|
the alchemist class is very self serving. buffing themselves, they don't share. they provoke aoo's creating their extracts, and drinking them.
( though could the syringe from Age of Worms be used to inject yourself in combat without provoking? )
but the must have Extract is the Infusion Discovery. if you're going to be any benefit at buffing others. seems a bit of a handicap. when at low levels you're going to want to be able to have allies drink one of your quick healing potions, but you can't until 4th level, and then you can't do one of your other tricks as well.
I'm going to have to agree--the complete inability of the alchemist to aid his allies unless he takes that specific discovery seems a bit of an oversight.
|
I think it's more than you don't expect casters to be focused on themselves. You don't ask where the rogue's or fighter's buff abilities are. They are very focused on helping themselves, but no one mentions it. Even Rangers are fairly self serving( although their access to spells helps mitigate this a little ).
What if the alchemist was a combat monster and not a buffer? The role does not seem to be like that of any other caster, which may be the intent.
Yeah, I think this may be a case of clashing expectations.
The bombs seem to be something that could help a party out considerably. Just because his spells aren't directly aiding the party or harming the enemy doesn't mean he's being selfish; it just means his tactics are different from other casters.
Director of Game Design
|
The alchemist was designed with the intent of helping himself first. I know this is a different sort of concept than what you normally see in a "spellcaster". So, I would love to get some feedback on it before we throw the idea under a bus... or a tarrasque.. or wherever ideas get thrown to be crushed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'm going to have to agree--the complete inability of the alchemist to aid his allies unless he takes that specific discovery seems a bit of an oversight.
while i agree that the class can be self serving, i don't care, i consider it up to the players, and the dm as to what is needed in a campaign.
not every class needs a helping others ability.
The class is meant to be a me first kinda class. Like a rogue he is all about self help. He is not made to buff the group. You have casters that do that. This is about a "caster" class that helps himself
I personally like the feel of the class. It's a twist on spellcasting that doesn't really step on any existing spellcasting classes. Also, I love the idea of having a grenadier type class; it encourages players to use existing items and rules that have not in my experience been routinely used.
( though could the syringe from Age of Worms be used to inject yourself in combat without provoking? )
Iron Cobra is Core.
I suspect alot of Alchemists will want to pick up one (or more) of these suckers.But I haven't even read the class yet :-)
|
( though could the syringe from Age of Worms be used to inject yourself in combat without provoking? )Iron Cobra is Core.
I suspect alot of Alchemists will want to pick up one (or more) of these suckers.
But I haven't even read the class yet :-)
A) what the hell is that, I've never heard of an Iron Cobra, I don't think it's core.
2) (unrelated to quote) I like that this class is self serving, at first I didn't like the direction of the alchemist (having made one myself once that was entirely skill based) but giving it some time to warm on me, I do in fact love that there's a selfish spellcaster class out there.
Question though, by the wording can't an alchemist hold the potion and administer it to someone as a full round action as per the normal potion rules if they choose?
|
|
What if the alchemist was a combat monster and not a buffer? The role does not seem to be like that of any other caster, which may be the intent.
if the alchemis is going to be a combat monster ::scoff:: there's a few other things to fix first.
all of their bonuses to abilities are enhancement bonuses. so by the time you can afford a belt of giant strength, your mutagen that takes 1 hour to prepare, can be used maybe once or twice a week before you throw yourself into a 0 charisma coma, will be outpaced by a barkskin infusion you can throw on yourself.
meanwhile a fighter or cleric of the same level can wear better armor, weapons, and buff themselves with the same potions or spells as you.
the alchemist has no edge for buffing themselves. especially as their buffs take move and standard actions that provoke, and can't be avoided with concentration.
if you're a combat monster caught with your pants down... you've got to retreat and use your extracts before you can party with the party.
a 'lone wolf' class concept isn't a good notion. not unless the buffs they grant themselves are competence or morale, and can be swift or move action buffs.
( i hate to reference rifts, but think Juicers, or the Delay Potion feat from 3.5e. )
|
|
( though could the syringe from Age of Worms be used to inject yourself in combat without provoking? )Iron Cobra is Core.
I suspect alot of Alchemists will want to pick up one (or more) of these suckers.
But I haven't even read the class yet :-)
Base, everything an alchemist does loses it's potency when it leaves the alchemist's possession( like putting it into an iron cobra ). So without investing in the proper discoveries it is useless even to the alchemist( Though once it is injected into your body I suppose you could state that you are in "possession" of it again... ).
What if the alchemist was a combat monster and not a buffer? The role does not seem to be like that of any other caster, which may be the intent.all of their bonuses to abilities are enhancement bonuses. so by the time you can afford a belt of giant strength, your mutagen that takes 1 hour to prepare, can be used maybe once or twice a week before you throw yourself into a 0 charisma coma, will be outpaced by a barkskin infusion you can throw on yourself.
Perhaps they could include the caveat that the ability damage is temporary and goes away once the mutagen runs its course?
|
|
if the alchemis is going to be a combat monster ::scoff:: there's a few other things to fix first.First, I agree that there are some logistical problems to overcome. Hence the Iron Cobra conversation.
Second, even though the bonuses are enhancement, you get to choose which one you buff, so unless you have an item that does all three, you still get some sort of benefit.
Third, meele monster may not be where it's at. Buff DEX and CON and fling bombs all around. Claws are ok, but TWF with a quarterstaff would work, too.
Now, I haven't tried yet to produce said monster; it may not be possible. However, I would suggest more investigation along those lines before dismissing the possibility.
And what's wrong with Rifts? I mean, besides the obvious? Some of my favorite games were in Rifts. I :heart: Palladium, even if nobody else does :(
true, they get to choose which stat to buff, but without a lot of combat feats and multiclassing, the selection of weapons and armor is limited.
i also like the temporary charisma damage that goes away when the alchemical Hyde reverts back to Dr. Jekyll
Perhaps they could include the caveat that the ability damage is temporary and goes away once the mutagen runs its course?
I was thinking the same thing, penalty to Cha while under the effects of the mutagen...
The alchemist was designed with the intent of helping himself first.
That's fine, but you have to remember that D&D is a game focused around teamwork. Creating a class that's devoted to helping himself first and foremost works better in a solo game than in a team-centric game.
|
|
The alchemist was designed with the intent of helping himself first.That's fine, but you have to remember that D&D is a game focused around teamwork. Creating a class that's devoted to helping himself first and foremost works better in a solo game than in a team-centric game.
How are rogues and fighters helping the rest of the team?
|
Director of Game Design
|
That's fine, but you have to remember that D&D is a game focused around teamwork. Creating a class that's devoted to helping himself first and foremost works better in a solo game than in a team-centric game.
I am going to avoid the snarky comeback here...
Although I understand where you are coming from, not every class works that way (such as the rogue and fighter examples that have already been pointed out). I can understand that folks are not used to spellcaster working that way, which is why the alchemist is a different sort of class.
I am interested in seeing how this works.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
How are rogues and fighters helping the rest of the team?The alchemist was designed with the intent of helping himself first.That's fine, but you have to remember that D&D is a game focused around teamwork. Creating a class that's devoted to helping himself first and foremost works better in a solo game than in a team-centric game.
The rogue is disabling traps (not a big deal in some games, a huge deal in others), and if the fighter isn't doing something to keep the wizard from getting hit he may as well carry his shiny armor home with his sword between his legs for all the good he's doing toward felling the monster.
Perhaps if the Alchemist could use some potions/extracts as splash weapons, for example, turn a Cure Moderate Wounds into a splash AoO.
|
|
Personally, I hate the idea that D&D is a game that's 'focused on teamwork'. This focus was one of the things that killed 4E for me.
I don't see any reason why the alchemist has to be a party buffer. Is a Warlock a party buffer? a Barbarian? There are plenty of classes (Hello, Bard!) for people who want to spend their actions in combat buffing the party.
I say keep the alchemist focused on throwing his bombs, turning into Mr. Hyde, and trying to figure out how to turn lead into gold! It's awesome that he gets this at level 20, by the way!
Ken
Adventuring is, was, and always will be a Team sport. However the focus on roles in 4e is too much. Yes you probably should have most of the classic 4 classes (Warrior, Skill, Arcane, Divine) but you don't absolutely have to.
--Jingle Bell Vrock
( though could the syringe from Age of Worms be used to inject yourself in combat without provoking? )Iron Cobra is Core.
I suspect alot of Alchemists will want to pick up one (or more) of these suckers.
But I haven't even read the class yet :-)A) what the hell is that, I've never heard of an Iron Cobra, I don't think it's core.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/ironCobra.html#iron-cobra
Check out the link
If the trapfinding ability was thrown on the Alchemist (I don't think it would be misplaced) he could take over that ability of the rogues. He already has disable device, and perception.
The bombs will do decent damage and does get splash with no save throws which is nice. you can add on wisdom damage or turn it into other types of damage too (force is one I would pick up).
Mutagens damaging Cha could be an issue... however you have lesser restoration as a 2nd level extract which will heal that damage.
Personally I think the ability to replace old discoveries with the better versions would be nice. It seems odd to take Greater and then Grand Mutagen since you'll only get a benefit from one and is especially wasted if you intend to take the true mutagen ability at 20th level.
Please note:
Infusion as a bonus built into it: You can make the infusions before combat and hand them out saving your actions to do what you want to. If your allies want to be buffed let them spend their actions doing it instead of yours. It's cheaper than potions and you can do it with personal only spells as well as higher level spells than are normally available for potions.
Speaking of potions, does anyone else find it a bit odd that the Alchemist doesn't get, and in fact cannot take, Brew Potion??
Yeah, seems like they definitely should be able to Brew Potions from their "spell list" like normal...
Paying the normal costs and following normal Potion restrictions (re: target, etc) of course.|
|
The rogue is disabling traps (not a big deal in some games, a huge deal in others), and if the fighter isn't doing something to keep the wizard from getting hit he may as well carry his shiny armor home with his sword between his legs for all the good he's doing toward felling the monster.How are rogues and fighters helping the rest of the team?The alchemist was designed with the intent of helping himself first.That's fine, but you have to remember that D&D is a game focused around teamwork. Creating a class that's devoted to helping himself first and foremost works better in a solo game than in a team-centric game.
The fighter isn't any better in protecting the wizard than the alchemist. So if the fighter can contribute, so can the alchemist.
|
|
-1 Team Centric
Some of my best games ever were 1 on 1 games (either me running or playing). I love the concept of being the only player. I don't have to wait for my turn, see what other people want to do, etc.
I digress. My point is, I see the Alchemist as one of the best solo classes there is (next to the ranger, rogue, or paladin). AND I LOVE THAT. A solo spellcaster! FINALLY! THANK YOU GUYS!
Now i will say (as others have in other threads) I am a little disappointed that the alchemist does not have a spellbook and can learn new formula like a wizard, but do love the adaptation of being able to memorize whenever. I don't see, however, the reason Alchemist cannot buff the party if he wants too.
I can understand the slow-factor, but why not allow him to give the party rogue a extract of invisibility and say
"you have 24 hours"
or the
"here, drink this"
*hands extract of poison.
The fighter isn't any better in protecting the wizard than the alchemist.
This statement is categorically false.
Correct me if I'm wrong, since it's been a while since I've looked at the nitty gritty of the class, however what exactly would be the difference in "teamwork play" between a Warlock and an Alchemist?
I guess there's always the case that the Warlock isn't a teamplayer either...
*shrug*
I'd like to see the class in actual play before coming up with a conclusion that it's just not going to work.
And I mean play it like it's abilities suggest (buffing yourself and bombing the enemies, etc). If it can't be effective that way, then great.. feedback for Jason.
But stating that the Alchemist buffing himself is poor design, when there are people playing Fighters that are built specifically to run into combat and full attack until things die, is a little facetious. Clearly, there are people who want characters that are designed to not buff others, and they clearly still work in D&D.
Care to elaborate?The fighter isn't any better in protecting the wizard than the alchemist.This statement is categorically false.
While I agree with the sentiment, it could be explained to make the conversation a two way thing.
A fighter is going to be much better at protecting the wizard because :
1) MORE HITPOINTS (Sorry, that one needs to be in all caps, it's important)
2) Better BAB
3) Better AC
4) More Feats
5) Better Movement in heavy armor (goes back to 3)
6) Better Str/Dex/Con combination (Alchemist needs high Int)
There are other more minor reasons, but yes, if you're looking for a 'Protect the Wizard' the Fighter (and Paladin to a lesser extent) is the king (to the Paladin's prince). An alchemist is going to have lower hp's, lower ac, less feats, lower melee centric stats, and in general be a much worse shield. That's not a slam at the alchemist, it's just not what he's designed for.
|
|
but do love the adaptation of being able to memorize whenever.
The Wizard can already do this. It is one of the reasons( among many ) that a research journal( spellbook ) approach makes more sense.
I.e. both the wizard and alchemist can leave "slots" unprepared and then prepare them later when they have a better idea of what they are dealing with that day.
|
|
Thoughts;
1) I'm also seeing Infusion as a 'must-have.' If any one player of an alchemist wants to be selfish, then more power to them, but I'm not in love with the idea of every alchemist being that way by default.
2) I'm also fond of the idea of a 'spellbook,' which, in this case, I'd call a formulary or something. The alchemist-as-wizard fits my understanding of the class better than the alchemist-as-sorcerer model. Then again, I'm the big proponent of allowing any spellcasting class to be prepared *or* spontaneous, so I'd be fine with an either / or option.
3) I'd be tempted to just throw in a caveat somewhere that says that the Alchemist can treat his Extracts as if they were spells for the purposes of qualifying for the Brew Potion feat. Perhaps at higher levels he can treat his Extracts as spells for the purposes of qualifying for Craft Wondrous Item (so that he can create all those elixirs and dusts and whatnot).
4) Mapping the class over to a spellcaster, it's got a much smaller spell list, delayed acquisition compared to most, a bard-like spell level cap, better BAB and HD than an arcanist (but no way to really effectively use those advantages in melee, unlike an Inquisitor) and replaces Bloodline / School / Domain abilities with throwing some alchemical bombs a few times per day. In almost every category, it's weaker, and where it is better, it's not a very useful place to be better. Love the idea, but it feels like it's missing something.
More discoveries might be the 'something' that could help (one per three levels, or even one per two levels, might do the trick).
A feat that allows Extra Bomb Throwing seems like another 'must-have' (at least as important as Extra Rage is to a Barbarian) as it appears to be the Alchemist's primary offensive ability.
5) The notion of essentially 'free' alchemy, just whipping stuff up on the fly, is an interesting work-around to the 'problem' of a craft-based character who can't very well be expected to carry around an alchemy lab and thousands of gp worth of reagents. I'm not sure that I'm in love with the idea, from a flavor standpoint, but it does solve that particular problem.
Perhaps the answer (to flavor it up) also lies in alchemy / transmutation. The Alchemist is able to tap into qualities of herbs and minerals that are not normally seen as valuable to allow them to mimic the traits of more valuable components, 'awakening' the potential of those components. Only the alchemist can do this, and only for a few moments at a time (long enough to brew them together and get the desired result), but as often as desired. Various treatments of the subject have used a similar concept (all the way back to Bard Games 'Compleat Alchemist,' IIRC), so that might be a bit of flavor that would make the idea mixing dirt, grass and spittle together to get a potion of bull's strength a bit more palatable (to the freaks like me who care about flavor, anyway).
5) The notion of essentially 'free' alchemy, just whipping stuff up on the fly, is an interesting work-around to the 'problem' of a craft-based character who can't very well be expected to carry around an alchemy lab and thousands of gp worth of reagents. I'm not sure that I'm in love with the idea, from a flavor standpoint, but it does solve that particular problem.
Perhaps the answer (to flavor it up) also lies in alchemy / transmutation. The Alchemist is able to tap into qualities of herbs and minerals that are not normally seen as valuable to allow them to mimic the traits of more valuable components, 'awakening' the potential of those components.
I had a similar idea, that only alchemists know how to add "quintessence" that is needed to impower an alchemical mix.
Care to elaborate?
Certainly. First of all, the fighter has more hit points and a higher AC than the alchemist, allowing him to last longer in close combat (which in turn allows him to act as "bodyguard" for other characters). The alchemist has mediocre hit points and weak armor class--he's not going to stand up to punishment very long.
Secondly, the fighter has a higher damage potential than the alchemist--a lot higher damage potential, depending on your build. Even on the low end, we're talking about 10d6 + 135 damage in a round. (And that can get a lot higher with the right build.) With the right combination, the alchemist can get around 20d6 + 20 damage in a round for his highest damage potential. More damage means that the fighter is more of a threat than the alchemist, meaning that monsters are more likely to target him in combat.
Thirdly, the fighter can trip, bull rush, disarm, and the like, allowing him to stop something from attacking and possibly forcing them away from the wizard. The alchemist will fail horribly if he tries any of these, and he doesn't have enough feats to do it reliably.
Fourthly, the fighter can take that feat (name eludes me right now) that allows him to make a CMB vs. CMD check instead of a normal AoO to stop an enemy's movement. Again, the alchemist doesn't have enough feats to do this without focusing entirely on that, and his lower attack bonus makes it less likely to succeed.
|
|
While I agree with the sentiment, it could be explained to make the conversation a two way thing.A fighter is going to be much better at protecting the wizard because :
1) MORE HITPOINTS (Sorry, that one needs to be in all caps, it's important)
2) Better BAB
3) Better AC
4) More Feats
5) Better Movement in heavy armor (goes back to 3)
6) Better Str/Dex/Con combination (Alchemist needs high Int)There are other more minor reasons, but yes, if you're looking for a 'Protect the Wizard' the Fighter (and Paladin to a lesser extent) is the king (to the Paladin's prince). An alchemist is going to have lower hp's, lower ac, less feats, lower melee centric stats, and in general be a much worse shield. That's not a slam at the alchemist, it's just not what he's designed for.
All those things don't help you to protect the wizard, they help you to protect yourself. And the alchemist, unlike the fighter, has lots of options to buff himself (including a combination of transformation and giant form).
I dont think every class NEEDS to be teamwork centered. The 3.5 warmage for instance was inexplicably popular (I have seen more attempts to 'convert' that class then any other including my own design). It however is about as far from a team player as it gets. The warlock is another example.
I do however see the class as a 5th party member, and one that will not perform particularly well untill higher levels. Not sure though, we will have to see. I dont know if i will get a chance to playtest it. Really this class isnt about power, i think it's power for the most part is ok, I am concerned as to how it fits into a party, and that requires a player willing to play it.
All those things don't help you to protect the wizard, they help you to protect yourself. And the alchemist, unlike the fighter, has lots of options to buff himself (including a combination of transformation and giant form).
?????
I honestly don't know how to respond to that statement without violating board policy.
|
|
All those things don't help you to protect the wizard, they help you to protect yourself. And the alchemist, unlike the fighter, has lots of options to buff himself (including a combination of transformation and giant form).
While I agree with the sentiment, it could be explained to make the conversation a two way thing.A fighter is going to be much better at protecting the wizard because :
1) MORE HITPOINTS (Sorry, that one needs to be in all caps, it's important)
2) Better BAB
3) Better AC
4) More Feats
5) Better Movement in heavy armor (goes back to 3)
6) Better Str/Dex/Con combination (Alchemist needs high Int)There are other more minor reasons, but yes, if you're looking for a 'Protect the Wizard' the Fighter (and Paladin to a lesser extent) is the king (to the Paladin's prince). An alchemist is going to have lower hp's, lower ac, less feats, lower melee centric stats, and in general be a much worse shield. That's not a slam at the alchemist, it's just not what he's designed for.
yea....
and while the alchemist is buffing himself, the fighter can use his constantly in effect good bonuses/stats to kill whatever is threatening the wizard.
... and while the alchemist is buffing himself ( and... has no spells for debuffing monsters / enemies by the way ) the wizard will lob a fireball and knock out a horde of creatures with a 5d6 bomb at 5th level that has an radius of 20', instead of lobbing a 3d6 bomb at one target or maybe two in a 10' radius. ...
|
|
That's fine, but you have to remember that D&D is a game focused around teamwork. Creating a class that's devoted to helping himself first and foremost works better in a solo game than in a team-centric game.I am going to avoid the snarky comeback here...
Although I understand where you are coming from, not every class works that way (such as the rogue and fighter examples that have already been pointed out). I can understand that folks are not used to spellcaster working that way, which is why the alchemist is a different sort of class.
I am interested in seeing how this works.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
a cleric, wizard or any other spellcaster has the option to be selfish, if its in the character/player's nature to play it that way. but its an option, and a method to that character's dramatics.
a rogue and a fighter that are selfish are still going to come together to damage and take out enemies.
i don't forsee the alchemist, as proposed, doing as good of a job as a rogue or fighter with their static bonuses. he can temporarily make himself better than he was, but even a selfish cleric or wizard can debuff a group of enemies making them more hurt, do less damage, or land hits less often. the alchemist is only offensive, and only self-buffing.
in the action it takes him to buff himself with haste, the party's wizard or cleric can haste the group, or heal the group. the opportunity cost of what else a cleric or wizard can do is great, because their actions can effect the entire party. when an alchemist faces the same decision, he's just loosing out on rounds that he's not attacking enemies by buffing himself.
4) Mapping the class over to a spellcaster, it's got a much smaller spell list, delayed acquisition compared to most, a bard-like spell level cap, better BAB and HD than an arcanist (but no way to really effectively use those advantages in melee, unlike an Inquisitor) and replaces Bloodline / School / Domain abilities with throwing some alchemical bombs a few times per day. In almost every category, it's weaker, and where it is better, it's not a very useful place to be better.
I think the Jekyll&Hyde 'Mutagen'/Transformation aspect should really be seen most similar to Druid Wildshape. Alchemists get some more "Arcane-y" effects thru their Alchemy, but otherwise the roles would seem similar... Assuming that lots of attacks/ tentalces/ etc (the strengths of melee wildshaping) aren't going to be achieved via "Mr. Hyde", it really should bring in Supernatural powers - perhaps from Monstrous Humanoids and Abominations - which might work best witha Wildshape-type mechanic.
"Extra Bombs"/ "Bigger Bombs" (multiple squares receiving 'direct' effect)/ "Powerful Bombs" (dice increase/ bonus dice) do seem a necessity for this class...
In line with the Wildshape approach, there could really be two "builds":