Ganigumo's page

No, the class is mechanically unique because no other class is similar. It is clunky, but mechanically unique.

I was thinking of all the classes as bikes, I probably should've been a little clearer.

I love playing my Alchemists, I'd never play a Bard even with a gun on my temple (the class mechanics are absolutely lame). Don't assume everyone loves the same things as you.

I'm not saying everyone does like the same things as me, I know that. I tend to enjoy playing characters with lots of options and things to do, since I like having a lot of decision points in a game, I'm a bit of a johnny so the concept of alchemist appeals to me. I agree base bard isn't too thrilling, but I think you can make it fun with the right build maybe, but I haven't tried it.

I think its hard to argue that trying to play alchemist isn't an abrasive experience though, which will hurt your enjoyment. Its like a rube goldberg machine where you need to micromanage the steps to get a slightly worse outcome.

I don't know what meta-knowledge you're speaking about. I'm speaking of system mastery.

Meta-knowledge is stuff you know, that your character doesn't/wouldn't like knowing enemy weaknesses (among other things). In a lot of scenarios it almost feels like you just need to know what's coming to get the most out of the class, which is why I mentioned meta-knowledge here.

Prepared casters can run into a similar situation, but spells are generally powerful enough that if you prepare a good selection of general use ones you'll be pretty safe, plus you have low cost focus spells and cantrips to feel out an enemy.

IMO this is actually a pretty big issue for alchemist. Sure, yes you do get quick reagents, but the difference in efficiency between quick alchemy and crafting it at the start of the day is ridiculous, which is what makes this a problem. Alchemical items tend to be more like silver bullets than spells too, exacerbating the issue. It gets easier at high levels, as you get more reagents and your quick alchemy ends up creating stronger versions (this is weird and unintuitive btw) so I guess there's a fair trade off then.

The only point I agree with you. The Alchemist is strongly limited on resources and playing one in an environment with long adventuring days will clearly be subpar (in every aspect). The Mutagenist can last longer, but still you'll need rather short adventuring days.

That's a part of the system mastery needed to play one: Don't play an Alchemist in an environment that won't be fine for it. Long adventuring days are hard, also environments where your adaptability is not rewarded (like AV which is mostly about combat).
You can say that PFS makes the Alchemist looks good, or just that the Alchemist works fine in PFS. 2 different ways to look at the same thing.

Overall, I'll never say the class is "fine" as is. Just that, with proper system mastery, you can have a blast playing one.

This is a bit of what I'm talking about, sure you want the class to fit into the setting, but needing to ask the DM how long adventuring days are, or if you can take advantage of alchemist's adaptability feels like meta gaming to me. Sometimes this stuff is made intentionally very obvious "this campaign will feature a lot of undead", but a lot of times it isn't. Asking if alchemist would be strong or weak in the campaign really isn't that much different than asking what the strongest class is for the campaign, or if a lot of enemies will have low will saves. Maybe the DM doesn't even know yet either, as they haven't read the future books or its a homebrew they're writing as they go along.

Other classes can be stronger or weaker based on the circumstances too, but I think alchemist is unique in how badly it can make or break the class.

Ganigumo wrote:

Maybe they could get a feature or feat to allow them to sustain all of their sustained spells as a single action too, really push them as a caster who excels in extended fights.

Well... technically Witch already has that... A free action even.

As a level 20 feat that has a prerequisite feat and costs a focus point each time it is used.

So... not sure that really counts for what you are wanting.

nice a level 20 class feat that lets me sustain... only multiple hex spells... for a focus point, if I take a feat that isn't a prerequisite

Alchemist is already an unplayable mess, I don't see why we need to make it any worse than what it already is.

Short of playing with a Superstition Barbarian (who is just as bad by the way), or some Mortal Healing characters, there is no justification to play an Alchemist over any other character mechanically.

Don't hate on superstition barb. It might be bad, but the class Chassis actually works. Its not like it somehow breaks barbarian by forcing them to use finesse weapons or something.

Yes, clearly. The class is quite clunky with a lot of problematic abilities and feats. It is also not the strongest out there.

But on the other hand, it's mechanically unique. There are far more mechanical justifications to play an Alchemist than a Fighter as the second one doesn't have any unique feature.

And in deft hands (with a lot of system mastery) the class is fine and far from unplayable.

I won't argue that its not mechanically unique, but in the way a bicycle with oval wheels is also "unique". From an optimization and from an ease of play/enjoyment of play you're better off just playing a support caster like a bard. If you want to lean into the alchemist flavor you're pretty much better off just grabbing it as an archetype somewhere and crafting alchemical items.

Playing the class just doesn't feel good. You mention system mastery, but how much of that system mastery is actually meta-knowledge?

In my experience, Alchemist is far from an unplayable mess. I'm playing three of them: L11 Bomber and L9 Mutagenist in PFS, and L5 Bomber in Outlaws of Alkenstar. All three have been a lot of fun to play so far. Maybe I'll change my mind when the PFS Bomber hits 13th, but I kinda doubt it.

That's pretty far off topic for this thread though.

I've never played PFS myself, but from my understanding it is an environment that is extremely kind to alchemists. Lots of enemies with exploitable weaknesses and fairly short adventuring days. Plus being flexible helps in an environment where parties change so much between sessions. It almost feels like the format was made specifically to make alchemists look good.

I am playing outlaws of alkenstar though (as a gnoll witch not an alchemist), and unless the DM is throwing us way more rests than we're supposed to get it feels like it wouldn't be bad for an alchemist. Pretty much all of our adventuring days are fairly short in terms of the number of encounters, and there's plenty of times you know whats coming up a rest or so in advance which would let you take advantage of some of the more niche items.

I played an alchemist in abomination vaults, and dm'd for one in fall of plaguestone and it was a struggle. I also dm'd a bit of extinction curse & the slithering, and am playing through quest for the frozen flame and none of those seem particularly good for alchemist either, they all have some pretty big dungeons and long adventuring days.

Not having something like cantrips or focus spells to fall back on makes any campaign with long adventuring days a slog. Rationing your reagents generally just makes the class feel like dead weight. So many little changes could fix a lot of it. level 1 Mutagens lasting only a single minute, and level 3 ones lasting 10 felt particularly awful though. The only way you get multiple fights out of them is if you don't heal.

I agree the rules here are ambiguous, although I'd say RAW doesn't cover the scenario at all.

That said the alchemist isn't actually a martial or anything, they're a support class with nothing else to invest into buildwise. They're an item dispenser first. Handing the whole party free poisons isn't really any different than handing them free mutagens to drink before a fight. The only scenario where it might be out of line is with ranged martials since you poison the ammunition instead of the weapon.

I don't have an issue with it, mostly because I think the class is a dumpster fire from the ground up. It fails at every level of its design, and this is something that actually feels powerful (even if saves and immunities prevent it from being so). That said if somebody felt poisoning 100 arrows every morning was a bit much I think it would be pretty reasonable to rule something like only being able to have 1, or loaded ammo be poisoned, because that much poisoned ammo is too dangerous to keep stowed away.

Things I'd love to see in the reworked alchemist:

1) All math fixer, or math improver feats immediately removed. No sticky bomb, no calculated splash, no feral mutagen. Yeet all of that into the sun. It has no place in pf2.

2)Flatten out reagents, give more at early levels, and less at high levels. i.e change from int+level to 8+int. The actual amount can be moved up or down for balance reasons but the current system is just bad design.
A focus point style system for an extra quick alchemy reagent would be really cool.

3)Rethink alchemical items, bombs are pretty much just martial weapons with elemental damage, but alchemists have a limited supply. If the overall supply goes up this is fine, but if it stays low they need to be more impactful, Some bombs that hit against saves would be great. Also if mutagens need to be better than the alternatives of other classes (like inspiring courage) because of the drawback, if they can't be the drawbacks need to be reined in to be non-impactful. also healing elixirs really need to scale every 2 levels like heal spells.

4) Proficiencies, alchemist is MAD, doesn't get master level weapons. Either give them master level weapons or make their fails more impactful. I like the latter more personally. Stuff like bombs that hit against saves and still debuff on fails (like spells). I do not care about the damage numbers, its about quality of life and playability. "You do about as much damage, but with more variance so over 20-100 turns it'll even out" isn't a good argument. Just lower the damage and fix the hit rate, or lean into the bad hit rates and make their fails feel impactful. Missing ~10-15% more for ~10-15% extra damage doesn't feel good to play.

5) Additive feats are awesome. More of them, with less limitations, and easier to use.

6) Class feature to draw and use an alchemical item in a single action.

7) enduring alchemy, and class DC from level 1 on all alchemical items you use.

8) More fun feats, like mutagenic flashback (I know its a research field bonus at the moment) and mega bomb.

9) Take the safety off of feats like demolition charge (or remove it). If the player is spending 4 bombs and an entire minute setting it up just let it do big damage. The use case is so small.

10) Make 2 Alchemists. An improvement on the current alchemist with a martial bent, and one that follows in the pf1e alchemist's footsteps that combines magic and alchemy.

I've never been particularly attached to drow, but since Paizo is moving away from "monolithic evil societies" the concept of "evil elves" stops making sense in the setting.

With that said I don't agree that moving away from monolithic evil societies is necessarily a good thing. Its definitely a valid design direction, but I've never been fond of it.

I've always found those types of settings less interesting. Not that I'm saying everything should be black and white, but without anything being good or evil it all becomes a muddled mess and to me something is lost. I know plenty of other people love that kind of setting though.

What tends to bother me the most is that many of these settings are built on top of moral ambiguity, or things that are "morally grey", which I tend to just view as nonsense. Actions are either good or evil, and morality isn't an equation. As an example a serial killer who takes care of orphans isn't morally neutral. Like yeah, they did a lot of good taking care of orphans, but they're also a serial killer. The two things don't cancel each other out. These types of scenarios can add complexity and depth to characters but to me its never as though provoking as it seems to be for others.

There's a whole lot more I could ramble on about, like how moral relativism is bad for fictional settings because you can always invent a hypothetical society or viewpoint that inverts the morality and makes morality pointless (although it clearly isn't), or how any amount of analysis beneath the surface level view should quell the parallel between "monolithic evil societies" and racist views of other societies but I think I've rambled enough.

1) the designers got a bit crazy and made all these Activate entries for most/all alchemical ammunition for absolutely no reason (and also several mentions that only activated ammo works)

Or it just got copy/pasted from black powder and it made it through editing.

Its not actually that unreasonable considering they literally all use the same template.

Ganigumo wrote:

I think there's a lot of design space around skalds that might be tough to build into bards. I thought about skald a bit in the past but you could pretty easily push raging song as their primary class feature, and have the archetypes modify it, and possibly even their school of magic similar to barbarian instincts.

I agree. For building a skald from scratch as a new class, their role as a war chanter for a barbarian tribe is foremost in solid flavor. Instead of calling up an eidolon like a Sarkorian God Caller the skald could summon primordial songs that inspire their warriors.

I had to compromise on Skald Muse to keep its power level in PF2 bounds. That messed up the flavor, leading to the criticisms of Pronate11 and YuriP. I thought of a skald's bardic songs are part of their Raging Song, while I guess they thought of it as part of the bardic spellcasting. Instead of trying to argue for my vision, I need a vision that does not lead to such split opinions.

Back to the drawing board for building PF2 skald as its own class.

Ganigumo wrote:

You could have a primal skald with the "Song of elements" that converts the damage bonus to an energy type, and gives energy DR.

You could have a draconic skald with the "Rage of Dragons" thats very similar to the above.

You could have an ancestors Skald with the "Rage of Ancestors" that does positive/negative damage

You could have an animal skald with the "Rage of beasts" that gives allies animal abilities in addition to bonus damage.

etc etc....

Wonderful flavor and opportunity there. However, it leaves open one big question: what do we call this kind of specialty? Barbarians call theirs "instincts." Bards call theirs "muses." Champions call theirs "causes." Druids call theirs "orders." Etc. I need a name that makes people think of a tribal mystic chanter. I will use "totems" in my rough draft. "Myth" or "inspiration" might work. Can anyone suggest a better name?

This will take at least a month. The results...

Skalds are performers, but rather than just musicians as bards can be, they tend to primarily be storytellers, weaving tales of interest and historic importance.

With that in mind maybe literally calling it "Epic Themes". It sounds a bit boring in regular english, but its pretty fitting when you look at it like literature, where an Epic is a story of adventure and heroism told in long form, and the theme is the theme of the story ("Epic Narrative" would also be a good fit).

So in that sense the skald would take great interest in matters concerning his Theme, and center his epics around them. It would also let you build out more abstract themes like Tragedy or Faith which could lean into occult/divine territory.

So the Dragon Skald would tell epics involving Dragons, maybe their stories, or stories of their defeat, and seek out to learn or experience those stories, while an ancestors Skald would tell stories of heroes and their lineages, and help continue those stories.

I think there's a lot of design space around skalds that might be tough to build into bards. I thought about skald a bit in the past but you could pretty easily push raging song as their primary class feature, and have the archetypes modify it, and possibly even their school of magic similar to barbarian instincts.

You could have a primal skald with the "Song of elements" that converts the damage bonus to an energy type, and gives energy DR.

You could have a draconic skald with the "Rage of Dragons" thats very similar to the above.

You could have an ancestors Skald with the "Rage of Ancestors" that does positive/negative damage

You could have an animal skald with the "Rage of beasts" that gives allies animal abilities in addition to bonus damage.

etc etc....

I think you could make the class work as either a full caster or a wave caster, although I'd be a bit worried they might be too good with full martial proficiency. A gimmick being a full caster, with proper combat feats while performing could be pretty interesting though (i.e AoO).

In regards to the conversation I imagine the skald will appear somehow in a future book, although I'm not sure what form it will take, same with bloodrager who could either be a wavecaster or a barbarian instinct.

The only reason I feel like the alchemist should have a high proficiency with throwing bombs isn't a power-gamey "all classes should be balanced" reason, it's from the fact that.. in PF1 they threw bombs against Touch AC. Since there is no Touch AC in PF2, they should have a really good proficiency to reflect that all they're doing is smashing a glass vial against something.

Or, at the very least, let them use their INT instead of DEX.

Touch AC existed in the playtest, but they got rid of it and let casters just use their primary attribute to hit with, but alchemist didn't get the same treatment.

All this champion discussion reminds me of how much I want neutral champions. My Ideas were:

Lawful Neutral: Judge
-LN is a pretty easy alignment to do, its all about law, order, and contracts regardless of the morality.
True Neutral: Mediator
-N is tough, but pushing the champion to do things like trying to remain impartial and mediate conflicts before they escalate too far seems to fit the bill.
Chaotic Neutral: Truthseeker
-Seeks and shared the truth no matter what. Seems like it could be a "good" cause, but not all truths are good so I feel like it fits into CN

Things I'd like to see:

As mentioned, an upgraded alchemist. Most importantly get rid of the feat and action economy taxes and please flatten out their resources so they have a relatively static amount at all levels, instead of progressing from starved to flooded. I'm fine with versatility being their thing too, but if they're not getting master offenses give them tools to be better on fails (like tying bomb debuffs to the splash damage). Additionally if we're going master offenses it would be awesome to see a split where we can get a martial alchemist, and a pf1-style caster alchemist.

Buffs to witch: Witch should get either armor or extra spells (like wiz/sorc/cler) they're the only class with neither. Some of the feats need some cleaning up/buffing as well (like the hair ones, super cool but it takes like 3 feats to get going, or the terrible spellstrike ones). Also the focus cantrips are generally quite weak for being their gimmick to make up for all the stuff they don't have, it would be nice if they were a bit better. Personally I like the idea of them getting better every time you sustain the spell, since its a unique niche (I.e Evil Eye would start at frightened 1 and increase by 1 every time its sustained). Witch isn't in nearly as bad a spot as alchemist, but its pretty much always worse than playing a different class with the same tradition.

Something to help out MAD builds a bit: The change to voluntary flaw really hits MAD builds harder than other builds. This could be something that needs investment to work like a feat that lowers multiclassing requirements, but it can be really difficult to make certain builds work now.

More ancestry feats/heritages: Some heritages are blessed with super interesting/useful ancestry feats like Tengu, Gnomes, hobgoblins & Humans, but others tend to have really boring picks It would be cool to spice up some of the less interesting feat lists.

More access to ancestry feats: Its really tough to get extras, I know there's a variant rule for it, but a class archetype that goes all in on ancestry abilities would be pretty interesting. Would be cool to see it have an option to go all in on ancestry casting or combat.

Fixing some narrative dissonance around weapons: Some things regarding weapons are a bit strange like a lack of simple axes or whips being better as a strength weapon (despite the finesse trait, because it doesn't apply to maneuvers). I get that there's some balance concerns around it, but it makes certain character concepts tough to build.

I find poison concentrator to be pretty strong myself.

A poisoner doesn't rely on Quick, instead now he's given the option to halve his poison stash of the day for a +1 to the DC.

That's pretty cool given that Fort is universally the strongest monster save, but also that DC increasing is extremely rare.

This plus pinpoint is a 3 point shift all together which is good.

My issue with that isn't the strength of it, as it, bomb coagulant alembic, and the alchemical chart are all strong enough to consider using.

My issue is the design of the items and how they mesh with the class. These are clearly items that are attempting to "fix" alchemist in some way. Bomb coagulant is trying to let you prepare sticky bombs at the start of the day, and poison concentrator is trying to make the math better for poisons that aren't using powerful alchemy. Alchemical chart is a replacement for enduring alchemy.

I'd much rather just see a proper rewrite/revision of the alchemist, with stuff like this it feels like they're designing in a space they shouldn't, because they won't (or can't), fix the problem at its source.

I've had a chance to go over the items, and while there are some interesting standouts, they really missed the mark on some of them, like really badly in some cases, to the point where its clear even they don't know what's going on with alchemist.

Great stuff:
Flamethrower
Bomb gauntlet
Lozenges, poison fizz and crackling bubble gum in particular
Skunk bomb
lodestone bomb (finally a bomb that's usually well suited to fighting humanoids)

Good stuff with power issues:
Fury cocktail: Bestial mutagen for weapons. So you can use a weapon with your alch and give out buffs to your STR party members, its a shame its the same penalty as bestial which has its issues. Edit: Just realized its level 4+, there's no level 1 variant, which is a bit of a buzzkill
Life shot: finally a way to use potions at range, but did they really need to be weaker?

Worst item contender:
Healing vapor: heals 5 hp over 10 minutes, at level 4. This is hilariously bad. Out of combat healing is super plentiful in the system, not sure why this is so weak.

Items that raise serious design questions:
Insight Coffee (this is just a roundabout way of buffing investigator right? probably because they need to wait for a new book printing to make errata)
Poison Concentrator
Bomb Coagulant Alembic
Alchemical chart

The additive items are really weird. Low level alchemists are generally forced to use advanced alchemy and not quick alchemy, so these feel like items aimed at them, but are item level 5+. High level alchemists are pushed pretty hard into using quick alchemy to take advantage of additive feats and tend to have plenty of resources so they don't need the benefits as much. The bomb one is particularly bad too because its way better on non-bombers since it lets you turn off the splash damage.

These all feel like they should be feats, but making them feats puts them in competition with all the math fixer and must take feats alchemists already have, plus the additive ones are dead ends being the only feats that reward you for crafting at the start of the day.

While I can understand how you came to that conclusion, and it makes sense by RAW, I still disagree with it simply because I view Spellstrike as a Weapon Attack + Spell Attack combined into one effect. If it's combined into a single effect, that means it's still only one damage roll taking place. Otherwise, if I can source damage rolls like that, that means every elemental rune or similar benefit would likewise gain a +1 from Inspire Courage.

Most effects like flaming are additional damage, and additional damage is combined into a single damage roll afaik.

As Grognard stated spontaneous casters need to know the spell at the level they want to cast it.

So if you picked soothe as one of your first level spells you only have first level soothe in your repertoire. In order to cast a soothe heightened to level 2 you would need to pick a level 2 soothe as one of the second level spells in your repertoire (at which point you would have both soothe level 1, and soothe level 2 in your repertoire).

Signature spells lets you heighten it freely, which means when you pick that level 1 soothe as a signature spell you can cast a higher (or lower) level version of that spell, without knowing it at that level.

another way to think of it is picking a spell as a signature spell adds all possible levels of that spell to your repertoire.

You still need to use the appropriate level's spell slot though, cantrips and focus spells are the only spells that auto-heighten, since they don't use spell slots.

A Metamagic archetype that gives access to metamagic feats a class might not normally have, in addition to a few brand new ones, or improvements to existing ones. Including possibly being able to combine two (i.e Reach + widen) in a limited manner (1/day? focus spell?)

An archetype that lets you double down on ancestry shenanigans, improving options granted by your ancestry (including innate spellcasting), and possibly giving a way to get extra ancestry feats.

An archetype that lets you develop a signature move, a bit similar to a martial version of spell trickster, but a bit more flexible since it would focus on strikes and skill checks.

Mana is just endurance/fatigue but for spells.
There are definite problems with pushing mana in place of pf2's spells per day system.
a few implementations for spell costs:
Fibonacci sequence: 1,2,3,5,8,13,21
a 3 slot caster, coverting the spells per day into "mana" at level 10 would have 57 mana. Thats 7 5th level spells, 11 4th level spells, 57 1st level spells, 28 second level spells (or some combination)
This would let you keep high level slots pretty contested, but the spammyness of low level spells could end up being an issue as you'd have nearly an endless amount of the lower level ones, and they can still be very useful. It would be mostly locked to utility though. You'd still inevitably end up with more top level spells.

Things that scale faster would have the same problem with spammyness of lower level spells but worse, as higher levels of spells would also be spammy (max level -1 in particular would be incredibly good), but would limit the number of top level spells pretty significantly.

slowly scaling linear: (i.e cost increases by 1 or 2 each level)
This would limit spamming low level spells, but would instead encourage players to just spend all their mana on high level spells.
If we looked at costs being equal to spell level that same 10th level caster would have 45 mana, and be able to cast 9 max level spells.

Slower than linear costs would increase that trend, making lower level spells generally overcosted mana-wise so you'd rarely ever use them.

In order to make mana work you'd need to rework spells as well, as any of these options completely changes the spellcasting dynamic in (what I view as) an unhealthy way.

If you're reworking spells to make mana work you'd probably remove spell levels, as thats the problematic part, and standardize spell strength relative to their mana costs (or make all spells cost the same mana and be "evenly" balanced). This actually runs the risk of feeling like a martial with extra utility and aoe damage that gets tired after a while which is pretty much the current alchemist, which struggles immensely outside of pfs play, which is partly alchemist design issues, but also partly the problem with this resource design since it works best if you have a static amount of it at all levels, rather than it scaling up (unless it scales incredibly slowly) as there is inevitably a sweetspot where the class has enough resource to feel good, but not so much that they can be reckless with how they use it.

Another massive hurdle is the bookkeeping required, especially if spells don't have the same mana costs.

I found 4 that might fit:
Besmara (The pirate Queen). Piracy is all about freedom, and while betraying shipmates is anathema, taking what you want is one of her edicts and she might relish the competition.

Count Renalc (The traitor). Literally a deity all about betrayal.

Lubaiko (The spark in the dust). A god of chaos, fire, and change. Summed up: "out with the old, in with the new". Wouldn't be a stretch for it to apply to herself as well.

Azathoth, represents a blind uncaring universe, and treats his devotees in a similar fashion.

Wizard is definitely not weak. They get 4 spells at all levels (barring a max level one at odd ones) and can drain their item to get another making them a 4/4 or 5/4 caster.

The "problem" with wizard is that they're a bit boring and/or flavor-lite. All the power is built into the base chassis, with very little going into things like the thesis or focus spells. Theres a lot less build variety in a wizard than with something like a rogue or sorcerer.

The only classes I feel are underbalanced are Witch and Alchemist (the latter, at least, the ways people want to play it are underpowered). If anything, I've thought more frequently that Fighter and Bard are a little overpowered rather than classes like Summoner or Magus are underpowered.

Quick Edit: To clarify, I'm only talking about fully released classes. Post-CRB playtest classes have almost universally been underpowered.

While I think alchemist is undertuned as well, the big issue with alchemist is that its poorly designed. It breaks common design principals that pf2 uses constantly. I'd rather see them streamlined and stay undertuned than to be strong with the current design.

Witch's design is fine, its just lacking in power and there are plenty of ways to adjust that. New patrons with stronger hex cantrips/granted spells and/or new lessons with stronger hexes/granted spells would do it.

With that party I'd suggest to the ranger to go flurry instead and I'd go fervor witch as Stoke the heart is just one of the best cantrips of all time.it especially shines on a multi attacking party like one with a Monk and a flurry ranger.

You're not helping! I barely looked into witch before but you're right, stoke the heart would be fantastic in this party. I might have to play around with witch as an option. lack of charisma could be an issue though.

Book 1: "Alchemical Sciences in Golarion", revamps alchemist, introduces "Arcanochemist" who's more similar to the 1e alchemist and mixes magic with alchemy (the revamped alchemist would have a more martial bent, so the class wouldn't be trying to fit somewhere between martial and caster). It would also be full of new alchemical items, tools, weapons, archetypes and subclasses, like a potion brewing druid/cleric, or a poisoner rogue. Would also have some variant crafting rules to make it simpler to manage, for consumable items in particular.

Book 2: "Nature's Wrath", heavy primal focused book that revamps and cleans up animal companion rules and gives them more options. Would also have new primal spells, new subclasses with primal support. Could have a few new classes in Bloodrager and hunter. Also the first Ancestry Class. Its an Ancestry with some special rules that can only ever be one class. In this instance it would be "Beast". Beast would be a martial class focused mainly on unarmed attacks, sort of like monk. Beast heritages would be related to the species of animal, so things like "canine", "feline", "bear" etc. The heritages would also determine which subclasses are available, so a cat might be locked out of a defender subclass, where a bear could be locked out of dex focused striking. They would also get special unique backgrounds, that are mostly stronger than usual, to explain why the animal is as intelligent/cooperative as it is. So options like "Awakened animal" which would give a full int score (and corresponding understanding), "former animal companion", "Pet", etc. Maybe the class could combine their ancestry and class feats together into a single pool as well, or have class feats with the ancestry tag.

Book 3: "The Ultimate guide to Combat", a book full of archetypes, with a martial bent. Nothing is too niche or cheesy not to get an archetype here, and the narrative author would be some naive wizard who conducted a bunch of interviews and couldn't tell when someone was pulling his leg. Swordmaster? check. Axemaster? check. Gishes? Check. That one guy who dual wields shields from pf1 because of weapon training/focus/specialization? check. Everybody is here.

I think you could just make it as a spell, a focus spell could work but I'm not sure what class it would go into, although I would love a weapon eidolon option for summoner. You wouldn't get the companion, but would have full martial proficiency with the weapon eidolon. It would probably need some feats specific to it for it to work or something. Although actually if you made a rule that the eidolon can only make strike actions while the summoner is holding it, so it would use the eidolon's actions and proficiency to strike but the flavor would be summoner swinging the weapon.

As a spell:
Conjure Arms:
Level 1, Conjuration
1 action
Duration: 1 hour
You summon a magical weapon in your hand. Pick a weapon you are proficient with, only you can use the weapon and if it ever leaves your grasp the spell ends. The weapon is a +1 version of the weapon you chose.

Heightened (2nd): The weapon is a +1 striking weapon
Heightened (5th): The weapon is a +2 striking weapon
Heightened (6th): The weapon is a +2 greater striking weapon
Heightened (8th): The weapon is a +3 greater striking weapon
Heightened (9th): The weapon is a +3 Major striking weapon

Essentially all the spell does is get casters a "free" weapon, but you've got to spend spell slots on it, which seems fair. They do get the runes a level early but they'll still be worse than martials. It wouldn't be a good spell for a multiclass though. Maybe the weapon could get a property rune at higher levels?

A bomb and gun-using rogue racket seems pretty doable to me. Make the rogue proficient with bombs, mayhap martial guns, and give them a choice of using Int or Dex as their key stats.

Also, harkening back to the stance discussion, how would people feel about metamagical stances? You are required to have the metamagic feat to take it, and the stance comes in say six or so levels after the fact, but when you enter the stance it allows you to use a metamagic on any applicable spell?
Though now I say it, it occurs that would be functionally like the wizard capstone feat, which could be too much of a power gap.

Metamagical stances could be cool, but maybe instead of matching current metamagic effects they'd have new ones (and you can't stack it with metamagic). Stuff like elemental spell to change the spells damage type, or something to add weapon properties to spell attack roll cantrips. I'm just spitballing here but I like the idea.

I can't say for sure what paizo would do, but I can see a lot of ways to take it.
One would be to revamp all the items and make them more effective for the alchemist, so stuff like making bombs that are more effective on misses or hit saves instead of AC, and reducing drawbacks on mutagens.
Another would be to split the class into a martial and caster version, with the martial version being a full martial, and the caster getting some minor casting (cantrips maybe?) and the ability to brew up some potions as well, being a class that mixes magic and alchemy.

Another would be to keep the current class and try to just rewrite and streamline it, which IMO would require significant rewrites, and is the one I've thought about the most. I'll go over some of the stuff I'd like to see done to streamline the class while keeping it mostly the same.

1. Perpetuals starting at level 1. Alchemist bombs are pretty comparable to weapon strikes, and you need to spend an extra action to make it anyways. You'd get a single level 1 perpetual at level 1, the second at level 3, and then progress at the same rate as the base alchemist. This could replace signature items.

2. Flatten out the Infused reagents progression. Alchemist has the weirdest progression curve in the game, starting out being starved for resources, and ending the game flooded with them. Make it a base 10+int or something so the class' playstyle doesn't shift as dramatically as it does currently. The fact that quick alchemy and additive feats are basically dead until mid levels is disappointing, because those are some of the coolest class features. Also it would be cool if alchemists could get a focus point equivalent that could only be used for quick alchemy (note this would be a fine low level feat).

3. Powerful alchemy is level 1 and applies to literally anything you make. Other classes don't need to wait on making their abilities scale so why does alchemist?

3. combat proficiencies, This is a definite problem. The research fields and flavor encourage a few of the alchemist builds to be strikers, but they don't have the proficiency to back it up. It doesn't need to be full martial progression but something should be done to help out. Like maybe mutagenist gets a small untyped bonus when under the effects of their own mutagens or increases the item bonuses slightly, and bomber can apply debuffs like debilitating bombs and maybe even sticky bomb on a miss. Although I'm not convinced full martial proficiency would break the class.

4. The feats are an absolute mess at the moment. Number fixers like calculated splash and expanded splash just need to go. Either build them into the research field (there's a hole there at level 7 where it could fit if perpetuals are granted at level 1) or remove them entirely. Quick bomber is a necessity for an alchemist to use bombs at low levels, is strictly worse than quick draw AND STILL BECOMES A DEAD FEAT AT HIGH LEVELS (because double brew + perpetuals gives a similar effect and you can mix additives in) change it to quick draw or an equivalent for all alchemical items. Demolition charge is depressing, let it do the full damage to creatures, it takes an entire minute to set up + 4 bombs and an opponent to step into the space. Enduring alchemy should probably be a base feature, combine elixirs is confusing and doesn't work on mutagens (which would be cool) so its mostly for making super healing potions, Feral mutagen is another number fixer etc...
In general the feats need heavy rewrite, with less must haves, and more cool options like additives.

5. Chirurgeon: Its a mess, either let them have perpetual elixirs of life (its worth noting that they're always a tier behind on their perpetuals & the action economy on elxirs of life is bad in comparison to options like heal, in addition to the effectiveness, plus plenty of other classes have "infinite" out of combat healing anyways. Now that I think about it though an infusion focus point would work wonders here) or make them REALLY good at medicine. Also the greater field discovery should probably be nerfed to just change the die to d8s or something, literally the entire power budget for chirurgeon is tied into that level 13 bonus.

6. Mutagenist: Give them an untyped bonus somewhere, replace mutagenic flashback with an ability that lets them ignore the drawbacks of their own mutagens, and make mutagenic flashback a level 1 feat. Also change their perpetual option to "any common level <x> or lower mutagen"

7. Bomber: Mostly fine, change their perpetual option to "any common level <x> or lower mutagen"

8. Toxicologist: its fine, just clarify how long perpetual poisons actually last. If enduring is a level 1 feature either ruling would work.

9. More alchemical items to fill holes in their toolkits. I know it seems obvious, but there isn't really a strength alternative to quicksilver, or anything to buff casters much. Also the elixir of life progression is an issue, 1d6hp is barely relevant at level 1 except to wake up a dying ally. Just make it scale up at every odd level.

Pathfinder 2e in general struggles with these combat subclasses for casters, they all tend to just be bad options because they lack proficiency, their prime attribute doesn't affect their strikes, and there aren't many support feats for them. Plus the bonuses are easily obtained through other means.

If we don't factor in level or item bonuses, casters can get:
+5 to hit from 1-4
+6 to hit from 5-10
+8 to hit from 11-14
+9 to hit from 15-20

Normal martials have:
+6 from 1-4
+8 from 5-9
+9 from 10-12
+11 from 13-19
+12 at 20
Most martials have access to significant untyped bonuses to hit and/or damage.

Alchemist has:
+5 from 1-4
+6 from 6-7
+8 from 8-14
+9 from 15-20
*with potential access to +1 to hit as an item bonus that might apply to party members

Given these numbers, and how much martial caster subclasses struggle with being MAD, having a small untyped bonus somewhere would not break the math that much if they couldn't be picked up by other classes, especially if it came in after level 4, it would actually put their martial ability roughly on par with the alchemists' and consistently below what a martial could achieve at the same level.

Honestly I would go as far as to say they probably should get an untyped bonus of sorts somewhere for picking the martial subclass, as otherwise it's way too easy to get most of the benefits without taking it. An ancestry feat and/or a single class feat can often reap the full benefits.

Also there was a lot of talk about heroism(level 3 spell), Marshal, and inspire courage (bard only) but bless is also an easily accessible status bonus.

A few more ideas:
Unchained Alchemists (plural), I know its not a "path" persay but alchemist just feels messily put together, and even when its performing well it has some design issues that could be cleaned up.
By plural what I'd love to see is alchemist broken into two separate classes, Unchained Alchemist and Arcanochemist. Unchained alchemist would use a martial chassis, and arcanochemist would use a "caster" chassis and mix in some magic, get access to potions etc, it would be a class that mixes alchemy and magic.

Some class options bonded weapons. Inventor is good at this, Paladin has it as a feature but could be built upon more, but it would be cool to be explored in more depth with stuff like a "weapon" eidolon, a magus school, or an archetype.

Not sure how it'll work, but if I was writing something like vampire/lycanthrope I would:
Make it a versatile heritage. The heritage would come with a few of the base abilities (low light vision, negative healing, etc.) as well as the traditional weaknesses (weakened in sunlight, etc).
make an uncommon/rare archetype that is ONLY available to characters with that heritage (or something similar i.e dhampir for vampire or beastkin for lycanthrope)

That way it makes narrative sense, and it allows the kind of power budget allocation players who want to play those concepts want.

Alternatively make it a "cursed archetype" or something, where the "dedication" is literally just the affliction, and only really comes with downsides. You'd get the "dedication" for free when you're afflicted, and it wouldn't have the feat requirement to get out of it like most archetypes do. In this scenario an afflicted character would be driven to either lean into the archetype, or find a cure for it.

I had this idea today, and am now baffled as to how this isn't an official option.

Literally just a versatile heritage that grants you the adopted ancestry general feat at level 1.

Although maybe it would just devolve to gnomes adopting the entirely of golarion for flickmace proficiency.

Pack attack seems really bad to me, flanking isn't too tough to pull off so the benefit just needing the characters to be adjacent to the creature isn't a huge buff, especially for a level 2/5 spell. The nail in the coffin is the fact its a sustained spell. If it wasn't sustained, and just lasted a minute I could see it being useful.

Lack of a 1 handed reach spear/polearm.

Theres a lot of complaints about how optimal flickmace is, but more importantly spear + shield is a classic combination, there was even a feat for it in pathfinder 1e. Would be nice to see it return as an option either as a martial weapon with a d6 die, or as an archetype that gives spears and polearms two handed when wielding a shield in the other hand.

NemoNoName wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Since Witch can cast any tradition, that means having to be less powerful mechanically than any of the other spellcasting classes.

Witches can only cast spells from one Tradition, they don't have cross-Tradition spell access.

To clarify: yes, any one Witch character only gets one tradition.

The class as a whole is competing against all of the other casting classes. If the Witch class was comparatively better than the Wizard class, then the Rune Witch would obsolete the Wizard. Similarly, if the Witch class was comparatively better than the Cleric, then Fervor Witch would obsolete the Cleric.

So therefore, the Witch class as a whole needs to compare as slightly less powerful than any of the other casting classes. At least as far as HP, Armor, casting slots, weapon proficiency, armor proficiency, and the like are concerned. The room to shine is in the unique features such as class feats, familiar abilities, and focus spells.

Strongly disagree with this, although maybe its not worded as carefully as you intended.

There a cost to flexibility for sure, but if its flexibility that the character doesn't have access to you shouldn't take anything out of its power budget.

Alchemist is an example of a class who pays a cost to be flexible, and while I wouldn't agree alchemist is in a good spot it makes sense for it to be a bit weaker in terms of damage or healing to compensate for the flexibility.

Witch on the other hand is locked to a tradition from the start, it isn't flexibility its an option, and classes shouldn't be punished for having more options than other classes if they have to commit to only one of them.

Witch shouldn't be better than wizard/druid/cleric/bard but be roughly equal in overall power with them but express the power differently. i.e maybe they get less spells than a wizard, but make up for it with stronger focus spell options or support tools.

I think sentinel is fine, it might be a bit overtuned but there are definitely feats in the game that are far more egregious in their necessity and there's still some opportunity cost in taking an archetype.

It seems best suited for MAD characters though, I took it on a ruffian rogue (without free archetype variant) since I wanted to pump charisma. Strength magus, thaumaturge, and mutagenist appreciate it as well.

I also sort of don't see the inherent problem with dump stats, but that's another matter. Pathfinder 2.0 chooses to punish them kind of excessively, in my opinion. I wish weaknesses could lead to more interesting options and story beats, especially since the game seems a little preoccupied with specialization. :P

New general feats:

Errant Mercenary wrote:

Per Astra wrote:

4) Centrality of Strength to dealing melee damage--it feels weird that even with a weapon like the rapier that Strength is how you get your basic damage bonuses.

I sometimes wonder what it'd be if it was the weapon alone that did damage, and then the proficiency on top of that in lieu of strength.

I find this idea really appealing. It seems like it would change how combat works in a bunch of interesting ways...I'm tempted to try it out sometime in a game.

It would shift things towards dex too much I think. The decision between strength and dex is one between power and defense (usually).

Thaliak wrote:

5. Slings have limited support.

I too want more awesome slings. I wanted this in 1e also. Somewhere in the dark basement storage of the forums there's a thread thousands of posts long about wanting more awesome slings back then.

TwilightKnight wrote:

—crossbow continue to be suboptimal choices compared to bows. While I understand perfectly the historical reasonings, we are playing a fantasy game, not a historical reenactment. Crossbows need to be better.

I mean, you could make an argument that the historical reasonings aren't even that strong, considering that crossbows not only competed with bows, but in many non-England areas outcompeted and replaced them.

In the hands of skilled users, not in the baby-simple-weapon-for-incompetent-conscripts sense. I'll see Robin Hood and raise you a William Tell.

Random thought that probably belongs in homebrew:

The first thing a book written for me would have is unchained alchemist(or just a rewritten one), with an option for a homunculus companion somewhere. I'd also like to see more cool alchemical items.
For a second class, even if its way off theme, i'd love a rare "Beast" class where you literally just play as an animal. The ancestry options would basically function as your subclass/racket/etc with a few "heritage" options like awakened, some form of shapeshifter, or a "pet". It would be a bit strange but it would provide a very unique experience.

I love pf2, its my favorite system but I certainly have gripes.

-Alchemist in general, and especially how polarized people are on the class. It struggles heavily at lower levels with resources because its just as limited but doesn't get cantrips or focus spells. At higher levels it pays a cost for its utility which *may* be fair, but its closest counterpart in support, the bard, doesn't pay for its utility in nearly as impactful a way just having a less destructive spell list instead of worse proficiency.

How polarized people are about alchemist also baffles me, as even if you disagree on some of it, stuff like quick bomber and calculated splash existing as feats are a stain on pf2's generally strong feat design.

Fighter's overall +2 to hit at all times is just too much.

Martials should get more opportunity to use the degrees of success system.

Caster progression needs an update. It works for save based spells but not for spell attacks.

Champion has a lot of low level feats that just aren't very interesting, and the causes are poorly balanced against each other.

Mutagenist (and alchemist in general) is just riddled with issues. Giving up on dex means giving up on bombs and flexibility, and bestial mutagen hits your AC and reflex anyways so they'll still be awful.

In general most of other MAD examples listed have perfectly viable dex builds that trade off damage from Str bonus for better AC and reflex. I think its a pretty fair tradeoff.

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Temporary ability score boosts are very annoying to keep track of. There isn't anywhere on most character sheets to write down a bonus, and it then requires you to remember to add it to all of the calculations that are based on that ability score.

For example, if you have a spell that adds +2 to dex, you have to then remember to add a +1 to your AC, acrobatics, ranged attack rolls, reflex saves and potentially class DC, and probably a few things I can't remember off the top of my head.

To play Asmodean Advocate, doesn't the clumsy condition already do that?

Quote:

Your movements become clumsy and inexact. Clumsy always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to the condition value to Dexterity-based checks and DCs, including AC, Reflex saves, ranged attack rolls, and skill checks using Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery.

So why couldn't we have the opposite, a status bonus to all those things?

I mean, quicksilver mutagen kind of gives an item bonus to dex I guess.

Your features become thin and angular. You become swifter and nimbler, but your body also becomes fragile.

Benefit You gain an item bonus to Acrobatics checks, Stealth checks, Thievery checks, Reflex saves, and Dexterity-based attack rolls, and you gain the listed status bonus to your Speed.

Drawback You take damage equal to twice your level; you can't recover Hit Points lost in this way by any means while the mutagen lasts. You take a –2 penalty to Fortitude saves

- Expert weapon proficiency ( lvl 5 ) and master weapon proficiency ( lvl 13 )
- Bombs like cantrips with quick alchemy ( 1 action tocreate 1 to throw )
- Less reagents per day ( eventually, something like the alchemical study investigator, or just a progression like the poisoner/herbalist one ).

Maybe we'll see some homebrew wave alchemist soon.

I'm a bit tempted to write some homebrew rules to correct alchemist myself, although alchemists are almost the "beta" version of wave casters already since their "spells" are always max level. To adapt that strengthwise to an alchemist you would definitely need stronger items though unless you buffed perpetuals significantly.

If I were dming the campaign I'd be fine introducing it, but as a player it would feel a bit wierd. The primary goals would be to make alchemist more consistent, with less jarring power dips without buffing their potential overall.

SuperBidi wrote:

Debilitating becomes usable only at level 18 if you spent at least 3 feats on it...

We've had this (respectful) discussion in other threads so I'm not really going to go back and forth.

Dazzled gives a 20% miss chance, which is huge. If an enemy would hit on a nat 6 (75% hit), the 20% miss chance is better than a +3 AC (it'd be +3 AC if the enemy never crit, but dazzled also negates crits 15% of the time); if the enemy would hit on a nat 11 (50% hit), the 20% miss chance is better than a +2 AC.

So even if the enemy has a 50-75% chance of making the save, it's still, on average, worth more than a standard +1 AC bonus (because it also negates crits, and is stackable with everything) of whoever the enemy is attacking.

Is Debilitating debilitating? No. BEST FEAT EVAR? No. Pretty good for a 6th level feat? Yes.

Is Greater Debilitating debilitating? No. Pretty good for a 10th level feat? No.

Is True Debilitating debilitating? No. Pretty good for a 14th level feat? I'm not sure, I'll tell you when I get to 14th. But maybe. I'd still probably be using dazzling bottled lightnings over half of the time.

Would throwing in some actually debilitating conditions (blinded, confused, fascinated, immobilized, paralyzed, prone, stunned) improve the chain? Yes. Is the chain worth taking without that improvement? I'm neither convinced it is or it isn't.

I don't think debilitating is terrible myself, but you've only got like a 25% chance of actually applying it against a same level enemy. ~50% chance to hit, ~50% chance for the opponent to fail their save means you get to apply it ~25% of the time against a same level enemy. Its very inconsistent, much like bombs are in general.

Extra actions should be pricey IMO, so a 1st/2nd level feat shouldn't be doling them out each round. Yes, familiars are fragile, but they're also giving you other benefits too. Getting a bonus action here or there seems pretty worthwhile on its own, at least at the cost of a low level feat that works while Quickened.

Was it imbalanced? Um, kind of, yes. Imagine having all of those options with a telekinetic force, even one that's susceptible to attacks. Wouldn't that seem OP for 1st level?
PF2 has a lot of cushion for imbalance so no, it wasn't game breaking. Yet it was tasty enough that having a familiar became a default for many. You even call them an important class feature for a Wizard, when if it were balanced it shouldn't be more important than the other 1st & 2nd level feats. (Whether the Arcane Thesis balances becomes a new question though.)

As for Independent, the new ruling simply slows down the familiar's contribution, but it still can contribute in combat. And Valet can still deliver, just not apply. And so forth, as seems appropriate IMO.
Not sure what Paizo intended with some of those other abilities you list. Hmm. But as for combat, the list of familiar and master abilities has dozens of options, with many contributing directly to combat or other dangerous situations, so I disagree familiars should be downgraded to a skill feat.
Though it would be funny to have an Eidelon with a familiar. :)

Wizard is a pretty bad example because all their level 1 and 2 feats are fairly weak, and familiars shouldn't be nerfed just because wizards like to take them.

The class most affected by the change is alchemist, who doesn't have access to improved familiar and has some of the worst action economy for healing.

Ganigumo wrote:

The issue is by the time you get perpetuals you're finally starting to get past your resource issues anyways.

In my opinion, Perpetual Bombs are just there to help you when you're out of resources, and as you point out they arrive too late to be really that useful.

Investing in Perpetual Bombs, as I see many people going for what I'd call "Perpetual builds", is in my opinion a bad idea. It defeats the point of the Alchemist (being a jack of all trades using its versatility to compensate its lack of power) and it doesn't work much as Perpetual Bombs are so weak that even when stacking tons of feats on them you don't end up with anything competitive.

The only Perpetual Items I find useful are Chirurgeon ones, as they give a small bonus to everyone. It gives you an idea of how I see the other Perpetual Items.

As a side note, I find the Debilitating feat chain to be too weak to be even considered. There shouldn't be a Fortitude save in the first place to make it on par with most spell debuffs (low level spell debuffs are both cheap and with a greater "accuracy" as they don't ask for a hit and a save to affect the enemy).

Most of the stuff that improves perpetuals just improves quick alchemy, I think the only feat that directly affects perpetuals is perpetual breadth.

Debilitating bomb should keep the fort save, but apply to everything hit by splash damage (so it can still work on a miss). Honestly I think making bombs with debuffs apply their debuffs to everything in the splash area in general would go a long way, since alchemist would become a consistent debuffer.

The other problem is that new Alchemist feats are really hard to justify when the existing feats are so important to make the class function.

Agreed, they need to roll those feats into the base class or get rid of them, and make alchemist more consistent elsewhere.

Puna'chong wrote:

the class hasn't really had anything new since the APG

This is one thing kind of rough about the Alchemist. Because it's not really a martial and not really a spellcaster, it doesn't explicitly benefit from new material supporting either. The class feels very self contained in a lot of ways which means it doesn't feel like it gains a lot from books that don't specifically have new things for the alchemist.

It also has math fixer feats that new class feats would need to compete with somehow. Which means they'd also need to be math fixer feats.

Ganigumo wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Not at all.
You create elixirs during daily preps and give em to allies.

They will manage to use them on the first round of combat.
For example, Drink it ( given a free weapon ) or drink it and draw a weapon ( sword and board character ) or drink it and put the grip back to the weapon ( dual weapon user ).

1 action to draw, 1 action to drink. if the entire party drinks one at the start of combat that's 4-8 actions depending on how many members have a free hand in their setup. Drink & draw (2 actions), Drink and add a hand to a 2-hander (2 actions, removing a hand is free, but putting it back is an action), drink w/free hand (1 action)

Why, assuming the party has an alchemist, wouldn't they, assuming a dungeon or a dangerous environement, walk with a potion in hand rather than a weapon in hand?

Also, stop considering that you have to give them elixirs ( mutagens mostly ) one at a time rather than giving them supplies anytime but during combat. It's against any logic.

It's one action to drink and, eventually, to draw/grip the weapon.

If the party wants to drink the elixir at the beginning of the combat, there's no reason not to walk with an elixir in hand rather than a weapon.

Yes which is 1-2 actions per party member, across a party of 4, which is 4-8 actions.

If they aren't holding the mutagens (maybe because low level alchemists can't make enough for every fight unless they only make mutagens) it's 2-3 actions per party member. for a total of 8-12 actions.

This is all assuming the party members have the mutagens before the fight starts.

We're not in disagreement about the scenario here, but this is atrocious action economy for what you get out of it. Bless and inspire courage have way better economy, without drawbacks, especially since you don't take actions away from your other party members to use it.

Ganigumo wrote:

It's buffs are all single target and take 2 actions, while only giving an ~+1 item bonus (the same as aoe abilities like bless or inspire courage)

Not at all.

You create elixirs during daily preps and give em to allies.

They will manage to use them on the first round of combat.
For example, Drink it ( given a free weapon ) or drink it and draw a weapon ( sword and board character ) or drink it and put the grip back to the weapon ( dual weapon user ).

1 action to draw, 1 action to drink. if the entire party drinks one at the start of combat that's 4-8 actions depending on how many members have a free hand in their setup. Drink & draw (2 actions), Drink and add a hand to a 2-hander (2 actions, removing a hand is free, but putting it back is an action), drink w/free hand (1 action)

Ganigumo wrote:

pre-prepared bombs have similar damage to bows, with extra effects, but have bad action economy without quick draw/quick bomber so handing them to allies is weak. Alchemist accuracy make applying those extra effects a challenge as well.

It's true that not all combatant are going to have quick draw ( the only ones are rogue and ranger IIRC, or you might bet it from an archetype ), but knowing what you'll be fighting, and given the fact they are ranged weapon and most important the "MAP", the possibility to use them to trigger weaknesses in addition to the damage is something I wouldn't exclude.

Intelligence works permitted ( scouting and knowing what you are going to fight ) might result in using specific bombs ( assuming you didn't go with 30 fire bombs but 3x each, for example.

But I do share some of your thoughts too ( consider this as a possibility, and not something mandatory ).

Hitting weaknesses is great but inconsistent, you have a lot of options to hit elemental weaknesses and help your party do it, but figuring out weaknesses isn't always easy now that not all recall knowledge checks use int.

Ganigumo wrote:

Lack of early perpetuals really hurts their longevity in adventures, even worse than casters who at least have cantrips.

True, that it's why it's wiser ( in my opinion ) to go with a witch/wizard dedication until lvl 7, when spellcasters will get 2 points ahead of you, and you are going to hit the first perpetual-

Though, to be honest, I'd always prefer a striking weapon rather than perpetuals, unless poisons, if you consider them to to last on a weapon until your next daily preparations rather then expire at the end of the round, but this would require a...

Yeah its rare that you could convince a martial to use bombs over their weapon, maybe in special situations where you can hit weaknesses or something. Toxicologist perpetuals barely function if they expire at the end of the round, so I can't imagine they do.

Ganigumo wrote:

So far at low levels the class just feels incredibly underwhelming, I don't have enough reagents, (even with 18 int and extra reagents) to hand out buffs to my allies when I also need to make healing elixirs and bombs. Quicksilver elixir is pretty dangerous for the swashbuckler anyways, and quick alchemy is basically pointless at this level because of the limited reagents.

Well, it's like being a caster and complains that he hasn't enough slots to blast and buff allies during every single encounter.

Choices have to be made, whether they lean towards supporting, healing or damaging stuff.

The more you level up, the more the possibilities ( starting from lvl 11 mutagens are going to last 1 hours rather than 1 or 10 minutes ).

Alchemist issues imo are mostly the expectations, because it's a "unique" class and there's hardly comparison with another.

For example, an alchemist with life elixir would be able to feed it to an ally, or the ally may be able to drink it by himself.

Bombs deal normal damage ( 2d6/2d8 starting from lvl 3 + extra effects ) and you can brew different elemental( i mean the 4 elements + sonic ) stuff, along with negative, positive, poison, mental, etc...

Can be either used by you or a martial combatant.

I agree that if you compare it to a martial character or even a blaster spellcaster there's no comparison, but point is that the alchemist is neither a blaster nor a combatant, so it's unfair trying to match him with another class.

It could use some adjustments, I totally agree on this.

I don't have an issue with alchemist being different from martials or casters, but it relies on essentially the same mechanics as those other characters to do what it needs to, making it inconsistent.

It's buffs are all single target and take 2 actions, while only giving an ~+1 item bonus (the same as aoe abilities like bless or inspire courage)

Elixirs of life only scale on d6s and take 2-3 actions to work, 2 actions to draw and use it, 1 action to move to your ally. By pure economy its better for allies to drink it themselves, but you're the support that's weaker in combat

pre-prepared bombs have similar damage to bows, with extra effects, but have bad action economy without quick draw/quick bomber so handing them to allies is weak. Alchemist accuracy make applying those extra effects a challenge as well.

Lack of early perpetuals really hurts their longevity in adventures, even worse than casters who at least have cantrips.

They're just lacking tools to make them more consistent and efficient, like an additive for aoe mutagens, earlier perpetuals, and gaps in elixirs of life levels.

I've been playing through ruins of gauntlight with a half-elf alchemist, we're at level 2 so far and it's been painful.

Built my character with:
8 Str
16 Dex
14 Con
10 Wis
10 Cha

Bomber alchemist, took quick bomber at 1, and alchemical familiar at 2, Elven weapon familiarity so I could use a shortbow, and since we're doing the extra archetype variant I took rogue dedication at 2 so I could get some extra skill feats/training.
Been running the familiar with extra reagents and speech.

So far at low levels the class just feels incredibly underwhelming, I don't have enough reagents, (even with 18 int and extra reagents) to hand out buffs to my allies when I also need to make healing elixirs and bombs. Quicksilver elixir is pretty dangerous for the swashbuckler anyways, and quick alchemy is basically pointless at this level because of the limited reagents.

I've been making a couple quicksilver elixirs for my own use, to help with my accuracy issues, but its not enough to get through all the encounters in a day and even then it eats up 1-2 actions at the start of every fight just to use it.

Accuracy is still an issue, even with the elixir, most level 2 enemies seem to have 17-19 AC, I've got an attack bonus of 7, or 8 with the elixir and can't benefit from flanking on my ranged attacks which gives me 40-50% accuracy without the elixir, or 45-55% with it against same level enemies which gets worse against higher level ones.

Damage-wise bombs are unimpressive, doing only slightly more than the shortbow (composite shortbow with a decent str mod would be close) and either applying a debuff or having some extra persistent damage, but being limited in uses per day. Generally I only use the shortbow to attack when I have the MAP or are out of bombs. Splash damage has yet to be useful outside of the bonus 1 damage the target takes (it turns out enemies being adjacent to each other, while not being adjacent to a party member is pretty rare). I know eventually, with feats, the math might even out if you factor in persistent damage, but given how short most fights tend to be, combined with alchemist's accuracy issues that makes missing a bomb in an early turn is absolutely crippling.

Honestly I really like the idea of debuff bombs, but due to accuracy and not applying the debuff on a miss they're a bit inconsistent, especially when compared to debuff spells.

Feat selection is also much less interesting than other classes I think, I took quick bomber because otherwise my action economy would be ruined, and alchemical familiar since I'm desperate for reagents. At level 4 I basically need to take calculated splash as a number fixer and prerequisite for another number fixer.

I understand that alchemist turns on at higher levels, and seems to scale a bit quadratically, but its the only class that does this buy it makes playing an alchemist at low levels pretty painful.

At this point I kind of think the class needs some serious reworking, I love the additive feats, but locking it to quick alchemy, while quick alchemy is so difficult to use at low levels, makes them bad choices early on, especially combined with the fact that feats like quick bomber are almost mandatory.

If I were to make some changes I would:

-Add "quick grab" as a class feature which lets alchemists draw an alchemical item in the same action it takes to use it. (helps with action economy of all alchemists, bombers get quick bomb for free, healers can use an elixir on an ally in 2 actions since they only need to move and use it, and mutagenists don't need to walk around with a potion in their hands at all times)
-Enduring alchemy is a class feature built into quick alchemy
-Ditch signature items, alchemists get perpetual infusion at level 1, for a single alchemical item related to their research field.
-Lesser perpetuals lowered to level 3
-All bombs available as bomber perpetual options
-debuff bombs still applying debuffs to targets hit by the splash damage
-Sticky bomb removes all direct damage from the bomb and converts it into persistent damage (i.e lesser alchemists fire would do 1 splash and 1d8+2 persistent) the class needs less math fixer feats
-Calculated splash, do something, the class needs less math fixer feats, maybe just add half int mod in splash damage to all bombs made by the alchemist as a class feature or something
-Demolition Charge: full bomb damage to all targets adjacent to the explosion, it takes a minute to set up and you can't use perpetuals for it, lets make it cool
-Rewrite Chirurgeon, I'm not sure what exactly it should do, but it's not very interesting outside of the greater field discovery, maybe change that to be d8s on your elixirs instead of healing the maximum amount and shift some power down to lower levels (maybe a perpetual level 0 elixir that heals 2hp or something)
-level 3 elixir of life for 2d6+3
-more mutagen types for mutagenists, as well as making mutagenic flashback a level 1 feat, and replacing it with a feature letting you ignore drawbacks of your own mutagens.
-mutagenist can pick strength or dex as a primary attribute
-Maybe lower number of infusions since perpetuals come online at level 1 now? 1/2 level + int? maybe a feat for full level + int? although loss of signature items at levels 1-4 might be enough of a swing

What's everyone else's opinion on the class? is it fine? does it need to be adjusted? Does it just need new alchemical item options? I honestly think the class is pretty close to being great but they need to flatten out the power curve a bit. I'd be fine with bomber's lower accuracy and damage if they could apply debuffs more consistently, and it would be nice if chirurgeon was appealing at lower levels.