| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Multiclass Alchemists get bonus Resonance? Really? Alchemists don't get bonus Resonance. As it stands a Sorcerer multiclassed into Alchemist has more Resonance than a straight Alchemist.
I know Resonance is going away/changing, but this really just feels like a slap to the face of the Alchemist as it stands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is an insultingly good archetype. I expect a lot of Rogue- and Wizard-Alchemists in our future. Not to mention the occasional mega-healer Cleric-Alchemist.
Honestly, Alchemist makes for a much better archetype than a base class as written.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Multiclass Alchemists get bonus Resonance? Really? Alchemists don't get bonus Resonance. As it stands a Sorcerer multiclassed into Alchemist has more Resonance than a straight Alchemist.
I know Resonance is going away/changing, but this really just feels like a slap to the face of the Alchemist as it stands.
Leaving aside the question of whether it's "insulting"--it's only a rule, after all, for our pretend-elf-game--the sorcerer with the alchemist dedication is probably the main beneficiary because they already have their key ability in Cha; for just about every other class, this bonus just remedies the fact that their key ability, or likely secondary abilities, don't line up with the resonance-generating ability.
Even someone with a 16 in Cha - not hard to manage, especially for Clerics, Paladins, Rogues, or anyone wanting to face - is going to have more Resonance than a straight Alchemist.
|
|
Even someone with a 16 in Cha - not hard to manage, especially for Clerics, Paladins, Rogues, or anyone wanting to face - is going to have more Resonance than a straight Alchemist.
It's true that it's a pretty good feat even on its own--Remarkable Resonance is a level 1 feat and this is level 2, but this also lets you do limited daily prep (only up to level 2 items and then you need to buy higher levels with more feats, up to half your class level)--but I don't think it's epic (you also don't, I assume, automatically get new formulae every level).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that it's epic, it's that Resonance is the Alchemist's primary resource (which is, in the first place, terrible) and this non-Alchemist-only feat gives a character more Resonance than an Alchemist can ever have.
It would be like if the Cleric multiclass feat gave a character more uses of Channel Energy than a straight Cleric got.
|
|
It's not that it's epic, it's that Resonance is the Alchemist's primary resource (which is, in the first place, terrible) and this non-Alchemist-only feat gives a character more Resonance than an Alchemist can ever have.
It would be like if the Cleric multiclass feat gave a character more uses of Channel Energy than a straight Cleric got.
In most cases (non-sorcerer) it's only a single point more, up to level 9 (when alchemists get some extra resonance for quick alchemy; getting quick alchemy at all is an extra feat for the Dedicated, obviously).
The main problem feels to me to be the one you mention, that alchemists are pretty resonance-bound. That seems to me to be a fairly simple thing to fix, just reducing resonance costs somehow (or increasing daily prep batch sizes by one or maybe more at higher levels) as a class feature, or giving them a resonance bonus, so that the Alchemist Dedication feat-holder doesn't get it. I don't think any of those will break anything and actually, at least at lower levels, resonance-balancing is a way to tune alchemist power which is arguably fairly simple.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, resonance could be a nice way to tune alchemist power if resonance wasn't going to get substantially changed or nuked, which seems more likely.
Because we really need to hold back the dreaded power of Alchemist.
But where is this Alchemist dedication? Did a new update drop or was it talked about in a stream. Or Interview that isn't listed on the main site.
But where is this Alchemist dedication? Did a new update drop or was it talked about in a stream. Or Interview that isn't listed on the main site.
|
|
Well, resonance could be a nice way to tune alchemist power if resonance wasn't going to get substantially changed or nuked, which seems more likely.Because we really need to hold back the dreaded power of Alchemist.
But where is this Alchemist dedication? Did a new update drop or was it talked about in a stream. Or Interview that isn't listed on the main site.
There's a new document of multiclass feats, allowing multiclassing into all of the base classes; it was put up the same day as update 1.3 (24th September).
I meant tune up alchemist power, really, but resonance is surely going away/changing a lot, in some way or another.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree, Zwordsman. If Resonance were being kept as is, I would argue very strongly that Alchemists should not be using it to power their class features at all, at any ratio.
Every other class gets Resonance as a bonus resource. No one else has to sit there and ask themselves "do I want to use this awesome magic cloak, or do I want two more uses of my primary class feature?"
Imagine if wizards had to give up spells per day for every item they wore, or if Clerics had to give up uses of Channel Energy to drink a potion.
Alchemists using Resonance as a primary resource is just terrible, no matter how you balance it.
|
|
I disagree, Zwordsman. If Resonance were being kept as is, I would argue very strongly that Alchemists should not be using it to power their class features at all, at any ratio.
Every other class gets Resonance as a bonus resource. No one else has to sit there and ask themselves "do I want to use this awesome magic cloak, or do I want two more uses of my primary class feature?"
Imagine if wizards had to give up spells per day for every item they wore, or if Clerics had to give up uses of Channel Energy to drink a potion.
Alchemists using Resonance as a primary resource is just terrible, no matter how you balance it.
Surely one could adopt an approach of saying alchemists just need enough resonance to get their mojo on enough in a given day? It doesn't have to be limitless--certainly, the daily preparation stuff shouldn't be without limit, so a constraint has to come in somewhere--but you could just give them some more resonance, which would both solve the problem of being constrained for resonance and also the alchemist multiclass character maybe having a point more of resonance than the alchemist themselves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Or you could just give them a separate pool for their daily abilities, like every other class has?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemists should just use Spell Points like EVERY OTHER CLASS. We could let them continue to spend Resonance Points as they do for the same features once they run out of Spell Points in order to give them more flexibility, and this way we can eliminate the whole "Int to RP" deal as well since they'll be using the Int Mod to fuel Spell Points.
Heh?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is an insultingly good archetype. I expect a lot of Rogue- and Wizard-Alchemists in our future. Not to mention the occasional mega-healer Cleric-Alchemist.
Honestly, Alchemist makes for a much better archetype than a base class as written.
I can see this archetype being very popular. If you don't need bombs for your primary DPS hits you gain all the utility of an alchemist and able to make lots of utility consumables without much downside. The downside with most caster archetypes is your spell casting just lags behind so the DC's are weaker and effects are underpowered but the alchemist seems to function at pretty good levels of power and you can concentrate your bombs on ones that are just no save debuff type stuff.
I can see a lot of rogues/fighters/barbarians picking up alchemist. Lots of utility stuff and for the primary combat guys being able to keep yourself supplied in healing elixers is pretty damn handy.
|
|
It is an insultingly good archetype. I expect a lot of Rogue- and Wizard-Alchemists in our future. Not to mention the occasional mega-healer Cleric-Alchemist.
Honestly, Alchemist makes for a much better archetype than a base class as written.
I can see this archetype being very popular. If you don't need bombs for your primary DPS hits you gain all the utility of an alchemist and able to make lots of utility consumables without much downside. The downside with most caster archetypes is your spell casting just lags behind so the DC's are weaker and effects are underpowered but the alchemist seems to function at pretty good levels of power and you can concentrate your bombs on ones that are just no save debuff type stuff.
Your daily prep/infusions do lag behind, though, right? For an extra feat, you only get them at level/2 after the 1/2 level ones up to level 10 (so, level 5) and then at level - 5 from level 12 on (at the cost of another feat).
I'm not saying it's bad as a dip or a longer-term commitment--it's appealing, which is ought to be, I think it's about right for a multiclassing that's interesting and worthwhile--but I also tend to think that alchemist is pretty close to good if it just has more ability to do stuff in a given day (whether it's larger batches or a resonance bump, or spell points, etc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think for people wanting the utility stuff they don't lose a lot by just going with it as an archetype. Your healing elixers lag a bit but you can churn out what still is a LOT of free healing per day that you can also give to others in a pinch.
The daily prep/infusions are still 2 per resonance like full alchemists. The main issue would be using things that have a DC which would lag behind but given even alchemists are feat taxed to keep their DC up to snuff its not a lot worse. Also with things like poisons if you want a rogue poisoner the DC's are keyed to the poison itself not your own DC so basically the same as what an alchemist would have to deal with for that poison.
Mostly though I see people taking this using it to help their own self healing/self buffing with utility potions/mutagens. Stuff that even if it lags a few levels behind is still pretty damn good because its not really costing you much to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think for people wanting the utility stuff they don't lose a lot by just going with it as an archetype. Your healing elixers lag a bit but you can churn out what still is a LOT of free healing per day that you can also give to others in a pinch.
The daily prep/infusions are still 2 per resonance like full alchemists. The main issue would be using things that have a DC which would lag behind but given even alchemists are feat taxed to keep their DC up to snuff its not a lot worse. Also with things like poisons if you want a rogue poisoner the DC's are keyed to the poison itself not your own DC so basically the same as what an alchemist would have to deal with for that poison.
Mostly though I see people taking this using it to help their own self healing/self buffing with utility potions/mutagens. Stuff that even if it lags a few levels behind is still pretty damn good because its not really costing you much to do it.
Interesting to note that a level 16 Rogue using Powerful Alchemy can use her Dex for her poison DCs.
I think the smokestick + familiar combo might be useful for a rogue?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand starting a thread complaining about Resonance ANYTHING when we know it's due for an over-haul.
That Alchemist and it's Archetype is currently tied to Resonance is unfortunate in that light, but get real.
The archetype requires an Int of 16. It's just a trap option; a shiny effect to lure you into an unplayable build. Your sorcerer with Cha 18 Int 16 will never multiclass because he'll die before level 2. Why bother?
This makes no sense to me; I can fairly easily build a sorcerer with 16 Int that won't die at level 1, especially if you go with 16 Cha. It's pretty hard to mess up your attributes in PF2.
Leaving aside the question of whether it's "insulting"--it's only a rule, after all, for our pretend-elf-game--the sorcerer with the alchemist dedication is probably the main beneficiary because they already have their key ability in Cha; for just about every other class, this bonus just remedies the fact that their key ability, or likely secondary abilities, don't line up with the resonance-generating ability.Multiclass Alchemists get bonus Resonance? Really? Alchemists don't get bonus Resonance. As it stands a Sorcerer multiclassed into Alchemist has more Resonance than a straight Alchemist.
I know Resonance is going away/changing, but this really just feels like a slap to the face of the Alchemist as it stands.
Also, though it's going to be irrelevant in the light of Resonance being revamped by the time the full game releases, full alchemists DO get bonus resonance -- at level 9, specifically for Quick Alchemy -- and a Hell of a lot of it, too. It means the alchemist no longer has to reserve a portion of his resonance for quick alchemy, and can use it for more advanced alchemy or for more invested items.
With my Level 7 Alchemist for Chapter 3, I maxed out my Resonance, but still only chose the minimum number of items that used resonance (almost all my magic item picks were non-resonance using) and saved a good 5 RPs for quick alchemy in a pinch. Stilly playing through it, so I don't know if it will save my hide in the end or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This makes no sense to me; I can fairly easily build a sorcerer with 16 Int that won't die at level 1, especially if you go with 16 Cha. It's pretty hard to mess up your attributes in PF2.The archetype requires an Int of 16. It's just a trap option; a shiny effect to lure you into an unplayable build. Your sorcerer with Cha 18 Int 16 will never multiclass because he'll die before level 2. Why bother?
I agree with this as well. My ch2 sorcerer was an 18/14/14/14 build and it would not have been overly burdensome to go 18/16/14/12 if I wanted that extra resonance. It would have been a very different build, but I can definitely see making it work.
The archetype requires an Int of 16. It's just a trap option; a shiny effect to lure you into an unplayable build. Your sorcerer with Cha 18 Int 16 will never multiclass because he'll die before level 2. Why bother?This makes no sense to me; I can fairly easily build a sorcerer with 16 Int that won't die at level 1, especially if you go with 16 Cha. It's pretty hard to mess up your attributes in PF2.How do you intend to survive level 1 with abysmal AC and HP, while every monster is free to move around and attack you twice with his huge attack bonus?
And what do you intend to do with Cha 16? The game is balanced to ensure a high failure rate even with max Cha, I don't see the purpose of a sorcerer with Cha 16.
It's not very hard to mess with your attributes: raising Int means you aren't increasing something else, and contrary to other attributes, Int does nothing.
** spoiler omitted **
This does not map at all to my playtest experiences. The party I ran for had several very poorly optimized characters at level 1 and they did fine; it was ironically the highly optimized Monk that died, and that only because they didn't have a Cleric.
This sounds less like a fact about the system and more like you have an axe to grind.
Three stat increases to intelligence, one of the few dumpable stats, seems like a steep investment for a +2 to resonance. If anything all this does is make up for the wasted stat increases.
I agree with this as well. My ch2 sorcerer was an 18/14/14/14 build and it would not have been overly burdensome to go 18/16/14/12 if I wanted that extra resonance. It would have been a very different build, but I can definitely see making it work.A level 4 goblin sorcerer with Cha 18 Int 16 Dex 14 Con 12 has AC 16 and HP 34. He can have AC 18 if one of his level 2 spell is mage armor, and HP 38 with a feat.
Looking at the stats of level 3 monsters, I wouldn't qualify such a character as "working". Maybe if he does nothing and doesn't draw the attention of any monster, he can survive? At that point, I'd rather play the optimized monk who dies - but who does something before.
Considering my sorcerer had 26 HP and 17 AC and never took any damage...I'm not sure what you mean by "unworkable."
Also, how would said sorcerer have been any different in PF1? He would have had an AC of about 16 or 17 (+2 or +3 dex with mage armor, no magic armor extras by level 4) with FEWER hit points, versus attackers with a +7 to +10 and damage per hit anywhere from 1d6+1 to 1d12+9 (medium fire elemental, to Gnoll Rageborn) - not too dissimilar from PF2. Was the level 4 sorcerer not viable in PF1 as well?
Any time someone starts using phrases like “unless you are class X or Y you are a waste of space” I find it necessary to step back and take it with a grain of salt, because at the table, using live play, it often isn’t an assertion that is borne out.
Considering my sorcerer had 26 HP and 17 AC and never took any damage...I'm not sure what you mean by "unworkable."How did you avoid all damages? Was it GM's pity, or were you playing the Waste of space - doing nothing relevant so no one had any reason to attack you? Or did you have a Fighter babysitter with AoO?
Its called "playing your part correctly."
For example, there was a firefight in Shadowrun 4 one time where:
- Everyone took damage at least once (except me, because I took cover)
- Our vampire brawler died (because he charged a guy with a shotgun, thinking regen would fix it (it didn't: he thought it kicked in every pass, not every round, or about 1/3rd as often as he thought))
As for chp2 of the playtest, I was playing a divine sorcerer ("I'm totally a cleric, I swear") and of all the encounters we had:
- avoided entirely
- I fell into the trap (and the fight was over before I got a second turn). I still almost suffocated to death.
- GM never targetted me as keeping the [redacted 1] out of our (primarily 30ft) range and inside its own (40ft) range meant I was consistently too far away (I never moved and just happened to be in the middle of the cluster).
- avoided entirely
- [redacted 2] couldn't leave the area it was in (and did not have ranged attacks)
- [redacted 3] didn't want to leave the area it was in (and did not have ranged attacks)
- [redacted 4] saw "juicier" targets because it had an AOE attack (and I was not in the targeted cluster). It also had shit luck.
- Then undead in the final room were so low level as to be irrelevant.
- We completed the adventure with 3 days to spare, and as such, never saw the other group.
Did I get into dangerous situations? Sure, in the fight with [redacted 3] I opened myself up for attack in order to heal the barbarian, but the [redacted 3] was more interested in the barbarian that was dealing it 30 to 40 damage a round (final stats: I healed 181 damage and dealt 68).
[redacted 1]: the manticore
[redacted 2]: water elemental
[redacted 3]: fire elemental
[redacted 4]: air elemental
The earth elemental I also stayed at 30 ft range on the tiny rock island and it died in 2 rounds, and was largely irrelevant. We thought it was going to be a lot tougher than it was and over-prepared.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How did you avoid all damages? Was it GM's pity, or were you playing the Waste of space - doing nothing relevant so no one had any reason to attack you? Or did you have a Fighter babysitter with AoO?
Whoa, there, buddy. Personal attacks are completely uncalled for.
In general, you're opinion will be taken more seriously if you aren't so aggressive about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Alchemist class should just be able to just add their Int AND Cha scores for Resonance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering my sorcerer had 26 HP and 17 AC and never took any damage...I'm not sure what you mean by "unworkable."My angelic sorcerer - arguably one of the weakest builds - had Cha 18 and 16 int and survived chapter 1 of the playtest just fine. Generally the enemy either couldn't get to her or focused attacks on the front liners that were about to kill them.
Yeah, that was my 4th level character. And agreed, arguably the weakest build. I whored out every opportunity I could to get MOAR HEALING (may not necessarily done the best job, but that was the idea).
Whereas my 7th level character is Nicht Kleriker the dwarven FighterImeanCleric. I've been reasonably effective, though the slow speed of dwarves combined with the pattern of attacks and terrain layout has really hampered my ability to Do Things (I have yet to start a fight with weapons drawn).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't worry to much about it until the next resonance changes also try a less baiting title next time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, let's reformulate. If the monsters don't attack you, either:
- 1/ The gm doesn't attack you because he doesn't want you to die so he play the monster as if they want to lose.
- 2/ The monster doesn't have any reason to attack you because you're not as useful as other PCs.
- 3/ Your tactic prevents the monster from attacking you.
Alternatively, because the GM is a good GM and is playing the monsters like actual creatures and not hyper-optimized automatons, they don't attack you because they are more concerned with the person currently punching their face in.