Are alchemical items worth the action cost?

[John Lynch 106]

In the playtest using any alchemical item typically cost 2 actions: 1 to pull out the item and 1 to use it.

In the playtest alchemist's fire deals 5.5 damage on average (+1 to all adjacent enemies) and takes up the victim's 3rd action on their next turn. Alternatively ANYONE can deal 7 damage on average + 2xStrength mod with the same action economy. Given how little value the 3rd action is touted as having, consuming the victim's 3rd action isn't really that meaningful. Oh yeah, and it costs 30 silver pieces to use alchemist's fire vs 0 silver pieces to purchase a club.

So just to summarise:
2 actions of alchemist's fire = 30 silver pieces to deal 5.5 damage on average (+1 to all adjacent allies), victim's 3rd action being gone.
2 actions of club attack = 0 silver pieces to deal 7 damage on average (+2xStrength mod)

Is it really worthwhile ever using alchemical items in combat without the enemy having a highly specific weakness? In Pathfinder 1e it certainly wasn't, and it doesn't look great for Pathfinder 2e. The only way alchemical items began to even come close to being competitive was through items like spring loaded wrist sheathes which reduced the action economy cost. But even then, they still weren't great.

Would it really be the end of the world if a GM ruled that pulling out alchemical items and using them only cost 1 action?

[Bardarok]

Probably situationally useful which seems right to me.

It's a backup/utility option for all but alchemists who get a bunch of bombs for free each day and additional bonuses with them which make them more useful.

If there is a weakness you're exploiting or the condition the bomb adds is particularly useful in the fight than it's useful but in most fights PCs should stick to their primary abilities.

[Kyrone]

The main thing is that they target weakness really easy that is a big deal in the new edition and usually have one secondary effect, Bootled Lighting per example made the enemy be flat footed making it perfect for Rogues that want to do sneak attack damage.

[Leotamer]

You are comparing a ranged, thrown weapon which hits an elemental weakness and has extra utility to a club.

If we compare play-test acid splash to an acid flask, then they are both 1d4 acid damage plus one splash damage at ranged for two actions. Except for the acid flask deals 1d4 persistent acid damage, whereas acid splash only deals one persistent damage on a crit. The flask also has ten less range.

And the next step in the argument is both acid flask and acid splash are weak, but you also need to consider both were against touch AC, and so hopefully now that TAC is gone, they get more damage or something else to compensate.

But either way for a non-alchemist, their primary use is probably going to hit a specific weakness or enable a secondary effect, which is fine. And if you want to use bombs regularly, you can get the quick bomber feat with two feats into the alchemist dedication. Having to invest in the bomber dedication if you want to bomb things seems reasonable to me.

[John Lynch 106]

Leotamer wrote:

You are comparing a ranged, thrown weapon which hits an elemental weakness and has extra utility to a club.

Feel free to replace it with a quiver of javelins if that makes you feel better. Your still dealing 7 damage + 2xStrength mod.

Leotamer wrote:

If we compare play-test acid splash to an acid flask, then they are both 1d4 acid damage plus one splash damage at ranged for two actions. Except for the acid flask deals 1d4 persistent acid damage

Actually, it ONLY deals 1 damage to adjacent allies and 1d4 persistent damage. So that's 1d4 less damage. A fight must go 2 rounds to equal the alchemist's fire and 3 rounds to equal a Strength 10 javelin thrower.

Leotamer wrote:

But either way for a non-alchemist, their primary use is probably going to hit a specific weakness or enable a secondary effect, which is fine. And if you want to use bombs regularly, you can get the quick bomber feat with two feats into the alchemist dedication. Having to invest in the bomber dedication if you want to bomb things seems reasonable to me.

I'll be honest I was looking at this with little to interest in making alchemist's fire and acid flasks competitive but instead finding ways to boost healing elixirs ;) Which the bomber feat does nothing to help.

Unfortunately the way weaknesses work does mean that the alchemist's fire and acid flask are competitive against the javelin thrower.

[Edge93]

There's a few things here:

First, two actions of attacking isn't as good as you suggest seeing as MAP is a notable thing.

And in comparison to thrown weapons you seem to be neglecting that drawing a thrown weapon is ALSO an action.

As for Alchemist Fire there's a note here as to drop the persistent damage they have to actually have something or someone on hand to help with it, just a minor note.

Also the notion of the third action not being useful isn't really true either. Third actions are very useful. If you used your first two actions attacking then using the third also attacking is just a bad use of your third action, not your third action being non-useful.

So I'd say that narrows the gap quite a bit, as the positives of a thrown or even melee weapon are a bit lesser and the perks of the bombs are a bit greater than suggested.

Even so, yeah, probably not something a non-Alchemist wants to throw around every fight. But being as it's a consumable, that's probably a good thing. You'd be poor fast. XD

They're handy at baseline with decent damage, status effects, and scratch damage even on a miss, but they shine in various situations like elemental weakness and cases where the status effects are especially useful.

I wouldn't use them all the time but I'd definitely want a couple in my pack if I was playing a martial character or maybe even a caster.

Also I'm assuming on all this that you're talking non-Alchemist, because I the CRB they have a feat to draw and Strike as one action. I think Rogues and Rangers may have had the same in the PT.

[sherlock1701]

Leotamer wrote:

You are comparing a ranged, thrown weapon which hits an elemental weakness and has extra utility to a club.

If we compare play-test acid splash to an acid flask, then they are both 1d4 acid damage plus one splash damage at ranged for two actions. Except for the acid flask deals 1d4 persistent acid damage, whereas acid splash only deals one persistent damage on a crit. The flask also has ten less range.

And the next step in the argument is both acid flask and acid splash are weak, but you also need to consider both were against touch AC, and so hopefully now that TAC is gone, they get more damage or something else to compensate.

But either way for a non-alchemist, their primary use is probably going to hit a specific weakness or enable a secondary effect, which is fine. And if you want to use bombs regularly, you can get the quick bomber feat with two feats into the alchemist dedication. Having to invest in the bomber dedication if you want to bomb things seems reasonable to me.

I missed that they removed touch AC. Another nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. It's absolute nonsense that armor would protect you from freezing rays and splashing acid just as well as from a sword.

They also need to make specific armor weak against specific weapons, and vice versa (e.g. maces should ignore 1/2 of the AC from plate, but swords should treat it 50% higher). It's a pain having to houserule stuff all the time.

[Pumpkinhead11]

sherlock1701 wrote:

Leotamer wrote:

You are comparing a ranged, thrown weapon which hits an elemental weakness and has extra utility to a club.

If we compare play-test acid splash to an acid flask, then they are both 1d4 acid damage plus one splash damage at ranged for two actions. Except for the acid flask deals 1d4 persistent acid damage, whereas acid splash only deals one persistent damage on a crit. The flask also has ten less range.

And the next step in the argument is both acid flask and acid splash are weak, but you also need to consider both were against touch AC, and so hopefully now that TAC is gone, they get more damage or something else to compensate.

But either way for a non-alchemist, their primary use is probably going to hit a specific weakness or enable a secondary effect, which is fine. And if you want to use bombs regularly, you can get the quick bomber feat with two feats into the alchemist dedication. Having to invest in the bomber dedication if you want to bomb things seems reasonable to me.

I missed that they removed touch AC. Another nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. It's absolute nonsense that armor would protect you from freezing rays and splashing acid just as well as from a sword.

They also need to make specific armor weak against specific weapons, and vice versa (e.g. maces should ignore 1/2 of the AC from plate, but swords should treat it 50% higher). It's a pain having to houserule stuff all the time.

I would hope that armor would block a bit of the splash or frost; otherwise the Smith is getting some words about defective products.

The weapon/armor interaction sound interesting, but oh so very unnecessary and complicated.

[Ageron]

Seems to me (admittedly not having played the playtest) losing an action is a pretty big deal. I've yet to hear a podcast or watch a stream where a third action is skipped or used on something unimportant, even if it's just raising a shield or taking a step.

[sherlock1701]

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

Leotamer wrote:

You are comparing a ranged, thrown weapon which hits an elemental weakness and has extra utility to a club.

If we compare play-test acid splash to an acid flask, then they are both 1d4 acid damage plus one splash damage at ranged for two actions. Except for the acid flask deals 1d4 persistent acid damage, whereas acid splash only deals one persistent damage on a crit. The flask also has ten less range.

And the next step in the argument is both acid flask and acid splash are weak, but you also need to consider both were against touch AC, and so hopefully now that TAC is gone, they get more damage or something else to compensate.

But either way for a non-alchemist, their primary use is probably going to hit a specific weakness or enable a secondary effect, which is fine. And if you want to use bombs regularly, you can get the quick bomber feat with two feats into the alchemist dedication. Having to invest in the bomber dedication if you want to bomb things seems reasonable to me.

I missed that they removed touch AC. Another nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. It's absolute nonsense that armor would protect you from freezing rays and splashing acid just as well as from a sword.

They also need to make specific armor weak against specific weapons, and vice versa (e.g. maces should ignore 1/2 of the AC from plate, but swords should treat it 50% higher). It's a pain having to houserule stuff all the time.

I would hope that armor would block a bit of the splash or frost; otherwise the Smith is getting some words about defective products.

The weapon/armor interaction sound interesting, but oh so very unnecessary and complicated.

Armor is going to do very little to protect you from a near 0 Kelvin blast. It also tends to let liquids through pretty well.

Unless you're advocating for armor taking some of the damage and getting broken over time, which I would wholeheartedly support.

[Pumpkinhead11]

sherlock1701 wrote:

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

Leotamer wrote:

You are comparing a ranged, thrown weapon which hits an elemental weakness and has extra utility to a club.

If we compare play-test acid splash to an acid flask, then they are both 1d4 acid damage plus one splash damage at ranged for two actions. Except for the acid flask deals 1d4 persistent acid damage, whereas acid splash only deals one persistent damage on a crit. The flask also has ten less range.

And the next step in the argument is both acid flask and acid splash are weak, but you also need to consider both were against touch AC, and so hopefully now that TAC is gone, they get more damage or something else to compensate.

But either way for a non-alchemist, their primary use is probably going to hit a specific weakness or enable a secondary effect, which is fine. And if you want to use bombs regularly, you can get the quick bomber feat with two feats into the alchemist dedication. Having to invest in the bomber dedication if you want to bomb things seems reasonable to me.

I missed that they removed touch AC. Another nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. It's absolute nonsense that armor would protect you from freezing rays and splashing acid just as well as from a sword.

They also need to make specific armor weak against specific weapons, and vice versa (e.g. maces should ignore 1/2 of the AC from plate, but swords should treat it 50% higher). It's a pain having to houserule stuff all the time.

I would hope that armor would block a bit of the splash or frost; otherwise the Smith is getting some words about defective products.

The weapon/armor interaction sound interesting, but oh so very unnecessary and complicated.

Armor is going to do very little to protect you from a near 0 Kelvin blast. It also tends to let liquids through pretty well.

Unless you're advocating for armor taking some of the damage and getting broken over time, which I would wholeheartedly support.

Freezing ray doesn’t do near 0 kelvin. If the acid splash hits dead on, sure; but if it glances off cause of the armor then obviously no.

[Jack of Dust]

My understanding is that things that used to target Touch AC (the Chill Touch spell, for example), now require a reflex save from the opponent instead.

[graystone]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Is it really worthwhile ever using alchemical items in combat without the enemy having a highly specific weakness?

Alchemy weapons are going to shine with creatures with elemental vulnerabilities and creatures needing area attacks to hit [like swarms] if that's still a thing. For the average adventurer, it's not worth it to use them on normal creatures as far as damage goes. Now liquid ice and bottled lighting's secondary affects can be worth it in the right situation but not IMO something to do on a regular basis if you'r paying for them with cash.

Now if you're an alchemist with free bombs, they look a LOT better: free is better than the cost of weapons and/or ammo and being able to make them on the fly means you can take advantage of those specific weaknesses. They also look more competitive vs weapons the worse your strength is.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Would it really be the end of the world if a GM ruled that pulling out alchemical items and using them only cost 1 action?

Myself, instead of doing that, I'd just create a mundane bottle bandoleer that fits a set number of flasks and allows you to use the manipulate action to draw from the bandoleer and a strike with the flash in a single action.

[Staffan Johansson]

Jack of Dust wrote:

My understanding is that things that used to target Touch AC (the Chill Touch spell, for example), now require a reflex save from the opponent instead.

I don't think so. That's how many 5e spells work (I think the PHB has a single-digit number of non-cantrip spells that have attack rolls), but PF2 still has attack rolls for energy attacks.

However, there are some secondary differences from PF1. In PF1, having rays be touch attacks mainly served to compensate for casters having lower BAB, and not using their primary stat. In PF2 I believe casters do use their casting stat to make spell attacks, and they are trained or better at making them. In other words, a wizard casting ray of frost at a foe should have about the same attack bonus as a ranger shooting with a bow, and their attacks target the same AC.

[sherlock1701]

They ought to also have an easier time hitting. First, because physical armor should do jack-diddly against magic (unless warded with some pricey antimagic runes). Second, because spells are limited use and swords aren't.

[Evilgm]

Why did anyone ever throw Alchemist's Fire in PF1 when a Greatsword was doing 2d6+9 damage? They did it because it was worth it at the time due the situation they were in and the enemy they were fighting. Why would this not still be the case in PF2?

[Staffan Johansson]

Evilgm wrote:

Why did anyone ever throw Alchemist's Fire in PF1 when a Greatsword was doing 2d6+9 damage? They did it because it was worth it at the time due the situation they were in and the enemy they were fighting. Why would this not still be the case in PF2?

Because in PF2 there's a class built, at least partially, around using alchemical bombs as their primary weapons. So at least for them, using bombs should be viable as a default tactic.

[Pumpkinhead11]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Evilgm wrote:

Why did anyone ever throw Alchemist's Fire in PF1 when a Greatsword was doing 2d6+9 damage? They did it because it was worth it at the time due the situation they were in and the enemy they were fighting. Why would this not still be the case in PF2?

Because in PF2 there's a class built, at least partially, around using alchemical bombs as their primary weapons. So at least for them, using bombs should be viable as a default tactic.

Also towards the end of the playtest the damage was able to scale; True Alchemist Fire did 6d8 fire damage and 6 Persistent fire damage. Anyone is able to craft and use it, but Alchemist is the class that can craft it in Bulk for free.

[Evilgm]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Because in PF2 there's a class built, at least partially, around using alchemical bombs as their primary weapons. So at least for them, using bombs should be viable as a default tactic.

Considering the OP stated that Alchemist's Fire cost 30 silver a usage, and two actions to draw and attack, I presume he is not discussing the bomb throwing Alchemist, but rather characters that don't have class abilities that improve alchemical items.

[Seisho]

sherlock1701 wrote:

They ought to also have an easier time hitting. First, because physical armor should do jack-diddly against magic (unless warded with some pricey antimagic runes). Second, because spells are limited use and swords aren't.

I don't know, spells are usually a 'physical' attack, be it a flame blast, a frost ray or whatever

if something explodes in front of you and causes a big fireball you will be glad for every piece of armor you got
If you are shot with something akin to a freeze ray the armor you wear will get the first hit, not you, the second hit goes to the clothing below the armor, not you, so there is protection
and if it's damage like negative energy from harm you are making a will check to get away, or a reflex check in case of a fireball

Now that I think about it, touch armor class seems really just to be a fix so spellcasters who used a secondary attribute to hit (and had a horrible bab) had a chance to hit
Both of that is gone, so getting rid of touch armor class is the only logical thing to do... and of course makes it easier for everyone who creates a character, even if it just a little

[Eoni]

You really don't need touch ac when you use your casting stat to make the attack, don't take a -4 penalty to hit because Precise Shot is gone, and also are full BAB.

As for the Alchemist question, their attacks really shouldn't be compared to a regular melee attack. The two actions to draw and attack make them more similar to spells and should be compared moreso to them. It's true they didn't really stack up to them in the playtest but they're supposed to be improving that in the final version.

[Arrendis Lionheart]

I don't know that it's been stated, but I'm pretty sure there's a feat to allow you to draw and throw a bomb with one action (and [at least] a rogue feat to allow you to draw and attack with one action). If that's the case, does it warrant comparison to martial attacks? Martial attacks can also get multiple dice with a striking rune, but I don't think it goes up to 5 extra dice. Maybe the numbers are kept more in line now? We haven't seen any high level alchemical items in the final rules yet, as far as I know.

[Eoni]

Arrendis Lionheart wrote:

I don't know that it's been stated, but I'm pretty sure there's a feat to allow you to draw and throw a bomb with one action (and [at least] a rogue feat to allow you to draw and attack with one action). If that's the case, does it warrant comparison to martial attacks? Martial attacks can also get multiple dice with a striking rune, but I don't think it goes up to 5 extra dice. Maybe the numbers are kept more in line now? We haven't seen any high level alchemical items in the final rules yet, as far as I know.

Ah that's right. With Quick Bomber they'd be able to toss out more bombs per round but I still wouldn't compare them to martials. They're in a more interesting spot as the weakness exploiter and status effecter. Their schtick might be more about spreading out the pain unless you go bomber with Calculated Splash to do more heavy single target stuff.

[Edge93]

Eoni wrote:

Arrendis Lionheart wrote:

I don't know that it's been stated, but I'm pretty sure there's a feat to allow you to draw and throw a bomb with one action (and [at least] a rogue feat to allow you to draw and attack with one action). If that's the case, does it warrant comparison to martial attacks? Martial attacks can also get multiple dice with a striking rune, but I don't think it goes up to 5 extra dice. Maybe the numbers are kept more in line now? We haven't seen any high level alchemical items in the final rules yet, as far as I know.

Ah that's right. With Quick Bomber they'd be able to toss out more bombs per round but I still wouldn't compare them to martials. They're in a more interesting spot as the weakness exploiter and status effecter. Their schtick might be more about spreading out the pain unless you go bomber with Calculated Splash to do more heavy single target stuff.

Also for Alchemists with the right feat, that Int mod (and later Int mod+2) slpash damage even on a miss is a huge deal. And it's just ridiculous if the enemy has an elemental weakness.