I *HATED* that the Arcanist tried to be the cool guy wizard who doesn't play by the rules like a loser, like all the scrub regular wizards have to.
If there is a way to break the rules of magic, it's going to be a freaking Wizard who does that. PC wizards 100% aren't the "by the book" archetype. More often than not they're the "pursue knowledge and power at any cost" archetype. No chance they'll ignore loopholes if they find them.
That's just it though, Wizards are the casters *are* the rule users. They have no innate, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants capability for magical talent (i.e. no spontaneous capabilities). Instead, they are trying to *find* the rules and work within them to the greatest extent possible.
Meanwhile, Sorcerers and their ilk run purely on innate capability, but are fully *bound* by that capability. If they can't do it naturally, through the power coursing through their veins, then they can't do it at all, no matter how many textbooks the point-hatted-ones yell and scream about. Sure, you can Levitate without having ever studied it, but you've got no idea how to summon a Fireball even though the power management basics are all fundamentally identical according to the books.
So, in comes the Arcanist, who took their innate capabilities and studied the textbooks and managed to use their spontaneous power as a fuel, directing it into the spells of their choosing through a little preparation, just like they learned at school.
But what is the fictional equivalent of a L8/Tier 2 character?
In what ways is it supposed to be weaker than a straight L10 character and in what ways is it stronger (using the absolute fiction that Paizo sold that 1 Mythic Tier was about equal to 1 character level in power)?
Those are two different things. Fluff vs crunch.
The fluff of an L8/M2 character is, in my mind, like a young Hercules. Not having yet fought the lion or cleaned the stables. Perhaps he already has the strength to carry the world for Atlas for a little while, but he hasn't realized it, so he effectively self limits. Justifiable, perhaps, because Paizo refers to these as mythic paths, reflecting your journey toward final realization of your full mythic potential. Baby Hercules killed a snake in his crib; doesn't mean he was ready to punch a river into submission.
The crunch is wholly different. Mythic in PF1 not only granted more numbers, it also represented hard tiers e.g. overcoming creatures with mythic resistance or saving vs. mythic spells. In addition, you were getting access to a second path of new abilities. Theoretically, you could simulate this by tacking on additional feats during leveling; you get granted new options and at a faster pace.
Mechanically, it means that against a similarly leveled threat:
- Your base ability to overcome it through raw numbers was improved with bigger numbers
- Your flexibility in dealing with unexpected challenges was also increased e.g. taking the "I don't need VSM for casting" mythic abilities as an archmage left you able to deal with silence, grappling, and lost pouches for your casting.
So, taking a stab at this, I would introduce a new trait, Mythic. It can be applied to a number of things. It could optionally have a number as well, indicating the Mythic rank involved. To perform a Mythic action requires meeting the indicated Mythic rank (defaults to 1). Want to cast a Mythic 2 spell, you need to be Mythic rank 2. If you are opposing an effect with the Mythic trait, you either need to meet the rank requirement or else have your degree of success reduced by one.
As for your mythic abilities, you'd gain them as you gain mythic ranks, and mythic ranks, as in PF1, could be gained independently from regular levels.
You have to know what spell it is to know if you want to cast a dispel
No, you don't. You could decide you want to try to dispel it just because clearly they want to have it, and you don't want them to have what they want.
If I've bothered to cast Mind Blank I'd really not want to burn a Dispel Magic when the caster is hitting me with a mind affecting spell, else what was the point. Same goes for other spells you may have already cast protections against.
You can use the Craft activity to create alchemical items. When you select this feat, you immediately add the formulas for four common 1st-level alchemical items to your formula book.
No where does the feat actually say you get the formula book for free, so do you still need to buy one for 1gp?
On the one hand, the Formula Book exists. On the other hand, it seems to suggest it does not need to exist:
CRB, Formula Book wrote:
A formula book holds the formulas necessary to make items other than the common equipment from this chapter; alchemists typically get one for free. Each formula book can hold the formulas for up to 100 different items. Formulas can also appear on parchment sheets, tablets, and almost any other medium; there's no need for you to copy them into a specific book as long as you can keep them on hand to reference them.
So... maybe you get one, maybe you don't, but it seems you could just shove a bunch of loose leaf paper into a pouch, bag, sack, or backpack, and reference them when needed, rather than splurging on a 1gp book to file them into.
But you continue to miss the RAW argument:
Flame, Poison, Precious, Versatile are traits and are out.
Striking, Potency and all runes are magical properties and are out.
Silver, Cold Iron, Budgeoning, Piercing , Slashing are mundane properties and are not excluded so they are in.
Silver and Cold Iron are not traits because Precious exists. The Precious trait is what enables an item to apply effects relevant to the specific precious material the item consists of. If you remove Precious, that implicitly means it is no longer 'Silver' for purposes of determining special results from a weapon or item being Silver.
I did have one player get defensive and begin shouting at me when I brought up the idea of players suggesting when to reward hero points as one possible means of helping me remember to do so. I was told to "stop being a [part of the female anatomy] and that I should just do my [expletive] job as GM and remember them in the first place so they wouldn't all die again. That it's not their fault and that I shouldn't be putting the blame on them." I nearly hung up on him, but I suspected he misconstrued what I had said, and knew that disconnecting in anger would only make matters worse, so I stuck it out, let him have his three-minute vent session, then when he was calmer, continued talking to him calmly about how I intended to do what I could to make the game better, and how that would be impossible without everyone's cooperation. The subject soon changed to real world topics that made it abundantly clear that the stress caused by the pandemic and lockdowns are far more responsible for everyone's behavior than the VTT.
Why are you tolerating that person's behaviour? Whether it's related to gaming or not, that's a completely unacceptable way to behave, especially to someone who's meant to be a friend. Lots of people are stressed right now, but most of us can refrain from profanity-laden rants at our alleged friends over mechanics in roleplaying games. Life's too short to tolerate this kind of nonsense.
I wanted to respond to this because I had the exact opposite reaction... @Ravingdork, I'm impressed that you were able to do this for your friend. As you pointed out, it became clear outside factors were affecting things, you gave your friend some emotional space, and, not having allowed one attack, misconstrued or not, to define the conversation, you were able to find a positive end and work together to resolve the issue, for both the individual and the group.
That is excellent emotional intelligence and a great example of "being there" for someone. Obviously if this was the constant pattern of behavior this would have been a continuation of an unhealthy cycle, but in terms of handling the airing of concerns during a highly stressful period of time, I think it was great. Kudos from a random internet stranger.
Update Alchemical Alacrity to provide one additional action, usable only in the round Alchemical Alacrity was used, and only to use one alchemical item created that round by Alchemical Alacrity. Any unused alchemical items created by Alchemical Alacrity beyond the number of free hands become stowed (or worn or whatever they intended).
When they say stow I believe they mean worn, otherwise that would be making three items, then taking off your backpack, putting the item in it, and putting it back on all in one action. You're probably putting it in a bandolier.
I don't disagree that would make it more reasonable, particularly since if I can act with such alacrity that I can make 3 alchemical items *and* still have time to put one into a backpack, all in 1 action, it seems odd that I can't also pull it right back out and do something with it next round and do *that* in 1 action.
But unfortunately it says "stowed". I guess we get to at least pick which container it gets stuffed into.
I let this blog stew in my noodle for a bit longer and I have to agree that if there is significant uncertainty about how the classes will go, it should be pushed back.
The whole "4-slot casting" paradigm is going to be a major part of the game going forward, serving as a foundation for all half-martials/half-casters from here on out. It's important to get it right.
I do believe it would be a mistake to proceed with 4-slot casting, for reason's I've espoused in the playtest forums. Martial Caster was woefully inadequate, and getting it baseline wouldn't come close to providing the right feel for the class, and would be a disservice to future classes who are going to be stuck with 4-slot casting as well.
Agreed on the 4-slot casting, specifically the Martial Caster concept. Martial Caster feels very much like a hack, a way of saying "we know the toolkit for Magus casting feels light weight, so we're going to back some spells back in that seem to be useful for a Magus". It's an inelegant solution because it creates a fixed laundry list that all Magus' taking that feat will have access to. It removes a lot of the "I'm equally a magic caster with a spellbook and preparations to make" from the class.
What happens when another 4 slot casting class comes along with a different set of spells that "seem necessary but are generally inaccessible in our new 4 slot casting arrangement"? Does that class get its own set of spells that can be added back via a feat? It feels orthogonal to the intent of the design.
Mistform Elixir has the Illusion trait but is not magical. The Illusion trait refers to the Illusion school of magic. So I'm a bit puzzled. Is it an error?
Being a trait, it allows interaction with things that affect or rely upon illusions. So, for example, True Seeing allows you to pierce illusions:
True Seeing wrote:
You see things within 60 feet as they actually are. The GM rolls a secret counteract check against any illusion or transmutation in the area, but only for the purpose of determining whether you see through it (for instance, if the check succeeds against a polymorph spell, you can see the creature's true form, but you don't end the polymorph spell).
One of the problems with maneuver debuffers (and other similar options) is that they often give the flat footed condition. That -2 is great. But depending on the situation, anyone could give it by standing in flanking position.
It is great when a rogue has something like feint to give himself flat footed, since it means he can more easily go toe to toe, one on one. But it might not be as useful to the party since you already open flat footed
from flanking just by standing in melee range to do the feint.
Flat footed becomes a much better party debuff if you can make someone flat footed for everyone at a distance. When you can pick out someone at archery of your ranger or someone engaged in melee with the barbarian on the other end of the battlefield, then it opens up a lot more options.
Now, maneuver builds are good, but I tend to value them for battlefield control or setting up things for AoOs with trips. But that is a separate issue from most debuffs.
While it's true you can get flat-footed "for free" just by flanking, given that you must be within your reach in order to contribute to flanking, it means someone has to a) have had the mobility and b) be willing/able to stand within striking distance of the target.
Except for a few cases, it seems like it's prudent to avoid ending your turn next to a melee combatant. So while flanking offers flat-footed, it comes with its own risks that make other options more attractive for many combatants. I'm thinking here of the mobile strikers, light monks, rogues, anyone who might be interested in getting a melee strike off but generally avoid remaining in range.
What would the impact be of converting all current spell attack spells to save spells, with success/crit success (of the target) equating to a simple miss and fail/crit fail (of the target) equating to a simple hit, or crit fail (of the target) equating to a crit attack result if the spell has such an effect stipulated? Judge it as a homerule or a potential rules change.
I understand the psychological concern... I know I *prefer* to roll and get a 20 as it feels much more like I'm somehow responsible for the result. I'm just wondering how it might impact things mechanically?
This came up in the other thread as well, but if a Magus is just a fighter/wizard, then what justifies its presence in a game system that went out of its way to ensure fighter/wizard can be played?
Well I guess now there is no need for any calss that is mix of other 2 classes.
Say goodbye to magus, shaman, swashbuckler, investigator, hunter, arcanist, brawler, bloodrager.
I think that was kind of Magic Sword's point:
What justifies them as separate classes?
Swashbuckler has panache (and people think it works) and investigator has his cases (and people think its at least functioning).
But the magus? The magus's special action is to "do exactly what a fighter/wizard can do" except have less to-hit, less HP, and less spells.
Eh.. that's only true to a point. Granted, the Magus is still casting a spell and swinging a weapon, but Striking Spell does offer a couple of perks:
- You get the benefit of your synthesis. This is intended to reward the Magus in terms of action economy by providing additional benefit when performing this activity. A Fighter/Wizard casting a 2-action spell and swinging a weapon would be done with their round with no additional benefit. A Magus might have teleported a short distance as well, gained temporary hit points, or ... well... then there's Shooting Star...
- If you crit with your weapon strike, your spell gets bumped up a level in effect. I see this a little more as the damage boost that other martials get, but it's still something that your Fighter/Wizard would not have.
And of course, a Magus would still have the option of just casting said spell normally, in case they still wanted the area of effect rather than single targeting.
And strictly speaking, to get the spells in the first place, the Fighter/Wizard is using their feats on a dedication. Which dedication would you like the Magus to pick up? Which might give them additional spells to cast with? Wouldn't that put them ahead on spells available per day?
And of course, while a Wizard/Fighter would have vastly more spells per day, their HP would be even lower, as would their AC.
I'm not completely comfortable with where the Magus sits right now, but I think it has a place. I think you should have the ability to add additional Synthesis options to choose from down the road, and I think you should have something to gain some endurance through the day like a Focus spell to recast previously cast spells (e.g. Spell Buffer - Focus 1 - cast the last memorized spell you cast again). But there seems to be enough to differentiate that warrants the Magus as a class.
Perhaps in lieu of stances, you gain syntheses over time. Either an Expanded Synthesis feat that allows you to obtain additional synthesis to choose from, or perhaps as additional options given out e.g. 7th and 14th level (picking levels at random there, but you get the idea).
So you choose one at 1st, and then at later levels you can choose additional, which you could then use normally.
What if Striking Spell auto-bumped, as @Verzen describes, but only when casting a slotted spell i.e. not cantrips. For cantrips, it would fall back to the current behavior.
So when you absolutely want to count on getting that improvement for your spell cast, you use a slotted spell. Given the 2/2 slot capability, it limits the effect usage significantly, and in keeping with the situations where you would most want to use your most powerful spells, you would also be giving yourself guaranteed improvement.
As a side note, poison immune enemies are now rare. It's roughly 10% of the database.
In my opinion, a properly played Alchemist is an opportunist. As such, you can't compare their efficiency "on average" because their average is low.
Poisons cost no actions, will have no effect most of the time, but when they will kick in, they will be very nice. As a side note, damage/reagent is higher with poison than bombs (equivalent at low levels, higher as soon as you get to level 8). So, a properly played Alchemist must use poison on everyone's weapon at each combat (as soon, of course, as he has sufficient reagents). And poison should come before bombs in terms of reagents allocation.
Bombs are awesome to abuse weaknesses. That's why bomb feats are not at all math fixers to me. As long as you target weaknesses, the so called math fixers account for less than 10% of your damage and become no more math fixers. The only exception is Ghost Charge, which is awesome even without abusing a weakness and benefits greatly from the math fixers.
And thanks to Valet + Independent, it's very possible to use Elixirs of Life as a single action, giving them nearly the same action efficiency than a maxed Heal. It's limited in range, but considering the amount of reagents you can get, it's very quickly not that limited compared to spell slots.
Alchemist is also a very nice tank because a big part of your efficiency is either preapplied or given to your allies before battle (when you have the chance to have Monks/Animal Barbarians and other characters with a free hand to avoid wasting actions). As such, losing the Alchemist is not that much of a big deal.
I won't say that the class is not buggy, I will clearly not say that the class is strong, but I really think the class has things to bring to the party, as long as you reach at least level 5. Of course, I'd put an Alchemist in a party only if it's an already big one. In a 4-man group, I will never bring an Alchemist. As a support class, it's strength is in numbers.
@SuperBidi, I am not calling you out here, but I do want to point something out... your explanation for why an Alchemist is a reasonable choice as a class includes quite a few disclaimers:
- Poisons "will have no effect most of the time, but when they will kick in, they will be very nice"
- Use poisons for each combat "as soon.. as he has sufficient reagents"
- Elixirs of Life have 1 action economy *if* you take Valet + Independent
- But they are still limited in range
- They are nice tanks but only to the extent that you are providing prebuffs to other martials in the group
- Such that "losing the Alchemist is not that much of a big deal"
- It has things to bring to the party... if you reach level 5
- And only if it's over 4 characters in size
Again, I'm just pointing out there are a *lot* of disclaimers here for seeming to support Alchemist as a reasonably well designed class.
I think you're also misunderstanding things - just like Rogue, even though something is skill-related doesn't mean it should be a skill feat. For example, Alchemical Savant is Quick Identification at legendary, but with more features. It's like picking up a level 1 class feat that lets you fall unlimited distances, plus you can also bounce off it and Stride at the bottom if you're adjacent to a wall.
Yes, but how often do you anticipate the need to quickly identify an alchemical item? Do you think that is worthy of a class feat?
As a mutagenist, given that one of the complaints about handing out my mutagens to teammates is that they are stuck with the penalties for the entire duration, it would be nice if Revivifying Mutagen could also be used on others. This would allow you to have everyone take your Serene Mutagen while searching for traps and then at least make the attempt to cancel said mutagens when combat comes. Maybe the healing only occurs to you.
As for comparing the limited number of spell casts to the potentially higher number of items an alchemist can provide in a day... the limit only matters if you are likely to approach it in an adventuring day. I suspect that is a fairly niche event.
What if the result of the weapon attack roll became the floor+1 for the spell result?
So if from your weapon roll, you get a success, the worst your spell could result in is a failure. If you get a critical success with your weapon, you'll at least get a success with your spell. Of course, if you fail to hit with your weapon, you could still get a critical fail on your spell result.
Note that I'm saying result... so if you are using a spell attack, you can't "crit fail" as such but you can certainly fail.
Question... if you allow a Spell Strike using your lower level slots, aren't you effectively giving them a big boost? If you *do* manage to crit with your weapon Strike, it automatically bumps up your result, which could change a miss (because you were casting a 1st level spell instead of a 5th level spell and rolled low by 3) into a hit, etc. It seems like part of the intent of limiting to the top two available spell levels was to avoid boosting the power of the lower spell slots through your weapon crits.
Lower level spells are effectively dealing less damage than cantrips in those slots at that level, so even if you do use them, they still aren’t creating significant changes in DPR.
For instance at level 5 (first level this new system takes effect) Shocking Grasp does 2d12 save damage for 13 avg
Chill Touch does 8 + 4 (Int at lvl 5) for 12 avg.
It comes down to being more versatile with effect choices.
But remember, losing your highest level slot on the odds is a significant drop in DPR too, and that’s what you’re buying with that drop (longer days and more versatility).
Fair point about damage, but what about save spells? Fear at level 1 would suffer from a weaker DC but the effect could then be bumped back up as a result of your weapon crit. Arguably, you could then fill your spell list with various heightened/reduced memorizations of a couple of control spells. Doing that while working to max your crit fishing would seem to pump more power than may be desired into those lower level slots.
Question... if you allow a Spell Strike using your lower level slots, aren't you effectively giving them a big boost? If you *do* manage to crit with your weapon Strike, it automatically bumps up your result, which could change a miss (because you were casting a 1st level spell instead of a 5th level spell and rolled low by 3) into a hit, etc. It seems like part of the intent of limiting to the top two available spell levels was to avoid boosting the power of the lower spell slots through your weapon crits.
Your mastery of alchemical secrets enables you to replicate effects most believe can be achieved only via magic. Select a number of potions equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1) of 9th level or lower. You gain formulas to create these potions as alchemical items with the elixir trait. When making these alchemical elixirs, you can substitute alchemical reagents for an equal value of magical components, and you can use alchemist’s tools (for Quick Alchemy) or an alchemist’s lab (for the Craft activity) instead of any other required tool kits. Other than that, the formula does not change. Once you’ve chosen the potion formulas, they can’t be changed.
Both in the fluff and in the crunch, it appears that your new Improbable Elixir:
- is an alchemical item
- has the alchemical and elixir traits
- replaces magic with alchemy
I think it is clear that it would have the alchemical and elixir traits. I think it is heavily implied (though not explicitly stated RAW) it would *not* have magical or potion traits.
Consider if when you roll a melee crit, you have a chance of breaking your weapon. And it's based on the amount of damage you actually do. You can choose *not* to apply the additional crit damage, in which case your weapon will not break. But you crit, you risk blowing up your weapon.
Now imagine there are "Striking" weapons, a separate class of weapons for which they have reinforcement and there's a significantly reduced chance of weapon breakage on critting. They also offer some hit bonuses similar to how striking runes are apportioned.
But they can't be enchanted, having no actual rune slots. No striking runes, no property runes.
Fighters, Barbarians, and other big hitters would get weapons that would not blow up when they opt to allow a crit to happen. And those would tend to be the weapons they would use if they were more crit based, what with built in hit enhancements.
The *cool* weapons with other properties would be reserved for classes less likely to crit or less likely to depend on doing so in any case.
Note that the main change here is not so much the reapportionment of bonuses but the fact of the destructiveness toward a key piece of expensive equipment when utilizing a class's key functions, and how that significantly alters, negatively, the amount of freedom in equipment selection that such characters have. But even with the additional "crits break weapons" change for this scenario, in order to be in line with the "shield blocks break shields" system, splitting the items into "survives player using base feature" and "gives players more options" only exacerbates the problem.
It sticks out to me as the kind of thing that should have been materialized as either a property rune or even a non-magical modification that reduces the number of property rune slots (i.e. to recognize that it should compete with properties, but isn't magical... maybe the additional hardening permanently alters the shield such that the property rune slot can't be recovered).
A stance is a general combat strategy that you enter by using an action with the stance trait, and that you remain in for some time. A stance lasts until you get knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated, until the encounter ends, or until you enter a new stance, whichever comes first. After you use an action with the stance trait, you can’t use another one for 1 round. You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode.
The language leaves open the option for the Monk to violate the requirements purposefully. From that perspective, intent matters, so an implicit requirement for any stance is that you still want to be in that stance. Violating that requirement of "intent" would likewise result in dropping the stance.
In addition, the language does not assess an action penalty, or any penalty, to dropping a stance, aside from no longer receiving its benefits. The only addition is that you can't use a Stance action more than once per round and you can only enter or be in a stance in encounter mode.
I don't see support for requiring an action cost to drop a stance.
I would go with free action; mechanically, you aren't achieving an advantageous state and thematically you could be said to be releasing whatever mental or physical state of readiness you were holding onto to achieve the stance in the first place. I wouldn't think it requires an action to achieve, any more than dropping a weapon would.
@Hammerspace: If I had to interpret, I would guess you would like it if, for example, Sorcerers could pick 1 or 2 more cantrips than they can now at 1st level, but their daily cantrip selection would only be from the same number as we have now. So where you get 3 cantrips now and can cast from any 3 of those 3, you would get 4 or 5 cantrips and can cast from any 3 (chosen per day) of those 4 or 5.
But measured in terms of opportunity cost, where does it sit? Not that a spontaneous caster was likely to have Arcane Mark in PF1, though pages helped, but as a Wizard...
... would you ever pick it as an advancement spell? When? Over what?
Or is it just more of an "well, of course I'll pick up something that can cast 'Sigil', even if just a few scrolls" type of spell?
I would add that I haven't seen anything that would lock things into the current 4 essences, either. So the idea of adding new essences, with the associated spell lists, Sorcerer variants, etc., along with adding in a crop of new spells to go with the theme, isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility.
As was mentioned upthread, a Shadow essence would make good use of existing spells and add in some others, plus definitions for Shadow Sorcerers and any other classes to make use of it.
PFS solved it by setting 7 days per spell (which is more reasonable than a month, because you have about 24 days of downtime per level). Aratorin's idea of being able to reshuffle your entire repertoire in a month days is a good solution too, because you'll often want to retrain some spells together (for example when shuffling signature spells).
Absolutely, that's a fair ruling.
Do note that I can easily imagine there not being 24 days of downtime between levels when you run an Adventure Path at home.
...
Based on what's actually in the rulebook I think the answer is "no, that's up to the GM". Maybe your GM plans for there to be a whole month of downtime after the next level? Or after the level after that? Or maybe not at all?
Point is, a player should not feel entitled to this activity after any particular level. A player should not be able to call her GM "unreasonable" for not providing large chunks of downtime, is what I'm getting at.
...
This touches on something that has sort of gnawed at me for awhile, Downtime. Downtime is now codified in a way it wasn't in PF1, including expectations for how long various activities will take. Moreover, because it is now a codified system, we've seen some class abilities tied to Downtime in a way they weren't previously. The biggest evidence of this is the Alchemist class, with feats explicitly intended to make Downtime crafting more efficient, to the point it very much feels like an expectation for the Alchemist is that a) they will have access to steady amounts of Downtime and b) the power balance for the class accounts for this.
I suspect that is the same situation for Sorcerer and Bard (or any other class that comes up with a spell repertoire and a potential to need to swap a lot of spells between levels). I agree that it appears a number of bits and bobs got left on the cutting room floor and I think this is one of those; I believe the intent was to provide more flexibility for this sort of change.
For now, of course, we have only the rules as presented until Paizo chooses to weigh in and/or start building a FAQ or release new errata or something.
- I want to be using Alchemical items a lot. In theory, I would expect I would be using alchemical items in most encounters. In practice, you really, really cannot. Offensive or defensive number bumps would address some of the feat related issues, but it still wouldn't make me feel more "alchemical" because at the end of the day, I cannot afford to use alchemical items with much frequency.
- I want to make more use of my primary stat. In theory, other classes have a primary stat that will be used directly when making use of their toolbox; Fighters get STR/DEX to use with their toolbox (of hitting things), Rogues get STR/DEX/CHA for same, Wizard gets INT for spells. In practice, it only impacts the number of infused reagents you get (and not by much) and the DC on your alchemical items (and only at 8th level and only if you take Powerful Alchemy).
1. How much alchemy? At 10th, you could have 45 mutagens (or bombs or elixirs of life if those are your specialty). Or 12 mutagens, 12 elixirs, & 5 in-combat options. Plus the cheap freebies.
That seems like it'd cover each combat. For you, not the party.
Or 1st, that's 4 mutagens & 4 elixirs & 1 in-combat option.
Or 10 bombs. Can't really afford in-combat options, but that'd cover most rounds.
Chirurgeon's a bit stretched trying to cover the party...hmm.
Maybe Field Discovery should move to 1st level, or some alchemical Cantrip (alcantrip? alchemtrip?) needs to be created. Maybe a 1st level ability in the Research Fields, like an elemental toss, faux-mutagen boost, or minor temp h.p. booster? Nothing they can share, so it can align w/ Cantrips in power (though not necessarily ramping up, that could be a nice addition, much like Rage ramps up).
And that Quick Alchemy & feats which use up infusions...so costly.
Dunno what to say.
2. In my first post I'd recommended Str as an option for Mutagenists and Dex for Bombers. Maybe Wisdom for Mutagenists? And the X=Int suggestion in my second post would cover this too. It is odd how easy it is...
1) As a Bomber, as I said, your schtick, to throw bombs, can be performed adequately in combat, if only because bombs lend themselves to that; you could throw one every round if you had quantity, and in later levels and after 7th, you will have that quantity. It's worse than a cantrip but it's doable. For Mutagenists, yes you may have the number but not all of your elixirs will be relevant. And your access to bombs is not nearly as replete as for Bombers; you simply can't bomb all day. And regardless, that's not what you signed up for, you signed up to be a combat beast using chemistry. Chirurgeons don't need antiplagues and antivenoms all day, but that's what they can generate for free.
2) Yeah, the combat numbers would be nice to boost, but yeah, something to make a primary attribute significant would be nice.
I definitely fall in the, "make them a "martial" and leave most abilities alone" camp. Maybe give them a bit more versatility with their reagents, but other than that leave the bones alone.
They should progress in unarmed defense and simple weapons/bombs as fast as a monk or barb advances in training.
Just looking at the math side, this would make an Alchemist much more viable, at least for the mutagenist and bomber fields.
Chirurgeon needs... more.
I'd avoided recommending full martial because of Dwarven Waraxes & bows hitting Master Proficiency, yet I've changed my opinion now. Making Alchemists explicitly martial would solve most of the issues! Plus, look at Rogues & Monks. They get Master Proficiency, yet how appealing are those axes & bows when their classes don't support them? Which is to say, if an Alchemist gets proper support for their shtick, Master Proficiency weapons wouldn't overshadow. And two out of three Research Fields are themed around combat prowess, right?
Alchemists already gain martial level Saves plus Master in armor. So add accelerated weapon proficiency (to Master), (greater) weapon specialization, & critical specialization. Swap out the quicker alchemy advancements to feats (for those that want to burn through the limited resources that much faster...)
Yet that still lacks the oomph of a martial, i.e. Rage, Sneak Attack, Flurry, etc. so I propose these:
-Bomber: Add X damage to infused bombs.
-Chirurgeon: Add X damage to light bulk, simple weapons (I'm thinking like a surgeon). Add X healing when administering infused Elixir of Life. There's no reason they can't have a little vivisectionist insight in them to augment a combat role.
-Mutagenist: Add X damage to simple & unarmed attacks when under effects of infused mutagen.
X could be various things, depending on how the DPR calculations work out (noting that Alchemists using their top alchemy will have an attack advantage of +1 over their non-Fighter peers, yet so will their...
I like the martial approach; it would address some of the numbers related issues.
I wouldn't say no to more defensive options as a Mutagenist, but I have to admit that in practice, Mistform Elixir is actually not too bad. The results are a little swingy in that once the Mistform is penetrated (succeed vs DC 5), I'm still pretty easy to hit and don't have great hit points, particularly when I've taken a Quicksilver Mutagen. But I should point out that, in my experience (up to 6th level), Mistform Elixir has been a nice defensive bump.
I'll add in that while this more martial minded approach augments attack numbers, it also still fails to address two other things that I wish I had mentioned in my first post:
- I want to be using Alchemical items a lot. In theory, I would expect I would be using alchemical items in most encounters. In practice, you really, really cannot. Offensive or defensive number bumps would address some of the feat related issues, but it still wouldn't make me feel more "alchemical" because at the end of the day, I cannot afford to use alchemical items with much frequency.
- I want to make more use of my primary stat. In theory, other classes have a primary stat that will be used directly when making use of their toolbox; Fighters get STR/DEX to use with their toolbox (of hitting things), Rogues get STR/DEX/CHA for same, Wizard gets INT for spells. In practice, it only impacts the number of infused reagents you get (and not by much) and the DC on your alchemical items (and only at 8th level and only if you take Powerful Alchemy).
- Alchemists don't make better use of their own toolbox; just more frequent use
- Even that more frequent use is less frequent that how often others can use their toolbox (e.g. casters get more spells per day than Alchemists get reagents; martials can use most of their abilities all day long)
- Alchemists seem the most reliant on Downtime activities i.e. to craft alchemical items so as not to have to rely solely on their infused batches
- Following onto that, other classes do not appear to be nearly as reliant on Downtime activities
- Alchemists don't get an all day variant of their toolbox until level 7 with Perpetual Infusions
- Only one research field, Bomber, feels like it meets expectations
- Mutagenists don't feel like they can really afford to go toe to toe in melee with Bestial mutagens, and they can't afford to bomb all day, so any other options become plinking away with a weapon like any other martial, though with fewer bonuses
- Chirurgeon's just don't feel like great healers, or, to the extent they are a valid healer, their attack options are even worse than the Mutagenist's if only because they can't use mutagens for buffs nearly as often
- Perpetual Infusions only gives one research field a meaningful boost, Bomber.
- Chirurgeon's Perpetual Infusion allows you to create antiplague/antivenom elixirs for free... that last 24 hours. The one version that would give you an immediate benefit to drinking it is the Major version which you never get for free
- Mutagenist's Perpetual Infusion allows you to create 2 of your selected mutagens for free; and to be fair, you don't always necessarily need your best tools to fight mooks. But, see Mutagenist's issues with being in combat (again, I'm looking at you Bestial Mutagen)
Alchemists mostly feel like the handy support guy who can dole out alchemical items and sometimes throws a bomb. It does not feel like a hero and doesn't feel like they are on equal footing with any other class.
Isn't this similar to what Alchemists (especially Mutagenists) have to contend with when consuming mutagens?
Prior to being able to make use of multiple mutagen effects, all of which have the Polymorph trait, would imbibing a second mutagen require you to successfully counteract your previously imbibed mutagen in order for the new mutagen to take effect?
Revivifying Mutagen removes the Mutagen and heals them. Most Mutagenists would do that before imbibing a new one.
And at level 1, when you can't get Reviviying Mutagen... or at later levels if for some reason you chose not to get it... what is the resolution? What is the intended resolution?
Isn't this similar to what Alchemists (especially Mutagenists) have to contend with when consuming mutagens?
Prior to being able to make use of multiple mutagen effects, all of which have the Polymorph trait, would imbibing a second mutagen require you to successfully counteract your previously imbibed mutagen in order for the new mutagen to take effect?
In situations where we see "untrained vs trained" in the context of meaning "are you wholly untrained or do you have at least SOME level of training i.e. Trained or better", we always see it lower cased, excluding when it is the first word in an actual sentence.
In situations where we see "Trained", capitalized, in the context of "a specific level of training i.e. specifically Trained vs. Expert", it always appears to be capitalized, even when appearing mid-sentence.
The wording in the Chirurgeon entry does not capitalize it. Also, conceptually, it makes sense; once you have a foundation of Medical knowledge, your healing oriented Alchemical studies allow your Crafting skills to carry you going forward. I think it's intended to mean you can use your Crafting skill in place of Medicine for any use, untrained or trained i.e. Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary.
- Pre-adventure: BBEG, through a series of cutouts or something, finagles things such that someone of at least Neutral alignment, and otherwise seemingly trustworthy, requests the aid of the party. In fact, you could even have it be someone who is honestly opposed to BBEG, and maybe even has a little clout to push back. Maybe a second-or-third-in-line noble trying to eliminate a threat to the country (i.e. the BBEG). Call this person The Noble.
- Adventure 1: Party does task for The Noble. Something simple. Maybe a fetch quest to get a doodad from someone. Important in its own right for the plot but mostly to establish some trust.
- Twixt Adventures: BBEG finagles The Noble again, now to attack a target. The target is the Mage protector (the dark robed elemental summoner guy you first mentioned). The Mage is Evil. Yes, Evil. But The Mage's goals align almost perfectly in opposition to BBEG. Maybe under Geas? Regardless, truly the Mage is there to protect the two non-combatants. The Noble, however, is not aware of whatever is binding The Mage to the non-combatants, but is convinced The Mage has to go. Also The Mage is, again, Evil, and so will register as such.
- Adventure 2: Party goes after The Mage. Stumbles across the fight as you described. Makes the call to help the guards against The Mage.
Outcome: The Noble is *also* dragged into this, having given the Party their initial marching orders. The Noble might have some ability to shield the Party from the worst effects of what they've done, and the Party would understand they have been done dirty becaue another NPC is along with them for the ride.
It is still, of course, possible that the Party could catch on, but at least now their complicity in the deaths won't feel quite as much like a failure, and they will also have someone else to work with.
That may be RAW but given the spell very explicitly says you may be able apply the effect depending on the save result, I would imagine RAI is that you use your spell attack roll in place of the attack roll.
I recently read (in a novel, not a rulebook) that it is better to let a revealed enemy believe he has the upper hand, than to alert him to the fact that you've detected him.
You don't know the enemy has seen you until they react in some way. But what if they don't? How would that work? You failed to beat their Perception DC, so they then get a Deception Check against your Perception DC to turn the tables, gain initiative, and make YOU flat-footed at the start of combat instead?
I would agree that it is much better to let the enemy believe they have the upper hand, because you can lure them into a situation in which you substantially have the upper hand, which is why I said "until they react".
So yes, if they don't react immediately they would make a deception check against the PCs perception DCs to see if the PCs notice their pretending not to notice.
If the NPCs wanted to start combat at that time I would call for perception based init rolls from the PCs and deception based init rolls for the NPCs.
Agreed. To me, the counter-scenario, where the guards attempt to deceive the PCs but fail, is akin to novels I've read where the assaulting party notices something amiss e.g. "The guards are *supposed* to rotate every thirty minutes, and always have except for fog. It's a clear night; we should not go in."
That could be the sort of result of the PCs defeating the Deception attempt (or the NPC losing the Deception check, depending on perspective) if the guards do attempt the bluff.
There are a number of excellent comments and perspectives here. Having played on both sides of the GM screen...
I have sympathy for a GM who has gone through the effort of creating not only an adventure but an entire campaign, flavored accordingly, only to have your players either blow it up entirely because of an otherwise overpowered combination of mechanics (e.g. we teleport past the villain's maze) or to have your players not run with the expected flavor (e.g. "I honk my clown nose and tweak the demon-lord's cheek while doing a jig!").
I have sympathy for a player who has had a character concept in their mind's eye and finally gets to make it "real" in an RPG, only to have to pare it down because the GM was not on board with the same vision, and to have limited recourse for finding another game. This concept, of course, could be anywhere from "I want to be like the Hulk and literally be able to smash an entire castle on day 1!" to "I would like to be like Nightwing (not Robin, too bright), circus background, acrobatic fighting style, but with my parent's old death hoop from before they died". The first, of course, needing reigning in, but the latter... that's the scenario I hate to see a player disempowered from being able to portray.
The rarity rules potentially address both issues. For my part, I would have liked to have seen:
1) Rarity rules specifically to address power concerns - We have this already, of course, with Uncommon (or more rare) spells to be found throughout the CRB. Magic items, too. Basically, this is where I think rarity feels "right", because it is a mechanic that specifically adds a safety to what, from experience with PF1, have been shown to be potentially game-breaking options.
2) A separate set of rules to address theming concerns - This is where I think the player should have more power, or where there should at least be more rules/guidance/framework. Things like circus weapons requiring a specific background that the player could select. We already have that, to an extent, with things like Unconventional Weaponry, as well as weapon access granted by ancestry. And I think that the default assumption for *this* category should be that the *GRANTING* features are generally available, even if the *GRANTED* features are not. That is, I think that the "Circus Background" should have been listed as "Common" and the weapons so granted as "Uncommon". The player could choose to grab the "Circus Background" and could be guaranteed to have said weapons, barring a session zero GM ruling that that background was excluded. And yes, that is specifically to tilt the balance of the discussion toward the GM. As I have pointed out, I have been at tables where a GM has no problem ruling otherwise generally available features to be unavailable, so it's not like the GM has their hands tied.
But frankly, the non-mechanically-advantageous-but-interestingly-themed things are the window dressing a player gets to add to their character, the one aspect of the game fully under their control. Character creation is something that the player is most deeply involved with and has the greatest investment in; the GM has interest in the campaign as a whole but cannot care more for how a character looks and feels than the player playing said character.
There are, of course, themes that could be jarring; wanting to play an android from Numeria might be enough to dissuade a GM from going along if the advanced technology would be too bad a fit. And sure, wanting to play "Chucky the Clown" could be very disruptive. The thing is, you don't have to have the Circus Background to be a disruptive "Chucky the Clown". And if you want to play a Circus Background, spend session zero working out how you can be "Chucky the Clown" without the GM worrying you are going to mess with their tone. But taking the option off the table by default puts a lot more ground between a player and the concept for their character.
"Why not spend session zero trying to convince the GM to allow Circus Weapons rather than the GM having to talk you down?" Because the GM holds all the cards already. What they say goes or there is no game. To the extent that something impacts a player's ability to control some of the narrative surrounding their own character, I think the game system should have been permissive by default. Power concerns feel approriately addressed; but the theming for a character feels like it got pulled back from the players. Possibly because some of the most interesting themes were also tied to mechanics in PF1? I don't know.
In the end, I believe the rarity rules impacting access to mundane but thematically interesting choices disempower players too much. Rarity rules to address mechanical game disruption feel fine to me. YMMV. HAND.
Isn't the Alchemist infused reagent mechanic very much like power points? An increasing pool from which the user not only provides their class effects, but relies upon it for the majority of said utility?
Sure... but the only way to actually change them is to do exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
Since you're effectively saying "let's stick to the old ways", I mean.
I'm saying that you *sound* reasonable, but that your suggestion actually isn't reasonable at all.
Just to clarify, when I said "Old ways die hard", I was referring to my hypothetical GM, for whom the old ways of needing to be concerned about cheesing the system and therefore restricting access to combat it, by way of explaining the situation some players find themselves in. If the only option is to play with that GM or not play at all, yes, it would be nice to see more sympathy for that situation.
And if it is common sense to assume your players should have access to Uncommon circus weapons in a circus AP, why not say so explicitly and eliminate the doubt?
If it weren't for the situations graystone pointed out in the CRB, where uncommon items, spells, feats, etc. were explicitly granted as a result of selecting certain backgrounds, I would agree that systemically PF2 is intended to rely primarily on GM discussion for access to uncommon traited elements.
Regarding The Show Must Go On, I am firmly in the camp feeling that the background material should have explicitly called out that players gain access to these uncommon elements as a result of their Circus backgrounds.
And I say that knowing someone will say "but talk to your GM". I have played with GMs that refuse to step outside of RAW for exactly the reasons mentioned above, particularly fear of feature bloat and power creep. Old ways die hard and if you have no reasonable access to GMs whose opinion matches yours, you're kinda hosed.
And even a reasonable GM can have a different opinion and at the end of the day if your session 0 still doesn't gain you that access, yes, you can not play with that GM.
But I have to say I find it a little aggressive to suggest you "find another GM". It trivializes the difficulty some may have in doing so.
I guess I'd like to see a little more sympathy for folks who want a little more certainty in what options they have access to. At the end of the day, we are all here because we enjoy the game and want very much to play and participate in the community.
I feel like you're kind of overselling the importance of the familiar here.
As a mutagenist, if your primary concern is just drinking your mutagen for battle, the familiar saves you one action per combat. Depending on your level and the circumstances sometimes not even that.
That's... nice, but not really the lynchpin of your build in the way you're implying it is.
It's mandatory, but more in the sense that none of the other feats provide any real benefit to a mutagenist than in the sense that without it your build doesn't function.
I guess I'm just ranting about the familiar then. :)
I started to respond, had something ready to go, and realized you're right.
I still wish I could get a Fast Alchemy equivalent, maybe make it not operable on the same round with Lab Assistant or something. Or just make it something you can't have if you pick Alchemical Familiar.
Have I mentioned I don't like familiars?
EDIT: But since I'm stuck with the little blighter seeing as there's nothing better... what else can I do with the little blighter?
I do not like familiars. I don't actually like pets/minions/animal companions, in PF2 or even in PF1.
Which is why Alchemical Familiar sticks out so much to me.
I see how Alchemical Familiar, when configured for Manual Dexterity/Lab Assistant, helps overcome some action economy issues as well as possibly elixir delivery, but I continually find myself wishing an alternative had been chosen or at least made available.
What are your opinions regarding your little alchemical buddy? Given that the Mutagenist has been what has caught my eye the most, I've resigned myself to having one but I mostly intend to have him in a little satchel slung on my back, injecting me with what I tell him to.
What has your mini-you been up to and do you approve?
At low level remember that with the familiar you can have it cough out an extra infused reagent for you which = 2 more potions during prep. That alone is pretty darn worth while having as low levels is where alchemists feel the most pain in lack of tools. I really do wish that alchemists had the option for improved familiar and am kinda baffled why they were not given that option.
I agree that that is useful and a worthy consideration for why to take that feat.
What I dislike is that, if as a Mutagenist, I wish to queue up my elixirs for melee combat, I need to rely on having a familiar, with all that that encompasses mechanically as well as thematically, in order to have the ability to most efficiently consume my elixirs so that I can enter combat.
Ranting and nothing but my opinion up in here:
Aside from that one, single contribution, the familiar offers extremely little, qualitatively or quantitatively, to justify having to accept having a familiar.
Mechanically it means that it is possible for an enemy to target and kill my ability to execute my core feature, consuming elixirs for combat. It means stray splash effects could possibly kill my familiar and prevent me from using my class feature as effectively.
Thematically it means I need to have mini-Hulk following along to make sure Bruce can most efficiently switch to Hulk for combat.
I may not want a familiar. I should not need a familiar. But I am, if I wish to best use the actual core feature, elixir/mutagen use, not familiar manipulation, required to have that familiar.
For me personally, the theme requirement of having a familiar is what most irks me as it is absolutely *not* my vision for my Alchemist.
I'm willing to overlook the action count necessary to imbibe your various concoctions, and I even understand why they tied some things like 'Combine Elixirs' to Quick Alchemy, because philosophically it appears they wanted to reduce the amount of pre-buffing that went on in PF1 going into PF2.
I *dislike*, both thematically and mechanically, requiring the familiar in order to achieve that goal. It would have been more pleasing if instead, there was a feat like:
Fast Alchemy
Feat 1
Traits: Alchemist, Manipulate, Open
Actions: 1
You use Quick Alchemy to create an infused alchemical item and immediately use it.
This would allow you to, once per turn, both create *and* imbibe an alchemical item. It still retains the Manipulate trait and with the Open trait, you cannot spam it. The action economy would remain the same as when using a familiar.
I guess I wonder why the familiar got foisted off on the alchemist and why it was chosen to address the action economy issue. And what plans they might have had for making use of the Alchemical Familiar in future content releases. Familiars in general seem underwhelming and, in many cases, nearly detrimental (see the discussion about Witch familiars and the fact they are addressing that).
Alchemists reach master class DC as well. Druids are stuck at trained.
While technically true, Alchemists do not by default actually apply their class DC to anything without taking the 'Powerful Alchemy' feat.
Powerful Alchemy - Feat 8:
Alchemical items you create on the fly are particularly potent. When you use Quick Alchemy to create an infused alchemical item that allows a saving throw, you can change its DC to your class DC.
Without that, all of your poisons as well as any bomb effects that trigger a save will use the default (generally lower) DC and your bombs use your weapon proficiency.
I'm actually not aware of any other class that reaches a proficiency level in their class DC that cannot apply it without selecting a feat. Feels bad.
I do not like familiars. I don't actually like pets/minions/animal companions, in PF2 or even in PF1.
Which is why Alchemical Familiar sticks out so much to me.
I see how Alchemical Familiar, when configured for Manual Dexterity/Lab Assistant, helps overcome some action economy issues as well as possibly elixir delivery, but I continually find myself wishing an alternative had been chosen or at least made available.
What are your opinions regarding your little alchemical buddy? Given that the Mutagenist has been what has caught my eye the most, I've resigned myself to having one but I mostly intend to have him in a little satchel slung on my back, injecting me with what I tell him to.
What has your mini-you been up to and do you approve?
