Pathfinder 2 Blog: Critical Success and Failure

[upho]

The first big takeaway from that is that alchemist bombs are now explicitly the same as alchemist fire, not the same concept with two different names (of course, alchemists can still make them deal more damage); this also means that other PCs can actually use your concoctions.

At least as far as I can tell from the reveals, I like this. There's a distinct conceptual simplicity and consistency to it, and potentially also when it comes to the actual related mechanics.

When it comes to the reveals about the P2 alchemist class itself, IMO the thing that stands out the most is the hang-up on bombs being the alchemist thing, at the expense of virtually all of the P1 version's other signature class abilities and equally viable build focuses.

While the boosted free Alchemical Crafter feat and related class feats may potentially allow for a splash of versatility from 1st level, it seems highly unlikely alchemical items will grant anything even remotely close to the same broad flexible power as that of the P1 version's pseudo-spell extracts. At least if judging by this tidbit from the blog: "...the 18th-level Improbable Elixirs feat enables him to craft elixirs with the effects of magical potions." Similarly, it appears "Jekyll and Hyde" builds won't be nearly as viable for the P2 alchemist as they are for the P1 version: "...at 5th level the alchemist learns the secrets of mutagens..." "...the 8th-level Feral Mutagen feat..." "The 10th-level Stalker Mutagen feat grants the alchemist Stealth as a signature skill and allows him to move up to his Speed when he sneaks." "...the Perfect Mutagen feat at 18th level allows the alchemist to ignore the drawbacks when under the effect of a mutagen..."

So unless there will be archetypes allowing for switching out the bomb focus for a mutagen focus from start, it appears at least mutagen-based melee is reduced to being a minor higher level complement to bombs. And while I guess there's a still a small chance the new alchemical items will actually be able to grant a level of utility and buffing power similar to that of the P1 version's extracts, I suspect the P2 class won't even have half of the P1 version's versatility.

The lessened versatility may turn out to be well motivated by the general PC power expectations in P2 and thus a good thing, but I really dislike the apparently enforced bomb focus. It removes a major part of the class' attractiveness IMO.

EDIT: So, TL/DR:

"Why no play with Hulk anymore?"
/EDIT

[Psyren]

Eh, if I wanted a melee-focused alchemist I was going straight for an archetype anyway, and that's the perfect design space for that concept to live. I'm not seeing much drastic change here.

I'm more interested in details on the "concoctions" they can make. If they're all true alchemical items now (i.e. no need for Infusion for other folks to use them) will they cost money to make? Can they be sold? Will the Alchemist have to spend resonance to both make and use the short-term ones? (I doubt that, but the blog wasn't clear.) Can you juice them up and then hand them off, or will they only have stronger effects when used by you? Etc. Lots more interesting questions to ask here.

[Starbuck_II]

Eh, if I wanted a melee-focused alchemist I was going straight for an archetype anyway, and that's the perfect design space for that concept to live. I'm not seeing much drastic change here.

I'm more interested in details on the "concoctions" they can make. If they're all true alchemical items now (i.e. no need for Infusion for other folks to use them) will they cost money to make? Can they be sold? Will the Alchemist have to spend resonance to both make and use the short-term ones? (I doubt that, but the blog wasn't clear.) Can you juice them up and then hand them off, or will they only have stronger effects when used by you? Etc. Lots more interesting questions to ask here.

The free ones go away so same ability to sell as extracts.

[Morty]

The phrase "In an attempt to avoid bottom-loading classes" caught my attention. And disappointed me, since "bottom-loading" classes was something 4e did right. I feel like if you're playing a class-based game, you should get your class's defining features right off the bat. It avoids things like... well, waiting until level 14 before you can use your shield to get a reflex bonus.

Anyhow, the alchemist's rundown is vague as ever, but promising enough. I've always liked alchemy and it's good to see it's not knock-off magic anymore. That said, I hope alchemists have more options to contribute in combat than just throwing bombs a lot.

[stack]

The heavy use of level gating abilities is probably my greatest concern with what I have seen. The fighter preview being an excellent example of noting level requirements on things they really don't need them (or at least not that heavily). I understand the design concept of making dips less prominent; I am on board with that goal. I would rather see menu options with less prereqs though.

Obviously we haven't seen full classes, but the impression given is that a lot of character concepts won't be firing on all cylinders at low levels. The fighter using a shield to defend an ally being a prime example. Sure, you could have a 'defender' archetype that gets the ability at 1st level, but why not just make it a select-able option without the level requirment instead of having to write archetypes for all the variations?

[Starbuck_II]

I think they are pulling a 4E and instead of level 1-20, we are getting 1-12 (then they stretching that 1-12 with 20 levels).

Because for the first couple of levels 4E played as if you were a lower level than 3.5 in my opinion (overall).

That is why they stretching low level abilities to later levels.

Because 1-12 is the sweet spot in D&D usually, after than DM (sometimes PCs) have issue with balance and playing the game.

[Morty]

The heavy use of level gating abilities is probably my greatest concern with what I have seen. The fighter preview being an excellent example of noting level requirements on things they really don't need them (or at least not that heavily). I understand the design concept of making dips less prominent; I am on board with that goal. I would rather see menu options with less prereqs though.

Obviously we haven't seen full classes, but the impression given is that a lot of character concepts won't be firing on all cylinders at low levels. The fighter using a shield to defend an ally being a prime example. Sure, you could have a 'defender' archetype that gets the ability at 1st level, but why not just make it a select-able option without the level requirment instead of having to write archetypes for all the variations?

Do we even know if buffet-style multiclassing is going to be a thing? I can't remember any confirmation one way or the other.

[khadgar567]

I think they are pulling a 4E and instead of level 1-20, we are getting 1-12 (then they stretching that 1-12 with 20 levels).

Because for the first couple of levels 4E played as if you were a lower level than 3.5 in my opinion (overall).

That is why they stretching low level abilities to later levels.

Because 1-12 is the sweet spot in D&D usually, after than DM (sometimes PCs) have issue with balance and playing the game.

thats what 5e is actualy with bunch of mandatory class power cuts wizards made sure 12 level stuff know is 20th level thus making it sure every one played full game to finish their build as far as actually 5e managed is making it sure nearly all streamers play for 1 or 2 levels unless they are supported ( enslaved) by wizards with no build properly do what it needs until epic 20.

[stack]

Do we even know if buffet-style multiclassing is going to be a thing? I can't remember any confirmation one way or the other.

I'm not sure. I don't recall seeing a definitive statement either way, but I haven't been checking every bit of data (mostly looking at the blogs).

[Psyren]

The free ones go away so same ability to sell as extracts.

Do you mean P1 extracts? Because that blog didn't mention extracts at all, and in P1, extracts lose potency once no longer held by you (or for Infusions, once you reprepare.)

Because for the first couple of levels 4E played as if you were a lower level than 3.5 in my opinion (overall).

That is why they stretching low level abilities to later levels.

You're evaluating P2 abilities with a P1 lens though. For example, using your shield to get a reflex bonus would be a weak ability for a 14th level Fighter in P1, but if there aren't that many ways to get bonuses to your reflex save in P2 it could actually be pretty powerful. We won't know until we get to see the whole picture.

Using Starfinder as an example, bonuses to attack rolls and saves are actually pretty rare source-wise.

[Scowling Dragon]

We won't know until we get to see the whole picture..

And that's why unclear marketing FOR A PLAYTEST sucks.

This whole thing stinks of something off.

[stack]

Fsir point on the math, Psyren. Shield verses breath weapon is a very iconic image, so I would rather see the ability scaled to suite the math at a lower level than simply gated to 14.

[Psyren]

And that's why unclear marketing FOR A PLAYTEST sucks.

This whole thing stinks of something off.

The PLAYTEST is in August. These are just previews.

Fsir point on the math, Psyren. Shield verses breath weapon is a very iconic image, so I would rather see the ability scaled to suite the math at a lower level than simply gated to 14.

It's indeed iconic - but keep in mind that in 3.5, your shield doesn't do jack squat against a breath weapon unless it's a tower shield anyway.

[stack]

Yes, having it at all is an improvement, though for the vast majority of the games I've played in level 14 is the same as not having it. Hopefully things like that can be adjusted.

[upho]

Eh, if I wanted a melee-focused alchemist I was going straight for an archetype anyway, and that's the perfect design space for that concept to live. I'm not seeing much drastic change here.

Sure you're going to archetype, because why not? But it's not vital in any way, as the vanilla P1 alchemist gives you everything you need to do just fine with a melee focus starting from 1st level. The vanilla P2 alchemist obviously does not, and won't until 5th at the very earliest. That is a drastic change IMO, as it kills a whole subset of alchemist builds, and pretty darn iconic ones at that.

Anyhow, it may very well be that these builds gain their own archetype in the CRB. But it worries me the devs haven't yet even hinted at this being a possibility.

Otherwise, I think the class seems promising enough from the few details the blog reveals.

I'm more interested in details on the "concoctions" they can make. If they're all true alchemical items now (i.e. no need for Infusion for other folks to use them) will they cost money to make? Can they be sold? Will the Alchemist have to spend resonance to both make and use the short-term ones? (I doubt that, but the blog wasn't clear.) Can you juice them up and then hand them off, or will they only have stronger effects when used by you? Etc. Lots more interesting questions to ask here.

AFAICT, the "juiced-up" stuff remains so only for a short time, costs resonance but no extra gp, and cannot be sold. I'm having a hard time seeing most "normal" crafted alchemical items not working on anyone. At least if the effect is simple and generic enough.

The phrase "In an attempt to avoid bottom-loading classes" caught my attention. And disappointed me, since "bottom-loading" classes was something 4e did right. I feel like if you're playing a class-based game, you should get your class's defining features right off the bat. It avoids things like... well, waiting until level 14 before you can use your shield to get a reflex bonus.

Yes, but admittedly 4e also allowed MC into a max of two other classes (hybrid and MC feats), and this never gave you all the defining "base" features of those classes, and/or demanded you traded away your "starting" class' features (in the case of hybrid). And as Psyren points out, it's still too early to tell whether the shield Reflex bonus is too little too late or not.

I hope alchemists have more options to contribute in combat than just throwing bombs a lot.

This.

The heavy use of level gating abilities is probably my greatest concern with what I have seen. The fighter preview being an excellent example of noting level requirements on things they really don't need them (or at least not that heavily). I understand the design concept of making dips less prominent; I am on board with that goal. I would rather see menu options with less prereqs though.

And this. I agree 100%. Also, MC is not the bad evil thing it appears to painted as too often IMO, it's a great thing that should be encouraged rather than discouraged. But of course, this demands a system capable of dealing with the mechanical consequences.

[stack]

To be fair, we don't know what melee boosting options will be available via alchemy prior to mutagen.

[Psyren]

Sure you're going to archetype, because why not? But it's not vital in any way, as the vanilla P1 alchemist gives you everything you need to do just fine with a melee focus starting from 1st level. The vanilla P2 alchemist obviously does not, and won't until 5th at the very earliest. That is a drastic change IMO, as it kills a whole subset of alchemist builds, and pretty darn iconic ones at that.

Well to be precise, it delays them - for exactly 4 levels, at that - so I think "kills" is a little melodramatic.

Besides, archetypes are core now (and 5e has gotten everyone used to that idea) so your chances of getting to use one, if you really have your heart set on that meleechemist, just went up I'd say. For myself, I'm hoping all the base classes can be more focused like this and shunt the secondary stuff more to archetypes, rather than have a bunch of them be eclectic grab-bags like we got in P1. (For example, Inquisitor dithering between being the monster identifying guy/the solo teamwork guy/the self-buffing martial guy/the divine bard guy, or Medium being the 5th-man guy/the seance guy/the location investigator guy, etc.)

Also, what stack said - your meleechemist might have level 1-4 options even without the mutagen.

And this. I agree 100%. Also, MC is not the bad evil thing it appears to painted as too often IMO, it's a great thing that should be encouraged rather than discouraged. But of course, this demands a system capable of dealing with the mechanical consequences.

True multiclassing indeed isn't evil. But I'm not upset that they are doing things to discourage dipping, which is not the same thing. The GMs who are okay with dipping can also just feel free to grant some of those dip-friendly features earlier than normal anyway.

[Morty]

Yes, but admittedly 4e also allowed MC into a max of two other classes (hybrid and MC feats), and this never gave you all the defining "base" features of those classes, and/or demanded you traded away your "starting" class' features (in the case of hybrid). And as Psyren points out, it's still too early to tell whether the shield Reflex bonus is too little too late or not.

Yes, but I don't think it's a bad thing, ultimately. I don't have practical experience with 4e multiclassing, but I'm fairly confident in saying 3e/5e buffet-style multiclassing doesn't work as it should.

As for the reflex bonus... at the risk of dragging the thread into a fighter discussion again, I'm sceptical about the math being different enough to make adding your shield bonus to a save such a big deal on level 14. Besides... it's still just a number and plays into the problem with non-magical abilities being number-shuffling. And really doesn't feel impressive enough for something you get in the second half of the levelling curve - unless they were to flatten it, which they said they don't want to.

And this. I agree 100%. Also, MC is not the bad evil thing it appears to painted as too often IMO, it's a great thing that should be encouraged rather than discouraged. But of course, this demands a system capable of dealing with the mechanical consequences.

Multiclassing, as an idea, is all but a requirement in a game with such uniquely rigid classes as D&D. But the implementation 3e and 5e go with is lacking. It's an optimizer's tool - a casual player who tries to dabble in it is likely to make a poorly-planned character, but an optimizer can dip their way into power.

[P.F.]

True multiclassing indeed isn't evil. But I'm not upset that they are doing things to discourage dipping, which is not the same thing. The GMs who are okay with dipping can also just feel free to grant some of those dip-friendly features earlier than normal anyway.

TBH I think dipping is less of a problem than it gets made out to be. I'm not personally offended by someone with one or two levels of paladin or monk or barbarian, and the number of Pathfinder builds which actually come out stronger from dipping are quite limited. Among the folks I play with, dipping is rare, and usually confined to special circumstances, like in gestalt games where you don't lose progression on your "other side."

Even the advice on these boards for anything but the most specialized builds tends to regard dipping as a lukewarm alternative to a more focused deliberate multiclass/archetype construction.

But players do it anyway sometimes, because it is fun: adding a new set of toys, upgrading an existing capability, or shoring up a weakness. It's worth it to be slightly less powerful overall if they can introduce these new elements without making a new character from scratch (or "retraining" their old character into a completely different one).

I would be disappointed if P2 made lower-level characters less potent, versatile, and interesting for fear that the classes would be combined in this manner.

[Pex]

TBH I think dipping is less of a problem than it gets made out to be. I'm not personally offended by someone with one or two levels of paladin or monk or barbarian, and the number of Pathfinder builds which actually come out stronger from dipping are quite limited. Among the folks I play with, dipping is rare, and usually confined to special circumstances, like in gestalt games where you don't lose progression on your "other side."

Even the advice on these boards for anything but the most specialized builds tends to regard dipping as a lukewarm alternative to a more focused deliberate multiclass/archetype construction.

But players do it anyway sometimes, because it is fun: adding a new set of toys, upgrading an existing capability, or shoring up a weakness. It's worth it to be slightly less powerful overall if they can introduce these new elements without making a new character from scratch (or "retraining" their old character into a completely different one).

I would be disappointed if P2 made lower-level characters less potent, versatile, and interesting for fear that the classes would be combined in this manner.

Many of the P1 archetypes lowered the need of dipping or multiclassing altogether because they gave a class a taste of something from another class. A fighter can get some rage stuff. A cleric can get some feat stuff. They're more noticeable in the splat books where a core class could gain use of Exploits for example.

[Psyren]

TBH I think dipping is less of a problem than it gets made out to be. I'm not personally offended by someone with one or two levels of paladin or monk or barbarian, and the number of Pathfinder builds which actually come out stronger from dipping are quite limited. Among the folks I play with, dipping is rare, and usually confined to special circumstances, like in gestalt games where you don't lose progression on your "other side."

To be clear, I'm not "offended" by it either - I just find it to be inelegant and thus worthy of systemic discouragement.

I would be disappointed if P2 made lower-level characters less potent, versatile, and interesting for fear that the classes would be combined in this manner.

Archetypes for the thing you want to do would solve that. If you want to be a meleechemist from level 1 for instance, I'm sure there will be an archetype for that - Hyde is just too iconic for them to miss.

Many of the P1 archetypes lowered the need of dipping or multiclassing altogether because they gave a class a taste of something from another class. A fighter can get some rage stuff. A cleric can get some feat stuff. They're more noticeable in the splat books where a core class could gain use of Exploits for example.

To say nothing of variant multiclassing, or feats like Animal Ally, Familiar Bond, Adept Channel, Eldritch Heritage etc. I vastly prefer that kind of dabbling.

[Kurald Galain]

Now this is just a minor pet peeve, but it's always bothered me how the sling is such a crappy weapon in D&D games. Apparently this is because one of the 1E designers didn't know the difference between a military sling and a toy slingshot, and statted it according to the latter; and every edition since then has simply copy/pasted the weapon damage table. PF2 finally fixes this.

Oh yeah, and there's a new blog post on gnomes and halflings, which don't seem very different from P1 so far.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Now this is just a minor pet peeve, but it's always bothered me how the sling is such a crappy weapon in D&D games. Apparently this is because one of the 1E designers didn't know the difference between a military sling and a toy slingshot, and statted it according to the latter; and every edition since then has simply copy/pasted the weapon damage table. PF2 finally fixes this.

That's good to hear. I wonder if they'll fix other weapon inaccuracies, like falchions. Longswords being replaced with broadswords might be too much to ask, though.

[Morty]

D&D's weapon rules have always mostly been a mix of poorly-understood sense of realism, equally poorly-understood idea of balance and copying old ones to make it look familiar. I don't expect that to change in PF2e, apart from some localized tweaks.

The blog about gnomes and halflings doesn't tell us a lot that's new. The ancestral feats look quirky and nice... but some of them are very questionably worth a feat slot.

[Scowling Dragon]

Uh folks? They went into some detail about Stat creation. From what it looks like Ability point creation is no longer an assumed part of character creation.

That's kinda a shame.

[exelsisxax]

Uh folks? They went into some detail about Stat creation. From what it looks like Ability point creation is no longer an assumed part of character creation.

That's kinda a shame.

The opposite. Point-buy is now the default rule, but instead of a chart and points they've got some sort of decision tree or ancestry/background thing that does the same thing. We just have no idea what that system actually looks like.

[Psyren]

The opposite. Point-buy is now the default rule, but instead of a chart and points they've got some sort of decision tree or ancestry/background thing that does the same thing. We just have no idea what that system actually looks like.

Yeah, I'm going to just ask Scowling Dragon for receipts on everything he posts here until the actual playtest is released in 4 months. No offense to the guy.

[Cosi]

The phrase "In an attempt to avoid bottom-loading classes" caught my attention. And disappointed me, since "bottom-loading" classes was something 4e did right. I feel like if you're playing a class-based game, you should get your class's defining features right off the bat. It avoids things like... well, waiting until level 14 before you can use your shield to get a reflex bonus.

I agree. And I think this implies that you need PrCs. If you're going to call yourself a Paladin, you should get all the abilities a Paladin has in fairly short order. But that obviously makes progressing as a Paladin kind of loose. So you need to PrC out into Angel Knight or Witch King or Mind Lord to get a new set of abilities (and from there into Hero of Ragnarok or Godslayer).

I do not think Paizo will deliver on this, and I anticipate that the game will continue to expect that you wait until 14th level to get abilities that are essentially "a statistically meaningless bonus to a low level action".

Do we even know if buffet-style multiclassing is going to be a thing? I can't remember any confirmation one way or the other.

Honestly, I hope it isn't. It's a bad design decision, and if PF removes it that would (in a vacuum) be good. That said, you obviously need some kind of multiclassing.

[exelsisxax]

I agree. And I think this implies that you need PrCs. If you're going to call yourself a Paladin, you should get all the abilities a Paladin has in fairly short order. But that obviously makes progressing as a Paladin kind of loose. So you need to PrC out into Angel Knight or Witch King or Mind Lord to get a new set of abilities (and from there into Hero of Ragnarok or Godslayer).

I do not think Paizo will deliver on this, and I anticipate that the game will continue to expect that you wait until 14th level to get abilities that are essentially "a statistically meaningless bonus to a low level action"

Honestly, I hope it isn't. It's a bad design decision, and if PF removes it that would (in a vacuum) be good. That said, you obviously need some kind of multiclassing.

Frontloading is certainly the better thing to do if classes are proscriptive rather than mere toolkits. From what the devs have said, multiclassing is going to radically change, and dipping will stop being a thing. If you are unable to make your character through dipping, your fighter damn well better be an actual fighter at level 1, rather than "some chump with swords". Unfortunately, it seems that you aren't allowed to multiclass and you have to wait forever to do your actual thing. It's like having your cake and eating it too, if the cake was a highly radioactive poison.

[Kurald Galain]

The opposite. Point-buy is now the default rule, but instead of a chart and points they've got some sort of decision tree or ancestry/background thing that does the same thing. We just have no idea what that system actually looks like.

I foresee a lot of whining that "you can't play (e.g.) a fighter without a race heritage that boosts Str AND a background that boosts Str"...

Because god forbid that characters are 5% worse at attacking. And to be fair, the game itself (so far) stimulates this behavior, because the developers insist that getting +2 instead of +1 to a skill is a Really Big Deal.