Mark of Making & Alchemist Feat - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Mark of Making & Alchemist Feat

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
xmoose
Jul 08, 2009 16:40:38 I am making sure I am reading this right.

If you take the mark of making,

which says you can make alchemical items as though you had the alchemist feat and were two levels higher,

that is means you don't need the alchemist feat at all?
#2
_radagast__dup
Jul 08, 2009 16:44:43 Yes.
#3
josephkell
Jul 08, 2009 16:46:33
I am making sure I am reading this right.

If you take the mark of making,

which says you can make alchemical items as though you had the alchemist feat and were two levels higher,

that is means you don't need the alchemist feat at all?

Yes, however if you take the Mark of Making, you can't take any other mark.

Of course Alchemist is kind of a crappy feat to begin with since (unlike EMI) you need a separate schema for each type of alchemical item you want to make.
#4
xmoose
Jul 08, 2009 22:41:00 Thanks I was just making sure.
#5
The_White_Sorcerer
Jul 11, 2009 17:00:35 Since it's sort of on topic, I'll bring up something that bugs me about the EPG. Both artificer builds suggest taking the Alchemy feat. Not only is the name wrong, taking Alchemist as an artificer is just stupid.
#6
josephkell
Jul 13, 2009 16:13:10
Since it's sort of on topic, I'll bring up something that bugs me about the EPG. Both artificer builds suggest taking the Alchemy feat. Not only is the name wrong, taking Alchemist as an artificer is just stupid.

Some argue that taking alchemist ever is just stupid.
#7
blackmage88
Jul 13, 2009 18:49:06 Some would, yes. But it has its uses. My artificer is in a party with a warlord, and has gotten into the habit of making woundpatches he uses to enhance the warlord's healing abilities. 'Leading' a fellow leader, you might say.

I agree that recommending for both builds to have the same feat is a bit silly; that said, the idea of an artificer taking alchemist is not only very in-character for an artificer, it can in fact be useful, as above.
#8
The_White_Sorcerer
Jul 14, 2009 4:35:48
I agree that recommending for both builds to have the same feat is a bit silly; that said, the idea of an artificer taking alchemist is not only very in-character for an artificer, it can in fact be useful, as above.

Not as in-character and useful as taking Master Mixer, though. There's no reason to take Alchemist instead if you're an artificer.
#9
blackmage88
Jul 14, 2009 13:46:37 Oh, that's true. I'd forgotten about that one. I suppose I was making more of an argument for alchemy the ability than Alchemist the feat. My mistake.

If they recommended Master Mixer for both builds, while it would still be silly, at least it would be more optimal.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 xmoose Jul 08, 2009 16:40:38	I am making sure I am reading this right. If you take the mark of making, which says you can make alchemical items as though you had the alchemist feat and were two levels higher, that is means you don't need the alchemist feat at all?
#2 _radagast__dup Jul 08, 2009 16:44:43	Yes.
#3 josephkell Jul 08, 2009 16:46:33	I am making sure I am reading this right. If you take the mark of making, which says you can make alchemical items as though you had the alchemist feat and were two levels higher, that is means you don't need the alchemist feat at all? Yes, however if you take the Mark of Making, you can't take any other mark. Of course Alchemist is kind of a crappy feat to begin with since (unlike EMI) you need a separate schema for each type of alchemical item you want to make.
#4 xmoose Jul 08, 2009 22:41:00	Thanks I was just making sure.
#5 The_White_Sorcerer Jul 11, 2009 17:00:35	Since it's sort of on topic, I'll bring up something that bugs me about the EPG. Both artificer builds suggest taking the Alchemy feat. Not only is the name wrong, taking Alchemist as an artificer is just stupid.
#6 josephkell Jul 13, 2009 16:13:10	Since it's sort of on topic, I'll bring up something that bugs me about the EPG. Both artificer builds suggest taking the Alchemy feat. Not only is the name wrong, taking Alchemist as an artificer is just stupid. Some argue that taking alchemist ever is just stupid.
#7 blackmage88 Jul 13, 2009 18:49:06	Some would, yes. But it has its uses. My artificer is in a party with a warlord, and has gotten into the habit of making woundpatches he uses to enhance the warlord's healing abilities. 'Leading' a fellow leader, you might say. I agree that recommending for both builds to have the same feat is a bit silly; that said, the idea of an artificer taking alchemist is not only very in-character for an artificer, it can in fact be useful, as above.
#8 The_White_Sorcerer Jul 14, 2009 4:35:48	I agree that recommending for both builds to have the same feat is a bit silly; that said, the idea of an artificer taking alchemist is not only very in-character for an artificer, it can in fact be useful, as above. Not as in-character and useful as taking Master Mixer, though. There's no reason to take Alchemist instead if you're an artificer.
#9 blackmage88 Jul 14, 2009 13:46:37	Oh, that's true. I'd forgotten about that one. I suppose I was making more of an argument for alchemy the ability than Alchemist the feat. My mistake. If they recommended Master Mixer for both builds, while it would still be silly, at least it would be more optimal.