Alchemist updates and starting formulas

[Colette Brunel]

While the updates to alchemists are the first step in the long and arduous road towards uplifting the very weak class, I do not see why alchemists deserve to start with only four common formulas.

They should really start with eight, as the sidebar in page 51 suggests.

Or am I misreading this? Either way, something is either unappealing or poorly-worded, and that could deserve to change.

Apparently, according to Mark Seifter, alchemists are supposed to start with eight formulas. During the errata, Paizo had simply committed a mistake with the wording... again.

[SnarkyChymist]

I noticed that too. I hope that's a mistake.

Was also hoping for more changes. Alchemists aren't in a great spot currently, and it would be nice to see more changes coming for them. Hopefully with more forum posts about the issues we encounter and playtesting of later level modules, Paizo can help get the class to a better spot before release.

[Zwordsman]

AH they just clarified that in the blog.
It should be 8.

[Gazragar]

Zwordsman wrote:

AH they just clarified that in the blog.

It should be 8.

Can you link to that? Because the Updated PDF reads: "In the alchemist’s Quick Alchemy action, change “common alchemical item” to “alchemical item in your formula book”. In the Formula Book section, change “The formula book contains formulas for your choice of 4 common 1st-level alchemical items.” to “The formula book contains the formulas you gained from Alchemical Crafting.”

Because that reads as Alchemists getting 4 first-level formulas.

[Zwordsman]

its like the 12th post down. by Mark, on the blog post.
It will change in the next eratta pdf release.
They will not be officially altering it prior to that.

So if you're going strickly by eratta printed, it won't be altering. Though apparently it was meant to be read differently in some way.

[shroudb]

Eh, the errata did nothing for alchemist power wise, just a couple of fixes to officially allow them to craft the mutagens.

All tables I know already allowed mutagen crafting either way.

If anything, putting in errata all feats to use Quick Alchemy instead of Advanced or Quick is pointing towards the development team going towards a really terrible road for the class...

[Dekalinder]

shroudb wrote:

Eh, the errata did nothing for alchemist power wise, just a couple of fixes to officially allow them to craft the mutagens.

All tables I know already allowed mutagen crafting either way.

If anything, putting in errata all feats to use Quick Alchemy instead of Advanced or Quick is pointing towards the development team going towards a really terrible road for the class...

At least they got 1 more skill. The sorceror just lost 4, and his amount of skill was the only thing that justified picking it over wizard.

[shroudb]

Dekalinder wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Eh, the errata did nothing for alchemist power wise, just a couple of fixes to officially allow them to craft the mutagens.

All tables I know already allowed mutagen crafting either way.

If anything, putting in errata all feats to use Quick Alchemy instead of Advanced or Quick is pointing towards the development team going towards a really terrible road for the class...

At least they got 1 more skill. The sorceror just lost 4, and his amount of skill was the only thing that justified picking it over wizard.

The 1 more skill wasn't the issue of the Alchemist.

Advanced /Quick disparity, very low resource pool, very low effects, no sustain, mandatory feats to do what every other class gets baseline, 3 round buff onset, and such are the flaws of the alchemist.

Sorc may be slightly worse than wizard (though Cha is far superior to Int atm), but he's still a playable class. Alchemist, isn't.

To give you an example, imagine if sorc spells, including the cantrips, used their (original, not heightened) spell level for DC and not class DC. And the only way to use class DC, was a level 8 class feat that drained your spell points per use AND was only usable on 1 action spells. Those are the alchemist DCs more or less.
Imagine if evocation spells baseline had 3 rounds delay on their damage unless you picked a level 6 class feat.
Etc

[kaid]

Colette Brunel wrote:

While the updates to alchemists are the first step in the long and arduous road towards uplifting the very weak class, I do not see why alchemists deserve to start with only four common formulas.

They should really start with eight, as the sidebar in page 51 suggests.

Or am I misreading this? Either way, something is either unappealing or poorly-worded, and that could deserve to change.

Apparently, according to Mark Seifter, alchemists are supposed to start with eight formulas. During the errata, Paizo had simply committed a mistake with the wording... again.

That is what I gather from doing the updates as listed it looks like they only start with 4 formula which makes the starting formula book example both wrong and more confusing.

[kaid]

Lol okay I saw the entry in the blog post so it is supposed to be 8. Their clarification in the update did basically the exact opposite of what they wanted it to do. Oh well this is why they released the playtest so lots of people can pour over the book and find weirdness.

[Zwordsman]

Yeah. I assume they thought that the Advanced Alchemy section clearly stated 4 more on top of the feat. but instead its written, and most peopel read it as, it talking about the 4 you get from the free feat.

[Kodyboy]

Sorcerer is a truly weak class too.