I can understand where it's a bridge too far for some. To me the trade offs for some mutagens especially when you start getting to the lesser and above mutagens is worth. But acting as if they aren't worth it all is just wild to me.
ottdmk wrote: graystone wrote: At the end of the day, voluntarily dropping my hp to the lowest caster levels and dropping fort saves by a prof level for a +1 to hit and some bonus movement is too much for me. If you're good with that, then great. But I hope you can understand where it's a bridge too far for others. Don't forget the +2 to Reflex Saves and the additional +1 over permanent items to Stealth. (I don't really use Acrobatics, although when I've needed it I can't complain. Thievery not my thing.)
As for it being a bridge too far for some... sure, I get that. Like I said previously, I keep putting my perspective out there because I wholeheartedly disagree with the belief being put out there that it's a bad idea for everyone. It's not. And again: Heroism.
Still same duration as your Quick Alchemy, still gives you a +1 to ALL saves, not just Reflex. Still gives you +1 to ALL skills not only the 2 out of 3 you use.
And by midlevels, trivial cost to have low-rank slots/scrolls of it and not waste your few Quick alchemy vials on.
Riddlyn wrote: I can understand where it's a bridge too far for some. To me the trade offs for some mutagens especially when you start getting to the lesser and above mutagens is worth. But acting as if they aren't worth it all is just wild to me. For their negatives? They really aren't. For most of them, you can find a low rank spell/scroll to substitute and be above the power curve of maximum level mutagens.
ottdmk wrote: shroudb wrote: that's a 100% faulty argument, because now you are penaltising the Mutagens for Stacking but not the Spells for Stacking.
Spells "stack" with mutagens as much as Mutagens "stack" with Spells.
There's no justification that 1 of them is penaltised for it and not the other.
You've missed my point.
There is no evidence that Mutagens have penalties because they stack with Spells. That is a supposition that you have advanced, repeatedly, with absolutely no evidence.
Never said that, don't put words in my mouth.
You made that point: that they stack so it's ok for some of them to have penalties while others don't have to have penalties.
Right here in case you want to edit it out agaain:
ottdmk wrote:
So, am I correct in thinking that the argument is: as a permanent item (weapon rune, skill item) + Heroism is stronger than just a Mutagen, with no Drawback, therefore Mutagens are simply not worth it?
I find that fascinating. I suppose if the choice were either/or, I could understand that.
But despite the theoretical argument that Mutagens are penalized because Item Bonuses stack with Status Bonuses... The fact is, they do stack.
And I pointed out that this is a 100% faulty reasoning.
I didn't say that they have negatives because they stack, I argued that whomever says "it's ok to have penalties since they stack" (like you) is flat out wrong.
"Stacking" should never be a base of balance considerations cause it's two-way.
NorrKnekten wrote:
We also do have alchemicals and magical consumables that are effectively no-penalty mutagens, but just as i've seen people turn away at mutagens because of their penalty despite their stronger/broader effect I see people turn away from these no-penalty alternatives because they are to specific.
Things like the skeptics elixir, or the previously mentioned bravos brew which very well represent Paizo's design when it comes to consumables that grant item bonuses. Without a penalty, you are looking at a +1 bump in a single category over a longer duration with maybe an extra effect. +1 over a shorter duration with more impactful extra effects. Many agree that is a good place for consumables, Others argue its to specific depending on what the category is.
In all of my many games with an Alchemist, I'd never had anyone turn down an Antidote, a Bravo brew, an Eagle eye, any of the non-penaltised Alchemical Elixirs that I've offered them.
I've had the vast majority of them turn down Mutagens though.
I never had anyone turn down a Spell buff either.
Makes you wonder, when the players are open to receiving buffs, why the majority of them choose only 1 category of buffs to vehemently refuse to get...
Shroudb wrote: In all of my many games with an Alchemist, I'd never had anyone turn down an Antidote, a Bravo brew, an Eagle eye, any of the non-penaltised Alchemical Elixirs that I've offered them.
I've had the vast majority of them turn down Mutagens though.
I never had anyone turn down a Spell buff either.
Makes you wonder, when the players are open to receiving buffs, why the majority of them choose only 1 category of buffs to vehemently refuse to get...
Not really, All i'm sensing is a big Chestertons Fence.
Was the situation they were offered even considered at all when they were handed out? Because if you give someone a +2 in a save and a -2 in another they will not take it if theres an unknown element, They can even weighted as a +3/-2 but people are still not going to take it unless they have reason to believe the +3 will be relevant. Just as they are likely to take it if they think the penalty will be irrelevant.
A bravo brew is wasted as the worst case scenario, costing gold or vials. you can hand them out without a worry but im not going to accept them with how the new alchemist is without justification if they can be better used elsewhere or if I can get something that I think benefits me better instead.
A mutagen however is harmful as the worst case scenario, and if you are just handing them out without consideration you don't even know if the situation warrants them. Even then, It is the majority of your groups that refuse them and as shown theres plenty of people on this very forum that does not share this perspective and think Mutagens are highly useful and potent in the right context.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: Shroudb wrote: In all of my many games with an Alchemist, I'd never had anyone turn down an Antidote, a Bravo brew, an Eagle eye, any of the non-penaltised Alchemical Elixirs that I've offered them.
I've had the vast majority of them turn down Mutagens though.
I never had anyone turn down a Spell buff either.
Makes you wonder, when the players are open to receiving buffs, why the majority of them choose only 1 category of buffs to vehemently refuse to get...
Not really, All i'm sensing is a big Chestertons Fence.
Was the situation they were offered even considered at all when they were handed out? Because if you give someone a +2 in a save and a -2 in another they will not take it if theres an unknown element, They can even weighted as a +3/-2 but people are still not going to take it unless they have reason to believe the +3 will be relevant. Just as they are likely to take it if they think the penalty will be irrelevant.
A bravo brew is wasted as the worst case scenario, costing gold or vials. you can hand them out without a worry but im not going to accept them with how the new alchemist is without justification if they can be better used elsewhere or if I can get something that I think benefits me better instead.
A mutagen however is harmful as the worst case scenario, and if you are just handing them out without consideration you don't even know if the situation warrants them. Even then, It is the majority of your groups that refuse them and as shown theres plenty of people on this very forum that does not share this perspective and think Mutagens are highly useful and potent in the right context. I'm not offering Cognitives to Barbarians before a fight if that's what you're asking.
Do not try to pigeonhold this as something that happens only on outrageous situations.
But if a melee combat buff is 99% of the time rejected before a combat exactly because in an average combat you're better off without it as you point out then there is a problem with said Combat Buff's design.
As for your sample size comment:
We already know that the population of a forum (especially this forum) is the minority of the players, and the "plenty of people as shown" I see defending the mutagens, even in this tiny percentage of people, are like... 3-5?
So no, I'd trust my very wider range of tables, and hundreds of people I've played with, that I've sat over the many years (since beta) I've played in pf2 as a much more correct sample of people.
And in those dozens of hundreds of games, the vast majority of people simply won't take a Mutagen, simply because the penalties are so big.
In the same amount of people, I can count on 1 hand the amount of times buffs, alchemical or magical, outside of Mutagens, were refused.
So yeah, when the majority of the playerbase ignores only 1 specific type of buff across the various available, then there are balance issues with said type.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: Not really, All i'm sensing is a big Chestertons Fence.
Was the situation they were offered even considered at all when they were handed out?
Myself, I have SPECIFICALLY asked party members if there were any alchemical items they wanted me to make and I too rarely hear 'make me a mutagen' over a wide range of games and players. So it doesn't have to be a situation where the alchemist makes a specific item and then tries to get people to use it: it happens when you let them have input into pick what you make.
Me wrote: You've missed my point.
There is no evidence that Mutagens have penalties because they stack with Spells. That is a supposition that you have advanced, repeatedly, with absolutely no evidence.
shroudb wrote: Never said that, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm quoting your words.
shroudb wrote: My issue, since beta, is that Alchemist stuff get massively penaltized for stacking with Spells, but Spells don't get penaltized for stacking with Alchemist stuff. It's from this post.shroudb wrote: I didn't say that they have negatives because they stack, I argued that whomever says "it's ok to have penalties since they stack" (like you) is flat out wrong.
"Stacking" should never be a base of balance considerations cause it's two-way.
I'm not actually arguing that it's ok to have penalties because they stack.
I'm simply saying it's ok Mutagens have penalties, period. That what they have to offer is worth the tradeoff.
I've also stated that I like that they stack. Something I appreciate every time I'm lucky enough to be in a party that does stuff like Bless or Courageous Anthem.
shroudb wrote: And again: Heroism.
Still same duration as your Quick Alchemy, still gives you a +1 to ALL saves, not just Reflex. Still gives you +1 to ALL skills not only the 2 out of 3 you use.
And by midlevels, trivial cost to have low-rank slots/scrolls of it and not waste your few Quick alchemy vials on.
You are, in my opinion, over-simplifying. Particularly when it comes to Alchemists.
Firstly, you don't have to use Quick Alchemy for Mutagens. It's just as easy to use Advanced Alchemy, and that is indeed my preferred route. Advanced Alchemy opens up Collar use (although I don't anymore with my Bomber, because I prefer full duration Quicksilver.) The only advantage of using Quick Alchemy is to keep the Mutagen up at all times, and that's not really necessary. On my Mutagenist, I prefer keeping three Elixirs going and saving Bestial for combat with a Collar. My Bomber saves all his Versatile Vials for Sticky Bombs.
+1 to all skills is, indeed, very nice. However, there is a serious question of whether or not the skill is relevant in an Encounter. For example, my Bomber is only Trained in Athletics and is Str +0. So, he's never actually used Athletics for anything in an Encounter. There are a lot more Skills like that than not, to be honest.
Acrobatics, on the other hand, is Dex based. So, while it's only Trained as well, it's come up a bit more often... usually for Balance actions or an occasional Tumble Through. It's still not enough to invest in a pair of Blast Slippers or Greater Arboreal Boots... and thanks to Quicksilver, I don't have to.
Similar for Stealth, which he is a Master in. Yes, you can invest in a Greater Shadow Rune and then get +1 from Heroism... but again, I don't have to.
There is also the problem of how to add Heroism to your routine. The least costly way is Trick Magic Item, as it's just a Skill Feat. Problem there is that using it is a 3-Action activity, which is pretty harsh. Not bad if you have a chance to pre-buff, but that is too rare for my tastes. These days with Quicksilver it's usually 1 Action (have Quicksilver in hand) or 0 Actions (because it's been less than an hour since the last time he took it.) My Mutagenist uses a Collar because of their Field Benefit.
Superior would be something like Witch Dedication with an Occult or Divine Patron. The feat cost is a bit steeper though, as it's a Class Feat.
Then there's the source of the spell. Yes, 30 gp a pop eventually becomes cheap, but the key word is "eventually." The scrolls themselves don't even become available until 5th level. I might be overly cautious, but I prep for four encounters a day. That's potentially 120 gp per day. It's going to be a while for that to become affordable.There are other expenses to consider. My Mutagenist has fully invested Handwraps of Mighty Blows because of access to Property Runes.
Meanwhile, with just the Class Abilities, my Bomber has been on Quicksilver for multiple Encounters per day for no cost in either gold or feats, since L1.
graystone wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Not really, All i'm sensing is a big Chestertons Fence.
Was the situation they were offered even considered at all when they were handed out?
Myself, I have SPECIFICALLY asked party members if there were any alchemical items they wanted me to make and I too rarely hear 'make me a mutagen' over a wide range of games and players. So it doesn't have to be a situation where the alchemist makes a specific item and then tries to get people to use it: it happens when you let them have input into pick what you make. Well yeah, If you are asking about what items to make at the start of the day you are rarely going to hear "Make me this situational thing". I can't recall the last time someone asked me for a blood booster or bottled catharsis... It has happened, that much I am sure but that was during the covid days whereas just as recently as last week people were cooking up a batch of serene, Not as alchemists but to have in preparation for occult spellcasters.
shroudb wrote: So no, I'd trust my very wider range of tables, and hundreds of people I've played with, that I've sat over the many years (since beta) I've played in pf2 as a much more correct sample of people. But they are still part of your groups and lived subjective experience that is just as valid as someone elses, Had we had this conversation before 2018 I would've agreed with you because back then mutagens had an onset period and penalties scaled, They were horrible and nobody would ever use an item that took 2 full rounds to benefit from. They werent great at release either with very infamously mutagenist alchemist being crowned the worst subclass for the worst class. Mutagens have gone a long way from what they used to be to the point where im seeing them at public tables from non-alchemists who brought them for their strong situational effects. Just as late as PC2 the ones I had the largest gripe with recieved buffs.
shroudb wrote: For most of them, you can find a low rank spell/scroll to substitute No you can't tho.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: Well yeah, If you are asking about what items to make at the start of the day you are rarely going to hear "Make me this situational thing". I'm including start of day AND Quick Alchemy in my statement/post. People just don't request mutagens in my experience.
shroudb wrote: ottdmk wrote: graystone wrote: At the end of the day, voluntarily dropping my hp to the lowest caster levels and dropping fort saves by a prof level for a +1 to hit and some bonus movement is too much for me. If you're good with that, then great. But I hope you can understand where it's a bridge too far for others. Don't forget the +2 to Reflex Saves and the additional +1 over permanent items to Stealth. (I don't really use Acrobatics, although when I've needed it I can't complain. Thievery not my thing.)
As for it being a bridge too far for some... sure, I get that. Like I said previously, I keep putting my perspective out there because I wholeheartedly disagree with the belief being put out there that it's a bad idea for everyone. It's not. And again: Heroism.
Still same duration as your Quick Alchemy, still gives you a +1 to ALL saves, not just Reflex. Still gives you +1 to ALL skills not only the 2 out of 3 you use.
And by midlevels, trivial cost to have low-rank slots/scrolls of it and not waste your few Quick alchemy vials on.
Riddlyn wrote: I can understand where it's a bridge too far for some. To me the trade offs for some mutagens especially when you start getting to the lesser and above mutagens is worth. But acting as if they aren't worth it all is just wild to me. For their negatives? They really aren't. For most of them, you can find a low rank spell/scroll to substitute and be above the power curve of maximum level mutagens.
ottdmk wrote: shroudb wrote: that's a 100% faulty argument, because now you are penaltising the Mutagens for Stacking but not the Spells for Stacking.
Spells "stack" with mutagens as much as Mutagens "stack" with Spells.
There's no justification that 1 of them is penaltised for it and not the other.
You've missed my point.
There is no evidence that Mutagens have penalties because they stack with Spells. That is a supposition that you have advanced, repeatedly, with absolutely no ... No there really aren't though and again I said for me they are. Hell I have a steady group I've been playing with for years and one of us always ends up taking the alchemist MCD or alchemical crafting and I'm always asking for various ones. With drakeheart's being my favorite. And you don't get to invalidate the experience of others because you don't agree
Yeah, Drakeheart is really, really solid. Especially since it has a built-in shutdown clause if you feel the Drawback is really biting you.
My favourite experience with Drakeheart was a PFS game back in the Core Rulebook days (when buffing others was so much easier.) My 4th level Bomber made some Drakeheart for a 2nd level Sorcerer. The whole game (it was on Roll20, so very little automation) the guy was double-checking his AC and saying "Nope, missed because of the Mutagen." Mind you, that was an extreme case... I think the guy's AC went from 14 to 19 IIRC.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
My own experience with mutagens is that their drawbacks are all wildly different levels of severity, and that makes it just much easier to sell for some people than others. A War Blood or Silvertongue Mutagen are both practically free, and thus trivial to talk a party member into accepting. Drakeheart is unique and a strong situational case has gotten made for it, while a Fury Cocktail or Quicksilver all give intense pause or downright hostility to the idea for everyone I've played with. I've seen too many hits or saves be 1-2 points away from turning into dangerous fight swinging crits, or 4-12 hp from someone going down, to ever argue with them there.
The fallback shutdown of Drakeheart (and a few other mutagens, if memory serves?) was always kind of interesting to me, and I wish mutagens in general either all had something like that, or at the very least that the mutagen trait had a universal "one action to just cancel the mutagen, with no other effect". It'd not solve the bad taste the drawbacks give people I've played with, but it would be some peace of mind that it wouldn't be hard to back out if it's become too detrimental.
Drakeheart is the only Mutagen that can be turned off at will via Final Surge. Otherwise, you need either Revivifying Mutagen (Alchemist Feat L2) or Regurgitate Mutagen (L4) to end a Mutagen (and its Drawback) early.
I'm curious to see if Paizo is going to change the Fury Cocktail Drawback in the Remastered Treasure Vault. FC and Bestial used to be identical... and they got rid of the AC penalty on Bestial. Be interesting to see if they do the same with FC.
I suppose I was remembering wrong about there being more things like final surge then, and just assumed that one of the other mutagens probably had a similar effect rather than trying to go through the entire mutagen list to double check. I still maintain that the ability to end early (without needing to be an alchemist with feats you likely only want specifically FOR the cancellation) would be a nice bit of QoL to help assuage new player concerns (among other reasons), but I'm not about to die on that hill.
I am also curious about the RTV, and other books with alchemicals. Alchemist and the items they use have had a slow, steady upward trend in quality and ease of use (at least, as easy as "here is a class dedicated to using this massive list of consumeables" can be), so I'm willing to be patient to see how things get handled-even if I wish it wasn't uh. Quite as slow.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The 11+ level Energy Mutagens allow you to end them early via an energy breath attack.
The L11 version does 2d6 per 10min of remaining duration, capped 8d6.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Treasure vault really did introduce quite a bit of quality when it comes to the alchemicals, Especially mutagens, that really served to push Alchemist in line with what one would expect from a class chassi.
Some of the items were wonky and horrible.. (Looking at you warding punch). And we still make jokes about the absolute confusion that Treasure Vault introduced.
But I am really excited for it non-the less. It feels weird that Treasure Vault is only 2 years old
Trip.H wrote: The 11+ level Energy Mutagens allow you to end them early via an energy breath attack.
The L11 version does 2d6 per 10min of remaining duration, capped 8d6.
You know, I forgot all about Energy Mutagen. Good catch!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
NorrKnekten wrote: Treasure vault really did introduce quite a bit of quality when it comes to the alchemicals, Especially mutagens, that really served to push Alchemist in line with what one would expect from a class chassi.
Some of the items were wonky and horrible.. (Looking at you warding punch). And we still make jokes about the absolute confusion that Treasure Vault introduced.
But I am really excited for it non-the less. It feels weird that Treasure Vault is only 2 years old
I am curious to see what if any changes for alchemy items get introduced with the remaster of treasure vault which should be available pretty soon.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
kaid wrote: I am curious to see what if any changes for alchemy items get introduced with the remaster of treasure vault which should be available pretty soon. June 4th, The aforementioned warding punch is either guaranteed to be changed or omitted entirely. Simply for giving bonuses against a single school of spells.
Here's to hoping that we don't see too many impactful nerfs.
I'm honestly worried for Numbing Tonic (and bola shot), so we'll see.
I'm also going to try swapping out of my Stone Body + Quicksilver next session, I think I'll run Sanguine solo. At L18, the bleed drawback is negligible, and I really do think I want those passive save bonuses.
Idk what it is, but all my PCs have had crazy bad luck getting poisoned.
Considering what we saw in Howl of the Wild I can't imagine many alchemical nerfs atleast, Hydra Mutagen is a rather neat inclusion and clumsy 1 is totally managable.
Sanguine is one of those Treasure Vault additions I was happy to see.
The bleed basically does not exist past level 8, And yet it bumps two different saves with +2, Heck as an alchemist the bleed is even more unnoticable since you can combine it with a blood booster, Thats how I get away with using Sanguine at level 3. Taking 1 bleed damage is nothing even at low level.
Trip.H wrote:
Idk what it is, but all my PCs have had crazy bad luck getting poisoned.
Might be the Quicksilver ;)
I'm not so down on mutagens as some here are. Yes, status bonuses are easier to come by but also they just don't directly compete, since they stack (If I compare Heroism to Heroism + Mutagen, I most often want the latter). The durations are an issue, I wish one could get a bit more than 10 minutes out of a mutagen before level 11, that's pretty late. But as far as the trade-offs are concerned, they're kinda cool. Sometimes you sneak by with not having the downside matter at all, sometimes it bites you painfully, but most of the time it's a minor drawback for a decent benefit. In some cases, the synergies are even rather absurd (e.g. early game STR monk with drakeheart).
I do second the idea that most mutagens should have a way to 'burn them off' quickly with a special action such as for Drakeheart and the higher level Energy ones. That's a fun mechanic and greatly increases player's acceptance, as you don't run such a (perceived or real) risk of getting stuck on a situationally painful penalty.
Trip.H wrote: Idk what it is, but all my PCs have had crazy bad luck getting poisoned. yellowpete wrote: Might be the Quicksilver ;) This is why I make Antidote part of my daily routine for my Bomber. <GRIN>
I'm mixed about seeing more "shut-off switches" for Mutagens. Yes, I think it would lead to greater acceptance of them. On the other hand, I kinda like that Alchemists (including dabblers via Dedication) can have an edge in using them thanks to the Feats,
ottdmk wrote: Trip.H wrote: Idk what it is, but all my PCs have had crazy bad luck getting poisoned. yellowpete wrote: Might be the Quicksilver ;) This is why I make Antidote part of my daily routine for my Bomber. <GRIN>
I'm mixed about seeing more "shut-off switches" for Mutagens. Yes, I think it would lead to greater acceptance of them. On the other hand, I kinda like that Alchemists (including dabblers via Dedication) can have an edge in using them thanks to the Feats, they used to be an alchemist only feature after all. Something that is still hinted at
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I really don't think people understand just how awful mutagens used to be and how far they have come with each revision, both as part of alchemist and as their own thing.
Playtest mutagens especially, but for brevitys sake I will just use the 2018 playtest.
Mutagens were;
All uncommon,
Only available after level 5, But had bonuses comparable to our current level 3 with 1 minute durations.
Only imparted benefits to a creature selected when crafted,
Had an onset time,
Onset time increased with level,
Penalties that scaled with level,
Penalties that werent removed when counteracted by polymorph,
Had a Mutagen Crafter alchemist feature which allowed only the alchemist access to mutagens.
And the scaling penalties were oh so much severe, Ranging from item penalty to all checks and DC for certain attributes, Losing Resonance Points (Playtest version of focuspoints, also needed to wear items (investment)), Carrying up to 8 less bulk, Taking a flat amount of damage (more than twice your level), item penalty to ALL trained/Expert skills outside of your class's signature skills.
Compare that to what we have today.. when the class that is made to interact with mutagens is also the class that can just say "Yeaaa I dont like taking a -1 so I will negate it with another item that has a 1 hour duration"
... did I also mention revivifying mutagen was a level 10 feat?
NorrKnekten wrote: I really don't think people understand just how awful mutagens used to be and how far they have come with each revision, both as part of alchemist and as their own thing.
Playtest mutagens especially, but for brevitys sake I will just use the 2018 playtest.
Mutagens were;
All uncommon,
Only available after level 5, But had bonuses comparable to our current level 3 with 1 minute durations.
Only imparted benefits to a creature selected when crafted,
Had an onset time,
Onset time increased with level,
Penalties that scaled with level,
Penalties that werent removed when counteracted by polymorph,
Had a Mutagen Crafter alchemist feature which allowed only the alchemist access to mutagens.
And the scaling penalties were oh so much severe, Ranging from item penalty to all checks and DC for certain attributes, Losing Resonance Points (Playtest version of focuspoints, also needed to wear items (investment)), Carrying up to 8 less bulk, Taking a flat amount of damage (more than twice your level), item penalty to ALL trained/Expert skills outside of your class's signature skills.
Compare that to what we have today.. when the class that is made to interact with mutagens is also the class that can just say "Yeaaa I dont like taking a -1 so I will negate it with another item that has a 1 hour duration"
... did I also mention revivifying mutagen was a level 10 feat?
Alchemist in general was a mess in playtest. It didn't help that a major pf2 feature that the alchemist was build upon, Resonance, was completely scrubbed away from the playtest leaving the alchemist in a limbo when pf2 was released.
that is no justification though to the current balance discussion. Things being absolutely terrible before doesn't mean that they have to be "just bad" currently. They could, you know, be instead be "good".
Which they still need work to get there.
As an example, when one of the things mentioned during the Alchemist Remaster was "making mutagens better, and removing some of their penalties" there's no reason that actually only bestial got the treatment and the rest base mutagens were left behind.
There's a reason most people only reference bestial and the mutagens that come in other splatbooks as some usable examples of them.
On the same note, Just because "Some" of the mutagens are "bad", Highly subjective opinion by the way, doesn't mean that all of them are.
Because what I remember Paizo saying was not "make mutagens better" rather they were looking at mutagens and alchemist options with the least usage to make them more competitive with other options. And in that aspect both Juggernaut and Quicksilver are in good positions. Drakeheart is the same even though thats APG, Nobody is complaining about Stone body or energy mutagen and those were released in content alongside CRB and has never been changed.
Bestial however to me is the worst CRB mutagen when used outside of actual mutagenist, And it still is after its buff, simply because its kinda useless even for unarmed martials, 1d8 unarmed attacks arent hard to come by, Everyone is going to pick up up potency runes, they already gain weapon spec, and the mutagens are available one level before the striking rune they are meant to have becomes available. The removal of AC penalty in addition to reflex, did not change that, just made it less punishing for the one class that actually synergize,specialize and cares about it and typically had low dex because of it. It really shouldn't be held up as a standard.
I know paizo has already decided on the changes they want for mutagens, especially as Treasure Vault Remaster is being printed and most likely shipped right now, My guess is that we are going to no longer see any double defence penalties like Bestial had, absolutely eager to see that. Fury cocktail probably is going to lose the clumsy in addition to its penalty on one of the effects and theatrical is probably losing its penalty to willsaves.
Other treasure vault mutagens are almost guaranteed to see a change in what they actually do, and you might want to point to howl of the wild's mutagens and say that they represent penalties as they should be, but i don't think thats the case when those mutagens sacrifice their duration instead.
And thats kinda what i'm getting at, In the context of alchemist, I am more upset about the mutagenist field vial than I am about mutagen penalties or the drawbacks lingering after mutagenist gains their advanced field discovery, because the class already have all the options to balance out or cancel the penalties. At the same time its rather clear that mutagens are stronger than other consumables because they have a drawback. And Paizo has shown clear intent that the only reason they even have such power behind them is because of the drawback, Cementing them as powerful but situational consumables, Typically nothing you would as a pre-buff unless you also have another item balance the drawback.
And yet here we are comparing consumables to spells, which at that point the consumable has already reached the standard set for them as consumables. And that is Paizo's words, not mine. GM Core pg. 130 2.0 wrote: For most consumables, the effect should be less powerful than the highest rank spell a spellcaster of the item's level could cast. Scrolls are about the most efficient you can get—they're the same level the spellcaster would be—but they require a spellcaster that has the spell on their list, and take the same actions as casting the spell normally. Even consumables specifically meant to replicate spell effects are heavily penalized in cost and level to achieve what they do and this is intentional. So a bump in mutagen power or a drop in penalty severity across the board is absolutely not the right decision when it comes to balance even if some individual ones like Bestial and Fury absolutely deserve some changes.
The elephant in the room is that recharging VVials made Alchemist genuinely OP in about half of encounters.
If the party initiates combat, an Alchemist has every reason to pre-buff everyone before the door kick. Those 1 min items are designed around costing combat actions, so getting 5+ VVial buffs of them for 0A is genuinely a danger to combat balance.
An Alchemist can spam low-effort archetype actions, like Electric Arc, and still genuinely contribute "too much" to combat because that's in addition to their prebuffs. It's super yikes.
.
Of course, that does not work if the party is ambushed. The amount of combat actions it would take feed those 5 VVials of buffs to allies is brutal, and completely inverts Alch from being "a bit too good" and down toward the "just bad" tier.
Paizo have managed to completely Remaster themselves into a corner with Alchemist.
What sucks is that I'm 99% sure they are aware of this exact problem, which is why Lozenge was invented during TV's first release.
That's the one type of item that genuinely is immune to this prebuff issue due to the trait design, yet in the same book that invented Lozenge, Paizo STILL added "Numbing Tonic" instead of "Numbing Candy" or whatever.
Lozenges *should* be the "generic prebuff" category of item due to their restrictions, yet they mostly are specific and niche.
The Galvanic Chew is perhaps the most generic among them, but still needs the user to get hit / touched directly, and it's explicitly a once per day Reaction. Nothing close to the "grant tHP" wide use-case of Numbing Tonic.
.
IDK, I guess I'm kinda at the "who knows" stage of this when it comes to Paizo changes.
It's hard not to use pattern recognition to think there will be some Alchemist nerfs in the TV remaster, but they also like to bizarrely buff the class via items.
They are aware of prebuffing and have been for some time, They are in a stance between where they tell GMs "some prebuffing is ok" and "you usually can let each character cast one spell or prepare in some similar way, then roll initiative."
So in that context im perfectly fine with alchemist having a maybe 3 10-minutes sustained and then using three actions to pop 2 1-minute ones and drink/feed them to others before combat. 5 1-minute ones however is not something I think I would allow often unless the party is deliberatly sneaky about it. So prebuffing seems to be a problem thats hard to solve with GMs needing to adjudicate what they feel is appropriate at the table.
My view on lozenges is that they are less of a pre-buff thing and more meant as prepared ability sorta thing, Long duration with little effect. Then a decent activated use that require no hands. If it granted any Temp HP you would be sure that it would only be for that hour with no refreshing of them. or a +1 with the activated reaction giving a small amount of temp HP.
Its also my guess Lozenges werent entirely made with current alchemist in mind due to how treasure vault was one of the last books before remaster.
I think the remaster made prebuffing significantly more predictable with recharging vials. You're always restoring vials, unlike having to stop to refocus, so once your mutagens and elixirs start lasting 10 minutes you can permanently have two running around the clock in exploration mode, or three at level 9. You can spend that on yourself or your teammates as you see fit. Being surprised often won't make a difference unless you were planning on burning all of your vials on prebuffing, which feels inadvisable unless you're extremely confident you won't need to flex quick alchemy during the fight for something unforseen. You've got the small pool of advanced alchemy items too, but that's not something you can use every fight.
The OGL Advanced Alchemy made pre buffing way trickier, with a larger pool of items you couldn't replenish. Burning resources prebuffing when you need to travel through another hour of caves hurts.
Captain Morgan wrote: Yup, in my opinion the psychology of using infused reagents for short-acting prebuffs in old Alch was completely different than VVials in new Alch. (daily or Quick)
I certainly liked the ability to make a ton of all-day buffs with i.reagents for the whole party, but the only time I ever prebuffed before a door kick was when there was certainty of an encounter on the other side.
In this VVial norm? It feels completely different. You don't even need a dedicated refocus activity, you just need time.
10 min buffs are basically guaranteed to work for a combat, even if that room is empty and the foes are 1 room deeper inside.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Trip.H wrote: Captain Morgan wrote: Yup, in my opinion the psychology of using infused reagents for short-acting prebuffs in old Alch was completely different than VVials in new Alch. (daily or Quick)
I certainly liked the ability to make a ton of all-day buffs with i.reagents for the whole party, but the only time I ever prebuffed before a door kick was when there was certainty of an encounter on the other side.
In this VVial norm? It feels completely different. You don't even need a dedicated refocus activity, you just need time.
10 min buffs are basically guaranteed to work for a combat, even if that room is empty and the foes are 1 room deeper inside. the timings seem too precise to not be intended imo. 10 min buffs with 10min recharge.
the cost, especially in higher levels, is not neglible though.
even later on, you still only have around 7-8 VVs. Using 3 of them to keep buffs up, means you only have 4-5 of them available for the combat.
Almost all specializations (except mutagenist) rely on how better VVs are compared to Advanced for in-combat use. And 4-5 of them are usually not enough to spam the whole combat, especially if you take Combine into consideration or bomb spam.
A chirurgeon gets maximized healing out of his VVs, a Toxicologist does damage even on a succesful Fort save, a Bomber gets his own Additives, and etc.
So there is a real opportunity cost to keeping yourself always pre-buffed with 3 VVs.
shroudb wrote: I've got a Chir that just hit L18 in Stolen Fate, and I'm surprised at how little use I get out of the max-roll healing feature. With everyone having more tools (and more HP relative to incoming damage), a touch-range *reactive* heal is still brutal to make use of in the chaos of combat due to action cost + needing to throw away your positioning.
Most of the time, I'd rather buff someone turn 1 with something proactive, like Numbing, while knowing that I've got a weaker Bttl Md outside my VVials on standby (and Improvise's 1 p day VV restore).
In hindsight, I'd guess I use an elixir of lf roughly every 2nd combat, which is kinda yikes, considering that the max-roll ability is the most math-potent passive I've seen in the system (iirc it's ~40% boost).
That's a long-winded way of saying that I'm surprised that I find the opportunity cost using those "sustained" recharging VVials for buffs really does seem better most of the time, even over a post L13 Chir's healing elixir.
.
I will say that how each Alch uses their VVials will vary a ton based on their own context. I certainly do not envy Bombers who need to use a VVial every time they try to compete with a martial for a 1A Strike.
For my SoT table, it's super binary between "survive this one fight today" or those brutal "5+ combat map crawl days," and this completely alters my VV use.
Those marathon days make me waaay more reluctant to spend any VVials, as those will often have only one or two 10min pauses somewhere in there, if that.
Perhaps because of that, the Chir of that campaign is solidly set into using the "sustain VVs" for Drakeheart mutagens, as this is the 3PC party that's rather well experienced. This party is always broke on gp, so we do *not* keep up with our runes, making it a +2 to AC right now iirc.
IMO it's not said often enough, but Drakeheart's Perception bonus is biiiig.
The entire power budget of a general feat is "+2 to initiative," and there's so many other Perception rolls outside that.
As both the AC & Perception are pretty much always helping, imo Drakeheart is kinda my pick for overall "easiest sell."
If I had to pick a "strongest mutagen" for general use thats good in every situation it would indeed be drakeheart so im not suprised that gets the pick.
even when the AC is neglible and the save penalties are horrible you still get to act sooner and can just expend it start of turn with a 1 action double stride to close distance or get in cover.
Trip.H wrote: shroudb wrote: I've got a Chir that just hit L18 in Stolen Fate, and I'm surprised at how little use I get out of the max-roll healing feature. With everyone having more tools (and more HP relative to incoming damage), a touch-range *reactive* heal is still brutal to make use of in the chaos of combat due to action cost + needing to throw away your positioning.
Most of the time, I'd rather buff someone turn 1 with something proactive, like Numbing, while knowing that I've got a weaker Bttl Md outside my VVials on standby (and Improvise's 1 p day VV restore).
In hindsight, I'd guess I use an elixir of lf roughly every 2nd combat, which is kinda yikes, considering that the max-roll ability is the most math-potent passive I've seen in the system (iirc it's ~40% boost).
That's a long-winded way of saying that I'm surprised that I find the opportunity cost using those "sustained" recharging VVials for buffs really does seem better most of the time, even over a post L13 Chir's healing elixir.
.
I will say that how each Alch uses their VVials will vary a ton based on their own context. I certainly do not envy Bombers who need to use a VVial every time they try to compete with a martial for a 1A Strike.
For my SoT table, it's super binary between "survive this one fight today" or those brutal "5+ combat map crawl days," and this completely alters my VV use.
Those marathon days make me waaay more reluctant to spend any VVials, as those will often have only one or two 10min pauses somewhere in there, if that.
Perhaps because of that, the Chir of that campaign is solidly set into using the "sustain VVs" for Drakeheart mutagens, as this is the 3PC party that's rather well experienced. This party is always broke on gp, so we do *not* keep up with our runes, making it a +2 to AC right now iirc.
IMO it's not said often enough, but Drakeheart's Perception bonus is biiiig.
The entire power budget of a general feat is "+2 to initiative," and there's so many other... Numbing is a great tool, but for my own Chi I find it enough to actually use Advanced to have a stack of Numbing at the ready.
So it doesn't really cuts in my VV reserves.
At high levels, I find myself often doing a Combine Maximised Life, and with sufficient advanced familiar I deliver that at range.
Being able to only do so only once or twice per battle as opposed to twice or thrice is a cost really felt for the ongoing VV buffs is what I'm saying.
|
|
