Aricks's page

Organized Play Member. 135 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

This is a great resource thanks for compiling it. Are you also collecting suggested resolutions to problems you've collected?

It's my hope that paizo would adopt a git style repository for the pf2 rules. For those unfamiliar that is basically a website where code is kept and individuals can raise issues with or submit fixes to said code which can then be accepted or rejected while allowing discussions to take place, and the discussions is tied to each code change or issue. Makes it easy to keep discussions focused on specific things and all changes are logged so its easy to roll back things.

Importing this as a list of issues would be a great first start.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Given the structure of the AoN website, I honestly think the next logical step is to implement a git style interface for the rules. That way you can not only easily see the latest changes for the rules but you can see annotations on the changes and the history of the changes.

I think the days of the fixed published errata document/pdf aren't as useful as it was with the advancements in document versioning. Heck it gets better with a tracked repo. Imagine you go on the paizo website, put in your version of a rulebook, and it dynamically creates a pdf of the rules changes from the book you have using the current repo status.

Maybe they can have a call for volunteers to contribute to an open source project. Not the rules themselves but the structure of what holds them, assuming there isn't something out there that would so this already.

So, a familiar can deliver a touch spell with the Spell Delivery ability using both actions for movement but having it deliver an elixir or potion with the Manual Dexterity ability and one action for movement and another to Interact is overpowered or something.

I'd pretend I'm shocked that Paizo found another way to make alchemists less viable but I can't quite pull off the DC.

Manual Dexterity and Valet still improves action economy for alchemists in that you can have twice as many items readied to feed to party members, so that's nice, but the lack of ranged healing besides the bad joke that is Healing Bomb is annoying. It also completely kills the ability for alchemists to delivery any beneficial buffing elixir at range.

Stock up on those cheetah elixirs chirurgeons, you're going to be doing a lot of running around.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ring of Minor Arcana ( and the Robe of the Archmagi ( both mention being an "arcane spellcaster" as part of various requirements of the items, but after doing some digging it's unclear to me as to what that actually means. The two cases I thought of off the bat are:

1. Does it mean having the "Arcane Spellcasting" ability? Good for wizards and magus but tough luck for rune witches.

2. Does it just mean you can cast an arcane spell? Otherworldly Magic for elves and being an Arcane Wellspring gnome give arcane cantrips but use charisma instead of intelligence so less arcane-y than a wizard or magus, but still technically casting arcane spells.

I know the robe states "characters who can cast arcane spells" and seems to equate not having that ability as not being an "arcane spellcaster" but it's less clear for the ring.

Given the robe definition I'm leaning towards #2 but I'd like to hear others weigh in on it.

For me the math-ing out of the returning weapon stuff isn't really an argument that hunted shot should or shouldn't work with a javelin, it's pretty clear it shouldn't by the rules. Applying real world physics to a magic/scifi/fantasy game should mostly happen when the results are awesome, funny, or both.

That said, I do think it's cool that a ranger that dedicates themselves to using ranged weapons can throw a javelin on par with our world's current record holder. I'm curious if someone at Paizo checked that or it just lined up that way on accident. Given that the accuracy requirements of Olympic javelin is "hit the field somewhere thataway" the -10 to accuracy for a Ranger feels right too.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the above posters, a thrown weapon is not the same thing as a weapon with reload 0, and there are ways of making a throwing weapon hunter that follows the rules like using precision, hunter's aim, gravity weapon, etc.

The math is kinda fun on this actually. A 4th level Ranger with the Far Shot feat can throw a javelin at their Hunted Prey target 120 feet away with as much accuracy as if it were 10 feet away, which is neat, or as far away as 360 feet with I think a -10 to hit. Since this could conceivably be done 3 times in a round of 6 seconds as 3 attacks, that means a returning javelin is traveling, on average, 360 feet per second, or ~245 miles per hour, or ~110 meters per second. Assuming no teleporting, option A is that it's going out a slowish 100 ft/sec and coming back at a blistering 540 ft/sec. This invokes all kinds of hilarious images as the Ranger holds out their hand to catch their javelin coming back to them at near mach 1. Option B is that it goes out as fast as it comes back, 360 ft/sec or some variation, meaning that Ranger has a heck of a throwing arm and should sign up with the Golarian equivalent of the Yankees right away.

For extra hilarity, using hunted shot with a javelin, meaning essentially 4 throws in 6 sec, ups that to 480 ft/sec, so like 327 mph. They're going to need earplugs for when it breaks the sound barrier coming back to their hand.

Interestingly enough the world record for javelin throws is 343 feet, so the above max distance (360 feet) is not at all out of the question. However the velocities involved with that returning javelin means it is definitely magic and not following the rules of physics.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Well, we'll see if it's still a class where you have to punch yourself in the face to power up. After what happened to the oracles curse, I shudder to imaging what horrifying thing burn could turn into... :P

As someone who plays a bomber alchemist who went from targeting touch AC in PF1 to punching myself in the face via Quicksilver Elixir, I can say it has not been a fun experience.

Haven't played a pf2 wizard, but I imagine its frustrating to burn a very limited number of spell slots for two actions for no effect when you don't really have any alternatives beyond a cantrip or a crossbow. Especially if you really tried hard to prep an appropriate mix of spells that day. I can relate a bit to that with alchemical items.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that you can use Double Brew to make two perpetual infusion items for one action and no reagent cost.

The argument I've seen against this interpretation is in how Double Brew is worded:
"When using the Quick Alchemy action, instead of spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents to make up to two alchemical items as described in that action"

Specifically, the "instead of spending one can spend up to two batches" which see how if you squint and turn your head a bit that it means you can only do it while making things that use infused reagents. I think the "spend up to two" part is key though, implying that you can spend 0, 1, or 2 reagents to create 2 items that would cost you 0 or 1 reagents each.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having mutagens last longer at higher levels is a "benefit" that alchemists don't really need, given the amounts of infused reagents that are available at higher levels.

So, maybe make all mutagens last 10 minutes or an hour, depending on the type, regardless of the level.
Maybe each one comes as two vials: the mutagen itself and a specific counter-agent that can be consumed to counter that specific mutagen.
Maybe just make it just an ability alchemists have to spend an action to end the effects of a mutagen created with their infused reagents if they are adjacent to the target. A targetable Revivifying Mutagen but without the healing. If we could get rid of some of the other math fixer feats I wouldn't even mind if this ability was a feat itself instead of core.

I like the sickened 1 suggestion from above for early ending a mutagen's effects. One of the main reason I really don't like them is the benefits don't seem to match the penalties, especially when the duration gets into the hour range.

Spending infused reagents to craft mutagen cancellation items seems cruel, please don't do that.

While we're at it, can we make it so quicksilver mutagens either don't damage you or make it just a temp reduction in HP that you don't have to heal from later? A +1 bonus that taxes your parties already limited healing resources, a -2 Fort penalty, and lasts 1-10 minutes until level 11 is why most people don't bother with the bloody things.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So here's an idea:
1. Get rid of Quick Bomber. All alchemists get a "pull and use an alchemical item as a single action" baked in. That way alchemists actually can use alchemical items better than other classes, which helps to get rid of the "hand my items off to the other classes and become a crossbowman" issue.

2. Replace Quick Bomber with "Shaped Charge". If you throw a bomb, it only affects a single target instead of an area of effect (handy for a mutie or chirg as a back up), if you are a bomber focus, you gain a bonus to accuracy (+1? +2?) when throwing a bomb that only affects a single target. Maybe even make it +intmod but you no longer do splash on a miss. Can't do the math because working but I think it could be balanced.

It would help with accuracy, not buff their damage to crazy amounts, and it would really help the alchemist in the buffer/debuffer role.

Now all we need is for mutagens to come with a complementary "detox" vial that would dismiss the mutagen so that people could use the buffs without hurting their ability in combat that so often comes after the talky bits and we'd be all set.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Something about an alchemist offering their class feature to someone and them just going "... no thanks." cracks me up.

Yeah, except multiply that by 5 levels of PFS sessions and only having a mutagen used once and an elixir once and it might give some insight as to why some alchemist players are bitter.

That was with spending time at the start of every session talking to each player trying to find out what mutagens and elixirs would be useful for them, and trying to balance that versus how many bombs to make. Taking out a swarm in one hit, once, was pretty cool, and doing a fair amount of energy damage to the one enemy that had physical resistance, once, was fun, but consider that in the context of the lack of mutagen and elixir use above, over so many sessions, and it goes from "funny" to "heartbreaking"

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The alchemist only needs a change if you think they should do anything more than hand out their crafted items that other classes use better than they can and badly shoot their crossbow like a hireling.

I don't think they bring anything unique to the table.

In all the released errata they've become slightly more durable and slightly better item dispensers, so that seems to be the role that Paizo wants them to fill.

Not a debuffer (you have to actually be able to hit things to debuff them), not a buffer (most of your buffs disadvantage your party members and can't be cleared except by time), not a poisoner (again you have to actually be able to hit things), not a damage dealer (better to make bombs/poisons and hand them to the martials), maybe a healer with lousy action economy that slightly improves if you get a familiar.

I haven't touched my alchemist in a year and from what changes I've seen and expect to see, I don't ever plan to again, and that's really disappointing.

Since apparently we're not getting any more alchemist fixes, the "as designed" method to increase alchemist accuracy is quicksilver mutagens. Lots, and lots, and lots of quicksilver mutagens. Basically one for every fight you'll think you'll be in that day, and healing elixirs to offset the "punch yourself in the face for a +1 to accuracy" effect from the mutagens.

As far as useful archetypes, beyond what has been mentioned, the Duelist archetype gives you quick draw at level 2, which is a flat better version of quick bomber, with the downside that the archetype really doesn't give you anything else useful at higher levels. That said, since you have to take so many math fixer feats as an alchemist you can't really go outside your class feats much anyway so no real loss there.

You should probably inform the player that "bomber" alchemists are alchemists first, and aren't really meant to mostly throw bombs in combat. They're meant to run around with elixirs and/or send a familiar around with elixirs to buff their teammates as needed, and maybe, occasionally, throw a bomb when there's a group of baddies that happen to be in the right formation so you don't splash your teammates, or throw a specific bomb to do elemental damage on the day that the planets align and you run into an opponent with elemental weakness and don't fail your knowledge check rolls. The rest of the time you do low CHA intimidation/distraction attempts and shoot a crossbow.

That's not what's advertised in the class description but that's what the reality is.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Aricks wrote:
So, would it really be wrong to roll the damage dice on application of a new persistent damage condition to see which condition is stronger?

As far as I'm concerned, any method that sometimes says 2d4 < 1d4 is wrong.

And any method that sometimes says 1d10 < 1d4 is wrong.

Why? Both common sense and because either of those imply that someone with 1d10 persistent fire damage can be partially cured by inflicting 1d4 persistent fire damage on them and getting lucky, which is very, very wrong.

I don't disagree with you, both from a game feel and mechanics point of view. A small bottle of gasoline thrown on a fire made by a larger bottle of gasoline, as far as I'm aware, does not make the fire smaller. Yes it's a fantasy world with magic and dragons but I feel some real world mechanics are safe to apply here.

I figure if we can get it to the point where the rules as written can be consistently applied, then we can go from there to "change the rules as written so a smaller persistent condition can't overwrite a larger one, unless that's the intention".

It does seem to me like the rules as written allow for a 4 fixed persistent effect to overwrite a 3d12 persistent effect, and unless that's intended the persistent damage rules need a few tweaks.

So here's a question: what would be a better solution? I honestly see why they might keep it as is, since it's simple. The solution needs to be quick to resolve so it can be handled and move on to the next part of combat. It also has to deal with values that might be fixed, dice based, or a combination of the two.

Draco18s wrote:
Aricks wrote:

-at the end of subject's next turn, roll 2d6

-if that number is greater than 4, then the 2d6 persistent condition replaces the 4 persistent condition.
-if the number is less than or equal to 4, the 4 persistent condition remains

This doesn't work as you have to make that determination when the 2d6 is GAINED, not at the end of the affected creature's next turn.

There is only one box for "Persistent Fire Damage." If there is something already in the box you can't put a second one in unless its bigger (and it replaces). You can't "put it to the side and figure it out later" because then its not in the box.

Only things in the box count.

I think I might have been overly wordy in the last paragraph because I said the same thing :)

It's a paradox. You have to replace the persistent damage condition when applied but you can't know which is stronger until you roll and you can't roll until the end of the affected thing's turn.

There might be a workable path though. I keep looking in the rules and I don't see anything that technically says you have to roll the damage at the end of the affected's turn, just that it is taken at the end of the affected's turn and that you are "rolling any damage dice anew each time". So as long as it's rerolled before it's taken again it doesn't matter when you do it.

So, would it really be wrong to roll the damage dice on application of a new persistent damage condition to see which condition is stronger?

EDIT: looking at the damage rules entry might even support this, since it says you roll the damage after a successful strike or whatnot and that persistent is taken at the end of the target's turn, but I didn't see anything specific about when you rolled persistent damage, so I think we can go with rolling on application, the question then becomes when is the best time to reroll any already present persistent damge.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Yes, because Paizo's intent is definitely to maximize the amount of bookkeeping players and GMs must do to implement the mechanics. That's one of the guiding principles of PF2!

Also, the current wording is not unclear, it is merely incomplete. Incompleteness is not sufficient cause to throw out the part that is there and rewire everything based on a guess as to what Paizo may "really" have intended.

I dunno, if you wanted to go the "interpret it like you're a computer" route, then the rule doesn't seem to have too much wiggle. You could practically write it out as code.

-subject has 4 persistent acid damage
-subject is hit by an acid bomb outside of it's turn doing 2d6 persistent damage
-at the end of subject's next turn, roll 2d6
-if that number is greater than 4, then the 2d6 persistent condition replaces the 4 persistent condition.
-if the number is less than or equal to 4, the 4 persistent condition remains
-apply the damage from the persistent damage condition
-roll flat check to see if the persistent damage condition falls off
-if the condition remains, the damage would be rolled again at the end of the subject's next turn.

The 2nd case (aka the "else") would suck if you were the source of the 2d6 damage, because basically your attack did nothing, but theoretically the die based value should replace the static in this example more often than not. Without doing the math I think I'd prefer it if the "greater than" was replaced by "greater than or equal to" and "less than or equal to" replace by "less than". Would also suck if there was a source of 3 persistent that got applied and the next 2d6 roll was a 2, but that's the danger of using variable persistent damage I guess.

There is a problem with my example, which is when do conditions technically apply? I think as written they apply immediately, which means you can't actually do the above example and we're back to being either unclear or incomplete depending on how you interpret it, since you don't know which is higher until the end of the subject's turn since you have to wait to roll for it.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

"If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition" means that the "higher" amount overrides the "lower" amount in the question of which you get persistently. You only have one amount of PD to check each round (of a given type).

It almost seems when they wrote the rule they never intended for persistent damage to be based off a die roll, and instead for it to always be a flat value.

Alternatively, does it actually say in the rules somewhere that you re-roll the value of persistent damage every round? The rule you quoted would make more sense and apply more consistently if you only rolled the persistent damage value once.

EDIT: wow, I need more coffee this morning. Ignore part 2 up there, it's right under Persistent Damage (
"rolling any damage dice anew each time"

So we're back to vagueness in the rule.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I have played nearly every caster or seen nearly every caster in place. The biggest difference between a fun caster and a lame caster is useful focus spells and cantrips. It's like a major difference.

I don't mean spell list cantrips every class gets. I mean stuff like a druid's tempest surge or a cleric's healing/harm font or a witch's hex cantrips or curse of death. The bard's composition cantrips and effects.

These are the abilities give casters the means to endure, while waiting for good opportunistic moments to unleash higher level spells.

Yet the wizard gets almost no focus spells on par with other classes. The sorcerer is a very mixed bag. Fix this issue and the wizard and sorcerer complaining will go away.

And in the future base design for casters should be to give them class cantrips unique to the class and powerful offensive abilities they can use at least once every fight.

I don't want to derail the thread, because I agree with this opinion, but I'd also like to chime in from an alchemist perspective, since I feel we fall under the "casters" definition above if you squint and turn your head to the side a bit.

Players want their characters to feel powerful, or useful, or badass, etc. Standing in place and casting electric arc every round, because this is the first encounter of the day and you don't want to waste your limited spells on mooks, doesn't feel powerful or useful or badass, it feels lame. Replace electric arc with crossbow and spells with bombs and you've got a bomber alchemist perspective.

Focus spells are great because they let you do something better than your fallback attack once or twice a fight. Wizards, sorcerers, and alchemists would benefit from something like this, or in the alchemist case something like this that shows up before level 7.

Cordell Kintner wrote:
Oh, I could have sworn Deafened made casting with Verbal components harder. Guess I was just assuming it as a holdover from PF1.

Yeah, I was in the same boat. Had a bit of a flat "what" moment when I actually read the rules in detail. I'm hoping it gets Errata'd soon.

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

If you want to mess with casters, you’d need to get your hands on the formula for Peshpine Grenades.

The Stupefied is condition is rather nasty for casters.

Yup, that seems to do what thunder stones should do in the first place. I haven't looked to see if Age of Ashes is PFS'able yet, I want to check now.

Oddly enough, the Dwarven Daisies lock down casters pretty well too, since it sometimes inflicts dazzled on the target, so assuming they want to cast something at anything besides themselves, it'd be the standard concealed flat check. I'm suddenly reminded of the "can you magic missile something that is concealed" thread. Although, reading dazzled closely, "all creatures and objects are concealed from you", does that mean you're concealed from yourself to target yourself with a spell?

I wonder if you quick alchemy a dwarven daisy with dazzling from debilitating bombs feat, would the target have to save twice or would it be counted as one effect? Same question crops up for peshpine grenades and greater debilitating bomb feat with stupified from there.

Cordell Kintner wrote:
Aricks wrote:
FYI, thunder stones don't actually hurt casters except for a specific set of spells with the auditory trait. Spells with a verbal component but no auditory trait are unaffected.
I can count on one hand the number of non-focus spells without verbal components.

Just stating that thunder stones don't really disable casters.

Thunder stones apply deafened, and the deafened condition affects the auditory trait. It doesn't cause failures for spells with the verbal component. It actually protects the target from any spells or effects with the auditory trait.

They're only useful for sonic damage.

Source Core Rulebook pg. 619 1.1
You can’t hear. You automatically critically fail Perception checks that require you to be able to hear. You take a –2 status penalty to Perception checks for initiative and checks that involve sound but also rely on other senses. If you perform an action with the auditory trait, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or the action is lost; attempt the check after spending the action but before any effects are applied. You are immune to auditory effects.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Basically, alchemists are strong vs multiple targets, not so much single targets. That's why you need to use various bombs. Electric is great if you have a rogue in the party, Acid if you just want to melt the target with persistent damage, Thunderstones to disable casters, and Dread Ampoules for the Frightened debuff.

Fair enough, I've never had a cluster of baddies to bomb in society play except doing 1 damage to some spiders, after which the wizard burning handed them to death. Making swarms a non issue was fun though.

It would be really nice if bombers did more damage to single target if they choose not to do a radius damage, it would help a lot, though I'd rather have better accuracy with the debuff bombs I'll eventually get so i can be a reliable debuffer. Maybe better accuracy if they choose not to cause radius splash?

I'm waiting on the 2nd round errata to resume PFS, because it just wasn't fun using my bomber through level 4.

FYI, thunder stones don't actually hurt casters except for a specific set of spells with the auditory trait. Spells with a verbal component but no auditory trait are unaffected.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Also, yes Alchemists do less damage, but they spread that damage to multiple targets. Doing 4 damage to 5 enemies with a single action at level 4 is pretty good.

Above poster is correct, intmod instead of default (so typically 4 instead of 2) and then intmod plus default (so typically 4 plus 2).

Also, no offense, but there's a few "if" missing from the quote above. If the enemies are grouped up enough, which most GM's actively avoid if the critters have any sort of smarts. Also, if your teammates aren't mixed in with them, so typically not after round 1 of combat. There's no selective splash in PF2.

You also can't pick area size with the increased damage of expanded splash, so if you want to do intmod plus default splash you can't choose it to be in a 5 ft radius, has to be 10 ft or nothing, assuming you're a bomber.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks James for the info. While I would personally prefer to get the 2nd round errata before the 2nd round printing, it's really great to get an update and expected timeline on this. You folks are busy with everything it takes to keep a gaming company going for us to enjoy and anything you all can do to keep is in the loop is appreciated.

Regarding the thread, here's my thought. People are going to have opinions that differ from yours, and that's just the way the world is. I've discovered that telling people "no your feeling are wrong" isn't really something that is going to change anything, because feelings are feelings.

Maybe try "I see your viewpoint is ______, personally mine is ______ and here's why". Will you change their mind? Maybe, maybe not, but talking about your own thoughts, experiences, and feelings instead of telling other people how they should think or feel goes a long way to keeping a thread a pleasant place to hang out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Aricks wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Honest question---do we have any idea what portion of PF2's customer base will even notice released errata/faqs/updates? I'd think a very large fraction just buy the darn books (maybe a subscription) w/o ever paying any attention to the forums, the blog, or other channels for announcements.
For starters, every PFS player? What percentage is that?
Dunno. If someone told me it was a majority, I expect I'd believe them. If someone told me it's 10%, I'd believe that. I don't know how many people are in PFS or how big the customer base is.

I agree. There are sources but they're not public.

You do have to register to play, so I imagine you'd look at number of registered players that played more than one event in the last year. Normally I'd say 6 months but the dread plague has made data analysis all sorts of wacky for lots of things.

That's a solid data point. Compare with number of rulebooks sold and maybe look at website hits on the FAQ and the other online resources.

I know the people I play with love a physical book to have and paw through, but search engines and online rules are great for finding that random bit of knowledge you need quickly. Also handy for finding out what the current consensus on a vague rule is, which is why we really, really need a frequently updated FAQ.

A FUFAQ if you will.

As much fun as reading all the pages of the the great "how many hands for battle medicine" thread was, it would have been nice if early on there was an official "hey folks, good points all around, we'll look into this. For now battle medicine hand use should be at GM discretion until we do the design math on it. For PFS until stated otherwise you need N hands." PFS already does this sometimes but I think they have to be careful about overstepping the official decisions.

Bad example if this was already answered but you know what I mean.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Honest question---do we have any idea what portion of PF2's customer base will even notice released errata/faqs/updates? I'd think a very large fraction just buy the darn books (maybe a subscription) w/o ever paying any attention to the forums, the blog, or other channels for announcements.

For starters, every PFS player? What percentage is that?

Especially since they can't use house rules to fix issues with certain classes that shall not be mentioned in this thread.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Round 2 errata was supposed to be out after Jan 1 of 2020, per an old forum post. I read in the forum somewhere that the person who was working on the round 2 errata was part of the staff reorg, but that might be a "my cousin's brother's former roommate said _____" situation so who knows.

It seems like currently they're working to finish up and push out content with their reduced staff that was already partly down the pipeline before the dread plague hit. I have no idea how far in advance some of this is developed really, I've never worked for a pencil and paper game dev company, but I'd think they have a development pipeline like most other content companies.

It may be they're in rough shape and they're only surviving as a company by using all their staff to keep content moving down the pipeline, and can't divert the hours to working on round 2 errata.

Most of my work experience is in infosec devops. It's a recognized thing that at some point you need to go back and refactor code, or refine old workflows, or revamp infrastructure, otherwise as you add more stuff the underlying foundation starts to get unstable.

I genuinely hope that this is still a temporary thing while the economy recovers and they're not just ignoring it because it doesn't generate sales. I'd also hope that it is recognized that some people aren't going to buy new content if there are still bugs that need fixing in the base product.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

The next errata update after the 1st was stated to be scheduled for January after the new year. The next piece of info I saw was that the next errata release would be right after Gencon.

I mean, I understand, dread plague and everything else, but it would be nice to see something officially posted about it. I'm not thrilled if they slip a date, but I'm ok with it if they're upfront about why.

I'd love to see a list of what is being looked at. Pazio != a software company, but I'd love to see community feedback such as:

"this month we're looking into concerns A&B, and whether they'll need clarification or a rules change"


"we're looking at identified problem C, and possible solutions X,Y, or Z, but we're still testing which is the best solution."

heck, even just info like "we're working with AP authors on some new guidelines for material, and our first draft of the new expansion book was compiled yesterday, we're excited to start testing it."

Am I missing some source of source of regular information like this? I mostly check the blog but it feels like this is out there somewhere but I'm not seeing it.

shroudb wrote:

Bombs are ranged thrown weapons.

(directly from the rules of alchemical items: "Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet")

The lack of the Thrown trait means that they don't get bonus damage from strength (since that's all the Trait does for a ranged weapon), but all other instances that you just need a thrown weapon like Raging thrower apply normally.

I don't disagree, but that also means we're back to Schrodinger's Bomb from above, since a Juggler can do Reflexive Catch on the bomb and it still does splash damage, so it both has and has not "gone off" so to speak.

Maybe it just spills a little?

Tarpeius wrote:

To get a little more into the dirt of the rules:

Does "thrown weapon attack" refer to the Thrown trait or just an attack where the weapon is thrown? There are also references to "melee weapon attacks" and "ranged weapon attacks," which obviously don't reference traits. And, as initially pointed out, alchemical bombs are "martial thrown weapons" (that lack the Thrown trait).

Add to the list:

  • Can a Juggler use Reflexive Catch with an alchemical bomb?
  • Good catch on PBS. Reflexive Catch is ambiguous. Usually they're very specific about such things, in this case it would say "a weapon with the thrown trait" versus "a thrown weapon". That said, the rules for bombs also have a lot of "throw a bomb" verbiage in the rules despite not being thrown weapons.

    So, paradoxically, you could potentially throw a bomb at target next to a Juggler, fail your attack roll, the Juggler could Reflexive Catch the bomb and start juggling it, and the target would take splash damage, because " On a failure (but not a critical failure), the target of the attack still takes the splash damage."

    Point blank shot only works on volley weapons, so nope on bombs(EDIT SEE BELOW), and I think it's intentional that bombs don't benefit from strength, though the idea of a bomb being juuuust sturdy enough to do some blunt damage before it goes off is funny to me for some reason.

    The Dual Thrower feat for the Dual-Weapon Warrior archetype seems to apply though, due to the "or a one-handed ranged weapon you are wielding" part of the feat. If I'm reading this right, it would effectively allow you to throw 2 bombs, 1 at -2 because it's not agile, at a single target using the Double Slice action but applying to ranged weapons. That's interesting. Combining this and Double Brew might be fun, if you don't mind the first feat investment not really being useful for an alchemist.

    The Juggler archetype have some feats that seem hilarious and mechanically helpful for bombs as well, though the later feats also only work for thrown weapons, so not bombs.

    EDIT:wrong on point blank shot, from what I can tell it would benefit from the feat. Probably only on initial damage and not persistent damage like for an acid bomb.

    A familiar with valet pretty much replaces quick bomber for an alchemist, and works for things that aren't bombs, assuming you have plenty of bandoliers.

    Not necessarily a build, but the Familiar feat for alchemists pretty much replaces Quick Bomber for bombers now, if you're willing to keep your bombs and elixirs in bandoliers and your familiar has the Valet ability. Not only will it draw bombs for you, but also elixirs, poisons, etc. It seems like it helps all alchemists really, almost in the "it's a trap to not take this feat" sense.

    Did they ever make a ruling as to how many bandoliers you can have equipped? I'm thinking I'm going to wear at least 3 or 4.

    QuidEst wrote:
    They mentioned in a not-a-promise way that they'd like to get it out by the 30th of this month.

    I remember reading that in December 2019.

    Ediwir wrote:

    There's the small footnote that we are talking uniquely about bombs, which are the only attack in the game that hits on a miss by default.

    Alchemists attack using simple weapons more than bombs for a long time, unless you're burning all your reagents on bombs and foregoing most of your formulas. You should have a decent Str/Dex anyways, even if you were to use Int for bombs...

    For one point of damage. You do one point of damage if you miss. Once you get to level 3 it does 2 points of damage. At level 4 it does int mod damage if you take a feat. It also doesn't apply any of the bombs effects, and it only hits the target, not the area. At 10 it does int mod plus 2 for the cost of another feat. It's not nothing but let's be realistic about how much is being done.

    Which is part of the reason alchemist feats are often called "math fixes". No new abilities, no new attacks, just that thing you were doing already is slightly better. Granted, you occasionally get new elixir types as you level but it's less often than a caster gets new spells.

    Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:
    Draco18s wrote:
    Inquisitive Tiefling wrote:
    To be fair, it does mean that Alchemists can keep themselves prepared for the long-haul. You never know when you're gonna have prolonged or even multiple fights without a chance to restock, rest, or even heal.

    While true my point was more that it shouldn't take a 7th level class feature (and a magic item) to do that.

    Wizards have cantrips that serve that same purpose at level 1.

    Wizards also can't sell off their cantrips or hand them off to someone else. Not without investing in crafting, which Alchemists more or less already do.

    If we're talking consumables made during downtime, and not class abilities like infused reagents, then scrolls are only 1gp more expensive at level 3 than an equal level bomb, but are much better IMO.

    Grim Tendrils, Hydraulic Push, Acid Arrow, Sound Burst? If you're going to stock up on stuff you crafted during downtime for emergencies any of those scrolls beat bombs hands down, and that's just a few damage spells. Bonus, their spell attack automatically scales up to the caster level, so no 100gp and investment cost to make them effective later on.

    Bombs can be used by anyone, sure, but they're not more damaging or effective when an alchemist throws them without feat investment, and that only buffs damage slightly.

    Deadmanwalking wrote:
    HumbleGamer wrote:
    To get the +3 item bonus a character has to be around lvl 18, while an alchemist unlocks it by lvl 11 with elixirs.

    This really only compensates for the fact that their attack stat (Dex) is not their key stat rather than for their lower Proficiency.

    Technically, they're equal in stats or Proficiency and thus only -1 behind rather than -2 at levels 3-4, 7-9, and 15, and 17-19. That's 9 levels out of 20 and less than half the time. And before 11th level this really eats into their action economy in a bad way due to the duration of the Mutagen that provides this, meaning it's not an 'always on' advantage by any means. The 11th level version is better, it's true, having a one hour duration, but that means that only at levels 15 and 17-19 is this really the advantage you're saying it is. Four levels out of 20 is not a lot, especially if all are at the very end of your career.

    And even for those levels, this comes with a loss of 2 HP per level, making them effectively a 6 HP per level class while using it, which is a pretty big downside.

    It's a good buff for a ranged character who is never targeted by enemies, but like many Alchemist buffs, giving it to the Fighter is better than using it for yourself and even then only a minimal advantage (+1 to hit for -2 HP per level is a mediocre trade most days...the speed bonus probably makes it worth it for a Fighter, but less so for the Alchemist themself who is using their relatively short-ranged bombs).

    Exactly, those quicksilver mutagens are effectively once per combat until level 11, and they also come with a -2 Fort save. So, if you're a bomber that "bonus" is eating into your bomb supply which isn't great at low level anyway. Also, being a 6 HP per level class with quicksilver wouldn't be so bad if it just reduced your max HP and it came back after it wore off, but it doesn't, it damages you, so you have to spend resources or time healing that damage, which either cuts more into your reagents for elixirs of life, or you're eating a limited number of healing spells, or you're taking up a "getting bandaged" slot post battle with medicine.

    I'm reminded of the first time I played an alchemist at Gencon a year ago, and what really wasn't fun was every time I used a sling instead of throwing a bomb because it didn't seem throwing the bomb was worth it.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Narxiso wrote:

    I disagree. The fighter's knockdown does not work on anything incorporeal or something outside of the fighter's reach (such as a flying creature). Every class has times when they do not perform at their peak and cannot use ever tool they have available. That does not necessarily make them bad.

    Still works on the majority of things, and against a flier they have to pull out a bow and do nothing but shoot, which is exactly what the alchemist mentioned above has to do except that's all they do during every combat once out of bombs. And, every bomb you throw, at a lousy hit rate, is fewer buffs or heals or useful elixirs.

    That's why playing an alchemist sucks at lower levels, you can badly throw bombs, or hand out buffs that either expire so quick they're useless or have a nasty drawback (or both!), or you have healing with the worst possible action economy. And once you're out you're a peasant with a crossbow. Yeah, you buffed your party but it'd be nice to be more than a vending machine with a crossbow.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    ExOichoThrow wrote:
    I think alchemist is great for what it is.. I think just like casters it isnt great at specialization just yet but it provides utility that most other people cant match. Being able to provide dark vision elixirs, insane healing, good aoe threats with bombs etc. Even providing poisons for your party.. they're imo a really solid class for a support.

    Yes, in theory alchemists would be good at that, but in reality they can't actually do all those things due to their resource limits and buff quality at levels lower than 7.

    4 poison doses, two dark vision elixirs (because you can't make just one ahead of time) 4 elixir of life and 4 bombs taps you out at level 3. You'll miss with half those bombs for ignorable splash damage and no debuff effects. I hope you like demoralising or shooting crossbows because that's all you'll do the rest of the day. That also means nothing clever like quick alchemy either.

    I think casters (and alchemists sort of count here) can do great things if they happen to be able to plan ahead or get lucky with what they want to bring that day. But, that sleep spell is going to sit unused the whole day if you run into nothing but undead, or bravo's brew of no one gets feared. Compare with a fighter's knockdown feat which works on anything, is an effective debuff, and can be used all day.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Cranthis wrote:
    I don't believe they will touch the alchemist. There are a lot of people concerned about their direct power, but don't seem to get how insanely versatile they are to make up for it. This post and its comments do a great job of highlighting the strengths of the alchemist, despite the kind of antagonistic title. They also have a "recommended build" section that can be ignored for these purposes, the rest of the post still makes good points.

    The problem I have with that post is it reads awesome in theory but you can't actually do it in practice, because they ignore the limits of reagents you have. A combined double elixir of health heals for a bunch, sure, but at 3 reagents per you're not doing it more than once a day. Plus the actual penalties of a mutagen means you get your head critted in.

    Throw a bomb or two, drink a mutagen or three, poison all your teams weapons, hand out elixirs of life to your team and keep 3 reagents handy for your super heal. That's awesome but you'll need a long rest after every fight.

    Cautiously optimistic for Alchemist fixes and a Sturdy shield rune, though the latter was just the best idea I saw and anything that helps some shields not be consumable items would be good.

    Although, thinking about shields and alchemists gives me a crazy idea and it's totally the wrong post and/or forum but what the heck.

    Alchemical Shield Paste:
    Temporary HP for shields until it (flakes off/dissolves/evaporates). Has balanced hardness and HP for level, maybe zero hardness, and still allows the use of the shield's magical abilities where appropriate.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    NECR0G1ANT wrote:
    Aricks wrote:
    I personally have given up on my alchemist, PF2, and PFS in general.

    What does PFS have to do with it?

    Just giving context, I really like PFS in general and the folks I've played with are great, but it also means something like house rules can't really help.

    I agree that paizo shouldn't have hateful things directed at their staff, and this should be a place where people can discuss things in a civil way. I think a moderated forum with clear rules can be great for this. I also think that people should be able to talk about their concerns and experiences and not have them written off as baseless complaining.

    I'm of the opinion that regular information provided to your community is more helpful than not, and gave some examples of what I'd like to see. Personal attacks on what might happen in the future aren't useful to anybody.

    It was stated that there was supposed to be a second round of CRB errata on the way back in December. That was before the dread plague though.

    Unless you want to read through all the posts from the developers every few days there's been no information about errata. No official release of information about when that errata is going to be out or what it contains. I'm not even sure any more alchemist changes are going to be in it. The lack of any information has been very frustrating. A once a week post on the blog saying "hey, here's what we're working on this week" would be great. "Here's the ability or skill we're looking into this week" would be even better. Trello boards for software development come to mind. Yeah, the community will discuss it to death and might get hot tempered but that's what rules, mods and bans are for.

    I check the blog every other day, and read through those "here's what we're streaming" posts and am disappointed every time I see nothing on anything that might make my favorite class not the pale shadow of what it was in PF1.

    I personally have given up on my alchemist, PF2, and PFS in general. The whole reason I liked it was a chance to get out of my work from home job and go see people and have fun. The alchemist, for the most part, hasn't really been fun. Yeah, it had moments and eventually it might be but why should my character not feel fun for the first 6 levels? Why doesn't it get the cool choice of class feats instead of boring stat boosts (I'm looking at you, Far Lobber).

    The alchemist was a new class to begin with and had a bunch of changes between play test and release. I don't think it got enough testing between play test and release. I'm hoping it'll see some love soon but I'm not going to hold my breath.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    FYI for anyone reading this, Gencon 2020 is officially not happening. There's an online version but the convention in Indy is cancelled.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Divine Lance all the things.

    That said....

    There's a difference between "I only care about myself" evil and "kittens are part of a nutritious breakfast" evil.

    Sure, you can Divine Lance everyone as a test but it's not like it's going to tell you what they ate that morning. If an evil aligned person doesn't break any laws, is it really ok to just randomly slaughter them?

    Oh, right....adventurers.

    Nefreet wrote:

    Apparently this discussion isn't new.

    It's also been asked in the Stickied thread at the top of this Forum.

    I found two posts where different users recall Jason Bulmahn stating in a YouTube interview that Persistent Damage isn't doubled on a Crit, but without being able to find that interview myself, I'll hold judgment until someone can.

    Given how often it seems this question comes up, ask your GM how they rule it and move on with the round.

    Except the rulebook gives an example where persistent damage is doubled on a crit.

    I'm not playing an alchemist anymore until they errata it, for all the reasons I've said a hundred times, but in talking with various PFS GM's I've played with all agree that all the damage of the bomb is doubled on a crit except for the damage that is explicitly labeled as splash damage.

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    citricking wrote:
    graystone wrote:
    citricking wrote:
    Bombs are a good bit better than cantrips though, and they even out perform fighters at level 3.
    Are they? Same action to use as cantrips, similar damage to weapons [one to draw, one to throw], slight damage to friends and foes in an area... What's a "good bit better" and how is it "out perform fighters at level 3"?
    Quick bomber to throw one at full attack bonus, one at -5. With burn it or a quick silver mutagen you do more expected damage than a d12 weapon using fighter making two attacks at level 3 (this is vs equal level moderate Ac with persistent damage counted as applying once, only damage to primary target counted)

    And then the fighter gets a striking rune at level 4 and the alchemist falls way behind the curve again.

    So, with a self-harming consumable or a specific race and ancestry feat, a class feat, a class focus, using limited per day items, an alchemist is on par with a fighter using no feats or special attacks, for one level of play.

    Well, it all makes sense now.

    citricking wrote:
    Bombs are a good bit better than cantrips though, and they even out perform fighters at level 3.


    At level 3:

    Electric Arc does 2d4 +4 to two targets, with no friendly fire. That's more total damage than the most damaging alchemist fire.

    Alchemist Fire: 11 avg damage plus 1 persistent to one target, if they hit,and 2 points to the other
    Electric Arc: 9 points average to each target

    Alchemist is going to have +5(Trained plus level) +1 item +3 Dex so +9 to hit
    Fighter is going to have +7(Expert plus level) +1 item +4 Str/Dex so +12 to hit.

    That's HUGE in PF2 math. Plus, the fighter can do it all day and potentially gets Str bonus damage, as opposed to potentially 14 bombs (making nothing but bombs) for the Alchemist.

    At best, the alchemist is going to do one or two points of damage if they miss.

    So no, I don't agree at all that they can outperform fighters OR cantrips

    1 to 50 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>