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
151 to 200 of 417 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It looks like the alchemist class features are going to be how you specialize your alchemist. I suspect there will be different ones for bombs vs. Poisons vs. Elixirs.

So, is there a proficiency for throwing bombs or do we once again have a Throw Anything?


BretI wrote:

It looks like the alchemist class features are going to be how you specialize your alchemist. I suspect there will be different ones for bombs vs. Poisons vs. Elixirs.

So, is there a proficiency for throwing bombs or do we once again have a Throw Anything?

Bombs count as thrown weapons in 2nd edition, so hopefully, that will cover proficiency and whether or not bombs count as a weapon for [X, Y, Z].

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the questions about the 'Item 1' entry and such... my personal thought is it is identifying the level of the recipe... we've already seen that there will be a LOT of recipes to learn. I suspect that your level of rank in Alchemy will determine what levels of recipes you can learn. I'm rather hopeful that they're not getting into the way access in Starfinder is tied to item level, but we shall see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like extracts, in the new system, should be the baseline components upon which elixirs and other alchemical items are crafted.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

About Bulk, I like it more than weight. The adventage is that you can give a higher Bulk value to items that are, you know, bulky. Just because you can carry 100 pounds doesn't mean you can carry 8 balancing poles of 30 feet that weight 12 pounds each.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


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.

I always miss those podcasts... I am so angry with myself.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Wild Spirit 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.

I always miss those podcasts... I am so angry with myself.

I made sure to enable notifications tonight!

Second Seekers (Roheas)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Can I just say I loathe these podcasts.

If ever there were a less efficient way of getting information across, I have never seen it

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

It's good to get in the habit now, and get the technical kinks worked out. Once the playtest is active they'll have much more to talk about.

I wouldn't call scattered messageboard posts any more efficient than a regular conversation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:

Can I just say I loathe these podcasts.

If ever there were a less efficient way of getting information across, I have never seen it

For a primary source of information, they are not that efficient. They do, however, allow for one of the only ways to directly ask questions and for clarification to the developers themselves.

For example, several people asked about the 2-handed bombs thing, which they talked about and said that it was still under consideration, and that got passed around the dev team (apparently not everyone was on the same page) and so it got officially changed so bombs are 1-handed. Can't get that kind of player to developer interaction anywhere else!

I was also able get a pretty specific question on how Alchemists, alchemical items, and resonance interact, and they were able to answer that one too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemists, Alchemy, and Resonance

- Alchemists can craft bombs, elixirs, and other alchemical items and tools during downtime using gold and not requiring any resonance

- Alchemists can spend resonance at the beginning of the day to create [unstable, 1 day] alchemical items. When these items are used on/by the Alchemist, they do not require resonance. When passed off to allies, they do require resonance. Alchemical weapons are the exception; they don't require resonance, they just need to be thrown.

- Alchemists can spend resonance using their Swift Alchemy class ability to craft [unstable, short duration] alchemical items on the fly.

Devs, if my understanding of what was stated in the podcast here isn't right, please correct me!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see nothing we didn't have to begin with outside of Poisons having maybe a more instant effect.

Bombs seem weaker and will be fiddly(Difference between store bought Bottled Lightning and Alchemist made Bottled lightning?). Exiliar example seems very weak to show off(And really did you just decide to make Tinctures and Concoctions as a base ability for Alchemists now?), and oh boy Smokestick is back! Whooooo..... not really.

Was looking forward to this. I see nothing to be happy about and just some annoyance. Not mad just disappointed.

The Exchange

This preview looks very good. I really am liking the concept for the alchemist without spells more and more. Gives a very good Batman or Jekyll/Hyde vibe. I do have a question. How long is the sleep poison effective on the blade? Will it last a whole combat or just a few rounds?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Talek & Luna wrote:
How long is the sleep poison effective on the blade? Will it last a whole combat or just a few rounds?

It's probably not intended, but:

"If the next attack made by the weapon is a hit or critical hit, the target must attempt a save against the poison"

reads to me like it lasts for one attack. Exactly one attack and is then gone whether it hits or not. If they wanted the other reading it should be something like

"The next attack made by the weapon that is a hit or critical hit"

Apart from that, in the current rules poison lasts for one successful attack. Nothing I've read here implies more.


Given the info that Alchemists actually need to spend resonance to make any of their per/day formulas, I totally see why Alchemists get to cheat and get Intelligence to resonance now. They are effectively "downtime crafting and resonance, the class" for alchemical stuff.

I just hope they actually get enough resonance per day to power everything. Intelligence + level is a fairly small pool to need to power, from 1st edition's perspective:

- bombs
- mutagens
- extracts
- swift alchemy
- any X uses/day magic items


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rules Artificer wrote:

Alchemists, Alchemy, and Resonance

- Alchemists can craft bombs, elixirs, and other alchemical items and tools during downtime using gold and not requiring any resonance

- Alchemists can spend resonance at the beginning of the day to create [unstable, 1 day] alchemical items. When these items are used on/by the Alchemist, they do not require resonance. When passed off to allies, they do require resonance. Alchemical weapons are the exception; they don't require resonance, they just need to be thrown.

- Alchemists can spend resonance using their Swift Alchemy class ability to craft [unstable, short duration] alchemical items on the fly.

Devs, if my understanding of what was stated in the podcast here isn't right, please correct me!

If that's right I'm a little sad. I was thinking from what had been revealed earlier that the free unstable daily items wouldn't cost resonance. Only the on-the-fly-mid-combat ones would. When that's how I envisioned it, I didn't foresee some of the doom & gloom others had been about having to choose between your class features and your magic and your healing. Now I'm concerned, unless Alchemists are getting level + twice mod, instead of mod.


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

Grade school was well over three decades ago for me and yet... I still know how to add. If I'm required to use weight, it's literally the simplest mathematical operation.

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.

Or did I slip into a coma when I got to that section of Starfinder and it's somehow more elegant than it seemed?

Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Rules Artificer wrote:

Given the info that Alchemists actually need to spend resonance to make any of their per/day formulas, I totally see why Alchemists get to cheat and get Intelligence to resonance now. They are effectively "downtime crafting and resonance, the class" for alchemical stuff.

I just hope they actually get enough resonance per day to power everything. Intelligence + level is a fairly small pool to need to power, from 1st edition's perspective:

- bombs
- mutagens
- extracts
- swift alchemy
- any X uses/day magic items

The start of day items, as you guys have guessed, are subsidized for a better rate if you can predict ahead of time which items you will need and make duplicates. Plus, the alchemist gets a class feature that adds extra resonance and scales, not exactly the way NielsenE predicts in the next post down from yours, but in a very useful way.

Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
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?


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

Grade school was well over three decades ago for me and yet... I still know how to add. If I'm required to use weight, it's literally the simplest mathematical operation.

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.

Or did I slip into a coma when I got to that section of Starfinder and it's somehow more elegant than it seemed?

It's simpler because everything which is not bulky enough is just worth the same. So you don't have to go and check in the gear section if the hourglass you are carrying is the one that weights 1 pound or 1/2 of a pound. You know it's small enought to not be worth 1 bulk, so it's L.

But besides that, the real adventage is not having to add less or being simpler. It's the fact that bulky stuff gives you more encumbrance than non-bulky stuff of the same weight. Carrying 50 pounds of iron ingots in a backpack is much easier than carrying 50 pounds of cork, because 50 pounds of cork is a pain in the ass. Carrying a 10 pound lance is worse than wearing a 10 pound padded armor, even if both weight 10 pounds.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Rules Artificer wrote:

Given the info that Alchemists actually need to spend resonance to make any of their per/day formulas, I totally see why Alchemists get to cheat and get Intelligence to resonance now. They are effectively "downtime crafting and resonance, the class" for alchemical stuff.

I just hope they actually get enough resonance per day to power everything. Intelligence + level is a fairly small pool to need to power, from 1st edition's perspective:

- bombs
- mutagens
- extracts
- swift alchemy
- any X uses/day magic items

The start of day items, as you guys have guessed, are subsidized for a better rate if you can predict ahead of time which items you will need and make duplicates. Plus, the alchemist gets a class feature that adds extra resonance and scales, not exactly the way NielsenE predicts in the next post down from yours, but in a very useful way.

Awesome, thanks Mark! We were pretty sure you wouldn't leave Alchemists out to dry.

Being more efficient by prepping items ahead of time but still being able to make any item on the fly sounds just about perfect from a gameplay and balance perspective. You're rewarded if you can properly Batman and prepare your items ahead of time, and if you do you have more flexibility with how you spend your resonance throughout the day.

Hopefully with these rules in place the 2E Alchemist has roughly the same "staying power" as he did with his various expendables in 1E.

Now, if we can know that Alchemists aren't going to have to constantly worry about juggling weapons, bombs, elixirs, and other alchemical items in and out of their hands (spending actions for each, or 1 action for 2 bombs with a feat), I can rest easy with no reservations about looking forward to playing an Alchemist in 2E!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thanks for that information about resonance, discounts for daily prep/better scaling. (Actually twice mod is probably less good than about 8 other things I could think up, so glad that not it!)

RE: bulk versus weight. I much prefer weight, but I think you're right that bulk will get used more/ignored less and that's a good thing for exactly the reasons you list. Its one of the the things that will cause some annoyance/inertia/change-aversion, but if it quickly recedes and the game/engine is fun/works then all is good.


Ampersandrew wrote:


It's probably not intended, but:

"If the next attack made by the weapon is a hit or critical hit, the target must attempt a save against the poison"

reads to me like it lasts for one attack. Exactly one attack and is then gone whether it hits or not. If they wanted the other reading it should be something like

"The next attack made by the weapon that is a hit or critical hit"

Apart from that, in the current rules poison lasts for one successful attack. Nothing I've read here implies more.

Having one shot to hit and thus poison kinda stinks.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Rules Artificer wrote:

Given the info that Alchemists actually need to spend resonance to make any of their per/day formulas, I totally see why Alchemists get to cheat and get Intelligence to resonance now. They are effectively "downtime crafting and resonance, the class" for alchemical stuff.

I just hope they actually get enough resonance per day to power everything. Intelligence + level is a fairly small pool to need to power, from 1st edition's perspective:

- bombs
- mutagens
- extracts
- swift alchemy
- any X uses/day magic items

The start of day items, as you guys have guessed, are subsidized for a better rate if you can predict ahead of time which items you will need and make duplicates. Plus, the alchemist gets a class feature that adds extra resonance and scales, not exactly the way NielsenE predicts in the next post down from yours, but in a very useful way.

I question how many X/Alchemist builds there'll be for that extra Resonance. But that's another topic(Either Resonance or Multiclassing; pick the poison)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Pros:
- Potentially a full system rather than the after thought it was back in 1e.

Neutral:
- I'm still not sure what makes Elixirs different to Potions except some potion effects will have "It is alchemical instead of magical" stamped onto them.

Cons:
- The only alchemical weapon I like has been removed and replaced with electrical "alchemist's fire".
- Seems abit odd to be both "non-magical" and use up resonance.
- Sounds like alchemy wont be very useful unless your an alchemist, which was true in 1e.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Ampersandrew wrote:


It's probably not intended, but:

"If the next attack made by the weapon is a hit or critical hit, the target must attempt a save against the poison"

reads to me like it lasts for one attack. Exactly one attack and is then gone whether it hits or not. If they wanted the other reading it should be something like

"The next attack made by the weapon that is a hit or critical hit"

Apart from that, in the current rules poison lasts for one successful attack. Nothing I've read here implies more.

Having one shot to hit and thus poison kinda stinks.

I agree. I really hope this is a mistake. Why would the poison just disappear if you miss an attack?


Eh. Very gamey language without being efficient, clear OR natural language, and none of these alchemical items seem worth wasting actions on.

Not sure what the draw here is, or even what it is supposed to be.


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?

Keep weight as an optional system?


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?

My current campaign is Starfinder, and my players are definitely finding it easier to keep track of bulk. We're actually using encumbrance now, whereas in PF1 we mostly ignored it (except in exceptional circumstances like carrying a person) because it passed that subconscious barrier and seemed too fiddly for them to reliably track.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, uh... Bombs with a damage multiplier are a resonance investment? What's the advantage of prepping them in the beginning of the day, rather than making the unstable version once I know what I need? Their boom seems a bit anemic in comparison to what we've heard about other damage vectors. Seems kind of debuff focused, but do those debuffs scale? What do you pull out when you just want to watch limbs fly away from a splash of burned intestines and pink mist? That's half the fun of explosives, really. Is that only for power attacking rogues with +3 flaming great swords now?
So an alchemist also uses resonance to make elixirs, and then they don't use their own resonance when they drink them. But if they hand them off, it's still double dipping on the loot pool. Like wise, if the alchemist spends time and money (an uncomfortably precious pair of commodities at the games I've been a player in) to make an extract, then they still need to pay that resonance cost to drink it? So why did they spend money? And in order to do any of this, we need to have what totally isn't a wizard's spell book, and know the formulas for any of these. I mean, that wasn't a problem when it was only the extracts/elixirs, but now it's bombs, poisons, elixirs, tools, and maybe mutagens. Are we going to be spending time and money to buy more formulas to spend more time and money making items that cut into our ability to use any of the sweet magic loot we found, or gods forbid, made?

I guess a +3 vs fear for an hour is nice, considering the crit system. Outside of fear though, is a +1 to a single save worth a level three item?

The only answer I can give to any of these questions is, "I don't know." I will ponder this some more while I make lunch for tomorrow.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Concerning Podcasts: Unless they went and transcribe them into a Blog, I'm not going to listen to them and I'm going to miss out on the information in them. I don't do well with listening to stuff. I prefer reading. And there are deaf people in the Pathfinder community. So information locked behind a Podcast ends up something I'm unaware of. And I suspect there are plenty of folk who don't know about the Podcast and only follow the Blog... and probably a number who don't even read the Comments in the forum so they miss out on other details.

------------

The only reason my group used Encumbrance is because Hero Labs includes weights. I'd help players get their characters be lightly encumbered when I found they had too much (and amusingly enough half that problem was due to coinage weighing them down - they were adverse to buying equipment and magic for some time).

So this new system? I don't know how it works but if it's simpler than what was before it? Then I welcome it. Though mostly I suspect Hero Labs will be *ahem* picking up the weight seeing that's how we do character generation in any event. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:

Cons:

- The only alchemical weapon I like has been removed and replaced with electrical "alchemist's fire".

A legit worry; how will making them just straight 'damage' items affect some items?

How does this effect Gel Shards? Burst Jars? Ghast Retch Flask? Heck do we still know how Holy Water works? Never mind Pellet Grenades probably not being a thing(though to be honest those were clunky to use unless house ruled otherwise.)

Just what happens to all the tossed Alchemist weapons if everything is a Bomb now? Can you make something as odd as Burst Jars under this system now?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think that higher level bombs will do more damage than level one bombs, neither do I think that they should. An alchemist can throw 2 of these bombs on the same round. at level 11 this amount to a total of 8d6 damage, not taking into account the potential critical damage, this damage is not on par with the only level 6 spell we know of which does 10d6 damage but spells are a more finite resource than bombs, at level 11 a wizard can cast a single level 6 spells (if they work like in PF1) while the alchemist will have a higher amount of bombs available to him, plus the ability to actually throw different bombs to get different effects on enemies.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Now my question will the DC of Poisons also be increased as the alchemist levels up, I'd hate to have to learn five versions of sleep poisons to keep making enemies drowsy, and I'd hate it even more if I have to stop using it because the DC stayed at 13 throughout my career.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Without all the supporting knowledge of 2e this looks to be a good take of alchemy and the alchemist. I do get the feel again that power is toned down in 2e, or perhaps growth is stepped out more over the 20 levels, so again concens over longer, more drawn out combat with the inflation of HP that appears in the system. Again its a wait game to see the actual document or more detail.

I am very uncertain about the bulk but that is lack of info I think. Hopefully we get a blog later that demonstrates it in action. I sure it must be easier.

I am not a fan of the activation terminology, just the terminogoly used. I think this is very clunky and cumbersome language format. I undestand the need for modes of activation but nk the descriptor coul be better handled.

Perhaps something along the lines:

Using or activating items requires a specific type of action that varies with each item.

Operate; the item must be manupulated in some fashion to activate
Mental; the user must focus or concentrate to Activate the item
Command word; the user must utter a complex verbal command word to activate the item.

The actication entry could then just read

Activation: Operate (3)
Or
Actvation: mental(1), command word(1), or just mental, command word leaving out he redundant one.

This would then tie in better with the language used for conditions. Similarly language for spells could then be similar. For example,

Casting time: verbal, somatic
Or for a more complex spell
Cating time: vebal(2)
Casting time: somatic(2), verbal

This opens up more descriptieve options for spell casting as especially for later suplements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also what's the point of having Splash damage if it's 1 point? Even with a Feat that's going to be maybe 6 damage(3 with Reflex save). I mean at least this frees up a Feat you'd spend to to not splash damage your allies. Heck later on they could take no damage when Resistances are factored in.

On that note, I see Bottled Lightning doesn't allow a save of the effect. Unsure if that's good or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately, it looks like they are doubling down on resonance, oh well.


Interesting, but the class is too high tech for most of the games I run. Maybe if(or when) I start a Razor Coast/Freeport/Skull and Shackles game.

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

The conditin isnt as bad as it used to be under pf1. Thats part of what makes me perceive a more stepped out power surve, lower damage with a tendency to use conditions more. This combined with an apparent lower damage output tends to draw combat out a lot more since conditions restrct actions and success.

Playtest at high levels will expose this, if it exists. Hopefully well get a few reports of these since the low level PF is rarely as problematic


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chaotic_Blues wrote:
Interesting, but the class is too high tech for most of the games I run. Maybe if(or when) I start a Razor Coast/Freeport/Skull and Shackles game.

No apothecaries in your setting? No head henchmen of the poisoner's guild? No snake-oil salesmen trying to con townsfolk with elixirs of dubious effectiveness?


Cat-thulhu wrote:

The conditin isnt as bad as it used to be under pf1. Thats part of what makes me perceive a more stepped out power surve, lower damage with a tendency to use conditions more. This combined with an apparent lower damage output tends to draw combat out a lot more since conditions restrct actions and success.

Playtest at high levels will expose this, if it exists. Hopefully well get a few reports of these since the low level PF is rarely as problematic

Less "I think this condition is busted" and more "OH the first Bomb they showed doesn't have a Save vs it's Condition. Will the other bombs follow this idea?"

On the note of combat, I don't see the point of prolonging combat if some conditions will still make them a cake walk. "But the new save system" yeah sure Sleep, Sickness, and other Save or Die conditions might be easier to handle but a bad roll still means game over outside of 3 turns of just punching the guy down.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Micheal Smith wrote:
It’s easier because you don’t have to remember the weight of all he different items.

It really isn't as I have to look at the weight either way: having it be 'light' [or 1/10th a bulk] or looking up the weight in pounds is STILL looking up a number and adding it. The fact one is variable is the only difference but that doesn't remove the fact that you had to look for either one.

Dilvias wrote:
Now I'm wondering how much bulk a Handy Haversack will hold...

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little...

eddv wrote:
Can I just say I loathe these podcasts.

Not a fan myself: If they reproduced it in written form, I might read it over but I don't do ANY podcast.

Anguish wrote:
Or did I slip into a coma when I got to that section of Starfinder and it's somehow more elegant than it seemed?

Nope, I'm right there with you. I was willing to overlook it in starfinder for a more 'syfi' sound but pathfinder... No thanks.

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?

I know for myself, it has the opposite effect. I see weights, I quickly add them up and I have a total at the bottom of my equipment: I even break it up between containers! ;) Bulk... I just sigh and don't bother to even try to convert it... Someone else is going to have to add my 'bulk' up if they want to know it. It's the 'imaginary' new system of measure that my mind rejects. It's similar to when a game makes up new names for days, months and years: I totally don't remember them BECAUSE they are imaginary. Keep then normal terms and I'm fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
graystone wrote:
It really isn't as I have to look at the weight either way: having it be 'light' [or 1/10th a bulk] or looking up the weight in pounds is STILL looking up a number and adding it. The fact one is variable is the only difference but that doesn't remove the fact that you had to look for either one.

I don't think so. A system that reduces the variability of weight will naturally require less looking up into tables. Whole classes of items can now have the same weight, where "light" replaces everything between 1/2 lb and 2 lbs (for example), and it's going to be much easier to guess that an item falls in this category, in most of those cases. Potentially, the designers can decide that light weapons all are 1 bulk, medium weapons 2 bulk etc. This greatly facilitates the creation of a level 1 character. The developers have mentioned lowering the barrier of entry for first-time players as a big design goal, and I couldn't agree more.

Moreover, this immediately does away with the problem for Small characters where we had to remember to divide the weight by 2. Instead, bulk is the same, it just fits automatically with character size.

For me, looking up 20+ items for every character has always been the worst chore, an entry tax before I get to play. I'm happy to see that go. Plus, on the personal side, I get a side benefit: This removes one Imperial unit, at least, from the list of things I have to live with in order to play. A minor, but appreciable bonus.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

How much does the unconscious cleric weigh, 4 bulk? What about the dead dire bear, and how much bulk can you drag? The stone door, it weighs ?bulk?

Bag of holding going is going to be 1 bulk, and hold.. ?bulk? portable hole, L? And carry ?bulk or will it still be by dimension? Will there be a new Volume term, the portable hole will hold 100 Vs?

Making up abstract game terms when someone justs to know a basic fact like weight of object really destroys attempts to run a more simulationist game which is a relative strength of 3.x systems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like that alchemy is no longer magical, but there are people who do and I'll just houserule it as a very specialized kind of arcane magic and be done with it, no problem. I do like the new mechanics very much. As I've commented elsewhere in the forums, I liked the 1st ed. idea of "bottled spells", just didn't like how the formula list was handled and how extracts affected only characters, and not areas or objects. I much prefer the idea of the alchemist more like as a sort of a "Harry Potter potion's master", one whose concoctions would have nothing to do with science and chemicals, but with actually bottling or brewing the metaphysical essence or idea of bravery or of luck, collecting actually magical reagents from other planes or magical sources, or from esoteric components, things like grave dirt, fairy powder, bough from a brass tree in the elemental plane of fire, aether & ectoplasm, the breath of a fish, the sound of a shadow, a tear of grief, and so on. I hope that after the core alchemist is release that we may have rules to deal with these more fantastical elements, not only for alchemists, but for arcane spellcasters. And not just one archetype, but maybe a whole subsystem related to this thematic, just so that it could work for the occasional alchemist or wizard who chooses to deal with these elements from time to time or for the character who wants to lean more heavily unto them. And even sooner than that, I hope to also see rules that deal with alchemists working with more "straightforward" magic, rules for alchemists to actually use magic in combination with their alchemy to build things like homunculus or golems and other constructs that are alchemical & magical & clockwork-based, all three together. The way I see, the framework of alchemy rules you're introducing for the class would also work great for magical clockwork contraptions.

What bugs me though is that you're already including the alchemist in the game as the archetypical character of science in the game (which, again, I don't like, but that's not important rn), however you still insisted in saying that arcane magic, paraphrasing: "deals with matter and the fundamental building blocks of reality and with logic, rational thought, and memories, and thus has more in common with science". Why can't arcane magic, even arcane book magic, be as mystical, esoteric and mysterious as divine magic or even psychic magic? After all, as I said on monday's blog, it's called arcane magic. People who like sciency characters already got the alchemist, why does the wizard has to cater to the "scientist of magic" trope? And even if you make that creative decision about arcane magic, it would really only make sense from a wizard's perspective. If I question the idea of the wizard's arcane book magic having any thematic resemblance with scientific study, then that idea falls through even more looking at the other arcane spellcasters. Bard, sorcerer, and witch magic seem to me even more inadequate to the descryption of arcane magic given in last week's blog. Why can't I have a book rat wizard wielding spiritual and life magic just as well or almost just as well as material and mental magic? (I really don't care about healing spells, this is not about that) An elven bookish wizard who utters prophecies, controls plants, talks to the spirit of the river or converses with the trees and the ravens and the North Wind just as well as he throws fireballs, raises walls of force, and teleports? I love that, I would like for all of that to be (much) easier to do in Pathfinder 2 than it is in Pathfinder 1. Science already got the alchemist, don't let it take the wizard and the other arcane spellcasters too. Or at least make arcane magic (both book-based and non-book-based) mechanically interesting for both people who like that "scientist of magic" trope and for people like me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Chaotic_Blues wrote:
Interesting, but the class is too high tech for most of the games I run. Maybe if(or when) I start a Razor Coast/Freeport/Skull and Shackles game.

I mean, you are aware that black powder and greek (alchemist's) fire were invented thousands of years ago, right? That people have been distilling plant essences into poisons and drugs for thousands of years? Roman concrete was essentially an alchemical creation and vastly superior to modern concrete until only recently. Alchemists doing chemical research was happening in the European middle ages, while the Arabs were highly advanced in medicine around the same time.

Hell, Heron of Alexandria invented the freaking steam engine somewhere around 20 AD. People just didn't realize the potential as an industrial tool / labor saving device, because they had cheap abundant slave labor, so it was used for "tricks" until it was forgotten for almost 2000 years.

Not saying you have to allow steampunk stuff in your setting, but on the more alchemical side at least, this stuff has been going on since well before the European medieval era.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:

Cons:

- The only alchemical weapon I like has been removed and replaced with electrical "alchemist's fire".
Just what happens to all the tossed Alchemist weapons if everything is a Bomb now? Can you make something as odd as Burst Jars under this system now?

It's actually much worse than all thrown alchemical weapons being turned into bombs, because alchemical weapons which weren't even thrown in 1e (eg. Bottled Lightning) are being turned into bombs.

Bottled Lightning was the only interesting alchemical weapon to me because it was a bottle which it opened a surge of lightning launched out wherever you pointed it.... And now it's just "acid/alchemist fire"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
graystone wrote:
It really isn't as I have to look at the weight either way: having it be 'light' [or 1/10th a bulk] or looking up the weight in pounds is STILL looking up a number and adding it. The fact one is variable is the only difference but that doesn't remove the fact that you had to look for either one.

I don't think so. A system that reduces the variability of weight will naturally require less looking up into tables. Whole classes of items can now have the same weight, where "light" replaces everything between 1/2 lb and 2 lbs (for example), and it's going to be much easier to guess that an item falls in this category, in most of those cases. Potentially, the designers can decide that light weapons all are 1 bulk, medium weapons 2 bulk etc. This greatly facilitates the creation of a level 1 character. The developers have mentioned lowering the barrier of entry for first-time players as a big design goal, and I couldn't agree more.

Moreover, this immediately does away with the problem for Small characters where we had to remember to divide the weight by 2. Instead, bulk is the same, it just fits automatically with character size.

For me, looking up 20+ items for every character has always been the worst chore, an entry tax before I get to play. I'm happy to see that go. Plus, on the personal side, I get a side benefit: This removes one Imperial unit, at least, from the list of things I have to live with in order to play. A minor, but appreciable bonus.

This is off-topic for the blog post, but since the topic was brought up, I just wanted to say that I've been on the fence whether or not to adopt bulk vs. weight.

What you say makes a lot of sense, and does seem to be an improvement. However, that's only if they implement it consistently across all types of objects, which isn't what I've experienced in Starfinder so far. You've got some rifles at 1 bulk, other rifles at 2 bulk, and even others at 3. Because of this, you're never 100% sure, and you end up looking up the chart anyways. I don't know why they didn't just do as you suggested: all pistol-like weapons are 1 bulk, all rifles at 2, all heavy/sniper at 3.

If bulk is to be used, there also needs to be better explanation of how that bulk number can be translated into what it actually means. For instance, the Medical Lab is 50 bulk, and the Regeneration Table is 20 bulk. I have no frame of reference as to what this actually means. Ok, I can somewhat imagine what a table looks like, but what's the Medical Lab having bulk when it's an actual room? At least when using weight and volume I have a frame of reference to understand and visualize what I'm dealing with. I've found having actual weights involved gave me a better idea of how characters of certain strength can interact with other physical objects in the world, stuff that isn't listed in the rules but that I can look up in real life for comparison.

So for me, I can live with the bulk system, but it needs to be hell of a lot better implemented than it was in Starfinder, because in that system, I saw absolutely no improvement in actual use over using actual weight. I find that I'm still regularly looking up what things weigh/bulk and still having to count and add up just as much as I was doing with actual weights.

51 to 100 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