Tournament Champion

Excaliburproxy's page

1,928 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,928 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Laran wrote:

In regards to Unicorn healing. It is a reasonable play if you want emergency battlefield healing.

The Unicorn can heal a single target twice as a 2-action L3 spell (can't use 3 actions): 3d8 +24 single target. It means that you spend the summoning 3 actions and then the maintain third action to get these two heals

One thing to bear in mind hard is that if the summoned creatures tries to cast a spell EQUAL to or higher than the summoning spell itself,the spell auto fails and its goes pop. Thus, all the creatures from a L1 spell cannot use any spells or cantrips (since they are auto heightened).

Is the cantrip thing an explicit ruling somewhere? I find that shocking/stupid.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone considered the possibility that battle medicine requires MORE than two hands? That may be fertile ground for novel consideration.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you can’t counteract a slowed condition from a curse with haste then why would you be able to counteract the battle oracles penalties with other effects? Even if you say, “well, obviously armor still counts” then are you equally sure that temporary bonuses still apply?

I am not sure where to draw the line as it stands even if “common sense” (which I am unconvinced entirely applies) would omit some possible issues.


Rysky wrote:
It’s not.

Because the effect is a penalty and penalties and bonuses specifically stack? I dunno. I still feel like this might constitute a "bug" in the code.


Graystone may be right? At the very least: I think that might be a reasonable legalistic interpretation of RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You gotta chop the witch’s hands off if only because it sounds like the foundation for some pretty cool heavy metal lyrics.


WatersLethe wrote:
There's also the whole transferring runes from loot onto your nails. It might make a difference in the course of play.

Actually, I think maybe you can do the same thing with handwraps when I read the description on them.

From Nethys: "You can upgrade, add, and transfer runes to and from the handwraps just as you would for a weapon"

An added aside: are handwraps of mighty fists secretly just bandages that you can draw on?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Lyz Liddell wrote:
The intent here is that you can put runes on your nails, and your hands gain those benefits, but they wouldn't apply to e.g. a lizardfolk tail unarmed attack or a goblin's unarmed bite attack, or any special unarmed attacks from a barbarian. It's letting you use runes without having to invest in handwraps of mighty blows, but with the downside that you dont' get the full benefits the handwraps would convey.

I am confused. Why would you ever choose putting runes on your nails rather than using hand wraps that would also enhance your kicks or whatever?

Is it just for people who have 10+ other items to invest?

And other items to spend gold on.
Wouldn't etching runes on your nails be no less expensive than buying handwraps?
Unless I'm reading the Runes vs Handwraps pricings wrong (which is an easy possibility) you start to save a bit going Nails over Handwraps

By Nethys, the Max level hand wraps cost 40k; meanwhile, a +3 potency rune costs 8,935 and a major striking rune costs 31,065.

31,065 + 8,935 = 40,000

The Stiking rune does not include the potency rune (if that is what is tripping you up). At least, I am pretty sure?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Brew Bird is right to my knowledge.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lyz Liddell wrote:
The intent here is that you can put runes on your nails, and your hands gain those benefits, but they wouldn't apply to e.g. a lizardfolk tail unarmed attack or a goblin's unarmed bite attack, or any special unarmed attacks from a barbarian. It's letting you use runes without having to invest in handwraps of mighty blows, but with the downside that you dont' get the full benefits the handwraps would convey.

I am confused. Why would you ever choose putting runes on your nails rather than using hand wraps that would also enhance your kicks or whatever?

Is it just for people who have 10+ other items to invest?


I actually didn't catch this. If that is how it works then it really is a trap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I think both wizards and witches could do with some kind of mechanic for restoring their lost spell receptacle. Like: maybe there could be some kind of ritual for this kind of thing?

Maybe witches could access the ritual for free but other classes with lose-able spell lists could hunt it down.


HeHateMe wrote:

There's definitely a significant group of players who love the "power at a price" theme. I'm not one of them, I look at Oracle and see "Sorcerer with Disabilities".

Too bad, cause I really liked the 1e Oracle. Paizo is developing a habit of taking classes I really liked in 1e (Alchemist, Oracle) and making them suck. Not a good thing for me, that's for sure.

Listen: The alchemist sucked in PF1 as well so I'd say that its place in the power distribution has more or less stayed the same. And of course oracle is going to be worse in PF2E; oracle was awesome in PF1 because it was a power/talent class and now ALL classes are that way in PF2 (and there are no longer "real" feats outside of class powers in this metaphor).

That later point is more or less the thing about PF2E that I am most disappointed by.

That said, I think this version of Oracle has neat little niche that is suitably separate from the sorceror.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I would be fine if the current weapon proficiencies for this class remained the same but studied strike had different limitations. Like: maybe they could be limited to 1-handed weapons rather than agile/finesse weapons.

I feel like an investigator with a truncheon (club/mace) or even a arming sword ("longsword") tracks for me even more than something like an elven curve sword or--for that matter--a spiked chain.


HeHateMe wrote:
kripdenn wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
kripdenn wrote:
Oracles make better gishes in my opinion especially with the Battle mystery gaining heavy armor. And I think the mystery and curse mechanics are very flavorful though the Oracle may need to be balanced more as some of their curses (like the life curse) are brutal with little reward.
Except all a Sorcerer has to do is spend one feat for Champion Dedication and they get heavy armor too. Without dealing with that awful curse. No, Oracle is still just a worse Sorcerer.

Not really though, two class feats to get expert heavy armor, ancestry or general feats to get martial or advanced weapon proficiency and weapon critical effects, toughness or champion feat to get more HP, class feats to get more focus points on refocusing. The feat tax for divine sorcerer gishes is a lot larger and the oracle can spend those feats on archetypes like the hellknight or ancestry feats to improve themselves in other ways.

The place I think oracles are hurting is their heal options (divine evolution is really nice for sorcerers and clerics get fonts) and some of the oracle focus spells (like the battle mystery ones) are really lackluster.

Again, you guys are pointing out Battle Oracle as the only viable option. And frankly, even Battle blows. Warpriests are much better gishes because they get Expert proficiency in their deity's favored weapon at 7th level. A Battle Oracle needs to wait until 11th level, making them ineffective in combat.

Oracle right now is redundant and just doesn't measure up to the classes already in existence. It needs to be ripped up and completely redesigned to be closer to its 1e counterpart.

Battle Oracle gets better armor proficiency and better progression for their spell DCs/spell attacks. And races can give you weapon proficiency pretty easily.

Life lets you play a full caster with the hitpoints of a fighter. The curse sucks, but you can hold off on using your focus spells for a fight or two and generally be pretty well off.

Fire is probably the worst off of the three mysteries but its curse at least has direct offensive and defensive benefits.

I like the kinds of power that can be packaged in with mysteries that don't really fit in the sorcerer's structure.


The various mystery benefits are pretty neat. The extra health of the life mystery and the armor/weapon proficiency of the battle mystery both make for some very atypical casters. I am not in love with the way those curses work, though.

Still, I think the mystery/curse system opens the door for a lot of neat mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Listen: I ain't no neopagan. Magic ain't real. That said, I just want to play grim-dark spooky witches. I want to play the kind of witches that Hellboy blasts apart with a big revolver and Jack Chick warns you about,


I feel like Lifeboost might need the 24 hour limitation to stop it from crowding out other healing options.


Rysky wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Henro wrote:

A multitude few high-level monsters have attacks of opportunity and are also capable of hitting on concentrate actions, and cackling does allow you to sustain and avoid taking a hit in those circumstances. Not saying the feature is in a good spot, but your hyperbole is entirely slightly unwarranted.

Edit: edited because I was incorrect.

And we’re getting a whole new Bestiary in a few months as well.
By why would you expect the percentage of monsters with AoO triggered by concentrate actions would increase? If anything, I would expect it to decrease since additional monsters tend to have more niche abilities than earlier monsters as the lifespan of games stretches on and AoO is kinda boilerplate.
Percentage no. Actual numbers yes.

My point is this: players will probably not see AoO triggered by concentration checks any more often than they do now.

So why does it matter that there will be more monsters? Henro/Gaterie's points still hold.

That’s an assumption you are having.

To be more specific:

My assumption is that the amount of monster we will see w/ AoO will decrease, my statistical expectation will remain the same, and nothing to me says that the amount will increase unless this is specifically something that the designers want to change.

Edit to be a fancy boy:
My assumption => bayesian statistical expectation
My statistical expectation => frequentist statistical expectation


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Henro wrote:

A multitude few high-level monsters have attacks of opportunity and are also capable of hitting on concentrate actions, and cackling does allow you to sustain and avoid taking a hit in those circumstances. Not saying the feature is in a good spot, but your hyperbole is entirely slightly unwarranted.

Edit: edited because I was incorrect.

And we’re getting a whole new Bestiary in a few months as well.
By why would you expect the percentage of monsters with AoO triggered by concentrate actions would increase? If anything, I would expect it to decrease since additional monsters tend to have more niche abilities than earlier monsters as the lifespan of games stretches on and AoO is kinda boilerplate.
Percentage no. Actual numbers yes.

My point is this: players will probably not see AoO triggered by concentration checks any more often than they do now.

So why does it matter that there will be more monsters? Henro/Gaterie's points still hold.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Henro wrote:

A multitude few high-level monsters have attacks of opportunity and are also capable of hitting on concentrate actions, and cackling does allow you to sustain and avoid taking a hit in those circumstances. Not saying the feature is in a good spot, but your hyperbole is entirely slightly unwarranted.

Edit: edited because I was incorrect.

And we’re getting a whole new Bestiary in a few months as well.

By why would you expect the percentage of monsters with AoO triggered by concentrate actions would increase? If anything, I would expect it to decrease since additional monsters tend to have more niche abilities than earlier monsters as the lifespan of games stretches on and AoO is kinda boilerplate.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Megistone wrote:

Proposal: make the ability work automatically, and after the first attack allow the enemy a save to cover their exposed weakness. If they do, the investigator needs to study them again to find another.

I don't know what the exact mechanics could be, but I think it could work.

This is interesting. Making it only require one action per enemy a fair portion of the time is a big buff, and possibly a necessary one, while the (presumably free) 'Save to counter' provides an interesting dynamic...

I like it.

To dig down a little bit more, how about this structure:

Study Suspect forces the enemy to make a will saving throw against your class DC (which they will make more often than you will fail the current perception check in all likelihood) and if they fail then you "have their number" and get the studied target benefits on your attacks. The move succeeds less often but the benefits are much longer lasting.

Here is an idea that I like past this: let the monster use an action on their turn to make the check again to end the effects similarly to how creatures can use actions to try to end ongoing damage. I think this would make for interesting tactical decisions on the part of the GM/monsters/PVP opponent and also reduce some of the "swingy-ness" of an effect that could last the whole fight.

For my druthers, I would still want there to be some kind of benefit on an enemy's success as well but the designers could tweak the benefits of the effect to get things right.

Edit for further revelations: having study suspect be an ongoing effect opens the door for cool finishing moves that could end the effects of studied suspect. There is a lot of juicy design space here.


N N 959 wrote:

In regards to the original question....

So I am playing my Investigator in Fall of Plaguestone and I just noticed something I had forgotten.

Recall Knowlege p.239 wrote:
The GM might allow checks to Recall Knowledge using other skills. For example, you might assess the skill of an acrobat using Acrobatics. If you’re using a physical skill (like in this example), the GM will most likely have you use a mental ability score—typically Intelligence—instead of the skill’s normal physical ability score.
So apparently, using any Recall Knowledge with any physical skill could allow one to use INT

I was unaware of this. That is kinda neat.


Just let all martial classes take crossbow ace. Simple-weapon-only users can still burn actions to crank.


Dubious Scholar wrote:
Why does it have to be powerful? The whole point is it's a little thing on the scale of eschew materials on sorcerers.

It needs to be more powerful if it is going to be an entire class feat and I think it would be better off as a class feat. Right now it is incredibly situational. If cackle--as it exists--needs to be replaced with something at all then throw them an extra skill.

Also, regarding no cackle at level 1:
Who cares? It barely does anything as it stands; it is just there for flavor and I don't even like the flavor. If someone likes the flavor then they can cackle to no effect as a free action and then take the actual mechanical benefit at level 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I guess "roll a will save versus your class DC" would be more symmetrical and wouldn't result in autocrits. I just want to use Int to Study Target (or just not roll), instead of Wis.

I feel ya. That would land the investigator in the same trouble casters are in though: monsters tend to succeed their saves


Sara Marie wrote:
Moved this to the PF2 forums advice section. If there was a reason it specifically went into the compatible publisher's subforum, let me know.

That was actually a mistake on my part, but I decided to keep it there since I figured, "well, if there is a 3PP solution somewhere, I guess I'd like to know."


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mentioned this in the other thread, but I think this is a solution I like.

Make Studied Target Work Backwards

So you're really good at reading people, so good you're going to spot their tell or their opening unless they're really good at hiding it from you. So instead of a (Wis) Perception check against Will, your target makes a Deception check against your Class DC (Int).

Then you can recontextualize the "critical succeed" for study target to a "critical fail" by your studied target. You can make this work like save spells (some of which are cantrips) where you get *something* unless they critically succeed. Normally it's more fun for players to roll stuff, but it's also more fun to succeed more often and not feel MAD pressure.

Under this paradigm, do monsters need to make an action to resist the save? Also, what about monsters that are untrained in deception? Are they going to almost always auto-fail at higher levels?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cackling also strikes me as kind of twee and goofy and maybe something that would be better as an option rather than something intrinsic to the base class. Mechanically, cackle is super niche and it was only a popular choice in 1e because it was actually mechanically good.

So to reiterate Deadman's opinion: cackling should be a feat and it should do more for you mechanically.

I think it would be neat if Witches could use cackle to maintain a hex and a regular spell as part of the same action, for instance.


Ed Reppert wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Is it me, or "Class DC" was created in pf2 to deal exactly with stuff like that?

If it's a class ability that you have to use every round, just have it based on your Class DC and be done with.

My understanding of Class DC (which may be flawed) is that it is intended primarily to provide something for targets to roll their savings throws against, in the same way that "spellcasting DC" is provided for targets to roll their savings throws against spells.

PF2E has a pretty clear built in connection between check bonus and DC. That said, I think you are right and the investigator would need a couple extra lines of text to make their "studied suspect" operate off their "class DC".


Deadmanwalking wrote:

In the thread on Int not doing enough for Alchemist there's been a lot of discussion about how Wis is better for them than Int due to Study Suspect, and suggestions have been made to make Study Suspect somehow Int-based to compensate.

But, really, why does it require a Skill Check at all? Generally speaking, by my math, with maxed or close to maxed Wisdom, you usually have a 1/4 chance of failure on it vs. the average Will DC of on-level opponents.

But the thing is, again by my math, Investigator damage winds up around equal to Rogue (w/Sneak Attack) damage even when they succeed on that check. Often less, depending on level. And that's on the attack it applies to. A Rogue making a second attack will out DPR them by quite a bit (technically, the Investigator equals that on the rare occasions they crit). So...changing it to always be the next attack and not require a check still leaves them behind the Rogue in DPR (and what their DPR or other combat options should be is a separate issue, I'm just noting this wouldn't change it much).

Vs. on level opposition with average Will Saves these two options almost equal out (due to the odds of crits and failures being around the same, though a crit gains less damage than a failure loses out on)...but it makes Investigators verging on utterly worthless vs. bosses and, unlike spellcasters, leaves them rather unimpressive even against minions (who they'll do maybe as well on as a Rogue will, and even then only assuming they don't need to move).

Studied Combat in PF1 didn't require a check to succeed, and while an Operative's Trick Attack in Starfinder technically does, that's also designed so they'll rapidly start auto-succeeding at it vs. almost all foes. So it's hardly thematically necessary for it to work this way.

And having one in four attacks you make cost two actions to deal 3d6+2 damage at, say, 13th level, is not a very fun experience. More like one in two or three vs. a higher level threat. Yeesh.

I think the lack of benefit for int is a problem, but if paizo folks really wanted to keep a check in there then they could give some kind of studied strike benefit on a failure.

Do you know what the math breakdown would look like if a failed SS check kept the damage but not the accuracy bonus? Or the accuracy bonus and not the damage?

If the designers only what the check to make things more dynamic (and include riders that add certain effects on a crit success or whatever) then maybe that kind of tweak might work best.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is also kinda silly if you think about it. The road to 4e DnD is paved with avoiding MAD.


Sin_Dark wrote:
I agree with Ezekieru, You should be able to use Int for Attack and Damage with Finesse weapons, or at the very least let Int be used for Damage.

Int to damage is really not that great of a fix since the difference in % damage will be pretty negligible at higher levels. I also think int-for-accuracy is somewhat odd as well and not really a great solution as it takes away from dex/str's schtick.

shroudb wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

I hope the designers go the route of giving intelligence more to do rather than letting investigators choose other key abilities.

To bring up one point re:investigator durability, it seems to me like the class is better suited to ranged combat than the rogue is given that study suspect can be used at ranged but flanking needs to be done in melee. As such, dropping con is maybe not the end of the world.

yeah, i was internally grumbling that they probably make much better "hyde mutagenists" than alchemist, but then it dawned to me that "hey... there's like 0 reasons to go melee, they can do everything just fine at range"

In between master proficiency, +1 to attack from mutagen, +1 to attack from studied target, and ranged sneak attack, they seem pretty awesome for a ranged build

Honestly, you should feel free to continue grumbling about that to a certain extent. That said, I think the alchemist is still doing okay comparably due to their sheer supply of alchemical items.

I actually wish there was some real way to get armor proficiency so I can build a strength investigator, though.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope the designers go the route of giving intelligence more to do rather than letting investigators choose other key abilities.

To bring up one point re:investigator durability, it seems to me like the class is better suited to ranged combat than the rogue is given that study suspect can be used at ranged but flanking needs to be done in melee. As such, dropping con is maybe not the end of the world.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the class needs to add its intelligence to perception checks in general or at least in pursuit of your "take the case" or whatever.

Intelligence oddly seems like a prime dump stat given you already have plenty of skills to begin with.


Hell yeah.


tivadar27 wrote:

Okay, first off, again, "requiring" true strike in this equation isn't fair to the Druid or Cleric blasters out there. Yes, they can get it with some work, but we shouldn't focus builds around it.

I'm looking at the average bestiary stats and it seems like average AC generally tracks with "medium" save. Even without additional bonuses, this means that you're just as good going for a save spell vs AC if you don't know anything about the creature.

Yes, casters are less likely to hit due to item bonuses than martials, but I'd agree that's not a totally valid comparison, as higher-level spells, even at two actions, are going to do a lot more damage than a single attack. If you compare two attacks, then you need to factor in the average penalty for swinging twice, or -2 or so. At that point, item bonuses cancel out for the most part.

Once again, I do think we need more play to see how these work in reality, but at least after looking at the base numbers, it sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There was a section of a 4chan thread that a friend showed me that more or less discussed how effectively a player could guess the worst save of a creature just from their description and basic pop culture knowledge. While the discussion was less than scientifically rigorous, it seems like peoples' best guess as to what is the weakest save will often be correct.

That is neat but I still feel like monster saves should be lower, especially considering how it is relatively harder to improve your chances of your spell succeeding vs. making an attack succeed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I kind of imagine it being like the "hammer" end of a kusarigama but somehow modified to be more easily operated in one hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Others have given a more measured answer than I offered. Mutagens can indeed be pretty good if you consider them as being primarily a utility tool rather than a combat tool. You can find uses for all of them given the chance. Like: using combine elixir with juggernaut mutagen and an elixir of life can get you out of a lot of scrapes. Cycling that along with revivifying mutagen lets you hold out almost indefinitely.

Still, you are going to want to set aside some resources for bombs if you actually want to contribute to ending fights.


PrimalWyld wrote:

Are mutagenists even viable? They seem so weak compared to other classes, even with the errata, and even compared to other alchemists. The downsides from the mutagens seem to outweigh their benefits by a long shot.

Or is there something I'm completely missing?

I think the elemental mutagens are pretty good but they are mostly pretty bad. Elemental mutagens are uncommon though so it is questionable if you can even use them in a build.


shroudb wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
shroudb wrote:
i dont find a playstyle of 9/10 you miss 1/10 you hit and insta-win to be particulary "fun".

I think it is fine if that is just one part of the class's kit, especially given that it is 7/20ths and you can adjust that through tactics.

Also, Maxastro makes a point and I will also not that you can catch up your second stat at level 5.

and be down again at level 10.

everyone can increase his success rates with the same tactics, only alchemist has literally 2/3rds the accuracy of ALL other classes (including warpriest)

p.s.

the erratta was an utter disappointment as well.

"once/day" that is a joke at best, they could save some face and simply remove the ability altogether, that's about how useful it is.

And then back again at 15+! :3

How are they behind warpriests?

it still is more than half the levels down by a +1 (that's half a proficiency)

warpriest attacking with spells still reaches master+main stat

Well, I have already gone over how most of the alchemists abilities are buffs which don't require accuracy so I really do think the situation is comparable.


shroudb wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
shroudb wrote:
i dont find a playstyle of 9/10 you miss 1/10 you hit and insta-win to be particulary "fun".

I think it is fine if that is just one part of the class's kit, especially given that it is 7/20ths and you can adjust that through tactics.

Also, Maxastro makes a point and I will also not that you can catch up your second stat at level 5.

and be down again at level 10.

everyone can increase his success rates with the same tactics, only alchemist has literally 2/3rds the accuracy of ALL other classes (including warpriest)

p.s.

the erratta was an utter disappointment as well.

"once/day" that is a joke at best, they could save some face and simply remove the ability altogether, that's about how useful it is.

And then back again at 15+! :3

How are they behind warpriests?


shroudb wrote:
i dont find a playstyle of 9/10 you miss 1/10 you hit and insta-win to be particulary "fun".

I think it is fine if that is just one part of the class's kit, especially given that it is 7/20ths and you can adjust that through tactics.

Also, Maxastro makes a point and I will also not that you can catch up your second stat at level 5.


shroudb wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

I think it may be a bit more elegant to just expand the Alchemists options for damage rather than giving them "full" attack bonus. The energy mutagen is a step in the right direction (and maybe even a fix by itself) since that would allow melee alchemists to quick-alchemy into fight-long weakness-targeting and extra damage. However, paizo published that mutagen with the uncommon-soft-ban (TM) so you can't really play that reliably.

More martial-focused mutagens and elixirs are the better fix, IMO.

Erm, how does this help exactly? I like that energy mutagen exists but all it really is is a mutagen that allows Alchemists to use melee weapons (like bestial lets them use unarmed and quicksilver ranged weapons). It doesn't fix their inherent math problems.
There is some damage increase that can offset an accuracy decrease.
Yeah, that's how the Barbarian works. The Barbarian has master proficiency and chonky damage to keep up with the more accurate Ranger and Fighter.

Exactly. The alchemist just needs additional damage or additional effects to make its even lower accuracy work out. Perhaps they can get more elixirs that add damage and rider effects to their unarmed attack that stack with bestial mutagen (which would let alchemists capitalize on dual elixir better). They could also get more things that trigger on a miss (making them a little more caster-y).

Like: maybe they can get a feat that lets their elemental mutagen damage go through on a miss or something else they can do on a miss (or maybe the errata can give those kinds of effects to mutagen specialists)? Perhaps they can get an action that lets them follow up a missed martial weapon attack with a bomb attack at full BAB?

One important thing to remember is this though: the alchemist should never completely catch up to martial classes in terms of combat efficiency if only

...

If the damage numbers are still big, then that is just more interesting to play at the table. Then the game can become about stacking bonuses and penalties that maximize landing alchemically boosted hay-makers. Quick edit: how often are characters fighting an enemy where the FIGHTER has a 50% chance to hit? CR+3 enemies?

Also, effects on a miss is probably still a more interesting approach than just boosting damage.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

I think it may be a bit more elegant to just expand the Alchemists options for damage rather than giving them "full" attack bonus. The energy mutagen is a step in the right direction (and maybe even a fix by itself) since that would allow melee alchemists to quick-alchemy into fight-long weakness-targeting and extra damage. However, paizo published that mutagen with the uncommon-soft-ban (TM) so you can't really play that reliably.

More martial-focused mutagens and elixirs are the better fix, IMO.

Erm, how does this help exactly? I like that energy mutagen exists but all it really is is a mutagen that allows Alchemists to use melee weapons (like bestial lets them use unarmed and quicksilver ranged weapons). It doesn't fix their inherent math problems.
There is some damage increase that can offset an accuracy decrease.
Yeah, that's how the Barbarian works. The Barbarian has master proficiency and chonky damage to keep up with the more accurate Ranger and Fighter.

Exactly. The alchemist just needs additional damage or additional effects to make its even lower accuracy work out. Perhaps they can get more elixirs that add damage and rider effects to their unarmed attack that stack with bestial mutagen (which would let alchemists capitalize on dual elixir better). They could also get more things that trigger on a miss (making them a little more caster-y).

Like: maybe they can get a feat that lets their elemental mutagen damage go through on a miss or something else they can do on a miss (or maybe the errata can give those kinds of effects to mutagen specialists)? Perhaps they can get an action that lets them follow up a missed martial weapon attack with a bomb attack at full BAB?

One important thing to remember is this though: the alchemist should never completely catch up to martial classes in terms of combat efficiency if only because the alchemist also has a grab bag of other goodies in addition to their combat schtick.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

I think it may be a bit more elegant to just expand the Alchemists options for damage rather than giving them "full" attack bonus. The energy mutagen is a step in the right direction (and maybe even a fix by itself) since that would allow melee alchemists to quick-alchemy into fight-long weakness-targeting and extra damage. However, paizo published that mutagen with the uncommon-soft-ban (TM) so you can't really play that reliably.

More martial-focused mutagens and elixirs are the better fix, IMO.

Erm, how does this help exactly? I like that energy mutagen exists but all it really is is a mutagen that allows Alchemists to use melee weapons (like bestial lets them use unarmed and quicksilver ranged weapons). It doesn't fix their inherent math problems.

There is some damage increase that can offset an accuracy decrease.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
This is probably an intentional design choice, but it can leave the class feeling a little lacking as a solo act.

Aren't ALL the classes a bit lacking as solo acts? The game is designed such that party members have to support each other to succeed, on purpose.

Or are you saying that the Alchemist is even LESS effective when alone than the other casting classes are?

Um. Alchemist is not a casting class.
I would argue that alchemist is a casting class in the same way the psion is a casting class in 3.5 DnD. The alchemist is just interacting with a different magic system.
If the Alchemst is a casting class, its proficiencies don't really reflect that. You need multiple feats to get all your "spells" to scale with level and use your class DC, and you can't use your primary stat for attacks, on top of maxing out at expert proficiency for said attacks. It seems meant to be a jack-of-all-trades, but in a game that rewards specialization, it's mostly just a "master-of-none".

I didn't say that the alchemist is in an amazing place balance-wise. However, I will say that it is my favorite class in the game though specifically because it is a casting class that uses a fundamentally different and interesting rules system.

I also think the class DC stuff is BS, btw.

if he's supposed to be a "casting class" then i would really like to have a DC going up to legendary then, like, you know, casters.

That, and having my attacks being Int based and not dex/str based, again, like a caster.

Alchemist is nice thematically with what they're trying to do with him, but his main problem is that the consumables, in general, are deliberately designed to be really weak, and alchemist is designed around said consumables.

in effect that leads to having a good "weapon" with terrible "ammunition".

What alchemist...

Well, DCs don't matter for buffs and most of the alchemist's kit is buffs and stuff that goes off automatically. I think the alchemist could stand to have their class DC go to legendary, but I don't think it actually matters too much save for where it might help poisoners and other niche alchemical items.

And yeah: on-level alchemical items are weaker than on-level spells and they need to be since the alchemist gets to use a ton of them every day. Balance-wise, alchemical items need to be better than competing cantrips but still quite a bit weaker than on-level spells.

This probably should all be in an alchemist chat rather than a ACG chat though. -w-


Brew Bird wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
This is probably an intentional design choice, but it can leave the class feeling a little lacking as a solo act.

Aren't ALL the classes a bit lacking as solo acts? The game is designed such that party members have to support each other to succeed, on purpose.

Or are you saying that the Alchemist is even LESS effective when alone than the other casting classes are?

Um. Alchemist is not a casting class.
I would argue that alchemist is a casting class in the same way the psion is a casting class in 3.5 DnD. The alchemist is just interacting with a different magic system.
If the Alchemst is a casting class, its proficiencies don't really reflect that. You need multiple feats to get all your "spells" to scale with level and use your class DC, and you can't use your primary stat for attacks, on top of maxing out at expert proficiency for said attacks. It seems meant to be a jack-of-all-trades, but in a game that rewards specialization, it's mostly just a "master-of-none".

I didn't say that the alchemist is in an amazing place balance-wise. However, I will say that it is my favorite class in the game though specifically because it is a casting class that uses a fundamentally different and interesting rules system.

I also think the class DC stuff is BS, btw.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Well, bombs get damage on a miss and have extra effects on a hit so I think the bomber is in an okay place mechanically. I have not made a total math breakdown comparing the two, though.
You may be right on that, I'm not quite sure either (and people seem to be overall far less critical of the bomber). In that case Alchemists could likely get away with just master proficiency in simple/unarmed.

I think it may be a bit more elegant to just expand the Alchemists options for damage rather than giving them "full" attack bonus. The energy mutagen is a step in the right direction (and maybe even a fix by itself) since that would allow melee alchemists to quick-alchemy into fight-long weakness-targeting and extra damage. However, paizo published that mutagen with the uncommon-soft-ban (TM) so you can't really play that reliably.

More martial-focused mutagens and elixirs are the better fix, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
This is probably an intentional design choice, but it can leave the class feeling a little lacking as a solo act.

Aren't ALL the classes a bit lacking as solo acts? The game is designed such that party members have to support each other to succeed, on purpose.

Or are you saying that the Alchemist is even LESS effective when alone than the other casting classes are?

Um. Alchemist is not a casting class.

I would argue that alchemist is a casting class in the same way the psion is a casting class in 3.5 DnD. The alchemist is just interacting with a different magic system.

1 to 50 of 1,928 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>