Errata and APG Playtest Updates???


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

251 to 285 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Angel Hunter D wrote:
So,[] and minor healing potions got a 33% increase in price. Blegh.

Nope - the price of minor healing potions in the Equipment chapter was an obvious typo. The price was always correct in the Treasure chapter.

Besides, if 1d8 healing cost 3 gp, there would be zero reason for the 1d6 healing (minor elixir of life I think it's called), which costs 3 gp.

So no change and no blegh, thankyouverymuch :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
Yea there really seems to be no way to play the Mutagen chugging melee mauler in 2e.

There is, you just need to pay the cost in actions for drawing and drinking them.

(Since this is a thread about errata, as opposed to a thread about random changes people want, I believe clarity prevents confusion)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Megistone wrote:
The good point of Flashback is that it's a free action (and it's missing the trigger, by the way).

What would the trigger be? I thought the Flashback was supposed to happen when the Mutagenist Alchemist wanted it to happen.

Liberty's Edge

David knott 242 wrote:
Megistone wrote:
The good point of Flashback is that it's a free action (and it's missing the trigger, by the way).

What would the trigger be? I thought the Flashback was supposed to happen when the Mutagenist Alchemist wanted it to happen.

From what I understood watching the stream that is exactly the idea, the Alch can burp it up as a free action whenever they like to reuse 1 minute of a mutagen they've already ingested that day.

They discussed how it is intended to also encourage mutagenists to prepare a larger variety of mutagens as they noted that man alchemists only ever prepare multiple copies of the same one instead of having more versatility, which as I understand it, is their primary "thing."


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
From what I understood watching the stream that is exactly the idea, the Alch can burp it up as a free action whenever they like to reuse 1 minute of a mutagen they've already ingested that day.

That's disgusting. Thank you so much for that imagery.


WatersLethe wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
From what I understood watching the stream that is exactly the idea, the Alch can burp it up as a free action whenever they like to reuse 1 minute of a mutagen they've already ingested that day.
That's disgusting. Thank you so much for that imagery.

That is pretty much how Jason described it. Mutagenists are now professional regurgitators.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
From what I understood watching the stream that is exactly the idea, the Alch can burp it up as a free action whenever they like to reuse 1 minute of a mutagen they've already ingested that day.
That's disgusting. Thank you so much for that imagery.
That is pretty much how Jason described it. Mutagenists are now professional regurgitators.

So they just threw up in their mouth a little? :P


graystone wrote:
Unicore wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
From what I understood watching the stream that is exactly the idea, the Alch can burp it up as a free action whenever they like to reuse 1 minute of a mutagen they've already ingested that day.
That's disgusting. Thank you so much for that imagery.
That is pretty much how Jason described it. Mutagenists are now professional regurgitators.
So they just threw up in their mouth a little? :P

No it's like how sometimes you burp and you can taste the last thing you ate. Like that.


David knott 242 wrote:
Megistone wrote:
The good point of Flashback is that it's a free action (and it's missing the trigger, by the way).

What would the trigger be? I thought the Flashback was supposed to happen when the Mutagenist Alchemist wanted it to happen.

I don't know what's the intention behind it. Are there other defined free actions that don't have a trigger?


Megistone wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Megistone wrote:
The good point of Flashback is that it's a free action (and it's missing the trigger, by the way).

What would the trigger be? I thought the Flashback was supposed to happen when the Mutagenist Alchemist wanted it to happen.

I don't know what's the intention behind it. Are there other defined free actions that don't have a trigger?

Talking and releasing your grip both spring to mind. The trigger rule is that you can't have more than one free action or reaction proc off the same trigger.


Reziburno25 wrote:

1 per day for mutagenists flashback seems pretty limited.

Sure, it's limited, but it also opens up design space to print alchemist feats that let you do it more often, or for longer, or for greater effect. Errata just isn't the place to create new feats out of whole cloth.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Reziburno25 wrote:

1 per day for mutagenists flashback seems pretty limited.

Sure, it's limited, but it also opens up design space to print alchemist feats that let you do it more often, or for longer, or for greater effect. Errata just isn't the place to create new feats out of whole cloth.

When something is broken, the errata should fix it.

The "fix" should definitely be in the core class and not on mandatory feat taxes to patch a malfunctioning core.

They could use the "new feats" space for actual new interesting abilities rather than sticking to them being math fixes for the Alchemist while everyone else gets new abilities from them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:
The good point of Flashback is that it's a free action (and it's missing the trigger, by the way).

It's perfectly valid for a free action to not have a trigger:

Core Rulebook Page 461 wrote:
A free action with no trigger follows the same rules as a single action (except the action cost), and a free action with a trigger follows the same rules as a reaction (except the reaction cost).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Reziburno25 wrote:

1 per day for mutagenists flashback seems pretty limited.

Sure, it's limited, but it also opens up design space to print alchemist feats that let you do it more often, or for longer, or for greater effect. Errata just isn't the place to create new feats out of whole cloth.

When something is broken, the errata should fix it.

The "fix" should definitely be in the core class and not on mandatory feat taxes to patch a malfunctioning core.

They could use the "new feats" space for actual new interesting abilities rather than sticking to them being math fixes for the Alchemist while everyone else gets new abilities from them.

The Errata was targeting the Research Field, not the entire class at this time.

Reusing any Mutagen you’ve drank that prep period sounds on par with turning off your splash damage or using Craft instead of Medicine on Medicine checks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Reziburno25 wrote:

1 per day for mutagenists flashback seems pretty limited.

Sure, it's limited, but it also opens up design space to print alchemist feats that let you do it more often, or for longer, or for greater effect. Errata just isn't the place to create new feats out of whole cloth.

When something is broken, the errata should fix it.

The "fix" should definitely be in the core class and not on mandatory feat taxes to patch a malfunctioning core.

They could use the "new feats" space for actual new interesting abilities rather than sticking to them being math fixes for the Alchemist while everyone else gets new abilities from them.

The Errata was targeting the Research Field, not the entire class at this time.

Reusing any Mutagen you’ve drank that prep period sounds on par with turning off your splash damage or using Craft instead of Medicine on Medicine checks.

Except how you can turn off your splash damage on every bomb you throw for the entire day, allowing you to double down on tossing bombs even for single target damage.

And how you can use Craft instead of Medicine on every Medicine check all day.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Quintessentially Me wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Reziburno25 wrote:

1 per day for mutagenists flashback seems pretty limited.

Sure, it's limited, but it also opens up design space to print alchemist feats that let you do it more often, or for longer, or for greater effect. Errata just isn't the place to create new feats out of whole cloth.

When something is broken, the errata should fix it.

The "fix" should definitely be in the core class and not on mandatory feat taxes to patch a malfunctioning core.

They could use the "new feats" space for actual new interesting abilities rather than sticking to them being math fixes for the Alchemist while everyone else gets new abilities from them.

The Errata was targeting the Research Field, not the entire class at this time.

Reusing any Mutagen you’ve drank that prep period sounds on par with turning off your splash damage or using Craft instead of Medicine on Medicine checks.

Except how you can turn off your splash damage on every bomb you throw for the entire day, allowing you to double down on tossing bombs even for single target damage.

And how you can use Craft instead of Medicine on every Medicine check all day.

Reusing previously drank Mutagens all day would be too strong.

The other research fields are cool but anything i’d be interested in (make my bomb... less explodey? That would make Torgue sad).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Reziburno25 wrote:
1 per day for mutagenists flashback seems pretty limited.

If you compare what bombers and chirurgeons get with their corresponding class features, the Mutagenist Flashback is actually at about the right power level. None of them are particularly impressive.

Dataphiles

Quintessentially Me wrote:
Rysky wrote:

[The Errata was targeting the Research Field, not the entire class at this time.

Reusing any Mutagen you’ve drank that prep period sounds on par with turning off your splash damage or using Craft instead of Medicine on Medicine checks.

Except how you can turn off your splash damage on every bomb you throw for the entire day, allowing you to double down on tossing bombs even for single target damage.

And how you can use Craft instead of Medicine on every Medicine check all day.

To also get a little pedantic, but your all day bomb alteration isn't really all day. It's limited by the number of bombs you have available.

It also lowers the damage potential for the bombs since they lose splash while letting you use your bombs in more places. It's choosing to nerf your bombs so that they can be used more often.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's kind of crazy that the majority of the community agreed that Mutagenist alchemists were clearly underpowered and when Paizo had one chance to at least fix it a bit with the errata, they added such an underwhelming and situational ability as Mutagenic Flashback. Looking at the reactions on the forum, it's already one of the most discussed and disliked changes. So disappointing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Faenor wrote:
It's kind of crazy that the majority of the community agreed that Mutagenist alchemists were clearly underpowered and when Paizo had one chance to at least fix it a bit with the errata, they added such an underwhelming and situational ability as Mutagenic Flashback. Looking at the reactions on the forum, it's already one of the most discussed and disliked changes. So disappointing.

Actually to be fair, it was a proposed changed by a forum member (literally, exactly as written pretty much).

The bigger issue is that it was expected that the alchemist overall needed something extra besides the bulk changes (which were pretty much required, because as is even the iconic was encumbered).

Being able to recall a mutagen was kinda the "bare minimum" expected because the Field of study didn't do anything at all with the changes to unarmed proficiency.

The whole class is just in a weird spot. I wouldn't be surprised if the Investigator becomes the "fix" to the Alchemist in the same way that the Ninja was the "fix" for Rogue until UC Rogue was released.

Dataphiles

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
The whole class is just in a weird spot. I wouldn't be surprised if the Investigator becomes the "fix" to the Alchemist in the same way that the Ninja was the "fix" for Rogue until UC Rogue was released.

I don't think Investigator will do that. I think options from the 2E Advanced Player's Guide will be what fixes it.


Faenor wrote:
It's kind of crazy that the majority of the community agreed that Mutagenist alchemists were clearly underpowered and when Paizo had one chance to at least fix it a bit with the errata, they added such an underwhelming and situational ability as Mutagenic Flashback. Looking at the reactions on the forum, it's already one of the most discussed and disliked changes. So disappointing.

Since the first wave of errata was already planned to be put out now, the heavy-work fixes for alchemists likely didn't have enough time to fully bake.

Yes, people are grumpy (both that alchemist wasn't good-to-go on release, and that the solution hasn't manifested already) - but that doesn't mean the fix isn't in the works with the rest of the stuff that needs further attention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Faenor wrote:
It's kind of crazy that the majority of the community agreed that Mutagenist alchemists were clearly underpowered and when Paizo had one chance to at least fix it a bit with the errata, they added such an underwhelming and situational ability as Mutagenic Flashback. Looking at the reactions on the forum, it's already one of the most discussed and disliked changes. So disappointing.

I'm not even sure why the developers hate on the Alchemist so much. Going back to 1e, Alchemist was a very popular class. The two most popular builds were the Mad Bomber and the Mr. Hyde builds. Paizo effectively killed both those builds in 2e because a) Bombs are trash, and b) Mutagen is even worse.

The only viable build these days is to go Chirurgeon and be a healbot. At this point there are no fixes for the Alchemist. It's so bad they need to just go back to the drawing board and come up with "Unchained Alchemist".

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If there's "no fixes" then what exactly would a new class even do?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
If there's "no fixes" then what exactly would a new class even do?

Why, start over from scratch of course! In all seriousness, I don't see that happening, so we're stuck with the gimpy, crippled mess the 2e Alchemist is. Too bad, Alchemist was one of my favorite classes in 1e.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Whelp, you heard em Designers, don't bother with the Alchemist, focus on other things instead.

More seriously, the Alchemist is nowhere near the doom and gloom useless you're making it out to be, and they've outright said they're looking at other fixes for it. This errata was solely covering the Mutagenist not having any features, which is what they said it would be about. It was never going to be a complete Alchemist overhaul.

So give up, or wait for the next errata. Or push them to put out an Ultimate Alchemist hardcover since you're set on Unchained Alchemist this early.


Well, the errata was never about Alchemist for me. It was about answering other questions, and for the most part I thought it was successful.

Alchemist has huge issues, not limited to Mutagenist. It's really only good at crafting stuff, which is mostly a downtime activity. The design philosophy of making it a support only class is what really hosed Alchemists and why everyone hates that class. That's not something an errata can fix. It needs a complete top to bottom overhaul.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

That's an assumption you are having.


HeHateMe wrote:
Faenor wrote:
It's kind of crazy that the majority of the community agreed that Mutagenist alchemists were clearly underpowered and when Paizo had one chance to at least fix it a bit with the errata, they added such an underwhelming and situational ability as Mutagenic Flashback. Looking at the reactions on the forum, it's already one of the most discussed and disliked changes. So disappointing.

I'm not even sure why the developers hate on the Alchemist so much. Going back to 1e, Alchemist was a very popular class. The two most popular builds were the Mad Bomber and the Mr. Hyde builds. Paizo effectively killed both those builds in 2e because a) Bombs are trash, and b) Mutagen is even worse.

The only viable build these days is to go Chirurgeon and be a healbot. At this point there are no fixes for the Alchemist. It's so bad they need to just go back to the drawing board and come up with "Unchained Alchemist".

There are literally points in the damage line where alchemist bombs outdamage a longbow fighter, on a single target. If alchemist needs any help, it's really just getting master proficiency in attacks somewhere after 13th (though that actually might send bomber alchemists into the overpowered zone, so I'm unsure that's actually a decent solution).


Cyouni wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
Faenor wrote:
It's kind of crazy that the majority of the community agreed that Mutagenist alchemists were clearly underpowered and when Paizo had one chance to at least fix it a bit with the errata, they added such an underwhelming and situational ability as Mutagenic Flashback. Looking at the reactions on the forum, it's already one of the most discussed and disliked changes. So disappointing.

I'm not even sure why the developers hate on the Alchemist so much. Going back to 1e, Alchemist was a very popular class. The two most popular builds were the Mad Bomber and the Mr. Hyde builds. Paizo effectively killed both those builds in 2e because a) Bombs are trash, and b) Mutagen is even worse.

The only viable build these days is to go Chirurgeon and be a healbot. At this point there are no fixes for the Alchemist. It's so bad they need to just go back to the drawing board and come up with "Unchained Alchemist".

There are literally points in the damage line where alchemist bombs outdamage a longbow fighter, on a single target. If alchemist needs any help, it's really just getting master proficiency in attacks somewhere after 13th (though that actually might send bomber alchemists into the overpowered zone, so I'm unsure that's actually a decent solution).

Can you link that damage line? I'm curious as to the exact scenario where that happens, because it seems unlikely to me.

Also, a longbow fighter can carry many, many more arrows than an alchemist can carry bombs. Throwing all your bombs in one fight doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison. Range is also a thing to consider.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aricks wrote:

Can you link that damage line? I'm curious as to the exact scenario where that happens, because it seems unlikely to me.

Also, a longbow fighter can carry many, many more arrows than an alchemist can carry bombs. Throwing all your bombs in one fight doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison. Range is also a thing to consider.

The exact point I was checking was level 12, versus 34 AC. Assuming a longbow fighter uses Point-Blank Shot, they have +25 to hit, 3d8+5 damage (18.5 on hit, 48 on crit). This averages 14.05 damage on the first shot, assuming 20 Dex, 18 Str.

The bomber alchemist has +22 to hit with 18 Dex and expert, and alchemist's fire does 3d8 damage...but a bomber alchemist has 8 splash, and that's where a lot of the damage sneaks in. This averages 21.5 damage on hit, 35 on crit, and 8 on fail. Overall averages 14.35 damage - and it should be noted that it also has a 10 ft splash of 8 damage.

At level 15, it's a lot worse for the bomber unless it can start catching good numbers of enemies in the splash. I didn't bother checking against other similar martial-types, but I suspect it probably wouldn't be too good for the bomber, again due to the fact that it's running off caster weapon proficiency at that point.


Cyouni wrote:
Aricks wrote:

Can you link that damage line? I'm curious as to the exact scenario where that happens, because it seems unlikely to me.

Also, a longbow fighter can carry many, many more arrows than an alchemist can carry bombs. Throwing all your bombs in one fight doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison. Range is also a thing to consider.

The exact point I was checking was level 12, versus 34 AC. Assuming a longbow fighter uses Point-Blank Shot, they have +25 to hit, 3d8+5 damage (18.5 on hit, 48 on crit). This averages 14.05 damage on the first shot, assuming 20 Dex, 18 Str.

The bomber alchemist has +22 to hit with 18 Dex and expert, and alchemist's fire does 3d8 damage...but a bomber alchemist has 8 splash, and that's where a lot of the damage sneaks in. This averages 21.5 damage on hit, 35 on crit, and 8 on fail. Overall averages 14.35 damage - and it should be noted that it also has a 10 ft splash of 8 damage.

At level 15, it's a lot worse for the bomber unless it can start catching good numbers of enemies in the splash. I didn't bother checking against other similar martial-types, but I suspect it probably wouldn't be too good for the bomber, again due to the fact that it's running off caster weapon proficiency at that point.

Why not have the fighter use Triple Shot? That seems like more of an equal comparison since both classes need two class feats to get their respective abilities. That gives the fighter 3 attacks at +21 instead of +25, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't tilted back to the fighter again. Also, a fighter can carry hundreds of arrows, a bomber alch can carry 48 at level 12 if they make nothing but bombs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aricks wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

The exact point I was checking was level 12, versus 34 AC. Assuming a longbow fighter uses Point-Blank Shot, they have +25 to hit, 3d8+5 damage (18.5 on hit, 48 on crit). This averages 14.05 damage on the first shot, assuming 20 Dex, 18 Str.

The bomber alchemist has +22 to hit with 18 Dex and expert, and alchemist's fire does 3d8 damage...but a bomber alchemist has 8 splash, and that's where a lot of the damage sneaks in. This averages 21.5 damage on hit, 35 on crit, and 8 on fail. Overall averages 14.35 damage - and it should be noted that it also has a 10 ft splash of 8 damage.

At level 15, it's a lot worse for the bomber unless it can start catching good numbers of enemies in the splash. I didn't bother checking against other similar martial-types, but I suspect it probably wouldn't be too good for the bomber, again due to the fact that it's running off caster weapon proficiency at that point.

Why not have the fighter use Triple Shot? That seems like more of an equal comparison since both classes need two class feats to get their respective abilities. That gives the fighter 3 attacks at +21 instead of +25, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't tilted back to the fighter again. Also, a fighter can carry hundreds of arrows, a bomber alch can carry 48 at level 12 if they make nothing but bombs.

A quick check suggests 26.625 is the output for the fighter, but that does take all three actions. The scaling damage for turretmode fighter is 14.05, 21.45, 26.625, as a note. With two bombs in a round, the Alchemist actually stays ahead of the Double Shot fighter on the same target at 22.625, and a third bomb is 26.9.

I'll be honest, I did this analysis expecting the fighter to completely outperform the alch on that, but the splash damage on fail actually keeps the alch ahead even against Triple Shot. (As a side note, Point-Blank, Double, Triple is 3 feats - two class feats + shortbow is 22.625.)


Seems like Bomber might actually be okay then.

I’m wondering if when the Poisoner field comes that night tangentially improve things for the Mutagenist by proxy. Poisons on natural attacks could certainly help since bombs aren’t likely to be an optimal investment for a mutagenist focused field.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks...

The hyperbole here is a bit much. This is one errata document and it is not, nor was it ever, intended to be the patch that fixes everything in the game. What it was intended to do was fix some things that, in our estimation, seemed like they did not work at all or were obvious oversights from the first printing.

There will be more changes in the future, there will be moves to balance out things a bit better. Many folk here clearly have taken issue with how some things work and how they are balanced in the game. We hear that. Some will get updated in the future. Others will not based on what we see as the best path forward for the game.

If your first inclination is to claim that we "hate" one of the classes, or that we are in some way maliciously ignoring all of the feedback in this and other threads, you should probably take a step back and realize that we are doing our best to make this the best game possible. Sometimes that means focusing on the next release so that it can be good too before going back to rebalance everything in the previous release.

Managing a game of this size and complexity is a full time job.. for me and a lot of other people here at Paizo. We want to make the game better every time we work on it. For now, this errata is what we have time for. There will be more in the near future. Until then...

This thread is locked.

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

251 to 285 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Errata and APG Playtest Updates??? All Messageboards