Alchemist Transcription


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Well we haven't actually seen the rules for holding things. It may be that you can hold multiple L items at once.

Even if you can't its an option rather that something mandatory. It may be niche but doing something like making one bomb for yourself to use and dropping two healing elixers on the floor for an ally to use. The last for a whole round which is a good opportunity for clutch heals.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
I mean, there's still a class feature (i.e. ALL alchemists get it) that requires you to have grown two extra arms somehow (create 3 items with 1 hand free... i like to see how you're holding them)

I'm not sure where you are getting this? Why can't you hold all 3 in one hand? This feels like reading way too much into the rules that assume you have can apply common sense. If all PC classes have only two hands and the game allows you to create 3 items, the game assumes you can hold all three.

shroudb wrote:
There's still class features that simply don't work unless you pick up specific high level feats (sure, create 2/3 items at once, but they spoil before you can use them, genious indeed)

Umm... Quick alchemy is one action, and you still have two actions to go that round. Quick alchemy, drink, throw. If you make 3, who says your companion can't take the third item from you before the beginning of your next turn?

shroudb wrote:
The language for the Bulk is actually worse, since it adds a (l) bulk ON TOP of all the bulk your actual complete alchemical items costs, meaning we still require from alchemists hulk levels of strength just to carry around their daily spells.

Again, what makes you say this? Alchemists only have light armor, they don't carry shields. Many probably don't have more weapons than a dagger or short sword for emergencies. 10 L = 1 bulk, and the reagents are reused each day, it just means that you reserve 1L bulk for each day.

shroudb wrote:
The majority of the feats read as stuff that other classes get for free baseline or just stuff that you HAVE to pick "just to make the class work" instead of being cool extra things you can do.

This is disingenuous at best. A multiclass Alchemist that takes ZERO alchemist feasts after level 1 is still a full functional alchemist with lots of free bombs and elixirs and mutagens. Feats give you more free items, or faster free items, or better bombs, or debuffing bombs etc. but how are they "things you have to pick"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
I mean, there's still a class feature (i.e. ALL alchemists get it) that requires you to have grown two extra arms somehow (create 3 items with 1 hand free... i like to see how you're holding them)

I'm not sure where you are getting this? Why can't you hold all 3 in one hand? This feels like reading way too much into the rules that assume you have can apply common sense. If all PC classes have only two hands and the game allows you to create 3 items, the game assumes you can hold all three.

shroudb wrote:
There's still class features that simply don't work unless you pick up specific high level feats (sure, create 2/3 items at once, but they spoil before you can use them, genious indeed)

Umm... Quick alchemy is one action, and you still have two actions to go that round. Quick alchemy, drink, throw. If you make 3, who says your companion can't take the third item from you before the beginning of your next turn?

shroudb wrote:
The language for the Bulk is actually worse, since it adds a (l) bulk ON TOP of all the bulk your actual complete alchemical items costs, meaning we still require from alchemists hulk levels of strength just to carry around their daily spells.

Again, what makes you say this? Alchemists only have light armor, they don't carry shields. Many probably don't have more weapons than a dagger or short sword for emergencies. 10 L = 1 bulk, and the reagents are reused each day, it just means that you reserve 1L bulk for each day.

shroudb wrote:
The majority of the feats read as stuff that other classes get for free baseline or just stuff that you HAVE to pick "just to make the class work" instead of being cool extra things you can do.
This is disingenuous at best. A multiclass Alchemist that takes ZERO alchemist feasts after level 1 is still a full functional alchemist with lots of free bombs and elixirs and mutagens. Feats give you more free items, or faster free items, or better bombs, or debuffing bombs etc. but how are they "things...

a)there were rules about alchemical items needing 1 hand to use. As an example, you need an action to draw a bomb and another to throw. You can't be holding 10 bombs and throw them one after the other. Yet, you gain a class feature that allows you to make 3 of them with one hand. Where do the other go? do you need to "draw" them to throw them? no specifications are given how it even works.

b)alchemical items have weights. Like serious bulk. That's EACH of them. Reagents is (l) bulk, but it specifies that you USE the reagents and make the items, it doesn't make the items weight 0, they still have their normal weight.

using bulk value from the playtest, from like level 4+ you needed close to 16+ strength just to carry your daily prepared alchemical items. Unless they went and made ALL alchemical items weight (l) (hence i mention redesign of items) then the problem still exists

c)the fact that you're forced to have your allies picking up and using your items just to use a MAIN class feature, not abonus one, not a choice one, but a main ability that's core to the class, is horrible.

a base class feature is not an more extra than saying that fighter gtting specialization in weapons is extra

d)it is not disingenious at all:
as an example, in order to actually use your class DC, something baseline in all classes, you need a feat.

have even read or played an alchemist in the playtest? most of the core problems of the class are still there except one: they gave them "cantrips" but even those come at a much later time compared to every other "caster"


Malk_Content wrote:

Well we haven't actually seen the rules for holding things. It may be that you can hold multiple L items at once.

Even if you can't its an option rather that something mandatory. It may be niche but doing something like making one bomb for yourself to use and dropping two healing elixers on the floor for an ally to use. The last for a whole round which is a good opportunity for clutch heals.

we know that things like bomb need a hand to use. Do you seriously imply that you can make 3 items with one hand but can only hold 1 is "good design"?

How does this even work? do you make them with your mouth?

or do you seriously think that running around in a battlefield dropping behind you vials on the ground (that somehow don't shatter when they are dropped) is acceptable design for a CORE ability (not a feat one, but a core thing that all alchemists do)?

also, it's not an "option". Feats are options. A base ability is as core as a fighter getting better with weapons as he levels up, a barbarian getting better rage and rage powers, and a spellcaster getting higher level slots.

making multiple alchemical items is exactly the same as those, and having the ability basically malfunction because it was written while on a toilet break is seriously disheartening for the rest of the state of the edition, hence why i said i'll playtest first and if it's as bad as it looks, i won't be buying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

Well we haven't actually seen the rules for holding things. It may be that you can hold multiple L items at once.

Even if you can't its an option rather that something mandatory. It may be niche but doing something like making one bomb for yourself to use and dropping two healing elixers on the floor for an ally to use. The last for a whole round which is a good opportunity for clutch heals.

Pretty sure the "holding things" rules are determined mechanics-wise first, then imagined in-world.

Which is to say, if your character can supply the Operate action with a Free Hand, whatever it entails - such as juggling two or three extracts - then they can perform it.

Then it's up to your imagination: Maybe the alchemist uses their teeth as a third hand, maybe there is a spring-loaded strap on their L (light) equipment that let's them multi-task with their hand, or maybe they "had pre-mixed these an hour ago" in anticipation of the moment in a way that seems "after the fact" to the player but not to the character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure it's quite as bad as shroud is suggesting, but it does sort of feel like a number of alchemist mechanics weren't fully planned out.

Not that the class is going to be bad, but that you're going to have to jump through some extra hoops to make everything work properly in a way I don't think is really true for most of the other classes in 2e.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
(that somehow don't shatter when they are dropped)

Ignoring the rest of the issue (since I don't want to get into it), vials for Alchemists have always been available in metal. Indeed, given the state of Golarion's technology, it's much cheaper than glass as well as more durable.

Really, assuming they're all glass has always been a deeply odd assumption.

Bombs specifically probably explode on impact, but require a pretty solid impact (more than dropping it from a short height) in order to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
shroudb wrote:
(that somehow don't shatter when they are dropped)

Ignoring the rest of the issue (since I don't want to get into it), but vials for Alchemists have always been available in metal. Indeed, given the state of Golarion's technology, it's much cheaper than glass as well as more durable.

Really, assuming they're all glass has always been a deeply odd assumption.

While what you say it true, you just multiply the bulk issue: An Iron vial weighs 1 lb. by itself vs the - weight of a glass one. That's adding L weight to each and every item made, and that's to a class that looks to already have issues with bulk.

The Exchange

There's a couple of fiddly things that could be fixed with some special class notes like them having an altered capacity for Alchemical items. Their lack of focus powers would give you a sense that they're like the fighter and monk with additional feats but they don't get anything special like that. And Enduring Alchemy definitely should be a class feature and not a feat.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
While what you say it true, you just multiply the bulk issue: An Iron vial weighs 1 lb. by itself vs the - weight of a glass one. That's adding L weight to each and every item made, and that's to a class that looks to already have issues with bulk.

An iron vial weighing one pound would not be a vial any more. A one pound steel flask holds something like 24 ounces of liquid (as much as most wine bottles). That's not a vial, not even close.

Or to put it another way: That weight in PF1 was completely unrealistic and vaguely crazy. There's no reason to assume it would continue to be true in PF2.

Indeed, there's no reason to assume any weights of the items an Alchemist makes are separate from the Alchemist's Tools themselves and the weight of the Elixirs in question.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
shroudb wrote:
(that somehow don't shatter when they are dropped)

Ignoring the rest of the issue (since I don't want to get into it), but vials for Alchemists have always been available in metal. Indeed, given the state of Golarion's technology, it's much cheaper than glass as well as more durable.

Really, assuming they're all glass has always been a deeply odd assumption.

While what you say it true, you just multiply the bulk issue: An Iron vial weighs 1 lb. by itself vs the - weight of a glass one. That's adding L weight to each and every item made, and that's to a class that looks to already have issues with bulk.

The negligible-weight vials from UE are explicitly "made out of glass or steel". The heavier ones are ones designed to be tougher and hard to break.

EDIT: Rereading the description of an iron vial ("This metal potion bottle [...]") and weighing my coffee travel mug (about 1lb) makes it even more obvious that the iron vial is poorly named; it's essentially a thermos for a potion, not the small vial an alchemist would use for their concoctions


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Really, assuming they're all glass has always been a deeply odd assumption.

Glass vials of weirdly colored liquid are kind of an iconic element of alchemist/chemist aesthetics in various media, so I don't think it's that odd. That said yeah it's not really something to worry about either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
shroudb wrote:
(that somehow don't shatter when they are dropped)

Ignoring the rest of the issue (since I don't want to get into it), vials for Alchemists have always been available in metal. Indeed, given the state of Golarion's technology, it's much cheaper than glass as well as more durable.

Really, assuming they're all glass has always been a deeply odd assumption.

Bombs specifically probably explode on impact, but require a pretty solid impact (more than dropping it from a short height) in order to do so.

well, the pictures in the playtest certainly didn't look like metal. they were like clay-thingies.

as for bulk, there were alchemical items with more than 1 bulk. that's is "bulkier" than even shortswords... that's were the issues were coming from.

instead of addressing that with an easy note in the advanced/quick alchemy descriptions, where they clearly went to the trouble of spelling that the reagents weight (l) and you use them to make your stuff, they ignored it.

it would have been a breeze to say "reagents and all alchemical items made with those reagents weight as a whole (l) bulk" but apparently, the image of an alchemist they had in mind requires 16 strength just to carry a few vials of his daily allotments.

just imagine that "materials weight as a whole (l) bulk, but each spell you prepare using those materials now weights and additional l to 1-2 bulk"

p.s.
yes a lot of said probalems can be houseruled. But do we really need a book where you have to houserule day1 to be able to even play a non-strength based alchemist?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

as for bulk, there were alchemical items with more than 1 bulk. that's is "bulkier" than even shortswords... that's were the issues were coming from.

Technically true, however that's the philosopher's stone. I looked through every single alchemical item in the playtest just to make sure.

If 3 bulk (aka 30 items of near-your-level, only achievable by level ~6, and only on a pure specialist making items of their specialty) of items are enough to cripple your alchemist, perhaps you should have more than 10 Str.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Monks need clothes (0 bulk).

Wizards need a spellbook (1 bulk).

Alchemists need a portable lab (a few bulk).

Fighters need heavy armor and weapons (lots of bulk).

Sounds okay to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

Well we haven't actually seen the rules for holding things. It may be that you can hold multiple L items at once.

Even if you can't its an option rather that something mandatory. It may be niche but doing something like making one bomb for yourself to use and dropping two healing elixers on the floor for an ally to use. The last for a whole round which is a good opportunity for clutch heals.

we know that things like bomb need a hand to use. Do you seriously imply that you can make 3 items with one hand but can only hold 1 is "good design"?

How does this even work? do you make them with your mouth?

or do you seriously think that running around in a battlefield dropping behind you vials on the ground (that somehow don't shatter when they are dropped) is acceptable design for a CORE ability (not a feat one, but a core thing that all alchemists do)?

also, it's not an "option". Feats are options. A base ability is as core as a fighter getting better with weapons as he levels up, a barbarian getting better rage and rage powers, and a spellcaster getting higher level slots.

making multiple alchemical items is exactly the same as those, and having the ability basically malfunction because it was written while on a toilet break is seriously disheartening for the rest of the state of the edition, hence why i said i'll playtest first and if it's as bad as it looks, i won't be buying.

Its an option to make the three items is what I meant. You do it when it was advantageous and you don't when it isn't.

And I see we are getting into "realism is important when its an arguement against an idea I dislike" territory with the breaking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
yes a lot of said probalems can be houseruled. But do we really need a book where you have to houserule day1 to be able to even play a non-strength based alchemist?

Sounds like you won't be playing PF2e. Because I think we all know the rules we're getting when it comes to alchemists and what will be in the book. If that's your make and break then you get to avoid the new edition and save a crapload of money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So the chirurgeon can use Craft instead of Medicine as long as he or she is Trained in Medicine. My reading of this extends to use of Craft instead of Medicine when fulfilling prerequisites for Skill Feats. For example, a chirurgeon Legendary in Craft and Trained in Medicine would be able to take that Legendary feat that let’s you bring people back from the dead. Does anyone concur with my interpretation? If you disagree with the RAW, do you think it seems likely that the RAI is that Craft replace Medicine for all intents and purposes for the chirurgeon?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
And I see we are getting into "realism is important when its an arguement against an idea I dislike" territory with the breaking.

+1 to this.

Some things are expected to be common sense, and the rules are written assuming you have a human body and know how they work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

Monks need clothes (0 bulk).

Wizards need a spellbook (1 bulk).

Alchemists need a portable lab (a few bulk).

Fighters need heavy armor and weapons (lots of bulk).

Sounds okay to me.

So 2 for lab, 1 for armor, 1 for weapon... they have 1 bulk left for every elixir and every other piece of equipment [including ammo] before they are out of bulk unless they start putting stat ups into strength JUST for bulk... For me, that doesn't sound ok.

Cyouni wrote:
If 3 bulk (aka 30 items of near-your-level, only achievable by level ~6, and only on a pure specialist making items of their specialty) of items are enough to cripple your alchemist, perhaps you should have more than 10 Str.

1 bulk is enough. 3 is having a 16 strength just to carry around what you make at the start of the day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

To move on:
I really like what I am seeing in the Alchemist write up. While you can't really make a decision without seeing the actual formulas available, it looks like a really fun class to play.

I agree that you aren't going to see a wide variety of builds, really just one of 3. But I'm ok with that. This is the CRB. Meaning that this is the vanilla version of this class. New feats from the next options book (I like this term better than "splat") should help alleviate this issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of the alchemist getting 4 items for every advanced alchemy reagent used, largely because that is enough to give one to each party member. But it might be worth actually testing how strapped they feel for resources in actual play first.


Pertual alchemy is interesting. At first, I thought mutagenists were shortchanged by it, but with revivifying mutagen, it might be ok, but not great.

Bombers probably get the most useful batch and have feats like the smoke bomb feat that can make it better.

Also, RIP chirurgeons.

Dataphiles

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
shroudb wrote:
(that somehow don't shatter when they are dropped)

Ignoring the rest of the issue (since I don't want to get into it), vials for Alchemists have always been available in metal. Indeed, given the state of Golarion's technology, it's much cheaper than glass as well as more durable.

Really, assuming they're all glass has always been a deeply odd assumption.

Bombs specifically probably explode on impact, but require a pretty solid impact (more than dropping it from a short height) in order to do so.

I'd always played my "bombs" as small paper packets with something crushable that I'd pop between my fingers. Throw it before the reaction goes violent.

You could also go with bamboo tubes either waxed inside or just holding dry ingredients and a pull fuse to release the catalyst.

There's a lot of different ways to lay it out.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

...Sticks of gum that are different colors on each side...? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see an option for the chiriagon that could be chosen for perpetual infusion that was a temp hp buffer or something that they could actually do something most of the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Monks need clothes (0 bulk).

Wizards need a spellbook (1 bulk).

Alchemists need a portable lab (a few bulk).

Fighters need heavy armor and weapons (lots of bulk).

Sounds okay to me.

So 2 for lab, 1 for armor, 1 for weapon... they have 1 bulk left for every elixir and every other piece of equipment [including ammo] before they are out of bulk unless they start putting stat ups into strength JUST for bulk... For me, that doesn't sound ok.

Cyouni wrote:
If 3 bulk (aka 30 items of near-your-level, only achievable by level ~6, and only on a pure specialist making items of their specialty) of items are enough to cripple your alchemist, perhaps you should have more than 10 Str.
1 bulk is enough. 3 is having a 16 strength just to carry around what you make at the start of the day.

I will admit 3 is likely to be way more than you'd ever need. I like overpreparing, and I can't see myself going beyond 2 bulk of daily items, and then using Quick Alchemy to fill in the rest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Monks need clothes (0 bulk).

Wizards need a spellbook (1 bulk).

Alchemists need a portable lab (a few bulk).

Fighters need heavy armor and weapons (lots of bulk).

Sounds okay to me.

So 2 for lab, 1 for armor, 1 for weapon... they have 1 bulk left for every elixir and every other piece of equipment [including ammo] before they are out of bulk unless they start putting stat ups into strength JUST for bulk... For me, that doesn't sound ok.

Cyouni wrote:
If 3 bulk (aka 30 items of near-your-level, only achievable by level ~6, and only on a pure specialist making items of their specialty) of items are enough to cripple your alchemist, perhaps you should have more than 10 Str.
1 bulk is enough. 3 is having a 16 strength just to carry around what you make at the start of the day.
I will admit 3 is likely to be way more than you'd ever need. I like overpreparing, and I can't see myself going beyond 2 bulk of daily items, and then using Quick Alchemy to fill in the rest.

And this is making the assumption you're wielding a bulk 1 weapon and armor, which seems erroneous. I can safely see I haven't seen an Alchemist wielding more than an L weapon myself and L armor is probably not unlikely (especially given recent hints about armor+Dex cap being lower which means you may not need the heaviest light armor if maxing Dex). If you are wielding a hefty weapon and armor then yeah, you might need to have some Str. Especially since most Bulk 1 weapons aren't finesse...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Monks need clothes (0 bulk).

Wizards need a spellbook (1 bulk).

Alchemists need a portable lab (a few bulk).

Fighters need heavy armor and weapons (lots of bulk).

Sounds okay to me.

So 2 for lab, 1 for armor, 1 for weapon... they have 1 bulk left for every elixir and every other piece of equipment [including ammo] before they are out of bulk unless they start putting stat ups into strength JUST for bulk... For me, that doesn't sound ok.

Cyouni wrote:
If 3 bulk (aka 30 items of near-your-level, only achievable by level ~6, and only on a pure specialist making items of their specialty) of items are enough to cripple your alchemist, perhaps you should have more than 10 Str.
1 bulk is enough. 3 is having a 16 strength just to carry around what you make at the start of the day.

Are you suggesting that a character wearing armor, carrying a weapon, and dragging around a portable chemical laboratory should be treated in the game as equivalently carrying a jansport backpack?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

maybe the portable lab contains a strap over carrying tray like a vender in a stadium, so you can just leave your quick alchemy items on the tray as you make them and not have to hold them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
And this is making the assumption you're wielding a bulk 1 weapon and armor, which seems erroneous.

The only light bulk armor is fragile so rather than be left naked if the armor is damaged once, I personally can't see wearing it unless it's the only option...

So I don't see anything questionable there.

As to a weapon, I think a ranged weapon is most suitable for a non-mutagenist alchemist so looking at those, crossbow seems the best default option with good range and damage: It's the weapon I'd pick. Sure you can drop down to a hand crossbow/sling/javelin but they're pure downgrades. Even if we DO downgrade, ammo will most like take it to at least a bulk with the weapon so I'm not seeing anything unreasonable.

As I don't see most alchemists with more str than dex unless they are mutagenists, melee weapons would be a secondary pick IMO. So even a L melee weapon is just extra on top of the other bulk.

rainzax wrote:
Are you suggesting that a character wearing armor, carrying a weapon, and dragging around a portable chemical laboratory should be treated in the game as equivalently carrying a jansport backpack?

I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be unreasonable to have basic equipment and the things needed for your class to use it base abilities without needing a stat that isn't one of your key abilities or secondary ones. It;s something I see as an issue. I'd rather lose some realism on the lab equipment bulk and have the class work better by giving it a bit of room to just get basic gear, not even talking extra extravagant gear, without having to alter stats just to do so.

On jansport backpack... I'm suggesting that a carefuly packed lab kit [2 bulk] is should be easier to carry than 20 strung longbows in your arms [2 bulk].


graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Are you suggesting that a character wearing armor, carrying a weapon, and dragging around a portable chemical laboratory should be treated in the game as equivalently carrying a jansport backpack?

I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be unreasonable to have basic equipment and the things needed for your class to use it base abilities without needing a stat that isn't one of your key abilities or secondary ones. It;s something I see as an issue. I'd rather lose some realism on the lab equipment bulk and have the class work better by giving it a bit of room to just get basic gear, not even talking extra extravagant gear, without having to alter stats just to do so.

On jansport backpack... I'm suggesting that a carefuly packed lab kit [2 bulk] is should be easier to carry than 20 strung longbows in your arms [2 bulk].

When I look at the Damiel iconic Alchemist character, I see a character significantly encumbered.

And really, I think the problem solves itself. You want a high-ST Alchemist, you get to carry heavier weapons and armor in addition to your lab. You want a low-ST Alchemist, you get to carry lighter weapons and armor, if any, in addition to your lab.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
When I look at the Damiel iconic Alchemist character, I see a character significantly encumbered.

I honestly put 0% stock in character pictures. They often have more equipment than a dragon couldn't walk around with... I will agree though that's a man that's never met a masterwork backpack or someone with even a little packing sense. ;)

rainzax wrote:
And really, I think the problem solves itself. You want a high-ST Alchemist, you get to carry heavier weapons and armor in addition to your lab. You want a low-ST Alchemist, you get to carry lighter weapons and armor, if any, in addition to your lab.

The problem is I went about as light as I thought feasible. There really isn't lighter: padded is disposable armor that can never be fixed, it's not IMO a real option. Weapons, I already went over: even your lightest ranged weapons are going to be at least a bulk with ammo and I want a weapon that can fire farther than I can throw a bomb even if that's my specialty. So IMO, the game forces you out of the light strength range just by picking the class: medium str or you lose 10 speed and 2 bonus from physical skill checks for daring to not play the hulk as an alchemist... :P

PS: What I find REALLY annoying is that in PF1, an alchemy crafting kit which "is assumed to have all the material components needed for his extracts, mutagens, and bombs" weighs 5 lbs... And "As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk", it should default to 1 bulk. I'm not sure why someone thought alchemists needed to carry an extra bulk.


I don't think there's any problem with standard alchemist bulk from consumables, but I do hope they reduced the lab/other things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
PS: What I find REALLY annoying is that in PF1, an alchemy crafting kit which "is assumed to have all the material components needed for his extracts, mutagens, and bombs" weighs 5 lbs... And "As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk", it should default to 1 bulk. I'm not sure why someone thought alchemists needed to carry an extra bulk.

Don't know how else to put it. They carry extra bulk because they carry extra bulk. It's part of the very concept of Traveling Alchemist.

That said, I refute your claim perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the rules? I thought 5 bulk is the allowance for a ST 10 character before the penalties kick in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
I don't think there's any problem with standard alchemist bulk from consumables, but I do hope they reduced the lab/other things.

IMO the consumables are the straw that breaks the camels back: I MIGHT be able to squeak by without encumbrance if I don't hold any of the consumables I make as it's down to counting every light item for that last bulk.

rainzax wrote:
That said, I refute your claim perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the rules? I thought 5 bulk is the allowance for a ST 10 character before the penalties kick in.

No, it's 5. My armor [leather] 1, weapon[crossbow] 1, kit 2 and ammo[10] 1 are 5 bulk: that's 0% adventuring gear like rope, food, water or anything and JUST the bare basics let alone any of the elixirs I make in the morning. If I want to hold a single one of the elixirs that a 12 str needed and now I can carry some food and water at least. Now consider I'm a Chirurgeon once. I look at my sheet and see I have this nifty ability that lets me use Crafting for Medicine checks Awesome, until I see I need a healer's kit to use "Administer First Aid, Treat a Disease, or Treat a Poison." so lets look... great, there goes another bulk I need so now it's at a 14 str needed. Now I still have no rope or other gear but now I can at least move full speed. This is why I'm saying there can't be any low str alchemists unless they are permanently encumbered or using very sub-optimal gear.

IMO, I'm not taking anything gonzo but taking the bare minimum of what I need to function and the lowest str looks like a 14 and that's a pretty big hit for me. It's even worse if you dare to play a halfling or gnome with a flaw in str...


graystone wrote:


On jansport backpack... I'm suggesting that a carefuly packed lab kit [2 bulk] is should be easier to carry than 20 strung longbows in your arms [2 bulk].

Beg pardon, but when the flip are you getting the idea that 20 Longbows is 2 bulk? Isn't a SINGLE longbow 2 bulk? If not, then 1.

Also I don't have the book handy but I could have sworn that Leather Armor was light. Could be wrong.

One more thing though. At level 2 you have a max of 6 Reagents per day. That's a max of 12 items, and that's if you don't save any for Quick Alchemy which is honestly a questionable choice and one under which needing a little investment into carrying capacity isn't unreasonable IMO.

At level 3, if you're having bulk a bit close for comfort you can always take Hefty Hauler. Your carrying capacity is up 2 Bulk, which comes out to 20 of most Alchemical items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That said, maybe the portable lab could stand to be less bulk, at least when folded. IDK what it's like really. But I just don't see it being quite as big of an issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Did I miss the part where we know what the revised bulk for various items looks like? Weren't we told the playtest values were pretty heavily changed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We don't know, we're heavily guessing. That said, there is a very short section where Mark talks about it during his blog, and his equipment is cited as ~5 Bulk, so...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Beg pardon, but when the flip are you getting the idea that 20 Longbows is 2 bulk? Isn't a SINGLE longbow 2 bulk? If not, then 1.

Made a mistake looking at the chart accidently looking at ammo, the bow is 2 bulk: replace longbows for 20 Sawtooth sabres or 20 light shields.

Edge93 wrote:
Also I don't have the book handy but I could have sworn that Leather Armor was light. Could be wrong.

The only light armor with L bulk is padded and it's fragile, meaning when it's damaged it's instead destroyed. Leather is 1 bulk and isn't fragile.

Edge93 wrote:
One more thing though. At level 2 you have a max of 6 Reagents per day. That's a max of 12 items, and that's if you don't save any for Quick Alchemy which is honestly a questionable choice and one under which needing a little investment into carrying capacity isn't unreasonable IMO.

As I pointed out, that was with a few days food and water: 3 days each is 6 L. Secondly, for a Chirurgeon there really isn't a reason to ever use Quick Alchemy when each use means losing 1 or more elixirs of health, especially if you're the lone healer. Bombers actually have a reason for quick alchemy to target vulnerabilities. Mutagenist's focused on buffing most likely would focus more on numbers the quick alchemy if they pass out buffs to the party: int plus level doesn't go far when you divide it by the number of party members.

Edge93 wrote:
At level 3, if you're having bulk a bit close for comfort you can always take Hefty Hauler. Your carrying capacity is up 2 Bulk, which comes out to 20 of most Alchemical items.

I could but IMO that's as bad as having to take 14 str: it's a PURE feat tax just to make the character work at it's most basic levels.

Edge93 wrote:
That said, maybe the portable lab could stand to be less bulk, at least when folded. IDK what it's like really. But I just don't see it being quite as big of an issue.

1 bulk would make it almost bearable, allowing no general equipment and making others carry your food and water.

MaxAstro wrote:
Did I miss the part where we know what the revised bulk for various items looks like? Weren't we told the playtest values were pretty heavily changed?

Some of the worst offenders have been changed. I'm looking at artisan tools and snare kits as likely candidates. Or the longbow that's bulkier than the 10' pole or 10' of chain.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, we have no way of knowing ATM that padded armour is the only armour with L bulk, we haven't seen the CRB yet, nor the final text for the rules on bulk yet. The playtest was a playtest and almost certainly didn't have the full list of equipment, or many other things that weren't strictly required for the playtest.


Some Kind of Chymist wrote:
I mean, we have no way of knowing ATM that padded armour is the only armour with L bulk, we haven't seen the CRB yet, nor the final text for the rules on bulk yet. The playtest was a playtest and almost certainly didn't have the full list of equipment, or many other things that weren't strictly required for the playtest.

If we don't use the playtest to fill in the gaps of what we know, what is there to talk about? Do we have a complete picture of how the alchemist interact with the CRB with anything? If we aren't making any assumptions on how things are, we'd basically just be posting 'that's cool' and that's that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

That's cool.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Some Kind of Chymist wrote:
I mean, we have no way of knowing ATM that padded armour is the only armour with L bulk, we haven't seen the CRB yet, nor the final text for the rules on bulk yet. The playtest was a playtest and almost certainly didn't have the full list of equipment, or many other things that weren't strictly required for the playtest.
If we don't use the playtest to fill in the gaps of what we know, what is there to talk about? Do we have a complete picture of how the alchemist interact with the CRB with anything? If we aren't making any assumptions on how things are, we'd basically just be posting 'that's cool' and that's that.

...

...
That's cool.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do we know anything about gaining new alchemical formulas outside of leveling (as in, can they gain new ones like wizards with spells)?

Also can anyone think of characters that seem like mutagenist alchemist in fiction (other than the typical way that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is adapted)?

Because I for one am super amped to read through the rest of the CRB and look at the various alchemical items and see how it all work. As can probably be guessed from the username I have a soft spot for Super Science! ; especially of the chemical/alchemical variety, and while I applaud Paizo for putting Alchemists in PF1 (Golarion has always been a setting with a place for most of what a fantasy/sci-fi/horror/western/etc. fan could hope for); the PF2 version being in the CRB and not relying on reskinned magic mechanics is awesome. Looking at what we know so far about the alchemist it looks like it has a decent chassis, it'll have teething problems for sure, but after a year or two I'm sure it'll have the breadth of options to make it everything I could hope for.

As for the whole bulk 'issue', low strength alchemists probably won't be numerous because the new character creation rules force you to spread out your stats more, making having at least strength 12 likely to be fairly common,a 14 or 16 more likely on a hulk style mutagenist alchemist. I've seen too many of these threads get derailed by arguments over mechanics we haven't seen the final version of at all, let alone how they actually play and I hope for the next 2.5 weeks we can see preview content and not immediately start doomsaying about what we haven't seen. After those 2.5 weeks we can all have at it and compare what we think of the actual rules but for now we should all play nice and not immediately jump to conclusions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it will depend on the mutagens you use. There is a sizable number of characters in more action-oriented fiction that augment themselves with chemicals, like Bane from Batman or witchers. If you expand the thematic scope of the mutagenist from chemicals to more science-stuff, hulk and most of his rogue gallery could be mutagenists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:
I think it will depend on the mutagens you use. There is a sizable number of characters in more action-oriented fiction that augment themselves with chemicals, like Bane from Batman or witchers. If you expand the thematic scope of the mutagenist from chemicals to more science-stuff, hulk and most of his rogue gallery could be mutagenists.

I can't believe I forgot Bane; he is a pretty iconic example of someone that augments themself with chemicals as are Witchers. Now that I think about it there are lot of DC and Marvel comics characters that have powers that resemble mutagens; The Lizard from spiderman for example and as you said hulk and his foes (and most of the other failures to make another Captain America).

The Invisible Man also had a sort of mutagenist feel to him.

And of course Stefan Urquelle; though i doubt many people play Urkel-expies in Pathfinder (I'm sure there are people that do though).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Some Kind of Chymist wrote:
Do we know anything about gaining new alchemical formulas outside of leveling (as in, can they gain new ones like wizards with spells)?

You could do reverse engineering in the playtest with alchemical stuff that you find in the adventures and buy formulas.

51 to 100 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Alchemist Transcription All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.