Secrets of Alchemy

Friday, April 20, 2018

Historically, alchemy was a protoscience with diverse traditions seen throughout the world. Its chemical discoveries were often explained and expanded upon using the metaphysical traditions of the practitioner's native culture. These alchemical experiments and observations were later refined by experimentation and rigor to become the modern science of chemistry.

In Pathfinder First Edition, alchemy was the domain of lower-level pseudo-magical treasures, at least until the alchemist made his debut in the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide. This class forged the way for creating higher-level alchemical items and effects, though it often leaned on arcane magic to get the job done.

When we tapped the alchemist for inclusion in the Pathfinder Playtest, it gave us the chance to rethink the essentials of alchemy and create a broad tradition that reflected its historical inspiration. For the upcoming version of the game, we've pulled magic and alchemy apart. Alchemy might feature dramatic effects, but these are powered by the reactions of powerful chemicals—and sometimes catalyzed by resonance—creating a type of fantastic mad science. Where magical power comes from the energies of a spellcasting tradition, alchemical power comes from the fusion of latent potential trapped within matter, released as energy through a reaction with a different potent material. Strike a sunrod on a hard surface and its alchemical reagents combine to create light. A creature's internal chemistry interacts with an elixir of life to heal wounds or brace the body against toxins. Bombs let off explosive energy when their flask shatters against a creature, exposing the contents to the air.

While magic involves pulling energy out of thin air by way of spells, rituals, or magically empowered items, basic alchemy is a specialty of the Crafting skill. Any character with the Alchemical Crafting skill feat can create alchemical items as long as they have the proper formula, along with enough time and reagents. Alchemists know (or hazard) shortcuts to the process and can create unstable alchemical items by using an alchemist kit and paying a resonance cost.

So, what kind of items can they make in the Pathfinder Playtest? Alchemical items come in four general categories: here's what you can expect from each.

Bombs

This category will be familiar territory for those of you currently playing Pathfinder. Alchemist's fire, liquid ice, and bottled lightning have been a mainstay for low-level alchemists and other characters over the years. In the Pathfinder Playtest, these items are the baselines for alchemical bombs. While the base bombs deal a relatively low amount of damage, the advanced alchemy class feature allows the alchemist to infuse them with extra power according to the alchemist's level. While these powerful bombs are unstable (losing potency in either 24 hours or after a round, depending on how the alchemist crafted them), during that limited time they can pack a punch. For instance, here's bottled lightning.

Bottled Lightning Item 1

Alchemical, Bomb, Consumable, Electricity
Price 3 gp
Method of Use held, 2 hands; Bulk L

Bottled lightning is packed with reagents that create an electric blast when exposed to air. Bottled lightning deals 1d6 electricity damage and 1 electricity splash damage and causes the target to be flat-footed to all creatures until the start of your next turn.

If an 11th-level alchemist makes one of these bombs using his advanced alchemy, the electricity damage increases to 4d6 damage, though the splash stays at 1 (unless said alchemist takes the Calculated Bomber feat, which would increase that splash damage to his Intelligence modifier). The flat-footed effect also stacks with anything extra the alchemist might add to the bomb from his class feats, making bottled lightning a great choice when going up against bosses or high-AC foes.

Of course, there are some surprises among the alchemical bombs. Thunderstones, which deal greater sonic damage in the hands of a higher-level alchemist, and tanglefoot bags are also on the bomb list.

Elixirs

In Pathfinder First Edition, we have potions, elixir, and extracts, all taking up much of the same mechanical design space. In the playtest, these divisions are less ambiguous. Potions are potent liquids made by way of magical crafting and have magical, often arcane, effects. Elixirs, on the other hand, are alchemical concoctions producing effects that are often very dramatic, but are non-magical. Potions are often quicker to use and usually pack some extra oomph, but elixirs work even in places where magic is dulled or suppressed, and an alchemist can craft them in a hurry. Though both potions and elixirs are used by consuming them, and often require a bit of resonance to kick them into gear, elixirs' spectrum of effects tend to deal with changing the body or state of mind. An example of this second sort of elixir is the liquid courage found in bravo's brew.

Bravo's Brew Item 3

Alchemical, Consumable, Elixir, Mental
Price 7 gp
Method of Use held, 1 hand; Bulk L
Activation Operate Activation

This flask of foaming beer grants courage. For the next hour after drinking this elixir, you gain a +1 item bonus to Will saves, and a +3 item bonus to Will saves against fear.

Some of the most potent elixirs are mutagens. These elixirs transform the mind and the body in dramatic ways, granting sizeable item bonuses to a number of related skill checks and attributes. However, this comes with a drawback: penalties to some other group of relevant skills and attributes. Mutagens also tend to morph the user's physical features in some way. For instance, a lesser bestial mutagen gives you a more savage aspect with greater muscle mass, granting you a +2 item bonus to Athletics checks and unarmed attack rolls and increasing the amount of damage die you roll for such attacks, but this new form is clumsy and lumbering, imparting a -1 penalty to Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery checks, as well as to AC and Reflex saves.

Mutagens have some limitations. They must be attuned to a specific creature; this typically involves including some bit of the attuned creature's body (such as hair, nail trimmings, saliva, or the like) as a reagent during the crafting process. Moreover, you can only have one mutagen benefit active at a time, though you can suffer from any number of mutagen drawbacks simultaneously.

What about extracts? Well, in this scheme, they're just not necessary anymore. But, I wouldn't be surprised if we do something else with extracts sometime in the future, reviving that game term to make something particularly dynamic and fun.

Poisons

Alchemists usually deal with elixirs that bolster the body and the mind, but they can also dabble in alchemical poisons that do just the opposite. While there are many poisons in nature, alchemical poisons tend to be more refined versions of those natural poisons, often distilled or concentrated, created for both potency and ease of use.

For example, here's the sleep poison favored by drow.

Sleep Poison Item 2

Alchemical, Consumable, Injury, Poison
Price 5 gp
Method of Use held, 2 hands; Bulk L
Activation 3 Operate Activations, no Resonance Point cost
Saving Throw Fortitude DC 13; Maximum Duration 4 hours; Stage 1 slowed 1 (1 round); Stage 2 asleep with no Perception check to wake up (1 round); Stage 3 asleep with no Perception check to wake up (1d4 hours)

Let's say you found or made a vial of sleep poison. It takes three Operate Activation actions to apply it to a weapon (which must be one that deals either piercing or slashing damage). If the next attack made by the weapon is a hit or critical hit, the target must attempt a save against the poison, gaining the effects of Stage 1 on a failure (or Stage 2 on a critical failure), with later saves determining how the poison either intensifies or is shaken off. Since the maximum duration of the poison is 4 hours, no matter what happens, the poison will be completely gone from the target's system 4 hours later.

Like all alchemical items, an alchemist can create a less stable version of a poison using his advanced alchemy, as long as he possesses the formula for that poison and has the resonance to spare. Here's the bad news. Sleep poison is a closely guarded secret of the drow, so good luck getting the formula.

Tools

The last category of alchemical items is tools. Tools are the items that don't fit in other categories. They typically affect the terrain, vision, or other aspects of the environment, instead of affecting a creature directly. The sunrod is one example of an alchemical tool. The smokestick is another.

Smokestick Item 1

Alchemical, Consumable
Price 2 gp
Method of Use held, 2 hands; Bulk L
Activation Operate Activation, no Resonance Point cost

With a sharp twist of this item, you instantly create a screen of thick, opaque smoke in a 5-foot-radius burst centered on one corner of your space. All creatures within that area are concealed. The smoke lasts for 1 minute or until dispersed by a strong wind.

As you can see alchemy has become a discipline in its own right, with many tools to aid adventurers in general and the alchemist in particular.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Senior Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
251 to 300 of 417 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

I actually really liked 90% of the blog. I got some shades of the kineticist. But I don't think we're going to get the ridiculousness of that (I'm sure very mathematically balanced) class with the alchemist. I was also very happy to see feats modifying base abilities (rather than simply granting new attack powers).

However I remain extremely concerned with how the rules are being presented in this game. The Pathfinder 2e team have come out saying how terrible the layout of the Core Rulebook is. But here's the thing: Some decisions were made very deliberately and very consciously.

Take a look at this page of magic items from D&D 4e and now take a look at this page of magic items from Pathfinder 1e.

What does the PF2e item style look like to you? Do you think a page of these magic items is going to resemble a page from a D&D 4th edition book? Or do you think it will resemble a page from a Pathfinder book? While I'm sure we're not going to get the 4e clinical white background, I can't see how a page full of these items isn't going to look like it belongs in a D&D 4e book.

Presentation matters. The type of game you present to players is going to impact how they perceive the game. I show my group a book with pages of magic items that look like what's been previewed, and a bunch of feats that follow the same format, they're going to think I'm showing them a new iteration on Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition.

Finally, irrespective of how it looks, the layout wastes page space and results in less content per page.

I'm really concerned, not just with the rules, but the basic way in which Pathfinder 2e is going to be laid out. I expect it's going to be an instant turn off for my ex-4e players and they're not even going to give the new edition a chance :(

Good news is for everyone who wishes I'd just go away: I won't be able to give you their feedback. Bad news is, the Pathfinder 2e playtest will potentially be losing an entire segment of their current playerbase.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That will matter depending on the magnitude of said segment of current player base which will leave, compared to the magnitude of those new players who will come. Paizo is clearly aware that they need new players, they have said so in podcast and interviews. So they are making a bet.

It is a sure thing that, no matter of what they do, they WILL lose some players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is not a new problem.

But yes, I agree that Paizo would be best-served in presenting PF2e as its own thing, and not looking like a 4e knock-off (or even a PF1e knock-off).

But they're smart people. I'm sure that they will work that out for themselves. Given how good PF1e was/is/evermore shall be so, I think they've earned a bit of trust that they won't screw PF2e up completely.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Take a look at this page of magic items from D&D 4e and now take a look at this page of magic items from Pathfinder 1e.

What does the PF2e item style look like to you? Do you think a page of these magic items is going to resemble a page from a D&D 4th edition book? Or do you think it will resemble a page from a Pathfinder book? While I'm sure we're not going to get the 4e clinical white background, I can't see how a page full of these items isn't going to look like it belongs in a D&D 4e book.

That's a very misleading page choice. It's showing Item Properties from PF1 rather than full items.

Full items look like this (more or less) and quite a bit more like the above alchemical item stat blocks than either of the pages you linked.

In short, Pathfinder items are already formatted pretty similarly (in a structural and aesthetic sense) to the above Alchemical Items and I find you not realizing this kinda odd to be honest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious is alchemist more of a scientist and less of a wizard now? If so, I'm VERY interested. I want something more than "spell in the bottle" mechanism, spells and formulas should be separate and different. Magic and it's origin hasn't been defined in PF and that's the way it should stay. Alchemy on the other hand is something a player can relate IRL. For example bottled lightning is a reference to Benjamin Franklin's experiment. Sleeping spays, poisons, hallucination inducing gas, etc are very, very real.

And bombs .....ok we need bigger bombs, I mean BIGGER .......WAY BIGGGGGGER. The equivalent of a level 10 spell would be a MOAB (mother of all bombs) for example. Also don't be afraid to use volumetric bombs, the way 2nd ed. fireball was. I can't wait to combo one such bomb with a wizard with a ready action to cast wall of force in front of the party as the bomb is flying toward the enemies. From simple molotov cocktails that keep burning on the ground, to flashbang grenades that blind and deafen, to intimidating fireworks that chase away the fiercest of animals or fascinate the toughest crowd, the real life material to inspire the alchemist's abilities are abundant.


GameDemon wrote:

I'm curious is alchemist more of a scientist and less of a wizard now? If so, I'm VERY interested. I want something more than "spell in the bottle" mechanism, spells and formulas should be separate and different. Magic and it's origin hasn't been defined in PF and that's the way it should stay. Alchemy on the other hand is something a player can relate IRL. For example bottled lightning is a reference to Benjamin Franklin's experiment. Sleeping spays, poisons, hallucination inducing gas, etc are very, very real.

And bombs .....ok we need bigger bombs, I mean BIGGER .......WAY BIGGGGGGER. The equivalent of a level 10 spell would be a MOAB (mother of all bombs) for example. Also don't be afraid to use volumetric bombs, the way 2nd ed. fireball was. I can't wait to combo one such bomb with a wizard with a ready action to cast wall of force in front of the party as the bomb is flying toward the enemies. From simple molotov cocktails that keep burning on the ground, to flashbang grenades that blind and deafen, to intimidating fireworks that chase away the fiercest of animals or fascinate the toughest crowd, the real life material to inspire the alchemist's abilities are abundant.

It does seem that way. That it won't be just spells in bottle but cool alchemical items! which also has me excited as well!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This looks more like 5th ed to me but whatever.

It would nice to see rules for alchemical uses for things like dragon scales, manticore spikes, thriae honey, pixie dust, vampire fang, etc.

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:


Take a look at this page of magic items from D&D 4e and now take a look at this page of magic items from Pathfinder 1e.

The 4e formating was obviously superior in clarity and simplicity. No reason to go back to writing the rules on parchment with a quill just because it reminds us of ye aulde tymes.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
In short, Pathfinder items are already formatted pretty similarly (in a structural and aesthetic sense) to the above Alchemical Items and I find you not realizing this kinda odd to be honest.

Fair enough. Whenever I think of PF1e's magic items I always think of the weapons section because it is such a significant departure from how D&D 4e items looked so it always stood out in my mind.

I then saw items having a level, the level being marked out in the same spot as 4e items were, the fact it has keywords which PF1e items don't (but 4e powers did) and the activation method is exactly where I'd expect to see a 4e power telling me if it's a standard action, minor action or move action. My mind instantly went to the similarities with 4e and overlooked the similarities with PF1e items.

Point well made.

Liberty's Edge

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fair enough. Whenever I think of PF1e's magic items I always think of the weapons section because it is such a significant departure from how D&D 4e items looked so it always stood out in my mind.

Yeah, okay, that makes sense. In fairness, my point is partially that the weapon properties section might well still look like that, since this is clearly the Alchemical Items format rather than necessarily a generalized one, and for full items not modular properties.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

I then saw items having a level, the level being marked out in the same spot as 4e items were, the fact it has keywords which PF1e items don't (but 4e powers did) and the activation method is exactly where I'd expect to see a 4e power telling me if it's a standard action, minor action or move action. My mind instantly went to the similarities with 4e and overlooked the similarities with PF1e items.

Point well made.

Yeah, we all leap to conclusions sometimes, just noting why this one might be an error.

And thanks. :)


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:

However I remain extremely concerned with how the rules are being presented in this game. The Pathfinder 2e team have come out saying how terrible the layout of the Core Rulebook is. But here's the thing: Some decisions were made very deliberately and very consciously.

Take a look at this page of magic items from D&D 4e and now take a look at this page of magic items from Pathfinder 1e.

What does the PF2e item style look like to you? Do you think a page of these magic items is going to resemble a page from a D&D 4th edition book? Or do you think it will resemble a page from a Pathfinder book? While I'm sure we're not going to get the 4e clinical white background, I can't see how a page full of these items isn't going to look like it belongs in a D&D 4e book.

Presentation matters. The type of game you present to players is going to impact how they perceive the game. I show my group a book with pages of magic items that look like what's been previewed, and a bunch of feats that follow the same format, they're going to think I'm showing them a new iteration on Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition.

Finally, irrespective of how it looks, the layout wastes page space and results in less content per page.

I'm really concerned, not just with the rules, but the basic way in which Pathfinder 2e is going to be laid out. I expect it's going to be an instant turn off for my ex-4e players and they're not even going to give the new edition a chance :(

I wholly agree that presentation matters, in the same way that the name of things in PF2 matters, how the playtest is organized matters, how devs respond to forum feedback matters, etc. All of that is part of the game and/or the customer experience, so it's part of what makes or breaks PF2.

Thing is... Objectively speaking, looking to your examples, the 4E presentation is superior to the PF1 presentation. Information hierarchy is respected, it's easier to browse to find a given item, etc. I'm not a designer or anything but I create customer-facing material as part of my job, and it's very clear which of the two is more appealing and which one is easier to use. Take one person who's interested in trying RPGs for the first time, show them these two pages - they'll pick up the 4E book, 9 times out of 10.

Hopefully, the final book will have enough originality in its look and feel that you wouldn't confuse it with any earlier publication. But PF2 shouldn't present itself to the world in an antiquated way, just for the purpose of making it clear it isn't 4E. If your players are going to reject the PF2 playtest out of hand because of this, then it's really sad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, I kinda got mixed feelings on the new Alchemist.

Firstly, I think the current iteration of the Alchemist is one of the best built classes Paizo has brought out. Seeing it changed radically to a non-caster class is a bit jarring and makes me sad.

Secondly, I am kinda worried that it seems as if the new Alchemist has to pay daily to get his powerful abilities to work. I am probably readying this wrong and resonance solves this (please write a blog about resonance, soon. It really needs further exploring).

Thirdly, given how crafting items was completely broken in terms of time investment in PF 1.0, I hope the new alchemical crafting system allows more timely construction of your daily items and alchemical substances in general. Any player who has a character who crafts anything (be it magical or non-magical) knows how you miss out on roleplaying opportunities because your character is stuck in his lab all day.

Since we don't know the full balance of how combat plays out yet, I will not complain about "only" 4d6 points of damage at level and no INT bonus to splash. Not to mention that splash damage for bombs apparently lost the "minimum damage + INT" component, i.e. if that were a current alchemy bomb would do 4 + INT as splash damage for a 4d6 bomb. We'll just have to wait to see the full picture to see how it compares with other classes.


magnuskn wrote:

Well, I kinda got mixed feelings on the new Alchemist.

Firstly, I think the current iteration of the Alchemist is one of the best built classes Paizo has brought out. Seeing it changed radically to a non-caster class is a bit jarring and makes me sad.

Secondly, I am kinda worried that it seems as if the new Alchemist has to pay daily to get his powerful abilities to work. I am probably readying this wrong and resonance solves this (please write a blog about resonance, soon. It really needs further exploring).

Thirdly, given how crafting items was completely broken in terms of time investment in PF 1.0, I hope the new alchemical crafting system allows more timely construction of your daily items and alchemical substances in general. Any player who has a character who crafts anything (be it magical or non-magical) knows how you miss out on roleplaying opportunities because your character is stuck in his lab all day.

Since we don't know the full balance of how combat plays out yet, I will not complain about "only" 4d6 points of damage at level and no INT bonus to splash. Not to mention that splash damage for bombs apparently lost the "minimum damage + INT" component, i.e. if that were a current alchemy bomb would do 4 + INT as splash damage for a 4d6 bomb. We'll just have to wait to see the full picture to see how it compares with other classes.

And of course If the damage doesn't seem right that is what the play test is for!


Not as excited about this as I was the magic article but maybe that's because I've never played an Alchemist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only thing I'm puzzled at is how small the splash damage is. Even with the feat they mentioned, it's going to be basically pointless to shoot bombs at groups. Why?


Mark Seifter wrote:
I'm not honestly sure exactly why (I have a theory I'll mention after this sentence is finished), but a bit of A/B testing has shown that people are finding Bulk easier/less burdensome to use and actually using it, whereas they were more likely to gloss over weight. Given that Strength has very little unique to it, anything that strengthens people's likelihood to keep track of one of the things Strength does is a good thing. My theory is that it's because of the magnitude of the numbers. In several situations, people are more easily able to keep track of smaller integers up to a certain point than larger ones (especially single digits and maybe the teens), and they seem less intimidating and more accessible on a subconscious level. So it could be that?

Interesting and insightful. And could be. And to be fair, I won't pretend that some numbers are less intuitive than others. "Wraparound" numbers for instance. Most people can glance at "16 + 12" and see that's you can just sum each column and be done. But "87 + 78" is less visually obvious. Adding more columns makes it less visually obvious what the results are going to be.

Further, I recognize that different people approach math differently, and many, many people aren't comfortable with it at all.

It's not like I can't use Bulk. It's that counting shouldn't be easier than adding. "How many negligible items do I have?" No idea. The only way to answer that is to count them, which is a mechanical iterative process. On the other hand, a column of numbers to add can be done rapidly if you have any talent at math.

What I'm saying is that while this may be more accessible for people who struggle, it's less accessible for those of us who don't. But I suppose people with math skills can accommodate those who don't, so they can continue to not learn those skills. Which philosophically I'm kind of opposed to, but hey. Not my game.

Anyway, it's not much of a concern to us because we still won't use encumbrance. It's a subsystem that isn't about "what can my character do?" Most of the other attributes' uses are active; Dex in PF1 governs how quickly you get to act in a combat. Wis governs if you get to see the enemy before they surprise round you to death and stop them. Encumbrance is just... "can I carry one more hammer or do I need to buy extradimensional storage?" Shrug.

Thanks for the reply though. Again, insightful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

People waving the flag about weight over bulk should look up the idea of cognitive load.

Bulk has way less cognitive load than weight, and requires you to look up a separate table to work out their carrying capacity.

I am familiar with the concept.

Quote:
Every item you pick up you have to look up the weight (is this the straw that breaks the camel’s back?)

And Bulk doesn't change that. At all. In theory, if you are the most organized you can possibly be, your character sheet as two values; how much "bulk" you can carry at the moment, and how much "bulk" you are currently carrying. When you contemplate a new item, you have to compare those numbers.

If you use weight, again, you have "how much weight am I carrying" and "how much weight can I carry". Once again, you add and compare.

I do recognize that adding one and adding mostly single-digit numbers ("Gee, I've got 73 pounds and I want to carry another 4 so that's... uh... um... 54?") aren't quite the same. Hence cognitive load.

But I also have a philosophical issue with a system that exists to make it easier for humans to not do math we each 8-year-olds. I'm not entirely comfortable with what appears to be a diaper for the brain. Maybe that makes me elitist or discriminatory or evil, but my gut feeling is that there are some basic life skills that things like Pathfinder are awesome for reinforcing and teaching. I know the math skills of those in my groups have improved over the years. And isn't that an awesome side-effect of a game?

Quote:
Every time you get a bull’s strength, strength mutagen or other temporary strength enhancement its back to the table.

Same with bulk, since the number of bulks you can carry just changed. Admittedly the encumbrance table is... arbitrary, so I'll grant that's not even remotely intuitive. But that's a design space which could be innovated upon.

Quote:
The cognitive load of large numbers is real. So encumbrance is the rule that gets skipped or ignored the most. Which enhances the value of melee dexterity builds.

We ignore it because it doesn't add anything fun to the game. And it happens that if you just ignore the subsystem to the point of "you can just carry whatever you want" (which is not what we do) it benefits everyone equally.

Quote:
You personally might find encumbrance very easy to track. Bully for you. However, you aren’t everybody, and for my players encumbrance has always been easier to track. I already houseruled something similar in my game and while dexterity builds were still popular, strength/heavy armor builds started seeing more play again.

I acknowledge that my table is not every table. We haven't seen the issues you've evidently seen; we have a pretty normal distribution of attribute-focused front liners.

But thanks for the discussion.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's something I haven't seen anyone post: Poison being more fully developed in the game will help give Rogues (and maybe even some rangers) something unique that they can do that more martial and magical classes can't do as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Anguish wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
I'm kinda surprised there are people that prefer weight to bulk.

Bulk can be learned, but shouldn't need to be. Okay, so small stuff is negligible unless you have enough of them and then they become a bulk. How is this really better? If you're going to play the encumbrance game, you still need to keep track of how many not-quite-a-bulk items you have, to figure out how many bulks they are in total.

I'm not honestly sure exactly why (I have a theory I'll mention after this sentence is finished), but a bit of A/B testing has shown that people are finding Bulk easier/less burdensome to use and actually using it, whereas they were more likely to gloss over weight. Given that Strength has very little unique to it, anything that strengthens people's likelihood to keep track of one of the things Strength does is a good thing. My theory is that it's because of the magnitude of the numbers. In several situations, people are more easily able to keep track of smaller integers up to a certain point than larger ones (especially single digits and maybe the teens), and they seem less intimidating and more accessible on a subconscious level. So it could be that?

Mark - If you realize that Strength is weaker than the other ability scores then instead of spending resources on bulk...

Why not just make Strength better?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the Twitch interview, the item levels you see there are mostly for crafting purposes. (It won't prevent you from using items or something like that.)

The philosopher's stone is a 20th level alchemical item.

Silver Crusade

HWalsh wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Anguish wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
I'm kinda surprised there are people that prefer weight to bulk.

Bulk can be learned, but shouldn't need to be. Okay, so small stuff is negligible unless you have enough of them and then they become a bulk. How is this really better? If you're going to play the encumbrance game, you still need to keep track of how many not-quite-a-bulk items you have, to figure out how many bulks they are in total.

I'm not honestly sure exactly why (I have a theory I'll mention after this sentence is finished), but a bit of A/B testing has shown that people are finding Bulk easier/less burdensome to use and actually using it, whereas they were more likely to gloss over weight. Given that Strength has very little unique to it, anything that strengthens people's likelihood to keep track of one of the things Strength does is a good thing. My theory is that it's because of the magnitude of the numbers. In several situations, people are more easily able to keep track of smaller integers up to a certain point than larger ones (especially single digits and maybe the teens), and they seem less intimidating and more accessible on a subconscious level. So it could be that?

Mark - If you realize that Strength is weaker than the other ability scores then instead of spending resources on bulk...

Why not just make Strength better?

He said it’s not unique, not that it was weak. The main Attack/Damage ability score is already very good, just a bit of a one trick pony.

Though I could see them adding STR minimums to heavy armor/tower shields.


John Lynch 106 wrote:

What does the PF2e item style look like to you? Do you think a page of these magic items is going to resemble a page from a D&D 4th edition book? Or do you think it will resemble a page from a Pathfinder book? While I'm sure we're not going to get the 4e clinical white background, I can't see how a page full of these items isn't going to look like it belongs in a D&D 4e book.

Presentation matters. The type of game you present to players is going to impact how they perceive the game. I show my group a book with pages of magic items that look like what's been previewed, and a bunch of feats that follow the same format, they're going to think I'm showing them a new iteration on Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition.

Funny thing — I remember a blog post by (Rob Schwalb?) who suggested that if 4e had been formatted to look more like 3.5’s presentation style, perhaps there wouldn’t have been as much of a negative backlash on the game in general, and people dismissed the idea pretty strongly. Kind of funny to see the thought resurfacing. :)

I do believe presentation matters, but I think PF2 will be made or broken at the table. If people actually use the rules as written, and it plays very soundly and does not impede play, then I think that will carry it forward. But people have to be able to give it a try as it is, for two or three sessions, and then make the call.

Then again, sometimes speed of play isn’t everything, and some people just like taking the scenic route for its own sake. “Not about the destination, it’s about the journey” and all that.

Scarab Sages

ENHenry wrote:


I do believe presentation matters, but I think PF2 will be made or broken at the table. If people actually use the rules as written, and it plays very soundly and does not impede play, then I think that will carry it forward. But people have to be able to give it a try as it is, for two or three sessions, and then make the call.

4e works well at the table, too; it‘s a perfectly functional system. I do think the presentation was to blame, but it‘s not about boxes and formating, it‘s about the garish anime-style names and descriptions. When I build a Fighter, I just want to strike the bad guys down with extreme prejudice, not light up the place with a «Three-Mountain Raven Super-Fiery Fire Blast Strike 2000 With Lasers».


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rules Artificer wrote:

From the Friday podcast, item levels seem to scale from 1 all the way to 20. Which is a relief for me, as I was worried that Paizo was saying that Bravo's Brew was on par with a 3rd-level spell.

They listed the Philosopher's Stone as an example of a 20th-level alchemical item.

What are these podcasts, and where can I find them?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Rules Artificer wrote:

From the Friday podcast, item levels seem to scale from 1 all the way to 20. Which is a relief for me, as I was worried that Paizo was saying that Bravo's Brew was on par with a 3rd-level spell.

They listed the Philosopher's Stone as an example of a 20th-level alchemical item.

What are these podcasts, and where can I find them?

They're every Friday and can be found here.

As a side note to Paizo, I don't use Twitch much and, when last looking for these yesterday, I couldn't find them from this, the official Paizo website (I eventually just went to Twitch and did a search). Maybe put a link to the Twitch channel in the'Community' section?


I keep hearing about the podcast-is it recorded anywhere or live only? anyone have a link?

EDIT:: thats what i get for posting halfway through reading the thread ^_^;


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Rules Artificer wrote:

From the Friday podcast, item levels seem to scale from 1 all the way to 20. Which is a relief for me, as I was worried that Paizo was saying that Bravo's Brew was on par with a 3rd-level spell.

They listed the Philosopher's Stone as an example of a 20th-level alchemical item.

What are these podcasts, and where can I find them?

They're every Friday and can be found here.

As a side note to Paizo, I don't use Twitch much and, when last looking for these yesterday, I couldn't find them from this, the official Paizo website (I eventually just went to Twitch and did a search). Maybe put a link to the Twitch channel in the'Community' section?

So they're videos, not actually podcasts.


Anguish wrote:


If you use weight, again, you have "how much weight am I carrying" and "how much weight can I carry". Once again, you add and compare.

Not true. With bulk, whenever you pick up something of negligible weight, you make 0 math. When you pick something of L bulk, you do 0 math, unless it is your 10th (or 20th...) L bulk item.

One of the systems require math every single time. The other require (simpler) math sometimes, and sometimes it requires none. That is less math.


QuidEst wrote:

From the Twitch interview, the item levels you see there are mostly for crafting purposes. (It won't prevent you from using items or something like that.)

The philosopher's stone is a 20th level alchemical item.

Games start wrapping up around 15(Average?) so while nice, that's kinda meh. As for actual use, probably going to get it level 15 onward anyway. Even if they changed what it does, you aren't getting a level 20 item early.

And we're taking the item level from Starfinder? Disliked that as it made the game feel more MMO-ish.

Anyway, I'd want to see more mid level items anyway. PF1 Alchemy suffered from only useful vs low level. Past level 5 or 6, you'd see it diminish in use.


HWalsh wrote:

Mark - If you realize that Strength is weaker than the other ability scores then instead of spending resources on bulk...

Why not just make Strength better?

Okay. Strength (up until the creation of a couple Feats allowing Dexterity to be used for Damage with certain light weapons) is used both for Power Attack and generic Weapon Damage. In addition, you need some level of Strength in order to carry equipment, to the point that even the squishiest of Wizards tend to avoid having a really low Strength. Any character that isn't a ranged specialist or someone who uses spells to deal damage will have several points in Strength... to the point it is most classes secondary stat and raised to at least a 13 to gain certain benefits.

And you want to make it better.

Strength may be "simple" in form, but it is still a stat most players will boost up to some point. It does not need improving. Hell, you notice that they put Resonance into Charisma to stop that stat from being used as the Dump Stat.

I think even if Strength remains in its current form, it will still be quite important to gameplay. It does not need further buffing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Not true. With bulk, whenever you pick up something of negligible weight, you make 0 math. When you pick something of L bulk, you do 0 math, unless it is your 10th (or 20th...) L bulk item.

Wait. I'm confused. How do you know if it's your 10th (or 20th) L bulk item unless you do the dreaded, evil... math?

Quote:
One of the systems require math every single time. The other require (simpler) math sometimes, and sometimes it requires none. That is less math.

Bulk still requires you to meticulously count what you've got. I've conceded that it's (generally) adding 1, but it' still math. "143 lbs + 17 lbs = what I currently have" is math, and so is "17 L + 2 L = what I currently have" is math. Oh, but don't forget that you shouldn't have 17 L; you've got 1 B and 7 L. Plus four'een ha'pence an' tupenny, g'uvnor.

There is nothing atmospherically "fantasy RPG" about the bulk system plus it explicitly tries to help people not bother getting any better at addition. Enabling is a Good Thing when talking about building a ramp outside a library for folks in wheelchairs, but less so when talking about picking up a bottle of scotch on the way home for one's alcoholic life-partner. Pathfinder should be proud of being a hobby that improves basic life-skills for its players.


I am very interested to see what higher level alchemical items are like. The idea that alchemy is a potent discipline of its own with high level effects is a really cool change from pathfinder/3.x, where alchemical items are weak. It seems we could easily have mutagens that change the imbiber into an oozy blob of protoplasm, or grant them dragon breath. We could have elixers that reproduce the effects of spells like foresight, or mindblank. We could have bombs that do disintigration damage.


Please tell me the Assassin can also use these poison formula's, like some rogue-alchemist crossover!
I... I need this... because reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something I like about the way this blog and the magic blog have presented information, but couldn't put a finger on until last night while I was trying to sleep, is how much giving everything important keyword traits reminds me of the Adventure Card Game. I really like how it makes referencing things in the card game both simple (does this thing have the X trait? No? Then it doesn't work with things that reference X) and future-proof (New class Y gets a bonus with all things that have or will have trait Z). Incorporating this idea into PF2 makes me optimistic about the game being able to expand its options easily into future books elegantly without losing anything along the way by accident.

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For the Bottled Lightning, I see NOTHING that stop you from fluffing it like you just open the bottle and an arc of lightning hit the target. The "splash" damages would be residual arcs that hit close targets? I mean, that was the image I got while reading the item here, and I didn't even KNEW it was a thing in original Pathfinder. >_>
I know there is the "bomb" keyword, but that's just a mechanical term to say it interact with bomb feats.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Here's something I haven't seen anyone post: Poison being more fully developed in the game will help give Rogues (and maybe even some rangers) something unique that they can do that more martial and magical classes can't do as well.

Yeah, I agree!

Also, with that format, it's really easy to think of a feat that let you use less actions to apply it (Like, class feat that make it one less action, follow-up skill that reduce it to one). Hell, you could even rule that a character could try to apply it faster, ignoring one action, but risking poisoning themselves.
One thing I really like wit what we have seen from this new edition is that everything looks very easy to modulate/house rule and make quick rulings at the table. That's something I was tempted to do with pathfinder, but everything was so all over the place in the design behind it (different scaling, different importance of each kind of actions) that we always lost a lost of time looking up in the books, as I have some memory problems that make it VERY hard to memorize even half the rules. But I have no problem memorizing the design philosophies and recreating the rules on the fly... as long as there is a small number of different philosophies.
Well... I kinda went off in a tangent here.
But I can't wait to use all these alchemical items. And I like they reused the poison rules from Unchained.

1 to 50 of 417 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Secrets of Alchemy All Messageboards