Thats the entire point of the rules change suggestion, to change how its currently written to something closer to its previous form.As written, the ability to produce a specific potion is a Skill.
It would still be a potion/spell.The ability to produce a different potion would then be a different skill
Well that would be a good alalogy if I was suggesting swapping out a spell, for a potion, there by changing the nature of the skill. I am NOT suggesting that.no different than a Rogue being able to swap out their trap-related skills for critical strikes depending on their expectations for the event.
Alchemists and Arcanes have the same choices and must also change their strategies in-game and without changing their skill set.
Thats the issue, that static structure is the antithisis of what the concept of mage/arcanist/wizard/alchemist is all about. Especially when you keep in mind that the majority of effects they produce are inferior to the rest of the skills of the same basic, advanced or master level.
There is a SMALL advantage that potions can be "warehoused" but they are also one shot as opposed to the other skills that are re usable over and over and over during the event. Spells are reusable, but also generally have hefty casting/charge times and reloads, cool downs and restrictions which makes them sub standard compared to thier counterparts as well. That is why I am MUCH more concerned about alchemy than spells, but feel they both were severly hamstrung.
Thats my point, locking them in was a mistake, and made them a pale sad image of what they should be.Yes, but my entire point is that they HAVE been locked in and are subject to the expectations and comparisons with other paths. That’s why the flexibility you’re describing is such an issue.
Incorrect again. The only way the addition of flexibility would not unbalance the existing skills is if they were established with flexibility in mind.
They WERE establish with flexability in mind, and then horrible hobbled as an overreaction to how out of hand they got because they werent monitered properly.
The problem with your views is that your only taking the CURRENT form into account, an not the concepts they were based on and thier original form. Your not looking at the " big picture".
The current set was found to be out of balance as a free spell/recipe system and was then balanced by transforming it into a limited skill system. By that (clearly founded) logic allowing only one path event-by-event skill selection would be unbalancing.
Its not clearly founded at all, since it wasnt the free system, it was the ability to research the recepies/spells between events without a consistant "board", to examine the impact of the requests. The effects in that system were too potent also. Insufficient management with potent effects was a bad combo.
Things slipped through the cracks and THATS where the issues came up.
It doesnt make any difference how it was designed. Your very words ar:Wrong. Mimic was designed and limited so that its flexibility did not create imbalance. The same can be said for Level 4 Druid. In both cases, single skills were given limited flexibility as a part of their design. Mimic is a Master skill that allows flexible access to any Basic path or discipline skill. Level 4 Druid grants access to abilities generally found at Level 3 in other paths. In both cases the sacrifice of comparative power is what balances the flexibility.
meaning flexability means imbalence. Then your contradict yourself by stating the Mimic and druid skills are balanced, even with thier flexability, because of how they are designed. It cant be both.or they'll be customizable (losing balance).
Actualy this just supportes my point that alchemy could be given more flexability. Mimic and the druid skill are precedent setters. The effects currently built are already balanced, so letting one be swapped for another CANT unbalance anything. The effects currently available are just that, low powered compared to other non spells/potion skills of the same level.
I am TOTALY and ABSOLUTELY not saying lets do it like it originally was. I think there should be a very large but finite list of spells and potions. The players should be able to gather them and chose form thier "library" what to take into the events at check in. This means no crazy ass spells/potions one GM approved that another didnt even see like was originally happening, and all will be inspected fro thier potency. I ALSO think there should be strictures to limit the the sharing of the spells and recipies, in a manner similar to D&D where the spoells had to be written with very very costly ink, as opposed to just havning ANY Pc be able to copy them with any handy quill...What you are advocating is a return to a scenario that people already deemed unbalanced.
They recepies/spells should be things the owners horde like misers. Why they tend not to I cant fathom. Maybe if, to get a spell you had to have costly supplies to copy them, and needed to watch a brewing of a potion to take your own notes (which means using the hard to find components just to let someone else also make that potion effect), there would be less of a philanthropic paradig, with respect to spells/potions.
.I will say this, however – the inclusion of required components would be an additional balancing factor that could help offset additional flexibility
I think adding any additional flexability WITHOUT a component system is a bad idea. I also think the rare ingredients option adds a cool RP aspect as well AND adds to the in game economy as now scouts might be able to find the herbs and such and sell or trade them and so forth.
Oh I read it.It doesn’t make sense because you’re not reading what I wrote, Big B. I did not propose removing Arcane / Alchemy from the game.
Your words exactly. My point was that removing them, in order to change them and add the flexability just didnt make sense.so I think the only way to put flexibility back in is to remove alchemy / arcane from the Path/Discipline paradigm.
After all this discussion about balance, I am just speachless that this would even be suggested as a way to balance things. I can ONLY assume your making the incorrect assumption when I say balance, I mean the "everybody can do the same or similar stuff" kind of balance so many FH discussion seem to include. Its not, since thaet type of balance is just fall out form our "everything should be fair" societal mindset, which has no place in a game/hobby that is trying to simulate a world where mages and dragns and magic exist.I proposed making spells and recipes usable by anyone who had the required components and the necessary spell or recipe (which would be a tagged item).
While in a role playing game each player should have the oppertunity to shine and show off so to speak, the different roles/archtypes should be as different as needed to be to do what they are meant to do. Warrior types should be be able to use most weapons and armor and take heavy damage while still fighting and do notable damage over long drawn out fights and have a few trickls like disarm, shield bashes that stunn and press back, and such. Mages whould have the skills and powers to cover weaknesses and battle the foes a fighter faces that his steel cant affect or harm effectivle. They are high output, short stamina combatants and should be reliant on items in a similar manner that a warrior needs armor and weapons. comparativly these tow are not even close to identical in skill sets but equal in effectiveness in the role they fill.
The balance I have been talking about is combat potency, since thats the factor that in a LARP skill set that needs balance. An alchemist SHOULD be the equal of a fighter, a wizaed SHOULD get his rope wearing hiney thumped by the healer types, because where they shine isnt direct conflict, its support and special weapons and tactics areas. THATS the balance that needs to be kept. Having the same number of skills is just a way to keep the players that are console gamers instead of role players from griping about "he has more than me..." because they havent yet gotten what the term role playing means.
To move to such a system would add the flexibility you’re looking for, allow the GM’s to control capacity by controlling both components and spells/recipes, and effectively “remove alchemy / arcane from the Path/Discipline paradigm”.
Thing is they dont need to remove it from the "paradigm" to get and keep that control through those methods. There are better ways.
damn I can be long winded...
ok no one reply till after 6 tonight... I have to get work done and I will totaly be distracted if your reply!