A modest proposal: The Alchemist


Round 3: Alchemist and Inquisitor

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

In these cases the GM and the player should discuss what each would consider to be morally and ethically acceptable. A good example would be a Player who wants to play a Paladin bounty hunter. He decides that Drow poison would be merciful enough way to subdue his quarry without a prolonged fight. I would personally say it's an acceptable way to play out such a character. However their are those you would claim that using a poison is always an act of malice. The paladin's code of conduct doesn't state that a Paladin can't use poison, just can't cause undo suffering.


Again these are just real rough ideas, they'll need a lot of improvement, which is why I have been posting my ideas, so others can review and improve upon them. I will also attempt reversions of my own as well, I just like receiving others input as well.

The Alchemist can create custom alchemical items by mixing effects together from the following menus.

Damage: The alchemical item can deal 1d6 points of a type of energy chosen.
Energy type Additional effects
Acid
Cold
Fire Reflex save or catch on fire
Electricity
Sonic Reduce damage to d4s and full damage to objects

Haven't decided on Base prices yet.

Conditions: The item can now inflict a condition on the subject. In all cases the effect lasts 1 round.
Condition DC Increase Price increase
Blinded 10 20
Confused 15 30
Dazed 15 30
Dazzled 5 10
Deafened 10 20
Entangled 15 + 5 if immobile 30 or 40
Exhausted 15 30
Fatigued 5 10
Nauseated 10 20
Paralyzed 20 40
Sickened 5 10
Staggered 15 30

Type of saving throw

Duration DC modifier Price increase
1 round 0 0
2 rounds 5 +10
2d4 rounds 10 +20
2d6 rounds 15 +25
2d8 rounds 20 +30
1 day 10 +2 Skill bonuses only

Bonuses DC modifier Price increase
+2 on one skill check 0 +10
+4 on one skill check 5 +20
+2 on a saving throw 5 +10


Robert Petty wrote:


Conditions: The item can now inflict a condition on the subject. In all cases the effect lasts 1 round.
Condition DC Increase Price increase
Blinded 10 20
Confused 15 30
...

I like what you're starting to do here, but it would be easier to read if it were formatted more cleanly.


As Tim4488 says, It'd be nice if your chart was a bit more clear. I *think* I like what you're getting at, but it's kinda hard to tell.

As for poison, I'm always amused to read discussion of poison causing "hideous pain and permanent scarring", as though a halberd doesn't do the same sort of damage. A paladin that's truly reluctant to cause "undo pain and suffering" should really spend some time reflecting on his use of the sword.

Giving quarter is a good point, though. It's hard to take back a good dose of poison - but the number of enemies who you'll be poisoning who *could* actually beg quarter are awfully small..

mdt - poisoning food (and pretty much any other sort of non-direct-use of poison) is a pretty sketch thing for a good (especially lawful) character. But then, so are traps, bombs, and any other indiscriminate weapon.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Maeloke wrote:


As for poison, I'm always amused to read discussion of poison causing "hideous pain and permanent scarring", as though a halberd doesn't do the same sort of damage. A paladin that's truly reluctant to cause "undo pain and suffering" should really spend some time reflecting on his use of the sword.

Giving quarter is a good point, though. It's hard to take back a good dose of poison - but the number of enemies who you'll be poisoning who *could* actually beg quarter are awfully small..

When a Paladin (or any other good character) is attacking with a weapon, as I said, Good alignment requires them to allow and give quarter if asked for. Especially if the target is not evil. Using poison negates that ability, and if the poison can cause hideous pain and scaring, then that is even worse.

It is not the fact the poison causes pain and scaring so much as that the paladin cannot stop it from doing so if the person asks for quarter. And any neutral enemy in my game who knows they are fighting a Paladin will always ask for quarter. They *KNOW* a Paladin has to give it if asked. If they know their enemies are Good, they will also do so.

I've even had Evil's ask for 'Parley' in my game during a fight if they were losing. Granted, they usually grabbed a downed PC and put a knife to his throat and asked for Parley, but still, it shouldn't be an unusual thing. All NPC's should be played as real people, and real people want to survive. If they can't withdraw safely from a fight, and can't win, they have no reason not to ask for a cease fire. Animals don't do it, and dedicated enemies (sworn knights, etc) won't, but your average road bandit will take a chance on surviving, especially if he's got information to trade for his life.

Maeloke wrote:


mdt - poisoning food (and pretty much any other sort of non-direct-use of poison) is a pretty sketch thing for a good (especially lawful) character. But then, so are traps, bombs, and any other indiscriminate weapon.

Agree'd, and I warn my players about stuff like that when they make them. Most of my players who make traps around campsites make warning traps, not damaging traps (things to alert the camp, not to kill people wandering close), or they make food traps (to catch small game).

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

mdt wrote:
It is not the fact the poison causes pain and scaring so much as that the paladin cannot stop it from doing so if the person asks for quarter.

Not entirely true. Maybe there's a reason that "mercy" is called "mercy." ;)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Epic Meepo wrote:
mdt wrote:
It is not the fact the poison causes pain and scaring so much as that the paladin cannot stop it from doing so if the person asks for quarter.
Not entirely true. Maybe there's a reason that "mercy" is called "mercy." ;)

Questionable, IMO. About like saying 'It's ok for me to torture the guy to get information, I can use lay on hands to repair the damage afterwards'. Same logic...


I don't see poison as inherently bad. The only poisons I would chide a good/lawful character for using are the ones that actually kill. Now, how they use it is a different story, as are any oaths the character may have, or the tenets of their faith.


Acording to "The Book Of Exalted Deeds" the difitive work on wtf is good in the 3.5 world, pathfinders dear... step brother?, states that:

"Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an
opponent. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s
Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of
taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness."
^pg 34.

However...

"the powers of good have their own answer to poison and disease:
ravages and afflictions, magical traumas that turn the moral corruption
of evil creatures into physical corruption that wracks
their bodies. Ravages and afflictions affect only evil creatures, and are particularly debilitating to evil outsiders—despite the immunity
to poison that is common among such creatures.
Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons, dealing ability damage or even ability drain when the target is exposed to them
through inhalation, injury, or ingestion, and additional
damage or other effects 1 minute after the initial exposure."
^pg 35

what these two blocks o text say is that poison, unless just knocking some one out, is bad. BUT specail poisons can be used on evil people. sooo in GENERAL poisons are evil but if used on evil people the 3.5 universe sees it as ok...

hipocritical yes... but thats how it was viewed in the 3.5 world and its what i go with as a DM/GM/StoryTeller


taeko wrote:

Acording to "The Book Of Exalted Deeds" the difitive work on wtf is good in the 3.5 world, pathfinders dear... step brother?, states that:

"Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an
opponent. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s
Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of
taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness."
^pg 34.

However...

"the powers of good have their own answer to poison and disease:
ravages and afflictions, magical traumas that turn the moral corruption
of evil creatures into physical corruption that wracks
their bodies. Ravages and afflictions affect only evil creatures, and are particularly debilitating to evil outsiders—despite the immunity
to poison that is common among such creatures.
Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons, dealing ability damage or even ability drain when the target is exposed to them
through inhalation, injury, or ingestion, and additional
damage or other effects 1 minute after the initial exposure."
^pg 35

what these two blocks o text say is that poison, unless just knocking some one out, is bad. BUT specail poisons can be used on evil people. sooo in GENERAL poisons are evil but if used on evil people the 3.5 universe sees it as ok...

hipocritical yes... but thats how it was viewed in the 3.5 world and its what i go with as a DM/GM/StoryTeller

That only means that according to the Book of Exalted Deeds, Good characters are supposed to be pacifists. I can also quote from the Planetar entry of the Bestiary: " They focus on combat and the destruction of Evil; though they understand diplomacy, a planetar would rather lead the charge against an army of fiends rather than negotiate peace."

Good characters don't have to be pacifists. That's why they have "Smite Evil", instead of "Subdue Evil with non-lethal ways". I would accept a Good character using poison, if he used it responsibly, as stated above. That's one of the differences between Good & Evil, Poison Usage. Good will use it responsibly, Evil won't care.

EDIT: By the way, Merry Christmas.


taeko wrote:
Acording to "The Book Of Exalted Deeds" the difitive work on wtf is good in the 3.5 world, pathfinders dear... step brother?, states that: ...

I own that book. I've even let players use content from it in my games (Nymph's Kiss and Swanmay, to be specific).

That said: a lot of the fluff is crap. Especially the poison stuff. (And, okay, some of the crunch is bad too, but not all of it.)

Again, it all boils down to how the good character is using the poison, and as I said earlier, if they had PERSONALLY taken an oath denying the use of poison, which by no means are all good characters required to take.


mdt wrote:
Maeloke wrote:


As for poison, I'm always amused to read discussion of poison causing "hideous pain and permanent scarring", as though a halberd doesn't do the same sort of damage. A paladin that's truly reluctant to cause "undo pain and suffering" should really spend some time reflecting on his use of the sword.

Giving quarter is a good point, though. It's hard to take back a good dose of poison - but the number of enemies who you'll be poisoning who *could* actually beg quarter are awfully small..

When a Paladin (or any other good character) is attacking with a weapon, as I said, Good alignment requires them to allow and give quarter if asked for. Especially if the target is not evil. Using poison negates that ability, and if the poison can cause hideous pain and scaring, then that is even worse.

It is not the fact the poison causes pain and scaring so much as that the paladin cannot stop it from doing so if the person asks for quarter. And any neutral enemy in my game who knows they are fighting a Paladin will always ask for quarter. They *KNOW* a Paladin has to give it if asked. If they know their enemies are Good, they will also do so.

I've even had Evil's ask for 'Parley' in my game during a fight if they were losing. Granted, they usually grabbed a downed PC and put a knife to his throat and asked for Parley, but still, it shouldn't be an unusual thing. All NPC's should be played as real people, and real people want to survive. If they can't withdraw safely from a fight, and can't win, they have no reason not to ask for a cease fire. Animals don't do it, and dedicated enemies (sworn knights, etc) won't, but your average road bandit will take a chance on surviving, especially if he's got information to trade for his life.

Maeloke wrote:


mdt - poisoning food (and pretty much any other sort of non-direct-use of poison) is a pretty sketch thing for a good (especially lawful) character. But then, so are traps, bombs, and any other indiscriminate weapon.
...

Actually..DOES being good really require you to grant mercy? I could easily see a NG or CG cutting down a person/intelligent being that had done evil enough acts, without it being a huge violation. Even LG, in the right setting..a race or cult or what have you that is viewed as heritics in the characters eyes, and per their laws, are to be givin no quarter..could be see as an evil act NOT to cut them down..it would be at least the lawful vs the good..which do you violate?


Maeloke wrote:

As Tim4488 says, It'd be nice if your chart was a bit more clear. I *think* I like what you're getting at, but it's kinda hard to tell.

As for poison, I'm always amused to read discussion of poison causing "hideous pain and permanent scarring", as though a halberd doesn't do the same sort of damage. A paladin that's truly reluctant to cause "undo pain and suffering" should really spend some time reflecting on his use of the sword.

Giving quarter is a good point, though. It's hard to take back a good dose of poison - but the number of enemies who you'll be poisoning who *could* actually beg quarter are awfully small..

mdt - poisoning food (and pretty much any other sort of non-direct-use of poison) is a pretty sketch thing for a good (especially lawful) character. But then, so are traps, bombs, and any other indiscriminate weapon.

Quick question..Maeloke..do you design games for more than fun at all? The people I work for would love to talk to you.


Tim4488 wrote:

I own that book. I've even let players use content from it in my games (Nymph's Kiss and Swanmay, to be specific).

That said: a lot of the fluff is crap. Especially the poison stuff. (And, okay, some of the crunch is bad too, but not all of it.)

Hear, hear. I read through a copy of BoED, and found it to be fairly overpowered, but my munchkin instincts were dissuaded by the lunatic behavioral guidelines the book presented as 'good'.

If I recall correctly, poison = evil, but ravage = good. Ravages worked *exactly* like poison, down to dealing ability damage, but only worked against evil targets. You could even whip the stuff up using alchemy.

Essentially, their only distinction between evil and good was that a good guy uses stuff that discriminates against evil targets. I'm not convinced that nearly the same cautionary rigor couldn't be achieved with regular poison and sensible application. Say you've found King Festerwile, the villain responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent people. You emptied his prison of children, and he just smacked your bard with Slay Living. In the violent world that d&d is, it makes no sense to call a bit of lotus extract on your arrow for him an evil act. I know it's an excessively clear case, but we've already established a good poisoner isn't going to be reckless with the stuff.

I take my perspective on poison from the original users of the world: animals. Snakes, spiders, lizards, fish, plants... a lot of fundamentally neutral creatures, in d&d terms. Calling the use of poison fundamentally evil just makes no sense to me. Sure, it's unpleasant, but so is getting a mauled by a bear, and we let bears of all alignments maul people.

Oddly, the same isn't generally be said of eating babies (to get us back on the real topic, here)

Blackerose wrote:
Quick question..Maeloke..do you design games for more than fun at all? The people I work for would love to talk to you.

Heh, I'm no professional game designer, if that's what you're asking. I'd be intrigued to hear what sort of project you've got going, however. If you like, drop me an email at mhj.101 (at) gmail.com


taku wrote:
wow, do you have any lists likeyour mutagen one for the other branches? I really like the bomb idea and would like to see your input on it's discoveries.

Actually, I do. It's almost too big, honestly:

Acid, Concussive, Shock, Force, Smoke, Inferno, Poison bombs: essentially as per test document.

Nimble Bomber (Ex): The alchemist gains Quick Draw as a bonus feat, and treats bombs as weapons for the purposes of retrieving them in combat. [see end of this list for an explanation]

Sustain Bomb (Su): The alchemist can briefly maintain the power of a bomb after it leaves his person. The alchemist may give a bomb to someone else to throw, and it will retain it's full strength for up to 1 minute per alchemist level. This effort is taxing for the alchemist, so he may only maintain one bomb in this fashion at a time. At 10th level, the alchemist can sustain a second bomb, and at 16th, he can sustain a third. The alchemist must be level 4 or higher to select this discovery.

Imbued Bomb (Su): The alchemist can brew his bombs to be especially magically charged. When making a bomb, he may forfeit 1d6 worth of damage to grant the bomb a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. A bomb created in this fashion is a magic weapon for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction and effecting ethereal creatures. This enhancement bonus increases to +2 at 12th level, and +3 at 18th (the forfeited damage remains 1d6). The alchemist must be level 6 or higher to select this discovery.

Explosive Bomb (Su): As the book, minimum level 6

Improved Bomb (Su): The alchemist's bombs are especially potent, dealing 2d6 (or 2d4) additional damage of the appropriate type. The alchemist must be level 8 or higher to select this discovery.

Improved Imbued Bomb (Su): The alchemist may choose to add one special quality to a bomb when he brews it, as though it were a magical weapon. The options the alchemist can choose from are: Distance, Ghost Touch, Merciful, or Seeking. The alchemist must already have the imbued bomb discovery and be level 10 or higher to select this discovery.

Precise Bomber (Ex): The alchemist effectively gains Improved Critical (Splash Weapons) as a bonus feat, allowing him to score a critical hit on a 19-20 with his targeted bombs. The alchemist must be level 12 or higher to select this discovery.

Greater Bomb (Su): The alchemist's bombs are even more dangerous, dealing 2d6 (or 2d4) additional damage of the appropriate type. The alchemist must already have the improved bomb discovery, and must be level 14 or higher to select this discovery.

Improved Explosives (Su): The alchemist may choose to brew bombs with a blast radius of 20 feet, with additional splash out for another 10. The alchemist must already have the Explosive Bomb discovery and be level 16 to select this discovery.

Ultimate Bomb (Su): The alchemist perfects the art of blowing things up. His bombs do an additional 4d6 (or 4d4) damage, and have a base range increment of 40 feet. The bonus damage stacks with the improved and greater bomb discoveries. The alchemist must be level 20 to select this discovery.

And because we've been talking about poison so much lately:

Venom of Fire(Su): Three times per day, after creating a bomb, the alchemist can spend 1 additional minute converting the caustic material of the bomb into a deadly variety of poison. This poison deals 2 hp damage per round per die of bomb damage the alchemist deals, of whatever type of damage the bomb originally dealt, for 6 rounds. A single fortitude save of DC 10 + 1/2 alchemist level + intelligence modifier ends the damage.

Side note: I made this list with a slightly different build of bombs in mind, which is here:

Bombs:
Bomb (Su): An alchemist can brew volatile, explosive concoctions to throw at his enemies. Creating such a bomb takes the alchemist 1 minute, during which he infuses the chemicals with a bit of his own magical aura. Once created, bombs last up to one day, but because each one draws some amount of the alchemist's power, he may only maintain 3 + his intelligence modifier bombs at one time. Once he has reached this maximum, creating a new bomb causes the oldest ones to become inert, whether or not they are in the alchemist's possession.

Since they are maintained by the alchemist's aura, bombs lose their potence almost immediately upon leaving his person. For this reason, only bombs thrown by the alchemist explode (but see the Sustain Bomb discovery below).

Bombs deal 1d6 fire damage at 1st level, plus an additional d6 at every odd level thereafter. The alchemist may throw a bomb as a ranged touch attack, with a range increment of 20 feet.

It shouldn't make much difference for assessing power and interest level, though.


Nice job. Is it cool if I copy your ideas to a document so that I can show it to my DM? (Also thinking of doing an actual skill tree illustration for it.)


Taku wrote:
Nice job. Is it cool if I copy your ideas to a document so that I can show it to my DM? (Also thinking of doing an actual skill tree illustration for it.)

Go to town, my friend. And do let me know if there's some obscene oversight in power level that I missed.


I just read through everything prior to my posting, here's my commnets.
I like the idea of the “specializing” alchemist. All alchemsists should have access to the basic formulae extracts, bomb, and mutagen, and create a basic alchemic poison for them also. Then, stream them through the poisoner, mutagenic, or explosives focus with discoveries. This would allow the maximum choice, and allow the discoveries to function in a feat-like manner to enhance the alchemist’s chosen stream abilities. I like that idea. Personally, I didn’t like the mutagen idea, love the bombs, but would like some more work done on the whole poison aspect. However, you still need to allow for variation within the streams. I know for myself, I’d like to focus primarily on bombs, but still be able to dabble in the poison options. Toss some frost, shock and fire bombs as my main offensive attack, and create a small variety o poisons I or my companions can use during battle. Maybe even allow them to create some type of “good-aligned poisons” like the ravages found in Exalted Deeds for good alchemists, or neutrals not wanting to “poison” others. Certainly, this streaming adds to the versatility and choice for players. I hope the Pathfinder guys read these posts carefully and with open minds.
In another thread I mentioned that swift alchemy should include Bombs, since I don’t think it does. I agree with MaverickWolf, the alchemist should be able to “infuse” their extracts as a 1st level class ability, not a discovery. This is one of their focuses, they ARE potion masters. In fact, they, and THEY ALONE, should be able to make what I call “Greater Potions”. Has anyone ever thought about why potions stop at 3rd level? I’ve home brewed a way for Alchemists, and Alchemists alone to create these “greater potions”, using spells higher than 3rd, and also use spells from other spellcaster lists to do so. If anyone is interested, let me know. Yes, they become quite expensive, but who wouldn’t pay 6000 gp to have a resurrection potion at hand at higher levels incase your cleric is down?
In line with Ben Adler’s comment, perhaps the Mutagen bonuses should not be enhancement bonuses, perhaps alchemical bonuses. Also state in a previous thread, I think the bombs and mutagens (and poisons if they fix that) should all be alchemical based, not magical. Extracts can remain magical based. I see the mutagen as Jekyll and Hyde-esque. Bombs, as stated in the description are made by “mixing various volatile chemicals” and despite “infusing them with their (the alchemist’s) magical reserves” they should be considered nonmagical (not Supernatural but extraordinary) and not subject to SR or antimagic fields (see my full comment in the Alchemist Bomb Comparison thread for more on this and related topics).
Maeloke, your comments on poisons are true – they’re too expensive. However, if they simply make a list of “alchemical-based” poisons, with subsequent creation DCs and other needed information, and allow them to create them in a similar manner to his extracts (of course, requiring a longer creation time, since they are poisons after all, like a few minutes), I think would work. Also, allow them to remain active and not go inert, but restrict number they can create per day would take care of some of the possible abuse of the ability. I also love your Sustain Bomb discovery (see my Alchemist Bomb Comparison thread comment), and I agree, I don’t see why an alchemist can’t hand off a bomb to someone else. In fact, I think they should be able to create them as items to be crafted and purchased like magic items are.
I like Robert Petty’s idea in this thread, about how extracts are or should be alchemical based. I also like Misery’s comment on alchemist’s eventually getting Evasion since he deals with explosives.
Maeloke is also correct on poisons–they are inherently nonaligned, and certain poisons are non-damaging. I could never see a lawful good anyone use poisons, but a neutral or chaotic good might in certain circumstances. There are even monsters with good alignments that employ poisons as natural defenses. It’s all in the type, method and reason as to whether it is a good or evil act. Like I said in my other thread comment (Alchemist Bomb Comparison), the Ravages from the Book of Exalted Deeds could also be substituted into alchemical concoctions, and really aren’t much different than poisons, other than that they are usable ONLY against evil creatures–which a good alchemist would likely restrict his poison use to anyway.
I think Jason, if you read this, the Alchemist’s abilities should be alchemical based (mutagens, bombs, extracts, and poisons) and not magical, creating a completely new niche for the class. I suggest you read my post in the "Alchemist Bomb Comparison" thread for further comments.


I have decided on a finale draft for my variation of the alchemist class. The first change is to extracts. The greatest appeal I find in most people looking to play a alchemist is to play a spell caster without "casting spells", but instead use science. The number of discoveries that would be needed to accomplish this would be obscene. Instead a complete change to the extract ability would be needed. so here's my version for extracts.
Extracts (Ex):
The Alchemist does not cast spells, but instead creates a number of extracts that duplicate the effects of spells though an alchemical process. These extracts are non magical, and so can not benefit form meta-magic or similar effects. Extracts can still be negated by effects such as remove curse. When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and reagents in the extract into a catalyst that remains potent for one day. Creating extracts consumes raw materials, but these materials are complex. It takes great skill to work these into extracts, comparable to the material components of most spells. If a spell normally has a costly material component, that component is consumed during the creation of that particular extract. Each day the alchemist can prepare a number of extracts as given on their progression table. Each extract takes 1 minute to prepare. Extracts are mostly complete when prepared, but the alchemist is the only one who knows the last few ingredients that completes the mixture just before adding it to a vial of Aquas Neutralis; as such extracts can only be activated by the alchemist. An extract is “cast” by throwing the vial as a grenade like weapon. The effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell has a range of ranged touch attack and always takes a standard action to “cast”. Extracts can only affect the target that was hit with the ranged touch attack or have its area centered where the vial landed. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level. Although alchemists don’t actually cast spells, they do have a formulae list that determines what extracts they can create.

Extracts never have focus requirements, nor do they have verbal or somatic components. An alchemist can prepare an extract of any formula he knows. To learn or use an extract, an alchemist must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the extract’s level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against an alchemist’s extract is 10 + the extract level + the alchemist’s Intelligence modifier. An alchemist’s selection of extract formulae is extremely limited. An alchemist begins play knowing four 0-level formulae and two 1st-level formulae of his choice, chosen from the alchemist formulae list. At each new alchemist level, he gains one or more new formulae, as indicated on Table 5–2. (Unlike extracts per day, the number of formulae an alchemist knows is not affected by his Intelligence score—the numbers on Table 5–2 are fixed.) These new formulae can be common spells chosen from the alchemist’s formulae list, or they can be unusual spells that the alchemist has gained some understanding of through study. Even if two alchemists have chosen the same formula, their approach and exact recipe is solely gained form their experimentation, so alchemist are unable to teach their formulae to others or use other alchemists extracts.


Of course with the new rules for extracts, a new formula list is needed. I also included a new class feature (Not discovery) that would account for 0 level extracts

Minor Extract (Ex):
Using just the raw materials at hand, The alchemist is able to quickly and efficiently create minor extracts. The alchemist is able to prepare a number of 0-level extracts per day, but can use each without expending them.

Alchemist Formulae
Alchemists can create extracts utilizing the following spells.
0-Level Alchemist Formulae
Daze Know direction
Detect magic Light
Detect poison Lullaby
Guidance Mending
Flare

1st-Level Alchemist Formulae
Bane Endure elements
Bless Erase
Calm animals Expeditious retreat
Charm animals Grease
Cause fear Hideous laughter
Command Hypnotism
Charm person Inflict light wounds
Confusion lesser Mage Armor
Cure light wounds Resistance
Disguise self Remove fear
Doom Sleep

2nd-Level Alchemist Formulae
Aid Glitter dust
Alter self Heroism
Animal trance Hold animal
Bear’s endurance Hold person
Bull’s strength Hypnotic pattern
Blindness/deafness Inflict moderate wounds
Blur Invisibility
Calm emotions Levitate
Cat’s grace Owl’s wisdom
Cure moderate wounds Rage
Delay poison Restoration lesser
Daze monster Remove paralysis
Eagle’s splendor Scare
Enthrall Suggestion
Fox’s cunning Spider climb
Gentle repose Web

3rd-Level Alchemist Formulae
Charm monster Geas lesser
Confusion Glibness
Contagion Good hope
Crushing despair Haste
Cure serious wounds Inflict serious wounds
Dark vision Invisibility purge
Deep slumber Remove disease
Displacement Secret page
Dominate animal See invisibility
Fear Slow
Fly Water breathing

4th-Level Alchemist Formulae
Cure critical wounds Neutralize poison
Dominate person Poison
Freedom of movement Rainbow pattern
Hold monster Restoration
Inflict Critical wounds Repel vermin
Invisibility greater Modify memory

5th-Level Alchemist Formulae
Command greater Seeming
Cure light wounds mass Suggestion mass
Dominate Person Spell resistance
Heroism greater Inflict light wounds mass
Hold monster True seeing

6th-Level Alchemist Formulae
Analyze Dweomer Heal
Cure moderate wounds mass Hero’s feast
Circle of death Harm
Eye bite Inflict moderate wounds mass
Geas/quest Irresistible dance


Robert Petty wrote:

Of course with the new rules for extracts, a new formula list is needed. I also included a new class feature (Not discovery) that would account for 0 level extracts

Minor Extract (Ex):
Using just the raw materials at hand, The alchemist is able to quickly and efficiently create minor extracts. The alchemist is able to prepare a number of 0-level extracts per day, but can use each without expending them.

Alchemist Formulae
Alchemists can create extracts utilizing the following spells.
0-Level Alchemist Formulae
Daze Know direction
Detect magic Light
Detect poison Lullaby
Guidance Mending
Flare

1st-Level Alchemist Formulae
Bane Endure elements
Bless Erase
Calm animals Expeditious retreat
Charm animals Grease
Cause fear Hideous laughter
Command Hypnotism
Charm person Inflict light wounds
Confusion lesser Mage Armor
Cure light wounds Resistance
Disguise self Remove fear
Doom Sleep

2nd-Level Alchemist Formulae
Aid Glitter dust
Alter self Heroism
Animal trance Hold animal
Bear’s endurance Hold person
Bull’s strength Hypnotic pattern
Blindness/deafness Inflict moderate wounds
Blur Invisibility
Calm emotions Levitate
Cat’s grace Owl’s wisdom
Cure moderate wounds Rage
Delay poison Restoration lesser
Daze monster Remove paralysis
Eagle’s splendor Scare
Enthrall Suggestion
Fox’s cunning Spider climb
Gentle repose Web

3rd-Level Alchemist Formulae
Charm monster Geas lesser
Confusion Glibness
Contagion Good hope
Crushing despair Haste
Cure serious wounds Inflict serious wounds
Dark vision Invisibility purge
Deep slumber Remove disease
Displacement Secret page
Dominate animal See invisibility
Fear Slow
Fly Water breathing

4th-Level Alchemist Formulae
Cure critical wounds Neutralize poison
Dominate person Poison
Freedom of movement Rainbow pattern
Hold monster Restoration
Inflict Critical wounds Repel vermin
Invisibility greater Modify memory...

For some reason I'm having trouble when I use copy and paste because these boards don't use tab. I will see re-post this list in a better format.


ok I think this will work
Alchemist Formulae
Alchemists can create extracts utilizing the following spells.
0-Level Alchemist Formulae
Daze
Detect magic
Detect poison
Guidance
Flare
Know direction
Light
Lullaby
Mending
1st-Level Alchemist Formulae
Bane
Bless
Calm animals
Charm animals
Cause fear
Command
Charm person
Confusion lesser
Cure light wounds
Disguise self
Doom
Endure elements
Erase
Expeditious retreat
Grease
Hideous laughter
Hypnotism
Inflict light wounds
Mage Armor
Resistance
Remove fear
Sleep
2nd-Level Alchemist Formulae
Aid
Alter self
Animal trance
Bear’s endurance
Bull’s strength
Blindness/deafness
Blur
Calm emotions
Cat’s grace
Cure moderate wounds
Delay poison
Daze monster
Eagle’s splendor
Enthrall
Fox’s cunning
Gentle repose
Glitter dust
Heroism
Hold animal
Hold person
Hypnotic pattern
Inflict moderate wounds
Invisibility
Levitate
Owl’s wisdom
Rage
Restoration lesser
Remove paralysis
Scare
Suggestion
Spider climb
Web
3rd-Level Alchemist Formulae
Charm monster
Confusion
Contagion
Crushing despair
Cure serious wounds
Dark vision
Deep slumber
Displacement
Dominate animal
Fear
Fly
Geas lesser
Glibness
Good hope
Haste
Inflict serious wounds
Invisibility purge
Remove disease
Secret page
See invisibility
Slow
Water breathing
4th-Level Alchemist Formulae
Cure critical wounds
Dominate person
Freedom of movement
Hold monster
Inflict Critical wounds
Invisibility greater
Neutralize poison
Poison
Rainbow pattern
Restoration
Repel vermin
Modify memory
5th-Level Alchemist Formulae
Command greater
Cure light wounds mass
Dominate Person
Heroism greater
Hold monster
Inflict light wounds mass
Seeming
Suggestion mass
Spell resistance
True seeing
6th-Level Alchemist Formulae
Analyze Dweomer
Cure moderate wounds mass
Circle of death
Eye bite
Geas/quest
Heal
Hero’s feast
Harm
Inflict moderate wounds mass
Irresistible dance


I also add this 10th level ability
Quick Alchemy (Ex):
At 10th level the Alchemist can create alchemical items at only a fourth of the time.
I removed the aquas discoveries and instead added
Alchemical Alternatives (Ex):
The alchemist is able to substitute some of the material needed for his extracts, the alchemist gains eschew materials effective for his extracts.
And finally renamed grand discovery to be called breakthough

I hope you guys like it


Looks interesting, but so blocky I'm having trouble reading it. Can you spoiler it?

Spoiler:

Makes the pretty for the eyes.


Well, I'm about 50% with you and 50% against. We'll start with the bad.

Robert Petty wrote:
...the alchemist is the only one who knows the last few ingredients that completes the mixture just before adding it to a vial of Aquas Neutralis; as such extracts can only be activated by the alchemist.

The biggest problem here is that, by making extracts completely nonmagical in nature (and especially with your explanation here), you're treading onto very shaky ground for why exactly alchemists are alone in their ability to specifically mimic spell effects without being magical. You're making the alchemist's abilities class-specific by dictating their roleplay behavior, rather than anything inherent in the class or the character. Why can't an alchemist hand both halves of the ingredients to someone else to mix before throwing? Because he's too possessive of his 'science' to share it, even in life or death situations. As a class ability. That will not sit well with people.

A corollary of this issue is that you make the alchemist's abilities amount to spells that are not actually magic, but look and work exactly like it (only better). For the sake of a touch of conceptual flavor, you're making sketchy core abilities and de-magic-ifying some ludicrously magic-looking spells . I mean, Mage Armor? Fly? I buy some pretty silly effects from alchemy, but you're really reaching with those ones.

This is all to disregard how you're breaking some core balance elements built into the magic system. I can't Dispel your Improved Invisibility, because somehow its not actually magical, just really awesome science chemicals. Worse, you sidestep antimagic fields and spell resistance, which are rather essential obstacles and defenses throughout high level play.

My suggestion? Drop the nonmagic stuff. It's too convoluted, confusing, and unbalanced to be allowed into a core class, even if it does make sense from a conceptual standpoint.

Now, the good:

Robert Petty wrote:

An extract is “cast” by throwing the vial as a grenade like weapon. The effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell has a range of ranged touch attack and always takes a standard action to “cast”. Extracts can only affect the target that was hit with the ranged touch attack or have its area centered where the vial landed. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level. Although alchemists don’t actually cast spells, they do have a formulae list that determines what extracts they can create.

<snip>

Of course with the new rules for extracts, a new formula list is needed.

I really like this. Putting extract-bombing into the core mechanics of the class seems balanced and cool, and you've done a good job adding appropriate spells for it's use, from a real-life alchemical perspective. I get a kick out of the enchantment ones in particular - D&D, meet behavior-altering substances!

That said, some of those become a bit awkward as standard actions - Geas/Quest and Modify Memory jump out as feeling a bit wrong, mid-combat.

I do foresee problems with using the mass versions of spells, since most of them specify you pick particular targets to be affected within their radius. Circle of Death makes perfect sense, though. You could probably include more necromancy spells than you have- Ray of enfeeblement just screams to be used in this fashion.

So... more with the bombing! Within the limits of reasonable casting time and spell level, I don't honestly think alchemists can have too many options for extracts (they get so few, after all).


Actually, to tell you the truth, I always had BIG qualms about the ravages, and didn't allow the good-aligned characters in my games to use them without serious risk to their alignment. I personally wouldn't let a good-aligned character use poison or poison-imitating substances without strong alignment consequences except in the most desperate and unusual circumstances.

Perhaps it's because I've got a strong background in medieval history and absorbed part of the chivalric theory (however poorly it was often put into practice) that I perceive some tactics as above-board and some as underhanded at best and vile at worst. Yes, a sword does harm and kill your opponent, but he's still fighting you toe-to-toe.

Jabbing your opponent with a poisoned hatpin and then sitting back and watching him drum his heels isn't very forthright, noble, or heroic. It's an insidious orc-trick, more or less. ;)


Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

Actually, to tell you the truth, I always had BIG qualms about the ravages, and didn't allow the good-aligned characters in my games to use them without serious risk to their alignment. I personally wouldn't let a good-aligned character use poison or poison-imitating substances without strong alignment consequences except in the most desperate and unusual circumstances.

Perhaps it's because I've got a strong background in medieval history and absorbed part of the chivalric theory (however poorly it was often put into practice) that I perceive some tactics as above-board and some as underhanded at best and vile at worst. Yes, a sword does harm and kill your opponent, but he's still fighting you toe-to-toe.

Jabbing your opponent with a poisoned hatpin and then sitting back and watching him drum his heels isn't very forthright, noble, or heroic. It's an insidious orc-trick, more or less. ;)

I think in most games, the whole issue of poison is going to come down to how the DM feels about the stuff. Your background in medieval history tells you it's underhanded and vile; my background in ethics tells me that going out and stabbing, burning alive, and poisoning are all reprehensible acts. The fact that one of the three is circumstantially less direct is immaterial to it's ethical weight. Pricking someone and then hiding could be called cowardly and cruel... but another person could just as easily call it wise and merciful.

A fundamental premise of D&D is that good people go out and kill things; if you accept that, then the particular chivalry of their methods becomes a matter of law-chaos alignment at worst.

To be perfectly honest though, I usually ignore alignment in my games. Barring especially strong, consistent behavior in the direction of either cruelty or benevolence, PCs are neutral, as are the vast majority of their foes. Alignment magic bothers me to no end when applied to anything that's not magically, racially aligned (demons, angels); how does a spell determine whether a creature is specifically untrustworthy enough to be called 'chaotic', or prone enough to torture to be called 'evil'? Ah, that's a debate for a different thread.

As far as poison goes, it's just another reason to make it optional in the class, rather than mandatory.


Maeloke wrote:


A fundamental premise of D&D is that good people go out and kill things; if you accept that, then the particular chivalry of their methods becomes a matter of law-chaos alignment at worst.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. :)


If anyone is interested, I've posted a new thread called Alchemist Rebuild Based of Numerous Suggestion Posts that is a rebuild of the Alchemist based on many of your suggestions,and others from other threads. Go check it out and comment.


Maeloke wrote:

Well, I'm about 50% with you and 50% against. We'll start with the bad.

Robert Petty wrote:
...the alchemist is the only one who knows the last few ingredients that completes the mixture just before adding it to a vial of Aquas Neutralis; as such extracts can only be activated by the alchemist.

The biggest problem here is that, by making extracts completely nonmagical in nature (and especially with your explanation here), you're treading onto very shaky ground for why exactly alchemists are alone in their ability to specifically mimic spell effects without being magical. You're making the alchemist's abilities class-specific by dictating their roleplay behavior, rather than anything inherent in the class or the character. Why can't an alchemist hand both halves of the ingredients to someone else to mix before throwing? Because he's too possessive of his 'science' to share it, even in life or death situations. As a class ability. That will not sit well with people.

A corollary of this issue is that you make the alchemist's abilities amount to spells that are not actually magic, but look and work exactly like it (only better). For the sake of a touch of conceptual flavor, you're making sketchy core abilities and de-magic-ifying some ludicrously magic-looking spells . I mean, Mage Armor? Fly? I buy some pretty silly effects from alchemy, but you're really reaching with those ones.

This is all to disregard how you're breaking some core balance elements built into the magic system. I can't Dispel your Improved Invisibility, because somehow its not actually magical, just really awesome science chemicals. Worse, you sidestep antimagic fields and spell resistance, which are rather essential obstacles and defenses throughout high level play.

My suggestion? Drop the nonmagic stuff. It's too convoluted, confusing, and unbalanced to be allowed into a core class, even if it does make sense from a conceptual standpoint.

Now, the good:

Robert Petty wrote:
An extract is “cast” by
...

You are indeed correct about non-magical spells ruining the game balance, so lets try this one. These extracts are made of ingredients that have magical properties but still not spells in them selves, and so can not benefit form meta-magic or similar effects. Extracts can still be negated by effects such as remove curse or dispel magic. I also noticed a slight oversight. Instead of saying that costly material components are added to the extract when it's made, lets use this explanation. If a spell normally has a costly material component, that component is consumed when that particular extract is activated. Alchemist shouldn't be allowed to just hand a Extract to another character. How would a wizard hand a fireball to a fighter? But a rewrite of infusion maybe? an finally for the mass spells, well how about not having the ability to chose targets but instead the extract effects all possible targets. If that don't work then a revision of the spell list is needed.

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Round 3: Alchemist and Inquisitor / A modest proposal: The Alchemist All Messageboards
Recent threads in Round 3: Alchemist and Inquisitor