Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 good Aug 15, 2008 20:51:48	Why not just make rituals with an alchemic flavor? Why overcomplicate things?
#2 ranadiel Aug 15, 2008 20:57:06	Because alchemy doesn't have the same prereqs as ritual casting, so this gives alchemic options to characters of a slightly different background.
#3 good Aug 15, 2008 21:02:10	Why? Can't any class take ritual casting, by becoming trained in religion or arcana? Aren't those just as fair reqs for alchemy? Put another way, someone trained in arcana and ritual casting doesn't also know alchemy? If 4e is about simplification for concept, and let the players add the flavor, does having a separate alchemy skill make sense? Say I wanted my wizard or warlock to be a potion-totting, brewmisting alchemic flavor, why can't I just make it that flavor? Do I need this silly new "character option" to get the flavor I want? I guess if this skill comes out, I do.
#4 coston89 Aug 15, 2008 21:08:29	Why? Can't any class take ritual casting, by becoming trained in religion or arcana? Because some people don't want their characters to learn arcane mysteries or religious doctrine to know how to grind a few roots and boil some water.
#5 Fireclave Aug 15, 2008 21:20:03	Because some people don't want their characters to learn arcane mysteries or religious doctrine to know how to grind a few roots and boil some water. This.
#6 That_Blasted_Somoflange Aug 15, 2008 21:22:38	Now what if you want to do a game that is very low/no magic? Alchemy is fine for said game, where as rituals are not. Also, much of the alchemy can be used with thievery, making it a viable option for rogues.
#7 splinters Aug 15, 2008 21:44:47	Why Alchemy Low magic campaigns need an alternative to rituals. Fun items shouldn't be restricted to magic. The goal of 4e is not simplicity, it is fun, simplicity is simply one mean to this end. Alchemy is an important fantasy archetype. More importantly, why not?
#8 belladonna5012 Aug 15, 2008 21:49:11	It does leave me scratching my head slightly, in the manner of "Where do you draw the line between an alchemical compound and a consumable magic item like a healing potion." But honestly, that's it, and as long as alchemy gets the significant bulk of consumable items (ideally, I'd say there should be alchemical equivalents to healing potions and the like), whereas rituals are primarily for long-term items and actual effect casting, I can see a place for both. I'm liking what I see of alchemy so far, incidentally. I can see alchemist's fire actually being very useful for characters who don't have at-will AoEs of their own, or who only have short-range or otherwise limited ones; alchemist's fire looks like the quicker minion picker upper for non-wizards.
#9 doctorhook Aug 15, 2008 23:49:55	Why? Can't any class take ritual casting, by becoming trained in religion or arcana? Aren't those just as fair reqs for alchemy? Put another way, someone trained in arcana and ritual casting doesn't also know alchemy? If 4e is about simplification for concept, and let the players add the flavor, does having a separate alchemy skill make sense? Say I wanted my wizard or warlock to be a potion-totting, brewmisting alchemic flavor, why can't I just make it that flavor? Do I need this silly new "character option" to get the flavor I want? ... I guess if this skill comes out, I do. Character options aren't required for flavour, they just inform it. You don't need any rules for flavour, Good; they simply give you a framework to develop it. Don't forget, any character who gains the Ritual Caster feat as a class feature can instead gain the Alchemy feat. Thus, many of the characters who are trained in Arcana already have a way of accessing alchemy for free. If you want both, spend your 1st-level feat to take the other! Minor point: 4E's alchemy is not a "skill", it's a set of capabilities all tied to a heroic-level feat. Various alchemical items use several "skills". I guess if this skill comes out, I do. Are you serious? One feat and a minor, non-combat, non-essential subsystem are going to ruin 4E for you? You must not have been very attached to it. I can only assume this thread is bait, and I now feel foolish for responding. (We all know that if WotC didn't publish rules for alchemy, somebody would be complaining just as loudly about that.)
#10 stogoe Aug 16, 2008 16:36:06	They're two entirely different types of things, and as such should be separate. Rituals are primarily for out-of-combat information gathering, travel, and magical obfuscation. Alchemy is primarily for creating in-combat consumable items. I have no problem with the split, as they do different things.
#11 crystix Aug 17, 2008 18:59:05	Yay alchemy! it can basically make a rogue into a batman ripoff. bat-gre... alchemist fire! quick! toss me the tanglefoot bag, the bad guy is getting away! and what is so wrong about a rogue who has smokebombs? temporary magical effects for weapons, and new poisons!
#12 Grazel Aug 18, 2008 16:16:43	Also I think we'll see in alchemy some of what people wanted from rituals: shorter 'casting time' recipes that produce useful effects. Also while they share a mechanic alchemy and ritual casting have a different flavor and focus. Saying they should be combined is like saying that 1-3.x clerics and wizards should all be one class since they both cast spells with a similar subsystem despite having a different flavor and focus of spells. Also alchemy can be picked up with one less trained skill than ritual casting making it available to more character classes without having to burn a feat in skill training just to use another feat to gain the ability to create items.