Alchemist Spellcasting


Prerelease Discussion


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Since we know there will be only 4 spell lists I would like to ask what is going on with the alchemist a bit. most likely the four spell lists will be,

Arcane(Sorcerer/Wizard)
Wild(Druid)
Divine(Cleric)
Truename/Performance(Bard)

Since these are the most likely spell lists, the question is does the alchemist have spellcasting/infusions or does he get to choose potions/elixers at every level that function like pathfinder 1e infusions?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some guy already played Alchemist on reddit. They don't get "magic". They craft their own stuff and has it's own system. It's centered around Alchemical items, which are supposedly greatly expanded.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Makes senses that would give them something like that.

I hope that when psychics are reintroduced that they get their own spell list.

Liberty's Edge

I really, really, like the idea of the Alchemist actually being focused on alchemy and not magic.


Ah, this is good news! I was concerned about Bard sharing a list. I could live with it, certainly, but it wasn’t the best. It’ll be interesting if this means Paladins get the truncated Cleric list, curses and all, or if there’s some restrictions.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
Some guy already played Alchemist on reddit. They don't get "magic". They craft their own stuff and has it's own system. It's centered around Alchemical items, which are supposedly greatly expanded.

Can you link this for me?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Ah, this is good news! I was concerned about Bard sharing a list. I could live with it, certainly, but it wasn’t the best. It’ll be interesting if this means Paladins get the truncated Cleric list, curses and all, or if there’s some restrictions.

it would also mean clerics can get more offensive spells.

it also sounds nice that bards can now have a full spell list instead of a partial one, it was one of the good things 5e did was give bards full spell progression.


zergtitan wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Some guy already played Alchemist on reddit. They don't get "magic". They craft their own stuff and has it's own system. It's centered around Alchemical items, which are supposedly greatly expanded.
Can you link this for me?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/83cabr/i_just_played_2e_at _garycon/

Here! Say hello to actual alchemists! Not like jank wizards.


zergtitan wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Some guy already played Alchemist on reddit. They don't get "magic". They craft their own stuff and has it's own system. It's centered around Alchemical items, which are supposedly greatly expanded.
Can you link this for me?

Probably in this thread somewhere:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/83cabr/i_just_played_2e_at _garycon/?sort=qa


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
JRutterbush wrote:
I really, really, like the idea of the Alchemist actually being focused on alchemy and not magic.

With that said, it made complete sense to base the effects of alchemist extracts on spells. Why should an extract of Enlarge Person function any differently then a spell of Enlarge Person (aside from the delivery method)?

zergtitan wrote:

Arcane(Sorcerer/Wizard)

Wild(Druid)
Divine(Cleric)
Truename/Performance(Bard)

This does raise the huge question of what is happening to the Paladin and Ranger, since a big part of what made their spellcasting unique in PF1E was their exclusive access to certain spells. However, this did create problems whenever anyone got access to cross-list spells, since those under-leveled spells were such juicy targets. This limited the types of abilities that could grant cross-list spells, so I can see the attraction with eliminating these distinctly compressed 4-level lists. I'm curious to see what was done with the classes and their spellcasting abilities now.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
I really, really, like the idea of the Alchemist actually being focused on alchemy and not magic.
With that said, it made complete sense to base the effects of alchemist extracts on spells. Why should an extract of Enlarge Person function any differently then a spell of Enlarge Person (aside from the delivery method)?

There shouldn't even be an "extract of enlarge person" on its own, that's just not how the traditional alchemist archetype is portrayed in other media, barring specific examples (like a Hyde-style transformation that comes with its own benefits and drawbacks). Alchemy should be a completely different style of ability, not just "a limited selection of spells in bottles". If you want someone who just makes potions of spells, make a Cleric or Wizard with the Brew Potion feat.

Liberty's Edge

Dasrak wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
This does raise the huge question of what is happening to the Paladin and Ranger, since a big part of what made their spellcasting unique in PF1E was their exclusive access to certain spells.

I'm guessing their unique spells will be moved to class abilities, probably class feats specifically.

Liberty's Edge

I'm going to miss how the alchemy was the go-to list for all the best self-buffing options.

On the other hand, the idea of getting a real alchemical goods system instead of the very limited one we have in 1e is making me giddy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
I really, really, like the idea of the Alchemist actually being focused on alchemy and not magic.

With that said, it made complete sense to base the effects of alchemist extracts on spells. Why should an extract of Enlarge Person function any differently then a spell of Enlarge Person (aside from the delivery method)?

I don't think "extracts" will be a thing anymore, and I'm not sure "potions of Enlarge Person" will exist, at all.

Probably you can get different, unique stuff for Alchemists, without needing to copy spells. Mutagens can give you the buffs you want instead of Enlarge Person. And this way you can give Alchemists some unique stuff that only them have.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
I really, really, like the idea of the Alchemist actually being focused on alchemy and not magic.

With that said, it made complete sense to base the effects of alchemist extracts on spells. Why should an extract of Enlarge Person function any differently then a spell of Enlarge Person (aside from the delivery method)?

I don't think "extracts" will be a thing anymore, and I'm not sure "potions of Enlarge Person" will exist, at all.

Probably you can get different, unique stuff for Alchemists, without needing to copy spells. Mutagens can give you the buffs you want instead of Enlarge Person. And this way you can give Alchemists some unique stuff that only them have.

I hope potions still exist. If anything, I'm hoping PF2 will expand magic items and make them more useful/unique than they are in pie. Potions of invisibility, healing, speed, and more have been a staple of fantasy for decades.


im going to withhold hype till I get more details. Alchemist is my favorite class and while I've played around with the idea of a more alchemic casting system(Secret of Evermore anybody?) this could end up changing the class in ways I dislike.


I'm pretty sure that "bottles with liquids that give you powers" will exist. Not sure they'll clone spells.


For example: A potion of Heroism might have a totally different effect than the spell Heroism.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Cool,now my wife can stop calling them "Gatorade Wizards".

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
zergtitan wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Some guy already played Alchemist on reddit. They don't get "magic". They craft their own stuff and has it's own system. It's centered around Alchemical items, which are supposedly greatly expanded.
Can you link this for me?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/83cabr/i_just_played_2e_at _garycon/

Here! Say hello to actual alchemists! Not like jank wizards.

Linkified


zergtitan wrote:


it also sounds nice that bards can now have a full spell list instead of a partial one, it was one of the good things 5e did was give bards full spell progression.

What? No! 5E removed the cool and interesting stuff from Bards and just made them another mage.


I'd like to toy with the mechanics of an alchemist class that doesn't get extracts, but that is because mechanically extracts felt like they were just spells from other classes pasted into the alchemist without going through a deeper design proccess. The fact that the mechanics limited the use of extracts to single targets only increased the feeling of inadequacy of the formula list (even more so with the Investigator) and limited some options that could fit the alchemist pretty well, for instance not allowing extracts to create fogs and gases, holes in the ground, reanimate corpses, and fleshwarping. Granted, some or all of those options were added later usually by means of archetypes and archetype-exclusive discoveries, but I always felt like this was still a big limitation, that usually the discoveries that allowed to select those options were not as good as other discoveries, and that these effects should be alchemist's extracts. So I'd really like to see a 2ed alchemist archetype that gave them spells (extracts), but being more carefully designed for the class than they were in 1ed.

I would also like to see such an archetype because particularly, I prefer a more magical feel to alchemists than a sciency feel. The way I fluff alchemists at home is that they are not actually mixing mundane chemicals, but more ephemeral magic ingredients. Like the soul of a small elemental, the breath of a dragon, bottled lightning, the sigh of a pixie, samples from trees made of metal in the Elemental Plane of Fire, bloodroots harvested from a battlefield, a widow's voice in grief, mushrooms from a cave that never saw sunlight, grave dirt, autumn dew, extraplanar plants and stones, ectoplasm, the tears of a tyrant, underwater clounds from the Elemental Plane of Water, stardust, raw aether, petrified flesh, common insects, storm giant boogies, herbs and woods harvested at certain mystical times, under certain esoteric circumstances, and known to have specific magical properties, and so on. Magic potions in myth and literature are not necessaarily associated with the advances of technology (actually rarely, I would say, depending on what you're reading), now I know that there are people who dig the more sciency feel, however I think there's space for all, including some more mystical options, be they discoveries, archetypes, or even reintroducing extracts. I feel that often, too often, wizards and alchemists are taken for granted as the classes that are the "scientists of magic", well there's people who like that flavour, I particularly hate it. But that's not important, what's important is that there should be space for both, and I would like to see in 2ed more options for Int-based characters that are bookish, academic magic users, but that also keep the mystical flavour any spellcasting class should have. Magic should be magical.


We've been told there are 4 spell lists in PF2E - Arcane, Nature, Divine, and ???. It's pretty clear that the ??? isn't Alchemy, since that is being handled separately. So what I think is likely to happen is:

* Wizards / Sorcerers obviously get Arcane as their spell list. When they bring back Magus, it will probably get "half level" access to Arcane, so a 20th level Magus casts as a 10th level Wizard.
* Druids get Nature as their spell list. Rangers probably get "half level" access to Nature, so a 20th level Ranger casts as a 10th level Druid.
* Clerics get Divine as their spell list. Paladins probably get "half level" access to Divine, so a 20th level Paladin casts as a 10th level Cleric.
* Bards are probably the ??? spell list. Hopefully something much more flavorful and focused, like the old third party 3.5 Monte Cook supplement about Bards that gave them their own style of casting with chords etc, rather than just being random spells pulled from the other three lists.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

We've been told there are 4 spell lists in PF2E - Arcane, Nature, Divine, and ???. It's pretty clear that the ??? isn't Alchemy, since that is being handled separately. So what I think is likely to happen is:

* Wizards / Sorcerers obviously get Arcane as their spell list. When they bring back Magus, it will probably get "half level" access to Arcane, so a 20th level Magus casts as a 10th level Wizard.
* Druids get Nature as their spell list. Rangers probably get "half level" access to Nature, so a 20th level Ranger casts as a 10th level Druid.
* Clerics get Divine as their spell list. Paladins probably get "half level" access to Divine, so a 20th level Paladin casts as a 10th level Cleric.
* Bards are probably the ??? spell list. Hopefully something much more flavorful and focused, like the old third party 3.5 Monte Cook supplement about Bards that gave them their own style of casting with chords etc, rather than just being random spells pulled from the other three lists.

I think the 4th Spell List is Psychic or Occult. There was a brief moment where Erik Mona nearly let something slip in the Know Direction podcast regarding their plans for Psychic Magic, and I think that Psychic magic will be Core. Accessible via archetypes specific to spellcaster classes.

But this is speculation, conjecture and extrapolation. I could just be straight wrong.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
We've been told there are 4 spell lists in PF2E - Arcane, Nature, Divine, and ???.

Got a link for that? I don't think staff have said anything like that at all. I'm pretty sure that's just a guess by someone on the boards.

Shadow Lodge

Its in their announcement.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The 4th spell list cannot be psychic or occult because there are no psychic or occult classes in the core rulebook. Bard is far more likely.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:

The 4th spell list cannot be psychic or occult because there are no psychic or occult classes in the core rulebook. Bard is far more likely.

That’s certainly a reason why it wouldn’t appear. However if it’s accessible via archetypes rather than via a core class then perhaps not. Time will tell :-)

Shadow Lodge

Or, maybe... you get to pick which list you use, in which case Psychic is ipentirely possible.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

We've been told there are 4 spell lists in PF2E - Arcane, Nature, Divine, and ???. It's pretty clear that the ??? isn't Alchemy, since that is being handled separately. So what I think is likely to happen is:

* Wizards / Sorcerers obviously get Arcane as their spell list. When they bring back Magus, it will probably get "half level" access to Arcane, so a 20th level Magus casts as a 10th level Wizard.
* Druids get Nature as their spell list. Rangers probably get "half level" access to Nature, so a 20th level Ranger casts as a 10th level Druid.
* Clerics get Divine as their spell list. Paladins probably get "half level" access to Divine, so a 20th level Paladin casts as a 10th level Cleric.
* Bards are probably the ??? spell list. Hopefully something much more flavorful and focused, like the old third party 3.5 Monte Cook supplement about Bards that gave them their own style of casting with chords etc, rather than just being random spells pulled from the other three lists.

I think the 4th Spell List is Psychic or Occult. There was a brief moment where Erik Mona nearly let something slip in the Know Direction podcast regarding their plans for Psychic Magic, and I think that Psychic magic will be Core. Accessible via archetypes specific to spellcaster classes.

But this is speculation, conjecture and extrapolation. I could just be straight wrong.

Oh, well if you're right then that means Bards are probably Psychic casters or "half level" Psychic casters. While I'd prefer the more flavorful option that I referenced, Bards getting the Psychic list would still be better than a grab bag of every other list.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Its in their announcement.

The only thing that page says about spells is

10th-Level Spells and 4 Spell Lists

There's no indication of what those lists will be.

While "Arcane" and "Divine" are likely, I don't think there's any indication so far as to how the other two lists will be sorted

It could be Psychic and Occult, or Nature, or anything, really.


David knott 242 wrote:

The 4th spell list cannot be psychic or occult because there are no psychic or occult classes in the core rulebook. Bard is far more likely.

It could be available via archetype. Mesmerist could be a Bard archetype with psychic casting, Psychic could be a Sorcerer archetype. It’s not very likely, though.


I have a pretty good feeling Psychic won’t be the 4th list, no idea what it could be other than soemthing unique to Bards though, since it wouldn’t really make sense for them to have access to almost the same spells as Wizards and Sorcerors.

On the topic, Alchemist is my absolute favorite class, and I had actually worked up a homebrew at some point that replaced their spells with level-based boosts to their alchemical items, such as expanding the range, save and duration of Tanglefoot bags or increasing the damage of Acid flasks etc., and from what that reddit thread made it sound like is something very similar. I also didn’t like the “spellcasters but not really” feel and felt like they could really have benefited from something more unique. Really can’t wait to learn more definite details!

Shadow Lodge

CrystalSeas wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Its in their announcement.

The only thing that page says about spells is

10th-Level Spells and 4 Spell Lists

There's no indication of what those lists will be.

While "Arcane" and "Divine" are likely, I don't think there's any indication so far as to how the other two lists will be sorted

It could be Psychic and Occult, or Nature, or anything, really.

Ah, I see that I misunderstood what you wanted the link for. My apologies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

The 4th spell list cannot be psychic or occult because there are no psychic or occult classes in the core rulebook. Bard is far more likely.

That’s certainly a reason why it wouldn’t appear. However if it’s accessible via archetypes rather than via a core class then perhaps not. Time will tell :-)

Yeah, lots of people said the Psychic is a reskinned Sorcerer, maybe now it really is. :)

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Alchemist Spellcasting All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion