| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, it’s usually a penalty to the stats you don’t need (but causing a weakness if you miscalculate) vs a benefit to what you need. Downsides are wider than advantages when you allow focus in a direction.
In other words, you won’t drink Juggs against a Vampire, but you might against an Ogre.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, it’s usually a penalty to the stats you don’t need
Now if there where stats you actually didn't need that'd be ok... Say I drink a Quicksilver Mutagen to boost my dex attacks: since I'm entering combat, how are hp and con saves not needed? Did I pick up plot armor I didn't notice? Or my investigator/rogue taking a Cognitive Mutagen for some Recall checks... There is a good chance they don't have lots of str so they'd be close on Bulk -2 hurts and has a good chance to inflict Encumbered for someone already taking penalties to those rolls. I find the ability to move around pretty needed.
Now you can try to mitigate those awful, awful penalties but that in no way means you aren't going to find out you need what's penalized, especially when you're talking about up to an hour buff. To take your example, say you drink a Juggernaut Mutagen for an Ogre, beat it and then later mean a Vampire... Guess that –2 penalty to Will saves vs those Dominates isn't needed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note how most people that report issues with precision also report using multiple attacks per round. Note how most people reporting issues with reagent amounts also use a lot of limited use bombs in a short time. Note how most people reporting low damage also compare their area of effect to single target attacks.
Yes, there's issues, and yes, there's struggles, but if people stopped seeing their issues as some unattainable cosmic mystery and simply think "this specific thing is not working as I thought, maybe there's a mistake" we'd make a lot more progress.
We're not going to get buffs to things that aren't weak - and we shouldn't.
A point regarding resource use: wanting a cantrip type ability is directly about *not* using the limited use items, but about getting unlimited use items to use instead. That would keep the resource management playstyle intact, while giving an alternative to picking up a cantrip or using a weapon. A lesser damage option to be sure, given the inevitable flexibility in damage types, but still an option.
Instead of moving perpetual to level 1 though, I think this can be enabled by a new item trait (percolated could be a riff on infused, but perpetual is probably more illustrative) that lets you create it with quick alchemy or quick tincture but using no reagents.
This would also give alchemists the ability to have just the right item at a lot lower level, ideally without increasing the class’s direct power.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to pop back into the conversation with the following: Is it a good thing that the Alchemist is incapable of discouraged from making multiple attacks per round with their specialty? Sure casters usually can't unless they have some other ability at play like Fiery Body or some such. But the Alchemist aren't really casters are they?
Earlier access to a perpetual bomb would allow them to do so, or failing that, some ability to stretch their resources to accommodate such a play style.
I totally get what Ediwir and Alchemic_Genius are saying. There are playstyles that you can find success with in the Alchemist. But why shouldn't there be More viable playstyles, available earlier than 7th?
Say the Alchemist had access to a sub-lesser version of each bomb. Minor could be the designation, available as a Perpetual Infusion at 1st level. These bombs could Only deal splash damage, maybe 2 or so. Even a single point. This could allow a bomber to open up with a Lesser bomb for their most accurate attack, then still make their second attack (assuming you took Quick Bomber and have the lesser bombs in a Bandolier) with "minor" bombs, only trying to not Critically fail. This would allow a bomber to still contribute in a meaningful way to a combat using their specialty, more effectively if they are successfully targeting a weakness or multiple enemies. Perhaps the Alchemist can even Advanced Alchemy Minor items in larger batches to allow them to pre-prepare a bandoleer worth of them for combats efficiently.
Then when Perpetual infusions come online at 7th, they can move on to using those, roughly maintaining effectiveness.
It's also quite a novel combat style given that hits don't do anything for you.
Basically my point is, it is not a good thing that this playstyle is not reasonably supported by the chassis. Bombs are the Perfect weapon for "spamming", given that they have the ability to still deal damage on a failure. But instead of making that a reasonable use of them, there is 0 incentive to try to maintain that sort of playstyle. This is exacerbated by Quick Bomber being made a 1st level feat, basically trapping a player who doesn't read ahead or think too hard about their character build in advance. I'd hate to spend time putting together what I thought was going to be a bomb spewing Goblin at 1st, then find out that doing so drains my resources faster than any other playstyle in the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Earlier access to a perpetual bomb would allow them to do so, or failing that, some ability to stretch their resources to accommodate such a play style.
I totally get what Ediwir and Alchemic_Genius are saying. There are playstyles that you can find success with in the Alchemist. But why shouldn't there be More viable playstyles, available earlier than 7th?
Absolutely. And a form of lv1 perpetual isn’t something I’m opposed to if we can make it work - even good alchemists have some trouble at early level.
The problem I see in these threads is a huge tendency to dismiss the class because of a specific build not being functional. Chassis changes are touted that would bring other builds way off the power curve, and cause issues elsewhere.
If we want a good bomber, we need to first acknowledge that bomber has issues, and leave the general alchemist alone. If we want early level support, we need to stop talking about making changes to lv15.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very fundamentally, 1E and 2E are different games that happen to share the same name. PF2E is probably closer to D&D5e than PF1E, so having the 2E alchemist different from the 1E alchemist shouldn't be any more surprising than having the 2E alchemist different from a 5e alchemist. It only is because of the expectations set by the name.
Arguably the expectation was also set by Paizo talking, in the run-up to 2E, about how the original APG was where Pathfinder 1E really came into its own, and how important the Alchemist was to that, so now Alchemists are in the Core. It’s not unreasonable for people to expect an approximation of the 1E Alchemist play experience.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean you gotta remember that the Alchemist isn't the way it is on purpose. The Alchemist was supposed to be entirely based around a mechanic that it turned out nobody liked no matter how many times they revised it, so when the mechanic got scrapped they had to remake the class at the last minute. Paizo essentially lost all of their playtesting data on the Alchemist because it was all useless under the new paradigm.
I mean you gotta remember that the Alchemist isn't the way it is on purpose. The Alchemist was supposed to be entirely based around a mechanic that it turned out nobody liked no matter how many times they revised it, so when the mechanic got scrapped they had to remake the class at the last minute. Paizo essentially lost all of their playtesting data on the Alchemist because it was all useless under the new paradigm.
Technically, no. That mechanic was scrapped early on in playtest, and for most of it Alchemist was tested without it. It just used a resource called Resonance instead of Reagents because it was too much of a bother to write a hundred changelogs for a name.
The alternate suggestion (the ‘Resonance Test’) is actually something that would have helped alchemist a lot and has resurfaced in this very thread in the form of some spontaneous suggestions, but was scrapped not due to success but due to pagecount / print incompatibility. Shame.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean you gotta remember that the Alchemist isn't the way it is on purpose. The Alchemist was supposed to be entirely based around a mechanic that it turned out nobody liked no matter how many times they revised it, so when the mechanic got scrapped they had to remake the class at the last minute. Paizo essentially lost all of their playtesting data on the Alchemist because it was all useless under the new paradigm.Technically, no. That mechanic was scrapped early on in playtest, and for most of it Alchemist was tested without it. It just used a resource called Resonance instead of Reagents because it was too much of a bother to write a hundred changelogs for a name.
The alternate suggestion (the ‘Resonance Test’) is actually something that would have helped alchemist a lot and has resurfaced in this very thread in the form of some spontaneous suggestions, but was scrapped not due to success but due to pagecount / print incompatibility. Shame.
Are you sure? My records say the Alchemist change was made in 1.6, which was basically the last one.
That's not to say all data from before is invalid - for example, empower bombs was directly replaced by the scaling bombs, but basically ends up the same. The big one I notice, however, is that there was a scaling bomb at level 8 that was lost as a consequence, which never really got replaced by Weapon Specialization because the alchemist's differing proficiency.
I do think that as a result of that, however, Chirurgeon/Mutagenist were undertested. We can also find that perpetual items were in there, meaning that we do have an idea of the biggest changes that happened as a result.
So if your complaint is related to research fields or perpetual items, then yes, that was undertested. For the rest of the playtest, alchemist worked similarly to how it does now, but with a heavier resource limitation due to needing to share it with their magical items.
Are you sure? My records say the Alchemist change was made in 1.6, which was basically the last one.That's not to say all data from before is invalid - for example, empower bombs was directly replaced by the scaling bombs, but basically ends up the same. The big one I notice, however, is that there was a scaling bomb at level 8 that was lost as a consequence, which never really got replaced by Weapon Specialization because the alchemist's differing proficiency.
I looked up the resonance test this morning, and he is correct; there was an additional version of the Alchemist in that document that preceded and led to the 1.6 version.
Sort of interesting seeing all 4 versions together to see where things changed and where they didn't. That level 7 moderate bomb gap fairly leaps off the page, doesn't it? Not that I'm criticizing it; I'm sure the math works out, it's more of a feeling of "wow 8 levels" than an actual complaint.
Especially since weapons have 7 basic versions, counting both the Striking and Potency runes. I'm curious what drove the decision to condense bombs to 4 levels? Page space is reason enough I suppose.
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to thank you all for the thoughtful commentary here. I'm finally building my gnome raised by hobgoblins for PFS, and I was trying to decide if I went alchemist or investigator. After reading all this... I think that I am not canny enough of a player to pull off an alchemist right now. I'll go investigator.
Thank you!
Hmm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I looked up the resonance test this morning, and he is correct; there was an additional version of the Alchemist in that document that preceded and led to the 1.6 version.
Are you sure? My records say the Alchemist change was made in 1.6, which was basically the last one.That's not to say all data from before is invalid - for example, empower bombs was directly replaced by the scaling bombs, but basically ends up the same. The big one I notice, however, is that there was a scaling bomb at level 8 that was lost as a consequence, which never really got replaced by Weapon Specialization because the alchemist's differing proficiency.
That's also true, I didn't include the resonance test in my listing. I suppose my description would have been better said as "resonance test + 1.6".
Especially since weapons have 7 basic versions, counting both the Striking and Potency runes. I'm curious what drove the decision to condense bombs to 4 levels? Page space is reason enough I suppose.
This one's easy. Bombs keep pace with +1 weapons, which also gave damage dice in the playtest. They changed from 5 tiers of weapons to 3, and thus bombs changed as well.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean you gotta remember that the Alchemist isn't the way it is on purpose. The Alchemist was supposed to be entirely based around a mechanic that it turned out nobody liked no matter how many times they revised it, so when the mechanic got scrapped they had to remake the class at the last minute. Paizo essentially lost all of their playtesting data on the Alchemist because it was all useless under the new paradigm.
Given how that turned out, I was surprised they didn't drop the Alchemist from Core given how much work it needed, and still does to this day.
Are you sure? My records say the Alchemist change was made in 1.6, which was basically the last one.
That's not to say all data from before is invalid - for example, empower bombs was directly replaced by the scaling bombs, but basically ends up the same. The big one I notice, however, is that there was a scaling bomb at level 8 that was lost as a consequence, which never really got replaced by Weapon Specialization because the alchemist's differing proficiency.
I do think that as a result of that, however, Chirurgeon/Mutagenist were undertested. We can also find that perpetual items were in there, meaning that we do have an idea of the biggest changes that happened as a result.
So if your complaint is related to research fields or perpetual items, then yes, that was undertested. For the rest of the playtest, alchemist worked similarly to how it does now, but with a heavier resource limitation due to needing to share it with their magical items.
Resonance for Alchemist was lowkey removed in 1.3 (the second changelog), with Infused providing the resonance cost for any character. Between 1.1 and 1.2, Alchemist used Resonance to create items but not to use them, tho other people had to. Eventually you really struggle to find any difference between resonance and reagents. Remember, the biggest issue with Resonance wasn't that it was bad, it was that it was worthless - characters over lv4 barely even tracked it unless they were Alchemists. It was a limiting factor that didn't limit enough when available, and too much when not.
Bombs have been overhauled in 1.6 (I gave my big alchemist rant feedback during 1.4, and a lot of other people were focused on Alchemist by that point), and scaled up to 6d6 plus 1 splash (average 22 on main target) - in final, they scale to 4d6+2 plus 4 splash (average 20 on main target). Specifically, level comparisons are as follows:
Lv1 1d6+1//1d6+1, splash 1/1
Lv3 1d6+1//2d6+2, splash 1/2
Lv4 2d6+1//2d6+2, splash 1/2
Lv8 3d6+1//2d6+2, splash 1/2
Lv11 3d6+1//3d6+3, splash 1/3
Lv12 4d6+1//3d6+3, splash 1/3
Lv13 4d6+1//3d6+5, splash 1/3
Lv16 5d6+1//3d6+5, splash 1/3
Lv17 5d6+1//4d6+6, splash 1/4
Lv20 6d6+1//4d6+6, splash 1/4
Between 1.6 and final, mutagens have been buffed (except Bullheaded/Serene, which got both a buff and a harsher drawback - still great), elixirs got a bunch of changes and remakes, bombs have been shifted more strongly towards area effect but overall buffed, and more. The lv8 stage is noticeable but not major. Overall they follow the general weapon trend where dice have been shrunk in favour of a mix of dice and flat bonuses (from 6d8+0 to 4d8+WS).
Yes, chirurgeon and mutagenist have been undertested. This showed. Release mutagenist received two erratas (I consider medium armour to be a mutagenist buff more than a bomber buff), Chirurgeon is still a wreck. But I wouldn't say it was all for naught. This is the result of feedback, not the lack of it.
As for touch AC, a reminder: DC tresholds changed in 1.3.
This one's easy. Bombs keep pace with +1 weapons, which also gave damage dice in the playtest. They changed from 5 tiers of weapons to 3, and thus bombs changed as well.
That does make sense. I tapped out of the playtest after about 2 weeks or so, and didn't really follow it as it developed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Resonance for Alchemist was lowkey removed in 1.3 (the second changelog), with Infused providing the resonance cost for any character. Between 1.1 and 1.2, Alchemist used Resonance to create items but not to use them, tho other people had to. Eventually you really struggle to find any difference between resonance and reagents. Remember, the biggest issue with Resonance wasn't that it was bad, it was that it was worthless - characters over lv4 barely even tracked it unless they were Alchemists. It was a limiting factor that didn't limit enough when available, and too much when not.
For Alchemists specifically, I'd say it was still pretty heavy for a while. Say at level 10 you have 5 infused magic items - that takes off 5 of your 15 infused reagents. Irrelevant for everyone else, but still a substantial chunk for the Alchemist.
Though DCs changed in 1.3, I don't think that did anything to monster stats. And since touch AC was effectively a -2 difference in most cases, that ends up a pretty big change in the long run. That said, it is balanced out a bit by the changes to increasing splash damage, but I think it's still a factor.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A reminder that touch AC was consistently about 1.5-2 points lower in the playtest than real AC. Both casters and alchemists got shafted by the removal of touch AC.
Casters because their dex is equal or only 1 point lower than their casting stat until level 20 and they lost spell duelist’s wand/gloves, an item bonus to spell attack rolls.
Alchemists because they got nothing to compensate, so they’re just worse at hitting than they were before.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They also lost a bit with the reduction in item bonuses. Not so much to the optimal case-- they still stay one ahead of on item magical equipment-- but with the reduced overall bonuses a mutagen makes less of a swing for upgrading someone who isn't specialized. You only get +4 bonuses instead of +6.
You know what bugs me? Lesser mutagens. A minute duration is nothing for non-combat skill checks and they are replaced by level 3 anyway. Would it be that big a deal if the moderate versions just became level 1? It is a decent buff but only for early levels which is where people find the most pain points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh, that would allow the lesser ones to be perpetually available while the moderate ones get crafted.
That would take errata, so I doubt they'll overhaul things to that extent, but its a nice thought.
I could definitely get behind that idea. A minute is perfect for that sort of thing, and it would allow a Mutagenist to support themselves and their team all day, if only for a short period and to a lesser degree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1 minute to 10 minutes is noticeable progress, I suppose, but it is an awkward amount of time. Have run into the 1 minute duration issue on plenty of skill checks.
The other side of the coin is that at a certain point you don't need combat mutagens to last an hour. Like, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but if that's part of the power budget for combat mutagens it's not necessarily something you need every time. You also run into an awkward case of mutagenists not really needing to make much more than a couple 3-batches of a signature mutagen each morning. Making more mutagens means more other items, obviously, but then "signature" mutagens stop being all that exciting very quickly. Excepting weird timing things, like fighting four combats each an hour apart because you're doing a lot of Medicine healing or whatever.
There's also the problem of not being able to end a mutagen early. So making higher level mutagens for an ally to use means they get to suffer the penalties for an hour, or else get less benefit. Awkward too.
There's also the problem of not being able to end a mutagen early. So making higher level mutagens for an ally to use means they get to suffer the penalties for an hour, or else get less benefit. Awkward too.
Yes, this means Revivifying Mutagen is a pretty important feat for those planning to use mutagens. Either that or have a polymorph effect that you can use to affect them to try to counteract it:
Beastkin, kitsune, tengu, barbarian [multiple feats], Tiefling, Dhampir, Ratfolk and Leshy have feats/ancestry abilities that allow at will tries to counteract a mutagen. Spellmaster archetype, cleric, monk, Magic Warrior archetype, Red Mantis Assassin archetype, oracle, sorcerer and druid have focus spells to do the same. And of course, spells from 1st level can also do it. So while enforced duration sucks, you can deal with it if you plan for it: I'm not sure WHY we have to deal with it though... :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's kind of interesting (not optimal, just interesting) that you can't end a mutagen early by thinking non-HULK thoughts, but you'd think there would be some sort of basic alchemical "Mutagen B-Gone" that you could prepare that counteracts them when ingested.
I've been letting players end them early though, because when I didn't I legitimately had the party agree that their characters would just hang out for an hour to wait for the mutagen to dissipate so the character wouldn't have to deal with the penalties, now that the skill check or whatever is over. That seems more obnoxious and narrative-breaking to me than letting them just dismiss it.
I think it's kind of interesting (not optimal, just interesting) that you can't end a mutagen early by thinking non-HULK thoughts, but you'd think there would be some sort of basic alchemical "Mutagen B-Gone" that you could prepare that counteracts them when ingested.
I've been letting players end them early though, because when I didn't I legitimately had the party agree that their characters would just hang out for an hour to wait for the mutagen to dissipate so the character wouldn't have to deal with the penalties, now that the skill check or whatever is over. That seems more obnoxious and narrative-breaking to me than letting them just dismiss it.
I don't agree with such a thing simply because when you follow this idea to its conclusion, it assumes beings that are completely aware and in control of their own systems, which means that poisons and similar stuffs were also subject to this control. In short, if someone can stop their body from ingesting substances in their bodies, they can do it for any kind of poison.
What we need is an item that doesn't cost resources that allow it to absorb the mutagen's effects. Maybe some kind of coal or whatever.
The item can be even enhanced at higher levels (by magic or whatever) to dampen the side effects instead of ending the mutagen altogether.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree with such a thing simply because when you follow this idea to its conclusion, it assumes beings that are completely aware and in control of their own systems, which means that poisons and similar stuffs were also subject to this control. In short, if someone can stop their body from ingesting substances in their bodies, they can do it for any kind of poison.
"If you do it for mutagens you have to do it for poisons" isn't a logical conclusion at all though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I mean, do whatever in your games, but I'd rather my players move on rather than make camp whenever they need to get an hour-long mutagen out of their systems. Because unless I send monsters at them every single time that's what they've demonstrated they're going to do.
Flavor it as a mutagen antidote or whatever that doesn't cost anything. Give them a round of sickened. Make a level 1 item that ends mutagens immediately. Doesn't really matter. Once you deviate from RAW you might as well make things as smooth as you can to serve the narrative, within reason.
And no, I'm not going to let players think hard and get rid of poisons. That's kind of absurd.
I don't agree with such a thing simply because when you follow this idea to its conclusion, it assumes beings that are completely aware and in control of their own systems, which means that poisons and similar stuffs were also subject to this control. In short, if someone can stop their body from ingesting substances in their bodies, they can do it for any kind of poison."If you do it for mutagens you have to do it for poisons" isn't a logical conclusion at all though.
Cool with me... That means that Revivifying Mutagen to not only get rid of poisons but heal me too!!! I'll take that deal. ;)
I don't agree with such a thing simply because when you follow this idea to its conclusion, it assumes beings that are completely aware and in control of their own systems, which means that poisons and similar stuffs were also subject to this control. In short, if someone can stop their body from ingesting substances in their bodies, they can do it for any kind of poison."If you do it for mutagens you have to do it for poisons" isn't a logical conclusion at all though.
I meant more of the ramifications of the idea, not the mechanics. Mechanically, there's no reason to do both, it's true. But this change would make the character consciously stop their body from ingesting (benefiting/hurting) something. That was just my point.
And here I thought it was clear. My bad.
I was just pointing out that if one could think hard and stop a mutagen, there's really no reason for it not to apply to other things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having mutagens last longer at higher levels is a "benefit" that alchemists don't really need, given the amounts of infused reagents that are available at higher levels.
So, maybe make all mutagens last 10 minutes or an hour, depending on the type, regardless of the level.
Maybe each one comes as two vials: the mutagen itself and a specific counter-agent that can be consumed to counter that specific mutagen.
Maybe just make it just an ability alchemists have to spend an action to end the effects of a mutagen created with their infused reagents if they are adjacent to the target. A targetable Revivifying Mutagen but without the healing. If we could get rid of some of the other math fixer feats I wouldn't even mind if this ability was a feat itself instead of core.I like the sickened 1 suggestion from above for early ending a mutagen's effects. One of the main reason I really don't like them is the benefits don't seem to match the penalties, especially when the duration gets into the hour range.
Spending infused reagents to craft mutagen cancellation items seems cruel, please don't do that.
While we're at it, can we make it so quicksilver mutagens either don't damage you or make it just a temp reduction in HP that you don't have to heal from later? A +1 bonus that taxes your parties already limited healing resources, a -2 Fort penalty, and lasts 1-10 minutes until level 11 is why most people don't bother with the bloody things.
Hmmm... This gave me a idea. What about an option to reduce the craptastic penalty instead of increasing the duration? For instance, when they last 10 min you could drop it to 1 min for 1/2 the penalty and when you get to 1 hour you could either drop it to 10 min for 1/2 or 1 min for no penalty... I kind of like that. ;)
Hmmm... This gave me a idea. What about an option to reduce the craptastic penalty instead of increasing the duration? For instance, when they last 10 min you could drop it to 1 min for 1/2 the penalty and when you get to 1 hour you could either drop it to 10 min for 1/2 or 1 min for no penalty... I kind of like that. ;)Having mutagens last longer at higher levels is a "benefit" that alchemists don't really need, given the amounts of infused reagents that are available at higher levels.
So, maybe make all mutagens last 10 minutes or an hour, depending on the type, regardless of the level.
Maybe each one comes as two vials: the mutagen itself and a specific counter-agent that can be consumed to counter that specific mutagen.
Maybe just make it just an ability alchemists have to spend an action to end the effects of a mutagen created with their infused reagents if they are adjacent to the target. A targetable Revivifying Mutagen but without the healing. If we could get rid of some of the other math fixer feats I wouldn't even mind if this ability was a feat itself instead of core.I like the sickened 1 suggestion from above for early ending a mutagen's effects. One of the main reason I really don't like them is the benefits don't seem to match the penalties, especially when the duration gets into the hour range.
Spending infused reagents to craft mutagen cancellation items seems cruel, please don't do that.
While we're at it, can we make it so quicksilver mutagens either don't damage you or make it just a temp reduction in HP that you don't have to heal from later? A +1 bonus that taxes your parties already limited healing resources, a -2 Fort penalty, and lasts 1-10 minutes until level 11 is why most people don't bother with the bloody things.
Not bad. Reminiscent of the druid wildshape paradigm, but going the other way.
Hmmm... This gave me a idea. What about an option to reduce the craptastic penalty instead of increasing the duration? For instance, when they last 10 min you could drop it to 1 min for 1/2 the penalty and when you get to 1 hour you could either drop it to 10 min for 1/2 or 1 min for no penalty... I kind of like that. ;)
I'm not against that idea, though if you are going to halve the penalty, I'd personally go with a standard duration of 1 minute for any Mutagen regardless of its standard duration.
Could be a class feat, like Reckless Distillation. Halve or remove the penalty entirely, but it only lasts 1 minute, and hey for fun now it's a Drug that you can become addicted to. Cause nothing says Alchemist quite like accidentally getting the Barbarian addicted to PCP.
How did we get from "buff bombs" to "nerf mutagens"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How did we get from "buff bombs" to "nerf mutagens"?
If anyone should know how conversations go on these boards, it's you Ediwir. Does anyone ever really know how we get where we get?
I wouldn't call it a nerf, as long as it's an option and not standard. There are just some situations where the long duration of a higher level Mutagen make them less attractive.
Honestly I want more customizability in general in the game. I love the concept of variable action spells for instance, but that style of spell is criminally under utilized in my opinion. Being able to adjust the bits and bobs of your kit can only be a good thing as long as it is optional.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How did we get from "buff bombs" to "nerf mutagens"?If anyone should know how conversations go on these boards, it's you Ediwir. Does anyone ever really know how we get where we get?
I wouldn't call it a nerf, as long as it's an option and not standard. There are just some situations where the long duration of a higher level Mutagen make them less attractive.
Honestly I want more customizability in general in the game. I love the concept of variable action spells for instance, but that style of spell is criminally under utilized in my opinion. Being able to adjust the bits and bobs of your kit can only be a good thing as long as it is optional.
I could dig a variable duration additive. I'm just a little confused at the direction. If anything, so far the highlights were that mutagens have proved functional while bombs haven't - a small QoL change to mutagens won't help bomb-spammers.
Reminder that ever since the game released, the points of strength of Alchemists have been highlighted as long-duration buffs and wide availability of mid-power effects (whether they were considered sufficient has been argued ad nauseam). Removing said long duration, even if at times it may be inconvenient, goes against their most hard-to-obtain advantage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How did we get from "buff bombs" to "nerf mutagens"?
??? IMO, it's buffing mutagens.
If anything, so far the highlights were that mutagens have proved functional while bombs haven't
IMO, I haven't really found them very functional. I've seen some people SAY they use them but that's not any different then people saying the same thing with bombs.
Reminder that ever since the game released, the points of strength of Alchemists have been highlighted as long-duration buffs and wide availability of mid-power effects (whether they were considered sufficient has been argued ad nauseam). Removing said long duration, even if at times it may be inconvenient, goes against their most hard-to-obtain advantage.
I'm not sure how having long duration buffs means EVERY buff must be long duration. Skeptic's Elixir or Bravo's Brew lasts an hour if mutagens don't.
I have no doubt that Mutagens are functional. I even sorta like their power at a price dynamic. In some cases though I do feel like the risks you take for the benefit are... high. Long duration with no sure fire way for anyone to end them definitely comes up in the equation when looking at them. Yeah, there's always burning another Polymorph effect, but those are usually limited resources and can fail to counteract.
I'd love to see a "reborn" alchemist, and alchemical item in general, feel to the game where they become more flexible based on their make. Additives and different brewing processes and what have you altering their effects to suit your needs at the time. Really reinforces the tool belt aspect of Alchemist.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why mutagens a polymorph effect anyways? They were not polymorph effects before, and only a few mutagens actually change your shape.
Because Alchemists aren't allowed to have nice things. Duh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they can do that anyway - alchemical elixirs like mistform do not have polymorph trait.Alternative answer: because spellcasters already have enough nice things and don't need to be able to do stuff like turn into a bear, and alchemically enhance said bear.Why mutagens a polymorph effect anyways? They were not polymorph effects before, and only a few mutagens actually change your shape.Because Alchemists aren't allowed to have nice things. Duh.
Sure, but casters don't want their cool spells ruined by mutagen drawbacks!
Seriously though, mutagens give out item bonuses and battleforms specifically don't let you benefit from them [can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties] so what would be the harm in a bear eating a mutagen other than animal cruelty?