| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a pretty simple change, but one I feel is necessary to curb an ever growing pile of absurdity with the way extracts work compared with spells. So I propose treating an Alchemist's extracts as if they were spells in every possible way mechanically, with how they are used merely re-fluffed. Behold:
• Alchemists have a caster level equal to their alchemist level, and must make concentration checks as a caster does, using Intelligence to modify the check. An alchemist's extracts are considered to be arcane spells.
• All extracts have somatic components, but none have verbal components.
• An Alchemist mentally prepares daily extracts as a wizard does his spells, and can leave open slots to fill later, taking 1 minute to fill per slot.
• Extracts are “mixed” from the spell component pouch on the spot at the time of casting and do not exist before then.
• Extracts cannot be cast while raging and suffer arcane spell failure when wearing anything other than light armor or shields (other than tower shields).
• The Infusion discovery no longer exists, as extracts work exactly like spells. Likewise, personal extracts can only be used on the Alchemist (or any bonded creature he has the Share Spells ability with). Extracts cast on others are thrown at them with unerring accuracy (like a Chemist from Final Fantasy Tactics), extracts with multi-target are either thrown with lightning speed to all targets or sprayed on them from a distance as with a spray bottle.
• An Alchemist gains the cantrips progression of a bard. He begins with all cantrips recorded in his formula book and can always prepare Read Magic from memory (just as a wizard does) and may choose each day which to prepare. He may select from the following: Detect Magic, Detect Poison, Guidance, Light, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Prestidigitation, Purify Food and Drink, Read Magic, Resistance, and Spark
• An Alchemist can add formulae to his book from another formula book or spellbook, or from scrolls or potions (which are consumed in the process). An Alchemist can use Craft (Alchemy) to do so instead of Spellcraft. Other casters that use a spellbook can copy spells from the Alchemist's formula book.
• Metamagic feats and rods apply to extracts. Again, extracts are prepared arcane spells.
I think that about does it. Much simpler, much fairer, much better.
Looks better to me. I've always thought it was a bit weird to treat it like it was spell casting but not myself. I already run with rules like this. Makes life simpler and doesn't require a constant asking "wait can you do that?" and a feat tax to do something alchemist probably should've done in the first place.
I usually fluff it as inner magic you cast on the spot. A growing but limited internal reservoir of magic. Helps explain why they limit themselves at all, at least to me anyway.
Yeah, I was trying to keep it simple and retain some of the original flavor. It would be better to just chuck the entire drinking vials of stuff thing completely to fully assimilate extracts with actual spells and avoid all sorts of stupid RAW or logical issues. "It's magic, so shut up!" has worked so well for wizards the past 4 decades, after all.
I already do most of this, but it's nice to have the rulesets codified.
The cantrips are new on me though, I'll tack that on next time I have someone play an Alchemist. I already give Cleric cantrips to Paladins and Druid ones to Rangers.
I never got why Alchemists didn't get cantrips. Infinite use extracts is too unbelievable, but all the other stuff is ok to handwave?
The cantrip list could probably be improved, I just threw it together quick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wait he drinks to purify his food and drink...i think alchemists have a substance abuse problem.
Ummm...what exactly was going on with your Alchemists to need to do anything like this?
o.O?
Mostly things like Metamagic, some class prerequisites (such as Arcane Trickster requiring mage hand be on your spells-known list, etc.), and other things that, under most logical circumstances, there should be no reason why Alchemists couldn't poke around with ... except for the bizarre fact that their Extracts aren't actually considered spells, so they're not considered spellcasters for the purposes of certain feats, class requirements, item usages, and so forth.
This change basically opens up some of their options and loosens some boggling restrictions, without (at least in my opinion) much change in their level of actual power or risk of breaking the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ummm...what exactly was going on with your Alchemists to need to do anything like this?
o.O?
Well, I've had a growing list of annoyances about how Alchemist's fluff meant gimping them on things or not including them on other stuff. Like...
- Can't make a concentration check to "drink defensively"
- Can't use metamagic feats or rods on your extracts. They're a "buffing" based caster, yet have literally NO WAY to extend their extracts (they do have 2 ways to extend potions).
- Need my own special "pearls of power" instead of just using the normal ones that a party wiz and cleric can use interchangeably with each other as needed
- Have to pay a tax just to buff other people like all other casters can already, and EVEN THEN can't actually use multi-target spells on...multiple targets
- No cantrips for some reason
- Because extracts are liquids stored in vials, they are physical objects existing on your person before you even "cast" them on yourself, opening up all sorts of headaches with sundering and the like
- The thing that was the last straw was seeing the creator of the class, James Jacobs, state that an Infusion lasts until "used," with no recourse to recover the slot otherwise to re-fill with something else. So if someone swipes your infusions and smashes them on the ground, they never get "used" and you're permanently and irrevocably out your spell slots. That's insane. No other caster can be so quickly, easily, and permanently screwed over. Not even a wizard w/ his spellbook, which he can make multiple copies of, take Spell Mastery feat, and use divination scrolls to find a stolen book. And wizard is a much stronger class than Alchemist...
All of this bs for a few special "advantages" I don't care about, like using personal spells on other people (shame the alchemist list is so limited and poor you can hardly even use that, and when you can use it well, people flip out and want to ban it [see touch injection + skinsend for an example]) or "not having to waste your actions to buff other people" (protip: I'd rather have one PC waste one spell slot to give everyone haste than having to have each character burn one of my spell slots and their action to give themselves haste), and so forth.
So yeah. I'm sick of it. I just want the extracts to function like spells. I made some rules to attempt to retain the flavor of extracts as best I could, like them all having somatic and not having verbal components. But I don't even really care about all of that if someone found that "unbalanced," I'd be just as fine ditching the extract concept entirely and just making them full-fledged spellcasters if it were a problem.
- The thing that was the last straw was seeing the creator of the class, James Jacobs, state that an Infusion lasts until "used," with no recourse to recover the slot otherwise to re-fill with something else. So if someone swipes your infusions and smashes them on the ground, they never get "used" and you're permanently and irrevocably out your spell slots. That's insane. No other caster can be so quickly, easily, and permanently screwed over. Not even a wizard w/ his spellbook, which he can make multiple copies of, take Spell Mastery feat, and use divination scrolls to find a stolen book. And wizard is a much stronger class than Alchemist...
What!? That's not really a thing is it? Permanently destroyed spell slot just sounds wrong to me.
What!? That's not really a thing is it? Permanently destroyed spell slot just sounds wrong to me.
Well that's new to me! Huh... Can't say I agree with that.
Item crafting. Since they technically "don't have a caster level" they can't actually make any magical items without a wizard over their backs. Which makes no sense for an alchemist.
Item crafting. Since they technically "don't have a caster level" they can't actually make any magical items without a wizard over their backs. Which makes no sense for an alchemist.
They get brew potion at least. Which several archetypes happen to trade out... If I remember right, it does however mean they can't make golems.
Item crafting. Since they technically "don't have a caster level" they can't actually make any magical items without a wizard over their backs. Which makes no sense for an alchemist.
Yup, there's also this. I never realized the odd designation of elixers being "wondrous items" could be so infuriating until I played an Alchemist.
Especially when numerous extracts and discoveries function on potions and elixers, so the class is clearly tied to their use quite a bit. -_-
Item crafting. Since they technically "don't have a caster level" they can't actually make any magical items without a wizard over their backs. Which makes no sense for an alchemist.They get brew potion at least. Which several archetypes happen to trade out... If I remember right, it does however mean they can't make golems.
And they are lucky that there is special wording that allows them to use "any formulae they know" to meet the prereq for Brewing Potions.
Would it be so terrible to just take it all the way and make the alchemist actually able to cast some spells instead of hurling 'with unerring accuracy' or with 'lightning speed' ? I could see an alchemist as just another wizard's focus really, might even like that better then forcing the fluff to fit.
This is a pretty simple change, but one I feel is necessary to curb an ever growing pile of absurdity with the way extracts work compared with spells. So I propose treating an Alchemist's extracts as if they were spells in every possible way mechanically, with how they are used merely re-fluffed. Behold:
• Alchemists have a caster level equal to their alchemist level, and must make concentration checks as a caster does, using Intelligence to modify the check. An alchemist's extracts are considered to be arcane spells.
This is a good idea, except they also need to remove adding an Alchemist's Intelligence modifier to damage as no other class has that kind of raw power without sacrificing some other stat. Not to mention that all of the bombs are based on touch AC, which means that it is extremely unlikely the Alchemist will ever miss throwing a bomb.
• All extracts have somatic components, but none have verbal components.
• An Alchemist mentally prepares daily extracts as a wizard does his spells, and can leave open slots to fill later, taking 1 minute to fill per slot.
If you want Alchemist's to follow arcane spell casting rules, don't make them more powerful than they already are. "Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of his spells." The same should hold true for an Alchemist.
• Extracts are “mixed” from the spell component pouch on the spot at the time of casting and do not exist before then.
• Extracts cannot be cast while raging and suffer arcane spell failure when wearing anything other than light armor or shields (other than tower shields).
• The Infusion discovery no longer exists, as extracts work exactly like spells. Likewise, personal extracts can only be used on the Alchemist (or any bonded creature he has the Share Spells ability with). Extracts cast on others are thrown at them with unerring accuracy (like a Chemist from Final Fantasy Tactics), extracts with multi-target are either thrown with lightning speed to all targets or sprayed on them from a distance as with a spray bottle.
This is absurd. So the Alchemist has to hit an enemy in combat, assuming they are moving around and fighting, but if someone they are targeting is in the party, the latter rules for combat don't apply? I think that giving an ally an extract to drink is acceptable, but "spray bottle" and "throwing with unerring accuracy" are ridiculous. The same rules should apply and a multi-target extract needs to be thrown, hit like normal, and the "splash damage" applies the effect to party members within 5 ft. It would take more tactics, but would start to limit the ridiculous power an alchemist has already.
• An Alchemist gains the cantrips progression of a bard. He begins with all cantrips recorded in his formula book and can always prepare Read Magic from memory (just as a wizard does) and may choose each day which to prepare. He may select from the following: Detect Magic, Detect Poison, Guidance, Light, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Prestidigitation, Purify Food and Drink, Read Magic, Resistance, and Spark
I'm assuming these would work like potions that grant the mentioned effect for a certain time? I would still limit the Alchemist to a particular number of casting cantrips per day as they do rely on vials and the like to actually make their extracts. Requiring more raw materials than a wizard ever would. They are not an arcane class and should be treated as different. However, they should be given the ability to craft mundane alchemical items (like splash weapons) in half the time, and magical potions in 25% less time than normal.
• An Alchemist can add formulae to his book from another formula book or spellbook, or from scrolls or potions (which are consumed...
As long as you mean learning only what's on the Alchemist's spell/extra list and not opening them up to all Wizard/Sorc spells.
I think that giving an ally an extract to drink is acceptable, but "spray bottle" and "throwing with unerring accuracy" are ridiculous. The same rules should apply and a multi-target extract needs to be thrown, hit like normal, and the "splash damage" applies the effect to party members within 5 ft.
Then why don't we do the same for other classes? Say... perhaps... Cure spells? After all, to hit an enemy with an Inflict spell (or an undead one with a Cure) you have to roll, but it's just assumed that you can automatically touch an ally without a roll with a Cure (or Inflict if the ally is undead/Dhampir/etc.). I see no difference here.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Jacobs' posts aren't official clarifications or errata. It's "how I'd run things".
And he's not creator of the class. If anybody, Jason Bulmahn is. James isn't even on the rules design team, and has pretty much zero to little to do with writing crunch.
Actually... I am the original creator of the alchemist class. I wrote the first version of the class when the design team was struggling with how to handle the core concepts of the class in a way that made it something other than a wizard who drinks more potions. Of course, they took my original design and expanded/polished it up significantly, but the central concepts of an alchemist using bombs, drinking mutagens, and using extracts was all my original design work.
I do understand that folks out there want one single ruleset to rule them all, but that's not the way RPGs work, frankly. They are best when they shift and evolve and change to meat each individual game group's preferences and tastes. My personal take on how the rules work in play is MUCH more liberal and flexible, it's true, than Jason's take on them, but that doesn't make one interpretation better than the other. When I post replies to rules questions, I do so hoping that the person who asked the question will take my response and use it, among other pieces of input, to make their own decisions how to run things in their game.
And as for the idea of me writing zero to little crunch, that's also bunk. I also designed the first incarnation of the gunslinger, wrote several dozen spells for Advanced Player's Guide, designed the initial version of the kingdom-building rules and mass combat rules, traits, created the haunt mechanic, created the chase rules, created the madness/insanity rules, and built a significant portion of the monsters that appear in the Bestiaries. And that doesn't even TOUCH my crunch work that's been done for the other product lines we do that hasn't yet been reprinted in the hardcover rulebooks.
All that said, if you want specific, "official" answers to your rules questions, you need to post those questions to the rules forums so the design team can see them and so that folks can hit FAQ for them.
|
Creative Director
|
GYAH! Don't do that, James! I criticize the class and suddenly its developer pops up in person? That's not how the Internet is supposed to work!... excuse me, I gotta go get a glass of water or sumthin'.
HA!
No worries! One thing I've developed over the past 15 or so years I've been doing regular professional work in the industry is a pretty thick skin. I understand full well that not everything I write will be everyone's favorite, and in fact I welcome that. Diversity in opinion is what makes things interesting! And criticism is how I grow as a writer and designer—it's how I learn from mistakes or mis-steps.
That said... one thing I learned REAL QUICK when I started working at Wizards of the Coast was to not insult or pick on any rules element in the game, because the person who build those rules might be sitting next to you, or might be your boss. Nothing like that ever happened to me, but it did happen to some folk I know... Very awkward.
I think that giving an ally an extract to drink is acceptable, but "spray bottle" and "throwing with unerring accuracy" are ridiculous. The same rules should apply and a multi-target extract needs to be thrown, hit like normal, and the "splash damage" applies the effect to party members within 5 ft.Then why don't we do the same for other classes? Say... perhaps... Cure spells? After all, to hit an enemy with an Inflict spell (or an undead one with a Cure) you have to roll, but it's just assumed that you can automatically touch an ally without a roll with a Cure (or Inflict if the ally is undead/Dhampir/etc.). I see no difference here.
I always thought it was the difference between letting someone poke you and not letting someone poke you. I'm perfectly fine with being touched by my friend using cure moderate wounds. However when the nasty lich wants to touch me with the shriveled hand glowing with negative energy I'm a little less inclined. Its also almost impossible to miss a square.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we've all had that happen. Best we can do is try to keep the criticism constructive.
Yup.
Being able to interpret helpful and constricting criticism can be difficult, especially when reading internet criticism where anonymity, passion, and the lack of body language/tenor can obscure valid criticism with the perception of hostility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemists don't need any more help breaking games. They have advantages (standard action for every spell), and disadvantages.
Its also almost impossible to miss a square.
When it gets down to these levels of near-impossibility, I wonder why we're wasting game time with rolling in the first place, other than the off chance of a crit/fumble.
Which, admittedly, I have considered applying to friendly Touch spells like Cures and Buffs for the sake of "well it would be kinda nice to be able to get a 'critical cure' like you can in some Final Fantasy games and similar", but after putting myself in my players' shoes I've always dropped the idea before even putting it on the table, as I know - especially at low level, where Cure spells are more needed than any other time in the game - there's a very real possibility of the dice betraying you at the wrong moment and that much-needed CLW missing even on a touch attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemists don't need any more help breaking games. They have advantages (standard action for every spell), and disadvantages.
If alchemist are breaking your games... I just don't know what to tell you. Its not been the norm for me. Far from it really, most alchemist I've seen are actually a little on the weak side. Even Vivisectionist isn't exactly tearing people in half unless the person rolls really well. YMMV I suppose.
Its also more about making things easier and less complicated as far as I can tell.
- The thing that was the last straw was seeing the creator of the class, James Jacobs, state that an Infusion lasts until "used," with no recourse to recover the slot otherwise to re-fill with something else. So if someone swipes your infusions and smashes them on the ground, they never get "used" and you're permanently and irrevocably out your spell slots. That's insane. No other caster can be so quickly, easily, and permanently screwed over. Not even a wizard w/ his spellbook, which he can make multiple copies of, take Spell Mastery feat, and use divination scrolls to find a stolen book. And wizard is a much stronger class than Alchemist...
You are taking that out of context. He said that if you GIVE one to someone it is out of play until he drinks it. He didn’t say anything at all about stealing, nor about smashing = not being “used”. As for that last Eric Meepo is correct. Smashed = used.
And you know, if a DM makes a point of stealing a wizards spellbook, that wizard is well and truly hosed.
James, since you are here now, I would like your input:
- What do you think of adapting extracts to work like spells for those who are frustrated with all the problems having a separate system brings?
- Can you expand upon what you meant by infusions not being able to be refilled until "used"? Obviously an Alchemist is not going to hand them out to enemies, but that's far from the only way an enemy could get them from him. It's a rather crippling and permanent handicap if the alchemist can NEVER use those slots again / choose to have the infusion go inert.
- Why is the alchemist the only 6- or 9- level "caster" without 0-level spells/extracts? It's not like he'd get spammable offensive cantrips (based on the types of spells he does get) to use at will, so what was the great harm or impossible suspension of disbelief?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jessie:
This thread is about extracts, not bombs. I think bombs are kind of underpowered myself, but if you want to nerf them, that can be a separate topic. I should note gunslingers use dex for to hit *and* damage with their own touch attacks and can use Deadly Aim with them, unlike the alchemist with his bombs.
The 1 minute per extract was just using the existing rule; I don't care about extending it to 15 like wizards if it bothers you so much. But Wizards do have an arcane discovery to reduce the time to 1 minute anyway.
What is this nonsense about "splash"? Extracts don't have a splash. I was trying to maintain at least some of the fluff, I don't find it any more absurd than the current extract rules saying that the extract goes inert immediately upon leaving your possession. Not even hands, but possession, so it can tell the difference between being in your backpack on your back and when you take the backpack off.
For cantrips, vials are re-useable, you know. You mix ingredients, sure, but casters burn material components and yet never seem to run out. It's no different.
And yes, they'd still only be able to learn spells/extracts on their own list, unless the DM lets you research a new one as per the existing rules. I was just removing the spellbook / formula book barrier.
Alchemists don't need any more help breaking games. They have advantages (standard action for every spell), and disadvantages.If alchemist are breaking your games... I just don't know what to tell you. Its not been the norm for me. Far from it really, most alchemist I've seen are actually a little on the weak side. Even Vivisectionist isn't exactly tearing people in half unless the person rolls really well. YMMV I suppose.
Its also more about making things easier and less complicated as far as I can tell.
You answered that perfectly for me. Also, with these rules chances, all extracts would cast the same as the spell version does for casting time. Sorry if that was unclear.
- The thing that was the last straw was seeing the creator of the class, James Jacobs, state that an Infusion lasts until "used," with no recourse to recover the slot otherwise to re-fill with something else. So if someone swipes your infusions and smashes them on the ground, they never get "used" and you're permanently and irrevocably out your spell slots. That's insane. No other caster can be so quickly, easily, and permanently screwed over. Not even a wizard w/ his spellbook, which he can make multiple copies of, take Spell Mastery feat, and use divination scrolls to find a stolen book. And wizard is a much stronger class than Alchemist...You are taking that out of context. He said that if you GIVE one to someone it is out of play until he drinks it. He didn’t say anything at all about stealing, nor about smashing = not being “used”. As for that last Eric Meepo is correct. Smashed = used.
And you know, if a DM makes a point of stealing a wizards spellbook, that wizard is well and truly hosed.
I don't think it's so clear that smashed = used. Even if it is, JJ did not say infusions you GIVE remain until used. He said infusions remain until used, and then said the obvious bit about not helping enemies. Even if smashing doesn't work, stealing still does. So, instead of smashing them, say the person hides them really well. Shoves them in a bag of holding and destroys the bag or the like, maybe (iirc, that means the extra dimensional space remains, but no one can reach it). It's still crazy.
As for a wizard, like I said... he at least can have countermeasures. Multiple spell book copies. Spell Mastery feat w/ spells to locate and teleport to the book. Wards and sigils to keep others from reading/using the book. He at least potentially has ways of saving himself if he is paranoid enough. And again...wizard is way more powerful a class than Alchemist. I don't think having such a huge glaring possibly irrevocable weakness as a "counter-balance" is good game design in general, but at least in the wizard's case, it's a concern for the strongest class in the game. Alchemists are fairly balanced, they don't need such dire threats to keep them in line.
On the "extract wont be available until used" rule, the simplest house rule would be saying when you prepare extracts you can deactivate any already made.
A shatter spell will activate all the extracts in a wild surge. The mutagens go into effect possibly offsetting the damage from the bombs which will have an area of effect.
The shield spell must be imbibed by the alchemist. Magic weapon is splashed on a weapon, not imbibed. Haste would be a gas eminating from a test tube, affecting the nearest person first till the max affected is reached.
i like this idea, to make the alchemist more spellcaster...
But, i would like more if the alchemist "spells" were uniques, something like bomb and alchemy from the Witchers pc games.
i do that house rule for my group.
All the craft dc is 15+total ingredients in the formulae, the alchemist must collect all the ingredients from the wildernes, buy and so.
Pros: a newly subsystem for an alchemist
Cons: the players inmerse a lot with this method, and always are looking for ingredients.I use my own criteria based in the ultimate magic spell creation system and in the witchers books/games.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Extract:
Carcayú
Preparación: 2 ether, 1 Hydrogen, 2 Caelum
Base: alcohol de gran calidad
Duración: Prolongada (1 min/lvl)
DC: Craft 20
Toxicity: High 6
carcayu, unleash all the potential from the user, transforming him in a destroyer whirlwind.
This potion bestow a +1d4+1/2levels (max +5) alchemical damageand this is a bomb:
Abeja Reina
Preparación: 1 quebirth, 1 Caelum
Daño: 3d6+1d4/2lvl
Rango: 15 ft
Craft DC: 17
this is a bomb which explodes in lot of metal needles on a 15ft area
Damage: 1d8/3levels (max 5d8)And this is an oil
Grasa Alquimica
Preparación:
Duracion: 1 min/level
Esta grasa se utiliza como base para la mayoría de los ungüentos y recubrimientos para armas.
Grasa alquímica: Una dosis de esta sustancia tiene contenido suficiente para cubrir una criatura mediana o dos pequeñas brindando +5 en escape artist y en cmd contra grapple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No habla espanole.
My first grenadier alchemist was a demon slayer who mixed alcohol into his extracts and mutagen. Alchemist plays a lot similar to a witcher when you do that I think. Its sort of a step backwards from making them spells, but it definitely makes them easier to understand. Sadly, since they lack good support I sort of prefer to fluff them as spells than potions. If only to be team game friendly.
I do understand that folks out there want one single ruleset to rule them all, but that's not the way RPGs work, frankly. They are best when they shift and evolve and change to meat each individual game group's preferences and tastes.Please forward the above quote to whomever at Paizo keeps insisting that all new spellcasting mechanics must use spell slots. :P
That's because D&D uses Vancian spell casting. Always has (there's a few odd classes out, like the Warlock, sure). Ever since 1974. And D&D is by far the most popular and long lasting RPing game, so a lot of folks must like Vancian casting.
There's scads of other RPing games that use spellpoints or many other spell systems. Why try to change D&D to something it isn't? Why not play either D&D *OR* some other system?
...Even if smashing doesn't work, stealing still does. ...
Again, he didn't say that. He said "give" to me, that indicates that the alchemist must willingly hand over the extract. Once he does of course, there could be a problem.
...Even if smashing doesn't work, stealing still does. ...Again, he didn't say that. He said "give" to me, that indicates that the alchemist must willingly hand over the extract. Once he does of course, there could be a problem.
I don't think there is a difference once its out of the alchemist hands or how they took it. Its an extract and if it doesn't go inert when a new one is made that's a lost spell slot.
The alchemist uses the extract then casts it like a spell. He can enlarge the fighter using an extract.
I don't have the aptitude for languages. Someone already translated it for me.
Back on topic, the text of the class suggests that the magic from extracts cannot be applied to others is a bit of an urban legend.
I do understand that folks out there want one single ruleset to rule them all, but that's not the way RPGs work, frankly. They are best when they shift and evolve and change to meat each individual game group's preferences and tastes.Please forward the above quote to whomever at Paizo keeps insisting that all new spellcasting mechanics must use spell slots. :PThat's because D&D uses Vancian spell casting. Always has (there's a few odd classes out, like the Warlock, sure). Ever since 1974. And D&D is by far the most popular and long lasting RPing game, so a lot of folks must like Vancian casting.
There's scads of other RPing games that use spellpoints or many other spell systems. Why try to change D&D to something it isn't? Why not play either D&D *OR* some other system?
This is a fallacious argument. In more ways than one. First is the argument by consensus, Just because it is popular doesn't mean it is good. Second is false cause, in that D&D may be popular, but that does not mean that Vancian casting is the cause. Third, There are tons of versions of D&D, which are very different from one another, so D&D, the brand, has lasted long, but the mechanics have changed so much.
Besides, honestly, if people like vancian casting, I don't mind. But the lack of alternate options is a problem; 3.5 suffered from huge amounts of class-bloat, and I don't want a return to that, but what 3.5 did do is have classes like the Warlock, and ToB classes, which didn't follow the same tired old formulae for casters and mundanes. I have enough faith in Paizo to come up with interesting ideas for future classes that don't just continue these tired old formulae, that are still legal under the ogl. I just want to see them take a chance at this. Sure, there's the risk that the design doesn't work, but worst comes to worst, it's treated like the Summoner or the 3.5 Healer: If it's overpowered DMs recognize it as cheese and ban it, and if it's underpowered, no one uses it. But if it works, it could broaden Pathfinder's appeal. I don't like the 3.5 base ruleset. I think it's badly designed, but the changes that Paizo made, and the world appealed to me, so I picked it up. I think if options for non-vancian casters and more tactical/dynamic mundanes, other people would give it a try too.
Ah, but you see- Psionics aren't "casters". That's the point.