Azurespark's page

166 posts. Alias of Some Random Dood.


RSS

1 to 50 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frogliacci wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

The one downside to the +1 to item bonus solution is that it ends up relatively devaluing mutagens that don't give item bonuses.

Right now that's only Energy and Stone Body, but there will probably be more down the line.

what about this: you can choose either +1 to the mutagen's item bonus, or a +1 to your own AC at the cost of reducing your dexterity cap by 1?

That +1 to AC could also be used to offset the AC penalties many mutagens give you.

It's not difficult to reach the dex cap for light armor (+3). So I don't see that being of much use. Maybe just a flat choice between +1 to item bonus or AC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Selkor wrote:
Would you as a GM allow an alchemist player to be able to take Enhanced familiar like the other familiar based classes Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard?

It's odd that they don't get that option, and I don't see anything wrong with allowing it. So sure, if I was running a game, I'd be fine with that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Like I said, you only get three skills raised above Trained (unless you spread the increases around which means fewer skills at Master and Legendary). And you're not getting item bonuses for all your skills.

Why not? Most classes only have 3-5 skills they care about. And you can raise 3 skills to legendary. You could get item bonuses to multiple skills, or get other bonuses to skills. Plus you won't always be making level appropriate checks.

Staffan Johansson wrote:
I think Trained with an OK-but-not-great stat should be the baseline for skill competence. You shouldn't need to hyperspecialize in something to have a better than 50% chance. Specializing should be what gets you from competent to awesome.

It's already been pointed out, but there are several types of bonuses, and you won't always be making level appropriate DCs. So the success rate of trained skills is closer to 50%.

Staffan Johansson wrote:
For example, look at the TV show Leverage. The characters there are all what I'd call high-level rogues in Pathfinder terms (except maybe Eliot who might be a fighter or monk with some rogue dedication feats). They are all fairly competent in all aspects of pulling a heist - they can all pick pockets, fast-talk their way into a situation, pick a regular lock, and so on. But if you need to get into a super-secure place, you want Parker to pick that lock, not Hardison. And if you want to hack into the big mainframe, that's Hardison's job. And while Hardison can talk his way past a guard, Sophie is the one who can gain the trust of the mark.

So a specialist does better than someone who doesn't specialize in that area? I'm not seeing a problem here. Or is it that a specialist will auto succeed at something? Because part of the design philosophy of pf2 was that you can't auto succeed at level appropriate tasks any more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

You left out item bonuses.

And if you don't care enough about a skill to raise it above trained at high levels you probably shouldn't be attempting high level tasks.

So, are you only supposed to use the 2-3 skills you can afford to raise to master/legendary? That seems terribly restrictive.

If we add in circumstance, item, and status bonuses, the success rate greatly increases to the point where a trained skill could succeed on a 7, maybe less. Sure you won't be fully buffed all the time, but if you cared about that skill, you'd probably have some kind of item bonus to it. And with that item bonus, you would succeed with a trained skill roughly half the time.

And not every check you make, will be level appropriate. So there will be varying degrees of success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Now I have to wonder if you could take multi-class Sorcerer and use the Sorcerer Enhanced Familiar feat to get another two abilities. :)

Lol, sure why not. But honestly, why would you? Is 8 points not enough?


Yea, I guess they could have worded it a bit different. Something like this.

Quote:
Enhanced Familiar - Your familiar gains an additional 2 ability points.

Okay so at 1st level, if you take the thesis, you will have 3 ability points (2 base + 1 from thesis). You can use these on any familiar or master ability. Then at 2nd level, you take the feat, this gives you 2 more ability points, for a total of 5. And then at levels 6, 12, and 18, you would gain 1 additional ability point. For a total of 8 points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you have "Enhanced Familiar", then your familiar starts with 4 ability points instead of 2. And then "Improved Familiar Attunement" gives you an addition ability point at 1st, 6th, 12th, and 18th levels. So by 18th level, your familiar would have 8 ability points. And you can change which abilities you have every day.


prototype00 wrote:

I imagine humans have a really easy time to get Flickmace proficiency (and Half Elves/Half Orcs by extension), but for the other races (besides gnomes), isn't it rather difficult for them?

Therefore only gnomes and the most adaptable races have it, thats probably still in flavour.

The "Adopted Ancestry" feat has no requirements. So anyone willing to, can pick it up for the cost of 2 feats.


24 people marked this as a favorite.

It's weird how someone can become more proficient with something they never used (like say light armor), but they never get any better with something they've used for over 10 levels (like say medium or heavy armor).

If someone goes out of their way to take a feat and gain medium/heavy armor, then their proficiency with it should raise alongside your proficiency with light armor. Same with weapons.

With things the way they are, there's no point in those weapon/armor feats even existing. You could even say they are a trap option. Though that may be going a little too far.


Nice work. Could you add a button to "roll again"? Otherwise a person would have to reload the page to get a new random character.


Smugmug wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

I want my Familiar and Druid Dedication will give me cantrips and solve as quickly as level 2 the "peasant with a crossbow issue" ;)

I'm not sure if attack cantrips are a solution to the "peasant with a crossbow issue" unless you go with an int caster. Druid keys of Wisdom, so both their Spell Attack Rolls (spellcasting ability modifier + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties) as well as their cantrip damage are dependent on their Wisdom score. So it's yet another Stat you may need to increase, plus the Archetype feats for Expert/Master Spellcasting to keep up your proficiency. So not exactly cheap to do.

Alchemists have a low will save, so raising wis would be a good idea. And if he's going with a ranged build, all you really need is dex, wis, and int for reagents. Then maybe a point or 2 into str or con.

Sure you may not rival the wisdom of a full class druid, but if you start with a 14 and raise it at lvs 5 and 10, then compared to someone who started with an 18, you'll only be behind by +1. And if that druid started with a 16 wis instead, you won't fall behind until lv15. But you won't even reach that point in PFS.


Arachnofiend wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

In English:

The opposite of strong (high STR) is weak (low STR). That matches.

The opposite of graceful (high DEX) is clumsy (low DEX). That matches.

The opposite of robust (high CON) is sickly (low CON). That matches.

The opposite of smart (high INT) is educationally challenged (low INT). That matches.

The opposite of wise (high WIS) is oblivious (low WIS). That matches.

The opposite of friendly (high CHA) is arrogant/rude/demanding (also high CHA). That doesn't match.

Low CHA is actually 'forgettable' or 'socially inept'. But this doesn't fit the pattern.

How can you justify high charisma as being friendly when it's the stat you use to bully people?

I know the topic is about intimidate, but diplomacy is another cha based skill.


graystone wrote:
To be fair, I'm not defending the alchemist per se, I'm just pointing out that they aren't 100% awful. I've said elsewhere it seems better to be some other class and multiclass into alchemist than actually be one: snag the healing or utility elixirs for free x times per day isn't bad, though you have to take some extra feats to get access to the good stuff. In the end, if you try REALLY hard, you can come in second or third best at whatever thing you try to focus in [melee, ranged or healing]. They aren't unplayable but you go in knowing you're pretty much always going to be second fiddle unless the DM goes WAY out of their way to tilt things their way [like every monster has an elemental vulnerability]. Or you can be mediocre at multiple aspects... At least you can multiclass into something else at 2nd.

True, they aren't terrible, just...very underwhelming.

And yea, another class with the alchemist dedication feats could make a better alchemist than the alchemist itself.


Colette Brunel wrote:
I am highly skeptical on the merits of, say, a mutagenist alchemist over any other attacker. What does a mutagenist bring to the table?

+1 to hit. But that comes with a penalty of -1 to ac and -2 to reflex saves.

And they can also offer a variety of utility buffs via elixirs/mutagens.


graystone wrote:
The alchemist claim to fame is being able to trigger elemental vulnerabilities: even splash damage will do. After that, flatfooted and speed reductions are fine debuffs.

So the best thing about the alchemist can be done by any other class with a spare feat? Sounds fun.

graystone wrote:
So not exactly exciting but in the right situations it's ok.

Please excuse my cynicism, but it's awfully pathetic if thats the best we can say about the class.

Brew Bird wrote:
Actually, I believe that, as polymorph effects, the strikes granted by mutagens count as magical. See the definition of the polymorph trait on page 301.

Nice. I should give the CRB a thorough reading some time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
My gut assessment is that the alchemist is the weakest class in 2e so far. Atelier Paizo dropped the cauldron on this one.

Yea, just like the rogue and monk were in 1e.

Quote:
As insult to injury, bombs and mutagen-enhanced attacks cannot even handle enemies resistant to non-magical attacks.

Mutagen I can understand. But how does that affect bombs, when they deal elemental damage?


Brew Bird wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I really want to like the alchemist but there are so many medium and small problems it's really frustrating.

...

The class isn't terrible or completely nonfunctional, but if someone asked me what the coolest thing an Alchemist could do would be I'm not sure I could find a good answer. Even their capstone feats aren't that cool.

These are my thoughts exacttly. The PF1 Alchemist was actually the very first class I ever looked at when I got into Pathfinder, and it (along with the Master Chymist) are what got me excited to play the game. The PF2 version of the class looks decent, if a little flawed, but unlike every other PF2 class there's no ability I can personally look at and say "Wow, that's awesome!"

I'm still going to play an Alchemist as my first character, and maybe in practice Alchemists are cool after all, but it's still disappointing to see the class that sold me on Pathfinder 1 now make me hesitant about Pathfinder 2.

I feel the same way. The 1e alchemist is my favorite class in the entire game, with all the cool things they could do. But the 2e alchemist just seems...unimpressive. I'm sure things will improve once they release more books, but that won't fix any of the core issues with the class.


I haven't seen anything that would prevent it. But would they gain any benefit from it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Buffs have been reduced to 3 types of bonuses, circumstance, item, and status. So that should reduce the number of buffs people have up at any one time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awesome, thanks.


Faenor wrote:
Azurespark wrote:
I think it's just weird wording. The alchemical crafting feat says you can now create alchemical items. No restrictions. And the section on alchemical items doesn't forbid it either.
Good point about not having restriction in the Alchemical Crafting feat. The sentence I quoted is from the alchemical items section though (specifically in mutagens), so I guess one could argue that"specific trumps general" but i think it might just be an oversight or leftover from the playtest again.

Your right, if they wanted to add such a restriction, they should have been more clear about it.

Quote:
Typically, only alchemists have the expertise to craft mutagens, and some say they are the only ones reckless enough to use them.

And looking at the sentence as a whole, I feel it's more flavor text than rules text. How many people would drink a transformative elixir that was handed to them by a mad scientist?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Faenor wrote:
Did they just forget to remove this now obsolete clause from the field discovery?

I'd say that's the most likely possibility.

Faenor wrote:

That implies that if you aren't an alchemist, you can't take the Alchemical Crafting feat to craft mutagens, but you could craft any other alchemical item?

The "typically" part is a bit vague, if they wanted this restriction, why not just saying "only alchemists have the expertise to craft mutagens"?

I think it's just weird wording. The alchemical crafting feat says you can now create alchemical items. No restrictions. And the section on alchemical items doesn't forbid it either.


Zwordsman wrote:
Azurespark wrote:

I didn't know about the goggles. But the reason for the 2nd feat, is to raise your alchemy level. With the first feat, your alchemy level will forever be 1, which does limit the types of utility items you can make. With the 2nd feat, your alchemy level is equal to half your character level (max 5), which greatly improves the variety of utility items you can make. And the 3rd feat raises your alchemy to (chara lv - 5).

Most of the debuffs have little relation to the lv of the item interestingly. so even just the first dedication can net some thrown debuffs. Though not always worth the action for someone who speicalizeds in damages.

But yeah there are a ton of nicer utility at higher than lv 1. quite a lot

Yes, I mentioned the 2nd feat because most of the utility elixirs are above lv 1.


If the rules don't explicitly say you can, then I wouldn't expect that to work in society. Because they follow the rules very strictly.


graystone wrote:
Azurespark wrote:
True, I'm sure some other use could be found. But would that utility be worth 2 feats?
2 feats? You only need one to make the items. And there really isn't a reason to go to the next level of feat for a bonus to hit when there are Alchemist Goggles.

I didn't know about the goggles. But the reason for the 2nd feat, is to raise your alchemy level. With the first feat, your alchemy level will forever be 1, which does limit the types of utility items you can make. With the 2nd feat, your alchemy level is equal to half your character level (max 5), which greatly improves the variety of utility items you can make. And the 3rd feat raises your alchemy to (chara lv - 5).


Alyran wrote:
Azurespark wrote:
I wonder how well alchemist would work as a dedication. For 1 feat you can make a number of alchemical items each day for free. This would be great to get the debuffs from bottled lightning, frost vial, and tanglefoot bag since you only need to hit the target. But in the later levels, say lv10+, will (level + 2 + dex) be enough to hit things? You could take the next dedication feat at lv6+ to raise your alchemy level, make the next tier of bomb, and gain a +1 item bonus to hit.
Alchemical bombs are listed as martial ranged weapons, so a fighter with the alchemist dedication would throw them like a boss. :P

Ha ha ha yeah. Barbarians, champions, and rangers wouldn't be far behind either. But the rest of the classes wouldn't go beyond trained.

graystone wrote:
Yep, and even if you can't hit, you can still brew up some healing or utility buffs.

True, I'm sure some other use could be found. But would that utility be worth 2 feats?


I wonder how well alchemist would work as a dedication. For 1 feat you can make a number of alchemical items each day for free. This would be great to get the debuffs from bottled lightning, frost vial, and tanglefoot bag since you only need to hit the target. But in the later levels, say lv10+, will (level + 2 + dex) be enough to hit things? You could take the next dedication feat at lv6+ to raise your alchemy level, make the next tier of bomb, and gain a +1 item bonus to hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A chirurgeon can use craft instead of medicine for any of medicine's uses. But all of those uses require healer's tools.

kaid wrote:

I had that exact same question. Given how much issues alchemists have with bulk as is having to have yet another 1 bulk item to just function seems punishing. Given you use alchemy crafting for the check my gut is they are using the alchemy kit instead of the healer kit but I couldn't find anything to confirm that.

Also there is a mutagen that boosts your medicine skill but does that bonus apply when using your alchemy crafting FOR a medicine check? If not it seems like the main people who would want that mutagen the chirurgeons have no use for it.

I would say no, because you are making a craft check, not a medicine check. But you could use a cognitive mutagen to gain a bonus on crafting checks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They all have a lot of issues.

The current alchemist has a number of issues which I'd like to address. Bulk is the first that comes to mind. All alchemists have to carry at least 3 bulk of gear before we even think of picking up a weapon, armor or anything else you may want to carry.

Alchemist's Kit 2 bulk
Formula Book 1 bulk
Healer's Tools 1 bulk

Yes there are ways to avoid being encumbered, such as raising str, or taking the hefty hauler feat at lv3. But I don't think getting a pack mule or handing them to someone else would solve the problem because these are things you will want with you at all times. And what other class is required to carry around 3 bulk of items just to use their basic class features? Also keep in mind this is not including any weapons or armor.

The next issue involves the different research fields. At 1st level you can choose between Bomber, Chirurgeon, and Mutagenist. They all give you 2 formula's along with some other benefit. I'll go over these one at a time.

Bomber wrote:
When you throw a a bomb with the splash trait, you can chose to deal splash damage to only your target instead of the usual splash area.

This is good because you can prevent your allies from taking splash damage. You will make use of this nearly every combat, so it's easily the best of the 3.

Chirurgeon wrote:
As long as you're trained in medicine, you can make a craft check in place of a medicine check for any of medicine's uses.

So basically this lets you use your int mod instead of your wis mod. It's a good bonus, which amounts to +2-4 on a medicine check. But you still need Healer's Tools on hand, which only worsens the bulk problem.

Mutagenist wrote:
You can benefit from any mutagen, even if it wasn't specifically brewed for you. Whenever your proficiency rank for simple weapons increases, your proficiency rank in unarmed strikes increases to the same rank unless it's better.

Okay that first part does nothing. In the playtest a character could only benefit from a mutagen that was brewed specifically for them. This was removed in the final version, and now everyone can use any mutagen without issue. Now the 2nd part does eventually grant you expert proficiency in unarmed strikes, which is useful. But this doesn't happen until 7th level. So you gain no benefit from being a mutagenist until 7th level.

Alchemical Alacrity wrote:

Your comfort in concocting items is such that you can

create three at a time. When using the Quick Alchemy action, you can spend up to three batches of infused reagents to make up to three alchemical items as described in that action. These items do not have to be the same.
Quote:

First I'd like to make it clear this is an ability you get a lv15. Ok so if you use 1 action and 3 reagents, you can create any 3 alchemical items that you know the formula's for. But anything made with quick alchemy becomes inert at the start of your next turn. So after making the items, you are left with 2 actions to use 3 items.

The only ways I can see this being of use are

1. An ally moves if necessary, takes one, and uses it. This takes 2-3 of their actions, and chances are they will have something better to do on their turn.
2. You somehow gain an extra action and use all 3 items yourself.
3. You take the Enduring Alchemy feat, which gives you an extra turn before items made through quick alchemy go inert.

So 2 out of those 3 uses are situational, and the 3rd requires you to take a certain feat. This feels very underwhelming for a lv15 ability.

{quote=Bestial Mutagen]Benefit- You gain an item bonus to Athletics checks and
unarmed attack rolls. You gain a claw unarmed attack with the agile trait and a jaws unarmed attack.
Drawback- You take a –1 penalty to AC and a –2 penalty to Reflex saves.

This also feels mediocre to me. If we compare it to a weapon of equivalent level, the mutagen grants +1 to hit, -1 to AC and -2 to reflex saves. It feels like the penalties outweigh the benefit.

Here are my suggestions on how to fix these issues.

Reduce the alchemist's kit to 1 bulk, and the formula book to L bulk. This drops the total bulk from 3 to 1.1, which is a lot more managable.

Have the mutagenist research path either increase the benefits from a mutagen by 1 or reduce a mutagen's penalties by 1. I feel this would make them more useful to the alchemist.

Alchemical Alacrity, change it so you can use one of the items you just made as a free action.

Those are the biggest issues I have noticed so far with the class.


Rek Rollington wrote:
But even then, a +2 to skills is a big deal in that you get a 20% extra chance to hit or crit the DC (and 20% less chance to crit fail).

How/why does +2 give you +20% chance to succeed or crit? Shouldn't that be +10%?


I like draconic, the spells and abilities look great, and it fits very well for a character I'm planning.


It is possible it's a typo. But I wouldn't expect someone who takes a dedication to be as good as a main class alchemist. So it could very well be intentional.

We'd need a dev to chime in.


Correct. After taking fighter dedication, you can take basic maneuver in place of any ranger class feat.

And yes, all you're losing is a couple feats. You keep everything else the ranger class gives you. Whether it's worth the trade is up to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At every even level you get a class feat. Now instead of choosing one from your own class, you can chose a dedication feat, such as fighter dedication. This gives you the benefits described in the feat. When you get your next class feat at lv4, you can take any fighter dedication feat you meat the requirements for such as basic maneuver. Basic maneuver lets you pick any 1st or 2nd level fighter class feat that you meet the requirements for, such as point blank shot.

You can take the Advanced Maneuver feat at lv6 and gain another fighter feat. But for the purpose of meeting it's requirements your fighter level is equal to half your character level. And since double shot is a 4th level fighter feat, you'll have to wait until ranger level 8 before you can get it.


Malckuss76 wrote:
Azurespark wrote:

Just noticed that the fighter sheet doesn't give you any space for class feats at levels 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16. The alchemist sheets say you get light armor master at 20, when it should be 19. And I'm sure there are other errors I'm not aware of.

Also there no black and white versions of these class specific sheets. So I would hold off on buying them until these issues are fixed.

The biggest legitimate (to my admittedly biased mind) complaints I have heard so far all have to do with the character sheets,either aesthetically or regarding utility. With the layout of the book catching so much praise, I find this strange. What was wrong with the way the playtest sheet was set up?

The only thing I don't like about the playtest sheet, is that it's in landscape view. So I guess they moved things around to fit portrait view.


I was referring to the animal instincts (pg 86 of the CRB). But I guess that wasn't really the best place to look.


I would say yes, claws, jaws, etc. are unarmed attacks.

If we look at the animal instinct barbarian, when you rage you gain the chosen animal's unarmed attack(s) from table 3-3. And the attacks from that table are fists, jaws, claws, horns. And they all have the unarmed trait.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Just noticed that the fighter sheet doesn't give you any space for class feats at levels 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16. The alchemist sheets say you get light armor master at 20, when it should be 19. And I'm sure there are other errors I'm not aware of.

Also there no black and white versions of these class specific sheets. So I would hold off on buying them until these issues are fixed.


Thewms wrote:
Azurespark wrote:

The way I understand it is, if you are at dying 1, and get attacked, your dying value increases by 1 for a total of 2. Now if you also have wounded 1, that would be added to your dying value for a total of 3. And you would be treated as if you had dying 3 for the purposes of determining when you die.

If you have dying 1, wounded 1, and you get attacked, you don't increase the value by 2 unless that attack was a crit.

That is definitely a valid interpretation. Though I am still unsure what the intended interpretation is, especially given the fact that the GM screen says to add the wounded condition to any increases to you dying value.

A dev weigh-in of course would be nice.

That is odd. Maybe it's just a case of poor wording. The wounded condition itself says that any time you lose the dying condition, you increase your wounded value by 1.

But yes, a dev answer would be good.


Yes, the class specific sheets do improve things. There is enough space for everything, including all of the rogues skill feats. But all of this stuff just doesn't fit that well on the standard sheet.

There is one thing under the "Ancestry Feats and Abilities" section that bugs me. What do you write in the "Special 1st" and Heritage 1st" boxes? The only thing I can think of, is that it's for the extra human feats.


The way I understand it is, if you are at dying 1, and get attacked, your dying value increases by 1 for a total of 2. Now if you also have wounded 1, that would be added to your dying value for a total of 3. And you would be treated as if you had dying 3 for the purposes of determining when you die.

If you have dying 1, wounded 1, and you get attacked, you don't increase the value by 2 unless that attack was a crit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the pregen didn't have a ranged weapon besides your bombs, then that sounds like a s@$*ty pregen. Even the basic alchemist kit comes with both a dagger and sling.

There is a lot of new stuff to learn, so it's easy to overlook something, and that could affect a persons enjoyment. But from what I've read in the book, the alchemist does look underwhelming. Though they could work as a support/debuffer at higher levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Nicolas Paradise wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Azurespark wrote:
Rycke wrote:
That's not really true about the alchemist. You only need the infusion discovery if you want others to be able to the alchemist's job for them. A cure light wounds extract does not heal you for 1d8+level. It allows you to touch someone and heal THEM for that amount.

Sorry what? Infusion clearly says it allows a non-alchemist to benefit from an infused extract.

** spoiler omitted **

Yes, it would allow someone else to use the spell Cure Light Wounds; like the person said.

When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5)

An alchemist would not need Infusion to make that extract useful.

Yes they would see my above rules quote. Extracts always ONLY target the alchemist. All extracts change the target to you.
That reading makes no sense when you consider spells like deathwine or empower holy water , which can only affect specific objects, making it pointless for them to even be on the alchemists list if you use that interpretation.

Yes, there are some rather pointless spells on the alchemist's spell list. I don't know what paizo was thinking when they added those spells. Because as others have pointed out, the class write up contradicts the notion of allowing the drinker to cast the spell on another target.


sherlock1701 wrote:
Given how few ways there are to increase your numbers, no, you can't really afford a 16 in your primary stat. For a solid half of your levels (and if your game doesn't run to 20, possibly more than half), you'll be 5% more likely to fail at your main schtick. That's a huge penalty given the number of rolls you'll make over the game.

What do alchemists use int for? As far as I'm aware, their attack rolls use either dex or str. And that is probably the most common d20 roll. So if you want to optimize that, why not go for 18 dex instead of int?

Sure a 16 in your main stat means you're 5% less likely to succeed at something compared to someone with an 18. But it also means you're 5% more likely to succeed at something else. You can always optimize and go for an 18 if you want. But if an 18 was required, then paizo would have had everyone start with an 18 in their main stat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
p.s. thank you for providing a stat array PROVING our point that bulk is a pure TAX since it disallows any sort of customizability on your starting stats, since you're forced into 16 dex, 18 int, and 12 strength in all and every alchemist

How are you forced into taking an 18 in your main stat? Sure it's useful, but a 16 also works just fine.


Rycke wrote:
That's not really true about the alchemist. You only need the infusion discovery if you want others to be able to the alchemist's job for them. A cure light wounds extract does not heal you for 1d8+level. It allows you to touch someone and heal THEM for that amount.

Sorry what? Infusion clearly says it allows a non-alchemist to benefit from an infused extract.

Infusion:

Benefit: When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist’s daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.


I'd say something that is not directly useful to the character, but is required for something, or should have been built into the class.

One example of this in 1e, is that the alchemist's extracts could only be used by the alchemist. And they would have to take the infusion discovery, before anyone else could benefit from the alchemists extracts.


If you need to wield a weapon to use spell combat, then it doesn't make a difference what you were planning, if you're not wielding a weapon you can't use spell combat.

A simple way around that, is to always wear a cestus, armor spikes, or something like that. Because they don't take up a hand, but you're still considering to be wielding a weapon.


You already have perception as a class skill, so I think both armor expert, and reactionary would be better than a +1 to perception.
Armor expert would let you use a mithral breastplate without proficiency or penalty. But if you're staying at range, then the extra AC wouldn't be so necessary. So I think reactionary would be more useful in that case.


Gun Dragon wrote:
Do I need the precise shot ranged abilities for bows for my bombs and light crossbow?

Precise shot would help, but it's not really necessary since your bombs target touch ac, and that should be easy to hit by lv 5. However, if you will be using a bow as well, then all of the archery feats would be useful.

1 to 50 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>