Concerned about Alchemist bias...


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So far we've seen an article on Alchemists and then on Alchemy.

With so few other articles it worries me that two have been on the same topic. On a class that shouldn't even be in a CRB as it's not a core class.

It feels... Odd... And worries me... That this class is getting so much preferential treatment.

Developer bias is a thing (see Guardians of the Veil from the initial Mage the Awakening - or just look at Starfinder's Operative) and this smells all kinds of suspect to me.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Silver Crusade

27 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

After the article on Rogues we got an article on Skills.

The rogue bias must end!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
But it is going to be a core class. And Alchemy is coming front and centre for anyone with the Craf-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.

I've seen this happen before.

It never ends well. Dev bias is really bad and needs to be put it in check. Whoever is pushing this agenda needs to be checked.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Taking time to make alchemy and alchemical items a balanced part of the game instead of something tacked on after the fact is giving alchemy preferential treatment over how it was handled in the first edition, but that doesn't mean it is more important than magic or other parts of the game. Alchemy is an important part of the world of Golarion, and the developers want that system integrated into the games core mechanics as opposed to being something developed later. Having non-magical items worth buying at higher levels is something I am happy to see balanced into the game from the beginning.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So when we get a blog on Wizards will there be Wizard bias? Afterall we will have had a blog on both Spells AND Wizards at that point. Or Clerics, Sorcerers etc.

The Alchemy preview came out after the Alchemist preview because that makes sense. One raised a lot of questions the other helped to answer. Now I believe they should have done this for a spell caster after the magic preview but magic didn't change as much as alchemy did and didn't have a singular example to show off.

Also your reason for exclusion is incredibly circular (like your reasoning for only LG Paladins) Alchemists can't be in the core book because they aren't core, and the reason they aren't core is because they aren't in the core book. As soon as they are in a core book (like they will be in PF2E) your logic is done with.

Also like others have said, alchemy is a mechanic open to everyone with a single feat investment.

Silver Crusade

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
But it is going to be a core class. And Alchemy is coming front and centre for anyone with the Craf-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.

I've seen this happen before.

It never ends well. Dev bias is really bad and needs to be put it in check. Whoever is pushing this agenda needs to be checked.

Overactive imaginations should be kept in check as well. We'll see how it goes.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Alchemy is a major systems change. Ask yourself, if Alchemist didn't exist would the Alchemy changes, as listed, still be worth a Blog?

The answer is definitively yes given the vast expansion of Alchemy and what it can do and its availability to any character with a single Skill Feat. It's at least as relevant a change as the magic changes listed in the Spells Blog.

Since that's true, I'm pretty sure any accusations of bias are highly premature.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:

So far we've seen an article on Alchemists and then on Alchemy.

With so few other articles it worries me that two have been on the same topic. On a class that shouldn't even be in a CRB as it's not a core class.

It is a core class now. They are adding a core class.

HWalsh wrote:
It feels... Odd... And worries me... That this class is getting so much preferential treatment.

It's not. Fighter got a blog on actions to provide context for its abilities. Rogue got a blog on skills to provide context for its abilities. Alchemist got a blog on alchemy to provide context for its abilities. One reason Alchemist got picked for the new core class is because having a larger focus on alchemical items helped other classes too.

HWalsh wrote:
Developer bias is a thing (see Guardians of the Veil from the initial Mage the Awakening - or just look at Starfinder's Operative) and this smells all kinds of suspect to me.

Paizo's not White Wolf. This seems more like player bias to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Taking time to make alchemy and alchemical items a balanced part of the game instead of something tacked on after the fact is giving alchemy preferential treatment over how it was handled in the first edition, but that doesn't mean it is more important than magic or other parts of the game. Alchemy is an important part of the world of Golarion, and the developers want that system integrated into the games core mechanics as opposed to being something developed later. Having non-magical items worth buying at higher levels is something I am happy to see balanced into the game from the beginning.

Too bad all we got from that read on alchemy is that if you are not an alchemist you shouldn't bother reading the chapter.

Bombs deals no damage without the alchemist multiplier, potion and elixirs eat on your resonance unless you are using the quick alchemy class feature, and poisons still have the same old crappy CD that are not going to reliably kill even a random commoner.
Honestly that blog looked too much like Alchemist part 2 than a separate system compared to skills and actions.


As I mentioned in the other thread I anticipate that poison (which is covered in the alchemy blog) will be significant for rogues with poison use (which might be all rogues or it may be class feat) and potentially for rangers as well (likely only those who take a class feat). How consumables interface with characters is important to everyone (which is covered in the blog) and it helps introduce us to a new subsystem that will be important to pretty much every non-arcane spellcaster who comes across a swarm.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
QuidEst wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

So far we've seen an article on Alchemists and then on Alchemy.

With so few other articles it worries me that two have been on the same topic. On a class that shouldn't even be in a CRB as it's not a core class.

It is a core class now. They are adding a core class.

HWalsh wrote:
It feels... Odd... And worries me... That this class is getting so much preferential treatment.

It's not. Fighter got a blog on actions to provide context for its abilities. Rogue got a blog on skills to provide context for its abilities. Alchemist got a blog on alchemy to provide context for its abilities. One reason Alchemist got picked for the new core class is because having a larger focus on alchemical items helped other classes too.

HWalsh wrote:
Developer bias is a thing (see Guardians of the Veil from the initial Mage the Awakening - or just look at Starfinder's Operative) and this smells all kinds of suspect to me.
Paizo's not White Wolf. This seems more like player bias to me.

Yeah, the ToC in Paizo books are actually useable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Dekalinder wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Taking time to make alchemy and alchemical items a balanced part of the game instead of something tacked on after the fact is giving alchemy preferential treatment over how it was handled in the first edition, but that doesn't mean it is more important than magic or other parts of the game. Alchemy is an important part of the world of Golarion, and the developers want that system integrated into the games core mechanics as opposed to being something developed later. Having non-magical items worth buying at higher levels is something I am happy to see balanced into the game from the beginning.

Too bad all we got from that read on alchemy is that if you are not an alchemist you shouldn't bother reading the chapter.

Bombs deals no damage without the alchemist multiplier, potion and elixirs eat on your resonance unless you are using the quick alchemy class feature, and poisons still have the same old crappy CD that are not going to reliably kill even a random commoner.
Honestly that blog looked too much like Alchemist part 2 than a separate system compared to skills and actions.

I dunno, the ability to create 50% concealment on the cheap to be extremely appealing idea to me. Or crafting my own poisons as a rogue, or tanglefoot bags as a ranged character (to stop enemies getting to me) or as a melee character (to stop enemies getting away from me.) This is before we consider we saw only the weakest alchemical options the game is going to have. Whether or not it is worth it will very much depend on the full scope of alchemical items available.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Not adding the alchemist to core -> People will say Paizo is being lazy.

Alchemist is added to core without any changes to alchemy -> People will say the class is tacked on.

Alchemist is added to core with an overhaul of the alchemy system -> People will say Paizo is giving too much attention to the class.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Developer bias is a thing (see Guardians of the Veil from the initial Mage the Awakening - or just look at Starfinder's Operative) and this smells all kinds of suspect to me.

Y'know, I missed this bit the first time through. I just want to stop and take a moment and boggle at the Operative being thought of as favored over other classes in Starfinder. Operative has something like half the DPR of a Soldier or Solarian (okay, a little more, but less than 60%), and lacks the spells of a Mystic or Technomancer. That leaves only the Envoy (who's actually better at the skills they specialize in than the Operative, plus an excellent party buffer) and the Mechanic (who has some advantages, but I guess can honestly be argued to have less impressive ones).

That's not being overly favored. Spells are still the most powerful thing in the game, even with only 6 levels of spontaneous casting, and DPR is still super relevant. Operatives tend to be the kings of skills, but even there Envoys are on par and they truly excel nowhere else. They're a good class, certainly, because skills are useful in Starfinder, but basically every other Class (except maybe Mechanic) is notably better within their specialty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
a class that shouldn't even be in a CRB

We all have our biases, don't we? I think that your concerns about bias influencing the game are perfectly reasonable. There's really no way that it won't happen to some degree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


Developer bias is a thing (see Guardians of the Veil from the initial Mage the Awakening - or just look at Starfinder's Operative) and this smells all kinds of suspect to me.

I have seen people claim operatives are too weak and operatives are overpowered. So just to be sure, are you saying that in your subjective opinion devs have a bias against operatives, or that they favor them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with others in this thread who've said it's a little too early to worry about Alchemist bias. We've only seen bits and pieces of the overall system, so we only know so much about how Paizo has focused their efforts.

Overall, I'm feeling optimistic about the direction they're heading. I don't love everything, but I like more than I dislike.

Am I totally stoked about the Alchemist? As a player, no. It's not my cup of tea. As a DM and fan off Fantasy in general, yes. It's a good include that many players and GM's really like in there. Adn it adds a lot of potential to the game and genre.

I'm more concerned about the treatment of the Paladin and Sorcerer, but that's another can of worms altogether. :D


gustavo iglesias wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Developer bias is a thing (see Guardians of the Veil from the initial Mage the Awakening - or just look at Starfinder's Operative) and this smells all kinds of suspect to me.
I have seen people claim operatives are too weak and operatives are overpowered. So just to be sure, are you saying that in your subjective opinion devs have a bias against operatives, or that they favor them?

I can pretty much mathematically prove the Operative is well over tuned. Add to it the way SFS is structured to mega focus on skill heavy builds and it's clear there was some bias going on.

It happens with every game. It's unavoidable unless one looks for the signs and curbs it.

It happens in tabletop RPGs, mmorpgs, you name it. It isn't always intentional.

You start by looking at:
"Why?"

The core classes are:

Cleric
Sorcerer
Wizard
Rogue
Bard
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin

Then... Oddly... Alchemist. Which wasn't a core class.

So why add Alchemist to the core lineup?

Are Pathfinder Alchemists the most popular class? No.

Were they a core class? No.

Were they a highly requested class? No. They were in the initial announcement so they couldn't be requested and gunslingers were just as popular.

So... Why?

In a system where they've been trying to homogenize and simplify systems - Magic, for example. They created a whole new system for Alchemy, and then added a sub-system for bombs, which are only worthwhile if you're an Alchemist.

That... Is out of place... Those are all danger signs.

Does this mean 100% that there is bias? No. Where there is smoke doesn't always mean there is fire.

However if nothing is said then later on, if it does appear, then people can say: "Nobody saw anything."

I see it. It seems worth looking into. Doesn't mean anything is there, but doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


Are Pathfinder Alchemists the most popular class? No.

Were they a core class? No.

Were they a highly requested class? No. They were in the initial announcement so they couldn't be requested and gunslingers were just as popular..

You have some data the rest of us don't? 'cause I recall one of the devs saying that, with their information, alchemist is the most popular not core class, even beating out some core classes.

Silver Crusade

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Vigilant for... what? "Hey we have this whole new setup to try out! Let's see what all we can do with it!" ...? You're throwing around the word "bias" to implicate a negative but it's a meaningless buzzword without anything to go off of.

Also,

HWalsh wrote:

So why add Alchemist to the core lineup?

Were they a core class? No.

So a class can't be added to Core because it wasn't a Core class but if it was a Core class then it wouldn't need to be added to Core... ow...


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I should have checked the original poster's name before clicking this thread. Another "it's not what I want, so it's bad" idea.

Alchemist has been said to have been one of the most popular classes in the game. It's also one of the most unique (I don't really count hybrid for this cause those classes are by nature mash ups, despite the outcome). And finally it's the class with the biggest need of a redesign. Not from a power perspective, but the PF1 alchemist is a creation of putting a square peg in a round hole. Making it core gave them a reason to make the hole square.

But maybe it's my player bias, as I like the class. Just like your bias that it shouldn't be core because it isn't "classical" enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish we can gain proficiency with alchemy to boost damage as other classes, seems sad that only alchemist can boost bomb damage.

Even if not as high, it would be better to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jedi8187 wrote:

I should have checked the original poster's name before clicking this thread. Another "it's not what I want, so it's bad" idea.

Alchemist has been said to have been one of the most popular classes in the game. It's also one of the most unique (I don't really count hybrid for this cause those classes are by nature mash ups, despite the outcome). And finally it's the class with the biggest need of a redesign. Not from a power perspective, but the PF1 alchemist is a creation of putting a square peg in a round hole. Making it core gave them a reason to make the hole square.

But maybe it's my player bias, as I like the class. Just like your bias that it shouldn't be core because it isn't "classical" enough.

HWalsh is a grumpy old fart (virtual, of course), but e has been here a long time, obviously cares, and has reasonably intelligent points to make, so I think e adds value and like to read what e has to say, regardless of whether I agree.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

The core classes are:

Cleric
Sorcerer
Wizard
Rogue
Bard
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin

Then... Oddly... Alchemist. Which wasn't a core class.

So why add Alchemist to the core lineup?

Are Pathfinder Alchemists the most popular class? No.

Were they a core class? No.

Were they a highly requested class? No. They were in the initial announcement so they couldn't be requested and gunslingers were just as popular.

So... Why?

In a system where they've been trying to homogenize and simplify systems - Magic, for example. They created a whole new system for Alchemy, and then added a sub-system for bombs, which are only worthwhile if you're an Alchemist.

That... Is out of place... Those are all danger signs.

Does this mean 100% that there is bias? No. Where there is smoke doesn't always mean there is fire.

However if nothing is said then later on, if it does appear, then people can say: "Nobody saw anything."

I see it. It seems worth looking into. Doesn't mean anything is there, but doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant.

Wait, so you consider Paladin to be core, but not Barbarian, Druid or Monk? :P

Seriously though, as much as I don't care for the Alchemist as it was in PF1, and I don't find myself liking it significantly more as they've told us about it in PF2, it doesn't really bother me to have it included, and if it is going to be in the game, which it will be sooner or later anyway, it makes better sense to make it core so they can properly integrate the Alchemist's abilities to the core rules, so we don't have a repeat of "this ability works exactly like making a potion, except it's different in almost every way, because we have to balance it" that we had in PF1. Which is pretty much exactly what they explained as the reasoning for including it. It may not be the most popular, but it is popular, and it's the one popular non-core class that's abilities would benefit drastically from being included in core. Sure everybody loves Magus, Witch, and Oracle, but those classes don't really have any mechanics that are necessary to detail "out-the-gate" like Alchemy. Even if I myself would prefer to see any or all of those 3 in core above Alchemist, I can see why they made the decision.
I also will admit I like that they're actually making Alchemical items semi-relevant too. For example the Bottled Lightning they mentioned seems like it would be popular with Rogues, even without it being powered up. I also like that Alchemical items are now relevant to Alchemists, instead of being a (usually meaningless) tack-on to the class


3 people marked this as a favorite.

All you people that are trying to badmouth Paizo for adding core races and classes need to hush. the "Core" class and race situation weren't even decided by them for the first one they were copying a pre-existing formula and now they're trying to make something their own. Alchemist is Paizo's Baby. Goblins are their Pet race. it makes perfect sense to add both to the core books seeing as the Goblin and the Alchemist are Paizo's Goblins are their Mascot and Paizo's Alchemist is its most popular creation so far.

And on top of that Until we get Playtest Material IN HAND and can PLAY IT you don't know what this game is going to be like you cant make snap decisions based on near to no information just because you "FEEL" something based on a fear of change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we can't critique what they give us what's the point of even having a playtest forum?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there very clearly is evidence of Alchemist Bias. I have it because I want the Alchemist in core. The game designers seem to have it, too. After you acknowledge the bias, the next step is to think about whether the bias has prevented you from making a better choice. Objectively criticizing the bias is absolutely legit. I think it is a mistake to attack someone for being "anti-Paizo" for calling out a bias with which they disagree. This isn't a math book we are talking about where bias in favor of an answer that is incorrect is harmful; it is a game book in which bias in favor of that which will be fun for more people is fine. You can't figure out what is more fun for people without knowing what people think (though you may need to filter some of the louder voices).

My opinion might be seen as a little self-serving because if the thread was about goblins in core, well...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Probably it will be biased, it is the same as the goblin. By adding to core you make them front and center. You make them crap well that is a blunder.

Seems logical. On a side note, it also don't means the other classes have to be worse, just that the alchemist must be "new" enough to call out the system.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


I can pretty much mathematically prove the Operative is well over tuned. Add to it the way SFS is structured to mega focus on skill heavy builds and it's clear there was some bias going on.,,,

no, you can't. You tried unsuccessfully in a whole thread in the starfinder forum, and there is no need to port that to this forum, but you can't, at all, because it is not true. Deadmanwalking did a good briefing and I have no interest to derail this thread, but it is simply untrue that Operatives are overturned. They do a ton less damage and has no spells in exchange for their skill mastery

Quote:


So... Why?

Same reasons goblins are core. Because DnD 5e does not have them, and PF need things unique to PF in order to fight the 900lb gorilla


I have no access to stats but I will add my +1 for alchemists. Yay, alchemists! I very much enjoy my alchemist in PF1; he contributes meaningfully to the team.

Alchemist is my favorite class from APG. If in PF2 alchemy in general gets overhauled for the better, I might actually buy it. Looking forward to the (free! Year-long!) playtest and adventure pdfs.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Are Pathfinder Alchemists the most popular class? No.

From the previously non-core classes, Alchemist and Oracle were the most popular. (At least, according to Mark Seifter.) Alchemist had a couple reasons it got in over Oracle. You can't do something very similar to Alchemist with other classes (whereas Oracle shares some similarities to Cleric and Sorcerer), and Alchemist's items can be used by other classes (which Oracle revelations can't).

HWalsh wrote:
Were they a core class? No.

They wanted to add a new core class. That's the point.

HWalsh wrote:
Were they a highly requested class? No. They were in the initial announcement so they couldn't be requested and gunslingers were just as popular.

Gunslingers weren't included for a couple reasons. They're a common flavor ban, and even in Golarian they're very rare, so they didn't feel they were a good fit for core. They also felt the mechanics for Gunslinger deserved some more dedicated playtesting, rather than being included with playtesting the system itself.

HWalsh wrote:
In a system where they've been trying to homogenize and simplify systems - Magic, for example. They created a whole new system for Alchemy, and then added a sub-system for bombs, which are only worthwhile if you're an Alchemist.

They've only kind of added a subsystem. Craft(Alchemy) already existed as a weird subsystem of regular crafting. Now it's going to be a polished subsystem of regular crafting instead. They're just using bombs to refer to what used to be called splash weapons. Instead of Alchemist getting special not-an-item bombs, they just make better versions of the bomb items.

HWalsh wrote:

That... Is out of place... Those are all danger signs.

Does this mean 100% that there is bias? No. Where there is smoke doesn't always mean there is fire.
However if nothing is said then later on, if it does appear, then people can say: "Nobody saw anything."
I see it. It seems worth looking into. Doesn't mean anything is there, but doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant.

I'm not really getting the concern. Who are they going to overshadow with their focus on a category of items that everybody used to ignore? They're a better poisoner choice than Rogue, but Rogue's 20 skill feats seem to go an awfully long way towards giving them their own area to shine, and you already couldn't build a decent poisoner Rogue.

EDIT: I mean, there's also no harm in you worrying about it. I just disagree with Alchemist being a favorite class, and I don't think that it would be a problem. But, me disagreeing doesn't really carry more weight or anything.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
vorArchivist wrote:
If we can't critique what they give us what's the point of even having a playtest forum?

I always hate seeing this line of argument being thrown up to deflect from topics that don’t actually add to the discussion being shot down. Just because something is a criticism doesn’t mean it is worth being brought to others attention. It really makes no sense to argue that any and every concern needs to be aired out and taken seriously, because plenty of concerns are simply not valid no matter how real they may feel to some people.

The idea that there is a bias towards alchemists just because they are being added to core (?!) and got two blog posts that go into their mechanics, out of like what? 10 or twelve so far? And it is four months until the prerelease? So that’s like another 16 blog posts coming in the meantime? And some random person can’t understand how it is crazy talk to suggest that there is a bias towards this one class, but because it’s a critique their opinion is above criticism and should be seen as contributing to the discussion?

Nah, HWalsh gave no good argument to why alchemists have gotten preferential treatment to an extent it will be detrimental to the game, this topic isn’t really adding to the discussion. I’m not sure what signs would indicate we should be keeping an eye out for detrimental bias but there sure haven’t been any yet.


29 blogs actually, if they keep on their Monday and Friday schedule. More if they occasionally post on Wednesdays again like they did originally, or if you include the occasional interviews like the one Jason did this week.

Definitely PLENTY of time to cover all the remaining classes and plenty of other stuff besides :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously they need to name a Class Feat or Elixir Formula "Alchemical Bias" now...


you mean like how Arcanists had an "magical supremacy" capstone?


Quandary wrote:
Obviously they need to name a Class Feat or Elixir Formula "Alchemical Bias" now...

I think not, I hate in-jokes.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do see it as a bias as it feels like more info has come out on the alchemist then really any other class. 2 blogs dedicated to it. A whole "interview" on it that came out the same day as the alchemist preview came out. Quite a bit more info on a lot of other interviews and playtests.

But I will say that me seeing bias could and most likely is Paizo trying to create hype on the goblins and the alchemist which is new stuff to the core rulebook. I really wish they chose something else to start hyping more.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

But you could say the same for the Rogue and the Fighter, brad2411 - in each case the class got a preview, and then there was a mechanical/system preview which related to them - Skills for the Rogue, and Crits for the Fighter (IIRC).

That's all we've seen here - a class with an associated mechanical preview. It just so happens that the class and the sub-system pretty much share a name.

Equally, I wouldn't be surprised by a Paladin blog being paired with an Alignment system post - though I think I'd only be touching the forum with an 11 foot pole for that week ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

AHH The sky! It is falling! (presumably raining alchemical potions)

(yes I know my avatar isn't a chicken Their was no chickens to my chagrin!)


brad2411 wrote:

I do see it as a bias as it feels like more info has come out on the alchemist then really any other class. 2 blogs dedicated to it. A whole "interview" on it that came out the same day as the alchemist preview came out. Quite a bit more info on a lot of other interviews and playtests.

But I will say that me seeing bias could and most likely is Paizo trying to create hype on the goblins and the alchemist which is new stuff to the core rulebook. I really wish they chose something else to start hyping more.

I mean, given that its probably the most changed class of those spoiled im not terribly surprised.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

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

That's when the real drama starts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

...and then, no matter what, the excrement will hit the oscillating air circulation device.

Someone is going to walk away hurt from that one.

NO, I'm not encouraging nor am I condoning violence! There's just no way all parties can be satisified when there are folks camping out the extremes of the paladin discussions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
brad2411 wrote:
I do see it as a bias as it feels like more info has come out on the alchemist then really any other class. 2 blogs dedicated to it. A whole "interview" on it that came out the same day as the alchemist preview came out. Quite a bit more info on a lot of other interviews and playtests. .

They are previewing the stuff that will get people excited, and new options are more exciting than rules that most people yawn over. In addition, they may be soliciting feedback, or at least looking for a bit of 'how does this play with the fanboys' response, on whatever bit of the rules that are currently looking at, especially if a lot of changes have been made.

After all, if the rules on the terrain effect on movement are currently in a file labelled "Mark do the final write up by May 23!!!" we aren't getting that blog till the end of next month, if ever. (But when we do I DEMAND that we have in depth rules for Medium Bog to fill the gaping hole between the Deep Bog and Shallow Bog rules.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
brad2411 wrote:

I do see it as a bias as it feels like more info has come out on the alchemist then really any other class. 2 blogs dedicated to it. A whole "interview" on it that came out the same day as the alchemist preview came out. Quite a bit more info on a lot of other interviews and playtests.

But I will say that me seeing bias could and most likely is Paizo trying to create hype on the goblins and the alchemist which is new stuff to the core rulebook. I really wish they chose something else to start hyping more.

That alchemy has 2 articles out and other classes has 1 is not bias, it is just the fact that you can only present one thing per blog, and something has to be first. If they had made a blog about, say, the cleric instead of the alchemist, then we would have an article about Clerics plus one about spells, while we would only have one about alchemy. Same goes with rogues + skills, or fighters + combat

The only bias here is yours. Because they did not pick first what you would like to see first, you think they are biased.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

There’s also the fact that they copped some criticism for the early blogs not providing enough meat. If they’ve responded to that, it’s going to mean that the more recently previewed classes appear to be being given more attention than those previewed earlier.

Yet again, it’s another case of jumping the gun based on what is basically a marketing campaign, rather than on the playtest (which is when we see the actual rules). Already, the designers have said there have been one or two public statements which now contradict the playtest as it will be printed. We really won’t be able to make these kinds of “big picture” judgements until August. Compare the fighter (or whatever) treatment and Alchemist treatment then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The good news as I see it is that the feedback from those lucky enough to be involved in the early play testing is overwhelming positive.

The negativity seems to be mostly speculation from those who weren't involved.

I am happy to see the alchemist in core and don't consider that to be evidence of bias.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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."

1 to 50 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Concerned about Alchemist bias... All Messageboards