Alchemical Allocation balance

This issue is about to rear its head in a campaign I'm running, so I thought i'd see what people think. Here is Alchemical Allocation:

ALCHEMICAL ALLOCATION
School transmutation; Level alchemist 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 round
This extract causes a pale aura to emanate from your mouth. If you consume a potion or elixir on the round following the consumption of this extract, you can spit it back into its container as a free action. You gain all the benefits of the potion or elixir, but it is not consumed. You can only gain the benefits of one potion or elixir in this way per use of this extract.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the spell allows an alchemist with natural attacks, for the one-time expenditure of 3000gp, to get the benefit of Greater Magic Fang at caster level 20 every day, regardless of his or her own level. If the alchemist burns three 2nd-level extracts each morning, he or she gets +5 attack and damage on bite and 2 claws for the next 20 hours.

The spell basically breaks the guideline that the power/effect of a spell (extract) is based on the caster level of the person casting the spell. In effect, you have a 2nd level spell with a 3000gp focus that grants +5 attack/damage for 20 hours. Of course it's worse than that because, for example, the same spell with a 900gp focus can give you a +5 deflection bonus to AC for 18 minutes (shield of faith), or with an 1100gp focus can give you 30 points of fire resistance (resist energy).

The action economy - you have to cast the spell, draw the potion, quaff the potion, stow the potion - does mitigate the effect, but only in combat. In most cases any spell with a duration of minutes per level is cast before combat begins. And Greater Magic Fang was probably cast before the alchemist had breakfast that morning.

The correction I'm considering is simply that, when quaffed, the caster level of the potion's effect is equal to the alchemist's level. The effect of the spell on Elixirs doesn't change, as Elixirs are not level based. This would mean that the main benefit of the spell is that, with the one-time purchase of a potion, the alchemist can, in effect, cast spells that he or she wouldn't otherwise be able to cast. The effect of the potion would scale with the alchemist's level, and the alchemist would only need to acquire potions of the minimum caster level.

With this change, the alchemist can still quaff that potion of Greater Magic Fang (price 750gp) three times a day, but won't get the benefit of +5 attack/damage until he or she reaches 20th level - no-one else does, so I don't see why the alchemist should.

This change does mimic to some extent the alchemist Discovery Enhance Potion. I don't feel that the change I'm suggesting makes Enhance Potion redundant. If you want to use your extracts on something other then Alchemical Allocation then you still have your uses of Enhance Potion to improve those 1st-level cure light wound potions. Of course, a discovery like Extend Potion will synergise better with Alchemical Allocation, but then again it always has.

And, just to be clear, I wrote above that "the caster level of the potion's effect is equal to the alchemist's level" to show that the caster level of the potion itself doesn't change. A 1st-level potion remains a 1st-level potion after it is spat out.

Where is he getting a CL 20 potion in the first place? Where do you find these level 20 casters at all, much less ones willing to make a potion for some random guy?

I don't think this issue is an issue at all with that in mind. No need to change how the extract works, especially not in a way that fundamentally changes its use. Might as well make a new extract in that case.

Where is he getting a CL 20 potion in the first place? Where do you find these level 20 casters at all, much less ones willing to make a potion for some random guy?

I don't think this issue is an issue at all with that in mind. No need to change how the extract works, especially not in a way that fundamentally changes its use. Might as well make a new extract in that case.

This.

The problem occurs in a campaign where there is access to high level casters.

I'm playing in campaign in question, and we are about to travel to Greyhawk - plenty of accessible high level casters about. Even if finding 20th level boffins happy make you a potion may still be problematic, 12-16 level casters is certainly likely.

If the player is happy to part with the cash (and why wouldn't he?), there will be a significant power leap in his abilities compared to the rest of the party.

However, I did notice in another thread on the much the same topic topic; Alchemical Allocation broken?
That Sean K Reynolds chimed in to state the following..

The keys to this problem are the PFS potion rules and the Accelerated Drinker trait.

As others have stated, PFS rules say all store-bought potions function at the minimum caster level.

So it seems to me the original intent - at least in Pathfinder Society play - is for potions to function and minimum caster level, or at worst have fellow party members of make said items for you at a higher (but not a game breaking) level for you.

I think Tendentious 'fix' seems quite reasonable for non PFS play - where there is potential in some campaign environments to have abuse of this power.

And I do even wonder if it might be advisable to go further, and have the spell itself fixed to say 'all potion effects function at minimum caster level' within the description - if that indeed was SKR's intent...

Where is he getting a CL 20 potion in the first place? Where do you find these level 20 casters at all, much less ones willing to make a potion for some random guy?

In my own campaign, anything that isn't straight from the core book is not available for general purchase. A potion of more than minimum caster level must be crafted or quested for. But given the way the extract currently works, there is a lot of incentive for a player to want to track down a high level caster and perform some quest or task in exchange for said caster crafting the potion.

Obviously, I can exercise DM fiat and declare that no 20th-level druid is willing or available to do so. But to do so is not what I'd considered the best form of DM-ing, and is a basic admission that - yes, the spell is broken, but I'm going to prevent players from exploiting it. And then the player says "fine, I'll find a 16th-level druid and get a +4 potion of Greater Magic Fang instead. No? What about a 12th-level druid?"

Essentially, I shouldn't need extrinsic considerations (can the player acquire the right potion) to protect or justify an intrinsically broken extract. Why not just have a extract that isn't intrinsically broken?

Think of it this way; ideally, the extract should be "not-broken" in all settings and campaigns. Suppose you're running a setting full of high level casters, many of whom craft items. Nothing about the setting changes how the numbers work. A 20th-level potion of Greater Magic Fang still costs 3000gp and is still an expendable item, and a low-level character having +5 magic attack/damage is still overpowered, regardless of the number of 20th-level druids there are wandering around. In such a setting, a 20th-level potion might be readily available for anyone with the cash. If the alchemist then breaks game balance with Alchemical Allocation, are we saying that it's the setting that's wrong rather than the extract?

I don't think this issue is an issue at all with that in mind. No need to change how the extract works, especially not in a way that fundamentally changes its use. Might as well make a new extract in that case.

I don't agree that it fundamentally changes its use. The main effect of either version of the extract is that it allows you to reuse an expendable item. The original version allows the use of an expendable item of any caster level. The amended version allows the use of an expendable item but fixes the caster level at the alchemist's own level.

The problem occurs in a campaign where there is access to high level casters.

I'm playing in campaign in question, and we are about to travel to Greyhawk - plenty of accessible high level casters about. Even if finding 20th level boffins happy make you a potion may still be problematic, 12-16 level casters is certainly likely.

If the player is happy to part with the cash (and why wouldn't he?), there will be a significant power leap in his abilities compared to the rest of the party.

However, I did notice in another thread on the much the same topic topic; Alchemical Allocation broken?
That Sean K Reynolds chimed in to state the following..

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The keys to this problem are the PFS potion rules and the Accelerated Drinker trait.

As others have stated, PFS rules say all store-bought potions function at the minimum caster level.

So it seems to me the original intent - at least in Pathfinder Society play - is for potions to function and minimum caster level, or at worst have fellow party members of make said items for you at a higher (but not a game breaking) level for you.

I think Tendentious 'fix' seems quite reasonable for non PFS play - where there is potential in some campaign environments to have abuse of this power.

And I do even wonder if it might be advisable to go further, and have the spell itself fixed to say 'all potion effects function at minimum caster level' within the description - if that indeed was SKR's intent...

I see you're doing your research for that email I sent you. See you at K's on Wednesday.

In my own campaign, anything that isn't straight from the core book is not available for general purchase. A potion of more than minimum caster level must be crafted or quested for. But given the way the extract currently works, there is a lot of incentive for a player to want to track down a high level caster and perform some quest or task in exchange for said caster crafting the potion.

Obviously, I can exercise DM fiat and declare that no 20th-level druid is willing or available to do so. But to do so is not what I'd considered the best form of DM-ing, and is a basic admission that - yes, the spell is broken, but I'm going to prevent players from exploiting it. And then the player says "fine, I'll find a 16th-level druid and get a +4 potion of Greater Magic Fang instead. No? What about a 12th-level druid?"

But the thing is, it's not the spell that's broken, it's allowing something that was never intended within the rules. High level casters don't grow on trees, you know.

There's exactly ONE city in Golarion I know of that has even 18th level casters (Absalom). Everywhere else is significantly lower.

Now, you seem to be playing in a different campaign world where high level casters are more common (Greyhawk, according to Vhecker). Which is fine, but it doesn't mean the SPELL is broken, just that this setting doesn't mesh well with some core game assumptions.

However, with that in mind, maybe a change IS in order. That would have been good information to have from the start.

Given that we're assuming a change is indeed necessary, your change doesn't seem like a bad one. Could be interesting in play, and doesn't neuter the spell. My objection before was solely about how it seemed unneeded.

However, I'll continue on because I'm an argumentative sort. =)

Think of it this way; ideally, the extract should be "not-broken" in all settings and campaigns. Suppose you're running a setting full of high level casters, many of whom craft items. Nothing about the setting changes how the numbers work. A 20th-level potion of Greater Magic Fang still costs 3000gp and is still an expendable item, and a low-level character having +5 magic attack/damage is still overpowered, regardless of the number of 20th-level druids there are wandering around. In such a setting, a 20th-level potion might be readily available for anyone with the cash. If the alchemist then breaks game balance with Alchemical Allocation, are we saying that it's the setting that's wrong rather than the extract?

Yes, the setting is the issue here.

It's all well and good to say something should be balanced for every game world, but that's simply not possible to do. Game worlds can be so varied that something that is somewhat balanced in the core game world can be massively OP in another (9 level casters in a low magic world, for example).

The point still stands that you must find a 20th level Druid willing to deal with you, and if your game world has them running around everywhere that's a problem with the world, not the Extract.

Or not a problem with the world as whole, but a problem with the world in relation to the Extract.

As part of the Pathfinder rules,

A Metropolis has only 8th level casting available. Only a Metropolis with the magical quality, a large city with the magically attuned quality, or a small city with both can get 9th level casting.

So I think that in order to find a 20th level caster who has crafting/spellcasting for service, you'd need a Metropolis with the Magically Attuned quality or a Large City with both.

Those are really rare. The best part is that Druids are unlikely to even be there.

But the thing is, it's not the spell that's broken, it's allowing something that was never intended within the rules. High level casters don't grow on trees, you know.

It very much depends on what you mean by "never intended within the rules". I don't want to put words in you mouth, but if you're saying that there is a rule that high-level NPC casters are never available to craft magic items - or that it is not intended that high-level NPC casters be available to craft magic items - then I would say that that is not in the Core book, nor in any of the supplements that I've read.

Yes, the setting is the issue here.

It's all well and good to say something should be balanced for every game world, but that's simply not possible to do. Game worlds can be so varied that something that is somewhat balanced in the core game world can be massively OP in another (9 level casters in a low magic world, for example).

The point still stands that you must find a 20th level Druid willing to deal with you, and if your game world has them running around everywhere that's a problem with the world, not the Extract.

Or not a problem with the world as whole, but a problem with the world in relation to the Extract.

To my way of thinking, you have the elements backwards. We agree that the extract is not overpowered in setting A (minimum caster level) but it is overpowered in setting B (floating caster level) - even though the settings don't change the maths, as I pointed out before. I'd argue that it is not that setting B is broken, but rather that setting A prevents the broken extract from being overpowered. and that the reason the extract is broken is because it violates one of the core building principles of spells in Pathfinder and D&D generally - that the effect is proportionate to the level of the one who casts the spell. Instead it is proportionate to a factor extrinsic to the spell or the caster - the caster level of the potion.

Also, off-hand, I cannot think of another spell that would be so wildly overpowered in a different setting (a setting that does not change the maths of the system).

There's exactly ONE city in Golarion I know of that has even 18th level casters (Absalom). Everywhere else is significantly lower.

The point still stands that you must find a 20th level Druid willing to deal with you, and if your game world has them running around everywhere that's a problem with the world, not the Extract.

So - hypothetical question - if you were DM'ing a game set in Golarion, and the player of a 4th-level alchemist wanted to find a high-level druid and perform some quest for said druid in exchange for the crafting of the potion - and if they can't find a 20th-level caster they'll look for a 16th-level or 12th-level one - how would you handle it?

If they want to spend the time and likely a lot of resources to find a high level character of a class known to live in the wilds of a world where freakin' dinosaurs roam the jungles, and even nastier beasts prowl everywhere else, and has the ability to "Pass Without Trace", while probably shapeshifted into the form of one of the common animals of the area for most of their waking time, they can go for it.

It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, if the needle could also transform into hay, and the rest of the hay was trying to eat you.

If they actually find the guy, survive the ordeal of getting to them, and finish some quest for the Druid they're probably high enough level by then that the point is moot.

Or they just begged off a quest to save the world and everything is screwed. =)

I think your change to the extraction is a good one. It is easy to understand and allows the formula to get stronger will level.