You cannot claim that your playstyle is inviolate if you are criticizing the class yourself. Thats like me complaining that the wizard is lame because the familiar is incredibly weaker than an animal companion or summoners eidolon.I think you're just focusing to much one thinking the alchemist is about 1 thing....Please, Kraven, don't presume how a play a character and especially tell me I'm playing it wrong. Criticizing another person's play style or decisions isn't the point of this play test...
Except for the fact that it's not just the familiar in this case... it's the entire list of class features. The class needs criticizing at this point because it simply doesn't work in comparison to the other classes.
In fact the presumption shouldn't be against his play type in a playtest , it should be against the class itself. He's played and enjoyed the game with his play style and group for the time he's played, however with this class something wasn't right. Since it was right before and it isn't now it's a fair assumption that it's something with the class (the only thing that's changed) that's wrong.
Considering that the buffing power is weak, the mutagen is weak, the bombs are weak and the discoveries are lacking, it's quite evident that the class does need changed -- not his play style.
You cannot claim that your playstyle is inviolate if you are criticizing the class yourself. Thats like me complaining that the wizard is lame because the familiar is incredibly weaker than an animal companion or summoners eidolon.I think you're just focusing to much one thinking the alchemist is about 1 thing....Please, Kraven, don't presume how a play a character and especially tell me I'm playing it wrong. Criticizing another person's play style or decisions isn't the point of this play test...
I say we stop this while we are ahead before this thread is closed for useless childish bickering because people want to play egomaniac here.
And for the record he never stated that his playstyle was inviolate because he played differently from Kraven.
If you read his entire post he restates that he posted his experience of Playtesting the Alchemist as Jason requested we do rather than post what will make the class better before we even know what situations have essential boons and banes.
I'm merely suggesting that we add Trapfinding to the Alchemist to give it more of a "want to play the class" feel because as others have stated more eloquently, the class is fairly weak at the moment.
You cannot claim that your playstyle is inviolate if you are criticizing the class yourself. Thats like me complaining that the wizard is lame because the familiar is incredibly weaker than an animal companion or summoners eidolon.I think you're just focusing to much one thinking the alchemist is about 1 thing....Please, Kraven, don't presume how a play a character and especially tell me I'm playing it wrong. Criticizing another person's play style or decisions isn't the point of this play test...I say we stop this while we are ahead before this thread is closed for useless childish bickering because people want to play egomaniac here.
And for the record he never stated that his playstyle was inviolate because he played differently from Kraven.
If you read his entire post he restates that he posted his experience of Playtesting the Alchemist as Jason requested we do rather than post what will make the class better before we even know what situations have essential boons and banes.
I'm merely suggesting that we add Trapfinding to the Alchemist to give it more of a "want to play the class" feel because as others have stated more eloquently, the class is fairly weak at the moment.
actually one of my players is playtesting the alchemist and its pretty strong, granted they are only level 2 but the base bomb is really useful for killing off 1 enemy while damaging a crowd, and its pretty much garunteed damage since you only have to hit a square, penalties for throwing farther than range isnt really that bad considering ac of square.
other than that i think that getting discoveries a little more often would be nice perhaps like every third level, that or have an extra discovery feat.
Actually you don't attack the square you attack the intersection of 4 squares and if you hit deal splash damage (only!) to those four squares. Splash damage is only going to be 6 points at maximum at 2nd level. Also if you are aiming for a large creature you can't attack the intersection -- you must attack the creature, the splash weapon rules are quite explicit on that. Throwing that bomb is going to provoke 2 AoO's to the wizard's 1 and you can only use your extracts on yourself, meaning you can't enlarge the fighter, heal the rogue or anything else.
Also don't forget if you aiming at a square where four creatures are the square itself has soft cover making it an AC 9 (5+4) at least, and if it's more than 10 feet from you it goes up to an 11 at least (13 at 20+ feet, 15 at 30+ feet, 17 at 40+ feet and 50 is the farthest you can throw it at an AC of 19).
Besides a fighter could simply Cleave two of those same squares with a power attack from a great sword for with a str of 18 for 2d6+9 damage with a +3 to hit each creature and clear them just as well in the same amount of actions. If he's a ranged fighter he could hit two of them with precise shot, rapid shot and point blank shot with a strength of 16 for 1d8+4 damage.
Using just a standard action a wizard could simply burning hands the squares for the same damage and have a move action left.
At 3rd level the wizard could use a flaming sphere, and still cast other spells, and get the same damage.
|
I do not think the alchemist class is weak at all. I think that there are some issues of the alchemist that need to be addressed but I feel like alot of people want the alchemist to be something its not.
My main concern is range. The range for alchemists fire, which I assume would be similar in concept to a bomb, is 10 feet. The range for a thunderstone another thrown alchemical item is 20 feet.
Another concern is the incendiary bomb, is it per the spell or per the bomb rules? The spell has the cloud moving as per cloudkill and offers a mechanic to control the movement, does the bomb's effect move? It also seems like the incendiary bomb could cause problems by covering too much of the battlefield.
I do not think the alchemist class is weak at all. I think that there are some issues of the alchemist that need to be addressed but I feel like alot of people want the alchemist to be something its not.
I Completely agree with you on this, it has a lot of tweaking to get done to it, but it could be great, and the theme is fantastic.
No one said it was bad theme wise, just that mechanically it is weak (which it is, every area where it can do something it simply doesn't compare to any other class that can do the same thing -- it's always weaker no matter what you are looking at), and needs some changes.
It's a great class idea, it has some rather unique and nice elements in the way it functions, unfortunately those elements are mechanically not up to par yet.
Let me put it this way:
What does the class do mechanically?
It self buffs with mutagen -- Barbarians do the same with rage with better bonuses and less penalties on a full BAB chassis. The Cha damage is going to stick around for a while and the bonus is low.
It blasts with bombs -- Something people have gone over a lot. It deals less damage than any other blaster (blasters are weak to begin with too) to a smaller area, with more time needed, and more difficulty in getting it done.
It buffs/heals -- however to do this to others it requires a discovery, and even then it's barely even at this most of the time, as the buffs only affect the target, meaning that haste isn't as useful for the alchemist (only one target instead of the party). However once it has the discovery the others could buff themselves with move actions -- something no other buffer has the ability to give.
It poisons -- however this ends up being late game and the poisons still have all the normal issues that go with them. The sticky poison ability helps but that brings us to the next problem.
It specializes -- with discoveries but so many of the discoveries end up being "must haves" just to make everything else work that you don't have enough to actually get good at one thing.
It skill monkeys -- however with the MAD that's going on with this class you suffer for those skill points. In addition without trapfinding its still only another skill monkey that can't help with magical traps, as such it's just another beast in the pack.
|
|
"It self buffs with mutagen -- Barbarians do the same with rage with better bonuses and less penalties on a full BAB chassis."
But its not a barbarian, the barbarian rage is better, but thats the whole class. You cannot really believe that the alchemist should be able to ape a front line melee fighter with all the other abilities and options it gets.
"It blasts with bombs -- Something people have gone over a lot. It deals less damage than any other blaster (blasters are weak to begin with too) to a smaller area, with more time needed, and more difficulty in getting it done."
While each individual bomb is weaker, you definately get more per day than a wizard or sorceror.
"It buffs/heals -- however to do this to others it requires a discovery, and even then it's barely even at this most of the time, as the buffs only affect the target, meaning that haste isn't as useful for the alchemist (only one target instead of the party). However once it has the discovery the others could buff themselves with move actions -- something no other buffer has the ability to give."
Once again you are sacrificing straight up power for versatility.
"It specializes -- with discoveries but so many of the discoveries end up being "must haves" just to make everything else work that you don't have enough to actually get good at one thing."
It seems like one of your complaints is that you have to choose class features instead of being assigned them. Its a class that can do many different things, how you build the character is up to you.
"It self buffs with mutagen -- Barbarians do the same with rage with better bonuses and less penalties on a full BAB chassis."
But its not a barbarian, the barbarian rage is better, but thats the whole class. You cannot really believe that the alchemist should be able to ape a front line melee fighter with all the other abilities and options it gets.
"It blasts with bombs -- Something people have gone over a lot. It deals less damage than any other blaster (blasters are weak to begin with too) to a smaller area, with more time needed, and more difficulty in getting it done."
While each individual bomb is weaker, you definately get more per day than a wizard or sorceror.
"It buffs/heals -- however to do this to others it requires a discovery, and even then it's barely even at this most of the time, as the buffs only affect the target, meaning that haste isn't as useful for the alchemist (only one target instead of the party). However once it has the discovery the others could buff themselves with move actions -- something no other buffer has the ability to give."
Once again you are sacrificing straight up power for versatility.
"It specializes -- with discoveries but so many of the discoveries end up being "must haves" just to make everything else work that you don't have enough to actually get good at one thing."
It seems like one of your complaints is that you have to choose class features instead of being assigned them. Its a class that can do many different things, how you build the character is up to you.
1. So it sucks because it should suck? That makes no sense. The mutagen is supposed to make him more of a "monster" instead it just makes him less of a kitten and at the cost of Cha Damage at that. What I'm saying is if you are going to include a self buff that takes an hour to create that you can only have one of at a time, that deals damage to you for using, it had better be a very good buff. Mutagen isn't. If it was a spell you would never use it. If it was a feat you wouldn't take it. As a class ability it is straight up bad currently.
2. Actually you don't. The Alchemist will get a total of 34 in one day at maximum. The wizard will have over 36 spells per day that can be used to blast before bonus spells of any type.
3. No again. He doesn't have more versitility than say the bard which takes less time to actually use his spells, has just as many to choose from, and can use them on anyone from the get go. In addition his choices are more limited than say a clerics, or a wizard, and the sorcerer has the same one upmanship going for him that the bard does. As a buffer the Alchemist lags hugely behind everyone else. The wizard can choose to not prepare spells and prepare them later each day too, so even that isn't a special feature for alchemist... it just barely lets him match everyone else. To add insult to injury here his buffs still only affect one person. The other buffers can affect multiple people at a time with their buffs meaning they don't have to burn through all their third level slots to simply haste the entire party!
4. Actually it can't. I have to choose to buff. If I choose to buff my bombs aren't worth while. If I fix the bombs my mutagens will still suck. If I fix the mutagens (when I'm finally able to at 12th level then I don't have enough discoveries to make the bombs not suck. In order to make the bombs feasible to use the delay bomb discovery is nessecary, in order to make the mutagen worthwhile the discoveries for it are nessecary. All the abilities are close to useless without at least 1 discovery, most of them needing at least 2 discoveries.
For example:
Infusion (4th level)
Force Bomb (8th level)
Delay Bomb (12th level)
Improved Mutagen (16th level) YaY! IT's almost as good as a 2nd level spell -- except it still hurts to use it!
Greater Mutagen (20th level)
Sticky Bomb (20th level)
True Mutagen (and now I've wasted 2 discoveries! and it's barely the equal to two magic items!)
Yes by level 20 things are actually useful... but until that point you really don't have anything to do that any other spell caster couldn't do since 4th level.
I don't want to sound like I'm bickering, cause while the +2 str/dex/con and +2 natural armor isn't great for a -1d4 cha at lvl 4 you can easily fix that cha damage with 1 extract(lesser restoration, yes at lvl 4 you should be able to create 2 / day, which you don't even have to create in the morning so you mix them on days you use a mutagen. Which is a must in my book if I'm planning on going mutagen heavy. So really, you can remove that penalty yourself after the mutagen wears off. I'm interested in what feats people are taking for their alchemists and what discoveries they are taking. Whether you go bombs or mutagens or even extracts/potions there are plenty of feats to work with each option if you want to specialize, which to me makes this class very flexible. You can be the same class and go 3 different paths, and even in those you have tons of options.
|
I'm assuming that this is going to be in the book, as it seems like a natural section to put in if you're unveiling the Alchemist, but:
One important thing for the class should be some new poisons. I mean, make them expensive as all-get-out or whatever you need to do, but there need to be poison types that work well at higher levels (8+). Purple Worm poison and Deathblade Poison are all well and good, but even they are (at a point) not going to be enough, and there's nothing like the variety of choosing between two things (think, do I want a Wolf Mount or a Horse mount? And those are the only two options you really have). I meant to mention this in my previous post, but got sidetracked by my disinterest in Mutagens :D .
I'm assuming that this is going to be in the book, as it seems like a natural section to put in if you're unveiling the Alchemist, but:
One important thing for the class should be some new poisons. I mean, make them expensive as all-get-out or whatever you need to do, but there need to be poison types that work well at higher levels (8+). Purple Worm poison and Deathblade Poison are all well and good, but even they are (at a point) not going to be enough, and there's nothing like the variety of choosing between two things (think, do I want a Wolf Mount or a Horse mount? And those are the only two options you really have). I meant to mention this in my previous post, but got sidetracked by my disinterest in Mutagens :D .
I actually like the poisons in there now, and there are rules for creating your own. Also, save DCs go up the more times you poison the person, so stick them 3 times in the same round for +2 to the DC. This scales better than spells IMO, and the DCs are just as bad, if not worse in some cases.
Post Christmas Playtest Results/Homebrew Changes for the Alchemist.
as written in the pdf download, the alchemist was quote "a cool concept with good flavor but poor exececution". my players disliked it for the following main reasons:
1)not enough discoveries gained, especially since many of them require two or more previous discoveries to learn. only getting 6 total by 20th level doesn't leave alot of room for customization.
2)not enough variety in the discovery choices. 80% of them only modify bombs, sort of pigeon-holeing the class into that role. need more that modify/interact with extracts (such as providing a metamagic effect )or provide variant mutagen abilities. another problem that came up was that the splash damage from the bombs kept damaging the melee pc's. perhaps a discovery that allows the alchemist to make bombs without splash damage that deal extra direct hit damage could be added to the game.
3)mutagens are practically useless until 14th level. the short duration and relatively weak effects could have been forgiven, except that you can only make and carry one at a time. the fact that they didn't improve without spending one of their 6 discovery slots on them made my players just mostly ignore them. it was only used once in the three games we played, to get the AC bump while traversing a long, trap filled corridor.
4)my players consider poison use to be a cowardly evil act, so those abilities were useless to them. (i personally like the idea of the good guys using poison against the evil bas...people of the world, but whatever).
my homebrew solutions: i don't pretend to be a game balance wizard or anything, but i made the following changes to the Alchemist, and my group seemed to enjoy playing it more:
1)removed poison use(2nd) and swift poisoning(6th) abilities: my group ignored these abilities anyways.
2)changed the rate of acquisition of Discovery to 3rd, 6th, and every three levels thereafter. this actually only provides 2 additional discoveries, but it was enough for my group.
3) moved Swift Alchemy from 3rd to 4th level: this was done simply to fill in the gap in the progression chart.
4)moved Persistant Mutagen from 14th to 10th level. In addition, added Greater Mutagen and Grand Mutagen discoveries as class features at 6th and 14th levels respectively. this had the dual purpose of making the pc's want to use the mutagens more often since they had a logical progression, and freeing up a couple of discovey slots.
5)i'm working on some new discoveries that affect extracts(empower, maximize, make them harder to dispel, etc...), and additional mutagen effects(gills and swim speed, wings and fly speed, horns and gore attack, etc...)
other notes:
1)Alchemists do not need to recieve the brew potion feat (or even have access it). the ablility (thru discoveries)to manipulate existing potions via alchemy is cool and shouldn't be diminished by having them brew potions like every other spellcaster in existance.
2)I showed my players the threads about having Alchemists use an alchemists journal as a sort of spellbook for their formulas, and they all thought it was a great idea that fit the concept of the class to a T. it's one that i'll homebrew even if it never becomes "official".
3)I love the fact that the Alchemist is a "selfish spellcaster", that only buffs himself. and more importantly, my players understood that concept and modified their reactions accordingly. do not give them Infusion for free.
well, i've rambled enough. thanks for listening
james.
We played a good day of solid gaming and one player played an Inq
He was pretty cool and a good team mate with his healing spells.
His Judgement ability comes in very handy at low levels when the PCs dont have any magic weapons.
He killed a shadow that was going to wipe everyone out.
Over all it was a fun class to play with alot of room for roleplaying
as he has to come up for these vengence reasons and he has a good skill set so that he really compliments a small group.
I don't want to sound like I'm bickering, cause while the +2 str/dex/con and +2 natural armor isn't great for a -1d4 cha at lvl 4 you can easily fix that cha damage with 1 extract(lesser restoration, yes at lvl 4 you should be able to create 2 / day, which you don't even have to create in the morning so you mix them on days you use a mutagen. Which is a must in my book if I'm planning on going mutagen heavy. So really, you can remove that penalty yourself after the mutagen wears off. I'm interested in what feats people are taking for their alchemists and what discoveries they are taking. Whether you go bombs or mutagens or even extracts/potions there are plenty of feats to work with each option if you want to specialize, which to me makes this class very flexible. You can be the same class and go 3 different paths, and even in those you have tons of options.
Just a sidenote, but please create some space in your text people, many people including me (depending on mood) just does NOT read a slap
of text like this.That is assuming you want people to read it ^^
liked the classes, inquisitor more than alchemist, but I wonder wether it actually serve well enough in combat.
Medium armor, and weapon selections aren't that great, neither are hitpoints, combat ability looks nice on the surface, but with less attacks and less chance to hit compared to a warrior.
I fear the fancy abilities might do nothing more than covering their weaknesses, playtesting is in order I suppose ^^
Jason,
Any chance we'll see some adjustments made to the way the Alchemist class is laid out here soon?
I know that, personally, I'd like to see the poison and Mutagen stuff be moved over into Discoveries instead of being a given class feature and simply broaden the number of Discoveries.
I have only one real comment about the Alchemist so far, it seems to work pretty well. It is a bit bland in some areas BUT I do have one suggestion that I think may help it keep it's flavor and uniqueness without adding "more power" to the stew, so to speak.
I noticed all the alchemy related class features were listed as Su (Supernatural). This seems to take the wind out of the sails for what is supposed to be a concept who deliberately chooses a path away from magic in the traditional sense and in the context of D&D 3.0 and 3.5 (of which Pathfinder is a continuation), the strength of alchemy in that it is "mundane" and able to function in the absence of magic.
I propose that all of the Alchemist's class abilities be downgraded in category to Extraordinary abilities, allowing them to function in Anti-Magic Shells, in campaign ares where magic does not function, etc.
By doing this, it gives the Alchemist strength that in the general context does not overpower or imbalance the game, but provides a certain flavor of uniqueness and flair of choice. After all, there has to be a reason for someone to want to take to this class, and if it's just another spellcaster, it might as well not be called an Alchemist, no?
I have only one real comment about the Alchemist so far, it seems to work pretty well. It is a bit bland in some areas BUT I do have one suggestion that I think may help it keep it's flavor and uniqueness without adding "more power" to the stew, so to speak.
I noticed all the alchemy related class features were listed as Su (Supernatural). This seems to take the wind out of the sails for what is supposed to be a concept who deliberately chooses a path away from magic in the traditional sense and in the context of D&D 3.0 and 3.5 (of which Pathfinder is a continuation), the strength of alchemy in that it is "mundane" and able to function in the absence of magic.
I propose that all of the Alchemist's class abilities be downgraded in category to Extraordinary abilities, allowing them to function in Anti-Magic Shells, in campaign ares where magic does not function, etc.
By doing this, it gives the Alchemist strength that in the general context does not overpower or imbalance the game, but provides a certain flavor of uniqueness and flair of choice. After all, there has to be a reason for someone to want to take to this class, and if it's just another spellcaster, it might as well not be called an Alchemist, no?
I sooooo agree with this
Except alchemy in the form of chemistry simple does not work, you can't make lead into gold. You can't make an elixir of immortality when the planets align just right every millenia. The alchemist play test directly states he infuses the mixtures with a little bit of his magical essence to actually make them work.
What your suggesting is taking a class, who relies on magic to function, and allow them to work in areas where magic simple doesn't function. And your suggestion would also make dispel magic not function on them.
|
|
I have only one real comment about the Alchemist so far, it seems to work pretty well. It is a bit bland in some areas BUT I do have one suggestion that I think may help it keep it's flavor and uniqueness without adding "more power" to the stew, so to speak.
I noticed all the alchemy related class features were listed as Su (Supernatural). This seems to take the wind out of the sails for what is supposed to be a concept who deliberately chooses a path away from magic in the traditional sense and in the context of D&D 3.0 and 3.5 (of which Pathfinder is a continuation), the strength of alchemy in that it is "mundane" and able to function in the absence of magic.
I propose that all of the Alchemist's class abilities be downgraded in category to Extraordinary abilities, allowing them to function in Anti-Magic Shells, in campaign ares where magic does not function, etc.
By doing this, it gives the Alchemist strength that in the general context does not overpower or imbalance the game, but provides a certain flavor of uniqueness and flair of choice. After all, there has to be a reason for someone to want to take to this class, and if it's just another spellcaster, it might as well not be called an Alchemist, no?
The alchemist is a spellcasting class, making it EX would be foolish and unbalancing? Medieval alchemists did form the foundation of chemistry, but I can guarantee you the bombs they were able to make took a long time, were unreliable, and were not as powerful as you think.
The alchemist is a spellcasting class, making it EX would be foolish and unbalancing? Medieval alchemists did form the foundation of chemistry, but I can guarantee you the bombs they were able to make took a long time, were unreliable, and were not as powerful as you think.I have only one real comment about the Alchemist so far, it seems to work pretty well. It is a bit bland in some areas BUT I do have one suggestion that I think may help it keep it's flavor and uniqueness without adding "more power" to the stew, so to speak.
I noticed all the alchemy related class features were listed as Su (Supernatural). This seems to take the wind out of the sails for what is supposed to be a concept who deliberately chooses a path away from magic in the traditional sense and in the context of D&D 3.0 and 3.5 (of which Pathfinder is a continuation), the strength of alchemy in that it is "mundane" and able to function in the absence of magic.
I propose that all of the Alchemist's class abilities be downgraded in category to Extraordinary abilities, allowing them to function in Anti-Magic Shells, in campaign ares where magic does not function, etc.
By doing this, it gives the Alchemist strength that in the general context does not overpower or imbalance the game, but provides a certain flavor of uniqueness and flair of choice. After all, there has to be a reason for someone to want to take to this class, and if it's just another spellcaster, it might as well not be called an Alchemist, no?
Really :|
We're going to throw out the realism card in a game where you actually benefit from lighting yourself on fire rather then fighting in total darkness?
Really?
|
|
Really :|
We're going to throw out the realism card in a game where you actually benefit from lighting yourself on fire rather then fighting in total darkness?
Really?
A dragon's breath weapon is considered Supernatural. It could be considered to be a natural process for the dragon and non magical. But its not its considered supernatural, alchemy could be considered non magical and simply mixing chemicals together. Buts its not its considered a spell infused into those chemicals.
In short, my statement wasn't saying Pathfinder has to be realistic. My statement was that Pathfinder considers the alchemists bombs magical. Thus it wouldn't make sense for it to be EX. Stop pushing for it.
Really :|
We're going to throw out the realism card in a game where you actually benefit from lighting yourself on fire rather then fighting in total darkness?
Really?
I really love this argument. It is frustrating and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion -- in fact, it's out and out pernicious --
-- because taken to its extreme, it means that as soon as we put a spell in the game, or a dragon, or any fantastical element, then we should throw out EVERY benchmark of our own real-life experience.
I mean, in a world where there are elves, why assume that anyone has to eat? In a world with magic swords, why assume that carefully-plated steel provides better armor than clown makeup and a party hat? In a world with gnomes, why argue that someone who falls takes damage -- maybe it just makes them sing the Star Spangled Banner for 10 minutes for every 50 feet fallen?
"This is a fantasy world so any reference at all to reality is wrong" is an absolutely ridiculous argument because you can use it to create such mental chaos that you can 'defeat' any position with it, and discourse becomes both impossible and pointless. It represents a complete abdication of all logic, including logic within the terms of the game world, and as such, I loathe it with every cell of my being.
Ok, let me try this another way then:
Is the idea of an alchemist who uses his wits and ingenuity to make fantastic extracts and chemicals with amazing transformative powers cool?
Yes.
Ergo, instead of immidiately going "NO NO MUST BE MAGIC, MUNDANES ARE ALLOWED TO DO NOTHING," how about we take a step back, hmmmm?
That's the issue. "If it's fantastic in any way, shape, or form, at all, ever, it MUST be magic."
Don't get me wrong - I could go either way with alchemy as Supernatural, Magic, or flat out non-magic. But immidiately dismissing it because "That's not how reality works" is a stupid argument.
No, its more the fact that you want to simulate spell like abilities with an EX, thus bypassing all the mechanics in place for spells. IE spell resistance, immunities, anti-magic fields, ect. By making spell like effects that circumvent all these you have to make a whole new system for them.
Or take the easy route and just say, hey its a spell like ability.
Ok, let me try this another way then:
Is the idea of an alchemist who uses his wits and ingenuity to make fantastic extracts and chemicals with amazing transformative powers cool?
Yes.
Ergo, instead of immidiately going "NO NO MUST BE MAGIC, MUNDANES ARE ALLOWED TO DO NOTHING," how about we take a step back, hmmmm?
That's the issue. "If it's fantastic in any way, shape, or form, at all, ever, it MUST be magic."
Don't get me wrong - I could go either way with alchemy as Supernatural, Magic, or flat out non-magic. But immidiately dismissing it because "That's not how reality works" is a stupid argument.
No, let's not.
I don't care if it sounds cool.
Mundanes can do all kinds of fantastic things, like slice and dice monsters with amazing skill, beat things to death with their bare hands, climb walls, hide in shadows, etc. If they want to do magic, well, they should be a magician.
It's a bad idea for a number of reasons which other people have pointed out. Also, if your going to have a type of "science" in the game (chemistry / alchemy) that allows mundane recreation of magical effects you need to either adopt real life science or create an entire underlying system that doesn't upset the rest of the apple cart (i.e. magic). *And* that has to balance and work with everything else already in place.
Aside from the fact that someone will irritate me by trying to "invent" gunpowder, the internal combustion engine, manned flight and a hundred other real life things :p
No, its more the fact that you want to simulate spell like abilities with an EX, thus bypassing all the mechanics in place for spells. IE spell resistance, immunities, anti-magic fields, ect. By making spell like effects that circumvent all these you have to make a whole new system for them.
Or take the easy route and just say, hey its a spell like ability.
So your logic is "We can't make an exception because it would be an exception."
Hmmm.
No, let's not.
I don't care if it sounds cool.
Mundanes can do all kinds of fantastic things, like slice and dice monsters with amazing skill, beat things to death with their bare hands, climb walls, hide in shadows, etc. If they want to do magic, well, they should be a magician.
It's a bad idea for a number of reasons which other people have pointed out. Also, if your going to have a type of "science" in the game (chemistry / alchemy) that allows mundane recreation of magical effects you need to either adopt real life science or create an entire underlying system that doesn't upset the rest of the apple cart (i.e. magic). *And* that has to balance and work with everything else already in place.
Aside from the fact that someone will irritate me by trying to "invent" gunpowder, the internal combustion engine, manned flight and a hundred other real life things :p
Again, your logic seems to come down to circular reasoning. You dislike it because you dislike it. And claiming that your players will start creating gunpowder or engines is patently rediculous.
Lastly, I feel the need to point out that the person I was originally responding to stated that it couldn't happen because "that's not how things in the Dark Ages worked." That's the logic I have an issue with.
|
|
Again, your logic seems to come down to circular reasoning. You dislike it because you dislike it. And claiming that your players will start creating gunpowder or engines is patently rediculous.
Lastly, I feel the need to point out that the person I was originally responding to stated that it couldn't happen because "that's not how things in the Dark Ages worked." That's the logic I have an issue with.
Technology that is not based on magic is generally at the medieval level in Pathfinder. Your suggestion is that the alchemist has capabilities of more modern day technology. Those two ideas do not jive together.
I love how you misunderstand my point. We can't an exception to make an exception when it will unbalance the whole system. To balance out non-spell like abilities with spell-like abilities as R_chance stated is you have to build a whole new system for it to balance. And to build a new system just to balance 1 class is ridiculous when they could use the existing system and the players could simply understand yes, it requires a bit of magic for the finished products to work and therefore are subject to spell limitations.
Lets look at real world alchemists, the most famous examples of what they tried doing was converting lead into gold and make an elixir of life. Now neither one has ever worked, but with a bit of magical help you can now have a class that can succeed.
In game items, alchemists fire is exactly what you are throwing when you throw a bomb(fire with a splash). The only difference is that you infuse yours with magic to do a bit bigger explosion.
please if you want to continue this argument take it to the alchemist - what changes would you like to see thread as this has nothing to do with the playtest of either class.
Again, your logic seems to come down to circular reasoning. You dislike it because you dislike it. And claiming that your players will start creating gunpowder or engines is patently rediculous.
Lastly, I feel the need to point out that the person I was originally responding to stated that it couldn't happen because "that's not how things in the Dark Ages worked." That's the logic I have an issue with.
Technology that is not based on magic is generally at the medieval level in Pathfinder. Your suggestion is that the alchemist has capabilities of more modern day technology. Those two ideas do not jive together.
Technology in D&D has never made sense. Repeating crossbows are exotic weapons, indicating they need special training, despite just being a regular crossbow with a stack on top. D&D plate mail isn't medieval engineering, it was made in response to primitive firearms, and yet slings are slingshots
That's why the argument is a bad one - D&D has NEVER been historical or realistic. Verisimilitude and realism are two different things - the game should have the former, but has never had the latter. Ever.
...Now, the argument of "if they were mundane, everyone could do it" IS a good argument ;p
Technology in D&D has never made sense. Repeating crossbows are exotic weapons, indicating they need special training, despite just being a regular crossbow with a stack on top. D&D plate mail isn't medieval engineering, it was made in response to primitive firearms, and yet slings are slingshots
That's why the argument is a bad one - D&D has NEVER been historical or realistic. Verisimilitude and realism are two different things - the game should have the former, but has never had the latter. Ever.
...Now, the argument of "if they were mundane, everyone could do it" IS a good argument ;p
A repeating crossbow is an unusual weapon. The original historical model was Chinese. It is more complex in use than a regular crossbow, so yes it takes more training than a regular crossbow would. It also has considerably different weight and balance (which effects it's use).
Platemail was not made specifically in response to firearms, but rather to more general advances in weaponry including the crossbow and longbow as well as a number of melee weapons. The longbow was a far deadlier weapon than early firearms.
A sling is the weapon, a shot is the ammunition. It was lead shot. The name carried over into firearms although it's use for sling ammunition greatly predates the invention / use of firearms.
D&D isn't "realistic", it has magic afterall, but it does have an internally consistent scheme of what is possible. Medieval / Rennaisance technology, minus firearms, is typical of the games technology. Taking science / technology beyond that is making it into an entirely different game.
Aside from the solid reasons involving game balance, internal consistency and so on, you have touched on another reason (already noted) not to have "mundane" / non-magical alchemy. Mundane reproducibility. In short science. It tends to get in the way of fantasy.
Technology in D&D has never made sense. Repeating crossbows are exotic weapons, indicating they need special training, despite just being a regular crossbow with a stack on top. D&D plate mail isn't medieval engineering, it was made in response to primitive firearms, and yet slings are slingshots
That's why the argument is a bad one - D&D has NEVER been historical or realistic. Verisimilitude and realism are two different things - the game should have the former, but has never had the latter. Ever.
...Now, the argument of "if they were mundane, everyone could do it" IS a good argument ;p
A repeating crossbow is an unusual weapon. The original historical model was Chinese. It is more complex in use than a regular crossbow, so yes it takes more training than a regular crossbow would. It also has considerably different weight and balance (which effects it's use).
Platemail was not made specifically in response to firearms, but rather to more general advances in weaponry including the crossbow and longbow as well as a number of melee weapons. The longbow was a far deadlier weapon than early firearms.
A sling is the weapon, a shot is the ammunition. It was lead shot. The name carried over into firearms although it's use for sling ammunition greatly predates the invention / use of firearms.
D&D isn't "realistic", it has magic afterall, but it does have an internally consistent scheme of what is possible. Medieval / Rennaisance technology, minus firearms, is typical of the games technology. Taking science / technology beyond that is making it into an entirely different game.
Aside from the solid reasons involving game balance, internal consistency and so on, you have touched on another reason (already noted) not to have "mundane" / non-magical alchemy. Mundane reproducibility. In short science. It tends to get in the way of fantasy.
I disagree with a lot of your examples.
Firstly, the repeating crossbow? The addition is a clip and TURNING A CRANK, as opposed to essentially having to re-learn how to wield an uncommon weapon. Zhuge Liang would not have used the repeating crossbows if they couldn't be used by already well trained crossbowmen.
The Arquebus, the world's first longbarrel firearm, fired a ball of lead through plate armor at close range, same as a longbow. Had they used solid ammunition, the bullet would likely have gone through both sides of the armored knight.
Societies can have varied levels of technology. We, for example, are experiencing a boom in electronics technology, but almost no progression in gene therapy research. Adding say Tesla's technology to the game would make it somewhat different, but adding Tesla's technology to a game about World War 2 would be appropriate. Adding firearms is certainly not out of the question, considering the Chinese had already weaponized explosives before the Europeans even knew what they were.
Who says magic can't reproduce the same effects? If I prepare fireball every day, will it one day not be the fireball spell in that slot? How does magic being reliable inhibit the fantasy setting? In D&D magic is completely reliable to work as intended or have no effect.
Mr. Madcap you seem to have missed everything he said.
What he said:
The repeating crossbow shouldn't be an exotic weapon.
What you said:
The repeating crossbow is an easy weapon to use.
What he said:
Full plate was a round before the fire arm came into regular use, and the long bow was just more effective than early firearms.
What you said:
At short range the Arquebus (NOT the worlds first firearm) could punch through full plate.
Which is true... but took forever to reload, had a chance to blow up, and was finicky to aim.
He's not saying technology levels can't different... he's saying the scope of the game generally assumes a medieval or at the latest Rennaisance level of technology.
Magic is reliable for those that use it... but it take special training... his point was that if the Alchemist suddenly starts making mundane gear that anyone can use the big question becomes why can't just anyone use it or made it?
THAT is the big question here. IF it goes mundane how do you keep the fighter rogue etc from using it? Why does it stay specifically the Alchemist's niche... that question is the one he wants answered.
And considering that alchemy is and has always been a form of magic this is a valid question.
|
|
Except alchemy in the form of chemistry simple does not work, you can't make lead into gold.Playing devil's advocate here, but you can in fact turn lead into gold using physics... it just requires an incredible amount of energy to get the lead to drop an electron. They don't do it regularly because it costs more in energy than the gold is worth in the market.
I do agree that the alchemist abilities need to be supernatural. Take the magic out and make it completely mundane and you open the door to "If his extracts are mundane, why can't the cleric use them?"
My friend, you mean that you would need to strip PROTONS from the nucleus. That would require you surmounting the Strong Force, literally the strongest force in the universe that overpowers electromagnetism utterly. Not only is the strong force insurmountable but we know almost nothing about its carrier particle the theorized Higgs-Boson.
You cannot make lead into gold with modern day physics, its impossible.
You really didn't hit any of my points.
Like, at all.
I'm saying that making comments about D&D's tech level is bizarro, because D&D's tech level is everywhere, and has never made sense. Composite longbows took several years of specialized use to properly manage, but they're not exotic weapons, whereas a repeating crossbow - a crossbow with a crank you turn - is. That doesn't make sense. Know what makes less sense? People are using renaissance plate mail next to medieval longbows next to primitive clubs. You can make a warrior with armor invented thousands on top of thousnads of years after primitive man first took a thing of wood and made a club out of it, and then wield that same club with your armor. This is the game with double swords. The gross majority of D&D morality is built on modern expectations. The monk class is made after bad 70's kung fu movies. That's an entire class that has nothing to do with culture or history, but bad kung fu movies.
But an alchemist might be "too advanced?" That's where I go "Wait, what?" Look, making alchemists 100% mundane has plenty of issues, I don't deny that, but "tech level" isn't one of those issues. It's not like alchemists are doing nuclear physics here.
I've got no issue with things not being historically accurate, because they never were. Hell, D&D states that the vast majority of people are literate, and doesn't even have the invention of the printing press. As long as the game is consistent, then that's great. If a character ran around with a machine gun, yes, that would be "Wait, what?" But a guy who uses exotic ingredients mixed together to create new and fantastic concoctions? Hell, that belongs in the game far more then the monk does!
Excusme, can somebody help me? Two of us asked the same question, but nobody replied.
Ok, I have read this PG. Buti I didn't understood some things;
Isn't the alchemyst supposed to have lv0 extracts, like cantrips? Where is the list? can an alchemist learn extracts by the W/S spell list, if those ones affect the alchemist himself? Because lv0 extracts aren't written in the alchemist extracts list.If I can suggest, I would enpower the alchemist this way:
He could be able to make a higher number of different potions, and he could be more versatile, not in combat but in other situations.PS: Are the "oil" potions of 3.5 edition disappeared? If they aren't, why there aren't application for this class?
Thanks to everybody.
Jason said there are no 0-level extracts. That was a small slip up. This could be revised, but for now there are none.
Currently no rules for learning new extracts from the standard spell list.
I don't really get the question about oils.
You really didn't hit any of my points.
Like, at all.
Really? I'd say he went point by point.
I'm saying that making comments about D&D's tech level is bizarro, because D&D's tech level is everywhere, and has never made sense. Composite longbows took several years of specialized use to properly manage, but they're not exotic weapons, whereas a repeating crossbow - a crossbow with a crank you turn - is. That doesn't make sense. Know what makes less sense? People are using renaissance plate mail next to medieval longbows next to primitive clubs. You can make a warrior with armor invented thousands on top of thousnads of years after primitive man first took a thing of wood and made a club out of it, and then wield that same club with your armor. This is the game with double swords.
D&Ds tech level is "somplace" -- namely western pre-gunpowder with a broad time frame. The variety of weapons available are there to cover a wide variety of possible settings as much as anything. I doubt you would see everything there in any one place, especially since many of the weapons fill the same general role. I'd say exotic weapons are those that are non-western culturally or racially soecific and rare as opposed to complex. Hence the repeating crossbow, or for that matter the Drow hand crossbow being exotic. As for weapons "primitive clubs" have never gone out of style, especially as an improvised weapon. Plate mail is a medieval armour, appearing in the 12-1300s and being developed continuosly over time into the 1500s. Double swords, well those are rediculous, if popular in popular culture largely thanks to Dath Maul I suspect. I think they would work better with a light saber head :) Double headed weapons tend to be polearms where they do appear (there are several Asian polearms).
The gross majority of D&D morality is built on modern expectations. The monk class is made after bad 70's kung fu movies. That's an entire class that has nothing to do with culture or history, but bad kung fu movies.
Is this the same D&D morality that people whine is too rigid / non-modern? It's built on assumptions of absolute good and evil, not too popular with modern relatavists or modern expectations. As for Monks, yes they are based on western pop culture and belong in a more Asian setting. Blame the television series "Kung Fu" for that one.
But an alchemist might be "too advanced?" That's where I go "Wait, what?" Look, making alchemists 100% mundane has plenty of issues, I don't deny that, but "tech level" isn't one of those issues. It's not like alchemists are doing nuclear physics here.
*sigh* It's not just about it being "too advanced" (although it does fit outside the normal time frame of D&D stuff), it's also about it not fitting the assumptions of the game and rendering magic MUNDANE. Sorry about "shouting" mundane, but it deserves special note. If alchemy is non-magical why not have platoons of troops running around with bombs? Lets strap bombs to arrows. Lets create "guns". Why bother with magic? Overstating the issue I know, but hopefully making it plain to see.
I've got no issue with things not being historically accurate, because they never were. Hell, D&D states that the vast majority of people are literate, and doesn't even have the invention of the printing press. As long as the game is consistent, then that's great. If a character ran around with a machine gun, yes, that would be "Wait, what?" But a guy who uses exotic ingredients mixed together to create new and fantastic concoctions? Hell, that belongs in the game far more then the monk does!
Good thing about the historical accuracy, because we are in complete agrement there -- there isn't any. I also disagree with the everyone literate. In my game only Clerics and Wizards are automatically literate, everyone else can spend a skill point if they think it's important and Barbarians are out of luck until they go up in level :D I don't agree about the Monk vs. mundane alchemy though. Oddly my game doesn't have eastern style Monks in it (until you travel to that part of the world) and if you see a monk he's probably got a tonsure, robes and holy symbol handy. Despite this, the Monk still fits the pre-gunpowder idea, as well as the time frame (excluding Kwai Chang Cane's stint in the old West). It's all about culture and setting at that point.
For me, as a DM, I tend to look at the long term extended effects of new game mechanics / classes on my world / setting. I find a magic alchemist to be far more palatable than a mundane alchemist / chemist. Ymmv.
Except alchemy in the form of chemistry simple does not work, you can't make lead into gold.Playing devil's advocate here, but you can in fact turn lead into gold using physics... it just requires an incredible amount of energy to get the lead to drop an electron. They don't do it regularly because it costs more in energy than the gold is worth in the market.
I do agree that the alchemist abilities need to be supernatural. Take the magic out and make it completely mundane and you open the door to "If his extracts are mundane, why can't the cleric use them?"
My friend, you mean that you would need to strip PROTONS from the nucleus. That would require you surmounting the Strong Force, literally the strongest force in the universe that overpowers electromagnetism utterly. Not only is the strong force insurmountable but we know almost nothing about its carrier particle the theorized Higgs-Boson.
You cannot make lead into gold with modern day physics, its impossible.
Incorrect... Radioactive Lead decays down into gold. It's half life is about 500 million years but hey... if you got the time...
*sigh* It's not just about it being "too advanced" (although it does fit outside the normal time frame of D&D stuff), it's also about it not fitting the assumptions of the game and rendering magic MUNDANE. Sorry about "shouting" mundane, but it deserves special note. If alchemy is non-magical why not have platoons of troops running around with bombs? Lets strap bombs to arrows. Lets create "guns". Why bother with magic? Overstating the issue I know, but hopefully making it plain to see.
See, this is an argument I totally support, right up until you hit the "guns" part. That's when you delve into the slippery slope.
I also disagree with the everyone literate. In my game only Clerics and Wizards are automatically literate, everyone else can spend a skill point if they think it's important and Barbarians are out of luck until they go up in level :D
Those are house rules. They have no bearing on the actual game.
Anyways, I stand by my previous point. There are issues with alchemists suddenly becoming mundane, certainly, but the idea of a character who mixes exotic ingredients together to make fantastic concoctions? That's D&D as all hell.
There are issues, but "that's too advanced" or "that's not realistic" isn't one of them.
*sigh* It's not just about it being "too advanced" (although it does fit outside the normal time frame of D&D stuff), it's also about it not fitting the assumptions of the game and rendering magic MUNDANE. Sorry about "shouting" mundane, but it deserves special note. If alchemy is non-magical why not have platoons of troops running around with bombs? Lets strap bombs to arrows. Lets create "guns". Why bother with magic? Overstating the issue I know, but hopefully making it plain to see.See, this is an argument I totally support, right up until you hit the "guns" part. That's when you delve into the slippery slope.
I don't know... just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they should. It might be nice to build artillery shells, but feudal lords barely scrape anything off of subsistence farmers, and they might not be willing to pay 5,000 gp a year to have an alchemist on retainer.
The Roman empire had steam engines, but the reason why they didn't use 'em was because they had plenty of cheap labor in the form of slaves. It made economic sense not to use the more expensive (but more productive) steam engines to move stuff.
*sigh* It's not just about it being "too advanced" (although it does fit outside the normal time frame of D&D stuff), it's also about it not fitting the assumptions of the game and rendering magic MUNDANE. Sorry about "shouting" mundane, but it deserves special note. If alchemy is non-magical why not have platoons of troops running around with bombs? Lets strap bombs to arrows. Lets create "guns". Why bother with magic? Overstating the issue I know, but hopefully making it plain to see.See, this is an argument I totally support, right up until you hit the "guns" part. That's when you delve into the slippery slope.
It's a small step from controllable mundane explosives to guns or rockets. Still, the bit about guns was taking the arguement to the extreme, for the sake of making the arguement clear.
I also disagree with the everyone literate. In my game only Clerics and Wizards are automatically literate, everyone else can spend a skill point if they think it's important and Barbarians are out of luck until they go up in level :DThose are house rules. They have no bearing on the actual game.
Yes, it is a house rule, or a rule leftover from a previous edition anyway. I was simply agreeing with you on the literacy point. In any case I suspect house rules are the only way you're going to see mundane alchemy in the game.
Anyways, I stand by my previous point. There are issues with alchemists suddenly becoming mundane, certainly, but the idea of a character who mixes exotic ingredients together to make fantastic concoctions? That's D&D as all hell.There are issues, but "that's too advanced" or "that's not realistic" isn't one of them.
Issues all right. Big, ugly, huge, scaly with fangs and breath weapons type issues. In short, while I see the attraction of the idea, I don't think it's D&D. More like the Wierd West... Pinacle Games RPG, arghh... can't remember the name. *sigh* Age. Or lack of sleep. Oh, well. Anyway, stuff that goes "boom" in D&D / Pathfinder tends to involve magic.
As for the "too advanced" idea... I'd say yes, that level of understanding of the natural world is an artifact of science, even if it's not "our" version of science, and leads to an exploitation of the world which would alter the typical D&Desque fantasy world beyond recognition if it was applied properly. The "not realistic" bit, I agree with you on. Realism is relative in a world with magic.
I don't know... just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they should. It might be nice to build artillery shells, but feudal lords barely scrape anything off of subsistence farmers, and they might not be willing to pay 5,000 gp a year to have an alchemist on retainer.
The Roman empire had steam engines, but the reason why they didn't use 'em was because they had plenty of cheap labor in the form of slaves. It made economic sense not to use the more expensive (but more productive) steam engines to move stuff.
The economy of D&D differs quite a bit from Medieval reality. How many adventurers could afford 5,000 GP a year? Lots. If adventurers can, I'd say Lords can. And if alchemy were mundane, I suspect it would be cheaper and more readily available.
The Greeks invented the steam engine, and the electric storage battery for that matter. They were scientists, but not engineers on the Roman scale. The steam engines the Greeks built were on a small scale and not designed for locomotion iirc. Used in temples to create "miracles" as I recall. As for not using them as we did in the 19th century, part world view and a dash of slave labor. In short, I'd say you're right there. I suspect your PCs might be more likely to make use of any inventions than the ancients were...
Hell, D&D states that the vast majority of people are literate, and doesn't even have the invention of the printing press.
Actually, if you read the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting(pccs), you will see that the printing press is indeed in the game as well as firearms. Firearms are just considered extremely rare and magical, for cost not properties.
"Firearms remain rare on Golarion thanks to greater power and reliability of magic" (pg211 pccs).
"the appearance of a firearm suggests at once an outrageous expenditure of gold, a sorrowful impotence of limb, and an immediate threat of dishonorable violence" (pg237 pccs).
But all that being said, firearms do exist so making alchemy mundane wouldn't make guns popular or common place. It just breaks the mechanics of the game unless there is a complete new set of rules written for this 1 class.
Hell, D&D states that the vast majority of people are literate, and doesn't even have the invention of the printing press.Actually, if you read the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting(pccs), you will see that the printing press is indeed in the game as well as firearms. Firearms are just considered extremely rare and magical, for cost not properties.
"Firearms remain rare on Golarion thanks to greater power and reliability of magic" (pg211 pccs).
"the appearance of a firearm suggests at once an outrageous expenditure of gold, a sorrowful impotence of limb, and an immediate threat of dishonorable violence" (pg237 pccs).
But all that being said, firearms do exist so making alchemy mundane wouldn't make guns popular or common place. It just breaks the mechanics of the game unless there is a complete new set of rules written for this 1 class.
Firearms and the printing press may make an appearance in their setting, but not in the PF Core Rules. I don't use Golarion as a setting. It sounds interesting, but I have my own campaign setting and haven't really looked into theirs. I suppose they might detail firearms at some point and the printing press certainly makes for a reason for increased literacy. But I doubt they have the printing press located in the same area that produces Barbarians... or that even so, every serf / peasant can afford both an education and books. The everyone is literate concept is there for player convenience as much as anything. I always thought it was worth a skill point to read myself...