Change in ability score importance


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Where have you seen that Hefty Hauler requires 12 str?

I wouldn't consider 10 str dumping it either. You should be able to carry the bare basics with that. Dumping str to 8 should make it tougher.

Hopefully if enough alchemists had bulk issues in the playtest it will have been resolved for the final book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rek Rollington wrote:

Where have you seen that Hefty Hauler requires 12 str?

I wouldn't consider 10 str dumping it either. You should be able to carry the bare basics with that. Dumping str to 8 should make it tougher.

Hopefully if enough alchemists had bulk issues in the playtest it will have been resolved for the final book.

Wouldn't having it at the lowest amount possible be dumping it though? Compare PF2e stats to PF1e stats, if we were to have the same array of 10 16 12 18 12 10 that would be 24 points in PF1e, you would need to drop both str and cha to 8 to get it to the standard 20 points range. (Used an example of why the numbers should not be seen as equivalents to their 1e "dump" values)

I mean, the alchemist mentioned before was one who was taking extra stuff (medicine kit) and a light crossbow.

Now I know Chirurgeons benefit from a medicine kit and it is thematic, but part of that tradeoff can be the alchemist having to use a sling if they don't feel like investing into strength at all.

Of course, a Chirurgeon can still take a light crossbow and have room for 8 light items even with the 5 bulk limit.
A non medicine kit using alchemist has even more Bulk to play around with.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy for people to handwave these sorts of things or not value encumbrance. But I strongly disagree that even with the playtest numbers that alchemists will be limited to bare essentials unless they choose to be.
And as said before, mules, bags of holding, other party members, lighter item choices are all good things to have to decide around if encumbrance is to mean anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rek Rollington wrote:
Where have you seen that Hefty Hauler requires 12 str?

playtest: "Hefty Hauler Feat 1

General

Prerequisite(s): Strength 12"

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Wouldn't having it at the lowest amount possible be dumping it though?

The lowest str any PC can get is 8 and and any race can get it. PF2 allows you to take 2 flaws in any stat you don't already have a flaw in and get a boost to any stat you don't already get a boost in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:
Where have you seen that Hefty Hauler requires 12 str?

playtest: "Hefty Hauler Feat 1

General

Prerequisite(s): Strength 12"

Okay I thought you were talking about 2nd edition, not the playtest. Mark recommended it the other day to a str 8 character and was talking about 2E. We’ve got people on the boards now with the freshly shipped CRB in hand so a lot of information is getting out.

Hopefully one of them can help out by answering:

1) How much bulk is on the alchemist kit?
2) What are the prerequisites for Hefty Hauler?

I’ll ask around and let you know if I get can answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rek Rollington wrote:


Okay I thought you were talking about 2nd edition, not the playtest. Mark recommended it the other day to a str 8 character and was talking about 2E. We’ve got people on the boards now with the freshly shipped CRB in hand so a lot of information is getting out.

Hopefully one of them can help out by answering:

1) How much bulk is on the alchemist kit?
2) What are the prerequisites for Hefty Hauler?

I’ll ask around and let you know if I get can answer.

I feel like this is one of the times that Paizo would prefer we didn't read a single feat and jump to conclusions. I'm impatient to find out the answer to this, but I'm impatient for most of the things in the book. It might be best to just wait.

Sovereign Court

Just to make sure I understand it right: an alchemist absolutely needs that kit to make his stuff in the morning, but during the rest of the day it's okay if it's left in the tent, or carried by the fighter/wizard who has bulk to spare?

I do get a bit of a "we're going camping, everyone has to carry some of the stuff" vibe sometimes. It's not really optimal anymore for everyone to carry a copy of everything.

Which should be okay in home games, but could be tricky in PFS with random tables.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Better invest in a donkey.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Per someone with the book on Reddit:

brandcolt wrote:

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.

There might well be a typo or two in there, but the core Bulk is, I'm sure, correct.

And, given that an Adventurer's Pack probably includes the basic adventuring necessities, indicates that Str 10 on an Alchemist is workable if not ideal.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rek Rollington wrote:

Hopefully one of them can help out by answering:

1) How much bulk is on the alchemist kit?
2) What are the prerequisites for Hefty Hauler?

1) Deadmanwalking is correct, 4 Bult, 6 Light (and yes, the adventurer's pack contains a variety of useful stuff, including rope and 2 weeks of rations).

2) Trained in Athletics. That's it for pre-reqs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Just to make sure I understand it right: an alchemist absolutely needs that kit to make his stuff in the morning, but during the rest of the day it's okay if it's left in the tent, or carried by the fighter/wizard who has bulk to spare?

Don't you need it for quick alchemy?

Shadow Lodge

If you actually followed the encumbrance rules in PF1 the only classes that could feasibly dump their strength were the Arcanist, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard. I don't find it surprising in the least that again the Wizard and the Sorcerer are the only classes able to feasibly put their strength down to 8 with no impact.

Vali Nepjarson wrote:
Now, it is absolutely true that high Strength doesn't exponentially skyrocket your encumbrance like it did in PF1 (assuming PF2 is the same as the playtest), but I'm actually quite glad it doesn't as I've seen a Barbarian player carry around things casually on their person that Conan would struggle to drag.

Hopefully they haven't kept the play test rules for determining the bulk you can carry, it'd be too much of a nerf IMO. The difference in carrying capacity between the strongest character and the weakest character is 8 bulk, assuming no feats or items outside of the stat boosting items to increase the carrying capacity.


Thanks for the info on the alchemist kit, what I should have asked was for the alchemist tools. But on Arcane Mark he confirmed alchemists tools are still 2 bulk. We already confirmed hefty hauler no longer requires a str requirement. Mark said alchemists should get by with 10 Str, be comfortable at 12 and would not want 8 Str.

Thematically I think it makes sense they need to carry a lot to make their potions on the go. You either need to focus only carrying that or boosting your carrying capacity a little.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The other point is you really shouldn't need to dump strength in this version especially as all but 2 ancestries start with 10 and dumping it is an optional mechanic

As pointed out there is a good chance anyone who dumped strength who wasn't an arcane caster in 1E was not actually applying the rules. In which case why would you bother with these ones either

I recall a player trying to have light load as an archer ranger and really struggling with a strength of 12 in 1E - when using herolab to actually calculate encumbrance properly.

Liberty's Edge

Rek Rollington wrote:
Thanks for the info on the alchemist kit, what I should have asked was for the alchemist tools.

I dunno, I think the kit is more useful, since it includes all the basics an Alchemist should need. Knowing the tools in isolation would not mean as much without knowing what other required items might have changed their Bulk.

But yeah, it looks like Str 12, a Skill Feat, or a Bag of Holding is very useful for Alchemists, but not required per se.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
As pointed out there is a good chance anyone who dumped strength who wasn't an arcane caster in 1E was not actually applying the rules. In which case why would you bother with these ones either

I'd assume people might use the bulk rules as they use simpler numbers and require less mental effort to work out, L or 1 to 3 bulk from memory, compared to as little as ¼ of a pound to 50 pounds, then consult a table to look up your carrying capacity for PF1. People should be able to do the math in their heads for the bulk rules, I wouldn't expect anyone to total their carry weight for their pf1 character in the head.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@graystone

One of the stated goals of the playtest and PF2 was to make choices meaningful. Considering the amount of effort you are putting into making your alchemist, it seems that they have succeeded in this situation.

Either work with potentially being encumbered, or toss a stat boost into STR.

Other options have also been mentioned - spend some of your starting or early cash on a mule, meaning you might choose to forgo getting certain other items as early as you would prefer.

Meaningful choices.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vition wrote:

@graystone

One of the stated goals of the playtest and PF2 was to make choices meaningful. Considering the amount of effort you are putting into making your alchemist, it seems that they have succeeded in this situation.

Either work with potentially being encumbered, or toss a stat boost into STR.

Other options have also been mentioned - spend some of your starting or early cash on a mule, meaning you might choose to forgo getting certain other items as early as you would prefer.

Meaningful choices.

when you're forced to pump up a stat it's not a choice.

a choice would have been to:
up my strength so that i can maybe take up a repair kit, 100ft of extra rope, and a few extra goodies alongside.
OR
up my charisma and use those extra skills i have as a main Int class on social skills
OR
up my wisdom and be more perceptive, have greater initiative and will saves.
(since Int and dex are mains, and con is still con, so you're always pumping those 3)

when the choice is:
being able to use my abilities unencumbered, then it's not really a choice, it's a tax.

it's like saying that old pf1 int13 weapon expertise was a choice and not a tax.

-----------------------
edit: (stupid timeouts... 3rd time writing this wall of text):

On the main topic of stats, my personal opinion is like this:

Str: Quite the boost. Bulk seems much more important than weight. Strength weapons are pure upgrades compared to dex weapons.

Dex: Definetely took a hit. The main thing is the loss of Initiative, but also that finesse is weaker now. The most important thing though is that now it's much easier to "archetype" in heavier armors, meaning that anyone can choose to not invest in Dex for their Ac, even wizards and sorcs can much more easily get a medium rmor and etc. With the caster attack stat being now their casting stat for rays and etc, it stops Dex from being the "secondary" stat for caster.

Con: It took a hit, but not that much. The ancestry hp are a one time thing that don't really matter that much in mid game+, but while the base hp of classes are now higher, there's simply no easy access to +Con magic gear. That makes it so that natural boosts to Con are extremely important to stay healthy. Plus the new crit/crit fail for saves, especially Fort and Will ones, makes every +1 count all that much more.

Int: Definetely took a big hit. It lost the exlusivity on knowledges, but more importantly it lost that it was "1 FULL skill /+1" and got degraded to "1 skill at it's most basic level/+1"

Wis: The undisputed king of stats in PF2 imo. It gained Initiative which alone boosts it all that much. It gained extra skills. It has one of the most important, if not THE most important skill in medicine. It kept the perception and all the stuff it had before. And to top it off it's the same thing with saves as in Con, the crit/crit fail tha you want to push for those extra +s.

Imo, Wis will be the go to stat to boost alongside Con (maybe even BEFORE con) for classes that can do so easily (basically all non-Cha/Int based ones).

Cha: Yeah, still the same, just social.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vition wrote:

@graystone

One of the stated goals of the playtest and PF2 was to make choices meaningful. Considering the amount of effort you are putting into making your alchemist, it seems that they have succeeded in this situation.

Either work with potentially being encumbered, or toss a stat boost into STR.

Other options have also been mentioned - spend some of your starting or early cash on a mule, meaning you might choose to forgo getting certain other items as early as you would prefer.

Meaningful choices.

Where? He isn't struggling to make the character, he's struggling to get the character capable of carrying the basics it requires to use its class features and be able to contribute when the character isn't performing the handful of alchemist actions it can make in a day.

For example, a dagger and a sling as the rulebook recommends for the starting kit is terrible (the sling slightly less so than the dagger, though someone not boosting strength isn't benefiting much from a sling).

I'm unclear how 'getting a mule' is a solution. Apart from travel time, it isn't going to be in arm's reach for most adventuring activities. Or downtime activities. Or social or... much of anything really.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
For example, a dagger and a sling as the rulebook recommends for the starting kit is terrible (the sling slightly less so than the dagger, though someone not boosting strength isn't benefiting much from a sling).

What weapons would you suggest for someone with Str 10 and only Simple weapon proficiencies?

Because there are actually no simple finesse melee weapons better than a dagger. Zero, zilch, nada. And while a crossbow is better than a sling at Str 10, it's a very slight difference to have in what amounts to a backup weapon (with Str 10, your bombs are your primary weapon).

So...your melee is actually optimal for a Dex-based fighter, and your ranged isn't bad at all (it's 1d6 rather than 1d10 or 1d8, but much cheaper and lighter...as is appropriate for a backup weapon).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
as is appropriate for a backup weapon).

LOL My issue is I wanted a main weapon... I know for myself, I didn't expect to be shiving someone with a knife if i can help it.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Because there are actually no simple finesse melee weapons better than a dagger. Zero, zilch, nada. And while a crossbow is better than a sling at Str 10, it's a very slight difference to have in what amounts to a backup weapon (with Str 10, your bombs are your primary weapon).

If you're a bomber, sure you're using a bomb: I'm looking at a Chirurgeon and having most of my alchemy items as healing. My main way of attacking IS a weapon. I'm not sure why the assumption is every alchemist if going to be using most of their items for attacking. I don't think that wanting a crossbow and leather is asking a whole lot: you can see by the alchemist kit's bulk alone, the games forcing you to bump your str as even taking a sling and some ammo JUST holding/making some items puts you at encumbered. Now the question is if there are healers tools in that kit, since I need that too: I doubt it so that's encumbered just with the alchemist kit and healers tools...

To me, something isn't adding up: what's worse is that even a bag of holding really isn't a solution IMO as you have to keep the tools at hand [3 bulk] to use medicine checks [like battle medic and quick alchemy] and weapon and armor are another 2 and the bag itself is 1... That's 6 bulk. IMO, it looks like I'd have to do the same thing I did in the playtest: get forced to multiclass into wizard so I can get an attack [cantrips] and armor [mage armor] because I don't want to have to get a 14 or 16 str just to carry non-extravagant amounts of VERY basic gear. Just imagine if I wanted to play a halfling Chirurgeon alchemist and being forced to put as many points into str as int to be able to move. :P

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Skill Feat

That's just telling me I get to have one less feat JUST because I wanted to play an Chirurgeon... So instead of battle Medic, I'd MUST take a feat to carry my starting required equipment. At this point, I'm asking myself 'why am I doing this to myself, I should just make a cleric'.

As far as "spend some of your starting or early cash on a mule", I have to say Vition I'd rather not play the game if it's built that that sort of thing is a requirement: it would be one thing if I voluntary lowered my str for some reason and I had to compensate for that but the class should work out of the box with the base starting stat numbers for non-primary stats and with each subclass in mind.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're going Chirugeon, and want to replace the sling with a crossbow (or other better weapon), that's 5.5 Bulk...and still easily doable with Str 10.

It does mean you're probably not carrying all of your prepared potions...but passing at least one to each other PC is a really good idea anyway.


Is the issue here that you need access to the alchemist's tools in order to do quick alchemy? My "10 strength, hard up against the bulk limit" character was using a 2 bulk melee weapon, and she managed fine since things like "rope and thieves tools" can be kept in a pack and dropped at the start of combat.

Sovereign Court

Garretmander wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Just to make sure I understand it right: an alchemist absolutely needs that kit to make his stuff in the morning, but during the rest of the day it's okay if it's left in the tent, or carried by the fighter/wizard who has bulk to spare?
Don't you need it for quick alchemy?

Yes, I'd overlooked that you need it for quick alchemy.

Sovereign Court

So how much bulky stuff do you really need in combat? Everything else can be left at camp, carried by a burly party member, or stuffed in a bag of holding.

Light armor (L or more likely 1 bulk)
Dagger (L; the only finesse weapon you're proficient with)
Alchemy tools (2)

What am I missing? At strength 10 you still have 1.9 bulk to play with.

I guess the idea is that alchemists are not quite like wizards; as a class built on carrying dozens of bottles with suspect substances, you're more of a pack mule than that guy who just needs a book. You're an equipment themed class, it stands to reason that you need carrying capacity. Most movies featuring some kind of alchemist like character do actually make them look kinda encumbered.

If your alchemist is a reedy academic, well once he steps out of his lab I guess he does have to adapt to circumstances.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also if you get over the mental hump of "not being unencumbered" and just eat the penalty to speed and ACP a ST 10 Alchemist has a 10 Bulk limit!


rainzax wrote:
Also if you get over the mental hump of "not being unencumbered" and just eat the penalty to speed and ACP a ST 10 Alchemist has a 10 Bulk limit!

I was just about to ask this

Because the way all these arguments about bulk being too severe on the alchemist are being worded are as if it is incredibly close to a number that would make it unable to carry anything more / move?

Is it really the case that all the complaining about being forced to do certain things is really just an attempt to stay in the PF2 equivalent of lightly encumbered ? Or medium? (I honestly don’t know but it certainly seems like we aren’t talking about max capacity)

If you want to be able to move easily with a load of kit then basic logic dictates you should be stronger.

Unless I have completely misunderstood then the “choice” is invest in more strength / skill feat to avoid encumbrance penalties OR don’t and accept the penalties . That is a trade off and the game is full of them.

And could you really be a lightly encumbered PF1 alchemist with all your gear and strength of 8-10 (which seems to be the demand as far as I can tell)

*Once again I reiterate that I am now unclear on the underlying carrying capacity parameters for this discussion as they seem to be based on the playtest . Is this 5 bulk cap (for 10 strength??) the absolute maximum or a threshold? And what are the penalties if it is?

Sovereign Court

Lanathar wrote:
And could you really be a lightly encumbered PF1 alchemist with all your gear and strength of 8-10 (which seems to be the demand as far as I can tell)

In my experience playing one in PF1, that was problematic as well, at least until you got a handy haversack. Most splash weapons weighed a pound each, so if you didn't want to rely only on bombs, weight was an issue. (Also armor and weapons of course.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
So how much bulky stuff do you really need in combat?

Armor, weapon, healers tools [battle medic], alchemist tools: 5 bulk. As my weapon is a ranged weapon with ammo, that means at least 1-2 L for ammo. It doesn't seem overboard to keep some elixirs for myself and/or force-feeding KO'd players and I only have some L for that before I'm overweight. If I pick up 1 bulk bag of holding, I'm encumbered by doing so. This is also having someone carrying by formula book, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth: the PC/animal holding it falls in a hole, gets swept overboard, ect and we not only loose them but I loose my class abilities too. :P

rainzax wrote:
Also if you get over the mental hump of "not being unencumbered" and just eat the penalty to speed and ACP a ST 10 Alchemist has a 10 Bulk limit!

That's a BIG no: That's a 'hump' that's impassable to me. It's the same to me as saying a wizards spellbook is now 6 bulk that they should just suck it up and eat the penalty because... someone decided they should?

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Is the issue here that you need access to the alchemist's tools in order to do quick alchemy?

The issue is that the class expects me to have access to 4 bulk in tools[healers, alchemy, formula book] to use basic functions before even weapons and armor come in: not even taking the best options for those puts you into encumbered unless I put points into STR or spend feats. I'm not thrilled by what seems like a tax to play an alchemist healer. IMO I can play another healer that isn't weighed down with such a tax so I have to question why there's one for it.


What is the penalty for being encumbered in the final rules ? Does anyone know?

Sure I know it would suck if you had to be seemingly as part of the class but I am intrigued to know the downside

I wonder what the skill feat competition is as well? I guess there will be a good healing one that this alchemist would want before heft hauler


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Doesn’t being able to use Craft in place of Heal for checks also change the tools you use?

If not, that’s my planned houserule.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lanathar wrote:

What is the penalty for being encumbered in the final rules ? Does anyone know?

Sure I know it would suck if you had to be seemingly as part of the class but I am intrigued to know the downside

-10 ft to all Speeds, -1 to all things DEX including AC, Reflex saves, ranged attacks.


The Raven Black wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

What is the penalty for being encumbered in the final rules ? Does anyone know?

Sure I know it would suck if you had to be seemingly as part of the class but I am intrigued to know the downside

-10 ft to all Speeds, -1 to all things DEX including AC, Reflex saves, ranged attacks.

So the speed part seems worse than 1E but the rest arguably not as bad. Although negative to range is new but makes sense

Do I understand correctly that there is only unencumbered and encumbered now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

What is the penalty for being encumbered in the final rules ? Does anyone know?

Sure I know it would suck if you had to be seemingly as part of the class but I am intrigued to know the downside

-10 ft to all Speeds, -1 to all things DEX including AC, Reflex saves, ranged attacks.
So the speed part seems worse than 1E but the rest arguably not as bad.

A 5% increased chance of being hit and a 5% increased chance of being crit is not great, Bob.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lanathar wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

What is the penalty for being encumbered in the final rules ? Does anyone know?

Sure I know it would suck if you had to be seemingly as part of the class but I am intrigued to know the downside

-10 ft to all Speeds, -1 to all things DEX including AC, Reflex saves, ranged attacks.

So the speed part seems worse than 1E but the rest arguably not as bad. Although negative to range is new but makes sense

Do I understand correctly that there is only unencumbered and encumbered now?

Unencumbered, Encumbered (over 5+STR mod) , Cannot carry (over 10+STR mod)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:

Doesn’t being able to use Craft in place of Heal for checks also change the tools you use?

If not, that’s my planned houserule.

If the Chirugeon works like the one in the 1.6 playtest update I would certainly interpret it as working like "you can use an alchemist's tools in place of healer's tools". After all, you're making a craft check not a medicine check, and you don't use healer's tools to make craft checks.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

Doesn’t being able to use Craft in place of Heal for checks also change the tools you use?

If not, that’s my planned houserule.

If the Chirugeon works like the one in the 1.6 playtest update I would certainly interpret it as working like "you can use an alchemist's tools in place of healer's tools". After all, you're making a craft check not a medicine check, and you don't use healer's tools to make craft checks.

There isn't any issue with using the alchemist tools for the craft check in place of the healing check. The issue is the requirement under the skill action: Administer first aid, treat disease and treat poison all have "Requirements You must have healer’s tools". Altering the check doesn't alter the actions requirement: IMO there would have to be an explicit change to the actions themselves as the Chirugeon ability doesn't alter the actions in the least but just the way you make the rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
The issue is that the class expects me to have access to 4 bulk in tools[healers, alchemy, formula book] to use basic functions before even weapons and armor come in: not even taking the best options for those puts you into encumbered unless I put points into STR or spend feats.

3.1 Bulk, I think. It looks like the formula book is L now.


It never made sense for spellbooks or formula books to have non-L bulk, honestly. After all these are reference materials not "a unified theory of magic/alchemy". It's genuinely hard for a book to get in that 10 lb range, since "book" is a pretty ergonomic shape but bookbinding requires considerable creativity when we get around 1000 pages.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
It never made sense for spellbooks or formula books to have non-L bulk, honestly. After all these are reference materials not "a unified theory of magic/alchemy". It's genuinely hard for a book to get in that 10 lb range, since "book" is a pretty ergonomic shape but bookbinding requires considerable creativity when we get around 1000 pages.

Yeah, I always pictured these being kinda like standard lab notebooks, about a half inch thick and only a few ounces or so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
graystone wrote:
The issue is that the class expects me to have access to 4 bulk in tools[healers, alchemy, formula book] to use basic functions before even weapons and armor come in: not even taking the best options for those puts you into encumbered unless I put points into STR or spend feats.
3.1 Bulk, I think. It looks like the formula book is L now.

LOL I'm shocked at this after learning they kept the 5 pound alchemy tools at 2 bulk. How about spellbooks? Are those 1 L too?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
It never made sense for spellbooks or formula books to have non-L bulk, honestly. After all these are reference materials not "a unified theory of magic/alchemy". It's genuinely hard for a book to get in that 10 lb range, since "book" is a pretty ergonomic shape but bookbinding requires considerable creativity when we get around 1000 pages.

I think the idea was that spellbooks were built for sturdiness, so that they can survive being carries around all the time and survive. So maybe a wooden case or covers or the like to protect it. That said I'm in agreement that it shouldn't be more that a few pounds.

In PF1 spellbooks/formula book ranged from 1-3 pounds [travel - normal] so it had always seemed odd they jumped to 5-10 pounds. But then I thought the same with alchemy tools going from 5 pounds in PF1 to 10-20 pounds in PF2...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Medieval books could be HUGE things. I remember seeing on TV an early copy of the Quran that was almost 1 meter high.

The Codex Gigas weighs 165 pounds.

I guess the authors wanted spellbooks to be that kind of masterpiece.

Sovereign Court

graystone wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
So how much bulky stuff do you really need in combat?
Armor, weapon, healers tools [battle medic], alchemist tools: 5 bulk. As my weapon is a ranged weapon with ammo, that means at least 1-2 L for ammo. It doesn't seem overboard to keep some elixirs for myself and/or force-feeding KO'd players and I only have some L for that before I'm overweight. If I pick up 1 bulk bag of holding, I'm encumbered by doing so. This is also having someone carrying by formula book, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth: the PC/animal holding it falls in a hole, gets swept overboard, ect and we not only loose them but I loose my class abilities too. :P

I was genuinely asking to find out. I haven't fully digested the new rules yet myself.

So we have:
2 Alchemy Tools
1 Armor
1 Healer's Tools
L Dagger
1 Formula book
L Hand Crossbow
L 10 bolts

That seems to be like a bare-bones minimum of stuff you wouldn't be willing to part with even during combat. At 5.3 bulk.

Okay I'm sold, bulk is problematic for alchemists. It's probably overkill that the alchemy tools are 2 bulk and the formula book 1 bulk. Reducing the weight of either one would probably have been better. That said, while it's an unpleasant situation, it's not impossible. You have a variety of choices:

- Raise Strength once.
- Take the feat to gain 2 extra bulk limit.
- Don't rely on quick alchemy, prep your stuff in advance and put the tools in someone else's pack.
- Wear worse armor.
- Don't carry the healer's tools in combat. You still have your alchemy tools for quick alchemy. You can use the healer's tools outside combat where encumbrance isn't an issue. You can't do Treat Poison or First Aid in combat but you can compensate for that with Quick Alchemy. At higher levels when you acquire (skill) feats that make in-combat medical treatment more worthwhile, you can also pick up one of the other solutions mentioned, such as raising your strength by 2 at level 5.

So yeah, I don't really love it but you are playing a character flavored as bringing a whole store of goods. And it's not unplayable, it just costs something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
So how much bulky stuff do you really need in combat?
Armor, weapon, healers tools [battle medic], alchemist tools: 5 bulk. As my weapon is a ranged weapon with ammo, that means at least 1-2 L for ammo. It doesn't seem overboard to keep some elixirs for myself and/or force-feeding KO'd players and I only have some L for that before I'm overweight. If I pick up 1 bulk bag of holding, I'm encumbered by doing so. This is also having someone carrying by formula book, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth: the PC/animal holding it falls in a hole, gets swept overboard, ect and we not only loose them but I loose my class abilities too. :P

I was genuinely asking to find out. I haven't fully digested the new rules yet myself.

So we have:
2 Alchemy Tools
1 Armor
1 Healer's Tools
L Dagger
1 Formula book
L Hand Crossbow
L 10 bolts

That seems to be like a bare-bones minimum of stuff you wouldn't be willing to part with even during combat. At 5.3 bulk.

Okay I'm sold, bulk is problematic for alchemists. It's probably overkill that the alchemy tools are 2 bulk and the formula book 1 bulk. Reducing the weight of either one would probably have been better. That said, while it's an unpleasant situation, it's not impossible. You have a variety of choices:

- Raise Strength once.
- Take the feat to gain 2 extra bulk limit.
- Don't rely on quick alchemy, prep your stuff in advance and put the tools in someone else's pack.
- Wear worse armor.
- Don't carry the healer's tools in combat. You still have your alchemy tools for quick alchemy. You can use the healer's tools outside combat where encumbrance isn't an issue. You can't do Treat Poison or First Aid in combat but you can compensate for that with Quick Alchemy. At higher levels when you acquire (skill) feats that make in-combat medical treatment more worthwhile, you can also pick up one of the other solutions mentioned, such as raising your strength by 2 at level 5.

So yeah, I don't...

Formula book is L Bulk now, as has been stated a few times in this thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As I said during the playtest, I think the Paizo idea of an alchemist is Major Armstrong from FMA.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
As I said during the playtest, I think the Paizo idea of an alchemist is Major Armstrong from FMA.

...I see nothing wrong with this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
As I said during the playtest, I think the Paizo idea of an alchemist is Major Armstrong from FMA.

Except with pf2e stats it works fine for people with 10str and functional with lighter weapons if you take 8.

12 covers a lot nicely.

Armstrong is a good 18-20+ :p


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bardic Dave wrote:
Formula book is L Bulk now, as has been stated a few times in this thread.

This is not true. Formula book is still 1 bulk, as is spellbook


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ngodrup wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Formula book is L Bulk now, as has been stated a few times in this thread.
This is not true. Formula book is still 1 bulk, as is spellbook

I stand corrected. I'm not sure what thread I was thinking of, but I must have misread/misremembered something.

EDIT: I found it. It was earlier in this thread.

MaxAstro wrote:
It looks like the formula book is L now.

I guess MaxAstro had bad info.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ngodrup wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Formula book is L Bulk now, as has been stated a few times in this thread.
This is not true. Formula book is still 1 bulk, as is spellbook

Arggghh... Was there a need to kick the alchemist while he's already down from excessive bulk? :P

51 to 100 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Change in ability score importance All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.