NEWS

Are entire rule sets up for errata? Because Alchemy needs some love

  • 8 Replies
  • 1489 Views

Orudeon

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 21
« on: (16:49:04/08-12-16) »
I'm a huge fan of Alchemy redone by Bamce on Reddit. My group and I playtested it for at least three months of regular sessions.

In this new ruleset, we immediately noticed Alchemy was almost entirely a viable alternative to spellcasting. Effectively you pre-prepare spells at the cost of slightly more drain. The removal of potency and the decay of preparations means bookkeeping is significantly reduced and preparations in general have more power behind them because you don't have to worry about Potency screwing you over. You effectively have to write down the force of the preparation and the time you created it, and that's all.

I played an alchemy archer and my favored spells were Petrify, Ignite, Decrease Reaction, and Bugs. The biggest quality of life improvement came with using Edge on the alchemy roll when I used the preparation. If I really needed someone out of the fight, I got to pick if I used edge on the archery test or the Petrify test to either make sure it hit or make sure it petrifies. Either way I thought it ended up pretty balanced, cuz I still needed decent agility.

The one thing we ran into problems with were the Advanced Alchemy rules on page 219 of Street Grimoire. I think my GM wasn't entirely in agreement that everything not labeled 'anchored spells only' should work on preparations, but that's okay.

I'd love if the alchemy rules were made simpler and I love Bamce's, but again I'm not sure if that's in the realm of Errata.

Patrick Goodman

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2100
  • Fixing the fixless since 2016
    • Azziewatch
« Reply #1 on: (16:52:25/08-12-16) »
Not until we've finished hammering on it and the book releases.
Former Shadowrun Errata Coordinator

Patrick Goodman

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2100
  • Fixing the fixless since 2016
    • Azziewatch
« Reply #2 on: (16:55:40/08-12-16) »
Wait, I completely misread that at first. Saw alchemy in the title, read it as anarchy.

Alchemy will be looked at soonish.
Former Shadowrun Errata Coordinator

Orudeon

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 21
« Reply #3 on: (17:00:22/08-12-16) »
It's worth noting that my GM ruled that Stick n Shock arrows are too complicated/might shock me if I alchemized them. Same with Explosive, Incendiary, and Injection. He hasn't reached a decision on Screamer arrows.

But regular, barbed, hammerhead, and Ares Monotip arrows are fair game. So effectively in our ruleset there weren't any issues with muddying up what kind of damage it deals. Physical/stun + the spell effect, if it's a combat spell.

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 538
« Reply #4 on: (09:10:22/08-13-16) »
Anotherway to make alchemy more interesting would be to strengthen the effect of reagents. I always depicted alchemists as a a kind of "hunter-gatherer" mages, but currently, reagents have very little use especially in the process of creating alchemical preparations. They can only be employed to recieve a limit bonus (meh) on a test that would probably already have a high limit because low-force preparations are of no use.

IMO, reagents should also be employable for things like "fixing" the preparation (i.e. make it last longer or stop the decay altogether), increase the potency by "subliming" it (just to take some terms used by historical western alchemists) and so on. If you worry about balancing in regards spellcasting, just consider this:

  • Alchemy needs prep time
  • 4 Dram of reagents cost the same as a Handgrenade
  • Itīs not like there is an ongoing metagame battle between alchemy and spellcasting fans. The only reason people keep on comparing the two is because itīs so damn hard to find a niche where alchemy offers a real benefit

PS: If balancing changes are on the table, you should also consider a look at some other (even more) obviously broken stuff: The Fading (and "effects"...) of most complex forms, some critter powers (elemental attack, engulf...) etc. Many of these only need some numbers switched to be fixed.

 



Orudeon

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 21
« Reply #5 on: (13:37:03/08-13-16) »
Well, an alchemist that has metamagics that confound his or her aura could hypothetically etch a fireball spell in the bottom of an assassination target's tablet or something, maybe trap their commlink if they can get a hold on it. Or their chair, or a desk, or really anything that they use frequently. Spellcasters can't do that.

If I had more time I could come up with more creative uses.

Imladir

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 761
« Reply #6 on: (13:43:38/08-13-16) »
The problem is not the creative use, but the fact that you need a huge dice pool and a lot of reagents to make preparations that are useful.
"Speech" | *Thoughts* | >>Matrix<< | ~Astral~

JmOz01

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 580
« Reply #7 on: (23:41:05/08-13-16) »
the idea of +X regents =++x initial hours seems like it would be a good start

Bamce

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
« Reply #8 on: (09:49:20/08-31-16) »
I'm a huge fan of Alchemy redone by Bamce on Reddit. My group and I playtested it for at least three months of regular sessions.

In this new ruleset, we immediately noticed Alchemy was almost entirely a viable alternative to spellcasting. Effectively you pre-prepare spells at the cost of slightly more drain. The removal of potency and the decay of preparations means bookkeeping is significantly reduced and preparations in general have more power behind them because you don't have to worry about Potency screwing you over. You effectively have to write down the force of the preparation and the time you created it, and that's all.

I played an alchemy archer and my favored spells were Petrify, Ignite, Decrease Reaction, and Bugs. The biggest quality of life improvement came with using Edge on the alchemy roll when I used the preparation. If I really needed someone out of the fight, I got to pick if I used edge on the archery test or the Petrify test to either make sure it hit or make sure it petrifies. Either way I thought it ended up pretty balanced, cuz I still needed decent agility.

The one thing we ran into problems with were the Advanced Alchemy rules on page 219 of Street Grimoire. I think my GM wasn't entirely in agreement that everything not labeled 'anchored spells only' should work on preparations, but that's okay.

I'd love if the alchemy rules were made simpler and I love Bamce's, but again I'm not sure if that's in the realm of Errata.

I randomly came here today after checking on something about shifter errata. Saw a thread about alchemy and went into it throw up the link to the house rule changes I made. Low and behold they are here already <3

I would be more than happy to assist in furthering this re-write. In addition to signing whatever paperwork needs signed to improve a, well lets face it, a shit section of the game. Ya'll know how to reach me!