[ShadowcatX]

My biggest problem with Enchanters in priority build is the lack of spells known. Without going full mage, all you get is a skill group. You've got to pay karma just to have that skill group be relevant. Even still you have to sink a lot of karma just to be some what sufficient in your primary focus. Why bother?

Which is why practiced spellcaster is recommended...

[Hobbes]

Spellslinger you can get with 5 left over Karma after Chargen is done since it doesn't increase in cost and has by RAW no training time requirement.

Sorry to nitpick, overall an excellent piece of work, while not against RAW, it's certainly against RAI.  The Character Creation rules were written before any of these not qualities that are totally qualities were written.

On a totally separate rant, currently there are ... ?four? kinds of "Positive Qualities".  Core Book Positive Qualities, max 25, cost double after start.  Martial arts, separate chargen max, don't cost double, FA qualities that count against max, but don't cost double, and whatever the hell Ways are at any given table.  *sigh*

[忍]

#GameDesign

[Kiirnodel]

Martial Arts aren't qualities, never have been. You have styles and techniques, which have set costs.

The Ways either act like normal qualities, or in the same way these Mastery qualities do (with the exception that you can't trade in spells for extra karma.

So I count only 2 methods of qualities.

But nothing about the way qualities work indicates that there shouldn't be a training time of some sort. It's up to the GM to allow characters to buy new qualities, and they need to perform the proper actions to gain them.

[Jack_Spade]

The point is, there are no training times given in the rules. Therefore a player is within his rights to just fluff the training time (The call from my fixer coincided with the very moment I finally mastered my magic with the help of my mentor spirit  )

[Kiirnodel]

And a GM is well within their rights to say "no" to that.

[ShadowcatX]

And a GM is well within their rights to say "no" to that.

Given that this has holes through it by RAW, if a GM has a problem with it, that's fine. This is said in the opening post, does it really need to be said every other post as well?

[Mirikon]

And a GM is well within their rights to say "no" to that.

Given that this has holes through it by RAW, if a GM has a problem with it, that's fine. This is said in the opening post, does it really need to be said every other post as well?

Sadly, yes, there are people who make it very, very necessary. If you haven't met or played with them, then be thankful.

[Jack_Spade]

This kind of pedantry would make slightly more sense if we were talking about anything else then Alchemy - which as you can see needs a ridiculous amount of optimization and even some kindly GM fiat to just be viable as a stand alone concept.

There is very little sense in following rules for the rules sake (unless that's what gets you off - I don't judge).

[Mirikon]

I've done well with Alchemy just using the core rules. Even posted a thread about it a while back. Simple spell selection goes a long way. Focusing on buffs/debuffs, area effects, and so on eliminates several key weaknesses. A support mage who can slap fire and forget buffs on your team is a solid add to any group, especially if they have a gun to back it up. Plus, they get to avoid the 'geek the mage first' look easier, since they're harder to ID than a normal spellslinger.

There are Rules As Written, Rules As Intended, and Rules As Optimizers Wish They Could Be. Things that work by RAW? Kick ass. That's awesome. Things that work by RAI? Talk with your GM, see if you can convince them, and suck it up if they say no. Anything else? No, and it is the phonebook for asking. This isn't rules for the rules' sake. It is keeping things from devolving into crap that might as well be Calvinball, where you just make shit up when you don't like something. I've played in games where the rules were ignored because someone whined that their choices weren't 'optimized', and it really is only fun for the whiners.

[ShadowcatX]

I've done well with Alchemy just using the core rules. Even posted a thread about it a while back. Simple spell selection goes a long way. Focusing on buffs/debuffs, area effects, and so on eliminates several key weaknesses. A support mage who can slap fire and forget buffs on your team is a solid add to any group, especially if they have a gun to back it up. Plus, they get to avoid the 'geek the mage first' look easier, since they're harder to ID than a normal spellslinger.

There are Rules As Written, Rules As Intended, and Rules As Optimizers Wish They Could Be. Things that work by RAW? Kick ass. That's awesome. Things that work by RAI? Talk with your GM, see if you can convince them, and suck it up if they say no. Anything else? No, and it is the phonebook for asking. This isn't rules for the rules' sake. It is keeping things from devolving into crap that might as well be Calvinball, where you just make shit up when you don't like something. I've played in games where the rules were ignored because someone whined that their choices weren't 'optimized', and it really is only fun for the whiners.

Ok, you have expressed your dislike of optimization and how you think alchemy is fine. Your view point is acknowledged and accepted as valid for your home game. Now how about we get back to the actual thread?

[Mirikon]

I expressed my dislike for optimization ignoring or blatantly disregarding the rules. Optimizing within the rules? That's great fun, and I wholly support that.

[Hobbes]

Martial Arts aren't qualities, never have been. You have styles and techniques, which have set costs.

Sure, Martial Arts aren't Qualities, they're character abilities or modifiers to existing abilities that cost Karma from your initial pool or gained in play.  Totally unlike Positive Qualities.   

And I've seen Ways handled differently at different tables.  Some GMs (and Missions) count them for all intents and purposes as regular core book Positive Qualities, but I've played games where the GM went with what the Freelancer said he intended where they don't cost double after play starts.  RAW/RAI.

Anyway, it wouldn't impact the game significantly if all of these things were called Positive Qualities and used the same rules.  You'd need to juggle the Karma costs in some cases, but it doesn't add anything to the game to have these different abilities have different rules for acquiring them.   

I return you to your Alchemy optimization thread, already in progress. 

+1 to Mirikon's "Spell selection goes a long way..."   If you're just splashing Alchemy or going Enchanting Adept, spell selection is key.  Combat Sense, Deflection, Increased Intuition, Levitation, Shapechange, Barrier, Mana Static, ect, ect, ect.  Anything unopposed goes right to the top of the list.

[Tenlaar]

I've started a game with a character using the Extended Aspects Enchanter.  I will definitely say that the glaring weakness of it is starting with no free preparations at all, that makes it difficult at starting, and I personally feel that the more limited usage of Alchemy compared to Spellcasting warrants starting with two or three free ones.  By getting the qualities that help the most and just a R3 Alchemy focus, you only have karma left to start with three preparations.  It feels especially dumb if you're playing a character who is supposed to be a trained and established Alchemist.