John, I was wondering your reasoning behind an inherent penalty for using alchemicals. As an example, it seems harsh that spiking a victim’s drink with poison (perhaps pouring a vial into a glass of wine) would merit possible exposure to the poison.
I know the reason’s staring me in the face, I’m just missing it.
My interpretation was that they were suggestions for possible complications on 1-5 rolls scaled to the positioning. The interpretation i’ve always played by has been, if you wanna blow a puff of Trance Powder in someone’s face and you roll a 6 yo’re fine, if you roll a 1-5 the GM could use the “poisoned” condition on you or subject you to the affects of the power “A gust of wind comes through and blows some back into your face” or any other consequence.
I never thought of them the way you’re suggesting where the use guarantees a consequence and I agree that seems abnormally punitive for the system. Interested to see what John says as well.
The side effects are in addition to the regular consequences of a roll, I believe — or at least that’s the way my group read it and how we run it. As the Alchemy page says, though, you can resist it as normal, and a Leech with the Alchemist special ability gets +1d on said resistance roll.
I’m not inside John’s head, but my 2 cents: before side effects, alchemicals honestly seemed to make Leeches kinda overpowered. They just had all these extra abilities that let them adapt to any situation perfectly and do things nobody else could match without inherent cost. And from a fiction perspective, the 7.1 changelog has this to say: “Alchemy is a volatile arcane science. Use of an alchemical now inflicts a side-effect on the user. See page 70. The Alchemist special ability makes you more resistant to side effects.”
Nihzlet That makes a lot of sense, I never see Leeches in play very frequently, and specifically never saw one before 7.1 so I could see how that would be the case for things based off what you said.
Alchemicals were just too easy to use. I wanted them to be inherently dangerous, both to the user and to the target — partly to explain why they aren’t commonplace.
In game terms, it works out to a similar cost to the Whisper. If you resist the side-effects, you’re paying stress to use your nifty powers, same as everyone else.
Also if there is no penalty for using Alchemicals especially poisons then the Leech’s Venomous ability is moot as a Leech becomes immune.
I was thinking that was where you were going, John and I appreciate the clarification. I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around things like the poisoned wine example in my original post. Possibly poisoning yourself while putting a few drops of alchemical toxin into a glass seems to deviate from the theme of capable scoundrels, instead making you seem like an bumbling fooI. I get game balance and that’s tricky to be sure, however using tongs and carefully pouring an alchemical liquid onto a lock to melt it shouldn’t automatically risk a chemical burn.
I can totally see 6- on a creation roll literally blowing up in your face or something similar and fictional positioning, in my opinion, should be a factor, not simply use. I know that this will be an issue with the Leech in my upcoming game and I don’t feel I can properly adjudicate it beyond “Them’s the rules”.
Unless the actual “magic” of the alchemicals affects you, which is cool and makes alchemy even creepier and cooler.
At the end of the day, the narrative is what is important and setting a precedent. If you don’t feel it negatively detracts from your own game. Then the use of the poison might not be an issue while the creation is. What makes sense for you and your players is what matters.
You don’t have to say that they’re a bumbling fool. I mean, the side effect isn’t that extreme.
The suggested side-effect is level-1 harm. Handling poisons is super dangerous! But you’re a daring scoundrel and only get the barest exposure, so it’s minor. Or you can resist it and suffer nothing. Is that bumbling?
Remember that they’re not in a modern lab with perfect equipment and perfectly air-tight containers. Fluids leak. Glass vials have cracks. Concoctions off-gas fumes. And you’re deploying this volatile stuff on the fly during a tense situation. Shit happens.
As the GM you can inflict a different side-effect if you want to. When they pour dissolving fluid into the lock, you could inflict “collateral damage” instead. The fluid dissolves the lock, then the lower half of the door, then eats through the floor and keeps going down, Aliens style.
Thanks, everybody. That puts things into perspective perfectly.
A thing that’s tripping me up is that even after all this time I haven’t had a chance to dive in and run the game more than once, right after the initial draft was first released. Because of that, things like level-1 harm and easily resisting it don’t jump out as a the minor things they seem to be. The good news is that the players are very much ready and willing, so I’m trying to do as much digging and “preventive maintenance” as possible. After getting clarification and ideas from more seasoned players I often feel a huge “Duh…” moment and I really appreciate everyone’s help.
I’m sure it’s going to fall into place just fine and I’ll stop sweating the details. Thanks again, everyone!
Thanks for sharing your concerns, Ben. It’s very useful to me!
This was something that jumped out at me as well — in fact, its the only thing in 7.1 that I can think of that felt at all jarring. However, the explanation provided by John above provides some handy context and clarity that makes me a lot more comfortable with it. I’d definitely recommend trying to fit something similar into the final text.
Phil Hartwich , we’re FINALLY playing for the first time, tomorrow, and John’s explanation was incalculably useful to my fiancé when she created her Leech.