Any News on Alchemist and proficiencies?

[shroudb]

Cyder wrote:

The (relative) silence and lack of wide playtesting on what sound like large changes to a class that a large part of the player base perceive have issues is not comforting.

Changes to splash and bombs without corresponding accuracy/DC boost sounds like a bad trade.

Alchs work ok as a 5th/6th/7th member of a party but even then there are feats (prescient planner) or just good prep that make their 'versatility' a crutch for lazy parties. I am dubious about a class whose primary value is as a walking emergency shop of consumables.

I loved PF1e alchemist. A lot of flavourful and cool options that seem to have gotten lost in the conversation to PF2e by making it a walking vending machine.

counterargument: they had YEARS of playtesting the core classes already

[YuriP]

Red Griffyn wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

This is a weird stance to take.

Yep and it has a name: Power creep. It's a real thing that invalidates old builds despite the fact that they haven't changed.

So, to rephrase it, the power creep brought by Treasure Vault lead me to abandon one of my Alchemist.

Red Griffyn wrote:

I'm sure any existing alchemical encyclopedia knowledge folks retain will enable you to to do fun corner case mechanic exploitation even on the new chassis.

I'm sure about that. Still my sentence holds true: "My sole potential cause of disappointment regarding the Alchemist would be Paizo changing the class in a way that prevents my builds to still work (or make them uselessly complicated)."

Or are you trying to convince me otherwise? Because that would be really weird (and doomed to fail).

I mean. If I've fed myself I don't get mad if someone hands out food to others who are starving (even if it is better food than what I paid for and they get it for free). Your take is a literal example of a self-centric point of view. That's why it is weird. It just isn't a convincing position.

Did they 'take something' from you. No. Do you play in parties with multiple alchemists where you're made obsolete? I'm willing to bet that is also a no. So its all just 'in your head'. Your build wasn't made less viable so you're choosing to be dissatisfied because some other alchemist in some other campaign can do something you don't like?

SuperBidi wrote:

Yes, it's a form of power creep. The new options are better than the old ones so playing the old ones feel worse than before. Even if in my case it was just a nail in the coffin, I was dissatisfied with my build already.

By your own admission your 'viable' build wasn't even that good and you were dissatisfied with it. So sounds to me like change is needed to actually make your concept viable.

A rising tide lifts all boats. Lack of change will just leave us with the status quo (i.e., overly...

I agree yet we need to remember that SuperBid mentioned that the build that was "killed" is "already not in a great state" and that "TV was the last nail in the coffin". So it's not like the SuperBid was in love for this build is more likely the build wasn't working good and TV doesn't help this build but turn viable others more interesting and he decides to kill this build at all.

But I disagree that this was a Power Creep like SuperBid said as result generated by TV. It was more likely new options just make other more interesting build viable while the old one was kept as it was.

I understand the Power Creep point of say that some new options can turn some old ones less interesting because these new options can make what you always wanted to make better with these new options of what they were when they didn't exist so you choose to abandon the old options that didn't work so well before. But I disagree with this term is corrent when used in this situation.

IMO Power Creep is something that happens when something is breaking the game (what's not the case) or when some builds are so more better and stronger than others that this can create a meta (like happens with the old CoDzilla situation in 3.5).

But this wasn't the case of alchemist in PF2. It's more like the class works subpar to its intention and existence since the beginning. That's why the class always was called as "portable store" and "better as archetype than a class" because it was a class with a pretty bad situation since the beginning. The "Power Creep" sensation comes more from non-uniform improvements that was put by designers in the erratas that didn't attacked its main problems like its bad attack and class proficiency that always was its main problems that make the class works like a subpar alternative to casters.

[Karmagator]

The Raven Black wrote:

Cyder wrote:

The (relative) silence and lack of wide playtesting on what sound like large changes to a class that a large part of the player base perceive have issues is not comforting.

You realize this applies to all Remastered classes right ?

I do not think players of Witch, Rogue and Cleric have been disappointed by PC1.

Yeah, and it also includes literally every playtest. Changes made after the feedback has rolled in aren't tested by the community either. Which is pretty much the exact situation we are in, just that the playtest was 4 years and less experimental.

Getting angry over this is just unfair to Paizo.

[Red Griffyn]

The Raven Black wrote:

Cyder wrote:

The (relative) silence and lack of wide playtesting on what sound like large changes to a class that a large part of the player base perceive have issues is not comforting.

You realize this applies to all Remastered classes right ?

I do not think players of Witch, Rogue and Cleric have been disappointed by PC1.

I'm disappointed with the Cleric. I wanted a wave caster warpriest with martial proficiency scaling. Turns out I want the same changes to the alchemist so considering they didn't listen on the warpriest why would we expect them to listen on the alchemist?

Rogue/witch only got buffs and didn't have any critical proficiency scaling in need of patches so 'one of these things is not like the other!'

shroudb wrote:

counterargument: they had YEARS of playtesting the core classes already

Counter-Counterarguement: We have NOT been playtesting for years because a playtest provides:

- Real play testing and stress testing of the mechanics with specific targeted focus on the pain points and a suggested solution to the problem.
- A structured feedback mechanism to standardize people's comments, ratings, or focus feedback on specific mechanics.
- Stimulates general discussion of solutions that would be better and focuses them all in one location (i.e., playtest subforum) for designers to collate/consolidate. Ideas that might not appear in playtest surveys because of the structure. Ideas are not lost because they are not captured in the specific location for said feedback (i.e., on reddit, discord, a weird Paizo forum, etc.).
- Collects a snapshot of the play base actual rating of the solution (or sub-elements) you have provided. You don't have to design by committee like WOTC, but you should collect actual metrics on whether people like what you proposed.

The argument that they've playtested these for years is just wrong.

When remaster was announced I started up a thread about what, if any, kind of player engagement would they have or let us have. It solicited these responses:
- We playtested for years (FALSE!)
- We don't need a playtest for minor errata (FALSE! this isn't just errata and if the scope WAS just errata it would fail to fix the class)
- WOTC is going to send lawyers and pinkertons to take Paizo's lunch (obviously that risk has NOT be realized).

The alchemist is a class that could have benefited from a targeted playtest and we didn't get one. Paizo holds all the cards here. If their 4th attempt to fix the class after 3-4 erratas and two alchemical item laden books didn't solve world alchemist hunger then its a fair comment to say 'they should have play tested the changes' because there is a substantive gap between what they think and what their user base thinks.

Just because Paizo usually does good work doesn't mean they can't make mistakes. If you consistently are making mistakes centered around 1 class, then there is a clear opportunity for improvement to involve the actual stakeholders in the class to provide comment. Its okay to be critical of Paizo without the need for people to defend the 'concept of Paizo made a great TTRPG'! They are adults who can take constructive feedback.

[shroudb]

Red Griffyn wrote:

shroudb wrote:

counterargument: they had YEARS of playtesting the core classes already

Counter-Counterarguement: We have NOT been playtesting for years because a playtest provides:

- Real play testing and stress testing of the mechanics with specific targeted focus on the pain points and a suggested solution to the problem.
- A structured feedback mechanism to standardize people's comments, ratings, or focus feedback on specific mechanics.
- Stimulates general discussion of solutions that would be better and focuses them all in one location (i.e., playtest subforum) for designers to collate/consolidate. Ideas that might not appear in playtest surveys because of the structure. Ideas are not lost because they are not captured in the specific location for said feedback (i.e., on reddit, discord, a weird Paizo forum, etc.).
- Collects a snapshot of the play base actual rating of the solution (or sub-elements) you have provided. You don't have to design by committee like WOTC, but you should collect actual metrics on whether people like what you proposed.

The argument that they've playtested these for years is just wrong.

A) real play of 1-20 from a much much bigger population compared to official playtest classes for a way wsy bigger duration ensures a way bigger "stress test" over every single mechanic of a class.

B)there have been hundreds of threads on the alchemist problems and solutions, certainly much more written feedback compared to any playtest class feedback.

C) which several polls, metrics, and discussions snapshot the player base ideas.

Ergo:

The argument that they've playtested for years is just right.

[MadScientistWorking]

SuperBidi wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Power Creep only matters in the context of the game as a whole. Treasure Vault giving the Alchemist good enough support that struggling through your bad build no longer felt worth it isn't power creep.

Yes, it's a form of power creep. The new options are better than the old ones so playing the old ones feel worse than before. Even if in my case it was just a nail in the coffin, I was dissatisfied with my build already.

No. They compliment the new options not completely supplant them. One of the biggest problems of the Alchemist was for a class built around versatility they had none to little of it

[Sanityfaerie]

Cyder wrote:

The (relative) silence and lack of wide playtesting on what sound like large changes to a class that a large part of the player base perceive have issues is not comforting.

Changes to splash and bombs without corresponding accuracy/DC boost sounds like a bad trade.

Alchs work ok as a 5th/6th/7th member of a party but even then there are feats (prescient planner) or just good prep that make their 'versatility' a crutch for lazy parties. I am dubious about a class whose primary value is as a walking emergency shop of consumables.

I loved PF1e alchemist. A lot of flavourful and cool options that seem to have gotten lost in the conversation to PF2e by making it a walking vending machine.

In general, I'd encourage people to chill.

The lack of playtesting is because... they've had literal years of the best playtesting possible. There have been a significant number of in-depth analysis threads on this very board, with arguments about the effectiveness of the alchemist. They've gotten feedback.

Alchemist isn't going to get nerfed overall because most of the feedback they've gotten on the thing is that it's frustratingly weak. I think, though, that what we're likely to get is more specialized alchemists. My guess is that we'll have bombers who are better at bombing, mutagenists who are better at chugging a potion or two and charging into the scrum, and poisoners who are better at combat using poisons... and sacrifice some of that flexibility to get it. I also expect that there will be a path for the more generalized alchemists who want to be able to do all the things and play the hyperflexible support games that pre-remaster alchemist was designed for, because it's not like people haven't talked about how that playstyle is fun for them. If nothing else, I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least some way to buy your way back up to the old level of versatility pretty quickly with feats.

Like, the only other class that was close to the alchemist in tone fo feedback was the witch... and Player Core 1 resulted in some pretty happy witch mains, IIRC. So let's try giving them the benefit of the doubt for a little while. I expect that the results will not be horrible.

[Squiggit]

The Raven Black wrote:

Cyder wrote:

The (relative) silence and lack of wide playtesting on what sound like large changes to a class that a large part of the player base perceive have issues is not comforting.

You realize this applies to all Remastered classes right ?

I do not think players of Witch, Rogue and Cleric have been disappointed by PC1.

I'm not sure Rogue is a great pick here. Giving sweeping buffs to what was already considered one of the best classes in the game while leaving its few legitimately bad subclasses totally untouched does not really speak to fantastic quality control.

... and while for the most part I think the Witch changes were nice, we had an Arcane witch at one of our tables and the update was pretty heartbreaking for her.

[ottdmk]

My main concern since the PaizoCon panel can be summed up by this quote from earlier in the thread:

Captain Morgan wrote:

We just don't know how versatile those vials actually are.

Right now, we know these things:

1) They can be turned into Alchemical Items really quickly and you can replenish them during Exploration.
2) Any Versatile Vial can be thrown as an "acid bomb".
3) Each Research Field has their own specific way it can use them. Two examples were given: Toxicologists can make a Poison, Chirurgeons can make a Healing item.

So the first point, all well and good. The second point? Not a big fan of anything that reinforces the notion that all Alchemists use Bombs, and this does that. Still, not really a big deal.

It's the third one that worries me. It suggests that only a Toxicologist can turn a Versatile Vial into a Poison. Only a Chirurgeon can turn one into a healing item.

Now, I could be off base here. Maybe the Research Fields get to turn Versatile Vials into non-standard versions of those items. Maybe the Poison and the Healing Item are something specific, as opposed to a general Item from GM Core or PC2. But I'm still worried that post Player Core 2 my Bomber won't be able to Quick Alchemy a Contagion Metabolizer or similar Item any more.

My other concerns?

Is my Infused Reagents pool going to shrink? If so, by how much? I don't want to be using Versatile Vials for my combat mutagens... that's too slow. I want to have enough Infused Reagents to make sufficient Quicksilver Mutagens (minimum 4) each day, right from Level 1 (which I've done twice now.)

Are we keeping Perpetual Infusions under this new dual pool scheme? Renewable Versatile Vials are great, but without Perpetual Infusions you can still run out of Resources during any particular Encounter. My combat style relies heavily on Persistent Damage through the Sticky Bomb feat and my Pepetual Potency (Moderate) Bombs.

Double Brew? I use Double Brew to grab a bit of extra damage (and maybe an off-guard) when I don't have to move. This one largely ties back into the "do we keep Perpetual Infusions?" question.

I suppose what it boils down to is that I'm very unsure as to whether I can play my Alchemists post-PC2 as I have pre PC2. Which I don't think has been the case with any other Remastered Class, not even Witch. Witch gained some new things you could build around, but at the end of the day you didn't have to alter how you played a Witch. I'm not sure whether the same can be said for Alchemist... at least not yet.

I just wish PC2 would hurry up and get here so I'd know one way or another.

[Trip.H]

The Remaster update was very uneven for Witches. The nature of the Hex Cantrip and paired familiar ability means that a Witch either got an evergreen little hex to throw out at 0 build cost, ... or they got next to nothing.

Even some of the new Feats are Patron gated, like Spirit Familiar.

In my opinion, the Remaster added a huge imbalance within the various Witches that was not there before. And a lot of the praise will fade as the honeymoon period wanes.

So some Witches, like Resentment & Flamekeeper are genuinely improved. Resentment vs Shadow in specific is a good comparison to demonstrate how wildly (badly) Paizo balanced things. Resentment's "+1 duration" is crazy, but also a bit of a red herring. It's the ability to 1-Action throw a "save or Sickened 1" hex cantrip at foes is *absurdly* better than what Shadow can do. And as those 2 Patrons share the same spell list, there's no room to use a different list as "justification" for that imbalance. I have really tried to use Shadow's hex + ability across 2 Battlecry playtests, and actually triggered the Frightened 1 once across 4 fights, and never landed the hex cantrip (which is so bad I might have used it twice).

===============================================

Back to Alchemist

Copy pasting from the earlier thread:

Logan's words on-stream(?) wrote:

"So now the Alchemist has two different, uh, kinda pools. They still have a bunch of items they can create at the start of the day, but they no longer have to kinda decide how to balance the items they make at the start of the day VS ones they make during battle and, uh, exploration with Quick Alchemy.

Instead they have a pool of Versatile Vials. Uh, which kinda take the place of your reagents, and they are things you can turn into alchemical items really quickly, and also, in exploration you can replenish them. So we wanted a way that the Alchemist can kinda keep doing alchemy all day, and had kind of a more stable base to them.

So that is gonna kinda be your main ability. The versatile vials can also be used on their own. You can just throw a versatile vial like an acid bomb, basically. It's a little different, but each Research Field also has its own specific way it can use them. Like the Toxicologist can make a poison, and the Chirurgeon can make a healing item, and there's a kind of like a special limitation on there so you have infinite healing basically. But those kind of special uses will mean your Research Field is kind of useful all the time."

With the way this is written, it actually sounds like he thinks that you can use V Vials to make actual, formula book alchemical items. I do not know how they plan to do this with the existence of long-duration buff items. Basically, imagine if you could use a recharging focus spell to grant things like Greater Darkvision Elixirs, which provide all-day darkvision.

Basically, every all day item becomes "free" for the whole party with a single recharging V Vial.

To be honest... it is totally possible Paizo overlooked that, and just released Remastered Alch with that ability.

The phrasing of "they are things you can turn into alchemical items really quickly," while being separate from the "throw a [V Vial] like an acid bomb" is more interesting on a re-read with this issue in mind.

I think there might be a "brew time" associated with turning the V Vials into a formula-based alch item, likely a 1 min bit of prep. That makes it further seem like the alch item list is still open for V Vials, but also adds room for a bit of a quirk.

My current theory is that V Vials will require one to "prep" the vial into an alch item of choice that sits ready on your belt for combat usage. I think that's their answer to Q-Alch being so bad from an action standpoint, you instead make them ahead of time. Any V Vial that's recharged, but left unmade, is where the Research Field use comes in, such as throwing like a bomb or healing with it.

It could be quite great for Alchemist, as X-min brew times on a recharging item would be, uh, beyond my most optimistic expectations.

[Red Griffyn]

shroudb wrote:

A) real play of 1-20 from a much much bigger population compared to official playtest classes for a way wsy bigger duration ensures a way bigger "stress test" over every single mechanic of a class.

B)there have been hundreds of threads on the alchemist problems and solutions, certainly much more written feedback compared to any playtest class feedback.

C) which several polls, metrics, and discussions snapshot the player base ideas.

Ergo:

The argument that they've playtested for years is just right.

A) You need a formalized systematic approach to collect data or you left with inconclusive anecdotal garbage data. Just because a bunch of people played doesn't mean you're collecting data on their play. That's the point of putting out a call for input that consolidates/centralizes the feedback through a well crafted/systematic approach for collecting that data. So no we don't have multiple years of L1-20 of some magical PF2e population because they didn't collect any data. Suggesting we do is is ignoring the entire field of survey data collection, analytics, and statistical analysis. If you think you don't need that, I've got some products to sell you that 9/10 <insert expert field title> say will really help you with your <insert random problem>.

B) Hundreds of threads by who? The most vocal Paizo/Reddit attendees? That necessarily limits the scope of your 'playtest' because you aren't actually collecting data from the wider player base. You're collecting it from the most vocal people who happen to participate on these forums, reddit, etc. That is why a playtest is better. It casts a wider net and so you avoid biasing your data based on the words of a isolated small population that may not represent the actual users of the game. It also forms clear biases. Is the topic on reddit that is downvoted actually unpopular as a design choice or is it unpopular for the first 10 people who read it and sent it on its merry downward spiral into irrelevance (or vice versa if it gets more upvotes). They aren't appropriate ways to collect data if you care about drawing any meaningful conclusions from the data. If you ever listen to Mark Seifter give talks he'll wrap caveats around these things to avoid misrepresenting the data's outcomes because people like him and Paizo know that random form factor unsolicited feedback ranks low on the spectrum of 'data quality'.

C) Where are these polls, metrics, and discussions that are formulated in a way to collect meaningful data? There is a way to write a good poll and write a bad poll. I remember YuriP put out a 'poll' like you described and it was poorly crafted/structured (when suggestions were provided to improve the data quality it wasn't met with changes or positive reception - just that they didn't care about that aspect for their purposes). These magical polls don't reach the larger player base and when they are poorly structured the data they output is essentially useless because you can't draw any conclusions from what is there.

All of that ignores that play tests are designed to TEST a certain solution/mechanics. Playing a random alchemist and then posting on forum that "I think X would be better" doesn't mean you play tested "X" or ran any math on it or did any level of due diligence. All it might tell you is why people think the current version is good or bad and what they think would improve it (regardless of whether it would!).

Would you guys except the hand wavy results of a scientific study that was run at 300 different labs across 4 years that had wildly different experimental set-ups, no clear hypothesis to test, no experimental controls, varying levels of uncertainty/calibration on equipment, performed by laypeople, AND gave widely varying results that were not standardized to a singular format for comparison? NO! That would be insane. You guys are trying to justify why a similarly loosey goosey approach will somehow bring meaningful results. The 'stakes' are lower since it only impacts a TTRPG and the ability to collect high quality data is less (since we aren't using experimental instruments but instead trying to capture human subjective experience), but the similarities between these two cases are pretty obvious.

[Squiggit]

Most of those criticisms apply to the playtests themselves, so I'm not really sure what could be done.

[QuidEst]

Squiggit wrote:

Most of those criticisms apply to the playtests themselves, so I'm not really sure what could be done.

Double-blind placebo-controlled playtest with subsequent peer review.

[Sanityfaerie]

The potential effort that can be applied to improving quality of test data is unbounded. It is always possible to assert an impractical and/or unachievable standard of proof for any given domain. The fact that you've found one does not actually mean that anyone is obligated to implement it, or that it reflects badly on them if they do not.

[Perpdepog]

Squiggit wrote:

Most of those criticisms apply to the playtests themselves, so I'm not really sure what could be done.

Most of these criticisms can be leveed at the outcry for playtests as well, for that matter. It's not practical or feasible to do unlimited playtests of things, so effort needs to be directed to places where it will have the most impact. Arguments like,

Red Griffyn wrote:

B) Hundreds of threads by who? The most vocal Paizo/Reddit attendees? That necessarily limits the scope of your 'playtest' because you aren't actually collecting data from the wider player base. You're collecting it from the most vocal people who happen to participate on these forums, reddit, etc. That is why a playtest is better. It casts a wider net and so you avoid biasing your data based on the words of a isolated small population that may not represent the actual users of the game. It also forms clear biases. Is the topic on reddit that is downvoted actually unpopular as a design choice or is it unpopular for the first 10 people who read it and sent it on its merry downward spiral into irrelevance (or vice versa if it gets more upvotes). They aren't appropriate ways to collect data if you care about drawing any meaningful conclusions from the data. If you ever listen to Mark Seifter give talks he'll wrap caveats around these things to avoid misrepresenting the data's outcomes because people like him and Paizo know that random form factor unsolicited feedback ranks low on the spectrum of 'data quality'.

Also applies to whether or not a playtest is warranted in the first place. Is a playtest necessary because a majority of players are having serious problems, or does it simply feel that way because the people who call for playtests all congregate in the same places?

Of course, then you've got to send out surveys for your surveys, and that way madness lies.

[shroudb]

Red Griffyn wrote:

shroudb wrote:

A) real play of 1-20 from a much much bigger population compared to official playtest classes for a way wsy bigger duration ensures a way bigger "stress test" over every single mechanic of a class.

B)there have been hundreds of threads on the alchemist problems and solutions, certainly much more written feedback compared to any playtest class feedback.

C) which several polls, metrics, and discussions snapshot the player base ideas.

Ergo:

The argument that they've playtested for years is just right.

A) You need a formalized systematic approach to collect data or you left with inconclusive anecdotal garbage data. Just because a bunch of people played doesn't mean you're collecting data on their play. That's the point of putting out a call for input that consolidates/centralizes the feedback through a well crafted/systematic approach for collecting that data. So no we don't have multiple years of L1-20 of some magical PF2e population because they didn't collect any data. Suggesting we do is is ignoring the entire field of survey data collection, analytics, and statistical analysis. If you think you don't need that, I've got some products to sell you that 9/10 <insert expert field title> say will really help you with your <insert random problem>.

B) Hundreds of threads by who? The most vocal Paizo/Reddit attendees? That necessarily limits the scope of your 'playtest' because you aren't actually collecting data from the wider player base. You're collecting it from the most vocal people who happen to participate on these forums, reddit, etc. That is why a playtest is better. It casts a wider net and so you avoid biasing your data based on the words of a isolated small population that may not represent the actual users of the game. It also forms clear biases. Is the topic on reddit that is downvoted actually unpopular as a design choice or is it unpopular for the first 10 people who read it and sent it on its merry downward spiral into irrelevance (or vice...

a)it's laughable if you think that the hundreds of posts of feedback cannot be used to get data. you have a very narrow view of what analytics can accomplish.

b)by default, the average player who plays and posts, is more "wide" than the tiny amount of people who not only make a playtest character, but go on and post feedback on said experience. It's very easy to see how many normal games start every day and how few playtest games actually do. And those playtest games that do happen are usually just a set of random encounters.

c)the ones responsible for the analytics, aka the professionals, are the ones with the metrics. you don't need those, those making the class need them.

If you think that paizo lacks data about alchemist, and they didn't bother to even post a "survey" to gather said data, you are kidding yourself. It is very easy for them to make just a survey for the current alchemist, but they choose not to, guess why.
---

playtests are designed to try to squish in just a couple of months, a tiny faction of a class, to test just a couple of specific thing BECAUSE we don't have the time to be testing for years and years like the aready published core classes.

Basically, a worse version of what we have for the published core classes already.

[Tridus]

Maybe the question should be "is a playtest warranted if they've already changed this class multiple times and still not gotten it right?"

Because that's kind of the thing: Alchemist is the most revised class in the system and it's not close, even before PC2 comes out. It was changed significantly multiple times over CRB printings.

Now maybe they knew what was wrong all along and just couldn't fix it in errata, so everything is great. Or maybe they just want it to work a certain way and a lot of players won't like that vision.

Or maybe they don't actually really get how to fix it and keep trying things. In this case, a playtest would be valuable because its a chance to try stuff before its locked in.

Like, I don't think any of us really think that Barbarian needs a playtest for PC2. It generally does what it advertises, it works reasonably well, and it only needs tweaking. That's true of a lot of the classes. The ones that are worse off in a lot of cases have specific reasons for that which can be adjusted (looking at you, Oracle).

But Alchemist has always kind of been a mess despite numerous attempts to fix it, and at that point maybe a "hey this is what we are thinking, try it out and let us know how it feels" period can make a huge difference in outcomes.

Paizo is good at making classes, but they're not infallable. Hell, just look at the current playtest: we got one class in pretty good shape (Commander) and one class that is kind of a mess (Guardian).

[SuperBidi]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Would you guys except the hand wavy results of a scientific study that was run at 300 different labs across 4 years that had wildly different experimental set-ups, no clear hypothesis to test, no experimental controls, varying levels of uncertainty/calibration on equipment, performed by laypeople, AND gave widely varying results that were not standardized to a singular format for comparison? NO! That would be insane. You guys are trying to justify why a similarly loosey goosey approach will somehow bring meaningful results. The 'stakes' are lower since it only impacts a TTRPG and the ability to collect high quality data is less (since we aren't using experimental instruments but instead trying to capture human subjective experience), but the similarities between these two cases are pretty obvious.

Designers launch playtests because they need one, not for your convenience or because you should be part of the designing process. If they consider they don't need a playtest then they don't. You, well, you are just a customer so they can launch playtests for marketing sake so you feel you are taken into account, but that'd certainly be a very high cost to satisfy a very small number of players.

[YuriP]

I'm one who like and see a high value in open playtests as away to find flaws and to get the acceptance of many things but I also know that this is hard and expensive (at last in terms o time) for the books development. Also even if Paizo playtests every detail of the game they won't get feedback about everything, as would like or as everyone wants it's no like the community was test every aspect and mechanic of the books with many things becoming untested due lack of interest or time.

That's why for minor things (things lesser than classes) they only do internal tests and even with these if something doesn't works good after the release they use erratas to try improve/fix it (because the system is live and can being fixed along the way like happes in electronic games).

As well said by SuperBidi, the "designers launch playtests because they need one" to get the overall acceptance of many of the concepts they are developing and maybe find something strange or interactions that they don't see before (like many people pointing that the playtest commander tactics doesn't interact with kineticists making this party combination pretty bad and maybe antagonistic (not to the point like bards/bless spell and superstition barbarians but a party with a player wanting to be a commander and another wanting to be a kineticist will have to deal that will have no interaction between these classes)) but it's no possible to made for every feat, spell or item that they will implement in the game due lack of time and interest of every aspect of the game.

[Squiggit]

The one thing I will say in the defense of people critical of the decision, classes receiving extensive changes based on feedback without the chance for the new mechanics to be re-analyzed externally are the conditions under which we got the APG Witch, Investigator, and the CRB Alchemist itself.

So it's not like the trepidation is entirely out of the blue or unfounded, even if I think some of the cynicism is a bit too much. Paizo is great at making tuning passes around feedback, but sometimes when dev cycles don't have that feedback layer the results are a bit less steady.

[ssims2]

So we have a (near) flame war based on a Paizo developer's decision NOT to say whether or not the alchemist's proficiencies have changed. How much worse would this have been if they actually had told us something. Seems to me their silence has been justified by this thread, given our community's tendency to catastrophize over literally nothing.

[MadScientistWorking]

Squiggit wrote:

The one thing I will say in the defense of people critical of the decision, classes receiving extensive changes based on feedback without the chance for the new mechanics to be re-analyzed externally are the conditions under which we got the APG Witch, Investigator, and the CRB Alchemist itself.

So it's not like the trepidation is entirely out of the blue or unfounded, even if I think some of the cynicism is a bit too much. Paizo is great at making tuning passes around feedback, but sometimes when dev cycles don't have that feedback layer the results are a bit less steady.

Right but the developers didn't exactly have a good handle of how the game itself works and plays at the time which is why the Alchemist seemed so conservative by comparison.

Also no. The wonkiest of those three was Alchemist and even that wasn't an unplayable mess.

[VampByDay]

I obviously don't know, but it sounds like good news. I think what is likely is that alchemists are getting some sort of buff that is not directly master proficiency in weapons, but it adds up to master proficiency. Like maybe a +1, and then eventually +2 bonus to hit with bombs or something. And the stream did say that they heard the fans about wanting to make a Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde character, so maybe there will be a feat for a mutagenist that gets them there. I dunno.

So far, all the remastered classes seem to have tried to bring characters up to the level of rogue, who is widely regarded (in my group at least) to be the 'alpaha best class,' so I wouldn't call it so much of power creep as trying to get everyone to that same level.

Thanks everyone who looked into it, and thank you to the guy who found that post from James Case. Looking forward to August 1st.