to manipulate the magic (if any) involved in alchemy by taking ranks in the skill, but this is my interpretation. So she'd also be able to make swords that require evocation magic from the start? Same with Abjuration. A specialist NEVER learns from a forbidden school. She can't even use scrolls or wands from those schools. She can't change this. It doesn't make sense that suddenly she can make POWERFUL evocation weapons (+5) using her short study on evocation but can't even do the simplest evocation spell. Same with abjuration and armor. But Craft (alchemy) is not Craft (anything else) is not Craft (something different). According to the RAW, all characters get some Craft skills (because that's what they are, not aspects of Craft skills, as say, searching for complex traps is an aspect of the Search skill), and spellcasters get more Craft skills. There is no "craft skill as a whole". The main purpose of Craft (alchemy) is to make alchemical items. The main purpose of Craft (basketweaving) is to make baskets. The main purpose of Craft (cooper) is to make barrels. Non-spellcasters get the side benefits of Craft (alchemy) (synergy bonus, being able to make money), but not the main benefet, of being able to make something. The point is, you can still make stuff. The point of Craft is to make things and non-spellcasters can make anything they want untrained. Spellcasters, however, get the bonus of making anything they want plus alchemy. Of course they're different skills, but if you look at the big picture, nonspellcasters really don't get jipped. If they still want Craft Alchemy, then they have plenty of options. It's a core skill, but it's not a PC skill. It's a monster skill, hence being in the monster manual. If the PC becomes a monster, then he would gain this skill. It's a monster template of course, the PC is still a PC. It still doesn't invalidate Control Shape for being compared with Craft Alchemy. All right, I will admit that the rule wasn't necessarily an oversight. Control Shape is detailed in the Skills and Feats section, but also mentioned in the section "Lycanthropy as an affliction" on page 178 of the MM. The monster manual would have different wording, because it is meant for monsters, not for normal PCs. Why would trapfinding be in the class description of rogues? From the skill description, we already have it? Why would we have BAB and saves in the class tables when they could just say they have good/average/poor BAB and saves? It would save room. They already tell you in a separate table what good/average/poor progressions are. They should have included something about Craft (alchemy) in the spellcasting classes' description, or in the magic section, somewhere, at least for the sake of completeness. It's the players "handbook" so that rules can be easily found. If something is related to magic, it should be in the magic section. If something is related to a skill, it should be in the skills section. If something is related to a class or classes, it should be in the class section. I'm not saying that I don't like the PHB, or any of the core books, and I'm not saying that this doesn't happen in most cases. I can appreciate all of the work put into these books, and I think that with all the details they had to juggle, this kinda got shoved to the side. Trapfinding is specific, not a lot of people have it. If you want to know how trapfinding works, you go to the rogue description and read about it. Spellcasting is not rare at all. To put it in everyone's description is simply redundant. It was put in the Articifer description because otherwise people wouldn't think they could take Craft Alchemy. Perhaps it did get shoved to the side, but it doesn't make it a poor rule. I'm wondering, was Eberron created by the same designers of the Core books? If not, they could have been just going off of what was written in the book. I mean, the spellcaster requirement is RAW. (I've been saying this for a while, now) Besides Keith Baker, of course, I do see the other main designers (James Wyatt, Bill Slavicsek) in the Core Book's credits under research and development or design and whatnot. I'm not gonna bother to check all the names, but yes, major people worked on both books. As I said above: Feat, XP, and/or specific spell. At least one. The xp is also because the item's creator puts some of him or her self into the item. Doesn't always happen. Yes, that's what they say about xp with an item, of course, if the items aren't rare or unbalancing in the first place then they conveniantly don't have an xp requirement. Sorry, I misunderstood you completely. As for special substances and items, the paragraph immediately under the heading specifically says that all of the items listed (except for e.t.'s and h.w.'s) can be made by Craft (alchemy). Whether or not alchemy requires magic or not is completely up to the player. Uh....no, alchemy requiring spellcaster levels certainly does appear in the official ruling, Craft. It's not up to the player. It's up to the DM to house-rule it or not though. Well, I already talked about Control Shape and Forgery above, but you say that Craft already takes up a lot of space? Since when did the PHB have a page count limit? Handle Animal's description is longer, Jump's is almost as long (due to more tables), and use magic device's description is much longer. And they're already saving a lot of space by describing all of the Craft skills at once. Going into detail on one part of the skill would have been appreciated by many people, IMO. For some people, what they gave is enough, yes, but for others, it isn't. I also hope you know that I'm not saying you should get rid of the restriction. Handle animal needs a lot of space to tell what tricks you can teach, what the DC is, how long it takes to train, and the various "action" "try again" etc. If you look at it, its length is mostly for crunch, and to tell you generally what the tricks do and/or what happens if they don't know the trick. Jump is long also due to crunch, as you agree. Craft would take up MUCH more space if it went into the descriptions of its crafts (which are open-ended, unlike handle animal's tricks, so you can take any sort of craft). In general, while it would have been nice for those who don't know what alchemy or cobbling is, it's not needed. You can look them up in a dictionary and see the definition. You aren't saying you should get rid of the restriction? What ARE you saying then? I don't understand. I'm saying that when there is no explanation, it is up to the DM to make the explanation, or lack thereof, for his or her personal campaign. If his or interpretation of the rules or his or her particular campaign setting does not mesh with a requirement, then he or she is perfectly capable of rule zeroing it, and I think you would agree with me on that. What you disagree with me is my reasoning for making the house rule, no? Craft (alchemy) is an exeption to how different classes get different things out of a skill, because for all of these class exceptions, the exception is listed as a class feature and in the skill itself. Illiteracy is the third class feature listed of the barbarian, and it's even on their table. Yes I do agree with that. Yes, I also disagree with the reasoning for why it shouldn't have the restriction. I've already mentioned class features. If illiteracy is the class feature that restricts forgery and Trapfinding is the class feature that allows DC 20+ trap searchings, then Spells (a class feature according to the PHB page 24) is the class feature that allows alchemy. Articifers also get this class feature under Infusions, though neither Spells, nor Infusions appear on their table (rather, to the side). Interesting, so you wouldn't make a house rule about this no matter the situation. Yeah, if there's something I don't like, I tend to swallow it. I usually find the reasoning for the rule later. For example, I now see why crossbows and longbows aren't quite balanced by that crossbows vs longbows thread. I don't always keep from house-ruling things though.