Oblivion talk:Alchemy/Archive 2

This is an archive of past Oblivion talk:Alchemy discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Potion weight fix?

Is it possible to fix the potion weight glitch (pumpmelon issue) by clearing your cache? If not, how about going down a level in skill then regaining that level, or does it store every potion you have ever made, not just the latest?

I don't know what you mean about clearing your cache - that's not even related to the issue. The simplest way to fix the pumpmelon issue is to just level up your Alchemy skill. Unless you've already mastered it, in which case you may be screwed for that particular potion type. Only potions with the exact same effects and magnitude will be subject to the glitch. Once you go up a level in Alchemy, the magnitudes will be different and you can start over. (Any already-created potions cannot be changed, however.) And yes, it does store information for every potion you have ever made. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 23:18, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Another easy option is to just rename your potions. --Nephele^Talk 12:56, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Another easy option is to just drop the heavy potion(s) temporarily on the ground or into a container. — Unsigned comment by 84.188.117.152 (talk)

Dropping the potions doesn't seem to fix the issue; it seems to 'lock in' the first time you create a potion at a given Alchemy level, and stay at that weight until you level up. I had two Restore Health potions, at 1.0 and 0.1 pounds, but dropped both of them (the 1.0 first); without any potions in my inventory labeled Restore Health, my next batches of potions all came out at 1.0. I fixed this by renaming the potions Restore Health L until I leveled, after which all Restore Health potions came out at 0.1 (as the first I made was light). --TheRayven 03:51, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Yep, dropping the potions or otherwise getting rid of them has absolutely no effect on this glitch, despite what some people have said without actually taking the time to test their suggestions. --Nephele^Talk 11:52, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

What about dropping them into a container that respawns, and leaving until the item disappears? Or drinking the potion? These two options would actually remove the item from the game rather than just your inventory. Has anyone tested this? 71.113.151.242 13:16, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, I've tested drinking the potions. No, it has no effect. --Nephele^Talk 15:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

4, 2.28 and fPotionT1MagMult

I'm trying to use the formulas here for a mod, and have a few questions about this equation:

Base_Mag = [ (Effective_Alchemy + MortarPestle_Strength*25)/(Effect_Base_Cost/10 * 4) ] ^ (1/2.28)

Where do the 4 and the 2.28 come from? Everything else I can account for with game settings (though the game settings are /100 of what is on the page, while the apparati are *100 of what's on this page), but I can't figure out a game setting for these.

Also, there is an game setting that's unaccounted for, fPotionT1MagMult (default 2.5), that I'm having a very difficult time figuring out. It's confusing because a decrease in it will increase duration while decreasing magnitude. Here's one small test: setup - base Alchemy skill level was 75, base luck was 50, all apparati qualities were 10, the MagicEffectBaseCost for each effect respectively: 2.0, 2.45, and 100. To complete the equation above - the multipliers for the apparti are: Mortar - .25, Calc - .0035, Retort - .005, and fMagicDurMagCostBaseMult is .1. The three tested potion effects were single effect potions of: Restore Fatigue, Damage Magicka, and Damage Luck.

All results shown as Duration @ Magnitude
GS fPotionT1MagMult --> --------- 2.5 ------ 2.0 ------ 1.5 ------ 1.0 ------ 0.5 ------ 0
Effects and Equipment
Restore Fatigue and Mortar ------ 30@8 ----- 34@7 ----- 40@6 ----- 51@5 ----- 75@4 ----- 1@1
", Mortar, Calc ------------------------- 31@8 ----- 36@7 ----- 42@6 ----- 53@5 ----- 78@4 ----- "
", Mortar, Retort ----------------------- 33@8 ----- 38@7 ----- 45@6 ----- 56@5 ----- 83@4 ----- "
", Mortar, Calc, Retort --------------- 34@9 ----- 39@8 ----- 46@8 ----- 58@7 ----- 85@7 ----- "
Damage Magicka, MCR ------------ 29@7 ----- 33@7 ----- 38@6 ----- 48@5 ----- 71@4 ----- "
Damage Luck, MCR ----------------- 6@1 ------- 6@1 ------- 8@1 ------- 9@1 ------ 14@1 ------ "
--Haama 18:19, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

The 2.28 came from the 1.28 in the spell cost equation on Oblivion:Spell Making. When you invert the spell cost equation to go from magicka cost to potion duration/magnitude, you end up with a 2.28 power instead of 1.28. Where the 1.28 (or where the equation on the Spell Making page in general) originally came from, I don't know. But I can say that I've tested the spell cost equation out to some insanely large values, and it's always been incredibly accurate.

Most of the other values on the alchemy page were actually derived by collecting tons of data on potion strengths and crunching the numbers. When I finally decided to get a PC version of Oblivion and looked at some of the built-in parameters it was reassuring to see that the parameter values seemed to be the same as my derived values. But I've never gone to the trouble of trying to map out the game parameter names to those used in the Alchemy article, although obviously you've been doing just that.

So the 4 really just comes from the fact that ratio of Duration/Magnitude always came out to 4 (at least for potions made with only a mortar+pestle). From a quick look at the numbers you're showing, it seems possible that

4 = 10/fPotionT1MagMult

That agrees with the numbers you're showing for a mortar-only potion (except for the case fPotionT1MagMult=0, where it looks like the game is getting a floating point error from dividing by 0, and is just setting everything to minimum values as a result). To check the numbers for the MC, MR, and MCR potions would require a bit more time than I have at this instant, but it seems consistent.

I hope that helps! --Nephele^Talk 20:34, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

OK, I figured out the 1.28 as well: it's the default value of fMagicCostScale. So my guess is that the equation translates to

Base_Mag = [ (Effective_Alchemy + MortarPestle_Strength*25)/(Effect_Base_Cost / fPotionT1MagMult) ] ^ (1/(1+fMagicCostScale))

--Nephele^Talk 21:40, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Brilliant! I'd been looking at it for a few days without any clue. I'll check on the fMagicCostScale in-game to make sure. Thanks! [so happy 99% of the work has already been done] --Haama 22:19, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

iActorLuckSkillBase

Another game setting that affects potion potency, but I think I was able to figure it out this time. The default is -20, which seems confusing because it should be -50 as 50 is the neutral or 0 point for Luck. However, another game setting, fActorLuckSkillMult, is .4 and -50 is (-20 / .4). So, I think the luck part of the equation works out to be:

 Effective_Alchemy = Alchemy_Skill_Level + fActorLuckSkillBase*(Luck_Level + (iActorLuckSkillBase/fActorLuckSkillBase))

So the default would be

 Effective_Alchemy = Alchemy_Skill_Level + .4*(Luck_Level + (-20/.4))
 Effective_Alchemy = Alchemy_Skill_Level + .4*(Luck_Level - 50)

Ran a small test making Restore Health potions (Base Effect Cost = 10) with a player with 50 Alchemy and 50 Luck and a novice Mortar and Pestle (Quality = 10), and all other game settings at default (fMortPestleMult = .25, fPotionT1Mag = 2.5, fActorLuckSkillMult = .4, fMagicCostScale = 1.28, and fMagicDurMagBaseCostMult = .1). To put all of that into a equations

 Effective Alchemy = 50 + .4*(50 + (iActorLuckSkillBase/.4))
 Base_Mag = [ (Effective_Alchemy + MortarPestle_Strength*25)/(Effect_Base_Cost / fPotionT1MagMult) ] ^ (1/(1+fMagicCostScale))
 Base_Mag = [ (50 + .4*(50 + (iActorLuckSkillBase/.4)) + 10*.25)/(10 / 2.5) ] ^ (1/(1+1.28))
 Base_Dur = Base_Mag * 4

Here's the test results, iActorLuckSkillBase was choosen by where duration or magnitude changed:

iActorLuckSkillBase	Duration	Magnitude	Calculated Duration	Calculated Magnitude
-20	12	3	12.37	3.09
-8	14	3	13.54	3.39
-2	14	4	16.05	4.01
-20	12	3	12.37	3.09
-29	11	3	11.39	2.85
-37	10	3	10.42	2.61
-41	10	2	9.89	2.47

Any suggestions of more tests to run? I still need to test changes to fActorLuckSkillMult, I guess.

--Haama 18:31, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Tested it and the equation works. Weird setup, but not the weirdest thing I've seen.

--Haama 19:05, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Master skill perk: One ingredient = less potent potion?

When making a potion out of only one ingredient, will that potion be weaker than a similar potion made up of two ingredients? — Unsigned comment by MiSP (talk • contribs)

No, the potion strength is identical for master-level single ingredient potions. However, you are limited to just the one effect for that potion. For example, if you make a potion with just Dragon's Tongue you'll get a Resist Fire Potion. You might be tempted to add Fire Salts to get a potion with Resist Fire and Fire Shield. But it won't work. When you add the Fire Salts, the Resist Fire effect will disappear (unless you then add a third ingredient with that effect, of course). Since I personally like to make multiple effect potions that do as many things at once as possible, I think that makes the master level perk pretty useless. --Nephele^Talk 15:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Also bear in mind that the price of every potion remains the same based on your skill level, so if money matters to you, the Master skill perk essentially doubles your income from potion sales by increasing your ingredient efficiency (you can now make and sell potions from any ingredient.) --Potion Addict

The single ingredient may be useful for making a quick potion with only one ingredient. For example, making a Chameleon potion from Bloodgrass is easier with that single ingredient and weighs less than it would have been if you mixed it with venison. This is useful especially if you are walking through Oblivion, and run out of a corresponding ingredient. You can pick up the Bloodgrass and make it into an instant chameleon potion, even with just Mortar and Pestle it will be more powerful than eating the ingredient. Vesna 19:59, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I think it's also worth pointing out that some ingredient/effect combos just kind of lend themselves to a single effect potion. Take Flax Seed. Flax is, I think, the most common ingredient in the game. It's primary effect is Restore Magicka, which is pretty useful all by itself. More to the point, if you are low on Magicka, what other effect which is present in Flax are you going to combine with it - Feather, Shield, Damage Health? I suppose Shield and Feather might be useful, in some situations, but perhaps not in others. You might combine with Damage Health in order to allow you to drink more potions, I suppose. But, since I can make a restore magicka potion with a single, extremely common ingredient (you can collect 200+ Flax Seed outside Skingrad in about 15-20 minutes), why bother adding another effect? Also, I'm not sure about this, but it may be that the only way to get a multiple-effect potion, in some cases, is with a very heavy ingredient, resulting in very heavy potions, or a very rare ingredient, which means you can only make a small number of them at a time. Poisons, though, I would definitely agree it is almost always useful to combine multiple effects, if you have the ingredients to do it (I especially like paralyze + damage health, or paralyze + frost damage). Potions, it often is, but not universally so.198.187.27.5 21:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nephele: What the hell?

Are you stalking me? Please explain why you reverted my edit. How was the original vague version more accurate than my correction? I see that the mortar and pestle continues to effectively add to your alchemy even after 100, so it should be changed to 559, but how can you make a poison to deal 1026 damage? I don't get it. Try it in your own calculator! --Potion Addict

First, let me just say that you really need to read the policy on Vandalism and the guidelines on Assume Good Faith. There's been an alarming tendency over the last couple of weeks for editors to be much too rash in calling any edit they don't like vandalism, even when the edit was done with the intention of improving the site. By definition, an edit done in good faith is never vandalism. If you want your comments to be taken seriously, take the time to at least learn what actuallconstitutes vandalism. Because starting off by falsely accusing another editor of being vandal [1] is about the worst possible way to invite that editor to discuss the intentions behind their edit.

Second, no, I am not "stalking" you. I am one of several editors on the site who patrol recent changes. If you check my contribution history you will see that during the one week period in which I reverted a grand total of two of your edits I also happened to make some 600 other edits to the site, a huge number of which were followup to new edits made by numerous editors. Sorry, but I really don't see how 2 edits out of 600 constitutes stalking or in any way singling you out. If you were actually paying attention, you might also have noticed that I saw the mistake you found with Reflect Damage on the Oblivion:Scamp Skin article, realized that I'd made the same mistake on a half-dozen other pages, and fixed all of those other pages. I am not automatically reverting every edit you make.

As for the issue at hand. You've obviously now figured out the main problem with your edit: 468 is not the maximum possible value for a Restore Health potion. For the record, let me clearly state: the maximum possible value for such a potion is 13 points for 43 seconds, in other words 559 points of healing. Therefore, changing the text from "at high levels, a potion can restore more than 500 points" to "at the highest levels, a potion can restore 468 points of damage" is incorrect. A vague statement is better than a detailed but false statement. Perhaps the details of the triple damage poison could be reworded. But the basic concept that you can combine three damage effects in a poison to do roughly three times as much damage is valid. So given that of the three changes you made to the paragraph, two were incorrect and the third was not an improvement, I reverted the entire set of edits. --Nephele^Talk 00:30, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Maybe I'm wrong and this is really the best way the wiki should be run. Still I can't help but think some offense could have been avoided if you'd just more clearly stated why you were reverting edits before I "call you out" on them; it could have been accomplished in the little summary. I obviously did not think the original was better and more accurate, or I would not have edited it in the first place. Therefore it confuses me why, as an intelligent person, you could assume I would accept your saying so without question. --Potion Addict

Thanks for taking the time to rework the paragraph. Your latest changes are definitely an improvement to the text.

But I can't help but think that some offense could have been avoided if you had spent some time researching the edit and my revert before starting this discussion. You were obviously able to figure out on your own that the 559 was the actual maximum value for the restore health potion. So why as an intelligent person did you need to have it spelled out to you in detail? --Nephele^Talk 18:21, 17 November 2007 (EST)

The absence of an explanation more specific than "ur rong" (or "spelling it out", as you said) engendered the offended & offensive reactive post you see here, even before I checked my premises. I'm sure this didn't end up saving anyone any time or effort, and that is my main point.

I have read the policies on Vandalism and Assume Good Faith long ere you pointed them out to me, and also the equivalents on Wikimedia. From my limited experience, full reverts in Wikipedia are rare, typically reserved for vandals or highly debated pages, and always accompanied by detailed explanations on the reversion, often in the talk page if the summary is insufficient. Although I have not noticed recent changes patrollers on other wikis, your efficient patrolling habit in comparison to the progressive amendments of changes by non-vandals is reminiscent of a beat cop wordlessly whacking litterers in the back of the head with a nightstick, or shooting jaywalkers. But as you are the "big dog" here, I am obliged to respect your codes when I visit your domain.

In any case this discussion is no longer useful, nor helpful to readers of this article, and as far as I'm concerned it can and should be considered resolved, and removed from this talk page. If my license to do so is needed, you have it. --Potion Addict

easy alchemy lvls

i can get master in like 10 mins by getting two materials for making a potion a duping them then make endless amounts of potions you can also make a fair bit of cash through this!

Secret Potions/Poisons

Does Alchemy only use the possible effects, or are there any secret mixtures?

I know there are many shopping lists, etc, in the game, that give a list of various alchemy items, but have never gotten results from putting them together with the ole' mortar & pestle.

Are there any potions/poisons that are be made by a mixture of certain items without like effects? ie: Is it possible to make "Skooma," or any of the other named potions/poisons on your own?

64.12.117.130 21:13, 10 December 2007 (EST)Mike

I'm not 100% certain but I think it's fair enough to answer "No". Any potion that didn't have the expected effects would need to be created through a script, and I don't know of any script that does such a thing. It would seem none of our other script-hounds know of such a thing either, given that nothing has appeared on the site. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 02:14, 11 December 2007 (EST)

All right. Thanks, I was just wondering if it was possible to make the potions any other way then figuring the given effects, and using ingredients to match the effects, and then simply name your potion, "skooma."

So the Adventure Potion made of Nirnroot isn't really, "made" by the NPC; he doesn't need an alchemy skill to create it; the potion is just generated. It kinda makes the game a little less realistic.

64.12.117.130 11:44, 11 December 2007 (EST) Mike

Right..which is weird because Nirnroot doesn't even share any effects with the Adventurer Potion.— Unsigned comment by 24.20.62.194 (talk)

Type 1 negative effects with alembic

This page has been a great help to me and all of the other exceptions seem to be right, but I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this one. For Damage Magicka, the calcinator effect is doubled instead of squared. The text there is kind-of confusing, so maybe that's the "unusual extra calcinator-dependent factor"? (also, now to figure what realm of Oblivion the 2 came from)--Haama 02:50, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Ummm, without any hard numbers (e.g., the magnitude/durations of the potions you've created that disprove the formula) it's hard to know what to examine in more detail. The equations on the page were derived based on magnitudes and durations from 3097 potions/poisons that I created (all created without use of the console or any types of cheats). And that includes many poisons created using alembics and calcinators of various strengths, including a variety of damage magicka poisons. I know that to match all of that data I had to square the calcinator term, but without a bit more to go on I'm a bit reluctant to start digging through the 3000+ examples I've got to find the dozens of specific cases that contributed to that conclusion.

These equations are also the same ones used in the [http:www.uesp.net/oblivion/alchemy/alc_calc.php alchemy calculator], so you may want to start by comparing the poisons you've been creating with the calculator's predicted strengths and seeing whether there are discrepancies. --Nephele^Talk 03:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I see it now. I didn't copy the formula correctly, sorry :blush:.

The text there is confusing, and implies that poison effects use a different formula from negative potion effects. To be clear, poison effects are

Mag=BaseMag*(1+(Calc_Fac*Calcinator_Strength)*(Calc_Fac*Calcinator_Strength)-(Alem_Fac*Alembic_Strength))

and negative effects in potions are

Mag=BaseMag*(1+(Calc_Fac*Calcinator_Strength))*(1+(Calc_Fac*Calcinator_Strength)-(Alem_Fac*Alembic_Strength))

?

Also, the Shock Shield numbers returned from the calculator seemed a little odd (part of the potion I created for testing). For instance, at base Alchemy 25, luck 60, Novice Mortar, Novice Calcinator, and Novice Alembic the calculator returns Mag=7, Dur=27 while I'm getting Mag=7, Dur=29 in-game. With a Master Calcinator and Apprentice Alembic the calculator returns Mag=16, Dur=35 while in-game I get Mag=9, Dur=37. Adding a Novice Retort the calculator returns Mag=16, Dur=38 while in-game I get Mag=17, Dur=40. When I use the equations on this page I get the right numbers, though. --Haama 10:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the heads up on the Shock Shield magnitudes; I'll try to investigate that at some point in the not-too-distant-future. It's probably something minor like the effect cost got messed up somewhere along the way ;)

As for the equations, for poison effects (as long as you're using an alembic) the equation should be:

Mag=BaseMag*(1+(Calc_Fac*Calcinator_Strength))*(1+(Calc_Fac*Calcinator_Strength))

Your equation for negative effects in potions looks right. Basically, the equation on the page is used for all negative effects when you've got an alembic in your inventory. But Alem_Fac is to zero when you're doing poisons (or positive effects), so the equation simplifies to the above equation for poisons. Hopefully that helps :) I'll try tweaking the wording on the page to see if I can make it less confusing. Or if you have any ideas about how to clean up the page, feel free to jump in and tweak away! --Nephele^Talk 22:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the clarification, and the page is much easier to read now.--Haama 10:39, 4 January 2008 (EST)

It's taken quite a while, but at last I'm putting some time into working on the alchemy calculator. And one of my to-do items was to look into the shock shield discrepancies mentioned here. However, I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly is being reported. First, none of the values that are quoted as being the calculator's values agree with those that I get for the same input values. The quoted calculator values seem to correspond to luck=50 not luck=60. With luck=60 the calculator is matching the quoted in-game value for the final scenario (i.e., the calculator is getting the Mag=17, Dur=40 values). The in-game values for the middle scenario really just seem bizarre to me, and don't seem at all consistent with the listed equipment (the Dur/Mag ratio is really far off, but that ratio is the same no matter what effect is being tested).

I haven't tried to double check the in-game values for the exact conditions listed. But I have checked the alchemy calculator values against all the existing tests that I have for shock shield potions, and for one new test that I just did. And in all my tests the calculator exactly matches the in-game values. I'm a bit reluctant to go through trying to reproduce the exact conditions quoted above when I can't find any evidence of a discrepancy, and when I can't fully understand the values quoted above. I'd really like to have some confirmation of the conditions and values before investigating this further. And confirmation that the in-game values were for default values of all game settings. --Nephele^Talk 02:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I've just tested this myself and get the same values as Haama. I did it in both a vanilla game (not even SI installed) and one with SI and the UOP. Equipment: Novice M&P, Apprentice Alembic, Master Calcinator. Luck: 60. Alchemy: 25. Ingredients: Daedra Heart & Human Heart (either version). The potion created gives Restore Health 3pts for 13s and Shock Shield 9% for 37s. Adding the novice retort takes it to RH 6/14s and SS 17%/40s. I also get the 3/10s and 7%/29s with the three novice items. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 04:41, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Aha, found it. The issue wasn't with Shock Shield but with the Calcinator strength formula: I was using the "with Retort" formula even if no Retort was present. As luck would have it, all the cases I was looking at yesterday had both a Calcinator and a Retort; the problem only crops up without the Retort. Thanks everyone :) --Nephele^Talk 13:04, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The calculator returns the correct numbers now. However, I had to check off "Quest specific ingredients" - isn't Human Heart a normal ingredient?--Haama 16:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I tweaked all the frequency values with this latest version, now that I've finally figured out how to quantify all of the different possible sources of the various ingredients. On the ingredients page Human Hearts (and Human Skin) are listed along with all the quest ingredients under the Rare Ingredients section. They are even more rare than several of the quest ingredients and have a fixed, non-renewable number. So I think they meet the description "of limited value for alchemy." It's an arbitrary call... but all of the frequency values are basically arbitrary calls. --Nephele^Talk 16:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, ok - I was taking too much of a modder's perspective. To me, quest = can't use in alchemy. Minor to non-existent for players; requires a test every freakin' time for me :P--Haama 13:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Anomalous result with shepherd’s pie and master-level alchemy

I have found a strange quirk related to the use of shepherd’s pie with the master-level alchemy perk. As far as I can tell this is the proper place to bring this up.

I had just reached master level in alchemy, and I had decided to whip up some cure disease potions from the unlimited supply of shepherd’s pie available from Eyja. I wanted my potions to weigh 0.1 pounds instead of 1 pound, so I created a potion called “Cure Disease *” (a name I had not used before) from mandrake root and achieved the expected result.

I then created a potion of the same name from shepherd’s pie, but the weight came out to be 1 pound. I rechecked this result and also tried using clannfear claws in the same way. The shepherd’s pie always came out to 1 pound and the clannfear claws came out to 0.1 pounds. Cure disease potions created with shepherd’s pie and another ingredient have the expected weight.

I also tried creating a potion from shepherd’s pie called “Cure Disease” (a name I used before at a much lower level) and found the price of the resulting potion to be 56 gold instead of the much lower price I expected it to have. Potions called “Cure Disease” made with other ingredients have the expected lower price.

From what I can tell, potions created from shepherd’s pie with the master-level alchemy perk have no relationship with potions that should be identical. Is this quirk unique to my installation, or is this true on other machines? — Unsigned comment by 206.196.37.146 (talk)

Just had the same result without Mastery - I first created a Cure Disease potion with an Alchemy skill of 25 from Sheppard's Pie and Clannfear Claws, then when I created a second Cure Disease potion with an Alchemy skill of 75 (nothing else was changed) from the same ingredients, a second, unique and higher priced potion was created.

I'm using patch v1.2.0416 and SI - so maybe that's the difference.--Haama 14:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Well it has already then been ruled out that skill level has nothing to do with how it turns out...at least when using Sheppard's Pie. About the weight, though, I wonder if maybe it's written out to be that weight?(Cookies... lots and lots of cookies!!! 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Horses...

Kind of a random question, but, can you poison your horse? That would be helpful if you could make a small poison that also causes the horse to have water walking.--Imperial Scum 21:45, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Ummm.... what?? Sure you can poison your horse. Just hit it with a poisoned dagger, same as any other creature. But there's no way that will ever give your horse Water Walking, because it is impossible to create a poison that contains a beneficial effect such as Water Walking. If you want to give your horse Water Walking, it's much easier to just cast a spell on the horse. --Nephele^Talk 18:20, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Any item created by Alchemy that has at least one positive effect is not a Poison, but a Potion; even if you create something that does (this is purely for example; I doubt it's possible to make something like this at all) 200 Fire damage, 150 Shock damage, and Damage Endurance 20 points, it'll be a potion if it has even something as tiny as Restore Fatigue 3 points. Felindre 04:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't bother with it as a major skill

I think that it would be a bad idea to take Alchemy as a major skill unless you plan on leveling VERY fast (without racial or specialization bonuses, you can get up to halfway through level 8 on Alchemy alone). With a duplication method and a few simple ingredients, it's possible to get your Alchemy skill from 5 to 100 in only a few minutes.

Instead, I suggest leaving it as a minor skill and just getting 10 quick skill-ups if you want a +5 Intelligence multiplier for your next level. Felindre 04:32, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, someone might take it as a Major so that they have a higher level of Alchemy at level 1, so that they can get usefully strong potions at low levels, without training up Alchemy much (if you level up Alchemy all by itself without levelling up any other skills, you won't get good stat bonuses on anything but Intelligence, but otoh if Alchemy is a minor skill, then the level is so low that the resulting potions aren't particularly useful; if you level up Alchemy and some other skill(s) so you can get another attribute or two with +5 bonuses, by the time your Alch gets usefully high (about level 50), you're character will likely be about level 10. Still, you're right that it isn't necessary to take Alch as a major - it will train up quickly anyhow, as long as you have enough ingredients. I guess it just depends on how early a level you want to start getting good Alchemy potions and have access to the ingredients' second effects.198.187.27.5 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 1

Up: Oblivion talk:Alchemy

Next: Archive 3