Concerned about Alchemist bias...

[Cole Deschain]

HWalsh wrote:

They'll often start pulling stunts like favoriting each other's posts to the point that it inflates the person's perceived support.

Or maybe they just agree and feel like saying so via a forum mechanism designed for that precise purpose?

This is hardly a sinister plot. It's pretty much how the "like" function is designed to operate.

[Athaleon]

Cole Deschain wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

They'll often start pulling stunts like favoriting each other's posts to the point that it inflates the person's perceived support.

Or maybe they just agree and feel like saying so via a forum mechanism designed for that precise purpose?

This is hardly a sinister plot. It's pretty much how the "like" function is designed to operate.

I need to inflate your perceived support. Have an upboat.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Okay.

I'm doing what I'm supposed to do, as requested by the community moderators -- the incredibly over-worked and sometimes heavily under-appreciated Customer Service team -- by flagging posts of concern, and favoriting posts that have succinctly boiled down to a point something I could not hope to do in the same economy of words.

...and this makes me part of some vast occult conspiracy?

...W. T. F.

That is beyond 'breaking guidelines'.

That is downright abusive and insulting behaviour.

That is the sort of insinuation that indivduals seeking to disrupt a community that works together use to forment divisions.

It is definitely NOT the work of someone who would seek to emulate a truly 'Lawful Good' class.

Where's my bias?

It's not about Alchemists.

It's about individuals who are so hide-bound that everything is a conspiracy against them when logic is brought into the discussion.

It's about folks who want to rip everything apart because they've descended to the level of thought that it's better that the world burn than anyone else 'get their way'.

How can one be a proponent of Lawful and Good when one seeks to undermine all that is the best of both?

Bring on Alchemy, moar Chemicals for the ChemGod, please!

[gustavo iglesias]

BigDTBone wrote:

Selection bias at it's finest.

/thread.

[MerlinCross]

Athaleon wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, what matters more than "what gets the most love in the core rulebook" is "what gets more love in the subsequent releases" and these sorts of things tend to be appointed to the classes that need it more coming out of the CRB.

So while there were 29 wizard archetypes in PF1 (the Wizard being on the far end of the "CRB love" for PF1) there were ~55 monk archetypes, ~64 fighter archetypes, and and ~76 rogue archetypes. Moreover these three classes got an alternate class, two unchained remakes, and a bunch of optional subsystems to enhance CRB features.

Favoriting this so I can refer back to it the next time someone tells me PF1 isn't bloated.

It totally is. But flip side is I wouldn't expect new players to comb through all that, and would ask more experienced players to point me at where they got it. Bloat gets worse if 3rd party is allowed.

On topic, yeah. I totally have a bias for Alchemist. I admit it. There can we move on now OP, I feel so much better.

[gustavo iglesias]

I don't honestly know how this thread went for so long. I'd do a last post on it, before bowing out.

When the Mayas built a calendar, long of time ago, they stopped at 2012. People reading it later, thought that Mayas predicted the end of the world in 2012. But the thing is, if Mayas would add 2 years, then people would claim they thought they predicted end of world in 2014. If they add another year, they would say they predicted it in 2015. The only way they would not say Mayas predicted the end of World, is if they had made a never ending calendar, which needs an infinite long stone. Which is not possible. The reason why they ended at 2012, is because it has to end somewhere.

How this relate to this topic?

If you have, say, 5 topics to discuss, with 4 chapters each, the sixth blog will repeat one of the topics. That's not bias that's a mathematical unavoidable fact.

Now, the first topic to get double dip was alchemy (arguably. I would say that rogues double dipped with the skill article, but whatever). So the OP called it bias, when it was just the fact that something has to go first. If they had done Clerics first, with domain later, then the OP would had say they are biased VS Clerics.

Or maybe... Not. Because the OP post shows clear hints of his own bias against alchemist ("" not even core "). So maybe a double article on Clerics and domains would be cool for him... because it fits his own bias.

[MerlinCross]

To be fair a good amount of posts seem to be just goofing off.

[Laird IceCubez]

I see classes as an emphasis on specific mechanical features. Especially at first few levels.

Barbarians are ability scores (due to rage/fatigue)
Bards are conditional modifiers (bardic performances)
Clerics are deities (have to have a deity)
Druids are summons/companions
Fighters are feats
Monks are multiple attacks (due to flurry)
Paladins are alignment
Rangers are creature types/land/traps
Rogues are sneak attacks/signature skills
Sorcerers are scaling powers (bloodlines)
Wizards are spell management

While Alchemists may not have a unique feature in 1E, and especially now that bombs seems to be craftable in 2E.
It seems their unique feature might be Resonance, which is a new feature.

[Doktor Weasel]

Some actual data from the survey done by d20pfsrd.com In their survey they found the alchemist to be the most played non-core class, followed closely behind by Oracle. Magus was a bit behind them and then druid was behind that. So Alchemist, Oracle and Magus all seem to be more popular than the core druid. That makes them a good choice to upgrade to core. Alchemist is the most unlike everything else, so it's the logical choice. And upgrading alchemical items to be something usable past level 3 is worthwhile regardless of class.

[gustavo iglesias]

Great data, Dr Weasel

[The Sideromancer]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

I don't honestly know how this thread went for so long. I'd do a last post on it, before bowing out.

When the Mayas built a calendar, long of time ago, they stopped at 2012. People reading it later, thought that Mayas predicted the end of the world in 2012. But the thing is, if Mayas would add 2 years, then people would claim they thought they predicted end of world in 2014. If they add another year, they would say they predicted it in 2015. The only way they would not say Mayas predicted the end of World, is if they had made a never ending calendar, which needs an infinite long stone. Which is not possible. The reason why they ended at 2012, is because it has to end somewhere.

Not fully true for some pretty interesting reasons.

wordy derail:

Twelve is a great number. It divides evenly into 2, 3, 4, and 6. The ease of division is why the Babylonians used a number system based on 60 (5*12), which carries over to current timekeeping. It's also the closest integer to how many lunar cycles (months) in one solar cycle (year). Several cultures, even if they didn't base their math in it (usually emphasizing multiples of 5 instead), developed an attachment to twelve for this reason: if the heavens use it, it must be one of the better numbers around.

However, lunar months do not divide evenly into a solar year (which is why the dates of events based on a lunar calendar vary). Many of these cultures that put twelve into their culture had their stories emphasize that it was twelve, and not thirteen, that was important. A prime example is the Chinese zodiac, where the thirteenth mythological racer was disqualified. When the Mayans built their calendar, they left an inscription saying that something interesting would happen when it completed its thirteenth cycle, when it reached the number the heavens skirt but do not reach. The interpretation of "something interesting will happen" as "the end of the world is coming" doesn't really have an excuse, though.

[lowfyr01]

I marked some posts here as a favorite. Does that make me part of the secret cabal and do I have to learn a secret handshake or do we get a decoder ring^^?

[gustavo iglesias]

True cabal members know that answer, you impersonating double agent

[AaronUnicorn]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Its kind of incredible really to think that if you went in pushing for the opposite of what you thought you would be more likely to sway people to your side

My friends and I have a phrase that I think applies. "People who I wish didn't agree with me." The times where you see someone who you know is so caustic in their arguments that you really wish they didn't take your side in a disagreement.

[Twisted Crow]

brad2411 wrote:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

brad2411 wrote:

Also you talk about 2 articles but there are more then 2 articles on the alchemist and once again I will state that they have talked about the Alchemist in almost everything we have seen them do from playtests to interviews.

Part of that issue may be because there are two blog posts, other folks in game journalism have *wanted* to talk about the alchemist. As far as interviews and such go, I've been on a few of them, but I'm as likely to talk about action economy, my love of black and white art (though I admit it might be nostalgia) and Shadow of the Demon Lord as I am about Alchemy.

Shadow of the Demon Lord, yes please!!

Off topic, but I'm excited to see shout-outs to this system (and that a designer with Paizo wrote some support content). I fell in love with the rule simplifications, character progression, and default setting fluff. After a one-off test session several weeks ago I'm finally starting a full campaign with it - excited to see how it plays out.

[CactusUnicorn]

AaronUnicorn wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Its kind of incredible really to think that if you went in pushing for the opposite of what you thought you would be more likely to sway people to your side

My friends and I have a phrase that I think applies. "People who I wish didn't agree with me." The times where you see someone who you know is so caustic in their arguments that you really wish they didn't take your side in a disagreement.

A fellow member of the Unicorn Cartel.

*Initiates secret handshake*

*Clap, Clap, High Five, High Five, Chest Bump, Footsie, Footsie, Spin, Clap, Jump*

[nosig]

here is an interesting look at the difference between "Good" and "Evil" people...IMHO

Heaven and Hell: The Parable of the Long Spoons:

One day a man said to God, “God, I would like to know what Heaven and Hell are like.”

God showed the man two doors. Inside the first one, in the middle of the room, was a large round table with a large pot of stew. It smelled delicious and made the man’s mouth water, but the people sitting around the table were thin and sickly. They appeared to be famished. They were holding spoons with very long handles and each found it possible to reach into the pot of stew and take a spoonful, but because the handle was longer than their arms, they could not get the spoons back into their mouths.

The man shuddered at the sight of their misery and suffering. God said, “You have seen Hell.”

Behind the second door, the room appeared exactly the same. There was the large round table with the large pot of wonderful stew that made the man’s mouth water. The people had the same long-handled spoons, but they were well nourished and plump, laughing and talking.

The man said, “I don’t understand.”

God smiled. It is simple, he said, Love only requires one skill. These people learned early on to share and feed one another. While the greedy only think of themselves…

[HWalsh]

Post after post of people in this thread who are just taking shots at a specific person (me in this case) but they don't seem to want to address the topic.

Here's the thing:

If you don't want to contribute, and instead just want to take shots because you don't like me? Get out of the thread.

I'm sure you're just trying to force a thread lock. I'm done being polite though. Stop trying to bully people and stay on discussion.

This is a topic to talk specifically about the potential bias that seems to be there. That is the topic. If you don't think there is one... Fine. Say that.

If you think that there might be one, but you don't think it's a big deal, say that. If you think there is one and want to discuss what that means? Say that.

If you want to be toxic and try to make mocking attacks? Get out.

Paizo may lock the thread, they probably should, but all of you people making personal attacks should be reprimanded.

To add:

I may not like the people attacking me. I may be blunt in my opinions. I don't back down when I think I'm right.

You may call me toxic, but when did I hunt any of you down to attack you, by name? I've had exchanges within a thread, but I don't go after anyone specifically. Even people I don't like.

I expect the same courtesy.

[knightnday]

HWalsh wrote:

This is a topic to talk specifically about the potential bias that seems to be there. That is the topic. If you don't think there is one... Fine. Say that.

There is not a bias. If there IS a bias, it doesn't seem to be a bad one.

[HWalsh]

knightnday wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

This is a topic to talk specifically about the potential bias that seems to be there. That is the topic. If you don't think there is one... Fine. Say that.

There is not a bias. If there IS a bias, it doesn't seem to be a bad one.

That is a valid response.

I'm not sure there is, or isn't, one yet. I just know that there seems to be a lot put forth on the class, it has a fully unique subsystem, and circumvents one of the core mechanics.

All of that still concerns me.

[The Thing From Another World]

If anyone is trying to get the thread locked it's you Hwalsh imo.

I can respect though not agree with a poster position if it's done in good faith. Which your not doing it all imo.

You come here post in a provocative and inflammatory manner. It's usually done from the point of view that your point of view is the correct one and the only correct one.

Lash out at myself and others on the forum for favoring other posts. Which by the way we are allowed to do without needing your permission to do so. Given your standard style of posting are you truly surprised why other posts contrary to yours are favored and yours are not.

If anyone is toxic it's you imo. Come here and demand validation of your posts and when you don't get it think their is some kind of conspiracy against you. Do you know how crazy that sounds.

[knightnday]

HWalsh wrote:

knightnday wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

This is a topic to talk specifically about the potential bias that seems to be there. That is the topic. If you don't think there is one... Fine. Say that.

There is not a bias. If there IS a bias, it doesn't seem to be a bad one.

That is a valid response.

I'm not sure there is, or isn't, one yet. I just know that there seems to be a lot put forth on the class, it has a fully unique subsystem, and circumvents one of the core mechanics.

All of that still concerns me.

Alchemist is the new shiny toy, with new mechanics and a new iconic to go with it. As I've mentioned before, perhaps the devs want to show off this new toy and what it can do in order to set the stage for changes to other classes and functions in the game.

[HWalsh]

Just a not-so-friendly warning. Any further posts in this thread not discussing the topic are being flagged.

[HWalsh]

nosig wrote:

?? sorry what ??

I do not think there is a bias for (or against) Alchemists. Not from the game designers or the Piazo staff. At least not more than for any other class (and in fact, less than some of the others).

And I would normally be willing to bet on that... realizing that this view is just opinion and it would be effectively impossible to "prove" it one way or the other. Trying to change the opinion of another poster about how Animal Companions were NOT "massively over-powered and breaking the game" taught me that (that it would be effectively impossible to "prove" it one way or the other).

I actually came onto this thread to read how there was a massive bias AGAINST Alchemists... only to find that the OP felt there was a bias FOR Alchemists.

SO...

Let's see a set of votes (realizing that this is just persons opinions)....

Is there a bias among the game designers and piazo staff:

For alchemists? ------0
Against alchemists? --0
To soon to see? ------0
some other answer? ---1

there's the counts, with my opinion expressed.

I like this post.

I'm still not sure - Like I said, I'm concerned - not certain.

I would put in a vote somewhere between "Too soon to see" and "For Alchemists"

[HWalsh]

nosig wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Just a not-so-friendly warning. Any further posts in this thread not discussing the topic are being flagged.

??what??

did someone flag this post? it is after all, not discussing the topic.

wait... yep, looks like this post as well as the one I am quoting are off-topic....

just to put this one back on topic, looks like the count is still:

For alchemists? ------0
Against alchemists? --0
To soon to see? ------0
some other answer? ---1

Nope. That comment wasn't directed to anyone specific. I liked your post.

[gustavo iglesias]

knightnday wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

This is a topic to talk specifically about the potential bias that seems to be there. That is the topic. If you don't think there is one... Fine. Say that.

There is not a bias. If there IS a bias, it doesn't seem to be a bad one.

There is a bias. But not by Paizo.

It is just that we human beings are pretty awful at detecting our own biases.

[HWalsh]

nosig wrote:

Edit: and for betting, I have a number of Boons I can offer up? if there is some way to "prove" it one way or the other, that there is or is not a Bias for/against the Alchemist class.

It's virtually impossible to prove the existence or lack of a bias.

This is all going off of hunches.

The class constantly being brought up can be a sign of bias, it can also be coincidence. It can even be a case of simply being the first class worked on thus having more concrete information to be talked about.

I'm just worried about it because my warning bells go off when core mechanics are circumvented by a class alongside a secondary system being created for it when the design goals were to simplify and both of those things intentionally complicate.

[QuidEst]

There are five classes of particular interest. The four most classic classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard), plus the “new kid”, Alchemist. I think it’s reasonable to say “no more so than Cleric” based on what we’ve got so far. Cleric has the spells, class, and upcoming deities blog, and was used for the example for the leveling blog, as well as being discussed with regard to archetypes. Why so much attention to Cleric and Alchemist? Because they’re the classes with the biggest changes. Alchemist is losing its Gatorade Wizard status, and Cleric is getting flavorful features.

Pure martial classes will probably all circumvent some core mechanic, since that’s what helps justify them as a class. Alchemist breaks resonance and consumable rules, Rogue breaks skill and skill feat rules, Fighter breaks proficiency rules, and Monk will probably break weapon rules (or maybe even action economy rules).

[PossibleCabbage]

I just think it makes most sense to start talking about the shiny new thing early on in the teaser process. People are attracted to novelty, and any other new mechanics that the class relies on will need to be explained in turn (where is that resonance blog?)

If the Alchemist is too good, that's a thing we can find out during the playtest when we stress test the rules. I don't think it's worth getting worked up about "one class has too much of the book relevant to it" since like 1/5 of the book is spells that a Barbarian will never cast, but the Barbarian is okay with that.

[Stephen Radney-MacFarland]

Twisted Crow wrote:

brad2411 wrote:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

brad2411 wrote:

Also you talk about 2 articles but there are more then 2 articles on the alchemist and once again I will state that they have talked about the Alchemist in almost everything we have seen them do from playtests to interviews.

Part of that issue may be because there are two blog posts, other folks in game journalism have *wanted* to talk about the alchemist. As far as interviews and such go, I've been on a few of them, but I'm as likely to talk about action economy, my love of black and white art (though I admit it might be nostalgia) and Shadow of the Demon Lord as I am about Alchemy.

Shadow of the Demon Lord, yes please!!

Off topic, but I'm excited to see shout-outs to this system (and that a designer with Paizo wrote some support content). I fell in love with the rule simplifications, character progression, and default setting fluff. After a one-off test session several weeks ago I'm finally starting a full campaign with it - excited to see how it plays out.

This thread has gone off topic lots of times, so one more will not hurt.

SotDL is great. It's designer, Rob Schwalb, is a good friend of mine. I got to see the book in all its iterations up to its release, and I've been happy to contribute to its expansion multiple times (and will do so again).

Rob and I worked with each other during my stint at Wizards of the Coast, and we quickly realized that we were kindred spirits in many ways, but mostly when it comes to game design. When I went to Paizo and he started working on 5e, we would still get together and talk design philosophy, but in a very general sense (NDAs and all). From those talks came some glimmers of what would become Shadow of the Demon Lord, a game I'm working on whenever I can squirrel away some free time, and some of the design in the Pathfinder Playtest.

I hope you enjoy your campaign.

[knightnday]

Neither comment was helpful in keeping the arguing down. As an aside, creating a thread does not grant one control over it. Flag material and move on to the discussion if it becomes a bother and let the mods sort it out.

More on topic, PossibleCabbage likely has the right idea. If we'd have seen Wizards followed by spells followed by magical rituals followed by familiars there would be concern that wizards were getting too much attention. Perhaps we're just seeing problems where there is just a jumble on the schedule of revealing information instead.

[nosig]

nosig wrote:

here is an interesting look at the difference between "Good" and "Evil" people...IMHO

** spoiler omitted **

I have no idea how this post of mine ended up in this thread... I was in a different thread when I posted it (one on why creating Undead is an evil act, and we were discussing the difference between Evil and Good Actions).

I did post some other comments here, but then decided I didn't like this thread at all and deleted my posts from it. And this post appears to have been put in the place of one of those deleted posts...I am not sure how that happened - and at this point my post is past the time where I can edit/delete it to remove it from here. Please ignore it - it was not originally posted in this thread.

I do hope it didn't get "flagged", as it wasn't originally posted here...

[Gorbacz]

Since Alchemists being core and alchemy being something more of a vital element of the game, it's only natural that Paizo will try to showcase things which help set PF2 apart from the competition. They can't rely on "our game is more D&D than the current D&D" that was true in 2009, because the current D&D doesn't suffer from what made it possible for Paizo to eclipse 4E.

[HWalsh]

knightnday wrote:

Neither comment was helpful in keeping the arguing down. As an aside, creating a thread does not grant one control over it. Flag material and move on to the discussion if it becomes a bother and let the mods sort it out.

More on topic, PossibleCabbage likely has the right idea. If we'd have seen Wizards followed by spells followed by magical rituals followed by familiars there would be concern that wizards were getting too much attention. Perhaps we're just seeing problems where there is just a jumble on the schedule of revealing information instead.

That is completely possible. We have a dev comment in the thread that they moved things around because it seemed like information on certain classes was front loaded. Thus it could simply be bad luck that put them together.

Personally part of that could be the jumping around Paizo did in the info release.

The info release started way too early so the trickle is detrimental.

It might have been better with a more structured release.

IE:
We do all the classes.
Then we do the systems.
Then we do...

That way, if you started with Alchemist you get all the other classes and all the races before we get any new information regarding Alchemists when we reached the Alchemy blog in the equipment section.

[HWalsh]

Gorbacz wrote:

Since Alchemists being core and alchemy being something more of a vital element of the game, it's only natural that Paizo will try to showcase things which help set PF2 apart from the competition. They can't rely on "our game is more D&D than the current D&D" that was true in 2009, because the current D&D doesn't suffer from what made it possible for Paizo to eclipse 4E.

That is possible, especially with how many parallels people are drawing between PF2 and 4e/5e.

I think there are other ways to do that though besides just with one class and subsystem.

By focusing on that aspect it can easily create the appearance of bias.

[TOZ]

HWalsh wrote:

Just a not-so-friendly warning. Any further posts in this thread not discussing the topic are being flagged.

Why you gotta tempt me so?

[Dekalinder]

I feel like this topic have long since diverted into ad hominem, so I urge everyone to let it die before someone comes in swinging the hammer left and right.

[HWalsh]

Dekalinder wrote:

I feel like this topic have long since diverted into ad hominem, so I urge everyone to let it die before someone comes in swinging the hammer left and right.

Honestly, the thread is fine so long as people don't launch into personal attacks for no reason.

[necromental]

TOZ wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Just a not-so-friendly warning. Any further posts in this thread not discussing the topic are being flagged.

Why you gotta tempt me so?

"Say it ain't so, I will not go, turn the lights off, carry me home....n-na n-na na na..."

[KingOfAnything]

I wish this thread was about actual alchemist/alchemy design areas of concern and not about meta-speculation.

[graystone]

TOZ wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Just a not-so-friendly warning. Any further posts in this thread not discussing the topic are being flagged.

Why you gotta tempt me so?

NOW I want to talk about the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow...

[Athaleon]

Is it not a well-known sign of bias to draw far-reaching conclusions from flimsy or ambiguous evidence (like Alchemists and Alchemy getting two blog posts between them)? Serious question.

And that's before accounting for your previous statements that you really don't like Alchemists to begin with, and ban them from your Golarion games. Which brings up an interesting side question: Do you ban players from playing Alchemist or do Alchemists not exist in your version of Golarion?

[Cole Deschain]

KingOfAnything wrote:

I wish this thread was about actual alchemist/alchemy design areas of concern and not about meta-speculation.

Indeed- my chief concern, as I stated in the Alchemist article itself?

Cole Deschain wrote:

[O]ne problem that this playtest Alchemist isn't really doing much about, so far as we know- the class is all over the place.

Me? I'm a bomb-chucking guy. My PF1 Alchemists barely even use extracts- they're mostly bombing platforms with some skills. I've never liked Mutagen in any of its forms, and so on.

The problem is...

Bombs, mutagen, extracts/elixirs/whateverwe'recallingthemnow?

All stuck to the same class in a somewhat uneven hodgepodge.

While it would be a space-devouring nightmare, I'd like to see Alchemists become far more a la carte... You dig mutagen? Then you should start with that, instead of bombs. Makes sense- your studies weren't focused on nasty throwables, you were focused on internal biochemistry. You hate potions and mutagens and like blowing things up? Sure, you majored in that branch of study...

The class is still, as designed, sort of all over the place, so far as it's possible to tell.