Dwarf Alchemist

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:27 pm

What do you think about the possibility of being able to buy the Dwarf Alchemist once for 50K, he will stay on your roster (so no freeboting) and ads +1 on your match winning roll? This would make him usable after 5 games and he would be of small but consistent benefit.

And talking of special wizards, I'm in favour of giving the Halfling Master Cook the same treatment = you can buy him once for 50K and he stays on your roster (no freebooting anymore). The Master cook rules should stay untoched, though.

Redfang · Post by **Redfang** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:38 pm

Both sound nice to me, but wasn't the master chef 150k originally? If so, I think it should be 150k again.

On second thought, the Alchemist might also be too cheap... I would probably buy an alchimist for 50000 before I'd buy an apothecary, and else it would be my 2nd purchase...

R

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:47 pm

All Wizards were 150K in 3rd and 4th ed., but you paid them just once. In LRB you have to freeboot them for 50K and 30K for the Dwarf alchemist (that means you have to buy them every game).

You think the Dwarf Alchemist is too cheap? You get nothing for five games and then 10K every game afterwards.

In the current rules you effectively pay 30K for 1D6x10K gain after each match. (too much luck based, and one more post-match roll for my taste).

Redfang · Post by **Redfang** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:57 pm

I agree with you on the current alchemist, and I know all wizards except necromancers were 150k, but I just think that 50k is too cheap for Dwarves; they have low player turnover, so if they start with eleven players in a starting league, they can manage that for a few games easily, and effectively they will have +10k each match from their 2nd match (probably).
10k per match isn't much, but it does add up to quite a lot during a season. Besides, once Dwarfs start rolling (say after 10 matches or so), and have some extra players, they are usually spoiled with cash and little to buy (that is absolutely necessary) anyway...
I think it would give a starting Dwarf team too big an advantage at 50k, make it a bit more expensive (70-80k; a bit less accessible to a starting team) and possibly more effective (D4-1 GPS, for instance, though I doubt whether making it more effective is necessary), and I think it would be more balanced.

R

PS I also saw some interesting suggestions for a Dwarf Runesmith to replace the Alchemist, somewhere, don't remember where, though...

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 3:22 pm

I've read the runesmith proposals but I do not like the idea of tinkering around with stat changes, it can get things unbalanced very easily. I see your point, maybe he is too cheap for 50K, but I would stick to the +1 on winnings somehow bc one of my initial reasons for a change was to get rid of the gambling and extra dice rolling for Alchemists.

Redfang · Post by **Redfang** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 3:36 pm

If you make the Alchemist a permanent addition to a team, the gambling wouldn't be a problem to me, because he will pay out eventually (unless he's killed, but that can't happen without the cards)...

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 3:48 pm

So what about 150K (or 100K) fixed price for the Alchemists but +1D3 on match winnings? But then I have the feeling that we just moved in a circle and gotten quite near the LRB rules (I'm not for changing things for the sake of changing alone).

Redfang · Post by **Redfang** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 3:52 pm

I wouldn't make him 150k and 1D3 extra winnings... that would make him a lot worse than he used to be in 3rd edition.
Maybe just 100k and +D3 or 150k and +D6 (as it was)

R

(And now I'm going to let other people say something...)

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 8:58 pm

The problem with this is the fact that the freebooting system is an excellent game mechanic. It increases the number of situations where a coach has to make a choice between buying two different items. Granted, the alchemist is really redundant even if freebooted, but I'm definitely against any new rule that makes it possible to permanently add things to your roster. They just pile up the powerf factor.

Runesmith ideas are great, btw.

ZanzerTem · Post by **ZanzerTem** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 6:56 pm

If you make the Alchemist a permanent addition, you really should keep some element of gambling that is prevalent now. Perhaps have him cost 70K to hire, and after each game he give (1D6 -3)x10,000 winnings, so you could win -20,000 to 30,000 gold each game.

Just a thought

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Thu Apr 03, 2003 7:31 pm

What about a Dwarf Armorer?

Add +1 to any Av for the match?

Would be seriously nice for a runner or Troll Slayer...not to mention an AV 10 blitzer for a game!

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 12:25 am

i think what they need is that their head coach automatically be a runesmith. And what he does is give you a 3+ roll to negate any opponent's wizard spell attempt.

that would basically mean that nobody would EVER take a wizard against you, thus representing dwarves natural resistance to magic.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 2:08 am

That's an interesting idea, but there would have to be more to the runesmith's power or it wouldn't make much sense to buy one as wizards don't seem to be used as much as they used to IMO.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 am

That is a good idea. Give him some good powers, remove the ogre and kill 2 birds with one stone.

Redfang · Post by **Redfang** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 7:36 am

Pariah wrote: Add +1 to any Av for the match?

Would be seriously nice for a runner or Troll Slayer...

And just how many troll slayers do you know of, who would voluntarily wear armour?
The idea is nice, but, background-wise, Troll Slayers should not be allowed the extra armour I'd say.

Wesleytj wrote:i think what they need is that their head coach automatically be a runesmith.

Though I like the game mechanic he proposes, I don't like this idea fluff-wise (again); Runesmiths are few, and probably rather busy overall; though they might find time to help out a team occasionally it wouldn't make sense letting them coach one...

R