First, You are putting words in my mouth.... no. I'm double checking to see if the words i'm hearing are the ones you're saying are the same thing.
I never once stated that infusions and mutagens should not be supernatural effects, nor did I say that they should be given out freely. I made such a statement concerning bombs, and only bombs.I would preferred for the Alchemist to focus on increasing the effectiveness of the mundane, rather than falling back on the magical; just declaring their infusions as supernatural abilities instead feel like laziness and a lack of creativity to me. The bombs need not be supernatural effects that mysteriously don't function for any other individual but the caster. Rather, they could have been designed as an augmented version of alchemist firSecond, I never said that these bombs shouldn't be for sale.As I've already said, if the bombs ARE for sale why be an alchemist? As it is, the bombs cost nothing to make and can be made very quickly. The two biggest constraints on market value have been removed
What I was dismissive of was the notion of adventurers teleporting back and forth everyday to get more.Why? Because it doesn't happen at your table?
Now, as for my 3 complaints that you bring up:
1. You have that one on the money.
2. Half right. I would have rather had the class expand upon mundane alchemy, rather than poorly adapted spellcraft. That being said, I don't think the class is bad.I've tried to point out why trying to build an entire class around mundane items won't work. The point of the bombs only lasting a minute and the infusions requiring a bit of the alchemist is to keep the class relevant and not just have their products for sale.
3. Again, half right. I do think that bombs should not be supernatural in nature. That feeling doesn't arise, however, in a desire to supply bombs to...
At this point, I guess the old adage "agree to disagree" applies; you and I clearly don't see eye to eye, nor will we. Still, I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, even if I didn't like the tone of some of your posts.
I've actually had the enjoyment of playing an alchemist in a recent campaign from 1-13 and it was an extremely enjoyable class. I was in a party of 5 and the campaign we were playing was council of thieves. The party consisted of myself (alchemist), Cleric, Fighter, Bard, and a Wizard. While many disparities between the classes seem to exist on the page rarely have I found that they play out in that manner. It is really just how you play the game and the atmosphere of your gaming group that will make you feel like an important part of the team.
Now one thing to note is that the Council of Thieves does end at 13 so you don't truly run into the end game that many people claim is where this large game shattering power gap exists, however at the end of this campaign I can say that I wasn't really seeing any disparities and in other campaigns i've played that have gone to 18-20 I still find the melee characters more than hold their own, though again it depends largely on how/when combat occurs and several other random factors.
The alchemist class as I was playing it, largely as someone that just chucked bombs, seemed to really hit its' stride around 4 and was still going strong at the end. I'd recommend playing the class because as someone that was skeptical I found most of my concerns were unfounded.
The only things I don't like about the alchemist are that it comes at level one with longer-at-low-levels rage, it has Ranged-Better-Sneak-Attack-Fullattackable-Fireball, and it gets an ability every level and spells.
There's really no reason for an alchemist to get spells and an ability every level. Rogues have a very similar progression to the alchemist (odd bonus d6s of damage, even unique tricks) but then the alchemist also is a bard caster. With rage. Why?
A rogue has to get some wacky conditions to be able to full attack, actually hit all of his attacks, and do serious damage-- an alchemist can do this starting at level 8 with no problems since they not only attack touch but AoE everyone around the person they're attacking. (and even more people if you took explosive bomb).
I just find it absurd.
The Alchemist has to worry about energy resistance and Immunity, which isn't always obvious. The alchemist also runs out of bombs eventually, the rogue does not run out of sneak attacks.
The Alchemist has to worry about energy resistance and Immunity, which isn't always obvious. The alchemist also runs out of bombs eventually, the rogue does not run out of sneak attacks.
Eventually? Try constantly.
The Alchemist has to worry about energy resistance and Immunity, which isn't always obvious.
Never really experience much of this in the groups I play in because party members make sure to branch into knowledge skills the other characters don't have. Also the alchemist is a high-int character that's expected to wear a headband-- he could just key, or buy a specific headband keyed to, those specific knowledges. By the end of the game he should be able to have all five important knowledges maxed and covered.
Or spellcraft, or knowledge: arcana to identify spell effects and dispelling bomb to remove them. Or common sense. Fire doesn't work against creatures that are on fire, demons or devils. Frost doesn't work against creatures that are on frost, and so on.
And then they get alchemist tricks for things like force bomb, which is very annoying. Reflex save or be knocked prone. Not tripped-- knocked prone. This has interesting side effects: Ghosts who are immune to trip are not immune to being knocked prone, for example.
The alchemist also runs out of bombs eventually, the rogue does not run out of sneak attacks.
Being a rogue in a party with an alchemist is like... playing baseball with your oldest brother when you were a kid. He does everything better and faster than you do, including hitting the ball farther and stronger. Who cares if he runs out of energy sooner than you do when he can hit a home run whenever he feels like it?
Maybe I just have class envy.
A while ago, we started a game where the players mostly played the playtest classes in a small group. We play it occasionally (mostly when I go back to my hometown, as a treat), and I use an Alchemist as a GMPC. Basically, she functions as an area-effect rogue, and complements nicely, though without trapfinding.
It took me a bit to get the hang of the character, since I didn't know what role she took on. Was she a power caster? Was she a buffer? Was she a scrapper? Was she artillery?
She tends to use her bombs to focus on groups, which works well, but tends to hold back because she wants to save her heavy hitters.
But, as for the buffing. This is the part that grates on me a bit, having played buffing-type characters in two games (one as a pure player). By the time the buffing's done, the fight is too. I'm not sure how folks play this out, but usually, I only have time to use one or two buffs before I have to start fighting, and combining some higher-level ones ends up putting me out of the fight. I think that's a bit of a rant with the game, and a price to pay for a casting physical fighter.
Anyways, she is surprisingly fun to play, and really would like to play an alchemist as a full-on player at some point.
I think the design choices were interesting, and not exactly what I had in mind when I thought of it, but they seem to fit better as I went along and learned more.
Historical alchemists weren't scientists, not really. They didn't deal in science. They stumbled onto it, effectively, leading to the advent of science. In a way, they were akin to clerics, in that Alchemy was a spiritual pursuit (lead into gold was a metaphor for the soul).
I have come to enjoy the idea of the alchemist as a continuation of that metaphor. They stumble onto actual science/fantascience in terms of durable alchemical items (which is why any class can make those items with hard recipes and finite effects). But what they're really refining is their spirit/magical self, which is how they create infusions and bombs with bits of themselves. It touches on the bits that alchemical items represent, but in the end is about the person rather than the portions.
In a way, it's a subtle way to allude to the alchemists of old but leaving the styles open for different types and including other archetypes (like J&H).
As for more powerful alchemical items, it wouldn't be a stretch to have them available, but expensive. The alchemist class, in particular, would be ideally suited for the task of creating them, since with their class bonuses, they can create items far more easily and with more complexity than non-specialists.
The only things I don't like about the alchemist are that it comes at level one with longer-at-low-levels rage, it has Ranged-Better-Sneak-Attack-Fullattackable-Fireball, and it gets an ability every level and spells.
There's really no reason for an alchemist to get spells and an ability every level. Rogues have a very similar progression to the alchemist (odd bonus d6s of damage, even unique tricks) but then the alchemist also is a bard caster. With rage. Why?
A rogue has to get some wacky conditions to be able to full attack, actually hit all of his attacks, and do serious damage-- an alchemist can do this starting at level 8 with no problems since they not only attack touch but AoE everyone around the person they're attacking. (and even more people if you took explosive bomb).
I just find it absurd.
Uh, the rogue still does significantly more damage, because the rogue's damage can be buffed.
The bombs can't be.
I mean hell, Haste. Boom, rogues do more damage.
I'm annoyed with alchemists because I really want to like them, and the class makes it hard.
My issues:
1) "It's all magic!" No that's dumb. We can have cool things that aren't magic. Well, we could hypothetically, you have to let it happen first. Hell, even just making it supernatural would be a big step up.
2) Infusions work as potions do. Potions, however, are terrible. Let's say I want to caste Haste. Well, that's a standard action. Now let's say I want to use a Haste infusion. Well, that's practically a full round action. See the issue? Furthermore, there are little to no alchemist "only" infusions - literally everything their infusions can do, other classes do better. Someone mentioned The Witcher earlier, and this is exactly why that wouldn't work - you waste a full turn drinking the potion/infusion.
3) Poisons are awful. I mean, well, poisons are awful, but also the alchemist is wonderfully built to gain nothing from them whatsoever. You don't have Stealth so you can't sneak in and poison the food. Dexterity melee builds absolutely need a form of damage additive, and alchemists don't have one. Throwing just blows overall.
4) Giving a number of bombs you can throw is just really, really asinine. Give them unlimited bombs, it won't break anything, no more then eldritch blast and reserve feats destroyed all of 3.5.
5) The grand discoveries feel kinda ugh :I
In short, it's a class that has poison abilities but poison is bad and it can't really use it. It has damaging capabilities, but it's dumbly limited on how many it can use and other classes can outdamage it. It has psuedo-buffing capabilities, but "casting" the buffs takes way too long and they can't be cast on others.
Here is the link for the engineer archetype that was posted a while back. I reworked a few things but its actually really good.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/houseRules/theEngineerAlchemistArchetype&page=1&source=search#0
About the "It's all magic!" issue.
I guess you can see the interaction between science and technology in a fantasy setting in two ways.
First, is the "Arcanum" way (as per the Sierra computer game) where they are two different and incompatible "power sources". They can be neutral to each other (not affecting each other if not only by compensating the effects once created), or even interfer with each other (Arcanum style) meaning a scientific mind could disrupt magic by imposing his "static" reality, and a magical surge could disrupt a technological gadget.
Second, and I think this would apply to the way pathfinder deals with this issue, is to have one reality, one nature, and inherent to this reality, along with physical laws, is magical power. Science and magic, in this world, would not be two different power sources, but two ways of getting the effect you want out of nature. As they both apply to the same nature, both would be able to influence each other (you can dispel an extract, and the identify extract can reveal you the properties of a magical object) because they harness the same objective power, magic, as a objective constituent of the world. Science, if it want to be effective in a world constituted as such, could not ignore magic as it would be part of its object of study.
You could modify the alchemist class so that he would fit more in the first option, but myself am at ease with the second - I always saw D&D and Pathfinder as "objectively magical settings", not as a cultural paradigm war (Like Mage:TA, or Mage:SC). Magic is part of the world, so science must deal with it and use it in its own way.
Anyway, my 2 cents.