Concerned about Alchemist bias...

[gustavo iglesias]

I think you also have a pretty clear record of bias yourself, judging from your posts. I'm not sure if you realize how much of this can be just you projecting your own bias.

[A Ninja Errant]

HWalsh wrote:

And no - Leaving out Barbarian, Druid, and Monk from my list was just an oversight.

I figured, just thought it was odd.

HWalsh wrote:

I've got a good track record of noting dev bias in games. Perfect? No. Doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it up. Especially early in cycle do devs can say, "Huh, maybe we are focusing too much in X area."

Eh, fair enough. I don't think it hurts anything to raise the concern. I'm not seeing it myself, if anything the bits they've told us about the Alchemist so far sound kind of lackluster to me. But then, I've always thought the PF1 Alchemist was lackluster, and apparently a ton of people disagree with me on that, so maybe I'm missing something there.

But yeah, if the devs read the concern, they can question it themselves. If they are being biased, they might reel it back a little, and if they aren't then they can just ignore it with no harm done.

[CactusUnicorn]

My personal anecdote of the day.

The first time I saw an HWalsh post I agreed with it. It was about Solarions. That was the last time I agreed with a post from HWalsh.

[PossibleCabbage]

Was there Solarion bias? After all, it was the Starfinder class that's most unlike Pathfinder classes, I think.

[Stephen Radney-MacFarland]

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

But it is going to be a core class. And Alchemy is coming front and centre for anyone with the Craft-ability. I think it's bold, but not terrifying. If PF2 wants to grab some niche with a little Alchemipunk and Goblinry, so what? Neither are my favourite part of fantasy, but I like a little razzle-dazzle, and this seems razzle-dazzle with a purpose rather than style over substance for its own sake.

So, funny story, you were at one point going to get a bunch of alchemist information in more rapid succession. After I wrote the alchemist blog, we are going to do the alchemical items blog later that week. Because Tech Raptor was keen on doing a story about alchemy that same week, I argued to give the alchemy blog a bit of space, and we did the blog on gnomes and halflings later on in the week.

In short, we have a list of topics to cover as we approach the release. That list was made months ago, but we change things up every so often in the attempts to split up topics, so you're not getting "too much of a good thing" in quick succession. Obviously, you believe we missed the mark this time, but it had nothing to do with dev bias. If anything we spaced it out a little more than we were first planning to because of interest from outside groups about the subject.

[Athaleon]

I think the Alchemist is getting a lot of attention because they want alchemy in general to be more prominent in PF2. It's a potential route for otherwise mundane characters to be more "magical" at high levels using an underused skill, namely Craft. The problem is, Craft (Alchemy) in PF1 is seldom used because it's lackluster: Expensive and difficult at low levels, irrelevant at high levels (with a few exceptions that you're better off just buying), and ridiculously time-consuming by RAW.

[Cuttlefist]

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

So, funny story, you were at one point going to get a bunch of alchemist information in more rapid succession. After I wrote the alchemist blog, we are going to do the alchemical items blog later that week. Because Tech Raptor was keen on doing a story about alchemy that same week, I argued to give the alchemy blog a bit of space, and we did the blog on gnomes and halflings later on in the week.

In short, we have a list of topics to cover as we approach the release. That list was made months ago, but we change things up every so often in the attempts to split up topics, so you're not getting "too much of a good thing" in quick succession. Obviously, you believe we missed the mark this time, but it had nothing to do with dev bias. If anything we spaced it out a little more than we were first planning to because of interest from outside groups about the subject.

I love these kinds of comments. We get so many people posting on here and Reddit and other places who assume that because Paizo isn’t doing something the way they would do it, that means that they aren’t actually thinking that thing through. But this kind of comment shows that you are taking every aspect of this product and it’s release into consideration.

The folks working on this are not infallible, but I think that a lot of the concerns that have been brought up from people on things like Goblins and alchemists being added to core, or the way old abilities will work in the new action economy (Saw one redditor trying to argue that because Sudden Charge and Power Attack both take two actions each, it would mean that no players would take both and thus it would result in fewer feats being chosen because they are obviously not as good) seem to come from people thinking that paizo doesn’t take things like new players, existing lore, balance, old players, leveling, and pretty much every other aspect of the game into consideration. But it’s reassuring to see that even little details like the rate of information release is thoughtfully considered, as it looks like all other major aspects of the game are.

[TarkXT]

I think Hwalsh is right lets go back to the real basics.

All classes should be Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling.

Everything else is merely tacked on and against the original vision.

[knightnday]

HWalsh wrote:

And no - Leaving out Barbarian, Druid, and Monk from my list was just an oversight.

As to those who say, "Oh he just doesn't like new stuff!"

Hardly

I have a knack for this.

There was this lil company once called BioWare. They made a game called The Old Republic. They over stacked marketing hype for the Sith. I noted the slant a year in advance as Professor Walsh, writer for Ask A Jedi.

I pointed out, to BioWare, that they were creating a population imbalance with presentation and pre-release info.

Their hardcore fans yelled back that I was crazy. I presented my arguments. BioWare itself said, "Our internal testing shows no population imbalance." I told them that testers taken from their hardcore Star Wars fanbase weren't indicative of average population trends and attitudes.

Their lead designer and I made a public bet.

After 1 month of release there was a 6:1 population imbalance for the Sith. Thge reason? They looked much cooler, they seemed much cooler in the pre-release, and their wasn't as much information for the game's Jedi/Republic faction.

They publically admitted the imbalance and I won the bet, and got my free drink at PAX East out of the deal.

So... Yeah. I can be wrong, I'm not perfect, but I'm good at generally spotting potential problems.

I called the Hibernia issue in DAoC (Hibernia got the least info, the least content, and as a direct result had a far lower than average population of players) before release.

I also called the GoV thing with White Wolf.

I called the TA thing with Palladium.

I've got a good track record of noting dev bias in games. Perfect? No. Doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it up. Especially early in cycle do devs can say, "Huh, maybe we are focusing too much in X area."

I've got a pretty good track record of noting conspiracy theories in forums. This feels like one.

We have more than enough to argue and debate about. We don't need to make up imaginary slurs against the devs in order to pass the time. I'm sure they will get to Paladins soon enough and then you can argue about that.

[graystone]

Gorbacz wrote:

Buckle up folks, we'll have to endure until the Paladin blog arrives.

I think my torch, pitchfork and popcorn stand is REALLY going to rake in the cash that day! ;)

[Easily Combustible Strawman]

graystone wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Buckle up folks, we'll have to endure until the Paladin blog arrives.

I think my torch, pitchfork and popcorn stand is REALLY going to rake in the cash that day! ;)

Please god no not again.

[Athaleon]

TarkXT wrote:

I think Hwalsh is right lets go back to the real basics.

All classes should be Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling.

Everything else is merely tacked on and against the original vision.

Making Thief a separate class was a mistake.

[necromental]

Athaleon wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

I think Hwalsh is right lets go back to the real basics.

All classes should be Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling.

Everything else is merely tacked on and against the original vision.

Making Thief a separate class was a mistake.

Tell that to DrDeth :D

[Aristophanes]

TarkXT wrote:

I think Hwalsh is right lets go back to the real basics.

All classes should be Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling.

Everything else is merely tacked on and against the original vision.

OH TarkXT, you and your newfangled ideas.

Just give me Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic-user, and Elf(a fighter/magic-user).

[graystone]

Aristophanes wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

I think Hwalsh is right lets go back to the real basics.

All classes should be Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling.

Everything else is merely tacked on and against the original vision.

OH TarkXT, you and your newfangled ideas.

Just give me Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic-user, and Elf(a fighter/magic-user).

Healing guy, fighting guy, magic guy, thief guy.

[vorArchivist]

sounds too complicated:
-fighting guy
-not fighting guy
that's all we really need

[1of1]

We can make it simpler.
-is
-is not

We can just represent them with 1s and 0s.

[PossibleCabbage]

1of1 wrote:

We can make it simpler.

-is
-is not

We can just represent them with 1s and 0s.

But what is not by definition is not, therefore the only thing that is is what is. So there's only one thing.

I would have made a Parmenides of Elea alt if I knew how to do that

[TarkXT]

I'm sensing far too muhc bias towards "is" I recommend caution in adding too much material related to "is" or it will violate the sovereignty of the "is not" player base.

[vorArchivist]

lets replace all the dice to coins while we're at it

[1of1]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

1of1 wrote:

We can make it simpler.

-is
-is not

We can just represent them with 1s and 0s.

But what is not by definition is not, therefore the only thing that is is what is. So there's only one thing.

I would have made a Parmenides of Elea alt if I knew how to do that

But how can a thing move from where it is to where it is not, thereby making where it is where it wasn't, and where it was where it isn't, if it not being there was not a thing?

Darn, now I want to make Democritus. This will require thought. Thinking make brain hurt.

TarkXT wrote:

I'm sensing far too muhc bias towards "is" I recommend caution in adding too much material related to "is" or it will violate the sovereignty of the "is not" player base.

I agree. Both are needed to give either meaning, so striking a balance between them is important to developing whatever we're writing with them. I propose we make a code to govern these 1s and 0s, so that we can understand what their interactions mean.

[Ryan Freire]

Seal clubber
Turtle tamer
pastamancer
sauceror
disco bandit
accordion thief

[graystone]

vorArchivist wrote:

lets replace all the dice to coins while we're at it

I don't know about that... that requires stuff... We better roshambo for it!

[1of1]

graystone wrote:

vorArchivist wrote:

lets replace all the dice to coins while we're at it

I don't know about that... that requires stuff... We better roshambo for it!

Wait, what if a player doesn't have any hands? Maybe staring contests, or just yelling at each other?

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

1of1 wrote:

graystone wrote:

vorArchivist wrote:

lets replace all the dice to coins while we're at it

I don't know about that... that requires stuff... We better roshambo for it!

Wait, what if a player doesn't have any hands? Maybe staring contests, or just yelling at each other?

Ah, I've played with that houserule.

[PossibleCabbage]

Playing Castle Falkenstein just sitting around the table with a handful of playing cards looks much more respectable than these things normally look, FWIW.

[TarkXT]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Playing Castle Falkenstein just sitting around the table with a handful of playing cards looks much more respectable than these things normally look, FWIW.

I will never not wear the wizarding hat.

[graystone]

1of1 wrote:

graystone wrote:

vorArchivist wrote:

lets replace all the dice to coins while we're at it

I don't know about that... that requires stuff... We better roshambo for it!

Wait, what if a player doesn't have any hands? Maybe staring contests, or just yelling at each other?

There IS another way to play roshambo...

[yronimos]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't see any evidence of "Alchemist Bias"- there are a whole lot of blog posts to go before August, and the "Alchemical Items" follows up on a thread dangled by the Alchemist class preview.

Paizo has made the decision to flesh out the alchemical items, which have existed for a long time, so there are high level analogues to things like thunderstones and tanglefoot bags, so that items like this aren't just left behind as you level. One class specializes in "making these things", again this was fine.

As for "the Alchemist doesn't belong in core", Paizo's internal data shows that the PF1 alchemist was far and away the most popular class outside of the CRB classes, and was even more popular than several core classes. I you're going to promote something to the CRB, "what things are popular" is a reasonable place to start looking.

I agree completely. It also makes sense for Paizo to spend a little extra time explaining a class they have been taking the trouble to add into core, following a heavy revamp of the way it worked.

I have little immediate interest in the Alchemist class, but if I were in their shoes, I, too, would have taken a little extra time to focus on these changes, on the assumption that the game's players will be more interested in the things that are changing, than on the things that are remaining the same.

[Xerres]

HWalsh wrote:

And no - Leaving out Barbarian, Druid, and Monk from my list was just an oversight.

As to those who say, "Oh he just doesn't like new stuff!"

Hardly

I have a knack for this.

There was this lil company once called BioWare. They made a game called The Old Republic. They over stacked marketing hype for the Sith. I noted the slant a year in advance as Professor Walsh, writer for Ask A Jedi.

I pointed out, to BioWare, that they were creating a population imbalance with presentation and pre-release info.

Their hardcore fans yelled back that I was crazy. I presented my arguments. BioWare itself said, "Our internal testing shows no population imbalance." I told them that testers taken from their hardcore Star Wars fanbase weren't indicative of average population trends and attitudes.

Their lead designer and I made a public bet.

After 1 month of release there was a 6:1 population imbalance for the Sith. Thge reason? They looked much cooler, they seemed much cooler in the pre-release, and their wasn't as much information for the game's Jedi/Republic faction.

They publically admitted the imbalance and I won the bet, and got my free drink at PAX East out of the deal.

So... Yeah. I can be wrong, I'm not perfect, but I'm good at generally spotting potential problems.

I called the Hibernia issue in DAoC (Hibernia got the least info, the least content, and as a direct result had a far lower than average population of players) before release.

I also called the GoV thing with White Wolf.

I called the TA thing with Palladium.

I've got a good track record of noting dev bias in games. Perfect? No. Doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it up. Especially early in cycle do devs can say, "Huh, maybe we are focusing too much in X area."

I remember that, as I agreed with you on the forums. Jedi were shown as incompetent bumblers, Sith won absolutely everything, and detractors would constantly say that "Kiddies will play Republic because they're the Good Guys, the Empire needs to be shown as cooler to get players for it."

I also remember that no one listened to you, because you were totally biased toward Jedi being better than absolutely everyone else in the Republic, showed no respect at all for non-Force Sensitive characters, and were really insistent on telling everyone the right way to be Jedi. So even though you were right about the one aspect, everyone ignored it because you came off as being inconsiderate to everything else they cared about.

Something, something, Paladins and history repeating.

CactusUnicorn wrote:

My personal anecdote of the day.

The first time I saw an HWalsh post I agreed with it. It was about Solarions. That was the last time I agreed with a post from HWalsh.

Crazy world! I apparently agreed with Walsh once some 7-8 years ago, and that was also the last time I agreed with him about anything!

I see no greater bias to Alchemists than is necessary. New addition, hyping it up a bit, its a good thing.

[TarkXT]

Look I wrestled with the man tumbling down a mountain about CmD for a week as he insisted fighters were in fact the ones overpowered.

If nothing else the man has endurance.

[kyrt-ryder]

As confused as I am to say this... I sort of agree with Walsh.

Alchemist was tacked onto PF1 because it absorbed the crappy alchemy of DnD.

With a proper alchemy system, anyone could be an alchemist through the skill.

[vorArchivist]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Seal clubber

Turtle tamer
pastamancer
sauceror
disco bandit
accordion thief

This guy gets it

EDIT:In all seriousness a page about a character and a page about a subsystem seems to be what you should expect

[HWalsh]

Xerres wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

And no - Leaving out Barbarian, Druid, and Monk from my list was just an oversight.

As to those who say, "Oh he just doesn't like new stuff!"

Hardly

I have a knack for this.

There was this lil company once called BioWare. They made a game called The Old Republic. They over stacked marketing hype for the Sith. I noted the slant a year in advance as Professor Walsh, writer for Ask A Jedi.

I pointed out, to BioWare, that they were creating a population imbalance with presentation and pre-release info.

Their hardcore fans yelled back that I was crazy. I presented my arguments. BioWare itself said, "Our internal testing shows no population imbalance." I told them that testers taken from their hardcore Star Wars fanbase weren't indicative of average population trends and attitudes.

Their lead designer and I made a public bet.

After 1 month of release there was a 6:1 population imbalance for the Sith. Thge reason? They looked much cooler, they seemed much cooler in the pre-release, and their wasn't as much information for the game's Jedi/Republic faction.

They publically admitted the imbalance and I won the bet, and got my free drink at PAX East out of the deal.

So... Yeah. I can be wrong, I'm not perfect, but I'm good at generally spotting potential problems.

I called the Hibernia issue in DAoC (Hibernia got the least info, the least content, and as a direct result had a far lower than average population of players) before release.

I also called the GoV thing with White Wolf.

I called the TA thing with Palladium.

I've got a good track record of noting dev bias in games. Perfect? No. Doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it up. Especially early in cycle do devs can say, "Huh, maybe we are focusing too much in X area."

I remember that, as I agreed with you on the forums. Jedi were shown as incompetent bumblers, Sith won absolutely everything, and detractors would constantly say that "Kiddies will play Republic because they're the Good Guys, the Empire...

Here is the thing:

Regardless of how you think I come off, if you think I am biased or not... In the end I was right.

I was right on every count.

I said X was going to cause Y and X caused Y.

Just because you think I am biased doesn't mean I'm not wrong. Even BioWare back then admitted, in one of the many interviews I did as a press agent, that I was never actually wrong. I didn't make claims regarding the outcome of certain things without explaining why and I was right.

In this case - Especially if you pay close attention to what I said here... I never said outright Paizo was showing a bias, I said I was concerned about the possible bias and simply brought it up because it needed to be brought up.

I said, several times, that just because there is smoke doesn't mean there is fire.

I only stated that it was worth bringing up, and it seems the Devs (from their post here) also saw smoke, which is why they spaced things out because they were aware putting them out too close to each other would appear to show a bias.

They chose to space them out... I am assuming that in doing so, since they were aware that it could look like a bias, that they also looked to see if there *was* an unintentional bias.

I'm pretty pleased with that.

A good engagement where they gave a straight answer which is boiled down to:

"We realize how this can look, we knew it looked bad before and we spaced it out. The spacing out wasn't enough for you and you think we were wrong."

That is a meaningful interaction.

Why?

Well if you remember that TOR situation, the company line was always "There is no problem. Absolutely none. We don't think this looks bad. We are perfect."

Here I am seeing:

"Yeah, this can look bad. We understand it can look bad."

That is a good answer.

There is *nothing* more dangerous than a Designer who thinks they are flawless. I was a designer for over a decade. The second you think you're perfect is the second you need to get pulled from a project.

I'll admit... I'm still worried about this... Not because it is intentional... I doubt it would be... But because things aren't adding up.

1. Why was Alchemist added to core?

This question wasn't answered yet. The closest answer is that people suspect that PF2 wants to put a higher focus on Alchemy.

That asks another question... Why do they want to put a higher focus on Alchemy?

Generally speaking, when you make a design choice you do so from a stance of a need.

If your goal is to simplify the game, as is PF1's stated goal, then you take a path that goes counter to that, it is always a reason to be concerned.

Alchemists could have been done like in 1e, basically make them casters. They didn't. They chose a whole new subsystem for them. One that even violates the core mechanic of their new system right off the bat. (They don't use the Resonance stat for Resonance.)

Those are deviations that run counter to the game's stated design goals. It is not only different from PF1, it also makes the Alchemist a radically different class in core mechanics. Hence the concern.

Does it mean there is a problem? Again... No.

Should we question it?

Absolutely. This is a forum designed to get opinions. Paizo doesn't want us to heap praise on them. That isn't helpful in design.

PS to the people who are making a bias accusation against me by the by:

I may absolutely love Paladins. I freely admit this. What I do not now, and have never asked for, is any mechanical buffing of the class what-so-ever. As much as I love the class, and I love the lore of the class, and the inspiration for the class, I also completely understand the need for mechanical balance and systems.

In order for my bias to come into play here in me bringing this up, aside from (yes) wishing that Paladin had information coming out because some things have been said that worry me, then the Alchemist becoming a favored by the devs class would have to somehow interact with the Paladin, which it doesn't.

Or, in other words, you can't engage in whataboutism.

"You are worried about the possibility that the devs are worried about X, whatabout your bias for Y?"

The fact is my bias for Y doesn't matter as the events for X have no bearing on Y.

[HWalsh]

Side note on the value of harsh critics:

Something also to note - If you have a dozen people who have hung on your every word since the announcement of 2nd Edition and they have never been critical or harsh then they cannot be trusted as sources of if something is good when it is actually tested.

They are already invested in the product being good. They will look for the good, sing its praises, and will excuse and ignore the bad.

The negative person may be invested in the product not being good. They will jump onto anything that seems bad, and in that they will also jump on everything that is bad. While they will ignore the good, as they aren't concerned about what works, they are concerned what doesn't, they are more useful for finding out the actual flaws.

Over the years I have learned it is always better, and ultimately more helpful, to be critical. Rip the product apart and find every little flaw and imbalance.

I did this with Starfinder too... Though some people disagree with the operative (they couldn't dispute the math, they could only say that it doesn't have a big impact because the game is about where people focus and those who focus in certain areas can be equal... I still disagree but that doesn't disprove the math) and some people argued about Solarians (they were moving the goalposts) at the end of the day the average 1-2 point imbalance is a math-based fact.

One thing I won't do is ever criticize anything without giving the reason why I criticize it. This was one of the reasons why I was so good back as a reporter and reviewer. You can say something is bad, but you can't say it is bad without saying why you think it is bad.

[Evilgm]

Your criticism isn't in anyway helpful or insightful.

An article on a class that uses a modified mechanic and an article on that mechanic doesn't in any way imply a bias towards that mechanic, it shows a basic understanding of how to inform people about new mechanics.

Likewise, just because there's a better implemented mechanic for Alchemy doesn't mean there's either a bias or an issue. And to start declaring there is (or even might be) doesn't bode well for your claims of being a good reporter or reviewer, it just shows you jump to conclusions based on incomplete data.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Would Alchemists be a 'better' class if they were presented as paragons of goodness that could only be Lawful Good and had effectively the same footprint as a Paladin?

[BigDTBone]

HWalsh wrote:

Here is the thing:
Regardless of how you think I come off, if you think I am biased or not... In the end I was right.
I was right on every count.

Selection bias at it's finest. You have cherry picked half a dozen times that you believe you predicted something (questionable) and claim to have a perfect track record.

You have neglected to recollect the many times that your predictions have run aground or have simply not met with anything close to majority consensus.

But go ahead and favorite your OP so that you can revisit it in 3 years to see how you did. I predict this is much ado about nothing.

[Revan]

Alchemists are popular. Alchemists were for most people their first encounter with a class that Paizo had designed from the ground up, rather than tinkering with an inherited chassis in the core rulebook (as they are the first listed of the classes in the APG), so they're rather iconically Paizo. They're generally held to be firmly in Paizo's design 'sweet spot', but also present a good reason for revamping to make their core abilities interact better with the items that share their name. Their general themes and iconic abilities are not easily replicated by those of core classes.

Why on Earth shouldn't they be core?

[PossibleCabbage]

Why are we trying to protect "core" anyway? If it were up to me, like Changelings and Occultists and every darn thing we can fit in the physical book would be core.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Tengu, too!

[Dead Phoenix]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Tengu, too!

That's just your tengu bias talking.

On an unrelated note, who else thinks Phoenix's should be in the core book?

[HWalsh]

BigDTBone wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Here is the thing:
Regardless of how you think I come off, if you think I am biased or not... In the end I was right.
I was right on every count.

Selection bias at it's finest. You have cherry picked half a dozen times that you believe you predicted something (questionable) and claim to have a perfect track record.

You have neglected to recollect the many times that your predictions have run aground or have simply not met with anything close to majority consensus.

But go ahead and favorite your OP so that you can revisit it in 3 years to see how you did. I predict this is much ado about nothing.

No I didn't cherry pick anything... All I said in this thread was a concern about a possibility.

I never said there *was* a bias, just a concern about one.

As to consensus... I don't care about consensus... I care mostly about math and results.

If there is no bias? Cool. Is there a cause for concern? Well since Paizo even moved around the dates because they thought it would look bad... Then... Uh no?

That *shows* that they thought it would potentially cause concern.

If consensus was important then the world would be pretty weird. The consensus is often wrong. Pretty much always wrong actually initially.

The consensus was originally that inanimate matter could transform into life. People believed at one time that rotting meat turned into maggots and flies. It was a scientist who bucked the trend and came up with proof that it wasn't.

The consensus was, in the South, at one time that people were getting sick and dying because of a disease. It was one doctor who realized that it was a deficiency due to how corn was treated. It took him years to prove it.

The consensus was that the Earth was flat. We know it isn't.

Consensus means little. The majority can be wrong. Instead of trying to attack me, why don't you read what I posted about? I posted about a concern, not a fact. I posted WHY I was concerned.

Then... Strangely... Paizo replied to the thread and confirmed that they were aware how it could look.

So what are you saying?

I was wrong to see something that they also saw? Uh... That makes little sense.

[Paradozen]

HWalsh wrote:

...

1. Why was Alchemist added to core?

This question wasn't answered yet. The closest answer is that people suspect that PF2 wants to put a higher focus on Alchemy.

...

Just addressing this part, I think the answer is because it was incredibly popular in PF1E. The blog on alchemists said Alchemist and Oracle were the most popular classes outside of core. Mark Seifter said that the Alchemist was even more popular than some of the base classes. Mix in the goal of making PF2 the best version of pathfinder, and it makes a lot of sense to add in one of the most popular elements of the game into the core so that it gets a front-and-center placement in the game to help differentiate it from D&D.

Of course, this doesn't mean a bias does or does not exist, nor does it mean concern over a bias (which does it doesn't exist) is or isn't valid. Just proposing an answer that could be closer to (or at least, working in concert with) a desire to focus more on alchemy.

Sources:

here

Mark Seifter wrote:

I reread the blog since I've been seeing this all over, and realize the blog is pretty misleading in one regard: alchemist and oracle were the most popular non-core classes. I don't have the data in front of me, but I recall it was something like most of the core classes were significantly more popular (the cleric was among the top of all classes, period), then there was a series of drop-offs where the last few core classes, alchemist, and oracle lived, then another drop-off.

here

Mark Seifter wrote:

Alchemist didn't even lose out to all of the core classes, either, which is pretty impressive. But cleric, fighter, and rogue were in their own league (if you only count single-classed characters, wizards, fighters, and rogues were in their own league and clerics were in another, higher league of their own).

And here

Alchemist Blog wrote:

Unsurprisingly, when we surveyed the player base about what classes see the most play, the alchemist rose right to the top (along with the oracle, but more on that in a later preview). That alone would have promoted the class into the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, but tackling the alchemist early on during the design process was beneficial for another reason: it allowed us to take a hard look at alchemical item design with the alchemist in mind rather than as a later add-on.

[totoro]

Dead Phoenix wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Tengu, too!

That's just your tengu bias talking.

On an unrelated note, who else thinks Phoenix's should be in the core book?

I think elephants should be a playable race. And whatever Totoro is.

[Vidmaster7]

totoro wrote:

Dead Phoenix wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Tengu, too!

That's just your tengu bias talking.

On an unrelated note, who else thinks Phoenix's should be in the core book?

I think elephants should be a playable race. And whatever Totoro is.

For sure death spirit.

[Cuttlefist]

Of course Sith had a bias for them, they are better in every way and the developers were just doing the right thing.

Seriously though, being right on that is not very impressive. There were only two sides to divide attention to, so some imbalance is a lot easier to overlook. And also Sith are by nature cooler and have broader appeal than Jedi, everybody wants to be Dartb cader or Maul, nobody wants to be Quigon or Luke, so the odds of there being more people playing Sith was easy to place your bets on.

In Pathfinder there are 11 other classes for the devs to balance focus and development between, it ‘s going to be significantly more difficult to have bias towards one class without it being glaringly obvious, and that has not occurred yet. The odds of Paizo’s team somehow missing that the Alchemist gets cooler toys and more advertisement than other classes to their detriment is pretty slim.