FinalHavenLarp.com

As written, the ability to produce a specific potion is a Skill.

Thats the entire point of the rules change suggestion, to change how its currently written to something closer to its previous form.

The ability to produce a different potion would then be a different skill

It would still be a potion/spell.

no different than a Rogue being able to swap out their trap-related skills for critical strikes depending on their expectations for the event.

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.

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.

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.

Thats my point, locking them in was a mistake, and made them a pale sad image of what they should be.

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.

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.

It doesnt make any difference how it was designed. Your very words ar:

or they'll be customizable (losing balance).

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.
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.

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

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...
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.

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.

Oh I read it.

so I think the only way to put flexibility back in is to remove alchemy / arcane from the Path/Discipline paradigm.

Your words exactly. My point was that removing them, in order to change them and add the flexability just didnt make sense.

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).

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.
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!

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.

Really? In this system, all PCs and NPCs are built upon mechanics. Because of this, all mechanics need to be balanced so no one person has the one up on any other person. If you're talking about PVP, sure. Anyone can build a character specifically to kill another character. It's a walk in the park to do for anyone who doesn't want to be branded a cheesy player. The bottom line is that multiple people pay to play this game and have fun, and in order for that to happen there has to be balance.

In the current system, Wizards have access to without a doubt the most potent skills in the game. There is no class that can out-damage a Wizard with combat spells in a single strike, period. Alchemy is less potent combat-wise, but in the supportive class is excellent, with it's only rivals being Healers and Sages.

After reading this whole thread, it sounds to me like you're after a path that allows a single PC to brew an unknown number of potions of finite (but undetermined) different types in a single event, and this just based on a single persons concept of 'role-play'.

I will agree that the rule change made wizards/alchemists less potent than they were before, but that's because the spells and potions that existed were stupid overpowered but only a handful of people had access to them. There are a few things that I'm not too fond of in the new ruleset, but to give them back the ability to do everything in the game? It's a disaster waiting to happen.

MUST...RESEST........RESPIONDING....AT..........WORK...

oh never mind....

Really? In this system, all PCs and NPCs are built upon mechanics.

Actually MOST of the NPCs ARENT built on mechanics, let alone the PC building mechanics. They are just "swing 2, 30 soak, charge 5 seconds to throw fear"

Because of this, all mechanics need to be balanced so no one person has the one up on any other person.

As stated before , that balance doesnt have to be "everone has the same number of skills" balance since the individual skills tend to have balance and drawbcks built in. I agree there needs to be no huge disparities, but symetry isnt required to ensure there is no overshadowing.
If your statement were true, then a warrior knight would have the same probability to take out a warrior alchemist/wizard. In truth the warrior alchemist/wizard will get stomped 7 times outta 10...UNLESS the wizard has time to prep and distance for the knight to cross before he is engagued.....then the odd flip. THATS the balance I am talking about a game needing.

The bottom line is that multiple people pay to play this game and have fun, and in order for that to happen there has to be balance.

while I agree that some equity is needed so that one of the paths/archtypes cant run rampant with little fear of being challanged by the others, I have stated before that the fun is in the role playing (hence the name) and if your playing for any other reason a LARP may not be the right venue. If you cant enjoy the ENTIRE journey your PC takes, including the times he isnt the badd ass victor or when they die or are just defeated or fail, then your not playing to role play.

In the current system, Wizards have access to without a doubt the most potent skills in the game.

Potent yes...MOST potent, not. Hell just the resist magic skill renders them mostly impotent.

There is no class that can out-damage a Wizard with combat spells in a single strike, period.

I cant agree or disagree as I havent sat down to number crunch, but that is how it SHOULd be.

Alchemy is less potent combat-wise, but in the supportive class is excellent, with it's only rivals being Healers and Sages.

I agree with the first part, since there are 2 support paths other than wizard and a half dozen support disciplines (not counting hidden ones) I cant agree with the second half of that. Especialy in thier current form. Both healer and sage blow away any wizard combo. As for arcanist/alchemist, you can make a coin generating PC that just buys what he would make/use as a wizard/alchemist AND has the flexability to chose magic items,troops, crafted items, etc. It still falls short.

After reading this whole thread, it sounds to me like you're after a path that allows a single PC to brew an unknown number of potions of finite (but undetermined) different types in a single event, and this just based on a single persons concept of 'role-play'.

Not sure where you read that at, but what I am seeking is flexability added back to two disciplines that had them, but were then crippled because the rules gods chose that fix for them because they hadnt the time/energy/support to chose the correct fix; in order to make the disciplines more playable by the SEVER OTHER players that play them, since I will likely never play them. I am not seeking anything in this for personal gain to one of MY PCs. I just was reading over the rules after gettng up to speed from my sabatical, and after talking to several players about the changes, and felt the suggestion needed to be made to change something that needed to be fixed.

I will agree that the rule change made wizards/alchemists less potent than they were before, but that's because the spells and potions that existed were stupid overpowered but only a handful of people had access to them.

I agree the spells and potions were often brioken and unbalanced. I said so back then. However only a handful of PCs SHOULD have them, since only a handful were playing those "classes", the effects were just broken.

There are a few things that I'm not too fond of in the new ruleset, but to give them back the ability to do everything in the game? It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Why do you guys keep saying I want it back the way it originally was...I dont. The system was outta hand, it just wasnt because of the variety they had like everyone seems to be hive minding it. It was because of the execution of the open research that was allowed, and the absence of any control on production of potent effects with in game factors like rarety of ingredients.
whaty I am seeking ...is simply....more flexability in the OPTIONS the skill sets can chose form, and not even access to the total list. Just something that would allow them to gather 50% more to double the choices they have at check in, so they get a bit back to the archtype they were born form. Not an increase in the number they can MAKE.

Actually MOST of the NPCs ARENT built on mechanics, let alone the PC building mechanics. They are just "swing 2, 30 soak, charge 5 seconds to throw fear"

All of those are mechanics

As stated before , that balance doesnt have to be "everone has the same number of skills" balance since the individual skills tend to have balance and drawbcks built in. I agree there needs to be no huge disparities, but symetry isnt required to ensure there is no overshadowing.
If your statement were true, then a warrior knight would have the same probability to take out a warrior alchemist/wizard. In truth the warrior alchemist/wizard will get stomped 7 times outta 10...UNLESS the wizard has time to prep and distance for the knight to cross before he is engagued.....then the odd flip. THATS the balance I am talking about a game needing.

I agree with the concept, but if the alchemist has access to say, 16 potions at each level, those abilities damn sure better be equal in power to 1/4 of any other ability or so situational that it might only be used once an event, otherwise it's overpowered and need to be nixed.

while I agree that some equity is needed so that one of the paths/archtypes cant run rampant with little fear of being challanged by the others, I have stated before that the fun is in the role playing (hence the name) and if your playing for any other reason a LARP may not be the right venue. If you cant enjoy the ENTIRE journey your PC takes, including the times he isnt the badd ass victor or when they die or are just defeated or fail, then your not playing to role play.

I'm sorry, I wasn't as clear as I thought. All PCs should be balanced, with exception given towards levels and the like. NPCs can be as B.A. as they want, so long as the game is still fun.

Potent yes...MOST potent, not. Hell just the resist magic skill renders them mostly impotent.

Resist Magic is a 4th level discipline ability, available to only 3 disciplines (Tribal Protector, Elf, Witch Hunter). Also, Resist Magic only works against one wizard spell (Displace Time).

I agree with the first part, since there are 2 support paths other than wizard and a half dozen support disciplines (not counting hidden ones) I cant agree with the second half of that. Especialy in thier current form. Both healer and sage blow away any wizard combo. As for arcanist/alchemist, you can make a coin generating PC that just buys what he would make/use as a wizard/alchemist AND has the flexability to chose magic items,troops, crafted items, etc. It still falls short.

Where wizards/alchemists (even currently) blow sages and healers away is the fact that they have the capacity to heal, cure poison, and cure disease instantly, as well as reduce chip draws, regrow lost limbs, turn statues back into people (and vice versa), as well as alchemical enhancements such as Power of the Vampire, Strength of the Body, Strength of the Mind, and Strength of the Defender (in my opinion, SotD is the best potion in game). I will grant you that the can only do it so many times before they run out, but there's the trade off.

I agree the spells and potions were often brioken and unbalanced. I said so back then. However only a handful of PCs SHOULD have them, since only a handful were playing those "classes", the effects were just broken.

Exactly, because anything otherwise would be unbalanced.

whaty I am seeking ...is simply....more flexability in the OPTIONS the skill sets can chose form, and not even access to the total list. Just something that would allow them to gather 50% more to double the choices they have at check in, so they get a bit back to the archtype they were born form. Not an increase in the number they can MAKE.

I can see this working if Labs became a requirement (you need a Basic Lab for Basic potions, Advanced Lab for Advanced Potions, and Master Lab for Master Potions), as well as either doubling the time needed to brew them across the board, (making the brew times 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes respectively) or requiring the alchemist to be present for the duration of the brew time.

i've played as a wizard for over ten events, the only skills i use is as a alchemists. i do not have any problem with the way things work as is. i've played as an arcanist as well using wizard spells, once again there isn't anything wrong with the spells i use. i dont understand why it is necessary to be considering changing the system. I have played for about four years and have seen the rules change three times. things are fine as they are, why do we keep wanting to change it. its a good system, thats why we play at this larp. so lets leave it alone and just play the game.

At the risk of writing stuff that probably won't be read, I have to wonder why my idea is so unattractive/overpowered an option.

-Labs would stay the same as they are now, in form and function.

-Number of potions brewed with each level of skill, both in-game and between events, would remain the same.

But the choices upon buying the skill levels would be like this:

Wizard path:

Upon buying each level of this path (Basic, Advanced, Master) you receive four "spell effect" slots. Each slot must be listed as whether it produces a "Potion" or "Spell" result. At Check-in, the player must state which potions or spells they are attaching to each "Spell Effect" slot for the current event. Potions or spells can only be chosen for slots of an applicable level, as with the current system. A character may NOT list the same spell or potion twice, and once stated, the effect may not be changed to the alternative unless unlearned and re-bought..

*Wizards may pick from either the list in the main rulebook, or the expansion*

So, Basic Spell effect slot: basic potion (or) basic spell.

Arcanist Discipline:

Level 1: 1 Basic spell effect
Level 2: 1 Basic spell effect
Level 3: 1 Advanced spell effect
Level 4: 1 Master (or) 1 Advanced and 1 Basic spell effect

Each level must be stated whether it is a Potion or Spell upon buying that level. It may not be changed to the alternate effect afterwards, unless unlearned and then re-bought. Arcanists may ONLY list spell effects from the main rulebook.

It gives variation without letting the character have any more skills, number-wise, than any other character of the same level. It just keeps the build from getting stale, similar to how a craftsman doesn't have to have an "x" skill level that only limits them to "create swords", because that would be boring. (Although realistic, as being a great armorer doesn't automatically mean you can make suitable swords.)

Some events, they could instead create shields for variety. But at the same time they don't know if they are going to have anyone who needs those shields, so it may be a wasted choice at the cost of variation, where the "same old thing" might have served them better.

On the flipside, a "mage" could choose a Master Path skill (or 4th level discipline skill) to be "Counterspell" this event, and then find out that no effect is ever called that can be counter-spelled this weekend (it's happened). So this system would have it's own downsides to balance out flexibility.

I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.

i've played as a wizard for over ten events, the only skills i use is as a alchemists. i do not have any problem with the way things work as is. i've played as an arcanist as well using wizard spells, once again there isn't anything wrong with the spells i use. i dont understand why it is necessary to be considering changing the system. I have played for about four years and have seen the rules change three times. things are fine as they are, why do we keep wanting to change it. its a good system, thats why we play at this larp. so lets leave it alone and just play the game.

never said it was a bad system, just could be much better. Also, there are those that are going to like it, and those that dont. I am just a vocal one of the ones that dont.

if you read Chris post, he said he had no intention to change it.

Garritt Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:22 pm Post subject:
At the risk of writing stuff that probably won't be read, I have to wonder why my idea is so unattractive/overpowered an option.

-Labs would stay the same as they are now, in form and function.

-Number of potions brewed with each level of skill, both in-game and between events, would remain the same.

But the choices upon buying the skill levels would be like this:

Wizard path:

Upon buying each level of this path (Basic, Advanced, Master) you receive four "spell effect" slots. Each slot must be listed as whether it produces a "Potion" or "Spell" result. At Check-in, the player must state which potions or spells they are attaching to each "Spell Effect" slot for the current event. Potions or spells can only be chosen for slots of an applicable level, as with the current system. A character may NOT list the same spell or potion twice, and once stated, the effect may not be changed to the alternative unless unlearned and re-bought..

*Wizards may pick from either the list in the main rulebook, or the expansion*

So, Basic Spell effect slot: basic potion (or) basic spell.

Arcanist Discipline:

Level 1: 1 Basic spell effect
Level 2: 1 Basic spell effect
Level 3: 1 Advanced spell effect
Level 4: 1 Master (or) 1 Advanced and 1 Basic spell effect

Each level must be stated whether it is a Potion or Spell upon buying that level. It may not be changed to the alternate effect afterwards, unless unlearned and then re-bought.

ppsssssst...uhm...thats what I have been proposing all along. Slots must be chosen as spell or potion for wizard, PC can gather different spells/recepies, and the player choses what spell/potion goes into the slots at check in.

Just sayin...

Arcanists may ONLY list spell effects from the main rulebook.

why?

Lemmy Litgher Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:45 pm Post subject:
I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.

I know ...we should just set up a clamation death match ...me against...everyone else....

oh i wasn't attacking you brian, just wanted to put my hat in the ring. just a different view of things is all.

oh i wasn't attacking you brian, just wanted to put my hat in the ring. just a different view of things is all.

Oh I didnt feel the least bit attacked. You responded and I was just commenting on what you said.

I have a very thick skin for criticism so I am totaly ok with blunt raw commentary.

Hell I know I can be a stubborn, tenacious, arrogant, uncompramising bastage. I can also take the heat that comes with all that.

Hell I know I can be a stubborn, tenacious, arrogant, uncompramising bastage.

lol no kidding I mean your still arguing for no apparent reason I can figure.

just discussing the topic with those still interested in responding

GM_Chris wrote:Heidi, if you are saying the idea of the magic items makes them unbalanced then I take it you see their skills balanced the way they are and would vote for no change. Is this correct?

Correct.

Korrigan Drochlann wrote: I also don't think that alchemy and arcane need to regain their previous flexibility. Unless we're willing to generate a set of skills for every path and discipline that can be customized for each character every event, I don't think letting one path / discipline enjoy that advantage is justified.

This.

Korrigan Drochlann wrote: With the right bauble you can either gain access to something cool or upgrade what you've already got. It's unique, controllable and can be easily monitored by the GM staff.

This is similar to how alternate advancement works in my LARP rules. I wanted the possibility of some later game growth without making a huge power imbalance where you have to run multiple levels of a game for it to be fun for everyone. I didn't want it to feel like it just STOPS completely after you hit the soft cap. But again, I don't feel this should be an advantage given to one path.

Wyrmwrath wrote: See this baffels me, the other disciplines have no NEED for that flexability since they arent intended to be a swiss army knife

See sage. I believe I was actually told by Chris in those exact words at one point that Sages are supposed to be a swiss army knife.


I don't actually have a HUGE issue with letting Wizards choose from the EXISTING list of spells/recipes at check-in (Perhaps on a sheet signed by a GM who does your check-in financials), but I think this is a pretty big logistical issue, and then I still think people would bitch that they picked the wrong ones and would be more trouble than it was worth. But I would be against being able to change them once the game was on.

People will kill me for saying this, yet again, but I feel the current wizard/arcane fits the overall theme and flavor better than the looser system before, even if it was more fun (and unbalanced). The characters aren't living in the golden age of Phantaren magic. They are living in an age after a cataclysm has altered the rules. The characters should be grateful they can figure out how any of it works at all.

Please keep in mind I was one of the people who was NOT happy to see wizard get a huge chop, but I DID see the necessity of doing so and I think to expand them more than they are now would unbalance them.

They have a pretty good variety (I daresay, buffet) of abilities, and most especially organized are quite effective. That can be said probably of any path, but I think that is the point.

^ I wanted to clarify from my above post that even if I were okay with letting wizards swap existing spells/recipes, I AM against adding in "different" abilities that are not in the book. I would be okay with swapping of existing spells in the rule book only, spell list declared at check-in.

Oh, and I didn't realize this thread was four pages long. I only read the 1st page, sorry.

Magic is slightly more prevalent in my setting than in FH/WH, so while I'm not 100% sure how I would do alchemy (I am as far as higher levels requiring more specialized skills and equipment), in my magic system, there are many kinds of spells. Some are a random draw at check-in and are mostly one-shots. "Mages" (whatever the different types will be called), essentially have to spend "Action" points to alter a spell-list between games (similar to the old allegiance system...you have a pool of points you spend on things like research, gaining currency/resources, making a patrol, etc).

They can purchase the ability to learn to use "Codex"s, which offer spells with potent effects, but have to be phys-repped and are usually pretty large (so you won't be carrying a bunch of them at once). Gaining pre-requisites allows one to purchase the ability to use "Relics" (name undetermined) that offer a variety of effects and have a rank-level requirement to use.

Most all non one-shot magical items require attunement to use or gain benefit.

It's a skill-tree type system, so I suppose anyone COULD take some levels in alchemy, if I keep going that way...

Who am I kidding though...it will never see the light of day, heh.