|
|
Post by tombowings on Apr 20, 2011 8:51:30 GMT -6
"Details of poison types will be handled in some future supplement when
alchemists are fully covered" (Sup. II Blackmoor, pg. 4)
So what do you guys think happened to alchemists? What would they have been like if flushed out? A PC class?
What other types of hirelings were there plans for do you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2011 9:41:06 GMT -6
I always favored a sort of a good or neutral aligned deathmaster as more developed alchemist. The character would be able to recreate a variety of magical effects with his lab and produce potions, salves, unguents, lotions, oils, and so on. He might even have limited spell use, but his selection would be more utilitarian in nature (such as unseen servant, locate object).
On a related note, there was an excellent article in an early Dragon issue called IIRC "Poisons A to ZZ" or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 20, 2011 13:06:58 GMT -6
So what do you guys think happened to alchemists? Simple. One author was promising vaporware to be written by other authors. The other authors weren't interested. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 20, 2011 13:26:43 GMT -6
My impression is that Arneson was refering to a write up of his orginal magic user, recast as an "alchemist". FFC was unfortunetly brief on that system, mentioning only distilled superberries as a major ingredient in spells. With the increasing coolness between TSR and Arneson after 75/76, it is not surprising that he didn't write up the class.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Apr 20, 2011 14:17:11 GMT -6
There's an Alchemist class in The Dragon #2, on page 28-29. It includes almost a half page on poisons.
But it was by Jon Pickens, not Dave.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Apr 21, 2011 13:41:34 GMT -6
There's an Alchemist class in The Dragon #2, on page 28-29. It includes almost a half page on poisons. But it was by Jon Pickens, not Dave. This was my thought. As a class I don't think the Alchemist overlaps enough with any of the core classes to be a sub-class. As a core class I don't think it overlaps with the scope of the other 4 to work as a team-based class. It's the Shadowrunner Decker issue, which has another term I can't recall in more modern game design paradigms. As an NPC class, I think it works well, but I'm not sure it really needs the whole write up as Jon Pickens gives it. I will say Pickens is one of the unsung article writers in early D&D who shaped in the game in insightful ways. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 21, 2011 19:53:13 GMT -6
This from my copy of the D&D draft rules:
"MEN AND MONSTERS:
Alchemists: Looked down upon by both Clerics and Magic-Users, Alchemists deal in potions and scrolls, do not fight under any circumstances, and can cause disease if affronted. While usually independent, they can be a retainer of a Lord. However, Alchemists and Magic-Users cannot both work for the same Lord in the same place. They are also never invited to the same party."
That probably is related to Arnesons' quote on this board that in the early days "Magic users needed thier (a fighters) protection badly".
|
|
