Alchemist Class Preview

Monday, April 9, 2018

Just read any messageboards or comment threads, and you'll realize this truth about people: some of them love to throw bombs and blow things up. It's a visceral thrill. Lobbing bombs is dramatic and fun, and every so often all of us love to watch something burn. If you enjoy this activity more than most, do we have a class for you!

So far we've previewed the fighter and the rogue. You might have thought we'd showcase one of the original spellcasting classes next, but that involves talking a bit more about spellcasting, so instead, we decided to unleash the secrets of the alchemist in our newest preview of the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook.

In the early days of Pathfinder First Edition, the alchemist saw release in the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide. Since then, the alchemist has proven to be very popular. Unsurprisingly, when we surveyed the player base about what classes see the most play, the alchemist rose right to the top (along with the oracle, but more on that in a later preview). That alone would have promoted the class into the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, but tackling the alchemist early on during the design process was beneficial for another reason: it allowed us to take a hard look at alchemical item design with the alchemist in mind rather than as a later add-on.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

Alchemist Features

While anyone trained in Crafting can take the Alchemical Crafter skill feat and craft their own alchemical items, the alchemist is much better at this crafting discipline. At 1st level, he gains Alchemical Crafter and a formula book for free, along with four bonus alchemical item formulas (for a total of eight, including the four from Alchemical Crafter). Each time he levels up, he gains two more formulas. This is on top of ones he either discovers or invents. Not only does he gain more access to alchemical tricks, by way of advanced alchemy and the quick alchemy action, but he can also spend resonance to create alchemical objects on the fly, though such hasty concoctions are potent for only a short period.

Crafting is all well and good, but what about bombing potential? The alchemist's bombs are now the basic alchemical items you are familiar with: things like alchemist fire, thunderstones, acid flasks and so on. He crafts these items and lobs them. At 3rd level, he gains the empower bomb feature, which allows him to multiply the damage of the bombs he creates. This multiplier increases with level until it reaches six times the alchemical bomb's base damage at 19th level.

But that's only the start—at 5th level the alchemist learns the secrets of mutagens, and as he progresses his ability to craft alchemical items on the fly becomes both greater and faster.

Alchemist Feats

Tying these features together is the selection of alchemist class feats. As with other class feats, they allow the alchemist to either focus or diversify his features and talents. In the case of the alchemist, class feats come in a few broad categories. If the alchemist wants to make the most of his crafting, he might choose Efficient Alchemy or Enduring Alchemy at 4th level. The former allows him to craft larger batches of alchemical items during downtime, while the latter extends the amount of time he can use alchemical items that he creates with the Quick Alchemy action. When he reaches 6th level, Powerful Alchemy allows him to increase the DCs of his alchemical effects, while the 18th-level Improbable Elixirs feat enables him to craft elixirs with the effects of magical potions.

Making stuff is great, but destruction is much more fun. Most alchemical bombs are splash weapons, which means that when the alchemist hits an enemy, those nearby take a bit of damage. At 4th level, an alchemist with the Calculated Splash feat can deal splash damage equal to his Intelligence modifier instead of the normal 1 splash damage. At 6th level, the alchemist can take the Precise Bomb feat, allowing him to hit everyone but his allies with the splash damage. Taking both feats increases the hurt he puts on enemies while saving his allies the pain. Of course, there are also plenty of feats that affect the primary target of a bomb. Debilitating Bomb at 6th level and its greater counterparts at 10th and 14th levels allow the alchemist to apply different types of conditions to the primary target of his bombs.

After an alchemist gains the mutagen crafting feature, he can take feats that modify how those powerful elixirs interact with his internal chemistry. For instance, the 8th-level Feral Mutagen feat boosts the alchemist's Intimidate checks and morphs his teeth into frightful jaws and his hands into rending claws. Other such modifications are subtler. 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. While all mutagens grant some bonuses and drawbacks, the Perfect Mutagen feat at 18th level allows the alchemist to ignore the drawbacks when under the effect of a mutagen he crafted.

All of this is only a small sample of what the class has to offer. The alchemist is also a master of poisons (which he can craft for free each day just like other alchemical items), has easy access to a number of skills, and can act as the party's trap disabler or healer if necessary. The diversity in the class allows you to pick and choose exactly how you want to manifest your particular brand of alchemical discoveries.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Senior Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
251 to 300 of 566 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

I have never liked Alchemists, not in 1e not in 2e, I am glad that other people will be happy with them. I hope one of the classes or items that I actually care about gets reviewed next.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really want an Alchemist Feat called "Potent Potables"... Jeopardy doesn't have that trademarked, do they?

Now I want to make a goblin Alchemist named Trebek... who always states his questions in the form of an answer.


I'm interested to see some of the high-level alchemical items! It would be cool if they were priced so that lots of characters might actually buy consumables - and one advantage of the alchemist being that he gets them for free. It would be nice if they just worked a la carte for a rogue (or whatever other class wanted to use them,) without requiring alchemist class features to actually use effectively. It would be a shame if Paizo spent all this effort developing an elegant alchemy system, and then made alchemical items a trap option for everyone but the alchemist.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Love the resurrection elixir!

But a lot of people here seems to forget we will get Archetypes directly in the core book this time. If you're not 100% happy with a class, wait to see the archetypes, they may help a lot.

RumpinRufus wrote:
I'm interested to see some of the high-level alchemical items! It would be cool if they were priced so that lots of characters might actually buy consumables - and one advantage of the alchemist being that he gets them for free. It would be nice if they just worked a la carte for a rogue (or whatever other class wanted to use them,) without requiring alchemist class features to actually use effectively. It would be a shame if Paizo spent all this effort developing an elegant alchemy system, and then made alchemical items a trap option for everyone but the alchemist.

From what I read in the preview and the interview, it sounds like the alchemist boost the items when he make them, so he could just hand them (or sell them) to the rogue and he would get the boosted alchemist fire of tanglefoot bag. He just wouldn't get to ignore his allies...

But yeah, I always found it weird that the alchemist wasn't really able to make alchemical items, and that most of them weren't made by alchemists. I LOVE what I see here.

Oh, if you mean you want the rogue to craft boosted alchemical items, well, I somehow doubt they'll do anything more than basic alchemical items... and it may be better to wait later levels before taking the feat, to get to chose better formula.. unless you can get new ones later on? Maybe by buying formula books? The feat giving 4 free ones, but you can buy more like you can buy scrolls right now and copy them in your spellbook/formula book (for PF1 alchemist), but now they are separate things?
Damn, I hate spell lists (so I kinda didn't like PF1 alchemist), but I LOVE that alchemy system!


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really want an Alchemist Feat called "Potent Potables"... Jeopardy doesn't have that trademarked, do they?

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:pyqju6.2.2


Gregg Reece wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really want an Alchemist Feat called "Potent Potables"... Jeopardy doesn't have that trademarked, do they?
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:pyqju6.2.2

"That search have expired" ... :(

Did it manually and got:
Word Mark, Check Status, Live/Dead
MOTHER NIGHT POTENT POTABLES, TSDR, LIVE
Spoiler:
(Natural ingredient flavored alcoholic beverages produced from a brewed malt base, NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "POTENT POTABLES" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN)

POTENT POTABLES, TSDR, DEAD
Spoiler:
(Bar service, abandoned in 2013)

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Seems ok to me. Power curve has flattened out a bit more like the previous previews, so it seems a little more "controlled" in power development over 20 levels, so we're more likely to see 20 level AP's I would hope.

My biggest concern, reinforced here, is the length of combat. With the huge increase in HP, especially at lower levels, and what appears to be a flatter power/damage growth I can see battle becoming longer, more drawn out affairs similar to the grueling slog of a 4e encounter, unless I'm missing something (which I probably am given the limited info), perhaps healing is far less effective or scarcer and so HP need to be higher to push a longer adventuring day?

I don't want long battles ala starfinder or 4e, this is the bane of high level play now - taking 4 hours to finish a combat is sapping and we don't need this imported into lower level play.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I do like the mention of a way to increase the DCs of those alchemical items, but I'm hoping it's not just an alchemist thing. Item based DCs in general need a real hard look, they're focused for low level play so are just plain terrible at higher levels.

Not exactly thrilled with potions no longer being spells in a can. I liked that spells and potions had a unified rule-set and adding a spell automatically added a new potential potion. Are wands and staves moving away from being spell based too?

And I've got to join in the concern about class abilities being moved to higher level. It looks like classes are going to be fairly bland at low level and just get their options later on. This is one of the problems I had with the Kineticist, it had a bit of flexibility and some utility. But for the ones that are actually used more than once in a campaign you have to wait until the higher levels. At which point the game is often over. Ancestries seem to be doing this too, instead of getting a handful of abilities from your race, it now seems you have to get them as you level.

We still don't have a great picture of things yet. So all of these points are something I'll want to hammer on in the playtest to see if they actually are a problem.


I think the dc will have something to do with craft check.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It looks like there's even more alchemical goodness today in Stephen's interview with Techraptor.
Quote:
Unlike other classes, alchemist’s resonance pool is based on their Intelligence, not Charisma, meaning that it lines up with their primary ability quite nicely. They also get additional bonuses to their pool as they continue to advance throughout the game, helping keep them up to date.
This line from that link helps some of the problems people are having with using resonance to make your items.

Interesting choice. Lets limit firstly by using a typical dump stat so it becomes more valuable/equivalent to other stats, then immediately go back on that for a core class. Now I feel sorry for the fighter who MUST use CHA for his resonance while the alchemist uses INT for his, plus probably his skills, DC's class abilities etc. Not sure about this idea. I may of course have the wrong end of this discussion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:

I do like the mention of a way to increase the DCs of those alchemical items, but I'm hoping it's not just an alchemist thing. Item based DCs in general need a real hard look, they're focused for low level play so are just plain terrible at higher levels.

Not exactly thrilled with potions no longer being spells in a can. I liked that spells and potions had a unified rule-set and adding a spell automatically added a new potential potion. Are wands and staves moving away from being spell based too?

And I've got to join in the concern about class abilities being moved to higher level. It looks like classes are going to be fairly bland at low level and just get their options later on. This is one of the problems I had with the Kineticist, it had a bit of flexibility and some utility. But for the ones that are actually used more than once in a campaign you have to wait until the higher levels. At which point the game is often over. Ancestries seem to be doing this too, instead of getting a handful of abilities from your race, it now seems you have to get them as you level.

We still don't have a great picture of things yet. So all of these points are something I'll want to hammer on in the playtest to see if they actually are a problem.

I mean yeah Level 18 to make potions are you bloody kidding me?

I don't care how strong Potions can become, most games don't push past level 15. While you can argue Power balance now for that reason I'd also say that around that time APs start bottoming out, and longer campagins also start to feel the weight of "When will this end" around then.

Besides how abused were Potions anyway? Not in PFS I can tell you that(Brew Potion banned, WAT)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cat-thulhu wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It looks like there's even more alchemical goodness today in Stephen's interview with Techraptor.
Quote:
Unlike other classes, alchemist’s resonance pool is based on their Intelligence, not Charisma, meaning that it lines up with their primary ability quite nicely. They also get additional bonuses to their pool as they continue to advance throughout the game, helping keep them up to date.
This line from that link helps some of the problems people are having with using resonance to make your items.
Interesting choice. Lets limit firstly by using a typical dump stat so it becomes more valuable/equivalent to other stats, then immediately go back on that for a core class. Now I feel sorry for the fighter who MUST use CHA for his resonance while the alchemist uses INT for his, plus probably his skills, DC's class abilities etc. Not sure about this idea. I may of course have the wrong end of this discussion.

Well, Alchemist use their Resonance to make their class features, so they would need more of it. Fighters don't need Resonance to use their combat maneuvers.

MerlinCross wrote:


I mean yeah Level 18 to make potions are you bloody kidding me?

I don't care how strong Potions can become, most games don't push past level 15. While you can argue Power balance now for that reason I'd also say that around that time APs start bottoming out, and longer campagins also start to feel the weight of "When will this end" around then.

Besides how abused were Potions anyway? Not in PFS I can tell you that(Brew Potion banned, WAT)

Well, considering you can make healing elixirs (and even Resurrection ones) and these from the interview:

Quote:
Elixirs typically tend to be transmutative, meaning something changes to make them work. A few other examples given were a cheetah elixir that gives you increased speed, an elixir that improves jumping, an elixir that transforms you into the mist, and several others that transform the body.

I would say that you don't necessarily needs to make potions, and now others can use your alchemical items (bombs and elixirs)... Potions might just be more boosted ones.

But really, I never really liked potions, but I'm stoked for Elixirs, so I may just be an oddball. Eh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do admit to being confused by moving away from potions being spells in a can. Is that actually a good change? I would think it would actually muddy the waters between potions and alchemical elixirs if potions go back to weird specific effects like D&D 0-2E. If an alchemical elixir can turn you into gas, how is that different than a potion? Why would Oil of Timelessness, to use one of those old potions, be a potion and not an alchemical creation?

I'd think if Potions still exist as a separate thing in the game from Alchemical Elixirs, that letting the former still be spells in a can is a way to give them a distinct identity from said elixirs. That way Elixirs can have all the cool random crap from older versions of the game and more new ones beside, while with potions you save on page count because they're literally just bottled spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like it! Paizo has been reading my diary which is especially weird cause I don't keep a diary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like a lot of what I see here. A blog on Resonance would be real nice, as would a blog on Alchemy.

That said, I like that bombs aren't just firebombs, I like that alchemy is more of 'science-magic' and not just one or the other. Stronger (or at least, more useful) poisons is definitely a plus for me, though I'm a bit sad that Rogues haven't been previewed with it. Fits rogue better than alchemist for me.

Hope there is a melee archetype that removes bomb abilities, and an archetype that removes mutagen. Would really like to see an archetype focused on an equivalent of PF1's liquid blade. Low levels having them as short swords with 1 point of energy damage as they have a bit of alchemical frost, high levels making them into stronger weapons that hit like melee bombs as the blade is made of solidified fire or releases sonic blasts with every strike. Or else blades made entirely out of poison. But maybe that should be left for a later book.

Re:Oracle: I hope this is just hinting at Sorcerer or Cleric design being more like Oracle, with a chosen theme (bloodline) which contains powers (feats) and not implying Oracle is just getting designated as a Sorcerer or Cleric or Generic archetype.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Oracle is, at it's PF1 basic core, a spontaneous caster cleric. Having it as an Archtype for the Cleric makes sense and is something I was expecting.


People talking about archetypes changing things should probably keep in mind that in the Core book, at least, archetypes aren't going to be class specific.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
FedoraFerret wrote:
People talking about archetypes changing things should probably keep in mind that in the Core book, at least, archetypes aren't going to be class specific.

Oh heck, I hope you're wrong, because the generic archetypes in Starfinder are fecking awful. I love PF1 style archetypes and that's what I want in PF2, not the trash underpowered generic archetypes of SF. :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FedoraFerret wrote:
People talking about archetypes changing things should probably keep in mind that in the Core book, at least, archetypes aren't going to be class specific.

Has this been confirmed?

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree with Fuzzypaws here. Archtypes need to be specific to classes, not the Generic level replacement like things that are called Archtypes in the Starfinder book.

Make a PrC, or an Archtype. Combining them into the Archtype named thing in Starfinder was not the way to go. That they only got two of them in the book because of the room needed to explain what each class would have replaced for them should be an indicator on how far that missed the mark.


Paradozen wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
People talking about archetypes changing things should probably keep in mind that in the Core book, at least, archetypes aren't going to be class specific.
Has this been confirmed?

I don't remember seeing this, and I'm VERY active in getting moar info... O-o


with all the class abilities being so modular will we even need archtypes?

Liberty's Edge

What I'm seeing out of all of this is that Pazio has tried to extend the playable range of the game, whilst also discouraging Multi class dipping for front end loaded advantages. At least so far. And all else aside I see that as a good thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I found it, here a recap from ENworld:

ENWorld wrote:


Archetypes in core
  • mindful about classes being rebranded as archetypes. Demoting core classes would upset people, but focused on core game and going back and forth on how to deal with those.
    Archetypes in playtest are a fairly small selection. (Bonner)
  • Not much like Starfinder or 1E. More experimental. (Bonner)
  • Broadly accessible concept archetypes in core rather than class-specific, but can theoretically could have prerequisites such as Wizard-specific. (Bonner)
  • Advanced Player's Guide is when "Pathfinder became Pathfinder" as a ruleset, with introduction of archetypes. But clerics had nothing to swap out and have been denied a fundamental part of the rules for 8 years. (Mona)

Bolded the most relevant one.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
with all the class abilities being so modular will we even need archtypes?

I figure on odd levels classes will get fixed class features and on even ones they will get modular ones.

Note the above in the class *features* (not feats) section: alchemical crafter at level 1, empower bomb at level 3, Mutagen at level 5.

So if you want to replace class features say an alchemist that does not get mutagen, (like PF1's Grenadier) you would have to trade that level 5 feature for something. But "archetypes exist" was confirmed in the first look blog.

I'm not sure how full casters will manage this since it looks like the features they get on odd levels is "next level spells".

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:

Ok, I found it, here a recap from ENworld:

ENWorld wrote:


Archetypes in core
  • mindful about classes being rebranded as archetypes. Demoting core classes would upset people, but focused on core game and going back and forth on how to deal with those.
    Archetypes in playtest are a fairly small selection. (Bonner)
  • Not much like Starfinder or 1E. More experimental. (Bonner)
  • Broadly accessible concept archetypes in core rather than class-specific, but can theoretically could have prerequisites such as Wizard-specific. (Bonner)
  • Advanced Player's Guide is when "Pathfinder became Pathfinder" as a ruleset, with introduction of archetypes. But clerics had nothing to swap out and have been denied a fundamental part of the rules for 8 years. (Mona)
Bolded the most relevant one.

Well, looks like it's time to revolt. Who knows the proper way to sharpen a pitch fork? Anyone?


Had never played an alchemist or even had a player wish to play one so admittedly I haven’t looked to deeply into the class. When I have a chance to break out my books and compare the current with the up and coming I will. After reading the blog my interest has been picked that’s for sure.


I'm not sure what the difference between an archetype requiring a wizard-specific class feature and a wizard archetype is? Just that one can apply archetypes to multiclassed characters?


Elfteiroh wrote:

Ok, I found it, here a recap from ENworld:

ENWorld wrote:


Archetypes in core
  • mindful about classes being rebranded as archetypes. Demoting core classes would upset people, but focused on core game and going back and forth on how to deal with those.
    Archetypes in playtest are a fairly small selection. (Bonner)
  • Not much like Starfinder or 1E. More experimental. (Bonner)
  • Broadly accessible concept archetypes in core rather than class-specific, but can theoretically could have prerequisites such as Wizard-specific. (Bonner)
  • Advanced Player's Guide is when "Pathfinder became Pathfinder" as a ruleset, with introduction of archetypes. But clerics had nothing to swap out and have been denied a fundamental part of the rules for 8 years. (Mona)
Bolded the most relevant one.

Thank you.

While I am concerned about less PF1 Archetypes, that they claim PF2 archetypes are more experimental than starfinder archetypes is a relief.

Back to the alchemist, I notice that the blog says Perfect Mutagen lets the alchemist ignore the drawbacks of a mutagen he crafted. Does this imply others can use an alchemist's mutagen, so a non-melee alchemist could hand it to the party fighter? Or am I reading into those two words too much?

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
Elfteiroh wrote:

Ok, I found it, here a recap from ENworld:

ENWorld wrote:


Archetypes in core
  • mindful about classes being rebranded as archetypes. Demoting core classes would upset people, but focused on core game and going back and forth on how to deal with those.
    Archetypes in playtest are a fairly small selection. (Bonner)
  • Not much like Starfinder or 1E. More experimental. (Bonner)
  • Broadly accessible concept archetypes in core rather than class-specific, but can theoretically could have prerequisites such as Wizard-specific. (Bonner)
  • Advanced Player's Guide is when "Pathfinder became Pathfinder" as a ruleset, with introduction of archetypes. But clerics had nothing to swap out and have been denied a fundamental part of the rules for 8 years. (Mona)
Bolded the most relevant one.

Thank you.

While I am concerned about less PF1 Archetypes, that they claim PF2 archetypes are more experimental than starfinder archetypes is a relief.

Back to the alchemist, I notice that the blog says Perfect Mutagen lets the alchemist ignore the drawbacks of a mutagen he crafted. Does this imply others can use an alchemist's mutagen, so a non-melee alchemist could hand it to the party fighter? Or am I reading into those two words too much?

Nice catch ;) You also aren't limited to only one existing in any form at any one time, so you can theoretically outfit the whole party with some nice benefits if they're willing to deal with the drawbacks (even if you get to dodge them with Perfect Mutagen!)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ENHenry wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It looks like there's even more alchemical goodness today in Stephen's interview with Techraptor.

First of all, thank you, Mark!

Even more cool stuff from this article. One quote from the article I call out, though:

In an attempt to avoid bottom-loading classes, and also addressing the fact players weren’t using it that much as a defining feature, the mutagen has been pushed back to 5th level as an ability…

In my case, every single alchemist I’ve ever played used mutagens as a cornerstone ability, because the whole “Jekyll and Hyde” thing was my main schtick. I sympathize completely with finding a way to do away with people just level dipping for an ability bonus, but unless there are more transformative effects at low level to take its place, I heavily dislike waiting until 5th (or even 8th!) level just to have the “Dr. Jekyll” archetype.

Then again, maybe there’s plans for an archetype to swap this around...

Yeah, this is exactly where I am. I love the alchemist, but bombs usually take a back seat to mutagen stuff. For me, that is their defining feature. Sure I could just be a strength based alchemist, but drinking my mysterious potion and turning into a monster is a lot more fun. I don't want to have to wait until 8th level before I can unleash a sharp-toothed Mr. Hyde.

I'm also obligated to ask again for Master-Chymist type dual-identities in the core book. Reading over that PrC when I first started playing Pathfinder is what sold me on this game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:

While I am concerned about less PF1 Archetypes, that they claim PF2 archetypes are more experimental than starfinder archetypes is a relief.

I'm not familiar with Starfinder archetypes. But I'm not sure what to think about generic ones.

Paradozen wrote:


Back to the alchemist, I notice that the blog says Perfect Mutagen lets the alchemist ignore the drawbacks of a mutagen he crafted. Does this imply others can use an alchemist's mutagen, so a non-melee alchemist could hand it to the party fighter? Or am I reading into those two words too much?

It think it might. And it makes some sense, considering they seem to be moving away from things being powered by the alchemist's mystic abilities and more just being alchemical items.

Edit: Looks like Mark Seifter beat me to the punch.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Okay. I seriously think you need to craft a Paizo Blog concerning Resonance and go into more detail about this. Because right now I have confusing reports on what it is and suggestions to look outside Paizo's site to learn details.

If Resonance is so important (and it seems like it is) then it needs to be talked about HERE. Not on other sites. Create a Blog Entry on the Paizo Blog and explain just what Resonance is, what it does, why it is being incorporated into Pathfinder, and other pertinent details.

Please. This would really be useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

Okay. I seriously think you need to craft a Paizo Blog concerning Resonance and go into more detail about this. Because right now I have confusing reports on what it is and suggestions to look outside Paizo's site to learn details.

If Resonance is so important (and it seems like it is) then it needs to be talked about HERE. Not on other sites. Create a Blog Entry on the Paizo Blog and explain just what Resonance is, what it does, why it is being incorporated into Pathfinder, and other pertinent details.

Please. This would really be useful.

Agreed. They probably need to make it a Monday post so it doesn't turn into a weekend flame war. Because it /will/ get heated. Possibly as much as core Goblins.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They could make it a Wednesday Blog. And then distract people with an Alchemy Blog on Friday.


By a remarkable coincidence, I started reading this blog post while listening to American Theatre Organ Society Radio, when they started playing the Mission Impossible theme . . . .

Count me as cautiously optimistic on the 2nd Edition Alchemist . . . although I second the call for an Investigator archetype (which somebody called "gentleman" above, but no need to restrict it to just men).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wild Spirit wrote:
Please give the alchemist something like an elixir of youth - reduces age by 10 years when consumed by a sentient creature. It would be a first class that could avert ageing effects not only for himself but also for other party members.

Druid with reincarnate has always been able to do that, albeit with a good chance of changing race.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So, am I understanding it correctly that the alchemist gets totally screwed over by GMs? See, if they don't have the downtime to make alchemical items, then they have to use their resonance to spontaneously craft them. So an alchemist with no downtime can't use any magic items as she needs the resonance points in order to make bombs and stuff.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe hard to say but a bad GM will ruin anyones day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone gets downtime every night when they sleep. If the GM is preventing that then everyone is screwed, from the spellcasters that can't refresh spell slots to the warriors who can't recover HP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:
I would say that you don't necessarily needs to make potions, and now others can use your alchemical items (bombs and elixirs)... Potions might just be more boosted ones.

I have a couple problems with this.

1) Resources. I'm still confused as to just who pays out the Resonace tax when using/making them. Or even the gold cost. If bombs do take cash then I'm dropping the class like a hot potato. And this is back to the the problem I had with Rssonance. 1 pool, spread over multiple options.

2) Effect. So bombs are going to work for everyone else the same as the Alchemist. *Sigh* here Ben take all my bombs, you built for Dex/Range I'm going to sit in the corner now. Espically if the INT to damage is gone(haven't seen it confirmed but jumping between two blogs on mobile is a pain). And again unsure just who is spending the Resoance. Or we can just cut the confusion and use our personal magic item to do X and use our built in heal for Hp. Really why'd we bring an Alchemist? Trap? Rogue would be less annoying and confusing.

3) Time. How long does the Alchemist stuff last? A day? Couple hours? Do we fix them in advance or use them as we need them? How long does it take to make any of these? Better question how many can we make in one batch? Magic items are limited to 1 a day though I've seen DMs wave it for Potions; is there a daily limit to Greater/better Alchemy?

See the advantage of Potions was "Store for later". And now we lose that option.

Not enough info. More questions and concerns rise up. I know some people disliked it but I liked my potion guzzling Alchemists.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
So, am I understanding it correctly that the alchemist gets totally screwed over by GMs? See, if they don't have the downtime to make alchemical items, then they have to use their resonance to spontaneously craft them. So an alchemist with no downtime can't use any magic items as she needs the resonance points in order to make bombs and stuff.

They get several 'free' items at reduced cost every day with about as much time cost as spell preparation. So only to the extent that you can do this to Wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah my assumption is that daily prep will work pretty similarly to PF1, at least as far as parity of morning prep time with casters.

For those disappointed by mutagen getting bumped back, there's a few things to consider. One is that without BAB the alchemist may have an easier time keeping up with martials. They will also have elixirs that can boost their physicality, which can help. (Admittedly the old alchemist had extracts which did the same.) And the other bug thing is that level 5 is just one level after you get a bunch of stat bumps, which could you transition into a melee focus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Everyone gets downtime every night when they sleep. If the GM is preventing that then everyone is screwed, from the spellcasters that can't refresh spell slots to the warriors who can't recover HP.

Actual problem is how much more Downtime is needed for an Alchemist to craft their items. I suppose the checky way is to at the end of the day, blow through all your Resonace making things through Instant Alchemy and rest up to recover those points. That is if said items don't turn to ash in a couple hours. How long does this stuff last for anyway?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think more than anything my PF2E alchemists will miss the sheer versatility of their PF21E's pseudo-spellcasting extracts. I'm not entirely convinced from the preview that the new elixirs system will maintain that versatility. I also hope their are some clear rules for the GMs/players to design completely new elixirs not in the PF2E corebook.

I very much like the theory of unified alchemy/alchemical items/potions, but withholding judgment until I see the playtest nitty-gritty.

I also agree that core alchemists should get to specialize very early on, like 1st or 2nd level, in a chosen field of expertise: mutagens, bombs, poison, etc. Let them focus and build on that field of study -- their major -- and then pick up minor curricula later. Let bomb chuckers or poisoners or mutaters/mutagenic form-ers or golems/homunculi masters (if that's possible) excel in their chosen specialty; don't force them into a role the character and player doesn't like or doesn't use, and don't force them to be generalists.

1of1 wrote:
I think that my first CHA based PF2 alchemist will be a party animal with a small substance abuse problem.

I think my first PF2E alchemist will be a goblin addicted to hallucinogenic pickles.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
And the other bug thing is that level 5 is just one level after you get a bunch of stat bumps, which could you transition into a melee focus.

Hold that thought. Hey Forum goers! Who wants to play subpar Fighter for 4 levels? Or maybe closer, Melee Druid with no companion and no Wild Shape till level 5?

Anyone?

This isn't even a problem for just Alchemist; can you picture a class you have to wait before actually playing the way you wanted? Maybe Druids can get their Animal at level 5, or Fighters can only pick Archery at 5. It's insane. The rules not the people making them I mean.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really want an Alchemist Feat called "Potent Potables"... Jeopardy doesn't have that trademarked, do they?
Now I want to make a goblin Alchemist named Trebek... who always states his questions in the form of an answer.

"What is an intriguing choice of PC ideas?"

Hopefully you won't regularly be forced to face sanity-eroding opponents like Sean Connery or Turd Ferguson Burt Reynolds.


My alchemist chooses potent potables for 500 Alex.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

With the option to hand bombs off I’m curious how easy it will be to set them up in spots as traps and the like.


MerlinCross wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
And the other bug thing is that level 5 is just one level after you get a bunch of stat bumps, which could you transition into a melee focus.

Hold that thought. Hey Forum goers! Who wants to play subpar Fighter for 4 levels? Or maybe closer, Melee Druid with no companion and no Wild Shape till level 5?

Anyone?

This isn't even a problem for just Alchemist; can you picture a class you have to wait before actually playing the way you wanted? Maybe Druids can get their Animal at level 5, or Fighters can only pick Archery at 5. It's insane. The rules not the people making them I mean.

Pathfinder 1st Edition Ranger has a similar problem until level 4, although at least Ranger Combat Style gives you something decent at level 2.

251 to 300 of 566 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Paizo Blog: Alchemist Class Preview All Messageboards