Yeah, I tend to try to compare melee damage to champions, unless I'm responding to an example. Barbarians, fighters, and rangers all offer their own muckery, as do the precision classes.
I mean, I know what I want. I want bomber alchemists to deal more damage than a champion with a bow. I went over on the previous page a handful of direct disadvantages they have against a ranged martial. You can tell me it's busted and will ruin the white room, but I want 5/13 master curved proficiency... And for the bomber research field, calculated splash as a feature at level 1 and expanded splash as level 9. Being an OSD class with no crit specialization and no property runes available already puts them at some serious disadvantages.
I dunno. Given that their primary combat ability is "throw bombs," I just don't feel it's a bad idea to let them do it at a better clip than your average ranged martial.
What is an OSD class?
With all of these changes, would you also advocate that splash no longer deals damage on a miss? That would allow them to also increase the damage die, possibly up to 2 sizes. And you said it feels like a miss if they deal no damage or only splash damage, so they may as well cut that out entirely if it isn't serving any purpose.
Where I'm headed is to have a redesigned consumable type. Called what, yo no se, but basically a bomb that only splatters on a hit or crit and deals a larger amount of damage on those hits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OSD is Off Score Dependent I think? Whatever exactly it stands for, it's a class whose primary stat is not also their attack stat.
I don't think splash on a failure is pointless! Just that it is from a design perspective being viewed as enough of a boon to offset the low accuracy, damage, and sustain an alchemist currently offers.
The class needs boosts, not nerfs, in my opinion. Splash on a failure is reasonably unique and interesting--but it is not enough to mark them as anything but bottom tier in damage.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main thing it needs to be is fun.
Alchemist is basically the king of white room theorycrafting in showing how useful it is on paper and the numbers it provides. And that's the thing, it is useful, in that it's a good buffer.
But that's it.
It buffs everyone so they can be awesome and then more or less twiddles its thumbs. You're not useless by any means, but there is a noticeable observation in actual play in alchemist just not being up there with the other classes in feel.
Cause the the thing is, while people like buffs and like being able to hand them out (Cleric, Bard, etc), no one likes to only do that. People like being able to interact and actively contribute to the game and combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OSD is Off Score Dependent I think? Whatever exactly it stands for, it's a class whose primary stat is not also their attack stat.
I don't think splash on a failure is pointless! Just that it is from a design perspective being viewed as enough of a boon to offset the low accuracy, damage, and sustain an alchemist currently offers.
The class needs boosts, not nerfs, in my opinion. Splash on a failure is reasonably unique and interesting--but it is not enough to mark them as anything but bottom tier in damage.
Splash damage going away on a miss would be contingent on you getting all of the buffs you asked for in the quoted post.
As for you thinking it is pointless, I can only draw conclusions based on what you say.
That said, the issue of feel is still pretty prominent. Dealing splash only anyways seems to feel like a pittance--especially given that it doesn't proc the bombs' particular specialities. It's the same for spellcasters at my table. Player failure or target success both appear to be as disappointing as doing nothing at all.
If player failure is as disappointing as doing nothing at all, then splash on a failure is doing nothing for you and your players and should be eliminated, no? Especially if that is what is holding the design of bombs back from having a heavier damage on a strike.
That IS what you want, right? To have each strike feel effective, not just the total damage at the end of the battle? I believe you described that splash damage making up a large chunk of the overall damage as "pathetic". I don't want to ignore that feeling, but I'm going to say you're not leaving a lot of room for buffs if you want to continue having double the effective "hit" chances as every other weapon in the game, which is what continuing to have damage on failures AND buffing damage on hits and crits would do.
Edit: I'm pushing this because what I'm seeing from this thread is that people just want more bows with different damage types. The Magus was a failure, the Gunslinger is a failure, the Alchemist is a failure. All of these classes are attempting to provide new interactions with the 4 degrees of success. And if they do feel like a failure to play, then that is good feedback, but we'd better let the designers know that they shouldn't waste time with anything else that isn't a new composite bow. And I also want it crystal clear that my own preference for firearms, which would also be damage on a miss, would not go over well and should be completely avoided. I can homebrew my own; I don't want to push for something that would make other players feel pathetic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will any of those damage die or splash changes help the bomb hit?
Core problem still exists. My group has decided to home rule starting proficiency with bombs at Expert and then Master at 7th.
I think it's pretty rad that we got all the way here from suggested proficiency changes.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think alchemists, in general, suffer from a lot of factors which, together, make it really easy to be underwhelming.
1. More subtle contributions. As noted, an invested bomber will have pretty solid damage, but a lot of it comes from splash. Splash damage doesn't have the big overwhelming damage spikes of, say, a shortbow fighter, and so it's really easy to overlook the potential of chucking basically unavoidable damage on things, with 95% of dealing splash damage and 75% on the second bomb. Alchemists also don't really have much in the way of high spikes, so though they're significantly more consistent (with basically no times that they aren't dealing damage, it's a lot harder to notice their contribution unless you're keeping track of the numbers.
2. Significantly higher swing based on Recall Knowledge. Again, because of that unavoidable damage and alchemists' ability to switch damage types on the fly (through Quick Alchemy if needed), being able to hit weaknesses is very helpful, especially if enemies come in groups. However, I generally find (at least anecdotally from forum reports) that people don't use Recall Knowledge much, making the ability to take advantage of weaknesses a lot less useful. If you come upon a group of frost giants, being able to hit them with tons of alchemists' fire splash is great, but usually it's not something quite that immediately obvious. Even with this, alchemists' struggle with certain weakness types - alignment ones are the big one, but cold iron/silver aren't particularly efficient. They do have weapon blanches for the latter, but the cold iron one also comes off PFS.
3. People really undervalue consumables in general. For example, an alchemist can keep chucking max-level poison on their party's weapons throughout the day, something that's a solid damage spike but also cost-prohibitive. But because it's technically a consumable, I see a lot of people writing that sort of contribution off because "you can just buy it".
4. Niche protection, also other research fields. Using bombs here because it's the most obvious, it's pretty clear that Paizo doesn't want any random alchemist to do martial-tier damage at will, which is why Calculated/Expanded Splash exist. The problem with baking it into the bomber research path is that you either a) have to be a bomber to do damage, if it's exclusive, or b) if it's baked it, you lose other signature features, meaning that a bomber doesn't really feel unique in any way. So there's a difficult balance to be struck.
5. People favouring specialization over generalization. Part of the big bonus that alchemist gives is the fact that they have massive stocks of at-level consumables, but that really favours a more generalist style. After all, even if you prep 30 bombs at level 10, you still have space for another 10 items in your stock - and you're probably not going to go through 30 bombs in the first place. But I think that - partially due to influence from other editions, especially PF1, where you basically had to specialise - players generally expect that you'll have to be overspecialized to be competent. And as noted, alchemist doesn't really do that - mutagens, especially, provide little benefit to heavily invested people, and benefit the dabblers a lot more.
6. Time between playtest and release. This is more on things like the mutagenist missing medium armour originally, not having Powerful Alchemy at base, and such.
7. Class features that struggle to be consistently useful. I'm mainly looking at Double Brew and Alchemical Alacrity here, which won't come up as often as, say, Swashbuckler's exemplary finisher, Rogue's debilitating strike, or Fighter's combat flexibility. While I can definitely see uses for them - a Chirurgeon doing triple maximized Elixir of Life is the one I immediately think of, or a hasted Bomber making three bombs and instantly chucking them - it's not as immediately or reliably useful as the other examples I've named. It's also very resource-hungry unless you're a bomber or toxicologist, who can get some decent uses out of their perpetual infusions.
Alchemist is juggling a lot of balls, and I think it's hard for a player to balance all of them in a way that lets the alchemist shine, while also not having the potential (on the dev side) to be too powerful. I'm not sure it's really a proficiency problem, though that might help - I'll do the math when I have time.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Alchemist has to put in the biggest amount of effort for the payback of being "on par", which makes the class extremely beginner unfriendly and also drives away experienced players that aren't keen on putting all that work to barely keep up.
In terms of complexity it does feel a lot more like an APG class than a CRB one, requiring a high degree of system mastery and finesse to compete, all the while juggling through a list of items and formulas for contingency, requiring some real bookkeeping; 2e has shown that it values flexibility and discourages overspecialization (by making bonus-stacking much harder and baking direct power mostly in class features), but the Alch goes too far in the opposite direction, to the point that the sheer breadth of their options assumes a pilot that is constantly aware of all their possible outcomes and acts on them deliberately; but that makes the Bomber (built for consistency more than "explosiveness", ironically), Mutagenist (A dip into the Jekyll/Hyde territory that doesn't go all the way) and Chirurgeon (An elixir of life dispenser with an initial feature that essentially reads "+2/3 to Medicine checks" since you still need to rank both it and Crafting to be of any use) feel quite underwhelming in their chosen fields, even if the core class itself allows for every single Alchemist to provide bombs, elixirs, mutagens, lamp oil etc. for their allies regardless of specialization. The poisoner at least feels like a solid foundation that could be raised with the introduction of newer interesting options for toxins or a higher weapon proficiency to have them apply more consistently.
There is the argument that the Alchemist is a class that gets stronger as new options for alchemical items are printed, but that doesn't bode too well for it when other options with alchemical backgrounds (Alchemical S. Investigator, classes with Alch dedication) would still benefit from those options AND have strong features to complement them.
The Alchemist has to put in the biggest amount of effort for the payback of being "on par", which makes the class extremely beginner unfriendly and also drives away experienced players that aren't keen on putting all that work to barely keep up.
In terms of complexity it does feel a lot more like an APG class than a CRB one, requiring a high degree of system mastery and finesse to compete, all the while juggling through a list of items and formulas for contingency, requiring some real bookkeeping; 2e has shown that it values flexibility and discourages overspecialization (by making bonus-stacking much harder and baking direct power mostly in class features), but the Alch goes too far in the opposite direction, to the point that the sheer breadth of their options assumes a pilot that is constantly aware of all their possible outcomes and acts on them deliberately; but that makes the Bomber (built for consistency more than "explosiveness", ironically), Mutagenist (A dip into the Jekyll/Hyde territory that doesn't go all the way) and Chirurgeon (An elixir of life dispenser with an initial feature that essentially reads "+2/3 to Medicine checks" since you still need to rank both it and Crafting to be of any use) feel quite underwhelming in their chosen fields, even if the core class itself allows for every single Alchemist to provide bombs, elixirs, mutagens, lamp oil etc. for their allies regardless of specialization. The poisoner at least feels like a solid foundation that could be raised with the introduction of newer interesting options for toxins or a higher weapon proficiency to have them apply more consistently.
There is the argument that the Alchemist is a class that gets stronger as new options for alchemical items are printed, but that doesn't bode too well for it when other options with alchemical backgrounds (Alchemical S. Investigator, classes with Alch dedication) would still benefit from those options AND have strong features to complement them.
This is a really spot on. The only quibble I have is that while better items will help Investigator and what not as well, no one else has comparable alchemical access for level and quantity of items. So the alchemist will make bigger gains from it, but it still starts at a worse point.
Also... It stinks that is literally the first class in the CRB,and the most novel one.
Edit: just saw the posts from Cyouni and AnimatedPaper which also make excellent points.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Animated Paper:
I think my general issue is the assumption that alchemists need to sacrifice something to get something else. To my experience, they already exist well below the balance curve, especially for any aspect you want to make a focus of your character. If you're happy handing out esoteric buffs and trying to activate enemy weaknesses through generally single-digit damage hits, man more power to you! But most folks aren't here for that, from what I see.
If splash damage on failure is what's holding the class back from being able to contribute, then by all means Paizo should strike it. But my position is that a bomber alchemist should be not just almost in line with other ranged classes... Given the limited nature of their resources, the tiny range of their toss, and plenty of other factors, I feel they should be tuned to be a bit more powerful than their competitors.
I dunno. Alchemists are a big boon that other tabletop competitors don't have. It's a literal and important draw for the system. I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that they need to be "in line" with the average. Even if they get significant buffs in the future, even the wild stuff I'd ask for, I think they're still behind raging thrower barbs and fighters, as well as possibly rangers and rogues. Just on a quick glance.
I don't believe there should be anything in this game in the 20 foot thrown range that's as powerful as a bomber alchemist with their top level bomb. I just don't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has any of you ever tried ( even on a white room scenario ) to just use the alchemist as a support?
Providing healing elixir to the party, combat mutagens as well as poisons to combatants and try to also make its part during an encounter?
From what I happened to see, enhancing the party with stuff is pretty performing.
It does quite okay with that. Healing aside, anyways. However the bigger problem is that that's the only significant way to be functional with the class. There is absolutely tons on design space around alchemy use, creation, and modification that no one, including the alchemist themselves, can cover.
Because of the thread purpose, we're mostly focusing on bombs and damage. But I think the healing aspect of the alchemist is both a very interesting thing to discuss and a significant point of disappointment in play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Telling someone they don't get it won't make them have more fun with the class. To me it sounds like a more polite variation of "git gud scrubz", if I'm being honest.
I think this would be a great point to make in any thread where someone steps up and makes the case for alchemists being the best class.
For example, there's a Reddit thread title that goes something like, "Alchemists don't suck, you suck at playing alchemists." It would be fair to retort in that thread that maybe Core classes need redesigning if the proper way to play them is obscure. I'd actually agree with the sentiment.
But I don't think I've seen a Paizo thread like that so far. Basically, these arguments start - and this thread is a prime example - because people want Paizo to upgrade the class around some weird criteria.
Alchemists only go up to Expert proficiency in bombs. Is this an oversight? Something that Paizo has missed? Increasingly, the apparent answer is no. Paizo doesn't think alchemists should have Master, much less Legendary. Basically, Paizo doesn't think it's their problem.
What's up with that? Two possibilities:
1. People aren't playing the class as Paizo expects it to be played.
2. People know more than Paizo and see flaws Paizo doesn't.
I think both of those possibilities are pretty equal. I think alchemist's defenders - including me - are pretty honest about being far less than 100% sure how this class is meant to be played. But on the flip side, some of the arguments against alchemist have been so mind-bogglingly stupid that it's really hard to make a good case that we've found something Paizo missed.
For way too long, people were missing a lot, not doing much damage, and then running out of bombs. Three separate "fixes" were suggested - giving alchemists more bombs, AND making them more powerful, AND making alchemists INT-to-hit. That is ridiculous overkill - and doesn't address the single root problem that people were throwing too many bombs.
That's really where the mentality of "git gud scrubz" comes from ... when the boards fill with inane arguments about DPR (a metric useful in PF1 where optimal strategy was to full-round attack and kill them first).
Look, if people don't have fun playing alchemists, then ... don't play alchemists. I don't have fun playing fighters, but that doesn't mean the class is awful. I bored of Stride-Strike-Raise after maybe two combats (and I think there's even a recent thread complaining about how fighters do the same thing from level 1 to 20), but that doesn't mean Paizo should retool the whole class.
The constant complaining about alchemist is disruptive to fixing actual flaws with the class. If you ever thought PF2 alchemists got fewer bombs/day than PF1 alchemists, congratulations, you were part of the mob that successfully enabled level 1 bombers to now throw 15 bombs/day.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or 3. People actively playing this class have noticed significant and widespread pain points that dev math didn't foresee?
I'm not sure why the conversation about alchemists either boils down to either people are stupid and don't get it or Paizo are stupid and don't get it, in your estimation.
I guess I see discussion on alchemists as pretty important. I'm personally very much a "play the game as it is" kind of guy. Would rather see how to succeed within the parameters already in place, and I don't much love homebrew honestly. But alchemists need help, and they don't get help without this being a constant and visible discussion, right? Are devs gonna revisit things that no one bothers to discuss?
I'm not here to rabble rouse, nor do I think others are. Are there ways to play workable alchemists right now? Absolutely. Does the class significantly overpromise on different playstyles that can't be reliably achieved in game? Also absolutely. I'm not a big white room proponent. I'm more concerned about players achieving reasonable goals they set out to do. And I think the way alchemists are built prompts folks to set very low goals to achieve.
This class just breaks my heart. I don't know anything about 1e alchemists, but I do know that it's something not in 5e where I and all of my experienced players came from, which means it draws all their eyes... For a minute. There's just no reason within Pathfinder 2e's ethos for a class to be relegated to succeeding almost solely with support roles. Not even clerics have that problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Animated Paper:
I think my general issue is the assumption that alchemists need to sacrifice something to get something else. To my experience, they already exist well below the balance curve, especially for any aspect you want to make a focus of your character. If you're happy handing out esoteric buffs and trying to activate enemy weaknesses through generally single-digit damage hits, man more power to you! But most folks aren't here for that, from what I see.
If splash damage on failure is what's holding the class back from being able to contribute, then by all means Paizo should strike it. But my position is that a bomber alchemist should be not just almost in line with other ranged classes... Given the limited nature of their resources, the tiny range of their toss, and plenty of other factors, I feel they should be tuned to be a bit more powerful than their competitors.
I dunno. Alchemists are a big boon that other tabletop competitors don't have. It's a literal and important draw for the system. I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that they need to be "in line" with the average. Even if they get significant buffs in the future, even the wild stuff I'd ask for, I think they're still behind raging thrower barbs and fighters, as well as possibly rangers and rogues. Just on a quick glance.
I don't believe there should be anything in this game in the 20 foot thrown range that's as powerful as a bomber alchemist with their top level bomb. I just don't.
I think you might be overestimating thrown weapons. Fighter and barbarians don't get access to quickdraw, which is necessary to make them a reliable damage source. Also, they require more dex investment than fighters or barbarians should usually spend. And anyone with GOOD dexterity is usually better served with a bow. You need high strength to get the damage advantage but high dex to actually hit. Eventually you can get a Returning rune, but that rats up a precious property slot.
I dunno, I'll leave it Cyouni to crunch the numbers, but I would be pretty surprised if there was a thrown build that could put out better damage than an equally invested bomber.
Barbarians adding rage damage on thrown weapon hits makes a big difference. Now, absolutely, prior to a level 3 returning rune, thrown builds are absolutely painful. And they don't dramatically outpace the bomber. But they still do, even if you aren't choosing the highest damage instincts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Running some quick numbers over lunch, but I wouldn't be surprised if damage-optimized Raging Thrower manages to outpace the bomber on just pure flat damage. I wouldn't even be surprised if it outpaces the fighter, especially early on.
Another thing to note regarding alchemist: Unlike all the martial characters they're being compared to, they don't heavily increase in direct damage power with wealth. It's the kineticist problem, in that items aren't generally directly suited to increasing their damage. This does mean that they don't need items for their damage, but also does mean they don't massively improve with them as a result.
Glancing at the numbers, a level 15 invested bomber only loses 1 average damage on that first bomb from not having the greater goggles on their perpetual moderate alchemist's fire, a change of 14.25 down to 13.25. Meanwhile, their splash damage remains the same, dealing 7 AoE damage 95% of the time. For comparison, a properly leveled bomb deals 20.2 average to the main target, but only deals 1 more splash.
So perpetual bombs will utterly savage weaknesses with no effort, but upgrading alchemist goggles isn't so much of an upgrade that it's required to keep their numbers high, unlike the property runes/upgraded weapons the martials are running.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, if people don't have fun playing alchemists, then ... don't play alchemists. I don't have fun playing fighters, but that doesn't mean the class is awful.
Do you not have fun playing fighters because you just don't like fighters, or do you really like fighters and the class just falls flat on its face at delivering on its own concepts?
That's why these "git gud" and "Lmao don't play alchemists then" arguments are so gross and harmful. There isn't a "this is literally the alchemist but good at the stuff people want it to be good at" option. It's just a matter of PF2 falling flat on its face when it comes to properly executing a concept.
And telling someone they should just f%#* off because the character they want to play isn't the character you think they should be allowed to play is... idk, kinda dumb.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Running some quick numbers over lunch, but I wouldn't be surprised if damage-optimized Raging Thrower manages to outpace the bomber on just pure flat damage. I wouldn't even be surprised if it outpaces the fighter, especially early on.
Another thing to note regarding alchemist: Unlike all the martial characters they're being compared to, they don't heavily increase in direct damage power with wealth. It's the kineticist problem, in that items aren't generally directly suited to increasing their damage. This does mean that they don't need items for their damage, but also does mean they don't massively improve with them as a result.
Glancing at the numbers, a level 15 invested bomber only loses 1 average damage on that first bomb from not having the greater goggles on their perpetual moderate alchemist's fire, a change of 14.25 down to 13.25. Meanwhile, their splash damage remains the same, dealing 7 AoE damage 95% of the time. For comparison, a properly leveled bomb deals 20.2 average to the main target, but only deals 1 more splash.
So perpetual bombs will utterly savage weaknesses with no effort, but upgrading alchemist goggles isn't so much of an upgrade that it's required to keep their numbers high, unlike the property runes/upgraded weapons the martials are running.
Yeah. I mean, another thing I'm concerned about is people overstating the value of triggering weaknesses. Maybe it's my memory playing tricks on me, but I feel like the large majority of enemies don't have triggerable weaknesses, and some of the ones that still do are particular metals instead of damage types?
When it comes into play, it's fantastic. I guess I'm just not sure how important it is to rank that.
Deleted because I must have done some other math error. I'll redo it at level 15, where things matter more anyways.
The cogent point was that a barbarian gets Str to her strikes 11 times out of 20 for a first strike and 6 times out of 20 in the same rounds that the Alchemist with calculated splash gets intelligence 19 times out of 20 for a first strike and 18 times out of 20 for a follow-up. But if splash damage on a miss does not feel like a win, it needs to be adjusted so that the damage is concentrated to the hits and crits where they'd matter.
Deleted because I must have done some other math error. I'll redo it at level 15, where things matter more anyways.
The cogent point was that a barbarian gets Str to her strikes 11 times out of 20 for a first strike and 6 times out of 20 in the same rounds that the Alchemist with calculated splash gets intelligence 19 times out of 20 for a first strike and 18 times out of 20 for a follow-up. But if splash damage on a miss does not feel like a win, it needs to be adjusted so that the damage is concentrated to the hits and crits where they'd matter.
Don't work too hard on this!
I feel like you're going off something I spouted a few posts ago, that splash damage on failure doesn't feel any more like success. I think the takeaway from that is less that the damage is negligible and more that the special effects for bombs can't happen. Bottled lightning or dread ampoule can get your rogue friends salivating, but if you keep missing and dealing splash damage, the real benefits are missing even if your numbers are okay. It's that "active help" in combat that seems to be lacking, though I think dealing better (or less feat-locked) damage on the whole would mitigate that.
I think my thoughts are meandering badly. I'm trying to put into words the disappointments and pain points my players have experienced or addressed and I think I'm just reacting to what I'm reading. I'll try to get home and more coherently examine what I'm trying to say. Bomber is the easiest field to math-fix, but all four really struggle to utilize their strengths when the chips are down.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
As always, vs AC 15/21/29/36:
Bog-standard alchemist with no damage boosters:
Level 1: 16 Dex, 18 Int, trained; lesser fire for +6 (1d8, 1 persistent, 1 splash - 7.5 average on success) - averaging 5.5/3.4 damage
Level 5: 18 Dex, 19 Int, trained; moderate fire for +12 (2d8, 2 persistent, 2 splash - 15 average on success) - averaging 11/6.8 damage
Level 10: 19 Dex, 20 Int, expert; moderate fire for +19 (2d8, 2 persistent, 2 splash - 15 average on success) - averaging 8.95/6.05 damage
Level 15: 20 Dex, 21 Int, expert; greater fire for +26 (3d8+2, 3 persistent, 3 splash - 24.5 average on success) - averaging 15.75/9.775 damageHypothetical martial-proficiency scaling alchemist with no damage boosters:
Level 1: 16 Dex, 18 Int, trained; lesser fire for +6 (1d8, 1 persistent, 1 splash - 7.5 average on success) - averaging 5.5/3.4 damage
Level 5: 18 Dex, 19 Int, expert; moderate fire for +14 (2d8, 2 persistent, 2 splash - 15 average on success) - averaging 13.6/8.3 damage
Level 10: 19 Dex, 20 Int, expert; moderate fire for +19 (2d8, 2 persistent, 2 splash - 15 average on success) - averaging 8.95/6.05 damage
Level 15: 20 Dex, 21 Int, master; greater fire for +28 (3d8+3, 3 persistent, 3 splash - 25.5 average on success) - averaging 20.85/12.675 damageHypothetical martial-tier weapon specialization alchemist with no damage boosters:
Level 1: 16 Dex, 18 Int, trained; lesser fire for +6 (1d8, 1 persistent, 1 splash - 7.5 average on success) - averaging 5.5/3.4 damage
Level 5: 18 Dex, 19 Int, trained; moderate fire for +12 (2d8, 2 persistent, 2 splash - 15 average on success) - averaging 11/6.8 damage
Level 10: 19 Dex, 20 Int, expert; moderate fire for +19 (2d8+2, 2 persistent, 2 splash - 17 average on success) - averaging 10.9/6.75 damage
Level 15: 20 Dex, 21 Int, expert; greater fire for +26 (3d8+4, 3 persistent, 3 splash - 26.5 average on success) - averaging 16.95/10.475 damageDamage-optimized bow champion:
Level 1: 18 Dex, 16 Str, trained; shortbow for +7 (1d6, deadly d10 - average 3.5 on success) - averaging 3.625/1.85 damage
Level 5: 19 Dex, 18 Str, expert; +1 striking composite shortbow for +14 (2d6+2, deadly d10 - average 9 on success) - averaging 9.2/4.775 damage
Level 10: 20 Dex, 19 Str, expert; +1 striking flaming composite shortbow for +20 (2d6+4+1d6, deadly d10 - average 14.5 on success) - averaging 10.7/6.075 damage
Level 15: 21 Dex, 20 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming frost composite shortbow for +28 (3d6+8+2d6, deadly 2d10 - average 25.5 on success) - averaging 22.05/12.025 damage
Level 15 alternative: 21 Dex, 20 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming composite shortbow for +28 (3d6+8+1d6, deadly 2d10 - average 22 on success) - averaging 19.25/10.45 damageCompletely damage-optimized trident dragon barbarian with Raging Thrower, assuming returning trident because you desperately need that to throw with:
Level 1: 16 Dex, 18 Str, trained; javelin for +6 (1d6+8 - average 11.5 on success) - averaging 8.05/4/6 damage
Level 5: 18 Dex, 19 Str, expert; +1 striking returning trident for +14 (2d8+8 - average 17 on success) - averaging 15.3/8.5 damage
Level 10: 19 Dex, 20 Str, expert; +1 striking returning trident for +19 (2d8+15 - average 24 on success) - averaging 14.4/8.4 damage
Level 15: 20 Dex, 21 Str, master; +2 greater striking flaming returning trident for +28 (3d8+27+1d6 - average 44 on success) - averaging 35.2/19.8 damageOptimized Bomber: (fixed numbers to account for double persistent on crit)
Level 1: averaging 5.5/3.4 damage
Level 5: averaging 12.9/8.4 damage
Level 10: averaging 14.45/9.8 damage
Level 15: averaging 20.5/13.525 damageShortbow fighter with PBS, no property runes:
Level 1: averaging 6.875/3.3 damage
Level 5: averaging 12.65/6.275 damage
Level 10: averaging 13.5/7.225 damage
Level 15: averaging 25.25/14.05 damageOptimized trident-throwing fighter:
Level 1: averaging 6.5/3.575 damage
Level 5: averaging 14.3/7.8 damage
Level 10: averaging 14.4/8 damage
Level 15: averaging 30/16.5 damage
So uh, you may notice an interesting problem with our alchemist friend, one that proficiency is clearly not the solution to. Between 3 and 11, they just don't advance at all in damage. Really, I think the biggest problem here is not getting martial-level weapon specialization - that advancement gap in damage is just sad to see. That would also help smooth out their advancement curve, with bonuses at 3, 7, 11, 15, 17.
(Though RIP to the throwing barbarian "only" falling back to fighter numbers by level 10 - that expert + Dex bonus at level 5 is a massive jump.)| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Napkin math for Calculated Splash bomber with martial proficiency:
Level 1: 16 Dex, 18 Int, trained; lesser fire for +6 (1d8, 1 persistent, 1 splash - 7.5 average on success) - averaging 5.5/3.4 damage
Level 5: 18 Dex, 19 Int, expert; moderate fire for +14 (2d8, 2 persistent, 4 splash - 17 average on success) - averaging 15.5/10.5 damage
Level 10: 19 Dex, 20 Int, expert; moderate fire for +19 (2d8, 2 persistent, 7 splash - 20 average on success) - averaging 14.45/9.8 damage
Level 15: 20 Dex, 21 Int, master; greater fire for +28 (3d8+3, 3 persistent, 8 splash - 30.5 average on success) - averaging 25.6/16.925 damage
TL;DR: Martial Calculated Splash bomber spends no money, competes with optimized fighter archer in damage. This is clearly not a good solution.
I've had this horrible, long, sad sinking feeling that the real culprit in this whole thing is the Quick Bomber feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I see discussion on alchemists as pretty important ... Are devs gonna revisit things that no one bothers to discuss?
I see the discussion as important as well, but a real discussion.
Qualitatively, I feel like there are a bunch of fixes that the alchemist needs. Quantitatively, I don't have a large N on my own, and don't consider most of the data generated to be very high quality. I don't think there are simple fixes.
One of the "fixes" happens naturally, over time, as more stuff is added. The alchemist got better with ghost charges and the poison bombs added with APG (stuff I wish had been available when my alchemist was lower level).
But here's the thing: the devs clearly spent a whole bunch of time fixing non-problems in the errata, like Level 1 alchemists not having enough bombs; or minor problems, like Quick Alchemied tanglefoot bags not scaling with class DC.
I would rather they spend their time doing things like adding better things to the Debilitating Bomb chain, for example, being able to target different saves, since APL monster Fortitude vs. Class DC really doesn't debilitate. To that end, I completely agree that a good discussion about the alchemist is valuable - but one that has to be realistic about where the class is right now.
I'm personally very much a "play the game as it is" kind of guy.
I resonate with that. My first three characters were classes that were widely panned when 2E came out - the alchemist, DEX-based champion (and for whatever reason people hated redeemer at first), and divine sorcerer (I think the sorcerer was deemed okay but the initial reaction was that the divine list suuuuucked). To be clear, I didn't think any of them would become monsters, but I was pretty sure that none were as bad as the knee-jerk criticisms in 2019 made them out to be.
I was right on 2 of those 3 classes, they're fun to play and they hold their own. One admittedly does suuuuuuck and I waffle whether to continue playing. It's not the alchemist.
I've been aggressive with the rebuilding, taking advantage of every PFS boon, so I readily admit that the best build was not obvious at first (and may still not be obvious now), but they're fine classes.
If you shorted alchemist in 2019, pretty sure $ALCH went BRRR. It's not a Fortune 500 class, but it holds its own.
A whole bunch of classes are like that. Someone throws out some kind of one-liner and it just gets repeated. For example, given that constantly complains about alchemist "feat taxes," note how many people readily propose 2-3 multiclass dedication feats to fix INT-to-hit. I mean ... alchemist can't be full of essential math fixers that you have to take if you can afford to not take 3 levels worth of them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Animated Paper:
I think my general issue is the assumption that alchemists need to sacrifice something to get something else.
To obtain, something of equal or greater value must be lost......this is the the law of equivalent exchange, the fundamental principle of all alchemy (Full Metal Alchemist theme starts blaring in the background). (Tips hat) Thank you I'll see my weeby self out!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But here's the thing: the devs clearly spent a whole bunch of time fixing non-problems in the errata, like Level 1 alchemists not having enough bombs; or minor problems, like Quick Alchemied tanglefoot bags not scaling with class DC.
Just keep in mind that your non-problem might be a huge problem for someone else. Pretty much every Alchemist player I've ever played with or GMed to has complained about not having enough reagents at low level and having to resort to crossbows and similar things when you go out of bombs/elixirs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like you're going off something I spouted a few posts ago, that splash damage on failure doesn't feel any more like success. I think the takeaway from that is less that the damage is negligible and more that the special effects for bombs can't happen. Bottled lightning or dread ampoule can get your rogue friends salivating, but if you keep missing and dealing splash damage, the real benefits are missing even if your numbers are okay. It's that "active help" in combat that seems to be lacking, though I think dealing better (or less feat-locked) damage on the whole would mitigate that.
Not at all, I'm taking into account three things you said:
1- that splash damage on a miss doesn't feel like a win to you
2- that splash damage making up a large portion of your damage feels bad
3- that you want to be able to see numbers that rival a barbarian thrower
And given how very much damage splash does, as Cyuoni was kind enough to demonstrate mathematically, I really don't see much room to give you big enough hits to keep up with Barbarian math fixers without minimizing splash, or alchemists becoming brokenly good.
Edit: If the damage isn't a problem after all, but the fact that you can only deal the side effects of bombs on a hit, then it would be easy enough to make a feat that switches things up so that the debuffs always happen but splash does not. You'd no longer deal competitive damage of course, but at least your debuffs would go off reliably. Make it an additive feat, and you can switch up debuffs and damage strikes every time you use your perpetual infusions.
Just keep in mind that your non-problem might be a huge problem for someone else. Pretty much every Alchemist player I've ever played with or GMed to has complained about not having enough reagents at low level and having to resort to crossbows and similar things when you go out of bombs/elixirs.
But here's the thing: the devs clearly spent a whole bunch of time fixing non-problems in the errata, like Level 1 alchemists not having enough bombs; or minor problems, like Quick Alchemied tanglefoot bags not scaling with class DC.
I'm actually curious as to why this has come up. Especially if you look at low level comparisons, if we try and equalize the "extracts" and maximize the bombs:
PF1 (Int 18, headband at 4): 5/6/7/9/10 bombs, 2/3/4/6/8 extracts
PF2 (Int 18, no research field): 6/8/8/10/10 bombs, 4/4/6/6/8 elixirs
You're actually better off than PF1 for the low levels. So the question is, what's the problem here? Is it because people are using "fast bombs" to throw multiple in a round? Is it because they expect to throw bombs every round of every day? Some other reason?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better off than in PF1 assumes that things were fine in PF1, but "bombers run out of bombs really fast, especially at low levels" was a really common complaint in that game too (and was one of the reasons bombers were so overshadowed by mutagenists in that game).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually curious as to why this has come up. Especially if you look at low level comparisons, if we try and equalize the "extracts" and maximize the bombs:
PF1 (Int 18, headband at 4): 5/6/7/9/10 bombs, 2/3/4/6/8 extracts
PF2 (Int 18, no research field): 6/8/8/10/10 bombs, 4/4/6/6/8 elixirsYou're actually better off than PF1 for the low levels. So the question is, what's the problem here? Is it because people are using "fast bombs" to throw multiple in a round? Is it because they expect to throw bombs every round of every day? Some other reason?
I don't play and haven't played 1e for more than 2 sessions, and neither do my fellows, so the comparisons don't really mean much to us. I can at least try to answer you question though with the feedback that was given to me. It basically boiled down to "people want to do cool alchemical things every round, and if you try to do that before perpetuals (especially in the very early levels), you'll quickly find yourself using a crossbow instead".
Martials can always be martial. Casters can always be casters because cantrips are very serviceable now. Alchemist is the only class in the game stuck in this weird paradigm for a long time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also kind of a shame, from a design perspective, that Alchemists have the biggest problem with resources at low level but don't gain an at-will option until mid levels, when resource management starts to become increasingly less important (chirurgeons getting the ability to at-will produce items with a 24 hour duration is also a bit of an odd decision).
"Not enough reagents" actually has not been a complaint raised at my table. I could see it being different in an AP setting though.
Seriously, the more I poke at the class right now, the more it looks like Quick Bomber is a major root of the math problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Not enough reagents" actually has not been a complaint raised at my table. I could see it being different in an AP setting though.
Seriously, the more I poke at the class right now, the more it looks like Quick Bomber is a major root of the math problems.
I'm kind of confused how you come to that conclusion. It's just quick draw for bombs. If you premake bombs using Advanced alchemy to keep yourself in top end bombs that you stow away, you can use Quick Alchemy perpetual infusions to make bombs for follow-up strikes without even using any of your reagents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually curious as to why this has come up. Especially if you look at low level comparisons, if we try and equalize the "extracts" and maximize the bombs:
PF1 (Int 18, headband at 4): 5/6/7/9/10 bombs, 2/3/4/6/8 extracts
PF2 (Int 18, no research field): 6/8/8/10/10 bombs, 4/4/6/6/8 elixirsYou're actually better off than PF1 for the low levels. So the question is, what's the problem here? Is it because people are using "fast bombs" to throw multiple in a round? Is it because they expect to throw bombs every round of every day? Some other reason?
I don't play and haven't played 1e for more than 2 sessions, and neither do my fellows, so the comparisons don't really mean much to us. I can at least try to answer you question though with the feedback that was given to me. It basically boiled down to "people want to do cool alchemical things every round, and if you try to do that before perpetuals (especially in the very early levels), you'll quickly find yourself using a crossbow instead".
Martials can always be martial. Casters can always be casters because cantrips are very serviceable now. Alchemist is the only class in the game stuck in this weird paradigm for a long time.
That's...not really realistically possible, though. Alchemy can't be reliably useful, universally accessible, infinite, and balanced. The only real solution to that is really to add something like level 0 elixirs/bombs that are significantly less effective, and I don't think anyone would be happy with that.
Making reagents more like invested items (in that there's a high static cap) wouldn't really be helpful either, because that would definitely tax new players to have the choices of a mid-level alchemist.I think that alchemists fall significantly closer to martial on that scale than they do casters, and should be treated more like a martial. They get martial defensive proficiencies, for example (comparable to fighter), and their weapon proficiency progresses slightly faster than casters'.
I'm actually curious as to why this has come up. Especially if you look at low level comparisons, if we try and equalize the "extracts" and maximize the bombs:
PF1 (Int 18, headband at 4): 5/6/7/9/10 bombs, 2/3/4/6/8 extracts
PF2 (Int 18, no research field): 6/8/8/10/10 bombs, 4/4/6/6/8 elixirsYou're actually better off than PF1 for the low levels. So the question is, what's the problem here? Is it because people are using "fast bombs" to throw multiple in a round? Is it because they expect to throw bombs every round of every day? Some other reason?
I don't play and haven't played 1e for more than 2 sessions, and neither do my fellows, so the comparisons don't really mean much to us. I can at least try to answer you question though with the feedback that was given to me. It basically boiled down to "people want to do cool alchemical things every round, and if you try to do that before perpetuals (especially in the very early levels), you'll quickly find yourself using a crossbow instead".
Martials can always be martial. Casters can always be casters because cantrips are very serviceable now. Alchemist is the only class in the game stuck in this weird paradigm for a long time.
That's...not really realistically possible, though. Alchemy can't be reliably useful, universally accessible, infinite, and balanced. The only real solution to that is really to add something like level 0 elixirs/bombs that are significantly less effective, and I don't think anyone would be happy with that.
Making reagents more like invested items (in that there's a high static cap) wouldn't really be helpful either, because that would definitely tax new players to have the choices of a mid-level alchemist.I think that alchemists fall significantly closer to martial on that scale than they do casters, and should be treated more like a martial. They get martial defensive proficiencies, for example (comparable to fighter), and their weapon proficiency...
I appreciate your math work in a big way, but I am conflicted on the martial comparison.
Spell proficiency is more similar to bombs and elixirs in my stance as they are both mostly consumable resources, be it scrolls or spellslots, ya know? All of them continue to advance to at least master at 15th.
I appreciate your math work in a big way, but I am conflicted on the martial comparison.
Spell proficiency is more similar to bombs and elixirs in my stance as they are both mostly consumable resources, be it scrolls or spellslots, ya know? All of them continue to advance to at least master at 15th.
Honestly, alchemists are in a weird spot proficiency-wise. Let's break down the general standards.
Martials:
- Weapon proficiency upgrade at 5 and 13
- Weapon specialization upgrade at 7 and 15
- Armour upgrade at 13 and 19
- Two good saves, upgrading three times at 7/13/17 or 9/15
- Class DC upgrade at 9/17
Spellcasters:
- Weapon proficiency upgrade at 11
- Weapon specialization at 13
- Armour upgrade at 13
- One good save, upgrading all over the place (wizard/sorc/witch is 17, druid is 11, bard is 9/17, cleric/oracle is 7/17)
- Spell DC upgrade at 7/15/19
Levels this happens at can vary by 2, but this is generally what you expect to see as a base. So what does alchemist end up as?
- Weapon proficiency upgrade at 7
- Weapon specialization at 13
- Armour upgrade at 13 and 19
- Two good saves, upgrading at 11/15
- Class DC upgrade at 9/17
So you can see that though their weapon proficiency is only a little higher than caster level, the rest of their proficiencies fall pretty in-line with standard martial expectations despite alchemical items being closer to spells than they are...the other things class DC is normally used for.
(Also I just noticed that alchemists have been stealth upgraded to medium armour universally on AoN. Did that happen in the second printing?)
As a side note, Wizard's Scroll Savant also gives us an expectation as to what a daily consumable is priced at. As a level 10 feat, it's priced at creating a level 5 and 3 item. This does scale up, but the item level will always stay 4 and 6 levels lower than the character at best.
Witch's Temporary Potions is similar, creating two potions that must be 6 levels lower.
(Also I just noticed that alchemists have been stealth upgraded to medium armour universally on AoN. Did that happen in the second printing?)
Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata (Part 2)
Page 71: Alchemists should have proficiency in medium armor to make things easier for mutagenists who pursue higher Strength and lower Dexterity. Add training in medium armor to their initial proficiencies as well as to their 13th and 19th level armor expertise and mastery class features.
(Also I just noticed that alchemists have been stealth upgraded to medium armour universally on AoN. Did that happen in the second printing?)Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata (Part 2)
Page 71: Alchemists should have proficiency in medium armor to make things easier for mutagenists who pursue higher Strength and lower Dexterity. Add training in medium armor to their initial proficiencies as well as to their 13th and 19th level armor expertise and mastery class features.
Huh, I thought that was for mutagenists only. Not sure how much it'll be used (perhaps by Poisoners?), but I guess that does make Sentinel an option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Also I just noticed that alchemists have been stealth upgraded to medium armour universally on AoN. Did that happen in the second printing?)Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata (Part 2)
Page 71: Alchemists should have proficiency in medium armor to make things easier for mutagenists who pursue higher Strength and lower Dexterity. Add training in medium armor to their initial proficiencies as well as to their 13th and 19th level armor expertise and mastery class features.
Side Note: The proficiency upgrades at 13th and 19th were accidentally left out of the CRB 2nd printing. They were added to Nethys, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kind of confused how you come to that conclusion. It's just quick draw for bombs. If you premake bombs using Advanced alchemy to keep yourself in top end bombs that you stow away, you can use Quick Alchemy perpetual infusions to make bombs for follow-up strikes without even using any of your reagents."Not enough reagents" actually has not been a complaint raised at my table. I could see it being different in an AP setting though.
Seriously, the more I poke at the class right now, the more it looks like Quick Bomber is a major root of the math problems.
You don't see how your top level bombs, which you make at a price of 3 for 1, being altered from Reload 1 to Reload 0 modifies how effective the class is at dealing damage? Especially as one of the main sticking points is that splash damage on failure is maintaining the white room math enough to make the class appear to be in line with other ranged options?
Any action economy booster is going to be, generally, both very powerful and borderline assumed. Removing Quick Bomber from the equation means the bombs can be scaled in damage, accuracy, and effects with a once-per-turn sort of value. I dunno. Just seems like splash on failure promotes bomb spam and mandates lower damage and accuracy--unless spam weren't quite so plausible?
It also would have the knock-on effect of bringing bombs back into line with the math of literally all the rest of the alchemist.
EDIT: This post reads kinda assholish. Not my intention and I'm not sure how to fix it, so I'll just offer a general apology here. I still stand by my thoughts but I very much value all y'all's input and experience here. :)
So while that would theoretically be plausible, you'd have to explicitly build in a counter to Quick Draw being picked up through any means. Not that it means it can't be done, but you'd have to block any method of Interact/Strike. It would also have to block things like Haste, which is also a bit of a problem.
The main reason it works for spells is because spells aren't Strikes.
So while that would theoretically be plausible, you'd have to explicitly build in a counter to Quick Draw being picked up through any means. Not that it means it can't be done, but you'd have to block any method of Interact/Strike. It would also have to block things like Haste, which is also a bit of a problem.
The main reason it works for spells is because spells aren't Strikes.
Damn, I didn't realize the language matched between the two.
I'm getting why this class is a tangle and hasn't been particularly fixed. Hmm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: This post reads kinda assholish. Not my intention and I'm not sure how to fix it, so I'll just offer a general apology here. I still stand by my thoughts but I very much value all y'all's input and experience here. :)
No worries, I didn't think you were very harsh, just emphatic.
Given that the Returning Rune also effectively turns throwing weapons into reload 0 weapons, no, I don't think Quick Bomber is the biggest problem.
Honestly, while I've come to the conclusion that Bombers aren't bad off, as long as you're willing to see splash damage as a major contributor (I ran numbers to get about 900 damage over 20 rounds, with 400 of that splash damage and about 200 of THAT was splash damage on a miss), it takes almost your entire build (both feats and some pretty useful class abilities) to arrive at what most martials can just do with a returning and basic runes.
Honestly, if all you're worried about is 1 hit per round build, then the alchemist is almost there. Top end bombs keep up with fundamental weapon runes, and also tend to have bigger damage die in the first place. Only reason barbarians get such huge numbers in comparison is that they have gigantic math fixers of their own.
Like, for example, my good friend Guppy the Giant instinct barbarian. She gets, at level 15, +26 to damage on every strike after level 15, with no limits on how often she can use that. That's the equivalent of tacking 4d12 onto every single strike. That Oso the alchemist gets 9 splash damage is what keeps him in earshot of Guppy, as again he gets splash damage on 19 of 20 rolls at the same time Guppy gets that bonus on 10 hits and 1 crit (2 crits assuming a keen rune).
I actually disagree with Cyuoni's conclusion regarding Master proficiency. I think it is fine, especially if it comes online later than Martials (warpriests would get it too, in my design, since they are the other class on the Support chassis). I'd prefer they make some kind of mutagen that gives you an increase to your bombs item bonus though, so that both bombers and mutagenists can make some use of the others specialty. I'd also like to see some kind of item that lets you add property (not fundamental) runes to your bombs.
Actually a single mutagen that does both would work, I suppose.
Edit:
Honestly, alchemists are in a weird spot proficiency-wise. Let's break down the general standards.
For the longest time, I had Warpriests and Alchemists labeled as "Oddballs" in my class proficiency analysis sheet. I finally relabeled them "Support" in December, but they are clearly intended to be a 3rd proficiency bundle; comments from the designers regarding the Inventor seems to confirm that.
I eagerly anticipate the arrival of our 4th chassis, the gish (which is almost but not quite the martial chassis).
I've been mentally toying with Master weapon proficiency at 17, to coincide with the last bomb upgrade, but I'm not sure how I feel on that. Maybe I'll run some numbers later and see how that plays out.
I would definitely not give it to warpriest, though, master weapon proficiency and full slots is a thing Paizo has been staying away from, even on the magus's master spell proficiency. (Watch as magus gets full 3 slots in the final version and I eat my words.)
I haven't seen the dev comments on proficiency for the inventor, though, which might be worth a look if you have a link ready.
They've stayed away from it so far, but honestly there's no particular reason to do so. Greater Weapon Specialization is a lot more powerful, and Warpriests would lack the key stat synergy martials get (not to mention the other flat damage bonuses most other martials get).
Further, they wouldn't get master proficiency with all martial, or even all simple weapons. Only their deity's favored weapon, if we're keeping things in line with current status.
Also I'd go with level 19. Alchemist lack a level 19 class feature, so that would work and by then "balance" is in scare quotes for all classes anyways.
I just don't think one level of armour proficiency and greater weapon specialization offset the fact that you have full spell slots, including 9th level heal/harm, heroism, and quite a few gods that pick up true strike (including standard favourite Gorum, who also has the damaging weapon standard).
Maybe I'll run both 17 and 19 and see. 19 does line up nicely with Major Striking, so that's nice too.
I just don't think one level of armour proficiency and greater weapon specialization offset the fact that you have full spell slots, including 9th level heal/harm, heroism, and quite a few gods that pick up true strike (including standard favourite Gorum, who also has the damaging weapon standard).
Maybe I'll run both 17 and 19 and see. 19 does line up nicely with Major Striking, so that's nice too.
It doesn't. That's what the other 4-6 non-proficiency class features every martial character has over every caster are for.
|
I'll just point out something that was missed when talking about "what boost an alchemist's AC?":
Mistform Elixir is very good for that. It stacks with most other AC buff. I often stack these "flat check" defenses on my characters and this has helped me a lot (I often take "Unexpected shift" when playing gnomes, for example). Being concealed is almost always useful (there's not a lot of monsters that can see through the mist).