Methodology - Stream Feedback


Investigator Playtest


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey all, I want to draw attention to something that I heard on the stream:

That a lot of us thought the Alchemical Sciences Methodology was "powerful" but not picked very often by a lot of the playtest feedback givers.

Which got me thinking on the "why", which to be honest, is rather simple. The concept didn't enhance the ability for an Investigator to being an Investigator. I would also say that the Forensics methodology fits this mold a little, but gains the Forensic Acumen Skill Feat which helps fill that concept a lot.

The big reason for that I think is that Methodology does not really interact with your Investigator Abilities directly (although it can be done tangentially).

Now, one of the big things I think the Alchemical Sciences should allow is the ability for an Investigator to ascertain "scene evidence" and analyze it for data. That's sort of one of their big things (Sherlock testing soot, Batman testing for gun powder residue, etc.). Either directly on scene if it's a rather easy deducation, or at a laboratory.

Alchemical Sciences makes having the Alchemical Crafting Skill Feat essential as a boiler plate feat for the concept, and because of that and Quick Tincture, I think the methodology is trying to "do too much" and thus the power budget can't expand to include any directly Investigator tied benefits.

The issue is Quick Tincture is quite strong, but not directly necessary for the Class to convey those concepts.

Personally, I would like to see an Alchemical Science Investigator taking out a vial and dropping in blood from the scene, soot from the scene, etc. into a vial and making a deduction from that (much the way the Forensic works) in order to gain standing in their case.

But having that ability along side the ability to spontaneously create items, seems like too much.

Controversial Argument Incoming:

I actually think they should remove Quick Tincture (free Alchemical items on the fly) as a default to the Methodology, and instead, move it to a Class Feat that requires Alchemical Crafting in order to grant this other ability of "alchemical investigation work".

This would allow them to expand the methodology to foster the Alchemical concept, without directly enabling it.

My reasoning is actually three fold:


  • 1. This allows Alchemical Sciences to take a primary role in investigative work, and "at the lab" but without having the Investigator starting with on the fly alchemical items (they can still bring some from the lab of course).
  • 2. This opens the Quick Tincture option to any alchemist that wants to invest in Alchemical Crafting as a Feat. The Methodology locks out other alchemists from using Alchemical items, which as we know, is something that a lot of investigators may dabble in (I wouldn't necessarily call batman Alchemical Sciences, but he definitely has a bit)
  • 3. No other Racket/Methodology in the game strictly enables/disables a concept, only strongly encourages the concept itself (see Alchemist studies, Rogue Rackets, or the other two Investigator methods). Rogues can feint even if they are brutes, they can steal even if they are scoundrels, and Alchemist can throw bombs even if they are Mutagenists.

Thoughts?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
I think the methodology is trying to "do too much" and thus the power budget can't expand to include any directly Investigator tied benefits.

The flip-side of that argument is the power budget is too stringent. I think this is exactly the problem that crushes the Ranger in PF2 and reduces it to just a Fighter variant. Even if Paizo brought back individual spell lists, they can't fit spells onto the PF2 Ranger chassis because it's just too thin.

Quote:
Controversial Argument Incoming:

I think you're having a natural reaction to one of the detriments of PF2: Not enough baked-in class agency. I can't speak for all the classes, maybe the Cleric and Rogue are different, but there is a feeling, for me, of having a dog collar around my build that makes the build process a feeling of constant sacrifice and not growth: what part of my character vision am I willing to surrender at each level?

Again, maybe the Rogue feels different, if so, I think you're right to point to it as a contrast. But on a fundamental level, I feel like I get where you're coming from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
The flip-side of that argument is the power budget is too stringent. I think this is exactly the problem that crushes the Ranger in PF2 and reduces it to just a Fighter variant. Even if Paizo brought back individual spell lists, they can't fit spells onto the PF2 Ranger chassis because it's just too thin.

And that may be the case, that Alchemical Sciences could just gain this other benefit of integration with the class without being over-budget per se.

But I also don't see the immediate creation of Vials as integral to the concept of a "methodology", especially "on the fly" production like an Alchemist does effectively.

The main issue I'd have with just boosting it, as many said in the feedback, it's one of the strongest Methodologies as is (honestly, maybe the strongest but Forensics is for a specific role, so they won't compete much).

Quote:


Again, maybe the Rogue feels different, if so, I think you're right to point to it as a contrast. But on a fundamental level, I feel like I get where you're coming from.

Ultimately my problem I think is that it doesn't enable a concept like the Rackets or Styles or other like-used Class selections.

It's just Investigator + Alchemist MCD but at level 1.

And that's fine in terms of power, it's just not that great in terms of concept (outside of the inherent concepts of alchemical equipment and PF1 class).

But, as is obvious, it is strong.

I would love to see it evolve the concept by being integrated into the feel of the class instead of just outright adding abilities (since, as a Methodology, that should be the point).

There's no real "methodology" to it, at least unless you ingest Eagle Eye Elixir or something, it's just sort of "there".

I also wish it wasn't wholesale restricted to non-Alchemical Science Methodologies, which sort of forces you into picking Alchemist MCD (which is good, so maybe I'm overthinking it) instead of just fostering the concept from within it's own class structure.

Side Note: It would be interesting if you could ignore your Drawbacks while you're on the case. This is very much what Sherlock would do while under the effects of narcotics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it wasn't picked both because Alchemical Sciences is a legacy of the PF1 investigator being a alchemist/rogue mashup, part of being a jack of all trades build which a lot of players may not have wanted to do, as well as the fact that the general consensus on the forum is that alchemy and crafting read terribly in PF2.

I'm not saying they are bad, I mostly DM and my players went champion/rogue/sorceror/cleric so I haven't even seen alchemy in play, but that they underwhelm on paper.

You also get a very limited number of uses so the impulse quick alchemy becomes very risky amd players are naturally risk averse as a rule (which is why /r/rpghorrorstories is 60% "and then this player did something that got my character killed").

Speaking as someone who did pick Alchemical Sciences I did it in order to pick up ACD at 2 and then make studied strike bombs which gave my investigator much needed utility by varying damage type and placing debuffs on monsters.

Thematically for the class it's not that much different than any investigator who has the Alchemical Crafting feat for identifying poisons or alchemical items. A cool duplicative feat would be nice so an alchemical investigator could "recreate" the method of crime (I'm think of shows like Elementary where Sherlock does something bizarre to demonstrate his theory like exploding a variety of tennis balls to recreate the smell of explosives) and get a short-use alchemical item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

Ultimately my problem I think is that it doesn't enable a concept like the Rackets or Styles or other like-used Class selections.

It's just Investigator + Alchemist MCD but at level 1.

And that's fine in terms of power, it's just not that great in terms of concept (outside of the inherent concepts of alchemical equipment and PF1 class).

But, as is obvious, it is strong.

I would love to see it evolve the concept by being integrated into the feel of the class instead of just outright adding abilities (since, as a Methodology, that should be the point).

There's no real "methodology" to it, at least unless you ingest Eagle Eye Elixir or something, it's just sort of "there".

I think the answer is in what you have here, something I had not considered until your post on this.

One could argue that the baseline Investigator is the Alchemical Sciences and that the Empiricist and Forensic are intended to be the variants. This could also explain why people are asking why INT seemingly doesn't do much for the class. It' because the baseline is the Alchemist and INT does directly determine how many "versatile viles" you get.

In other words, Paizo is looking at it from the left end, the Alchemical Sciences end where many of us are probably looking at it right down the middle, Empiricist. So the nominal Inv. is suppose to be Alchemical Sciences, not Empiricist, and that's why Quick Tincture isn't available to the other two.

Quote:
There's no real "methodology" to it, at least unless you ingest Eagle Eye Elixir or something, it's just sort of "there".

Right. I think what confuses us is inaccurate use of Methodologies. Or rather that we are considering "Methodologies" the ways in which the Inv. solves cases, and Paizo is considering them more about a tool packag. If we reconsider that the Methodology isn't really about case solving, then we can see the Empiricist and Forensic give up the "power" of quick tincture's for better problem solving. And honestly, Forensic methodology isn't even restricted, couldn't a 1st level Human Cleric take Forensic Acumen and Battle Medicine?

If we reevaluate Alchemical Sciences as the normative Inv. then we can see that the low level problem solving abilities come from elixirs that imply give item bonuses on ability checks.

Quote:
Now, one of the big things I think the Alchemical Sciences should allow is the ability for an Investigator to ascertain "scene evidence" and analyze it for data. That's sort of one of their big things (Sherlock testing soot, Batman testing for gun powder residue, etc.). Either directly on scene if it's a rather easy deducation, or at a laboratory.

So going back to this statement:

1. There really isn't a branch of chromatography/spectroscopy in PF2. So while it's nice in concept, I don't think we are going to get a narrative that supports dropping samples in a test tube and adding bases and acids. However,

2. I think Paizo would argue that the item bonuses you get from the elixirs are essentially you getting to do that type of boosted data analysis. Cognitive, Serene, and Eagle Eye elixirs can all be used to boost those skill checks when investigating stuff, more than the other Methodologies. In essence, performance enhancing drugs are your methodology

Quote:
Side Note: It would be interesting if you could ignore your Drawbacks while you're on the case. This is very much what Sherlock would do while under the effects of narcotics.

The drawbacks are kind of irrelevant for doing the casework and the drawbacks don't even appear to scale.


Elmdorprime wrote:


Speaking as someone who did pick Alchemical Sciences I did it in order to pick up ACD at 2 and then make studied strike bombs which gave my investigator much needed utility by varying damage type and placing debuffs on monsters.

Just to clarify, can't a 1st level Inv. make bombs, they just have to pay the crafting charge where as with vials, they can make elixirs for free, correct?


N N 959 wrote:
Elmdorprime wrote:


Speaking as someone who did pick Alchemical Sciences I did it in order to pick up ACD at 2 and then make studied strike bombs which gave my investigator much needed utility by varying damage type and placing debuffs on monsters.
Just to clarify, can't a 1st level Inv. make bombs, they just have to pay the crafting charge where as with vials, they can make elixirs for free, correct?

Yes they can, they just can’t make them with Quick Tincture, which is specifically elixirs.

I think going both AMCD and Alchemical Sciences is over kill, but that’s me


Perhaps under the effects of an elixir you gain some investigator based boon, like easier study suspect or apply study suspect bonus to the affect of an elixir? Just spitballing.


N N 959 wrote:
Elmdorprime wrote:


Speaking as someone who did pick Alchemical Sciences I did it in order to pick up ACD at 2 and then make studied strike bombs which gave my investigator much needed utility by varying damage type and placing debuffs on monsters.
Just to clarify, can't a 1st level Inv. make bombs, they just have to pay the crafting charge where as with vials, they can make elixirs for free, correct?

My reading was that since each time you gain a level you can learn formulas for elixirs or items - which I read as distinct from bombs - that just like PF1 you are not intended to get bombs as an Investigator; I definitely see your point rereading the playtest rules because you can make bombs with alchemical crafting; that's just me projecting last edition badly!

The reason I went ACD at 2 is 1) because I get trained with bombs - they're a martial weapon so without that training my hit with them would be bad and 2) I get infused reagents from the ACD so now instead of just have my intelligence modifier as quick alchemy up to 8 quick alchemy elixirs (with Alchemical Discoveries) I now can get 20+ alchemical items and 8 quick elixirs at 20 and I think if you're going to be playing an alchemical sciences investigator you should lean all the way in.

Basically every day I get a set of prepared spells and sorcerer spontaneous spells I can use to help my investigator beef up combat for 1 2nd level feat which I think is pretty amazing.

Granted I also took Adopted Ancestry and the Alchemical Scholar Hobgoblin feat so I get lots of free formulas and starting formulas.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player’s Guide Playtest / Investigator Playtest / Methodology - Stream Feedback All Messageboards
Recent threads in Investigator Playtest