FinalHavenLarp.com

i see the flexibility coming from its one of the few paths/discipline that you pick what you get from then on

see...here is the issue with that...its the antisithis of the definition of flexability/adaptability...

I like the new system more than the old.

Flexibility and adaptability is what we wanted to end specifically, because no other skills in the game are either of those things running unchecked and that is unfair.

I think we've conflated different concepts here, and that's why we've got different mindsets.

Brian is trying to free up what he sees as an overly restrictive Magic/Alchemy system.

Because Magic and Alchemy were SO open and powerful previously, they were "fixed" by planting them inside the Wizard path and subsequent Arcane/Alchemist discipline.

Due to this previous fix, the only solution to the nonsensical (and artificial) limitation on spell and recipe knowledge is the unbalancing and counter-intuitive "path flexibility" being proposed here and elsewhere.

Perhaps Travis's take on my previous suggestion is a feasible option. Open up Alchemical and Arcane abilities to everyone and allow anyone with the proper components and spell/recipe to cast or brew a limited catalog of potions. In turn, have Wizard and Arcane/Alchemist grant access to higher level potions and abilities. Perhaps in addition to Path/Discipline exclusive recipes, those who advance to a certain point in Wizard or Arcane would get to waive/substitute certain components, thus allowing them to make better use of the general Alchemy catalog as well.

unbalancing and counter-intuitive "path flexibility" being proposed here and elsewhere.

I am not sure I follow what this is referrencing, is this meant to imply that my suggestion is unbalancing and counter intuative?

As for what might work, or what I suggest be done; I think there would be no harm and actual benefit from giving a wizard/arcane/alchemist access to twice the choices they currently have, but still limit them to what they can currently produce.

An arcanist/"alchemist" gets 2 basic, 1 advanced, and 1 master OR 3 basic and 2 advance choices. I say let them "know" double that but make them select from taht list, the 4 or 5 spells they come into game with now, at check in. Sort of like they are chosing what traveling spell book to bring with them.
If he/she is a full wizard path as well, that means 6 basic, 5 advanced and 5 master or 7 basic, 6 advanced and 4 master. So the most they can "understand" is 34 different spells recepies, but they must chose 16 or 17 (depending on how they picked skills) to carry into game at check in.
Now if they need one they do not have they still need to ask for help, but can tailor thier arsenal to what they YHINK they will face, more like the archetypes they are based off of

As for what might work, or what I suggest be done; I think there would be no harm and actual benefit from giving a wizard/arcane/alchemist access to twice the choices they currently have, but still limit them to what they can currently produce.


I could get behind a play test of this.

If Wizards/Alchemists sucked than nobody would be playing them right now.

There are plenty of potions going onto the field now...Just as many as there were before.

You no longer have to be rich and spend mystic to get the good potions.

I feel as though the Wizard Path is good but the Arcane discipline should be split into Arcane and Alchemist...Alchemist would give you the ability you to choose the potions you would like to brew that event. This represents their more specialized nature.

Lvl 1 - You may spend 5 Minutes to create any basic potion. This can be done twice per event.

Lvl 2 - Labs cost half of mystic components for you to create. Only the labs you start with at game on can be purchased at game on receive the discount.

Lvl 3 - You may spend 10 Minutes to create any advanced potion. This can be done once per event.

Lvl 4 - You may spend 10 Minutes to create any master potion. This can be done once per event.

An alternate to this if people feel it is too powerful eliminate the discount for labs and make it so they receive their chosen potion at game on.

Lvl 1 - The alchemist may choose any basic potion at game on. They receive two of that potion. If it is a cure potion they receive four.

Lvl 2 - The alchemist may choose any basic potion at game on. They receive two of that potion. If it is a cure potion they receive four.

Lvl 3 - The alchemist may choose any advanced potion at game on. They receive one of that potion. If it is a cure potion they receive two.

Lvl 4 - The alchemist may choose any master potion at game on. They receive one of that potion. If it is a cure potion they receive two.

If Wizards/Alchemists sucked than nobody would be playing them right now.

This untruth has been discussed and argued elsewhere. A true role player will pick it for his PC if its the correc t choice no matter how "bad ass" or how "l33t" it is or if it "p0wns" or whateber the concoul/puter gamers call min maxed PCs these days.

There are plenty of potions going onto the field now...Just as many as there were before.

I am curious how you know its just as many and not more or less.

You no longer have to be rich and spend mystic to get the good potions

.

I think you should have to use at least a magical comonent or three for a potion depending on strength. Its a way to add some control to them getting outta hand, yet still allow the staff to release potent effects.

I feel as though the Wizard Path is good but the Arcane discipline should be split into Arcane and Alchemist...

My reflex was to agree, but after some thought, I realised some players may have a concept where thier PC is a hybrid, as in it has afew basic potions and a few basic spells and then a blending of the advanced and master level options as well.
With that in mind, maybe this would work:
Change the arcanist name to shaman or something similar, and if they take all potions they call themselves an alchemist, if its all spells they call themselves an arcanist. I would even go so far as to say it would not be a terrible idea to have an arcanist discipline, an alchemist, and a shaman that is able to blend the two as arcanist is now.; then let the player decide whats right for the PC build based on concept.
the only issue i see if a PC that busy arcanist/alchemist tolevel 4 and then shaman and takes a few levels there so has more than 16 or 17 choices, but the most that will add is 4 more basic spells/potion options I think.

Alchemist would give you the ability you to choose the potions you would like to brew that event. This represents their more specialized nature.

Obviously I am behind this.

Lvl 1 - You may spend 5 Minutes to create any basic potion. This can be done twice per event.

Lvl 2 - Labs cost half of mystic components for you to create. Only the labs you start with at game on can be purchased at game on receive the discount.

Lvl 3 - You may spend 10 Minutes to create any advanced potion. This can be done once per event.

Lvl 4 - You may spend 10 Minutes to create any master potion. This can be done once per event.

An alternate to this if people feel it is too powerful eliminate the discount for labs and make it so they receive their chosen potion at game on.

The lab discount just makes all labs half cost since its highly unlikely any non alchemist would make one.

and how is this too powerful when it cust the potions an alchemist can make an event form 6 or 7 down to 4?

Lvl 1 - The alchemist may choose any basic potion at game on. They receive two of that potion. If it is a cure potion they receive four.

Lvl 2 - The alchemist may choose any basic potion at game on. They receive two of that potion. If it is a cure potion they receive four.

Lvl 3 - The alchemist may choose any advanced potion at game on. They receive one of that potion. If it is a cure potion they receive two.

Lvl 4 - The alchemist may choose any master potion at game on. They receive one of that potion. If it is a cure potion they receive two.

I dont see the advantage since your limiting the players choices to 4 recepies, eliminating thier current option to NOT take a master on and get more lower level ones instead.
I also dislike giving them extra if they are heal potions, I dont think single out a certain type of potion is wise, especialy heals as it makes the game less risky/lethal/dangerous for the PCS and that makes the foes less challenging and takes away from the feel of reality and impending doom and such.

Wyrmwrath wrote:

unbalancing and counter-intuitive "path flexibility" being proposed here and elsewhere.

I am not sure I follow what this is referrencing, is this meant to imply that my suggestion is unbalancing and counter intuative?

Yes, but not just because you want more flexibility in alchemy. What is unbalancing and counter-intuitive is to allow people to re-select their path skills every event. Path skills have always been set abilities. When we made alchemical and arcane skills part of a Path, it locked them into the established norms for Path skills. Ergo, your suggestion violates the established rules for Paths (counter-intuitive) and allows one Path a degree of situational flexibility not enjoyed by the other Paths (unbalanced).

I don't have a problem with having more flexibility in alchemy and arcane, but so long as they are tied to specific skills we'll keep running into this problem. Either they'll be limited and specific skills to line up with every other skill in game (losing flexibility) or they'll be customizable (losing balance). The GM's have come down on the side of balance thus far, so I think the only way to put flexibility back in is to remove alchemy / arcane from the Path/Discipline paradigm.

The argument was that during the event the alchemist might not have the potion he/she needed. I am confused how switching stuff out before you even know your going to need it helps.

What is unbalancing and counter-intuitive is to allow people to re-select their path skills every event.

The PCs skills dont change, just what potions/spells they will have access to over the event. They will still have the wizard path and/or the arcanist/alchemical discipline. Its no different than a warrior that can change fighting styles during an event to taiolor his effectiveness to the needs of the specifics of the foes and situation he faces.

your suggestion violates the established rules for Paths

I doubt there are any "rules" for path skills, since the wizard skills are very different than the skills form the other original paths. My entire point is that the spells and potions should NOT have been "locked in".

and allows one Path a degree of situational flexibility not enjoyed by the other Paths (unbalanced).

Giving them flexability doesnt automaticly make it unbalanced, thats unfounded logic, especialy since there is no way to measure balance in a set of LARP skills that isnt alagorical. You have to also keep in mind, REAL balance in LARP skill sets is more about the staff not letting things get outta hand. Without the GMs patroling and policing, no skill sets will EVER be truely balanced. Trying to do so is just futile.

Either they'll be limited and specific skills to line up with every other skill in game (losing flexibility) or they'll be customizable (losing balance).

To state that flexability = unbalancing is to say Mimic needs to be removed, since thats EXACTLY what that skill is...flexability. How its balanced is by making it give no ability stronger than a basic skill.
As long as the spells and potions effects are made to give no huge effect/advantage that isnt tied to a drawback significant enough to ensure the potion/spell isnt THE best answer in most situations, there is no risk of things getting unbalanced. This is even more true if the rare/uncommon components are added back in so the players have to piece ingredients together.

The GM's have come down on the side of balance thus far, so I think the only way to put flexibility back in is to remove alchemy / arcane from the Path/Discipline paradigm

soooo...to add flexability your thinking we need to remove the skill sets that need said flexability?!?!
Thats make NO sense. "hey guys lets restore this skills flexability, fun factor, and usefulness by removing it form the game." Cmon Big T...

Ultimately I think the wizard path was a mistake anyhow. It was created as a solution to an issue that should have just been handled by better PLOT team control over what was released.

The argument was that during the event the alchemist might not have the potion he/she needed. I am confused how switching stuff out before you even know your going to need it helps.

My original argumet was that the current incarnation of arcane and alchemy, which are all about flexability archtypically, were stripped of what made them effective, fun, and true to their concept.

Even the old version could have NOT had the recepie they needed. I think your confusing the discussion of what changes might get some of thet back, with what the original gripe was.

The wizard and alchemist was changed primarily to remove the flexibility they had over other paths.

Just to be fair, I really dont mind if you want to continue arguing, but just so you know I really am not reading it, nor is it convincing me, nor will it convince me and I have veto power over rules which is where I am at for the moment.

whooooooot

I could get behind Taki's suggestion.


Spells and potions for everyone, cook book effects of limited use

and then let the wizard/alch do better, or increase them some how.


(debating to debate. I have no vote.)

Wyrmwrath wrote:

What is unbalancing and counter-intuitive is to allow people to re-select their path skills every event.

The PCs skills dont change, just what potions/spells they will have access to over the event. They will still have the wizard path and/or the arcanist/alchemical discipline. Its no different than a warrior that can change fighting styles during an event to taiolor his effectiveness to the needs of the specifics of the foes and situation he faces.

Incorrect. As written, the ability to produce a specific potion is a Skill. The ability to produce a different potion would then be a different skill, no different than a Rogue being able to swap out their trap-related skills for critical strikes depending on their expectations for the event. A warrior who has chosen defensive skills cannot shift his or her choices to more offensive, and therefore has to use the set of skills they have in reaction to a given situation. Alchemists and Arcanes have the same choices and must also change their strategies in-game and without changing their skill set.

your suggestion violates the established rules for Paths

I doubt there are any "rules" for path skills, since the wizard skills are very different than the skills form the other original paths. My entire point is that the spells and potions should NOT have been "locked in".

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.

and allows one Path a degree of situational flexibility not enjoyed by the other Paths (unbalanced).

Giving them flexability doesnt automaticly make it unbalanced, thats unfounded logic, especialy since there is no way to measure balance in a set of LARP skills that isnt alagorical. You have to also keep in mind, REAL balance in LARP skill sets is more about the staff not letting things get outta hand. Without the GMs patroling and policing, no skill sets will EVER be truely balanced. Trying to do so is just futile.

Incorrect again. The only way the addition of flexibility would not unbalance the existing skills is if they were established with flexibility in mind. 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.

Either they'll be limited and specific skills to line up with every other skill in game (losing flexibility) or they'll be customizable (losing balance).

To state that flexability = unbalancing is to say Mimic needs to be removed, since thats EXACTLY what that skill is...flexability. How its balanced is by making it give no ability stronger than a basic skill.
As long as the spells and potions effects are made to give no huge effect/advantage that isnt tied to a drawback significant enough to ensure the potion/spell isnt THE best answer in most situations, there is no risk of things getting unbalanced. This is even more true if the rare/uncommon components are added back in so the players have to piece ingredients together.

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. What you are advocating is a return to a scenario that people already deemed unbalanced.

I will say this, however – the inclusion of required components would be an additional balancing factor that could help offset additional flexibility.

The GM's have come down on the side of balance thus far, so I think the only way to put flexibility back in is to remove alchemy / arcane from the Path/Discipline paradigm

soooo...to add flexability your thinking we need to remove the skill sets that need said flexability?!?!
Thats make NO sense. "hey guys lets restore this skills flexability, fun factor, and usefulness by removing it form the game." Cmon Big T...

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. 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). 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”.

I think Alchemy and Potions could be moved into the Craftsman's bailiwick and just be treated as Exotic Items.