About Alchemist "Spell Knowledge" Discovery in PFS

[Ray Wang 541]

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sf75?Alchemist-Spell-Knowledge-Discovery#22
In this thread it is mentioned by developer that prestige class which advances spellcasting in an arcane spellcasting class would advance alchemist extracts if he/she pick up the "Spell Knowledge" Discovery. However he said it is not a FAQ or errata.
Are there any FAQs or erratas show up after?
Anyway I would like to know if this rule applies in PFS?

[Belafon]

Ray Wang 541 wrote:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sf75?Alchemist-Spell-Knowledge-Discovery#22

In this thread it is mentioned by developer that prestige class which advances spellcasting in an arcane spellcasting class would advance alchemist extracts if he/she pick up the "Spell Knowledge" Discovery. However he said it is not a FAQ or errata.
Are there any FAQs or erratas show up after?
Anyway I would like to know if this rule applies in PFS?

Linkified (and backed up a tiny bit):

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sf75?Alchemist-Spell-Knowledge-Discovery#21

edit: no FAQ or errata has appeared after this to my knowledge.

[Ray Wang 541]

So build like alchemist/ib stone living monolith still not able to gain additional extracts in PFS?

[Belafon]

Ray Wang 541 wrote:

So build like alchemist/ib stone living monolith still not able to gain additional extracts in PFS?

Unfortunately this falls into the "expect table variation" grey zone.

There are arguments on both sides. For myself I think Owen's opinion is good enough - without any alternate Paizo viewpoints - and think that it is possible. However I also don't think a GM who disallows it would be unreasonable. By far the safest thing is not to make a character using that mechanic. I personally wouldn't do it (even though you may have noticed I'm the one who originally asked the question) because the potential for disagreement is very high. If you do build one using the mechanic, make sure you have another character in level range for any table you sign up for and be prepared to have to say "I disagree with you but I will play a different character this time. Let's discuss it further after the game."

[Majuba]

Kevin's point about GM's disallowing it is pretty spot on. I personally don't really see how attaining a spell-casting level would cause a class feature that "improves spell-casting" to improve your extracts.

Alchemist can use extracts (A*)
Alchemist can use extracts (A*) for spell-casting (B*)
Prestige class improves spell-casting (B*), but Alchemist doesn't *have* B* as a class feature, just A* usable as B*. I don't see how it flows the other way.

Sort of like... Fighter has weapon training: swords (A*). Fighter gets ability to use A* for halberds. Fighter takes prestige class to improve halberds. He doesn't suddenly get better at using longswords because of this.

Mind - I do agree alchemists fall into a nasty in-between place. Sometimes it works hugely in their benefit (e.g. bombs vs. magic-immune golems and mundane-immune ghosts). Here it doesn't.

[Jessex]

I personally would have a hard time, unless there was an official ruling, allowing this.

It simply doesn't make logical sense to me. The discovery allows the alchemist to add one spell to his book period. What would advancing a level in an arcane spell casting class even mean in that context? You certainly cannot be trying to advance in alchemist extract making right?