Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
So I'm thinking of picking up some ranks in survival to aid in foraging for alchemy quests and components. Question: how much should I get? (I'm level 20 right now)
How much survival do I need to get most common components easier (without requiring open rolls)? Should I stop at a certain rank or do 1x or .5x for life, etc?
If I do 1x, would I be able to skin with any skill assuming mid range DEX and DIS?
In general, how do you guys manage foraging for components?
Thanks,
Taqra/Jason
My wizard mastered alchemy and foraged for all of his own stuff with 40 ranks of survival, 10 ranks of first aid, 1x in perception, haste, and the rangers foraging spell (have I mentioned recently how much I love 1750-Fash'lo'naes Gift?). I found this to be fairly efficient for foraging. Even without the ranger foraging spell I still found this to be effective. Without haste I think it might be a bit painful though...
Don't know if that helps but it gives you a point of view and something to compare to.
-- Robert aka Faulkil
Don't know if that helps but it gives you a point of view and something to compare to.
-- Robert aka Faulkil
I'm certain haste played large part in your experience not being horrible. Wizards and sorcerers have negative profession modifiers that otherwise make foraging rather painful. I'm guessing you still needed fairly high rolls to find anything. Sure, we could keep haste and foraging scrolls around for this, but it's still a pain in the ass thanks to ridiculous, out-dated modifiers.
Just out of curiosity, what was ever the thinking behind penalizing wizards and sorcerers with regard to foraging? In my mind sorcerers and wizards should be the great alchemists of the world which naturally lends itself to learning about ingredients and the knowledge of properly harvesting them.
<<Just out of curiosity, what was ever the thinking behind penalizing wizards and sorcerers with regard to foraging? In my mind sorcerers and wizards should be the great alchemists of the world which naturally lends itself to learning about ingredients and the knowledge of properly harvesting them.>>
The penalty has been around much, much longer than alchemy.
The penalty has been around much, much longer than alchemy.
> ReplyJust out of curiosity, what was ever the thinking behind penalizing wizards and sorcerers with regard to foraging? In my mind sorcerers and wizards should be the great alchemists of the world which naturally lends itself to learning about ingredients and the knowledge of properly harvesting them.
A long time ago, long long time ago. An somewhat illogical decision was made that skill based modifiers resulting from variable professional skill costs were not enough, and a second modifier (double bonus, double penalty) needed to be done in an unelegant fashion.
So they assigned modifiers to professions based on "need." The only things, the only things, you needed to forage were healing herbs, and so professions were given modifiers based on their perceived need for herbs, with the exception of rangers, who were given the best modifier because that is how GMs "saw" their profession.
To note, the most appropriate way to provide a profession a modifier is it adjust their skill training costs for a certain skill. To give a blanket bonus is to make a global assumption which is not a good way to do things. You know... assuming...
But I digress. So rangers were the best, then empaths, because they were healers, then clerics, because they were rescuers, with clerics were also warriors and rogues because they took more wounds in combat, then bards and rangers, then wizards and sorcerers, the worst.
Since that time foraging needs have changed. EVERYONE has to forage now for bounty tasks, all PURES have to forage now for alchemy. And SORCERERS especially have to forage as well for animate dead.
But they haven't redone these stupid foraging modifiers, and still the pretty much single biggest factor is profession. A level 0 ranger tends to be better than a level 100 sorcerer.
So even though, based on the original logic, we should now have a better modifier because we "need" to use the skill more often, it has not been changed. So in fact the professions that need to forage the most, are now the worst at it.
Or, to say it another way, the more you do something the worse you become at it.
Genius? Not so much.
A long time ago, long long time ago. An somewhat illogical decision was made that skill based modifiers resulting from variable professional skill costs were not enough, and a second modifier (double bonus, double penalty) needed to be done in an unelegant fashion.
So they assigned modifiers to professions based on "need." The only things, the only things, you needed to forage were healing herbs, and so professions were given modifiers based on their perceived need for herbs, with the exception of rangers, who were given the best modifier because that is how GMs "saw" their profession.
To note, the most appropriate way to provide a profession a modifier is it adjust their skill training costs for a certain skill. To give a blanket bonus is to make a global assumption which is not a good way to do things. You know... assuming...
But I digress. So rangers were the best, then empaths, because they were healers, then clerics, because they were rescuers, with clerics were also warriors and rogues because they took more wounds in combat, then bards and rangers, then wizards and sorcerers, the worst.
Since that time foraging needs have changed. EVERYONE has to forage now for bounty tasks, all PURES have to forage now for alchemy. And SORCERERS especially have to forage as well for animate dead.
But they haven't redone these stupid foraging modifiers, and still the pretty much single biggest factor is profession. A level 0 ranger tends to be better than a level 100 sorcerer.
So even though, based on the original logic, we should now have a better modifier because we "need" to use the skill more often, it has not been changed. So in fact the professions that need to forage the most, are now the worst at it.
Or, to say it another way, the more you do something the worse you become at it.
Genius? Not so much.
