Why doesn't the alchemist have trapfinding? He's an explosives expert, there's no other class in the game with trapfinding besides the rogue, and he can't possibly sit in any of the other three class seats. It would give us a rogue alternative for games with traps, as well.
Hopefully, this is why there is a playtest! :-)
Yeah, I think Trapfinding works well for the class. There needs to be a second base class with the ability to disarm magical traps, and Alchemist is the best bet for that out of the 6 (with Inquisitor being second).
That's what I'm saying!
Agreement amongst the four of us means it must be true!
|
I thought this as well when I think of an alchemist; while I have not playtested myself, reports have come back that it is fairly weak (though seems conceptually cool). In any case, I think trapfinding should be far more prolific; at least, you should have a second option.
I personally think Rangers should acquire it as well (they are also underpowered, and it is in theme). But I doubt that will happen.
|
Pretty strong idea. I'd still like to see a little more option diversity, perhaps make trapfinding be part of the discovery abilities, although I don't know if that fits either.
So far every single person I've seen discuss this class has indicated that the discoveries are far too few, and would like to see them structured a bit more like the rogue talents.
As it stands, some of the loose testing I've done with several alchemist builds have been pretty weak.
Perhaps he should also be allowed to make his bombs into traps(with a longer duration so they are useful as traps)?
+1 to this idea as well!
Think long fuses, delayed blasts, or even trip-wire triggers that set off his bombs (which are thrown otherwise). It fits perfectly!
|
Perhaps he should also be allowed to make his bombs into traps(with a longer duration so they are useful as traps)?+1 to this idea as well!
Think long fuses, delayed blasts, or even trip-wire triggers that set off his bombs (which are thrown otherwise). It fits perfectly!
Wait a minute... The Home Alone kid is an Alchemist!!
Wait a minute... The Home Alone kid is an Alchemist!!Perhaps he should also be allowed to make his bombs into traps(with a longer duration so they are useful as traps)?+1 to this idea as well!
Think long fuses, delayed blasts, or even trip-wire triggers that set off his bombs (which are thrown otherwise). It fits perfectly!
I LOLed :)
Is aftershave his mutagen?
Why doesn't the alchemist have trapfinding? He's an explosives expert, there's no other class in the game with trapfinding besides the rogue, and he can't possibly sit in any of the other three class seats. It would give us a rogue alternative for games with traps, as well.
By "trapfinding", you mean the ability to disarm magical traps, correct? Frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with giving that ability to every class; there's nothing particularly roguish about dispelling a magical spell.
Why doesn't the alchemist have trapfinding? He's an explosives expert, there's no other class in the game with trapfinding besides the rogue, and he can't possibly sit in any of the other three class seats. It would give us a rogue alternative for games with traps, as well.By "trapfinding", you mean the ability to disarm magical traps, correct? Frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with giving that ability to every class; there's nothing particularly roguish about dispelling a magical spell.
I would rather give the alchemist a different ability that lets him disable magic traps, and not the bonus given by trapfinding. Leave that as something unique to the rogue. But certainly being able to disable magic traps would be good for the class.
Leave that as something unique to the rogue.
Why is that good from a game mechanical standpoint?
Why is that good from a flavour standpoint?
I'm not sure I completely agree on the trapfinding (I'm kind of split), but the bomb-making does make me question where evasion is in this class. Seriously, you're doing it from level 1, and if you haven't killed yourself learning the process, I'm betting you've gotten pretty good at getting the heck out of the way.
|
|
I'm not sure I completely agree on the trapfinding (I'm kind of split), but the bomb-making does make me question where evasion is in this class. Seriously, you're doing it from level 1, and if you haven't killed yourself learning the process, I'm betting you've gotten pretty good at getting the heck out of the way.
+1 I can see an alchemist wearing a shirt that says "I'm the Bomb Squad. If you see me running, try to keep up."
Why doesn't the alchemist have trapfinding? He's an explosives expert, there's no other class in the game with trapfinding besides the rogue, and he can't possibly sit in any of the other three class seats. It would give us a rogue alternative for games with traps, as well.
I'd make it a discovery that allows him to make bomb related traps and also find traps based on his own experience of making them.
However I wouldn't let him disarm them apart from using a bomb tossed from range to do so.
(Trap finding makes more sense to me for a ranger too to be honest.)
One problem with that, Petrus: anyone can find any trap. Rogues are currently the only class in the (core) game who can disarm magical traps (anyone can disarm mechanical ones). Adding a class ability that says they can find magical traps is redundant because they already can.
Leave that as something unique to the rogue.Why is that good from a game mechanical standpoint?
Why is that good from a flavour standpoint?
Hmm... as far as I can see, he's agreeing with you hogarth.
By "trapfinding", you mean the ability to disarm magical traps, correct?
lets him disable magic traps, and not the bonus given by trapfinding.
Perhaps it will make more sense if we look at what bonus "trapfinding" gives you (bonus the game term):
Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.
I'm thinking people don't want the Alchemist to have +10 to Perception and Disable Device checks at lvl 20.
Mechanically: Keep the Rogue as the "better" trap fixer, although no longer the "only" magical trap handler.
Flavour: An Alchemist would only necessarily have side-training in "traps", instead of being "equally best" at it, although it would be nice to see his Bombs be useable as traps, and therefore have a trap specialty that's different from Rogues.
Just a thought, but if the alchemist is going to be the rogue replacement, skills+skirmisher+trap character:
should the daily use limitation on bomb use be removed? When compared with the rogue's sneak attack damage bombs share about the same progression, but can't be used on multiple attacks/round.
Definitely. The warlock gets similar damage once per round as a ranged touch attack, and it's not broken.
Actually, Barbarians get trapfinding, but that's besides the point.
I actually don't see alchemists getting Disable Device. Thematically, they're more about chemicals than mechanical parts, and at least when I think of traps, I think of ropes, cogs, plates, etc. When I saw that they got Disable Device but not trapfinding, I avoided that skill. I would prefer that they not have the skill than they get trapfinding. By the way, does anyone else think that an Int-based character getting 4+Int skill points a bit much? But I digress.
I guess my point is this: Remove Disable Device or give them trapfinding at level 1.
Actually, Barbarians get trapfinding, but that's besides the point.Actually, Barbarians get Trap Sense,which helps them avoid traps that have been sprung, but doesn't help in finding or disabling traps.
Yeah, I realized it ten minutes after I posted, but thanks for the correction anyway.
I'm thinking people don't want the Alchemist to have +10 to Perception and Disable Device checks at lvl 20.Mechanically: Keep the Rogue as the "better" trap fixer, although no longer the "only" magical trap handler.
Flavour: An Alchemist would only necessarily have side-training in "traps", instead of being "equally best" at it, although it would be nice to see his Bombs be useable as traps, and therefore have a trap specialty that's different from Rogues.
So like "Lesser Trapfinding"?
In my opinion, the alchemist is the pseudo-science guy moreso than the pseudo-magic guy. For that reason, anything that seems quasi-scientific should be the alchemist's pervue. And so I see the alchemist being able to "disable traps" simply by ruining them with any number of acidic, explosive, or chemical means. He might even be a decent trap-setter with traps that are less about intricate mechanisms than they are about freaky alchemical concoctions, goos, and nasty caustic creams.
So...maybe the alchemist doesn't mimic the rogue so much. Maybe he has his own methods and formulas from his research journal that will circumvent the obstacles in alchemical ways rather than tricky ways.
Leave that as something unique to the rogue.Why is that good from a game mechanical standpoint?
Why is that good from a flavour standpoint?
Hmm... as far as I can see, he's agreeing with you hogarth.
By "trapfinding", you mean the ability to disarm magical traps, correct?lets him disable magic traps, and not the bonus given by trapfinding.
No, I'm saying let anyone use Disable Device on magical traps, not just rogues (and alchemists). If two PCs have the same Disable Device check, they should have the same insight into disarming magical traps, IMO.
No, I'm saying let anyone use Disable Device on magical traps, not just rogues (and alchemists). If two PCs have the same Disable Device check, they should have the same insight into disarming magical traps, IMO.Leave that as something unique to the rogue.Why is that good from a game mechanical standpoint?
Why is that good from a flavour standpoint?
Hmm... as far as I can see, he's agreeing with you hogarth.
By "trapfinding", you mean the ability to disarm magical traps, correct?lets him disable magic traps, and not the bonus given by trapfinding.
You were asking why should "it" be unique to the rogue. My point was that the "it" Kolokotroni was talking about was keeping the +10 to the checks unique to the rogue, not the disabling of magical traps in general.
Whether you give magical trap disabling to everyone, or to just the alchemist, the +10 bonus by 20th level is what gives the Rogue a unique "oomph" at traps. The suggestion is to keep that distinction.
According to my playtest data (taken at level 6), the Alchemist does a very good job at utility duty. Granted, there weren't any magical traps, but I think that the rogue should have that ability exclusively from a conceptual standpoint. The further the Alchemist moves from magic, the better.
According to my playtest data (taken at level 6), the Alchemist does a very good job at utility duty. Granted, there weren't any magical traps, but I think that the rogue should have that ability exclusively from a conceptual standpoint. The further the Alchemist moves from magic, the better.Utility duty consisting of...?
Craft (Alchemy), Disable Device, Perception, Use Magic Device. He was good at all of these things, as well as support damage from bombs and poisoning the weapons of his allies.
I posted the results of the playtest so far under the main topic (the sticky one).
Craft (Alchemy), Disable Device, Perception, Use Magic Device. He was good at all of these things, as well as support damage from bombs and poisoning the weapons of his allies.
I posted the results of the playtest so far under the main topic (the sticky one).
Why is it a problem to let the alchemist disarm magical traps as well, then?
(I am being good and not ranting about the other stuff. I promise.)
I just don't like the "feel" of it. An Alchemist to me is someone who deals more with chemicals/potions than dealing with magic directly. It harms the concept of the class, IMO.
I just don't like the "feel" of it. An Alchemist to me is someone who deals more with chemicals/potions than dealing with magic directly. It harms the concept of the class, IMO.So rogues can disarm magic traps, but a class that actually gets magical abilities can't?
Whaaaaat?
Well, if you go with that kind of logic, all casters should be able to disarm magical traps and non-casters shouldn't. The Alchemist is somewhat removed from the typical caster role in that his stuff comes from Alchemy. I just have this image in my mind of an Alchemist disabling a mechanical trap by using acid to dissolve it, or some kind of goo to gum it up in addition to other tools used to apply the necessary chemicals.
I see a rogue disabling the same trap with clever use of tools to loosen bolts, tighten screws, etc.
When it comes to magical traps, I don't see how alchemical liquids can help.
As far as the rogue goes, he can obtain minor spell like abilities through Minor and Major magic talents. Also, I think giving the trapfinding ability to the Alchemist as well somewhat cheapens the rogue class.
When it comes to magical traps, I don't see how alchemical liquids can help."Oh, man, another set of explosive runes, huh. Let me see if I can whip up a little bit of universal solvent...careful guys, this stains. And causes your skin to melt."
LOL, at least that helps with my immersion. :)
I'll elaborate on the cheapening of the rogue class a little more: Basically the Alchemist and the Rogue get an attack progression at every odd numbered level. The rogue gets a sneak attack progression, and the Alchemist gets a bomb progression.
If the Alchemist were to get the Trapfinding ability in addition to what he already has, I think I might prefer to play him instead of the rogue. No need to set up sneak attacks or get involved in melee. The only difference would be the lack of stealth as a class skill which would be somewhat mitigated by the new PF skills system.
But I'm gonna tell you, two AoOs and a full-round action to make one attack a round is going to eventually make having to set up flanks sound attractive again.I'll elaborate on the cheapening of the rogue class a little more: Basically the Alchemist and the Rogue get an attack progression at every odd numbered level. The rogue gets a sneak attack progression, and the Alchemist gets a bomb progression.
If the Alchemist were to get the Trapfinding ability in addition to what he already has, I think I might prefer to play him instead of the rogue. No need to set up sneak attacks or get involved in melee. The only difference would be the lack of stealth as a class skill which would be somewhat mitigated by the new PF skills system.
You know, I thought that as well until the playtest. The guy that played the Alchemist was smart enough to avoid melee combat nearly all the time. He stayed at the back of the group and flung bombs like there was no tomorrow! Then the archer in the group provided both protection and fire support for him. Whatever managed to get to him was nearly dead before it got there. IMO, sneak attacks require just as much intelligence to set up properly, and are more risky because it involves melee.
Give the Alchemist Trapfinding, and you hurt the rogue class, IMO. Honestly, I think Alchemists get enough perks, and have enough to do without worrying about Trapfinding anyway.
I'll elaborate on the cheapening of the rogue class a little more: Basically the Alchemist and the Rogue get an attack progression at every odd numbered level. The rogue gets a sneak attack progression, and the Alchemist gets a bomb progression.
If the Alchemist were to get the Trapfinding ability in addition to what he already has, I think I might prefer to play him instead of the rogue. No need to set up sneak attacks or get involved in melee. The only difference would be the lack of stealth as a class skill which would be somewhat mitigated by the new PF skills system.
Uh, except for one minor detail:
Rogues get to sneak attack as many times per round as they can attack a creature they flank (or as many times as they can attack, if they've got greater invisibility from a friendly spellcaster or a wand).
Alchemists get to bomb once per round, and only level+Int times per day total. At the most extreme, that's 20 (level) + 14 (38 Int) = 34 times per day. Considering a Rogue can potentially sneak attack 7 times in one round, not even counting AoOs, that's not very many. At level 1, it's only going to be a maximum of 6 bombs per day, and that only if you roll an 18 int with a human, half-elf, half-orc, or elf Alchemist.
I'll elaborate on the cheapening of the rogue class a little more: Basically the Alchemist and the Rogue get an attack progression at every odd numbered level. The rogue gets a sneak attack progression, and the Alchemist gets a bomb progression.
If the Alchemist were to get the Trapfinding ability in addition to what he already has, I think I might prefer to play him instead of the rogue. No need to set up sneak attacks or get involved in melee. The only difference would be the lack of stealth as a class skill which would be somewhat mitigated by the new PF skills system.
Uh, except for one minor detail:
Rogues get to sneak attack as many times per round as they can attack a creature they flank (or as many times as they can attack, if they've got greater invisibility from a friendly spellcaster or a wand).
Alchemists get to bomb once per round, and only level+Int times per day total. At the most extreme, that's 20 (level) + 14 (38 Int) = 34 times per day. Considering a Rogue can potentially sneak attack 7 times in one round, not even counting AoOs, that's not very many. At level 1, it's only going to be a maximum of 6 bombs per day, and that only if you roll an 18 int with a human, half-elf, half-orc, or elf Alchemist.
The rogue *should* be doing more damage with sneak attack, because he's exposing himself to the risk of a melee counter attack. Alchemist bombs *should* do less damage because they occur at range, and have a splash effect as well.
I'm glad you mentioned friendly casters, because during my playtest (level 6), the cleric in the group would make very good use of either shield of faith, shield other, or both to help keep the Alchemist safe. As to the number of bombs per day, he only ran completely out of them once. As far as the other encounters, the other party members would pretty much handle most of the heavy lifting while the Alchemist provided fire support and buffs via infusions.
Of note, we used a point buy system, and didn't actually roll characters up.
As to the number of bombs per encounter, he only ran completely out of them once.
It's not per encounter, it's per day. Also, the rogue doesn't run the risk of blowing his own party up, nor does he provoke 3 attacks of opportunity per attack, nor does he spend two move actions and a standard action per attack.
As to the number of bombs per encounter, he only ran completely out of them once.It's not per encounter, it's per day. Also, the rogue doesn't run the risk of blowing his own party up, nor does he provoke 3 attacks of opportunity per attack.
Apologies, that was an oversight on my part. I have fixed it now.
The rogue *should* be doing more damage with sneak attack, because he's exposing himself to the risk of a melee counter attack. Alchemist bombs *should* do less damage because they occur at range, and have a splash effect as well.So they're (somewhat approximating) balanced, and thus both reasonable choices if they can both deal with magical traps.
Uh, no. Giving the Alchemist Trapfinding makes him a better choice than the rogue. IMO of course :)
I still don't get how a class getting an attack progression at 1/2 level makes the rogue obsolete. Clerics do that, after all, and it's even a 30' AOE, plus they can locate traps (find trap spell) and disarm some magical traps (dispel magic). Yet no one complains that Clerics are stealing the Rogues' thunder!