Player Core 2 Preview: The Alchemist, Remastered

While the companion item rules explicitly ban the Activate action (cannot feed elixirs directly), it would take a very hostile GM to prevent item handling.

At minimum, Manual Dex grants familiars 2 hands to work with, and the manipulate Interact actions needed to handle items. No need to even get into "do familiar's have inventories?" or other questions.

It can perform manipulate actions... So? Nothing in familiar [outside specific abilities] says they can HOLD anything [it can only use companion items] especially while riding a PC. Or carry anything [they have 1/2 of an undefined bulk limit].

While the companion item rules explicitly ban the Activate action (cannot feed elixirs directly), it would take a very hostile GM to prevent item handling.

My point was that it isn't RAW, IE explicitly granted in the rules, but something that a DM has to grant. Most DM would but they are in no way going against RAW to do otherwise. I wouldn't have said anything if you hadn't said "Familiars being able to hand off items is completely RaW." I know I've had DM's that didn't allow familiars going into battle in someones shoulder with 2 elixirs in hand and there wasn't anything to point to that they were making any houserules by doing so. Familiar rules are still largely a gray area.

Manual Dexterity: Your familiar can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to perform manipulate actions.

I do not know how you can read an ability that not only grants the use of actions like Draw or Pick Up, but is so explicit as to outright grant 2 hands, yet somehow think they can not hold items.

I really do not know how your interpretation could be possible.

They are granted the ability to do the Interacts. They are granted hands to perform them with.

When a familiar picks up an item off the floor, does it self-annihilate into nothingness so that naughty Alchemists must spend 2A on every elixir? Or does it obey the rules of item handling as spelled out in those manipulate actions?

Seriously, wtf is this "nothing says they can hold anything" BS? I can only guess that you have a personal grudge/landmine/history that's muking up your reading ability on this one.

Interact is one of many of the manipulate actions granted by Manual Dexterity.

I say again it is 100% rules as written for a Manual Dex familiar to hold and hand-off items. Because the rules grant all manipulate actions without caveats, those familiars have the same manipulates, Interact, Swap, etc, as any PC.

Like it or not, those familiars got hands, and know how to use them.

No, graystone has a point that I agree.

Manipulate actions could be used to interact with things like open a door or a chest that doesn't requires that you carry items not only to carry items and Manual Dexterity doesn't says that it gives the ability to carry items to a familiar.

And in fact the rules for PC isn't necessary valid for familiars. We don't know what's the Bulk limit of a familiar. It's 5 + Str but what's the Str of a familiar? Is it 0 like a normal human or is it -5 due the lack of the attributes and making then Encumbered when they tries to carry anything? Also they are tiny creatures so their carry capacity is probably the half of this (2.5?). We are talking about potion but if the item is larger? Can it carry arround a bulk 2 item? Or in the end due the lack of Str attribute they simply are unable to carry anything?

So a GM doesn't need to be very hostile GM to prevent item carry. Familiars in general are level 1 feats so it's not so hard to a GM consider that's too much for a level 1 feat to allow to have an extra creature that doesn't cost actions for you and is carrying items for you saving actions for you and your allies specially without commanding them.

That's why we consider this as a grey area. In fact many familiars rules runs in many grey areas and it's GM dependent to allow or not.

it is specifically said familiar can not hold item but can pass item with valet

The strategic lack of specificity on the part of Paizo is staggeringly effective.
Rather than rauling against the company for failing to clarify rules, players do verbal battle in forums across the internet.

This new alchemist has me thinking a new strategy is at play.
One subclass is granted the tools needed to make it play well.
The rest are given crumbs.
The community spends countless hours debating.
Sales are presumably unaffected.

One subclass is granted the tools needed to make it play well.

To each their own.

We don't know what's the Bulk limit of a familiar. It's 5 + Str but what's the Str of a familiar? Is it 0 like a normal human or is it -5 due the lack of the attributes and making then Encumbered when they tries to carry anything? Also they are tiny creatures so their carry capacity is probably the half of this (2.5?). We are talking about potion but if the item is larger? Can it carry arround a bulk 2 item? Or in the end due the lack of Str attribute they simply are unable to carry anything?

These are the kinds of followup questions for a table to navigate once they have understood that familiars can indeed carry stuff in their hands, not as some kind of retroactive nullifying gotcha device. The rules say they can, so the tables figures out how.

If there really was 0 information to work with, it would still be up to the GM to make the final call on what sort of weight limit would be reasonable to conform to the rules.

In this case, there are basic tables, and info for creature sizes to treat objects as one size up or down. Even when copy-paste transferring from that, you get tiny familiars able to hold bulk L items as if they were 1 bulk each, nowhere remotely close to an "overburden" concern with 1 in each hand.

So a GM doesn't need to be very hostile GM to prevent item carry. Familiars in general are level 1 feats so it's not so hard to a GM consider that's too much for a level 1 feat to allow to have an extra creature that doesn't cost actions for you and is carrying items for you saving actions for you and your allies specially without commanding them.

Every GM needs to be aware of balancing concerns, and those concerns exist in the context of their table.

None of the GMs I've played with have considered the item relay to at all be a problem, and I've heard of plenty tables that outright grant Alchemist 1 free Draw per turn as a baseline buff to the class.

If a GM is in a context in which every PC has a familiar, every PC is using multiple consumables per fight, and this is harming the fun, then it is the GM's job to make a change to address it.

I have never heard a single report of that "oh no, these familiars are too OP" scenario happening during play.

I understand the instinctive prick of concern when reading something that sounds too good to be true. My first pf2 GM had to explicitly poke me with it to stop me from bringing it to the table, something like: ~"are you asking me to nerf that? (Skunk Bomb release, approaching L8 Perpetual Breadth) It's a new common, lets actually play with it first."

I've tried to take that to heart, as there's a million combos that seem OP on paper, and worrying about them in the abstract will only hurt your play experience.

I'll say again, it seems like concerns about the game integrity are clouding what should be an objective rules reading.

Manual Dexterity 100% enables familiars to manipulate, pickup, hold, and deposit items rules as written.

It's totally fine if whom it may concern insists on homebrewing a nerf, but misinforming every reader about the rules can hurt their games, including those present & future Alchemist players.

BotBrain wrote:

Yeah now you actually get to do a lot of the alchemy yourself rather than shrugging and getting the fighter to land the poison for you.

Let’s just toss it in the bin as soon as it arrives - the Fighter sucks at poisoning, so you want to do that yourself.

You definitely want the fighter to have a poison as well, because that means more poison on the map, but the toxicologist should carry the most important one, because toxi is better than fighter at poisoning. Example:

Fighter rolls to hit with poisoned weapon. He crits! Enemy saves against Alch class DC. Things happen. Poison expires.

Toxi rolls to hit with poisoned weapon. He hits. Enemy saves against Alch class DC with a -2 penalty for flanking. Things happen. Poison probably expires (but maybe not).

Alchemist is the best character at using alchemical items. Don’t believe me? Give a fighter a bomb and look at his face closely.

Yeah, if you could hit it with the caster scaling. Pre-remaster alchemist was caught between being structured as a class that struggled to hit their weapon attacks at high levels, and giving the alchemist every reason to want to be the one hitting the attacks.

Manual Dexterity 100% enables familiars to manipulate, pickup, hold, and deposit items rules as written.

It really doesn't - it allows a familiar to use Manipulate actions only. It's a perfectly consistent reading of the rules to say that this allows them to open doors, pull levers, etc, but due to them having an undefined strength score, they cannot hold an item. I think it's overly restrictive, and most often done because it feels like free drawing items makes familiars far too important for certain classes - but all Manual Dexterity allows is the use of Manipulate actions. Any decision about a familiar's carrying capacity is going off of undefined rules, and is a GM's call - there is no strict 'rules as written' that dictates whether or not a familiar can carry items in the manual Dexterity ability. By comparison, something like Toolbearer specifically allows your familiar to carry an item and use that ability to save yourself an action, and it requires you to already have taken Manual Dexterity.

It is correct to narrowly grant what the ability specifies.

There seems to be a disconnect where people are unaware/denying that by granting the manipulate actions, Interact is one of those included.

As Manual Dexterity unarguably allows the familiar to use Interact to retrieve a wand, what happens just after that? Does the wand fall to the floor? Does it explode?

In order for M.Dex to genuinely grant the action that picks stuff up, the effect of picking something up (it's now carried in the hand) must be included.

You denying the holding of the item is akin to a ruling that would "allow" one perform some sort of "Spook Em" action, but never permit it to succeed because there's no DC in the text.

Making the Spook Em action always fail would be a "That's not how rules work" issue. It would be up to the GM to figure out how to source the DC of the ability, but denying its function with an "unlisted = 0" ruling is to outright defy the text granting the ability.

========

It absolutely is possible for other rules to affect M.Dex and carrying stuff, like that size-bulk-coversion chart I linked.

Another example is the Activate ban, which is a manipulate that M.Dex would otherwise grant.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3209&Redirected=1

[...]Other items can qualify at the GM's discretion, but a companion can never Activate an Item.

This specific "never can Activate" I would argue trumps Manual Dex (though someone could argue Manual Dex trumps this rule).

========

The lack of explicit bulk guidance is NOT the same thing as bulk being set to 0.

The ability grants hands and manipulate actions, including Interact. The conclusion that they can hold items is unavoidable.

After that's accepted, any subsequent and reasonable questions, like "how much can they carry" could be answered with anything except 0, because that's the only number that would defy the rules granting the ability.

The ability grants hands and manipulate actions, including Interact. The conclusion that they can hold items is unavoidable.

I mean, various Tail ancestry feats allow for Interact/manipulate actions but do not allow Holding items. As such, I can't see that something allowing manipulate actions MUST mean holding is possible especially as Hold isn't a Interact/manipulate action. As to having a hand, is wielding a weapon, using a potion or picking a lock aren't any less hand using and they can't use them... A familiar clearly isn't as able to use hands as a PC can.

Once again, this is a gray area and doesn't have clear, specific rules to follow. You might make a reasonable conclusion as to what happens but as you can see from this thread, it's not a universal one.

Sigh, you are helping my case by bringing up the tail feats.

You have a tail or similar body part that is always willing to lend a hand (so to speak). You can perform simple Interact actions with your tail, such as opening an unlocked door. Your tail can't perform actions that require fingers or significant manual dexterity, including any action that would require a check to accomplish, and you can't use it to hold items.

If the text granted Interact actions and stopped at "door." before getting to the "cant"s, PCs would be able to hold an item in their tail.

It is only because the text continues to say "but not anything that would invoke a check, nor holding items" that we can agree the rules say you can't hold items in those tails. This tail Feat is a perfect example of how a rule would block the Interact uses that retrieve, draw, or otherwise put an item into the tail's hand.

Manual Dexterity does not have those limitations. It defies the rules to add text that's not there.

===============

The examples "familiars cant ___" that you flounder with are all things stated in the rules. M.Dex may grant the manipulate actions, but it does not grant them skill training, so no picking locks. M.Dex does not override the rules stating familiars may not attack, so no weapon wielding, etc.

The strategic lack of specificity on the part of Paizo is staggeringly effective.

Rather than rauling against the company for failing to clarify rules, players do verbal battle in forums across the internet.

Yeah, the lack of specificity is my greatest dislike of the game especially when some parts of the game are hyper-specific like attack rolls not being rolls with abilities/actions with the Attack trait.

As Manual Dexterity unarguably allows the familiar to use Interact to retrieve a wand, what happens just after that? Does the wand fall to the floor? Does it explode?

Negligible bulk items exist! As for the rest...

If the text granted Interact actions and stopped at "door.", PCs would be able to hold an item in their tail.

Please post the rule that says being able to use Interact actions allows Holding...

It is only because the text continues to say "but not anything that would invoke a check, nor holding items" that we can agree the rules say you can't hold items in those tails.

Is it? Where is that rule for default Holding from manipulate actions? Did they add the Manipulate trait to Hold?

Manual Dexterity does not have those limitations. It defies the rules to add text that's not there.

But Familiars do. they can't Strike, something other creatures with hands can do. They have no Stats, thus no known Bulk limit. They can't wield/use items [and held is one of the usage entries but they can't use non-Companion items]. AGAIN, there is NO CLEAR RAW. If there is, PLEASE post it. If not, it's your theory on how it works not RAW.

Unless there is something new on this subject, I'll leave it here with this post. No need to derail the thread anymore when it just seems like a circular argument.

Please post the rule that says being able to use Interact actions allows Holding...

Manual Dexterity grants the same Interact action that PCs use to pick stuff up. If Interact does not "allow holding," then PCs would be unable to hold items.

This is what it means to be consistent with rules reading. Familiars get hands, and the exact same actions that have the effect of putting items into hands.

Stop applying this "only if proven innocent" perversion.

Unless you know of a familiar rule that blocks it, to maintain honesty / not be hypocritical, you grant what it grants first, then seek out more info if needed.

While I reject your objection, for the sake of every other reader, I can still take the min to meet your meritless demand and quote Interact, which is one of the manipulate actions that's granted by Manual Dexterity.

Interact: 1 Action

[manipulate]

You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, draw a weapon, swap a held item for another, open a door, or achieve a similar effect. On rare occasions, you might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.

That's all the text needed to confirm that Interact puts items in hands. (because literally that's how the PCs do it too) If that's somehow not enough (and I doubt you're capable of being convinced at the moment), there is even more elaboration later.

You can use the Interact action (page 416) to:

* Draw, put away, or swap an item. You must be holding the item to put it away or wearing it to draw it. Swapping allows you to put away one item and draw another in the same action (such as putting away a dagger and drawing a mace). Abilities that specify what you do when you Interact only allow this if they say so; the Quick Draw feat lets a rogue Interact to draw a weapon, but doesn't allow them to stow one as well. Swapping lets you swap only one item for another; if you were wielding two weapons, you could put away one of them and draw a different item, but you would need to put away the second weapon separately.

* Pick up an item from the ground.

* Pass off or take a held item from a willing creature. The creature you're passing to must have a hand free. You can also attempt to throw an item to someone. You typically need to succeed at a DC 15 ranged attack with a 10-foot range increment to do so.
[...]
* Retrieve a stowed item from a backpack, pouch, or similar container (or put one away). You'll often need to Interact to open or close the backpack or container.

This seems to be getting a little heated. Please remember to discuss differences civilly.

This seems to be getting a little heated. Please remember to discuss differences civilly.

Not heated on my side, and I already said my piece and moved on, so no worries. ;)

PS: Caps for emphasis and not to indicate anything else like shouting, if that was the worry. Sorry if that was the case.

Sorry Trip.H but Manual Dexterity doesn't define that you can use Interact actions like PCs uses. It just says "can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to perform manipulate actions" nothing more and nothing less.

We still don't have a clear and direct RAW saying that you can use all manipulate actions including Interact in the same way as PCs uses and if you use in the same way there's no definition of how much they can carry!

It's unclear so the GMs can decide in both directions. To allow for the same reasons that you explains and arbitrary defines the familiars bulk limits or to disallow because the familiars doesn't have a Str atribute and that they can think that's too much to a familiar ability to allow a familiar to just carry like Valet that defines the bulk limit that familiars can carry in it ("retrieve an item of light or negligible Bulk").

This seems to be getting a little heated. Please remember to discuss differences civilly.

Also no hate for my side we are just defending that's there no RAW here. I avoid ad hominem always as possible.

Sorry Trip.H but Manual Dexterity doesn't define that you can use Interact actions like PCs uses. It just says "can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to perform manipulate actions" nothing more and nothing less.

Lol. If you've got some ninja logic way for a familiar to be granted 2 hands in order "to perform manipulate actions" without that granting the keystone manipulate action of Interact, please do share it.

Manual Dexterity: Your familiar can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to perform manipulate actions.

We already have that example tail Feat that shows if blocking item holding is desired, it is explicitly mentioned.

==========

I can't wait to hear how yall will react to the news that familiars can actually pick locks RaW, lol.

Remember how I said Manual Dex doesn't allow the familiar to use the manipulate Pick a Lock because the familiar is explicitly stated to lack the thievery skill?

Manual Dexterity + Skilled:Thievery is enough for a familiar to Steal, but those locks require picks.

Toolbearer seems like a weird/useless f.ability due to it's bulk L limit (not viable for reducing PC carry bulk). Yet Thieves Toolkit is bulk L, making it one of the few toolkits compatible (the only toolkit, I think).

Add Toolbearer to that familiar, and you can send your little helper to pick locks (or Disable Devices) on your behalf, completely rules as written (and likely the primary intended use of Toolbearer).

Just don't expect them to succeed on anything close to the PC's difficulty level.

It is correct to narrowly grant what the ability specifies.

There seems to be a disconnect where people are unaware/denying that by granting the manipulate actions, Interact is one of those included.

As Manual Dexterity unarguably allows the familiar to use Interact to retrieve a wand, what happens just after that? Does the wand fall to the floor? Does it explode?

As it grants them the ability to take manipulate actions, it does grant them the ability to use Interact action to attempt to retrieve a wand. As there is no explicit rules text as to what happens when you attempt to use this action, what happens next is a GM call; it is not rules as written that they can successfully do so. A standard level 1 human fighter is perfectly able to spend an Interact action to attempt to pick up the 50ft long marble column that once supported the roof to an ancient shrine they find themself in front of; they are entitled to spend that action all they like, it will simply have no effect. There are other creatures that even have the ability to take Interact actions that nonetheless cannot meaningful benefit from the action at all; a ghost is perfectly able to spend an action attempting to Interact with that wand, but its hand goes right through it and it has no impact on the physical world. I would agree with you that ruling that a familiar cannot carry any item with a bulk value would be intentionally working against a rule with a clear intent but missing mechanics if Manual Dexterity specified it could be used to hold items. It does not, and I don't think it's particularly meaningful to argue that you would be defying the rules granting the ability by saying they cannot hold items - the text of the mechanic and the narrative of the mechanic work entirely fine without the ability to hold items. You can have a monkey who runs over to the secret trapdoor lever and pulls it, or who knocks away a disarmed weapon, etc, without needing to be able to hold items. And that's allowing Interact actions - there's also all the other manipulate actions the ability can allow, as you stated in your last post about picking a lock. It does not counteract the narrative or function of the ability to deny holding items. There are even compromise positions, like if you allow items that would be negligible bulk for the creature's size and nothing else, that would absolutely play up the narrative of the prehensile familiar and still wouldn't allow the use to get an extra Draw action every turn for an alchemist.

I think the disagreement here is about letting dependencies chain together without every single link being explicitly stated. It's not practical for pf2 to do that, and the whole system is built upon players being able to follow those threads themselves to avoid repetition.

The issue I find with your approach is that it would still break things we know do already work.

Being able to hold items is a prerequisite for toolkits to function, indicated in lines like:

You can make a toolkit (such as an alchemist’s toolkit or healer’s toolkit) easier to use by wearing it. This easy access allows you to draw and replace the tools within as part of the action that uses them, rather than needing to Interact to draw them.

Note that Toolbearer requires Manual Dexterity, despite Toolbearer being otherwise inert and not providing any actions to the familiar.

A dead-ringer for this need to chain without explicit directive is Lab Assistant. (I probably should've quoted this one sooner)

Lab Assistant: It can use your Quick Alchemy action. You must have Quick Alchemy, and your familiar must be in your space. This has the same cost and requirement as if you used it. It must have the manual dexterity ability to select this.

Again, this ability requires manual dex. And again, this ability requires the familiar to hold an item, in this case after Q-Alch is done, the item's held in their hand (unless you think it poofs into the Alch's hand as a part of the action. If so, that's huge upgrade to the f.ability).

You know what familiar ability does -not- require manual dex?

Valet: You can command your familiar to deliver you items more efficiently. Your familiar doesn't use its 2 actions immediately upon your command. Instead, up to twice before the end of your turn, you can have your familiar Interact to retrieve an item of light or negligible Bulk you are wearing and place it into one of your free hands. The familiar can't use this ability to retrieve stowed items. If the familiar has a different number of actions, it can retrieve one item for each action it has when commanded this way.

Note that this is the only one of the mentioned abilities that cannot result with an item occupying the familiar's hand before or after it's action. Any item involved passes in and out of the familiar's possession entirely inside of the Valet action.

===============

Again:

* rules invoke other rules in chains.

* A value being undefined does not set it to zero, you instead seek out a reasonable inherited default. (and we do have instruction on what bulk a tiny creature can carry, it's 1/2 the norm & items are treated as 1 size larger)

* your ruling that "manual dex does not explicitly list holding an item, therefore no" breaks familiars as shown in Toolbearer and Lab Assistant. The same logic can also break PCs if applied equally.

* Skillful Tail shows us that when the system wants to grant limited options, it includes the "can nots" in the same spot the big "can" umbrella is granted.

One idea I've thought of, purely because its weird that bombs get action compression but no one else does, is that each research field gets their own "quick" feat (toxicologists get make/draw and apply poison, mutagenists get make/draw and drink elixir, chirigenists get make/draw +administer elixir). each field starts off with their own feat, but can take all of the other ones as lvl 1 class feats. Give them all flourish, so you can't use all of them in the same turn. I feel like the class has the budget for that

Combine Elixir is Chirurgeon's and Mutagenist's compression action. And I very much think Paizo doesn't want Elixirs to be used as third actions because it'd be unbalancing (most spells with a one action option have reduced effects).

And Toxicologist doesn't need an action compression action at all. You can either use Quick Draw (and Doubling Rings) or just poisoned arrows and it's fine. Having to pay an action to poison a weapon is still one more action than what it actually costs.

And Toxicologist doesn't need an action compression action at all. You can either use Quick Draw (and Doubling Rings) or just poisoned arrows and it's fine. Having to pay an action to poison a weapon is still one more action than what it actually costs.

Sure, they don't need it for the 2-3 poisons they can keep up perpetually via regenerating vials and for what they can afford to spend on it from their (now rather precious) dailies. It still wouldn't have hurt to give it to them for the rest of their vials also, now that the entire focus of the class has shifted to Quick Alchemy as the primary way of doing things. Let them apply a poison or quick vial as part of creating it, that kind of thing.

I would love for Paizo to add some 2A elixirs that trade a higher action cost for increased effectiveness.

Especially now that Alchemist has had their ability to make up for their weak potency via quantity of elixirs removed, I'm very open to the idea of trading another action in exchange for a more efficient use of the few resources left. Or even a Feat that adds an action cost to improve existing elixirs.

I honestly think there's a real chance the "no Additive on/with Q-Vials" block might be removed in an errata pass if Paizo want to buff the Alchemist a bit.

The new 1 Additive per turn limit means that there's no real concern about Bomber becoming too powerful.

Meanwhile, Mutagenist and Chiurgeon players would have a real use for their 0 cost Q-Vial options via Combine Elixirs, trading that turn's 1 Additive for a small boost to another elixir. And Chi even has that 10-min cooldown to deal with.

Because otherwise, yeah, those small boosts are not worth the action cost in combat, honestly not even as a 2nd Double Brew elixir.

Never thought Chiurgeon would be doing so much worse than Thaum's Chalice, that's for sure.

The strategic lack of specificity on the part of Paizo is staggeringly effective.

Rather than rauling against the company for failing to clarify rules, players do verbal battle in forums across the internet.

This new alchemist has me thinking a new strategy is at play.
One subclass is granted the tools needed to make it play well.
The rest are given crumbs.
The community spends countless hours debating.
Sales are presumably unaffected.

Lately it has been difficult to find people who make intelligent and accurate comments, you my friend, are one of those people. Be proud of it. I have a lot of thoughts about some companies,Paizo is part of the top, but I'm not going to make my colleagues sad lol!

Sure, they don't need it for the 2-3 poisons they can keep up perpetually via regenerating vials and for what they can afford to spend on it from their (now rather precious) dailies. It still wouldn't have hurt to give it to them for the rest of their vials also,

Bombers and Chirurgeons mostly care about "the rest of their vials" while Mutagenists and Toxicologists mostly care about the "2-3 they can keep up perpetually".

So can versatile vials be used for their alternate function without quick alchemy first? If I'm playing a toxicologist, does that mean I can use a VV directly from my stash to poison an attack and then make a strike?

If so, that changes my mind quite of bit on them from what I saw on the YT vids that seemed to imply that you had to QA the item and them apply it and then strike

So can versatile vials be used for their alternate function without quick alchemy first? If I'm playing a toxicologist, does that mean I can use a VV directly from my stash to poison an attack and then make a strike?

If so, that changes my mind quite of bit on them from what I saw on the YT vids that seemed to imply that you had to QA the item and them apply it and then strike

Absolutely. You can hold a VV in your hand and just use it for your Research Field ability for one action should you wish.

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

So can versatile vials be used for their alternate function without quick alchemy first? If I'm playing a toxicologist, does that mean I can use a VV directly from my stash to poison an attack and then make a strike?

If so, that changes my mind quite of bit on them from what I saw on the YT vids that seemed to imply that you had to QA the item and them apply it and then strike

Absolutely. You can hold a VV in your hand and just use it for your Research Field ability for one action should you wish.

To elaborate, this would mean using a recharging VV that could instead be turned into *any* alch item.

The Quick Vials that can be made at 0 VV cost only persist for a short moment, and cannot be carried in-hand before combat for that 1A use.

These two details added together is why Alchemists are saying the special sub-class Quick Vial (aka Field Vial | FV) uses of the Chiurgeon and Mutagenist (and largely Tox too) are close to worthless in combat.

You must either occupy a hand and spend 1 VV to use those tiny benefits for 1A, or you must spend 2A and 0 VVs.

Either cost is absurdly high for their listed benefit.

The more I look at the leaks the more I wonder why we didn't get a general Quick Draw limited to infused items or at the very least Poison Weapon for the Toxicologist. I really don't want to have to walk around like a final fantasy character with 5 belts on to use my class features.

So can versatile vials be used for their alternate function without quick alchemy first?

I never thought of that and it's the only way I see VVs being useful to non-Bombers outside some niche cases.

The issue with using them like that for a toxicologist is that they're probably better off as regular poisons than the couple extra d6s you would get from a plain VV unless you're fighting stuff with insurmountable fortitude saves.

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

So can versatile vials be used for their alternate function without quick alchemy first? If I'm playing a toxicologist, does that mean I can use a VV directly from my stash to poison an attack and then make a strike?

If so, that changes my mind quite of bit on them from what I saw on the YT vids that seemed to imply that you had to QA the item and them apply it and then strike

Absolutely. You can hold a VV in your hand and just use it for your Research Field ability for one action should you wish.

Including toxicologist's VV poison/acid damage doesn't requires extra checks (like fortitude/will checks that most poisons requires) when applied in a weapon. They basically works like a "SpellStrike" merging both damage into a single Strike without MAP.

Including toxicologist's VV poison/acid damage doesn't requires extra checks (like fortitude/will checks that most poisons requires) when applied in a weapon. They basically works like a "SpellStrike" merging both damage into a single Strike without MAP.

The rough reality with that is the pf2 system is full of things that cost 1A and enhance a strike.

Even just 3gp Sure Strike scrolls would usually be a better idea and not take away alchemy via using a VV.

Oh, I almost forgot that Tox's FV use is classified as an injury poison, meaning it's not usable if the Tox, ya know, does their main gimmick of already having their weapon poisoned ahead of time. While any other 1A booster would still be compatible.

YuriP wrote:

Including toxicologist's VV poison/acid damage doesn't requires extra checks (like fortitude/will checks that most poisons requires) when applied in a weapon. They basically works like a "SpellStrike" merging both damage into a single Strike without MAP.

The rough reality with that is the pf2 system is full of things that cost 1A and enhance a strike.

Even just 3gp Sure Strike scrolls would usually be a better idea and not take away alchemy via using a VV.

Oh, I almost forgot that Tox's FV use is classified as an injury poison, meaning it's not usable if the Tox, ya know, does their main gimmick of already having their weapon poisoned ahead of time. While any other 1A booster would still be compatible.

IDT it's a rough reality considering that alchemist is essentially a much better spell caster than the magus (sans feat investment) between the VVs and the dailies and the infinite quick vials, having a much reduced little acid/poison spellstrike seems more than fair. Toxi will be leagues more versatile than magus. I'm extremely hyped to play a revamped toxicologist, and I'm not even trying to poison every round; it'll just be a very well rounded character in terms of turn to turn options as a bonafide martial. My only quip is feeling quick bomber is mandatory but that being my only complaint is a good outcome from the remaster imo. I'm all smiles with new alchemist even if it's not strictly as upper end powerful. Its a lot more accessible.

Fumbus: I'M FUMBUS! I'M FEELIN GLADDD! AH'VE GOT MUTAGENS! IN A BAAAGGG!

I TAKE THEMMMM...WHEN I'M SADDDD! AH'M FEELIN GLADDD! AH'M FEELING GLADDD! Heh.

Reading over it again, it does specifically call out the VVs as being added to your alchemist's toolkit, which you normally draw things out of as part of the action that uses them. Quick Alchemy uses them that way, too. You don't first have to draw the VV, then turn it into a consumable for another action – it all happens in one.

I can't see a reason to deny the same principle to the field vials actions, e.g. tox would have the options of

2-a, 1 VV: create and apply consumable injury poison
1-a, 1 VV: apply VV as injury poison
2-a, no VV: create and apply quick vial as injury poison

(all starting with weapon + empty hand)

Quick Alchemy uses them that way, too. You don't first have to draw the VV, then turn it into a consumable for another action – it all happens in one.

Because that's how Quick Alchemy is written. Even if I fully agree your ruling would make VVs much more usable it is not really backed up by a rule.

I know they've probably already got their list of day 1 errata together but I'll pray someone reads this thread and reconsiders a few things. The Alchemist is so close to being great, there's just minor tweaks we need to help with action economy. I get they see it as a pseudocaster but the items just aren't as impactful as a spell at any level. Chirurgeon is just barely competing with a healing caster who will have access to non-consumables like wands and staves to increase their capacity for healing. The least we could get to patch that is maybe lessen the restriction on the Coagulant trait to 2 items every 10 minutes or even just change the die size of their healing vials to make up for their use restriction.

I think with the combination of
"You can store all your versatile vials within your alchemist’s toolkit, with no increase to its Bulk."
and
"You can make a toolkit (such as an alchemist’s toolkit or healer’s toolkit) easier to use by wearing it. This easy access allows you to draw and replace the tools within as part of the action that uses them, rather than needing to Interact to draw them."
a rules case can certainly be made.

Seems strange to specifically mention that they go into your toolkit otherwise, no?

Seems strange to specifically mention that they go into your toolkit otherwise, no?

It's because Quick Alchemy uses your alchemical tools, so it implies that drawing them while you use your alchemical tools is free.

To restate / elaborate a bit.

Old Alchemists used Infused Reagents for Quick Alchemy. They were technically still an item that could be held, but they way they functioned as only a resource to be spent via other abilities meant that no one had reason to think you needed to draw/hold an infused reagent before doing Quick Alchemy.

With the move to VVials and them being bombs with a stat block, I think Paizo wanted to emphasize that handling the VVials are still a part of the Quick Alchemy action and do not need any separate interaction outside of Quick Alchemy.

Basically, it was to ensure players knew Paizo was not adding a new action tax to Quick Alchemy in the Remaster.

=====================

Sadly, this does remove credence from the notion that Paizo intended the F-V uses to be 1A even when the VVs are in the toolkit.

This mobile collection of vials and chemicals can be used for simple alchemical tasks. If you wear your alchemist's toolkit, you can draw and replace them as part of the action that uses them.

Toolkits need to be specifically invoked to get involved in an action. When you Draw a VV out of the kit, it kinda unavoidably means that you are -not- using the kit for the action.

Actions like Battle Medicine that invoke a kit mean that any sort of booster item inside the kit could be grabbed and used, but the Field-Vial uses are not connected to any kind of kit-using action.

There's a lot I really like about the alchemist redesign.

I see a lot of work has gone into removing causes of "analysis paralysis" and such. You don't have to agonize about what proportion of reagents to spend on daily and quick items. I like that a lot. That was an agonizing cost/benefit analysis I just don't have to make anymore.

Low level alchemists just have smooth onboarding, you can keep going all day with versatile vials. Okay, they're not ultimate damage, but they're still splashing a lot. Sure, bomber looks like the best-served path by far, but I don't care since that's what I wanted to play anyway.

No more hassle with having to buy higher grade formulas. Not worrying "should I buy this low level formula, is the money going to be wasted when I need to upgrade?" because I don't. Just another worry gone.

In fact, when you look at versatility (prepared) versus flexibility (spontaneous), the alchemist ends up in between and maybe even better than most. Every 10 minutes you can make whatever you like, if you know the formula. So just learn a ton of formulas and you can provide answers all day to everything.

The alchemist is STILL a complex class. Compared to a fighter, you need to actually read a lot more equipment and identify the formulas you should care about. And during the game, remember that you have a formula that's really good for this situation. But it looks like Paizo went a long way to removing "hassle" and "choice anguish" complexity to leave more room for "interesting" complexity.

Paizo is really aware that some players want to play simple classes and some players want to play complex classes. The complex classes need to deliver a payoff for the complexity, but it shouldn't break the balance of the game - you doing tons of book reading shouldn't mean that you totally outclass the more casual player. But it should allow you to do clever and sophisticated things in the game. I think they tried really hard here and I'm looking forward to dusting off my PFS alchemist.

Just rebuilt my Alchemist, loving nearly every change.

Unsure how the Field Vials work for different Research Fields in terms of Action Economy and Resource Management.

Q) Are they each one action to create into your free hand, then one action to drink, deploy or throw?
Q) Using Quick Alchemy is Quick Vials an infinite resource (as opposed to Create Consumable)?

=)

1) Yes. The only exception is Striking with Quick Vials when you have the Quick Bomber feat. It makes the Toxicologist and Mutagenist Field Vial benefits tough to access.

2) Quick Vials are infinite, yes. You just have to remember that you can't use a Quick Vial to then Create Consumable; they can only be used for a Strike and for the Field Vial uses.

That’s what I thought.

I am struggling to see the benefit of using two actions to suppress a mutagenic drawback.

I'm starting to wonder if the Alchemist would've benefited more from their Advanced Alchemy resources following the Witch's Cauldron progression, letting them brew 2 and then 3 of their field's item type at proficiency level increases. The current feats to add to your Advanced Alchemy pool just doesn't do enough to enable you to do your schtick without buying more items.

Also I'll parrot it again and say I hope someone realizes the necessity of a quick draw feat for each of the fields because action economy is and has always been the Alchemist's greatest enemy.

I'm starting to wonder if the Alchemist would've benefited more from their Advanced Alchemy resources following the Witch's Cauldron progression, letting them brew 2 and then 3 of their field's item type at proficiency level increases. The current feats to add to your Advanced Alchemy pool just doesn't do enough to enable you to do your schtick without buying more items.

They've changed their schtick away from being a vending machine. As such, they can't fulfill that old role anymore. Now it's a smaller amount of all day items and a pool of short-lived items. With this design direction, I don't think it'd benefit from your suggestion.