Is the alchemist class Broken?


Advice

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Oh, you want a sneak attack rouge that deals a lot of sneak attack? take one level of rouge and the rest as alchemist with the vivisectionist archetype and take lots off tentacles

looking to make a big blaster gunslinger? one level of gunslinger and explosive missile from the rest of your alchemist levels

Want a tank? take something that has ranged attacks and heavy armor .... like a gun tank... add alchemist explosive missile throw in stone skin....

added bonus all of these act as the party rogue and healer ... or at least self heal.

Am i wrong or can the alchemist just be used to break everything?

I mean particuarly the guntank alchemist build, it slices it dices it makes julian fries, it's your healer it's your DPS it's your tank, trapkiller, and skill monkey.

and mostly i think the core of the problem is it's a caster class that doesn't give two shits about arcane failure, and has discoveries and archetypes that mesh so well with other classes, that for most you'd be crazy not to dip at least one level into alchemist.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll tell you what's broken...My back


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope. In fact, Alchemists are among the best designed and best balanced classes in the game.

That said, Beastmorph + Vivisectionist can get pretty crazy... Not game-breaking, but all that Sneak Attack will annoy some GMs.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Beating A Dead Horse wrote:
I'll tell you what's broken...My back

You're immortal, just walk it off ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Beating A Dead Horse wrote:
I'll tell you what's broken...My back

Be nice or I'll create a new thread discussing the merits of the core Rogue class!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You named a bunch of stuff that isn't broken as your "evidence" that the class is broken, so I think you answered your own question.


It's nothing compared to the many powers and archetypes of the inquisitor.


Melkiador wrote:
It's nothing compared to the many powers and archetypes of the inquisitor.

I haven't played around with the inquisitor yet, can they cast spells in armor like the alchemist?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Since they are divine casters, yes.

Even better, they can cast defensively. Alchemists can't.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And they can make bullets with Your Name On Them. Lots of bullets.

==Aelryinth


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Since they are divine casters, yes.

Even better, they can cast defensively. Alchemists can't.

i might have to look into how i can break this class.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wizards.

Seriously, Wizards.


It approaches being a really good class without technically having casting, so yeah, I guess so.

Scarab Sages

In some ways, I kind of think it is. It has so many of the Rogue's skills, and although bombs come with their own limitations that Sneak Attacks don't (not least of which is friendly fire, something you never have to worry about with a Rogue), they're at least as good most of the time, AND it has its litany of potionettes. I'd readily say that it and the Ninja are the real millstones by which the "Rogues suck" trend was originally churned out - it's not that Rogues are underpowered, it's that Alchemists and Ninja are overpowered.

That said, I like Alchemists - but I disagree with how Paizo executed them. I thought the idea that you needed to take a special Discovery just to share your formulae was stupid the moment I read it, and I definitely think Bombs are overemphasized. If I had it to do my way, I'd steer it into being better at "support," perhaps take away Disable Device and Sleight of Hand as class skills, and change Bombs to be much more powerful per unit than they presently are, but reduce their accessibility to levels comparable to a Paladin's Smites/Cavalier's Challenges per day. This would have the added benefit of incentivizing them to bother playing around more with their interesting offensive formulae.


Aelryinth wrote:

And they can make bullets with Your Name On Them. Lots of bullets.

==Aelryinth

But it gets really bad when you start adding archetypes. Inquisitor can be a better summoner than the summoner, and a better hunter than the hunter. And the archetypes keep rolling in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

In some ways, I kind of think it is. It has so many of the Rogue's skills, and although bombs come with their own limitations that Sneak Attacks don't (not least of which is friendly fire, something you never have to worry about with a Rogue), they're at least as good most of the time, AND it has its litany of potionettes. I'd readily say that it and the Ninja are the real millstones by which the "Rogues suck" trend was originally churned out - it's not that Rogues are underpowered, it's that Alchemists and Ninja are overpowered.

Given the Alchemist class didn't exist in 3.5 or in the Pathfinder CRB, you have a really selective memory on when the so-called "Rogues Suck Trend" started.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Bombs are definitely an odd duck. I went an entire level with my Crypt-Breaker failing to hit with a single bomb, leaving everyone to take splash damage. He earned the nickname 'Ricochet Alchemist' by the end of it.


Of course the core Pathfinder rogue was buffed from the original 3.x. It had better hit die and not nearly as many things immune to sneak attack.


Rogues are, and always have been, terrible. Is a CRB Rogue better than a 3.5 Rogue? Undeniably. Does that make CRB Rogue good? Not on your life. Even the Unchained rogue still pales compared to a number of classes, and there is a reason most "rogues" nowadays are vivisectionists or archaeologists. Neither of those archetypes or base classes are the problem. The problem is, and always has been, the Rogue itself.

Classes like Alchemist are tier 3. They are the standard by which all other classes should aspire to be. Wizards, Arcanists, and other tier 1 classes are far more broken than anything an Alchemist can do.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everything is "overpowered" when compared to the CRB Rogue.

That is the line? Really?

Did we forget all the other CRB Classes?

This is just silly.


People who think CRB Pathfinder is the pinnacle of balance are out of their minds.

Silver Crusade

Is the Alchemist broken?

No.

The class is BEAUTIFULLY diverse, allowing it to do tons of different things and fill a variety of different roles, and while some things are a little on the 'broken' side (beast/vivi or grenadier is intense), it's probably one of the best designed classes out there by a wide margin.

Everything you stated in the first post isn't really broken at all, pretty far from it, and if we're considering the rogue our balancing point, everything but Fighter is hopelessly broken.

Personally, I don't think the class gets enough bombs myself, but that's just me. It's too hard to build a character around them with as few as they get, making them more supplementary in my opinion.


Melkiador wrote:
Of course the core Pathfinder rogue was buffed from the original 3.x. It had better hit die and not nearly as many things immune to sneak attack.

I'm not sure I'd agree. The smaller number of enemies immune to sneak attack was nice of course, but a number of the easier ways to get or to use sneak attack were cut. Also the reduction of the importance of class skills, plus a bunch of new ways to get class skills meant that the rogue's excellent class skill list became less important ... even as bards became better at skills. Most classes added other features besides hit dice in the change to PF; the rogue's added feature, the rogue talents from levels 2-8, was pretty poor.

The PF rogue, using D&D 3.5 rules and compared to other 3.5 classes would be stronger than the 3.5 rogue. That isn't however a fair comparison.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I do think that the Alchemist is a bit too diverse with Bombs + Mutagen Poison Use + Spellcasting. Many of these modular bits and pieces can get swapped out due to archetypes to give a boost in any particular ability (Swap out bombs for sneak attack, and be a better assassin than an assassin).

I would prefer the alchemist have to choose two.

Similar to how the Druid, just has too many things:
Spellcasting + Shapeshifting + Combat Capable Animal Companion. Choose two things, and you've still got a playable and fun class.

The sheer diversity of abilities is what makes classes like Alchemist and Druid feel too powerful as their sheer volume of abilities let them not only shine in their own roles, but also in the roles of other characters.

I really like Pathfinder, but I think there should be more specialization rather than just giving such characters ALL the features and just smashing niche protection like a wrecking ball.


The majority of classes look broken if you take a heavily optimized example and compare it to a unoptimized versions of other classes.

Grand Lodge

So, what's the Advice needed here?

How to get over such a silly notion?


Who's up for another "-is broken thread"? What class should we chose this time? Bard, Druid and Swashbuckler had their go recently, is it time for the Hunter now?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Bombs are definitely an odd duck. I went an entire level with my Crypt-Breaker failing to hit with a single bomb, leaving everyone to take splash damage. He earned the nickname 'Ricochet Alchemist' by the end of it.

bombs hit on touch AC and by lvl 7 even my plate armor wearing guntank alchemist has a +9, you are going to have to explain how you managed to do this?

PS. please never come near my dice lest the bad luck wear off.


Rub-Eta wrote:
Who's up for another "-is broken thread"? What class should we chose this time? Bard, Druid and Swashbuckler had their go recently, is it time for the Hunter now?

according to my buddy spellsinger skald... but IMO no class who's "brokenness" relies on their allies can ever be broken.

Dark Archive

Rub-Eta wrote:
Who's up for another "-is broken thread"? What class should we chose this time? Bard, Druid and Swashbuckler had their go recently, is it time for the Hunter now?

Experts. That build-it-yourself list of class skills is just plain unfair!


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
gendoikari87 wrote:
Oh, you want a sneak attack rouge that deals a lot of sneak attack? take one level of rouge and the rest as alchemist with the vivisectionist archetype and take lots off tentacles

False; it doesn't work: "The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round..." (emphasis mine) Just like vestigial arm doesn't let you take Multiweapon Fighting or gain extra "off hand" weapon attacks.

gendoikari87 wrote:
looking to make a big blaster gunslinger? one level of gunslinger and explosive missile from the rest of your alchemist levels

Other than needing five levels in gunslinger to get Dex on damage, it's not really that "broken" when taking into account the fact that early firearms (the only version in most campaigns that allow firearms at all) only target touch AC in the first range increment. Since Explosive Missile only works with one-handed firearms, that's at most 40 ft (with the distance ability).

gendoikari87 wrote:
Want a tank? take something that has ranged attacks and heavy armor .... like a gun tank... add alchemist explosive missile throw in stone skin....

Compared to a myrmidarch magus? Meh... If you really want to tank, go battle host occultist (Transmutation and Evocation as the first two school choices) with two levels in hellknight.

gendoikari87 wrote:
added bonus all of these act as the party rogue and healer ... or at least self heal.

Bard, inquisitor, investigator, skald, etc...

gendoikari87 wrote:
Am i wrong or can the alchemist just be used to break everything?

Much less so than arcanist, cleric, druid, oracle, sorcerer, witch, wizard, etc. Even less than a summoner.

gendoikari87 wrote:
I mean particuarly the guntank alchemist build, it slices it dices it makes julian fries, it's your healer it's your DPS it's your tank, trapkiller, and skill monkey.

And the bog-standard inquisitor can do the same. You can pick up the Black Powder inquisition if you want a gun, too.

gendoikari87 wrote:
and mostly i think the core of the problem is it's a caster class that doesn't give two s!@&s about arcane failure, and has discoveries and archetypes that mesh so well with other classes, that for most you'd be crazy not to dip at least one level into alchemist.

Take a look at some of the archetypes for the bard (arcane duelist, dervish dancer, etc.), inquisitor, magus, etc.

Heck, it's not that hard to get an even better caster/combatant with just the Core Rulebook: [fighter or ranger] 1/wizard 6/eldritch knight 2/arcane archer 3/eldritch knight +8. For more of a melee-focus, barbarian 2/sorcerer 3/dragon disciple 4/eldritch knight 10/sorcerer +1 or paladin 3/sorcerer 3/dragon disciple 4/eldritch knight 10. Arcane Armor Training with a mithral chain shirt is perfectly viable until after gaining 5th-level spells, when Quicken Spell becomes useable; at that point, you can afford enough protective gear that bracers of armor, or even the mage armor spell, are sufficient.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Ok, I'll bite. All of your statements are kneejerk with no regard for what other classes can do.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Oh, you want a sneak attack rouge that deals a lot of sneak attack? take one level of rouge and the rest as alchemist with the vivisectionist archetype and take lots off tentacles

First, it's rogue. Second, no, tentacles and vestigial arms do not give extra attacks. What would one level in rogue even do? Reliance on sneak attack is never "broken" anyway.

Quote:
looking to make a big blaster gunslinger? one level of gunslinger and explosive missile from the rest of your alchemist levels

I don't see a problem with this. Explosive missile is a standard action, which means one attack with one bomb. Not to mention the range on the guns touch attack is 20 feet.

Quote:
Want a tank? take something that has ranged attacks and heavy armor .... like a gun tank... add alchemist explosive missile throw in stone skin....

I don't understand what tanking is in a tabletop rpg. How does this give you any advantage when you'll likely have a high dexterity anyway?

Quote:
added bonus all of these act as the party rogue and healer ... or at least self heal.

Umm, half the classes in the game can do this already.

Quote:
Am i wrong or can the alchemist just be used to break everything?

Have you ever played with a good full caster?

Quote:
I mean particuarly the guntank alchemist build, it slices it dices it makes julian fries, it's your healer it's your DPS it's your tank, trapkiller, and skill monkey.

I don't know how "DPS" translates to Pathfinder. 1/3 of the classes heal BETTER than an alchemist while still doing significant portions of damage. Alchemist's don't scale well in the damage department without investing their build into throwing 1/4 of their daily bombs per round. If you think otherwise, you're playing with suboptimal characters. I still don't know what a "tank" is. Hit points, summoned monsters, anyone with ranks in disable device, and spells are also trapkillers. Alchemists are no better at skills than inquisitors, bards, skalds, rogues, ninjas, rangers, slayers, and investigators.

Quote:
and mostly i think the core of the problem is it's a caster class that doesn't give two s+~*s about arcane failure, and has discoveries and archetypes that mesh so well with other classes, that for most you'd be crazy not to dip at least one level into alchemist.

But it's not a caster. They don't "cast" spells, they drink them. They have almost no directly offensive formulas, just buffs and utility. What would I gain from dipping one level in alchemist? A few bombs a day, level 1 extracts, and a mutagen for ten minutes? Not worth it in many cases.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gendoikari87 wrote:

bombs hit on touch AC and by lvl 7 even my plate armor wearing guntank alchemist has a +9, you are going to have to explain how you managed to do this?

PS. please never come near my dice lest the bad luck wear off.

This was 2nd level.


Level 2 is rough for pretty much everybody.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much every class is broken if your goal is to break the game.

So don't do that.

Shadow Lodge

I'm actually going to go with yes - at least, they are far better than most classes. And I'm just talking about bombs. Dealing substantial damage at range, hitting at virtually all times against touch attack, and debilitating enemies with confusion and the like is incredibly powerful. Of course, everybody loves wizards - but for normal levels of game mastery and within the first 12 levels or so, I find alchemists to have more punch.

From circumstantial evidence at the very least, a 1-12 level campaign I ran with an alchemist, ranger, ninja, inquisitor, and paladin was absolutely dominated by the alchemist from levels 6+.


Doomed Hero wrote:

Pretty much every class is broken if your goal is to break the game.

So don't do that.

I'm hype for crb rogues being broken somehow


I have some sympathy for the destructive power of a well built alchemist, but I don't think they are broken. The alchemist in the present ROtRL campaign I'm GMing was incredibly effective at taking out key enemies, but he's a 5th party member and I realised that most of the impact was on certain types of enemies (e.g., golems) and because of the enhanced action economy. I bulked out the enemies ever since then.

Tonight he got grappled and killed by his own splash damage whilst provoking an AoO from a bomb. Fortunately he was 5 feet from the cleric with a Breath of Life prepared, but got dropped again and is now bleeding out ...


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

In some ways, I kind of think it is. It has so many of the Rogue's skills, and although bombs come with their own limitations that Sneak Attacks don't (not least of which is friendly fire, something you never have to worry about with a Rogue), they're at least as good most of the time, AND it has its litany of potionettes. I'd readily say that it and the Ninja are the real millstones by which the "Rogues suck" trend was originally churned out - it's not that Rogues are underpowered, it's that Alchemists and Ninja are overpowered.

That said, I like Alchemists - but I disagree with how Paizo executed them. I thought the idea that you needed to take a special Discovery just to share your formulae was stupid the moment I read it, and I definitely think Bombs are overemphasized. If I had it to do my way, I'd steer it into being better at "support," perhaps take away Disable Device and Sleight of Hand as class skills, and change Bombs to be much more powerful per unit than they presently are, but reduce their accessibility to levels comparable to a Paladin's Smites/Cavalier's Challenges per day. This would have the added benefit of incentivizing them to bother playing around more with their interesting offensive formulae.

This.


gendoikari87 wrote:
Oh, you want a sneak attack rouge that deals a lot of sneak attack? take one level of rouge and the rest as alchemist with the vivisectionist archetype and take lots off tentacles

Why do you need a level of rogue for this? How do you get the alchemist tentacles to help you "deal" more sneak attack? And more importantly, how is it broken? (If it actually is considered broken by most people, this build would probably become famous as the first broken dedicated SA build in the history of PF.)

gendoikari87 wrote:
looking to make a big blaster gunslinger? one level of gunslinger and explosive missile from the rest of your alchemist levels

Sorry, but I don't get it. What are the unique mechanical advantages that makes this "big blaster gunslinger" broken? All I see is pitiful range, very limited ammo and pathetic action economy. I think I would be able to understand why you say it's broken if this build actually is as versatile and as much of a "blaster" as a well-made blaster sorcerer is during most levels, but I honestly cannot see how it could be even remotely close.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Want a tank? take something that has ranged attacks and heavy armor .... like a gun tank... add alchemist explosive missile throw in stone skin....

I get this even less. What do you mean by "tank"? Does it mean "able to defend self and other party members through great durability" (which no Paizo class is able to do effectively AFAIK) or simply "has an unusually high AC compared to most builds based on its class"? If you lean towards the second definition, how is that remarkable instead of just sub-par (which investing in AC usually is in mid/high levels)? After the first few levels, what are the unique advantages of this build that makes it broken?

gendoikari87 wrote:
added bonus all of these act as the party rogue and healer ... or at least self heal.

And which class that gains 4+ skill points per level cannot "act as the party rogue" (assuming this primarily refers to scouting and trapfinding)? All classes can self heal, and I think pretty much all of the other classes that gain the ability through a class feature are better at it than the alchemist. So how does this make the alchemist broken?

gendoikari87 wrote:
Am i wrong or can the alchemist just be used to break everything?

Judging from what I think you've said so far, I guess the people in your group usually play fairly low-op PC builds. Which means what you consider broken may very well not even be considered overpowered in groups used to more optimized builds, while most of their builds would be considered silly broken in your group. And in comparison to other classes in a mostly low-op party, it's of course more likely that a class like the alchemist, having a pretty high optimization floor, is much stronger than it is in a party with more optimized builds.

gendoikari87 wrote:
I mean particuarly the guntank alchemist build, it slices it dices it makes julian fries, it's your healer it's your DPS it's your tank, trapkiller, and skill monkey.

Guess you haven't seen a decent inquisitor or bard in play? Note that I don't consider either of those or the comparable alchemist as broken or even overpowered, but as good versatile classes better balanced than most published by Paizo. Not to mention the full caster classes that typically can do all the above better than the alchemist plus a lot of other stuff the alchemist cannot ever do...

BTW, what do you mean by "DPS"? Is this WoW-speak for "damage per second"? If so, please use DPR (damage per round) instead, it's a much more well-established, widely recognized and relevant acronym for tabletop rpgs like PF (since combat time isn't measured in seconds but in rounds).

gendoikari87 wrote:
and mostly i think the core of the problem is it's a caster class that doesn't give two s~%@s about arcane failure, and has discoveries and archetypes that mesh so well with other classes, that for most you'd be crazy not to dip at least one level into alchemist.

Know which other caster classes that doesn't give two s~%@s about arcane failure? Basically all of them, since aside from perhaps the magus and specific gish builds, none of the affected classes view "being able to cast in armor" as a particularly strong advantage. And though I think the alchemist's broad range of class features often makes it the most dip-friendly caster class, especially for primarily martial builds, I think especially the lore warden fighter and the master of many styles monk are significantly more so.

Doomed Hero wrote:
Pretty much every class is broken if your goal is to break the game.

I'm having a very hard time seeing that this is true for most groups. And I believe certain classes (hello full casters) are much more likely to be regarded as broken than other classes.

Doomed Hero wrote:
So don't do that.

This I totally agree with. A balanced PC usually means it should be about as powerful as the other PCs in the party, but it could also mean it should be a less/more powerful PC depending on how experienced and tactical the player is in comparison to the other players. This is regardless of class, although class will of course typically affect how powerful the PC is much more than other player options.


Rub-Eta wrote:
Who's up for another "-is broken thread"? What class should we chose this time? Bard, Druid and Swashbuckler had their go recently, is it time for the Hunter now?

Sorry, totally OT but I have to ask: Someone considered the swashbuckler broken? As in "so much more powerful than other classes it makes the game unplayable"? If so... *facepalm* But... But how can... WHY?


upho wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Who's up for another "-is broken thread"? What class should we chose this time? Bard, Druid and Swashbuckler had their go recently, is it time for the Hunter now?
Sorry, totally OT but I have to ask: Someone considered the swashbuckler broken? As in "so much more powerful than other classes it makes the game unplayable"? If so... *facepalm* But... But how can... WHY?

Why?

They can swash. With a buckler.

Duh!

On topic now:

The only broken thing with alchemists is people only reading half their abilities. We end up with tentacle monsters without realizing they didn't get a single extra attack and etc.

Also theoretical twf rapid throwing bomb builds that last 1 encounter.

Grand Lodge

upho wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Who's up for another "-is broken thread"? What class should we chose this time? Bard, Druid and Swashbuckler had their go recently, is it time for the Hunter now?
Sorry, totally OT but I have to ask: Someone considered the swashbuckler broken? As in "so much more powerful than other classes it makes the game unplayable"? If so... *facepalm* But... But how can... WHY?

This has happened with many classes. Usually one side overreacting, and the other stuck with "dufuq?", and not sure how to react.


Broken Zenith wrote:

I'm actually going to go with yes - at least, they are far better than most classes. And I'm just talking about bombs. Dealing substantial damage at range, hitting at virtually all times against touch attack, and debilitating enemies with confusion and the like is incredibly powerful. Of course, everybody loves wizards - but for normal levels of game mastery and within the first 12 levels or so, I find alchemists to have more punch.

From circumstantial evidence at the very least, a 1-12 level campaign I ran with an alchemist, ranger, ninja, inquisitor, and paladin was absolutely dominated by the alchemist from levels 6+.

Though it probably won't add much to the thread, I've had similar circumstantial evidence over two campaigns with an alchemist. In one of the campaigns, the alchemist was a cohort.

Sovereign Court

blackbloodtroll wrote:
upho wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Who's up for another "-is broken thread"? What class should we chose this time? Bard, Druid and Swashbuckler had their go recently, is it time for the Hunter now?
Sorry, totally OT but I have to ask: Someone considered the swashbuckler broken? As in "so much more powerful than other classes it makes the game unplayable"? If so... *facepalm* But... But how can... WHY?
This has happened with many classes. Usually one side overreacting, and the other stuck with "dufuq?", and not sure how to react.

I've seen arguments that the CRB rogue should only get their SA once per round no matter the # of times they hit, as it would otherwise be 'broken'.


Speaking of tanking, alchemists do have access to the tumor familiar with protector archetype combo. Where at 5th level you almost always take half damage. I expect that to get nerfed eventually, but probably not soon.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
upho wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Who's up for another "-is broken thread"? What class should we chose this time? Bard, Druid and Swashbuckler had their go recently, is it time for the Hunter now?
Sorry, totally OT but I have to ask: Someone considered the swashbuckler broken? As in "so much more powerful than other classes it makes the game unplayable"? If so... *facepalm* But... But how can... WHY?
This has happened with many classes. Usually one side overreacting, and the other stuck with "dufuq?", and not sure how to react.
I've seen arguments that the CRB rogue should only get their SA once per round no matter the # of times they hit, as it would otherwise be 'broken'.

That's so weird. Paladins get 1 damage/level, Rogues get an average of 1.75 damage/level. Paladins can multiply their damage on a crit, can situationally do 2 damage/level, and can do this damage with every hit they make. And they're full BAB, have all armors, get Divine Grace, and get an extra bonus to hit. Why shouldn't Rogues be able to do at least a small fraction of that?

Sovereign Court

My Self wrote:
Why shouldn't Rogues be able to do at least a small fraction of that?

Because they're bad at math and lots of dice are scary?

I didn't say that it was a smart argument - just that I've seen it before.

Grand Lodge

I'll say, like the Inquisitor, the Alchemist has a lot of tools in their belt. They're also all tools that if you want to be able to use one of them to maximum potential, you've got to build for it, you won't have the resources/stats/feats/discoveries to open up all venues. I made a Mr. Hyde Alchemist in PFS. He chops through enemies with a reach weapon before they reach a heavy shield and a scimitar, but his bombs are of situational benefit to him, and he can't pass his extracts around for the rest of the party to use.


Well Alchemist (in my opinion) is pretty much the only poison using class that does't break the bank doing so.
TOxicant archetype gives free (well excahgned for mutagen) EX poison. So basically you can turn yourself into a poison stockpiler and have a fairly useful poison (with much better DC) that doesnt cost money.

but I'm pretty sure poison isn't terribly broken.
but it is very much a niche that other things have issues filling without spending much money.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is the alchemist class Broken? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.