|2 people marked this as a favorite.|
It also serves to showcase that alchemy need not be a thing purely in the realm of the capital-A Alchemist class - one of the benefits that baking the alchemy into the core rules allowed for in the transition to 2e.
In general I've seen a lot of sentiment of "Why is this new thing its own thing and not just a subclass/archetype of a CRB class, or why not just use multiclass into an old class instead".
And the issue with that mindset is that the CRB classes and their associated multiclass archetypes come with a lot more baggage that these new classes ask for (the aforementioned example of alchemist giving access to stuff like bombs), and being bogged down by the limitations of multiclassing, like being available at level 2+ and the overall worse scaling, and lack of more thematic, unique options.
Evidently, the designers at Paizo looked at those classes and deemed them conceptually rich and apart enough from the core stuff to bring them over as full classes instead of merely as archetypes or feat packages for the existing classes.
Still though, we already have things like the Warpriest doctrine for Cleric (which makes it somewhat unlikely that we'll see Warpriest as a full 2e class), and there's a very strong likelihood that things like the Cavalier and Vigilante will also return as archetypes (Cavalier already was in the 2e playtest, and I strongly suspect it to be one of the APG archetypes), so there's precedent for them approaching the porting of 1e classes into 2e in vastly different ways.
YMMV on whether you agree with the devs on that, but this appears to be the direction they want to take these in, so I feel like best we can do is help them realize that goal now.