it seems like a really weird choice to me for of all the classes to add to core paizo picks the alchemist, i mean i dont dislike the alchemist but feel many other classes are more popular, and would have personally much preferred psychic classes in base, both because the kineticist actually adds something entirely new aswell as having that third type of magic felt like a fun bit of the world, but even then magus, summoner,gunslinger all seem like they would be better fits to put into core
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides what Gorbacz said about the data of PFS, there is another good reason to make Alchemist a core class.
It's Paizo.
Most other classes are also seen in DnD and other games, or have concepts that are seen in those other games, even if with a different name. For example, "magus" was named Spellblade in 4e, and has had names like Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger in the past, but it's basically the same character concept, with different takes on mechanics.
Alchemist is pretty unique to Paizo, and gives people a sense of "hey, this is not just the poor's man D&D 5e. It's a different IP, which offer different stuff".
I'd say Goblin is making it in the CRB for the same reasons. Branding.
EDIT: also, from the names you mention, at least Summoner and Gunslinger are two classes that Paizo feels they need more work, and will be revisited once they have a better grasp of what works and what doesn't work in NPF
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They discussed this in the podcast. Couple of reasons.
- First off, the 11 old core classes had to be in, non-negotiably. They're a big deal. They would have room for one more because of space saved in other areas.
- Some classes have complex enough rules interactions that they would either be a poor fit for the core rule book, or they deserve to have a playtest that focuses on them (rather than lumping them in with eleven other classes). Summoner and Kineticist were mentioned as falling into this category.
- Gunslinger in particular was called out as being a poor fit for the core assumptions. Many GMs don't care for the idea of guns in their setting, and even the Golarion setting has them as extremely rare- mostly limited to one nation. In addition, the gun rules need rebalancing, and that's something they wanted to have a more dedicated playtest for.
- Alchemists were formerly a very tacked-on class. Extracts were kind-of-but-not-really spells. By including the class in core, it can be handled properly, and rules for alchemy can be better integrated with the setting.
- There were other strong contending classes, but they lacked the distinctness of Alchemist. None of the eleven core classes work at all like the Alchemist. If you have a concept for a Witch, you can probably get something close-ish with a Wizard. Magus's primary trick, when you get down to it, is the ability to cast a spell and stab somebody with a sword in the same turn. The new action economy allows that on any casting class, and Wizard will include some class feats to further support that playstyle. (It also won't be highly improbable for them to hit things, at least if they focus on that.)
EDIT: It was mentioned that Witch at the very least would be coming sooner rather than later. Not in the CRB, you obviously they're going to want to get to work on other classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget that it's the only other guy that needs Int in core. I've had home game where the wizard was ignored so they had a really hot party that was dumber than a sack of rocks.
Also alchemists give prescedence for alchemical items.
Fair i guess alchemists are more popular then i thought, although i wouldent consider it as unique gameplay wise, its a caster with a buff in a bottle and a limited blasting ability, a witches hexes are more unique, but i suppose they will likely change that to reflect the "magic threw science" approach, i still personally think kineticist would have been better but ya i see what you mean about differences from existing classes(though one could argue psychic classes add the same) so with that in mind alchemist probobly my second choice
Fair i guess alchemists are more popular then i thought, although i wouldent consider it as unique gameplay wise, its a caster with a buff in a bottle and a limited blasting ability, a witches hexes are more unique, but i suppose they will likely change that to reflect the "magic threw science" approach, i still personally think kineticist would have been better but ya i see what you mean about differences from existing classes(though one could argue psychic classes add the same) so with that in mind alchemist probobly my second choice
What they're doing is making Alchemist more unique. They aren't going to be a caster anymore, they're going to exclusively make alchemical items. That also means that a lot of Alchemist's content will be useful for the other classes, whereas Kineticist material is very tightly locked down to the class.
The psychic classes are a bit of a package deal, I think. It wouldn't make sense for them to have just one psychic class, and they'd need to fit in a lot of unique psychic spells to make it worthwhile.
So, they make stuff in one action or more?
If it's not a Spellcaster anymore, I hope the price for crafting is lowered or at least worth it for some items.
That and until I see the class and item list fully, I might house rule some of their unquie spell's into craft able items
Fair i guess alchemists are more popular then i thought, although i wouldent consider it as unique gameplay wise, its a caster with a buff in a bottle and a limited blasting ability, a witches hexes are more unique, but i suppose they will likely change that to reflect the "magic threw science" approach, i still personally think kineticist would have been better but ya i see what you mean about differences from existing classes(though one could argue psychic classes add the same) so with that in mind alchemist probobly my second choiceWhat they're doing is making Alchemist more unique. They aren't going to be a caster anymore, they're going to exclusively make alchemical items. That also means that a lot of Alchemist's content will be useful for the other classes, whereas Kineticist material is very tightly locked down to the class.
The psychic classes are a bit of a package deal, I think. It wouldn't make sense for them to have just one psychic class, and they'd need to fit in a lot of unique psychic spells to make it worthwhile.
hm i guess that works although im always iffy of item based classes, a lot of games they fall behind because the whole team benefits from what they do so while useful they dont really have anything they do that noone else in there party can do, i trust paizo to be able to handle it well but still
i mean i feel you could have gotten away with just the psychic as the introduction to psionics and introduce the rest later
I suspect part if it is that the alchemist in PF1 is sort of a hodgepodge of class features that don't really go together except in that they all involve alchemy. Vanilla PF1 alchemist is the person who hulks out as Mr. Hyde and the person who brews potions and the person who hurls explosives. It sorta goes together but it kinda doesn't.
So combined with the fact that the alchemist is a pretty popular class, I bet a lot of folks at Paizo have spent time thinking about "how to design a better alchemist" and this might have led to a bunch of ideas that informed the rest of PF2's class design. At this point you have to include it, I figure.
Also, at some point they decided to make goblins a core race, so they wanted a goblin iconic and what class is more befitting goblins, honestly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hm i guess that works although im always iffy of item based classes, a lot of games they fall behind because the whole team benefits from what they do so while useful they dont really have anything they do that noone else in there party can do, i trust paizo to be able to handle it well but still
I think we've got a couple indications- Alchemist gets free use of stuff they make, while other characters have it count against a daily pool. I think there was also mention of Alchemists being able to use alchemical items better than the other classes.
i mean i feel you could have gotten away with just the psychic as the introduction to psionics and introduce the rest later
Paizo doesn't have psionics, and the Psychic is the class that would need the biggest spell list addition.
If it's not a Spellcaster anymore, I hope the price for crafting is lowered or at least worth it for some items.
That and until I see the class and item list fully, I might house rule some of their unquie spell's into craft able items
We've got an indication that they can make some daily stuff for free. At least bombs and healing elixirs (which can also be used instead for some situational save bonuses). Porting over some old Alchemist spells as craftable stuff is a pretty cool idea!
You have feelings, Paizo has data (eg. of the number of Alchemists in PFS, for example).Paizo might have some data, but registering a PFS character doesn't involve registering class data. Paizo knows how many PFS characters I have, what scenarios they played in when, and what scenarios I've run (and I expect that data is very useful in aggregate), but they don't get fine grained detail like race/class/what feats I took or anything like that.
I'm not sure how much of that is true.
I'm not Paizo and I can tell you have a LG lvl 12 wizard named Dorien Dryden, just clicking in your name and going to "organized play".
Don't forget that it's the only other guy that needs Int in core. I've had home game where the wizard was ignored so they had a really hot party that was dumber than a sack of rocks.
Also alchemists give prescedence for alchemical items.
INT has been, statistically, one of the most ignored stats in RPG history. D&D3E and Pathdinder1E did their best to dissuade you from dumping it but we might lose that reason this edition. In fact, this stat does NOTHING in First Edition D&D, except Wizard gets an XP penalty if they dump it.
Essentially, it's a bonus to knowledge checks and to do wizardy stuff... That's it? In 5e it is THE dump stat of choice since only like 1 class gets anything from it ever.
Don't forget that it's the only other guy that needs Int in core. I've had home game where the wizard was ignored so they had a really hot party that was dumber than a sack of rocks.
Also alchemists give prescedence for alchemical items.
INT has been, statistically, one of the most ignored stats in RPG history. D&D3E and Pathdinder1E did their best to dissuade you from dumping it but we might lose that reason this edition. In fact, this stat does NOTHING in First Edition D&D, except Wizard gets an XP penalty if they dump it.
Essentially, it's a bonus to knowledge checks and to do wizardy stuff... That's it? In 5e it is THE dump stat of choice since only like 1 class gets anything from it ever.
Int is going to be pretty important in PF2 from what I can tell. Because Int gives you extra skills proficiencies, and those are being buffed up with superpowers this time. Knowledge checks are also being spread across a lot more skills this time.