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
201 to 250 of 417 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Milo v3 wrote:
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"

I kind of understand the points here, thing is, I would like for "bottled lighting" to be an alchemical item that can't normally be created in laboratory and must instead be collected from stormclouds using flying ships like in Stardust, and mechanically for them to be similar to the 1st ed. lightiningbolt spell. Then just create a generic shock bomb, leave bottle lighting to be something more special, powerful, and unique.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
A system that reduces the variability of weight will naturally require less looking up into tables.

It really doesn't: You look up the item to put on your sheet, you know to figure out what it does or how much it cost, and it lists weight or bulk. It's NOT a separate thing. For instance, I want an adventuring sash and I look at the chart: it lists Adventurer's sash, 20 gp, 3 lbs. So JUST to buy it, I already know the weight. In fact I need another step in bulk to convert non-weights into other non-weight [light-bulk].

gwynfrid wrote:
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.

Why would I guess? I have to look up the item to know what it does, why is it a burden to look at the weight when I do so.

gwynfrid wrote:
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.

It does? I don't have to look at the chart anyway for damage and range? What it SO difficult with writing down the weight when you do. IMO, it's an actual burden to new players as they have NO idea what bulk is and no idea going in what it does. Most new players understand basic math and weights they use in real life though.

gwynfrid wrote:
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.

Is this actually a boon of bulk or starfinder?

gwynfrid wrote:
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.

This JUST ISN'T TRUE. You are looking up those 20+ items ANYWAY because you have to pay for them out of starting gold. IN THE SAME PLACE you found the GP value, you also find the weight, so it ISN'T a different step.

gwynfrid wrote:
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.

LOL This is about the only thing I can see as a possible benefit: though not for me, go imperial!!!


NetoD20 wrote:

I kind of understand the points here, thing is, I would like for "bottled lighting" to be an alchemical item that can't normally be created in laboratory and must instead be collected from stormclouds using flying ships like in Stardust, and mechanically for them to be similar to the 1st ed. lightiningbolt spell. Then just create a generic shock bomb, leave bottle lighting to be something more special, powerful, and unique.

That's pretty easy to do without turning bottled lightning into the most boring type of alchemical item. Just have a higher level versions of all the alchemical weapons and use that fluff for one of the higher levels.


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?

I see bulk as roman numerals for weight. So in my mind that is just added complexity. I would prefer to skip the L vs. B and just convert that to numbers from the get-go. So L = 1, B = 10, and multiply Str * 10 for maximum you can carry (if I remember that right). For a base Str 10 character that even makes what you are carrying a direct percentage so it's easy to grasp. It still eliminates all fractions and numbers beyond 1 or 10 for individual items.

Edit: To add to this and clarify I do like the "bulk" terminology. Just expressed as 1 bulk for small things vs. 10 bulk for more encumbering things. So if I count the number of 1 bulk items, say 14, and add the number of 10 bulk items, say 2, the math is very easy: 14 + 10 + 10. I don't have to remember that 10 L's equals 1 B, divide the total number of L's by 10 (a decimal likely), then add to the B's - instead simply add up the integers.

I am a very analytical person though that is inclined towards math, so I can hardly say whether the average player, especially new player, would find it easier or more intuitive.


graystone wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
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.

Why would I guess? I have to look up the item to know what it does, why is it a burden to look at the weight when I do so.

gwynfrid wrote:
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.
It does? I don't have to look at the chart anyway for damage and range? What it SO difficult with writing down the weight when you do. IMO, it's an actual burden to new players as they have NO idea what bulk is and no idea going in what it does. Most new players understand basic math and weights they use in real life though.

It is a burden because I don't read every line of every item. Most of the time my knowledge of the system combined with general RPG and fantasy knowledge and a simple template of rules that applies for certain categories of items already tells me what it does with just a glance. It isn't difficult to do, it's just extremely boring and time-consuming to stop and note down the exact weight of each item I have. Whereas in a bulk system the goal, I think, is for me to be able to know the bulk of an item from a simple and single glance, to be able to infer the bulk of loads of items with which I'm already familiar with but don't really remember the exact weight. All that without breaking verisimilitude, like just plain ignoring weight rules would.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.

Every item you pick up you have to look up the weight (is this the straw that breaks the camel’s back?)
Every time you get a bull’s strength, strength mutagen or other temporary strength enhancement its back to the table.

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.

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.


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.

Every item you pick up you have to look up the weight (is this the straw that breaks the camel’s back?)
Every time you get a bull’s strength, strength mutagen or other temporary strength enhancement its back to the table.

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.

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 think the bulk system doesn't and can't fix one thing you mentioned: having to keep an eye on your encumbrance when you are near the limit. If I am at 9+B out of 10 max I still have to check everything I pick up to see if it will put me over the limit. Players who push up against the limits are going to have to pay close attention to those limits, no matter how they are expressed.

I will agree that the current PF1 encumbrance system is far too fiddly.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
attempts to run a more simulationist game

Pathfinder is not a simulationist game. There are other games that do a far better job of simulating reality, like GURPS (that's not a slight, GURPS is a great game if you want simulationism).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
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.
Is this actually a boon of bulk or starfinder?

I have played a number of small characters in Pathfinder. I am also particular enough to carefully track encumbrance even when no one is paying attention. This is absolutely an improvement. Take a look at the tables in the books. Some items are 1/4 weight, some are 1/2 weight, some are full weight. Many items are not clear at all whether the weight should be adjusted for small characters (hello magic items). Then you also have to take max encumbrance and multiply by 3/4. It sucks, a lot. Even as careful as I am, probably more so than 95% of PF players, I am sure that my calculations have at least one inarguable error in them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

No personal attacks please.

As for Bulk vs. Pounds... Encumbrance was not exactly well-thought-out.

For instance, try picking up 20 pounds of lead bars without anything to carry them in. Now try picking up that same 20 pounds of lead that is on a tray... and finally in a backpack. All three versions are very different. But all three are in fact just 20 pounds.

Now, chain mail weighs a certain amount that varies depending on the size of the person it's sized for. Carrying it folded up over your arm weighs after a bit and gets tiring. Carrying it in your backpack weighs differently. And putting it on? That weight suddenly shifts dramatically and is on different points of your body. You can wear 20 pounds of armor and depending on how the armor was crafted, it does not encumber you like 20 pounds of lead bars that you are carrying loose in a sack would. Yet it's 20 pounds.

The old AD&D Encumbrance system didn't use pounds. But the items on it also depended on bulk - something encumbered you more in AD&D 1st Edition because of WHAT it was and HOW it was shaped. A 10-foot-ladder was more than just a five-pound item because you're dealing with something unwieldy.

--------

BTW, people are fixating on a Bomb constructed at 1st level. It's a fairly cheap bomb at that. So sure, for an 11th level Alchemist it might only do 4d6 damage... but what is to say that there isn't an 11th level Bomb that uses rarer materials and costs a bit more but does 3d6 damage to start... and when that Alchemist is using it, is now doing 12d6 damage? And maybe these things are more fragile and less stable so the alchemist isn't able to just throw these things out willy-nilly, but it takes more Actions to utilize as a result.

That said, I do hope they have Alchemists making coffee. That would just be entirely too amusing. I could very well see a line of Goblin-run restaurants named Sparkbucks and offering coffee that will grow hair on your fingernails, peel paint from a house ten feet away, and keep you awake for five days straight after but a sip.

Yes, Goblins invent Klatchian Coffee. ^_^

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mike Lindner wrote:
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.

Every item you pick up you have to look up the weight (is this the straw that breaks the camel’s back?)
Every time you get a bull’s strength, strength mutagen or other temporary strength enhancement its back to the table.

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.

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 think the bulk system doesn't and can't fix one thing you mentioned: having to keep an eye on your encumbrance when you are near the limit. If I am at 9+B out of 10 max I still have to check everything I pick up to see if it will put me over the limit. Players who push up against the limits are going to have to pay close attention to those limits, no matter how they are expressed.

I will agree that the current PF1 encumbrance system is far too fiddly.

From the Adventuring Gear Page From Air Bladder to Bell there are 11 unique weights listed among items.

For Bulk the majority of those would be considered Light Bulk (or 0.1) or 1 bulk (maybe 2 bulk for Alchemist's kit). Which means that if you're at 9 bulk you're either going to pick up small stuff, or only one Bulky item and be done. And it's fairly intuitive to guess what kind of bulk an item is based on what it is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
That said, I do hope they have Alchemists making coffee. That would just be entirely too amusing. I could very well see a line of Goblin-run restaurants named Sparkbucks and offering coffee that will grow hair on your fingernails, peel paint from a house ten feet away, and keep you...

I do not want to go to your Pathfinder Sparkbucks. "That will be 4 silver pieces and a small skin sample." "What?!" "You did ask for the special, did you not?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:
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.

Every item you pick up you have to look up the weight (is this the straw that breaks the camel’s back?)
Every time you get a bull’s strength, strength mutagen or other temporary strength enhancement its back to the table.

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.

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 think the bulk system doesn't and can't fix one thing you mentioned: having to keep an eye on your encumbrance when you are near the limit. If I am at 9+B out of 10 max I still have to check everything I pick up to see if it will put me over the limit. Players who push up against the limits are going to have to pay close attention to those limits, no matter how they are expressed.

I will agree that the current PF1 encumbrance system is far too fiddly.

From the Adventuring Gear Page From Air Bladder to Bell there are 11 unique weights listed among items.

For Bulk the majority of those would be considered Light Bulk (or 0.1) or 1 bulk (maybe 2 bulk for Alchemist's kit). Which means that if you're at 9 bulk you're either going to pick up small stuff, or only one Bulky item and be done. And it's fairly intuitive to guess what kind of bulk an item is based on what it is.

Right but 10 light items equals 1 bulky item, the same as Starfinder if I understand correctly. So if I want to pick up 3 light items I still have to pay attention to whether I already have 8 light items, since that would add another bulk. So those near the limit still have to carefully track everything they have. They still have to add up every single thing on their character sheet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So it looks like alchemy still sucks for all non-alchemists. But at least they fixed the ridiculously high costs of alchemy items. I'd throw away 3gp for a 1d6 splash weapon, where as before it was never worth throwing away 30gp for the same 1d6.


JRutterbush wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
attempts to run a more simulationist game
Pathfinder is not a simulationist game. There are other games that do a far better job of simulating reality, like GURPS (that's not a slight, GURPS is a great game if you want simulationism).

It's also great if you just want to break reality. GURPS suffers from having both ends of that chart playable in the same system at the same time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NetoD20 wrote:
It is a burden because I don't read every line of every item.

Who's asking you to? The listing for items is like this: 'Adventurer's sash, 20 gp, 3 lbs.'. It LITERALLY happens BEFORE you get to the lines of information. you can't find the item without seeing the 3 things: name, cost and weight. A "simple and single glance" nets me the name, weight and cost.

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 don't see it at all. You figure out your carry ONCE and the same charts for cost and effects also lists weight: there is LITERALLY no additional effort as you are already looking up the item. If the one time listing of carries REALLY the issue?

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

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

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

EVERY item you pick up in bulk ALSO requires you look to see "is this the straw that breaks the camel’s back?" too: no net gain. If you have str enhancements, you can simply list carry WITH those. Ex:

str 12 carry 43/86/130, bear's str carry 76/153/230.

This took me... 30 seconds to type in PRD, carry, Table: Carrying Capacity and copy/paste results. It really isn't a burden.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
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.

I've experienced the other side: bulk is unintuitive enough that it gets ignored while encumbrance is easy to figure out.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
You personally might find encumbrance very easy to track. Bully for you.

Well this works both ways doesn't it. I'd have to houserule something to replace bulk or fully remove it if I ran. What makes it harder is a rarely run, so it becomes harder to avoid it if it's base. If bulk ends up core, I hope they'll think about also printing a weight to for those of us that can't stand bulk.

Mike Lindner wrote:
graystone wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
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.
Is this actually a boon of bulk or starfinder?
I have played a number of small characters in Pathfinder.

You misunderstood what I was asking: did they just remove the encumbrance difference for small creatures in starfinder OR was it an integral part of the bulk system itself? So what I'm saying is, if it's NOT part of the bulk system itself, the new pathfinder may still have a difference in encumbrance for small creatures.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
From the Adventuring Gear Page From Air Bladder to Bell there are 11 unique weights listed among items.

The funny thing is that how fast you could figure that out proves that it isn't an issue finding the numbers. you didn't have to go to the actual item description or do anything complicated: you simply had to go to the table and glance at the weight...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I started a thread for bulk so we don't fill this up with just that.

bulk thread


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does any DM out there actually keep track of encumbrance anymore?
Is it a PFS thing (I don't play in PFS)?
I personally haven't come across this since 1st edition D&D. Most DM's I've played with in the last 20 years (myself included) simply find it too much of a hassle to keep track of and just hand-wave encumbrance - unless the PC is being completely outlandish (like trying to carry a 6' stone statue or something.


I track encumbrance, but not carefully.


Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

Does any DM out there actually keep track of encumbrance anymore?

Is it a PFS thing (I don't play in PFS)?
I personally haven't come across this since 1st edition D&D. Most DM's I've played with in the last 20 years (myself included) simply find it too much of a hassle to keep track of and just hand-wave encumbrance - unless the PC is being completely outlandish (like trying to carry a 6' stone statue or something.

I keep a general idea what my players are carrying and how much they can but I don't watch it closely enough to be honest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only reason I'd know how much my players are carrying is because Hero Labs records it all for me. Otherwise I'd half-fast it and eventually not bother.

But there's a thread about Bulk and Encumbrance now so the conversation can move to there.

-----------

I don't suppose any of the Developers could gift us with some samples of mid-level Alchemical items and any higher-level bombs, could they? It might help assuage the fears of some of the folk here. And we did only really see very-low-level stuff in your examples after all. A glimpse at some potential mid-to-high-level goodness might help allay fears and get folk excited about alchemy once more. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
I don't suppose any of the Developers could gift us with some samples of mid-level Alchemical items and any higher-level bombs, could they? It might help assuage the fears of some of the folk here. And we did only really see very-low-level stuff in your examples after all. A glimpse at some potential mid-to-high-level goodness might help allay fears and get folk excited about alchemy once more. :)

Yes please!!! I know they're not going to show us the whole section out of the book or anything, but at least 2-3 items would be nice. We got to see a midlevel Necromancy spell, show us that midlevel alchemical goodness~


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand how anything bad could be gleaned from this blog. It is all either just as good as PF1 or better, isn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
I don't understand how anything bad could be gleaned from this blog. It is all either just as good as PF1 or better, isn't it?

LOL The actual alchemy info was pretty solid: all my issues are ancillary things like bulk, hands and resonance...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I have a few Characters in PFS that need help with carrying items. One has a Donkey and she even had bought a 10 foot pole among her items, and a folding chair she gets out of her ass every once and a while.

Bulk is, frankly, unfair to the low str characters, as 4 or 5 bulk is quite easy to get to, with Armor and weapons, and a backpack. My question is how the Handy Havorsack is gonna work, or if it will even make the cut.

Liberty's Edge

Charon Onozuka wrote:

Very interested to see how alchemy will distinguish itself from magic and potions in the playtest. It always seemed like it deserved to be a separate category rather than lumped together with Arcane.

While I like the idea of a category for bulk, I notice that no weights are given for these items. I'm hoping that is just because all these items appear to be negligible weight rather than bulk being a method of replacing weight.

Honestly, I just hope that bulk will help solve the discussion of, "Yes, you can technically carry X of large item with your carrying capacity. No, I'm not letting you actually hold/carry that many large items with only two hands..."

EDIT: Okay, after hearing about how bulk in Starfinder works, less enthusiastic about this idea :c

I greatly prefer a system where you use actual weights. I can fudge it a bit allowing people to carry a bit more more weight with no problem for a short time, but really dislike the idea of a system simplified this much. A light to 1-10 scale mean that people will gladly bring along absurd quantity of light items forgetting to ever consider the level of encumbrance.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A side note: clarify from the start if bombs are area damage weapons and what damage is used against swarms. And the interaction of torches and swarms.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
BRAVO'S BREW requires ONE hand... Do you carry it around unstoppered? I hope hands required for these two got switched.
If you don't rip the cork out with your teeth, the Bravo's Brew does not function properly.

Trolls (and barbarians with invulnerability) chew their Bravo's Brew bottles!

Liberty's Edge

Kiln Norn wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
I don't know what kinds of other dangers or restrictions are involved, but if I could just visit the local apothecary and spend 5 gp for a poison that has a half-decent chance of slowing and maybe KOing my enemy, I would probably poison 100% of my weapons 100% of the time. Obviously drow sleep poison will not be that readily available, but if other poisons are similarly deadly with similarly low costs I can see a massive shift in the percentage of characters that use poison.
And so much this. Also it was listed as 'Item 2' which we don't have a great understanding of yet. If this is in fact a level 2 item however a DC 13 is great. If there are higher level/tier poisons that scale DC accordingly it'll be awesome.

Making a big leap of logic, if a level 2 item is the equivalent of a level 2 spell and you need to be a level 3 alchemist to make it, it is possible that the Dc is 10+crafter level needed to make an item, so a level 3 poison has a DC of 15, level 4 a DC of 17 and so on.

On the other hand the base save of the characters seem to be lower, so a DC of 13 could be already somewhat difficult.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Having listened to the Podcast and how Stephen Radney McFarland was talking about Resonance and how it interacts with the Alchemist, I think normal Alchemical Items might not use Resonance at all. Only the 'unstable' ones made by Alchemists for free.

That would actually make Resonance costs make a lot more sense with the normally non-magical alchemical items. You're using your own personal magical field to temporarily stabilize and make something that usually wouldn't work actually function.

Now all this is an interpretation thing, and I may be wrong, but it's an interesting idea if true.


Diego Rossi wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
BRAVO'S BREW requires ONE hand... Do you carry it around unstoppered? I hope hands required for these two got switched.
If you don't rip the cork out with your teeth, the Bravo's Brew does not function properly.
Trolls (and barbarians with invulnerability) chew their Bravo's Brew bottles!

Now I want to make bottles out of candy! Wax covered candy! ;)

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I wrote the PF1 bottled lightning!

I'm glad to see it's making it into the new game!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

I wrote the PF1 bottled lightning!

I'm glad to see it's making it into the new game!

But only the name is making it... the awesome-ness of shooting lightning from the bottle is gone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
2) Resonance is called for 6 times in this post. Meaning, it has become such an integral part of the ruleset is not going away no matter how much we don't like it. And I don't.

How can you say you don't like Resonance when we barely know anything about how it works? At least wait for a blog post on the subject before you rip it to shreds ;)

Tels wrote:

Non-magical class with non-magical abilities crafting non-magical items requires the magical resonance resource to function. Can't wear magical armor or use magical weapons because that all consumes resonance and the alchemist requires resonance in order to use it's class features.

This is a huge turn off for the class and the entire resonance system.

I'm pretty sure the Alchemist blog mentioned a class feature that gave more Resonance - and they get to use a different stat to base it on, which makes me think they won't be *that* Resonance-starved.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
...and downright broken on posions (takes two hands to slather it on something, but you can't hold a weapon since you're occupied using the poison...).

I'd imagine the two hands thing on poisons is to allow for the fact you're holding the weapon you're applying it to - but I'll wait for clarification on that.

TheFinish wrote:
Well, Alchemists lost Int Bonus to bombs it seems

I think that's due to return as a Class feat - or for the splash damage, at the very least.

worldhopper wrote:
Seeing a lot of talk of the ability to throw 3 bombs per round. Was this confirmed somewhere? Wouldn't you have to use an action to draw the next bomb?

I remember reading it was an action to draw a bomb, but there was a feat to allow you to draw two at once.

Though TheFinish made a good point about how you can do that if bombs are two-handed - maybe a second feat makes them one-handed?

TheFinish wrote:
It's still 3 actions (that don't even bloody work as written) to apply a DC 13 poison to a weapon and it works for 1 hit. That's it. Unless the save bonuses have been drastically reduced, I don't see how it's any better than PF1 poisons except in price.

While I can understand the Action count required - especially if we assume a round is still ~6 seconds - the output from it does seem a little lacklustre. However, I'm going to wait and see on this one.

DeathQuaker wrote:
I wonder outside of assisting with conditions, if there will be any alchemical healing items (that cure hp, even if just say 1 at a time to a certain max).

There was an Elixir of Life mentioned which seemed to be a HO healing elixir - and possibly a res item, at high levels?

NielsenE wrote:
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.

Given how many tables talk about hand-waving encumbrance away at the moment, Bulk may be the thing that gets them to actually use it - and that's a good thing! Not sure we'll see that much annoyance about the change, if people weren't using those rules anyway ;)

eddv wrote:
I'm just not certain I see the point in even having these blogs if they're only going to actually reveal most information via podcast and ENworld compilations of the information revealed via that method.

To give enough information to get people interested - or even excited - about what PF2E will be doing differently, without giving the whole game away?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:


Most new players understand basic math and weights they use in real life though.

Except that the Imperial measures system is only officially used in the US. I don't know what percentage of Paizo's customer base is elsewhere, but getting rid of what is for some players a 'fantasy measuring system' might have been part of the logic behind bulk - I recall in another thread one of the translators saying that 5' squares were a problem for them to visualise.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, if I'd had to guess the answer to which completely irrelevant tangent will derail the thread THIS time? I wouldn't have guessed it would be about encumbrance. So you know, there's that...

More seriously, I like what I'm reading here (although I'd agree with those suggesting that splash damage needs a re-think; 1 point is just giving the GM extra paperwork). Alchemy now seems to be its own system from the get-go, rather than a bolted on add-on/subset of arcane magic. Looks like it will actually work in areas of anti-magic, which opens up some really interesting possibilities.

On that point though I do have a question about resonance. If resonance powers both magic and alchemical effects, does that mean that the only bits of alchemy that would work in an anti-magic field are the bits that don't require resonance?

Or is resonance something that may or may not work in an anti-magic field, depending on whether it's powering magic or alchemy?

tl;dr - what the **** is resonance and how the **** does it actually work?!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:


tl;dr - what the **** is resonance and how the **** does it actually work?!

My theory, which is that normal alchemical items work fine anywhere and don't cost Resonance, but the 'unstable' ones created by alchemists using Resonance are using magic, which wouldn't work in an AMF, is gone into above and I think holds up pretty well, consistency-wise.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Wandering Wastrel wrote:


tl;dr - what the **** is resonance and how the **** does it actually work?!
My theory, which is that normal alchemical items work fine anywhere and don't cost Resonance, but the 'unstable' ones created by alchemists using Resonance are using magic, which wouldn't work in an AMF, is gone into above and I think holds up pretty well, consistency-wise.

Agree that would be internally consistent. Would also be an interesting twist: a crazy-prepared Batman-type alchemist could put together a whole load of bombs, elixirs, etc at the start of their day that would still work in an anti-magic field.

Bonus points if it's the villain with an anti-magic field in their HQ: "Welcome to my lair, Mr Bond. You'll find that your pitiful magic is no match for my fully-operational alchemy!"

Liberty's Edge

Actually, daily alchemical items are also considered unstable (and cost Resonance to create and for people other than the Alchemist to use).

No, it's the permanent ones made with money and time that are not unstable and (if my theory is right) could be used to Batman one's way through an anti-magic field.


Mark Seifter wrote:
worldhopper wrote:
Two-handed bombs is not set in stone! (per the Twitch stream, just now)
Yup, per your feedback (and honestly since some of us thought they were 1-handed all along), we're making them 1-handed. Thanks everyone! As always, we're looking to incorporate your feedback as we can.

Thanks, but was the blog post supposed to have been updated with this? It still says 2 hands for most of the items.


Mark Seifter wrote:
worldhopper wrote:
Two-handed bombs is not set in stone! (per the Twitch stream, just now)
Yup, per your feedback (and honestly since some of us thought they were 1-handed all along), we're making them 1-handed. Thanks everyone! As always, we're looking to incorporate your feedback as we can.

No, please, PLEASE don't make them one handed items. It makes sense that you need two hands to activate them (and only one to CARRY). As you need two hands to operate a crossbow (one to carry and shoot and one to reload). I don't want to see builds with "dual-wielding" bombs or simalar monstruosities.

EDIT: at least make it so it's not immediately available: make it like a nth level feat that allows you to use them with one hand.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
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?

You have to learn how much bulk a Bag of Holding carry, in the same way you had to do with weight. A bag of holding can hold a certain amount of weight, different by type, (I, II, III, IV...). It is the same. With the HUUUUGE advantage of not needing a separate stat for volume, because Bulk already abstracts that. This is INCREDIBLY important for us, non American players, because weight (pound to kilo) is pretty easy, but cubic feet to cubic meters is not, and it is a pain in the.... To know what fits in a bag of holding type I.

In PF, a bag of holding Type I can carry 250 pounds and 30 cubic feet. Does that mean it can carry 50 long swords? Can it carry 25 lances? What about 250 pounds of cork? Or 250 pounds of wheat? How many cubic feet are 250 pounds of sand? Can we fit a 30 feet long, 1 feet wide pole in those 30 cubic feet? Or is it actually a cube?

An abstract bulk system ignores those problems. And that is a huge boon

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, I have never understood how many cubic feets handy haversacks and bag of holding can carry actually means <_<


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neriathale wrote:
graystone wrote:


Most new players understand basic math and weights they use in real life though.
Except that the Imperial measures system is only officially used in the US.

There IS a difference though: if you use another system, there is a conversion that allows you to get a total you CAN understand. So 15 pounds is 6.8 kg, something you CAN visualize/understand while there just isn't a way to do so for 5 bulk.

PS: there is a thread for bulk so please go there for any more bulk comments.


Isn't this the second freaking article on Alchemists? I guess we know that Paizo's favored class is.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Isn't this the second freaking article on Alchemists? I guess we know that Paizo's favored class is.

Nah, this one's on Alchemy the general thing anyone can use, not the Alchemist Class.


CorvusMask wrote:
Yeah, I have never understood how many cubic feets handy haversacks and bag of holding can carry actually means <_<

It means you can't put nothing to big in us!

201 to 250 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