Talgoren

Quintessentially Me's page

Organized Play Member. 254 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Castilliano wrote:

QM:

- 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.


Castilliano wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:

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).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My issues:

- 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.

IMO :)


Aratorin wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:

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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does capitalization matter?

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.


@Ravingdork

What if you do the following:

- 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.

Definitely an errata candidate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?


Zapp wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:
Old ways die hard

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?


Malk_Content wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think "if I can't start with the weapon I want, it's pointless" is a PF1 mindset.

Character with a signature weapon is a concept as old as the genre itself.

It predates PF1 by... hundreds of years, really.

It's also not that great a lvl 1 concept. Oh you have a signature weapon, like Zorro? Well no I'm actually pretty pants with it.

Yeah... but if it's a story I want to tell... :)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Squiggit wrote:

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?


kaid wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:

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).


Hiruma Kai wrote:


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?


Spellcasters and Alchemists both have an automatic acquisition method, obtaining additional spells or alchemical formulae as they gain levels.

I assume that it is expected that these will not be the only spells/formulae gained, however, and I wonder what the community uses as a rule of thumb to plan for how many/which spells/formulae you will obtain as you level up.

Do you only make use of the class-granted ones? Do you use a percentage of WBL to "shop" for common ones? Do you just toss in things a few levels below max each time you level up, to simulate discovery while adventuring?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm reading my own biases into it, but I feel like the four components are in matched/opposing pairs.

Vital vs Mental (Body and Mind)
Spiritual vs Material (Spiritual and Physical)

That said, ignoring this and choosing to explore the other combinations sounds interesting. :)


I think the issue is the use of a hand.

Should belt lanterns be an available thing?


Ubertron_X wrote:
... some kind words and further explanation ...

Very kind of you to say. And if you are not a native English speaker, I couldn't tell, but regardless, I also appreciate your keeping the thread cordial. :)

I noticed you mentioned going Champion as your dedication to improve your defenses and running as a Cloistered Cleric in order to be more capable as a second line caster.

Perhaps you could consider the Fighter dedication instead. As a Champion, you will of course gain Trained in Heavy Armor at level 2 as soon as you take your dedication, but you wouldn't achieve Expert until 14th level, and assuming you use your 14th level feat on Diverse Armor Expert. Meanwhile, the Warpriest doctrine would have granted you Trained in Medium Armor and you would gain Expert by level 13. Then with the Fighter dedication, at level 4, take the Basic Maneuver feat to grab the Reactive Shield Fighter class feat. This would allow you to Raise Shield as a reaction, leaving your 3 normal actions untouched. Granted, if you already had a plan for that Reaction, there would now be competition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:

But let's take a look at your assertions:

- Move: In PF1, you get a Move action that, by and large, can only be used to move. In PF2, however, you have the freedom to use that action for anything you need to use it for. That is, your Move action is no longer guaranteed to be wasted in situations where it is no longer tactically advantageous to move.

You mean I can use it for skills that I simply don't have (e.g. Intimidate) or which might potentially provide wrong information (e.g. knowledge checks) or for actions that once where free, like raise a shield or sustain a spell? Yes you are right, those options are as useless as a move that I don't require.

Quintessentially Me wrote:
- Shield for AC: As was pointed out upthread, the game math is now balanced around *not* everyone having AC from a shield and requiring effort to use it for such via the Raise Shield action. So while you are correct that you could do that in PF1 and cannot do it in PF2 (i.e. AC from shield without an action), the game developers have made an effort to not make that a requirement.

I can agree to that reasoning from a design point of view, however you could have also balanced it around the shield. Also by design this makes defensive characters even more ineffective as they have to "waste" actions to raise their shield every round. Would an intelligent mob try to hit the shield raised Warrior or the Rogue in melee? Even in our party our sword and board Warrior is not using his shield anymore unless he does not need to move. Shields are only somewhat effective if every possible target has a shield up which indeed is a rare occurance.

Quintessentially Me wrote:
- Make a Knowledge Check: This is a flat outThis is a flat out decrease in capability, absolutely. It's a pity that I need to literally stop for 2 seconds in the middle of combat to rack my brains to recall a Troll's vulnerability to fire, but here we are.

Noted.

Quintessentially Me wrote:
-
...

@Ubertron_X:

I should start by agreeing that there definitely are differences between PF1 and PF2, and some things have been added and some removed in terms of capability. I don't think any character play will carry over identically from one edition to the next. My point in adding to the discussion here is to suggest that while individual contributions to your combat ability might change, the overall effectiveness hasn't, and that there may be some things that ameliorate the concerns you have.

===
Re the Move action: I may be misinterpreting you, but it appears as though you feel that that third action, aside from being used to Move, will categorically be worthless??? You mention several activities that you would either not take (Intimidate) or which you are concerned would be unreliable (Knowledge Check) or that you lament are no longer free (e.g. Raise Shield). Point of note, in PF1, sustaining a spell was not generally free. In PF1, concentration to continue a spell consumes your Standard action.

That all said, are you suggesting that, in lieu of Move, none of the following would be useful to you:
- Deception/Create a Diversion
- Deception/Feint
- Religion/Identify Magic
- Stealth/Hide
- Activate a magic item
- Consume a potion
- Use a ranged weapon
- Cast a 1 action spell
- Sustain a spell (again, not free in PF1)

These all seem like potentially valuable options. I understand you may disagree, but I believe this flexibility to be a strict upgrade over PF1.

===
Re the Shield for AC: Balancing around the shield would mean everyone in melee should have a shield. Balancing without the shield means Raise a Shield is *one* way to increase your defenses, but not the only way nor the way everyone shares and therefore everyone should use. In combat AC boosts appear to now be intended to be very short term and therefore presumably very situational. Witness the Shield cantrip, also 1 action, counts as Raise a Shield action, and grants an AC bonus for a round. You even get Shield Block reaction while it is up. The point here being that the math is now balanced around *not* having a shield, and if you *want* a shield, whether for appeal or effect, you can have one, it has use, but requires an action. Same with the Shield cantrip.

Also, don't forget that Fighters qualify for the Reactive Shield feat, letting them Raise a Shield as a reaction to an attack. Feat tax, but it is the new math. Additionally, if the Opponent wants to pass up the Fighter for the softer targets, they will have to eat an AoO.

===
Re Maintain a Spell: In PF1, Spiritual Weapon has a duration of 1 round/level. It does not require Concentration to continue, but if left unattended, will simply keep attacking the target for the duration. To switch targets, you require a Move action. In PF2, Spiritual Weapon performs the attack in the first round but requires Sustaining to persist beyond the round you cast the spell. It also uses and contributes to MAP.

I've read a number of posts about feeling dismayed at some spell changes, and it sounds like Spiritual Weapon has changed in ways you dislike. To that I would point out that Spiritual Weapon is now able to be Heightened, granting an additional 1d8 per 2 levels heightened, increase the overall damage the spell can do and making it useful into higher levels.

Still, the point I made originally still stands... PF1 sustaining a spell (i.e. via concentration) required a Move action and was not free. Specific spells might have wording to the contrary, but that's the general rule. In PF1, this means to continue a spell via concentration, you were firmly planted in place and unable to move for tactical purposes. In PF2, it requires 1 action among many. As an additional point, in PF2, if you were to cast two spells, both able to be sustained, you are now capable of not only Sustaining both, but you can also move with your third action as the cherry on top.

===
Re What to do in addition to Sustain a Spell: It appears you are specifically looking for what to do with 1 action, not the two you would normally have after you spent the first action Sustaining a Spell; I assume this goes back to your original goal, to be able to, in one round, Move, use your Shield for AC, make a Knowledge Check, Sustain a Spell, and cast a new spell. As I've mentioned above, I personally discount the concern over Shield for AC because I believe that it's a) universally an issue for all characters in PF2 and b) the math is centered around the presumption of *not* having that AC normally. I also agree that Recall Knowledge requiring an action is annoying, but mitigated by only 1 person technically needing to get it right and then sharing that information.

With all of that, to Move and Sustain a Spell in 1 round, yes, you are then limited to casting only 1 action spells. And yes, there are not many 1 action non-focus spells. But again, I'm going to point out you could not even Move and "Sustain a Spell" in PF1 because the Concentration necessary to do so eats your Move action. Aside from specific spells, situations, metamagic or the like, I don't even know how you were doing those two actions generally (again, barring specific situations), much less casting a third spell.

Looking at the focus spells, 24 of the 38 currently available domains have a Focus 1 spell requiring either 1 action, a reaction, or in any case, able to be cast even if you have used 2 of your 3 actions already. That's ignoring the Focus 4 spells. Yes, this does mean that if you pick the *wrong* domain/deity, you will simply not have any 1 action Focus 1 spell to cast. Not all options are equally attractive and having almost 2/3 coverage still leaves me feeling that the Cleric is in a good place in this regard.

Also, where you mention spamming Guidance 3x or Heal 3x, that's not even something you could even consider in PF1; the ability to cast even 2 spells in a round is pretty strictly controlled. Casting 3 spells is really very unlikely to happen. In PF2, casting 2 spells in one round is something you can do starting at level 1. I'm also not sure what the relevance of casting 3 spells in a round has to "what you can do once you have Sustained a Spell" nor to "In PF1, I could Move, Sustain, and Cast in one round (which, you actually can't); in PF2 I can't".

===
The summary:

Ubertron_X wrote:
Usually I want to move, either to provide flanking and/or to deliver a touch spell (ally or enemy), raise the shield for additional protection and cast a single spell (one-action heal/harm still possible of course, especially the harm does not lose out vs the two-action version). Thats 4 actions/turn even when not sustaining a spell or making knowledge checks. Once I cast a 2-action spell I am limited to either move or raise shield and that is the crux.

You are correct that Move, Raise a Shield, Cast a Spell (2 action) does require 4 actions per turn, disregarding Recall Knowledge. Regarding Raise a Shield, that's a tactical choice now, and it's baked into the math. In that context, you can still Move and Cast a (2 action) spell.

I also lament the change to Recall Knowledge for tactical benefit, but I would also point out that is a) likely going to be something the group only has to do once in a fight and b) it affects everyone equally, not just tankcasters.

And here is where I will just venture out into my opinion; for me, stacked against the additional flexibility of the 3 action system, the availability of a number of 1 action spells, as well as the change to Sustain a Spell (PF1 Concentration) from a strict Move action to just one of three actions, means I feel much more flexible and see these changes as a net positive. Naturally, your opinion may differ.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:

Spellcasters have been severely nerved by the new action economy. Last time I played my 1st edition Cleric could move, use my shield for AC, make a knowledge check, maintain a spell (e.g. Bless) and cast a new spell all in one round. Now I would need 6 actions / round to do so.

I concur with the OP that the current spellcasters dilemma is not so much about what mundane things to do when you have already cast a 2-action spell as there are plenty of simple actions for that but about what spells to cast when you already did two mundane things, e.g. after you moved and raised your shield.

All the while melees that could either move and attack or do a full attack can now do all the fancy stuff.

In PF1, your Cleric had:

- 1 Move Action
- 1 Standard Action
OR
- 1 Full Round Action
PLUS
- 1 Swift/Immediate Action

With this, and the fact that rules were different e.g. knowledge check being free in combat, yes, what you pointed out could happen (though I do feel obliged to point out that Bless, in both PF1 and PF2, simply has a duration, with PF2 offering the option of concentrating each round to increase the range; that is, it does not require concentration under ordinary circumstances).

But let's take a look at your assertions:

- Move: In PF1, you get a Move action that, by and large, can only be used to move. In PF2, however, you have the freedom to use that action for anything you need to use it for. That is, your Move action is no longer guaranteed to be wasted in situations where it is no longer tactically advantageous to move.

- Shield for AC: As was pointed out upthread, the game math is now balanced around *not* everyone having AC from a shield and requiring effort to use it for such via the Raise Shield action. So while you are correct that you could do that in PF1 and cannot do it in PF2 (i.e. AC from shield without an action), the game developers have made an effort to not make that a requirement.

- Make a Knowledge Check: This is a flat out decrease in capability, absolutely. It's a pity that I need to literally stop for 2 seconds in the middle of combat to rack my brains to recall a Troll's vulnerability to fire, but here we are.

- Maintain a spell: As I mentioned, Bless actually doesnt' require sustaining in either edition. It is optional in PF2 though, for increasing the range. That said, there are spells in PF1 that require some sort of sustaining. For example, Hypnotic Pattern has a duration of 'Concentration + 2 rounds'. In PF1, Concentration to continue a spell (i.e. PF2 Sustain) requires your Standard action. So in PF1, if you are having to concentrate to continue the first spell you cast, you will generally be unable to cast another spell. This contrasts from PF2 where Sustain is typically a single action, leaving you with two additional actions.

- Cast a Spell: In PF1, this typically requires your Standard action, meaning you won't normally be able to cast another spell nor even concentrate to continue an existing spell requiring concentration to sustain. In PF2, most spells require 2 actions, but some only require 1 action. As a result, there are several activities you can perform by default in PF2 that you cannot in PF1:
- Cast two spells: In PF1 this would require use of 1 Standard action plus something like Quicken metamagic or an Immediate action spell. In PF2, you could cast a 2 action spell plus a 1 action spell (e.g. many focus spells).
- Cast three spells: In PF1, this is even more difficult; I'd have to rely on someone else to tell me how to do it. In PF2, there are a number of 1 action spells, even non-focus spells, to choose from. As a result, you have the option to cast 3 such spells if no other actions are tactically useful.
- Sustain a spell and cast a spell: In PF1, both make use of the Standard action and therefore will not normally be available. In PF2, this just uses your 3 actions.

So, I agree that the change to Knowledge checks in combat is at least a nuisance, and the change to require an action to use the shield's AC definitely feels like a reduction. That said, and granted this is my opinion, I don't think the Knowledge check change is a significant reduction in capability and I believe the shield AC rule change has been balanced against the math for this edition. Movement and spellcasting, however, has I think actually been improved for casters in terms of tactical flexibility.


graystone wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:
Keep in mind something about Revivifying Mutagen though... the healing is truly anemic.
Compared to what? In 10 min medicine [treat wounds] at it's highest DC heals 2d6 [4d6 on crit] + 50 hp while in those same ten minutes revivifying at it's LOWEST heals 100d6. So 350 average healing vs 57-64 average healing [ignoring failures] seems the opposite of anemic.

Fair point... mentally I was conflating in-combat healing vs out-of-combat healing. For out-of-combat healing, the throughput as a resource-free self-heal seems solid. I'm spending too much time theorizing and not enough actually playing.


Keep in mind something about Revivifying Mutagen though... the healing is truly anemic.

Revivifying Mutagen wrote:
While under the effect of a mutagen, you can metabolize that mutagen’s power to heal yourself. This uses a single action, which has the concentrate and manipulate traits. Once the action is complete, you regain 1d6 Hit Points for every 2 item levels of the mutagen (minimum 1d6), but the mutagen’s duration immediately ends, even if you are under the effect of Persistent Mutagen.

Mutagens currently come as the following item levels:

Level 1 (Lesser) - would heal 1d6
Level 3 (Moderate) - would heal 1d6
Level 11 (Greater) - would heal 5d6
Level 17 (Major) - would heal 8d6

So you can't heal more than 1d6 until you reach Level 11 and then only if you are consuming your then highest level mutagen.

But we're talking about how to pair this with Perpetual Infusion and the Mutagenist field discoveries. For the Mutagenist field discovery, the Greater mutagen cannot be created for free until level 17.

That means you can't actually use the Perpetual Infusion/Revivifying Mutagen combo to heal more than 1d6 per round (i.e. Perpetual Infusion a free mutagen, quaff the mutagen, consume via Revivifying Mutagen) until level 17, when you can create the Level 11 (Greater) version for free, at which point you can begin to heal yourself for 5d6 per round until level 20.


Ah, I see your point; I was overlooking the obvious external application for Chirurgeons. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FWIW, with Revivifying Mutagen, combined with Perpetual Infusion, Mutagenists also get free unlimited (albeit tiny) healing. Create/quaff a baby mutagen, consume it for healing, repeat as needed. Slow, but gets it done.

That would leave only the Bomber research field as having no free heals. (I'm looking at the baseline Alchemist, not the houserules mentioned above)


Ravingdork wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:
So... if I'm not mistaken... a starting Alchemist should purchase the Basic Crafter's Book at level 1, get all level 1 alchemical formulas except mutagens, poisons, and non-heal elixirs, and then just use their class picks for the missing bits?
That's what I do.

I absolutely understand why you would do that... I mean... why wouldn't you?

But I really get the feeling that isn't how it is supposed to go. If I am allowed to speculate:

- Given that alchemy was tied to resonance in early playtest
- ... and resonance was ripped out and replaced
- ... the Basic Crafter's Book was perhaps originally supposed to only cover the non-alchemical items in the Gear section i.e. weapons, armor, random equipment
- ... and then perhaps the Alchemical Item section was tacked on for the handful of common such items
- ... but the Basic Crafter's Book text was not updated to reflect it should only cover i.e. non-alchemical items
- ... and the update of the Alchemist, post-resonance, tacked on the language about gaining what amounts to 8 alchemical formula at start

That is to say, I think RAI the Basic Crafter's Book is not supposed to provide any alchemical formula. Otherwise, why would the Alchemist Formula Book description bother giving formulas for items in your research field (for non-Mutagenists anyway) when you would get all of them (again, for non-Mutagenists) for 1 sp at start?


I'm kinda confused now about the Basic Crafter's Book.

The Basic Crafter's Book entry is contained in what appears to be Chapter 6, 'Equipment'. It is in a section titled 'Gear'. It's entry reads as follows:

Basic Crafter's Book wrote:
This book contains the formulas (page 293) for Crafting the common items in this chapter.

Seems straightforward. Thing is, page 292 is still in the same 'Equipment' chapter and I don't even see a new section header so it even seems to be in the same 'Gear' section as the Basic Crafter's Book. That page outlines most of the lowest level Alchemical items i.e. all of the lowest level bombs, both antidotes, the elixir of life, plus the three basic tools i.e. smokestick, sunrod, and tindertwig. Everything except the lowest level mutagens and non-healing elixirs.

On page 258, the Alchemical Crafting feat reads:

Alchemical Crafting wrote:
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.

So you also get four common 1st-level alchemical item formulas when you get this feat.

Then there is the Alchemist class itself:

Alchemist wrote:
You gain the Alchemical Crafting feat (page 258), even if you don't meet that feat's prerequisites, and you gain the four common 1st-level alchemical formulas granted by that feat. The catalog of alchemical items begins on page 543. You can use this feat to create alchemical items as long as you have the items' formulas in your formula book.

And for the Alchemist's starting Formula Book we get:

Alchemist, Formula Book wrote:
An alchemist keeps meticulous records of the formulas for every item they can create. You start with a standard formula book worth 10 sp or less (as detailed on page 290) for free. The formula book contains the formulas for two common 1st-level alchemical items of your choice, in addition to those you gained from Alchemical Crafting and your research field. The catalog of alchemical items begins on page 543.

So... if I'm not mistaken... a starting Alchemist should purchase the Basic Crafter's Book at level 1, get all level 1 alchemical formulas except mutagens, poisons, and non-heal elixirs, and then just use their class picks for the missing bits.

???


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone happened across anything that improves your ability to make use of Concealed, or which synergizes with it? And again, I'm personally curious about the Mistform Elixir's effect, and my expectation of using this in melee where I *know* I'm going to be observed. (If you don't notice my mini-me crawling over my shoulder, jamming two syringes into my neck, seeing me grow claws and fangs, and lunge at you, I'm doing it wrong.)

I'm thinking of anything that e.g. increases the DC of the flat check above 5, or that allows additional options when concealed e.g. similar to being able to use the Hide action but only if you are undetected too. So, maybe something that helps you become Undetected?

If you're wondering where I'm going with all of this...:
While I really despise the (almost) requirement of an Alchemical Familiar to address the action economy, I'm trying to make the best use of what tools are available. I *want* to make the melee Mutagenist work.

I'm expecting to use Mistform Elixir to augment defenses, essentially relying on it to compete with the higher defenses brought to bear by... well, almost everyone else. To make that work in an unexpected combat (i.e. no chance to prebuff), I'm expecting to have a Bestial Mutagen and a Mistform Elixir prepped and held by my AF and use my first action to have him apply both to me. My next two actions would be used to Stride/Strike as needed.

I'm comparing this level of defense (e.g. light armor (i.e. no fortification), -1 AC, plus Mistform Concealment) to other melee combatants in order to determine fitness. My hope is that numerically the math works out. My fear is that the numbers are going to be too swingy, meaning the hit-or-miss nature of these defenses will make the hits feel worse since this is still a d8 class with what feels like some mitigation gaps. Mitigating this is the cheaper access to reliable healing in the form of Elixirs of Life and Revivifying Mutagen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My bad on the 25% rather than 20% :)

And for what it's worth, the Mistform Elixir explicitly states that "being concealed when your position is still obvious, you can’t use this concealment to Hide or Sneak."

So from the perspective of a melee Mutagenist, relying on Bestial Mutagen and its -1 AC, it sounds like Mistform Elixir could offset some of the Alchemist squishiness while in melee.


For context, I'm looking at the Mutagenist Alchemist and the Mistform Elixir.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that the Mistform Elixir is what is intended to help offset the -1 AC for using Bestial Mutagen as well as being a light armor using class.

That said, it's only a flat DC 5 check to beat it. While on the whole, that represents a 25% reduction in damage, what it also means is that 75% of the time you are still a light armor wearing melee combatant with a -1 AC penalty.

Am I undervaluing the Concealed effect?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Specific beating general, I would assume that outside of that Leshy Ancestry feat, yes, you would have to have Master in Diplomacy.

The Leshy Ancestry feat specifically grants you the Shameless Request feat as a bonus feat, bypassing the feat's normal requirements.


I don't disagree that it seems unlikely that this type of shenanigans was the actual intent.

Just that, RAW, the OP has a reason to be asking the question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PRD2E wrote:

Heavy armor comes with a padded armor undercoat included in its Price, though it loses the comfort trait when worn under heavy armor. You can wear just that padded armor undercoat to sleep in, if your heavy armor is destroyed, or when otherwise not wearing the full heavy armor. This allows you to keep the armor invested and benefit from the power of any runes on the associated heavy armor, but no one else can wear your heavy armor without the padded undercoat.

But @thenobledrake, the reading pretty much directly indicates that:
  • 1) Heavy armor comes with padded armor
  • 2) The padded armor can be worn separately from the heavy armor
  • 3) The runes are still in effect

You didn't exactly disagree with what @Miy2Cents was positing, that you could just wear the padded armor separately for the same benefits. By my reading, RAW, @Miy2Cents has it correct; at present, RAW, you could doff the heavy armor, wear only the padded armor, and still gain rune benefits.

How advantageous this is is situational. Clearly for a normal frontliner, you *want* and are even *built* around the premise of wearing heavy armor. But for situations as described above (e.g. social, non-armored situations), this sounds like a great way for the heavy armor wearer to still have some protection, even if it isn't intended.

It does feel a little like a loophole. I don't know how I would word it, because this seems like a specific scenario (I'm not sure of any other such potential *double armor* situations) but I'd likely want to say that reinvesting has to happen with the armor in its "whole" state, so maybe you could go to the ball, but if you were still in just the padded undercoat when it came time for daily preparations, you would lose rune investitures until the undercoat could be reunited with the heavy armor.


Blave wrote:

The biggest downside is that it needs to be heightened. Giving up one of your highest spell slots per day just to get the the bonus of a very basic item doesn't seem worthwhile to me.

thenobledrake wrote:

One benefit of using mage armor rather than physical armor is that your party can use the treasure that would otherwise go towards your magical armor for something else... like maybe some cool magical instrument that I am just now realizing I'm not sure if are a thing in PF2.

Personally, I agree that it's the biggest downside, but as @thenobledrake pointed out, while you *are* trading one of your highest level slots, you have the potential to obtain and use a magic item in its place. And to the extent that you might need e.g. a reach weapon for a reach build, there may be a magic item that would work very nicely toward a particular build.

Ultimately... to the OP I would say it is as helpful as having something other than e.g. chain +1 tying up your WBL would be.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Kineticists in PF1 have a more tightly bound power level than other classes. The floor is higher (i.e. hard to be too ineffective) and the ceiling is lower (i.e. hard to be too overpowering).

The theme and flavor, though, I think appealed to a lot of people.


I thought I just read a thread here that talked about this a bit.

Basically the point (IIRC) was that either one or more people in the party start learning languages or no one does.

If no one does, then having languages used that no one knows just adds more of a chore for the GM and likely the players.

If only one person does, or if everyone learns different languages, the GM has to parcel information out to specific group members *OR* just go ahead and blurt everything else under the assumption that trained listeners would translate.

For my part... I have historically leaned toward more simulationism and so generally like to respect languages known; that said, I'm now starting to lean more toward a relaxing of some of that and more toward a more narrative style of play. So my personal taste is to mostly ignore languages except in story useful situations. That said, one of my players just *really* likes to be a polyglot (you should meet!), and I find myself in that second scenario, wanting to make my player happy and also not invalidate their choice for my own sake.


Anyone have any feedback? Is this at all an interesting change? Balanced? Fun?


I set up Mutagen Tolerance to allow the ability to alter which mutagen you are safe with (i.e. no drawbacks) once you are able to have more than 1 mutagen affecting you at once.

The feats for levels 10 and 14 are blank only because I haven't thought of good options there. (I'd be happy to hear suggestions)


I apologize in advance for the formatting. I would have preferred to do this as an anonymous Google doc link but that is apparently beyond my abilities at the moment. :)

I'm dissatisfied with how the Mutagenist plays out. I'm not experienced at wholesale class design so I'm not sure I'm on the mark here but it's where I'm leaning to try to make the Mutagenist more exciting to play as a slinger of mutagens.

EDIT I *just* sat down to read the APG playtest... tinctures... *sigh*... yeah... tinctures here are apparently... OTHERTINCTURES... just... whatever... I'm tired... :)

...

Mutagenist changes

Research Field changes


  • Grants Medium armor proficiency. When your Light armor proficiency would advance, your Medium armor proficiency will too.
  • Mutagen Flashback now provides 1 + INT uses per day.
  • Grants new Free Action, Mutagen Tolerance
  • At levels 7, 11, and 17, the Mutagenist selects a Tincture to learn. They may select any Tincture with a level equal to or less than their Advanced Alchemy level.

Mutagen Tolerance
Free Action, once per turn
You may ignore the drawbacks of a mutagen you have consumed. You may only ignore the drawback of a single mutagen at a time; if you were already ignoring the drawback of a different mutagen, that mutagen's drawbacks begin to take effect.

Mutagen changes

  • Bestial mutagen's claws now also gain the FINESSE trait. (Claws for DEX, Jaws for STR)

Alchemist Feat changes


  • FEAT 01 - Alchemical Familiar: remove
  • FEAT 01 - Absorptive Alchemy: new feat (replaces Alchemical Familiar); Grants new Free Action, Absorptive Alchemy
  • FEAT 01 - Quick Bomber: remove
  • FEAT 01 - Nimble Chemist: same as Quick Bomber but affects Bombs and Elixirs (i.e. including Mutagens)
  • FEAT 02 - Revivifying Mutagen: add “At level 7, you can target any willing participant under the effects of a mutagen, ending the chosen mutagen early and providing the indicated healing to the target.”
  • FEAT 06 - Combine Elixirs: move to FEAT 08
  • FEAT 06 - Mutagen Tincture: learn a Tincture (see below) available to you based on your Advanced Alchemy level; you may choose this Feat more than once (makes Tinctures available to non-mutagenists)
  • FEAT 08 - Combine Elixirs: moved from FEAT 06
  • FEAT 08 - Feral Mutagen: remove
  • FEAT 10 - Elastic Mutagen: remove
  • FEAT 10 -
  • FEAT 12 - Invincible Mutagen: remove
  • FEAT 12 - Elixir Splash: Additive 5 (yes, 5), You may add the SPLASH and THROWN traits to an elixir you have created using Quick Alchemy. The elixir affects any valid target hit by the splash.
  • FEAT 14 - Glib Mutagen: remove
  • FEAT 14 -
  • FEAT 16 - Genius Mutagen: remove
  • FEAT 16 - Generous Tincture: Tinctures can affect targets other than the alchemist who created the mutagen
  • FEAT 18 - Mindblank Mutagen: remove
  • FEAT 18 - Universal Tinctures: A Tincture may be applied to any mutagen you create

FEAT 01
Absorptive Alchemy
Free Action, once per turn
You may, as a free action, consume any one alchemical item you create with the INFUSED and ELIXIR traits through your skin as part of the process of creating the item. Creating more than one alchemical item (for example, using Double Brew), does not increase the number of alchemical items that can be consumed at one time through Absorptive Alchemy.

Mutagen feats become Tinctures
Once an Alchemist learns a Tincture, it means they may freely add it to the mutagen which it enhances when they craft that mutagen. A Tincture, however, has a level value, indicating the minimum required Advanced Alchemy level needed to learn that Tincture. A Tincture will only affect the alchemist who created the mutagen; adding a Tincture and allowing another to consume it will not confer the Tincture’s benefits. You may not add a Tincture after the mutagen is created. Only one Tincture may be applied to a mutagen. Tinctures also take effect as a result of Mutagenic Flashback.

The Tinctures for the initial 6 available mutagens in the CRB all have the same effects as the individual feats to which they currently are assigned. The Feral Tincture differs from Feral Mutagen and reads as follows:

Feral Tincture
ALCHEMIST TINCTURE
Whenever you apply this tincture to a bestial mutagen you created, you gain the mutagen’s item bonus to your Indtimidation checks. In addition, your unarmed attacks, including claws and jaws, gain the deadly d10 trait. Finally, you can apply a -1 circumstance penalty to AC and, in exchange, increase the die size of your unarmed attacks, including claws and jaws, by one step.

The following chart shows the Tincture progression:

Level / Affected Mutagen / Tincture Name / Effects
06 / Any / Hyperfocus Tincture / As True Strike; during round mutagen imbibed
06 / Any / Insight Tincture / Until end of current round, you may apply INT bonus as circumstance bonus to one skill check, chosen before the roll
08 / Bestial / Feral Tincture / See Feral Tincture below
10 / Quicksilver / Elastic Tincture / As Elastic Mutagen
12 / Juggernaut / Invincible Tincture / As Invincible Mutagen
14 / Silvertongue / Glib Tincture / As Glib Mutagen
16 / Cognitive / Genius Tincture / As Genius Mutagen
18 / Serene / Mindblank Tincture / As Mindblank Mutagen

Hyperfocus Tincture and Insight Tincture are examples of tinctures that can be applied with any mutagen automatically. More powerful tinctures require specific mutagens. Unversal Tincture (FEAT 18) allows all tinctures to be applied to any mutagen.

The Tincture availability is on the same schedule as the original feats. This split, however, allows for additional knobs to tweak in future and opens up more interesting Feat options for Mutagenists.


In the spirit of @Baarogue's point about more discussion...

I agree with the breakdown in responses. To add to the point about "moving parts"...

Thematically, given this is a single action activity, I think of this as using brains and trickery to overcome brawn. As has been pointed out, there's not much you can do to a sword beyond exceeding its hardness values. But anything that I think could reasonably be fluffed into an interact sort of action and that would naturally render it unusable, would be sufficient reason to allow it.

It's a potentially neat ability but will involve table variation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Reziburno25 wrote:

1 per day for mutagenists flashback seems pretty limited.

Sure, it's limited, but it also opens up design space to print alchemist feats that let you do it more often, or for longer, or for greater effect. Errata just isn't the place to create new feats out of whole cloth.

When something is broken, the errata should fix it.

The "fix" should definitely be in the core class and not on mandatory feat taxes to patch a malfunctioning core.

They could use the "new feats" space for actual new interesting abilities rather than sticking to them being math fixes for the Alchemist while everyone else gets new abilities from them.

The Errata was targeting the Research Field, not the entire class at this time.

Reusing any Mutagen you’ve drank that prep period sounds on par with turning off your splash damage or using Craft instead of Medicine on Medicine checks.

Except how you can turn off your splash damage on every bomb you throw for the entire day, allowing you to double down on tossing bombs even for single target damage.

And how you can use Craft instead of Medicine on every Medicine check all day.


Brew Bird wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

That mutagenist change sounds a bit underwhelming. I mean it's better than nothing, but Mutagenist is already the most reagent efficient specialization by a solid margin. Where it's hurting is in its damage and survivability.

And while again, it's still better than nothing, it kind of undercuts the Mutagenist version of Quick Alchemy if you can just recycle your high level mutagens instead of having to worry about field brewing lower level versions.

The devs have said that they're still working on a number of things that won't be addressed in the errata document. Hopefully if the mentioned change to the Mutagenist is the only one, they're still looking at the Alchemist behind the scenes.

I know I'm counting chickens here, but...

*IF* Mutagen Flashback works as described, the most generous reading could allow a mutagenist to create a batch of all of their highest level mutagens first thing in the morning (or at least those they suspect they will likely need), drink all of them and then negate the effects using the level 2 feat.

For the rest of the day, they could conceivably mutagen dance. Free action to enable a prior mutagen, 3 actions available. Two actions to switch mutagens mid-turn (consume old, quick alchemy new) down perhaps to one if you still haven't used your free action that turn.

Quick Alchemy, then, could be useful for situations where you didn't initially prime a mutagen *OR* for creating other alchemical items on the fly, like various elixirs, bombs, smokesticks, etc.

And with that, you could conceivably rely solely on your mutagen now. That is, assume you will always be running Quicksilver for ranged or Bestial for melee attacks, because the action economy can now support it. You now free up your WBL for other permanent items because you can skip things like magic weapons.

Which presumably has the knock-on effect of an even broader array of magic items.

I think that was their intent for Alchemist the whole time... get into more magic item shenanigans because your "standard" bonuses are provided.

The catch for me though, is that Bestial Mutagen doesn't allow any rider effects. For example, as an alchemist, someone with knowledge both of poisons, resistance to them, and body modification, why can't I further modify my Bestial Mutagen (say, with an elixir), that allows me to apply poison effects through my claws? It would not only open up more varied use of the claws, it is also thematically appropriate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Silent Spell is a 1 action activity
It negates the verbal component of the subsequent spell
The verbal component would normally have added an action of its own to the spell
The spell now has one less action

Quickened Casting is a free action activvity
It reduces the action count of the subsequent spell
The spell now has one less action

For illustration, assume a spell with verbal and somatic components, requiring 2 actions to cast:

No metamagic: 2 action spell, 2 actions, verbal components are heard
Silent Spell: 2 action spell, 2 actions (Silent Spell + somatic), verbal components are not heard, synergizes with Conceal Spell
Quickened Casting: 2 action spell, 1 action, verbal component still heard, requires spell 2 levels lower than max, no synergy with Conceal Spell

That's how I would rule it.

Silent Spell removes a specific type of component for stealth purposes, but the overall casting time is not reduced because Silent Spell itself requires an action.

Quickened Casting reduces the action count, but I read it as the components still being required. The action economy is improved but you get no stealth.

Seems balanced to me.


Vlorax wrote:
NA Palm wrote:
pjrogers wrote:

OK, I went and changed my mind after doing a Google search - "ground" site:2e.aonprd.com - which is something I should have done earlier.

It's now pretty clear to me that PF2e uses "ground" in the broadest possible way, such as in the following sentence "Most characters and monsters have a speed statistic—also called land Speed—which indicates how quickly they can move across the ground."

Guess we just can't move while on the deck of a ship now...
Wooden stairs also now present an issue.

As do shoes... though it's great if you do a handstand.


Alyran wrote:
I don't understand why people are saying it's useless for animal companions when they still get an extra damage die from the spell as that part is not an item bonus.

That's been mentioned multiple times (other threads included)...

... but why? I mean... if an effect grants +1 to hit and adds a damage die... and stipulates the effect is an item bonus... why wouldn't the bonus damage dice be considered also an item bonus... and if granted as part of the +hit, part of the *same* item bonus?


graystone wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Magic Fang should obviously work on Animal Companions.

A related question: Since by RAW Magic Fang does not work on animal companions, who or what is it supposed to work on?

Magic Fang is starting to look like a totally useless spell.

Animals you buy [Guard Dog, Riding Dog, Pack Animal, Riding Horse, Warhorse, Riding Pony, Warpony], other druids, alchemists w/ bestial mutagen, monks, sorcerers with those fancy claw focus abilities, clerics of Irori, ect.

I find it funny that it works perfectly well on a druid as long as the druid isn't the one casting the spell... 'hey rogue, you have trick magic item right? can you cast this primal spell on me from this wand. For some reason it doesn't work if I try it...'

Bestial mutagen also provides an item bonus, so no help for such alchemists

1 to 50 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>