shroudb's page

OrochiFuror wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

If it were to be something I'd do, I'd only ever do it once, and even then not for a super important fight. IMO the point of those kinds of jokes is to gently remind the party that the world is alive and will sometimes respond to cheesy tactics they employ with cheesy tactics of their own, not to punish them for being organized and prepared for danger.

I wouldn't do something like that as it's a bit too fourth wall breaking for my style of play. Otherwise I don't allow the cheese in the first place, nearly all buffs are for one combat and setting up ambushes to be able to prebuff requires stealth for the whole group. I don't run and have actually never been in a group that plays as tactical door kickers.

So while the OP may or may not have been super serious, I do think it's good to know how to get the most out of your limited slots and often very limited time in combat to be the most efficient. +12 for possibly one attack though better be on your barbarian as otherwise that seems overkill and becomes less efficient.

Yes I was serious, real serious. We are not able to prebuff, this is straight up in combat, first round, Stride (free, I have an ability that lets me stride for free), then Tempest of Shades sometimes. Then second round we Fortissimo for +3, True Strike and then Strike in order to extend the Fortissimo to two rounds and then followed by the Departure of the TOS. Then I'll use +4 aid reaction on the Barbs turn. He is almost always flanking with the Fighter so we have only +12 there with a reroll. I could cast another high level spell here on round 2 instead of True target, maybe a heightened Invisibility? I think you guys may be right, Blur is ok, but Heightened Invisibility could do a lot of work.

Aid apart from your reaction does also require 1 Action on your turn to setup for it.

The only ability that allows for Aid without that 1 Action is Fake out, and as a bard you won't be giving +4 with Fake out since it uses your weapon proficiency, which caps at Expert.

---

In short, in those 2 theoretical rounds you've posted, you'd be unable to Aid.

Numbing tonic is X temporary hp per round, but it's 1 fight (1 minute duration)

Juggernaut is Y temporary hp per fight total, but can be multiple different fights (recharges every minute basically for either 10 minutes duration, or 1 hour duration).

You could use Implement of Destruction (6th) on your friend's weapon, making it deal an additional 4d6 persistent damage on a hit for a minute.

You can also cast Seal Fate to give to the target weakness to whatever type of damage your friend is doing.

Can you guys clarify why stunned removes reactions? Are you talking about the text, "You can't act" at the start of the stun condition? I always read this as just part of the flavor text. "You've become senseless. You can't act. [explanation of the rule]" Ι would have thought that if being stunned prevents you from gaining a reaction, it would actually say something like, "If you are stunned at the start of your turn, you don't gain any reactions." This is very unclear to me. What about free actions? Are you not allowed to drop anything you're holding while stunned? What if you are stunned 3, you would be able to use any reactions with the trigger, "Your turn ends" at the end of your turn?

From Gaining and Losing Actions paragraph:

Some effects are even more restrictive. Certain abilities, instead of or in addition to changing the number of actions you can use, say specifically that you can't use reactions. The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can't act: this means you can't use any actions, or even speak. When you can't act, you still regain your actions unless another effect (like the stunned condition) prevents it.

Stunned very clearly states that you can't act.

So no reaction, no free actions, not even speech is allowed while you are Stunned.

First and foremost I want to thank all my fellow party members that helped us slaughter all the nastyies in the campaign, and Bramble for running it, as well as Niktorak and Ironbear that helped him prep and made awesome maps for us.

That said, my honest review after finishing this campaign:

Starting with the good:

a)I absolutely loved the level range. Skipping the first few levels, and just slightly touching on "higher levels" is a great concept. It alieviates the tedius few levels for us that have played rpgs for 30 years and don't love them, gets high enough that you can do some of the "high level stuff" without putting pressure on the GM about getting stuff that can really derail them (no matter how balanced pf2 is, especially for newcomers from other games, high level is always more challenging to run).

b)the wildwood is a beautiful place with many different beings for allies and antagonists. Book 1 in particular helps set a nice tone (although that gets crushed pretty soon as you start book 2/3).

The bad:

0)We need an AP that DOESN'T start with a gala.

a)Need less, and better designed subsystems.

There's 0 fun in having something say "you get Stupified 1 from reading too much, and you need 1 week downtime to stop being Stupefied." Especially when there are special clauses that straight up disallow your abilities to interact with said debuffs.

Like, imagine if you play a healer that can remove conditions and having the book saying "nope, you may remove a condition from having your brain turned to that of a frog's, but you can't remove it from reading too much"

b)Narrative holes/continuity.

Someone should have double checked the campaign, because there are dozens of times that things simply make no sense. You have the escapee pathfinder that led the enemy, but somehow now can't lead you (and you instead have to do a subsystem to get the same information that for all intents and purposes she should already have). You have to keep the werebear from eating the baddies, but you can't simply move her away for the 1 day that the baddies will be there. Let alone the druids not only siding with the undead, but going alongside her mass torture of every inhabitant of the forest as "sure, ok, it's probably for the best, right?".

There are too many holes to cover here, but as a lot of things in this campaign, you simply have to shrug and ignore to finish the campaign "as written".

On a similar vein, a lot of parts are absolutely disjointed. Breaking the pace and immersion as you hop from one irrelevant thing to another.

c)unaswered plots/page space/npcs

There are blatant questions that raw are left unaswered. Important questions that every PC will ask, like "who killed the arch druid" are left unaswered.

We know that this is due to page space limitations, BUT on the other hand, you have 100 npcs in there and 20 different, new subsystems, taking that page space.

For minor npcs, there is simply no reson to take so much space. Even if you want to make the world "more alive", a basic name, description, and a sentence or two is enough for any GM to fill the rest.

For systems, we already have plenty in the rulebooks, no reason to create a dozen more just for a campaign, taking up that space.

Instead, this space should have been used to keep in the quests that could give closure to vital questions left in the adventure, questions that those npcs will ask you.

d)failed sense of urgency.

In the whole campaign there is supposed to be a feeling of urgency. From running away from enemy armies, to chasing down artifacts to get them before the enemy, to trying to establish rebel forces, to trying to catch up the mastermind before she does the bad thing...

BUT

The same subsystems suddenly gives you WEEKS of in-between that feel like you are doing absolutely nothing. Like, your enemies amass forces and you spend 1 month in a library, or you are trying to chase her down and you have to spend weeks in a city to build trust. Going on week long patrols instead of actively doing anything to help the war effort. And literally numerous other examples. It simply becomes a joke.

---

Overall, I'd say that the campaign is runnable IF, and only IF, the GM is willing to put a ton of work to homebrew a lot of stuff just to make sense. But if you are looking for an AP that you can prep quickly and run, this is not it.

Time to transfer those handwrap runes for a while.

(Talos and Changeling versatile heritage feats are the only ways I know to put cold iron on a natural attack.)

Oread as well.

shroudb wrote:

Toxicologist is "ok" , but really requires system mastery to reach that ok when you're building him to actually end with a workable action economy.

I partially agree. I still feel it's a mess.

First, toxicologist never get to the efficiency of the rogue/poisoner that draw plus use a poison in one action.

Injury poisons are terrible from the start. 2 actions to apply them make them unusable in combat for most people. You can put them before combat at the risk of them being useless (encounter against poison immune or just big high fortitude monster). Granted the toxicologist ignoring immunities partially ignores that but still you would prefer to use the good poison for the good enemy.

Going from 2 to 1 action partially mitigate that but you still need 3 actions. Two of those have to be consecutive because poisons become inert at the end of the round (applied poisons stay for 10 minutes). That makes double brew clunky as you can't for example make two poisons and only apply one. If you want to make two poisons you need double poison and use both in the same turn.

All those problems can be mitigated by carefully using your actions, checking your positioning and making good use of the quicken status but that's work. Compared to the rest of my arsenal as a toxicologist :
Bombs : I just recall knowledge, find the weakness, throw the good one.
Elixirs : 1 action to draw, 1 to use even on allies.
Mutagens : Everyone has the correct one way before combat using the advanced alchemy stock (It's quicksilver 90% of the time). Never used mutagens on quick alchemy (and I agree that this makes the mutagenist feel redundant)

Side note : While that a toxicologist has no problem using any of those and I used and abused them, a non toxicologist can't use poisons efficiently at all. I feel that paizo could probably buff them in general. Make them cost 1 action to use and instead make the toxicologist craft and use them in one action and keep the fact that poison weapon (rogue and...

You almost no time want to poison midcombat.

Unless you have a constant state of Quickened, which some builds/parties, can achieve, the easiest way is Thrower's Bandolier.

With Quick Alchemy you can keep 3 thrown weapons poisoned every encounter, plus like 2-3 more with Advanced. That should cover most combats. The rest of Quick/Advanced for the usual mutagens, utility, heals, etc.

Pinpoint plus a status debuff can lower Fort saves to a manageable degree.

If you want to go melee, Injectors can help a lot, but mostly, you want Quicken.

Toxicologist has the unique benefit of ignoring Poison immunity, which is also a way to inflict unique, poison, debuffs on stuff normally immune to them.

Is it the best?
No.

But it is an actual "ok" way to build a themed character that can stay competitive.

After level 13 the pure output of hp from a Chirurgeon outshines Cleric indeed (although only a couple of times per battle).

And the new feats make him also an excellent condition remover.

Toxicologist is "ok" , but really requires system mastery to reach that ok when you're building him to actually end with a workable action economy.

Bomber is all around good.

Imo, it's only Mutagenist that really trails behind without any worthwhile benefit from choosing him as a Field. Even if you want to play with Mutagens, picking a different field and simply using the Mutagens ends up as the better overall deal.

HammerJack wrote:

There is no rule like that preventing multiple crit effects, no.

I think I am getting that vague impression from things like Deadly Butterfly that specify, almost like it is reminder text, that you can only benefit from one critical specialization effect.

But specific does not define general. That line from Deadly Butterfly cannot be used as a replacement for a general rule, and does not override a general rule since the general rule doesn't exist.

Which is a specific rule of the feat and not a general, as seen on a different feat... doing the opposite:

Your body is a varied and deadly weapon. When you critically hit a target with your claw or talon, you can apply a critical specialization effect based on the stance you're in. For claw stance, apply the knife weapon group's effect. For talon stance, apply the axe group's effect. These effects are in addition to the claw's or talon's normal critical specialization effect if you apply it.

In general, I would allow the player to choose the order of operation of simultaneous things that happen from his Actions.

My "best" guidance on that is that it's called explicitly out on Start of Turn effects, that also happen simultaneously, and allow the player to tailor the order they happen to his advantage.

Xenocrat wrote:

The metal kineticist impulse junction is a thorns effect that does half your level in acid, electricity, or slashing for one round if you use a two action impulse.

Ah I see what you were referencing. Though why not both? :) A Kineticist (Witch archetype) build can get Metal Impulse Junction + Ravel of Thorns + Blood Vendetta + Needle of Vengeance by level 6.

Though that's a lot of build tuned to a tactic that can be defeated by an enemy deciding "hmm...I'll just go over here and attack Bob instead." So maybe a more strategic bit of advice to the OP is: battlefield control should be like half this build. You need to prevent your opponent from moving to another target just as much as you need to damage them for attacking you.

Frankly, the best 'punishment' ability may be the most simple and obvious: reactive strike.

If we're going Kineticist, Earth also has the pseudo-stoneskin that damages enemies when they hit you.

Greater Cooling Elixirs would straight up make you immune to Incredible Heat for 24h.

Pretty sure there are similar spell effects that the party can also prepare in slots/scrolls.

Continuing with the trend of not using already mentioned spells:

Bless: Even at later levels, using your 1st rank slots for a party wide +1 is actually good.

Albatross Curse: On a similar note as above, a low rank spell that gives party wide, stacking +1, and if the enemy chooses to break it, not only they waste an action, but also open up themselves to be shut down by your follow up mental effect.

Slow: taking away enemy actions on a save is brutal, 10 times more powerful as a resentment Witch.

Awaken Entropy: With good positioning, you can use this one spell to keep stacking tons of damage for the whole combat. As a bonus, it works on absolutely everything.

Moment of Renewal: Especially with Reach Spell, this one spell gives the highest amount of party recovery, practically taking the whole party to full life regardless how injured they were and giving them extra saves vs ongoing efects.

I don't treat Hero Points as being part of the "Fortune and Misfortune cancel each other" interaction. Hero Points don't actually have the Fortune trait. (At least, looking in Archives of Nethys, the word "Fortune" doesn't appear anywhere in the explanation of how Hero Points work.)

So if a player has a misfortune effect that requires rolling two dice and taking the lowest, and after seeing the result, wants to spend a Hero Point, I believe they can. (Not so sure whether they still have to roll two dice take the lowest if they're still under that misfortune effect, however.)

Hero Points by themselves are not a Fortune effect, because they can be used in multiple ways, some of which aren't Fortune.

But the use of rerolling a check with one most definetly is a Fortune effect:

Spend 1 Hero Point to reroll a check. You must use the second result. This is a fortune effect (which means you can't use more than 1 Hero Point on a check).

---

I think the "fairest" way to arbitate Hero Point usage is allowing them to preemptively cancel Misfortune before you roll:
Player: Since I'm under Ill-Omen, can I use a Hero point to roll normally and not have to "roll twice, take the worst?"
Or:
Player: Ok i roll my Reflex...
GM: Wait, you're under an aura forcing you to roll twice, take the worst.
Player: Can I spend a hero point to negate that?
GM: sure.

shroudb wrote:

In both cases, the Champion can choose to delay his turn to be more strategic and help PC 2 and PC 3 with his revealing light.

You can't Delay to extend the duration of effects. They would still end at the moment you Delay.

I meant more in the sense of positioning your self in a good turn order to take full advantage of it, not in the sense of delaying AFTER you use the reaction to extend it.

In the same way that you may want to delay yourself after an enemy before Demoralizing him in order for the whole party to take advantage of that.

And if they used it on Bandit 2, every single party member would benefit.

Abilities that have varied effect based on your order are not uncommon, exact same issue you would have if your Champion used Demoralize against Bandit 2.

The bandit would only be affected on his turn and not on your Allies turns.

But if you used it on Bandit 1 every ally would benefit from the Frightened 1.

---

In both cases, the Champion can choose to delay his turn to be more strategic and help PC 2 and PC 3 with his revealing light.

Only usable on willing targets, plus the last sentence, would make me rule that this movement will provoke as normal, i.e. not following normal forced movement rules.

When an effect forces you to move, or if you start falling, the distance you move is defined by the effect that moved you, not by your Speed. Forced movement doesn't trigger reactions that are triggered by movement.

My argument is very simple: Since this will only affect you if you're willing, the effect doesn't force you to do anything. You're free to reject it. Ergo, it's not Forced Movement.

That said, I hate that it doesn't say it more clearly and we have to infer rules.

--

As for shenanigans, this is a prime target for Effortless Concentration. Basically 1 free party Fly Action per round (even better than Fly due to being able to go 30ft up).

shroudb wrote:

I mean, it's your opinion, sure, but the opposite opinion is equally as strong.

No it isn't? The ability says what it does.

No one is questioning the RAW, what is in discussion is the RAI. Which is fundamentally an opinion.

The ability says it does nothing. For a capstone level 23 ability. Which is where the "ability is wrong" arguments stem from.

Your "opinion" is that this is intended.
The opposite "opinion" is that it's not.

Both are equally valid opinions, but they're still opinions.

---

Something being correctly written but fundamentally wrong RAW is not even the 1st time, take old Arcane Cascade and how long it took to be even usable "by RAW".

Quote:

First, axe crit damage is only the weapon die. It's a small bonus for scoring a crit. It's not close to pick crits.

Yeah, I know it's only the dice. By "30–50% depending on the flat modifiers" I meant to say it's lower percentage the higher the flat mod.

Also, another point: Swipe double dipping the crit specialization of axes encourages degenerate play where it's better for the PC to have an enemy mook near the boss so they can crit the mook + hit the boss with swipe, and deal more total damage to the boss than if the mook didn't exist. This is certainly not intended and makes no sense to be easier to kill the boss when they have minions nearby. It could come to the point where an allied caster summons a low level monster nearby (or simply throws a bag of rats) just so the axe wielder swipes the summoned minion and the boss, adding up to 3d12 damage to the boss.

I think this last point cements to me that it should not work this way, as someone who uses a lot of low level minions with bosses. The boss should not be more vulnerable because they have minions supporting them.

Most crit specs refer to the "target of the Strike", see my Sword Critical spec quote above.

If both targets hit by Swipe aren't separate targets, how do you rule that both would become off-guard?

So, if you are allowing ANY crit spec to apply to both targets hit, then by definition you are declaring them "different targets" and that should be enough for Axe Spec as well.

Secondly, you are talking about "double dipping" as something weird or wrong, when in fact, every multihit ability in the game "double dips" with multiple targets:

You're making 2 targets off -guard, not 1.
You're making 2 targets bleed, not 1.
You're repositioning 2 targets, not 1.
You are getting +2x damage instead of 1x.
And etc.

How is Axe any different?

---

To give you a more clean example:

Pick adds +X damage to the primary target.
Axe adds +Y damage to a secondary target.

A crit Swipe with a Pick would add X damage to both targets.
A crit Swipe with an Axe would add Y damage to both targets.

They would functionally be identical.

Thanks, that actually lines up pretty closely with how I’ve been interpreting it too.

My GM, though, brought up the point that since Swipe explicitly allows the Sweep trait to apply to both targets, that means both A and B are considered “initial targets.” So in his view, neither one could be used as the adjacent creature for the axe crit specialization—you’d need a third creature (C) nearby for it to trigger. (Which, let’s be honest, doesn’t sound like a super common scenario. I don’t expect to be landing Swipe crits with three enemies huddled around me too often, haha).

I get where he’s coming from—especially since the Swipe wording is a bit awkward. Like you said, “all your Swipe attacks” feels strange when there’s only one attack roll. But that phrasing also supports the idea that Swipe acts as two attacks resolved independently, even if they share the same roll.

From that angle, it still feels fair that A could trigger the axe crit on B and vice versa. That seems consistent with how critical specializations work across weapon groups—flails knocking multiple targets prone, swords applying flat-footed to each, etc.

Really appreciate all the insight so far—it’s helped me see that this is a genuine gray area that I needed some clarification. Curious to hear if more GMs out there rule it the same way!

You could argue with your GM that Sweep doesn't apply to "initial target" but to secondary target.

So, it's the other way around of his reading.

mythic immunity and mythic resistance are both largely ribbon features that limit the effectiveness of the PCs' non mythic allies. That's fine. It's clearly what they're designed to do so invoking 'too bad/good to be true' doesn't make sense.

Rather than try to contort into all these novel ways to redefine resistance and immunity it seems easier and much more plausible to just take at face value that resilience is the problem one, because it's the only one that interacts strangely and breaks underlying mechanisms of the game.

Given the multiple threads (in various platforms) about them, I don't see where it's "clear".

I mean, it's your opinion, sure, but the opposite opinion is equally as strong.

Imo, the reality is much simpler:
Human error.

too much nesting

My main point still is that it's a level 23 ability.

It is supposed too be beyond ordinary Mythic creatures.

So, doing absolutely nothing vs players, is definitely too good to be true.

---

It's not the average thing even Mythic characters will ever face.

It's the final boss of the Mythic campaign.

And as most final bosses, there is supposed to be some kind of gimmick to actually fight him.

I'd say that indeed both are separate targets, so it should work that way.

further prrof towards that interpation can be gleamed by the last sentence of Swipe:

"If you’re using a weapon with the sweep trait, its modifier applies to all your Swipe attacks."

And looking at Sweep:

"When you attack with this weapon, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your attack roll if you already attempted to attack a different target this turn using this weapon."

Sweep considers each target a "different target" hence it applies its bonus to both.

I would find it hard to argue that somehow the axe specialization works differently when declaring targets.

Especially since, as you pointed out, all the other weapon specializations work normally vs both the targets.

Let's look at Sword:

"The target is made off-balance by your attack, becoming off-guard until the start of your next turn."

Ifboth aren't separate targets, then how are both becoming off-guard, since off-guard only applies to "the target"?

SpontaneousLightning wrote:

Nelzy wrote:

if we assume that we are not mythic creatures and...

Mythic Resistance only being bypassed by Mythic Strike and Mythic weapons that would makes it more inline power vise to Mythic Resilience that screws caster over big time.

If you weren't mythic characters, then Mythic Immunity would either make the monster completely immune to all of your spells or all of your unarmed strikes.

That's what should kill that interpretation. The idea that the rules are designed to make creatures literally immune to likely half the PCs in a party (or potentially all of them because Mythic Immunity mentions its possible to have it twice) simply doesn't pass a smell test. There is no way that's the intention, especially since casters can't even get a mythic weapon to bypass it.

Paizo has put out some half-baked stuff lately, but I can't believe that "sit the climactic final battle out because you didn't get a mythic weapon" is actually the design intent. Anytime a rule interpretation both goes against a plain English reading of the rules and also creates a nonsensical outcome, it's almost certainly incorrect.

Quote:

The GM would then be forced to make a few homebrew mythic weapons for low level characters then, but War of Immortals also never added any rules for making homebrew mythic items.

I personally find it rather unclear what would make an item mythic or non-mythic in the first place. For example, if the party goes on a harrowing quest to find a legendary sword blessed by Heaven in order to help slay Vulot, would this be a mythic sword... or just a normal non-mythic Chalice of Justice? What sort of powers would differentiate the two swords?

It's pretty much the same as making any other homebrew item: you make something up. What makes it "a mythic item" is the GM declaring it's a mythic item. That's it.

There doesn't need to be any special rules for it. Homebrew items can do whatever the GM wants, including being mythic.

isn't Mythic Immunity a level 23+ monster ability though?

I'd argue that if you want to fight a level 23 Mythic creature, having a Mythic weapon should be the bare minimum to even try.

(always assuming if we go with the interpetation that characters don't count as mythic creatures themselves)

---

going back to mythic resistance/resilience disparity, the fact that a rank 1 Incapacitation spell has the same chance to work vs a mythic creature as a rank 10 incapacitation spell, regardless of the enemy level, just helps to show how little thinking has been put into those two abilities.

Are we really suppossed to be spamming rank 1 Sleep and rank 3 Paralyze spells vs Mythics since they work just as well as a Rank 9 spell?

I stand by my previous (now deleted) comment:

the most reasonable explanation is that whomever wrote them either
a)did a mistake
b)didn't understand pf2 rules

as such, there's no point in talking about rai or raw, since the rules conflict with the base rules of tgtbt/tbtbt depending on your reading of them.

---

furthermore:

the actual wording of Mythic Immunity only reaslly hoses casters, not Unarmed:

The creature is immune to either harmful spells cast by non-mythic creatures, or Strikes made with non-mythic weapons and unarmed Strikes from non-mythic characters.

while Unarmed specifies characters, Spells are still locked behind the ambiguous "creatures" term.

I think that having the capstone ability of the Mythic level 23 Uberboss doing absolutely nothing is TGTBT, but on the other hand, having the capstone ability of the Mythic level 23 Uberboss automatically shutting off all spells is TBTBT.

Ergo: the rules as written are simply wrong.

I'd say that any reasonable GM would allow Seasoned to count for qualifying for Impeccable. At least in my experience and in home tables.

If you're taking pfs though... That's a different can of worms.

shroudb wrote:

Sadly I have to agree that more and more content that comes out is riddled with errors, mistakes, and things that slip through the cracks way more than what it used to be beforehand.

Which is also why the lattest round of Errata was such a dissapointment since it failed to address countless things pointed in the dedicated thread for it and instead had some barebones trivial changes.

This, I feel, is a point on which many people fail to set proper expectations and do not realize it.

The Remaster cramming extra work into the same amount of time is the likely culprit for why the level of errors present in products has gone up, and while the Remaster is "done" now so the schedule can return to some normalcy there is now the extra work of finding all the errors and deciding what to actually do about them.

And while people might think fixing a lot of the errors is just reading the thread where message board users have collected what they've found and doing what the posters suggest as a fix, that's not how things really work. The team can't just go "okay, sounds good" to some armchair game designer, they have a responsibility to everyone else playing the game to actually check things out. Which is a fundamental thing, really, the people posting disappointment about how the thread didn't have a different impact were thinking it was going to be a thing it was never going to be since any errata suggestion is always going to be a thing that the team adds to the list of stuff to check in on and nothing further than that.

And there's only so many hours in the day, so the work pace isn't going to magically increase just because people hope this time the errata list will be 5 times bigger than last time.

there is tempering expectations to a reasonable degree, and there is a barebones of an Errata on a 6 month schedule.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect everything to be fixed instantly as it's reported, but I also don't think that it's reasonable to have such few fixes and so many errors not even addressed at all.

In short, while I agree that there should be reasonable expectations from the readers, I also do think that there should also be reasonable expectations from the developers. Instantly excusing them without questioning why there aren't really any real errata done in such a big timeframe is not doing anyone any good.

It means Mythic Strike doesn't make sense in what its saying... but it's not exactly the first time that happened. The second half of last year in particular had a LOT of issues like this. A lot of content coming out felt rushed and like it needed more time in the oven.

Sadly I have to agree that more and more content that comes out is riddled with errors, mistakes, and things that slip through the cracks way more than what it used to be beforehand.

Which is also why the lattest round of Errata was such a dissapointment since it failed to address countless things pointed in the dedicated thread for it and instead had some barebones trivial changes.

Blue_frog wrote:

The weakness of thaumaturge isn’t only action economy, it’s manipulate action - that makes the class borderline useless in fights with AOOs

It is certainly something you have to keep in mind, but as exploit vulnerability does not have a range you can (and should) do it outside of a creatures reach. Having reach yourself also helps, making asp coil and the like very attractive.

It's more than Exploit. Like, 90% of the stuff you do has Manipulate. Even friggin Amulet Abeyance has Manipulate lol.

thenobledrake wrote:

I don't like the way that Mythic Resistance functions as written because it only functions if the GM is using Mythic for enemies but not also using Mythic for PCs.

So since I believe that not to be intended, as Mythic rules are presented as a game-wide toggle, I have to believe that the wording of "non-mythic creatures" is actually intended to be something else.

I've picked "non-mythic Strikes" as a thing to fill in. And in doing so have made it so that the typical play case of an enemy with Mythic Resistance is that they reduce damage of the characters fighting against them which gets overcome if the character has a mythic weapon (which they usually won't because of item level... because these rules are fairly poorly constructed in more than just this one place), or has used one of the available options to get Mythic Proficiency on the Strike they are making - but then doesn't also apply against spells which are already having enough trouble when they have to go up against Mythic Resilience so they don't need to also have Mythic Resistance affect them.

There is a counterpoint to this in that they absolutely intended for parties where only some PCs are mythic as seen in the Mixed Play Variant Rule

Counter-counterpoint, it seems hard to accept that a core ability of creatures is only intended to be something used in a Variant rule.

If it was indeed something for a variant rule, it would be presented in that area rather than in the fundamental creature building rules.

I'm not running Mythic Resistance/Resilience because it's extremely unbalancing the game math to an unplayable degree.

Instead I've replaced them with custom houserules for the creatures that have them.

the only psychic I've played was a support focused Infinite Eye, but even that one could true Strike an Amped TK for some burst damage on demand.

that was before True Strike got nerfed though.

My thaumaturge for KM had to be severely reworked to keep his flavour.

I had reflavoured all the thaum and archetyped Ki stuff to be shamanistic in nature, and my funny little, bite-happy, kobold to be a stumbling shaman that did better bitting and kicking stuff rather than talking with the actual spirits.

Since then, I had to rework him once when kobolds became nondraconic, since his dragon theme was really important for him (hence I had to make him dragonblooded). That impacted him having both a bite and a breath, needing gen feats to accommodate instead.

Monk archetype remaster also was a severe power drop.

More importantly, Rivethun stuff were much closer in flavour, so archetype was also retrained.

---

Character is still pretty much playable, and has kept his flavour, but took quite some work to bring him back where he was.

shroudb wrote:

I've got a Chir that just hit L18 in Stolen Fate, and I'm surprised at how little use I get out of the max-roll healing feature. With everyone having more tools (and more HP relative to incoming damage), a touch-range *reactive* heal is still brutal to make use of in the chaos of combat due to action cost + needing to throw away your positioning.

Most of the time, I'd rather buff someone turn 1 with something proactive, like Numbing, while knowing that I've got a weaker Bttl Md outside my VVials on standby (and Improvise's 1 p day VV restore).

In hindsight, I'd guess I use an elixir of lf roughly every 2nd combat, which is kinda yikes, considering that the max-roll ability is the most math-potent passive I've seen in the system (iirc it's ~40% boost).

That's a long-winded way of saying that I'm surprised that I find the opportunity cost using those "sustained" recharging VVials for buffs really does seem better most of the time, even over a post L13 Chir's healing elixir.

.

I will say that how each Alch uses their VVials will vary a ton based on their own context. I certainly do not envy Bombers who need to use a VVial every time they try to compete with a martial for a 1A Strike.

For my SoT table, it's super binary between "survive this one fight today" or those brutal "5+ combat map crawl days," and this completely alters my VV use.
Those marathon days make me waaay more reluctant to spend any VVials, as those will often have only one or two 10min pauses somewhere in there, if that.

Perhaps because of that, the Chir of that campaign is solidly set into using the "sustain VVs" for Drakeheart mutagens, as this is the 3PC party that's rather well experienced. This party is always broke on gp, so we do *not* keep up with our runes, making it a +2 to AC right now iirc.

IMO it's not said often enough, but Drakeheart's Perception bonus is biiiig.
The entire power budget of a general feat is "+2 to initiative," and there's so many other...

Numbing is a great tool, but for my own Chi I find it enough to actually use Advanced to have a stack of Numbing at the ready.

So it doesn't really cuts in my VV reserves.

At high levels, I find myself often doing a Combine Maximised Life, and with sufficient advanced familiar I deliver that at range.

Being able to only do so only once or twice per battle as opposed to twice or thrice is a cost really felt for the ongoing VV buffs is what I'm saying.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Yup, in my opinion the psychology of using infused reagents for short-acting prebuffs in old Alch was completely different than VVials in new Alch. (daily or Quick)

I certainly liked the ability to make a ton of all-day buffs with i.reagents for the whole party, but the only time I ever prebuffed before a door kick was when there was certainty of an encounter on the other side.

In this VVial norm? It feels completely different. You don't even need a dedicated refocus activity, you just need time.

10 min buffs are basically guaranteed to work for a combat, even if that room is empty and the foes are 1 room deeper inside.

the timings seem too precise to not be intended imo. 10 min buffs with 10min recharge.

the cost, especially in higher levels, is not neglible though.

even later on, you still only have around 7-8 VVs. Using 3 of them to keep buffs up, means you only have 4-5 of them available for the combat.

Almost all specializations (except mutagenist) rely on how better VVs are compared to Advanced for in-combat use. And 4-5 of them are usually not enough to spam the whole combat, especially if you take Combine into consideration or bomb spam.

A chirurgeon gets maximized healing out of his VVs, a Toxicologist does damage even on a succesful Fort save, a Bomber gets his own Additives, and etc.

So there is a real opportunity cost to keeping yourself always pre-buffed with 3 VVs.

I really don't think people understand just how awful mutagens used to be and how far they have come with each revision, both as part of alchemist and as their own thing.

Playtest mutagens especially, but for brevitys sake I will just use the 2018 playtest.

Mutagens were;
All uncommon,
Only available after level 5, But had bonuses comparable to our current level 3 with 1 minute durations.
Only imparted benefits to a creature selected when crafted,
Had an onset time,
Onset time increased with level,
Penalties that scaled with level,
Penalties that werent removed when counteracted by polymorph,
Had a Mutagen Crafter alchemist feature which allowed only the alchemist access to mutagens.

And the scaling penalties were oh so much severe, Ranging from item penalty to all checks and DC for certain attributes, Losing Resonance Points (Playtest version of focuspoints, also needed to wear items (investment)), Carrying up to 8 less bulk, Taking a flat amount of damage (more than twice your level), item penalty to ALL trained/Expert skills outside of your class's signature skills.

Compare that to what we have today.. when the class that is made to interact with mutagens is also the class that can just say "Yeaaa I dont like taking a -1 so I will negate it with another item that has a 1 hour duration"

... did I also mention revivifying mutagen was a level 10 feat?

Alchemist in general was a mess in playtest. It didn't help that a major pf2 feature that the alchemist was build upon, Resonance, was completely scrubbed away from the playtest leaving the alchemist in a limbo when pf2 was released.

that is no justification though to the current balance discussion. Things being absolutely terrible before doesn't mean that they have to be "just bad" currently. They could, you know, be instead be "good".

Which they still need work to get there.

As an example, when one of the things mentioned during the Alchemist Remaster was "making mutagens better, and removing some of their penalties" there's no reason that actually only bestial got the treatment and the rest base mutagens were left behind.

There's a reason most people only reference bestial and the mutagens that come in other splatbooks as some usable examples of them.

Shroudb wrote:

In all of my many games with an Alchemist, I'd never had anyone turn down an Antidote, a Bravo brew, an Eagle eye, any of the non-penaltised Alchemical Elixirs that I've offered them.

I've had the vast majority of them turn down Mutagens though.

I never had anyone turn down a Spell buff either.

Makes you wonder, when the players are open to receiving buffs, why the majority of them choose only 1 category of buffs to vehemently refuse to get...

Not really, All i'm sensing is a big Chestertons Fence.

Was the situation they were offered even considered at all when they were handed out? Because if you give someone a +2 in a save and a -2 in another they will not take it if theres an unknown element, They can even weighted as a +3/-2 but people are still not going to take it unless they have reason to believe the +3 will be relevant. Just as they are likely to take it if they think the penalty will be irrelevant.

A bravo brew is wasted as the worst case scenario, costing gold or vials. you can hand them out without a worry but im not going to accept them with how the new alchemist is without justification if they can be better used elsewhere or if I can get something that I think benefits me better instead.

A mutagen however is harmful as the worst case scenario, and if you are just handing them out without consideration you don't even know if the situation warrants them. Even then, It is the majority of your groups that refuse them and as shown theres plenty of people on this very forum that does not share this perspective and think Mutagens are highly useful and potent in the right context.

I'm not offering Cognitives to Barbarians before a fight if that's what you're asking.

Do not try to pigeonhold this as something that happens only on outrageous situations.

But if a melee combat buff is 99% of the time rejected before a combat exactly because in an average combat you're better off without it as you point out then there is a problem with said Combat Buff's design.

As for your sample size comment:

We already know that the population of a forum (especially this forum) is the minority of the players, and the "plenty of people as shown" I see defending the mutagens, even in this tiny percentage of people, are like... 3-5?

So no, I'd trust my very wider range of tables, and hundreds of people I've played with, that I've sat over the many years (since beta) I've played in pf2 as a much more correct sample of people.

And in those dozens of hundreds of games, the vast majority of people simply won't take a Mutagen, simply because the penalties are so big.
In the same amount of people, I can count on 1 hand the amount of times buffs, alchemical or magical, outside of Mutagens, were refused.

So yeah, when the majority of the playerbase ignores only 1 specific type of buff across the various available, then there are balance issues with said type.

graystone wrote:

At the end of the day, voluntarily dropping my hp to the lowest caster levels and dropping fort saves by a prof level for a +1 to hit and some bonus movement is too much for me. If you're good with that, then great. But I hope you can understand where it's a bridge too far for others.

Don't forget the +2 to Reflex Saves and the additional +1 over permanent items to Stealth. (I don't really use Acrobatics, although when I've needed it I can't complain. Thievery not my thing.)

As for it being a bridge too far for some... sure, I get that. Like I said previously, I keep putting my perspective out there because I wholeheartedly disagree with the belief being put out there that it's a bad idea for everyone. It's not.

And again: Heroism.

Still same duration as your Quick Alchemy, still gives you a +1 to ALL saves, not just Reflex. Still gives you +1 to ALL skills not only the 2 out of 3 you use.

And by midlevels, trivial cost to have low-rank slots/scrolls of it and not waste your few Quick alchemy vials on.

I can understand where it's a bridge too far for some. To me the trade offs for some mutagens especially when you start getting to the lesser and above mutagens is worth. But acting as if they aren't worth it all is just wild to me.

For their negatives? They really aren't. For most of them, you can find a low rank spell/scroll to substitute and be above the power curve of maximum level mutagens.

shroudb wrote:

that's a 100% faulty argument, because now you are penaltising the Mutagens for Stacking but not the Spells for Stacking.

Spells "stack" with mutagens as much as Mutagens "stack" with Spells.

There's no justification that 1 of them is penaltised for it and not the other.

You've missed my point.

There is no evidence that Mutagens have penalties because they stack with Spells. That is a supposition that you have advanced, repeatedly, with absolutely no evidence.

Never said that, don't put words in my mouth.

You made that point: that they stack so it's ok for some of them to have penalties while others don't have to have penalties.

Right here in case you want to edit it out agaain:

So, am I correct in thinking that the argument is: as a permanent item (weapon rune, skill item) + Heroism is stronger than just a Mutagen, with no Drawback, therefore Mutagens are simply not worth it?

I find that fascinating. I suppose if the choice were either/or, I could understand that.

But despite the theoretical argument that Mutagens are penalized because Item Bonuses stack with Status Bonuses... The fact is, they do stack.

And I pointed out that this is a 100% faulty reasoning.

We also do have alchemicals and magical consumables that are effectively no-penalty mutagens, but just as i've seen people turn away at mutagens because of their penalty despite their stronger/broader effect I see people turn away from these no-penalty alternatives because they are to specific.

Things like the skeptics elixir, or the previously mentioned bravos brew which very well represent Paizo's design when it comes to consumables that grant item bonuses. Without a penalty, you are looking at a +1 bump in a single category over a longer duration with maybe an extra effect. +1 over a shorter duration with more impactful extra effects. Many agree that is a good place for consumables, Others argue its to specific depending on what the category is.

In all of my many games with an Alchemist, I'd never had anyone turn down an Antidote, a Bravo brew, an Eagle eye, any of the non-penaltised Alchemical Elixirs that I've offered them.

I've had the vast majority of them turn down Mutagens though.

I never had anyone turn down a Spell buff either.

Makes you wonder, when the players are open to receiving buffs, why the majority of them choose only 1 category of buffs to vehemently refuse to get...

You can take steps to help yourself recover from persistent damage, or an ally can help you, allowing you to attempt an additional flat check before the end of your turn. This is usually an activity requiring 2 actions, and it must be something that would reasonably improve your chances (as determined by the GM). For example, you might try to smother a flame or wash off acid. This allows you to attempt an extra flat check immediately, but only once per round.

Huh?

What are you talking about? You don't make sense.

Heroism being so cheap by that level, while Mutagens being so expensive, for far worse bonuses is the whole point.

You can keep spamming Heroism and not bother with Mutagens at all and you'll always be better compared to the other way around.

Heroism will always be a +1, same thing with Mutagens. Only on higher levels to get that +1 you need to give 30gp for a Scroll of Heroism, while for a mutagen you need to give 3000gp and face penalties.

The penalty is also stacking with every other penalty that exists, so yeaf, why take -1 to your Will when you can get an AoE +1 To the whole party AC with a lvl1 scroll?

graystone wrote:

As far as class HD, that part of a total package: taking a mutagen doesn't get you a spell list so it's an apples to orange argument IMO to make a tangent comparing class HD and taking unhealable damage.

Like I said: different perspectives.

I'm not looking at what my HP are on Quicksilver and saying, well, do I have the power of a full Spellcaster now that I've put my HP to this level? Does everything balance out?

I'm simply concerned with "OK, if I make this choice to gain these particular benefits, will my Bomber survive?"

And the answer is, across 22 levels of playing a Bomber (1-12, 1-10) yes. I get very concrete benefits that mesh well with my primary concept: I want to throw Bombs at things. For me, it's a complete win.

That's not a perspective of balance though.

You can have a character do one badly optimised thing that you like to do and enjoy the character.

Noone here is saying that there is a "wrong way to enjoy a character". What I'm saying is that balance wise, it IS the suboptimal choice compared to using a Rank 1 spell, in this case a simple Bless, to get much greater rewards for much lesser risks.

And that's the issue here.

For your character, that +1 that you sacrifice a huge portion of your survivability, it's far better to simply stock on lvl1 scrolls and spam those if you want to be optimal.

And that's a terrible thing for an Alchemist to be better when using minimum lelvel spells instead of his Maximum level Mutagens.

Spells are better because they are more finite resource. At best using just class features a spellcaster can cast their top ranked spells maybe 4-6 times a day. So they need to give more bang for their buck. An alchemist on the other hand no longer has that limitation. Given enough time they can replenish their vials allowing them to keep pumping out maxed out mutagens. So can you elaborate on how removing the penalties would somehow be balanced?

With mutagens being perpetually at +1 regardless thier level, they can easily be compared to a Heroism.

Heroism being a spell is more powerful, and it should be more powerful: it gives to all attacks, it gives to all skills, it gives to all saves.
While mutagens only give to a small subsection of those: 1 specific attack and 1 specific save and 1-3 skills usually.

So, Even taking as baseline that Spells should be more powerful, a Rank 3 spell, which is abvailable at 5, and by level 12 it's no longer part of "finite resources" since it's now at Max rank-3, soon to be max Max rank -4.

So, by level 12, the Mutagens need to either have the penalty removed, or need to be stronger than Heroism, which is where the "+1 more than what they give already" comes about.

They don't need to be broken, they don't need to be +3s or +4s, but at least be at +2 compared to what you already have to justify the penalty. Or, simply have Greater Mutagens remove the penalty but keep being at +1. Both of those are balanced approaches.

Especially considering the extreme nerf of Advanced alchemy ingredients in the remaster, and taking into account that Quick Alchemy only lasts 10mins, so removing the 1hour "upside" of the higher level Mutagens if we want to consider "amount of Resources used". Because at those levels, your Advanced alchemy ingredients are actually equal to top level spellslots for a caster.

shroudb wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

Ok... so why not use Alchemical itembonuses that arent penalized? They stack with spells to so why not use those?

CAuse this is a discussion about mutagens and all mutagens come with severe penalties?

Do you see anyone complaining about Bravo brews and Eagle eyes? Alchemical stuff that give similar bonuses without the penalties? CAuse I don't.

Theres been discussion regarding bravos brew and eagle eye both over the years, Most agree they are in a good place but languish how niche and expensive they are to warrant purchasing.

So if they are in a good place, what is needed to introduce an item with a stronger effect at an earlier level?

Less duration and added penalties seem like a fair trade for cheaper and more general/powerful use consumables. Especially since they arent an obvious choice but at the same time we humans instinctually retch at any notion of a "penalty"

I'd say the opposite actually. Early level Mutagens, being at +1 for their level 1 and 3 versions is not a real problem, because spells at those levels are more finite.

It's at higher levels that you can spam lower rank slots with impunity that make the penalties (for the same basically effect) simply not balanced.

So, greater versions of Mutagens need to be stronger/have no negatives to be able to keep up with low-rank spell spam/wands/scrolls.

Ok... so why not use Alchemical itembonuses that arent penalized? They stack with spells to so why not use those?

CAuse this is a discussion about mutagens and all mutagens come with severe penalties?

Do you see anyone complaining about Bravo brews and Eagle eyes? Alchemical stuff that give similar bonuses without the penalties? CAuse I don't.

But I've seen maybe a couple dozen of people actually using Mutagens in literally thousands of games so far because the penalties are massive enough that the boost provided is not justified for their character.

So, am I correct in thinking that the argument is: as a permanent item (weapon rune, skill item) + Heroism is stronger than just a Mutagen, with no Drawback, therefore Mutagens are simply not worth it?

I find that fascinating. I suppose if the choice were either/or, I could understand that.

But despite the theoretical argument that Mutagens are penalized because Item Bonuses stack with Status Bonuses... The fact is, they do stack.

Which is a very nice thing for those of us, like myself, who appreciate Mutagens.

I mean, my Mutagenist is 11th level now. From now on Bestial gives +1 over what any permanent Athletics item can give him. From 15th to 19th, when he catches up Str wise, he'll be the best there is, outside of Status Bonuses. He'll also be better at Striking than anyone other than a Fighter or Gunslinger. So that makes him a pretty decent candidate for Heroism, right? That's the usual strategy: cast Heroism on those who have an edge already, to make that edge even bigger?

I'm not fully qualified to determine whether or not Mutagens are good design. But I've gone over the benefits and Drawbacks a lot, and in most cases, I've decided that they're worth it. In the right circumstances.

I've used Quicksilver and Bestial in dozens of encounters. I've never regretted it. I've never had anyone take me up on it, but Cognitive on Casters can be a good fit. Bards and Swashbucklers love Silvertongue, as long as they aren't big into Recall Knowledge. Frontliners tend to still like Juggernaut, even though Numbing Tonic has ate its lunch a bit. Serene is the only one that I don't think has a niche in Encounters, although I suppose if you knew you were going up against a lot of Mental effects, maybe.

Outside of Encounters... well, I don't think anyone can deny how useful Mutagens are outside of Encounters.

I suppose this is a long-winded way of stating: using Mutagens is a choice. In my experience, when used on the right build, it's a choice that has paid off many, many times. I...

that's a 100% faulty argument, because now you are penaltising the Mutagens for Stacking but not the Spells for Stacking.

Spells "stack" with mutagens as much as Mutagens "stack" with Spells.

There's no justification that 1 of them is penaltised for it and not the other.

shroudb wrote:

Balance wise, there's no justification for such massive penalties.

If you want to have penalties for lore/fluff reasons, make the panalties fluff as well("Bestial Mutagen: you grow fur or other visible, Bestial, feature". "Quicksilver: your skin becomes metallic". And etc)

You do realize that the "fix" for this is "change mutagens to give status bonuses", right? Now they can give bigger numbers. You also just made them not stack and instead compete with all the other things giving out those bonuses, but that's a type of bonus that can go higher.

This whole discussion is comparing things that are meant to operate in entirely different buckets of bonuses and going "the number is bigger on one so the other is bad!" Nevermind that very few spells can give item bonuses at all, let alone get you ahead of the curve on them.

People should think more carefully about what would actually happen if this was changed. Because the answer isn't "mutagens suddenly give massive item bonuses or have no downsides". It's going to be "mutagens are functionally spells with a different flavor so that you can't stack them and thus the numbers can be bigger."

Like most Alchemy, these are a tool that have a time when they're appropriate and a time when they're not. At the right time, they make a difference.

I wouldn't mind if the bonuses had to change to Status bonuses if they were indeed worthwhile bonuses.

That said, I don't advocate for "mutagens give a stacking +4 bonus", as I said many times over:

If they are only a +1 above what you have already, there's no need for a massive penalty like they have now. If they want to keep the penalty, they need to be somewhat stronger, an extra +1 more would indeed justify the penalty with the way bonuses are adjudicated in pf2.

That way you have a reason to use them above a Bless, or a Heroism, or something around those spell ranks.

shroudb wrote:

Elixirs of life do heal Undead

Can you confirm that as official rulings for Pathfinder Society? My GM's ruled at the table that the creature using it has to be alive (not undead). The text says "living creature":

Quote:

Elixirs of life accelerate a living creature's natural healing processes and immune system. Upon drinking this elixir, you regain the listed number of Hit Points and gain an item bonus to saving throws against diseases and poisons for 10 minutes.

They specifically lack the Vitality trait.

shroudb wrote:

Basically, Item bonuses are part of a character budget, Status, aren't.

So, yes, you are giving misinformation when you say "technically, they give higher bonuses!" When in reality, Mutagens give only +1 above what you have where it matters regardless of their level.

(Un-highlighted for de-emphasis.)

Item bonuses to attack and saves are part of your budget. Item bonuses to two skills are part of your budget. That leaves a lot of uncovered skills.

You only increase around 3 skills.

Giving a barbarian +2 to his Untrained Deception won't make him able to bluff any more than giving him +1 from Heroism.

Thats my feeling to, even though War blood/Bestial/QuickSilver give +2 to attack rolls and other bonuses at level 3. but in the latter half we are no longer comparing level 3 stuff to level 5 stuff. But rather Alchemical vs Magical of same rank/level. Which we already know is going to end up favoring the magical.

A) they only provide +1 to attacks since at level 3 you already have a +1 since level 2.

B)Magic vs Alchemy is already tilted towards Magic by quite a bit even without counting the penalties:

Mutagens only providing a +1 on very specific things, only as single target, as opposed Magic providing up to +3, or AoE, or wider range of application (all attacks, all saves, all skills, etc).

So, once more:
Balance wise, there's no justification for such massive penalties.
If you want to have penalties for lore/fluff reasons, make the panalties fluff as well("Bestial Mutagen: you grow fur or other visible, Bestial, feature". "Quicksilver: your skin becomes metallic". And etc)

Elixirs of life do heal Undead

Oh no I am fully aware that it is an item bonus, But just because you typically already have item bonuses in your core skills doesn't mean Heroism and Bless doesn't suffer from the very same thing when the game has plenty of feats and features that give status bonuses. Is heroism really offering the same value if you have a bard or marshal? Is Protection really offering anything when the party's features already give spammable or long-lasting status bonuses to AC and Saves.

But yeah mutagens give +1 above what you are expected to have in your core skills provided you invest in permanents. But it is available several levels earlier than other consumables with the same bonus and typically provide it for a longer duration with a wider range of bonuses instead of +2 to high-jump or a single check. Thats the entire premise behind Mutagens, A means of boosting something with a stronger effect than what is available to begin with but at a penalty.

In the case of Athletics especially you are stuck with dead-weight/bestial mutagens or Demon dust if you want to get anything more than a +1 to general athletics before you get your +2 permanent. Same with intimidation, Dreadhelm is only +1 until level 11 and DragonBlood Pudding is only a single check at 5.

If we are instead talking attack bonuses the earliest you get +2 is what? level 8 Armory bracelet, level 8 for unarmed fangs attack with viperious elixir or level 9 for potency crystal compared with level 3 mutagens that also grant their bonus to skills.

Penalty is going to decide wether or not someone picks up a mutagen, but if we are looking at gaining larger item bonuses for a longer duration of time, they are very often the only choice atleast until the party gains a few levels. If the you find the penalty isnt worth it, you are better of going with something that modifies the skill you want to use instead of just looking at how big you can pump a single number.

The difference is that having +X item bonus to your attacks, ac, saves, and even skills is part of the core assumption of the game.

Status bonuses, aren't.

You don't see "ABP: you gain +1 potency bonus to hit, but remove Status bonuses from the game" you see "remove item bonuses" though.

And then there is the permanency issue as well.

So you recon it'll sit good with the community if there existed a level 2 item that was "you gain+1 status to attacks as long as you invest this ring"

How about a level 12 item that gave a permanent +2 status bonus to saves?

And etc.

Because that's what you are equalising when you try to compare availability of Item bonuses and Status bonuses.

---
In ALL your skill examples, a +1 item + Heroism is just better, and ealier available.

---

Basically, Item bonuses are part of a character budget, Status, aren't.

So, yes, you are giving misinformation when you say "technically, they give higher bonuses!" When in reality, Mutagens give only +1 above what you have where it matters regardless of their level.

It would be great if the level 1 had a lesser penalty, but are we really comparing level 1 mutas with rank 3 spells now? Because last I checked mutas do have stronger bonuses than bless,heroism and other alchemicals for the level they are available, to the point where they break the games own guidelines. Yes they are less relevant if you have other item bonuses but the same can be said for status bonuses even if they have less 'permanence'

Rank 1 Bless, +1 Attack Rolls only,
Level 1 Muta, +1 to a wide variety of rolls.

Rank 3 Heroism +1 to all.
Level 3 Muta +2 to a wide variety

Rank 6 heroism +2
level 11 Muta +3

If anything Mutagens typically break the threshold of what is given to an alchemical by atleast 2 levels with appropriatly cheaper price. And even then the alchemicals are typically only boosting a single skill.

Don't get me wrong, the penalties hurt, Alot. When they become relevant but that doesn't mean they arent warranted as they are context sensitive. Silvertongue for example, Is the -1 intelligence barbarian really going to care for that penalty. or is the spellcaster going to care about the penalties from Choker-arm or Cognitive.

But that doesnt change that in order to make them comparable with other alchemicals you need to reduce the bonus or increase their level, And reduce how wide their bonuses are.

If anything the real crime is that the class with the easiest access to mutagens is the class that only really cares for the mutagens with the worst penalties for it. Being an intelligence 'martial' with warpriest proficiency scaling.

That's a really misleading comment:

At any given point, the mutagens give a +1 bonus above what you already have.

It would indeed be a different story if they did indeed offer a unique bonus category, like "alchemical bonus" but due to their bonuses being Item bonuses, they are always just a +1 above what the game by definition expects you to have.

So yes, at level 12, drinking a Quicksilver, will just be a +1 to your ranged attack and +1 to your reflex.

So at that point, a Heroism, which isn't even a resource consideration since it's just a rank 3 spell, does offer WAY more bonuses.

Drinking a Drakeheart? Why take the penalties for +1 AC when a Rank 1 spell gives +1 to AC for the whole party?

And etc

Even Bless, a Rank 1 spell is at least comparable since it affects the whole party and it applies to all kind of attack rolls rather than selected few.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I have to say, I've never seen it that way. I've always thought that Mutagens were just a natural evolution from how they worked in 1st Edition. You get something for a cost.

the main difference being that in pf1, mutagens offered massive bonuses, way beyond what spells could give, for big negatives.

here they give equal bonuses as low-mid level spells, for penalties.

"big bonuses" obviously doesn't sit right with pf2 design, but that undercuts the purpose of having penalties "offset" said massive boosts as well.

which is why i also said that if they want to keep the penalties for purely thematic reasons, they should either do the penalties purely thematic as well (aka trivial stuff penaltized only), or give the bonuses an extra edge beyond what they give now.

because balance wise, there's no justification for the penalties to be as big as they are right now.

---

i get what you are saying, but the numbers simply don't work out. when a mutagen is simply less good than Heroism, or even less good than a simple Bless, then there's no reason for it to have such drastic penalties when Heroism doesn't have those.

And saying that "well, they stack with Heroism" doesn't make the argument any stronger, because "stacking" goes both ways, there's no reason to penaltize the alchemical stuff and not the spell stuff.

Extremely disappointed if that's the extent of what we can expect from "seasonal errata".

shroudb wrote:

The problem ofc being that

a)the fort and hp penalty basically gives you caster defences (1 good save, 2 bad, 6 hp) on a martial character.

Casters universally have weaker defenses because they have higher impact spells.

An alchemist specifically doesn't have caster strength in his elixirs due to quantity.

So, you end up with the negatives of a caster without his positives.

And ofc,

B) a simple Heroism, that you can have from lvl 5, and by lvl 12 is in the throwaway slots, gives the same bonus to attacks, the same bonus to Ref, the same bonus on your skills, +1 Fort (a massive +3 difference between Quicksilver), and +1 Will, without hitting you for 20% of your HP.

Well, that's true but:

A) Like the above poster said, if you're using Quicksilver, you're probably ranged (bombers love Quicksilver, although being precise with a bomb is not THAT big of a DPS increase). If you're a melee alchemist, apart from some very specific dex builds that make you jump through hoops, you'll probably get a different mutagen.

B) Mutagens give item bonus, so you can BOTH get mutagen and heroism bonus.

My issue, since beta, is that Alchemist stuff get massively penaltized for stacking with Spells, but Spells don't get penaltized for stacking with Alchemist stuff.

In short, why are the always single target Item buffs the ones that have to carry the penalty for stacking and not the (often AoE) Spell effects that do so?

Basically, Alchemist gets F'ed cause casters exist? Where's the balance in that?

Especially with recent buffs to Spell Auras like Bless, which now effortlessly cover the whole party in universal +1s, as just a 1st slot spell, there's absolutely no justification for Mutagens carrying penalties, balance wise.

If Paizo wants Mutagens to carry negatives for thematic reasons, they need to absolutely buff the effects to a place that deserves said penalties, which is at least +1 above where they are right now.

Christopher#2411504 wrote:

6. You make the downside a Item penalty, a penalty that is used practically nowhere else (so we keep forgetting about them).

You're mistaken here, btw. Take a closer look... Mutagens generally have Untyped penalties. They're meant to stack with everything.

Ah, a discussion on Mutagen design! It must be my lucky day. Personally, I love, love, love Mutagens... but you have to match the right Mutagen to the right Class.

Let's look at my personal favourite: Quicksilver. Quicksilver is probably the most disparaged Mutagen due to its Drawbacks... and the Drawbacks are substantial, I agree. Where I disagree is whether they're too harsh.

For one thing, I see a lot of "you're tanking your fort save" comments. I disagree. From levels 1-8 a lot of Classes are only Trained in Fort Saves. Which is the same level of Fort Save of an Alchemist on Quicksilver. Levels 9-10 are a bit harsh... lowest Fort Saves in the game, unfortunately. But then you hit 11th level, and you end up with Expert Fort saves with a Success->Crit Success bump built in. 10.3 Classes have Expert Fort saves from 11-20, barring Canny Acumen investment... pretty decent company, IMHO. Only the Rogue gets the same Bump.

As for the damage, well, it takes you from an 8 HP/level Class to a 6 HP/level. So, the same as Psychics, Sorcerers, Witches and Wizards. However do they survive? </sarcasm>. If you're using Quicksilver, you should be Ranged. Unless you're a Dex based Fighter, I suppose. Or maybe a Raging Thrower Barbarian. Going from a 10 HP to 8 HP is ok... I play a Melee Mutagenist, after all, and survive just fine. (12 to 10 would be easy.)

And what do you get in return? Well, there's that Item Bonus to Dex Based Strikes. Everybody knows that one.

There's the Speed bonus. Don't hear as much about that one. Most folks dismiss it because, well, Tailwind wands. I tend to look at it differently... I'm using Quicksilver. I don't need to invest in Trick Magic Item. Besides, my...

The problem ofc being that

a)the fort and hp penalty basically gives you caster defences (1 good save, 2 bad, 6 hp) on a martial character.

Casters universally have weaker defenses because they have higher impact spells.

An alchemist specifically doesn't have caster strength in his elixirs due to quantity.

So, you end up with the negatives of a caster without his positives.

And ofc,

B) a simple Heroism, that you can have from lvl 5, and by lvl 12 is in the throwaway slots, gives the same bonus to attacks, the same bonus to Ref, the same bonus on your skills, +1 Fort (a massive +3 difference between Quicksilver), and +1 Will, without hitting you for 20% of your HP.

I too think that especially the combat focused mutagens have too much of a penalty for the bonus they offer.

More often than not, they give just a +1, not unlike a low level spell, but the negatives can be as crippling as a -2 to your Con modifier.

The skill based ones are great IF, and only IF, you also have a way to quickly remove them. Else you're risking incapacitating yourself to an impromptu combat that may arise in the middle of the social/research encounter you were using the skill mutagen in.