Alchemist's and the Bulk issue.


Classes

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Howdy. So I wanted to point out, as I've not seen any specific thread dedicated to this..

but Alchemist's get really screwed Bulk wise. So base character is 5+str bulk for encumbrance.

So lets take a look at what is absolutely needed purely for class effects.
Alchemist Kit. 2 bulk
Formula Book 1 bulk (somehow)

That is 3 bulk straight up. out of the 5 you can do without encumbrance.

Much less things such as... armour. usually one bulk Repair kit? yup. more bulk. shield if they went for it ? weapons? L to a bulk depending~Then.. the weight from the daily created stuff, which can quite easily be a Bulk itself. This is all of course before things such as rations, bedding, and most importantly..
Loot from the actual adventuring.

At higher levels you can keep most of it in say an elsewhere bag of some sort----though I would note that your resonance point are in such high demand that using an elsewhere bag will be hard.. Most things you just stuff in and forget about it.
BUT!
For quick alchemy? The alchemist Kit must be accessible.. at least the formula book isn't as far as I know. so that could be "stowed" ... I think? You need the formula but not the book on hand.

Really, no matter what level I see, the alchemist will always have just an exceeding amount of Bulk just to operate on a baseline.
There are alchemist building for melee of course, which will have strength and this'll be less of an issue.. but dex based ones will have problems..
Right?

Well. I kind of just wanted to be sure this was mentioned somewhere. because it really adds to the problem of Alchemists' quality of life.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's ridiculous that arrows are 10 times less bulky than vials which are 1/4th their weight and height.

It should either be that vials are - Or at the very minimum 10 vials should be L (like ammunition), not 1


12 people marked this as a favorite.

It's amusing, because I thought pre-playtest that Paizo would be giving the Alchemist class special treatment as their golden-boy poster child for the game.

Instead, I was surprised at how little love Alchemists ended up getting. Between being starved for Resonance due to all class abilities triggering off the same pool and the issues they have with mandatory bulk, they're probably competing for last place with Sorcerers for least viable class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JDLPF wrote:

It's amusing, because I thought pre-playtest that Paizo would be giving the Alchemist class special treatment as their golden-boy poster child for the game.

Instead, I was surprised at how little love Alchemists ended up getting. Between being starved for Resonance due to all class abilities triggering off the same pool and the issues they have with mandatory bulk, they're probably competing for last place with Sorcerers for least viable class.

They are far below Sorcs.

Sorcs suffer mainly when Occult. And Staffs at later levels basically gives them extra spells known for RP (which they can afford to spend)

Alchemist is atm the weakest, followed by ranger, then all the others imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This was one of the main things I was looking for this morning. I was trying to build a goblin alchemists (whose hard of hearing from an explosive accident). I wanted him to have a chalk board around his neck to scribble words or images (since goblins are typically scared of words). Instead I've found that even basic gear is already at max bulk before that and I haven even got to alchemy items beyond the alchemists set. Even a 1 or 2 point bump, or more light items would be great. Or an ability that flavors as improved storage to make alchemy items weightless or somethings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I noticed the same problem and I forgot the formula book! I guess my elf alchemist may need to pump some iron?


shroudb wrote:

It's ridiculous that arrows are 10 times less bulky than vials which are 1/4th their weight and height.

It should either be that vials are - Or at the very minimum 10 vials should be L (like ammunition), not 1

Um vials are - weight. They are 5cp - weight 1 hand. It is not until they are used to become a potion/elixer/bomb that they bump to L weight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kaid wrote:
shroudb wrote:

It's ridiculous that arrows are 10 times less bulky than vials which are 1/4th their weight and height.

It should either be that vials are - Or at the very minimum 10 vials should be L (like ammunition), not 1

Um vials are - weight. They are 5cp - weight 1 hand. It is not until they are used to become a potion/elixer/bomb that they bump to L weight.

where vial; put in elixir/bomb/poison/alchemical item

I just used "vials" as an abbreviation instead of continuously writing everything the alchemist makes.


Nice catch, I hadn't notices the bulk issue. Would make a Bag of Holding mandatory... and that uses RP as well >.>

Does a spellbook also weight 1 Bulk? Or is this book-weight strictly an alchemist issue?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SnarkyChymist wrote:

Nice catch, I hadn't notices the bulk issue. Would make a Bag of Holding mandatory... and that uses RP as well >.>

Does a spellbook also weight 1 Bulk? Or is this book-weight strictly an alchemist issue?

the book is universal.

the 2 bulk toolkit and 1 bulk/10elixirs is alchemist only


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the design team pictures something like this as the standard alchemist.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

What we wanted

What we got


Those are great.

Also yeah i think spellbooks cost 1 as well..

but I also think that wizard don't have to auto carry as much other stuff.. (armour, kit, etc) except for extra stuff they wanna do (craft kits for instance)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It isn't an alchemist problem, it is a bulk problem.

The bulk system pretty much blows up any time it comes into contact with common sense.

If actual weights were involved instead of being straight jacketed into a system of nonsense units made up of two buckets that often don't make any sense, then none of this would be a problem because things would have weights that make actual sense.

The added insult, to the injury of a system that doesn't do common sense well, is that the only apparent reason to add the system is because they believe that people are too stupid to handle addition of 'big numbers' like 20 or 30.


N-Sphere wrote:

It isn't an alchemist problem, it is a bulk problem.

The bulk system pretty much blows up any time it comes into contact with common sense.

If actual weights were involved instead of being straight jacketed into a system of nonsense units made up of two buckets that often don't make any sense, then none of this would be a problem because things would have weights that make actual sense.

The added insult, to the injury of a system that doesn't do common sense well, is that the only apparent reason to add the system is because they believe that people are too stupid to handle addition of 'big numbers' like 20 or 30.

I don't have an issue with the actual bulk system. and the bit i'm addressing is regardless of bulks or pounds actually

Even if this was in amounts of lbs. and the rough% of weights were the same.
Those items-absolutely required by basics of the class, weigh a significant amount. or i guess take up extremely strange amounts of space

The previous system also had some issues occasionally with it. Like the alchemist's kit in that one being 40lbs. but. it wasn't actually required by class features and in fact isn't even mentioned in the class itself.

but. this thread in specific is about the inset item requirements of this class itself, rather than specifically the bulk system. Discussions on the bulk system and its application or dislike have other threads already.
Im just focusing on the actual ratio for the Alchemist class, and how much it actually has to carry by its own class set up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm running as a GM, so I'm not going to get to play, but I built a Gnome Nerdchemist to push the system around and see how it goes. At level one, it is encumbered at four bulk. Beyond the formula book, tools, a bedroll, a single day's rations, a water skin, a dagger, and padded armor, this hypothetical gnome has five light bulk to spare before she's encumbered. Throw in a basic crafting book to compensate for her lack of equipment, and she now has four light bulk left.

Then at level two, she gains the Wizard Multiclass Archetype Dedication Feat, stumbles across a spell book, and is now encumbered until either a potentially unreliable porter, PC or NPC, holds her things for her, or she gets some sick STR gains at fifth level, putting her right back were she was. A 10ft movement speed is pretty much a given for the poor wretch.

Admittedly, this is the far end of how bad it can get. It's just odd that it can get so bad, you know?


1of1 wrote:

I'm running as a GM, so I'm not going to get to play, but I built a Gnome Nerdchemist to push the system around and see how it goes. At level one, it is encumbered at four bulk. Beyond the formula book, tools, a bedroll, a single day's rations, a water skin, a dagger, and padded armor, this hypothetical gnome has five light bulk to spare before she's encumbered. Throw in a basic crafting book to compensate for her lack of equipment, and she now has four light bulk left.

Then at level two, she gains the Wizard Multiclass Archetype Dedication Feat, stumbles across a spell book, and is now encumbered until either a potentially unreliable porter, PC or NPC, holds her things for her, or she gets some sick STR gains at fifth level, putting her right back were she was. A 10ft movement speed is pretty much a given for the poor wretch.

Admittedly, this is the far end of how bad it can get. It's just odd that it can get so bad, you know?

Basic Wizard Spellcasting at 4th can help you outgrow this problem at 4th. But an entire feat to use Ant Haul is a bit dull.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I've suggested elsewhere, that they make one aspect of a alchemy kit, and it's base bulk, allow up to half of its bulk to be assigned to be holding the prepared items. (basically depending on how you ruled it could allow 9 light items, or 10 light items, or 19 light items) Alternately you could even simply allow all items built with your daily preparations can be held with the toolkit bulk, no matter how many it is.

If you separate them out, they begin counting as their typical L bulk, if you for some reason leave your toolkit behind somewhere.

Seems like a simple enough rule that allocates a block of bulk for alchemical prepared items, but reduces weight bookkeeping.


Paradozen wrote:
Basic Wizard Spellcasting at 4th can help you outgrow this problem at 4th. But an entire feat to use Ant Haul is a bit dull.

You aren't wrong on either of those points. BWC is a prereq for the rest of the casting line, and does give more than one spell, so it's not a total wash. Though, at this point the discussion is more about the merits of multiclassing into a caster, and less about an alchemist getting bogged down.

Back on track, the alchemist has Medicine as a signature skill. It requires Healer's Tools, which weigh a bulk. Signature skills restrict access to an already limited supply of high level skills, not quite guaranteeing that a character will take them, but making it pretty hard not to. If an alchemist wants to make full use of all of their signatures, they're out four bulk before they even pick up a dagger. Five if they want to make use of the Repair activity.


Yeah was running into this with 7th level Alchemist for adventure 3. Has 13 Resonance and a feat that lets you make batches of 4 when preparing/infusing at the start of day. For 10 resonance that's 40 items... but also most likely 40L or 4 Bulk. Sheesh.


Shade325 wrote:
Yeah was running into this with 7th level Alchemist for adventure 3. Has 13 Resonance and a feat that lets you make batches of 4 when preparing/infusing at the start of day. For 10 resonance that's 40 items... but also most likely 40L or 4 Bulk. Sheesh.

That class feat specifically DOES NOT work with daily prep. (it's in the feat's description)

No matter what you do, advanced Alchemy is capped at 2/RP

Quote:

EFFICIENT ALCHEMY FEAT 4

Because of the great amount of time you’ve spent studying and
experimenting, you know how to scale up your formulas to larger batches without
giving them any additional attention. When spending downtime to Craft alchemical
items, you can produce twice the number of alchemical items in a single batch without
needing to spend additional preparatory time. For instance, if you are crafting elixirs of
life, you can craft up to four elixirs in a single batch using downtime, rather than two.
This does not reduce the amount of required alchemical reagents or other ingredients
needed to craft each item, nor does it increase your rate of
progress for days past the base downtime spent. This also does
not change the number of items you can create in a batch with
advanced alchemy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Which is really a shame.

Alchemists should really just make INT items per RP. It'd be so much smoother. and represent an alchemist learning to stretch supplies so much longer as time goes on.
Plus.. it would require less rules jumping around for people new to the class. and that means they could add Batch centric feats later on without having to balance them with Daily Allotment in mind, or save them 18 words in that class feat, and probably a similar amount in any future batch feat.

Also they should really allow them to craft any combination of items instead of just straight item batches (i.e. with 1RP my lv 1 alchemist with 18 int SHOULD be able to craft 2 acid flasks 1 elixer of life and 1 sunrod).

Honestly, INT per RP+any combination, combined with the lv 9 extra rp being changed to "quick alchemy or daily allotment" (or just the term Advanced Alchemy) only instead of Quick Alchemy only, would solve a loot of the RP-items per day issue.

Of course the improved RP-to item ratio, would add to the bulk issues...
which I talk about below
===============================
The weight will always be a problem without some large scale modifications though.
My alchemist went from having a shield, to using the Assist Action human feat, to... using Hefty Hauler.. because I just could not get the weight down enough to matter. (also couldn take extra rp without wasting the +2 to charisma).

Basically. ANY Alchemist starting at level 1 will always have a strong mechanical reason to be human and nothing else.. because of the almost absolute need for a general feat at level 1. I suppose if they gave everyone a lv 1 general feat at start would help but not solve the actual class issue.. (Frankly right now Human is too strong mechnanically... in p1 it was. BUT everyone at least started with a feat, so really you could still do fairly well without the human feat and still pick up the "flavor" feat or just the mechanical need)

They really ought o just take 1st Edition's note of "handwavium"and say that the Alchemists start with a free special set of Alchemists Tools that they typically wear on their body, and has an effective bulk of 0 when worn this way (and the standard 2 otherwise).
Then also consider the idea that this tool set has spots to hold their alchemical Items, and that any items made with Adv Alchemy class ability weight negligible bulk.
This absolutely gives the wonderful Alchemist visual of having bits and bobs all over them, seemingly pulling item of out of no where to mix or use. and with the current landscape of 'rather difficult to actually target the user's items" its fine mechanically

This would solve the biggest issue at the least, freeing up 2 bulk and almost half of the starting gold..for actual player agency!
I still don't get why formula books are 1 bulk, compared to other paper things.You don't HAVE to hold the Formula book to use quick alchemy, so I'm quite fine with that retaining bulk for the "dropped backpack" and later "elsewhere bags." Any other kits past this, would be a player choice of a skill focus. I really just want the core bulk issues solved (alch kit, maybe the formula book)
(dear me I miss Handy haversack backpack, so much more living flavor than hanging a big bag on your belt or holding it over the shoulder like a sailor)

===========

I realize, and do in fact think they should, make a +Bulk Alchemical Item "Ant's Extract" or something, BUT they should NOT assume this to be a fix to the Alchemist Bulk issue.

........I really just need to make one thread with all my thoughts and ideas and suggestions in one place. I realize now I have 4? seperate threads. (bulk, combat style idea, alchemcial item suggestions, throwing weapons (though this isn't specifically alchemist)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:

Which is really a shame.

Alchemists should really just make INT items per RP. It'd be so much smoother. and represent an alchemist learning to stretch supplies so much longer as time goes on.
Plus.. it would require less rules jumping around for people new to the class. and that means they could add Batch centric feats later on without having to balance them with Daily Allotment in mind, or save them 18 words in that class feat, and probably a similar amount in any future batch feat.

Also they should really allow them to craft any combination of items instead of just straight item batches (i.e. with 1RP my lv 1 alchemist with 18 int SHOULD be able to craft 2 acid flasks 1 elixer of life and 1 sunrod).

Honestly, INT per RP+any combination, combined with the lv 9 extra rp being changed to "quick alchemy or daily allotment" (or just the term Advanced Alchemy) only instead of Quick Alchemy only, would solve a loot of the RP-items per day issue.

Of course the improved RP-to item ratio, would add to the bulk issues...
which I talk about below
===============================
The weight will always be a problem without some large scale modifications though.
My alchemist went from having a shield, to using the Assist Action human feat, to... using Hefty Hauler.. because I just could not get the weight down enough to matter. (also couldn take extra rp without wasting the +2 to charisma).

Basically. ANY Alchemist starting at level 1 will always have a strong mechanical reason to be human and nothing else.. because of the almost absolute need for a general feat at level 1. I suppose if they gave everyone a lv 1 general feat at start would help but not solve the actual class issue.. (Frankly right now Human is too strong mechnanically... in p1 it was. BUT everyone at least started with a feat, so really you could still do fairly well without the human feat and still pick up the "flavor" feat or just the mechanical need)

They really ought o just take 1st Edition's note of "handwavium"and say...

simply changing alchemical item's bulk to - would solve a lot of the isses.

I mean, 1 pint of oil is - bulk, but 1 tiny vial, much less bulkier and much less weight, is 0.1 bulk?

how does that even make sense?

How does 1 vial equal the bulk of 10 arrows? when at most it should be equal to 1 of them

and etc

a g&& d%~ned SHORTSWORD is equal bulk to a vial.

Some times i wonder if bulk values are completely random, since most of the time they make no sense whatsoever.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think letting the alchemist have charisma AND intelligence to resonance would be a nice gesture. That would also synergize with taking remarkable resonance. The alchemist is one of those classes that actually can get decent mileage out of its general feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N-Sphere wrote:
The added insult, to the injury of a system that doesn't do common sense well, is that the only apparent reason to add the system is because they believe that people are too stupid to handle addition of 'big numbers' like 20 or 30.

Which is funny because it's not even simpler. Now instead of adding up numbers and comparing them to my load capacity in a table, I have to add up whole numbers, add up L numbers, add up things that individually don't have any bulk but in certain quantities add up to an L, take the floor of divide by 10 of the L numbers and add it to the whole numbers, and then compare.

Just because the numbers are smaller does not make it simpler to use in practice, especially when I get to 29L items and 7 vials and have to figure out how many more of something I can pick up before pushing over the limit.


I don't think the bulk system itself is a problem, its dead simple. The problem is the bulk value of some of the the items, especially in relation to the alchemist class. I built a lvl 4 alchemist for stage 2, and looking things over ended up building him with both a 12 str and hefty hauler, and when maxed out (16) alchemist items made with advanced alchemy, am almost encumbered.


well, the flavour of the alchemist is that he lugs around lots of items he uses, so STR should not be a dump stat.
In if you think Alchemist should not look muscular, then you are plain wrong, mutagens are basically fantasy steroids, and the whole shtick of using enhancement drugs is the flavour of alchemist :D

Starting at 14 str mostly solves this issue, you don't have to have INT 18, I feel 16 is more optimized, as on first stat bump you'll go from 16 to 18 rather than 18 to 19, and your strength will go from 14 to 16 allowing for more carry.

As an alchemist, you'll probably want to bump str, dex, con and int.

As a side note, I don't consider bulk purely as an abstraction of weight, but rather weight and volume combined, as in you can pretty tightly fit 10 arrows together, but not 10 potions


shroudb wrote:

simply changing alchemical item's bulk to - would solve a lot of the isses.

I mean, 1 pint of oil is - bulk, but 1 tiny vial, much less bulkier and much less weight, is 0.1 bulk?

how does that even make sense?

How does 1 vial equal the bulk of 10 arrows? when at most it should be equal to 1 of them

and etc

a g*+ d&$ned SHORTSWORD is equal bulk to a vial.

Some times i wonder if bulk values are completely random, since most of the time they make no sense whatsoever.

It would help a lot. later in levels when you carry more and more, it gets pretty problematic, though by then you'll have more str (due to the way stat boosts work), and magical items. I think the biggest issue is still the item requirement base (the alch tools+formula book).

Just freeing that up, would allow for 20 Adv Alc items, which is 10RP..

I am so supportive of the idea of a special worn Alchemist Set for free, that also allows the items to weigh Negligible (-) amount. Even if they dont' want to make them less than L in other situations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
duje wrote:

well, the flavour of the alchemist is that he lugs around lots of items he uses, so STR should not be a dump stat.

In if you think Alchemist should not look muscular, then you are plain wrong, mutagens are basically fantasy steroids, and the whole shtick of using enhancement drugs is the flavour of alchemist :D

Starting at 14 str mostly solves this issue, you don't have to have INT 18, I feel 16 is more optimized, as on first stat bump you'll go from 16 to 18 rather than 18 to 19, and your strength will go from 14 to 16 allowing for more carry.

As an alchemist, you'll probably want to bump str, dex, con and int.

As a side note, I don't consider bulk purely as an abstraction of weight, but rather weight and volume combined, as in you can pretty tightly fit 10 arrows together, but not 10 potions

See Bomber Alchemist didn't really need STR in PF1. Or support. It was mainly MR Hyde or close combat Alchemists that needed it.

Now, WE ALL Do. That or spend some cash on a porter/pack animal or get the other party members to carry part of it. It's not a dump stat but looking at the new system you also can't just leave it at 10 either, it needs to be buffed. And as a side note we're only Trained in will so maybe also raise our WIS too so we don't get mind controlled and carpet bomb the party.

We aren't Monk levels of MAD but we could really use stat ups in EVERYTHING.

Other note, it really depends on just how you word/describe the potions. If the potions are in metal testing tubes, or syringes yeah you can fit those pretty tightly. But if it's closer to..., for the sake of picturing it, those mini soda cans; then yeah it's harder to carry 10 of those around even if you bind them together.

This creates a bit of visual/mental problem that 10 loose potions carried on your person have the same bulk as 10 potions placed into a box, placed at the bottom of your backpack. It might BE true but it feels off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would also say, requiring 14 str is silly as hell class idea.

The class should allow for Int Dex/str con/wis priority. That way they can decide if they want to be more ranged or not.
getting 12 str is pretty easy no matter the build.
but, with the way stat arrays work, it is pretty easy to end up with a race-background combination for your story that won't allow for the spare points.

My alchemist, human, pathfinder hopeful, could get 14 16 10 16 12 10 array fairly easily. But, if i had different combo it becomes much harder. I ended up with 12, 16, 10 18 12 10 for the character story.
(also. I wanted more INT because of the character story--honestly INT gives surprisingly little for Alchemists..which is why I suggested INT modifier determine how much you make in ADV Alch per RP).

my alchemist is a thrower, so he will get more str at lv 5 of course, but if i was using a crossbow or bow, I would loath putting more points into str just to use my base class skills. (i think its fine to require str to carry more "choices" i.e. tool kits, repair kits, etc, things you went out of you way to want). But. it is very bad, almost unforgivable to require any stat for the class to work, that is NOT its' class stat (INT for alchemist). Much less when none of its class skills actually push close range preference and a lot involve throwing bombs or other dex based things. (hence using knifes for finesse to hit)

Note: i don't count Con or Wis (for non casters) in the "class requires it" context. Because those are base character values (will save, hp/fort save)


MerlinCross wrote:
duje wrote:

well, the flavour of the alchemist is that he lugs around lots of items he uses, so STR should not be a dump stat.

In if you think Alchemist should not look muscular, then you are plain wrong, mutagens are basically fantasy steroids, and the whole shtick of using enhancement drugs is the flavour of alchemist :D

Starting at 14 str mostly solves this issue, you don't have to have INT 18, I feel 16 is more optimized, as on first stat bump you'll go from 16 to 18 rather than 18 to 19, and your strength will go from 14 to 16 allowing for more carry.

As an alchemist, you'll probably want to bump str, dex, con and int.

As a side note, I don't consider bulk purely as an abstraction of weight, but rather weight and volume combined, as in you can pretty tightly fit 10 arrows together, but not 10 potions

See Bomber Alchemist didn't really need STR in PF1. Or support. It was mainly MR Hyde or close combat Alchemists that needed it.

Now, WE ALL Do. That or spend some cash on a porter/pack animal or get the other party members to carry part of it. It's not a dump stat but looking at the new system you also can't just leave it at 10 either, it needs to be buffed. And as a side note we're only Trained in will so maybe also raise our WIS too so we don't get mind controlled and carpet bomb the party.

We aren't Monk levels of MAD but we could really use stat ups in EVERYTHING.

Other note, it really depends on just how you word/describe the potions. If the potions are in metal testing tubes, or syringes yeah you can fit those pretty tightly. But if it's closer to..., for the sake of picturing it, those mini soda cans; then yeah it's harder to carry 10 of those around even if you bind them together.

This creates a bit of visual/mental problem that 10 loose potions carried on your person have the same bulk as 10 potions placed into a box, placed at the bottom of your backpack. It might BE true but it feels off.

does it really matter what used to be true, it's a new system, and you get to put 4 boosts of +2 at scores lower than 18, while before you got +1 to one.

Abilities scores are more available in 2ed.
And it makes more sense if your profession requires to lug a bunch of stuff all the time, you would naturally get stronger

One thing I didn't check if STR influence throwing range, if it doesn't I think a nice change to strength would be STR mod to range, like 5 ft per mod.
So for instance with +1 to strenght you could throw 5 ft further, +2 str 10 ft, but with -1 str you get 5 ft less.


Zwordsman wrote:

I would also say, requiring 14 str is silly as hell class idea.

The class should allow for Int Dex/str con/wis priority. That way they can decide if they want to be more ranged or not.
getting 12 str is pretty easy no matter the build.
but, with the way stat arrays work, it is pretty easy to end up with a race-background combination for your story that won't allow for the spare points.

My alchemist, human, pathfinder hopeful, could get 14 16 10 16 12 10 array fairly easily. But, if i had different combo it becomes much harder. I ended up with 12, 16, 10 18 12 10 for the character story.
(also. I wanted more INT because of the character story--honestly INT gives surprisingly little for Alchemists..which is why I suggested INT modifier determine how much you make in ADV Alch per RP).

my alchemist is a thrower, so he will get more str at lv 5 of course, but if i was using a crossbow or bow, I would loath putting more points into str just to use my base class skills. (i think its fine to require str to carry more "choices" i.e. tool kits, repair kits, etc, things you went out of you way to want). But. it is very bad, almost unforgivable to require any stat for the class to work, that is NOT its' class stat (INT for alchemist). Much less when none of its class skills actually push close range preference and a lot involve throwing bombs or other dex based things. (hence using knifes for finesse to hit)

Note: i don't count Con or Wis (for non casters) in the "class requires it" context. Because those are base character values (will save, hp/fort save)

on alchemist, str makes sense, and especially compared to wis, because doing stuff that can get you killed, like drinking the experimental stuff, and mixing bombs and poisons is not something a wise person would do.

Also alchemist is not a caster ist a kinda martial class that uses usable items well


1 person marked this as a favorite.
duje wrote:

does it really matter what used to be true, it's a new system, and you get to put 4 boosts of +2 at scores lower than 18, while before you got +1 to one.

Abilities scores are more available in 2ed.
And it makes more sense if your profession requires to lug a bunch of stuff all the time, you would naturally get stronger
One thing I didn't check if STR influence throwing range, if it doesn't I think a nice change to strength would be STR mod to range, like 5 ft per mod.
So for instance with +1 to strenght you could throw 5 ft further, +2 str 10 ft, but with -1 str you get 5 ft less.

Yes, it does matter what used to be true. Because it was true. IT was a thing we had. Now we don't have that and we're... supposed to be happy? I never get this.

Oh wow, Ability scores are more available. We really need that as we want Basically everything that isn't CHA. Congrats, we're back to dumping CHA for a stat. This time it's just STR. Yay?

duje wrote:

on alchemist, str makes sense, and especially compared to wis, because doing stuff that can get you killed, like drinking the experimental stuff, and mixing bombs and poisons is not something a wise person would do.

Also alchemist is not a caster ist a kinda martial class that uses usable items well

So you're fine with getting mind controlled or feared or paralyzed or hit with a mental effect because you thought to dump WIS because alchemists aren't Wise people? Wow your team must love having to deal with that.

We aren't a martial unless we go Mutagen and even then we're subpar. We are a storage shed on legs in PF2.


MerlinCross wrote:
duje wrote:

does it really matter what used to be true, it's a new system, and you get to put 4 boosts of +2 at scores lower than 18, while before you got +1 to one.

Abilities scores are more available in 2ed.
And it makes more sense if your profession requires to lug a bunch of stuff all the time, you would naturally get stronger
One thing I didn't check if STR influence throwing range, if it doesn't I think a nice change to strength would be STR mod to range, like 5 ft per mod.
So for instance with +1 to strenght you could throw 5 ft further, +2 str 10 ft, but with -1 str you get 5 ft less.

Yes, it does matter what used to be true. Because it was true. IT was a thing we had. Now we don't have that and we're... supposed to be happy? I never get this.

Oh wow, Ability scores are more available. We really need that as we want Basically everything that isn't CHA. Congrats, we're back to dumping CHA for a stat. This time it's just STR. Yay?

duje wrote:

on alchemist, str makes sense, and especially compared to wis, because doing stuff that can get you killed, like drinking the experimental stuff, and mixing bombs and poisons is not something a wise person would do.

Also alchemist is not a caster ist a kinda martial class that uses usable items well

So you're fine with getting mind controlled or feared or paralyzed or hit with a mental effect because you thought to dump WIS because alchemists aren't Wise people? Wow your team must love having to deal with that.

We aren't a martial unless we go Mutagen and even then we're subpar. We are a storage shed on legs in PF2.

alchemist in 1st ed was a clumsily put together, it was a mishmash of many things, I think 2nd edition put more tought to it to make it distinct, so yes its a good thing that we lost some nonsensical stuff.

Really alchemist was a sorcerer that just had a flavour fluff, instead of spells you are using pots, well then, you might as well just play sorcerer then.

I am also not against classes getting weaknesses, you need strength to carry stuff and throw stuff, and getting low wisdom on some crazy chemist that can go boom seems appropriate, and since you are in your basement making and using drugs, you will not naturally be a social beast.
But yeah, you can make background of an charismatic and wise alchemist, but to get that you will sacrifice your ability to be more effective crazy scientist, its simple as that


3 people marked this as a favorite.
duje wrote:
alchemist in 1st ed was a clumsily put together

Compared to the new version? I can't say I agree even a little. Even if we just look at it thematically, it seems odd that learning the technical skills to mix alchemical materials requires you to pump iron and everyone at the apothecary looks like they are mainlining steroids.

PC: "Is that some kind of barbarian? She looks like she can crush rocks with her bare hands!"
Villager: "No, that's just the local medicine woman... Lifting potions makes you really buff."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
duje wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
duje wrote:

does it really matter what used to be true, it's a new system, and you get to put 4 boosts of +2 at scores lower than 18, while before you got +1 to one.

Abilities scores are more available in 2ed.
And it makes more sense if your profession requires to lug a bunch of stuff all the time, you would naturally get stronger
One thing I didn't check if STR influence throwing range, if it doesn't I think a nice change to strength would be STR mod to range, like 5 ft per mod.
So for instance with +1 to strenght you could throw 5 ft further, +2 str 10 ft, but with -1 str you get 5 ft less.

Yes, it does matter what used to be true. Because it was true. IT was a thing we had. Now we don't have that and we're... supposed to be happy? I never get this.

Oh wow, Ability scores are more available. We really need that as we want Basically everything that isn't CHA. Congrats, we're back to dumping CHA for a stat. This time it's just STR. Yay?

duje wrote:

on alchemist, str makes sense, and especially compared to wis, because doing stuff that can get you killed, like drinking the experimental stuff, and mixing bombs and poisons is not something a wise person would do.

Also alchemist is not a caster ist a kinda martial class that uses usable items well

So you're fine with getting mind controlled or feared or paralyzed or hit with a mental effect because you thought to dump WIS because alchemists aren't Wise people? Wow your team must love having to deal with that.

We aren't a martial unless we go Mutagen and even then we're subpar. We are a storage shed on legs in PF2.

alchemist in 1st ed was a clumsily put together, it was a mishmash of many things, I think 2nd edition put more tought to it to make it distinct, so yes its a good thing that we lost some nonsensical stuff.

Really alchemist was a sorcerer that just had a flavour fluff, instead of spells you are using pots, well then, you might as well just play sorcerer then.

I...

really now? have you build an alchemist in 2e or are you just saying stuff?

you need Int, since it's your primary.
you need Dex, since not only are you Light armor, but also one of your main abilities, from level 1, bombs, attacking stat is Dex.
you also need at least 12 cha because you need the +2 resonance feat
and you need Con, because everybody needs Con.

so, so far we have:
an 18 on Int, something like at least 14, but probably a 16 on Dex, a min 12 on cha, and let's say a minimum 10-12 Con

I think we can live without having to be needing 14 strength on level 1 now, right?

You see, it's not only 1 more MAD stat, it offers literally nothing except an arbitary restriction that "oh look, your stuff needs to weight a ton, because reasons, deal with it. Btw, your thrown weapon, unlike all other thrown weapons, doesn't even get a Str bonus. Deal with it. Because, reasons."

I have some fun plans as well:

lets have fighters start with 0 base skill points. I mean, since your reasoning is that we have so much more stats, they can afford a minimum of 16 Int, sounds about right.

Now, let's see, wizards sound like wise guys. Let's have them require an additional 14 Wis to be able to cast. You know, they have stats to spare.

Rogues are easy too, them theives tools can have around 5-6 bulk, they have points to spare.

etc

You realise now how ridiculous the argument "there are points to spare" sounds now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a note.

Alchemists are NOT legit martials. They're off martials.
They can hit, but they gain Zero bonuses to doing that. Which is the halmark of what a martial is . They gain class features that help them excel at their chosen martial profession.

Alchemists, certainly could use some class feats that would let them be more though.
Quick Draw (preferably one that lets you draw an item as a free action, instead of draw+strike like rogue or ranger, Because so many things they need to draw quickly are not all strike items)

They should really get more proficiency, at least with daggers, slings, bombs, maybe darts. I dunno. not all simple weapons but they need a list of their own. (more points if slings can fling bombs current no rules on that though). I personally feel like knives, sticks/mace, slings/ crossbows darts and bombs are alchemist flavored to me.. but i don't have real reasons why

Right now? At lv 1 fighters actually have more proficiency with bombs than alchemists.
and later? fighters get waaay more proficient than alchemists with them.

Alchemist don't make the Martial grade...

Which is honestly the entire point of my Rokka no Yuusha thread on that issue and suggestions tht would help fill the gap, without just making them pure martials AND retaining their flavor of Alchemist while having sustain and uniqueness to them.


graystone wrote:
duje wrote:
alchemist in 1st ed was a clumsily put together

Compared to the new version? I can't say I agree even a little. Even if we just look at it thematically, it seems odd that learning the technical skills to mix alchemical materials requires you to pump iron and everyone at the apothecary looks like they are mainlining steroids.

PC: "Is that some kind of barbarian? She looks like she can crush rocks with her bare hands!"
Villager: "No, that's just the local medicine woman... Lifting potions makes you really buff."

This just reminded me of Nolokolon the Worldweaver: LN male Aphorite WIZARD 18. Was reading some Planar Adventures for the youtube channel...


Just grab Strength 14 to start. Easy peasy lemon squeasy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Just grab Strength 14 to start. Easy peasy lemon squeasy.

No thanks...


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.


To add to that:

A Cleric needs high Wis.
A Cleric needs high Str.
A Cleric needs some Dex.

A Wizard needs high Int.
A Wizard needs high Dex.
A Wizard needs some Wis.

A Rogue needs high Dex.
A Rogue needs high Wis. (Init, traps)
A Rogue needs some Int. (Traps.)

-----

So it is blatantly unfair to say: "An Alchemist shouldn't have to invest at all in Strength!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A note about what you listed..

So paladin/cleric needs dex? why? the AC?
Wizard needs wisdom? why? the will saves? (and initiative)
Unless I am missing something (quite possible) these 3rd stat things... are the same for all class. All classes would love extra AC and extra Will save. Alchemist is no different there.
Sure.. all classes would also love more carry.
but, there are literally no other class features (that I know of anyway. Again i could easily have missed it) that require specific item weight. Everyone requires weapons and armour, wizard also need formula books of course.. (lock picking doens't count as that is a open skill, even if rogues are better at it). but the alchemist still requires 3x the weight of any other character and eats 2/3rds of base bulk.

The alchemist gains 0 other benefit from this required strength. Unless they're melee based.
IF they're going to require it they should gain another benefit from them..

So. about that rogue mention.
What trap interaction are you talking about? Wis for perception to detect traps? thats fine second priority stat, and in fact one all classes would be fine with extra points into.

Int? ..for skill points to skill level up? I dont' see any class ability skill that runs off of it. (could be missing it though).

I would argue a rogue's 3rd priority stat would be con. they need hp and fort saves (for traps, and because they'll often want flanking. Though you can do ranged with flatfooted).
=============

TLDR:
It is not "invest in strength" it is "prioritize strength" Invest is throwing the extra +2 into it, like you would in con or wis.

Every class has 2 priority stats. their class feature DC one, and their combat or survival one. Those are the base required for operation.

Every class has the "basic stats for extras" Wis, Con, Dex/str (ac/carry) are things everyone would want. As an extra. A choice. Player agency.
NOT inherently required with basic game to nominally operate. Someone ignoring will saves, hp/fort saves, will be punished only when those come up.
Alchemist without prioritizing Str as their main combat will be punished the whole game time (in combat, in downtime, in social time, always), just when those specific deficiencies come up. AND as a result, their CON and Wis choice agency is removed completely, which opens up a strong weakness.. and Alchemist are weak to Will saves inherently so it is often a choice one would want.

It was mentioned that they're playing with bombs so they should have low will saves.. but the fact is, there are no ways to accidently blow yourself up with this. There is no flavor reason they would have a low will save. They just have higher fort/reflex because they work with poisons and explosives.


2 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. 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.

A) a paladin needs as much dex as an alchemist needs Cha. So, even according to your own maths, you're flat out, 100%, wrong

B) You do realise that every class you listed gets mechanical benefits for those stats right? while Alchemists just get extra carrying capacity?

Give me +str to thrown range and remove the arbitrary "thrown splash get 0 benefit from Str" and I'm game (I mean, you ARE smashing a glass/clay object in one's face after all)

Or, I say we do it fair:

Divine focuses should be whole Altars, like 6 bulk each.
Components pouch should weight around 1bulk/prepared spell

Let's go even further, make swords get dent/hit and martial having to fix them after every battle.

And etc.

I still haven't heard a single counterargument to the FACT that 1 whole pint of oil is infinite less bulkier than 1 small vial. Or that a whole shortsword is equal bulk to said vial

P. S.
The other classes you mention are just plain wrong:

1)Wizard needs no more wisdom than Alchemist.
2)A rogue in no way needs +Int, in fact, a race that loses Int for literally any other stat would be optimal for Rogue. 10base are more than enough and 0 of his skills need Int
3)As I mentioned earlier, paladin s need maybe even less Dex than alch needs Cha
Etc

Basically, no matter what part of your posts, you're flat out wrong.


shroudb wrote:
Basically, no matter what part of your posts, you're flat out wrong.

Flat out wrong eh?

I don't think so.

Here is why you want some int on the rogue:

Step 1: Rogue spots a trap.
Step 2: Rogue uses one of many skills to identify what the trap does. (Craft Alchemy to determine what poison they are dealing with, etc.)
Step 3: Rogue disarms said trap.

Try that without Int and you're not likely to know what you are risking with a disarm. That is a good way to wind up dead.

-----

A Wizard needs Wisdom to go first, Wizards have always wanted to go first, moreso than any class (other than Rogue, who has a class feature that keys off of going first.)

-----

A Paladin doesn't need Dexterity? Please go look at Heavy Armor. A +2 Dex makes Full Plate useless. Full Plate in general is one of, if not the worst, armor in the game, and even then you need dex 12 to make it work to its fullest.

-----

Do they need much of those ancillary stats to work? No. Though just as a Paladin needs Dex 14 to be optimal so to does an Alchemist needs Str 14. You going, "No no no! I want more benefits out of my stats than anyone else!" Isn't going to change it.

You *can* Run a Strength 10 Alchemist, they just aren't optimal and have to rely on Quick Alchemy and they have to move light.

The answer here is simple:

Get. Some. Strength.

Bulk and Encumbered is NOT some optional system you should be able to ignore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Basically, no matter what part of your posts, you're flat out wrong.

Flat out wrong eh?

I don't think so.

Here is why you want some int on the rogue:

Step 1: Rogue spots a trap.
Step 2: Rogue uses one of many skills to identify what the trap does. (Craft Alchemy to determine what poison they are dealing with, etc.)
Step 3: Rogue disarms said trap.

Try that without Int and you're not likely to know what you are risking with a disarm. That is a good way to wind up dead.

-----

A Wizard needs Wisdom to go first, Wizards have always wanted to go first, moreso than any class (other than Rogue, who has a class feature that keys off of going first.)

-----

A Paladin doesn't need Dexterity? Please go look at Heavy Armor. A +2 Dex makes Full Plate useless. Full Plate in general is one of, if not the worst, armor in the game, and even then you need dex 12 to make it work to its fullest.

-----

Do they need much of those ancillary stats to work? No. Though just as a Paladin needs Dex 14 to be optimal so to does an Alchemist needs Str 14. You going, "No no no! I want more benefits out of my stats than anyone else!" Isn't going to change it.

You *can* Run a Strength 10 Alchemist, they just aren't optimal and have to rely on Quick Alchemy and they have to move light.

The answer here is simple:

Get. Some. Strength.

Bulk and Encumbered is NOT some optional system you should be able to ignore.

you don't need knowleedge to identify a trap.

unless your GM goes like that: "You spot a trap" "Cool, what trap?""You don't know.""Yes.. but what do I see?""A trap""..."

Plus you don't even need to identify what kind of trap it is anyways.

Secondly, your wizard example is laughable, EVERYBODY wants initiative. Especially an alchemist that needs to first drink his mutagens and has to wait for them to activate.

So, an alchemist also needs more Wis than a wizard

And that's why I said Paladins need as much Cha as alchemists needs.

Please go read the alchemist class, without 12 Cha he's much worse off compared to a paladin wearing Full plate.

And even with that, that's YOUR OPINION. The Paladin class WORKS with heavy proficiency, he doesn't even get medium.

If anything is relevant here, is that Heavy needs to be better, not that paladin needs Dex.

You can run a 10 strength alchemist. And it *SHOULD* be optimal (unless you go for bestial build)

The answer is simple
Remove.Bulk.From Alchemical items.

so yes, you're 100% flat out wrong.


shroudb wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Basically, no matter what part of your posts, you're flat out wrong.

Flat out wrong eh?

I don't think so.

Here is why you want some int on the rogue:

Step 1: Rogue spots a trap.
Step 2: Rogue uses one of many skills to identify what the trap does. (Craft Alchemy to determine what poison they are dealing with, etc.)
Step 3: Rogue disarms said trap.

Try that without Int and you're not likely to know what you are risking with a disarm. That is a good way to wind up dead.

-----

A Wizard needs Wisdom to go first, Wizards have always wanted to go first, moreso than any class (other than Rogue, who has a class feature that keys off of going first.)

-----

A Paladin doesn't need Dexterity? Please go look at Heavy Armor. A +2 Dex makes Full Plate useless. Full Plate in general is one of, if not the worst, armor in the game, and even then you need dex 12 to make it work to its fullest.

-----

Do they need much of those ancillary stats to work? No. Though just as a Paladin needs Dex 14 to be optimal so to does an Alchemist needs Str 14. You going, "No no no! I want more benefits out of my stats than anyone else!" Isn't going to change it.

You *can* Run a Strength 10 Alchemist, they just aren't optimal and have to rely on Quick Alchemy and they have to move light.

The answer here is simple:

Get. Some. Strength.

Bulk and Encumbered is NOT some optional system you should be able to ignore.

you don't need knowleedge to identify a trap.

unless your GM goes like that: "You spot a trap" "Cool, what trap?""You don't know.""Yes.. but what do I see?""A trap""..."

Plus you don't even need to identify what kind of trap it is anyways.

Secondly, your wizard example is laughable, EVERYBODY wants initiative. Especially an alchemist that needs to first drink his mutagens and has to wait for them to activate.

So, an alchemist also needs more Wis than a wizard

And that's why I said Paladins need as much Cha as alchemists
...

No. You are flat out wrong.

As for detecting traps:

Player: "I check it for traps."

GM: **Rolls Dice** "You spot a trap, a small needle trap, there is a peculiar smell coming off of it."

Player: "Can I tell what poison it is?"

GM; **Rolls Dice** "No clue."

Player: "Darn it."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
shroudb wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Basically, no matter what part of your posts, you're flat out wrong.

Flat out wrong eh?

I don't think so.

Here is why you want some int on the rogue:

Step 1: Rogue spots a trap.
Step 2: Rogue uses one of many skills to identify what the trap does. (Craft Alchemy to determine what poison they are dealing with, etc.)
Step 3: Rogue disarms said trap.

Try that without Int and you're not likely to know what you are risking with a disarm. That is a good way to wind up dead.

-----

A Wizard needs Wisdom to go first, Wizards have always wanted to go first, moreso than any class (other than Rogue, who has a class feature that keys off of going first.)

-----

A Paladin doesn't need Dexterity? Please go look at Heavy Armor. A +2 Dex makes Full Plate useless. Full Plate in general is one of, if not the worst, armor in the game, and even then you need dex 12 to make it work to its fullest.

-----

Do they need much of those ancillary stats to work? No. Though just as a Paladin needs Dex 14 to be optimal so to does an Alchemist needs Str 14. You going, "No no no! I want more benefits out of my stats than anyone else!" Isn't going to change it.

You *can* Run a Strength 10 Alchemist, they just aren't optimal and have to rely on Quick Alchemy and they have to move light.

The answer here is simple:

Get. Some. Strength.

Bulk and Encumbered is NOT some optional system you should be able to ignore.

you don't need knowleedge to identify a trap.

unless your GM goes like that: "You spot a trap" "Cool, what trap?""You don't know.""Yes.. but what do I see?""A trap""..."

Plus you don't even need to identify what kind of trap it is anyways.

Secondly, your wizard example is laughable, EVERYBODY wants initiative. Especially an alchemist that needs to first drink his mutagens and has to wait for them to activate.

So, an alchemist also needs more Wis than a wizard

And that's why I said Paladins need as

...

so he sees a needle trap with a poisoned needle.

why exactly identifying what particular poison is so important that he could not function as a rogue at all if he didn't have 14 Int to identify said poison?

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

Even 8 Int is more than enough on a Rogue due to the 10 starting base skills and Int doing nothing for skill ranks and 0 core rogue skills being Int based.

I could say that Cha is tertiary due to how much Deception factors in various of his skill synergies, but Int? That's plainly useless for Rogues.

And again, all this is to make him better.
For alchemist, is to be able to function as designed.

Unless they give medium armor to alchemist and tangible benefits to strength, or hell, even removing the arbitrary restrictions he gets from having strength (no bonus damage to bombs even if they are thrown weapons for absolutely no reason)

then no.

Alchemical items should be immediately changed to - bulk.

Still, no one has replied why they feel that a vial is bulkier than a whole pint of oil or equal bulk to a whole shortsword.


HWalsh wrote:


You *can* Run a Strength 10 Alchemist, they just aren't optimal and have to rely on Quick Alchemy and they have to move light.

The answer here is simple:

Get. Some. Strength.

Bulk and Encumbered is NOT some optional system you should be able to ignore.

so by move light..

do you mean have no armour? because to use quick alchemy you've gotta have the 2 bulk alchemist' kit. And probably the formula book--but that one isn't clear. Some GM variation there, so 2-3 bulk just for quick alchemy. (3+2l base for alch kit, book, l armour l weapon)

I can't speak for other people. I never said the concept of bulk is option.
I'm saying the fact that class, innately, requires 3 bulk (before basic armaments) to operate while gaining no other class specific benefit. Is bworked. That is several times more than any other class innately needs. Most other classes, at innate, needs 1 bulk (spell casting-though they don't need that more than once a day), or 2L (weapon and armour). They'd be inefficient but they would operate. and you could build them that way if one so wished. Well only really the paladin might feel weird doing a light armour dex build, but I haven't played one yet unlike some other classes. (Alchemist the most though)

Not to mention having to pay almost half starting funds for it.
===========
Honestly quick alchemy is the trap there. You'd be better of never using quick alchemy and dropping a bag when the fight begins.. and hope no one breaks or steals the bag making your character nothing but "subpar weapon" until you can get to a town and rebuy your kit, formula book, and then spend the time to refill your formula book.
Quick alchemy's cost is far too high to use for anything other than emergency silversheen/antidotes sort of thing.
Unless you have 10RP to spend in the morning (or 15) on making Alch Items, if you know what you'll need in the day, its actually more weight effiecient to leave your AlchTool and F.Book in the inn (and once again hope no one steals your stuff, and turns you into "npc with pc stats"
-----

In the end. Just giving the class an custom Alch Kit for free, that weighs - bulk when worn, 2 when not, would effectively solve the absolute required bulk. (there is still the possible 1 bulk for formula book, but that is no different than a spell book. And as Quick Alchemy does not specify it requires the formula book, that is effectively just the same as a caster's spellbook. Use in the morning and then store it away (and later in an elsewhere bag) (and in general formula's state you know them regardless the book just stores them.. meaning the book is functionally useless)

Alternatively not requiring Alch Kit for Quick Alchemy would solve the problems at higher levels when you gain magic items. But would still be causing a stupid amount of issues until lv 8~ because Alchemists still need magical weapons and armour with their pseudo martial status (they really should just be seen as combat support, and altered to make that more doable)

The first option is far better, and would not feel particularly out of the norm so far, and in fact follows some of the "worn item" rules.
adding in the sustain idea, and int per RP idea, and the Alchemist would be a solid class that could be built towards martial, support, or hit and run. Without overshadowing any of the other classes' spaces.

Honestly the sustain idea is probably needed more than bulk, because it would allow alchemists who don't make or use bombs and just make supportive items or poisons.. But that's a different thread.

Alchemists just need Quality of Life alterations. they spent a lot of work on this system trying to avoid the "one true way" crap.


shroudb wrote:
Still, no one has replied why they feel that a vial is bulkier than a whole pint of oil or equal bulk to a whole shortsword.

I have to assume that their concept is "the bomb's container is made to break on impact-and violently burst in some way, so we need to represent the care that carrying contains. The bulk represents not just weight, and size but also awareness of the item. Formula/spell books are 1 bulk because it weighs on the character to care for it lest it get wet and lose things"

thats what I assume anyway. That it is meant to be that your character is trying to account for and be aware of, possible issues of it breaking on their person.
though, I believe currently, there are no rules, nor effects, that can cause such an occurrence of targetted item breaking

I don't mind them being L. But. I do think they should make a cheap vest (mundane) that is made to carry Alch Items and lowers their weight. Or a magical vest that allows elsewhere storage of alchemical items and retrieval as some sort of quick action (1 action or reaction, I suppose).

Alternatively. I'd also really like the idea of them being L in general.
but. the worn alchemist Kit has slot/storage for them that renders them (-) for the alchemist class.

Because Alchemist's should really objectively be the best at them.
still annoys me fighters start with more, and gain more, profieincy in them. Currently, despite the idea of the class, they're really not that amazing at USING the items. Its actually far more effective for you to make bombs/support items, hand them to the team. Then stay at home doing a day job to help buy equipment for everyone as they dungeon dive. This is an exagerated point of course. but it is a weird fact Alchemists aren't really good at what they're suppose to do

As for your want of a class based reason for strength. Well I suppose if they put in Sling ability to use the bomb as ammo and gain str as a damage bonus might be neat.
but my problem with that is that it wouldn't be innately an alchemist' thing.
I've never given deep thought on a STR class effect for Alchemists, since I think that the custom item should be changed, as then the alchemists can be Str or Dex based as the player wants, with the otehr stat as an extra boost--as with every other class.

1 to 50 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.