Alchemist Transcription


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Does popeye count? I feel like that spinach counts


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think one of my posts got lost in the bulk discussion. Any comments on the below?

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.
Insight wrote:

I think one of my posts got lost in the bulk discussion. Any comments on the below?

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?

The RAW is pretty specific - you can attempt a Crafting check for its uses. This might work for things for Treat Wounds effects, but certainly wouldn't qualify for prerequisites.

I... don't know about the RAI. We've tried to query Mark on that, but he's been silent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
The RAW is pretty specific - you can attempt a Crafting check for its uses. This might work for things for Treat Wounds effects, but certainly wouldn't qualify for prerequisites.

To me, it reads you use your craft skill to modify your dice roll only. Other than that, it looks to me you check your proficiency levels with medicine.


I think we need to see the language for how skills work, how actions are gated before we can be sure, but I would say from the language we do have that you use Craft bonus to roll medicine checks, BUT only for actions that require trained only, NOT actions that require expert etc.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I’m only seeing five activities under the Medicine Skill: 2 under the Untrained heading (Recall Knowledge, Administer First Aid) and 3 under the Trained heading (Treat Disease, Tread Poison, Treat Wounds). Assuming that Craft suffices for all of these uses, is there an example of an Expert or higher activity, other than Skill Feat prerequisites?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chetna Wavari 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), 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.

There is really a lot of ways - the paper bundle bombs and bamboo tubes are a nice touch and would imo fit especially well to a tien alchemist

As for glass, well if worked the right way glass can actually survive some fall (i have bought some 'break proof' larp glass vials at a rp con once, they at the very least survive fall from about shoulder height, did not dare to drop it straight onto a stone admittedly)

And glass makes sence from a chemical point of view since it is very slow to react with anything. Perfect to keep in potions that have ... whatever in it

So while it is surely not unbreakable, don't underestimate glass (especially if it itself is alchemically or even lowkey magically enhanced which would certainly be an option in the setting)

And while in a realistic setting metal flasks might be cheaper and more efficient then glass ones, golarion is (somewhat) high fantasy in the end

(And I would personally create bombs from little clay pots, which is certainly cheaper then glass)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insight wrote:
I’m only seeing five activities under the Medicine Skill: 2 under the Untrained heading (Recall Knowledge, Administer First Aid) and 3 under the Trained heading (Treat Disease, Tread Poison, Treat Wounds). Assuming that Craft suffices for all of these uses, is there an example of an Expert or higher activity, other than Skill Feat prerequisites?

Not that I know of but then again I haven't seen the actual book. There are some skill feats that require Expert of higher to get, and this ability does not allow you access to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
So while it is surely not unbreakable, don't underestimate glass (especially if it itself is alchemically or even lowkey magically enhanced which would certainly be an option in the setting)

LOL You can bludgeon someone with a wine bottle and not have it break, so I'd agree glass can be quite sturdy: The disconnect is if you then have a glass bomb, throw it and then expect it to break and explode. Do you have sturdy vials for some items and fragile ones for others?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insight wrote:
I’m only seeing five activities under the Medicine Skill: 2 under the Untrained heading (Recall Knowledge, Administer First Aid) and 3 under the Trained heading (Treat Disease, Tread Poison, Treat Wounds). Assuming that Craft suffices for all of these uses, is there an example of an Expert or higher activity, other than Skill Feat prerequisites?

Well, let's say you pick up Ward Medic, a Medicine feat that scales with your Medicine proficiency. You roll Crafting for that use, and you have master proficiency in Crafting.

Do you get the scaling use for Ward Medic, or not? Same thing for Treat Wounds, which (I believe) automatically scales in healing amount based on your proficiency.

(I'm pretty sure RAW says no, as a note. You attempt a Crafting check, but your Medicine proficiency stays the same.)


I always figured bombs had to be in some kind of waxed paper/card board type tubes along the lines of fireworks. It is just not logistically reasonable to expect an alchemist to carry days/weeks worth of max usage per day in disposable glass vials for bombs. You would have to carry crates of glassware with you into a dungeon if you wanted to have anything left by completion.

Now some glass vials are probably there but for things like mutagens/elixers that once consumed you could clean out and reuse the vial for something else. But for bombs to expect them to be in actual vials would take an incredible amount of bulk for any adventure not actually near your own home base. If it is something like waxed paper you could carry a good amount fixings that would be durable and not affected by immersion in water.


Cyouni wrote:
Insight wrote:
I’m only seeing five activities under the Medicine Skill: 2 under the Untrained heading (Recall Knowledge, Administer First Aid) and 3 under the Trained heading (Treat Disease, Tread Poison, Treat Wounds). Assuming that Craft suffices for all of these uses, is there an example of an Expert or higher activity, other than Skill Feat prerequisites?

Well, let's say you pick up Ward Medic, a Medicine feat that scales with your Medicine proficiency. You roll Crafting for that use, and you have master proficiency in Crafting.

Do you get the scaling use for Ward Medic, or not? Same thing for Treat Wounds, which (I believe) automatically scales in healing amount based on your proficiency.

(I'm pretty sure RAW says no, as a note. You attempt a Crafting check, but your Medicine proficiency stays the same.)

I agree with your RAW reading: everything scales off the actual medicine proficiency.


So if Craft checks cant be used for things like Ward Medic then doesn't that make Chirugeon initial ability useless.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Reziburno25 wrote:
So if Craft checks cant be used for things like Ward Medic then doesn't that make Chirugeon initial ability useless.

The ability would effectively be “Chirurgeons gain a +2/+3 to Medicine checks”, but if that’s the intent then I wish the ability had just been worded that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insight wrote:
Reziburno25 wrote:
So if Craft checks cant be used for things like Ward Medic then doesn't that make Chirugeon initial ability useless.
The ability would effectively be “Chirurgeons gain a +2/+3 to Medicine checks”, but if that’s the intent then I wish the ability had just been worded that way.

isn't Medicine keyed to Wisdom?

It may be the way they implemented what we asked for "make Medicine also keying off Intelligence"

Although i would 1000% want that to be a medicine feat instead of a class ability


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see that alchemists still never get better than expert with their alchemical weapons. Seems inappropriate for a limited use item. At least in 1e they went against touch AC, so that will probably help balance - oh wait, they did make THAT decision, didn't they?

Liberty's Edge

sherlock1701 wrote:
I see that alchemists still never get better than expert with their alchemical weapons. Seems inappropriate for a limited use item. At least in 1e they went against touch AC, so that will probably help balance - oh wait, they did make THAT decision, didn't they?

I actually did an analysis of this based on the monster stats we have. For the most part, it looks like, assuming there's some item (including Mutagens) to raise bomb accuracy, the Alchemist's accuracy goes up slightly as they level.

And remember that most alchemical bombs have damage even on a miss. That's actually pretty much nonexistent for non limited use items in PF2.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I see that alchemists still never get better than expert with their alchemical weapons. Seems inappropriate for a limited use item. At least in 1e they went against touch AC, so that will probably help balance - oh wait, they did make THAT decision, didn't they?

I actually did an analysis of this based on the monster stats we have. For the most part, it looks like, assuming there's some item (including Mutagens) to raise bomb accuracy, the Alchemist's accuracy goes up slightly as they level.

And remember that most alchemical bombs have damage even on a miss. That's actually pretty much nonexistent for non limited use items in PF2.

However, you're far more likely to miss in this edition. And PF1 had mutagens as well.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
However, you're far more likely to miss in this edition. And PF1 had mutagens as well.

I mean...sure?

Everyone is more likely to miss in this edition. If you don't like that, you have a problem with the game as a whole (and, in fact, it's clear that you do have such a problem). But it's not any worse for Alchemists than most other people (partially due to damage on a miss, but still), which was my point.

Really, bringing this up is only relevant if comparing editions. Which we're not actually doing in this thread. So this is just a completely irrelevant statement in many ways.


shroudb wrote:
Insight wrote:
Reziburno25 wrote:
So if Craft checks cant be used for things like Ward Medic then doesn't that make Chirugeon initial ability useless.
The ability would effectively be “Chirurgeons gain a +2/+3 to Medicine checks”, but if that’s the intent then I wish the ability had just been worded that way.

isn't Medicine keyed to Wisdom?

It may be the way they implemented what we asked for "make Medicine also keying off Intelligence"

Although i would 1000% want that to be a medicine feat instead of a class ability

This didn't actually occur to me. So you have +2 to +4 vs. Medicine b/c you are an expert/master instead of just trained. BUT you ALSO get an additional +4 to "medicine" because you use Int instead of Wis, so even if you only stick to the trained Medicine actions, you will have a net +6 or +8 because you are using Craft Alchemy on your medicine rolls.

Also some of the "expert in medicine" class feats might do things that you can do with your elixirs already.


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

And a level 14 Alchemist with no buffs still hits a Astral Deva (level 14 enemy we have stats for) on a 13. With damage on a miss that is pretty good seeing how on level enemies are actually meant to be a credible threat this edition and with any amount of tactics or buffs will easily hit below a 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelseus wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Insight wrote:
Reziburno25 wrote:
So if Craft checks cant be used for things like Ward Medic then doesn't that make Chirugeon initial ability useless.
The ability would effectively be “Chirurgeons gain a +2/+3 to Medicine checks”, but if that’s the intent then I wish the ability had just been worded that way.

isn't Medicine keyed to Wisdom?

It may be the way they implemented what we asked for "make Medicine also keying off Intelligence"

Although i would 1000% want that to be a medicine feat instead of a class ability

This didn't actually occur to me. So you have +2 to +4 vs. Medicine b/c you are an expert/master instead of just trained. BUT you ALSO get an additional +4 to "medicine" because you use Int instead of Wis, so even if you only stick to the trained Medicine actions, you will have a net +6 or +8 because you are using Craft Alchemy on your medicine rolls.

Also some of the "expert in medicine" class feats might do things that you can do with your elixirs already.

And I guess you can take the Speciality Crafting (Alchemy) feat to get a +2 circumstance bonus on top if that feat still exists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the topic of alchemist bulk, don't forget the formula book that adds a whole bulk to the formula. It's why I went for bracers over armor in The playtest


1 person marked this as a favorite.

changing the alchemist kit to (l) would alleviate some of the issues.

still the bigger problem still remains that your "spell slots"each add to your bulk.

i mean, when you're making 3 items/point, just getting around 1 bulk/3points is just too much. It basically forces all alchemists to go Str route when it's (for 2/3 archetypes)an offstat at best.

you already need dex to hit with bombs, you already need Int as your primary, everyone needs the same con, and now you are forced to always boost Str as well "just because".

What i found really tiring is that the same people who say "don't use realism on mechanics" when we're talking about dropping vials that don't break sometimes but break other times, are the same people (for the most part) that say "it's not realistic for a portable lab to be (l) bulk"

in this case, it's class breaking that they have to go Str just to carry their very basic stuff that the game expects them to carry at all times, so, mechanics wise, it's better to fudge realism and make their rest equipment (l) weight the exact same way we make a component pouch have basically infinite space and being always full of the right ingredients even when travelling for a month inside a desert.


Ediwir wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
One of the little touches I like is that chirurgeon alchemists have to be trained in medicine before they can use their alchemical crafting skills for medical checks. You have to have at least a basic overview of medicine before you start messing around with the advanced stuff.

That's actually the line that makes me doubtful.

As it is, you still need to be Expert in Medicine to do Expert Treat Wounds. Makes it odd to see the benefit, unless you're not your party's primary healer?

It is an expensive way to shift the ability score from wisdom to intelligence.

Of course treat wounds isn't the only medicine check so perhaps calling it expensive isn't fair of me.


Having bombs without any trigger other than the veil breaking after you threw it sounds like a terrible idea.

If you fall off a cliff then, all of your bombs would explode, right on top of you. After you just fell off a cliff.

That is just the first of many reasons why that is a terrible idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:
Having bombs without any trigger other than the veil breaking after you threw it sounds like a terrible idea.

Carrying ANY type of easily explosive item is a bad idea in reality: No matter how you fluff your bombs, it's something that could easily go off by accident. It it's a fuse, you getting hit by a fireball is bad. If it's a mixture of chemicals, a fall could break any barrier set up between them if it's one usable in an action in combat...


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Leotamer wrote:
Having bombs without any trigger other than the veil breaking after you threw it sounds like a terrible idea.
Carrying ANY type of easily explosive item is a bad idea in reality: No matter how you fluff your bombs, it's something that could easily go off by accident. It it's a fuse, you getting hit by a fireball is bad. If it's a mixture of chemicals, a fall could break any barrier set up between them if it's one usable in an action in combat...

This is why I liked the 1e fluff that an alchemist's kit is in part powered by a bit of their own "internal magic" - bombs can't detonate accidentally if priming them involves infusing them with your personal magical essence.


MaxAstro wrote:
This is why I liked the 1e fluff that an alchemist's kit is in part powered by a bit of their own "internal magic" - bombs can't detonate accidentally if priming them involves infusing them with your personal magical essence.

Yep, me too: They make it on the spot so there isn't and issue with carrying it around. PF1 even says "their method of creation prevents large volumes of explosive material from being created and stored." It makes sense. Now we've turned that around in PF2 and make abilities like Field Discovery push to you to make and store large amounts of bombs [3 bombs/batch at start of day]... :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:


This is why I liked the 1e fluff that an alchemist's kit is in part powered by a bit of their own "internal magic" - bombs can't detonate accidentally if priming them involves infusing them with your personal magical essence.

That was one of my least favorite parts. "It's just magic" kind of undermines the whole flavor of the class to some degree.


Squiggit wrote:
That was one of my least favorite parts. "It's just magic" kind of undermines the whole flavor of the class to some degree.

It worked for me: We don't have much difference in PF2 though. The infused trait makes the items you create go inert in a day or a round because magic: if you make it the 'normal' way, they last forever. So the flavor is almost exactly the same: they use magic or internal energy to make items.

Infused Reagents do the same thing you say was your least favorite part. IMO, a 100% mundane class isn't possible to do what I want out of the class: I lot of what I want boils down to "it's just magic". I just wish they'd have leaned a bit more into it with bombs: more magic and less mundane.


I like the idea of the alchemist not being inherently magical. Infused doesn't bother me that much since it makes sense potions made cheaply don't last long. Now, on the other hand, magic reagent conjuration. But I don't think the realistic alternative would be fun to play. "You have been in a dungeon for a week, looks like you are out of supplies and are now useless."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:
I like the idea of the alchemist not being inherently magical. Infused doesn't bother me that much since it makes sense potions made cheaply don't last long. Now, on the other hand, magic reagent conjuration. But I don't think the realistic alternative would be fun to play. "You have been in a dungeon for a week, looks like you are out of supplies and are now useless."

i see you're looking at the tree and losing the forest.

"it's not magical" has nothing to do with PF2, ANY game actually, fudging reality to make a game system work.

PF2 especially does that with "bulk" a metric made out exactly to fudge weight and capacity rules.

You don't see a blacksmith kit being like a gadzillion bulk due to actually needing an anvil to hit and make stuff, it's more compact, it assumes a mini anvil, and a tiny hammer that you can store somewhere easily and not bulk you down.

this is purely fantasy, a field repair kit that can turn any sort of metallic armor that's dented so badly that's unusable to being literally brand new... trust me, it would be massive, we're talking bellows and forge fires here to reheat the metal.

yet, this massive kit is reskinned to a "magic repair kit" that's as easy to carry around as a weapon that has sheaths made for the exact reason of ease of carrying those weapons.

"Bulk" is in its essence a gamist system made just so that the game system works.

But the very system that's supposed to help with game mechanics suddenly makes some of the most core Alchemical archetypes and examples and images, suddenly unplayable because someone tried to inject "reality" for no apparent reason.

we don't see "reality" in a component pouch. We don't see reality in "quick alchemy", or even "infused reagents", or even in actual armor and weapon bulks and weights, but somehow, god forbid we make the "daily class resources" weight nothing. THAT'll be absurd!

I mean, even using YOUR explanation of why daily alchemical items spoil in a day unlike normal alchemical items, we can easily "justify" without bending "pf2 reality" why said resources would weight exactly 0:

ALL infused reagents, by the rules that you say they are fine, cost 0 and weight (l) in their entirety. Because they are cheap and light reagents. Makes sense. So, using those cheap and light reagents, keeps their bulk and weight the same: So, if that sentence read "infused reagents and their PRODUCTS in their entirety weight (l) bulk" it contradicts nothing already established and actually allows the class to work without FORCING you to always spend level ups on +Str even if your character is the normal, non beefy, labrat.


I was responding to Graystone. But for bulk, I think it is potentially a concern and could be problematic. However, on the other side, the bulk restriction may be intentional and is designed to balance advanced and quick alchemy.

I think I will need to see it in practice between claiming this is the doom of the alchemist class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

I was responding to Graystone. But for bulk, I think it is potentially a concern and could be problematic. However, on the other side, the bulk restriction may be intentional and is designed to balance advanced and quick alchemy.

I think I will need to see it in practice between claiming this is the doom of the alchemist class.

if the alchemist kit is still 2 bulk as it was in the playtest, we're already looking at a bare minimum of 1 bulk from armor, 1 from weapon, around 1 for the very minimum adventuring gear (that's fine and normal so far) and then a class tax of 2 for kit+1 for book +0.7 for even 3/5 of the level 1 creations, so around 3.7-4 bulk tax.

that puts a level 1 alchemist, with just the bare minimum gear, no secondary weapon, no nothing, at 7 bulk, 4 of them being class tax.

and as the level grow, it becomes even worse, like at level 6, even using just half of your reagents for normal alchemy, it's now at 4.6+ bulk just because you're an "alchemist" and not "insert any other class resource". If you use just 2/3 of your reagents on alchemy that's already +5 bulk for being an alchemist, and etc.


You are presuming it is correct to spend half of your reagents for advanced alchemy. You are also glossing over the ability to distribute potions among your party and store them on your mount if you have one.

Many alchemist feats require you to use quick alchemy. For reference, only one alchemist feat gives you a bonus to using advanced alchemy. (Quick Bomber)

Not being able to use half of your reagents for advanced alchemy seems like a feature, not a bug.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

Having bombs without any trigger other than the veil breaking after you threw it sounds like a terrible idea.

If you fall off a cliff then, all of your bombs would explode, right on top of you. After you just fell off a cliff.

That is just the first of many reasons why that is a terrible idea.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:
You are presuming it is correct to spend half of your reagents for advanced alchemy. You are also glossing over the ability to distribute potions among your party and store them on your mount if you have one.

I think he's glossing over them because that's kind of the point. You can definitely do things to try to make it work, but it also feels like there are a lot of extra considerations and calculations or hoops you have to jump through just to get your own class features all working properly in a way that seems kind of counter to PF2's fundamental design principles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

You are presuming it is correct to spend half of your reagents for advanced alchemy. You are also glossing over the ability to distribute potions among your party and store them on your mount if you have one.

Many alchemist feats require you to use quick alchemy. For reference, only one alchemist feat gives you a bonus to using advanced alchemy. (Quick Bomber)

Not being able to use half of your reagents for advanced alchemy seems like a feature, not a bug.

so, in your opinion, a bomber alchemist should distribute his bobms to the party.

the other option you present is for this alchemist to... no use his class features?

sounds logical.

P.S He's STILL encumbered even with making 0 bombs btw. it's just that the 4 bulk TAX gets down to 3. He's still at 6 bulk at the very basic 0 extra items.

or how about a selfish alchemist? he's FORCED to split his resources with the party.

that's just a bug exactly as you call it.

being unable to play a class as designed without having to give your gear/items at the other party members every single morning, is beiyond horrendous design.

that's like designing an archer that has to give his arrows to the party to carry.


A bomber alchemist could distribute his bombs to his allies, or he could set aside a portion of reagents to create elixirs each morning to be an off-healer, or create mutagens for another party member, or stow excess bombs on your mount if you have one, or save your reagents for quick alchemy.

The alternative to using advanced alchemy is using quick alchemy; they are not mutually exclusive.

You are not required to distribute potions among the party as the alchemist. But being able to do so is one of their strengths.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Leotamer wrote:
The alternative to using advanced alchemy is using quick alchemy; they are not mutually exclusive.

Well... a reagent used for advanced alchemy is one that can’t be used for quick alchemy and vice versa. I don’t think there is an avenue that allows the alchemist to use a reagent for advanced alchemy and also use that same reagent later for quick alchemy. Eating your cake and still having your cake afterwards is kind of the definition of mutually exclusive.

However... an alchemist with 10 Strength won’t have an issue equipping herself with the basic required tools and adventuring gear.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Insight wrote:
Leotamer wrote:
The alternative to using advanced alchemy is using quick alchemy; they are not mutually exclusive.

Well... a reagent used for advanced alchemy is one that can’t be used for quick alchemy and vice versa. I don’t think there is an avenue that allows the alchemist to use a reagent for advanced alchemy and also use that same reagent later for quick alchemy. Eating your cake and still having your cake afterwards is kind of the definition of mutually exclusive.

However... an alchemist with 10 Strength won’t have an issue equipping herself with the basic required tools and adventuring gear.

I believe they mean you can use some for one and some for the other, as some people act like you either use all your reagents on Quick Alchemy or all on Advanced Alchemy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Insight wrote:
Leotamer wrote:
The alternative to using advanced alchemy is using quick alchemy; they are not mutually exclusive.

Well... a reagent used for advanced alchemy is one that can’t be used for quick alchemy and vice versa. I don’t think there is an avenue that allows the alchemist to use a reagent for advanced alchemy and also use that same reagent later for quick alchemy. Eating your cake and still having your cake afterwards is kind of the definition of mutually exclusive.

However... an alchemist with 10 Strength won’t have an issue equipping herself with the basic required tools and adventuring gear.

I believe they mean you can use some for one and some for the other, as some people act like you either use all your reagents on Quick Alchemy or all on Advanced Alchemy.

that's why i even used half and half as a distribution which i think is more than fair for quick alchemy. In our playtests, most alchemists opted for closer to 66-80% of reagents used on advanced rather than quick after all.

and yes, an alchemist with 10 strength will have major issues even with the most basic equip, he's already encumbered by it even disregarding the 1+ (as he levels up) additional bulk from his daily alchemy due to high base bulk on both the recipe book and the alchemy kit. UNLESS they did cut their bulk to (l) for both, something that's been asked and so far no one has answered if it's the case.

In the case where the bulk of the alchemy kit and the recipe book has been cut to be negligible and you can actually carry it, then sure, no issues.

either way, i feel like the discussion about the bulk has been talked to death already, for some of us it's egregious that you can't carry even your basic stuff without being encumbered, for others apparently it's fine.

the thing is that it wasn't the only issue I personally had with the first look of this transcription. The total lack of what happens when you make 3 things with one hand, the still incomprehensible decision to have the alchemist be the only class where his abilities need a feat to actually scale with the class DC, and etc, are all way too much (again, at a first glance) to me. It's like alchemist was an afterthought in the playtest, and he remained an afterthought even in the release, and this doesn't inspire confidence for the rest of the book to me.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The basic gear from an alchemist weighs 4 bulk (6 light) which is far enough under a Strength 10 character’s max of 5 bulk (9 light) given what all the basic gear includes (including armor, tools, and formula book, amongst other gear). That’s enough extra capacity to carry another weapon or item of 1 bulk, or you could just select up to 13 additional light bulk items without being encumbered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insight wrote:
The basic gear from an alchemist weighs 4 bulk (6 light) which is far enough under a Strength 10 character’s max of 5 bulk (9 light) given what all the basic gear includes (including armor, tools, and formula book, amongst other gear). That’s enough extra capacity to carry another weapon or item of 1 bulk, or you could just select up to 13 additional light bulk items without being encumbered.

alchemists don't have cantrips, so it's not "another" weapon. It's their MAIN weapon, those usually are around 1+ bulk (a simple crossbow and it's bolt as an example)

i would love a breakdown of that 4.6 as well, seeing as armor alone is 1, kit is 2 (confirmed), formula book is 1 (playtest). Do you imply that a backpack with all your adventuring gear is just 0.6 bulk?

even then, with the inclusion of the mandatory weapon (since they don't have other at will methods of attack except a weapon) that makes them encumbered if they use just 2/5 of their starting reagents they are already encumbered. (+0,1 from reagents, +0,2 per reagent spent for 2 extracts/bombs/whatever)

so, even IF this was the case, where i still doubt that adventuring gear is just 0.5 bulk, they STILL can't even use half of their reagents.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
alchemists don't have cantrips, so it's not "another" weapon. It's their MAIN weapon, those usually are around 1+ bulk (a simple crossbow and it's bolt as an example)

The Alchemist's Kit contains both a dagger and sling (both admittedly L Bulk weapons) in it's 4.6, so it is indeed 'another' weapon. They get both a melee and ranged option as part of the 4.6.

shroudb wrote:
i would love a breakdown of that 4.6 as well, seeing as armor alone is 1, kit is 2 (confirmed), formula book is 1 (playtest). Do you imply that a backpack with all your adventuring gear is just 0.6 bulk?

The version I found on reddit (from someone who had the book) was listed as follows:

Quote:

Alchemist kit costs 9gp 6sp and is 4 bulk, 6 light.

Studded leather armor with dagger, sling with 20 bullets. Adventurers pack, alchemist tools, bandolier,crafters book, 2 sets of cantrips and a sheath.

I assume that 'cantrips' is a typo, but that's most of it, certainly, and the weight and presence of the Adventurer's Pack (which has been confirmed to include both 50 feet of rope and two weeks rations) have been confirmed by others who have the book (notably, Cydeth over here).

If I were a betting man, I'd bet it's the book that's gone down to L to make those numbers work out right. That would make sense.

shroudb wrote:
even then, with the inclusion of the mandatory weapon (since they don't have other at will methods of attack except a weapon) that makes them encumbered if they use just 2/5 of their starting reagents they are already encumbered. (+0,1 from reagents, +0,2 per reagent spent for 2 extracts/bombs/whatever)

We don't actually know the weight of any of this. Also, as mentioned, there is no 'mandatory' weapon outside of the 4.6. You might want another weapon, but without Str, the only one you might actually want is a crossbow, and going from 1d6 (from your sling) to 1d8 (from your crossbow) per shot is not an absolute requirement by any means. It's a very minor benefit, really.

shroudb wrote:
so, even IF this was the case, where i still doubt that adventuring gear is just 0.5 bulk, they STILL can't even use half of their reagents.

Yes, they really can. Doing so and having a heavier weapon is tricky, but then, a heavier weapon is a luxury rather than a requirement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reminder that you don't actually get encumbered with 10 strength until you get to 6 bulk. So you can add a crossbow to a character carrying 4.6, taking them to 5.6. It still only counts as 5 bulk.

BTW, The alchemist tools are supposed to be one bulk, but it sounds like the listed weight in the CRB is a typo. According to Mark on Know Direction. The total weight for the alchemist overall kit is indeed correct.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Reminder that you don't actually get encumbered with 10 strength until you get to 6 bulk. So you can add a crossbow to a character carrying 4.6, taking them to 5.6. It still only counts as 5 bulk.

BTW, The alchemist tools are supposed to be one bulk, but it sounds like the listed weight in the CRB is a typo. According to Mark on Know Direction. The total weight for the alchemist overall kit is indeed correct.

It's the adventurer's pack that is 1 Bulk but listed at 2.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Reminder that you don't actually get encumbered with 10 strength until you get to 6 bulk. So you can add a crossbow to a character carrying 4.6, taking them to 5.6. It still only counts as 5 bulk.

BTW, The alchemist tools are supposed to be one bulk, but it sounds like the listed weight in the CRB is a typo. According to Mark on Know Direction. The total weight for the alchemist overall kit is indeed correct.

It's the adventurer's pack that is 1 Bulk but listed at 2.

Oops, my bad. I'm trying to go through 3 different streams and podcasts at once without a lot of downtime.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This sounds like a 10 Strength alchemist will be strapped for Bulk but functional, and even an 8 Strength alchemist can carry everything in the alchemist's kit and not be encumbered.

That sounds about right, to me.

101 to 150 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.