| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because clearly no one but the most dangerous person in the room is contributing anything...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If A and B are contributing the same, B is squishier than A, and B is as accessible as a target than A, what target should you chose?
You're assuming a lot here.
1) Contributions don't have to be "the same" in order to have an impact: healing a barbarian for 20 HP so he survives One More Round is just as good as being a barbarian for one round (instead of 4).
2) Because Heal works at range, A and B are not equally accessible. Even without attacks of opportunity the monster still needs to spend an action moving in order to reach the healer and with the barbarian's "oh you moved away from me? guess what, I follow" ability means that the monster spends an action trying to go after someone else without causing the barbarian to lose an action.
3) I was only "30 feet away" from the monster for less than one round. Because this is how it went down:
- Monster moved away from the center of the room, Barbarian followed.
- I told the barbarian to end his turn where he had been just a second ago.
- Barbarian attacked twice then pulled back to the center of the room
- I moved to a position 30 feet away from the Barbarian and healed him
- Monster was 1 move from Barbarian and 2 moves from me. Monster went for the Barbarian: he was closer, the bigger threat, and would be able to attack twice
- Barbarian smacked the monster some more
- I healed the Barbarian again and retreated
It was dead before I got another turn.
(The rest of the party and the other monster in the room proceeded to flail mostly uselessly at each other)
Would one attack from the monster killed me? Hardly. Even with less AC, less HP, and "the healer" there was no possibility of the monster taking me out in a single action, even on a crit. And it still would've taken all the same attacks from the Barbarian, I still would have healed him a second time, and still retreated.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jeez Gaterie, dude, chill out. You're getting way too worked up about nothing.
He's trying to shoehorn this into a discussion about the system being "too deadly" and "requiring optimal characters".
Like I said before, he has an axe to grind.
Not really the topic of this thread, though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a thread about the main problem of the game. There are other threads that purport to be about that.
This is a thread about how the Alchemist multiclass bugs me because it allows non-Alchemists to get higher Resonance pool than Alchemists.
If you are trying to imply that no one should talk about any issue except the "main problem of the game"... I don't know how to tell you this, but you are wrong.
If you are trying to tell me that my opinion is meaningless because your issue is more important... well that's just rude, please stop.
If you aren't doing one of those things, then why did you feel the need to jump into this thread with a totally unrelated issue?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to note regarding alchemist resonance, they get +1/2 level, starting at 9, and Int instead of Cha starting at 1. So some classes who invest for high Cha and Int can snag that feat for +2.
Classes that can plausibly snag Alchemist:
Wizard (not a Cha class, though they can afford more Cha than an alchemist)
Sorcerer (but then they're basically just Cha/Int and they won't have as much dex for using bombs as the Alchemist has)
Bard (okay, I haven't looked at this class enough yet. But I could see them doing this.)
NOT the Cleric or Druid - They want Wis and some of all other stats too much to get both high Cha and high Int to beat out the Alchemist. The Druid might be able to plausibly take the archetype, but they won't have much Cha.
NOT the Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, or Ranger. They're martials and won't have more than one really good mental stat.
Probably not the Paladin. They're a martial as well, and though they already want good Charisma, that locks in their very good mental stat.
Well, I suppose any of them COULD go for that option. But most of them will be hilariously underpowered. So, sure, they can get more Resonance than the Alchemist. But the Alchemist can turn around and, with just 12 Cha, snag Remarkable Resonance with a General Feat, and have all their Class Feats. (Yes, the other classes can, too, but then they're just a resonance build with not much to back them up.)
So, going back to Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard. Wizards are often associated with alchemy, though not as much as the Alchemist class itself. Sorcerers are also associated, depending on terminology. Also, Resonance is magic and they're primary casters.
Bards being able to get more Resonance for a time than an Alchemist is weird, I'll grant. (Other than Cha caster)
But all three of them get outpaced starting at level 9. Other classes could, with level advancements, get better Int. But then they'll have more resonance for a much shorter duration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless this was changed, Alchemists only get +1/2 their level for Quick Alchemy, though.
And considering Alchemist is apparently supposed to be Resonance: The Class, since they effectively have no class features once they run out of Resonance... It rankles that only non-Alchemists can have 7 or 8 Resonance at level 2, while Alchemists cap out at 6. And the Alchemist will stay behind the Bard/Sorcerer until level 9 (and then still be behind for non-Quick Alchemy uses).
Like I said before: How would people feel if the Cleric multiclass feat allowed Monks and Druids to get more uses of Channel Energy than a Cleric ever could?
Unless this was changed, Alchemists only get +1/2 their level for Quick Alchemy, though.
And considering Alchemist is apparently supposed to be Resonance: The Class, since they effectively have no class features once they run out of Resonance... It rankles that only non-Alchemists can have 7 or 8 Resonance at level 2, while Alchemists cap out at 6. And the Alchemist will stay behind the Bard/Sorcerer until level 9 (and then still be behind for non-Quick Alchemy uses).
Like I said before: How would people feel if the Cleric multiclass feat allowed Monks and Druids to get more uses of Channel Energy than a Cleric ever could?
I haven't had a chance to play the playtest so please excuse my ignorance but is it possible that the Alchemist, even with less Resonance, can make better (i.e. more efficient) use of their Resonance than a non-Alchemist multiclassed into Alchemist could?
In other words, is the extra Resonance that a MC-Alchemist gets somehow needed due to increased inefficiency when using Alchemist abilities through the multiclass paradigm?
Sadly no. If anything a straight Alchemist has more need of Resonance, since they lack class features that don't cost Resonance, unlike a multiclass character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly believe that Studied Resonance should grant a flat boost (to 3+int mod) in addition to its current benefits.
Those 3 points would close the gap between the Alchemist and Cleric as healers at low level. As they'd be able to make up to 6 more infused elixirs each day, or 12-18 elixirs per day at 1st level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless this was changed, Alchemists only get +1/2 their level for Quick Alchemy, though.
And considering Alchemist is apparently supposed to be Resonance: The Class, since they effectively have no class features once they run out of Resonance... It rankles that only non-Alchemists can have 7 or 8 Resonance at level 2, while Alchemists cap out at 6. And the Alchemist will stay behind the Bard/Sorcerer until level 9 (and then still be behind for non-Quick Alchemy uses).
Like I said before: How would people feel if the Cleric multiclass feat allowed Monks and Druids to get more uses of Channel Energy than a Cleric ever could?
I haven't had a chance to play the playtest so please excuse my ignorance but is it possible that the Alchemist, even with less Resonance, can make better (i.e. more efficient) use of their Resonance than a non-Alchemist multiclassed into Alchemist could?
In other words, is the extra Resonance that a MC-Alchemist gets somehow needed due to increased inefficiency when using Alchemist abilities through the multiclass paradigm?
Honestly I think this probably works better as an archetype than it does as a class currently. You still have all your main class abilities that don't require any resonance to use and likely do far more damage than the bombs do anyway. So you can focus on healing/utility stuff and a few bombs that apply useful debuffs. So overall its a pretty decent amount of healing given you can make two items pre resonance during downtime. Just leave a few points free for any random quick alchemy stuff you may need. Also given that they are removing the resonance cost to use infused items its a reasonable pick me up item for somebody critcally low where you can run over to them give them an elixer and bump their HP up a bit.