Damn Alchemy!!

[Dalphorius]

Hey, first I wanna say I've been playing Gemstone off and on since GSIII, actually back to the days of AOL but I've had more time away than actually playing. I like to think I'm playing again for good, anyhow I got all excited when I saw ALCHEMY! Meh, then I found out it is all for pures... to quote

Adventurers of the cleric, empath, sorcerer, and wizard professions are encouraged to seek out their respective guild masters to join the guild, if they have not already, and begin their studies of the various processes and reagents of Alchemy. With the skills of of Alchemy, adventurers can potentially create a wide variety of beneficial potions, wands, amulets and similar items through the mixture of reagents and application of magical processes.

special note where they can make wands, and amulets.... so :wtf: ? That pretty much means that the our ranger spell IMBUE is going to be completely worthless... now that wizards can make their own wands, why have a ranger make them!? Anyway, this is could be just me freaking out...and a bit of jealousy at the same time...but please I'd like a discussion here about it...

[Sean of the Thread]

Hi backlash.

[Dalphorius]

who?

[CrystalTears]

I really don't understand why they couldn't have this accessible to everyone.

[Dalphorius]

exactly, even if it takes longer to master than the pures, it should still be open to everyone

[AestheticDeath]

I don't think so. If they are going to separate the professions, they should separate the skill sets and all that as well.

Just play more than one character, or help the economy and buy things from other professions/characters.

[Dalphorius]

I don't think so. If they are going to separate the professions, they should separate the skill sets and all that as well.

Just play more than one character, or help the economy and buy things from other professions/characters.

well wizards used to buy wands and whatnot from us...now they can make their own... so like i said in the first post, not only can we not use alchemy, but our spell imbue is worthless!

[Stuck up Elf]

My question is where can you sell the components and how much bank can you get?

[AestheticDeath]

I don't know exactly how the new stuff works, but its possible your imbue spell is still worth something. If nothing else you have no overhead as far as I can tell, foraging for a stick, casting spells at it etc.. Its basically free for you. You can sell them fairly cheap, and it would be better then the wizard buying supplies to make a wand himself.

I dunno.

[Dalphorius]

well the problem in lies that if it is at least even close to the same cost for a wizard to buy the materials to make a wand as it is to buy a wand from a ranger than of course he'll just make one himself (i would) especially if they get ranks from making said wand... for a ranger actually making a wand is useless, we can't do anything with the end result, we have to hand it over to someone who can embed the wand ie a wizard or the like...

[Latrinsorm]

exactly, even if it takes longer to master than the pures, it should still be open to everyoneYou have an entire spell circle devoted specifically to your character's profession.

[Dalphorius]

well, like i said, imbue used to be to help out those who can embed, so actually it's not devoted to entirely for rangers... also... empaths, clerics, wizards, and sorcerers also have entire spell circles devoted to their professions... i'm not sure what you are getting at...

[Tolwynn]

Rangers can still sell resistance, and will likely be able to sell foraged components (like say, tkaro roots) even if imbued wands are no longer needed.

There will still be a market for imbued wiregrass imbeddibles regardless, because a lot of people want wearables in combat instead of something that would take one of their hands.

[Dalphorius]

wiregrass yes, but simu also mentioned in the release that they alchemists could make amulets...sooo wiregrass no

[Latrinsorm]

i'm not sure what you are getting at...There have always been profession-specific abilities in GS. There are plenty of games where this is not the case: Modus Operandi for one. The idea that rangers "should" be allowed access to alchemy is as reasonable as the idea that clerics "should" be allowed to train in Ranger spells.

[diethx]

(bunch of posts)

You say all this like every pure out there is going to master alchemy. Do you really think this is the case? I for one won't be wasting time on it as it stands now, so i'll still be in the market to buy imbeddible wands. I'm sure I won't be the only one.

[CrystalTears]

There have always been profession-specific abilities in GS. There are plenty of games where this is not the case: Modus Operandi for one. The idea that rangers "should" be allowed access to alchemy is as reasonable as the idea that clerics "should" be allowed to train in Ranger spells.
This is the dumbest comparison ever.

Alchemy is a second profession like cobbling or weaponsmithing (which in my understanding anyone can do). It was decided to make alchemy for only pures. It is not a spell circle. Clerics will never have access to the ranger spell circle just as rangers will never have access to the cleric spell circle. Alchemy is just a side profession that should not be exclusive to any one class or type of class, as though pures are the only ones who will benefit from it.

People shouldn't have to play another class just to pick up a profession.

[Latrinsorm]

Alchemy is a second profession like cobbling or weaponsmithingThis is the dumbest comparison ever. HUR HUR HUR. :\

I'd say alchemy is more like any other guild skill, what with being a guild skill.
People shouldn't have to play another class just to pick up a profession.They don't. They can pick up cobbling, forging, or fletching. :D

Instead of just saying it over and over, how about posting something about why rangers should have access to alchemy? Should warriors have access to LM because it obsoleted batter?

[CrystalTears]

I just said (once, not over and over) that alchemy is something that all classes can benefit from. I wasn't specifying which one should have it too, I'm saying all of them.

Fine, a guild skill, so every guild can have it. Not sure what difference it makes.

Instead of saying it over and over again, how about posting something about why rangers shouldn't have access to alchemy?

[Latrinsorm]

I was referring to you and Dalphorius (hence the obsoleted comment, referring to rangers' itemy magic).

Guild skills have always been profession-restricted. Gemstone greatly benefits from having profession distinctions. GS alchemy is an inherently magical activity; as such, a certain level of magical inclination is required. This level of focus is not expressed by semi paradigms, including rangers.

[CrystalTears]

Rangers and bards have magic, so it's not a valid argument as far as I'm concerned.

[Latrinsorm]

Every profession "has magic". Not all professions have the same amount of magical focus as pures. This is borne out by TP costs and rank limitations: semis just aren't as magical as pures.

[Makkah]

My main is a bard, and I still believe it's a dumb fucking idea to let semis have access to Alchemy, dude. Give us our own profession-based guild skills, plz.

[Some Rogue]

Guild skills have always been profession-restricted.

Until the Cmans came along and gave most of the stuff to other classes. Yes, there's still some limit on who can train them, but the rogue's guild was killed the day they gave most of the good skills to other classes and required the skills we'd already mastered to use stamina.

[Deathravin]

I think each profession should have different guild skills. I think all the guild skills should be finished and implemented. This crumb development is really sad.

[Latrinsorm]

Until the Cmans came along and gave most of the stuff to other classes.This is incorrect. Combat (stance) Mastery, Feint, and Disarm were opened to everyone and Spin Attack went to a few other classes. Tackle, Berserk, Warcry, and Roll remained warrior-only. Cheapshots, Stunman, and Sweep were the only rogue skills opened, none of which is available to everyone; Gambits, Subdue, and LM remain rogue-only.
and required the skills we'd already mastered to use stamina.This reminds me of a warrior named Risky or something who posted incessantly during the 3/4 switch that Simu was trying to phase out the warrior class with these horrible stamina requirements. I'm surprised anyone still holds them in low esteem, to be honest.

[Some Rogue]

This is incorrect. Gambits, Subdue, and LM remain rogue-only.



Yes, there's still some limit on who can train them, but the rogue's guild was killed the day they gave most of the good skills to other classes and required the skills we'd already mastered to use stamina.

Gambits, subdue and LM, that's only half the guild skills. I guess I should be thankful right?

Way to skip over what followed right after what you quoted. You can't seriously be claiming gambits or subdue as great skills. Gambits is for circus clowns. Subdue is just worthless. For the stamina cost of it, you're better off using anything else.

Yes, I still claim the rogue's guild is dead. Other than LM, the other skills aren't worth the effort. Prior to moving sweep to the Cman system, you could use it constantly during a hunt. Now, if you have any other cman running like Shadow Mastery for instance, you don't have the stamina to use much else. So a skill I learned the hard way was neutered.

You're right about a warrior bitching about stamina requirements. My warrior has no stamina problems at all. Warriors train heavy in PF. Rogues are a different story.

Answer this, do you play a rogue?

[Stunseed]

< Yes, I still claim the rogue's guild is dead. >

I'd take having 6.3 ranks of Cheapshots in the cman system anyday. I guess I'm odd like that.

[Fallen]

Who the heck buys wands off rangers? Rods are where it is at, and somehow I doubt we will be making 80 mana wands in the guild.

[Latrinsorm]

You can't seriously be claiming gambits or subdue as great skills.First of all, my response detailing which skills went where was to "Until the Cmans came along and gave most of the stuff to other classes." Second, even if it wasn't, can you claim stunmaneuvers or cheapshots are "good" or "great skills"?
Subdue is just worthless.To your build, maybe.
Prior to moving sweep to the Cman system, you could use it constantly during a hunt. Now, if you have any other cman running like Shadow Mastery for instance, you don't have the stamina to use much else.That's a senseless comparison. For one thing, there wasn't any Shadow Mastery in GS3. For another, you shouldn't have to use sweep "constantly" anyway, especially as a stealth build. If you had a problem using just sweep during a hunt and your character had appropriate PF training, then maybe there'd be a problem with the stamina cost.
Warriors train heavy in PF. Rogues are a different story.Sweep is 12 stamina, the lowest cost for a knockdown maneuver. Most cheapshots are cheaper than feint's 7 stamina cost. Rogues are capable of training enough in PF to allow significant maneuvering. If a particular rogue doesn't want to train more than 1x or so in PF, it makes no sense for them to be all that great with stamina.
Answer this, do you play a rogue?Of course not. Similarly with evaluating a paladin, I don't need to muck about in game with an inferior class to recognize 12 < 15 or 3 > (6/2)+1.

[Deathravin]

Sweep via Guild after mastering should be free IMHO. You mastered it, it should either be 0 stamina, or no higher than 4. Other than a higher chance to hit, what do we get for spending such time trying to master it?


As for Ranger wands via Imbune... Who uses wands as it is? Can't use a wand if you have a runestaff in your hand. A great majority of pures are runestaff users. Hence wands are nearly useless.

[Celephais]

As for Ranger wands via Imbune... Who uses wands as it is? Can't use a wand if you have a runestaff in your hand. A great majority of pures are runestaff users. Hence wands are nearly useless.

Stop posting about stuff you clearly have no clue about... you can use a wand with a runestaff and not suffer any DS lost.

[Some Rogue]

Don't know why I'm even bothering to argue with you. You're always right.


First of all, my response detailing which skills went where was to "Until the Cmans came along and gave most of the stuff to other classes." Second, even if it wasn't, can you claim stunmaneuvers or cheapshots are "good" or "great skills"?

Um, yes, stunman is a great skill.



Subdue is just worthless.


To your build, maybe.

To a majority of rogues. The stamina cost is too high to make it useful for anything other than griefing other players. But don't take just my word for it, go read the rogue boards instead of the warrior ones all the time.



Prior to moving sweep to the Cman system, you could use it constantly during a hunt. Now, if you have any other cman running like Shadow Mastery for instance, you don't have the stamina to use much else.



That's a senseless comparison. For one thing, there wasn't any Shadow Mastery in GS3. For another, you shouldn't have to use sweep "constantly" anyway, especially as a stealth build. If you had a problem using just sweep during a hunt and your character had appropriate PF training, then maybe there'd be a problem with the stamina cost.


The best use of shadow mastery isn't the bonus to hiding, though that's good especially when you have especially perceptive critters, it's the reduced RT from hiding and sneaking. You'd know that if you played a rogue instead of theorycrafted one.

And I really wish I had the tp's to spend that you think I should have. I mean, 3x hiding, 2x PF like you are hinting at, aren't cheap. Nevermind I then wouldn't have much left over for anything else.



Warriors train heavy in PF. Rogues are a different story.


Sweep is 12 stamina, the lowest cost for a knockdown maneuver. Rogues are capable of training enough in PF to allow significant maneuvering. If a particular rogue doesn't want to train more than 1x or so in PF, it makes no sense for them to be all that great with stamina.

How much does tackle cost? Also, have you looked at the cost of shadow mastery?

I guess I should just give up and play a warrior right? I mean if I am more than 1.5x in PF and have to spend all these points on full combat skills, I'm basically a warrior anyway. What really makes no sense is skills I mastered the hard way, not being able to be used whenever I want.



Answer this, do you play a rogue?


Of course not. Similarly with evaluating a paladin, I don't need to muck about in game with an inferior class to recognize 12 < 15 or 3 > (6/2)+1.

Of course you don't. You play a warrior. And obviously rogues should train like warriors, give up all their lockpicking skills, go full on combat and be a warrior in everything but name. :jerkit:

This is my problem with your whole argument. You can theorycraft up some numbers but until you actually go out and experience the game as a rogue, you're opinion is pretty much worthless.

[Latrinsorm]

To a majority of rogues. The stamina cost is too high to make it useful for anything other than griefing other players. But don't take just my word for it, go read the rogue boards instead of the warrior ones all the time. I don't know the builds of a majority of rogues; neither do you.
The best use of shadow mastery isn't the bonus to hiding, though that's good especially when you have especially perceptive critters, it's the reduced RT from hiding and sneaking.I don't recall suggesting which benefit of smastery was the best one, but alright.
And I really wish I had the tp's to spend that you think I should have.If you want to be really good at everything, yes, it's going to cost a lot more TPs than you have. It's when you expect to be able to maneuver all the time without training for it that the problem arises. Every profession in GS has to make choices.
How much does tackle cost?15.
Also, have you looked at the cost of shadow mastery?Yes.
I guess I should just give up and play a warrior right?If you want to be the best at physical maneuvering, yes. If you want to be a stealth build, I'd stick with the rogue.
What really makes no sense is skills I mastered the hard way, not being able to be used whenever I want.So if I scripted my way through all my character's guildwork, I shouldn't get free maneuvers, right? After all, you worked harder.
This is my problem with your whole argument. You can theorycraft up some numbers but until you actually go out and experience the game as a rogue, you're opinion is pretty much worthless.If actually going out and experiencing the game as a rogue made me think that 3 was more than half of 6, I'd just as soon never play a rogue, thanks.

[CrystalTears]

I don't know the builds of a majority of rogues; neither do you.
But you can read what other rogues say about it, right? That's what he's basing that off.. his and other rogues.

So if I scripted my way through all my character's guildwork, I shouldn't get free maneuvers, right? After all, you worked harder.
Does anyone have to work at getting sweep now? Or just learn cman and away you go, rather than doing endless reps, scripted or not? Personally I'd rather they take away the stamina cost if you're doing a guild skill and leave it in for cman skills.

I'd feel the same way if they decided to just put in fletching as a skill goal after I spent hours and hours making my own arrows to get to master. Yeah, after you put that much time into it and then seeing the benefits dwindle, it's frustrating.

[Latrinsorm]

But you can read what other rogues say about it, right?I can read what 10% of the rogues say about it, sure. I would be leery of concluding anything from 10%, wouldn't you?
Does anyone have to work at getting sweep now? Or just learn cman and away you go, rather than doing endless reps, scripted or not?Every choice has costs. By getting sweep through the guild, the character has 30 more CML points to spend and can get 50 ranks by level 19 (compared to level 31 CMAN style). By getting sweep through the CML list, the character doesn't have to spend time in the guild.

I still don't understand why people get upset when someone else doesn't have to "work" for what they got.

[CrystalTears]

I still don't understand why people get upset when someone else doesn't have to "work" for what they got.
Whatever, hippie.

[Latrinsorm]

:hippie:

[Some Rogue]

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=623345#post623345)
I still don't understand why people get upset when someone else doesn't have to "work" for what they got.

Yeah, I wish they'd make Harvard degrees available to anyone with money so I wouldn't have to go through all those classes to get it. I mean come on, who'd be angry by that after all?


If actually going out and experiencing the game as a rogue made me think that 3 was more than half of 6, I'd just as soon never play a rogue, thanks.

It would make your opinions worth something though. What's the saying? Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes?

Unlike you, I've experienced the game as both a warrior and a rogue.

You lose. Good day Sir!

[Latrinsorm]

I'm guessing the reasons the "YA WELL U DON'T PLAY ROUGUEU" and "YA WELL THEY GETZ IT FREE OMG" positions don't convince me are linked.

[Some Rogue]

I'm guessing the reasons the "YA WELL U DON'T PLAY ROUGUEU" and "YA WELL THEY GETZ IT FREE OMG" positions don't convince me are linked.

You need to get laid. Seriously.

[Latrinsorm]

:)

[Makkah]

LOL @ bringing out the "GET LAID D00D"