Default Archetypes


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Just a quick question. What archetypes you guys consider as a de facto base class? Which classes should I not consider except through the lens of their most universal decent baseline?

For example in my opinion the invulnerable rager is basically the default barbarian. If my character concept involves thrown weapons or having an animal companion or some niche ideas, sure, I'll look at other archetypes. But by default if I want rage, I start from the invulnerable rager and go from there.

If I want a swashbuckler the inspired blade is always my starting point. Dex to damage at level 1 and a bunch of functionality with the iconic(IMO) swashbuckler weapon. Look no further than this.

The same could be said for the boltace(this one is admittedly because my table doesn't use guns but I love the mechanics), adaptive shifters, etc.

So what are your default archetypes? The one that fills the niche of the base class better? The one that really locks down the identity or flavor you always wanted? The one that fixes an arguably broken or lackluster chassis and makes it awesome to play?

Essentially what archetypes should I be aware of for dictating how good/interesting a class can be.


Molthune Arsenal Chaplain Warpriests- if you want to smash face as a warpriest, this is what you take, consider the vanilla WP as a "castier" alternative.

Haunt Collector Occultists- trade useless resonant powers for seance bonuses and "being good at haunts" is never bad.

Scout Rogue- sneak attacks are fiddly, so being able to always trigger them yourself is ace.


Let's see... Divine paragon cleric feels more connected to their deity, guide ranger because a ranger is better without favored enemy IMO and adaptive shifter for a start. Blood arcanist probably, there's no point calling yourself part sorcerer without a bloodline.

There was a thread on exactly this a while back I'm sure, if you can find it there'll be plenty more suggestions. edit: found it!


Invulnerable Rager barbarian
Menhir Savant druid
Oath of Vengeance paladin
Guide ranger
Bolt Ace gunslinger

Everything else is either fine out of the box (bard, cleric, wizard, alchemist, inquisitor, oracle, summoner, witch, magus), broad enough that it heavily depends on what you want to do with it (fighter, monk, rogue, sorcerer, cavalier), or I'm not that familiar with (basically anything ACG and onwards).


For the mutagen focused Alchemist, the Vivisectionist is the base class; there's some similar archetypes that help focus down the Alchemist's many concepts into a singular build but none are as clear cut of a choice as the Vivisectionist for Hyde Alchemists.

Qinggong Monk is literally just a buff patch to Monk; it deliberately stacks with everything because it's intended to give the Monk more useful class abilities. It's not nearly as required as it once was because Unchained serves a similar fix-it role but if you're interested in an archetype that can't be Unchained then there is zero reason not to put Qinggong on your character sheet in case you decide to make a trade in the future.


If it's not banned (and it's a very sane ban), all Bloodragers are Primalists since they lose nothing and gain everything.


Either Spirit Dancer or Medium of the Master for Medium... and for opposite reasons.

Spirit dancer feels like it is a more appropriate interpretation of the class's core selling point- flexibility. While is has rounds/lvl use, it still allows you to switch between your spirits on the fly as needed.

Medium of the Master goes in the opposite direction. It abandons every single spirit other than champion. It is hard to build your stats and feats to fully use all of your spirits, so I feel that just focusing on one is better... and champion is fully flushed out enough to go toe to toe with full martials (it also helps that the medium's native spell list is one of the best buff lists I've seen).

As far as the archetype goes, Medium of the Master has easier use of its spirit (lists more places to channel), and has a "trade influence to get your spirit immediately in an emergency" feature if you get ambushed during the night. It boosts spirit surge, has light armored options (spirit bonus to AC when light armored), and gets some monk stuff later on.


It's kind of interesting how Medium of the Master is under no obligation to actually follow the unarmed strike nudging it gets - you don't lose anything the Champion Medium normally gets by ignoring it, you simply gain a few benefits by using it. You could very easily just use Master's Strike to give yourself pounce in exchange for one of the attacks being a mediocre unarmed strike and then use the rest of your full attack on falchion hits.


Arachnofiend wrote:
It's kind of interesting how Medium of the Master is under no obligation to actually follow the unarmed strike nudging it gets - you don't lose anything the Champion Medium normally gets by ignoring it, you simply gain a few benefits by using it. You could very easily just use Master's Strike to give yourself pounce in exchange for one of the attacks being a mediocre unarmed strike and then use the rest of your full attack on falchion hits.

Yeah, it seems great for just a general melee character that doesn't need much armor. It doesn't even have any monk like alignment restrictions, or need to follow Irori. Most of the things you trade out relate to the other spirits.. that. you might not have used much anyway if you just wanted a melee character (you do lose out on having an emergency back up cleric; hierophant always seemed like the easiest to switch to when you have a full melee build).

Frankly, the unarmed stuff feels reassuring. With spirit bonus to AC and option to do an emergency spirit channel, I feel you could be quite literally caught with your pants down, and you would still be fine.

The 15th level ki power option also seems fairly flexible. You can pick niche ki powers when needed by trading influence. Underwater? Get ki metabolism, hold your breath for hours, and trust in champion's bonuses to the str based swim checks. The only real flaw is that it comes so late.


Arachnofiend wrote:
It's kind of interesting how Medium of the Master is under no obligation to actually follow the unarmed strike nudging it gets - you don't lose anything the Champion Medium normally gets by ignoring it, you simply gain a few benefits by using it. You could very easily just use Master's Strike to give yourself pounce in exchange for one of the attacks being a mediocre unarmed strike and then use the rest of your full attack on falchion hits.

I mean, having the monk's unarmed strike damage isn't bad (you punch like a greataxe at level 12), and with handwraps (from the same book) enchanting your punching is no more expensive than enchanting your greataxe.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's kind of interesting how Medium of the Master is under no obligation to actually follow the unarmed strike nudging it gets - you don't lose anything the Champion Medium normally gets by ignoring it, you simply gain a few benefits by using it. You could very easily just use Master's Strike to give yourself pounce in exchange for one of the attacks being a mediocre unarmed strike and then use the rest of your full attack on falchion hits.
I mean, having the monk's unarmed strike damage isn't bad (you punch like a greataxe at level 12), and with handwraps (from the same book) enchanting your punching is no more expensive than enchanting your greataxe.

Yeah, but unarmed strikes are pretty much destined to be tied into TWF styles.

Champion does provide a lot of bonuses to damage (+9 when you include seance and the spirit focus feat), which would be good for TWF... but otherwise, medium doesn't provide much to support the style. That means you are destined to a rather heavy stat and feat investment.

And when you also have the option to use sudden strike to get an extra 2 handed attack with 1.5x str/power attack... it is understandable that people might prefer manufactured weapons. Further arguments can be made about the advantages of style feats and other options, but 2 handed weapons always have simplicity on their side.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's kind of interesting how Medium of the Master is under no obligation to actually follow the unarmed strike nudging it gets - you don't lose anything the Champion Medium normally gets by ignoring it, you simply gain a few benefits by using it. You could very easily just use Master's Strike to give yourself pounce in exchange for one of the attacks being a mediocre unarmed strike and then use the rest of your full attack on falchion hits.
I mean, having the monk's unarmed strike damage isn't bad (you punch like a greataxe at level 12), and with handwraps (from the same book) enchanting your punching is no more expensive than enchanting your greataxe.

You misunderstand my meaning; unarmed certainly works for the archetype, but I find it very interesting that it doesn't need to. The fact that it doesn't lock you into being a Medium/Monk supports the argument it belongs in this thread; it's a great choice for any Medium that just wants to focus on the martial bits.

For comparison, I mentioned the Vivisectionist earlier as the standard for mutagen-focused Alchemists; I did not, however, mention the Beastmorph because despite it being an excellent choice and probably the best pair for the Vivisectionist available it locks you into a particular set of skills that isn't appropriate for every Hyde Alchemist (wings are really good, but maybe you don't want to sprout wings). The Vivisectionist doesn't enforce any flavor that isn't already there with the base Alchemist, and it's the same thing with the Medium of the Master.


The Shaman Class is the only class I dont automatically want to slap an archetype on when choosing to play one. As for a class that I would absolutely NOT play without an archetype is the Cleric class. I default to Evangelist anytime I even think about playing one. Wizard is a close second but I have no default archetype I'd use with it. The best Spell list in the game is nice and all, but I want flavorful, versatile abilities that aren't always limited by a few uses a day, regardless of how powerful they are.


Arachnofiend wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's kind of interesting how Medium of the Master is under no obligation to actually follow the unarmed strike nudging it gets - you don't lose anything the Champion Medium normally gets by ignoring it, you simply gain a few benefits by using it. You could very easily just use Master's Strike to give yourself pounce in exchange for one of the attacks being a mediocre unarmed strike and then use the rest of your full attack on falchion hits.
I mean, having the monk's unarmed strike damage isn't bad (you punch like a greataxe at level 12), and with handwraps (from the same book) enchanting your punching is no more expensive than enchanting your greataxe.

You misunderstand my meaning; unarmed certainly works for the archetype, but I find it very interesting that it doesn't need to. The fact that it doesn't lock you into being a Medium/Monk supports the argument it belongs in this thread; it's a great choice for any Medium that just wants to focus on the martial bits.

For comparison, I mentioned the Vivisectionist earlier as the standard for mutagen-focused Alchemists; I did not, however, mention the Beastmorph because despite it being an excellent choice and probably the best pair for the Vivisectionist available it locks you into a particular set of skills that isn't appropriate for every Hyde Alchemist (wings are really good, but maybe you don't want to sprout wings). The Vivisectionist doesn't enforce any flavor that isn't already there with the base Alchemist, and it's the same thing with the Medium of the Master.

The flavor is sneak attacks. Maybe I want to go all Hulk on someone and smash their face in. I don't think there's an Alchemist archetype that does that.

Vivisectionist is more Jack the Ripper or as you said, straight up Hyde. Get them flat footed and eviscerate them. But if you don't want to mess around with fishing for that sneak attack damage you're up a creek.

There's also the... odd extracts/spells it gets. Once you hit 7, you also splice in basically Dr Monroe vibes.

Again it's a good archetype, but to say it doesn't enforce any flavor just sounds weird to me. Though I could be the weird one, and people are able to ignore things that I get hang ups about. That or the added damage dice is good enough to just ignore it anyway.


Some classes are fortunate enough to have multiple archetypes, that are an upgrade over the base class. The inquisitor is the worst offender for having many archetypes that consolidate its various class abilities into a more focused and thus more powerful whole. So, I guess this thread isn't much different than asking, "What are the most useful archetypes for each class?".


for alchemist id say Grenadier (getting precise bombs at 2nd level sign me on!) it was so basic that it was posted twice in the books. since it first showed up as a monster race archtype in the monster codex (i believe it was meant to be hobgoblin only at first). untill now both d20pfsrd and the archive of nethys keep 2 pages of this archtype. one for the monster codex one for the pfs field guide.

Shadow Lodge

Every Barbarian should be a Totem Warrior: It literally costs you nothing and in return you get...Nothing!


zza ni wrote:
for alchemist id say Grenadier (getting precise bombs at 2nd level sign me on!) it was so basic that it was posted twice in the books. since it first showed up as a monster race archtype in the monster codex (i believe it was meant to be hobgoblin only at first). untill now both d20pfsrd and the archive of nethys keep 2 pages of this archtype. one for the monster codex one for the pfs field guide.

Personally I would say it's a perfect archetype that should really be the standard class. If it didn't do away with Brew Potion which by RAW, we can't get back. But some people don't like to craft so it's understandable.

Following this; really any Alchemist Archetype that trades out the Poison abilities is as close to "Default" as you can get. It's a neat thematic nod but in practice Poison is just too meh to really bother using.

Shadow Lodge

zza ni wrote:
for alchemist id say Grenadier (getting precise bombs at 2nd level sign me on!) it was so basic that it was posted twice in the books. since it first showed up as a monster race archtype in the monster codex (i believe it was meant to be hobgoblin only at first). untill now both d20pfsrd and the archive of nethys keep 2 pages of this archtype. one for the monster codex one for the pfs field guide.

Minor quibble, the Pathfinder Society Field Guide version came out first. Why they decided to try and race lock it is beyond me.


Grenadier is a good Alchemist archetype if you want to focus bomb heavy, but it's by no means the default archetype people should go for.

Vivisectionist is probably the second most popular alchemist archetype for enabling an entire build with Mr Hyde the melee alchemist, and is fairly popular for being really good at what it does. Taking it also makes Beastmorph a really good option.

Clone Master is also a fun generalist archetype as having copies of yourself is never a bad thing, and having copies of your team to prevent TPK's is also good.

Preservationist is also a really nice generic archetype as long as you take Planar Preservationist, since having Summon Monster spells on your list is always a good tool to have.


I'd actually put Beastmorph as the default melee Alchemist archetype, rather than Vivisectionist - Sneak Attack is a pathetic joke compared to pounce! Beastmorph also makes you lost just about nothing (until 14th level), whereas Vivicestionist looses the Alchemist's signature clas feature.


Beastmorph isn't the default because it comes packed with a lot of intrinsic flavor that not every melee Alchemist is going to want. The beast shape is very strong, and the best melee Alchemist is almost certainly a Beastmorph, but beast shape has a lot of character implications that may not be favorable; Vivisectionist can be slapped on any character without making statements other than "I'm an Alchemist that traded bombs for a melee ability".


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Empiricist yet. Whether it's on the boards or at my own table, I've never seen a non-Empirist Investigator.

I'm surprised to see so much discussion about the Alchemist. The Alchemist is a very versatile class that has a lot of different ways to build it. While there are plenty of amazingly good archetypes out there, they all focus on different aspects on the class. For a strength-based mutagen-focused alchemist you might say that Beastmorph is the default, but that would a silly selection for a Dex/Int focused bomb alchemist. Because the class can go in such wildly different directions, and the archetypes tend to be narrowly focused, I don't feel any can appropriately be said to be a default.


Dasrak wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Empiricist yet. Whether it's on the boards or at my own table, I've never seen a non-Empirist Investigator.

Empiricist is really good and pretty much a gimme if you're gonna play a 'regular' investigator, though there are a number of other decent archetypes that all trade out the same things.

Quote:
I'm surprised to see so much discussion about the Alchemist. The Alchemist is a very versatile class that has a lot of different ways to build it.

I sort of think that's WHY the alchemist gets brought up. One of the problems with the Alchemist's class design is the individual elements in its kit and kind of disparate, so an archetype that trades bombs for better mutagens is essentially 'free' power for a mutagen focused alchemist, or vice versa.


Antiquarian is probably my default investigator. Empiricist is ok if you want to abuse point buy, but I don’t like the feel of dumping a lot of stats.


Which archetype do I consider the default for a class? The unmodified base class. Seems like a strange question to me.


I wonder if it'd be more interesting to ask, "What class would you never take without using an archetype?"


Melkiador wrote:
I wonder if it'd be more interesting to ask, "What class would you never take without using an archetype?"

For me? The answer is quite easy: Cleric.

And the only exception to that rule (and there is for all of the nevers), is if we were playing a Core only game, with no access to archetypes, and we needed a divine caster that could heal well.


It would be much faster to list the ones you would take without an archetype!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Derklord wrote:
It would be much faster to list the ones you would take without an archetype!

Pretty much everything that's a 9-level caster is extremely solid vanilla. Wizard and Sorcerer have one overpowered archetype each (Pact Wizard and Razmiran Priest respectively) that I personally would never avail myself of, and the rest are at best side-grades. Cleric can be a little bit bland vanilla, but it's incredibly solid and well-rounded. Druid and Oracle lack the blandness issue while still being excellent vanilla. Witch and Arcanist have some nice archetypes, but vanilla is a competitive option for both. Psychic has almost nothing published for it so vanilla is definitely the default now and forever. The Summoner is a pseudo-9-level caster, and it definitely has no need of an archetype. Even its best archetypes are merely side-grades on vanilla.

While most other classes have such a wealth of archetypes that there's almost certainly something that fits, I feel there's one that stands out for its merits as vanilla: the Fighter. It was basically unchained with the combination of Weapon Master's Handbook and Armor Master's Handbook, buffing the main Fighter class features massively and as a consequence also severely nerfing its existing archetypes. Only the very best archetypes remain viable, and those are pretty much just side-grades on vanilla.


Melkiador wrote:
I wonder if it'd be more interesting to ask, "What class would you never take without using an archetype?"

Any of them. All of the base classes are fine.


blahpers wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
I wonder if it'd be more interesting to ask, "What class would you never take without using an archetype?"
Any of them. All of the base classes are fine.

This point. The archetypes are, well, archetypes. They allow for different builds. That's essentially what the discussion on the Alchemist is about - the Grenadier is the bomb-thrower archetype, the Vivisectionist is the melee archetype, the Beastmorph is the Mutagen archetype.

That said, any class with a "free" thing to trade like Uncanny Dodge or Poison Use.


Monk. The original monk is not OK without archetypes, unless you're in a game where the GM takes pity on you. The stories about the monk working just fine - with an aside about their having an item which let them turn into a tiger - are quite real.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Any of them. All of the base classes are fine.

I think there's an important distinction here. Even if the base class is just fine (which I'd agree is true for almost all classes) there is still very likely an archetype out there that would appeal slightly more than the base class. Going back to the Alchemist, the vanilla class is just fine, but for any given build there's going to be some archetype out there that's going to appeal more. It's not that vanilla is bad, it's just that there will always be something that you'll take over it for any given build.


Dasrak wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Any of them. All of the base classes are fine.
I think there's an important distinction here. Even if the base class is just fine (which I'd agree is true for almost all classes) there is still very likely an archetype out there that would appeal slightly more than the base class. Going back to the Alchemist, the vanilla class is just fine, but for any given build there's going to be some archetype out there that's going to appeal more. It's not that vanilla is bad, it's just that there will always be something that you'll take over it for any given build.

Well, yes. All classes are fine. I personally find the Cleric boring. That's just me, though.


Dasrak wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Any of them. All of the base classes are fine.
I think there's an important distinction here. Even if the base class is just fine (which I'd agree is true for almost all classes) there is still very likely an archetype out there that would appeal slightly more than the base class. Going back to the Alchemist, the vanilla class is just fine, but for any given build there's going to be some archetype out there that's going to appeal more. It's not that vanilla is bad, it's just that there will always be something that you'll take over it for any given build.

I'm not sure this is true (with the exception of totally free upgrades like Qinggong Monk and Primalist Bloodrager). Continuing to use Alchemist as an example, the base Alchemist is probably the best choice if what you want to do is throw bombs AND brew potions.

There're also several classes where going un-archetyped is one of the more unique and/or powerful options. Base Bard comes to mind - nearly every archetype trades away either Versatile Performance or Bardic Knowledge but those two abilities make the Bard one of the best skills classes in the game.

There's enough well-designed archetypes that someone going un-archetyped is rare but as said: the base classes are fine.


Dasrak wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Any of them. All of the base classes are fine.
I think there's an important distinction here. Even if the base class is just fine (which I'd agree is true for almost all classes) there is still very likely an archetype out there that would appeal slightly more than the base class. Going back to the Alchemist, the vanilla class is just fine, but for any given build there's going to be some archetype out there that's going to appeal more. It's not that vanilla is bad, it's just that there will always be something that you'll take over it for any given build.

If the character concept matches the vanilla alchemist best, well, there you go.


The vanilla alchemist is such a random grab-bag of abilities that a concept has to be made around it, rather than just happening to fit IMO.


Honestly, I never knew where the total concept for the alchemist came from. There's not a lot of bomb-throwing, potion-swigging, studious mutants in fantasy fiction.


Melkiador wrote:
I wonder if it'd be more interesting to ask, "What class would you never take without using an archetype?"

Alchemist. Shaman. Druid. Brawler.

Honestly I really like base Alchemist as it's the class that made the system click for me. It might be a 'grab bag' of random abilities but it always made sense to me.

You're just a chemist/pharmacist who's learned how to fight, heal, and change your own body with all kinds of mixtures + a bit of your own latent magic.

That and I've played the Atelier games a bit along with Secret of Evemore. Both games with a big focus on Alchemy.

Sadly, PF alchemist will never learn Crush.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blahpers wrote:


If the character concept matches the vanilla alchemist best, well, there you go.

There are too many archetypes that give up only the poison use ability, so any such vanilla Alchemist would have to value poison use very highly. That already makes the build super-niche, and at that point I'd be very inclined to take a poison-focused archetype that better enhances what would otherwise be an extremely lackluster offering. So yeah, I do see vanilla alchemist as something I just wouldn't use on a PC.

I've used it on NPC's, because they don't have to worry about bleeding money on consumables, but for PC's you need more than just poison use and poison immunity for it to be a good path for you.


Alchemist Archetypes that only give up poison use:
Beastmorph - As mentioned upthread, some people have flavor issues with this. Also, if you're getting to 14, persistent Mutagen might be more useful to a bomber since the main benefit for a bomber is flight/senses and you can easily have those all day anyways at 14.
Chirurgeon - This is a pretty much a straight upgrade. Runs into the same flavor issue as Beastmorph but it's a smaller issue.
Royal Alchemist - I feel like I'm missing something but this is actually a downgrade, right? Get something that you could already make with Craft (Alchemy)?
Trap Breaker - Sidegrade if you're not a trapfinder. Poison resistance/immunity is better if you weren't planning to use either Trapfinding or Poison Use.

Honorable Mention to Preservationist, which doesn't give up a discovery until 18th so won't give up a discovery in most games. Suffers the same issue as Trap Breaker - if you didn't want to summon, why would you remove the base class's defenses?

There're also a few that give up poison and Mutagen, which theoretically might work for bombers but IMO giving up Mutagen is a trap option if you're starting play at early levels. It's an incredibly powerful buff and you'll be relying on it way more than bombs in the early game.

So, basically Chirurgeon is better than base Alchemist if you want Bombs and the utility of Brew Potion. And I'm not sure that every player would agree free Infusion/Breath of Life is better than having a better chance to avoid taking ability damage from that Giant Spider you fought at level 2 when a potion of Lesser Resto was half your budget.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Taudis wrote:
There're also a few that give up poison and Mutagen, which theoretically might work for bombers but IMO giving up Mutagen is a trap option if you're starting play at early levels. It's an incredibly powerful buff and you'll be relying on it way more than bombs in the early game.

Worth noting that most archetypes that lose mutagen can buy it back with a discovery. This is actually better than losing your 2nd level discovery, since you'd still qualify for extra discovery at 3rd level.


Dasrak wrote:
Taudis wrote:
There're also a few that give up poison and Mutagen, which theoretically might work for bombers but IMO giving up Mutagen is a trap option if you're starting play at early levels. It's an incredibly powerful buff and you'll be relying on it way more than bombs in the early game.
Worth noting that most archetypes that lose mutagen can buy it back with a discovery. This is actually better than losing your 2nd level discovery, since you'd still qualify for extra discovery at 3rd level.

And Bombing means you want Precise Bombs and an alternate damage type ASAP, while also pushing you towards needing to spend your early feats on PBS and Precise Shot. Mutagen also competes with other utility discoveries like Tumor Familiar and Infusion. If you decided that you prefer Brew Potion to Grenadier, you'll probably also need Rapid Reload to make your back-up weapon work (whether it's a sling or an X-Bow). Either you're missing Mutagen or you're missing some other desired early functionality. This is why I consider it a trap - the buyback is a high price.

Even if you do include archetypes that lose Mutagen, it opens up Homunculist and Sacrament Alchemist as archetypes that only trade away Poison abilities (and can still buy back Mutagen). Homunculist has a very specific flavor and there are a ton of players that don't want pets. Sacrament Alchemist places a penalty on a bomber's attack ability score. They're both good archetypes and have their role but there are good reasons why a player would pick base class over them. IMO much better reasons not to take those archetypes than Trap Breaker or Chirurgeon (which are still mostly just "I'd rather have a narrow saving throw bonus than a different ability I might not use").

Not to be too tautological, but the fact that I can argue that there is a role for the base Alch also basically means there is one.


Dasrak wrote:
blahpers wrote:


If the character concept matches the vanilla alchemist best, well, there you go.

There are too many archetypes that give up only the poison use ability, so any such vanilla Alchemist would have to value poison use very highly. That already makes the build super-niche, and at that point I'd be very inclined to take a poison-focused archetype that better enhances what would otherwise be an extremely lackluster offering. So yeah, I do see vanilla alchemist as something I just wouldn't use on a PC.

I've used it on NPC's, because they don't have to worry about bleeding money on consumables, but for PC's you need more than just poison use and poison immunity for it to be a good path for you.

My first alchemist I drew him up as a escaped chemist from an evil Empire(homebrew setting). He was a part of weapons development but fled when the Empire field tested his stuff on on combatants.

While I didn't go into the Class or the Story thinking about how he would use all his abilities, he actually could and would use all his stuff.

Poisons in combat? No, but he did threaten a Empire Soldier with a slow painful death due to the fact he could not only Poison the guy but keep him alive DURING the process to drag it out further. Needless to say we got the Info from him.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Default Archetypes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.