Alchemy and Paladins

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The Annointed Knight prestige class (BoED) lists Paladin as one of the classes
that might want to take the PrC. It lists Craft(Alchemy) 5 ranks as a
prerequisite, along with Knowledge(Arcana) 3 ranks, Spellcraft 3 ranks, BAB
+5, Ancestral Relic, AL any good.

Applying Craft(Alchemy) requires that the character "be a spellcaster". It
seems to me that a Paladin from 4th level on is a spellcaster. S/he can take
the Knowledge and Spellcraft as cross-class, and be ready for the PrC by 5th
level (aside from the little problem of not being able to resume taking
Paladin ranks, since the PrC doesn't explicitly allow free multiclassing with
Paladin). I am also presuming that anyone can put ranks into Craft(Alchemy),
even if they can't use the skill yet.

Does this analysis look reasonable?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The Anointed Knight prestige class in the Book of Exalted Deeds suggests it
is suitable for Paladins (among others). The following is my attempt at
trying it out.

Aasimar Paladin 9/Anointed Knight 10 (ECL 20)
At epic levels this character won't be able to advance as a Paladin.

Stats based on the elite array, with the 12 and 8 both changed to 10.
Str 10
Dex 10
Con 16=14+2(8th, 12th lvl)
Int 10
Wis 16=13+2(race)+1(16th lvl)
Cha 19=15+2(race)+1(4th lvl)+1(divine clarity)

Anoint self: at PrC levels 1, 4, 7, 10.
Unbroken Flesh (DR 3/-), Divine Clarity (int, wis, or cha +1),
Deep Strike (+2d6 dmg 3/day), Inspired Strike (single extra attack at
highest BAB 3/day)
Anoint Weapon: at PrC levels 2, 5, 8:
Sunder resistance (+10 pts hardness), Impervious (+50 hp), Sentience
(intelligent, LG, mental scores 14, 14, 10, speech, 120' vision and
hearing, 2 lesser powers rolled randomly)
Feats:
7 from levels:
1: Insightful Strike (Wis instead of Str mod to hit), 3: Weapon focus
(longsword), 6: Ancestral Relic, 9: Hands of a Healer (Cha as if 2 higher
for lay on hands), 12: improved critical, 15: Lightning reflexes, 18:
Leadership
3 from Anointed Knight list:
Sanctify martial strike (+1 dmg vs evil, +1d4 vs evil outsiders),
Subduing strike (nonlethal damage with normal weapons),
Holy subdual (smite evil and holy weapon damage are nonlethal)
Variant: instead of divine clarity, one of the Anoint Selves could give
Alertness or Combat Reflexes, but CR would really need a higher Dex.

Ancestral relic is as discussed in the "Ancestral Relic Value" thread a few
weeks ago: up to 380,000 gp in magical value, allowing +5 in plusses and +8 in
other properties for 338,000 gp, leaving 42,000 in possible extra gp value
from weapon type or "fixed cost" add-ons (from somewhere other than the DMG,
which has none). Thus: a +5 Holy (+2) Metalline (+2) Undead Bane (+1) Evil
outsider bane (+1) Sure Striking (+2) longsword. Plus all the Anoint Weapon
goodies. Better not lose this one, or have it sundered.

I decided not to use Magebane, since it looks broken. Somebody who likes
Magebane could replace the two Banes with it, since MB includes a lot of
undead and outsiders (plus Aasimars, for that matter).

Since the character had to sacrifice a 338,000 value (+base cost of weapon), I
presume this comes off the 760,000 for a 20th ECL character, leaving about
422,000 for magical armour and other gear. This allows for a +5 shield and
+5 armour, each with +5 in other properties, leaving about 222,000 for
fixed-cost shield/armour add-ons and other gear. The armour should either be
Called (one of the 3.0 splat books; don armour magically as full round
action), or made of mithril (to be a lighter weight) and taking the Endurance
feat (so s/he can sleep in the armour without penalty).

HP 19d10 + 19*3 = 161.5
AC 20 = +13 (+5 full mithril plate) +7 (+5 heavy steel shield)
BAB +19
main attack +19+5(wpn)+3(wis)+1(WF) so +28/+23/+18/+13; 3/day another attack
at +28

aura of good 9, detect evil, smite evil 2/day, remove disease 2/week, special
mount, divine grace, lay on hands 36=9*4 hp/day, turn undead 7/day as cleric
6, divine health, aura of courage.

Fort +17 = 6(pal) + 7(AK) + 4(divine grace)
Ref +12 = 3(pal) + 3(AK) + 4(divine grace) +2 (lightning reflexes)
Will +14 = 3(pal) + 7(AK) + 4(divine grace)

Aasimar abilities: +2 racial bonus, spot & listen; darkvision; 1/day Daylight
"as 19th level character" except there are no level-dependent aspects to the
spell; resist 5 cold & acid & electricity

Skill points 19*2 = 38. By ECL 10 (Paladin 9) need 5 for Craft(Alchemy), 6
for Knowledge(arcana) 3 ranks, 6 for spellcraft 3 ranks, using 17 of the
Paladin's 18 skill points. The anointed knight's list doesn't contain any Cha
or Wis based skills, but Concentration (+24 = 21 ranks +3 con) might be useful
for casting Paladin spells in combat.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> The Annointed Knight prestige class (BoED) lists Paladin as one of the classes
> that might want to take the PrC. It lists Craft(Alchemy) 5 ranks as a
> prerequisite, along with Knowledge(Arcana) 3 ranks, Spellcraft 3 ranks, BAB
> +5, Ancestral Relic, AL any good.
>
> Applying Craft(Alchemy) requires that the character "be a spellcaster". It
> seems to me that a Paladin from 4th level on is a spellcaster. S/he can take
> the Knowledge and Spellcraft as cross-class, and be ready for the PrC by 5th
> level (aside from the little problem of not being able to resume taking
> Paladin ranks, since the PrC doesn't explicitly allow free multiclassing with
> Paladin). I am also presuming that anyone can put ranks into Craft(Alchemy),
> even if they can't use the skill yet.
>
> Does this analysis look reasonable?

I would think the paladin would be considered a "spellcaster" even at
first level, for the same reason that he would be allowed to use a /wand
of cure light wounds/ at first level. The class description in the PHB
even hints at this, stating that "Through 3rd level, a paladin has no
caster level." (PHB 44)

Hmm...if the ability to actually cast spells is required to be
considered a spellcaster, does that mean a Wizard with Int 9 can't take
Craft (alchemy)?

-Will

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green wrote:
>
> I would think the paladin would be considered a "spellcaster" even at
> first level, for the same reason that he would be allowed to use a /wand
> of cure light wounds/ at first level.

I wouldn't, for the simple reason that he can't CAST
SPELLS.

> The class description in the PHB
> even hints at this, stating that "Through 3rd level, a paladin has no
> caster level." (PHB 44)

WTF? Fighters (through all levels) have no caster
level, either. Does that lead you to conclude that
fighters would be considered spellcasters?

In any case, the "must be a spellcaster to use Craft
(alchemy)" rule is a stupid one. Ignore it and play
on.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> Will Green wrote:
>
>>I would think the paladin would be considered a "spellcaster" even at
>>first level, for the same reason that he would be allowed to use a /wand
>>of cure light wounds/ at first level.
>
> I wouldn't, for the simple reason that he can't CAST
> SPELLS.
>
>>The class description in the PHB
>>even hints at this, stating that "Through 3rd level, a paladin has no
>>caster level." (PHB 44)
>
> WTF? Fighters (through all levels) have no caster
> level, either. Does that lead you to conclude that
> fighters would be considered spellcasters?

Well, of course not. Then again, fighters don't have spell lists, either.

The reason the above statement struck me is exactly what you say, though
-- why does the book point out that low-level paladins don't have caster
levels?

Would an Int 9 Wizard be unable to use Craft (alchemy)? He can't cast
spells, either.

At any rate, I accept that the book doesn't actually say that paladins,
rangers, and the like qualify as spellcasters before 4th level. It just
wouldn't surprise me if the designers had intended them to qualify as such.

> In any case, the "must be a spellcaster to use Craft
> (alchemy)" rule is a stupid one. Ignore it and play
> on.

That I agree with.

-Will

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:

> The Annointed Knight prestige class (BoED) lists Paladin as one of the classes
> that might want to take the PrC. It lists Craft(Alchemy) 5 ranks as a
> prerequisite, along with Knowledge(Arcana) 3 ranks, Spellcraft 3 ranks, BAB
> +5, Ancestral Relic, AL any good.
>
> Applying Craft(Alchemy) requires that the character "be a spellcaster". It
> seems to me that a Paladin from 4th level on is a spellcaster. S/he can take
> the Knowledge and Spellcraft as cross-class, and be ready for the PrC by 5th
> level (aside from the little problem of not being able to resume taking
> Paladin ranks, since the PrC doesn't explicitly allow free multiclassing with
> Paladin). I am also presuming that anyone can put ranks into Craft(Alchemy),
> even if they can't use the skill yet.
>
> Does this analysis look reasonable?

My impression is that anyone can Craft(alchemy). Craft(alchemy) is used
to make poison, antitoxin, tanglefoot bags, smoke sticks, acid,
gunpowder, etc.

To me, it looks like you are confusing the feat Brew Potions with the
skill Craft(alchemy). These are entirely different.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

It has been brought to my attention that Senator Blutarsky
<monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:

>Will Green wrote:
>>
>> I would think the paladin would be considered a "spellcaster" even at
>> first level, for the same reason that he would be allowed to use a /wand
>> of cure light wounds/ at first level.
>
>I wouldn't, for the simple reason that he can't CAST
>SPELLS.

Not quite so clear-cut, I'm afraid. A Paladin is a spellcaster. He has
a spell list, and he has access to spells on it via spell-trigger and
spell-completion items. He just can't cast any under his own power.

It's a little muddy, and an area that really could do with someone
explicating a 'real' answer to the notion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <Tvz0e.2848$Ny6.5196@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>David Alex Lamb wrote:
>
>> The Annointed Knight prestige class (BoED) lists Paladin as one of the classes
>> that might want to take the PrC. It lists Craft(Alchemy) 5 ranks as a
>> prerequisite, along with Knowledge(Arcana) 3 ranks, Spellcraft 3 ranks, BAB
>> +5, Ancestral Relic, AL any good.
>>
>> Applying Craft(Alchemy) requires that the character "be a spellcaster". It
>> seems to me that a Paladin from 4th level on is a spellcaster. S/he can take
>> the Knowledge and Spellcraft as cross-class, and be ready for the PrC by 5th
>> level (aside from the little problem of not being able to resume taking
>> Paladin ranks, since the PrC doesn't explicitly allow free multiclassing with
>> Paladin). I am also presuming that anyone can put ranks into Craft(Alchemy),
>> even if they can't use the skill yet.
>>
>> Does this analysis look reasonable?
>
>My impression is that anyone can Craft(alchemy). Craft(alchemy) is used
>to make poison, antitoxin, tanglefoot bags, smoke sticks, acid,
>gunpowder, etc.
>
>To me, it looks like you are confusing the feat Brew Potions with the
>skill Craft(alchemy). These are entirely different.

I know the difference. The PrC definitely asks for Craft(Alchemy), and the
definition of Craft(Alchemy) definitely says you have to be a spellcaster.
Don't take my word -- look at the other posts in the thread that advise
ignoring the rule, which they needn't say if there were no such rule.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:


>
>
> I know the difference. The PrC definitely asks for Craft(Alchemy), and the
> definition of Craft(Alchemy) definitely says you have to be a spellcaster.
> Don't take my word -- look at the other posts in the thread that advise
> ignoring the rule, which they needn't say if there were no such rule.

I had misremembered a little, but not quite. Reread footnote (1). "You
must be a spellcaster to craft any of these items." It does not say that
you must be a spellcaster to take the skill Craft(alchemy). It only says
that you must be a spellcaster to actually use the skill to construct
the listed items. The footnote acts as a limited modifier in the
application of the skill, not a general modifier to the skill itself.

Further on, the SRD say, "To make an item using Craft(alchemy), you must
.... be a spellcaster." This limits the use of the skill in creating
items, not in who takes the skill, nor other uses of the skill that may
apply. A non-spellcaster could still get a +2 bonus to Appraise when
assessing alchemical items. That ability is not limited by the footnote.
Likewise, someone using Craft(alchemy) to aid a crafting check need not
be a spellcaster, as they aren't the ones creating the item.

Given that the rules are: a class is either class or cross-class, and
short of any limiters in the skill description, there are no other
limiters. Given that there are no more class-exclusive skills in 3.5.
any class may choose any skill. Given that there is nothing stating
"only spellcasters may take ranks in craft(alchemy)", I must conclude
that anyone, even a barbarian, could take craft(alchemy). In looking at
Spellcraft, I also see no limiters in taking that skill, and that is
even more magic specific than Craft(alchemy).

It is unclear whether Craft(alchemy) can be use to do other alchemical
processes that result in something other than a finished item if you
aren't a spellcaster. For instance, is refining sulfer from raw
ingredients the same as making an item? Is making a weak acid for use in
metal etching the same as making an item? Is making a substance with no
useful game function the same as making an item?

What's even more unclear is whether you can UMD to imitate being a
spellcaster in order to create alchemical items.

In any event, I see nothing that overrides the default 3.5 rank choosing
mechanic. I only see limiters in how the skill can be applied once you
have ranks in it.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:38:31 GMT, Talen
<talen@spamspamspamspam.dodo.com.au> wrote:

>It has been brought to my attention that Senator Blutarsky
><monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Will Green wrote:
>>>
>>> I would think the paladin would be considered a "spellcaster" even at
>>> first level, for the same reason that he would be allowed to use a /wand
>>> of cure light wounds/ at first level.
>>
>>I wouldn't, for the simple reason that he can't CAST
>>SPELLS.
>
>Not quite so clear-cut, I'm afraid. A Paladin is a spellcaster. He has
>a spell list, and he has access to spells on it via spell-trigger and
>spell-completion items. He just can't cast any under his own power.
>
>It's a little muddy, and an area that really could do with someone
>explicating a 'real' answer to the notion.
>

Why is alchemy restricted to spellcasters anyway?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:38:31 GMT, Talen
> <talen@spamspamspamspam.dodo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>It has been brought to my attention that Senator Blutarsky
>><monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Will Green wrote:
>>>
>>>>I would think the paladin would be considered a "spellcaster" even at
>>>>first level, for the same reason that he would be allowed to use a /wand
>>>>of cure light wounds/ at first level.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't, for the simple reason that he can't CAST
>>>SPELLS.
>>
>>Not quite so clear-cut, I'm afraid. A Paladin is a spellcaster. He has
>>a spell list, and he has access to spells on it via spell-trigger and
>>spell-completion items. He just can't cast any under his own power.
>>
>>It's a little muddy, and an area that really could do with someone
>>explicating a 'real' answer to the notion.
>>
>
>
> Why is alchemy restricted to spellcasters anyway?
>

From the talk here: the 3.0 skill required that you be a spellcaster,
the 3.5 version does not.

I think it's limited to spellcasters because one is essentially making
minor magic items. Otherwise, all rogues would start making their overly
powerful tanglefoot bags and tindersticks.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <424292c0.37405436@news.telusplanet.net>,
David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Why is alchemy restricted to spellcasters anyway?

Backward compatibility with 3.0, where Alchemy was a separate skill only on
the lists of certain spellcasters. When they folded it into Craft, they
couldn't list it separately from the rest of the Craft(Int) skills that
everybody gets.

I don't have my 3.0 books nearby to check whether Alchemy was on the Paladin
list or not, and will probably forget before I get home.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <o0C0e.2851$Ny6.5196@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>David Alex Lamb wrote:
>
>Given that the rules are: a class is either class or cross-class, and
>short of any limiters in the skill description, there are no other
>limiters. Given that there are no more class-exclusive skills in 3.5.
>any class may choose any skill. Given that there is nothing stating
>"only spellcasters may take ranks in craft(alchemy)", I must conclude
>that anyone, even a barbarian, could take craft(alchemy). In looking at
>Spellcraft, I also see no limiters in taking that skill, and that is
>even more magic specific than Craft(alchemy).

Strangely enough, that interpretation did occur to me, and I used it in my
Anointed Paladin post to take craft(Alchemy) at levels 1-3 before the Paladin
started being able to cast spells (since I was then under the impression that
Paladins might not be spellcasters before level 4, or 6 if their Wis was too
low for bonus spells).

>[snip]
>In any event, I see nothing that overrides the default 3.5 rank choosing
>mechanic. I only see limiters in how the skill can be applied once you
>have ranks in it.

The Annointed Knight requires the use of the craft(alchemy) skill to make the
magical oils for the Anoint Self and Anoint Weapon abilities. Those aren't
listed in any core book as "magic items" requiring that someone "be a
spellcaster" but it seem(s)(ed) logical to me.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <d1uru3$f2d$1@knot.queensu.ca>,
David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>In article <424292c0.37405436@news.telusplanet.net>,
>David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>Why is alchemy restricted to spellcasters anyway?
>
>Backward compatibility with 3.0, where Alchemy was a separate skill only on
>the lists of certain spellcasters. When they folded it into Craft, they
>couldn't list it separately from the rest of the Craft(Int) skills that
>everybody gets.
>
>I don't have my 3.0 books nearby to check whether Alchemy was on the Paladin
>list or not, and will probably forget before I get home.

So, I didn't forget.

In the 3.0 PHB only Bard, Sorceror, and Wizard had Alchemy on their class
skill lists. In the DMG only the Loremaster PrC had it. Tome and Blood had a
lot of PrC with Alchemy, but not all -- Fatespinner for example. Song and
Silence, and Defenders of the Faith, had none. I can't find my copy of
Masters of the Wild but imagine it didn't either. Surprisingly, Sword and
Fist had one: the Ninja of the Crescent Moon (for no apparent reason, at least
not any mentioned in the text).

So 3.5 broadened Alchemy to divine casters as well as arcane ones, due to the
lack of the word "arcane" in "must be a spellcaster", unless one decides it
was omitted in error. Given that broadening, I don't have much trouble
extending the craft(alchemy) to Paladins, at least at 4th level.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <d1srt9$14b$1@knot.queensu.ca>,
David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>Aasimar Paladin 9/Anointed Knight 10 (ECL 20)

I guess basically boring. The story of most of my posts.

>Anoint Weapon: at PrC levels 2, 5, 8:
> Sunder resistance (+10 pts hardness), Impervious (+50 hp), Sentience
> (intelligent, LG, mental scores 14, 14, 10, speech, 120' vision and
> hearing, 2 lesser powers rolled randomly)
>Ancestral relic is as discussed in the "Ancestral Relic Value" thread a few
>weeks ago: up to 380,000 gp in magical value, allowing +5 in plusses and +8 in
>other properties for 338,000 gp, leaving 42,000 in possible extra gp value
>from weapon type or "fixed cost" add-ons (from somewhere other than the DMG,
>which has none). Thus: a +5 Holy (+2) Metalline (+2) Undead Bane (+1) Evil
>outsider bane (+1) Sure Striking (+2) longsword. Plus all the Anoint Weapon
>goodies. Better not lose this one, or have it sundered.

Missed off the actual substantive paragraphs somehow:

Most people's rections to this sword were stated in the thread where we
developed it. The Anoint Weapon steps make it harder to sunder. I am not
sure where to put the 3 mental scores.

If I got to choose the 2 powers I'd pick 10 ranks in Spot and Listen, putting
a 14 in Wis for a total of +12 in each; too bad it can't augment the Paladin's
spot and listen instead, taking advantage of the Aasimar +2 racial bonus.
Rolling randomly I get 79 (darkness 3/day -- very un-Aasimar) and 22 (detect
magic at will).
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
> Surprisingly, Sword and Fist had one: the Ninja of the Crescent Moon
> (for no apparent reason, at least not any mentioned in the text).

Ninja made smoke bombs, etc., most simply modeled as alchemy objects.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <slrnd465du.395.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Surprisingly, Sword and Fist had one: the Ninja of the Crescent Moon
>> (for no apparent reason, at least not any mentioned in the text).
>
>Ninja made smoke bombs, etc., most simply modeled as alchemy objects.

OK, it makes sense then -- but it might have been nice for them to mention it.
I suppose they expected us to deduce it.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <I%E0e.2854$Ny6.5137@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> Why is alchemy restricted to spellcasters anyway?
>
> From the talk here: the 3.0 skill required that you be a spellcaster,
>the 3.5 version does not.

No. 3.0 listed Alchemy only for a limited list of classes (Bard, Sor, Wiz,
plus a couple of PrC). 3.5 lists Craft(Alchemy) applications as "requires
that you be a spellcaster".
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Talen wrote:
>
> It has been brought to my attention that Senator Blutarsky
> <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Will Green wrote:
> >>
> >> I would think the paladin would be considered a "spellcaster" even at
> >> first level, for the same reason that he would be allowed to use a /wand
> >> of cure light wounds/ at first level.
> >
> >I wouldn't, for the simple reason that he can't CAST
> >SPELLS.
>
> Not quite so clear-cut, I'm afraid. A Paladin is a spellcaster. He has
> a spell list, and he has access to spells on it via spell-trigger and
> spell-completion items.

I am not aware of any rules that give 1st-level
paladins "access to spells via spell completion
items." If you have a cite, I'd like to see it.

The scroll activation rules (DMG, p.238) make it clear
that a scroll-user whose caster level is at least equal
to the spell's caster level can activate the scroll's
spell without a check (assuming the other requirements
are met). It is equally clear that the user can make a
caster level check if her own caster level is *lower*
than the spell's caster level.

A 1st-level paladin has *NO* caster level. Not "0".
*NONE*.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green wrote:
>
> -- why does the book point out that low-level paladins don't have caster
> levels?

To make it clear that they aren't spellcasters yet? So
that people will not mistakenly assume they have a
caster level of 0?

> Would an Int 9 Wizard be unable to use Craft (alchemy)? He can't cast
> spells, either.

I'd have to say that no, an Int 9 wizard would not be
able to make any items using Craft (alchemy) per the
RAW. (Another point in favor of ditching the silly
rule, even as rare as Int 9 wizards must surely be.)

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky wrote:


>
> I am not aware of any rules that give 1st-level
> paladins "access to spells via spell completion
> items." If you have a cite, I'd like to see it.
>
> The scroll activation rules (DMG, p.238) make it clear
> that a scroll-user whose caster level is at least equal
> to the spell's caster level can activate the scroll's
> spell without a check (assuming the other requirements
> are met). It is equally clear that the user can make a
> caster level check if her own caster level is *lower*
> than the spell's caster level.
>
> A 1st-level paladin has *NO* caster level. Not "0".
> *NONE*.
>
> -Bluto

I strongly disagree. A paladin can use a wand of cure light wounds
because "Cure Light Wounds" is on his spell list, even if he is not of
high-enough level to cast the spell. If he was not a spellcaster, he
could not do this as he would have no spell list.

My rule of thumb:
spell list = spellcaster
no spell list = not a spellcaster

CH

 

[Mouse]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:32:46 -0500, Clawhound <none@nowhere.com>
raised a finger to the sky and proclaimed:

>Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I am not aware of any rules that give 1st-level
>> paladins "access to spells via spell completion
>> items." If you have a cite, I'd like to see it.
>>
>> The scroll activation rules (DMG, p.238) make it clear
>> that a scroll-user whose caster level is at least equal
>> to the spell's caster level can activate the scroll's
>> spell without a check (assuming the other requirements
>> are met). It is equally clear that the user can make a
>> caster level check if her own caster level is *lower*
>> than the spell's caster level.
>>
>> A 1st-level paladin has *NO* caster level. Not "0".
>> *NONE*.
>>
>> -Bluto
>
>I strongly disagree. A paladin can use a wand of cure light wounds
>because "Cure Light Wounds" is on his spell list, even if he is not of
>high-enough level to cast the spell. If he was not a spellcaster, he
>could not do this as he would have no spell list.
>
>My rule of thumb:
>spell list = spellcaster
>no spell list = not a spellcaster
>
>CH

I think the technicality comes from "A 1st level Paladin does not have
a spell list (yet)".

Don't have the books here at work, but I'm fairly certain a 1st level
Paladin can *not* use a Wand of Cure Light

--
Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
- Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mouse wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:32:46 -0500, Clawhound <none@nowhere.com>
> raised a finger to the sky and proclaimed:
>
>
>>Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am not aware of any rules that give 1st-level
>>>paladins "access to spells via spell completion
>>>items." If you have a cite, I'd like to see it.
>>>
>>>The scroll activation rules (DMG, p.238) make it clear
>>>that a scroll-user whose caster level is at least equal
>>>to the spell's caster level can activate the scroll's
>>>spell without a check (assuming the other requirements
>>>are met). It is equally clear that the user can make a
>>>caster level check if her own caster level is *lower*
>>>than the spell's caster level.
>>>
>>>A 1st-level paladin has *NO* caster level. Not "0".
>>>*NONE*.
>>>
>>>-Bluto
>>
>>I strongly disagree. A paladin can use a wand of cure light wounds
>>because "Cure Light Wounds" is on his spell list, even if he is not of
>>high-enough level to cast the spell. If he was not a spellcaster, he
>>could not do this as he would have no spell list.
>>
>>My rule of thumb:
>>spell list = spellcaster
>>no spell list = not a spellcaster
>>
>>CH
>
>
> I think the technicality comes from "A 1st level Paladin does not have
> a spell list (yet)".
>
> Don't have the books here at work, but I'm fairly certain a 1st level
> Paladin can *not* use a Wand of Cure Light
>

I just looked this up. The SRD takes pains to say that paladins *CAN*.
In fact, paladins are the example. The only requirement is that the
spell be on your spell list. So one either has a class with a spell
list, or one does not. Specifically, look in MagicItemsI under the Spell
Trigger description, and MagicItemsIV under the rules for using scrolls.

On rereading this, I am now very confident that having a spell list is
the DEFINITION of spellcaster.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, David Alex Lamb hastily scrawled:
>In article <I%E0e.2854$Ny6.5137@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
>Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>David Johnston wrote:
>>> Why is alchemy restricted to spellcasters anyway?
>>
>> From the talk here: the 3.0 skill required that you be a spellcaster,
>>the 3.5 version does not.
>
>No. 3.0 listed Alchemy only for a limited list of classes (Bard, Sor, Wiz,
>plus a couple of PrC). 3.5 lists Craft(Alchemy) applications as "requires
>that you be a spellcaster".

Yes. 3.0 required you be a spellcaster (of a specific kind even) to
get ranks in the skill. 3.5 lets anyone take it, but certain items
(maybe all of them) require you to be a spellcaster in order to make
them.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>> I am not aware of any rules that give 1st-level paladins "access to
>> spells via spell completion items." If you have a cite, I'd like to
>> see it.

Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I strongly disagree. A paladin can use a wand of cure light wounds
> because "Cure Light Wounds" is on his spell list ....

Irrelevant. Wands are not spell-completion items. They are spell-trigger
items, which have no particular caster-level requirements.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd