How do alchemist spells work exactly? Can I target other people with spells like cure light wounds or can I only target myself? What about spells like haste?
Thanks!
They only have spells for the purpose of making extracts, so you don't actually cast them. These work like potions, meaning they only affect the person drinking it. Also, they become useless when not in the possession of the alchemist who made them, so only the alchemist who made them can drink them. At least, as far as my understanding of the alchemy ability.
I had an alchemist in my group up until a little while a go, and even though he provided some decent support in combat, was not able do to anything by way of spells for the rest of the party. They are definitely a "selfish" base class. Certain archetypes, like the chirurgeon, do overcome that issue a little bit (as far as cure spells are concerned).
Unless they take the Infusion discovery. Then, yes, they can share their extracts with others as if they were potions.
That's true, but there's an alchemist discovery (Infusion) which lets your extracts work for other people. So you're basically handing out potions to the rest of the party every day. It's still not as good as casting a spell; a wizard can caste haste on the whole party with his standard action, but an alchemist has to hand the extract to the fighter, who has to spend his own standard action to drink it, and it only affects him.
Ha, I ninja'd the Ninja.
Then why do they get communal spells? How do those work? Most of them have either creature(s) touched or multiple targets like haste. If they only affect the alchemist then what's the point?
The infusion discovery is a requirement of the communal spells and allows the infusions to affect all
That's... not what it says at all.
When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist's daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.
A character still has to drink it to gain the effects.
Then why do they get communal spells? How do those work? Most of them have either creature(s) touched or multiple targets like haste. If they only affect the alchemist then what's the point?
Huh. That's weird. It seems like SKR's comment that Cheapy posted is in direct contradiction to what the book says.
I read the Note on Alchemists as saying that just because they're communal doesn't mean you don't need infusion to actually have other people use them. It's still limited to one person.
Thanks for the clarification folks. I still think its awkward t have those spells on the list but whatever.
I read the Note on Alchemists as saying that just because they're communal doesn't mean you don't need infusion to actually have other people use them. It's still limited to one person.
I have gotten the impression SKR tends to reach for the nerf bat pretty quickly with the alchemist. In my games, the communal spells work as written; communally. I think it's a solid RAW opinion, given the spell is in that class list and it says it works that way. I take the forum posts as advisement, but when they seem illogical, I don't treat them as RAW until they reach the FAQ, Errata, or reprints.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have gotten the impression SKR tends to reach for the nerf bat pretty quickly with the alchemist.
That amuses me because I'm a trained chemist and alchemist is one of my favorite classes...
I have gotten the impression SKR tends to reach for the nerf bat pretty quickly with the alchemist.That amuses me because I'm a trained chemist and alchemist is one of my favorite classes...
Mine as well. I don't recall whether I voiced an opinion in the vestigial arms usage/natural weapons/unarmed strike forum debate or just gritted my teeth from the sidelines, but that was what gave me the initial impression.
The new FAQ limitations on craft magic items squished how we were reading the rules in the game I'm playing based off James Jacobs' analysis of extracts as flavored spells which made the alchemist an actual caster. I know that wasn't you specifically, but it was apparently a team decision.
My treant-wrestling vivisectionist alchemist wouldn't be the same without her handcrafted anaconda coils and +1 Brawling Elven Chain. I'm hoping my GM doesn't require a retcon to those.
If alchemists are not spellcasters, as the FAQ says, then their discoveries need to be re-written since several are based on a non-existent caster level.
eta:And of course, the communal spell thing.
Just because an alchemist doesn't actually cast spells doesn't mean he doesn't have or require a caster level for his abilities.
Just because an alchemist doesn't actually cast spells doesn't mean he doesn't have or require a caster level for his abilities.
I just want to be clear that the following sound is in no way a reflection on my opinion of you, or the respect I have for an engaged designer who interacts with fans of his product, even when they're disagreeable.
<Head hits desk>
In defense of saying they could craft for so long, we had some really good evidence. It just ended up being wrong.
Ok. I'm better.
It seems like a bit of contradiction in terms to have a non-caster with caster levels. It's common to see it was "for this ability, treat the CL as such-and-such".
But for abilities that say "with x equal to caster level" it has always (I thought) assumed the user is a caster.
Eta: And for that matter, if he has a caster level when considering his discoveries, in the absence of text saying "when considering his discoveries, an alchemist's CL is equal to his alchemist level" it seems like it's a real caster level that should apply to all CL requirements.
I know. I know. I'm trying to let it go.
"Caster level" is just a shorthand for "power level" in a scale that's normally used by spellcasters. A vampire fighter's dominate ability has a caster level, even though the vampire isn't a caster, yes? A rogue with the dispelling attack talent has a caster level, even though the rogue isn't actually a caster, yes?
Personally, I'd allow alchemists to create certain other kinds of magic items. But RAW they are not casters (they don't cast spells, extracts aren't spells), so they can't take the feats.
"Caster level" is just a shorthand for "power level" in a scale that's normally used by spellcasters. A vampire fighter's dominate ability has a caster level, even though the vampire isn't a caster, yes? A rogue with the dispelling attack talent has a caster level, even though the rogue isn't actually a caster, yes?
Yes, but as I said, the caster level equivalency is specifically called out in each of those cases; vampire as a parenthetical and rogue with the specific "The caster level for this ability is equal to" language I referenced.
With no such language in alchemist discoveries, and simply a reference to the character's caster level, one either has to mentally insert such language into the discoveries, or take a reference to the characters CL as an indicator that the character has a CL.
Personally, I'd allow alchemists to create certain other kinds of magic items. But RAW they are not casters (they don't cast spells, extracts aren't spells), so they can't take the feats.
And this makes my head hurt again, because here it seems like caster level is not just a shorthand for "power level" in a scale normally used by spellcasters, but an indicator that the character can cast spells.
The requirement for, say, "Craft Wonderous Items" isn't
ability to cast 2nd (or 1st) level spellsit's
Caster level 3rd.
If caster level was only shorthand for where his power level was, than a caster level 3rd used for creating extracts rather than casting spells would qualify.
If your first paragraph was taken literally:
A rogue with the dispelling attack talent has a caster level, even though the rogue isn't actually a caster, yes?
then it would be eligible for feats with a caster level prerequisite.
But I think you intend for it to merely assume the equivalency of a caster level for the purposes of that ability, which is why the rouge talent is written the way it is.
"Caster level" is just a shorthand for "power level" in a scale that's normally used by spellcasters. A vampire fighter's dominate ability has a caster level, even though the vampire isn't a caster, yes? A rogue with the dispelling attack talent has a caster level, even though the rogue isn't actually a caster, yes?
Personally, I'd allow alchemists to create certain other kinds of magic items. But RAW they are not casters (they don't cast spells, extracts aren't spells), so they can't take the feats.
I agree with this 100%. Also, this is probably the best way I've ever heard this explained. The next time my players are haranguing me about this topic, I can now refer them to this explanation so that I don't get a headache trying to come up with words they can understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but as I said, the caster level equivalency is specifically called out in each of those cases; vampire as a parenthetical and rogue with the specific "The caster level for this ability is equal to" language I referenced.
Sure, and the alchemist class says:
So, technically, an alchemist doesn't have a caster level. For anything that requires a caster level to determine its effects, you "use" the alchemist's [class] level as the caster level, or "functions as" a caster level, but nothing in the alchemist description actually says "an alchemist has a caster level."
And the class specifically calls out that "the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells."
A fighter doesn't cast spells. A fighter doesn't have a caster level. Should a fighter be able to take Craft Wondrous Item? Sure, he can take Master Craftsman, and that feat says The alchemist likewise has specific language allowing the use of the Brew Potion feat... but doesn't generalize that language to give the class a use-this-as-your-caster-level for any other item creation feat.
With no such language in alchemist discoveries, and simply a reference to the character's caster level, one either has to mentally insert such language into the discoveries, or take a reference to the characters CL as an indicator that the character has a CL.
That is a mistaken assumption. Just because an effect has a caster level listed doesn't mean the creature with that effect actually has a caster level or that it can cast spells.
For example, a phase spider has an "ethereal jaunt" supernatural ability that functions at caster level 15th, but that doesn't mean the phase spider has a caster level or that it is a caster--it just means "instead of repeating all the text of ethereal jaunt in this monster entry, we're going to borrow the rules text of that spell because you know how that spell works." Should phase spiders be able to take Craft Wondrous Item because of this ability? No.
And this makes my head hurt again, because here it seems like caster level is not just a shorthand for "power level" in a scale normally used by spellcasters, but an indicator that the character can cast spells.
Again, a mistaken assumption. Caster level for an effect just means "for all variable effects that would depend on a character's level, use this number as the hypothetical character's level." It doesn't mean the creature with the effect is actually a caster.
Another example is an outsider with a summon ability. The summon ability says, A creature with a summon doesn't automatically have a caster level, it isn't automatically a caster, but we sometimes need to know the effective caster level for that ability when we determine certain effects (for example, if an enemy tries to dispel the summon, or if the creature tries to summon while in a threatened area). Just because a monster has an innate ability to summon another monster doesn't mean that monster is a caster.
The requirement for, say, "Craft Wonderous Items" isn'tability to cast 2nd (or 1st) level spellsit'sCaster level 3rd.
And alchemists don't actually have a caster level, so they don't meet that prerequisite.
But I think you intend for it to merely assume the equivalency of a caster level for the purposes of that ability, which is why the rouge talent is written the way it is.
Right, in the same way that an alchemist has--using your term--"the equivalency of a caster level."
|
Sean, while I may not agree with you 100% of the time (that alchemists aren't casters is probably the highest on my list), I really appreciate and applaud the time (and patience!) that you show on how often you respond to posts on the boards!
Huzzah!
(and some sobs that my alchemist can't make an alchemical golem!)
I can't wait for the discovery or archetype that let's them do that. Well, wouldn't be hard to make my own, but something official would be nice. Alchemical golems and homunculi, ho!
Yes, but as I said, the caster level equivalency is specifically called out in each of those cases; vampire as a parenthetical and rogue with the specific "The caster level for this ability is equal to" language I referenced.Sure, and the alchemist class says:
So, technically, an alchemist doesn't have a caster level. For anything that requires a caster level to determine its effects, you "use" the alchemist's [class] level as the caster level, or "functions as" a caster level, but nothing in the alchemist description actually says "an alchemist has a caster level."
And the class specifically calls out that "the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells."
A fighter doesn't cast spells. A fighter doesn't have a caster level. Should a fighter be able to take Craft Wondrous Item? Sure, he can take Master Craftsman, and that feat says The alchemist likewise has specific language allowing the use of the Brew Potion feat... but doesn't generalize that language to give the class a use-this-as-your-caster-level for any other item creation feat.[/ooc]...
I see you've quoted some discoveries that use that language.
I was referring to the ones like:
The ooze remains for 1 round per caster level, and decays into powder when the duration expires.A creature that takes a direct hit from a confusion bomb takes damage from the bomb and is under the effect of a confusion spell for 1 round per caster level of the alchemist.
The tumor has all the abilities of the animal it resembles (for example, a batlike tumor can fly) and familiar abilities based on the alchemist's caster level (though some familiar abilities may be useless to an alchemist).
Wings (Ex): The alchemist gains batlike, birdlike, or insectlike functional wings, allowing him to fly as the fly spell for a number of minutes per day equal to his caster level.
All off which refer to the alchemist's caster level, not using the 'for the purposes of this ability' language.
Then again, I notice that these come from ultimate magic, and ultimate magic groups alchemist on the list of 'spellcasters' so maybe that's a running mistake in that book.
I get that alchemists don't cast spells, rather using extracts which replicate spells in most aspects except method of casting/preparation and apparently counting for a caster level.
The argument I was making in the last post was that if "Caster level" is just a shorthand for "power level" in a scale that's normally used by spellcasters. Then casting spells is not a prerequisite to have a caster level.
And if you can get a caster level in other ways, then you can qualify for feats that require caster levels (but not the ability to cast spells) as a prerequisite.
Sean, while I may not agree with you 100% of the time (that alchemists aren't casters is probably the highest on my list), I really appreciate and applaud the time (and patience!) that you show on how often you respond to posts on the boards!
Huzzah!
(and some sobs that my alchemist can't make an alchemical golem!)
Also, I am in full agreement with this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All off which refer to the alchemist's caster level, not using the 'for the purposes of this ability' language.
You're using slightly lax language in a supplemental book to infer meaning in the original book--meaning that isn't there.
Then again, I notice that these come from ultimate magic, and ultimate magic groups alchemist on the list of 'spellcasters' so maybe that's a running mistake in that book.
You shouldn't use the name of a chapter to make rules decisions. Chapter names are not rules text. :p Note also that the monk is in UC chapter 1, and it's not a spellcaster, and the ranger presented in UC chapter 1 creates Ex and Su traps rather than spells. Are they spellcasters? No.
I get that alchemists don't cast spells, rather using extracts which replicate spells in most aspects except method of casting/preparation and apparently counting for a caster level.
The argument I was making in the last post was that if "Caster level" is just a shorthand for "power level" in a scale that's normally used by spellcasters. Then casting spells is not a prerequisite to have a caster level.
Which means you're not arguing that alchemists are casters, you're arguing that the item crafting feats shouldn't have caster level as a prerequisite, they should have "able to cast spells of level X" as a prerequisite. Which still excludes the alchemist, monk, rogue with the dispelling attack talent, and the vampire fighter with dominate.
"Caster level 3rd" is text we inherited from 3E. At the time of the creation of the PFRPG, there was no plan for the alchemist class, so there was no reason (in our rush to get the book published so we'd have an in-print rulebook for our adventures) to change that text to be more accommodating for not-a-spellcaster classes like the alchemist.
In 3E, the monk had a caster level for her abundant step ability. I never heard anyone suggest that monks should be able to take Craft Wondrous Item because they have a caster level for that ability--because monks don't cast spells. So here we are with the alchemist, which doesn't cast spells, doesn't technically have a caster level, and can't take the Craft Wondrous Item feat. It's just as restrictive as before... but now there's a complaint about it.
All off which refer to the alchemist's caster level, not using the 'for the purposes of this ability' language.You're using slightly lax language in a supplemental book to infer meaning in the original book--meaning that isn't there.
Then again, I notice that these come from ultimate magic, and ultimate magic groups alchemist on the list of 'spellcasters' so maybe that's a running mistake in that book.You shouldn't use the name of a chapter to make rules decisions. Chapter names are not rules text. :p Note also that the monk is in UC chapter 1, and it's not a spellcaster, and the ranger presented in UC chapter 1 creates Ex and Su traps rather than spells. Are they spellcasters? No.
Let's be fair on this one. Ultimate magic had alchemists in the spell-caster chapter. It referred multiple times to their caster level. It's not 'using slightly lax language in a supplemental book' to take the opinion that when a main-line book groups a class under 'spellcasters' and bases abilities off their caster level, that they actually have a caster level. It contradicted nothing in the APG, and fit nicely with the conception you led with that caster level was a general power-level measurement not specifically tied to spells, which the APG did call out the alchemists as not having.
The monk that you brought up is in there because the qinggong monk is in that chapter. A monk who casts spell-like abilities with a caster level for those abilities based on his monk level. The monk has a caster level when using those abilities, but not when he stops, so it's admittedly a weaker argument. Still SLAs are commonly referred to as being 'cast' and the wording here flows pretty well into the caster level definition:
A qinggong monk's class level is the caster level for these spell-like abilities
Caster level is not defined, but is described as
Generally equal to the number of class levels (see below) in a spellcasting class.
The monk is clearly not the general case, but if you put the descriptions for a monk next to what caster level would *mean* to a cleric regarding his spells:
A qinggong monk's class level is the caster level for these spell-like abilities
A clerics's caster level is equal to his number of class levels for these spells
It's not exactly a stretch to see the first counting along with the second for form as well as function.
I get that alchemists don't cast spells, rather using extracts which replicate spells in most aspects except method of casting/preparation and apparently counting for a caster level.
The argument I was making in the last post was that if "Caster level" is just a shorthand for "power level" in a scale that's normally used by spellcasters. Then casting spells is not a prerequisite to have a caster level.Which means you're not arguing that alchemists are casters, you're arguing that the item crafting feats shouldn't have caster level as a prerequisite, they should have "able to cast spells of level X" as a prerequisite. Which still excludes the alchemist, monk, rogue with the dispelling attack talent, and the vampire fighter with dominate.
"Caster level 3rd" is text we inherited from 3E. At the time of the creation of the PFRPG, there was no plan for the alchemist class, so there was no reason (in our rush to get the book published so we'd have an in-print rulebook for our adventures) to change that text to be more accommodating for not-a-spellcaster classes like the alchemist.
In 3E, the monk had a caster level for her abundant step ability. I never heard anyone suggest that monks should be able to talk Craft Wondrous Item...
You're a developer, and you certainly know what you meant when you made your contributions to the product.
By the same principle, I certainly know what I am arguing and am not arguing. I am not arguing that item crafting feats should have "able to cast spells of level X" as a prerequisite. I am arguing that caster level applies (or should apply, cause I don't write the FAQs) to classes beyond spellcasters, including those with caster levels applying for spell-equivalent class abilities.
I had taken your definition of caster level as generic power level normally referring to spell-casters (instead of a specifically spellcasting-central definition) and pointed out logical consequences from taking that definition and how they impacted feat prerequisites.
When you said that rogue with dispelling strike had a caster level, I pointed out the consequence of the rogue actually having a caster level as opposed to assuming one for a specific ability. We've moved away from that initial definition of caster level as a generic power level and back to the idea that caster level is provided by being able to cast spells, and only being able to cast spells. As I said earlier, it's not defined in-system, it only has the general case described.
That is how those arguments came into play.
If you're arguing that craft feats should only be available to people who cast spells, then I see it as you arguing that item crafting feats should have "able to cast spells of level X" as a prerequisite. Which would be another way to neatly knock the wheels off my wagon, I admit. The 'not-a-spellcaster' classes which act like spellcasters created some interactions which didn't explicitly deny the first group all the advantages of the second by virtue of the fact they do most of the same things with more restrictive language. Tightening the language would certainly tighten the restrictions.
Alchemists aren't spellcasters. You know they aren't spellcasters.
Qinggong monks aren't spellcasters. They don't cast spells. You know they aren't spellcasters. Just because they're in a chapter called "Spellcasters" doesn't make them spellcasters (any more than the trapper rancher archetype is a spellcaster because it's in the Spellcasters chapter, because they don't cast spells at all, they lose their spellcasting class feature from the CRB).
Just because you have a caster level for an ability (or something that acts like a caster level, like the rogue's dispelling attack or the alchemist's extract effectiveness) doesn't mean you should qualify for taking item crafting feats. You know that, just as you know that monk's shouldn't be able to take CWI because abundant step has a caster level.
But you're either trying to convince me of something you know isn't there, or you don't really believe it's there, or you're trying to trap me into agreeing with something by splitting hairs. And I'm not going to get into that.
Just because an alchemist doesn't actually cast spells doesn't mean he doesn't have or require a caster level for his abilities.
So under that ruling, does an alchemist meet the requirements for arcane archer, in your opinion?
Their extracts aren't arcane either, so even if they were spells, they wouldn't qualify.
well then hurry up and make an alchemical archer Prc...something along the lines of a master chemist.... NOW...I want one NOW.
It seems pretty bizarre to say that no matter how poorly written Ultimate Magic may be, it is always fully binding on how the rules in another, previous book work. That's just nuts. No matter how WELL written it may be, it is not binding on how the rules in other, previously written books may work. Seriously, this is just a bunch of wishful thinking and trying to blow up things that are just not relevant into prime relevance.
Even if we decide to 'humor' this line of thought, so the UM OOze ability references the Alchemist's caster level, period, therefore the Alchemist must have a caster level (supposedly). So what is that caster level? The Alchemist class doesn't define it. Caster Level doesn't have to correspond to class levels 1:1. So there is no basis, even when assuming that the Alchemist DOES have a caster level because of the poor wording of a supplemental book, that a given Alchemist character qualifies for caster level X requirements (with X possibly being 1). That line of reasoning does mean that the Ooze abilities do become useless, since we never know a numeric value for a caster level of the alchemist.
Until it's errata'd we can reasonably use the UM alchemist ooze abilities by translating the erroneous references to caster level to 'the effective caster level for that ability based on alchemist level ', like all other alchemist abilities work like.
If alchemists really had a caster level, why would every single other ability of theirs reference some 'effective caster level for that ability'? Come on people, can it just be that the alchemist is not written to allow for item crafting that we might prefer? You can house rule that, and paizo may release further material allowing that, but that doesn't mean we stop reading the rules like sane literate mature people. Although if somebody can't fulfill one of those, I guess what do you do.
I believe Sean wrote a prestige class that literally shot snakes out of bows, so he'd be no stranger to weird archers. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the-
Cheapy you stop that, that is like teeing up a ball
See!
What what?
Ok so well then, when can I expect my Alchemy archer.... lets get cracking!
Alchemists aren't spellcasters. You know they aren't spellcasters.
Qinggong monks aren't spellcasters. They don't cast spells. You know they aren't spellcasters. Just because they're in a chapter called "Spellcasters" doesn't make them spellcasters (any more than the trapper rancher archetype is a spellcaster because it's in the Spellcasters chapter, because they don't cast spells at all, they lose their spellcasting class feature from the CRB).Just because you have a caster level for an ability (or something that acts like a caster level, like the rogue's dispelling attack or the alchemist's extract effectiveness) doesn't mean you should qualify for taking item crafting feats. You know that, just as you know that monk's shouldn't be able to take CWI because abundant step has a caster level.
But you're either trying to convince me of something you know isn't there, or you don't really believe it's there, or you're trying to trap me into agreeing with something by splitting hairs. And I'm not going to get into that.
This post had a lot talk about what things are and are not spellcasters, and what things do and do not cast spells.
I think I've been very clear that those weren't points of contention.
What has been the point of contention was that when you said,
"Just because an alchemist doesn't actually cast spells doesn't mean he doesn't have or require a caster level for his abilities."
It opened the door to a discussion of what the possibility of having a caster level without casting spells. Hence the discussion of extracts and SLA's, all with very clear comments within them that I'm aware they aren't spells or being used by spellcasters.
It opened the door to a discussion of having a caster level to use abilities like having a caster level to use spells.
It opened the door to a discussion of texts that supported one interpretation over another.
However, while I again acknowledge your willingness to engage on the forum, I don't feel like you've been engaging in those discussions with me. It seems like you've been telling me that my arguments *really* are instead of listening to the ones I'm making, telling my what my motives are for posting instead of reading what I am posting, and focusing over and over on points that I keep agreeing with.
I'm sorry, but I'm feeling fairly frustrated with this and just want to let it go at this point.
Guess I'll keep track of this thread for the next time it ("it" probably being the "Arcane Trickster and Vivisectionist" argument, most usually) comes up. =(
But I still think the whole "They act like spells in every way except they aren't because" thing is kind of (okay, very) silly.
Still, won't really change anything in the way I play at all.
bbt, I assume this just isn't good enough for your needs?
It is sorta close, though.
------------------
I really don't get how there can be a rules confusion over caster-level here, given how much you've poured over the rules to get a bunch of quotes.
"Caster level... for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell"
"the alchemist [class] doesn't actually cast spells"
Therefore, we have no reason yet to suspect the alchemist has a caster level, as "alchemist" is explicitly not a class that casts spells.
Note however, that "the alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level."
So, despite not having a caster level, alchemist use their class level for effects that need one (like the examples Ximen Bao noted, such as Ooze, or caster level for extracts).
So, alchemists do not have a caster level, but use their alchemist level as caster level for effects. I would say that "taking a feat" is not an "effect based on caster level".
The only problem I see is that the word "effects" is a bit vague. However, it is very clear that the alchemist does not cast spells, has no caster level, and can use effects that are calculated off caster level.
|
|
"Caster level 3rd" is text we inherited from 3E. At the time of the creation of the PFRPG, there was no plan for the alchemist class, so there was no reason (in our rush to get the book published so we'd have an in-print rulebook for our adventures) to change that text to be more accommodating for not-a-spellcaster classes like the alchemist.
Maybe what needs clarification/updating isn't the Alchemist... but the Core Role book then to accomodate non-"casters".
Or the alchemist can do like a fighter and take 'Master Craftsman' feat to qualify for Craft Wondrous & Craft Arms & Armor.
Of course depending on how someone interprets the 'Master Craftsman' feat you could get limited value. (specifically those who interpret it as taking Profession: Lawyer can do up wondrous contracts or other written wondrous items, but nothing else, or the other side where Profession: Lawyer could craft any Wondrous Item & Armor/Weapon Enchant assuming they took both feats)
@bbt
Oh, right! I forgot that Homunculus has a specific rules meaning, AND misremembered the text of homunculus such that it suited some dictionary definitions of homunculus. >_<