|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I hope this is a typo, or I swear I'm done with this edition.
The "Mutagen crafting" ability that alchemists got at 5 is completely gone (and they're still uncommon).
As of now, that means that the only one with access to mutagens, at all levels is the mutagenic path?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It does not. Under Advanced Alchemy, there's a paragraph that starts with "Each time you gain a new level, you can add formulas for two alchemical items to your formula book. These can be of any level of item you can create."
There's no restriction on rarity for the 2 formulas you add to your book when leveling up. These formulas can therefore be Mutagens. You also have the option of finding or buying uncommon mutagen formulas, or inventing them with the Inventor feat.
|
9 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pramxnim wrote: It does not. Under Advanced Alchemy, there's a paragraph that starts with "Each time you gain a new level, you can add formulas for two alchemical items to your formula book. These can be of any level of item you can create."
There's no restriction on rarity for the 2 formulas you add to your book when leveling up. These formulas can therefore be Mutagens. You also have the option of finding or buying uncommon mutagen formulas, or inventing them with the Inventor feat.
Everything uncommon is not available unless specifically told so. That's the rule, and Advanced Alchemy makes no such mention.
That was what the old level 5 ability did. Added "uncommon mutagens" to the "all" pool you could pick from.
Now, there's no provision of making uncommon mutagens available (look at mutagenic path and its specific language for that)
Inventor also specifically works only for common recipes.
What you're looking is exactly like spell selection:
"You can pick X spells"
Since there's no provision for rare/uncommon spells, you can't normally choose those.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ah, you're right. I looked in the rulebook and the wording remained the same there.
Pretty sure it's a typo though. It makes no sense to restrict mutagens, which were already kinda lacklustre, to the mutagenist only.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Can anyone from Paizo comment if this was an intentional massive nerf or a typo?
It basically makes bombers unplayable as an example (no access to +item to attack until level 16...)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I suspect it's an oversight. But yeah, we really should get some official word on this and soon. It does amplify my concerns that these class specialties that have been popping up are too mutually exclusive. They need to be opened up to allow more mixing of abilities. If the other specialties loose easy access to mutagens, then that's a big problem. Each individual aspect of the alchemist is still too weak already, losing access to any would be way too much. I'm almost inclined to think that alchemists should automatically get all the Research Fields benefits. The class needs every boost it can get.
I think what might have happened here is that a lot of the alchemist changes seem based on the Resonance Test. And in that, the one mutagen written up there was changed from uncommon to common. That part didn't get reprinted in the 1.6 update, but might be what they had in mind. But again, we should get some comment from the dev team on this.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jason has stated in the thread on rarity that uncommon rarity accessibility is linked to both build and GM approval. Effectively a 50/50 split between player agency and GM agency.
Which comes down to ask your GM if you can have the uncommon thing/why you should be able to have it and they can allow you to have it.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
PsychicPixel wrote: Jason has stated in the thread on rarity that uncommon rarity accessibility is linked to both build and GM approval. Effectively a 50/50 split between player agency and GM agency.
Which comes down to ask your GM if you can have the uncommon thing/why you should be able to have it and they can allow you to have it.
only this time it isn't like a single weird elixir.
it's all mutagens, one of the class defining aspects of Alchemists despite of build/path.
it's like making a Barbarian and having 0 access to any and all melee weapons without GM approval.
shroudb wrote: PsychicPixel wrote: Jason has stated in the thread on rarity that uncommon rarity accessibility is linked to both build and GM approval. Effectively a 50/50 split between player agency and GM agency.
Which comes down to ask your GM if you can have the uncommon thing/why you should be able to have it and they can allow you to have it.
only this time it isn't like a single weird elixir.
it's all mutagens, one of the class defining aspects of Alchemists despite of build/path.
it's like making a Barbarian and having 0 access to any and all melee weapons without GM approval. In this case, the class gives you the ability to choose any 2 formulas on level up which lets you sidestep the rarity hurdle. I am fairly certain that those formulas didn't need to be common before the update as well.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: PsychicPixel wrote: Jason has stated in the thread on rarity that uncommon rarity accessibility is linked to both build and GM approval. Effectively a 50/50 split between player agency and GM agency.
Which comes down to ask your GM if you can have the uncommon thing/why you should be able to have it and they can allow you to have it.
only this time it isn't like a single weird elixir.
it's all mutagens, one of the class defining aspects of Alchemists despite of build/path.
it's like making a Barbarian and having 0 access to any and all melee weapons without GM approval. In this case, the class gives you the ability to choose any 2 formulas on level up which lets you sidestep the rarity hurdle. I am fairly certain that those formulas didn't need to be common before the update as well. it doesn't work like that.
sorcerer as an example lets you pick up spells. that doesn't mean you can pick up uncommon/rare/etc spells.
in general the rule is:
unless specified, you can only pick common stuff.
since it is not specified in the ability, you can't pick up uncommon.
before the update, Alchemists had a specific level 5 ability that granted them access to the uncommon mutagens.
That ability now is listed only in the mutagenic path.
shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: PsychicPixel wrote: Jason has stated in the thread on rarity that uncommon rarity accessibility is linked to both build and GM approval. Effectively a 50/50 split between player agency and GM agency.
Which comes down to ask your GM if you can have the uncommon thing/why you should be able to have it and they can allow you to have it.
only this time it isn't like a single weird elixir.
it's all mutagens, one of the class defining aspects of Alchemists despite of build/path.
it's like making a Barbarian and having 0 access to any and all melee weapons without GM approval. In this case, the class gives you the ability to choose any 2 formulas on level up which lets you sidestep the rarity hurdle. I am fairly certain that those formulas didn't need to be common before the update as well. it doesn't work like that.
sorcerer as an example lets you pick up spells. that doesn't mean you can pick up uncommon/rare/etc spells.
in general the rule is:
unless specified, you can only pick common stuff.
since it is not specified in the ability, you can't pick up uncommon.
before the update, Alchemists had a specific level 5 ability that granted them access to the uncommon mutagens.
That ability now is listed only in the mutagenic path. Spells actually call out on 198 that you can't take them automatically from class advancement if they are not common. The alchemist's bonus formulas do not. I will also note that the alchemical crafting feat and the alchemist's bonus 2 lv. 1 alchemical formula both specifically call out that those formulas can only be of common quality while the alchemists bonus formulas at later levels do not.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: PsychicPixel wrote: Jason has stated in the thread on rarity that uncommon rarity accessibility is linked to both build and GM approval. Effectively a 50/50 split between player agency and GM agency.
Which comes down to ask your GM if you can have the uncommon thing/why you should be able to have it and they can allow you to have it.
only this time it isn't like a single weird elixir.
it's all mutagens, one of the class defining aspects of Alchemists despite of build/path.
it's like making a Barbarian and having 0 access to any and all melee weapons without GM approval. In this case, the class gives you the ability to choose any 2 formulas on level up which lets you sidestep the rarity hurdle. I am fairly certain that those formulas didn't need to be common before the update as well. it doesn't work like that.
sorcerer as an example lets you pick up spells. that doesn't mean you can pick up uncommon/rare/etc spells.
in general the rule is:
unless specified, you can only pick common stuff.
since it is not specified in the ability, you can't pick up uncommon.
before the update, Alchemists had a specific level 5 ability that granted them access to the uncommon mutagens.
That ability now is listed only in the mutagenic path. Spells actually call out on 198 that you can't take them automatically from class advancement if they are not common. The alchemist's bonus formulas do not. I will also note that the alchemical crafting feat and the alchemist's bonus 2 lv. 1 alchemical formula both specifically call out that those formulas can only be of common quality while the alchemists bonus formulas at later levels do not. items and recipes have the exact same language as spells on page 345.
basically:
both the casters and alchemist (on their section) have language that says "pick a spell/recipe"
and both the spells and items (on their sections) have language that says "you can only pick common"
the fact that on the Class section it doesn't specify that you can pick common, doesn't automatically mean you can pick uncommon or rare.
p.10 that has the base rarity rules clearly states that
Quote: A character can’t take these
options by default.
in rules language, since there's already an established rule (on the rarity, spell, and item, section respectively) about rarity, you need a specified exception from it.
in pf specific language, you need specifically "access" to uncommon spells/items.
to put it simply:
before 1.6, the language for the formula acquisition was exactly the same (...pick 2 recipes you can craft...) and then on level 5 you had:
Quote: Mutagen Crafting 5th
You learn the secret of mutagens. When you gain a new level and add new
formulas to your book, you can select formulas for uncommon alchemical
items with the mutagen trait.
after 1.6, the above ability is gone.
instead, you have
Quote: Mutagenist
Your field of research focuses on bizarre mutagenic
transformations that sacrifice one aspect of a creature’s
physical or psychological being to strengthen another. You
gain access to uncommon mutagens
do you see the difference?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
When i was making my alchemist for the 14th level adventure... i honestly missed the fact that they weren't getting mutagens and was reminded when the session started. It felt really awkward when this was pointed out as there aren't enough alchemist recipes in the book past the early levels where you get a bunch of cool utility elixers but around level 13; if you don't include mutagens then what will you take besides lower level poisons which don't really scale unless you take the feat for it?
It also feels really weird having your "typical" combat option of bombs as an alchemist be tied to a field in order to actually hit something some of the times.
What are the other options ment to do in the typical rounds of combat? Especially the chirurgeon made me wonder how i was going to do anything in a straight up fight.
I could be terrible at shooting a bow, terrible at throwing a bomb or multiclass into something like wizard and hopefully gain enough value there although that would be a heavy feat investment.... anything else i missed?
I like the idea behind the fields but i think they currently specialise to the point of competence rather so then expertise which feels a bit awkward as it feels like i was building half an alchemist at best when going with the chirurgeon one as it stands, the poison and mutagen one didn't really look all that much better for the same reasons.
In the end, i just gave up on most of the alchemist stuff and invested heavely into a wizard MC; believing it to be one of the better options which probably wasn't the intention?
As a GM I allow my players to take mutagens as formulas when they level up. Only a mutagenist Alchemist can take them at first level but after that they are fair game. Now since they are uncommon it would difficult for the players to stroll into any town and find an Alchemist that is able and/or willing to make them a mutagen because they are uncommon. But a PC Alchemist could learn them sure.
Since it's uncommon it's my choice as a GM to allow this to my players. As well as my ability to disallow this if I don't believe that it is something the player would have knowledge of or access to.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I am not sure why people react with "I am done with this edition" during playtesting because it's the feedback about what is needed, confusing, or otherwise unplayable that helps strengthen development and advancement of the playtest towards and more complete, playable final product.
Considering how far we've seen this edition advance so far, I'd say this kind of input (minus the ultimatums) is exactly what the devs need to hear about! :)
I agree, there needs to be some more tweaking to the alchemist class, including clarification on some aspects of it. I don't think it's quite the trainwreck some think it is, but it still needs refinement.
Clarification on the mutagens and possible remolding the class based on some of it's current lackings seems to be in order. While I don't want it to be the over-the-top balance wrecker it is in PF1, it needs some help still.
|
7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
ShadeRaven wrote: I am not sure why people react with "I am done with this edition" during playtesting because it's the feedback about what is needed, confusing, or otherwise unplayable that helps strengthen development and advancement of the playtest towards and more complete, playable final product.
Considering how far we've seen this edition advance so far, I'd say this kind of input (minus the ultimatums) is exactly what the devs need to hear about! :)
I agree, there needs to be some more tweaking to the alchemist class, including clarification on some aspects of it. I don't think it's quite the trainwreck some think it is, but it still needs refinement.
Clarification on the mutagens and possible remolding the class based on some of it's current lackings seems to be in order. While I don't want it to be the over-the-top balance wrecker it is in PF1, it needs some help still.
Main reason for the frustration is because devs seems 100% out of touch with the problems.
Most of the problems of the Alchemist stem from very poor itemization of the alchemical items.
Bonuses that don't stack with your preexisting mandatory equipment (armor)
Poisons that evaporate in thin air without any good reason
Mutagens that have far more severe penalties than bonuses
Universally terrible DCs compared to everyone else on their main stuff.
Etc
And yet, you see the changes, and you see that, not only do not they address the core issues that almost everyone has been harping about but:
Poisoners get poison resistance instead of something to help with actual application of poison, which statistically borders on "don't even bother with it" from players all around.
They get DC 14 abilities at level 7,and 3 action activity attack to (less than half the time) add a 1d4 damage.
Support based alchemists get abilities that straight up don't work due to the issues everyone keeps repeating (item bonuses)
And etc.
In short:
It's
A) the complete silence of the Devs on the "why" and "how" of a broken class.
B) at this point, it looks to me more like a tantrum from them, not fixing the core issues just because they have already printed them
C) disconnect with their own product (everyone but the alchemist, including classes, monsters and npcs have DCs based upon their level except alchemist)
And a lot more.
shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: PsychicPixel wrote: Jason has stated in the thread on rarity that uncommon rarity accessibility is linked to both build and GM approval. Effectively a 50/50 split between player agency and GM agency.
Which comes down to ask your GM if you can have the uncommon thing/why you should be able to have it and they can allow you to have it.
only this time it isn't like a single weird elixir.
it's all mutagens, one of the class defining aspects of Alchemists despite of build/path.
it's like making a Barbarian and having 0 access to any and all melee weapons without GM approval. In this case, the class gives you the ability to choose any 2 formulas on level up which lets you sidestep the rarity hurdle. I am fairly certain that those formulas didn't need to be common before the update as well. it doesn't work like that.
sorcerer as an example lets you pick up spells. that doesn't mean you can pick up uncommon/rare/etc spells.
in general the rule is:
unless specified, you can only pick common stuff.
since it is not specified in the ability, you can't pick up uncommon.
before the update, Alchemists had a specific level 5 ability that granted them access to the uncommon mutagens.
That ability now is listed only in the mutagenic path. Spells actually call out on 198 that you can't take them automatically from class advancement if they are not common. The alchemist's bonus formulas do not. I will also note that the alchemical crafting feat and the alchemist's bonus 2 lv. 1 alchemical formula both specifically call out that those formulas can only be of common quality while the alchemists bonus formulas at later levels do not. items and recipes have the exact same language as spells on page 345.
basically:
both the casters and alchemist (on their section) have language that says "pick a spell/recipe"
and both the spells and items (on their... Their language is not the same.
Page 345:
Like many other aspects of the rules, items have rarities.
Player characters might and uncommon magic items for sale,
but infrequently and often by private sellers or in clandestine
markets. Their formulas are often guarded and not readily
available. Unless the GM decides otherwise, a character cannot
purchase rare items, and their formulas are lost to time.
vs.
Page 198:
You can’t choose an uncommon or rare spell unless your class or the GM gives you access to it.
198 specifically forbids you from choosing the spell while 345 only discusses the rules for purchasing items and their formulas. I would say that you still probably can't pick up rare stuff this way, though; rare formula are lost to time~
That said, all this could be clearer.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: PsychicPixel wrote: Jason has stated in the thread on rarity that uncommon rarity accessibility is linked to both build and GM approval. Effectively a 50/50 split between player agency and GM agency.
Which comes down to ask your GM if you can have the uncommon thing/why you should be able to have it and they can allow you to have it.
only this time it isn't like a single weird elixir.
it's all mutagens, one of the class defining aspects of Alchemists despite of build/path.
it's like making a Barbarian and having 0 access to any and all melee weapons without GM approval. In this case, the class gives you the ability to choose any 2 formulas on level up which lets you sidestep the rarity hurdle. I am fairly certain that those formulas didn't need to be common before the update as well. it doesn't work like that.
sorcerer as an example lets you pick up spells. that doesn't mean you can pick up uncommon/rare/etc spells.
in general the rule is:
unless specified, you can only pick common stuff.
since it is not specified in the ability, you can't pick up uncommon.
before the update, Alchemists had a specific level 5 ability that granted them access to the uncommon mutagens.
That ability now is listed only in the mutagenic path. Spells actually call out on 198 that you can't take them automatically from class advancement if they are not common. The alchemist's bonus formulas do not. I will also note that the alchemical crafting feat and the alchemist's bonus 2 lv. 1 alchemical formula both specifically call out that those formulas can only be of common quality while the alchemists bonus formulas at later levels do not. items and recipes have the exact same language as spells on page 345.
basically:
both the casters and alchemist (on their section) have language that says "pick a spell/recipe"
and both the ... Even if there are slight discrepancies, nothing in the Advanced Alchemy language overules the general rule presented in p.10:
You cannot pick uncommon.
There was a reason the old level 5 ability existed.
And there is a reason why mutagenist has specific language granting access to uncommon mutagens.
Base alchemist lacks that language.
RAW wise there isn't even a question, they are indeed unable to learn mutagens.
You get "pick from X"
Going into X you see a rule "X(uncommon) needs specific access or GM fiat to be picked, X(common) is available to all"
It's as simple as that.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Main reason for the frustration is because devs seems 100% out of touch with the problems.
.
.
.
In short:
It's
A) the complete silence of the Devs on the "why"...
I suppose that's fair, but I do remind myself that this is a long process with many areas of need so *I* try to remain patient in areas I find needing direct attention.
For me, it's always good to step away for a few days, even weeks, and come back to see what's happened and how things have progressed to see the effort that's going into improving the game.
I *have* seen them make significant improvements to various aspects of this playtest ruleset without first acknowledging to each individual who's upset about something so I remain optimistic that our voices are heard and not every solution is so easily addressed quickly.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
ShadeRaven wrote: shroudb wrote: Main reason for the frustration is because devs seems 100% out of touch with the problems.
.
.
.
In short:
It's
A) the complete silence of the Devs on the "why"...
I suppose that's fair, but I do remind myself that this is a long process with many areas of need so *I* try to remain patient in areas I find needing direct attention.
For me, it's always good to step away for a few days, even weeks, and come back to see what's happened and how things have progressed to see the effort that's going into improving the game.
I *have* seen them make significant improvements to various aspects of this playtest ruleset without first acknowledging to each individual who's upset about something so I remain optimistic that our voices are heard and not every solution is so easily addressed quickly. The big difference here is this is the last actual update we'll see (we may get preview blogs, but the next time we'll have the actual rules will be release next year), they basically re-wrote the class, and yet these issues are still in play (and some even got added to, RE the Elixir Alchemist's issues and Poisoner getting Poison Resist instead of stuff to actually be good at Poisons.) I can understand the frustration in that light.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
They said 1.6 would be the last big update of the playtest, not the last update period. So I doubt they'll be rewriting any more classes from the ground up, but there's still room for some clarifications and minor fixes, like re mutagens at the very least giving alchemists a feat to access the benefits of another field of study.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote: . Most of the problems of the Alchemist stem from very poor itemization of the alchemical items.
Bonuses that don't stack with your preexisting mandatory equipment (armor)
Poisons that evaporate in thin air without any good reason
Mutagens that have far more severe penalties than bonuses
Universally terrible DCs compared to everyone else on their main stuff.
Etc
And yet, you see the changes, and you see that, not only do not they address the core issues that almost everyone has been harping about but:
Poisoners get poison resistance instead of something to help with actual application of poison, which statistically borders on "don't even bother with it" from players all around.
They get DC 14 abilities at level 7,and 3 action activity attack to (less than half the time) add a 1d4 damage.
Support based alchemists get abilities that straight up don't work due to the issues everyone keeps repeating (item bonuses).
This sums up several of the class’ issues. 1.6 provided a lot of great quality of life buffs, but a lot more needs to be done.
My Playtest experiences as both player and GM is that the core problem stems from a lacking Alchemy Item system. They don’t stand up to spells or magic items, despite being both the alchemist’s main class feature and a form of treasure/loot. Why isn’t there a Cold-Iron sheet, or higher level extracts (Cheetah elixir that grants accelerated 25, etc.)?
Feats feel more like necessities to make your items relevant, rather than make them more powerful. Quick Bomber feels worse than Quick Draw, and many bomber alchemists I’ve played and played with choose to kulticlasz for the improved action economy. Many other alchemist feats are also lackluster and feel more like a tax than a boon.
Bombs require too many feats to become a powerful weapon option, and even then they don’t compare to what a weapon or spell can do with similar or even less investment.
Mutagen bonuses compete with item bonuses, when they should compete with spells or have a different bonus type (Conditional or Circumstance). Additionally, scaling drawbacks make getting higher level mutagens feel punishing. Heroism is a straigh bonus, but True QS gives you -50 HP and penalized your Fort save while it’s bonuses compete with your ore-existing items.
Poisons should scale with class DC, and the research study/feats should boost their power in meaningful ways.
The level 17 feature also needs a re-evaluation. Being able to make 3 items with an action, and then only having two actions remaining means one item is wasted unless you take a feat. You shouldn’t need a feat to use a class feature.
I like the improvements I’m seeing, but much more needs to be fixed up.
shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: PsychicPixel wrote: Jason has stated in the thread on rarity that uncommon rarity accessibility is linked to both build and GM approval. Effectively a 50/50 split between player agency and GM agency.
Which comes down to ask your GM if you can have the uncommon thing/why you should be able to have it and they can allow you to have it.
only this time it isn't like a single weird elixir.
it's all mutagens, one of the class defining aspects of Alchemists despite of build/path.
it's like making a Barbarian and having 0 access to any and all melee weapons without GM approval. In this case, the class gives you the ability to choose any 2 formulas on level up which lets you sidestep the rarity hurdle. I am fairly certain that those formulas didn't need to be common before the update as well. it doesn't work like that.
sorcerer as an example lets you pick up spells. that doesn't mean you can pick up uncommon/rare/etc spells.
in general the rule is:
unless specified, you can only pick common stuff.
since it is not specified in the ability, you can't pick up uncommon.
before the update, Alchemists had a specific level 5 ability that granted them access to the uncommon mutagens.
That ability now is listed only in the mutagenic path. Spells actually call out on 198 that you can't take them automatically from class advancement if they are not common. The alchemist's bonus formulas do not. I will also note that the alchemical crafting feat and the alchemist's bonus 2 lv. 1 alchemical formula both specifically call out that those formulas can only be of common quality while the alchemists bonus formulas at later levels do not. items and recipes have the exact same language as spells on page 345.
basically:
both the casters and alchemist (on their section) have language that says "pick a ... Still, will all the times the game specifies that you only choose “common” formulas, it seems pretty clear to me that they intend you to be able to choose uncommon formulas on level up. I would also interpret the automatic formulas as overriding the general rule that uncommon items are difficult to get without working with the DM.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: Excaliburproxy wrote: shroudb wrote: PsychicPixel wrote: Jason has stated in the thread on rarity that uncommon rarity accessibility is linked to both build and GM approval. Effectively a 50/50 split between player agency and GM agency.
Which comes down to ask your GM if you can have the uncommon thing/why you should be able to have it and they can allow you to have it.
only this time it isn't like a single weird elixir.
it's all mutagens, one of the class defining aspects of Alchemists despite of build/path.
it's like making a Barbarian and having 0 access to any and all melee weapons without GM approval. In this case, the class gives you the ability to choose any 2 formulas on level up which lets you sidestep the rarity hurdle. I am fairly certain that those formulas didn't need to be common before the update as well. it doesn't work like that.
sorcerer as an example lets you pick up spells. that doesn't mean you can pick up uncommon/rare/etc spells.
in general the rule is:
unless specified, you can only pick common stuff.
since it is not specified in the ability, you can't pick up uncommon.
before the update, Alchemists had a specific level 5 ability that granted them access to the uncommon mutagens.
That ability now is listed only in the mutagenic path. Spells actually call out on 198 that you can't take them automatically from class advancement if they are not common. The alchemist's bonus formulas do not. I will also note that the alchemical crafting feat and the alchemist's bonus 2 lv. 1 alchemical formula both specifically call out that those formulas can only be of common quality while the alchemists bonus formulas at later levels do not. items and recipes have the exact same language as spells on page 345.
basically:
both the casters and alchemist (on their section) have ... The same exact language existed before, when we had an extra ability that specifically only added Uncommon mutagens to that "all" you can pick.
They didn't even change the text, it's copy paste the old text.
So, given that you have the same text but in one you have a whole separate ability to grant said access, and in the other you don't, there's no way that's true.
Plus again, Raw is pretty clear. The rule on p. 10 isn't contested at all.
Edit:
More probably the text is written as such exactly BECAUSE of said (now removed) ability:
It was:
"pick an elixir"
What elixirs are allowed? Common ones before 5,common+uncommon after you gain mutagens at 5
Now it is:
"pick an elixir"
What elixirs are allowed? Only common.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Fuzzypaws wrote: They said 1.6 would be the last big update of the playtest, not the last update period. So I doubt they'll be rewriting any more classes from the ground up, but there's still room for some clarifications and minor fixes, like re mutagens at the very least giving alchemists a feat to access the benefits of another field of study. Are you sure about that? Because from the 1.6 blog:
Shining Lights and Dark Stars wrote: The final chapter of Doomsday Dawn brings with it the final planned update for the Pathfinder Playtest, Update 1.6, and it's a big one! Emphasis mine.
Removed a post.
Respect your fellow posters. Do not diminish another's concerns or point of view.
I would note.
That without the previous versions of the Mutagen lv 5 ability?
I would, and others I know, read the level up "pick a formula" as unrestricted. Because without that lv 5 ability situation PREVIOUS to this iteration being an example of "intent" then the current would read as a specific trumping general situation. since the level up does not specify "formula you have access to" or some form of that.
Each rules should probably be read in and of itself, not with the lens of previous iterations of it.
Intent wise? No clue.
I do know that it ~should~ completely allow an alchemist to choose any formula they level qualify for. ALchemists are the special item guys. They're the ones who make the rarer formula or rediscover them.
It is really very much in their flavor that they should be able to come up with new things that their region has not seen before.
The level ups aren' them magically knowing new stuff. It represents their growth and learning.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, I haven't read EVERY post on this thread, but... I find it interesting that they added NEW mutagens in 1.06, and all of those mutagens are uncommon as well.
I agree that it must be an oversight that they left mutagens uncommon. This essentially restricts their availability to non-mutagenist fields. They dont limit poisons to poisoners, nor elixers of life to cherugeons only. So, it doesn't make sense that only mutagenists have access to mutagens (barring DM intervention of course).
But again, quite odd that they added the handful of low-level mutagens and kept them as uncommon. Hard to determine if the uncommon tag is intended or not.
Curioser and curioser.
Not sure if this has been gone over or not, but Uncommon has been stated more than once by Devs to not be a "You can never get this unless a feat or feature grants you access". Unless it's a spell or item or something the GM thinks will jack with their campaign then to quote a dev (Mark Seifter I think? Maybe Jason B.) almost verbatim, "Uncommon means you should be able to get your hands on it if you search around a bit".
I mean, if that weren't so then uncommon spells would be totally out too since most of them don't have an access method.
It's a meaningful distinction from "Only if you're granted access or the GM says yes", because it makes it clear that while the GM has the right to keep it from being attained, unless they have a really good reason then you are supposed to be able to get it. It's just a little trickier.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
I'm pretty sure the intent was to make mutagens uncommon for everyone but Mutagenic Alchemists. I'm surprised they didn't make a feat allowing other alchemists to open their abilities up to be able to choose them however. Especially since they Mutagenic Alchemists get bonuses to the mutagens they produce/use, it seems like they attempted to balance them as having an advantage over other non-mutagenic alchemists that make mutagens.
I suppose that if an alchemist gets a hold of a mutagen, they can make a roll to reverse engineer it potentially, to gain access to produce it.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Edge93 wrote: Not sure if this has been gone over or not, but Uncommon has been stated more than once by Devs to not be a "You can never get this unless a feat or feature grants you access". Unless it's a spell or item or something the GM thinks will jack with their campaign then to quote a dev (Mark Seifter I think? Maybe Jason B.) almost verbatim, "Uncommon means you should be able to get your hands on it if you search around a bit".
I mean, if that weren't so then uncommon spells would be totally out too since most of them don't have an access method.
It's a meaningful distinction from "Only if you're granted access or the GM says yes", because it makes it clear that while the GM has the right to keep it from being attained, unless they have a really good reason then you are supposed to be able to get it. It's just a little trickier.
Issue is that rarity is also used to warn the GM that Wish is kind of a risky thing to give to players if you haven't thought through the implications, and it's also used when something actually is supposed to be exclusive to some feat or class option. There's going to be a lot of angry Alchemist players unable to convince their GM to let them have access to build-critical mutagens, or make them go through multiple sessions before finding something they needed a month ago.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Edge93 wrote: Not sure if this has been gone over or not, but Uncommon has been stated more than once by Devs to not be a "You can never get this unless a feat or feature grants you access". Unless it's a spell or item or something the GM thinks will jack with their campaign then to quote a dev (Mark Seifter I think? Maybe Jason B.) almost verbatim, "Uncommon means you should be able to get your hands on it if you search around a bit".
I mean, if that weren't so then uncommon spells would be totally out too since most of them don't have an access method.
It's a meaningful distinction from "Only if you're granted access or the GM says yes", because it makes it clear that while the GM has the right to keep it from being attained, unless they have a really good reason then you are supposed to be able to get it. It's just a little trickier.
It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.
In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.
Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.
Tezmick wrote: It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.
In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.
Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.
The other thread had a perfectly valid reason for it, and the need for a GM to approve or deny stuff is inescapable for Pathfinder as there's going to be an absurd number of splatbooks, no doubt.
Generally everything uncommon is either meant to be class exclusive like a power (no normal way for someone that didn't take a class feat or earn a class feature to get it RAW), or it's not build critical. Spells like Detect Alignment are never something that a character would reasonably want to build themselves around, rather they're uncommon because the spell or item in question is setting/faction specific or becuase it has the potential to disrupt an adventure on a narrative level (ie making murder mysteries very difficult to run when the party can read minds and magically compel confessions).
It's no more disruptive than being told you can't find a katana at the local blacksmith, you just don't have any way to learn that obscure spell. No one is going to be missing out on their character concept unless their character concept is tailor-made to ruin the fun of the campaign; in which case, that person should mind the other people at the table and come up with a less disruptive concept.
Mutagens are a weird outlier, where it's sorta implied a GM should let Alchemists get it but there's also a specific class option that grants unrestricted access. It's a weird misuse of rarity as we currently understand it so it puts the GM in a weird spot where they're trying to guess the intentions of the game designers. GM's should probably say yes since bombing without mutagens is hard, or maybe mutagens should be exclusive to those with the right class feature and the class needs rebalanced to reflect that.
I think it's more a hiccup of the iterative nature of the playtest, with Alchemists needing to go through dramatic changes to function properly. I hope the final version comes up with a better way to handle this.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Loreguard wrote: I'm pretty sure the intent was to make mutagens uncommon for everyone but Mutagenic Alchemists. I'm surprised they didn't make a feat allowing other alchemists to open their abilities up to be able to choose them however. Especially since they Mutagenic Alchemists get bonuses to the mutagens they produce/use, it seems like they attempted to balance them as having an advantage over other non-mutagenic alchemists that make mutagens.
I suppose that if an alchemist gets a hold of a mutagen, they can make a roll to reverse engineer it potentially, to gain access to produce it.
That literally makes archetypes like bomber unplayable since without item bonus to hit (quicksilver mutagen) they end up with hilariously low attack bonuses, having -5 to hit and etc.
If it was the intent, it shows that devs are extremely ignorant about how even their own mechanics and balance works.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Tezmick wrote: It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.
In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.
Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.
How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?
Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.
I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to it. From the sounds of things, "collaborative" is a code word for players being entitled to everything they want while the GM isn't allowed to say anything.
Charon Onozuka wrote: Tezmick wrote: It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.
In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.
Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.
How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?
Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.
I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to it. From the sounds of things, "collaborative" is a code word for players being entitled to everything they... Only that taking mutagens away from alchemist is exactly the same as:
"You, fighter, can never get a magic weapon. All the other characters, enemies, and npcs will still get their normal magic weapons. "
And not a silly comparison like removing a single spell out of the hundreds of them.
Or, to speak in spells like you, removing all other schools of spells except the one you specialised in.
Personally, if my GM thought that it was reasonable only evokers to do evocation and only evocation, only illusionists to do illusion and only illusion, and that the only one not permitted to have a magic weapon to be the fighter, I would call him crazy and leave.
Now, this is the CORE of the class.
Really pathetic.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Charon Onozuka wrote: Tezmick wrote: It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.
In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.
Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.
How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?
Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.
I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to it. From the sounds of things, "collaborative" is a code word for players ... Except it's not nearly as crippling.
You get to Master rank in bombs eventually and even without Mutagens you can get an item that gives a +2 item bonus. All in all in the end you will at worst be 3 or 4 accuracy behind most martials. Which sucks, but it's not nearly as crippling as you act like, at least when you consider that you target touch which will cut at least a point or two off of that deficit depending on the foe and will take 3 or 4 points off for some, which would actually make up the difference entirely. There are scant few foes whose AC and TAC are equal.
And to compare to the magic weapon analogy you still get your full damage dice, it's only accuracy that lags. And as mentioned above it isn't actually that much of a lag when you consider it.
And this is all assuming your GM is either inexperienced or unreasonable to a degree that he bars you from Mutagens or otherwise has reason to.
Not to mention the bomb splash on a miss can be made to be almost as strong as a Fighter's Certain Strike, one of the best Fighter feats out there. That is a consideration I see WOEFULLY ignored when people voice grievance about the Alchemist.
@shroudb My comment was based on Tezmick's remarks towards the rarity system as a whole, something which I've seen a bit too much recently and felt necessary to respond to. It was not a comment about the specifics of mutagens being uncommon.
On that topic, I personally feel like this is the result of paizo still feeling out exactly how the alchemist class should be in PF2. They've already significantly changed the class during the playtest and I would not be surprised if the final draft ended up significantly different yet again. It's the class they've probably messed with most since 1E (completely divorcing it from magic) and they likely have more plans regarding it that they can't mention yet while the playtest surveys are still up.
Also, I'd disagree that mutagens are the core of the class. Alchemical items are the core of the class, with that being something which can be expressed in various ways. Even in PF1, some characters didn't care to use mutagens (or bombs) or even traded them away as part of an archetype.
Regarding the current implementation of mutagens in the Playtest, I could see room for a class feat that got non-mutagenic alchemists access to mutagens with a pair of formula, but not the other benefits of the mutagenist reserach field (similar to how druid feats related to their wild order work).
Also, right now mutagens seem to be in an odd place, partially because the alchemist was changed mid-way into the playtest. Making mutagens common or changing their bonus to a stacking bonus would suddenly have all classes eyeing them for potential minmaxing, which is clearly not the intent from what was originally an alchemist class feature. Additionally, there was talk of making some of the existing item bonuses (particularly from magic armor/weapons) more innate to a character's progression - which would also necessitate changing exactly how the current write up of mutagens work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Edge93 wrote: shroudb wrote: Charon Onozuka wrote: Tezmick wrote: It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.
In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.
Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.
How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?
Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.
I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to it. From the sounds of things, "collaborative" is a ... Permanent -4 to hit when you can't even attack more than 2 times max per round is not crippling for a character entirely focused on hitting stuff? (do remember that you can never max dex as an alchemist since only int is primary, so when you get that Elusive end game +2 item you're stuck with 1 less dex even if you max it)
That's exactly as severe as I put it:
A fighter without magic weapons, when everyone else get magic weapons is "only -2 behind the others, not that crippling" right?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Again, as others have pointed out, Mutagens are uncommon now. So all you have to do is talk to your GM like an adult and say "hey, I'm a bomber focused Alchemist and my character has been researching ways to modify their body to achieve better accuracy with my bombs. Can I take the Quicksilver Mutagens?"
Unless your GM is a dick, if they are just leave the game not worth it, they will let you.
shroudb wrote: Edge93 wrote: shroudb wrote: Charon Onozuka wrote: Tezmick wrote: It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.
In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.
Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.
How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?
Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.
I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to it. From the sounds of ... If you actually READ the post, the difference between True Quicksilver Mutagen and Greater Alchemist's Goggles is a -3 (I know I put "3 or 4" but that was regarding Dex not being a key ability score for Alchemists, that was my bad as it is irrelevant to mutagen vs. no mutagen) WHICH IS ALMOST ALWAYS MOSTLY OR FULLY NEGATED BY TARGETING TOUCH. Please try to get the salt out of your eyes before reading a post you are going to try and argue. It's a -3 objective penalty that is in practice -0 or -1 most of the time, OCCASIONALLY -2 or 3.
And the rate of fire point isn't terribly relevant given iterative attacks kinda suck and it's balanced out by splash damage and highly useful rider effects.
And UNLIKE a Fighter without magic weapons, they suffer no damage penalty.
So in the end they have to suffer hitting about as often as a Barbarian or Ranger instead of more often than a Fighter. Honestly, that's not a terrible place to be in. It's much better to have mutagens, but it's far from unplayable otherwise. And you aren't taking a major HP and Fortitude tank this way, either.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Edge93 wrote: shroudb wrote: Edge93 wrote: shroudb wrote: Charon Onozuka wrote: Tezmick wrote: It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.
In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.
Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.
How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?
Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.
I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to ... The touch attack is exactly because by design you have lower bonus.
It is you who brought it in the picture in the 1st place.
In short, you're getting -4 to attack compared to everyone else.
As for damage:
I'd argue that the 3d12+7 power attack with just a level 1 feat is comparable to 6d8+1 of an alchemist.
Both require 2 actions either way.
Add a barb multiclass and you have 3d12+20 which far outstrip the 6d8+6 and their equally comparable.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
PsychicPixel wrote: Again, as others have pointed out, Mutagens are uncommon now. So all you have to do is talk to your GM like an adult and say "hey, I'm a bomber focused Alchemist and my character has been researching ways to modify their body to achieve better accuracy with my bombs. Can I take the Quicksilver Mutagens?"
Unless your GM is a dick, if they are just leave the game not worth it, they will let you.
Mutagen were ALWAYS uncommon.
Alchemist had a feature to get them, which is now removed.
As for reasonable to get ANYTHING uncommon, it should be equal in the party no?
So, according to you, all casters should be balanced around carrying a couple of Rings of Wizardry (100% equally uncommon) since it is "rrasonable" to have equal access as the other party members to uncommon stuff.
You see how this skewers things?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So much anger
If a ranger came to me as a GM and asked for Quicksilver Mutagen id decline. Why would they get that without a reason for having access to it?
I recently had a player ask if he could take Globe of Invulnerability on his wizard. Uncommon spell. However he is an abjuration specialist so I gave it to him. If he was an evoker or enchanter than no I wouldn't let him have it.
Your example of ring of wizardry would be an easy yes to wizards assuming the current area they are in, if during a campaign, would resonably have that type of item. If it was during character creation. Than again easy yes for wizards, hard no for non casters.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Edge93 wrote: shroudb wrote: Edge93 wrote: shroudb wrote: Charon Onozuka wrote: Tezmick wrote: It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.
In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.
Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.
How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?
Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.
I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional ... And again, pardon my emphaticness but is like the third time I've had to spell this out, IT'S NOT A -4 TO HIT WHEN YOU HAVE AN ACCURACY 4 POINTS LOWER BUT ARE AIMING AT AN AC THAT IS 2 OR 3 POINTS LOWER. IT'S A -1 OR 2. WHICH IS MITIGATED BY VARIOUS OTHER THINGS.
How many times does that have to be said?
Also worth noting, a non-mutagen 1.6 Alchemist is only 1 point at MOST behind a pre-1.6 Alchemist with Quicksilver. And my group's Playtest experience at least showed that Bomber Alchemists in parts 1 and 4 were perfectly playable. But that's not entirely relevant to the matter at hand.
As to the damage thing, comparing a ranged attack with rider effects to a 2-handed attack with the strongest weapon and n such effects just doesn't work. Try comparing bombs to a Longbow and see how it looks then.
Also could you help me out with where Barb MC gives a +13 to damage? Barb MC gives rage damage as if half level, this caps at +4 damage.
And that's STILL disregarding INT+2 splash on miss, which adds a few points to average damage easily. (I see you put "6d8+1" so I assume you're giving regard to splash damage on hit, but I really don't think a self-respecting bomber isn't going to boost that. I see your second example with Barb MC lists it as +6 now for some reason, though Alc splash will get higher than that.)
Also it's entirely possible to attack with bombs in less than two actions. The Alchemist in my group rarely walks around without a bomb or two in hand incase a fight starts, giving a couple 1-action throws straight-off. Also there's a class feat to draw 2 bombs as one action (Or to make one and draw one at the same time when using quick alchemy), so you can easily draw and throw twice with 3 actions. Not to mention making 2 bombs at the same time is a thing at mid levels.
Seriously, your last post was mostly just angrily ranting and making fairly inapplicable comparisons while ignoring half of the points I made. Could you maybe be a little more reasonable and actually give regards to my points as I am doing for yours so we might have some productive discussion? It's a lot easier to get somewhere when I don't have to keep repeating half of what I say because you ignore it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Charon Onozuka wrote: Tezmick wrote: It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.
In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.
Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.
How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?
Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.
I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to it. From the sounds of things, "collaborative" is a code word for players being entitled to everything they... If it requires a GM ok before I can take it I don’t want it in the core rulebook I’d rather it be in a supplement.
As for players being entitled I never said there should be no rarity or limited supply I said there should be clear rules not a big GM’s discretion tag if that’s the route they want to take I personally think it should be in a DM focused book the players handbook should be for the player if I can’t play the character I want then what’s the point.
As for magic gear I lean more into negotiations here as items are acquired in game not on character creation (inless starting at a higher level) or level up so I think it’s fine if I can’t find something (the caveat being if I never find anything for my character and the campaign is approaching high levels)
Tezmick wrote: If it requires a GM ok before I can take it I don’t want it in the core rulebook I’d rather it be in a supplement.
As for players being entitled I never said there should be no rarity or limited supply...
Those statements are almost directly contradictory... The rarity system means, in most cases, getting GM okay to take a thing.
Tezmick wrote: the players handbook should be for the player if I can’t play the character I want then what’s the point. This is kind of exactly the kind of entitlement Charon was referring to. Putting aside the fact that this statement taken with a little less context easily devolves into the idea that players should be able to just do and have whatever they want no matter what the GM says (Again, the entitlement Charon is speaking of), Paizo shouldn't have to make everything either unconditionally available to the players or else stick it in a GM book. Frankly that's silly.
Something being in the Player book with a rarity tag instead of a GM book is a courtesy, it lets players no that option exists but they need to take certain options or work with their GM to get it. If you put it in the GM book only because "Well I can't have it without GM permission so what's the point", then a lot of players won't even know the option exists so they won't even know to ask about it in the first place!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Edge93 wrote: Tezmick wrote: If it requires a GM ok before I can take it I don’t want it in the core rulebook I’d rather it be in a supplement.
As for players being entitled I never said there should be no rarity or limited supply...
Those statements are almost directly contradictory... The rarity system means, in most cases, getting GM okay to take a thing.
Tezmick wrote: the players handbook should be for the player if I can’t play the character I want then what’s the point. This is kind of exactly the kind of entitlement Charon was referring to. Putting aside the fact that this statement taken with a little less context easily devolves into the idea that players should be able to just do and have whatever they want no matter what the GM says (Again, the entitlement Charon is speaking of), Paizo shouldn't have to make everything either unconditionally available to the players or else stick it in a GM book. Frankly that's silly.
Something being in the Player book with a rarity tag instead of a GM book is a courtesy, it lets players no that option exists but they need to take certain options or work with their GM to get it. If you put it in the GM book only because "Well I can't have it without GM permission so what's the point", then a lot of players won't even know the option exists so they won't even know to ask about it in the first place! Well if you want to talk in extremes then why have players make characters at all?
Just have the GM make them all apparently that’s the only way they can be trusted.
I don’t know what kind of munchkins you play with that you feel the need to micromanage everything I got news paizo can limit options all they want people will always find a way to break a system, if the only way you can trust a player is by banning things and telling them how to play then I think you have a much bigger issue at hand.
|
