shroudb's page

The basic gear from an alchemist weighs 4 bulk (6 light) which is far enough under a Strength 10 character’s max of 5 bulk (9 light) given what all the basic gear includes (including armor, tools, and formula book, amongst other gear). That’s enough extra capacity to carry another weapon or item of 1 bulk, or you could just select up to 13 additional light bulk items without being encumbered.

alchemists don't have cantrips, so it's not "another" weapon. It's their MAIN weapon, those usually are around 1+ bulk (a simple crossbow and it's bolt as an example)

i would love a breakdown of that 4.6 as well, seeing as armor alone is 1, kit is 2 (confirmed), formula book is 1 (playtest). Do you imply that a backpack with all your adventuring gear is just 0.6 bulk?

even then, with the inclusion of the mandatory weapon (since they don't have other at will methods of attack except a weapon) that makes them encumbered if they use just 2/5 of their starting reagents they are already encumbered. (+0,1 from reagents, +0,2 per reagent spent for 2 extracts/bombs/whatever)

so, even IF this was the case, where i still doubt that adventuring gear is just 0.5 bulk, they STILL can't even use half of their reagents.

@graystone

One of the stated goals of the playtest and PF2 was to make choices meaningful. Considering the amount of effort you are putting into making your alchemist, it seems that they have succeeded in this situation.

Either work with potentially being encumbered, or toss a stat boost into STR.

Other options have also been mentioned - spend some of your starting or early cash on a mule, meaning you might choose to forgo getting certain other items as early as you would prefer.

Meaningful choices.

when you're forced to pump up a stat it's not a choice.

a choice would have been to:
up my strength so that i can maybe take up a repair kit, 100ft of extra rope, and a few extra goodies alongside.
OR
up my charisma and use those extra skills i have as a main Int class on social skills
OR
up my wisdom and be more perceptive, have greater initiative and will saves.
(since Int and dex are mains, and con is still con, so you're always pumping those 3)

when the choice is:
being able to use my abilities unencumbered, then it's not really a choice, it's a tax.

it's like saying that old pf1 int13 weapon expertise was a choice and not a tax.

-----------------------
edit: (stupid timeouts... 3rd time writing this wall of text):

On the main topic of stats, my personal opinion is like this:

Str: Quite the boost. Bulk seems much more important than weight. Strength weapons are pure upgrades compared to dex weapons.

Dex: Definetely took a hit. The main thing is the loss of Initiative, but also that finesse is weaker now. The most important thing though is that now it's much easier to "archetype" in heavier armors, meaning that anyone can choose to not invest in Dex for their Ac, even wizards and sorcs can much more easily get a medium rmor and etc. With the caster attack stat being now their casting stat for rays and etc, it stops Dex from being the "secondary" stat for caster.

Con: It took a hit, but not that much. The ancestry hp are a one time thing that don't really matter that much in mid game+, but while the base hp of classes are now higher, there's simply no easy access to +Con magic gear. That makes it so that natural boosts to Con are extremely important to stay healthy. Plus the new crit/crit fail for saves, especially Fort and Will ones, makes every +1 count all that much more.

Int: Definetely took a big hit. It lost the exlusivity on knowledges, but more importantly it lost that it was "1 FULL skill /+1" and got degraded to "1 skill at it's most basic level/+1"

Wis: The undisputed king of stats in PF2 imo. It gained Initiative which alone boosts it all that much. It gained extra skills. It has one of the most important, if not THE most important skill in medicine. It kept the perception and all the stuff it had before. And to top it off it's the same thing with saves as in Con, the crit/crit fail tha you want to push for those extra +s.

Imo, Wis will be the go to stat to boost alongside Con (maybe even BEFORE con) for classes that can do so easily (basically all non-Cha/Int based ones).

Cha: Yeah, still the same, just social.

Insight wrote:

Leotamer wrote:

The alternative to using advanced alchemy is using quick alchemy; they are not mutually exclusive.

Well... a reagent used for advanced alchemy is one that can’t be used for quick alchemy and vice versa. I don’t think there is an avenue that allows the alchemist to use a reagent for advanced alchemy and also use that same reagent later for quick alchemy. Eating your cake and still having your cake afterwards is kind of the definition of mutually exclusive.

However... an alchemist with 10 Strength won’t have an issue equipping herself with the basic required tools and adventuring gear.

I believe they mean you can use some for one and some for the other, as some people act like you either use all your reagents on Quick Alchemy or all on Advanced Alchemy.

that's why i even used half and half as a distribution which i think is more than fair for quick alchemy. In our playtests, most alchemists opted for closer to 66-80% of reagents used on advanced rather than quick after all.

and yes, an alchemist with 10 strength will have major issues even with the most basic equip, he's already encumbered by it even disregarding the 1+ (as he levels up) additional bulk from his daily alchemy due to high base bulk on both the recipe book and the alchemy kit. UNLESS they did cut their bulk to (l) for both, something that's been asked and so far no one has answered if it's the case.

In the case where the bulk of the alchemy kit and the recipe book has been cut to be negligible and you can actually carry it, then sure, no issues.

either way, i feel like the discussion about the bulk has been talked to death already, for some of us it's egregious that you can't carry even your basic stuff without being encumbered, for others apparently it's fine.

the thing is that it wasn't the only issue I personally had with the first look of this transcription. The total lack of what happens when you make 3 things with one hand, the still incomprehensible decision to have the alchemist be the only class where his abilities need a feat to actually scale with the class DC, and etc, are all way too much (again, at a first glance) to me. It's like alchemist was an afterthought in the playtest, and he remained an afterthought even in the release, and this doesn't inspire confidence for the rest of the book to me.

You are presuming it is correct to spend half of your reagents for advanced alchemy. You are also glossing over the ability to distribute potions among your party and store them on your mount if you have one.

Many alchemist feats require you to use quick alchemy. For reference, only one alchemist feat gives you a bonus to using advanced alchemy. (Quick Bomber)

Not being able to use half of your reagents for advanced alchemy seems like a feature, not a bug.

so, in your opinion, a bomber alchemist should distribute his bobms to the party.

the other option you present is for this alchemist to... no use his class features?

sounds logical.

P.S He's STILL encumbered even with making 0 bombs btw. it's just that the 4 bulk TAX gets down to 3. He's still at 6 bulk at the very basic 0 extra items.

or how about a selfish alchemist? he's FORCED to split his resources with the party.

that's just a bug exactly as you call it.

being unable to play a class as designed without having to give your gear/items at the other party members every single morning, is beiyond horrendous design.

that's like designing an archer that has to give his arrows to the party to carry.

I was responding to Graystone. But for bulk, I think it is potentially a concern and could be problematic. However, on the other side, the bulk restriction may be intentional and is designed to balance advanced and quick alchemy.

I think I will need to see it in practice between claiming this is the doom of the alchemist class.

if the alchemist kit is still 2 bulk as it was in the playtest, we're already looking at a bare minimum of 1 bulk from armor, 1 from weapon, around 1 for the very minimum adventuring gear (that's fine and normal so far) and then a class tax of 2 for kit+1 for book +0.7 for even 3/5 of the level 1 creations, so around 3.7-4 bulk tax.

that puts a level 1 alchemist, with just the bare minimum gear, no secondary weapon, no nothing, at 7 bulk, 4 of them being class tax.

and as the level grow, it becomes even worse, like at level 6, even using just half of your reagents for normal alchemy, it's now at 4.6+ bulk just because you're an "alchemist" and not "insert any other class resource". If you use just 2/3 of your reagents on alchemy that's already +5 bulk for being an alchemist, and etc.

I like the idea of the alchemist not being inherently magical. Infused doesn't bother me that much since it makes sense potions made cheaply don't last long. Now, on the other hand, magic reagent conjuration. But I don't think the realistic alternative would be fun to play. "You have been in a dungeon for a week, looks like you are out of supplies and are now useless."

i see you're looking at the tree and losing the forest.

"it's not magical" has nothing to do with PF2, ANY game actually, fudging reality to make a game system work.

PF2 especially does that with "bulk" a metric made out exactly to fudge weight and capacity rules.

You don't see a blacksmith kit being like a gadzillion bulk due to actually needing an anvil to hit and make stuff, it's more compact, it assumes a mini anvil, and a tiny hammer that you can store somewhere easily and not bulk you down.

this is purely fantasy, a field repair kit that can turn any sort of metallic armor that's dented so badly that's unusable to being literally brand new... trust me, it would be massive, we're talking bellows and forge fires here to reheat the metal.

yet, this massive kit is reskinned to a "magic repair kit" that's as easy to carry around as a weapon that has sheaths made for the exact reason of ease of carrying those weapons.

"Bulk" is in its essence a gamist system made just so that the game system works.

But the very system that's supposed to help with game mechanics suddenly makes some of the most core Alchemical archetypes and examples and images, suddenly unplayable because someone tried to inject "reality" for no apparent reason.

we don't see "reality" in a component pouch. We don't see reality in "quick alchemy", or even "infused reagents", or even in actual armor and weapon bulks and weights, but somehow, god forbid we make the "daily class resources" weight nothing. THAT'll be absurd!

I mean, even using YOUR explanation of why daily alchemical items spoil in a day unlike normal alchemical items, we can easily "justify" without bending "pf2 reality" why said resources would weight exactly 0:

ALL infused reagents, by the rules that you say they are fine, cost 0 and weight (l) in their entirety. Because they are cheap and light reagents. Makes sense. So, using those cheap and light reagents, keeps their bulk and weight the same: So, if that sentence read "infused reagents and their PRODUCTS in their entirety weight (l) bulk" it contradicts nothing already established and actually allows the class to work without FORCING you to always spend level ups on +Str even if your character is the normal, non beefy, labrat.

changing the alchemist kit to (l) would alleviate some of the issues.

still the bigger problem still remains that your "spell slots"each add to your bulk.

i mean, when you're making 3 items/point, just getting around 1 bulk/3points is just too much. It basically forces all alchemists to go Str route when it's (for 2/3 archetypes)an offstat at best.

you already need dex to hit with bombs, you already need Int as your primary, everyone needs the same con, and now you are forced to always boost Str as well "just because".

What i found really tiring is that the same people who say "don't use realism on mechanics" when we're talking about dropping vials that don't break sometimes but break other times, are the same people (for the most part) that say "it's not realistic for a portable lab to be (l) bulk"

in this case, it's class breaking that they have to go Str just to carry their very basic stuff that the game expects them to carry at all times, so, mechanics wise, it's better to fudge realism and make their rest equipment (l) weight the exact same way we make a component pouch have basically infinite space and being always full of the right ingredients even when travelling for a month inside a desert.

Reziburno25 wrote:

So if Craft checks cant be used for things like Ward Medic then doesn't that make Chirugeon initial ability useless.

The ability would effectively be “Chirurgeons gain a +2/+3 to Medicine checks”, but if that’s the intent then I wish the ability had just been worded that way.

isn't Medicine keyed to Wisdom?

It may be the way they implemented what we asked for "make Medicine also keying off Intelligence"

Although i would 1000% want that to be a medicine feat instead of a class ability

Cyouni wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Final power level is definitely a factor, though that's true of spells as well. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they went down from +5s at most to +3s at most like items in general, but that would probably still leave them as top tier buffs.

I wonder if they're even still item bonuses, or have they shifted to status?

It's an interesting question. I suppose it depends on whether the folks at Paizo want them to stack with spells (in which case they're Item) or Items (in which case they're Status).

If it were me, I'd lean towards Status, but I can see the argument for the other way as well.

they need to actually be untyped like the barbarian's rage.

there's no point in having a class that's its main strength is "buffing" and not be actually be able to buff because you already have +item bonuses to everything you need via items.

shroudb wrote:

(that somehow don't shatter when they are dropped)

Ignoring the rest of the issue (since I don't want to get into it), vials for Alchemists have always been available in metal. Indeed, given the state of Golarion's technology, it's much cheaper than glass as well as more durable.

Really, assuming they're all glass has always been a deeply odd assumption.

Bombs specifically probably explode on impact, but require a pretty solid impact (more than dropping it from a short height) in order to do so.

well, the pictures in the playtest certainly didn't look like metal. they were like clay-thingies.

as for bulk, there were alchemical items with more than 1 bulk. that's is "bulkier" than even shortswords... that's were the issues were coming from.

instead of addressing that with an easy note in the advanced/quick alchemy descriptions, where they clearly went to the trouble of spelling that the reagents weight (l) and you use them to make your stuff, they ignored it.

it would have been a breeze to say "reagents and all alchemical items made with those reagents weight as a whole (l) bulk" but apparently, the image of an alchemist they had in mind requires 16 strength just to carry a few vials of his daily allotments.

just imagine that "materials weight as a whole (l) bulk, but each spell you prepare using those materials now weights and additional l to 1-2 bulk"

p.s.
yes a lot of said probalems can be houseruled. But do we really need a book where you have to houserule day1 to be able to even play a non-strength based alchemist?

Well we haven't actually seen the rules for holding things. It may be that you can hold multiple L items at once.

Even if you can't its an option rather that something mandatory. It may be niche but doing something like making one bomb for yourself to use and dropping two healing elixers on the floor for an ally to use. The last for a whole round which is a good opportunity for clutch heals.

we know that things like bomb need a hand to use. Do you seriously imply that you can make 3 items with one hand but can only hold 1 is "good design"?

How does this even work? do you make them with your mouth?

or do you seriously think that running around in a battlefield dropping behind you vials on the ground (that somehow don't shatter when they are dropped) is acceptable design for a CORE ability (not a feat one, but a core thing that all alchemists do)?

also, it's not an "option". Feats are options. A base ability is as core as a fighter getting better with weapons as he levels up, a barbarian getting better rage and rage powers, and a spellcaster getting higher level slots.

making multiple alchemical items is exactly the same as those, and having the ability basically malfunction because it was written while on a toilet break is seriously disheartening for the rest of the state of the edition, hence why i said i'll playtest first and if it's as bad as it looks, i won't be buying.

shroudb wrote:

I mean, there's still a class feature (i.e. ALL alchemists get it) that requires you to have grown two extra arms somehow (create 3 items with 1 hand free... i like to see how you're holding them)

I'm not sure where you are getting this? Why can't you hold all 3 in one hand? This feels like reading way too much into the rules that assume you have can apply common sense. If all PC classes have only two hands and the game allows you to create 3 items, the game assumes you can hold all three.

shroudb wrote:

There's still class features that simply don't work unless you pick up specific high level feats (sure, create 2/3 items at once, but they spoil before you can use them, genious indeed)

Umm... Quick alchemy is one action, and you still have two actions to go that round. Quick alchemy, drink, throw. If you make 3, who says your companion can't take the third item from you before the beginning of your next turn?

shroudb wrote:

The language for the Bulk is actually worse, since it adds a (l) bulk ON TOP of all the bulk your actual complete alchemical items costs, meaning we still require from alchemists hulk levels of strength just to carry around their daily spells.

Again, what makes you say this? Alchemists only have light armor, they don't carry shields. Many probably don't have more weapons than a dagger or short sword for emergencies. 10 L = 1 bulk, and the reagents are reused each day, it just means that you reserve 1L bulk for each day.

shroudb wrote:

The majority of the feats read as stuff that other classes get for free baseline or just stuff that you HAVE to pick "just to make the class work" instead of being cool extra things you can do.

This is disingenuous at best. A multiclass Alchemist that takes ZERO alchemist feasts after level 1 is still a full functional alchemist with lots of free bombs and elixirs and mutagens. Feats give you more free items, or faster free items, or better bombs, or debuffing bombs etc. but how are they "things...

a)there were rules about alchemical items needing 1 hand to use. As an example, you need an action to draw a bomb and another to throw. You can't be holding 10 bombs and throw them one after the other. Yet, you gain a class feature that allows you to make 3 of them with one hand. Where do the other go? do you need to "draw" them to throw them? no specifications are given how it even works.

b)alchemical items have weights. Like serious bulk. That's EACH of them. Reagents is (l) bulk, but it specifies that you USE the reagents and make the items, it doesn't make the items weight 0, they still have their normal weight.

using bulk value from the playtest, from like level 4+ you needed close to 16+ strength just to carry your daily prepared alchemical items. Unless they went and made ALL alchemical items weight (l) (hence i mention redesign of items) then the problem still exists

c)the fact that you're forced to have your allies picking up and using your items just to use a MAIN class feature, not abonus one, not a choice one, but a main ability that's core to the class, is horrible.

a base class feature is not an more extra than saying that fighter gtting specialization in weapons is extra

d)it is not disingenious at all:
as an example, in order to actually use your class DC, something baseline in all classes, you need a feat.

have even read or played an alchemist in the playtest? most of the core problems of the class are still there except one: they gave them "cantrips" but even those come at a much later time compared to every other "caster"

1. Witch. Need my hexes.

2. Inquisitor. Seems really tough to built as a rogue/cleric or a cleric/rogue, so I think he deserves a standalone

3. Withholding the position for Magus depending on if they can be built with multiclass, but a Spellsword is core fantasy to me.

really dissapointed from this, it's almost as if they ignored most of the concerns about Alchemist class being written as an afterthought.

I mean, there's still a class feature (i.e. ALL alchemists get it) that requires you to have grown two extra arms somehow (create 3 items with 1 hand free... i like to see how you're holding them)

There's still class features that simply don't work unless you pick up specific high level feats (sure, create 2/3 items at once, but they spoil before you can use them, genious indeed)

The language for the Bulk is actually worse, since it adds a (l) bulk ON TOP of all the bulk your actual complete alchemical items costs, meaning we still require from alchemists hulk levels of strength just to carry around their daily spells.

The majority of the feats read as stuff that other classes get for free baseline or just stuff that you HAVE to pick "just to make the class work" instead of being cool extra things you can do.

Unless there's a MASSIVE remake on alchemical items, and i mean MASSIVE, Alchemist just reads "bad" at this point.

Probably won't be buying till i actually playtest the class.

Edge93 wrote:

Despite the wonkiness of the RAW, I think it is fairly safe to say you should be able to use Double Slice with two separate natural attacks or with a natural attack and a 1-handed weapon. I think a natural attack and a two handed weapon is DEFINITELY not intended.

Where this gets wonky though is things like a Monk's Dragon Tail or an Animal Totem Barbarian's Jaws, which are the only PC natural attacks with d10 damage currently. As no manufactured 1H weapon is higher than a d8 I feel like using these with Double Slice goes beyond intent. So it's a little tricky to adjucate, which may be why the hand language is in place. No hand-based natural attack currently goes above a d8, and the phrasing also prevents silliness like a hypothetical 4-armed race TWFing with 2H weapons.

Unarmed attacks also aren't weapons in the playtest, only weapons are weapons (in PF1, what was defined as a weapon, and when damage was weapon damage, wound up so complicated that it may have been one of the most tangled FAQs I ever had to research). But I suppose the point still stands about holding in hand in a hypothetical where someone has a weapon in a tentacle or tail or something. I'll make a note of it!

Take a note that Double slice mentions only 2 weapons while the followup feat of double slice reads "if you use weapon or unarmed attack while double slicing"

shroudb wrote:

You do understand that in order to target touch they sacrifice both damage and it costs double the actions right?

To put it simpler:

Monk can target touch with the same action economy

Fighter is already the 2 points ahead in accuracy

Barb deals heaps of damage more

Etc

Having -4 of what's expected from the tight math of the game is indeed "unplayable" status.

You can troll as much as you want, but in our last playtgrough before quitting the broken playtest we tried a strict RAW alchemist, something that obviously you haven't.

The "common" alchemist, RAW, is 100% unplayable.

If a class NEEDS an uncommon feature to even act its proper role, then 100% it should be common.

Now go on, troll again without any facts.

Okay, so for one all of your concepts are comparing a melee character to a ranged one which is already a logical flaw. And continually ignores the value of rider effects of bombs, which make for a lot of the damage deficit which only exists between melee and ranged comparison in the first place..

Only possible exception is your Fighter example, in which I seemingly have to outline my point yet again:

Let's take a 17th level Fighter and Alchemist, a high level and the one where True Quicksilver Mutagen becomes available, though this is irrelevant to the Fighter vs. Alchemist debate.

Fighter, 17 level 3 legendary 6 Str/Dex 4 item, +30 accuracy.
Alchemist, 17 level 2 master 6 Dex 2 item, +27 accuracy.

+30 accuracy vs. AC X and +27 accuracy vs. TAC X-3 ARE THE SAME HIT CHANCE. And if TAC is X-2 instead of -3, they are 1 point behind THE MOST ACCURATE CLASS IN THE GAME. This isn't much of a problem.

I don't think the gap is going to be any larger at other levels except for 20th when Fighter gets a bump to item and Str/Dex simultaneously, and maybe really early levels due to Fighters weirdly getting Master at 3rd level. Not sure it ever breaks a 3 point difference though.

And again, re-outlining another of my points, it isn't...

And all of this would have a tiny bit of value if you hadn't cherry picked the absolute best level for the alchemist to compare him with the fighter.

Level 20 fighter:
23+5item+7stat= 35
Level 20 alchemist :
22+5+6 = 33

And etc for most of the levels

The difference is much more often 2 WITH the Quicksilver mutagen.

Without the mutagen (aka "common only" settings) the difference is huge

Again, level 14:
Fighter is around:
17+3+5= 25
Alchemist is:
16+4= 20

-5 from the fighter and -4 from literally everyone else.

shroudb wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Charon Onozuka wrote:

Tezmick wrote:

It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.

In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.

Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.

How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?

Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.

I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything

...

You do understand that in order to target touch they sacrifice both damage and it costs double the actions right?

To put it simpler:

Monk can target touch with the same action economy

Fighter is already the 2 points ahead in accuracy

Barb deals heaps of damage more

Etc

Having -4 of what's expected from the tight math of the game is indeed "unplayable" status.

You can troll as much as you want, but in our last playtgrough before quitting the broken playtest we tried a strict RAW alchemist, something that obviously you haven't.

The "common" alchemist, RAW, is 100% unplayable.

If a class NEEDS an uncommon feature to even act its proper role, then 100% it should be common.

Now go on, troll again without any facts.

Again, as others have pointed out, Mutagens are uncommon now. So all you have to do is talk to your GM like an adult and say "hey, I'm a bomber focused Alchemist and my character has been researching ways to modify their body to achieve better accuracy with my bombs. Can I take the Quicksilver Mutagens?"

Unless your GM is a dick, if they are just leave the game not worth it, they will let you.

Mutagen were ALWAYS uncommon.

Alchemist had a feature to get them, which is now removed.

As for reasonable to get ANYTHING uncommon, it should be equal in the party no?

So, according to you, all casters should be balanced around carrying a couple of Rings of Wizardry (100% equally uncommon) since it is "rrasonable" to have equal access as the other party members to uncommon stuff.

You see how this skewers things?

shroudb wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Charon Onozuka wrote:

Tezmick wrote:

It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.

In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.

Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.

How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?

Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.

I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to

...

The touch attack is exactly because by design you have lower bonus.

It is you who brought it in the picture in the 1st place.

In short, you're getting -4 to attack compared to everyone else.

As for damage:
I'd argue that the 3d12+7 power attack with just a level 1 feat is comparable to 6d8+1 of an alchemist.

Both require 2 actions either way.

Add a barb multiclass and you have 3d12+20 which far outstrip the 6d8+6 and their equally comparable.

shroudb wrote:

Charon Onozuka wrote:

Tezmick wrote:

It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.

In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.

Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.

How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?

Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.

I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to it. From the sounds of things, "collaborative" is a

...

Permanent -4 to hit when you can't even attack more than 2 times max per round is not crippling for a character entirely focused on hitting stuff? (do remember that you can never max dex as an alchemist since only int is primary, so when you get that Elusive end game +2 item you're stuck with 1 less dex even if you max it)

That's exactly as severe as I put it:
A fighter without magic weapons, when everyone else get magic weapons is "only -2 behind the others, not that crippling" right?

Tezmick wrote:

It still creates debates at the table the minute a GM allows 3 out of 4 players to get what they want and say no to the fourth they’ve created a situation where a player can feel like they were punished for trying to play the character they want, additionally there have been multiple posts on multiple threads with GM’s just saying how grand it is they have rules to ban things they dislike, I’m fine with a rarity table that states how things are acquired I’m not fine with character options in the CORE RULES being locked away because they don’t meet someone’s fancy.

In short rarity has been largely celebrated as a tool for GM’s to help railroad players and tell them how they can build their characters which is frankly not something I’m interested in.

Role playing is meant to be a collaborative experience if a GM needs the chain of events to follow a roadmap in their head with no surprises I think they’re better of writing a novel than being a GM since novels go exactly the way they’re written.

How did you deal with tables in PF1 which banned things like teleport or resurrection then? Or worse, tables which refused to play at higher levels because the GM couldn't spend triple the prep time just trying to figure out how to manage certain options without completely breaking the campaign?

Also, stipulating which options are and aren't available is NOT railroading! You still get to pick what options you want and do with them as you like, all this does is give the GM more tools to define what is in the selectable pool of options for the setting. Stop this hyperbole that any GM who bans or restricts options is a player-hating railroader.

I'm honestly starting to get annoyed with this trend of comments that talk about how the story is supposed to be a collaborative experience, but then immediately decry anything that gives the GM additional input to contributing to it. From the sounds of things, "collaborative" is a code word for players being entitled to everything they...

Only that taking mutagens away from alchemist is exactly the same as:

"You, fighter, can never get a magic weapon. All the other characters, enemies, and npcs will still get their normal magic weapons. "

And not a silly comparison like removing a single spell out of the hundreds of them.

Or, to speak in spells like you, removing all other schools of spells except the one you specialised in.

Personally, if my GM thought that it was reasonable only evokers to do evocation and only evocation, only illusionists to do illusion and only illusion, and that the only one not permitted to have a magic weapon to be the fighter, I would call him crazy and leave.

Now, this is the CORE of the class.

Really pathetic.

I'm pretty sure the intent was to make mutagens uncommon for everyone but Mutagenic Alchemists. I'm surprised they didn't make a feat allowing other alchemists to open their abilities up to be able to choose them however. Especially since they Mutagenic Alchemists get bonuses to the mutagens they produce/use, it seems like they attempted to balance them as having an advantage over other non-mutagenic alchemists that make mutagens.

I suppose that if an alchemist gets a hold of a mutagen, they can make a roll to reverse engineer it potentially, to gain access to produce it.

That literally makes archetypes like bomber unplayable since without item bonus to hit (quicksilver mutagen) they end up with hilariously low attack bonuses, having -5 to hit and etc.

If it was the intent, it shows that devs are extremely ignorant about how even their own mechanics and balance works.

Except there are no staves that give spells that a sorcerer would ever want without having already learned them.

If you're going Blaster, then staff of fire and staff of evocation both give you spells you're already likely to take. If you're going illusionist, then the staff of illusion gives you spells you're already likely to take.

In neither case does either sorcerer care about the other's staff type: it gives them things they are unlikely to use. Not in the sense of the wizard preparing resist energy "just in case" and burning it via a staff of fire for a fireball, but in a "I can't use this" way.

There might be some edge cases, but they're as artificial as using Assurance with an untrained skill (you could've just trained it...)

that's not necessary true though.

a blaster sorc may pick fireball sure.

but with staff of evo he also gets lighting bolt, mm, and etc, and he also doesn't need to spend one of his 2 heightened spells to be fireball either.

as he levels up and he gains new staves, he can keep switching to the one spell/heightened spell, that the spell doesn't provide, and thus keep all his own slots for universally useful spells like invis and etc.

due to his much higher charisma, it basically is a much better bundle of pages of spell knowledge

Previloc wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

4: I'm not sure I'm sold on this one yet, but I can see the appeal for Wizard and other prepared casters. There's just no comparable benefit for spontaneous casters...

I'd think Spontaneous Casters would be able to sacrifice a casting slot, RP, and cast a spell from the staff just like a Wizard...so they don't need to choose spells in staves. I may be wrong, but I hope not.

Wizards get a massive benefit for a staff: it lets them prepare things they might not need without consuming valuable limited spell slots (at the cost of spending an RP, which isn't nearly as limited).

For sorcerers it increases the spells known...sort of. The problem with spells known is that in order to be valuable you want to cast them a bunch and staves don't increase your spells per day (ok, ok, you can get one extra, but only one of the ones from the staff!)

That is: wizards get increased no-time versitility (the thing they aren't good at) and sorcerers get...increased no-time versitility (the thing they're already so good at they're bumping up against the freshly imposed weakness: the same number of spells per day.

Draco18s wrote:

… I don't like the fact that I read the name of a thing and go "Ooh..! what's this do?" look up the rules and go "UGH, why should I even bother? Does writing this down on my sheet actually give me something I can use?"

Agreed. Every option outside of "feats for my class" was always a disappointment. (Sometimes "feats for my class were also bad--hack, cough, cleric--in which case multiclass)

Even magic items are trash across the board. Get your +1 weapon and +1 armor and burn the rest on necklace of fireballs or other consumable that looks alright. Maybe a skill boosting item if a) one exists for your skill of choice and b) isn't too...

That's not exactly true.

Both get:
Spontaneous casting of the staff spells
Extra spells known of the staff spells

For wizards, the extra spells known, especially because they often are just the same spell at different spell level, is useless
But the spontaneity is really good.

For sorcs it's the opposite.
Spontaneity is meh, but extra spells known is really good.

You're missing that you get stronger than enemies of a set level. As you level you get +1 to everything, so enemies become relatively weaker as you level. That's the scaling you're missing.

At level 1 an orc is a threat, at level 10 it is not. Because your to hit/DCs/HP/damage increases with level.

Vs CR appropriate you're constantly on equal ground. Even item bonuses and DC increases are at exactly the same level as invisible stat/save bumps for enemies.

The +/level is only on checks and DCs, not on damage, duration, effect.

It's not scaling your abilities, it is keeping them even.

To put it simply:

Level 5 grants you 50% to do 50 damage. That will forever be constant.

Thus negative scaling.

Similarly, martials don't scale because they get +attack. That's just keeping their %to hit constant.

They scale with feats and features adding damage and abilities and with weapon damage being multiplicative with their level due to how magic weapons scale.

shroudb wrote:

You still don't get it.

Yes, fireball will hit more targets.

That's an increase in power when you get it.

That increase will Never scale further.

It is 100% static increase. Once you get it, it's done. It will never be lower or higher power. It is not bound to your caster level at all.

Calling this static increase as +A gives us

Y=x+A

that's the definition of linear increase

Forenote: All of this is as of 1.6

You get fireball at level 5, spell level 3. It deals 8d6 damage and hits Y targets. Two levels later you get level 4 spells. Casting a Fireball with at spell level 4 now deals 10d6 damage. Two levels later you have level 5 spells so that Fireball will now do 12d6 damage. And at all of these levels it's still hitting Y many targets. That sure seems like scaling to me. And of course, if you actually use spells of that spell level rather than raising a lower one, the higher level spell's damage is generally stronger.

But oh, I know what you'll say, that Martials get the same scaling. Except... how? Through magic items? Casters have (or at least are supposed to have) the same amount of gold, so whatever the Martial's spending on magic weapons to keep up, the caster can spend on their own magic items to do other things. Seems a wash to me. Feats? Well Casters get 80% of the same feat slots, so again, basically a wash. Numbers... everyone gets level, and casters eventually gain Legendary in their spells (better than anyone save the Fighter gets in their weapons), still seems a wash.

About the only thing I can think of is those odd-level class features that non-casters get.... Class features that they rarely have control over I might add, compared to the flexibility of spell-casting. But hey, let's compare the options:

Level 5: Casters get 3rd level spells, stuff on the power level of that 8d6 Fireball (which can mass-clear mooks or deal a good chunk of damage to a boss.
- Barbarians get the ability to not be...

using higher level slots to cast a spell is not the spell scaling by itself.

you use the level 4 slots INSTEAD of level 4 spells.

in effect, when you get level 5, you get access to level 3 slots.

those add, ALWAYS, +A

when you get level 7, you get level 4 slots, those add +B

when you get 9 etcetcetc

so, if Y is your level, you get:

Y(1)=A, Y(3)= A+B, Y(9)= A+B+C+d+E

again, the definition of linear

to simplify things, look at it compared to old 3+ edition (3, 3.5, pf, etc)

you get fireball at 5d6, and by level 10 it's 10d6.

so, that +A you got at level 5, by level 10 is 2A
now multiply that increase in power for each and every spell you got, and suddenly you have scaling on 2 fronts, both the spells scaling, and the slots scaling.

and that's the quadric scaling.

shroudb wrote:

citricking wrote:

So power = accuracy * effect

For both accuracy = x * level
For martials effect = y
For casters effect = y * level

So for martials power = x * y * level
Linear scaling with level

And for casters power = x * y * level * level
Quadratic scaling with level

(All this is ignoring that power increases from accuracy are not linear…)

you're 100% wrong with the "For casters effect = y * level"

that's what i'm saying.

at level 5, fireball does the exact same thing as a fireball at level 20

fear at level 1 and fear at level 20 is the exact same thing.

and etc.

so, in effect, using YOUR formula, both have effect as Y

so both have the exact same scaling type (linear)

I've been talking about higher level spells.

A burning hands is hard to hit targets with, a fireball is easier, a chain lightning is very easy = an increase in power with level.

A level 1 fear hits 1 target, a level 3 fear hits many targets = an increase of power with level.

As a caster levels up they get access to higher level spells, so their power increases.

You still don't get it.

Yes, fireball will hit more targets.

That's an increase in power when you get it.

That increase will Never scale further.

It is 100% static increase. Once you get it, it's done. It will never be lower or higher power. It is not bound to your caster level at all.

Calling this static increase as +A gives us

Y=x+A

that's the definition of linear increase

just keep in mind that you can only use one free action from a single trigger.

so, you can't, (as na example) both lingering and inspire heroic on the same inspire courage.

so, basically, you can use your SP for either action economy (gaining 1 more action every 2nd round by using lingering) or more power (gaining higher bonuses but having to recast/respend every round)

So power = accuracy * effect

For both accuracy = x * level
For martials effect = y
For casters effect = y * level

So for martials power = x * y * level
Linear scaling with level

And for casters power = x * y * level * level
Quadratic scaling with level

(All this is ignoring that power increases from accuracy are not linear…)

you're 100% wrong with the "For casters effect = y * level"

that's what i'm saying.

at level 5, fireball does the exact same thing as a fireball at level 20

fear at level 1 and fear at level 20 is the exact same thing.

and etc.

so, in effect, using YOUR formula, both have effect as Y

so both have the exact same scaling type (linear)

shroudb wrote:

citricking wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Just as a heads up, they were called quadric wizards because each level up simultaneously gave new more powerful spells AND made their previous spells stronger (level scaling on spells).

Now, spells no longer scale by level.

So, now we're much closer to having both casters and martial being linear.

The only balance to be taken atm in perspective is that the new things that a caster gains with each level up is equal in value with what a martial would get with the same level up.

And that's far easier to do compared to somehow balancing the new things of the martial with the new things of the caster AND the old things getting stronger.

Maybe that's the origin of it, but I feel it still applies here.

Spell casters power relative to creatures of their level increases as they gain levels. This is caused by then gaining access to new spell levels with stronger spells. This is most clearly seen with spells that go from single target to multi target, a clear huge increase in power.

Higher level spells being stronger may seem obvious, but it's something martials don't have, their damage decreases relative to equal level targets HP as the level. They have class features that increase their power, but just enough to keep up with increasing monster HP, so they aren't really increasing their power like spell casters are.

So what to call this but linear fighter quadratic wizard? Fighters increase their power in one dimension (to hit bonus), while casters increase their power in two dimensions (spell DC and spell power).

That still is a linear increase:

You did x (level 1 spells)
Now you do x+1 (level 1+2 spells)
Then you do x+2 (level 1, 2,3)
And etc

Before it was:
X (level 1)
X+2 (boosted level 1 +level 2)
X+4 (double boosted level 1, boosted 2, 3)
X+16
And etc

Yes, level 2 is stronger than level 1,but so is (should) be the martial abilities of the same level.

Simple example, since

...

Martials rise much faster in to hit compared to DCs

In fact, only the +1/level is constant, while martials get much faster proficiency rank and item bonuses to attack.

Secondly, magic weapons offer a multiplicative bonus to martial damage while staves give a linear bonus to casters.

But regardless of balance, you try to use a "catchy phrase" that has nothing to do with what you're saying.

"quadric wizard" is literally DEAD in this edition.

His scaling is 100% linear.

The 2 sentences above have NOTHING to do with if he is stronger or weaker than a martial.

A y(x)= x
And a y (x) = 2x
Are both linear yet clearly different in how powerful one grows.

Cyouni wrote:

citricking wrote:

Spell casters power relative to creatures of their level increases as they gain levels. This is caused by then gaining access to new spell levels with stronger spells. This is most clearly seen with spells that go from single target to multi target, a clear huge increase in power.

Higher level spells being stronger may seem obvious, but it's something martials don't have, their damage decreases relative to equal level targets HP as the level. They have class features that increase their power, but just enough to keep up with increasing monster HP, so they aren't really increasing their power like spell casters are.

So what to call this but linear fighter quadratic wizard? Fighters increase their power in one dimension (to hit bonus), while casters increase their power in two dimensions (spell DC and spell power).

That might be true, except your older spells don't really keep up at higher levels. Some of them, yes, but take for example damage spells - 3d6 burning hands isn't going to do nearly as much to a level 5 monster as a level 1 monster. Dispel magic isn't going to be as useful at higher levels as a level 3 spell, because it's much harder to dispel higher level effects.

That's true of the vast majority of spells, with only a few exceptions (true strike being the big one).

It is true some spells lose their usefulness as you level: damage spells, healing spells, summoning, polymorph, resistance. But most buff and debuff spells like haste and slow and fear and displacement and confusion and many others have the same power at level 1 as level 20.

But even if that were true, that isn't related to my point. Even if a caster just had access to highest level spells their power would be increasing quadratically, because the spell power and spell DCs both increase as they level. The lower level spells being useful is just a bonus.

That isn't to say they are too powerful, just that their power increases way more as they level from 1 to...

Quadric has nothing to do with what you're saying.

It literally means something completely different.

Their level 1 spells will always be equal in value at level 1 or at level 20,be that either "50% chance to give -1 for 1 minute with conc", "deal 15 damage to 2 targets" or whatever.

Their power rises absolutely linearly with the power of their new spells. If level 3 spells gave a "+100 damage/ day" then that's exactly how much they overall power rises when they level up to 5.

shroudb wrote:

Just as a heads up, they were called quadric wizards because each level up simultaneously gave new more powerful spells AND made their previous spells stronger (level scaling on spells).

Now, spells no longer scale by level.

So, now we're much closer to having both casters and martial being linear.

The only balance to be taken atm in perspective is that the new things that a caster gains with each level up is equal in value with what a martial would get with the same level up.

And that's far easier to do compared to somehow balancing the new things of the martial with the new things of the caster AND the old things getting stronger.

Maybe that's the origin of it, but I feel it still applies here.

Spell casters power relative to creatures of their level increases as they gain levels. This is caused by then gaining access to new spell levels with stronger spells. This is most clearly seen with spells that go from single target to multi target, a clear huge increase in power.

Higher level spells being stronger may seem obvious, but it's something martials don't have, their damage decreases relative to equal level targets HP as the level. They have class features that increase their power, but just enough to keep up with increasing monster HP, so they aren't really increasing their power like spell casters are.

So what to call this but linear fighter quadratic wizard? Fighters increase their power in one dimension (to hit bonus), while casters increase their power in two dimensions (spell DC and spell power).

That still is a linear increase:

You did x (level 1 spells)
Now you do x+1 (level 1+2 spells)
Then you do x+2 (level 1, 2,3)
And etc

Before it was:
X (level 1)
X+2 (boosted level 1 +level 2)
X+4 (double boosted level 1, boosted 2, 3)
X+16
And etc

Yes, level 2 is stronger than level 1,but so is (should) be the martial abilities of the same level.

Simple example, since you mentioned aoe, is martials getting access to multi hit abilities like cleave and whirlwind.

dmerceless wrote:

Walking to them, giving them the elixir and them consuming it uses 3 actions (2 from the Alchemist and one from the ally).

Feeding a willing target is an operate action, no need to give to them and them to take an action. After 16th level (13 for chirgeons) they could move up, quick alchemy, and feed for maximized elixers. This keeps them close to pure casters for single target healing.

not really, that's 3 actions (1 for quick, 1 for movement, 1 for feeding) and double the resources for a burst healing.

at 13 you'll be using level 12 elixirs, so 10d6, or 60hp.

at 13, a healer cleric can heal with a single channel 15d8+15 so about 83 hp. And he can either move and heal, or simply heal from range if he needs to.

Just from channel and powers, he'll have at least 7 such channels, which equals to about 9.5 or so ingredients of the alchemist who has about 18 max at that level.

so, just the channels equal more than half the resources of the alchemist, with better usability and better burst healing and aoe healing, and he still has all his spells and better martial proficiencies to boot.

i would hardly call that "keep even" with.

Just as a heads up, they were called quadric wizards because each level up simultaneously gave new more powerful spells AND made their previous spells stronger (level scaling on spells).

Now, spells no longer scale by level.

So, now we're much closer to having both casters and martial being linear.

The only balance to be taken atm in perspective is that the new things that a caster gains with each level up is equal in value with what a martial would get with the same level up.

And that's far easier to do compared to somehow balancing the new things of the martial with the new things of the caster AND the old things getting stronger.

Yup. Hoping they alter the list in the final.

I would note. In the latest version, when you level up you gain formula--but this no longer has any rarity restrictions (that i can find.).

So you can choose rare ones upon leveling up now.

I mean I certainly could have missed something, but last I knew the newest version replaced that previous restriction without adding its own.

Nothing (in classes section) has rarity restrictions (like spell selection, weapon path selections, and etc).

The wording is actually 100% the same as before.

The restriction comes way before the classes section in the rarity section.

Without specific language granting access, you don't have access.

In short:
No, Raw, Alchemist lost access to mutagens outside the very specific mutagenist Specialisation.

That (the incomprehensible disconnection of the devs with their own material) was the last straw for our group for the playtest.

My #1 hope for the PF2 cleric coming out of the playtest is that I want less emphasis on channel energy for the class. Like a Dwarf Cleric who has decided to go Wis>Str>Cha starts with a 18,16,and 10 in those 3 stats so they are not going to channel much if ever. Plus, if they are a servant of a Dwarven deity there's a good chance their sacred weapon doesn't qualify for deadly simplicity. So what am I spending my cleric feats on besides "multiclass to something"?

But aren't Archetypes exactly the correct way to customise a class when you vier away from the traditional builds of a class?

Keep in mind that pf2 doesn't have "multiclass" in the traditional sense of abandoning your class and doing something different, but it has "archetypes" that just replace very specific class options for other class options.

A cleric/fighter isn't a cleric+fighter, it is a martial Cleric. A cleric/wizard isn't a cleric+wizard, it is a more scholarly Cleric. And etc.

You still keep full progression for your class but just gain extra options if you don't need you base ones.

Exactly like old archetypes.

Or are all those PF1 builds that people describe ONLY base Cleric, with no archetype at all? Because that's simply not true.

I would like to make an addendum to my 1st post. I spent the night mulling over the DD chapters and how they are structured And if they are an indication of how future adventure paths will work particularly in regards to chapter boss fights. Currently a single significantly higher level boss is more viable than in PF1 and is the route the DD chapters went.

With this in mind a boss’ power or spell may be to high level to counteract easily, if it is the Cap stone fight at the end of a chapter, the writers or GM may want to include some way to counteract some of the worst negative statuses if they are feeling nice. A hidden cure item or mini quest could fit here. If it’s the cap stone fight to an entire campaign It should be deadly, too bad so sad. You can’t save princess Peach every time.

Or adventure really careful till you face the boss and then go all heroic when you face him. It also makes sense narrative wise.

Hero points are part of the base game now, and allow rerolling of saving throws, or hell, even more story driven (GM discretion) solutions to such problems.

I really can't understand some people.

Weapons offer the consistent, single target, sustainable damage.

Blasts offer aoe and burst.

Buffs/debuffs offer etcetera

I often see the argument "all casters need weapons". Often, this argument is alongside "not enough spells".

But... You choose less spells (weapon over staff+spell duelist stuff) for round by round weapon attacks?!

Or are people assuming that they should get both burst, aoe, sustained, buffs, debuffs and control simultaneously?

I've seen both blaster sorcs and Druids without weapons doing excellent. Cleric especially has so little martial support (outside of purely martial deities) that I see no basis for "it's a gish".

Edge93 wrote:

Raylyeh wrote:

I hope you made that comment as a jest so I don’t want to make a big deal about it but yes I only got on this forum a week ago but how does number of posts correlate to knowledge of the system when you add the variable of length of time on the forum?

On a mostly off-topic note then, welcome to the forums! I'm afraid you'll find some of us are a bit mad (or MAD), but please don't hold it against the rest. XD

Also be glad you weren't here shortly following the release of the Playtest. That's when I discovered the forum and MY WORD was it an absolute dumpster fire of negativity, doomsaying, and a certain amount of idiocy. It's gotten a LOT calmer since. XD

What is "MAD"? I see it quite a lot, and I'm not sure if it's an acronym or just trying to accentuate rage at a particular thing.

Multiple attribute dependent.

It is used to describe classes like the (old) monk that required like 4 stats (str, dex, con, wis)

I find that this is only an issue on classes that main/secondary Wisdom and because Int is so terrible that there's literally 0 reasons to want it apart if you're forced by your class (Wizards and Alchemist).

On average you want to always raise Con and Wis. They are just that good as stats.

On average you never want to raise Int. It's just that useless.

And then you have:
Str or Dex based on the armor you use.
Your main (for casters) or secondary (for martials) stat.

When that main/secondary is Wisdom, a stat that you either way want to raise as much as Con, then you're into much better position.

The obvious (imo) solution is 2 parter:
A) to weaken wisdom and buff Int so that it's more than a nonbrainer to dump int and boost wis on every single character.

B) to buff Heavy armor to not have light/medium being by far the king of armors so that you can more easily go full strength.

The main problems of said analysis are:
A) no property runes
B) no class features used
C) no weaknesses used

The above are a pretty significant source of damage for martials even outside of spellcaster buffs.

As an example, a +3 greatsword on a "blank" fighter will do:

Hit on 9 crit on 19, hit on 14 and 19 crit on 20:
0.7*(4d12+4)(30)+0.4*30+0.15*30= 37.5

Even with just runes and steady this:
46.25 (damage up from 30 to 37) + (0.5+0.5)*10 (min damage on miss but not crit miss on 2nd and 3rd attack)

So 56.25 vs 37.5 or 50% more damage than what used in the calculation.

Including a weakness 5 to either of the 3 damage types you deal means around 70 during.

Literally double the damage assumed.

The latest errata of both Ki strike and Ki step is really good, plus the staples of Heal and the later Ki power that basically gives you flight are all awesome.

Basically, if you go Str/Dragon stance you do more base damage* but you'll start with less Ki (both builds should have 18-20 but dex build will have that 18 by either 5 or 10 while Str build will have to wait by 15)

*Ki strike Flurry of a dex build will probably still outdamage you, but that's just 2-4 times/day early on for a dex build.

For a strength build your allocation seems good.

Also, as str, don't forget to pick up mountain stance and Quake.

AoE prone+damage without an expenditure vs insane DC (much higher than any caster will ever muster) and doesn't even increases MAP every couple rounds is godly.

Krysgg wrote:

A less silly version would be to prepare those elixirs of life with advanced alchemy in the morning and give them out, so that your ally can pull out and use it themself.

I could totally go for a feat that lets alchemists administer liquids as a dart though. (Bomb would be mechanically fine, but I think darts make more sense)

Oh yeah, that is for sure, and he is doing this, but I'm talking more about an edge situation like "I didn't prepare enough Elixirs with Avanced Alchemy, my ally is dying and I still have some reagents here for a Quick Alchemy".

I'd be all for an option so that Alchemists can have ranged heals that are more action efficient, however... there may be a problem on that:

Let's compare two level 9 characters, an Chirurgeon Alchemist and a Cleric, the Alchemist has 20 Int and the Cleric has 20 Charisma just for Channel Life.

Let's say the Alchemist uses half of his reagents (14/2 = 7) to make Elixirs of Life. With the level 5 Chirugeon feature, they will have 21 Elixirs, with each one healing 7d6 health.

This is a total of 147d6 healing. Average 515 health.

Now the Cleric, he has 6 uses of Channel Life, and let's say he uses both of his 5th level slot to cast Heal as well (which he probably won't).

This is 9d8+5 per Heal, for a total of 72d8+40. Average 364 health.

If the Alchemist's healing is as action-efficient as as the Cleric's, let's say a feat lets you use 2 actions to shoot an elixir-filled dart at an ally up to 30ft away, then he will be... basically straight up better as a healer. And that is not even considering that an Alchemist can give elixirs to people in advance and a Cleric can't "pre-heal" someone.

I don't think Alchemist is an OP healer in their current state, but maybe that could make them be, I don't know. I'd still want a less silly way of giving someone an Elixir though, even if it is just flavor, and it is still melee and costs one action to do + one to move to the target. I can only think of feeding them in their...

your numbers are off.

to start, for either of them to be having a 20 mod, they need level 10, not 9.

at level 10, the alchemist has 15 reousrces, and indeed your numbers for him are correct (7*3*7d6(3.5)= 514,5).

let's be generous and even say that he uses another resource for "burst" maximized healing, for another 7*6= 42 healing.

so about 556 healing for 8/15 resources.

a cleric build for healing would be healing around 11d8+11 with each heal though. That's 5th level heal (9d8), +4 (18-19 wisdom in order to have 20 cha), +2d8 healing hands, +5 improved communal, +2 staff of healing.

he'll also have another free 3rd+2nd heal from the staff for another 7d8+9+5d8+8 = 12d8+17

he'll also have another 3 free channels from his domain.

so, our heal cleric has, just with his staff and his free channels:
100d8+105= 555

he still has ALL his spells, 3 of each level until 5th level, + better martial proficiencies if he needs to, +at will cantrips.

so:
pros of cleric:
extremely faster healing (60,5 healing per 2 actions vs 24,5 per 2 actions, options to even heal with 1 action for just 9 hp less)
ranged healing if needed
aoe healing if needed
actually heals about the same/more:
555vs556 for just half resources vs free channels
max healing for cleric is: another 105d8+135 for 607,5+555= 1162,5
max healing for alchemist is 15*3*7d6= 1102.5

you'll have to reach 12th level, that the cleric gains "just" 55d8+55 and another 3d8+8+26 from the staff for a total of 1512,5 vs the 17*3*10d6 = 1785 for the alchemist to start edging ahead (he'll still drop behind at exactly the next level, but hey, at some point he was ahead!)

Dual wielding, even with 0 feat investment translates to straight + damage on your best attack.

That's because every single non agile weapon deals more damage per than their agile counterpart.

Since you wouldn't use a shield on a rogue either way (- to skills with 0 ways to mitigrate that) there aren't that many uses for your second hand either way by default for rogue.

With feat investment (double slice) it's the single best damage, by a margin, that a rogue can deal.

Getting an effective +4 attack on your second strike is massive, and since your sneaks deal about 2 handed weapon damage, it makes a rogue with double slice something like getting a two handed attack at +4,which is massive.

Alternatively, rogue MC monk is also really nice.

imo storm druid is one of the best, if not the best blaster in the game.

tempest is amazing single target use of your SP (d12 per level+debuff? yes please)

primal in general is the best blasting spell list, outclassing even the wizard in that aspect, with every single worthwhile blast+more unique ones in it.

you really should multiclass sorcerer for dangerous sorcery by lev el 4, since that not only scales your blasts, but also tempest surge up to d12+1/level, making it amazing for just SP cost.

I'm honestly not so sure the bomber is the only viable one. The mutagenist seems pretty reasonable, especially when you consider that mutagen actually puts you ahead in terms of potency bonuses for most levels. Assuming you use unarmed strikes as your main weapon, you even save money on not having to buy potency buffs for your HoMF, freeing up cash for better property runes, armor, or just whatever else you want to buy. There's also a neat trick you can pull with revivifying mutagen that, when combined with your perpetual mutagens, gives you a really fast out of combat heal. Not saying its the best, but nothing I'd consider "unusable"

The main problem of the mutagenist is bad early levels.

There's literally 0 support in the early feats for him, you're forced to multiclass everything away until 8 or so.

As for power, You gain extra dices, yes, but its extra d4s at level 1,and you either have to wait for level 8 or waste all your feats to pick animal barb or unarmoured style monk, for d8s at level 6. By that point you would be just 2 levels away from having d8s by yourself...

The only real solution, stonefist elixirs, RAW don't work with mutagens (both have the polymorph trait)

You have the worst front liner AC as well (worse than raging barbarian)

And etc.

After about 8-10 its OK. But it seriously lacks any sort of support pre-8.

The second, equally major problem, is that mutagenist = feral mutagen.

All other mutagens except Feral for melee and Quicksilver for bomber are trash.

All the support, skill, HP, etc Mutagens need serious buffs to be even viable.

All those +skill by mutagens scream for investigator like playstyle, but they are far too terrible to be usable.

shroudb wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

EberronHoward wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

EberronHoward wrote:

But the damage dealt by RS isn't the point of RS. It's to influence who and how enemies attack. It's not meant to be a replacement to a heavy-damaging class feature but can compliment a Paladin build that wants to deal a lot of damage.

If the ability literally never goes off, fulfilling its purpose perfectly, then I think it's highly unsatisfying and should be redesigned.

As long as the Paladin is making foes perform sub-optimal choices based on RS, it's working. Whether the Paladin is making an extra attack each turn by foes ignoring them, encouraging foes to attack the person with heavy armour instead of light armour, or having foes waste a move action (which could have been used for an attack action) to get out of the Paladin's RS.

Quote:

If it does go off now and again, the game designers should know roughly how often. Say, once per combat. If they haven't thought about it, then they should because it's a pretty big deal for the rest of the class's design.

When I played a Paladin, my GM never risked a RS and always attacked me. As a GM, I'll probably trigger the RS just for the heck of it. RS is always going to useful; how often RS deals damage is up to the GM.

which is great...for a hyper rare edge case vision of paladin as meat shield, that is never what they have been before.

You're wrong actually.

Paladins were meat shields and protectors far longer compared to being damage dealers.

The ADnD 2e Paladin was a knight errant riding out to crush evil beneath his chargers hooves, or if it yeilded take it to trial, didn't play 1st so can't talk about that, 3e they got smite to improve the 'crush evil' meat shield was some 2e kits, skipped in 3e, reappeared in some PF archetypes.

2nd edition paladin had almost nothing offensive and everything was defensive and aura based.

Because you liked to role play him as a "crusher" that doesn't make it be so either conceptually or mechanically.

3rd edition gave a very limited smite for that "once per day" blaze of glory and all the other abilities were defensive and auras.

It was only pf that made them truly offensive.

i find the system now way better.

not knowing off the bat that everything from a rat to a wizened priest to the common farmer is somehow combat trained to react in a moments notice and exploit an opening (old system)adds amazing drama and storytelling inside the encounters.

you go to execute your plan, and suddenly you're disrupted by something that you didn't know, forcing the whole party to actually shift their tactics in a moment's notice instead of doing the same old routine in every single combat.

plus, it's not like you'll face ONE of each monster in a story.

yes, your party will be surpised from a weird reaction of Mob-A, adding dramatic effects in the combat, disrupting their flow and forcing them to reconsidered their plan, but afterwards, throughout the story, whenever they face Mob-A, they will now know what it can do.

if you ever face only one of something, then there's good chance that this something is either a boss, or an extremely rare thing, and both of those SHOULD be able to surpise adventurers with their tactics and abilities.

Recall knowledge checks for the most prominent of their reactions and abilities is also an option as well.

shroudb wrote:

I had tons of fun saying a big "nope" to the GM every time he tried to attack the rest, squishier, party members.

That would be RS triggering.

Did you have fun with the GM had everything attack you instead?

yes?

i had both higher AC and excellent self healing options, so it was always better to attack me than to attack my allies.

if they attacked me, i used the reaction of the holy property for self heal, if they attacked allies i had RS

paladin felt refreshingly good due to his very robust action economy:

both defensive (shield) and offensive (greatsword) builds have good "3rd actions" in the form of raise shield and blade of justice respectively. (and i guess AC paly has the command action, but everyone i know kinda /meh on the animal companions as a whole*)
Both have great, single action, heals as well to fill in their actions with.
maybe the only class to reliably get off a reaction every single round, either RS if they attack your allies, or block/heal from holy (again for defensive and offensive builds respectively) if they attack you.

It was one of the few martial characters where i had to struggle to decide what to do every round of more than enough actions that i could, one of the few that my positionig mattered even more, and etc.

and that (having options that are competitive with each other) felt great, and how every class should be designed.

*on a seperate matter, animal companions, for both the paladin but also the ranger and the driud should definately NOT need 99% of your class feats just to barely work...

EberronHoward wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

EberronHoward wrote:

But the damage dealt by RS isn't the point of RS. It's to influence who and how enemies attack. It's not meant to be a replacement to a heavy-damaging class feature but can compliment a Paladin build that wants to deal a lot of damage.

If the ability literally never goes off, fulfilling its purpose perfectly, then I think it's highly unsatisfying and should be redesigned.

As long as the Paladin is making foes perform sub-optimal choices based on RS, it's working. Whether the Paladin is making an extra attack each turn by foes ignoring them, encouraging foes to attack the person with heavy armour instead of light armour, or having foes waste a move action (which could have been used for an attack action) to get out of the Paladin's RS.

Quote:

If it does go off now and again, the game designers should know roughly how often. Say, once per combat. If they haven't thought about it, then they should because it's a pretty big deal for the rest of the class's design.

When I played a Paladin, my GM never risked a RS and always attacked me. As a GM, I'll probably trigger the RS just for the heck of it. RS is always going to useful; how often RS deals damage is up to the GM.

which is great...for a hyper rare edge case vision of paladin as meat shield, that is never what they have been before.

You're wrong actually.

Paladins were meat shields and protectors far longer compared to being damage dealers.