Ah, but you see- Psionics aren't "casters". That's the point.
Depends on how you view it and what your talking about. I know 3E psionic functioned with a Psionic-spell transparency, where they may as well have been the same thing but with a different name. Psionics in 3E used power points, which isn't so much fire and forget.
This is a fallacious argument. In more ways than one. First is the argument by consensus, Just because it is popular doesn't mean it is good. Second is false cause, in that D&D may be popular, but that does not mean that Vancian casting is the cause. Third, There are tons of versions of D&D, which are very different from one another, so D&D, the brand, has lasted long, but the mechanics have changed so much.
I have enough faith in Paizo to come up with interesting ideas for future classes that don't just continue these tired old formulae, that are still legal under the ogl. I just want to see them take a chance at this. Sure, there's the risk that the design doesn't work, but worst comes to worst, it's treated like the Summoner or the 3.5 Healer: If it's overpowered DMs recognize it as cheese and ban it, and if...
1. Well, since "good" is something no one can agree on, we have to replace it with "popular and "best selling"- and there's not a game system yet that has hit 10% of D&D sales.
2. But if everyone hate Vancian casting they would turn to another system, which they have not. In any case, just about everyone else seems happy with it. And, doesn't it seem strange that if Vancian magic is so hated and tired and old, one of the other 100 Fantasy RP games would have taken over by now? Players LIKE Vancian- well at least compared to Fantasy Accounting. And, every time I have seen a "spell points" system (or even Psionic points) it has been bad for the game- it makes for even more Nova or 3 rounds of combat, then rest over-nite games. BORING.
"Tired Old"? Hardly. Original, classic.
In fact to some extent they already have. Look at Cantrips, Hexes, etc.
The point is- PF's customer base doesn't want it. (per JJ, anyway) They need to go along with the 90% of the folks who buy the books. I hope they never change. Mind you, adding a Warlock like class wouldn't bother me at all= as long as it isn't overpowering.
And there are plenty of options. Fantasy hero, Runequest, Vampire, and so forth.
I don't hate Vancian casting.
This entire thread was started because I want Alchemists to be vancian casters instead of the undefined unsupported un-interoperable mess it currently is.
:)
Ah, but you see- Psionics aren't "casters". That's the point.
So why do the Alchemists have to be?
In fact, Alchemists technically don't even get a caster level. They can't cast, but they are limited by how many potions they can have a day.
If someone steals their physically existing extract and stows it away, they are hosed out of a spell slot forever. Caster's don't usually have to worry about someone stealing their spells because it's much harder than stealing a vial. Even if someone somehow siphons a caster's spell slot, it usually comes back in the next day when they prepare their spells.
Yeah, the wizard has a spell book, so does the alchemist who is much more limited and just as hosed.
Sure you can use an Alchemist's extracts in full plate with no penalties, but the flavor doesn't particularly fit. I don't even think that was an intentional part of the design.
In fact many of the "unique rules" about alchemists are clearly there to limit them. For example: Reflex saves against splash damage (Only for the Alchemist, most attacks don't require both a attack roll and give a save) and yet they have many of the spellcaster limitations and have to use magic to activate it all.
i like this idea, to make the alchemist more spellcaster...If the Alchemist were any more closer to be a spellcaster than it is now, then the class as is should be ditched and exchanged for a wizard archetype who does some funky things with Craft Alchemy.
The idea of an alchemist as a spellcaster is totally non-intuitive to me.
Certainly there's more to the class that differentiates itself from the wizards. Mutagen, alchemical discoveries, six levels casting with mostly buffs, and bombs that you can change on the go to make a variety of splash damage. Also the 3/4 BAB and casting in armor with various ways to augment your combat, though I think they could've done more work to make them melee friendly in particular by adjusting the mutagen.
At the moment its not similar to a spell caster, it has small rules that help make it special. Sometimes more expensive too unfortunately.
If someone steals their physically existing extract and stows it away, they are hosed out of a spell slot forever.
This is not true.
This is not true.If someone steals their physically existing extract and stows it away, they are hosed out of a spell slot forever.
What makes you say that? I thought that's what JJ said earlier. There isn't much of a difference between stealing and giving mind you, either way its gone and it can't go inert unless you "use" it. Which regardless of definition, involves somehow finding it or something happening to it.
This is not true.If someone steals their physically existing extract and stows it away, they are hosed out of a spell slot forever.
It is if it was an infusion. Infusions don't follow the same "inert after a day has passed" thing, and since extracts have to be infused when created, that's pretty much it for that spell slot. You'd best hope your DM isn't a prick.
Ah, but you see- Psionics aren't "casters". That's the point.So why do the Alchemists have to be?
In fact, Alchemists technically don't even get a caster level. They can't cast, but they are limited by how many potions they can have a day.
If someone steals their physically existing extract and stows it away, they are hosed out of a spell slot forever. Caster's don't usually have to worry about someone stealing their spells because it's much harder than stealing a vial. Even if someone somehow siphons a caster's spell slot, it usually comes back in the next day when they prepare their spells.
Yeah, the wizard has a spell book, so does the alchemist who is much more limited and just as hosed.
Sure you can use an Alchemist's extracts in full plate with no penalties, but the flavor doesn't particularly fit. I don't even think that was an intentional part of the design.
In fact many of the "unique rules" about alchemists are clearly there to limit them. For example: Reflex saves against splash damage (Only for the Alchemist, most attacks don't require both a attack roll and give a save) and yet they have many of the spellcaster limitations and have to use magic to activate it all.
Has there been a new edition?
Paragraph 2. If someone steals an extract, it becomes inert. They can make a new extract the next day.It says right in the beginning the extract is used, and produces a spell. The spell functions as the spell. You can cast enlarge on someone else.
I'd like JJ to actually say what constitutes "use" before I feel reassured by all these people telling me smashing it or stealing it counts as "use" or by some other rationale lets the alchemist re-fill the slot the next day. By basic English language comprehension, I can't actually get behind any of those assurances, and I know for damn sure my current DM in the game I do have an Alchemist would not, either.
I'd like JJ to actually say what constitutes "use" before I feel reassured by all these people telling me smashing it or stealing it counts as "use" or by some other rationale lets the alchemist re-fill the slot the next day. By basic English language comprehension, I can't actually get behind any of those assurances, and I know for damn sure my current DM in the game I do have an Alchemist would not, either.
Wouldn't that be a problem with your DM? My thought is that a DM who would permanently steal a spell slot from you by shattering your infusions is going to be of a mind to do so whether there's an official rule or not.
Personally, I agree with Lincoln Hill: I don't want alchemists to be wizards with fluff; if I wanted to play a wizard, I'd play a wizard. Resolving questions\confusion doesn't mean you have to "homogenize" the class with an existing rules set.
I would prefer them to be a unique class with their own flavor. If problems arise, then we should see a robust errata released to address the issues that have arisen with the class, and with any vagueries the individual DM can decide from there how the class works.
With all that said, I do think that (for their purpose) the suggestions you've made are sensible and well-balanced. I just wouldn't use them because I don't really like the overall idea. :)
Why would someone steal an infusion and not use it.
If a dragon or undead steals one, they add it to their treasure, in a dungeon.
With all that said, I do think that (for their purpose) the suggestions you've made are sensible and well-balanced. I just wouldn't use them because I don't really like the overall idea. :)
Thanks.
Why would someone steal an infusion and not use it.
If a dragon or undead steals one, they add it to their treasure, in a dungeon.
Specifically to screw over the Alchemist? Say if your game has recurring foes or their forces, who know your character and intensely dislike him/her.
Well the minions might be told to smash the infusions, but they instead down them when they go steal a piece of the evil artifact.
The catch 22 occurs when the alchemist gets drained a level and loses the held open level. This is the same sillyness that used to happen when someone was drained of hit points but not levels. A tenth level character with 9 hit points at full strength hurts the game.
Bump.
Please come back, JJ...