| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Such a weird design choice. Were they really that scared of alchemists and investigators with chef dedication?
Such a weird design choice. Were they really that scared of alchemists and investigators with chef dedication?
Since this is a general rule that applies broadly and dates from premaster, I doubt they were scared about this case. Though back then if you let Munitions Machinist stack with Alchemist Dedication (and the feats to boost the advanced alchemy level), you would get an absolute truckload of expensive ammo.
But it does serve as an effective constraint on how many vials you can have, because otherwise Chef archetype is going to be extremely strong for Alchemists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also not like the remaster version of the rule is specifically about Wandering Chef. There are a couple of vial-using archetypes in PC2 with the remastered alchemist and this rule, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though back then if you let Munitions Machinist stack with Alchemist Dedication (and the feats to boost the advanced alchemy level), you would get an absolute truckload of expensive ammo.
Who said anything about stacking? They're separate abilities, treat them separately.
It's weird and unnecessary to have a clause that basically just removes part of the archetype if you're an alchemist.
This is not new for other archetypes either, Martial artist is basically a waste for Monks but it still exists to let characters characters without the prerequisites for monk archetype use the stances. Same with two weapon fighter and some of the other martial ones.
There's a fundamental difference, imo, between a feat not providing much benefit to a class because of the features available to both, and hand writing in a sidebar specifically to make a certain archetype give less benefits to a specific class.
Its only Spellcasters archetypes that add more slots but those are still lower level slots and require several feats per archetype.
Do you think the game would be better if characters with innate spellcasting were barred from picking up extra slots with spellcasting archetypes by a special new rule? That's essentially what's being done here.
It's just a really bad design choice that benefits the game in no particular way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though back then if you let Munitions Machinist stack with Alchemist Dedication (and the feats to boost the advanced alchemy level), you would get an absolute truckload of expensive ammo.Who said anything about stacking? They're separate abilities, treat them separately.
It's weird and unnecessary to have a clause that basically just removes part of the archetype if you're an alchemist.
They're not separate abilities: they're both Advanced Alchemy. Likewise with whats going on now.
There's a fundamental difference, imo, between a feat not providing much benefit to a class because of the features available to both, and hand writing in a sidebar specifically to make a certain archetype give less benefits to a specific class.
Not really: they're both a feat not providing much benefit to a class. Feats that give proficiencies and such also don't work for classes that already get those.
Some things just don't pair well with each other and this is one of those cases.
Do you think the game would be better if characters with innate spellcasting were barred from picking up extra slots with spellcasting archetypes by a special new rule? That's essentially what's being done here.
No, this would be more like if spellcasters could stack focus spells from other archetypes to have a focus pool of 10. And that is explicitly not allowed.
It's just a really bad design choice that benefits the game in no particular way.
It's meant to limit how many versatile vials you can have at once and to make it so stacking archetypes that add more isn't just the straight up best character. That's a good thing for the game.