I may not have been born when you took that day off from work... was that before or after April 1987???
I didn’t take the day of – I took off after lunch an came back after picking up the book. And 2e was released in 1989 not that this makes me feel a lot younger – que sera!)
Okay... I would hope that the power of a feat that can be used whenever the character pleases would not equal that of a spell that can only be cast once before the character has to recharge.
I've played druids and fighters. Pretty sure the fighters were better in melee.
The fighter's viability as a character is substantiated by his reliability and durability, not his ability to achieve the same outcomes a powerful wizard can.
All of this comes back to the campaign style that sets spellcaster power – how often do we get to rest and recover spells? If we can buff up to the gills (only self-buffing, of course – it’s not about teamwork!), kick the door in, go nova with all our offensive spells, then back out and rest up (while the rest of the world sits in stasis) to do it again tomorrow, then the reliability of the fighters never really appears. If, on the other hand, we engage in multiple encounters in the day because there is time pressure from some source, then the spellcasters need to manage their resources, and the durability of the fighters comes to the forefront.
because I want to play a game the way I want to. The way I want is for classes to make sense, and fighters with encounters just don't make sense to me. If you get to sit at a table and make an Alchemist who has potions that only work for you, and bombs you can put togather 8 times today, and 8 times tomorrow, and 8 times the day after that without ever getting back to town to resupply why can't you make 9 today? You have the knowledge and supplies... and even worse you can shape them to blow up around other PCs... but your potions become non magic liquid in my hands... I want to play in a game that works like I want, and that means at my table all the PCs have to not have crazy options
Can we skip the book of nine and the codzilla argument and get back to gunslingers having grit that lets them expand powers by spending from a pool that comes back when you crit... and alchemists that can make 8 bombs today, 8 bombs tomorrow, 8 bombs the next day, all without any change to supplies or knowledge... but can't make 9 today... even though they have the time and money...
Let me ask a slightly different question. Eight bombs sounds like about 4
th or 5
th level. Let’s put our Cleric at 5
th level as well. Why will the Cleric’s deity provide 2 third level spells each and every day, whether the Cleric uses them wisely or poorly? One casts Continual Flame twice a day to make streetlights for a city, the other is questing for his deity against his enemies. Yet the second can’t persuade his deity to send a Water Walk spell to save his faithful from drowning, while the first gets another two tomorrow to keep lighting the walkways for believers and non-believers alike.
Why can’t the Wizard, out of spells an hour after awakening and preparing them, take a cat nap to rest up and prepare spells again?
Why can’t Longstrider or Expeditious Retreat be cast on someone else, or made into a potion?
I see two reasons. One is game balance, but that has nothing to do with “abilities that make sense”. The other is “it’s magic”. Well, the alchemist is using magic. He infuses bombs with his magical reserves – which are limited just like the wizard or cleric’s magical reserves. His infusions work on him alone – just like many spells work on the caster alone. So what I don’t see is why is the Alchemist is perceived so differently when he’s restricted in a manner pretty similar to every other spellcaster?
Why can’t Bards perform all day? Why can’t Barbarians rage for hours? Should those abilities/classes be removed as well? There are tons of limited resources, and I think more get added in pretty much every edition. The Alchemist is far from unique in this regard, nor did these limits start in Pathfinder, although I’d say it increased in 3e (but that increase can be attributed to the proliferation of new class features, feats, etc. – I’m not sure the proportions have changed any).
Recharging uses, like the gunslingers, strike me as a smaller base number with a possibility to recharge them. A significant success provides renewed confidence and strength to the gunslinger? OK. The Monk has Ki points and the Magus has his points for augmenting his weapon. That, it seems to me, is a Pathfinder innovation. And it may not be your cup of tea (although it seems like a reasonable outgrowth of Sorcerers and their spontaneous spellcasting to me). If it has to be magical or mystical, then let’s assume the Gunslinger has a mystic link to his firearms and move on.
If limited uses of an ability per day is a game breaker, I don’t think that will leave many D&D classes intact. That's hardly a Pathfinder innovation.
