Alchemists Are / are Not Versatile?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I will readily admit, I have not yet run an alchemist and have just recently started giving any serious consideration to building/running one.

Some guys were talking about them last weekend and I was looking for some other opinions on their pronouncement.

What they said is that the Alchemist Class is very versatile. It can be built to be anything from melee monster, mad bomber, better rogue, to utility in-fielder. It is great for that.

However, you have to specialize any particular build to be effective at one of those that the specific PC one built is not versatile. He is now locked into being just a melee monster, mad bomber, etc…

So the Alchemist class is versatile.
The Alchemist PC is specialized.

You guys agree?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All alchemists are versatile via how their extracs work. You can leave extracts open and prepare them in a minute for use.

Mutagens are similarily versatile in that you can prepare different mutagens as desired.

Alchemist discoveries are varied and open to customization for all but the most specialized of builds. A familiar for example is a versatile option in of itself that furthers your ability.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemists are quite versatile
Their mutagen, medium armor and 3/4 BAB allows them to frontline if you want them to, and their spells (potions) help here too
They have d6 per half level +int ranged touch attack That also does splash damage and can be improved by taking discoveries, the int mod also increases things like alchemist fire damage, this together would allow them to take the
They have 6th level casting that includes cure spells, and several archetypes make them even better healers
They can fit most every party role depending on what class feature you focus on
Ranged/blaster Mage, pump that bomb damage consider the "grenadier" archetype
Melee, maximize mutagen and consider the "vivisectionist" "beastmorph" and "rage chemist" archetypes
Healer, boost int, prepare cure infusions consider the "Chirurgeon" and "vivisectionist" archetypes (these two stack)

I've played one vivisectionist/Chirurgeon alchemist, I did frontline and healing I did both jobs pretty well, I also did trap finding, but that was from a trait

A friend of mine in a party that happened to be all casters played an alchemist and was our frontline, did a bit of healing and a bit of blasting, he didn't have an archetype, he was quite versatile

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder as a whole strongly rewards specialization. Alchemist is more capable than many classes of doing two or three roles, and doing them pretty well.

Sovereign Court

Also, you get a lot of skill points, and you have quite a good array of class skills. That alone means you can participate in many things.


No, the alchemist PC is versatile as well. The key to this is that their extracts take a single minute to make. So the idea is simply to leave some slots empty, so you can fill in what's needed as the need arises.

Scarab Sages

I have had 4 alchemists in games, and each one was a completely unique creature. One was a grappler, one a bombardier, one a back line support, and the current one is a multi armed melee brute. A very versatile class if you ask me.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's two kinds of versatility: the possibility of many different builds, and for a single build to do many different things. Alchemists have a lot of the former and sufficient of the latter.


The class is both versatile by default AND capable of great specialization. Even if you don't completely max out Int, you're going to have a LOT of skill points to play with. Your bombs means you're a decent ranged combatant for periods of the day as well. They get all the lower Cure spells plus Heal and can even pick up Breath of Life with the Chirurgeon archetype. Even without that archetype, your party will love you for Barkskin. If you want to front-line, you have a lot of the polymorph subschool spells to amp your physical capability. Plus, even a minor investment in your mutagen by level 12 makes you a much tougher front-liner. Of all the classes in the game, if you're looking at a list of ones who can fill almost any role, Alchemists are definitely at or near the top.


Hmm... It seems a few of you are arguing both sides or didn't understand the question.

To those that did answer the question, would it be fair to say?

An alchemist could be specialized to the point that it is not versatile. But it isn't required to specialize to that point in order to be an effective character.

Those guys seemed to feel you had to specialize to the point that it was no longer versatile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I feel that they can be both specialized and versatile at the same time. The various specialization paths aren't so strict that you don't have any wiggle room for other discoveries. You can fit in Infusion, if you want. That'll immediately increase your level of versatility all by itself. You could get the Wings discovery, which means you can spend your extracts on effects other than flight.

And while different specialized builds have different level of extract usage requirements (AMY ALCHY relies on a bit more extract quaffin' than the McVeigh Build), they all are able to leave a few spots open.

Basically, alchemists can remain versatile in spite of being heavily specialized.


Overall, they are versatile in that you can make a ton of different kind of dedicated builds for them (and you might be able to get some overlap to a varying extent), all of which also stack with the possible role of buffer/healer (Especially if they hand out spells as infusions)

-They can be a near raging out bruiser with either 2 handed weapons (sure they only get simple ones usually, but this is all about bonuses here) or via a natural attacks style
-They can get ranged build (may have to go grenadier for long bows) and can even combine that with a blasting/battlefield control option found in bombs.
-They can go with a TWF or natural attack based sneak attack build via vivisectionist

Heck, they can even do grappling builds. The tentacle discovery works surprisingly well if it is your only natural attack (Which makes it primary and gives it 1.5x str and power attack damage), and the grab ability it has allows you to start a grapple as a free action on a successful hit AND give a +4 to the checks. With the power of mutagen boosted strength (and maybe a large size with enlarge person) and an Int score that is high enough to qualify for combat expertise and then the grapple line of feats, they can be quite good at this role.

I also like the fact that all of that grapple stuff still leaves room for a reach build using long spears (the tentacle works well to cover adjacent squares for AoO's, and gives tricky casters a WHOLE lot to think about when you are on them. Especially if they are magical girls)


Cheapy wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I feel that they can be both specialized and versatile at the same time.

...
Basically, alchemists can remain versatile in spite of being heavily specialized.

That is the kind of answer I was looking for. Some of the other responses don't seem to agree.

Some seem to agree and disagree within the same post.

lemeres wrote:
Overall, they are versatile in that you can make a ton of different kind of dedicated builds for them (and you might be able to get some overlap to a varying extent...
Lord Foul II wrote:

...

They can fit most every party role depending on what class feature you focus on
Ranged/blaster Mage, pump that bomb damage consider the "grenadier" archetype
Melee, maximize mutagen and consider the "vivisectionist" "beastmorph" and "rage chemist" archetypes
Healer, boost int, prepare cure infusions consider the "Chirurgeon" and "vivisectionist" archetypes (these two stack)...

These kind of responses tend to imply, that once you decide you want to be good at something, you are no longer very good at much else. Hence the supposition that I heard of the class is versatile. But once you've made a specific build that is good at something, it is not very versatile.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Overall, they are versatile in that you can make a ton of different kind of dedicated builds for them (and you might be able to get some overlap to a varying extent...
Lord Foul II wrote:

...

They can fit most every party role depending on what class feature you focus on
Ranged/blaster Mage, pump that bomb damage consider the "grenadier" archetype
Melee, maximize mutagen and consider the "vivisectionist" "beastmorph" and "rage chemist" archetypes
Healer, boost int, prepare cure infusions consider the "Chirurgeon" and "vivisectionist" archetypes (these two stack)...
These kind of responses tend to imply, that once you decide you want to be good at something, you are no longer very good at much else. Hence the supposition that I heard of the class is versatile. But once you've made a specific build that is good at something, it is not very versatile.

Well, with the whole grapple thing I used as an example, the only feats that kind of takes you out of the way would be power attack and combat reflexes (which are fairly useful anyway). With that, you could heal, buff, blast and debuff with bombs, control the battlefield with reach, and still have room to make everyone uncomfortable with you grasping tentacle. All on the same character. (edit-oh, and you can have a lot of skill points too; less important than the other features over all, but plenty of out of battle usefulness is good)

The main limits on the class is that you only have the 10 feats from leveling for the most part. That is what limits you from doing too many roles well. But if you dedicate your self to any role, you will likely do very well, and still have wiggle room for other roles too.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

An alchemist could be specialized to the point that it is not versatile. But it isn't required to specialize to that point in order to be an effective character.

Those guys seemed to feel you had to specialize to the point that it was no longer versatile.

The answer to this will vary depending on the person's definition of an effective character.

Example:

S: 14 D: 14 C: 14 I: 16 W: 10 Ch: 10 (20pt human alchemist)

With STR mutagen and a standard action Enlarge Person extract, that alchemist is hitting for 2d6+7 morningstar two handed damage. That's plenty enough for a melee character at level 1.

With DEX mutagen and a standard action Reduce Person extract, that alchemist has a +7 to hit with a touch attack bomb at level 1. That's a good start towards a bomber alchemist.

That stat array and race gives 8 pts per level for skills. That's pretty good for being a skills character.

You can melee. You can bomb. And you have lots of skills.

This yields a versatile character without question. But, is it effective in any of the roles? That's the question that many will argue.


lemeres wrote:
... But if you dedicate your self to any role, you will likely do very well, and still have wiggle room for other roles too.

That's the kind of thing I like to hear. Those guys the other weekend seemed to think you had to devote so much that you couldn't do anything else.

I don't like builds that can only do one thing. Even if you are great at it and it is applicable real often, I still find it boring.

Scarab Sages

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
lemeres wrote:
... But if you dedicate your self to any role, you will likely do very well, and still have wiggle room for other roles too.

That's the kind of thing I like to hear. Those guys the other weekend seemed to think you had to devote so much that you couldn't do anything else.

I don't like builds that can only do one thing. Even if you are great at it and it is applicable real often, I still find it boring.

Sometimes people have different points of view. The GM I was playing a PFS scenario with on Saturday claimed that Dwarves made terrible fighters because they didn't have a bonus to STR and the bonus to WIS was useless.


Imbicatus wrote:

...

Sometimes people have different points of view. The GM I was playing a PFS scenario with on Saturday claimed that Dwarves made terrible fighters because they didn't have a bonus to STR and the bonus to WIS was useless.

I've had several tell me that monks are flat impossible except for a heritage of Tiefling and one of Aasimar!

Uhmm... What about all the people that have ones of other races.
Completely worthless!

I mean yeah, another +2 is nice and all, but it isn't the make or break of a concept.


Admittedly, looking at it, due to all the feats and prerequisites, it would take a while (level 9) before you would be 'great' at grappling with Greater Grapple. You would still have room for a reach build as a human, and you could still grapple with the tentacle as soon as level 2 rolls around though.

But hey, even if you don't invest any more than that discovery, you are still 'decent' at grappling as far as making enemies wizards too uncomfortable to cast spells is concerned, and it mostly serves in adding coverage for a good reach build. Having options and not sucking at them is a large part of versatility in my view.

Oh, and monks are not impossible, but they can be hard at level 1 to make 'survivable' and 'effective' at the same time in my books. High level ones can have fantastic AC with only modest starting wisdom and decent gear. But I go with soheis to avoid all that trouble.

The ability to flurry in light armor makes them far more survivable early without making it into a ineffective turtle stat-wise. Oddly, high level unarmored monks tend to have better AC, but I mostly like the archetype because their armor gives them more free item slots and they have weapon training. Brawling property armor and Dueling gloves are some great magical items that normal monks can't see, and they make it so Sohei have decent enough AC and fantastic attack/damage (up to +7 to both above what a normal monk could do). But this is just me plugging in an archetype I like....heh.


A beastmorph alchemist can also make a pretty good grappler, but not until lv10 when you can gain the grab ability.

Shadow Lodge

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I feel that they can be both specialized and versatile at the same time.

...
Basically, alchemists can remain versatile in spite of being heavily specialized.

That is the kind of answer I was looking for. Some of the other responses don't seem to agree.

Some seem to agree and disagree within the same post.

lemeres wrote:
Overall, they are versatile in that you can make a ton of different kind of dedicated builds for them (and you might be able to get some overlap to a varying extent...
Lord Foul II wrote:

...

They can fit most every party role depending on what class feature you focus on
Ranged/blaster Mage, pump that bomb damage consider the "grenadier" archetype
Melee, maximize mutagen and consider the "vivisectionist" "beastmorph" and "rage chemist" archetypes
Healer, boost int, prepare cure infusions consider the "Chirurgeon" and "vivisectionist" archetypes (these two stack)...
These kind of responses tend to imply, that once you decide you want to be good at something, you are no longer very good at much else. Hence the supposition that I heard of the class is versatile. But once you've made a specific build that is good at something, it is not very versatile.

You missed my point

My friend was our frontline guy in an unmodified by archetypes
He also did a bunch of blasting with his bombs and his spells were mostly of the healing variety
And my vivisectionist did multiple party rolls
Most anything you do will be more versatile than the party fighter or barbarian


Hmmm a general alchemist like Rory's

S: 14 D: 14 C: 14 I: 16 W: 10 Ch: 10 (20pt human alchemist)

Well let's see what happens at max with the stable mutagen harness, full gear, but no tomes, all level point into int (oh what the heck, one tome into int)

S: 28 D: 28 C: 28 I: 28 W: 16 Ch: 16

Let's see, power attack is only -4 compared to like fighter -6, so an effective +2 to hit from that. Fighter has +6 weapon training and full BAB with probably 30 strength.

So are general alchemist is +10 behind in to-hit before other buffs. Hmm transformation takes off 5 of that. Giant form is another plus 2. So that puts the general non-focused melee alchemist only 3 behind on to-hit from a non weapon focus fighter (this is ignoring heroism and haste). Transformation is a mildly pricy combat buff, but considering melee is not your main focus, you are doing extremely well (also you have two claws and a bite, so three attacks at max instead of the iterative attacks).

Oh and you have bombs too that are pretty devastating, and int that rivals a wizard. Oh and partial casting. Oh and free poisoning, Oh and quick alchemy, Oh and poison immunity.

Generalist Alchemist might be pretty strong now that I think about it...


Alchemists are awesome!


Some Random Dood wrote:
A beastmorph alchemist can also make a pretty good grappler, but not until lv10 when you can gain the grab ability.

Yeah, that can be nice if you want to use natural attacks other than the tentacle. I mostly liked the squiggling appendage because it was an option to get 1 natural attack (again, this means it is primary and gets 1.5x str and power attack), particularly since it didn't use hands. That would allow you to hold a longspear and cover the whole 25' circle around you.

Plus, the tentacle gives grab from level 2. It turns on a whole lot faster.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

A dedicated bomber alchemist is going to find it much harder to step into a melee role than vice verse. A melee alchemist can always bring out moderate bomb damage against touch AC when he needs it (if nothing else, it's a good "I win" button against swarms), but a bomber alchemist will need a LOT more to be worth anything in melee past the first few levels.


lemeres wrote:
Some Random Dood wrote:
A beastmorph alchemist can also make a pretty good grappler, but not until lv10 when you can gain the grab ability.

Yeah, that can be nice if you want to use natural attacks other than the tentacle. I mostly liked the squiggling appendage because it was an option to get 1 natural attack (again, this means it is primary and gets 1.5x str and power attack), particularly since it didn't use hands. That would allow you to hold a longspear and cover the whole 25' circle around you.

Plus, the tentacle gives grab from level 2. It turns on a whole lot faster.

Ah yea, as far as grappling goes, the tentacle is much quicker to make use of it, as long as you don't mind having a tentacle of course.


Lol Sometimes I wish I could have face Tentacles.... I AM CTHULHU!!!!!

Shadow Lodge

I play a lot of gestalt
In gestalt an alchemist is a godsend


Lord Foul II wrote:

I play a lot of gestalt

In gestalt an alchemist is a godsend

Alchemist/magus?


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Lord Foul II wrote:

I play a lot of gestalt

In gestalt an alchemist is a godsend
Alchemist/magus?

Alchemist/Barbarian xD... ALL DA STR!!! If you want to get real corny:

Alchemist 1/Barbarian 1
Alchemist 1-Bloodrager (abyssal) 1/Barbarian 2
(continue with bloodrager until you can enter Dragon Disciple, then go into dragon disciple and have ALL THE STR!!!!!!)


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
An alchemist could be specialized to the point that it is not versatile. But it isn't required to specialize to that point in order to be an effective character.

This is completely agreeable, but there is a massive advantage to specializing to the point of "no versatility". For example a level 2 alchemist 1 barbarian with 4 arms can dual wield over sized bastard swords and be scary effective.

While raging after a strength mutagen: +2 to hit, 2d8+19 damage on dominate hand and 2d8+10 on off hand. And yes, that counts penalties for improperly sized weapons and dual wielding.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Alchemists Are / are Not Versatile? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.