2
\$\begingroup\$

The third-party base class machinesmith can make prototypes, which basically function like spells. The prerequisite for the feat Scribe Scroll is having a caster level of 1. Every single magical thing the machinesmith does counts the creature's machinesmith level as the creature's caster level. In addition, a machinesmith gains bonus item creation feats:

Crafting Expertise (Su): At 3rd level, the machinesmith gains Craft Wondrous Item as a bonus feat. At 8th level he gains Craft Magic Arms and Armor. At 15th level he gains the Craft Construct feat. He uses his machinesmith levels in place of caster level when making such items. In order to add a special ability to an item, he must have access to the prerequisite spells, either through use of a magical item or cast by another spellcaster.

(Emphasis mine.) Does such items mean that the creature's machinesmith levels count as caster levels only and exclusively for creating magic items covered by the feats listed for craft expertise? Or, using this as a guideline, can a machinesmith meet the prerequisite for, for example, the feat Scribe Scroll?

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

No.

They have a "virtual" caster level for the purpose of using those class abilities only.

What we have here is the specific rule (Crafting Expertise) changing a more general rule (Crafting feats and their requeriments), but only for the purpose of the feats listed on the specific rule.

It's the same with alchemists, for the purpose of certain abilities, we consider that their caster level is the same as their alchemist class levels, but they do not actually have a caster level because they are not casters. Thus, they do not qualify for item creation feats.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thank you so much, does this also mean that i do not suffer from arcane spell failure? \$\endgroup\$ – Zaizer zazza Sep 19 '16 at 17:39
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Zaizerzazza generally we encourage distinctly unrelated follow-up questions to be asked in a separate question, not in comments. (You do yourself and everyone a favour that way.) \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 19 '16 at 17:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ This ignores the problem that characters are required to meet prerequisites in order to use feats, which is rather at odds with gaining them as bonus feats. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Sep 19 '16 at 17:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ They gain them as part of the class ability, which also states that they can use them using her class levels as caster level. When you gain bonus feats, it can ask for requeriments (see fighter) or completely ignore them (see ranger). \$\endgroup\$ – ShadowKras Sep 19 '16 at 17:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ I believe this class is an alchemist but for machinery. The exact wording seems to be used on the class abilities. \$\endgroup\$ – ShadowKras Sep 19 '16 at 17:45
1
\$\begingroup\$

No, non-magical classes that have spell like functions do not have a 'Caster Level' and do not qualify for magical crafting Feats except in cases where they are given them as class features. Even in 3pp, when it tells you to use your class level 'in place of a Caster Level', it is not granting you an actual Caster Level.

This is frequently homeruled the other way, but this answer is correct RAW and has been addressed by Paizo as something that may change in the future.

Source

Alchemist: Is an alchemist a spellcaster for the purpose of crafting magic items other than potions?

As written, no, alchemists are not spellcasters, and therefore can't select feats such as Craft Wondrous Item. The design team is aware that this creates some thematic problems with the idea of an alchemist creating golems and so on, and plan to examine this in the future.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I’m not sure how this answers the question, since the machinesmith is a rather special case that gains these feats as bonus feats and yet apparently cannot use them. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Sep 19 '16 at 17:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kryan You misunderstand, I'm saying they CAN use these feats because they're granted them; they couldn't have chosen to take them if it wasn't granted by the class. It's the same exact answer as ShadowKras who posted at the same time. \$\endgroup\$ – Ifusaso Sep 19 '16 at 17:43
1
\$\begingroup\$

This third-party material seems flawed. Strictly speaking, in order to use a feat, you need to meet its prerequisites, but nothing here says that you either gain these bonus feats without meeting these prerequisites, nor does anything say your machinesmith levels count as caster level for the prerequisites. As such, you cannot use these feats, even the bonus feats, since you do not meet their prerequisites.

What it says instead is that you meet the caster level requirements of items you craft. But that’s not terribly helpful when you either cannot take, or cannot use, the required feat.

It seems extremely likely that the authors intended you to use machinesmith levels in place of caster level for all things relating to these feats, including qualifying for them. The discrepancies I bring up are, admittedly, rather obtuse technicalities—though one would hope that someone asking for your money is up on their technicalities, even if they are obtuse. (Then again, Paizo itself doesn’t meet that standard.)

I recommend ruling that a machinesmith can use their machinesmith levels for these feats.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's okay if the machinesmith doesn't meet a bonus feat's prerequisites. With that in mind, does, for example, the feat Craft Wondrous Item actually in itself do anything or does the feat, once present on the creature's character sheet, merely enable meeting construction requirements for some magic items? \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Sep 19 '16 at 17:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ You are correct. The ability lacks the rule saying they do not have to meet the requeriment, like "The alchemist does not need to meet the prerequisites for this feat.". But could be an oversight. \$\endgroup\$ – ShadowKras Sep 19 '16 at 17:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan Well that is idiocy of the highest order, but I suppose that’s Paizo for you. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Sep 19 '16 at 17:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ShadowKras That it is an oversight is precisely what I am suggesting, yes. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Sep 19 '16 at 17:53
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Weaveworker89 Oh, I see the confusion. I was recommending that you do that despite what the rules say, because the rules are poorly written. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Sep 19 '16 at 19:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.