SuperBidi's page

Racial Weapon feats should be automatic for the race for free.

They are one of the few impactful Ancestry feats. If you remove them, you're very close to remove Ancestry feats entirely.

Small quibble but I think the Str eidolon is still a very good choice, even for this way to play.

If you look at Eidolon choice, I recognize that Str Eidolon is fine for this style of play. Dex is mostly better for defense and skills. In terms of damage, Strength is better at low level and it gets more of a wash at mid levels when elemental runes start to kick in.

And yes, the goal is not to always be at range even if, from experience, you end up often at range. It's a build that fully benefits from the Summoner flexibility while avoiding the main issue of the class: It's lack of survivability compared to an actual martial.

Discussions on DPR are not centered around roleplay but around contribution. All players expect their character to contribute to a "certain degree" (completely variable from player to player) to the adventure. And damage, being the main metrics of combat (as combat is just a question of reducing enemy hp pool to 0, preferably before your own gets there), massively describes your combat contribution.

The question of contribution is very complex. Players have different minimal contribution to feel they actually contribute and will not value the different areas of contribution the same way.

Combat is in general a moment where you want to contribute (in PF2, there are games where combat has less importance). Actually, combat is also a moment where other players want you to contribute, and some players may react negatively to a character who doesn't contribute enough to combat.

Also, from my experience, the amount of damage a character does has a clear impact on the table fun. Other forms of contribution won't impact fun as clearly or will vary greatly from players to players (some hate to play support characters for example).

But yeah, basically, Dragon and Beast (and Anger, though nobody plays it) have always been considered melee summoners, with an emphasis on Two-actions from the eidolon (which doesn't leave a lot of room for casting, and leans towards the use of Boost Eidolon), while all other eidolons are considered caster summoners (since they can use only one action and as such leave more room to the summoner to cast).

I actually play a Caster Summoner with an Anger Eidolon. The level 1 ability is worthless (even if you're melee) but the level 7 one is really nice when you don't have to be at melee range: +2 to damage to all your attacks compensates the lower damage output of the ranged option.

To start with the specific:

And you don't ALWAYS have to move before level 8

If the Plant Eidolon doesn't need to move then the ranged Eidolon can switch to melee and they then deal very similar damage (the difference is higher at low level but negligible at high level).

Also, you didn't take into account the much higher accuracy I mentioned. A plant Eidolon should often get flanking, or attack tripped enemies, which is a net +2 accuracy gain comparing to ranged attacks - while the ranged eidolon will often suffer from lesser cover (-1 accuracy) or even regular cover (-2).

The ranged Eidolon can also switch to melee, it's not forced to ranged damage. So it can get the same bonuses when they are available and a better choice. It's a perfect switch hitter.

Also also (^^), you didn't take into account attacks of opportunities he will most certainly do during the fight due to high reach and trips from either him or his friends. That's coming close to double the damage output, while the ranged eidolon only has AOO in melee (where he allegedly doesn't want to go).

Yes I did. Once you get Weighty Impact I've considered an AoO every time you manage to Trip the enemy. I haven't before but we are speaking of levels 6-9 only. So, ok, for these 4 levels my calculation are under the actual value, I fully admit that.

I really don't understand what you mean here. Plant summoner, like most eidolons who aren't beast/dragon, IS a caster summoner.

I've called Caster Summoner this way of playing a Summoner. You can say ranged Eidolon if you prefer but it's more than just a feat.

The features I emphasized higher don't cost any feat to get apart from weighted impact and Eidolon's Opportunity (and maybe the Large feat if you don't want to rely on evolution). So you can diversify to your heart's content.

If you rely on Evolution Surge to increase your size then your damage output is now significantly lower and you lose potential AoOs during first round. And you also lose the versatility of Evolution Surge as you now need it for your main shtick.

But you CAN also get in a straight DPS race and not trip at all

It doesn't really increase your damage output unless you have an external source to trigger your AoOs. Weighty Impact is really that good.

As for being squishy, that's true, but reach (even at lvl 1) allows you to cower behind your sturdier melee if need be. And a Towering Eidolon has 25 feet reach, which means you're basically ranged like you.

Yeah, but you're also Huge, take more damage from AoE effects, and at level 12+ monsters have ways to hit creatures at 20 ft. (25 ft. is only when you attack but you want the juicy AoOs). You will definitely grab a lot of attention which may have an impact or not depending on your party composition.

Well, sure, but you mentioned it in an optimization post and made a lot of DPS charts to try to prove it's a great summoner build DPS-wise, which IMO it isn't.

My damage charts are there to prove it's competitive. Not that it's somehow better. This build is unexpectedly working fine, as at first glance the Ranged Combattant option seems very underwhelming.

Now for the more general:

This whole guide is not just about ranged Eidolon but about a way of playing the Summoner. I've seen countless Summoners using Boost Eidolon for example (actually, all those I played with) and as such ignoring the potential damage output coming from the Summoner.

Also, there's no massive opposition between your Plant build and the concept of Caster Summoner, it's a way of achieving something similar through reach instead of range. Still, you'll invest more feats and options on your Eidolon which will look more like an Eidolon-centric Summoner than a Caster Summoner.

And I won't write a guide to say: Play this One True Build and ignore the rest of the class. So even if the Plant Summoner is an absolute beast there are a lot of people who want to play a Summoner which is not a Plant Summoner. This guide covers it for them.

Hmm. It's an interesting idea and I love trying new things but I fail to see how it's better than a plant Eidolon that has almost the same reach (20 feet at lvl 7, 25 feet at lvl 9) but deals way more damage (starting at 1d8+4 vs 1d4 and finishing at 4d8+6 vs 4d4, ignoring other runes and weapon spe), is more accurate (can benefit from flat footed or prone, doesn't suffer from lesser cover), helps your team (by providing flanking) and can use combat manoeuvers like trip and grab.

A few things.

Second, the Plant build is a build when the Caster Summoner is a way of playing the Summoner. For the comparison to be fair you'd need to compare the Plant build to Caster Summoner's builds, and that's when it starts getting hard. The Caster Summoner encompasses the Summoner versatility, and as such can be built very differently without hitting it's core combat features. You can make a top end skill monkey out of it, you can increase it's casting ability or even add some gimmicks to it like the Disturbing Knowledge build I find so funny. But that would make the comparison extremely hard as both will have very different defining features.

Also, the Plant Eidolon has a massive impact on the party. It's supposed to be the party tripper and as such you need the party to play around it as otherwise it'd be rather weak. But more importantly it's Large (and even Huge at some point) and as such attracts a lot of attention while not being a tank at all (the Eidolon tanking ability is very average). So without party support you'll just eat the dirt most of the time.

And finally, I wouldn't say the plant build is worse than any Caster Summoner build I'd could come up with. It's the Summoner build that gets the most praise after all.

But I guess it's not the topic to discuss this.

Well, better will be hard to prove. But it's clearly an alternative.

1) There's little to no RP involved - because the clock is ticking, and nobody cares you're doing this impassionated speech, they just want you to "roll diplomacy" because that's what's written, and anyway what's the point of befriending this barbarian you'll probably never meet again - or maybe in four or five games.

I find that it gets worse with time. Recent adventures are putting more focus on rollplay and less on roleplay. I also slowly start to be pushed away from PFS, only the fact that I have a gaming group of old friends fights this tendency.

2) There's little to no strategy involved. Since the adventure is supposed to be done with any kind of classes AND not last too long, all fights are insultingly trivial and there's absolutely no sense of danger or accomplishment.

Difficulty varies depending on adventures. It's often easy, especially at low level. But actual difficulty can raise a lot when you end up in a party with an imbalance in classes/builds.

Now I'm curious, any pointers or link ?

I wrote a guide about it.

DPR is not theory. It's white room math.

White room theory is just a derogatory term to speak about theory.

You were not the first person I saw discussing the Starlit Span magus on these forums. It wasn't a hard to see build.

Before the release of the Psychic it was very far from easy to see. And I hardly think anyone reported it here before me, it was brand new knowledge at that time.

I listened to what you posted on a summoner, as I like to hear what others are doing with classes.

Well, you thanked me for my help. I keep this good memory ;)

This game would produce surprisingly complex equations for determining damage capability that the mathematically trained could figure out how to build, but would it really be worth their time. I doubt it.

Is fighting imaginary dragon worth our time?

No, DPR calculations is not "that" complex. It's actually the issue with it: Most people don't know how to get anything out of DPR calculations.

Some fail at modeling it, like the classic DPR of 3-action routine for melee martials that serves no purpose as melee martials have to move more often than not.
And others overcomplexify it to no end. Like bringing damage distribution to the discussion which is completely useless as, even if you ever manage to calculate it properly, it would be unusable in play as you don't know how many hit points enemies have. Or those who want to model multiple rounds of damage for no reason but complexity.

With DPR calculations I've found the Starlit Span Magus issue before anyone else on these boards, I've built an Alchemist that deals Fighter level of damage since level 1 (which by itself is a feat I'm not sure anyone else achieved in the world) and I've designed a brand new way of playing a Summoner that allowed me to help you with yours.

Theory is definitely more complex than practice, but thanks to it we walked on the moon.

Now, practice is useful. Even to the theory inclined people like myself: Your practice validates my theories :D

Yep, I also think your "solutions", Trip, are only solutions around your table. Around mine, at least, Drained is no reason to stop, Energizing Pills are forbidden, druging an ally will not be accepted and you don't know the effect of an ability before rolling, so you can't choose to reroll depending on the effect.

And when you have an Alchemist cleanser you can choose not to reroll critical failures to saves, especially against lower level enemies, knowing that your Alchemist will remove them trivially. As such, you can save on HPs.

@RD: Random number generator, a video game term. Random would have been enough.

Besides Contagion Metabolizers and Blood Boosters (super underrated, you don't roll, they just work), most of the Alch list counteract items are very much *not* a combat thing imo. Those alch items are mostly gold savers and convenience / attrition remediation.

At least we agree on something.

And, again, these "PC just had an incap effect stick" situations are *rare* as hell, once or twice per campaign.

Not at high level. There are quite some level 13+ enemies with debilitating effects on a critical failure (remember that even something as simple as Frightful Presence gives Frightened 4 on a critical miss). There are also many sticking Conditions like Drained that you will not be able to remove with the Alchemical Items and that you can remove with Invigorating Elixir.

Most of the time, the best response will be to finish the fight a PC down, but if they got incapped on opening, it's usually better to bag them and run

It's not always possible. Controlled and Confused being obvious examples but critically failing at a save may come with other nasty effects preventing you from running away. Also, when you don't have any way of removing these effects finishing the fight is the best response. But when you have that luxury you may realize there are many situations where cleansing the effect is actually a very good solution.

Even with the feats, your class DC will struggle like hell to have a good chance to cleanse when it matters most.

With a Hero Point in case of failure, you should always be over 50% and most of the time closer to 75%. As we are speaking of dire situations, it's the good moment to use one of them.

Also, we are focused on debilitating effects but there are also situations where your main goal is to heal the Fighter and you get a free chance at removing their Sickened or Frightened Condition. This must not be handwaved, especially on a Chirurgeon.

There is always value in having access to both high and low levels of damage variance, provided you have some way to estimate an enemy's HP.

Definitely. When an enemy is at 1hp having access to a very reliable 1 damage ability is super interesting.

But that's alongside the DPR calculation discussion. For example, the Bomber has access to very reliable low damage abilities. It doesn't change its actual damage output, it's just a nice perk, like the ability to target weaknesses or avoid resistances.

DPR calculations should focus only on average damage. Now, judging a routine isn't just about damage. And judging a build even more.

From my experience, the major mechanical aspects when it comes to player enjoyment of their character is ease of play, damage output and tankyness (in that order). Damage output is not the end all be all of player enjoyment but it's still a massive aspect.

And I fully agree with the OP, damage output tend to be disregarded compared to its actual importance. When I brought that the Starlit Span Magus was having an abnormal damage output I faced resistance and even backlash on my focus on damage. Today, I see a rather high number of Starlit Span Magus despite the niche build it is supposed to be. And high player enjoyment of it compared to the other Hybrid Theories.

As I've written before, there are exactly five levels, out of twenty, where you end up needing a Nat 20 to handle an at-level effect.

I second Shroudb. The effects you remove are more often than not inflicted by higher level creatures.

That's why we speak about nat 20s. They are not a rare occurence when you use the Alchemical Items brought by Trip.

And while the "90%" brought by Shroudb are an exageration, even 30% chance to succeed only on a nat 20 is enough to completely disgust you from these items. I personally dislike to fail a check on a 19 on the dice. And I don't even speak of the rare cases where even a nat 20 is a failure.

There's also a second important factor: You won't remove conditions often. In general, you start removing them when they are really debilitating. Succeeding at it will have a lot of impact. Obviously because having a character back to the fight is extremely impactful, TPKs happen typically when your Barbarian gets Dominated or your Cleric Stunned. But also because you'll bring back a player into the fight (as I don't know many people who like to wait for the end of the Paralysis duration). So the difference between 14+ and 11+ is massive. An ability that you use when crap hits the fan needs to be reliable (at least as much as possible) as it's the moment where you need the most help.

So while distribution is a factor in actual play, it's somewhat harder to theorycraft around because it's just a thing that happens, imo.

The distribution is not even a real factor in actual play.

TTK is:
3 hits: 0.01% vs 0%
3-4 hits: 10.36% vs 14.47%
3-5 hits: 67.35% vs 64.71%
3-6 hits: 96.91% vs 94.41%
3-7 hits: 99.91% vs 99.68%

Numbers are extremely close despite the different distributions. I don't think a human can really feel the 3% difference in chances to kill in 5 hits or less.

And if I just check 1d12+5 damage (so a higher average damage), TTK is:
3 hits: 0.23%
3-4 hits: 31.23%
3-5 hits: 84.51%
3-6 hits: 99.09%
3-7 hits: 99.99%

So we see that damage distribution is made completely irrelevant next to average damage. A simple 1 point of difference in average damage leading to numbers so much higher that even the worst damage distribution disparity will still be completely dwarved.

Damage distribution in PF2 is irrelevant because you need too many checks to actually down an enemy. For damage distribution to matter you need to 1 or 2-shot enemies. The second you start needing 5 attacks to kill them the damage distribution gets smoothen.
And I don't even bring the fact that your damage distribution is smoothen by the other PCs damage distribution as you are not alone killing enemies.

That's why DPR calculations only focus on average damage because nothing else is relevant.

Distribution determines standard deviation from the average.

If you have a low standard deviation you can expect the damage you will do to be pretty consistent. But the further the SD is from the average the less reliable that average is about telling you the actual damage you will do.

Distribution doesn't impact the number of attacks you will have to make to down an enemy. Maybe your numbers will be random, but the actual important values (time to kill and such) won't be affected once you hit level 3 (at very low level, they are because of the really low hit point pool of level -1 and 0 enemies).

Distribution is important.

Not really. Distribution is important if you're supposed to 1 or 2-shot enemies or if you're the only one to deal damage. So it's slightly relevant during the first levels and quickly becomes useless. Average is really the important value.

Your example works only because it's extreme but you won't find actual play example that reproduce it.

It's just silly to say you can't mix bombs and elixirs

It's not me, it's the book. The book says: You have 2+INT VVs. If you manage to get significantly more VVs than that then I'll agree you can combine them, otherwise you have to choose: How many will be Bombs and how many will be Elixirs?

With other forms of combat, you can keep all your VVs for Elixirs.

And after the Remaster added infinite Quick Vials that can be done for 0A thanks to Quick Bomber + Double Brew, it's kinda hard to *not* throw bombs as a Chir.

I was really missing these 2d6 damage. Sorry, I prefer to deal 2d10 + 1d6 + 4 + Deadly d10. I'm aiming at effectiveness, not joke damage.

Even if you've got an applicable elixir Additive, and even if a Bomber's bomb would be better, on most turns it's just a better action/spend for a Chir to throw a bomb.

That's exactly what I say: Either you Bomb or your use your Elixirs (and not for action reasons but for VVs reasons as you say later). That's why they are not compatible. If you prefer to Bomb, play a Bomber. If you prefer to use your Elixirs, play a Chirurgeon. But you can't be both, this won't happen.

*Maybe* there is an argument for being more stingy with your VVials after L13, which is when Chir gets to auto-max their Elixir o Lf.

A Chirurgeon can outheal a Cleric starting at level 6 once you get Combine Elixirs. I agree with your argument prior to level 6 but then it's moot. That's also why I say that you will stop using Bombs at level 6 because that's when the choice of being a Bomber or a Chirurgeon has to be made.

My Chirs

I'm sorry, I don't disregard experience as a whole nor your specifically but I really think you're stuck with a preremaster Alchemist that you tried to reproduce with the remaster rules. Your build is not anywhere close to effective and there's no way to make it effective. Even you state that your Elixirs are crappy which is a clear proof that you didn't manage to combine bombing and Chirurgeon stuff.

as a vending machine.

Ok, so it's a "fun build", nothing that tries to achieve effectiveness?

If anything, I'm thinking Uncanny Bombs

You won't be able to use Bombs, they use your Versatile Vials that you need to be a Chirurgeon. Bombs only work in the very first levels as a Chirurgeon, once level 6 you rarely have a Vial left to produce even one of them.

There's a real incompatibility between Bombs and the other Research Fields. You can jump through tons of hoops to get miserable effectiveness with them but I hardly see the point when other options are both much easier to use and stronger.

Any further advice you have for refining it would be most appreciated.

I'd definitely not go for Bombs on a Chirurgeon. You will have crappy feat support and they fight for your Versatile Vials. Around level 6 you'll stop using them. Bombs are for Bombers only now.

Also, you take Armor Proficiency for heavy armor and will be around the frontline to deliver your Elixirs so choosing Strength as attack stat is not only more optimized, it's more in line with your playstyle.

Bombs have stopped being Alchemist default weapon with the remaster, they are no more compatible with the other Research Fields. Bestial Mutagen is now the go to Alchemist weapon.

Unless there is a big level disparity, can't you counteract many things even on a Failure though?

On a failure you counteract an effect of one level lower than the item. So nothing at level 1-3, a rank 1 effect at level 4-7, a rank 3 effect at level 8-11, a rank 5 effect at level 12-17 and a rank 8 effect afterwards. You'll rarely need to counteract effects of such a low rank.

4th Level: CL 2, CM +8. Counteracts CL2 or 3 on a success. CL2 still 18, so 10+. CL3 DC 20, so again 12+.

No, the High DC at level 4 is 21 (20 at level 3). And High DC is what you generally face, spellcasters often even get closer to Extreme DC. So it's a 13+ against level 4 effects, 14+ for level 5, 16+ for level 16 and 20 for level 7 as they are generally level 4 so you need a crit success. And that's the minimum you'll get, if it's closer to Extreme, it gets very close to nat 20 only (nat 20 doesn't even work at level 7 against extreme DC).

If you try to use it during combat, you'll quickly stop. Outside combat... who cares?

I've seen just how many things have the magical tag

You can't Dispel something because it has the Magical tag. It has to be a spell specifically. It may be the cause of or disagreement because your use of Dispel Magic seems much broader than what the rules allow.

Healing Elixirs appear to allow you to remove the following conditions reliably, either through counteract checks, or saving throws.

• Clumsy
• Disease
• Drugs
• Emotion
• Enfeebled
• Poison
• Stupefied

Healing Elixirs only remove Afflictions (and only if you are a Chirurgeon). All the others fail to remove Conditions because their level is so low even a nat 20 can be a failure.

Edit: plus, the Invigorating Effect is ON TOP of the regular effects of the elixir.

Edit: Plus plus, Invigorating removes the effect imposing the Condition. So you don't have to choose between Fleeing and Frightened from Fear effects, you remove both. Also, you can remove other things than the Condition, like the other effects of Synesthesia.

As far as I can tell, all the Duration: permanent spell maladies are 100% removable via Dispel Magic. Dispel does work on 100% of non-curse magics, because it is the lack of lingering magics that makes those rare Blindness type spells tricky like the hags that use them.

Rare? Check your book. They are really common (Blindness, Sound Burst, Warp Mind, Petrify, Phantasmal Killer, etc...), maybe even the majority of Condition inflicting spells.

Sound Body + Clear Mind

So you have Dispel Magic, Sound Body, Clear Mind prepared. What does your character do besides curing effects?

In real play, those hag spell quirks of permanence are neat story beats and not real combat problems

In real play, these spells wreck parties. If losing a PC during a fight is "not a real combat problem" then I doubt your difficulty setting is high.

It's an insane double standard to think that a caster cannot budget a top or top -1 slot for Dispel Magic, etc, yet you think it's a good spend of Alchemist class feat slots for the counteract additives.

If there was a feat to cast Dispel Magic on a 10-minute cooldown that'd be a crazy good feat even for a caster. Top level slots are your main combat weapons, they are not meant for utility.

And you cannot feed a Confused ally, because they are not your ally.

Wrong again. You don't need someone to be your ally to feed them but to be willing. And according to the rules: "A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character's condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead)." So it works fine.

I would never recommend an Alchemist cripple their build to take 2 to 4 feats for something that (generously) happens 2 or 3 times in a campaign.

You made me laugh. You never experienced debilitating conditions? Or long lasting annoying ones?

The main issue of Invigorating Elixir is the time it takes to really kick in. The level 4 feat will cover nearly no situations. The level 8 feat is when it starts to kick in but without the level 12 feat it's really random (as you can only try once per character per combat). At level 12, on the other hand, it becomes character defining. Especially for a Chirurgeon.

Also, I agree about Clotting Elixir, it's nowhere close to strong. Soothing Vials is nice but niche. At least it only costs a level 1 feat and as a Chirurgeon there's not much for you at level 1 anyway. I personally take it instead of the second Improved Invigorating Elixir on my Chirurgeon.

@shroudb: I don't think I can convince Trip either. But I don't answer for them alone, I also answer for Ravingdork who's the one interested in this discussion.

"DPR is incredibly misleading and not very useful".

And I think a lot of people are mislead by this assertion, thinking that DPR calculations are actually misleading and not helpful.

Because in actual practice, odds are the party has a magic user, and Dispel Magic is an actual "undo all magics minus curses" button that's often worth the single PC build investment of their limited top R spells.

Dispel Magic only removes Spells, that's not even half of "all magics" (much closer to 25% actually). And it doesn't work against permanent conditions which happens to be the ones you want to remove most of the time. So if you're Drained by a Wraith, scared by a Dragon, Blinded by the Blindness spell, Confused by Warp Mind or whatever then it doesn't work.

I don't expect even half of the parties to have a top rank Dispel Magic available, and very few with more than one. And anyway it won't work against most of what Invigorating Elixirs removes. So I think you can safely ignore it when judging Invigorating Elixirs.

You dislike Invigorating Elixirs, fine. But I know there are a lot of cases where I'd have loved to have it available (and strangely, a lot of the cases I remember were rather dire, because it's tough to win a fight when your Confused Monk attacks randomly (critical failure to Warp Mind) or when your main melee martial is Stunned for 10 rounds (critical failure to Phantasmal Calamity) and in both of these cases Dispel Magic wouldn't have helped).

Definitely true, but also in a broader sense

I definitely agree for healing. Actually, 2 secondary healers are better than a primary healer as their combined healing output is vastly superior when you need a healing spike.

But there are other domains where twice doesn't help as diminishing returns are too steep. Buffs and debuffs for example: There's no point in having 2 characters able to cast Bless or Inspire Courage, both bonuses won't stack and even if they're nice to have these buffs are not as high priority as damage and healing.
Same goes with skills. Having 2 average trapsmiths may actually end up with no ability to disarm a trap (if they don't have maxed out proficiency) when a single focused trapsmiths should be able to deal with all traps all alone. 2 out of combat medics are also rather useless as you can't double Treat Wound a character. Etc...

So, I'd say there's no strict rule.

YOU ALWAYS WANT AT LEAST ONE RELIABLE DAMAGE TOOL.

I'd even insist on that: Reliable and efficient. For example, I don't consider cantrips to be efficient past the first levels.

Far too often, because of circumstances, I've seen a character forced into damage dealing when it was not their primary role. And those who were not able to deal reliable and efficient damage really crippled the party. TPKs (and character deaths) don't happen when the Paladin tanks, the Bard buffs, the Fighter hacks and the Cleric heals. TPKs happen because something goes wrong. And if the Fighter can't somehow hack and the only answer of the Paladin, Bard and Cleric is "Damage is not my role." then the TPK will be on the table.

Party coordination is important and extremely efficient but when crap hits the fan it's the first thing that goes down.

Pretty sure I'm not dreaming up niche items to add to the alch list.

The PC2 re-dos even initiate a counteract of *every* eligible effect, not a single one like the feat does. And they have no cooldown.

Surging Serum, Bottled Catharsis, Contagion Metabolizer, Blood Booster, Emetic Paste*, D Blood Pudding. (you should add all of these to your book)

None of these will counteract anything (failing sometimes even on a nat 20) but Contagion Metabolizer (for a Chirurgeon), which happens to counteract what the feats don't cover.

And yes, Talisman Dabbler's ability to, in the worst and most brain-dead case, save you actions via Retrieval Prisms is "better" than these elixir feats because it can save you actions every single day

Have you ever had a character critically failing a save against Warp Mind, Blindness, Slow, Frightful Presence, Phantasmal Calamity? Or just hit by a good long lasting condition like Drained? At high level, these things happen often and they just wreck a character out of the fight (when it's not out of the adventuring day). Counteracting these will gain you much more actions than a single action to draw an item (which is nice but I personally use Retrieval Belts for that).

Now, I agree, these feats are high level ones. If you don't plan on going over level 10, you can forget about them.

Adding a 1p 10 min counteract condition-remover to a VV elixir imo does not compare to any form of outside-Alch utility dip.

It's not once per 10 minute, it's once per 10 minute per character. Also, it's not a condition remover, it's an effect remover (it removes the effect imposing the condition, so everything is removed not just the condition). And once it really kicks in at level 12, the counteract check becomes trivial.

Doctor's Visitation is a waste of a feat when you can just grab an Item Delivery Familiar. But well, as Talisman Dabbler is a joke I assume you were not serious in your post.

Because you could just use Combine to add the correct condition remover elixir.

These items only exist in your dreams.

IMO, all elixir improving feats (aside from Combine Elixir) are traps.

I strongly disagree. These feats are great and should be considered by any Alchemist but Bombers.

Advanced Efficient Alchemy

Efficient Alchemy

Unless you plan on playing a ranged Toxicologist or take the Alchemist Dedication from another class these feats are mostly worthless. Your main supply of Alchemical Items are your Versatile Vials. If you want to increase them, there's a Familiar ability that seems much more useful (also, Item Delivery is a strong choice on a chirurgeon).

Now that I see the power of unlimited soothing tonic though, I'm reconsidering nearly all of my skill feats.

Yeah, you don't need Medicine to heal on an Alchemist anymore. It's only useful for the occasional skill checks. So in PFS, it's nice. Anywhere else it's a mostly useless ability.

I'm leaning towards a slow, tanky level 11 chirurgion in bastion plate.

With Bestial Mutagen? Because I don't see the level 8 feat to boost it. It's really the go to offensive option for Chirurgeon now. You can be permamorphed with your Versatile Vials.

So, to answer your question. For your daily prep, the go to answer is poison. It's much easier to use Poison on your daily items than on Quick Alchemy ones. Otherwise, nothing's much useful, choose the 8-hour long items preferably. For your Quick Alchemy Items, you'll need a lot of healing items, especially once Combine Elixir kicks in (you forgot it in your build, for a Chirurgeon it's a no brainer as it basically gives you Cleric healing output).

That's super dependent on your Alchemist. You don't prepare the same things depending on Research Field. And even with the same Research Field, you will have massive discrepencies depending on your build and environment (PFS, AP, homebrew...).

So you should better explain us what you want to play.

Also, for Quick Alchemy you have access to your entire Formula book. So you can pretty much create everything and as such there's no "average day" unless you face always the same challenges.

I just realize: A Wizard can only use their own spellbook, they can't grab someone else's. So it has to be part of the character or you're just screwed.

For me, it's because the 15 gold pieces are not a given. The GM may decide to start with the PCs imprisoned, and as such without equipment. And most classes will perform fine once they find some form of equipment... but the Wizard and Alchemist who don't need just any spell/formula book but their spell/formula book (or at least something rather close to it as it's painful to play a Bomber without Bombs or a Necromancer with just evocation spells). So I think it's well done that way.

Well, when you phrase it like that, then the Alch 100% should start with a free toolkit.

No, the Alchemist doesn't need a Toolkit prior to buying equipment to be functional. But it needs a Formula Book otherwise it would start with no formula.

I agree with Teridax, the remaster Oracle is one of the strongest casters in the game. For me, the remaster Oracle is just another Sorcerer (and considering the natural synergy between Sorcerer and Oracle, pushing to get Sorcerer Dedication on an Oracle or Oracle Dedication on a Sorcerer, they even end up with the same abilities). So as I know you like the Sorcerer, you should like the Oracle.

There are lots of similar thing. Like any character automatically Trained in Medicine doesn't get a free Healer's Kit, a Rogue doesn't get Thieves' Tools for free.
It's true that it's more important to the Alchemist than to other characters, but it's not that expensive.

Wizards get spellbooks

I react to that: If the Wizard didn't get a spellbook then it wouldn't start with any spell (as they are in their spellbook), making the class non functional at first level even if you buy a Spellbook. So it's slightly different than the Alchemist case. As a side note, the Alchemist has a Formula Book, for the same reason the Wizard has a Spellbook.

So I think it's better to consider that classes never get free stuff unless the class would be non-functional if you don't have it prior to buying your gear.

I understand the feeling. It's not really a crusade against damage but a crusade against damage from certain classes/builds.
Like if you complain that your Cleric doesn't do enough damage or if you speak about damage optimization on a Bard, people will react negatively.

So it's not really that damage in and by itself is disregarded but that people have an extreme view of party coordination pushing damage aside any time a character is supposed to be party focused and not damage focused.

I personally think that party coordination is overvalued in general (not just on this forum). A lot of players will value far more an ability that helps the party compared to an ability that just deals damage even when both abilites have the same actual impact on combat.

Anyone try the Remastered Alchemist? Is it better? Is the versatile vile mechanic better than all at once?

It's not much better. But it's much easier to play. So depending on how you were handling it pre remaster you'll find it either similar or finally usable (and as such much better).

Still, there are very interesting feat chains now that puts the Alchemist appart from other classes. So it's at least much more unique.

Fair, but the thaunmaturge doesn't have to bother with preparing before hand just in case they face an enemy they could exploit a weakness

Obviously, as the Thaumaturge hardly exploit weaknesses. It can't exploit low weaknesses and even against high ones the bonus is super low. The Thaumaturge is one of the worst martials to exploit weaknesses.

Riddlyn wrote:

The Magus is hands down the best class for attacking almost every weakness in the game...

I feel like Thaumaturge would disagree.

Thaumaturge is maybe the worst class to attack weaknesses. Its extra damage being of the "weakness type", it doesn't stack with actual enemy weaknesses. So it nearly never targets a weakness even when it has the appropriate damage type.

But I can still point out that 4d10 (sickened) + 4d4+2 persistent (with -1 save for those sickened) is more AOE damage than your sorcercer casting a fireball for 8d6+4+ whatever you want to do as a fourth action.

No it's not.

And you talk about the witch but I fail to see how her AOE damage can compare to the sorcerer.

The Witch has nice feats with its Familiar. Mostly Stitched Familiar and the other one. Familiars have also some small AoE effects, like Elemental Scamp Breath weapon or you can use Cauldron to give them Potions of Dragon Breath. And with Independent, they are free to use.

So, instead of telling me I might not know my class at higher level (which is true) or I don't know how to blast (which hopefully is wrong), I would love for you to give me an actual scenario where you think your blasting would deal more damage.

I'm still waiting for a moment where the Animist is ahead. The Animist is on par through the use of its 3 actions. The second it needs to move it's behind.

AOE

Also, I don't agree with your focus on AoE. Single target damage is mandatory in a game where solo enemies are a real threat. I'd not call a character a blaster if it only blasts half of the time.

Maybe… if you take one move to position yourself. Which is a net dps loss.

It's a net DPR loss for an Animist. The Animist is action constrained and as such will lose DPR everytime it uses an action for anything but damage. That's not an issue for a Sorcerer.

Channeler's Stance style of bonus doesn't cost actions for other classes, for example. I took it on my Animist and then retrained out of it: The cost isn't worth the gain as dealing damage happens during the first rounds not later on.

I also wonder what experience you have with Earth's Bile. Because you make a distinction between single target and AoE damage, implying that Earth's Bile is AoE damage. But that's only really true at low level. Once level 10, getting more than a single enemy in a 10-foot burst will be the exception, not the rule, as at that stage enemies are bigger, their range and mobility are higher and maps are bigger, too.

SuperBidi wrote:

a 20ft. burst that ignore allies is not massively easier to position than a 120ft. line

Wut ?

I just saw your edit.

I'm not theorycrafting here, I'm just telling my experience. I'm currently playing an animist and I find it just better at blasting than my spellblending wizard, my elemental sorc or my fire kineticist. The only thing that came close was my Distant Grasp Psychic, but it comes with his own problems.

Ok, so from what I read, it's not really Earth's Bile that makes a blaster out of the Animist (because even if it's nice it's nowhere close to super strong) but the high initiative to act first.

And also, what you said used to be true, but isn't anymore. The divine spell list has a lot of blasting spells.

If you want to blast as a divine caster you don't have much choice. Against Undeads and Fiends, you're really good with Holy Light and Holy Cascade (but only at high level, it starts rather average in damage). Divine Wrath is nice because it's super easy to target a lot of enemies but it does quite low damage. Once you have a few Sickened enemies casting it again is not incredible. Remember that on top of being a d10 spell (so 20% less damaging than a 2d6 one) it targets Fortitude which is universally high.

For Arcane and Primal, what you want is:
- Force Barrage and Sudden Bolt: The anti boss killers, especially at low level when it's the most important. As a Divine caster you have nothing to blast bosses (unless they are Undead/Fiends).
- Lightning Bolt: Extremely easy to position (you can always target at least 2 enemies) and damage is rather high. It's the most basic blast spell, often overlooked.
- Fireball is a staple obviously.
- Chain Lightning is absolutely gorgeous at high level. It wrecks everything.
- Vision of Death: This spell is gorgeous. It has a strong debuff component but the blasting is not bad so I think it fits into this list.
- Cone of Cold. Compared to Vampiric Exsanguination, it's one level lower and has double the cone size. Hard to position but very potent.

As a Divine caster, you are in general 1-2 ranks late compared to a Primal/Arcane caster. It's especially problematic at low level where you have to wait forever to finally call yourself a blaster.
Another drawback of the Animist is that it's a prepared caster. Playing a blaster means casting the same spells over and over again, with a need to sometimes switch for Resistance/Weakness purposes. Being a prepared caster makes the all exercise much harder than as a Spontaneous caster.

And also, Earth's Bile is not incredible. It's really the range that kills you, 30ft. is bad and will push you to move, killing your damage output. Most blasters use bonuses to damage that are either passive (Sorcerous Potency) or free actions (Foretell Harm), keeping your last action for either a blast Focus Spell or moving to position yourself. So as an Animist your damage output is circumstancial, not as a Sorcerer or Oracle.

Overall, you won't be a strong blaster with an Animist. You won't be bad but if you expect to carry your team through damage it'll be hard. As I said, for me the Animist is not a blaster, it's one of the few roles it can't really cover better than any other caster.

To be more precise: I have an Angelic Sorcerer of Sarenrae, a (pre remaster) Tempest Oracle and a Wilding Steward Witch, all 3 built as blasters.
My Sorcerer blasting ability is due to a combination of Fireball, Wall of Fire, Divine Wrath and True Striked Holy Light. So half of it comes from spells the Animist will have hard time casting multiple times per day.
My Tempest Oracle used to blast everything with Lightning Bolt. Compared to Divine Wrath, it deals d12 damage, is one rank lower, targets a more interesting save and a 20ft. burst that ignore allies is not massively easier to position than a 120ft. line.
My Witch uses everything the Primal list gives her and there are really tons of gems in there. She also uses her Familiar for blasting. But I've found that being a prepared caster makes the all exercise much harder than with my spontaneous blasters.

Is the animist the best blaster in PF2E ?

No.

The Divine list is not incredible for blasting, you're looking for the Primal or Arcane List to maximize it. And Earth's Bile has a 30ft. range which is killing as blasting happens during the first rounds mostly.

The Animist is actually not even a blaster in my opinion. I've played numerous blasters and the Animist will have hard time competing with just a basic Primal/Arcane Sorcerer or even an Oracle with Foretell Harm or a Primal Witch.

The Animist can be many things but in my opinion it can't really be a blaster.

It's a playtest, there'll be more feats and runes in the final version.
Now, will there be enough feats to be a full ghost Necro or a full Arcane Runesmith... time will tell (but as others have said, it means providing a long list of feats and runes to make it just fine).

And if striking is better you never have a reason to trace, catch 22

It depends on what you want to achieve. If you only want to play a pure Runesmith with nothing from outside the class then, yeah, you should end up Striking and not Tracing as the class is a martial. But if you want to build something else then ignoring Strikes is a nice thing because it gives you more resources to focus on whatever else you want to achieve, be it skill monkeyness, spellcasting or whatever.