Does the investigator recover versatile vials like the alchemist?

[SuperBidi]

I disagree with you on a few points.

Squiggit wrote:

A level 1 premaster investigator had 80% the number of starting reagents of a similarly built alchemist. Post-remaster the investigator has 20 minutes worth of vials at level 1. That's a really huge shift in the amount of relative volume.

But not a change at all in the actual volume. So it is very plausible.

Squiggit wrote:

wherein you're required to read part of the versatile vial entry to know how your mechanics work but you're supposed to avoid reading another part

No, you misinterpret the other interpretation.

Alchemical Sciences states: "During your daily preparations, you can create a number of versatile vials—alchemical concoctions that can quickly be turned into elixirs and tools— equal to your Intelligence modifier."

And Versatile Vials state: "During your daily preparations, you can create a number of versatile vials up to 2 + your Intelligence modifier, which is also your maximum number of vials. If you're below your maximum number, you can gather reagents from the environment around you. For every 10 minutes you spend in exploration mode, you regain 2 vials; this doesn't prevent you from participating in other exploration activities."

So the sentence in Alchemical Sciences can replace either only the first sentence inside Versatile Vials or the whole paragraph. And I think a lot of people, me included, consider that the whole paragraph is interconnected, that specifying only half of it expecting players to continue using the second half doesn't make sense.

Actually, it's the interpretation that the Investigator recovers VVs every 10 minutes that ask you to mix and match rules in a weird way.

[NorrKnekten]

I dont even think the idea that Investigator regaining vials holds any water from RAW.

As others have stated the Versatile Vial feature is what allows an alchemist to regain Vials, which to mean would mean that unless the feature is specifically given as part of alchemical sciences,then Investigator doesn't share these behaviors.

Similar with Alchemical Archetypes, I don't think the text about regaining vials is a specific restriction but rather a reference or reminder to the fact they lack this feature that lets them regain vials.

If they intended for Investigator to regain vials they would've explicitly written that or added "You gain the versatile vials feature. You can prepare int mod vials per day"

[cmarmor]

Lead designer Logan Bonner at Paizocon 2024 states the following about the classes in PC2:

"The Alchemist was changed to have two different kinds of pools. They still have a bunch of items they can create at the start of the day, but they no longer have to decide how to balance the items they make at the start of the day versus ones they make during battle … instead they have a pool of versatile vials, which take the place of reagents. They are things that can be turned into alchemical items very quickly, and also during exploration they can be replenished. We wanted a way for the alchemist to be able to keep doing alchemy all day."

Later he says the following about the Investigator:
"The Investigator methodologies changed ... and the Alchemical Sciences changed to be like the new alchemist."

The intent seems pretty clear. The investigator doesn't get quick alchemy. They get their own ability called quick tincture because it differs quite a lot from quick alchemy. Normally when Paizo gives access to an ability from another class (usually from a dedication), they specify what is different, then reference the base class the ability comes from. They don't provide multiple definitions in each instance. If the desired ability is significantly different they create a new ability (i.e. quick tincture).

The investigator alchemical sciences says they get versatile vials and specifies the number they get. This is spelled out because it is DIFFERENT from what the alchemist gets. Otherwise it can be assumed versatile vials are the same. If they were intended to be markedly different (than as designed in the alchemist class) then the designers would have made them unique to the investigator like they did with quick tincture.

For example, consider a few other special abilities from classes that can be acquired with dedications and feats;

• Ranger's Hunt Prey
• Investigator's Devise a Stratagem
• Rogues' Sneak Attack
• Magus' Spellstrike

All these special abilities are defined in the core class. The dedication outlines what is different and then references the book and page of the core class where the ability is defined.

[Trip.H]

SuperBidi wrote:

Classic RAW vs RAI:

Arguments for:
- VVs state you get them back every 10 minutes so a strict RAW reading means the Investigator gets them back every 10 minutes.

While this is the largest reason this issue keeps coming back, this was never true.

.

If the versatile vial item itself had text/a rule that claimed "VVs naturally recharge themselves every 10 min" then sure, that would allow base Alch Sci Invest to get recharging VVials. That's not the case.

.

The Alchemist class features section titled Versatile Vials which grants the class VVs, and includes text that grants the Alchemist character vial recharge.

The Alch Sci Investigator never references that text section at all. There's 0 way to RaW lay claim to any word of that section. A class feature is not categorically the same as an item. Just because the name is (stupidly) the same as an item does not allow you to claim it.

This issue is 100% the fault of Paizo for their bad naming, but that's why the Alch Sci text is very carefully worded. Anyone who dives this deep to check can find that it's not RaW ambiguous at all.

Quote:

During your daily preparations, you can create a number of versatile vials equal to your Intelligence modifier. Statistics for versatile vials appear in the alchemist class.

Not only is the text saying "just the VV item" and is not pointing you to the class feature text, but there is 0 text saying that you get to lay claim to what's being pointed at in the first place. It's literally "you go there to learn about the VVs that the prior sentence granted." That sentence / rule has zero "you gain" instruction.

[NorrKnekten]

cmarmor wrote:

Lead designer Logan Bonner at Paizocon 2024 states the following about the classes in PC2:

"The Alchemist was changed to have two different kinds of pools. They still have a bunch of items they can create at the start of the day, but they no longer have to decide how to balance the items they make at the start of the day versus ones they make during battle … instead they have a pool of versatile vials, which take the place of reagents. They are things that can be turned into alchemical items very quickly, and also during exploration they can be replenished. We wanted a way for the alchemist to be able to keep doing alchemy all day."

Later he says the following about the Investigator:
"The Investigator methodologies changed ... and the Alchemical Sciences changed to be like the new alchemist."

The intent seems pretty clear. The investigator doesn't get quick alchemy. They get their own ability called quick tincture because it differs quite a lot from quick alchemy. Normally when Paizo gives access to an ability from another class (usually from a dedication), they specify what is different, then reference the base class the ability comes from. They don't provide multiple definitions in each instance. If the desired ability is significantly different they create a new ability (i.e. quick tincture).

The investigator alchemical sciences says they get versatile vials and specifies the number they get. This is spelled out because it is DIFFERENT from what the alchemist gets. Otherwise it can be assumed versatile vials are the same. If they were intended to be markedly different (than as designed in the alchemist class) then the designers would have made them unique to the investigator like they did with quick tincture.

I'm unsure what stance you are trying to take here so could you clarify?

Its correct that they don't get Quick Alchemy, Quick Tincture does not share the 10minute duration limit on items created by it and cannot create quick vials.

But the vials within Alchemist is gained from the Versatile Vials feature itself is it not? While the vials from Archetypes are typically gained from Quick Alchemy Benefits. And some classes have feats or features which give Vials but only refer to the statistics and not the feature.

[cmarmor]

Versatile Vials are one thing as defined in the alchemist class. No need to try to create multiple definitions. In the words of the lead designer;
"they have a pool of versatile vials, which take the place of reagents. They are things that can be turned into alchemical items very quickly, and also during exploration they can be replenished. We wanted a way for the alchemist to be able to keep doing alchemy all day."

They are further defined in the alchemist class. They are physical objects or items that can be used two ways. They can be thrown as a bomb, or turned into other alchemical items by introducing special reagents.

[Squiggit]

SuperBidi wrote:

But not a change at all in the actual volume. So it is very plausible.

Yeah it's definitely possible, but still feels odd given the premise of the alchemy changes to begin with to leave the Investigator in the exact same state. The rationales don't seem to really line up.

Especially when compounded by the fact that in prepared marketing material Paizo designers said that Investigator was being changed to work like the new Alchemist, despite that not actually being the case: without a recharge mechanic alchemical sciences is essentially unchanged.

Again that's not a rules argument for anything, just an observation that the whole thing seems like kind of a mess.

[Trip.H]

cmarmor wrote:

Versatile Vials are one thing as defined in the alchemist class. No need to try to create multiple definitions. In the words of the lead designer;

"they have a pool of versatile vials, which take the place of reagents. They are things that can be turned into alchemical items very quickly, and also during exploration they can be replenished. We wanted a way for the alchemist to be able to keep doing alchemy all day."

They are further defined in the alchemist class. They are physical objects or items that can be used two ways. They can be thrown as a bomb, or turned into other alchemical items by introducing special reagents.

This is a misconception.

The Alch class having a feature called "Versatile Vials" is not the same thing as the concept of VVs being defined there.

.

This exact argument could be used to pretend that the Witch's "Familiar" class feature could be gained because it has the same name issue.

.

Again, a versatile vial is an item like an elixir of life is an item. The item and concept of a "versatile vial" is defined in that side-bar / side box listing out the statistics of the item.

The VV as a concept just happens to be printed inside the Alch class instead of in the alch equipment list.

There is 0 text in the Investigator pointing to the Alch class feature, it only points to the item.

Some text of that alch class feature can be interpreted to apply to all VVs generally, such as the "VVs cannot be duplicated" text, but all phrasings of "you gain, you ___" only apply to a PC with that feature.

[NorrKnekten]

They could've referenced the feature itself instead, in the same way the rogue archetype references sneak attack. Alchemical Sciences only references the statistics of the itemized VV in its bomb form. If the intention is that they are supposed to replenish then that is not readily apparent in the current rules and conventions. It should probably recieve an errata if this is the case. Wouldn't even be a big change of text.

"You gain the Versatile Vials class feature(Page 59) except your maximum number of vials is equal to your int mod"

This would put it in line with how archetypes references activities/actions and features from other classes, like how magus and rogue archetypes reference Spellstrike or Sneak Attack.

[cmarmor]

Trip.H wrote:

This is a misconception.

The Alch class having a feature called "Versatile Vials" is not the same thing as the concept of VVs being defined there.

.

This exact argument could be used to pretend that the Witch's "Familiar" class feature could be gained because it has the same name issue.

.

Again, a versatile vial is an item like an elixir of life is an item. The item and concept of a "versatile vial" is defined in that side-bar / side box listing out the statistics of the item.

The VV as a concept just happens to be printed inside the Alch class instead of in the alch equipment list.

There is 0 text in the Investigator pointing to the Alch class feature, it only points to the item.

Some text of that alch class feature can be interpreted to apply to all VVs generally, such as the "VVs cannot be duplicated" text, but all phrasings of "you gain, you ___" only apply to a PC with that feature.

Dude, your mental gymnastics are amazing. So according to you, versatile vials are an item which is defined by the chart on page 59. They are also a feature of the alchemist class, which is separate from the item found in the chart. Finally, versatile vials are a concept found in archetypes. This is really some well developed rationales here.

You don't think that maybe, just maybe you are over-thinking this? The rules for versatile vials are really clear and not complicated. Its RIGHT IN THE RULES. They are physical objects or items with two uses. You can throw them like a bomb, or you can add reagents to them to create a different alchemical item. Really its pretty simple. I’m just going to make two points.

• 1. The development team was really, really clear on what they intended. The biggest and most significant change to the Alchemist was versatile vials. In their words they “wanted a way for the alchemist to be able to keep doing alchemy all day.” Versatile vials and the ability to recover them is the mechanism that allows this. Then they stated that the investigator alchemical sciences were supposed to play just like the new alchemist. Without recovering versatile vials, the investigator plays nothing like the alchemist. You get 4 vials for the day and that’s it. Pretty hard to keep doing alchemy all day with only 4 vials. You may not like it, but this was their stated intent.

• 2. You seem to be hung up on the word statistic, as in it can only refer to a chart. Statistics include facts and pieces of data as well as actual numbers. How much something weighs, or how much space it takes up, or how long it takes to collect it, etc. are all valid “statistics.” Just because the chart on page 59 has the word statistic on it does not mean the previous paragraph did not contain “statistics.”

[NorrKnekten]

I mean regardless, Alchemical Sciences replenishing its vials is plausible reading but it is not one that is likely to be made, especially not without information that is a single sentence from an hour long video that could refer to any of the new alchemist improvements, Be it formulas, throwable vials or otherwise.

The wording in the rules simply lends more credence to Alchemical Sciences referencing their itemized form as to not have to reprint the entire VV sidebar, similar to how other sources of VVs refer to them. Especially in regards to the convention of Specific overrides General which tells us that we cannot assume the behavior in the Versatile Vials feature is part of general behavior for Versatile Vials, because it is not explicitly stated that we gain the behavior in the feature, Nor can we assume the text within Quick Alchemy Benefits to be more than a reference to general behavior.

So there really are only a handful of things here;

Either that video wasnt refering to regaining vials,
They kept to much of the old text to communicate this new intent,
The current wording is correct and the intent is that they do not replenish,
or the internal communications at paizo are doing the thing again (like with Death and Dying rules).

Which to me sounds like its one of two scenarios;
the current wording is correct and it kept its old behavior, or we are expected to see an errata.

If we see an errata about this then that is fine but I do wonder how that is going to work with the ability to stack elixirs with 24 hour long durations.

[cmarmor]

Um, the developer said:

"instead they (Alchemists) have a pool of versatile vials, which take the place of reagents. They are things that can be turned into alchemical items very quickly, and also during exploration they can be replenished. We wanted a way for the alchemist to be able to keep doing alchemy all day."

The wording was clear, the emphasis was clear. "We wanted a way for the alchemist to be able to keep doing alchemy all day."

I don't know how this can be misconstrued. And while many of the Investigators features changed in PC2, the mechanics of Alchemical Sciences did NOT change from APG to PC2. So why comment that they wanted it to function the same as the new alchemists if they didn't change anything? Interestingly, the developer got the idea of versatile vials from the APG Investigator who always had them. Versatile vials as listed in the APG is almost identical text from APG to PC2. The APG didn't provide details about bulk, weight, storage, etc. None of that got defined until they added it to the new Alchemist.

All that aside, I assume you have the same take on Gunslingers who go into the munition crafting tree. At 6th level they get access to versatile vials that can only be used for bombs and ammunition. So you don't believe those replenish either? Again, I argue the developers intend gunslingers who go down that feat tree to be able to craft the materials needed to make their class work. Really sucks for a gunslinger to be out of ammo.

[Tridus]

cmarmor wrote:

1. The development team was really, really clear on what they intended. The biggest and most significant change to the Alchemist was versatile vials. In their words they “wanted a way for the alchemist to be able to keep doing alchemy all day.” Versatile vials and the ability to recover them is the mechanism that allows this. Then they stated that the investigator alchemical sciences were supposed to play just like the new alchemist. Without recovering versatile vials, the investigator plays nothing like the alchemist. You get 4 vials for the day and that’s it. Pretty hard to keep doing alchemy all day with only 4 vials. You may not like it, but this was their stated intent.

At the end of the day, what they intended and what they actually wrote differ.

If they intended Investigator to have recharging vials, they're going to need to errata Alchemical Sciences to say so. Because it absolutely does not do that right now. You get 4 vials a day, and that's it. It's pretty lame far as subclasses go because of that, but it is what it is.

And it's not the only subclass in PC2 to have such a problem where its stated intent isn't aligned with what it actually does.

[Tridus]

cmarmor wrote:

All that aside, I assume you have the same take on Gunslingers who go into the munition crafting tree. At 6th level they get access to versatile vials that can only be used for bombs and ammunition. So you don't believe those replenish either? Again, I argue the developers intend gunslingers who go down that feat tree to be able to craft the materials needed to make their class work. Really sucks for a gunslinger to be out of ammo.

Gunslingers get vials from the Quick Alchemy benefits in the archetype in PC2. That says this: "Unless otherwise noted, you can’t regain versatile vials throughout the day the way alchemists can."

So your argument is that Gunslingers have recharging vials despite the text explicitly saying they don't? I'm gonna call Citation Needed on that.

The fact that you think the feat isn't worth it for 4 vials doesn't mean that the rules don't say that. The rules on this one explicitly say it and you trying to argue otherwise undermines all your other arguments because it's so obviously wrong.

[cmarmor]

Tridus wrote:

Gunslingers get vials from the Quick Alchemy benefits in the archetype in PC2. That says this: "Unless otherwise noted, you can’t regain versatile vials throughout the day the way alchemists can."

Gunslingers get quick alchemy from a feat in their core gunslinger class, NOT an archetype. The restriction you mention is specifically given under quick alchemy for alchemical archetypes. This is exactly my point. They are given versatile vials, but not given the restriction that archetypes received. I think this makes logical sense. They don't want the gunslinger to run out of ammunition as it basically cripples the class. They only get access to bombs and ammo which is inline with class features.

The crux of all of my arguments is the same. Versatile vials are defined in one spot, under the alchemist. Classes and archetypes that get access special abilities from a different class, all eventually refer to the base class where that special ability is defined for the full rules. If something is different about that ability, they spell that out. That is my whole argument. I pointed out the developer's intent because it very clearly supports my argument, not that it was some sort of rules adjudication.

[Dr. Frank Funkelstein]

I agree that it would be reasonable to give classes regenerating vials and keep them from archetypes (unless explicitly stated).
I also think that the rules are not very clear about that.

[TheFinish]

cmarmor wrote:

Gunslingers get quick alchemy from a feat in their core gunslinger class, NOT an archetype. The restriction you mention is specifically given under quick alchemy for alchemical archetypes.

This is both true and incorrect at the same type. Yes, the Gunslinger does not get Quick Alchemy Benefits from an Archetype. They're still gaining Quick Alchemy Benefits though, and they reference the Alchemical Archetype rules, not the Alchemist (specifically Player Core 2, page 174).

The same goes for Advanced Alchemy.

Now, the thing is, anyone can take Firework Technician and get infinite Versatile Vials anyway, which I honestly think is a mistake from Paizo, but we'll have to see.

[cmarmor]

TheFinish wrote:

This is both true and incorrect at the same type. Yes, the Gunslinger does not get Quick Alchemy Benefits from an Archetype. They're still gaining Quick Alchemy Benefits though, and they reference the Alchemical Archetype rules, not the Alchemist (specifically Player Core 2, page 174).

The same goes for Advanced Alchemy.

Now, the thing is, anyone can take Firework Technician and get infinite Versatile Vials anyway, which I honestly think is a mistake from Paizo, but we'll have to see.

Ah, you are correct sir. I missed that page reference to quick alchemy under alchemical archetypes. As a GM I would probably be inclined to allow it unless we were campaigning in an area where firearms are common. Most places they are rare.

[cmarmor]

Errenor wrote:

cmarmor wrote:

They don't want the gunslinger to run out of ammunition as it basically cripples the class.

That's just so senseless. Is it the class' feature? Just a feat? So what are you even talking about? No, the feat is not there to solve all problems with ammo (why should it?) and it's even optional. Going on.

(Not) running out of ammunition is a campaign problem and is solved together with a GM if they allow guns at all.

MUNITIONS CRAFTER

GUNSLINGER
FEAT 1
Bullets and bombs can be scarce in some parts, so you’ve learned to make your own...

The feat is there to specifically solve ammo problems.

[YuriP]

cmarmor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Gunslingers get vials from the Quick Alchemy benefits in the archetype in PC2. That says this: "Unless otherwise noted, you can’t regain versatile vials throughout the day the way alchemists can."

Gunslingers get quick alchemy from a feat in their core gunslinger class, NOT an archetype. The restriction you mention is specifically given under quick alchemy for alchemical archetypes. This is exactly my point. They are given versatile vials, but not given the restriction that archetypes received. I think this makes logical sense. They don't want the gunslinger to run out of ammunition as it basically cripples the class. They only get access to bombs and ammo which is inline with class features.

The crux of all of my arguments is the same. Versatile vials are defined in one spot, under the alchemist. Classes and archetypes that get access special abilities from a different class, all eventually refer to the base class where that special ability is defined for the full rules. If something is different about that ability, they spell that out. That is my whole argument. I pointed out the developer's intent because it very clearly supports my argument, not that it was some sort of rules adjudication.

No you are focusing only as it was needed to be an archetype to use its rules and not how it works. The feat points to Quick Alchemy benefits directly.

Munitions Machinist wrote:

Trait: Gunslinger

Prerequisites Munitions Crafter, expert in Crafting

You’re adept at crafting ammunition. You gain the Quick Alchemy benefits (Player Core 2) and 4 versatile vials, but can only use Quick Vial to create bombs or alchemical ammunition.

* The bold in benefits is mine

And Quick Alchemy Benefits is very clear.

Quick Alchemy Benefits - Source Player Core 2 pg. 173 1.1 wrote:

You gain the Alchemical Crafting feat if you don’t already have it. In addition, you gain the Quick Alchemy action, which lets you create short-lived alchemical consumables with a special action, and you can create a certain number of versatile vials during your daily preparations to fuel Quick Alchemy. Unless otherwise noted, you can’t regain versatile vials throughout the day the way alchemists can. The individual archetype tells you how many versatile vials you can create each day, and might impose special restrictions or benefits for how you can use them. If you gain versatile vials from more than one source, you use the highest number of vials to determine your maximum rather than adding them together, but you can use the vials for any Quick Alchemy option or other use of versatile vials you possess.

* The big bold is mine

They are just reusing the archetype rule to not have to write the entire Quick Alchemy Benefits again. Even not being an archetype when a rule points to other you rule will use all its effects when applicable. If the designer didn't want to restrict it will simply removed the "benefits" from the text and only point to the action.

And yes, nothing states that the designers doesn't wants that gunslinger could become without alchemical ammo for free just like casters could become without slots. You are making an assumption of what the want by yourself only.

cmarmor wrote:

Errenor wrote:

cmarmor wrote:

They don't want the gunslinger to run out of ammunition as it basically cripples the class.

That's just so senseless. Is it the class' feature? Just a feat? So what are you even talking about? No, the feat is not there to solve all problems with ammo (why should it?) and it's even optional. Going on.

(Not) running out of ammunition is a campaign problem and is solved together with a GM if they allow guns at all.

MUNITIONS CRAFTER

GUNSLINGER
FEAT 1
Bullets and bombs can be scarce in some parts, so you’ve learned to make your own...

The feat is there to specifically solve ammo problems.

And if I don't want to take this feat? Do you remember that this is just an option? You still can buy or craft the ammo using money don't you?

[Errenor]

Also it's flavour so whatever, and 'learn to make your own' doesn't mean 'fully solve problems'...
But this doesn't look like reasonable arguments would help.

[cmarmor]

YuriP wrote:

No you are focusing only as it was needed to be an archetype to use its rules and not how it works. The feat points to Quick Alchemy benefits directly.

I have already acknowledged I was incorrect about the gunslinger. As I stated above, I missed the specific reference to the Quick Alchemy benefits listed in the rules for alchemical archetypes. In this case there is a clear restriction against recovering versatile vials for the gunslinger.

Errenor wrote:

Also it's flavour so whatever, and 'learn to make your own' doesn't mean 'fully solve problems'...

I never said it was to "fully solve problems", as you put it. Pathfinder Society games as well as some individual tables adhere to strict interpretation of RAW. The feats I referenced are very much intended to address running out of ammo. You can tell by the very first line of text in the feat. Doesn't mean you cant use it for flavor, and if I were running a gunslinger I probably would just because its cool. Feats for flavor are great, but that was not the main intent of the feats.

[Errenor]

cmarmor wrote:

I never said it was to "fully solve problems", as you put it. Pathfinder Society games as well as some individual tables adhere to strict interpretation of RAW. The feats I referenced are very much intended to address running out of ammo. You can tell by the very first line of text in the feat. Doesn't mean you cant use it for flavor, and if I were running a gunslinger I probably would just because its cool. Feats for flavor are great, but that was not the main intent of the feats.

'address running out of ammo' IS "fully solve problem" of ammo. No, RAW of the feats is not this. The RAW is you have 4+lvl/2 uses per day (at base) and can do with them what you want (x4 simple cartridges at base). And 4 other uses (VV) for making ones of something on the spot. If they wanted to say 'now your ammo is never-ending' they would've said so. They haven't.

[Tridus]

cmarmor wrote:

I never said it was to "fully solve problems", as you put it. Pathfinder Society games as well as some individual tables adhere to strict interpretation of RAW. The feats I referenced are very much intended to address running out of ammo. You can tell by the very first line of text in the feat. Doesn't mean you cant use it for flavor, and if I were running a gunslinger I probably would just because its cool. Feats for flavor are great, but that was not the main intent of the feats.

The easiest way to not run out of ammo is to buy ammo. Archers have to do this and it's not like there's a plague of people running out of arrows during PFS scenarios, and bows can be shot more often than most firearms due to reload 0. Show up to a standard PFS scenario with 30 bullets and you're not running out even if you have none of these feats.

But Munitions Crafter also covers this. Even at level 1 it's giving plenty of ammo for an adventuring day, and that scales up so you get more, letting you use it for special ammunition, which is what it's best at anyway due to the cost savings.

Munitions Machinist is definitely not intended to stop you from running out of ammo, because 4 vials that only last a round is never going to do that. Hell, using that feat for ammo at all is extremely difficult right now because the action economy is basically unworkable for any ammo that requires activating and taking an action to get 1 normal bullet that you have to load/fire the same turn is terrible for a level 6 feat.

As it stands now it's really only useful for bombs. I don't think the changes to it were well thought out, but that doesn't mean it was intended to do what you claim. You're doing a huge amount of inference.

[cmarmor]

Errenor wrote:

cmarmor wrote:

I never said it was to "fully solve problems", as you put it. Pathfinder Society games as well as some individual tables adhere to strict interpretation of RAW. The feats I referenced are very much intended to address running out of ammo. You can tell by the very first line of text in the feat. Doesn't mean you cant use it for flavor, and if I were running a gunslinger I probably would just because its cool. Feats for flavor are great, but that was not the main intent of the feats.

'address running out of ammo' IS "fully solve problem" of ammo. No, RAW of the feats is not this. The RAW is you have 4+lvl/2 uses per day (at base) and can do with them what you want (x4 simple cartridges at base). And 4 other uses (VV) for making ones of something on the spot. If they wanted to say 'now your ammo is never-ending' they would've said so. They haven't.

Bro, I addressed this twice already (now 3 times) acknowledging I was incorrect on the gunslinger. Are you just trying to be purposefully argumentative? Troll away if that makes you happy, Lol!

[Trip.H]

Ugh, shit, it would be nice to get a notification if your post is removed by a moderator.

I'll repeat.

There is 0 chance alch sci was ever intended to get recharging VVs while they have Quick Tincture, which does not have a duration limit.

Recharging alchemy is considered incompatible with full duration items. That's why the 10min limit was invented in the first place.

Recharging Invest VVs would allow them to buff their whole party with every all day elixir formula in the books, with 0 cost to their daily or combat resources.

This is not something even an Alchemist can do. Again, I'll repeat. That would make alch sci better at team buffing than real alchemists.

If you actually think about this issue, it's not rational to insist that alch sci gets to claim the Alchemist Class feature named Versatile Vials, just because that shares the same name as the versatile vial item.

Every angle you approach this from, there is absolutely no ground to stand on.

We have waaay too many examples about how stingy Paizo is with alchemy to suppose that. Archetype Alchs have a feat to add a single extra daily VV. A single more VV, with 0 possibility for recharge.
Alchemists have a 2 feat chain where the tax of Extended is needed for Eternal Elixir. An L16 feat where the alch gets to make a single (self-drunk only) elixir effect have a permanent duration.
A feat to instead remove the 10min limit for Q-Alch elixirs would be seen as absurdly more powerful, in a "never going to happen" manner.

For now, alch sci Investigators can have fun breaking the system via Firework Tech granting recharge while they have full duration effects via Q-Tincture.

Odds are, that's going to get errata deleted, and for good reason.

.

Edit: once more for posterity.

The ability to create vials during the day is a feature of the alchemist class. It is not a trait of the item. There is no "versatile vials recharge themselves..." text.

This is why Firework Tech has to say that you recharge your vials like an alchemist, because v vials are an item, which do not spontaneously refill themselves. Gaining an item that is the signature of one class does not pull in the features with it. Same goes for many other things, such as archetype Thaumaturges. You only get exactly what the text says and do *not* get to "default" your way into more power.

This truly is a case with 100% certainty behind it. Pretending that alch sci get to recharge their vials amounts to wish-whining for undue (and literally design-breaking) player power.

[cmarmor]

Trip.H wrote:

The ability to create vials during the day is a feature of the alchemist class. It is not a trait of the item. There is no "versatile vials recharge themselves...

Lol, Ok bro, glad your sure. Have a good day.

[Red Griffyn]

Tridus wrote:

cmarmor wrote:

1. The development team was really, really clear on what they intended. The biggest and most significant change to the Alchemist was versatile vials. In their words they “wanted a way for the alchemist to be able to keep doing alchemy all day.” Versatile vials and the ability to recover them is the mechanism that allows this. Then they stated that the investigator alchemical sciences were supposed to play just like the new alchemist. Without recovering versatile vials, the investigator plays nothing like the alchemist. You get 4 vials for the day and that’s it. Pretty hard to keep doing alchemy all day with only 4 vials. You may not like it, but this was their stated intent.

At the end of the day, what they intended and what they actually wrote differ.

If they intended Investigator to have recharging vials, they're going to need to errata Alchemical Sciences to say so. Because it absolutely does not do that right now. You get 4 vials a day, and that's it. It's pretty lame far as subclasses go because of that, but it is what it is.

And it's not the only subclass in PC2 to have such a problem where its stated intent isn't aligned with what it actually does.

This is why the pathfinder community can't have nice things lol.

Unless your in a PFS game with a stingy GM with a rod up their ***, WHO CARES what RAW is when you know what the RAI was? Designer clarified RAI is always > RAW when the RAW doesn't do what was intended. Designer clarified RAI is not the same as community debated RAI where we're all trying to 'guess' what a designer was thinking.

Do you know how many things I would be so thankful to get designer clarified RAI on? How about the champion blade ally/blessed armament remaster change we've been trying to get an answer on since PC2 (There are are 3-5+ dedicated thread posts for just that one single thing!). If logan showed up tomorrow in one of those threads and told us RAI they get that extra rune slot I would forever shut up about it and quote them till they fix the RAW to match the RAI.

Anyone who has received designer clarified RAI and still refuses to use it because 'RAW it doesn't do what they intended' is just straight power tripping.

[Trip.H]

People don't like using RaI arguments because of how it incentivizes dishonesty for the sake of gaining power. It's also incredibly unbound and arbitrary. Goooood luck getting even unmotivated parties who have no stake in the ruling to agree on what the RaI was.

Like this exact thread.

We have someone insisting that alch sci is intended to have no duration capped Q-Tincture, but that they also are intended to have recharging VVials. Which would break the concept of limited effects, granting many, many buffs with 0 resource spend.

In my party of 5 (6, forgot my familiar), just darkvision + antiplague + antidote would be 18, more than my daily item allowance. If you have an environmental concern and want to add a heat/cold/sea's elixir, you are way past double the daily limit, for 0 resource cost.

No matter how blatantly insane things are, someone will *always* claim "Sure, looks good to me, that's totally RaI, that's exactly what the dev intended."

[NorrKnekten]

There is also the point that this is less clarified RAI and more of a single sentence from a video that doesn't clarify what logan was talking about when they wanted the alc Sci to be like the new alchemist. Is it autoscalining formula. Or throwable vials. He never mentioned anything specifically before changing subject so ofcourse this is being taken with a fistful of salt as it should. Just like the death and dying rules. but RAW and RAI didn't stop people from playing the game how they wanted then.

The source of this RAI argument is not an entry on the faq page or a post from paizo staff explaining their intent about this very subject. It's a single sentence in a rushed livestream with two other classes being discussed between alch and invest

There is also the possibility they could've changed their mind in the time between the stream and the release. We simply don't know until they actually and explicitly clarify.

[YuriP]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Tridus wrote:

cmarmor wrote:

1. The development team was really, really clear on what they intended. The biggest and most significant change to the Alchemist was versatile vials. In their words they “wanted a way for the alchemist to be able to keep doing alchemy all day.” Versatile vials and the ability to recover them is the mechanism that allows this. Then they stated that the investigator alchemical sciences were supposed to play just like the new alchemist. Without recovering versatile vials, the investigator plays nothing like the alchemist. You get 4 vials for the day and that’s it. Pretty hard to keep doing alchemy all day with only 4 vials. You may not like it, but this was their stated intent.

At the end of the day, what they intended and what they actually wrote differ.

If they intended Investigator to have recharging vials, they're going to need to errata Alchemical Sciences to say so. Because it absolutely does not do that right now. You get 4 vials a day, and that's it. It's pretty lame far as subclasses go because of that, but it is what it is.

And it's not the only subclass in PC2 to have such a problem where its stated intent isn't aligned with what it actually does.

This is why the pathfinder community can't have nice things lol.

Unless your in a PFS game with a stingy GM with a rod up their ***, WHO CARES what RAW is when you know what the RAI was? Designer clarified RAI is always > RAW when the RAW doesn't do what was intended. Designer clarified RAI is not the same as community debated RAI where we're all trying to 'guess' what a designer was thinking.

Do you know how many things I would be so thankful to get designer clarified RAI on? How about the champion blade ally/blessed armament remaster change we've been trying to get an answer on since PC2 (There are are 3-5+ dedicated thread posts for just that one single thing!). If logan showed up tomorrow in one of those threads and told us RAI they get that extra rune slot I would...

I disagree with this in many ways.

A designer, even the lead designer, opinion doesn't reflect the work of an entire design team that write and review the rules. We already saw different designers pointing different RAI to same rule in different moments specially in other RPGs where they are more active in social networks. So a designer opinion is different from an errata or a FAQ clarification.

Not every once participate in these forums, or follow Paizo designers on twitter X or saw some particular interview in youtube. These people will be excluded from these pontual clarifications if they aren't put into the FAQ in a organized way.

Sometimes the things are just right as they are and don't need an answer but some people simply doesn't like and doesn't accept the rule as it is. But instead of houserule, probably because they aren't GM and can't able to convince its GM to homebrew they come to cry for change the rule change that they don't like.

Blessed Armament is a good example. It doesn't gives an extra property rune slot since from first CRB's print it when it was called as Blade Ally so why makes some people think that this was changed by remaster and that designers made a mistake? The main advantage of this Blessing was the ability to get a no money cost property rune and able to change it easier without money and time cost that you usually needs to transfer a rune, specially if you take Radiant Armament to change it with an 10 minutes activity and Armament Paragon to do this with one-action.
You have the right to consider it bad in comparison to others Blessing of the Devoted and adjust this as GM or beg to your GM for an adjust but doesn't consider that your opinion will be the same of the designing team that can easily think that this is OK as it is.

Including the others Blessing of the Devoted was generally nerfed in remaster probably to become more in par with current Blessed Armament:

Shield Ally was +2 hardness +50% shield HP, now it is just a +1 Hardness and allow any shield that you hold to auto get Reinforcement rune. It's more versatile now because allows you to switch shields but still a nerf if we consider that a Sturdy Shield with +50% and Hardness +2 rarely breaks and can easily repaired with Quick Repair was way more durable.

Blessed Swiftness just gives a +5 ft to your speed. If you have a mount it gives this speed bonus to the mount and a +2 to defense vs reactions that trigger with movement but no more gives you a mount companion. If you want one you now have to buy it using a feat.

So instead of buff Blessed Armament to give a free property slot. The remaster designing team probably chooses to nerf the other 2 "allies" available.

[Tridus]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Tridus wrote:

cmarmor wrote:

1. The development team was really, really clear on what they intended. The biggest and most significant change to the Alchemist was versatile vials. In their words they “wanted a way for the alchemist to be able to keep doing alchemy all day.” Versatile vials and the ability to recover them is the mechanism that allows this. Then they stated that the investigator alchemical sciences were supposed to play just like the new alchemist. Without recovering versatile vials, the investigator plays nothing like the alchemist. You get 4 vials for the day and that’s it. Pretty hard to keep doing alchemy all day with only 4 vials. You may not like it, but this was their stated intent.

At the end of the day, what they intended and what they actually wrote differ.

If they intended Investigator to have recharging vials, they're going to need to errata Alchemical Sciences to say so. Because it absolutely does not do that right now. You get 4 vials a day, and that's it. It's pretty lame far as subclasses go because of that, but it is what it is.

And it's not the only subclass in PC2 to have such a problem where its stated intent isn't aligned with what it actually does.

This is why the pathfinder community can't have nice things lol.

I agree, but not for the reason you think. This situation is why Paizo doesn't talk to us.

Quote:

Unless your in a PFS game with a stingy GM with a rod up their ***, WHO CARES what RAW is when you know what the RAI was? Designer clarified RAI is always > RAW when the RAW doesn't do what was intended. Designer clarified RAI is not the same as community debated RAI where we're all trying to 'guess' what a designer was thinking.

Except we don't know what the RAI actually is. We know what one person said as a high level design goal, at a point in time. People are using that to leap to selective conclusions. Like "we want Alch Sci to be like the new Alchemist" means it has unlimited vials but doesn't have the limited duration that comes with those? Why is that, anyway? What is that based on? Why do you think that what was actually written wasn't the goal, and instead assume they wrote something drastically different from their intention?

This isn't a case of Logan actually saying how it works and people misreading that. It's also not a case where the rules are vague. This is a case where people want it to work a certain way, don't like that it doesn't, and are reaching to get the conclusion they want.

And that's the whole problem with RAI arguments: when the intention isn't obvious (as it was with Arcane Cascade), they tend to get used to support whatever conclusion the person making the argument wants.

Quote:

Do you know how many things I would be so thankful to get designer clarified RAI on? How about the champion blade ally/blessed armament remaster change we've been trying to get an answer on since PC2 (There are are 3-5+ dedicated thread posts for just that one single thing!). If logan showed up tomorrow in one of those threads and told us RAI they get that extra rune slot I would forever shut up about it and quote them till they fix the RAW to match the RAI.

Of course. An actual rules clarification would be great. But the quote being used here isn't that.

Quote:

Anyone who has received designer clarified RAI and still refuses to use it because 'RAW it doesn't do what they intended' is just straight power tripping.

He didn't actually say how it works, though. You can take that quote and easily take it to mean multiple different things. People doing that kind of thing is one of the reasons why they stopped actually showing up here to give opinions on rules, so if you want rules clarifications, twisting their words is really not helping.

[Red Griffyn]

Trip.H wrote:

People don't like using RaI arguments because of how it incentivizes dishonesty for the sake of gaining power. It's also incredibly unbound and arbitrary. Goooood luck getting even unmotivated parties who have no stake in the ruling to agree on what the RaI was.

Like this exact thread.

Flat out wrong. People don't like using RAI arguements when it is some pleb on the internet making them because no matter what you say you can't ever 'know what someone was actually thinking or intended' without asking them. For that simple fact the arguments are inherently fallacious no matter what topic of debate you have. This is why there are truisms like 'if you assume you make an ass out of you me'.

It is entirely different when the person (whose intention your trying to probe) says it! They are the only free agent in existence that can ever know their true intention. Saying they are Trip H's belief of what RAI is vs. the game designer's RAI are equal is a false equivalency.

Yurip wrote:

A designer, even the lead designer, opinion doesn't reflect the work of an entire design team that write and review the rules. We already saw different designers pointing different RAI to same rule in different moments specially in other RPGs where they are more active in social networks. So a designer opinion is different from an errata or a FAQ clarification.

That doesn't matter. Its a hierarchy:

- Lead designer
x These guys own integration and balance of the book and can change anything to anything if they feel is is required.

- Designer of the specific text/section
x These guys wrote the text and know what was intended because... they wrote it. However, since the Lead designer can tweak/change what they wrote for various reasons they are only 2nd tier.

- Designer
x These guys are in constant meetings and discussing stuff with other design team members. Even if they didn't make the final descision they were likely in a room hearing the real RAI arguements. If they weren't you wouldn't find them sticking their neck out for chopping.

- Editing Team / Paizo Staff Point of Contact for Design Team (like Maya)
x Same as designer in many ways, but likely to have gotten directions from the lead designer to tweak things and could know.

- Rest of Paizo and the Community
x This thread of people who actually have no idea what the RAI is making up arguments about RAI that are fundamentally flawed.

If anyone in that hierarchy (above the bottom rung) says what RAI is. That is what RAI is. Those higher up the rungs supersede a lower rung. You only consult the highest rung for any specific RAI. If you have conflicting RAI from two entities on the same rung then they cancel out and you're left with no RAI. If you have a overwhelming amount of RAI from entities on the highest rung (despite conflicts) on one side of a RAI then that is the RAI (feel free to set the % requirement there, maybe 75%+).

Yurip wrote:

Not every once participate in these forums, or follow Paizo designers on twitter X or saw some particular interview in youtube. These people will be excluded from these pontual clarifications if they aren't put into the FAQ in a organized way.

Irrelevant point. Ignorance is not an argument. Guaranteed that those kinds of things will be cited by those in the know. If you didn't know, but someone else did, you wouldn't suddenly be 'right' because of your ignorance. It doesn't have to be centralized although that would be 'convenient'.

Yurip wrote:

Blessed armament rant.

Pre-remaster it gave the 'effect' of a rune without giving the rune allowing you to get one more. That wasn't even in question. The issue is that remaster changed it to give an actual rune which changes the RAW to now potentially interact with rune limitations on your weapons. I don't accept your historical revisionism so any of the things you wrote are flat out wrong or nonsensical. If you want to debate blade ally text go to one of the aforementioned threads.

NorrKnekten/Tridus wrote:

There is also the point that this is less clarified RAI and more of a single sentence from a video that doesn't clarify what logan was talking about when they wanted the alc Sci to be like the new alchemist

Literally the only argument that matters to disprove the RAI. I actually agree with you. They are statements made at different parts of the video unrelated to each other (one about the investigator, one about the alchemist mechanics). The timing of it wouldn't matter in this case since the books would have already been sent to the printer months before the video for printing by the time they gave this talk (so this isn't a design goal discussion but a what is designed discussion even if the books hadn't been released to the public).

My actual point was that people keep making their own RAI arguments but they are irrelevant if a designer clarified intent. That is simply moving the goal posts from Tridus. As a community we shouldn't be taking this stance:

Tridus wrote:

At the end of the day, what they intended and what they actually wrote differ.

If they intended Investigator to have recharging vials, they're going to need to errata Alchemical Sciences to say so. Because it absolutely does not do that right now. You get 4 vials a day, and that's it. It's pretty lame far as sub classes go because of that, but it is what it is.

If we have designer clarified RAI (like Tridus was granting in this specific post I responded to and now is arguing that isn't the case/granted) then we HAVE all we need. The only thing left is for RAW to catch up in the next errata cycle. If people aren't going to do that then they're the ones who are acting irrational.

There is a common kind of legal term called equitable estopple that gets used in tort law that has a lot of similarities here. Pretend the RAW text is a legal contract. If one of the parties to the document comes and says something that alters the intent of the document the courts will keep that as binding. Its often used in cases where a company says 'x deliverable will be late' and the client says 'that is fine, you have an extension to date Y'. They can't then sue them for breach of contract for providing a late deliverable because they have agreed to the extension (even if you didn't actually write it into the legal contract -> although you should do a contract change to realign as soon as possible like a bi-annual errata to up centralized RAW to RAI). Turns out recorded verbal, informal written email, etc. all work so you don't need a centralized formal method of communication (i.e., the contract) to change the contracts meaning.

This really is no different. When a designer clarifies intent it becomes the new RAW. Just because it is in a discord post, email, reddit thread, etc. doesn't matter. Its less convenient, less practical, and less efficient, but it still is designer clarified RAI. People arguing that it must be an official FAQ/errata centralized page are just shifting the goal posts and/or subtly practicing in pointless gatekeeping. These are living documents and at any moment they can change at the whims of the designers.

To the broader point in the thread, just take the fireworks technician archetype and run with your insight coffee, warblood mutagen, camouflage dye, or w/e combo VV elixir/alchemical tool buffs you want. The subclass goes from to bad to be true to fun overnight.

[Tridus]

Red Griffyn wrote:

There is a common kind of legal term called equitable estopple that gets used in tort law that has a lot of similarities here. Pretend the RAW text is a legal contract. If one of the parties to the document comes and says something that alters the intent of the document the courts will keep that as binding. Its often used in cases where a company says 'x deliverable will be late' and the client says 'that is fine, you have an extension to date Y'. They can't then sue them for breach of contract for providing a late deliverable because they have agreed to the extension (even if you didn't actually write it into the legal contract -> although you should do a contract change to realign as soon as possible like a bi-annual errata to up centralized RAW to RAI). Turns out recorded verbal, informal written email, etc. all work so you don't need a centralized formal method of communication (i.e., the contract) to change the contracts meaning.

Except this disingenuous example doesn't work at all for this situation because your example is a clear communication. "X will be late" and "you get an extension to Y" are direct statements with clear meaning.

"We want it to feel similar to X" is not. That doesn't tell us which part of Alch Sci that we got is out of line with their intent or what the actual mechanics were intended to be, and is resulting in the cherry picking folks are doing here where it should get recharging vials but not get the limited duration that go with the recharging vials because reasons.

If that video actually said "Alch Sci will have renewing alchemical resources all day", THEN it would mean that and RAI would be clear. But it says nothing of the sort and requires people to read things into it and then divine the intent. That's a lot of assumptions for one line in a video to try and hold up and people then only cherry picking certain parts of how Alchemist works while conveniently leaving out the disadvantages absolutely doesn't help at all and has no basis in the available evidence at all.

But what it does do is tell Logan "wow I can't even talk about how I'd like something to feel in play without someone trying to twist that into a rules argument." And then we wonder why communication is so poor.

[cmarmor]

Tridus wrote:

If that video actually said "Alch Sci will have renewing alchemical resources all day", THEN it would mean that and RAI would be clear. But it says nothing of the sort and requires people to read things into it and then divine the intent. That's a lot of assumptions for one line in a video to try and hold up and people then only cherry picking certain parts of how Alchemist works while conveniently leaving out the disadvantages absolutely doesn't help at all and has no basis in the available evidence at all.

Actually it isn’t that hard to determine what he meant when he said they intended for the alchemical sciences to work like the new alchemist. Here is a summarized list of the key changes to the Alchemist in PC2:

• * Advanced Alchemy / Quick Alchemy are split and versatile vials added for Quick Alchemy
  
• * Daily: 4 + INT
  
• * Quick Alchemy versatile vial pool: 2 + INT, every 10 minutes in exploration get 2 back
  
• * Master proficiency for simple weapons, unarmed attacks (mutagen) and bombs Powerful Alchemy is a basic feature (Scaling DC to class DC for all Alchemical items for all alchemists)
  
• * Lv. 17 perm quicken for Quick Alchemy
  
• * All subclasses buffed. Ex: Calculated Splash, Healing Bomb, Temp HP on drinking mutagen,
• * poison immunity -> acid damage are subclass features for each respective type.
  
• * No more perpetuals, all studied have have 5 unique class features
  
• * Quick bomber feat is now quick alchemy for bomb and throw it for 1 action
  
• * Additive traits no longer require lower level items to use them
  
• * Bunch of new feats
  

Of all those changes to the Alchemist, what is on the list that the Investigator has in common? Really the thing that changed how the Alchemist played is the splitting of Advanced Alchemy and Quick Alchemy. They still get the daily allotment of stuff they make each morning, and they get a separate pool of versatile vials that feed quick alchemy (instead of sharing reagents). The purpose? Logan was clear, to allow them to do alchemy throughout the adventuring day. Let’s look at the Investigator changes in the Remaster.
 
NEW Alchemical Sciences

Player Core 2 wrote:

Your methodology emphasizes chemical and alchemical analysis, collecting information from unusual particles and fluids found on the scene. You possess enough alchemical know-how to whip up a few tinctures to help you with your cases.

You’re trained in Crafting and gain the Alchemical Crafting skill feat (Player Core 252). You start with a standard formula book (Player Core 288), which contains the formulas for two common 1st-level alchemical items of your choice (these must be elixirs or tools), in addition to the formulas gained from Alchemical Crafting. Each time you gain a level, you learn the formula for one common alchemical elixir or alchemical tool of any level of item you can create. Alchemical elixirs and tools begin on pages 286 and 295, respectively.

During your daily preparations, you can create a number of versatile vials equal to your Intelligence modifier. Statistics for versatile vials appear on page 58 of the alchemist class. You gain the Quick Tincture action, which you can use to turn one of these vials into an elixir or alchemical tool for which you know the formula. If you have the ability to create versatile vials from more than one source (such as the alchemist multiclass archetype), you can use any of your versatile vials for any ability you have that requires them.

OLD Alchemical Sciences

Advanced Player Guide wrote:

Your methodology emphasizes chemical and alchemical analysis, collecting information from unusual particles and fluids found on the scene. You possess enough alchemical know-how to whip up a few tinctures to help you with your cases.

You’re trained in Crafting and gain the Alchemical Crafting skill feat (Core Rulebook 258). In addition, you gain a standard formula book for free and learn the formulas for two additional common 1st‑level alchemical items, which must be elixirs or tools. Each time you gain a level, you learn the formula for one common alchemical elixir or alchemical tool of any level of item you can create.

During your daily preparations, you can create a number of versatile vials—alchemical concoctions that can quickly be turned into elixirs and tools— equal to your Intelligence modifier. You can use the Quick Tincture action to turn one of these vials into an elixir or alchemical tool for which you know the formula.

So what changed? Very little, and none of the functionality. They changed some references to PC2, did a little word-smithing and added a blurb about getting versatile vials from multiple sources. That was needed because prior to PC2, only the Investigator had versatile vials. Now lets look at Quick Tincture.

NEW QUICK TINCTURE

Player Core 2 wrote:

Cost 1 versatile vial

Requirements You know the formula for the alchemical item you’re creating, you are holding or wearing an alchemist’s toolkit, and you have a free hand.
You quickly brew up a short-lived tincture. You create a single alchemical elixir or tool of your level or lower that’s in your formula book without having to spend the normal monetary cost in alchemical raw materials or needing to attempt a Crafting check. This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the end of the current turn.

OLD QUICK TINCTURE

Advanced Player Guide wrote:

Cost 1 versatile vial

Requirements You know the formula for the alchemical item you’re creating, you are holding or wearing alchemist’s tools, and you have a free hand.
You quickly brew up a short-lived tincture. You create a single alchemical elixir or tool of your level or lower without having to spend the normal monetary cost in alchemical reagents or needing to attempt a Crafting check. This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the end of the current turn.

Again, almost no change at all, and nothing of functionality. So they changed the alchemist in many ways, the most significant of which is making quick alchemy operate off of versatile vials. They also added a paragraph that defined and described versatile vials and made them replenishable like focus points. Prior to PC2, only the investigator had versatile vials and the only information about them is listed above under “Old Alchemical Sciences.” Versatile vials are a main thing for Alchemists now, as well as many other classes/dedications, so it got a good description and definition.

So if the definition of versatile vials found under the alchemist does not apply to the Investigator, then the Alchemical Sciences didn’t change. At all. So when Logan was talking about the remastered Investigator saying they wanted it to play like the new Alchemist, what did he mean? What else do they have in common? What did they change about the AS Investigator to make them play like the new Alchemist. Other than replenishing versatile vials, nothing else changed.

[Squiggit]

Trip.H wrote:

This is why Firework Tech has to say that you recharge your vials like an alchemist, because v vials are an item, which do not spontaneously refill themselves.

Not correct. Firework Tech has to explicitly enable recharging because the Quick Alchemy benefits feature specifically disallows recharging, because otherwise you might have them as that's part of the description of versatile vials.

Nothing wrong with your overall conclusions but if we're going to be this fussy over details might as well be as accurate as possible, because that's a critical piece of information you missed (which is fair, the rules are all over the place and kind of a mess).

Tridus wrote:

But what it does do is tell Logan "wow I can't even talk about how I'd like something to feel in play without someone trying to twist that into a rules argument." And then we wonder why communication is so poor.

So there's some moderately confusingly written rule and when trying to figure out how it works some people look back at developer commentary from before the book was released and try to figure out what the intention might be.

It seems unnecessary to try to insert some malicious intent into that. It's okay for people to just not agree on how an ability should work.

[rainzax]

I could see it being reasonably interpreted both ways.

Alchemical Science being to walk around constantly under the effects of two elixirs, mutagens, etc (re-upping every 10 minutes) would be pretty strong.

I'm inclined to take the conservative viewpoint (4 only, that's it) due to that alone, I think.

[NorrKnekten]

rainzax wrote:

I could see it being reasonably interpreted both ways.

Alchemical Science being to walk around constantly under the effects of two elixirs, mutagens, etc (re-upping every 10 minutes) would be pretty strong.

I'm inclined to take the conservative viewpoint (4 only, that's it) due to that alone, I think.

It gets worse though. Quick tincture doesn't have the 10 minute duration limit that Quick alchemy gets.

This was pointed out earlier so your 8 hour elixirs and 1 hour muta still last for their printed durations.

[Trip.H]

Squiggit wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

Not correct. Firework Tech has to explicitly enable recharging because the Quick Alchemy benefits feature specifically disallows recharging, because otherwise you might have them as that's part of the description of versatile vials.

Nothing wrong with your overall conclusions but if we're going to be this fussy over details might as well be as accurate as possible, because that's a critical piece of information you missed (which is fair, the rules are all over the place and kind of a mess).

Good detail catch.

The part I'm trying to emphasize is this

Quote:

You can replenish these vials during exploration just like an alchemist can.

The ability to recharge vials is not inherent to the vials themselves. F-Tech is another repeated data point showing that there is no "vials recharge themselves" default.

.

It's super dumb, but features can and do share names with items and other specific "things".

Aside from Alchemist class having a bunch of abilities inside a feature called "Versatile Vials", another good example is the Witch having a class feature named "Familiar" despite that obviously having many abilities and features not a part of the "default" familiar feature.

.

alch sci Investigator's full text:

Quote:

Your methodology emphasizes chemical and alchemical analysis, collecting information from unusual particles and fluids found on the scene. You possess enough alchemical know-how to whip up a few tinctures to help you with your cases.

You’re trained in Crafting and gain the Alchemical Crafting skill feat. You start with a standard formula book, which contains the formulas for two common 1st-level alchemical items of your choice (these must be elixirs or tools), in addition to the formulas gained from Alchemical Crafting. Each time you gain a level, you learn the formula for one common alchemical elixir or alchemical tool of any level of item you can create.

During your daily preparations, you can create a number of versatile vials equal to your Intelligence modifier. Statistics for versatile vials appear in the alchemist class.

You gain the Quick Tincture action, which you can use to turn one of these vials into an elixir or alchemical tool for which you know the formula. If you have the ability to create versatile vials from more than one source (such as the alchemist multiclass archetype), you can use any of your versatile vials for any ability you have that requires them.

It is completely unambiguous that the text grants the PC a number of VVs p day. These are VVs the item. When the next sentence says that the statistics are in the alchemist class, it's still 100% talking about these vials as items. This is a binary; it cannot be talking about / pointing to 2 different things at the same time. Items have statistics, features do not. It's 100% that of the 2 text chunks, alch sci is pointing to this one:

Quote:

Versatile Vials

Your versatile vials can be thrown like bombs, with the following statistics.

Versatile Vial
[Acid][Alchemical][Bomb][Consumable][Infused][Splash]
[...]

There is never any mention of the alchemist's feature named Versatile Vials. Nor is there any F-Tech like reference to the ability of an Alchemist to recharge their VVs.

There is just absolutely 0 text that points at, let alone somehow enables a claim by default, the Alch's specific feature to recharge their VVs.

.

.

I'll also repeat that an Invest w/ recharging vials can all-day buff their party in a way that is not allowed for the real Alchemist due to Q-Tincture not having a duration override.

Before we even set out for the day, if that were my PC, I would have 24 items worth of buffs applied to my party, which is more than 2x the daily adv-items that Alchemist is allowed to have. Tools + Elixirs means that only alch poisons and alch bombs are excluded, this is a really, really big list of items/buffs to sift through.

Neither old nor new Alch can make infinite buffs like that. The old Perpetual feature, while great for buffing because it was 0 resource, was limited per item. So if you chose Antiplauge, you could feed that item & buff every ally and friendly person you came across, it was not full book.

.

The notion of recharging VVs when the duration effects of those VVs are longer than the recharge is outright incompatible design.

It's like having focus spells that impose all-days buffs while the FP recharges; they do not exist.

.

This particular issue is super rare because because not only is there just no text to gain/claim that power, but because the result of doing so isn't just overpowered in a "normal" way; it turns a normal sub-class feature into an outright design-breaking power.

[Red Griffyn]

Tridus wrote:

Except this disingenuous example doesn't work at all for this situation because your example is a clear communication. "X will be late" and "you get an extension to Y" are direct statements with clear meaning.

"We want it to feel similar to X" is not. That doesn't tell us which part of Alch Sci that we got is out of line with their intent or what the actual mechanics were intended to be, and is resulting in the cherry picking folks are doing here where it should get recharging vials but not get the limited duration that go with the recharging vials because reasons.

If that video actually said "Alch Sci will have renewing alchemical resources all day", THEN it would mean that and RAI would be clear. But it says nothing of the sort and requires people to read things into it and then divine the intent. That's a lot of assumptions for one line in a video to try and hold up and people then only cherry picking certain parts of how Alchemist works while conveniently leaving out the disadvantages absolutely doesn't help at all and has no basis in the...

It is hardly a disingenuous example when trying to describe a legal concept that most people haven't heard of by giving a common application example that people here would grasp immediately. You should write for your audience to make communication clear. Your claim that it is disingenuous is a needless dispersion.

You're also confused about the point I made. There is no claim here that the original RAW that people are confused about substantiates any part of 'clear communication' required for equitable estopple. The key item is the DESIGNER CLARIFIED INTENT that changes the 'contract wording' for whatever reason (in this case clarification of intent instead of a date extension). Clarifying ambiguous wording in a contract 'as my example' would also work under equitable estopple (despite that not being the example I gave). Thus the concept still applies.

Lets remember what I was replying to:

Tridus wrote:

At the end of the day, what they intended and what they actually wrote differ. [YOU GRANTING THE RAI IN QUESTION IS TRUE]

If they intended Investigator to have recharging vials, they're going to need to errata Alchemical Sciences to say so. Because it absolutely does not do that right now.[YOU SAYING I DONT CARE WHAT DESIGNER CLARIFIED RAI IS UNLESS RAW IS REVISED] You get 4 vials a day, and that's it. It's pretty lame far as subclasses go because of that, but it is what it is.

And it's not the only subclass in PC2 to have such a problem where its stated intent isn't aligned with what it actually does.[YOU FURTHER SAYING THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME]

Your argument in this post is:

1.) I believe you that RAI was clarified
2.) I don't care that RAI was clarified I only take rules from RAW.
3.) I acknowledge the precedent that RAI often doesn't match RAW for this product in particular, but I still don't care.

The clear communication IS the designer clarifying their intent (which you granted) followed by the application of equitable estopple (a player reasonably using designer clarified RAI to play that way despite RAW/the contract being ambiguous/the rulebook not explicitly saying that). Stop obfuscating the point because YOU granted that RAI was clarified.

My reply to you is as simple as pointing out that you were using a really bad argument, nothing more than that. If you'd like to admit that you erroneously posted that and clarify that if the designer did clarify intent you would use it then we can be done with this specific discussion.

Otherwise, I already said I agree, after watching the video, that the statements don't clarify RAI since the quoted text are from two separate points of the video (one about Topic A, the investigator, one about Topic B, the alchemist). So there is no need here to defend that stance beyond you admitting that in the post I replied to that you made an error in granting that RAI was clarified.

If you were using it 'just as a thought device' which seems to be the backtrack your on, that is fine. My point still stands that if we grant the RAI was clarified by the lead designer (as a thought experiment) that your statement about ignoring it until RAW is fixed is a really bad argument. So bad an argument that the community as a whole should revival and reject that position. For me, people taking that position (i.e., Logan just said how something works, but I'm going to ignore him because he didn't write it in my approved centralized database of official FAQ/errata) is why I as a designer would stop engaging with a community and only put content into said places.

As for holding water for the design teams lack of engagement. I reject the assertion. The designers are adults. If they said something stupid or not intended they can easily come back out and re-clarify the intent again. It is actually easier to do that if you're constantly engaged with the community instead of only talking in formal promo panels/one sided erratas. They are generating more problems by stoically being silent on everything rather than:
1.) Creating a systematic process for how they identify issues to be addressed and how they plan to address them.
2.) Over-communicating about the process in terms of how/when they will address these things.
3.) Clarifying RAI on an interim basis until RAW can be fixed for whatever top prioritized list they generate show to the community.
4.) Execute the process as communicated.
5.) Communicate any delays/deviations from the process in a timely manner.
6.) rinsing/repeating.

The dumb thing is they are already probably doing this behind the scenes and just not communicating it.

Imagine a 'simple world' where after Logan found out about people misquoting his words (e.g., someone escalated the issue to Maya and they brought it to his attention). Then Logan takes his ~30 minutes per week of dedicated 'community engagement time' to come to the specific threads teed up by Maya and make 1-2 posts. This week its this thread, so he drops in and spends 15 minutes reading, 1 minute posting "the two sentences being quoted in the video are not connected". Then getting ~14 more minutes to do the next thread Maya teed up. That 'imagined world' isn't impossible. The dude doesn't even have to stick around to hear generic community members complain that it sucks and they'll homebrew it the way they want despite what he said. Other creators do similar kinds of communication. As a publishing company Paizo's main product is literally human communication in a written format! Designers being expected to 'engage/communicate' about their product is not a 'bar to high' IMO.

[Trip.H]

TBH my "guess" (just doing the math) is that Alch Sci's Quick Tincture is going to get hit with a duration cap nerf, or if they are lucky, be written to not work with VVs and use a custom daily-only resource (very slim chance).

.

VVs as a resource are built around full-book instant choice, but temporary effect items.

Even if Frwk Tech gets nerfed and it's vial recharge removed, the concept of an archetype granting recharge is still out there as a potentiality, and the concept of recharge, while super strong, does not break any other use / archetype with VVs when the effects are still duration capped.

.

Because it's specifically the alch sci that's breaking the design rule of an FP-like resource granting buffs after recharge, that's the half of the combo that's gotta go/ get changed in an errata nerf.

[shroudb]

The RAW says nothing about them replenish, so they don't. It's simple as that.

As far as RAI is concerned:

The simple answer why the RAI is not that they replenish is the fact that Tinctures last up to 24 hours and are not limited to 10minutes like Quick Alchemy. If the Rai was to mimic replenishing vials they wouldn't print an abuse (spend 10min, get buff for 24h, replenish the vial, repeat for free daily buffs for the whole party).