Concerned about Alchemist bias...

[jimthegray]

HWalsh wrote:

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.

just not seeing any bias here from paizo

like not even a little bias

[Malachandra]

HWalsh wrote:

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

I feel like you brought the whole "cartel of users plotting against you" conversation on yourself. Is something off topic if the original poster brings it up? And if it is off topic, do you get to complain since you started the conversation? I mean, you can't land a punch then run and hide behind "I'm now flagging this conversation I started".

That said, I'd like to bring up a topic I'm very concerned about: spell bias. We had an entire blog just on spells. I've been very hopeful that Paizo will finally end the caster/martial disparity, but the existence of a conversation on the new spell system has me worried. Is it too premature to say that PF2 will not only continue the C/MD, but perhaps blow it into even wilder proportions? I mean, we haven't seen a blog post on attack rolls and combat maneuvers yet. They really should have posted both the spells blog and the martials blog at the exact same time, to avoid any questions of bias.

EDIT: Paizo has also shown that Alchemists were the most popular non-Core class in PF1 (followed closely by the Oracle, Witch, and Magus). It even beat out some Core classes.

[Athaleon]

I wouldn't read too much into the order in which information comes out. There could be any number of reasons spells were blogged about before combat maneuvers, including the possibility that spells dont require much major tweaking but martial abilities/combat maneuvers do, so the latter will take more time to develop into a state that the developers feel comfortable telling us about. They're not going to announce that "maneuvers work like this" if they feel there's a good chance they'll start over with a radically different mechanic.

[1of1]

graystone wrote:

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...

Garundi, or Avistani?

[KingOfAnything]

Cole Deschain wrote:

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.

That was a big problem I had with PF1 alchemist. I never really had a character concept gel for me.

I like that the design seems to be focused on the craft of alchemy first, but I really want to see more alchemical items. I think a lot of the alchemists success will be based on the robustness of alchemy options. What I want to see is good choices of elixirs for the less explosive-inclined alchemist and a variety of status effects delivered by splash weapon bombs so that your choice of preparation feels meaningful.

[graystone]

1of1 wrote:

graystone wrote:

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...

Garundi, or Avistani?

Numerian! It's the shiny metal-looking one. And before you ask, without rocket boosters! ;)

PS: Now I want an alchemist with a rocket powered familiar...

[HWalsh]

Athaleon wrote:

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?

Okay:

First - Don't engage in Whataboutism. Meaning you can't dismiss the topic by saying: "What about you? You don't like Alchemists!"

I'm not the only poster in this thread who has said they kept seeing the Alchemist brought up a lot.

Second - Two blog posts is a LOT when there are still entire classes who haven't been mentioned at all.

Third - Though not pursuant to the topic - In my home game the Alchemist class doesn't exist generally (save for settings where it does) though there are people with Brew Potion and Craft Alchemy.

[HWalsh]

Malachandra wrote:

That said, I'd like to bring up a topic I'm very concerned about: spell bias. We had an entire blog just on spells. I've been very hopeful that Paizo will finally end the caster/martial disparity, but the existence of a conversation on the new spell system has me worried. Is it too premature to say that PF2 will not only continue the C/MD, but perhaps blow it into even wilder proportions? I mean, we haven't seen a blog post on attack rolls and combat maneuvers yet. They really should have posted both the spells blog and the martials blog at the exact same time, to avoid any questions of bias.

EDIT: Paizo has also shown that Alchemists were the most popular non-Core class in PF1 (followed closely by the Oracle, Witch, and Magus). It even beat out some Core classes.

I actually agree and disagree there.

I don't really believe in the Caster Martial Disparity.

I mean that by saying I believe there are power gamers who ruin the game for others by mega optimizing classes that make other players feel useless and that Casters are easier to do this with than other classes.

I don't feel this is a Caster v Martial issue. I've seen (esp. in high level PFS) power gamers make Martials that make non-optimized casters look like jokes.

I do believe that Vancian Casting is a balance issue on the whole.

-----

As to releasing more martial information...

I agree. Given that the entire martial combat system got overhauled - The fact that BAB is no longer a thing being at the top - That Combat Maneuvers and Martial Combat options should've had a higher information priority than say Gnomes.

-----

I don't think there has been enough information about spellcasting to create bias concerns. The reason being that of the classes:

Alchemist, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard...

Seven of them are casters in PF2...

One of them was a caster in PF1... (Alch)

Leaving only four pure Martials, and two of those four Martials have had Blog posts already.

Unlike with Alchemy, which pertains primarily to the Alchemist, Spellcasting affects Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard.

[Sara Marie]

I've locked the thread and removed some posts.