Changes to the Way We Make Changes

To be clear, I made one edit, because I hadn't registered the "bonus languages" thing yet. When it clicked, I think I sort of figured it would be okay to chime in on because you yourself seem skeptical about bringing the bonus languages up. I wasn't trying to draw the argument out--I honestly didn't think that we really had any big disagreement about it.

Anyways, me? Make too many frenetic edits? You must surely be talking about someone else.

Last edited by Kobold Catgirl at 10:21:24.

So here's the big question:

Are Alchemists now in a good state or are we hoping there's still puzzle pieces to their overall viability (even just in terms of specific playstyles) to be revealed in Treasure Vault?

Like, if Treasure Vault was somehow cancelled and all existing copies were burned, is Alchemist 'fixed' enough to get on with?

I think alchemists can still be in a rough spot in that early game, where you'll really want to have something like an Int-based Electric Arc or you'll be underwhelmed with plinking things with a crossbow, before you have the reagents to make a ton of consumables and before perpetuals come online.

I do think the thing about "starting with an 8" is that one of my favorite PF1 characters was a changeling paladin who was nearsighted, always had her head in the clouds or her nose in a book, often seemed half asleep, and never noticed anything. So she had low Wis and no ranks in perception. I would have no trouble playing that character in PF2 with a 10 in Wisdom- the bigger problem is that I can't voluntarily lower perception.

One thing I worry about is the ancestries that are +Stat +Free (e.g. Nagaji are +Str +Free) now just being effectively the same as humans because choosing Str/Free and Free/Free where one of those choices is Strength is now exactly the same. I kind of liked the way they did the non-human ancestries without a flaw.

I might like better the option for 2 bonus and a flaw ancestries (Dwarves, Elves, etc.) to choose one of the stats they get a bonus too, then cancel out the other two. Like a Dwarf is +Con/+Wis/-Cha/+Free so you could switch that to +(Con or Wis)/+Free. But that's a lot less elegant, though backgrounds do work like this already.

The changes to ability boosts, that anyone can take 2 free boosts, is unfortunately an unintended nerf to humans.

The ONLY thing humans had going for them was that they had two free boosts. They were the exemplars of flexibility. Of course, they have great feats, but every ancestory has a good set of feats depending on what you want to do.

Paizo may not have meant to, but by giving every ancestry the same flexibility as humans they devalued the one thing that set humans apart and that is a nerf.

It's not a big issue, ya'll, but it IS an issue.

Schtroumpf wrote:

Does this mean we won't be seeing updated PDFs of books with errata (unless a new printing occurs)? I would love it if the pdfs would stay up to date, as well as the third party sites like Archives of Nethys. I often use both during a game to look stuff up, so having consistency would be real nice. Referencing these FAQ pages as the official way to use the errata, without the context around the changes does not sound like a good time.

We share our errata with our licensed partners, often before the public, so Demiplane, Archives of Nethys, Foundry, HeroLab, Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, etc., should all have access.

There is a lot of labor in updating the PDF, so for now, we plan that will still occur when/if print copies are reprinted.

Hey, are there plans to, without updating the PDF books, give a downloadable errata in PDF form. I would relly like to just print the erratas and put them in the back of the books i already have, but the FAQ page formating, makes that a real hassle.

Nothing fancy, just some mildly formated text as PDF would be nice.

But nonetheless, thank you for the great work!

Clarifying how slow and haste works on minions is helpful, but it seems to indicate that summoned zombies do in fact only have 1 action. That seems like an unfortunate oversight and THAT specific instance could use further clarification if that is the intended effect.

This was my disappointment as well. I've always ruled that they still get 2 actions when summoned, but that seems to be more in question now than ever. Makes Animate Dead crappier and less fun for no reason if you ask me. Really hope they adjust for this in an APG update or a general clarification.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

So here's the big question:

Are Alchemists now in a good state or are we hoping there's still puzzle pieces to their overall viability (even just in terms of specific playstyles) to be revealed in Treasure Vault?

Like, if Treasure Vault was somehow cancelled and all existing copies were burned, is Alchemist 'fixed' enough to get on with?

I think alchemists can still be in a rough spot in that early game, where you'll really want to have something like an Int-based Electric Arc or you'll be underwhelmed with plinking things with a crossbow, before you have the reagents to make a ton of consumables and before perpetuals come online.

But I think that's an intended consequence to ensure that aren't just as-good martial with alchemical utility.

Yeah, I'm not sure because they're still at -3ish to hit (with some level curve oddities) sans Quicksilver, and I'm not sure their alchemy actually measures up to the missing damage-- like a Mutagenist really has to sell their martial party members (including themselves) on using Quicksilver or Warblood and both of those have really problematic drawbacks, I'm also still concerned about things like the handedness and action econ of trying to play healer as an alchemist in combat.

Part of me is hoping the overall plan is to pair off Alchemical perm tools from Treasure Vault with specific playstyles to lubricate some of it, or simply to have more coverage of similar effects for different drawbacks on some mutagens to make it more consistent that you can find something impactful your party is willing to drink to let you pull your weight.

Like in theory, the flamethrower or similar items could easily become a default direct way of using bombs in combat for certain characters that want a less subtle play style. A perm item for healer might let the alch spending actions to heal someone else, without the additive and quick part of healing bomb which makes it much rougher.

The ONLY thing humans had going for them was that they had two free boosts. They were the exemplars of flexibility. Of course, they have great feats, but every ancestory has a good set of feats depending on what you want to do.

I think the real issue is that Natural Ambition and Multitalented are two of the strongest ancestry feats in the game (since they convert to class feats, which are normally the strongest kind of feat). It's not great that the mechanical benefit from being human is "you can turn your ancestry feats into non-ancestry feats" but it's also kind of traditional.

Like you already didn't have a non-concept reason other than feats/heritages to choose to be Human instead of Kitsune if one of your boosts was going into Cha. Which is not to say that concept-related choices aren't valid, they're just made before mechanical ones; if you want to be a big beefy snake-person, you've already chosen Nagaji before you start writing down numbers.

Paizo may not have meant to, but by giving every ancestry the same flexibility as humans they devalued the one thing that set humans apart and that is a nerf.

It's not a big issue, ya'll, but it IS an issue.

If it is a nerf, it only brings them down to be in line with the other ancestries - not lower.

And we are talking about rather trivial differences in the ancestries when looking at only the core abilities. A couple points in HP that quickly becomes irrelevant, languages that are often ignored, sensory abilities when lighting is often ignored too. I think movement speed is the only one that has consistent actual game mechanics value - and even that is only different by +/- one square. You have to have a rather large battlefield before that becomes significant very often.

I love that even 15+ years on, the smurf filter still works on the forums. Thanks, Postmonster!

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

The ONLY thing humans had going for them was that they had two free boosts. They were the exemplars of flexibility. Of course, they have great feats, but every ancestory has a good set of feats depending on what you want to do.

I think the real issue is that Natural Ambition and Multitalented are two of the strongest ancestry feats in the game (since they convert to class feats, which are normally the strongest kind of feat). It's not great that the mechanical benefit from being human is "you can turn your ancestry feats into non-ancestry feats" but it's also kind of traditional.

Like you already didn't have a non-concept reason other than feats/heritages to choose to be Human instead of Kitsune if one of your boosts was going into Cha.

General Training is also very much competitive for best heritage both by literally enabling certain builds at the lowest possible level due to proficiency and by letting you just take something generically useful like acumen or toughness or so forth, and Skilled is no slouch either-- the increases to expert should be valued at a premium.

Unconventional Weaponry is also in the running in terms of strong feats because it lets you potentially access and martial scale anything with the right class, and there are uncommon weapons that aren't attached to ancestry feats at all that it represents guaranteed access to without your GM having to endorse it specifically.

The changes to ability boosts, that anyone can take 2 free boosts, is unfortunately an unintended nerf to humans.

The ONLY thing humans had going for them was that they had two free boosts. They were the exemplars of flexibility. Of course, they have great feats, but every ancestory has a good set of feats depending on what you want to do.

Paizo may not have meant to, but by giving every ancestry the same flexibility as humans they devalued the one thing that set humans apart and that is a nerf.

It's not a big issue, ya'll, but it IS an issue.

Humans have easily the best suite of ancestry feats for general use, and using versatile heritage options lets you poach ones that are better for more specific things. Multitalented is so good, almost everyone at least considers taking adipted (human) just to pick it up.

I've been using this version of attributes for over a year; it didn't improve the power of any of the ancestries; it just made it so someone can play a dwarf sorcerer or a gnome barbarian or w/e and not be punished for a flavor choice

Are people STILL falling into the mind-trap of thinking the Alchemist is a Martial Class? They are SUPPORT and excel in ways that no other class can in flexibility of being able to apply on-demand buffs, debuffs, conditions, remove conditions, hazardous/difficult terrain, and also target basically EVERY type of weakness in the system while also having the second to best bonus to Recall Knowledge of any Class in the system all on demand SEVERAL times a day for free. You need only be smart with your daily prep of Reagents and also save a handful of them for spontaneous use. Sure, they have a hard time actually doing this at level 1 and level 2 but how is that any different than any other class with x/day resources beyond the fact that most of them get Cantrips as well... which, truth be told, is something they can ALSO do VERY easily by way of Ancestry benefits offered to 2/3rds of all printed Ancestry options or 100% of them if you consider Heritages part of that option bucket.

Measuring the Alch based on their to-hit for the primary damage effect of bombs alone is an immense mistake on par with measuring a Ranger based on their Armor Class.

Are people STILL falling into the mind-trap of thinking the Alchemist is a Martial Class? They are SUPPORT and excel in ways that no other class can in flexibility of being able to apply on-demand buffs, debuffs, conditions, remove conditions, hazardous/difficult terrain, and also target basically EVERY type of weakness in the system while also having the second to best bonus to Recall Knowledge of any Class in the system.

Measuring the Alch based on their to-hit for the primary damage effect of bombs alone is an immense mistake on par with measuring a Ranger based on their Armor Class.

We haven't really seen that bear out in the actual game, is the problem, other classes just do support better as well, and what they gain in versatility doesn't appear to be paying dividends.

Just to try to recap, because we were already getting entangled when there were just two related arguments going on, I've seen about four main debates over the ability boost change:

1. "Humans have taken a small but meaningful indirect nerf by everyone getting access to their fancy stat array."

2. "The effective removal of the Voluntary Flaw variant rule unnecessarily stifles player creativity."

3. Should the change to ancestry ability arrays have been a variant rule GMs could opt out of? Is the distinction between "player option" and "variant rule" meaningless? This hasn't been a big debate, but I thought I'd mention it since it kept getting confused with Argument #2.

4. "[let's be honest, probably going to be removed by moderators]"

Okay, jokes aside, the fourth debate is "biological essentialism about lizardfolk being less intelligent than humans is okay because horses are very heavy".

Last edited by Kobold Catgirl at 10:42:12 PDT. Yeah, she's just going to keep including these notes until she learns to finish her post before she posts it like everyone else. And yes, making this text smaller because "it felt distracting" still counts as an edit.

I love that even 15+ years on, the smurf filter still works on the forums. Thanks, Postmonster!

If it ever stops working, we riot

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Paizo may not have meant to, but by giving every ancestry the same flexibility as humans they devalued the one thing that set humans apart and that is a nerf.

It's not a big issue, ya'll, but it IS an issue.

If it is a nerf, it only brings them down to be in line with the other ancestries - not lower.

And we are talking about rather trivial differences in the ancestries when looking at only the core abilities. A couple points in HP that quickly becomes irrelevant, languages that are often ignored, sensory abilities when lighting is often ignored too. I think movement speed is the only one that has consistent actual game mechanics value - and even that is only different by +/- one square. You have to have a rather large battlefield before that becomes significant very often.

Not all these differences are trivial as you put it.

You seem to forget that other ancestries get stuff like lowlight vision, darkvision, free healing, faster speeds, immunity to certain effects (like sleep), bonuses to rolls against effects. Some of them get Free unarmed attacks like jaws and claws and tails, ranged unarmed attacks, the ability to completely change their shape and so on and so forth.

If I'm understanding the optional ability boosts, the dwarf in the example would be (free, free, free, no flaw?)

It sort of sounds like it would be (free, free, done) like what Humans get currently? Though I guess you could do (free, free, free, flaw of your choice) and it would work out the same way.

I think "free, free, and keep the 2VF-for-1B variant rule" would be fine, honestly. It's what humans had for a long time, and it's a good balancer for the added versatility of three flexible boosts.

I do think the thing about "starting with an 8" is that one of my favorite PF1 characters was a changeling paladin who was nearsighted, always had her head in the clouds or her nose in a book, often seemed half asleep, and never noticed anything. So she had low Wis and no ranks in perception. I would have no trouble playing that character in PF2 with a 10 in Wisdom- the bigger problem is that I can't voluntarily lower perception.

You can kinda voluntarily lower perception. Just saying your character needs glasses and then not wearing the glasses is an example in a sidebar and says it could have a circumstance penalty, so being literally always reading could be a thing you discuss with your GM.

I'm not going to lose sleep over 2 points in an attribute but I would like to see SOMETHING that injects some entropy into character-building, whether that's Roll & Assign or (in the future) something even more interesting like Traveller's life-path system.

Anything to avoid having the same 10/10/10/10/12/12 spread from everyone.

breithauptclan wrote:

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Paizo may not have meant to, but by giving every ancestry the same flexibility as humans they devalued the one thing that set humans apart and that is a nerf.

It's not a big issue, ya'll, but it IS an issue.

If it is a nerf, it only brings them down to be in line with the other ancestries - not lower.

And we are talking about rather trivial differences in the ancestries when looking at only the core abilities. A couple points in HP that quickly becomes irrelevant, languages that are often ignored, sensory abilities when lighting is often ignored too. I think movement speed is the only one that has consistent actual game mechanics value - and even that is only different by +/- one square. You have to have a rather large battlefield before that becomes significant very often.

Not all these differences are trivial as you put it.

You seem to forget that other ancestries get stuff like lowlight vision, darkvision, free healing, faster speeds, immunity to certain effects (like sleep), bonuses to rolls against effects. Some of them get Free unarmed attacks like jaws and claws and tails, ranged unarmed attacks, the ability to completely change their shape and so on and so forth.

For what it's worth, I find almost all of these abilities come into play now and again. Darkvision and Low-Light are super relevant if you're using a VTT like Foundry where they're easy to track. Base speed is critical--I can't count the number of times my cleric has wound up just a few feet short of delivering an area effect or Battle Medicine check. And a few weeks ago I literally had a ghoul boss fight where the one PC who I'd managed to get paralyzed suddenly piped up like, "Hey, uh, KC? So I do hate to be a bother, but my character, ze's got this whole, um, elf thing..."

AND I'M STILL MAD ABOUT I

In the tier list of abilities, I generally get the vibe that darkvision, speed increases, and certain special abilities are considered more valuable than stuff like low-light vision, +2/-2 HP, and most unarmed attacks. I believe Mark Seifter has said that whether an ancestry gets a Flaw to a save ability (Con/Dex/Wis) is also factored in at around the value of a typical special ability. I don't know about languages--I'd be surprised if differences in bonus languages have any value at all--but maybe unique language advantages like humans' flexible options and gnomes getting a third base language are counted for something.

Whether or not these abilities are ultimately balanced in line with humans is another matter! I'm not debating that. But I do think they usually all come up in my games, for whatever it's worth. My human catkin cleric hasn't had occasion to bite anyone yet, but it's only a matter of time.

I really like how even PF2's minutia can be pivotal to winning a fight. Except when I'm the GM and the stupid AD&D elf immunity shibboleths ruin my game for no good reason rabble-rabble

Are people STILL falling into the mind-trap of thinking the Alchemist is a Martial Class? They are SUPPORT and excel in ways that no other class can in flexibility of being able to apply on-demand buffs, debuffs, conditions, remove conditions, hazardous/difficult terrain, and also target basically EVERY type of weakness in the system while also having the second to best bonus to Recall Knowledge of any Class in the system all on demand SEVERAL times a day for free. You need only be smart with your daily prep of Reagents and also save a handful of them for spontaneous use. Sure, they have a hard time actually doing this at level 1 and level 2 but how is that any different than any other class with x/day resources beyond the fact that most of them get Cantrips as well... which, truth be told, is something they can ALSO do VERY easily by way of Ancestry benefits offered to 2/3rds of all printed Ancestry options or 100% of them if you consider Heritages part of that option bucket.

Measuring the Alch based on their to-hit for the primary damage effect of bombs alone is an immense mistake on par with measuring a Ranger based on their Armor Class.

As my handle might imply, I'm an alchemist main; it's my favorite fantasy role, and I have extensive experience playing one in pf 2e; and was very, very active in the playtesting of the class when the system was released.

What I can say is that if you know what you're doing, you'll be really helpful to your team. Quick alchemy has saved my group over and over when an on the spot solution was needed. That said, the power of my items is drastically lower than on level spells, and usually less broad in terms of what I can actually do; theres nothing an alchemical item can do that a spell cant do, and the spell probably does it better. This is probably on purpose, because unlike a spell, anyone can use an alchemical item, and the alchemist gets more reagents than a mage gets spells.

While I disagree that alchemists are weak; they do definately need more tools to broaden out their kit; the class's main strength is being able to pull out a solution to an unexpected problem immediately and be able to apply it on the same turn; something no other class (sans investigator or rogue with versatile vials or Implausible Purchase); and their ability to do this is limited by the types of tools in their kit. While casters continually get new spells that open up more options, the alchemical items list has been fairly stagnent comparatively since the APG; which hopefully treasure vault will fix; this is especially bad with counteract items, as the alchemist has no way of "heightening" their level like a caster as well. Given that most new items for alchemist have actually been bombs, and just how much page space bombs take up; I'll forgive people for assuming they are vital to the class (and in a way, they are; the splash damage ensuring garanteed AoE damage is what makes the lower proficiency for attacks managable)

What I will say though, is that alchemists take an incredible about of system mastery to play well. The reason my team marvels at how well my character works is because I use a lot of tricks like gloves of storing, retrieval prisms, keeping an item in hand during explorarion mode, and giving items to allies to do the same in order to hack the action economy (another thing alchemists have over casters is with proper setup before fights, elixirs are a LOT more action efficient than spells). Also, while a caster only needs to be familiar with their spells they prepped that day or have in their repertoire, and alchemist has to think with their whole formula book; otherwise your giving up the biggest power benchmark your class is balanced around. You need to be really, really creative and knowledgeable to make good use of the class; and while I feel almost anyone with enough dedication can do it; it takes more work out of game than almost any other class.

Great points on the topic of system mastery, one that I tend to overlook for sure, internal bias and all.

Agreed on pretty much all points there, my main point in speaking up was that, again, I'm seeing people hyperfocus on the to-hit for Bombs as being the problem with the Class when I feel that thinking about them in this manner is missing the point of the Alch completely.

The Treasure Vault though, that's going to be an even greater degree of spontaneous flexibility which is going to be a huge boon, but like you said it's going to add even more system mastery load onto said player, that's very true.

Side note bordering on derail ... I'm holding out hope that a Magic Item is released that increases the number of Reagents for Classes/Archetypes that use them on par with the Ring of Wizardry and Grimoire-type items that are just flat-out upgrades to the corresponding chassis of said type PC. In other words it would be ideal if it were made in a manner that can work for Alchemists, Herbalists, Investigators and the like.

Glad to hear the errata process is being changed. There are loads of books with little issues that I was worried wouldn't get fixed because they were more niche options than the core rulebook, as well as some books that may not be reprinted because folks look up the stuff online when necessary, like the bestiaries.

Also love the new alternate ancestry boosts. I know the optional flaws system sooooooooort of let you do that already, but only if you picked specific ability scores to lower; I like the increased flexibility. It's good to kick bio-essentialism out of the game where possible, and I think it'll open up lots of new character options that people were concerned about using before because the scores may not line up quite right.
Gunslinger poppet, anyone?

the bigger problem is that I can't voluntarily lower perception.

I just really dislike that perception is hardcoded to class in general. A Fighter who's good at noticing things or a Thief who isn't both seem like they should be valid.

... so this errata was made necessary to prevent any funny business, like people Quick Alchemying a bunch of alchemical flamethrowers or something of the sort.

Makes sense, I just wish they used more precise language than "works with" when describing the intent of the change because that to me contradicts the change that would've otherwise been clearer.

(since they convert to class feats, which are normally the strongest kind of feat)

Can I poke at this a little? This isn't exactly my understanding of the dynamic. My understanding is that the difference between ancestry feats and class feats is a little nebulous, but that in terms of, like, options offered, class feats tend to stack up better to give you more powerful, relevant tools, while ancestry feats individually tend to technically carry a bit more technical weight but function in practice more as trinkets that sometimes come in handy.

Like, as a very bad example, an ancestry feat might give you a cute niche flavorful second-level spell, but a class feat might give you a versatile first-level spell that ultimately modifies your gameplay more drastically. Does that make sense? Someone else can probably explain what I'm trying to say better.

I'm not looking to argue; this is just a balance point I'm curious about, as someone working on an ancestry project right now and still learning the ins and outs of the system.

4. "[let's be honest, probably going to be removed by moderators]"

Okay, jokes aside, the fourth debate is "biological essentialism about lizardfolk being less intelligent than humans is okay because horses are very heavy".

This is true. I’ve seen horses close up and they are very heavy. I must admit though, that I’ve not seen Lizardfolk up close, but I have read somewhere that they just keep growing throughout the lifespan. Kinda makes you wonder

Themetricsystem wrote:

Are people STILL falling into the mind-trap of thinking the Alchemist is a Martial Class? They are SUPPORT and excel in ways that no other class can in flexibility of being able to apply on-demand buffs, debuffs, conditions, remove conditions, hazardous/difficult terrain, and also target basically EVERY type of weakness in the system while also having the second to best bonus to Recall Knowledge of any Class in the system all on demand SEVERAL times a day for free. You need only be smart with your daily prep of Reagents and also save a handful of them for spontaneous use. Sure, they have a hard time actually doing this at level 1 and level 2 but how is that any different than any other class with x/day resources beyond the fact that most of them get Cantrips as well... which, truth be told, is something they can ALSO do VERY easily by way of Ancestry benefits offered to 2/3rds of all printed Ancestry options or 100% of them if you consider Heritages part of that option bucket.

Measuring the Alch based on their to-hit for the primary damage effect of bombs alone is an immense mistake on par with measuring a Ranger based on their Armor Class.

As my handle might imply, I'm an alchemist main; it's my favorite fantasy role, and I have extensive experience playing one in pf 2e; and was very, very active in the playtesting of the class when the system was released.

What I can say is that if you know what you're doing, you'll be really helpful to your team. Quick alchemy has saved my group over and over when an on the spot solution was needed. That said, the power of my items is drastically lower than on level spells, and usually less broad in terms of what I can actually do; theres nothing an alchemical item can do that a spell cant do, and the spell probably does it better. This is probably on purpose, because unlike a spell, anyone can use an alchemical item, and the alchemist gets more reagents than a mage gets spells.

While I disagree that alchemists are weak; they...

This pretty much, and part of it is for me, the system mastery / under powered distinction is touchy, because other classes still benefit from it too so I'm unclear on where that perfectly played alchemist sits relative to the rest of the classes also played perfectly, and I've yet to see someone play an alchemist well enough that they actually convinced me they were providing as much value vs. the exp they add to the encounter as other classes.

So here's the big question:

Are Alchemists now in a good state or are we hoping there's still puzzle pieces to their overall viability (even just in terms of specific playstyles) to be revealed in Treasure Vault?

Like, if Treasure Vault was somehow cancelled and all existing copies were burned, is Alchemist 'fixed' enough to get on with?

For me personally, this hasn't made any changes to the viability of the Alchemist, since the core issue I have with this class hasn't been touched. Essentially, the Alchemist simply lacks power. Sure, they can do a lot of things, but each individual thing they do is so much weaker than what a caster could reasonably provide that it isn't worth it.

In defense of the "alchemists are a martial" idea, that idea seems to be encouraged by the flavor of the class itself. There's a lot of focus on bombs in the iconic art, and there was in PF1, too, so it makes sense to me that people assume bombs are The Point and feel frustrated they don't feel able play their mad bomber concept effectively.

Last edited by Kobold Cleaver at 11:58:22. I've never played a PF2 alchemist and don't want to take any firm position on the alchemist's role.

Also in practice, since you hand people stuff beforehand for them to use before a fight, a lot of alchs that aren't bombers still need to spend their actual time hitting things.

Guntermench wrote:

AJCarrington wrote:

Not sure if I missed it, but is there an ETA on the 4th printing?

Somewhere (in here I think) they said it's in the warehouse and just needs like an inventory check before starting to get shipped out or something.

More specifically, the warehouse is closed this week in order for Paizo to check their inventory, and the warehouse will re-open next week (starting on the 9th). After that point, the 4th printing of the CRB should start shipping, and once it does, the .PDFs of the CRB will be updated to reflect the new printing.

Thank you both, much appreciated!

Three of the four alchemical research methods are about items that you either attack with or use to enhance attacks, but Superior Optimizers still act shocked and appalled that some people actually want to play that way instead of leaning into the one hyperspecific playstyle that almost barely kind of nearly makes the class good enough that they're busy being so clever and smug about.

The outraged pearl clutching every time someone brings up trying to play Alchemists The Wrong Way really sells it.

Oh, the other comment I had is... I really hope the errata change is also open to Adventure Paths, though I doubt it.

Kingmaker really needs another passthrough, though I'm hoping we get a big dedicated book just to updating/fixing the systems it added, as well as presenting them in a non-AP format.

A GMG with toolkits specifically for Kingdoms and Armies, especially creating "NPC" Kingdoms and Armies would be nice for those that want to engage those mechanics outside of the pre-published AP.

Natural Ambition in all ancestries already!

So here's the big question:

Are Alchemists now in a good state or are we hoping there's still puzzle pieces to their overall viability (even just in terms of specific playstyles) to be revealed in Treasure Vault?

Like, if Treasure Vault was somehow cancelled and all existing copies were burned, is Alchemist 'fixed' enough to get on with?

The class is clunky as hell, with trap options and tax feats, a lack of resources making it improper for any campaign with at least slightly long adventuring days and it asks for a lot of system mastery for it to be competitive.

As it works in a very different way from other classes, it can be ok, sometimes even quite strong, as much as it can be quite useless depending on the campaign and the style of GMing.

I don't think there's a way to "save" the Alchemist. For me, Paizo made a class that is just to much out of the game design to really fix it.

Still, it's the reason it's so unique.

In defense of the "alchemists are a martial" idea, this is a misconception that seems a little encouraged by the flavor of the class. There's a lot of focus on bombs in the iconic art, and there was in PF1, too, so it makes sense to me that people assume bombs are The Point and feel frustrated they don't feel able play their mad bomber concept effectively.

It doesn't help when you like at how many bombs there are vs the other Research Fields. There is a LOT more effort put into bombs than other types of alchemical items.

Three of the four alchemical research methods are about items that you either attack with or use to enhance attacks, but Superior Optimizers still act shocked and appalled that some people actually want to play that way instead of leaning into the one hyperspecific playstyle that almost barely kind of nearly makes the class good enough that they're busy being so clever and smug about.

The outraged pearl clutching every time someone brings up trying to play Alchemists The Wrong Way really sells it.

Yes there are a LOT of attack/attack enhancing items for an allegedly non-marital character.

Also in practice, since you hand people stuff beforehand for them to use before a fight, a lot of alchs that aren't bombers still need to spend their actual time hitting things.

That assumes that people have free hands and/or want the item that has an ongoing duration: Revivifying Mutagen is the only way to end mutagens early after all.

*crosses fingers for Guns & Gears errata*

I never thought I'd be happy to glance at a thread and see most of the current page is about alchemists, lol. People have gotten so worked up about this round of errata.

Much appreciation to the forum mods and Paizo devs for being awesome. :)

Three of the four alchemical research methods are about items that you either attack with or use to enhance attacks, but Superior Optimizers still act shocked and appalled that some people actually want to play that way instead of leaning into the one hyperspecific playstyle that almost barely kind of nearly makes the class good enough that they're busy being so clever and smug about.

The outraged pearl clutching every time someone brings up trying to play Alchemists The Wrong Way really sells it.

Uhhh... No. Mutagenist and Chirugeon are not combat based. Mutagenist can be combat based but it's not solely meant to be.

I never thought I'd be happy to glance at a thread and see most of the current page is about alchemists, lol. People have gotten so worked up about this round of errata.

Much appreciation to the forum mods and Paizo devs for being awesome. :)

Really? This thread has honestly felt pretty chill to me the whole way through. We had one troll, and maybe one or two really confrontational exchanges last night, but for the most part people just flagged and moved on. Disagreements have mostly been civil and constructive. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Last edited by Kobold Catgirl at 12:15:01 PDT.

Overall, I like these changes. Flickmace got revised, but it is still a strong and worthwhile weapon. Warpriests get a better chance of hitting things, which my goodness they needed. Alternate ability boosts mean that I can make a bashy gnome fighter -- something I was considering doing anyway, but now they can be even bashier!

I'd like your team to make another pass on Alchemist sometime. They excel in flexibility but my gosh, they still need a bit more power.

When you get back to the errata for the Advanced Class Guide, can you give more oomph to the witch? More cantrip hexes and basic lessons with leveling? This would put them on par with other casters.

BTW, I am loving that this errata doesn't just nerf overpowered options, but also gave love to previously underpowered ones, and gave a boost to options to every ancestry in the game.

Woot for dwarven bards!

Hmm

Squiggit wrote:

Three of the four alchemical research methods are about items that you either attack with or use to enhance attacks, but Superior Optimizers still act shocked and appalled that some people actually want to play that way instead of leaning into the one hyperspecific playstyle that almost barely kind of nearly makes the class good enough that they're busy being so clever and smug about.

The outraged pearl clutching every time someone brings up trying to play Alchemists The Wrong Way really sells it.

Uhhh... No. Mutagenist and Chirugeon are not combat based. Mutagenist can be combat based but it's not solely meant to be.

Between Bestial Mutagen, Bestial Mutagen, Energy Mutagen, Ichthyosis Mutagen, Juggernaut Mutagen, Quicksilver Mutagen, War Blood Mutagen and Stone Body Mutagen having clear combat applications I'd say Mutagenist are solidly combat based. As such, I agree with Squiggit.

Natural Ambition in all ancestries already!

Why can't I favorite this twice?

Overall, I like these changes. Flickmace got revised, but it is still a strong and worthwhile weapon. Warpriests get a better chance of hitting things, which my goodness they needed. Alternate ability boosts mean that I can make a bashy gnome fighter -- something I was considering doing anyway, but now they can be even bashier!

I'd like your team to make another pass on Alchemist sometime. They excel in flexibility but my gosh, they still need a bit more power.

When you get back to the errata for the Advanced Class Guide, can you give more oomph to the witch? More cantrip hexes and basic lessons with leveling? This would put them on par with other casters.

BTW, I am loving that this errata doesn't just nerf overpowered options, but also gave love to previously underpowered ones, and gave a boost to options to every ancestry in the game.

Woot for dwarven bards!

Hmm

Well I think for most Warpriests, this was a non-change. But it does prevent awkwardness of clerics falling behind on Escaping when compares to every other class in the game, which is good.

Seems like a lot of arguments here about the new way of doing ancestry ability boosts boils down to making it so 'every ancestry can be effective in any class'. That seems to be born out of the assumption that if you don't have an 18 your primary stat that the character isn't any good. And that is simply not true; it's an assumption that comes from ignorance. It's a sign of a lack of understanding about what actually makes characters effective.

What an unfortunate mindset, that you MUST have an 18 in your primary stat to be a good caster, or an 18 str to be a good barbarian or whatever. The difference between a 16 and an 18 is a +1 modifier, which will become less and less important over the span of that character's career.

So, to me, if feels like Paizo is essentially capitulating to power-gamers and minmaxers and that toxic crowd that tells off anyone that doesn't have an 18 in a primary stat.

"I want to play a dwarf sorcerer, but I can't do it with a 16 charisma whaa whaa whaa."

Please.

I don't agree with that interpretation, and I think it's phrased really unnecessarily disrespectfully. Also, I think it would do us all good, on all sides, to remember that the Stormwind Fallacy is a fallacy. "Minmaxing" and "optimizing" shouldn't be dirty words.

Especially since everyone misuses the term "minmaxing", anyways.

Seriously, though, I do a ton of optimization when I design my characters. PF2 gifts you with a ton of versatility in character creation, meaning I can go to great lengths to design my character to be exactly as I envision her. Is she supposed to be good at melee? At Recall Knowledge skills? At talking to people? Is she supposed to be witty and smart, or clumsy and shy? Does she have a disability I want to reflect, or a hobby I need to invest in? I often don't aim for a 16 KAS, for what it's worth, but I also don't want to play a character who's useless. That's not usually very fun to roleplay. I don't usually choose to roleplay incompetent PCs. You have to optimize a little bit if you care about translating a character concept into numbers that mean something.

Last edited by Kobold Catgirl at 12:33:21 PDT.