Alchemist's and the Bulk issue.


Classes

51 to 73 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Just grab Strength 14 to start. Easy peasy lemon squeasy.
No thanks...
Yeah, sorry, but you're playing a class that you KNOW needs to carry a LOT of stuff.

Only because the game goes out of it's way to make the bulk add up for them. IMO it makes as much sense as making spellbooks 6 bulk and saying 'it works fine, wizards just need to take a 14 str!!!'. Or as much sense as snare kits weighing 6 bulk... :P

It boils down to alchemists not being a good enough class to start with and then saddling them with throwing away 4 stat points for no other reason than carry... No need to kick them when they are already down. Heck Cha is more important to a alchemist than str should be.


graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Just grab Strength 14 to start. Easy peasy lemon squeasy.
No thanks...
Yeah, sorry, but you're playing a class that you KNOW needs to carry a LOT of stuff.

Only because the game goes out of it's way to make the bulk add up for them. IMO it makes as much sense as making spellbooks 6 bulk and saying 'it works fine, wizards just need to take a 14 str!!!'. Or as much sense as snare kits weighing 6 bulk... :P

It boils down to alchemists not being a good enough class to start with and then saddling them with throwing away 4 stat points for no other reason than carry... No need to kick them when they are already down. Heck Cha is more important to a alchemist than str should be.

The snare kit is a fairly obvious oversight since the alchemist kit only has a bulk of 2, whomever entered it into the system was thinking of it just like any artisan kit. A stupid mistake, but this is a beta game.

You don't even technically have to carry around your formula book. Nothing in advanced or quick alchemy says you need it to make those abilities work, and if you are doing regular crafting then bulk isn't an issue.

Charisma is only more important for the extra resonance feat, and while it is certainly very valuable, its not game breaking not to have it. I do wish we got to add 1/2 str to primary target with bombs though, or like in older Shadowrun, range for thrown weapons was effected by str.

But yeah, the alchemist class is in a really bad place at the moment. It would be really difficult for it not to improve after the rules rewrite.


Joey Cote wrote:
The snare kit is a fairly obvious oversight

I wouldn't be too sure. Look at artisan’s tools, bulk 8. Yes a sewing kit is up to 80 pounds...

Joey Cote wrote:
You don't even technically have to carry around your formula book.

There are 2 issues with this. #1 it's been pretty unanimous from people I've asked about it that they'd expect you to have your book with you and #2 where do you leave your book if you can? If someone walks off with it, you instantly forget how to make anything so it seems like something you wouldn't want to leave at home on the dresser.

Joey Cote wrote:
Charisma is only more important for the extra resonance feat

Correct while I see no benefit for str on a non-melee alchemist. It's as important as Str on a wizard. With alchemists being SO far behind wizards, I can't see a reason to force them to take a 14 str and not the wizard: It just seems mean to rob them of +4 to stats on something they'll never use for anything meaningful as a punishment for being turned into a 'mundane' character class.


graystone wrote:
Joey Cote wrote:
The snare kit is a fairly obvious oversight

I wouldn't be too sure. Look at artisan’s tools, bulk 8. Yes a sewing kit is up to 80 pounds...

Joey Cote wrote:
You don't even technically have to carry around your formula book.

There are 2 issues with this. #1 it's been pretty unanimous from people I've asked about it that they'd expect you to have your book with you and #2 where do you leave your book if you can? If someone walks off with it, you instantly forget how to make anything so it seems like something you wouldn't want to leave at home on the dresser.

Joey Cote wrote:
Charisma is only more important for the extra resonance feat
Correct while I see no benefit for str on a non-melee alchemist. It's as important as Str on a wizard. With alchemists being SO far behind wizards, I can't see a reason to force them to take a 14 str and not the wizard: It just seems mean to rob them of +4 to stats on something they'll never use for anything meaningful as a punishment for being turned into a 'mundane' character class.

Yes, those kits are 8, but those kits aren't intended to be used in the field like alchemist kits, snare kits, and repair kits are. And a kit for tailoring would include a lot more then needle and thread.

Where you leave your book is a problem. But the Advanced Alchemy and Quick Alchemy ability ignore all parts of the rules on crafting except requiring you have the formula in your book. If you actually needed the book to do them, it would be required in the ability, like the alchemist kit is required. Assumed is not the same thing as required.

You can always have others hold a few of your alchemist items if you are that encumbered and you don't feel like investing any points into strength or into hefty hauler. Heck, you could buy a war trained animal to carry stuff for you. And remember that strength is the controlling stat for athletics, and in the games we have done, althletics have been some needed rolls.


Joey Cote wrote:
Yes, those kits are 8, but those kits aren't intended to be used in the field like alchemist kits, snare kits, and repair kits are. And a kit for tailoring would include a lot more then needle and thread.

If they aren't intended for field use, there is no reason to list them... There isn't rules for building and such, so you can't buy space for them. I don't see any tangible way to deal with them other than taking them with you.

Joey Cote wrote:
And a kit for tailoring would include a lot more then needle and thread.

Sure... 80 pounds of extras? An old hand crank portable sewing machine is only 32 pounds [including the carrying case].

Joey Cote wrote:
Assumed is not the same thing as required.

When the DM assumes it's required, it's required. It's hard to argue with the Dm when everyone else in the group also assumes it's required. It much the same as the wizard: it just says you prepare spells from your spellbook but never explicitly states you prepare them from the book physically. I'm not seeing DM allowing spells prepared from a spellbook left at home.

Joey Cote wrote:
Heck, you could buy a war trained animal to carry stuff for you.

This doesn't work as you have to handle then control the animal, meaning you fatigue yourself after 10 min of doing so [and somehow you have to figure out how to move yourself].


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Just grab Strength 14 to start. Easy peasy lemon squeasy.
No thanks...

Yeah, sorry, but you're playing a class that you KNOW needs to carry a LOT of stuff. Do you think no classes should have ancillary stats? Seriously?

A Paladin needs high Str.
A Paladin needs high Cha.
A Paladin needs some Dex.

You think it's somehow unfair for an Alchemist?

An Alchemist needs high Int.
An Alchemist needs high Dex.
An Alchemist needs some Str.

That's fine.

Congrats.

CON is the new dump stat. And no one is going to want to raise CHA besides PLA and Bard right? Right?

Oooooooooooh......

No really the only thing I take away is that yes, Alchemist can't dump it. I'm against huge stat dumps(limit to 8 myself) but I'd like to be able to sit at baseline for a few levels. STR is still probably one of the last stats I'll raise on a bomber/support Alchemist. Heck I'll raise CON first unless I'm rolling some melee build.

Or just buy a mule/peon to carry it a room or two back. Maybe ask the barbarian to carry extras.


what if the bulk an alchemist can carry without having a high str was intended to keep players from preparing massive amounts of bombs and, therefore, want to utilize 'quick alchemy'. i mean, lets face it, we all realized that making a ton of bombs in the morning is more cost effective, and i think the devs saw that coming...
also, ya'll know that thrown weapons use Dex for attack right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grandmaster Vile wrote:

what if the bulk an alchemist can carry without having a high str was intended to keep players from preparing massive amounts of bombs and, therefore, want to utilize 'quick alchemy'. i mean, lets face it, we all realized that making a ton of bombs in the morning is more cost effective, and i think the devs saw that coming...

also, ya'll know that thrown weapons use Dex for attack right?

Doesn't really hold. The Alchemist can only make two bombs per resonance point, and that really isn't a lot for more then 3 fights in a day. And when you consider how bad the bomb damage is, it becomes less and less appealing. As for being cost effective, I think most of us consider 2 alchemist items resonance points to not even be enough considering duration of effects and the strength of the alchemist items. On top of that, I think that is giving Paizo's design team far too much subtlety.


My alchemist deals with it by being a cavalier. It fits his motif of being a traveling salesman who peddles wares to adventurers, but I can definately see why not everyone would want to go that route


Again, the solution here is just to grab a +1 or +2 strength.

If you don't, you still function, just a little less so. Until you get a bag of holding anyway.

Every other class has to spread points around. Alchemist is no different.

Barbarians need Str, Dex, and Con
Wizards need Int, Dex, and Wis (as they WANT to go first)
Rogues need Dex, Wis, and... Ok they only really need two.
Fighters need Str, Dex, and Con (usually)
Paladins need Str, Cha, and some Dex.
Bards need Cha, Dex, and Wis (they also want to go first)
Monks need Str, Dex, and usually Wis.
Rangers need Dex, Wis, and usually some Str.
Sorcerers need Cha, Dex, and Wis (going first is a big deal)
Alchemists need Int, Dex, and Str.

Can you skimp on the third stat? Sure. Barbies can ignore Con. Wizards can ignore Wis. Fighters can ignore Con. Paladins can ignore Dex. Bards can ignore Wis. Monks can skip Wis. Rangers can dump Str, and it works great if they're bow users. Sorcs can skip Wis. Alchemists can skip Str.

If you do though it can hinder you.

Barbs will lament having lower hp.
Wizzies will groan about losing init.
Rogues... Ok they're a Paizo favored class, so we don't count them.
Fighters will feel the barbie's low hp woes.
Pallies will hate having lower AC on top of acp.
Bards will be annoyed as their team mates act before they can get inspire up.
Monks will want more Ki (and init).
Rangers won't have as much melee damage or propulsion damage.
Sorcs wont be able to place spells while enemies are clumped.
And, yes, Alchemists will have encumbrance issues.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Again, the solution here is just to grab a +1 or +2 strength.

If you don't, you still function, just a little less so. Until you get a bag of holding anyway.

Every other class has to spread points around. Alchemist is no different.

Barbarians need Str, Dex, and Con
Wizards need Int, Dex, and Wis (as they WANT to go first)
Rogues need Dex, Wis, and... Ok they only really need two.
Fighters need Str, Dex, and Con (usually)
Paladins need Str, Cha, and some Dex.
Bards need Cha, Dex, and Wis (they also want to go first)
Monks need Str, Dex, and usually Wis.
Rangers need Dex, Wis, and usually some Str.
Sorcerers need Cha, Dex, and Wis (going first is a big deal)
Alchemists need Int, Dex, and Str.

Can you skimp on the third stat? Sure. Barbies can ignore Con. Wizards can ignore Wis. Fighters can ignore Con. Paladins can ignore Dex. Bards can ignore Wis. Monks can skip Wis. Rangers can dump Str, and it works great if they're bow users. Sorcs can skip Wis. Alchemists can skip Str.

If you do though it can hinder you.

Barbs will lament having lower hp.
Wizzies will groan about losing init.
Rogues... Ok they're a Paizo favored class, so we don't count them.
Fighters will feel the barbie's low hp woes.
Pallies will hate having lower AC on top of acp.
Bards will be annoyed as their team mates act before they can get inspire up.
Monks will want more Ki (and init).
Rangers won't have as much melee damage or propulsion damage.
Sorcs wont be able to place spells while enemies are clumped.
And, yes, Alchemists will have encumbrance issues.

using your same exact words, alchemists want:

int (need to make their stuff), dex (need to actually hit), cha (need to grab extra resonance feat), wis (need to prebuff/need to attack enemies while clamped, need to attack enemies with splash before your melee close in), str (need to carry their stuff)

doesn't really compare to all the others needing 3 stats.

you can keep ignoring facts, but they don't change


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Again, the solution here is just to grab a +1 or +2 strength.

And again, I'll say "no" that isn't a solution. Unless you can explain WHY an alchemist NEEDS more stats than a wizard [even though the wizard is objectively so much better], that is not a useful or satisfying 'solution'. What is it about alchemist that necessitates them needing more stats than others?


graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Again, the solution here is just to grab a +1 or +2 strength.
And again, I'll say "no" that isn't a solution. Unless you can explain WHY an alchemist NEEDS more stats than a wizard [even though the wizard is objectively so much better], that is not a useful or satisfying 'solution'. What is it about alchemist that necessitates them needing more stats than others?

meh, i'll giv e it a rest.

i mean, there is ONE guy on the whole forums that thinks that alchemists should invest in strength to be able to work, and everyone else who commented agrees that it needs to be fixed.

if he hasn't realized he's wrong by now, he'll never will.


Ok so let me get this right. An alchemist can only make 2 bombs with advanced alchemy and one with quick alchemy. They could create 4 during downtime activity or 8 if they have the level 4 feat efficient alchemy but would have to roll the usual crafting roll to see if they suceed?


shroudb wrote:
graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Again, the solution here is just to grab a +1 or +2 strength.
And again, I'll say "no" that isn't a solution. Unless you can explain WHY an alchemist NEEDS more stats than a wizard [even though the wizard is objectively so much better], that is not a useful or satisfying 'solution'. What is it about alchemist that necessitates them needing more stats than others?

meh, i'll giv e it a rest.

i mean, there is ONE guy on the whole forums that thinks that alchemists should invest in strength to be able to work, and everyone else who commented agrees that it needs to be fixed.

if he hasn't realized he's wrong by now, he'll never will.

1. I'm not wrong.

2. I'm not the only person who thinks this.
3. You're not a Wizard. You're a different class that plays by different rules.
4. The Wizard's capabilities have nothing to do with this, unless you see strength as a weak stat and lament that Wizards get a "better" optimized stat selection.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
shroudb wrote:
graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Again, the solution here is just to grab a +1 or +2 strength.
And again, I'll say "no" that isn't a solution. Unless you can explain WHY an alchemist NEEDS more stats than a wizard [even though the wizard is objectively so much better], that is not a useful or satisfying 'solution'. What is it about alchemist that necessitates them needing more stats than others?

meh, i'll giv e it a rest.

i mean, there is ONE guy on the whole forums that thinks that alchemists should invest in strength to be able to work, and everyone else who commented agrees that it needs to be fixed.

if he hasn't realized he's wrong by now, he'll never will.

1. I'm not wrong.

2. I'm not the only person who thinks this.
3. You're not a Wizard. You're a different class that plays by different rules.
4. The Wizard's capabilities have nothing to do with this, unless you see strength as a weak stat and lament that Wizards get a "better" optimized stat selection.

This thread alone proves you wrong.

You're the only one defending alchemists needing strength to be able to prepare their daily abilities.

Every other poster agrees that your logic is false and bulk issue should be fixed.

So yeah, no one cares what you think, Paizo can clearly see the consensus of its player base (and that's not you).

P. S.

You're right though. Alchemist is no wizard. He is worse in everything compared to wizard:
Worse utility
Worse damage
Worse even in martial capabilities
Worse in stats required
Worse narrative power

Bye


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UltimateDM wrote:
Ok so let me get this right. An alchemist can only make 2 bombs with advanced alchemy and one with quick alchemy. They could create 4 during downtime activity or 8 if they have the level 4 feat efficient alchemy but would have to roll the usual crafting roll to see if they suceed?

Everything created in downtime doesn't have the invested trait.

Making craft(alchemy) absolutely worthless for Alchemists.


to expand on that.

Without the invested trait, the bombs are always lv 1 and don't expand via Empower Bombs. Things like Elixir, mutagen etc, all cost 1rp as well to use. The infused trait meant that the Alchemist didn't have to pay this upon use (just at creation via Adv Alch or Quick Alch).

OF NOTE. though. Not all mundane items are pointless to the Alchemist, but I do not think they're worth the cost. Bottled Lighting, and tanglefoot bags will always be useful, regardless of their damage due to the debuff and no save nature. So having extras is fine of those.

But. it honestly is not worth the the large costs to actually craft them, but if you find them in loot it isn't bad to keep I think.

Granted, bomb damage is never really that useful, even with empowered. I tend to look at them more as a debuff myself, bottled lighting helping allies, acid flask causing DoT or eating their actions. Stuff like that.

Also quick alchemy is pretty much a false option, and should only be used for emergencies (silvershine, sunrod, dark vision, stuff that doesn't come up that often but is good to have stored away.Tanglefoots maybe) if you ask me.


UltimateDM wrote:
Ok so let me get this right. An alchemist can only make 2 bombs with advanced alchemy and one with quick alchemy. They could create 4 during downtime activity or 8 if they have the level 4 feat efficient alchemy but would have to roll the usual crafting roll to see if they suceed?

Correct and also stuff made that way is not considered infused unless you have the level 20 feat so none of the bombs you make that way can use your empowered bombs ability.


shroudb wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
shroudb wrote:
graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Again, the solution here is just to grab a +1 or +2 strength.
And again, I'll say "no" that isn't a solution. Unless you can explain WHY an alchemist NEEDS more stats than a wizard [even though the wizard is objectively so much better], that is not a useful or satisfying 'solution'. What is it about alchemist that necessitates them needing more stats than others?

meh, i'll giv e it a rest.

i mean, there is ONE guy on the whole forums that thinks that alchemists should invest in strength to be able to work, and everyone else who commented agrees that it needs to be fixed.

if he hasn't realized he's wrong by now, he'll never will.

1. I'm not wrong.

2. I'm not the only person who thinks this.
3. You're not a Wizard. You're a different class that plays by different rules.
4. The Wizard's capabilities have nothing to do with this, unless you see strength as a weak stat and lament that Wizards get a "better" optimized stat selection.

This thread alone proves you wrong.

You're the only one defending alchemists needing strength to be able to prepare their daily abilities.

Every other poster agrees that your logic is false and bulk issue should be fixed.

So yeah, no one cares what you think, Paizo can clearly see the consensus of its player base (and that's not you).

P. S.

You're right though. Alchemist is no wizard. He is worse in everything compared to wizard:
Worse utility
Worse damage
Worse even in martial capabilities
Worse in stats required
Worse narrative power

Bye

First let me point out that the "consensus" of a small group of Alchemist players on a forum forming an opinion about a class they care deeply about is not reliable.

There are groups of Wizard players who far outnumber you who think Wizards are extremely weak. They'll argue that Alchemists are better.

So that's not a defense.

Paizo built an entire sub-system just for alchemists. They KNOW they have bulk requirements. The way to meet those is strength. Your idea that this is some kind of mistake and that Paizo didn't realize this, when they made the alchemist kit so heavy, is very strange indeed.

Also popular isn't correct. A lot of people thought the Earth was flat. They were wrong. The same as here.

Currently, just run the numbers.

See how bulk works on your Alch with a 12 str at level 1, upgraded to 14 at 5.

See if the bulk issue isn't solved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

First let me point out that the "consensus" of a small group of Alchemist players on a forum forming an opinion about a class they care deeply about is not reliable.

There are groups of Wizard players who far outnumber you who think Wizards are extremely weak. They'll argue that Alchemists are better.

So that's not a defense.

Paizo built an entire sub-system just for alchemists. They KNOW they have bulk requirements. The way to meet those is strength. Your idea that this is some kind of mistake and that Paizo didn't realize this, when they made the alchemist kit so heavy, is very strange indeed.

Also popular isn't correct. A lot of people thought the Earth was flat. They were wrong. The same as here.

Currently, just run the numbers.

See how bulk works on your Alch with a 12 str at level 1, upgraded to 14 at 5.

See if the bulk issue isn't solved.

Neither is 1 man saying "Oh you're wrong" over and over again.

Pulling the "Flat earth" argument like you're some enlightened being here to teach the wisdom of the ages and say "Oh Alchemist is really a strong class with no problems at all, you foolish uninformed creatures".

Go back to the Paladin threads.


MerlinCross wrote:
"Oh Alchemist is really a strong class with no problems at all, you foolish uninformed creatures".

Ooooh I never said that.

I never said Alchemist has no problems.

There *are* issues, one of them isn't bulk.

The issues I see with the class have more to do with their interactions with larger systems though.

I find it really funky, for example, for an Alchemist to spend resonance, to make a healing potion, that they give to someone else, who then also has to spend resonance to drink.

That feels... Weird.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think bulk in general was cut a little tight, while the actual items it defines were thrown out a little too loosely for that tight math. I think that alchemist feels the symptoms of the problem a little harder than other classes because they're both equipment reliant, and not strength based despite somebody bringing up secondary and tertiary stat recommendations that reveal more about their own playstyle and priorities than how the game could be played.
This probably wouldn't be a problem if bulk was cleaned up a little. It's not a complicated system, but it is pretty large in that it governs most of how objects get moved around in the world. You could even say that it covers the bulk of the subject.
But hey, I've got a bit of an alchemical bias. What do I know?

Sorry, that was really snipey. I should eat something. I get all passive aggressive when I forget to eat.

I agree with you on that last part, Walsh. It feels super... Weird. And they've already used the word, "infused." Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if resonance gets a rework after that +&- blog, if it doesn't get replaced. Here's to hoping oddities like this get the hammer in whatever they're doing, but if it somehow makes it through intact it really could use a callback to the old Infusion discovery. A class feat to let the imbiber run a "definitely not a potion" on the alchemist's resonance investment would be an... adequate bandaid.

51 to 73 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Alchemist's and the Bulk issue. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes