My ratings for Alchemist feats

Leaving apart the general issues of the class, I feel that one of the major reasons for Alchemist being so far behind the other classes is the quality of his feats (especially pre-level 12 ones), that a lot of them resemble PF1 rather than PF2 philosophy.

One by one:

Level 1:
Alchemical Familiar (4/5) A solid feat, especially since the extra abilities for familiars in APG
Alchemical Savant (0/5) This feat needs to be updated with the Skill tag. It's nothing more than a level 1 skill feat in the likes of quick identification
Far lobber (3/5) First feat-tax for bomber builds. It's ok, but it could have been more than just +10ft range. At least give it the ranger treatment doubling their range or something
Quick Bomber (3/5) Just get a valet-indipendent familiar, or let us use it on othr items than just bombs. As written it's just a bad version of Quick Draw
Subtle Delivery (joke/5) Use the worst weapon in the entire game... so that when and if you crit and the enemy fails his save, you get to do a bit of extra poison damage (that you would have done either way if you used a real weapon). For reference: Blowgun is a weapon that does *1* nonlethal damage (not even 1d4), with 20ft range, and a reload. Really, this feat could have read "any weapon" and still be balanced for a level 1 feat ("on a critical hit with a poisoned weapon, if the enemy also fails his poison saving throw, he critically fials instead" doesnt seem out of line)

Level 2:
Demolition charge (2/5) If you want to play a trapper, just grab trapper archetype at the same level. 1 minute setup should really have been 3 action activity setup.
Poison resistance (2/5) "ok". Personally never seen anyone pick this feat, either an alchemist or a druid...
Revivifying Mutagen (3/5) Extremely low healing, you just take it if you want to end your mutagen debuffs early.
Smoke Bomb (3/5) Has some useful applications, but not something that you will be using consistently across encounters.

Level 4:
Calculated Splash (feat tax/5) 2nd feat tax if you are a bomber
Efficient Alchemy (0/5) Needs the Skill tag added. Nothing more than a skill feat applying only to skill use.
Enduring Alchemy (2/5) Feat tax if you want to use your core ability "alacrity". That's assuming you find a way to grow a 3rd hand to even use alacrity. In short, just skip this and alacrity...
Healing Bomb (3/5) Very expensive to use, but it gives range
Tenacious Toxins (joke/5) If the enemy fails 6 saving throws in a row, there's now a chance for him to fail a 7th...

Level 6:
Combine Elixir (3/5) Speaking of expensive to use abilities... At least it does give some action economy if you happen to simultaneously need to drink 2 elixirs that you have prepared neither of. Circumstantial, but circumstantial good.
Debilitating Bombs (4/5) Good array of debuffs to add to bombs. Sadly, only to Quick bombs because reasons. This and/or Sticky Bombs are the 3rd feat tax of bomber
Directional Bombs (3/5) if you want to do aoe damage as a bomber after the 1st/2nd round, you need this.
Sticky poison (1/5) save 20% of your poisons, that you use yourself, if you use melee attacks to deliver them. Only toxicologist should bother, but then again, with just 1-2 more ingredients you get more poisons than what you save from this feat.

Level 8:
Feral mutagen (3/5) The rating is mostly for the intimidation bonus and the deadly trait. That said, since it's personal use only, dont expect to be critting a lot with an alchemist. The second part is a trap. getting +1 damage/die is not worth an additional -1 to AC.
Perpetual Breath (4/5) As a mutagenist or a chirurgeon, you really dont have anything great to use your perpetual feature without this feat.
Pinpoint poisoner (4/5) if you are a toxicologist, you need this as a mathfixer. Why is this a feat and not an automatic feature of them?
Powerful Alchemy (joke/5) Every other class in game gets a better version of this, for free, at level 1.
Sticky bomb (4/5) 3rd feat tax (shared with debilitating) for bombers. Great damage boost that bombs sorely needed.

Level 10:
Elastic mutagen (2/5) if you are under a specific mutagen and only then (also only you), you step 10ft instead of 5. Also a niche circumstantial use for squeezing.
Expanded splash (feat tax/5) the 4th feat tax for bombers. More damage and more radius. A pure mathfixer.
Greater debilitating bomb (1/5) i personally find the debuffs from debilitating bomb to be better than those given from greater debilitating bomb...
Merciful Elixir (3/5) condition removal for chirurgeons, kina late, but better late than never.
Potent poisoner (1/5) Every other class in game gets a better version of this, for free, at level 1.
Unstable concoction (1/5) doesnt everyone want to waste action and a lot of resources to do damage to themselves?! But wait, if you spend 4 times the amount of Ingredients compared to a normal Quick Alchemy, you get a whooping ~1d8+1 more damage, 1d6+3 more healing, or something along those lines. If you somehow have a higher level recipe. And you still only do so 85% of the time, the rest 15% of the time you still explode yourself

Level 12:
Extend elixir (5/5) Amazing feat. The definition of "mathfixer" though. A lot of your stuff, including mutagens, will benefit from having double duration.
Invicible mutagen (4/5) good solid DR on a defensive mutagen
Uncanny bombs (4/5) Because everyone loves mathfixers. Especially bombers apparently. Here's some range and some concelment negation.

Level 14:
Glib mutagen (2/5) Tongues is a 5th level spell, and you can use it on anyone, this is self only and 5 levels later. This negates some penalties, but tongues actually allow you to communicate (something that's extremely hard when you dont understand what the others are saying)
Greater Merciful (3/5) More condition removal, "ok"
True debilitating bomb (3/5) if only it didnt have the previous feat as a requirement...

Level 16:
Chemical contagion (0/5) IF you are close. And IF the enemy CRIT fails a Fort save. And IF that enemy is adjacent to another enmy. And IF that other enemy fails his save. Then this reaction actually does something! I counted 4 IFs and a Critical Fail for it to work...
Eternal elixir (5/5) Permannet stuff are great, even if they are lower level ones.
Exploitive Bombs (1/5) Just use another type of bomb? That's the whole bonus of alchemist, multiple elemental types.
Genious Mutagen (2/5) Kinda late to switch to "mindchemist". Unfortunately, because you arent a rogue or an Investigator, all those skills will be stuck at Trained, and you cant give that bonus to the actual skill users.

Level 18:
Improbable elixirs (6/5) imo the true capstone of the Alchemist, finally having access to some core support stuff like fly, resists, haste, etc. The extra point pushing it above 5/5 is because you can combine it with eternal elixir for permanent such bonuses on yourself
Mindblank (2/5) Great ability on a terrible mutagen
Miracle Worker (2-4/5) Resses are good, it does have some strict use requirements, and it's at the point where 9th level spells exist, but it's also common and so it may be the only option for the group (heavily GM dependent).
Perfect Debilitation (3/5) I would prefer if it followed the paradgm of True debilitation, so access to -3 debuffs and making the -2 debuffs land on a success, instead of only having the second part, but it's still good.

Level 20:
Capstones.

So many of the alchemist feats apply to Quick Alchemy only, like Smoke Bomb, that unless you're high level with stupid amounts of reagents on hand it's just not going to be a viable option. I mean, cat's eye elixirs and smoke bomb seems like an awesome combo, except handing out elixirs to your teammates, for one fight, will cost you like 2 or 3 reagents? Plus one reagent per smoke bomb? I guess if you don't want to do anything besides shoot a crossbow the rest of the day that's fine. Good idea in theory, falls apart in practice.

I think Quick Alchemy was meant to be a sort of action economy limiter, so that pulling an elixir or QA'ing it has the same action cost, which I can completely understand. It adds value to the later feats and abilities that give you more items from QA. The reagent cost is just too taxing at lower levels.

Also, I agree with the points you made on these feats. Too many of them seem like "why isn't this a skill feat" or "this doesn't seem worth the cost of a class feat" or "I have to take a class feat for this?" *cough* Powerful Alchemy *cough*. Bonus points for, once again, only applying to QA'ed items.

There are a few feats I feel you're really wrong about:

Enduring Alchemy: It will be useful as early as level 9. As you use one action to create both items, either you can use them immediately or you lose one. So, it's interesting earlier (even if at level 4, it's kind of a joke).

Sticky poison: It's not about saving poisons but not having to reapply them. Especially because of the critical failure effect, it's a must have for melee Toxicologists who want to attack more than once per round.

Potent poisoner: If you plan on using poisons above level 10 you'll need this one if you're not a Toxicologist. So, it's closer to a feat tax than a 1/5. And considering poison potential damage at high level, you want to continue to use poison.

Powerful Alchemy: Prerequisite for Potent Poisoner, another feat tax.

There are a few feats I feel you're really wrong about:

Enduring Alchemy: It will be useful as early as level 9. As you use one action to create both items, either you can use them immediately or you lose one. So, it's interesting earlier (even if at level 4, it's kind of a joke).

Sticky poison: It's not about saving poisons but not having to reapply them. Especially because of the critical failure effect, it's a must have for melee Toxicologists who want to attack more than once per round.

Potent poisoner: If you plan on using poisons above level 10 you'll need this one if you're not a Toxicologist. So, it's closer to a feat tax than a 1/5. And considering poison potential damage at high level, you want to continue to use poison.

Powerful Alchemy: Prerequisite for Potent Poisoner, another feat tax.

potent and powerful are jokes because every single other class already uses Class DC for their abiliies, from level 1, wihtout feat investments.

Not 100% accurate. Snare Rangers get this same kind of tax.

Not 100% accurate. Snare Rangers get this same kind of tax.

while i agree that snare crafting, via class abilities, could use Class DC as base, snares are something optional you pick up with feats, and not something that your core feature, that every single member of your class has, like it is for the Alchemy DCs not being Class DCs.

And even snare rangers dont require 2 seperate feats to just use Class DC with snares like alchemist does. (and not even fully Class DC, just for the last 3-4 levels of poisons Class DC, for the rest it's still lower...)

I think you're also misunderstanding things - just like Rogue, even though something is skill-related doesn't mean it should be a skill feat. For example, Alchemical Savant is Quick Identification at legendary, but with more features. It's like picking up a level 1 class feat that lets you fall unlimited distances, plus you can also bounce off it and Stride at the bottom if you're adjacent to a wall.

I think you're also misunderstanding things - just like Rogue, even though something is skill-related doesn't mean it should be a skill feat. For example, Alchemical Savant is Quick Identification at legendary, but with more features. It's like picking up a level 1 class feat that lets you fall unlimited distances, plus you can also bounce off it and Stride at the bottom if you're adjacent to a wall.

Yes, but how often do you anticipate the need to quickly identify an alchemical item? Do you think that is worthy of a class feat?

I think you're also misunderstanding things - just like Rogue, even though something is skill-related doesn't mean it should be a skill feat. For example, Alchemical Savant is Quick Identification at legendary, but with more features. It's like picking up a level 1 class feat that lets you fall unlimited distances, plus you can also bounce off it and Stride at the bottom if you're adjacent to a wall.

it doesnt make a practical difference if it's 1 action to identify or 1 minute to identify.

You wont be identifying elixirs in the middle of a combat.

Plus, Quick Identification is a vastly more wide field compared to alchemical identification. Covering all magical effects and items across 4 different traditions.

Furthermore, even if we account for that slight boost of power, it's still fine for a Class Skill feat to be that slightly stronger than a General Skill feat, same as Archetype Skill feats are stronger than General Skill feats.

a lot of them resemble PF1 rather than PF2 philosophy

I agree, and I think the trap is that people try to build a PF1 alchemist using PF2 feats and get frustrated. The PF1 alchemist could do it all - elixirs and bombs came from separate pools, bombs could splash enemies while avoiding allies, etc.

It was overpowered. So, there's no surprise it was pruned back.

---

I have three disagreements that span multiple feats:

1. I think a character needs to choose whether splash is good or splash is bad, and then drop the feats that aren't on the chosen side of the fence. Splash is low in 2E. In 1E, it was 1/2*level plus Int, which was 5 at Level 1 and easily 10 by Level 8. In 2E, it's at most 4 at Level 8, and if you don't take Calculated Splash, it can be 2 until Level 10.

The bomber class feature is mutually exclusive with Expanded Splash - if you're using one, you're not using the other. If you're OK splashing your allies, you want to minimize splash (so don't take Calculated Splash) and may not need to be a bomber; if you're not, you should be a bomber but not invest too heavily in splash-related feats. I think taking all 4 - bomber, Calculated, Directed, Expanded - is inefficient.

2. Far Lobber is both better than you've posted and worse than you've posted. There's a large value going from just under 1 Stride to just over 1 Stride away from an enemy, and 30' is arguably the latter. It would be better if it were 40', sure, but if the goal is to be a ranged striker, 30' is pretty good. However, I also think there's good reason not be a ranged striker. Alchemists that invest in the Battle Medicine feat chain or Shield Block should be closer. Later on, the same holds for Uncanny Bombs. How often does an alchemist want to be 35-60' away from a martial enemy?

3. I think there should be a serious debate about whether alchemists past a certain level should use Advanced Alchemy at all. At Level 1, sure, 5 bombs/day is going to hurt, and you've got no additives to add anyway. By Level 6, and definitely by level 7, Quick Alchemy should dominate. I would probably stage an intervention for any alchemist that wasn't using some kind of Additive on every bomb at Level 8. This means that by Level 8, all the benefits of Advanced Alchemy are more or less useless, and all the feats that went to supporting Advanced Alchemy (like Quick Bomber) are retrainable (if they were worth taking in the first place).

Level by level (and only the bomb-related feats, because honestly I haven't played enough of the others to have an opinion):

Feat 1: Alchemical Familiar (4/5) and Quick Bomber (3/5) I'm very glad you didn't put Quick Bomber as a must-have. I agree it's not, although probably for different reasons, as above.
Feat 1: Far Lobber (3/5) I'd use the "2-4/5" nomenclature that you use later.
Feat 2: Smoke Bomb (3/5) I more or less agree (I'd give it 2/5 unless not being able to see helps your allies more than it helps the enemies), and I think the Level 2 feats are rather poor and a good candidate to replace with a dedication or archetype. But I think a lot of the classes are like this.
Feat 4: Calculated Splash (feat tax/5) Disagree, as above.
Feat 4: Enduring Alchemy (2/5) Disagree, this is way higher and potentially better than Calculated Splash. It won't be useful until Level 7 with Perpetual Infusions, but it's the difference between doing Quick Alchemy every round and doing Quick Alchemy every two rounds (holding one bomb over). Quick-Strike-Strike is probably unfeasible unless you found a way to stand in one place.
Feat 6: Debilitating Bombs (4/5) I agree this is really good but disagree it's a feat tax.
Feat 6: Directional Bombs (3/5) I think this is actually better than Expanded Splash, especially for non-bombers.
Feat 8: Powerful Alchemy (joke/5) I agree this is a joke, but for a different reason ... Debilitating Bombs already uses Class DC, so aside from tanglefoot bags, I'm not sure what this feat would apply to.
Feat 8: Sticky bomb (4/5) Agree, would even bump it to 5/5.
Feat 10: Expanded splash (feat tax/5) Disagree that it's a feat tax, disagree it's a math fixer. Much like Calculated Splash, it's a +2 to damage ... very mediocre.
Feat 10: Greater debilitating bomb (1/5) I agree. This is really bad.
Feat 12: Uncanny bombs (4/5) I disagree, as above. Concealment negation is decent, but I think the range issue is complicated.
Feat 14: True debilitating bomb (3/5) I agree, but I would rank it higher. I think you've ranked it with GDB factored in - the two feats together do average to 3/5 but I think GDB is 1/5 and TDB is 4-5/5. If you want to say TDB is meh because GDB is required, then you should rank GDB higher because you can salvage it with TDB.
Feat 16: Exploitive Bombs (1/5) More or less agree, but I don't know if there will be future monsters where the resistances are either so hard to discern that alternate types are inefficient, or pan-resistant monsters that can't be overcome.
Feat 18: Perfect Debilitation (3/5) I agree.

Overall, I think, especially at Levels 1, 4, and 6, there are more reasonable choices than people generally assume, and I struggled a lot with the Feat 4 and Feat 6 choices. I should also probably retrain out of Quick Bomber and wonder whether I should have taken it at all.

You can't say splash is not very important and rate Sticky Bomb with a 5/5. It's either one or the other.

I think you're overrating additives on bombs. Throwing two bombs is often a better choice than throwing one modified bomb, so you want to keep using advanced alchemy. At least until 14 with true debilitating bombs. Before that throwing multiple bombs is more often the better choice.

I think you're overrating additives on bombs. Throwing two bombs is often a better choice than throwing one modified bomb, so you want to keep using advanced alchemy. At least until 14 with true debilitating bombs. Before that throwing multiple bombs is more often the better choice.

Youd usually use 1 modified Perpetual and 1 Unmodified Advanced in a round imo. (when you dont have to move or you hav Haste)

Other times you just need to conserve, so you'd be using a perpetual with an additive instead of using a resource.

And yes, other times you will be going all out and using 2 Advanced per round or Quick modified Bombs or something

One or two additives is very good to have as a bomber.

The additives (debilitation and sticky are the only two of them that i would pick and usually either one or the other) are to be used with the Perpetual ones, either as a free added debuff or to make their damage worth using (by making them sticky bombs)

All of that is very bomb focused.
For non-Bomber Alchemists, Bombs are only used to abuse weaknesses. So you don't need any of the bomb related feats (well, Sticky Bomb can be useful to abuse weaknesses for some of your bombs).
Before the APG, I was ok to say the Bomber was the only partially viable Alchemist (in my opinion, it goes down at high level due to lack of proficiency and elemental runes on bombs). But now, with the APG, there are really a lot of choices available to the Alchemist.

Its only drawback, its main limitations, is his sustainability. I would never play an Alchemist in a campaign where adventuring days are long. But for PFS, where there's a hard limit on adventuring days duration, the Alchemist is fine by me.

All of that is very bomb focused.

For non-Bomber Alchemists, Bombs are only used to abuse weaknesses. So you don't need any of the bomb related feats (well, Sticky Bomb can be useful to abuse weaknesses for some of your bombs).
Before the APG, I was ok to say the Bomber was the only partially viable Alchemist (in my opinion, it goes down at high level due to lack of proficiency and elemental runes on bombs). But now, with the APG, there are really a lot of choices available to the Alchemist.

Its only drawback, its main limitations, is his sustainability. I would never play an Alchemist in a campaign where adventuring days are long. But for PFS, where there's a hard limit on adventuring days duration, the Alchemist is fine by me.

Oh i agree that they are feats that youd pick as a bomber, that's why i said that it's a feattax (imo) for bombers.

I'm not saying that you'd pick them on everyone.

I disagree that APG had "a lot of good things". A plethora of feats from there are joke feats like subtle delivery, tenacious toxins, and chemical contagion and etc.

There are some very few good things in the APG, mainly Drakeheart, Perpetual feat, and that there are some archetypes now that you can dump your feats instead of picking your useless alchemist feats (<- i dont think that's a "fix". There should be enough great feats in a class to not need to be archetyping to be usable)

I disagree that APG had "a lot of good things".

First, Valet + Independent. Just a massive fix to the Alchemist's biggest issue.

I don't think there are any other class having such a power bump thanks to the APG. It's not crazy but it puts the other Research Fields on par with Bomber.

I think Alchemist only needs 2 things now: More poisons and a few fixes (Chirurgeon's ability, Alchemical Alacrity and such things which are buggy).

shroudb wrote:

I disagree that APG had "a lot of good things".

First, Valet + Independent. Just a massive fix to the Alchemist's biggest issue.

Healing Bombs and Pinpoint Poisoner are not massive, but have their use for non-Bomber Alchemists.
Drageheart Mutagen is also excellent, as are the new Bombs (especially the anti ghost one in my opinion).
Toxicologist is also quite nice.

I don't think there are any other class having such a power bump thanks to the APG. It's not crazy but it puts the other Research Fields on par with Bomber.

I think Alchemist only needs 2 things now: More poisons and a few fixes (Chirurgeon's ability, Alchemical Alacrity and such things which are buggy).

If the "fix" to Alchemist is always picking Valet+Indipendent Familiar, then isnt that the very definition of tax feat that should have defacto be given as a free class ability per PF2 design goals?

I disagree that somehow getting 1 Perpetual Bomb, at level 8, if you pay it with a feat, is also a Fix for Chirurgeon.

Apart from that making it again, a "feat tax for Chirurgeon to work" (if that indeed is necessary for a field to work) it also is way too late and way too little.

There are quite a few other things that i consider CORE problems of the class:

Proficiencies, Class DC not applying to Class Abilities, Base Stat not being able to be used to attack (even if it's just once per round like Investigator), etc

The short version of it being "Elixirs are too weak to be counted as a strong support option. So either massively increase the support benefits or increase the martial capabilities to martial level (for all fields, not just bomber)"

If the "fix" to Alchemist is always picking Valet+Indipendent Familiar, then isnt that the very definition of tax feat that should have defacto be given as a free class ability per PF2 design goals?

The Familiar was already a tax feat for non-Bomber Alchemist (especially for Chirurgeons). Now, it's just so much better it becomes even a tax feat for Bombers. But at least it allows more freedom as a Chirurgeon.

I disagree that somehow getting 1 Perpetual Bomb, at level 8, if you pay it with a feat, is also a Fix for Chirurgeon.

?

Proficiencies, Class DC not applying to Class Abilities, Base Stat not being able to be used to attack (even if it's just once per round like Investigator), etc

Some of these things won't change. Others can be adjusted with erratas. I hope Paizo will fix a few of the problematic ones. It's always better than nothing.

The short version of it being "Elixirs are too weak to be counted as a strong support option.

Elixirs of Life are fine. The others are useful but far from crazy (even if Mistform Elixir is far from bad). Mutagens are also part of the Alchemist's support. There are good suppport oriented mutagens, especially for out of combat situations.

Elixirs of Life are fine. The others are useful but far from crazy (even if Mistform Elixir is far from bad). Mutagens are also part of the Alchemist's support. There are good suppport oriented mutagens, especially for out of combat situations.

The core problem is that skill mutagens are TERRIBLE support options.

On average, they grant a +1 over the item bonus you would have on a skill that you care about, and they come with penalties that basically force the party to either rest for an hour for the debuff to expire or have them permanently in-combat debuffed and significantly so.

Meanwhile, a simple swashbuckler can give up to +4 to any skill, at will, with just an action, and without a debuff attached to it.

Bard? The same but better, since he also has a spelllist that massively supports the party.

And etc.

In their current power level, mutagens could EASILY have 0 penalties attached to them from level 1.

Penalties are a Legacy thing leftover from PF1, only in PF1 mutagens had those because they were extremely strong.

At this power level, they are nothing more than a normal buff like you'd expect from any support class to have, amounting to nothing more than a few +1s to some skills, or a +1 to ranged attacks, or a few Temp HPS, and etc.

There's literally 0 reasons for them to come with penalties.

The core problem is that mutagens are TERRIBLE support options.

You focus on a few uses of mutagens.

There are multiple situations where you would want one character who's just trained in a skill to have bonuses and in these situations Mutagens are awesome.

Now, if your adventure is just an endless serie of combats, clearly, this is of no use. But not all adventures are built that way.

Also, Inspire Performance is a joke. Stop bringing it, it applies to less than 10% of the skill checks you'll ever make due to its limitations. Mutagens also have limitations, but way less.

shroudb wrote:

The core problem is that mutagens are TERRIBLE support options.

You focus on a few uses of mutagens.

Let's take the simplest example: You are all invited to meet the King. You have an Alchemist: Everyone is on Silvertongue Mutagen for a +3/+4 to all Charisma-based skills (+1 only to the ones with the proper items). Or if you are low level everyone has a Silvertongue Mutagen for a +2 to all Charisma-based skills he can use for the proper moment.
You don't have an Alchemist: You don't have any bonus. And the Bard singing in front of the king just doesn't work.

There are multiple situations where you would want one character who's just trained in a skill to have bonuses and in these situations Mutagens are awesome.

Now, if your adventure is just an endless serie of combats, clearly, this is of no use. But not all adventures are built that way.

Also, Inspire Performance is a joke. Stop bringing it, it applies to less than 10% of the skill checks you'll ever make due to its limitations. Mutagens also have limitations, but way less.

It makes 0 difference to give someone untrained a +3. He still sucks.

Follow the Expert is what you'd use if a whole party was meeting a King, with the Expert being the guy that already has max diplomacy and diplomacy item bonuses.

And you keep bringing that extremely niche "you have 1 social encounter and 0 combat encounters" situation.

In a normal adventuring day, skill and combat encounters are intermixed, they dont come with 1 hour delays in between them.

And even in the case of "the party meets the king" The social Character can easily Lead the party while being supported by a real Support character that will give the Social Character a +4 to his roll instead of the +1 that he will get from the Alchemist.

Also, Inspire competence has literaly 0 restrictions, don't know what you're talking about.

I feel that the main problem with mutagen is that they seem designed as "fair" consumables. They are useful in specific situations at the cost of a drawback and a bit of money.

Making them for free remove that last bit but doesn't remove the fact that those are average consumables. As many stated, mutagens give item bonus and very often to skills. So they allow an unprepared character to shine a bit more but has no effect on a prepared one (and battle ones are tradeoffs)

The alchemist does get things to make them a bit better but those feats are ridiculously conservative. Basically they get a normal feat worth but requiring to use a specific mutagen like the mind blank of the rogue they get specifically while using the serene mutagen. So at the same level you get a bonus that isn't permanent but last only during your mutagen (which has harsk malus) while the rogue can sleep under mind blank.

I really feel that mutagenist should have something that makes mutagen really feel useful. Halving penalities for instance would help mutagens feel more versatile. At least the feats that buff mutagens should give small bonus to other characters (or even the same bonus wouldn't be too broken I think) so the alchemist get something more than just a normal feat but conditionnal.

Also, Inspire competence has literaly 0 restrictions, don't know what you're talking about.

1. You have to know beforehand that a check will be rolled.

What checks will you help?
Trap disarming. That's all.
In PF2, it can help Recall Knowledge if your DM is nice and you are in a situation where you can sing.
I play bards for long enough to know Inspire Competence is a joke.

shroudb wrote:

Also, Inspire competence has literaly 0 restrictions, don't know what you're talking about.

1. You have to know beforehand that a check will be rolled.

2. You need to roll a check that is not negatively affected by Inspire Competence (no Stealth or Perception).
3. You need to be in a situation where singing/dancing is acceptable (not during social encounters, for example).
4. You can't help your own checks.
5. You can't do anything else while helping. So if the party has to search the library, you either help the search or Inspire competence.
6. You need to be visible/audible from the target, so you need to stick around all the time.
7. It eats you one action and a reaction making it hard to use during combat.
8. It has a one round duration so it can't help long checks unless your DM is nice.

What checks will you help?
Trap disarming. That's all.
In PF2, it can help Recall Knowledge if your DM is nice and you are in a situation where you can sing.
I play bards for long enough to know Inspire Competence is a joke.

Haha that's a really funny way to try to paint an amazing ability in the worst light possible.

You can easily use it to help your Tracker.
You can use it to help all Medicine checks
You can easily use it to help unlocking locks and disarming Traps.
You can use it to Help the group in any Athletics activity like climbing
You can easily use it in any Acrobatics check the group has to make like crossing a narrow passage
You can easily use it helping any and all Knowledge checks.
You can use it for any sort of Arcane check.
You can use it in any sort of Religion Check.
You can use it for etcetcetc

See? it's easy to make something look in a terrible light if you want, despite it being amazing.

As for Social rolls:

Sure, inside a court, you cannot sing. But inside a tavern? While your friend is talking to that villager over there? When your barbarian is coercing that group of bandits?

etcetcetc.

Meanwhile to use ANY skill mutagen you have to REST FOR 1 HOUR afterwards.

And Inspire is up to +4 for the relevant character OR an irrelevant character, while mutagen is a +1 for a relevant character and only +4 to the irrelevant one.

if, by your definition, competance is "Joke", then every and all mutagens are, by your standards, "beyond abysmal"

edit:

tl;dr:

If a whole subclass of abilities (all skill mutagens) are only supposed to be used in days you arent actually adventuring, then that's the definition of Niche ability.

In 95% of your adventuring time, you want to be able to use your skills in dungeons, forests, adventures, in between battles, or even during battles.

p.s.
I like how you disregarded the whole other post that actually addressed all the issues with the mutagens and simply hang on on the 1 sentence that was talking about Inspire Competence.

Haha that's a really funny way to try to paint an amazing ability in the worst light possible.

You can easily use it to help your Tracker.
You can easily use it to help unlocking locks and disarming Traps.
You can use it to Help the group in any Athletics activity like climbing
You can easily use it in any Acrobatics check the group has to make like crossing a narrow passage
You can easily use it helping any and all Knowledge checks.
You can use it for any sort of Arcane check.
You can use it in any sort of Religion Check.
You can use it for etcetcetc

See? it's easy to make something look in a terrible light if you want, despite it being amazing.

As for Social rolls:

Sure, inside a court, you cannot sing. But inside a tavern? While your friend is talking to that villager over there? When your barbarian is coercing that group of bandits?

etcetcetc.

Meanwhile to use ANY skill mutagen you have to REST...

Years of Bard playing. I know you can't use it often. Like once per level at most. But you may have a different experience. Currently, I strangely trust my experience over your own.

p.s.

I like how you disregarded the whole other post that actually addressed all the issues with the mutagens and simply hang on on the 1 sentence that was talking about Inspire Competence.

I don't disregarded everything. I know the limitations of Mutagens. They are not incredible. But for out of combat encounters, they can be very potent. As I said, if your campaign is a whole serie of combats, then it's useless. Now, in adventuring situations, you can use it.

shroudb wrote:

Haha that's a really funny way to try to paint an amazing ability in the worst light possible.

You can easily use it to help your Tracker.
You can easily use it to help unlocking locks and disarming Traps.
You can use it to Help the group in any Athletics activity like climbing
You can easily use it in any Acrobatics check the group has to make like crossing a narrow passage
You can easily use it helping any and all Knowledge checks.
You can use it for any sort of Arcane check.
You can use it in any sort of Religion Check.
You can use it for etcetcetc

See? it's easy to make something look in a terrible light if you want, despite it being amazing.

As for Social rolls:

Sure, inside a court, you cannot sing. But inside a tavern? While your friend is talking to that villager over there? When your barbarian is coercing that group of bandits?

etcetcetc.

Meanwhile to use ANY skill mutagen you have to REST...

Years of Bard playing. I know you can't use it often. Like once per level at most. But you may have a different experience. Currently, I strangely trust my experience over your own.

That's undestandable, similarly to how I trust my own experience over yours.

But insire competence was just an offcomment. Afterall, in any "really crucial" such situation as meeting the king, they could potentially simply use Heroism on 3 targets since they wouldnt need to go to combat later on.

Bards aside and back to the actual target of the discussion:

I had Mutagenists not give a single Mutagen to any party member for a whole campaign. Not because they didnt want to, but because every party member thought of them "extremely punishing to use just for a +1".

The real issue of the mutagens, that is irrelevant to bards, is:

Skill mutagens cant be used in any "normal" adventuring day.

Because in those, you want to be able to use your skills in between, or even during, combat.

You want to be able to use your skills and not pray to not be attacked, or attack, in the next hour.

You want to be able to mix social and intelligence based skills, especially stuff like Recall alongside Diplo/Intimidation.

And all mutagens make that impossible.

They only work if you use a single type of skill every hour and nothing else in between.

I had Mutagenists not give a single Mutagen to any party member for a whole campaign. Not because they didnt want to, but because every party member thought of them "extremely punishing to use just for a +1".

That's a big issue I've also met.

I also think many Alchemists quickly limit themselves to bombs because it works without coordination with the party. Especially for Mutagens, you don't hand them over to people before level 11 (or only in extreme situations where you'll just use Quick Alchemy to help with a very important check). If your player was trying to give them before that level, everyone had legitimate reasons to complain. But once you get to +3 bonus and 1-hour duration, they stop being only bad.

Also, some Mutagens can be awesome on some characters. Intelligence-based casters are happy to get a Cognative Mutagen, Unarmored characters a Drakescale one and Familiars/Animal Companions a Juggernaut one. These have nearly no drawbacks or give so much you happily ignore the drawbacks.

shroudb wrote:

I had Mutagenists not give a single Mutagen to any party member for a whole campaign. Not because they didnt want to, but because every party member thought of them "extremely punishing to use just for a +1".

That's a big issue I've also met.

Players are ok to get a bonus from a spell but will reluctantly accept one from an Alchemist. You report Mutagens, I got the same issue with Poisons.
In my opinion, it's more of a player issue.

I also think many Alchemists quickly limit themselves to bombs because it works without coordination with the party. Especially for Mutagens, you don't hand them over to people before level 11 (or only in extreme situations where you'll just use Quick Alchemy to help with a very important check). If your player was trying to give them before that level, everyone had legitimate reasons to complain. But once you get to +3 bonus and 1-hour duration, they stop being only bad.

Also, some Mutagens can be awesome on some characters. Intelligence-based casters are happy to get a Cognative Mutagen, Unarmored characters a Drakescale one and Familiars/Animal Companions a Juggernaut one. These have nearly no drawbacks or give so much you happily ignore the drawbacks.

It's not a hard question to answer:

A spell buff doesn't come alongside what's around a - 2 to a - 4 to a stat penalty like mutagens.

As I said above, in normal adventuring days you are expected to use all kind of skills and combat interchangeably.

Mutagens, by design make that extremely hard and punishing.

Why would a bard get a +1 to his diplomacy, that he wants to use to chat to the dryad in the forest, and then have a - 1 to every int and knowledge skill, including bardic lore, for everything else that he will see after he is done with the dryad?

Why would the Investigator pick up a +1 on his recalls only to become terrible in combat for an hour afterwards?

And etc.

Basically, for mutagens, while the benefit us barely equal to a spell, the drawbacks are incredibly huge.

With Pf2 design:
You can't have a big bonus, cause it'll break the tight math.
So you end with a small bonus.
But a small bonus shouldn't have a penalty.
It should simply be the reward of expending a limited, daily, class ability resource.
A penalty that exists solely for Legacy reasons and the single thing it does for Pf2 is making the mutagens... Plainly Bad.

P.s. You underestimate the effect cognitive has on a caster, bringing his bulk down to 3 is usually enough to make him permanently encumbered even with basic gear.
Cognitive is basically -4 to strength.

It's not a hard question to answer:

Spells give the same/more bonuses without a penalty.

Just no.

Why would the Investigator pick up a +1 on his recalls only to become terrible in combat for an hour afterwards?

You count a +1, but I have rarely seen characters equipped with top of the notch skill items on all their important skills. Weapons and Armors are the main concerns. Skills are kind of secondary and you will rarely complain if you don't have a +2 item bonus at some point (if they even exist, as for many skills there are no items or not an item for each bonus).

P.s. You underestimate the effect cognitive has on a caster, bringing his bulk down to 3 is usually enough to make him permanently encumbered even with basic gear.

Cognitive is basically -4 to strength.

Seriously? You need 1 bulk for the Bag of Holding, + 1.6 bulks for 2 bandoliers. And max 1 bulk for a weapon. Even if it's a bit painful, it's just a nuisance, not a tough problem.

shroudb wrote:

It's not a hard question to answer:

Spells give the same/more bonuses without a penalty.

Just no.

First, 1-hour long spells are an extreme rarity.
Second, they cost spell slots and very often high level ones if you want more than a + 1, taking directly into your number of combat spells per day.

shroudb wrote:

Why would the Investigator pick up a +1 on his recalls only to become terrible in combat for an hour afterwards?

You count a +1, but I have rarely seen characters equipped with top of the notch skill items on all their important skills. Weapons and Armors are the main concerns. Skills are kind of secondary and you will rarely complain if you don't have a +2 item bonus at some point (if they even exist, as for many skills there are no items or not an item for each bonus).

Now, if you play with APB, that's another question. But without it, I find that most characters are not at the top of skills.

shroudb wrote:

P.s. You underestimate the effect cognitive has on a caster, bringing his bulk down to 3 is usually enough to make him permanently encumbered even with basic gear.

Cognitive is basically -4 to strength.

Seriously? You need 1 bulk for the Bag of Holding, + 1.6 bulks for 2 bandoliers. And max 1 bulk for a weapon. Even if it's a bit painful, it's just a nuisance, not a tough problem.

On an 8 Strength character, it becomes seriously annoying. But it will hardly impact a character effectiveness in combat.

You just described what is the exact bare minimum of gear, using magic items to achieve it, and you are already capped your encumberance. And that is without having a single other piece of magic equipment, and the bulk it may have, except bulk reducing ones.

Yes, 3 bulk is laugably low.

The buffs are, for the important (to your character) stuff +1.

Yes, you are expected to have +item bonuses for skills, like you are expected to have them for weapons and armor. If you play with houserules that dont give enough loot for that, thats an entirely different thing and irrelevant to the core balancing of the class.

Furthermore, getting a +1 bonus to a skill you may want, even for an hour, shouldnt come alongside a -1 to other 10 skills you may also want to use, not only now, but also within the hour.

No matter how one views it, getting such extensive debuffs, for what A LOT of times(but not always) is just a Guidance cantrip, is laugable.

And that's why the majority of layers indeed will refuse Mutagen buffs from alchemists, because it's counterproductive to use them for a normal adventuring day.

And that's why the majority of layers indeed will refuse Mutagen buffs from alchemists, because it's counterproductive to use them for a normal adventuring day.

I think on that we will agree to disagree. Depending on my character and the party, I will certainly ask for Mutagens to the Alchemist of the party.

And for the item bonuses, I play PFS, where you have to buy all items by yourself. And I buy only the combat-relevant items or low level items. But getting the top of the notch skill item which costs the price of my armor, well, no. So, table variation has to be expected, but I don't think all adventures give you all the items with + item bonus to skills. That would be a crazy amount of items (more than 50 different items).

You dont use item bonuses for all skill, no. Just the 2-3 you are taking to legendary either way.

But for the rest, the bonuses you recieve from the mutagen are not enough by themselves either way to actually do soemthing that you couldn't do with just the trained proficiency you have either way.

Once more:
The occasions you only care about a single type of roll, and nothing else, for hours to come are the definition of "Niche" support.

For regular adventuring days, skills and combat are intermixed.

And mutagens break that paradigm, making them, at best, niche options.

I really feel that mutagen suffer from their PF1 version where they were more on the OP side due to their huge bonus to abilities and the fact that those bonus had their own group (alchemical) meaning you could stack them with basically everything else.

Right now a mutagen increases your item bonus by 1 if you have the apropriate item even at high level. Spells give status buffs most of the time so they can be stacked with your items and give their full value.

I don't know if it would be better to make mutagen use the status bonus but right now they are just bad. In one of my games our alchemist basically only use bombs and every 'mutagen alchemist' I had in my previous games reverted to using bombs quickly.

In an other game I have a wizard with an alchemist multiclass... and my mutagens are never used except for quirky completely unoptimized things like giving a feral mutagen to a familiar so it has natural attacks (which is a terrible idea for a lot of reasons).
I feel that a wizard with alchemist multiclass show a LOT of the alchemist problems :
-You don't need that many alchemical items so multiclassing is often enough. Except for bombs but I have fireballs...
-The class abilities are a bit lacking : There is not a lot of differences between a full alchemist and a multiclassed one. A full alchemist makes more stuff... but not a lot better.

To compare if I multiclass into a wizard, I lose the school and the thesis that are both fairly powerful. I would cast 3 times less spells (and I am generous) instead of making maybe 50% less reagents (granted at high level an alchemist makes more batch with one reagent but for quick alchemy the difference is small).

Alchemist feats are lacking but I would say so are many of the wizard ones (it's the main reason many wizard including me multiclass). I think the bigger problem is the alchemist core. Bombs are great but the rest is subpar.

The core problem is that skill mutagens are TERRIBLE support options.

I think that does a great disservice to terrible options: mutagens are far worse than that. :P

I mean take the first PF1 prone shooter: it was terrible as it did nothing but at least it didn't make you actively worse...

Mostly agree with the OP. Alchemists are a hot mess of a class that still seems to be stuck in a permanent 'play test' state, nothing is quite fixed, a lot of options feel like math fixers. The core chassis is incredible weak for a class and the core combat round for mediocre buff/support or damage is incredibly action taxing.

A large number of the class feats feel like they should have just been baked into the class. I don't feel like I have options to really diversify how I play or change up my style as an alchemist. The feats to support mutagenist or chirugeon are limited and feel a little meh.

I think of all the classes Alchemist needs to be reworked. Some of the core mechanics are ok but the class needs action fixers out of the gate, never truly hits the power levels of caster classes while being lumped with poor armor proficiency, poor attack bonuses, inability to benefit from magical item bonuses when attacking with bombs (in the way other classes can). I get they expected the alchemist to spend gold on more consumeables and formula's rather than striking runes but this just leaves the class to fall further behind. Anyone can buy consumables so its only the infused reagents that should really come into the 'power budget.'

Mutagens are ridiculously poor overall with the debuff. Why do they still need a debuff in PF2e? Is a temporary item bonus really a big deal for a support class to be able to hand out?

One by one:

Well put together, and although you might have thought we're on opposite sides of the fence on the alchemist, we're closer than you think. In fact, I think your ratings for several of the feats were overly generous.

I think a Toxicologist who, per the APG, "...you can change the DCs of your infused poisons to your class DC if it’s higher" has some cool abilities I enjoy. However, aside from Alchemical Familiar at L1, which thematically I could do without, there aren't any feats from either book I would take until L8 Pinpoint Poisoner. You might as well spend feats 2,4, and 6 on wizard dedication / feats which enable you do do a few of these per day at L6:

Composite Longbow, +1 striking, +1 from str, giant scorpion venom, spellstrike ammo w/shocking grasp L2: 10 base + 5.5 poison + 19.5 shock = 45 avg dmg then on the next round 14.5 poison + persistent

If you're hasted, you can squeeze in a True Strike for a shot at critting for 90 avg. You can do this on the cheap with only L1 shocking grasps for only 6.5 less damage and 1 less persistent.

I still love the quantity of reagents, access to poisons, access to virtually all game effects, and the fact that (assuming you learn formulas which are cheap and easy) all of your alchemical items automatically heighten. I think this is overlooked too much. Yeah, healing sucks until L5, but then at L5, you don't have limited L5 slots. All your reagents spent on heal are L5. You don't piddle around like spellcasters who still have L1, L2 spell slots to fill.

I also like the ability to get perpetual, unlimited poisons (also true for bombs) that apply dazzled and a range of debilitative effects. Spellcasters have to waste slots to apply these. Although they're often stronger effects with results on failed saves, being unlimited is an awesome benefit.

You can build some cool, unique alchemists, but you'll be doing it with the chassis, because the feats are ridiculous. Where other classes I leave as is, alchemist is ripe for as many house rules as you want to give them. Feats at every level? Yes. Easy ways to ditch the drawbacks of mutagens? Yes. Keep going.

shroudb wrote:

One by one:

Well put together, and although you might have thought we're on opposite sides of the fence on the alchemist, we're closer than you think. In fact, I think your ratings for several of the feats were overly generous.

I think a Toxicologist who, per the APG, "...you can change the DCs of your infused poisons to your class DC if it’s higher" has some cool abilities I enjoy. However, aside from Alchemical Familiar at L1, which thematically I could do without, there aren't any feats from either book I would take until L8 Pinpoint Poisoner. You might as well spend feats 2,4, and 6 on wizard dedication / feats which enable you do do a few of these per day at L6:

Composite Longbow, +1 striking, +1 from str, giant scorpion venom, spellstrike ammo w/shocking grasp L2: 10 base + 5.5 poison + 19.5 shock = 45 avg dmg then on the next round 14.5 poison + persistent

If you're hasted, you can squeeze in a True Strike for a shot at critting for 90 avg. You can do this on the cheap with only L1 shocking grasps for only 6.5 less damage and 1 less persistent.

I still love the quantity of reagents, access to poisons, access to virtually all game effects, and the fact that (assuming you learn formulas which are cheap and easy) all of your alchemical items automatically heighten. I think this is overlooked too much. Yeah, healing sucks until L5, but then at L5, you don't have limited L5 slots. All your reagents spent on heal are L5. You don't piddle around like spellcasters who still have L1, L2 spell slots to fill.

I also like the ability to get perpetual, unlimited poisons (also true for bombs) that apply dazzled and a range of debilitative effects. Spellcasters have to waste slots to apply these. Although they're often stronger effects with results on failed saves, being unlimited is an awesome benefit.

You can build some cool, unique alchemists, but you'll be doing it with the chassis, because the feats are ridiculous. Where other classes I leave as is, alchemist is...

if you search for the thread that has compiled APG builds, i have posted 2 toxicologists there, one melee the other one ranged.

Perpetual "poisons" are a trap for a ranged toxicologist. You lack the actions to make, apply, and hit on a ranged weapon. You CAN do it for a melee weapon, but meh.

That said, as a toxicologist, you can pick up blight bombs and dread ampules, both of which have the Poison trait, as your perpetual stuff, they will be 10 times better than picking a normal poison.

For ranged Toxicologist you will be facing 3 core issues:
a)when you miss you lose a poison.
- Since you will be hitting only around 50%(or less) of the time vs equal level enemies as an alchemist, and since 50%(or more) of your poisons will be resisted, when you combine the two of those factors it comes as a 75% (or more) "waste the poison"

b)You need flat-footed for Pinpoint. That's much harder to pull as a ranged character compared to a melee.

c)everything good comes extremely late.

For my build, I went with Archer dedication, which gives you i)a much better weapon to actually apply the poisons compared to what alchemist has, and more importantly, at level 6 you get ii)Parting Shot

Parting shot will give you guarantee Flat-footed that's mandatory for you (due to Pinpoint)

The second problem (wasting the poisons on misses) is then alleviated by picking up Investigator MC at level 9, and Stratagem at level 10 that will allow you to pre-roll your Strikes.

So now:
a)you know if you will be hitting, so you never waste poisons
b)you can always force Flat-footed for Pinpoint and for extra accuracy.
c)... you'd still be subpar till like level 10+

---

As i said in your thread, I do like to play non-optimised stuff, like toxicologists and etc. It's just that from experience, even when the stars align... it's just "ok".

For toxicologists, the main issues is facing High Saves with Average DCs, doing 0 if enemy even makes the save (as opposed to virtually any Fort spell doing at least *something* even on a save)

And, obviously, constructs, undead, etc that are immune to poison, are not that rare.

The build I'm toying with uses human Unconventional Weapon to pick up bow and treat it as simple for proficiency. Bow is much better agreed. Rogue free human multi-class at 9 gives you surprise attack which is some automatic flat-footedness, not all the time but nice. Parting Shot is a neat idea, too. I'm less worried about wasting poisons and more excited about poisoning people in general. Plus, contact poisons are a free trap that are stronger than injury poisons. Lots of ways to enjoy the unique nature of the class if you're into it, but sure there are plenty of poison-immune foes. That's where having bombs on hand that hopefully hit a weakness are a good fallback.

The build I'm toying with uses human Unconventional Weapon to pick up bow and treat it as simple for proficiency. Bow is much better agreed. Rogue free human multi-class at 9 gives you surprise attack which is some automatic flat-footedness, not all the time but nice. Parting Shot is a neat idea, too. I'm less worried about wasting poisons and more excited about poisoning people in general. Plus, contact poisons are a free trap that are stronger than injury poisons. Lots of ways to enjoy the unique nature of the class if you're into it, but sure there are plenty of poison-immune foes. That's where having bombs on hand that hopefully hit a weakness are a good fallback.

surpise attack is just, at most, 1/encounter.

After that, losing Pinpoint seems fatal for the class, since that's the only way to keep DCs at least somewhat competitive.

the main issues is facing High Saves with Average DCs

What do you think is an "Average DC?" In my above example, we looked at L6 Giant Scorpion Venom DC 22. At L6, my Alchemist Class DC is 22 with 18 Int. That's the highest I can achieve, and it's the same for a Wizard's DC. If you're saying that's Average, because it's the same as every other Class at their max, I get that, but I don't think that's a problem unique to any class.

shroudb wrote:

the main issues is facing High Saves with Average DCs

What do you think is an "Average DC?" In my above example, we looked at L6 Giant Scorpion Venom DC 22. At L6, my Alchemist Class DC is 22 with 18 Int. That's the highest I can achieve, and it's the same for a Wizard's DC. If you're saying that's Average, because it's the same as every other Class at their max, I get that, but I don't think that's a problem unique to any class.

Average as in "Martial Class DC and not Spellcaster DC"

At level 6 it's indeed the same for Caster and Alchemist.
Caster at level 7 becomes Expert, alchemist has to wait for level 9.
Caster at level 15 becomes Master, Alchemist has to wait for level 17
Caster at level 19 becomes legendary, Alchemist never gets that tier.

That's one of the core issues of Alchemist:
It caps out at Caster martial proficiency (expert)
and it caps out at masrtial ability proficiency (master)

You basically get the short end of the stick for either caster or martial.

Average as in "Martial Class DC and not Spellcaster DC"

At level 6 it's indeed the same for Caster and Alchemist.
Caster at level 7 becomes Expert, alchemist has to wait for level 9.
Caster at level 15 becomes Master, Alchemist has to wait for level 17
Caster at level 19 becomes legendary, Alchemist never gets that tier.

That's one of the core issues of Alchemist:
It caps out at Caster martial proficiency (expert)
and it caps out at masrtial ability proficiency (master)

You basically get the short end of the stick for either caster or martial.

I always hate the counterarguments I see to bomber alchemists being behind on proficiency for throwing bombs.

"you can use Quicksilver Mutagen" because those don't cost reagents and healing for using them?

"bombs always hit even if you miss" yes, because 1 or 2 or int mod damage makes up for missing with your bombs and failing to be a de-buffer when that's theoretically one of the things you're supposed to be good at.

It was a running joke when I was still playing that I would always try Deception on anything I threw a bomb at "hey centaur your horseshoe is untied" just so I had a slightly better chance to land my bomb so that I could actually de-buff the target for my party.

You'd think a bomber alchemist would be good at it, given it's supposed to be their thing.

Fact is, we've been bringing up issues with the CRB Alchemist for 2 years and seen:

1. a fix for something that was patently broken (Mutagenist)
2. a bulk fix for alchemist tools

New feats and research focus from source books are fun, new stuff like the crossbow from Plaguestone are nifty, but it doesn't fix the issues the class has had since the beginning, and I don't think I should have to buy a new book to fix something I already paid for.

As a side note, poison immune enemies are now rare. It's roughly 10% of the database.

In my opinion, a properly played Alchemist is an opportunist. As such, you can't compare their efficiency "on average" because their average is low.
Poisons cost no actions, will have no effect most of the time, but when they will kick in, they will be very nice. As a side note, damage/reagent is higher with poison than bombs (equivalent at low levels, higher as soon as you get to level 8). So, a properly played Alchemist must use poison on everyone's weapon at each combat (as soon, of course, as he has sufficient reagents). And poison should come before bombs in terms of reagents allocation.
Bombs are awesome to abuse weaknesses. That's why bomb feats are not at all math fixers to me. As long as you target weaknesses, the so called math fixers account for less than 10% of your damage and become no more math fixers. The only exception is Ghost Charge, which is awesome even without abusing a weakness and benefits greatly from the math fixers.
And thanks to Valet + Independent, it's very possible to use Elixirs of Life as a single action, giving them nearly the same action efficiency than a maxed Heal. It's limited in range, but considering the amount of reagents you can get, it's very quickly not that limited compared to spell slots.
Alchemist is also a very nice tank because a big part of your efficiency is either preapplied or given to your allies before battle (when you have the chance to have Monks/Animal Barbarians and other characters with a free hand to avoid wasting actions). As such, losing the Alchemist is not that much of a big deal.

I won't say that the class is not buggy, I will clearly not say that the class is strong, but I really think the class has things to bring to the party, as long as you reach at least level 5. Of course, I'd put an Alchemist in a party only if it's an already big one. In a 4-man group, I will never bring an Alchemist. As a support class, it's strength is in numbers.

A "properly played" alchemist is still way below in effectiveness compared to a "properly played anything else".

Since you dislike "Averages" you should also dislike that 10% of poison immune you quoted. While they are indeed fewer, two major types of enemies that you will encounter quite often, are in fact by default immune to them.

A feattax familiar is also extremely succeptible to both AoEs and AoOs, since it needs to be visible, in the forefront, and placed in a position that will always hit it as well in any AoE you are caught up. Let alone that even with the valet familiar, Elixirs are still WAY below Heal in effectiveness and action economy.

Lastly, the fact that "losing the alchemist is no big deal" IS a big deal by itself.

If a character can be absent from the encounter and still not matter too much, then that means that you being in the encounter don't matter too much.

The single most damaging aspect of the bomber is the persistent damage. That both requires a feat to actually be noticable, and two more feats to actually increase it. Also, without further feattaxes, you are firing "ranged" at 20ft while having an effctive -4 to your Con from your mutagen and light armor. That's suicide.

No one said that an alchemist doesn't offer "anything". Just that everything he can offer, other supports offer it better/cheaper/easier.

As a side note, poison immune enemies are now rare. It's roughly 10% of the database.

In my opinion, a properly played Alchemist is an opportunist. As such, you can't compare their efficiency "on average" because their average is low.
Poisons cost no actions, will have no effect most of the time, but when they will kick in, they will be very nice. As a side note, damage/reagent is higher with poison than bombs (equivalent at low levels, higher as soon as you get to level 8). So, a properly played Alchemist must use poison on everyone's weapon at each combat (as soon, of course, as he has sufficient reagents). And poison should come before bombs in terms of reagents allocation.
Bombs are awesome to abuse weaknesses. That's why bomb feats are not at all math fixers to me. As long as you target weaknesses, the so called math fixers account for less than 10% of your damage and become no more math fixers. The only exception is Ghost Charge, which is awesome even without abusing a weakness and benefits greatly from the math fixers.
And thanks to Valet + Independent, it's very possible to use Elixirs of Life as a single action, giving them nearly the same action efficiency than a maxed Heal. It's limited in range, but considering the amount of reagents you can get, it's very quickly not that limited compared to spell slots.
Alchemist is also a very nice tank because a big part of your efficiency is either preapplied or given to your allies before battle (when you have the chance to have Monks/Animal Barbarians and other characters with a free hand to avoid wasting actions). As such, losing the Alchemist is not that much of a big deal.

I won't say that the class is not buggy, I will clearly not say that the class is strong, but I really think the class has things to bring to the party, as long as you reach at least level 5. Of course, I'd put an Alchemist in a party only if it's an already big one. In a 4-man group, I will never bring an Alchemist. As a support class, it's strength is in numbers.

@SuperBidi, I am not calling you out here, but I do want to point something out... your explanation for why an Alchemist is a reasonable choice as a class includes quite a few disclaimers:

- Poisons "will have no effect most of the time, but when they will kick in, they will be very nice"
- Use poisons for each combat "as soon.. as he has sufficient reagents"
- Elixirs of Life have 1 action economy *if* you take Valet + Independent
- But they are still limited in range
- They are nice tanks but only to the extent that you are providing prebuffs to other martials in the group
- Such that "losing the Alchemist is not that much of a big deal"
- It has things to bring to the party... if you reach level 5
- And only if it's over 4 characters in size

Again, I'm just pointing out there are a *lot* of disclaimers here for seeming to support Alchemist as a reasonably well designed class.

Again, I'm just pointing out there are a *lot* of disclaimers here for seeming to support Alchemist as a reasonably well designed class.

The Alchemist is not a well designed class. That's a certainty. There are lots of bugs, hoops to jump through, to get a playable Alchemist. Some of the hoops and bugs can be a bit amusing, but there are too many. I hope, some day, Paizo will publish an errata so the Alchemist will be less buggy. I don't speak of power level, but really about abilities that are just not working (the hand problems of Alchemical Alacrity, the Chirurgeon ability issue, the lack of high level poisons and so many bugs that cripple the class). Well, fixing the bugs should increase its power a bit, but not drastically.

No one said that an alchemist doesn't offer "anything". Just that everything he can offer, other supports offer it better/cheaper/easier.

On that, I don't agree fully. In a party of 6, once all the bases have been covered, the Alchemist brings something else. In my ideal party of 6, I'd have an Alchemist. But, clearly, one that is very well built and designed. If I have a beginner at my table, I will discourage him to play an Alchemist. Both for the bugs issue and for the number of hoops you have to jump through to get a workable build.

A feattax familiar is also extremely succeptible to both AoEs and AoOs, since it needs to be visible, in the forefront, and placed in a position that will always hit it as well in any AoE you are caught up.

Honestly, I'm not even sure. It has your defenses. Any attack on a Familiar is an attack on a Familiar. At high level you can give it Juggernaut Mutagen for +30 hp. If it gets down you can get it up quite quickly if needed. And if you lose it, you can get it back after a week (that depends on your campaign and the available downtime).

Let alone that even with the valet familiar, Elixirs are still WAY below Heal in effectiveness and action economy

Once you get away from the low levels, no. It's roughly at 80-90% healing per action compared to maxed Heal. And, outside Clerics, maxed Heal are a rarity. But as often with the Alchemist, it's not the case at low level (just releasing new Elixirs of Life so there could be one every 2 levels would change dramatically Alchemist's healing potential at low level).

As a side note, I love the alchemist for exactly one thing: Its multiclass dedication.

The Alchemist dedication is the most efficient multiclass in the game, only really needing 3 feats (including its base one) to get full access to its resource pool.

You also just get so many! If you prep them ahead of time, you eventually get 40-42 daily items - which, while not the most powerful on the market, carrying around 20 lots of elixirs that restores 8d6+21 Hit Points is still great at 20th.

Plus all the weird little utility elixirs and mutagens.

It's rather for me to make character these days without trying to squeeze in the Alchemist dedication.

shroudb wrote:

No one said that an alchemist doesn't offer "anything". Just that everything he can offer, other supports offer it better/cheaper/easier.

On that, I don't agree fully. In a party of 6, once all the bases have been covered, the Alchemist brings something else. In my ideal party of 6, I'd have an Alchemist. But, clearly, one that is very well built and designed. If I have a beginner at my table, I will discourage him to play an Alchemist. Both for the bugs issue and for the number of hoops you have to jump through to get a workable build.

If they aren't worth having in a party of 4, where party of 4 is the default-assumed-situation, then they aren't worth having.

You're right that they "bring something else" in a complete party, but that is pretty true of a lot of classes.

Champion-Druid-Wizard-Rogue? Fighter brings things.

As a side note, I love the alchemist for exactly one thing: Its multiclass dedication.

The Alchemist dedication is the most efficient multiclass in the game, only really needing 3 feats (including its base one) to get full access to its resource pool.

You also just get so many! If you prep them ahead of time, you eventually get 40-42 daily items - which, while not the most powerful on the market, carrying around 20 lots of elixirs that restores 8d6+21 Hit Points is still great at 20th.

Plus all the weird little utility elixirs and mutagens.

It's rather for me to make character these days without trying to squeeze in the Alchemist dedication.

As I said a bit before, for me it's a proof of how bad the alchemist is. I have a wizard MC into an alchemist and it's great. Too great. I don't feel like I miss on anything from the alchemist. If it was the other way around I would not have many important wizard features (school and thesis mostly).

The alchemist doesn't seem to gain more than the ability to do alchemy for free. Of course there is the exception of bombs. As shroudb showed there are plenty of feats that make bombs more useful than just the alchemical item thrown by any warrior.

But for mutagens and elixirs... not so much. Almost everything the alchemist get is the ability to make more stuff (there are of course exceptions). And more stuff is redundant at some point. If you are mutagenist, making 10 mutagens a day is not useful. You will at most use 4 or 5 (and that would be if mutagens were good as discussed before).

Multicalssing into an alchemist you get a few reagents (and by a few I mean almost as many as a real alchemist at higher level) and you have the full versatility of a real alchemist.

Clearly the real alchemist need some bone thrown at them. If for instance a mutagenist had 0 drawbacks from using mutagens they would be better than anyone just buying the thing and drinking it. If a chirurgeon could throw elixirs at friends the action economy gained would justify some of them that feel useless without.
Those ideas may not be balanced but I think the alchemist should have something that makes you want to play the class and not multiclass into it (aside from bombs.)

SuperBidi wrote:

shroudb wrote:

No one said that an alchemist doesn't offer "anything". Just that everything he can offer, other supports offer it better/cheaper/easier.

On that, I don't agree fully. In a party of 6, once all the bases have been covered, the Alchemist brings something else. In my ideal party of 6, I'd have an Alchemist. But, clearly, one that is very well built and designed. If I have a beginner at my table, I will discourage him to play an Alchemist. Both for the bugs issue and for the number of hoops you have to jump through to get a workable build.

If they aren't worth having in a party of 4, where party of 4 is the default-assumed-situation, then they aren't worth having.

You're right that they "bring something else" in a complete party, but that is pretty true of a lot of classes.

Champion-Druid-Wizard-Rogue? Fighter brings things.

Larger parties don't always work better for alchemists either, since buffing a larger party with elixirs using QA is going to really eat into your reagents. Buff everyone with darkvision? You're done for the day, break out the crossbow.

Through the lens of PFS it seems worse though, because at least with a regular party you can plan ahead more easily as to what you may need for the day. Often the first part of a PFS game for me was going around the table trying to figure out who might need what buffs, and feeling really bad when no-one was interested in a mutagen which is a good portion of my class buffs.