Alchemist proficiency chart


Second Edition


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Alchemist
01- Perc (E), saves (EET), simple/bombs/unarmed weapons (T), light/unarmoured def (T), Crafting +3 skills
07- iron will (Will E), simple/bombs/unarmed weapons (E)
09- Class DC (E)
11- juggernaut (Fort M)
13- light armour expertise (light, unarmored E), weapon specialisation (?)
15- evasion (Ref M)
17- Class DC (M)
19- light armour mastery (light, unarmored M)

The alchemist class paths (field discovery) does not increase proficiencies in any way that I could notice. We know some do.
This was the only class I managed to get a good read, but some tidbits tell me for example that Barbarian's class DC (and presumably most martial) scales a little slower, reaching Master at 19, but armour proficiency scales the same and so does the medium save (Will and Reflex respectively).
I expected Fortitude to reach Legendary, but couldn't find when. Same for Barbarian's high levels (readable enough). My suspicion is a high-level general feat might grant it. Not sure. All Master saves upscale success into crit.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, Proficiencies in general should all go up by about +2 over a character's career to make up for the loss of +2 to all Saves from item due to the playtest. Ditto attacks.

When this occurs seems variable (Fighters get Bravery and go to Expert in Will Saves at 3rd level, for example). It might easily mean Barbarian gets Legendary Fortitude Saves at 11th or 13th or thereabouts.

This makes it likely that there will no longer be General Feats for save boosting, IMO. Which is probably good? They out-competed other General Feats in a way that was not great for game balance.

EDIT: You did get one thing wrong on the Alchemist, they're only Trained in Perception at 1st. It goes to Expert via the Alertness Class Feature at 9th level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

This makes it likely that there will no longer be General Feats for save boosting, IMO. Which is probably good? They out-competed other General Feats in a way that was not great for game balance.

This is intriguing, honestly it's been kinda the opposite at my table. Feats like Fleet, Feather Step, and Fast Recovery that did more interesting things were taken far more by my players, and even among more eh feats that just give a straight boost Toughness, Incredible Initiative, and Alertness were usually snapped up first. I mean I've had players take a save-to-expert feat but usually it was "eh, I'm running low on options" or "I'm really bad in this spot and could use a boost" but even then it was usually like their third general feat at earliest, with someone rarely taking it as their second and no one I recall taking it as their first.

I'm curious where the vastly different value placed by our groups on these feats comes from.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

This is intriguing, honestly it's been kinda the opposite at my table. Feats like Fleet, Feather Step, and Fast Recovery that did more interesting things were taken far more by my players, and even among more eh feats that just give a straight boost Toughness, Incredible Initiative, and Alertness were usually snapped up first. I mean I've had players take a save-to-expert feat but usually it was "eh, I'm running low on options" or "I'm really bad in this spot and could use a boost" but even then it was usually like their third general feat at earliest, with someone rarely taking it as their second and no one I recall taking it as their first.

I'm curious where the vastly different value placed by our groups on these feats comes from.

Ah! Excuse my imprecision. They did not, in fact, do this in the playtest. Much like your group, mine went for other things.

However, a +2 to a Save when nothing else grants any bonus whatsoever to Saves until 8th level (the state of the final game) was...concerning in concept. Like, way better to the point that General Feats would need to change way more radically than I expected them to for it to not just be the best choice.

So, hypothetical outcompeting rather than actual. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a bit concerned about lack of mastery in bombs. Accuracy was something I had serious problems with in the playtest. ACs should be better in the final, but at the same time you're no longer going against touch AC, so that will take away some of the accuracy advantage from the math. I suspect there will be a way, to get mastery but it's probably a feat if it's not in the class paths. Also, it feels a bit weird to never reach Legendary with class DCs. I kind of figured that everyone should be able to get Legendary by 20th level. I mean, it's 20th level, you should be able to do your shtick amazingly well. Again, maybe it's a feat, or maybe I'm missing a reason why this wouldn't be workable.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, let's examine accuracy based on what information we have.

We have creatures from the final Bestiary at 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, and 14th, so we'll examine those levels:

At 4th, a dedicated bomber has Dex 16 and a total of +9 to hit vs. AC 20 or 21. That's about a 50% chance. It becomes 55% if Mutagen gives a bonus like it did in the playtest (ie: at the same rate as a magic weapon), or if some other item gives a bonus on thrown weapons (very plausible).

At 6th, we're talking +12 to hit (from Dex going to 18) and AC of around 24, so it's gone down to 45%, which is not great, but this is sort of a cleft point (ie: this is the level right before Proficiency rises). This rises to 50% if Mutagen gives a bonus (as discussed above).

At 8th, to-hit has gone to +16 (with the raise to Expert), while AC has only raised to 26 so we're back at 55%. 60% if Mutagen gives a bonus.

At 10th, to hit rises to +18, while AC has gone to 29 and we're back at 50%. 55% if Mutagen gives a bonus.

At 12th, to-hit has gone to +20, while AC has gone to 31 and accuracy remains at 50%. 55% if Mutagen gives a bonus.

At 14th, to-hit has gone to +22 (and we're right one level before Dex 20 and another boost), while AC has gone to 36(!) and accuracy is suddenly a terrible 35% (45% if Mutagens give a bonus and kick in at the same level as weapons, for a +2 here)...but that's one creature (the Astral Deva) and in context I'd expect that to be an exceptional AC rather than the norm (given the very clear progression of the rest).

So...for the most part it looks like accuracy probably remains the same with some slight fluctuations if there is no item to boost bomb attacks (and there's probably a Mutagen if nothing else). And go up gradually if there are both items and mutagens (plusible if unconfirmed).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm bombs in a world without TAC is a bit of a concern I had not thought of. Perhaps bombs are going the same root as touch spells {if I remember correctly} where they target Ref now. {and going with that the alchemist bomb DC is there class DC.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mean like Bomber's Eye Elixir? Yeah, that'd do it.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, let's examine accuracy based on what information we have.

We have creatures from the final Bestiary at 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, and 14th, so we'll examine those levels:

At 4th, a dedicated bomber has Dex 16 and a total of +9 to hit vs. AC 20 or 21. That's about a 50% chance. It becomes 55% if Mutagen gives a bonus like it did in the playtest (ie: at the same rate as a magic weapon), or if some other item gives a bonus on thrown weapons (very plausible).

At 6th, we're talking +12 to hit (from Dex going to 18) and AC of around 24, so it's gone down to 45%, which is not great, but this is sort of a cleft point (ie: this is the level right before Proficiency rises). This rises to 50% if Mutagen gives a bonus (as discussed above).

At 8th, to-hit has gone to +16 (with the raise to Expert), while AC has only raised to 26 so we're back at 55%. 60% if Mutagen gives a bonus.

At 10th, to hit rises to +18, while AC has gone to 29 and we're back at 50%. 55% if Mutagen gives a bonus.

At 12th, to-hit has gone to +20, while AC has gone to 31 and accuracy remains at 50%. 55% if Mutagen gives a bonus.

At 14th, to-hit has gone to +22 (and we're right one level before Dex 20 and another boost), while AC has gone to 36(!) and accuracy is suddenly a terrible 35% (45% if Mutagens give a bonus and kick in at the same level as weapons, for a +2 here)...but that's one creature (the Astral Deva) and in context I'd expect that to be an exceptional AC rather than the norm (given the very clear progression of the rest).

So...for the most part it looks like accuracy probably remains the same with some slight fluctuations if there is no item to boost bomb attacks (and there's probably a Mutagen if nothing else). And go up gradually if there are both items and mutagens (plusible if unconfirmed).

Yeah, that sounds pretty bad to me. 50-55% hit chance doesn't seem heroic to me, and that's only the first attack of the round, a second would be even worse. Hopefully there's some better effects from class feats and maybe splash damage is no longer completely pathetic. But this is concerning. Alchemist needed a lot of help, and it doesn't look like they really got it.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
You mean like Bomber's Eye Elixir? Yeah, that'd do it.

Actually, in the playtest, Quicksilver Mutagen was the one that granted a bonus on ranged attack rolls (Bomber's Eye just let you ignore screening).

But what Elixir gives a bonus doesn't matter all that much, IMO, what matters is that they're likely to have one of some sort. You might even have a couple of stacking ones, depending on whether it stacks with magic ranged weapons.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
At 14th, to-hit has gone to +22

Ability score booting items were level 14 in the playtest. So one could maybe get another +1 attack from Anklets of Alacrity. There might also be some other items (goggles or something like that) giving an attack bonus to throwing bombs.

Come to think of it, do bombs still use dex to hit? With cantrips using the casting ability score of the caster, bombs could maybe use int? Otherwise they'd be the only "supernatural" attack not using the caster ability score, which would be a bit sad.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:
Ability score booting items were level 14 in the playtest. So one could maybe get another +1 attack from Anklets of Alacrity. There might also be some other items (goggles or something like that) giving an attack bonus to throwing bombs.

This is true (and would up the bonus to +23). It'd be nice if Alchemists could use their item on Intelligence rather than Dexterity if they wanted, though.

Blave wrote:
Come to think of it, do bombs still use dex to hit? With cantrips using the casting ability score of the caster, bombs could maybe use int? Otherwise they'd be the only "supernatural" attack not using the caster ability score, which would be a bit sad.

This is also very plausible, but would probably need to be a Class Feature since anyone can use bombs (and I doubt anyone other than Alchemists and casters can attack with Int), and doesn't seem to show up on their list.

If true, it would up their accuracy at 4th, 10th, 12th, and 14th, all by one (two at 14th with the item).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, their level 7 feature refers to "alchemical weapons", so... maybe? Seems a bit late however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The bomber alchemist sample build explicitly advises on keeping dex second only to int, so I think bombs keep using dex.

Which in my opinion does make sense - a spell is something you could in theory direct with your mind, or your awareness, or your willpower, but bombs, you gotta toss those babies with your hands.

It would be interesting if there were a feat allowing int to substitute for dex when you attack with ranged weapons. Essentially you're so good at foreseeing vectors and calculating speeds that you know where your target will likely be (i.e., like running a lightning-speed simulation with your brain as the computer) and thus your reflexes and aim in that particular instance use int.

Just to propose an op feat out of the blue, since I feel that aspect of the discussion was disgracefully lacking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Siro wrote:
Hmm bombs in a world without TAC is a bit of a concern I had not thought of. Perhaps bombs are going the same root as touch spells {if I remember correctly} where they target Ref now. {and going with that the alchemist bomb DC is there class DC.)

I am leaning toward this being the case, but probably an Ranged Attack roll vs the opponents Ref save DC. So that would be slightly different math.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly with as aware as Paizo is of the issues most people didn't like with the math (I say most because I'm one of the people who thinks that if you're attacking something that's the SAME LEVEL as you then you shouldn't have more than a 50-60% chance to hit, but I am a minority) I kinda doubt accuracy for Alchemist will actually hit this low, there's almost certainly something in play we aren't seeing here. What exactly, I don't know, but I'm sure there's something. I'd be surprised if the Bomber path doesn't at least get Master in bombs, given that they did in the Playtest IIRC. And I expect they have an option to get an appropriate item bonus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

The bomber alchemist sample build explicitly advises on keeping dex second only to int, so I think bombs keep using dex.

Which in my opinion does make sense - a spell is something you could in theory direct with your mind, or your awareness, or your willpower, but bombs, you gotta toss those babies with your hands.

Yeah, int to attack seems a bit odd to me for that reason. I can see maybe an int bonus to damage like PF1, but like you said, you still have to toss the things and coordination counts. Going after Reflex might also be an option, I hadn't heard that touch spells were going after that, I thought they were still going after AC.

If they're still around (and I see no reason why they wouldn't be), the Greater Alchemist's goggles should help. I'm hoping for a few more bonus types so that more bonuses will stack than in the playtest, so the goggles and Quicksilver Mutagen don't conflict. Quicksilver Mutagen was my go-to in the playtest.

Also, after thinking about it more, I'm starting to suspect the option to get Master proficiency in Bombs might be in that 13th level "Weapon Specialization." It might be an option to pick which type of weapon to specialize in, and thus get Master Proficiency in it, with bombs as an option. Thirteenth is when the Bomber Alchemist's got Master in bombs in 1.6. And it would actually make a lot of sense to decouple master proficiency from the class path, non-bomber alchemists might still want to use bombs after all, or they might want to get better with crossbows to deliver poisons or unarmed for someone who likes Stonefist Elixir (hopefully there'd be higher level versions of it to keep up with magic weapons) instead. This would also address some of my problems with the exclusivity of the class paths. If this is the case, you could get 45% chance of hitting that Astral Deva, which yeah, is probably harder to hit than most things of it's CR.

Ok, it's more than a suspicion now. I just checked the playtest document for the term Weapon Specialization to see if that would give an idea on it's use here, and the only use of it there, is the 13th level Fighter feature which gives you Master proficiency in Simple and Martial weapons, Expert in Exotic and legendary in one group of weapons. For alchemists it won't be quite so impressive I'm sure, but might very well let you pick Mastery in Simple weapons, unarmed or Bombs. Legendary is probably too much. That's really the Fighter's territory. So yeah, it looks like the option for Master bombs is probably there. That's good to know.

So yeah, that actually alleviates some of my concern, at least for high levels. That 50% at lower levels still seems low to me. But the numbers on the mutagens might also be improved, which would also help a lot.


I'm quite sure too the bomber becomes master in bombs, it makes absolutely no sense that they don't, and if that's the case I'm pretty sure the devs will errata it on August 2 at the latest.

I mean, who else is supposed to get master at bomb tossing, the spirit instinct barbarian?

I also am quite confident that bombs will attack reflex, not ac. I could be wrong, but I don't think armor is intended to protect against them, as it wasn't in the playtest. I think the math is leading us there: there's something missing, but we can't really put our finger on it... because it's not missing from the attack, it's that we're thinking the defense will be ac, while instead it will be a save.

It's just an opinion of course. Leave it to Paizo to make me feel stupid ;)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the most important bit of my analysis is that, 14th level aside (and I still say that's just the Deva having an unusually high AC), their accuracy doesn't go down as they level. I suppose the Deva might have Average AC and Master Proficiency might be granted at 13th...that would make the numbers continue very consistently.

For the record, accuracy assuming targeting Reflex Save DC is actually about the same, maybe 5% higher, with occasional spikes really high (Reflex Save DC varies between -4 and +1 as compared to AC with about -1 the most common...among the very limited sample size).

It seems worth noting that we've had a look at Barbarian's Weapon Specialization in the final game, which gives enhanced damage, and we know that something is boosting PC damage to make up for the two dice lost in weapon damage...so I'd expect it does that. It might well also grant Proficiency, of course.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Roswynn wrote:

The bomber alchemist sample build explicitly advises on keeping dex second only to int, so I think bombs keep using dex.

Which in my opinion does make sense - a spell is something you could in theory direct with your mind, or your awareness, or your willpower, but bombs, you gotta toss those babies with your hands.

Yeah, int to attack seems a bit odd to me for that reason. I can see maybe an int bonus to damage like PF1, but like you said, you still have to toss the things and coordination counts. Going after Reflex might also be an option, I hadn't heard that touch spells were going after that, I thought they were still going after AC.

If they're still around (and I see no reason why they wouldn't be), the Greater Alchemist's goggles should help. I'm hoping for a few more bonus types so that more bonuses will stack than in the playtest, so the goggles and Quicksilver Mutagen don't conflict. Quicksilver Mutagen was my go-to in the playtest.

Also, after thinking about it more, I'm starting to suspect the option to get Master proficiency in Bombs might be in that 13th level "Weapon Specialization." It might be an option to pick which type of weapon to specialize in, and thus get Master Proficiency in it, with bombs as an option. Thirteenth is when the Bomber Alchemist's got Master in bombs in 1.6. And it would actually make a lot of sense to decouple master proficiency from the class path, non-bomber alchemists might still want to use bombs after all, or they might want to get better with crossbows to deliver poisons or unarmed for someone who likes Stonefist Elixir (hopefully there'd be higher level versions of it to keep up with magic weapons) instead. This would also address some of my problems with the exclusivity of the class paths. If this is the case, you could get 45% chance of hitting that Astral Deva, which yeah, is probably harder to hit than most things of it's CR.

Ok, it's more than a suspicion now. I just checked the playtest document for the term Weapon...

Well done! I knew it had to be so. And all-around valid points.

I think Reflex though. Really. Not AC. If you consider dex isn't the primary stat of any alchemist because they need int first... should collimate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I think the most important bit of my analysis is that, 14th level aside (and I still say that's just the Deva having an unusually high AC), their accuracy doesn't go down as they level.

For the record, accuracy assuming targeting Reflex Save DC is actually about the same, maybe 5% higher, with occasional spikes really high (Reflex Save DC varies between -4 and +1 as compared to AC with about -1 the most common...among the very limited sample size).

That's good, I'd hate for accuracy to go down as you level up. I know it's not technically the character's fault, but the feeling can be very grating. I assume this was a problem in the playtest at one point or another?

And your analysis of the spread between AC and Ref gives me even more confidence bombs will go after the latter. I'm not sure by any means, but it sounds to me like a real no-brainer - if the devs decided to use AC it will totally come out of left field for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
It seems worth noting that we've had a look at Barbarian's Weapon Specialization in the final game, which gives enhanced damage, and we know that something is boosting PC damage to make up for the two dice lost in weapon damage...so I'd expect it does that. It might well also grant Proficiency, of course.

I keep being ninjaed.

DMW, remember that in the PT the alchemist's extra bomb damage dice were addressed immediately. It said, when you're this level, roll 2 dice, and at this level, roll 3, something like that. So I'd evince all alchemists become better at bomb damage but with weapon spec bombers can become the best.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
I keep being ninjaed.

There's an ongoing ninja infestation on these forums.

Roswynn wrote:
DMW, remember that in the PT the alchemist's extra bomb damage dice were addressed immediately. It said, when you're this level, roll 2 dice, and at this level, roll 3, something like that. So I'd evince all alchemists become better at bomb damage but with weapon spec bombers can become the best.

Totally possible! I was just noting that we have at least one example of Weapon Specialization not providing a Proficiency increase.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh! Yes, you're right of course. Sorry, the ninjas were distracting me ;P

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Alchemists' improved splash damage, and particularly the change to Quick Bomber, also make a bomb build potentially terrifying even with rotten luck. In my PF2 War for the Crown game, our alchemist having "one of those days" last session. Over the course of a fight, he kept rolling outrageously bad die rolls, the worst he's gotten so far in any session. As a result of bad dice juju, he only got I think three or four hits. But he also never critically failed an attack roll, so he did over 300 damage over the course of the fight across several targets, some from hits, mostly from that splash, but also persistent from his acid flask and alch fire hits, not counting any sneak attacks for the rogues or misses turned to hits by his one on-target bottled lightning. This was at level 11. He's usually even deadlier still.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Alchemists' improved splash damage, and particularly the change to Quick Bomber, also make a bomb build potentially terrifying even with rotten luck. In my PF2 War for the Crown game, our alchemist having "one of those days" last session. Over the course of a fight, he kept rolling outrageously bad die rolls, the worst he's gotten so far in any session. As a result of bad dice juju, he only got I think three or four hits. But he also never critically failed an attack roll, so he did over 300 damage over the course of the fight across several targets, some from hits, mostly from that splash, but also persistent from his acid flask and alch fire hits, not counting any sneak attacks for the rogues or misses turned to hits by his one on-target bottled lightning. This was at level 11. He's usually even deadlier still.

I'm curious what the improved splash damage looks like. The splash feat I saw from the UK expo pages didn't look especially different from its playtest version. It was hard to make out though.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mutagen

Would a bomber be able to learn this when every single one was uncommon?

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Alchemists' improved splash damage, and particularly the change to Quick Bomber, also make a bomb build potentially terrifying even with rotten luck. In my PF2 War for the Crown game, our alchemist having "one of those days" last session. Over the course of a fight, he kept rolling outrageously bad die rolls, the worst he's gotten so far in any session. As a result of bad dice juju, he only got I think three or four hits. But he also never critically failed an attack roll, so he did over 300 damage over the course of the fight across several targets, some from hits, mostly from that splash, but also persistent from his acid flask and alch fire hits, not counting any sneak attacks for the rogues or misses turned to hits by his one on-target bottled lightning. This was at level 11. He's usually even deadlier still.
I'm curious what the improved splash damage looks like. The splash feat I saw from the UK expo pages didn't look especially different from its playtest version. It was hard to make out though.

There's some changes, but it doesn't have to be that much higher to really add up to a significant amount when you get three. Like a team of 6 "missing alchemists" (alchemists who always miss but never critically miss) at my PCs' level could nearly wipe out an "Extreme" equal-level group that is positioned in their expanded splash radius from 18 splashes alone because 18 is a lot of splashes. If the enemies have a universal resistance, you're in big trouble, though that's quite rare, but if the enemy has any sort of elemental weakness, thanks to splash and action economy, alchemists are the best around to exploit that weakness for massive benefit (weapon runes can do so also but not as flexibly as the alchemist and not with the benefit of splashing including on a miss).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Alchemists' improved splash damage, and particularly the change to Quick Bomber, also make a bomb build potentially terrifying even with rotten luck. In my PF2 War for the Crown game, our alchemist having "one of those days" last session. Over the course of a fight, he kept rolling outrageously bad die rolls, the worst he's gotten so far in any session. As a result of bad dice juju, he only got I think three or four hits. But he also never critically failed an attack roll, so he did over 300 damage over the course of the fight across several targets, some from hits, mostly from that splash, but also persistent from his acid flask and alch fire hits, not counting any sneak attacks for the rogues or misses turned to hits by his one on-target bottled lightning. This was at level 11. He's usually even deadlier still.
I'm curious what the improved splash damage looks like. The splash feat I saw from the UK expo pages didn't look especially different from its playtest version. It was hard to make out though.
There's some changes, but it doesn't have to be that much higher to really add up to a significant amount when you get three. Like a team of 6 "missing alchemists" (alchemists who always miss but never critically miss) at my PCs' level could nearly wipe out an "Extreme" equal-level group that is positioned in their expanded splash radius from 18 splashes alone because 18 is a lot of splashes. If the enemies have a universal resistance, you're in big trouble, though that's quite rare, but if the enemy has any sort of elemental weakness, thanks to splash and action economy, alchemists are the best around to exploit that weakness for massive benefit (weapon runes can do so also but not as flexibly as the alchemist and not with the benefit of splashing including on a miss).

Makes sense. Alchemists are also probably the best at doing persistent damage which is absurd when weakness enters into it.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mutagen
Would a bomber be able to learn this when every single one was uncommon?

The Mutagenist Class Path in the final game (which we've seen the text of) gives no ability to acquire Mutagens. It gives you two of them in your book, but there's no Uncommon Permission text, and no ability to acquire more.

This either indicates that such permission is now a baseline part of Alchemist, or that Mutagens are no longer Uncommon.

Now, it does make reference to being able to use Mutagens brewed for others, which indicates they normally need to be personalized, so that might be the route they went to keep them from being commonly sold rather than making the formulas themselves Uncommon.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's interesting that the mutagen-focused alchemist gets an ability to increase their unarmed proficiency whenever their simple weapon proficiency increases, but the alchemist's base simple and unarmed proficiencies seem to keep pace with one another. Do you think the base class will have feats that specifically increase simple weapon proficiency? Or is the ability more to allow for compatibility with martial archetypes that might only increase regular weapon proficiencies?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brew Bird wrote:
It's interesting that the mutagen-focused alchemist gets an ability to increase their unarmed proficiency whenever their simple weapon proficiency increases, but the alchemist's base simple and unarmed proficiencies seem to keep pace with one another. Do you think the base class will have feats that specifically increase simple weapon proficiency? Or is the ability more to allow for compatibility with martial archetypes that might only increase regular weapon proficiencies?

Ediwir's listing above is in error. The actual ability only increases simple weapons and alchemical bombs by default. Only a Mutagenist also increases unarmed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

...That table was written between when I woke up and between when I started my work morning shift. It does include some minor mistakes.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Alchemists' improved splash damage, and particularly the change to Quick Bomber, also make a bomb build potentially terrifying even with rotten luck. In my PF2 War for the Crown game, our alchemist having "one of those days" last session. Over the course of a fight, he kept rolling outrageously bad die rolls, the worst he's gotten so far in any session. As a result of bad dice juju, he only got I think three or four hits. But he also never critically failed an attack roll, so he did over 300 damage over the course of the fight across several targets, some from hits, mostly from that splash, but also persistent from his acid flask and alch fire hits, not counting any sneak attacks for the rogues or misses turned to hits by his one on-target bottled lightning. This was at level 11. He's usually even deadlier still.

Splash damage is improved? YAY! That'll help a lot. Mutagens not being limited to the Mutagenist is also good news. Splash damage was underwhelming in the Playtest, even with the feats. Usually pointing this out was just met with hypothetical situations of facing a large group of monsters with extreme vulnerabilities all packed in a tight formation, then splash is good. But it really needs to be worth it even without that special condition, so it's sounding like that's now possible. Very nice. Now if you really wanted to make me absurdly happy about alchemists, then you'd also say that poison use is improved (like by getting rid of losing the poison on a miss, without needing a feat) and that alchemical items are beefed up and there are more of them.

And I can emphasize with your player who had a bad session. I have notoriously bad die rolls. I went one combat-heavy session without succeeding on a single roll. These are 11+ hour sessions too. Although it did lead to a funny event while I was climbing a tower with Slippers of Spider Climb, and got my strength dropped to 0 with Strenght poison. So I'm dangling like a noodle stuck to the wall by the feet.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
It's interesting that the mutagen-focused alchemist gets an ability to increase their unarmed proficiency whenever their simple weapon proficiency increases, but the alchemist's base simple and unarmed proficiencies seem to keep pace with one another. Do you think the base class will have feats that specifically increase simple weapon proficiency? Or is the ability more to allow for compatibility with martial archetypes that might only increase regular weapon proficiencies?
Ediwir's listing above is in error. The actual ability only increases simple weapons and alchemical bombs by default. Only a Mutagenist also increases unarmed.

Oh, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
...That table was written between when I woke up and between when I started my work morning shift. It does include some minor mistakes.

No worries, just clarifying so people don't get confused. :)

Brew Bird wrote:
Oh, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm always happy to be of assistance. :)

Paizo Employee Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Alchemists' improved splash damage, and particularly the change to Quick Bomber, also make a bomb build potentially terrifying even with rotten luck. In my PF2 War for the Crown game, our alchemist having "one of those days" last session. Over the course of a fight, he kept rolling outrageously bad die rolls, the worst he's gotten so far in any session. As a result of bad dice juju, he only got I think three or four hits. But he also never critically failed an attack roll, so he did over 300 damage over the course of the fight across several targets, some from hits, mostly from that splash, but also persistent from his acid flask and alch fire hits, not counting any sneak attacks for the rogues or misses turned to hits by his one on-target bottled lightning. This was at level 11. He's usually even deadlier still.

Splash damage is improved? YAY! That'll help a lot. Mutagens not being limited to the Mutagenist is also good news. Splash damage was underwhelming in the Playtest, even with the feats. Usually pointing this out was just met with hypothetical situations of facing a large group of monsters with extreme vulnerabilities all packed in a tight formation, then splash is good. But it really needs to be worth it even without that special condition, so it's sounding like that's now possible. Very nice. Now if you really wanted to make me absurdly happy about alchemists, then you'd also say that poison use is improved (like by getting rid of losing the poison on a miss, without needing a feat) and that alchemical items are beefed up and there are more of them.

And I can emphasize with your player who had a bad session. I have notoriously bad die rolls. I went one combat-heavy session without succeeding on a single roll. These are 11+ hour sessions too. Although it did lead to a funny event while I was climbing a tower with Slippers of Spider Climb, and got my strength dropped to 0 with Strenght poison. So I'm dangling like a noodle stuck to the wall by the feet.

Yikes! That sounds even more unlucky.

So, er-hem: Poison use is improved (by getting rid of losing the poison on a miss, without needing a feat) and alchemical items are beefed up and there are more of them.

I like making people absurdly happy. Go spread the joy please! :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Next thing you're going to tell us is that there isn't an expensive opportunity cost in the form of having to learn a new combat poison recipe every single level or having to take multiple feats and multiclass into rogue so you have a relevant DC, right?

The current state of the alchemist class and its feats aren't really super thrilling to me. Everything tends to feel either too specific or feat-tax like.Powerful alchemy is still in and looks mostly the same, and the 10th level feat to barely keep poison DCs relevant seems to still be there too, though text is hard to tell with our screenshots in places.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

Yikes! That soudns even more unlucky.

So, er-hem: Poison use is improved (by getting rid of losing the poison on a miss, without needing a feat) and alchemical items are beefed up and there are more of them.

I like making people absurdly happy. Go spread the joy please! :D

Mark, I'm sorry if I'm being a bit of a choosey beggar here, but is this the only improvement to the rules on using poisons? Of course this is great, but there were some other things that made poisons feel... Kinda weird to use. 3 actions to apply a poison to a weapon, no rules on what happens if you just throw a vial of contact or inhaled poison at someone (which should be possible in the world logic, I think, anyone can just grab a vial and throw it, but is never mentioned in the rules). Those two are the ones that instantly come to mind.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yikes! That sounds even more unlucky.

I've gotten a bit obsessive about the manufacturing flaws in standard dice throwing off true randomness. I run a Person's Chi-square test on all my d20s with 1000 rolls and eliminate the bad ones (there were many). I have a spreadsheet of all my d20s. (I did say obsessive). Things have improved a little since I did that.

Mark Seifter wrote:

So, er-hem: Poison use is improved (by getting rid of losing the poison on a miss, without needing a feat) and alchemical items are beefed up and there are more of them.

I like making people absurdly happy. Go spread the joy please! :D

Nice! The playtest approach to the alchemist had a lot of potential, with the alchemical item based as opposed to pseudo-magic. But the implementation was lacking. Sounds like you've fixed a lot of the issues so they can live up to their potential.

Oh and um, it'd make me really really crazy happy if I got an early copy of PF2... and a pony. :)
(worth a shot)

Paizo Employee Designer

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yikes! That sounds even more unlucky.

I've gotten a bit obsessive about the manufacturing flaws in standard dice throwing off true randomness. I run a Person's Chi-square test on all my d20s with 1000 rolls and eliminate the bad ones (there were many). I have a spreadsheet of all my d20s. (I did say obsessive). Things have improved a little since I did that.

I had this iron die that I brought out as a GM for big consequential situations, but after a series of rolls that failed to KO the final party member standing in a tense situations, one of the other players determined that the chance of rolling so poorly on a fair die was somewhere around 1 in 3 million (and there were other times it seemed to roll low in general), so we had to retire it. It's weird because it would get strings of bad rolls like that but then otherwise roll fine. I wonder if it was a combo of my rolling method with the weighting that led to getting the same few (low) numbers more often in strings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yikes! That sounds even more unlucky.

I've gotten a bit obsessive about the manufacturing flaws in standard dice throwing off true randomness. I run a Person's Chi-square test on all my d20s with 1000 rolls and eliminate the bad ones (there were many). I have a spreadsheet of all my d20s. (I did say obsessive). Things have improved a little since I did that.

I had this iron die that I brought out as a GM for big consequential situations, but after a series of rolls that failed to KO the final party member standing in a tense situations, one of the other players determined that the chance of rolling so poorly on a fair die was somewhere around 1 in 3 million (and there were other times it seemed to roll low in general), so we had to retire it. It's weird because it would get strings of bad rolls like that but then otherwise roll fine. I wonder if it was a combo of my rolling method with the weighting that led to getting the same few (low) numbers more often in strings.

I've found that precision machined aluminum dice tend to be pretty great. Also less likely to destroy your table than iron (there are tungsten dice if you really want to kill the table). I have wondered about rolling technique as well. If I had the electronics and programing knowledge, I'd build an automated die tester with a motorized, self-loading dice tower and a camera that records the results with character recognition. Then I could leave that sucker going all night and come back to a filled spreadsheet of way more than 1000 rolls, and it'd eliminate the bias of my rolling technique.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been bummed about the loss of the Poisoner path but it just dawned on me that Quick Poisoning may have become a feat, opening up the option of single action poisoning for everyone and letting you get a chance to mix your poisoner concept up. Hopefully my guess is right or we see the option in the future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Eoni wrote:
I've been bummed about the loss of the Poisoner path but it just dawned on me that Quick Poisoning may have become a feat, opening up the option of single action poisoning for everyone and letting you get a chance to mix your poisoner concept up. Hopefully my guess is right or we see the option in the future.

Yeah, I'm hoping the lack of poisoner path is more an indication that any alchemist can do it, rather than poisons not being worth focusing on. I like the new way of doing poisons, with the 3 stages and nasty effects. As long as the DCs, action economy and onset times are improved they should be fun to use. Not losing the poison on a miss will be a big help too.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Eoni wrote:
I've been bummed about the loss of the Poisoner path but it just dawned on me that Quick Poisoning may have become a feat, opening up the option of single action poisoning for everyone and letting you get a chance to mix your poisoner concept up. Hopefully my guess is right or we see the option in the future.
Yeah, I'm hoping the lack of poisoner path is more an indication that any alchemist can do it, rather than poisons not being worth focusing on. I like the new way of doing poisons, with the 3 stages and nasty effects. As long as the DCs, action economy and onset times are improved they should be fun to use. Not losing the poison on a miss will be a big help too.

My strong impression (based on the text of the multiclass archetypes) is that all that is fixed except action economy, with action economy advantages on poisons being a Rogue Feat thing.

Of course, that just means that to be a dedicated poisoner you take a Rogue Multiclass, which is reasonable enough both mechanically and thematically, IMO.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I’m guessing we’ll get a poisoner Alchemist specialization down the line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or poisoner might have been folded into the chirurgeon specialization.

Too much medicine being basically poison and all that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:

Or poisoner might have been folded into the chirurgeon specialization.

Too much medicine being basically poison and all that.

Doesn't look like it.

I was re-checking dmercer's shots of the revealed CRB pages and it doesn't seem like the chirurgeon gets anything in the way of poison use, only healing abilities (and whatever all alchemists get - normal bombs, normal mutagens, partly depends on your build).

Also I haven't seen any alchemist feats related to poison but one, poison resistance at 2nd level, which gives you a resistance and a save bonus, as far as I can tell.

It could indeed be a research field that will be published later on, with related feats. It's telling that the rogue mc dedication suggests it's good for alchemists who want to make better use of poisons, essentially.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if Master proficiency might be a Bomber path feat? That would make sense to me at least, making the guy who specializes in Bombs better than any other guy who focuses their alchemy on other things.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Alchemist proficiency chart All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.