Category talk:Chemical Creation

Insofar as these are created with the Alchemy skill, why are they listed under Chemistry? DeepShadow 06:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Some brilliant designer in upgrading from 3ed to 3.5ed decided that only spellcasters can be alchemists. Not necessarily a problem in Greyhawk, but we have gunpowder in Ravenloft and suddenly one had to be a spellcaster to make gunpowder. And that is an evident problem in terms of flavour and rules for gunslinger prestige classes that could make gunpowder proficiently but now needed to have a spellcasting background to continue to do so. Moreoever it served to point out a general problem. How many Lamordian chemists consider themselves alchemists and are spellcasters? I would think approximately none. Given the modernity of some of Ravenloft's domains, chemistry in its own right needs to be recognised. Where one draws the line in terms of what can be crafted between the two of them is of course the question. My thought is if it can be done with chemistry in the real world, preferably at the appropriate period in history, and at comparable cost in terms of materials, equipment, gold and time, then it is chemistry and alchemy, if not it is just alchemy.Cure 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. The problem is, not everyone is going to use the same solution. I'd rather we Aput a note in the Alchemy section about the discrepancy and let people solve it however they wish. If I were looking for alchemical stuff, I'd expect to see these things there. DeepShadow 17:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

They are there too. But if you expect to see [[Alchemical Child] or, I suppose for that matter, Philosoher's Stone, under chemistry you will be disappointed. The reverse would be true of atomic weights.

Agreed. I don't think real world alchemists saw themselves as spellcasters either. A simpler solution would be to just declare that in Ravenloft, the no-alchemy-for-non-spellcasters rule is lifted. (In fact, I would only be mildly surprised if such as statement was buried somewhere in the RLPH.) -- Gonzoron 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I would dearly love to imagine that that prerequisite doesn't exist. But if my possibly tenuous grasp on the timing and authorship is correct, all the prestige classes that it messes up where written in 3.0 and our 3.5 RLPH wasn't written by the old guard that might have recognised the problem for their old material (but instead by a newguard who were busy giving us new material about power checks for every class for things every class does naturally). I would be more than happy to accept a statement from Mangrum or any of the others on the matter as official errata and make the thing go away.Cure 04:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of that statement however, Lamordia, our leading gun producer, cannot produce gunpowder, which is a stuff of magic rather than a stuff of science. But it is worse than that. Everything that we, today, call chemistry, falls within alchemy and consequently either doesn't exist in Lamordia or exists in Lamordia as blatant proof that Lamordia's scientific prowess is a hypercritical fraud since it is literally based upon spellcasters whose magic it denies. As pleasing as this thought might be to me, as I think that the second possibility is in fact the case regardless, I cannot stomach what the prerequisite does to the prestige classes: Black Powder Avenger and Pistoleer must now all be spellcasters as they have Alchemy as a prerequisite; and Detective loses Chemistry (Ex) as it is based on Alchemy. Alchemical Philosopher is essentially unchanged as it required Brew Potion in anycase.

Since we can see a difference between alchemy and chemistry and since Lamordia is essentially our positivistic science (which is built over and against obscurantist superstition) dropped into the Demiplane of Dread, a viable, home-brew solution is to add Craft (chemistry). It will let you successfully play with stuff in beakers, make Blistercap Poison, make gunpowder, and basically have a near modern world without spellcasters. Otherwise the Lamordians aren't just wrong. They are dead wrong.Cure 04:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the SRD again, their is a slight bit of wiggle room. You can take Craft (Alchemy) without prerequisite, but to actually use it to make anything you need to be a spellcaster: "To make an item using Craft (alchemy), you must have alchemical equipment and be a spellcaster." That is of course no help at all to Lamordian industry, but would get you legal, non-spellcasting Black Powder Avengers and Pistoleers, for a handful of skill points or two handfuls of cross-classed skill points, who couldn't of course actually make gunpowder, and so would gain no benefit from class bonuses for doing so.Cure 04:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I posted the matter in the forum on the hope that John weighs in.Cure 04:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

John's response of "play Pathfinder" basically takes the same stance that I said. (Pathfinder does away with that troublsome restriction.) Just keep in mind, we can't always go running to John for answers. As he said, "Ask Azalin" is over. And he's not the only author on the 3e line, so even his answers are "Potential Canon" at best. You can keep the Chemistry category if you like, as long as Alchemy stays too. Just put a note in the Category page of why it exists. -- Gonzoron 15:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There was never a question of deleting Alchemy. But in support of "lifting" the restriction, we could cite Pathfinder, since we don't have to be entirely wed to 3.5 ed and 3.5 ed in this case clearly contradicts the intentions of Ravenloft 3.0 ed prestige class designs.Cure 17:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)