Forums: Rules Questions: Alchemists and Item Creation Feats (2024)

Previously, I’ve been of the opinion that alchemists could not take Craft Arms & Armor or Craft Wondrous Item without taking the Master Craftsman feat first.

In part due to the wording of the bonus feat Brew Potion and that alchemists don’t ‘cast’ spells and thus don’t have a normal caster level.

However recently reading through the Carrion Crown AP I’ve changed my mind. There are a couple of examples (one implied, one explicit) in the CC AP.

Part of what changed my mind was way the two examples were presented, which was that it makes a good story.
And if it can make for a good story with NPCs then it should also make good story for PCs (whether it will or not is another matter).

Just my 2 cents.

W. John Hare wrote:

Previously, I’ve been of the opinion that alchemists could not take Craft Arms & Armor or Craft Wondrous Item without taking the Master Craftsman feat first.

In part due to the wording of the bonus feat Brew Potion and that alchemists don’t ‘cast’ spells and thus don’t have a normal caster level.

However recently reading through the Carrion Crown AP I’ve changed my mind. There are a couple of examples (one implied, one explicit) in the CC AP.

Part of what changed my mind was way the two examples were presented, which was that it makes a good story.
And if it can make for a good story with NPCs then it should also make good story for PCs (whether it will or not is another matter).

Just my 2 cents.

Technically speaking, alchemists don't have a caster level and don't qualify for any item creation feats without master craftsman. Brew Potion is the exception, for which they are given an effective caster level.

Anything else is a houserule.

Bascaria wrote:

Technically speaking, alchemists don't have a caster level and don't qualify for any item creation feats without master craftsman. Brew Potion is the exception, for which they are given an effective caster level.

Anything else is a houserule.

Except as I stated there are examples in Carrion Crown that indicate otehrwise.

Now I will admit that possibly the two examples were mistakes... but I think it is more likely that the intent was for alchemists to be able to craft magic items.

As for Brew Potion, it is normally prereq of caster level 3.
Maybe we have been misinterpretting that ability.
Maybe alchemists are casters, and the exception in the Brew Potion for the alchemist is because the alchemist gets it at level 1 rather than level 3.

The alchemist is a "sorta" caster, but clearly does not have a caster level.

Alchemy, SRD wrote:

Although the alchemist doesn’t actually cast spells, he does have a formulae list that determines what extracts he can create. An alchemist can utilize spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formulae list, but not spell-completion items (unless he uses Use Magic Device to do so). An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.

Bolded to increase readability. The first bolded bit identifies that the alchemist doesn't cast spells. The second bolded bit enforces that while he understands spells he never actually casts them (and thus can't use spell completion items). The third, and most crucial bolded bit, tells you how to treat caster level in his extracts: enforcing that the alchemist doesn't have a caster level and thus an alternate rule was created to deal with the mechanic.

W. John Hare wrote:

Bascaria wrote:

Technically speaking, alchemists don't have a caster level and don't qualify for any item creation feats without master craftsman. Brew Potion is the exception, for which they are given an effective caster level.

Anything else is a houserule.

Except as I stated there are examples in Carrion Crown that indicate otehrwise.

Now I will admit that possibly the two examples were mistakes... but I think it is more likely that the intent was for alchemists to be able to craft magic items.

As for Brew Potion, it is normally prereq of caster level 3.
Maybe we have been misinterpretting that ability.
Maybe alchemists are casters, and the exception in the Brew Potion for the alchemist is because the alchemist gets it at level 1 rather than level 3.

Was about to reply with everything the owl just said. I can't speak to the Carrion Crown examples, because I don't have any APs myself, but I would say they are likely in error or there is something else at work which you overlooked.

Alchemists do not cast spells and do not have a caster level. They cannot take item creation feats.

Sean FitzSimon wrote:

The alchemist is a "sorta" caster, but clearly does not have a caster level.

Alchemy, SRD wrote:

Although the alchemist doesn’t actually cast spells, he does have a formulae list that determines what extracts he can create. An alchemist can utilize spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formulae list, but not spell-completion items (unless he uses Use Magic Device to do so). An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.

Bolded to increase readability. The first bolded bit identifies that the alchemist doesn't cast spells. The second bolded bit enforces that while he understands spells he never actually casts them (and thus can't use spell completion items). The third, and most crucial bolded bit, tells you how to treat caster level in his extracts: enforcing that the alchemist doesn't have a caster level and thus an alternate rule was created to deal with the mechanic.

Well I would think feat prerequsites are an effect based on caster level, ergo an alchemist can take item creation feats. After all nothing in the item creation feats say the caster has to be able to cast spells.

W. John Hare wrote:

Sean FitzSimon wrote:

The alchemist is a "sorta" caster, but clearly does not have a caster level.

Alchemy, SRD wrote:

Although the alchemist doesn’t actually cast spells, he does have a formulae list that determines what extracts he can create. An alchemist can utilize spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formulae list, but not spell-completion items (unless he uses Use Magic Device to do so). An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.

Bolded to increase readability. The first bolded bit identifies that the alchemist doesn't cast spells. The second bolded bit enforces that while he understands spells he never actually casts them (and thus can't use spell completion items). The third, and most crucial bolded bit, tells you how to treat caster level in his extracts: enforcing that the alchemist doesn't have a caster level and thus an alternate rule was created to deal with the mechanic.

Well I would think feat prerequsites are an effect based on caster level, ergo an alchemist can take item creation feats. After all nothing in the item creation feats say the caster has to be able to cast spells.

But that is specifically from the section dealing with formulas. He does not have a caster level, but for the purposes of his formula, he treats his class level as a caster level.

Nothing in the item creation feats says the caster has to be able to cast spells, that is true. But it does say that they have to be a caster. Which, again, the alchemist is not, as he "does not actually cast spells."

W. John Hare wrote:

Well I would think feat prerequsites are an effect based on caster level, ergo an alchemist can take item creation feats. After all nothing in the item creation feats say the caster has to be able to cast spells.

I'm not sure you understand, but here it is:

Caster Level, SRD wrote:

A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.

This is the first line under Caster Level. It clearly states that caster level is derived from a class casting spells, which the Alchemist does not (cited above).

Master Craftsman feat, SRD wrote:

Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.

The master craftsman feat allows a person who is not a spellcaster (person who casts spells) to take two of the item creation feats. The text above enforces that non-spellcasters cannot take the feats without this.

Magic Item Crafting, SRD wrote:

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. 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). The DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, scrolls, staves, wands, or any other spell-trigger or spell-completion magic item without meeting its prerequisites.

The bolded bit is mine. This text here further enforces why a non-spellcaster cannot take the other item creation feats: because they cannot cast the spells required to make them.

I hope this helps clear it up for you.

Technically you are correct Bascaria, the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells.

However the alchemist is considered a spellcaster:
PRD UM Spellcaster Class Archetypes

So since every other class on the list is considered to have a caster level, I believe the alchemist should as well.

[Edit'd for spelling]

W. John Hare wrote:

So since every other class on the list is considered to have a caster level, I believe the alchemist should as well.

The alchemist is a "sorta" caster, but exists largely as an exception to the rule (this was all covered above). You can call it a casting class all you like, and it's very similar to one, but the rules are clear: to have a caster level you need to cast spells. The Alchemy text even touches on this, creating an alternate rule on what to treat the Alchemist's caster level as concerning extracts.

W. John Hare wrote:

Technically you are correct Bascaria, the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells.

However the alchemist is considered a spellcaster:
PRD UM Spellcaster Class Archetypes

So since every other class on the list is considered to have a caster level, I believe the alchemist should as well.

[Edit'd for spelling]

.... But it doesn't.

I believe the monk should have a full BAB (or at least, I did, before I think Paizo did 1 better with all the stuff they gave it in UC). That doesn't mean that it does. If I wanted to house rule it that way, then I could. But it isn't the rules.

If you believe that the alchemist should have a caster level, then house rule it that way and be done with it. But it is a house rule, as even you have admitted.

First off i have to say that i know what your meaning fromt he AP and agree.

The alchemist is a caster level for any effect based on caster level. which i would think includes feats. I say this since it has been stated that the monks effective BAB from flurrying affects feats such as Power attack and such.

Since the feat is the only thing you actually have to have to make the itemssuch as wonderous items and magic arms and armors.

Talonhawke wrote:

First off i have to say that i know what your meaning fromt he AP and agree.

The alchemist is a caster level for any effect based on caster level. which i would think includes feats. I say this since it has been stated that the monks effective BAB from flurrying affects feats such as Power attack and such.

Since the feat is the only thing you actually have to have to make the itemssuch as wonderous items and magic arms and armors.

The monk's flurry affects how his BAB interacts with feats he already has. It does not allow him to qualify for feats which his base BAB does not.

For example, a monk has to be 8th level in order to get any of the greater combat maneuver feats, which require a +6 BAB, even though his flurry BAB hits +6 at lvl 6.

Bascaria wrote:

.... But it doesn't.

I believe the monk should have a full BAB (or at least, I did, before I think Paizo did 1 better with all the stuff they gave it in UC). That doesn't mean that it does. If I wanted to house rule it that way, then I could. But it isn't the rules.

If you believe that the alchemist should have a caster level, then house rule it that way and be done with it. But it is a house rule, as even you have admitted.

Ah, but when it gets put into a Paizo product (such as the Carrion Crown AP) then it is no longer just a house rule... it becomes part of the rules.

Now, an AP may not always be the best example on rules as there have been mistakes in the past, but for 2 such examples in the same adventure path would seem to indicate that alchemists are 'casters' for the purpose of feat acquisition.

And I currently have not seen anything in the Carrion Crown boards indicating a 'mistake'.

Talonhawke wrote:

First off i have to say that i know what your meaning fromt he AP and agree.

The alchemist is a caster level for any effect based on caster level. which i would think includes feats. I say this since it has been stated that the monks effective BAB from flurrying affects feats such as Power attack and such.

Since the feat is the only thing you actually have to have to make the itemssuch as wonderous items and magic arms and armors.

I'd also like to point out that the alch level = caster level sentence comes in the middle of a paragraph detailing how the alchemist creates extracts. Here it is in the context of the two sentences on either side:

Context wrote:

An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level. Creating extracts consumes raw materials, but the cost of these materials is insignificant—comparable to the valueless material components of most spells.

Clearly it is only relating to the subject at hand, which would be the alchemist's supernatural (NOT spell-like) ability, Alchemy.

Also, qualifying for a feat is not an "effect" in the game sense of the word.

Talonhawke wrote:

The alchemist is a caster level for any effect based on caster level. which i would think includes feats.

(expanding on Bascaria, you Ninja)

If you really want to break it down into semantics, taking a feat doesn't have an effect: it has a requirement. You are required to meet the prerequisites before being able to take a feat, just like you are required to reach a certain level before you can cast a spell or create a certain extract. The spell/extract then has its effects modified based on your caster level.

Here is James Jacobs talking about the alchemist interacting with feats and prestige classes which require a caster level:

James Jacobs wrote:

As for alchemists... they use arcane magic, but they don't actually cast spells. They're sort of experimental in that regard, and we're still finessing out what all of that means in the final incarnation of the class... but for now, an alchemist probably shouldn't be able to use things like Arcane Strike or qualify for spellcasting classes. But if I had a player who wanted to take this route, I'd invent alchemist versions of those feats or prestige classes.

This is, admittedly, an old quote, and while Jacobs' words don't carry the force of RAW, it is clearly something which was being discussed by everyone at the time, with the understanding being that alchemists did not have a caster level.

During the playtest, the alchemist did not have Brew Potion. People asked why, and here was Jason's response:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

I have heard a lot of folks wondering why the alchemist does not have Brew Potion. We did not include this initially due to the different way that extracts and formulae work. That said, there are some pretty simple work-arounds here to fix this issue and I am considering a number of them. It does seem a bit odd to me thematically that the class does not have this ability.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

In other words, they did not give the alchemist Brew Potion at first because the class is incompatible with item creation feats because formulas and extracts work differently from spells. The "simple work-around" they wound up with was all that complicated verbiage going on about effective caster levels and what-not, and also the inclusion of the "does not need to meet the prerequisites" line in the Brew Potion section of the class.

And while I know that that could be referring simply to the fact that the alchemist isn't third level, let's also notice that the witch, in the very same book, has the cauldron hex, which can give her the Brew Potion feat at 1st or 2nd level, and did not feel it necessary to include the prerequisite line.

Cheapy wrote:

Sean, I think you Favorited the post rather than FAQ'd it...

Why am I so dumb?! But seriously, good catch. :)

Talonhawke wrote:

Though the powers that be felt that they needed to FAQ the witch so is clearly wasn't something that everyone accepted as fact at the time.

But whether or not there was confusion, it shows that to the rules writers' minds, simply granting the feat as a bonus feat was enough of a demonstration of the intention that it bypass level requirements, which makes me hesitant to believe that that is the reason that the alchemist's class ability says he can ignore the prereqs for it. The really hard prereq to get past for the alchemist isn't the 3rd level one, but the not being a caster one.

Bascaria wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

Though the powers that be felt that they needed to FAQ the witch so is clearly wasn't something that everyone accepted as fact at the time.

But whether or not there was confusion, it shows that to the rules writers' minds, simply granting the feat as a bonus feat was enough of a demonstration of the intention that it bypass level requirements, which makes me hesitant to believe that that is the reason that the alchemist's class ability says he can ignore the prereqs for it. The really hard prereq to get past for the alchemist isn't the 3rd level one, but the not being a caster one.

Why would one requirement be any different thats like saying that a fighter can take a feat with that he doesnt meet the BAB requirement for as a bonus feat because it doesnt say he has to meet prerequistes.

Talonhawke wrote:

Why would one requirement be any different thats like saying that a fighter can take a feat with that he doesnt meet the BAB requirement for as a bonus feat because it doesnt say he has to meet prerequistes.

Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. This is a case of specific trumps general. Generally speaking, you must qualify for a feat in order to select it. There are specific instances that this is not true (like rangers), in which it is clearly laid out in rule text as a specific exception. There are other cases, like the sorcerer, where it reiterates the general rule that you must meet the requirements. But lacking a specific rule doesn't mean that it trumps the general rule.

Sean FitzSimon wrote:

Talonhawke wrote:

Why would one requirement be any different thats like saying that a fighter can take a feat with that he doesnt meet the BAB requirement for as a bonus feat because it doesnt say he has to meet prerequistes.

Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. This is a case of specific trumps general. Generally speaking, you must qualify for a feat in order to select it. There are specific instances that this is not true (like rangers), in which it is clearly laid out in rule text as a specific exception. There are other cases, like the sorcerer, where it reiterates the general rule that you must meet the requirements. But lacking a specific rule doesn't mean that it trumps the general rule.

So you would agree that prior to FAQ a witch could not get brew potion sooner than 3rd caster level?

Talonhawke wrote:

So you would agree that prior to FAQ a witch could not get brew potion sooner than 3rd caster level?

I never felt that this was something that needed to be clarified. The class ability, Cauldron, granted the feat specifically and avoided any particular prerequisites for the feat.

However, looking up the rules on feats I found that if you don't meet the prerequisites for a feat you lose the ability to use it. So strictly speaking, the witch could take the cauldron hex and gain the feat but not be able to use it until 3rd level. This was a particular instance in which the errata was required.

Feat Prerequisites, SRD wrote:

A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.

Who are the examples that break the rule in the CC AP? I can't find them.

EDIT: Never mind, I found him. I would suggest that this is a case of the designer overlooking the rather complicated Alchemist rules (I know I did) rather than evidence of how they're actually supposed to work. To take another example from the same AP, Vrood in Broken Moon has a higher caster level than he should according to his prestige class, but that doesn't mean that we should assume the prestige class text is inaccurate. It's his stat block which is wrong.

Moglun wrote:

Who are the examples that break the rule in the CC AP? I can't find them.

EDIT: Never mind, I found him. I would suggest that this is a case of the designer overlooking the rather complicated Alchemist rules (I know I did) rather than evidence of how they're actually supposed to work. To take another example from the same AP, Vrood in Broken Moon has a higher caster level than he should according to his prestige class, but that doesn't mean that we should assume the prestige class text is inaccurate. It's his stat block which is wrong.

There are 2 examples and they are listed in the CC thread as spoilers. The first is in the 2nd AP, the second is in the 6th AP.

Also of note on the example from the 6 book, is that there is a very specific reason why he has Craft Wondrous item, with an explaination on how it was used to manufacture a specific item.

Which to me means that the author was thinking about both the mechanics and the story line when he created the stat block.

The problem is that the only way to kind of 'fix' that stat block is to change the individual in question to a wizard which to me defeats the whole flavor of that encounter.

This thread is funny, because I was wondering about the same thing but for different reasons. And since I will be playing Carrion Crown in the future, I can't really check out Bascaria's examples.

When I first started playing my Alchemist over a year ago, I really was excited about crafting with him. I took a rank in every crafting skill listed in the book over the next 10 levels or so, and took Craft Wondrous Item at level 3. When I spotted a thread telling me I didn't have any caster levels and so I couldn't craft anything.

We try to play by the book for the most part, and so when I found this out, I reasoned with my DM to let me take Master Craftsman at level 5 to atone for my error, and not craft any items until then. I took Craft Magic Arms and Armor at level 7 to round out my abilities and was sad that that was the end.

Today, I was looking at various options for my own alchemist, and was considering an option of an extra discovery at level 13. I decided against Wings and Tumor Familiar because these discoveries are dependent on the Alchemist's Caster Level.

I decided not to get this for my character mostly because I had heard he doesn't have a caster level, and so he would be able to use this ability for exactly 0 minutes a day. Although it could have been a misprint, because they could be talking about the fly extract, in which case it would cause him to have a caster level equal to his alchemist level. But I would have to talk to my GM about it, because it wouldn't be RAW to allow it.

Due to the fact that the familiar would have none of the familiar abilities, including providing me with the alertness feat or even improved evasion (which is nice for those area effect spells) that other classes would get at level 1, I couldn't see the benefit there.

Although if it said that the tumor's abilities were based on the Alchemist's level, it would seem to work fine.

or...

The Alchemist does have caster levels which could be reasonably used for the feat I really want, Craft Construct.

alchemists have to have caster levels.
its how they measure the spell effects of infusions they create, and potions that they create, and other alchemical abilities they use.

I wish they'd just typify them as arcane casters. it would answer a few stumpers. they're int based, prepare your slots ahead of time, arcane casters.

( yes, i know their alchemy is a Su ability and they don't "cast spells" but they have a "caster level" for the effect of their spells and supernatural abilities. )

Seraphimpunk wrote:

alchemists have to have caster levels.

its how they measure the spell effects of infusions they create, and potions that they create, and other alchemical abilities they use.

I wish they'd just typify them as arcane casters. it would answer a few stumpers. they're int based, prepare your slots ahead of time, arcane casters.

( yes, i know their alchemy is a Su ability and they don't "cast spells" but they have a "caster level" for the effect of their spells and supernatural abilities. )

They have effective caster levels in limited circ*mstances, in the same way that a ranger has effective druid levels in limited circ*mstances. A 7th level ranger having an EDL of 4 for the purposes of his animal companion doesn't mean that he should qualify for a feat with druid levels as a prerequisite.

I'm not saying there aren't counter examples. I'll look at the CC alchs if you want to put them here under spoiler tags. The two UM abilities that Oterisk found are also interesting, but ultimately, I don't think, decisive, given the editing woes that book has.

There is just too much language in the alchemist class about how you treat his alchemist level as his caster level for it to be as simple as "he has a caster level." If he had a caster level, then there would be no need for all those words. They don't exist in any other class's class description (expect for delayed casters, like ranger and paladin, where it is needed because they too do not interact with caster levels in the typical manner).

It seems to me far more likely that a few writers who did not work on the original class got confused by this admittedly wonky rule when writing the AP and later class abilities than that the original writer of the class included repeated references to alchemists treating class level as caster level for no reason. Either way, mistakes got past an editor, and the former just seems like the far more understandable mistake.

By the way, Bottled Ooze and Confusion Bomb use the caster level terminology as well. Bottled Ooze is particularly confusing, because that doesn't refer to spell casting at all, just the ability to throw Oozes.

I guess caster level there refers to the caster (i.e. thrower) of the Ooze. Or the fact that Alchemists do have a caster level, it just does not apply to everything that caster levels apply to. Which might be an easier way of working that out.

yes, an effective caster level, like a ranger has effective druid levels. so when we're talking about a feat that requires an Animal Companion, we look at the ranger's EDL and see that oh yes, he does qualify for the feat. Just as in the instance of magic item creation, and Metamagic Spell feats, we can look at the alchemist, see that he creates magical concoctions with an effective caster level equal to his alchemist level, and satisfy the feat prerequisites.

the ONLY reason an alchemist doesn't have a "caster level" outright, is because he doesn't "cast spells". he makes extracts. which don't involve complex gestures or funky words in forgotten languages. so they gave them the supernatural ability to mix extracts. they're more useful in combat but aside from being a heavily magical class... have no "caster level" in the general sense.

Alchemists should outright be stated as having an effective caster level for item creation, and it should be stated that they can take metamagic feats and apply them to their extracts. otherwise you need to create an entirely new class of feats to do anything simple as extend an extracts effects, or empower an extract's effects.

Yes alchemists get brew potion for free. what happens when they go to brew a potion?

Quote:

An alchemist can brew potions of any formulae he knows (up to 3rd level), using his alchemist level as his caster level.

Should he be able to craft wondrous items? especially elixers? heck yea. raise your hand if you allow alchemists to do something like this in a home game! Maybe because in everyone's minds, alchemists resemble the Artificers of Eberron, who while not casters, had infusions and were remarkable magic item makers.

Brew Potion provides the precident on how to rule an Alcehemist taking item creation feats.

* an alchemist can take Scribe Scroll. and scribe any formulae he knows. he can't read the scroll, barring UMD, because he doesn't activate Spell-Completion items ( because he doesn't know all the funky verbal/somatic/spellcasty stuff )

* an alchemist can take Craft Wand, and activate it!

* an alchemist can take Craft Arms & Armor and through alchemical infusions create magical weapons.

* same with Craft Wondrous Item.

an alchemist can take Empower Metamagic Spell.
and create an extract that is empowered, using up a slot 2 levels higher ( whoa ).

The mechanics are there. The precedent is there. Its ridiculous that the intention was to bar a magical class from enhancing feats and item creation entirely. except for potions.

So uh...yea.

According to JJ (which technically is just below "from on high"), they can take 'em.

And just to make sure, I asked James for clarification.

Alchemists have a caster level equal to their class level. Not "a caster level for some purposes but not most." They just plain have a caster level. (They can't metamagic up their extracts, though.)

Can we all calm down now? :)

An instance of SKR kinda weighing in on this question. I think they would've called him out if it didn't qualify, since I thought getting the rules wrong was instant disqualification.

Between Carrion Crown's alchemist with the golems, the serpent's skull players guide saying that Alchemists are useful due to their ability to craft things, JJ saying the intent was that they can do it, and SKR's post...

I'm now convinced that they can take item creation feats.

Although SKR's post opens a can of worms about not being able to meet the spell requirements due to not having spells.

Yure wrote:

Was the final official word out of this that alchemist can pick up item creation feats?

Yes.

See James Jacob's post just 4 posts above yours, and for more clarity, the link in Cheapy's post just above that. As well as the other links in the two posts immediately preceding yours.

Now, the real question is can Alchemists resurrect posts that have been dead for over 3 years...

Breath of life.... with some fuzzy rounds...

Yeah just wasn't sure if that had been official or not or if it had been redacted.

Chess Pwn wrote:

I'm pretty sure the final word is NO. Mark has said that they don't as of now qualify for them in his "ask mark anything" thread

I know this would be a second resurrection on this thread, and I am sorry for that, but who outranks who? Mark Seifter a designer who says no 2 years ago or James Jacobs the creative director and creator of the Alchemist (correct me if I'm wrong) who said yes 5 years ago?

The Pharasmans should be coming any day now to put this question and thread back into the ground where it belongs....

But in all seriousness, I'm actually wondering what the final answer is on alchemists and crafting feats.