Timeline for Why does Quick Draw not apply to alchemical items?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 6, 2016 at 22:46 | comment | added | Hey I Can Chan | @KRyan is right on here. The early Pathfinder beta tests were contentious with some not realizing how competitive a rogue can be in mid- and high-level play if the rogue has a ring of blinking, splash weapons, and the feat Quick Draw until that particular combination was pointed out. When it was (and proven that, according to the 3.5 rules, it really worked, something some don't even believe today), the Pathfinder folks changed the spell blink, changed splash weapons, and changed the feat Quick Draw. It was a real thing. | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 15:20 | comment | added | KRyan | It was never about balance, so giving it away at 2nd was no big deal. It was about enforcing one particular vision of the rogue class, at least the base version. | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 15:17 | comment | added | Brandenfascher | Understood. I just kept taking away from people's claims that the designer intended that no rogues should ever be able to improve their action economy using Quick Draw with any Weapons of the Alchemical variety, translating to preventing full attacks with them. That's why it seemed odd to me to find an alternate class rogue that gets to circumvent that action economy restriction by class level 2. Maybe I just misunderstood the sentiment. I'll have to trust your word on the ruling then, but I feel I have at least made a good basis for house-ruling it away. | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 14:30 | comment | added | KRyan | No, that's totally reasonable; there's a reason I looked pretty hard for the original statements. IIRC, this was during the playtest of the core rules, though, towards the end when they announced this change for the final rules. That or just after finalization. As for underground chemist, that was much later, and a specific class making an exception is normal in Pathfinder. | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 14:16 | comment | added | Brandenfascher | I often don't trust sources that aren't directly from the horse's mouth (such as the reference materials or designers), so you'll have to forgive me on that. While your answer appears to let on that you are in the know, I've seen plenty of people misled by less plenty of times. I'll take it then that you were there first-hand in some manner then when the designers made the ruling? But that still doesn't answer why the Underground Chemist rogue came to be unless the designers rescinded their previous intentions (a little). Still hurts for other classes, even Alchemists themselves. | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 13:24 | comment | added | KRyan | This is a decent argument, but I was there, and at least back then Buhlmann was very explicit about what he meant (and what he thought of those who disagreed). | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 2:46 | review | Late answers | |||
| Aug 6, 2016 at 2:59 | |||||
| Aug 6, 2016 at 2:35 | history | edited | user17995 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed spelling/grammar, blew away "thread necromancy" fluff.
|
| Aug 6, 2016 at 2:28 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 6, 2016 at 2:36 | |||||
| Aug 6, 2016 at 2:28 | history | answered | Brandenfascher | CC BY-SA 3.0 |