Alchemist to Artificer: How?

[xXxTheBeastxXx]

I remember when the alchemist first came out, there were several people saying that it could be modded (archetyped) to be an artificer of sorts. Maybe I'm wrong, but an artificer suggests magical gadgetry and whatnot.

How exactly does the alchemist aid in creating this type of class? I see a class almost wholly based around mixing chemicals. Could its fast-crafting of alchemical items be shifted over to something else? Sure. But other than that, I really don't see it. Maybe someone out there can help me.

 

[Kaisoku]

It's mostly a flavor change. Look at only the mechanics and here's what you get:

- Spellcasting in the form of creating an item beforehand that does the effect.
- Explosives for a damage ability.
- A way to boost ability scores/physical combat by creating something in advance and activating it when you need it.

If you take those mechanics and put in "gadgetry and craft/knowledge engineering" instead of "potions and craft/knowledge alchemy", you got yourself an artificer.

Spellcasting turns into infusing items with magical properties to get your spells per day.
Explosives... don't even really need a change, much (if at all).
Mutagens turns into gadget prosthesis, or maybe a completely different option to make the flavor change.

The fact that both concepts are "make the thing ahead of time that creates the effects you wanted and activated later" is why the Alchemist could emulate a good Artificer.

Would it be the artificer from Eberron? Not really, but when I suggested it in other threads I wasn't saying that it would be a complete conversion, just a class theme possibility.

 

[fireinthedust]

my issue with the Alchemist is that it's a video game class. The point of 3e and earlier D&D, in my mind, is that characters can use equipment that has quantifiable properties, and can prepare things ahead of time.

The Alchemist, on the other hand, is assumed to have all the components for the explosives on hand. They are expected to cost no more than a wizard's components. In fact, the Alchemist is a build designed for buffs; sort of like a Druid or a Cleric, and I'm thinking they're great for close combat as well as short range artillery.

That's great, mathematically, but it doesn't make sense within the game for a limitless supply of potions. Alchemists should have rules for losing access to their concoctions: being disarmed. There should be a penalty associated with carrying around so many individual jars of glass: stealth.

Another point is that there should be vials for individual concoctions that can be stolen or destroyed individually.

As it stands, it's assumed they have everything on them at all times. It just doesn't click for me.

Ditto the Summoner using Charisma. I think they should be Int instead, as intelligent casters. Granted, there's something to be said for little kids with giant imaginary friends, but if they're "Summoners" they shouldn't be so... likeable. A high Cha should equate to likeability, or personality. Great. So why are they summoning horrors from the beyond?
It's a bit cartoony. Good for particular builds, but I think I'd want an option for a non-Cha build: an Int based build, possibly requiring preparation rather than spontaneous casting; wizards with a glass ceiling on their spellcasting, but a giant eidolon buddy; and a wizardly amount of spells to choose from as a result (ie: as many added to the book as the summoner can find)

 

[Kaisoku]

You are correct in that the Alchemist is silent on his components and completed infusions.. .although it does mention they don't work for anyone else (unless he has the infusion discovery), it doesn't say anything about how to take them away, or the impact of carrying around all these things (do you automatically have a backpack?).

The Summoner being Charisma-based is perfectly reasonable though. He makes a pact with an outer-planes being and commands it to follow him. Whether he's likable to people around him or not is not the question... that he's forcing his will onto an entity and bringing magic about like a sorcerer is exactly what this should be about.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

The Alchemist, on the other hand, is assumed to have all the components for the explosives on hand. They are expected to cost no more than a wizard's components. In fact, the Alchemist is a build designed for buffs; sort of like a Druid or a Cleric, and I'm thinking they're great for close combat as well as short range artillery.

a) why should be wizard spells cheap?
b) why doesn't spellcasters have to list all their individual spell components?
the answer: I wouldn't be as fun for most players. Why should the alchemist have this flaw?

The alchemist can only buff himself, barring the "infusion" discovery.

That's great, mathematically, but it doesn't make sense within the game for a limitless supply of potions. Alchemists should have rules for losing access to their concoctions: being disarmed. There should be a penalty associated with carrying around so many individual jars of glass: stealth.

...

Why cannot you disarm the spells-component pouch? Because everyone would get the eschew material feat. It is a unnecessary feat tax that destroys the classic feeling of D&D spells use components. And Who says something about glass jars? Mini waterskins would be better and not effected by shatter and similar spells.

And this is why I like the 3rd/4th edition way of less realism. Every motley realistic thing (fighters, rogues, every 'martial' class and now alchemists, for our knowledge how chemistry works) gets hosed by application of "that doesn't work in reality...". And then there are the magic types, overpowering the game since 3rd edition D&D, that are not criticized for being ridiculous, because 'you know, it is magic...".

Sorry to fireinthedust for giving my universal critic to his statement.

 

[fireinthedust]

Sorry to fireinthedust for giving my universal critic to his statement.

No no no, don't be sorry. So long as you're not being rude, I come here to discuss ideas: it's a healthy debate.

And, quite welcome points. I left 4e because of the video game feel.

The difference between an alchemist and a wizard is that, while the wizard isn't all about components but about spells, the Alchemist states firmly: I am about chemicals and imbibing them, and all my powers come from equipment.
The theme of the wizard isn't assaulted by lack of components. If it can be forgotten, it doesn't matter, and it's easy to forget spell components.
The Alchemist theme is the materials at hand. Where do they go? I expect that they work, I know they do: it's alchemy. However, I do count ammunition, I count magical items including potions, and I want to know exactly what's on hand. Deciding that a character can just whip up whatever they need on the spot is weak, it assumes too much. What about the ingredients for each infusion?

To put it another way: if I have bat guano, I can use it for Fireball and for fertilizer (a useful bribe if I'm interacting with Treants who block the entrance to a dungeon I want to scour).

Admittedly, it's not important for fast-play games where people don't care. I don't mind that, I don't mind them. They're just not my cup of tea.

 

[Kaisoku]

Well, in reading the full description of the Alchemist's abilities, here's what we can conclude:

• The Alchemist makes his extracts (and presumably his bombs and mutagens) from things of "inconsequential value", and even compares the extracts stuff to a wizard's components.
  This implies that it could be stolen, similar to a wizard losing his component pouch.
  Conclusion: It wouldn't be far fetched to require a component pouch (or some variant) for the alchemist to make his extracts.
  
  
• The extract are created in 1 minute of time, and it's even suggested that an Alchemist going into an unknown situation would typically leave some slots free to create on the spot as needed.
  It even talks about how these extracts "stop working" when they aren't in his possession, as it's infused with his magic essence. The "infusion" discovery even lets him pass these extracts to be used by others if desired.
  Conclusion: An alchemist's extracts are a physical thing that can be taken away from him, preventing him use of his spells.
  
  
• As per the FAQ entry, using an extract is a standard action, which includes retrieving the item. This means it is stored either in an easy to grab spot, or some kind of harness/bag that's created specifically for easy retrieval (note the stuff all over the body of the alchemist picture). Sort of an assumed trained Quickdraw for something that an alchemist will be doing repeatedly on a daily basis (pulling out extract after extract over and over).
  Conclusion: These extracts have to be stored somewhere on an alchemist's body. This will be the only sticking point between player and DM: can someone, in combat or not, grab one of his extracts away from him? Probably best to hammer this out ahead of time, similar to "the talk" a DM and player need to have when playing a Paladin.
  
  
• Mutagens seems to follow the same concept of extracts (make ahead of time, use later), while Bombs seem to be made "on the spot", using up magical essence in the process (I imagine them to be almost like an energy bomb, or magical "package" filled with guano and gunpowder, rather than a cartoony Acme bomb made of stone or metal with a sparkling fuse).
  Conclusion: Mutagens need the "component pouch" while being made, and can be stolen later, just like extracts. Bombs need the "component pouch" at the time of being made (the standard action when used), but otherwise gets used on the spot so doesn't get stolen... short of the delay bomb discovery, but that would be on purpose at that point.

I'd say there's really the only one contentious point that could make the class "too" videogamey: how extracts are stored.

If you hammer out (between player and DM) how the extracts are held on the person, you don't even have to change game mechanics to bring it back into acceptable verisimilitude.

 

[Kaisoku]

In keeping with the original posts theme... how would we apply this to an Artificer?

Here's some ideas:

"Spells" Ideas

1. The Artificer imbues objects with magical essence to create spell effects. The objects themselves don't have to be anything in particular... so it could be a shoe-lace, or a pair of spectacles, or whatever. He would glow all over the place with magical effects if he has his daily allotment of magic all readied up.
   Infusion discovery would simply let him hand it to someone else and it would still work.
2. The Artificer has an item that he keeps on his person (a wand, or staff or clockwork mechanism) that he imbues with charges of magical effects. This item must be wielded to activate the effects, and thus can be disarmed/sundered/stolen, but otherwise it's all in one thing.
   Discoveries for being able to have multiple items, worn instead of wielded items, and the obligatory "one-use item that someone else can use"-infusion style.

"Mutagen" Ideas

1. Imbue worn items with effects (gloves with strength or dex bonus, etc). This would be like a temporary magic item. Not sure what kind of bonus this should be... +2 infusion bonus to Strength (Alchemists have alchemical bonus... Artificers have... an artificial.. bonus? weird).
2. Clockwork worn "prosthetics" to grant you bonuses, like a power suit. There's plenty of examples: from the arcane, to the modern (no wait, modern), to the sci-fi (or sci-fi.. or sci-fi).
   Basically, a gauntlet or arm or leg covering, etc. Short duration buff on an item that is basically "always there".

Any other thoughts out there?

 

[Philosopher]

Artificers have... an artificial.. bonus?

Artifact bonus? Artifactual bonus?

 

[paradox42]

d20 Modern used to use an "item" bonus, which I don't recall seeing in D&D. My own campaign world featured technology (post-apocalyptic setting), so I used the item bonus with those, but it might or might not fit your concept of an Artificer.

I like the idea of essentially making Artificer an Archetype of the Alchemist, though. Very interesting and serious food for thought!