The potion itself can be stolen, sundered during casting, or damaged by an AoE spell. If you only have one then your DM needs to only get rid of that bottle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty of flaws that are obvious in hindsight or to an outsider. Some of these flaws are much easier to exploit if the party has access to abilities like pseudoteleportation much earlier than expected. This is not to say that the PCs should be blamed, simply that if an unexpectedly powerful PC ability is making it hard for the GM to run a fun game, that ability should be moderated, hopefully through group consensus.Indeed. If the GM designs an encounter with such an obvious and easily exploitable flaw, the PCs can't be blamed for using it.Only because the hideout was apparently set up so they could get in and get to the hostages, but were then expected to fight their way out.
Bet that doesn't happen again. :)
True, no GM can perfectly predict every trick the party can come up with. I've certainly had players catch me completely off guard a couple times. But whenever that happened I figured out what went wrong, and adapted the campaign and my tactics to deal with it.
The problem is, at least from what the OP has said, that the GM in this case is mostly annoyed that the party is using intelligence and creativity to bypass encounters instead of staying on the plot railroad. Like some other folks in the thread have pointed out, there are plenty of level-appropriate ways to bypass encounters.
Perhaps it's personal bias, but I don't like GMs whose first response to a useful PC skill is to break out the banhammer.
To answer the question, I would say no, because alchemists don't cast spells and wizards can't copy down spells based on an alchemist's formulae. But remember that alchemists can use Infusion with Alchemical Allocation, allowing anyone in the whole party to use this fun trick.
|
1) Limit the character's ability to purchase expensive elixirs. The Elixir of Shadewalking costs 3,500gp. A village won't have that kind of item, and towns would only contain a handful of magic items of that power. The highest-value items in a settlement are unlikely to be elixirs because most people spend most of their wealth on durable items - you won't find a $10,000 bottle of wine in a town where most people don't own $10,000 cars.Bought it from a wondrous item crafting player.
How is another player able to cast the prerequisite 6th level spell Shadow Walk, minimum CL 11, in order to craft the elixir to sell to you? Is this where the exploit of raising the spellcraft check by 5 for not meeting a prerequisite comes in, so he doesn't need to know the spell or even be able to cast it but can still somehow fake it enough to create the elixir anyway?
|
I'm not a fan of GMs banning things as a reflex, but keep in mind we don't have the GM's side. It's not clear this is a first reaction or that this is a railroading GM annoyed with players jumping off the tracks.
Also, I'd have more of a problem with a GM who allowed it without complaint and then went out of their way to shatter the Elixir than one who said "I had no idea that ability let you do that, I think that's too much." Though it's a bit better if it's at least an angry BBEG who was evaded by use of the Elixir, rather than a random encounter who decided to conveniently attack that particular bottle.
And casting a 5/6th level spell using a 2nd level spell slot does rather subvert the resource expectations of the game. Since most of the more powerful elixirs appear to have been introduced more recently than Alchemical Allocation, I expect the idea was to allow players to trade a higher up-front investment and an extra round of prep in order to use 2nd level extracts for 3rd level effects like flight - as the OP was doing prior to this incident - or handy non-spell effects like an elixir of swimming. Being able to use one Alchemical Allocation for one of several potions is an extra flexibility bonus. The addition of super-powerful elixirs like Shadewalking unbalances that trade in a way I don't think was intended.
How is another player able to cast the prerequisite 6th level spell Shadow Walk, minimum CL 11, in order to craft the elixir to sell to you? Is this where the exploit of raising the spellcraft check by 5 for not meeting a prerequisite comes in, so he doesn't need to know the spell or even be able to cast it but can still somehow fake it enough to create the elixir anyway?
That's how the rule works. Normally I think it's a fine rule but I think it hilights a design problem with the Elixir of Shadewalking. Most Elixirs are distinct from potions in that they don't duplicate spells. The Elixir of Shadewalking however is a spell in a can, except that it duplicates a spell of a higher level than potions are allowed to. It's made an Elixir in order to bypass that restriction. Unfortunately it also bypasses the restrictions on most spell-in-a-can items: "For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level." and "you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting its prerequisites." Even without Alchemical Allocation it's a recipe for a party getting access to high-level effects very early.
Honestly the easiest solution is probably to ban a handful of Elixirs rather than Alchemical Allocation.
|
Running from combat means not getting XP and munnies. If anything, the GM should be cackling gleefully at your foolishness.You're _supposed_ to get XP for 'overcoming' enemies. Decapitating them to gain their Quickening is supposed to be optional.
Depends on whether you use XP-per-encounter (RAW), or something else (quite common). Often GMs give significant XP for achieving quest goals, so it becomes more important to save the princess than to kill every last kobold in a side chamber of the dragon's lair. And in that case the only thing you'd be missing would be some loot.
Yeah after looking it up - that elixir isn't even in 'Pathfinder' (the RPG) - it is a specific item from a 3.5 pathfinder (when it was the only title) adventure path.
As such it's not actually available or known - did the crafting player have to research the new item?
The GM goofed by allowing it in the game. Don't use that non-paizo website to look stuff up - because it's not official.
So you need to go to quadruple A?
I think it's more an issue with the GM not liking Shadow Walk than Alchemical Allocation.
Personally, I've always stayed away from Shadow Walk because I'm afraid that the GM will start attacking us with monsters from the Plane of Shadow. (The spell description says "Thus, you can use this spell to travel rapidly by stepping onto the Plane of Shadow, moving the desired distance, and then stepping back onto the Material Plane" so it sounds like you really are on the Plane of Shadow while travelling.)
You might have stated this already, but what level is the party?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't it's broken. I think the GM does not like encounters being bypassed, but that happens to me when I run AP's, and when I used to write my own adventures. It can be annoying, BUT, as a GM it comes with the territory, just like having the party one round a boss through a series of lucky roll(s) or unlucky ones.
Eh, I can empathize with the GM. You've found a way to travel that he didn't foresee and it circumvented a lot of his plans. C'est la guerre!
Remind him that its an opportunity to pull some Star Trek shenanigans with "shadow storms", "dimensional rifts", being targeted by Hounds of Tindalos, members of a shadowy (Nyuk nyuk nyuk!) organization who also want the elixir and send fetchling ninjas and shadow dancers to collect it, etc.
Some drunken barbarian can also sunder your potion vial and make it go away, but that's much less fun.
|
|
Running from an enemy doesn't generally overcome them - especially if the enemy you're running from is likely to seek revenge or enact other plots. I like to think I offer and reward non-combat solutions (my party certainly takes advantage of them) but I wouldn't award full marks/XP if the party leaves loose ends like turning a one-off threat into a recurring villain.
You might have stated this already, but what level is the party?
Level 5. Hence the concern about cheap access to a 6th level spell.
Yeah after looking it up - that elixir isn't even in 'Pathfinder' (the RPG) - it is a specific item from a 3.5 pathfinder (when it was the only title) adventure path.
As such it's not actually available or known - did the crafting player have to research the new item?
The GM goofed by allowing it in the game. Don't use that non-paizo website to look stuff up - because it's not official.
That's not the fault of the website - it lists the source right under the item title. It's the fact that there exist Paizo products with the "Pathfinder" title and logo that aren't actually part of the Pathfinder rules system. People frequently use the 3.5 material from the Pathfinder Campaign Setting with the PF rules set so it makes sense to include it. Also, the pfsrd is a much more usable website.
Since when is a single second-level extract a key feature?Since it tends to fill up every single 2nd level extract slot for so many Alchemists and is often regarded as their best spell for precisely this reason? They're alchemists, and this is the one spell that they uniquely get which is most inherently keyed to their class. It's every bit as iconic to their class as mutagens and bombs.
lol I will agree with this.
So basically you were saying that not only did you use shadowwalk to eliminate the distance to the hideout, you used it to circumvent the hideout itself rescue the fair maiden and escape, pretty much negating the entire adventure?
I'm with your GM on this one.
No we used it to get to the country then we walked a lot, then we found the hostage and rescued her, THEN we wanted to leave the country fast.
In this case it was more of a matter of a GM allowing a player to use the power of an elixir in ways it not meant to do. Shadow-walking is ONLY for long distance travel, not super stealthing inside a dungeon.
There was no stealthing with it, there was only running away with it, running away that ended up being done without it regardless.
Actually I don't see anything wrong with the tactic then. As a GM you should be able to deal with the items that you make available... I would have handled it premptively:
"You want to purchase an "elixer of shadwalking? ... ok let me look that up... we don't seem to have that available for direct purchase. You can requisition one but blah blah blah..."
Since he seems to feel like it's upsetting the balance of the game I would approach him and ask about switching it out for a different elixer or item of equivalent value.
Once he responds to me (or next Sunday when I see him) I am likely switching it out for a dimension door potion. It does exactly the same thing except without the distance, and I really only got it in the first place FOR the distance but at least this is a level 3 spell so he should be happy?
If it's good enough to not only be the best 2nd level extract, but good enough to fill every 2nd level extract slot, it needs to be nerfed. Single spells, unlike major class features, aren't supposed to be good enough to define a class.
If that is how you feel then fine, also fighters need to have their weapons nerfed since using a weapon is not a major class feature and yet every fighter uses a weapon of some sort.
Alchemists are users of utilities, fighters are users of weapons. Just because I went the non-fighter-based alchemist doesn't mean that one of the major reasons to choose the non-fighter-based route needs to be nerfed when fighters get to use their weapons without fear of nerfing.False. Alchemists, and only alchemists, get:
Affecting potions: Transmute Potion to Poison, Amplify Elixir, Alchemical Allocation
Affecting extracts: Universal Formula, Delayed Consumption
Affecting mutagens: Orchid's Drop, Mutagenic Touch
Affecting bombs: Bomber's Eye and the Targeted, Shadow, Lightning Lash, Viper, Languid, and Caging Bomb Admixtures.
Those aren't as often used though...
The potion itself can be stolen, sundered during casting, or damaged by an AoE spell. If you only have one then your DM needs to only get rid of that bottle.
I assumed that that would happen, it is why everything I own in vials are in iron vials.
Also to be fair, all we know is the GM complained about it, we don't know if the banhammer came out or anything else.
The elixir was banned from the rest of that game and then there was silence for a final ruling and I am awaiting a response now.
Frankly, I'd relish the situation dropped in my lap. A party has started leaving bad guys alive in their wake and is relying VERY HEAVILY on a single item to make quick escapes. That's just asking for bad guys with grudges to set up special traps.
Bad is relative, this was just a broke bounty hunter, we knew not of whether or not she was bad only that she was rude and very, very broke, that is not reason enough to murder someone.
Honestly I have more difficulty with the Alchemical Allocation from a backwash and dilution perspective than any game mechanics. You're sloshing the stuff out and back into its bottle over and over, it just seems like eventually it would be to diluted with your own saliva to be effective anymore. I'm sure that's silly of me, but that's me.
A potion is not a liquid, a potion is magic, the magic is held within the liquid but it doesn't matter what kind of liquid it is if it still has the magic.
Alchemical Allocation only makes a copy of the magic somehow.To answer the question, I would say no, because alchemists don't cast spells and wizards can't copy down spells based on an alchemist's formulae. But remember that alchemists can use Infusion with Alchemical Allocation, allowing anyone in the whole party to use this fun trick.
INFUSIONS WORK WITH ALCHEMICAL ALLOCATION?!??!???
How is another player able to cast the prerequisite 6th level spell Shadow Walk, minimum CL 11, in order to craft the elixir to sell to you? Is this where the exploit of raising the spellcraft check by 5 for not meeting a prerequisite comes in, so he doesn't need to know the spell or even be able to cast it but can still somehow fake it enough to create the elixir anyway?
Yes, though to be honest before that exploit was put in I would just find someone who could cast the spell and pay them to cast the spell for the item creation anyways.
Running from combat means not getting XP and munnies. If anything, the GM should be cackling gleefully at your foolishness.You're _supposed_ to get XP for 'overcoming' enemies. Decapitating them to gain their Quickening is supposed to be optional.
We get XP, just not money when we don't kill everyone we should.
I think it's more an issue with the GM not liking Shadow Walk than Alchemical Allocation.
Personally, I've always stayed away from Shadow Walk because I'm afraid that the GM will start attacking us with monsters from the Plane of Shadow. (The spell description says "Thus, you can use this spell to travel rapidly by stepping onto the Plane of Shadow, moving the desired distance, and then stepping back onto the Material Plane" so it sounds like you really are on the Plane of Shadow while travelling.)
You might have stated this already, but what level is the party?
It sounded more like between the shadow plane and the overworld but we are moving at 50 MPH anyways so we could always run away from anything that attacks plus if I remember right we even have blur added to us during it.
I believe that was "You can make an infusion of Alchemical Allocation, to let other PCs reuse their potions as well".
It doesn't let you reuse extracts or infusions.
Oh, well yeah that is true.
To be fair dimension door is a 4th level spell and thusly can't be made into a potion, it's stupid early level spells on a number of powerful spells that has wrecked havoc, (like teleport, that after the summoner it's "wand-able").
So the GM feels you are abusing an item/spell, really the item. People are making cases for why it is a problem and you have an excuse for every answer. Sounds like you don't care about any opinion except your own, so why post this as a question? As a GM I would have similar problems, most magical elixirs are wondrous items, alchemical ones seem like the intent of the ability, but yes, you can always find away around a rule with word interpretation. You seem to be using this based on someone's recommendation, as if it is an exploit that you found. And as a side note, if the elixir is just a cheap substitute for d-door, and it bothers the GM/causes issues, don't use it. If you have a PC that can cast the spell to create the elixir, you are 11th+ level, use teleport spells, sounds like abusing craft to make the item also. D-door is a 3rd lvl spell for a summoner, and might solve the problems though..still GM seems to not like potion teleports...who knows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair dimension door is a 4th level spell and thusly can't be made into a potion, it's stupid early level spells on a number of powerful spells that has wrecked havoc, (like teleport, that after the summoner it's "wand-able").
Summoners get it as a third level spell.
So the GM feels you are abusing an item/spell, really the item. People are making cases for why it is a problem and you have an excuse for every answer. Sounds like you don't care about any opinion except your own, so why post this as a question? As a GM I would have similar problems, most magical elixirs are wondrous items, alchemical ones seem like the intent of the ability, but yes, you can always find away around a rule with word interpretation. You seem to be using this based on someone's recommendation, as if it is an exploit that you found. And as a side note, if the elixir is just a cheap substitute for d-door, and it bothers the GM/causes issues, don't use it. If you have a PC that can cast the spell to create the elixir, you are 11th+ level, use teleport spells, sounds like abusing craft to make the item also. D-door is a 3rd lvl spell for a summoner, and might solve the problems though..still GM seems to not like potion teleports...who knows.
I've said that the DM will not change his mind, I only want to know if anyone else feels that the spell is too OP or if anyone else has any trouble with the spell.
I posted in the General Discussion category so we can have a general discussion. I do care about the opinions of others as that is why I made this thread, the opinions of others has been noted.Potion of Dimension Door is a cheap Elixir of Shadewalking, not the other way around.
Again though, this thread is for general discussion.
Yes I know that summoners get as a 3rd level spell, that's the class that wrecked havoc with spell level (mostly).
Yes I know that summoners get as a 3rd level spell, that's the class that wrecked havoc with spell level (mostly).
Then... yes... it can be a potion?
It sounded more like between the shadow plane and the overworld but we are moving at 50 MPH anyways so we could always run away from anything that attacks plus if I remember right we even have blur added to us during it.
The spell says you move "normally on the borders of the Plane of Shadow but much more rapidly relative to the Material Plane"; to me that suggests that you can't outrun things while you're on the Plane of Shadow. But if your GM rules otherwise, then you'd be crazy not to use Shadow Walk for all it's worth. (At least until your enemies start using it to sneak up on you...)
lol I will agree with this.
Since when is a single second-level extract a key feature?Since it tends to fill up every single 2nd level extract slot for so many Alchemists and is often regarded as their best spell for precisely this reason? They're alchemists, and this is the one spell that they uniquely get which is most inherently keyed to their class. It's every bit as iconic to their class as mutagens and bombs.
It's ridiculously more versatile than the other alchemist-only spells and some of the elixirs have effects not at all matching their base spells. One 2nd level extract and boom! +10 competence bonus to any one skill you have an appropriate elixir of for the next hour!
INFUSIONS WORK WITH ALCHEMICAL ALLOCATION?!??!???
To answer the question, I would say no, because alchemists don't cast spells and wizards can't copy down spells based on an alchemist's formulae. But remember that alchemists can use Infusion with Alchemical Allocation, allowing anyone in the whole party to use this fun trick.
Sorry, I only meant that, while a wizard can't copy down formulae into their spellbooks to learn Alchemical Allocation, an alchemist with Infusion can always create an infused extract of Alchemical Allocation for that wizard to make use of.
The spell says you move "normally on the borders of the Plane of Shadow but much more rapidly relative to the Material Plane"; to me that suggests that you can't outrun things while you're on the Plane of Shadow. But if your GM rules otherwise, then you'd be crazy not to use Shadow Walk for all it's worth. (At least until your enemies start using it to sneak up on you...)
You can't sneak with it apparently you can't be exact with where you end up after using it.
It's ridiculously more versatile than the other alchemist-only spells and some of the elixirs have effects not at all matching their base spells. One 2nd level extract and boom! +10 competence bonus to any one skill you have an appropriate elixir of for the next hour!
Which elixir is that? I could use a +10 for my crafts.
Sorry, I only meant that, while a wizard can't copy down formulae into their spellbooks to learn Alchemical Allocation, an alchemist with Infusion can always create an infused extract of Alchemical Allocation for that wizard to make use of.
Yes, as long as they can make infusions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said that the DM will not change his mind, I only want to know if anyone else feels that the spell is too OP or if anyone else has any trouble with the spell.
So, to post a general and related comment; It doesn't matter if anyone else feels that the combo or spell or elixer is OP, the GM does.
You can not "win" against the GM and that's what you seem to be trying to do. Your mentality seems to be "if you don't like me using this ability then I will do the exact same thing in a different way. You can defeat encounters, enemies, bosses, but from the moment you sit down you are in the GM's world. If you force him into the position of "fighting back" it's all over for you at that table from then on. He will "always" see you as "that guy" who is disruptive.Your tactics, while valid and legal (and probably one that I would have done in the situation) are disrupting the flow of the game. Once you are told by the GM that your tactics are disruptive you should change them, not do the same thing a different way to "one up" the GM.
Don't be "that guy"
Again, I would try find a replacement that you both agree is fair and doesn't disrupt the flow of the game. You may even come up with a side adventure where your party gets trapped in the land of shadow and has to find a way back or something, it could be fun.
|
|
Yes I know that summoners get as a 3rd level spell, that's the class that wrecked havoc with spell level (mostly).Then... yes... it can be a potion?
Don't count on it. Some GMs (and IIRC PFS) use the sorc/wizard and cleric spell levels preferentially for things like potions or wands on the grounds that summoners getting access to a few spells like Dimension Door or Haste at a lower spell level is not intended to make those spells cheaper for everyone.
If it's good enough to not only be the best 2nd level extract, but good enough to fill every 2nd level extract slot, it needs to be nerfed. Single spells, unlike major class features, aren't supposed to be good enough to define a class.If that is how you feel then fine, also fighters need to have their weapons nerfed since using a weapon is not a major class feature and yet every fighter uses a weapon of some sort.
Alchemists are users of utilities, fighters are users of weapons. Just because I went the non-fighter-based alchemist doesn't mean that one of the major reasons to choose the non-fighter-based route needs to be nerfed when fighters get to use their weapons without fear of nerfing.
Fighters use weapons. Each individual fighter selects a subset of weapons to use. Some weapons are better than others, but no one weapon is so good that it's the only weapon worth using.
Alchemists use an assortment of extracts, some of which are better than others but no one extract should be so good that it's used to the exclusion of all others of the same level.
"Extracts" or "Spells" or "Weapons" may define a class. A single example of any of those categories should not.
Alchemists, and only alchemists, get...Those aren't as often used though...
Because they're not markedly more powerful than other extracts available at the same level.
It's ridiculously more versatile than the other alchemist-only spells and some of the elixirs have effects not at all matching their base spells. One 2nd level extract and boom! +10 competence bonus to any one skill you have an appropriate elixir of for the next hour!
And as such it's still worth having even if you can't use it on Potions of Dimension Door or the Elixir of Shadewalking.
I've said that the DM will not change his mind, I only want to know if anyone else feels that the spell is too OP or if anyone else has any trouble with the spell.So, to post a general and related comment; It doesn't matter if anyone else feels that the combo or spell or elixer is OP, the GM does.
You can not "win" against the GM and that's what you seem to be trying to do. Your mentality seems to be "if you don't like me using this ability then I will do the exact same thing in a different way.
You quote me saying something and then say the opposite of what I said?
AGAIN, this thread is not to try to convince my DM to let me use it, I am waiting for him to decide and hopefully it doesn't take until the next time we meet but it just might. This is just a general discussion on the powerfulness of the spell.
You can defeat encounters, enemies, bosses, but from the moment you sit down you are in the GM's world. If you force him into the position of "fighting back" it's all over for you at that table from then on. He will "always" see you as "that guy" who is disruptive.
Never was I disruptive, when asked to stop using it I stopped using it.
Your tactics, while valid and legal (and probably one that I would have done in the situation) are disrupting the flow of the game. Once you are told by the GM that your tactics are disruptive you should change them, not do the same thing a different way to "one up" the GM.
Don't be "that guy"
Are you... talking about me using dimension door instead? I GUESS you could interpret me doing that as what you claim it to be but it wasn't intended to be that. The DM was upset at me using a level 6 spell for my second spell slot, I can cast third level spells so he shouldn't be upset about me using dimension door. I only got the elixir instead because one time I got robbed during a boat ride and that was worth skipping ever happening again and the elixir goes farther.
Again, I would try find a replacement that you both agree is fair and doesn't disrupt the flow of the game. You may even come up with a side adventure where your party gets trapped in the land of shadow and has to find a way back or something, it could be fun.
Dimension door doesn't go through the shadows and it doesn't look like I will get to keep the elixir.
Don't count on it. Some GMs (and IIRC PFS) use the sorc/wizard and cleric spell levels preferentially for things like potions or wands on the grounds that summoners getting access to a few spells like Dimension Door or Haste at a lower spell level is not intended to make those spells cheaper for everyone.
That is a very weird and unique rule that I doubt any DM I will ever encounter will follow.
Fighters use weapons. Each individual fighter selects a subset of weapons to use. Some weapons are better than others, but no one weapon is so good that it's the only weapon worth using.
Alchemists don't get very many spells, the best thing out of a small number of things isn't insanely amazing it is only the best thing available.
"Extracts" or "Spells" or "Weapons" may define a class. A single example of any of those categories should not.
Spells and weapons do not define a class, how the class is played defines the class, or as I put it, how an alchemist is a user of utilities.
Because they're not markedly more powerful than other extracts available at the same level.
No, because the other spells available are just meh.
It's ridiculously more versatile than the other alchemist-only spells and some of the elixirs have effects not at all matching their base spells. One 2nd level extract and boom! +10 competence bonus to any one skill you have an appropriate elixir of for the next hour!Which elixir is that? I could use a +10 for my crafts.
I don't think there's one for Craft, but here's the ones from the Core Rulebook: link
Acrobatics, Perception, Stealth, and Swimming. Given that there's an obvious spell to use as a base for a similar elixir for Craft, and such an obvious base item, most GMs would probably allow it.
It's ridiculously more versatile than the other alchemist-only spells and some of the elixirs have effects not at all matching their base spells. One 2nd level extract and boom! +10 competence bonus to any one skill you have an appropriate elixir of for the next hour!Which elixir is that? I could use a +10 for my crafts.I don't think there's one for Craft, but here's the ones from the Core Rulebook: link
Acrobatics, Perception, Stealth, and Swimming. Given that there's an obvious spell to use as a base for a similar elixir for Craft, and such an obvious base item, most GMs would probably allow it.
What about a potion of Crafter's fortune?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/crafter-s-fortuneDoesn't that add to craft? (only +5 though)
AGAIN, this thread is not to try to convince my DM to let me use it, I am waiting for him to decide and hopefully it doesn't take until the next time we meet but it just might. This is just a general discussion on the powerfulness of the spell...I only want to know if anyone else feels that the spell is too OP or if anyone else has any trouble with the spell.
As with most things your answer is:
It depends.In some situations and at some tables it will not be and at some tables and in some situations it will be.
Dimension door doesn't go through the shadows and it doesn't look like I will get to keep the elixir.
So your next session the elixer will just have what, spirited away? Thats not much of a role playing experience. What I was saying was you guys should decide before the game what happens to it and let it play out as part of the story. Come up with a scenario together where you use the elixer with Alchemical allocation as usual but while in the shadow realm stuff happens and the elixer is taken from you or something. Now you have a new adventure where you have to find a way back... or something along those lines. You get experience, money, and your replacement item in the course of the adventure.
I guess the elixer just disappearing is.. good... also?*edit also the chon chon elixer is obviously the best elixer
|
|
Alchemists don't get very many spells, the best thing out of a small number of things isn't insanely amazing it is only the best thing available.
...
Spells and weapons do not define a class, how the class is played defines the class, or as I put it, how an alchemist is a user of utilities.
...
No, because the other spells available are just meh.
I think you're underestimating the rest of the Alchemist's extracts.
At first level, Shield, Enlarge Person, Reduce Person, and Long Arm are all excellent combat spells. Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self and Jump are solid for out of combat use, and Reduce Person can be a great scouting effect for a small character because becoming Tiny gives you stealth bonuses and lets you fit into small spaces.
Other second level extracts include all the stat enhancers, Barkskin (one of my favourite AC buffs), Resist Energy, and Blistering Invective (a fantastic debuffer in the right hands). You also get Alter Self, Invisibility, and Detect Thoughts for the sneaky stuff.
Hilights of third level include Fly and several polymorph effects.
You also get most of the key healing effects - cure, lesser restoration, remove curse, remove disease, remove blindness/deafness, neutralize poison - making you a competent secondary healer.
Alchemists - and only Alchemists - can use the Infusion Discovery to pass out personal-range effects to allies. Being able to grant Shield to a barbarian will make you very popular. Blistering Invective can be given to the the party member with the best intimidate (in our party, the paladin), and there's some fun to be had passing around polymorph.
Alchemists can also uniquely use effects with longer casting times as a standard action. Examples include Enlarge/Reduce Person and Lesser Restoration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've summed up perfectly why I consider Alchemist to be a perfect pairing for Arcanist/Wizard in gestalt builds. All sorts of awesome combat buffs that you can hand out via Infusion... and you don't have to use a single action during combat! It doesn't eat into your action economy because you hand out the infused extracts long before the fight and let your party members use their actions to activate the buffs while you focus on control spells that guarantee victory. The fact that it's a class granting you all the saves you need, more skill points per level, and the same prime stat is just gravy.
The fact remains, is that the elixir of shadewalking is a 3.5 item and not intended to work with everything in the Pathfinder RPG.
Note that Paizo chose not to update and include the elixir in Ultimate Equipment, which would have been the perfect way to introduce it into the Pathfinder rule set. The fact that they didn't points to the intention that it's not supposed to be.
... ooooooooorrrrr just oversight because they've got a metric ton of things in their backlog and probably don't recall all of them, or prioritize the space for other things, as it could still be considered valid and not in need of update? A single motive is not necessarily the motive, nor necessarily the only motive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mean to sound abrasive, but it's discussions like this that remind me of why I (1) don't allow summoners or their spell list and (2) don't use anything that isn't printed in a Paizo hardcover book without giving it serious thought. These things just seem to cause more problems than the benefit they bring to the table.
That said, I agree that the best thing anyone can do in this situation is sit down their GM and have a nice long discussion about what you FEEL is happening and that makes you FEEL. And yes, use the word FEEL a lot - nobody can argue your feelings. Of equal importance, it's a non-accusatory word that avoids placing blame on another party, thus opening up the situation to a real discussion. It's best to do this outside of the context of a normal gaming session and I also suggest bringing the GM a 6 pack of his favorite beer and splitting it with him.
The value of having an open discussion with your GM cannot be overstated.
I don't think there's one for Craft, but here's the ones from the Core Rulebook: link
Acrobatics, Perception, Stealth, and Swimming. Given that there's an obvious spell to use as a base for a similar elixir for Craft, and such an obvious base item, most GMs would probably allow it.
Oh, yeah I've seen those... /:
What about a potion of Crafter's fortune?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/crafter-s-fortune
Doesn't that add to craft? (only +5 though)
I'm already casting that on myself when I craft.
So your next session the elixer will just have what, spirited away? Thats not much of a role playing experience. What I was saying was you guys should decide before the game what happens to it and let it play out as part of the story. Come up with a scenario together where you use the elixer with Alchemical allocation as usual but while in the shadow realm stuff happens and the elixer is taken from you or something. Now you have a new adventure where you have to find a way back... or something along those lines. You get experience, money, and your replacement item in the course of the adventure.
I guess the elixer just disappearing is.. good... also?
*edit also the chon chon elixer is obviously the best elixer
I will just reabsorb the cash spent on the elixir and spend it on the potion and we will all act as though I only ever had the potion.
I wasn't allowed to use it for most of the last game so it was already like that anyways.I think you're underestimating the rest of the Alchemist's extracts.
At first level, Shield, Enlarge Person, Reduce Person, and Long Arm are all excellent combat spells. Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self and Jump are solid for out of combat use, and Reduce Person can be a great scouting effect for a small character because becoming Tiny gives you stealth bonuses and lets you fit into small spaces.
Other second level extracts include all the stat enhancers, Barkskin (one of my favourite AC buffs), Resist Energy, and Blistering Invective (a fantastic debuffer in the right hands). You also get Alter Self, Invisibility, and Detect Thoughts for the sneaky stuff.
Hilights of third level include Fly and several polymorph effects.
You also get most of the key healing effects - cure, lesser restoration, remove curse, remove disease, remove blindness/deafness, neutralize poison - making you a competent secondary healer.
I use those when the situation calls for them. Seek Thoughts and Detect Thoughts are campaign-ruiners though and I use them a lot.
Alchemists - and only Alchemists - can use the Infusion Discovery to pass out personal-range effects to allies. Being able to grant Shield to a barbarian will make you very popular. Blistering Invective can be given to the the party member with the best intimidate (in our party, the paladin), and there's some fun to be had passing around polymorph.
I pass out so many infusions all the time.
Alchemists can also uniquely use effects with longer casting times as a standard action. Examples include Enlarge/Reduce Person and Lesser Restoration.
Yes, yes they can.
The OP used the tools available to come up with an alternate means of resolving the situation. Congratulations.
The GM has plenty of options.
Adapt, alter, or change the story. Perhaps the reason the party was supposed to return overland was they would encounter the real princess (who escaped on her own only to run afoul of X) on the way back...unfortunately now the party has rescued the succubus who will relish being in a position of power in the kingdom.If the GM thinks this is a mechanics exploit then it's time for a group discussion where he lays down his thoughts on why this isn't working for him and gets feedback from the players if it was more 'fun' using this approach.
He didn't seem to want to.
This thread inspired me to make an alchemist with a potion of Dimension Door and potion of Stoneskin for use at 4th level. I'm expecting good things.
Get a max-leveled druid to cast barkskin on a potion crafted, it is better.
I don't mean to sound abrasive, but it's discussions like this that remind me of why I (1) don't allow summoners or their spell list
How come?
(2) don't use anything that isn't printed in a Paizo hardcover book without giving it serious thought. These things just seem to cause more problems than the benefit they bring to the table.
I didn't realize it wasn't in a book, I got it from the website and didn't think otherwise.
That said, I agree that the best thing anyone can do in this situation is sit down their GM and have a nice long discussion about what you FEEL is happening and that makes you FEEL. And yes, use the word FEEL a lot - nobody can argue your feelings. Of equal importance, it's a non-accusatory word that avoids placing blame on another party, thus opening up the situation to a real discussion. It's best to do this outside of the context of a normal gaming session and I also suggest bringing the GM a 6 pack of his favorite beer and splitting it with him.
The value of having an open discussion with your GM cannot be overstated.
He is hard to get a discussion with.
|
Get a max-leveled druid to cast barkskin on a potion crafted, it is better.
Why not all of the above? It's only 1k gold. >_>
Plus, my specific group is a bad target for it. It's very poorly optimized as a whole, and a +5 to AC is going to take us from Auto-Hit territory to ALMOST auto-hit territory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mean to sound abrasive, but it's discussions like this that remind me of why I (1) don't allow summoners or their spell listHow come?
Due to time constraints, the summoner was rushed to print and needed some additional testing. The designers have admitted this. (Sorry, I'm not going to dig up their quotes at the moment, but they're out there.) As a result, there are a number of things about the summoner that many people consider to be problems - myself included, obviously. The high quantity of early access spells that inadvertently bipass many intended limitations of certain abilities/items based on spell level is only one of many. The possibility for a full spellcaster to poach those already early access spells with certain abilities, making them even earlier access, is another one.
(2) don't use anything that isn't printed in a Paizo hardcover book without giving it serious thought. These things just seem to cause more problems than the benefit they bring to the table.I didn't realize it wasn't in a book, I got it from the website and didn't think otherwise.
This one is a big one for me personally. What some people don't realize/understand is that Paizo has different product lines that include different personnel with different primary focuses. Thus, a new spell published by the adventure path team may have great flavor and can be used to create a great story by a few key monsters without causing any problems. But in the hands of players who are searching for advantages, it can be more problematic. The Blood Money spell, for example. This happens because the focus of the writers for the Rise of the Runelord adventure path weren't thinking about the Pathfinder system wide implications of the spell when they wrote it over 10 years ago (hint, pathfinder didn't exist then!) The Elixer of Shadewalking that you're discussing falls into this exact same category, so I can see how your GM would have a problem with you using it outside of the Curse of the Crimson Throne adventure path.
The value of having an open discussion with your GM cannot be overstated.He is hard to get a discussion with.
If you cannot get an open discussion with your GM about this, then I would honestly suggest gracefully removing yourself from the game. Whether the problem is you, him, or the relationship the two of you have created is irrelevant. If you can't talk like adults, issues will build up and eventually blow up at the table ruining the game for more than just the two of you. My 2 cp.
Due to time constraints, the summoner was rushed to print and needed some additional testing. The designers have admitted this. (Sorry, I'm not going to dig up their quotes at the moment, but they're out there.)
That is what the errata is for?
THREAD UPDATE!
It looks like the DM is going to ban the Alchemical Allocation completely. I am not in favor of this reaction myself but it is hard to find DMs and I hate DMing games myself.
THREAD UPDATE!
It looks like the DM is going to ban the Alchemical Allocation completely. I am not in favor of this reaction myself but it is hard to find DMs and I hate DMing games myself.
The proper response is to have the party chip in to buy a custom staff that can cast Shadow Walk at the cost of 5 charges. That would cost something like 800 * 11 * 6 / 5 = 10,560 gp, which isn't too bad if you split it 4 or 5 ways.
With that nasty Alchemical Allocation out of the way, he should be delighted to let you have other ways of casting Shadow Walk, right?
:-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sort of reaction does not bode well. Is the GM going to ban all save-or-die spells too? Weapons that deal more than 1d6 damage? Over-reacting like this after allowing you to use a non-Pathfinder item (the elixir is from 3.5) is just ridiculous.
Due to time constraints, the summoner was rushed to print and needed some additional testing. The designers have admitted this. (Sorry, I'm not going to dig up their quotes at the moment, but they're out there.)That is what the errata is for?
THREAD UPDATE!
It looks like the DM is going to ban the Alchemical Allocation completely. I am not in favor of this reaction myself but it is hard to find DMs and I hate DMing games myself.
Why not rule that Alchemical Allocation only works once per potion or elixir?
Eh, while I don't like the idea, I can entirely see the GM's response, here. He doesn't want to come up with weird house rules with uncertain results down the line, and, frankly, from his perspective, it's probably just easier to ban it (and the arguments it may or may not cause) then to worry about fiddly half-measures or trying to figure out balance for it on the fly.
I do agree that it's a bit too strong of a reaction... but it's a sane one, and it makes sense from a lot of different perspectives, and is an attempt by the GM to keep the campaign rolling, while moving the game forward. That's what GMs do.
I am sorry for the weakening of your character, though.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seek Thoughts and Detect Thoughts are campaign-ruiners though and I use them a lot.
Are you using them to ruin the campaign?
This is the real issue - not how powerful a given ability is or whether it's capable of ruining the campaign, but whether you are actually using them in a disruptive way. Bonus not-points if you're being willfully disruptive.
Banning Alchemical Allocation entirely seems like an extreme reaction, but I can't help but wonder if it's a result of frustration with how you have approached the game. Your reaction to a possible ban on the Elixir of Shadewalking was "I'll just get a Potion of Dimension Door instead," which completely ignores the fact that your GM's main problem with the Elixir was getting access to a high-level spell at low levels - a problem which would still apply with Dimension Door.
That doesn't strike me as a cooperative stance.
This is not necessarily to say that you're a problem player, or that this is all your fault, but perhaps you should consider whether you have contributed to your GM's desire to just ban things that look problematic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PC: "Hey, can I have this item from a campaign published back in 3.5?"
GM: "Sure, why not? I'm sure it can't possibly prove to be overpowered when combined with any of your spells or abilities."
PC: *uses a spell he's used countless times before to use the item without expending it*
GM: "How dare you do something a 5-year-old could have expected you to do!" *smacks the PC with a giant banhammer*
The GM made a huge mistake in allowing content from 3.5 into the game without considering the potential ramifications. This sort of thing happens all the time when a GM assumes that simply because Pathfinder was designed to be backwards compatible that 3.5 content won't break the game. Consider how a minor little cantrip from 3.5 like cure minor wounds means that you can heal everyone in the party to full between each combat without expending any actual resources. The spell isn't the problem, the elixir is, and the mistake was allowing it to enter the game, not allowing the alchemist to cast one of the most iconic alchemist spells which every guide to playing an alchemist will tell you to use... because it makes the ability to create potions tremendously useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, Mackenzie, the GM's mistake is just that: a mistake. That does not make them a bad GM, ignorant, poorly thought-out, or anything like that.
And you're last line in the hypothetical PC/GM convo is... well, it's quite frankly terrible. No, a 5-year-old could not have expected the PC to do that.
The fact is, the player and the GM simply have different expectations. Different ways of handling things, different ideas about how the game should be played, and different thresholds for what they can (and should) be and have in their game.
The GM made their call. It's not one I like, personally, but it's not a bad call. It's simply a call - and the one that GM can handle right now.
The OP has stated that the GM is hard to get a hold of for conversation.
Consider this: the GM is a busy person, their life has a lot going on, and they are setting up and running a game for their friends to play. Given that scenario, it's unreasonable for any GM to be expected to think out the ramifications of allowing something in, or even of thinking ahead to extrapolate all of their various players' abilities.
I'm not saying the OP was wrong to use what was allowed. I'm not saying the GM banning things was the right decision.
I am saying that the OP using what he did how he did clashes with the GM's style of play, and the GM made a reasonable (if, to my preferences* overly-strong) call to ban what he sees as a potential problem area in the game.
This makes sense. This is exactly what a GM is for.
This is even the advice given in the DMG GMG - own up to a mistake, explain the situation, and remove the offending content when stuff breaks your game too badly. (As a corollary, I would recommend, if possible, the GM toss the PC that lost the ability some kind of bone**...)
Regardless, the ultimate thing is to just accept the ruling and move on. Have a fun game anyway, and work with the GM as much as possible. If you find you can't play the game, inform the table, and - very, very, very respectfully and graciously - bow out, bearing no ill-will toward anyone there.
For the original question, I wouldn't consider it an abuse. I don't even consider it broken. I can still understand why a busy GM might not be able to handle everything, though.
* But my preferences don't amount to a hill of beans at their table.
** As a further corollary, Weirdo's post sums up the entirety of my... "iffyness" on this whole thing. Whether or not the player is intentionally being disruptive, they are being disruptive to the game. The GM obviously - for whatever reason - can't handle or doesn't think they can handle the use of those effects together in that way. Thus, they'd have to be exceedingly careful about permitting the PC in question anything new in exchange. This can lead to the PC feeling shortchanged and trying to eke out greater advantages, which causes the GM to feel justifiably overwhelmed... and so on. It's a vicious cycle.